Hansard Transcript 1994-Apr-07 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Mr Carr moved second reading of Bill 144, An Act to amend the Family Benefits Act and the General Welfare Assistance Act / Projet de loi 144, Loi modifiant la Loi sur les prestations familiales et la Loi sur l'aide sociale générale.

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

Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): I want to take a quick moment to thank the people over at legislative research who put together this bill for me and worked very hard on it.

I'll read out the intent in the explanatory note and then I'll get into some of the details.

This bill "amends the Family Benefits Act and the General Welfare Assistance Act to provide investigators with adequate powers to obtain information relevant to determining the eligibility of persons for assistance under those acts. It allows people to provide information even if it is confidential or privileged without fear of a proceeding being launched against them, as long as they do not act maliciously or without reasonable grounds for believing that the information they give is true."

The reason this bill was put in place, and it's similar to a bill that is now in place in Quebec, was to deal with the incidence of fraud in the welfare system.

I think it's important for the members to know that in the province of Ontario today we are now spending $6.2 billion on welfare; it's projected to go to $6.4 billion. To put that into perspective, in 1990 we were spending about $2 billion.

One in nine people now in the province of Ontario is on welfare or social assistance.

That $6.2 billion that we are spending is now more than we are spending for education. To put it in perspective, we pay more money for more people to be on welfare then we do to educate our children in the province of Ontario. I say to you that no society, whether it be Ontario or any jurisdiction, will be able to survive as long as that continues.

The reason I proceeded with this particular bill was as a result of the 1992 Provincial Auditor's report, which confirmed that there are insufficient mechanisms in place within the Ontario social assistance system to bring welfare fraud and abuse under control and to recover lost welfare money. It was the auditor, in his report, who said that. During the public accounts committee hearings, the ministerial staff admitted that they have no statistical profiles on the full extent of welfare fraud or lost welfare payments.

According to the auditor, it could be as high as 10% of the $6.2 billion spent on welfare that was inappropriately allocated either through fraud, ministry error or overpayment. Some people believe it's higher. Some people believe it may be as high as 20%. Some people believe it's as low as 3%, as they do in Metro. In Halton region, the people in the social assistance office believe that welfare fraud is as high as 10%. I suspect they probably have a better handle on it than anybody else, being the people on the front lines. So when you're talking about 10% of $6.2 billion, you can see that the fraud and abuse is a substantial amount of money.

According to the auditor, no outstanding debts through overpayment or fraud were recovered by the government in a full 70% of the cases where they were reviewed. The reason given for this was because the ministry collection program relies on voluntary repayment, while legal recourse is not actively pursued. When we're talking about the dollars that we're talking about here, I firmly believe we must look at it aggressively.

In my own region of Halton, we had an individual who came and worked on looking for fraud. That individual was paid $40,000. In one year, he saved Halton region about $800,000. One man making $40,000 saved us $800,000.

When you look at the headlines -- and over the last little while I looked through some of the papers. "Welfare Fraud Deluge."

"Provincial investigators can't keep up with the flood of welfare fraud cases." This is from the Toronto Sun, February 19. "Either welfare payments" -- in 59% where they were caught -- "were cut off or the claimant was persuaded to withdraw his application.

"Despite the boost in manpower, investigators can't keep up with the fraud investigations passed over to them."

A second one in the Toronto Sun, March 9, "Second Welfare Scam Foiled." "Welfare Duo Rips Off System." "Bogus Welfare Network Busted." Page after page of clippings talking about the fraud and abuse.

I don't suspect that this government will proceed with this bill; I'm under no illusions that it will pass. But I refer to a poll that was in the Toronto Star of January 18, and in that the Gallup organization asked people what they thought about this bill. The vast majority of Canadians, in fact 71%, approve of the welfare probes. The vast majority of Canadians -- actually it was higher in Ontario; it was 71% of Canadians, and in Ontario it was 76% -- believed that the government has the right to verify information given out by people who get welfare payments. The Gallup organization asked 1,000 adults, "Do you think the government should have the right to verify information given out by welfare recipients, or do you think that such a verification represents an invasion of privacy?"

In Ontario, 76% of the people believe that the government has the right, and that's what this bill does. Some 71% right across Canada believe that the government should be able to test the information, compared with just 24% who said they perceived the verification as a violation of a person's civil rights. Some 4% of the respondents didn't know.

1010

This is another case of bringing a bill before the Legislature where it has broad public support in the province of Ontario. I hear the laughs on the other side. Of course, I guess they don't believe the polls. But in this case, in the province of Ontario, 76% of the people in this province believe this should be brought in. I say to the members opposite, the only poll, I guess, that'll count is a year from now when the government puts its mandate forward.

We called for, I guess a year ago, some tightening of the welfare system. In our pre-budget report, we called for some procedures put in place. My colleague from Burlington South has put forward some of our options to deal with the incidence of welfare fraud and abuse. In fact, the government just as recently as last week has started to add more people to look for fraud in welfare in the system. I think two years ago they wouldn't have done that. We are proud of being able to push this government in the right direction and I give them credit where credit's due: on occasion they do listen to us.

We've called for certain things to be done to be able to take a look at the welfare fraud and abuse because in the auditor's report, they found that the situation is that there isn't adequate verification. As all of us know, people in need of financial assistance must first meet with a case worker to complete an application form. This information is used to determine the applicant's eligibility and the amount of assistance. The case worker is required to inspect the document from the applicant for things such as birth certificate, rent receipts and so on. The auditor found that this information on which the payments were made was not always verified, either at the time of application or during the annual updates. That's from page 37 of the 1992 auditor's report.

So this isn't me saying this about the verification process. The auditor basically said that if you go into social assistance and give them information, they don't check on it, they believe you, and as a result, we are open for fraud and abuse and it's happening.

The ironic thing about this whole situation, as we found out with the situation with this government, is there is not enough money right now in the system for the people who truly need it, for the people who are disabled through no fault of their own. Those people are suffering because people are on social assistance who should not be. I say to this government, when it came in with all its self-styled, self-serving sensitivity towards welfare recipients, you were going to help the situation and everybody was going to be able to get taken care of. The fact is, you've had to hold the increases and one of the reasons you've had to is because there is so much fraud and abuse in the system, the people who truly want it can't get it.

I appreciate the opportunity. I hope the government members will support this piece of legislation. I'm not under any illusion they will, but I firmly believe, unless this province moves to correct the blatant abuses and fraud that are occurring in the welfare system, it will soon be without the means to preserve the social system as we know it. This will result in a tragedy for those who truly require social assistance, especially during these tough economic times. Also, I think in these tough economic times the taxpayers who are shouldering the responsibility deserve much better accountability of their tax dollars. This bill will do it and I hope the members will support it.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Margaret H. Harrington): Each party will have up to 15 minutes to debate Bill 144. Further debate?

Mr Bob Huget (Sarnia): First of all, let me say I'm pleased to have the opportunity to speak to this bill this morning. I want to let you know right from the outset that I will not be supporting this bill. I'm quite frankly confident that existing laws and procedures are adequate to ascertain and deal with eligibility or with any possible cases of fraud within the social assistance program. After reading this bill, I cannot possibly be in favour of giving such sweeping powers that would override any rights that individuals currently have in the system.

I'd like to share with the members of this House an incident that recently occurred in my community, and I want to share it with you in an attempt to help everyone understand the implications of such a bill as it relates to persons' rights.

On November 24 of last year, Lambton county council, of which my community of Sarnia is a member, passed a motion directing the social services administrator to make available to the warden of the county a complete list of the names and addresses of all recipients of general welfare. The purpose of this motion, according to some members of council, was to warn the small percentage of people abusing the system that an elected official has access to the system, that knowing this would make people think twice before defrauding the welfare system. That motion was a breach of client confidentiality and, in my opinion, a very feeble attempt to address the issue of fraud.

The reaction from recipients in my community can be clearly seen in a letter written to me from a member of the Council of Consumers. The Council of Consumers, Madam Speaker, as you will know, is the advisory group to the Minister of Community and Social Services, made up of current and previous social assistance recipients. I quote from that recent letter:

"I have a close friend who is involved in an abusive relationship. I almost had her convinced to go to the interval home. The last time I spoke to her she expressed concern that if she left, she would have to apply for welfare and didn't want to read her name on a welfare list in the paper, the post office or someplace else. I tried to assure her that such a thing would not happen. She clearly was not convinced.

"General welfare recipients are feeling very frightened and threatened and many are concerned with what will happen next. Most are too afraid to speak up for themselves for fear of bringing an investigation onto themselves."

The author of that letter feels that county council "has misused its power and must be held accountable."

Clearly, when such incidents occur, the anxiety felt by recipients shows that the action is not justified. Thankfully, the current warden, the new warden, has stated publicly that she has no intention of viewing the names. But the outgoing warden did view the names and addresses.

And what did it accomplish? Nothing. Nothing, that is, if you ignore the fact that it infringed on the rights of every person who was on that list or that it went against the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. But, to reiterate, the bottom line here is that it accomplished nothing positive.

And nothing, I'm certain, can be accomplished from this bill, unless, of course, you are comfortable with deeming social assistance recipients as second-class citizens and you are comfortable with ensuring that individuals cannot retain any privacy rights once they are on assistance.

In my constituency office, as I'm sure in many members' offices, I have heard from hundreds of people regarding social assistance. I hear complaints every day about suspected fraud, about the perception that people on welfare are lazy and about it being too easy to get on our assistance system. I strongly believe that the majority of those concerns and the majority of some of those negative perceptions can be dealt with through a massive public education system where the people of this province understand the system and understand how it works.

For instance, in Lambton county we have a full-time eligibility review officer. This officer investigates complaints about fraud under the General Welfare Assistance Act. Clearly, given this, there appears to be an adequate system in place to address the issue of fraud in my county. What could possibly be further accomplished by introducing the measures outlined in Bill 144?

As a society, we have undertaken to assist those who find they cannot support themselves. I believe we must also ensure that individuals can and do receive the respect they deserve and maintain their dignity while on assistance.

1020

It is my opinion that this bill does nothing to ensure the rights and dignity of individuals, nor does it provide any necessary means to address fraud. In fact, what this bill proposes threatens the fundamental rights of social assistance recipients, and particularly their privacy rights.

This government has undertaken to reform our social assistance programs to ensure that the program is administered as effectively as possible. There are other areas where we have worked to alleviate the financial strain on our social services budget. For example, Jobs Ontario alone has saved $135 million from the province's welfare budget.

In closing, current legislative authorities -- for example, the onus on the client to provide any information needed to maintain eligibility, the power to cancel benefits and the powers of the criminal law system -- are more than adequate to deal with fraud in social assistance. There is no evidence that the broad powers proposed in Bill 144 are needed.

Further, there is no precedent in Ontario for this degree of power being exercised at such a low level in the daily administration of a program. It's interesting to note that in 1964, when the then Attorney General, Fred Cass, introduced the Police Amendment Act, which contained similar powers that were to be used by the police commission to address the more serious issue of organized crime, the ensuing controversy about the denial of civil rights forced the Attorney General to tender his resignation on March 23, 1964, 30 years to the day prior to the introduction of this Bill 144.

As I said in the beginning, I will not be supporting this bill. I refuse to support legislation that turns people in need into second-class citizens, that subjects people in need in this province to even more persecution and humiliation, and I will not take leadership and guidance from the third party, who now speak about New Directions, Volume Four -- the road backwards.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I would like to address the issue which is raised by this bill this morning. I think the issue is timely. I find it unfortunate these days -- well, it's not just these days; I've seen a trend since my beginning in the Legislative Assembly towards political agendas being used in this period reserved for private members' hours, the political agendas of political parties --

Interjection.

Mr Bradley: No, I say that of all parties. I've seen that happen. Mr Jackson's been here a while; he would know as well that what we've gotten away from are individual members raising things that are of particular interest within their constituencies. I accept that, because all parties have participated in that. But I lament that fact, that this private members' hour has really now become a political forum, a straight partisan political forum. Perhaps it was inevitable that that happened, but I think there are individual problems that exist in a constituency that we should be addressing ourselves to. But this is before us and I think the member for Oakville has raised a legitimate issue, in my view, and that is the issue of fraud within a welfare system.

The Minister of Community and Social Services has indicated that he is aware that this does exist. He has indicated that he is going to hire -- I don't know how this is going to happen; I suspect that you're not going to find that they're really the kind of investigators everybody thinks they're going to be. They'll likely be people who will be bumped through the system, which has to happen within government; so you'll find that the people hired may not be the people who could best handle the job.

I believe that our goal is to try to get the assistance to those who are genuinely in need. My concern today is that it's difficult to do so. We're not in a boom economic time. We're unlikely to be back in that kind of time in the foreseeable future. Therefore, with the scarce resources that we have, I think we have to try to devote and narrow those resources to those who are genuinely in need. My concern is that the people who are genuinely in need are going to find that their level of assistance can't be as reasonable and as high as it could be because of the number of claims out there, some of which are less than legitimate.

We have to always remember that we're also in difficult economic times and that it is more difficult to find a job, particularly for younger people, naturally, but for older people who are out of the workforce who have been the victims of downsizing, for instance. The real way to solve this problem in the best of all worlds is to get people back to work, to create an atmosphere where jobs are created in this province. That would certainly be the goal I would strive for. I would hope it would be everyone's goal.

But to address the specific problem, I do want to discuss one aspect of it that I see as a real problem, and that is one I raised in the House with the minister in as moderate a manner as I could the other day; that is the issue of student welfare.

Once again, there is a legitimate program out there geared to young people who genuinely have a totally unacceptable circumstance at home. There may be continued physical abuse taking place or simply a totally chaotic situation at home. These particular young people, who want to continue their education through a program which has been established, are able to do so.

Unfortunately, a lot of abuse has crept into that program. What we're finding now, in talking to various people within the education system, is that a significant number of those students are simply not attending school, are not carrying out their responsibilities under the program.

The second problem is -- and it must be very difficult for parents who have to go through this -- that some of the kids use it as a lever against the parents. I get very concerned when I hear this. They simply don't like the rules at home, so a few of them will get together in an apartment and get the welfare. You'll get calls from the parents who are beside themselves over this, or parents may simply acquiesce, because the young people might make it so difficult at home that in fact the parents would sign and say there are irreconcilable differences.

My concern is that a legitimate program, a good program with good intentions, could be lost completely because of abuse. That's why it's important to remove the abuse. Similarly, in other forms of welfare, it is important to remove the abuse that might be taking place within the system.

At present, I don't think we have the levers to do it. Whether this bill is the answer or not is open to question. The member for Oakville obviously feels that there is a genuine need to take some pretty drastic action. A lot of people out there would agree. These are people, often the working poor, who struggle on, who don't have the benefits that go with receiving welfare. I'm talking about health care benefits and things of that nature that go along with being on social assistance. They're beside themselves when they see themselves struggling at something just over the minimum wage and find themselves helping to pay the bill for others.

There is a problem out there. I think we have to take more drastic action than we would like to solve it. This bill goes in that direction. If it could be modified, if it could be changed in certain ways -- and I'm sure the member is open to suggestions -- then we would certainly be prepared to see that happen.

It's a legitimate complaint. I think we have to address it. I know that the member for Ottawa-Rideau is going to be assisting us in that regard.

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I welcome this opportunity to comment briefly on the very important private member's bill brought before us today for consideration by the member for Oakville South.

Bill 144, An Act to amend the Family Benefits Act and the General Welfare Assistance Act, provides investigators with adequate powers to obtain information relative to determining the eligibility of people for assistance. It allows people to provide information, even if it is confidential or privileged, without fear of legal action, as long as they do not act maliciously or without reasonable grounds for believing the information they give is true.

I commend my colleague the member for Oakville South, because my constituents in Simcoe East tell me they are sick and tired of people ripping off the system when they themselves are struggling to survive on smaller paycheques or on fixed incomes.

1030

This is an important bill because the government is sitting on its hands and not dealing with important matters of concern to the people of Ontario. The government is leaving it to us, the PC caucus, to take the positive, effective and affirmative action necessary to stop the fraud and the waste. Welfare and family benefits fraud is a waste. The money is siphoned off. They steal our jobs and close our companies.

I want to make it clear that I know the majority of welfare families who receive benefits, the recipients, are truly in need. But I also know that there's always a small group of people who take advantage of and abuse our caring social assistance system. Many people in Simcoe East have told me they're shocked that over the years the overpayments to recipients of family benefits and welfare assistance in Ontario have passed the $335-million mark.

Fraud and waste account for two types of overpayment. The first are collectible overpayments resulting from delays in reporting information, non-disclosure of information or misrepresentation of facts by recipients. These overpayments, if they are discovered at all, are recovered from the recipient. The second are administrative overpayments resulting from errors on the part of the provincial, municipal or first nation governments that administer social assistance. Those overpayments are not collected but written off because the error was not the fault of the recipient.

Outstanding family benefits overpayments at the end of 1993 amounted to $247 million, while outstanding welfare payments amounted to $88 million. Write-offs totalled $5.3 million in 1993-94.

Ontario taxpayers deserve and are demanding social service, workers' compensation and health care systems that are effective and accountable. Taxpayers understand better than most the need for government to provide services in an efficient, responsible and financially sound fashion. This is not occurring in many government agencies.

In the areas of health, welfare and workers' compensation, we don't have to look very hard to see where tax dollars are being lifted straight out of our pockets. Taxpayers have been shortchanged by a welfare and family benefits system that is fostering a stay-at-home attitude, and at the same time it is being ripped off. That's according to the auditor's report. The Provincial Auditor's report is telling us exactly what's happening.

The Ministry of Community and Social Services collects only 3% of all its outstanding welfare benefits. Social assistance expenditures have more than tripled over the last five years, it is expected the province will spend more than $6.3 billion this fiscal year, compared to $930 million 10 years ago.

The government must take positive, effective affirmative action to put a stop to the fraud and waste because it syphons our money, steals our jobs and closes our companies. The government must be willing to take a new direction, and we'll not only end up having more safety, fairness and equity in Ontario; we'll also have more workplaces with more jobs and more opportunities for the people of Ontario.

In these difficult times, taxpayers want the provincial government to provide good service to those who are truly in need. The passage of Bill 144 will go a long way towards aiding the government in providing services for those who are truly in need and put a stop to fraud and waste in the system. I commend the member for Oakville South for bringing this commonsense bill to our attention and urge everyone to support it.

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): We are told and have been reminded many times about the 42 years of wonderful government under the Tories in this province. I think this bill today demonstrates how that is such a myth and not the reality.

As they constantly remind us how wonderfully things were managed, we think of our health care system, where the costs of health care went up 10% a year during the 1980s. We think of the Workers' Compensation Board, which had an unfunded liability of about $350 million at the beginning of 1980 and of course by 1990 was up to $11 billion. We think of Ontario Hydro and its significant debt. We think of the people who express concerns about our education system that is still working primarily on a system developed by the Conservative government. Then we come to the welfare system, again still on a basis of something developed by the Conservative government in 42 years.

It seems very clear to me that the health system wasn't managed, the Workers' Compensation Board wasn't managed, Hydro wasn't managed, the education system wasn't managed and the welfare system wasn't managed. Unfortunately, the Liberals had five years to deal with some of these things. We're not sure what they did in all those five years. They made some changes, but not significant changes.

Who's dealing with the health care system? We are. Who's dealing with the Workers' Compensation Board? Our government is going to take the tough decisions. Who's made the tough decisions and provided leadership at Ontario Hydro? Our government. Who's taking the leadership to put strong standards in the education system? Our government is. We are going to deal with the welfare system. Our government has dealt with that and we are going to reform that so it supports people and doesn't denigrate people, as this piece of legislation does.

It is very clear that for 42 years the Tories didn't manage any of the public services. They just let them be and thought they would take care of themselves. They need leadership. They need management. We're providing that. This bill does not.

Mrs Yvonne O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau): I'm very pleased to participate in the debate on Bill 144, put forward by the member for Oakville South. In the letter sent to me by this member, he introduced his proposed legislation by stating that his bill would allow people to provide information even if it's confidential or privileged without fear of a proceeding being launched against them.

Bill 144, subsection 11.1(3) states that a person "may give the investigator information even if it is confidential or privileged and despite any act, regulation or other law prohibiting disclosure of the information." Wide, sweeping powers.

The member further suggests in his letter of March 31 that his proposed amendments would bring Ontario's social assistance system closer to Quebec's Boubou macoutes. Those who know and understand that system of verifying agents within Quebec are aware of painfully personal questions which are often pursued by the welfare police in that province and which are, more often than not, very intrusive and disturbing. Questions about the frequency and/or use of personal products and the contents of wrapped Christmas gifts have been cited by individuals who are under suspicion in that province.

The operative words here are "under suspicion." We are, I remind you, not speaking about questioning criminal activity. We're talking about questioning social assistance recipients. It seems unfair to me that the privileged and confidential information of those on social assistance should be viewed with less respect than the privileged and confidential information on you and I and every other member of this Legislature. This seems to be vindictiveness. It seems to be injustice against recipients of income support, many of whom are vulnerable and disabled. Requesting, and perhaps in some cases compelling, third parties to disclose confidential and privileged information about their family members, neighbours, tenants, parishioners or friends seems to be an unconscionable invasion of privacy and personal dignity, and I think it is those things.

The essence of liberalism, even small-l liberalism, is the right of the individual to be protected against capricious actions by individuals, groups, institutions or the state. As my leader, the member for Fort William, has said, "It's not the role of government to direct and control people's lives but rather it is to create an environment in which people can solve problems for themselves."

Many, many individuals on social assistance realize they have a responsibility to contribute to the public good and they do. Some of them write letters to inform those who are less informed. I quote from one of those.

"We are not bums and freeloaders on the system, we are just human beings with feelings and souls. We are prisoners of an image created by a few who abuse the system. You are wrong about us. We need jobs."

1040

I believe, and I'm sure others believe, that we must exercise caution, extreme caution, before we embrace the adversarial investigative procedures which assume everyone is cheating the system until they can prove otherwise. Guilty until proven innocent, in my mind, is a new level of injustice.

Bill 144 completely overlooks, or should I say ignores, those who cheat the system through such avenues as participation in the underground economy, less than accurate reporting of their income on their income tax forms and insisting on exaggerated insurance settlements or workers' compensation claims. Then, of course, we have the cross-border shopper who smuggles, sometimes on a daily basis, and those who engage in tax-evasion deals when they're renovating their homes.

Perhaps this type of cheater is considered more respectable, more sophisticated, by the member for Oakville South. Perhaps these cheaters are not considered such an easy target, for they are members of our community who have arrived, who are secure. Instead of addressing this type of cheating, the member for Oakville South, like the Treasurer, has chosen to concentrate his efforts on what he sees as the easier target, the recipient of social assistance, a person who is often, at least for a time, vulnerable and disabled.

I would like to bring to the attention of the House the efforts of many of the municipalities in this province -- some have been mentioned this morning -- which are to be commended for weeding out the abusers within their own communities. They have not requested the extraordinary powers of Bill 144, but have achieved excellent results within the existing rules and regulations.

In Halton, for example, an eligibility review officer has been working for two years on verifications in that community. After the first year, a saving in excess of $800,000 was reported and that position has been enhanced. In Thunder Bay, four existing investigators have identified 200 complaints, 50 of which have court cases pending. In the Waterloo region, 228 cases were reviewed by the region's fraud unit; of these, 48 people were convicted of fraud.

Municipalities such as these can best pursue individual cases, have access to local networks and have firsthand knowledge of the most likely points of abuse in their own communities, whether these are multiple identities or unreported income.

But we now have a contest at Queen's Park, a contest based on sweeping pronouncements rather than hard evidence, a contest where no tactics are considered out of bounds, a contest that will increase appeals to the Social Assistance Review Board, a contest that is based on confusion, a contest where the prize is unknown. Who will become the captain of the fraud squad, the minister or the member for Oakville South?

I remind the House that the minister himself has stated, as late as last week at his press conference, that he has no proof of widespread welfare abuse. What we really need is real welfare reform in this province, welfare reform that was promised by this NDP government from day one but still has not arrived. What we don't need is a new captain of the fraud squad.

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): I'm very pleased to follow the Liberal critic for Community and Social Services in this important debate this morning. She gave a very forthright and thoughtful speech, as she always does, but I'm left wondering again where the Liberal Party stands on this issue. Are they in favour of enhanced efforts to eliminate fraud in our social assistance system today in Ontario, or are they against enhanced efforts to eliminate fraud? Do they think that the level of fraud that's in existence today in Ontario is acceptable, or do they feel that something ought to be done about it to enhance the ability of our local social services agencies to deal with the problem?

There's no question where our party stands on this issue. We feel that the level of fraud in the welfare system today is unacceptable. We feel that the system needs to be revamped and we feel that strong efforts must be made in that direction so that public support and confidence in the welfare system can be maintained. Ultimately, we all accept the fact that there are going to be people who need our assistance, certainly people with physical disabilities who cannot physically work, as attested by a physician. We want to support them, we want to support them compassionately and generously, but we see examples where the system is abused, and that undermines public confidence and public support in our welfare system.

Last week, I raised in the House an issue that had come to my attention where a 16-year-old girl who lives in Wellington county was living in a self-contained apartment, paying rent to her parents, and applied for social assistance to our local social services department and was refused because there was no reason to give her welfare. She immediately appealed to the Social Assistance Review Board, which is her right and I don't dispute that, but the board, without assessing the merits of the case, without contacting our local social services agency to inquire about it, instantly awarded interim assistance. As we know, we find that the Social Assistance Review Board is notoriously slow in dealing with appeals and it takes up to 12 months.

This individual right now is receiving welfare and that is wrong. It ought to be corrected. I asked the minister to do it, but I'm not sure what he's done. I spoke to him the next day requesting that something be done, and I doubt very much that anything has been done.

In terms of what we're doing with our welfare system, we've got to look at how we can enhance our local agencies that are there on the front lines to do the job. I think this bill does that and I want to give credit to my colleague the member for Oakville South for putting this bill forward, this Bill 144, because it's a good step in the right direction.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Essex -- no, Chatham-Kent.

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): You've got to give more speeches in the House so we know who you are.

Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): Somebody must have just flushed the toilet.

What I would like to do is comment on Bill 144. In the initial comments that were made by the member for Oakville South, I'd like to indicate he referred to the auditor's report about fraud. That auditor's report was done before 1990, and it indicated very clearly, from the then Deputy Minister of Community and Social Services, Charles Pascal, a number of initiatives that we were doing to make sure that support payments, UI eligibility, CPP eligibility and other eligibilities were there for persons on social assistance entitled to those programs. There was a mechanism put in place and that has become very positive.

We're talking about the titles that were indicated in newspapers. While there are a number of newspapers where people -- I know the member from the Liberal caucus brought them up, about intrusion on women who have gone through emotional and also degrading circumstances in their homes when a review officer or any of the officers came into their homes in Quebec.

I would also like to indicate that the member for Oakville South indicated a person, who was hired at approximately $40,000, must be the new eligibility review officer, put in place to deal specifically with these cases, but that review officer is also currently working under the laws that have been provided.

We are opposed to fraud in the system, but we believe that the mechanisms provided in the legislation are adequate powers to deal with fraud as well as non-fraudulent overpayment.

As a condition of receiving benefits, social assistance clients are under an obligation both on the initial application and on an ongoing basis afterwards to supply information that is necessary to establish or maintain eligibility. It also entitles around income, about assets, and all clients are required to sign consents to release information by third parties: schools, banks and other ministries.

It is in the client's interest to obtain the appropriate information to ensure continuing eligibility. Because of the consent signed by clients, there is little difficulty in obtaining the information required from the banks or employers. One of the things that was also indicated was that there is the obligation and there are criminal fines under the Criminal Code. If the amount involves more than $1,000, the person can face up to 10 years in jail; those under $1,000 are looking at imprisonment for under two years.

The eligibility review officers that this government has put in place are dealing with the issues that the general public are talking about as fraud, and we believe we are going at it the right way by not intruding in people's lives, allowing them to have the decisions that are there as dealing with a person.

1050

One of the things we must remember as we talk about the one point something million people on it is that we're talking about a number of children who are on social assistance and we're talking about a number of single parents, and I keep hearing "family of the 1990s." There are separations that occur and economic situations that we're in right now where people are losing their jobs, pressure is created in the homes and families disperse or split up.

We're talking about women who are out there in our communities with children, trying to provide. Some of them and probably most of them have never worked in their lives, but they are trying through initiatives like Jobs Ontario. I know in my community, and my colleague from Sarnia indicated about Jobs Ontario positively, I hear from people who want to get back to work, not be on social assistance.

What we're doing is the more positive way and we are looking at reforming this system. This system is old. But we must keep in mind the rights of the individual. My colleague indicated that back in 1964 a bill was removed and the member resigned. I believe what we're trying to do is not that approach, but a positive approach, understanding the economic situations and the situations of the families involved, with children involved, the community involved. I believe that through our eligibility review officers and the powers that are bestowed in the current legislation, and in future improvements that we'll be making, we will allow the individuals to have dignity and return back to work and we will get our financial situations under control.

I will not be supporting Bill 144 and I ask all my colleagues not to support it because of intrusion of rights of individuals.

Mr Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa East): I know what the member for Oakville South is trying to do, I think, but it's the wrong approach. I think what we need in the province of Ontario is welfare reform. The Tories have given up on the government. They've promised us welfare reform for a number of months now and they're acting on their own.

But I don't think we have to use these tactics to dig out the people who are abusing the system. I know that we do have fraud in the system. I don't know if I can accept the 10% mentioned by the member for Oakville, but what we need are more social workers who understand what people are going through and also welfare reform in the province of Ontario.

Mr Jackson: I am very pleased to be able to rise in the House and deal with this issue, a bill put forward by my colleague from Oakville South which deals with the very important issues of accountability and good management of taxpayers' resources in this province.

Quite frankly, I am shocked at some of the comments coming from the Liberal benches. The Liberals indicated that what we need are more social workers and that what we need is social assistance reform. It was the Liberals who invested millions and millions of dollars in a study called Transitions, which was an outstanding blueprint for reform, and then did absolutely nothing with it. What they then did was they proceeded to create some regulatory changes like no longer doing home visits and inspections, like suggesting that the system be opened up and be more accessible.

The laissez-faire attitude of Liberals and their inability to manage the system is well known. I am not surprised that the Liberals would stand in the House today and say, "We've got to hire a bunch more civil servants, but we're not going to give them the tools to do their job for the taxpayer." My colleague from Oakville South has prepared and presented a bill. It may not be a perfect bill, but it's a start. It's the first bill of its type in this province which says we had better empower our civil servants to do the job they're being asked to do, to be accountable with the moneys that are being spent, taxpayers' money, for those in need in this province.

I am also confused at the Ontario Liberal Party's condemnation of the Liberal government in Quebec which has the capacity to manage its province, because that Liberal government brought in the same legislation proposed by my colleague from Oakville South, but Liberals speaking out of both sides of their mouths is not new.

The truth of the matter is that the Liberal government of Quebec said that there's too much fraud going on in its welfare system. Their statistics prove that empowering their civil servants to raise certain questions and do certain investigations assisted them immensely.

In Quebec they did something very interesting, because unlike their Ontario counterparts, they also were compassionate with the results of their efforts. They were allowed to increase support for those in need in Quebec because they took it from those who didn't need it and were taking it illegally, improperly or because of computer errors or whatever. So at least the Quebec government under the Liberals put some of that additional money into the hands of social assistance recipients.

To listen to the NDP about management, I'm not even prepared to comment. We know they have brought in major changes to social assistance to make the system more widely used without making it equally accountable.

I want to suggest a couple of things. When this government took over, there were about 600,000 recipients on social assistance; there are now 1.2 million. Now the government is announcing that it's going to hire a whole bunch of additional civil servants to go and do the reviews that should have been done three years ago.

If you look at the average case load being taken over by a social worker in this province, it's about 300 recipients to one case worker. You cannot manage a system with that ratio. It's impossible to keep proper controls on that system. Now, at the 11th hour, by the minister's own admission, the fraud he hopes to recover is $100 million at least. He's finally admitting to that. That's the kind of money he could have been saving three years ago had he listened to Mike Harris and the Conservative caucus when we began raising the issue of a system which wasn't being managed properly. You didn't give the civil service the tools to do its job and now you're criticizing the civil service for not having done its job. It was your government's responsibility to do it and you chose not to assume that responsibility.

I heard the government say that the current system of prosecuting fraud is working. I'll tell you a case I recently brought to the attention of the justice minister. I had a case of a social assistance recipient whose ex-husband was not making his child support payments. When that went to court, the province of Ontario wrote off $25,000 in back payments and cut a deal in court to reduce the amount of child support payments this individual would have to pay to the woman on social assistance. I took it directly to the Attorney General, who explained to me in complex terms that there's nothing very much her government could do.

The number of cases going to court in this province is minimal, because the current practice in this province is that if fraud is discovered, the simple defence is, "No one told me that if my husband returned and moved in with us, I was no longer eligible for welfare." That's what's going on.

This government is going to invest millions of dollars hiring a bunch of civil servants to get on the telephone and ask people: "Who's living with you today? Do you have any extra income? Do you have any more children?" If they get the right answers, that's the end of it.

What my colleague from Oakville South is indicating is what municipalities in this province have been telling us, that freedom of information laws, right here in the city of Toronto, are preventing the social assistance office from telephoning down the hall to ask the public utilities commission if the person who put the deposit on that apartment is the same person collecting social assistance. A simple phone call like that is against the law in this province.

In Quebec they said: "That's ludicrous. You're tying our hands. We can't do our job." There are municipalities that support this bill because in Quebec it's working. The proof of it is that we've had a huge increase of Quebec residents drawing welfare cheques in eastern Ontario as a direct result of the accountability tests that have been occurring in that province.

The bottom line is that this may not be the total solution to the problem, but we have got to provide legislation which will provide the new civil servants that this government's hiring to do these checks of welfare recipients, to allow them to ask the appropriate questions.

1100

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. The member for Oakville South has two minutes to conclude.

Mr Carr: I appreciate all the members who participated in the debate. Very briefly, I say to the member for St Catharines, who spoke about it being political, this was not political. We don't decide what to do. I decide what I'm going to bring forward. I don't discuss it with anybody else. When I picked this position, I decided it was going to be something that I believed in, and I believe welfare fraud and abuse should be stopped in the province of Ontario. I brought it forward because Gary Carr wanted it, not because the PC Party of Ontario wanted it.

To the member for Ottawa-Rideau, the critic for Comsoc: Here you are; you talk about welfare reform. Would you people take a position on something? Would you take a position on one thing? You want all the fraud to be eliminated, but when something's brought forward to do it, you won't support it. The fraud is going to drop from the heavens and end because you say so.

The Liberal Party in this Legislature wants to eliminate fraud and abuse in the welfare system, yet they won't support anything that's brought forward. It was brought forward by a Liberal government in Quebec, just like a Liberal government in New Brunswick has had to take tough measures, because when you get in power, you have to make the tough decisions, you can't walk the fine line and sit on the fence in opposition. That's why the people of the province of Ontario are cynical, because of politicians like the member for Ottawa-Rideau.

The people out there, the abusers, are laughing at us. The abusers are laughing at us in this Legislature for not taking these messages.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order. Members come to order.

Mr Carr: The workers at the social assistance offices are frustrated that they don't have the powers to eliminate the abuse. The taxpayers are being ripped off and every member of this Legislature who doesn't support this bill is helping the taxpayers being ripped off in the province of Ontario, and it's wrong and you should all be ashamed of yourselves.

The Acting Speaker: The time for this ballot item has expired. A vote will take place at noon.

AVIAN EMBLEM ACT, 1994 / LOI DE 1994 SUR L'EMBLÈME AVIEN

Ms Murdock moved second reading of Bill 147, An Act to designate an Avian Emblem for Ontario / Projet de loi 147, Loi désignant l'emblème avien de l'Ontario.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Margaret H. Harrington): Pursuant to standing order 96(c)(i), the member has 10 minutes for her presentation.

Ms Sharon Murdock (Sudbury): Matthew Conroy is the reason that I'm bringing forward this bill today: Matthew Conroy and about 5,196 other children in this province who made an effort to contribute to something that they wanted to see.

Matthew Conroy, in December 1987, was one of the many nine-, 10- and 11-year-olds who answered the call of Vincent Kerrio, the then Minister of Natural Resources. The ministry had put out a request:

"Ontario has an official flower" -- which is the trillium -- "an official tree" -- which is the white pine -- "and an official mineral" -- which is the amethyst -- "but there is one emblem we lack, which most other provinces have. That's an official bird.

"'I am asking youngsters aged nine to 11 to help fill that gap by participating in a contest to choose an official bird for Ontario.'" That's what the minister asked for.

"'Birds are a significant part of Ontario's natural heritage. They play an important role environmentally, and provide hours of enjoyment to people like myself, who like to watch them,' he said.

"All types of birds, such as waterfowl, songbirds, game birds and birds of prey should be considered for the emblem.

"The contest is part of the province's Wildlife '87 activities marking the 100th anniversary of the founding of Canada's first wildlife sanctuary."

That was dated December 10, 1987.

On August 23, 1988, MNR's news release under the then Liberal government state:

"The common loon was the overwhelming choice of children who entered a contest to recommend a provincial bird, Natural Resources Minister Vincent Kerrio announced today.

"More than 1,000 entries, out of a total of 5,195, suggested the loon.

"'The children have told us their preference and it's a wonderful choice,'" and I emphasize "The children have told us their preference." "'I'd like to thank all the youngsters who took the time to send in their suggestions. Judging by the interest and the effort they put into the contest, it looks like the future of our natural resources is in good hands.'"

Mr Kerrio also said that his parliamentary assistant would be introducing a private member's bill.

Matthew's eloquent explanation of the loon's unique attributes won him top honours for the contest. For the record -- I know it's in the Hansard for 1988, but I'm going to read it again for the benefit of those members present:

"Hi, my name is Matthew Conroy. I am 10 years old and I live near Lively. My dad showed me the news release about naming a provincial bird and I have a suggestion for Ontario's official bird. I think it should be the loon.

"We live on a lake and in the summer we spend time fishing and canoeing. That gives us lots of chances to hear and see loons. I love to see them when they have their little loons with them. On land, they look so funny when they walk. When we are fishing or tenting, the call of the loon makes me tingle all over.

"I looked up some interesting things about loons that would make it perfect for our official bird. It is the most ancient of Canadian birds. The loon is 'deliberately designed as a fish-catching machine,' and Ontario has lots of lakes and fish. They are a big, impressive black and white bird that almost everyone recognizes when they see it and certainly when they hear it.

"My dad says that they could be killed by acid rain since the pollution kills the fish that they eat. Maybe if we use the loon as our bird, it will help fight this pollution.

"I hope the official bird for Ontario becomes the loon."

That was written on December 29, 1987.

The media of the day, when it was announced in August 1988, made much of the selection. The choice of the loon and the selection of the winner, Matthew, were discussed by all of the leading papers, all of the dailies in the province. Of course in my area we had the Sudbury Star; the North Bay Nugget had it on the front page. The Manitoulin Expositor and the Walden Weekly, which is the paper for the Lively area, all covered Matthew's story.

But it isn't just Matthew's story; it is the story of the school children of this province feeling that choosing an avian emblem for Ontario was important enough to write in with their explanations. On Tuesday, August 23, 1988, the Minister of Natural Resources under the Liberals felt that it was an important enough decision to fly from Toronto to Sudbury to present Matthew personally with a beautiful limited-edition print by a famous artist, Michael Dumas.

Matthew also got an unexpected helicopter ride from Science North to the airport and back. But he also -- and if you remember that day, and I'm sure many of us don't because it's not, in my view, all that important -- had to compete for the front page of the Sudbury Star with Prince Andrew and Fergie's wedding, and he made it to the front page of the paper.

Matthew also thinks it's important enough that he, his mother, his father and his aunt came down from Sudbury today; they're sitting in the members' gallery. His sister --

Applause.

Ms Murdock: Wait, I'm not finished. His sister came from Guelph. They think it's an important enough thing that they should be here, so I welcome them.

1110

Matthew Conroy represents all of the children of this beautiful province. His selection of the loon as an emblem to represent Ontario's beauty, its wilderness and its environmental fragility is today believed to be the provincial bird.

After the presentation to Matthew, the Liberals introduced first reading on May 23, 1989, and second reading came on June 15, 1989. It is now April 7, 1994, and the loon is still not the official bird of Ontario.

There has been plenty of time to offer the public the opportunity to dissent from the loon if they didn't want it. No one has. The Progressive Conservatives, in 1983, put forth an Avian Emblem Act where they wanted the blue jay, but unfortunately Prince Edward Island had already selected the blue jay so the bill did not go through, and I understand that. But there's no rational explanation as to why the loon is still not the official bird of Ontario.

The people of Ontario believe our bird is the loon. Tourists who come to our province don't even question it, because wherever they go, whatever store they enter, whatever parkland they see, the loon is prominently displayed on sweatshirts, pins and logos.

I'm not speaking today about why the loon should be the bird of Ontario. I think the loon is a given. It's, as they say in law, res ipsa loquitur. My emphasis today is that the children were asked to choose our avian emblem. They did that. Now, as teenagers, they are still waiting for it to be made official, finalized, confirmed. I think what this is saying to the children of our province who took the time to enter -- they are now sitting here wondering why the process and the system hasn't worked, why this is not the official bird.

I think that it's important for us here today, and for the rest of the people who are watching the channel, to confirm to our children in this province that what we do in this House does have relevance and is worth their time. I'm hoping that I will have the support of all the House when it comes time to vote.

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): I too want to welcome Matthew Conroy to the Legislature, and his family too. There's one lesson you must have learned, Matthew: that to have any legislation, it takes a long time. I think today what you're going to see is a very unusual situation where I think all three parties will be supporting that. I can't speak for the Conservatives, but I know of their love for nature and their love for Canada and Ontario. Naturally, we'll support this legislation, and I will be supporting this legislation.

I recall, Matthew, that in 1989 I was in the House then, and a wonderful, passionate and dedicated member of Parliament at the time, Mr Ballinger, had introduced his private member's bill and how excited he was about this. He was excited and so were many of us, because, as the member from Sudbury stated, it was the children who had participated and the children who had decided that this should be our bird, our symbol for Ontario.

I am from a riding where the beauty and the nature of the Rouge Valley have made an impression not only on Canada or on Ontario or the surrounding country but over the whole world, for us to appreciate the environment and also to appreciate the natural surroundings of what the world has to offer us, and I too have become very sensitive to that situation.

You know, when I heard about this avian emblem for Ontario, it said something more. It says to me, "Listen to the children." Of course, as the member from Sudbury stated, it was the children themselves who had said, "This is the way to go; this is the bird," and not only saying that; they put it in words.

Matthew knew that the competition he was in was extremely difficult because not only he, who had expressed so eloquently why we should have this bird and, as a matter of fact, the role that it plays in our nature, but there was a wonderful person too by the name of Erica Fowlie from Deep River, who was so inspired and so moved by the loon and the cry of the loon that a poem was written.

It was stated already in Hansard, but I will read it again because not only the written word but, I think, the sound of the word and the music within this poetry will move all of us to support this legislation and not be in any way taking partisan views of it.

The loon is my choice,

Mostly because of its voice.

He's one of Ontario's most ancient birds,

Whose wild yodelling by early explorers was heard.

His call chilled their blood in the dead of night,

But he mocked them by laughing at dawn's first light.

He's found throughout Ontario's rivers and lakes,

His black and white plumage a chequered picture he makes.

This powerful diver winters in coastal seas,

As well as the Great Lakes in Ontario, if you please.

Back home in spring comes our wandering loon,

His haunting call we'll hear very soon.

On the Canadian coin for all of us to see,

This bird I do love and is special to me.

I'm sure many have, as I have, sat on the dock or by the water of the lake and watched the loon -- this goes on -- and the symbol and the impression that it brings to us all. That bird also exemplifies how we should treat nature. By studying that bird, it tells us how sensitive and delicate nature is. But if we have no respect for the environment, eventually the death of the bird will come.

I remember too that I heard an Indian, a native person, state in a speech one day that the land is our mother and we should never in any way abuse our mother because, in itself, that's one of the worst crimes any human being could ever do. If we abuse the land and abuse the water, we abuse the bird and we abuse ourselves. That cycle of nature that this represents tells us that to be sensitive to the loon is to be sensitive to life.

I think there is no other bird, in fact, that could exemplify life and existence for all mankind, birdkind, or any nature, in itself, that this bird exemplifies in that form. It seems to me, as I started and I stated: Listen to the children. Because the fact is, we may many times in this House debate all types of legislation, and if we bring it down to the simplest form and listen to the children, they have said this bird itself is the bird of life.

Of course, as you know, it's on our coins, and on those coins sometimes we have mocked the loonie and what have you. But to go deeper, it forces us to understand what's happening. Not only in this example will we listen to the children, because they've asked that the avian emblem as the loon be recognized in Ontario, but I think there is more for us to start listening to our children. As I said, I don't want to make this political, but at times if we step back a bit for a moment in the heat of debate, in the heat of partisan interaction, there is a message that can be said by the -- I don't want to call it a simple language, but very plain language and direct language to us as adults.

This bird represents more than just being on the coin or just being mocked. It forces us to understand nature. It forces us to understand life. It forces us to come together as one. The last straw that is being put to this wonderful legislation is the support of all parties, of all individuals here, who will speak of course about the loon.

The northern people are blessed much more than, I would say, we here in the suburbs, where at times we cover the land with a lot of concrete and drive away many of nature's beautiful things to appreciate. So they themselves can listen to the loon much more than I. But again, thank the gods, whoever they are, whoever she be, that the gods have blessed Scarborough North with the Rouge Valley. At times we can hear some of those natural things, and at times, of course, we can hear the loon. It's one of the few places, Matthew, that we can ever come to, and one day, of course, I'll invite Matthew and the Speaker, who's a lover of nature too, who will come to the Rouge Valley and not only appreciate the fact that the loon will sing to you, sir, but will sing to all of us so that we should come together, should recognize nature, appreciate nature and appreciate, all of us, that life does not only exist in human beings, but exists in the water, in the air, in the trees and all the animals and birds around us so we become one. That's the fortunate situation that I have in Scarborough North.

1120

Even today, we appeal to the government of the day and the present government to save the Rouge Valley, to put sufficient money and funds there so that we can maintain that, so the singing of birds and the watching of the deer and the trees and the walk and the good smell of the flowers can continue for us to enjoy, not from a mind point of view but from a health point of view.

If we do pollute and destroy those natural things of life, we're destroying life as a whole. Life does not only exist with us, all-powerful man or all-powerful woman, as we destroy and cut trees and pollute the waters and pollute the air. But to pollute or destroy one or the other is to destroy life in its entirety.

So I say to the Matthews and Ericas, who have written such beautiful verse and brought to our attention to appreciate things more as we hurry through our life and getting material things, to understand the simple things of life, that life begins there and the cycle continues.

As I speak on the private member's bill, I don't speak completely for my party. But many of the members, who are now in meetings, support this legislation and want to say: "Thank you, children. Thank you all for reminding us what life is all about." So we support that.

Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): I'm pleased this morning to have the opportunity to speak on the second reading of this act to designate an avian emblem for Ontario. As most of you know, this emblem we are speaking of is the Gavia immer, or common loon.

I would like at this time to also officially recognize our visitors in the gallery, especially Matthew, and say that I will be supporting this bill.

This morning, we have been given an opportunity to discuss symbolism. We are talking about the creation of an emblem of something that is above and beyond common politics, of something that represents the great province and not its politicians or its politics.

I know this government is all too happy to divert attention away from itself and on to symbols. Perhaps for their sake this is a wise use of their time in the Legislature, because if we were to discuss a bird which truly portrays the government, I think it would be more fitting to choose Daffy Duck.

But in fairness, we are talking about Ontario's symbols, which in every case are signified by a natural resource of the province. Ontario's floral emblem is the trillium. The white pine is our tree emblem, and our provincial mineral is the amethyst. By designating the loon as our wildlife official symbol, we will have a more complete representation of Ontario's many natural resources.

To put this debate in perspective, we should examine the history of efforts to designate an official bird in the province. This history takes us back to 1983, when the Conservative government of the time tried to designate the blue jay as the official bird in Ontario. This ruffled the feathers of opposition members such as the member for Renfrew North, who bitterly opposed the legislation and condemned it as a waste of time. The blue jay was never adopted by the province, and the matter of an avian emblem was not to arise again until 1987, during the Liberal administration.

Ironically, the party which had thought such issues were a waste of time spent a great deal of time and money on the designation of an avian emblem. The Liberals vigorously tackled the Ontario bird issue by spending taxpayers' loonies on a province-wide contest and public relations campaign. Despite all these efforts, Ontario is still one of the two provinces without an official bird.

In 1987, the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters made the loon its symbol. They chose the loon because it is sensitive to environmental changes and reflected the OFAH's strong commitment to conservation. That makes this bill a little ironic in that here we have these thoughts coming forward from the member for Sudbury, and at the same time the government is cutting back on funding to the conservation authorities across this great province. The conservation authorities have offered many solutions on how to save money and still provide the necessary regulations for conservation, but they have yet to be listened to by this government. The symbol chosen by the OFAH is most fitting and true to the nature of its resource management.

The common loon is a bird which truly represents Ontario's natural heritage. As Canada's most ancient bird, the loon has been around for over 20 million years. Native Canadians have looked to the loon as a spiritual symbol. One Cree legend claims that the lonely wail of the loon is the echo of the cry of slain warriors calling back to the land of the living.

Unlike most birds, which have air-filled bones to make flight easier, the loon has solid bones that enable it to dive to depths of 30 metres to catch fish. Although the loon requires a quarter of a kilometre runway to become airborne, it can reach speeds of up to 100 kilometres an hour when it takes flight. For the most part, the loon spends its time in the water, except when nesting or migrating.

The loon's summer breeding range spans from Iceland to Greenland, Alaska, the northern US and almost all of Canada. In a geographical sense, the loon is truly a national bird.

The loon has also etched its way into the hearts and minds of all Canadians through our monetary system now that its likeness is on our $1 loonie. The loon design for the Canadian dollar was really introduced by accident when in 1987 the Royal Canadian Mint misplaced the original voyageur design which was originally chosen for the 11-sided coin.

It is no coincidence that Ontarians have traditionally chosen natural resource symbols to represent their province, for Ontario always had a vibrant resource economy, an economy which built this province and an economy which should be able to sustain this province. I would urge the government, and especially the Minister of Natural Resources, to step back and take a look at some of the policies, bills and regulations that he's been bringing through that are turning our natural resource industry away from the economic status that it once enjoyed.

1130

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): I'm very pleased today to rise in support of second reading of Bill 147, the Avian Emblem Act. As we know, and has been commented here, this bill has been revived from the past government.

Back in 1987, the Minister of Natural Resources held a contest among children nine to 11. There were 5,195 entries and of these, 1,000 children suggested the loon. It was announced in April 1988 during National Wildlife Week that the loon would soon be proclaimed as the provincial bird. Matthew Conroy's elegant explanation of the loon's unique characteristics won him top honours in the contest for the best entry.

I'm sure there are some people who wonder why we would need an official bird, but as has been pointed out, we have the trillium as the official flower, the white pine as the official tree, the amethyst as the official mineral. I think Matthew Conroy says it all in his letter to the Minister of Natural Resources where he expressed the reason why he felt the loon should be recognized as the official bird. I just want to quote from his letter:

"My dad says that they" -- the loon -- "could be killed by acid rain since the pollution kills the fish they eat. Maybe if we use the loon as our bird, it will help fight this pollution."

It is true that the loon could become endangered by this type of environmental hazard. In 1972 the population was in serious decline because of the environmental problems such as caused by the use of DDT, a pesticide which has since been banned.

Another problem is the use of the motor boats on lakes. After the chicks are born, they need to be taught how to swim, and because of the wave caused by the boats some of the chicks are drowned before they are able to swim. Through public awareness, many cottagers learned of this problem and have formed cottage associations which have been able to alleviate the problem to a certain degree. Fortunately, back in 1974 there was an early spring and an increased number of chicks learned to swim before the cottagers arrived. Although these particular instances have been addressed, for the most part the species is still on the decline because of their sensitivity to existing similar conditions due to our other harmful pesticides causing pollution in the food chain.

It's important that our children learn about Ontario's wildlife and natural resources and the contribution they make to our own personal health and welfare as well as the natural environment, the important role they play in sustaining healthy ecosystems. The more children are able to learn about our environment, the more likely they will want to protect it by using resources wisely.

I think when the children choose the loon as the provincial bird, they choose it wisely. It's an interesting bird and being part of the oldest bird family in the world, it has been around for more than 20 million years. It can fly up to 100 kilometres per hour.

Isolated lakes attract the loon. That is why Ontario's more northerly lakes are found to be sufficient habitat for them as well a sustainable breeding range. The loon spends most of its time in the water except when nesting and migrating. Nesting occurs during May, June and July.

Loons have proven to be devoted parents. One of the mates must always watch over throughout the 29-day incubation period of the eggs. After the chicks hatch, they are usually in the water swimming around within one day. They are self-sufficient by the time they are six weeks old and can migrate by 11 weeks.

The winter migration occurs in October and November. They often spend the winter travelling on the water in large groups. During this time, they head for destinations along the Atlantic coast, from Newfoundland to the Florida Keys, and along the Gulf of Mexico from Florida to Texas, along the Pacific coast from southern Alaska to California. When they return in early spring they split up into pairs. Often, there's only one nesting pair on a lake. Although the male and female partners do not always winter or migrate together, they usually return to the same nest site each year.

The loon has also been noted for its striking beauty. Male and female loons have identical and distinctive markings; adults in summer plumage have glossy black heads, black and white necklaces and chequered backs.

Many of the top 10 winners of the contest commented on these characteristics and felt that they were representational of some of Ontario's greatest strengths.

I'd like again to say that I support this bill.

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I welcome the opportunity to comment briefly on the private member's bill that would designate the common loon as Ontario's official provincial bird, and I commend the member for Sudbury for bringing this legislation forward.

The loon is a migratory aquatic bird found in both fresh and salt water and in colder regions of the province. Even where I live on Lake Couchiching, we see the bird quite often. The bird is a swift flyer, a strong swimmer and an adept diver. The common North American loon, or Great Northern Diver, is a black and white bird about 22 inches in length.

Designating the common loon as Ontario's official bird is an issue that the member for Sudbury wants us to debate and deal with here today. I remember back in 1983 speaking on the same issue in this Legislature. The member from Peterborough -- I believe it was the Peterborough area -- Jim Pollock, brought the resolution through to have the blue jay designated as the official bird. There are probably many other birds that people would like to designate, but the loon to me today appears to be the one that most people would like to see.

This edition of Ontario Outdoors has a beautiful picture in it of loons, and there are two full pages regarding stories about "the enchanting moonlight world of the mysterious loon."

I've been informed that loons mate for life. They raise their young, they stay together as a family and they stay together, as I said, for life. If one mate passes away and if the other one does remate, then they will mate for life again.

I see what the federation has done with regard to the emphasis that it's putting on the shirts that it sells. It was in 1987, I believe, that they adopted the loon as their official emblem. There's been a lot of excitement with regard to the emphasis on the loon. Last year there was a group of people, volunteers, who got together to organize the Orillia Waterfowl Festival. The Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters, in cooperation with the community, had a waterfowl festival in the city of Orillia on October 15, 16 and 17. In cooperation with regard to the community, the volunteers had visited other parts of the country.

The Eastern Maryland Waterfowl Festival is where Canadian artists join their counterparts from around the world to display and sell their works. The craftsmanship that goes into making and doing the art, the creative work that goes into painting the loons, the pictures of the loons with the beautiful black and white, is something to be admired.

I think it's fitting that we designate the loon as the official bird, because I remember reading when the trillium was made Ontario's official flower. Every May, if you go into the bush, and I go into the bush at the back of my farm, it is beautiful with those trilliums. I think it was fitting that happened. When we look at the many aspects of creating and designating something special, I think this is very important.

1140

I want to just speak a little about the waterfowl festival, because it all fits in. Carvers come there from all over, from the States. It's becoming a major festival in the city. I believe that the loon stands out as the main attraction. They have arts, they have crafts, there are sculptors, carvers, artists, authors. They gather resources for local and national conservation projects.

I believe that events like the Orillia Waterfowl Festival will go a long way towards educating the public that our wetlands are a critical component of the natural environment. Wetlands are vital to Ontario's economy because they maintain and improve water quality, help control flooding, provide a habitat for fish and wildlife, and contribute substantial social and economic benefits.

I just wanted to put those comments on the record this morning because to deal with this very issue is something nice for a change. It's something that I hope will become official because then we'll be able to recognize the loon. When I look out my window on to Lake Couchiching and see them there, they are to be admired, and I compliment the individuals who are here this morning to witness this debate that's taking place. Thank you for your efforts and your letters.

Mrs Irene Mathyssen (Middlesex): I'm most pleased to participate this morning in the debate of the member for Sudbury's bill to make the loon the avian symbol of Ontario.

I think it's most appropriate to begin with sincere thanks to Matthew Conroy for his interest in the original 1987 contest and his concern for the environment. I believe that thanks must also be extended to Matthew's family. Clearly, Matthew's awareness of some of the problems faced by all the creatures of the earth, including the loon, is a result of family concern and interest.

It's very important for all of us to listen very carefully to Matthew's message and the message sent by the more than 5,000 children who responded in 1987 to the Ministry of Natural Resources contest. They want an Ontario where the lakes, rivers, air and soil are clean and able to sustain life, and they have the right to expect a healthful environment.

The loon has been described as a barometer of environmental health, and there is some evidence that its breeding success may be lessened on lakes affected by pollutants such as acid rain. Loons, like all living creatures, will be hard pressed to survive in acid-ridden lakes and chemically damaged waterways.

Ontario has the fifth-largest source of fresh water in the world. It's a tremendous resource and we're most fortunate, but with that good fortune comes tremendous responsibility.

We have an obligation, as a people, as a government, to address issues like acid rain and chemical dumping into our lakes, soil and air.

We are also obliged to make progress in the fight to end such contamination. Some of that progress includes the issuance in 1993 of clean water regulations for the petroleum and pulp and paper industries. Draft regulations for the metal mining, industrial minerals and metal castings sector were released for public review in 1993.

Finalization of all these regulations will improve the water quality of all of our lakes, reduce persistent toxic compounds by up to 90% of their 1990 levels, reduce organochlorines, a family of chlorine-based chemicals that includes known cancer-causing agents, and protect human and aquatic health, and perhaps, Matthew, helps to preserve the food supply of loons and other species dependent upon fish stocks for survival.

Another initiative that helps preserve water quality is the investment by the Ontario government to upgrade and build water and sewage treatment plants. Between 1990 and March 1993, the Ontario government invested $538.5 million to improve treatment plants, $258 million in 1993 through Jobs Ontario Capital for new construction and upgrades to treatment plants and has set aside an additional $350 million for 1994-95.

The new Ontario Clean Water Agency, and I know the Conroys are familiar with that, will help Ontarians to develop the water and sewer infrastructure we will need in the future if we are to continue to be successful in our collective efforts to eliminate and clean up existing pollution and prevent pollution in the future.

I'd like to also speak briefly to the issue of acid rain. Despite the fact that as much as 50% of the acid fallout on Ontario comes from the US, it's incumbent upon us in Ontario to do our part to reduce and eliminate acid rain if we're ever to persuade American legislators to move ahead with acid rain controls. One step in that direction was the decision in September 1992 to ban future construction of municipal solid waste incinerators. The province also placed more stringent performance requirements on existing incinerators.

The air emissions from incinerators are a potential threat to both human health and the environment. Incinerators generate a wide variety of toxic heavy metals and organic contaminants. They also emit waste gases that cause smog, global warming and acid rain. Even when equipped with the latest state-of-the-art emission controls, solid waste incinerators release a wide range of chemicals, like dioxins and furans, mercury, arsenic and cadmium. These pollutants may travel hundreds of kilometres before they drift to the ground, settling on our homes, soil, crops, farms and lakes and the wild animals and birds that depend on healthy lakes for survival.

There is still a great deal to learn with regard to the use of incinerators; the data are still largely incomplete. But we in Ontario have decided to act on the side of caution and have chosen the more prudent route that bans incineration before we create yet another environmental problem.

Finally, I'd like to remind those here today about the Environmental Bill of Rights. As you know, Mr Speaker, the Environmental Bill of Rights, proclaimed this past February, affirms that the people of Ontario have a right to a healthful environment and a responsibility, shared with government, to ensure that the inherent value of the environment is not compromised.

The bill provides Ontarians with the means to act to protect the environment through the creation of an environmental registry, increased public participation in environmental decision-making by government and improved access to the courts, including the right to sue polluters. We are very proud of this important bill of rights; it's part of an effort that must not diminish so that the loon will continue to endure, as it has for the past 200 million years.

I would like to thank Matthew Conroy and all the children who entered the Ministry of Natural Resources contest for reminding us that our obligation to the environment, to all living things and to the future is here and now. I would like to present this Environmental Bill of Rights poster to Matthew as a token of our gratitude, and I will be asking members to sign it later and to say thank you to Matthew.

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): I am pleased to join the discussion today to speak to an act which would designate an avian emblem for the province that has been brought forward by the member for Sudbury. I certainly support and congratulate the member on the bill she's put forward, putting the common loon in place as the province's official bird. As has already been said, we have an official flower, we have an official tree, we have an official mineral, but there is one emblem that we presently lack, and that is an avian emblem.

The reason I'm speaking today is that I've had an opportunity now for approximately 16 years to listen to the loon each spring, each summer and each fall, and as we return each year to the north to our cottage, it is a sign of hope for us. It's also another sign, because we know that if the loon is gone from our lake, obviously the level of pollution has increased. So we are always rewarded as go back in the spring, and we always feel somewhat better once we hear that plaintive cry of the loon as it resounds across the lake during the night.

During the course of each summer, we're usually rewarded as we see the family of loons gliding across the lake and we see the babies and we see how quickly they can submerge their bodies and appear, it seems like a mile down the lake. They truly are a wonderful bird. They are a bird that seems to have gained the respect and the admiration of people throughout this province, and it certainly is a pleasure for me to be able to support the bill that has been put forward.

I know as well that the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters supports the loon, because it symbolizes for them, as it does for all of us, the Ontario wilderness. Mr Morgan had stated at one time that the loon might well be described as a barometer of environmental health, because there is evidence that breeding success may be lowered on lakes affected by acid precipitation.

Certainly, I am pleased today to have the opportunity to support the bill.

1150

Hon Floyd Laughren (Deputy Premier and Minister of Finance): I am pleased to take part in this debate. My memory, which isn't always the best, does serve me well in this regard, however, going back a number of years to when we thought this bill was going to be debated at an earlier time and events transpired against that happening. Nevertheless, we're here today and I'm very pleased that the debate is taking place to name the common loon as Ontario's official bird. The word "common" I think should be stricken from the description of this bird. Nevertheless, that is what it's called.

Members have referred to the contest back in 1987, when among over 5,000 entries, Matthew Conroy won the contest. It's just a coincidence -- I don't think he'd brag about this -- but he's my neighbour. I've known the Conroy family for a long time, and if I could be somewhat familiar, I'm pleased that Nels and Carol and Heather and Matthew are all here, and their Aunt Harriet as well. It really is good to have them here in the assembly this morning.

Matthew was only 10 years old when he won the contest and a student at George Vanier school in Lively, a school with which I have some familiarity as well. So it really is good to have him here.

There is complete agreement, and I very much appreciate the contribution of other members in the assembly this morning on this. People seem to understand that the loon is a symbol of Ontario. There is an appreciation of that and a very warm feeling towards the loon. It's easily recognized by most people in the province. Even if they don't know the difference between an osprey and an owl, they know a loon when they see one.

It really is a great barometer of our lakes and rivers in this province. It is a truly haunting symbol. There's a loon researcher, if you can imagine, by the name of Judith McIntyre and she said this about the loon, "The loon has been called the symbol of wilderness, the positive affirmation of wild places, wild things and wild sounds in the night." That always stayed in my head as a nice description of the loon.

I can remember, if I can be personal once again, being on a canoeing trip on Lake Killarney, at about 8 o'clock one evening in a secluded bay, with the campfire going. Out in the bay were three loons, two adults and a chick. I don't know their habits that well, but it looked to me like they were teaching the little one how to dive. The adults would scurry off to different points once the chick had dived, the chick would come up and look around to see where the adults had gone, and then they would dive down. It was a particularly precious moment. I can tell you that I felt incredibly privileged to be sitting in that secluded bay watching this happen with the two adult loons and the chick. It was truly a beautiful, beautiful moment that has stayed with me to this day.

The popularity of the loon is evident. You can see loons not only on money but on T-shirts and mugs and posters and coasters. They're everywhere. It really is a tribute to this wonderful bird. The public support is evidenced by the Canadian Lakes Loon Survey, which is headquartered in Long Point, I believe, in Ontario. People who want more information can contact them.

In the very limited time I want, as others have done, to congratulate Matthew and his patience over these years for this moment to actually happen. I was starting to have second thoughts myself as to whether I'd have to witness this day from outside the chamber, but I'm really pleased that I'm able to be here and to be part of the debate this morning and I congratulate, particularly, Matthew.

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): I'm pleased to have the opportunity today to speak in support of Ms Murdock's bill. Being from the north and from Algoma-Manitoulin, particularly from Manitoulin Island and particularly from Mudge Bay, one of the things we look forward to every spring is that moment when northerners cease to walk on water. I know the Treasurer and I believe that we walk on water most of the year, but for about six months of the year we actually do and that's one of the things our southern people can't do.

We look forward to a number of things, and I'm glad the Treasurer is here today, because the first thing we're looking forward to on Manitoulin Island, on Mudge Bay at Kagawong, is the smelt run. I know the Treasurer will want me to bring some smelt to him, or mail him some, as I have in previous years, so that we can celebrate spring. But one of the most important moments, and seriously, one of the most fortunate things in my life and the lives of many of my constituents, and I believe all the people of Ontario, is the return of the loon in the spring.

Having the good fortune to live on Manitoulin Island, the good fortune to live in Kagawong and the good fortune to live in the north, to hear the sound of the loon in the spring, to watch the loons in front of our home, to watch them across lakes, to watch them in other wonderful parts of my riding -- Killarney, as the Treasurer has mentioned -- is something that strikes more than a small sense of the beauty of nature in the hearts of most of us in this province.

I believe that the contest initiated in 1987, one that I remember the parliamentary assistant at the time, Mr McGuigan, was very interested in, and then the next parliamentary assistant, Mr Ballinger, was tremendously interested in, is finally getting somewhere and that Matthew Conroy will be recognized as the person who has won this.

As the critic for Natural Resources in our party, I am fully cognizant of the importance of the environment, of the ecology and how the loon represents at least in some small part an achievement by the province in better water quality and better environment.

I was once at a conference where someone described water quality. The best way to determine water quality is to determine fish stocks, and certainly fish stocks are what the loon needs to survive. To see, at least in our area, more loons each year is something that I think we can take at least some small pride in in this province.

I don't want to take a long time because I don't have it, but I'm sure I want to congratulate Mr Conroy, Matthew, on his excellent suggestion and his excellent work, and indicate that we also appreciate Ms Murdock bringing this before the House this morning and our full support from this side.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I want to join in supporting this matter before the House today and I want to congratulate Matthew Conroy on being very instrumental, actually, in having this before the House. I well recall sending him a letter of congratulations in a previous incarnation for his work in this regard.

There are seldom areas where we reach a consensus. Even the Treasurer and I today would probably agree on this issue because both of us hail from -- at least, I hail from northern Ontario originally and he is now from northern Ontario. I think we recognize the significance of the loon.

My intervention today is to congratulate Matthew once again and to indicate my clear support for this.

Ms Murdock: I want to thank all of the members of the House both for their contribution and for their support. It has been 11 years since the Avian Emblem Act was first introduced. It's been six years since the contest. It's not a parochial issue, as has been made clear today in the debate. It's not exclusive to my Sudbury riding. I think it transcends all of that. It's not controversial; it is agreed upon. I think what is most significant is that it has been chosen by the children of this province.

In 1988, when Matthew received the gift from the Minister of Natural Resources of the day, he was 11 years old and about four feet, 10 inches high. Matthew, I'd like you to stand up there. You can see that he's almost six feet tall and he's now 17 years of age. I would hope that we will have passed this for third reading and made it official before Matthew is an elected person in this House, because that's what it's going to come to. So I'm hoping that everyone will be in support.

The Deputy Speaker: The time provided for private members' public business has expired.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1994 / LOI DE 1994 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE L'AIDE SOCIALE

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): We will deal first with ballot item number 45, standing in the name of Mr Carr. If any members are opposed to a vote on this ballot item, will they please rise.

Mr Carr has moved second reading of Bill 144, An Act to amend the Family Benefits Act and the General Welfare Assistance Act. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour of the motion will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it.

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

The division bells rang from 1203 to 1208.

The Deputy Speaker: Mr Carr has moved second reading of Bill 144, An Act to amend the Family Benefits Act and the General Welfare Assistance Act. All those in favour of the motion will please rise and remain standing until your names are called.

Ayes

Arnott, Bradley, Brown, Carr, Cunningham, Eves, Harnick, Jackson, Johnson (Don Mills), Jordan, Kwinter, McLean, Miclash, Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound), Poole, Runciman, Sterling, Stockwell, Tilson, Villeneuve.

The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed to the motion will please rise and remain standing until your names are called.

Nays

Akande, Beer, Carter, Charlton, Cooper, Crozier, Duignan, Fawcett, Fletcher, Frankford, Mr Grandmaître, Haeck, Hansen, Harrington, Hayes, Hope, Huget, Johnson (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings), Klopp, Kormos, Laughren, MacKinnon, Malkowski, Mammoliti, Martin, Mathyssen, Mills, Morrow, Murdock (Sudbury), Murphy, O'Connor, O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau), Owens, Rizzo, Sutherland, Waters, White, Wilson (Frontenac-Addington), Wilson (Kingston and The Islands), Wood.

The Deputy Speaker: The ayes are 20; the nays are 40. I declare the motion lost.

AVIAN EMBLEM ACT, 1994 / LOI DE 1994 SUR L'EMBLÈME AVIEN

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): We will now deal with ballot item number 46, standing in the name of Ms Murdock. If any members are opposed to a vote on this ballot item, will they please rise.

Ms Murdock has moved second reading of Bill 147, An Act to designate an Avian Emblem for Ontario. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Pursuant to standing order 96(k), the bill is referred to the committee of the whole House.

Ms Sharon Murdock (Sudbury): Mr Speaker, I would ask for unanimous consent from all parties to order it for third reading.

Interjections: Agreed.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): No.

The Deputy Speaker: It's not agreed.

All private matters and private members' business having been debated, I shall leave the chair and the House will resume at 1:30 this afternoon.

The House recessed from 1213 to 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

BLOORVIEW CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): During these tough economic times of fiscal renewal, it is my pleasure to stand in this House and tell the people of Ontario that Bloorview Children's Hospital, in the riding of Oriole, has been granted a three-year accreditation.

Bloorview Children's Hospital is a remarkable place, providing the highest quality of care to many very special children.

I'd like to share with you some of the comments made in that accreditation survey:

"The mission statement states, 'We are committed to providing high-quality interdisciplinary assessment, treatment and continuing care.' This is clearly reflected in the work of the interdisciplinary team and documentation of the care process.

"Board management, physicians and staff of all departments and volunteers are commended for their commitment to patient and family care and to the interdisciplinary team approach.

"On management services:

"The strategic plan is excellent and has received input from external and internal stakeholders. Mechanisms are in place to monitor progress and this is noted with approval.

"Good communication is apparent throughout the organization, as is the positive working relationship among board, management and medical staff.

"The medical staff are commended for their focus on patient care, quality of life, planning for independent living and attention to the family and patient concerns and wishes.

"All staff and volunteers 'live' the mission statement."

This is just a highlight of an excellent survey. I would like to congratulate Bloorview for the outstanding service it provides to those children who need it most.

TRANSPORTATION FOR THE DISABLED

Mr David Johnson (Don Mills): I rise to take strong exception to the comments of the member for St George-St David, who yesterday imparted erroneous information about the manufacturing design fault in Orion buses experienced in Toronto and other cities and who has also directed a personal attack on the general manager of the TTC, Mr Al Leach.

As political representatives, we have an obligation to present accurate information, but particularly, in this case, involving such a necessary service for the disabled community.

The member said that Mr Leach "has done nothing and failed to provide adequate alternative modes of transportation." False. The TTC has had parts air-freighted to Toronto; some are expected today. The TTC has increased its taxi fleet and rented every available private vehicle and taxi. Local manufacturers have been contacted and will likely supply equivalent parts.

Al Leach and many concerned and committed TTC staff recognize the seriousness of the problem, are pursuing solutions on several fronts and are targeting for a return to normal service within a week. Even today, every priority is placed on medical and employment trips so that 90% of these requests are satisfied.

This information was readily available, if only the member had contacted the general manager of the TTC. I sincerely hope the member for St George-St David did not have a political motive for his comments. If so, he does his constituents and this chamber a great disservice.

TIINA COTÉ

Mr Ron Hansen (Lincoln): I rise to pay tribute to Tiina Coté, Grimsby's 1994 Citizen of the Year. I had the pleasure of attending a banquet in her honour last night at Place Polonaise in Grimsby, sponsored by the chamber of commerce.

I knew Tiina long before her family moved to Grimsby. We were involved in many of the same activities and groups in the Welland area.

Born and raised in Welland, Tiina went on to earn a bachelor's degree in geography and urban studies from the University of Toronto.

After working in the city of Welland's planning department for a number of years, Tiina chose motherhood and family development as her next career. When she and her husband, Gerry, brought their family to Grimsby, Tiina began a concentrated and continued involvement in the community. Welland's loss is certainly Grimsby's gain.

Tiina is currently superintendent of the Sunday school at Trinity United Church and a member of the senior choir. She volunteers one day at week at her children's school as receptionist and clerk-typist.

As co-chairman of the Grimsby Concerned Citizens' Committee, Tiina has made many presentations before Grimsby and regional boards and the Ontario Municipal Board. The concerned citizens' committee has been quite a force on the political scene in Grimsby. It has sponsored many public forums for candidates in municipal, provincial and federal elections.

Tiina has also shown a strong commitment to the environment. As founder and chairman of the Friends of the Forty, she's worked hard to renew and preserve Grimsby's beautiful Forty Mile Creek. Tiina's enthusiasm for the environment has grown into the annual school children's tree planting project, a program which places thousands of seedlings in parks each year.

But above all, Tiina is a devoted wife, mother, caring friend and neighbour. She is certainly worthy of her new role as Grimsby's 1994 Citizen of the Year. Congratulations, Tiina. Your dedication to the people of Grimsby will be remembered for years to come.

POLICE SERVICES

Mr Tim Murphy (St George-St David): I rise today to discuss something I think of concern to all members, and that is the unfortunate shooting Tuesday at Just Desserts restaurant. I want first to pass on my condolences, and I'm sure those of all members, to the family and friends of Georgina Leimonis as a result of that unfortunate incident.

I think it's important for us as members also to recognize the fear that these kinds of actions are creating in our communities. We have, I think, a responsibility to respond to that fear and to the concerns about many other incidents that have created fear in our communities. In Metropolitan Toronto, for example, over the last eight or nine years there's been a threefold increase in robberies and an enormous expansion in the violence and use of weapons involved in robberies of businesses. There are home invasions that are causing concerns.

I think we have a responsibility to recognize that one of the things we can do is to enforce and reinforce efforts by police forces to do community policing. I've been working together with Inspector Ed Hegney, the head of 51 Division in my riding, to try and encourage this, but he has told me that because of cutbacks, he has been unable to support the foot patrol. There have been continuing efforts to recognize that that's the best way to police but that we have a responsibility to give support to foot patrols, because we as legislators and the public recognize that's the best way to police our communities.

I would call on the government to do what it can to support foot patrols in our communities.

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): Hundreds of my constituents have written to express their concerns about education funding in Ontario.

The current funding formula does not provide equal access to financial resources for both the public and separate education systems. This results in separate school boards spending less on a per capita basis than their public counterparts, and they often run deficits. Prior to 1989, separate boards were forced to rely on provincial grants and residential property taxes because they did not have access to commercial and industrial assessment as a source of revenue.

The former provincial government provided for the sharing of commercial and industrial assessment between public and separate school boards based on the level of residential and farm assessment in the municipality.

The pooling of commercial and industrial assessment was phased in beginning in 1990, but the separate system will not have full access to commercial and industrial assessment until 1995. Separate school supporters are not satisfied with this system because they want the pooled funds distributed on the basis of enrolment, and not residential and farm assessment.

Hundreds of my constituents in Simcoe East want the government to introduce legislation to establish a provincial property tax on commercial and industrial assessment. This revenue would then be distributed equally to all boards. They want this legislation introduced soon to give us appropriate time to study it carefully to ensure it results in equal funding throughout Ontario's education system. I have met with Steve Hinton of the Simcoe County Separate School Board over this very issue.

1340

ELECTIONS IN SOUTH AFRICA

Ms Jenny Carter (Peterborough): I want to express in this assembly the best wishes of the people of Peterborough for a fair and democratic outcome to the elections which will take place in South Africa on April 27. We hope these elections will prove to be the beginning of an equitable, non-violent, non-racist society for all.

On Tuesday, April 5, a send-off was held at the Peterborough Public Library for Linda Slavin, executive director of the Kawartha World Issues Centre. Linda was one of a group selected by Oxfam Canada to monitor the election.

Linda will fly to Johannesburg tomorrow and will be based in or near Durban. She takes with her many local messages of support for citizens of South Africa, including drawings from children and group messages from churches, school classes and businesses. I am proud of Linda and of the many people in the Peterborough community who have been involved.

Our thoughts and our hearts will be with Linda and the people of South Africa on April 27. Changes will take time, but there is now hope for true multiracial democracy and the benefits which democracy should bring to all. May there be no more violence.

NUCLEAR SAFETY

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): My statement is with regard to the ongoing health and safety concerns at the Fermi II nuclear plant located in Monroe, Michigan, only 15 kilometres from the southwest border of Essex county and the town of Amherstburg.

On Christmas Day 1993, a fire broke out as a result of a mishap in the plant, causing the plant to be flooded with radioactive water. That water was subsequently discharged into Lake Erie in four separate batches, the most recent occurring only last Thursday.

Although the radioactivity found in the water is within present government standards in both the USA and Canada, there is a concern that the contents can be lethal, even in the smallest doses. In fact, a recent report of the International Joint Commission recommended that in light of recent evidence, governments move towards a policy that will enforce zero discharge of hazardous materials.

Because of these concerns, a local citizens' group, known as the Essex County Citizens Against Fermi II, held a public meeting a week ago Wednesday in order to increase public pressure on all governments so that action can be taken to prevent future situations that threaten our health and safety.

While it is true that this is an international matter and that our federal government is continuing to monitor the situation, I urge the Minister of Environment and Energy to become involved in this issue by assisting in the process of gathering the necessary authorities together in an attempt to resolve not only the Fermi II situation but also our larger concerns: the broader health, safety, environmental and commercial fishing issues in the region.

TVONTARIO TEACHERS' AWARDS

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): This June, TVOntario, in conjunction with the Ontario Teachers' Federation, will be honouring two teachers with the TVOntario teachers' award. The winners will have demonstrated excellence and outstanding achievement in their profession.

These awards bring prestige and recognition to the winners, their schools and their communities. They highlight the innovative and outstanding work that is happening in classrooms around Ontario.

Last year, Yvonne Day of my constituency was honoured for her contribution to elementary education. Kevin Hotten of North Bay was the winner in the secondary school category.

Mrs Day pioneered MICOT, the Media Integrated Classroom of Technology, at St Teresa of Avila School in Elmira. She brought together computers, video cameras, tape recorders, CD players and robots to enhance group work. Students also performed research in language arts, machines and structures, and mathematics.

I am sure that Mrs Day found the experience of developing MICOT and witnessing her students learning from it to be very fulfilling. To be honoured by your peers for your work is a double bonus.

TVOntario and the Ontario Teachers' Federation will be receiving nominations for the 1994 award until April 15. I urge all members of this House to encourage their constituents to consider outstanding candidates in their communities for this award.

HIGHWAY SAFETY

Mr Donald Abel (Wentworth North): Volunteers with the Trauma Prevention Council of Hamilton-Wentworth want Highway 6 to lose its reputation as a killer highway. The council has targeted the stretch of road through Flamborough, between Highways 403 and 401, to launch Safe on 6, a community safety program to make Highway 6 a model of driving safety. Program organizer Penelope Hill and a group of volunteers will be working to change drivers' attitudes and behaviour on the road.

Statistics have shown that every year there are about 200 crashes on the highway, many of which result in serious injuries or death. Most of those killed are between the ages of 17 and 40.

Although the Ministry of Transportation is working diligently to improve conditions on Highway 6, Hill and other volunteers will work to change the attitudes of drivers on the killer highway. Hill claims that the highway can be difficult to manoeuvre but, basically, the accidents have been a result of driver error. Speeding has been the number one cause of fatal accidents on the highway in the past five years. Other factors included disobeying stop signs, driving while intoxicated, following too closely and driving with no strategy to avoid accidents.

Penelope Hill and the other volunteers are to be commended on their efforts to make Highway 6 a model of driving safety.

VISITOR

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I invite all members to join me in welcoming to our chamber this afternoon and seated in the members' gallery west Mr Janko Peric, member of Parliament for Cambridge, Ontario. Welcome.

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): I would like to ask for unanimous consent so that I can provide some remarks regarding Holocaust Remembrance Day.

The Speaker: Do we have unanimous consent? Agreed.

HOLOCAUST REMEMBRANCE DAY

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): Thank you, Mr Speaker and members of the Legislature, for permitting me to make a few remarks about Holocaust Remembrance Day.

Tonight at sundown, candles will be lit by Jewish families around the world to mark the remembrance of the six million Jews systematically murdered by Nazis during the Second World War.

In the visitors' gallery today, I would like to acknowledge the presence of several extraordinary individuals, individuals who were survivors of the Holocaust, individuals who were partisans during the Holocaust and an individual representing the Righteous Among Nations.

I would like members of the Legislature to welcome, and if they could please stand: Mr Herman Gottesman, Mr Henry Zagdanski, Cantor Louis Danto, Mr Adam Fuerstenberg, Mr Max Guttman, Mrs Eva Kerenyi, Mr Noah Norman Shneidman, Mrs Maria Son, Dr Norbert A. Kerenyi.

I would also like to acknowledge Mrs Joyce Miedema, who received a medal today on behalf of her husband, Pieter, for being among the Righteous Among Nations.

Welcome, honoured guests, to the Ontario Legislature.

I would also like to acknowledge the presence of my very good friend who is also seated in the visitors' gallery, the Consul General of Israel, Mr Dror Zeigerman.

I would also like to acknowledge the presence of Dr Joel Dimitry, national chairman of the Canadian Society for Yad Vashem and the co-chair, Mrs Miriam Gelbloom.

1350

In this year there has been a remarkable occurrence in so far as knowledge being conveyed to people about the Holocaust. I'm sure that most members of this Legislature, if not all, have had the opportunity to see a film by the name of Schindler's List. As a result of this remarkable film, more people have been given somewhat of an education about the Holocaust than anyone really imagined was possible.

I would like to think that this is the beginning of an educational process that we in Ontario will recognize, and recognize with vigour. I would hope that this educational process will continue as part of the regular curriculum in every school in this province. I would hope that we can do this without any further delay, because the number of survivors of the Holocaust dwindles with every passing year. I think it's incumbent upon us to seek the survivors so that they can tell their story, because it's a real story.

Fifty years ago the liberation began, and through the gates of camps, returning to familiar landscapes, lonely, emaciated survivors went back home. The roads were bombed, the earth was scorched and the skies were covered with smoke. When the survivors reached home, they generally discovered that their last hopes were false and that all other members of their families were dead. Strangers now lived in their homes and the townspeople wished that the survivors had not returned.

With great difficulty and tremendous adversity, many survivors settled in Israel and became a major force in rebuilding a new state. Others came to North America, built new lives and became an inspiration to those who were spared the agonies of the Holocaust. I am one of those who has been so inspired, and I suspect I can speak for everyone in this Legislature and say that they too have been inspired as leaders in the province of Ontario to go back to their communities and ensure that we will never forget.

I'd like to conclude my brief remarks with a quotation from the rabbi of Bluzhou, Rabbi Israel Spira, a Holocaust survivor. In his teachings, he stated, "Every day, every child, after studying the daily lessons prescribed by our sages, should learn about the Holocaust, for it says in our holy Torah, 'Then it shall come to pass, when many evils and troubles are come upon them, that this song shall testify before them as a witness.'" It's from Deuteronomy, verse 31, line 21.

The sufferings and the testimonies when told by Holocaust survivors are a song, a hymn of praise, a testimony to the eternity of the Jewish people and the greatness of their spirit.

Hon Elaine Ziemba (Minister of Citizenship and Minister Responsible for Human Rights and Race Relations): On behalf of the government of Ontario and the Premier of Ontario, Bob Rae, I too wish to commemorate this very significant day, Yom Hashoah, Holocaust Remembrance Day.

On this very important and significant day, it is important for all of us to remember the events that took place in Europe during the Second World War. Fifty-one years ago, on April 19, 1943, the Jews of the Warsaw ghetto took a heroic stand. Sick, starving, with no resources, quite debilitated and against all odds, they rose up against the Nazis in a struggle that would last 42 days. For any group to have resisted such a force, and for so long, speaks well of the human spirit. It is even more powerful when one remembers their condition. Many of them, some as young as 11 or 12 years old, joined the partisans who were fighting the Nazi oppressors.

During the Second World War, over 50 years ago, six million Jews were sent to gas chambers and other forms of death simply because they were Jewish. They became the victims of a regime that hated them, that abused them and that displaced them for no other reason than their heritage.

Those who ignore history are bound to repeat it. In many societies today, we are coming dangerously close to forgetting the history of the Holocaust. There are those who spread hate and deny the Holocaust. The indicators of persistent hatred against a group of people continue to be ever present and are manifested in many ways, including the desecration of places that are held very sacred.

It is important that members of the Legislature and the people of Ontario realize that many of these occurrences are not in some far-distant country. They happen right here in Canada, right here in Ontario.

The League for Human Rights of B'nai Brith Canada reported in its 1993 Audit of Anti-Semitic Incidents that there was a 31% increase of anti-Semitic harassment and vandalism in 1993 over 1992. That is totally unacceptable to all of us and also quite frightening.

Just prior to entering the legislative chamber today, I had the privilege, on behalf of the government of Ontario and the Premier, and along with colleagues on the other side of the House, to be present at a very special reception. The people were already mentioned in the House today by my colleague. These were people who were survivors, the people who worked very hard, against all odds, against the oppressors. They were people who at a very young age, a very tender age, gave their lives in the form of bravery and courage that I don't think any one of us can completely understand.

We also had the privilege of meeting a very remarkable woman. She was given the honour by the consul general of Israel of a very special medal in commemoration of the work that her husband and she did in Holland during the Second World War. They started off by taking in one child, a baby. They then took in that child's brother. They continued to take in other children until they had saved hundreds of lives during the Second World War.

Two years ago, and last year as well, I believe, I read a poem that was written by a very young Jewish girl. She was about 11 or 12 years old. I think she conveys a lot of our sentiments today as we think about and reflect back on what happened during the Warsaw ghetto uprising. I'd like to read it again, because I don't think I could express it any more fully than reading this poem. It was written by Franta Bass and it says:

A little garden,

Fragrant and full of roses.

The path is narrow

And a little boy walks along it.

A little boy, a sweet boy,

Like that growing blossom.

When the blossom comes to bloom,

The little boy will be no more.

It's hard for any of us to quite comprehend the feelings of that young woman as she wrote that poem, but as we reflect and commemorate this day, let us all pledge, every one of us today in Ontario, that we will all work together for a very peaceful and harmonious society where all of us will be respected and treated with justice and with dignity, and that we'll always remember the words "never again."

Mr Monte Kwinter (Wilson Heights): Today Yom Hashoah V'Hagvurah, the Holocaust remembrance, is a day that we commemorate each year at this time and it is a day that each year becomes a greater challenge.

The reason for the challenge of course is that as distance separates us from the event, it becomes more and more difficult to deal with those revisionists and those naysayers who claim it never happened.

My colleague from Willowdale has already referred to a remarkable film, Schindler's List, which chronicles the creation and destruction of the ghetto in Krakow, what happened to those Jewish citizens, how they were persecuted and murdered, and how through the good faith of one gentleman, a self-proclaimed Nazi who saw the light, some of the people were saved.

It really brings the attention of the whole world to what went on during those days.

1400

To counter that particular event, and I think everyone should see it, is another event that is quite troubling.

Just a couple of weeks ago a poll was released in the United States that showed a significant number of Americans believe that the Holocaust never happened.

There are people who claim that the poll was faulty, but notwithstanding that, there is a group of people in this world, whether they be Neo-Nazis or whether it is just through ignorance, who actually believe that this has not happened.

I say to you, my colleagues in this House, try telling that to the 350,000 survivors of the Holocaust, a number that is diminishing every year because, unfortunately, human nature, human life being what it is, every year there'll be fewer and fewer of them. Try telling that to the 6,000 descendants of the Schindler Juden, those people who survived as a result of Oskar Schindler's deeds. Try telling that to the 10 people sitting in our gallery who are survivors, who are partisans, that it didn't happen. Try telling that to my uncles who were imprisoned in Bergen-Belsen, who saw their relatives killed. Tell them that it was a figment of their imagination.

This, my colleagues, is the challenge we face. It is something that we must be vigilant about, it is something that we must continually keep in the forefront of human information, human knowledge and human education, because, as I say, each year, as we commemorate this particular event, we must always remember so that the world will never forget.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The thoughtful and meaningful comments by the honourable members for Willowdale, for High Park-Swansea and for Wilson-Heights will be provided to the special guests whom the member for Willowdale identified earlier.

ORAL QUESTIONS

PUBLIC SAFETY

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My first question today is for the Solicitor General. I must raise today the issue that is foremost in the minds of people across the city of Toronto, certainly in the city of Ottawa, and indeed I'm sure on the minds of people across the province of Ontario.

But, Mr Speaker, before I place the question, may I tell you that I have searched, in coming into the House today, for a way in which I can raise this issue in a forum which is normally seen to be adversarial and partisan, and I say to the minister that I don't want to raise the issue today as the leader of an opposition party; I want to raise it as a representative of a great many concerned people who are feeling increased fear and alarm because of the acts of random and senseless violence in the killings that took place yesterday in Toronto and earlier in Ottawa.

I guess I want to raise the issue as well as somebody who resides in downtown Toronto and who's feeling the shock that so many others are feeling that this act could have taken place.

Perhaps my first reaction was that of a parent whose daughter lives with me here in the city. I know the reaction of parents will be to feel tremendous anguish for the families of the victims and also to know that it could easily have been the son or the daughter of any one of us.

I raise the issue because I believe we must make sure that as legislators we are doing everything we possibly can to respond to the fears and to the uncertainties that so many people are feeling today. So I would ask you, as Solicitor General for the province of Ontario, if you can tell me what you believe can and must be done and indeed what your government is doing to address the fears and to relieve the tension that is building in this city and in Ottawa and across the province as a result of these incidents.

Hon David Christopherson (Solicitor General): Let me begin my comments with two brief prefaces, one being of course the extension of the condolences of this government, in addition to the members opposite, to the families of those who are affected by these tragedies, and also to say very directly to the honourable member that I appreciate and very much respect the approach she has offered up today on this issue. I would agree with her that this truly is the way we need to approach this as legislators, and I thank her for that gesture and that acknowledgement of that kind of approach.

Let me say that in dealing with the perceptions people have of increasing crime, in addition to the actual increases that are there, it seems to be universally accepted that there is no one, single response that will allow any level of government to deal effectively in one fell swoop with the issue of crime in our communities, whether that be dollars, whether that be officers, whether it be sentencing or incarceration. Any of these things alone, singularly, are not going to resolve the problem. As I say, there's ample evidence that most people believe that; certainly leaders from all three parties at different levels have expressed that concern.

In wrapping up on the first question, let me say that this issue was a cornerstone of the discussions we had a few weeks ago in Ottawa with other justice ministers from across Canada, led by the Liberal Justice minister. One of the things we focused on was the prevention of crime and the unanimous support of all justice ministers in Canada for a national crime prevention strategy, and to bring effect to that, the development of a national crime prevention council. I certainly think that will provide at least a forum and a vehicle for all of us to work together to deal with the issues that the honourable member has raised.

Mrs McLeod: I appreciate both the complexity of the question and the difficulty in response. In respect to the fact that I sincerely raised this question with a view to saying how can we begin to deal with the fears that are there, I will not ask a further supplementary, but just one supplementary, to the minister.

Minister, I think you'll recognize that what adds height to the anxiety people are feeling is the very random nature of the acts that have occurred and the fact that the victims of the killings were simply going about their daily lives. That's really what troubles people most. It's the kind of thing that makes people truly fear for themselves and for their families. It's the kind of thing that shocks us because I think it calls into question the belief that we Canadians have that we live in a country which is safe from that kind of random violence. We don't expect it to happen here and so we're shocked when it does.

But, Minister I believe that we have a responsibility in this Legislature to respond very directly to those fears and concerns and that we need to take some action. We're elected to the House to find solutions. I also believe this is the kind of issue that we need to work together on. I think we have some responsibility here today to determine what kinds of steps we can take to deal with the fact that violent crime is increasing in Ontario and that people indeed are becoming afraid.

I would like to ask whether you would refer this issue, the matter of what steps we can take to address this problem, to the standing committee on justice on an emergency basis so that all three parties can determine what indeed we, as legislators here in the province of Ontario, can do to help people feel safe in their homes and in their neighbourhoods. Will you agree to make the referral so that we can respond to the growing concerns about violent crime in our neighbourhoods?

Hon Mr Christopherson: I think I heard all the question; there was some heckling towards the end. Unless something changed, I understand the request was to forward it to a standing committee of the Legislature and allow all three parties to review the issue in terms of how we can respond as a collective Legislature of representatives. Obviously, this is the first that I have heard of the suggestion of the honourable member, and in the context and out of respect for the way that she's raised this issue, I would say that I would take the matter under advisement and review the request and get back to her very promptly.

1410

FIRE SAFETY

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My second question is to the Minister of Housing, again on an issue which causes us sadness and growing concern. The minister will know that yesterday there was another lost life in a basement apartment fire, and it is now the fifth fatality this year.

Minister, you'll also know that we have been calling on your government to take steps to prevent these tragedies by supporting an amendment that would give municipalities the authority to register and to inspect basement apartments that would be legalized under Bill 120. The registration amendment is supported by the coroner's jury review of the New Year's Day basement fire; it's been supported by the Association of Fire Chiefs of Ontario; it's been supported by the Association of Municipalities of Ontario. I believe the amendment could have prevented the kind of tragedy that occurred yesterday.

Minister, will you now support this amendment and ensure that municipalities have the authority to register and then to inspect basement apartments?

Hon Evelyn Gigantes (Minister of Housing): The leader of the official opposition knows that the problem that surrounds apartments in houses and the thing that makes them unsafe is the fact that they exist in an illegal situation where both tenants and property owners do not wish to speak to the people who can give advice and institute the requirements and do the inspections to make sure those apartments are safe.

The only way we're going to have a situation of safety around apartments in houses is if we have a situation in which municipalities can no longer arbitrarily choose the zones in which apartments in houses cannot exist or can exist. That is the key to safety as far as apartments in houses are concerned, and I hope the leader of the official opposition recognizes that.

Mrs McLeod: Minister, I know I've raised this issue with you before, and I'll continue to raise the issue, because what I do know is that legalizing basement apartments will do nothing to make existing basement apartments safe.

There is nothing in the legislation to make existing basement apartments legal that requires that any of the regulations can be met, can be enforced, that any inspections can take place, because there is nothing that is going to tell inspectors where the basement apartments are. That's the problem. Allowing for the registration, requiring the registration, of basement apartments would allow the municipalities to identify where the apartments exist, and then they could give the inspectors very clear authority to ensure that the safety standards are met. That's the issue we keep asking you to address.

Minister, you're not the one who has to go and inspect and ensure the safety of the apartments. You're not the one who has to go and fight the fires. You're not the one who was sitting on the coroner's jury investigating the tragedies that have already occurred. I ask you again today, why do you refuse to take the advice of the experts who live and work with this problem daily and who have said to you, "This is what is needed to prevent these tragedies in the future"?

Hon Ms Gigantes: I want the Leader of the Opposition to understand, if she does not now, that the passage of Bill 120 does not legalize apartments which do not meet standards, which do not meet health standards or safety standards or fire code standards.

When she says that the passage of the bill will not make them safe, of course she is right. No one has ever suggested, in the simpleminded way that she does, that we have claimed there will be a waving of the wand and apartments which are now unsafe will become safe. This is not the case, not the case at all. What Bill 120 provides is that they shall become legal, and that in order for a person who owns a house to have a legal apartment in a house, that person must seek a planning approval, a building permit. Does that provide a registration at the city? Does it provide the information to the owner about how to make the apartment safe?

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Who are they?

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The member for Etobicoke West is out of order.

Hon Ms Gigantes: Does it require that an inspection take place? This is the process that makes sense. If the Leader of the Opposition believes that passing a piece of legislation in this House --

The Speaker: Could the minister conclude her response, please.

Hon Ms Gigantes: -- that says that everybody who now operates an apartment in a house shall register it is going to stop fires in apartments in houses, I think she's being very, very simpleminded.

Mrs McLeod: I don't understand how the minister can continue to give me exactly the same response every time I try and make it clear that the issue we're dealing with is not the issue of new basement apartments for which one might get a building permit and then be able to register them. And for the moment I won't deal with the issue of whether or not basement apartments would be added long after the new house is built, without any building permit at all.

The issue I want to focus on is the reason why I understood you were bringing in Bill 120 in the first place, and that was the fact that there are 100,000 illegal basement apartments right now; more, the minister says. The concern is, how are those 100,000 or more illegal basement apartments going to ever become safe places for people to live? Because if you make them legal, you must take some steps to make sure they are also safe.

Minister, right now, the only way you can ensure that safety regulations or fire regulations are being met is if there is a complaint and if there is then a search warrant obtained. That is not an efficient process. You yourself have said that a form of registration will work for new basement apartments in new homes. That's why you keep telling me about the building permit approach.

The Speaker: Could the leader place a question, please.

Mrs McLeod: It's a way of registering new apartments in new houses. I suggest to you that the same registration process could be at least as effective and efficient in dealing with the currently existing basement apartments, which are the source of our concern.

Minister, you have shocked me today by saying that you agree that making these apartments legal does nothing to make them safe. I ask you, then, as minister: What will you do, as you move to make these apartments legal, to ensure that they will indeed be safe?

Hon Ms Gigantes: I did not say and I would not say that making them legal has nothing to do with making them safe. It has everything to do with making them safe. If the member opposite is concerned about existing apartments, let her say so, and let me ask her how she believes that the creation of a registry or a law requiring registration is going to automatically make things safe. It doesn't.

Interjection.

The Speaker: The member for Halton Centre is out of order.

Hon Ms Gigantes: In fact, she complains that the method of assuring safety in an apartment which is now legal as far as zoning is concerned -- people won't call in, complain, or ask questions or ask advice or ask for assistance when they are illegal as a result of zoning. If we change that situation, we open up the door to provide for them becoming legal according to the health and safety standards that we want to see applied in this province. There is no other way. A registry doesn't magically make them safe either. The Leader of the Opposition has to know that's the case and quit playing games on this issue.

HIV IN CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): I have a question for the Minister of Correctional Services. Earlier today, a member of my staff spoke with Superintendent Balmain of the London Police Force. Superintendent Balmain confirmed that several months ago, as a result of the London pornography investigation and charges against a young offender, the London police received information that a young offender was an HIV carrier.

The London police then contacted the local board of health, and the board of health contacted a young offenders' facility, Camp Dufferin, where this individual had been a resident. The camp officials then compiled a list of 80 other young offenders who may have been in contact with this individual. Several days ago, the province's chief medical officer of health was asked to take charge of efforts to locate these 80 young people and encourage them to be tested for HIV.

1420

Minister, can you indicate the time line between when Camp Dufferin was informed by the board of health and when Dr Schabas was asked to get involved, and can you indicate why this serious matter has been hidden from public view?

Hon David Christopherson (Minister of Correctional Services): I do not have the exact dates in front of me, but to the best that I can release information under current legislation, I'll be quite willing to provide the honourable member with that information before the end of business today.

Let me say with regard to the appropriateness of action taken that I am certainly aware of this issue, I'm aware of the circumstances, and I am not aware at all of anything that should suggest to someone that there has been inappropriate action taken or not taken on the part of ministry officials.

Mr Runciman: As frequently is the case, I beg to differ with the minister.

This individual, we're told, was involved in tattooing efforts within the institution. That's the reason why, apparently, he came in contact with as many as 80 other young offenders who were incarcerated in Camp Dufferin. We're advised that the facility put the names together of the 80 individuals, but they have very few addresses. So what in fact is happening is that the government has turned Dr Schabas, the chief medical officer of health in the province, into a detective. Who knows how long it will take him to track down these young people and who knows how many other innocent people may be put at risk?

Minister, again I ask for a clearer explanation as to why this matter has been kept hushed up. Why have you not gone public with this? This is a serious public health matter. I'm asking you, why are you dealing with it in the way in which you're dealing with it?

Hon Mr Christopherson: There are not a lot of specifics in the question the honourable member asks. I say again to him that the responsibility for the control of communicable diseases is that of the provincial medical officer of health. The issue was appropriately turned over to the doctor, as is prescribed by legislation and procedures of the province. I am still not aware, inherent in any of the questions, of any factual basis for suggestions that something untoward has happened with regard to the administration of this issue.

Mr Runciman: I think that what the minister has done and his ministry has done in fact is unconscionable. We're talking about perhaps a very serious public safety, public health risk that is posed by 80 people out there. Your chief medical officer of health is unsure how to get in touch with these people. He was only contacted a few days ago. We haven't yet confirmed when Camp Dufferin was contacted about this, but we know the individual was charged some months ago.

Mr Minister, what I'm saying is, why have you not gone public in the sense of putting out dates of people who were resident in that camp during that period of time and asking them to call a 1-800 number? They may be at risk. They may be putting other innocent people at risk. That's why I'm asking you, why have you not acted? Why have you not gone through the media? Why have you not had some kind of public effort?

I suggest perhaps that it's because of the fact that you were advised and urged by Dr Schabas himself back in 1990 to have AIDS designated as a virulent disease under the Health Protection and Promotion Act. You failed to act. I asked you the question nine months ago in this House, "Are you prepared to support reclassification of HIV from section 22 to 35 so that Correctional Services may test inmates for HIV and reduce the problem of multiple carriers and protect guards and inmates alike?"

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

Mr Runciman: Now we have a very serious problem on our hands. You were asked nine months ago. Your government was asked over three and a half years ago to act by the person you've asked to investigate this situation now. I think you have been extremely negligent and put the public at risk. Are you now prepared to act on Dr Schabas's recommendation made to your government three and a half years ago?

Hon Mr Christopherson: I don't believe for a moment that the honourable member, again, has made a case. I don't understand clearly where he's making a linkage between the reclassification issue and what has happened in this instance. They're separate issues and I don't know that they necessarily link in this particular case, other than to perhaps make for a question in the House.

With regard to why we didn't publicize it and run headlines, the honourable member knows very well that there is legislation in this province that assures people certain fundamental medical rights. Where doctors in positions of responsibility, like the Ontario medical officer of health, believe that action like that should be taken, there are measures that they can approach to take the necessary procedures. But to suggest here that automatically there should have been publicly released a list of everybody's name who may or may not have possibly been exposed to some kind of danger is a nonsensical type of proposition, I would suggest.

HEALTH CARE

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): My question is to the Minister of Health. If an expectant mother arrives at a delivery room in Ontario today, what is the likelihood of her being denied a pain-relieving epidural?

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): Very unlikely.

Mr Jim Wilson: According to an article in the Wall Street Journal, a woman in labour who arrived at St Michael's Hospital in Toronto was denied an epidural because there was only one anaesthetist on duty for the entire hospital. Her situation is not unique. Thousands of women in Ontario are giving birth in severe pain. This is not what our compassionate health care system is supposed to be all about.

This isn't a question of more money. We realize the financial constraints you've placed on the system. You've capped the OHIP fee-for-service pool at $3.8 billion. But in addition, you unilaterally, without the OMA, reduced the number of training positions for anaesthetists and general surgeons who can administer epidurals. So I ask you, why did you do this when you know there's a shortage of doctors who can administer this treatment?

Hon Mrs Grier: I'm aware of the article in the Wall Street Journal to which the member refers. I read it with interest, amazement and incredulity. The article is an attack on the efforts this province has made to provide choices for women, to provide midwives, to provide birthing centres, and quite frankly I don't think that for the member to use that as a basis for questioning the excellence and the capacity of all of our hospitals to provide women with the care they need during childbirth is at all justified.

Applause.

Mr Jim Wilson: That's a very interesting response and one that shouldn't be applauded by your colleagues, because I don't think you checked out the facts behind the article in the Wall Street Journal. Women in Thunder Bay are out of luck during delivery and, according to a spokesperson for the Ontario Medical Association, the availability of epidurals is sporadic in most small hospitals. The situation is serious for many women.

Commenting on our health care system in the Wall Street Journal, which is significant because it is read worldwide, the Wall Street Journal said: "The system can no longer cope with an event as straightforward as birth. It is as if medical practice in Canada is reeling backward in time."

Minister, you talk about choice. Why then are you denying women the choice to have an epidural to assist them during the birth of their children?

Hon Ruth Grier: It's been a long time, but I've certainly had experience of the birthing situation in this province. So have my daughters-in-law. So have many people who have had the best possible experiences, who have had the care they need, who have had the care they require and who have had the choices they wished to make with respect to birthing respected.

For the member to say that the Wall Street Journal, in its attack on our health care system, justifies him to attack the hospitals, the doctors, the nurses and the practitioners in the province, who are second to none, is, as I say, beneath him as a critic of the Health department.

1430

NON-PROFIT HOUSING

Mr Joseph Cordiano (Lawrence): I have a question of the Minister of Housing. Minister, in a letter dated January 28, 1994, which went out along with some 2,000 copies of a non-profit housing association publication to non-profit housing organizations, municipalities and others, you directly challenge the integrity, independence and objectivity of the Provincial Auditor.

In sending this letter on your letterhead with your signature, you endorse the position of the document as put out by the Ontario Non-Profit Housing Association, which discredits and makes partisan the 1992 report of the Provincial Auditor. The document clearly states that the auditor misrepresented fundamental facts about non-profit housing and that he attempted to mislead the public.

Minister, I ask you: Do you think it's acceptable to attack the integrity of the Provincial Auditor in this way? Do you find that acceptable behaviour?

Hon Evelyn Gigantes (Minister of Housing): The material that was sent out to which the member refers was material that was provided to many partners in housing around the province, many interested municipal councillors and media outlets, and it was intended to provide all those people and groups with a spectrum of information about the non-profit housing program.

As the member is aware, there has been a ferocious and well-organized and well-paid-for campaign by the organization of landlords in this province, so we wished to make sure that people who had received the information sent out by the Fair Rental Policy Organization also received some other views on the non-profit housing program in the province.

The ONPHA material that was included in that package represents one point of view of what the Provincial Auditor had to say in his report. It's in no way endorsed by me, and I will be quite happy to have information mailed to the people who received that information that indicates that this was the point of view of the Ontario Non-Profit Housing Association.

Mr Cordiano: Let me quote what the letter that went out with the document said on January 28, 1994 --

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): Who is this from?

Mr Cordiano: This is from the Minister of Housing, of course. There was a letter that was attached to the document.

"Unfortunately, during this heated debate, a lot of the facts about non-profit housing have been distorted." That's a direct quote from the minister, the letter that went out with the document, the information package that was sent out to set the record straight. This is what the minister said.

Minister, you suggest very clearly that the efforts of the auditor were to distort the facts. In fact, the document which you endorsed, because you put out your letter with your signature attached to it, the document --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Mr Cordiano: I remind you clearly what the document stated. It said that the auditor had four misleading facts, they were misleading, that in fact debate that was ensuing was becoming highly partisan and that the auditor was engaged in this highly partisan debate through use of his report.

The Speaker: Would the member place a question, please.

Mr Cordiano: It's clearly inappropriate, Minister, to attack the auditor in this way, even if you suggest it's an indirect fashion. Minister, are you saying that you would disagree even with -- if I may have another moment, Mr Speaker; this is important.

The Speaker: Quickly, please.

Mr Cordiano: Your deputy this morning, before committee, Madam Minister, said that he clearly dissociates himself with the comments that were made in that document.

The Speaker: Would the member please place a question.

Mr Cordiano: He clearly thinks it's inappropriate for the way in which this thing unfolded. He distanced himself from this, and clearly, Minister, you should know --

The Speaker: The member has had a considerable amount of time. Would the member please take his seat.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Would the member please take his seat. The member is out of order.

Hon Ms Gigantes: Mr Speaker, first of all, the member has to acknowledge that in all the statements that have been made by the Ministry of Housing representatives and by myself in discussion of the auditor's report, we have never taken issue with the validity of the auditor's report.

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): Your letter led people to believe that.

Hon Ms Gigantes: We have taken issue with some of the conclusions --

Mr Callahan: The letter speaks for itself.

Mr Elston: The letter was written; it said just that.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Ms Gigantes: -- but we have never taken issue with the validity.

The member is indeed correct in saying that the Deputy Minister of Housing, in committee this morning, made it quite clear that it was not the view of the ministry nor of this minister that the misleading headline was appropriate on this occasion. It is for that purpose that I will be mailing additional information --

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): You said in your letter you are setting the record straight.

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): It is your own letterhead.

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): This is two years in a row you said the same thing about the auditor.

The Speaker: Would the minister take her seat, please.

Mr Stockwell: What did you mean when you said "set the record straight"?

The Speaker: The member for Etobicoke West is out of order. Would the minister conclude her response, please.

Hon Ms Gigantes: I'd be glad to conclude and indicate once again to the member that the ministry will be providing additional information on the non-profit housing program, in particular a ministry analysis of the report done by Clayton consultants for the Fair Rental Policy Organization, the landlords' organization. Included in that mailing I will have a statement --

Mr Tilson: To set the record straight. Same old stuff.

Mrs Marland: Same consultants?

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Ms Gigantes: -- saying that it was not our intent to endorse the statement in the headline of the Ontario non-profit association material which was mailed in the earlier mailing.

TVONTARIO HEADQUARTERS

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): In the absence of the Minister of Culture, Tourism and Recreation, my question is for the Minister of Finance.

It has come to my attention, and our staff confirmed this morning, that TVOntario is looking for new office space. TVOntario has narrowed its potential sites to three and intends to finalize the deal in the near future.

The Minister of Finance is responsible for protecting the public purse of this province. Will the minister tell the House if he is aware that Ontario's publicly funded television network is looking for a new office building and who would have approved this proposed move?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): I thank the member for Wellington for the question. That's why I came to question period today.

I should tell the member for Wellington that I was aware that there was a problem with existing accommodation, but that really is the extent of my knowledge at this point.

Mr Arnott: I came to question period to hear an answer, and that wasn't an answer.

TVOntario currently leases space uptown at Yonge and Eglinton, as most members know, and according to staff at the network, they would like to consolidate and update their current conditions. Given TVOntario's track record for excessive spending, and the very expensive experience of your Workers' Compensation Board building, we have reason to be very concerned about these plans. Will the minister personally guarantee this House that any move by TVOntario will be a better deal for Ontario's taxpayers than they're receiving today, and not another financial debacle like the new Workers' Compensation Board building?

Hon Mr Laughren: Yes, Mr Speaker, I will give the member that assurance. Also, though, as well as it being an appropriate move financially, it will also be a move that allows TVOntario to continue to deliver a very valuable service in as efficient and effective a way as possible.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The Minister of Housing has a response to a question asked earlier by the honourable member for Mississauga South.

1440

NON-PROFIT HOUSING

Hon Evelyn Gigantes (Minister of Housing): Two days ago the member raised some questions surrounding an internal memo of the non-profit corporation Cityhome here in the city of Toronto. In response to her allegations during the question that we had to approve, in the Ministry of Housing, cost overruns and other irregularities, that we were turning a blind eye to problems and there was gross mismanagement, I undertook to provide an explanation.

Cityhome has contracted for four non-profit groups, including itself, in the construction of a $42-million development at the location, George-Jarvis. It is correct, as it was identified in this memo and mentioned by the member opposite, that costs in this project have exceeded the estimates.

We know of costs which have exceeded estimates which the Ministry of Housing believes to be justified. Those are imposts and levies, an additional $18,000; taxes during construction, an additional $23,891; under review are fees for architects and consultants, legal fees and construction costs which, according to the memo from Cityhome or in Cityhome, are estimated to be about 2% above estimates.

The total project is still at 100% of maximum unit price for 1991.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Could the minister conclude her response, please.

Hon Ms Gigantes: Thank you.

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): The memo said that the unit prices were 16% above the maximum, so I guess what the minister is saying is that the memo was wrong. I find it interesting, when my question was based on the fact that we're looking, according to the memo, at $1-million to $1.5-million overrun and the minister stands up and talks about $30,000. It would be laughable if it wasn't so sad.

Imposts and levies of $30,000: Where does that fit in with a project that's $1 million or $1.5 million over? How is it that your ministry would approve this project with construction costs over the budget at a time when everybody knows construction costs have been down?

Hon Ms Gigantes: The member did not hear my first response, obviously. What I said to the member was that the construction costs, which are over the original estimate, have not been approved. The ministry has not approved them. I didn't mention a figure of $30,000. I indicated that we would approve imposts and levy increases of $18,000 and extra tax costs during construction of $23,891. I will repeat to the member that the project, from the Ministry of Housing's point of view, has been approved at 100% of maximum unit prices for 1991 and not above that. Got it?

PENSION FUNDS

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): My question is to the Minister of Finance. It has to do with the issue of pensions and what the government's plans are for pensions.

As I think the House knows, there are enormous unfunded liabilities, debts, in the teachers' pension and the public service pension. The government, as we all know, decided to take a three-and-a-half-year holiday from making any payments against the unfunded liability in the teachers' pension.

I might say that the debt is developing in there and growing every year by roughly $500 million. A three-and-a-half-year holiday doesn't stop the debt from growing. The only way, as the minister knows, that legally the government was allowed to do that was by passing legislation.

My question is this: I gather that you are looking at a similar holiday from the Ontario public service pension plan. The Ontario public service pension plan has also a very large unfunded liability, a debt in there of I think almost $3 billion.

My question is this: If you are looking at taking a holiday and not making the required payments, can you tell the House, will this require legislation? If it requires legislation, when will the Legislature see that legislation so we can understand what you're doing with that very large unfunded liability in the public service pension?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): Mr Speaker, can I please refer that question to the Chair of Management Board?

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): The essential part, I would gather, of the member's question is, would such a change require legislation? Yes, it would. When will we see the legislation? I seriously can't predict that at this point. I don't know if there will be any.

Mr Phillips: The reason I raise this is because we've now seen that in the last few days Hydro has dealt with its contractual difficulties. One way they've dealt with it is by cutting payments to the pension, I gather. We found the government just at Christmastime took a holiday and actually withdrew money from the teachers' pension.

I might add, and the member will know this, when Bob Rae was in opposition, I think he called that legalized theft. I've got the document here; he called it legalized theft. That was the language that was used.

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): Who said that?

Mr Phillips: Premier Rae said that when he was in opposition.

My question is this: We've now seen the government running up debt of roughly $1.2 billion extra in the teachers' pension, we see Hydro has made a decision to fund its contract through reduced pension payments and we now understand, although it's behind closed doors, that the government is planning to do a similar thing with the public service pension.

If you will not tell us when you're bringing in the legislation, will you at least undertake to give the House now a listing of the decisions you've made on the various public sector pensions, what sort of reduction you've made in your contribution to them to date, what sort of reduction you're planning next fiscal year and, more importantly, what the implications are for the taxpayers now as you run the debt up on these unfunded liabilities?

Hon Mr Charlton: There are again two essential components that I hear in the member's question. Firstly, the member talks about "behind closed doors." We are negotiating around pension matters as a result of legislative changes that were made publicly here in this Legislature, prior to Christmas, under the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act, which made pensions a negotiable item in this province for the civil servants who worked for this government. We are negotiating with them under that legislation around pension matters.

1450

I cannot predict what the outcome of those negotiations might be and therefore I can't predict precisely when or if there will be any legislation in this Legislature as a consequence of those negotiations. But lastly, any initiatives that this government has already taken around public sector pensions are already public knowledge and part of the public record.

COMMUNITY COLLEGE GOVERNANCE

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): I have a question for the Minister of Education and Training. I have a copy of the memo that was sent to college board chairs on March 30 from the chair of the Council of Regents, and I'm pretty sure that you'll know about this memo. In it I am going to quote from the chair. He says this: "Your fiduciary responsibility" -- this is to the board chair -- "is not to the local community but to the provincial government for post-secondary funds and for other provincial support."

Mr Minister, you and I both know that there is a problem out there right now, and the timing of this memo, I see no need for it at all. Why would the chair be underlining this responsibility that he feels is to the province of Ontario?

I thought that Helen Friedman, who is the chair of Conestoga community college, asked a good question when she said, "Why don't we call these provincial colleges?"

Our great hope and expectation is that the community is represented diversely on these boards, and we count on them for their support. Whom do you think the community college boards should be responsible to?

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Education and Training): It's very clear that legally, community colleges are responsible to the provincial government, which is responsible to the public. With the kinds of dollars we're talking about, that would only be what you would expect. That's where the public accountability has to lie. We grant the money to colleges and somebody has to be responsible to the voters and the taxpayers of this province. Legally, that of course is the provincial government. I think you understand that.

Mrs Cunningham: I think that in the past, if that question had been asked of any former minister, they would have at least said that the community college boards are responsible both to their communities and to the province of Ontario. I really underline that as being extremely important, because we count on today's citizens as volunteers to serve on these boards and to give the best advice they can for a vision and for long-term planning for our community colleges. It's so important that we get communities feeling that they can contribute, giving the best advice they can to the minister. I think he should talk to the chair of the colleges.

I'm telling you right now, Mr Speaker, that the College of Regents is being accused of establishing some kind of an empire. In looking at the most recent estimates, I have to tell you that I think they are going to be rightfully accused of establishing an empire, not only in governance but in the way they spend money.

The estimates in 1992-93 said that the Council of Regents received approximately $1.4 million.

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

Mrs Cunningham: I will, Mr Speaker. One more sentence and then the question.

Approximately $1.4 million was the estimate for 1992-93. In 1993-94, the Council of Regents received approximately $3.1 million. This is an increase of 150%. Can you tell us what other agency or board got any kind of an increase even close to that? Do you think also that they should rightfully be accused of creating this empire, not only in governance but in the amount of money, a 150% increase?

The Speaker: Could the member complete her question, please.

Mrs Cunningham: That's it.

Hon Mr Cooke: The member knows from the estimates that the Council of Regents was asked to take on a major new responsibility, the college standards and accreditation system, which is all part of the accountability framework. The critic for the third party and the critic for the official opposition have both said that the post-secondary system needs to be more publicly accountable, that we need to have standards that are applied. This initiative was actually applauded by the opposition parties.

You can't have an initiative on standards and accreditation of courses across the system and then underfund it, because I know exactly what would happen. The next question would be, the member would get up if we hadn't funded it and say that the initiative was a farce, that it wasn't funded and that it was just a big showcase with nothing to back it up. That is typical of the opposition. They want to have it both ways all the time, every day of the week.

FARMPLUS PROGRAM

Ms Christel Haeck (St Catharines-Brock): My question is to the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. In January, several colleagues of mine, the members for Lincoln, Niagara South and myself, were able to join the Minister of Agriculture in St Catharines to launch a new program called FarmPlus. It's obviously part of the larger program, the agriculture investment strategy.

In the meantime, I've received several calls from constituents who are farmers, who are very much interested in finding out how to access the program and a whole range of other questions. Local officials are obviously quite pleased with the performance. I want the minister to give me, and obviously my farm constituents, a better idea on how the program is doing. I think all of the people in this place really need to find out how successful this particular program is.

Hon Elmer Buchanan (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs): The member is quite correct. This is a program which is a component of the agriculture investment strategy that has been very well received in rural Ontario.

In terms of an update, at this point in time, $11 million in sales in the GICs has been achieved, which is incredible, because in the first four and a half weeks there were $10 million in sales and we had expected to sell $50 million over the period of three or four years. So we've done very well. There's still room for growth in the program.

In terms of the lending part of this program, because the intent of this program is to recycle money into rural communities back into the agriculture and food sector, to this point in time, $700,000 has been lent back in rural Ontario to provide capital for new initiatives in rural Ontario.

Ms Haeck: Locally, and I think this is important for some of the members from Toronto to hear, and I know Mr Bradley raised a question earlier this week regarding the viability of agriculture in the peninsula, the St Catharines Standard, a paper we read with some care, I know the member for St Catharines will agree with me, says that the success of the FarmPlus program locally is to the tune of about $5 million. I would like the minister to again tell us, for the benefit of all the agricultural members, those from rural Ontario, what options do investors now have under FarmPlus, and really what does this mean to the farmers? How do they stand to benefit by what I consider to be this very valuable program?

Hon Mr Buchanan: The member raises a good point, because the St Catharines paper carried a story which said the Niagara Credit Union has reached its limit. We allocated a certain upper ceiling for all the credit unions that are participating and they had reached their limit, which I believe was around $5 million; at any rate, they had reached their limit, and the story came out.

I want to assure the member and the farmers and the investors from the Niagara area that my staff has visited with the credit union and we've reassured them that they can go beyond that limit if they choose to do so.

They have chosen to concentrate on lending out the money they have taken in in sales rather than try to sell more GICs. So they will be concentrating voluntarily on lending out what they've taken rather than add on to sales.

I would add that this program is available in selected areas across the province. It's not available at all credit unions, and I would encourage all members, especially in the central part of Ontario, to talk to their local credit unions and see if they can get them interested in this program. It will benefit farmers and investors in other parts of the province. But the people from Niagara can participate in this program and it has been very successful.

ARTS AND CULTURAL FUNDING

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): I have a question for the Minister of Citizenship which concerns the white-authors-need-not-attend writers' conference that her government is sponsoring through a grant provided by the Ontario Arts Council.

Mr Speaker, I want to tell you that I don't quarrel with the idea of a conference to celebrate native authors or so-called authors of colour. But I do have a problem with a publicly financed and publicly sponsored conference that bars and excludes people on the basis of the colour of their skin.

I don't want the minister to hide behind the autonomy of the Ontario Arts Council, which is providing a grant of some $15,000. I want to know the opinion of the Minister of Citizenship. I want to know whether she supports the notion that the government and taxpayers should sponsor conferences that exclude people on the basis of the colour of their skin. I want to know the minister's opinion.

Hon Elaine Ziemba (Minister of Citizenship and Minister Responsible for Human Rights and Race Relations): I thank the member opposite for raising this particular concern and this particular question. As the member opposite very rightfully said, this comes under --

Mr Sorbara: I want to know your opinion.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Hon Ms Ziemba: And you will get it. Just for the audience so they will know, the member opposite was getting a little agitated that I wasn't giving my personal opinion. I will give you my personal opinion, but first I would just like to state that this does come under the Ministry of Culture, and because I'm not the Minister of Culture, I'm just a little bit at a loss about how the funding arrangements were arranged. I have not seen the grant. I don't know how it was done. I have nothing to really set my mind about the preamble or how it was based and how they were allocated their funding.

1500

On a personal basis, though, now to talk to you about personal opinions, the Ontario Human Rights Commission, which comes under our ministry, states very clearly that when there are groups of people who have been disadvantaged -- this is under section 14 of the Human Rights Code that was passed in 1982 by, I guess, the Conservative Party at the time --

The Speaker: Could the minister conclude her response, please.

Hon Ms Ziemba: Yes. It says very clearly that when there are groups of people who have been disadvantaged and have not had an opportunity to be treated fairly and equitably and given an equal opportunity to participate, there can be special measures made to accommodate those individuals.

As I said previously --

The Speaker: Could the minister please conclude her response.

Hon Ms Ziemba: -- this would appear to me that this is, on the surface, what the member opposite is raising, that perhaps this group has decided to hold a conference for people so they can catch up and be brought up to speed along with the rest of the population. But not having had the opportunity to read the grant, I would not know.

Mr Sorbara: I take it from the minister's response that the minister's opinion is that this is a good thing, that it is appropriate for a government to sponsor a meeting that excludes certain people not on the basis of talent or area of expertise but solely on the basis of the colour of their skin.

I want to suggest to you, Mr Speaker, that it's a little bit ironic, not to say hypocritical, that three months ago we had the Premier of the province visiting various studios around the province singing his little ditty, "We're In The Same Boat Now, where the truth is that what the government sponsors are specific boats where some people are excluded.

I want to ask her why a writer like Nino Ricci, an Italian-Canadian writer, who wrote a pretty good book called The Lives of the Saints -- it was so good it won the Governor General's Award -- why is it that your government would sponsor a conference which would prohibit the participation of a writer of Italian-Canadian origin like Nino Ricci? Why is Nino Ricci excluded from this conference that you're helping to sponsor and pay for?

Hon Ms Ziemba: Again, I think that we must remind the member opposite not only of my only personal viewpoints but of the viewpoints of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which is a very important piece of legislation, of the Ontario Human Rights Code, which again is a code that goes over all the legislation in Ontario, and of the Canadian Human Rights Code, which is the prevailing code of Canada when it comes to all sorts of jurisdictions, which state very clearly that when there are groups of people who have not had an opportunity to be able to participate fully in our society, we will be able to give special treatment so that they can be brought up to speed and be given those equal opportunities.

Mr Sorbara: Sixty years ago politicians used to justify "no Jews allowed on the beach," the same sort of thing.

The Speaker: Would the member for York Centre please come to order.

Hon Ms Ziemba: I think we will also say that there are groups and organizations that hold special conferences for special groups of people at all times and as long as it falls under the prevail of the Human Rights Code and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, I think all of us would have to say that is the law of the land and that's what we should be able to consider.

VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I invite all members to join me in welcoming to our chamber, seated in the Speaker's gallery, a very special group of visitors who are from the Legislative Assembly of the province of Sindh, Karachi, Pakistan: the Honourable Ghaus Bux Khan Mahar, the Speaker, Mr Syed Qaim Ali Shah, member of Parliament, Mr Zakir Hussain Mirza, who is the secretary to the provincial assembly, and Mr Shahyar Mahar. Accompanying the delegation is Mrs Freda Shah, the consul general of Pakistan in Toronto. Please welcome our special guests.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): Mr Speaker, I want to rise on a point of order with respect to rules 32(a) and (b) and 21(a) and (b) under the standing orders of the House.

Today, as you know, as every other day in the House, 20 minutes were allotted for ministerial statements. There were no statements on this occasion, nor were there any ministerial statements yesterday. The Minister of Health will be making a statement tomorrow outside of the House with respect to a cancer strategy that affects one out of three people in Ontario. That announcement will be made in a closed session of the Canadian Cancer Society, to which members only are invited.

You will recall, Mr Speaker, that as part of our legislative function, my party originated and carried out a task force on cancer care in the autumn and brought those issues, in what I believe was a non-partisan way and a respectful way, to the Minister of Health. The Minister of Health, it seems to me, owes every person in Ontario and the people in this House the privilege of hearing her response to those issues --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order. The member will know that, first, she does not have a point of order. At the same time the member will also know, as do all members, that all the Speaker can do is encourage ministers of the crown to make statements in the House rather than outside the House, but there is nothing in the standing orders to compel ministers to follow that advice.

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: It seems to me that the purpose of this Legislature, and the historic purpose of this Legislature, is to raise matters of urgent importance to the people of this province. Cancer is an issue that is important to every person in this province and --

The Speaker: And what is your point of order?

Mr Jim Wilson: Mr Speaker, my point of order is, do you not have any authority whatsoever to compel this minister to do the right thing and to be courteous to the people of this province --

The Speaker: Would the member please take his seat.

PETITIONS

VIOLENCE

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): I am very pleased to read today a petition which was submitted by St Joseph Catholic women's league in Sault Ste Marie, containing 18 petitions and 199 names:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas serial killer trading cards are being imported into and distributed throughout Ontario and the rest of Canada;

"Whereas these trading cards feature the crimes of serial killers, mass murderers and gangsters;

"Whereas we abhor crimes of violence against persons and believe that serial killer trading cards offer nothing positive for children or adults to emulate or admire, but rather contribute to the tolerance and desensitization of violence; and

"Whereas we as a society agree that the protection of our children is paramount,

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

"That the Ontario government enact legislation to ensure that the sale of these serial killer trading cards is restricted to people over the age of 18 years and that substantial and appropriate penalties be imposed on retailers who sell serial killer trading cards to minors."

I join, with my signature, the other 1,678 people who have signed these petitions in this past week.

COLLINGWOOD GENERAL AND MARINE HOSPITAL

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

"Whereas continued government funding cutbacks will force the Collingwood General and Marine Hospital to close eight more hospital beds and these cutbacks are having a continued, negative impact on employment in the Collingwood area;

"Whereas the government is failing to adhere to their own 'principles of restructuring,' which states that restructuring of the hospital sector must be linked to equitable funding, appropriate and accessible community-based health services, and that restructuring initiatives must address the impact of these changes on hospital staff, the local economy and the health care needs of the community;

"Whereas the government refuses to give the green light to redevelop the General and Marine Hospital even though the provincial government announced funding for the project in 1987, and even though the General and Marine cannot achieve additional operating efficiencies unless the hospital is redeveloped;

"Therefore, we demand that the provincial government immediately approve the redevelopment of the General and Marine Hospital and that the hospital be given some financial breathing space to assess the impact of these bed closures on the labour and health care needs of the Collingwood community."

I've signed this petition. I obviously agree with this petition and I want all members to know that these few pages are part of a petition that has been signed by 6,919 people from the Collingwood area in my riding of Simcoe West. I want to thank the Collingwood labour council, and Mr Murray Dupe in particular for going door to door and doing the legwork on this petition. It's extremely important and we eagerly await the government's response.

1510

LAND-LEASE COMMUNITIES

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas Bill 21 has received second reading in the Legislative Assembly of Ontario; and

"Whereas Bill 21 will provide needed protection to owners of mobile homes in mobile home trailer parks and owners of modular homes in land-lease communities; and

"Whereas many owners of mobile homes are threatened with eviction and loss of their investment in their mobile home by the action of their landlord,

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows," and may the Conservatives listen:

"To proceed as expeditiously as possible with third reading of Bill 21."

This is vital to the people in Wilmot Creek in my community and I've signed this.

ADOPTION

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): I have a petition to the Honourable Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

"Whereas the Adoption Reform Coalition of Ontario brings together various organizations to recommend reform of Ontario adoption law based on honesty, openness and integrity;

"Whereas ARCO, the Adoption Reform Coalition of Ontario, believes that existing adoption secrecy legislation, although originally based on research done with good intentions, is outdated and unjust;

"Whereas Canada has ratified standards of civil and human rights in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the UN declaration of human rights, these rights are denied to persons affected by secrecy provisions in adoption laws of the Child and Family Services Act and other acts in Ontario;

"Whereas 10% of persons in Ontario are directly affected and 20% are indirectly affected by restricted rights to personal identifying information on themselves and on birth and adoptive relatives in the Ontario Child and Family Services Act and other acts;

"Whereas the birth certificate issued to an adopted person is a legally sanctioned erroneous document;

"Whereas the current system for disclosure of adoption information is discriminatory, psychologically cruel and expensive, with an unacceptably long waiting list for indeterminate results;

"Whereas research shows that not knowing basic personal information has proven harmful to adopted persons, birth parents and other birth and adoptive relatives,

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislature of Ontario to enact revision of the Child and Family Services Act and other acts to move as quickly as possible to permit unrestricted access to full personal identifying information to adopted persons, adult children of adopted persons, birth parents, birth siblings and other birth relatives when the adopted person reaches age 18; permit access to identifying information to adoptive parents of minor children and emancipated minor adoptees; allow adopted persons and birth parents to file a notice stating their wish for non-contact; eliminate mandatory reunion counselling; encourage and support client self-determination; permit access to agency and court files when original statistical information is insufficient for identification of and contact with birth relatives; and recognize open adoptions in the law."

The petition is signed by a number of my constituents and I have affixed my signature.

FIREARMS SAFETY

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): 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 OFAH advice and grandfathered those of us who have already taken safety 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 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 Premier Bob Rae, Solicitor General David Christopherson and the Legislative Assembly 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."

This petition is signed by some 74 permanent and seasonal residents of my constituency and I have affixed my signature thereto.

Mr Paul Wessenger (Simcoe Centre): I have a petition similar to the last one, addressed to Ontario Premier Bob Rae, Solicitor General David Christopherson and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas 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."

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a petition that I've been asked to read by the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters. It reads as follows:

"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 safety 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 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 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."

LANDFILL

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I have a petition of 22 signatures from our riding of Dufferin-Peel. It's addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the recent announcement by the NDP government to choose three superdumps within the greater Toronto area has disturbed and upset local residents; and

"Whereas these superdumps might have been prevented if Bill 143 had allowed the Interim Waste Authority to look at all alternatives during the site selection process; and

"Whereas we would like to ensure the province of Ontario is making the best decisions based on all the facts regarding incineration and long rail-haul and garbage management,

"We demand that the NDP government of Ontario repeal Bill 143, disband the IWA and place a moratorium on the process of finding a landfill to serve all of the greater Toronto area until all alternatives have been properly studied and debated."

I fully support this petition and I am signing it.

LAND-LEASE COMMUNITIES

Mrs Irene Mathyssen (Middlesex): I too have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario from the seniors at Twin Elms in Strathroy, who petition:

"Whereas Bill 21 has received second reading in the Legislative Assembly of Ontario; and

"Whereas Bill 21 will provide needed protection to owners of mobile homes in mobile home trailer parks and the owners of modular homes in land-lease communities; and

"Whereas many owners of mobile homes are threatened with eviction and loss of their investment in their mobile home by the action of their landlords,

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

"To proceed as expeditiously as possible with third reading of Bill 21."

I have most certainly signed this petition.

FIREARMS SAFETY

Mrs Joan M. Fawcett (Northumberland): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly:

"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 Hunters and Anglers' advice and grandfathered those of us who have already taken safety 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 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 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."

I have signed the petition.

1520

VIDEO GAMES

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): I am pleased to present the following petition, which has been signed by 659 people in the cities of Waterloo, Brantford, Arthur, Kitchener, Guelph, Cambridge, Heidelberg and Burford. It reads as follows.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Theatres Act was amended in 1981 with the intention of keeping certain viewing materials away from children and advances in technology have occurred to such an extent that the concern for children by this legislation is negated, as it does not cover electronically produced images that are part of video and computer games; and

"Whereas there has been a disturbing increase in the proliferation of violent and sexually explicit video games; and

"Whereas the government of Ontario should be making every effort to regulate the distribution of adult video games and ensure that games designed for adults are clearly marked as such; and

"Whereas Bill 135, the Theatres Amendment Act, 1993, a private member's bill introduced by Waterloo North MPP Elizabeth Witmer, would amend the definition of 'film' so that the electronically produced images that are part of video and computer games come within the purview of the act, particularly the classification system;

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

"That Bill 135 be passed by the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as quickly as possible."

I would be pleased as well, of course, to sign this petition.

LONG-TERM CARE

Mr Noel Duignan (Halton North): I have a petition from the Georgetown and District Seniors' Association which is also addressed to the Minister of Health.

"Whereas Halton Hills is a community of 38,000 in the northernmost part of the region of Halton and is made up of a large rural area and several small urban areas, with Georgetown and Acton being the largest, 17% of the population are age 55 or over, and the fastest growth in the population is in the 75-plus age group; and

"Whereas there is a crisis in long-term care in our community; and

"Whereas Halton Hills is an underserviced community both in community services and long-term care beds" -- if I may add, an area which was totally ignored by the previous governments;

"There are three proposals before your government at this time, all critically needed to improve services in our community for seniors and persons with disabilities. They include a support services proposal, a supportive housing proposal, a proposal to reinstate 57 nursing home beds in the mental health care centre and a proposal to establish two senior centres.

"Therefore, the community of Halton Hills urgently needs to implement these four projects. We recognize that the Minister of Health has many other urgent matters to attend to, but respectfully request that you please give it a share of your attention and give favourable consideration to these proposals."

It is a petition I gladly sign my name to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TIME ALLOCATION

Mr Charlton moved government notice of motion number 24:

That pursuant to standing order 46 and notwithstanding any other standing order of the House relating to 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, when Bill 143 is next called as a government order, the Speaker shall put every question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill without further debate or amendment;

That the standing committee on resources development shall meet to consider the bill on its regularly scheduled meeting days commencing Wednesday, April 13, 1994. All proposed amendments shall be filed with the clerk of the committee by 12 pm on the last day of clause-by-clause consideration. At 4 pm on that day, those amendments which have not yet been moved shall be deemed to have been moved and the Chair of the committee shall interrupt the proceedings and shall, without further debate or amendment, put every question necessary to dispose of all remaining sections of the bill and any amendments thereto. Any divisions required shall be deferred until all remaining questions have been put and taken in succession with one 20-minute waiting period allowed pursuant to standing order 128(a); that the committee be authorized to continue to meet beyond its normal adjournment if necessary until consideration of clause-by-clause has been completed. The committee shall report the bill to the House no later than Monday, April 25, 1994. In the event that the committee fails to report the said bill by the date provided, the bill shall be deemed to be reported to and received by the House;

That upon receiving the report of the standing committee on resources development, the Speaker shall put the question for adoption of the report forthwith, which question shall be decided without debate or amendment, and at such time the bill shall be ordered for third reading.

That one hour be allotted to the third reading stage of the bill. At the end of that time, the Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings and shall put every question necessary to dispose of this stage of the bill without further debate or amendment.

That in the case of any division relating to any proceedings on the bill, the division bell shall be limited to five minutes and no deferral of any division pursuant to standing order 28(g) shall be permitted.

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): Just before I make a few opening remarks, the House leaders have discussed this matter and we've agreed, I believe, that I will make some very brief opening remarks, that the government will reserve five minutes for the end of this debate and that the two opposition parties will split the remaining time.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Margaret H. Harrington): Agreed? Agreed.

Hon Mr Charlton: I will be very brief in my comments this afternoon.

This piece of legislation, as my motion has indicated, will amend the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton legislation and some aspects of the Education Act relating to school services in the Ottawa-Carleton area. It is the government's intention, after significant consultation with parties in the Ottawa-Carleton area, that this legislation should be in place for the municipal elections this fall.

It is always unfortunate when time allocation becomes the process by which we have to proceed to deal with legislation, but unfortunately we have a couple of members of this Legislature who have made it absolutely clear that this bill will not pass quickly and be in place for that election this fall.

Since there is a significant body of support in the Ottawa-Carleton region for seeing this legislation in place, the government wishes to proceed to complete this legislation and to allow the officials in the Ottawa-Carleton region to proceed to put in place the required changes to their enumeration process and the electoral process for this November to ensure the implementation of the wishes that are set out by the regional council of Ottawa-Carleton.

In that respect, we are therefore proceeding with this time allocation motion to move this bill into committee over the next couple of weeks to deal with the question of public input around this legislation. In that respect, the committee will have its opportunity to make its decisions about spending time in Ottawa hearing from the local groups that those members have referred to so frequently during this debate, and to receive their input before proceeding with clause-by-clause and returning to this Legislature some three weeks hence and proceeding to complete the legislation with whatever amendments might arise through that process.

In that respect, although the use of this process is unfortunate, from time to time we have to use it and we're using it in a fashion that will ensure the consultation with those groups in Ottawa-Carleton that do have an interest in making presentations around this legislation, to ensure that both the government and the opposition parties clearly hear the will of the people of Ottawa-Carleton.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Pursuant to an agreement, we will now proceed, with shared time, with the two opposition parties on the government's notice of motion number 24 by Mr Charlton.

1530

Mr Hans Daigeler (Nepean): I seem to sense from the government House leader, the member for Hamilton Mountain, a certain feeling that he is holding his nose in terms of what he is moving here and what he is forcing on the Legislature. At least I hope so, because how the government House leader can come here with a straight face and, without blushing, announce the most draconian shutting up of the opposition that I've seen in the six years that I now have been in this House, I think is really beyond belief.

As I say, I did sense in the minister's remarks a sense of his own embarrassment that he has to cover up for the incompetence and ineptitude of the current Minister of Municipal Affairs and of his colleague the member for Ottawa Centre.

However, he did have the gall, I think, to indicate that it was because of opposition members that he has to do what he is doing. I will be speaking to that at some length despite the objections of the government House leader, but let me say first, even in terms of a closure motion and even in terms of a guillotine motion, the motion that's before us is the most draconian I've ever seen.

When you take a look at your agenda, and I happen to carry these things with me because we have to go to a lot of meetings, today, we have April 7, and according to this motion, this bill that was just introduced for first reading, I would insist, in midsession, is supposed to receive a concluding debate on second reading, go out to public hearings, as is the normal procedure in this House and is the right of the public to be informed about a legislative project by the government, and then to comments on the proposal by the government. That is the way it's supposed to be. So that has to happen: consultation of the public.

Then the committee normally takes a look, as it should, rereads what it has heard from the public, gives some time to the researchers of the legislative committee to put forward summaries of what it has heard from the public, then normally the parties are given an opportunity to review and make proposals for amendments that are coming out as a result of the public hearings. All of that, as you can understand, takes some time because these are important and substantive matters and you can't just do these things overnight.

Finally, what normally happens is it then comes back to the House as a report from the committee and there is further discussion and debate in this Legislature in what's called committee of the whole. Then members of the government and members of the opposition can make amendments, and they can speak to why they're proposing these amendments, and they can review again and put on the record their views. The government can do the same, say why it feels it has to proceed in the way it should, and that's the way we have had the process working in this province for a long time.

All of this work that I've described is supposed to be completed -- today is April 7 -- within two weeks, on April 25. I really think we have to hear again what this motion really reads. Anybody who's a friend of democracy will be in utter shock and disbelief that such a motion would be coming forward from the government, and from an NDP government on top of that.

At every step of the way, this motion excludes, limits, cuts off debate.

It says:

"That the standing committee on resources development shall meet to consider the bill on its regularly scheduled meeting days commencing Wednesday, April 13, 1994. All proposed amendments shall be filed with the clerk of the committee by 12 pm on the last day of clause-by-clause consideration. At 4 pm on that day, those amendments which have not yet been moved shall be deemed to have been moved and the Chair of the committee shall interrupt the proceedings and shall, without further debate or amendment, put every question necessary to dispose of all remaining sections of the bill and any amendments thereto."

Further on it says:

"The committee shall report the bill to the House no later than Monday, April 25," and that's in two weeks. "In the event that the committee fails to report the said bill by the date provided, the bill shall be deemed to be reported to and received by the House." Emasculation of the committee structure of the House.

"That upon receiving the report of the standing committee on resources development, the Speaker shall put the question for adoption of the report forthwith" -- again no debate -- "which question shall be decided without debate or amendment, and at such time the bill shall be ordered for third reading."

And finally is the most galling, I think, provision in this particular motion, one that I haven't heard of before and is certainly the lowest that I've seen in quite some time in terms of House procedure:

"That one hour be allotted to the third reading stage of the bill." One hour on a bill that isn't just of importance and significance to the people for Ottawa-Carleton, but that has great implications for all municipal governments in the province because it is taking away some very basic and fundamental rights and responsibilities of lower-tier municipalities. That's what this government is doing and that's why it is very important that we draw the attention of the public to what is happening. And that's why I'm fundamentally and forcefully opposed to this particular motion and I encourage members of the House to vote against it.

Now, I know that the government has a majority. However, I'm no longer so sure as to whether all the members of the government and all the members of the NDP caucus are going to support the minister, because we have certainly seen at committee level and at other opportunities that there are at least some members of the NDP caucus who have a sense of understanding of local government and what it means to the people, and they understand that at least the public should have an opportunity to express itself, first of all, through its elected members in the House and, secondly, an opportunity to address, as is the custom, as is normal -- there's nothing unusual about it; as is the custom and as is normal -- a legislative committee and to appear before the committee and to speak its mind.

There is some opportunity for public hearings still in Ottawa-Carleton, and certainly on this side of the House we have been pushing as much as we could to make sure that at least there would be a minimal -- and I say it's going to be a minimal opportunity for the public in Ottawa-Carleton to express its views on the bill because the Minister of Municipal Affairs, in some of the interjections that he made earlier on in the debate, said, "Well, the public has had lots of opportunity to express its views." Well, they've had opportunities, but never, never on this bill that's before this House, never even on the bill that was on the order paper before. When was there an opportunity for the public to properly address the Legislature through a committee of the Legislature on Bill 77? It wasn't there, and the key provisions of Bill 77 were not proposed by the studies that preceded the minister's project. So the public of Ottawa-Carleton, according to the normal process of this House, has not had a proper opportunity to express itself. It is shameful that with this guillotine motion, the NDP would further limit and shut up the public of my area, and in so doing, prevent the public of the whole province from being heard.

1540

The member for Durham East earlier on this afternoon said to me that he had never seen me so worked up as I was speaking yesterday on this particular bill, and he's absolutely right. I feel very, very strongly and very forcefully about this matter, because it could have been done in a very different fashion.

What is absolutely incredible is the amount of sheer ignorance that is coming across from the government side, that is coming from the Minister of Municipal Affairs and from the member for Ottawa Centre. I can only conclude, certainly from the member for Ottawa Centre, because she is from the area -- the Minister of Municipal Affairs is from Toronto and perhaps he doesn't know, even though he should, that there are different municipalities in Ottawa-Carleton and they feel different from each other, as is quite understandable and reasonable, and that normally they sit down and work things out together, but the member for Ottawa Centre ought to know better.

When she goes around, as she did yesterday, saying, "Oh, the people of Ottawa-Carleton are in favour," as did the minister -- the minister said, "The people of Ottawa-Carleton are in favour," and he quoted as evidence the Ottawa-Carleton Board of Trade, for example -- it's just an utter and unbelievable ignorance of what the real feeling is of the people of Ottawa-Carleton.

I say, and I said that during the debate so far, that there are others even in my municipality -- mind you, few, but there are others -- who feel differently than I do, who feel differently than the council of my municipality, who feel differently than the police services board in my municipality. However, to say as the Minister of Municipal Affairs did and as the member for Ottawa Centre did, who should know better, that the majority of the people of Ottawa-Carleton support and can't wait for this project to pass, is simply showing an abysmal lack of straightforward knowledge of even the correspondence they have received.

I have personally seen copies of the letters that have been sent to the minister from my own riding, and it was a stack like that. And the minister says, "Oh, well, there hasn't been much opposition." I can only conclude that the minister has not read his correspondence. That's why we must have and we should have, and unfortunately we won't have, because this government's going to have its way, more opportunity for the public to be heard, because the minister obviously doesn't know what's going on and the member for Ottawa Centre doesn't want to know what's going on. I'm sure she knows. She knows the objection that is out there in Nepean certainly, in my municipality and in other parts of the province.

I tried, for example, to get information from the minister's office as to who has written to him. I phoned. Several times my staff phoned: "How many people have written to the minister? How many people are in favour? How many people are against?" If he could say to me, "Okay, the vast majority of those who have written to me, here's the number, are in favour of my project," fine, but I haven't received an answer. If the minister wants to see and have the record of the calls that were made by my staff to his staff, I will gladly provide him that.

Hon Ed Philip (Minister of Municipal Affairs): You asked for names. Be truthful. You asked for names.

Mr Daigeler: I asked for the number of people --

Hon Mr Philip: You did not. You asked for names.

Mr Daigeler: We certainly did. Your staff said they were going to get back to us, and they never did. They didn't say, "We can't give you any names," or "It's confidential." They simply said, "We'll get back to you," and they never did, despite repeated phone calls, again and again, to the minister's office.

But I know myself that the minister has received, I'm sure, hundreds and hundreds of letters, certainly from my municipality and I would expect from other parts of the Ottawa-Carleton region as well, and I'm sure most of them, or very many of them, were strongly opposed to this provision.

I grant him that he received the support of the mayor from Ottawa; no doubt about it. Clearly, the mayor of Ottawa and the member from Ottawa Centre have been forcefully behind this initiative, and I think that's where it's coming from. I'm under no illusions whatsoever that it is the mayor of Ottawa who got together, surprisingly enough, with the NDP member from Ottawa Centre and said, "Really ideally, we want one-tier government, but we can't have that so we'll take the next best thing."

Hon Mr Philip: You figure the member for Ottawa Centre was at that meeting as well?

Mr Daigeler: It's difficult to understand and to listen to the interjections of the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please. The member for Nepean has the floor very legitimately.

Mr Daigeler: The minister is making interjections. That's precisely why I would like to have more opportunity for him to speak in this House and to express himself and to make his arguments. What he's doing with this motion -- and that's what we're debating right now -- is he's trying to shut us up and he's even trying to shut himself up. Now he has to come in and interject and try to put forward his views in that way.

I say to the minister, if you want to be on the record, give us the time, address the public either in this House or, better still, come with us to Ottawa-Carleton and speak to the people there, speak to the public there properly in the way it should be done.

As I said, there are going to be two weeks with this motion that we're discussing, with this guillotine motion -- because no other name could properly describe this motion that's before us. With this motion, we have two weeks to do all the work that I described earlier.

Obviously, even if we have hearings in Ottawa-Carleton, there will be very little opportunity for the public to be heard, so I think it's going to be proper and right that I put on the record still at least a few of the comments that I have received from the public, to make sure that at least these people have an opportunity to have been listened to and to be on the record of the Legislature in this province.

But before I do so, I want to say, and forcefully say again, that I really am offended by the comments that have been coming from across this floor by people who said that I or the people of Nepean ought to be more open to the region of Ottawa-Carleton, ought to be less parochial and we should cooperate with others. I really take offence at that accusation because it's a pernicious one. Really, that's the approach of blaming the victim for --

Hon Mr Philip: Who said that?

Mr Daigeler: "Who said that?" the Minister of Municipal Affairs asks. His own parliamentary assistant said that. He said it yesterday in this House and he said it before during the debate.

Hon Mr Philip: Not in those words.

Mr Daigeler: He certainly did so.

1550

The Acting Speaker: Order, please. Address the Chair.

Mr Daigeler: Mr Speaker, yes, I should address the Chair, but since the Minister of Municipal Affairs keeps interjecting, and keeps falsely interjecting things, I have to respond to some of the points that are coming from across the floor.

What I'm saying is that we in Nepean had made, we are prepared to make and we will continue to make our contribution to regional government and to the overriding good of the people of Ottawa-Carleton. Okay? I want to have this very, very clear on the record that we have shown that we are prepared to work with others and that we are prepared to take the wider perspective and the wider interest into consideration. I think that's very, very clear.

I'm offended. I take strong objection to any kind of accusation that my municipal council or that I myself or the people in Nepean or the Nepean Chamber of Commerce or the Nepean Police Services Board, all the leading people in Nepean, are parochial, that they are looking only after their own interests. We have, as I said yesterday, for many years directly elected our regional councillors because, yes, we want some clear responsibility and accountability for the affairs of the region.

As I say, the regional councillors in Nepean have been elected city-wide, they've had to run as regional councillors for a long time, and we've had that responsibility and that accountability for many years. I think that through their work we have clearly shown that we have the interests of the region at heart, but we want to do that through cooperation and not coercion.

Yes, we would have been prepared to sit down and make some arrangements. Frankly, I don't think that there is that much of a mood out there -- the minister falsely said, in my opinion, that a lot of people are really, really keen to restructure and reorient the system in Ottawa-Carleton. Only if it clearly shows that there's going to be savings. I think that's something that hopefully is going to be listened to by the minister if there are hearings, even if they're short hearings, in Ottawa-Carleton, that he will hear that the people of Ottawa-Carleton want reforms but they want reforms that are cost-efficient, reforms only if they're going to save them some money and don't just change things for the sake of changing.

That's where, certainly in my city, the people are not convinced at all, that there are going to be significant savings through the minister's initiatives, but there might have been some and the people would have been prepared to listen to facts and figures and studies that the minister put forward in terms of why, for example, a regional police service would save really substantive moneys to the city of Nepean. But we have seen, in terms of the studies that have been done, that in fact the opposite is the case, that there's a very real possibility that we are going to pay more and that we're going to have less service; that's on the police side. We're going to probably pay for some of the liabilities that the Ottawa police service has, and on top of it, people are really afraid of losing some of the community policing that they presently proudly have in Nepean.

This afternoon we were talking about the significance and the importance of community policing and people being there and being seen in the community. Our police service has placed a great focus on that type of policing in Nepean. We are very proud that it's been working and we are seriously afraid of losing that closeness and that approach by a total amalgamation of all the police services in Ottawa-Carleton.

On the political side, some of the proponents of the minister's proposal have said, "We need to have fewer politicians in order to save money." Again, what we're seeing in Nepean is that we're going to have more rather than less politicians. So where is the saving?

Right now in my city there are 110,000 people and we have a council of seven people. I don't think that's too many. Compare that number with any municipality in the province and I don't think you're going to find many that, for a city that size, 110,000 thousand people, have only seven politicians. I don't think you can accuse us in Nepean of being overgoverned. I think it works well. Out of these seven, I would like to insist, three are also representing the interests of Nepean and the interests of the whole region at regional government.

There are three ward councillors, there are three councillors who are elected to the region and who are also representing the city-wide interests at Nepean city hall and then there's the mayor, the seventh member. I ask you, is that being overgoverned? It certainly isn't. But with the provisions that this minister is putting in place we're going to have three regional councillors, who are going to be on their own, and then on top of that we're going to have at least seven local municipal councillors, together with the mayor. So we're going to have more politicians rather than less.

Also, some of the proponents, I think in particular from Ottawa, have been saying there's going to be a saving in terms of the salaries that are being paid to the politicians. I think we're going to be surprised when and if we do go to Ottawa-Carleton. I certainly hope that the committee will decide to go to Ottawa-Carleton. Certainly my caucus will be taking that strong position and I'm sure the Conservative Party will do the same, that we will have at least some minimal hearings in Ottawa-Carleton.

I'm sure that what we're going to hear there from the people is the view that already there's a very strong argument being made that the councillors at the region should be full-time, and I hear many of the councillors of the city of Ottawa also saying that they ought to be full-time and that they all ought to be paid a full-time salary, and that on top of that they all ought to have some staff so that they could do their work.

I am very, very concerned that all that will simply add up to another very large and very expensive political structure and that the savings that the minister has been promising us and that the government has been promising us are not going to be seen anywhere. In fact, instead of savings, we're going to see substantial higher costs, and that's what the people of Nepean, and I'm sure of many of the other municipalities, are objecting to.

The member for Ottawa Centre yesterday said in this House, and I couldn't believe my ears when I heard it, that we in Nepean, the opposition members and those people who are against it, are afraid of change, that we only want to do things the old way. My answer to that -- I'm sure that if she's going to be there and is going to listen to the people, not just of her own riding but from other parts of the region as well, she's going to hear this -- is that what we want is clear evidence of savings and that these reforms are going to improve the situation rather than make it worse.

There's the very, very I think substantiated view in Nepean that with the removal of the mayor from council, with the total dissociation of regional councillors from the local council, it's going to cost us more, that the real control over the financial affairs of the region is going to rest simply with the chairman of the region. That's what the people in my municipality are afraid of, and it's not because of a fear of change. They have not seen and they are not reassured in any way, shape or form that the project is really going to save them money.

As I said, because there will be so few opportunities to address a legislative committee, even if it goes to Ottawa-Carleton, I think I should at least put on the record the comments of a few of the people who have shared their remarks with me.

1600

By the way, I also have a letter from the city of Toronto. Yesterday in the debate, the minister said I was mistaken in saying that the Association of Municipalities of Ontario was against this project. Here I have a letter from the city of Toronto, signed by the city clerk. It says:

"City council, at its meeting held on December 13 and 14...gave consideration to clause 38, contained in Report No 1 of the executive committee, entitled Bill 77, An Act to amend certain Acts related to The Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton: Possible Implications on City of Toronto....

"Council amended and adopted the clause, and in so doing took the following action:

"1. Requested the Minister of Municipal Affairs to withdraw Bill 77....

"2. Forwarded this report to the six Metro-area councils for their information and endorsement.

"3. Forwarded a copy of this report to the Committee of Metro Local Area Councils...for any joint action they may wish to pursue regarding Bill 77.

"4. Forwarded a copy of this report to the GTA mayors' committee for its information."

That's just one, and I would say a rather significant, member of the municipalities across the province. I've received many other similar copies of motions that were passed by municipal councils.

However, I do have to put on the record the views of some of the people in my own riding and in my own city of Nepean. For example, the chairman of the Nepean Seniors Advisory Council, Ruby Elver, wrote to the minister, objecting very strongly to the provisions of Bill 77. I say this during this debate on the closure and the guillotine motion because, unfortunately, people such as Ruby Elver will have to compete with many, many others from across the region -- and there are 600,000 people in the region of Ottawa-Carleton -- to be heard within perhaps two, three days of hearings, maximum. So at least I want to give her an opportunity to be heard in this way, since the government is trying to shut us up with this motion that's before us.

Here's what the chairman of the Nepean Seniors Advisory Council says:

"The Nepean Seniors Advisory Committee is seriously concerned about the impact of Bill 77 on various aspects of Nepean's ability to address the needs within its own boundaries. Especially, we oppose:

"(a) Removal of local mayors from regional council -- a first in local government across Canada;

"(b) Suspension of right to determine ward composition -- a right held by every other municipality in Ontario;

"(c) New regional ward boundaries which cross municipal boundaries and ignore true representation by population. The possibility exists for an inequitable balance of power in favour of one municipality;

"(d) Changes which financially burden Nepean, which has had a pay as you go policy."

I have another letter here, from Charles and Eleanor Jones, 58 Tybalt Crescent in Nepean. Here's what they said, and this is a letter to the Minister of Municipal Affairs, Ed Philip:

"Your letter in the local papers on February 7, 1994, regarding your persistence to proceed with Bill 77 has caused us great distress. The citizens of Nepean have not endorsed this bill; in fact, the majority of Nepeanites are strongly opposed to this bill. The three studies on regional government have not been supported by the city of Nepean or its citizens.

"We cannot stand by and see the Nepean taxes increase. Nepean does not have the debt load of the other municipalities. The citizens of Nepean have paid their share of taxes to reach the state of no debt and vehemently oppose any bill that will require us to assume the debt burden of other municipalities.

"The cost of $10 million to establish a regional police force in these times of restraint is ludicrous. The Nepean city police force is a first-rate unit and should not be tampered with," and this letter goes on and on. I can't read all of it but here it concludes:

"It is inconceivable for a government so deeply in debt that they have to lay off workers and close health facilities to even consider spending the millions of dollars that this bill will cost to implement."

These are people who most likely will not be getting an opportunity to address the Legislature and to address their representatives because of this draconian closure and guillotine motion that is before us today.

I have another rather interesting letter before me. It's from Donald Wigfield and he also lives in Nepean. Guess what he says? I find what he has to say rather interesting.

"I, and many others thought, that with the election of an NDP government in Ontario the views of ordinary citizens would finally be listened to." Listen to what Mr Wigfield now says. "As one who has even campaigned for your party (in your riding)" -- this letter is addressed to Ms Gigantes -- "I am bitterly disappointed in the arrogant approach so far exhibited by you and your government in the matter of Bill 77.

"I, and many others, have written to your minister Mr E. Philip, we have signed and sent petitions; our municipality has done likewise. All we hear from your minister is a loud silence and an irrelevant form letter. He has not thought it worthwhile to attend the public meetings organized in Nepean so that he could hear the views of residents. Apparently, the minister does not wish to listen. To us it appears that both you and he are in the pocket of Ottawa Mayor Holzman, and he is simply wishing to score political points rather than listen to the legitimate concerns of the ordinary people. I enclose a copy of my letter to the minister.

"Your performance" -- and Mr Wigfield is talking about the performance of Ms Gigantes, the member for Ottawa Centre and the Minister of Housing -- "in this matter is also one of cruel disappointment to me. In opposition you had appeared to me to be a politician of integrity and one who took the trouble to find out what ordinary people felt about things. The people of Nepean are proud to belong to Nepean; they feel that they have been well governed and represented; and they have very legitimate reasons for not wanting to be forced to belong to an impersonal larger unit with a record of very poor and irresponsible government."

At the end of his letter, Mr Wigfield says:

"It is sad to see what has happened to you" -- meaning Ms Gigantes -- "and to a government that was elected, at least in part, because ordinary people hoped that their voice would be listened to a little more. It is sad to see you and your government so insensitive, so unlistening, and apparently so uncaring. Wake up, Ms Gigantes; look in the mirror, and see what you have become. It is not too late to begin believing in the things you once believed in and articulated so well."

Now, that's what I call a pretty clear, direct and forthright letter from, as Mr Wigfield said, even a supporter of the current government.

1610

Again, I think it's very important that this House and the Minister of Municipal Affairs and the Minister of Housing be made aware of these views, because yesterday and in the debate before they showed an absolutely incredible, abysmal lack of information and knowledge about the real feelings of the people in the region about this project. That's why it is so unfortunate that after two days of debate so far on this project we are seeing a most draconian guillotine motion before us that cuts debate short in a way that is unheard of in this Legislature.

By the way, even people from Ottawa are not necessarily in favour and in support of what the minister is proposing, because perhaps at least they have a sense of respecting the individual history and the individual government that we have in the suburban municipalities of Ottawa-Carleton.

For example, Councillor Peter Harris for the Dalhousie ward, by way of concluding, says, "I am requesting that you not support the proposed changes to Ottawa-Carleton as this is not a good piece of legislation." That's coming from Ottawa.

"Costs: Projected costs will be $1.8 million to employ 18 full-time councillors with office budgets.

"At the city of Ottawa, councillors are full-time. Their 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.

"Minister Ed Philip could not tell me where this money is to be found. Is it not ironic, that after a tumultuous 'social contract' year in 1993, that the NDP government can justify an additional $1.8 million expenditure?"

This is what a councillor for the city of Ottawa says. Again, the member for Ottawa Centre and the Minister of Municipal Affairs have said the people in Ottawa-Carleton and in Ottawa have been clamouring for reform. Well, here's what the councillor for the Dalhousie ward says:

"My constituents are concerned about too much government, and too much confusion. I have not received one phone call on the apparent need for regional reform.

"Citizens are more concerned with the reduction of costs in government.

"Let me assure you that the proposed political changes will only create more confusion, and politicians at all levels will be spending the next few years explaining the different responsibilities of city vs regional representatives. Good luck!"

This is a councillor from the city of Ottawa.

My point is that all of these people ought to be given and should have been given a proper opportunity to be heard and to express their views to their representatives, and I would say in particular to the Minister of Municipal Affairs, because all he has done so far is come down to Ottawa-Carleton and speak to some of the politicians, and that was many months ago.

When the famous announcement was made in February that this government was going to pass this legislation and announce this in a way that totally overlooked and disregarded the work that needs to be done by this Legislature, who was there? It was the member for Ottawa Centre and, of course, in tow was the mayor of Ottawa.

I found this, frankly, very, very disturbing, that everybody else didn't know about the press conference at the time, but certainly the mayor of Ottawa was informed. We know why the mayor of Ottawa was informed; it's the project of the member for Ottawa Centre and it's the project of the city of Ottawa.

If the Minister of Municipal Affairs would at least come and speak to and listen to and talk to people in the other municipalities, I'm sure he and his parliamentary assistant wouldn't at least make some of the outrageous, ignorant statements they have made that these reforms are widely supported in the region.

Again yesterday in the debate, the Minister of Housing made some comments about a letter that she and all the members of this House received from the Citizens for Good Government. This is a letter which is quite long, and again speaks in strong opposition. I can say to the minister that several of the people who have signed this letter speak not just for themselves, but for associations; for example, Kim Millan, the president of the Barrhaven Community Association. Tom O'Neill, who also signed this letter, is the past president of the Barrhaven Community Association. There are six signatures on this letter. I do not know the exact office of the other people who have signed this letter because they are from other parts of the region. They're from the east, and some from the southern part of the region, but certainly the ones who are from my community do not speak just for themselves; they speak officially as the elected representatives of their communities. Again, I certainly hope they will be given an opportunity to speak at some length to their views.

If the minister and the Minister for Housing have questions about the representativity of these people who have written to all of us, they can ask them. They can ask them those questions at the time, and I'm sure they will be very pleased to answer those questions.

Again, the minister is saying, if I understand him right, that he will. I hope he will. I certainly hope that he will be there, because he hasn't been so far. He hasn't been once to Nepean, and it's a city of 110,000 people. I think it's time for him to come and at least face the people in a forthright manner on this project in our city.

I have another letter from a gentleman in my riding who has written numerous times to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. I don't know whether he will have an opportunity under the very tight and short schedule that this guillotine motion is putting forward to present his views, but here's what Dr A.G. Irvine of 30 Aleutian Road in Nepean said in a letter, this time to me:

1620

"I attach a copy of the reply of the Minister of Municipal Affairs to my letter of September 14, 1993, which set out my objections to the above bill," meaning Bill 77. "While this reply is dated February 16, 1994, I only recently received it.

"I strongly object to the contents of this letter, one reason being that it ignores the many defects of the Kirby study. The Kirby study acknowledged the public's rejection" -- rejection -- "of one-tier government but still recommended the transfer of as many functions as possible to the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton. As a result, this study concentrated on inputs, procedures and the transfer of functions to the RMOC," meaning the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton, "rather than considering the outputs of municipal services, access to these services, their costs, value for money and the burden of taxation in Ottawa-Carleton. These points were explained in detail in a letter of January 8, 1993, to the Minister of Municipal Affairs in which I set out my comments on the final report of the Ottawa-Carleton regional review.

"Another reason for my objecting to the contents of this letter from the minister is that it ignores the contents of my letter of September 14, 1993. In this letter, I pointed out that there was no need for a regional police force because existing police services in the region were excellent and because, in the present state of the economy, proposals involving additional costs and taxes were irresponsible. Moreover, the minister's justification for proceeding to establish a regional police service is that the costs of the free policing now provided to some Ottawa-Carleton municipalities should be transferred from provincial to regional taxpayers. This is an illogical argument: If it is inappropriate for these costs to be subsidized by provincial taxpayers, it is equally illogical for them to be subsidized by regional taxpayers in other municipalities in Ottawa-Carleton. The logical proposal, if subsidization is considered inappropriate, would be to require the municipalities in question to meet their costs of policing. Moreover, this logical proposal would eliminate the proposal for a regional police force and, of great importance, the organizational and financial problems of establishing such a force."

I think, in a very reasoned way, Dr Irvine put some of the views of the people in Ottawa on the record. Again, I do hope, because I wasn't able to read all of what he said, that he will have an opportunity to present his views to the standing committee on resources development when it comes to Ottawa-Carleton. But I doubt it, because the time that has been allocated under this guillotine motion that we have before us is extremely short and I'm sure there will be many, many people who will request to appear before the committee and that it's going to be extremely hard to accommodate all of these requests.

Because there are other members of my caucus who also wish to address this draconian motion that's before us, I will have to conclude shortly. I know the members of the third party will want to speak to this matter as well and indicate their disappointment and their utter frustration at the way this government, and in particular this current Minister of Municipal Affairs, has handled this dossier -- has mishandled this dossier. They will want to say with me that it could have been done differently, that it could have been done in a way that does not pit one municipality against the other and that does not sour the relationship between the representatives of one municipality and the other, and that it is too bad and it is most unfortunate that today we have to vote on a motion that totally eliminates any further debate, or almost any further debate, on a very substantive measure that is going to have an impact far beyond the region of Ottawa-Carleton.

I'm sure the public in Ottawa-Carleton will be pleased to hear that at least the opposition parties and members of the opposition have been fighting for the interests of the people they serve, who have elected them to at least put their views on the record, even though they know the NDP government has a majority: not for much longer, but right now still has a majority and can impose its will on everybody else.

With these words, I will pass on the word to the other opposition party.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): It seems to me that I have the opportunity on many more occasions than I ever anticipated to speak on closure motions in this House. I was just discussing as I was going down the hallway with the dean of the parliamentary press gallery, Eric Dowd, the history of this place and the fact that on many occasions there were threats of closure that would be brought in, but closure was extremely rarely applied in debates in the Ontario Legislature. It used to be considered draconian, and I think many would still consider it to be that, but unfortunately it's becoming much more commonplace.

My concern is that of the member for Nepean and others, that debate on an extremely important issue is being significantly limited. I don't think I anticipated this debate would go on for days on end; I don't think anybody would have anticipated that. But I know all of the members who reside in the Ottawa-Carleton area would want to put their views on the record, would want to share with the people in this Legislature and with the people of the province of Ontario at large those views, and they're simply not going to have that opportunity.

In addition to this, as members have indicated previously in debate, there was a hope that there would be a considerable number of days available so that people in the Ottawa-Carleton area would be able to make their presentation to a committee of the Legislature. I think this would have been beneficial for a couple of reasons. We all benefit when people with expertise and particular points of view present those views to government and to opposition. Second, it does allow them, if you will, to vent their rage when they're dissatisfied, and others to express their support when they feel that support is worthy of their expression.

I have been concerned, as I know other members have been, particularly in the opposition and I suspect some in government, about the new Bob Rae rules for the House which were brought in a couple of years ago. I remember I was getting a number of petitions on this particular issue at one time from people who understood the parliamentary process.

One of the problems we confront today is that virtually nobody in the Queen's Park media is going to be reporting the fact that there is closure being applied. The reason for that is it's an in-house story. Unless there's a major province-wide issue to go with it, the government today is allowed to bring in closure, and there are very few editorials -- there might be the odd editorial, but very few comments and next to no news stories.

I've always said that you make a judgement on a government based on what it does when nobody is looking or what it does when it can get away with doing things that it normally wouldn't do. Now we have a situation where the government is once again applying closure so that there can't be as full a debate as I think is justified with this bill.

Our view in opposition is that it could have been dealt with, in fact, last session. My colleagues have expressed that if the government had wanted to call it as an earlier piece of legislation, that would be the case.

Hon Mr Philip: You tried to filibuster every other bill in the House.

1630

Mr Bradley: Now the Minister of Municipal Affairs is becoming angry and yelling from the other side of the House. I guess it's his prerogative to do so, but I think he does not look at this objectively. We in the opposition look at it very objectively, of course. We believe this bill, while it would have taken a few days of debate, certainly would have been one that wouldn't be before the House for several weeks.

But we have a change in the rules now since Bob Rae has come in power. I remember that the Bob Rae of official opposition, the Bob Rae who sat in the federal House of Commons, was a civil libertarian, was a person who defended the rights of the opposition, and we have today --

Interjection.

Mr Bradley: The member for Middlesex doesn't like this being repeated because she used to believe this, likely, as well. Now she simply acts as government members tend to, I guess, wherever, as trained seals out there who simply applaud when fish are thrown to them. Now, I say that in as nice a way as I can, but that is what happens when the members on the other side simply sit there and defend that which is indefensible simply because they want to be good members of the government team. Well, that doesn't carry as much credibility as when the member for Welland-Thorold stands up, for instance, and indicates his opposition to closure. I would think the member for Welland-Thorold, who is in the House today, and the member for Wentworth East, who is in the House today, are both individuals who have been uncomfortable on the government benches, uncomfortable with the application of closure to put legislation through the House, not necessarily with the content of the legislation but with the application of closure.

We know that what Bob Rae has done -- the Bob Rae of the past; now what Premier Rae has done -- is he's limited the amount of time that speakers can speak in the House. So we are limited to 30 minutes when in fact it may be such a compelling issue that it requires far more than 30 minutes to canvass the issue and to explain the issue to the public at large.

The reason that the opposition prolongs debate is so that the public is aware of these issues, because very often you will hear members of the public say: "We didn't even know that was before the House. When did this go through the House? When was this issue discussed?" Only with a thorough and comprehensive debate does it catch on with the public at large, who may have some genuine concerns, and then the appropriate questions are asked. But now we are all limited, except the lead speaker, to 30 minutes in most debates in this House, and that's most unfortunate.

I realize that we now have a situation where a minister can simply determine how much time will be devoted to any piece of legislation. It's in the minister's interests, of course, to get it through as quickly as possible with as little debate as possible so that only the government line can get out there and only the government spin can be put on any particular issue. So again I think it's dangerous that we have ministers now who have the ability to determine that a debate shall be over in three or four days in this House.

In fact, and this is disconcerting to those of us who sit in this House, most people think we're working only when we're in this House or when the House is in session. I think they like to see us debating these issues thoroughly, and eventually, of course, coming to a conclusion.

The other problem with the new rules that Bob Rae imposed on this House was that you, Mr Speaker, sitting in the chair, have less discretion in applying the rules of the House than you used to have, and the Speaker, as we know, is independent. In this House the most permanent Speaker, the lead Speaker, is a New Democrat elected from Scarborough.

In the case of the present Speaker in the chair, you're a member of the Progressive Conservative Party, Mr Villeneuve, and Mr Morin is a member of the Liberal Party, and whenever you sit in the chair you're considered to be politically neutral. That is very good about our system and I have faith in that, particularly with the three personalities that I've mentioned at this time. I then find it disconcerting that the Premier, under his new rules, has in fact removed from the Speaker the power to make certain decisions as to whether sufficient debate has taken place on any one issue.

Also, the Premier has insisted that the House sit fewer days, and so the regular calendar of sitting of the session of this Legislature has been reduced. This, of course, allows less accountability because the ministers do not have to face the opposition and their own members in question period, and do not face the reporters outside of the chamber, where they have to answer further questions, and of course do not find themselves on province-wide television where people can have access to what happens in this House through cable television and therefore can make other judgements.

Also, I would say that the people who are in this House play a much lesser role because with these changes it passes more power into the hands of non-elected people; that is, those the member for Welland-Thorold once referred to as "pinheads from Toronto" or something like that; I can't recall the exact quote. I was watching a cable television program locally when he made this suggestion. I think there is some validity to it. I don't know if I would agree with the terminology "pinheads" or people exclusively in Toronto; I might or might not, depending on who they might be.

I think the point he made is a point we all agree with: that elected members should have supremacy over those who are not elected. The reason is simple. Any one of us from my city, for instance, from St Catharines -- we have three members in the House today who represent parts of St Catharines. The member for Lincoln, the member for St Catharines-Brock and I all have to serve our constituents. They can get at us. They can telephone our constituency office. They have the threat or the persuasive tactic, if you will, of saying, "We will not re-elect you unless you reflect our views." So I think it's important that elected members are supreme.

What happens is that the cabinet with their civil servants and with their political experts, the Premier and the Premier's office, increase in power and the elected members diminish in their importance.

It's a little easier in opposition to be able to make your points in this House. For instance, today the way the time is allocated, virtually all of the time rests with the opposition and government members outside of the cabinet do not have the opportunity to speak. I feel that we underutilize government members who are not members of the cabinet and that they are the ones who are the greatest losers when we impose the kind of rules that Premier Rae has decided to impose on the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and has done so in June of 1992.

I would hope there would be a change in those rules. I would hope we would not see the application of closure. Well, there's not a riot in the Legislature this afternoon. There's a recognition, as I say, that this is an in-House matter, that no editor is going to carry any story that anybody in the press gallery is going to send to that editor that has something to do with closure over the Ottawa bill, except of course it may be the Ottawa Citizen or one of the radio or television stations servicing Ottawa. In that case, there may be a small story about the use of closure.

That's why, in the government caucus, I think it's important for government members to persuade the Premier and their cabinet colleagues that in fact it is an inappropriate regime of rules that have been imposed by Premier Rae and that this particular closure motion was not necessary.

I just don't think that this debate -- I'm not involved in a very detailed way in this issue because it's essentially an issue that affects the people in Ottawa-Carleton and I was quite surprised, frankly, to see that closure was imposed because I didn't think this bill was going to be before the House very long. I knew that the local members wanted to ensure there was time for the people outside of this Legislature to have some input in Ottawa-Carleton; I knew that and I thought the government would be prepared to accommodate that, but I didn't think it was going to be necessary to spend time on a closure motion. In fact, this afternoon probably we could have spent the time discussing the actual details of the bill and its ramifications and could have spent some time, more time than the government has decided to allocate, for the purpose of having committees.

1640

The member for Hamilton East, again, who used to defend the rights of the opposition vigorously and sincerely, today sits there smugly -- I will use that term -- saying, "Who are you kidding?"

I think if you look at it carefully, since it is a matter that relates quite specifically to one sector of the province, one regional municipality, you could anticipate that the debate wouldn't have gone on for ever. There are times when the government may feel it has to move forward, and I understand that; I don't like it but I understand it. But I think the government has miscalculated today. I think they've needlessly imposed closure and of course the opposition and others will list the number of times that they've applied closure. They've done so relatively early in the session and relatively early in the debate.

I hope this experience will cause the government to think twice about applying closure again. I'm not optimistic that will be the case, because we're seeing a pattern developing of the imposition of closure.

I think for the sake of the people of the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton who want to make representations to a government committee, for the sake of government members who are not in the cabinet who wish to have their role enhanced rather than diminished, and for the sake of the people in the opposition who have a role to constructively criticize and provide alternatives, that this should have been avoided and could have been avoided.

The Acting Speaker: This completes the time for the official opposition. Further debate? The members of the Progressive Conservative Party.

Mr David Johnson (Don Mills): I really didn't think that I would be debating this issue again today because I'd had some opportunity to offer my views and my concerns with regard to this bill. I was hoping that with the spirit of cooperation that had been demonstrated, particularly by our party in terms of passing on our rotation and not having a great number of speakers, that message maybe conveyed to the government that we really wanted to have this go to committee without closure and at that point to have a good, healthy discussion about the specific aspects of the bill, perhaps to entertain a number of amendments and hopefully then to achieve some consensus along with the people of Ottawa and the political representatives in Ottawa.

I have to echo some of the thoughts of the previous speakers. I think it's very unfortunate that we did have to use this very difficult measure in terms of restricting time and I really think it could have been accommodated without --

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): They're in a rush to call an election.

Mr David Johnson: They're in a rush to call the election? Is that what it is? It's a funny way to go about it, I must say, but perhaps the member is correct in his statement.

Since this matter is before us again today and since the time is going to be very limited because of the closure motion that the government has brought in, I thought I might just comment on a couple of aspects that we would have discussed had we not had the closure motion, perhaps, and in a little more detail.

During some of the comments after I spoke, I got the impression that people speaking to the issue of the mayors being on the regional council felt that there was some question of the mayors' motivation for being on the regional council, that perhaps it was to serve their own purposes or it was for their own power base, and this was the only reason that the mayors were squawking that they wanted to be on the regional council.

I can tell you from my personal experience -- I'm not so sure that this has come out -- that the need to have a good working relationship between a local council and a regional council extends in a number of different jurisdictions.

Planning, for example, is one area. There are planning issues, the way our municipalities are set up today, that are broader planning aspects of the community: where the major roads should be, the major nodes, the major centres, commercial office space centres, that type of thing perhaps, and how transportation integrates with major planning areas. There are some regional aspects to planning and there are some local aspects to planning, many more. Of course, I think many of us here would feel that the local municipality should bear the brunt of the responsibility when it comes to planning. But nevertheless, most people can see that there are both regional and local aspects to planning. Consequently, there needs to be coordination.

My experience has been that with the mayors serving, for example, on the regional council here in Metropolitan Toronto, the mayors have brought that local aspect to the regional council and I think in many cases have brought the regional context back to the local councils. There is no other conveyor of that sort of information and that sort of feeling. Without the mayors being there, the process relies on bureaucrats interacting largely at both levels of government. In my view, it's doomed to hard times.

Transportation is another issue, and I mentioned that perhaps as part of planning. In most major urban centres there are regional roads; of course there's public transit; there's also a very local aspect, the local road system, the local traffic controls, that sort of thing. There needs to be quite a spirit of cooperation between local councils; in the case of Metro, for example, North York, East York with the Metropolitan Toronto council.

In the case of Ottawa-Carleton, local councils such as Kanata, Nepean and Cumberland need to have a close working relationship so that the transportation grid, the road structure, any rail structure, bus services, for example, make sense both at a local level and at a regional level. Again the mayors are the people who bring the local context to the regional council and the regional context back to the local council. Without them, it's been my experience that this will become difficult.

Labour negotiations: You may not think of that, and perhaps the government doesn't want to think of that; I'm not too sure. A problem, from time to time, in one area, one region, can crop up if one municipality offers a settlement that is considerably out of whack with what other municipalities can afford. I know in Metropolitan Toronto the status of the labour negotiations at the local level, let's say in Scarborough or Etobicoke, is conveyed to the people at Metropolitan Toronto and the mayors convey the status of the labour negotiations back to their local municipalities so that everybody is aware of what's going on.

If there is a settlement that is going to cause considerable consternation, that may set a precedent in one municipality, say in the local municipalities vis-à-vis the regional municipality, then that kind of information is conveyed back and forth and that is information that is really required. The mayors are the conveyors of that kind of information, so they serve a real purpose as a liaison back and forth.

Waste management is another area. There needs to be a great coordination through, for example, the blue box recycling program which in some municipalities is funded by the regional government, operated by the local government; hazardous waste collection is quite often handled by regional government but in some cases by the local government.

There are many, many different issues that involve coordination between the two municipalities. I wish the government members would reflect on that, because in a region such as Ottawa-Carleton, those kinds of services will have to be well coordinated between the local and regional level. If the local and regional levels are not working together, then who will suffer? The taxpayers will suffer; the people will suffer because those services won't be delivered as efficiently and as effectively as they should be. I think the mayors serve an excellent role in ensuring that coordination. I just wanted to comment on that.

I also wanted to comment that I didn't get too deeply into economic development. This is certainly an issue that has been raised by the municipalities. Kanata, for example, has indicated that the minister should give permissive legislation in the amendment of the Ottawa-Carleton act to allow both local and regional governments to manage economic development through the purchase of industrial and commercial parks.

1650

Now, what we're talking about is the right of local municipalities to have some ability to encourage business growth within their borders. This is becoming a real problem for quite a number of municipalities. I'm sure we're all aware of this. Businesses are going bankrupt; assessment bases are going down in many municipalities. It puts tremendous pressure on the tax rates, and many municipalities, including the municipality that I came from a year ago, are putting a great deal of importance on the aspect of economic development to encourage business.

With the Ottawa-Carleton region, the local municipalities currently have some authority to manage economic development, to purchase property and to encourage growth. This bill, Bill 143, would transfer this authority to the regional government. I don't dispute that the regional municipality needs some authority. I don't think anybody disputes that. Certainly the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton needs authority in the area of economic development. But the local municipalities, such as Kanata, such as Nepean, have had authority and power in this area in the past. They have used it wisely. They have attempted to encourage growth, jobs, assessment within their municipalities, and this power is apparently being taken away from them.

Nepean, I might say, agrees: "There should be permissive legislation to allow municipalities to acquire lands for economic development." The township of Rideau: "There should be more local input in the area of economic development." They say, "Once again it seems that local municipalities are losing key powers." I would have to agree with them, and I think in this case it's unfortunate.

The township of Cumberland: "Bill 77" -- it's now Bill 143, of course -- "Removal of the lower tier from management of economic development is not supported by the council of Cumberland. A joint participation by Cumberland and the new regional council would be an acceptable compromise." You see, here is a municipality that's coming forward with a suggestion, that's saying yes, the region, Ottawa-Carleton, needs some economic development authority, but there should be a joint participation and the local municipality should also retain its right and some power on economic development. I think that's very wise of them.

We didn't have much opportunity here; we're going to have very limited opportunity over the next three weeks, I guess it is, two or three weeks before this has to come back, to discuss economic development, but I would hope that the government would listen to that kind of concern from the municipalities.

Another area of concern that I hope they're listening to, and this is one that's perhaps been mentioned more often, concerns the coordination of police services. As we know, there are different approaches within the region for supplying police protection within the various municipalities.

Cumberland, for example, has support from the Ontario Provincial Police. Up until very recently they haven't paid for it. I think they're in the process right now perhaps of investigating -- there will be a payment there.

Goulbourn receives Ontario Provincial Police assistance without any cost, as does Osgoode, as does Rideau, as does West Carleton. Kanata pays the OPP. Some of the others, such as Ottawa and Nepean, have their own police forces, and I believe Gloucester also has its own police force.

There are different methods of dealing with policing in different communities, and I believe the message that's coming across, and the message I wish we had more opportunity to explore, had we not had closure, would be that these communities are different. Ottawa is different from Kanata is different from Nepean is different from Cumberland is different from Rockcliffe Park etc etc and they have different requirements for policing.

Now, I'm not against coordination of police activities; I think it makes sense. I can tell you that here in Metropolitan Toronto it certainly makes sense. It would not make sense, in my view, for North York to have a police department and the city of Toronto to have a police department and Scarborough to have another police department and East York etc. That sort of situation occurred prior to 1954, I guess it was, when the police services were amalgamated here in Metropolitan Toronto.

But there certainly is a necessity for a coordinating police service within a region that is homogeneous, which has some uniformity to it, and certainly Metropolitan Toronto does. Metropolitan Toronto is largely an urban centre, although the member for Etobicoke West is not too certain, I think. But by comparison to Ottawa-Carleton, we're talking about a largely urban, built-up centre with a narrow range of needs. To a large extent, the needs in Scarborough are similar to the needs in policing -- policingwise I'm talking about -- in the city of Toronto or East York.

But in the case of Ottawa-Carleton, we're looking at very dissimilar communities, I think, and communities that have different needs from a policing point of view, and that's borne out by the situations that they have in place today. From what I understand, and I hope we have a chance to explore this further, many of these municipalities are satisfied. They're satisfied with the policing they're getting -- Nepean, for example -- satisfied with the level of service they're getting. They're satisfied with the cost associated: the cost, I might say, which, according to -- I think it's the Marin report, René Marin's report of just about a year ago. The cost in Nepean per capita is about $40 less than it is in the city of Ottawa: $127 per capita in Nepean versus $168 in the city of Ottawa. So they have tailored their police service to their community.

Concerns have come out of this, and the concern is that the government may institute a police service that is uniform right across this region, and the cost of that will be a problem for many of the smaller municipalities. They may not need the level of service that Ottawa gets, and if they're required to pay the cost of that sort of level of service, then this will be a problem for these municipalities. I hope the government is listening to this. With the time allocation, I'm not sure we're going to have the opportunity to explore this.

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): We're listening.

Mr David Johnson: You're listening. The member says they're listening. Great. Okay. We'll hold you to that, then, when it comes back in two weeks. If you were really listening, though --

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound): You wouldn't be doing this.

Mr David Johnson: -- you wouldn't be doing this, because we were showing cooperation and we were making good progress. We missed our rotation, and we were very much hoping that this would go to Ottawa and we'd listen to the people, that we'd be able to discuss this without having a time commitment, the time axe hanging over our necks, which is going to come down, when is it, April 25?

Mr O'Connor: Sometimes leadership doesn't mean we always agree.

Mr David Johnson: "Leadership is a tough thing," the member says. You can call it leadership or you can call it dictatorship. Democracy is a tough thing. It requires a little bit of time to talk to people. It's hard to ram in overnight.

Mr Murdoch: It's hard to have democracy with socialism.

Mr David Johnson: Getting back to the police, another concern with regard to the police is that some municipalities have any facilities paid for --

Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): Maybe I'll give you one of those simple English history books.

Mr David Johnson: The member opposite is giving us a history lesson.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Margaret H. Harrington): Please continue.

1700

Mr David Johnson: Where was that member from? Downsview. The member for Downsview won't get the opportunity to speak today, I guess, but during the hearings, hopefully, we'll have a history lesson on the Ottawa region from the member for Downsview.

Getting back to my point before I was interrupted, some municipalities have paid for their police facilities; as I understand it, there's zero debt associated with their facilities. Other municipalities have a debt associated with their facilities. The question is, how is this going to work out? Are the municipalities that have paid the freight up to now, paid their bills, covered all their costs, going to have to pick up the cost, the debt, from the other municipalities?

I think the government at one point gave some recognition to this, that there should be some assistance in terms of a phase-in to some of the municipalities for the cost of policing, but I don't know where it stands on that. I hope they will recognize that there are real concerns with regard to policing, with regard to costing, with regard to the requirement to have a uniform level, different needs in different municipalities, and there are different municipalities in the Ottawa-Carleton region.

Another concern that we really should explore in some detail if we had the time -- let's see if I can find it here now. I didn't expect to speak on this this afternoon.

Mr Perruzza: Take your time, David.

Mr David Johnson: Take my time. The member for Downsview now says take my time. He gave me a history lesson before, but now I can take my time. Thank you.

It's with regard to infrastructure, and the member for Downsview would be interested in infrastructure, I'm sure, coming from Metropolitan Toronto.

Mr Perruzza: What does that mean?

Mr David Johnson: It means sewers and watermains and roads and things like that. At least that's what most people -- I don't know what this government calls infrastructure. There's some doubt about that sometimes, but it probably means supporting the operating cost of the budget.

Mr Perruzza: It's better to be clear about what we're talking about.

Mr David Johnson: In the case of Kanata, for example, Kanata has said that the minister should include permissive legislation in the amendments -- sorry. Kanata is concerned about the vagueness of the bill's sewer provisions. The city recommends that any infrastructure costs and deficiencies in specific municipalities not be paid by the general taxpayer, and that the problem should be addressed by a special local levy.

What we're talking about here is that some municipalities in the Ottawa-Carleton region have conveyed the message that they have paid for the sewer systems, paid for the roads, paid for the watermains. They've put these into place and they're all paid for.

Other municipalities, perhaps through circumstances, through history, are not in such a fortunate position. I think the city of Ottawa is a case in point. I know that when we went to Ottawa recently -- I'm not sure if the member for Downsview went to Ottawa -- to discuss Bill 120, the mayor from Ottawa appeared in opposition, I might say, to Bill 120 before us and indicated that one of her concerns was that there are areas within Ottawa that do not have adequate sewer capacity and this causes backups in some of the basements.

The government's response was, well, they can just spend money and fix it so they can put in basement apartments. Bill 120 authorizes basement apartments, so that's no problem: Just spend whatever it takes to fix it up. It's easy to sit here and say that, but if you're at the local level and you have to come through with a budget that balances, and Ottawa has to balance its budget every year, and does so, and I'm sure they do it in an excellent fashion --

Interjection.

Mr David Johnson: Yes, to the member for Downsview, it costs money, and they don't have that money and they can't just fix all these problems overnight, and they're expensive. That's one of the reasons that Ottawa has concerns with regard to Bill 120. But it also points out the fact that there is undoubtedly a substantial investment that has to be made in the city of Ottawa with regard to sewers, and some municipalities, smaller municipalities, are wondering if through this bill, Bill 143, they will be required to foot that bill, or will that bill go back simply to the city of Ottawa?

The township of Cumberland says: "The sanitary and storm sewer issue has been described by the township as ambiguous. It is assumed that local sanitary sewer distribution system would remain a municipal responsibility, but new guidelines would be issued by the regional authority on design and integration." So there's another concern. It's ambiguous, the township of Cumberland says, as to how much power in this act, Bill 143, is being transferred to the regional government, Ottawa-Carleton region, with regard to the design of the whole sewer system, not just what we might think of as major trunks, major collectors, but the local system.

Mr Perruzza: Resist change.

Mr David Johnson: The member for Downsview is suggesting that we should resist the change, I'm sure, in taking authority away from local municipalities to design to their own infrastructure: their own roads, their own sewers. If the change is that all of this authority go to the regional level and we do away with local councils -- I guess that's the change the member for Downsview is speculating on -- then I'm frankly surprised because I thought the NDP and this government supported local government. But if that's what the member's saying, if that's what he wants, he wants to do away with local government, then you're headed in the right direction. Keep it up.

The township of Osgoode has comments with regard to infrastructure. The city of Gloucester: reads well/lb"Although Gloucester recognizes that sewers will have to come under regional control, in the long term the city's real problems are concerns about Ottawa's large infrastructure debt and the possibility that local ratepayers will have to pay higher taxes to the region to pay down the debt."

I guess those are all the issues that I'll have time to comment on today. I just might say, for another minute, reverting back to the issue about the mayors being on the regional council, that there have been suggestions that have come forward and many people have come forward with suggestions as to how the mayors could retain some membership, I guess, on the regional council. Even the minister, to his credit, in November of last year did suggest, and I have an amendment that the minister apparently at that time was proposing to the bill, that 10 of the 11 mayors, with the exception of Rockcliffe, still be on the regional council and that they have half a vote instead of a full vote. I would suggest to go the whole vote, but at least at that point the minister recognized the value of having the mayors on the regional council and suggested that even if it's only a half a vote, at least they be there. So I would hope, during the very limited time that we've got, that the minister would carry forth with that suggestion that he put as a starting point back in November, I believe it was, of last year and build on that and come to something that will accommodate the mayors, because they serve a very practical role.

The mayors themselves have come forward with suggestions. A weighted system is in use in some places in Canada; I believe in Simcoe --

Mr Murdoch: Grey county.

Mr David Johnson: -- Grey county. One of the suggestions would be that the chairman would have 29 votes, the 18 directly elected members -- by the way, I'm not against directly elected members; we have that here in Toronto and I'm not against that concept -- would have 72 votes and the mayors would have 47 votes and it would be weighted.

Mr Perruzza: So what are you for, David?

Mr David Johnson: I am for the mayors being on the regional council. I have said that a number of times.

Mr Murdoch: You're against that, Tony. Get it right. You are against the mayors.

Mr Perruzza: I am not against the mayors.

Mr Murdoch: Sure you are.

Mr David Johnson: The member for Downsview can't get that concept straight, but there are different alternatives for having the mayors on the regional council so that their input will be there and their liaison capabilities will be there. I hope, during the limited time allowed by this closure, that some of these will be able to be explored and we'll be able to strike a situation that is agreeable and that will work.

The most important thing is that we put in place a structure that will work for the people in the region of Ottawa-Carleton. I have to say that I don't think the bill as it is currently written will do that. I'm sorry to say that I think it will create more problems in the future, so I hope that during this very limited time we can deal with some of these issues.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

1710

Mr Murdoch: I appreciate the time that I have to speak on the closure of Bill 143. It never ceases to amaze me how this government can tick me off. You talk on and on over there about democracy, but where is it? If we want to be responsible, there is a specific procedure that we must follow with respect to legislation. I could spell it out to you, but if you don't know how it works now, I'm telling you, we're all in real trouble.

Let me just say it's hard to believe that this government would move for closure on a bill it only introduced a couple of weeks ago. This is a significant issue, significant not only in Ottawa-Carleton but to all the municipalities, politicians and people in this province. What occurred in this House yesterday is nothing short of ridiculous: cutting off debate whenever you feel like it. You do this all the time whenever you've got your backs up against the wall. This is unacceptable.

What is also unacceptable is that here we are today, debating a right to debate. What a waste of time. If we'd received our chance to speak yesterday, none of this would even have had to happen. You've got to stop wasting time and you've got to stop ramming legislation down the public's throats without listening to what they have to say. You're great at consulting but you don't listen; that's your problem over there.

I want to make it unmistakably clear that the people in my riding think this is an awful bill and will not support it. This should matter to you. Obviously, it doesn't.

I receive letters daily from the councils and municipalities in my area that have passed their own resolutions to support the township of West Carleton in opposition to this bill. As a current example, I received this letter today in the mail from Grey county and it reads:

"To the honourable sir, the Minister of Municipal Affairs:

"At the March 30, 1994, session of Grey county council the following resolution was adopted:

"That the county of Grey endorse the resolution from the township of West Carleton regarding Bill 143." A copy of West Carleton's resolution is attached.

"Your attention to this matter is respectfully requested."

There are the people out there asking you to look at something, and I think that the resolution from West Carleton should be read into this House. It says:

"Be it resolved that:

"Whereas the council of the corporation of the township of West Carleton deems it necessary to clearly state its position in the matter of the reform of local government in the region of Ottawa-Carleton; and

"Whereas the Minister of Municipal Affairs refuses to discuss and negotiate alterations" -- at that time it was to Bill 77; now we call it Bill 143 -- "and

"Whereas the Ministry of Municipal Affairs has ignored the recommendations of all its own consultants to leave local municipal mayors on regional council" -- this is one of the big things about this -- "and

"Whereas the proposed legislation eliminates local mayors from the regional government, thereby depriving the local municipalities from providing input into regional issues" -- now that makes sense, but you don't seem to understand this -- "and

"Whereas the Minister of Municipal Affairs has ignored studies indicating the increased costs of proposed changes to the structure of local government; and

"Whereas the Minister of Municipal Affairs has refused to amend the proposed legislation despite the fact that the majority of the local municipalities supported certain amendments" -- again, "the majority"; that's what's supposed to work around here -- "and

"Whereas the Minister of Municipal Affairs does intend to introduce some changes to this legislation but does not intend to provide details of these amendments until after third reading" -- and that's typical of this government; after we get third reading you bring in the regulations -- "and

"Whereas the Minister of Municipal Affairs has stated that he will not discuss changes with the duly elected representatives and the ratepayers of Ottawa-Carleton,

"Be it resolved that the council hereby requests the Minister of Municipal Affairs not to proceed with this bill; and

"Further, be it resolved that the clerk forward a copy of this motion to all local municipalities in Ottawa-Carleton, requesting the motion be endorsed and forwarded to the Minister of Municipal Affairs."

This resolution was also passed around to a lot of the other municipalities in Ontario, especially in my riding, and I have the town of Thornbury that supports it. There's the town of Thornbury, the township of St Vincent, the village of Markdale, Osprey township, the town of Durham, Euphrasia township; even the city of Owen Sound in my riding supports West Carleton's resolution. I know there are many more from other municipalities all over Grey county and Ontario. Even AMO doesn't support this, and I can't understand, Mr Minister, why you would want to proceed with this.

If you're going to go ahead and give them some meetings in Ottawa-Carleton, that would be greatly appreciated, because you're going to have to hear, and hopefully, rather than just consult and not listen, you do consult and you do listen and you do bring in some changes.

I see the House leader nodding his head that this is what will happen, but it hasn't happened before, so if it happens this time it'll be short of a miracle because --

Hon Mr Philip: It happens all the time.

Hon Mr Charlton: It happens.

Mr Murdoch: No, it hasn't. The minister over there, Madam Speaker, says it has happened. Well, it would be nice if you had some time to tell me that, because it wouldn't take long for you to tell me. There's not many of them there. I know that there aren't a lot of chances that they've done anything to support us.

Although I'm not from Ottawa-Carleton -- as I've said, this particular bill will not directly affect my riding -- it is none the less a great concern for both myself and the municipalities in Grey, as I've pointed out. The majority of them have passed resolutions supporting West Carleton.

This bill will only serve to set a bad precedent for the rest of the regional governments and county governments in Ontario. In Grey county they have passed a resolution, and it's been passed in this House, that there is a weighted system. So there's no problem with doing this with the mayors. It's been done, and it can easily be done now.

I just want to point out that this minister hasn't been listening. Obviously, he has a hidden agenda here somewhere.

Hon Mr Philip: How many mayors on the county government?

Mr Murdoch: There is a hidden agenda. It's unfortunate they have this hidden agenda in nearly every bill they bring in here. As we've said before, when they get their backs up to the wall, then they say: "Hey, we're just going to close on you. We've got the power. We're a socialist government so we want to behave like real socialists, and we're not going to let you debate any longer."

Unfortunately, they're sticking true to their roots. We can say that about them anyway; they are performing like socialists would. When they get in trouble: "Hey, we have the power; we'll just stop you." The only thing they haven't brought is the police force in here to do it, but that will be next. They have done it on some of our other members, like in Mr Elston's office in Bruce county. When they got in trouble there, they sent the police right into his office to search out things.

So this government is behaving like true socialists, which the people of Ontario don't want, and we'll soon find out about that in the next election, what the people think of these people. As we've said, we've already found out in five elections what they think of their socialist policies, and I'm sure we're going to find out more what's going to happen.

Again, I just want to say that this government on the other side gets A for consulting but fails miserably in listening to people. That is really unfortunate, because there are some good things they could do in this province. Unfortunately, they don't seem to want to do that, and it's just proven by coming up with a motion like this to close debate.

As I mentioned before too, here we are debating why we can't debate. If they had left things alone, we'd have been done with this. But here you had to bring in another motion. You could have actually got on one of your other silly ideas today and maybe debated it for a while. But no, you had to panic and say: "No, we're going to force you to quit. We can go out and tell our members that we have the power, and we can force the opposition when we want them to be quiet."

I'm really sorry this has happened. I hope that the people in Ottawa-Carleton get a chance to express their concerns and that maybe this time the minister -- and I appreciate the minister being here today to listen, though. I will put that in, that you are here, because a lot of the times the ministers don't even come in and listen to us. This time I'll say the minister is here, and I certainly appreciate that. I hope that he will listen to the people of Ottawa-Carleton and some of the other members who have told him what they would like to happen up there and that he can change this bill before it's finally passed.

Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): I was really quite interested in Mr Murdoch's speech. As a practical former municipal politician, he understands the value of local government and how close local government is to the people. I was interested in how the minister reacted to his talking about county government, and the minister yelled back, "Well, how many mayors sit on county government?"

Everybody knows mayors don't sit on county government; reeves do, and reeves are mayors in terms of municipalities. In effect, that's what they are. In fact, in the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton, a lot of the municipalities used to have reeves until I brought in a bill which made everybody a mayor so that it would be all the same and nobody would confuse who is a reeve and who is a mayor, because some were reeves and some were mayors and that was the way it was.

Bill 143 is a bill which is trying to restructure the government in Ottawa-Carleton. It emanates out of a number of studies. The first study was the Bartlett commission. The next study --

Mr Callahan: Madam Speaker, on a point of order: I don't think the government has maintained a quorum in the House.

1720

The Acting Speaker: Could the clerk please determine if a quorum is present.

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees (Ms Deborah Deller): A quorum is not present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: A quorum is now present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Carleton may resume.

Mr Sterling: This bill emanates out of two reports on the restructuring of Ottawa-Carleton. One was the Bartlett report and the other was the Kirby report, one done in the 1980s under a Liberal government and the Kirby report done under the government of the day.

The Kirby report that came out said that the existing council, which consists of 15 councillors from Ottawa, one mayor from Ottawa and 11 mayors from the surrounding area, plus a number of regional councillors from Nepean and Gloucester, making a total of 32, should be replaced by a regionally directly elected council of 18, plus the chairman, plus 10 of the 11 mayors. Mr Kirby excluded the mayor of Rockcliffe because Rockcliffe is such a small municipality in relation to the others. It's 2,500 people, approximately speaking.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): Madam Speaker, on a point of order: In regard to a time allocation motion such as we're debating today in regard to issues affecting the city of Ottawa, do the opposition Liberal members from those ridings have to be here in order to debate it? I only see two opposition members in the House.

The Acting Speaker: There is nothing out of order. The member for Carleton, please resume.

Mr Sterling: I was trying to explain to the people who might be watching what this debate is all about and trying to come to a conclusion as to why closure is being introduced today.

Basically, Kirby recommended that the new council be 18 plus one, which is 19, plus 10, making a total of 29 people elected.

What this government did and why it has encouraged the opposition to be somewhat strident in its opposition has been to eliminate the 10 mayors from being included on regional council. When the government talks about consultation, none of the previous consultation which has taken place in Ottawa-Carleton has included this idea of kicking the mayors off regional government.

This has resulted in a number of different kinds of scenarios as a result of this happening. The fact of the matter is that this will be the first regional government in all of Ontario which will not have mayors sitting on regional government.

I was struck this morning, on Thursday, April 7, when we're debating this closure motion, to read in the paper John Barber who is talking about Metro Toronto government. The title of his article is "It's Time to Reinvent Metro Council." I understand Mr Barber follows Metro council and follows municipal politics in the city of Toronto. What he is suggesting in his article is that they do away with Metro council, go back to the idea that Metro council do away with directly elected people and have people appointed to commissions to take care of larger matters like police, like transit, and that the province take over the whole idea of the social welfare system.

I think his article makes a lot of sense. Quite frankly, if I were part of the next government, I would consider doing away with regional government. This debate has really focused for me the whole debate of Metro and regional government. It has opened my eyes to really maybe how unnecessary regional government or Metro government might be. I am becoming more and more convinced that directly elected Metro councillors, directly elected regional government councillors, is perhaps an unnecessary level of government, a level of government that we can ill afford in this province.

Do you know what is also interesting about this? The reaction of the city council in the city of Ottawa to what is going on. At the present time, there are 15 councillors in the city of Ottawa and they not only sit on the local government council of the city of Ottawa but they sit on regional government as well.

One would have thought that when these directly elected regional councillors are going to be elected what would have resulted would be that there would be a downscaling of the responsibilities of the people at the local level. In other words, the city of Ottawa councillors would become part-time and the regional councillors perhaps would become full-time politicians. Well, surprise, surprise. The fact of the matter is that not only are we going to have full-time regional councillors but we are going to have full-time local councillors in the city of Ottawa.

What does this mean to the taxpayer? It means that Mr Philip and Ms Gigantes are going to basically increase the cost of doing politics in the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton by about $2 million a year. I substantiated those figures in my remarks during the second reading debate on this bill. It's also going to require some $3 million, $2.9 million, I believe, to renovate regional headquarters to accommodate these 18 full-time regional councillors.

I just don't think it's necessary. I think that quite frankly what's happened is that we are now making local government a function of regional government, whereas in my view, regional or county government should be a function of local government.

When you look at this whole mess that we're into in Ottawa-Carleton, one of the problems that people face when the suggestion of amalgamation comes up, and I've talked to a few of the councillors both in the city of Ottawa -- incidentally, the support for this bill is in no way unanimous. In fact, I know two councillors in the city of Ottawa who oppose Bill 143, who are against it because they see this --

Interjection.

Mr Sterling: There's one councillor in Kanata who was a former NDP candidate against me, Alex Munter, who has, I believe -- I haven't heard one other person who is in support --

Interjection: He was Evelyn Gigantes's former assistant.

Mr Sterling: Yes, he was the former assistant to the Minister of Housing. I expect nothing less in loyalty from Mr Munter in terms -- and he wants to run for regional council. He wants to be a full-time politician down at the region. I would guess that Mr Munter will not be the next regional councillor from Kanata because the overwhelming sentiment for this bill, I can tell you, is not found in the city of Kanata nor is it found in any of the other four townships that I represent.

Because I'm the only Progressive Conservative MPP from the Ottawa-Carleton area, last September I commissioned a poll to find out whether or not what I was hearing from my own constituents, and I represent five of the 11 municipalities, was in fact what the rest of the people in Ottawa-Carleton understood.

1730

What I found out from that poll was it depends on what question you ask and how you ask the question in terms of the response you get back. Were people in favour of restructuring regional government? Yes, they were. We've been hearing nothing but: Through the Kirby report, through the Bartlett report, we've heard about restructuring of government. So some 70% of the respondents said, "Yes, we're in favour of restructuring." But they were also asked whether or not they wanted to have local mayors sit on regional council, and 79% of them said the local mayors should be on regional council, when asked the question.

I also want to indicate that very, very few people understand the ramifications of the bill, because it's complicated and a lot of people don't understand regional government. They do understand local government.

At any rate, I pointed that out before, that the overwhelming number of people in Ottawa-Carleton -- not only in the riding of Carleton, which I represent, but right across, including the city of Ottawa -- believe the local mayors should be on regional council. If the minister would be so kind as to take his own poll, he would find that as well, because this was independently done and was done, I believe, in a sample of about 400 people. I wanted to do that because when I stood and talked in this Legislature, I didn't want to only represent the people of Carleton; I did want a feeling for what other people were saying in other parts of the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton.

Now, we also face some problems in terms of what's going to happen with costs. This is the part that I can't understand about the former NDP candidate who ran against me in the last provincial election in 1990, Mr Munter, who was a councillor and also, quite frankly, is the chairman of the Kanata police services board, which is going to be abolished by this legislation. Mr Munter knows well that this legislation is going to mean an increase in costs and less control in terms of where the police are and what the police do for the city of Kanata, and in my view is acting against the interests of his constituents and the Katimivik part of the city of Kanata. He's free to do that and he'll have to explain that when he comes up and runs for regional council. He's an able politician, he can speak well and he can write well, but I do feel that he's dead wrong on the side of this particular issue. We'll see how that flushes out in the future.

But I guess what I'm most concerned about is that the minister's officials have told me they are not going to provide the city of Kanata with one cent of transition funds when it's going to be faced with larger regional police tax bills. The cost is going to go from somewhere around $3.1 million for the city of Kanata to somewhere around $5.2 to $5.7 million per year, depending on the basis of the assumptions you make when you put those figures forward.

The minister has said that for the townships of West Carleton, Goulbourn, Rideau, Osgoode and Cumberland there is going to be some transition funding, but he has not said how much, how long etc. In the first instance, he said that this funding was going to have to come from the goodwill of regional council. I believe he's now changed his position and is saying that the province is going to put up money for that transitional period, and I hold him to that. If he doesn't agree with that particular position, I would hope that he would clarify it so that we know what we're going to debate when we go back down to the city of Ottawa and talk about this bill.

This bill not only has implications for Ottawa-Carleton but for all of Ontario. As my friend from Grey-Owen Sound indicated, this bill has a lot of implications for regional government in the future; it has a lot of implications for county government in the future.

Now, my feeling is, and I think polls have proven, that local government is far, far more popular than regional government and far, far more popular and trusted than our own Legislature or our own provincial governments.

Mr Bisson: It's because of the members.

Mr Sterling: Well, maybe because of the members. I know it's not that way down in Carleton, but it is perhaps up in Cochrane South, where the member Mr Bisson just said it was because of the members. Maybe that's true up there; I don't know. I don't know that area very well. I would try not to speak to that.

I also wanted to say I was somewhat surprised that the government brought in this motion on the one hand, because yesterday when we were speaking, I had an opportunity to speak on second reading, Mr Johnson had an opportunity to speak, and the member for Grey-Owen Sound spoke very briefly, but we actually let our turn go, I believe, on one or two occasions in order to allow --

Mr Bisson: One occasion.

Mr Sterling: Well, we got to the end of our three speakers after that. We wanted to allow the members from the Liberal caucus who were MPPs from that area to have an opportunity to speak on second debate. The member for Ottawa South was not given that opportunity to have his 30 minutes to speak on this bill. In fact, I think he got about five minutes speaking on this bill. We wouldn't have even been involved in this debate to this point in time -- in fact, we could have finished second reading debate earlier this afternoon and moved on to other business, because we were finished as far as that goes.

In the past, we had indicated to the minister that we were going to be strident and obstreperous in dealing with this bill. That of course is part of the strategy of opposition, to discourage the government. That's part of the game. But once the government House leader had given the minister some legislative time, it was obvious to me that the government was going to put this bill through. The government can pass anything it wants with the present standing orders and with its majority. It doesn't matter what Norm Sterling or anybody else does; we don't have the right any longer, as you know, to filibuster a bill. That's not allowed by our standing orders, which were changed by this government.

I was quite flattered, frankly, when the press would come to me and say, "Sterling, you're stopping this bill." I'd say, "Jeez, you know, I didn't realize I was that powerful." They were saying at the end of December that I had stopped this bill; somehow I had stopped this bill dead in its tracks. I said, "Wait a minute. I don't believe for a second that this bill is stopped," notwithstanding what Ms Gigantes or Mr Philip had said at that time. They said the bill had been stopped. Mr Minister, you said that if we didn't have this by the end of December, we were done. I didn't debate for one minute on this bill to stop it and I was really amazed with the influence I have in terms of putting forward the agenda of the government. I didn't have to say one word. I was amazed. I just wish I was able to sustain that kind of strength and that kind of influence in the future in putting forward the agenda of this government.

The fact of the matter is that this government could have had this bill, and now, because they have in fact put forward this amount of legislative time -- they should have called this bill in October or November of last year. They should really have done it at that time and then we would have the proper amount of time to go down into Ottawa and to consult with the people. We are, I understand, members from the Ottawa area, both myself and members from the Liberal caucus, going to have hearings on Friday and Saturday of not this weekend but next weekend and the following weekend. Those hearings may or may not offer all of the people in the area an opportunity to speak on the bill, but they will offer some of the people an opportunity to speak on the bill.

The real problem we face here now, though, is that Bill 143 was only introduced about a week ago and it put another hitch into it and it included the creation of the French Catholic board and the French public board from the amalgamated board. My only concern with regard to adding that wrinkle to Bill 77, which Bill 143 superseded, is that the people who were concerned with that issue wouldn't have the proper time to get the bill into their hands, talk to each other, consult with each other and bring forward their amendments to that bill or suggestions as to how this thing's going to be cut out.

1740

I don't expect there will be a great deal of debate on it. I think the trustees of both boards, or both sections of the amalgamated board now, are in favour of that, but we haven't heard from the person on the street, the parents of the some 18,000 students who receive their education under this amalgamated French board which we have in the Ottawa-Carleton area.

One of my constituents wrote to me, and I received his letter this morning. He said he was absolutely amazed at the incompetence of this government as to how this whole fiasco has occurred.

Mr Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa East): Can I get a copy of that?

Mr Sterling: Yes, I can give the member for Ottawa East a copy of that. In fact, we should probably print it and distribute it not only to your constituency but the constituency of Ottawa Centre as well.

He's absolutely amazed at how this legislation has been brought forward, how the government can go ahead and pretend that consultation has taken place on this when in fact it changed the rules of the game halfway through. They didn't follow Kirby; they introduced a whole new concept. They have failed to put on the table what kind of financial support they're going to give to the people who are involved in this whole thing.

It really is amazing to have a constituent who has been following this -- I don't know which party he's a member of, but he's absolutely amazed and quite shaken, actually, by the fact that legislation can be formed this way and that a government can act this way and pretend it's gone through consultation. It really is kind of odd to receive from somebody who has watched legislation and watched how incompetent this government has been on bringing forward this proposal -- I'm sorry the government has seen fit to move closure on this, but I think that in terms of what this particular constituent has said to me, the moving of closure today does sort of seal the case on the fact that the government has been totally inept in handling this legislation and bringing it before the Legislature. We were quite willing to end debate today. We were quite willing to give the member for Ottawa South his opportunity to speak on this matter, yet the government brings forward this useless closure motion in order to end debate.

The other part that's kind of amazing is that the minister has continued to set dates. We had to have this legislation by December 31 or it was off; it was finished. There's no way we could have new regional restructured government, and Evelyn Gigantes stood there at an Ottawa press conference and said, "Those opposition guys are going to scupper it if they don't give it to us by the end of December." There was a demand that we deal with this bill in one hour.

It doesn't matter that there's seven members from the Legislature. Taking out the minister would have left us approximately seven minutes each to speak on it. I think the arithmetic comes out to about that: seven minutes each. Thanks very much, Mr Philip. Thanks very much for all the chance to speak about my concerns that I have, how you're jacking up the property taxes on the people in my constituency, taking control away from my people in terms of the kind of policing they have in the city of Kanata, taking away perhaps in the near future, as I suspect, a very satisfactory OPP policing arrangement which has been arranged by the city of Kanata.

Then, I don't know what happened, but some time in January all of a sudden they forgot about December 31, 1993, and they decided -- and do you know what? When they were saying this thing, that it had to be finished on December 31, 1993, I said to the papers: "I don't believe it. I don't think, quite frankly, that they have to finish this legislation by December 31, 1993." And you know, the press kept saying, "Yes, but Mr Philip says that it's got to be finished by December 19 or we can't have a restructured government in Ottawa-Carleton."

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): What happened?

Mr Sterling: I don't know what happened, but somewhere between then and February 7 when Mr Philip then wrote to everybody in Ottawa-Carleton that he was indeed going to pass this legislation, he said, "Regrettably, Bill 77 was not passed by the Legislature prior to January 1, 1994." "Regrettably"? You didn't even call it for second reading. How can you pass a piece of legislation if you don't call it? Give me a break.

It's also interesting to note in the same article, I think you're aware of this article; you might have seen it once before. But the minister said, "The bill will be law well in advance of the official closing date for nominations of October 14, 1994." But why are we debating it? If by fiat the minister can declare something by law, we don't need any votes in this Legislature; we don't need debate; we don't need public hearings. The minister has the right to legislate, to declare it's done, it's finished.

The member for Nepean raised this issue and quite frankly, I read this letter to the Ottawa electors and potential candidates, and it struck me funny as well. I thought about raising it in the Legislature, but I'm glad that the member for Nepean did.

What struck me funny was that in a letter paid for by the government, the minister would say, for instance, "I am calling on the opposition members of the Legislature to cooperate in seeing that this legislation is implemented."

Who is the government? Don't they have a majority? Can't they bring in the legislation? Can't they call the legislation? I just found it a strange kind of letter. I've just never seen anything like this before. Our government took out an ad and I've got to tell you, this ad -- that's a full page, or not a full page, it's better than a half-page, probably two thirds of a page. I think you've got to pay, I don't know, $3,000 or $4,000 for that kind of thing.

I don't know what this accomplished. I know one thing it accomplished because one of the things --

Hon Mr Philip: Twelve thousand.

Mr Stockwell: Twelve thousand? That's what that ad cost, $12,000?

Hon Mr Philip: No, all of them.

Mr Sterling: Twelve thousand, the minister says. Well, that makes it even worse, Mr Minister.

I've been here 16 years and I have been a minister in the government; I have been here in opposition as the official opposition, and now I'm in the third party. I have never heard a Speaker say to a minister, "You come very close to contempt." Now, I don't think you came close to contempt; I think you might have been in contempt. But I'll tell you why you probably weren't called in contempt, because that would have been a very, very serious matter. In fact, you would have been called before the bar of this House and the House would have had to vote on whether or not you should be excluded from this Legislature. I don't blame the Speaker for not going to that extent, because that is a very, very serious matter. I don't know if it's ever happened in the Parliament of Ontario.

But I don't think the press or the government have understood the importance of your words in this ruling, how close this minister came to coming in front of the bar of this House and a vote having to be taken to exclude him, and we would have, presumably, a by-election in his riding.

1750

That's a very, very serious charge, and I think when you read this article, when you trace the steps of this minister and his minister in Ottawa Centre, Ms Gigantes, I hope that people will understand how frustrated the opposition is with regard to this minister and her lack of fairness in dealing with issues in Ottawa-Carleton.

The condescending attitude and remarks of Evelyn Gigantes when she was speaking in the Legislature the other day were something to behold, as far as I was concerned. She took statements and moulded them, misinterpreted them, twisted them to such a degree as really challenges credulity.

Mr Speaker, I want to tell you that this minister and his cabinet friend from Ottawa Centre have really not acted fairly with the members of this Legislature who represent that area. They have not acted fairly with the mayors of that area, in terms of bringing forward this surprise move of taking them off regional council, which was not put forward by any of the commission studies that they had.

I am disappointed. I'm really disappointed. At first, I would've supported a lot of the parts of the bill, Bill 77, but they really have handled this in a poor manner. They've shown their incompetence. They've shown arrogance in terms of how they've dealt with this bill, and who knows what'll happen in the next election? The member for Ottawa Centre, she's won, she's lost, she's won, she's lost, she's won, she's lost. I don't know what'll happen.

Mr Bradley: The loss is coming up.

Mr Sterling: Is it a loss the next time? We'll see. I don't know. The people of Ottawa-Carleton will have to state their opinion at that time.

All I want to say is that I've been fortunate enough to be re-elected five times. I think I know how to read what my constituents are saying to me and I'll tell you that my constituents are saying: "This is a bad law. This is bad restructuring of the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton."

I urge the members of the New Democratic Party to not support closure on this bill, notwithstanding the fact that there may be no more debate on second reading, but it would leave some flexibility in the process in the future.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I thank the honourable member for Carleton East for his comments.

Mr Stockwell: We don't get two minutes or any other -- but with the short time left, I would like to say that this was one of the finer statements this House has seen with respect to legislation that's come forward, and I applaud the member for Carleton.

The Speaker: Further debate?

Hon Mr Philip: I'd like, in the five minutes that has been allocated to me, to deal with a couple of issues. The member for Nepean, Mr Daigeler, has argued that dealing with the Ottawa-Carleton bill in this way is somehow undemocratic because more time is needed to deal with the bill.

He and the member for Carleton and others could've had this matter dealt with before Christmas, but he and the House leader of the Conservative Party argued that they would in fact filibuster every bill the government had if this bill were called. That's their belief in the democratic system. "If you call a bill, we'll filibuster all of your other bills."

Now they argue that there isn't enough time for the debate. That's sheer sophistry on the part of the two opposition parties because they know what they did to try and sabotage the democratic process of the government before Christmas.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. The minister knows better.

Hon Mr Philip: The member for Nepean in his press release calls this bill an abandonment of democracy. What could be a greater abomination of the democratic process than the present old system that he's arguing in favour of? What is more democratic now than having a democratic election in Ottawa-Carleton?

The fact is, and the Minister of Revenue will tell you this, that in order to have time for municipal elections in 1994, the Ministry of Finance staff have indicated that in order to fulfil their election responsibilities, legislation has to be in place by May 1, 1994.

In view of the delays in implementing legislation for Ottawa-Carleton, key dates for the election process have already been missed. For example, the candidates for office may register as of January 1, 1994. The new regional candidates may not register until Bill 143 has received royal assent.

The Ministry of Finance cannot complete its work until the new regional and local ward boundaries are in place. That's a fact, Mr Speaker, and the fact that they are trying to filibuster this bill clearly indicates -- the member for Nepean said that he would do everything possible to see that this bill never passed. That in fact is the case and that is why this time allocation motion is needed. We need to get this bill through by May 1 in order to ensure that there can be a democratic election in Ottawa-Carleton.

The member for Nepean in his press release calls this bill an abomination of democracy. What could be a greater abomination of democracy than the status quo system that presently exists in Ottawa-Carleton? A system that allows a mayor with an 18,000 electorate or less, and there are about six of those, to have the same vote as a mayor that has about 450,000: That is not representation by population.

Mr Stockwell: Have you ever heard of Metro council, Ed? The same vote as the mayors of Toronto.

The Speaker: Order, the member for Etobicoke West.

Hon Mr Philip: I understand why the Conservatives always defend the status quo, but the system of democracy that they are defending says that it's okay if you're living in one municipality to get absolutely free policing while in the next municipality you can pay for that policing. That's the argument that they are making.

No other part of any other region anywhere in Ontario does not have a regional police force. Every other region in Ontario has a regional police force, and everyone living in every region in Ontario has a regional police force which they pay for. Not only is the present system unfair to the taxpayers of a majority of people in Ottawa-Carleton; it's unfair to the other taxpayers in Ontario when we have this kind of unjust taxation system.

The members of the opposition have used the word "draconian" so many times I can't count them. Well, I understand they have a very limited vocabulary, some of them.

We have used time allocation 13 times since coming into power. This contrasts to 48 times of the last government in the House of Commons under the Conservatives and 29 times in the last time of the House of Commons under the Conservatives again.

I say to the member for Ottawa-Carleton: I don't need any sermons on democracy from him and from that party.

The Speaker: Mr Charlton has moved government notice of motion number 24, a resolution which stands in his name. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Call in the members; up to a 15-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1759 to 1809.

The Speaker: Mr Charlton has moved government notice of motion number 24, a resolution which stands in his name.

All those in favour of Mr Charlton's resolution will please rise one by one.

Ayes

Akande, Allen, Bisson, Boyd, Buchanan, Carter, Charlton, Christopherson, Cooper, Duignan, Ferguson, Fletcher, Frankford, Gigantes, Grier, Haeck, Hansen, Harrington, Haslam, Hayes, Hope, Huget, Jamison, Johnson (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings), Lankin, Laughren, Mackenzie, Mammoliti, Martel, Martin, Mathyssen, Mills, Murdock (Sudbury), O'Connor, Owens, Perruzza, Philip (Etobicoke-Rexdale), Pilkey, Pouliot, Rae, Rizzo, Silipo, Sutherland, Waters, Wessenger, White, Wilson (Frontenac-Addington), Wilson (Kingston and The Islands), Wiseman, Wood, Ziemba.

The Speaker: All those opposed to Mr Charlton's resolution will please rise one by one.

Nays

Bradley, Brown, Callahan, Cousens, Curling, Daigeler, Grandmaître, Harnick, Johnson (Don Mills), Mahoney, Morin, Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound), O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau), Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt), Sorbara, Sterling, Stockwell, Turnbull, Wilson (Simcoe West).

The Speaker: The ayes being 51 and the nays 19, I declare the motion carried.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): Pursuant to standing order 55, I wish to indicate the business of the House for the coming week.

On Monday, April 11, we will give second reading consideration to Bill 138, the retail sales tax act.

On Tuesday, April 12, we will give second reading consideration to Bill 113, the liquor control act, and committee of the whole consideration to Bill 119, the Tobacco Control Act.

On Wednesday, April 13, we will give second reading consideration to Bill 110, the employer health tax act.

On the morning of Thursday, April 14, during the time reserved for private members' public business, we will consider ballot item number 47, second reading of Bill 93, standing in the name of Mr Offer, and ballot item number 48, a resolution standing in the name of Mr Arnott. On Thursday afternoon, we will give second reading consideration to Bill 146, the corporations tax act.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): It being 6 of the clock, this house stands adjourned until 1:30 of the clock Monday next.

The House adjourned at 1814.