Hansard Transcript 1995-Dec-12 vol. a | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I want to take this opportunity, as the year comes to a close, to wish our service clubs the very best of luck in 1996. I think we all appreciate that they're going to be very busy.

I think the first new task for them is that the Harris government has asked them to run the workfare programs for the government. That will be an enormous challenge for them, as they try to help implement the government's workfare program.

The second big thing we saw is that the government is cutting back on grants to municipalities. What that is going to mean, of course, is a whole new set of user fees. Our young people particularly will now be charged for getting books out of the library, for using gymnasiums, for using the skating rinks. To some of our most challenging young people, who should be given every encouragement to use the library, now the government's saying, "The service clubs should raise the money to allow them to use the library."

I also say that 1996 will be slightly disruptive for the service clubs, because when the government was asked how hospitals are going to make up for lost revenue, the advice was, "They should start to cater the service club luncheons." We'll now see in all the hospitals, "Rotary meets here every second Tuesday, the Optimists every third Thursday night," as the hospitals attempt to make up for their shortfall by catering service club luncheons. Indeed, the service clubs will be very busy in 1996 trying to help this government out of the mess it's creating.

CANDLELIGHT VIGIL

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): On Thursday, December 14, at 5:30 pm there will be a candlelight vigil on the front lawn of the Legislature. The organizers, three concerned women, Nora McCabe, Penina Coopersmith and Pat Chartier, are calling it a vigil to mourn the Ontario we took for granted.

They have asked that there be no speeches and no placards, just concerned Ontarians expressing their sorrow at the passing of so many things we value. Everyone listening here in this House or watching at home is invited to join in this peaceful demonstration. In my many years in public life I have not heard of any event quite like this: people standing up more in sorrow than in anger, mourning the way this province is changing.

The organizers have chosen the date and time to coincide with the closing of the House for the Christmas break. As we leave for our constituencies, we carry with us the knowledge that this will be a hard Christmas for too many. We will carry with us this powerful image of ordinary Ontarians holding candles, fearing that this government is leading us into dark times.

LANDFILL

Mr Toni Skarica (Wentworth North): I rise in this House today to speak about a proposed dump site that threatens the community of Greensville in my riding of Wentworth North.

In March, a joint hearings board, after 140 days of testimony, ruled against the proposed South Quarry dump in Greensville proposed by Redland Quarries. Redland is now appealing this decision to cabinet and has asked for a new set of hearings.

In the initial March ruling, the board ruled that the proposed dump was environmentally unsound and would result in no significant economic benefits to the community. The towns of Flamborough and Dundas, where the proposed dump would sit, as well as the region of Hamilton-Wentworth, are all opposed to this dump and are therefore unwilling hosts. The residents are not only unwilling hosts, but they are outraged at the prospect of having to go through another set of hearings when the first set of hearings was perfectly sound in process and decisive in outcome.

This case has already cost taxpayers millions of dollars, and the public would not be better served by wasting more money on new hearings. The hearings proved conclusively that this dump is a bad idea. Nothing has change. The site for the proposed dump is a fractured limestone quarry. This is a geological sieve that has the potential to contaminate drinking water for thousands of people.

I have with me over 2,500 letters which were sent to several cabinet ministers as well as MPPs on both sides of this House, all of which ask cabinet and this government to reject the request to overturn the joint board decision.

Let me add that I continue to be supportive of the Wentworth North residents and I have the over 2,500 letters here with me today.

OMNIBUS LEGISLATION

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): With a little over 12 days left before Christmas, Mike Harris and the Tory cabinet must be getting awfully excited about the gifts they know they are about to receive from all the Santa clauses contained in Bill 26.

Indeed, so happy are the members of the Tory cabinet that many have taken to singing Christmas carols in the corridors of the Legislature -- careful, of course, to lower their voices as they pass the offices of their colleagues in the back benches. Why, just this morning I heard several of them singing the praises of Mike Harris to the tune of a classic Christmas carol. I'd like to repeat it now for the benefit of those in the back benches opposite. The final verse went something like this:

From the Tory party wish list Mike Harris did decree:

Government dictating,

Lower prices grabbing,

Drug prices leaping,

Pension fund bilking,

Poll taxes coming,

No public input,

Health care dwindling,

New user fees,

Closing hospitals,

Liens on property,

Americanization

And the end of patient privacy.

Even though most of the Tory goodies contained in Bill 26 are still under wraps, hidden from the public, many details are beginning to unravel. It is my belief that with the start of the public hearings, Bill 26 will be revealed for what it truly is: a huge power grab. When the public rejects it, it will be a very blue Christmas for the Mike Harris cabinet.

1340

CHILD CARE

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): I direct my statement today to the Minister of Community and Social Services. Members of the parent committee for Centre de garde d'enfants/Child Care Hearst have raised with me their concerns about your government's cuts to children's services. These changes are made without considering the short- and long-term repercussions for families in this province. The first cuts were announced on July 21, and now we are expecting more, more and more to come.

The child care centre is a resource centre which houses, among other things, a day care and child care centre, a resource centre for families and a toy library. The centre is the only access point for a wide range of essential services for children and families in Hearst and the surrounding area. They also counter the effects of isolation in a remote northern community.

Additional cuts will threaten the quality and scope of services, even the existence of the centre. We urge you to spare regulated day care services and resource centres from additional cuts.

Your government's solution of having children cared for by family and neighbours is not realistic and does not respond to the needs of families in this region. Regulated day care services are crucial to the stability and health of a community, particularly a northern community. Your government must reconsider and preserve the quality of daycare services for the children of this province.

I might point out that I got a letter from Hearst, from André Rhéaume, who's the president of the association -- he's also a grandfather -- and Nicole Lauzon, who's a parent. They're very much concerned that the Conservative government is trying to close down this day care centre. They want it preserved for the safety of the children in northern Ontario.

FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Simcoe Centre): Since our government came into power on June 8, we have been working towards balancing our budget. The overspending by the previous two governments in the last 10 years has left Ontarians paying $9 billion on interest payments on our provincial debt. That is more than we spend on social assistance, more than the budget for hospitals and more than we spend on all levels of education, including colleges and universities.

I wish to state my support for the government's actions. We are simply trying to correct the irresponsible spending of the two previous governments. In his economic statement, the Minister of Finance delivered a solid financial plan which will help get our province back on track. We will work towards eliminating our deficit. We will work to ensure that our services do not deteriorate. We must look to the future and plan our children's future.

I wish to state that as the MPP for Simcoe Centre, I look forward to working with individuals, organizations, community groups and other levels of government in my riding to succeed in achieving this goal.

CANADIAN ASSOCIATION OF RETIRED PERSONS

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): I rise today to add my voice to the growing list of opponents to the Conservative government's draconian power grab, Bill 26.

The more people know about this bill, the more upset they are. Today we heard from the Canadian Association of Retired Persons. Were they concerned about Bill 26? You bet they were, and why shouldn't they be? Bill 26 imposes new user fees on seniors' medication, something the Conservatives promised they would not do. Bill 26 deregulates drug prices, driving up the costs to consumers. Bill 26 creates myriad new hospital user fees, something I know seniors in my riding are concerned about.

At their news conference this morning, CARP admitted that many of their members had in fact voted Conservative. They did so because Mike Harris promised them that he would protect seniors and protect health care. Mike Harris has not kept his promises.

No one voted to give the Minister of Health the unilateral power to close hospitals with the stroke of a pen. No one voted to give municipalities the power to impose a head tax. No one voted to give the Minister of Health access to their health records. No one voted for the draconian, dictatorial powers contained in Bill 26.

Now that the people know what's in this bill, there is no way you are going to get away with it.

LONDON DEMONSTRATION

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): Yesterday, I had the privilege, along with my colleagues from Beaches-Woodbine, London Centre and Welland-Thorold, of joining the protestors on a bitterly cold day in London, where over 10,000 Ontarians converged on London en masse as an indication of the first step, the very first step in Ontarians fighting back against this undemocratic, dictatorial government. We will see many, many more. We will continue to see these kinds of protests grow as people begin to fully understand, now that we've finally got a little bit of light and public input on Bill 26, exactly what this government is up to.

I found it interesting that the Premier said, commenting on this, that they didn't like the labour legislation because they have lost some power. The Minister of Labour said people have been calling her supporting the government. I'm not sure what world the Minister of Labour is living in, but if she ever decides to go to some of the public events she's been invited to and speak as the Minister of Labour, she'd really find out what people in Ontario think about her legislation and this government's legislation. I can assure you that London is very much just the beginning.

WESTVIEW SENIOR PUBLIC SCHOOL

Mrs Lillian Ross (Hamilton West): Last month, two boys, aged 10 and 11, went on a vandalism spree at Westview Senior Public School in my riding, causing upwards of $80,000 in damage. These two boys left behind piles of broken glass, spilled paint and broken computers. The event left the community traumatized. The students, staff and families were shocked at the damage to the school.

But this past Saturday was a very special day for the staff and students of Westview Senior Public School as they decided to do something about it. Rebound Day was held on Saturday to raise money to help cover the cost of replacing some items not covered by the insurance. Their goal was to raise $10,000 at this one-day event. In the end, after the craft sale, penny sale, silent auction, bake sale and other events, they not only met their goal but exceeded it, and found their results at the end of the day totalled $10,500.

The event was spearheaded by Mary Beth Beasley and Jim Moffat, who were concerned that the children of Westview would develop a victim mentality after this terrible incident. These two individuals wanted to show the students how to make the best of a bad situation. I would like to applaud Mary Beth Beasley, Jim Moffat and principal Chuck Taylor for their time and energy in organizing this wonderful event, and the staff, students and community for their participation. I congratulate everyone involved --

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): The member's time has expired.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

WORKPLACE HEALTH AND SAFETY AGENCY

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Labour): In late August, I asked the Provincial Auditor to conduct a comprehensive financial audit of the Workplace Health and Safety Agency in conjunction with the government's decision to revoke the appointments of its board of directors and dismantle the agency.

The report of the auditor indicates that the agency suffered from management and accountability problems. Specifically, the auditor says the agency's "management systems, controls and practices were weak; there was a lack of due regard for economy and efficiency in the acquisition and management of resources," and "adequate procedures were not in place to measure and report on the effectiveness of the agency in meeting its objectives" of reducing workplace accidents.

I would like to review some of the auditor's findings. His report says there were "serious delays" in the development of the sector-specific training programs due to several factors, including "the inability of the agency's senior bipartite management to reach consensus on several key issues, including duration of training, delivery methods and program pricing."

As a result, training was ready for testing in only one of 20 sectors at the end of October of this year, even though the agency had spent $9 million on the sector-specific project. That's why the project was suspended on November 9.

In addition, the auditor reports that just over half of the estimated 60,000 workers and managers who require core certification training had been trained by the end of October, even though the cost of the program to employers has been $83 million to date.

The auditor also outlined a series of management problems. The agency spent $22 million over a five-year period to buy goods and services without adequate planning, and in some cases without adequate needs assessments or cost analysis or without following proper competitive purchasing processes. For example, requests for proposals were not obtained for a series of management consultant studies totalling $817,000, contrary to government requirements. As a result, operating costs billed by the consultant were significantly higher than those charged by other companies.

1350

According to the auditor, the agency paid about $750,000 per year for 37,000 square feet of office space, almost double the per capita space considered necessary under the Ontario Realty Corp guidelines. The auditor found that the agency acquired advertising and creative communication services exceeding $500,000 in 1995 despite a Management Board freeze on advertising and without using the Advertising Review Board, as required by Management Board.

The auditor also found that in recruiting staff for the agency, open, competitive recruiting practices were not followed. In addition, severance packages prepared for senior management and non-bargaining-unit employees last August would have been about $1.1 million in excess of the amount allowed under the agency's original policies. These have been rescinded.

As well, five members of the agency's senior management were provided with leased cars at agency expense even though none of them were entitled to have a vehicle under Management Board rules. These leases have been cancelled.

The auditor's report confirms the government's decision to disband the agency and undertake a thorough review of the health and safety delivery system in the province. Brock Smith, a former Ontario deputy minister, is heading up the team, which is now reviewing the health and safety system, including how to best merge the activities of the agency into the Workers' Compensation Board. The auditor has made a number of recommendations as a result of his review, and they will be given to Mr Smith as well as the Workers' Compensation Board when it assumes responsibility for health and safety.

Workplace health and safety is a priority for our government. We will take whatever action is necessary to provide workers and employers with effective health and safety training. The auditor's report, combined with the work of Mr Smith and his team, as well as the other measures that we are taking to educate and promote health and safety among our young people, will ensure that we have in this province the best possible health and safety program for all of our workers.

ACQUIRED BRAIN INJURIES

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Health): I'm pleased to announce major improvements to our services to people with acquired brain injuries. By reinvesting in Ontario-based acquired brain injury services, we are increasing Ontario's capacity to provide services and saving taxpayers $9 million a year.

Currently the government pays $21 million annually for the 76 patients that are being treated in the United States. Under our new plan, we will bring home within the next three years all 76 patients currently receiving rehabilitation in US health care facilities.

It will allow every Ontario resident, if they are so unfortunate as to be struck down by an acquired brain injury, the opportunity to receive rehabilitation and treatment services in Ontario. Not only is it cruel to force patients to be treated outside of the province, away from their families and loved ones, but it is also much more costly.

This is a much more efficient way of doing business than has been practised in the past here in Ontario. As most members will know, the former government refused to provide funding for these patients to be treated in Ontario-based facilities. This made us totally reliant upon public facilities, which couldn't handle all of Ontario's needs.

The Ministry of Health will use the expertise of acquired brain injury professionals, providers and consumers to help us coordinate the new plan.

I can't emphasize this enough: I'm extremely pleased to be able to make this announcement today.

An acquired brain injury is a truly devastating disability. It is one that occurs after birth. Traffic accidents cause about 50% of them, and young males from the ages of 16 to 24 are the largest single group affected. Other causes of acquired brain injuries for young people six to 15 years of age include bicycle and bicycle-motor vehicle accidents. Seniors and children under the age of two can experience acquired brain injuries as a result of falls.

There are about 12,000 new acquired brain injury patients every year in this province. Most never return to full-time employment. Up to 2,500 are left with lifelong physical, intellectual or behavioural difficulties.

I hope today's announcement brings a great deal of relief, security and satisfaction to the many thousands of Ontario residents who are either directly or indirectly affected by acquired brain injuries.

I would like to thank Chedoke McMaster Hospital and the provincial acquired brain injury advisory committee for their work to improve the lives of people with this disability. Thousands of people across Ontario have benefited from their efforts.

The best Christmas present that my government can give to the families of brain-injured patients is the hope that loved ones will soon be back home. I'm proud to say that with today's announcement we have provided this hope by expanding Ontario-based services.

OATH OF ALLEGIANCE

Hon Bob Runciman (Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services): Today I'm pleased to announce the amendment of regulation 144/91 under the Police Services Act to reinstate the reference to Her Majesty the Queen in the prescribed oath or affirmation of office taken by new police officers, special constables, first nations constables, auxiliary members of a police service and members of police services boards.

This government made a commitment to restore a number of traditions that still have a central and important role in our lives.

The amended regulation now provides an individual with the option to swear loyalty to Her Majesty the Queen in addition to swearing allegiance to Canada and upholding the Constitution of Canada.

Allegiance to the monarchy of Canada is one of the hallmarks of our society, and I am pleased and proud to restore this symbol of loyalty to Her Majesty in policing legislation.

WORKPLACE HEALTH AND SAFETY AGENCY

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville): It's interesting that the Minister of Labour in tabling this report of the auditor has not tabled and will not table in this House the reports of her review team on health and safety. But I guess we shouldn't be surprised, because the government seems intent on not discussing meaningful issues in this House, it seems intent on not having hearings in this province, and the behaviour is completely consistent.

I challenge the minister and I challenge the government, when the review team that's looking at how we deliver health and safety in this province tables its report, we challenge you to bring it to the House and we challenge you to have full hearings on it.

We know what your agenda is. Your agenda is to gut health and safety in this province. Your agenda, the agenda of that committee, is to see to it that we have no more functioning, effective enforcement of health and safety in this province.

But of course you won't want to talk about that. You won't want to talk about it just like you didn't want to talk about Bill 7. You won't want to talk about it just like you didn't want to talk about the 43 bills in Bill 26. You won't want to hear what the people have to say. You won't have to hear the important contribution that people in this province can make to this legislation.

I challenge the minister not to abuse the processes of this House, not to abuse the privilege of members. Bring forward the report. Allow it to be debated, allow it to be heard, and let the people of this province cast judgement and have input into it. We challenge you to do that and will look forward to debating it in the House.

1400

ACQUIRED BRAIN INJURIES

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): Indeed, nothing is more devastating to an individual and a family than brain injury. However, today what we hear from the Minister of Health is nothing more than his continued communication strategy, a rollout of good news.

I would say to him that it's an unbelievable statement for him to suggest that any previous government did not want to see these services provided in Ontario. I can say from my perspective, that is patently untrue. The establishment of a centre that could provide appropriate, compassionate and comparable care with the kind of care that individuals had been receiving in specialized centres I think was the goal for all of us here in Ontario.

We wanted people to be able to be treated as close to home as they possibly could, but we wanted to make sure that treatment was not only appropriate but was going to respond to giving them the best quality of life and the best chance to recover that's possible.

This plan that the minister has announced today is very short on details, and I would ask him in very short order to give us the details of that plan so the families can have comfort that those in their family who are suffering from acquired brain injury will know what their future holds. He says that this is a three-year plan. Minister, you must put those details out so that people can start planning their lives and know what will be happening to their loved ones.

I do go on, just to point out that I believe the purpose of the minister's announcement today is to distract attention -- it is a manipulation -- from the absolute powers that he is giving himself: the powers to close hospitals; the powers to control how, what, when and for how much doctors will practise; the power to bring in new user fees and higher drug costs to the people of the province of Ontario.

I say to him, to the members of the Conservative caucus, you can have a good-news announcement in this House every day from now until Bill 26 passes. What I tell you is, you can continue that rollout until the day of the next election. Nobody will forget. Nobody will forgive you for accumulating the kind of absolute powers you are giving to this minister, and this announcement and others will not detract from the absence of democratic process that you are choosing to do that with.

OATH OF ALLEGIANCE

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): It's ironic that the Solicitor General's announcement talks about the reinstatement of traditions and yet he's not here in the House to hear the response from the opposition, which I guess is very typical of this government, because of course they are also trashing the traditions of parliamentary debate and trashing the traditions of the representative and the role of an MPP in this House. I would ask that the government bring back those cherished traditions and that the role of the elected member should be cherished also in this House, and the cherished tradition of parliamentary debate, of having that thoughtful debate back and forth on issues that you have decided to suspend with the introduction of Bill 26, is something that we in the opposition implore you also to bring back.

We have an opportunity now in January, thanks to some precipitous action on behalf of both opposition parties, only after which have we made it possible for the people of Ontario to have some input on this amending bill of 44 different pieces of legislation. So I would again ask the government to start to bring back some of those traditions.

WORKPLACE HEALTH AND SAFETY AGENCY

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): As seems to be the pattern with this government, the document in question, the actual auditor's report, I didn't receive until the minister was already into her statement. Therefore, it's difficult to comment on the individual specifics, but I do have a number of points to make that I think are important to get on the record.

First of all, in the amount of time I've had to look at this, I haven't seen anything that's particularly new in terms of some of the findings, the overall general findings. In fact, there was a report commissioned by our government, by our Minister of Labour, in February 1995 that was conducted by Dr Tuohy, and anyone familiar with the health and safety movement in Ontario will be familiar with Dr Tuohy's report. In this report, she goes at great length to examine not just the accountability structures that are in place but indeed all aspects of the health and safety agency, at the request of our government, because it was a new entity and because it's so important.

I would suggest, with the greatest of respect, that the intention of the government with regard to asking the auditor to do this was nothing more than trying to provide some political cover for a decision they had already made. They had said on August 23 that they were firing all the members of the board and that they were planning to kill the agency and then on September 7 said that they were going to have the auditor come in and have a look at it. If you're going to remove the agency, why bother looking at the detailed aspects of its functioning, when indeed that's already been done? Since you're planning to create a different structure for the delivery, I don't think that makes an awful lot of sense.

I would again put on the record that the health and safety agency provided more training, lowered injuries and fatalities in this province and did it at a lower cost than when it was with the WCB before. No matter how hard the government tries, it can't escape that fact.

ACQUIRED BRAIN INJURIES

Mr Bob Rae (York South): I want to comment on the announcement made by the Minister of Health. I would say to the minister with great respect, as we say, that the way in which he's made this announcement is truly unworthy of him and of somebody in his office. I say it for this reason: He must know, as was pointed out by my colleague the member for Oriole, that over the last several years many, many patients have been brought back to Ontario.

Just a few short weeks ago, there was an opening of an expanded facility at the West Park Hospital in my constituency. The planning for that expansion, and indeed funding for that expansion, took place throughout the time in which I was the Premier and in which my colleague the member for Beaches-Woodbine was the Minister of Health and Ruth Grier was the Minister of Health. For him to stand in this place and say that funding was refused by previous governments is a grotesque attempt to turn something like this into a partisan issue. It is truly unworthy of somebody who's Minister of Health. I could not believe my ears when I heard him say it.

The Chedoke McMaster centre, which he quite rightly applauded today, the entire work of that centre, the planning that was carried out by that centre, has been carried out under Liberal governments, under New Democratic Party governments and now by Conservative governments.

I say to the minister that there are times and days when he stands up in this place and says that health is too important to be turned into a partisan issue. He talks about giving to the families of people who have been injured in accidents a Christmas present, as if somehow he's some kind of benevolent despot who on one day decides to close a hospital and on another day decides to give certain people a Christmas present. He turns it into a partisan issue.

It is despicable that the Minister of Health would engage in that kind of conduct and turn this announcement and turn this direction, which I must say has been one that's been followed by all governments over the last several years, into some kind of cheap partisan announcement on behalf of his party. It's unworthy of him and is only a sign of how truly desperate he and his colleagues have become because of the steps they've taken in Bill 26 and the steps they've taken in restructuring. The Minister of Health should be ashamed of himself.

MEMBER'S PRIVILEGE

Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of personal privilege. This emanates from the point of privilege that my colleague the member for Timiskaming had asked you to rule on and that is still under consideration by you.

On November 23, in response to a question from the member for Peterborough, the Minister of Correctional Services stated that the directive issued on November 7 to which the member for Timiskaming referred had indeed originated in 1989, when I served as Minister of Correctional Services.

You can appreciate that I've done some research on this matter, Mr Speaker. I have copies of two memos, from August and October 1989, to which the minister referred in his response on November 23. In fact, in 1989 they related to a specific job action at the Toronto Jail. Nowhere in these memos is surveillance of MPPs' offices mentioned. In fact, I would submit to you that the directive of November 7 resulted directly from the office of the Minister of Correctional Services and I felt it imperative for me to bring this to your attention.

I would ask the minister if he would correct the record. I might add that had these memos in 1989 referred in any way to contact with MPPs' offices, I would have omitted without doubt any such reference, as I believe that freedom of assembly is still a right in Ontario.

Mr Speaker, I offer these memos to you in your consideration on this ruling.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): I thank the member very much. My staff and I discussed the issue yesterday about getting back to the member for Timiskaming and we will be doing that.

1410

MEMBERS' PRIVILEGES

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: I have a memo dated November 9 from the manager of policy and planning for the freedom of information corporate unit to all area managers for Comsoc.

That memo, and I'll pass that on to you, Mr Speaker, if you have not seen it, in effect requires now that all inquiries to Comsoc on behalf of a constituent by an MPP be accompanied by a written consent form from that constituent.

I believe as an MPP you've got the right and the ability to serve your constituents. When they call your office, you are an advocate on behalf of your constituents and your job is to cut through red tape and help your constituents.

I think what this has done is impeded our ability for MPPs to serve their constituents, particularly individuals who have difficulty in mobility, disabled individuals who now can no longer simply pick up the phone, call their MPP and allow us to go to bat on their behalf.

What happens now is we must ensure that those people somehow get into the office and sign that form, and process that form through before we can make a simple inquiry why someone's cheque may have been delayed by a day or two or why an appeal has been denied.

I think it severely infringes on my rights as a member of provincial Parliament to deal with my constituency. I would ask you to rule on that, because if this is allowed to continue, what you are doing again is shutting down the opportunity for MPPs to be able to properly and effectively represent their constituents and fight on their behalf. I would ask you to rule on that.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): The point has been made. Perhaps a question in the House would be a good place to start.

ORAL QUESTIONS

MUNICIPAL TAXATION

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My first question is for the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Minister, it appears that yesterday, advertently or inadvertently, you confirmed the fact that Bill 26 does indeed allow municipalities to implement poll taxes. You also stated that these provisions of Bill 26 were simply in response to requests from municipalities for greater powers, part of the flexibility that you claim you wanted to be able to provide municipalities. You indicated it wasn't the Finance minister who wanted this for his budgetary purpose; it apparently wasn't the Chairman of Management Board who wanted to allow municipalities to charge a head tax or a poll tax. You did it in response to a request from municipalities.

I ask you today, could you please explain to us exactly which municipalities in Ontario asked for this very specific new authority to implement a poll tax?

Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): The legislation says and the section says absolutely nothing about poll taxes. It is a general section to provide for user fees. It reads as follows:

"Despite any act, a municipality and a local board may pass bylaws imposing fees or charges on any class of persons,

"(a) for services or activities provided or done by or on behalf of it,

"(b) for costs payable by it for services or activities provided or done by or on behalf of any other municipality or local board; and

"(c) for the use of its property including property under its control."

I read that because obviously the members opposite haven't.

Mrs McLeod: We can at least read. We don't have a lot of time to read what's in this bill. We certainly can't get explanations of what the minister's intent is in introducing this bill, but we can read the bill. We can read a bill which goes on beyond what the minister just read, after having said that the local board may indeed "pass bylaws imposing fees or charges on any class of persons," and any class of persons may indeed be an individual, to say that this bylaw, under this section, may provide for "fees and charges that are in the nature of a direct tax for the purpose of raising revenue." It seems pretty clear in the language.

I want to come back and talk to you about poll taxes, poll taxes that are just one of the kinds of taxes which potentially a municipality could put in place to be able to recover some of the 44% in grant revenue loss because of the cuts your government has made. Don't stand up and tell us, as you always do, that all you're doing is giving municipalities flexibility, that you're just giving them what they ask. All you're doing is giving them the flexibility to raise new revenues to make up for the ones you've taken away from them, and in this specific case, the possibility of a poll tax, a poll tax which could be charged against each individual in a household.

Let's just assume for a moment that the poll tax would be $100 and that you've got a family of four, so the municipality, under your law, could charge $400 per family presumably for the use of libraries in the community, or for the skating rink, whether they use the libraries or the skating rink or not.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Put your question, please.

Mrs McLeod: If you don't think that's going to happen, tell me why your law makes it possible? And if you don't think the law makes it possible, will you simply amend this law, will you withdraw this section which makes it possible to introduce --

The Speaker: The question has been asked.

Hon Mr Leach: I'm going to repeat it.

We're going to give the municipalities the authority and the autonomy to do the job that has to be done, and we're going to continue to do that. The legislation says nothing about a poll tax, it says nothing about a head tax. There is no poll tax. If you want to make a straw pony out of an issue that just isn't part of the plan --

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): I have.

The Speaker: Order, the member for Oriole.

Hon Mr Leach: -- give me the name of one municipality that you believe is going to implement a poll tax. Is it Thunder Bay? It must be Thunder Bay if you're so concerned about it.

Mrs McLeod: I would certainly hope that no municipality would ever consider it. I can't imagine a less equitable tax, a tax that has nothing to do --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, the member for Hamilton East.

Mrs McLeod: -- with personal income, that has nothing to do with property, that has nothing to do with services actually used by the individuals that could have this tax put on their heads, each individual head in a household.

The minister has said that the reason it's here, the reason it is even a possibility, is because municipalities asked for it. Minister, I tell you again, the language is very simple, very direct and very dangerous. It says "fees and charges in the nature of a direct tax," and that wording is broad enough that it may include not only the possibility of a head tax but also the possibility of municipalities charging any other kind of tax.

You say you're only doing what they asked you to do. Do you intend to allow municipalities to charge local sales taxes? Do you intend to allow municipalities to charge a gas tax? We understand at least one municipality has asked you for this. Are you prepared to put any limits at all on the direct taxation powers of municipalities? Where will you draw the line on this simple and dangerous part of Bill 26?

Hon Mr Leach: I'm really disappointed and quite shocked that the member would take this type of approach. The municipalities are duly elected members who represent their constituencies -- devious plots to do it, I don't know. I have faith in the municipalities to be able to carry out their responsibilities. Why you don't just amazes me.

The Speaker: New question.

Mrs McLeod: A lot of faith. I would just like to know that this government is not going to say you can do anything you want to do, including a new gas tax.

The Speaker: Who's your new question to? New question.

PRIVATE CLINICS

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): I will direct my second question to the not-so-benevolent despot, the Minister of Health, because I want to turn to the sections of the bill that I truly believe are going to put Ontario's health care system on the road to two-tiered health care where those who can afford it are going to be able to go to profit-based clinics where the services are paid for privately and those who can't afford to pay privately are going to have to wait in line for a very weakened public health system.

I know the minister is already shaking his head, but I believe that's what happens, that as this government squeezes the dollars out of the public health care system this minister is opening the door to new for-profit clinics to operate. That's what the bill tells us, Minister.

You've brought in amendments to the legislation that give you sweeping powers, without any check, to be able to open American-style, for-profit clinics, to decide what services they're going to offer and to determine unilaterally who's going to run them, who's going to operate them. You can call it what you like, but I truly believe that opening this door is opening the door to two-tiered health care.

1420

I ask you, why did you decide to give yourself this power? Why have you decided to open up Ontario's health care system to American-style, profit-making health clinics?

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Health): In the first part of the honourable member's question she seems to have problems with these clinics. There are 970 independent health facilities providing diagnostic services, X-rays, abortion services, dialysis, plastic surgery. I ask the honourable member, which one of theses clinics today in Ontario would you like me to close?

Mrs McLeod: As I understand it -- the minister has brought forward these amendments, so I trust that the minister can speak to them -- independent health care facilities now can indeed provide insured services. The amendment that the minister proposes in Bill 26, which we are trying to understand in its entirety, will allow clinics which now provide non-insured services, the services that are paid for privately, not by the public system, to become independent health care facilities, clinics that the minister determines will open, determines who will run them and determines what services they will offer.

I think, Minister, in bringing forward this amendment you have made a fundamental change, and I have to assume that you want to make this change, that you want this new power, this new designation, in order to have new clinics that can offer services now offered by our hospitals, since you are also giving yourself the power to decide what services hospitals will offer and what services your new clinics can offer.

I have to ask you, Minister, what services you are prepared to see operated by these new clinics. I want you to give us today, because I want to make this clear -- I don't want to raise alarm bells, if this is not what you're planning to do -- an absolute assurance that you will not allow these new clinics, clinics that today in Ontario could not provide the services that hospitals provide, only the services that are not insured services, to provide services that the hospitals now provide.

Will you assure us that you're not going to let these clinics provide services that are publicly funded, clinics that can charge others privately for the services they provide?

Hon Mr Wilson: I'm a little confused by the question, but I think I get the gist of it, and that is that you want to make sure, and we are in full agreement on this side of the House, that we do nothing that would violate the Canada Health Act.

There is nothing in Bill 26 that would allow this government to violate the Canada Health Act, and I'd remind the honourable member that non-insured services like plastic surgery already occur in clinics and patients pay directly for that. They're licensed by the province. Quality assurance provisions are there, and they are beefed up in Bill 26. For independent health facilities we of course pay the operating or technical fees, overhead costs, and we pay the professional fees in those facilities, and we'll continue to do that.

But, yes, for example, in some of our restructuring studies there are suggestions coming forward that small hospitals that may want to become ambulatory care centres would become ambulatory care centres providing outpatient services under the Independent Health Facilities Act. That is the reason why in every case of conversion to an independent health facility we don't require a tender, because we would hate a particular hospital to then have to tender out its services in an RFP process.

It would make sense in that case if it were to convert to ambulatory care -- it would no longer be under the Public Hospitals Act; it would have to come under the Independent Health Facilities Act -- that those patients would be covered fully under the Canada Health Act and under insured services, so I'm not sure what the honourable member is so worried about here.

Mrs McLeod: One of the reasons we're worried is because we're having difficulty knowing exactly what the minister is doing with his amendments and with his proposed restructuring. You can appreciate, Mr Speaker, that when significant changes to the public health system are being proposed and the minister will have all power to implement these changes if this legislation passes, we want to know exactly what the minister is planning to do.

Minister, the explanation you've just given me doesn't hold because, as I understand it, if you want to close a hospital and make that hospital into an independent health care facility still providing insured services, you can do that now. You don't need this amendment. You don't need an amendment that allows you to bring the clinics that now provide uninsured services, the services paid for privately, into the Independent Health Facilities Act.

I'm concerned that you're going to mix them, that you're going to have clinics that provide some services that people pay for and other services that the health care system is supposed to pay for, only the health care system can't afford to buy the services from that clinic.

I just want to take a moment to try, because I think this is so important -- I worry. I've got a community that doesn't happen to have an MRI machine, which is the most up-to-date diagnostic technology you can get. I worry about the fact that my hospital -- no hospital in northwestern Ontario can afford to put in an MRI machine because they don't have enough dollars to do it, and they have even less dollars because of your cuts. I know that people in my community who can afford it go to the United States to get what they believe is the most up-to-date technology.

Minister, if you let a private clinic in my community provide that MRI service for those who pay for their service for an insurance physical, how are you going to say no to the person who says: "Why should I go to the States? I can afford to buy the service two blocks away from home. Why won't you let me buy the service?" Will you give us an absolute guarantee that you will never, ever allow a clinic to charge full-cost recovery so that the rich can get the best and those who can't afford it have to line up for publicly funded services?

Hon Mr Wilson: Thank you for the question. I can give you the absolute assurance that we will continue to cover MRI services as required under the Canada Health Act. In your own community in northern Ontario they used to have, up until a year ago, a portable MRI that did WCB claimants and did insurance claimants, and nobody complained about that.

Hotel Dieu Hospital in Windsor along with an American firm have thrown around an idea of putting a portable MRI there. But I agree with the honourable member, just to make sure the public understands the clarification, that's for those paying --

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville): Why don't you answer the question?

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Order. The member for Windsor-Walkerville.

Hon Mr Wilson: -- out of their insurance policy or out of workers' compensation. We are not changing that policy through our changes to Bill 26. We will continue to pay, in a single payor system, in a medicare system, for those services deemed medically necessary, including MRI services. There's no other plan here.

We did need some legislative changes to acts that needed to be updated over the past few years. I agree, there's quite a bit being done at once here. But the fact of the matter is, yes, we did need a legislative change to give us a good statutory basis to prevent hospitals from charging fees. Laurentian Hospital has been trying to charge fees for laboratory services and some of their pathology services.

I don't have that power. It's before the courts. It's one of the reasons we've got to get Bill 26 through. We expect the court case to come up in January, and our lawyers say we'll probably lose it because we only have regulatory power and we don't have a good statutory basis. This gives us a good statutory basis to make it very clear that hospitals cannot charge their patients for insured services under the Canada Health Act.

MUNICIPAL TAXATION

Mr Bob Rae (York South): I have a question for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. I'd like to ask the minister, if he's got a copy of the act in front of him, perhaps he could turn to page 147.

Mr David S. Cooke (Windsor-Riverside): No, he didn't have a copy.

Mr Rae: It's always a good idea to have the laws around when you're trying to change them.

Under section 220.1 and then it goes on to subsection 220.1(3) -- I'm reading for the minister's benefit -- in the middle of the page there's a little thing at the side that says, "Contents of bylaw." It says, "A bylaw under this section may provide for," -- and I'm quoting -- "fees and charges that are in the nature of a direct tax for the purpose of raising revenue." I wonder if the minister can tell us what he understands that phrase to mean.

Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): To the leader of the coalition, I had that right there to read back to you. Completely lost. Mr Speaker, give me two minutes. Let me take that on notice and I'll get back to you.

1430

Mr Rae: I'm not sure I can simply take notice on that question, Mr Speaker. The government is asking the Legislature today on second reading to approve the bill. We're being asked to vote today on the bill, and I'm asking the minister who's responsible for this section of the bill to tell me what he understands a "direct tax" to be. I'd like to know, and I think the citizens of the province would like to know, since municipalities are about to be given this very broad new power to charge direct taxes. I'd like to ask the minister once again, what does he understand by the term "direct tax"?

Hon Mr Leach: I found it, Bob: "In the nature of a direct tax" was included in the legislation to make it clear that there is no authority for charges of an indirect nature. This would be beyond the constitutional authority of the province. Municipalities will not be able to impose an income tax or sales tax. However, they can impose fees or charges for financial services on a consumption basis, as an example, per cubic metre of water used per residential unit or business property etc.

Mr Rae: Sometimes when we look at these things, it's important to look at the term. There are two kinds of taxes, as I understand it. There are direct taxes and there are indirect taxes, and we're now making it very explicit that the municipalities have the right to raise, generally speaking, direct taxes.

Under this heading of a direct tax, would you agree with many observers who say that it would now be possible for the municipality to levy a charge or a tax on all the people living in the municipality, regardless of their age, or some people living in a municipality? Would you agree with me that that is what is being proposed in this particular measure?

Hon Mr Leach: As I said yesterday, theoretically it probably does, but practically, if you can name one municipality of the 815 municipalities in this province that is going to take that action, give me their names. I'll go talk to them and tell them about the folly of their proposal.

I can also tell you that there are members on the opposite side that asked for this. The member for Kingston and The Islands, when he was head of AMO, asked for legislation like this. AMO has been after it for years. I'll be glad to carry back the message to the municipalities that this party wants to give them autonomy and responsibility, and I'll let them know that you don't think they're responsible enough to carry that out.

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: My involvement with AMO was approximately 10 years ago. If the minister can show me that we ever asked for a gas tax or a sales tax, I would like him to produce that right here and now.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): New question.

Mr Rae: All I would say to the honourable member on that score is that the honourable member asked me to build a couple of subways. We did it, and you cancelled them. Don't talk to me about who asked whom to do what when they were in a previous responsibility.

I want to continue with the Minister of Municipal Affairs. I know he's getting some prompting from another former mayor. Perhaps he's confusing the member from Kingston with the member from East York, who, for all I know, did ask for these extraordinary powers. I don't know.

During the election campaign, the Premier said that if there was going to be a change in taxes and an increase in taxes, he thought there should be a provincial referendum before such a tax would be brought in. In fact, he committed himself to doing that many times and on radio programs.

One of the ironic features of this legislation is that it takes away the requirement for referenda with respect to changing certain bylaws. I'd like to ask the minister why a municipality that was about to introduce a tax of this kind wouldn't have to hold a referendum, since the referendum seems to be the preferred policy of the provincial government. Could you tell me why you would have taken away that requirement? If you're giving this extraordinary power to impose a brand-new tax and a brand-new set of taxes to the municipalities, why wouldn't you insist on a referendum?

Hon Mr Leach: There is a referendum, and it's held every three years.

Mr Rae: You may want to think about that answer before you go outside. I'm not sure it'll stand up to too much examination, because the Premier of the province didn't take that position and you're part of his team. He's not here today, but the Premier said that he thought if there were going to be taxes, which are bad things, by the way -- I just thought I'd remind you. It's apparently bad for the province to bring them in but it's a good thing for municipalities to have the power to bring them in. This is the new commonsense doublespeak.

If a referendum is good enough for the province before it introduces a new tax increase, why wouldn't a referendum be required for a municipality that wants to introduce a direct tax?

Hon Mr Leach: I don't think there's anything in the legislation that stops a municipality from having a direct election any time it wants to on any issue it wants to. What we're saying is that you don't have to, that we know municipalities are responsible and will carry out their duties responsibly. If they want to have a referendum, that's their choice. We want to give them choices, not dictate to them like many others did.

Mr Rae: I'd now like to ask the minister to turn to page 153 of the bill. At the bottom of page 153, on the left-hand side, section 257.7 says, "If there is a conflict between a provision in this part and a provision of any other section of this act or any other act, the section that is less restrictive of a local municipality's power prevails."

I wonder if the minister can explain that section for me and tell me why it doesn't mean that what is contained in this bill, which expands the unilateral power of a municipality, is increased even more by that section.

Hon Mr Leach: That's another one I'm going to take under advisement.

The Speaker: New question, the member for Scarborough-Agincourt.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. It's your time you're wasting.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Would you like to come to order? We could have another question.

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I have a question for the Minister of Municipal Affairs. We talked today to the legal officials in the Ministry of Finance about what you likely mean by "direct tax." What was indicated to us in that conversation was that "direct tax" did indeed mean a head tax, but it also could be a sales tax, it could be a gas tax or it could even be an income tax.

My question to you is quite simple: What taxes did you envision the municipalities wanted to implement when you gave them this right?

Hon Mr Leach: They could charge for the use of arenas, for water, in rural municipalities I understand they can charge for street lighting, any number of things that municipalities have been after for many, many years.

1440

Mr Phillips: I think the public is beginning to realize now that this is the bill this government wants passed today.

It is very clear, Minister, that what you're doing is giving the municipalities the unilateral right to impose these taxes. They've asked for it and you've said you're going to give it to them. You also take away any right of people to appeal to the OMB. That's part of this bill -- no appeal to the OMB.

I say again, yes, we understand user fees, but we want a direct answer to a direct question. Surely you know the answer to this: What taxes do you envision the municipalities implementing as a result of you giving them this power to put on a head tax, to put on a sales tax, to implement income taxes? Specifically, what taxes are you expecting they will implement?

Hon Mr Leach: "Garbage" is a good answer to that question. They can put a tax on it. But I don't understand where you got the idea that they can't appeal to the OMB. The only thing that can't be appealed to the OMB is minor variances. You can still go to the OMB.

The Speaker: New question, third party.

Mr Rae: To the same minister, under the Constitution of Canada, the federal government has the power to levy indirect taxes and the provincial government has the power to levy direct taxes. That's the distinction that's set up in our Constitution. That means the province has the power to levy sales taxes, it has the power to levy property taxes and it has the power to levy taxes directly on a person or on a class of persons. That's how we understand it.

I would come back to the minister. You've used a term here, "direct tax." Would you not confirm for me, Minister, whether this effectively means that what the province is doing is devolving all of its taxing power to the municipalities for the same class of taxes and the same group of taxes that the province itself now levies? Can you explain to me, if I'm wrong -- and I hope I am wrong -- why you would have used these words and why you would devolve that kind of power to a municipality?

Hon Mr Leach: As I said before, "in the nature of a direct tax" was included in the legislation to make it clear that there's no authority for charges of an indirect nature. The municipalities will not be able to impose income tax or sales taxes.

Mr Rae: No, whoever wrote that briefing note doesn't understand what a direct tax is and what an indirect tax is, and that's the problem you've got.

The province has the power now to levy direct taxes. That's established under subsection 92(2) of the Constitution. That power has very clearly been defined through a whole series of tax decisions of the last 125 years. The province has the power to levy taxes on sales, it has the power to levy taxes on consumption, if it's paid by the person who's actually consuming the product.

I want to ask the minister again: You are devolving an incredible set of powers to a group of municipal politicians, you're requiring no referendum, you're potentially changing the entire nature of the tax system in this province in terms of who will pay. Whatever happened to that old song, "There's only one taxpayer"?

Hon Mr Leach: I go right back to the original part of this debate. We're reducing the amount of money that's going to be available to municipalities. The municipalities came back to us and said, "Give us the tools to do the job." We agreed that we would give them the right to have user fees and licensing fees. They have it. We believe that the municipalities are responsible, that they'll carry it out responsibly, and I'm sure they will.

The Speaker: New question, the member for Kingston and The Islands.

Mr Gerretsen: My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. In an answer to my colleague here, you just indicated that there is an appeal to the OMB with respect to these taxes. I wonder if you could just take a look at page 148, subsection 220.1(9). It states, "If a municipality or local board has imposed fees or charges under any act, no application shall be made to the municipal board under clause 71(c) of the Ontario Municipal Board Act on the grounds the fees or charges are unfair or unjust." You just indicated that there is an appeal to the OMB. This is in direct contravention to this section. How do you explain that, Minister?

Hon Mr Leach: I stand corrected. Thank you.

Mr Gerretsen: Since the minister obviously didn't realize this section was in the act, let me ask you this: From the comments that were made to the media by both the Minister of Finance and the Chairman of the Management Board, one would get the distinct impression that those two particular ministers don't agree with the poll tax idea either, so why don't you put it in the legislation that under no circumstances can municipalities either charge a head tax or a poll tax? Why don't you do the right thing?

Hon Mr Leach: There's absolutely no intent to have a poll tax or a head tax. Everybody in this House knows that. If you can name one municipality that's going to do it, just one, any of the 815 municipalities, John, just name one that's going to do it and I'll put it in.

The Speaker: New question.

Mr Rae: Let me again come back to the minister. What you've done in this bill is that you've devolved your taxing power to the municipalities. All the range of things which the province can now tax you're saying the municipalities themselves can tax. That's what you're doing with this measure.

Having done that, I'd like to ask you this: In the last election, Premier Harris promised that he would introduce a taxpayer protection act which would allow for a referendum requiring majority public approval or a general election for any provincial tax increase. What you are doing in this measure is devolving your power to the municipalities and then you're saying: "You guys go ahead and raise your taxes. We'll lower our taxes. You raise your taxes."

I want to ask the minister once again, why would you not at least require a referendum to be held before this kind of tax increase can be imposed? In the case of Metropolitan Toronto, you're talking about two million people living in this municipality. One council, on one night, can make a decision to impose a tax, a power they've never had before which you're granting to them. Why would you not insist on a referendum before they carry out that kind of tax increase?

Hon Mr Leach: As I said before, because we have faith in municipalities to be responsible. They're duly elected by the same citizens who elect us. Why do you think they're not responsible enough to carry out their elected duties? They certainly are. If they want to have a referendum, they can have a referendum. If they don't choose to have a referendum on any specific issue, that referendum is held every three years, as I said before.

Interjections.

Mr Toni Skarica (Wentworth North): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'm in the rump here and I cannot hear the minister's answer, because the opposition constantly interrupts the minister.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. I'm having trouble hearing too. I don't understand why we can't have some decorum in the Legislature.

Interjection.

The point of order can come afterwards. Supplementary?

1450

Mr Rae: If my colleague is in the rump, he must be where all the brains are.

I'd like to ask the minister by way of final supplementary -- I've obviously upset my colleague.

I wonder if I might ask the minister this simple question: The Premier told us all in the last election that if he raised taxes he would resign. That's the most solemn commitment he made to the people of the province. He told us that he would resign if he raised taxes.

Can the minister tell us why, when you in fact are simply transferring this power which you have to raise taxes directly to the municipalities, the Premier shouldn't have to resign, because he's clearly broken his promise?

Hon Mr Leach: That really is not a very appropriate question. We're not raising taxes. We have no intention of raising taxes. Most of the municipalities, and I include the city of Toronto, the city of Scarborough, the city of Mississauga, indicated that they won't be raising taxes to accommodate these cuts.

Mr Gilles Pouliot (Lake Nipigon): Get the hell out.

The Speaker: Order. The member for Lake Nipigon is out of order and I will not warn him again.

Interjection.

The Speaker: The member for Fort York is out of order and I won't warn him again.

STAR$

Mrs Janet Ecker (Durham West): My question is for the Chair of Management Board. In my riding, the community of Ajax instituted an eight-week pilot project which saved over half a million dollars in taxpayers' money by implementing the cost-saving suggestions of the town's employees last year. This was a model that was adopted from successful private sector models for saving money.

The program is still used by Ajax, and they anticipate a $2-million saving in the coming fiscal year. The project is called STAR$, Saving Town of Ajax Real Dollars. It was a major success story which has been covered by the television show W5. Has the minister heard of this program and its success?

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): I just happen to have a leaflet with regard to the program, and I must say, over the caterwauling from the opposition party, I happen to believe that this program, the Saving Town of Ajax Real Dollars program, shows that this particular municipality and most of the municipalities, if not all of the municipalities, of Ontario are very mature, very responsible and spend, I must say, money much more wisely than this provincial government has done over the last 10 years.

I commend the town of Ajax for its initiatives in terms of reducing spending by some $500,000 in terms of over 1,000 initiatives, and I can say it's refreshing to see a municipality that's spending taxpayers' money wisely when the advice that I received, as mayor of East York in my former capacity, from the previous government, the NDP government, was that the municipalities should take on more debt. That's the kind of advice we got from the previous government. Here's the kind of action we're getting from local government in the province of Ontario, real savings for the taxpayers.

Mrs Ecker: Would the minister be willing to review the Ajax program to see if it could be adopted as a model for cost savings, both within the government and as an additional tool for our transfer partners?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Order. The member for Hamilton East is continuously out of order and I won't warn him again.

Hon David Johnson: The member for Durham West raises a very legitimate question and suggestion, and I'm sorry that the members opposite don't treat this more seriously, because indeed the municipal governments have a great deal of expertise. I see some of the members acknowledging that. Frankly, in the debate that we've had here today, earlier in this Legislature, you would wonder on the level of confidence in the municipalities, and I can tell you that my party and this government have a great deal of confidence in municipalities and, yes, there are many good suggestions in here. We will certainly look at the comments and the suggestions of the town of Ajax.

The province of Ontario, as you will know, is going through a process of restructuring the civil service. We have committed to reducing the internal workings, the operations and the administration, by some $1.4 billion. I think Ajax and other municipalities, who are responsible and who are spending taxpayers' dollars wisely, have a great number of comments that we could take to heart and will assist us in running the province of Ontario.

MUNICIPAL TAXATION

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing and I'd like him, once again, to turn to page 147 of his bill.

Minister, it could not be clearer in subsection (2) of section 220 of your bill that this legislation clearly provides municipalities with the right to enact bylaws to impose user fees. That is clearly the intention of subsection (2).

But on to subsection (3), and the language is equally clear. Your bill, in language that is crystal clear, makes plain that you will, by this legislation, give municipalities the right to impose, by bylaw, direct taxes which are, I remind you again, gasoline taxes, sales taxes, head taxes, to name but three. The language of your bill is crystal clear.

If you do not intend that municipalities have this power to impose these kinds of direct taxes, why do you in your bill provide the right for them to do so?

Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): Again, we're giving the municipalities the autonomy and the authority they require to do the job. It's autonomy and authority that they've been asking for for many, many years. We know that they're duly elected by the taxpayers, the same taxpayers who elect the members of this House. I am very confident that if the municipalities don't carry out their authority responsibly then they'll pay the price at the polls, as they should.

Mr Conway: I ask you now to turn to the bottom of page 148, looking at subsection (2) of section 223, where it says very clearly that a council which proposes by bylaw to impose head taxes, gasoline taxes, sales taxes, income taxes, can, according to this section, "eliminate the requirement to obtain the assent of the electors" before passing such a bylaw.

Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): Incredible.

Mr Conway: Incredible. Your bill -- let me repeat -- gives municipalities clearly the right by bylaw to impose head taxes, sales taxes, gasoline taxes or income taxes, and your bill gives municipalities the right to waive any opportunity for electors to have a say about the imposition of such direct taxation.

Why would you want to proceed in such an incredible fashion, given the stated policy of your Premier about his concern about taxes generally, the thought of raising direct taxes of any kind, and particularly Taxfighter Mr Harris's solemn promise that there should be no such increases in taxation of a direct kind without the electors having their say through a plebiscite or referendum before such direct taxes might be imposed?

Hon Mr Leach: The question sounds familiar. The answer is the same. The municipality can have a referendum if it chooses to do so. If it chooses not to do so and it carries out some actions that are offensive to the taxpayer, the taxpayer will sort that out in the November elections that come every three years. That's the ultimate referendum.

1500

TENANTS

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): My question is to the same minister. Minister, as the critic responsible for housing issues for my party, I've had the opportunity to meet with numerous amounts of tenants across this province. These tenants are telling me that they're desperately trying to get in to see you in order to talk to you about what you plan on doing in regard to your housing policies in this province.

We're finding out that even after they get a commitment to meet with you, in the end you end up backing out of those particular meetings. By way of example, you were to speak at the annual general meeting of the Federation of Metro Tenants' Associations on October 28. What did you do? You backed out. You were supposed to meet with other particular tenants' groups. You were supposed to meet and they had commitments to meet with you. You backed out again.

I want to know, if you're making changes to housing policy to the extent that you are in this province, which tenants are you meeting with in this province in order to get input into the process?

Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): I'm quite prepared to meet with any tenants' groups, and I have. United Tenants of Ontario is a great example; I met with them on several occasions.

Mr Bisson: If you're prepared to meet with any tenants' groups, why are you not meeting with the tenants within your own riding? The tenants at Regent Park have been trying to meet with you now on a number of occasions. They're here in the gallery because you won't meet with them; they've got to come down here and try to find you. On two occasions, the tenants from Regent Park have contacted either your minister's office or your member's office in order to get in to see you, and you don't have the decency to show up to the meetings that you're supposed to go to.

I want to ask the minister very directly one simple question: Are you prepared today, exactly right now after question period, to meet with the tenants of Regent Park and give them the opportunity to meet with you? If they can't meet within your riding, at least meet them here at Queen's Park.

Hon Mr Leach: If they contact my constituency office, I'll meet with them.

Mr David S. Cooke (Windsor-Riverside): They have.

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): They tried that and you said no.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Order.

Hon Mr Leach: If they contact my constituency office, I'll meet with them on Friday.

Mr Silipo: I guess that's a no.

The Speaker: New question, the member for Halton Centre.

Mr Silipo: If you don't meet with them and you don't read legislation, what do you do?

The Speaker: The member for Dovercourt is out of order. The member for Dovercourt, I won't warn you again.

ARTS AND CULTURAL FUNDING

Mr Terence H. Young (Halton Centre): My question is for the Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation. Minister, in the wake of November's financial statement, we've been hearing a number of concerns about cuts to the arts community. Some of those concerned individuals have even gone so far as to say that infrastructure built up over the last 30 years is in jeopardy.

Minister, can you reassure this House that the province's arts community still has the means to remain viable into the next century?

Hon Marilyn Mushinski (Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation): To the honourable member for Halton Centre, I'm very pleased that he asked that question. What I can tell the honourable member is that during the NDP's term in office, the Ontario Arts Council's budget increased by 37%; that's 37% in five years. Indeed, that included a one-time $7.5-million addition in 1991-92.

What I can also add is that the recent financial statement in-year restraints and the targets for next year mean that we are returning the Ontario Arts Council's budget to levels that are more consistent with past practice. That's before the implementation of the NDP's hand-over-fist spending policies.

Mr Young: What steps has the government taken to assist the Ontario Arts Council and other cultural agencies in light of the recently announced financial statement?

Hon Ms Mushinski: I met with many of the administrators of the various agency groups in September and they suggested to me that they are willing to go out and seek independent funds. However, they needed the tools with which to do that. Contrary to what previous governments have done, we have given many of our agencies crown status to put them on a level playing field to go out and raise funds from the private sector.

MUNICIPAL TAXATION

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): My question's to the Minister of Municipal Affairs, and it's still on page 147. It is the subsection (3), "A bylaw under this section...." It's the one dealing with your intent to allow municipalities to impose taxes: head taxes or sales taxes or gas taxes or even income taxes. Clause (e) here says that this bylaw may provide for dealing with "different classes of persons" and may allow them to "deal with each class in a different way." Can you indicate what different classes of people you had in mind here and what way you might treat them differently?

Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): We had in mind seniors, for example, or school children, where they get half fares or they can be exempted from costs.

Mr Phillips: So just to be clear on that: As you are allowing municipalities to implement the head tax, or a sales tax, you are also giving them the complete flexibility to decide which groups will pay the head tax and which groups will not pay the head tax. You are not planning to put anything in this document around fairness and equity, but rather leave it to each municipality to decide what taxes they are going to impose and what groups, or classes, as you call them, of people they're going to impose them on. Is that the intent of your law?

Hon Mr Leach: The intent of this legislation is to give the municipalities the autonomy they need. If municipalities want to exempt seniors, then I think they should have the right to do that. If they want to exempt children from certain fees, they should be able to do that. I think, again, that municipalities are responsible.

AFUA BOATENG

Mr David S. Cooke (Windsor-Riverside): My question's to the Solicitor General and it concerns the death of four-year-old Afua Boateng, the four-year-old that the Roman Catholic children's aid society has been involved with for quite some time.

I'd simply like to ask the minister, since he has responsibility for the coroner, this is a very tragic situation that the children's aid obviously had been involved in for several weeks, and I'm sure it's a concern of his, as it is of ours, that the society would be that heavily involved with this child and still there was a death, and I'd like to ask whether, in addition to the police investigation and the judicial proceedings, the minister is prepared to commit to a coroner's inquest that would look at the role of the children's aid society in this particular case to discover what went wrong so that a tragedy like this never occurs again in our province.

Hon Bob Runciman (Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services): I appreciate the member's concerns surrounding this issue. I know that we all are very much concerned about the tragic circumstances surrounding this death. As the member knows, the matter is now before the courts. There's been a charge of second-degree murder laid in respect to this incident.

I'm advised that the Ministry of Community and Social Services has asked the Catholic children's aid society to conduct a review, and it will provide a serious occurrence preliminary report, according to ministry guidelines. Also, the Toronto area office of the ministry will review the society's actions and submit a final report to the ministry.

That does not in any way, shape or form preclude involvement of the coroner's office, and certainly I will apprise the chief coroner's office of the concerns raised here today. It's not within my area of responsibilities to direct the chief coroner to undertake such an investigation, but I'll certainly make him aware of the member's concerns.

1510

Mr Cooke: The minister will be aware that cases like this have happened in the past, in particular a number of cases in the 1970s, and I'm not asking that a coroner's inquest would be held into items that would be in conflict with the court case that will now be going on. There were coroners' inquests that were held in the 1970s that made some very specific and helpful recommendations both for changes to law but also changes to procedures used at children's aid societies.

I think that an internal investigation is obviously appropriate, but it's also very appropriate that there be a public process so that any changes in policy and any changes in law that would be helpful to prevent this from happening again could in fact take place. That can only take place with public scrutiny.

So I'd ask the minister again. He can make a request to the coroner that this be examined and I'd ask that this be considered. This is a very serious situation that has to be dealt with in order to maintain confidence in our child welfare system.

Hon Mr Runciman: Again, I recognize the importance of the question the member is posing. I have some concern in respect to anything that might be inferred as directing the chief coroner's office to do certain things. I certainly will, as I indicated in my earlier response, make sure that his office is very much aware of the concerns being expressed here today.

I share the views that he expressed related to the results of inquests into somewhat similar circumstances in the past and serious incidents in the past where the recommendations of coroner's juries have indeed led to significant changes, positive changes in terms of how the province and agencies of the province deal with individuals in Ontario society.

At this point all I can do is again reiterate my assurance to the member that I will convey his concerns and the concerns of many of us in this assembly to the chief coroner.

CORRECTIONAL FACILITY COSTS

Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): My question is also for the Minister of Correctional Services. Recently, top federal corrections officials stated that swift action is needed to avoid a financial and social crisis in the federal penal system. The sentencing and corrections review group stated that the growing prison population has created spiralling costs and that a crisis was looming. In the medium term if government does not act to create an effective, sustainable system of policing, sentencing, corrections and parole, the system is in trouble. Minister, do we face a similar problem in Ontario?

Hon Bob Runciman (Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services): I thank you and I appreciate the question. We do indeed face many of the same challenges that the federal system is facing with respect to its corrections system. In fact, Ontario, as I've indicated in this House in the past, has the highest incarceration costs in Canada. We've discussed with many members of this assembly, who have some of the older jails in their ridings, the challenges we face in trying to get those costs down and at the same time recognize the unique circumstances of some of those jails located in remote areas, and that indeed poses us with significant challenges.

We're trying to address it in some respects with electronic monitoring, which I know the federal government is looking at as well, and I think we'll move into in a big way. Technology is improving and we're looking at a number of initiatives in this area, risk assessment so that we can move low-risk offenders out of facilities and institutions into the community, but at the same time imposing a punishment upon them while ensuring that we can keep our incarceration costs at a reasonable level.

There is a whole range of challenges out there and we're trying to come to grips with them.

PETITIONS

CHILD CARE

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and it reads:

"We, the undersigned, are firmly opposed to the erosion of the child care system. We are most particularly concerned about the unregulated child care sector, which represents the choice of most Ontario families, many living in rural areas. We urge this government to make its budget reduction in areas where children and families will not once again be the targets of cuts. Family resource programs support the informal sector of child care, which includes parents caring for their own children and care provided by grandparents, home child care providers and nannies."

I have attached my name to that petition as well.

HIGHWAY SAFETY

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): I beg indulgence to present a petition on behalf of my colleague Bud Wildman, the member for Algoma. It goes like this:

"Whereas further to your plan to cut back on snowplowing, a woman was killed Sunday, November 12, 1995, at the Whitefish exit of Highway 17, west of Sudbury, and her 15-year-old daughter was critically injured while the driver and passenger in the second vehicle were also listed in critical and serious condition respectively; and

"Whereas the incident occurred more than 24 hours after a snowstorm and the roads were not yet cleared or sanded and were in deplorable condition; and

"Whereas the hospital and rehabilitation costs of this accident alone far outweigh the costs of snowplowing, notwithstanding the horrible mental anguish which family and friends of the victims are and will go through that cannot be accounted for in dollar figures;

"We, the undersigned students, staff, parents, guardians of W.C. Eaket Secondary School and those of the community of Blind River petition the Legislature of Ontario to rescind the decision, for safety's sake, to cut funding to northern Ontario roads."

I add my signature to this petition.

CHILD CARE

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): I have a petition here signed by some 36 constituents from Northumberland. This petition is from the parents of Sunshine Heights day care with regard to the proposed voucher system:

"Whereas we disagree with this system due to the negative effects it will have on the quality of child care that is available and the effects it will have on parents' ability to continue work and studies knowing that our children are in centres of our choice;

"We, the undersigned parents of children at Sunshine Heights day care, respectfully request that the Parliament of Ontario take action to have the proposed voucher system eliminated and leave current subsidies in place."

OMNIBUS LEGISLATION

Mr Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa East): I have a petition that reads as follows:

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to withdraw Bill 26, Savings and Restructuring Act, 1995.

"We object to the bill because it terminates the partnership between the government and the physicians to manage health care on a joint basis; gives unilateral power to the Minister of Health to make cuts and dictate medical practice."

I have signed this petition as well.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I have a petition from Dan Gilbert and Pearl MacKay of the United Food and Commercial Workers, Local 1000A, on behalf of all their members who have signed these. It's addressed and it says:

"We, the undersigned, are opposed to the proposed changes to workers' compensation in Ontario, including the elimination of the current bipartite board of directors, the reduction of temporary benefits from 90% to 85%, the introduction of an unpaid waiting period for compensation benefits, legislated limits on entitlement, including repetitive strain, chronic pain and stress claims, reduced permanent pensions and pension supplements.

"Workers' compensation is not a handout, it is a legitimate obligation that the employers of this province have to workers in Ontario. We demand no reduction in existing benefits, improved vocational rehabilitation, tightened enforcement of health and safety to prevent accidents, no reduction in current staff levels at the WCB and continued support for the bipartite board structure."

I'm pleased to add my name to it.

JUNIOR KINDERGARTEN

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas countless studies have shown that children who attend junior kindergarten stay in school longer; have improved reading, math and language skills; a greater chance of future employment; lower rates of teenage pregnancy and delinquency; and higher enrolment in post-secondary education; and

"It has been shown that each dollar spent on early childhood education can reduce future spending on social problems by $7 and junior kindergarten funding cuts will obviously have long-term repercussions for us all; and

"Whereas the provincial government is considering making junior kindergarten optional in schools in Ontario,

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to maintain the present funding of junior kindergarten."

This is signed by some 402 among many other constituents in my riding, and I affix my own signature.

COMMON SENSE REVOLUTION

Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East): I have a petition which is signed by 16 residents in the riding of Sudbury East. It reads as follows:

"Whereas Mike Harris said on May 30, 1995, `If I don't live up to anything that I have promised to do and committed to do, I will resign'; and

"Whereas Mike Harris promised on May 3, 1995, `No cuts to health care spending,' but in his November 29 economic statement we see $1.3 billion or 18% in cuts to hospital spending over the next three years and a further $225 million in cuts from the health care budget; and

"Whereas Mike Harris has clearly broken his promise to defend health care cuts in funding; and

"Whereas Mike Harris promised in the Common Sense Revolution that, `Aid for seniors and the disabled will not be cut,' but in his November 29 economic statement Mike Harris is cutting the Ontario drug benefit plan and making seniors and the vulnerable pay for their drugs; and

"Whereas Mike Harris has clearly broken his promise to seniors and the disabled;

"We, the undersigned, demand that Mike Harris keep his word and resign immediately."

I have signed my name to it and I agree with the petitioners.

1520

EDUCATION

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean): I have a petition signed by almost 1,000 residents of my constituency, led by Shari Ritter. It reads:

"We, the undersigned, want education legislated as an essential service."

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Monte Kwinter (Wilson Heights): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the final report of the Metropolitan Toronto District Health Council hospital restructuring committee has recommended that North York Branson Hospital merge with York-Finch hospital;

"Whereas this recommendation will remove emergency and inpatient services currently provided by North York Branson Hospital, which will seriously jeopardize medical care and the quality of health for the growing population which the hospital serves, many being elderly people who in numerous cases require treatment for life-threatening medical conditions;

"We petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to reject the recommendation contained within the final report of the Metropolitan Toronto District Health Council hospital restructuring committee as it pertains to North York Branson Hospital, so that it retains, at minimum, emergency and inpatient services."

I have affixed my name.

COMMENTS OF THE MINISTER RESPONSIBLE FOR WOMEN'S ISSUES

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly.

"Whereas six women present at a meeting held by the minister responsible for women's issues, Dianne Cunningham, at her constituency office on October 25, 1995, agree that they heard the minister state, `Within the context of this government, you need to understand that groups or agencies that are seen not to be working with this government, providing an oppositional voice...will be audited and their funding eliminated'; and

"Whereas the minister responsible for women's issues denies having made this statement;

"We, the undersigned, request that the government establish a legislative committee to determine whether the minister responsible for women's issues abused her authority as a minister of the crown by making threatening and intimidating remarks at the meeting described above."

This petition is signed by more than 100 women from all parts of Ontario, and I am pleased to affix my signature.

COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): I have a petition signed by 246 people from eastern Ontario. It reads as follows:

"To the Parliament of Ontario:

"Whereas the teachers of Ontario are already accountable to the province of Ontario through the Ontario Teachers' Federation; and

"Whereas the proposed College of Teachers would create a new, unneeded and costly bureaucracy,

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

"To refrain from enacting legislation with respect to the College of Teachers."

I also affix my signature to that petition.

KIRKENDALL STRATHCONA NEIGHBOURHOOD HOUSE

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I have petitions signed by over 1,300 people in my riding, forwarded to me by Anna Maria Martello and Birgit Bolton of Wesley Urban Ministries.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"It is with great concern that we are writing to you as consumers of the services at Kirkendall Strathcona Neighbourhood House. We understand that a large portion of provincial funding is being cut from the services that Wesley Urban Ministries provides at the Kirkendall Strathcona Neighbourhood House. We are users of these services and feel that they have tremendous benefit to our health and wellbeing.

"Many seniors and older adults from the neighbourhood and beyond come to Kirkendall Strathcona Neighbourhood House. We come here to be with friends and participate in different activities, to receive help from the community workers, because we don't have enough English to understand the letters and the government regulations to file income tax returns, to talk to the nurse when we have concerns about our health or the health of our families, to talk to the lawyer when we have legal questions.

"We know others who come to the community kitchen, to the day care, to the exercises classes, to the Scouts and Brownies, to the Christmas store, where they receive free food and gifts, and to many other activities.

"Many of us will be very isolated and without assistance because of our language and cultural barriers if the doors of Kirkendall Strathcona Neighbourhood House were closed and the services discontinued.

"The services are extended also to the seniors who are homebound. Without these services and other services provided, for example by VON, the seniors would not have been able to stay in their own homes.

"We know we would not be as healthy and as happy without Kirkendall Strathcona Neighbourhood House and without the services provided there, and all our friends say the same thing. Please don't cut the funding to Wesley Urban Ministries, which support Kirkendall Strathcona Neighbourhood House services."

I affix my signature.

ADULT EDUCATION

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): I have a petition from a group called Preserve Adult Education Programs Action Plan.

"To the Legislative Assembly:

"We, the undersigned, believe that, as adult learners who are residents and parents as well as students in our own right, there should be no discrimination in education on the basis of age.

"Statistics show that adult education programs in public high schools get people off welfare into retraining and into better jobs.

"We, the learners, believe we deserve the right to public education in order to better our lives and that of our province."

I've affixed my signature.

SUDBURY MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): This petition was circulated by Kerry Carswell, president of the ONA at Sudbury Memorial.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Sudbury Memorial Hospital is the most fiscally responsible health care facility in Sudbury; and

"Whereas Sudbury Memorial Hospital is the regional cardiovascular centre for all of northeastern Ontario;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to maintain Sudbury Memorial Hospital as an acute care centre."

HIGHWAY SAFETY

Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): I've a petition signed by over 5,000 northern Ontario residents who continue to be concerned about the downgrading of winter road maintenance in northern Ontario. The petition reads:

"Whereas the Ministry of Transportation is intent on reducing northern winter road maintenance services; and

"Whereas such downgrading places the lives of northern resident at undue and unnecessary risk;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to disallow these reductions in service and to guarantee that winter roads across the northern regions of the province receive the necessary maintenance to ensure the safe passage of drivers."

I'm proud to sign my name to this.

VEHICLE LICENSING OFFICE

Mr Pat Hoy (Essex-Kent): I have a petition signed by 1,383 persons from in and around the village of Ridgetown.

"We, the undersigned, are asking the Ministry of Transportation to re-evaluate their position in regard to putting a vehicle licensing office back into the town of Ridgetown.

"By signing this petition, we are saying that the licensing office is needed here."

HIGHWAY SAFETY

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the Ministry of Transportation is intent on reducing northern winter road maintenance services; and

"Whereas such downgrading places the lives of northern residents at undue and unnecessary risk;

I've affixed my name to that petition as well.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I have 200 signatures on these petitions. They read as follows:

"We wish to register our opinion regarding Bill 7. We understand you would not know how your individual constituents feel about this issue unless they informed you.

"We work at the Penetanguishene Mental Health Centre, of course, with the OPSEU union. We are very concerned about the future of our jobs, our work, our homes, our community and the level of service that will be provided to the public in the area of mental health with the passing of Bill 7.

"We have worked long and hard and bargained in good faith to reach agreements that have worked well for the employer, the employees and those who need our services, and feel it is unfair to negate all this with the passing of a bill.

"An agreement should be an agreement. We are expected to uphold our end of it, and do. With the last government, it was a social contract; now with the Conservatives, it may be no contract."

I sign my signature also.

SUDBURY ACTION CENTRE FOR YOUTH

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Sudbury Action Centre for Youth has helped nearly 130,000 people since 1986;

"Whereas more than 35,000 youths have come to the centre for various services;

"Whereas nearly 10,000 people have filled casual, full- or part-time jobs;

"Whereas 372 youths have returned to school; and

"Whereas the government of Ontario has decided to close community youth support program including the Sudbury Action Centre for Youth;

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

"That the government of Ontario continue to fund the Sudbury Action Centre for Youth."

I have most supportively affixed my signature to the petition.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT

Mr Gilchrist from the standing committee on resources development presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bill without amendment:

Bill 15, An Act to amend the Workers' Compensation Act and the Occupational Health and Safety Act / Projet de loi 15, Loi modifiant la Loi sur les accidents du travail et la Loi sur la santé et la sécurité au travail.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Shall the report be received and adopted? Agreed.

Shall Bill 15 be ordered for third reading? Agreed.

1530

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE ACT, 1995 / LOI DE 1995 SUR L'ASSURANCE-AUTOMOBILE

Mr Sergio moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 29, An Act to provide for Fair Automobile Insurance Practices / Projet de loi 29, Loi visant à prévoir de justes pratiques en matière d'assurance-automobile.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

SAVINGS AND RESTRUCTURING ACT, 1995 / LOI DE 1995 SUR LES ÉCONOMIES ET LA RESTRUCTURATION

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 26, An Act to achieve Fiscal Savings and to promote Economic Prosperity through Public Sector Restructuring, Streamlining and Efficiency and to implement other aspects of the Government's Economic Agenda / Loi visant à réaliser des économies budgétaires et à favoriser la prospérité économique par la restructuration, la rationalisation et l'efficience du secteur public et visant à mettre en oeuvre d'autres aspects du programme économique du gouvernement.

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I'm pleased to continue debate on what we call Bill 26, what I think many of the public may have come to know as the omnibus bill. Before I get into the details of the bill, I might once again indicate the importance of this bill to Ontario and the reason why it is so imperative that everybody in Ontario have an understanding of this bill. I would urge people in Ontario to pay attention to the bill and to let their voices be heard.

I would say that it was less than two weeks ago that we first saw this bill, on November 29. This bill is huge. It's 210 pages. It is sweeping. It touches 47 different acts in this province. It has major, major implications. We never saw this bill, the public never saw this bill, until November 29, and it was the government's intention to force this bill through by the end of this week.

This would have gone from no one seeing this bill on November 29 to law on Thursday. In our opinion, and I think in the opinion of the people of Ontario, that's simply wrong. It is dead wrong to try and force through something this major, touching, as I will talk in a few minutes, on every single person in this province, dealing with 47 different statutes. To try and ram this through in two weeks is wrong. The people of Ontario, I think, are beginning to realize what's in here. This isn't an innocent, little bill. This is, as I'll show in a few minutes and other speakers will show, extremely important.

I hope the government recognizes the anger that we in the opposition feel, that frankly now many groups in the province feel. I think at the end of this exercise the people of Ontario will feel, "How in the world did the government believe it had the right to force this thing through in two weeks?"

It is only now that people who are going to be affected by this -- hospitals, doctors, pharmacists, every municipality, every senior who will have a user fee put on them, the people who are going to be laid off in the public service and are going to lose pension benefits, every firefighter, every police officer, every hospital worker, every teacher has their bargaining rights fundamentally changed in this bill.

It is only now that the associations that represent them are beginning to get into the bill. I can tell you that as a member daily now I get phone calls and faxes from groups saying, "This bill changes our life, and we need an opportunity to be heard."

Perhaps I might speak firstly to the process around here, because I do think to the people of Ontario it is extremely important. What was that battle we had here last week all about? It was about the need for a reasonable debate on something this fundamental, instead of trying to ram it through, from the time we saw it to the time it was law, in virtually two weeks.

I might add another minor concern relative to the bigger concern: This bill was introduced while we were in what's called a lockup. I am the Finance critic for our party, the Liberal Party. It was essential that we be in a lockup when the government was presenting its fiscal statement on November 29. So at 9 o'clock in the morning, I, along with many of my colleagues in our caucus and many of the NDP members, went to a lockup to be briefed on this fiscal statement.

While we were in that lockup, not allowed out until 4 o'clock, the government introduced this bill and forced through what's called first reading at 3:30 in the afternoon. That was deliberate. It was a deliberate attempt to introduce the bill when many of the members were not in the House, for understandable reasons. This is what's called a finance bill. It is a bill that I am the critic for. It was introduced with the full knowledge that I could not possibly be in the House. There was no way I could be in the House. It was deliberately done and I think it was a mistake by the government -- again, not to be repeated, I hope.

Just to begin to get into the content of this bill, because the people of Ontario, I think, are beginning to recognize what's in this bill and frankly beginning to recognize that the government doesn't know what it's doing on the bill.

Just this afternoon, we saw the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, who has a very large section in this bill dealing with municipalities, and frankly, he had no idea what was in the bill. When one question was asked on an absolutely fundamental point about what taxes he was going to permit municipalities to levy, rather than answering the question, he said, "I'll have to take that as notice." For those who may not be familiar with that term, what it means is: "I don't know. I'm going to have to find out and I'll get back to you tomorrow." That is amazing. This bill gives the municipalities the right to levy what is called direct taxes, and the minister did not know what they were.

The minister also responded to another question, where it was said, "Not only are you giving the right to introduce these taxes, but you're taking away the right of citizens to appeal those taxes to the OMB, the Ontario Municipal Board, a traditional right they had." We said, "Why are you taking that right away?" The minister said, "I'm not taking that right away." Then about two minutes later, he had to get up and acknowledge he was wrong. He didn't know the bill. He didn't know that this bill very specifically says, "No application to the OMB." It goes on in a paragraph here to say that they are taking away the right of appeal of citizens on these taxes that they are going to introduce.

Why I'm raising this is to indicate that not only does the public have no idea what's in this bill -- and understandably -- but the ministers don't. The Minister of Municipal Affairs -- it was embarrassing today frankly that he didn't know what was in the bill. I might also add he had a briefing note that was clearly wrong.

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): It was the wrong briefing note.

Mr Phillips: It was the wrong briefing note. So the public, I think, can begin to understand the anger that's on this side of the House when we are looking at sweeping changes. This change, just one change, allows for the first time ever the introduction at municipal levels of head taxes. It allows them to introduce sales taxes. It is clear that some municipalities have asked for this, we understand that, but the minister is giving them carte blanche authority to introduce them, to introduce them with a bylaw. There is no need for them to get the consent of the electorate. In fact, part of this bill specifically says now, when you used to have to go and get approval from the electors, you can simply pass a bylaw to eliminate the requirement to obtain the assent of the electors, before passing the bylaw under this section. In other words, you can introduce a mere bylaw and introduce the tax.

1540

I would like to perhaps move quickly through other aspects of this bill that are equally sweeping and equally important that they are trying to ram through, originally in two weeks. Here's another one. It looks fairly innocent; it's schedule L. It's the amendments to the Public Service Pension Act and the Ontario Public Service Employees' Union Pension Act. We asked: "Why are you doing this? What is this little two-page" -- it's just two pages out of 210 pages. "Why are you doing this?"

Here was the answer: "We are planning to lay off perhaps 10,000 people. If we don't enact this, they would be entitled to benefits worth $225 million of pension benefits. So here's what we're going to do. The first thing we're going to do is we are going to exempt ourselves from the Pension Benefits Act."

The Pension Benefits Act, for all of us here, was an act enacted by this Legislature to protect pensioners; public sector pensioners, private sector pensioners, to protect them. It's often referred to as the Conrad Black bill because, some of you may remember, some time ago -- we've all been to Dominion stores. In fact, in the briefing it was referred to as that. It said this bill, the Pension Benefits Act, came in as a result of Conrad Black attempting to do some things with pensions.

But this bill exempts the government from it. In other words, it says, "We don't care what's in the Pension Benefits Act; we're exempting ourselves from it." Why? Because you're going to lay off a lot of people and because they would be entitled to $225 million worth of benefits. You may say: "Well, these are tough times. We have to do it." But surely the people who are impacted by that at least deserve an opportunity to be heard, to come to a committee, to have an explanation and to express their concerns about it. But no, we were going to pass this in two weeks, with virtually no public debate on it.

I'm skipping through various sections of this because my time speaking is going to be limited today. But there's another section in here around hospitals and hospital care. I think many of the members of the Legislature have probably served on hospital boards. It's an important part of community service. It is a historical way in Ontario that communities have been able to, with their hospitals, reflect the community need, to have community input into the service offered in those hospitals and, frankly, to ensure that we have a sense of community around our health care.

Today the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing was saying: "We believe in giving local autonomy. We believe the community understands the needs. That's why we're going to give them the right to put taxes on." But in health care, in the hospitals, the minister and the minister alone will have the right to direct hospitals "1. To provide specified services to a specified extent or of a specified volume" and instruct hospitals "2. To cease to provide specified services" and "3. To increase or decrease the extent or volume of specified services."

The minister and the minister alone has the final authority to tell every hospital in this province what services they can and what services they cannot provide. The minister and the minister alone has the authority under this bill to tell which hospitals are open and which hospitals are closed; unprecedented authority. Frankly, for those of us who have a sense that perhaps our local hospital has a sense of the community, this is total, total management at Queen's Park of our Ontario health care system, strange and sweeping powers.

Again I don't know why the backbench members have not raised their voices because many of them, I would have thought, have served on hospital boards and would be concerned about these sweeping powers.

Mr Len Wood: They don't understand it.

Mr Phillips: My colleague says they don't understand the bill and, after today, I dare say you're right. I do not think --

Mr Len Wood: It's quite obvious they don't understand the bill.

Mr Phillips: In fairness to all of the members -- I am what's called the critic for this bill. I carry the thing around with me and I read it a lot, and it has taken two weeks to begin to understand the bill -- to begin to understand it. Every day my colleague Mr Arnott also has the same bill with him. Every page now as I get into it has major implications for Ontario, but it was the intention of the government to put it through in two weeks.

Just this morning I talked to some of our doctors who, I might add, are extremely worried about this bill. On page 91, dealing with confidentiality, it says, "The minister may enter into agreements to collect, use and disclose personal information concerning insured services provided by physicians, practitioners or health facilities," and later on in the bill it says if that happens to get out, the minister and whoever else released it are not responsible in any way.

The Minister of Health says to us, "Well, that language exists elsewhere." I say to him, with all due respect, it does not exist elsewhere. This is broad, sweeping -- I hate to use the term "dictatorial" because it sounds almost like we're exaggerating -- but dictatorial powers for the Minister of Health to collect and to have available and to release with no penalty this information.

I don't think there are many things that people in this province feel as strongly about as their relationship with their physician. If we destroy that, if we destroy --

Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke-Rexdale): You helped to do it.

Mr Phillips: Now there's the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale yelling in the back and he, I guess, is saying to the doctors of this province: "This is fine. I don't mind the Minister of Health collecting this information and releasing it."

Mr Hastings: We're talking about what you did.

Mr Phillips: Well, there he is -- he's barking over there now. He supported not having public hearings, I gather, and I gather he supports this. I will just say to him, you're going to be very, very embarrassed when the truth begins to come out about this bill and you yourselves will have a stack of amendments that you're going to want to push through, trying to patch this bill up. I know you've been told to come in here and bark and barrack and yell, not listen.

Mr Len Wood: Try to intimidate the opposition.

Mr Phillips: "Try to intimidate the opposition," my colleague says. I would just say to you, it's going to be embarrassing for you when you have to stand and approve a whole bunch of amendments to this bill because you were wrong. I predict that will be the case and your face will be as red as your tie.

The confidentiality provisions in here, according to the doctors, and frankly I listen to the doctors in this matter, are unprecedented. They don't exist anywhere else and the Minister of Health is saying -- I'd ask you to go to your caucus and ask him to prove that because the doctors showed me the existing legislation and there are no penalties as a result of it.

On the confidentiality section, it's clear that these are sweeping powers. I might just say this as an aside: I watch new cabinet ministers in action and the ones who start saying, "I," "I," "I," "I" are the ones you watch, and the Minister of Health --

Hon Charles Harnick (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): Not me.

Mr Phillips: The Attorney General's here and I don't think he used the word "I," but the Minister of Health now thinks he owns the system. He's the big boss of the system and it's "I," "I," "I." You watch. And this bill reflects that. I would say to the back bench, listen to the cabinet ministers who start to think they and they alone have authority.

1550

On the physician services delivery, which is schedule I, there's not much doubt that the government wants the right to tell doctors where they can and cannot practise in the province. That's what this bill is all about. You eliminate the Ontario Medical Association, essentially, as the doctors' bargaining agent.

I would say to you, do that at your peril, because the OMA does, I think, an excellent job of mediating among physicians, and they are a challenging group, because they each obviously have strong opinions. But the OMA has done a good job of mediating among the doctors and trying to reach a consensus among them. You are going to take on that responsibility yourself, and it's a mistake. There are other ways, in my opinion, of solving the underservicing in the north and other communities. But you want to use the big stick here, and it is a huge stick. It essentially takes the OMA out of the piece.

I'm leafing through the bill just to indicate on almost every page the seriousness of some of these moves. This one is not a big deal, but this has to do with putting liens on one's house if you haven't paid a toll. What this is, there's a highway called Highway 407 that will be a toll road. The government wants to make absolutely sure that anybody who hasn't paid their toll will pay their toll. So they go to the extreme measure here of saying, "If you don't pay the toll, we can put a lien on your house or a lien on your car." Once again, the Minister of Transportation initially said, "No, no, no, no, we weren't doing that." Then, two or three days later, he had to acknowledge that was the case.

It is using a sledgehammer to solve a relatively minor problem, but it is typical of this bill that whoever has been involved in it, and I dare say there's a relatively small number of cabinet ministers who must have been involved in it, has on almost every page taken a sledgehammer to deal with problems that could have been solved in a far more sophisticated and sensitive manner.

I've dealt with the health care sector briefly to say that it gives unprecedented powers to the Minister of Health to determine whatever services are going to be provided in every hospital in the province. When you go back to your community and find that the local hospital board that is there trying to reflect the community is going to be essentially powerless under this bill, you all will have some explaining to do.

The bill also gives the government the right to introduce copayment for seniors; that is, to put a user fee on drugs. The government announced it was going to do this in the fiscal statement, and this bill gives them the right to do that. It could not have been clearer in the election -- now whether you wanted to promise this or not, and I gather you're sorry you promised this now, but you did promise it. You said to the seniors of this province -- and I know, because we all were at all-candidates' meetings and we all heard this promise -- "Under our plan, there will be no new user fees."

Mr Len Wood: And now the seniors see that Mike Harris was lying.

Mr Phillips: Now they see the truth. You were categorical in this; you covered everything. You're now trying to say, "These are copayments on things that aren't in the federal medical bill," but at the time of your campaign, and this is your document that all of us carry around, this is what you said about copayments. You were 100% clear that you were not going to introduce user fees or copayments. That's the promise you all made, that's the promise you all ran on. You may regret you promised that, but you did.

Here are the paragraphs that cover it. It says:

"For some time now, there's been growing debate over the most effective way to ensure more responsible use of our universal health care system. In the last decade, user fees and copayments have kept rising and many health care services have been `delisted' and are no longer covered by OHIP.

"We looked at those kinds of options" -- Mike Harris looked at those options of copayments or delisting -- "but decided the most effective and fair method was to give the public and health professionals alike a true and full accounting of the costs of health care, and ask individuals to pay a fair share of those costs, based on income. We," therefore, "believe the new fair share health care levy, based on the ability to pay, meets the test of fairness and the requirements of the Canada Health Act while protecting the fundamental integrity of our health care system.

"Under this plan, there will be no new user fees," no new copayments.

You were very specific. The Premier these days likes to say, "Well, this is a copayment," but you were 100% clear in the document and now we have a bill designed to go in exactly the opposite direction. I will say to you all, you're going to have some explaining to do, particularly to the seniors of this province.

Did you not know what you were running on? You distributed this document to all of the seniors. In fact, in my area you did very well among the seniors because they actually believed that story and they actually believed that you would not touch a penny -- that's the language you used -- of health care. But this document, I think the public should realize, this bill, Bill 26, is designed to implement the user fees.

On health care, you also said, "We will not touch a penny of health care." I know now the Premier is trying to say, "What we really meant is, we will cut it for a while and then, when we run again, we will restore spending to the level it was at when we made that promise." But I guarantee all of you, you can't find that explanation anywhere in pre-election material.

You may find it now, but in pre-election material, no one in Ontario ever thought your promise of not touching a penny of health care meant, "We'll touch a billion and a half dollars of it, but we'll put it back in four years." I challenge any of you to bring me the documentation that says that was your promise.

So we find it is the government's intention to cut roughly a billion and a half dollars out of hospitals. The hospitals in this province are going to have their funding cut by roughly 20%; the drug benefit plan, roughly 20%.

By the way, while your cabinet colleagues say, "We're going to reinvest that," when we asked the question of the staff when we were being briefed on this fiscal statement, "Where's that billion and a half dollars you're cutting out of health care going?" the answer was: "That's included in our cuts. That's included in the cuts we're making to hit our deficit targets."

That day, as we all know, the business community was slapping you on the back, high-fiving all around, because you'd made these cuts and you were out to the chamber of commerce with the standing ovations -- we understand that -- but those cuts included a billion and a half dollars, $1.5 billion, of health care spending. The cuts in health care, according to the documentation, are not going to be reinvested over the next year, year and a half or two years back into health. They're being used, frankly, to fund the tax cut.

The reason I raise that is because what's in this bill is the clout to allow the Minister of Health to implement that agenda, to unilaterally say to hospitals: "You're closing"; "You provide that service"; "You stay open"; "You provide that service." That's what this bill is all about, in contravention, frankly, of perhaps the most important promise that you all made in the campaign, and that is, "Without touching a penny of health care funding." But it's very clear now that you do plan to touch not a penny but a billion and a half dollars of the health care spending, and it is this bill that gives the minister the clout to implement those cuts.

1600

I've touched just briefly on a few aspects. Schedule Q in the document affects every single firefighter, every single police officer, every single hospital worker, every single teacher, and it's only now, I think, that those associations have been able to get into the bill and realize what it does to them. I think many of us had a communication from the firefighters' association essentially saying: "Premier Harris made a whole bunch of promises to us before the election. Bill 26 is in exact contradiction to the promises he made before the election."

I'm pleased that there is going to be some opportunity for public debate. I would urge the public to familiarize themselves with this bill and let their voice be heard, because it does fundamentally change the life of everybody here in Ontario.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Questions and comments?

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): I just wanted to comment on a couple of issues that need to be addressed.

I'm not sure that the actual interpretation given by the Liberal Party and the socialists, my friends the NDP, is quite as literal on the taxation position that was offered up earlier today. I think if you read the legislation, there is probably room for debate and discussion about what exactly that specific clause means. There is a reference --

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): It would have been law today.

Mr Stockwell: I know. But I think your --

Mrs Boyd: It would have been law today. Discussion and debate, by all means.

Mr Stockwell: Okay, but I think your interpretation of the clause is just that: an interpretation. If you read it very carefully, what is intended in that clause is that charges and fees may be levied by means of user fees, without direct taxation: in essence, taxes on gas, taxes of other forms.

There may be those who argue, and I understand quite rightly, in opposition, that is not how you read it. All I'm trying to point out to the members opposite is, I think there is some interpretation and some debate that could be had at great length as to exactly what that clause does intend and what that clause is actually meaning.

Having said that, I don't think we should categorically say this means that municipalities can slap on gas tax, they can slap on income tax etc at the local level, because I will say to you and to the member, the Finance critic for the Liberal Party, whom I have great respect for, that I don't read it that way. I read it differently. I'd like to get some interpretation from the legal minds in this province and from those who understand the way bills are written on exactly how they see that as being written.

If you're right, then I think you're right and we should rewrite it, because I don't think that's what was intended when we wrote it. But I think there is some question about who is in fact correct on that issue.

Mrs Boyd: With reference to the member's speech, if indeed the member who intervened a moment ago is right, that there are many interpretations, it simply means that this is a bad bill, that it's been badly drafted. If there's so much uncertainty about what this section means, then obviously it was a good thing that those of us on this side of the House decided to force more discussion of this bill rather than have the province tied up in litigation for years and years.

The member for Etobicoke West is quite right; there are legal opinions that indeed support the member for Scarborough-Agincourt's interpretation, and no doubt, as is always true, we can find lawyers who will take a different view. That's just part of the system of adversarial lawyering that we have in this province.

The issue around legislation surely is that legislation should be clear enough and distinct enough to tell everyone involved -- municipalities, the province and certainly the citizens of Ontario -- what is involved, without this kind of uncertainty and without the kind of flubbing around that we saw on the part of the Minister of Municipal Affairs, who I understand has gone outside the House and said yet another, different thing to the reporters in the scrum.

I would say that the member for Scarborough-Agincourt is quite right to raise very clearly the issues as they occur and that it is very important that the government listen to the fact that they themselves do not know in a definitive way what their act means, what the impact will be and that it is extremely important that we all be sure of that before this House passes the legislation. I would say to the member for Scarborough-Agincourt that the issues he raises are indeed very important and ones that our party shares.

Hon Mr Harnick: The former Attorney General makes an interesting comment about uncertainty in a bill. I remember sitting in the very seat that she now sits in, watching NDP government bills that would have 200 amendments, they were so uncertain, bills that had to be pulled and where they had to start all over again.

I have read the section that the member for Scarborough-Agincourt comments on and it's quite clear. It's quite clear to me that what the municipality is able to do is impose "fees or charges...for services or activities...for costs payable by it...or...for the use of its property." There is nothing in this that indicates there is direct taxation. In fact, I go on to the next section, which I submit is interpreted by the previous section, and it says, "A bylaw under this section may provide for...fees and charges that are in the nature of a direct tax."

If a direct tax is something that was being imposed, it would say, "A bylaw under this section may provide for direct taxation for the purpose of raising revenue." That is not what it says. What it says is related to the ability of a municipality to charge fees for services, charges for services, charges for the use of property, and that is the essence of what this does. It doesn't do what the opposition alleges it does. They took great liberties with the way they interpreted those words, and quite frankly, I think they're wrong.

The other aspect to this is in the broad sense. What we're doing here is correcting a $100-billion mistake that the former government made by permitting municipalities to restructure and thus provide services to the people of Ontario and the communities they serve.

Mr Len Wood: I listened very intently to what the member for Scarborough-Agincourt addressed in the last half-hour. I think it's very unfair for the two Tory members to attack the comments he made. We know, as Gerry has explained, it's a matter of the Ontario government trying to lower taxes and cut everything and then force the municipalities to raise taxes.

Mike Harris said during the Common Sense Revolution, during the campaign, that if taxes are raised in Ontario there should be a referendum before they are raised or he would resign. Now he's saying, "We're going to lower the taxes in Ontario, we're going to cut everything right down to the bare bone, but we're going to force the municipalities to bring in sales taxes, to bring in user fees, to bring in all kinds of taxes." There is only one taxpayer in Ontario, as has been pointed out a number of times.

Had it not been for the action that was taken last week to stop the 82-member Tories from ramming this bill through the Legislature, like they did with Bill 7, we would have this being the law of the land today, and it was quite obvious during question period today that there are a lot of cabinet ministers who haven't read the bill, who don't understand the bill. They don't have a clue what's in the bill and yet they were going to bring it forward to second and third reading and impose this on the people in the province of Ontario.

Once again, I'd just like to congratulate the member for Scarborough-Agincourt. I'm sure he's aware of the legal opinions that we have. He has the same legal opinions, I'm sure, saying that the bill is bad, it's flawed, it should be scrapped, it should be withdrawn and rewritten. It doesn't make any sense that we're entering into a period of Christmastime -- everybody should be happy and wish everybody Merry Christmas.

They're going to impose taxes on all the taxpayers in the province through the municipalities.

1610

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Scarborough-Agincourt, response?

Mr Phillips: Just to respond to a few of the comments of the member for Etobicoke West and the Attorney General: I think, firstly, it wasn't me who said the bill permits a head tax.

Hon Mr Harnick: It doesn't.

Mr Phillips: It's the Minister of Municipal Affairs who said it permits a head tax. The minister says, "It permits a head tax but we believe in giving responsibility to municipalities." I think, for the public watching, this is a very interesting exchange because the Minister of Municipal Affairs says, "Certainly it permits a head tax," and the Attorney General says it doesn't. What could be more graphic of how this bill is flawed than our senior law officer, the Attorney General, saying it doesn't and the minister responsible saying it permits a head tax?

The same thing happened, you may recall, last week in the House when we raised questions about confidentiality, saying we had major concerns about confidentiality. The Minister of Health said: "There's no problem with the bill. You're wrong." About two hours later we get a strongly worded letter from the Information and Privacy Commissioner saying he has huge concerns about the bill and confidentiality -- huge concerns. So what happens? About an hour later the Minister of Health says: "Uh-oh. I'm prepared to amend the bill. I'm prepared to acknowledge it may have been drafted badly."

Here we have two shining examples where it's clear the government is all over the lot on this bill because they're trying to ram through a bill that has been poorly thought through.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate?

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I appreciate the opportunity to add my voice to those who have very serious and grave concerns about the implications of Bill 26 on the Ontario that we've all known, and the plans to decimate, in terms of the values and traditions of Ontario that ironically this government tends to rhetorically comment on in terms of values, yet it's the very values and traditions of Ontario that go down the tube every time this government stands and introduces a piece of legislation.

I don't think we can ever again speak of Bill 26 without commenting on what took place with our colleague Alvin Curling, who found himself the focus of our outrage on behalf of constituents -- not so much for ourselves, because we have this time; there's at least a little bit of built-in time for us in second readings and third readings, in committee of the whole, if there's an opportunity, but none for the public on Bill 7. None.

What this government did with Bill 7 is they actually went well beyond their mandate of revoking Bill 40 and took away other rights that workers had and kept saying, and still do to this day, that all they did was repeal Bill 40, and they know that's not the truth. They went well beyond that. They had no mandate and they did not allow the people of Ontario one minute -- not one minute of input. In fact, I finally went out across the province to meet with as many people as I could, both to give people voice but also to hold the government accountable. That's not by any means a proper replacement for a legislative committee going out and doing thorough hearings with the full support of this Legislature, but that was all we were left with.

When we saw Bill 26 introduced -- and by the way, it's been mentioned but it needs to be said over and over: It was snuck in. Not that you could sneak an entire law in, but they certainly, in the way they introduced it, did it as slyly as they could. I've heard -- I don't know this for sure -- there was an understanding it would come the day after.

That really doesn't matter. The fact is that the government still, while members of this Legislature and members of the media were literally locked up, receiving a briefing on something that they're not allowed to talk about until the minister rises in his or her place and speaks -- that's when they introduced it. It was as sneaky an attack as anything I've ever seen, yet what baffles me is it achieved nothing. It achieved nothing because they had to introduce the bill regardless. There's only so much the opposition can do around first reading introduction of a new bill, yet what I think it did was to expose this government for what it is, and that is inherently an undemocratic government.

With the history of Bill 7 fresh in our minds, when they snuck Bill 26 on to the floor and then tried to ram it through -- let's remember that this was last week; today this would have been law under the government's plan. This law creates three new laws and amends over 40 other existing laws, and the whole thing would have been finished by the time we finished speaking today if this government had had its way. And then they wonder why the opposition and the people of Ontario are labelling this government as undemocratic.

Mike Harris was elected the Premier, not the king. There's a democratic tradition in Ontario, whether the Tories like it or not, that says people are entitled to have a say when you make laws, particularly when it looks to some of us like you not only don't have a mandate to do it but that you're breaking the promises in terms of the mandate you received, and when you're fundamentally changing some of the most important structures and institutions of Ontario.

There's a commonsense -- I refuse to run from that term no matter how much they abuse it -- approach that says, if you truly are democratic, then in the kind of circumstances I've just described, wouldn't it be appropriate to give the people of Ontario their say? But this government said, "No, we're not going to give them their say." We did everything we could within the rules to try to force it, but just a few weeks ago we went down that road with this government on Bill 7, so it's not as if this was something we hadn't experienced before. As difficult as it is for many of us here to believe that a government would do what they did with Bill 7, having experienced that, we knew that the possibility of Bill 26 going through in the way they had described and actually becoming law today was a reality.

We had to decide, what are we going to do about that? Within the rules, there was nothing we could do. We'd gone to the limit. Yet every member of the opposition -- and those members of the public who are watching will know that there's no more affection and camaraderie between us and the Liberals than there is in any other dynamic, with Tories or with Liberals and Tories. The fact of the matter is that in many ways we're still competing here to be the alternative to this government when they fail. And they will fail and they will fall.

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean): You are not competing. You are not.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Nepean will come to order.

Mr Christopherson: However, every one of us, to a person, believed --

Mr Gilles Pouliot (Lake Nipigon): Ask him to leave, sir.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Lake Nipigon will come to order.

1620

Mr Christopherson: We believed that we had an obligation to speak out on behalf of the people of Ontario and do something. That something was what people saw and read about last week.

It worked because, first of all, we honestly believed that we were in the right. I still believe that. Boy, I'll tell you, from what I'm experiencing -- I don't know what kind of phone calls the Tory members are getting, but in terms of the reaction I've had from my constituents and elsewhere I've been, there are a lot of people who believe we had no choice but to do what we did.

Many of us don't take the prospect of being thrown out of the House -- I haven't been thrown out yet; I'm proud of that. The day may come when I feel that's necessary, and if it is, I will do it. But I don't see any great particular goal in wanting to be thrown out, and I'll bet a lot of my colleagues feel the same way. Yet every one of us, New Democrats and Liberals alike, was prepared to put our ability to take this seat that we worked so hard to get on the line in defence of the public's right to have a say on Bill 26.

The person on whose shoulders that fell was Alvin Curling. That wasn't known ahead of time. We had a sense of what might happen, and we'd agreed if we got into a situation, here's what we would do. But we didn't know for sure; we didn't know in what way; we didn't know what person. We didn't even know if it would work. I want to say here, right now, and I've said it to many people since it happened and I'm very proud to say it publicly, I think Alvin Curling is a hero. I think that he's a hero, not because he wanted to be, not because he set out to be, and as politicians we all understand what the term "multiple agendas" means. This was not an agenda of this honourable member. I'll bet if you gave him the choice, particularly in the middle of the night, as certain pressures were coming upon him, he would have gladly handed that hero's role to anybody else who wanted it.

But he stayed there all night long so that the people of Ontario could have a say in Bill 26, a bill that, if Alvin Curling hadn't taken the action he did and if we hadn't supported him, would today be law. This is the very same law on which the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, when asked questions about this law today in question period, twice had to say to our leader, "I'll get back to you," because he didn't know the answer. This, I will say quite readily, having been a minister, is an honourable response if you don't know. But I reject the idea that that's acceptable on the day this is to become the law, when the very issue in this Legislature is whether there's been enough time to debate it. Then he had to stand corrected, because when he was sure of himself, he was wrong. Now I hear out in the scrum he's got himself all twisted and turned again.

What's that all about? The issue that he's got himself in such trouble over is all about user fees. Remember the party that ran on a platform that said, "No user fees"? And, oh yeah, no tax increases. Two of their key things: no tax increases, no user fees. What they really meant -- we should have had it decoded -- was: "We as the government won't bring in new taxes. Oh, no. We as the government won't bring in user fees. Oh, no. We won't do that."

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): Except for drugs.

Mr Christopherson: They broke that promise. I'm going to get to that later if I have time. We know what they're going to do with the copayments and everything else.

But even if they hadn't broken their promise on drug prices, they were still blown out of the water by the fact that what this does -- this bill in large part and the very issue that got the Minister of Municipal Affairs in trouble today -- is to give municipalities the ability to bring in user fees that they don't now have. And then, by cutting their funding by over 40% in two years -- which, by the way, in large part goes to pay that tax increase that the wealthy are going to benefit from; this all fits together.

Mrs Boyd: Decrease.

Mr Christopherson: Sorry?

Mrs Boyd: Decrease, not increase. Decrease.

Mr Christopherson: Oh, a tax decrease, yes. Sorry. That's where a lot of this money is going to go, to pay for that tax decrease that the wealthy will benefit from.

By putting that kind of fiscal pressure on the municipalities, municipalities have three choices. I was a municipal councillor and alderman, regional council and city council, for five years in Hamilton, and I can tell you they've got three choices. They can either cut the services like libraries, recreation centres, public transit -- by the way, a lot of the services that lower-income people may use more than others, which fits again with who you're blaming and who you're attacking and who's going to pay for your Common Sense Revolution. So they put the fiscal pressure on them that they either have to cut those services, increase taxes, or impose user fees.

More than likely most municipalities will have to look at a mixture of the three. They don't have any alternatives, because the provincial government is very much the master in these things because the municipalities are creatures of the provinces. They're not recognized in the Constitution. Therefore, the provincial government pulls all the strings at the end of the day with regard to what municipalities can and can't do.

So now it's the municipal politicians that have the heartbreaking and heart-rending and gut-wrenching decisions about what services get cut, how much property tax increase there will be, and where there will be user fees and who will pay them, all the things this government said, "Elect us and we won't do any of those things." No, you're going to make somebody else do it that you have complete control over and hope at the end of the day that the public will think of local aldermen and councillors as the bad politicians because of what they did to our community, and all the good provincial government because they were able to cut taxes and reduce spending. What a load of baloney.

That's why you want to ram this stuff through, because you're trying to prevent people from figuring out what you're doing and how you're doing it. That's why it was so important that Alvin Curling did what he did, and that's why it's so important that we supported him in that. Because I've heard the government say that there's as many or more hours of public hearings contained in what they proposed. But let's remember, it was going to be law today. That's not enough time for anybody to look at a 211-page law and be able to intelligently and constructively comment on the legislation, and that's why we wanted public hearings in the new year.

Another important part of democracy is to make sure that people have the information they need to make public comment, and not everybody is a lawyer. In fact, most people don't have any legal training. And yet if you were democrats, if you believed in democracy, you would go out of your way as a government to facilitate people having input, you'd facilitate their understanding of the law, you would listen to what people say.

We heard today that ministers won't even meet with people, and I've heard that out there too. But you folks can only play this game for so long. You can't just keep hiding between the House and your office, let me tell you. The member for Nepean can't forever cover for the Minister of Labour. She's eventually going to have to go out and face the music herself.

Those are the kinds of things that if a party that forms a government seriously believed in democracy, they would do. And this government has done the opposite.

Mr Ron Johnson (Brantford): I think we should raise taxes.

Mr Christopherson: One of the honourable members on the back bench, one of the Tories, says, "I think we should raise taxes." At least he's trying to be honest.

1630

I want to point out one of the benefits, and this just happened on Friday because we didn't know whether or not we were going to get public hearings out of this government. So our party held at least the opening day of hearings on Friday and we heard from Dan Benedict and his colleague on behalf of seniors, a major umbrella seniors group. They pointed out something interesting and this is the benefit of actually listening to the people instead of hiding from them.

He pointed out that it's not just the increases in the cost of drugs and the cuts to health care, which are the sort of things we all immediately think of when we think, how will this impact on seniors? You think drug prices and health care because those are very important issues and, in many cases, they have a great reliance on those services and on those products.

They pointed out that in many of the other areas where there will be user fees, that has the effect of lowering the quality of life for seniors. For instance, public transit. If municipal governments are forced by the actions of this Tory government to increase the cost of public transit -- there's a large percentage of seniors that use public transit. That's more cash out of their pocket, that's a lowering of their standard of living. For some of them who are on the borderline, because we have to take a look at everything this government's doing and all the attack on those who are the most vulnerable, they're already feeling the financial squeeze.

What else? We may have an increase in user fees for libraries. Again, seniors use libraries a lot, and if you start increasing the costs, you've got the same thing as you've got with the drug increases and the increases to transit and we can add that.

Let's talk about tuition. There are a lot of seniors who take the opportunity, because they're still very active, when they're retired to achieve part of the formal education they may not have gotten when they were younger or they wish to go on further. An increase in tuition fees, because of the major attack on secondary and post-secondary schooling by this government again, is going to inhibit the ability of a lot of seniors to continue their education. Yet the Minister of Education and Training likes to get up on his feet and talk about life-long learning. Life-long learning didn't mean, "If you can afford it."

Mr Len Wood: They don't care.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Cochrane North will come to order.

Interjections.

Mr Christopherson: We're not done. Recreational --

The Deputy Speaker: I've asked for order from several different members and I'm not getting it. I will have no alternative.

Mr Christopherson: Recreational facilities: Again municipalities may be faced with either cutting recreational facilities and services or implementing or increasing user fees. If we have user fees around the collection of garbage, the same thing.

Now, there's just one slice of public input that certainly altered my thinking because I realize that there's a need to look at things like this beyond just the quick idea that comes to mind. Yet that's all that we would have had had Alvin Curling not done what he did and we not supported him in making sure that there will be enough time to look at these much more adequately. Everybody who came forward -- the medical association, environmental movements, and I saw a couple of the people who made presentations were in the gallery earlier -- all said, "This is our first-blush response and these are some of the serious concerns we have, but we'll be looking at it more over the balance of the year and be ready for public hearings in the new year."

This government was not going to let that happen.

Mr Pouliot: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: With the highest of respect, this is a very inspiring address to the House and unfortunately many of the Conservatives have chosen not to show and listen. They've left in shame. Will you please call for a quorum?

Senior Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Journals (Mr Alex D. McFedries): A quorum is now present, Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker: A quorum is present and the Chair recognizes again the member for Hamilton Centre.

Mr Christopherson: The quorum that the Tories need to worry about are the people who are watching the way that they are functioning and not what's happening in this House, because it's all pretty much preordained here. What matters is the public finally getting a chance to understand and hear some of the things that are contained in this draconian law.

I have a few minutes left. I do want to comment on a couple of more things. I want to raise the issue of the changing of the rules for arbitrators and how they will conduct themselves when they're hearing from employers and police officers and firefighters and hospital workers. The rules around this type of arbitration have changed so dramatically that it is possible that any meaningful collective bargaining is gone. And again, we'll have to have benefit of further analysis, legal advice and public hearings, but it looks like it may also be possible for arbitrators to rule that there should be a cut in service in the area of firefighting and police services and hospital workers. I'm not saying that with any certainty but I am saying that's a question that's been raised; it needs to be addressed. This government wasn't going to give the people of Ontario that opportunity.

One thing they're clearly trying to do, because police officers and firefighters are workers too; therefore, they're on the hit list. I worked with both those communities for a number of years and as much as perhaps some of them have had, or maybe still do, some feelings of support for this current government and the things it believes in, I can tell you, they didn't expect you to turn on them, but you have. They've got to be just reeling out there, wondering what is going on.

That's another broken promise, but we're losing track of those, where the minister said he wouldn't change anything until he'd had full input from these people, and before they had that final input they brought in Bill 26, and lo and behold, in there are these rules around arbitrators' guidelines being changed, taking away rights that police officers and firefighters and hospital workers had as workers: collective bargaining. But if you're a worker in this province, watch out, because you're on this government's hit list. Regardless of what you might think about yourself and who your friends are, if you're a worker, you're in the middle of the bull's eye, and if not today, eventually they'll get around to you, and if not directly, indirectly, as we all watch our health care system Americanized, our social safety net destroyed, a revamping of how taxation works in this province.

Our leader, in question period today, pointed out very carefully and very clearly how the Constitution gives certain taxation powers that have been upheld by court decisions to provinces. This government proposes to give many of those same powers to a city council. I've been in both those worlds and I can tell you, there's a big difference between the scrutiny and the process -- at least, there used to be, when democracy reigned around here -- the amount of time, the checks and balances, so that laws are thought through, laws are truly considered.

Bylaws can go pretty fast, but again, when you're dealing with the severity of things, is that the end of the world? You can always reconsider it at the next meeting. If you thought you should put a stop sign somewhere where you don't or you want to do a road alignment and you've heard of a new engineering report that says you want to reconsider that, the implications aren't as great, which is why there aren't the same checks and balances on municipal councils as there are in the legislatures of this country, that are recognized and defined by the Constitution.

1640

This government is giving, because it thinks it's taking care of its political pals, those powers to municipalities after it has already put the fiscal boots to them. I feel for them. I've said that to Tory and Liberal colleagues on municipal councils, as well as New Democrats, that I truly feel for them, because the tough decisions that ought to be made here are being handed to them. They're the ones who are going to have the blood on their hands and the blood on the floor, because the political battles will take place in their arena and not here.

While they're going through that process, this government, I guarantee you, will go around this province crowing about the fact that it didn't cut those services, it didn't introduce those user fees; that was those awful municipal politicians, and "Here's their phone number; you ought to go and tell them what you think." That's the game plan. It's not rocket science; obviously it couldn't be. It's fairly straightforward, but it does require a little time to get it out and to dig through it all and understand 211 pages of creating three new bills and amending over 40 other laws. It takes a little while. That's why they wanted to ram it through.

Bill 7: There are people who still don't know what the labour law of this land is. That's just the way you wanted it, because you knew that if people saw the truth in what you were doing and why you were doing it and the fact that you didn't have a mandate, same as Bill 26, you'd get an outrage.

Let me tell you, when I was in London with those over 10,000 Ontarians who were protesting -- and you can write this off; I see members on the Tory back bench making faces and doing all kinds of weird things, which is about all they do, although they do it well, I give you that -- people in London, those 10,000-plus, were just as angry about Bill 26 and what it contains and just as angry about Bill 26 and what you tried to do with the process as they were about Bill 7. As the picture gets clearer, you're going to see more and more of those huge kinds of protests, because the people of Ontario did not give this government a mandate to completely decimate everything that makes this a great province and that generations took decades to build.

The Deputy Speaker: Comments or questions?

Mr Len Wood: I listened very attentively to what my good friend and colleague the member for Hamilton Centre has explained to a lot of the Tory backbenchers here who quite obviously have not read the bill and don't understand the bill. As a matter of fact, during question period today when our leader was questioning the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing it was quite obvious that he either hadn't read the bill or didn't understand the bill and was giving very vague answers on the day that this was going to become law.

I agree with the member for Hamilton Centre when he says that Bill 7, which was the bill that legalized the use of scabs and replacement workers in the province of Ontario, which had been banned for a number of years, was rammed through the Legislature with no public hearings, no public consultation, no discussions with the business or labour people. There was a lot of opposition to it.

The intention was that this bill would be rammed through the Legislature and it would become law today or tomorrow and that the four or five cabinet ministers who were responsible for drafting this Legislation along with their political staff and the bureaucracy decided they were going to ram this through the House and the Tory backbenchers were going to be told:

"Well, you go and hide now. You go and hide until next spring, when we'll bring in a new throne speech and a budget. We'll give you back the $7 billion that we're cutting away from the poor, the women, the children, the disabled people. You don't have to worry about everything, because we're bringing in legislation that's going to allow the municipalities to tax everybody into the poorhouse.

"The province of Ontario is not going to raise the taxes because Mike Harris is going to have to resign if he raises taxes, but we're going to get the municipalities to go out and tax everybody into the poorhouse and everybody's going to be happy about it."

The Deputy Speaker: Comments or questions? The Chair recognizes the member for Lake Nipigon.

Mr Pouliot: I thank you very much, Mr Speaker, yet one more time. What a reminder, a caution, an olive branch to the government telling them that you're going too fast, too quickly. You're too anxious to open the gates so the blood can flow.

I have in my hand a copy of the Common Sense Revolution. This satanic document tells not of the true spirit and intent under the umbrella of Bill 26. If the opposition were not so committed, if we didn't care, if we weren't at our post, we would just give them the latitude to hang themselves. Recall Bill 7 -- 65 amendments. They couldn't live by their own document. They themselves had to go back in those dark rooms and amend the document.

You had to be here this afternoon. This was a performance indeed, or the lack of it. It wasn't even vaudeville or burlesque; it was the performance of the Minister of Municipal affairs. He had to leave the chamber in shame because he couldn't even answer the simplest of questions; he didn't know. And they were to pass this legislation today, legislation that calls and allows for the devolution of power. It passes the buck; it downloads on municipalities. What my colleague the member for Hamilton Centre has said is that it's no use for the minister to cross the House, because our party, our side of the House is not --

The Deputy Speaker: The member's time has expired. The member for Nepean

Mr Baird: I just want to put one short fact on the record. The members opposite suggest that this government is in too much of a hurry, that we're moving too quickly, that we're ramming through legislation after legislation after legislation. I think it's very important to recognize that in the last 50 weeks the Ontario Legislature has passed only one bill.

Mr Christopherson: In my two-minute response to those comments, I want to thank my colleagues from Cochrane North and Lake Nipigon, both of whom feel very passionately and care very much about the kind of Ontario that Bill 26 is going to destroy. I'm always honoured when they lend their voices to mine and support some of the positions that I have outlined reflecting my own passion on what's happening.

With regard to the comment from the honourable member for Nepean, I would suggest to him that he tread very carefully, and I say this with great respect. I've spent some time working with the member and I do respect him, but I would suggest to him that he be very careful about defending, or trying to deflect from, the issue of whether or not this government has rammed legislation through. He is the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Labour. That is the second-to-last person in this House who would want to get on his feet and talk about democracy and input and whether or not this government was ramming things through, I would think, having watched the reception he got in Windsor, because I was there too, with the building trades delegates.

Trade unionists are very, very respectful when they invite people to come to their -- he carries that bag from the convention. Members of this House will be interested to know there were calls from the audience that he not be given the bag because of the message that he brought. But, again, at least he was there. His minister chickened out and he had to go in there and carry the can.

But make no mistake, if the people of Ontario -- and they're getting this message or there wouldn't have been so many in London. Just keep watching. There'll be lots more -- lots more. But if the people of Ontario didn't do what they're doing and we didn't do what we're doing, you would literally run this place like a dictatorship. You've proven that.

1650

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate?

Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): It's a pleasure today to rise to speak to Bill 26. In fact, I'll be directing my comments in support of our Minister of Health, Jim Wilson. Even Tom Walkom of the Toronto Star recognizes the minister's great knowledge, insight, courage, leadership and commitment to health care in Ontario.

We all know in Ontario that health care certainly needs reform. In my riding of Durham East the people have told me very clearly, and the acute care study done by the district health council reiterated the same comments. In my riding, I can assure you that we are in a severe shortage of physicians. It's one of the top priority calls that I get in Durham East.

The health care reform provisions in Bill 26 are designed to provide efficiency and quality in health care and make the system sustainable and affordable for the generations to follow. We need health care in the right place at the right time for the right price.

Our reform initiatives are premised on five major principles: system restructuring; highest quality and best price; patient focus; accountability; and sustainability.

Let's start with systems restructuring. We are committed to maintaining health care funding at $17.4 billion, but implicit in this commitment, we all know, is the need to make changes in the way we deliver health care services. These changes are long overdue, as has been demonstrated in many reports. I have most of those reports here. Most members in the House are familiar with the Scott report, which really addresses some of the needs in my riding, as well as the health care report. In our region, it was called the acute care report.

Bill 26 facilitates the restructuring of the health care system by bolstering community hospital restructuring. Bill 26 creates and empowers the Health Services Restructuring Commission to assist communities to find efficiencies in the ways they deliver hospital services. While 60 Ontario communities are engaged in hospital restructuring studies, these studies do not indicate how communities will actually implement these recommendations. The Health Services Restructuring Commission will do this and make restructuring happen for 60 Ontario communities. Many of these communities have directly asked us to assist them in reforming the health care system. It will also accelerate the pace of restructuring to ensure that changes to the hospital system occur in a planned and managed fashion.

In the past five years, 6,700 beds have been ripped out of the hospital system in random fashion. Beds have been stripped away without the questions being asked and answered as to whether or not we can do with fewer facilities. This translates, the 6,700 beds, into perhaps some 30 hospitals, hospitals without the closures and not the derived benefits and economics. Imagine the duplication and waste that has been created, thus rendering the patient with fewer dollars being spent where the care is most needed.

Our Bill 26 reforms will drive services to the needs by setting aside previous binding agreements with physicians and encouraging, through the most generous incentive packages in the history of this province, physicians to practise in underserviced areas. We all recall the recent announcement by the minister on December 4, which will extend the service of $70 an hour for emergency coverage in our northern communities. I, for one, know that this is an area that it's seriously going to affect and improve the level of service in my riding.

Our Bill 26 reforms will maintain quality in our drug plan and expand coverage in a more humane manner to the working poor by asking drug plan recipients to share in the cost of the plan. This plan extends Ontario drug benefits to some 140,000 people who would otherwise have been denied this vital service.

Our Bill 26 reforms will ensure that quality services are provided in uninsured facilities that the government previously had no control over.

Our goal, again, is high quality and best price. In order to ensure the people of Ontario a quality health care service in times of fiscal constraint, we emphasize service, not ideology and not who provides the service.

One of the overriding principles of this legislation is the notion that we need to -- indeed, we must -- provide the highest quality of service at the best price. Our Bill 26 reforms to the Independent Health Facilities Act remove the bias that prevents commercial providers from competing with the non-profit sector in the provision of services. By unshackling this commercial provider, we are asking everyone to join us in our quest to provide best quality of service at an affordable price. This bias was written into the legislation because the then Liberal Premier, David Peterson, was more interested in playing politics and feuding with Brian Mulroney over free trade --

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): That's baloney.

Mr O'Toole: Mrs Caplan's chanting away there. She was indeed the Health minister at the time and she knows very well that those were the politics behind it all.

Our Bill 26 reforms enable us to control drug plan costs and allows patients and private drug insurance plans the flexibility to shop around for the best packages for dispensing fees and drugs. We believe that the market, not government policies, will drive down dispensing fees and drug prices. Again, we ensure the highest quality, the highest service and the best price; most of all, and I want you to listen to this, to be patient-focused.

Ms Lankin: You don't know what you're talking about.

Mr O'Toole: We all know the outrage in the health care community and the dislocation in the OMA and the OHA. Our minister has taken the leadership and the conviction -- and I might compliment him; he's very, very knowledgeable, as we've seen displayed in the House here -- to take on this decision-making process and the leadership that's required. I've heard that from doctors in my community. Despite the former Minister of Health -- the two former ministers of Health, I might add, are here -- they fully know the politics and the territorialism out there that challenged you when you were the minister, Ms Lankin. I can attest; I heard you speak.

The reforms made in Bill 26 will enable our government to continue to re-engineer the health care system away from administrative structures and towards a friendlier patient focus. We are revamping the Health Insurance Act and the Health Care Accessibility Act. We are ensuring that all patients, regardless of what part of the province they are located in, have access to appropriate medical services when they are needed and where they are needed. Individuals who live in my constituency and other remote areas, like Marathon and Hornepayne and Manitouwadge, have the same right of critical services as patients who reside here in Toronto or Hamilton or London. I think our minister is taking steps to address these underserviced areas and follow up on many of the recommendations in the Scott report.

The changes we are making to the drug plan and other portions of our plan are a compliment to our Minister of Health. I recognize that there will be detractors for our plan -- we've heard that today in this chamber -- but I say to these members, it is my sincere belief that maintaining the status quo as we know it is not an option. Having over 70 communities, including my riding of Durham East, with inadequate coverage in physician services is unacceptable to this government.

We are leading. We are not leaving our communities without the necessary tools to bring about the much-needed change we all know the hospital system and indeed the medical system require in this province. Health facilities with little or no accountability to the previous ministers of Health -- I'm not sure they took the appropriate action. There are no concerns that I've seen demonstrated for the care of patients, let alone accessibility and, most of all, sustainability. That's what this is about.

1700

A drug benefit program that is not income-sensitive nor plans for its own sustainability into the future is also not acceptable to the government. Unfortunately, politics by its nature will mean that those across the floor who know in their hearts that change must come will feel compelled to dissent for the sake of dissent, and we've seen that in a despicable fashion over the past week.

I deplore the quality of membership and leadership on the other side. The vested interests who would maintain the status quo will be calling their local MPPs and writing their local newspapers to decry the progress we are making in bringing a patient focus and accountability to the health care system.

To those who recognize the need for change, our partners in the system and the taxpayers of Ontario, I know they realize what we're doing is the right thing. Help us take up the challenge. Support Bill 26, and I'm sure that it will correct many of the long-standing problems in health care in Ontario today.

The Deputy Speaker: Comments and questions?

Mrs Caplan: I would say to the member that I could just imagine what speech he would have given if any government consisting of anyone from this side of the House had tabled Bill 26 and proceeded to attempt to ram it, yes, railroad it through as the Harris Conservative government has done and is attempting to do.

While the member stood in his place to compliment and defend a bill with the kind of broad, sweeping, absolute powers that it is giving to ministers of the crown, unprecedented in history, I would tell you, Mr Speaker, I was sitting here just trying to imagine what speech that member would have given if he had been on this side of the House.

I sat on that side of the House and I heard the speeches that came from Conservative members of the opposition, speeches which were determined to stop progressive, positive changes that were supported by many in the community. You talked about turf protection. Let me tell you there was no one like Jim Wilson and Ernie Eves and Mike Harris when it came to advocating for whoever's turf was being invaded.

Listening to the kind of sanctimonious drivel that the member opposite has put forward, I would only say to him: "Sir, who wrote your speech? Get a new speechwriter."

Mrs Boyd: I too realize that the members of the Tory back bench are required to mouth the words that they've been given around this bill and that it is imperative for them to maintain the solidarity that has been required of them around ensuring that no one makes any cracks in the determination of this government to move ahead, regardless of what anybody says about the proposals that they're putting forward.

I'm going to be a little more gentle than my colleague from Oriole with the member, because I understand what the member has been instructed to do and I understand how difficult that is.

I would just say to the member that when you go on about this being responsive to patients, that the whole purpose of this is to be more responsive to patients, you must expect that patients who are suddenly finding themselves paying a user fee for their drugs are going to find that hard to stomach. They're going to find it very, very difficult to believe that you're trying to be responsive to them and to their children.

For those of you and us here who enjoy drug benefits through our place of employment, it's often difficult to imagine what a $2 fee on each prescription costs a family of five where three of those members, for example, have a chronic disease like asthma. When you talk about asthma, you talk about many prescriptions in a month, many different prescriptions for two or three members of the family, that $2 if you're on welfare or on a fixed income builds up very quickly.

I think the member ought not to be surprised if he finds some of those people in his office find it difficult to think of him standing in this place defending patient responsiveness.

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville): I just want to comment, first of all, that many of the members opposite in the back row and the member for Durham East are thoughtful, incisive and intelligent people who were elected by the people in their constituencies.

I know that when they look at Bill 26, a bill which none of them had any input into, a bill which they all know very well was not subject to public consultation, when they're not here and they're not being told what to say, they find it offensive. They find it offensive when the Minister of Municipal Affairs shows in the House that he obviously isn't even aware of what's in the bill that affects his ministry. They find it offensive when they know that the bill was dropped on their laps without any kind of formal consultation, and they dutifully get up and defend the government to which they were elected, as they should.

But they understand well that, like Bill 7 and other pieces of legislation that get rammed down the public's throats, there will be problems. They're thoughtful people. They're decent people who represent anywhere from 80,000 to 100,000 other people in this province. I wouldn't want to engage in a game of who gets the most calls on what, but I know the more thoughtful members opposite in the back rows share the concerns of the official opposition. The member for Chatham is a thoughtful guy. I know how he feels. He doesn't like having this kind of stuff thrown at him without any kind of involvement, and I respect that.

Mr Jim Flaherty (Durham Centre): I applaud the comments and the speech from my friend from Durham East. The opposition dwells on what they perceive to be negative aspects of Bill 26. In the hospital sector there are a number of features that I think the hospitals find attractive and that our friends opposite do not dwell on.

Some examples of the tools that the hospitals have requested and that are being provided by Bill 26, some of them mentioned in the economic statement, were multi-year funding commitments for hospitals, commitment to work with the sector on a fair and equitable process to implement funding restrictions and, importantly from a fund-raising point of view, the ability to establish crown foundations to make it easier for hospitals to solicit charitable donations, which would be very important for those who contribute to hospitals in the future.

There's also the commitment to increase flexibility to generate revenue and, as my friend from Cochrane North has noted, the guidelines for arbitrators to consider employers' ability to pay salary and wage increases.

This is only fair and equitable, and I'm sure my friends opposite would want to it to be fair and equitable, that is, that persons in Ontario would want to share equally in the restraint that is necessary as we restructure not only the health care area but other areas.

This is a tool that the hospitals have asked for which we are providing to them so that they can restructure in an appropriate manner, not only in Durham region under the acute care study but around the province of Ontario in more than 60 areas as the minister has described.

1710

Mr O'Toole: In response to the statement I made in support of the Minister of Health on Bill 26 -- I'd first like a little instruction for the members opposite. I, for one, am one of the people who has traditionally been called a backbencher, and I take great exception to the way that term is being used. But I would like to point out to you, more importantly, that if I'm a backbencher, you must be totally immobilized because we, at the end of the day, are the government and your point is only to criticize, and that's all I've really heard. Nothing constructive comes from the other side.

This bill really maintains all the principles in the Common Sense Revolution. We promised to cut spending. Indeed we cut spending while at the same time protecting the spending in health care to $17.4 billion. That takes real leadership with a plan, and each one of us here, whatever our role is at this time in this government, we have all been participants and kept very much informed of what's going on.

In terms of ramming the bill through, I would like to make reference to the antics pulled last week by certain members of this House, including the potential leadership candidates, of which the member for Oriole may be one. I hope they become the leadership, because the people have seen how you really react and the type of leadership we can expect from them in the eventuality of an election.

As for Bill 26, I have met with many members in my riding from the municipalities, the universities, the schools and the hospitals. They were all prepared for many of these cuts. They were surprised, I might add, by the quickness and the decisiveness with which this government has moved. But I want to assure you that each member you have heard here today is more competent than anything I've heard from the other side.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate?

Mrs Caplan: I rise today to participate in the debate on Bill 26, which has been the cause of a lot of anxiety and, frankly, personal distress for me. The bill is something that I have never seen in my over 10 years here in this Legislature. I've never before seen a piece of legislation that contains as broad, sweeping new powers given to members of the government in such a broad spectrum of ministries. It has been suggested that somewhere between 44 and 47 different pieces of legislation are affected by this budget bill -- we call it an omnibus bill.

I know that budget bills, omnibus bills are frequently used and have been used. They deal with items that flow from a budget, usually tax initiatives, and very often they also contain housekeeping components. One of the things I have found frustrating over the years about the use of omnibus bills is that it doesn't give you the opportunity to support those parts of it that you would like to support. It's a yes or a no, one vote only. So I'm going to get on the record at the very beginning of this debate that I will be opposing Bill 26, that I will be voting against it and that I can't imagine sufficient amendments that would be brought forward to this bill that would make it acceptable.

I want to be very clear that the concern I have is that the three weeks of public hearings the government has finally agreed to will still be inadequate, in my view, to hear from all of the people who have an interest in this bill, from people who are just now beginning to see the implications. It's my understanding, my office tells me that, so far, over 150 individuals and organizations have made requests to appear before the committee hearings that are going to be held on this bill.

I thought I would begin my remarks by a quote. I don't do this very often, but I'm going to use a quote that I think says a lot about what has happened in the Legislature over the past week. It's a quote by Winston Churchill in the House of Commons in October 1944. The reason that is a significant date for me is that I was born in 1944 and he made these comments when I was just a few months old. The quote is as follows: "It must be remembered that the function of Parliament is not only to pass good laws but to stop bad laws."

That is the function of Parliament, that is the reason that I ran for public office. When I decided to run, I said then and I believe now that every member of the Legislature can make a difference, to pass good laws and stop bad laws, in the words of Winston Churchill, to influence in a positive way the public policy as it is developed in this province.

Certainly, there is no question that as a member of the government that influence is more direct. But as a member of the opposition, while I have days when I have wondered whether or not I was fulfilling my own personal goals, being able to influence in a positive way, I've had days when I've seen the rules of this House changed to limit members' ability to raise the public consciousness. I recognize that the government is duly elected and as a duly elected government, it has every right to put forward its agenda. But they do not have the right to put forward that agenda and not permit scrutiny.

It is my view that democracy requires transparency. Democracy requires debate and understanding of the actions that a government is proposing. Democracy requires dissent. It is the role of the official opposition to hold the government accountable for its policies, to point out the areas where those policies can be improved, and yes, to endeavour to convince the government that the policies that it is bringing forward are not in the public interest and therefore should be abandoned. In fact, in the 10 years since I've been in this House governments have put forward policies and then retracted them, put forward ideas and suggestions, which in the light of public scrutiny they decided it was not wise to proceed with them.

But we have no Senate in Ontario; the Senate is in Ottawa. That is the House of sober second thought. Those processes and procedures, while they may seem tiresome and cumbersome on many occasions, offer the people of Canada, the people of this province, the kind of public scrutiny that safeguards our democracy. When you see a government such as we have seen in this past week bring forward a bill of the magnitude of Bill 26, with provisions that I will in just a few minutes start to examine, and ask to have that bill completed without the kind of public scrutiny and debate that would allow for transparency, that would allow for debate and dissent and that would allow for appropriate amendment and change, that is anti-democratic, that is giving to the government the kind of dictatorial authority that was never contemplated in elected parliaments.

So, with all of the passion and the force that the opposition could muster, we demanded that the government hold full public hearings, not while people were doing their Christmas shopping, but during the month of January when people would have the opportunity to come to committee, not just at 11 o'clock at night, but during day-time hours, when people could come forward and put their views forward and make their submissions. It is my hope that people will see what I see in this bill, that the government will see what I see in this bill. Some parts of it perhaps can and should be amended and some parts of it should be withdrawn, some parts of it cannot be fixed, and it is my hope that the government will see that and will respond to the representations that are made at committee.

I wanted to just mention a few of the things that are in the bill that I would like to support, that if these bills had been brought in separately, they would have had my support. I've said before in this House that if the government brings forward things that I think are good, I will support them.

I would support the disclosure of public sector salaries in excess of $100,000. That is in this bill and I support that. I support that because I think that democracy requires transparency and openness. Particularly in times of constraint and restraint, it's important for the public to have the right to know how their dollars are being spent. I think disclosure of salaries for the highest-paid workers in the public sector is appropriate. So I would support that.

1720

We know that this bill also contains the implementation of tax measures that were left over from the previous government. Because this House only sat for 16 days, the previous government was never able to pass its tax measures. Those tax measures have been in place and have been collected, because we know that when a budget is presented, all of that legislation is retroactive. The truth is, Mike Harris and the Conservatives could have decided that they would have repealed those and not brought in the legislation, but I don't think anyone would fault them by saying, "As much as I'd like to get on with life and get this over with" -- while I don't support the actions of those taxes, I do believe that you have to clean up the business from the past and get on with doing what you believe is part of your mandate.

But I have to tell you, Mr Speaker, that there are just a few other things that I can support without concern in the bill. I think that it is important that municipalities will be required to publish information relating to the efficiencies of their operations so that taxpayers can fully scrutinize their operations. I also think that it's important that hospitals provide information and data in a consistent form, according to generally accepted accounting principles, to the ministry. Those are, I think, positive parts of this bill.

But now I will be spending the rest of my limited time on those things that I have serious concerns about, because not only does this bill deal with those few items that I've just suggested in the area of salaries and leftover tax measures and powers to municipalities to disclose and hospitals to disclose information, but it deals with such items as how Ontario's hospitals will function, the drug benefit program, the Health Insurance Act, Physician Services Delivery Management Act, Pay Equity Act.

On that, as the women's issues critic, frankly I despair that we're not going to be able to have a debate over the changes in this legislation which will affect the many women in this province who would benefit from the proxy method of comparison. I will put on the record that I had some concerns about that method of comparison when it was brought in by the previous government. I would like to have had an opportunity to have further debate and discussion about it. That's not going to be possible, because in the magnitude of all of the things that are in this legislation, that's not one that seems to be of interest to the government sufficient that they would highlight it and give it time.

I have concerns about the freedom of information legislation and the new charges; the opportunity for municipalities to levy new taxes. While we hear from this Premier who promised no new taxes without a referendum, we now see a very specific new law that will give broad taxing powers to municipalities which would include poll taxes, better known as head taxes, taxes on gasoline and a host of other kinds of taxes that the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing is having difficulty himself explaining to this House.

This government will be able to realign and restructure municipalities without process and without consent, and I think that is serious and deserves discussion.

We have such things as the fire prevention and protection act, the Game and Fish Act, the Public Lands Act and Mining Act, most of which, in all of those, take things out of legislation and put them into regulation. I think that, while some of that may be just fine, others I would have concerns about since this government has also set up a group that is looking at substantial deregulation. I think that may be fair, but I do wonder what will be the implication of these changes. Will we have the opportunity for scrutiny? Given the impact of the health provisions of this bill, I suspect not.

Similarly, on the arbitration of wage disputes, I wonder how many firemen and policemen and hospital workers and people who work in school boards really fully understand the implication of the changes in direction to arbitrators in the "interest arbitration context."

The last thing that I would mention that's in this bill are changes to the public sector pension plan where we've been told that 10,000 civil servants, people who presently work for the provincial government, will be disadvantaged to the tune of $225 million potentially in their pensions. I think they might like to have a greater say about that, certainly it should be pointed out and noted, and I doubt that there will be a lot of time given to those at committee.

But the parts of this that I find most troubling and that my attention will be focused on are the impact of Bill 26 as it relates to the Ministry of Health. As a former Health minister, I understand what this minister is attempting to do, and I will say to you that there were days when I sat in the chair at the Ministry of Health when I said, "Gee, I wish I could just do this." At the same time, I said, "I'm really glad I can't do this unilaterally," because the process is important, because consent, consent of those people who are the front-line workers, consent of those people who are responsible for the delivery of services and have that responsibility, is very, very important. Why? Because we have a publicly funded, privately run non-system. We all recognize that you have to create a system. I've been saying since 1987 that the status quo is not an option. But absolute power in the hands of the Minister of Health is not the option either.

I believe that every special interest group, as you would call them -- I would call them stakeholders, partners in the delivery of health care -- all of the professions who are on the front line in caring for people, all of those people who deliver the services in the hospitals, in the independent health facilities, the administrators, the volunteers, but most especially the public, the people who access those services when they are sick or when they are worried that they are getting sick, all of those people think that health services in the province of Ontario are pretty darned good. They only would like to see it made better. No one is saying that it's perfect. In fact, we all know that there's a lot of room for improvement. But the ideas of how to improve it are not all vested in the Ministry of Health and the people who work in the ministry.

In fact, if you look at the history of the Ministry of Health, what you'll find is that it primarily acted as an insurance company, and gradually over the last years the policy has evolved and it has been more involved in planning, and we heard the discussion of managing. My view was always that the ministry should be a full partner. But that's not what this minister is proposing. He is not proposing partnership; he is giving himself the unilateral power to close and amalgamate hospitals as he wishes. There is no definition in this legislation for "the public interest." If Jim Wilson thinks it's in the public interest, so be it, that's it.

Who knows what the next Minister of Health will believe is in the public interest? Three years is the longevity of any Minister of Health. I was one of the longest-serving ministers. In fact, my deputy and I were the longest-serving team of minister and deputy, and that was three years.

So I say there is a big worry, because if you leave the definition of "the public interest" in the hands of any individual minister with no process, no scrutiny, then you're asking for trouble, and we will no longer have a publicly funded, privately run non-system. We could well end up with a publicly funded, government-run system, because why would anybody want to serve on a local hospital board if the minister has the power to tell that hospital exactly what services they can provide, what services they can no longer provide, what level of service they can provide, what level of service they can no longer provide?

That's the power that this minister will have. He will have the power to say to a hospital, "You can't provide that any more; I'm now going to provide it in an independent health facility," and without any process, without requests for proposals, he can decide who's going to provide that in an independent health facility. That's the power that the minister has in this bill.

1730

He has broad powers to appoint inspectors and supervisors, to take over a hospital like that if he believes it's in the public interest. What is the criterion or test for the public interest? Zero. Nada. Nothing. If Jim Wilson or any future minister believes that it's in the public interest, he can literally wipe out the board and take over a hospital.

We have already heard the concerns about disclosure of personal information, and the minister stood in his place and said I was wrong. He said, "The member is in error." He said that my leader was fearmongering, that I was fearmongering, and then on that very same day and the next day he received a letter from the Information and Privacy Commissioner. Do you know what Mr Wright said? He said he shared our concerns; he said we're right and the minister is wrong.

We talk about sections and provisions of this bill that cannot be fixed, the sections of this bill that pertain to the protection of personal privacy, the access to records and disclosure of those records by the minister which in my view must be taken from this bill and a separate piece of legislation, as recommended by Mr Wright, the freedom of information and protection of personal privacy commissioner -- he says, "I believe that specific health information, privacy legislation, is required." In that context, all of the provisions of Bill 26 that deal with access to information, disclosure, photocopying, all of that belongs in separate legislation that would protect the privacy of the people who access health services in this province.

Not only can the minister and the general manager of OHIP not be sued for disclosing personal information; they cannot be sued by anyone. If they decide to close a hospital or an independent health facility, there is no action or recourse to the courts whatever for wrongdoing. This legislation saves them, harmless, from any action no matter how it is taken and that is just fundamentally wrong. It doesn't fit with any of our laws of fairness -- no access to the courts at all to test whether or not you have been treated fairly. That is Jim Wilson and Mike Harris.

By the way, this is a Premier who told us, "I have no plan to close hospitals," and now we have a Minister of Health taking unilateral powers to do exactly that, and the plan here would accelerate the proposals that are coming. I despair that this is the response from the minister following a promise and a commitment from his Premier during the election campaign.

On the Ontario drug benefit plan, the minister has told us that Ontario is the only jurisdiction not to have user fees or copayment for drugs. But I want to remind the minister that the promise of his Premier during the election campaign was, "No new user fees." They didn't say, "No new user fees except"; they were very clear, and when asked, Mike Harris said a copayment is a user fee.

Just for the record, I want to say to the minister that he is being more mean, I guess is the word, when it comes to how it's being imposed, than any other province in Canada, from what I can see.

In British Columbia seniors who are unable to pay the dispensing fee can apply for relief. For seniors who are in long-term care facilities and for social assistance recipients and medically dependent children there's no copayment, there's no deductible, there's no user fee in British Columbia.

In the Yukon there's no deductible and there's no copayment for seniors and social assistance recipients.

In Quebec there's no deductible. Seniors do pay $2 per prescription, but that's to a maximum of $100. The proposal here says wealthy seniors -- anyone with an income of $16,001 is considered wealthy by this government -- they have to pay a $100 deductible plus $2 for every prescription. Because the deductible can be adjusted by regulation, who is to say how long it will remain at $2?

In Manitoba, seniors receiving social assistance living in personal care homes do not have to pay the copayment.

In Newfoundland there is no deductible for anyone and no copayment for welfare drug card holders.

In New Brunswick there's no deductible. Seniors eligible for nursing homes have no copayment, and there's no copayment for eligible nursing home recipients and recipients of child welfare.

I'm sad not only that they have broken their promise but I'm sad when I think that this is a government that is hurting women and children. They are hurting needy and sick senior citizens in this province. They're hurting them not only by breaking their promise of no user fees, but they are hurting them and targeting them for a level of pain that I don't think anyone in this community fully understands yet.

I wish there were more time for me to go into details of what this government is doing to the medical profession. I can tell you that I had my problems. The Ontario Medical Association and I frequently had tensions. I think it would be fair to categorize it as tensions. We didn't always agree, and there are always struggles when it comes to negotiations, whether it's with the OMA or the Ontario Pharmacists' Association. But you know something? My door was always open and they knew that. There was a lot of good work going on in policy areas. I never, ever would have dreamt of saying to them, "You can no longer negotiate."

That's what he said to the Ontario Medical Association, to the Ontario Pharmacists' Association. Pharmacists will no longer have a forum where they can discuss any of the non-fee issues. He slammed that door in their face. He said to the Ontario Medical Association: "You are the union but you are no longer the negotiating agent. You can be an advisory committee."

On top of that, billing numbers are not the solution. There are many good proposals that have been coming forward in recent days, proposals such as rostering and capitation payments. For people who don't understand what that means, that's where individuals choose their family doctor, as I do mine. He's now part of a health service organization. He's paid an annual fee for myself and my family. It's a much better way of resolving the manpower considerations and concerns, and particularly the young doctors are very worried about what their future is in Ontario.

The minister has created an environment of fear. He's also poisoned the atmosphere when it comes to negotiation. Frankly, I'm telling anyone who calls my office not to be concerned about the Canadian medical protective payment because the minister must fund and ensure that women have access to obstetrical services. The minister must fund and make sure that people have anaesthesia services, those services that have astronomically high insurance premiums. The minister has to consider what the impact will be on services, and I know he knows this and I know he's going to do something.

My theory is that many areas of Bill 26 I would describe as hog-tying six ways to Sunday, so that when they finally give some relief in a couple of those areas, everyone potentially will give a sigh of relief and say, "Well, they didn't do it all." But that's no way to negotiate. That's not good-faith negotiation. When I look at Bill 26 and I hear the concerns that are being raised by people who say, "Let us tell you how to do this; we want to work with you," I feel despair because I know there's a lot of good advice that the minister could be receiving.

Let me tell you what he's done. He's said to all of his so-called partners, "Give me your advice, then I will cherry-pick and then I will stand up and I will say you asked for this." But the Ontario Hospital Association says, "This is not what we asked for"; the Ontario Medical Association says, "This is not what we asked for"; the Ontario Pharmacists' Association says, "You wouldn't even talk to us"; the Professional Association of Internes and Residents of Ontario say this is not what they asked for; the Council of Ontario Faculties of Medicine say this is not what they asked for.

In trying to ram this bill through, railroading it through, the minister is sending out a message which I believe is the wrong message and could seriously lead to the dismantling of what is considered one of the best in the world, and that is the delivery of health services in the province of Ontario.

1740

I've been in this House for over a decade and I've had some personal goals. One of my goals was to make a difference. Another one of my goals was to always make my children proud. I want to tell the House how pleased I was that last week, following the hell-fire and brimstone, following the moments where, frankly, I lost my cool, each and every one of my four children made an effort to call me and say, "We're proud of you for standing up for democracy, for saying what you believe, for trying to convince the government that what they are doing is wrong."

I'm going to end my remarks by repeating once again Winston Churchill's comments, which I hope the members of the Conservative back bench will listen to. I want them to know that a back bench doesn't just have to read speeches that have been written for them, they don't have to say what they've been given, they don't have to clap and applaud when they're told to clap and applaud; they can also have an enormous influence within the government caucus. They can stand up for what they believe is right, they can hold their ministers accountable and they can make a positive difference by refusing to allow their ministers and their Premier to railroad them into bad legislation.

In 1944, when I was just a couple of months old, Winston Churchill said the role of Parliament is to pass good legislation and stop bad legislation. Bill 26 is bad legislation. I have done my part to stop the bad provisions of this bill by ensuring public hearings and I call on everyone to join me.

The Deputy Speaker: Comments and questions?

Mr Len Wood: I listened very carefully to what the member for Oriole has brought forward and explained as far as health care is concerned, especially the comment that she has brought forward as far as, if it's good legislation, all the legislators in here should be proud and make sure that the legislation is passed.

When you have bad legislation as we've seen, where you take 40 or 47 different pieces of legislation and you cram them all into one bill and it's 211 pages in length, and there are over 2,000 pages of supporting documentation, and try to ram it through the Legislature, which affects everybody in this province -- it gives the Conservative government the right to put a poll tax on; user fees for health care. We went through that and our leader explained that in his debate yesterday and during questions, how proud the seniors are that they're going to be having to pay a $2 fee and a $6.11 dispensing fee, and it could add up to hundreds and maybe even $1,000 a year in extra charges to the seniors who need prescription drugs to save their lives.

It's kind of scary, when I reflect back on what I watched on Focus Ontario the other night, where the Chair of Management Board was saying, "Our window of opportunity is very short." The impression I got from that was that if they don't ram this down everybody's throat now, they know they're only here for one term -- even the damage they've done so far is -- and they're on Global television saying, "We've got to ram this down everybody's throat now and let the municipalities charge everybody a tax increase, charge gas tax, charge a poll tax on people" --

The Deputy Speaker: The member's time has expired. Comments or questions?

Mr Jack Carroll (Chatham-Kent): I listened with great interest to the comments from the member for Oriole and the emotion with which she said them. According to her, she said since 1987 she has argued that the system needs to be changed, and I agree with her 100%. She also said there's a lot of room to improve the system. I've served on hospital boards while she was the minister and while Ms Lankin was the minister and I agree: The system does need to be changed. The problem is that it is now 1995, almost 1996, and the system has not been changed. It is still broken and somebody does need to take control of it before we don't have a system.

I also listened with great interest to the comments that she made about hearing from her four children and about the wonderful things that happened in the House last week. I only have three children and I also heard from my children. My children told me that they were embarrassed that I would be part of an association that would conduct itself in that manner.

So there are two sides to that story about our children, and I must tell you that it was a deplorable situation and I'm surprised that you would stand here and say that your children complimented you for that.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr Carroll: Thank you, Mr Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker: Questions and comments?

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): I too have heard the member for Oriole speak on a number of occasions. She always speaks with sincerity, with eloquence, but always with reason, I think. Today she spoke that way and she spoke of process.

The member for Chatham-Kent just mentioned how his children reacted to last week. I suspect they were doing so because they respect what their father says and does, but I suggest that if they had known that their father was a part of a government that had locked opposition members up in a room and that had heard the bells ring and couldn't answer the bell to take my rightful place in this Legislature and vote, and then if they had heard that their father's government was going to pass this bill by today with perhaps some public hearings that they finally offered by saying, "Yes, we'll give you 360 hours, but it'll be before Christmas, it will be till midnight each night and you'll have little time, public, to prepare," I suggest that maybe they and their father, the honourable member for Chatham-Kent, could have sat down and had at least a discussion about why that process took place.

It's important to me and to the people who sent me here that I have the opportunity to vote. It's also important to them on issues so important as those that are contained in Bill 26 that there be public input, that it be a transparent issue and full discussion. That's what's it all about. My children aren't ashamed, nor am I.

Mrs Boyd: I'm happy to get up and comment on the speech and the comments that have already been made. I would suggest that the member for Chatham-Kent, if he worked on a hospital board in his community, knows some of the reasons why communities are apprehensive when governments pursue restructuring. I suspect he was as much of a part of the delay within his community as many hospital boards have been in theirs.

Sometimes, of course, when we're in government, we believe that it is important to overcome all of that apprehension all at once, and that's exactly the temptation that this government has succumbed to. There isn't anyone who has been a minister on this side of the House who hasn't, at one time or another, thought briefly to themselves, "I could fix this if I just had the power to do it."

The issue in a democracy is that one person should never gather that power to himself or herself, that the democratic process involves those who own authority, as members of provincial Parliament need to work with their communities and convince others to work together towards a common goal and not to use the kind of sledgehammer that has been put in the hands of the Minister of Health by this bill.

The previous Minister of Health in the Liberal government, the honourable member for Oriole, knows very well and began a process of restructuring which our government carried on. In fact, we have seen enormous success in terms of the changes that have happened.

No, it hasn't gone lickety-split, quick-fast, so that any one of these two governments could take the credit for that. That's not the way evolutionary process, democratic process works in making massive changes within our community, and that's why there is opposition to Bill 26.

1750

The Deputy Speaker: The Chair recognizes the member for Oriole; two-minute response.

Mrs Caplan: In this House, we are the guardians of democracy. We have to make sure that laws are fully scrutinized, that we give due consideration, that the public knows what's happening and that they have their opportunity to have their say and be heard. If at the end of the day, after all of that public scrutiny, after all of that transparency and debate, the government still wishes to proceed with its legislation, it has a majority and it can do that.

But to stand in this House and to say, "Progress hasn't been quick enough and so we're going to get rid of all of democratic process, we're going to take all of the powers into our ministers' hands and without any further debate, scrutiny, legislation, we're going to fix it because we know best," not only is that not democratic, it won't work, because the way of Ontario has always been people working together.

If there were any advice that I could give to this government, and particularly to your Minister of Health, it is, you do not want all of these powers. It is not good or right for any one minister to have all of those powers. You need the consent, you need the cooperation of your partners. They will not be partners if you have all absolute power and control.

Mr Speaker, I cannot tell you how strongly I feel about this. I've told you that I've sat in the chair and I had days when I said, "Golly, gee, I wish I had all those powers," and I would tell you that I stand here today and I say I was glad I didn't have them then -- in fact, I knew then that it would be bad -- I'm glad today that I never had them, and I hope that this minister and no future minister ever will have them, because absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Report continues in volume B.

December 12, 1995

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

SERVICE CLUBS

CANDLELIGHT VIGIL

LANDFILL

OMNIBUS LEGISLATION

CHILD CARE

FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY

CANADIAN ASSOCIATION OF RETIRED PERSONS

LONDON DEMONSTRATION

WESTVIEW SENIOR PUBLIC SCHOOL

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

WORKPLACE HEALTH AND SAFETY AGENCY

ACQUIRED BRAIN INJURIES

OATH OF ALLEGIANCE

WORKPLACE HEALTH AND SAFETY AGENCY

ACQUIRED BRAIN INJURIES

OATH OF ALLEGIANCE

WORKPLACE HEALTH AND SAFETY AGENCY

ACQUIRED BRAIN INJURIES

MEMBER'S PRIVILEGE

MEMBERS' PRIVILEGES

ORAL QUESTIONS

MUNICIPAL TAXATION

PRIVATE CLINICS

MUNICIPAL TAXATION

STAR$

MUNICIPAL TAXATION

TENANTS

ARTS AND CULTURAL FUNDING

MUNICIPAL TAXATION

AFUA BOATENG

CORRECTIONAL FACILITY COSTS

PETITIONS

CHILD CARE

HIGHWAY SAFETY

CHILD CARE

OMNIBUS LEGISLATION

WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD

JUNIOR KINDERGARTEN

COMMON SENSE REVOLUTION

EDUCATION

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

COMMENTS OF THE MINISTER RESPONSIBLE FOR WOMEN'S ISSUES

COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

KIRKENDALL STRATHCONA NEIGHBOURHOOD HOUSE

ADULT EDUCATION

SUDBURY MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

HIGHWAY SAFETY

VEHICLE LICENSING OFFICE

HIGHWAY SAFETY

LABOUR LEGISLATION

SUDBURY ACTION CENTRE FOR YOUTH

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE ACT, 1995 / LOI DE 1995 SUR L'ASSURANCE-AUTOMOBILE

ORDERS OF THE DAY

SAVINGS AND RESTRUCTURING ACT, 1995 / LOI DE 1995 SUR LES ÉCONOMIES ET LA RESTRUCTURATION