L068B - Thu 10 Dec 1998 / Jeu 10 Déc 1998 1
HOLOCAUST MEMORIAL DAY ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR LE JOUR COMMÉMORATIF DE L'HOLOCAUSTE
HIGHWAY 407 ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR L'AUTOROUTE 407
The House met at 1831.
ORDERS OF THE DAY
HOLOCAUST MEMORIAL DAY ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR LE JOUR COMMÉMORATIF DE L'HOLOCAUSTE
Mr Chudleigh moved third reading of the following bill:
Bill 66, An Act to proclaim Holocaust Memorial Day - Yom ha-Shoah in Ontario / Projet de loi 66, Loi proclamant le Jour commémoratif de l'Holocauste - Yom ha-Choah en Ontario.
Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I believe we have unanimous consent among all three caucuses that each caucus shall use up to 20 minutes each prior to the taking of the third reading vote.
The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Is there unanimous consent for a splitting of the time, 20 minutes each? Agreed? It is agreed.
Mr Ted Chudleigh (Halton North): I'll be sharing my time with the member for Nepean and the member for York Mills.
I rise today to ask this House to unanimously support Bill 66, An Act to proclaim Holocaust Memorial Day - Yom ha-Shoah in Ontario.
This bill speaks to the need to defend our framework of human rights and democratic freedoms which we enjoy in this province but which still eludes millions of people worldwide. The bill will help us focus our personal memorials to the victims of all state-sponsored genocide and provide a focal point for education on the central theme: never again.
If passed by this House, we will designate an annual day of the Holocaust in Ontario.
It is most appropriate that this bill should receive third reading on this date, the 50th declaration of human rights and one day after the same anniversary of the United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.
The human rights declaration of 1948 marked a fundamental change in the notion of citizenship. Sparked by the declaration, people are realizing that they are citizens of the world first and subjects of various governments second when dealing with the issues of human rights.
Defending humanity is a higher purpose than defending government policy. No longer can a government act with impunity within its own borders. Slowly, this idea of global citizenship and responsibility has begun to take hold. Examples are in our daily newspapers. The British government is right now on the cusp of prosecuting former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet for murder, and the French government is considering the arrest and trial of one-time Haitian strongman "Baby Doc" Duvalier.
International citizenship, which can be defined as the basic human rights any person in this world should enjoy, is the product of those 1948 documents of the United Nations. The human rights declaration and the convention on genocide recognized civil, political, social, economic and cultural rights for all humanity. In Britain and France today we are seeing the exercise of a corresponding responsibility to uphold human rights and punish the offenders, be they governments or individuals.
Adding to the weight of these United Nations documents are numerous other international conventions, treaties and covenants on racial and gender discrimination, economic, social, religious and cultural rights, civil and political rights and children's rights. Each one of these documents whittles away a little bit at the notion of impunity of governments or nations when dealing with human rights.
I hope that this bill for a Holocaust Memorial Day in Ontario does its part to scrape away ignorance and help build bridges of understanding between governments, nations and individuals.
In 1933, Nazis began to systematically strip Jews of their human rights. In the Balkans, in Rwanda, in Turkey, in Ukraine, in Cambodia, in every instance of state-sponsored genocide, the victims have been first demonized and then stripped of their civil rights as citizens and human beings. We need to learn the lesson that people must take an active role defending our society. Atrocities visited upon various ethnic groups and others in Europe in the 1930s and 1940s were carried out with the active help of local collaborators and the indifference of numerous bystanders.
Jews were forced out of universities and barred from public sector jobs. Laws were enacted which stopped Jews from attending public schools and going to movie theatres or vacation resorts, and eventually they were barred from certain sections of cities. This sickening spiral led to attacks and boycotts of Jewish businesses and soon to physical attacks and imprisonment.
Rights were stripped away bit by bit, eventually rendering Jews second-class citizens in their own country, a country where their forefathers lived, died, and in many cases defended that country from attack. Some people, such as Raoul Wallenberg, Swedish ambassador to Hungary during the war, fought against state oppression. His actions saved the lives of more than 100,000 Hungarian Jews. His actions should be an inspiration to us all, especially when we read of ethnic cleansing in the Balkans, tribal warfare in Africa and the violence in Indonesia.
This bill recognizes that we must defend our democracy to best defend our human rights. It is only by those actions that we can claim true international citizenship and can call on our fellow citizens to defend us should we need their help.
This bill is meant to call attention to what was done to Jews in Europe and, by extension, to all victims of genocide. I hope schools will use this recognition as a springboard to teach the profound lessons of genocide and to teach of man's inhumanity to man in numerous places around the globe.
As perhaps the best-known and most deadly genocide, the Jewish Holocaust is a symbol of all other state-sponsored genocides. It is still true, however, that the most poignant of these atrocities to any individual is the one with which they have experienced personal loss.
My heart goes out to all victims of this most terrible form of murder. This is murder where a person's own government, charged with improving their well-being, is acting absolutely against their continued existence.
I ask this House to join with me and vote to include Ontarians among the citizens of the world willing to accept the responsibilities that go along with that citizenship.
I'd like to acknowledge the support for this bill from all members of this Legislature and from all parties of this Legislature and thank them for that support.
Mr John R. Baird (Nepean): I want to say at the outset how honoured and privileged I am to have the opportunity to lend my unconditional support to Bill 66, An Act to proclaim Holocaust Memorial Day in Ontario.
I also want to thank, on behalf of my constituents, the good number of people in Nepean and indeed in all of Ottawa-Carleton who have contacted me to indicate their support for this effort. I want to thank personally and congratulate my caucus colleague Ted Chudleigh, the member for Halton North, for his work in this endeavour and indeed all members of this House for agreeing to the speedy passage of this symbolic but very important piece of legislation.
The real danger in our society is that with time we might forget the very valuable lessons of the Holocaust. We might forget because far too many who witnessed the genocide and human tragedy were never able to survive to tell their tale. With the passage of time, those survivors who did, some of whom are with us today, are with us in smaller numbers.
1840
The symbolism of our Legislature passing this bill will send an important message right across Ontario, and indeed the world, that collectively we will work to ensure that the memory and experience of the victims and survivors of the Holocaust are never forgotten, that collectively in Ontario we will never allow those who propagate hate and violence to go unchallenged.
The years leading up to the Holocaust will perhaps give us just as much pause for thought, because it was there that an environment developed. There are some very important lessons for us to learn from that experience. The state didn't just turn a blind eye to hate and to violence. They watched hate and they encouraged hate, and as my colleague from Halton North said, rather than being the protector of all of its citizens, the state began encouraging hate and then violence, and finally the state itself began to propagate that hate at every level of society, be it in laws, be it in the school system, be it in the universities, be it in business and commerce. Finally, the state began the violence which led to genocide.
Even today we must not forget the lessons of the period leading up to the Holocaust. It's very important. Today in the Balkans, as we speak and debate this bill, right at this hour, on this day, tragedies take place. I'm sad to report that on the very day that this Legislature gave second reading to the bill by my colleague Mr Chudleigh, the Holocaust Memorial Day Act, a Jewish school in my riding was the victim of an arson attack. Just a few hours after Yom Kippur, the Jewish Day of Atonement, École Maimonides was struck by an arsonist. It was tragic, not because we had just passed this bill earlier that day or because it was on the eve of Yom Kippur; the most troubling thing was that it was not the first time. The school was attacked just four years ago.
Our community will not allow criminals and those who propagate hate to win. We will speak up, not just in the Jewish community, not just in any one community, but as a community and as leaders in the community. We will help the school rebuild and work to ensure that this can't happen again. Regrettably, it did, and to visit the school, where two charred classrooms remain - I asked why it was separated from the rest of the school, and Rabbi Berger, Rabbi Blum and Rabbi Botnick said they didn't want the children to see the damage that had been done to their school. They didn't want their children to realize that there was a real potential, that once again the school had been targeted, that someone wanted to leave a degree of fear with the children, with their parents and the entire community.
Holocaust Memorial Day will give all of us an opportunity to reflect, to educate ourselves and, most important, to educate future generations of young people about the important lessons of the Holocaust, the most important being: never again.
Hon David Turnbull (Minister without Portfolio): I'm privileged to add my support to the passage of this bill, the Holocaust Memorial Day Act, 1998. It's important to ensure that we never allow the memory of the horror of state-sponsored persecution and the murder of six million Jews in the Second World War to be erased.
We do this by establishing Holocaust Memorial Day, Yom ha-Shoah. It's appropriate that we do this on the 50th anniversary of the declaration of human rights. We should use this day to reflect on this and other atrocities around the world euphemistically called ethnic cleansing.
I'm going to be very brief in my comments, but I would say on a personal level that I'm reminded of a very dear friend who was born in a concentration camp at the end of the war. His family survived. Many did not. Sid, this one's for you.
We are the first in the world, to the best of my knowledge, to create such a memorial day. I hope many more will follow. We must never forget.
I want to congratulate my colleague the member for Halton North, Ted Chudleigh, for bringing forward this bill.
Ms Annamarie Castrilli (Downsview): I'll be splitting my time with the member for Wilson Heights and the member for Oakwood.
Let me first say how pleased I am to be engaging in this debate and that this debate has been expedited. I want to commend Mr Chudleigh for bringing the bill. I also want to commend my colleague Gerry Phillips, who rose in this House and put a motion so we could move directly to third reading and so we could have this bill in time for Hanukkah, the festival of lights, a festival of faith and of freedom. How fitting that this House should be speaking to this bill this evening and making that possible.
What has been said before has been very eloquent, has been very real, has been very painful. I want to congratulate the members of the Jewish community who are here. Some of them are Holocaust survivors, and I'm sure that tonight, while it may be a vindication of what they went through, it's also a reminder, again, of the atrocities they have had to suffer.
I'm not going to engage in some of the historical recounting we've heard here this evening. I think my colleagues have spoken volumes on that point, and others to follow. The fact is that this is a rare show of unanimity in this House for a recognition that has been a long time coming.
I want to recount a personal experience as a Canadian who has had the privilege of living a fairly comfortable life, certainly a life characterized by democracy in our country and by freedom of faith. Several years ago, I was fortunate enough to travel to Israel and to live for a very short period of time in Jerusalem and to see first-hand what some of those atrocities must have been like. Even through the eyes of a foreigner I was able to see that you could never really depict the enormity of what must have happened.
I remember one afternoon at the Yad Vashem memorial in Jerusalem. Any of you who have been there will know that you come away changed, and I came away changed. The notion that people could do this to other people, could demonstrate such profound disrespect for life, such profound disrespect for human dignity, that we would as a people condone that - the world stood silent as individuals were being massacred, as they were being burned, as they were being destroyed. For someone like me, who grew up in Canada, it was a shock, I will tell you. It was a shock that was long-lasting. As I saw people who went through it, there wasn't a dry eye in the place, and there were people like me who were coming to grips with it for the first time.
Imagine what it must be like if you had actually gone through it, if you had actually been to the ovens, if you had actually been waiting for a death sentence every single day, not knowing when it might come. Imagine seeing yourself being torn away from your family, from your children, not knowing if you would ever see them again.
Those are very poignant feelings, and I think today we are doing something very small, a little, tiny step, to say we don't agree with that. Hopefully we would never have agreed with that if we were there, but we recognize now that it's more important than ever to say: "What happened was unjust. We stand as witnesses that it should never happen again." Ontario in one small way is able to say to the world: "We will honour the memory of those who died. We will honour the importance of human dignity. We will value life." That's what this bill is about.
1850
Mr Monte Kwinter (Wilson Heights): I rise today to join in supporting the bill put forward by the member for Halton North, Mr Chudleigh, and I congratulate him for bringing it forward.
This bill will enshrine in the laws of Ontario a fitting memorial to the 27th day of Nisan, which is known as Yom ha-Shoah, Vehagvurah, the Holocaust memorial.
Each year - and I have to commend all governments because it has happened with all governments - we have a day that we do honour those, particularly Ontarians, who have survived the Holocaust. We have a ceremony, which the Premier attends, and it is something that really gives meaning to the contribution of those survivors who have made their way to Ontario and who have made a life for themselves and put the horrors of the Holocaust behind them.
One of the interesting things about the Holocaust is that for most people who did not live through it, the huge number, the six million, is very difficult to comprehend, because it is so large. The only way you can really come to grips with it is if you bring it down to the human level.
I was really touched. Just a month ago, as you know, I stood in this House and spoke on the occasion of the 60th anniversary of Kristallnacht. That night I went up to the Beth Emeth Synagogue and I heard Gerda Frieberg, who's up in the Speaker's gallery, tell a story of her particular experience on Kristallnacht. I can tell you, there wasn't a dry eye in the synagogue. My colleague the member for Halton North sat beside me, and we listened to this story.
That story is repeated and repeated and repeated throughout the world. The sad part about it is that those people who can give testimony to what happened are disappearing. Through no fault of their own, they're aging and they're disappearing. As a result, in a relatively short period of time there will be nobody left who can actually give first-hand testimony as to what happened.
One of the key things I find in Bill 66, if not the key thing - because everybody knows the Holocaust; everybody has some idea of what it is - the key phrase is that we will "reflect on and educate about the enduring lessons of the Holocaust." That is absolutely critical, because while this is a day where we're celebrating human rights and all of these wonderful, wonderful attributes of a democracy, there are still those who claim the Holocaust never even happened.
On November 30, 10 days ago, I received a letter in my office, addressed to "the Liberal member of Parliament." I just want to quote from it. It's unsigned, of course, because all these letters are unsigned. It's purported to be an article that was written by a rabbi. What it says is this:
"They" - this is the Jews - "concocted horrible stories of gas chambers which Hitler, they claimed, used to burn them alive. The press overflowed with pictures of Jews being gunned down by Hitler's machine guns or being pushed into gas chambers. The [press] focused on [suffering] women, children and elderly people in order to rouse empathy and claim reparations, donations, and grants from around the world.
"The truth is that such persecution was a malicious fabrication by the Jews. It is a myth which they named `The Holocaust' in order to rouse empathy. Credible historians challenge this Jewish [myth], calling for [more] persuasive evidence to be presented. The Los Angeles Historical Society declared that it would grant US$50,000 to anyone who could prove Jews had been gassed to death. Jews exerted intense pressure and cast accusations of anti-Semitism everywhere in order to silence this challenge."
I say to you, my colleagues, try telling my father that his brothers were not gassed in a gas chamber. Try telling the people up in this gallery that they, their loved ones, their children, their grandparents, their friends did not suffer under Nazi persecution. Try telling them that. Yet we have synagogue desecrations, cemetery desecrations, rising anti-Semitism, this garbage that's being disseminated at will, the Ernst Zundels of the world who take over the Internet and disseminate their distorted view of what is happening in the world. It is that kind of thing that we have to address with this bill.
Let me tell you an interesting story. In this same article, the author goes to great lengths to work out the mathematics, saying that the capacity of the gas chambers at Auschwitz was not large enough to kill six million Jews. He worked out the mathematics. They would have to kill 12,000 a day. What they don't understand is that not all of the atrocities were committed in gas chambers.
I want to share with you an interesting story that happened to me when I was the minister. I have to admit I was born in this country. I certainly know the issues of the Holocaust. But when I go to the synagogue on Yom Kippur and Rosh Hashanah, there is always a prayer to remember those who suffered in the Holocaust. They will usually list Treblinka and Birkenau and all of the various camps, and in that list would be Babi Yar. I had no idea, notwithstanding that I'm a Jew, what Babi Yar was. To me, it was just another name.
I led the first mission to Ukraine while it was still part of the Soviet Union. It was in 1989. I led a delegation of 100 Ukrainians. When I was a minister, I always made a practice of including in my resumé, which most countries wanted to see because there would be official things I had to do, that I was the founding president of the Toronto Regional Council of B'nai Brith. Not that I was that proud of it, which I was - that was not something I thought was of importance - but I wanted there to be no mistake that I was a Jew, because a lot of people, when they hear the name Kwinter, don't know what it is, and I wanted to make sure there was no mistake that I was Jewish.
When I arrived in Kiev, the Prime Minister met me and said, "Mr Minister, we've arranged for you to go to Babi Yar." I have to admit I had no idea it was even in Ukraine; I had no idea where it was. On the appointed day I went to Babi Yar, which is a little park. It's a park outside of Kiev. "Babi Yar" means "Grandmothers Park"; "baba," for those of you, "bubi." What happened is that the Germans decided that in order to exterminate the Jewish population of Kiev they would make an announcement that all of the Jews were to be relocated. In order to be relocated - they were going to be put in a safe haven - they were to assemble at Babi Yar. On this particular day, over 33,000 Jews congregated in this ravine in Babi Yar.
The irony of it was that some of the local Ukrainian people really resented the fact that these Jews were being relocated to safety when they had to stay behind. So they fell in with them and went to this park. When they got there, of course, all of them were machine-gunned, killed on the spot, and then bulldozers came in and covered them over.
The interesting thing about the visit, other than filling you in on what Babi Yar was, is that there had been representations by the world Jewish community to the Soviet government, because at that time it was part of the Soviet Union, that the memorial at Babi Yar just said that the only people who suffered in this massacre were citizens of the Soviet Union; no reference to the fact that 99% of them were Jews. When I arrived - and I didn't know any of this - there was a brand new plaque in Yiddish, which I happened to read, acknowledging that these in fact were Jews.
It's situations like that which we absolutely have to be on the vigil about. We have to make sure that the atrocities that happened - and again, it is absolutely critical to understand that this is the first time in history where a government has turned on its own citizens. We're not talking about wars where there is the enemy; we're not talking about any of these things. These were citizens of Germany. These were people who had been there for generations, who had been at the forefront of the arts, of science, of business. They were people who felt they were totally assimilated, totally loyal to their country, and their government turned on them only because they were Jews. It was for that reason and that reason alone that they were exterminated.
1900
The only way you can really comprehend - and I have to give credit to some of those people who are in the film production business - is by bringing it down to human terms. We all know the stir that Schindler's List created, because what it did was allow everybody to take a look at what was happening. We all know the story of Raoul Wallenberg. A young man from Sweden went to Budapest, had no connection whatsoever to the Jewish community and saved 100,000 Jews by giving them passes that designated them as Swedish citizens, which allowed them to escape. It is things like this that have to be brought forward so people can understand that what we are talking about is a period in our history that has no parallel whatsoever.
With all due respect to those who try to tie this in with other atrocities, there is nothing that has reached the magnitude of this particular black period in our history. To paraphrase Franklin Delano Roosevelt when he talked about the attack on Pearl Harbour, "This is an event that will go down in infamy." It is something we must absolutely keep at the forefront and educate our children about. We all know the old maxim that those who do not remember or learn from the past are doomed to repeat it. We must constantly keep it alive; we must always remember so the world will never forget.
Mr Mike Colle (Oakwood): I certainly want to commend the member for Wilson Heights for his very personal and heartfelt words, which are very close to him and his family.
I want to quote from Elie Wiesel. I think this is the reason why this bill has to go forward. It's about teaching; it's about making people remember, making our children remember and making sure they never forget what has happened to innocent people through no fault of their own.
When Elie Wiesel won the Nobel prize, here's the comment he made in Oslo, Norway, on December 10, 1986:
"I remember it happened yesterday, or eternities ago. A young Jewish boy discovered the kingdom of night. I remember his bewilderment. I remember his anguish. It all happened too fast: the ghetto, the deportation, the sealed cattle car, the fiery altar upon which the history of our people and the future of mankind were meant to be sacrificed.
"Now the boy is turning to me: `What have you done with my future? What have you done with my life?' I tell him that I have tried and I have tried to keep memory alive, that I've tried to fight those who would forget, because if we forget, we are guilty, we are accomplices."
Elie Wiesel, December 10, 1986.
I think this is part of not forgetting, of letting people know that the death of their innocent relatives was not in vain. The little we can do is ensure that our children are taught in schools, making sure there is a day like Yom ha-Shoah, making sure that one day we will have a stand-alone Holocaust museum in Ottawa. I had the pleasure of visiting the Holocaust museum in Washington a couple of times, and I encourage everyone, if they can, to do so. It brings the horror to life.
It's so easy to say, "It's not part of my life," but it's part of all of our lives. As I mentioned earlier, when Mr Chudleigh first presented this bill, we all know the story of the St Louis, which was turned away from every port in the western hemisphere, was turned away from Halifax. Those 900 people were desperately looking; they found no refuge. So it wasn't just a European thing; the whole world has to take responsibility. By supporting Mr Chudleigh's bill, by marking Yom ha-Shoah, we are taking a little responsibility. That's the least we can do for those innocent people who suffered at the hands of the horrific Nazis.
Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): I'm pleased and proud to rise to begin debate for the NDP caucus and to indicate very clearly our support for this very important piece of legislation, Bill 66, An Act to proclaim Holocaust Memorial Day - Yom ha-Shoah in Ontario.
Like I'm sure everyone else in this place, I'm proud to stand here on any day as one of the 130 elected representatives, but I have to tell you, tonight I feel not just proud but humbled to have the opportunity to give consent to this legislation. I say that with all sincerity.
While we, from day to day - we certainly were this afternoon and no doubt will probably be later this evening - are caught up in the partisan nature of this place and in the respective positions we bring on various issues - very differently from the government, the two opposition parties - I think it's particularly fitting that we also are able, on occasions such as this, to come together and support a bill such as the one presented to us by Mr Chudleigh and to say that regardless of political background, regardless of partisan differences, we can stand together proudly as one Legislative Assembly and give our agreement to this piece of legislation, legislation that recognizes formally the commemoration of the Holocaust and sets out a day in the year on which that will be remembered in a particular way.
Any of us who were not touched directly by the Holocaust can only begin to imagine the situation and the plight that those individuals - and I know there are a number in the gallery tonight who have themselves or through their families been affected directly - have gone through as victims or as sons and daughters of victims of the Holocaust.
My own connection to the issue is obviously, like everyone else here, as a legislator, as a citizen of Ontario, but I was particularly proud to have had the ability to work with members of the Canadian Jewish community in looking at some materials that should be added and were indeed added to the school curriculum in our schools, particularly here in Toronto. Indeed I know they were, through their efforts, throughout Ontario, to ensure that our young people were even more aware of the Holocaust, what it meant, and to ensure that they particularly, as young people above all, are given the lessons and the understanding of the Holocaust so that it may not ever happen again, so they can take the lesson from history that unfortunately sometimes people do not take.
I want to make one other comment with respect to this issue. I have received, and I assume other members of the House have received, letters from a number of organizations with respect to this bill, suggesting to us that the more appropriate way to go would be to recognize that there are other groups, other peoples, that have been affected by various forms of genocide, and that perhaps what we should be doing is looking at establishing in legislation something that would go beyond recognizing the Holocaust.
To those groups I want to say that I agree when they make the point that there are other forms of genocide that also need to be denounced, and need to be denounced in a variety of ways. But I want to also be very clear that I don't believe it's appropriate to get into a situation where we are trying to measure one against the other. What we need to do is deal with each of these issues. Quite frankly, I would not mind if this particular act by this Legislature results in other issues of a similar nature or a different nature being brought to our attention as legislators, with requests that other types of legislation be enacted, because I think that would also serve the objective that this piece of legislation serves, which is to bring this issue to the public's attention and to say that as the Legislative Assembly of Ontario we decry what went on, known as the Holocaust, and that we believe that kind of genocide, that kind of mass killing of people simply because of who they were is wrong, needs to be denounced, needs to be remembered, and that the lesson needs to be passed on to our young people. We do it here tonight with that conviction as it relates to the Holocaust, and that in no way predisposes or suggests that we would not be prepared to do it with respect to other events that took place throughout the world in our history that we would equally denounce.
I stand here today, not just proudly but with a great sense of humility, in giving agreement and consent to this bill going forward, and I echo the words of others who have said how appropriate it is that we are able to do this, particularly today on the 50th anniversary of the signing of the human rights declaration and particularly as the Jewish community prepares for the all-important festival of Hanukkah that is about to begin. I just want to reiterate our support and how appropriate it is that this kind of legislation comes to this House in this way and has the support of all three parties in this Legislature.
1910
Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): I too want to take some moments to talk about my support for this bill, An Act to proclaim Holocaust Memorial Day, and say that we all have a role to play in remembering that history. This is an act that tells the public that we remember, that we haven't forgotten, that this is yet one other forum where politicians can be actively involved, if even in this way, to remember that a whole people have been persecuted and many have been annihilated and that it's not something that should be forgotten by anybody.
But I would add that beyond establishing such an act, we politicians have an important role to play in terms of being proactive and not reactive to acts of racism, which we often are. We tend to react to those acts, and what we must do is be proactive in our policies of anti-racism in general. When we do that, these acts that we present and we support have much more meaning, therefore, because in itself just remembering isn't enough. We need to do more than that, and it has to happen all over, in every sector of our society. The educational system is one of them.
I recall the member for Dovercourt and I being trustees with the Toronto Board of Education, where we established 136 anti-racist recommendations and realized a couple of years later that we had barely implemented a few, not all of them. In the books we had great anti-racist policies to be admired by the country and we would show those policies as a way of saying, "Look how progressive this board is." But if you don't implement those recommendations, they're just policies, they just look good, they're just on paper. So we need to commit ourselves as politicians, as educators, as people working in every workplace, that we need anti-racist policies to deal with issues of racism, and then these acts are much more meaningful.
I worry about our reactive policies where we constantly have to deal with issues of racism, and as much as we have made progress in Ontario and in Canada - and I think we are a much more progressive society in general in terms of our ability to respect human rights by and large - we've got a long way to go. This country and most countries still have a long way to go.
Again, like the member for Dovercourt, I am not connected to the issue as Jews would be. My partner is half-Jewish and her grandparents left Germany during Kristallnacht. They were spared, so in this regard my partner is very lucky not to have had the personal horror that so many others have had to endure on a regular basis, because when you have to listen to the stories - I know people would rather not listen to them, not hear them - when you hear them, they stay with you because they're very graphic. It's difficult for me to see those images on television, those historical sights, difficult for me as someone who is not connected, but imagine what it would be like for someone who has lost a family member in that way. It's tough.
My connection is very tangential, but it's my respect for human dignity and my anti-racist principles and work that make me a little more sensitive about the work we need to do. That's why I talk about being proactive and not reactive. I still have a long way to go. I spent years at the Toronto Board of Education working on issues of making sure that we understand our diversity and, beyond celebrating, that we understand how people can be hurt by discrimination, because only when you see it through the eyes of those who have been hurt, discriminated against and continue to face humiliation do you then begin to learn what you need to do to change in your own thinking, your own mind, so that we will never perpetrate or engage in acts or language that hurts anybody.
These are small things and what we're talking about here is remembering something greater than just little acts of hurting somebody, which we might dismiss as a joke. But a lot of people tell jokes that are often very painful and hurtful, and we don't see that joking has behind it a great deal of discriminatory power. We dismiss racist jokes as simply humorous, we mean nothing by them, but in every joke which is racist, even if you don't believe that you yourself are racist, you are perpetuating a racist view. These are just, again, small acts that need to be dealt with, but we begin there. We begin challenging ourselves, because if we don't challenge our own particular mythologies and discriminatory behaviour that we carry in our own minds, we can't deal with discrimination, generally speaking. Proactivity begins at home and it begins in our own minds before we can get to the larger acts of discrimination.
Mr Kwinter talks about how there are still many people in this country who refuse to accept that six million Jews were destroyed, killed. For some of us it's an obvious fact to be remembered, never to be forgotten, yet you still have people saying it didn't happen, it's perpetuated by Jews, it's mythology. We hear it all the time, it still goes on, telling us that there's still a lot that we need to do in our own province, in our own country, to be able to deal with this issue.
This deals with this particular act of remembrance, and just to add to what the member for Dovercourt said, there have been other acts of genocide to other people. We need to respect that and we need to remember that. Perhaps it was not the time in this particular bill, but it can happen and should happen so we remember that genocide against any people is an inhuman act that cannot be forgiven or forgotten. I just add my voice to that of the member for Dovercourt and many others in support for this bill.
Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): I want to add my voice in support of this bill and I want to take it from the perspective of where I come from. Like most people here, I have experienced the experiences of the people who lived back through the 1930s and into the 1940s at the hands of the SS and of the Nazi party of Germany.
I want to say this. From my perspective, I was raised in an environment that was quite insulated originally from those notions and insulated in a very funny way because - the member for Fort York touched on it and that's what prompts me to raise it now - we didn't experience those particular experiences ourselves, as horrific as they might be, but somehow or other we were perpetuating to a certain extent some of the notions contained within those actions by some of the things that we did as young people growing up in our province, in the schoolyard, sometimes within our family circles or with friends, laughing at what we thought were humorous racist jokes, making fun at the expense of others and their ethnicity or who they are or where they come from, not realizing until a later age that that is not acceptable conduct for an individual in a caring and free society but in fact is quite harmful to people in the shorter and the longer term. It wasn't until I left home after college and had been out in the world a little bit that I started to realize I was one of those people who were perpetuating that kind of notion by participating, or maybe not participating so much but by not challenging those things that were said to me that some people thought were humorous.
1920
I thank God for the experience I had in the labour movement, because the United Steelworkers of America did something for me, and the Ontario Federation of Labour, where I come from. A lot of the programs we did as trade unionists dealt with those actions as not being acceptable within the trade union movement, not being acceptable within a modern and caring society - that is, a free society - and that as citizens we all have a responsibility to combat those notions and those ideas when they're brought forward. Yes, in a democratic society we have the right to express our minds and express our ideas, but not to do so at the expense of others.
This bill is certainly in keeping with those beliefs that I hold dearly: that for a society to be a society, everybody within it has a place and feels at home and feels free and doesn't feel persecuted and doesn't feel challenged in any way. I want to say as a New Democrat that I am pleased to give my support to this bill and that it is going in the right direction.
I also want to add to the comments that the member for Fort York made when he said that as a society and as a Legislature we need to be proactive. It's all fine that we're here tonight and passing this bill, and it's an honourable thing to do and it's the right thing to do, but I think we need to go back into our communities when we have an opportunity as individuals, as we face situations where people are making fun of others in the types of ways I talked about earlier and others, or saying downright mean things, and have the courage and stand up and say that that's not acceptable; and then to take those convictions maybe one step further and get involved, if we happen to be at home and want to get involved in some way, in trying to change policies at work, trying to change policies at our school boards or trying to change policies here at the Legislature of Ontario to make sure that we build the rules and that we have the laws so that all in our society are respected and given the credit they deserve.
Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): I want to say thank you very much to Mr Chudleigh for bringing this bill forward. I find it very difficult to contain my emotions as we go through this debate. I think of what's behind this and I think of how important it is for us to provide leadership in bringing a focus of a day in our lives where we will remember, where we will be able to join hands in our communities with people from all ethnic groups to say how wrong this was, to say how important it is that we never let hatred and racism take hold in our communities, take root in our communities, that we don't allow it to grow and flourish, that we weed it out together in solidarity.
I believe that many other atrocities will also share the light of this day in our education programs in the schools as we teach our children. I was amazed at the children who attended Nelson Mandela Day, and particularly a group of students from a school in my riding who understood so clearly how wrong racism was.
Racism is not something that's born in us. It's something that is taught. It's possible to teach our young people to not just hold views that are not racist themselves but to reject racism, to be the guardians of our future world to ensure that such atrocities, that such twisted hatred, such evil hatred can never again take root, can never again flourish, can never again grow, and our gardens of the future will be full of flowers, and full of peaceful flowers.
I thank you very much for bringing this opportunity to this House.
Mr John L. Parker (York East): It was Stalin who said that a single death is a tragedy; a million deaths are a statistic. I think that's the risk we face. The member for Wilson Heights made the salient point this evening that the sheer magnitude of the atrocity of the Holocaust, the size of it and the horror of, is in itself so great as to possibly anaesthetize us to just how terrible an event it was.
That is all the more reason why it is absolutely essential that we make the effort to keep in mind that terrible event in history and why a bill such as the one brought forward by the member for Halton North to declare a Holocaust Memorial Day in this province, Yom ha-Shoah - how vital it is that we do this and how vital it is that we remember as a group, all at one time, that event and the horror of that event. If we do not, we run the risk that the sheer magnitude of it will blind us over time to the horror of it.
For that reason, I commend the members for speaking in support of the bill tonight. I commend the member for bringing the bill forward and I look forward to its passage tonight.
The Deputy Speaker: The Chair now calls on the person who introduced the bill, Mr Chudleigh. Your comments will wrap up debate.
Mr Chudleigh: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. It's a very humbling experience to introduce a bill in this House and have it come to this point in the debate. Judging by the comments of the other parties, you'll pardon me if I assume it's going to pass.
When I started this bill, it was a small question or a small statement of concern for the things that were happening in the world around us. It's very moving tonight to be here in this place amongst this House. I thank you all very much for that experience.
The Deputy Speaker: Mr Chudleigh has moved third reading of Bill 66. Is it the pleasure of the House the motion carry? It is carried.
Be it resolved that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.
1930
HIGHWAY 407 ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR L'AUTOROUTE 407
Mr Sampson moved third reading of the following bill:
Bill 70, An Act to engage the private sector in improving transportation infrastructure, reducing traffic congestion, creating jobs, and stimulating economic activity through the sale of Highway 407 / Projet de loi 70, Loi visant à intéresser le secteur privé à améliorer l'infrastructure des transports, réduire la circulation engorgée, créer des emplois et stimuler l'activité économique par la vente de l'autoroute 407.
Hon Rob Sampson (Minister without Portfolio [Privatization]): Before I begin my remarks, Mr Speaker, I should say that I believe we have unanimous consent of the House, and you may wish it so moved, that the time be shared equally amongst the recognized parties.
The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Is there consent that the time be allotted equally among the three parties? It is agreed.
Hon Mr Sampson: I should also say that I'm prepared to entertain unanimous consent at the end of our allocated time, should there be any remaining, for the other two parties to share equally, but I'll leave that to one of the other two parties to move at the time. Should we have any spare time left on our clock, we're prepared to have that shared among the other parties.
I want to start off today's debate on this particular bill by doing a couple of things, if I can. By the way, I should alert the House, I'll be sharing my time with the Minister of Transportation.
As we speak to this bill, I think it's perhaps in order - and many of the people watching here today I suspect know of Highway 407. Perhaps they have a transponder, or they don't, and they've driven on it. Perhaps they drove on it when it was for free use for a period of time.
I think it's important for those who have not had a chance to experience the highway to get a good understanding as to why it was designed, why the current portions are constructed and why we believe it's a very important part of our infrastructure to get completed on its components, both east and west.
One of the better ways to understand why that highway is there and why we want to move ahead is to speak to that word "congestion." When we talk about highway congestion or traffic congestion, I suppose that's a technical word or a fancy word for what you and I might know as bumper-to-bumper traffic and for the frustration associated with a parking lot as opposed to a highway. I want to draw the attention of the Legislature and this House to the fact that this bumper-to-bumper traffic congestion, these parking lots on highways or what have you are actually the areas we're speaking to that the 407 will provide some relief for.
It's grown significantly since 1991, not too many years ago. At that time, five hours of a 12-hour business day - that would be from 7 am to 7 pm - were defined as congested. That's just five hours out of 12. I say "just," but if you bear with me for a few minutes you'll understand why I say "just." This number grew to seven hours out of a 12-hour business day by 1995. And just last year, according to MTO statistics, 10 hours out of a 12-hour business day are basically creating bumper-to-bumper congested traffic on highways 401 and 403. Anyone who has driven on the 403 section of our highway infrastructure, or the QEW especially around the Oakville area, will know that maybe the 10 hours is even a bit too short.
Clearly, there is a tremendous need for some sort of expansion of our highway infrastructure here in the GTA. In fact, that was brought to our attention during the hearings that we had on this particular bill two or so weeks ago by the Greater Toronto Home Builders' Association, which summed up in their statement as follows: "Congestion is proving to be a deterrent to new investment" - this is in the words of the Toronto home builders' association - "as a dependable highway system is an essential element for many industries." Of course, the home builders' association, I would argue, would be quite well versed in what would provide good growth in construction jobs around the GTA, and they're saying Highway 407 will in fact help.
In previous debates in committee, after second reading, the question kept coming up, "If it's so important for the GTA, if it's so important for industrial and commercial growth, if it's so important for the province as a whole, then why are you selling it?" The answer to that is quite simple: It's because it's so important to the province, it's because it's so important in establishing a fair and efficient infrastructure, it's because it's so important in stimulating economic growth that we want to get this highway completed. We want to get it built in its western extensions to Burlington. We want to get it built in its eastern component, if at all possible, all the way out to Highway 115, which is its farthest east planned component.
We want to get it done, but we don't want to do that, if at all possible, on the backs of the taxpayers. We believe that if we were to partner with the private sector in an appropriate relationship, we could achieve the objectives of getting the highway completed, transferring the risks of operating and maintaining the highway - and they are sizeable, not only the construction risks but the risks of operating and maintaining the highway - over to the private sector, and do all of this without attaching a significant burden to the backs of the taxpayers. In fact, we believe we'll be able to repay the sizeable amount of debt that has been absorbed by the taxpayers simply in the construction of the central portion that is now operational.
After first reading, through second reading and again during the committee section of this process, the Canadian Automobile Association was quite adamant that we should delay this. In fact, they issued a press release saying: "Please delay the bill. Please delay the construction. Please delay the process. We need to think about this as to how it fits in with a much grander transportation system." But the completion of Highway 407 actually fulfils the transportation planning objective that was first laid out for this province in 1950. Since 1950, there has been a tremendous amount of work in trying to understand what the transportation requirements of this GTA will be as it grows and develops.
It's not as though this highway was born and conceived by this particular government. It's not as though it was born and conceived by the NDP government that was before us. It has been in the planning phase, in the design phase, it's been part of an infrastructure concept since 1950. Frankly, for the CAA to say, "Please delay this," I think what they need to do is speak to the people in Halton region and the people in Burlington who desperately want this. If you listen to the representatives of those people who came before the committee to speak to the committee members - the mayors and the regional representatives - they are effectively saying on behalf of their representatives that they want this highway completed as soon as possible. That is exactly what we are attempting to do with the process we have put in place in regard to the sale of the highway.
Let me speak to another item that has come up and then I'll say a few more words. I've got to be careful of my time here so that my colleague has a chance to speak to the importance of this highway.
One of the members from the third party spoke very eloquently, as he is known to do, in committee and at second reading about the fact that - I think he actually pulled out a newspaper and read some bond yield tables and said, "Public financing is cheaper so you should keep the highway and finance it with public dollars," issuing more government debt to pay for it.
I suppose it's not surprising that we should have that statement come from a member of the third party. During the period of 1990 to 1995, that member and his colleagues became quite acquainted with the concept of public debt. They did that about 50 million times because that is the amount of debt they felt comfortable laying upon the shoulders of the taxpayers of this province. Your children and my children will have to pay those back.
1940
It's not surprising that he would be quite comfortable with the concept of public debt, but I find it quite confusing. He's saying now, "Finance this with public debt," but in 1995, in a press release, his then Premier said: "The 407 east is an ideal opportunity to have a new look at what it takes for the private sector to finance the highway. We'll ask the question again and look to the private sector to come up with creative solutions." It continues, "We are offering new opportunities for engineering, construction and financing firms to work together to deliver Ontario's key infrastructure faster and at a lower cost." If that was the view of his Premier in 1995, I say to the member across the floor from the third party, what has changed?
One of the members from the opposition, again in second reading debate and a little bit more forcefully in committee, raised the issue that this particular road infrastructure would be, as he said, exempt from property taxes as is currently contemplated by the bill before us today.
Our objective is to create a new business here in Ontario, a new business in the form of a private operator of a toll highway. Our concern in doing that is to get the road completed, to get economic activity going in this province, to create thousands of new jobs not only in the construction of the road itself and the maintenance of the road as it goes forward but in the related businesses that will result from that road infrastructure. We're interested in jobs, we're interested in creating those jobs, we're interested in economic activity, we're interested in relieving congestion.
The first item that comes to the minds of members of the opposition is, "Can you tax it too?" That's not our first priority and that's not our priority in this particular road infrastructure. It's designed to be an efficient toll highway, a toll highway that will be operated by the private sector, a toll highway that will meet the infrastructure needs of this province, a toll highway that will create jobs in its construction phase and as economic activity is developed throughout the area.
Even the municipal representatives who came before the committee said: "Forget the tax thing. That's not even anywhere on our radar screen. We don't care. We want the highway constructed." In fact, one of the mayors of the cities to the west of here was quite annoyed while the member of the opposition at the committee was speaking about tax increases and saying: "Mayor, don't you want that property tax? Don't you think it should be taxed?" She said, "I want it built. It should have been built when you were in government," and it wasn't.
Our objective with this bill is very simple. We believe that a proper partnering with the private sector will get us what we need as it relates to 407. We'll get the road completed on time, within budget, by efficient operators, so that the area that is served by this highway can grow and prosper, so that jobs can be created in the area, very important job creation in the area, and so that Ontarians will have a chance to use this highway as a lever for the great and prosperous growth that this province and this area not only deserve but can indeed achieve.
I now yield the floor, if I can, to my colleague the Minister of Transportation.
Hon Tony Clement (Minister of Transportation): It's my honour and joy to join in the discussion, the debate regarding third reading of Minister Sampson's bill.
At the outset, I want to congratulate the honourable member for Mississauga West, Minister Sampson, for speaking this evening about some of the benefits of privatization, of this asset being in the hands of some business entrepreneurs who can then apply their considerable skills and creativity, no doubt, in making this highway longer and part of a road infrastructure which is better for less money to the taxpayer, which I think is a point that deserves repeating.
The proposal before this Legislature will have a profound impact on reducing potential debt accumulation by the taxpayers of Ontario. This highway is and always has been a user-pay highway. One of the upsides of what we are proposing is that we are in effect privatizing the debt, which is now a public debt. We are privatizing that to the private sector and they will have the ability to use their creativity to apply tolling levels and other inducements that will make this highway even more of a success than it is today.
I wanted to speak briefly about the overall benefits of the highway. Perhaps there is a potential buyer out there who is listening to our words tonight. I do harbour some hope that they would be convinced by the language of Minister Sampson and myself that this is a successful asset, a successful deal, even as we speak.
I'd like to describe at the outset the role of Highway 407 in the economy of the greater Toronto area, because you can't just look at it in isolation. It is interwoven with the economy of the GTA and indeed the economy of Ontario. There are some important features of this highway - safety features, electronic features as part of the intelligent transportation system that runs this highway - that I think make it a unique asset in the world for a potential buyer.
This unique toll road is definitely contributing to the economic success of Ontario. It is already an essential link in the province's transportation network.
Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): The NDP government did something right again. Imagine that.
Hon Mr Clement: The honourable member for Cochrane South is reminding me, as he is wont to do, that the NDP government that preceded the Mike Harris government was part of the decisions that made this highway a success, and I agree with him. Indeed, I think we can all take a little bit of credit for this highway's existence because it was some planners from 30 years ago who first started to dream the dream, started to realize that a highway north of Highway 401 was necessary to the economic success of southern Ontario.
It was in the late 1950s and early 1960s that the first plans, the first designs, were contemplated. Then, in the 1960s and 1970s, land accumulation for this highway started, and it was some of the great predecessors in the Ministry of Transportation, people like Jim Snow, who had the perspicacity in those days to move this highway along in terms of its design and its development. So we are all standing on the shoulders of our predecessors. If I can pay some tribute to the former government, I would also like to pay tribute to the governments before that government that started this highway and started the plans for this highway.
At the same time as this highway was planned, there has been a dramatic change in the number of drivers and the number of vehicles in Ontario. Over the last 20 years the number of registered drivers in Ontario has increased by 84% and in the past 20 years the number of registered vehicles has inclined by 72%.
We all know about Highway 401. Highway 401 is recognized as either the busiest or the second-busiest highway in North America and it reached its capacity long ago. I don't have to tell members of this House or the viewing public that there are days when Highway 401 is heavily congested, and that occurs even in good weather.
Interjection.
Hon Mr Clement: The honourable member for Scarborough Centre has reminded me that perhaps this was not something that occurred maybe four or five years ago as much, but because more people are working, travelling to and from their jobs, this has become a sign of the times. When the economy is working, there is more traffic congestion. It behooves members of the government and members of this chamber to start planning for the future.
1950
Let me tell you this: There is a cost to congestion, not only the environmental cost of increased smog, but there's also an economic productivity cost. The lost productivity attributable to traffic congestion just in Metro Toronto has approached $2 billion annually - $2 billion in lost productivity for the province of Ontario. That's a direct impact on jobs and opportunity for taxpayers, for Ontarians.
It behooves us to be part of the solution. Highway 407 takes traffic off Highway 401, off Highway 7, off Steeles Avenue, and helps us reduce that congestion, helps us move those goods and commuters through the GTA.
As the GTA expands, particularly in the suburban areas, Highway 407 is going to be moving an increasing number of vehicles. To deal with this projected growth, the planned expansions of Highway 407 will see an additional roadway extension west by 24 kilometres and, in two phases, 61 kilometres to the east, to carry traffic even farther, to make it a true Toronto bypass, if that is what the commuter wants, but of course to move the traffic and the goods more quickly to their destination points through the GTA and towards Niagara or towards eastern Ontario.
I can report to this House that more and more drivers are discovering the benefits of Highway 407. Traffic has increased this year. Some members of this House might recall - I'm sure the member for St Catharines, who remembers these things with great accuracy, will recall - that my first day on the job as Minister of Transportation was the first day of tolling on the highway. What a trial by fire that was.
Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): It was symbolic.
Hon Mr Clement: It was symbolic of success of the highway; I agree with the member for St Catharines.
On that day, there were 85,000 drivers, 85,000 cars. I proclaimed it a great success, and I actually believed it was a great success, because most of the traffic estimates suggested we'd start off at around 50,000 vehicles per day. On the first day there were 85,000 cars. I can tell the honourable members of this House that we are averaging well over 210,000 cars per weekday on this highway, to date.
Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): Why don't you release the numbers, Tony?
Hon Mr Clement: The honourable member wants us to release numbers. The traffic numbers are on the Web site. You can access it by www.gov.on.ca/mto. We would love to share those numbers with the taxpayers of Ontario. I think it shows a story, that this highway has been accepted by the population - not by everybody; this is not a highway that necessarily helps everybody in their commute. But it does help a substantial portion: 210,000 cars a day cannot be wrong. Indeed, our peak days are upwards of around 250,000 cars a day. So the success is there.
Highway 407 is one of the newest highways, but it is also one of the best-designed highways in the world, one of the best-engineered highways in the world and one of the safest highways in the world. There was a lot of discussion in this chamber two years ago, I remember, about the safety factors. I'm pleased to report that according to the latest safety statistics we have for this highway, this highway is three times as safe as most other 400 series highways. We are trying to find out, is it the engineering, is there something else about the highway that makes it that much safer? Because we'd like to learn from this highway and apply it to other highways, if indeed that helps. But I can tell you this: This highway has high-mass lighting; it has fully paved shoulders, with rumble strips and additional guide-rails and barrier systems. These are just some of the features that make the 407 a safe and enjoyable ride and drive for both private and commercial users.
I want to say this to the House, although we are in the process, should this bill pass, of privatizing the highway, the province still intends to play an active role in ensuring that the highway meets safety standards and remains accessible to each and every traveller. This means that the highway will continue to be policed by the OPP and that motorists are expected to adhere to the same rules that apply to every other road.
The 407's state-of-the-art technology is a major contributor to that safety and convenience of which I spoke. The electronic devices at the entry and exit parts of the highway record the passage of every single vehicle, enabling the operators of the highway to send a bill to every person who uses the highway. This means we don't have to stop the traffic to collect the toll fees. Time is money, not only for our commercial vehicle traffic but of course to our commuters, who perhaps want to get home to their family, to their spouse and to their children, 10 minutes earlier or half an hour earlier. This is a highway that improves the quality of life for the citizens within the GTA. That's what it's all about. We can talk about the dollars and cents, and Minister Sampson has done a good job on that, but this is about quality of life. This is a highway that brings people together sooner - back to their homes, back to their families. That's something that around this holiday season gives me a warm feeling. I hope other members of the House can share in that warm feeling as well.
Highway 407 is a valuable asset. It was designed for safety, it is efficient to operate and it has a long service life expectancy. This highway electronic tolling system has proven to be safe and convenient for drivers - 200,000 trips a day and growing is proof of that success, to which I spoke. The extension of the highway provides an opportunity for enhanced operating efficiencies and further revenue growth. I think we on this side of the House are all proud - and I hope other members can join in this pride - that Highway 407 is a success. With that private sector involvement, should this bill pass, the future success of the highway will be guaranteed: There will be extensions on the highway, paid for not by taxpayer dollars but by the private sector, which has the wherewithal to do so.
Anyone who is watching tonight and who wishes to participate in what is truly an excellent asset need only contact Minister Sampson, and I'm sure he will give you all the information you require to make a reasoned judgment. I want to say, as Minister of Transportation, that safety and access will continue to be part of this highway's success. I believe we are finally finding the right balance of government interest in safety with private sector interest in creativity and efficiency, that are going to bode well for not only this highway but for future road projects as well. I thank you for your time.
2000
The Deputy Speaker: Further debate?
Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): First, may I ask for unanimous consent for the remainder of the time to be divided between the New Democratic Party and ourselves?
The Deputy Speaker: Is it agreed that the remaining time will be split between the - it is agreed.
Mr Patten: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would like to notify you that I'll be sharing my time with the member for Scarborough-Agincourt, the member for Yorkview and, if there is time, the member for Renfrew North.
It's a pleasure for me to speak again on this bill. We're now at third reading, and I addressed a number of concerns we on this side of the House had at that particular time. Of course there have been committee hearings and also some clause-by-clause during which a number of amendments were made by members of our party, and I'd like to address some of those as well.
After two days of committee hearings, which included the clause-by-clause, my colleague Mr Cordiano, who is our transportation critic, put forth what we thought were some very important motions. I would like to address a couple of these motions in my comments this evening, but first I want to reiterate that the Liberal caucus is not opposed in principle to the sale of 407. The member chuckles over there. He would like to see the opposition simply endorse everything the government proposes without any kind of critique.
We believe in public-private partnerships in certain circumstances, and we also believe in government getting out of things it can't do well or that can best be done by somebody else. That principle is often not followed by big governments, as we can see all around us throughout governments in Canada, including the history of the federal government.
We do, however, believe that there are a few glitches in this legislation, and I would like to comment on that. We continue to be concerned about the openness of the process of this sale. The legislation does not really address this. A fair and open competitive transaction is not currently guaranteed and I suspect will not be guaranteed by the time the legislation is finally passed. The process is more one of the behind-closed-doors variety.
This point was brought up at second reading, where members on both sides of the opposition talked about the need for a fair, open and transparent process. It was also brought up again at the committee hearings, where the minister tabled an overview of the project's scope, the bidding process, the evaluation criteria proposed to be used to select a buyer, but the question remains, does this go far enough?
The minister said there will be three layers of professional advisers handling the process, but when we get into the doing of the deed, the government has not always followed what it said it would do in addressing comments during the legislative process, so it's no wonder that we would ask for strengthening and further clarity related to this.
We're also concerned that the Ontario taxpayers get the best value for the sale. That is why my colleague has proposed that the minister not transfer the highway until the Provincial Auditor has reviewed the terms of the transfer and is satisfied that what is being transferred truly represents fair value. We consider this to be a fair request. After all, the initiative is costing and will continue to cost taxpayer dollars, despite the minister's assertions about no cost to taxpayers. Of course there are costs, ongoing costs to taxpayers.
It would seem to me that any good manager at the front end of a project - we should get consideration from our own auditor of the Legislature, because what's the point of going ahead and then having to face criticism from him later on? It seems to me to be not only a wise but a prudent step in the process.
I'd like to quote David Leonhardt, the chair of the Canadian Automobile Association Ontario. As the members will know, he spoke at the committee hearing on November 19. In his opening remarks, he said:
"We think it's rather strange that one would ask motorists, whether they be commercial vehicles or private vehicles, to absorb the cost of travelling on the highway by paying the toll, yet at the same time financing that very same road they're driving on through their tax dollars. That's absolutely ridiculous and it's not an effective use of taxpayers' money."
Of course the bill heretofore, we suspect in its final phase, will extend tolls into perpetuity, and again there are many questions raised by this. This has got to be a windfall to the successful bidder. I can imagine the Pavlov dynamic occurring with many potential bidders out there at the moment. Again the CAA, the Canadian Automobile Association Ontario, has stated that this extension of tolls breaks the government's promise that tolls would be lifted when Highway 407's construction costs are paid, or even if they're paid, "for a reasonable profit for a reasonable time following that accomplishment."
CAA made it very clear that their members have shown in surveys that they oppose tolls, "but if tolls are applied, they accept them only to pay for construction, to be removed immediately when construction costs are paid."
In addition to this, concerns were also expressed during the committee hearings that there are no guarantees of completion of the west and east extensions in a timely way. I will remind everyone, once this project gets going, to remember that. Both ministers have commented and said with total clarity that there's no question that the extensions will be part of this overall arrangement. We will see that. The Minister of Transportation quoted a municipal mayor, and I would like to quote the chair of a regional municipality. It relates to the extension of the 407 to the QEW in the west end and ultimately to Highways 35 and 115 in the east, that that should be undertaken as soon as possible, as we have heard from those communities on the extremities that are desperate to have it completed. Roger Anderson, the chair of the regional municipality of Durham, said at the committee hearings on November 19:
"We are concerned, however, that Bill 70 as it currently reads does not provide sufficient guarantees for the partial and full extensions of Highway 407....
"Specifically, subsection 36(1) states, `The owner shall expand and extend Highway 407 in accordance with the terms and conditions set out in an agreement to be entered into between the owner and the minister for privatization.'"
That provides a tremendous amount of latitude for what the terms may be, and if that's to be negotiated, one must assume that the bidder will be negotiating to extend this time as far out as possible, and who knows what role that particular factor will have in negotiations? Therefore, there is justification for persons like the regional chair, Roger Anderson, to be concerned about this not being nailed down as closely as it might otherwise be.
I want to go back again, as I did at second reading, to quote from the Ontario privatization framework. I come back to this because I think it's extremely important, and in a sense this is the job description for the minister of privatization. I'm sure that before he goes to bed each evening he reads this mission statement and that this provides focus for him no matter what he faces as he addresses the world in his portfolio.
2010
The Harris government first appointed this minister "to identify where greater involvement by the private sector could help improve services and value to taxpayers" - I repeat, to improve services and improve value to the taxpayers - "while enabling the provincial government to concentrate on core responsibilities such as health care, education, and to encourage a climate for job creation."
I'm glad to see there is that ongoing commitment. We find there is money taken out of the operations of health care and education, and the job creation figures are still lagging behind the estimates this government had for itself.
Without inclusion of the Liberal motions that were made, I don't know how the minister can ensure that the sale of Highway 407 will improve service and value to taxpayers. The buyer has no restrictions on what can be charged for the use of the service. When I and my colleagues raise this question, we're told that the marketplace will take care of itself.
There is that risk that potential users may not be able to afford the service. We know that is true from other examples of toll roads. We don't see why this one is any different, this despite the fact that the all-electronic tolling system already has cost approximately $70 million, and of course that was paid for by the taxpayers, and the fixed construction price was $930 million, for a total cost of $1 billion, which is a fair amount of money. We need to ask, is this - and presumably it is - part of what is being bought and included in the sale?
Further, the buyer/lessee will be exempt from property tax. This debate has been going on. The minister kind of snickers at this, why there should be property tax, as if somehow this has never been considered in any other areas. We know, of course, that Ontario Hydro pays taxes in lieu and so do railway companies in certain instances, and we know that goes on in many jurisdictions south of the border. So it's not a novel idea, it's not a new idea. When you look at having a private business that presumably is there for one reason, and that's to do a job, to make a profit, the forgone taxes are in the neighbourhood of about $90 million a year which could be going to help municipalities in one way or another.
Surely this is against the intent of the privacy review framework, that there are considerable elements where lost opportunities are present and where behind-the-scenes costs are still related to this particular project.
I would like to also say that I suppose everyone feels the need, and no one has disagreed, with making sure that this must be finished as soon as possible. We hope the process will be totally open and accountable. The successful bidder should pay taxes like any other business. Tolls must be affordable to commuters and, I would point out, occasional users as well as businesses transporting goods and services between the corridors.
I provided a letter to the Minister of Transportation at one point from a constituent of mine who had used the highway and didn't know what he was required to pay. He ended up paying $8.76. A bill was sent to his house for $8.76. He wondered, "What the heck is this?" Here's somebody who lives in Ottawa and is using the highway maybe once a year. He certainly won't use it again. He gets transponder charges and an account fee in his bill, and this guy doesn't live in the area. So there's a glitch that hopefully is being worked on at this particular point, which shows that there's a degree of -
Mr Bisson: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I believe we don't have a quorum, if you can check.
The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Check for a quorum, please.
Clerk Assistant (Ms Deborah Deller): A quorum is not present, Speaker.
The Speaker ordered the bells rung.
Clerk Assistant: A quorum is now present, Speaker.
The Speaker: The member for Ottawa Centre.
Mr Patten: I'll wind up at this point to allow time for my colleagues to join in the debate, except to say that we hope that at the end of the day this will be a positive project for all concerned, especially for the taxpayers and the users, who hopefully will get better service and better value.
Mr Phillips: To continue the debate on Bill 70, to privatize the 407, let me just talk about the things I don't think there's too much question about. It is absolutely essential that the 407 gets completed. It's important to the residents, important to industry. We need it done and there's no question of that. We have no difficulty with toll roads. It's one way of funding projects. The taxpayer, instead of paying taxes, pays a fee to use the road. It's a different way of funding services, it's user-pay, and I have no difficulty with that. We have no difficulty with the private sector financing and building this road, and the sooner and the faster they get it done, the better.
Now, what is the problem with this bill? First, there is no assurance that this road won't be sold off in perpetuity. As a matter of fact, my suspicion is that the government would love to do that. They will have a fire sale on this thing and maximize the immediate revenue they get from it.
I would just say to the people of Ontario that the thought of selling off the 407 forever is, in my opinion, crazy. It would be like a government 30 years ago selling the 401 off forever. It would have been nuts. That's what this bill allows. If that were to happen, the people of Ontario will have been done a major disservice. The reason I suspect it may very well happen is because if you want to get the biggest dollar - and this thing will sell. There will be many bidders on this thing. This is one of the hottest potatoes around right now. There is no shortage of people who want to get in on this deal. We all know it's going to be crowded up along the 407. There is great future potential. There is going to be traffic on this thing. The company that buys it can set their own tolls. This thing is a guaranteed money-maker. The way the government will get the maximum amount of money out of it is to sell it in perpetuity. If the minister would say that's not going to happen, then that would be a step forward in this bill, but they refuse to do that.
2020
The second thing is that the tender will not be public. My understanding is that the request for proposal will not be a public document. I don't think that's right. I don't know why this would be a private document that is not available to the public, why it would only be available to those who want to tender on it, and at some considerable price. I'd like to know the basis on which we are tendering this. I'd like to know the basis on which this request for proposal is going out.
The minister said that the CAA wanted to delay this. They never said that; what they said that was the way this bill is written allows for tolls in perpetuity. That wasn't the original proposal on the 407. I'm not sure that's in the best interests of the residents along there. Make no mistake, right now it is a highway that's relatively low in traffic. If I'm in a hurry, I'll use it; I'll spend that money to use it. But it will get busier and busier and busier. As I say, make no mistake about it, there will be absolutely no shortage of bidders on this thing.
The bill says, "The minister for privatization may enter into any agreement that he or she considers necessary or expedient for carrying out the purposes of this act." It gives the minister unfettered - "may enter into any agreement." My colleague mentioned, "Why not make it conditional upon the Provincial Auditor examining the deal?" No, it's going to be, "The minister for privatization may enter into any agreement," and:
"Without limiting his or her powers...the minister for privatization may
"(a) determine the assets to be transferred;
"(b) determine the consideration to be paid for the assets;
"(c) establish terms and conditions relating to the management of 407" etc.
It's literally unfettered power in the hands of the minister. Here we have one of the most important assets, one of the most important infrastructures in Ontario, Highway 407, essentially being dealt with behind closed doors.
So I say to the people of Ontario: What's not in dispute is that 407 has to be completed. It's an important piece of infrastructure. Tolls are a way that we can fund the completion of it. The private sector should be involved in building the road and in financing the road. None of that is in dispute.
What is in dispute is how much money Mike Harris wants to sell this thing for in the short term. We heard debates earlier, "This is a good time to sell it because the Canadian dollar is low, so let's maximize the dollars." I understand all of that, but the people of Ontario want a long view of this taken as well. They don't want to find 20 years from now that this road continues to be out of their hands, that it is a cash cow for someone, primarily because they have to use it and they're stuck using it.
I want to make clear the things that we are supportive of and the things that we are concerned about. I tell you, in my judgment, the people of Ontario may very well look back 20 years from now and say, "Why in the world did you ever agree to that particular bill?"
In closing, giving my colleagues time to comment further on 407, those are the significant issues of concern around 407 from our party's point of view.
Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview): I'm delighted to join the debate on the sale, if you will, or privatization, as we should be calling it, of Highway 407. Highway 407, as we all know, was built with taxpayers' dollars. It was supposed to have been built with private funds and then turned over to the private sector. It was never meant to be sold, to be privatized, once it was built with taxpayers' dollars.
I attended the hearings on Bill 70, the 407 privatization bill. If I'm not wrong, we had just one day of hearings. The minister is here. Can you believe we had one day of hearings on the sale, on the privatization of one of the most important assets, $1.5 billion of taxpayers' money? Now we are going to sell it.
Who did we listen to during those few hours? We say one day of hearings, but it only meant a few hours. We heard mostly from those people who have been affected by the lack of good transportation, the lack of highways. Yes, from Mississauga, from Halton, from the mayor of Oakville, I believe, if I remember well, the chair of Halton region, a representative of the mayor of Markham, and others as well.
I was there and I have to say to the minister here present tonight in the House that at no time did I hear from those representatives that they had no interest in the people's interest, which was tax dollars, which means taxes, assessment. At no time did any of them say that. They said, contrary to what the minister has been saying, "Forget the money, forget the taxes, forget the assessment; we want the highway built now." Of course, their traffic -
Hon Mr Sampson: That's what they said.
Mr Sergio: No, sir, they didn't say that. What did they say? I'm willing to challenge the minister if he's willing to listen. What did they say? "We want the highway built now. We didn't come here to talk about assessment, about taxes." Of course, they all spoke about their own regional, in-my-backyard interests, and who can blame them? The traffic is choking those communities.
They didn't come to oppose the privatization of 407. They didn't come to oppose the sale of 407. They came to beg this government to build it. "We don't give a darn about the assessment."
But, in general, we have to be concerned about taxpayers' money. I wish I had the time go to through the entire bill, and I'm not really sure if the minister did go through the entire bill. If he did, then he should present the true facts publicly to the House and to the taxpayers of Ontario.
Just let me read you a couple of clauses from this bill.
Hon Mr Sampson: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: The member has just said that I have not stated true facts. Could I have a ruling as to whether that's in order?
Interjections.
The Speaker: Hold it. "True facts." "State the true facts." I suppose if it's a fact, it's supposed to be true. I would just caution the member for Yorkview, let's watch our language.
Mr Sergio: I have no problem with that, Mr Speaker. But my true facts are that the deputants were saying at the hearing: "We are not here to debate the tax issues. We want the highway because we have a traffic mess over here."
Let me quote some of the things from the bill. I want to bring to the attention of the minister and the House, on page 5 of the bill:
"5(1) Without limiting his or her powers under sections 2 or 3, the minister for privatization may,
"(a) determine the assets to be transferred;
"(b) determine the consideration to be paid for the assets:
"(c) establish terms and conditions relating to the management of Highway 407," and it goes on and on.
It says nothing in this bill with respect to a transparent, public process, which means if the 407 is going to be sold, it's going to be done behind closed doors. We have no conditions by which to check it out. The public has no possibility of seeing the cost the 407 is to be sold for.
2030
Furthermore, it's scary, the powers that the government and the minister are going to transfer to this private entity, to this private corporation. I want to bring to the attention of the House another part of the bill, on page 7, which says:
"14(1) Subject to subsection (2) the owner may,
"(a) establish, collect and enforce payment of tolls with respect to the operation of any vehicle or class of vehicles on Highway 407;
"(b) establish, collect and enforce administration fees based on such criteria as the owner considers appropriate, and fees to commence or appeal any dispute proceedings."
Isn't that nice? It continues:
"(c) establish interest rates" - can you imagine? - "to be charged on unpaid tolls and fees, and collect interest charged at those rates;
"(e) establish terms and conditions for the registration, distribution and validation of toll devices.
"(f) require security for the provision of any toll devices; and
"(g) determine the methods of payment of tolls, fees and interest."
This is only a little sample of what the bill does, of the power that the minister is willing to transfer to a private entity, to a private owner. The true fact of why they want to sell the highway - do you know what it is? - is they've got to come up with $6 billion, which they don't have yet, so they need the money. They want to balance the books by the year 2000-01, so they need the money.
If it wasn't for the disinterest of this government with respect to the interests of the Ontario taxpayer, they could have built four 407s for the cost of the 30% tax cut and given those people in the abutting municipalities - the sprawling communities, Durham, York, Mississauga, which are really bursting at the seams with construction and stuff like that - much-needed relief from traffic congestion. This is the real issue here.
It also goes on to say somewhere in the bill that they should have that flexibility not accorded in the same way to the provincial highways. What else are we doing here? If the government was so sincere, so open, they would say: "This is what we are willing to do. We're going to find the price of 407 if we want to sell it. We're going to do it very transparently, we're going to do it very publicly, and then we'll let you decide." No, there is absolutely nothing in this bill relating to the process under which the government or the minister intends to sell the rights to Highway 407. Why not? Once it becomes a private entity, why shouldn't they pay taxes on the 407?
The other scary thing is that we will have no control on the fees that they will be charging Ontario motorists, and do you know what some of those people have said - for the benefit of the minister in the House? They didn't have a particular direct interest with respect to a municipality, but they went over there and said: "Look, I have already paid and I'm continuing to pay for this highway here, and now you're going to sell it and let those people charge me twice? We don't think it's fair." Those were the real people, without the interest of saying: "You know what? We need the highway and we don't care about the rest." No, the other people were saying, "We care about our tax dollar," and we should be listening to those people.
I'm asking the minister, why didn't you give us a week of hearings so we could go openly to the public and hear everyone? I don't have to tell you of the letters that we had against the privatization or against the bill as it was introduced. For example, the minister may be aware of this, I'm not sure, but the people who came and made a presentation with respect to, "Build the highway and we don't care about the tax dollars," what were they asking? "We want certain things; we want to make sure that the highway, where it abuts our local municipality, is built in a certain way," and rightly so. You might say it's like NIMBY, not in my backyard. No, I think what they were saying is, "If you're going to build a highway, and yes, we want it, we want to have a say in how you're going to build ramps, how you're going to build the landscaping, how you're going to be doing sound abatement and stuff like that." There is no provision contained in the bill, and I believe that we should be giving those municipalities the possibility -
Mr Frank Klees (York-Mackenzie): You want the landscape plan as legislation?
Mr Sergio: Yes, absolutely, of course. They will want the landscaping plan as well. It's part of that.
Interjection.
Mr Sergio: Oh, yes, let's get over - let's sell it and say, "Okay, we sold it, it's a done deal." I am not so sure when I hear members of the government say, "Let's go, let's go." Who knows? They may already have on the books a couple of wonderful prospective purchasers, but what we are saying to the government is you may have, but we'd like to know. Let us know and let the public know the conditions of this sale. That's what we'd like to know. Sure, you may have some prospective purchasers. Wonderful. OK. What is the sale price of Highway 407? What are they willing to pay? What are the conditions? I believe that we are entitled to know.
For example, this is going to be a private highway, and we will have no control on tolling, on maintenance, on police access and public safety.
Interjection.
Mr Sergio: With all due respect, Mr Minister, if it's in the back in the legislation and I did miss it, let it be there. You can point that out when you finish that. But let me say that this is what you are giving away. This is what the government is giving away. If it isn't, when you have your last chance say, "Hey, look on page 56," whatever, and tell me, because I can't find it.
We are exempting the operator, the owners, from any planning approval. We are exempting them from any municipal bylaws approval, from any tax assessment and any other matter similar to provincial highways. What is there left that we are not giving? Oh, yes, of course; it's got to be the price of Highway 407.
I hope, if your government intends to proceed with the sale, that you will keep in mind - I'm sure you will - the interests of the taxpayers of Ontario, that you will not undersell the rights of Ontario taxpayers, that we will know the price of Highway 407 and that you will do it keeping in mind that this was paid for with taxpayers' money. I don't think that is too much to ask.
Yes, as you said, it's helping to speed up some of the traffic, but if Highway 407 was built with the intent to speed up traffic, I'm sure you would have come up with some other implementing conditions to allow the people of Ontario to use it, not with the same impositions. I don't have to tell you what the weekend specials are. If you buy the newspapers, you see all kinds of specials, free miles and this and that. I'm sure you could have come up with something, and you know what? When Highway 407 is sold, they will be doing exactly that.
I have a couple of other points, but I know some other colleagues of mine would like to have a few minutes to dwell on the same issue, because I believe it's affecting -
Interjection.
Mr Sergio: Yes, my colleague from Renfrew North wants to have a say on that. It's an issue that is dear to many people.
I will conclude, Mr Speaker, by thanking you for the time that you have allowed me. I will allow my colleague to spend more time on it.
2040
Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): I don't profess to have the expertise on this bill that others do, except I was interested to receive the material from the Canadian Automobile Association, I think today, an open letter that strongly argued for members to vote against this bill, for a number of reasons but mostly because of the toll capacity the legislation provides to the new owner.
The CAA, representing 1.7 million members, observes that when this whole project began, the commitment was made to the motoring public in Ontario that the tolls would be collected only as long as there were construction costs. Now we find out, under the provisions of Bill 70, as I understand it and certainly as the CAA understands it, that the original commitment made by government here in Ontario to the motoring public is not going to be maintained - in fact it's going to be shamelessly broken - and we're going to be paying tolls for a long time, forever apparently. I think that's a very valid concern that the CAA makes and wants reflected in the debate and in the decision.
As well, the CAA makes the point that governments are collecting very substantial revenues from not only the gasoline tax, but from registration taxes and fees. In fact, my friend Phillips, the shadow chancellor of the exchequer, points out that if you take for 1998 purposes the Ontario government numbers, the revenues to the Ontario government in the current fiscal year, it's expected that Her Majesty's Ontario government will collect about $2.045 billion in gasoline tax, we're going to take in another $600 million in fuel tax, and we're going to take in $915 million in vehicle and driver registration fees. For the year 1998, that totals $3.5 billion in revenue.
It was 40 years ago that the late, great John P. Robarts, as the chairman of the select committee on highway financing in the province, recommended a policy that we've basically carried forward for 40 years, namely, that we will pay the vast majority of the costs associated with building and maintaining highways in this province from revenues collected through the gas tax and other fees.
I say this at a time when the government has shed, in my part of the province, over 30% of the provincial highway network. So what do we see? At the very time that the government of Ontario is shedding thousands of kilometres of its provincial highway system and downloading the operating costs to municipalities, at a time when government revenues are very robust, what do we have? We've got Her Majesty's government keeping all the money, all $3.5 billion of gas tax and fuel tax and motor vehicle registration fees, and privatizing a very major new freeway arching from that great community of Mississauga eastward to Newcastle -
Hon Mr Sampson: Burlington, actually.
Mr Conway: - Burlington eastward to Newcastle, and giving the private company or consortium almost unfettered right to collect tolls.
I simply point out, as my friend Phillips I think opined in his observation, under section 16.6 of Bill 70, does the consortium, does the private operator, have real powers to extract toll revenues from recalcitrant drivers? Pay up, according to section 16.6 of Bill 70, or Her Majesty's registrar of motor vehicle licences won't give you your licence. There are lots of private businesses in the Dominion that would like to have that kind of regal clout when it comes to collecting bills.
But I guess the CAA makes a very good point. What's going on here? How is it that we're giving to a private consortium such unfettered opportunities for a long period of time? I would like the minister, with his radioactive Christmas tie, to take the opportunity tonight to clarify whether or not the sale contemplated under Bill 70 is for a short time, an intermediate time or forever.
Hon Mr Sampson: This is radioactive.
Mr Conway: Yours is radioactive. But the question, I say to my friend from Mississauga, is an important one. Can you clarify before we conclude this part of the debate tonight, do you plan, under Bill 70, to sell this very substantial asset, and as Phillips says, a cash cow into the future? Even the imperial family in China 100 years ago sold or leased Hong Kong but for 99 years.
Hon Mr Sampson: Right. So are we.
Mr Conway: Well, that's helpful. I would like to know before I conclude the debate tonight. You should do so with clarity and with some additional frequency. But the CAA is right to say that the travelling public in this province, particularly in southern Ontario, is having its pockets picked -
The Speaker: Further debate?
Mr Conway: - taxes maintained and new taxes -
The Speaker: Thank you, member for Renfrew North.
Mr Conway: - enhanced by Bill 70.
Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): I would like unanimous consent to divide my time with the member for Cochrane South. Not required?
The Speaker: You don't need consent.
Mr Marchese: Very good.
The Speaker: Go right ahead.
Mr Marchese: It's my pleasure to have this opportunity to speak to this bill. I like the member for Mississauga West and I feel sorry for him because he's been trying for a heck of a long time to privatize a whole lot of things and, sadly, he's not been too successful.
They tried with the LCBO and they were stymied in that regard. They did their best - Speaker, you will remember - with TVO. They had meetings across Ontario on the whole issue of privatization. They held lots of discussions with a whole lot of people. They were hoping that these discussions would lead this minister to be able to earn his pay as the minister for privatization. But the general public decided they didn't want to sell off TVO completely, so they restructured TVO somewhat, but were not able completely to privatize it in the way he would like.
The poor minister of privatization is hanging around there, doing something, trying to get rid of something to the private sector and he hasn't been able to deliver to his buddies, the ones who grease the Tory wheels. Oh, but they do. You know that they do. I've got to tell you, I don't get many donations from the big wheels. I wish I did. I've got all the banks in my riding, honest to God. I get all the banks in my riding, all the insurance companies - wealthy people - and I wish I could get a chunk of those dollars. Why is it that the Tories get it all? I know why they get it all. Because they grease those Tory wheels really well. I'd like them to grease my wheels every now and then too with a bit of pepper and a bit of pecunia. I don't get any.
Interjections.
The Speaker: OK, knock it off.
Mr Marchese: Speaker, are you addressing somebody in particular?
The Speaker: Yes.
Mr Marchese: When they can't privatize something completely, they attempt to do it incrementally, as they're doing it in health. They will never, of course, tell you that they're doing this because the public generally doesn't support it, as they didn't with TVO. When they discovered, through their polling, that to privatize TVO was not a good thing, they stopped, although they restructured it, which in my view is the beginning of the end for TVO because eventually they'll privatize it.
Hon Mr Sampson: You were there and you got a hat.
The Speaker: Member for Mississauga West.
Mr Marchese: Speaker, that OK. We're having a chat. They're chatting with me. I like that. I remember when you were more or less approximately here. You liked the same engagement. So do I. Give them some free reign. You're doing fine, member for Mississauga West. I was there at the TVO announcement, quite true.
Hon Mr Sampson: You got a hat.
Mr Marchese: I didn't get - oh, that hat. You're quite right. I thought you were talking about when you made the announcement to break TVO into several distinct parts. I understand where you're going now. I got a hat and I owe that hat to the minister for privatization. I give him credit for that.
When you can't privatize something completely, how do you do it? Imperceptibly and incrementally, because this way, if people are not able to see it because you're not going to whack them all at once - you do it gently and slowly - they say, "It hurts a little bit but the system is still in place so we don't feel too bad." They're doing it in health as well and we see it with Riverdale, with those seniors nearing that age and needing what often is required of chronic care, home care, long-term nursing care. I'll tell you, they've got to worry about their pennies and they'd better have a credit card. That's because long-term care is not just hospital care by another name. Patients who move out of institutions like Riverdale end up in private facilities. That means moving from medicare to partially insured care. It means moving from public hospitals, which are subject to the standards of accessibility and universality in the health act, to institutions that are for the most part outside of medicare. That's what I mean about how you move incrementally to privatize something when you can't privatize something all at once.
With Bill 70, this government is giving away a public asset.
2050
Mr Bart Maves (Niagara Falls): Giving?
Mr Marchese: Selling, giving. For a good price anything can be sold obviously, but you're selling, giving - it's the same thing.
Ms Marilyn Mushinski (Scarborough-Ellesmere): No difference to you, is there?
Mr Frank Sheehan (Lincoln): Socialists make no distinction.
Mr Marchese: I'm sure you fine people are going to sell it for a whole heap of money, and the taxpayer is going to benefit in perpetuity with those dollars that you will get - but I doubt it very much. You fine people are about to sell a public asset that belongs to us, should belong to the public, and once you sell it off, it is no longer ours but belongs to some of the friends that Mississauga West has been meeting over the last year, I would think, or possibly two.
Interjections.
Mr Marchese: Not directly friends. I mean corporate friends, member for Mississauga West.
Ms Mushinski: They're all your constituents.
Mr Marchese: Generalizing. Some banks are in my constituency, but these types, I'm not sure they live in my area actually. The ones who are going to buy Highway 407 for a good price I suspect don't live in my area. I suspect some of these boys live in Mississauga West, east, north, more or less somewhere out there.
Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener): I live in your area. Maybe they live in my building.
Mr Marchese: I believe that to be true. This is true. But I tell you, the public should worry about this deal. You are being sold a fine deal here. I suggest to you, the public, that you had better have some meetings with your members to ask them some serious questions about why they want to sell this off.
The Minster of Transportation said: "This toll road is contributing to the success," I believe he said, "of this province."
Hon Mr Sampson: Yes.
Mr Marchese: The minister for privatization agrees.
So I say if this road owned by us is doing so well for this province, why would you want to sell it? I don't get it, because I believe that if it's doing a job, having had a government and private sector venture, which was the venture we got involved in as New Democrats, that should continue as a good practice. I would imagine it was something that you supported, and if you think it's working and it has been successful for this province, you should continue with that practice.
It tells me that something is wrong when you can say on the one hand that this toll road has contributed to the success of this province and on the other hand say that we've got to sell it. Unlike others, I do not in principle support the selling off of our public assets in this way. It is wrong in principle, fundamentally wrong, and I do not support what you are doing.
I think you will have to account to the general public, as I'm sure you will. It is our job to make these things open to the public, our job to say to the public that we believe the public-private venture was a good thing and we believe that if there were some mistakes that you were able to observe or detect, you should build on that, not do the opposite and sell it all off. You're going to privatize this road and all the assets that go along with it. We actually are telling you that when the purchaser sets the levels of the tolls and when the purchaser eventually has this road paid off, those tolls will continue. I have no doubt in my mind that they will continue in perpetuity. They will.
What you, the general public, has to ask the minister of privatization and his other buddies is: "Is that so? Is it true? If it isn't true, what can you do, Minister, and you, Premier, to make certain that doesn't happen?" I think it's the job of the public to get involved in understanding the very nature of these bills, because if you are not fighting this particular government as it does its deals behind closed doors, then we will not be successful in overturning or overthrowing this government without the power you give us. The power you give us permits us to be able to defend the public interest, but more important, when you show your own power, you will force governments to change their minds as they have done on many other issues.
It is a matter of urgency, of public education and of politicization of the general public that will force us all to be accountable. We cannot be accountable to you, the public, in any other way. We are made accountable when you are involved in the political process. We can't make these people accountable on our own, we certainly don't make them accountable through the debates, but when you listen to the debates of this House and they interest you enough to get hold of the bill, this particular bill in this instance and, through that, ask the tough questions, it will force this government to listen to what you have to say.
At the moment, they don't have to listen. They listened to you when we were talking about TVO. Why? Because you've indicated to them, at least through polling and through the countless meetings they had, that you disapproved and disagreed with the selling off of TVO, they listened to that. Why did they do that? Because you were political enough to say to them that if they did this, the political effects of that decision would hurt them.
They have not yet created a two-tiered educational system because you spoken out loud and clear. They have not yet created a two-tiered health care system because they know that you disagree, you the good public who watches these programs, with a two-tiered health care system. That's why they have not moved as fast as they would have liked, and they do it imperceptibly so that you cannot see it, except from time to time when you go to pay a fee and you realize that something has changed and you realize in that small way that something is up, and when you suddenly have to pay a prescription fee, you say, "My God, when did this happen?" It happened under the Tories.
Could things get worse than this? They do get worse because they accumulate, but your knowledge needs to accumulate as fast as they're whacking you with a whole lot of user fees, and they're going to whack you good with these tolls. These roads, I tell you, eventually will become congested because there's a reliance on this car. Sadly, I say we are all to be criticized for this. When these roads become congested they will have a need to get to the 407, and when they get there, your friends the purchaser, the private sector, is going to enjoy that a great deal. He's going to love to see those roads full because he's going to have the power to set those tolls, and those tolls will be paid forever and ever into eternity. If we control those roads, we set the limits. We say, "We paid for the construction and we don't need to have any more tolls."
2100
It's not the same with the private sector. I've got to tell you, these fine Tories glorify the private sector. Do you remember the Dome, Speaker? Oh yes, you do. You have a sharp memory for these things and much more, on many issues. Do you recall how many millions the Dome cost us? Help me out, Tories.
Ms Mushinski: About $130 million, was it?
Mr Marchese: Oh, really? A whole whack of millions.
It started out as a couple of hundred million and then it went - where did it go? They didn't know and they didn't care. Hundreds of millions of bucks. It cost a whole heap of money. Sixty-five million, was it?
Interjection.
Mr Marchese: The Dome. Then we sold it off for $125 million.
Ms Mushinski: No, we didn't.
Mr Marchese: We sold it off for a couple of bucks. We did that. We sold it.
Hon Mr Sampson: You gave it away.
Interjections.
Mr Marchese: Hey, calm down. We sold it for 125 million bucks.
Hon Mr Sampson: You did it. You gave it away.
Mr Marchese: We literally gave it away, yes. You remember we had M. Godfrey and M. Eyton - not the Eaton of Eatons, but certainly well off too with a few bucks in his pocket. These guys said: "It can't fail. Give it to us. We'll manage it." These two guys pulled out just last week, Mr Godfrey and Mr Eyton. They said, "We're leaving this operation."
The whole point about the private sector doing it better, the glorification of the private sector doing it better, managing it better for us, it's like they're managing our worldwide economy. It's in chaos. Half the world is in chaos. I know you're squinting with surprise, but it is. Whole economies are going down the drain because of the glorification of the private sector doing it better.
Hon Mr Sampson: Socialize them all.
Mr Marchese: No, let's just keep it going. We're doing fine; we're on a roll. A whole lot of people are making quick bucks, billions and billions of dollars in easy transactions, instant transactions - your kinds of buddies, making a whole heap of money. Why? Because we glorify the private sector, and when it fails we don't say: "Oh, my God, how could that happen? Why did it happen? How could that happen to the private sector? It isn't possible because they're infallible."
They're hardly infallible. They're fallible all the time, and what happens when they're fallible? The government steps in and says, "Oh, we've got to help them out, because if we don't help them out, people will be hurt."
It's like these economies in Asia going down the tubes, so the International Monetary Fund has to get in and say, "We've got to give billions of dollars" - $47 billion to one country, $30 billion to another country, and whom are we bailing out? The international banking system. We're bailing out the international money system that has loaned to the tune of billions to these governments, and in order not to have them collapse, the International Monetary Fund has got to kick in a couple of billion to save those countries.
Who gets hurt? The little people. Interest rates go high, unemployment skyrockets, people all of a sudden find themselves on the street, in poverty; half the world is in bad shape, run by these great capital systems that all fine Tories adore and say they're working well.
Mr Douglas B. Ford (Etobicoke-Humber): Take a look at eastern Europe.
Mr Marchese: Sure. You talk about eastern Europe and Russia and all of that collapsing. Fine. I don't praise the kind of system they had there, but to then say that our capital system is working just fine isn't true. We need controls. That's why I say on the whole issue of privatization, don't give it away to the private sector.
Speaker, I know you agree with me on this. Is there no way for you to communicate with some of these members? Don't they listen to you at all? Does anybody listen to you? I do, and you're a Tory, for God's sake. I listen to you and so should they. I think you've got some good ideas from time to time and I think from time to time these people should listen to you, really.
These guys say that the purchaser will be exempt from property taxes. That's a good deal. That's a great deal. I'd like to be able to purchase and say, "Hey, I don't want to pay any taxes." The government says: "No problem. We want to equalize the playing field. You don't have to pay any property taxes because we think you, the private sector, need a break."
Speaker, why is this government doing this? This particular thing that we had, this private-public sector engagement, was working just fine. As the Minister of Transportation indicated, "Why are we selling off Highway 407?" I've got to say to -
Mr William Saunderson (Eglinton): It makes sense.
Mr Marchese: It makes sense, Mr Saunderson?
Mr Saunderson: Yes, it does. We should not be doing these things. We should be running government, not highways.
Mr Marchese: The member for Eglinton says we shouldn't be running highways. I know that's a view and I'm saying I disagree with that view. I believe that a whole lot of people in this province disagree with you as well. The public, I believe, wants the government to control, to run and to build highways.
We did it with the private sector. The public needs to have this privatization review publicly available so they can judge for themselves whether it's the right move. I believe that this move is of so drastic a nature that the public needs to be able to judge for itself this review process.
Interjection.
Mr Marchese: Oh. Mr Saunderson, the member for Eglinton, doesn't believe that. I believe it does.
The government promised an open, transparent privatization process, yet they refuse to release the review, citing "commercial confidentiality." In my view, this is a cover-up and it's a disgrace. The privatization review is a matter of public policy. The public has a right to see the study they paid for so they can decide for themselves whether it's a good deal. If you, the public, listening to these debates believe that to be true, you have got to call the minister responsible for privatization, call your members from wherever they are and say: "Let's sit down and discuss this. Tell me why in your judgment you think this is good for me." If you don't do that, this will pass, as they always do.
The only way we managed to be able to constrain this government from time to time, not to defeat it but to constrain it, is when you have put public pressure against this government. There is nothing to stop the owner from jacking up the tolls in future years when congestion on alternative routes increases, as it likely will, nothing to prevent this owner from doing that.
I believe they will. Some of you probably believe that but can't afford to say that or will not speak up against it. I know it takes a couple of years to be able to speak against your own government. It took me a couple of years too. It takes approximately two and a half years until you get the courage to fight back when your own Premier and the Premier's office come up with some of the policies that you disagree with. Then those of you who are brave, those of us who acquire some brave feelings, fight back. Those who do, get into trouble. The Speaker knows that.
Mr Conway: Don't. That's provocative.
Mr Marchese: But I tell you it's quite empowering. It's a delightful thing. It's refreshing to be able to take your Premier on when you've got something you disagree with him on, because then you feel like an equal. If you agree with some of the worries that we the opposition have on this matter, you've got to be able to raise them. If you don't, you'll feel bad next time around. Some of us certainly did.
The tolls will continue to be paid even after the road is paid for. You've got to worry about that. You good people watching this program have to worry about that. When roads become congested, the tolls will go up and it will go on and on, even once that construction ends.
Mr Ford: We'll build a 408.
2110
Mr Marchese: I tell you, this bill explicitly paves the way for the privatization of Highway 407 and this bill doesn't say how the privatization will be structured and you should worry about that. The public should worry about that.
The member for Cochrane South has a lot to say on this as well and I'm going to cede the floor so that we can share the time to add a few other concerns that we have on this bill. I appreciate the attention you have paid to me, Speaker, as you always do -
Mr Conway: Rosario, give us a good Latin flourish before you take your seat.
Mr Marchese: Latin: Tempus fugit celeriter.
Mr Conway: Ergo.
Mr Marchese: Ergo, I will pass the time remaining to my colleague.
Le Président : Le député de Cochrane-Sud.
M. Bisson : J'aimerais rentrer droit dans ce débat en disant que non, je ne veux pas supporter ce projet de loi, comme j'ai dit à la deuxième lecture. Ce projet de loi, quant à moi, va beaucoup plus loin que ce qui était l'intention du gouvernement précédent, le gouvernement NPD, quand ça vient à la route 407. On a dit dans le temps, et on le dit encore, que c'était une bonne idée, considérant que l'on n'avait pas beaucoup d'argent. On était dans le milieu d'une récession et on avait un déficit d'environ 9,5 $ milliards dans le temps, et pour construire la route 407, c'était important de trouver d'autres façons, d'aller rechercher l'argent nécessaire pour bâtir ce chemin. Dans le temps on a décidé qu'on allait essayer quelque chose de différent ; qu'on allait faire un partenariat, le secteur privé avec le secteur public, le secteur public jouant un rôle assez important pour être capable de financer la construction de ce chemin.
On a pris la décision. M. Pouliot, qui était le ministre responsable des transports à l'époque, a mis en place le mécanisme et les négociations nécessaires qui sont venus à bout pour construire ce chemin. C'était une décision controversée de la part de notre gouvernement, comme vous le savez bien. Il y a eu certaines personnes dans le Nouveau Parti démocratique qui ont dit : «Écoutez, Bob, Gilles, ça chauffe un peu comme «social democrat» que de voir votre gouvernement bâtir une autoroute provinciale avec le secteur privé.» Je ne dis pas que le secteur privé ne joue jamais de rôle, parce qu'on sait le contraire. Quand on bâtit des chemins n'importe où en Ontario, ce n'est pas le gouvernement qui les bâtit ; c'est le secteur privé. On s'en va au secteur privé et on leur demande de nous donner des prix pour faire la construction, mais à la fin de la journée c'est la province à qui appartient le chemin, et d'habitude, dans le passé c'était la province qui maintenait les chemins.
Ce qui était différent avec l'autoroute 407, c'est que quand nous avons décidé de la bâtir, on a dit non seulement qu'on allait engager comme d'habitude le secteur public pour construire ce chemin, mais on allait faire un partenariat pour être capables de trouver une façon de financer la construction de cette autoroute d'une manière qui pourrait accélérer ça d'environ 20 ans. On a pris la décision.
En tant que «social democrat» dans le temps -
Interjection.
M. Bisson : - comme M. Rosario Marchese le sait, c'était une décision pour moi qui a fallu me convaincre un peu, et même justement cette journée-ci je ne suis pas tout à fait convaincu que c'était exactement la bonne affaire à faire, mais à l'époque ça faisait du bon sens. Je referait ça parce qu'on a vu la construction de ce chemin.
On ne pouvait pas se permettre ça en 1992 dans le milieu d'une récession, parce qu'on sait que dans le temps où on est arrivés au gouvernement, il y avait déjà été bâti dans le budget provincial, avec la récession, un déficit de 8,5 $ milliards. Notre gouvernement a décidé de ne pas virer le dos sur la population ontarienne dans le milieu d'une récession ; on a dépensé au-dessus de 8,5 $ milliards, encore 1,2 $ milliard ou 1 $ milliard, si je me rappelle bien, pour l'ouvrage de l'infrastructure et aussi «the wage protection fund», pour être capables de donner une certaine garantie, un gage, à ceux qui ont perdu leur emploi durant la récession grâce au libre-échange qui a été négocié entre le gouvernement fédéral et les États-Unis à l'époque.
On a dit que d'aller rechercher d'autres milliards de dollars pour construire cette autoroute allait ajouter au déficit budgétaire de la province plus d'argent que nous, sociodémocrates, étions préparés à assumer comme dette durant cette récession. C'est pour ça qu'on était rechercher le secteur privé. Mais jamais de ma vie ai-je pensé, en tant que député dans le temps et aujourd'hui, que le gouvernement était pour privatiser ce chemin. L'intention du gouvernement était très simple : qu'on bâtit le chemin avec le secteur privé dans un partenariat, mais à la fin de la journée que l'autoroute 407 revienne à la province après 20 ans, une fois que le secteur privé aura eu la chance de récupérer son investissement à travers ce qu'on appelle des «tolls». Ça faisait du bon sens. Ce n'est pas comme ça qu'on devrait bâtir toutes nos autoroutes, mais pour une autoroute série 400 ça faisait du bon sens dans le temps.
Mais là on voit un gouvernement provincial, comme mon ami de Fort York a dit, qui a l'intention de privatiser n'importe ce qui bouge. Eux, comme il l'a indiqué, s'ils auraient eu la chance - ils l'ont eue, la chance. Si eux allaient dans la direction où ils voulaient aller, et je pense qu'ils vont faire un deuxième mandat -
M. Marchese : Sans doute.
M. Bisson : - «Sans doute,» comme vient de dire M. Marchese, ils iront privatiser non seulement TVOntario mais LaChaîne, et je pense que ce n'est pas acceptable pour la communauté ontarienne. Le gouvernement dans le temps, à cause de la pression exigée, la pression mise par le public et autres, a décidé : «Écoutez, on ne peut pas trouver quelqu'un pour acheter TVOntario et LaChaîne tout de suite et on ne va pas récupérer l'investissement que la province a mis dans ce réseau de télévision public français et anglais dans les années passées et on ne peut pas vraiment justifier au public que ça va faire beaucoup de bon sens à ce point-ci, donc on va regarder nos affaires et on va mettre en place les mécanismes nécessaires et on va mieux comprendre la dynamique du dossier, et quand on reviendra faire notre deuxième mandat, on va dire à travers le cabinet qu'on va les privatiser, mais pas comme ça.
On sait que c'est le même gouvernement qui a dit : «Nous, on veut privatiser la régie d'alcools de l'Ontario. Il faut être «con-servateur» pour aller privatiser quelque chose comme la régie d'alcools de l'Ontario. On sait que l'année passée on était rechercher les revenus de cette régie : c'était au-delà d'environ 760 $ millions pour la province - au-dessus. Si on privatise cette régie d'alcools, une corporation publique, on va se trouver dans une situation où on va perdre pas tout, parce qu'ils vont additionner la vente de la régie au prix de l'alcool, il y a un petit profit pour le gouvernement provincial, mais on va perdre un gros morceau du revenu qu'on a de la régie.
Le gouvernement a décidé : «Bon, au commencement on va privatiser ça parce que le gouvernement ne doit pas être dans le business du tout, eux autres. Ils n'en savent rien. Il faut laisser le secteur privé faire tout.» Mais ils ont commencé, les «con-servateurs», tout à coup de réaliser que tourner de bord et privatiser la régie d'alcools de la province ne faisait pas de bon sens du tout ni pour les Ontariens ni pour les «con-servateurs». La privatisation n'est pas toujours la réponse. C'est pour ça que je soulève ce dossier.
On sait que le gouvernement provincial dans beaucoup d'autres dossiers de la province veut privatiser tout ce qui bouge. Justement, j'ai reçu un document de la part des membres du CEFCUT il n'y a pas plus qu'une semaine, mais c'est quand même un vieux document, où le président, le «Chair of Management Board» a décidé que cela ferait peut-être du bon sens que de faire une étude, d'engager le secteur privé pour venir voir le gouvernement et regarder tous les ministères, regarder spécifiquement les sections qui sont responsables de s'engager et de renforcer la loi.
2120
Par exemple, dans le ministère de l'Environnement il y a du monde qui, quand une compagnie brise la loi, vérifie ce qui se passe et, si nécessaire, charge la compagnie. Le ministère des Ressources naturelles a tout inclus les «conservation officers» et d'autres personnes dans le ministère qui sont responsables comme aides de la police quand le monde - c'est la privatisation, comme vous le savez. C'est très relié à la route 407. Je viens au point. Vous avez attendu. Le point que je fais est que le gouvernement, avec cette initiative, veut regarder comment on pourrait engager le secteur privé à faire certaines des fonctions dans le renforcement des lois provinciales pour les ministères. Moi, je dis que ça n'a pas de bons sens.
Le secteur public a un rôle à jouer et le gouvernement a un rôle à jouer quand ça vient à s'assurer que les services sont mis en place. En ce qui concerne la route 407, comme tous les chemins provinciaux, les autoroutes provinciales, je pense qu'il est important que la province joue son rôle, assume ses responsabilités et devient responsable des citoyens de l'Ontario quand ça vient à ces services.
On sait, comme M. le député de Fort York me dit, qu'avec la décision du gouvernement de privatiser la 407, il va y avoir un prix à payer.
M. Marchese : Un grand prix.
M. Bisson : Un grand prix. Écoutez, monsieur le Président, je vous pose la question : vous allez acheter la route 407 et vous allez prendre ça comme une "business." Allez-vous le faire pour ne pas faire un profit ou pour faire un profit ? Bien oui, faire un profit. Si vous l'achetez, monsieur le Président -
The Speaker: Why's he asking me?
M. Bisson : Vous n'avez pas d'argent dans votre salaire, je le sais ; comme député, comme Président de la Chambre vous n'avez pas d'argent. Mais on va rêver au jour que M. Stockwell a des milliards de dollars. On sait que ce n'est pas possible mais il faut bien rêver.
Si vous venez au point d'être capable d'acheter ce réseau, vous voudriez faire un profit sur cet investissement que vous faites dans la 407. Le point que je fais, c'est que vous allez vous forcer pour être capable d'avoir un retour sur votre investissement d'au moins 10 % ou 12 % pour vous assurer qu'il y a assez de revenus qui rentrent dans la corporation que vous avez mise en place pour récupérer votre investissement. Sans ça, pourquoi l'acheter ? Ça n'a pas de bon sens si vous ne faites pas ça.
Comment le faire ? Ils vont augmenter les taux qu'on paie sur la 407 pour être capables de récupérer leurs investissements. Êtes-vous capable, monsieur le Ministre, de me garantir aujourd'hui que votre gouvernement, et vous comme ministre responsable de la privatisation - allez-vous nous garantir que les prix sur les taux pour aller sur ces chemins ne vont pas augmenter ?
Mr Marchese: He doesn't understand French. Come on, get your earpiece on.
M. Bisson : Il comprend. Je sais que M. Sampson le comprend très bien. Il écoute à l'aide de l'écouteur puis il fait très attention aux points que je fais. Mais je dis que vous n'êtes pas capable de garantir, quand ce sera privatisé, que les taux ne vont pas augmenter sur la route. C'est le point que je fais.
Hon Mr Sampson: I wasn't listening. I was occupied.
M. Bisson : Je sais que vous avez bien écouté puis je sais quelle réponse vous m'avez donnée. Mais le point est qu'on sait que la privatisation va faire augmenter les prix des taux éventuellement, parce que la compagnie va falloir récupérer son investissement avec le temps nécessaire qui va donner un retour sur l'investissement qui fait du bon sens pour l'investisseur.
Mais il faut aller plus loin que ça. Vous êtes le ministre responsable de la privatisation, et vous avez été chargé par le premier ministre et le cabinet de l'Ontario d'aller trouver toutes les occasions possibles ici dans la province d'inclure vos amis, les gros amis avec beaucoup d'argent, afin de les faire venir et s'engager avec vous, le gouvernement provincial, à trouver des manières à inclure le secteur privé autant que possible.
Je vous dis, monsieur le Président, et je dis au ministre directement, oui, le secteur privé est important. Notre économie est basée -
M. Marchese : Contrôlée.
M. Bisson : Elle est contrôlée et, plus important, basée sur un système de marché libre. Comme «social democrat», c'est ça que j'accepte et c'est ça que je comprends. Mais la différence entre nous autres et les conservateurs et les libéraux est que nous, «social democrats», on dit : «L'économie libre ne peut pas être complètement libre pour faire ce qu'elle veut. Il doit y avoir certains contrôles dans l'économie, certains règlements qui doivent être mis en place pour s'assurer que les gros ne deviennent pas égorgés du restant de l'économie et qu'ils ne donnent pas la chance aux autres de participer à cette économie. Nous, démocrates sociaux, croyons en ce principe.»
Vous, conservateurs, et jusqu'à un point les libéraux, croyez que le secteur privé doit avoir un rôle de faire ce qu'ils veulent, selon le marché. Mais je veux vous dire, quelqu'un de mon coin du nord de la province, que ça ne marche pas comme ça. On sait justement que votre gouvernement est en train de déréglementer tout le système d'autobus, et on voit ce que ça veut dire pour nous dans le nord de la province. On voit déjà qu'on parle de faire un système de transports pour le monde de notre région avec Ontario Northland.
Je veux vous dire, comme député du nord de la province, que je crois que oui, le secteur privé est important pour l'économie, qu'il joue le rôle central, mais le gouvernement doit prendre sa responsabilité. Le gouvernement doit s'assurer qu'il y a en place un système d'infrastructure, quand ça vient aux transports, qui est là non seulement pour les grosses entreprises, pour transporter leurs matériaux et leurs produits à travers la province et outre-mer, mais qu'il est là pour nous, pour moi, pour M. Marchese, pour vous, monsieur le Ministre et votre famille, et pour les autres familles dans la province de l'Ontario, pour nous permettre de voyager d'un bord à l'autre de la province, pour aller faire ce qui est important dans leur vie.
Je pense que, quand on commence à privatiser nos chemins, ça va devenir très dangereux.
I want to say one last thing in the three minutes I have to close. The minister, as I said in my comments, is moving to privatize Highway 407. I fear that once we start going down that road -
Mr Klees: Oh, is that what you were talking about.
Mr Bisson: I will not comment on what has just been said, but I don't think that was very much in keeping with what this Legislature is all about.
The government is moving towards the privatization of Highway 407 in Ontario. I fear what that means to the transportation infrastructure over the longer run - I can tell you first-hand the experience I've seen just this last weekend, as I was leaving Hearst late, at 9 o'clock on Saturday night, to come back to Timmins. We know your government has privatized highway maintenance along most of Highway 11. We know that your government has basically transferred over to the municipalities whole stretches of provincial highways. I can tell you that privatization is turning out to be a disaster when it comes to winter road maintenance on our highways in northern Ontario. I travelled from Hearst to Timmins and there were about four different standards as I drove from Hearst to Smooth Rock Falls. It wasn't so much a question of whether; it was a question of the type of work that each individual zone was doing.
I must say that this particular stretch is not privatized. The problem is that the government has cut it back so far that the ministry no longer salts it as much as it used to and doesn't have the manpower to plow to the degree we're used to in northern Ontario. When I drove on other stretches of highway in northern Ontario that are now privatized, the standard was even worse than what I saw on Highway 11 from Hearst to Smooth Rock Falls.
You never really had to worry, in winter in northern Ontario, about being able to get from point A to point B unless there was a terrible snowstorm. But nowadays in a slight snowstorm, you have to wonder if it's wise to get on our highways now that you have started to privatize the highway maintenance system. It was so bad that the trip from Hearst to Smooth Rock Falls ranged from snow-covered to snow-packed to unsalted highways, finally to a fairly good stretch of highway from just before Kapuskasing to Opasatika. Finally, when I got on the municipal road -this is the one that took the cake. I got on a highway that used to be a provincial highway, that you transferred over to the municipality of the city of Timmins, that stretches from Highway 101 out to the Kidd Creek mine site. That road, at about 1 o'clock or 2 o'clock in the morning - it wasn't even snowing in Timmins. That's the worst part. There was a very light snowfall during the day, but the city doesn't have the means to salt and plow the way the province did. To drive safely on that highway, you had to literally drive at 30 kilometres an hour.
I stand in this House and I say to you now: Somebody will be killed in the northern part of the province, and probably in the southern part of the province as well, as a result of the actions of this government when it comes to privatization. I ask this government to reconsider what it's doing. It's turning out that you're not saving any money. We have found, by way of Chatham, after one year of being privatized you actually spent more money than it cost when we did it as a province ourselves, and the standards on the roads have gone down.
I say to the government, turn this decision around. Find a way to get the dollars necessary to make sure you are able to maintain a highway infrastructure that is second to none and that serves the needs and the interests of the people of Ontario.
The Speaker: I've received a note from the Clerk -
Mr Conway: Which you promptly tore into four pieces. Where's Bert? We want Bert.
The Speaker: Mr Sampson has moved third reading of Bill 70. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.
Be it resolved that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.
2130
GREATER TORONTO SERVICES BOARD ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR LA COMMISSION DES SERVICES DU GRAND TORONTO
Mr Gilchrist moved third reading of Bill 56, An Act to establish the Greater Toronto Services Board and the Greater Toronto Transit Authority and to amend the Toronto Area Transit Operating Authority Act / Projet de loi 56, Loi visant à créer la Commission des services du grand Toronto et la Régie des Transports en commun du grand Toronto et à modifier la Loi sur la Régie des transports en commun de la région de Toronto.
Hon Rob Sampson (Minister without Portfolio [Privatization]): Point of order, Mr Speaker: I believe we have unanimous consent to divide the time available equally among the three parties and, likewise with the previous bill, if any government time remains, that that time be divided equally among the opposition parties. You will want to have that moved, I guess.
The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Agreed? Agreed.
Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East): It's my pleasure to rise to start the government's comments on this very important bill, the next step forward in terms of finding new efficiencies, new ways of coordinating the delivery of municipal services here in the greater Toronto area.
I don't think there is any doubt, I'm sure it is recognized by all the members in this House and certainly all the people watching these proceedings tonight, that the greater Toronto area is indeed one homogeneous economic unit in the sense that there is a compelling argument right now that there is trade back and forth, either in population or in actual products, between the core city and the four regions which surround the city of Toronto.
Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): Point of order, Mr Speaker: I didn't hear, but there was an agreement on the part of the parties to split the time left -
Mr Gilchrist: That's what we just said.
Mr Bisson: OK, I'm sorry. I didn't hear you. I just wanted to make sure it was on.
The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): That was done.
Mr Gilchrist: I will continue to talk about how this bill gives us something we didn't have before. We didn't have a mandated mechanism for the municipalities, not just within the old Toronto but throughout the GTA, to look at ways they could coordinate service delivery, ways they could coordinate their planning and ways they could oversee the operation of what is certainly a regional transit system, GO Transit. This bill delivers on all that. The bill certainly recognizes that need for coordination of services throughout the GTA that has been recognized for decades. We don't think municipal boundaries should stand in the way of finding the greatest efficiency, the most effective way of delivering services and building infrastructure to serve the needs not just of the 416 but the 905 taxpayers as well.
If this bill is passed, the GTSB will finally create a forum for municipalities across the greater Toronto area to improve coordination of infrastructure, transportation, transit and growth management. We believe the GTSB will ensure that the GTA remains a thriving, growing, prosperous region. This legislation will assist municipal governments in the GTA to work better for the people they serve.
We've consulted extensively on the GTSB and have made a number of changes, right up to this week, to address concerns expressed by various stakeholders. The bill, as introduced, ensures that every municipality in the greater Toronto area, including upper- and lower-tier municipalities, will have at least one member on the GTSB. The GTSB's job will be to promote coordination in the delivery of services, but the GTSB will not have any direct service responsibilities except the operation of GO Transit.
We believe the board will evolve over time, and in fact during clause-by-clause hearings we were heartened to hear those sentiments shared by the Liberal member who was sitting on the committee. We believe that with the passage of time the board will evolve, but it would be presumptuous for us to presume on what that change, that evolution, will lead to. If the board chooses to make changes in its structure, it will be the board members who make that decision. In fact, the bill mandates a review by December 31, 2000, on the future shape of the GTSB. Right from the outset it is clear that from their very first meeting they will be charged with certain responsibilities, primarily the operation of GO Transit, but also charged with the responsibility of developing these coordination strategies and reporting those back to the minister within two years.
I mentioned the consultation that we've undertaken in this bill. Quite frankly, it has been extensive, to say the least. Every single council, in fact every single councillor, upper- and lower-tier, have been consulted a number of times throughout this process.
The debate on the need for this sort of body goes back many years. At the time we were elected, the province had already undertaken to form the GTA task force, chaired by Ms Anne Golden. That report was tabled to the government in January 1996. It was followed up by a review panel on the GTA task force. That report was done by Ms Libby Burnham. It reported back in April 1996. We then had David Crombie, the former mayor of the city of Toronto, report on local governance in December 1996. We then sent Milt Farrow, a very respected former staff member at the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, out on a consultation process. Milt visited every one of the municipalities, every one of the councils. He produced a report entitled Getting Together. That report was received in June 1997. After that, we asked Mr Alan Tonks, the former chairman of Metro Toronto, to undertake another review of the process.
Understand that this was a very serious step forward. This is a very progressive piece of legislation, a visionary piece of legislation that has as its goal the delivery of efficient infrastructure construction and planning, not for one or two years, but for decades to come. It was worth another kick at the cat. In fact, Mr Tonks went out in March of this year. He was appointed as moderator to review the draft legislation which we had tabled on March 12 of this year - by the way, affording public input right from that date until today, nine months' worth of opportunities for individuals, as well as the council members, to express any concerns, any comments, any suggestions for improvements.
Mr Tonks received 65 written submissions from municipalities and other stakeholders. He organized discussion forums which were attended by over 140 municipal councillors, staff and other interested parties. During the consultation, again Mr Tonks took it upon himself to speak to the councils in every one of the municipalities, or the head of council. Mr Tonks reported to the minister on June 1 this year regarding the consultation he had undertaken. Bill 56 was introduced for first reading formally on June 25, 1998, following up on the draft legislation that had been published three months earlier.
We have certainly continued to receive feedback from municipalities and stakeholders since that first reading. In fact, as mentioned earlier, right up to the clause-by-clause consideration just a few days ago, we made dozens of other amendments to this bill, primarily amendments that recognized the need to develop a rural strategy, something that the rural municipalities in northern Durham, northern York and Caledon had said was an essential component of the overall planning that the GTSB would undertake in the years to come.
We've certainly seen some ringing endorsements for this legislation. Even the Toronto Star, of all people, said, "Years from now, we're confident that the creation of the Greater Toronto Services Board will be seen for what it truly is, a visionary step forward."
2140
The city of Toronto deputy mayor, Mr Case Ootes, said on November 25, "We want the GTSB because that's the only way you can address the interregion transportation issues, the waste disposal issues and others that have interregional ramifications."
From the private sector we've seen a similar fulsome endorsement from Elyse Allan, the president and CEO of the Toronto Board of Trade back after the bill was first introduced, "The GTSB is needed to cope with the stresses of rapid growth."
Support is not restricted, though, to 416. Don Cousens, the mayor of Markham, said in an article in the Toronto Star back in April:
"We've got to have a way of crossing our boundaries. The public isn't served unless we look for a way of working across the GTA.
"We can't live as islands unto ourselves. There have to be linkages. The GTSB can help us do that." We certainly agree with Mayor Cousens in that conclusion.
We think the comments by Mayor McCallion, city of Mississauga, are equally valid. She said the Tonks proposal would, and I quote "promote and facilitate coordinated municipal decision-making on issues and services spilling over jurisdictional boundaries."
It goes on and on and on, the support from members of council all across the GTA, and there have been a number of respected experts in the field of municipal governance who have also shared their opinions, shared their suggestions on how the bill could have been improved since the draft was first tabled nine months ago. We've listened to all of those people, something that has been the hallmark of this government, much as the other side would have you believe otherwise.
Among the questions we've had to answer over and above the basic need for the GTSB, which I touched on earlier, was to counter the belief in some quarters that the GTSB is another level of government. Nothing could be further from the truth. What would be a more appropriate way of looking on the GTSB is that this another committee for the mayors of the municipalities to serve on.
You're probably aware that for, I think, seven years now, under the leadership of Hazel McCallion, there has been a group known as the GTA mayors and chairs which meets on a monthly basis to discuss exactly the issues that we're proposing be formalized under the GTSB. This was a group that Ms McCallion had established when she recognized that there was no ability to coordinate the sort of planning and the development of infrastructure that was increasingly becoming vexatious in areas where it crossed municipal boundaries.
We think that the way the GTSB has been established under this proposed legislation not only will ensure the continued involvement of the mayors and chairs but will guarantee a balance in voting that will ensure representation by population. Clearly this bill, by giving access and membership to at least one representative from every municipality, might have skewed the activities, the conclusions it would reach. When you look at the fact that some of the regions have a number of lower-tier municipal governments, and if you simply allowed their mayor alone, that still would give an inordinate number of votes compared to the relationship with the city of Toronto where obviously its one mayor has represented 50% of the population.
We countered that problem by allowing more members from Mississauga and Toronto to balance out the representation issue and as well, on all matters relating to the GO Transit budget, they will be voting with weighted votes to accurately reflect the actual population within each community. I'm pleased to say the bill anticipates that there will be changes in population in the years and decades to come and after every census the GTSB will be required to review the population and ensure that the weighted voting continues to respect the actual population in each community.
We've had other people suggest that perhaps the creation of the GTSB will increase taxes. There too nothing could be further from the truth. The GTSB has the ability to levy from its constituent municipalities the ongoing costs of running GO Transit, but it has no taxation authority whatsoever. In fact we believe that, aside from some fairly minimal administrative costs, the GTSB will be a very, very efficient way of delivering this coordination without increasing the cost to taxpayers and, hopefully, when you look at the fact that they now have pay for, say, perhaps a more balanced view when it comes to investments made by GO Transit, the services provided and the rates charged by GO Transit to its customers on its bus and rail routes.
We've heard some people concerned that the city of Toronto might dominate the affairs of the board. Again, we've recognized that and in most of the areas where substantive decisions have to be taken, it will indeed require a two-thirds vote, which means the city of Toronto would not be able, even with 50% of the vote, to carry the day without some strong support from many, if not all, of the municipalities in the 905 region. Similarly, the 905 region would have to attract support from at least some of the voting members within Toronto to accomplish whatever it is they're proposing in any motion or any budget for GO Transit.
We made sure that all municipalities below 100,000 population have one vote and one representative. On all of the others, those with a population greater than 100,000, again the formula ensures that there will be a fair and equitable balance. We've gone further, though, to ensure that there are no barriers to the attendance of all municipalities. We've made sure that this bill provides for alternates for the mayors and the chairs and for the voting delegates from Mississauga and Toronto.
We have decided in all of this that this process will function best if there is complete involvement from all municipalities, and in fact many sections of the bill guarantee that to have quorum, to conduct votes on the budget, there must also be a majority of the regions represented. We think that guarantees that all the taxpayers in the GTA are guaranteed to have an ongoing direct say in how their money is spent on GO Transit and how issues of planning infrastructure are developed across the GTA in years to come.
We had an interesting development in committee during clause-by-clause. We were quite taken aback by a proposal made by the New Democrats who suggested, as one of the amendments they put forward to committee, the elimination of all regional governments by December 31, 2003. I can share with you that in attendance in the room - in fact he had just arrived - was Mr Roger Anderson, the regional chair from the region of Durham. There's no doubt that the regional chair was taken aback at the thought that any party in this Legislature was planning the elimination of that level of government without any kind of public debate or public involvement.
Needless to say, the government members defeated that proposed amendment because, quite frankly, we think it is not up to us at this stage to determine what the future development of the GTSB should be. We think the members for Durham, like the members from Peel, Halton and York, should be the folks who come back to us after taking the time to thoroughly review all the options. Those options may or may not include the actual change in governance within any region, but may, on the other hand, involve greater co-operation, a shift in service delivery from upper tier to lower tier or vice versa. There could be any number of options pursued as each of these politicians in those constituent municipalities makes the decisions on how best to serve the needs of their community.
I think nothing could have been more telling than the government's opposition to that motion, that we really are prepared to trust municipal politicians. In this bill, as with many others, we think this bill had such wide consultation that every single municipal politician - every single municipal politician - in the GTA was offered a number of opportunities to give their input and, presuming that they shared with us candidly and fully their views when those opportunities presented themselves, we didn't think it was appropriate to delay this process any further.
2150
There is no doubt that those on the other side would have us stall everything. There's no doubt they believe maintaining the status quo is the way to go. I don't think it is inappropriate to suggest that the taxpayers and the voters on June 8, 1995 suggested otherwise. This is precisely the sort of issue that has been left festering, government after government, decade after decade. The time has come to stop the talking and deliver the sort of legislation that is before us here today.
I am immensely proud of the work that's been done by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and its staff, by the individuals I've cited earlier, who undertook those very thorough consultations all across the GTA - rural, urban, Toronto core. Everyone was consulted. It has been on the Internet, it has been debated in this Legislature, it has been out in draft form, as I mentioned earlier, for over nine months. The fact of the matter is, we have tremendous confidence that the bill, as amended, that is now before us here for third and final reading truly reflects the best balance, truly reflects the best way to take that first step into the more integrated service delivery, the more integrated planning of infrastructure, the more integrated operation by the municipalities of GO Transit.
We think this is long overdue legislation. I'm very proud that our ministry has been able to pull this together in time to meet the proposed start-up time for the GTSB of January 1. I look forward to their first meetings, as they flesh out the review process they will undertake, as they start that review, as they involve their taxpayers, their voters, in all of the discussions that others would have had us stall to hear again now.
The process must move forward. This bill delivers on a long-standing promise by our government and addresses a long-standing problem ignored by other governments. For that reason, I'm very pleased to support this bill and indicate I'll be voting for it when the time comes.
Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Simcoe Centre): I'm very pleased to join the debate on the third reading of the Greater Toronto Services Board Act. The legislation is, as the member for Scarborough East said, long overdue, but what I want to focus on is what they call GT Transit. The Greater Toronto Services Board exercises general direction and control over GO Transit and allocates its costs across the GTA and Hamilton-Wentworth. What is fundamentally important for my riding of Simcoe Centre and areas that don't have GO Transit, and is fundamental to the infrastructure that is needed in the areas north of Newmarket, is that the legislation proposes that the Greater Toronto Services Board must, upon the request of a municipality not within the regional transit area, enter into negotiations to provide transit services to that municipality.
The city of Barrie, the town of Innisfil and the town of Bradford West Gwillimbury are outside the Greater Toronto Services Board. The boundary ends at Newmarket. Currently, GO Transit is provided outside that area, through Bradford. They have two trains that go daily. That's essentially where the GO Transit bus service and also the train service - that's the end of the rail in terms of GO Transit and is also the entry point for people from Simcoe county who want to use that particular service of GO Transit.
There are some interesting statistics that were in the 1997-98 annual report for GO Transit with respect to the ridership from Bradford. It showed an increase in passenger boardings of 13.5%, which is very significant. In fact, that's the second-highest percentage increase of all the areas in the corridor for GO Transit service. The passenger boarding per thousand increased from 443,000 to 503,000, and that obviously resulted in the increase of the train service for the Bradford area.
It's very fundamental because the service that's provided out of Bradford, where the tracks end for the existing GO Transit service - what we're trying to do, and the city of Barrie has been working very diligently along with the provincial government, is to maintain the rail link between Bradford West Gwillimbury and the city of Barrie, because the federal government has put in legislation which has allowed CN, and CN has actually activated the process, to remove the track between Bradford West Gwillimbury and the city of Barrie. I'm very confident that CN is going to be able to negotiate with the city of Barrie, with funding assistance from the province, to secure that rail line.
The objective becomes very clear, and this is why this piece of legislation is so fundamentally important for my area of Simcoe Centre, with the city of Barrie and Innisfil and Bradford West Gwillimbury. This piece of legislation allows GO Transit to become a reality. It's unfortunate that for the city of Barrie, through to Newmarket, there was GO service in the 1991-92 period but the previous government decided to discontinue GO Transit. Notwithstanding that there wasn't a fair opportunity for GO Transit to increase its ridership and develop the market that was necessary for that area, they pulled the plug on it.
This piece of legislation is fundamental and it allows, as I said, upon the request of a municipality not within that GO Transit area, to enter into negotiations to provide transit service to that municipality. So the possibility is there for GO Transit to be extended from Bradford West Gwillimbury, once the tracks are secured through negotiations with CN, all the way up to the city of Barrie. That's very fundamental to the economic infrastructure of that particular area as it connects to the greater Toronto area, because that will result in alleviating the pressures of the highway corridor from Highway 400 up to Barrie. Also, it will result in a greater opportunity for economic growth, also for tourism, into the city of Barrie area because of GO Transit returning.
The opportunity is tremendous because this puts an obligation on the Greater Toronto Services Board to negotiate with municipalities such as the city of Barrie to provide that service. I'm sure that will be something that is going to be a reality, because the fact of the matter is the growth that is occurring right now, not only from Newmarket up towards the city of Barrie, is just phenomenal growth in terms of the housing starts and the economic activity around the area. Anyone who drives from the city of Barrie into the Toronto area knows that the traffic volume has increased tremendously since 1995 in terms of new housing starts and in terms of the economic activity. The commuters who travel from the city of Barrie into Toronto are going to have another opportunity in terms of getting another form of transportation.
I'm a big proponent of rail transportation because it's very environmentally friendly and I believe that what we have to do is balance the transportation system with the rail service that can be provided from the city of Barrie down to the city of Toronto with the car traffic that is already there and which is growing. That's another one of the problems that have resulted because of the tremendously high traffic volume that occurs from the city of Barrie to Toronto through people coming up to the tourism area from just basic, normal commuting traffic. It has resulted in the artificially high gas prices which have resulted from this tremendous high traffic volume. The city of Barrie is paying much higher gas prices than any other part of southern Ontario. The fact of the matter is that it's related to the oil companies taking advantage of the commuters and the people that have to use that highway.
2200
Another aspect I want to focus on in terms of what the rail traffic will mean is the opportunity for tourism that will result from people wanting to visit Barrie. It has a phenomenal waterfront which is all owned by the public; bike trails, tremendous boating. It's a great opportunity for people to visit the city of Barrie and see more about it.
For people who want to visit Toronto or have to go to Toronto for health services because of the services provided there, it gives them a tremendous opportunity to use the Go Transit system to get those services and not have to go through the pressure of driving from Barrie down to Toronto.
This is something that I think is a great opportunity for the Greater Toronto Services Board to take advantage of. They're going to be responsible for providing this service and looking for opportunities. They have the authority to enter into agreements with other municipalities both inside and outside the regional transit area as provided in the legislation for the provision of transit services.
The legislation is designed to make Go Transit happen for the areas that are outside the GTA. I would say that when we look at the infrastructure we're trying to create in this province and the economic prosperity we're trying to create, it should be reflected in and consistent with the trends that are happening out there in other industrialized areas. For example, in the United States the major focus of public transit is rail. It's not only for commuter; it's also for dealing with a support network for the industry in the northeastern part of the United States and also in the mid-west. That is the focus, and that's something where we can't fall behind.
I'm very pleased that I've been able to speak on this bill and I fully support it.
Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): I'm very pleased to have an opportunity to speak on Bill 56. This is a very important bill affecting a lot of people, some 4.6 million people. We're creating an area as a large as many provinces.
Arguably, one of the principles when we were elected was that we believed we were over-governed and overtaxed. Arguably, the over-governed part is that there were so many levels of municipal and regional government. Since 1988 there was clear evidence, with the 2021 report at the time, that indicated there needed to be better coordination among the regional areas that had been created. That's been talked about. In fact, in an informal way the mayors of the Greater Toronto Area have been meeting, probably under the leadership of Mayor Hazel McCallion, recognizing that there needed to be coordinating bodies or activities where they got together and recognized that there would be some economies of scale in doing some things together.
Arguably, within my riding of Durham East in the region of Durham there have been many working agreements, coordinated agreements, between York and Durham for a number of years. They worked those things out, hopefully, with the best interest of the taxpayer in mind.
When this legislation came up, Bill 56, after, I might add, much consultation - there have been so many reports just in our time and the previous government's time. You could look at the Golden report, you could look at the Burnham report, you could look at the report by Alan Tonks. There was a report between that and the Tonks report as well - Milt Farrow's report. In those consultations, trying to work with the local municipality and the upper tier of the regional government, there was pretty much consistent agreement that there needed to be coordination. To co-ordinate what? I think they finally agreed to the issue of coordination of Go Transit, to be named GT Transit, The Greater Toronto Transit Authority.
When I reviewed the legislation and talked to and listened to the mayors and the regional chair where I'm elected, I heard very serious concerns about the rural portion of Durham, which really, arguably, is my riding. Areas like Blackstock, Tyrone, Inniskillin and outside Port Perry, the smaller communities, to name but five, don't really see themselves at this point in history as part of that larger urban area. They do enjoy some of the benefits of being linked to the region; some of the service levels they enjoy today arguably are as a result of the region. I might add, the region of Durham, after some 25 years, is really just being digested or accepted. Many people saw it as an unnecessary form at that time it was brought in, I believe about the time of the Davis-Robarts era when that thing was being formulated.
The governance model in Ontario has generally been as a result of studies, but under the stewardship and management, I say humbly, of Conservative governments. I think back to Leslie Frost and the great vision of that Premier of Ontario, translated to Robarts and Davis, which gave us the wonderful province and the governance model we have, but as things change, this legislation's time had come.
There is some suggestion that the local levels are quite worried and the regional levels are quite worried about doing duplicate things, so the bill is necessary. It's only empowering two things to happen. One is that it empowers the operation and management of GO Transit, now called GT Transit Authority, and it provides some coordinating responsibilities or mediation responsibilities between regions and municipalities to ensure that we have the appropriate levels of service and infrastructure and that we avoid as much duplication of cost as possible.
People will say that such things as transit are obvious, but then you look at other issues. They've already got a Greater Toronto Marketing Alliance, which is economic development for the region. This is not part of that bill but it is a body that was created and that body was created really out of the greater Toronto mayors.
As much as I would like to resist it, the question really is, what is the role of the rural municipality? That is going to be a very central question that local municipalities in the region are going to have to deal with. In this bill there is a provision - I'm happy to say that the minister listened, because it was brought to his attention, not just by me but by the rural mayors and others, questioning a couple of issues, and they listened and responded with an appropriate amendment.
For the record, I made remarks a couple of weeks ago. I said in the House here that I was having some difficulty supporting this legislation. I said that out of respect to my constituents. But the minister and his staff and the ministry staff listened as well. I put to them what I thought were potential solutions and, oddly enough, there are amendments to this bill. Those amendments are absolutely critical to my constituents and to me, not just in the politics of getting re-elected, which of course is important, but to show and demonstrate - I live in my riding. I'm not just some visitor. That's important to me. So there is passion involved. That may not translate into other speakers here tonight on this particular issue.
I'm pleased that section 22 of the bill was amended. The GTSB can adopt a countryside strategy. The rationale for that is that the additional provisions will assist rural municipalities in defining their role in the Greater Toronto Services Board. The agricultural industry in the GTA ranks number one relative to the other areas in the province and it is important that this is acknowledged in such strategy. Rural interests must also be reflected in this strategy. So there it is.
Over this period of time the legislation in section 33 proposes that they set up the future directions of this body. This body of course has no taxing power and its going to have to work in a coordinated body among some 40 municipalities and elected people. So there it is, very clearly, an amendment that says, "You've got to have some strategy to deal with the rural component." Why is that important? Anne Golden in her report very clearly said that areas like Brock and Uxbridge and Scugog and Clarington, those portions of Durham, arguably maybe don't fit into this GTA urban form. So there's a provision for them to address that specific issue.
2210
I think this is an important amendment, again arising from debate, not just by myself but questions from all sides and all levels. Section 33 is the section that sets up some sort of review process by the year 2000, and there is in here an amendment that I want to read into the record. The amendment would ensure that the board must have regard to resolutions from member municipalities dealing with the board's size and composition.
This is the situation where a municipality or a regional government passes a resolution saying we do or do not want to be part of the GTA or this particular direction. That amendment clearly recognizes that their considerations will be reflected in their participation in the future.
I've listened to the mayors, Mayor Diane Hamre, Mayor Moffatt from Scugog, Nancy Diamond and others within the region, as well as Roger Anderson, who took the time out of his schedule to attend the days of the clause-by-clause amendments. By the way, I chaired that section, so I'm quite familiar with the bill and its details.
It is a required piece of legislation. Coordination is arguably the most important function of this, but specifically the real responsibility of this board is to manage GT Transit and to help coordinate the future of this greater Toronto area.
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for allowing me the time to comment on the record on behalf of my constituents of Durham East.
Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I'm pleased to continue the debate on Bill 56, the GTSB bill. I want to start my comments by commenting on some of the things that one of the government members said about the consultation that's taking place on this bill.
Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): Which government member?
Mr Phillips: Mr Gilchrist. I would just say that there was not one single day when the public could come and present their views on this bill. Mr O'Toole mentioned that the Durham regional chair, Roger Anderson, was here. He was here because he wanted to speak. He was here because he wanted to let his views be known. Mr O'Toole is shaking his head, but I talked personally to Mr Anderson. He was furious that he was not allowed to present his views on this bill on behalf of the residents of Durham. He said that if any municipal government ever tried to gag the public like that, the people would storm the doors, but there was not one single member of the public allowed to comment on this bill.
Mr Gilchrist said, "We've got to get it done." The bill was introduced in June. We've now had seven months when we could have had the public here presenting their views on the bill. But Mike Harris said no, there won't be a single minute, not a minute, when the public can come and present their views on this bill.
The Ontario Chamber of Commerce this week wrote condemning the government for it, saying: "What are you doing? Why can't the public have an opportunity to come and provide input into a government bill?"
The reason I raise this is that for four days this week we have been dealing with a process around here, this is only the latest one, where the public have had no opportunity to input into significant bills.
On Monday the property tax bill was rammed through committee. It was the seventh property tax bill. The Association of Municipalities of Ontario begged for an opportunity to present their views on it. The Association of Municipal Clerks and Treasurers of Ontario, the senior municipal officials, begged for an opportunity to present their views on it, and so did many other people. The region of Halton thought they had an undertaking from their four Conservative local members that their wishes would be allowed to be presented. But I say again, on the most significant property tax bill, the government wouldn't allow one single individual to present their views on it, in spite of the fact that these well-recognized experts wanted to. The government in its typical bully fashion, and I pick that word deliberately, refused to allow anyone to come and present their views on that bill.
Yesterday, Mr Speaker, as you know, the government rammed through another one of these things on the tax bill, where they invoked what's called closure.
The most recent one, and the reason I raise this, is because it was Mr Gilchrist. Today, this morning, we were dealing with a bill that will dramatically impact on every doctor in the province of Ontario. Without any question of a doubt, it has a profound impact on them. The Ontario Medical Association, the group that represents our doctors, was desperate to get its views known to the members of the Legislature before we dealt with this. The teaching hospitals, the medical schools were desperate to get their views known, so they sent someone down here with envelopes, because we were dealing with this bill, we were voting on this bill this morning at 12 o'clock. The people arrived here with the envelopes to deliver to the members. Here's what Mr Gilchrist said: "Someone has gone to an awful lot of trouble to perpetrate a fraud and a misrepresentation on the government members."
He goes on to accuse one of our members, Mr Kennedy. He says he should be "censured for allowing his office to be used as part of this fraud. It is extraordinarily inappropriate and I'm astounded if any member on the other side would defence this practice."
He goes on to make sweeping, dramatic accusations. Then we find that later on that afternoon the Speaker, once he looked into it, was forced to say to Mr Gilchrist, "You were wrong." The Speaker was forced to point out to Mr Gilchrist that -
Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East): I think you mean the member for Scarborough East.
Mr Phillips: No. You used Mr Kennedy's name, Mr Gilchrist. You deliberately used Mr Kennedy's name and I'll use your name, Steve Gilchrist, because you made an unfounded accusation. It's typical of you. What did the Speaker say? He said, "All I can do is explain to you that the report I've received from our security office does not implicate Mr Kennedy at all." He goes on to say, "I will be happy to discuss this.... It does not implicate Mr Kennedy nor Ms Boyd, who was also receiving envelopes for her caucus at the time. There seems to have been a mix-up, but it was internal to the Conservative caucus."
So I would just say, for four straight days we've been subject to the bully tactics of the Mike Harris government. On Monday, the bully tactic was refusing to allow the association of municipalities to comment on a bill, the clerks and treasurers to comment on a bill, any of the public. The region of Halton, all the chambers of commerce in Halton, desperately wanted to comment on a bill.
On Tuesday, this bill, Bill 56, was rammed through and Mr Anderson, for one, was there, the regional chair, wanting to provide input, the chamber of commerce wanting to provide input, but no, no -
Mr Gilchrist: Oh, yes, already sent his comments in in writing.
Mr Phillips: You see, Mr Gilchrist is barking again. He is typical of the Harris government wanting to ram these things through because they are going to do whatever they want and the heck with what the people of Ontario think. That's not the Ontario that I want, it's not the Ontario that the people want.
Ms Marilyn Mushinski (Scarborough-Ellesmere): How do you feel about the bill, Gerry?
Mr Gilchrist: Gerry doesn't have any thoughts on the bill.
Mr Phillips: There's Mr Gilchrist again, who was today found to be making unfounded charges, made up out of the air. Serious charges, typical of what you do, Mr Gilchrist. You threaten and you bully people, but it's not going to work. The people of Ontario understand that.
So I say to the public that this is important. This is typical of how Mike Harris operates.
Mr Gilchrist: Mike Harris wasn't even here today.
Mr Phillips: You were here, Mr Gilchrist. You made the accusation.
Hon Tony Clement (Minister of Transportation): Speak to the bill if you have the courage.
Mr Phillips: There's the transportation minister. I will also say we are dealing with an issue where he authorized $600,000 of taxpayers' money to be paid when all of our lawyers advised us not to do it. That's Mr Clement. He authorized the $600,000 expenditure. The public says: "Wait a minute. Why did you do that, Mr Clement? Why did you authorize $600,000 of my taxpayer money to be spent" -
2220
Hon Mr Clement: Go out there and say that and you'll get a reply. You're a disgrace and a coward. You're a coward.
Interjections.
The Deputy Speaker: Order. I'm standing up. I'm the only one who is supposed to be talking.
I wanted to bring the debate again within the terms of the bill we're debating. I would appreciate it if you would direct your comments to others through me, through the Speaker. I think we would be better served if we would maintain that rule of referring to others by their riding names, rather than their names, but I would ask you to direct your comments to me, the Speaker, please.
Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: The member for Brampton South called the member for Scarborough-Agincourt a disgrace and a coward. I would say the minister should withdraw his remarks. I believe there is no place in this House for calling another member a disgrace and a coward. I want your ruling on that, Mr Speaker.
The Deputy Speaker: There are two parts to your point of order, and I want to address them separately.
The first one is, when something is shouted across the floor, it's pretty hard to know who it's directed to.
The other thing I want to do, and that is the second part of your point of order, is that I want to address the member for Brampton South. If you have something you would like to withdraw, I'd appreciate your doing it at this time.
Mr Sergio: Come on. He didn't withdraw.
Mr Phillips: That's typical of Mr Clement. I understand that.
Mr Frank Klees (York-Mackenzie): You should be able to take it.
Mr Phillips: Oh, I can take it. I say to Mr Clement, the public will be the ones who will be the final judges of your actions, of the $600,000. If you would answer a question in the House we'd be glad to ask you a question, Mr Clement, but you won't answer the question on it.
I want to go on to discuss some of the concerns about the bill.
Hon Mr Clement: Hallelujah.
Mr Phillips: Hallelujah? I realize you don't like the public to be reminded of the approach Mike Harris takes to policy in the province of Ontario.
Mr Gilchrist: They can do their own thing.
Mr Phillips: Mr Gilchrist is continuing to barrack over there because he doesn't appreciate the public's understanding the way this government operates.
I want to review some of the concerns in the bill. The first concern is that the government of Ontario has decided to load about $106 million of GO expenses on to property taxes. It's part of dumping about $660 million of new costs on to property taxes.
These are their numbers. This is their own document that shows they've added $660 million to property taxes. Of that, $106 million is GO Transit. That used to be what the province picked up as their cost of GO Transit. From now on, no. That will all be on property taxes. The issue then is, how do you determine who pays what of that? One of the concerns about the bill is that the government of Ontario, Mike Harris, has decided how those costs will be allocated. He's made that decision already: to the city of Toronto 50%, and 50% outside.
To change that number, you need a two-thirds majority vote. In my opinion, that has the potential to create gridlock, because if the surrounding municipalities want to increase service, the city of Toronto is picking up half of those costs, and recognize that about 15% of the ridership of GO is from the city of Toronto. In order to change that formula, it requires a two thirds vote.
In my opinion and in the opinion of others, I think we are running a significant risk of creating gridlock on GO, of slowing down what should be, in my opinion, a substantial expansion of GO, because, as I say, the city of Toronto is required by this formula to pick up 50% of the costs. While the city of Toronto certainly benefits from it - about 15% of the ridership is from the city of Toronto - the rest is from outside of Toronto but Toronto will pick up 50% of the cost of it. To change that formula, to change that number, you need a two-thirds vote. In my opinion, I can see where this will inevitably lead to an impasse on decision-making at GO. That's a significant concern, without a question of a doubt.
I have followed the development of the GTA mayors and regional chairs for some time.
Mr Jean-Marc Lalonde (Prescott and Russell): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Is there a quorum in the House?
The Deputy Speaker: Is a quorum present?
Clerk at the Table: A quorum is not present, Speaker.
The Deputy Speaker ordered the bells rung.
Clerk at the Table (Mr Todd Decker): A quorum is now present, Speaker.
The Deputy Speaker: The Chair recognizes the member for Scarborough-Agincourt.
Mr Phillips: The major decision-making of this board, of the GTSB, obviously has to do with GO, and we are putting in place a formula that can only be changed by a two-thirds vote. My fear is that rather than GO being expanded, as I think everyone believes it should be - the area around the GTA clearly benefits from an expansion of rapid transit - I'm afraid this bill institutionalizes gridlock on decision-making.
As I said earlier, I'm very supportive of a Greater Toronto Services Board. There's no question that it is needed, no question at all that we have to have one. I'm very supportive of the process of taking some steps forward. I give Mayor McCallion of Mississauga a lot of credit. Seven years ago she had the idea to have the greater Toronto mayors and regional chairs begin to meet. They meet on a monthly basis. She chairs those meetings and does, in my opinion, a terrific job. That body has served us well, but it's time to take the next step forward. That's what this bill does, and I'm supportive of that. I've said that all along, on any occasion. I'm supportive of taking a step forward where we now have some decision-making processes for the greater Toronto area. My major concern is around the GO decision-making, where I think we may be putting in place a process that provides them with gridlock.
The rest of the bill I'm generally supportive of. Virtually everyone else who has looked at this would suggest a board with more power. I recognize that at this stage that is a difficult sell for the region. Until they get an opportunity to work together on decision-making, it's probably best to take this step, to put in place a mechanism to review it, as we will, and find out what the next logical move is. I can't prejudge that. Clearly, there are many big issues facing this area: waste disposal; the environment; our road structure, in addition to our transit structure; economic development is contained within the bill, and that will probably function well; our sewer and water system will be coordinated but not forced coordination on this. I think it is a significant step forward, and while those who have come and studied this before us might suggest more decision-making power, we can live with this, our caucus can live with this.
2230
I'm pleased to participate in this debate. I go back to my opening comment that I think it's unfortunate that organizations such as the chamber of commerce, such as the -
Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I want the chamber to be heard.
Mr Phillips: It was just this week we all got a letter from the Ontario Chamber of Commerce indicating their dismay with the fact that there was no opportunity for public input on this.
The regional chair of Durham was here -
Mr Conway: He got, as we say, the bum's rush.
Mr Phillips: - and got the bum's rush, as my colleague says. He simply found it incredible that a democratic body here to serve the public wouldn't allow him to be heard. He would never get away with that at a regional council meeting.
Mr Bradley: He was muzzled.
Mr Phillips: Muzzled, as my colleague says.
It has been four straight days now that the face of the Harris government has been exposed. On Monday, the property tax bill: Not a single person allowed to present. AMO, the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, and every major body impacted by this wanted an opportunity to come and make recommendations on how to make the bill work better. On Tuesday we dealt with this bill, Bill 56, with no opportunity for any public input. Yesterday, closure on a major tax bill that, among other things, set a brand new estate administrative tax that will raise about $1.5 billion, but the debate was just closed off. This morning there was a bill dealing with the lives of all the doctors and all the communities in the province, and the government members, or at least one of them, felt it was fraudulent - that's the term that was used - for the doctors to try and get letters of concern to us.
I regret that the government chose the route they chose. This bill was introduced on June 25. There was plenty of time to allow people like the regional chair of Durham to come and present his views but, no, they were shut off from that opportunity.
Mr Bradley: I would have thought Mr O'Toole would have assured that.
Mr Phillips: My colleague says he thought Mr O'Toole from Durham would have assured that, but it didn't happen and Mr Anderson was forced to just simply sit and listen.
I'm pleased to participate in the debate and to once again say that we're supportive of the bill; in terms of the process, we couldn't be more dismayed by the continued approach that Mike Harris takes to public input here.
Mr Sergio: I'm pleased to continue the debate on Bill 56, which is the bill proposing some changes to and restructuring of the transit service and the coordination of some other services within the GTA.
My colleague the member for Scarborough-Agincourt has delved in some depth into the formation of this new GTA council and the pitfalls and problems that could be associated with that particular body. I did suggest a similar concern during the second reading debate and I do concur that we are going to have serious problems with that particular formation.
We support changes. It is not that we don't support changes. I think this is something that has been advocated for many years, as has been said by various members of the House, but it is not the changes proposed in the bill that would make the difference. The difference would have been made if indeed the changes in this particular bill had been made according to the recommendations and the reports of the task force, those two particular concepts, that is, the Golden report and the Crombie report. I wonder what they are saying today when they see nowadays how we are arriving at approving legislation, approving ideas in this House totally contrary to the recommendations of those two very expert people.
Yes, the proposal does go beyond the municipal boundaries in the area of the GTA, including Metro. Those recommendations were the focal points of those two main bodies, the Golden report and the Crombie report, that to make it work and make it work effectively, you would have to go beyond those municipal boundaries. Not only was it restricted to making some minor changes to accommodate transit operation, but they also suggested making ulterior changes in the municipal restructuring of those GTA municipalities.
Time has gone by. I believe it was the member for Scarborough East who very forcefully said: "It's time that we move on, that we make those changes. Let's get on with it." We said: "Yes, let's get on, but it's how you're pushing on. It's how you're pushing through this particular piece of legislation." It is not that we are allergic to changes. We are not. We have been making good suggestions, good proposals. We have provided a number of good amendments. Unfortunately, knowing how things are done at various committee levels, we didn't have very much success. But again we are exposing our views to the House, to the members of the House and the minister who is in the House tonight, that if you want to make changes that make a difference, then major changes are needed, and not solely to the transit operation. If you want to act on this particular piece of legislation and bring serious changes, I would say to the minister, consider making those major changes.
I don't think the government had any difficulties going against the will of the people in Metropolitan Toronto. I don't have to tell you, Mr Speaker. You were around here when the various debates on the amalgamation of the Metropolitan Toronto municipalities took place, and the acrimony that those debates and the idea of amalgamation against their will brought on. Against the will of the people here in Toronto - 76%, 78%, and even higher in some other municipalities - what did the government do? They said, "No, we are going to do it, we are going to push ahead with it," and they did. Right or wrong, they did. We believe they were wrong to do it in the way they did, not only how they did it but to push it through against the will of the people of Metropolitan Toronto.
What was so difficult to do the same thing within the greater Toronto area? I would say that amalgamating the GTA municipalities, especially the lower-tier ones, is more important. It would create a much more efficient level of government than Metropolitan Toronto itself. Toronto already was on its own, even though you had the six or seven municipalities. Toronto was functioning as Metropolitan Toronto on its own already. It was already functioning well as one city. OK, fine, now we call it Toronto, one city. We do not recognize any more the six or seven boundaries of East York, North York, Scarborough, Etobicoke and so forth, but if you look at the past governance within Metro, it was one city and it was working fairly well.
So what happened? Against our will, our suggestions, and the people of Metropolitan Toronto who very vociferously said, "We don't want it and we don't want it that particular way," what did the Premier do? What did the minister do? They moved on. They steamrolled the people of Metropolitan Toronto and they imposed their will.
2240
If they did that in Metropolitan Toronto, why didn't they do the right thing and do the same thing within the GTA? Toronto, as we know, is practically built up, with very little open land available other than some spots for rezoning here and there and knocking some old buildings down and building new ones, and stuff like that. The big activity is in the GTA. It's in York region, Durham, Halton, Mississauga, in the various other regions where we have an abundance of good land, reasonable and - I shouldn't say "reasonable and affordable"; it is not affordable, but at least we have an abundance of land. They are developing fast; they are moving fast.
We just finished dealing with the 407 bill. During the debate - I'm pleased that the minister is still here - we heard from the municipal representatives of those regions, saying to us at the committee level, "Please relieve the congestion we have in our communities on the roads." We all know what it's like driving on the Queen E in the morning, or the 401 east at rush hour. They were saying, "Please give us a highway because we are bursting at the seams." It would have made more sense to amalgamate those regions and create a much more effective type of government. Those were the recommendations of the Golden report and the Crombie report from two well-qualified people.
Why didn't they do it in the GTA? It took more than two years. The government got cold feet. I don't have to explain why they got cold feet. They didn't move so smoothly, the way they moved within Metro, to do the same thing in the 905 area. I would say every member of the House knows the reason. I'm sure we could talk a little bit on the reasons for that. The GTA would have shared in the transportation, and not solely in what this bill is trying to accomplish at this time. They would have shared in transportation; they would have shared in planning, zoning, rezoning issues; they would have shared in sewers and water, garbage collection, garbage disposal, recycling and other services associated with the running of a local municipality, including road maintenance, snow removal.
I don't have to tell those members of the House who come from local council experience the problems associated with snow clearing and snow removal in wintertime. Some municipalities provide snow removal; some don't. Some municipalities provide sidewalk clearing, some municipalities don't, and so forth. We have this problem as well. We're also including housing and social services. How do people feel when one abutting municipality provides a particular service and the next municipality provides a different service?
I would say that if the government and the minister, or Mr Harris, really had wanted to bring about those changes, he would have gone beyond the political aspects and said to the 905ers: "We have to do it. It makes sense." But no, there is still some strength within the 905 area, "We don't want to rock the boat," so they got cold feet.
On top of the Golden and Crombie reports, I know Mr Tonks, the former chairman of Metropolitan Toronto, a well-experienced politician - and I met with him on a number of occasions - has done extensive consultations with the various municipalities, the various politicians of the outer regions in the GTA, the mayors, councillors and regional chairs. In the opportunities I had to speak to Mr Tonks at the various meetings I attended, he didn't have an easy ride trying to convince those local politicians.
I give it to those local politicians, because they are elected locally, they are elected by their local constituents and, first and foremost, they have a responsibility to listen and respond to their constituents. So I can imagine why, in certain areas, as I mentioned before, they would not have given such an easy ride to Mr Tonks during his consultations. But I know for a fact that he has really worked long and hard in consulting and meeting the members of those regional areas. They were not all in favour, as I said - not because of the NIMBY syndrome, but because everyone was trying to defend their own constituents' interests - and why not?
What about from an economic point of view? Would it make sense? One of the government members said, "Economically, this is going to be great." Sure, economically it's going to be great. Do you recall, for example, a couple of years ago when one of the local municipalities just above Toronto was trying to outdo the other municipalities, including Toronto, saying, "We are the city above Toronto," spending tax dollars to promote, and rightly so, business within their municipality? Why did the government do the amalgamation in Metropolitan Toronto? Why has the government been downloading and amalgamating throughout Ontario? In the good name of savings. I don't know if it's better government or not, but they've been pushing for more effective local government, stuff like that. Whether they have accomplished that, I really have no idea.
If that is the case, the GTA makes very eminent sense, especially from an economic point of view, where you have competing municipalities, all fast-growing and all competing for the same jobs, the same types of businesses, and spending tax dollars. It doesn't matter if you are in Mississauga, in Halton, in Oshawa, in Richmond Hill or in my friend's area, Aurora or Newmarket. Business is business; the economic situation is the economic situation. The tax dollars are the same and jobs, I'm sure, are the same all over Ontario.
The government says, "We've got to move on." OK, let's move on. "This was one of our most important priorities or promises," as the member for Scarborough East said, a long-standing promise, a PC promise. I don't remember that this was a long-standing promise made by the PCs, but even if it was, we are saying it is not what you're doing; it's how you're doing it.
For example, why would it have been better to have major changes in the GTA, and not necessarily the changes proposed in this piece of legislation? I can see why, for example, when Ms Golden and Mr Crombie in their reports said, "We have to go beyond the boundaries and have a direct" - this is part of their recommendations - "elected GTA board or council and replace the regional ones. Amalgamate" - this was one of their principal points - "and reduce some of the lower municipalities" - and they had one particular recommendation - "from 24 to 18."
This would have accomplished and would have given to those municipalities - first of all, it would have eliminated one of the major problems which continues to divide and split the 905 and the 416 areas, and that is funding. That has been a problem for many, many years. Mr Speaker, I don't have to tell you there has been a problem with funding, revenues, the fair components and subsidy. This continues to persist. This continues to divide not only the various GTA regions, but the 905 and the 416 areas.
2250
I'll give you an example of a particular situation we are still facing today; GO Transit financing. Toronto will be paying half of the downloaded GO Transit subsidy cost while Toronto residents make up only 15% of the ridership. Meanwhile, expanding train services are primarily targeted to the 905 regions around the Toronto area. It's the same thing with the TTC. Toronto pays 100% of the downloaded subsidy cost, while at the same time residents of the 905 area are using the TTC to get to work, and that's OK.
We are saying that the changes proposed in Bill 56 are an initiative, but if we want to see major changes that would really make a difference, then we will have to go back to the drawing board and make those necessary changes as we had in the Golden and Crombie reports.
I have just a few seconds left. Let me say that it has been a pleasure to speak on this important piece of legislation. I only wish the government would slow down, listen and get it right. If they go ahead, as I'm sure they will - they've been pushing the legislation - perhaps Mr Crombie will be the right person to head the GTA board.
Mr Bisson: I'm somewhat happy to speak to this debate. I would be happier if we weren't having this debate in the first place, but this is a bill in keeping with what this government is all about, privatizing everything that moves or getting rid of it in some fashion so that there's less accountability on the part of the public. In this particular case -
Mr Joseph Spina (Brampton North): What does that have to do with the GTSB bill?
Mr Bisson: The GTSB bill, as you would know, deals with how you deal with GO Transit once you've decided it is no longer a provincial authority. The government of Ontario decided some years ago that in the region known as the greater Toronto area there needed to be a commuter train system to take the traffic off our highways, and for very good reason.
If we take a look at the situation when it comes to traffic in the city of Toronto and the GTA generally, we know that our highways are quite congested with traffic. Having a good infrastructure when it comes to a train system as far as commuter trains are concerned is a good thing for the commuters coming in and out of the city of Toronto to work or whatever, for a number of reasons. It's cleaner for the environment. It is probably, in some cases, cheaper for the individual traveller. But also very important, Mr Speaker, and you would agree as a member who comes here from afar every week, it is good in the sense of trying to keep some of the traffic off our highways, such as Highway 400, Highway 401, the Gardiner Expressway and others.
The GTSB bill is a clever device to figure out how you deal with GO Transit once the transit authority no longer exists the way it did before, because the government decided, pure and simple, that it wanted to download GO Transit off the books of the province on to municipalities. How do you do that if you have a GO Transit system that is larger in geographical terms than just the then city of Toronto, Scarborough, Etobicoke, Mississauga, Oakville and the list goes on? They needed to find some mechanism to link, in some ways, shared responsibility when it came to the management of that service because no longer was it going to be a service of the province of Ontario.
Harris, in the mode of the Jean Chrétien government and the Brian Mulroney government before it, is engaging in what is called downloading, pure and simple. They are taking GO Transit off their books. They're throwing it on to the books of local municipalities and the local municipalities will be responsible for the management and, in the end, financially responsible for the service.
As well, the government of Ontario will no longer subsidize GO Transit. I want to point out, and I want to say it quite clearly, that there is hardly a mass transit system anywhere, with the exception of a few, that is not subsidized by government in some way or other. If you take a look at what is considered a fairly efficient train system in Europe, you will see that governments in Europe, in England, France, Germany, Italy, different places, to ensure there are good transit systems as far as trains and others are concerned, subsidize their systems of rail passenger service to make sure the service exists and is able to serve the people of their nations.
Here in Canada we had that way of doing things for a number of years, but we decided some years ago, I think wrongly, for the government to get away from the idea of subsidizing trains. We've seen the federal government basically privatize what was then our national rail service and now we see Ontario in its own way very much turning around -
Mr Spina: Is this the case of a northerner telling the south how to operate -
Mr Bisson: Yes, I think a northerner has the right to tell the south what to do every now and then because, I'll tell you, the south is always trying to tell us what to do. Of course I have a right to come here and express that view.
Interjections.
Mr Bisson: It's interesting for the member -
The Deputy Speaker: Come to order.
Mr Bisson: I think we've stirred the nest just to the side of us here in the rump because they're certainly responding to what I'm saying.
But the point is, quite simply put, that the government is abandoning its responsibility to ensure there's a good commuter rail service here in the GTA and they're offloading that responsibility on to the municipalities.
I think that's dangerous. Initially people probably won't be too concerned. Initially the people in the Toronto-GTA area will say: "What does it mean for me? The trains will go on and we never have to worry about this." But as municipal governments become more choked for cash as a result of the downloading, and God forbid we should end up going through another recession - and I hate to say it but we will because these things are cyclical - municipal governments will be less able to maintain this kind of service in hard financial times than is the case for the province of Ontario. You're not going to see an expansion or a strengthening of the system of GO Transit across the GTA. What you're going to see, and I'm probably going to be proven right, is a GO Transit system that's going to diminish compared to what people are used to now.
We know that there's been a cry across the GTA, that there's been a cry out of Hamilton, Barrie and other communities where they've been trying to get the GO Transit system to work more efficiently and add a number of runs or, in some cases, move into those communities, to allow commuters in their communities to come into the GTA to work or do whatever they have to do.
I think this particular move is wrong, but at the very least the government should have taken a different approach if they decided to do this. They should have taken a different -
Interjection.
Mr Bisson: I wasn't expecting that one. I was just about to wrap up my comments.
Now that I have the time, let me go into the second part of the argument. I disagree philosophically with what you're doing because I think it's bad for commuter rail service, but at the very least what you should have done is maybe looked at doing this a bit differently. The government embarked - Steve Gilchrist, the member from Scarborough wherever -
Mr Gilchrist: There he goes again.
Mr Bisson: I don't know the name of your riding.
Mr Gilchrist: Scarborough East.
Mr Bisson: Scarborough East - was very adamant about his government's need to make a big megacity. I understood the philosophical bent on that. I didn't agree, but the philosophical bent was that you had to make bigger communities to make it more efficient. In this particular case, what they ended up doing is that they supposedly eliminated levels of government by doing so, but what they've done, on the other hand, by way of the GTSB bill, is they're creating another bureaucracy to deal with what was set up already in Ontario. So now you have the local municipalities that have become one and you have now created this GTSB contraption to deal with the services as provided by GO Transit. As well, they're saying within the legislation that they're going to give the GTSB - the Greater Toronto Services Board; I should get out of the jargon so people in northern Ontario know what I'm talking about, because GTSB may not ring a bell - the ability to negotiate with local community councils such as Toronto, Oakville and others to co-manage or take responsibility for services that are broader than just the municipalities themselves. So in effect what they're doing by way of this bill is creating a larger regional government. I think where this will end up, and I would imagine the government won't admit this, is that this bill is going to lead to a larger regional government.
2300
I would most favour the government taking another approach. OK, you wanted to do the megacity thing, and I think that was wrong. I think in the end that is not going to save us a lot of money and I don't think it will serve the communities of Toronto. We can get into that debate another time. But at the very least, what you could have done with this bill is you could have said: "All right, what we're going to do is take a look at how we deal with regional governments in and across the GTA. Should we have a governance of a larger regional government" - I think the question has to be asked - "to find a way to deliver those services across the GTA in a more efficient manner, making sure that there is coordination within the services?" At the very least, if you're going to download the services, you should download them to something that will at least have some sort of organization across the GTA so that they're able to make decisions that are in keeping with the geography and the needs of those communities.
I come back to the point that I don't believe GO Transit should have been transferred off the province's books. I think that is a bad decision. In the end you're not going to be served well. Commuters will end up having lesser services and probably paying a higher price.
In the last minute, before I wrap up, I would say that I see this as a transitional bill that eventually is going to lead to the creation of regional government. That's where this particular government is going with this. So in the end this government, which tried by way of a number of bills, including the megacity bill and this one, to create less government in fact is going to end up creating much larger government, with larger bureaucracies, which is probably much less efficient than it would have been had they left things alone at the very start.
As time goes on, we are starting to find out - and a lot of municipal politicians have come to this conclusion - that this government is a really bad manager. They're very good at making snap decisions but very bad at implementing those decisions, and once a decision has been made and has been implemented, it's a big problem.
I have seen more municipal aldermen and municipal mayors across the province mad as heck at this government, and sometimes not for ideological reasons because I think a lot of mayors and aldermen across Ontario have a lot in common with this government when it comes to their politics. They're very much to the right, much as is the case with the present Conservative government or the Liberal Party of Ontario, but in the end they are mad at you. Why? Because they think you're bungling the system. They see what you're doing as pure downloading and they see what you're doing as being very badly managed. They are really mad because half the time they can't get answers from your ministries, not because the ministries aren't trying hard to serve their master, the Conservative government, but because the Conservative government and the cabinet can't quite figure out how to make half this stuff work.
I know the member from Hamilton is looking forward to getting into the debate. At this point I just want to say to the government members that I think in the end what you're doing is creating a larger government, and I wonder sometimes what you guys are really up to and what you're all about.
Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I appreciate the opportunity join in the debate on third reading of Bill 56. The first thing I want to do, which will come as a surprise to some members across the way I'm sure, is to thank the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, because during second reading debate I had raised two issues with him that were of importance to my community of Hamilton-Wentworth, as one of the partners in GO Transit, and at the end of the day both those requests have been met. I do appreciate that. Indeed, he offered up verbally, while I was on the floor and in discussions that I had with him off to the side, that he would do that. He has honoured his word, and on behalf of the people in my community, I appreciate that.
Having said that, I want to say, though, that I am a little disappointed. I realize there was unanimous consent, so my party agreed also, but in wanting to confirm all of that, because I don't sit on that committee, because we waived the need to have the actual final bill, as amended, printed and in front of us, technically I cannot verify 100% that that was done. I have every reason to believe it was. I have spoken to our members who were on that committee. But as an elected representative with one of the 130 votes to cast in this place - and I raise this as an individual member, not as a member of my caucus - I find it a little unsettling to be speaking and voting on matters that I cannot confirm 100%. In fact, when I checked with the table, I was not able to get a copy of the amendments that were presented by the government. The Hansards aren't available, we've waived the right to the printing of the third reading debate, and I just want to raise the concern and put on the record that I think this is a dangerous road for us to follow.
It's happening more and more. I realize it means nothing to people who may be watching, but at the end of the day we're supposed to be doing our job in a way that they don't have to follow every minute. The whole check and balance of the parliamentary system is that the opposition is strong enough to protect the rights of minorities and protect the rights of opposing opinions and points of view, and that does become more difficult to do when we don't have the actual law that we are talking about at third reading here in front of us. Maybe that speaks to the day when we have to computerize this place so that those kinds of things are on monitors that are on our desks and can be brought up, which I realize flies in the face of a lot of tradition in this place, but I don't think it's healthy that we've reached the point where it's now a fairly regular occurrence that we will be voting on matters and not have the actual law in front of us to check and confirm the articles that are within that law that we're giving our support to, or for that matter our opposition to. I raise that as a concern.
In fact, I would just take it one step further. Each of us, myself also, both as part of a government and as an individual minister, has introduced bills and moved first, second and third reading in one day when the urgency required, but with the changing of the rules and the frequency with which this sort of thing is happening, it's almost that we're being obstructionist if we're not allowing some kind of quick passage of things. There's a reason that you take at least a fairly measured approach to passing laws, because of the implications they have for 11 million citizens. You've changed the law now, and I believe within six legislative days you can, with absolutely no ability for us to stop you, pass any bill that you choose to use your majority to support - six parliamentary days. There is nothing, not a power on earth, that can legally or legislatively stop you from passing a bill. That seems to me to be quite adequate enough, if not too much. There's no ability for us to stop or slow down that process if you decide to use all the tools you've given yourself under your new rules.
In the interests of fairness, because I'm raising this as a parliamentarian, the Liberals are guilty of starting down that road, we are guilty of walking down that road and you are guilty of taking us further down that road. I hope that whatever the result of the next election is, the 37th Parliament, be it a majority government, a new government or a minority government, would look very seriously at where we are as a Parliament in the process of enacting laws, because I think there's a lot of room for improvement. That's not meant to cast negatives only at the government, although you've taken us much further than anyone ever thought, but we've got some of that guilt to bear too and so do the Liberals. I would hope that each of us as individual parliamentarians, or those of us who are lucky enough to be returned to the 37th Parliament, would indeed look at this in an objective fashion, recognizing that more and more we're not giving the kind of analysis to laws and taking the time for the democratic input that we have an obligation to, based on the democratic traditions of this place.
2310
Having said that, there are two areas that affect my community of Hamilton-Wentworth that have changed as a result of the committee hearings. One is very important, the other one not as important, but it means a lot to us in Hamilton.
The first area involves section 10 as it relates to section 4. Those two parts of Bill 56 had the effect of denying Hamilton-Wentworth the right to vote on the chair of the new board and the new authority, the board for the greater Toronto services area and the Greater Toronto Transit Authority. The transit authority, of course, is crucial to us, because we are part of the GO system. I understand that it wasn't anything deliberate, at least there's no evidence to that, and I haven't made that accusation. But indeed the end result was, and part of it says, and I'll just read it again for the record:
"4. The board shall be composed of,
"(a) the chair of the council of each regional municipality, other than the regional municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth.... "
It goes on in the same vein in a number of places to exclude Hamilton-Wentworth. We are excluded from the services board because we are not part of the GTA proper. That might not have caused as big a concern in and of itself; however, if you're part of a body, you ought to have the full rights that everyone else has. But clearly when it came to the transit authority, the new authority governing GO, to leave us out of the voting procedure for choosing the chair was totally unacceptable. That has been resolved, and Hamilton-Wentworth has now, through our regional chair, been given our full rights on the board to participate in the vote for a new chair. Again, I do offer my thanks to the minister for acknowledging this oversight and also following through on his commitment to correct it.
The second area - and I remember when I spoke to it I said that it bordered on trivial but it mattered to us in Hamilton - was that we were going from the name "GO Transit" to "GT Transit," GO Transit being Government of Ontario Transit, GT Transit being Greater Toronto Transit. The fact is that we are not part of the greater Toronto area in Hamilton-Wentworth. We are, however, an equal partner in GO Transit, and by changing the name from GO Transit to GT Transit, we were being denied the recognition we deserve as being a full partner of this urban transit system.
I was pleased that again the minister acknowledged that, since he was a member of the founding board, he was rather partial to the term "GO Transit." It wasn't the same motive that I had, but there was a meeting of the minds, and he said he would look at it. Indeed, it's my understanding - again, I can't verify it, because I don't have the final printed bill - that we have moved away from the notion of GT Transit and gone back to GO Transit being the name of the system, which I think is quite appropriate. I won't go any further into that; I did at greater length under second reading. But since it has now been, to the best of my knowledge, corrected, I don't need to go any further other than to again thank the minister on a personal level on behalf of Hamiltonians for recognizing that we have enough trouble keeping our identity where it needs to be in the shadow of the GTA, and this took us down the wrong road in the wrong direction. By keeping it as GO Transit, Government of Ontario Transit, we feel we have been acknowledged in terms of our rightful full partnership in this major urban transit system.
Moving on from all those rare niceties to what's really going on here, as my colleague the member for Cochrane South has pointed out, this is very much about the downloading. This is about taking responsibilities off the books of the province and downloading them, and, quite frankly, downloading them anywhere. They really don't care where. If it's easier for them to download to municipalities, that's what will happen. If there's an opportunity for them to sell a potentially profitable provincial service to one of their corporate pals, that's the road they'd like to go down and, in this case, create some other unique entity that is much more municipal than provincial but get it the hell off their books. That's all that matters, because at the end of the day, as we know, they want to be able to stand up and say, "We did the 30% tax scam, and we cut all these regulations, and we got government off your back," and all that other nonsense that, unfortunately, enough people buy into that they are able to get political support for it, when we know that all they've done is shift, they've squeezed the juice in the orange.
Those costs that they can say they've saved, especially for their wealthy friends but even the couple of bucks that the average middle-class working family might see because of their 30% tax scam, are more than made up for by the fact that their property taxes have gone up or user fees have gone up in how many cases? Talk to seniors about the drug plan, talk to people in municipalities about recreation services, library services, where the services have been either cut back or there has been the introduction of or increases in the user fees that citizens have to pay for services that before either were covered off by their general taxation, provided by the provincial government through their income tax system or were lower, nominal user fees.
This is no different. In my community of Hamilton-Wentworth, as a result of your downloading procedure, we're out a total of $36.3 million.
Mr Gilchrist: No, you're not.
Mr Christopherson: The member for Scarborough East says: "No, you're not." I want to bring to his attention once again - and how many times have I had to do this? - the numbers I am using when I talk about the downloading.
Mr Gilchrist: How much has your welfare gone down this year, Dave?
Mr Christopherson: Do you want to listen for a second, and then I'll listen to your heckle. How's that?
Mr Gilchrist: All right. OK.
Mr Christopherson: All right? Listen to what I have to say for just 60 seconds, and I'll listen to your heckle.
Mr Gilchrist: I'll wait.
Mr Christopherson: All right. These numbers were taken from a regional document. This is a photocopy of a document that was sent out to all the taxpayers in Hamilton-Wentworth. It lists the net loss in our community of services and costs that were downloaded to us and offset by any monies taken off the education portion of the property tax bill. It nets out to $36.3 million in the hole for us. The person who oversaw the compiling of this, the CAO for the region, is exactly the person you just hired to be the new Deputy Minister of Municipal Affairs.
So if you want to suggest for a moment that these numbers are rigged or that there's incompetency, then you'd better stand up and address the fact that that's the very person you saw fit to hire as the Deputy Minister of Municipal Affairs, a decision, by the way, which I applaud you for, because I think he's one of the finest bureaucrats and one of the finest public servants the province has ever seen.
Now I'll listen to your heckle.
Mr Gilchrist: You're out of touch. That was as of January 1. What has happened to your welfare costs since then? If you want to talk apples -
2320
Mr Christopherson: Listen, I sat in on the original discussions around determining these when we were in government, and I can tell you that that's another shell game, because one of the difficulties in this, and I'm sure your folks went through it when they were on the Who Does What panel, one of the difficulties in doing the calculations was deciding at what point in time you would draw the line to do the comparisons, because if you did it, obviously, before the recession of the early 1990s, your social service costs would be much lower than they were in the height. So the provincial government, as one side of the bargaining table, had a desire to have the line drawn at one point in time that was far different from how the municipal politicians saw it. To take these numbers and say, "Where are we now?" doesn't work because you have to look at the point at which the decision was made to draw the line and do the comparisons. You have to do that.
That's why quite frankly the member for Wentworth North, one of your backbench colleagues, voted against it, because he at least had the decency to admit publicly that the downloading in Hamilton was not revenue-neutral and that he could not in good conscience support that bill. The fact is that the $36.3 million is a legitimate figure in terms of the money that we're out.
To make it relevant to Bill 56, one of the new costs that make up the $36.3 million that we didn't have before is $3.3 million for GO Transit. GO Transit alone, $3.3 million of costs that we didn't have before, part of the $36.3 million that you stiffed us for when you made this exchange in this downloading. That's one of the reasons you continue to hear so much anger coming out of the community of Hamilton-Wentworth, because when you add on top of that the fact that you also stiffed us on the business education tax - it's a good idea to make everyone the same; it was a bad idea to take eight years to do it. When you took eight years to do it, you discriminated against Hamilton-Wentworth to the tune of almost $20 million a year. That's our business people, the folks that you purport to care about. You stiffed them in Hamilton-Wentworth.
Further to that, while I'm on it, your new bill that puts the caps on the increases has so damaged downtown Hamilton, which, I would point out to members of the government, is also the official downtown of the entire region - a population base of almost a half a million people. Our downtown is in desperate need of the benefits that they were going to accrue, one of the few that would get some, from CVA, but you bring in this capping and we're going to lose it. In fact, our chamber of commerce, one of the few voices that you listen to in this province, has asked you to exempt us. Silence. You haven't done anything.
There are three issues right off the top: $36.3 million shortchanged on the downloading; almost $20 million on the business education tax; and now the further damaging of our downtown core, and Westdale, I would point out, in west Hamilton. Those three measures alone take us back years economically.
We're out $36.3 million. That has to be made up from somewhere. There are going to be increases in property tax, which there was; there are going to be cuts in services, which there was; a loss of jobs in terms of loss of service in the public sector of Hamilton and our community, which we'd had lots of too; and increases in user fees. We've had all those things, in large part as a result of your downloading.
The point being that, under Bill 56, all you've done in terms of transit and GO Transit in particular - that's what this relates to - is to make sure that they kind of vibrant, healthy future that public transit should have is going to be choked off. Why? Because you've pulled out of all responsibility. You're the more senior level of government. You have more access to money. You have more means of raising money. You have more levers of fairness of taxation if you chose to use them, much greater than a municipality. But now, all of these municipalities working in concert are left to carry the entire load that you've backed away from, that you've dumped on to them. With all of the other things that municipalities are now responsible for, like public and social housing, ambulance services, community services, increased costs for child care, public health services, provincial highways, what's the priority? Where is public transit going to fit in that priority?
I know you don't care, because most of the people who would use public transit are not even on your electoral radar screen, and when it comes to the benefits of public transit, GO Transit, to our environment, you've already proven the absolute disdain that you have for any protection of our environment in favour of making sure that your corporate pals can run away with the store. So there's nothing here that obviously would show that you would have any trouble with what you've done. But the fact is it's all but the kiss of death for expanding urban transit. Think about it.
In a community like Hamilton-Wentworth, when there are all kinds of pressing priorities, when people would obviously not want their taxes increased if that can be at all avoided, municipal councillors sitting at the council table in the council chamber, having to decide between social housing, when we've got homelessness reaching and declared a national crisis - we've got ambulance services, obviously a crucial emergency human service that has to be there. Child care: Some people, without adequate child care, can't enter back into the workforce. That means so much to so many people. Public health: My God, at the end of the day, what could be more important than public health services? Let's remember, the greatest advancement in health care wasn't technology and it wasn't any new vaccine. The greatest advancement in health care for society was clean water. That's public health. You've now downloaded that back on to municipalities.
When all those pressures are on these councillors, where do you think GO Transit is going to end up in the line-up of priorities? I'm sure for some, who ran on that as an issue, they might be prepared to put it at the top of their list. But I sat on regional council for five years. I can understand, I can imagine the kind of gut-wrenching and soul-searching that individual councillors would have to go through when they had to make decisions about cutting, if you keep going the way you're going, any these of services. Or if there's a modest amount of money to increase, where are they going to put it?
If you see that replicated in every municipality that's a part of this new transit board, guess what? GO Transit likely not only will not expand, but over the coming years is going to have to scramble and beg just to maintain the level and quality of service they now have. I don't believe for a second that's a stretch. Any of you who have sat on your local councils, take into account the changes you've made. Put yourself in the place of those local councillors and ask yourself where GO Transit is going to fit in your ranking of priorities.
Yet it's so important to the advancement of our regional economies, our total economy in all of Ontario. It's so crucial for our environment. It's a quality-of-life issue. It ought to be given a higher priority than they're going to be able to do. What would the answer be? The opposite of this bill. It would be, keep as much of it in the hands of the province as possible because they have more money and more levers of raising money in a fair way to ensure that this gets the priority treatment that it should. You are confining it to the financial scrap heap. It's going to go near the bottom of the list in most communities, and not because councillors want it to, but because they'll have no alternative.
That's a shame, because it's one of the key areas where we can take advantage of our geography, both in terms of the natural geography that we have and the geography in relationship to the major markets that we're within a day's drive of, which has been quite frankly one of the cornerstones of why southern Ontario has been the economic stronghold that it has, and you're treating it in such a flippant fashion. All I can hope is that some government in the future, very soon, will remedy this and get the provincial government back in the game so that public transit, GO Transit and our environment are treated with the respect and given the priority that they deserve.
2330
The last thing I want to raise in the two minutes I have left is just to point out once again that the government is bound and determined that workers will not only lose as many rights as they can in this province that they've worked for and struggled for over the decade, but that, boy oh boy, God forbid they should ever get any of those rights back. When you took away successor rights to provincial employees under Bill 7, the workers at GO Transit lost successor rights, which means that if you privatize their jobs they don't have a right to seniority, they don't have a right to their grievance procedure, they don't have a right to their wage levels. In fact they're not even guaranteed to be offered back their jobs at a reduced wage; they lose everything if it's privatized.
By moving it into a municipal realm there's the possibility that Bill 7 may not capture those employees so there's a clause in here, subsection 7l(8), and it says: "For greater certainty...(b) no trade union that had bargaining rights in respect of any employees of the authority has bargaining rights in respect of employees of GT Transit."
I understand it has something to do with the transition time and whether there's a legal vulnerability. "A legal vulnerability," can you believe it? That's the way it's put, "a legal vulnerability," that they could claim successor rights if you try to privatize this, which unfortunately I suspect is in the cards with some people.
My point is that you took away rights that workers had and when there was any possibility that this group of workers might get those rights back, you put it right in the law to ensure and guarantee and nail home the fact that they wouldn't dare get those rights back. God forbid that workers should have decent rights that they once had.
My last point in this is, for all the great, grandiose things that some members of the government say this board is going to do, it has no teeth, it has no mandate, it's not going to do half the things that they brag about.
The Deputy Speaker: Mr Gilchrist has moved third reading of Bill 56.
Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?
All those in favour, say "aye."
All those opposed, say "nay."
In my opinion, the ayes have it. The motion is carried.
Resolved that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.
SOCIAL WORK AND SOCIAL SERVICE WORK ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR LE TRAVAIL SOCIAL ET LES TECHNIQUES DE TRAVAIL SOCIAL
Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 76, An Act to Establish the Ontario College of Social Workers and Social Service Workers / Projet de loi 76, Loi créant l'Ordre des travailleurs sociaux et des techniciens en travail social de l'Ontario.
The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Further debate? The Chair recognizes the minister for Mississauga West.
Hon Rob Sampson (Minister without Portfolio [Privatization]): I would simply like to speak in the spirit of the co-operation among the three recognized parties of this House that now exists with respect to this important piece of legislation. I'd like to thank my colleagues in the opposition party and indicate that we have an agreement, I understand, before this House adjourns this evening, that we will complete the second reading of Bill 76 and that the bill will then be ordered referred to the standing committee on social development for two days of consideration next week.
Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Thank you very much, Mr Chairman. At this late hour I'd first like to introduce the chair of Halton and the chair of the region of Durham who are with us this evening. They may want to be acknowledged as being in the public gallery to watch a previous bill but are no doubt interested in all the legislation that we have before us.
I want to say that the key reason for this bill passing this evening - if it does indeed pass as one can never predict what ultimately will happen, but it's supposed to happen - if it does happen this evening, one of the reasons is that the government has agreed to have some hearings in Toronto on this bill here at Queen's Park. The hearings were requested by the New Democratic Party and the Liberal Party so that those who have some concerns or those who wish to indicate support may express those concerns or that support to the committee at this time. We thought it would be inappropriate to have the bill go through without those kinds of hearings, since there were people who had expressed concerns about certain provisions of the bill. With the assurance that has been given by the minister this evening on behalf of the government House leader, we are able to proceed.
This bill has had some debate in this House - perhaps more than some anticipated, but any piece of legislation we have before us almost invariably will find some opponent and there will be some concerns expressed. As members would be aware, Bill 76, the Social Work and Social Service Work Act, 1998, establishes a self-governing, self-funding Ontario College of Social Workers and Social Service Workers, which would report annually to the minister and provide input on regulations. That's very valuable input, because I've always believed that the people who are on the front line of the delivery of any service, particularly in the broad social field, are those who can best advise governments and in fact legislatures on any new regulations that might be beneficial in terms of improving a system.
The bill would establish and enforce professional and ethical standards, incorporate a complaints investigation process, address discipline, misconduct, incompetence and incapacity and promote standards and quality assurance. The college would communicate with the public, maintain memberships, approve educational programs, issue certificates of registration and revoke, renew or suspend them as necessary. The college will be governed by a council of 21 members, with representation by both social workers and social service workers.
The bill requires anyone who wants to practise in Ontario to register with the college and be subject to its regulations.
The last thing to be mentioned is that a transition council will be appointed to set up the college and prepare for the first elections of the council, which should take place within a year.
There's a pretty good consensus. I understand there are still some who have some concerns about the legislation, but it's a pretty good consensus out there that there will be an opportunity for those people who are in opposition, as I've mentioned, to be heard.
Ordinarily this evening the critic or spokesperson for the Liberal Party, Sandra Pupatello, the member for Windsor-Sandwich, would be addressing the assembly and participating in this. However, as members would know, being a very good friend of Shaughnessy Cohen, who unfortunately passed away suddenly in the House of Commons just yesterday, she is back in Windsor visiting with the family. I know this House expressed its condolences unanimously this afternoon, along with a moment of silence.
Ms Pupatello has asked me to share with you some of her views on this matter. She is supportive of this legislation. She too wants to ensure that there are opportunities, through a couple of days of hearings, for those who are in opposition to express that opposition and suggest any changes that might be made to the bill to improve it in any particular way. I would expect that next week we will see third and final reading of this bill subsequent to those hearings. Whether there are any changes made or not, the government will ultimately have that determination.
We in the Liberal Party are supportive of the legislation that regulates social workers and social service workers and holds them to the highest standards of service delivery. Interestingly enough, it has been social workers themselves, not necessarily people from outside the field of social work, though from time to time there are complaints that have been put forward - as the minister indicated in introducing this bill, there have been opportunities for people to set up a business, if you will, of social workers without the kind of regulatory regime which was felt by all to be necessary to ensure the high standard of work that we want to see.
This bill goes a long way to protecting the public. Remember, social workers work, often, with the most vulnerable people in our society. They are the people who have access to these social workers.
2340
We are concerned about certain provisions that have been excluded from the bill that would greatly improve social workers' and social service workers' contributions to the field. Nevertheless, looking at the bill in total, we are still supportive of it. We call on social workers and social service workers to continue to advocate for their clients and speak out against the damage they see that this government's or any other government's policies might do, because they can see it on the front line.
I want to mention that just for a moment, because there have been some pretty disruptive changes taking place to the social services system. Some of those changes have gathered some support in the province; others have been of more questionable value. What I think emerges is the fact that the people who work with those who receive social services are cognizant of some of the problems out there, are cognizant of some of the realities and are able to provide for us some good advice.
Even within the group of social workers we have in this province there's going to be some significant disruption. Some of it is taking place already. I think of my own area of Niagara, where there is a transition taking place, with one level of government assuming responsibility and another level of government relinquishing responsibility for certain parts of the delivery of social services. This could mean some job losses as a result of this. Your social workers will tell you that at a time when we're demanding more and more of them, there appears to be a situation where we could have fewer and fewer social workers who must do more and more in terms of the caseloads that are out there. This often means that the quality of work we can expect cannot realistically be the same as if we had a sufficient number of people to carry out those responsibilities.
In the field of social services, there are many who have found themselves in pretty dire circumstances. Particularly, we are sympathetic to those who are unable to find work or are unable to work, for various reasons, usually attributed to health. Often people have said to me - they mention a few people - "Why don't these people work?" You find out, for instance, that they have some rather significant psychological or mental problems. Of course, the question you ask is, "Would you like to hire them next week?" Usually, they won't take up that challenge, so they begin to understand that though we're not sympathetic to those who would abuse the system or to those who are able to work and should be in the workforce, there are people out there who are not able to participate in the workforce, either for a short period of time or perhaps permanently, because of a disability which may be of a psychological nature or of a physical nature. Very often, that is who the people are who are receiving social services. Unfortunately, there are some who spoil it for others - they are a minority of people - by abusing the system from time to time.
The social workers are there to make those determinations, to help governments, to help administrators to determine what is appropriate in terms of the level of assistance that might be provided and the circumstances that might be applied, and directly they deal with those individuals. Our social workers are there to do everything possible to encourage individuals who are receiving social assistance, and to help them get back into the field of work. You'll find that a substantial majority of those receiving assistance would like nothing better than to be able to fend for themselves. There's a sense of pride when people are able to recognize that as a result of the fruits of their labour, of the work they perform, of the services they provide, they can receive a benefit that isn't received simply because one is in existence.
Social workers play a significant role in that regard, trying to match people with jobs, trying to help them to upgrade their skills, educational and otherwise, to help them obtain employment in various fields and help them to sustain that employment over a period of time by developing the appropriate attitudes and aptitudes to be able to be part of the workforce.
Social workers have played a significant part in the lives of people in this province. It's a profession about which one can be justifiably proud. I myself know many social workers who have worked with people. They've given good advice, they've talked about some of the programs that have been implemented over the years, how they can be improved, which ones may be working, which ones may not be working. They have provided a kind of guidance that very vulnerable and sometimes desperate people need at a certain time.
There are even social workers now, because of the changing circumstances in the school system, who are assigned to schools. Back many years ago, when most of us were in school, that was not the case, but today social workers are often attached to specific schools, often secondary schools but sometimes elementary schools.
In addition to that, they're often working within a health care setting or a hospital setting where you have social workers who can provide advice, counsel and assistance to people, usually trying to get them back into the mainstream, and if they are unable to get back into the mainstream, to find the best way possible to assist those people. I think there's a pretty good consensus in this province that we want to provide assistance in a generous nature to those who are genuinely unable to fend for themselves, and social workers assist us rather significantly in doing that.
When they come forward asking for this legislation, and they've asked for it for a number of years, it has come to fruition I think because there is a consensus that has built up, there is an acceptance by the three political parties represented in this Legislature, that we should have this legislation. There was less inclination, I might add, in terms of the education profession to have a College of Teachers established. There is more of an inclination, more of a request, in this case, which is why we've moved rapidly in this fall session to proceed with this legislation.
We should listen to the counsel that has been provided. Some of the individuals are in the gallery tonight. Some have been with us on previous days. Others have corresponded with us or helped us out with briefs they have provided on the need for legislation of this kind.
These people are concerned about quality assurance, concerned about respectability in terms of the respect people would have for those in the social work profession. Because, and I underline that again, they work with very vulnerable people, we want to ensure that the quality and standards are of the highest level. It is the organization itself that wants to see this. It is not as though we are imposing it from outside. It's not as though there is a myriad of complaints that have come in about social workers. It is their desire to see the highest standards implemented, and for that reason I think we should be proceeding with this legislation.
We have been able to extract from the government, in this case, a couple of days of hearings. I wish that were the case with a couple of other bills we've discussed this evening. The Greater Toronto Services Board bill was put through without the opportunity to have hearings, which would have been helpful for people who wanted to appear before a committee of the Legislature in a very public way to present their views, and on the other legislation that was before us, Bill 70, turning over to the private sector the ownership and operation of a major highway in this province.
Where I want to be commending in my remarks is to the government for acquiescing to the opposition requests that we have hearings on this bill, but I also take the opportunity to join in the legitimate criticism that was offered by some of my colleagues, including the member for Scarborough-Agincourt, about the fact that people who are interested in another bill, the Greater Toronto Services Board bill, didn't have that opportunity, and those interested in the Highway 407 bill also didn't have that.
Here we are in the dying days of the session. We have another week of sitting until midnight. I don't know how productive that is. I guess it's productive in terms of numbers. I don't know how productive it is in terms of debate. I notice the member for St Catharines-Brock nodding. I don't know whether he's nodding in agreement or nodding off at my speech, but he would know that at this time of night it is difficult.
I am also cognizant of the fact that the clock up there may not be the same - the Speaker will tell me - as our watches are this evening. For that reason -
Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): It is 12 of the clock, Jim.
Mr Bradley: It is close to 12 of the clock, so in conclusion, I want to say that we wish to proceed with this bill to the hearings. I want to see a vote on it this evening. I think we've agreed to have a vote on second reading this evening. We will go to committee. We'll see what happens at committee, the political parties and individuals, to determine how they're going to vote on third reading as a result of those hearings. That's as the system should operate.
Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke-Rexdale): What about Conrad Black?
Mr Bradley: The member for Etobicoke-Rexdale has said I managed to make it through a speech without mentioning Conrad Black. I just thought I'd mention his name this evening, because I'm as concerned as you are, I know, member for Etobicoke-Rexdale, that Mr Black now owns, the last I saw, some 58 of the daily newspapers in Canada and exercises some significant control over those newspapers.
Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): Jimmy, I thought the better news is that the Quebec separatists now own the Toronto Sun.
Mr Bradley: That in itself is interesting, that the particular group which purchased the Toronto Sun, that family, has been known for its partiality towards the separatist cause in Quebec -
Mr Conway: Among other rather colourful issues.
Mr Bradley: - and others that we shall not discuss this evening.
My good friend the Speaker, as always, has done an outstanding job this evening in presiding and -
Mr Conway: Staying awake.
Mr Bradley: Staying awake is always a challenge at this time of night. I want to commend our Speaker for the job he has done this evening, yeoman's service, overtime and all of that, for helping us out.
To those who have joined us in the gallery tonight, we welcome you and we believe the news is going to be good for you and ultimately for all the people of Ontario.
The Deputy Speaker: Comments and questions? Are there any members who wish to participate in the debate? If not, the minister or the parliamentary assistant.
Mr Bisson: Hey, further debate.
The Deputy Speaker: No, I'm sorry. I have finished. I have called on the government to wind up.
Mr Frank Klees (York-Mackenzie): Thank you, Speaker. I rise to express my relief, I suppose, at the fact that we are resuming debate on this bill. It was unfortunate that we weren't able to conclude yesterday evening. It seemed as though there was going to be some difficulty in moving forward with this bill, but I want to take this opportunity once again to commend those individuals within this province who have been working for a number of years to bring this legislation forward.
We feel very strongly that it's timely that this legislation be passed. I'd like to acknowledge Mr Dan Andreae, who is in the gallery tonight, who single-handedly probably was responsible for getting this legislation back on track, he along with his colleagues.
I know that the hour is getting late and the vote must be taken, so I won't interfere with that process other than to say that we too look forward to having this bill pass this evening, that we move it on to committee from here and that we get on with the business of getting this legislation into the books of this province before we rise for our break.
Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to address this Legislature on this important piece of legislation and we ask you to call the vote.
The Deputy Speaker: Mr Klees has moved second reading of Bill 76. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? It is carried.
Shall the bill be ordered for third reading?
Mr Klees: Speaker, I would ask that the bill be referred to the standing committee on social development.
The Deputy Speaker: The bill shall be referred to the standing committee on social development.
It being almost 12 o'clock, this House stands adjourned until 1:30 of the clock on Monday.
The House adjourned at 2355.