Journal des débats 1994-mars-28 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Ottawa South): I want to draw the House's attention to the death of a former member from my riding of Ottawa South. Irwin Haskett died last week at the age of 91 years, but his life was one that was filled with great accomplishments.

He was first elected to this House in 1959 under Premier Leslie Frost. He served until his retirement in 1971. He served in the cabinet of the Honourable John Robarts as the Minister of Reform Institutions for two years and the Minister of Transport for eight years. By all accounts, Mr Haskett served with great distinction in the cabinet and was held in high regard for his learned advice.

I can also inform this House that Mr Haskett was also deeply committed to his constituents. In addition to fulfilling his duties as the member of provincial Parliament for Ottawa South, Mr Haskett immersed himself in volunteer activities in Ottawa. To name but a few of his achievements, he was president of the Ottawa Board of Trade, president of the Ontario Chamber of Commerce, president of the Ottawa Association for the Blind, president of the Eagle Fish and Game Club, and founder of the Woodland Camp for Boys. Mr Haskett also originated Ottawa's famous tulip festival, which every spring will act as a reminder for the people of Ottawa-Carleton of the man who so generously gave of himself to our community.

On behalf of all members of this House, I extend my condolences to Mr Haskett's family, and most especially to his wife Mary.

EMPLOYMENT EQUITY

Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): Today I will be presenting a petition from citizens of my area who feel very strongly that the Employment Equity Act should be withdrawn. There are over 1,200 signatures on this petition: 1,200 people who want the government to know that they know the employment equity legislation is not based on fairness and equal opportunity, nor is it devoted to any discrimination in the workplace, but rather it means reverse discrimination.

There should be equal opportunity for everyone in this province. Fairness and equal opportunity in the workplace mean giving good candidates an equal chance of getting a job. It does not mean trading one type of discrimination for another type of discrimination and calling it equity.

Martin Luther King said he had a dream that one day people would be judged not by the colour of their skin, but by the content of their character. These people are calling on the government to withdraw Bill 79 and let's get on with the dream of fulfilling Martin Luther King's dream.

PICKERING AIRPORT LAND

Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): On the weekend, the federal government held a public meeting on the federal airport lands. I believe this was in response to the efforts of this government and the petitions that were presented here.

I welcome this initiative as it begins a process that can lead to a healing in this community of an injury that began 22 years ago with the expropriation of these lands by both the federal and provincial governments.

My government, this government, recognized that this healing needed to take place almost immediately with respect to the provincial land holdings. We moved swiftly when we took office to review these issues involved and acted quickly to put an end to much of the uncertainty on the provincial lands.

We went forward with the Rouge park, the Rouge-Duffin agricultural preserve and the Rouge-Duffin corridor. We worked with the community to develop a vision for these lands and moved as fast as we could to implement it.

We also recognized that there may be a need for some type of development, so the Ministry of Housing appointed an advisory committee to determine the feasibility of developing Seaton.

This advisory committee of nine is made up of many people from the community including a tenant who was an original owner. The focus of this committee is to conduct a broad consultation and make recommendations to the minister.

The process is all-encompassing and deals with many issues, from the ecosystem to the preservation of farm land and cultural heritage. They are also looking at economic and financial considerations as well as the social and cultural influences.

This is a mammoth undertaking, but it has many positive aspects. Most important is the opportunity for public involvement in the decision-making process, and we hope that the federal government will conduct a similar process with its lands in the north end of Pickering.

COMMUNITY WITNESS PROGRAM

Mr Tim Murphy (St George-St David): I'd like to take this opportunity to advise the House about a program that members in my community, my riding have commenced along with me called the community witness program, which is a program designed to allow community members to be involved in the justice process by providing evidence at the sentencing hearings of convicted drug dealers.

As you may know, Mr Speaker, drugs are a problem in a downtown urban environment like Toronto, and we are pulling together as a community to try and put a stop to that. We have the Seaton-Ontario-Berkeley Residents Association, the north Regent Park community organization, the police liaison committee, the Corktown Residents and Business Association and many associations in the downtown core in my part of the riding that are participating in this, and I'd like to recognize the cooperation we've received from 51 Division, Staff-Inspector Ed Hegney, the community relations worker there, Gerrard Jones, and the federal crown attorney, Simon Armstrong, who have participated in allowing community members to give this evidence.

We have volunteers prepared to give evidence in difficult situations numbering 20 to 30 at this point in time. We expect more and we're hoping that we will very soon have our first case where we will let the community give evidence and tell a judge what crime is doing to these downtown communities so that we can send a message to these dealers that it won't be acceptable to deal drugs in downtown Toronto.

HUNTING AND FISHING

Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): As a result of meetings with over 400 members of the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters, it is urgent that I place its president's letter on the record today.

"Dear Mr Hampton:

"It is clear that you intentionally misled OFAH members on more than one occasion. You promised our people one thing and then turned around and did something completely different....

"When we filmed the Angler and Hunter television on January 20, you stated on camera that 'it's not in our mind to create a new series of parks which prohibits hunting, which prohibits the use of outboard motors...we see a continuum of new ways to protect those areas that will allow those activities to continue.'

"On February 25 at our annual meeting and wildlife conference in Windsor in front of approximately 300 people...you told OFAH members that you were not proposing 'to eliminate hunting or to eliminate the use of boats and motors' in the 'protected areas.'

"Then on March 9, you turned around and issued a public news release announcing your proposals for 17 new 'Keep It Wild' protected areas. And, you proposed to ban hunting, even small outboard motors and other motorized access, from over 90% of the 166,000 acres.

"So much for your personal assurances and public statements....

"Your record and your word have been seriously tarnished over this flip-flop. We are sure you will understand if our 70,000 members, our member clubs, our directors, and staff, are much less likely to accept what you say at face value in the future."

1340

IMMIGRANTS

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): I rise today to voice my concerns over the recent speech made by the leader of the third party at Bobcaygeon, with his reference to immigrants who are coming to Canada for a free ride.

Canada is a nation of immigrants. Our traditions, our culture and our citizenship originated somewhere else.

Way back, Wilfrid Laurier's immigration campaign complained that Canada was being overtaken by "wasters and criminals, ne'er-do-wells and scalawags" when the European immigrants did not fit into Canada's imperial culture. Likewise, the Chinese Immigration Act of 1923 was drafted to block their settlement after the railways were completed. Likewise, Jews and blacks were denied entry under section 38 of the old Immigration Act, which allowed cabinet to refuse entry to immigrants belonging to any nationality or race deemed unsuitable.

I believe Mr Harris uses immigrants as convenient scapegoats for Canada's economic woes. This type of claim will always garner emotional support for any argument. It is a blatant insult to immigrants young and old, and it's a blatant insult to me as an immigrant, who have come to Canada to improve our lives.

The fact that Mr Harris chose to raise this issue during the recent Victoria-Haliburton by-election is all the more disturbing, and I say shame on Mr Harris and shame on the Conservatives for this blatant, blatant misuse.

GARDEN CITY KIWANIS HOCKEY LEAGUE NOVICE TOURNAMENT

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): The Kiwanis Club of the Garden City is celebrating a very special occasion this week when it marks the silver anniversary of the operation of its minor hockey league at the official opening of the 25th annual Garden City Kiwanis Hockey League novice tournament.

Hundreds of volunteers have given their time, effort and energy to providing for youngsters in St Catharines the opportunity to play hockey in a well-organized and superbly run fashion. Sportsmanship, honest effort and team spirit have dominated the philosophy of those who have operated the league for a quarter of a century.

To the members of the Kiwanis Club of the Garden City who raised the funds that allow girls and boys to participate in a healthy, constructive activity, to the coaches, managers, trainers, timekeepers, convenors and officials, to the parents who support the league and their children, I extend on behalf of the citizens of St Catharines the sincere appreciation of the people of our community, and in particular those who have benefited directly from this dedicated service.

What is particularly to be envied by others and to be commended by all concerned with the development of good young citizens is the motto of the Garden City Kiwanis Hockey League, which reads, "The name of the game is fun."

COMMUNITY COLLEGE GOVERNANCE

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): Members of community college representatives across Ontario are concerned that their long-established role in recommending for appointment board members who best reflect the local community is being usurped by the Ontario Council of Regents.

The chairperson of Fanshawe College's board stated: "This is a major change away from local autonomy and towards a more centralized system. The community should be very concerned."

A well-researched paper on governance in Ontario's college system by Abram Konrad from the University of Alberta describes how our colleges have flourished since their beginnings in 1965. He defines the difference between a community model and a constituency model of governance:

"In a community model of governance, the individual profiles of board members merge to become a collective profile which includes experiences and expertise that equip the board to function at its greatest level of effectiveness.

"The constituency model maximizes the political nature of board governance where, in its extreme, each board member is perceived as a representative of a power bloc with a vested interest. A board member with a special interest at heart rather than the college interest is likely to do permanent damage to the institution."

In light of the Council of Regents' move to centralize control of community colleges at the expense of local autonomy, we are convinced that the council is more interested in the political correctness of board appointments than in having committed members with experience and expertise.

We urge the minister to take the advice of community college board members, as they worked hard to reflect their diverse communities in their recommendations for board appointments. I would recommend that the minister and the Council of Regents study Abram Konrad's research paper.

JOB CREATION

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): Job creation remains our government's priority, and I'm pleased today to tell the members of this House that our government is doing just that in my riding of Oxford through Jobs Ontario.

Two weeks ago, I joined with Frances Lankin, Minister of Economic Development and Trade, to announce that the city of Woodstock would receive a $3-million grant from Jobs Ontario Community Action. The grant will be used to construct a new double-pad arena, a 300-seat hall and a 15,000-square-foot gymnastic centre as part of the Woodstock District Community Complex.

The project will create 250 construction jobs as well as five full-time and 12 part-time jobs. In addition to job creation, events such as tournaments and trade shows will generate important income for local businesses. This phase of the $12.5-million project will combine the new facilities with Fanshawe College's campus, soccer and baseball fields, recreation areas and day care centre.

Once complete, the complex will serve as an anchor of the community, with educational, recreational and social services. As deputy mayor Phil Poole said after the announcement, "This is the best news the city has had in 25 years."

The Woodstock District Community Complex is a prime example of the way the Ontario government can work in partnership with municipal governments and residents to help communities take control of their own economic future. More than 3,000 volunteers donated their time and effort, with fund-raising already generating more than $1.5 million. Along with the grant for the renovation of the Southside Pool, this new $3-million grant will ensure that strong recreational facilities will continue to make Woodstock a great place for people to live and work.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE AIDE SOCIALE

Hon Tony Silipo (Minister of Community and Social Services): I rise today to tell members of this House about our plans to step up the fight against welfare fraud.

Our welfare system is one of the best in the world. It is designed to provide help for people in need. We have been working for some time to make sure that only the people who are eligible for social assistance benefits receive them. But there is a group of people who take advantage of a caring system. We are going to pursue these abusers of the system more vigorously.

In 1992, we hired an additional 450 staff to help monitor the system and reduce the number of people who are claiming benefits that they don't deserve.

In December of last year, we announced a new computer system to better manage our social assistance programs. We are already working with municipalities and providing them with funding to help crack down on fraud. As members know, about half of all welfare recipients in Ontario have their cases administered by local municipalities.

Aujourd'hui, j'annonce la prochaine étape de notre plan destiné à prévenir les abus dans le système d'aide sociale. Les mesures que nous allons prendre sont raisonnables et pleines de bon sens, et je peux vous garantir qu'elles seront efficaces. Nous avons depuis toujours enquêté sur les cas suspects. À partir de maintenant, nous commencerons à réexaminer chacun des cas d'aide sociale administré par la province de l'Ontario et les municipalités.

Today, I am announcing the next step in our plan to prevent abuse in our welfare system. It's a commonsense approach, a reasonable approach, and I assure you it will be an effective approach.

We have always investigated suspicious cases. Now we will begin to re-examine every welfare case handled by the province of Ontario and by municipalities.

My ministry will hire 270 new and specially trained staff to conduct our investigation. We are also providing $10 million this year and $10 million next year to help municipalities fight welfare fraud. They will look at every file and make sure that all the information is available and correct.

If information is wrong or missing, clients will be required to come in and provide the necessary proof. We will make sure that every client has declared all their income, just as the law requires.

We will make sure that costs such as accommodation costs are reported accurately. If clients don't live up to those requirements, if they can't provide the evidence, their benefits will be reduced or eliminated.

We will start with the most suspicious cases. Each of these high-risk cases will be examined within the next six months. Our staff will work with their counterparts in municipalities, other provinces, the federal government and the police as necessary to make sure that cheaters aren't claiming social assistance benefits from any other jurisdiction, and where we find evidence of fraud, we will not hesitate to lay charges.

1350

Je tiens à souligner que ces mesures auront très peu de répercussions sur les personnes qui ont fourni les bons documents et satisfont aux critères pour recevoir de l'aide sociale. Ces personnes continueront de recevoir sans interruption les prestations auxquelles elles ont droit.

I want to tell you that these measures will have very little impact on people who have filed the right documents and who meet the requirements for social assistance. They will continue to receive the benefits to which they are entitled, without interruption.

Thousands of people have been forced on to our social assistance rolls. That has had a staggering impact on the system itself, especially during a period when government itself is working hard to manage with less.

In March 1990, about 660,000 people were living on social assistance. By last month that number had jumped to more than 1.3 million people.

During this difficult time we have struggled to keep up as best we can, to provide the service the people of Ontario expect and depend upon.

The job has been made even tougher, first by the Conservative government and now by the Liberal government in Ottawa. While eight provinces get 50 cents of every dollar they spend on social assistance from the federal government, Ontario gets just 28 cents.

The measures I am announcing today are among the toughest in Canada, but they are not unfair.

We expect to save more than $60 million in 1994-95 and $90 million in 1995-96 as a result of these investigations. We will save an additional $49.1 million a year through changes to benefits paid to couples, changes to shelter allowances, basic utility benefits and boarder charges.

In addition, we expect significant savings from measures already in place.

Last April, my colleague the Minister of Finance announced a series of actions that, when combined with other measures my ministry has taken, will result in net savings of some $328 million by the end of this fiscal year. That includes reductions we've already made through more efficient business practices.

Over many years, overpayments have accumulated and now represent approximately $335 million. We have started to recover this money, and it is my intention to recover all overpayments that are legitimately owed to the province.

Just last week our government made clear that there will not be a cut in social assistance payments across the board. We are not going to cut holes in the social safety net; we are making it more effective.

We are working to provide alternatives to social assistance through programs like Jobs Ontario Training and we are continuing to develop new measures in our ongoing program to reform and to make more effective Ontario's social assistance system.

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): Let me begin my response to the minister with a very clear indication that every person in this Legislature would agree that we need to deal with cases of welfare fraud. All of us who support the need to protect our social security system for those who need it agree that we must indeed make sure that the social assistance dollars are going to support those who truly need them and whose only alternative, unfortunately, is to depend on social assistance.

But that statement does not lead me naturally to a statement of pure congratulations to this minister for the announcement he has made today. There are far too many unanswered questions about the sheer mismanagement of this issue from day one on the part of this government, and there are still unanswered questions.

As the minister puts in place a last-minute response to a growing concern about welfare fraud, he doesn't indicate to us whether he has any idea of indeed how much fraud there might be in the welfare system and what that's costing the system. Even more importantly, this minister gives no indication that he understands why there might be welfare fraud, what might be causing the welfare fraud. How can you deal with fraud in a system if you have no idea what's causing it? How do you know where to begin to look?

Minister, I ask you: What are your new welfare police, your inspectors, going to start to look for? What is your estimate of fraud in the system? Is it 5%, 10%, 20%? Is it really cost-effective? Is it a good use of tax dollars to start to examine every single welfare case, every single record, in order to start to deal with those cases where there may in fact be fraud?

I question the approach the minister is taking. I also find it ironical that this government, three and a half years into its mandate, is beginning to deal with an issue which has become more and more of a concern, because this government in its very first year, with its ideological blinders on, moved to take away any of the kinds of controls and conditions that would ensure that welfare dollars were being given, in the first place, to those who needed it most.

As the minister shakes his head, I take him back to a time of a former minister under his government who said we wouldn't need to have home visits to make sure the welfare recipient was indeed in the living situation they claimed to be. I remind the minister that they decided that a young person of 16 years of age could leave home without a particular reason for leaving home, without having to make the case of the need for social assistance.

I do find it ironical that this government is now taking steps to deal with problems at an end of a process, to deal with the problem it in fact helped to create. But perhaps what gives me the greatest sadness is that there is nothing in the minister's statement which speaks in any real way to real welfare reform, to getting people who are on social assistance back into the workplace. Surely we would all have agreed that the real goal of reform in social assistance, the real way of reducing the cost of social assistance, is to deal with the needs of people and the desire of people who are on social assistance and who would much rather be working to be able to get back into the workplace.

I say to this government and to this minister, as I have said in this House time and time again, that in order to have real social assistance reform, there must be jobs for people to go to, and unless this government really does understand what is needed for real job creation, for real economic recovery, it is going to be difficult to deal with the issue of real social assistance reform.

I find it ironical that once again -- and maybe this is the version of the Rae automatic excuse response coming out again -- in any statement this government makes, any statement of excuse about why it can't do what it would really like to do, it becomes the problem of the federal Liberals who have been in government for all of some six months now. The government really does have to stop blaming the federal government for all the problems it has helped to create and which in fact this government has no commonsense approach to resolving, as the minister tries to present this approach as being.

I ask you, after three and a half years of government under the New Democrats in the province of Ontario, is this all that's left of social assistance reform in Bob Rae's Ontario?

Mrs Yvonne O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau): It's $7 billion a year to feed the debt of this province. It's $6 billion a year to support those on social assistance. There's not one attempt to tackle the deficit, and that's where we should be going: to get these people off social assistance.

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): I listened intently to the minister's comment, and I listened to the leader of the Liberal Party of Ontario. If I listened to her carefully, I heard what I've been hearing for the last three and a half years: They still have more questions than they have suggestions, and today on the announcement in terms of welfare fraud, it's no different for the Liberal Party of Ontario.

But we in the Conservative Party have been raising this issue with you and your government now for three and a half years. The evidence across Canada has been very clear, much like the need for you to respond to the social contract in the fashion you did -- late. You are now responding to the issue of welfare fraud when provinces all across Canada have implemented strategic decisions to tighten up the rules to have more accountability in government and to ensure that those who are truly in need received it.

In fact, minister, I'd like to quote briefly from Rory Leishman, national affairs editor with the London Free Press, who suggested that the Ontario government is the principal author of the province's financial misfortunes in this regard.

He says: "Despite the warnings of the federal government, with Ontario already plunging into a recession, what did the Rae government do? In January 1991, it increased welfare benefits, already higher than any other province in Canada." It went on to suggest: "The sad results were predictable: a devastating increase in welfare dependency for the people of Ontario. The process was well under way with the Peterson Liberals when they raised real welfare benefits and made huge expansions by more than 25%, which helped boost the number of social assistance recipients to over 600,000." It went on to compliment the province of Quebec for having "meaningfully reduced the number of citizens who were seeking dependency on their social systems."

1400

Minister, I'm at least today going to thank you and your government for turning the corner, that you've at least today stopped expanding your social assistance eligibility rules and are at least acknowledging that there is welfare fraud in the system.

In fact, I want to tell you that even though it's three and a half years into your mandate, the Office of the Provincial Auditor, looking at 1991 statistics within your ministry, talked in terms of $140 million to $200 million of taxpayers' money that was deemed to have been given to recipients inappropriately and yet your government had no ability to recover any of those funds.

The auditor went on to tell you that less than 3% of all the moneys that the courts determine are defrauded of the Ontario taxpayers is what your government recovers. Today's announcement talks about a recognition of welfare fraud, but at no point are you suggesting a specific action plan to go out there and determine it other than to hire 270 officers who will then start examining files and making telephone calls.

During the press conference today your answers were very straight, but they were very simplistic with respect to how this is going to actually happen. In fact, you're going to be inspecting the car in a person's driveway and the mortgage on the house, but you're not going to be asking basic questions about the spouse in the house, some of the rules of which you, by your own admission in the press conference today, say are rather unclear and convoluted.

The truth is that most of the fraud cases that are going forward are on this unclear definition of what constitutes a relationship for a person on social assistance.

But your government, with your abolishing home visits, by your increasing access for 16- and 17-year-olds, by your causing direct deposit, not having a home address in order to collect welfare in this province, and putting people who have been on general welfare assistance for two consecutive years automatically into family benefits, these kinds of changes you've suggested have only expanded this system beyond the ability of taxpayers to support it.

To be more direct, we in the Progressive Conservative Party offered you an eight-point plan a year and a half ago. Today's announcement only addresses two of those eight suggestions to tighten up the system. We expect from you some vision as well as ability to manage this system better.

We encourage you to look at the Quebec model to empower our municipalities and our bureaucrats to do a better job. This does not have to be intrusive, but rather supportive of the notion of protecting taxpayers' investment in the finest social assistance system in the world.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: In order for this place to work, we have to have some control of what takes place in this chamber. I did not want to rise during the response time and use that time up, but during our party's response, which is five minutes -- I'm sitting this close, and it was very difficult for me to hear -- I counted eight individual --

Interjections.

Mrs Marland: See what I mean?

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): It continues to go on.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Interjections.

Mr Tilson: They're still nattering away over there.

Mrs Marland: You see what I mean. I did not count the number of individual conversations on this side of the House because it's more difficult for me to see, but I counted eight across the floor of the House, most of them involving the cabinet. When the cabinet makes an important statement, I think they also want to hear the response.

The Speaker: The honourable member for Mississauga South --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. The honourable member raises a very good point. Indeed, there were a number of private conversations on both sides of the chamber at the time the honourable member for Burlington South was recognized to have an opportunity to reply to a minister's statement. Indeed, there were private conversations at the time the minister was attempting to make the statement.

It's important that when a time is allotted for statements and for replies, both sides of the House exercise a great deal of quiet to hear both the statements and responses. The honourable member's point is well taken, and all I can do is to ask for the cooperation of all members of this chamber to try and show a bit more courtesy to one another.

ONTARIO HYDRO

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: As I understand, there is a joint news conference being held right now between the union and management of Ontario Hydro. I ask if it would be agreed with unanimous consent that we ask the minister to inform the House of what has taken place.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Is there unanimous consent for the Minister of Environment and Energy to make a statement?

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I will report to the House immediately upon being informed. I'm told there are developments taking place at the moment, but I have not been told exactly what's taking place. I'd be happy to make an announcement for the members as soon as I'm told the --

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): We want to know what's happening.

Hon Mr Wildman: Well, obviously the member doesn't want to know what's happening.

The Speaker: Another point of order, the member for Etobicoke West.

Mr Stockwell: Mr Speaker, I would make a point of order that we recess briefly so the minister could update --

Interjections.

Mr Stockwell: May I finish, Mr Speaker?

The Speaker: No. Would the member take his seat, please. The minister indicated that if there was something to report, he would ask the House for its unanimous approval to make a statement.

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): On Monday of last week, the member for Nepean (Mr Daigeler) rose in the House on a question of privilege concerning an advertisement that had appeared in certain newspapers in the Ottawa-Carleton area.

The advertisement, which takes the form of an open letter from the Minister of Municipal Affairs, makes certain remarks about Bill 77, remarks which can be interpreted as suggesting that the bill would become law by a specified time even though the bill had only received first reading. The minister says, "The bill will be law well in advance of the official closing date for nominations of October 14, 1994."

I have reviewed the advertisement as it appears in the February 8, 1994, issue of the Ottawa Citizen in light of the parliamentary authorities. I find that the precedent that is closest for the case before me is a 1989 Ottawa ruling concerning government advertising that tended to suggest that certain fiscal measures, which had yet to passed by the House, would become law. In the course of ruling that there was no case for breach of privilege or for contempt, Speaker Fraser of the House of Commons found that the advertisements were essentially informational in nature and that there was no intention to infringe the privileges of the House. Members will find this important ruling at pages 4,457 to 4,461 of the House of Commons Hansard for October 10, 1989.

To this I will add that in the course of the 34th Parliament, a member of our own House had alleged that disrespect had been shown to the chamber by reason of public servants acting in a way that disregarded the legislative process on a bill. In the course of finding that a prima facie case had not been made out, Speaker Edighoffer made the following remarks at page 273 of the Journals for December 20, 1989:

"I must come to the conclusion that what we are dealing with here is an administrative error and not a contempt for this chamber. It is perfectly valid for the public service to proceed with plans based on a bill that is already in the system in order to be able to act swiftly, once that bill becomes law."

Finally, only last year the member for St George-St David, Mr Murphy, raised a question of privilege alleging that the government was acting as if Bill 38, which had only been given first reading at that time, had already received royal assent. The Speaker ruled that a prima facie case of privilege had not been made out in that instance.

In view of these rulings, and after careful consideration of the present circumstances, I find that a prima facie case has not been made out.

However, I want to say to the minister that this action has come very close to contempt, and in the future the minister should exercise more caution and exhibit greater respect for the proprieties of this House.

I thank the member for Nepean for bringing this matter to my attention.

On a point of order, the member for Nepean and then the member for Parry Sound.

1410

Mr Hans Daigeler (Nepean): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I appreciate the ruling that you've just given and the time you have taken to analyse the point. I also appreciate the warning that you have issued to the minister and I fully expect the minister, as requested from me, will issue a public apology.

ONTARIO HYDRO

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): On the point made by the --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order. The member for Parry Sound has the floor.

Mr Eves: On the point made by the member for Etobicoke West, I believe the member asked for unanimous consent that the House recess for 10 minutes until the Minister of Environment and Energy is apprised as to what the developments with Ontario Hydro are.

As many members, and I'm sure the public, are aware, there are questions that every member of the Ontario public has, and rightfully so, I think, with respect to this thing. I didn't hear you ask whether or not unanimous consent in fact would be in order.

The Speaker: The member for Parry Sound raises a valid point of order. Indeed, I will ask if there is unanimous consent for this House to recess for 10 minutes. Agreed? I heard at least one negative voice. The government House leader.

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): Mr Speaker, before you called for the unanimous consent I was going to rise on the point that the House leader for the third party raised.

If we in fact with some certainty knew that there was something to announce that might well be a part of today's question period, you might consider that option, but we do have a legislative schedule to proceed with and we don't know the moment at which we might be able to make any announcements. As the members across the way know full well, the clock is a rather important factor to any government in its decisions around the timing of the events that happen here in this House.

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): Very briefly, I think it's fair to say that, as far as the province of Ontario is concerned today, there really is only one overriding question, and that is the situation at Ontario Hydro.

I understand what the minister responsible for Hydro and others have said. I just assume then that we have an agreement, given the urgency of this question, that the moment the government knows something, particularly in terms of a settlement, there will be an agreement on all sides to revert to statements and the minister will advise the House. That's what I understand we have agreed to.

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy): With respect, Mr Speaker, I said clearly to the House that there are developments taking place as we speak, and as soon as I can make a final statement, I will be happy to rise and ask for unanimous consent. I thought everyone understood that.

The Speaker: To the honourable member for Renfrew North, indeed there would appear to be a general consensus that if there is something to be announced, there would be a request. The request requires unanimous consent in order for the minister to make a statement. We will deal with the matter at that time, whenever that should occur.

It is now time for oral questions and the honourable Leader of the Opposition.

ORAL QUESTIONS

ONTARIO HYDRO

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My first question will be to the Minister of Environment and Energy, and I suggest in posing this question that we would have been much happier if the minister had been prepared to at least take the opportunity we were trying to create to give the public some first word of assurance that this government is going to do whatever is necessary to keep the lights on in this province.

This minister, this Premier and this government have given the public nothing but vague hopes that there will be a settlement and some vague threats about what they might do if in fact there is not a settlement at the table. The public deserves more than that.

I consider it absolutely irresponsible that this government is playing the kind of brinkmanship that it is on this most critical of issues and that it could justify letting the public concern build to this point, giving the public no answer whatsoever.

The minister receives notes; we can only hope that there will finally be some word from this government that will be reassuring to the public. We are now facing a strike deadline which should have required that the government start to shut its nuclear plants down. The hour is getting later and later even as we wait for the minister to tell us what recent note has been presented.

I ask the minister to tell the people of this province that indeed the lights are going to stay on.

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy): Yes.

Mrs McLeod: I cannot believe the flippancy with which the minister has responded to that question.

Hon Mr Wildman: You asked me if they would stay on and I said they will. You can't take yes for an answer.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order. Would the leader take her seat, please.

Interjections.

The Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition with her supplementary.

Mrs McLeod: We were all aware that at the past midnight it was intended to begin to shut down the nuclear plants of this province. We were well aware that this could begin to result in the loss of electricity. We also know or should know that this very possibility was causing enormous concern for businesses, for major power users, for people in their homes, for people in hospitals. It really is irresponsible that when I asked the minister, this many hours after that deadline had passed, whether or not he can assure the public that the lights will stay on, he gives a flippant response.

We knew that when the government delayed the shutdown of the nuclear reactors at midnight they had to have some assurance that they were not going to permit a strike to take place in the province of Ontario. I ask the minister, and again I give him a serious opportunity, to tell us what guarantee he can now give us at this moment in time that there will not be a strike and the lights will stay on.

Hon Mr Wildman: That's a different question. I'm happy to report to the House that because considerable progress has been made subsequent to the Premier meeting with members of the union and the management of Ontario Hydro yesterday and because of the tremendous amount of work that has been done in the intervening hours, along with the assistance of the Ministry of Labour conciliation branch, significant progress has been made and, as a result of that, Ontario Hydro has postponed any orderly shutdown that it originally had planned for earlier today.

Mrs McLeod: The public needs some assurance as to what this government is going to do if there is not an agreement at the negotiating table. From the answer the minister has just provided, we have no guarantee that there is a settlement at hand at the negotiating table. We still have the hope of the settlement. I'm going to assume that if the minister has news of a settlement he would have shared that news not only with the members of this Legislature but in fact with the people of this province.

In the absence of any news of a settlement, recognizing the fact that with a strike deadline which is this Thursday and the fact that you had to begin shutting the nuclear plants down at the past midnight in order to do that in a safe and orderly way, you have recognized and Hydro has recognized that we cannot shut the nuclear plants down and keep the lights on.

My question to the minister is: Firstly, do you have an absolute guarantee that there will be a settlement at the table? Secondly, failing an absolute guarantee that there will be a settlement at the table, tell us, tell the public, exactly what you are prepared to do in the event of a breakdown at the negotiating table.

Do you have back-to-work legislation ready? Are you prepared to bring in back-to-work legislation to make sure that there is no strike that would turn the lights out in the province of Ontario? Give us the assurance of what you're prepared to do today, Minister.

Hon Mr Wildman: We all recognize the seriousness of the situation, the importance of the electrical power system in this province for the economy of the province and for the health and safety of the people of this province. Both the management of Ontario Hydro and the members of the Power Workers' Union recognize their responsibilities, as does the government, in that regard.

I would hope the member would understand that if Ontario Hydro has decided to postpone the orderly shutdown of the nuclear plants that it had proposed should proceed today, this is an indiction that significant progress has been made.

"Collective bargaining has worked very effectively. We have not had power disruptions to a large degree in Ontario. There has only been one strike in recent memory. I think that was in recognition that good collective bargaining is the good route to labour-management relationships."

What I just read is a quote from the then Minister of Energy, almost four years ago to the day, in the Globe and Mail, the member who sits opposite. She, at that time, was in support of collective bargaining to reach an agreement. It's unfortunate that for some reason now she's unwilling to let the parties work to come to an agreement and ensure lights will stay on in the province.

1420

The Speaker: New question.

Mrs McLeod: Mr Speaker, may I rise on a point of privilege prior to placing my second question? I do believe that it is a point of personal privilege that in citing responses that have been given by previous ministers in the House, they be recited in their full context. Since I raise an issue and continue to raise an issue --

Hon Mr Wildman: Do you want me to read the whole thing? I'd be happy to read the whole thing.

The Speaker: Order.

Mrs McLeod: I want to make the point that while indeed we support collective bargaining, and continue to, and hope there will be a settlement at the table, as a former Minister of Energy, while I made those commitments and would continue to make those commitments, I was also prepared to tell the public exactly what contingency plans were being put in place. There was communication with the major power users and the local municipal utilities and there was some effort made to assure the public that the government would do what was necessary to keep the lights on.

Mr Speaker, I recognize that you may not acknowledge that's a point of privilege, but I will proceed to my second question.

Hon Mr Wildman: On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: I would just point out that in that same quote, since the member didn't want it quoted out of context, she said, "We have to deal with the reality that there could be power outages." That was in 1990.

The Speaker: Before every member decides to start quoting Hansard verbatim, the member does not have a point of privilege and I would ask the leader to place her second question, please.

Mrs McLeod: All we ask of this government is that it begin to deal with the realities. That's all we are asking.

FIRE SAFETY

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): I want to turn, in my second question, to another very serious issue and address my question to the Solicitor General.

Minister, as we all know too well, yesterday a woman and her son struggled to escape a basement fire. The woman died and her six-day-old is in critical condition. As we're also only too well aware, yesterday's tragedy was the second fatal basement apartment fire this year.

In response to the concerns that are being raised about the safety of basement apartments, the Housing minister has suggested that Bill 120, which is before the House, will prevent these kinds of tragedies by making basement apartments legal. I say to you today that Bill 120 does nothing to make basement apartments safe.

I ask you, as the minister response for fire safety, do you not agree that Bill 120 has no provisions that will ensure the safety of people who live in basement apartments? I ask you what you will do to prevent these kinds of tragedies from happening again.

Hon David Christopherson (Solicitor General): The government, like all members of this House, takes tragedies like this very seriously, and we offer our condolences to all family members who are affected by these and similar tragedies.

Let me say very directly to the honourable member that the regulations that go hand in hand with Bill 120 will indeed address the major fire safety issues that arise as a result of tragedies such as we've seen today and others like them.

Mrs McLeod: It really is simply not a sufficient response for the government to say that at some point in time there will be regulations to deal with the issue of how basement apartments, which this government proposes to make legal, can in fact be made safe. I direct the minister to the fact that municipalities have expressed their concerns that Bill 120 gives them no control to make sure that basement apartments will meet safety standards.

It is a fact that during the committee discussions of Bill 120, our caucus placed an amendment that would require that basement apartments become registered. Under that amendment, as a condition of becoming registered, municipalities could ensure through inspections that local safety and fire requirements would be met.

We have also proposed, through amendment to the legislation itself, not through regulation, that apartment owners who did not register would face stiff fines so that indeed this could be enforced.

Minister, I ask whether you will support our amendments to require safety inspections as a condition of registering basement apartments.

Hon Mr Christopherson: Let me answer this way: There was a committee that was put together under the leadership of the fire marshal of Ontario to review what type of regulations should accompany Bill 120, and as a result of participants, including fire chiefs and other experts across the province, there were a series of recommendations made. The government has adopted all of those recommendations and they will be enacted along with Bill 120, and the fire marshal is satisfied that this indeed will provide the kind of protection that he believes should be in place for the people of Ontario.

Mrs McLeod: I am well aware of recommendations that have been made and in fact endorsed by the association of municipalities, by the Ontario Association of Fire Chiefs and indeed by the Mississauga fire chief, Cyril Hare. But the proposals that had been agreed to, that fit with the amendments we have made to the legislation, are proposals which we believe would give real teeth to the need to inspect basement apartments. They include the proposal that Bill 120 should contain provisions to require owners of accessory apartments to register the properties with the municipality in which those properties are located.

It is my understanding that the response the minister has just given, that there has been agreement to incorporate recommendations of a report, does not commit to the registering of basement apartments and therefore would not allow for that inspection and that assurance that safety requirements are being met.

I will ask the minister very directly to clarify what he has said: It will be under regulations, or in fact what has been agreed to; whether or not he will commit and whether his government will commit to supporting the amendments which we have proposed directly to the legislation; and why his government has refused, and if it continues to refuse, to take the very simple step of ensuring that all basement apartments be registered so that we can ensure the safety of basement apartments.

Hon Mr Christopherson: The role of the fire marshal in my ministry and in this government is to provide the kind of expert advice governments need when they're dealing with fire protection and fire prevention in the public interest. We are not experts in that role, none of us in this House. That is why we have experts such as this.

The fire marshal's advice at this time is that the recommendations of his committee are quite sufficient to meet the needs of upholding Bill 120 and providing the type of fire protection that the public should have, and the government is responding and concurring with the recommendations of the Ontario fire marshal.

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): My question is to the Minister of Housing. Minister, you're responsible for housing in this province. You're also responsible for Bill 120. I have a very real concern on behalf of everyone in this House who has a responsibility in dealing with your legislation.

You have now been in possession for more than two weeks of the recommendations from the coroner's inquest from the first fire tragedy in Mississauga. We now, as you know, have had the second. Would you tell this House what actions you have taken to respond to those recommendations from the coroner's inquest?

Hon Evelyn Gigantes (Minister of Housing): The member, as a member of the committee which has been reviewing Bill 120, has had access to the regulations which will be proclaimed under the fire code and also the changes that have been made to the building code to be enacted with Bill 120.

She will be aware that many of the recommendations that were made by the jury in the inquest are already addressed by the measures that have been proposed both within the fire code and within the building code, and those will meet most of the recommendations that have been suggested by the inquest jury.

1430

The one matter which remains is a matter which was raised by the leader of the official opposition in questioning of the Solicitor General, and that has to do with the registration process. The situation under Bill 120 is that all new apartments in houses will only be legal if they have a building permit and are thus certified by the building inspection branch that they meet the safety code, the Fire Marshals Act and the building code. Therefore, we think that registration will be unnecessary in these cases.

Mrs Marland: Minister, it's almost scary to listen to your answers, quite frankly. We have 100,000 existing units, at least, in this province. We already have a bylaw in Mississauga that requires smoke alarms to be installed in every home. The point that you're missing, and the point that you obviously haven't taken yet from the coroner's inquest recommendations, is that it doesn't matter how many laws you have; you cannot enforce them without the right of entry. What Fire Chief Cyril Hare told you, your staff and the committee was that without the right of entry, without a search warrant, he is powerless to enforce any laws that come as a result of Bill 120, your fire department or the city of Mississauga bylaws. What are you willing to do to make it a reality and save these tragedies?

Hon Ms Gigantes: The member attributes to Fire Chief Hare things that he did not say in the committee. Can I read for your benefit, Mr Speaker, and members of the House, section 18 of the Fire Marshals Act, which says:

"Subject to the regulations, the fire marshal, deputy fire marshal, a district deputy fire marshal, an inspector or an assistant to the fire marshal may, upon the complaint of a person interested, or when he or she considers it necessary so to do, without such complaint, inspect all buildings and premises within his or her jurisdiction, and for the purpose may at all reasonable hours enter into and upon the buildings and premises for the purpose of examination, taking with him or her, if necessary, a constable or other police officer or the other assistants that he or she considers proper."

This section of the Fire Marshals Act gives full authority to the officials of the fire department to undertake the inspections they feel necessary.

Mrs Marland: You know, Minister, you are pathetic. I'm sorry, but you know what? It's very sad about what's happening in this House. We have two tragedies --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): For the honourable member, as I know her, that's surprising. I would ask the honourable member to rephrase her question.

Mrs Marland: I'm sorry, Mr Speaker. The answers are pathetic.

If we weren't standing in this House asking these questions today on the heels of two tragedies, two tragedies that my fire chief, Cyril Hare, warned would happen again, and unfortunately have happened again, if we weren't dealing with that fact, I could sit here and listen to the minister read something out which is actually not appropriate in respect to the question that I've asked.

Yes, as she says, upon receiving a complaint, they may investigate or they may inspect. But the part this minister doesn't read is the fact that the person whose property may, upon receiving a complaint, be inspected may also refuse. When the fire chief comes to this House and says to our committee, "This is what you need," he is not doing it because he's trying to make a partisan statement, Minister. He's doing it because he's trying to save lives. I wish you would do the same thing, and I wish you would listen to the fact that they cannot get a search warrant on request from a justice of the peace unless they have evidence, and they cannot enter without a search warrant.

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

Mrs Marland: Will you make the amendments that are necessary to facilitate the inspection and do what the chief says for the right of entry?

Hon Ms Gigantes: There are two kinds of inspections which can happen in residential premises. One is property standards inspection, meeting matters under the code and under municipal bylaws --

Interjections.

Hon Ms Gigantes: If you would just be quiet for a moment, I'll explain it for your benefit. Bill 120 provides new powers for a property standards inspector, on behalf of the municipality, to make sure that the building code is being met, and it provides access to a permit to inspect from a justice of the peace.

I think it is important for the member for Mississauga South not to confuse that question with the question of fire safety which, as I indicated by reading directly from the Fire Marshals Act, already provides that any authorized person can, within the fire officials group of the municipality, enter a premise in order to make sure, with or without a complaint. Where the authority, the fire office of the municipality, feels that there is a need to inspect, entry is authorized under the existing Fire Marshals Act. In truth, Hare never tried to suggest that was not the case.

ONTARIO HYDRO

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): My question is to the Minister of Environment and Energy. I heard your response earlier to the leader of the official opposition. You suggested that they're very close to a settlement.

I would like to take your mind back a couple of days in time to when the Premier announced his ultimatum about settling the dispute. I would ask you to fill this House in on exactly what that ultimatum is, what that ultimatum meant and when that ultimatum was supposed to take place.

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy): I think it's a matter of public record. As a matter of fact, I heard Mr Murphy, the president of the Power Workers' Union, explain what was said clearly in the media. That is that the Premier called both sides together and indicated that the government is in favour of collective bargaining and wishes that the two parties work diligently, with the help of the Ministry of Labour officials, to reach a voluntarily negotiated settlement by today.

In the words of Mr Murphy, as I recall, if that did not happen, then the government would take measures to ensure the integrity of the system and to protect the health and safety of the people of the province that might have ramifications that neither Hydro management nor the members of the union would prefer, and I think Mr Murphy's reaction was that they'd better get down to work.

I'm glad to say that both sides have worked diligently and appear very close to a deal as a result of the hours of work that have taken place since that meeting.

Mr Stockwell: Well, I guess that's a new definition for the socialist party in this province of what negotiated settlements should be when the Premier then starts issuing ultimatums.

I will say to the minister, this doesn't sound like a negotiated settlement when the Premier says, "You've got to settle by 9 o'clock." It's now after 9 and that was the ultimatum: after 9 o'clock.

Hon Mr Wildman: He didn't say 9.

Mr Stockwell: Well, then it's after noon. You people gave the time and you gave the date. As I understand it, that time was supposed to be 9 o'clock this morning, and if it's not, then you can correct that period of time, because I understand it was extended from 8 o'clock till 9 o'clock and now till noon.

1440

I ask you, as Minister of Energy, if there is not a negotiated settlement today, if they are still negotiating for who knows how long, when may we expect this ultimatum to kick in? When will the people of this province know, once and for all, that the lights will not go out, that there will be a settlement either agreed to by the two parties or the settlement that Bob Rae talks about of writing the contract himself and simply implementing it? When will we know, as the taxpayers in this province, when this settlement will take place and when this crisis will end?

Hon Mr Wildman: The comments of the member remind me of the words of Sir Winston Churchill at Westminster when he said that another member was engaging in "terminological" --

Mr Stockwell: It's "inexactitude," Mr Minister.

Hon Mr Wildman: The fact is, the Premier did not set a time. He said "by today," and I think the member should be very clear that progress has been made, that as late as only a few minutes ago I was in touch with Ministry of Labour officials who are involved in the talks. They were very, very optimistic and said that the two sides appeared to be very close to a deal.

I will be reporting to my policy and priorities committee colleagues of the cabinet this afternoon, and I would look forward to a deal being arrived at very soon. The Minister of Energy and the Premier are clear that we will do what is necessary to protect the health and safety of the residents of this province.

Mr Stockwell: You said he didn't give a time or a period when it must be settled other than today. What is today? It's a time. It's a deadline. The question I ask you, Mr Minister, is very clear. If they haven't reached a settlement on the deadline which the Premier set, which is today, can the people of this province be assured that the ultimatum given by the Premier, "either settle or I'll write the contract," will be enforced tomorrow?

It's very simple. The question the people are asking in this province is, when will this be settled? Your Premier has said, "It must be today or I'll settle it myself." Does that stand? Was that time definite? Was it etched in stone? Is that it? Can we expect a settlement today? If not, will the Premier set the rules himself, sign the contract himself, order everybody back to work and make the deal himself?

Hon Mr Wildman: The member opposite characterizes the position taken by the Premier as an ultimatum. I would rather use the American term of "jawboning." In fact, the Premier was encouraging both sides to move as quickly as possible today to a settlement. The Premier made it very clear that we would do everything possible to ensure that the power required by the people of this province will be provided, and we're confident that that will be the case.

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): My question is to the Minister responsible for Hydro. Government ministers have taken pains today to tell the House that Hydro has agreed to postpone the shutdown of any of its nuclear reactors until later today. That was clearly the impression given earlier this afternoon. I checked a few moments ago with Hydro officials and they confirmed that three hours ago at Bruce, Hydro began to shut down part of its nuclear power program. That was three hours ago.

What is different about this situation in the spring of 1994 than at any other time are the two following facts: Today Ontario Hydro depends on the nuclear power program for substantially more of the electricity than ever before; some two thirds of the grid is fed from those nuclear power plants. Secondly, because of a significant attrition at the utility, Hydro has not the manpower that it had previously to move in to man these plants. Those are two critical differences now as opposed to 1990 or 1987 or 1982.

Can the minister confirm, contrary to earlier indications from the government, that at noon today an orderly shutdown of the nuclear power program began, and it began at Bruce?

Hon Mr Wildman: The information that Ontario Hydro has provided to me is that because of the progress being made, the orderly shutdown which was planned has been slowed and postponed. It is correct --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Hon Mr Wildman: Obviously, Ontario Hydro will comply with the AECB's requirements. That is their responsibility in terms of ensuring the safety of the system. However, as I indicated, the progress that has been made at Bruce is much slower than it would have been had progress not been made in the negotiations.

Mr Conway: A minute ago the House was clearly told that the entire shutdown had been postponed. Now, I know the minister; he's an honourable man. But I'm telling you, the public has a right to some answers. Within 24 hours this entire system goes critical, and there are hospital patients, there are industries and there are farms in this Easter week that will want to know what the hell is going on and what you are doing to ensure that this critical, vital, essential service is going to be maintained.

I ask you yet again: What is the government's contingency plan in the event that hours from now these talks are not successful and that within 24 hours from now we really start to lose a very, very large part of the nuclear power program, without which there will be brownouts and blackouts before Easter weekend?

Hon Mr Wildman: I know that the member is very concerned. Without getting as apoplectic as he, I would simply say that we all recognize the seriousness of this situation; we recognize the importance of maintaining the electrical power upon which the residents of this province depend. The government is committed to doing that, as is Ontario Hydro and, I believe, the workers at Ontario Hydro.

That's why it is important that we all -- all of us in this House as well as over at the hotel -- work as hard as we can to bring about a settlement so that we don't have the terrible situations that the member alludes to.

POLICE SERVICES

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): My question is to the Solicitor General. Last week, the Ontario Provincial Police announced the closure of the Stayner OPP detachment office. The mayor of the township of Clearview, Mrs Carol Currie, the council, local citizens and I feel betrayed because it is now clear that the OPP and your government made this decision prior to any real consultation taking place.

In 1986, the Liberals cut 24-hour policing in that area of the province. Now you come along and close the OPP detachment at a time when criminal activity within the area is on the rise. Minister, when break and enters, thefts and the crime rate are all dramatically rising, how can you assure the people of the Stayner area that they will be safe and secure in their own homes and businesses while at the same time you're closing the local OPP detachment office?

Hon David Christopherson (Solicitor General): I appreciate the question from the member because it gives me an opportunity to address a couple of issues that are out there with regard to the amalgamation.

First of all, it's my understanding that there indeed was a high degree of consultation with the public, with community representatives, with local leadership, and that no one should have been caught unawares that we were close to making this type of decision.

Second, let me also say that in all the amalgamations that took place, there is at least the same level of service and in most cases an enhanced level of service as a result of the decisions that were made.

I would just say to the honourable member that the concerns he has raised as to whether or not service has been dropped or whether the residents in this area he represents should feel that they're getting less service should be alleviated by the response that he is getting very directly from me on behalf of the OPP that this is not the case, that we have at least the same level of service and that in most cases it is indeed enhanced.

1450

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy): Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I would like, with the indulgence of my colleagues in the House, unanimous consent to make a brief statement.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Is there unanimous consent to revert to statements? Agreed.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

ONTARIO HYDRO

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy): On behalf of the government, I am pleased to announce that a tentative agreement has been reached between the Power Workers' Union and Ontario Hydro.

Applause.

Hon Mr Wildman: Obviously, the parties will want the opportunity to make the provisions of the agreement clear to their constituencies. I would just add that it addresses the key issues and that the executive board of the Power Workers' Union will be recommending it to its membership.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): What we did was revert to statements, so it's appropriate to allow up to five minutes for each opposition party to make a statement.

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): We share in the applause, because we're all immensely relieved that there has been an agreement reached.

It would have been very helpful to all of us if the minister had been more forthcoming during his earlier answers and if in fact we could have simply had a recess until the minister could bring back what are the first words of assurance to the public that he was indeed going to be able to ensure that the lights would stay on in the province of Ontario.

We have said all along that we hoped there would be a resolution at the collective bargaining table and we congratulate the parties involved for having resolved this at the collective bargaining table.

I say that sincerely, but I say it without excusing what I suggested earlier today was brinkmanship on the part of the government. I cannot accept the fact that the government had to let public concern on this vital issue reach such heights with no response from the government, nothing except the hope that there would be an agreement reached at the bargaining table, until yesterday we finally had some indication, a vague threat from the Premier that if they did not reach an agreement at the table, he would do something nobody would like.

Interjection.

The Speaker: The member for Chatham-Kent, come to order.

Mrs McLeod: We don't know what subsequent details of the agreement have been reached or what pressures were brought to bear, but I say to this minister and to his government that his silence throughout the period of time while the questions were being asked, questions directed towards this government about its plans, about its responsibility, not its responsibility to get a settlement at the bargaining table -- we all hoped there would be a settlement at the bargaining table -- but some assurance from this government that it was in fact planning for a contingency if no settlement was reached -- there has been no effort on the part of this government throughout this process to communicate with the public. There was only a belated effort on the part of Ontario Hydro to communicate with municipal utilities, which would have been the ones involved in ensuring that reduced power needs could be met.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mrs McLeod: There was no attempt until late last week to communicate with the major power users, and that's why we were all flooded with letters of concern from people who wondered what this government was prepared to do to keep the lights on and to avoid the public safety and economic consequences if no agreement was reached.

Since there will undoubtedly not be an opportunity to reflect back on what can be learned --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Stop the clock, please. The Leader of the Opposition is entitled to some time in order to make a statement. I ask the government benches to please come to order and allow her the opportunity to make a statement.

Mrs McLeod: The way in which the government has dealt with this issue has done absolutely nothing for public confidence and it certainly has done nothing for business confidence. It has sent a very poor signal to any investors that the response of government and of Ontario Hydro to a pending crisis was simply to write letters to them saying that they can expect the lights would go out.

Two months ago we asked this government to tell the public what it would do to deal with something we've never faced before, and that was the possibility of a strike which could cause serious public safety concerns under the provisions of Bill 40. We have never had a response from the government on that issue. This government must go back and say, "If we ever face a situation like this in Hydro or any other sector again, how will we deal with the problems we have created with the Bill 40 legislation in place?"

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): Just a couple of quick observations: Like everyone, I'm pleased at the news of a tentative settlement, though perhaps this time more than other times I will really, really want to see this agreement, because I have a feeling that it will be a very interesting agreement.

Interjection.

Mr Conway: But no, I'm pleased to know that there's a tentative agreement.

I want to say something else, and particularly to people in the House who are much more knowledgeable about the collective bargaining process than I am. I want to just make this point: We now have a situation, and we may as well now be frank and candid about it, at Ontario Hydro, a mammoth public sector monopoly, where largely because of a very substantial nuclear power component, both sides, labour and management, know, and they knew from the very beginning, that we cannot have a strike, because we can no longer take a strike.

For people who prattle on about the collective bargaining process, and we all pay due homage to that, it must be now said that in terms of Ontario Hydro today, everyone who knows anything about the utility knows that we simply cannot tolerate a strike. When you get a situation like that, we all know that certainly colours the bargaining.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): I will offer --

Interjection.

Mr Stockwell: I'm sorry; I'm interrupting the woodman. I would offer congratulations to the government. A little bit of investigation needs to be taken before we can offer wholly our endorsement of this deal.

Clearly, there are a couple of things I would like to get on the record. Firstly, there must be a review of this collective agreement to see exactly what was given away and what was negotiated out. I think everyone would agree that any party on the opposition benches would be given the opportunity to read the contract before it gives a stamp of approval.

We're glad the lights aren't going out. We are equally glad, if it's a good agreement for the taxpayers in the province of Ontario, that there was an agreement take place.

I want to just cover a couple of other issues. Firstly, I think any party that goes across the floor in the future elections will at least now have a little bit of an easier time dealing with negotiations and collective agreements, because now we know that if we are in government, as part of a collective agreement process the Premier of the day may load a gun, hold it against their head and say, "Settle." That's okay.

If that party goes into opposition and we are lucky enough to be elected and we are in a situation, I say to the minister, where it's going to be a difficult negotiation, you will stand wholly behind us as part of the collective process, and you may help us load that gun, hold it to their heads and say, "Isn't this collective process in this province wonderful?" I want to get that on the record first.

I thirdly want to say that there were some key issues debated during this negotiation, very key issues this government has taken a position on, which means the key issue was job security. If they negotiated job security out of this contract, I think it's important for this party to know that, because we are going to be faced with some serious and difficult negotiations in the future. As in the past, when you argued about job security being an important agreement in any negotiated settlement, you must accept the fact that we may negotiate those kinds of things out.

1500

Interjections.

Mr Stockwell: I hear the Minister of Labour heckling. I doubt very much, sir, if you were in opposition, you would have accepted the ultimatum handed down by your Premier by any other Premier in this province when he said, "Settle or else." I don't think you would have accepted it.

Finally, when we do get an opportunity to review this, I want to know on this floor of the Legislature what the new socialists in Ontario believe and agree with, with the new spin, the tough Bob Rae spin they're putting on this particular issue. The new Bob Rae believes in holding guns to people's heads to negotiate a settlement. The new Bob Rae believes that you can take away job security and you don't negotiate those things in contracts, and I say to you that when we form the next government, we believe in those kinds of things as well.

Interjections.

The Speaker: I ask the House to come to order. We revert to questions. The honourable member for Leeds-Grenville had the floor with a supplementary to the Solicitor General. There are 22 minutes and 24 seconds remaining on the clock.

ORAL QUESTIONS

POLICE SERVICES

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): Just to remind everyone, the member for Simcoe West was expressing his concerns about the OPP decision to close the detachment in Stayner. In response, the Solicitor General said that there was full and open consultation and that he was quite pleased with the process.

I want to say once again that the Solicitor General is operating from bad information, very bad information indeed. In fact, the member and the mayor of Clearview and all the officials in the affected area were informed through media reports: not by the OPP, not by your ministry, but through the media.

It's not only Stayner that's closing; it's also detachments in Elmvale, Bradford and Welland. Four communities will lose their OPP detachments and more closures are expected later this week.

Between 1988 and 1992, the OPP's uniformed force increased by 63 people. In the same time period, reported criminal offences increased by over 36,000 incidents, almost 100 per day. I know the minister's going to tell us he's been hiring more officers, but clearly that won't approach the level of officers required, and the minister is closing detachments and supporting those closures and giving his assurances.

I'd like to have the minister indicate to the House and to the people of Stayner and of many other areas across this province just how they can measure the assurances that he's giving them today. Are we going to see reductions in the significant increases in crime levels in those areas? What yardstick are we going to use to be assured that the minister's promises are in fact going to occur, or are they simply empty assurances?

Hon David Christopherson (Solicitor General): I believe, and I think there are a great many other Ontarians who also believe, that the OPP is indeed one of the finest police services in the entire world. In fact, when I was recently meeting with RCMP officers at their training academy as they showed me their process of training new officers, they were very supportive and very congratulatory towards the work that the OPP do.

When somebody says, "How do we decide whether or not police are doing a good job?" when we look to police leadership like Commissioner O'Grady and the other chiefs across the province, when they're saying, as the commissioner is, that a measure like this is not going to affect service and is good for the force, is good for the communities we service, as well as being good for the Ontario taxpayer, I believe Ontarians are going to stand by that and believe it.

I point out to him that the whole concept of amalgamating detachments is nothing new. It's happened for decades with the OPP as it has learned how to make the service more efficient as technology has improved, particularly communications. I would also point out to him that I'm advised by the RCMP that they're going through the same kind of process. Is he going to suggest that the RCMP as well as the OPP aren't meeting his level of safety standards, or is he going to stand by the rest of us and support the professionals who lead the policing services in this province?

COMMUNITY PLANNING

Mr Robert Frankford (Scarborough East): My question is for the Minister of Municipal Affairs. A recent OMB decision has allowed the possibility of a Price Club superstore being established in Scarborough. This has generated widespread controversy in the community. I'm concerned about the effects that such superstores have on the local economy, and I would add that this is really a widespread issue, as I read media from the US and Britain; they're having to deal with that as well.

As you know, local businesses are a vital part of every community, but they are unable to compete with the mass merchandising and pricing of such superstores. What is your ministry doing to protect the viability of local communities and their economies?

Hon Ed Philip (Minister of Municipal Affairs): The member for Scarborough East raises an extremely important point. We should all be concerned about maintaining the viability of local business districts. Recently, my ministry initiated a study to look at ways of controlling the negative impacts of the superstores while ensuring the viability of local business areas. Ultimately, of course, as you know, it will be the consumer who decides the fate of what happens to the retailing industry.

Mr Frankford: On this topic of planning, I'm very supportive of the recommendations made by the recent Sewell commission and I believe they are very welcome among residents' groups in my riding. I understand that we are moving forward on reforms to the planning process.

Can I tell my constituents that these reforms provide them the opportunity to deal with planning and the future of their communities in a more proactive manner? When are we going to see changes being made to the planning process that will allow for effective and comprehensive planning to occur in communities across the province?

Hon Mr Philip: As the member is aware, the Sewell commission was initiated in response to widespread concerns about Ontario's planning process, which was certainly in a mess from any point of view. A number of useful recommendations to improve the process have emerged. My ministry has also just completed its consultation with the stakeholders and is in the process of finalizing the planning reform package. I expect to bring this to the Legislature shortly.

Reform of Ontario's planning process will not only result in improved efficiencies but also in improved ability of ordinary people and communities to understand what is happening and to participate in the process which ultimately has tremendous impacts on their lives and on their businesses.

I believe that good planning involves people in the decision-making process and ensures that their concerns will be dealt with, and that's precisely what we intend to do in the legislation.

FIRE SAFETY

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): My question is to the Minister of Housing. The minister will be aware that both of the fire tragedies that have been referred to by my leader and the member for Mississauga South have occurred in my riding. These tragedies have got a lot of folks upset, obviously, not only here but right across the province.

My concern is with regard to the tone, I guess, of the debate and your response and your answers with regard to safety regulations in Bill 120. We see none. We've asked for them. The mayor of Mississauga asked for them and you dismissed her as being simply supportive of snob zoning, instead of showing serious concern for the safety of her residents.

The mayor has indicated that whether you bring in legislation or regulations to deal with safety or not, she's not going to sit around and wait. She is going to commence inspections in these basement apartments wherever they can be determined they exist.

The report that was referred to by the Solicitor General from the fire marshal's office, and our fire chief sat on it, made a number of recommendations, not the least of which was that where a basement exists with no access to the outside and they want to rent it out as a basement apartment, which is in effect a business, then they must install sprinklers to ensure the safety of the occupants.

Are you prepared to instruct your people today to draft regulations to support the report that was submitted to you and suppressed by you, that was submitted to you by the fire marshal, to ensure the safety of our citizens in this province today?

1510

Hon Evelyn Gigantes (Minister of Housing): There has been no suppression of any report regarding matters affecting fire safety, especially as they touch on the operation of Bill 120.

Can I point out to the second member from Mississauga who has raised these issues, which are of wide concern and which are in fact a key reason we have introduced Bill 120, that you can't have a situation where there are standards which are enforceable when municipalities say that the apartments are illegal because of zoning. You won't have either owners of properties or tenants in those properties coming forward to get the necessary information and make sure there is adequate safety provision within apartments in houses when municipalities say they are illegal because of zoning, for no other reason but zoning.

When we have a situation where those apartments are legal, then both property owners, whose goodwill I don't doubt, and also tenants can raise the questions that need to be raised and make sure the standards are being put in place. We are fully confident that with the changes to the building code -- and it's not accurate to say these have not been made available. Of course they're not in the legislation; they are attached to the legislation. The building code amendments and also the new fire code regulations affecting apartments in houses are very much part of the legislative commitment that's been undertaken by this government, and it is out of concern for the safety of the people who will be living in apartments in houses.

Mr Mahoney: I guess the thing that's difficult for us to understand is why the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, why Hazel McCallion, why none of the people who sat through the committee hearings agree with you. Mayor McCallion does not have a particular axe to grind.

Hon Allan Pilkey (Minister without Portfolio in Municipal Affairs): Oh, no.

Mr Mahoney: Well, she doesn't. Mayor McCallion, I say to the former mayor from Oshawa, is concerned about the safety of the residents who exist in her community. I will admit that some time ago many members of the municipal councils were opposed to them simply based on zoning, but that's changed. They've recognized that during the debate that went on in our time in government and subsequently your time in government.

They have so, Minister. The mayor of Mississauga has said that the number one priority is safety in these situations. You continue to make this some kind of battle between you and the mayors over zoning. That's not the issue. The issue is that they exist; they exist illegally. Bill 120 will rectify that, but it does nothing to deal with the safety matters.

I asked you specifically if you would agree with the report by the fire marshals wherein they recommend that if access is not granted -- let's just be clear on this. We're not talking about stairs up into another dwelling, into the kitchen or the hallway upstairs. You will know from the media reports that in the latest tragedy, the mother tried to get out of the basement window with her baby and was overcome and unable to do it. We can't have these people crawling through small windows, Minister --

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

Mr Mahoney: -- at a time when they're in a panic and running for their lives. Either we have access out to the backyard or the side yard or the street, or we have some safety precautions such as sprinklers. You would insist on this for any commercial operation in this province. They would not be allowed to open their business --

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

Mr Mahoney: -- without these fire protections. Will you insist today that these very, very important fire protections be put in place in this province, give clear direction to the municipalities of what they can expect from you, and provide safety for these people in our communities?

Hon Ms Gigantes: I want to underline once more, in the hope that the member will understand, that we can write every rule in the world that requires safety standards but we can't get those rules acted upon when those apartments are ruled illegal because of zoning. We have to have a change in the status of the apartments in order to get safety regulations in place.

The member will be interested to learn, and he might actually want to take a look at the proposed regulations which have been tabled, the changes to the Fire Marshals Act --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. The member for York Centre is out of order.

Hon Ms Gigantes: -- which will mean that for situations where there is no access to the outside from an apartment in the house, either one of two things has to happen: There has to be a specially designed exit, a window which meets certain kinds of pull-in standards, or there has to be a sprinkler system. I wish the member would take the time, if he has all this passionate concern, to read the proposed changes which were tabled in the committee as we're discussing Bill 120.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services, based on his comments at his press conference this morning about his government's finally recognizing the existence of welfare fraud in the province of Ontario.

Minister, Ontario is recognized across Canada as having one of the most loosely administered welfare systems in the country. So it was with some concern that when you purported to suggest you were announcing some of the toughest measures in Canada today, when we look at the recommendations we can't find an example.

You were, however, asked by a member of the media about the Quebec legislation, which was raised by myself and my caucus a year and a half ago with you, that empowered more of these eligibility review officers so that while they do this work they have access to information which will assist them.

In Quebec, 70% of the files that were examined with the assistance of this legislation resulted in refunds, reductions or rejections. In fact, it caused a huge influx of Quebec residents drawing welfare in Ontario in communities along our eastern borders.

The fact is that you offered no assurances to the media or to members of this House that anything you have announced today is going to strengthen the ability of eligibility review officers to do their job to investigate properly all the 1.3 million cases in Ontario. Minister, why did you avoid responding even to some of the changes that are set out but would be required by legislation from the Quebec model?

Hon Tony Silipo (Minister of Community and Social Services): While the member opposite chooses to colour the announcement today as the government finally recognizing the existence of fraud, he knows we in fact have not only acknowledged the existence of fraud for some time but have been taking steps during that time to curb the level of fraud in the system. The indication I was able to give today of some $120 million to $150 million that has been saved in the course of the last year and a half as a result of the measures we've put in place is an indication of our having come down on the issue of fraud and abuse and overpayments in the system. And what I announced today was a heightened process of getting at some of that abuse in the system in a very consistent way.

I do not believe we need to have the kind of sweeping powers given to our workers as exist in the Quebec situation. I am concerned, quite frankly, about what some of those powers have led to. I believe the measures we are putting in place not only respond to the need that's out there; they also happen to respond to the kinds of things that many of the workers in our system have been saying to us need to be done. The kind of systematic review and investigation of every file in the system, with an initial emphasis on the files that we believe are among the highest risk --

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

Hon Mr Silipo: -- will give us the answers we need.

Mr Jackson: Minister, your best estimate is around $50 million, yet in Quebec they've saved hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars. The city of Thunder Bay, by council resolution, is requesting that you look into these kinds of issues, because within their own municipality, the property tax department can't even talk to the people who are administering heat and hydro to cross-reference information to help them because of Ontario's privacy laws.

The other issue I want to raise comes from Thunder Bay: Again, in today's press conference you were asked a very straight question about the cohabitation policy. Most provinces in Canada have clarified this issue. You refused to in the press conference. Concerns were raised in the media and you gave them no straight answer.

In a recent welfare fraud case in Thunder Bay, a Judge Stanley Kurisko asked for an expert from your ministry to come and attend court to explain how the cohabitation policy works. The judge asked if someone collecting mother's allowance can legally live with a partner less than three years, the minimum for a common-law relationship. The case involved a woman living with her landlord in the same house. She was subsequently found guilty of fraud in the amount of $38,500. This is what Judge Kurisko had to say about your regulations: "If this is a loophole" -- which is what your expert testified -- "it's as big as the Grand Canyon."

1520

All of your announcements today talk about your intention to tighten up the system. We got no evidence that you were providing clarity for these review officers so they could go out and do that job. My question to you is simply this: Will you review the cohabitation policy and give a straight answer to the workers in Ontario?

Hon Mr Silipo: Very directly to the question, as opposed to the preamble, that is an issue we are reviewing; that is not an issue I'm able to give the member an answer to today in terms of whether any changes will happen. But that is an issue, because for changes to happen to that issue there would have to be legislative changes, and he knows that. That is on the list of things we are looking at with respect to the issue of potential changes in the legislation, so we may have more to say about that.

I also want to go back to the earlier point the member made and to be very clear with him and others who may be concerned about this that nothing I have said should be construed as anything but support from me for us to continue the work we need to do around the sharing of information between government ministries, between levels of government, between municipalities and the provincial government, and that is also work that is under way. In fact, we are making significant progress towards the signing of agreements with various levels of government that will allow us to share in a much better way that information, which will also help us to address the question of abuse and overpayments in the system.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Mrs Irene Mathyssen (Middlesex): My question is to the Minister of Housing. Minister, last week you announced that the provincial and federal governments had approved the development of 2,074 non-profit homes which will be built in Ontario over the next two years in 28 municipalities, creating accessible and affordable housing and much-needed jobs in construction and in other industries.

Unfortunately, I understand your announcement was less than the positive event it seemed, because it signalled the end of Canada's national housing program. The federal government should be taking a leadership role in housing now more than ever. Social housing makes good economic sense. It creates jobs. It provides decent, affordable housing that lasts for generations. Can you tell me the impact that the cancellation of the federal-provincial non-profit housing program will have in Ontario and what you're doing to try to convince the federal government to maintain its involvement in a national housing program?

Hon Evelyn Gigantes (Minister of Housing): The issue that's been raised by the member is a very important one. For decades in this country, we have had a program which has been supported by the federal government, which was a combination of provincial and federal efforts to produce new units of affordable, non-profit housing in communities across Canada.

During last year's, this is 1993's, federal budget, the Conservative administration at that time announced that, having gradually backed out of this program to create new affordable housing, it was now shutting it down completely and that the allocations to be made in the 1993 program would be the last.

For many provinces, this is an enormous loss of assistance at a time when housing assistance is critical to Canadians, who have been through a tough period over the last two years. We know that here in Ontario, as we wind down the federal-provincial government program, it will mean that we will lose a program that at its peak in 1987 was generating about 6,700 units of new and affordable housing for use by Ontarians, which we very much regret.

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

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

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

PETITIONS

VIOLENCE

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): I have 23 petitions here with 320 signatures from the Catholic Women's League, women's institutes and business and professional women's clubs, and I would like to read this petition into the record.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

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

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

These petitions are signed by women from Windsor, Wallaceburg, Chatham, Corunna, Ridgetown, Tilbury, Dresden and Thamesville, and I'm very proud to attach my signature to them.

EMPLOYMENT EQUITY

Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): Constituents from my riding of Oakville South have asked me table a petition which reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the government should not interfere in business in any way; and

"Whereas any person applying for a job should be judged solely on his or her abilities and experience; and

"Whereas their colour, religion, race or gender or other such characteristics should not enter into the equation; and

"Whereas Bill 79 will establish a quota system by hiring by race, colour, sex or other physical characteristics; and

"Whereas employers should be allowed and required to judge each person as a person and hire them on merit;

"We demand that the government withdraw Bill 79, the Employment Equity Act."

I've signed that, and that's signed by over 1,200 people from Oakville South.

HOSPITAL SERVICES

Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): I have a petition which is addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas Four Counties General Hospital in Newbury, Ontario, provides 24-hour emergency service to an area that covers the four neighbouring corners -- Middlesex, Elgin, Kent and Lambton counties, and approximately 18,000 people living in small towns and villages in rural sections of this area; and

"Whereas the hospital has had difficulty in providing medical coverage for its emergency room on a 24-hour, seven-days-a-week basis; and

"Whereas if the hospital cannot get enough doctors to cover, it will have to close its emergency department for part of the 24-hour period, and the nearest emergency departments are 40 to 60 minutes' driving distance away;

"We, the residents of the hospital's service area, need 24-hour emergency coverage and call on the Ministry of Health and the Ontario Medical Association to resolve the critical issue of medical coverage of rural emergency departments immediately."

We have attached the names and signatures on the petition, and I affix my name to this petition.

MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES SERVICE CENTRE

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): I have a petition that reads:

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

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

"We, the undersigned, call on the Ontario government to maintain the operation of the MNR service centre located on Ghost Lake Road in Dryden. We feel this service is vital to our community, our mills, local businesses and our forests. Closure of this centre will affect a total of 17 jobs in the area and cause an increased cost to Ontario taxpayers in shipping and upgrading Thunder Bay's centre, when a state-of-the-art service presently exists here in Dryden. We can't afford to lose it."

I attach my name to that petition as well.

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I have a petition of 426 signatures addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas traditional family values that recognize marriage as a union between a man and a woman are under attack by Liberal MPP Tim Murphy and his private member's Bill 45; and

"Whereas this bill would recognize same-sex couples and extend to them all the rights as heterosexual couples; and

"Whereas the bill was carried with the support of an NDP and Liberal majority but with no PC support in the second reading debate on June 24, 1993; and

"Whereas this bill is currently with the legislative committee on the administration of justice and is being readied for quick passage in the Legislature; and

"Whereas this bill has not been fully examined for financial and societal implications,

"We, the undersigned, petition the Ontario Legislature to stop this bill and future bills which would grant same-sex couples the right to marry and to consider its impact on families in Ontario."

I have signed this petition.

1530

FIREARMS SAFETY

Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): I have a petition which is addressed to the Premier of the province, Bob Rae, the Solicitor General, Dave Christopherson, and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. The petition deals with a firearms acquisition certification course. It says:

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

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

On behalf of those constituents, I present this petition.

PHOTO-RADAR

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): I have a petition which reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the NDP government of Ontario is planning to implement photo-radar systems to penalize speeding drivers; and

"Whereas the provincial freedom of information commissioner has ruled that the NDP's photo-radar system violates the province's protection of privacy legislation; and

"Whereas there may be a number of legal and constitutional challenges to the NDP's dreaded photo-radar legislation; and

"Whereas the photo-radar system will cost millions of dollars to set up and implement; and

"Whereas the photo-radar fines involve no demerit points" -- thank goodness, I say -- "which the Minister of Transportation has said are the only way to force the public to obey other highway safety regulations, such as the use of seatbelts; and

"Whereas the photo-radar legislation penalizes the owner of the vehicle" -- if you can believe that -- "even if they are not responsible for the violation; and

"Whereas there have been concerns raised as to whether the photo-radar technology will accurately measure the speed of all vehicles;" -- imagine that -- "and

"Whereas a government newsletter quotes a ministry staff person who admits that photo-radar is only being implemented to bring in new revenue to the province;" -- there's the secret -- "and

"Whereas the NDP government is already wasting too much of the revenue that it already brings in,

"We, the undersigned, demand" -- they're demanding this, and I agree with them -- "that the NDP government cancel its plans to implement photo-radar and cancel its photo-radar legislation."

Wouldn't that be a good idea? I'm signing this petition because I agree with its contents.

HAEMODIALYSIS

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

"Whereas several patients from the town of New Tecumseth are forced to travel great distances under treacherous road conditions to receive necessary haemodialysis treatments in Orillia or Toronto; and

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

"Whereas there are currently two dialysis machines serving only two people in New Tecumseth and one patient is forced to pay for her own nurse; and

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

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

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

I've signed my name on this petition.

CASINO GAMBLING

Ms Margaret H. Harrington (Niagara Falls): I am presenting a petition today on behalf of 33 citizens of my city of Niagara Falls. It says:

"We earnestly desire that the NDP government delay any decision regarding approval of a gambling casino until the Try Another Way Committee addresses Niagara Falls city council on Monday evening, March 28. We are requesting of city council a referendum in this fall's election."

I submit this to the Legislature.

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): I have a petition to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

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

"Bill 55 would make it illegal, with fines up to $50,000, for people to make any public statement, written or oral, which ridicules, demeans or discriminates against a person on the grounds of sexual orientation, still undefined. This is a grave threat to free speech in a democratic society.

"Bill 55 is also an attack on freedom of religions which do not condone homosexuality: Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Baha'i, Christian etc.

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

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

"At the same time, these special-interest groups will be allowed to teach their controversial alternative lifestyles to youngsters in the classrooms.

"Therefore, we request that the House refrain from passing Bill 55."

This has been signed by 25 of my constituents, and I will also sign the petition.

PSYCHOTHERAPY

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): I have a petition, signed by over several hundred residents of Ontario, addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the profession of psychotherapy is currently unregulated; and

"Whereas many former psychotherapy patients have expressed concerns related to patient abuse, professional incompetence and negligence; and

"Whereas these former patients have nowhere to turn to have their complaints or concerns heard;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to institute regulations for the profession of psychotherapy, including defined procedures, professional qualifications and ethical standards and an avenue for client complaints and retribution."

In support of this petition, I'm affixing my signature.

LAP DANCING

Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): I have another petition which was forwarded to me by a number of constituents of mine:

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

On behalf of those constituents, I present their petition.

FIREARMS SAFETY

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): To the Ontario Premier, Bob Rae, Solicitor General David Christopherson and the Legislative Assembly:

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

"Whereas you should have followed the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters advice and grandfathered those of us who have already taken safety courses and/or hunted for years; and

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

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

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

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): I have a petition to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

"We believe in freedom from discrimination, and since sexual orientation is elevated to the same level as morally neutral characteristics of race, religion, sex and age, we believe all such references should be removed from the code.

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

I support this petition.

1540

TUITION FEES

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): To the Parliament of Ontario:

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

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

"Whereas since the NDP took office, they have already raise tuition fees by 22% and are planning to raise tuition fees by an additional 20% over the next two years; and

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

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

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

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

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

I will affix my signature to this petition because I am wholeheartedly in agreement with it.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

NORTH TORONTO BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL WOMEN'S CLUB ACT, 1994

On motion by Ms Poole, the following bill was given first reading:

Bill Pr104, An Act to revive North Toronto Business and Professional Women's Club.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

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

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): I believe the member for Carleton had the floor.

Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): Last Thursday I was speaking on this Bill 143, which supersedes Bill 77. Just to bring people up to date, Bill 143 restructures local and regional government in Ottawa-Carleton. The most important parts of Bill 77 are the creation of a regional police force and the fact that the regional government of Ottawa-Carleton, if Bill 143 passes, will in fact mean that local mayors of the 11 municipalities will be kicked off regional council where they now sit.

One of the issues I wanted to raise today was the newspaper ad which this minister took out, I believe two or three months ago. I was interested in the Speaker saying that the ad put in by the Minister of Municipal Affairs was close to contempt. I have never heard that in this House before. In the 16 years I've been here, I've never heard a minister of any government be accused of being close to contempt in terms of what he tried to do with government money in terms of putting forward the arrogance of this government in dealing with Bill 77 and Bill 143.

That's what drew the Speaker's mind to that ruling, the fact that this minister said that this bill will be law on a certain day in the future, totally disrespecting the rights of every member of this Legislature in dealing with this bill, the opportunity to debate this bill and convince the minister, convince the government, convince the other members of this Legislature that Bill 143 is bad law and should not be carried.

It also throws into the face of all of those people we hopefully will be hearing down in Ottawa in public hearings on Bill 143 to determine whether or not they will have some say in moving this minister from his very arrogant stand on this bill -- and that arrogance has been proven by the Speaker's ruling today in this Legislature at an earlier time.

Although our standing orders do not provide an opportunity for a standing committee of this Legislature to travel away from Toronto during the time a session is in, I want to make it clear that my party will waive any kind of necessary consent required to have hearings take place in and around the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton. We deem it as absolutely essential that there be hearings in that place because this bill deals primarily with the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton.

I want to make it clear that the government cannot hide behind the standing orders in terms of saying, "We can't travel to Ottawa to have public hearings," as far as the Progressive Conservative Party is concerned. I believe you will also get that assurance from the opposition party, but I will let them speak for themselves.

I dealt with a number of issues on Thursday. One was the proportional representation argument that this minister has used: rep by pop. This has been his excuse for not allowing local mayors to sit on regional council, because in Ottawa-Carleton, of the 11 municipalities that we have, we have the city of Ottawa with some 350,000 people, approximately speaking, and it goes down to municipalities with 14,000 or 15,000, and there is one very, very small municipality, that of the village of Rockcliffe with 2,500 people.

The argument that the minister has put forward time and time again to the public because it's popular, people seem to understand it or think they understand it, is this rep-by-pop argument.

What happened was, as I said before, the municipalities came in and said, "Well, let's have a weighted voting system." The minister says, "This is too complicated." Yet the minister himself, his own ministry last fall approved the weighted voting system in the county of Hastings which allowed five different levels of voting, depending upon the population of the various areas in the county of Hastings.

Hon Ed Philip (Minister of Municipal Affairs): How many mayors in the county of Hastings?

Mr Sterling: Lots of reeves sit on the county council and they're elected in the same municipalities as the mayors are sitting, in answer to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. I believe a lot of the people in the county system of government would be quite willing to entertain the idea of having mayors sit on county council, but reeves are elected in the same areas as mayors and are the representatives of those areas on it.

I also referred to the 1990 election returns for our province because the minister likes to put out the fact that rep by pop is very, very important. It's absolutely necessary to the T in the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton. Yet when we look at our own 130 ridings in this province, we find out that there are ridings which have as many as five times the population of other ridings.

Some of those ridings are in remote areas. They have large geographical areas to cover and members of this Legislature have agreed over a period of time to allow that as an exception.

In our regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton, on the outer areas, we have some fairly large geographically situated townships. We have the township of West Carleton, which is I believe the largest-populated township in all of Ontario.

Hon Mr Philip: How many square miles?

Mr Sterling: It's 65,000 square hectares, so if you'd like to translate that into square miles, you can go ahead. I use hectares.

Hon Mr Philip: It is like in Germany.

Mr Sterling: Anyway, Mr Speaker, the minister is getting upset because he's seeing his rationale which he's tried to sell to the public fading away, and I can understand his concern because when we get down to public hearings in Ottawa-Carleton, I will agree to waive our consent providing the minister comes down and sits with the committee and hears first hand what the people of Ottawa-Carleton are willing to say. I want him there because, Mr Speaker, as you know, if he sends his parliamentary assistant, who may not have any power to change the legislation, the impact of these people will be very much counted out.

1550

Now, maybe his schedule is too busy to come down to Ottawa-Carleton. Maybe it's not of any concern to him that the people of Ottawa-Carleton are so alarmed and upset with this. But I certainly hope and I'm sure that the minister would not be so arrogant as not to come down to Ottawa-Carleton and hear at first hand what the people are saying.

I want to say that part of the selling of this restructuring has been that there aren't going to be any more politicians than there were in the past. I believe it is just about the same. I believe that maybe there are four or five more politicians under this new scheme as under the old scheme.

But do you know what the minister has failed to talk to the people about? The cost of the new system, how much more it's going to cost for politicians' salaries and office expenses under Mr Philip's scheme as opposed to the present one.

The region, in early January of this year, decided for these 18 new regionally elected councillors that they're going to need 18 new offices, and $2.3 million of the taxpayers' money in Ottawa-Carleton is going for renovations to set up for these new regionally elected councillors and their staffs.

What is happening with regard to the salaries of these individuals? Well, a Peat Marwick study shows that probably the salaries will come in somewhere around $60,000 to $65,000 per regional councillor. Office expenses are expected to be somewhere in the neighbourhood of $100,000 for each new regional councillor. Now, $160,000 for each new regional councillor times 18 comes to the exciting amount of $2.8 million a year, $2.9 million almost, in regional councillors' salaries and expenses.

You may say, "Well, that may be the case, but this is offset by the people we're taking off local government," because, as I said, the number of politicians starting out in this exercise over the whole region is approximately equal to the number of politicians who are there now and will be there after Bill 143, should it ever pass.

The fact of the matter is that we're replacing people like councillors in the township of West Carleton, who are getting the princely sum of $12,500 a year, by people who are going to be expending $160,000 in taxpayers' money on an annual basis. That's what we're seeing here put forward by the NDP government in this bill. You are replacing part-time people who are working for relatively small amounts of money by people who are full-time politicians and have office staffs.

Now, in the city of Ottawa, we presently have 15 councillors sitting in the city of Ottawa who also sit on regional council. The councillors in Ottawa receive about $30,000 each from the city of Ottawa and they receive about $21,000 from the region. Total: $51,000. They also have an office budget at the city of Ottawa of about $60,000 a year.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): What does that add up to?

Mr Sterling: That's $60,000 plus $50,000: about $110,000. Now, they're not going to be working at the region any more, but what's going to happen with regard to their budget? Well, the most recent proposal that they're putting forward, and there's going to be a whole week's public debate over the next little while, is they're going to up their salaries that the city is paying, from $30,000 to $51,000. So they're only going to have one job now, and that's down at the city of Ottawa. They are no longer going to have to be on a regional government. But they're going to get the same pay.

I also want to say that because they're dropping the number of councillors in the city of Ottawa from 15 to 10, the councillors deem that they're going to have to serve more constituents.

Mr Stockwell: Their office budget.

Mr Sterling: So their office budget is going up. How did you guess?

Mr Stockwell: I don't know.

Mr Sterling: It's going up from $60,000 to $90,000 a year.

Mr Stockwell: What is the total?

Mr Sterling: The total of a new office for a city councillor will now become $140,000. What we're going from are people who have two responsibilities now as regional councillors and they're costing the taxpayers per piece $110,000. Now we're taking away the regional function and these city councillors are going to cost us $140,000. Now, that's economy. That's the economy of the NDP government. That's really, really sound economy.

What is happening over this as well is that in some municipalities -- say, for instance, the township of Rideau is presently paying its mayor some $22,500.

Mr Stockwell: Plus $21,000.

Mr Sterling: And he's receiving $21,000 from the regional government. But his councillors are getting about $18,500 from the township of Rideau. We're now put in the situation where we're kicking that mayor off regional council, so his sole function will be at the township of Rideau as the mayor. His councillors are getting $18,500; he's getting $22,500. I want to ask you, Mr Speaker, whether or not he might feel that there is a slight bit of injustice with regard to his responsibilities as the mayor versus one of the four new councillors whom we'll be setting up there. I venture to say there will be some upward pressure in terms of increasing his salary, as there will be some upward pressure in terms of increasing the salary of the mayor of the township of West Carleton, who is presently receiving $28,000.

One of the things that perhaps people like the minister, who comes from the large area of Metro Toronto, don't understand is that when you're the mayor of a township of 14,000 or 15,000 people and somebody walks through your door and they have a problem, they have a problem that is really not related to township or local government but it's related to a problem which either the provincial government, the regional government or even the federal government is involved in. Most mayors don't turn people away. They are the focal point in small communities of that size and they take on that problem and they deal with that problem.

I say if you have somebody who is trying to pay them $24,000 or $28,000, you're not going to get many people who are going to fulfil that function to the same degree as perhaps we would wish. Therefore, I think there's going to be a lot of upward pressure on the salaries of mayors who are receiving part of their pay at the present time from regions.

We have a situation here where we're creating directly regionally elected people who will be paid somewhere in the neighbourhood of $60,000 to $65,000 a year, will have an office budget of $100,000, and we're getting rid of some people who are getting a stipend or a part of their payment of $21,000 flat from the region. I might point out that all of the people who were on regional council up to this point in time have not received any office expenses from the regional government. All they did was pay this particular stipend to them.

The bottom line of all this is that this government is forcing upon the regional property taxpayers of Ottawa-Carleton $2.3 million -- I think that's the budget amount they put forward; no, in fact, it's $2.9 million -- almost $3 million in capital renovations to set up these new offices. The net result is that the taxpayer of Ottawa-Carleton overall is going to be putting out somewhere between $1.5 million and $2.5 million a year more in salaries to politicians and in office expenses to politicians.

1600

That's some great saving, and I just say to the taxpayers of Ottawa-Carleton, I don't believe you're going to get much better government out of this new scheme than under the old scheme. In fact, I think you're going to get poorer government because you're not going to have the input of the most knowledgeable people of all at the regional level, and I'm talking about the local mayors.

I also mentioned the other day about policing and received a special response from an area which I represent, and that's the city of Kanata, which is presently contracting with the Ontario Provincial Police. I would ask the minister to consider an amendment to his legislation to allow the police services board which exists in the city of Kanata to remain intact until the regional police force in fact wants to expand out into the areas which are presently served by the Ontario Provincial Police.

At the present time, the main function of the new regional police board will be to combine the police forces of Nepean, Gloucester and Ottawa. That will be their main function. They're not really that concerned with policing the outer areas. I say wherever a municipality is in fact contracting with the OPP, why not let it deal directly with the OPP rather than going through this big regional police board? Why not wait until they're ready to take that step, and if the same police force will service all of the other area, why not do it at that point in time?

I want to also add that I did receive some information on the unfunded sick liability in the Ottawa police force. It's $23 million, I have been informed. I do not think it's fair to shove that unfunded liability out over all of the rest of the taxpayers in the region. If the city of Ottawa has failed to meet its obligations in that regard, I believe it should, on the amalgamation of these police forces, write a cheque for $23 million to the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton. That should be kept in a fund to pay out the unfunded sick days that have been incurred by the police force in the city of Ottawa.

I just think it's patently unfair for taxpayers in the future to pay for what I call shoddy fiscal management. When you give out a benefit, I believe you should put that money away and that money should be there to pay for those future benefits. I believe that's also the case of the unfunded sick leave in the Gloucester police force and I think they should be required to sit down and write a cheque for whatever that unfunded liability is.

As I said the other day, I believe that the municipality should be compensated for any benefits which a police force brings to the regional police force and I believe the municipality should have to put in any money to the regional police force for anything that was unfunded.

The last part I want to talk about is the overwhelming support across this province for the position I am taking -- that is, that we scrap Bill 143, particularly those sections dealing with taking mayors off regional council.

I've been really upset with the way the minister has characterized this debate. He has tried to characterize this debate as local mayors trying to hold on to their own jobs, and that's how he's tried to play it in the press and in the public in the Ottawa-Carleton area. I know these people; I know them quite well; I represent five of them. I want to tell you this: They are disgusted with that particular position. They truly believe that they know what is going on in their particular municipalities and that decisions will be made with regard to this regional government which will not be in the best interests of the area and they look at it from that point of view.

The offer put forward by the minister back in November with regard to leaving the mayors on for only one more term was really a non-starter. It put the mayors in the further difficult position of trying to hold to a position which they believe in principle, and they're not about to be bought off by one more term until the end of my term and then the next mayors will have to worry about whatever happens.

I received a huge number of letters of support. The Association of Municipalities of Ontario has strongly endorsed the position of the township of West Carleton, the township of Goulbourn and the city of Kanata, the township of Osgoode, the township of Rideau, the city of Nepean and Gloucester, Vanier, Rockcliffe Park, Cumberland, all of those particular areas. The Association of Municipalities of Ontario says this government is wrong in taking mayors off of regional council.

I have in front of me a number of letters of support which have been written to the township of West Carleton. They sent to all of these particular townships and municipalities their resolution which says that Bill 143 should be done away with.

I think it's most important to note. I want to read from a few of those, and I say "only a few of those." The city of Waterloo: "The legislation changes could have significant impact on the future of local governments in Ontario where the bill invades the legislative rights of lower-tier municipalities, destroys an important role of the head of council and increases the cost to the taxpayer; and

"Whereas the legislation demonstrates that the provincial government continues to entangle itself in the affairs of local government while still demonstrating a lack of demonstrating of the functions and operation of local government," therefore they resolve to endorse the West Carleton resolution.

This is from the township of Muskoka Lakes: "Before the provincial government adopts any proposal for reorganization of an upper-tier government in Ontario which results in an upper-tier council that does not, at the very least, include the heads of local councils as members of the upper-tier council, they will undertake a thorough examination of the advantages and disadvantages of the long-term implications of efficient, effective, accessible local government."

You know, that's one of the grinding parts of all of this: We haven't seen any financial data put forward by the government as to what this is going to mean in terms of cost. We haven't had the minister stand up and say what kind of interim funding he's going to provide. He said he's going to provide some funding in certain cases, but there's been nothing put to paper.

The town of Tillsonburg says that the restructured Oxford, which has been there since 1975, had "a mayor of each municipality represented on the restructured county council as well as the other elected representatives at the area municipal level. The representation has been beneficial in providing representation from the area municipalities on the county council. The concern of town council will be that this bill would establish a precedent within the province of Ontario for this elimination of area mayors on upper-tier council."

The township of Chisholm: This is a letter to Ed Philip, the Minister of Municipal Affairs. "Council is deeply concerned with your government's blatant disregard of concerns expressed by lower-tier representatives and those of your own consultants with respect to this legislation."

1610

What they refer to by "disregarding your own consultants" is the fact that this minister has failed to follow what both government studies recommended: The Bartlett report and the Kirby report, the two studies he's principally relying on, both recommended that area mayors sit on regional council.

The town of Durham in a letter to Ed Philip: "Your government has repeatedly billed itself as a government built on the principles of openness and consultation. The resolutions which we have received from local councils in the Ottawa-Carleton area seem at odds with those statements. Durham council strongly urges you to rethink your position on this matter."

The Western Ontario Wardens' Association: "In the opinion of this association, the accepted role of the upper tier as an extension of local government is to provide those services which can be provided on a more efficient and effective basis across a broader area and not to strengthen its role at the expense of local government."

Last, from the city of Toronto: "There is generally held consensus" -- and this is from Robert Millward, commissioner, who was dealing with remarks on Bill 77 -- "on local councils in Metro that direct election to Metro council as introduced in 1988 was a mistake. That step has led to increased jurisdictional competition between the two levels of government and has added to pressures for amalgamation.

"The legislative amendments now under consideration for Ottawa-Carleton go beyond direct election because it removes mayors from regional council and creates wards which cross municipal boundaries. If applied to Metro, these measures would compound problems introduced by direct election. Rather than taking the direct election approach further, it would seem more appropriate to reverse the 1988 change in direction respecting regional government in this province. Accordingly, it is recommended that you withdraw" Bill 143. Of course, these all refer to Bill 77, but that was changed at the last minute by this particular minister.

I do not have the time to read in even all the names of the various municipalities from across this province that agree with the stance I've taken and the stance which the township of West Carleton, the township of Goulbourn, the city of Kanata, the township of Osgoode and the township of Rideau, which I all represent, have taken, as well as some of the others which other members of this Legislature have put forward.

The most troubling part of this legislation and the bottom line, to me, is that the areas I represent -- and I have been a member of this Legislature for some 16 years now and have known a number of mayors who have represented the municipal areas I represent. I have a great deal of respect for these people. The public is getting a very, very good deal with regard to all of these people: They work hard; they've made what I consider reasonable decisions; they've consulted carefully with the people they represent. When I talk to some of those people who are now elected in those positions, they are really discouraged. They are discouraged because this government is diminishing their role to a role which perhaps was adequate 20, 25, 35 years ago.

These people are intelligent people who have given to their community to an extensive degree, and this government has chosen to slam them and take them on. That's the most disturbing part, and some of them are even talking about not running again as mayors of their particular municipalities. Whether that will come about or not, I don't know; I think it will come about at least in two of those cases.

Therefore, I urge the government to rethink this. Of course, I urge them to go to Ottawa to hear the people, and after they hear the people, I'm sure they will rethink it.

The Deputy Speaker: Questions or comments?

Hon Ed Philip: I was interested in the gyrations of the honourable member as he tried to defend the status quo and vested interests rather than taking care of the interests of the taxpayers and of the business community in the Ottawa-Carleton area.

Both Kirby and Bartlett clearly recommended that in order to have a regional focus, there be a direct election of councillors. That was the main theme in both of their reports. Indeed Bartlett said, on reading our bill, that if he had the report to do over again, he would have recommended that the mayors not sit on the regional council.

Mr Hans Daigeler (Nepean): When and where did he say that?

Hon Mr Philip: Yes, that's exactly the point.

The member raises the issue of regional council's salaries. Of course the regional council is conducting its own study to find out exactly what expenses and indeed what salaries will be. If the honourable member is suggesting that somehow the provincial government of Ontario should set salaries or salary levels for municipally elected people, let him say that. Let him tell the people of Ontario, let him tell each and every municipality, that the position of the Conservative Party is that Queen's Park, Big Brother here, sets the salaries and salary levels, or caps the salaries. We don't have any evidence that there's any support for that.

We believe that local people can best decide, along with their councils, what the salary levels will be in their own communities, and that it is the taxpayers and the voters in those places who will decide if there is or is not an abuse.

This government was the first government that actually set a cap on our own salaries and indeed put a freeze in for three years. I didn't see the member's friends in the Mulroney government do that in the House of Commons for the cabinet and the members in the House of Commons. The member is trying to defend the --

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you. Your time has expired.

Mr Daigeler: I will get back to the tirade of the Minister of Municipal Affairs in due course when I get a chance to speak in this House. Unfortunately, under the new rules that the NDP, in its draconian method, has instituted, I will get only half an hour to put my views on the record. However, I can assure the minister that my views will be very forceful.

The member for Carleton has very clearly and carefully and in a reasoned manner put forward our cost concerns and a number of other very clear and strong concerns that the people in the suburban municipalities of Ottawa-Carleton have. Very clearly, as the member for Carleton knows, the suburban municipalities have worked with the region. It is not as though they have not cooperated with the other municipalities. Their record is very clear.

I wasn't here at all times when the member spoke, but that's perhaps something that, based on his experience, he might want to reiterate: that we in Nepean, in Kanata, in the areas the member for Carleton represents, cannot be accused of being parochial, because we have cooperated with the region. We have done our share, but we have done our share in consensus -- that's the important part -- and not coercion.

That's what the member for Carleton was trying to say, and he put forward a number of very excellent arguments that I will refer to as well a little later on. The member for Carleton was able to speak for an hour and a half as the person speaking for his whole party, because under the new rules one person is allowed an hour and a half and everybody else can only speak for half an hour. He very clearly has put a great number of concerns forward, and I would surely hope that the minister at least partially listens to what the member for Carleton has said.

1620

Mr David Johnson (Don Mills): I would like to second the congratulations from the Liberal Party to the member for Carleton for quite an excellent response to Bill 143. It's a shame that the minister has had to resort to invoking the ghost of Brian Mulroney in terms of criticizing what the member for Carleton had to say, because the member for Carleton made a number of excellent points. The member has been consistent in trying to ensure that the general public in the Ottawa-Carleton region is aware of all the issues and has an opportunity to respond to all the issues through a public hearing, and he's called on the minister to bring that public hearing to Ottawa-Carleton.

If, as the minister says, there's all sorts of support for this, it will become evident in the Ottawa-Carleton region, and I call on the minister to do that. But the member for Carleton has pointed out that none of the reports -- not Kirby, not Bartlett, not any of the reports -- has recommended leaving the mayors off the regional council, not one of them. The general public has not had an opportunity to speak to that, to have that issue debated.

The issue of the boundaries: The general public has not had a good opportunity to speak to the boundaries, the local boundaries, the regional boundaries. They've simply not had this opportunity, and the member for Carleton is saying, "Allow the public to have that debate, to have that information."

The member for Carleton raises the issue of cost. I'm sure the people in Ottawa-Carleton are not aware of the costs associated with the government the minister is proposing. The regional councillors will have executive assistants and secretaries, their salaries will go up, there will be newsletters, conferences, conventions, new offices, and the member has pointed out that the cost could be $1.5 million to $2.5 million. Surely we should go to Ottawa-Carleton and let the people know these facts.

Mr Drummond White (Durham Centre): I'd like to congratulate my friend. He puts forth a very excellent case. It may not be one I agree with. He, of course, is very strongly opposed to the idea of representation by population, of equity at the regional and municipal levels. We know from surveys done in the Ottawa area that 80% of the people support the proposed reforms.

Mr Daigeler: Nonsense.

Mr White: I hear one of the Liberal members yelling "Nonsense," yet my friend also states in his speech on Thursday, this same speech, that 71% of the people supported these reforms.

I understand how difficult it is to change from a situation where the vote of one person is equal to 100 to a situation where the vote of one person may be more or less equal to that of another. I understand that changing this setup in Ottawa-Carleton, which was the first regional setup involving a number of different municipalities that weren't directly linked, as Metro Toronto is, changing that situation from one of inequity, such as it had in 1969 when it was set up under a Conservative government, to one which has a larger degree of equity, is problematical.

We have a situation now where the vote of one person in the municipality of Rockcliffe Park, I believe, is equal to 100 in the city of Ottawa. This disproportion is not borne out in the rest of the province. This inequity does not relate to that of members of provincial Parliament.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Carleton, you have two minutes to reply.

Mr Sterling: The government, particularly the minister -- his responses, quite frankly, are quite silly. I wish he would debate the main issue. The main issue in this whole part is, number one, that he's promised to defray some costs, and he hasn't given any hard facts on that. Number two, he says that the people want reform in Ottawa. They want reform in Ottawa, but the people also say they want the local mayors on regional council; 80% of the people say that, 79%, a poll I took in September.

Hon Mr Philip: Oh, your poll.

Mr Sterling: Yes, a poll, an independent poll.

Hon Mr Philip: That was really scientific.

Mr Sterling: Yes, it was scientific; actually, it was. I'll give you a copy of it, if you'd like, Minister.

The minister is trying to invoke the ghost of Brian Mulroney in this. I find it amazing that these cabinet ministers, who received a $30,000 salary increase when they came to government in 1990, then froze their salaries -- I find that really quite generous, to freeze your salary at $30,000 above whatever you have ever earned in your life.

The fact of the matter is that this government is setting up a government structure in Ottawa which is going to lead to more full-time politicians and more office expenses and higher salaries. Nobody in this Legislature is setting any salaries, but I'll tell you that the structure you're setting up, Mr Minister, gives municipal politicians every right to demand the kind of money that they're putting down on paper now.

The Deputy Speaker: Any further debate?

Mr Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa East): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I heard the minister very clearly that the honourable member from Carleton was misleading the House. I think this is very unparliamentary and I ask the minister to withdraw it.

The Deputy Speaker: I must admit that I did not hear the comment. Obviously, though, if the minister has said that, I know for a fact that he will apologize.

Hon Mr Philip: I believe I did say it, and I withdraw the remark.

The Deputy Speaker: Any further debate?

Mr White: I am pleased to rise in my place to support this bill.

Mr Daigeler: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I think the people who have spoken so far were the critics for the parties. Is it not normal, then, that we begin the rotation with the official opposition again?

The Deputy Speaker: We followed a rotation. It was Mr Sterling, who is the critic, Mr Grandmaître is the critic, the minister had the occasion also to speak. It's now the turn of the member for Durham Centre. Then it will go in rotation. The next person would be the member for the official opposition.

Mr White: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am very pleased that you allow the government members some opportunity to speak, while the member for Nepean would not. I am pleased to rise in my place to support this bill that welcomes in a new time, a new era for the region of Ottawa-Carleton. This is an area not unlike Durham, where the people have for a long time called for action, called for reform of the regional system.

As we know, this is the oldest area in the province. Where people have said, "If it's not broke, don't fix it," this is an area where the system of government is not working efficiently, where the people of this area have called out long and hard for reform, as we have already heard. For Ottawa-Carleton now is the time for action, and this is the government that listens to the people of Ottawa-Carleton and to their needs for reform, for accountable, effective government. Now is indeed the time for action.

This bill brings to a close a very long process of public discussion on how the people of Ottawa and Carleton are best served by government at the regional and the local levels. We've had the Ottawa-Carleton problem studied, commissioned, discussed by councils, by committees and at public meetings to such a great degree that people do not want more of the same, more debate, more discussion. We have had years of debate and years of discussion and we now have a conclusion of that debate, which I think most of the people in that region wish to have.

People in Ottawa-Carleton want to know what they will be voting for in this fall's municipal election, and they want provincial leadership to offer them the opportunity to have accountable elected leadership.

Mayo, Bartlett, Graham, Kirby and Bourns have all done outstanding jobs at speaking with groups, organizations and individuals on what the future of that region should look like and how the regional political structures can support that future. They have all held public hearings in Ottawa-Carleton. There has been much thoughtful discussion --

Mr Sterling: Why didn't you follow it?

Mr White: -- some yelling, some large, unruly crowds, some heckling and some very positive input with very good ideas.

1630

The consultation is now over, the studies are done, the reports are in and our government has listened. What did people say? People have said that they're overgoverned at the local level. Their local government is too complicated and too heavy with duplication. They don't want 14 different levels for the decision-taking process. Their local government is already felt to be too complex and too unwieldy. The levels of government are too difficult to understand, especially the who-does-what things involving municipal and regional government.

As it presently stands, people have difficulty enough understanding what the four levels of government do. There are times when we, as members who are cognizant constantly of those issues, are ourselves a little bit curious. In Ottawa-Carleton those issues reached the fore of confusion and ambiguity. People in Ottawa-Carleton want to know who will clean up the river. They want to know someone will take responsibility and not just pass the buck between different levels of government.

They want to know who they can look to at the local level to create jobs and a plan for future economic security. They want one local government to create jobs for the record number of young people who are biding their time in the academic shelters of Carleton, Algonquin, la Cité and the University of Ottawa until the Ottawa job market improves.

The people of Ottawa-Carleton want to know who they can hold accountable for their property tax bills. They do not want to face countless excuses from councillors and trustees that it's the others' fault, someone else's fault, the other region's, because the whole thing is too complicated.

They want to directly elect the regional councillors who are responsible for $1 billion of their tax dollars. They want to look after the interests of the regional council, and local councillors should look after their business at the municipal council.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Order, please, all members. The member has the floor and he has it very legitimately. The member for Durham Centre, please continue.

Mr White: Thank you again, Mr Speaker. The people of Ottawa and Carleton want to know that there's a strong regional government planning for a safe and environmentally sound future. They had what at the time was a progressive form of government, but that was 25 years ago and we have seen improvements since, both in their local form of government in that region and elsewhere across the province.

They want to have a government that is responsive to the issues of limiting urban sprawl and protecting precious environmental areas that keep farmers on the land and not just land speculators. They want to have a single local police force in the region and not the changing quiltwork of police services which currently exists.

The people of Ottawa-Carleton say that the system is broken and they want us to fix it. As it stands presently, that is the only way. I am proud to stand here as a member of our government, a government that will try to fix the problem. This bill gives the people of that region the tools they need for a better local government, a more responsive and a more accountable local government.

This bill will eliminate the inherent conflict of municipal councillors holding regional office. It will also give the voter accountability of their regional tax dollar through direct election to council, which spends that $1 billion of local taxes. This bill will give clear leadership for economic development to the regional municipality. They will be able to more effectively plan for the industries, infrastructure and development which will create the jobs which our people need.

The unified police services in Ottawa-Carleton will see a single force in Ottawa, Nepean and Gloucester, with the option of spreading throughout the region, being available to the new police services board. Currently people in West Carleton, Osgoode, Cumberland, Rideau, Goulbourn, communities which have populations of over 10,000 people, receive their police services without direct charge from the OPP. While Cumberland gets free police servicing, Kanata, a city of roughly the same size, represented by my friend opposite, has to pay for policing from the same OPP.

Does my friend suggest that his constituents should be paying while constituents of another member receive services free, where the majority of people in our province pay for police servicing and some do not? Is that equitable? We need to fix this kind of inequity. We need to ensure that everyone pays a reasonable amount and that most of us are not paying while some are not.

With a regional police services board responsible for regional policing, the service will be more efficient and the costs of the service will be spread more equitably. I'm very pleased that our provincial government is also committed to providing transition costs to the region during the startup years.

This bill, combined with the recently passed Bill 7, the waste management bill, will allow the regional municipality to take on a stronger role as the environmental problem-solver for the region. We all recall the importance of that Bill 7, how it helps deal with the municipal waste management and how strongly supported it was by all members of this House.

The bill will eliminate one of the administrative levels of the school boards in the region, the combined section of the Ottawa-Carleton French-language school board, and it will leave the public and separate panels which are currently in place to carry on. This will allow for greater efficiencies within those school boards. Along with the work that's been ongoing with local school boards on cooperative services, we'll be helping to make the school system more efficient and more accountable. This bill shows we have listened.

I know there have been extraordinary efforts made by some local mayors to have their personal representation protected on regional council, and I respect their determination to be heard and their ability to attract some support. I also believe the time has come when a decision must be made, and that time is now.

It is of course with great reluctance that those who hold power, whether with equity and justice or not, release that power, release those bonds. But we are seeing in Ottawa-Carleton a fairly peaceful transition in that regard.

No one in Ottawa-Carleton has shown me a system of simple direct election which would produce a democratic result and still include the local mayors on regional council. Representative democracy means that every voter gets an equal vote. As we've heard discussed already, why should the mayor of Rockcliffe Park, with 2,500 constituents, carry the same weight as the mayor of Ottawa, with her 340,000 constituents? There we're talking about one person's vote being equal approximately to 170 people's votes. Somehow, that would seem to be anti-democratic.

The issue of reasonable equity is guaranteed to Canadians. We're not talking of a straight one for one but a level of reasonable equity. Certainly those members of this House are elected from constituencies that are determined by population, by location, by geographical size, by a number of different factors, but population and representation by population is certainly one very important one, and were one of us to have 100 constituents for one of the other member's constituents, that would be seen to be dreadfully anti-democratic. That's the situation we have in Ottawa-Carleton, and that's the situation that's being changed.

I can't support any of the various weighting schemes that have been suggested over the last year. They're difficult to understand. They create a cumbersomeness and an inequity. We don't want to have that; we want to have government which is accountable, which is sensible, which is accessible to the people of that region, and simpler: simple enough that even the members of this House, all of us, can understand it. As long as the 11 Ottawa-Carleton local municipalities have the disparate population differences they do have, the numbers can't work. So the mayors are not going to be represented on regional council. That's a local solution to a local problem.

In other areas, my friend opposite suggests, "Why should the mayors in Durham be on regional council or the mayors in Metro be on Metro council?" In those areas that opposition is a legitimate concern. We should look at those numbers and those proportions. But the disproportion in the Ottawa-Carleton area is far, far greater than in those other areas that have been cited.

1640

Certainly the idea of direct election of a regional chair makes a great deal of sense. I know there are many people in my region who think they should have the opportunity to directly elect that regional chair. I won't refute that.

Many of the reforms that are here are worth emulating elsewhere, but the fact that they are worth emulating elsewhere doesn't mean that they should be stopped here. In fact, we should look at these things, these excellent studies, the good work that's gone into this area. I think all of us, in all of our different regions, could learn something from this process, both that there is something here to emulate and that there's also a uniqueness in the Ottawa-Carleton area, a uniqueness that speaks to preserving those 11 municipalities, but not at the expense of some level of equity.

In their place, voters will have the opportunity of choosing local representatives and one of the new 18 regional councillors elected in their wards. Remember, we're talking about a larger say in the regional council, a direct accountability, but in fact a smaller number of regional councillors. There's a sense of that smaller number being easier to manage as a council, more dedicated to the good work of promoting economic development within their region.

These regional councillors will have a loyalty above and beyond their local wards or their local areas; they'll be concerned also about that whole region. These regional councillors will have a regional perspective, more so than they do now, and certainly more so than is the case in many other areas. Many will come from wards which cross existing municipal boundaries and will have constituents from more than one city or more than one township.

Even though the regional wards are large, some geographically and some with large populations, I think they represent the best efforts -- this is not a perfect world, but certainly the best efforts -- of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and of the local clerks who work on the local committee which recommended those boundaries. This clerks' group worked with diligence by taking the report of Katherine Graham and improving upon it.

For example, the clerks from the eastern side of the region asked for and received some major alterations in the wards to allow for a better balance of the suburban and rural split on the east side of the river. Where cooperation was sought, it was, I believe, rewarded. The new regional council will have the same opportunity to review and change its ward boundaries, as all Ontario municipalities currently do, for the following municipal elections.

The Legislature of Ontario has the onerous task of providing people in Ontario with a good framework for municipal government. This task is difficult, because we do not elect local representatives, but we do determine local and regional structures. Provincial legislation will never provide perfect regional government. We don't pretend that to be the case, but we are pretending that we will be able to do all that we can. We will provide simpler, more accountable, more accessible and probably much better government.

It's quite an accomplishment, quite a long time coming, quite a great deal of work that's been involved in getting to this point, and I'm proud as a member of this government to support it.

I know that there is strong support for this bill in the region, such groups as the federation of community associations, the board of trade, elected representatives from across the region and most social service groups. They've been giving us one basic message repeatedly: They want us to pass this bill and to get it over with, to finish this process.

We have had support from significant members of all three political parties from all parts of that region. This is a bill that speaks to the needs of that region, that has the support of the majority of the people of that region. After the lengthy and hard work that's been involved, I think it deserves the support of this whole House. We have had the debate, we have had this process; I think it's time for us now to get on with it.

The Acting Speaker: Questions or comments?

Mr Daigeler: Frankly, it almost makes me sick to my stomach to hear a member from Durham Centre, and then the minister, who is from Etobicoke-Rexdale, telling us, the people who represent the Ottawa-Carleton area, how we feel and how the people of Ottawa-Carleton feel about this bill. Did you ever go to Ottawa-Carleton and speak to the people in Ottawa-Carleton, and I mean not just to Ottawa? Did you or the minister ever have the guts to come to Nepean and talk to the people of Nepean? Did you ever come out to Kanata? Did you ever go out to Gloucester? Did you ever go to any of the smaller rural municipalities?

Interjection.

Mr Daigeler: Yes, you have listened. You have listened to the member for Ottawa Centre. She represents downtown Ottawa, and she represents apparently the NDP view that tramples on the rights of the smaller municipalities.

You're talking about representation by population. I really did not think I was going to hear the NDP, which is supposed to defend the interests of the smaller people, adopt this approach in a way that's totally un-Canadian. If you apply these principles, we wouldn't have a Canada. Talk about Prince Edward Island. What's that in relationship, in terms of population, to the province of Ontario? Still we give them, and rightfully so, a proper place in the House of Commons, we give them a proper place in the Senate, because the Canadian way is to respect the minorities and to make sure that even the guy who is larger and bigger gives a chance to the guy who is smaller so that especially the rural municipalities and other municipalities can have their voice heard, and through consensus, not through coercion in the way you are trying to propose it. Shame on you, to hear that from the NDP.

The Acting Speaker: Further questions or comments.

Mr Sterling: Well, the member for Nepean took the words out of my mouth in terms of --

Interjections.

Mr Sterling: You should really not be diverted by the minister when he talks about the village of Rockcliffe and 2,500 population, because that's not in the equation. Kirby did not recommend that the mayor of Rockcliffe sit on regional council. Regional council did not recommend to the minister, after looking at the Kirby report, that the mayor of Rockcliffe sit on regional council. So the mayor of Rockcliffe, in terms of this discussion, is really irrelevant.

What you're talking about are people -- the smallest population, when you take the village of Rockcliffe out, is about 14,000 people, and then you jump to places which have 14,000 to 20,000, and there's about six municipalities like that, and then there are a couple at 50,000 and then there are a couple at about 120,000. Those are the kinds of population figures.

If you want to sit down, I'd like to hear what the populations of the various sectors of Durham are. I'll bet you they're not much different than the kinds of population bases I'm talking about.

If in fact that's the case, if in fact your smallest municipality is 14,000 and you go up to larger municipalities like Oshawa, which would be, what, 150,000 or 200,000, I believe all those mayors sit on regional councils, do they not? Well, then, let's do what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Mr White: That's right.

Mr Sterling: Take all the mayors off Durham. Is that what you're recommending? I assume that's what you're recommending. That's what I would like to know. Is this government for taking mayors off all regional councils?

Mr Mike Cooper (Kitchener-Wilmot): Something like that.

Mr Sterling: And Mr Cooper agrees. Thank you very much.

Hon Mr Philip: I want to congratulate the member on an excellent presentation that I think brought out a number of points: first of all, that this has been studied at great length, that two different governments had held studies, and that if there wasn't a problem, they wouldn't have spent all that money on those extensive studies; secondly, that it is now time to act and that in fact David Bartlett has said over and over again, at the time we announced and showed him the bill and indeed he said it on all of the media in Ottawa-Carleton, that if he had his report to do over again, he would have chosen the solution of taking the mayors off of the regional council in order to have a basic democratic system, which is representation by population.

1650

Some of the opposition members last week said: "Well, what about the Treasurer? He represents some 25,000 population and it's one vote." He also represents a geographical area of 40,000 square miles. There is no municipality, there is no ward under this system that is more than 50 kilometres from one end to the other, so to compare that to a 40,000-square-mile area of geography, or indeed if we get into the riding of Lake Nipigon where it's the size of what used to be West Germany, then one is simply raising a whole lot of red herrings.

The issue of funding has come up, and indeed there is transitional funding. We announced that there would be transitional funding immediately to study the communications costs. There are committees that are looking at what is needed in transitional funding, and it would be irresponsible of this government to announce a figure until those studies are in. But we have promised transitional funding; there will be transitional funding there. We're not going to throw money away without first of all knowing what the exact costs are.

Mr Stockwell: I just want to pick up on one rather interesting point. There seems to be some debate now with respect to rep by pop. The minister stands in his place and suggests the reason and the rationale for this kind of decision-making is representation by population. When the same applicable logic is applied to the provincial Legislature, the minister seems to suggest: "Don't bother me with representation by population. Don't argue with me about population. What comes into play at the provincial level is not rep by pop but rep by land mass." That appears to be the defence offered up by this minister when it comes to the boundaries of our own ridings.

With all due respect, there must be some consistency on that side of the House. Either you believe in representation by population or you don't. At this level, he doesn't. At the municipal level, he does.

The same arguments may be made, may I suggest, at the municipal level with respect to land mass and representation, and how much of an area a certain councillor or mayor-reeve may represent. If the argument can be made provincially, which seems to suit your purpose, why then will you not accept it at municipal level?

It seems that this minister speaks out of both sides of his mouth, depending on what election, what politician and what jurisdiction we're talking about. It's either rep by pop or it's not, and if it's rep by pop municipally, it should have the same consistent opinion provincially. We don't have it provincially. He said the Treasurer represents a huge land mass, but he won't take that into consideration at the local level.

I think the rep by pop is truly a red herring offered up by this minister, because if he truly believed it, he would see the Legislature very different today than it is.

The Acting Speaker: That completes questions and comments. The honourable member for Durham Centre has two minutes in response.

Mr White: I understand my colleague from Nepean's concern about shame. I'm sure he has difficulty when he looks at the dissonance in his own caucus about this bill, the way in which some members of caucus are on one side and some on the other.

The issue that my friend from Carleton mentions of equity, of fairness: Yes, he's right. This is a government that stands wholeheartedly behind principles of equity and fairness. He suggests that perhaps Durham region should similarly have some reform so that there's a greater representation, and I certainly wouldn't disagree with him on that score one little bit.

The issue of what area has the greatest inequity is an important one. If it happens to be Ottawa-Carleton, why, by Jiminy, perhaps that's the area we should start in terms of reform.

The issue proponents of inequity put forth is: "It's traditional. We've always had inequity. We've had inequity for the last 25 years in Ottawa-Carleton and we should continue to have it. We should always have a tradition like that." It's hard to change a boat as it's going down the stream.

Well, I think the time has come for us to change that, for us to offer the people of Ottawa-Carleton greater equity, greater fairness, simplicity, greater accountability and more effectiveness in terms of their government. Those are issues this government stands wholeheartedly behind.

I know my friend would like to see a preservation of inequity in his region, but I'm not sure -- in fact, we know the people of his region clearly want to have reform that is responsive to what they need, not just those needs of a minority.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mrs Yvonne O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau): I begin by holding in my hand the letter written to the electorate and potential candidates for municipal office in Ottawa-Carleton.

Mr Daigeler: And it's very close to contempt of the Legislature.

Mrs O'Neill: A letter that today has been described by our Speaker as close to contempt. This letter was placed as a full-page advertisement in local daily and weekly papers in February of this year, and I ask, at what cost to the Ontario taxpayer?

In this open letter, the minister thanks the citizens of Ottawa-Carleton for their active participation in discussions. The minister seems to be -- I repeat seems to be -- attempting to make the people of Ottawa-Carleton believe they had an opportunity, a real opportunity, to participate in the discussions of Bill 77 or, as we now call it, Bill 143, with which we are dealing.

The minister, in this expensive letter, paid for by the taxpayer, indicated that he would amend Bill 77. Bill 143 is much more than an amendment to Bill 77. It is, as you know, an entirely new bill. This ad, this letter, are hypocrisy -- I repeat: hypocrisy. The minister says, in both his infamous letter and in some of his remarks, "Both candidates and officials will have adequate time to prepare for this year's elections." That is the minister's opinion.

Perhaps, in the best-case scenario, some candidates will have adequate time but I ask, and I consider it important, will the electorate of Ottawa-Carleton be given an opportunity to identify the changes which will determine who will represent them, and will officials be able to implement this bill, not yet passed, in an efficient manner? Will the electorate have due time to familiarize themselves with new boundaries that determine the councillors they will elect, both regionally and locally?

Bill 143 now envelops the school boards of Ottawa-Carleton, which were never consulted about their inclusion in this broad-brush legislation. A golden opportunity passed in the fall of 1993 in the Bourns report, and these discussions could have been included at that time. With tongue in cheek, I note that the minister is guaranteeing us, the residents of Ottawa-Carleton, that the bill will be law well in advance of the closing date for nominations; again I remind you, close to contempt.

Why is Ottawa-Carleton being singled out as we approach the municipal and school board elections of 1994? Bill 143 addresses the difficult transition period for this legislation. In subsection 27(1) the bill states, "Despite this or any other act, the minister may, by regulation, provide for transitional matters which, in the opinion of the minister, are necessary or expedient to conduct the 1994 regular elections...in...Ottawa-Carleton."

What uncertainty, what centralization, what lack of consideration. "Despite this or any other act": The jackboot minister is in a hurry. The minister, by order, is to determine the number of regional wards, the date for the boundary decisions as well as the boundaries of regional wards and local wards, and perhaps most insulting of all, the minister has given himself the power to determine the name or number of each regional or local ward.

1700

Are we talking about increasing ministerial powers or are we speaking about a more responsive and responsible government for Ottawa-Carleton? That's the question.

After all those decisions are made by this very busy minister, and after the 1994 municipal election is over, the OMB, in making future decisions on governance in Ottawa-Carleton, is to be governed by the following principles: the presence or absence of a community of interest, topographical features, special geographical considerations. But these principles are not going to be guaranteed for the 1994 election, certainly not, and we can give you some very good examples.

"Insensitive" is the kindest word I can think of to describe the way in which Ottawa-Carleton is being asked to lockstep into whatever idea the minister has on any given day about what is "necessary or expedient" for the people of Ottawa-Carleton. We continue to hear "in the opinion of the minister," but the opportunity for the people of Ottawa-Carleton to present their opinions is visibly absent from the discussions.

In my opinion, the short time frames, the confusion which surrounds this legislation and the transition period leading up to its implementation are extremely unfair to the people whose daily lives will be affected by it. Now we're at the 11th hour. Not only were the ratepayers of Ottawa-Carleton not included when they could have been under the original Bill 77, but now, less than six months before the close of nominations for the 1994 municipal elections, they are being presented with a new bill. What is the hurry? What is the real agenda?

I have to ask what specific knowledge of the concerns of Ottawa-Carleton the minister will be using to determine his opinion on the necessities or expediencies as described by this bill. The minister has made but one brief visit to Ottawa-Carleton. In the summer of 1993, on the very day he was introducing Bill 77 in this House, he came for but a short visit. Since that time, there has been no response to numerous requests for further meetings by the citizens of Ottawa-Carleton; no response to requests for hearings that have come from citizens or members of this Legislature; no response to requests for a referendum. In fact, many citizens of Ottawa-Carleton believe the minister does not want to consult with the public on this issue.

Citizens for Good Government, a group which represents various community organizations from across the whole region of Ottawa-Carleton, believes that Bill 143 "is not reflective of the best interests of our community. It should not be forgotten that this echo comes from the east, from the west and from the south, and from several pockets of Ottawa" itself.

To reinforce the unresponsiveness of the minister to this very important issue, the corporation of the township of West Carleton and the corporation of the city of Nepean have recently passed resolutions which state that the Minister of Municipal Affairs "refuses to discuss or negotiate alterations to Bill 77," "has ignored the recommendations of all of [his] own consultants," "has ignored studies indicating the increased costs," and "he intend[s] to introduce some changes... but does not intend to provide details." Those were recent meetings of councils affected. I ask, is this what this minister and the government he represents consider as adequate consultation?

The Residents' Association of Nepean, a community of Carleton Heights, said in a letter to the minister recently: "We do not believe that Bill 77 reflects what the majority of people in this area said to Mr Kirby when there were local consultations. Where is your mandate to make such radical changes to local governments which are working very well?"

The board of trustees of Nepean Museum "has serious concerns with regard to the impact this bill will have on local government and specifically with respect to local autonomy, political representation, financial accountability and police services," pretty important issues in our community.

As my colleague the member for Ottawa East said in his remarks last Thursday, Citizens for Good Government note that: "Mr Philip states that Bill 77 is based upon the Kirby report. The Kirby report does not recommend the restructuring of local government in the Ottawa-Carleton area at this time, nor does he suggest that lower-tier representation be removed from regional council. Mr Philip's legislation is in conflict with the very report he commissioned."

The minister does not realize, or perhaps he does, that he is ignoring tradition, ignoring history and ignoring local governments, which have a 76% satisfaction rating as determined by Coopers and Lybrand in its studies as prepared for the Kirby report. Without local input, without local ownership, once again, the NDP commitment to open, accessible and accountable government is left seriously wanting.

In debating Bill 143 we ask ourselves a fundamental question: When in Canadian history have changes to municipal electoral boundaries and government restructuring been made within the same year as a municipal election, let alone within six months or less than six months to the call of the election?

Even as late as last month the minister himself stated, "I will be releasing further details on the 1994 election process in Ottawa-Carleton once Bill 77 receives royal assent." Imagine, we have to wait for royal assent to know the details of Bill 143, or Bill 77, which will fundamentally change ward boundaries, representation, communities of interest and natural community groupings.

Yet the minister will not take responsibility for his own delays. To quote again from the minister's famous full-page ad, "I'm calling on the opposition members of the Legislature to cooperate in seeing that this legislation is implemented."

You know and I know and everyone else knows that the bottom line is that if this legislation were a government priority, it would have passed last December. It would be law now, and the people of Ottawa-Carleton would not now, just six months before a municipal election, be presented with retroactive solutions, new ward boundaries and mountains and mountains of confusion.

I turn now to the issue of removing the mayors unilaterally from regional government, a major issue in this debate. In a letter to the minister dated September 14, 1993, the mayor of the city of Gloucester says, "Without the mayors, regional council will not be accountable to nor representative of the local municipal corporations, as the mayors are CEOs of the corporations."

The mayor of West Carleton presents his case, "At no time during the public meetings with Mr Kirby did our ratepayers support removal of the mayors from regional government." In fact, in his report he stressed the importance of the continuation of the mayors on regional council, as did Graham and Bartlett before him.

The Federation of Canadian Municipalities has told this group of mayors, "There is no county, region or district council anywhere in Canada which does not have mayors sitting on it."

Bill 143 provides no direct link between regional government and local municipalities. This is indeed a major, major change, and I consider it a major, major error and weakness, a major change in accountability, a major change in cost controls, a major change in equitable distribution of economic development across the municipalities, a major shift in our community and its patterns, traditions and history.

A councillor of Ottawa asks, "Is it not ironic that after a tumultuous social contract year in 1993 the NDP government can justify an additional $1.8-million expenditure?"

It's generally accepted that the new cost of regional councillors and their increased staff complement will add to the tax burden. There is certainly no proof that there will be a better level of accountability. There is no proof that this reform, so-called, will result in more efficient government or that the quality of government will improve in Ottawa-Carleton.

1710

Toronto city council at its December 13 and 14, 1993, meeting added its voice to the growing number of municipal bodies expressing serious concerns about the ramifications of Bill 143. At that meeting Toronto city council requested the Minister of Municipal Affairs to withdraw the bill.

On August 5, 1993, the president of AMO wrote to the minister "to express the association's grave concerns regarding the manner in which the province is proceeding with the reforms to regional government in Ottawa-Carleton," saying that, "AMO opposes any proposed upper-tier reform legislation which excludes the heads of councils from voting representation on the upper-tier council unless requested by local municipalities."

The president of AMO went on to say: "In the past, the province has consistently indicated that it has no intention of forcing reform on municipalities. Yet in the case of Ottawa-Carleton, the province has announced that it intends to proceed with a significant package of reforms, apparently without regard for the local level of support for those reforms."

That is the action of the NDP government. This new legislation confirms the worst fears of all of these people. It vests the real power in the hands of the regional level of government, and I quote from the bill,

"The regional council of the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton may pass bylaws exercising its authority...with respect to works owned or operated by or on behalf of any person including an area municipality or local board thereof as if the works were regional works." How all-encompassing this may become is anyone's guess.

This bill goes on to stipulate in subsection 84.1(2): "The regional council...may pass bylaws regulating the design, construction, operation and maintenance of works owned or operated by or on behalf of any person, including an area municipality or local board thereof."

These are but examples of the kind of centralized power that this bill represents. Elected representatives and many, many of their taxpayers at the local level fear that their ability to serve the communities which elected them will be seriously eroded by this centralization of power and authority.

Another area of great interest surrounding Bill 143 is that regional wards will, for the first time in Ottawa-Carleton, cross municipal boundaries. But it's more important to note also that Bill 143 suspends local councils' legislative right to develop local ward boundaries. Nowhere else in Ontario has any council been denied this legislative entitlement.

This initiative ignored natural boundaries, community identities and traditional communities of interest. The establishment of ward boundaries has now become a totally Queen's Park solution. Candidates who have already registered to stand for a particular office will now be permitted or required to register for a new office yet to be created by this bill.

Is this responsible government, I ask? Is this better government, I ask? Is this fair to the people of Ottawa-Carleton? The suspension of statutory rights to establish ward boundaries, the destruction of the vital link between regional and local government, the absence of municipal control over costs which will impact on residents: Many, many people in my community are asking why and why now of Bill 143.

We, not one of us in Ottawa-Carleton, have access to any definitive data on tax implications or on the cost of Bill 143. Tax implications or cost are very important issues in a decision of this magnitude. No doubt we're just expected again to take one giant leap of faith in this NDP government.

A group called the Citizens for Fair Taxes sent a letter to the Premier on September 26, 1993, reporting on the results of a public meeting they held to examine some of the implications of Bill 77. They told the Premier,

"It was the consensus of the meeting...to formally request that you withhold further reading of this bill until the full net costs and tax implications have been clarified and regional taxpayers," the people who foot the bill, "have been consulted."

A rather reasonable request, wouldn't you think, Mr Speaker? But not one public hearing or public meeting has been provided by this NDP government as this made-in-Toronto solution, first Bill 77, now Bill 143, is to be imposed on us.

There is no convincing evidence that we will see better government, no guarantees that the administrative bureaucracy will not enlarge and certainly there is no guarantee that performance will be improved or that costs and taxes will be reduced.

As I mentioned earlier, Bill 143 adds school boards, and the French-language school board in particular, to an already complex piece of legislation. Although the changes to the French-language school board are what our constituents requested, the major trouble of trusteeship in the French-language school board, the major problem of trusteeship, the inability of a board duly elected to represent its constituents, is not even mentioned in this legislation, nor is the deficit question, that is becoming much, much broader-based, solution to be found in this legislation; again, no mention. Many people in our community are very concerned on these two matters, and indeed, they consider them constitutional matters Bill 143 ignores.

This bill, as described by a prominent member of our local chamber of commerce, results in a more centralized, a more formal, a more distant, a less accessible, much larger and perhaps less accountable government, a government further removed from its people.

As I close, I ask again, where is the widespread support for this bill that the minister continues to talk about? My correspondence, which continues to increase, tracks just the opposite.

I would urge this government and especially the Minister of Municipal Affairs and the member for Ottawa Centre to rethink their position. Listen to the people of Ottawa-Carleton. Give all of the people of Ottawa-Carleton a real chance to express themselves on Bill 143. We must have public hearings in Ottawa-Carleton. The democratic process demands no less. Municipalities right across this province are requesting public hearings on this bill.

Ontario is watching. AMO is watching. The people of Ontario are watching. Democracy must be served. We must have the ability to hear the voices of the people of Ottawa-Carleton on this bill that is going to affect them so greatly.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Margaret H. Harrington): Thank you to the member for Ottawa-Rideau. Questions and/or comments? The member for Don Mills.

Mr David Johnson: I'd like to congratulate the member for Ottawa-Rideau, particularly with regard to the finish. I think that's the important aspect here. I would urge the minister and the government members to listen to this -- the aspect of having a public hearing. The municipal government is the most important government to most people. It delivers the grass-roots services that people need, and consequently it's of supreme importance to them.

If we're going to set in place through this Legislature a new form of municipal government, then it is most important that it be debated, discussed, with the local people to make sure there is the support, because I've found -- and I think I'm hearing from the back benches, "How many more discussions or how many more debates do we have?" We've had reports but we haven't had -- and this has been pointed out time and time again here this afternoon even -- a public hearing with the people on this proposal, in particular the aspect of leaving the mayors off the regional council, destroying that linkage that exists all across the rest of this province. In all other cases municipal councils have that linkage with the regional council -- they have the mayors on the regional council, they have reeves, or some form of representation -- and here is a first.

1720

Now, does it not behoove us to discuss this, to understand the ramifications? It's not without reason that the linkage is there. That linkage supplies the communication between the region and the local governments so that they work together closely for the most important services of the people. The member is saying we need to have that discussion with the people of Ottawa-Carleton, and I hope that can be achieved.

Mr White: I recall earlier this afternoon when there was an announcement about a resolution of a very important labour dispute in our province, good news for the people of Ontario, a guarantee of security of the power and the efficiencies that they have been looking for.

When I looked opposite, did I see members pleased, smiling, clapping, standing? No. They were uniformly glum; glum because the province of Ontario's economic safety and security was guaranteed by the efficient operation of this government. That efficiency, the accessibility, the accountability, is a hallmark of our government, and uniformly the members opposite in the official opposition have been opposed to the reforms that the people of Ottawa-Carleton have in turn again and again requested. I think the issues of accountability, of efficiency, of fairness and equity are things which our party and our government understand full well.

My friend from Ottawa-Rideau spoke of consultation. We have heard for years -- how many reports? -- from Mayo, from Bartlett, from Graham, from Kirby, from Bourns, all of these extensive, expensive reports, all of this extensive consultation. On the one hand my friend would say we haven't had enough consultation, and then in the next breath I'm sure she will tell us that far too much money has been spent on this consultation.

The people of Ottawa-Rideau have been consulted. They want to see action, they want to see efficiencies. Just as the people of Ontario are pleased that hydro and power is guaranteed to them by the good workings of our government, so do the people of Ottawa-Carleton want more efficient and accessible government.

Mr Daigeler: I just want to say very briefly in reaction to what the member for Ottawa-Rideau said that she started out by pointing out what the NDP concept of fairness and equity is, of which the member for Durham Centre speaks so proudly. Well, we heard that today by the ruling of the Speaker, and the member for Ottawa-Rideau made clear reference to that.

Here's what the Speaker said: "...I want to say to the minister that this action" -- and that's the information that the minister put out in a $10,000 advertising campaign to the people of Ottawa-Carleton -- "has come very close to contempt, and in the future the minister should exercise more caution and exhibit greater respect for the proprieties of this House."

This is the Speaker; this is not me. This is the Speaker of this Legislature. That's what he's saying about the actions of this government and about the actions of this minister. If the minister had any integrity he would have stood up today and would have apologized for saying what he did in this particular ad. His assistant is falling for the line that the minister has given to him and that the Minister of Housing, the member for Ottawa Centre, also has given to him: that the people of Ottawa-Carleton are in favour. They're not. The people of Ottawa may be in favour, and even of those not all of them.

The member for Ottawa Centre is in favour, yes, because I guess she figured out that to get re-elected perhaps that's the only chance to get the people from Ottawa Centre behind her. Well, I can tell you, the people from Nepean -- and I'll put that on the record as soon as I get an opportunity -- the people from Kanata, the people from Gloucester, the people from Cumberland, and so on and so on are not in favour. If you had at least looked at your correspondence and if the minister had looked at his correspondence, he would never have issued the ad he put forward.

The Acting Speaker: The member's time has expired. Further questions or comments? The member for Brant-Haldimand.

Hon Mr Philip: Are we not rotating?

The Acting Speaker: Excuse me. Yes, the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

Hon Mr Philip: The member for Ottawa-Rideau gives the impression that only mayors can represent local government on the upper tier. Well, we have a county system where a majority of counties, with one exception I can think of, do not have mayors on the upper tier.

The thrust of her statement was that somehow people who believe in this legislation, who believe in the thrust we are taking, are not listening to the people of Ottawa-Carleton. If that is the case, I guess Dalton McGuinty, the member for Ottawa South, a Liberal member, and indeed Mr Chiarelli, another member of the Liberal Party, have clearly come out in their press release and indeed have said so publicly, as late as, in the case of Mr McGuinty, in meetings this week, that they are in support of the bill. If members of this government are not listening to the people of Ottawa-Carleton, there are two members on that side of the House.

The Liberal Party likes to have it both ways. They like to have three different positions on a bill so that each of them can go to different parts of the province and say, "We're on your side, people; we're going to do what you want," and then you go over a few miles away and there's another Liberal member saying: "That may be the position, but I'm really on your side. I believe in this."

What we're talking about is fairness. We're talking about fairness for the people in Ottawa-Carleton, a majority of whom are paying for policing and cannot understand why a municipality next to them, a municipality that may have twice the population, in fact is not paying a cent. That's fairness. Obviously, the Liberal Party doesn't believe in fairness; they don't believe in equalization when it comes to taxation. Neither does the Conservative Party, that of course historically has always stood for vested interests in this province.

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

Mr Ron Eddy (Brant-Haldimand): On a point of order, Madam Speaker: Do we not have time for another speaker? We've been having more --

The Acting Speaker: We have had four questions and/or comments and now the original speaker has two minutes to respond.

Mr Eddy: I just wanted to ask the minister to withdraw those remarks about the Liberal Party, if he would.

Mrs O'Neill: If the minister's party, the NDP, had more than one member from Ottawa-Carleton, he might find that not every member from Ottawa-Carleton agreed with him, but he doesn't have that situation.

As far as I know, neither the member for Ottawa West nor the member for Ottawa South have spoken on Bill 143 in this House, so we will wait to see what they say.

I also must correct the member from Durham when he suggests that I did not respond to the settlement for Hydro in this province today. The settlement was reached beyond the floor of this Legislature, and I respond that we will now be able to continue the service to the people of Ontario.

My points today are based on some fundamental principles, that there is no community of ownership across the whole of Ottawa-Carleton for this bill. I happen to represent a riding that bridges three cities in this particular jurisdiction: Ottawa, Nepean and Gloucester. Members of my Ottawa community certainly are having some difficulties with boundaries of some of the wards that have been assigned to them. If Mr Philip, the minister, would read some of the local newspapers, he would see that people do not agree totally with what he is suggesting.

The main concern of the people of Ottawa-Carleton, if I may suggest, is the indeterminate cost of this bill. We have no idea how much the councillors are going to be paid, for starters. We have no idea what kind of office and staff they're going to have. We have no idea of what the transitional fees are going to be, except perhaps some broad idea of what regional policing is going to entail, but even there things are pretty, pretty foggy.

The school boards have been thrown in, and, as I suggest, the major problems have not been addressed.

1730

The Acting Speaker: We have further debate with regard to Bill 143. The member for Don Mills has the floor.

Mr David Johnson: Today, people in Ontario are demanding government that is more efficient, more effective, more accountable, less wasteful, less complicated and less intrusive into their lives. I believe that government services can be provided in a cost-efficient and an accessible manner by the government that, first, is capable of delivering those services but, second, is closest to the people of the province of Ontario. Consequently, I feel that those services should be delivered as far as possible by local councils. What we should be doing in this Legislature is strengthening local councils and promoting strong local government to ensure a solid and cooperative working relationship at the municipal level. Sadly, I must say that Bill 143 fails to do that.

Interjections.

Mr David Johnson: I can hear the catcalling from the other side of the Legislature. I think that's the sign of a guilty conscience.

Bill 143 fails through the process, and we have been talking about the process here this afternoon on many occasions. Many speakers have alluded to the fact that the people of Ottawa-Carleton haven't had an opportunity to debate some of the most serious aspects of this bill. I know the government is fond of saying there has been a number of studies: the Kirby study, the Graham study, the Bartlett study. All these studies have taken place over the last half a dozen years or so, but the fact remains that some of the key recommendations before us today in Bill 143 have not been taken to the people of Ottawa-Carleton; recommendations such as leaving the mayors off the regional council, destroying that traditional linkage that has existed here in the province, that has existed in the Ottawa-Carleton region, that has existed across Canada, that linkage with regional governments.

The minister says that not all regional governments have mayors on the regional council, but that's semantics, because there is strong representation everywhere else in Ontario on the regional councils, whether it's through reeves, deputy reeves or mayors. That is a fact. I'm sure the minister would have to acknowledge that.

So the process up to this point has not been thorough, it's not been satisfactory, it hasn't involved the people whose lives are going to be most affected. The member for Nepean has asked: Has the minister been to Ottawa-Carleton? Has the minister talked to the people?

Mr Daigeler: He's been to Ottawa but never to Nepean.

Mr David Johnson: Has he been to Nepean? The answer is no. Has he been to Kanata? I don't know. Perhaps the minister will respond to this.

Mr Daigeler: He hasn't.

Mr David Johnson: I'm told that no, he hasn't; he hasn't talked to the people in Kanata, he hasn't talked to the people in Nepean. I wonder if he's talked to the people in Cumberland.

Mr George Dadamo (Windsor-Sandwich): We live in Canada.

Mr David Johnson: We live in Kanata? Has the minister been to Kanata, a thriving city of over 100,000 people?

Mr Daigeler: What about Osgoode? Has he been to Stittsville?

Mr David Johnson: Stittsville, which I understand is going to be cut in two by a boundary --

Mr Daigeler: Smack down the middle of the city.

Mr David Johnson: -- smack down the middle of Stittsville. The proposal is that a riding boundary go smack down the middle of Stittsville and split the community in two. Has he been to Stittsville to talk to the people of Stittsville? I can tell by his inattention that he hasn't.

Mr Daigeler: He doesn't care about the people.

Mr David Johnson: The member for Nepean says, "He doesn't care about the people." I hope that's not true, Minister. You're being accused of not caring about the people. But if we don't take this very important legislation to the people and talk to them about it and get their views, those kinds of accusations will come up. Perhaps the best way to address that is to take the committee work into the region, to go into Kanata and to go into Nepean and to go into all of these 11 municipalities and have a good discussion with them. But I think I'm whistling in the breeze, as they say. I don't think that's going to happen. They'll be very disappointed.

Secondly, we have seen a very recent revision that has renumbered this bill from Bill 77 to Bill 143 to permit the division of the French public school system from the French separate school system in terms of having two different boards and two different structures all the way up. I must say that's come up within the last couple of weeks. The official announcement I guess was within the last week. Hardly anybody has any input on that.

The basic information that I have is that in fact this may be a positive move, but it's rather a comment on the state of affairs of this whole bill that we have last-minute changes. The minister was hoping to ram this through last year. Had he done that, of course, then the French school system wouldn't be before us today. But since cooler heads prevailed, this issue is before us. But still, there's been no feedback on it, no opportunity for debate.

Thirdly, the main problem with this bill involves the actual recommendations, and that's where I'll be spending most of my time. The structure that's being set up is just not satisfactory to the majority of the people, a majority of the municipalities. There's tremendous opposition to what is being proposed by the minister. I know that the member for Durham Centre is a good party member and he has outlined some of the support that's here.

Mr Daigeler: He's the parliamentary assistant; he has to do it.

Mr David Johnson: A good parliamentary assistant, I'm reminded by the member for Nepean.

Mr Daigeler: That's what he gets paid for.

Mr David Johnson: He's paid for this, the member for Nepean says, and he's done his job in an excellent fashion. But the truth is that there's far more opposition to this bill, and it has been alluded to here today. I'll just remind the member for Durham Centre of the opposition, and I'll remind the minister too now, because I sense he's looking.

First, there is the Association of Municipalities of Ontario. It passed a resolution. I read the resolution. It says, "The Association of Municipalities of Ontario opposes any proposed upper-tier reform legislation which excludes the heads of council" -- in this case the mayors -- "from voting representation on the upper-tier council, unless requested by the local municipalities." I can assure you that the local municipalities have certainly not requested that course of action.

There we have the Association of Municipalities of Ontario asking that this not be proceeded with. Mind you, this is not the first instance within the last short period of time that this provincial government has ignored the position of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario. That association, I suspect, is becoming rather concerned that it represents so many people, such a huge percentage -- I think about 90% of the province of Ontario is represented through its members, if I recall accurately -- and yet two key issues within the last short period of time have been rejected by this government: the bill that's before us today, Bill 143, and Bill 120, which was debated here this afternoon.

The association of municipalities has told this government time and time again, as has each and every municipality, including in this case the city of Ottawa, I might add, that this government is going in the wrong direction on Bill 120. But this government does not heed the advice of municipalities. This government is not heeding the advice of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario.

In addition, I'm pleased to say that both of the municipalities that I represent -- the city of North York and the city of East York -- are on record as saying that this structure of government, this fact of leaving the mayors off the regional government, is the wrong way to go. Both East York and North York are opposed. Etobicoke is opposed. Scarborough is opposed. Uxbridge is opposed. Belleville and Fort Erie are opposed. All of these municipalities are opposed.

Since I have the attention of the member for Durham Centre, I won't read all of these, but I will say that the town of Newcastle is opposed, Ajax, Fort Erie -- I think I mentioned Fort Erie before -- Aurora, Orillia, Richmond Hill, Grimsby, Sault Ste Marie.

1740

Hon Mr Philip: Give us a break.

Mr David Johnson: This opposition, Minister, is straight across the province of Ontario.

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): Wellington county's opposed.

Mr David Johnson: Wellington county's opposed, Brampton, St Catharines, Timmins, Woodstock. The minister says give him a break, that these municipalities are not opposed. There are records. There are letters on file, records on file.

Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): They didn't know what they were voting for.

Mr David Johnson: The member for Durham West says the municipalities did not know what they were voting for. That is typical of the approach of this government to municipalities: They do not know what they're doing, municipalities who, I might say to the member for Durham West, if you take a poll of the people of the province of Ontario -- and I've seen these polls on many occasions -- their opinion of who provides the best government, the most efficient government, the government that they're happiest with, it is easily the local councils, the councils that I've just read out, the councils that you say don't know what they're voting for.

Those are the governments in this country that people are happiest with and feel they get their best value from. But you don't think they know what they're talking about. I can tell you, they know what's going on. The local governments know what's going on. They know what they're voting for. They know better than anybody else.

Interjection.

Mr David Johnson: I might add to the member, who's somewhat exercised by this revelation, that the provincial government is well down that same satisfaction list, below --

Mr White: A lot higher than the federal government, my friend.

Mr David Johnson: Yes, higher than the federal government, I'll give it to the member for Durham Centre. That's some comparison, but there you are. You're higher than the federal government, just barely, but you are higher than the federal government. But you are below all the municipal governments and all the regional governments. Those are the governments that people are happy with.

So listen to these governments. Listen to what they're saying. They have the ear of the people, they represent the people, and this is the government where you are putting in place a structure and it's going to be harmful, and that's what they're saying to you.

So where does the support come from? It doesn't even come from Ottawa-Carleton itself, the region itself. The region of Ottawa-Carleton itself, the region that through this bill we're giving more -- I have here in my hand --

Mr Wiseman: The mayor of Ottawa --

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr David Johnson: I'm going to have to say to the member for Durham West --

Mr Wiseman: Centre.

Mr David Johnson: Durham Centre. I wish you two wouldn't sit together. I'm going to have to say to the member for Durham Centre, there is a distinction between Ottawa-Carleton region and the city of Ottawa. They're two different governments.

Mr Daigeler: You better say that again. They have a hard time understanding that.

Mr David Johnson: The member for Nepean says they don't understand that. I believe he does. I believe he understands that.

The region of Ottawa-Carleton, in recommendation 11, says that in the makeup of the council, it is recommended that the size of the new regional council should be 29 members, and those 29 members should be the 18 councillors directly elected, yes. But in addition the 10 local area mayors should be on there as well, excluding the mayor from Rockcliffe Park. The 10 mayors should be on. That's what the region says itself. This is the level of government we are trying to accommodate, and they want the mayors on themselves.

There is so much opposition to this, I wondered who was actually in support. We've heard a list of about I think, what, half a dozen -- well, Ottawa itself and --

Mr Arnott: Evelyn Gigantes.

Mr David Johnson: Evelyn Gigantes -- the member for Ottawa Centre, I should say -- and about a half a dozen other people or organizations.

I requested the Ministry of Municipal Affairs: "Please send to me all the letters in support of this new proposal. Would you send them to me? I would like to be aware of them." Do you know what response I got? "Sorry, it's confidential. We can't give you that information. It's confidential." Now, what would be confidential in letters in support of the government's proposal? That boggles my mind. I don't know. So we put in for a freedom of information, and hopefully that information will come.

My suspicion, though, I might say, is that there is some embarrassment that there really is very little support on record for this proposal, and that's what the government is concerned about divulging.

Mr White: I've always thought you were a suspicious man.

Mr David Johnson: You can say I'm a suspicious man. I'm going to read you an article from the Municipal Monitor. This is an article in the February-March edition of this year, 1994, a very, very recent article. If I was a suspicious person, this is what I would think. This article in the Municipal Monitor says: "One of the most frightening things about this legislation is the popular belief that the province wants one-tier government but lacks the political will to implement it. As a result, they have created a hybrid which is so unworkable the electorate will get frustrated and demand one-tier government."

Mr White: How old is that?

Mr David Johnson: February-March 1994, very current, Municipal Monitor. Look it up. Here it is.

I ask the government, is that what's behind this? I hope not, because if it is, I might say that one-tier government has been tried in Canada.

Mr Wiseman: I'm just trying to sort out what you're thinking.

Mr David Johnson: The member for Durham West has, I think, said that one-tier government's less costly.

Mr Wiseman: I didn't say that. I tried to figure out what you're trying to say.

Mr David Johnson: What I'm trying to say --

The Acting Speaker: Order. Your remarks should be directed through the Chair. Thank you.

Mr David Johnson: Through the Chair, Madam Speaker, there is a suspicion, since this form of government makes so little sense without having the linkage between the regional council and the local council, those mayors who will make this level of government work, that there's another agenda here, and the other agenda is to bring in one-tier government in Ottawa-Carleton.

If that's so, then I'm most disappointed. I might simply and quickly point out the example in Winnipeg where that was tried many years ago. Three decades ago, there was a similar proposal structure to what's being suggested here by the current government. It was put in place. It was such a failure. There was so much of conflict between the regional government and the local government at that time, because there was no linkage, there was no communication back and forth, that finally unicity was implemented and they now have one level of government, one unicity in the city of Winnipeg. If that's what they want, then they're headed in the right direction.

But I might say that every report that I've got says that the unicity concept is a very expensive model, and indeed we have a Price Waterhouse report which analysed the region of Ottawa-Carleton and came to that exact conclusion, that if there was a unicity model implemented in the Ottawa-Carleton region, it would be considerably more expensive, somewhere in the vicinity of 15% more on municipal taxes. If that's where they're headed, that's what they'll get.

I'm responding again to the government's suggestion that people are not supportive of the present system, and I quote from the Ottawa Citizens for Good Government. Through the Kirby report, I guess it was, there was some analysis done. Actually, it was done by Coopers and Lybrand for the Kirby commission. They found that the net satisfaction with local councils to be 76%, that 76% of the local people felt that the 11 local councils in the Ottawa-Carleton region were doing a good job, while 57% thought the regional council is doing a good job. I might add that if they had done the provincial government, it would be considerably lower than that again.

1750

Actually, the Ottawa Citizens for Good Government made a couple of good points, and I'll just quickly go through some of them while I have their brief before me. The asked a question, a question that I hope the members take seriously: "When in Canadian history have changes to electoral boundaries and government restructure been within the same year as an election, let alone within the same six months?" That's what we've got; we've got six months. By the time this is put in place, there'll be less than six months until the start of the municipal election.

The say: "The changes to the ward boundaries as they are presented" through this bill "destroy all level of community of interest," and they mention the town of Stittsville where, as it was indicated earlier, the boundary goes right down the main street. "Currently, municipalities establish their own local boundaries based on the needs of the community. This legislation will create regional wards which cross municipal boundaries."

These are some of the concerns of the people associated with the Citizens for Good Government in Ottawa.

Just one more I'll bring to your attention. They say that if the cost of government was to increase as a result of a move to a one-tier government -- and as I mentioned earlier, I have a suspicion that's where this is really headed -- then 81% of the people would be opposed to the changes. Some 81% of the people oppose changes that will bring in higher costs to the government.

I'm going to spend just a few minutes on the issue of the mayors on the regional council. There have been a number of studies; as has been mentioned here already, the Kirby report. The Kirby report was reported on in 1992; it came forward. Being the most recent report, what did it say about the mayors being on the regional council? That seems to be the number one issue here.

There are other issues -- I may not get a chance to get to the other issues -- involving policing costs, involving the cost of services such as storm sewers and that sort of thing, but I think we're going to find that the main issue is the cross-representation from the local council to the regional council.

I'm reading from a report from the mayor of the city of Gloucester to the minister, and the mayor of Gloucester says, "The most recent report on regional government in Ottawa-Carleton, conducted by Graeme Kirby in 1992, stressed that without local mayors on regional council there would be a lack of formal linkages between the two levels, which could possibly weaken cooperation and coordination between them."

So there we have the most recent report from the mayor of Gloucester, saying that you must have the mayors on the regional council to make it work.

What about the Graham report, which occurred two years earlier, in 1990? The Graham report suggested that the mayors should be on the regional council.

Let's go back one before that again. The one before that again is the Bartlett report. The minister is fond of saying now that Commissioner Bartlett has had a change of mind and that now Commissioner Bartlett says that the mayors shouldn't be on the regional council. This is a new revelation today, that the mayors shouldn't be on the regional council.

However, I can only take from the words of the Bartlett report itself, and the Bartlett report says: "No matter how the other councillors are elected, it is essential that the 11 mayors of the area municipalities continue to serve on the regional council. The mayors are required as representatives of the corporate components of the regional system -- the municipalities as such -- rather than as direct representatives of the electorate."

I think that comment is important, because the minister is fond of saying that we cannot have the mayors on the regional council because it will destroy representation by population and representation by population is so important to us. Of course, we have determined earlier today that it's important that we have representation by population at the municipal level, but apparently it's not important that we have representation by population at the provincial level.

We've heard the statistics at the provincial level; for example Nickel Belt, represented by the Minister of Finance, has some 37,000 people, whereas Markham, represented by the honourable member Don Cousens, my good friend just in front of me, has a population now of about 140,000 people --

Mr Cousens: One hundred and sixty thousand.

Mr David Johnson: Sorry, 160,000 people in the riding of Markham and the Finance minister has less than 40,000 people. There's a factor of four to one. Do I see the minister standing up today saying that's wrong, that we must address that? Do I see the parliamentary assistant saying that's wrong, that we must address it? There's a difference of four to one.

What I see is the minister saying, "That's okay, because there what's most important is representation by square kilometre." The riding of Nickel Belt is big, so we don't put any importance on representation by population but on representation by square kilometre.

What is being said here is that it's not just the aspect of the numbers game. The mayors have a role to play on regional government in terms of bringing the issues from the local council to the regional council, issues of planning, transportation, labour relations, all sorts of issues that need to be communicated back and forth between those two levels of government.

One other aspect we've heard from this government is the issue that the mayors are parochial, that if the mayors come to the regional council they bring forward parochial deals.

Interjection.

Mr David Johnson: I see again my good friend the member for Durham Centre trying to express himself on this, but I'm sure he would agree with me that what some people may consider to be parochial, other people may consider to be responsive and being accountable. Having the mayors on the regional council brings that accountability, that responsiveness to the regional council. The mayors live in their communities. They're there all the time and, whether we like it or not, the people look to the mayors for that kind of leadership and that kind of responsiveness, and if they really want an issue resolved, that's where they go. That's the kind of value the mayors bring to the regional council.

I hope we don't get hung up on the numbers just because some communities are smaller than others and therefore the numbers don't quite add up. Well, they don't add up in terms of Nickel Belt. They don't add up in terms of Rainy River or Algoma. But do we begrudge ridings such as Rainy River, Algoma or Lake Nipigon the fact that they have more votes per person than the member for Markham? We don't begrudge that fact. We say that's a fact of Canadian life. We say that in some instances, it makes sense, for historical reasons, to allow people that sort of representation.

In the minute and a half I have left, I would like to quickly mention that policing is certainly an issue, and we've heard this before. I think the government has done a poor job in terms of addressing the concerns of the municipalities in the Ottawa-Carleton area with regard to the policing issue.

The most recent report shows there's a tremendous variance in the cost of policing, and this is reflective of the fact that there are different kinds of communities. The city of Ottawa is very different from Nepean in terms of the need for policing --

Interjection.

Mr David Johnson: It's not six o'clock yet -- and consequently the cost per capita in the city of Nepean is $127 and the cost per capita in the city of Ottawa is $168. The ratio of police officers is much different and the needs are different.

If we are to amalgamate all the police forces together, those kinds of issues have to be addressed. If there's outstanding debt associated with the police services in any municipality, who picks up that debt? That kind of issue has not been well dealt with by this government in approaching this bill. Neither have the other issues I mentioned of economic development, of the sewer services, and I would suggest that if we allow this to go for public debate and hearings in the city of Ottawa, those issues could be well addressed.

The Acting Speaker: I thank the member for Don Mills for his participation in this debate. At this time, there is no time for questions or comments, but there will be when debate resumes.

This House stands adjourned until 1:30 tomorrow afternoon.

The House adjourned at 1800.

28 mars 1994