Journal des débats 1994-avril-06 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr Gilles E. Morin (Carleton East): The members of the House may be aware that last week in Ottawa, a young man, Nicholas Battersby, was killed in an act of random violence.

We, as a society, cannot escape some degree of responsibility for the discouragement, aimlessness and despair of a generation of youth. Our society is suffering today, perhaps more than ever before, from a lack of purpose. We need to get back on track, not to turn back the clock, but to move forward.

We must also face reality. As politicians, we can do something about the problems posed by random violence involving youths. I suggest a two-pronged approach. The first part represents a huge task, that of giving our youth a stake in society. We must reinforce the message that lashing out at society hurts everyone, including them.

Secondly, we must drive home the message that ours is a civilized society founded upon the rule of law. While we understand the social and economic factors often at the root of crime, we cannot excuse the crime itself. There are never good reasons for committing crimes. Young people must know and understand that youth is not an excuse and that crimes of any nature carry consequences, both for the victim and for the perpetrator.

On behalf of all my colleagues of this House, I wish to extend to the Battersby family my profound sympathy.

COMMERCIAL FISHING

Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): My statement is for the Minister of Natural Resources. Minister, as you are well aware, Mohawk natives from the Tweed area were permitted to net 1,000 pounds of walleye fillets for sale at the SkyDome on Easter weekend. Between 2,000 and 3,000 spawning fish were illegally gill-netted for commercial purposes.

Ministry of Natural Resources staff at the Tweed district office report that the minister has decided not to press charges. By these actions, the minister has allowed the law to be broken and he has taken away his own staff's ability to enforce conservation. By encouraging illegal netting for commercial purposes, the minister has contradicted his own enforcement policy and has gone against the law as defined by the most recent Supreme Court decision.

Furthermore, as I should not have to remind the minister, allowing walleye to be netted during the spawning season is highly irresponsible, as it will threaten the population.

I ask that the minister put an immediate end to this blatant violation of Ontario's conservation laws, and I implore the minister to lay the appropriate charges.

EASTWOOD COLLEGIATE INSTITUTE

Mr Mike Cooper (Kitchener-Wilmot): Too often, we hear the negative, versus the positive. We hear or read about things that have gone wrong, that could have been done better, criticism of the jobs being done by various people and, too often, criticism of our youth. I wish to address the criticism of our education system and our educators.

I rise today to say we have a world-class education system and world-class educators. The Ministry of Education and Training and all who are involved in educating our youth have much to take pride in.

That pride is being demonstrated by Eastwood Collegiate Institute, a school in my region. The teachers and administrators of Eastwood Collegiate want to recognize the hard work and dedication of their students. A decision was made to send bumper stickers to parents of students who are achieving and maintaining an average of over 80%.

Eastwood Collegiate Institute has taken pride in its educating efforts and in the efforts of its students. Over 200 bumper stickers have been sent out. Mr Famme, principal of Eastwood Collegiate, said: "Response has been very positive from both parents and students. Too often we hear the negative, and Eastwood Collegiate has decided to promote the positive and will continue to do so through other methods." Mr Famme said that he takes pride in the achievements of all the students at Eastwood Collegiate.

I must admit that I share that pride. My son Shawn attends Eastwood Collegiate and we received one of these bumper stickers which says, "I am the proud parent of an Eastwood honour student."

I would like to say congratulations to all the students and parents of these students. I commend Mr Famme and Eastwood Collegiate for their efforts in recognizing the achievements of our youth.

1340

INTERPROVINCIAL TRADE

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): I believe my statement today is very timely while the Minister of Economic Development and Trade is in Halifax discussing interprovincial trade matters.

All of us in this country would like to see freer trade within Canada, and Ontario has recognized that the procurement policies of the province of Quebec are a stumbling block to this freer trade.

I have to ask why, then, is the Ministry of Natural Resources of this government purchasing tree seedlings from Quebec growers when Ontario growers are not allowed to bid on any Quebec contracts?

This is a matter of fairness. I'm not asking for preferential treatment for Ontario growers. What I am asking is for the Ontario government to stop purchasing goods and services out of Quebec that are forbidden to be sold into Quebec.

I believe this is extremely important at this time, when the Ontario government is negotiating with Quebec to remove these trade barriers. Are we not weakening our bargaining position right now by carrying on business as usual? The tree growers of Timiskaming and all of northeastern Ontario deserve the support of their government so that they can provide the jobs for our citizens and supply the seedlings that will be our future forest.

ANCILLARY FEES

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): My statement is directed to the Minister of Education and Training. On March 23, in conjunction with the tuition fee announcement, you announced a freeze on ancillary fees charged by post-secondary institutions. You stated that you will not increase or allow increases in the ancillary fees until an agreement is developed by each institution with its students.

Students have been expressing their concerns with ancillary fees to you for months. On July 27, 1993, the Ontario Undergraduate Student Alliance and the Ontario Community College Student Parliamentary Association issued a joint press release expressing their concerns with the back-door tuition fee increases. They also released a position paper to you on this issue dealing with the effects of ancillary fees on students and offering concrete recommendations.

That was over eight months ago. The students have done their homework. Students have a right to know how the ancillary fees are being used. You, as a minister, have a responsibility to produce the guidelines for implementing this new ancillary fee policy as quickly as possible.

On Saturday, April 9, I will be attending the Ontario Undergraduate Student Alliance transitional meeting being held at the University of Western Ontario. They will be discussing matters that affect post-secondary education, including tuition fees and ancillary fees.

I look forward to participating in this meeting and urge you to carefully consider their views and their recommendations, as they are very concerned about an immediate response to this whole issue of ancillary fees.

JOBS ONTARIO TRAINING

Ms Margaret H. Harrington (Niagara Falls): I'd like to tell you about last March. On a Sunday afternoon, I visited several businesses in Niagara Falls with Maria Siciliano, who is the employer liaison for Jobs Ontario Training. She sets up and monitors the training program.

First we went to Can-Eng, a company located on the QEW near Mcleod Road. They manufacture huge high-temperature industrial furnaces and sell them globally. There I met Denis Paris, manager of engineering, who introduced me to Milan Lenk. Milan is a young man, a former social assistance recipient, who was determined to increase his skills. He was hired temporarily and told his employer about Jobs Ontario Training. He now has a permanent job and high-tech skills.

Second, we went to Stamford Hardware, a leading distributor of Canadian pre-built stoves and fireplaces. I spoke to Gene St Croix, who hired Stanley Bench through Jobs Ontario Training. Stanley is now installing gas fireplaces and learning on the job.

At Roman Cheese Products, a well-known frozen food manufacturer in Niagara Falls, Sam Chan chose Angie Damiano for a new accounting clerk. She had exhausted her UI and had good customer skills and is now receiving extensive training in computing. Sam says, "I received a mailer last year and contacted Jobs Ontario since it was such a good program."

I encourage more employers in Niagara Falls to contact Jobs Ontario Training now, because it really works.

TRANSPORTATION FOR THE DISABLED

Mr Tim Murphy (St George-St David): Today is the second day that Wheel-Trans users are stranded at home without access to public transit. As many as 7,800 wheelchair users and perhaps 21,000 or more in total are affected by the breakdown in the service.

What does this mean for people who rely on Wheel-Trans to go to work, to school, to the doctor or grocery shopping? It means that many people are stranded at home. Some might lose a day's pay. Some might miss a final exam, be without food or miss a crucial medical appointment.

TTC general manager Al Leach has yet to find a solution to this pressing matter. He has done nothing and failed to provide adequate alternative modes of transportation.

Yesterday, as many as 70 Wheel-Trans users had booked rides to attend the meeting to complain about Wheel-Trans service and its inability to provide service to those who want it. Those people couldn't make the meeting. Why not? Because the vast majority were unable to get Wheel-Trans service to attend the meeting.

The events of the last few days underscore what has been a perpetual problem with Wheel-Trans service in the Metro area and the failure of the TTC and Al Leach to do anything about it. In fact, last year approximately 11% of the people who requested service were unable to get it.

I would like to quote from the vice-chair of the advisory committee to the TTC, who said, "If the regular transit system was retrofitted years ago to make it accessible, this fiasco would not have happened."

I would ask that the provincial government do something to assist. It owns Ontario Bus Industries, which is involved, and if they could assist the disabled in Metro, that would be very greatly appreciated.

TARTAN DAY

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound): I would first like to commend and express my thanks to all my colleagues in the House for wearing their plaid in support of Tartan Day. I want to especially mention Mr McLean down there. I would especially also like to thank the pipers and the drums from Grey, Bruce and Wellington, from towns like Walkerton, Hanover, Durham and Mount Forest, who took the time to travel here today to entertain us with traditional Scottish music. Also, to Scotty Duncan, a friend and a fellow Scotsman, a special thanks for your help and organization.

While Grey county is proud to have inherited the culture and industrious ways of our forefathers, we must be doubly proud of the people we have here today, and many others like them, who remain devoted to keeping this heritage alive. In addition, I am continually impressed year after year by the increasing number of young people in the pipe bands, as you noticed today. Keeping our children involved can only ensure the continued success of future Tartan Day celebrations.

As you know, today is Ontario's third official Tartan Day, recognizing the multicultural nature of Ontario and the contributions of the Scottish to the economic, political and cultural wellbeing of our province. April 6 also marks the anniversary of the declaration of Scottish independence made in 1320.

For this, I once again thank all of my colleagues in the House, both from my caucus, the government and the opposition, who voted three years ago today to proclaim April 6 Tartan Day and for their continued support for this celebration.

CANCER MONTH

Mr Robert Frankford (Scarborough East): April is Cancer Month. It is an opportunity to raise funds for research, to remind ourselves of the effectiveness of current forms of treatment -- surgery, radiation and chemotherapy -- and for families of those who have been afflicted to make some contribution to provide help to others. Most families have had some encounter, and everyone can play their part.

I want to take the opportunity to mention the importance and the possibilities of prevention. The government's tobacco legislation is an important measure for the prevention of many of the most common and deadly cancers, ones which have unfortunately been increasing rapidly in women. The role of sunlight, chemicals and other environmental factors is well recognized. I want to mention a recent authoritative study that shows the protective effect of breast-feeding against breast cancer. Such epidemiological research is important and very much needs to be encouraged.

Even when the disease progresses, there is much that can be done for relief. In Scarborough we are very proud of the PACT program, palliative care at home, provided by doctors and nurses in the community, a very humane and economical approach which is much appreciated by families.

There is a medical adage which I'd like to quote which I think goes beyond guiding physicians and is useful for governments. It's a French quotation. It is, "Guérir quelquefois, soulager souvent et conforter toujours."

VISITOR

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I know that you would wish to recognize a guest in your gallery, Ahmed Habib, who is a member of the Marland Youth Council, along with Tom Grzesiak, Deepak Mehmi, Caroline MacDonnell, Karen Law, Tanya Maseelall, Erin Murphy and Natasha Grzincic. They are all members of the Marland Youth Council and are privileged to attend the House this afternoon. We thank you for your extension of the courtesy.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): While the member does not have a point of order, indeed the visitors are most welcome to our chamber this afternoon.

1350

ORAL QUESTIONS

POLICE SERVICES

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): My question is to the Attorney General. At a time when there are difficult economic circumstances facing a lot of people in this province, there is still an issue which is of great importance to citizens across Ontario, and that is the issue of safety in the streets.

Last night, in a quiet restaurant in Toronto, an innocent victim was gunned down by an obviously ruthless gang who were proceeding to rob the patrons in the restaurant of their belongings.

We have heard from police forces across the province that the provisions of the social contract that you insist must be applied to every sector, even those which the public would consider to be essential, are causing damaging cutbacks in service and resulting in the increased opportunity for crime.

Will you now abandon the senseless application of the social contract to police forces and restore the level of funding that will help deter violent crimes such as that which was committed last night?

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Premier.

Mr Bradley: No, I'm sorry. It was to the Attorney General.

The Speaker: I'm sorry: the Attorney General.

Hon Marion Boyd (Attorney General): I'm referring it to the Solicitor General, sir.

Hon David Christopherson (Solicitor General): I appreciate and understand the question from the member of the opposition. I remind him that the direct supervision of police services is of course the responsibility of local police services boards. They set their own budgets.

There's no question that the expenditure control plan has an impact on all services provided by the public, whether that's health care, education, police services, all throughout. We need to find ways of restructuring services to maintain those services but deliver them in a way that allows us, quite frankly, to be able to afford them. I believe that municipal governments, as well as this government and the federal government, understand that.

Certainly, as I speak to my counterparts across Canada, other solicitors general and the federal Solicitor General, through the RCMP, are facing the same kind of pressures and, quite frankly, are taking the same kinds of measures that we are. We continue to work with municipalities and police services boards to find the ways of delivering the service in the best way possible. I'm sure the member and all members of this House would join us in that effort.

Mr Bradley: It is your role as a government to govern; that is, to choose; that is, to establish priorities. Your insistence on cutting police services by applying the social contract to all sectors, even essential sectors, is having an impact on the ability of the police to carry out their responsibilities. It will result, for instance, in the cutting of community policing services or not even starting up community policing services in many parts of the province. It gives criminals the impression that their chances of being caught and punished are rather slight.

Will you, along with the Attorney General of this province, demand that the Premier and your cabinet colleagues provide the police with the tools and staff that are required to fight crime in this province?

Hon Mr Christopherson: I can't help but be disappointed at a member who has been around as long as the honourable member has and who puts such rhetorical comments across the floor at a time when his own leader has talked about the fact that the cuts we made weren't enough. She went on to say there ought to be deeper cuts and greater cuts, yet the opposition in this province provides us with no alternatives as to how it would maintain services and how it would restructure government. All they do is go for the cheap platitudes when the moment is right and say, "It's not enough; you should cut more," and then stand up and talk about what some of the implications of managing change are when you do deal with fiscal constraint.

This government has been very upfront and open about this process. I don't deny for one moment the pressure that municipalities, police services, all of us in public life are under, but to make the kinds of comments the honourable member has and not offer up alternatives that are constructive I believe does a disservice to the many years that he's put into this place and to the alternatives that the opposition should be providing.

Mr Bradley: The alternative is one which I think most people in this province and country would be prepared to see implemented. That is, there are services that government provides that people are prepared to pay for. I would suggest to the government, and particularly to the Solicitor General and the Attorney General, that the fighting of crime, services of crown attorneys, services of police, are services that people are prepared to pay for.

I ask the minister -- and this is why I directed the question to the Attorney General in the first place. He would be aware of the random drive-by shooting that took place in Ottawa last week. It says:

"Plainclothes and uniformed officers cornered the youths, about 16 or 17 years old, as they drove away from their apartment building in a stolen passenger van.

"Three of the youths, police say, had been riding in another stolen car just 72 hours before. The occupants of that car terrorized parts of Ottawa for 30 minutes Sunday night, firing bullets into at least four businesses.

"During the rampage, Nicholas Battersby was killed as he strolled along Elgin Street."

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Bradley: When the Attorney General attended the meeting of justice ministers of Canada very recently, last week or the week before, did the Attorney General put forward the case for the toughening of the Young Offenders Act so that we could deter the kinds of crimes that are being committed, in one case in Toronto, the other case in Ottawa and across this province?

Hon Mr Christopherson: Again, I think the honourable member can hear from some of my colleagues present how dismayed we are that he would choose to take individual tragedies like this and try to wrap them up into rhetorical politics at a time when everybody is struggling as best they can to provide the essential, necessary services in a way that meets the needs of Ontarians.

I can say to the honourable member that when we met with his party's federal counterparts, they talked about the need to provide services in a way that we can afford; they talked about the need to provide crime prevention strategies, a crime prevention council; they talked about the need to review the Young Offenders Act with a view to ensuring that it does meet the needs of Canadians.

On all those points, we supported his federal counterparts because they're right on the money. We will continue to do that because these are critically important issues for the people of Ontario. But to wrap them up in the way the honourable member has done today truly is a disservice to the kind of leadership people are looking for from us.

EMERGENCY SERVICES

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): To the Minister of Health: What would this province be like without emergency services and the ability to respond at times that emergencies arise in our various communities around the province, and what are you doing to ensure that emergency services are available for our communities around the province?

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): Emergency services take a variety of forms, whether it be transportation or whether it be the coverage of hospitals and physicians, as is a difficulty we're having in some of the small rural hospitals. Let me assure the member that the responsibility for providing emergency services lies in a variety of places -- the ministry, the hospitals, the physicians as well as the emergency services -- and they are, in this province, provided very well, and our ability to meet the needs of emergencies, despite our record of constraining costs, is unparalleled.

Mr Elston: I would like the minister to tell me why she has been unable to come to grips with and solve the problem of physician coverage of emergency rooms in the small rural hospitals around this province. This has been an issue which has been brewing for months and has resulted in letters being sent to her from places like Wingham, from Goderich, from several other of the communities in my area -- Red Lake and other places.

1400

I want this minister to tell us why, although she's promised all of these places that she would have a policy solution to the problem, she has done nothing to solve the problem of physician coverage of emergency rooms in rural Ontario.

Hon Mrs Grier: First of all, let me say to the member that he's wrong, that a great deal has been done to deal with the long-standing issue of providing emergency coverage in small rural hospitals.

In our agreement with the Ontario Medical Association last year, we confirmed their willingness to work with us to try to provide physicians in underserviced areas. We established a joint committee between the Ontario Medical Association and the Ontario Hospital Association to try to deal generally with a problem that applies in rural areas in the south as well as in the north.

Unfortunately, we have not been able to come to a solution that meets the needs of all parties. Largely that is because the Ontario Medical Association believes there needs to be extra money provided over and above what physicians get through the fee-for-service system in order to provide this coverage. We believe, as we negotiated with the OMA for $3.8 billion worth of payment to the province's 20,000 physicians, that within that the funding must be found to allow them to continue the coverage they have provided.

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): Minister, your answers and your promises just aren't good enough. You just don't seem to have a grasp of the magnitude of this problem.

We now have over 6,000 people in my riding without emergency services. These people have been without coverage since last Monday night. If there's a car accident or a major mining accident in Red Lake tonight, there won't be a doctor in Ontario to take care of the injured. This is just unacceptable, and it needs to be fixed today. Minister, you must work with me this afternoon to fix this problem. Words and promises are just not good enough.

I have a letter dated today from the administrator of the Red Lake Margaret Cochenour Memorial Hospital. They are asking for an immediate resolution to this problem. I invite you to come with me to my office to phone the administrator and suggest to him what the solution will be to service the constituents in my riding. You've misled the people of Red Lake, you've misled me and you have misled my constituents.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order. The honourable member for Kenora knows better. He has posed a very important question, but I would ask him to withdraw the unparliamentary language which he has used.

Mr Miclash: Mr Speaker, this minister misled the constituents of my riding, myself --

The Speaker: No.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. The honourable member, as I know him, has a respect for Parliament. I would ask that the honourable member reconsider and withdraw the unparliamentary language.

Mr Miclash: I hear the Minister of Transportation heckling over there. Maybe he has a solution. I will not withdraw my comments. The minister has misled the constituents in my riding of Kenora.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. I ask the honourable member for Kenora to come to order.

The honourable member leaves the Chair with no alternative. If the member refuses to come to order and refuses to withdraw unparliamentary remarks, then he will have to be named. I ask the member to come to order.

Mr Miclash: I will not withdraw.

The Speaker: The honourable member for Kenora, who refuses to come to order, is now named. Mr Miclash, you are named. I ask you to voluntarily withdraw yourself from the House and from the committees of this House for the balance of this sitting day.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Since the honourable member refuses to leave voluntarily, I ask the Sergeant at Arms to please escort the member from the chamber.

Mr Miclash left the chamber.

ONTARIO HYDRO AGREEMENT

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): My question is to the Premier. Is it the policy of this government now that when jobs are declared surplus these jobs will in fact be left in place for up to two years of pay while the jobs are declared surplus?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): I again would say that this is an approach the member has in asking a question which I congratulate, because I have literally no idea what he's referring to or what he's talking about.

Just so everybody knows what the game is that he's playing, it means that I can't refer the question to someone who might know more about it.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Hon Mr Rae: If the issue is about Hydro, I'll refer the issue to the Minister of Environment and Energy; if it's concerning the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act, I'll refer it to the minister for Management Board. Perhaps you could tell me which one.

Mr Stockwell: I look for your assistance, Mr Speaker. Who now am I addressing the question to?

The Speaker: When the member posed a question to the Premier, the Premier provided a reply. It is now your opportunity to place a supplementary. The Premier may wish to refer that to another minister, but we await your question.

Mr Stockwell: I ask again, you can then refer a supplementary question?

The Speaker: You may now place a supplementary question.

Mr Stockwell: I'll go back to the Premier, then. Mr Premier, that was certainly unintentional, and I will apologize for not briefing you a little further on that first one. According to the deal reached last week at Ontario Hydro, staff --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Stockwell: Very important, Mr Speaker. According to this deal, those who are "currently surplus or becoming surplus shall have their search notice period extended to the earlier of placement in a vacancy placement opportunity or March 31, 1996."

What has happened, in other words, is that employees can continue to be paid even though there is nothing for them to do, and according to this agreement that was struck, that this party stood and congratulated each other about, this deal says surplus employees at an average salary of $65,000; that's the rule of thumb at Hydro. If even 1% of Hydro staff are considered surplus in each of the next two years, that's $30 million that taxpayers are going to pay people to do nothing. So I ask you, Mr Premier, what is the total tab for last week's deal of the century?

Hon Mr Rae: Mr Speaker, when I was growing up, on the Ed Sullivan Show -- we used to watch it every week -- there was a character on Ed Sullivan called Professor Irwin Corey. He used to talk for several minutes and I could never understand what he was saying; that was the whole point of the exercise. Whenever I hear a question from the honourable member for Etobicoke West, I reminisce on the subject of Professor Irwin Corey.

All I can say to the honourable member -- I would say to him seriously in reply, because I gather what he's talking about is a partial reading of a partial document of a partial understanding of a document that is yet even to be ratified by the people who are being asked to ratify it -- I would ask him that perhaps he might cool his jets until we've all had an opportunity to let the Hydro workers vote on an agreement that has been signed, and we can then discuss the nature of that agreement before the House.

1410

Mr Stockwell: Let's deal with the issue at hand, which is the contract. I have a copy of the contract. I'm surprised that you don't have a copy of the contract, Professor. I'll put to you, Professor Premier, speaking of not understanding an answer, that in this contract it says clearly, on page 5, that those positions that are surplus will be declared surplus and the persons will continue to come into work for up to two years to do nothing, to come into work, report to work and not have a job. I report to you, Mr Premier, that it says that on page 5 of the contract.

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy): That's not what it says.

Mr Stockwell: I'll read it for the minister's own understanding: "During this time period, staff who are currently surplus or become surplus shall have their search notice period extended to the earlier of placement in a vacancy placement opportunity or March 31, 1996." It's very clear. Your management has agreed to this. They said that if your job is surplus, you'll have two years to find another job; if you don't, then they'll buy you out through a severance package. That's what it says, Professor Premier.

What is your response? It's going to cost the taxpayers $30 million if 1% of employees are declared surplus.

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

Mr Stockwell: Simply put, are we now going to pay Hydro staff to come to work to do nothing?

Hon Mr Rae: I have always made it a rule, I have always made it a point -- and I would dearly love to change my approach today, but I will not because it would be unwise to do so -- that when an agreement has been negotiated between two groups and there's a process of ratification, not to comment in the middle of the discussion, the middle of the vote and the middle of the ratification that's under way. That's good public policy. It's been followed by every other Premier who has ever been Premier, Conservative, Liberal or New Democrat. There actually haven't been any other New Democrats, but that's another thing. I think that's a good approach.

What I would say to the honourable member is that what he's doing is he's taking one paragraph or one clause totally out of context.

Mr Stockwell: That is all that is there.

Hon Mr Rae: If I may reply, because he took a fair bit of time in making the point that I gather he was trying to make, he did not refer to any of the other cost savings which are contained in the contract. He referred to none of the things which the union has agreed to do in order to achieve an element of job security. He didn't talk at all about job retraining. He didn't talk at all about job reassignment. He didn't talk at all about the other elements. He did not talk about the fundamental fact of this agreement, which is, as Chairman Strong has said, from the point of view of the ratepayer, an agreement with no net additional cost to the utility. That is the critical point which the honourable member has chosen not to stress and not to mention, because he doesn't want to mention that as part of his discombobulated discombobulations with respect to the Hydro contract.

YOUNG OFFENDERS

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): My question is to the Attorney General. Prior to the release of New Directions, Volume Three, my party's discussion paper on justice issues, we consulted with people all over the province of Ontario. In each community, we heard that the Young Offenders Act was the most hated piece of justice legislation ever enacted.

Minister, it was reported that while you were in Ottawa discussing the Young Offenders Act you stated that we should not be punishing young offenders so severely. Do you really believe that the Young Offenders Act is not too lenient? Because I can tell you it is not what most Ontarians believe.

Hon Marion Boyd (Attorney General): The Young Offenders Act may be hated, but it's hated largely because it's misunderstood and misrepresented, quite frequently. We, along with all of our sister provinces and the federal government, were unanimous in saying we were very concerned about violent interpersonal crime and very serious about looking at the Young Offenders Act.

What we did say was that we did not think piecemeal solutions, such as a sudden mandatory sentence, were the way to go without the year-long study that the ministers had already agreed to under the previous government last May. What we did say was that there are many complications in terms of the proposal that was proposed by the red book of the current Liberal government. What we were asking the Liberal federal minister for was a commitment to study the whole act so that we could look at ways in which we could ensure that the Young Offenders Act was made more effective.

What I did say was that in the less serious, property-oriented, minor crime area we are incarcerating young people at unheard-of levels, even higher levels than under the Juvenile Delinquents Act, which the YOA was meant to replace. In that way indeed the act is too punitive, because it does not give alternative measures at the low end of the scale.

Mr Harnick: Minister, the difference between your party and mine is that we believe the Young Offenders Act should be made much tougher, and when we consulted with the people of Ontario, they agreed. The people on your side of the Legislature don't believe that the people in Ontario should have any opinions.

The federal government recently commissioned a study of the Young Offenders Act, written by Frederick Mathews, community psychologist with Central Toronto Youth Services, which concluded that the act provides no deterrents. I quote from the report: "The majority view is that the Young Offenders Act is too lenient on first-time offenders and on those who commit violent offences."

Minister, what specifics did you take to the table in Ottawa to amend the Young Offenders Act?

Hon Mrs Boyd: What we were doing at the table was first of all discussing the process by which we would amend the act.

I would say to the member that there are many differences between our party and his party, and one of the differences is the extent to which we do believe in consultation. We believe in looking at not just the answers we want to hear but the answers we actually hear in doing research.

He asks what I took to the table. I took to the table a long history of experience with working on these issues. He can quote his sources. I can quote mine; from the London Family Court Clinic, for example, Dr Alan Leschieb, who has a very different view of the YOA and a very different view of how we ought to be looking at changes.

I would repeat that we are not saying that there should not be changes and that the act should not be looked at to see if it can be more effective. We agree that it should. What we are saying is that the kind of piecemeal, politically expedient actions that have been suggested are not good public policy and ought not to be condoned by this province.

Mr Harnick: Minister, you might consult but you don't listen. I recognize the need to rehabilitate young offenders, but our number one priority should be deterring crimes before they happen. The government should be saying that youth crime will be dealt with severely and that the Young Offenders Act is no longer a joke to be laughed at.

The Attorney General of Manitoba brought forth concrete recommendations to strengthen the Young Offenders Act. In New Directions, Volume Three, we provide concrete recommendations to deal with this act. Minister, what recommendations do you have to increase the deterrent effect of the act to stop people from committing crimes?

Hon Mrs Boyd: We've already taken a great many actions in this province to swing the emphasis within the criminal justice system to looking at and to enabling us to use our resources to ensure that we are dealing effectively with serious crimes. The whole response that we have made to the Martin commission report, which involves the whole criminal justice system, including the YOA, means that we are working very specifically to try to allocate our resources directly to the issues of serious interpersonal violent crime, which we agree with the member is of great concern to the citizens of Ontario.

We had many suggestions to the federal government about changes that could be made to help us, as provinces, release some of our resources to look at the way in which closed and open custody is being offered, to look at alternative measures that could help us to shift our resources, to enable us to make much better decisions. We also are very empathetic with the position of the federal government that mandatory treatment for young offenders be made possible.

We are certainly prepared to look at changes. We are simply not prepared to take the politically expedient route that is being suggested by all the Conservative provincial governments in this country.

1420

DRIVERS' LICENCES

Mr Tim Murphy (St George-St David): My question is to the Minister of Transportation. Minister, as you know, last week, when there were long lineups for people trying to get drivers' tests prior to the implementation of graduated licensing, you told the press that people in the lineup and people ready to take the test would be given a rain check up to 4:30 on Friday. Despite that, however, hundreds and perhaps thousands of people were turned away on Thursday by your officials at the office here on Bay Street and in other offices, as far as we've been able to determine.

Many people's livelihoods depend on having a driver's licence. Unquestionably some of those turned away were depending on receiving a driver's licence to secure or maintain a job before the new law applied. Indeed, I know of one man who was faced with the prospect of losing his job if he did not obtain his learner's permit that day. In fact, there was no action taken to improve this situation until a complaint was filed with the ministry.

I would like to ask the minister why he did not ensure, when he was grandstanding for the press, that his officials were carrying out the policy he enunciated.

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation): I welcome, by way of a question, the opportunity to pay tribute to the civil service across the province of Ontario: those front-liners, those men and who for the past month have gone well beyond the call of duty to serve the would-be drivers in the province of Ontario.

As often happens, it's not human frailty; maybe more so human nature, not unlike last-minute shoppers. You will recall vividly, for you were here, Mr Speaker, that when the graduated drivers program received royal assent, it was done unanimously. All three parties in the House said we must provide a deterrent and yet provide encouragement to make the system safer.

Thousands of people had three months to show up. They waited, in many cases, until the last minute. We've honoured, as a service provider, our commitment. Anyone who showed up was given a chance to go under not the current but the previous system. We will honour our commitment. We were imaginative, innovative. By way of a rain check, the deadline has been extended for one extra month for those people who showed up within working hours.

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

Hon Mr Pouliot: The system is working well. It has been well received by the general public.

Mr Murphy: It's not innovative; it's incompetent. You failed to make sure that your own officials knew what you'd said so they could carry it out. In fact, there was one person, Paul Whitaker, from my riding who managed to get in only because he complained to my office. We had to phone you, and it was only after that that you phoned down to the Bay Street office and got any action.

I want to know, Mr Minister, what you're going to do to the hundreds -- in fact, Mr Whitaker reports, thousands -- of people who were turned away on that day who were there based on your commitment that if they were there they'd get a rain check? What are you going to do to make sure those people who were turned away get a chance to get a rain check so they can get a learner's permit, based on the commitment you've made and aren't living up to?

Hon Mr Pouliot: We're doing everything that is humanly possible. Let me give you an example in real life. Last Thursday, right before the deadline, right out here at Queen's Park -- and you're right, hundreds of people were lined up trying to get under the deadline -- as they were standing, 30 people from Downsview, public servants who put the welfare of the line ahead of their own, worked countless hours of overtime. We coordinated effort. Nobody is doing without. Nobody is being deprived. First you write the test and then you're in the wheel. You wait your turn to get your driver's test.

We will do everything possible. We have seven million people in the province of Ontario with drivers' permits in good standing and each and every year brings another 250,000. It's a massive endeavour. We bring home the daily bread and we do it well. Not one citizen will be deprived of the privilege to access the system.

SOCIAL CONTRACT

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): My question is for the minister responsible for the social contract, the Minister of Finance. Everyone knows the broader public sector has found that the social contract hasn't been working and is not fair. The social contract hurts everyone with its injustice, and the greatest irony is that it will not net the government of Ontario the $2 billion in savings this year or lead to long-term government restructuring. The horror show continues.

Today, the Toronto Star reported that the North York school board trustees will no longer lose pay under the social contract. They had their pay cut last year under the social contract. This year there is no social contract cut for trustees. A loophole has allowed them to escape from the clutches of the social contract at the expense of taxpayers and everyone else.

Do you intend to take action and will you find a way to reinstate the pay cut?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): I gather the member for Markham is suggesting that the social contract should work and should be applied to the trustees in North York. I think that's what I heard him saying. So he must be expressing some kind of confidence in the social contract and the way in which it should be applied out there across the province.

I did read that article and I was surprised that the trustees would themselves make that decision. I was surprised at that. It is quite conceivable that they have found a way in which they can be exempt from it. If that's the case and if it complies with the letter of the law, of the social contract, then of course they have a right to do that and they will bear the wrath of their ratepayers accordingly. But if they've decided that and that is the correct interpretation of the social contract, I don't think I'm prepared to bring the social contract back into this assembly for an amendment at this time.

Mr Cousens: I fear the Minister of Finance is shortchanging everyone unless he guarantees some equity. Other workers across Ontario are being placed at a financial disadvantage in favour of school board trustees who have a fresh interpretation.

The intent of the social contract was to reduce the salaries of all public sector employees, including the salaries of politicians. Why then can the North York school trustees not also participate in this program? They did last year. This year they have a fresh interpretation.

I'm asking you directly, will you personally look into this and take action to direct that the school board trustees be reinstated under the social contract?

Hon Mr Laughren: I think it's a fair question from my friend from Markham. I believe, if I understood the article correctly, that they were using the tax-free allowance of their remuneration to say that was not remuneration per se but rather --

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Expense.

Hon Mr Laughren: Yes, an expense allowance. I was somewhat taken aback by that interpretation, although, as I say, it may be technically correct. But I don't disagree with the sentiments of the member for Markham in being surprised that the trustees did that. I will make sure that what they've done is within the context or within the spirit of the law; namely, the social contract. If it violates the social contract, then of course we will make sure they comply. If, on the other hand, it does not violate the social contract and they have simply found a loophole which they can exploit, then I don't think there's room for us to intervene, since they would be complying with the act itself.

MINISTRY RELOCATION

Mr Gary Malkowski (York East): My question is to the Minister of Culture, Tourism and Recreation. The minister has announced plans for certain functions within the Ministry of Culture, Tourism and Recreation to relocate to Niagara Falls. I have been approached by people in my riding of York East who have advised me that this relocation is going to affect them. For some, there are many good reasons that prevent them from being able to relocate.

I understand the reasoning for the move in diversifying and stabilizing the economic base of outlying communities like Niagara Falls. However, it does concern me that our government would endorse the creation of jobs in one region at the expense of taking jobs from others. We are talking about people with livelihoods, homes, families and commitments who are going to be left without jobs. We all know that the topic on everyone's mind these days is jobs: creating jobs, getting jobs and of course keeping their jobs.

My question is, what types of training packages are you going to offer these people who are being left behind, who are already highly trained as museologists or curators, for example?

1430

Hon Anne Swarbrick (Minister of Culture, Tourism and Recreation): I appreciate the concern that's being raised by the member for York East. There's no doubt that any time people are faced with the kinds of insecurities that these life choices pose to people, of course people get very nervous, which is why I personally, along with my deputy minister, recently held a full meeting of all the staff of our ministry, as well as meetings by their management folks, as well as passing out benefit packages and what have you to them, to try to make sure that people have the full information available to them.

I believe that the package we've prepared is a very fair one from an employer's and an employee's perspective. It includes helping to give people the opportunity to get acquainted with the new community, to make an informed decision about whether or not they wish to relocate to that new community. Should they choose not to relocate, there are very clear entitlements to job offer guarantees, to retraining commitments for people, to job trading possibilities as well as relocation packages available, should they choose to relocate to the new community.

I believe it's a fair package, and my ministry staff and I are certainly doing everything we can to help protect the entitlements of those employees --

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

Hon Ms Swarbrick: -- going through this kind of change in the best possible supported way.

AGRICULTURAL FUNDING

Mrs Joan M. Fawcett (Northumberland): My question today is for the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. You and your colleagues were very quick yesterday to point out your commitment to agriculture, but behind the loud bravado, you are really far from providing any new assistance. Your ministry's budget has actually declined since your government took office. The 1993-94 agriculture budget is $49 million less than it was when the Liberals were in office. I might add that it's now fast approaching the record low levels of the Tories.

Can you explain the 8% reduction in funding which has led to numerous cutbacks in services and programs, and can you assure this House and all farmers out there that the upcoming budget will increase the Ag and Food portion back to the Liberal level of over $500 million, or at least, at the very least, hold the line and not decrease any further?

Hon Elmer Buchanan (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs): I think the member is just using one criterion here in measuring the effectiveness of government and the effectiveness of programs. I would like to take the member back to 1990, for example, when this ministry and this minister put out $50 million in interest subsidies. In 1991, we found that this wasn't enough, that we had to add an additional $15 million, so in 1991 we put $65 million into interest assistance programs for farmers.

We soon discovered that that $65 million didn't go to farmers. The cheque went to the farmers and the farmers took it to the banks. We decided we needed new types of programs that we could afford that would put money into farmers' pockets. We knew that we didn't have enough money in the treasury to put it directly, so we looked for other vehicles. We've done a very good job of putting other programs together that have put money into the pockets of farmers indirectly through many of the things we've done with the agriculture investment strategy.

Mrs Fawcett: You might say that you have created new programs, with your added responsibilities in Rural Affairs, we then should expect the budget to increase in the Ag and Food portion.

I recall that you closed down colleges and you also cut out such good programs as the environmentally sound land stewardship program; you sold the stock yards. I just wonder where all that money went. I don't think there were that many new programs created with all this extra money that you have and I just bet the old wily Treasurer has poured it into the dark hole of the consolidated revenues.

But Minister, at the same time that your budget for Agriculture has decreased, other ministry budgets have increased. In fact, the overall government spending has increased by 15% since your government took office. Now, that leaves Agriculture 23% in the hole. Of course, though, the Ministry of Labour's funding increased 13% --

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

Mrs Fawcett: -- and the Ministry of Citizenship 58%. Minister, they say you've been sitting at the cabinet table for rural Ontario and the ag-food industry; if you have, how can you possibly explain these inequities?

Hon Mr Buchanan: To hear the member ask her supplementary, you would think that farmers did very well during the period from 1985 to 1990, with all the money that was around in those years that could be sort of put in the mail and sent out to farmers. It's interesting to note that during that five-year period of Liberal administration in this province, there were 359 farm bankruptcies in this province. During the last three years -- 1991, 1992 and 1993 -- there were a total of 58 bankruptcies in farm businesses in this province.

I think that in terms of what we've been able to do to assist farmers in continuing to be viable operations, that even if our budget is not increasing -- obviously we'd like it to increase; we obviously would like to have more money to spend -- we've been able to utilize the money we have to assist farmers and make sure the money we have doesn't go to banks and big financial institutions but goes to assist farmers and rural people in terms of maintaining their lifestyle.

VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTERS

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): I have a question for the Minister of Labour and it concerns the requirement of the workplace health and safety act, Bill 208, to force members of volunteer fire departments to attend three weeks of occupational health and safety training at municipal expense. Small municipalities' volunteer firefighters, the Ontario fire marshal and the Provincial Federation of Ontario Fire Fighters want to know where negotiations stand for getting some relief for volunteer fire departments. Will you tell us today, Minister?

Hon Bob Mackenzie (Minister of Labour): On the issue of volunteer firefighters, I'll have to get back to the member across the way.

In general, I can tell him that in terms of the health and safety agency and the training programs, they're going quite well. We've had to move up some of the dates in terms of completion and we think it's going to be one of the success stories in terms of trying to deal with the injuries on the job in the province of Ontario.

Mr Runciman: It's regrettable the minister isn't aware of this concern. These volunteer firefighters will have to use their vacation time to take this training, volunteers who already donate their weekends and evenings to their communities. Not only that, it's the municipality which must pay for the training and for lost wages while the volunteers are away from their own jobs. For small municipalities such as Elizabethtown in my riding, that's going to cost $6,000. That's $6,000 which could buy six new fire suits, fire suits they'll have to buy because your government has said these suits must be stock equipment by 1995.

Fire departments, municipalities and the Ontario fire marshal have all asked that firefighters be exempted from the certification training requirements. If an exemption is not granted, small fire departments will simply cut their volunteer rosters down to 19 in order to escape the legislation, and I don't have to tell you that a smaller roster means fewer volunteers available to fight fires. Surely this is not the point of an act aimed at health and safety.

Minister, will you compel the Workplace Health and Safety Agency to resolve this problem in the next 30 days?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I don't think anybody is in a position to say we're going to change one program or another within 30 days. I simply want to tell the member across the way that I can't understand his question if he's saying that we don't need the better or safer suits in terms of the firemen, whether they're in a large or a small department. Surely you're not saying that we don't need an adequate health and safety training program for firefighters. This is exactly the intent of health and safety legislation in Ontario, and I'm a little bit surprised at the member across the way wanting to give second-class coverage to volunteer firefighters.

1440

COMMERCIAL FISHING

Mr Pat Hayes (Essex-Kent): My question is to the Minister of Natural Resources. I recently received a letter from John Lewarne, vice-president of H.J. Heinz Co. He's concerned about the Lake Erie smelt quota for 1994. H.J. Heinz, through its subsidiary, Homestead Foods, has a major food processing plant in Wheatley. The harvesting and processing of smelt employs over 200 people. What is more, these jobs bring money into Ontario, because for the most part the product of smelt is exported to Japan.

H.J. Heinz, to be able to compete worldwide, has over the last two years spent several million dollars upgrading its processing facilities. However, H.J. Heinz is very concerned that its quota for smelt in 1994 will be limited. If this were to happen, it could have a ripple effect on the community. Mr Minister, are you able to assure us today that the smelt quota for H.J. Heinz for 1994 will be the same as, and perhaps even greater than, in 1993?

Hon Howard Hampton (Minister of Natural Resources): The member has asked a very important question with respect to jobs in southwestern Ontario. The reality is that there are a lot of pressures on the fish stocks in Lake Erie, both the smelt populations and the walleye populations. There are a number of users, principally the angling industry and the commercial fishery. As well, Lake Erie is used not only by Ontario interests but by interests from Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and New York. So the fishery on Lake Erie has to be allocated with all of those interests in mind.

The actual allocation recommendations come from the Lake Erie committee of the Great Lakes Fishery Commission. They held meetings on March 30 and 31 and they are coming forward with some recommendations. When we see those recommendations we will be able to allocate the smelt quota based upon a sustainable maintenance of the resource. So I can't give you any assurances today, but I think we can do that soon.

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): He's not taking up your cause, Pat.

Mr Hayes: I know that the Liberal member there doesn't seem to be too interested, but a lot of people are across this province.

I appreciate what the minister has said. However, H.J. Heinz and others would certainly appreciate knowing how soon we'll know when the quotas would be announced. Can you give us any indication as to when this announcement may take place?

Mr Sorbara: Like before or after the election because the election is not going to do any good.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Hon Mr Hampton: I gather the Liberal members from Toronto don't think this is a very important question, but I know that other people in the province do, so I will attempt to answer over the voices from Toronto.

As I've indicated already, the Lake Erie fisheries managers will meet very soon, on April 18, I believe, to review the numbers. They will meet with the commercial fishermen, they will meet with sports fishermen and then they will be making their recommendations. Hopefully, after that we will be able to set the final quota allocations for this fishing season.

TRANSPORTATION FOR THE DISABLED

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): My question is to the Minister for Municipal Affairs. I know that you and many people are aware of the problem with respect to Wheel-Trans within the city of Toronto. My question is directed to transportation services for the physically challenged outside of Toronto, specifically Mississauga.

The minister will be aware that Transhelp in Mississauga contracts for specially equipped taxi service to provide assistance for the physically challenged. I've been informed that the use of specially equipped taxis gives Transhelp in Mississauga flexibility in improving service while at the same time reducing costs.

However, under current wording of the legislation, the city of Toronto can prohibit, within its borders, the pickup of the physically challenged by Mississauga cabs. This results in a situation where specially equipped cabs in Mississauga can transport the physically challenged from their homes in Mississauga to a point in Toronto, such as their doctors' offices, but those same cabs cannot pick up those persons. What happens is that the person who is physically challenged and has a doctor's appointment in Toronto must be picked up by a transportation service in Toronto, transported to the Toronto-Mississauga border, dropped off at that border, and then picked up, if you can believe it, by Mississauga transportation and taken to their home.

I know there is a stopgap measure in place now, but, Mr Minister, there has to be change to the legislation to have a certain permanence so that people can --

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

Mr Offer: My question is, will the minister be bringing in legislation so that those physically challenged outside of the Toronto area can rely on their own specially equipped transportation to take them to and from doctors' appointments, wherever their doctor may happen to be located?

Hon Ed Philip (Minister of Municipal Affairs): I'm aware of the situation. Needless to say, like the member, I'm concerned about the situation. We have consulted with the office of the disabled and with the Ministry of Transportation. Indeed, the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Transportation, George Dadamo, has been working with us and with the Ministry of Transportation and with the ministry of the disabled. We are looking at options that we have, in conjunction with the two municipalities involved, to resolve the situation.

Mr Offer: By way of supplementary, this is an issue which is not just specific to Mississauga but applies to Halton and a whole variety of municipalities just outside of the Toronto area, such as Scarborough and what not. It is clear that a small change in legislation will give to the physically challenged outside the Toronto area an assurance that the transportation facilities within their own area will be able to not only take them to their doctors' offices, but also pick them up.

Mr Minister, the question to you today is, will you bring in legislation? Will you commit to the physically challenged outside of the Toronto area that you will bring in legislation so that they can have an assurance of safe, secure, efficient transportation, wherever they happen to live? Yes or no?

Hon Mr Philip: I think I indicated earlier that we are looking at the situation and that we are looking at the possibility of an amendment. I trust that in the event that we do proceed with the appropriate amendment, we will have his support for speedy passage, not the usual filibuster that we get on most of the bills we introduce in this House.

LANDFILL

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I have a question for the Minister of Environment and Energy. You and your government have created a lot of havoc with respect to the creation of the three superdumps in the greater Toronto area. You've made a lot of people upset. I wonder if you could ease the minds of the residents of Caledon and York and Durham. I wonder if you would tell us what will happen if one or all three of the environmental assessments that are now scheduled for these three areas fail.

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy): I'm sure the member, who I know is very concerned in this matter, would not want me in any way to prejudge the process other than to simply say that, as he knows, the IWA process has been exhaustive and will continue to be so. They will deal with all of the issues related to environmental protection in preparing an EA recommendation. Then, when an Environmental Assessment Board hearing takes place, all of these matters will be dealt with.

If indeed a site is found not to be acceptable, it will be rejected, but I'm confident that every effort will be made to ensure that any proposal going to the EA board will be supportable and will be passed.

Interjections.

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): You are wasting money, my friend. You are wasting money.

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

Hon Mr Wildman: There is a continuous noise from the other side, Mr Speaker, but I'm trying to ignore it.

Mr Tilson: I don't know why we're bothering to have an environmental assessment with your attitude, Minister. You're telling us to trust the IWA process. No one has trusted you or your government or the IWA process since the day this whole system was started with 57 sites three years ago. The whole process stinks as much as the garbage that you plan to put in these three superdumps.

Minister, you have said that you're going to assume these three sites are going to be passed. I can tell you that that assumption doesn't exist. Will you now acknowledge that this system doesn't work? Will you now look at all alternatives? Will you look at incineration? Will you look at the long rail-haul? Will you look at all systems that are available for waste management in this province?

1450

Hon Mr Wildman: I won't respond to the long editorializing, which I believe is against the rules of the House, but I will say that the member has indicated that I assumed something. At no time during my response to his first question did I assume anything. I assured him that the process would be carried out to protect the environment and the interests of those involved.

The member has asked if I would deal with all alternatives. He specifically mentions incineration. He should know that the problem with incineration is that there is the question of the ash, and how we deal with the airborne ash and the residual ash and how that is landfilled is in itself a problem. Incineration does not get rid of garbage. It doesn't just disappear up the chimney; it has effects that can be very, very harmful in the atmosphere, and the question of the incineration ash and how it will be landfilled has to be dealt with. Incineration is not a solution; it is just one more problem.

The Speaker: The time for oral questions has expired. On a point of order, the honourable member for Mississauga North.

MINISTERIAL RESPONSE

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): Mr Speaker, my point of order is pursuant to rule 33(a). You will remember on March 30 I posed a question dealing with a retreat that was taken by certain members in the social contract secretariat. My question was posed to the Chair of Management Board, who undertook to respond back to me. He said that he is not the minister responsible for this junket but undertook to me and to the Legislature to respond to the question I posed. To date, neither he nor the Minister of Finance has responded to my question.

Mr Speaker, I urge you, under the standing orders, to use your good offices to ask those particular ministers to respond to a question as to why there were 50 members of the social contract secretariat --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order. The honourable member for Mississauga North will know that he brought this matter to my attention previously. The point of order was dealt with at that time. There is nothing more that I can add to what I provided to the member on the previous occasion on which he raised the matter.

NON-PROFIT HOUSING

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Yesterday the Minister of Housing agreed to give a full answer to a question which I placed today. I would like to report to the House that the minister and I have agreed that she will give that answer tomorrow, and that is acceptable to me.

PETITIONS

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

Mr Gilles E. Morin (Carleton East): I have a petition signed by over 400 people and it reads as follows:

"Whereas Bill 45 will change the meaning of the words 'spouse' and 'marital status' by removing the words 'of the opposite sex,' drastically redefining the family as we know it;

"Whereas Bill 55 will make it illegal for people to make any public statement, written or oral, which ridicules, demeans or discriminates against a person on the grounds of sexual orientation, threatening free speech in a democratic society and the freedom of religion for historical Christianity, which does not condone homosexuality;

"Whereas Bill 56 will allow legal actions to be launched against any person or organization that promotes hatred or the superiority or inferiority of a person or class of persons because of sexual orientation, stifling the rights of Christians to voice views opposed to homosexuality on moral grounds;

"Whereas sexual orientation is elevated to the same level as morally neutral characteristics of race, religion, age and sex;

"Whereas we believe that Bill 45, Bill 55 and Bill 66 would cause an enormous negative impact on our society over the long term because of the redefinition of fundamental institutions of marriage and family,

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

"That the House refrain from passing Bill 45, Bill 55 and Bill 66 and that 'sexual orientation' not be added to the Ontario Human Rights Code."

I affix my signature to this document.

FIREARMS SAFETY

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I have a petition which says:

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

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

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

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

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

That's signed by many people from Elmvale, Hillsdale, Oro Station, Barrie, Guelph, Midland and Penetanguishene.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): I have a petition here from the good people of South Porcupine and Porcupine addressed to Premier Bob Rae, Solicitor General David Christopherson and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. The petition reads:

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

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

"Whereas we should not have to take the time or pay the cost of another course or examination and we should not have to learn about classes of firearms that we do not desire to own,

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

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

This is signed by a number of people from South Porcupine, Mr Hazelwood, Elliott, Malo etc, and I table the petition.

PHOTO-RADAR

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): I know that you wanted to recognize my friend who's been on question period all afternoon, Mr Speaker, but I appreciate the opportunity to address this petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It relates, of course, to the dreaded photo-radar.

"Whereas the NDP government of Ontario is planning to implement a photo-radar system to penalize speeding drivers;" -- in fact, they've already implemented it; they just can't find the machines -- "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 photo-radar fines involve no demerit penalties" -- 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 even if they are not responsible for the violation;" -- which is a serious breach of our civil rights -- "and

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Would the member please simply read the petition.

Mr Sorbara: "Whereas there have been concerns raised as to whether photo-radar technology will accurately measure the speed of all vehicles," sir --

Interjection.

Mr Sorbara: I can't be responsible for the length of this -- "and

"Whereas a government newsletter quotes a ministry staff person admitting that photo-radar is only being implemented to bring new revenue to the province;" -- that's serious -- "and

"Whereas the NDP government is already wasting too much of the revenue it does receive,

"We, the undersigned" -- here's the conclusion -- "demand that the NDP government cancel its plans to implement photo-radar and cancel its photo-radar legislation."

It's signed by several constituents.

1500

EMPLOYMENT EQUITY

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, and it reads as follows:

"Whereas any person applying for a job should be judged fairly, on the merits of his or her qualifications, abilities and experience; and

"Whereas a person's colour, religion, race, gender, or other such characteristics should not enter into the equation; and

"Whereas Bill 79 will establish a quota system of hiring based on race, colour, gender or other physical characteristics; and

"Whereas employers should be free to hire the most qualified person for a given job,

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

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

I totally endorse this petition and have signed it.

EMERGENCY SERVICE

Mr Peter North (Elgin): To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas Four Counties General Hospital in Newbury, Ontario, provides 24-hour emergency services to an area that covers the four neighbouring corners of Middlesex, Elgin, Kent and Lambton counties, approximately 16,000 people live in small towns, villages and 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, it will have to close its emergency department for part of the 24-hour period -- the nearest emergency departments are 40 to 60 minutes' driving distance away,

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

"We have attached our name and signature to this petition." I have as well.

FIREARMS SAFETY

Mrs Karen Haslam (Perth): I have a petition to put in today.

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

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

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

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

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

TUITION FEES

Mr Tim Murphy (St George-St David): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the NDP has hiked tuition 42% since taking office; and

"Whereas the 20% increase announced this year is the largest tuition increase in history; and

"Whereas the Premier has commented that the enormous tuition increases are simply bringing tuition levels back to the same level as they were in 1967; and

"Whereas unemployment levels for young people were at 3.6% in 1967 but today in 1994 are over 19%; and

"Whereas the NDP government has singled out young people as the only group to face record tax increases this year;" -- so far -- "and

"Whereas Mike Harris and the Conservatives have been silent about the unprecedented tax hike that this tuition increase amounts to; and

"Whereas Mike Harris and the Conservatives have been silent about the plight facing the young people facing the worst economic circumstances since the 1930s,

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to overturn the unfair 20% increase in tuition the NDP has instituted this year."

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): Lyn may raise the tuition fees higher.

Mr Murphy: It's clear that the Treasurer can't take the truth. I affix my signature and support and I hope the Treasurer will too.

GARY WALKER

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): I have a petition dealing with a very emotional issue in my riding addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly to encourage the classification of Gary Walker, convicted paedophile, as a dangerous sex offender."

Over 700 residents have affixed their signatures, and I sign the petition as well, indicating my support.

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

Mr Peter North (Elgin): I have a petition here signed by more than 450 people in the Elgin county area. It's to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

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

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

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

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

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

CANCER TREATMENT

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario which reads as follows:

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

"That the Legislative Assembly urge the Minister of Health to respond forthwith to issues raised in the Liberal task force on cancer care, including the urgent needs for radiation equipment, addressing shortages in trained personnel and providing adequate information and non-medical services for patients."

I have affixed my signature to this petition and heartily concur with it.

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): I have a number of petitions here signed by people in my riding. It reads as follows: It's addressed to the Honourable Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

"Bill 55," the bill of Mr Cousens, the Progressive Conservative member, "will make it illegal, with fines of 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 religion, against historical Christianity, which does not condone homosexuality.

"We want to maintain our basic right to disagree with homosexuality. Some homosexuals are no longer content to express their ideas but are demanding that contrary views be suppressed with stiff penalties.

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

"Therefore, we request that the House refrain from passing Mr Cousens's Bill 55."

It's signed by a number of people in my riding.

HEALTH PROTECTION LEGISLATION

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I have a petition with 81 signatures addressed to the Legislative Assembly.

"We, the undersigned, support Bill 89, An Act to amend the Health Protection and Promotion Act.

"As currently written, should we help someone in distress, and as a consequence, we suspect that we may be exposed to a disabling, communicable disease, nothing in the Health Protection and Promotion Act will compel the doctor or the hospital to disclose to us the exposure to the disabling, communicable disease.

"We, the undersigned, have a vested interest in the disclosure of the exposure to disabling communicable disease. Bill 89 will allow the citizens of Ontario and our emergency services."

I've signed this document.

SNOW REMOVAL

Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): "We, the undersigned, petition the St Lawrence Parks Commission to continue snow removal through the St Lawrence Parkway to ensure public access for winter recreational activity.

"We feel the commission's decision to construct a gate, lock the gate and neglect snow removal is an outright infringement of the rights of the taxpayers, residents, fishing licensees and owners of seasonal park passes.

"With the intended lockout, many of us will not enjoy cross-country skiing, ice fishing, tobogganing, walking or simply a Sunday drive through the park. The decision to lock out affects each and every one of us on a personal level and we strongly protest."

That's signed by 782 residents of my riding and I've also affixed my signature.

FIREARMS SAFETY

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly which reads as follows:

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

"Whereas you should have followed the OFAH" -- meaning 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 costs of another course or examination and we should not have to learn about classes of firearms that we have no desire to own,

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

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

I have signed my name to this petition.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

Mrs Marland from the standing committee on government agencies presented the committee's 18th report.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Does the member wish to make a brief statement?

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): No, I do not have any brief statement to make.

The Speaker: Pursuant to standing order 106(g)11, the report is deemed to be adopted by the House.

1510

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

Ms Haeck from the standing committee on regulations and private bills presented the committee's report, which was read as follows and adopted:

Your committee begs to report the following bills without amendment:

Bill Pr71, An Act respecting The Capitol Theatre and Arts Centre (Windsor)

Bill Pr93, An Act to revive North Toronto Christian School (Interdenominational)

Bill Pr99, An Act to revive Eden Community House of Toronto.

Your committee begs to report the following bill as amended:

Bill Pr95, An Act respecting the City of Kitchener.

Your committee further recommends that the fees, and the actual cost of printing at all stages and in the annual statutes, be remitted on Bill Pr71, An Act respecting The Capitol Theatre and Arts Centre (Windsor); Bill Pr93, An Act to revive North Toronto Christian School (Interdenominational); and Bill Pr99, An Act to revive Eden Community House of Toronto.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

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

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

Bill 147, An Act to designate an Avian Emblem for Ontario / Projet de loi 147, Loi désignant l'emblème avien de l'Ontario.

Ms Sharon Murdock (Sudbury): The loon is considered to be the bird of Ontario. It is still not official despite the fact that a boy from near Sudbury won a prize under the Liberal government for naming the bird. I am very, very pleased to be bringing this bill forward.

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 Speaker (Hon David Warner): When we left off, the honourable member for Don Mills had completed his remarks, but we did not have time for questions and/or comments. That time is now available. Are there any questions and/or comments related to the speech by the member for Don Mills? If not, we resume the rotation and I recognize the honourable member for Ottawa Centre, the Minister of Housing.

Hon Evelyn Gigantes (Minister of Housing): I'm pleased to support Bill 143. I've followed the debate that's going on in second reading with a great deal of interest, and it's been quite a debate. We've heard about democracy, we've heard about representation by population, about tradition, about community policing, about costs, about taxes and about what the people of Ottawa-Carleton think about all of those things.

It is, for those of us who are so proud that we're so fortunate to live in Ottawa-Carleton, a gripping and even a moving event. I'm more than pleased to participate in the debate; I'm delighted.

Before I offer what I think and hope may be some helpful comments on the contents of the bill, I'd like to take a few moments to remind members and the public of what our government has said it would do and what it has done to respond to the public demand for change to local government structures in Ottawa-Carleton.

A few weeks after our government was elected in the fall of 1990, the then Minister of Municipal Affairs, Dave Cooke, announced the government would provide for the election of the chair of regional council by the public, provide for a report by a commissioner delegated to consult the public about the role and structure of regional government in Ottawa-Carleton, introduce legislation to reform regional government by 1993, consider the many public requests for changes to Ottawa-Carleton's school boards and implement regional government reforms in time for the 1994 municipal elections. These were the things that our government said it would do and the time lines that were promised.

The government has done and is doing what it promised and more. It not only commissioned and reviewed recommendations by Graeme Kirby concerning the role and structure of regional government; it also commissioned and is acting on a thorough consultation undertaken by Brian Bourns on how school boards in Ottawa-Carleton should change.

I'm personally very proud of the energy and commitment which our government has demonstrated and continues to demonstrate, to the keen interest of people in Ottawa-Carleton, about the state of their civic structures. People in Ottawa-Carleton care very much about their local governments and their school boards. These people are well educated and well informed and they want their local structures to adapt to the times and to their needs.

As I followed the debate that's been going on, I was struck by the fact that many opposition members have deluded themselves into underestimating the intelligence and the wit of the people who live in Ottawa-Carleton. Let me make it clear that I'm not challenging the fact that they actually have a low opinion of public intelligence in Ottawa-Carleton. I think their low opinion is sincerely held and I think it's wrong.

We have heard, for example, about how people in Ottawa-Carleton aren't ready for a regional police service, as if residents were somehow not quite grown-up enough, or, if they are mature enough to understand that the fourth-largest urban centre in Canada needs an integrated police service, they're still not mature enough to accept the integrated costs for that service. You'd actually be led to believe by these opposition members that the family which resides in Goulbourn and whose members work, attend schools and enjoy recreational and cultural activities all over the region didn't know that it received police services -- pardon me, Mr Speaker. I will have to pause.

The Speaker: Stop the clock for a minute.

Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Perhaps I could use this moment to respond to what's been said so far. Is that in order?

Hon Ms Gigantes: I can't go on, I don't think.

1520

The Speaker: If the member believes that she would be able to continue in a few minutes, fine. Otherwise, perhaps what we would do is to continue with the rotation and, with the consent of the House, allow the member to complete her allotted time in the rotation. That would require the cooperation of the entire House. Is that agreeable to the member?

Hon Ms Gigantes: Thank you, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: Is that agreeable to the House? Agreed.

Mr Robert Chiarelli (Ottawa West): I'm pleased to participate in this debate on the Ottawa-Carleton government legislation. I think the process we have seen with respect to this legislation is a great example of why there is so much cynicism with the members of the public. Certainly, there is a lot of cynicism in the Ottawa-Carleton area with respect to the process of how this matter is hopefully coming to some kind of a conclusion.

But before I get into my speech, I do want to make an announcement, that the government House leader has today announced that after the second reading vote this bill will be going to a standing committee of the Legislature and the people of Ottawa-Carleton and the elected officials of Ottawa-Carleton will have an opportunity to speak to this bill, particularly in its changed form, because we had what was called Bill 77 and, all of a sudden, out of the blue, we had Bill 143, which had some very significant changes, particularly with respect to the school boards. It's only fair that the public in Ottawa-Carleton will have an opportunity at committee to comment on that.

But getting back to my point on cynicism, if we look at the chronology of events for this particular legislation, it goes back to 1987, when indeed my colleague Mr Grandmaître was the Minister of Municipal Affairs starting the original Bartlett study which culminated in two reports, being the Bartlett reports. We then went to legislation which was introduced by Mr Sweeney, who was the minister following Mr Grandmaître. The bill was introduced and it did have a lot of public support, media support and support from elected representatives.

That is how the system was supposed to work. Unfortunately, an election intervened and we then had to deal with the antics and the process of this government, the NDP government. Notwithstanding the Graham report near the end of our term, which was very well accepted by the community in Ottawa-Carleton, the NDP government decided to shelve any dealing with regional reform except to pass a bill dealing with election of the regional chair in Ottawa-Carleton.

We then get into the introduction or non-introduction of Bill 77. What happened is that a bill was prepared. It was circulated but not introduced. In May 1993, Evelyn Gigantes, the minister from Ottawa-Centre, the regional minister, attended with the mayors and the MPPs from Ottawa-Carleton. This is back in May. The timing and the process were discussed at great length. At that time, the minister undertook to have first reading by the end of June and to have second and third reading and committee proceedings completed in September or October.

Indeed, throughout 1993 the government did almost nothing. It let this problem fester and fester and fester. Indeed, it dragged it right down to the last week of the Legislature when the government House leader told the regional minister of Ottawa-Carleton, as though he was chastising a school child, a kindergarten student: "No, you may not have your bill. We don't have time." Why was the bill not introduced for second reading in September or October, as she had undertaken? Why did it not go to committee so the people of Ottawa-Carleton could have their say in the normal course?

By way of comparison, I bring your attention to December 1992. There was a bill, the market value assessment bill dealing with Metropolitan Toronto, which I'm sure you will recall, that was particular to the Toronto area. The government provided day after day of debate on second reading. It made special provisions for committee hearings in December 1992. It then came back and debated the bill again and ended up withdrawing the bill.

The government gave due attention to an issue that was very important to Metropolitan Toronto. When it came to a bill that is the most important bill in the history of Ottawa-Carleton in 25 years, the Minister of Municipal Affairs, the government House leader and the regional minister from Ottawa-Carleton could not get even one hour of debate in this Legislature to meet the deadline for the end of 1993. That is unacceptable. Indeed, I think it is very insulting to the people in Ottawa-Carleton to have such a low priority for the most important bill in the history of the region.

You will know that municipal politicians, potential candidates, have to start planning for their election or re-election; 1994 is a municipal election year in Ontario and the candidates and potential candidates and the public in Ottawa-Carleton don't know what legislation they're going to be operating under in an election year. That is inexcusable. It is inexcusable because the minister from Ottawa Centre admitted quite candidly in May 1993 that it was essential to have this legislation approved and passed by the end of the year, and that did not happen.

We've heard a lot about opposition delay and opposition threats of filibuster in this particular process, the region of Carleton reform legislation. I am not going to filibuster. I don't recommend filibustering on this type of legislation, but I can certainly understand the feelings of the member for Nepean, Mr Daigeler, and other members from Ottawa-Carleton who have had no opportunity to move amendments. They were basically told they weren't going to have an opportunity to move amendments or to discuss compromises in the legislation, and this legislation is very important to all members in Ottawa-Carleton.

This bill has split the Ottawa-Carleton area almost down the middle. We have the urban area, the city of Ottawa, which represents some 45% or 46% of the population, which are of one mind, and outside we have the suburban municipalities, which are of a different mind on a number of these issues. The art of governing would have been for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and the local regional minister, Evelyn Gigantes, to try to bring these people together and work out a compromise, a compromise that maybe would not be perfect but would be some kind of an accommodation to keep this community from splitting.

When you look at the efforts, the lobbying, if you will, of the regional mayors, Nicholds from Kanata and Franklin from Nepean and Cain from Gloucester, they've acted very responsibly. They've prepared briefs, they've negotiated with local MPPs, they've negotiated with the minister. Essentially, they've had the door slammed in their face in terms of reasonable discussion and compromise. The two ministers, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and the minister from Ottawa Centre, have basically said, "It's our way or the doorway."

We have a strong community in Ottawa-Carleton -- the suburban communities and the urban communities -- and rather than bringing these people together, these two ministers have torn them apart. That's a sad, sad commentary on how this government does business.

We do have differences. Indeed, we have differences on the opposition benches. My riding is totally within the Ottawa urban area, which wants one type of reform. Mr Daigeler, for example, from Nepean, is totally outside of Ottawa and his mayor, his council and his public want something different. We want an opportunity in the process of this Legislature to debate the issue, to put alternatives on the table and to try to come to some reasonable compromise. To date we haven't had that opportunity. Indeed, before this government even called Bill 77 for second reading, it shut us down. In May, June and July 1993 both these ministers said, "We will bring the bill forward" if they had a commitment from the opposition to give it one hour of debate.

1530

Referring back to the Metro Toronto market value bill, they had hours of debate and they had special committee hearings just before the break at Christmas 1992. These two ministers and this government have basically said to the 650,000 people in Ottawa-Carleton, "For the most important bill in your history, we'll give you an hour's debate." That is absolutely unacceptable.

There is some relief offered today, because they realize on the government side that the opposition is serious. They have said they're going to send what is now referred to as Bill 143, the Ottawa-Carleton government bill, to a standing committee for some public hearings. That is welcome, but it should have been done last September and October when it would not have created so much confusion and consternation on the part of the people and the elected representatives of Ottawa-Carleton.

As I said originally, we have different opinions in Ottawa-Carleton. The community is split down the middle. You have the suburban mayors and communities on the one side and you have the urban area, Ottawa, on the other side. The minister from Ottawa Centre is obviously taking the urban side and she is promoting Bill 77, which essentially has the full support of the city of Ottawa and of all the community associations in the city of Ottawa.

I want to refer to one item that has relevance to last December when it became obvious that this government was mismanaging the issue of Ottawa-Carleton review. I want to refer to a news release which was issued on December 9 by MPP Dalton McGuinty and myself and I'm going to quote some extracts from it:

"Ottawa South MPP Dalton McGuinty and Ottawa West MPP Bob Chiarelli have urged the NDP government to pass the regional reform bill" -- it was then Bill 77 -- "into law before the current session of the Legislature ends next week." That was the government's own self-imposed deadline.

"If it appears a filibuster is imminent, both MPPs want the government to force a vote through use of a time allocation motion." That did not take place and the fact that it didn't take place caused a lot of confusion and is still causing confusion technically, politically and with the public in Ottawa-Carleton.

"The two MPPs are also urging the government to approve a compromise amendment which would give mayors of municipalities with a population over 35,000 (Ottawa, Nepean, Gloucester, Cumberland, Kanata) a full seat and vote on regional council while the smaller municipalities (Goulbourn, Osgood, Rideau, West Carleton, Vanier, Rockcliffe Park) would have a full seat, but no vote."

"Chiarelli and McGuinty say that passage of Bill 77 (second and third reading), with a compromise on the inclusion of regional mayors, is a practical and reasonable way to approve the bill before the Christmas recess, with time allocation, if necessary."

We were trying to come up with a reasonable compromise to accommodate the concerns of proportional representation so that small communities of 10,000 or 20,000 population don't have the same vote as the city of Ottawa, for example, but there was a sense that there is a place for the mayors to be at the table. That suggestion, that recommendation, was not accepted in the least by the government House leader, by the Minister of Municipal Affairs or by the minister from Ottawa Centre. Indeed, they left the impression with the people of Ottawa-Carleton that the bill was dead and they blamed the opposition.

First, the government did not bring the bill forward, when there was an undertaking from Evelyn Gigantes to do so. Secondly, they had opposition members who were willing to amend or breach the rules of this House, in a sense, by time allocation in order to get it through with a compromise.

I certainly took exception last week to the Minister of Municipal Affairs saying that opposition members support Bill 77, referring to myself and Mr McGuinty. I certainly do not support Bill 77 in its present form. I want to move amendments to it, which I will do if I get the opportunity, and if those amendments are not passed, I will reluctantly vote for Bill 77, because as I said this process started in 1987 and it's still not complete. The people in Ottawa-Carleton are justifiably cynical with their elected officials in not having brought this issue of regional reform to a conclusion.

I mentioned that, coming from an Ottawa riding completely within the city of Ottawa, I pay attention to what my constituents tell me. I want to refer to a letter -- I'm actually going to quote the letter and get it on record -- from the Federation of Citizens' Associations of Ottawa-Carleton. Before I do so, I want to read into the record the names of the 25 community associations whose umbrella association is indeed supporting Bill 77, or Bill 143, as it is now called. This is in anticipation of some of my colleagues in the opposition who will refer to comments from community associations outside the urban area.

The associations under the FCA umbrella include Action Sandy Hill, Britannia Park Coalition, Britannia Ratepayers Association, Carlingwood Action Committee, Carlingwood Community Association, Centretown Citizens Community Association, Champlain Park Community Association, Civic Hospital Area Neighbourhood Association, Federation of Ottawa-Carleton Tenants Associations, Glabar Park Community Association, Glebe Community Association, Hampton-Iona Community Group, Hintonburg Community Association, King Edward Area Task Force, Lowertown West Community Association, Manor Park Community Association, New Edinburgh Community Alliance, Ottawa East Community Association, Ottawa South Community Association, Overbrook Community Council, Riverside Park Community Association, Sheffield Glen Community Association, Uppertown Community Association, West Wellington Community Association and the Woodpark Community Association. Some of these associations are in my riding of Ottawa West; others are across the urban area of Ottawa.

The FCA wrote a letter to Ottawa-Carleton members and copied the government and other MPPs. It goes as follows:

"As you know, the Federation of Citizens' Associations of Ottawa-Carleton Inc (FCA) is an umbrella organization composed of approximately 25 community associations in Ottawa.

"FCA has taken an active and consistent interest in the reform of municipal government in Ottawa-Carleton for a number of years. Our direct involvement began with the presentation of an oral commentary to the Ottawa-Carleton Liberal caucus on November 3, 1989, on Chairman David W. Bartlett's phase 1 report on regional review entitled Accountability and Representation. A written brief summarizing the recommendations made by FCA during that meeting is attached for your information.

"FCA also presented a brief to Ottawa-Carleton electoral boundaries commissioner Katherine A. Graham in September 1990 and made a written submission to Ottawa-Carleton regional review commissioner Graeme Kirby in October 1992. We have also made written representations to successive ministers of Municipal Affairs urging them to proceed quickly with democratic reforms.

"The first recommendation made by FCA in 1989 -- direct election of the regional chair -- has already been implemented. The other recommendations we made in 1989 are remarkably similar to the legislative reforms proposed by the provincial government in Bill 77. It is also worth noting that the Ottawa-Carleton Board of Trade, which has a very different constituency from FCA, adopted recommendations in 1989 very similar to those made by FCA, and quite independently of FCA."

By way of an aside, I will indicate that the Ottawa-Carleton Board of Trade is still very strongly in support of the bill that is before the Legislature at the present time.

1540

The letter goes on:

"FCA regards Bill 77 as Ottawa-Carleton's best and last hope for the long-overdue reform of municipal government in our region before the end of the century. Accordingly, Bill 77 has our full support.

"The reasons we gave in the attached brief for the recommendations we made in 1989 are no less valid today. Furthermore, our brief anticipated the present opposition of the local mayors (with one notable exception) to their removal from regional council as ex officio members."

The letter goes on, without my reading the whole letter, to say that the FCA prefers and recommends that the mayors not be members of regional council.

They go on to point out as well that they have had subsequent discussions with Mr Bartlett, who wrote the original report, who recommended that the mayors be on. Mr Bartlett confirmed indeed in writing to the FCA that he would support at this time the mayors not being on regional council.

Now, having read that, and having put on record the feelings of my constituents and the 25 associations in the urban Ottawa area, I still think there is room for compromise for the mayors to be on regional council. The reason I'm saying that is because there is strong division in the Ottawa-Carleton area, and I believe we, as elected representatives, should make every effort to accommodate that.

In the news release which Mr McGuinty and I issued in December, we suggested that the mayors from the larger municipalities, those with populations over 35,000, be given a full seat with a vote on regional council. That will distort slightly representation by population, but the concept of representation by population still is very significantly improved in this bill over what it is at the present time with the mayors all being on and all having full votes.

The other part of that amendment is that those mayors from municipalities with populations below 35,000 would sit at the table as ex officio members but have no vote. They would bring to regional council the prestige of their office, the knowledge base they have on current affairs and perhaps a different perspective than a directly elected councillor from that municipality who sits on regional council.

Madam Speaker, if you can imagine a city such as Nepean or Kanata or Gloucester, you have a mayor's office, you have the authority of the mayor's office, and you have corporations, businesses, that come wanting to do business, to start businesses in that particular community. They rightly go to the mayor's office and talk to the mayor with proposals for action to create jobs, to create development in a particular community.

A lot of these issues require decision-making at the regional level, as well as in the area municipality or the local level. Can you imagine a mayor, having negotiated over a period of months or indeed years with a corporation that wants to settle in their municipality, if it involves some kind of a development or decision at the regional level, being told that under present Bill 77 or 143 you cannot be at the regional table, that you've got to work a tag team match with your elected regional councillor?

I think that undermines the position of the mayor in the area municipality, so I want the opportunity, and I've wanted the opportunity all along, to move an amendment to try to bridge that gap, to try to come up with a compromise solution so that the mayors are not unduly compromised and so that those area municipalities are not unduly compromised.

If that amendment is not approved or passed, I have an alternative amendment which I want. That is, at the very least, to have all the mayors sit on regional council as non-voting members, for the same reason I just enunciated. Again, I think that will go some way to bridging the gap that is splitting the community at the present time.

We haven't had the opportunity. We've been told by this government time and time again in 1993: "The opposition is holding up this legislation. We will bring it forward when we get a commitment from the opposition that it will be debated and passed in one hour." That is not acceptable, and quite frankly it bridges on being an insult to this Legislature and an insult to the people of Ottawa-Carleton, to have the opposition, and indeed the elected representatives, manhandled by this government in that manner.

The other amendment I want the opportunity to present has to do with the transferring of economic authority for land development to the upper-tier government, to the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton. I agree with the principle that this should occur. However, the regional municipality and the area municipalities should have the flexibility to vary that by agreement. In other words, my amendment that I want to propose with respect to that economic power would make it possible for an area municipality to apply to the regional municipality for approval to do the land development or economic development that is now being taken away from the authority at the local level.

If it makes sense for the upper tier to delegate that authority in a particular case to the area municipality, it should have the authority to do so. They don't have it under this legislation. Why not? If it fits in with the economic policies of the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton and it's going to be more efficient or effective to do so, why not have the region say to the city of Nepean or the city of Gloucester or the city of Kanata or Cumberland: "Yes, you've applied. We've looked at it. It makes sense for you to do it." You do some sort of a development agreement and say: "Good luck. If you need any help, we'll help you along with it." Right now, that is not contemplated in this legislation, and I think in a sense it handcuffs and puts a straitjacket on the flexibility in the region. I do want the opportunity to move that amendment so that flexibility will exist.

I'm nearing the end of my time. I want to say once again that I think the NDP government has done a great disservice to the people of Ottawa-Carleton by delaying introducing this legislation, with the NDP threatening the opposition by saying, "It will not come forward unless you have one hour of debate," and I think that debases the process.

In conclusion, in my last minute or minute and a half, we've been talking about ministers of Municipal Affairs and we're talking in some respects about the disservice that the current minister has done. But I do want to take this opportunity to say that the former minister, one of my colleagues sitting beside me, this Friday is celebrating his 25th anniversary in public office. We are having a big celebration in Ottawa for the former Minister of Municipal Affairs.

I want to say that the issues that he dealt with as minister were dealt with very professionally, efficiently. As I mentioned, he started the Bartlett report, phase 1, phase 2; we had terrific public consultation; Mr Sweeney became the minister; the legislation was introduced and it was a done deal, but unfortunately the election intervened and we got back to this very, very bad process that we've seen at the present time, and confusion.

With those comments, I thank you very much, and we certainly look forward to committee hearings and the opportunity for presenting amendments to this bill.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Margaret H. Harrington): Questions or comments on the member's presentation?

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): I just wonder if, from the member across the way, that was a paid advertisement on the part of the Liberal riding association of Ottawa Centre or whatever riding it was.

I would also say that I think the process that was started by the former minister was being somewhat grossly exaggerated on the part of what the effect was, because part of the problem is that it didn't go away with what the former minister had tried to do.

1550

Mr Hans Daigeler (Nepean): The member across the House here obviously doesn't know very much about either Ottawa-Carleton or eastern Ontario. I can assure him that the member for Ottawa East does not need any kind of advertising to be re-elected. To set the record straight, and I want to join the member for Ottawa West, who has spoken and congratulated the member for Ottawa East on his 25 years of service, I certainly want to add my congratulation to that as well.

But with regard to what the member for Ottawa West has said, I think very clearly he pointed out that there are different opinions. However, he insisted -- and I'm very glad the way he has done this -- that we in Ottawa-Carleton were and are prepared to work things out, that we are prepared to sit down and through consensus, and not through coercion, work things out, arrive at a compromise position that reflects the needs and the concerns of all the people and of all the municipalities in Ottawa-Carleton, including my own city of Nepean. I think that's what the member for Ottawa West has very clearly said, that the Liberal approach is to work through consensus and through cooperation, even if it takes some time -- I admit that -- and effort to work on a compromise that people can live with and not just, like the NDP, like this government, is doing, to its disgrace and to its shame, pushing one side of the equation and only the Ottawa side.

I'll be getting an opportunity very, very shortly to speak to that, but I want to say I was pleased that the member for Ottawa West, even though he takes a different position than I do on the bill itself, emphasized very, very correctly that we in Nepean as well, and in the other suburban municipalities, are ready to make our contribution to the regional government in Ottawa-Carleton through compromise and not through coercion.

Mr David Johnson (Don Mills): The member for Ottawa West apparently at one point had a proposal whereby some of the mayors would serve on the regional council and have a vote and other mayors would serve on the regional council but not have a vote. I believe the member for Ottawa West has withdrawn that proposal. That was a suggestion, I guess, at one time perhaps, but if he has withdrawn it, I'm pleased that he has and recognizes that that kind of solution would not work, that you cannot have a member, a mayor, sitting on a council without a vote. That member would be what they call a lame-duck member, would have no influence and would really not be in the mainstream of the decision-making on the regional council. Perhaps it was put forward in the spirit of cooperation in reaching a solution, but I'm afraid that it would be doomed to failure.

I think what's being proposed now by the members on this side, and what we proposed all along, that the mayors be full-fledged members of this regional council, will give that liaison between the local councils and the regional council. I hope the government is listening to the message, because if you want to have local government work, then there needs to be cooperation between the regional and the local councils, and the only way that that's going to work is to have the mayors serve on both levels, because they will provide that working relationship.

There are other problems beyond that that need to be addressed, because, as we know, there are concerns with regard to the policing situation, with regard to the cost. I hope the government will hold public hearings, will listen to these concerns in the Ottawa-Carleton region. Yes, there's been some consultation through various studies, but this particular proposal has not been put to the people in the Ottawa-Carleton region, and that can only be done through public hearings.

The Acting Speaker: We have time for one more question or comment.

Mr George Mammoliti (Yorkview): Several times during the speech, and even with the questions or comments, I heard about the Liberal approach. The Liberal approach, in my opinion -- oh, and by the way, happy birthday to the member for Ottawa East.

Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): It's an anniversary, George: 25th anniversary in politics.

Mr Mammoliti: Anniversary? Sorry, I thought it was a birthday.

The Liberal approach has always been -- and my speeches after a speech like that and my questions after a speech like that are becoming very repetitive in this place -- the Liberal approach for four years has been to bash, scratch, punch, to kick, to scream, to do anything to distract people from the issues. This is no different. This bill here, Bill 143, is no different than any other bill. Your approach and your comments have done nothing but try to discredit the government for what it's doing. Why don't you talk about the positive things that the bill has done?

Mr Bisson: That's why they're the opposition.

Mr Mammoliti: That's a valid point. However, you can be effective in opposition by giving constructive criticism, by giving suggestions on how to do it a little better and not just standing up here continually for four years and doing nothing but bash every single bill that comes forward in this place.

Some of you might be taking offence at this, and quite frankly I am quite sick of standing up and pointing this out to you continually for four years. Bill 143, again, is no different than any other bill. Talk about the positives for a change. Talk about the policing in the community, that the community has continually wanted changes, and wanted the changes that this is going to provide. Talk about the positives. Talk about the positives when it comes to bringing local governments together --

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

Mr Mammoliti: -- and running them a little differently, a little more appropriately. Talk about the positives for a change.

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

Mr Chiarelli: First of all, with respect to the comments of the member for Don Mills, he may not be aware of the fact that the suburban mayors came up with a compromise for the mayors to sit on regional council, and indeed the mayors themselves agreed that the village of Rockcliffe Park would sit on council without a vote. It's that principle that I was talking about in saying that the smaller municipalities, not only Rockcliffe but the other ones that I mentioned, could conceivably sit on council without a vote. The principle itself has been endorsed by the suburban mayors.

With respect to the comments of the member for Yorkview, I can only ask one simple question: Why was Bill 77 not put on the order paper and called in 1993? The only answer that has been given is that the opposition was threatening a filibuster. If every time the opposition threatened something, the government withdrew its legislation, there would be nothing going on in here. That really was a very, very silly response.

It didn't bring it forward because it didn't have the clout, it didn't have the commitment that the member for Yorkview had as a member from the Metropolitan Toronto area when the market value assessment bill came forward in December 1992. It was given very high priority, it was debated at length in this Legislature, they made special arrangements for committee hearings and, indeed, the government ended up withdrawing it. But the way that bill was dealt with was very different from the Ottawa-Carleton bill, because this minister has no clout in this government.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate? The Minister of Housing and member for Ottawa Centre.

Hon Ms Gigantes: Could I please take a moment to express my thanks to my colleagues on both sides of the House for permitting me to rejoin the debate, having so rudely interrupted myself in the first case through coughing.

It's a temptation to get into trying to respond directly to the member for Ottawa West. I'm pleased to know that he has indicated his willingness to support Bill 143, as I am doing.

I was drawing to the attention of members the fact that people in Ottawa-Carleton are not only mature enough to understand the need for an integrated police force as one item contained within this bill but also mature enough to understand that you have to have an integrated method of paying for police services, and they are quite prepared to do that.

1600

We've heard from opposition members that people in Ottawa-Carleton are a bit quaint about how they do business. My favourite contribution during the debate we've heard on this subject of business was from the member representing Carleton, speaking on March 24.

I'm going to quote a little. He said:

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

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

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

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

"These are good people. The 12 mayors" -- last time I looked, there were 11 -- "I know, have their hearts all in the right place, and boy, when an investor comes through their door they want to get hold of that investor and say, 'Come on, let's walk out and have a look at a piece of property that the city owns,' or whatever. I don't understand why we can't delegate some of this down to the municipal level and allow the regional municipality to do that, if it so wishes, at a regional government meeting."

How's that for a description? That's what the member for Carleton thinks is an appropriate way to do economic planning in Ottawa-Carleton. It was good enough in the good old days and it should be good enough for ever, because, you know, people in Ottawa-Carleton are kind of quaint about how they like to do business.

We don't like to talk about sector partnerships or regional economic planning and all that modern international competition stuff. Let's just go out and see if our mayor here can fix you up with your land size needs and then we'll go down to the regional council and get it to tidy up the details, and that's how it should be done, according to the member for Carleton.

The passion of some members opposite for the old ways of doing things is pretty awe-inspiring. From my point of view, it warps their vision. It makes them believe that people in Ottawa-Carleton are like them, afraid of change, afraid of new ways of doing things.

Let me quote a bit from the member for Ottawa-Rideau contributing to the debate on March 28. She said:

"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."

This is a statement from the member for Ottawa-Rideau that exhibits an enormous resistance to positive change, and then it projects that same resistance and timorousness on to the population of Ottawa-Carleton. I have no reason to believe the member for Ottawa-Rideau is not in earnest in her resistance to change, but I deeply and firmly believe she's mistaken when she projects that resistance onto the population of Ottawa-Carleton.

What is the change that she and others fear most? Now we get to the heart of the matter. It's the structure of the proposed new regional council. What is it about the proposed structure which is new? Not the directly elected representation; not the proposal for directly elected regional councillors, who would represent regional wards which cut across local municipal boundaries. That was contained in the Liberal 1990 bill. So it's not the proposed new, directly elected, multimunicipal council representatives who are exciting the fear and loathing in some members opposite. It's the fact that they will be regional councillors who will represent their regional wards without the company of municipal mayors on that council.

This is the outrage and the shock and the scandal, the offensive, almost blasphemous proposal. This is the true crime they see in Bill 143. It proposes a council which is elected to be a regional council rather than a regional council which represents what? The whole notion of a regional council which is directly elected to be a regional council dismays and confuses some of the members opposite.

For example, on March 24, the member for Ottawa East said:

"I represent three mayors in this bill, and those...mayors don't see eye to eye, so it's...difficult for me to stand and say, 'I'm in favour of this for Nepean or Kanata or Ottawa or Vanier.' I look at my region globally and I want to try to be as reasonable as possible."

Later in the same speech, he provided this further analysis:

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

I don't quite see how that works through as a thought, but if he says that's how it is, I take his word.

The member for Ottawa East continued:

"Where will the link be? Don't forget, these 19 regional councillors, these new wards, will cross municipal boundaries. I was looking at the recent map introduced by the ministry, and in my area my regional representative will be serving three mayors. How can a regional representative, a regional councillor, serve three mayors? How can he be aware of three different municipal budgets? I think it's very important that the person have the power to speak for these individual municipalities, but I find it very difficult that the role of the regional councillor.... Well, you'll have to sit on the fence because one municipality may not agree with another one. I think this is why it's so important that the mayors do sit on regional council."

I think the member for Ottawa East is earnest in his confusion, but I think he's wrong when he judges the population of Ottawa-Carleton to be in a similar state of mind. People in Ottawa-Carleton do not think regional council members should represent mayors. They think regional council members should be elected to represent the residents of Ottawa-Carleton. In fact, we've seen some evidence within the Liberal caucus. The Liberal representatives of Ottawa West, who just spoke, and Ottawa South don't seem to share this confusion of the member representing Ottawa East. They don't oppose the proposal to elect regional councillors to represent the residents of the region rather than to represent the mayors in the region. That's the huge issue here. It's amazing that it should be so, but that's the way things are. It's also the reason things should change at regional council in Ottawa-Carleton.

1610

The world has changed in the 25 years since the first regional government in Ontario was established in Ottawa-Carleton, and Ottawa-Carleton has changed. I can attest to those changes. Between 1975 and 1981, I served two electoral terms in this Legislature representing the riding of Carleton East in the eastern part of Ottawa-Carleton. In 1975, the municipality of Gloucester was a very inward-looking municipality, very traditional in attitude, almost parochial in nature. By 1981, having experienced some years of the fastest population growth in Canada, Gloucester had become a cosmopolitan and energetic centre of new ideas and wider visions, which is probably why I didn't remain the member representing the area. Ottawa-Carleton has changed and its local government structures must now reflect that change.

It's amazing to me that some members opposite, in fact the majority of the members opposite, who have participated in this debate have tried to bolster their resistance to change with material such as a letter which many have quoted from some people who use a letterhead that reads, "Citizens for Good Government." This communication is in earnest, I believe, but it cannot earnestly lay claim to being representative, nor does it. Six signatures are attached and they do not claim to represent the organizations in which they have membership or the residents in the areas where they live.

But to hear some of the members opposite as they cite claims and statements from this communication, you might be led to think there was a mass movement fomenting in Ottawa-Carleton against Bill 143 and in particular against the proposal to establish a directly elected regional council without mayors. This is not the case, and if some members opposite believe it is the case, they are deluding themselves.

Members opposite, some of them, have used as proof of the unacceptability of a regional council without mayors a vote of the existing regional council, on which of course the existing mayors sit. Did the members opposite note that even with all mayors voting, regional council came dangerously close to supporting a regional council with no mayors? How can opposition members expect that their anxieties will be taken seriously when they use this kind of flimsy evidence?

The debate opposite now directs itself to a legislative committee travelling to Ottawa-Carleton. If a legislative committee travels to Ottawa-Carleton for hearings, the unhappy mayors will be heard by the committee. The public in Ottawa-Carleton has already heard the unhappy mayors.

At a media conference after Christmas, I spoke on behalf of the Minister of Municipal Affairs, the valiant Ed Philip, to let the public of Ottawa-Carleton know that we would move legislatively this spring to provide new regional roles and structures for the local elections in 1994. One media representative asked if I didn't think more study was required, and the response from the rest of a very large group of the media was groaning laughter. The local media are in this case very much in touch with public feelings in Ottawa-Carleton on this matter.

People in Ottawa-Carleton want the changes proposed in Bill 143 and they want to use those changes to directly elect a regional council which will be directly accountable for significant areas of local responsibility: economic development, an integrated police service, environmental protection and the $1 billion of local taxpayers' money that's currently spent at the regional level. That's why I'm pleased to support Bill 143.

The Acting Speaker: Questions or comments to the member?

Mr Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa East): The minister responsible for, let's say, the Ottawa-Carleton area -- I don't think she's responsible for eastern Ontario -- has a clear way of muddying the waters. She just loves to talk to herself, to listen to herself and to believe in herself. I find it very, very strange coming from that minister because she's always talking about consultation and compromises. On three different occasions, that minister, the Minister of Housing, made three different announcements.

Bill 77 never came to the House. Then she made a second announcement and now this is her third announcement. I don't think the government was ready and willing, didn't have the courage to introduce Bill 77 and used the opportunity to make some changes for the French-language school boards to introduce a new bill, Bill 143.

That's their real excuse for spending thousands of dollars in our local newspapers denouncing, blaming the opposition because we were delaying this legislation. We have told the minister on a number of occasions that the Ottawa-Carleton group, including the third party, wanted to work with the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and the minister and to listen to our options as pointed out by the member for Ottawa West. We do have options, we do have compromises, but their agenda is very different: "What you see is what you get. It's our way or the highway."

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

Mr Sterling: I want to indicate my concern over the minister, who is supposed to be a minister of the crown and representing the government, reading from Hansard and then putting her own spin on what I meant when I spoke in this Legislature, particularly about the economic development part of this bill.

I saw it, as I think the member for Ottawa West saw it in his speech, although he comes from a different point on the bill, for flexibility in this legislation, to allow municipalities to have the opportunity to be part of the overall economic development plan of the region.

I did not indicate in my speech at all that I was against the concept of having the region, in general, in charge of the overall planning of economic development in the area. Therefore, I find very objectionable the minister in her comments. I find it unbecoming of a minister. I find her comments condescending and silly.

Mr Drummond White (Durham Centre): I'd like to congratulate the member for Ottawa Centre for her comments and for her participation both in the debate and in, of course, the important process leading up to the completion of this legislation.

The member has shown a great deal of wisdom and breadth of experience as she reflects back upon the last 25 years on how the region of Ottawa-Carleton has changed and how it needs to continue to change. She even reflected upon her own political career in that regard. I know she has gained a great deal of wisdom through that experience.

The focus on economic development is an important one and I'm glad the member for Carleton pointed out how important it is that economic structures and municipal structures work together for the greater economic and social benefit of our whole community, and that they are not outmoded, they're not based upon ideas and structures that might have been applicable a generation or two ago but which no longer are effective. I think the member for Ottawa Centre points out in her speech how important it is to change what might have worked in 1969 to what will work in 1994 and 1995.

1620

The Acting Speaker: We have time for one more question or comment.

Mr Daigeler: I must say I deeply resent the arrogance that is coming through from the member for Ottawa Centre. She says that we in the suburban areas are afraid of change. Earlier on, before she interrupted herself, she said that we in the opposition parties are underestimating the wit and the intelligence of the voters of Ottawa-Carleton because we are saying they can't run their own affairs through the regional police force.

Minister, I think the only thing that I may have underestimated is in fact -- what I'm trying to say is not parliamentary, so I won't say it. But it refers to your own intelligence and wit, because if you are so ignorant of the position of the people in Nepean and in Gloucester, if you think that we feel we can't run our own affairs, then I wonder where you have been over the last 20 years. Thank you very much, we have run our police services in Nepean with a surplus, we have run the affairs of the city of Nepean with a surplus for a lot longer than the city of Ottawa.

I think you should have made an obligation on yourself to read the letters, to come to Nepean and find out what the people of Nepean and of the other suburban municipalities want and then you wouldn't make such outrageous statements as you made this afternoon in this House and earlier on during the debate. That is something that really shocks me, to hear this, because I know that the people have had difficulty meeting with the member for Ottawa Centre, but at least I thought she would follow the newspapers and wouldn't just read the Ottawa Citizen, that she would talk to people who are in other ridings and not just in her riding of Ottawa Centre. I find that very, very disappointing.

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

Hon Ms Gigantes: It's clear that some opposition members didn't much enjoy being quoted back to themselves, because when you listen to the words that they actually spoke during this debate, they don't make an awful lot of sense, even to themselves.

The question has been raised about whether we have listened to people in Ottawa-Carleton. I think that the whole process that has gone on over three years in Ottawa-Carleton, including discussion of what should be happening with our school boards, has been one in which the public of Ottawa-Carleton, from one end to the other -- north, south, east and west -- has had the ability to get involved, and to a large extent has involved itself. I certainly, as one member elected from that area, have talked to people from all the parts of Ottawa-Carleton affected by this bill.

It may surprise some members opposite from some of what they call suburban areas, such as Nepean, that there are people in Nepean who actually support Bill 143; I've talked to them. I've talked to people who don't support Bill 143. I've talked to the mayors. I've talked to enormous numbers of people on this subject. I can tell you that the overwhelming desire of the people in Ottawa-Carleton is to move on with this process.

We have been scolded for not having proceeded during the fall session, but that was a session during which we were being told that pieces of legislation such as the Environmental Bill of Rights would get held up if we proceeded. We were being told that it was open warfare and the opposition would resist to the last ounce of its strength, and so here we are. We are moving ahead in 1994, as we said we would. It may discomfort them but that's where we're at.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Daigeler: It's with some sense of anticipation that I've been waiting for the opportunity, at least a little bit longer than two minutes of response time, to be able to speak to this bill that we have before us. Frankly, it's a very long time that I've been waiting for this. I will make a number of points.

To start out with, however, to speak to the supposed delay by the opposition parties with regard to this bill, I think the delay simply is due to the fact that the current Minister of Municipal Affairs, Mr Philip, has seriously mishandled this whole dossier. I think that's really the problem that we're in, that this minister has mishandled this dossier.

I hope the Premier takes notice of that, if he's going to be the Premier for much longer, in his next cabinet shuffle, because I think the previous Minister of Municipal Affairs of the NDP, Mr Cooke, would have been a bit wiser and bit smarter in the way he handled these affairs. At least he was at the beginning, because way back in 1992, the minister at the time, Mr Cooke, wrote to all the members from the Ottawa-Carleton area and said: "Do you have some ideas for a person who could study the government system in Ottawa-Carleton? Give me some ideas."

I wrote back to Mr Cooke at the time, and here's what I said on April 1, 1992, two years ago:

"Further to your request for the names of possible commissioners to study municipal government in this area, I wish to state my strong opposition to the setting up of yet another costly study. Both Mr Bartlett and Katherine Graham have already completed very comprehensive reviews of the most significant issues.

"I can see the need to have some further public consultation on Miss Graham's specific proposals for regional wards. Any other studies are a waste of time and money." Was I ever right in my comments.

"I encourage you, therefore, to build on what has been done already at considerable cost and effort by a lot of people in this area."

That was my letter of April 1, 1992.

Now, to his credit, the then Minister of Municipal Affairs at least acknowledged my letter, at least wrote back, which cannot even be said of the current Minister of Municipal Affairs, who has the discourtesy of not even responding, of not even answering letters that I have written to him, which, by the way, is very different from the Premier. Again, I hope the Premier is taking notice of this, because the Premier himself even personally responds to letters that are written to him by members of the opposition. But this current minister has sufficient disregard for the opposition members that he doesn't even respond to letters from the opposition, and never mind letters from the public.

Anyway, at least the previous Minister of Municipal Affairs responded, and on May 5, which frankly was even good timing -- it didn't even take him too long to respond -- he did say, "Thank you for your letter of April 1."

Here's what he said:

"You will be reassured to know that we are not undertaking another costly study of municipal government in the Ottawa-Carleton region. I agree with you that there has been sufficient research and analysis over the past five years which has resulted in a number of recommendations on some outstanding issues. What I do intend to undertake is a short and cost-effective consultation process on the outstanding issues to provide a better understanding of the degree of public support for change."

I must say, if the then minister would have stuck to what he said in this letter, I think we would not be in the most unfortunate position that we're in today, where we have municipalities and local politicians and local representatives fighting with each other on how to govern ourselves in Ottawa-Carleton. If the minister, Mr Cooke, would have stayed the minister, I think he would have had enough political acumen and political knowledge and knowhow not to follow the advice of the member for Ottawa Centre and pit one municipality against the other.

The only reason that I can see why the member for Ottawa Centre is doing that is to perhaps try and bolster her own election chances. I cannot see for the life of me any other reason why the member for Ottawa Centre would be so negligent and so forgetful of the positions of the other municipalities in the Ottawa-Carleton area. I am sure she is aware that a lot of people -- not everybody, I grant you that. I would say the vast majority of the people, certainly in my municipality, certainly those who are in positions of responsibility and who have been elected by their own people, are in opposition to this proposal that is being put forward by this government.

1630

In terms of delay, I think it is simply false to say now -- we're really five minutes before 12, five minutes before anything can be done, before the next municipal election -- that because we as an opposition didn't fall flat and we didn't say you can pass this whole thing without any kind of further public consultation, we are to blame.

I tell the minister and I tell the Minister of Municipal Affairs and I tell the Minister of Housing that we said two and three years ago: "Build on the work, conclude the work that the Liberal government has done and lead this thing to a conclusion. You can do it easily within a year." If they would have done that and had not tried to reinvent the wheel, I think this legislation would have been in place well in advance of the election that is coming in this fall. So don't you dare blame the opposition for any kind of delay that we are experiencing.

The key point, however, is really the support for this initiative. It's very unfortunate that the Minister of Municipal Affairs is not here. However, the parliamentary assistant is here and he said earlier on, "Oh, the people in Ottawa-Carleton are in favour." Frankly, the sense of ignorance about the situation in Ottawa-Carleton that's coming through, to me, puzzles the mind. I can understand it perhaps a little bit from the parliamentary assistant because he has to follow the line, as I said earlier, that the minister is putting forward to him.

However, the member for Ottawa Centre knows full well that, for example, the Ottawa-Carleton Board of Trade, which is quoted by the Minister of Municipal Affairs as being in favour and therefore the people of Ottawa-Carleton are in favour, does not, and I insist, does not represent the position of, for example, the Nepean Chamber of Commerce. Frankly, after the minister spoke, I'm no longer sure whether she even knows that there is a Nepean Chamber of Commerce, a Kanata Chamber of Commerce and a Gloucester Chamber of Commerce, and that the Ottawa-Carleton Board of Trade essentially represents, and they have every right and reason to represent their views -- I don't deny that -- but they represent the position of Ottawa. Well, there is such a thing as the Nepean Chamber of Commerce, and before I point out some of the other opposition that's coming forward from my municipalities, I would just like to point out to the Minister of Housing, the member for Ottawa Centre, who is here, to indicate to her in case she hasn't read it, how the Nepean Chamber of Commerce feels about the project of the NDP government.

This is addressed to the Honourable Ed Philip:

"Dear Sir:

"The Nepean Chamber of Commerce is the acknowledged and respected voice of business in the city of Nepean. Our 430 individual and corporate members represent over 10,000 employees....

"We wrote to you last year to share our thoughts and conclusions with you regarding the Ottawa-Carleton regional review undertaken by Commissioner Kirby," and so on and so on.

"Although the bill has not yet received even second reading in the assembly, you have placed advertisements in the local press declaring the provisions of Bill 77 will be implemented forthwith."

By the way, for that advertisement the Minister of Municipal Affairs was severely chastised -- I've never heard a Speaker chastise a minister like that before -- as coming extremely close to contempt of this House in the way he told the public that this matter was basically law, without any kind of discussion or debate in this House.

In any case, here's what the Nepean Chamber of Commerce says:

"The Nepean Chamber of Commerce perceives the local municipality as the cornerstone of the entire political process in Canada." Frankly, there I fully agree with my people from Nepean and I will be speaking to that later on, because that really is the core issue. It is not Big Brother or Sister, whether he or she is located in Ottawa or in Toronto or wherever, or in Ottawa in terms of the federal government, but we like to look after our own affairs and that's really the issue. I will be coming back to that a little bit later on.

The Nepean Chamber of Commerce says the local municipal government is "the level of government nearest to, most accessible to and most responsive to the needs of the electorate. So-called 'regional issues' are nothing more than simple consensus extensions reflecting a commonality of interest at the municipal level. The proposed separation of representation to create a regional council entirely isolated and divorced from local councils is regressive and not in the public interest.

"The Nepean Chamber of Commerce strongly opposes" -- and I hope the minister's listening -- "the proposed amalgamation of the three local police services."

This is a two-page, very detailed letter. Obviously, because I have only 30 minutes, I cannot read all of this into the record. However, it is very, very clear that the Ottawa-Carleton Board of Trade, when it says, "We're in favour," does not speak for the position of the Nepean Chamber of Commerce. I will let the member for Carleton East speak to the position of the Gloucester Chamber of Commerce.

It is very, very clear that the Minister of Municipal Affairs is simply misinformed, to be polite, if he says that because of the Ottawa-Carleton Board of Trade being in favour of this initiative, the people of Ottawa-Carleton are in favour. This is just ignorance, not knowing the difference between the Ottawa-Carleton Board of Trade and the other chambers of commerce in our region.

Clearly, the Minister of Housing has said the press is in favour. I say yes, if you think that the Ottawa Citizen is the press in Ottawa-Carleton. For one reason or another, and I guess that's why they're called the Ottawa Citizen and not the Ottawa-Carleton Citizen, they have taken the position that, yes, they're in favour of one-tier government. That is their position and anything less than that, frankly, for them is not even acceptable.

That's a position they can take, but it certainly is only the position of the editorial board of the Ottawa Citizen. It is not -- and I say not -- a position that the people in Nepean in any way, shape or form want anything to do with. I will come back to the reasons they are not in favour of it, and the reasons are not at all what the Minister of Housing thought they were.

They're not at all because of a fear of change, because I would like to remind the member for Ottawa Centre and the Minister of Municipal Affairs, who's not here right now, that we in Nepean, for example, have elected regional councillors for a lot longer than the city of Ottawa ever thought of one-tier government, and it has worked. It has worked beautifully. We have had harmony, we have moved forward together, and there's absolutely nothing that I or the people of Nepean have to take from the member for Ottawa Centre in terms of lessons, because we have made our contribution.

Andy Haydon, the regional chairman, was the previous mayor of Nepean. We have made our contributions. Certainly, our current mayor makes a very strong contribution to the regional government in Ottawa-Carleton. The chairman of the social services commission, Mr Al Loney, is from Nepean. Gord Hunter also chairs a regional committee. So anybody who says that we are parochial in Nepean because we don't want to be swallowed up by Ottawa I think is doing what the NDP normally refuses, and that is blaming the victim, because that's really what's happening here.

In Nepean, unfortunately, I would say we are only losing and we cannot see any kind of gain that is in front of us. That's precisely why in a unanimous vote, and I would like, again, this government to listen to this and to acknowledge it, the Nepean city council voted against this project. They have indicated that they are prepared to sit down and make certain adjustments, but in general what this government is trying to do by removing, for example, the mayors totally from council, by taking away the powers of the local municipalities to determine their own local wards, is totally unacceptable, certainly to the council of my municipality.

1640

Here again, and this is not the first letter that was sent to the Minister of Municipal Affairs, I have a letter in front of me, December 6, 1993, which is a long letter, some five pages, with a very detailed brief attached, listing the reasons why the city of Nepean, as I say, unanimously rejected the proposals by the NDP government.

Here it is, in black and white, and I can only conclude that the Minister of Municipal Affairs failed even to read the material that was sent to him. I presume the member for Ottawa Centre is in the same boat, because she says there has been very little opposition to the provisions of the NDP government. I don't know where she has been, because there are stacks of letters that have been sent to the Minister of Municipal Affairs in opposition to the proposals hat are being put forward by the NDP government.

The member for Ottawa Centre and the minister himself are making a lot about interventions that they have received from the city of Ottawa. I can understand that the city of Ottawa and the people of Ottawa itself, 300,000 people against about 110,000 in Nepean, would like the assessment and the fiscal strength that is in the city of Nepean to be swallowed up into Ottawa. Thank you very much, but that's what the people in Nepean do not want, and that's why they have written to the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

I have in front of me, for example, a letter from a Carleton board trustee, Alex Getty. Here's what he says, referring to the infamous ad that was published in the Ottawa Citizen by the Minister of Municipal Affairs:

"In your published letter you state that the public has indicated that the time to implement these reforms has arrived. Might I ask which public? If you mean the majority who now live outside the city of Ottawa, your statement is quite erroneous and misleading. If you mean the residents of Ottawa, then just possibly you may be right, although my sense is that many Ottawa residents neither know nor care very strongly about Bill 77.

"In stark contrast, the public voice of Nepean, at exceptionally well attended meetings at city hall, sent a very clear signal to provincial officialdom that we want no part of a Toronto-Ottawa-inspired dictate to the people of Carleton. It is the wrong move at the wrong time for all the wrong reasons and will cost taxpayers and voters an inordinate amount of new and higher taxes just to implement the bill."

Since I do not have much time, I cannot put on the record many of the other letters, even of supporters of the current NDP government, by the way. There are people who said, "We did in fact work for the member for Ottawa Centre." I have a letter from a gentleman in Nepean who for one reason or another was working for the member for Ottawa Centre. He's very, very disappointed and has written a very sharp and very negative letter to the minister, accusing her of not fulfilling her promises that she made to the NDP voters in the last election.

Again, Minister, I do hope that you read your correspondence and that you don't just have your staff answer correspondence without you being made aware of what the real feelings are of the people in Ottawa-Carleton.

But why are we so opposed to this project in Nepean and in other municipalities outside of Ottawa? The reality is that frankly, in Nepean, as I said, first of all, we have made our contribution to the region. We have had city-wide elections. People have had to run for office for regional government for the last 15 years, so we have had accountability for regional decisions. We've had that, so we don't need to take any lessons that we have to have a more accountable regional government. We have had regional councillors directly elected by our municipality. The mayor has served and has served very well on the executive committee of regional government. They have always taken the position that what benefits Ottawa-Carleton will also benefit Nepean.

So we have shown our share of responsibility for regional affairs and for the development of Ottawa-Carleton. I myself have done everything I could to help, for example, the city of Ottawa get the support of the provincial government for the life sciences technology park, because I realize that certainly that will be of benefit to the whole Ottawa-Carleton community. But what I'm saying is, we can do this, thank you very much, by sitting down and working things out. We don't need to be stripped of our powers and our ability to manage our own affairs in order to work together and to cooperate. That's my point.

The other reason why we in Nepean -- again, thank you very much -- are very much afraid of this draconian measure by the NDP government is that we are going to have extra costs. The minister and many other people in Ottawa are saying, "Well, this is going to save us money." Where is it going to save us money?

Certainly, the affairs of the city of Nepean have been managed very well. The increase in the annual taxation rate has been below the rate of inflation for 10 years. We have significant resources in the city of Nepean, so the economic management of my municipality has been very good. The people of Nepean are afraid of losing that control that they've had over the affairs of their own municipality and are afraid of losing that excellent economic management, certainly, by removing that link from the municipal level with the regional government and by totally removing the ability of the Nepean council to designate its own wards. That's another major reason why we feel that rather than saving us money, it's going to cost us money.

Frankly, when we look at the example of Metro regional government, here's what happens. I pulled out a newspaper article that appeared in the Toronto Star on March 5, 1994. Here's what it says:

"Councillors used to serve on their respective city councils and serve at Metro [Toronto] part-time until 1988. Then provincial legislation made them full-time members directly elected to run Metro.

"The result was a huge increase in cost. The tab to support the 34 councillors and their staff jumped to $5.2 million from $1.5 million.... Policing costs now account for 36 cents of every property tax dollar. It is now $537.6 million, double what it was in 1982."

The minister and especially the citizen are saying, "Well, regional police, for example, is going to save us costs; it's going to be more efficient."

Again, the people of Nepean are very much afraid that they're going to lose in terms of costs, because our police building, the headquarters of our Nepean police services, is paid for, whereas the headquarters of the Ottawa police is not paid for yet. There are debentures out there, so we are afraid that we may have to carry some of that load.

1650

Also, the people of Nepean are afraid that they're going to lose that closeness they have with their community police. They're afraid that the police are going to be withdrawn from some of the neighbourhood communities in Nepean and concentrated in the downtown core. I think that is a real and legitimate fear.

The Minister of Municipal Affairs has said: "Well, don't worry too much. There's going to be transition assistance to some of the local municipalities. Trust me; I will provide some assistance."

Frankly, I have no trust whatsoever in the current Minister of Municipal Affairs, because he seriously let me down before. When I asked him -- on a very major project for eastern Ontario that I've been pursuing for a long time, the Highway 416 completion -- in November 1990, "Are you going to complete the 416?" Mr Philip, who was then the Minister of Transportation, said, and I quote in Hansard here, page 2123 of November 21, 1990: "Highway 416 will be completed; it will be completed on time.... I can assure the member that the highway will be completed on time, on schedule and, indeed" it will be done.

We all know what happened in the meantime. Shortly thereafter, the NDP government withdrew its commitment and the second phase now is on indefinite hold.

So much for the promises and the commitments of this Minister of Municipal Affairs. If he says there's going to be financial assistance available to Nepean, for example, and other suburban communities in order to ease the transition to a regional police force, frankly, I just don't believe him because he has let me down, and he has let the people of Ottawa-Carleton down before, and so has this government.

There is one point I still want to put on the record quickly, because a lot of Ottawa people and some of the councillors of Ottawa are making the point that we ought to have representation by population. In my opinion, in Canada this is the wrong principle to follow. In Canada, and I'm proud to say, we don't follow this principle because the people of Prince Edward Island, the people of New Brunswick, the people of Nova Scotia, the people of Newfoundland, smaller provinces, have a big say and almost as much of a say, I would say, as the province of Ontario. I don't know about the current Premier, but certainly in past times the Premier of Ontario and the Premier of Quebec were very respectful of the positions of smaller provinces in Canada, and through cooperation worked things out. That was the traditional approach that we have had in Ottawa-Carleton, and that I fully support. I think that's a good approach.

When I used to be on the school board, the Catholic separate school board, I represented Nepean, a municipality that's much bigger than some of the rural areas. We had a trustee from Osgood, we had a trustee from West Carleton. They represented a lot fewer people and electors than I did, but it was very important for us to respect and to recognize the identity and the idiosyncracies of the rural people and of other municipalities. I think that is the flair and that is the special genius, I would say, of local government that we have had in Ottawa-Carleton, and I'm very, very sorry to see that going down the drain with this particular initiative of the NDP government.

If the member for Ottawa Centre does not understand that, I think it's too bad because there is a genius to this that you can work things out. It's a very, very dangerous road to go down in the name of efficiency, I grant you that, but sometimes efficiency comes with a terrible cost.

I take the position and I take proudly the position that I like to be governed by the government that is closest to me, and I would like it to have more power rather than less. That's why basically I am very strongly opposed to this initiative that is coming forward from this government because it totally cuts back the powers of the local municipal government, to the benefit of the higher government.

The Acting Speaker: Questions or comments for the member for Nepean.

Mr Sterling: I'm sorry to announce to the Legislature that I've just received a notice of closure on this bill, Bill 143, which the government has obviously laid down at the table. They're not going to even allow the members for Ottawa-Carleton to speak on this bill. There won't be time in the rest of the hearings today and, quite frankly, I'm very, very disturbed that the government is moving closure.

You might notice that our party did not speak in the last rotation. We let it go around this particular Legislature in order to allow all members for Ottawa-Carleton to have an opportunity to speak here.

We have such arrogance shown.

Hon Ms Gigantes: You did so speak in the last rotation.

Mr Sterling: We did not speak in the last rotation. You missed your turn and we missed our turn in the last rotation, quite frankly, and the minister is wrong again.

The arrogance of this government in not even allowing the MPPs for the area of Ottawa-Carleton to express their concerns on second reading is without precedent. We also have noted in here that we're going to be allowed all of one hour on third reading after we have some committee hearings.

The committee hearings can only take place until April 25, which hardly allows the proper notice for hearings to take place in Ottawa-Carleton. This notice, of course, doesn't allow us the opportunity to go down to Ottawa-Carleton and hear the people on the fact of the major objection of the opposition on this bill, and that is the inclusion of mayors on regional council. That was not part of the Kirby report. That was not part of the Bartlett report. That was not part of any report with regard to this legislation and never has been debated by the public in Ottawa-Carleton.

I am astounded at the arrogance of this government. The opposition was going to allow proper debate of this particular bill, and we in fact have passed opportunities to stand in this Legislature and speak. I'm disgusted by this government.

Mr White: I'd like to comment upon the member for Nepean's speech and not some conjecture about some other issue that the member for Carleton brings up.

I would like to reflect upon the issues that the member for Nepean brought up. I think the member for Nepean represents his area very well. I think the issues that he brings up, the concern about police headquarters, the concern about his local board of trade, are legitimate concerns in his area.

I would, however, encourage him to take something of a broader view, because after all, with a regionally based police office or police services, we're going to have the same level of service available throughout the Ottawa-Carleton area. On the issue that the member brings up about the police headquarters, for example, it's going to be necessary to have police stations and we'll have police headquarters regardless of what the legislation says.

These are essentially important issues in his representation of his area, but I think if he took a larger perspective, a perspective that says Nepean is part of eastern Ontario, part of Ontario, part of the Ottawa-Carleton area, and that as the Ottawa-Carleton area benefits, as that region benefits, so does his municipality and so do his constituents.

He has to look, I would suggest, at a broader issue. He suggests that some people should have a greater voice, greater representation than others. I would suggest that in the province of Ontario, we had the opportunity in the last federal election of electing 98 members of the Liberal Party to Ottawa, and despite that representation, with 10 million people in this province, they don't represent us.

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

1700

Mr Grandmaître: Now we know where we stand. This government can't be trusted. They don't have an agenda. Right now, they feel the pressure. They want to put closure in so that the people in this House will not have their say. As pointed out by the member for Nepean, you can't trust this government for the simple reason that it doesn't know. They don't have an agenda and they want to do it their way. As I pointed out before, it's their way or the highway. I think it's irresponsible on the part of the government to act in the way it's doing today. We will continue the debate until 6 o'clock, but I think it's irresponsible on the part of the government.

Now they say that we're going to have two days of hearings and they will choose who will be heard and not heard. I'm sure of this. I find this kind of tactic unacceptable. But the people of Ottawa-Carleton will have their say very, very shortly. They will feel the pressure. Maybe the member for Ottawa Centre has no intention of running again, and maybe she should quit now. She will not be re-elected because of the tactics used in this House.

The Acting Speaker: We have time for one more question or comment.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): It is discouraging, having spent so little time debating this on second reading, to now have to sit here and receive a notice from this government that there will be a closure motion moved on this piece of legislation. I say that simply because there are not a number of members from the Ottawa area who would like to speak to this legislation. In fact, out of a number of 130 who sit in here, I think there are probably six or seven who would choose to enter into this debate.

Mr White: Madam Speaker, on a point of order --

Mr Stockwell: Madam Speaker, can you stop the clock while this guy wastes my time with a pointless point of order?

Mr White: The member did not address the issue of closure; his debate was on Bill 143. Certainly that's the issue that's under debate, not some other issue.

The Acting Speaker: I'm allowing the member to comment.

Mr Stockwell: May I put my time back on my clock? Thank you, Madam Speaker. They move closure and then dimwits like this get up and start moving points of order that don't exist. It is very frustrating, I might add.

Interjection.

Mr Stockwell: I will move on. It's frustrating when they move closure motions on bills as important as this when the speaking list consists of six or seven or eight MPPs from the affected regions who ask to speak on a piece of legislation that is so very important to their regions. Now we get a closure motion that doesn't even allow a minimum of that number of speakers to stand up in the Legislature and make their point.

Interjection.

Mr Stockwell: I've got to listen to heckling from the House leader for the government side. He moves closure on absolutely everything. On every issue we came to in the last session there was a closure motion. They were slapping them on twice a day in some instances in this Legislature, day after day after day. What it does say is that whenever the next election comes and whoever moves into power, this place is going to act in the same fashion, without proper debate and with silly motions of closure such as this which aren't going to allow the people to debate the issue.

I dare the minister to go to Ottawa-Carleton when these public hearings are held, because I'd like to see that minister stand before his critics and defend it by suggesting that closure motions are in order.

The Acting Speaker: The member's time has expired. The member for Nepean has two minutes to respond.

Mr Daigeler: To the parliamentary assistant, because I must refute this, I'm getting very sick of Nepean people being accused of being parochial and being invited to take a broader perspective. I can tell all of you over there that we've had a broader perspective for a lot longer than the city of Ottawa. That's the point I've made. We have elected our regional councillors for 15 years. What we are afraid of is that we are going to be swallowed up by a municipality that has not shown the fiscal knowledge and management that the city of Nepean has shown.

Unfortunately, in the meantime we have received notice of this terrible intervention. I see the government House leader sitting here. It is just absolutely outrageous that one hour is going to be allotted for the third reading stage of this bill. If that's the type of democracy, if that's the type of consultation this government is having, I think it's absolutely unacceptable and I will have nothing to do with it.

However, I can certainly tell you that if this government doesn't hold hearings, as it should, in Ottawa-Carleton, my party certainly is going to hold hearings and is going to invite the public of Ottawa-Carleton to speak to this bill. We're going to be there and listen to the people, if this government doesn't listen to them, because we have made a commitment to represent the people of our area and we have the right and the responsibility to speak on behalf of our people and not be shut up by this government.

I think the NDP government should be ashamed of itself for putting forward things like this, and I guess the Minister of Municipal Affairs is not here right now because he's ashamed. He's hiding because he's already been accused by the Speaker of this House as having come very close to contempt of the Legislature. That's the issue here and I think they will see in the next election what's going to happen to them. What we're seeing here are the death throes of a government.

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound): I will take only a few minutes, because I'm not from this area. I'm really disappointed in this government. This is another typical ploy of this government to cut us off. This is the second time you've done it to me. I can tell you that I'm very upset that you would do something like that again. You talk about democracy. There's no democracy here. If you get in a corner, you cut people off.

I want to tell you that most of the municipalities in my area have written to me and asked me to oppose this bill. You're getting into areas where you don't belong and you're starting to tell the municipalities what to do.

I just want to point out one thing that the minister said, that this is a unique area. If this is true, then maybe we'd better start looking at the rest of the areas in the province and their unique ways, quit making laws down here that cover the whole province of Ontario and have a bit of flexibility, if that's what you think. One day you think one thing and the next day you think something else, and then when you get upset, you just say, "We're going to cut you off." You're using your power of the majority of votes to do this.

I want to make it quite clear that the people in my riding think this is an awful bill and do not support it. I'm not from their area, so what I'm going to do is give up my time so that members from that area have a chance to speak. I want to tell you that this is one of the worst things that this undemocratic government is doing to us.

The Speaker: I thank the honourable member for Grey-Owen Sound for his contribution to the debate and invite any questions and/or comments.

Mr Daigeler: As to what the member just said, I would hope that some of the members who are from other parts of the province would take part in the debate as well or would be given an opportunity to take part in the debate. I know the member for Welland-Thorold is here right now. I'm sure he has some comments to make. He's nodding and nodding and I certainly hope that he's going to be given an opportunity, not as extensive an opportunity as he had on the car insurance bill, but nevertheless a reasonable one. That's all we're asking for, a reasonable opportunity to speak to this, because the implications of this bill go far beyond the Ottawa-Carleton area.

That's what has to come across here. I'm saying to all the members who are on the government side, and certainly on this side of the House as well, that the implications of this bill are of great significance not just for Ottawa-Carleton but for all municipalities and for all politicians and for all people of this province.

If they are afraid of having Big Brother or Big Sister run their affairs through Toronto, then I think they should pay attention to this particular bill that's before us today. That's why there has to be more debate, and not just, I insist, by the members from Ottawa-Carleton, but by all members from the province. That's why AMO, the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, has taken a very strong stand in defence of the suburban municipalities of Ottawa-Carleton.

Hon Ed Philip (Minister of Municipal Affairs): No, they have not.

Mr Daigeler: The Minister of Municipal Affairs is saying again, with his credibility totally in tatters, "They have not." Certainly they have. If you have not read your correspondence, which obviously you haven't, then I think you should take the time out and read your correspondence and what AMO has said about this particular bill.

As I said earlier, the credibility of the Minister of Municipal Affairs is in tatters. That's why I do hope that members across the province are going to speak to this legislation.

1710

Mr Sterling: I'd just like to thank the member for Grey-Owen Sound for being so considerate in terms of allowing the other Ottawa members an opportunity to have a chance to speak on this bill. He really wanted to speak at greater length on this bill, because he is very, very much concerned with its overall effect on the restructuring of local government across Ontario.

Some of the other members in my party wanted to speak as well in that regard, and they're going to be denied that because this government is moving prematurely in terms of closing down debate on this bill because it's frightened of the overwhelming lack of support for this particular piece of legislation across this province by a huge number of municipalities that have written to municipalities in my area. They're against this bill and they're against this government for doing it.

Mr White: I want to congratulate the member for Grey-Owen Sound, not only on his presentation about this important issue and about the importance of parliamentary democracy, but also upon reminding us of the fact that today is Tartan Day and that on a day like today, we should honour and respect all those important parts of our community, friends like my friend Mr Buchanan, who is wearing his tartan, and myself. I am unfortunately not wearing mine, but I'm certainly glad to see my friend so well regaled in his own tartan and respecting his cultural traditions.

Mr David Johnson: I would like to thank the member for Grey-Owen Sound as well for his consideration for the other members in this House, the other members who will be speaking on this matter, and this is a --

Laughter.

Mr David Johnson: I know there are some members from the government who find this a funny issue and laugh, perhaps at the garb of the member who's bringing this to our attention or whatever, but you know, we're talking about the most important level of government in Ontario, the municipal government -- in my view; I hope this is shared by many members in this House on both sides of this House -- the government closest to the people, and we're talking about putting in place a structure, and the Minister of Housing says, you know, we're afraid of change, that change is coming and we need to look at new ways of doing things.

I can tell you that the municipalities have been successful for decades. They've been successful in balancing their budget for decades. Has this provincial government been successful in achieving that? Absolutely not. But we, according to the Minister of Housing, are in a good position to implement change, to impose change and not listen to the people, not listen to the people in Ottawa. Has this particular bill been brought to Ottawa for discussion?

Yes, we've had the Kirby report. Yes, we've had the Bartlett report. Yes, we've had the Graham report. Not one of those reports has recommended leaving the mayors off the regional council, every one of those reports.

Municipalities across Ontario, not just in the Ottawa-Carleton region, are communicating with us, telling us they oppose the structure that's being put in place. But the ministers from this government know better. They listen to some of the press in Ottawa. The press tells them what the people think. Now, that's an interesting concept. If you listen to some members of the press and they say what you like to hear, then that's what the people think.

It's too bad we didn't have some more discussion on this, some more debate, and it's too bad we're not going to allow the committee to go to Ottawa to hear what the real people think about this.

The Speaker: The honourable member for Grey-Owen Sound has up to two minutes for his reply.

Mr Murdoch: I'll be very brief so my friends from Ottawa will have a chance to debate this. It is unfortunate, Mr Minister, that you will not listen to the municipalities that surround Ottawa, the rest of the municipalities of Ontario that are telling you this is wrong, and AMO's telling you this is wrong. I cannot understand what's wrong with this minister, why he's not listening. They're great sometimes at consulting. Even in this case, they haven't consulted. So I do hope that this government will let some consultation in Ottawa be had, and I will give up my time now to the people from Ottawa so that they can speak on it.

The Speaker: Is there further debate on this bill?

Mr Bisson: I'm only going to take a few short moments to comment on the bill. There are a number of aspects of the bill that are of interest to a number of people I've been dealing with through my tenure with l'Office des affaires francophones and I'd like to be able to touch on that.

The other thing I'd like to touch on very quickly is the debate that we're into now in regard to the whole question of closure -- I'd like to talk about it a little bit later -- and bringing some of that into the light and getting people to understand really what is happening here at the House at this time.

Bill 143, in short, does a couple of things. It deals with the question of regional government for the regional authority of Ottawa in regard to how you get representation at the regional level of government for the people of Ottawa-Carleton. The other thing that it does is that it also deals with the question of school boards in respect to the French-language school boards within the area.

As a number of people might know, the region of Ottawa has a French public school board and it also has a French separate school board that is set up for the people of that area. One of the things that happened in setting up that board system is that we ended up actually with three levels of administration and three political levels of administration as well within that particular board system.

What this bill seeks to do is to be able to fix that to a certain extent by removing one of the levels of administration within the school boards as well as one of the political levels. Basically, to explain the way that it works right now is, as such, you have basically a board that is elected, which is the French-language school board, and presently, underneath that board administration and underneath that political structure, you have two panels, one being the French public and the other being French separate. What that has done is basically put people in a situation where you have really three different levels and three different systems of administration for the school boards in that area.

What the bill tends to do is to take away the board structure that we have now and recognize the panels themselves as being --

Mr Stockwell: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Within the rules of this place, the standing orders, a government can move a closure motion on this piece of legislation and then be so crass as to take up all the time that's left speaking?

The Speaker: To the honourable member for Etobicoke West, there is no such motion on the floor of the House at this time.

Mr Stockwell: Mr Speaker, can I help you with something?

The Speaker: No. Would the member take his seat, please. The honourable member for Cochrane South.

Mr Bisson: As I was saying, there are a couple of issues that need to be dealt with because they're issues that were brought to me, as a matter of fact, back in 1990 when I first took office in this place in regard to the school boards, and I wanted to have an opportunity to be able to comment. No, I'm not a person from Ottawa, although I do love that particular area, but I also have a responsibility within the government in regard to dealing with issues that concern francophones across the province of Ontario and taxpayers in general and I do have the right to do so.

Basically, what the bill is going to do is deal with trying to simplify the administration of the school board system within the Ottawa area so that, first of all, the French public and the French Catholic panels will actually become school boards and recognized as such, and it will reduce the administration to a large extent for those particular boards as well as reduce one political level that you have within the board system itself.

There's going to be other work that's going to be done and we're going to comment on a little bit later in regard to how we deal with the question of getting boards to work a little bit closer together, but that'll be for another debate.

I want to very quickly just say to the people watching, because we're into a bit of a political discussion right now in regard to this whole issue and I just want to put that in perspective before I give the floor to the member from Ottawa, that what's been happening is it's been a number of years that the people of Ottawa and provincial governments, not only ours but governments before, basically dealt with --

Interjections.

Mr Bisson: That was pretty good. Anyway, I was saying that there's been a move over a period of years by which to deal with this particular issue. So it's not as if all of a sudden government is making up its mind in the heat of the night or the dead of the night to move on something that all of a sudden came out of the blue. This is an issue that's been going on for a number of years. It started with the previous government, it carried on with this particular government, and we're moving forward in the legislative process to make it happen.

There are only two members from Ottawa who have not had the opportunity to speak and I'm going to leave the floor for one of those members to speak because I see he's in the chamber now, ready to take debate. There's no attempt on the part of the government not to give the other members, the members from Ottawa, the opportunity to speak. We will do so. If we hadn't got into this whole hassle that we got into about 20 minutes ago, both the members from Ottawa left to speak on this would have done so. I would leave the floor to the member from Ottawa.

The Speaker: I thank the honourable member for Cochrane South for his contribution to the debate and invite any questions and/or comments. Seeing none, is there further debate?

1720

Mr Gilles E. Morin (Carleton East): Before I start debating an issue which I have very close to my heart, I'd like to wish a happy anniversary to my colleague from Ottawa East: 25 years in politics. I must say, because I really enjoy his friendship, I won't wish him another 25 years in politics.

Mr Grandmaître: Thank God. Not with this government.

Mr Morin: I want him to live long.

I welcome this opportunity to debate Bill 143. It is long overdue. The restructuring of any political institution is never to be taken lightly, nor should it occur in a process of bartering, of exchanges that are not directly related to the public good. Unfortunately, since Bill 143 was introduced last July, the residents of Ottawa-Carleton have been subjected to partisan games, courtesy of this government, games that serve no purpose and that merely muddy the waters. This government has repeatedly accused the opposition parties of delaying debate on Bill 143.

Last November, the member for Ottawa Centre declared that her government was willing to let Bill 143, or Bill 77 as it was then known, die unless it was assured easy passage in the Legislature. She even said that she would blame local members if the reforms did not go ahead. She then went on to state the importance of the reforms to the region. One can only conclude that reforms are obviously not as important to the member as petty politics.

The Minister of Municipal Affairs said: "Delay of this legislation is already creating some difficulties for the region's clerks in terms of deadlines. Candidates for regional positions have already been inconvenienced by the delays in registration." Well, I wonder why. Does the minister not have a clue? Perhaps if this government was less inclined to play games and more serious in going about the task of governing, there would be no uncertainty in Ottawa-Carleton. If this government was more upfront, the people of Ottawa-Carleton would know where they stand.

We don't need to hear phoney expressions of concern for the region's clerks and candidates from the minister when he is the person responsible for their predicament to begin with.

It is because of the upcoming civic elections that my colleagues and myself have been pressing the government to act, to do something. Our pleas, obviously, were not listened to. No one disputes that reform is necessary. The status quo is no longer acceptable. The residents of Ottawa-Carleton are looking for accountability and value for their money. For this reason, the reform process should be open and well explained so that there are no misunderstandings. In light of this, I believe that the decision to exclude local mayors from the regional council is an example of this government's lack of communication and vision.

The Minister of Municipal Affairs has written in a letter sent to the Liberal House leader that representation by population cannot be achieved if the mayors remain on regional council. This statement, coming from the minister, is totally unbelievable.

The election of councillors from the proposed new wards will meet the requirement for representation by population. But I would add that the inclusion of mayors will ensure the proper representation of each community's interest. Is it necessary to point out that the mayors are elected by all the citizens in their respective municipalities? This process, as we know, is as democratic as it can be. The fact is, mayors are representative and accountable to the electorate. They would remain accountable on regional council as well. Adding mayors to regional council does not detract from the principle of representation by population. On the contrary, it would enhance the overall representation of all parties and interests concerned.

Let it be clear that I support representation by population. This principle is one of the foundations of democratic society, but I wonder whether the citizens of Ottawa-Carleton would not also be well served on regional council by persons with a good grasp of local issues, by persons who are already making the necessary compromises on a daily basis, such as mayors. Mayors know their community so well -- the people, the business, the arts community, the schools. Mayors have the pulse of the people.

The closest link between government and people is at the municipal level. Only municipal government enjoys a close, familiar relationship with the members of its community. As cities change and grow, that link is threatened. It becomes more difficult to maintain, yet it remains essential if government is to remain a positive, humane and integrated part of our society. I do not wish to see the government become a distant entity, removed from its roots, because people are the root of government.

We have a duty to preserve this privileged relationship between government and population and, quite frankly, as members of society, we have a strong interest in doing so.

Living in today's society is difficult. You don't always know your neighbours. Everybody locks their doors at night in fear. We live in a society where more than ever before people feel alone, forgotten, useless. This does not mean that we don't cherish our privacy and anonymity, but we still feel a need to be a part of a group, a need to belong. The ties that bind us are familiar, but they are also local, community-oriented.

This, in my view, is where the municipal government comes in. The mayor and councillors are drawn from the community. They're well known by the locals. They can stop and talk to the people, get their input. This can be done in a manner that provincial and federal governments, try as hard as they might, cannot achieve. It is simply not the same. There is a distance between provincial and federal governments and the population that one does not find at the municipal level. It makes all the difference, and it must be preserved.

I don't understand why this government is working so hard to eliminate local governments, because that in essence is what Bill 143 leads to: the gradual disappearance of municipalities in favour of a regional government which may or may not be more efficient, which will inevitably be more removed from the immediate concerns of residents.

Bill 143 essentially sets up municipal governments as institutions secondary or inferior to regional government. The proposed separation of jurisdictions between regional and municipal governments reduces municipalities to playing a supporting role.

This possibility that local governments may disappear has raised the concerns of many individuals and organizations. The Association of Municipalities of Ontario believes that mayors have a major role to play. The city of Toronto asked the minister to withdraw Bill 143, or Bill 77 at the time, because it excludes the mayors from regional government. As this minister is aware, mayors in the greater Toronto area sit on regional council. I'm not saying that Ottawa-Carleton should imitate Toronto, but on the other hand, if Toronto and adjoining communities are benefiting from the presence of both elected representatives and mayors on council, why should this not be considered as a workable solution in Ottawa-Carleton?

1730

It is as though the minister had already decided, so he says, that this is good for the national capital area and that's it -- no discussion, no serious justification of his position and, heaven forbid, no additional public consultation, if only to ensure public approval of the proposed reforms.

Never mind the fact that the poll conducted by Coopers and Lybrand for the Kirby commission revealed that 76% of the people declared satisfaction with local municipalities or local government, while the rate of satisfaction with regional government was 57%. Is this not significant? Do people's views not count for this minister?

I am pleased to report that in the eyes of the regional chair of Ottawa-Carleton, Peter Clark, the public's views are relevant. Mr Clark proposed last November that a referendum be held during the 1997 municipal election to allow the public to decide whether the mayors should continue to sit on regional council.

I would like to bring forth the concerns expressed by Citizens for Good Government, which is a panel of representatives --

Hon Ms Gigantes: Oh no, not again.

Hon Mr Philip: Who are they?

Mr Morin: They have their right, like anybody else, to voice their opinion, like your own committees and groups. It is a panel of representatives from various community organizations in the Ottawa-Carleton area. My colleagues and I met with them a few weeks ago. Some of its spokespeople have declared to us that they are terribly worried about the democratic process, accountability, the economic and financial implications and public security, all related to Bill 143.

Public satisfaction with local government being so high, these organizations question the need to restructure an institution which is clearly meeting its responsibilities well. They deplore the lack of public consultation. They and myself are appalled at the actions of a government that would, only months before an election, redraw the election boundaries and the legislation that governs individuals running for office. They are concerned about the cost that reform might incur in the form of higher taxes and other adjustments related to the integration of administration and services.

On this last point, I should add that the Gloucester Chamber of Commerce has expressed great concern with Bill 143. Minister, the chamber of commerce has over 700 members concerned with the increased cost that will be inevitable and with the reduction of the control and authority of the local government. Mr Jim Anderson, executive director of the Gloucester Chamber of Commerce, said, "The proposed NDP regional government restructuring is undemocratic, ill-timed and totally out of touch with the current climate of economic hardship and with the publicly stated views of our local and regional taxpaying businesses and communities."

What is so deeply regrettable about this whole debate is that it didn't have to be this way. There was definitely a consensus among residents of Ottawa-Carleton for change. As Mr Kirby notes in his report, however, that consensus did not imply that structural change was essential. He goes on to say, "Change can also be achieved through improvements and in distribution of responsibilities between local and regional governments."

I very much support a sound economic development policy in Ottawa-Carleton. There is absolutely a need for a coherent, coordinated economic development strategy in this region. It is simply not evident that these reforms will achieve this goal. A hope that things will turn out well should not be the deciding factor in implementing reforms.

With Bill 143, the new regional council would be given a wider range of responsibilities than it currently holds. It would gain exclusive authority to acquire industrial, institutional and commercial land for economic development purposes. Area municipalities could continue to deal with the industrial properties they currently own, but they could not acquire any new industrial lands.

It's important to note, as did my colleague the member for Ottawa East, that the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton approved a recommendation that the minister amend Bill 143 to permit both the regional government and the area municipalities to assemble to develop lands for industrial, commercial and institutional purposes. The Ottawa-Carleton Economic Development Corp did the very same thing.

What does this tell the minister? Is he listening? There are many persons in the Ottawa-Carleton region who do not agree with some of the reforms contained in Bill 143. I haven't cited them all. These persons raise important concerns which don't appear to be taken seriously, not at all seriously, by the minister.

If the regional council's new responsibilities are to be exercised with the proper regard due to municipal concerns and interests, then mayors must be included on regional council. I have spoken at length about the need to include mayors on regional council because I believe that municipal government is the one closest to the people and that it must be preserved.

I want to mention that I do support elements of Bill 143; for example, the focus on region-wide interests. The point is that Ottawa-Carleton does represent an integrated economy and infrastructure. There has to be some degree of cohesion where policymaking is concerned. I mentioned earlier the need for a coherent and coordinated economic development strategy. This is crucial to the future economic and social wellbeing of the region. On the whole, however, it is simply not evident that many of the reforms will lead to greater efficiency and improved services. The real costs of Bill 143 have yet to be calculated.

I would like to say a few words about the amendments to the Ottawa-Carleton French-Language School Board Act, amendments which were just recently added to Bill 143. Municipal politics and education are two distinct matters which should not be treated within the same bill. This practice of so-called omnibus bills, where different subject matters are dealt with in the same body of legislation, is not acceptable and detracts from the real, proper merits of each issue. French-language education for the French minorities in Ontario is a serious matter. It is a source of many concerns to all francophones in the region, indeed in the province. The amendment to Bill 143 does not even begin to address these concerns. French-language education does not lie within the minister's mandate and should not be tacked on to another already debatable piece of legislation.

I'd like to read a letter that I received from the employees' association of the Ottawa-Carleton board, just to indicate to you how people are confused. People are simply asking for direction, and this is what we're trying to do here in this House.

"I write to you as president of the Employees' Association of Ottawa-Carleton which represents, amongst others, employees of the full board of the Ottawa-Carleton French-Language School Board.

"We were astounded to learn by a newspaper article that a bill to abolish the full board of the Ottawa-Carleton French-Language School Board was currently before the Legislature. We had been told by a legal representative of the Ministry of Education that the bill was not to be introduced before the end of April. Moreover, the employer had been provided with a copy of the bill on March 22, 1994, whereas it took numerous calls from myself to Toronto to be finally provided with a copy only at 16:47 on March 25, 1994. We are informed that the government intended to put the bill to third reading as of this past Monday, March 28, 1994. The bill, should it become law, will apparently abolish the full board and puts into serious doubt the future of our members.

1740

"We find it inconceivable that those most directly affected by the closure of the full board would not have been consulted to any meaningful extent prior to the introduction of the bill. This action by government is made still more outrageous as I was personally promised by the Minister of Education and Training on February 15, 1994, that we would be consulted at each step of the process.

"We demand that this bill not be put to third reading before the people most affected by it are consulted and that we be consulted on all future steps involving the bill or its regulations.

"Yours very truly,

"Ottawa-Carleton Employees' Association

"Gerard Poirier."

It is unfortunate indeed that we bring two bills together. It's sort of a decoy, in my sense, because the bill dealing with the French-language issue is a bill that I would have voted on, but it is included in a bill over which I have objections. You bring it in: "We know that they're in favour. The school board will sway them in." Minister, it doesn't work that way.

I thought that you, with your experience, with the numbers of years that you have in this House, would have a greater respect for the process, for the implementation of legislation. Frankly, I am disappointed. I am really disappointed, Minister, and this is the reason I'm so pleased to be able to debate this bill today. I want to appeal to your common sense when it comes time to debate it in the House, to debate it in front of the committee, that you take the time to listen to the amendments that will be brought forward and that you will agree and that you will be flexible enough to amend the legislation so that it benefits everyone.

The Speaker: I thank the honourable member for Carleton East for his contribution to the debate and invite any questions and/or comments.

Mr Chiarelli: I'm pleased to comment on the speech of my colleague from Carleton East. He can always be counted on to elevate the quality of debate in the Legislature. He has a reputation for that and he has done so again.

He indicated in his speech that the debate didn't have to be this way. The lines did not have to be drawn as harshly and as callously as they have on this issue, indeed splitting the urban community and the suburban community.

We now have on record that the government intends to move closure of Bill 143, the Ottawa-Carleton government legislation. I would hope that the government, in the remaining process that we have, will take a cue from the member for Carleton East and have an open mind, elevate the debate and hopefully try to be peacemaker in Ottawa-Carleton between the urban and suburban communities.

I think there are some areas of accommodation that can be made. I think that if we all approach the debate along the tenor of the member for Carleton East, to look at it rationally without getting involved in personalities, perhaps in the very short time that is going to be permitted to us, some accommodation, compromise and agreement can be made.

Hon Mr Philip: I want to start off by complimenting the member for what I thought was a reasonable speech, one that was not full of rhetoric and bombast, and indeed made some arguments that I think were worth listening to.

I would like to deal, however, with one of the arguments that he makes which I think is really fallacious, and that is comparing Ottawa-Carleton to Metropolitan Toronto. In Metropolitan Toronto the mayors have six out of 34 seats, and in Ottawa-Carleton, by putting the mayors on, we would have had 11 out of 30 seats.

In other words, Ottawa-Carleton, compared to Metro, has almost twice the number of lower-tier municipalities. The range in the size of the area municipalities is much greater in Ottawa-Carleton than it is in Metro. In Ottawa-Carleton the smallest unit has less than 1% of the population of the largest unit, whereas in Metro the smallest unit comprises 16% of the largest unit.

There are many other municipalities with a smaller portion of the region's population in Ottawa-Carleton than in Metro. In Ottawa-Carleton more than half the units each have a population less than 18,000, and this is less than 6% of the largest unit's population in the city of Ottawa. In Metro, only two of the six are significantly smaller than the largest unit, but in no case are these units less than 16% of the largest unit.

I just say to the honourable member that the comparison between having the mayors on regional council in Ottawa-Carleton and the fact that the mayors are on in Metropolitan Toronto just doesn't work. It is not the same comparison. All the differences I outlined show that it is not a reasonable comparison and I just ask the honourable member, knowing that he is a reasonable person, to take a look at those arguments.

M. Jean Poirier (Prescott et Russell) : Moi, je ne comprends vraiment pas certaines choses, dans le sens que lorsque je vois un ministre combiner ensemble deux sujets, comme mon collègue de Carleton-Est l'a mentionné, ça ne peut que confondre les gens.

Vous savez bien que nous, à titre de députés, devons interpréter pour la population ce que veut faire un gouvernement, et on essaie de le faire régulièrement. Mais à la dernière minute, quand il y a des changements apportés comme ça, et de mettre dans le même projet de loi deux sujets aussi différents, aussi --

L'hon M^me Gigantes: Bizarres.

M. Poirier : -- bizarres, que ce soit mis ensemble dans le même projet de loi comme ça, c'est très difficile, surtout à la dernière minute, la façon de laquelle c'est fait, de rapprocher ça dans un même projet de loi pour que les gens puissent essayer de comprendre quelles sont les intentions réelles du gouvernement et du ministre pour fonctionner de cette façon-là.

Il reste quelques semaines, justement, jusqu'à la fin du mois de juin, pour finir la troisième session du 35^e Parlement. Je m'imagine combien de fois le ministre va vouloir apporter ces changements-là. On est passé de 77 à 143. Mon cher collège de Carleton-Est va peut-être m'aider à deviner. Ça va peut-être être 212, 303, qui sait ?

Mais en tout cas, ça complique la situation et, comme mon collègue le sait très bien, nous, les députés franco-ontariens, sommes surtout très intéressés au dossier du Conseil scolaire de langue française d'Ottawa-Carleton. Il y a des changements à apporter. Nous sommes au courant. Nous voulons appuyer ce principe-là, mais mettre les deux ensemble dans un même projet de loi, ça complique d'une façon tout à fait bizarre.

À ce jour, je ne comprends pas pourquoi le ministre insiste à le faire de cette façon-là. Il a sûrement son agenda caché derrière tout ça, mais nous, on va vraiment s'opposer à ce genre de stratégie-là qui n'a aucun bon sens, aucune logique, aucune suite dans les idées pour régler les deux problèmes bien distincts.

The Speaker: Further questions and/or comments? If not, the honourable member for Carleton East has up to two minutes for his reply.

Mr Morin: I just want to tell you, Minister, that perhaps I did not communicate clearly enough. Sure, you come out with figures about Toronto, making a comparison with Ottawa-Carleton; that's fine, but your colleague to your right the member for Ottawa East knows Carleton East well. She was a member there for two terms --

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Ottawa South): Ottawa Centre.

Mr Morin: Ottawa Centre, I'm sorry. She knows Carleton East extremely well. She knows how this community was developed. She knows the feelings of sentiment that exist within that community.

Sometimes we have to go over politics and numbers to understand what the people really feel, and this is why a hearing, well conducted, would be extremely important. Give a chance to people to voice their opinions. Reports are fine, but a lot of people are worried about what will happen to the community that they built. They pay taxes and they don't want to be involved with the responsibilities thrown by others on them.

This is the main issue. This is why, Minister, I appeal to you. Make sure that you listen properly to the people. Don't be doctrinaire and establish, as a fait accompli, that a law should be implemented. You don't work that way. Let me assure you that if you operate that way, you won't see the end of it.

1750

What I find so disturbing, ce qui me renverse, c'est de voir le fait que vous avez mis ensemble deux lois complètement opposées : une loi qui traite avec un sujet excessivement important aux francophones de l'Ontario. Vous les mettez ensemble. C'est un bill omnibus, et on oublie tout.

Je vous assure, Monsieur le Ministre, que les Franco-Ontariens comprennent très bien le système. Si c'est la façon dont vous voulez opérer, si vous voulez faire des amis, je vous assure que ce n'est pas la bonne façon.

I want to end my debate. Minister, again I appeal to your common sense, just straight common sense. You know Ottawa. You were educated there. Make sure that you take the time and listen to what people have to say.

The Speaker: Is there further debate?

Mr McGuinty: In the few minutes remaining, I'll try to get some comments that I feel are relevant and important on the record.

First of all, I should indicate that it is my intention to support this bill. I have some reservations, but I should indicate that my mayor supports this bill, my city council supports this bill, my councillors who find their wards within my riding support this bill -- four out of five, in any event, do -- my community associations support this bill, my police chief supports this bill, and my board of trade supports this bill.

Some people may derive some particular partisan pleasure in noting that we have division within the ranks of the Liberals here, that we have division among the members of a particular party and, as such, this has been traditionally seen as a sign of weakness. I would submit that that is old-style politics, and I'll just take the opportunity right now to remind people who have not had an opportunity to read my leader's recent position paper called the Lyn McLeod Commitment to Changing Politics, we now have a new system for whipping our votes, and I think it's somewhat revolutionary. I'm very proud of it, and we intend to take every advantage of it with respect to this particular bill.

We now have three types of votes we categorize according to the need for consensus or party discipline on a particular issue. The first type of vote is a completely free vote, the second type of vote is one which allows for some dissension and the third type of vote would be one that I would assume we would bring to bear with respect to a throne speech or a budget where we would require that all members vote in favour.

In any event, with respect to this bill, we're going to see some of our members voting for it and some voting against it. I see that as a sign of strength, as a sign of openness, as a sign that our party gives its members the necessary leeway to properly represent their own particular constituencies and their own particular needs and concerns.

One of the concerns I have is that the process that has culminated in this bill being before this House today was one which was fraught with difficulties and, I would submit, needlessly so. There is a severe casualty in all of this and that is the relations between the city of Ottawa, frankly put, and the surrounding municipalities.

I'm not particularly concerned with AMO at this stage. I just want to speak as somebody who lives in Ottawa-Carleton. That is unfortunate because we have to work together. We have in the past, we are at present, and we will of course have to do so on a continuing basis in the future.

As I say, that casualty is a severe casualty, relations between the city of Ottawa and the surrounding municipalities, and it's going to take us some time to recover from some of the division, some of the discord that has been sown as a result of this bill and the process that has culminated in it being before this House today.

On that note, the mayors had in fact submitted alternative proposals with respect to their being allowed to sit on regional council. Peter Clark, the head of our regional council, the chairman, had also put forward a proposal. Those proposals were, I would submit, given very short shrift by the government. I think that's unfortunate.

I have a very real concern about mayors bringing a parochial interest to regional council. I think to ignore that potential would be to be wilfully blind. However, we have to work with these people, and at the end of the day, if that relationship is soured irreparably, then we will have done a great deal of damage.

With respect to the school board component of the bill, I support that as well. I have had the opportunity to speak with directors or deputy directors for the Ottawa Board of Education, the Ottawa Roman Catholic Separate School Board and both sectors of the French-language school board. I have reviewed with them the essentials of the bill and sought their opinion, and they are by and large, with some concerns, very much supportive.

My colleague the previous speaker has raised an issue which I hope the minister will be addressing; that is, the issue raised by employees of the Ottawa-Carleton employees' association, employees who work for the French-language school board. I think it's important as well to recognize that the French-language school board really consists of three decision-making bodies. There's the conseil plénier or the full board and then the two sectors. So in a very real sense we're not going from one board to two; we're going from three decision-making bodies to two. That's pursuant to the recommendation of Brian Bourns in the Bourns report. I thought he made a great deal of sense in making that recommendation.

It would be nice to think that the boards would be able to have cooperated more with respect to their common interests, but the fact of the matter is, things weren't working, and it's my submission that the students and the ratepayers were suffering as a result. In any event, I hope this will put the two independent boards on a sound footing, that they'll be able to move towards some fiscal soundness and deliver a quality education in keeping with their very real potential.

The other thing I should indicate is that I've had an opportunity to discuss this matter with one councillor whose ward is located within my riding who expressed some very real concerns about some of the costs associated with this bill and in particular what we're going to be paying our regional councillors, our municipal councillors and some of the costs associated with setting up a new infrastructure at the regional headquarters. As I understand it, they've set over $2 million for a capital budget. But those are matters that are properly within the control of Ottawa-Carleton representatives. I am not prepared to lose faith in their ability to address these issues and to ensure that costs are kept in control.

I think the most important aspect of this bill is that it provides for proper accountability. It allows my constituents to vote for their regional councillor in the upcoming municipal elections. I think it's simply unacceptable at the present that our decision-making people at regional council today, dealing with a budget in excess of $1 billion, have not been voted into those offices. For that reason, I think the bill is important.

Of course we absolutely have to have committee hearings. It's important for the people of Ottawa-Carleton, all sectors, all communities, all municipalities, to have an opportunity to properly air their concerns, and I will certainly be pushing for that.

Mr Speaker, it being 6 of the clock, I'll move adjournment of the debate.

The Speaker: It being 6 of the clock, this House stands adjourned until 10 of the clock tomorrow morning.

The House adjourned at 1800.

6 avril 1994