Journal des débats 1997-janv-29 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): My statement is directed to the Minister of Health and it relates to the funding of northern and remote hospitals. Minister, hospital CEOs in my riding believe that the small hospital funding subcommittee has not considered the unique and traditional role of remote hospitals. As the minister is aware, small hospitals are in many cases the primary provider of health care services in our communities. They operate ambulance services, community mental health programs, Meals on Wheels, alcohol addiction services, and the list goes on.

Hospital trustees would like to remind the minister that he has not taken into consideration the operating budgets of these community-based programs when calculating hospital administrative overhead percentages. They also are concerned that the minister has not provided them with his commitment to consider the range of services they provide to our communities before any budget cuts are announced. Northern and remote hospitals also want assurances they will be given the financial support required to enable them to continue to provide the health care services northern residents expect and deserve.

Minister, it is clear to all concerned that you and your government are not providing the necessary consideration to the uniquenesses of the north. I assure you that northwestern residents will not sit by while you reduce their health care services to pay for the tax cut for your Bay Street friends.

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): Today the dictatorial hand of Mike Harris appears again, because later this afternoon we expect to be debating a closure motion on Bill 103, a motion that in its intent is going to shut down the process of debate on this bill here in this Legislature -- yes, finally allow for some hearings; yes, finally allow for those hearings to carry on beyond the referenda in Metropolitan Toronto; but also clearly set up in a way that will ensure the government really is not serious about listening to anything that will be said to it during this process.

If they were, they wouldn't have limited it, as they do in this motion, to one day only of third reading debate following the hearings. They would have allowed for ample time to deal with all of the good people who want to speak to this motion and they wouldn't have dilly-dallied on this as they have and come to this point of having to resort to a closure motion to deal with this.

We have been saying all along that it was important for us to get the bill out to committee, to allow people to be heard, but we've also been saying that it's important for this government to listen to the people of Metropolitan Toronto, who are going to get the chance at least in a referendum through the process of early March to be able to express their opinions.

We expect this government to listen and we will do everything we can to make sure it listens to the will of the people of Metropolitan Toronto on this very important issue.

EVINRUDE CENTRE

Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough): I would like to take this opportunity to inform all members of the House of the new, spectacular community centre opening in the city of Peterborough on February 1.

The Evinrude Centre is a state-of-the-art, twin-pad hockey arena that will serve the community well. For many years the demands on other recreational facilities to host various hockey and other venues have exceeded the supply of existing facilities. The provincial government made contributions towards this project under the Canada-Ontario infrastructure works program.

On February 1, the people of Peterborough will be welcoming my colleague the Honourable Marilyn Mushinski, Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation, who has agreed to participate in the opening of this facility. Her presence at the opening will underscore this government's commitment to supporting local projects and initiatives that bring communities closer together.

Let me take this opportunity to thank all of the volunteers, with a personal thanks to Ken Armstrong and his fund-raising group, as well as all levels of government for contributing their time, resources and energy towards making the Evinrude Centre another tremendous addition to the community of Peterborough.

GOVERNMENT MAIL SERVICE

Mr Gilles E. Morin (Carleton East): Today readers of the Toronto press learned that the government is considering privatizing the Legislature's internal mail system, a move that would put into question the future of its 122 employees. Sixteen of those employees are people with disabilities, who do an outstanding job in their own right. Their experience also proves the contribution others in their situation can make when given the opportunity to do so. In the last number of years this Legislature has made some progress in making sure that disadvantaged groups have achieved greater equity and representation in our labour force.

But I would like to caution against a return to past practices. We have seen that this government is firmly opposed to giving special consideration to those who have historically faced discrimination, and the recommendations of the Red Tape Commission reiterate its desire not to impose those considerations on the private sector.

Regardless of the final decision in this case, I ask the government to make a firm commitment to protecting the hard-won rights of its disabled employees who remain in the public sector and those who will be affected by a shift to the private sector.

NATIVE ISSUES

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): Three weeks ago, on January 8 and 9, I took a trip along the coast to visit the constituents of Attawapiskat, Moosonee and Moose Factory. What I witnessed there was a lack of commitment from this government to help remote communities.

In Attawapiskat, for example, there is an urgent need for 200 homes. It is clearly unacceptable in the 1990s that some 20 people have to live under the same roof because of a lack of houses. The community has no recreation facilities at all to offer its youth, who represent two thirds of the population. Services like an arena would help keep the teenagers and young adults off the streets. With your help, they could start building an arena this summer.

It's a shame that Fort Albany and Kashechewan residents were left with no power for almost 48 hours last week, with the temperatures plunging to as low as minus 36 degrees Celsius overnight, and this is the second time this year. The installation of a power grid from Moosonee to Fort Albany, Kashechewan and Attawapiskat would solve the problem caused by obsolete generators and mechanical breakdown.

The previous NDP government showed leadership in dealing with native issues and, as far as we have seen, nothing good has come in the last 20 months from this government. While I recognize that the federal government plays a role in native issues, I want to stress that this government has been elected to represent each and every citizen of this province and to cooperate with the federal government to ensure the wellbeing of all the native communities within my riding.

INDIAN INDEPENDENCE DAY

Mr Dan Newman (Scarborough Centre): I had the great pleasure Sunday evening of attending the kickoff dinner of the 50th anniversary celebrations of India's independence, hosted by the Indo-Canadian Advisory Group, with my colleague the member for Scarborough East.

The countdown for the 50th anniversary of India's independence has begun and so too have the festivities to celebrate this historic event. The focal point of the Garland of Events will be the weekend of August 15, 1997, the 50th anniversary of the day India attained independence.

India's struggle for independence, though painful and prolonged, was remarkably peaceful because of the leadership of Mahatma Gandhi and his philosophy of non-violence.

India was among the first nations to extract herself from the control of a colonial power and guide her own destiny according to the needs and wishes of her own people. India served as a model for other nations to follow in asserting their rights for self-governance.

Over the last 50 years, India has made remarkable progress internally and in the international arena. With recent economic restructuring and liberalization, India has become the fifth-largest economy in the world and second among developing countries.

I am fortunate to have a number of Indo-Canadian residents in my riding of Scarborough Centre, and on behalf of all constituents I want to congratulate them on this important milestone and wish them all the best for their Garland of Events. As well, I would ask every member of this House to join me in extending congratulations and best wishes and urge every member of the House to become involved in the celebrations.

1340

EDUCATION REFORM

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): Last night in High Park-Swansea we had an excellent example of the government's new method of parental involvement in their children's education. It was quite a spectacle to see the parents from the PTA of Annette Street Public School barred from getting into a meeting on education being held in their own school.

It was incredible that these parents were denied access to any meeting on education concerning their children. It was even more incredible that this meeting was not only with the MPP for the area but also with the Minister of Education and Training.

The meeting was to discuss the government's so-called reforms to education, but the parents of the school were deliberately left off the guest list and only a chosen few were there. Those were the people who agree with the government's agenda of catastrophic reforms to education. Clearly the member and the minister did not want to hear the views of constituents and parents who just might disagree with this government's agenda in education.

What is more amazing and even more frightful is that the Minister of Education closed the door on these parents. This is the same minister who claims to want to have more parental involvement. It is clear that this Minister of Education doesn't care about parent councils; that this Minister of Education doesn't care about parental ideas; that this Minister of Education doesn't care about parental concerns; that this Minister of Education doesn't care.

PROPANE PRICES

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I've had a number of complaints over the last number of weeks from constituents in Algoma who are dependent upon propane for their heating. Propane in our area has gone up from approximately 43 cents a litre three months ago, three times over the last three months, to approximately 50 cents a litre today. Many senior citizens in rural parts of Algoma are dependent upon propane and have a difficult time meeting the increasing costs of this fuel.

I understand that the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations and the Ministry of Environment and Energy do not have any legislation regulating the market price of propane. There is no regulation as there is with the price of natural gas or heating oil or electricity.

I'm told that last fall in the Midwest US there was a massive increase in propane supplies required to dry crops. As a result of that, there was an inventory shortage to refineries, and that resulted in a significant increase in the price. Also there was some speculation about the possible flow of crude oil from Iraq that affected the price.

It's obvious that if senior citizens are to be protected from gouging, there should be some regulation in Ontario.

SPECIAL OLYMPICS

Mr Jim Brown (Scarborough West): The largest international multisport event in 1997 takes place in Ontario next week: the world Special Olympics Winter Games. Two thousand athletes from 80 countries are attending. They're accompanied by 700 coaches, 6,000 volunteers and thousands of supporters and family members.

The Special Olympics provides children and adults with mental disabilities the opportunity to participate in sports training and athletic competition. Canada has a unique history with the Special Olympics. We were one of only two countries that participated in the first Special Olympics held in Chicago in 1968.

Today Special Olympics chapters exist in thousands of Canadian communities. Over the past 30 years the Special Olympics has grown into a world-class sports competition. The athletes are coming to Ontario for friendly competition after years of training, countless practices and gruelling drills. They worked hard to get here. Their families, coaches and volunteers have followed them down this arduous road of preparation.

The Special Olympics is a celebration of outstanding athletes and the true spirit of amateur sport. It is a unique sporting event that enriches the lives of everyone who is involved. The oath of the Special Olympics best describes the spirit they encompass: "Let me win. But, if I cannot win, let me be brave in the attempt."

I encourage all Ontarians to show support for these very special, dedicated athletes from all over the world.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

GOVERNMENT AGENCIES REVIEW

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Minister of Health, Government House Leader): I'm pleased to announce to the members of the House that the government is continuing to cut waste and duplication, improve service and save taxpayers' dollars in provincial agencies, boards and commissions. By taking action on task force recommendations on 62 operational agencies, the government is moving towards its target to save $220 million in taxpayers' dollars.

The government is moving to wind down the Ontario Junior Farmer Establishment Loan Corp, which has not made a loan for almost 30 years, and has eliminated the Ontario Asset Financing Corp, inactive since it was created by the previous government in 1995.

These actions are among those recommended by the task force on agencies, boards and commissions, chaired by Bob Wood, the member for London South.

The task force report on 62 operational agencies sends a clear direction for the government. Ministries will carry out detailed analysis and planning to determine the best way to implement the task force's recommendations.

As you may recall, in May 1996 I reported to the members of the House on the results of the first phase of the task force review, dealing with advisory agencies. As a result of that review, the government is taking steps to streamline and eliminate advisory agencies.

This is the first time in decades that operational agencies in the province have been reviewed comprehensively.

Based on the task force recommendations, the government will:

Eliminate 12 operational agencies over the next two years;

Redesign the way 30 agencies, such as the Ontario Science Centre and the St Lawrence Parks Commission, deliver their services. Three of these agencies are immediately recommended as candidates for privatization, and those are the Metropolitan Toronto Convention Centre, Ontario Place Corp and Ortech Corp.

The government will also review 14 agencies to improve efficiency and effectiveness. These agencies include the Royal Ontario Museum and the Ontario Trillium Foundation.

Decisions on six agencies, including the Ontario Mental Health Foundation and the Alcoholism and Drug Addiction Research Foundation, are being deferred until completion of reviews that were already under way.

It may simply make better sense to further involve the private sector or other government levels in the way that the agency carries out its work.

Overall, the government is eliminating 20% of its 62 operational agencies and revamping 60% of the remainder. Many of these agencies have continued to exist for years at taxpayers' expense despite the fact that their work is complete, or their mandate is obsolete or they no longer provide value to the public.

The government is already acting on the task force's earlier recommendations to streamline or eliminate 37 of the 50 advisory agencies over the next two years. This, along with action to be taken on the operational agencies, will help us move towards a smaller and yet more efficient organization which spends taxpayers' dollars wisely.

The government has already identified more than $60 million in savings from operational agencies. We anticipate further savings once the detailed studies recommended by this task force are done and decisions made.

The government's decision to act on the task force report takes us closer to reducing spending on agencies, boards and commissions by $220 million.

I would like to commend Mr Wood and his task force for their thoroughness and hard work. Their review on operational agencies will result in less duplication, more efficiency and new and more flexible ways to deliver service.

With these decisions, the government is well on its way to fulfilling its throne speech commitment to put all agencies to the test of continued relevance and value to taxpayers for their money.

Finally, I will report back with further decisions concerning the third and final phase of the task force's review, focusing on regulatory and adjudicative agencies, which will be released shortly.

1350

Mr Monte Kwinter (Wilson Heights): I would like to respond to the minister's release today of the government task force on agencies, boards and commissions, the report on their operational agencies. I can only surmise that the government must be feeling an awful lot of pressure on their megacity announcements and that is why they've thrown this red herring out, to try to deflect some of the concerns that are being expressed.

I haven't had a chance to read through the whole document because it was just delivered to me a few minutes ago, but after looking at it briefly, I find that there are some very strange things that this group has done because in many cases they've done nothing. What is happening is that they are setting out a smokescreen to get people talking and being concerned about what may or may not happen to them. They've announced several different agencies that should be eliminated.

Let me give you an example. They want to eliminate Innovation Ontario Corp. This indicates to me that this government has no idea what Innovation Ontario does and the role that it plays. When they talk about it they suggest that it shouldn't be in this business because there are private funds available, and that just isn't true; that's the reason they are in the business. There are lots of innovative ideas in Ontario that are not being able to get financed because of their risk value, but that's the role the government should play. I have no problem whatsoever with the government getting out of things that can be done in the private sector and that shouldn't be done by government. But there are other things that the government should be doing, and they should be doing them because this is what gives us some competitive advantage, and Innovation Ontario is certainly one of those particular agencies.

I'm very concerned about a couple of other things that have happened. The Ontario Lottery Corp: I'm sure the minister will know that people in Sault Ste Marie are very concerned about what could possibly happen if the Ontario Lottery Corp was privatized. That's exactly the same thing as privatizing the casinos, but when you read the rationale -- and I just want to quote from the report. It says:

"The task force recommends the government review all aspects of the corporation's operations to find the most appropriate and cost-effective method of delivering the corporation's activities while staying within the province's legal obligations under the Criminal Code of Canada."

I would suggest that is a given, that is an absolute given, no matter what government is in power and what decision is being made. To single this out and say, "This is something that we're going to have delivered differently," sets up a concern that I think is unwarranted and that is going to create some problems for people who may automatically think that, because it is being tabled in this report, their jobs may be in jeopardy.

The same thing goes for Ontario Place. Ontario Place is not just a commercial enterprise. It was conceived by a previous Conservative government to serve a very special purpose for the people of Ontario. That may require some subsidization by the government. To decide that it should be turned over to the private sector and that the subsidy will be removed indicates that you're literally going to throw it to the wolves and if it survives, fine, and if it doesn't, that's the way the world turns and that's the way businesses operate. I think we have an obligation to make sure that places like Ontario Place, which is a tremendous asset for the city and for this province, are kept viable, and if that means some government support, so be it.

The last thing I want to talk about is the elimination of the Ontario Transportation Capital Corp. This is really ironic in that when Highway 407 was conceived and was put out to public tender the government of the day awarded it to a consortium that was very controversial at the time because of perceived undue influence. The whole premise behind that funding was that they would provide private financing. After they got the contract they came back to the government and the government agreed that they would, in fact, guarantee the funding. Now the minister is saying, "We're going to take a look and see how we can do that a different way."

You're going full circle, and I think that is setting up some problems. I would suggest that when the other shoe drops and you get into some other announcements, you don't fall into the same trap, and that you give this away to the private sector but do not give away the freedom from the obligations and that you don't get stuck with it.

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): We know what's really at the basis of this report and this announcement today. We know that when the government talks about saving some $220 million in taxpayers' money they're going to save that by reducing services. You will recall one very clear example. It wasn't that long ago that this government said, when they cut the employment equity program, that they were going to divert some of that money into the Human Rights Commission. People are still waiting to see some of that money. We know we're never going to see it.

Today we see more clearly, as the government House leader indicated, what the direction of this government is. It clearly is towards privatizing. It's clearly towards privatizing a variety of services that have been, for very good reason, in the public realm for many years. Let's just talk about a couple of those.

The Ontario Lottery Corp -- which, by the way, isn't even mentioned. We have here a list of 12 operational agencies over the next two years that are going to be eliminated, and yet the minister in his statement doesn't even give us the courtesy of listing what those agencies are nor giving us a copy of the report so that we can see for ourselves what these agencies are.

In the privatization efforts, my colleague the member for Sault Ste Marie has already raised in this House the kind of devastation that would occur in his community of Sault Ste Marie if the Ontario Lottery Corp disappears as a basic service in that area, and the impact will be felt throughout the province.

Another examples that we see here: the Ontario Place Corp. How fitting a symbol for this reform government that this institution, begun by another Conservative government, a real Conservative government, is now being disbanded by the Mike Harris government, being sold off to its friends.

Other examples are the Ortech Corp and the Metropolitan Toronto Convention Centre, where government and public funds have been going into building a world-class facility, and now this government is prepared to just hand it over to its friends. We know really that what's at the basis of this is exactly that. It's not enough that this government is doing everything in its power to ensure that its wealthy friends get richer as a result of the tax cut; it now wants to make sure it adds to that by giving them a few more gifts by selling off good corporations that have been providing good public service.

What I want to say to the government and to Mike Harris is that if they were really serious about actually cutting down waste and duplication, they could start by not implementing the two commissions that they're about to put on to the public of Ontario: the one that creates a trusteeship in Metropolitan Toronto and the second one, which creates a trusteeship on school boards across the province. You want to save money? You want to restore democracy to this province? Deal with those two commissions, disband those commissions that you've begun. Don't play around with these ones. Don't hand off these corporations to your rich friends, because people know what your agenda is all about.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): One thing the government isn't bragging about today is that it's also streamlining and eliminating women from agencies, boards and commissions. It seems that the Attorney General and the other government colleagues can't find experienced women to appoint to agencies, boards and commissions. Let's look at the facts here. Let's get it on the table today what's happening.

Last year the Ontario Municipal Board was chaired by Miss Helen Cooper. Now it's chaired by Mr Doug Colbourne. Last year the Ontario Human Rights Commission was chaired by Ms Rosemary Brown. Today it's chaired by Mr Keith Norton. And on and on. This is just the tip of the iceberg.

In the last year there's been a turnover of about 11 positions in the Circle of Chairs. This is a group of about 50 board chairs who meet monthly. In 1995, those 11 positions were held by three men and eight women. Now in 1997, these positions are held by nine men and two women.

The Attorney General has made a total of eight judicial appointments. Of these eight, one was a woman and one was an aboriginal man. What I find particularly offensive about how the Attorney General responded to this is he had the nerve to state that his decisions are based on merit. What the AG is implying is that he can't find qualified women to appoint as judges. This is the age-old excuse for not appointing women.

I find it offensive that the minister responsible for women's issues once again is not standing up in this House and condemning this. Where is she? Where is she at the table in defending the rights of women? Once again not there. Where are the rest of the women on cabinet? As this government is busy downsizing, streamlining, cutting these ABCs, they are not even taking a look at what is happening after years of our government and the governments before that trying to do everything they can to get more women involved and in top positions on these boards and commissions. They are being eliminated too. For shame.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order. Can I get some order just for a moment? Point of privilege, member for Fort York.

1400

ACCESS TO LEGISLATIVE BUILDING

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: This morning I attended a very peaceful gathering of very mild-mannered but passionate people wanting very much to talk to either the Premier or the minister in charge of amalgamating the cities in Toronto. They were gathered here in the east wing on the second floor.

My privileges as a member have been hampered in my inability to meet and to escort some of these citizens around in order to give them that access they are entitled to. The Premier and ministers have a privilege and a right to refuse to meet with them, or to decide that perhaps they should chat and discuss whatever issue they came to talk to them about. Instead of that, what we had was the use of the police to cordon off the group in such a way as to prevent easy and free access to the building.

The police normally are used in a way to apprehend, to deal with matters of violence and to maintain peace and order, and I appreciate that, but to use the police in this manner so as to prevent easy flow and peaceful movement of ordinary citizens in my view is inappropriate. We should not be using the police in this way, and I argue that having them used in this way is a violation of the democratic rights of the citizens of Ontario.

What I would like from you, Speaker, is that you review this matter. I need to know who issued that order and on what basis the police were told to cordon off these people, to restrict their access, on what basis that action was necessitated, because in my presence there I did not see the need for the police to cordon off people in such a way as to prevent that free flow of movement of those citizens.

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: Another point of privilege, and perhaps fleshing it out a little bit, because I think it would be important for the Speaker to consider this other, related matter at the same time. I was there with this group this morning. They were Ontarians who wanted to travel about the floors of Queen's Park. The Speaker will know, as with most other members, I frequently host any number of groups of younger people and older people here. This group, who were acting peaceably, who were not causing any breach of the peace and there was nothing to indicate that they posed a threat to the peace, were, as indicated by the member for Fort York, basically held at bay by a cordon of police officers.

I ask the Speaker also to consider what I understand, in my view, to be another problem very much related. Over the recent past I've had more and more visitors to this building being told that they're not welcome, that they're not permitted in fact in the area on the second floor where scrums take place after question period.

I understand the need for you, Speaker, and for the legislative security services and the OPP to maintain order here and to prevent any disruptions. However, I put this to you: that with my guests I consider attendance at the scrums a very important part of their visit to Queen's Park in terms of understanding all of the process that takes place here. I'm asking you, in the consideration of the point of privilege of the member for Fort York, to also consider, please, that my privileges, as they rest with my constituents and other visitors here, are also being infringed and violated by virtue of what appears to be a new array of somewhat arbitrary and secret rules. Nobody's telling us what the rules are and there isn't an opportunity to debate them, to discuss them, to rebut any rationale that might be posed for them. What we witnessed this morning was tragic because a very public place, perhaps what should be the most public place in this province, had been turned into a very private, exclusive place where members of the public who pay for this place were being denied an opportunity to walk about it peaceably.

I've witnessed that in terms of other visitors I've had in the area of the scrums. I consider that as repugnant, a violation of my privilege as a member. I would ask the Speaker to consider that in conjunction with the matter raised by the member for Fort York.

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Minister of Health, Government House Leader): Mr Speaker, on a point of privilege: Since during the member's introduction of the point of privilege he brought up the Premier's name and the minister who is responsible, just to state the obvious, the security of this building has nothing to do with this government. I think members know, and I assume the people of Ontario know, that the security of this building does not come under the control of the government. If indeed the police were called -- I don't know who was called -- it has nothing to do with the government.

Mr Speaker, as you know, it would be your responsibility and that of the Board of Internal Economy to look after those security measures.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Let me just deal with this quickly, without taking too much time.

I have a very real interest in promoting this facility, this building, as a place for people to come, and outside this facility to demonstrate and express points of view and interests different than those of the government or opposition. But let me be very clear to the members for Welland-Thorold and Fort York.

When you come into this building, the rules change to some degree, and the rules change in this way: Members have free and open access to travel the halls of this building. It would be a very dangerous and difficult precedent to set to suggest that demonstrations may in fact take place outside offices of members or outside the Premier's office or outside cabinet offices. It seems to me, from the report I received today, that although you may have seen this as a peaceable group, others would suggest that peaceable as they were, it was a demonstration none the less.

I frankly think, when you're bringing that many people together and they're requesting to speak to individual cabinet ministers, who in my opinion should have full and unfettered access to cabinet meetings -- because they are not public meetings; they are important executive meetings that take place in this facility -- it seems to me that maybe the privileges not necessarily of the members for Fort York and Welland-Thorold are being usurped but quite possibly the privileges of those in cabinet.

So I say to the members for Welland-Thorold and Fort York we must be very careful. We know this is the democratic place it's supposed to be. I understand what this facility means and what it means to the people of Ontario, but let me be very clear. I think the members of this place have every right and expectation to walk the halls without being presented with demonstrations in opposition or in favour of particular government initiatives. If I started down that slippery slope and allowed individuals or groups to come into this place and begin to demonstrate, I think it would become very unruly in a very short period of time.

To those two members, if demonstrations want to take place out front I will cooperate completely. When you come into this place the rules change and they're different, and I say to both the members, although you brought this forward, I don't agree with you. I don't think the people of Ontario in the truest democratic sense could agree with you and I think it's important that we allow all of us free and open access and movement within this building. If that isn't in place, there's an inherent danger there for all of us.

I don't accept your point of privilege. I don't accept it as a point of order. I say to you that those people were probably in the wrong as opposed to the cabinet ministers being in the wrong.

1410

SPEAKER'S RULINGS

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): I have two rulings I'd like to make with respect to some previous points of privilege and order.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Member for Welland-Thorold, I ask you to come to order.

Monday, January 27, 1997, the member for Essex South (Mr Crozier) raised a point of privilege respecting the fact that the standing committee on government agencies had received a certificate of intended appointments to a body which has not yet been established.

I've also received submissions from the government House leader.

Let me begin by saying that I don't find the action of the government in sending notice to the appropriate committee of its intent to make an appointment in any way an issue of privilege or contempt.

I went on, however, to consider whether or not the point raised by the member might more properly be a point of order. In reviewing the matter, I find nothing in the referral of a certificate of intent to appoint these two candidates which would in any way limit or compromise the ability or rights of a committee to conduct a review under the terms of the standing orders.

The fact that the appointments are contingent on the passage of legislation does not impact on the committee's review. I want to note here that this is not the first time the committee has reviewed an intended appointee prior to passage of legislation which establishes the agency, board or commission.

In 1991 the committee reviewed and concurred in the intended appointment of the Employment Equity Commissioner. Some members who were here during that period of time may recall that the legislation that provided for the Employment Equity Commissioner was not passed in this Legislature until 1994, but the appointment took place in 1991.

The committee has the ability to conduct its review of this intended appointee in the same manner it employs in all other cases. Therefore, I find that the member for Essex South has neither a point of privilege nor in fact a point of order.

Yesterday, the member for Oakwood (Mr Colle) rose on a question of privilege to express some concerns about a fax dealing with the government's agenda for municipal reform. According to the member, the fax indicated among other things that the "new united Toronto will be in place by January 1998."

Other members rose on separate but related questions of privilege. It seems that other members had also come into possession of faxes communicating information about the government's agenda for municipal reform. In this regard, submissions were made by the member for Algoma (Mr Wildman), the member for St Catharines (Mr Bradley), the member for Rainy River (Mr Hampton), the Minister of Environment and Energy (Mr Sterling) and the member for Beaches-Woodbine (Ms Lankin). I also heard from the government House leader on these matters.

I have had an opportunity to review the faxes in question and the submissions of the members who spoke to these matters.

Let me begin by responding to the submissions respecting the alleged breach of federal guidelines concerning the sending of faxes. This involves a legal -- perhaps even a constitutional -- issue, something that is obviously not within the Speaker's jurisdiction.

I will not leave the matter at just that. Rest assured that I continue to be perturbed about the information that is being communicated in these faxes. I am prepared to give people a reasonable amount of time to react to the events of last week and to rectify any unsatisfactory state of affairs, but I want to emphasize the word "reasonable."

I would ask whoever is responsible for sending out this kind of information -- or who is thinking about communicating this kind of information -- to read and absorb my ruling of January 22, 1997. It can be found on page 6441 of Hansard. Read it and then read it again, if necessary, because my patience is wearing thin -- very thin. In fact, it would be helpful if you just read it.

So that all members know where I stand, I want to make it plain to all that a prima facie case of contempt can be established even though it is not known who is communicating the objectionable information. What is important is not who is communicating objectionable information, but rather the fact that such information is being communicated.

I'd like to thank the various members who spoke to the matters they raised in this House yesterday.

ORAL QUESTIONS

PROPERTY TAXATION

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. The minister will know that this morning our Liberal caucus met with some of the most respected people in Metro to get their view of the impact of your moves on dumping on municipalities a whole bunch of new services.

We heard, first, that they believe it's a big mistake in terms of just simply public policy, but we also heard consistently that in their opinion you're going to dramatically increase property taxes for all the residences in Metropolitan Toronto. Each of them has gone over the numbers. In North York it is their judgement that taxes will go up on residential properties by 11%. Mayor Frances Nunziata of York says that her community would be hit with almost a 10% increase in property tax for residences. Metro Chair Alan Tonks indicated that property taxes will go up significantly and put them on the verge of bankruptcy.

Minister, who should we believe? The mayors, who have done their homework and have released their figures showing significant property tax increases, or you, who refuse to release any studies on it?

Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): I will refer the question from the member to the Minister of Finance.

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): First of all, I don't know how anybody can accurately predict how much their taxes would or would not go up until they know what their 1996 assessed values are going to be; until they determine the ratios and the range differential between commercial and residential and industrial and residential properties; until they decide what their mill rates are going to be for a particular year; until they decide which one of the six classes they're now allowed to distribute property taxes among. Until all those decisions are made and until the final cost figures are in for the year just ended, 1996, I don't know how anybody could accurately predict what you're predicting.

Mr Phillips: I think Ontarians must be shaking their heads at this government. You are asking us to approve, tomorrow, the first bill in your mega-bills. You are going to force us, through closure, to approve in principle your bills and you refuse to tell the people of Metropolitan Toronto what it's going to cost.

I would just say we have people in Metropolitan Toronto who are taking whatever they can from you on your numbers. They've crunched them. They've shown that you are adding $1.2 billion across Ontario to property tax. I challenge you to discredit that. The officials across the province have done those numbers and you are adding that to it.

I'll ask a very simple question. You want us to approve a proposal that in the eyes of the major players in Metro Toronto adds 10% to property tax. Will you today table the studies that show it will not add 10% to property tax in Metropolitan Toronto?

Hon Mr Eves: First of all, we are not asking anybody to pass, in finality, any bill tomorrow. Let's get that out of the way. What we're asking for, and you know full well what the government House leader is asking for, is second reading on a bill that will be sent for public hearings for five consecutive weeks. That's what we're asking for. Maybe you over there don't want public consultation, but we in the government would like to hear what the public has to say. We'd like to hear what municipalities have to say.

Mr Phillips: Again, for the public -- I hope they are listening to this -- we are being forced to approve in principle these major bills that will change Ontario forever and you refuse to provide us with the evidence that the cabinet had when they made those decisions.

I will say to you very clearly, the mayors, the key people in Metropolitan Toronto have done their number work. Property taxes, they believe, will go up 10%. Will you table today the studies on which you made the decisions to offload, to dump $1 billion of extra costs on the property taxpayers? Will you table those studies so that as we debate these bills, we can have the same information you had when the cabinet made its decision?

Hon Mr Eves: We are not offloading or dumping $1 billion on anybody.

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): Yes, you are.

Hon Mr Eves: We are not. In today's dollars --

Mr Phillips: Where are the numbers wrong? Show us the numbers.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Minister.

1420

Hon Mr Eves: In today's dollars we're asking municipalities province-wide to assume $6.355 billion worth of responsibility in return for, on an annual basis, probably more but no less than $6.4 billion, and that is factually correct.

I ask the honourable member, with respect to Metropolitan Toronto, has he included in his numbers the following figures: $40-plus million that Metro taxpayers saved last year because of reduced cost of social assistance? And those welfare caseloads will continue to drop and that saving will continue to rise. Have you included that number?

Have you included in your number the $100 million that Metro Toronto loses each and every year because of an antiquated, outdated property assessment system that has 1940 values as opposed to 1995 in Niagara region -- $100 million every year? Have you included in your figures, I say to the honourable member, $65 million every year that Metro's education costs would have gone up again and have gone up for the last decade? Have you included that number in your numbers, and have you included --

The Speaker: Minister of Finance, thank you. Is that it? New question, member for Lawrence.

Mr Joseph Cordiano (Lawrence): This is new Tory math: Pay more and you get less.

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Joseph Cordiano (Lawrence): This morning the mayor of Toronto told us how numerous American mayors have told her they see in Toronto both their past and their future. They see their past because --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): I need to know who your question is to.

Mr Cordiano: The Minister of Municipal Affairs.

The Speaker: Thank you.

Mr Cordiano: They see their past because their cities used to be safe, healthy and clean. They see their future because they are trying to duplicate the kind of city we enjoy in Toronto today.

Minister, there was a unanimous view among the presenters this morning that you are destroying Metro Toronto with your plan, that your decision to duplicate American-type cities is the wrong way to go. Why would you jeopardize the safe, healthy and clean communities we have? Why are you taking us down the American road and trying to duplicate cities like Detroit and Washington? Why are you doing that to Metro?

Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): I agree with the member that we have a great city and a great community in Metropolitan Toronto. What we are going to do is create something that is even better by getting rid of the waste and duplication and overlap and high costs that our citizens are required to bear because of inadequate levels of government.

We have more politicians and more governments looking after the people in this community than probably any other community in Canada. I can assure you that when the city is amalgamated and we get rid of six of this and seven of that and eight of something else, the citizens in this community will be far better off.

Mr Cordiano: Every presenter this morning agreed that your plan to dump social services and help for the disabled and seniors on to municipalities is nothing short of reckless. That's what they described it as. We heard from groups like the Ontario Coalition of Senior Citizens' Organizations, who said that your dumping will leave seniors and the disabled with higher property taxes, that you're going to chase them out of their homes. They said, and I quote, "The Harris government is only looking at the short monetary gain on the province's books, not the long-term effects on social services and community programs." They said this would be disastrous for Metro Toronto and for seniors.

Minister, given the promises you made during the last election campaign, how can you assure seniors and the disabled that they will not become the targets of your cuts when your mega-dumping is complete? Protect seniors, protect the disabled: That's what you said you would do in the last election campaign. Why are you going back on your election promises?

Hon Mr Leach: To the member opposite, if he has an opportunity to read the proposals we're putting forward on property tax reform, he would recognize that we're giving the municipalities the ability to deal specifically with the disabled and specifically with seniors. An option that we're making available to municipalities is to defer any possible shift in taxes, because these are not increases in taxes. This is a system to bring equity into the system. If there is a citizen, a senior or a disabled person, the municipality will have the right to spread that increase out over eight years, or at the choice of the senior or the disabled they can defer any shift in taxes until such time as the property changes hands.

Mr Cordiano: This is about the character of our communities, the kind of Ontario we want, the kind of Ontario I want my children to grow up and everyone wants their children to grow up in -- safe, clean communities. What you're doing will make that impossible in the future. You're going to destroy municipality after municipality right across this province. People told us that this morning. They're saying that. The chorus is growing; it's louder each and every day.

Minister, you and your plan are about to destroy municipalities. You are just eradicating the quality of life we have in this province with all the measures you're taking. Will you back away from this reckless strategy, from this ill-conceived plan to dump all these additional costs on to municipalities? It's on your head and I'm asking you to back away from it. It's ill-conceived, it's wrongheaded and it's reckless. Have the courage to stand up and defend cities across this province.

Hon Mr Leach: As a matter of fact, I am so convinced that the proposals we're bringing in will be of such great benefit to the citizens of this province that I wish we could implement them faster than we are.

The proposals we're bringing in by taking $5.4 billion off the property tax by assuming the cost of education and giving responsibility for the delivery of hard services to the municipalities will bring about a far more efficient, cost-efficient, better type of municipality to live in, and we know the citizens of Ontario understand this, we know they're backing our moves. They're in favour of what we're doing and if we had an opportunity to implement it even faster, we would.

The Speaker: New question.

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. The minister wants to move even faster, he says. Maybe your next bill could be to just transfer all the powers of the Legislature to you and then you don't have to bother with us in this House.

Minister, I want to talk to you about what you're doing with this closure motion today. You're bringing down closure on debate, but more importantly, you're bringing down closure on the public of Metropolitan Toronto. You're bringing down closure on democracy.

Your Deputy Premier says you want to hear what the public has to say, but it's clear to us that you're not interested in what the public has to say, because your closure motion allows only one day of debate after the hearings are finished on third reading of this bill. It's clear to us that you don't intend to listen at all to what people have to say, unless you change your mind even at this late point.

1430

That's what I want to ask you. Will you come to your senses? Will you drop your draconian closure motion and will you agree to drop your legislation if that's what you hear, particularly from the people of Metropolitan Toronto, particularly as they vote against your megacity in the referendum? Will you do that?

Hon Mr Leach: I don't think I've ever heard a more hypocritical statement than that.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Minister, that word is unparliamentary and I ask you to withdraw.

Hon Mr Leach: I withdraw, Mr Speaker. It should never be necessary to state the obvious.

Interjections.

The Speaker: The member for Kingston and The Islands, order. You know I'm probably going to say something because I've stood back up, so if you could just give me a moment, I will deal with it.

That's not a withdrawal. If you could stop at, "I withdraw it," that would make it a withdrawal.

Hon Mr Leach: I withdraw it, Mr Speaker.

The opposition, both parties, have done nothing but try to derail this bill by delaying it, by keeping it away from public hearings.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Minister.

Hon Mr Leach: The opposition say they want debate, but what have they done over the last several weeks but cause delay, ring bells? At least four hours of debating time were lost. They talk about wanting to have a democratic process and what do they do? They keep this bill from going out to the public so the public can have input and hearings to debate the issue, to provide their comments. They have done absolutely nothing to assist the public in that process.

Mr Silipo: Being an optimist, I would like to say that I think there's still some hope. If this minister is finally beginning to understand that we are trying to derail his megacity bill, then he's finally beginning to get it. That's exactly what we've been trying to do because we think this bill is wrong. But we're not interested in hearing ourselves; we want to make sure you listen to the people of the province. You can talk about the process, but you know that we have wanted and we want to see the hearings. What we are saying is that we want to make sure you listen to what people have to say and you do something about it, as opposed to just going through the charade of listening and then carrying on as if nothing was said to you.

It's not just us, Minister; it's your own friends, from the board of trade to the United Way, to Hazel McCallion, to Mel Lastman, to the Financial Post, to even David Crombie. They're all saying that what you're doing is wrongheaded, that the direction of your whole mega-scheme is wrong. What we're asking you, Minister, is this: How many more experts, how many more of your friends, are going to have to call you to task before you realize that what you're doing is wrong?

Hon Mr Leach: The member has mentioned two or three people who are opposed to amalgamation and they favour amalgamation. The board of trade is strongly in favour of amalgamation. David Crombie is in favour of amalgamation. They're making statements that are not correct when they're indicating that the public generally is not supportive of amalgamation.

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): Dumping the social services on to the property tax. They say, "Too high a price to pay."

The Speaker: The member for Oriole, you have to come to order, you really do. It's making it very difficult for me to hear the minister. I appreciate any assistance you can give me. Minister.

Hon Mr Leach: If the opposition are really in favour of having public input into this bill, they'll assist us in getting it out to public hearings as early as we possibly can, as early as next week, so that the citizens of this area can have input into the process.

The Speaker: Final supplementary, the member for Fort York.

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): Minister, yesterday I asked you about Mr Crombie's comments on your housing proposal, and you insisted that Mr Crombie was wrong and in fact everyone else is wrong except you, and that your big download had been discussed by the Who Does What panel. Instead, we've heard something different: There have been no discussions, no consultations and no preparations. What we have got from you is a big housing bomb, and Mr Crombie told us as much. What you have done is you have sent them a $1.4-billion baby to care for with no feeding instructions and not even enough money to pay for the proper upkeep.

Minister, I ask you this: Where is Toronto going to find the $200 million it needs for the urgent repairs of the Metro housing authority? Where is Toronto going to find the 200 million bucks? You tell me and you tell the city of Toronto that.

Hon Mr Leach: I mentioned in this House yesterday that this issue had gone to the Who Does What panel and I went back to my office yesterday to confirm that, and I can confirm that there was discussion at the Who Does What panel on this social housing issue. As a matter of fact, those discussions were initiated over a year ago by the municipalities.

For example, I have in my hand here a letter from the chairman of Halton region, who states, "I would like to advise that Halton region has endorsed the concept of the management of public housing stock by the Halton Non-Profit Housing Corp, the municipal non-profit housing provider in our region." They want to take over social housing in Halton. By the way, there is a cc to David Crombie, chair of the Who Does What panel.

SCHOOL BOARDS

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I have a question of the Minister of Education and Training regarding the other mega-bill that we have before the House, Bill 104. The minister has been requested to meet with parents across Ontario. He has been meeting, but he has been meeting with chambers of commerce in Kitchener-Waterloo and in London. He hasn't met with parents, for instance, in Toronto, parents in wards 1 and 2 in the west end and wards 11 and 12, the education council for Franklin Public School in Riverdale from ward 10 in the east. They've all tried to get meetings with the minister, with no luck.

Last night he did meet with some parents at Annette public school in Toronto's west end to videotape the meeting of a select group of parents. Unfortunately, I guess, for the videotaping, other parents showed up to express their views. I'd like to know, from the format of the meeting last night, is this the kind of thing that you consider to be consultation with parents and will your videotape when it is edited show the whole night's proceedings, including the cries of --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you. Minister?

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Education and Training): I thank the honourable member for the question. I did attend last night a meeting, as I attend meetings across the province on a regular basis. This one was set up by the member for High Park-Swansea. It was an opportunity --

Mr Wildman: They ambushed you.

The Speaker: Well, I don't know. Let's find out. Minister.

Hon Mr Snobelen: I'd like to inform the House and perhaps when the House is quiet I'll be able to inform it.

We had an opportunity last night, as I've had on many other occasions, to have a meeting with people who represent a wide variety of interests. I can tell you that members of the PTA were there in that meeting. There were members of OSSTF in the meeting. There were principals, elementary school teachers, high school teachers. A variety of people from a variety of different walks of life, all concerned about public education, were in that meeting, and we had a chance to talk about the reforms that we bring to Ontario's education system, including clearer responsibilities on governance and a reduction in the cost of governance in our schools so that we can direct funds into the classroom. We talked about the province finally taking on the cost of education and being able to assure every student in the province that there will be sufficient funds for a high-quality education. I'm proud of those initiatives and I'm glad to get out across the province and explain it to the people.

Mr Wildman: Last week in the House the minister said, "If there are changes that can be made to the legislation we've brought to this floor that improve education for children of Ontario, I'd be more than willing to have a look at those amendments."

1440

But last night, after hearing from the parents and hearing them say they disagree with the minister's approach to the education of their children, the minister said to the reporters that the parents were misinformed or uninformed. I'd like to know from the minister, is that what he thinks, that anyone who questions his government's propaganda or program as set out, who questions the wisdom of his view of the future for the education system, just doesn't know what they're talking about?

Hon Mr Snobelen: I'm pleased to inform the member for Algoma that of course that is not the position I would take or any member of my government would take. We do find ourselves faced with people from the public, though, and I'm sure the member for Algoma will appreciate this, who have been misinformed by various people who have not got a clear idea of what we've got before this House. Shocking as it may seem, there are some people who are defenders of a system with mediocre student achievement.

We believe on this side of the House that we have to increase student achievement. There are some people who are part of a $13-billion system who don't want to give up a particular special privilege or interest that they have. But most people are fair, reasonable and interested in improving the level of achievement by every student right across the province, and that's what this government is in favour of.

Mr Wildman: There seems to be an echo in this place from the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. I'd like to ask another question of the Minister of Education and Training.

I understand from the clerk of the committee that the committee has already received over 800 requests from parents, students, teachers and others concerned with education in Ontario to appear before the committee to make presentations on Bill 104. The minister has said that he wants to hear from the public. He can be guaranteed that many more will want to express their views before the committee. I know the parents' group People for Education has already written to the government House leader about this bill and asked for hearings.

Will the minister inform the government House leader that he believes there must be adequate opportunity for all people to be heard about Bill 104 and the changes in education, even if it takes six, seven weeks of hearings?

Hon Mr Snobelen: I know that the member for Algoma will share my confidence in the abilities of the government House leader to make sure there is a chance for public input. But I want to remind the member for Algoma of a couple of facts: First, we are responding, finally, as a government to 24 major reports that have been done in my lifetime in this province on education governance and finance; finally a government is responding to those requests. Second, one of those reports that has been done was commissioned by your government, sir, when it was in power, the Sweeney commission.

We asked every member in this House --

Interjection.

Hon Mr Snobelen: The member for Algoma, if you will let me respond, I can tell you. I asked every member of this chamber for input from their communities on Mr Sweeney's findings. I know that you contributed those, and we have observed those, and I think you'll see them reflected in the bill we have before this House. Every single member who responded to that request has had their community's input to the ministry and it has been reflected in our bill, so I'm confident that we have already had an enormous amount of public consultation. We are willing to have further -- I am proud of the bill that we put before this chamber.

TRUCKING SAFETY

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville): I have a question for the Minister of Transportation. Over the course of the last several weeks there have been a number of high-profile incidents involving truck wheels flying where some have resulted in death, some in injury and some near misses. Would the minister share with the House today what plans he has to improve road safety in Ontario and over what period of time he intends to act?

Hon Al Palladini (Minister of Transportation): I certainly share the concern the honourable member has expressed of what is happening on our highways, especially with the reported numbers of lost wheels that have occurred so far this year. I believe that the problem has been highlighted to a point where these things most likely are being reported on a more common basis.

Needless to say, I want to assure the honourable member that this government will continue its efforts on truck safety. It has been an ongoing thing. I believe we started in October 1995, and we have implemented a lot of changes. But we are going to continue to build on that plan and it's going to be reflected in the future bill that we're going to be proposing in the spring, other deterrents that we're going to bring forward to make sure our highways are safe and truckers are going to pay attention to safety.

Mr Duncan: We have heard a litany, every time there's been an accident, from the government about what it has done to improve road safety, yet the accidents continue. The government has not responded to the Worona inquest in its entirety. The government has not hired as many officers as it originally promised to do in terms of enforcing road safety. As recently as this weekend, published reports are now saying that ministry documents are acknowledging that the number of wheel accidents in this province has more than doubled since you began your program.

Your program hasn't worked. Will you agree today to a legislative inquiry to address this matter in its entirety, in public, to make sure that the people of this province have the assurance that their roads will continue to be safe and that they can drive without fear of being hit by a truck tire?

Hon Mr Palladini: I want to reiterate the member's concerns. However, I want to point out that this government has done more for safety in the short period we have been a government than I believe the previous two governments did in 10 years. I want to say to the honourable member that MTO staff have stopped over 40,000 vehicles up to the fiscal year to date, and that is twice as many as happened in any previous fiscal year to date under previous governments. In the first seven months we took out of service 1,422 plates, which is nearly double what other administrations had done.

Mandatory wheel training has been initiated. Higher fines: We've raised the level of minimum fines and also have a maximum $20,000 fine. We've lifted the axle weight moratorium that was contributing to highway accidents and damaging of infrastructure. We have done a lot of positive things. I know we have a long way to go. I'm willing to work with the member. If he has suggestions, I'd be glad to take them.

BAIL SUPERVISION PROGRAM

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): My question is to the Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services. I'd like to go back to the issue of your cancellation of the bail release program as of March 31 of this year. Are you aware that on March 31 there will still be a considerable number of people who have been ordered by the courts to be supervised under the bail program? In Waterloo, for example, approximately 200 people will still be under such court orders.

In order to change those court orders those bail program clients will have to return to court, and that means a large number of court appearances involving justices of the peace, crowns, defence or duty counsel, clerks and so on, just to change those conditions of bail. Of course, your other option is simply to ignore the bail conditions ordered by the courts, conditions that are there to protect the public safety.

What do you intend to do on March 31 with all those clients who still remain? Are you going to clog up the courts more? Are you going to ignore the bail conditions? What is your plan?

Hon Robert W. Runciman (Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services): One of the options under consideration would be that the individuals who would remain under this program at the end of the date we've indicated it will expire, March 31, will be instructed to report to the nearest probation and parole office. In that way they will be required to comply with the reporting condition until the next scheduled bail hearing.

Mrs Boyd: By whom are they going to be ordered to do that? The issue is that they were put under the bail supervision program, not under probation and parole. The minister is well aware that the probation and parole officers in this province are already heavily burdened. They are unable to deal with the additional caseload that would be received by them and still maintain the public safety.

This is just another example of your government making a decision without looking at the impact. We found out that it wasn't until after you'd ordered the cancellation of this program that ministry officials actually went into the various programs and began to look at client files to see what the impact of this decision would be. It is quite clear that you have no idea what you are doing, that you are under such pressure to save money to pay for your tax cuts that you are simply grasping at straws and in the meantime endangering the public safety and leaving us in a position where we may be clogging the courts. Why don't you simply do the honourable thing and reverse this decision until you know what the impacts are?

Hon Mr Runciman: There were two studies commissioned during the time the NDP was in office. The one thorough investigation and review indicated there was no meaningful or measurable impact in terms of the remand population in our correctional facilities. The other study with respect to the justice system, the Cole-Gittens review, although supportive of the program generally, indicated it should not be the responsibility of the ministry of corrections.

1450

TEACHERS' LABOUR DISPUTE

Mr Gary Fox (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings): My question is to the Minister of Education and Training. The teachers' strike in Lennox and Addington has been dragging on since December 9, 1996. In my constituency office we are receiving more than 40 calls each day from concerned parents who are worried their children will lose their school year. These parents are telling me their children's education is being disrupted because of a labour dispute that has nothing to do with them. Minister, what are you going to do to help students and parents in Lennox and Addington?

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Education and Training): I've been on record many times as saying I believe we need a change in the bargaining climate in the province of Ontario, that our professional teachers need to have a way of bargaining that doesn't hold to hostage the students and children of the province.

I'm very aware of what's going on in Lennox and Addington. We are in the 28th day; I understand today the 28th instructional day will be lost to those students. There have been 11 other job actions this year in other areas which have disrupted the normal relationship between teachers and students and parents. In fact, we've lost 17 million student days over the course of the last 20 years to job actions.

We are monitoring this. I wrote to both parties last week, asking them to please come to an agreement, to use all of their good offices to do that. I understand they are meeting today, trying to resolve their issues. Of course, we all wish them well at that. I am also considering all the actions we might take as a government that are provided to us under Bill 100. We are monitoring this very carefully.

Mr Fox: I received a call from a young high school student who is terrified she won't be able to graduate from Napanee District high school to attend Queen's University and eventually go to medical school. She called me in tears and asked me to do something to help her.

I am told that in the past all parties in this House have recognized the importance of helping students like this one and they have passed legislation in as quickly as 45 minutes. Minister, will you ask the opposition parties to help this young lady today so that she will be able to attend university next fall and pursue her dream of becoming a doctor?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Minister.

Hon Mr Snobelen: Let me begin my response by saying right at the start that in the past this chamber has had a proud record, no matter which was the party in power at the time, that the interests of students have been non-partisan issues, and I expect that would continue in the future. There's a proud record of that.

I believe the reason for that is because all of us have felt in our constituencies the frustration of parents and students and teachers when the bargaining process grinds to a halt. We are looking into the confines of Bill 100 to see what actions might be appropriate. If an action at some point is appropriate to help break this logjam in the negotiations we will do so. But I want to emphasize one more time that this has not been a partisan issue in the past and I would not expect it to be in the future.

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): My question is to the Minister of Health. In many Ontario communities -- in Pembroke, Petrolia, Sudbury, Fort Erie, Sarnia, Chatham -- thousands of people are going to arenas and town squares traumatized by what you, your department and your government are doing or are threatening to do by way of closing their community hospitals.

Your government is using as its principal mechanism for closing hospitals in Port Colborne and Pembroke a new hospital bed standard. On behalf of those thousands of people in communities like Fort Erie and St Catharines and Pembroke, can you tell this House today, and through this House all of those people and their elected representatives, which hospitals in Ontario communities of between 5,000 and 75,000 people today operate consistent with your government's new hospital bed standard?

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Minister of Health, Government House Leader): What I will say to the member opposite, and what I will tell the people of Ontario, is that this government is dealing with the health care issue in total, living within its promises of $17.4 billion in terms of health care -- a large chunk of that for hospitals, I might add -- in the context of a $2-billion reduction in health care from the federal Liberal government.

The ministry is attempting to provide better services through our hospitals in all our communities, better services by carrying on with the program begun by the previous government, where the previous government gave the district health councils $26 million and asked them to look at the most efficient way of delivering hospital services in our communities. District health councils, including in Renfrew and Pembroke, are coming forward with recommendations. The restructuring commission is dealing with those recommendations, is having consultations with the general public, and there will be actions coming forward through the restructuring commission to make --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you, Minister. Supplementary.

Mr Conway: It is your hands that are around the neck of the Pembroke Civic Hospital. It is your hands that are threatening to squeeze the lifeblood out of the Sudbury General Hospital. It is your hands that are around the neck of the Hotel Dieu in St Catharines. Let there be no confusion: It is your hands; it is your policy. This is your doing.

On behalf of the thousands of people that are gathering in Petrolia, St Catharines, Pembroke, Sudbury, Sarnia, Chatham and several other communities, I ask you specifically, are there any hospitals in Ontario today that are operating in communities of between 5,000 and 75,000 population that meet your new hospital bed standard? More likely, do we have to go to some private health maintenance operation in Georgia, New Jersey or Ohio to find somebody in compliance with this new standard that is the wrecking ball that is going to slam shut and crush and end the Pembroke Civic Hospital, the Port Colborne General, the Hotel Dieu in St Catharines and several others in this province?

Hon David Johnson: I find it interesting to have the question from the member for Renfrew North, who was part of a government that started the closure of beds in Ontario. Over the last 10 years we have seen some 8,400 beds closed in the province. This government is attempting to come to grips with the problem of 8,400 beds which have been closed, providing better services in our hospitals right across Ontario through the restructuring commission.

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): Talk to the people from Pembroke.

Hon David Johnson: Over the catcalls, Mr Speaker --

Interjection.

The Speaker: The member for St Catharines, I appreciate your comment, but the member for Oriole, I ask you to come to order. I couldn't quite hear what you said. It may have been out of order; I'm not sure. I'm sure it's not. I ask you to come to order, please.

Hon David Johnson: In terms of standards within individual communities, the restructuring commission, a panel of appointed experts who have great expertise in terms of community standards, is establishing those standards on a community-by-community basis. They're coming forward with the recommendations to make health care and hospital care better in the province.

1500

TUITION FEES

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I have a question for the Minister of Education and Training. As the minister knows, students across Ontario in the post-secondary system are awaiting his government's announcement with regard to tuition fees for next year. The minister will know that in a presentation to the Smith panel there were a number of proposals made. He has frozen funding for the post-secondary institutions, colleges and universities, next year. Is he prepared to accede to the requests of the Canadian Federation of Students that he do the same for tuition fees?

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Education and Training): I thank the member for Algoma for the question. We are considering the recommendations of the Smith commission and we have responded, in the freeze of our payments to universities and colleges for next year, well in advance of the time when that is normally announced.

We also hope to be able to announce what flexibility there may or may not be for institutions surrounding tuition fees for the next year as early as we possibly can, but we believe that the report deserves to be read, deserves to be considered, and we are now talking with various people in the post-secondary sector about what the proper response should be.

I note that the Smith commission talked about making investments in our post-secondary education system, something this government asked the Smith commission to look into, wanted to get that information for, including the share of the private sector, the share of the government and of course the share of students. We'll be investigating that over the coming months and we hope to be able to make an announcement.

Mr Wildman: The coming months? Surely the announcement of next year's tuition fees will be sooner than that.

In dealing with the Smith panel, I hope the minister has looked at York University's submission. In a survey of York students, the university found that the average level of student indebtedness has doubled since 1994-95. The university concludes, "It is becoming increasingly clear that anticipated level of debt is affecting the decisions students make about post-secondary education."

In other words, students are not going to post-secondary education because of the fear of heavy debt. Is the minister considering changes to the student aid system, and when will we expect next year's students to know what possible changes there will be in the level of tuition they will have to pay?

Hon Mr Snobelen: We are very aware of the fact that we need to improve the Ontario student assistance program. We have been studying for some time and working with our federal counterparts on an appropriate income-contingent loans package that will be available to students. As recently as the end of the last week, I wrote the minister responsible in Ottawa and asked him to move forward with all good speed, because I believe this will help our students meet their obligations for post-secondary education.

We have maintained our transfer payments to colleges and universities this year at over $2 billion. We have established the post-secondary student opportunity trust fund for $100 million, which our institutions have received very enthusiastically. We have asked them and they have put aside 10% of the increase in tuition from last year to help the students most in need -- there is some $16.2 million available now in that fund -- and we increased OSAP funding last year by about $100 million.

We recognize the need to give students the assistance to be able to take part in post-secondary education and we are working very hard to improve and make sure that those systems meet their needs now and in the future.

ACADEMIC TESTING

Mrs Lillian Ross (Hamilton West): My question is to the Minister of Education and Training. Over the past several years Ontario students have written numerous national and international tests. The results of these have not been very encouraging. In the third international math and science test, released last fall, Ontario's students were unable to meet the Canadian average and just barely able to meet the international achievement average. It's my understanding that the results of yet another national test were released today. Do today's tests show any improvement?

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Education and Training): In answer to the member's question, recently the Council of Ministers of Education, Canada, released the results of the tests that were done on people who are 13 and 16 years old in all the provinces and territories of Canada. I regret to report that in these science tests our students in Ontario, in both age groups, performed below the national average. That is obviously not acceptable to this minister and it's not acceptable to any member of the government.

Mrs Ross: National and international tests indicate that Ontario is producing average students. I don't think anyone in this Legislature thinks these results are indicative of what Ontario students are able to achieve. What is this government doing to ensure that Ontario's students are the best in the world?

Hon Mr Snobelen: In answer to the member's question, I am very proud of our record on moving forward in student achievement. As a matter of fact in our pledge to parents we have committed, as a government, to implementing a rigorous and demanding curriculum which will emphasize the basics: reading, writing, spelling, grammar, math, science, geography, Canadian history and technology. Our standards will be clear, measurable and comprehensive in all grades; finally, I might add, clear, measurable and comprehensive. We will measure those standards with province-wide tests and we have begun that this year. These changes will help our students lift their achievement to be ahead of the other provinces in Canada, not middle of the road.

We have also made the changes in a system that has produced mediocrity at great cost to a system that will take us to the future, that will provide us with the highest levels of student achievement in Canada. That is the objective of this government and that is the reason for our changes in education.

HAEMODIALYSIS

Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): My question is to the Minister of Health. In August 1995 the Minister of Health promised $25 million to bring dialysis to under- and non-serviced communities. Cornwall, unfortunately, is one of those communities. No dialysis is available, so residents travel to Kingston and Ottawa for treatment.

Reacting to the problem, local community health officials called on the Minister of Health. It took eight months, but the minister finally announced that dialysis would soon be available in care of a provider his ministry had pre-selected. A week later he pulled the plug on the decision and admitted an error in choosing the provider. He promised that a second provider would be selected very soon. That was eight months ago.

Minister, consider what it would be like to drive one and a half to two hours each way, three times a week, to receive basic medical attention. Are you going to follow through on the promise you made last April, and if so, when?

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Minister of Health, Government House Leader): I appreciate the question. Obviously that wasn't my particular promise but the promise of the former minister. I will endeavour to look into this matter and I'll get back to the member.

I know that the Ministry of Health has over the course of the last year made announcements in terms of reinvestment in dialysis. The ministry has made a great number of announcements about reinvesting in the health care system in Ontario, because the services currently, while they're good services, need to be improved, made better.

I will take your point and look particularly in terms of the Cornwall area and the dialysis program.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Supplementary.

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): Minister, there are a number of areas in terms of health care and you are simply not following up on promises you have made and your fellow colleagues have made in the area of health.

In particular in Windsor, the Windsor hospitals are no longer prepared to be the bad boy and take the hits for what the Conservative government is doing to health care in my community. Yesterday they released figures which show clearly that because of the Conservative government funding of our hospitals in Windsor and Essex county, we are below the Ontario average by $42 million a year. Specifically that is $122 per person, per year less in Windsor-Essex than anywhere else in Ontario.

1510

Will you stand today and ensure that through your policies you will in effect give us equity in funding in Windsor-Essex county?

Hon David Johnson: I will say to the member that hospitals are not funded on a per capita basis. The per capita funding might not include certain services in some areas which it includes in other areas, services such as mental health, long-term care and other services.

Having said that, I am concerned about equity for hospitals across Ontario. I am concerned with regard to the operating grants of the hospitals across Ontario. I am working on the operating grants for the 1997-98 fiscal year. The ministry is working very hard. I would expect an announcement in the very near future which will reflect the need for programs in various areas, which will reflect growth in population in various areas and which will reflect other factors, to bring an even greater equity in hospital funding in Ontario.

PROPERTY TAXATION

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. I have here a document entitled A Preliminary Summary of Provincial Announcement and the Implications on the City of Timmins, with regard to your latest announcements around your downloading a number of services on to municipalities.

Minister, I want to be clear here. Once the municipality gets those services that you're handing over to them, when you take into account the amount of taxes they're going to get from school assessment and what you're transferring on to them, the shortfall is $12 million.

Now the question I have to you is very simply this: What can you say to the citizens of Timmins when it comes to what might happen to their property taxes when the city is faced with additional expenditures of $12 million, for which they don't have the revenue? Can you guarantee the people in Timmins that they're not going to get a property tax increase as a result of your recent announcements?

Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): What I can assure the citizens of Timmins and the citizens of every municipality in Ontario is that when our proposals are implemented, after the phase-in period, when we know some municipalities may need some assistance, they'll all be better off and the vast majority of them will be able to introduce a property tax decrease. I hope that's the case in Timmins.

However, we also recognize that there are some municipalities that are going to require assistance and we have set up a $1-billion fund for municipalities that need help in carrying out the programs we've asked them to be responsible for. They'll be able to draw on that fund as required. I don't know whether the municipality of Timmins falls into that category, but if it does, it would be able to apply for that fund.

Mr Bisson: The problem is this: The city of Timmins is learning, and the full implication of your cuts has yet to be calculated because we know there are a number of other announcements that are going to be made by your government, but at this point we're over $12 million to the negative in additional expenditures that the city has to take. What's really appalling is that the officials of the city of Timmins at no time are getting any indication from the government in any kind of real way of exactly what it is you want them to do.

I want to draw your attention to something: There was in the last election a document that had the picture of the Premier on it. I want to remind you it was called the Common Sense Revolution. You probably know it well. In this Common Sense Revolution, you said: "We will work closely with municipalities to ensure that any actions we take will not result in an increase in local property taxes."

The city of Timmins is saying, "If we have to increase property taxes to assume the responsibility, it's 40%." The promise you made is (a) that property taxes would not go up and (b) that you would work with the municipalities. Minister, they haven't seen you. They haven't seen any of your officials. There's no real information coming on. What are you going to do to assist the communities like Timmins to be able to deal with what you're doing?

Hon Mr Leach: I am glad the member opposite brought out the Common Sense Revolution, because it does state in there that we will work closely with municipalities and we are working closely with municipalities, both in southern Ontario and in northern Ontario. My colleague the Minister of Northern Affairs has been in northern Ontario on an almost weekly basis to provide information to the citizens of northern Ontario.

This government has worked and developed policies to ensure that there will be no tax increases, and that applies to any tax, whether it's income tax, property tax or business tax.

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): You were even scared to come out of your office to go to a cabinet meeting.

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): Where were you today, Al. The lights were on and nobody was home.

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): Nobody was home.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Members for Welland-Thorold, Cochrane North and Fort York, come to order. Anything else? Motions? No motions.

Mr Kormos: When we came to the ministry the lights were on, nobody was home; the lights are on, the doors are barred.

The Speaker: Come to order means that you stop heckling.

PETITIONS

ONTARIO CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTE

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): This petition is to the Legislative Assembly:

"We, the undersigned, believe that helping reduce crime and abuse in our communities is our responsibility as employees of the Ministry of Correctional Services, as professionals in related fields and as concerned citizens;

"Closing institutions which provide specialized services to women and treatment to men does not achieve that goal;

"Physical, emotional and sexual abuse is often transmitted from one generation to the next, with tremendous cost to society;

"Treatment aimed at breaking that cycle must include the abuser so that another generation of children is not raised with the same destructive lessons;

"As Mr Ross Virgo stated, the Ontario Correctional Institute is a therapeutic community known around the world for their techniques;

"Research statistics support anecdotal evidence that we are effective in changing abusive behaviour;

"A therapeutic community cannot exist in a superprison;

"Save victims and money by keeping open what works open, and request a response from the Minister, Solicitor General Bob Runciman."

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Member for Cochrane North.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): South.

The Speaker: I'm sorry. Member for Cochrane South.

Mr Bisson: I know the member for Cochrane North does a wonderful job, but I represent the riding of Cochrane South and do just as well.

I have a petition here, speaking of that, from the citizens of the riding of Cochrane South, and it reads as follows:

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

"Whereas the government of Ontario has plans to make changes to the Workers' Compensation Act which will have a negative impact on workers; and

"Whereas the change includes reducing the payout to 85% of earnings, eliminating various types of injuries and having employees apply to their employer for benefits; and

"Whereas the WCB has a surplus of $510 million in 1995; and

"Whereas in 1994 there was an uncollected employer debt of $173 million;

"Therefore, be it resolved that the government of Ontario stop its plans to privatize WCB and that the extensive provincial-wide hearings be held before any changes are made to the Workers' Compensation Board, and further be it resolved that recommendations to privatize will result in an increase of 13% in administrative costs."

HIGHWAY 17

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound): I have a petition from the town of Thessalon. It reads:

"We, the undersigned residents of the town of Thessalon in the district of Algoma would like to extend our appreciation to the Minister of Transportation, the Honourable Al Palladini, and the Minister of Northern Development and Mines, the Honourable Chris Hodgson, for their commitment to northern Ontario, and in particular the district of Algoma, for road improvements to Highway 17 from Sault Ste Marie to Bruce Mines.

"As part of this commitment to northern Ontario, we request that the road construction be continued in our direction, so that years of neglect to our highway system can be rectified."

EDUCATION REFORM

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): I have a petition, and it reads this way:

"We believe that the heart of education in our province is the relationship between student and teacher and that the human and rational dimension should be maintained and extended in any proposed reform. As Minister of Education, you should know how strongly we oppose many of the secondary reform recommendations being proposed by your ministry and government.

"We recognize and support the need to review secondary education in Ontario. The proposal for reform as put forward by your ministry is substantially flawed in several key areas: reduced instruction time, reduction of instruction in English, reduction of quality teaching personnel, academic work, experience not linked to education curriculum, and devaluation of formal education.

"We strongly urge your ministry to delay the implementation of secondary school reform so that all interested stakeholders -- parents, students, school councils, trustees and teachers -- are able to participate in a more meaningful consultation process which will help ensure that a high quality of publicly funded education is provided."

I've signed this petition.

1520

HIGHWAY 17

Mr Dan Newman (Scarborough Centre): Like the member for Grey-Owen Sound, I too have received a petition from the Coalition of Citizens for a Better Algoma, including such residents of the town of Thessalon as Howard Delaney, Natalie Carson and Jack Hill. The petition reads as follows:

"We, the undersigned residents of the town of Thessalon in the district of Algoma, would like to extend our appreciation to the Minister of Transportation, the Honourable Al Palladini, and the Minister of Northern Development and Mines, the Honourable Chris Hodgson, for their commitment to northern Ontario, and in particular the district of Algoma, for road improvements to Highway 17 from Sault Ste Marie to Bruce Mines.

"As part of this commitment to northern Ontario, we request that highway road construction be continued in an east direction so that years of neglect to our highway system can be rectified."

It's signed by several citizens and I've affixed my signature to this worthwhile petition.

NORTH YORK BRANSON HOSPITAL

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

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

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

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

I've affixed my signature to it.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I have a petition from the United Food and Commercial Workers, Locals 175 and 633, submitted by Herb McDonald on behalf of their tens of thousands of members in the province of Ontario. It's a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and Premier Harris.

"We, the undersigned, oppose your government's plan to dismantle the workers' compensation system including reducing benefits; excluding claims for repetitive strain injuries, muscle injuries, strains, sprains, stress, harassment and most occupational diseases; eliminating pension supplements; handing over control of our claims to our employers for the first four to six weeks after injury; privatizing WCB to large insurance companies; integrating sick benefits into WCB; eliminating or restricting the Workers' Compensation Appeals Tribunal, WCAT; including eliminating worker representation on the board and eliminating the bipartite WCB board of directors.

"Therefore we, the undersigned, demand a safe workplace, compensation if we are injured, no reduction in benefits, improved re-employment and vocational rehabilitation, an independent appeal structure with worker representation, access to the office of the worker adviser, that the WCAT be left intact and that the WCB bipartite board of directors be reinstated."

As I am in support of this petition, I add my name to theirs.

USER FEES

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): I just want you to know that I keep receiving these petitions against the $2 user fee for seniors. I'll read the petition, which is as follows:

"Whereas the Ministry of Health has started to charge senior citizens and social assistance recipients a $2 user fee for each prescription filled; and

"Whereas seniors on a fixed income do not significantly benefit from the income tax savings created by this user copayment fee or from other non-health user fees; and

"Whereas the perceived savings to health care from the $2 user fee will not compensate for the suffering and misery caused by this user fee or the painstaking task involved to fill out the application forms; and

"Whereas the Minister of Health, as an opposition MPP, has said and written in fact that his party would not endorse legislation that will punish patients to the detriment of health care in Ontario;

"We, the undersigned Ontario residents, strongly urge the government to repeal this user fee plan because the tax-saving user fee concept is not fair, is not sensitive and not accessible to low-income or fixed-income seniors, and lest we forget, our province's seniors have paid their dues by collectively contributing to the social, economic, moral and political fabric of Canada."

I'm signing my John Henry to this petition because I agree with it.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I have a petition from the University of Windsor, the School of Music, of course from Windsor, Ontario.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas it is vital that occupational health and safety services provided to workers be conducted by organizations in which workers have faith; and

"Whereas the Workers' Health and Safety Centre and the occupational health clinics for Ontario workers have provided such services on behalf of workers for many years; and

"Whereas the centre and clinics have made a significant contribution to improvements in workplace health and safety and the reduction of injuries, illnesses and death caused by work;

"Therefore, we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to oppose any attempt to erode the structure, services or funding of the Workers' Health and Safety Centre and the occupational health clinics for Ontario workers; and

"Further, we, the undersigned, demand that the education and training of Ontario workers continue in its present form through the Workers' Health and Safety Centre and that professional and technical expertise and advice continue to be provided through the occupational health clinics for Ontario workers."

I add my name to theirs.

HOTEL DIEU HOSPITAL

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a petition that reads as follows:

"Since the Hotel Dieu Hospital has played and continues to play a vital role in the delivery of health care services in St Catharines and the Niagara region;

"Since Hotel Dieu has modified its role over the years as part of a rationalization of medical services in St Catharines and has assumed the position of a regional health care facility in such areas as kidney dialysis and oncology;

"Since the Niagara region is experiencing underfunding in the health care field and requires more medical services and not fewer services;

"Since Niagara residents are required at present to travel outside of the Niagara region to receive many specialized services that could be provided in city hospitals and thereby not require local patients to make difficult and inconvenient trips down our highways to other centres;

"Since the Niagara hospital restructuring committee used a Toronto consulting firm to develop its recommendations and was forced to take into account a cut of over $40 million in funding for Niagara hospitals when carrying out its study;

"Since the population of the Niagara region is older than that in most areas of the province and more elderly people tend to require more hospital services;

"We, the undersigned, request that the government of Ontario keep the election commitment of Premier Mike Harris not to close hospitals in our province, and we call upon the Premier to reject any recommendation to close Hotel Dieu Hospital in St Catharines."

I affix my signature. I'm in full agreement.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I have a petition from the Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 3440, in Kirkland Lake, forwarded to me by Linda Petrie, the vice-president, who is also a certified health and safety representative.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Harris government began a process to open the Occupational Health and Safety Act of Ontario; and

"Whereas this act is the single most important piece of legislation for working people since it is designed to protect our lives, safety and health while at work and allow us to return home to our families in the same condition in which we left; and

"Whereas the government has made it clear that they intend to water down the act and weaken the rights of workers under the law, including the right to know, the right to participate and especially the right to refuse; and

"Whereas this government has already watered down proper training of certified committee members;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario not to alter the Occupational Health and Safety Act or erode the rights of workers any further and ensure strict enforcement of the existing legislation."

I add my name to theirs.

EDUCATION REFORM

Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly:

"Whereas proposed changes to secondary school education in Ontario appear to be driven by financial concerns and not by educational objectives;

"Whereas reform of curriculum appears to be an afterthought;

"Whereas sufficient time and resources are essential to ensure that the reforms are done properly; and

"Whereas the areas defined for consultation by the ministry and the questions posed are too restrictive and do not include many of the fundamental aspects of the proposals;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to delay the reform of secondary school education until such time as the practical aspects of the reforms can be addressed."

I affix my signature to this petition as well.

1530

TVONTARIO

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): I have a petition in opposition to the privatization of TVOntario.

"We, the undersigned, strongly protest any plans to privatize TVOntario. The privatization of TVOntario would jeopardize Wawatay radio network's native language programming and Wahsa distance education services because both depend on TVO's distribution system."

That's signed by constituents of mine from North Caribou Lake, Weagamow Lake and throughout the north. I attach my name to that petition as well.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

MENTAL HEALTH AMENDMENT ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LA SANTÉ MENTALE

Mr Patten moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 111, An Act to amend the Mental Health Act / Projet de loi 111, Loi modifiant la Loi sur la santé mentale.

Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): I'd like to thank the assembly for accepting first reading of a private member's bill. The bill is designed to amend the Mental Health Act to ensure that a person who suffers from a mental disorder may be admitted to a psychiatric facility as an involuntary patient if the disorder is likely to result in serious physical impairment or in a substantial physical or mental deterioration of that person.

As members will know, currently the act provides that a person can only be admitted involuntarily to a psychiatric facility if the mental disorder will likely result in serious bodily harm to the person or another person or in serious and imminent physical impairment to that person. This bill is designed to amend that.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): I apologize to the House. I should have asked before Mr Patten spoke to the bill, is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

REMEMBRANCE DAY OBSERVATION ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 SUR L'OBSERVATION DU JOUR DU SOUVENIR

Mr Leadston, on behalf of Mr Kells, moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 112, An Act to observe two minutes of silence on Remembrance Day / Projet de loi 112, Loi visant l'observation de deux minutes de silence le jour du Souvenir.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Mr Gary L. Leadston (Kitchener-Wilmot): The bill declares that the people of Ontario will observe two minutes of silence at 11 am on Remembrance Day in honour of those who died in war and on peacekeeping missions. Its purposes are to be achieved through voluntary observance and through our collective desire to remember. The bill sets out a number of suggestions for promoting the observance of this silence.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TIME ALLOCATION

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Minister of Health, Government House Leader): I move that pursuant to standing order 46 or special order of the House and notwithstanding any other standing order of the House relating to Bill 103, An Act to replace the seven existing municipal governments of Metropolitan Toronto by incorporating a new municipality to be known as the City of Toronto, when Bill 103 is next called as a government order, the Speaker shall put every question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill without further debate or amendment, and at such time the bill shall be referred to the standing committee on general government;

That the standing committee on general government shall be authorized to meet to consider the bill on the following days:

On Mondays, Wednesdays and Thursdays during the weeks of February 3, 1997, February 10, 1997, February 17, 1997, February 24, 1997, and on Monday, March 3, 1997, and Wednesday, March 5, 1997, and that the committee be authorized to meet from 9 am to 12 pm, 3:30 pm to 6 pm, and 7 pm to 9 pm on such days to receive public submissions on the bill;

That the standing committee on general government shall be authorized to meet to consider the bill for clause-by-clause consideration commencing Thursday, March 6, 1997, from 9 am to 12 pm and from 3:30 pm until completion of clause-by-clause;

All proposed amendments shall be filed with the clerk of the committee by 7 pm on March 5, 1997. At 5 pm on Thursday, March 6, 1997, those amendments which have not yet been moved shall be deemed to have been moved and the chair of the committee shall interrupt the proceedings and shall, without further debate or amendment, put every question necessary to dispose of all remaining sections of the bill and any amendments thereto. Any divisions required shall be deferred until all remaining questions have been put and taken in succession with one 20-minute waiting period allowed pursuant to standing order 128(a).

The committee shall report the bill to the House on the first available day following completion of clause-by-clause consideration that reports from committees may be received. In the event that the committee fails to report the bill on the date provided, the bill shall be deemed to be reported to and received by the House.

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

That one sessional day shall be allotted to the third reading stage of the bill. At 5:45 pm on such day, the Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings and shall put every question necessary to dispose of this stage of the bill without further debate or amendment;

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

I now have an amendment to incorporate a couple of other facets into that motion.

I move at this time that the motion be amended by deleting the words "or special order of the House and notwithstanding any other standing order of the House," in the first and second lines of the first paragraph and inserting in lieu thereof "and notwithstanding any other standing order or special order of the House," and;

That the motion be further amended by striking out the seventh and eighth paragraphs and inserting the following in lieu thereof:

That upon receiving the report of the standing committee on general government, the Speaker shall put the question for adoption of the report forthwith, which question shall be decided without debate or amendment, and the bill shall be referred to the committee of the whole House;

That one hour shall be allotted to consideration of the bill in committee of the whole House. At the end of that time, those amendments which have not yet been moved shall be deemed to have been moved, and the Chair of the committee of the whole House shall interrupt the proceedings and shall, without further debate or amendment, put every question necessary to dispose of all remaining sections of the bill and any amendments thereto and report the bill to the House. Any divisions required shall be deferred until all remaining questions have been put, the members called in once, and all deferred divisions taken in succession. All amendments proposed to the bill shall be filed with the Clerk of the Assembly by 2 pm on the sessional day on which the bill is considered in committee of the whole House, and that notwithstanding standing order 9(a), the House be authorized to meet beyond its normal adjournment time until completion of the committee of the whole stage of Bill 103;

That upon receiving the report of the committee of the whole House, the Speaker shall put the question for adoption of the report forthwith, which question shall be decided without debate or amendment, and at such time the bill shall be ordered for third reading;

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

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

1540

I rise today in support of this --

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): We have agreed on the time.

Hon David Johnson: Yes. I should say at the outset -- thank you to the whip from the third party -- that the agreement is that the government will use the time until 4 o'clock and the remaining time will be split equally between the two opposition parties until the vote is taken later this afternoon. So my time is limited, and I will say that --

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): Agreed.

Hon David Johnson: Agreed?

The Acting Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): Agreed.

Hon David Johnson: My time is limited and I will say that the government has attempted to bring this matter forward for debate. This is an issue of tremendous significance not only to the people of Metropolitan Toronto, but this is an issue of tremendous significance to the people of Ontario and indeed, I would submit, to the people of Canada.

The Metropolitan Toronto area has been evolving over many years. I guess it was in 1967 that some 13 municipalities were amalgamated into the six local governments we have today, and of course the regional government persisted at that time. The bill that we have to debate, Bill 103, would be a further step along that evolution in terms of amalgamating all of those governments, those seven remaining governments, into one government.

This government feels that there should be significant debate, that not only the people but this House should be debating this issue, because there are key questions. There are questions of communities. I might say in my few minutes that I have a strong sense of community. I was not born in East York but I was privileged to serve on the East York council for over 20 years, both as alderman and as mayor. East York is a strong community. Indeed, within East York there are two strong communities, because over my many years in East York I have become accustomed to people talking about either the "town" or the "township," and they are referring to the former town of Leaside or to the former township of East York. Both entities, which were created early in the century -- Leaside in 1913, the township of East York in 1924 -- have that long sense of history. That history, I might say, in Leaside --

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): Talk to the present mayor.

The Acting Speaker: Member for Kingston and The Islands, come to order.

Hon David Johnson: -- has persisted even after 1967, when Leaside was amalgamated into East York, and yet still today people talk about the town of Leaside, still today people take pride in the town of Leaside through their local organizations, local community get-togethers. Well they should, and well should people take pride in the now borough of East York and the former township of East York.

That is a pride that persists in our communities: in the Beaches community, for example, which never has been a municipality, but still there's a pride; in Willowdale, for example; in Forest Hill, Swansea and so many communities that we have across Metropolitan Toronto. The government is interested in hearing the comments of people interested in ensuring that whatever we come forward with at the end of the day, that community pride and that sensitivity to neighbourhood needs persist. We are interested that people within their communities feel a responsiveness to a new kind of government, whatever new kind of government does come forward. They have to feel involved.

They're concerned about what happens on their streets and in their neighbourhoods: speeding on their streets, the repair of their sidewalks, the local planning, the local recreation, so many programs that they're concerned about. I'm quite confident that once this gets out to public debate, we will hear those kinds of concerns and we will hear good ideas as to how those sensitivities can be not only retained but increased through a new model.

At the same time, we know from many organizations, the board of trade, for example, within Metropolitan Toronto, that business is suffering, jobs. Particularly under the previous government, some 200,000 jobs were lost in Metropolitan Toronto. If you ask the board of trade why, "What is the number one problem that we've had for those jobs?" they will tell you that the municipal tax rate is overburdening in Metropolitan Toronto, that we need to do something about the property tax in Metropolitan Toronto, and they would like to get education off the property tax, which we are proposing for the residential side. They would like to have a lowering of the property tax in Metropolitan Toronto to make it competitive.

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): You keep it off for business.

Hon David Johnson: Well, Mr Speaker, the government believes that through this new structure, this new one-city structure, there will be efficiencies, there will be a reduction in costs, and accordingly there will be a lower tax rate on to the people and businesses of Metropolitan Toronto.

The municipality of Metropolitan Toronto itself has said through a study, through a consultant, that some $40 million can be saved in fire services alone, and there are many other ideas that are coming forward.

Those are the kinds of things that we will hear in the public debate, and I look forward to it. We would like to have more debate in this House, but unfortunately we have encountered adjournments, bell-ringing. Somebody has calculated that all the adjournments and the bell-ringing together have wasted over five hours, almost five and a half hours of legislative time in this House, which could have been much more gainfully directed towards debate of this bill, but unfortunately was not.

So we've had to bring in this motion today to outline the public hearing process, to permit the people of Ontario, the people of Metropolitan Toronto, to be involved, to be able to speak. I'm pleased that that's taking place and we are permitting over 100 hours of public hearing debate through this motion that is here today. That, I might say, is considerably more hours than was permitted on the rent control bill under the previous government or the automobile insurance bill under the Liberal government. It's a considerable amount of time, three days a week over a five-week period, and we are looking forward to having a great number of citizens, of public groups, of ratepayer groups, of municipalities coming forward and helping us make this Metropolitan Toronto area a municipality that we will continue to be proud of, that will serve us well, that will lower our costs, that will identify our neighbourhoods and our communities, be sensitive to those neighbourhoods and communities, that will be the great place to live, not only what it has been over the last number of years, the last number of decades, but as we enter into the next century.

With those comments, Mr Speaker, my time has expired. I believe that our next speaker will now take the floor.

1550

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Further debate?

Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East): I too would like to say a few things about the need for this motion. As recently as last night I had the opportunity to participate in another town hall meeting organized by a ratepayers' group, in fact in the riding of Isabel Bassett. Here in downtown Toronto there's no doubt there's a very different message that one gets than you do out in the ridings in Scarborough that I'm more familiar with. But across this city, across all of Metro Toronto, the people have said loud and clear what they want is a chance to have input in this process. We have explained to them that, as the thousands of bills that have gone through this chamber have all been treated, this bill should be treated no differently.

There are two appropriate venues to give input to any provincial piece of legislation. The first is to the MPPs directly. I have every confidence that the members opposite have been just as accessible as my colleagues in terms of meeting with people in our constituency offices, meeting with them down here at Queen's Park, taking their calls, their letters and their faxes and responding to them. That has been going on since this bill was first introduced. In fact, it's been going on since the first speculation occurred in the newspaper, and the bottom line is, based on that, we already have a pretty clear indication of where the people in our ridings stand on this issue.

But more than that, more than the direct input to the MPP, as the members opposite know, as they themselves undertook for every bill they brought forward, there are legislative committee hearings that take place on this bill. The bottom line is that is the second appropriate venue for people to have input. We have guaranteed that there will be over 100 hours of sitting time. I won't say it's unprecedented, because there are a handful of bills, a mere handful, that the other parties ever allowed to have that much time. There were very, very few bills that ever had 100 hours of debate. But we think this is a significant enough bill, based on the input we've received so far, to guarantee that there's adequate time to hear the concerns of the people from all across Metro Toronto -- not just downtown Toronto, but from across all of Metro.

The fact of the matter is there's a really good reason for the motion here today. The members opposite, who do a great job of telling people outside this chamber that they really want to ensure that the government has the chance to listen, that they really want to put our feet to the fire, then have indulged in every procedural time-wasting thing they could do to guarantee that the people of Toronto won't have a chance. They have stood in the way of people being able to give input to the legislative committee.

Instead of ensuring that the hundreds of people who have written to the clerk, who have said, "We want to come to those committee hearings," instead of accommodating them --

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): You will shut down second reading debate. This is what you are doing. You will shut it down, muzzling the people.

The Speaker: Order. The member for Cochrane North, I appreciate your interventions but you should be in your seat. It's very difficult as it is.

Mr Gilchrist: I just remind those who may not have a chance to watch the parliamentary channel every day that on January 14, one and a half hours was wasted through dilatory tactics put on by the opposition party. On January 15, an additional hour and a half was wasted. The bottom line is that in those three hours right there the opposition members would have had a chance to stand in their place and say substantive things, substantive criticisms if they really believe it. If they really think this bill is flawed, they would have a chance.

Ms Lankin: So why did we do it? Why did we have to do it?

Mr Gilchrist: The member for Beaches-Woodbine, who has a riding in Toronto, would have had a chance to stand in her place and say why she is opposed to this bill. Instead, they have hidden behind the skirts of the bell-ringing. They've hidden outside this chamber. They have absolutely avoided their obligations to articulate the views in this chamber and they have stymied the ability for the people of this great city to come in and give input to the committee hearing process. So for them to have the gall to suggest that this motion is not necessary -- it's critical. It is critical that we get on with the process of making sure that the people have input.

The previous two governments used time allocation on a regular basis: 28 times over a 10-year period, with the NDP doing it 23 of those times. In fact the rules under which this motion is brought forward today were promulgated by the third party.

The NDP government changed the standing orders. Why? To limit debate. In this case we're using it to promote the opportunity to have debate where it really matters: in committee hearings. This is not being brought in to then move immediately to third reading; it's being brought in to go to the committee hearing process. We want to start next week, with no further delay. We want to start next week to listen to the people and to hear their concerns.

As the member himself knows -- I hope he's not suggesting that all the times his government held committee hearings, they didn't listen; that you weren't there just reading a book or wasting the taxpayers' time. I'm proud of the fact that on the committees I've sat on so far, every single government bill has had government amendments arising from what we've heard from the people. That's what we've heard. That has been the track record of this government.

We are open; we are accessible. The hearings are the venue to allow the people of Toronto to speak their piece and to help us craft a bill that will accomplish the aims we all should share of more efficient government, lower costs, ending duplication and waste and providing the kind of framework in Metro Toronto to carry it forward into the 21st century as the most efficient possible mechanism for the delivery of services to its citizens.

I think my colleague Mr Turnbull would like to say a few words.

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): It's very interesting to be rising on this particular point given the fact that what we are debating is a time allocation motion under the House rules that the NDP brought in when they were the government. I guess in those famous words of Bob Rae, "That was then; this is now."

It is typical that there is a negotiation which occurs between the government and the opposition on the amount of time and the venue of any discussions which are held with the public. This has occurred, and in fact we are giving a huge amount of time in public hearings, far greater than the NDP ever did.

I cannot reflect back from personal experience on what the Liberals did, but I am aware that it was under the Liberals that they brought in time allocation, for example, at the time of the auto insurance debate, in which one of the NDP members debated, filibustered for 17 hours.

Of course that isn't possible now, due to the fact that the NDP changed this, but at least there was debate from the opposition in those days of what they saw wrong in a bill at second reading; the substantive debate of an issue, which is when debate is supposed to occur. But to date, all we have seen is bell-ringing from the NDP and opposition tactics to stop the passage of this debate.

It is perfectly correct, yes, that the NDP, both outside in front of the press and in House leaders' meetings, have said they're going to try and stop us. This frankly is legitimate for an opposition party to try and do, but for them to come afterwards and suggest, given the fact that we are unable to get to the substantive debate of this issue, that in some way we are being undemocratic makes me think in terms of the H word, which we're not allowed to utter in this House.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Go ahead, tell us what it is.

Mr Wildman: The hypocritic oath?

Mr Turnbull: I think you have an idea of it.

You cannot have it every which way. The fact is that when the NDP brought in the House rules -- and I agree with the House leader for the Liberals that they voted against it. You will recall, House leader for the Liberals, there was a great deal of pressure brought by the NDP at the time on the opposition parties -- "Unless you accept those changes, we'll make even tougher changes" -- and so they were passed. They had a majority government.

Mr Bradley: The Speaker didn't vote for them. I don't think the whip did either.

Mr Turnbull: I think there's a great deal of wisdom in what my friend from St Catharines says, but the fact is you are the people who have stopped progress of second reading debate.

1600

Ms Lankin: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: When you were out of the chair and we started this debate, there was in fact all-party agreement that the Conservative Party would speak until 4 of the clock, which it is now, and the remainder of the time would be split between the two opposition parties.

The Speaker: It just turned to 4 o'clock as you were on your feet.

Mr Turnbull: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Since the member from the NDP interrupted the time prior to 4 o'clock, I will just end off my debate by saying, yes, we stick to our deals; they don't.

The Speaker: You are on a point of order, so the member for York Mills has the floor now.

Mr Turnbull: It is merely the fact that we offered them an opportunity to have full, wholesome debate at second reading. The NDP refused to have it. That is why the time allocation motion is on the floor.

Mrs Caplan: Rarely have we seen a piece of legislation before this House that has the kind of significance of Bill 103. Under normal circumstances, I think we might have expected a white paper, a green paper, draft legislation, full hearings. The reason I say that is because Metropolitan Toronto is a wonderful city. It is considered one of the best of the world. When we see the kind of legislation that has been brought forward, that is going to have potentially a devastating impact on our community, on our democracy, it requires the community to feel engaged fully in the democratic process.

I agree with the government House leader in his remarks about the significance of this bill. I also agree with the government House leader about our sense of community pride and the wonderful city of Metropolitan Toronto that we live in and our pride in our individual municipalities within Metropolitan Toronto. I served for six and a half years on the council of North York and I know that the people of that city can access their local councillors, can access their mayor, can feel a part of, can feel listened to. I fear that this proposal of the government is an assault on local democracy and it devalues what we hold so dear in Ontario, which is our quality of life. It threatens to do that.

One of the saddest experiences for me as a member of this House has been the deliberate devaluation of elected office that this government's rhetoric has produced. We know the population is cynical. We know they don't particularly like politicians. But this government has been fostering that cynicism with legislation entitled the Fewer Politicians Act. I've spoken to that and I will say to you that, once again, Bill 103 is presented to the public with the rhetoric of eliminating politicians. That's the rationale.

I have always retained and maintained an open mind when it comes to making changes. I'm comfortable in a changing environment. I'm willing to make changes that are going to be better. One of the things I require to give me that comfort is evidence. When it comes to governance and the governing structures of local municipalities in the greater Toronto area, I look at all the evidence that has been produced over the years and I say to you that there is no evidence the government's proposals for creating an amalgamated city of Toronto are going to solve any of the problems we have, and we do have problems. I don't believe it will solve those problems because there's no evidence to suggest it will.

My fear, which is shared by all those who have taken the time to review the evidence, is that we are going to see services decline to the lowest common denominator and taxes increase. That is the evidence from those jurisdictions around the world which have embarked on amalgamation exercises of this magnitude. All the evidence suggests that you lose the benefits of economy of scale when you get over the size of about a million.

I was impressed this morning to listen to Mr Paul Pagnuelo, who took the time to come before our task force. He represents the Canadian Taxpayers Federation. I want you to know that as I quote what he said, I don't always agree with everything they have to say, but what he says here is based on their research:

"Our research concludes that amalgamation will produce the exact opposite effect of what everyone wants. Everyone wants lower costs, lower taxes and maintenance of services." He says: "This plan by the government will produce higher costs and higher taxes. The perceived savings by eliminating six city halls and their separate bureaucracies are far less than the higher costs which would be associated with a megacity. The empirical evidence worldwide is that higher, not lower, unit costs are associated with larger governments."

That is the evidence, so you have to say, "Why is the government doing this?" There are two parts to what they are doing. One part is Bill 103, which is the amalgamation into one city of Toronto. The second part is the announcement of who does what. Those two are linked and the reason they are doing one, amalgamation, Bill 103, is so that they can do part two and hopefully nobody will notice that in between they are going to cut provincial support to municipalities and they are going to cut provincial support to education.

We estimate the size of those cuts to be $2 billion or more. We know the downloading that will come from the announcements this week of the shift to the municipal taxpayer of long-term care, welfare, ambulance services, public health, all those social services which are redistributing income, and in many ways -- another word for it is "distributive justice" -- those have traditionally and rightly belonged with the provincial government.

All those who understand the importance of local government will remind the province that it is their responsibility to look after those most vulnerable in our society. Those are the soft services, the social services, and they must be funded through the income tax and provincial revenues because they are unstable. If there's anything municipalities need it is stability in their planning because without stability you will see property taxes rise, and rise dramatically at times of economic downturn. We all know that the economic cycles have their ups and their downs and municipalities cannot cope in that environment and certainly property taxpayers will not be able to cope.

The government's own panel on Who Does What, when they got wind of the government's intention to take education tax off and replace that with the social services, welfare, child care, long-term care, social housing, said: "Whoa, don't do it. If you have to make a choice between education and social services, leave education on the property taxes." That was David Crombie. When you get David Crombie, Anne Golden, John Sewell, Mel Lastman, Paul Pagnuelo, the Board of Trade of Metropolitan Toronto, Barbara Hall, all the mayors within Metropolitan Toronto, and a significant number of the elected leadership of the greater Toronto area, some 25 out of 28 individuals, all saying to this government, "You've got it wrong. You are going to fundamentally damage the municipalities and you are going to hurt the property taxpayers and you are going to hurt those people who need stable services," when you ask, "Why has the government done this?" the one thing we know -- and we heard that this morning at our hearings -- is that education support is far more predictable a cost than welfare, child care and long-term care.

1610

We know that our population is aging, we know that our senior citizens are getting older and we know that the pressures for services in the long-term-care sector will place a burden on municipalities and on property taxpayers that they will simply not be able to afford. What will happen is that you will see people head to the cities where the services are available, particularly cities like Metropolitan Toronto, and you will see inadequate and unequal services across this province based on the property tax assessment in those local communities. That runs so contrary to everything we have ever believed in in this province. It is a value that we are seeing this government cavalierly cast aside.

I agree with the architects and the authors who are speaking out in unprecedented numbers, and I fear this government is not listening. This time allocation is a closure motion. This government is invoking closure on one of the most significant issues of our day, and that is because the economy of Metropolitan Toronto and the economy of the greater Toronto area, the economy of this region, is very important to the economic health of this province. You tamper with it at your risk.

I believe in local democracy. I believe in democracy. What the government is doing today has a cavalier disregard for democracy. A basic tenet of our democracy is responsibility and accountability. The policies of this government as it devolves social services on the backs of property taxpayers and amalgamates Metropolitan Toronto with inadequate hearings, with inadequate discussion, with inadequate research and impact studies, with inadequate information to the people who need to be able to understand what they are doing -- I agree with Jack Diamond when he says that responsibility and accountability are best assured at the local level and we need to strengthen, not weaken, local municipalities.

I am concerned about the warning we are hearing from all of those who understand the implications of Bill 103, those who say that these proposals from the provincial government will begin the downward spiral. What they mean by that is that the economic impact must be considered. What they mean is to look at the American cities and not follow down their path. I agree with Judy Matthews when she says that her greatest fear is the collapse of our community.

Bill 103 is about far more than the number of politicians. Bill 103 is about far more than the name of a city of 2.3 million people. Bill 103 is about the economic health and vitality of the province of Ontario. It is about how our communities will feel about themselves. It is about not only how we are governed but the services we will receive. That, coupled with the province's policy decisions to dump on the local municipal taxpayers a burden that they cannot afford, will have a devastating effect on the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto and a devastating effect on the province of Ontario.

I plead with this government: Don't worry about saving face when you are asked to reconsider this ill-gotten and misguided proposal. Worry about saving Ontario, worry about saving Ontario's municipalities and worry about saving the property taxpayers of this province from an impossible and undue burden. I ask this government to rethink Bill 103, to delay it and not to proceed with this time allocation motion which is going to invoke closure on one of the most significant pieces of legislation and bills before this Legislature.

I am pleased to participate in this debate and I hope the government is listening.

Mr Wildman: I'm disappointed to have to rise to debate this kind of a motion here today in this House, particularly when we consider that we have before us the most significant restructuring of municipal governance, not only in this city but right across Ontario, that has been brought forward for over 100 years, and I'm not exaggerating at all in saying that. This is related also to other pieces of legislation that were announced in the mega-week, the legislation on educational governance and so on.

The member for Scarborough East, for instance, in his presentation in the debate said that this motion was required and necessary because the NDP was attempting to stall the legislation. He also said that we had said outside of this place that we wanted the people of Metropolitan Toronto to have a say and have input but that in fact we were preventing that. I want to clarify something for the member, since he wasn't apparently in attendance at the mass meetings that have taken place across this city.

We said clearly to the people of Metropolitan Toronto, we said clearly at those meetings and we said clearly to the government House leader that yes, indeed, we were attempting to stall this legislation. There was a reason we were attempting to stall it, because the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, who is responsible for this legislation in this House, had made it clear at the outset that he wanted this legislation passed by the end of February, he said at one point, that he wanted it through. He didn't care if there were going to be any referendums held. He didn't care if there were any votes by the people of Metropolitan Toronto. He was going to ignore it, and the Premier also said that it would be ignored, that they wouldn't make any difference one way or the other.

We used the only mechanism available to us as an opposition party, as a minority in this House, and that was to stall the government legislation. We stalled it for a number of reasons. We stalled it because we wanted to force the government to agree to hold adequate hearings so that the people and groups across Metropolitan Toronto who want to have a say, democratic input into this legislation, would have the opportunity to do so. We also wanted to stall the legislation so that the groups out there, the grass-roots organizations that are organizing to prevent this devastation for this community, for Toronto and all of the communities here, the six cities that make up Metropolitan Toronto, could organize.

Frankly, I'm proud of our role, along with other members of the opposition and all of the people out there in Metropolitan Toronto who have been organizing around this issue, because we have done a number of things. The people of Metropolitan Toronto, the city of Toronto in particular, but other areas in all of the communities affected, have organized a truly grass-roots organization. They have come out and said: "We want to have a say. We will not allow the government to run roughshod over our democratic rights." They have organized and put forward their position clearly and influenced the course of events substantially.

I'm also proud that we made it very clear to this government, to the government House leader, that there were three basic things that the government must do. The first one was to change the position taken by the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, change the position that was taken by the Premier, that the referenda were irrelevant and didn't matter and were a waste of money, that the government would pass the legislation before the referenda were held. The government has backed down on that. The government has now said there will be hearings and that the legislation will not be passed into law, will not pass third reading until after the referenda. Our stall, which we instituted in this House by ringing bells, by bringing forward points of order and motions, worked to that extent. I'm proud of our role in that. That doesn't mean this government then has to introduce this kind of legislation and prohibit a clear and full debate on second reading.

1620

I think a couple of other things should be made clear in this debate. We now have a commitment that the third reading will not take place until after the referendum so that the people of Metropolitan Toronto will have the opportunity to express their democratic opinion on this legislation, to try and prevent the government from decimating the communities that make up Metropolitan Toronto.

We also have a commitment from this government even in this motion that they are going to have more public hearings than the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing indicated they were willing to have. But in the so-called negotiations among the House leaders I want to make one thing clear. Even though the government said publicly that eventually, because of the pressure of the people outside, there would be hearings that would lead through February and into March, they actually only offered us nine days of hearings, nine days to hear the presentations of over 600 individuals and groups who have indicated that they want to make presentations. That was completely inadequate. The government House leader never offered more than nine days until this motion was introduced in the House.

We also said, though, that not only must there be sufficient time to hear everyone, and I don't think what is proposed in this motion in any way gives sufficient time for all those groups and individuals to make presentations, but the committee must also travel. There must be hearings here at Queen's Park, but there also must be hearings in each of the cities affected by this megacity legislation. I expect the government to adhere to that. I expect the government to agree. I expect that the government members on the committee will agree to travel and will give people in Etobicoke, North York, Scarborough, all across Metropolitan Toronto the opportunity to go to their own city hall and appear before the committee and make their position clear. Then I expect that the government will listen.

If there is overwhelming opposition to this legislation, democracy then demands that the government withdraw the legislation. If there are suggestions of changes, democracy demands that the government move amendments and that those amendments be dealt with in a proper way, not simply deemed to have been dealt with at the end of one day of clause-by-clause hearings or at the end of committee of the whole deliberations for one hour in this House. This is very serious, this is a very important change that is being proposed that is going to have ramifications for generations of people who live in this city and in the environs, all the communities around Metropolitan Toronto.

The people who make presentations must not be given short shrift by the government. They must be listened to, there must be sufficient time and that's why we are going to oppose this motion. We are going to oppose it. We'll be voting against it and we will do everything in our power to ensure that this legislation does not pass as is presented by this government in this House, because it is bad legislation. That is why we stalled it, that is why we oppose it and that's why we will continue to oppose it and attempt to defeat it.

Mr Joseph Cordiano (Lawrence): I'm delighted indeed to speak on this time allocation motion that is before us to be debated by this assembly, a motion that attempts to curtail very serious debate on a very serious subject. I might add that when I was thinking about what I might say today, there have been those who have suggested that the cries of opposition have used inflamed rhetoric to rail against plans for a megacity on the part of this government, and that somehow this was nothing more than bombast, bluster on the part of the opposition, using obstructionism only for the sake of opposition, that we oppose what this government is doing not because we fundamentally disagree, but that we are being obstructionists because we are in opposition and by definition therefore the opposition must oppose.

I say that is incorrect. There is nothing truthful about that. In fact, we are adamantly opposed to this legislation. We are adamantly opposed to a government that every time it runs into a flurry of opposition, a cacophony of voices that have been raised against what they intend to do as being anti-democratic, ill-conceived measures that simply do not square with the wishes of the public at large, this government says: "We know better. We know what the public wants. We know they want a megacity. We know municipalities want to be dumped on. We know seniors want to be chased from their homes. We know the disabled won't mind all of these additional burdens. We know the property taxpayers of this province can handle more, can pay for more and receive less in the end." Because that's what this government is offering to the people of this province, and nothing short of that.

Yes, we do apply rhetoric in this case because, I've got to tell you, I feel strongly about this. I feel that what this government is doing is destroying not only our cities, but a way of life, the kind of Ontario I grew up in, the kind of Ontario I've come to love, the kind of Ontario I want my children to grow up in. That's what's at stake here. That's what this government is putting in jeopardy. There is a great deal to be concerned about, there is a great deal to consider in these measures.

Why have we asked for this government to consider these requests for timely hearings, for hearings that are meaningful, that are going to give enough people enough time to have their say? Because nothing short of Ontario and the way we know it is at stake. That's what we're debating, that's what we're fighting for, and this time allocation motion attempts to shut down those voices who would dare oppose the government.

In all of this debate, you see the chorus of voices increasing. Mayor after mayor, whether they're in Metro Toronto or part of the GTA, mayors from right across this city, groups such as the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, the Metro board of trade, on and on the list grows each and every day. That is why we in our party, the Liberal Party of Ontario, have decided to hold our own hearings, because we want to give people an opportunity to have a say.

That is the very thing this government does not want. It does not want to hear those voices in opposition to its plans. It does not want to hear those criticisms, because it runs counter to what they believe in. They've even deemed the time we are taking to democratically debate matters of such grave importance to this province as a waste of taxpayers' time and money because it doesn't conform to their tight schedule to get everything rammed through this Legislature.

We've seen this behaviour before. It's not the first time. Bill 26 was visited upon us in this chamber just over a year ago. We had a major debate around whether this government was doing the right thing. It was anti-democratic at that time. It was certainly not within the spirit of democracy of this Legislative Assembly. They attempted to ram down our throats a piece of legislation which was ill-considered. What's the rush? When we've arrived at a point in time in our democracy when to debate, to have rational, reasoned, objective debate is considered a waste of taxpayers' money, that's a sad day for democracy in Ontario.

1630

It's inconceivable that there would be such a government in office today in our great democracy that would not uphold the right of individuals of minorities -- yes, in the minority, perhaps, at this point in time to this government's plans, but I tell you it's changing as we speak, it's changing each and every day. There are more and more people who are opposed to this government because they're really beginning to see the true face of the revolution. They're really beginning to see that this revolution has gone beyond being a mere revolution at this point in time; they've actually declared war on municipalities, war on a way of life, war on our quality of life because they see it as a waste of taxpayers' money.

They can't even prove that. That's the startling thing. They talk about amalgamation being the path to salvation, to greater efficiencies, that this will rectify our reckless fiscal imbalance. So what do they do? They dump on municipalities all of these additional burdens. They say, "You take this, you take that and we'll take something back." Does it all add up and does it equal out? No, it doesn't. We're seeing it day after day. We're proving it to this government in this chamber. It doesn't add up.

What you're trying to get away with is passing off costs on to municipalities and not giving them the tools to deal with this. What you're trying to get away with is a $1-billion shortfall in the swap. You're shortchanging municipalities. You're shortchanging the people of this province. You are in fact imposing a huge burden on the property taxpayers of this province.

What do we have at the end of the day, with this time allocation motion which calls on us to end debate about the most fundamental question facing our province? I use this inflamed rhetoric, I admit, because I feel that way. It's the end of a way of life. If this government really was courageous, it might say to the people of this province: "We do want to end that way of life and it will cost you more, and you will have to pay, and the ability to pay for services that we now consider important enough to fund through a pooling of our income taxes will no longer be there to help those most in need."

That will very clearly deteriorate our way of life, our quality of life, which by the way helps us be the great and efficient and viable economy that we are. Yes, we've had some problems, yes, there are some fiscal imbalances to be dealt with, but that doesn't mean you can get away with downloading and dumping on to municipalities. We simply won't accept it. We simply will fight you every step of the way and we will do our utmost to make sure that the people of this province truly understand what you're selling them, and that what you're selling them is a --

Interjection: It's a bill of goods.

Mr Cordiano: What you're selling them is pretty rotten. It's a rotten deal for them. It's shortchanging the taxpayers of this province. It's completely unacceptable. What you're selling them as well is an end to a way of life which has become the envy of the world. Every single commentator, observer, of Metropolitan Toronto has suggested that it is the best city not only in North America but right across the entire globe, with the best quality of life, that ensures its citizens receive the kind of support they need, which then in turn enables us to attract additional investment and to have the kind of thriving economy we're looking for, not at the lowest end, the lowest common denominator, but at the highest end, ensuring that we do have a viable economy, that the industrial sector is thriving -- commentator after commentator.

Need I mention the Board of Trade of Metropolitan Toronto, which suggested that if this government took the path that it's taking, it would be destructive to Metro Toronto, it would have the opposite effect of what was intended?

One could say that this government didn't know what it was doing. We could say that. I happen to believe this government knew full well what it was doing when it attempted this ill-considered, reckless policy of dumping on to municipalities; that it's part of the grand scheme of things; that they needed to do this in order to have the ability to come up with the dollars necessary for a 30% tax cut. They couldn't find it with just simply slashing education, which they did in the first round, or slashing health care, which they did in the first round. There wasn't enough there. They went back to the drawing board and said:

"Where are we going to find this money? Well, here's a pool of funds that hasn't been tapped. There are property taxpayers out there who certainly can afford to pay more. After all, they're sitting on homes, on real estate that's worth something. Let's attack that. Let's make sure that municipalities take on the burden for some of these costs and let's use the property tax base to fund these essential services: social services, long-term care for seniors, social housing, welfare."

What more ludicrous a plan could you come up with than to fund those essential services, social services, on the property tax base? Completely ill-considered; as I say, all of the experts suggest to this government that it is making a huge mistake. Some have said it's going to be irreversible if they go down this path. I happen to believe that may not be the case. I'm an optimist at heart and I happen to believe we could reverse that decision made by this government some time down the road.

I know there will be a next government of a different stripe, because this government is showing that it cannot possibly manage the affairs of this province in a way that's conducive to economic growth, that will maintain quality of life, that will keep the kind of Ontario we've all come to love and appreciate. They will have savaged Ontario. They will have risked all of that for an ill-considered tax cut, an income tax cut which is totally ludicrous, at a time when we have a deficit, at a time when they are gutting services that are essential and that help us to attract investment and improve our economy. They are undermining very severely our ability to compete, our ability to have a viable economy. That's what's at stake.

I know that every single Ontarian, if they have the time to look at what this government is really doing, if they have the time to hear the real story about what's behind the government's initiatives, would find that they want no part of it, that it's just the wrong approach. Every single Ontarian would suggest to this government in no uncertain terms, "Go back to the drawing board; don't go down this road." It's reckless, it's ill-considered, it's absolutely ludicrous. It's going to destroy community after community and there won't be a whole lot left. In a short period of time they will have committed one of the worst errors in our history. I regret that and I hope they regret that.

1640

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Further debate? The Chair recognizes the member for Riverdale.

Applause.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): Thank you, member for Cochrane North.

I'm happy to stand and explain to people why I'm not supporting the motion before us today. We are witnessing a shocking and despicable attack on Metro Toronto and democracy in Metro. What this government is doing to my community of Riverdale and communities all across Metro Toronto is shocking and is despicable.

I can tell the members of the government here today that there is a grass-roots movement out there that is growing daily, despite the bogus study that this government did in desperation because there was no credible study, no public consultation anywhere that it could find or that it did itself that actually recommended that it do what it did. So what did they do? They went out and commissioned a bogus, very quick KPMG study. Those consultants weren't even allowed to talk to the people providing the very services which they were supposedly studying and give the results to the government.

I am proud that our caucus was able to participate in this House in holding up this despicable, anti-democratic bill. Despite the grins on the faces of the backbenchers over there and despite the fact that the member for Scarborough East stands up -- and methinks he doth protest too much -- they know what's going on out there. They know that despite at least the editorial sections of all three of the Toronto daily newspapers and the Harris government's attempts at advertising to try to convince people of the facts that aren't proven, that their taxes will actually go down with this scheme -- and everybody wants to hear that their taxes will go down. That's a simple message; it certainly helped get them elected.

What they're not telling the people and what absolutely everybody, including the chamber of commerce, including David Crombie, including lots of people who at the very beginning supported amalgamation but unfortunately at the time did not see the connection between amalgamating all of the smaller municipalities and the downloading that followed in the mega-week announcements -- unfortunately, the chamber of commerce in its press conference talked about -- I read John Barber's article in the Globe and Mail and was not surprised, but disappointed, that he was unable to get answers at that press conference from the board of trade on the issue of amalgamation and the very connection between the two.

Because that's just it; there is a connection. My constituents are going to be stuck with a very big property bill at the end of the day, and they are not fooled by all this underhanded, self-serving government advertising that they've been seeing lately, some of which has been condemned by the Speaker, some of which has been condemned by all of us in here because of the kind of self-serving propaganda it is. I can tell you that the people in my riding of Riverdale are not being fooled by this and will not be fooled by this.

The local BIAs, the business improvement areas; the Chinese chamber of commerce, which oversees the coordination of the small businesses in Chinatown in my area; community groups from all political stripes and all interests have come together to fight this government on this despicable bill.

I see the member for York East is here. The people from York East are organizing right under his very nose and they're disappointed that the member representing them in this House is not representing them, that he's going out and spewing the government line on this.

The government has absolutely no proof, on the contrary -- Mike Harris broke a fundamental promise to the people of Metro Toronto because he said very clearly, and so did some of the members in this House, that if elected they would not get rid of local government. Indeed they said they would do the opposite, that they would get rid of the Metro level and keep local government. That is a major promise which has been fundamentally broken. They broke the faith of the residents, the constituents in my riding and all across Toronto and more and more people are realizing that.

The people of Riverdale are organizing daily, as are people all over this city, including Scarborough, including York East, including Etobicoke. They are coming out in droves and daily are learning more and more about what this really means to them despite the government propaganda, as I mentioned, the underhanded kind of propaganda that we're seeing out there on a daily basis, the onslaught.

People are not being fooled by this stuff. Now the government is trying to backtrack on the downloading of welfare and trying to find a way to deal with that. Interestingly enough this is even more entanglement. They said they were trying to disentangle. This kind of downloading of welfare is still cost-shared. They've said that municipalities have to pay more of the share.

Social housing: We know what kind of shape a lot of the housing is in within Metro Toronto and the huge costs involved in fixing up that housing. Cooperative housing: Everybody who lives in government or cooperative housing is worried sick and has been since this government first started to talk about selling it off. Municipal governments aren't going to be able to afford to keep up that housing. What are people to do? They're going to be out on the street.

Long-term care, health services, all kinds of services, as many others have said before me, leaving aside the financial implications, that morally belong to a larger level of government where there is a more progressive form of income tax so those with more pay more, that is what progressive, fair tax is all about. This government is literally going to have seniors and low-income people eventually kicked out of their housing because they're not going to be able to afford their municipal bills, their property tax bills.

People know what's going on. I am proud that with my colleagues I have been able to fight in this House, and we will continue that fight with the citizens of Metro Toronto, and without them -- John Sewell, his group; the other kinds of organization around and at the city halls across Metro -- this government probably would have rammed this despicable bill through by now. It's because of the groundswell and the dedication of these people to their way of life, to preserve their communities, that the fight is on.

Already the government has backed down, and that was the purpose of the tactics we used in this House. Unless the government House leader gives us more of an opportunity on third reading, there's going to be a lot more trouble, I can assure you of that. I for one am not going to sit here in my seat and allow this government on third reading to ram through a bill that is going to destroy my community, a community I've worked in as a single mom, as a volunteer, as a community activist, and then on to city hall, where as citizens we fought incineration on a local level. The member for St Catharines will remember that. He was the Minister of the Environment then -- a big fight but we won it. All the kinds of fights we have fought in Riverdale and indeed people have fought in East York and the Beaches -- but the member from the Beaches will be speaking about the Beaches very soon, I promise. I think she's trying to remind me that my time is almost up.

1650

We will continue this fight because this is one of the most basic, fundamental kinds of fights that we have seen in this province. We know that our communities that we worked hard to build, from all walks of life, in many different ways, will be lost, perhaps not forever but for a long, long time.

We are going to see urban decay, we are going to see urban sprawl, we are going to see a mayor who has to raise at least $1 million to even get elected. Where is that money going to come from? I can tell you where it's going to come from: We're going to go back to the bad old days when the developers footed the bill. When I ran for city council, people were fed up even then with the way developers controlled things and a lot of the pro developer councillors were thrown out. I could afford, a mayor could afford, to run at that time in a smaller urban centre. No mayoral candidate is going to be able to do that any more. We're giving our communities back to the developers. There is no choice. That is what's happening here.

The downloading is going to bankrupt us. There will be urban decay. The centre of our city will be hollowed out. This is not rhetoric. Everybody with any credible study everywhere has said the same thing -- and this government thinks they know it all. The Minister of Municipal Affairs stands up on a daily basis and says, "Well, I know. Everybody else is wrong. I know the answer to all these questions," but he can't back it up with any studies.

Mr Bradley: Every study says the opposite.

Ms Churley: Absolutely. That's why they did the bogus study, so they'd have one thing to point to. The people of Toronto and the people in Metro Toronto are not going to put up with this. I believe that at the end of the day these people over there who think it's a joke now are going to have to sit down and listen, because they ain't seen nothing yet in terms of the groundswell of the citizens movement that's growing daily.

I am not going to support this bill. I am not going to support this motion today. They like to crow about the fact that the NDP and the Liberals brought in time allocation. I will tell those members something: Our government never, ever brought in such an undemocratic and wide-reaching piece of legislation and then tried to ram it through, and never would. In fact, some say we consulted too much. I must admit I believe in some cases that's true.

This government does not believe in democracy. It just wants to ram it through so that they can get the $5 billion for their tax cut. We're not fooled. We know what you're trying to do here and it ain't going to work. We will see to that.

Mr Gerard Kennedy (York South): It is of course pursuant to a motion, an embarrassing motion, by this government to hide the facts of its Bill 103, an embarrassing motion by this government to invoke closure following consequently on the act of contempt performed by the minister here, recognized by the Speaker in this House, that this government could not bring itself to agree with, to not even censure, to show respect for the Speaker and for this House, that this government found it necessary to undermine the ability of this Legislature to discuss this legislation by putting out a pamphlet that did not fairly describe the process that was under way.

This is our last opportunity here today to put from this House out to the citizens of Metropolitan Toronto -- indeed I believe this is starting to be an issue that interests those around the province as they understand now that the megacity in Metropolitan Toronto means the mega-dumping that's taking place across the province, that this is just one vehicle that's been set up by this government.

It's a sad day for democracy when the ability of the opposition to try and create longer hearings so that people who want to be heard on this issue can be heard, the efforts by the opposition to try and get hearings taken out to these city halls -- the government is afraid to take the hearings out to the exact places they're trying to demolish, trying to avoid the citizens, in the same way they put out a piece of literature that didn't tell the whole story on the megacity, a government abusing its powers in terms of trying to get the story across.

There's good reason, as we've learned subsequently, for this government to not deal with this in a straightforward fashion, because this government is afraid of the public learning about what the real implications are, and certainly the profoundly undemocratic nature is one part of it. It's something that we haven't seen in this province before. It's a pattern now with this government, since Bill 26, to be able to put together pieces of legislation that are not really pieces of legislation at all.

What the public needs to know is that Bill 103, the bill that we're invoking closure on, that this government says doesn't need discussion, is a hollow, empty bill. It contains less than three pages of details of what the largest metropolitan centre in the country would look like and 24 pages on the trusteeship, the takeover of the municipalities of Metropolitan Toronto, on what that would look like, on how this government would put into place the most undemocratic instrument. In fact, it believes it already has as of December 17. All six municipalities in the Metro government in this region have been taken over by the provincial government, restricted in their movements. The people who elected municipal politicians have had that snatched away from them by this government, just as we in this House are losing our right to debate this issue because this government would not agree at an early point to hearings that would accommodate everyone, to the ability of citizens to be heard in their own cities, while they still exist, on what this government is planning to do.

I think that this government is starting to show itself in no uncertain terms, that profoundly undemocratic action is the norm, not the exception, that when they put in place trustees and a transition team, they not only are denying the people who have been elected in those cities to represent their voters; they're also denying the people in this House. We see some of the members opposite who should take an interest in that, who should want to be heard on this particular issue, who will not get a say in the shape of the new megacity because it's not in this bill. The megacity is not described in this bill.

Instead, all we know is there will be an elected mayor, there will be 44 people who get elected at some point following January next year -- the wards will be set by the minister, in which I think we can expect the most skilful case of gerrymandering since Tammany Hall -- and then there will be trustees and a setup transition team, unelected people, who will fill in all the rest of the details. So people who think this is a bill that they'd like to support on the general idea of consolidation in Metropolitan Toronto need to think again. The recommendation that has to be followed is that this is a bad bill even for somebody who might be interested in the virtues of consolidation, because this bill tells you nothing. This bill is a blank cheque for Al Leach to take apart all the positive attributes of Metropolitan Toronto.

We know because of this bill that this government does not have a sincere interest in what Metropolitan Toronto looks like, because it won't tell us. It won't give us any of the details in this bill. Instead, there's only one reason that rings clear, one single reason why this government is bothering to tamper with one of the most successful cities in North America in such a backhanded fashion. They're doing this simply because they need to take the money out of this region for the tax cut. It's very, very clear that residents in my city, the city of York, the residents of York South, everywhere in Metropolitan Toronto, will pay significantly higher taxes: as the mayor of my municipality reported to the Liberal task force this morning, some 21% increase when all the measures are factored in, 10% from the mega-dumping alone, the dumping now of welfare, of long-term care, of public health, of a whole host of things that used to be government responsibility, that used to be the things that a provincial government stood up for because they thought their citizens needed their health and wellbeing provided for. This government has decided that they're no longer important, to dump them instead on the municipalities in a completely unfair swap, a completely unfair trade for the money they're taking off for education.

The extra costs across the province have been identified by the city of North York and others as exceeding $1 billion, so that's $1 billion that's being grabbed by this government to use for its tax cut. One of the byproducts of that is the elimination of the governments of Metropolitan Toronto, the extra burden of which has been identified by the board of trade, not an enemy in the past of this particular government, as at least $450 per resident and $7,800 per business in new Tory taxes.

The new Tory property tax is what's coming with the megacity. That doesn't even take fully into account the impact of AVA, which will inevitably, given the measures of this government, raise taxes for most of the people in Metropolitan Toronto.

1700

When we look at the very specious claim of this government that somehow its arrangements will save money, we find that they can't produce one single report that will demonstrate that. Pardon me, there is one report that was made up in haste three weeks before the announcements of a megacity, released the day after, when the government said it was still seeking opinions. This report says that either we'll save $700 million or we'll lose money. The author of that report, Ron Kikel from KPMG, at least had the good taste to say at the presentation that there is no amalgamation that's ever happened anywhere in North America, of creating these massive, large entities, that actually has saved money, not a single one. Yet the members opposite sit on the precipice of closing debate on this important measure, which could be ruinous to the largest city in Ontario.

We have here a tax grab of the first order. We have at risk the quality of life for residents of Metropolitan Toronto. What we have here is an avaricious government, one that has shown no interest in the general wellbeing of the citizens of this particular part of the province, and it's something that people everywhere in the province have to take note of, when a government uses this kind of clout.

Some parts of the province, like Hamilton, had a year, had a constituent assembly, had a chance to get some discussion happening. This government won't even concede three months to the largest and most complex municipal arrangement in the province. Instead it tries to ask for a blank cheque, no details about what it would do. Certainly the people of Metropolitan Toronto have been able to fill in that blank themselves. They know that cheque is a negative for them and a big positive for the government to transfer to people, particularly for people who are better off. Half the tax cut is going to people making $90,000 a year or more. There's no stimulus to the economy. Thousands of jobs will be lost as a consequence of this megacity, just as Metro has already been made to pay disproportionately for the cutbacks that this government is taking.

We know that this community has been successful and we don't take that for granted. We won't stand for a government taking that away in such an arbitrary fashion. In all of North America there are only three cities that have two million people or more, and this government, out of its financial whimsy because its numbers didn't add up, is going to create another one. Two of those cities, New York and Los Angeles, have within them movements to pull themselves apart because they're not working. The third one, Chicago, which is the model for this government, has lost a million people in the last 20 years because of the problems it has had sustaining a livable community. Those are the models for this government. Instead we have to make sure the people out there understand that the things that matter to them, the things that make the quality of life in the city as high as it is, are the things that need to be maintained.

On local government, what will happen is that local issues like permit parking and icy sidewalks and noise complaints and dogs running at large and those things will not be dealt with by the remoteness of one representative for every 53,000 people -- 53,000 people get one local representative to deal with all municipal concerns, because all the government does in its bill is throw everything into a blender at the end of the year and say, "That's the megacity." Everything that exists right now is thrown in there for that person to deal with. That is 10 times more people who have to be represented than in Mike Harris's home town of North Bay, where there's a representative for every 5,300 people.

This is being done without one single study at any time to say that this is the route that should happen for Metropolitan Toronto. We've heard the minister opposite on different occasions refer to years of studies. None of them point in this particular direction. This is a mega-mess that this government wants to create, to create enough confusion to silence some voices of elected members, to shut down Metropolitan Toronto so it can take the tax money out of here. It's the only thing this government seems to care about.

When we look at the kinds of things that the Golden report, and very significantly -- it wasn't so significant at the time, but I think now we see the flip-flop of this government, its Trimmer task force that a number of members of the sitting government sat on before the election, saying, "We want to retain the six local municipalities." When it's shown that they can't do that and take the money out of Metro and raise property taxes to be able to pay for their provincial tax cut, now they want to do the opposite: Now they want to eliminate those local levels of government that can be most responsive to people and create the kind of mess they have in mind for this area.

The singular thing that has to be kept in mind when people recognize the type of action this government is contemplating is that it doesn't address the biggest problem that exists in Metropolitan Toronto.

In my riding of York South we face an unequal battle with the people who live in the Toronto 905 who have greenfield sites, a differential tax base, provincial property grants, and an ability to bring business there on unfair terms with what exists within the city of York. We've got 40 undeveloped acres. We've got brownfield sites that used to house thriving industries.

Rather than having a responsible provincial government that recognizes the importance of making cities like the city of York work, we've got a compounding of disadvantage. We've got the loading of a tax base, as the chamber of commerce says, a $1,700 increase in taxes for local businesses. Kodak in my riding, identified by our mayor today, stands to pay another $650,000 in taxes. That is a company we've had to struggle to keep in Metropolitan Toronto. Hundreds and hundreds of jobs for here are threatened certainly by the reckless measures of this government.

It has been itemized elsewhere that this was done on the back of a napkin. We all have to hang our heads in sorrow to think that this is the kind of thing it has come to for the largest metropolitan area, that this government can't even dole out a certain amount of respect for the citizens who live here.

The thing we have to be mindful of is that this government makes it sound, and has made it sound with its illegal document that it put out to households, as if this is over, as if this somehow can't be fought. Well, the opposite is true. It has just begun. The government is trying to stack the deck in every way it can. It has limited the amount of hearings, it is closing down the speaking in this House and it will try to shut down the opposition in about half an hour from now, but it won't be shut down. There are citizens all across the province who are interested in this, and particularly in the city of York and in the different cities that make up Metropolitan Toronto. They will be heard.

The government members opposite should take notice that people realize that people at least want to have their say. They want to be able to have some impact on the community they live in, the same grace that has been extended to a number of other communities across the province and is being taken away from them. They recognize that not only is this profoundly undemocratic, that it's raising their taxes, that the quality of life they've come to treasure here has no place in the priorities of this government, that you're prepared to wreck some of the most complicated communities in terms of the cultures we're able to make thrive here, the ability we have for different people to get along, the ability we have to be able to maintain a basic quality of life at least for many of the people, but instead this government wants to turn that upside down and all in the name of taking away the dollars.

When we look at the kinds of things this government has in mind, we know there is not an effort to even understand what that complex municipal area needs. We know that people out there want to hear from this government on the details of its plan. The government has chosen not to do that. This government didn't run for this as part of its election platform; it's only made this up on the go as it has come out of it.

As people start to realize that they've now created a situation where we have to pay in our local area for long-term care, which is expected to double in the next eight years, that we have to pay for welfare out of the property tax, that we're going to have to pay for public health, for social housing, that this is an abandonment of Metropolitan Toronto, we will see the kind of result they had in Chicago where a million people left, if this government is allowed to get away with it.

That "if" is growing bigger every day. It's made bigger by this government's measures here today in cutting off debate. It will be made bigger by the squeezing of the hearings into small 25-seat capacity rooms here at Queen's Park rather than out to the city halls. That "if" will be made bigger by the silence of the Tory members opposite not speaking to the concerns of their constituents. That "if" will be made bigger simply because this proposal is fundamentally flawed and fundamentally wrong.

Ms Lankin: In the limited amount of time I have today there are three areas I would like to touch on.

First, I would like to talk about what the real problems are and the problems we have looked at and the solutions that have been proposed by many, and how that is very different than the bill, Bill 103, that the government has brought forward with respect to amalgamation of cities within Metro.

Second, I'd like to talk about the response we're starting to hear out there in our neighbourhoods, how people view this bill, how they view the government's actions, what their concerns are and the issues they've raised in the many public meetings that I and my colleagues have been attending.

Third, I'd like to talk about the process the government has employed with respect to this bill and how we find ourselves here today facing a time allocation motion which will close down debate on this, which will set out the number of days of public hearings -- an inadequate number of days of public hearings -- and which will force the amendment process through the House in very short order and limit third reading debate to one day.

1710

Starting with the problems that exist, in following the previous speaker, you heard him raise examples of American cities. He specifically talked about Chicago, New York and Los Angeles. If you cast your mind back to some of the debate that has taken place within Metro Toronto and within the greater Toronto area over the last five to six years, people were becoming concerned about a growing phenomenon of businesses relocating outside of the downtown core of the city of Toronto and outside of Metropolitan Toronto to the 905 belt, as it's called, those communities of the Durhams and the Mississaugas and the Yorks around Metropolitan Toronto.

There was a growing concern about a deindustrialization, a loss of jobs, an inability of the tax base to maintain the many services that are required in a large urban area and about the fact that many of the people who lived in the 905 belt actually benefited from many of those services -- used the transit system, for example, wanted to hook into the sewer systems that came down and where the sewage was processed through, like, in my riding, the Ashbridges Bay sewage treatment plant -- and a growing inequity in terms of taxation issues and in terms of issues of economic development.

Many people looked at those problems. I have to tell you that the problems were always identified as problems of the economic region. That economic region has never been defined as Metropolitan Toronto, because of course it's not; it's the greater Toronto area. It includes the Mississaugas; it includes the Durhams.

As people looked at that problem, there was a growing concern about what would happen, that we would start to mirror some of those US cities and that what has been referred to as the doughnut phenomenon would occur, that being the ring around having relative prosperity, the suburbs, the outer communities, having relative prosperity, and growing poverty in the inner city, fewer jobs in the inner city, an insufficient tax base to maintain and repair the roads, the buildings and the infrastructure, so a crumbling infrastructure which would propel more people to move out of the inner city who wanted to pursue a quality of life and who had the economic means to pursue a better quality of life, and that it would start to accelerate. You would have what people have referred to as the doughnut phenomenon.

There has been much written on it. There has been much written about those large US cities where this has occurred and how they've begun to recognize the importance of reversing the trend to mass centralization and have started to look at the re-creation of smaller governance units, of smaller local governments that are more closely related to the neighbourhoods, where there is direct elected representation and accountability that cares about neighbourhoods and neighbourhood issues and that thinks about the impact of planning decisions on neighbourhoods.

They're starting to go in the other direction, and yet this government -- it's beyond me to understand how it came to this conclusion, because all of the people who have looked at the problem here in the greater Toronto area have said the problems that need to be addressed are economic development in the greater Toronto area; our planning across the greater Toronto area, things like roads and highways and water and sewer infrastructure, to promote development across the greater Toronto area; and coordination of transportation across the greater Toronto area. This is a definition of the problem, and those are the solutions people looked to.

From those studies, people started to say, "Look, we need to have some kind of coordination across the greater Toronto area." Maybe that means a GTA coordinating body; maybe it means moving to an elected government at that level. These are some methods, some models, that we need to explore. I have to tell you that all of the reports, all of the studies, have headed in that direction, whether it be the Trimmer report, which was a task force of Mike Harris when he was in the Conservative Party in opposition; whether it be the previous government's sponsored Golden task force, which was an extensive study, although when this government came to power they cut their time and cut the resources and shortened that process -- I think that was a mistake, but even at that it's a very substantive report with a lot of research based on wide consultation which comes to the same conclusion: that you need the local governments and you need coordination at the GTA level -- or whether it be the Crombie Who Does What panel; or whether it be reports that in the past have looked at how services should be shared and -- the buzzword is "disentanglement" -- who should do what; whether it be the provincial-municipal review of social assistance which took place in late 1970s and early 1980s.

There have been several of these reviews. None of them has suggested the solution that this government has come to: the complete eradication of local governments and the downloading of provincial services, social services on to the property tax base. This is absolutely stunning and incredible that the government has come to this solution. I keep saying if the GTA is the problem, how can Metro government be the solution? It's beyond me to understand.

If you look at how the government came to this conclusion, you'll recall that over the course of the early months of last year the Golden task force reported, and then the government set its own task force to study that and it came back with some other recommendations. Through all of that everyone was looking at what form of governance should occur at the GTA level. Should that mean a full level of regional government and should we eliminate the other regional governments, the Durhams and other regional governments and Metro? Should those levels be eliminated, and you'll have your local municipalities, your cities and a GTA region? There were lots of critics of that solution too, but people were starting to grapple with how you effectively coordinate across the GTA area.

Then all of a sudden, in late August, early September, in the musings of the minister one day in a press scrum or some place, this idea gets floated out about, "Well, you know, maybe what we should look at is doing away with the six cities in Toronto and creating one amalgamated supercity, one megacity." People were amazed: "Where did this idea come from?"

There is nothing to substantiate this as a reasoned move. There were no reports or studies; there had been no public consultation that had suggested to people that this was an appropriate solution. The minister hadn't gone out and spoken with the people in Metropolitan Toronto and asked them what they thought about this idea. All of the discussion, all of the concentration had been focused on how to coordinate at the greater Toronto area level.

I think when the minister first made the suggestion few of us took it seriously. Perhaps that was a mistake in retrospect, because it appears that he was very serious and it appears from that time on the government had already made their minds up. Since then we have had a series of public relations moves to try and substantiate and defend what is, by any other standard or process or study or analysis that has been done, an attempt to defend the indefensible.

There's been much said by members of the government, and particularly here today by the government House leader and the member for Scarborough East. There's been much said about how they have to move this closure motion because they want to get this bill out for public hearings and how the opposition has been holding things up. They've been quite critical of us.

Well, I want people to take a look at how this has come about. People, I hope, will remember that from September, when we heard this first idea floated by the minister, to December, a period of less than four full months, we went from a zany idea to a government committed to doing this and moving ahead no matter what anyone had to say; a government that made it very clear that they thought the fact that cities were thinking of holding referenda was totally inappropriate and they wouldn't listen to any referendum results; in fact a government that in December and early January continued to tell us they were going to pass this bill through third and final reading by mid-February to the end of February, before the cities could hold their referendum on March 3; a bill being introduced in which this government says now it has all the answers, a bill which sets out no detail.

1720

If the citizens of the six cities in Metro Toronto want to have a sense of what their community will look like, what that governance will look like, how they will get local issues resolved, what kind of neighbourhood control or input there will be, what kind of accessibility they will have to bureaucracies and politicians to deal with their problems, they can't find out because the specifics are not in the bill.

The bill says: "We're going to do away with six cities and amalgamate them into one, and by the way, it will happen as of this date. Elections will be in November, and on January 1, 1998, that new megacity will have control and will be in place and all will be fine. If there are any details to work out, a trustee, a non-elected body, working with non-elected bureaucrats, is going to sort all of that out over time."

We can't answer the questions for the people, the citizens, the ratepayers in Metropolitan Toronto around all of these various issues and questions they have, because the government hasn't thought it through. Of course they haven't, because none of the study, none of the analysis that has been done supports the direction they're going. In fact as we have pointed out on many occasions, experience in virtually every other jurisdiction indicates that this is absolutely wrongheaded and this is the wrong way to go.

Large cities of over two million people don't save money in the way the government proposes this will. The experience has been the contrary. That, combined with the downloading of services and costs on to the property tax base, will accelerate, in everyone's estimation, including many allies of this government -- the banks, the board of trade and others -- what I referred to earlier as that doughnut phenomenon. It will accelerate businesses fleeing the cities of Metro Toronto to the outlying regions. It will accelerate the decay of the infrastructure of the city because the tax base will be so stressed there won't be the resources there for the capital expenditures to keep the infrastructure modern. It will accelerate, therefore, the fleeing of residential property owners out into the regions.

You end up with an unlivable city, a place where there are office towers, where people come to work only and then return to the suburbs; a place where the streets aren't safe at night; a place where the people who live in poverty do not have the resources within the city to provide services and no longer have a provincial government that is interested in providing those services either -- an unlivable city. That's not in the tradition of Canadian cities; it's certainly not in the tradition of Ontario cities; and it's not in the tradition of the cities of Metro.

If I may, I just want to reassure people to a certain degree that their voices are important and they can have an effect, even on this government, even on a government that is so bullheaded in its approach that it's like a steamroller coming down the road. Sometimes it feels like you can't stop them, that you can't have any impact. I think some people perhaps feel: "What's the sense? Let's just give up and wait out this government." We can't afford just to wait out this government's term because the damage it will do is too significant. We must raise our voices and we must make ourselves heard. It is possible to have an effect.

I just want to give you a couple of examples of that, because this government is actually moderating and changing its position, and I believe it's as a result of that grass-roots uprising of citizen concern, of the way in which that's being expressed and of the very good, cooperative relationship between those groups and organizations and my colleagues and I and members of the opposition who have been fighting that battle in here, inside this Legislative Assembly.

May I point out to you again that the Premier and the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing made it very clear that this bill was going to go through and it was going to go through fast; that they meant business, they weren't going to be slowed down by anything and it would be passed before these cities held their referendums. The minister stood in the House: February, that was his goal. It was going to be passed in February.

Certainly that provoked outrage here among my colleagues in the New Democratic benches, and it produced outrage in the public. People remembered the Bill 26 experience, people remembered that anti-democratic approach of this government with the omnibus legislation and the way in which they attempted to ram that through, how the opposition parties had to work together and had to hold an overnight sit-in in this Legislature to prevent them from ramming that through without full public hearings. Even at that, we didn't get significantly enough public hearings, but we fought and we got some.

So here, we start to have discussions with the government about public hearings because they're saying they're going to ram this through and they're going to get it done before the referendum. We look at that and that means there will be very little time for pubic hearings. We make the point that it's not satisfactory and that the citizens have a right to be outraged that they're not going to be heard by this government.

You will recall that before December there was a small group of people who came together who took on the name Citizens for Local Democracy. They began meeting and at their first meetings there were 20, 25. It grew to 30 people. As we got past the Christmas season, the numbers that were starting to meet were 100, 150 and then 250. Then the next week it was 700 to 800 and then the following week it was 1,500. The phenomenal growth in activity of Citizens for Local Democracy is a central focal point for citizens coming together to organize to resist this government's legislation. That activity was amazing.

But it wasn't just Citizens for Local Democracy and just an activity in downtown Toronto. In North York, in Scarborough, in Etobicoke, in York, in East York similar kinds of meetings have happened. I was speaking with Mayor Prue from East York just this past weekend and their meetings in, relatively speaking, the small city of East York, have gone from a handful of organizers to 50 people; now they're up to 200, 250, 300 people coming out to those meetings. It's amazing.

In my own community of Beaches-Woodbine in east Toronto, on a Thursday night four people got together and said, "You know, we should be doing something locally as well." They called me the next day and invited me to come to a meeting on the Saturday, and at that meeting they had 10 or 12 people. They decided they were going to hold a larger meeting and invite anyone who may be interested, who might want to come and be part of this, and at that meeting, one week from the first meeting of four people, there were 65 people. That's grown every week as well.

This is happening right across Metro Toronto. This week, two nights ago, in the middle of a snowstorm -- people here will remember the snowstorm we had -- there was a meeting organized by parents in ward 10 of the city of Toronto, parents concerned about the government's cuts to education, what's happening in the education system and this mega-swap that's happening of the province taking control of education and yet cancelling the power of school trustees, the way in which they're going to try to grab that extra billion dollars out of the education system, much of it coming from Metro Toronto. Those parents were worried. They called a meeting. In the middle of a snowstorm there were over 350 people who came out to a ward meeting about this government's changes in the education system.

I think that has an impact and I think when you combine that with the array of voices that we have just heard this week come out in opposition to this government's downloading of social services and the cost of social assistance on to the municipal property tax base -- people like the board of trade, people like representatives of the banks, people like David Crombie, the very person they had head up the Who Does What study, who recommended absolutely against this, who said very clearly this week, "This is not disentanglement; this is more entangled than ever," who said very clearly this week that the one thing they were absolutely united on in that task force is that the province should not download the costs of these social services on to the property tax base, that would be absolutely the wrong way to go.

So what's happened? The government has started to shift again. A combination of all these things: We've seen the government go from, "We're going to ram this through, limited public hearings and it's going to be passed before the referendum," to now saying, "Okay, third reading will take place after the referendum." That's one thing our collective action won.

Secondly, in terms of the public hearings, no negotiations -- I mean, a horrible process, the government House leader. But in the end, after offering nine days and after us continuing to stall the bill and say that wasn't sufficient because there at that point in time were between 600 and 700 people who had applied to speak to the committee and the ads hadn't even gone out to advertise the committee hearings yet -- I suspect that there will be hundreds more -- he went from nine days of hearings to 14 days of hearings. That's still not sufficient. We had asked for six weeks of public hearings. By the way, let me say that with six weeks they still could have met their deadline of passing this bill by March 31 or April 1, which is what they want.

1730

Mr Bradley: It's an artificial deadline anyway.

Ms Lankin: We don't believe that's a necessary deadline, but they could still have made that deadline. We wouldn't have been delaying anything. We just would have been ensuring enough time for those people who want to be heard to be heard. But they don't want to listen.

We've also made the case that we think that these hearings, some of them, at least once in each of the city halls, the committee should go out so that people can come out and participate not just in speaking to the committee but in being part of the process. They're resisting that. I had to laugh. The government House leader told me the reason they were resisting that is because if it's here in the Amethyst Room, it can be televised and people can see it all over, as if technology limits that to there. I just went to the broadcast services and said, "Tell me, can't you pick up the cable feeds out of those city halls and feed it back through here?" and they said, "Of course we can." A sham of an argument. It wasn't a real argument. They just want to limit it because in the Amethyst Room, of course, there are about 30, 40, maybe 50 people, I don't know -- certainly not more than 50 -- who could sit there and participate in watching the hearings. So it's just again limiting communications; it's damage control.

We'll continue to push for those hearings to go out to the city halls. We didn't get enough hearing dates but we got more as a result of our actions in stalling this and working with those grass-roots voices out in the community, and we won a big concession from the government in terms of the vote on third reading not taking place until after the referendum. That's important.

But something else is important. The government is starting to change its position slightly on the issues of downloading. You will recall that the minister was very clear and the Premier was very clear: This is going ahead. This is going to happen as we say. This is going to be better for municipalities; they'll be delivering services. Property taxes are going to go down 10%. What a joke. It was a number out of nowhere. There was absolutely nothing to substantiate it. Municipality after municipality has added up the numbers of what's being downloaded and what's being taken off and they're showing how they're coming out losers. Of course, the provincial government is taking $5.4 billion of education costs on to the provincial tax base and downloading $6.4 billion on to the property tax base. And then they set up all these shams or these little funds that they say will make up the difference, $1 billion here that will deal with any extraordinary problems that municipalities have. Let me tell you --

Interjection: No criteria.

Ms Lankin: My colleague says, "No criteria." No details; we don't know how it would work. But beyond that, $700 million of that was already unconditional grants to municipalities which is scooped back. And then if you looked at what the budget projections were, if you look in last fall's economic statement, that unconditional grant pot was expected to grow to 900 and some odd million dollars, virtually $1 billion. So that's not new money to deal with the problem. That's money that you've taken away from them that they were getting. It's less that they will get, that you haven't defined how they'll get access to and on what terms, but it doesn't make up the $1-billion gap from the $5.4 billion you're taking off and the $6.4 billion you're putting down.

With all of the critical voices we have heard, the government started to say: "Okay, maybe we could pool welfare costs across the GTA municipalities. Maybe that would ease the problem for Metro Toronto a bit." Well, the antenna goes up out in the 905 belt and the GTA mayors go, "Wait a minute. We don't like this," and now they're opposed to it and the government's moving back a little bit more and saying: "Maybe there are other ways we can do this. The t's aren't crossed and the i's aren't dotted." Well, they sure were two weeks ago, one week ago. What an amazing change in positioning. I'm glad to hear that change in positioning. It's not enough. We're going to continue to fight, but let me tell you, it's an amazing change in positioning and it's because people's voices are being heard.

I said to the parents in my riding the other night: "This government discounts anyone who speaks out who has an organization or a name or something attached to them, because if you're critical, you're just a special interest group and they dismiss your concerns. You're just a special interest group and somehow this government is above all that, they know better and they're going to proceed on their own course.

Parents cannot be labelled a special interest group. As I said to them: "You are of all political stripes and many of no political stripe. You are of diverse interests, demographically diverse, geographically diverse. The thing you have in common is your passionate love for your kids, your care for what's happening to them in the school system, your demand that they get a decent education and your demand that governments be accountable in ensuring that happens." They have power. When citizens speak up, eventually even this government will have to listen.

We have participated in this House in means and measures to delay the government getting to this point of introducing its time allocation motion, and for a good reason. We did it with conviction. We did it because we wanted to give people time out in the community to get organized. We wanted to give people time to get information, for information to come to light, as we now see as municipalities are adding up the numbers or people are understanding the impact of the government's mega-week announcements. We wanted to demand a process from this government that allowed people the time to be heard, that allowed people to express their views through a democratic process like the referenda that are being held in the six cities and that allowed people to have the time to understand the implications of all the changes this government is going to proceed with.

I hope that the voices of people will be heard by this government. I fear this government will continue to bully its way through Ontario with this agenda, but I see some glimmers of light. I see some hope that with concerted effort and with loud voices and with intent purpose, people can force the government to be accountable, people can make the government listen to it, and in this case I hope the people will.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Further debate?

Mr Bradley: I can't say I'm delighted to be speaking on this motion, because it is a motion which is anti-democratic, one which limits the debate. Some would call it a guillotine. It severely restricts and limits debate on one of the most important pieces of legislation to come before this House. It is done under the provisions of the existing rules, which I opposed, by the way, when they were changed in the early part of the 1990s because I could see that a government that was determined to bully its way through legislation and through the province would utilize these rules for the wrong reasons. We have a government today imposing severe restrictions on the amount of debate that is going to take place on a very significant bill.

We've had only three speakers, that I can recall, one from each of the three parties, who have been able to speak on the principle or the substance of this piece of legislation, which abolishes six municipalities and combines them into one huge municipality in Metropolitan Toronto, one which is larger than many of the provinces here in Canada.

Those of us in the opposition have been extremely concerned about this legislation, and we have endeavoured through a variety of manoeuvres to persuade the government that it should move more slowly, more carefully, and assess the consequences of government action. When I speak to people around this province, those who are supporters of this government, or those who while not being supporters might agree with the general direction in which the government is moving, or people who identify problems that they believe the government is trying to solve, even those people are saying the government is moving too quickly, too drastically and not taking into consideration the consequences of government actions. There's a pretty good consensus in this province that this is indeed the case.

We've been placing considerable pressure on the government over the last several days to gain three particular items -- perhaps some more items -- from the government in terms of procedure. One is that we wanted the government not to proceed with final consideration of this legislation until such time as the results of all the referenda that are held in the six municipalities, and they have different ways of conducting those consultations, were available to members of this chamber and to the people of Metropolitan Toronto.

1740

My leader, the member for Ottawa South, Mr McGuinty, asked the Premier a question on his first day back from the Asian excursion and extracted from him that particular promise. The Premier also said that day, people will recall, in answer to Mr McGuinty that he was prepared to acquiesce to all the requests of the opposition, so that everyone could be heard. Of course that commitment, as with the commitment of not closing hospitals in this province, such as Hotel Dieu in St Catharines and many others across the Niagara Peninsula, has been pushed aside.

The second thing we wanted was ample committee hearings, sufficient in number and convenience to allow all who wanted to make representations on this major piece of legislation to do so. We suggested there be several weeks of hearings. We suggested it would be reasonable -- this was a third condition we were trying to place on it -- that some of those hearings be held in either the municipal council chambers or a suitable alternative site that would accommodate a lot of people in each of those municipalities: in the city of Toronto itself, in Scarborough, in East York, in York, in North York and in Etobicoke. We felt that would allow people to have direct access, the kind of town hall meeting people look forward to these days.

While I guess the government hasn't entirely ruled that out, because I heard the Minister of Municipal Affairs in this House say he didn't mind that, we haven't heard from them lately on this matter and it appears they don't want those kinds of hearings now where people could have that kind of direct access. So that is what we were seeking.

We were also seeking more debate on second reading. There are a lot of members here who represent ridings within Metropolitan Toronto. They haven't had a chance to speak on the substance of this bill. I believe there should be several more days of second reading debate, or debate in principle. I believe on third reading we should have at least a week of debate. That's four days in this Legislature where people, after hearing what has been said in the committee hearings and after considering the results of the referenda, could make further comments and could look upon any changes made in the legislation -- withdrawal of the legislation of course would be the best -- favourably.

That's why I'm going to move an amendment today. I'm going to ask that the pages receive some of these amendments and provide them for the other parties. It's an amendment that reads as follows:

That the amendment to the motion be amended by adding the following:

That the standing committee on general government shall be authorized to meet March 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, in order to travel to the affected municipalities and give proper consideration to the results of local referendums; and that the committee sit the number of days required to accommodate all requests for committee time; and that the committee be authorized to meet from 9 am to 12 pm and 1 pm to 5 pm and 7 pm to 10 pm; and that five additional sessional days be allotted for the second reading stage of the bill; and that four sessional days be allotted to the third reading stage of the bill.

I hope there would be some support on the government side for this. I suspect not. I'm a realistic enough person to know that there's unlikely to be some considerable support for that, but I think it's a reasonable amendment. It may not meet the wishes of everybody who exists in this world, who perhaps would like to have debate forever. I know that's not realistic. But the amendment to the amendment I have put today I think does meet some of the concerns people have had about the amount of time provided for consideration of this bill.

It seems to me the government has an onus on it to prove its case in megacity. It has not proved that case. It has not proved to the members of this Legislature or to anyone else that one huge city is going to be superior to the six municipalities which exist today. Many of those municipalities have talked about changes where they can delineate who is specifically responsible for one area and who is not responsible. I think that is a matter of ongoing discussion that would be very useful.

Virtually every report points in the opposite direction. The member for Beaches-Woodbine indicated, as have other members in their remarks, the member for York South and so on, that in fact no report outside of the three-week rush report the government brought in has spoken in favour of this particular initiative on the part of this government.

What we will look at is US cities, and again members have made reference to that. Talk to Americans. They will tell you: "We love your large cities. We like Toronto because Toronto is different. It's a livable city. It's a city that works. People actually live downtown and stay downtown in Toronto at night. They don't flee to the suburbs."

We've got something very successful today and this government wants to bring in the bulldozer and change that completely and Americanize our province, as they're trying to in so many ways.

Their idea of success, their idea of paradise is New Jersey North, or worse, Mississippi North, because they seem to idolize the ideas which come from the Republican guard south of the border, ideas which are continuing to polarize people in our society, allowing the rich to get richer and the poor to get poorer and the middle class to disappear. That's why we're opposed to this legislation.

The arguments the government puts forward, as they do on so many issues, sound plausible on the surface. They're simplistic and they're simple and that is how the government tries to sell it. In fact, they're engaging now in a multimedia campaign of government advertising paid for by the taxpayers of this province. The Speaker of the Legislative Assembly, the Honourable Chris Stockwell, made a prima facie case, or at least a ruling that said the government was in contempt of this Legislature because of a pamphlet put out by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs.

The spin doctors for the government, the spokespersons for the government, tried to narrow the issue. They made the Minister of Municipal Affairs get up and apologize, and the Premier said, "Yes, we were wrong; we want to correct it," but of course he didn't send a cheque from the Conservative Party which would have corrected it. He wanted to do that, he said, but the issue is beyond that advertising: It's the 200,000 faxes which were sent out with nobody's name on them, with no identification, supposedly from some independent source that agreed with the government, a sneaky attack that backfired on the government when they were caught at it.

But worst of all the government is running ads on television all the time. The people who are watching this program this afternoon should know that every time Mike Harris's face appears on a commercial on television they should be reaching into their pockets because they're paying for that. The opposition, as the Speaker appropriately pointed out in his remarks, does not have that same access to those funds. While he did not express contempt in this case, he did say he was concerned about governments which would do that, not just this government but any future governments.

People should know that the only arguments this government has are simplistic arguments put out on minute-long television commercials where the Premier wants to make everybody feel good. But know that you're paying hundreds of thousands of dollars for those commercials.

There have been meetings held in this city, meetings that have had huge halls booked for the reason -- 1,500 people. I attended a meeting in a church here in Toronto where 1,500 grass-roots people were gathered to express their views, people of all political persuasions. I should correct that: perhaps not Reformers. But people of virtually every political persuasion were found at those meetings. They were expressing their concerns. They must have known of the reports by Dr Joseph Kushner of Brock University and some of his colleagues that deal with the fact that bigger isn't always better, that there aren't the economies of scale that governments talk about, that in many cases the costs are even greater when you have a larger unit.

1750

We have also seen this week and last week the dumping on municipalities of all kinds of new responsibilities without the necessary funding to go with them, I've heard even in my own municipality of Niagara, where millions of dollars are going to have to be extracted from local taxpayers through the property tax that does not take into account a person's ability to pay. Why is all this happening? It's because this government is obsessed with a silly, crazy tax cut which is for the rich in this province. When I ask people in my area: "Do you want to see Metropolitan Toronto obliterated? Do you want to see it as one huge city? Do you want to see it ruined? Do you want to see your hospitals closed or do you want to see less service on the highways during storms, or would you rather have that money placed into those vital services?" almost invariably they prefer that, and they're shocked to hear that the government will be borrowing an additional $5 billion a year to pay for that crazy tax scheme which will largely benefit the richest people in our province.

When people complain, when my municipal colleagues around this province complain, the Premier says they're whiners. He says, "Oh, you people are just whiners." There are a lot of people I know of all political persuasions who are offended by this labelling of municipal representatives as "just a bunch of whiners." They are not that. They remember the bully bill, Bill 26, and they know that Conrad Black is now going to buy the London Free Press, I should note.

By the way, there's a meeting at the city of York, a megacity campaign meeting at York Memorial high school on February 5, 1997, at 7:30 pm.

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): I'm glad to have an opportunity to finish off debate for our caucus on this motion, which I have to say very clearly shows the contempt this government has for the democratic process in this province and for the parliamentary process. It may be technically within the rules, as we know it is technically, but it shows on a political level the kind of disregard that Mike Harris and company have for the democratic process in this province.

Here is an issue on which they are doing something completely opposite to what they said they would do in the last election, when they said they would maintain the local municipalities in Metropolitan Toronto -- yes, make changes, but those changes would be based upon keeping the local municipalities in Metropolitan Toronto, eliminating the Metro level and then sorting out the services, some going to the new GTA body, some going to the province, some being maintained at the local level. Here they are doing completely the opposite, and they just do it.

They just want to ram it through without public discussion of any serious nature, this from the government and from the Premier who want to pride themselves in saying, "We keep our promises." They're not keeping their promise, and for that reason alone they should be prepared to engage the people of Metropolitan Toronto in a serious discussion. Nobody I've talked to who has thought for more than two minutes about this issue is interested in defending and maintaining the status quo. We certainly are not. There have to be changes in the way local government functions in Metropolitan Toronto and indeed in the whole GTA, but that does not mean that you ram through, as Mike Harris is doing, this kind of legislation that just says, "We know what's best for you," and even goes to the point of saying that it doesn't matter what the people of Metropolitan Toronto may decide in the referendum that's coming up, because they will simply disregard that.

Time will tell if that will remain the position of Mike Harris and his government. It wasn't that long ago that we had the Minister of Municipal Affairs continue to stand up and say: "No, we're not going to allow the referendum process to go on. We're not going to have the debate of this bill still going on after the referendum has taken place." It took the Premier less than a day, upon his return from his overseas trip, to see that his government was making, politically, a bad mistake in proceeding --

Ms Churley: A mega-mistake.

Mr Silipo: A mega-mistake in proceeding with that course of action, so he quickly changed that course of action and said: "No, no, we'll allow the referendum to take place. We'll ensure that the bill is still not finalized on the date of the referendum." That much, at least, is happening.

I say that because I think that people across Metropolitan Toronto, as they are engaged now and will continue to be engaged in this debate through the hearings this motion sets out, will see, through that process and through the process of the referendum, that there is still a possibility and an opportunity to get even Mike Harris to change his mind on this.

Mr Bert Johnson (Perth): You're dreaming.

Mr Silipo: The member for Perth says we're dreaming. Then again I say to him, why are you bothering to hold the hearings? Why are you pretending to go through this charade if you're not prepared to listen? It was only earlier today in question period that the Deputy Premier said, "We're interested in hearing from people on this issue." Now the member for Perth says, "You're dreaming if you think that's going to make any difference."

It may be that the member for Perth is telling the truth on this. It may be that this government doesn't care one iota what the people of Metropolitan Toronto think about this issue, but it will have to deal with what to do when in the upcoming referendum people make a democratic choice in favour of or against the megacity. If they choose, as I believe they will, to say no to Mike Harris's scheme, then we will see what Mike Harris will do.

I want to say to the government members that they'd better leave themselves at least a little bit of room on this one, that they'd better leave themselves a little bit of room if they want to pretend that these hearings are going to count for anything. The hearings are going to be there. We're going to go for the next four weeks. We expect -- I want to say this very clearly -- that the hearings will take place not just here in this Legislative Assembly building but that the committee will travel to the different city halls. We expect that will happen. We will continue to insist that that will happen. We will deal with that, if this motion is passed, through the subcommittee process in setting up the dates and the times of the committee and going to the different city halls.

I think I speak on behalf of our caucus when I say that to deal with the number of people who want to speak on this issue, I for one would be prepared, as the member for St Catharines's amendment to the amendment indicates, even to have the committee continue to sit through the March break to make sure that the people who want to be heard on this issue are heard.

I want to say to people out there watching this debate, following this issue -- the great interest that the various citizens groups that are springing up all over the place have shown on this -- that the fight is just beginning.

Today the Minister of Municipal Affairs paid us probably the best compliment he could when he said: "You guys over there in the NDP are trying to stall this bill. You're try to stop this bill from being implemented." I say again to the minister, as I said today, that's exactly what we're trying to do. We will use every legal means at our disposal to stop you from implementing this legislation because we think it's fundamentally wrong.

I've been spending the afternoon watching this debate but also downstairs in one of our committee rooms. The irony is just flabbergasting. In that committee room, what were we discussing? Referenda. We had the government members there continue to put forward the position of the government in favour of a law that will guide the referenda process.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. I appreciate the fact that it's nearly 6 of the clock, but it's virtually impossible now to hear the speaker. The member for Dovercourt.

Mr Silipo: We saw in committee, and it's going on as I speak, the government members continue to say that such issues as constitutional amendments should be put to the people in a referendum and then argue that on a question like the amalgamation of six municipalities in Metropolitan Toronto into one, that's too complicated an issue for the people to understand to be able to express their opinion. I don't understand that logic, but then there is no logic to what Mike Harris is doing on this.

I want to suggest on this particular question of the referenda, as I wind down my comments, that I'm having trouble even understanding where the Liberal caucus is on it, because I know that in this House they continue to call upon the government to uphold the referenda process that's going on now in Metropolitan Toronto and yet in committee I continue to hear the Liberal caucus position being that no referenda should be held unless there is all-party agreement. Well, that party over there doesn't agree, so I want to say to my Liberal colleagues, it's important that you get your act together. As my friend from St Catharines likes to remind us, if the enemy is over there, you can't be divided on your position over here.

I want to say to the government members that we --

Mr Kennedy: Dave Cooke, what did he say?

Mr Silipo: I don't know what Dave Cooke has said, but what I'm telling you is you had better get your act together over here and we, as an NDP caucus, will continue to work with anyone on this issue to oppose what Mike Harris is doing because we believe there should be a referendum in Metropolitan Toronto, there should be a referendum law to guide all referenda in the future. On this issue Mike Harris needs to listen, and at the end of the day I think he will have to listen to what the people in Metropolitan Toronto have to say.

The Speaker: Mr Bradley moves that the amendment to the motion be amended by adding the following:

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, please say "aye."

All those opposed, please say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it.

Call in the members; it will be a 15-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1802 to 1817.

The Speaker: All those in favour please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

Bartolucci, Rick	Curling, Alvin	Miclash, Frank
Bisson, Gilles	Duncan, Dwight	Morin, Gilles E.
Boyd, Marion	Grandmaître, Bernard	Patten, Richard
Bradley, James J.	Hoy, Pat	Phillips, Gerry
Caplan, Elinor	Kennedy, Gerard	Pupatello, Sandra
Churley, Marilyn	Kormos, Peter	Ramsay, David
Cleary, John C.	Kwinter, Monte	Ruprecht, Tony
Colle, Mike	Lalonde, Jean-Marc	Silipo, Tony
Conway, Sean G.	Lankin, Frances	Wildman, Bud
Cordiano, Joseph	Marchese, Rosario	Wood, Len
Crozier, Bruce	McGuinty, Dalton

The Speaker: All those opposed please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Nays

Arnott, Ted	Guzzo, Garry J.	Parker, John L.
Baird, John R.	Hastings, John	Pettit, Trevor
Barrett, Toby	Hudak, Tim	Rollins, E.J. Douglas
Beaubien, Marcel	Johns, Helen	Ross, Lillian
Boushy, Dave	Johnson, Bert	Runciman, Robert W.
Brown, Jim	Johnson, David	Sampson, Rob
Carroll, Jack	Jordan, W. Leo	Shea, Derwyn
Chudleigh, Ted	Kells, Morley	Sheehan, Frank
Clement, Tony	Klees, Frank	Smith, Bruce
Danford, Harry	Leach, Al	Sterling, Norman W.
DeFaria, Carl	Leadston, Gary L.	Stewart, R. Gary
Doyle, Ed	Marland, Margaret	Tilson, David
Elliott, Brenda	Martiniuk, Gerry	Tsubouchi, David H.
Eves, Ernie L.	McLean, Allan K.	Turnbull, David
Fisher, Barbara	Munro, Julia	Villeneuve, Noble
Fox, Gary	Murdoch, Bill	Wettlaufer, Wayne
Froese, Tom	Mushinski, Marilyn	Witmer, Elizabeth
Gilchrist, Steve	Newman, Dan	Wood, Bob
Grimmett, Bill	O'Toole, John	Young, Terence H.

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 32, the nays are 57.

The Speaker: I declare the motion lost.

Mr Johnson (Don Mills) moves that the motion be amended by deleting the words "or special order of the House and notwithstanding any other standing order of the House," in the first and second lines of the first paragraph, and inserting in lieu thereof "and notwithstanding any other standing order or special order of the House"; and

That the motion be further amended by striking out the seventh, eighth and ninth paragraphs and inserting the following in lieu thereof:

That upon receiving the report of the standing committee on general government, the Speaker shall put the question for adoption of the report forthwith, which question shall be decided without debate or amendment; and the bill shall be referred to committee of the whole House;

That one hour shall be allotted to consideration of the bill in committee of the whole House. At the end of that time, those amendments which have not yet been moved shall be deemed to have been moved, and the Chair of the committee of the whole House shall interrupt the proceedings and shall, without further debate or amendment, put every question necessary to dispose of all remaining sections of the bill and any amendments thereto and report the bill to the House. Any divisions required shall be deferred until all remaining questions have been put, the members called in once and all deferred divisions taken in succession. All amendments proposed to the bill shall be filed with the Clerk of the Assembly by 2 pm on the sessional day on which the bill is considered in committee of the whole House, and that notwithstanding standing order 9(a), the House be authorized to meet beyond its normal adjournment time until completion of the committee of the whole stage of Bill 103;

That one sessional day be allotted to the third reading stage of the bill. At the end of that sessional day, the Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Mr Premier, the door should have been locked, actually.

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): The doors weren't locked. I just walked in.

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): Did we get that on videotape, Speaker?

The Speaker: No, there are things rumbling around in my head right now. That's the problem.

At the end of that sessional day, the Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings and shall put every question necessary to dispose of this stage of the bill without further debate or amendment;

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

Arnott, Ted	Guzzo, Garry J.	Parker, John L.
Baird, John R.	Hastings, John	Pettit, Trevor
Barrett, Toby	Hudak, Tim	Rollins, E.J. Douglas
Beaubien, Marcel	Johns, Helen	Ross, Lillian
Boushy, Dave	Johnson, Bert	Runciman, Robert W.
Brown, Jim	Johnson, David	Sampson, Rob
Carroll, Jack	Jordan, W. Leo	Shea, Derwyn
Chudleigh, Ted	Kells, Morley	Sheehan, Frank
Clement, Tony	Klees, Frank	Smith, Bruce
Danford, Harry	Leach, Al	Sterling, Norman W.
DeFaria, Carl	Leadston, Gary L.	Stewart, R. Gary
Doyle, Ed	Marland, Margaret	Tilson, David
Elliott, Brenda	Martiniuk, Gerry	Tsubouchi, David H.
Eves, Ernie L.	McLean, Allan K.	Turnbull, David
Fisher, Barbara	Munro, Julia	Villeneuve, Noble
Fox, Gary	Murdoch, Bill	Wettlaufer, Wayne
Froese, Tom	Mushinski, Marilyn	Witmer, Elizabeth
Gilchrist, Steve	Newman, Dan	Wood, Bob
Grimmett, Bill	O'Toole, John	Young, Terence H.

The Speaker: All those opposed, please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Nays

Bartolucci, Rick	Curling, Alvin	Miclash, Frank
Bisson, Gilles	Duncan, Dwight	Morin, Gilles E.
Boyd, Marion	Grandmaître, Bernard	Patten, Richard
Bradley, James J.	Hoy, Pat	Phillips, Gerry
Caplan, Elinor	Kennedy, Gerard	Pupatello, Sandra
Churley, Marilyn	Kormos, Peter	Ramsay, David
Cleary, John C.	Kwinter, Monte	Ruprecht, Tony
Colle, Mike	Lalonde, Jean-Marc	Silipo, Tony
Conway, Sean G.	Lankin, Frances	Wildman, Bud
Cordiano, Joseph	Marchese, Rosario	Wood, Len
Crozier, Bruce	McGuinty, Dalton

Clerk of the House: The ayes are 57, the nays are 32.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

Can we have the same vote on the motion, as amended? No?

All those in favour of the motion, as amended, please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

Arnott, Ted	Guzzo, Garry J.	Parker, John L.
Baird, John R.	Hastings, John	Pettit, Trevor
Barrett, Toby	Hudak, Tim	Rollins, E.J. Douglas
Beaubien, Marcel	Johns, Helen	Ross, Lillian
Boushy, Dave	Johnson, Bert	Runciman, Robert W.
Brown, Jim	Johnson, David	Sampson, Rob
Carroll, Jack	Jordan, W. Leo	Shea, Derwyn
Chudleigh, Ted	Kells, Morley	Sheehan, Frank
Clement, Tony	Klees, Frank	Smith, Bruce
Danford, Harry	Leach, Al	Sterling, Norman W.
DeFaria, Carl	Leadston, Gary L.	Stewart, R. Gary
Doyle, Ed	Marland, Margaret	Tilson, David
Elliott, Brenda	Martiniuk, Gerry	Tsubouchi, David H.
Eves, Ernie L.	McLean, Allan K.	Turnbull, David
Fisher, Barbara	Munro, Julia	Villeneuve, Noble
Fox, Gary	Murdoch, Bill	Wettlaufer, Wayne
Froese, Tom	Mushinski, Marilyn	Witmer, Elizabeth
Gilchrist, Steve	Newman, Dan	Wood, Bob
Grimmett, Bill	O'Toole, John	Young, Terence H.

The Speaker: All those opposed, please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Nays

Bartolucci, Rick	Curling, Alvin	Miclash, Frank
Bisson, Gilles	Duncan, Dwight	Morin, Gilles E.
Boyd, Marion	Grandmaître, Bernard	Patten, Richard
Bradley, James J.	Hoy, Pat	Phillips, Gerry
Caplan, Elinor	Kennedy, Gerard	Pupatello, Sandra
Churley, Marilyn	Kormos, Peter	Ramsay, David
Cleary, John C.	Kwinter, Monte	Ruprecht, Tony
Colle, Mike	Lalonde, Jean-Marc	Silipo, Tony
Conway, Sean G.	Lankin, Frances	Wildman, Bud
Cordiano, Joseph	Marchese, Rosario	Wood, Len
Crozier, Bruce	McGuinty, Dalton

Clerk of the House: The ayes are 57, the nays are 32.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

It now being well past 6 of the clock, this House stands adjourned until 10 of the clock tomorrow morning.

The House adjourned at 1828.

29 janvier 1997