Journal des débats 1997-févr-24 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): Today we will be voting on Bill 84, the firefighter bill. We, the Liberal Party, are on record as being opposed to Bill 84.

Today is a very timely day for me to present a gift to the Solicitor General, Bob Runciman, an example of the firefighters from Windsor who work diligently year-round, not just as firefighters in our community but activists in our community. These are individuals who are very concerned about the community at large. This is the calendar they come out with annually. Here's a picture of Glen Zimmerman. This is the kind of thing that residents in Windsor will pay money for, as a calendar, when their funding goes into organizations like the burn unit in Windsor.

The firefighters in Windsor are very concerned about the negative effects of Bill 84. Ontarians are concerned about the opportunity for municipalities to privatize thanks to Bill 84. Residents in Windsor don't want Bill 84. They've had a wonderful organization speaking to Windsor residents, saying no to Bill 84.

It's our job as opposition, it's our job as legislators to tell the government no to Bill 84, and indeed my pleasure to present a Windsor calendar of Windsor firefighters to the Solicitor General.

HEALTH SERVICES

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Statements. The member for Lake Nipigon.

Mr Gilles Pouliot (Lake Nipigon): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I trust you had a pleasant weekend indeed. Welcome back.

The Lake Nipigon Region Hospital Association represents the five hospitals in the communities of Geraldton, Manitouwadge, Marathon, Terrace Bay and Nipigon.

The government announcement to transfer the responsibility of land ambulance service, public health, long-term care and social services to the municipalities is causing the association grave concern. These hospitals are directly involved in the provision of some of these services and have close affiliation with the provision of others.

The introduction of yet another level of government in this regard will be a serious impediment to the coordination of these services. The association is particularly concerned with the reality that municipalities already struggling with serious financial adjustments will not be able to maintain the level and quality of health service which Ontarians require.

They want answers. The hospitals in Lake Nipigon want a guarantee that the proposed involvement of municipal governments in the provision of health services will not impede the efficient function and coordination of care. They want this government to ensure that this proposed involvement will not result in degradation or loss of services in the north, and they also want this government to guarantee a fair and equitable access to health care for all residents in our great province of Ontario.

TILLSONBURG

Mr Toby Barrett (Norfolk): I rise in the House today to recognize the town of Tillsonburg's 125th anniversary, which occurred yesterday. Tillsonburg anchors the intersection of the Norfolk, Elgin and Oxford ridings. The driving force behind the incorporation of Tillsonburg was Edwin Delevan (E.D.) Tillson, the son of founder George Tillson. E.D. and his supporters pushed for town incorporation, while Aaron Musselman, proprietor of the Oil Exchange Hotel, which boasted the longest bar and the best cigars in town, spearheaded the campaign for village incorporation. The local paper at that time, the Observer, helped to sway public opinion to town status.

In the first few weeks of January 1872, petitions for town incorporation were laid before the Ontario Parliament. The bill to incorporate Tillsonburg as a town received third reading on February 23, 1872. By 1900, Tillsonburg was known internationally for the many products manufactured by the Tillson mining empire. Acclaimed as the town's first mayor, E.D. Tillson's business holdings included a 600-acre farm known as Annandale. Today Annandale House is beautifully restored and home to a community museum.

Tillsonburg is a vibrant, progressive community with a strong auto manufacturing, retail and tobacco-based economy. It gives me great pleasure to congratulate Tillsonburg on this historic milestone.

VIDEO LOTTERY TERMINALS

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): I rise today to give this government a glimpse of the future. After reading the weekend Star and this morning's Globe and Mail, the government backbenchers can see their political lives flashing before their eyes.

As this government prepares to exponentially increase gambling in Ontario, we're about to see a different kind of revolution begin, a revolution that questions the wisdom of placing some 20,000 video slot machines in every mini-casino, bar and restaurant in every neighbourhood of every community in Ontario.

The only reason this government is willing to increase the number of problem gamblers and addict youth to these machines is greed. This government is embarrassed to give us a clear answer on the revenue it will receive. However, it is clear that these video slot machines alone will produce over $1 billion per year, money that will be sucked out of communities so that Mike Harris can deliver his tax cut; money that could be buying groceries, refrigerators, even cars; money that could be creating jobs, not addiction.

The Mike Harris government can place one sure bet. The backlash against video slot machines that is under way in Alberta will find its way to Ontario soon.

SERVICES FOR ABUSED WOMEN

Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East): Public reaction to the Conservative government's McGuire report has been swift and harsh. In North Bay alone over 700 petitions and postcards have already been sent to Mike Harris condemning recommendations to reduce the role of sexual assault centres in working with victims of crimes. To date, no one from the community has received a response to this very serious issue.

Amelia Rising Women's Collective: Sexual Assault Centre of Nipissing is pushing this matter further. On Friday I met with the coordinator, a counsellor and a board member of Amelia Rising in North Bay. I was overwhelmed by the need which the staff and 26 volunteers are trying to meet. The waiting list for individual and group counselling is over six months long. This centre and the survivors want their MPP Mike Harris to finally take a stand. They want to know if he will protect or abandon the clients who need support.

1340

Staff and volunteers have collected over 900 newspaper articles from across the province which reported on violence against women. Some 103 appeared in the media during January 1997 alone. These women are illustrating the magnitude of the problem in a graphic way. They know that implementation of the McGuire report will only heighten, not end, this violence. I am sending these articles, which I have with me today, to Mike Harris. Perhaps this pressure will finally prompt a response from him. If not, another 700 letters were sent from North Bay today to him at Queen's Park. It's time the Premier took a stand in favour of women and survivors in his own riding of Nipissing.

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Dan Newman (Scarborough Centre): I rise in the House today in response to my many constituents who have called to congratulate this government with respect to Bill 103, the City of Toronto Act.

The current system is riddled with needless waste and duplication. Our government has committed to end years of overspending and overtaxing by the Liberal and NDP governments. We have acted.

This is what Diane Francis had to say in Maclean's magazine: "Mike Harris and the Tories are to be applauded for undertaking the most intelligent re-engineering of government to date in Canada, perhaps North America.... It will save taxpayers at least $500 million over the next three years."

To the Liberals and NDP practising old-fashioned political opportunism, I say that the taxpayers of Metro will not be fooled by your doomsday predictions. When your policies consist only of opposing everything this government is trying to do, the taxpayers are not fooled. You had the chance to stand up for Ontarians and you didn't.

Most Ontario residents know there is too much unnecessary duplication in government. People know it's not common sense to have seven different sets of rules, seven different sets of administration and seven sets of local councils debating issues when only one will do. The current patchwork of local rules and regulations does not work. A unified city of Toronto will put an end to the confusion.

SCHOOL BOARDS

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): There's something incredible happening in the committee hearings on the government's education bill. It would be incredible if what was happening was that the government was actually wanting to hear the presentations being made. It would be incredible if they were listening to the concerns and were ready to revise their legislation in light of the concerns heard. But that's not what's happening.

What is happening, and it is incredible, is that this government is doing its best to control the presentations to do as much damage control as it can to protect its legislation. They are shutting out more than a thousand citizens who want to make their views heard here in Toronto and they are intimidating those who are making their voices heard.

This concerted effort to try and silence opposition started with the Minister of Municipal Affairs making sure that the parents of Frankland school could not bring a legal challenge to slow down the introduction of this bill. It continued with the Minister of Education locking out the parents of Annette Street Public School when he came to their school to talk about the education of their children.

Now we have the government members being provided with profiles of those who are criticizing the bill, complete with questions that will steer the critics away from their real and more controversial concerns. These are private citizens. There is now information being developed and being kept secret on private citizens. Is this government so afraid of criticism that it has to keep a checklist on who is going to say what, when? Is this government so fearful of dissent that it is determined to make even these minimal public hearings a complete and total sham?

SAULT STE MARIE ECONOMY

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): The Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism is coming to my community, Sault Ste Marie, tomorrow to meet with the board of directors of the lottery corporation. Even more important, he's going to be meeting with my constituents. He'll be meeting with the chamber of commerce and with the municipal council, and they have only one thing on their mind: the state of the local economy.

This government is about to make decisions that are going to affect us directly. I hope he's going there to listen to what they have to say, because what they're going to tell him is, number one, don't privatize the lottery corporation, because it is one of the major and fundamental pieces of the industrial sector of our community and those jobs are very important not only to those who have them but to the whole community. They're also going to tell him that what we want in Sault Ste Marie is a full-fledged casino -- not a mini-casino, not a charitable gaming club, but a full-fledged casino that will actually attract dollars from outside the community into our community and create some work that will be substantial and make a contribution to the economy of our area; not a mini-casino that will suck money out of the pockets of the local people and create significantly less by way of job opportunity and not make the contribution to our area that a full-fledged casino, on which we've had a referendum, would make.

Minister, listen tomorrow when they tell you, "Don't privatize the lottery corporation and don't give us a mini-casino." If you're going to put a casino in our community, make it a real one.

CARDIAC SURGERY

Mrs Helen Johns (Huron): Heart disease and stroke continue to be the number one killer of Canadian men and women, claiming nearly 79,000 and accounting for 38% of Canadian deaths, versus the second-leading cause of death, cancer, which accounts for 28% of Canadian death.

Heart disease and stroke cost the Canadian economy $17 billion a year in direct and indirect costs. This government has taken action to fight the odds against this disease through the reinvestment of $16 million last year to increase the number of surgeries by 19%. This means that 9,100 people in Ontario will be able to have heart surgery each year. That's 1,400 more people who will benefit from the program.

Also as part of the government's reinvestment of health care savings, eight cardiac care hospitals received about $2 million in one-time funding to help pay for an innovative device for heart patients: coronary stents. The extra funding means Ontario's eight cardiac surgery centres will be able to provide improved access to coronary stents for more than 750 additional patients.

Heart and stroke research has shown that adopting a healthy lifestyle can significantly lower one's risk of developing heart disease or stroke. It's never too late to start to reduce your risk.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

TRUCKING AND BUS SAFETY

Hon Al Palladini (Minister of Transportation): I'm here today to introduce legislation that addresses a specific problem that is targeted at bus and truck owners and operators. First, I would like to review what the Harris government has done to date to make trucks and buses safer.

Before the Christmas break the House passed Bill 92, which contained several truck safety measures, including expanding the powers of the registrar of motor vehicles, legislation for the carrier safety rating and requiring operators to keep MTO advised of the size of their fleet and the distances travelled.

In addition to this, MTO has dramatically stepped up its enforcement activities. By the end of March, MTO staff will have inspected over 40,000 vehicles, more than twice as many as in the previous years. Between last April and this January, they removed 2,400 potential tragedies from our roads by seizing the plates of 2,400 vehicles. They also laid 11,600 charges.

Other measures implemented by the Harris government include mandatory training for wheel installers; higher fines, to a maximum of $20,000, the highest in Canada; lifting the axle weight moratorium; air brake training for truck drivers -- and these are only a few of our changes.

As I have said many times, we have made great strides. However, we still have a long way to go and will not stop until our roads are the safest in North America, which brings me to the legislation I am presenting today.

I had hoped to introduce this legislation as part of our spring bill, but the dramatic increase in truck wheel separations and the seriousness of this offence has prompted me to move forward on this matter alone. Since January 1995, about 113 truck wheel separation incidents have been reported. An inquest into the fatalities caused by wheel separations had recommended tougher sanctions against trucking companies. The inquest also recommended that fines for existing offences be increased and that wheel installers be required to take specialized training.

This government implemented both these recommendations last fall. Unfortunately, some owners of commercial vehicles and operators of truck and bus companies are still not getting the message.

1350

Given the severity of this escalating problem, a wheel separation on a commercial vehicle will become an absolute liability offence. That means if a wheel comes off a truck or a bus while travelling along a highway, the owner of the commercial vehicle and/or the operator of truck and bus companies will be held accountable. No excuses will be allowed. The fine for this offence will range from a minimum of $2,000 to a maximum of $50,000.

This is a serious problem with serious consequences. The $50,000 fine will be the highest under the Highway Traffic Act. Companies which fail to pay the fine will have their operating privileges suspended until the fine is paid. The conviction will go on the carrier's record, and that could mean being called on the carpet before the registrar of motor vehicles. The onus would be on the carrier to prove that they have the proper procedures in place that would prevent any more wheel separations from happening. If the registrar is not satisfied with their program, he has the authority to suspend or cancel the carrier's operating privileges in Ontario.

Together, these fines and early deterrents are strong incentives for the trucking industry to spend both money and time to improve their vehicle maintenance programs. Commercial vehicle owners and the operators of truck and bus companies are the people who should be held accountable and responsible for proper vehicle inspections and for the upkeep of their fleet.

Members of this House have continually reminded me of their concern about truck safety and in particular about wheel separations. This government has acted quickly and decisively on road safety; I ask that this House now do the same. I believe that once all members have had the opportunity to read this bill, they will consent to its immediate passage into law.

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville): We welcome this long-overdue bill and say to the minister that we will support it and hope we can pass it this week. The only thing we regret is that it has taken you 18 months to get to this point. After repeatedly raising this issue in the House, we find that finally you're prepared to respond.

We also want to say to the minister that it's not enough to simply change the regulations; you need to have the power to enforce your regulations, you need to have the power to enforce your law. Our concern rests with your commitment to enforce the law.

We heard last week, for instance, in televised debate from the OPP, that there's no mechanism for enforcing mandatory training on wheel installers. Your so-called maximum fines that have been implemented already: not one has been levied. The lifting of the axle-weight moratorium does not argue or deal with the issue of truck weights in general. The air brake training for truck drivers: Again the OPP have told us that this is not enforceable.

I had the opportunity to be at an inspection station last Friday when you were making your announcement about this. A simple thing like a torque wrench, which your ministry has refused to provide to those inspection stations, would make the enforcement of your own regulations and laws much easier and much more effective.

But I guess we shouldn't be surprised about the government's lack of willingness to enforce its own laws. It's too bad they didn't bring to their desire to enforce laws the same zeal they bring to closing hospitals and to laying off nurses. It's too bad they didn't put the priority on truck safety that they put on cutting schools and reducing our education. It's too bad this government hasn't made those kinds of commitments. It's too bad that 113 of these wheel incidents have happened since January 1995 and it has taken the government this long to implement. Finally, I'd like to say it's too bad this government wouldn't have made this announcement in the House prior to doing its little window dressing, as it was called by the family of one of the victims, prior to this massive barrage of public relations.

Yes, this is a government that's about public relations. It's not a government that's concerned about our kids and their education. It's not a government that's concerned about health care and good hospitals. It's a government that fundamentally doesn't understand the real issues that confront the people of this province or their concerns with the government's agenda.

We in the opposition will work with the government to pass this bill, but that doesn't mean it's the end of the debate. The debate turns to enforcement. The debate turns to this minister taking responsibility for what is his responsibility, making it work on our roads here in Ontario. We will continue to press enforcement in the same way we will press good health care in this province. A government that has no comprehension of good health care has to be brought to task. It has to be made known where we stand. We will bring to the question of enforcement the same passion we'll bring to our arguments against the cuts this government has made in education.

We want to make highway safety a priority. We want to make schools a priority. We want to make health care a priority. We think it's time the government abandon its agenda and get on with what matters to people in this province: their hospitals, their schools, their roads.

Let's work together, Minister. Yes, we'll support you on this bill. Now you take some of our ideas in health care and education and maybe, working together, we can make this province a better place for everybody, not just for your friends who will benefit from that very generous tax cut.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): The Liberal transportation critic Dwight Duncan has already suggested that, after forcing you to finally deal with this issue, we deal with it expeditiously. I can assure you as House leader of the Ontario Liberal Party that we will work to expedite this legislation. I call upon you to put aside your other agenda and bring this legislation forward this week. There's a consensus on this.

At no time has your House leader or anybody else mentioned that this bill would be forthcoming. You've been busy pushing other bills. If you're serious about this one, you will set aside your downloading legislation, legislation that nobody wants, and you will proceed with this this week.

You're going to find out there's a consensus in this House. We should be moving forward. I can tell you that as far as the Liberal Party is concerned, we'll proceed with this legislation right away. Just push the other stuff aside because at long last we've finally got you to act on a very important crisis in this province.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): I rise today as the transportation critic for the NDP caucus to say to the Minister of Transportation that his initiative is a step in the right direction.

To criticize the whole idea of trying to deal with the whole issue of truck safety and road safety I don't think would be a wise thing at this moment. This is a very serious issue. We've had a lot of people who have been killed on the highways across the province because of these incidents, and anything the government does towards trying to avert such tragedies from happening in the future needs to be applauded.

But I would say one thing on that particular point: I heard just recently, when you were making your statement, that you wanted to move quickly to pass this legislation through. There is a House leader within your government and I find it very surprising that the Minister of Transportation, on Friday, was able to go out and get a photo opportunity with the media, to yet again stand before the media to try to get some brownie points, but doesn't take the time to go sit with his House leader to say that this is a serious issue for all Ontarians and that we need to find time within the legislative calendar so we're able to deal with this legislation forthwith to make sure we're doing something about this very serious issue.

I want to say on behalf of our caucus that we're more than prepared to sit down and discuss when this legislation will come through, how many days you want to set aside to make sure it goes through and how we do it in a way that is timely for the citizens of this province. If the minister can take the time to organize a press conference, I would think the minister would have the time to sit with his House leader to figure out when this legislation will go through.

I fear, however, given this government's agenda around the downloading, Bill 104 and the school boards, and megacity, that this legislation will not see the time of day probably until much further on in the legislation session. That's too bad because I think there is general agreement in this House to deal with this legislation, and I'm sure that if the Minister of Transportation were to put the energy into meeting with the House leader that he did into organizing his press conference on Friday, maybe we'd be able to get this particular piece of legislation to go forward.

Specific to that legislation, I just want to say I'm somewhat surprised that the government and the minister did not deal with the automatic roadside suspension. We heard the Minister of Transportation over and over again say that was a key element of what needed to be done in order to send a very serious message to the trucking companies out there. I see that it's not part of the package, and I wonder, is it going to be coming forward in the legislation? I don't think so. I think the minister needs to address that particular issue. I say to you, Minister, simply this: What we need from you is less photo opportunities; what we need from the Minister of Transportation is action.

1400

The minister comes into the House today with yet another announcement about how he's going to try to deal with truck safety, but the reality is that the wheels are still flying off the trucks. We still have a serious problem in this province where motorists are fearful every time they go out on the highways that yet another wheel is going to go flying on to the lane they are driving in and they'll possibly get killed.

I don't think the question of the fines is the entire answer to your problem. In fact, I was at a conference on road safety just last week in Ottawa, a conference held by CRASH, and a number of people within industry and other people who are interested in this issue had a very good discussion about what are some of the things we need to do. The consensus was that the fines are not the only answer, that there are other issues we need to take care of in order to address this problem. We need to go back and take a look at the issues of hours of work for the drivers themselves to make sure they're not driving rigs far past the point they're able to. We need to talk about driver training to make sure that drivers, when they go out in the morning, have the competence and the knowledge and the training to properly go around and inspect their vehicles and identify if a problem is going to happen: Don't try to fix the problem later; fix it before it happens. We need to take a look at the whole issue of the certification process, that when trucks are inspected, it is properly done.

I say to the minister, if you're prepared to bring legislation to this House that deals with those other issues, I can tell you that my House leader, Mr Wildman, and I would imagine the opposition caucus, would be more than prepared to sit down with you and figure out a way that we're able to get this into the House and have people consult on it in the legislative process of committees so that people can have their say about how to deal with this.

In closing, I say to the government, we support generally what you're doing with the fines. However, I don't think it's the entire answer. I think the government and the Minister of Transportation have to stop thinking about photo ops and have to start dealing with the issue of truck safety. Once they're prepared to do that, I can tell you that the NDP caucus will be here with you.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Member for Algoma.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): If the government would stop trying to ram through 104 and 103, bills that the public doesn't want, and were seriously --

The Speaker: Thank you.

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): Mr Speaker, on a point of privilege. For you to be able to adjudicate on my point of privilege, I think it's important for you to know that at the committee hearings this morning on Bill 104, government members were presented with a piece of material by a Ministry of Education staff person, and the material contains, as we understand it, profiles on the private citizens who were making representations to the committee. We were at first informed that it was caucus services staff of the Conservatives who had prepared this. The parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Education subsequently said no, it was Ministry of Education personnel who had prepared the material, as indeed it was Ministry of Education personnel who distributed the material. We asked that it be tabled. The government members refused to table it, defeated a motion to table it.

What I'm asking you to determine as a point of privilege is, first of all, the appropriateness of using Ministry of Education staff to develop information background profiles on private citizens; secondly, if you consider that to be an appropriate use of ministry staff, is it not something which should be shared with all members, not only the members of the committee in the Legislature but those private citizens who are named in the list and who, understandably, want to know what is being kept on file about them?

Mr Wildman: On the same point, Mr Speaker, before you rule on this, I would like to point out that in answer to questioning in the legislative committee, the parliamentary assistant indicated that this material was profiles on presenters before the committee that had been prepared, apparently, by the Ministry of Education and Training staff. This led to a tremendous amount of consternation among the presenters, who wanted to know what information had been gathered, what this document said about them, and they wanted the right to peruse that and know what it was about.

In the committee, I moved a motion that the document be tabled, and the majority on the committee voted it down. Is it appropriate that taxpayers' funds would, apparently, be used to develop dossiers on individual members of the public that would only be available to the government members and not to the opposition members on the committee and, frankly, not available to the public? This information was prepared with public funds. It should be available to anyone who wants to see it.

The Speaker: It's a tried precedent in the past with respect to committee hearings and disagreements or points of order or rules that get caught up at committees that the committee Chair is the person who would adjudicate those decisions. It's also a rule of this House for many years that decisions by the Chairs of committees are not appealable to the Speaker simply because --

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): They are, by the committee.

The Speaker: Pardon me. Yes, they are, but we've allowed the Chairs of the committees to make the decisions, and those decisions are established and stand.

As far as I'm concerned, I wasn't at the committee hearing and therefore it would be impossible for me to offer an opinion on whether it was in order or not in order. That's why we have the Chairs of committees. I can only suggest to the member opposite that if you would like a ruling on this point of order, if you haven't done so, make your appeal to the Chair of the committee. If you have done so, then the Chair has rendered a decision at that level, and in accepting the precedents and the practices that we have followed in this place, it's not acceptable for the Speaker then to start overruling decisions taken at committees by a Chair.

Mrs McLeod: But, Mr Speaker, I do believe this may be somewhat unprecedented, firstly. Secondly, there has been no ruling by the Chair of the committee, and the Chair can speak for herself, but I believe that would be seen to be outside the purview of the Chair of the committee and directly related to the relationship between members, the public and ministry staff.

The Speaker: I've got to say quite frankly I don't agree. It seems to me to be a perfectly acceptable approach to take to the Chair of the committee, and the committee can in fact rule; the Chair of that committee can rule.

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): You said it wasn't a point of order.

The Speaker: And you can stand on a point of order in the committee itself and make your appeal to the Chair, and then the Chair will render a decision, and that decision is much like my decisions in here: It's not appealable, and it can't be appealable to the Speaker; otherwise, as I said in the past, I would be here hearing points of order on decisions taken by Chairs at all our committees. So with that direction I can offer you, that's the direction I would take, and the Chair would in fact do that.

Mr Wildman: Why doesn't the minister just offer to table it here?

The Speaker: As far as the ministry, what they do, it's completely up to them. I don't know who the Chair of the committee is, but whoever it is will make a decision and I will not hear appeals to that decision in this place.

SPEAKER'S RULING

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): I also have a ruling to read.

On Tuesday, February 18, 1997, the member for Windsor-Sandwich, Mrs Pupatello, raised a point of privilege with respect to certain TV commercials paid for by the government of Ontario. The member alleged that a constituent had called the advertised number to receive information on the government's plans for health care and received instead a response package which appears to be from the Progressive Conservative Party. The member forwarded the documents to me along with some additional information. I note with interest that included in these documents is a membership form for the Progressive Conservative Party.

Let me begin by saying again that the Speaker has neither the resources nor the authority to conduct an investigation into these matters, and as I said on January 22 in this House, "I do not have the jurisdiction to examine the propriety of such campaigns unless they raise a matter of privilege or contempt." In essence, to paraphrase, I can't begin to investigate if this person in fact did phone that number, this was in fact sent to them in the response, and an investigation would in fact be necessary.

With respect to the television ads themselves, I previously ruled that the wording in them is general in nature and cannot be considered to be contemptuous.

As to the matter of the response package coming from the PC Party, while quite disturbing, it does not fall within the sphere of privilege. Neither can it be considered contempt, since it does not somehow cause the respect due to this House to be diminished.

Having said that, my personal views on this subject are clearly on the record, and while I cannot find that the member has a prima facie case of privilege, I understand fully your concerns.

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): Point of privilege.

The Speaker: I've ruled on that, so it's got to be a different point of privilege, because if it's the same one, then you'd be deemed to be challenging the Chair.

Point of privilege, the member for Windsor-Sandwich.

Mrs Pupatello: Thank you, Speaker, for that ruling. My question to the Speaker would be, considering that based on your analysis you find it quite disturbing, could you recommend where then we would take it?

1410

The Speaker: With due respect, it's not my job to direct opposition or government members where to take concerns and issues. I'm looking for "quite disturbing" in here and I can't find it.

Mrs Pupatello: I'm paraphrasing.

The Speaker: Paraphrasing me? I sometimes find that gets me into trouble, when people start paraphrasing.

Let me just say to you, I understand your concerns. I can't direct you as to where you should go or shouldn't go. But I know full well that you have very able leadership in your caucus and a very able House leader. If you consulted with them, I'm sure, without any discussion, they would tell you where to go.

Laughter.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Thank you for the compliment, Mr Speaker. We are confronted with this situation which the member draws to your attention. I know you've partially dealt with it previously. We have a situation where we have debates going on in this House, debates going on in our society. One group that is debating, the government, has taken it upon itself to spend taxpayers' dollars through three different ministries to have the Premier on television giving a clearly partisan message. The opposition doesn't have that same privilege. We don't have the money that the ministries have to put out this message. Somebody somewhere has to take this on. We haven't seen the editorials on it yet, but somewhere they're going to come along.

The Speaker: To the member for St Catharines, you're probably right in the sense that it's probably a good point to make during question period. As a point of privilege I have ruled on it; as contempt I have ruled on it. I think you've come to me and have exhausted the avenues available through my office. All that's left is, again, your option.

ORAL QUESTIONS

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Joseph Cordiano (Lawrence): My question is to the Premier. This morning your handpicked hospital closing commission decided to hack $90 million out of health care in Ottawa by closing four hospitals -- this despite your promise, a Mike Harris promise, not to close hospitals and despite local plans to find the money to pay for your tax cut without closing any hospitals; this also despite a Mike Harris commitment on May 3, 1995, that "local health care communities will share in any savings identified locally for reinvestment in community priorities." You're taking $126 million out of health care in Ottawa and reinvesting only $36 million. That means you are stealing $90 million out of the pockets of people in Ottawa and out of health care in Ottawa. That's stealing, not sharing.

You've broken your promise not to close hospitals, Premier. Will you keep your promise and guarantee that every single penny from those hospital closures stays in Ottawa?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I'd like to welcome back the Minister of Health, who I know can respond to it.

Applause.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): You understand that you've now got 30 seconds left to answer the question.

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Health): I imagine I won't be getting much applause in the near future so I might as well enjoy that 30 seconds' worth.

The honourable member knows full well that it was his government that began the process of asking hospitals to find efficiencies and began the process of laying the foundation to amalgamate hospitals to ensure that we drive every dollar towards front-line patient services. That is what's occurring in Ottawa-Carleton today as a result of the commission's interim findings and conclusions. As you know -- and the honourable member is welcome to be part of the process -- there's a 30-day process now where the public can comment on the findings of the commission, and certainly the government will be commenting on the restructuring report at the appropriate time.

Mr Cordiano: It is clear that the resurrection of the health minister means there are no different answers to the problems we're facing in health care. Whether it's Jim Wilson or Marilyn Mushinski, your plan is the same: Close hospitals, lay off nurses, bring in new user fees, take money from community health care to pay for your tax cut.

It's clear that your failure to reinvest that $90 million in Ottawa means that people will suffer. There will be fewer nurses, longer waiting lists and even more horror stories of people tied to chairs and people unattended and going unnoticed, dying in the hallways of our hospitals right across this province.

Minister, you and your government and your Premier are responsible for this. You can't get away from the responsibility of this. Do you not realize that every dollar you cut from hospitals and fail to reinvest means we're going to receive second-rate, substandard health care in this province? That's on your head, Minister.

Hon Mr Wilson: The honourable member answers his own question when he points out some of the problems we have today in an unrestructured hospital system in this province. Almost 10,000 beds were closed when the Liberals were in power and when the NDP was in power, but you left all the administration there, all the building maintenance, all the heat and hydro -- money today that must be spent on patient services.

At the end of the day we want to make sure that we have modern hospitals. Yes, there will be fewer buildings, but the buildings that remain will have more nurses, more services, will be modern hospitals with the latest technology and drug therapies. That's the goal of this government; that's the goal of the very good people on the commission and the district health councils. We want to drive every dollar to patient services and away from administration, duplication and waste in the system.

Mr Cordiano: Let's be clear about what you're doing, Minister. What this amounts to is nothing short of dismantling our health care system. Why? Because in Ottawa you're cutting $90 million that could pay for the quality of care patients deserve, for more nurses, care for our seniors, community care, and the list goes on. You're not doing that. You're taking money out and you're not putting it back in. That's the bottom line here.

The only guarantee the people of Ottawa have that you're going to do anything after you've closed their hospitals is to hope and pray you're going to do something to reinvest those dollars.

Minister, can you give the people of Ottawa an unequivocal guarantee that every cent of that $90 million you've stolen away from the people of Ottawa for health care will go back into the community to be reinvested in community-based care? That's the guarantee the people of Ottawa are looking for. That's what we're looking for today as an opposition party, as Liberals. We want you to guarantee that you're going to reinvest those dollars in community-based care, for more nurses, for more care for our seniors --

The Speaker: Thank you, member. Minister?

Hon Mr Wilson: The honourable member is in error. The government's record is very clear with respect to reinvestments in health care.

Two facts: One is that the health care budget is up substantially this year from the time we came to office, and it's certainly several hundred million dollars more than what the Liberal Party was planning on spending on health care should they have formed the government in the last election.

Second, we haven't seen a great deal of the savings yet that are to be derived from restructuring, but without seeing those savings the government has already invested some $600 million in Ottawa-Carleton and throughout the health care system in our province. Ottawa-Carleton, for example, was one of the first areas of the province to benefit from the reinvestment in paramedic services and the special treatments now available from our ambulance services; long-term care; nursing homes; tremendous investments we've made in Ottawa-Carleton, and the commission is recommending that we make more reinvestments.

The government's record on reinvestment is second to none in this country. We've spent far more new dollars on health care than anything we've seen in savings to date and we intend to keep that record because we're proud of that record.

The Speaker: New question.

Mr Gerard Kennedy (York South): My question is also to the new or slightly used Minister of Health.

Interjections.

Mr Kennedy: I'm sorry the truth bothers the members opposite.

I'd like to ask you, Minister, about your hired guns, the restructuring commission, who walked into Ottawa today and closed four hospitals; one in Brockville; closing the hospitals before in Thunder Bay and Sudbury; draft orders for closings in Pembroke and Lambton. They're doing this for one reason: because you took away $1.3 billion. That's a dramatic change in how health care has ever been done and it's your change.

1420

Tell us today why you believe that this restructuring and these cuts will not hurt patients. What evidence, what studies do you have that this isn't going to be harmful to sick Ontarians today? Tell us, Minister.

Hon Mr Wilson: We're fortunate in Ontario that we are the last to restructure our health care system. We have very concrete examples from governments throughout this country, governments of different political stripes covering the spectrum of politics in this country, where each has taken the tough decisions to make their health care system better. They've modernized their hospitals. They have the newest drug therapies available. They've made tremendous reinvestments in long-term care and community-based services.

We're on that road today, and it's a road that I hope the honourable members will join us in because you're all on record as agreeing with the need to restructure the hospitals. Your government, Mr Kennedy, and the NDP spent $26.6 million on some 60 studies. The fact of the matter is that the time for study is over. The commission is acting, and the government will follow through with the reinvestments so we have a world-class health care system in this province.

Mr Kennedy: Minister, we know what road you're on. The road you're on leads to lousy health care. That's the road you're taking us down.

I have in front of me a confidential document prepared by your ministry showing clearly that your cut of $1.3 billion was determined first and then the studies were being -- the studies, contrary to what you've said, are still happening. You've cut too much far too fast, and it's hurt patients and you know it.

This document comes from the fiscal working-planning group of the JPPC -- their group of hospitals -- and your ministry looking at your cuts. It went to your deputy minister on January 10, and it says: "We have concluded that even with the most aggressive utilization, management and organizational consolidation, the hospital industry will not be able to achieve the $1.3 billion in transfer payment reductions within the three-year time frame." They say it will hurt health care, and you have known this, your ministry has known this.

Will you not admit today to the people of Ontario, the people of Ottawa, that you've been reckless with health care, you don't have a plan, and your own experts are telling you that you cannot make these cuts without hurting the people of Ontario?

Hon Mr Wilson: We're listening very carefully to the Ontario Hospital Association, its president David MacKinnon, and hospital administration and front-line workers throughout the province. In fact, I spent Friday and all day today meeting with administrators.

The fact of the matter is we'll look very carefully at year three of the savings. But no one -- no one, I say to all honourable members -- is indicating that this government should stop in its efforts to restructure the system or that we should stop our efforts, along with the commission and with the local district health councils, local people, who want to see their health care systems bettered. The fact that examples are raised in this House from time to time -- and examples have been raised over the last decade -- about patients who don't receive the care they should receive in a world-class health care system speaks volumes to the fact that we need to restructure the system. There is no choice. You cannot turn back the clock.

We will listen very carefully as we proceed to everyone in the system to ensure that we do it right and that we end up driving every dollar to patient care, because the patients come first in our system, and they'll always come first in our system.

Mr Kennedy: With the greatest respect, this minister is not listening at all. This minister had information -- his ministry had it; his interim, predecessor minister had it -- models have been done by his ministry working with the hospitals, and what they show is that you knew last year that $130 million of cuts is coming right out of the hides of patients, that it's hurting people in this province, and that by the end of next year it will be $290 million that can't be achieved either through operational efficiencies or clinical efficiencies. You knew this. And by next year it will be $400 million. Your own advisers are telling you this. You knew even as the cuts went forward this year and you know even as you stand there today that these are hurting patients, $300 million worth of hurt. Your own people have documented it.

Will you stand in your place today and tell us that you'll stop until you figure out what you're doing?

Hon Mr Wilson: I'll say to the honourable member that we are listening very, very carefully and very sincerely to all our partners in the health care system and in the hospital system. But if you're a cardiac patient today or a dialysis patient today or if you're being transported by an ambulance throughout this province today, you have better services than one year ago. You have better services. In fact, in Ottawa-Carleton and in other parts of the province where we've announced the money to make the investment in dialysis, where we've opened up clinics across the province, today people in many parts who need our health care system are receiving better care because of the reinvestments this government has made.

We will not be deterred from making further investments in patients and driving dollars away from administration. All the money we have cannot be wasted any more on empty beds and empty rooms and half-empty hospitals. The money has to be driven to the front lines so we'll have more nurses, modern hospitals, new technologies and an absolutely world-class health care system. That's our goal and we'll be looking to you to help us reach that goal.

The Speaker: New question.

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): My question is to the Minister of Health. Minister, you can hardly be surprised that the people of Ontario are confused and fearful about the actual objectives of your hospital restructuring scheme. You've announced reductions of $1.3 billion in hospital funding across the province; that's 18% of total hospital budgets. Yet the chair of the restructuring committee, Duncan Sinclair, said on November 6 that there was far more than $1.3 billion that could come out of hospital restructuring.

We understand that the Ottawa-Carleton Regional District Health Council was told prior to the release of the report that the objective of the commission was in fact a 30% reduction in hospital budgets, this despite the fact that the commission chair has said on other occasions that he has not been given any savings targets and that the commission will concentrate on making the hospital system work better rather than meeting artificial dollar targets.

Minister, you have to realize that the people of Ontario are not stupid. They hear these conflicting things. They want to know from you, why are you jeopardizing their health in order to finance your phoney tax scheme?

Hon Mr Wilson: The chair of the restructuring commission, Dr Duncan Sinclair, has made it very clear that he's not driven by any fiscal agenda. The test the commission has made for itself is that quality must be maintained or improved, that access must be maintained or improved, that the system has to be affordable so we can sustain it for many more years, for those generations of Ontarians who will become senior citizens in the next few years and decades, and that we have a world-class system, an excellent system there to look after those ever-increasing needs of the population.

I'm a little confused by the honourable member's question. The commission is not driven by any sort of fiscal plan; it is driven by a genuine concern for the system and a genuine concern that we improve the quality and the access to our health care system.

Mrs Boyd: Minister, I'm not questioning your intention; I'm just questioning the reality of what's happening. Let's look at the report the commission released in Ottawa-Carleton today. It's going to take another $126 million out of health care in that region. You've already taken $71 million out of the hospitals and $3 million out of home care, which is supposed to be the alternative. That's over $200 million in health care dollars taken from that region, with absolutely no commitment on your part about reinvestment. The few little programs you talk about are nothing compared to what's being removed from this region, and you have not made any commitment to the necessary community-based alternatives. You yourself told the committee on October 1, "In order to do restructuring, you've got to do the investments up front." That's what the commission is saying; that's what the government is trying to respond to.

Minister, you've now got the savings, over $200 million of savings. Will you make a commitment today to live up to those words that you gave the legislative committee last year and make that reinvestment announcement today?

Hon Mr Wilson: I'm very happy to once again reiterate the government's commitment to reinvesting in health care. The honourable member points out that we found savings of $200 million. The facts are clear that we've invested over $600 million new dollars into health care, in the time we've been in office, into new services. The record is very clear.

1430

Could I just point out for a moment that in some areas like Thunder Bay and other parts of the province where the commission has already made findings, Windsor for example, we do not have a waiting list today for community-based services. In Thunder Bay we don't have a waiting list for the home care and community-based services. The money will be there when the customers are there. But right now there isn't any place to invest in Thunder Bay. I check all the time -- I know the previous minister did too -- with our area offices to make sure that people are being served. They're being served very well, and the waiting lists are almost non-existent for most of the home care services in the areas that have already undergone restructuring or are undergoing restructuring.

As we find savings in the system, we will invest every dollar back into patients and in fact our record is --

The Speaker: Thank you, Minister. Final supplementary.

Mrs Boyd: Quite frankly, everybody understands that this is rhetoric, that this is a sham. You're cutting the hospital budgets before you do the reinvestment. You're placing the commissioner in place to take the political heat off you and your government. What your rhetoric is all about is an integrated system, but in fact that's not the reality out there, and again and again the communities that are affected are explaining that to you.

The commission doesn't have the power to reinvest the dollars; only you do. The commission has said in Ottawa-Carleton that it will cost $106.4 million in capital reinvestment to accomplish the savings they've put forward. The Ottawa-Carleton district health council recommended a reinvestment package of $57 million to create an integrated health care system. That would include community-based health care, including hospices, community health centres and community home care.

It's up to you today to commit to these very worried people that you are in fact going to reinvest those dollars that have been recommended by the very commission and the district health council that you put in place to make the recommendations. Will you make that commitment today?

Hon Mr Wilson: The government's record to date in the hospital restructuring, along with the commission, is very clear. We've made the reinvestments the commission has asked for, and as we have more customers for long-term care services and that, the government has the money; we made that clear in the budgets of the government. We're spending more money on health care than when you were in office, certainly more money than the Liberal Party was going to spend if it formed the government.

We're spending 6% more on health care per person in Ontario than any other province in Canada. We want to spend that money as effectively and as wisely as possible. We want modern hospitals with the newest technologies. We want fewer buildings, but more nurses and more services in the buildings that remain, so that we can serve more people and help people when they need those services in their lives. That's what we're all about in restructuring. That's what the commission's all about. Yes, we will make those reinvestments. Once we've done the review of the commission's findings, you'll hear about those reinvestments. We'll look after the employees and we'll look after all those people who need health care services in Ottawa-Carleton.

The Speaker: New question.

Mrs Boyd: Again to the Minister of Health: Minister, I don't think there are any people in this Legislature or even in the province who disagree with the fine words around restructuring that constantly come out of your mouth and your predecessor's mouth. Restructuring, we all know, has to happen, but the reality is you're taking the money out first. There is no guarantee it's going to be reinvested in the communities from which it's taken. There is no guarantee to the people in those communities that their health care is going to be protected by your government. That's the reality.

There has been 18% cut from hospital budgets and you say you've reinvested. There is absolutely nothing in those communities to show their health care is protected. Surely you're aware there is a growing public concern that completely drowns out your fine words.

Minister, your response has been to try and put it off and say people are complaining because they don't want to restructure. Once and for all, let us be clear. Everyone understands there has to be restructuring, but something has to be put in place before you take the health care dollars away. Will you commit to that?

Hon Mr Wilson: The government's commitment is clear to making the reinvestments. We made the largest single investment in the history of health care late last year with $170 million for new long-term-care services, creating 4,400 new jobs for nurses and other front-line providers in homemaking and home care services in the province. We haven't been able to spend all of the $170 million, because frankly we don't have waiting lists in Windsor, we don't have waiting lists in Thunder Bay, we don't have waiting lists in Simcoe county for those services. As the population grows older and needs those services and as we do more on an outpatient basis, that money is available.

A total of $600 million has been invested in health care since this government came to office. That's far more dollars than anything we've seen in savings to date. We're proud of our record and we're going to keep going.

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: This minister, new as he is today, must not be up to date in terms of the services required in Windsor. He cannot get away with giving this kind of information, which is simply inaccurate.

The Speaker: That's not a point of order.

Mrs Boyd: It may however be a point of rhetoric, and that is exactly our point. The rhetoric sounds good. The reality that the people of Ontario are facing in their communities, in their hospitals, is very different than your rhetoric. That's not the reality that we're facing.

Minister, you said in response to one of my colleague's questions here that you've been listening. Listening without action is not worth anything. When are you going to respond to the recommendations of your own commission to the Ontario Hospital Association, all of the health care professionals who have spoken to you, and actually begin to show us that the words you use about reinvestment in health care are more than words, that in fact the reality is going to be that at the end of the day this restructuring will accomplish a better health care system and not the chaos and the fear and the distrust that is out there now among the people of Ontario?

Hon Mr Wilson: Let me just remind the member of some of the significant reinvestments we've made to date since coming to office, for a total of $684,948,000: $170 million in new long-term-care services for the province; $43 million for high-growth-area hospitals this year; $25 million last year for high-growth hospitals; $14 million in a special fund for recognizing the needs of northern Ontario hospitals; $59.4 million, almost $60 million, for Thunder Bay restructuring; $18 million for the cancer centre in Windsor; $13 million for emergency on-call fees for doctors in the province; $45 million in some 367 new drugs listed to the seniors and social assistance drug plan -- that's in contrast to the over 250 drugs you took off the seniors drug plan. We've added hundreds of new drugs, $45 million in new dollars in that program alone, or a total of almost $700 million in new health care spending in the province.

Mrs Boyd: It sounds familiar, Minister, and I must say your vacation has not done you any harm, because you've picked up the tape and you're running with it again. We've heard this again and again and again, and it does not speak to the reality that patients and their families are facing throughout this province. You have not listened to the stories of people who have actually been patients -- victims, I was going to say -- of the health care system as it exists under your ministry. You know these words are wearing very thin and you are going to be held responsible. To talk about reinvestment, as you did in that list, of things that are already in the budget, already part of the projected budget, certainly in long-term care are part of the projected budget, is simply -- how can I say this so that the Speaker won't get excited -- window dressing.

Interjection: Creative accounting.

Mrs Boyd: Creative accounting. Thank you. It is extremely difficult for people who are experiencing the reality of the health care system to believe you. Minister, please, today, stand in your place and commit to the people of Ottawa-Carleton and all the other centres that have been affected.

Hon Mr Wilson: I reiterate the government's commitment to make the investments that are needed in Ottawa-Carleton as the restructuring proceeds. The fact that we have problems in some of our hospitals today, the fact that individual cases get raised in the Legislature from time to time tells me and tells the members of the government and tells anyone in the province that's listening that there's a need to restructure the system.

There's a need to change the way we do things and to drive more dollars to those front-line services. The patient always comes first. That's the goal of the health care system. We're making that a reality through our reinvestments and we're going to continue to listen very carefully to the people of Ontario to ensure that we reinvest the dollars saved back into priority areas that are identified as we move forward with restructuring in the province.

SCHOOL BOARDS

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): My question is for the Premier. Hundreds and hundreds of people who want to make you understand their concerns about the educational bill that your minister is bringing forward now believe that even the very limited public hearings that you have allowed are a complete and total sham. As you will know, only a small number of the more than 1,150 people who wanted to make their concerns known in Toronto have been able to be heard, yet your government seems to be intimidated even by these few.

It is incredible that the Minister of Education's need for control is so great that he has now asked Ministry of Education staff to prepare profiles of those who are presenting at the committee or in public forums. It is even more incredible that the minister and the government members are not prepared to make those profiles and the background information available to the people whose names are on the list.

1440

Premier, I can tell you that private citizens don't like knowing that their government is collecting information on them --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Question.

Mrs McLeod: -- and they particularly don't like having that information kept secret to government members. I ask whether or not, Premier, you condone the keeping --

The Speaker: Thank you, member for Fort William. Premier?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I think the Minister of Education --

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Education and Training): Let me be very clear about one thing, and that is that this government is very proud of Bill 104, very proud of restructuring education, very proud of moving some money out of bureaucracy, out of duplication and reducing the number of politicians involved in our education system. We are very proud of that.

Bill 104 of course results from the actions that have happened over the course --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Minister of Education?

Hon Mr Snobelen: -- over the course of a number of years including the Sweeney commission, which took 20,000 submissions. We will of course engage in a public dialogue about the bill over the course of the next few weeks and we'll bring in all written submissions possible and consider all of those to make sure this is the best bill possible.

On the subject the member opposite brings up today about some sort of list, I'm unaware of the list but I will ask my staff to bring it to me. If there's anything untoward about it, I will make sure that it's released.

The Speaker: Supplementary?

Mr Mike Colle (Oakwood): To the Premier, I have another list here: 44 top staffers in your office, in key ministers' offices, municipal affairs and other key departments, who have tried to intervene in the referendum process in the city of Toronto. You've tried to discredit the referendum process. You said you would ignore it, you would not listen to people. Do you condone the attempt of these 44 staffers to intervene and disrupt the referendum process in the city of Toronto?

Hon Mr Snobelen: I'm surprised that the member opposite would direct that question to me, but I know my colleague the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing would be more than happy to respond.

Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): I'm aware of this situation only from what I've read in the media, but it's my understanding that a member of city council was so concerned about the biased way in which the referendum was being held in the city of Toronto that he wanted to try and ensure there was scrutiny of the ballot box on the day of the election. He approached a number of individuals throughout the community and asked them to take part in that process to ensure that the integrity of that process was protected. It was the decision of various individuals, from whatever walk of life, to take part in that process. It's up to them, it's an individual decision, and by the way, none of them were from my ministry, to the best of my knowledge.

FIRE SAFETY

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): I've got a question of the Premier. You made a commitment to firefighters across this province and to the communities that they serve that there would be no changes to firefighting legislation without thorough consultation with those very same firefighters. You made a promise to firefighters like these and their sisters and brothers across this province and to their communities that you would consult with them. You did it and Bill 84 is now scheduled for second reading vote. Why did you break your promise to these firefighters, to their families and their communities?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I know the Solicitor General can respond.

Hon Robert W. Runciman (Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services): The act that is before the House and will be voted on in terms of second reading later today has been the product of extensive consultations over many years. This is the first change in one half century. In 1989, under the Liberal government, the fire services review was begun. This involved all of the unions, the chiefs, the various associations and all the stakeholders in the fire community.

We've had extensive discussion in this House and we're going to have public hearings across this province. My door continues to be open in terms of sitting down with the firefighters' associations. I've made that offer and I hope to follow up on that with a meeting with the various associations in the very near future. We're willing to continue to consult. I've indicated on a number of occasions that we're prepared to listen with respect to their concerns and the possibility of amendments during the hearings process.

Mr Kormos: These firefighters up here in the gallery are shaking their heads in distress and disgust at this response because they know, and their sisters and brothers, their colleagues in every community large and small across this province know, that there was no consultation with these or their sister and brother firefighters. They know that the Premier broke his promise. They know that your door has been locked, bolted and barred to them and other professional firefighters.

Minister, you should know that it takes a full-time firefighter four years to become a first-class firefighter where he or she is then ready for any kind of emergency. You're not going to get that kind of experience on a part-time basis. Why, with your Bill 84, are you going to permit full-time professional firefighters to be replaced with part-timers who have far less training and experience and who are going to as a result of that put our communities and their members' and their families' lives and safety at risk? Why are you doing that?

Hon Mr Runciman: I would say, to be polite, that is alarmist at the very least. Indeed this government, through Bill 84, will be enhancing public safety. I believe strongly we'll be enhancing public safety through the initiatives under Bill 84.

We talk about training. About 18,000 of the 26,000 firefighters in this province are volunteers. I think the comment that the member opposite makes reflects badly on the volunteers who give of their time freely to protect communities right across this province. That is really what you're saying. I have nothing but the utmost respect for professional firefighters in this province, nothing but the utmost respect, but also for volunteer firefighters who donate their time.

With respect to part-time, again I believe the member is being alarmist. I think part-timers are going to assist in many of the smaller municipalities which cannot afford a full-time firefighter for prevention matters. They can go out and do those kinds of duties where they simply do not have the ability to cover that with a full-time professional firefighter.

Again, I believe what we're doing through Bill 84 --

The Speaker: Thank you very much, Minister. New question.

SCHOOL BOARDS

Mr Jim Brown (Scarborough West): My question is to the Minister of Education and Training. I attended a public forum on education at Winston Churchill Collegiate in Scarborough last week. A flyer advertising the meeting had been distributed to all students on school time. It's entitled "Urgent Notice to Students." It makes several allegations about Bill 104 that really are anti-government propaganda. Parents have contacted my office to say they send their children to school to learn math, literacy and critical thinking, not union politics.

At another town hall meeting I had last week, a parent came to me to question why a music teacher at Wexford Collegiate in Scarborough would ask all the students to write a letter to you, Minister, condemning cuts that would cancel or hurt the music program. The 16-year-old did not want to write this letter, nor did her mother want to complain to school authorities for fear of reprisal.

Minister, how is it that paid public employees can use the classroom as a soapbox for union politics and anti-government propaganda?

1450

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Education and Training): Let's be very clear: I don't think it's right to politicize the classroom. I know most people in this chamber would agree that it's not right to do that.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): What about the Premier on television?

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): I want to warn the member for St Catharines that you must come to order.

Hon Mr Snobelen: I guess I stand corrected. Perhaps with some individuals in this chamber it's okay to politicize the classroom. It certainly is not with me and it's certainly not all right with my colleagues.

I've raised this issue with Mr Earl Manners, who is the president of the OSSTF. I asked him to reconsider his actions, and so far I'm disappointed to report that Mr Manners has not changed his position.

I am pleased to note, though, that the Ontario Secondary School Students' Association issued a statement last week condemning this kind of action in the classroom. I am convinced that at the end of the day the majority of the hardworking professional teachers in this province simply won't allow the classroom to be politicized.

Mr Jim Brown: The document I mentioned claims that Bill 104 will cause cuts of $450 million. It further states that this alleged cut of $450 million threatens adult education, English as a second language and special education. It goes on to say that Metro's 20,000 teachers may be reduced through outsourcing extra class responsibilities and increases in class size.

Minister, the document seems to be fearmongering over possible decisions that future amalgamated school boards might make. How do you respond to those accusations?

Hon Mr Snobelen: I thank the honourable member for bringing this subject up in the House today. I want to make it very clear to my colleagues across the floor that Bill 104 has absolutely nothing to do with the funding of education; it has a lot to do with the ending of waste and duplication and the reduction of the number of politicians in our school system.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): He is misleading the House.

The Speaker: Member for Cochrane South, I ask that you withdraw that comment, please.

Mr Bisson: I withdraw.

The Speaker: Minister of Education.

Hon Mr Snobelen: Bill 104 has an awful lot to do with ending that waste and duplication, with taking out a layer of politicians from the education system and preparing us to make the changes we need to improve student achievement in the future.

On the funding subject I'm very happy to talk to people, because this government is committed to a funding model that's been suggested to previous governments that they haven't had the courage to act on.

The province has taken the responsibility for funding education to make sure there are no second-class students in this province.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. I caution the members for Hamilton Centre and Sudbury to come to order, please.

Hon Mr Snobelen: At the end of the day, when we have finished with our consultations on the funding system, I can assure the members of this House and the people of Ontario that we will meet the needs of every single individual student right across Ontario.

JUSTICE SYSTEM

Ms Annamarie Castrilli (Downsview): My question is for the Attorney General. I have on numerous occasions risen in this House to indicate the community's concern with the growing backlog in the criminal court system. In response the Attorney General, on November 5, announced a prosecution blitz. It seems now, four months later, that we are no better off. In fact the situation is quite alarming. That's partly because the Attorney General allowed no new moneys to go into the system as he announced his blitz.

We now have a situation where offenders are being released into our streets and into our neighbourhoods, and it is really of concern.

I'd just like to cite a couple of examples. I don't intend to be alarmist at all, but we are very concerned. Justice Howden threw out a burglary case in Newmarket; Justice McIsaac threw out charges of theft, again in Newmarket; Justice Stong dismissed a Whitby sexual assault case; Justice Hill threw out theft charges in Brampton; Justice Salhany recently threw out sexual interference due to court delays.

My question to the Attorney General is this: What is he prepared to do about it? The public is concerned. When is he going to instil some real money --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you, member. Attorney General?

Hon Charles Harnick (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): One of the reasons we've had a long-standing difficulty with backlogs in our criminal courts is because between 1985 and 1990, the Supreme Court of Canada repeatedly warned the then Liberal government to deal with this problem. They didn't, and that government was directly responsible for 70,000 cases being dismissed.

That problem has continued in spite of the Martin report. I have announced blitz courts in six jurisdictions. We've set up nine additional courts in heavily backlogged areas. We've appointed 25 more crown attorneys to deal with backlog issues. We are seeing, in four of the six courts where we've set up backlog reviews, reductions in numbers already. I might tell you that when we took over as the government, this problem existed then; it has marginally increased since that time, and we are now reversing that trend for the first time in 10 years in the province.

Ms Castrilli: That response is totally unworthy of an Attorney General who I believe cares about the justice system of this province. Let's look at the facts. You have reduced the number of crown attorneys; you have slashed funding of your own ministry to the tune of $116 million. That's the reality. That's what's causing the backlog. In the East Mall court alone, there are 14,000 cases pending; 50% of the cases in Metro Toronto are on the critical list, having been in the system for over eight months.

Will you call, at the very least, for an emergency round table discussion to solve this problem and inject some new funding into the system to protect the public?

Hon Mr Harnick: We have put $2 million into the backlog blitz. I might tell the member that the total reduction of the criminal system was 0.4% of the ministry's overall budget. I can also tell you that in terms of court administration, the reduction on a per-courthouse basis around the province, any reductions have been less than 1% per courthouse.

What we are doing is attacking a backlog problem by a concerted court blitz for the first time in 10 years. I can tell you that when we took office there were 145,000 cases in the backlog. There are now 165,000. I might tell you that most of those cases, the vast majority of those cases, are there because defence counsel has agreed to waive the eight-month limitation.

There is not a crisis, but there is indeed a real effort being made on a day-to-day basis to make sure the backlog is reduced. We're putting money into it; we're seeing good numbers already and it's working.

SCHOOL BOARDS

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I have a question of the Minister of Education and Training regarding the anti-democratic approach of his government with regard to his so-called education reform.

Does the minister know the consternation with which his so-called reforms are greeted by members of the public: parents, trustees, teachers and everyone involved in the education community? Could the minister explain why, with this amalgamation of boards, his government is taking such a different approach from the previous government, the Conservative government in 1968, that also amalgamated boards?

Why is it that this government apparently has dossiers on people that it will not publicize? Why is it that this government is appointing a commission whose decisions can't be appealed even to a court, a commission that is holding up construction in Peel, in his own area? Why is there this approach, which is so undemocratic, this time around?

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Education and Training): To the member for Algoma, I guess this government is acting on the same kind of advice, on the same kind of popular opinion, on the same thoughts of people across the province that your government acted on when it appointed the Sweeney commission to take the number of boards in Ontario to half, which is exactly what this government is doing.

What perhaps surprises the member opposite is that we are actually taking action to improve the education system in the province. It is not anti-democratic. In fact, there are elected trustees now; there will be elected trustees in 1998. We have the Education Improvement Commission, of which we've announced the co-chairs, and I'm sure you'd approve of those people; they're very honourable people. We have asked them to help us in that transition period from an old, wasteful system to a new system that will help us lift student achievement right across the province. That's where we're going as a government, that's where we're going as a province, and I'm proud of the bill.

1500

Mr Wildman: With respect, the Sweeney commission did not recommend this kind of approach in process, and neither did former Premier Davis need a commission with these kinds of extraordinary powers when he amalgamated boards and set up the county boards in 1968.

Since the minister says he is in favour of democracy, can he guarantee that the commission, in making its decisions around merging collective agreements, for instance -- that employee rights will be recognized and respected, and that successor rights for employees, teacher and non-teacher, will be guaranteed in the process?

Hon Mr Snobelen: Of course this government will meet its obligations, but it will do that so as to end a system that your government failed to end, a system where there are 129 mini-ministries of education, a system that would not allow us to get to the future of education that we want for our students, a system which produced mediocre student results which are not okay with me, not okay with my colleagues, and which we will improve and improve dramatically and improve immediately. That is what we're moving forward to.

LABOUR ISSUES

Mr Ted Chudleigh (Halton North): My question is for the Minister of Labour, and it concerns a meeting she attended recently with federal, provincial and territorial ministers of labour in Hull, Quebec, earlier this month on February 10 and 11. I wonder if the minister could update this House on the substance of those discussions.

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Labour): I'd be very pleased to comment about the meeting that took place with my provincial counterparts as well as the federal Minister of Labour. I was quite pleased to see that there was certainly a lot of consensus about the direction that labour ministers were heading across Canada. I think there was a recognition that we were seeing a changing workplace, we were seeing a changing employer-employee relationship, and as a result, we discussed changes to the Employment Standards Act. As you know, I will be introducing a review of that act this spring. We discussed the fact that many of them were looking at similar reviews.

We took a look at occupational health and safety, and I guess what probably impressed me the most was the sincere commitment on the part of all of the individuals there to commit to making their workplaces as safe as they possibly could be.

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): No shame.

Hon Mrs Witmer: The third issue that certainly was of concern and interest was the federal bankruptcy act, and so we did address the issue of changes to the act.

Mr Christopherson: You cut the wage protection program.

Mr Chudleigh: If the member opposite is finished, the minister mentioned the need to improve federal bankruptcy and insolvency legislation. Could you expand on this issue, especially as it relates to employees of bankrupt companies?

Hon Mrs Witmer: At the present time, workers across Canada do not have secured creditor status under the federal Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act. Unfortunately, there is no protection for workers anywhere in Canada. They are not --

Mr Christopherson: Tell us how much you care. You gutted the wage protection program.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): The member for Hamilton Centre, I'm warning you to come to order.

Mr Christopherson: She's very provocative.

Interjections.

Hon Mrs Witmer: My colleagues find it interesting that I would be considered provocative. However, I shall continue that there was consensus. I had originally written a letter to the federal minister asking that employees be given preferred status under the act. This was supported by my colleagues across the Dominion of Canada. Unfortunately, I regret to inform you that the federal government will not be making any changes to the legislation, and so unfortunately our workers will not be protected and they will not have preferred status.

Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East): They were protected until you gutted the program. You gutted the plan.

The Speaker: Member for Sudbury East, come to order, please. New question.

JOB CREATION

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): My question is to the Premier, and the issue is jobs. The Premier will know that last week the government released its report on jobs, and it says Ontario loses 7,000 jobs in January. It spells out that in the last five months, Ontario has actually lost 37,000 jobs while the rest of Canada has gained 72,000 jobs. For all of us, it's an extremely disappointing job performance over the last five months.

We've been trying for the last few days to get an explanation from the government of what's happened: Why has Ontario lost 37,000 jobs over the last five months while the rest of Canada has gained 72,000 jobs? Certainly for the people of Ontario, that's an extremely important question.

I'm sure, Premier, you've asked the same question. What is the explanation of why Ontario has lost 37,000 jobs over the last five months?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I think that most objective economists and reporters realize by now that you use figures very selectively to create a totally inaccurate picture, so let's review the facts.

In 1996, Ontario created 90,000 private sector jobs, 56% of the national total created right here in Ontario. Ontario, in 1996, also created 82% of the new retail and wholesale trade jobs in Canada, 73% of the net new manufacturing jobs in Canada. If you take the statistics -- and everybody knows you can take numbers and put them any way you want and come up with an answer that might try and support your case. In your case, your numbers do not add up. They are inaccurate and they are not accepted by anybody else in the country.

Mr Phillips: I think the unemployed in the province of Ontario understand that Ontario has lost 37,000 jobs in the past five months. They understand that you said unemployment would drop, and they see from your own statistics 27,000 more people out of work in 1996 than the previous year. They understand that when you ran for Premier, you promised there would be 725,000 jobs. Now what we see is -- you promised that by now we'd have 228,000 jobs -- 97,000 jobs created. They understand very well that you are letting them down dramatically.

My question again is this, and let's have an answer from you: Why is it that the facts you present, the 37,000 fewer jobs in the last five months -- no one disputes those numbers. No one. Everyone in the province understands that is the truth. Those are your numbers, 37,000 fewer jobs. We, and more importantly the unemployed of this province, want to know why. Tell us why Ontario lost 37,000 jobs in the last five months. Let's have the answer.

Hon Mr Harris: Since the statistics are totally inaccurate and irrelevant, I'll ignore those and go on and tell you what is really happening. Quite frankly --

Mr Phillips: Prove one that's inaccurate.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Member for Scarborough-Agincourt, please come to order.

Mr Phillips: Give me one that is inaccurate, Premier. Prove one.

The Speaker: Member for Scarborough-Agincourt, come to order, please.

Hon Mr Harris: All the statistics in fact point to Ontario doing a better job than the rest of Canada in job creation, in new confidence, in home starts, in construction, in retail sales, in all of those areas. All the indicators, all the projections, contrary to the honourable member, who used to have credibility but has completely lost it in the past year with the publishing of erroneous numbers, contrary to that, say absolutely the opposite.

Mr Phillips: Prove one. I challenge you. I don't believe a word of it.

The Speaker: Member for Scarborough-Agincourt, I'm warning you to come to order, and this is the final warning. You've got to come to order.

Hon Mr Harris: So what we are finding, while all of us are concerned -- I want to tell you, on this side of the House, we find it unacceptable if even one person who wishes to work is unemployed, so our goal is to create a climate, to create policies, to counter 10 years of disastrous policies, to ensure that everybody who wants a job can get one. I'd love to be able to tell you that's the case today; it is not. Obviously we have a lot more work to do, but we are getting there.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. The member for Oriole, come to order. There are no more warnings.

CHARITABLE GAMING

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): My question is to the Premier. Last week your government released an announcement about charity gaming clubs, a number of permanent charity casino sites in the province. Attached to that was a schedule that had designated regions. Included within that is a reference to my community of Beaches in Toronto.

During two-plus years of debate around the future of the Greenwood Race Track site, let me tell you that it didn't matter what side you were on, whether you were for development on the site or whether you were for all park on the site, people were united in their opposition to having any kind of casino activity, gaming activity in that community. Hundreds of people from right across the Beach were involved.

I'm not going to have an opportunity to get a supplementary in today, Premier. What I really want to ask of you is an assurance about the process. I want you to give me an assurance that if the residents of Beaches-Woodbine are opposed to having one of these charitable gaming clubs in our community, it won't be forced on us. Please assure us of that and tell us what the process will be.

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I think you are aware that we're trying to take some 2,400 three-day permits down to 44 across the province so that we can have better control, so that we can replace the three-day roving Monte Carlo events, which are costly to run, difficult to administer and take a lot of dollars in administration and do not get enough dollars to the charity. Let me assure the member that the city of Toronto will definitely, after any changes we make, not have more casino permits than it has had to date.

WATER AND SEWAGE SERVICES IMPROVEMENT ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 SUR L'AMÉLIORATION DES SERVICES D'EAU ET D'ÉGOUT

Deferred vote on the motion for second reading of Bill 107, An Act to enact the Municipal Water and Sewage Transfer Act, 1997 and to amend other acts with respect to water and sewage / Projet de loi 107, Loi visant à édicter la Loi de 1997 sur le transfert des installations d'eau et d'égout aux municipalités et modifiant d'autres lois en ce qui a trait à l'eau et aux eaux d'égout.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): We have a deferred vote on second reading of Bill 107.

It will be a five-minute bell; call in the members.

The division bells rang from 1512 to 1517.

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

Ayes

Arnott, Ted	Hastings, John	Runciman, Robert W.
Baird, John R.	Hudak, Tim	Sampson, Rob
Barrett, Toby	Jackson, Cameron	Saunderson, William
Bassett, Isabel	Johns, Helen	Shea, Derwyn
Beaubien, Marcel	Johnson, David	Sheehan, Frank
Boushy, Dave	Kells, Morley	Skarica, Toni
Brown, Jim	Klees, Frank	Smith, Bruce
Carroll, Jack	Leach, Al	Snobelen, John
Chudleigh, Ted	Martiniuk, Gerry	Spina, Joseph
Cunningham, Dianne	Maves, Bart	Sterling, Norman W.
Danford, Harry	McLean, Allan K.	Stewart, R. Gary
DeFaria, Carl	Munro, Julia	Tascona, Joseph N.
Doyle, Ed	Murdoch, Bill	Turnbull, David
Ecker, Janet	Mushinski, Marilyn	Vankoughnet, Bill
Flaherty, Jim	Newman, Dan	Villeneuve, Noble
Ford, Douglas B.	O'Toole, John	Wettlaufer, Wayne
Froese, Tom	Ouellette, Jerry J.	Wilson, Jim
Galt, Doug	Palladini, Al	Witmer, Elizabeth
Guzzo, Garry J.	Parker, John L.	Wood, Bob
Harnick, Charles	Rollins, E.J. Douglas	Young, Terence H.
Harris, Michael D.	Ross, Lillian

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

Nays

Bartolucci, Rick	Crozier, Bruce	North, Peter
Boyd, Marion	Duncan, Dwight	Phillips, Gerry
Bradley, James J.	Kennedy, Gerard	Pouliot, Gilles
Brown, Michael A.	Kormos, Peter	Pupatello, Sandra
Caplan, Elinor	Kwinter, Monte	Ramsay, David
Castrilli, Annamarie	Lankin, Frances	Ruprecht, Tony
Christopherson, David	Marchese, Rosario	Sergio, Mario
Churley, Marilyn	Martel, Shelley	Silipo, Tony
Cleary, John C.	Martin, Tony	Wildman, Bud
Colle, Mike	McLeod, Lyn	Wood, Len
Cordiano, Joseph	Morin, Gilles E.

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 62; the nays are 32.

The Speaker: I declare the motion passed. Shall the bill be ordered for third reading?

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Government House Leader): I ask that the bill be referred to the standing committee on resources development.

The Speaker: So ordered.

PETITIONS

FIRE SAFETY

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): This is a petition in response to Bill 84.

"Speed, experience and teamwork save lives. Don't get burned by Bill 84."

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Firefighters need speed, expertise and teamwork to save lives. I oppose any legislation that could undermine the work of my local firefighters and jeopardize fire safety in my community. Please listen to professional firefighters and amend Bill 84 to eliminate the threat to fire safety."

Of course I affix my signature to the petition.

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Firefighters need speed, experience and teamwork to save lives. I oppose any legislation that could undermine the work of my local firefighters and jeopardize fire safety in my community. Please listen to professional firefighters and amend Bill 84 to eliminate the threat to fire safety."

I agree completely and I've affixed my signature.

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr John L. Parker (York East): I continue to receive this petition from residents throughout the borough of East York. This one reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the borough of East York is requiring voters in the current mail-in referendum to return their ballots in envelopes bearing their names and addresses; and

"Whereas the ballots are to be forwarded to the borough of East York at the East York Civic Centre and not to an independent elections commission; and

"Whereas the East York council has declared itself in favour of a particular result in the referendum; and

"Whereas the question itself is prejudicial in its wording and clearly slanted towards the result favoured by council; and

"Whereas all of the above factors violate well-established and universally acknowledged principles of a free democratic referendum process;

"Therefore, be it resolved that we, the undersigned, petition the Ontario Legislature to:

"(1) Speak out against the current flawed, undemocratic referendum in East York;

"(2) Disregard the results of the vote; and

"(3) Proceed with the government's program to provide for Toronto's future through the creation of one Toronto for all of us."

FIRE SAFETY

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

I support this petition and I sign my name to it.

Mr Gilles Pouliot (Lake Nipigon): Addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

I have affixed my support and my signature to this petition.

ABORTION

Mr Derwyn Shea (High Park-Swansea): I have the great pleasure to rise on behalf of a number of constituents from High Park-Swansea and Parkdale to present a petition to the Legislature Ontario which reads, in part:

"Whereas the right to life, a right guaranteed in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, is limited to only those who are born, by the practice of abortion, without prescription by law, contrary to the guarantee of the charter;

"Whereas the case law to date supports an unlimited right to life for unborn children" -- and a number of case studies are submitted for information --

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislature Ontario to honour the guarantee of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in regard to an unlimited right to life for those unborn and to call on the government of Ontario to cause the practice of and the public funding of abortion to cease in Ontario until such time as a law prescribes the appropriate limit to the charter-guaranteed right to life."

I submit this on behalf of my constituents.

FIRE SAFETY

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

I affix my signature to this petition.

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): I've got a petition that's headlined: "Speed, experience and teamwork save lives. Don't get burned by Bill 84." It's addressed, of course, to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It reads:

"Firefighters need speed, experience and teamwork to save lives. We oppose any legislation that could undermine the work of our local firefighters and jeopardize fire safety in our communities. Please listen" -- clearly, the Premier hasn't -- "to professional firefighters," like those in the gallery today and thousands of others across this province, "and amend Bill 84 to eliminate the threat to fire safety."

I've added my signature to indicate my strong support for those sentiments.

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): I have a petition here against Bill 84, which would be detrimental to the excellent work that our firefighters are doing. It reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

As usual, I'm affixing my signature to this petition because I'm in full agreement with it.

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly on behalf of the firefighters in Hamilton. I want to say to the members that the people I represent in Hamilton Centre are very supportive of this petition.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

I proudly add my name to theirs on behalf of my constituents.

Mr Monte Kwinter (Wilson Heights): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

I've affixed my signature to it.

1530

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): I have a petition here as well from the constituents of my community of Sault Ste Marie and it's about the very same issue, this whole question of Bill 84 and firefighters, and it reads:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

This is signed by a whole whack of people from across this province, a lot of people, and I will sign it as well.

Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

Mr Peter North (Elgin): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

I've affixed my signature as well.

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): I have a petition from Toronto, Kingston, Orillia and Hamilton to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

I affix my signature in support of this.

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): I've got a petition here signed by approximately 100 people, and this petition is entitled "Speed, experience and teamwork save lives: Don't get burned by Bill 84." It's addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

I sign my name to this petition.

Mr E.J. Douglas Rollins (Quinte): I've got a petition here signed by 560 names from the Quinte area.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Firefighters need speed, experience and teamwork to save lives. I oppose any legislation that would undermine the work of my local firefighters and jeopardize fire safety in my community. Please listen to professional firefighters and amend Bill 84 to eliminate the threat to fire safety."

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

I've affixed my signature to this petition.

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): I have a petition here to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Speed, experience and teamwork save lives: Don't get burned by Bill 84:

Firefighters need speed, experience and teamwork to save lives. I oppose any legislation that could undermine the work of my local firefighters and jeopardize fire safety in my community. Please listen to professional firefighters and amend Bill 84 to eliminate the threat to fire safety."

It is signed by hundreds of people throughout Ontario, and I affix my name to the petition as well.

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): In addition to bringing the calendar to the minister today, the firefighter calendar from Windsor, I am bringing a petition as well:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

I affix my signature.

Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East): I have a petition which is addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It reads as follows:

This is signed by 45 residents of the city of Toronto. I have affixed my signature to it and I agree with the petitioners.

Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview): On behalf of firefighters everywhere, this is addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

I concur and I will affix my signature to it.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I have a petition that reads 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, including firefighters; and

"Whereas the changes include reducing the payouts to 85% of earnings, eliminating various types of injuries and having employees apply to their employers for benefits; and

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

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

"Whereas the problems with the WCB are not the fault of injured workers;

"Whereas the recommendation to privatize will result in an increase of 13% in administrative costs;

"Therefore be it resolved that the government of Ontario stop its plan to privatize the WCB and that extensive province-wide hearings be held before any changes are made to WCB."

I add my signature.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

WHEEL SAFETY ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 SUR LA SÉCURITÉ DES ROUES

Mr Palladini moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 125, An Act to improve road safety by making wheel detachments an offence by amending the Highway Traffic Act / Projet de loi 125, Loi visant à améliorer la sécurité routière en faisant du détachement de roue une infraction au Code de la route.

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

Hon Al Palladini (Minister of Transportation): I addressed the contents of the bill in my statement earlier today. However, I wish to appeal to my opposition colleagues to approve this bill without any further debate. The sooner we get it done, the safer Ontarians are going to feel on our highways.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

FIRE PROTECTION AND PREVENTION ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 SUR LA PRÉVENTION ET LA PROTECTION CONTRE L'INCENDIE

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 84, An Act to promote Fire Prevention and Public Safety in Ontario and to amend and repeal certain other Acts relating to Fire Services / Projet de loi 84, Loi visant à promouvoir la prévention des incendies et la sécurité publique en Ontario et modifiant ou abrogeant certaines autres lois relatives aux services de lutte contre les incendies.

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Government House Leader): I believe we have unanimous consent to have a five-minute bell on that order.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): Is it agreed that we'll have a five-minute bell? Agreed.

Mr Runciman has moved second reading of Bill 84. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, please say "aye."

All those opposed, please say "nay."

Call in the members; a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1540 to 1545.

The Acting Speaker: Members take their seats, please. Mr Runciman has moved second reading of Bill 84. All those in favour of the motion, please rise one at a time.

Ayes

Arnott, Ted	Harris, Michael D.	Rollins, E.J. Douglas
Baird, John R.	Hastings, John	Ross, Lillian
Barrett, Toby	Hudak, Tim	Runciman, Robert W.
Bassett, Isabel	Jackson, Cameron	Sampson, Rob
Beaubien, Marcel	Johns, Helen	Saunderson, William
Boushy, Dave	Johnson, Bert	Shea, Derwyn
Brown, Jim	Johnson, David	Sheehan, Frank
Carroll, Jack	Kells, Morley	Smith, Bruce
Chudleigh, Ted	Klees, Frank	Snobelen, John
Danford, Harry	Leach, Al	Spina, Joseph
DeFaria, Carl	Martiniuk, Gerry	Sterling, Norman W.
Doyle, Ed	Maves, Bart	Stewart, R. Gary
Flaherty, Jim	McLean, Allan K.	Tascona, Joseph N.
Ford, Douglas B.	Munro, Julia	Turnbull, David
Froese, Tom	Murdoch, Bill	Villeneuve, Noble
Galt, Doug	Mushinski, Marilyn	Wettlaufer, Wayne
Gilchrist, Steve	Newman, Dan	Wilson, Jim
Grimmett, Bill	O'Toole, John	Witmer, Elizabeth
Guzzo, Garry J.	Ouellette, Jerry J.	Wood, Bob
Harnick, Charles	Parker, John L.	Young, Terence H.

The Acting Speaker: All those opposed, please rise one at a time.

Nays

Bartolucci, Rick	Duncan, Dwight	North, Peter
Boyd, Marion	Kennedy, Gerard	Phillips, Gerry
Bradley, James J.	Kormos, Peter	Pouliot, Gilles
Brown, Michael A.	Kwinter, Monte	Pupatello, Sandra
Caplan, Elinor	Lankin, Frances	Ramsay, David
Christopherson, David	Marchese, Rosario	Sergio, Mario
Cleary, John C.	Martel, Shelley	Silipo, Tony
Colle, Mike	Martin, Tony	Wildman, Bud
Cordiano, Joseph	McLeod, Lyn	Wood, Len
Crozier, Bruce	Morin, Gilles E.

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 60; the nays are 29.

The Acting Speaker: I declare the motion carried. Shall the bill be ordered for third reading?

Hon David Johnson: Madam Speaker, I refer the bill to the standing committee on administration of justice for public hearings.

The Acting Speaker: To the justice committee, so ordered.

POLICE SERVICES AMENDMENT ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LES SERVICES POLICIERS

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 105, An Act to renew the partnership between the province, municipalities and the police and to enhance community safety / Projet de loi 105, Loi visant à renouveler le partenariat entre la province, les municipalités et la police et visant à accroître la sécurité de la collectivité.

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, with regard to the 19th order, I believe we have unanimous consent for a five-minute bell.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): Is that agreed? Agreed.

Further debate?

Mr Runciman has moved second reading of Bill 105. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour of the motion, please say "aye."

Those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Call in the members; a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1551 to 1556.

The Acting Speaker: Will members take their seats, please.

Mr Runciman has moved second reading of Bill 105. All those in favour of the motion will please rise one at a time.

Ayes

Arnott, Ted	Hastings, John	Runciman, Robert W.
Baird, John R.	Hudak, Tim	Sampson, Rob
Barrett, Toby	Jackson, Cameron	Saunderson, William
Bassett, Isabel	Johns, Helen	Shea, Derwyn
Beaubien, Marcel	Johnson, Bert	Sheehan, Frank
Boushy, Dave	Johnson, David	Skarica, Toni
Brown, Jim	Kells, Morley	Smith, Bruce
Carroll, Jack	Klees, Frank	Snobelen, John
Chudleigh, Ted	Leach, Al	Spina, Joseph
Cunningham, Dianne	Martiniuk, Gerry	Sterling, Norman W.
Danford, Harry	Maves, Bart	Stewart, R. Gary
DeFaria, Carl	McLean, Allan K.	Tascona, Joseph N.
Doyle, Ed	Munro, Julia	Turnbull, David
Flaherty, Jim	Murdoch, Bill	Vankoughnet, Bill
Ford, Douglas B.	Mushinski, Marilyn	Villeneuve, Noble
Froese, Tom	Newman, Dan	Wettlaufer, Wayne
Galt, Doug	O'Toole, John	Wilson, Jim
Gilchrist, Steve	Ouellette, Jerry J.	Witmer, Elizabeth
Grimmett, Bill	Palladini, Al	Wood, Bob
Guzzo, Garry J.	Parker, John L.	Young, Terence H.
Harnick, Charles	Rollins, E.J. Douglas
Harris, Michael D.	Ross, Lillian

The Acting Speaker: Those opposed, please stand one at a time.

Nays

Boyd, Marion	Duncan, Dwight	North, Peter
Bradley, James J.	Kennedy, Gerard	Phillips, Gerry
Brown, Michael A.	Kormos, Peter	Pouliot, Gilles
Caplan, Elinor	Kwinter, Monte	Pupatello, Sandra
Castrilli, Annamarie	Lankin, Frances	Ramsay, David
Christopherson, David	Marchese, Rosario	Sergio, Mario
Cleary, John C.	Martel, Shelley	Silipo, Tony
Colle, Mike	Martin, Tony	Wildman, Bud
Cordiano, Joseph	McLeod, Lyn	Wood, Len
Crozier, Bruce	Morin, Gilles E.

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 64; the nays are 29.

The Acting Speaker: I declare the motion carried. Shall the bill be ordered for third reading?

Hon David Johnson: Madam Speaker, if the bill could be referred to the standing committee on administration of justice, again for public hearings.

The Acting Speaker: So ordered.

HOUSE SITTINGS

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, I believe we have unanimous consent to debate the government House calendar motion.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): Is there consent? Agreed.

Hon David Johnson: I move that notwithstanding any standing order, when the House adjourns on Thursday, March 6, 1997, it stand adjourned until Tuesday, April 1, 1997, and that the House meet on Friday, April 4, 1997, at 1:30 pm until 6 pm, at which time the Speaker shall adjourn the House without motion until Monday, April 21, 1997.

I know that people are going to be leaving at this time but I will try to speak just for a very few moments.

The Acting Speaker: Could I ask members to either take their seats or if they're going to have meetings, go outside, please.

Hon David Johnson: I won't speak for long on this because I know there are a number of members on all sides of the House who wish to participate. I will simply say that through this calendar motion we will guide the activities of the House over roughly the next two-month period of time. The most significant aspect of that guidance will be that there will be a considerable amount of time allocated for public hearings on quite a number of bills. Of course we are aware that public hearings are already taking place on the new City of Toronto Act even as we speak and that shortly public hearings will be involved with Bill 104, which is the bill dealing with school boards in the province.

I think most people are somewhat familiar with those two pieces of legislation, but there are a number of other pieces of legislation as well. While I think it's very apparent that there is a difference of opinion in this House -- the opposition parties have a difference of opinion certainly, and they've expressed that difference of opinion very vocally with regard to the legislation that this government has introduced -- I believe that all parties are unanimous in wishing to see active and thorough public hearings on all these matters and to let the general public come forward, have an opportunity to see the bill, state their views, state their opinions on the various pieces of legislation, the various bills the government is proposing.

With this motion that I am placing before the House today there will be a period of some four weeks of time -- two in the latter part of March and two towards the middle of April -- which will be highly utilized for public hearings. People from all around Ontario will have the opportunity to speak to the government legislation, that legislation, I might say, some of which we just dealt with here earlier this afternoon.

Bill 84, for example, will improve public safety and streamline services and reduce costs in fire protection and prevention. The bill will ensure the effective delivery of fire protection services by municipalities with the assistance of the province of Ontario. It's noteworthy that the public fire safety council will be strengthened to play a greater role in fire protection and also in public education, and of course the legislation will streamline various pieces of legislation which affect fire protection in Ontario, consolidating some nine separate statutes that we have at present, thereby cutting the red tape which has hampered delivery of fire services. We will have seven full days of public hearings on that bill.

Bill 98 is the Development Charges Act, and this is an interesting act that some municipalities have used in terms of dealing with new housing coming into those municipalities, whereby along with the approval for the housing, there is a price attached -- in some municipalities it's as high as over $20,000 for each house -- and that money goes into various pots to provide services, to provide roads to those new homes, sidewalks, sewers, libraries, in some cases schools. In some cases the money has gone to hospitals; in some cases the money has gone to city hall, to either make improvements or build civic centres, recreation complexes etc.

All of these are certainly worthwhile endeavours, but the question has been, is the amount of money that has been raised in accordance with the services that the people who are buying the house require or, indeed, has more money been raised than necessary, thereby raising the price of a house, of each individual unit, and taking that unit out of the affordability range for many, many people? You can well appreciate, if you add $20,000 to $25,000 on to the price of a home, many people simply can't afford to buy that home. This bill, as the member for St Catharines notes, is one that attempts to deal in a fair and even manner with allowing municipalities to raise development charge funds but at the same time ensuring that not too much is raised, so that the price of a house remains affordable for many people.

One of the other bills deals with the Police Services Act. We dealt with that earlier this afternoon in terms of second reading. This bill will attempt to bring fairness to the way the people of Ontario pay for their policing. In some municipalities, such as here in Metropolitan Toronto, for example, the cost of policing falls on the property tax, and that's how people pay for the policing. In other municipalities, some 576 to be exact, no money is raised through the property tax, and in effect the moneys for those municipalities come through the provincial government, through income taxes of course, and retail sales taxes and other avenues that the province has.

The question is, is that fair? Should some people be paying for their policing services from their property tax at the same time that they pay all the other provincial taxes, while other people only pay for the policing through the province of Ontario but don't pay anything at all through property tax?

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Nobody should pay.

Hon David Johnson: The member opposite says nobody should pay. I'm all for that, of course, but you may find that the police expect to be paid.

This bill will ensure fairness and that the municipal councils will provide for policing services, pay for policing services, to ensure that local accountability back within all municipalities, and at the same time the municipalities will be able to appoint a majority of the members of the police services board so that they will be able to deal with the budget items.

1610

Another bill involves property assessment in Ontario. This bill is scheduled for two weeks of public hearings, and I'm sure that during those two weeks the committee will travel to many places across the province of Ontario to hear people speak.

One of the problems we face in Ontario is that many assessments are out of date and that the assessments are done on a different basis. Here in Metropolitan Toronto, for example, the current assessment base dates back to information from the 1940s and the current assessment system was actually implemented in the early 1950s and remains substantially unchanged from that period of time. You will find that similar properties have different taxes. People say: "Is that fair? Should the owners of two homes, two properties that are essentially exactly the same, worth the same amount of money, pay a difference in their property taxes?" Most people would say, "No, that's not fair," so the assessment bill, Bill 106, will establish a fair and uniform property assessment system across the province based on a current value, with regular updates.

While there will be changes to the assessments of existing properties, this bill will allow for phasing in. This bill will allow for protection of senior citizens, for example, who may not, in the cases where there is an increase, be able to pay that increase. At the same time, there will be many people who have been paying too much in property tax over the years. This new assessment system will result in many people in Ontario paying a lower amount.

Hon Marilyn Mushinski (Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation): The people in Scarborough have been paying too much.

Hon David Johnson: As my colleague points out, the people in Scarborough are an example of that.

Indeed, it is the objective of this government through these changes -- this property assessment change, the restructuring of services -- to reduce the property tax in the province. We think the people of Ontario are paying too high property taxes today, and not only the people of the province of Ontario but the businesses in the province of Ontario are paying too high taxes. As a result of the fact that those taxes are too high, businesses are not investing to the same degree, we're not attracting the kind of investment into Ontario that we should and the jobs aren't being created to the extent that they should be. We're attempting to address that. At the end of the day, I'm confident property taxes as a whole will be less, more fair and uniform.

I'll just say a few words about Bill 107, another one of the bills. It has to do with water and sewage treatment in Ontario. At the present time the province operates and owns some 25% of the sewage and water treatment plants in Ontario; municipalities own the other 75%. Through this bill we will be transferring the remaining 25% to the municipalities and assisting them in terms of setting up those operations. Five full days of public hearings will be held on that particular bill.

Bill 108 is to streamline the Provincial Offences Act. This will consolidate the administration of provincial offences at the municipal level, at the local level, so that cities and towns will be taking over the administration of provincial offences, ensuring the kind of service they need within their communities. At the same time I might add that through this bill, because they will be taking over those responsibilities, they will be deriving revenue. The municipalities will be deriving considerable revenue as a result of this bill. I know many municipalities have long sought for this authority to control ticketing offences, parking offences and that sort of thing within their municipalities and at the same time getting the revenue from them to assist them in their budgeting.

Bill 109 involves the public library system. This bill will give the municipalities full authority over the provision, the management of library services.

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean): Hear, hear. A good piece of legislation.

Hon David Johnson: My colleague from Nepean is most supportive of that. The transfer of responsibilities will eliminate the duplication of municipal and provincial services, reduce costs while ensuring there remains free access to libraries, and at the same time free use of materials in libraries, free borrowing of printed materials etc.

Mr E.J. Douglas Rollins (Quinte): Relatively cheap.

Hon Ms Mushinski: More effective, more efficient.

Interjections.

Hon David Johnson: I guess everything really isn't free. I think my colleagues will realize --

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): You get heckled by your own.

Hon David Johnson: Yes, I'm getting heckled from behind here. What can I say?

By "free," of course I know we consider that people coming in to get a book or a piece of educational material are accustomed to having that essentially free, but we know there is a price to be paid for this and that municipalities, through their property taxes, will know what is the best service for their municipalities and will tailor it to their financial needs and to the needs of their community. That bill will receive some four full days of public hearings during those break periods.

What we have are a number of pieces of legislation of interest to many people in Ontario, a number of pieces of legislation which will increase the accountability of the services which are provided, which will make it clear which level of government will provide those services, which level of government will pay for those services, as opposed to the present structure where you have two levels of government, in some cases maybe even three levels of government, providing the service or paying for the service, and if the taxpayer is not happy with it, who does the taxpayer complain to, which level of government?

Now, through these bills, it will be abundantly clear which level of government is responsible and which level of government is going to tax and fund it. If the taxpayer doesn't like the service, wants a better service, feels the service is too costly, the taxpayer, the people of Ontario, will know where to go. At the end of the day, I'm confident these bills will result in better government, in better services to the people tailored to their needs and their communities, and in a truly accountable system at a lower cost, more efficient, to the people of Ontario.

With those few remarks, I will sit down. I know there are many other members of this House who wish to speak to this matter.

Applause.

Mr Bradley: I'm waiting for the applause from the government benches to die down in my rising to speak this afternoon in the assembly on a number of issues related to this resolution. I know it's far-ranging and that what we want to talk about is not only what's on the agenda but what should be on the agenda and what has been on the agenda and should be undone. I think all members will be interested in that. I will try, in my brief period of time this afternoon, my brief 90 minutes, to talk about a number of these issues.

We have to put everything in the context of why this government is moving in the direction it is. First of all, it has the fallacy out there that somehow it's keeping its promises. There were firefighters in the public gallery this afternoon who knew this government wasn't keeping yet another promise. That promise was that they would not proceed with any substantial changes to the fire safety act without first consulting with those on the front line of firefighting, the professional firefighters, who are here today. Indeed, they were deeply disappointed because no doubt among the ranks were many people who voted for the Harris Conservatives last time. They will be wary next time, having seen the results of placing their faith and their support on the backs of this government, certainly being supportive of the government in many ways because, largely, the Premier assured them that he would not break a promise and he promised that he would meaningfully consult them.

What we have instead is a management-driven bill this afternoon, one designed to put firefighters in their place, because that's what this government really wants to do, but the consequences for the public at large are going to be rather significant. That's what firefighters are pointing out, that it's not simply the firefighters themselves who are affected by this legislation, but also many others. In the public hearings that the opposition has won for the firefighters, we will hear this in many communities.

1620

The government, it should be known, initially was very reluctant to have hearings of any meaningful nature. They wanted to keep them relatively brief, they wanted to keep most of them at Queen's Park, at the Parliament Buildings, and they also wanted to throw them together with the Police Act and have hearings so that we would have a mixed-up set of hearings.

Those of us in the opposition -- and as House leader, I can speak for the Liberal caucus -- insisted that there should be meaningful public hearings, that the committee should travel to a variety of communities, that we should be going for a couple of weeks in this regard and that the government should not be moving hastily with Bill 84. As a result of the steadfast position of the opposition, the government House leader and government whip finally capitulated to the representations made by the opposition and by representatives of the firefighters. Now, as a result of that exercise -- I can assure you it was like pulling teeth -- we have something at least close to a meaningful consultation taking place very late on.

I don't want to raise the expectations of firefighters or others in this province that this government is somehow going to make substantial changes to its legislation. Its record is clear: It doesn't do that. It simply goes out and carries on a façade of a consultation and comes back and does exactly what it wants to. It sometimes tinkers with the bill. But where there is life, there is hope, and therefore we believe we should go through the consultation process in the hope that somehow the government will for once change its mind when faced with the reality of the excellent arguments that will be made by people in opposition to this bill.

But I was saying in the context of everything going on that there were negotiations taking place, because the public should know that there is a process whereby the House leaders of the three parties, Dave Johnson for the Conservatives, Bud Wildman for the NDP and myself for the Liberals, sit down with the whips, who are three other people, in these meetings and try to iron out a schedule for the legislation coming forward.

I want to assure the member, first of all -- I interrupt myself -- that I will be talking about VLTs and the concentration of power in Hollinger corporation later on in my speech. I know the member for Nepean was hoping that would be the case.

But I wanted to look at the meetings that were going on. At no time did the government ever mention road safety legislation, flying wheel legislation. But the Minister of Transportation, whose flack -- that's not a bad word to be used, by the way; a flack is a media representative -- always has him out for these photo opportunities, even if they have to tie up traffic she has him out for the photo opportunities, wanted to have yet another photo opportunity, another media presence, and so there was a big announcement with a lot of fanfare, after so much pressure from the opposition and others, that the government was finally going to do something in terms of a bill to deal with flying wheels and flying tires and other items that fly off some of the trucks in this province.

I should mention I heard that the media adviser to the minister has done such a good job they're going to parachute her into the Premier's office now, where she can do an equally good job of trying to put across the government point of view.

Let me say, Mr Speaker, and I know you'd be interested in this, that at none of the meetings of the House leaders was there any mention at all of the road safety situation. The government had this other agenda. It was busy downloading on municipalities, dumping all of these responsibilities and financial obligations on municipalities, and didn't have any time for road safety. Then right out of the blue, so to speak, comes this legislation today. The hints were dropped last week so that the appropriate people in the news media would be able to give them advance publicity. But there was the minister, large as life in the House today, wanting to put forward a piece of legislation and, I suppose, wanting to get it considered quickly.

I wrote a letter to the minister of Management Board, who is also the government House leader, Dave Johnson, and said: "We're quite happy to see this. You've never mentioned this, ever. This has never been part of your legislative plan. You've obviously capitulated to Dwight Duncan, the member for Windsor-Walkerville, who has put so much pressure on, on a weekly basis, over the issue of road safety and particularly truck safety. You've finally capitulated to that. You're finally taking some action, and we're happy to accommodate this."

The government likes to paint the opposition as being obstructionist. I said today and Dwight Duncan said today in the hallway in here: "Let's get this bill before the House. Let's have the debate on this bill. Put aside some of the other pieces of legislation. Put aside the piece of legislation that puts more money in the pockets of developers so that they will be thankful to this government and show up at the government fund-raisers." The friends of the government could wait. They could wait another few weeks and have their legislation dealt with. Put aside the libraries act, where the government is now relinquishing its responsibility financially for libraries in this province and leaving libraries to the wolves, in effect, because the poor municipalities have got so many other responsibilities they're not going to have much money left for libraries in this province.

We have said, and I say it again today, and the member for Windsor-Walkerville, who is so responsible for the action that was finally taken by the government a year and a half later, because it wasn't anywhere to be found for a year and a half on the issue of truck safety, he has said, "Let's proceed with that bill this week."

I'm happy to debate this bill this week. The member for Wellington is anxious, I'm sure, to have this legislation passed and would be prepared to acquiesce on some of the other legislation the government has that is so unpopular with the municipalities in our province. I'm saying let's proceed with it. I want to be accommodating. I want to be a positive force in this Legislature, therefore I'm saying: "Put that bill on the table. We'll debate it."

We'll get at least second reading done, because the government may want that to go to -- I'm not going to be unrealistic with the government and say that you don't want any input. The government may want second reading before the school winter break. If they want that, we'll be happy to accommodate them. Very quickly they could have second reading. It could go out to committee. Members could hear from representatives of the police and representatives of the public and safety associations and the trucking companies about the advisability of proceeding with the specific provisions of this legislation. They may look at how they can toughen it even more.

They may look at how it can be realistically put into effect, because we know that no matter what the government does, it doesn't have the staff to carry out the enforcement and never have had, in all of the ministries. They bark a loud bark, and then they take away the dogs. There's nobody there to enforce left in any of the ministries. You can build up as many straw men as you want, and you can bring in as tough legislation as you want, but you've got to have the people to enforce it.

The member for London North, who's here this afternoon, knows that. She's nodding in fact. She's either nodding off or she's nodding in agreement. She's nodding in agreement, I think, that you've got to have that. She knows because she's one of the few -- I won't say red Tories -- moderate Tories in the government caucus.

1630

In fact, I'm going to get into another subject where I'm going to describe a presentation which she made in my constituency, compare it with the real boss, the Premier himself, and contrast that and say how I like the approach of the member for London Centre and dislike very much the Premier's approach. I don't say that simply to divide and conquer, although that's always a subtext, to divide and conquer. I was speaking to a group the other night and using exactly this example, and I'll get into that. She will remind me if I forget to get into that particular item.

On road safety, I'm going to tell you, this government has been dragging its wheels for a long time. There have been people who have been killed on the roads, injuries have taken place and there have been major accidents. Every time you're driving by a truck now, you're wondering if something's going to come flying off the truck and somebody's going to be injured.

I think there's a consensus. The NDP is not opposed to it; they're for strong action. The Liberals are for strong action. The Conservatives have now been converted to strong action. Therefore, I see no reason why you can't bring that bill in and forget some of these other bills that are so divisive in this House and so divisive in this community.

Another bill I welcome that they could have put on the record was the bill to stop predatory pricing practices by the major oil companies. My friend the member for Quinte had a resolution in the House last Thursday where he wanted to tell the federal government that it should deal with this problem, and I agreed. I said, "Let's support this resolution." Our members said yes. Nobody said no to that. But I also said on the same day: "There's something the provincial government can do. They don't simply have to raise their hands to point their fingers somewhere else. They can pass a bill" -- and in that case, I said we'd do the three readings in one day -- "to stop predatory pricing practices."

I can't think of a member in this House who knows more about it than my friend the member for Quinte, who has educated me a good deal on this issue, I must say; has been most helpful. I'm saying now, I'm going to help him out to get the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations or energy or whoever is responsible -- I said the Minister of Economic Development, who I asked the question to the other day, who seemed to think the prices were all right despite the fact that the member for Quinte had raised the issue in the morning. I felt bad about that; not too bad, but I felt bad about that in one way for both the minister and the member.

I'm prepared to see a bill come forward, and if you want it on the calendar to bring that bill forward, to prohibit the major oil companies from selling their gas to their own stations, say, at 50 cents a litre and to the independents at, say, 50 cents a litre, and then allowing their own stations to sell under that. There's a temporary benefit to the consumer as the big oil companies and their own stations sell for less money, but in the long term it is not good because it knocks the independents out of business, and if it weren't for the independents, the major oil companies would be gouging us even more than they do at the present time.

I know my friend from Quinte would support such a bill. He's probably behind the closed doors of the caucus urging the minister to do so. I don't expect him to rise in the House to say so, that's not the way the system works, but I know in my heart of hearts that he simply wouldn't point his finger at some other level of government when he knows his own level can take appropriate action immediately. So I wouldn't mind seeing that on the list.

I want to get into education, because the member for London North is here and she and I have served together in this House for some period of time. She came in on a by-election, I think, in about 1988, and she had some experience in the field of education. In fact, I had anticipated that if Mike Harris, the Premier, were a progressive Premier and a wise Premier, he would have selected Dianne Cunningham, the member for London North, as Minister of Education, or the present Minister of Labour, Elizabeth Witmer, the member for Waterloo North. Both of them have a moderate view of education. They both worked hard on a document that I think was called blueprint for education. They went out and conducted some hearings. They listened to some people around the province about some of the concerns about education, and no, I didn't agree with everything in the document, but at least they made that effort. At least they weren't out to bash education. Instead we get a Minister of Education whose job obviously is to step on the people in education and put them in their place.

I was saying in the House the other day that's quite an effective strategy, if you're proud of that kind of strategy. I met a person the other day who doesn't like this government. I thought he was kind of an NDPer all my life; I always thought he was, certainly not favourable to many of the policies of this government. He said to me, "I'll tell you one thing, that Mike Harris is putting those teachers in their place."

Of course that's electorally successful, but it's part of the strategy of this government to divide the province, to divide and conquer, and that's not what the job of a government is. The job of a government is to bring consensus to a province. It's hard to reach sometimes, but it's not to step on one person to please another person. At a time when economic challenges are out there, when job opportunities aren't as many as people would like them to be, there becomes a hardening of attitudes. It's easy to pander, as this government did in the last election campaign, to the resentment of people, because there's always somebody else you can step on, always somebody else who should be cut.

It must be interesting to listen to some of them today who come to the government members. I want to tell the government members that I am not sympathetic to some of these people. They've come to me and said, "You know I lost my job, the government cut, and you know, I agreed with the cuts but I don't think they should cut where I am." I said: "I'm sorry, that's what I heard in the last campaign. They were about cutting, so you can't tell me on the one hand you want cuts but not in the other area."

Mr Baird: But they're doing what they said they were going to do, what they promised.

Mr Bradley: I'm glad the member for Nepean intervenes because there's this myth that somehow this government has kept its promises. It's kept some of them, it hasn't kept others, but they put this myth out there that some people in the news media buy. The overwhelming number of members of the media, who are very perceptive, of course know this is mythology because they remember when the Premier of Ontario, interviewed by Robert Fisher during the leaders' debate in May 1995, said, "Certainly, I can guarantee you I have no plans to close hospitals." The people in Ottawa must say today, "I wonder about that." The people in Sarnia and the Lambton area are worried now; the Niagara Peninsula, Port Colborne, Fort Erie, Niagara-on-the-Lake, Grimsby, St Catharines are all worried.

I said, "Well, don't worry." I tell them all the time I wish they wouldn't worry. I said, "I have the Premier's word, I have it in writing." I well remember the Premier saying that he can guarantee us he has no plans to close hospitals, and so I think people should rest assured their hospitals are safe, or should they?

Anyway, I got away from the issue of education. What the government is doing in education is dividing and conquering. They have two different views. I remember in St Catharines, before the election -- maybe 1994 but I'm going to guess 1995 -- the member for London North, and I think we should use her name sometimes, Dianne Cunningham -- who was the Conservative critic in education, came to speak in St Catharines to the Ontario Public School Teachers' Federation, Lincoln district. I even had the pleasure of introducing her that evening and did so, I must say, with many compliments, and they were sincere compliments because I thought she had done a lot of work in education. She was knowledgeable in the field and is a person who, while I didn't agree with everything she had to say, was honestly interested in the education community and not in bashing them.

The unfortunate thing for educators is that on the same day Mike Harris, the now Premier of Ontario, then leader of the Conservative Party, was speaking to the Rotary Club in St Catharines -- different audience, different reception. He was busy bashing educators. He was busy talking about they all make too much money and their jobs are too easy and there's too much money in education, while at the other end of the city at Club Heidelberg the member for London North was giving, I thought, a very moderate speech. She wasn't giving away the ship. Don't worry, she wasn't varying from what you might expect a Conservative, a Progressive Conservative, to be saying. She wasn't varying from that, but there was the Premier giving the real message in the other part of town.

I say to the members of the teaching profession who voted for you people over there: "Well, you know what you got now. You got the Mike Harris version, not the Dianne Cunningham version. I tell you, given the choice, I'll take the Dianne Cunningham version of education any day of the week.

1640

But what you're doing in education is you're dividing: dividing and conquering. You are, first of all, building on the resentment that some people have of educators and of the whole field of education, people who have developed a resentment over the years, and they like it when somebody else is kicked around or somebody else is put in their place.

Unfortunately, you're dealing with a group that is very besieged these days. It's not as easy to teach today as it was 20 years ago or when people in this Legislature were in school. It's a much more difficult challenge today. There are far more children in the school system from dysfunctional families.

I can recall, if you want to look at numbers, that when I first started teaching, there were some classes with 38 or 39 or 40 people in them. But in those classes were very few children who had special challenges that they face today. They came from homes which were the "normal nuclear family" that you used to see on Father Knows Best or Leave it to Beaver, that kind of family. Today there are a lot more challenges out there, far more children who come from a different kind of household where they need more support services, where the challenges are much more difficult.

The support for the teaching profession from the parent group was often far greater in years gone by. There are still many strong supporters out there, but it was a general consensus that there should be support. Today instead they're being challenged on many occasions. While we know everybody is for strong discipline, they're for strong discipline for everybody else's kid and not their own. That's the difference they confront today. They're out there trying to run a hard school system in a soft society in many ways, a society which won't always respond.

I feel for those people on the front line. They must be depressed day after day being assaulted by the Minister of Education verbally and by members of this government on so many occasions, even getting the government non-cabinet members up to ask the lob-ball questions so that they can bash teachers. Some of them, by the way, who should know better than to do that, do that.

In terms of the way they divide and conquer, they do this: They have the people who believe in junior kindergarten fighting with the people who believe in adult education. They have secondary people fighting with elementary people. They have post-secondary people fighting with one another -- in other words, community colleges and universities -- and both of them fighting with the secondary school system. They have trustees fighting with teachers. They have Catholic board members fighting with public board members. It's a difficult situation. Then the resentment builds and the difficulty builds up.

There was a game that everybody probably played when they were a child called pin the tail on the donkey. In this case the tail should be pinned on the donkey that's in Toronto and not on local boards of education. What they work well as is a team.

There were some trustees in an audience I spoke to the other night, and I can tell you that some of them are Conservatives. It wasn't a Liberal crowd particularly; it was a non-partisan crowd, or a multipartisan crowd. I looked at some of those people and said, you know, I've listened to them insulted. I've listened to the Minister of Education and the Premier talk down to trustees. Yes, there may be some who deserve criticism from time to time, just as members of this House from time to time deserve criticism, but by and large, the people of all political backgrounds, or of no political affiliation, who have served on boards of education have tried to do the very best job possible. They've run for the board. They've been interested; they've been keen. They've gone on the committees. They've visited the schools. They've talked to administration. They've worked with the parents. They've talked to the children within the school system and the older people within the school system.

When I hear them insulted as money-grabbing, useless people out there, the "Too Many Politicians Act" or the "Too Many Board Members Act," as you always talk about, I'll tell you, it sickens me to see that happen to people who have dedicated so much of their time to education because they felt it's a good investment in our future. When I see teachers who on a daily basis are working with children with great difficulties, with limited resources today and with the knowledge that the government looks down upon these teachers, I feel bad for those individuals. I think there are some in the government caucus who probably know members of the teaching profession who are working hard at providing a good service for people.

Of course there's the mythology that somehow administration dominates. If it did at one time, it sure doesn't today. Remember that when the NDP was in power and facing a very difficult recession, they had to take measures which were not popular with many in the education community. They had to invoke the social contract, which meant diminishing the size of the paycheques of many people, which meant restricting some of the expenditures, not because they wanted to, not because they were doing so in a pleasurable way, the way this government does today, but because they were in a very deep recession.

Today we see that a lot of that had already taken place, that a lot of the trimming had already taken place within education. Now we're getting to larger class sizes, now we're getting to fewer resources, and remember today there are more children in the system who have special needs than existed before. Before they were shunted away in a school by themselves or kept at home or something, but they often didn't get a chance to be in a school. I see they are there today and that's a very special challenge.

I should say I saw a nice gesture by a politician in this regard. I was at a school in my community the other day and the Speaker of the House of Commons, Gilbert Parent, as he would be known in parts of Welland, was speaking, and one of the students who was there had a very special problem, and that was communication. The student would make certain noises during the speech. The audience was a bit restive about this. There were a few -- I must emphasize very few -- people who might have been laughing or something. He took advantage of the opportunity to say: "You know, he does not mean to be doing this. This is not his fault. He is one of us. He is now included in the school system and that is a virtue."

That is what happens today. We include people with special needs, with special handicaps or disabilities within our school system, and that means it takes more people to look after them. It takes perhaps one-on-one assistance to look after these people so they can be part of our society, not shunted away somewhere but part of our society. That's what happens when you start cutting education.

A lot of the cutting has already been done. I think you have to remember that. We are here to protect people who are the most vulnerable. I'm not putting them down, but rich people and privileged people, wherever they be, in whatever society, are able to look after themselves because they have money and they have influence and they have the wherewithal to survive. People who do not, people who require our assistance, people who require our intervention are the people who are most vulnerable in our society, for whatever reason, the people at the lowest end of the economic scale, very often, and those who do not have the abilities that others have in our society. I hope we never forget that, and I know that many in the Davis administration, a previous Conservative administration, did not forget that and that's why they brought in Bill 82 at that time. It was Dr Bette Stephenson who brought in Bill 82, which dealt with special education. I want to commend her, as I have on many occasions, although in the House she would have wondered why I was not more vociferous in my support for her when she was Minister of Education.

Here we have this situation going on today where the government is going to step on people in education. It's a good investment in the future. It doesn't mean that you accept any expenditure. Every board, every commission, every level of government has to look at its expenditures and its mode of operation to see that they are as efficient as possible. Most people out there say when you talk to them, "I don't so much mind that you have my tax dollars; I mind when you have my tax dollars and don't spend them wisely." It's incumbent upon all of us at any level of government to ensure that those tax dollars are spent wisely. But when you take away so much from the system and you do it with a smile on your face, knowing that somehow a lot of the population is going to agree because somebody else is going to be the victim, then I think you do no service to our society.

Another group of people out there -- and this involves one of the bills that is contained in this motion, Bill 104, which deals with education. If I went down my street and knocked on the doors and said to people, "Do you think if you had fewer boards it would save you money?" at first glance most people would probably say yes, and that's what this government is a past master at: simplistic, simple solutions that sound plausible. Sometimes I want to say they are plausible and there are circumstances where those actions should be taken. The previous Minister of Education, Dave Cooke, who is now on the -- what's that commission called?

1650

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): The Education Improvement Commission.

Mr Bradley: Dave Cooke, who is now one of the co-chairs of that, was a proponent of fewer school boards.

Mr Bisson: Jim, it's called "eek."

Mr Bradley: I refer to as "eek."

But it wasn't a holus-bolus approach, I would have hoped, because there are some boards that may have felt that when they got together they were better off combined. But you don't save the money. For whatever you save, if it's a few dollars, you lose that local autonomy.

As I mentioned in a previous speech in this House, one of the things that used to pinpoint where the Conservative Party stood was a belief in local autonomy and local accountability. They believed in that. They believed that the closer you were to the people, the better it was. That was a Conservative philosophy in years gone by, certainly of many of the Conservatives I've seen. This government moves in exactly the opposite direction. They think bigger is better all the time.

I think that's unfortunate, because in the Niagara Peninsula, for instance, if you have nine trustees for the whole Niagara Peninsula public school board, you can be assured that parents and others interested in education will not have the same access to those members of the board of education. It simply will not be the same access. You're taking away the local input, the local accountability, putting it in a larger level, and of course the province anyway is going to be making most of those decisions.

There's another provision in that bill that I know the Speaker would be interested in, and that is the provision which kicks in the shins, or worse, the people who are non-teachers in the system. There are thousands upon thousands of employees of boards of education -- secretaries, maintenance workers, those who are involved in custodial care of the buildings -- who are going to have their jobs taken away because you're going to privatize. That's your real agenda, to privatize that area. What does that mean? That means bringing in some group of people at $7.80 an hour, minimum wage, with virtually no benefits, to do the work.

The people who are there now are not highly paid people. They are people who have some benefits, they are people who have something significantly better than the minimum wage and they're contributors to the community. They're part of the educational team. What will happen, of course, is that they'll be looking for support from the others within the system. I hope they will get it. I hope the others will not cut them loose simply so that they themselves can continue to be paid appropriately and have the appropriate benefits. That's part of this. They're all afraid of this.

I've talked to them and these are not particularly politically active people. They haven't been out knocking on the doors, for the most part. I don't know whether the Minister of Education or the Premier get a big thrill out of bullying those kinds of people around and saying: "We'll fix you. We'll put you down to minimum wage. We'll take away your benefits." Where are people going to work? What are people going to survive on? A lot of these people are single-support people in those positions. When I see that on the docket of bills that this government's going to deal with, I say it's simply not fair to be doing that, yet that's a significant part of that bill.

I hope the people who have been involved in education recognize what has happened. My good friend Roger Allen, who is a former director of education, a strong supporter of the Conservative Party, I know must be simply in a total dither over this, although I can never recall Roger being in a dither over anything. He must be beside himself at what is happening with this government, because he helped to elect them, because he had some faith in previous Conservative governments. He knew Bob Welch -- he was a Minister of Education -- Tom Wells, Larry Grossman.

Mr Bisson: Alan Pope.

Mr Bradley: Alan Pope, was he Minister of Education? No. Dennis Timbrell. All moderate members of the Conservative Party; all pro-education.

Mrs Boyd: There were some women, you know. Bette Stephenson.

Mr Bradley: Bette was a little to the right of them. I already paid tribute to Bette Stephenson because she was the one who brought forward Bill 82 on special education, and I want to give her credit. Bette was a little to the right of the others, but I'll tell you, she was still to the left of this group. Mind you, that's not hard, not difficult. But I felt she had a genuine concern about education and the people in it as well. I simply don't see that today, and that's most unfortunate. The only hope is that some of the government non-cabinet members, who don't have to adhere to the solidarity of the cabinet, will speak out on these matters.

Then I look at the other context in which we find all these bills, and that's the tax cut. The people who initially thought a tax cut of 30% in the provincial income tax was a good idea are not all committed to this today. They now recognize that the greatest beneficiaries of this are the wealthiest people in our society, the people who will get tens of thousands of dollars back as a result.

Mr Rollins: Bank presidents.

Mr Bradley: The bank presidents were one example, simply because they happen to be highly paid people, among other people who are highly paid. But I don't want to isolate one specific group except to say the most wealthy people in our society do the best with the tax cut.

People are now coming to me and saying, "You know, I initially thought a tax cut was a good idea, but now when I drive out on the highways when the roads are full of snow or slush or ice and I can't find a snowplow or a sander or a salting truck anywhere, I really wonder whether I need that tax cut or whether I'd rather have that service." When they see their hospitals being closed, they say, "You know, given the choice, I would rather maintain our hospitals in our community than have that 30% provincial income tax cut," or in education, "I'd rather see a strong education system; I'd rather not see our students gouged at the post-secondary level for their tuition fees these days" so that soon only the wealthy are going to be able to go to university or to community college because they're the only ones who can afford it.

Remember, there used to be jobs in the summer for students. There used to be a lot of jobs in the summer. General Motors, in our area, and the paper companies in other areas and Inco and companies like that used to hire students in the summer, so they could make a pretty good wage in the summer, and it would help them to get back to school. Those jobs are gone. That doesn't happen very much any more. Since students can't get decently paying jobs in the summer, for the most part, they are forced now to borrow more and more money.

I think what you're going to see is a back-to-the-1950s situation, where the wealthiest kids and the smartest kids got to go to school and the others didn't. People who are very high achievers can get scholarships. We're talking about people who are not necessarily the most gifted but are keen, bright people and they don't have the money. How awful that would be to lose that particular resource. That's where we as government, as legislators, come into making a difference for those students, for building for the future in a very competitive world where we will need well-educated students.

So we're going to have the tax cut. It's going to cost, when it comes fully into effect, almost $5 billion a year in lost revenue. Dominion Bond Rating Service, which is certainly not a socialist organization by any means, could be considered to be quite conservative, has pointed this out, that the lost revenue will be close to $5 billion a year. That means this government is borrowing money to give you and me a tax cut.

Now, I thought the deficit was a problem. I said, "The deficit is a problem; it has to be addressed." The NDP was starting to address it; the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party were both in favour of addressing the problem of the deficit. So you would say, "Why would you accumulate any more debt than necessary?" Well, you're going to do it because you're borrowing money to give a tax cut and therefore, as a result, you pay interest; therefore you add to the debt. It makes no sense to me.

I've talked to a few what I would call professional economists, people who are PhDs in economics, who say that there is a contractionary effect when you cut expenditures and cut taxes at the same time; it's not an expansionary effect, it's a contractionary effect. These are Conservatives such as Dr Joseph Kushner of Brock University who, on St Catharines city council for some 20 years, has been one of the most small-c conservative people when it comes to government expenditures you'll find. He moved a motion at city council asking this government not to proceed with the tax cut because he felt it would be detrimental to our province.

1700

There are other areas the government is moving into that I think should be addressed. First of all, I should say in passing that my colleague the member for Scarborough-Agincourt, the Liberal finance critic, Gerry Phillips, developed the figures very well showing that the government is nowhere near achieving its job goals. The jobs you are seeing are largely minimum wage, no benefits and part-time. He has produced the government's own figures to show that they are not producing the jobs, that Ontario is now a drag on the national economy.

Interjection.

Mr Bradley: We all know what they've told to say. The Premier and his advisers have said, "What you should do is discredit anybody who disagrees with us." So when Martin Mittelstaedt, the Globe and Mail reporter, published an article quoting an assistant deputy minister as in effect confirming that the government was in some financial trouble, the Premier said out there: "Oh well, he's always wrong. You can't trust him. He's always wrong."

Mr Bisson: Martin?

Mr Bradley: That's one of their enemies. Now he says Gerry Phillips is wrong. Then he'll say the NDP is wrong. Everybody's wrong but Mike Harris. That's what it's going to be. Of course, there are some who will applaud that or not challenge him on that, but I think there are many people in the province who are going to do so.

I thought the government would have been bringing forward as part of this resolution a bill to rescind allowing VLTs, video lottery terminals, into every bar and every restaurant on every street in every neighbourhood in every community in Ontario.

Mr Bisson: Did you read the Globe today?

Mr Bradley: The Globe and Mail today has an article, the Star on the weekend, the American papers are full of it. Governments all over are finding out what a pile of quicksand they're getting into with gambling, particularly VLTs.

The Premier, when I asked him the question, said: "Oh well, you know, don't worry about us. We aren't going to put them in bars and restaurants. We are going to do something else. We're only going to put them in permanent casinos." But then we find out there are more permanent casinos than anybody could have believed.

Mr Bisson: How many?

Mr Bradley: I think 38 was the figure.

They went to Kitchener-Waterloo, announced one in Kitchener-Waterloo and the people there said, "We don't want anything to do with that." People down in the Beaches area in Toronto said, "We don't want it." Mel Lastman said: "No, it just brings misery. We don't want it here." But of course we know why the government is doing it.

Mr Bisson: How many referendums?

Mr Bradley: The government said it would have a referendum for them and of course there are no referenda at all being held on these. But I thought today's St Catharines Standard had a good editorial on this. It reads as follows:

"Charity Begins at Queen's Park.

"Bluffing is part of a game of cards, and it's clear that the dealer is bluffing with the Mike Harris government's announcement of 44 permanent charity casinos to be set up across the province." So there are 44.

"As far as the government is concerned, charity obviously begins at home. The chief beneficiary of the new gaming establishments -- one of which will be located in Fort Erie -- will be the provincial treasury.

"Recognized charities will indeed derive some benefit, but gamblers who believe their games of chance will be of great benefit to social agencies and others are being fooled.

"The charities' cut will be a mere $180 million a year of the anticipated $1.2-billion take -- while the province will rake in the lion's share.

"The charities, in fact, are being used as a mere front for the government's lust for more gambling dollars, its craving unassuaged by the bounty it is already reaping from full-scale, `big-league' casinos in Niagara Falls, Orillia and Windsor.

"How else to explain the government's haste to expand the range of gambling opportunities across Ontario? Many of the communities which have been chosen as sites for the new wave of casinos did not invite them.

"In fact, some are downright mad that they have been chosen, particularly since Premier Harris is on record promising there would be no proliferation of casinos beyond the original one in Windsor without a province-wide referendum.

"No such referendum was ever held, of course, and some municipalities now plan to use their own bylaws and power to fight the gambling expansion, feeling that the Conservatives will crumble in the face of strong opposition.

"Through sheer necessity, charitable organizations will lend their names to these 24-hour-a-day gambling operations, accept their 10% cut, and, we suppose, be grateful.

"However, for the government to describe these establishments as `charity casinos,' when they are nothing more than another tool to wring more revenue out of taxpayers for the Ontario treasury, is sheer hypocrisy."

I'm not saying this; it's a St Catharines Standard editorial saying it.

Right across the province you're seeing this. I noticed in the Western Report -- am I correct that this is a right-wing organization? I'll ask Frank Sheehan. He's in the House and he would know. The Western Report, is that not a right-wing organization?

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Order. Please speak to the Chair.

Mr Bradley: Through the Speaker, I would ask if the member for Lincoln is aware. He would know of right-wing publications. My friend certainly could never be accused of being a socialist or a pinko in any of his incarnations at all. I was just wondering if he would nod acquiescently if he knew it were.

Mr Frank Sheehan (Lincoln): If you say it is, it is.

Mr Bradley: He's accepting my word, Mr Speaker, and I'm happy to hear that.

It says this: "Anti-VLT Agitation Starts to Spread. Calls arise for a provincial vote as two more towns push for a ban." Again, this is the Western Report. This is something like the Fraser Institute, I suppose. It says:

"The latest municipality to take action against VLTs is Fort Chippewyan, an isolated town of 1,200 residents 140 miles north of Fort McMurray. `We know there have been thefts directly related to gambling,' says local RCMP sergeant Tim Gilbert. He explains that in an isolated community where milk is $4.80 and bread is $4, there is very little disposable income, and if someone has a gambling addiction there will obviously be domestic problems.

"Fort Chippewyan youth have been suffering the brunt of the harm, some think. `Increasing numbers of kids are not going to school, or are going to school hungry,' says Trish Mercredi, a nurse with the Nunee Health Authority. `We have an evening youth curfew here,' explains Sgt Gilbert. `It's not uncommon to return a youth and find the parents aren't home because they're out gambling.' The impact of four VLTs in Fort Chippewyan has been extraordinary, he says and he hopes at the very least the town gets no more."

This goes on right out in Alberta. Alberta, although it's being rivalled by Ontario now, is considered to be the capital of gambling in Canada. What we're seeing is governments that don't want to tax the wealthiest people in our society; instead, they want to tax the most vulnerable, because it's the most vulnerable, the addicted people, often the poorest people financially in our society who are going out to these gambling establishments to try to get rich. They're people who don't have, necessarily, the educational opportunities others have, for a variety of circumstances, or they don't have the connections. They're not like some of the YPCs who can go out and get jobs because they know rich and influential people in society. They're not like that. These are people who don't have those connections, and therefore they head out and get into gambling problems.

We've got a casino in Windsor, one in Orillia and one in Niagara Falls. I'm not fighting old battles at all and I will get to Conrad Black later, but I'm not fighting those battles. I'm saying at least keep the VLTs, the video slot machines, within the confines of the three casinos that we have -- and they say they want to put them in the racetracks as well -- in other words, in a controlled venue. I don't think they should be in these new casinos that you're setting out. Worst of all, the government's real goal is to get them into the bars and restaurants, because that's where the real rake is. As I've said many times, they'll be in every bar, every restaurant, on every street, in every neighbourhood, in every community in Ontario, and the main beneficiary will be the man who didn't like these, the Premier.

I used to applaud him. The Premier, when he was in opposition, would get up in the House and denounce the NDP for casinos, let alone video lottery terminals. He would get up and I would say, "Well done, Mike Harris. Well done, leader of the Conservative Party," and my good friend Ernie Eves, who sat on this side of the House, now the Treasurer of this province, the Minister of Finance, made some compelling, arresting speeches in this House against government involvement in gambling. Today they are the ones -- what do you call those people? The croupiers?

1710

Mr Baird: I don't know. I don't know the lingo as well as you.

Mr Bradley: Is that the word you use? They are the croupiers who are now bringing in the dough.

The Deputy Speaker: Member for Nepean, please refrain from --

Mr Bradley: The member for Nepean is interested in this, I know, and he's been hoping I would deal with this subject. But all over, you're getting calls for restricting gambling, and what is this government doing? They're increasing the gambling opportunities, and they're going to pay an awful social price.

I'm waiting for the churches to get hold of this. I know out west they've gotten hold of it. I've heard from some of the churches that are saying, "We didn't know this was happening," and "We thought the Harris government, of all governments, particularly with some of the members who ran for them, who were very, shall we say, pro-family in their presentations during the election campaign -- we can't believe they would be in favour of this." I know when the vote was taken on this bill, a number of people had the VLT flu and flew the coop in this House and didn't vote for it, but that's another matter.

I want to say I also expected a bill on this agenda rescinding the government's moves in closing hospitals. I would have thought that would be part of the agenda that we would be dealing with, because in the Niagara region, as they did in Ottawa today and as they did in Thunder Bay and Sudbury, the Sarnia area, other areas, they're now closing hospitals left and right. It's rather interesting. You can't have it both ways. I was talking to a person the other night who said, "You know, some of the Conservative members down at the south end of the peninsula are for saving the hospitals," and I'm saying, "It can't be," because I don't agree with them. But I will admire the person who says: "I'm for the Common Sense Revolution. The Common Sense Revolution calls for the closing of hospitals, and I support that." If a person does that, I'll disagree, but at least the person is being honest; at least the person isn't playing two sides. Yet I see evidence today -- there was a member in the House the other day who got up. I remember my friend the member for Niagara South, who wore the sweater, put the sweater on at the meeting and got up and said, "I'm fighting for the Port Colborne hospital. I defend the Fort Erie hospital," and then --

Interjection.

Mr Bradley: He finally got forced into asking a question after the question on dice, "Shall we have dice in the casino, and how is the wine this year?" Finally the opposition would say, "When are you going to ask a question on this in the House?"

You can't have it both ways. You can't say, "I'm for the Common Sense Revolution," and then turn around and say, "but I want to save the hospital," because the Common Sense Revolution dictates that there shall be hospitals closed. If my friend from Nepean, if my friends from Ottawa are there to say, "Look, we're closing four hospitals, and I agree with it," if they say that, at least they're sticking to one side of the issue and they're being consistent, but you can't have both. You can't say: "Oh, they're closing the St Marys hospital. I'll fight for that, but I believe in the Mike Harris Common Sense Revolution." It can't be done.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, member for Nepean and the member for Cochrane South.

Mr Bradley: If they are prepared to say, "I will not vote for this. I will leave the government caucus. I'll sit as an independent," that's a different story. But you can't have it both ways. You can't be for $44 million coming out of the expenditures for hospitals in the Niagara region and then turn around and say, "Oh, but I want to save my local hospital." You can't have both. You'd have to vote against the budget to do that, and nobody I notice here was going to vote against the budget.

So what you are doing, despite what Premier Harris said -- and I remember the quote well. I think it was May 15, 1995. The election is on, they're having the leaders' debate and Robert Fisher of Global TV, who was one of the panelists, asked the Premier if his program of cuts meant that they were going to be closing hospitals.

Mr Bisson: What did he say?

Mr Bradley: The member for Cochrane South asked what he said, and let me tell you what he said exactly, "Certainly I can guarantee you it's not my plan to close hospitals."

Mr Bisson: "Guarantee"?

Mr Bradley: "Guarantee," and he said he had no intention of closing hospitals.

I know a lot of people in the Niagara Peninsula who said, "I like some of the things Mike Harris is saying." The opposition was saying: "Watch out. You can't trust the Tories" -- or the Reform Party, as I say of this group -- "when it comes to health care." "But you know, Mike Harris gave his word right on television before an audience. It'll be written down somewhere. When he said he wasn't closing hospitals, I believe him." Now they're recommending the closing of hospitals.

Mr Bisson: Is that another broken promise, Jim?

Mr Bradley: Another broken promise.

The Deputy Speaker: Member for Cochrane South, you're playing with fire.

Mr Bradley: What we have is a situation where they intimidate the local people. Did you ever notice that the people from hospital boards and the people from the administration of hospitals and the friends of hospitals, before these reports were being developed, were relatively quiet? They put forward their case but they were quiet. That was an eerie silence, because I can remember that when the Liberal government was in power, if they didn't get an 8% increase in their budget, the health care system would collapse tomorrow.

Yet some of these people were silent because they were so afraid. They knew the bully bill, Bill 26, which gave the government the right to set up a commission, which simply of its own volition took the Minister of Health off the hook and said, "We'll close the hospitals." They wanted to dodge the bullet, so they would be quiet. Instead of being critical and joining together to fight, everybody ran for cover until such time as the report came out.

In our area the local commission, under the chairmanship of Rob Welch, was dealt a card that said: "You've got $44 million less in hospital funding. We're cutting that from hospital funding." What did you expect they were going to come out with? Did you expect they were going to call for more hospitals, more services? Of course not. But the focus of attention is on the commission. They aim at the commission.

I'm saying to people, this is not a report called Made in Niagara -- that's what you may try to entitle it -- it's made in Toronto, it's made in Mike Harris's office. That's where it's made. Don't start blaming the local committee; blame the Harris government. Tell them you want to hold the Premier to his promise when he said, "Certainly I can guarantee you I have no plans to close hospitals." That was Premier Harris who said that.

I have indicated my strong support for all of these hospitals: Niagara-on-the-Lake; Port Colborne; Fort Erie; Grimsby, where the West Lincoln Memorial is located; and the Hotel Dieu Hospital in St Catharines.

There are some people who would say: "You should consult with the other people. Why don't you ask the people from the General Hospital or Niagara Falls or Welland? Why don't you ask those people about hospital closings. Do they agree with the report?"

Does anyone in their right mind expect any of those people to say it's a bad report? They dodged the bullet. They may even be getting more money. They don't wish others ill but they're not going to say that. Our mayor in our community got up one day and said, "I am going to back the Hotel Dieu," and he was criticized by some in the local media who said, "Why don't you ask the other people, the other hospitals?"

1720

You know, Mr Speaker, in your riding of Carleton East -- the Speaker who is now sitting in the chair is from Carleton-East -- that the people in the hospitals that dodged the bullet in your area are not going to be overly critical of the report because they dodged the bullet, but the people who are associated with the hospitals that were closed by this government are certainly going to be vociferous, and I think that's to be expected.

So I call upon this government to abandon its nonsensical closing of hospitals. What we need is not a $44-million cut, but a $25-million increase in health care spending in the Niagara region just to bring us up to something close to the provincial average.

There were some excellent presentations at the meeting in St Catharines, and I was pleased to be one of the presenters. I know Dr Ron Casselman, who is a urologist at the Hotel Dieu Hospital, gave some good advice -- I will find his reference in just a few minutes, I am sure -- on this because he suggested the government shouldn't move so quickly in the closing of hospitals. He quoted a well-known authority in that regard. I know there are other authorities. One of the things that the author of Boom, Bust and Echo says is -- and that's a best seller -- "Don't move quickly to close hospitals when you may need them." We have an aging population, particularly in the Niagara Peninsula we have an aging population, and we believe we're going to need that kind of hospital care for many years to come.

Dr Casselman had an excellent quote and I want to give him full credit for sharing it with the people who were present on that occasion. The author was an eminent person in the field of health care and that person cautioned that we shouldn't move forward quickly to close hospitals as others have. I can't find the particular quote right now among all the things I have on my desk here, but I remember it was a particularly good quote and I want to give Dr Casselman credit for bringing it forward for those who were in the audience.

I caution this government in that regard. What most people will say is that you're moving too quickly, too drastically, and not taking into account the consequences of your action. That's why I'm particularly concerned about what you're doing today.

Health care is one field where even the government of Alberta, which is popular in many other areas, has found some considerable opposition and I can certainly understand why that would be the case.

Some other issues contained within the legislation the government is bringing forward and are ominous for local municipalities relate to the downloading. Even those who are well-known supporters of Premier Mike Harris must be beside themselves today as they sit on municipal councils watching what is happening to them.

Now the Premier says -- I'm reading the Standard, Wednesday, January 22 -- "Harris Chides Municipal Whiners." He called them "whiners" because they happened to be critical of what he was doing. You see, they took the education cost off the property tax and there was a round of applause for that, but in the subsequent days they downloaded or dumped on to the municipalities responsibilities in areas that are either unpredictable in terms of their cost, or are predictable and are going to go up.

Education, because of the levels of enrolment we have, was unlikely to increase significantly in the next number of years. However, areas such as seniors' health care are bound to go up. Already our regional homes in Niagara, operated by the regional municipality of Niagara, have been compelled to cut staff and to cut hours and to cut services to the people. They're still doing a good job. They're working hard at it. They've got people who are adequately compensated in many areas, certainly better than other areas, and they're good-quality staff who want to work with the seniors who are in there.

Unfortunately, if they are privatized across the province -- in other words, because they're downloaded -- the larger municipalities, in our case the region, may consider privatization. That means, I think, a lower level of service in those homes. Remember, the very existence of those homes and the quality and standard of service would mean that others in the private sector would have to keep their standards up as well. So I caution the government, I urge the government not to do that, and I was at a press conference where we called for that.

We also have ambulance services that have been downloaded to municipalities. In our area a large American company called Metro/Rural Corp has entered the business, has bought into the business. There may be a lot of things that our American friends do well. I know on the government benches, the Conservative benches, there's a great admiration for the Republican Party, the state of New Jersey and much of the privatization that's taking place, the Republican initiatives that are making the rich richer and the poor poorer and are privatizing anything that moves.

What is happening is that there's a fear out there that there's a different approach coming into Canada on health care. If there's one thing that differentiates Canadians from Americans, by and large, it's our attitude towards health care. In the United States the quality of one's health care is dependent upon the size of one's bank account or the amount of money someone has in his or her wallet. That is not the case in Canada. In Canada we all are guaranteed, certainly in Ontario we have been over the years, to have good health care, regardless of what our financial means might be. There are some areas where more privileged people do have a little more of an advantage, but by and large we can say that the amount of money you have in your wallet does not dictate the quality of care that you get in this province.

That's not the attitude in the US. It's an attitude of profit first and health care second. I'm not saying that always produces bad health care; I'm saying it's a motive that is different from ours. Ours is providing service to the patient; ours is providing good community health care. The American system is different. I don't want to see it imported into Canada, as it is being done.

I see in hospitals now -- when you talk to people who are in hospitals, they will say that you had better bring a family friend or a member of the family with you because there aren't the nurses to look after you. The nurses want to, but there aren't as many, so the quality of care available as a result is declining rather significantly because of that lack of staff.

I remember reading an administrator saying, and they have to say this, "We're going to have 220 or 225 fewer people, but we're going to do a better job." That's nonsense. You can't do a better job with fewer people in that regard, because health care is labour-intensive, it is people-intensive. The more nurses you take away, the more assistants, the more orderlies, the more people in charge of preparation of food or cleaning or any of the other jobs in the hospital you take away, the more health care declines -- and all to feed an ill-advised tax cut that the member for Wellington advised against, that the Speaker of the House, Chris Stockwell, advised against, that the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore, Morley Kells, advised against, and the member for Grey-Owen Sound. It was unwise, yet they're proceeding with it and it's costing us in terms of the quality of health care we have in this province.

I was on the downloading to municipalities. They also are going to have more and more responsibility for roads, even provincial roads coming through their communities. They're going to get responsibility for welfare, for mothers' allowance, and these are costs which are either unpredictable or are going to rise in the areas they're getting -- so much downloading they have been up in arms.

1730

As I say, even people who normally apologize for Mike Harris and the Conservative government today are rising up, and municipal councils and boards of education across Ontario, to say: "Hold it, Mike. We're not whiners. We're going to stand up for our communities and we think what you're doing is wrong. We think all of this downloading will result in a significant deterioration of service or a substantial increase in property taxes."

But the smart people in the Premier's office will say: "This is great. We'll get the credit for the income tax cut, and the municipalities will get the blame for tax increases because we've downloaded on to them responsibilities they never had in years gone by."

Government advertising has become something of an issue with this government. I thought it particularly interesting today, and other days, that there is a Premier who is closing hospitals, who is causing a higher number of students in classrooms, who is causing great anguish to municipalities using taxpayers' dollars. I know Mr Wettlaufer wants to stand up in the House and defend the Premier going on television using tax dollars from the ministries to put forward a clearly partisan message. If the Premier wants to stand in this House and make his case, if the Premier wants to spend money from the Progressive Conservative Party to make his case, that is acceptable. When he uses the money from ministries to give a clearly partisan message, that is wrong.

We heard the Minister of Education and Training today, on a setup question from one of his members, denouncing members of the teaching profession for putting forward their case, and yet they look at the Premier putting forward his case with their money, with their tax dollars.

Mr Marcel Beaubien (Lambton): What happened? Where were you?

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Lambton.

Mr Bradley: If a government is involved in providing information to people that is direct information, nobody objects. You didn't hear one person in this House object when the Minister of Health had advertising about getting inoculations for measles -- nobody. That's a good expenditure. When the government advertises tenders, that's a reasonable expenditure. When the government has straight information -- in other words, not propaganda, as many governments had over the years -- to provide to people, then that's legitimate.

What the Premier of this province is doing is illegitimate. It's unfair. I believe it's illegal because he is using those tax dollars to put forward a clearly partisan message.

Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener): To explain what needs to be done.

Mr Bradley: The member for Kitchener says it's to explain what's done. Now, that is silly. The government has all of its resources. You have more public relations people in one office over there than the opposition has to its availability at all. There, you have them all. There are all kinds of spin doctors, all kinds of public relations people working in the ministries and for the ministers. Some of them you've taken out of the phone book, by the way. We know they still exist, but you've taken them out of the phone book so nobody will see that they exist.

If they want to make the case, that's fine. If any government member makes the case, I may not agree with it, but that's legitimate debate. But when you're taking taxpayers' dollars out of their pockets to give a partisan message to the people of this province, that is wrong. That is morally wrong, that is ethically wrong, that's unfair, that's not healthy for democracy.

I must say to the member for Kitchener, I am deeply disappointed that the newspapers have not run editorials on this, that there hasn't been more of an outcry in the news media. I know the owners of the stations, the owners of the networks, are going to be quite happy to receive the money that comes from this. I will get to Conrad Black in a while, because my friend from Nepean points to that.

The owners of the television stations themselves are going to be happy to get those ads. Something smelled fishy, by the way, when two things happened: one, we asked the Ministry of Health, "Are you going to be spending money on ads?" and they say: "Oh, no, no. That's just municipal affairs and education." Now we turn on the television set and there's Mike Harris on a government propaganda ad again, not information, but a propaganda ad. That's unfair. I think genuinely fairminded government members would be opposed to that.

What you do with the allocation for your caucus is your business. I know that. Some people complain about that. I don't, quite frankly. I think that's quite legitimate. There's a budget provided to the political parties. You get more because you have more members, but that's the result of the election. That's fair. But the government's advertising on television is clearly unfair, and the people of this province should know that every time they see Mike Harris reading a teleprompter on television for the government ad, they are paying for that ad.

I'm surprised that the list of legislation this afternoon is not a list prohibiting that, because I remember this government was going to be so different. They were penny-pinchers, with no money for advertising of this kind: "We are going to be the penny-pinchers." Yet there they are, in the most blatant case of propaganda, engaging in that, with no shame at all, apparently.

I want to talk about a couple of other important things. The member for Nepean is eager for me to get into the concentration of power in the hands of one person, but I want to look at one of the bills this government wants to bring forward. This is the developers' bill you want, and they've been calling for this. At the very time you are taking away funds from municipalities, at the very time you are dumping very onerous new responsibilities on them, you're taking away one of the areas where they could derive some funds, and that is development charges. That will make the developers happy, and no doubt you'll have to build even bigger halls to hold your fund-raisers, to get all those developers in. But what about the municipalities, the municipal councillors? The Premier calls them whiners. Hazel McCallion, the mayor of Mississauga, wouldn't be fooled by this. She's very opposed, as are many municipalities.

I'm saying let's get rid of that bill. Bring in that truck safety bill. Let's get to that one this week. That's the important bill. We can do that tomorrow or the next day or the next day. Let's have that before the winter break comes. We're ready to proceed with that. There's a consensus. But no, you're busy trying to do something for your developer friends, and that's what that's all about.

I was under the impression when this government was in power that all the industries would be staying around, they'd be flocking to Ontario, yet I look at the job losses in my own community of St Catharines: Foster Wheeler, 188 jobs gone; Kelsey-Hayes, 135; Phona Corp, 60; ITT Automotive, 100 jobs gone from there; Mott's -- that's Cadbury Schweppes -- 175 jobs gone there; Beaver Lumber, 59; Court Industries, part of that operation went to the US, 20 jobs; over 200 jobs in the St Catharines General Hospital; and heaven knows how many jobs when you've closed more hospitals.

We're losing jobs. I thought, with the Mike Harris agenda, that everybody would be flocking to Ontario. I thought when my friend the member for Lincoln brought forward his report deregulating everything in this province, everybody would love it and would move to Ontario. But you've got to understand that they want a quality of health care and they want a quality of life which is different from other communities, and that's what we need to build up in this province.

I notice today, and we see it every day, that one third of the budget of the Ministry of Environment has vanished, one third of the staff gone. That means they can't carry out the inspections, that means they can't carry out the enforcement, that means they can't do their job, so the prosecutions are down, the convictions are down. The government members would say, "Oh, that's because everybody's behaving today." Nonsense. That's because you're no longer looking for the problems that exist in the environment. You will pay a price in the future for ignoring our environment and unfortunately society will pay a price as well.

1740

I noticed, for instance, a recent story in the St Catharines Standard that Doug Draper wrote:

"The provincial government has eliminated the post of coordinator for an international cleanup program that was just getting back on track for Lake Ontario.

"The position of Lake Ontario coordinator, held for about three years by Henri Selles of the Ontario Ministry of Environment and Energy, was eliminated in the wake of an overall 30% cut the Tory government made to the ministry last month."

It's just another example. The Americans look and say: "We can't believe this. Ontario used to be the leader."

"`Ontario just seems to be walking away from its commitment to the lakes,' said Margaret Wooster, executive director of Great Lakes United, a Buffalo-based coalition of Canadian and American citizens around the basin.

"Wooster said her group and others are still reeling from news earlier this month that the province had cut funding and staff for cleanups of the Niagara River, Hamilton Harbour and 14 other pollution hot spots around the lakes."

Mr Derwyn Shea (High Park-Swansea): Jim, we've been doing it for the Americans for a number of years. You know that.

Mr Bradley: I can't believe the member for High Park-Swansea would be supporting this government in cutting one third of the environment budget and one third of the staff, because I remember he used to be supportive of the environment when he sat on city council.

Mr Shea: When you were the minister, what did you do to get the Americans to contribute more money?

Mr Bradley: And when I was the minister he was supportive. The budget was increasing in those days. The resources were available in those days. We put the investigation and enforcement branch in place. It was great. Those were the days. I challenge the member for High Park-Swansea, who intervenes this afternoon --

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): I would ask the member for High Park-Swansea to come to order. Heckling is out of order and I would ask him to come to order.

Mr Bradley: You ask any independent person. You are indeed cutting the Ministry of the Environment budget. Don't be so darned hypocritical over there.

The Speaker: Member for St Catharines, that's unparliamentary language.

Mr Bradley: I agree with you, Mr Speaker. The word "phoney" comes to my mind somehow in this whole debate. I won't attribute it to anybody, but I will use the word, just to say the word "phoney" in general.

I know that in the context of all this legislation coming forward, you're wondering about our friend Conrad Black, a good friend of the government. He would probably support the member for High Park-Swansea, would Conrad Black. What's happened in Alberta is that the Calgary Herald, which was anti-Ralph Klein, has, surprise of surprises, done a complete turnaround and is now fully supporting Ralph Klein. What is the difference? The difference is that Conrad Black purchased the newspaper. Mr Black and Mr Radler say: "We don't interfere with this. We don't interfere at all."

My friend from Nepean had been holding up a sign when the present Speaker was not here. It said "VLTs" on one of them and "Conrad Black" on the other. The reason he was holding that up is because he knows that his newspaper, the Ottawa Citizen, is being transformed into a right-wing rant. In fact, I look at a couple of the people who were hired recently. Let me share with you, Mr Speaker, because you'll remember when you used to be a Conservative -- now you're neutral and independent -- going to those conventions. You'd see the YPCs, who were right of anything we knew around here, so far right that they were right of anything here. They hired one of them. Let me tell you who it was: Dan Gardner. What was his qualification? Well, two years previously he was the policy adviser to Mike Harris and previous to that to the Fraser Institute. Then they hired another fellow, whose name escapes me, who was working for the Reform Party for the last two years and the Fraser Institute before that.

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): That's a good balance.

Mr Bradley: That's the balance they have there.

The member for Willowdale, who's a little bit of a moderate, at least, will find this amusing. Do you know what Dan Gardner wrote in one of his columns? He said that Mike Harris wasn't a neo-con; he wasn't right wing enough. He was no Margaret Thatcher, said Dan Gardner. I was beside myself, because I can't think of any Premier we've had in this province who was as right wing as Premier Harris. I see this happening, and I say, "What is becoming of a balanced newspaper?" It's the effect of one person owning the majority of newspapers in this country.

Hon Charles Harnick (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): Tell us about the legislative calendar.

Mr Bradley: That's what I'm on to. I'm on to the legislative calendar because it's how it's going to be covered. I look out and I see them taking over all the newspapers. Don't think the people who work in those newspapers aren't afraid; don't think they aren't looking over their shoulder to see if Mr Radler is watching to see what's going on. It's not healthy. It wouldn't be healthy if it was a left-wing person, a right-wing person or anybody else. It's not healthy to have one person, through Hollinger, controlling 58 out of 104 newspapers in this country and out there like a vulture taking more and more away.

What happens with these newspapers? The first thing they do is fire people out the door, especially those who disagree with Conrad Black. But they fire other people out the door, and the jobs are lost forever. A lot of these people are wondering where they are going to work. The Speaker is wondering how this relates to this motion.

I should note, by the way, that the Speaker has his arm in a cast or a sling, it looks like a sling, because he was injured. He has a separated shoulder, I read in the paper, from playing hockey on the weekend in Montreal, not for the Conservative team, for the Legiskaters. Apparently he was injured at this time.

There were people in the press gallery -- I know the table will be interested in this -- who said it was retributive justice, it was some kind of intervention from somewhere because the Speaker, may God strike me down for saying this, was misleading the House last week when he said that the press gallery had lost to the Legiskaters when in fact they had defeated the Legiskaters seven to one. That's the only time in my life I'm going to be able to get away with saying, "misleading the House," because the Speaker knows it was true. But I want to say to the Speaker we forgive him for this. We like some of his rulings -- some of his rulings, that is -- especially the one that denounced the government for its television advertising campaign.

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): And the health ads.

Mr Bradley: And the health ads and others. I think the Speaker has been totally independent, and that's why we let him play on a hockey team with all of the Conservatives, because we know his mind won't be poisoned with some of the ideas emanating from that caucus. Indeed, if he were still in that caucus or in that cabinet, they would be in a lot less trouble than they are today. I hope the Premier hears and acts upon that.

The Speaker: Further debate. The member for Algoma.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I would like the unanimous consent of the House to be able to divide my time, the leadoff for our caucus, between myself and the member for Dovercourt.

The Speaker: Unanimous consent to divide the time for the members for Algoma and Dovercourt? Agreed? Agreed.

Mr Wildman: I appreciate that from the members of the House. I have only a very brief time to speak this afternoon. I want to address some of the issues that we face for the rest of this month and March and leading into April on the legislative calendar. All members will know that the government is involved in the most radical changes in the institutions and public services that this province has seen in at least 100 years, if not more. But for some reason the government is determined to ram this through. They're arguing that it all has to be done in the next few weeks so that it can be in place by this autumn for the municipal election campaigns. Frankly, I don't understand the reason for the rush. If it was simply dealing with governance in the municipal sector and in the education sector, or for that matter the services that each level of government, provincial and municipal, would be providing in the province, then there is no reason for this to be in place by the next municipal election. It would be better to be more deliberate about it, to consider carefully what the ramifications are of the various changes proposed so that we could do it properly.

1750

Mr Shea: Do what?

Mr Wildman: The changes this government is bringing about, at the municipal level, the education level and in terms of services the province provides and the local authorities provide. For some reason, this government wants to rush it through. I know and I think all members really understand the reason for the hurry. The fact is that this government has decided it wants to take a significant amount of spending out of the system.

In education under Bill 104, which has been time-allocated, the government wants to get control of education spending so it can take another $1 billion out of education. That is going to have a devastating effect in the classrooms of this province.

On the municipal side, the government wants to transfer to the municipal side, to the municipal level of government significant numbers of services that have never even been contemplated before being handled by municipalities, in order to bring about changes that would result in significant changes in costs. It's not just Bill 103, which has also been time-allocated. The government is determined to ram in a megacity over the objections of the majority of the people of Toronto because it has decided this is the best way it can bring about the kind of downloading we've never seen before in this province, as a way of ensuring that certain services that in the past have been provided by the province will be the responsibility of the municipalities, and thus will lead to significant cuts in services or, I'm afraid, property tax increases, or probably both.

It's interesting on Bill 103 that the government has said it will not pay any attention to a referendum. There has been a referendum proposed. Even though this government and the Premier say they are in favour of referenda for deciding issues, they have determined that on this particular matter, it is too complicated for the people of Toronto to be able to make their own decision. Interestingly enough, the government says it is not too complicated for the people of Ontario, the citizens of Canada, to vote on the Constitution of Canada, the fundamental law of this country, but it is too complicated to vote on whether or not there should be one city or six in this area.

On both Bills 103 and 104, which have been time-allocated, there are hundreds, really thousands of people who have indicated they wish to make presentations, and the government in its time allocation motions has limited the number of people who can make presentations because it doesn't want to hear what the people have to say.

On Bill 104, just in Toronto, 1,050 people have wanted to come before the committee. This was without any advertising, without any requests; 1,050 people wanted to come and make presentations, most of them parents, about the education of their kids. We've only got four days allocated for Toronto under the government's time allocation motion for Bill 104. It is going to be impossible to hear more than 100 people in Toronto, one tenth of the people who have said they want to make presentations. Outside Toronto, under the time allocation motion, there are only going to be six communities where people will be able to make representations on a bill that affects every school board and every school and every student in Ontario.

On Bill 103, of course, there have been hundreds of people who have indicated they want to make presentations and they won't be heard. It's really disastrous when you have 90% of the people who have indicated they want to make presentations on important legislation, to have input, to have influence, to try to bring about amendments or changes, 90% of them told they can't make presentations, they can't be heard.

I said the government's agenda is a major downloading of services to the municipalities and to the municipal sector; downloading of costs and increasing of property taxes. Nobody argues that we shouldn't have property taxes helping to pay for hard services: roads, streets, street lighting, garbage collection, water and sewer, sidewalks, all of those things that have a direct relationship to property values. It makes sense that property taxes help to pay for those.

What is really extreme and completely unprecedented in this downloading is the proposal that other soft services be downloaded on to the municipal property tax. For the first time in history, public health is going to be partially paid for by property taxes.

Hon Ms Mushinski: It is already.

Mr Wildman: No, I'm talking about long-term care, the seniors and the disabled. And social services: an increase in the portion that is going to be paid will be paid locally. This is a very neat trick that this government is trying to pull on the people of this province. They have said they will take education off the property tax, the $5.4 billion. They won't guarantee that they'll replace that in grants, but they've said they'll take that off the property tax and in exchange they're going to download these other soft services.

We all know that education is fairly stable and may in fact go down somewhat as enrollments decline over the next few years. We also know that social service costs, welfare, are very unpredictable and are related to changes in the economy. As unemployment increases, the cost will go up. We certainly know that long-term care, as the population ages, is going to grow exponentially. So what this government is doing is taking to the provincial government's responsibility costs which will be fairly stable or may even go down a little over the next few years and they're transferring to the beleaguered property taxpayers costs which will go up and continue to go up. It isn't a wash, as the minister has tried to argue. In fact, there's about a $1-billion shortfall. The costs that are being transferred to the municipal taxpayers will grow and the costs to the provincial government will remain fairly stable.

Those are the two major pieces of legislation in this calendar. They have been time-allocated. They've been rammed through. There's been no agreement. The government is determined to get them in place by early April no matter what, no matter how much opposition there is towards them in the province.

But there are also many other pieces of legislation in this major restructuring:

Bill 84, the firefighters' legislation, which the firefighters themselves have publicly stated they don't want, they don't like, they don't want to have passed, is being forced on them. It's hurting their collective bargaining.

We have Bill 98, the development charges, which will make it more difficult for municipalities to fund for growth in their areas.

Police services amendments, which are going to transfer costs to the rural municipalities, among other things.

Changes in municipal finance bills, that is, assessments, while at the same time we don't have enough assessors trained to do the job and we're going to have these drive-by assessments apparently, thanks to Al Leach.

Bill 107, the water and sewer legislation, which is designed to try and enable the privatization of these services.

Bill 108, provincial offences, and Bill 109, the public libraries act, which in fact may bring in more user fees for library services that up to now have been free. This is a major downloading.

This government likes to argue there's only one taxpayer. Yes, there is only one taxpayer, and what you're doing here is transferring from the one pocket to the other. You're taking the cost off income taxes and transferring the cost to property taxes for that one taxpayer. Property taxes are much more unfair than income taxes, and the shift from education taxes to these others is not a wash, is not acceptable.

We will fight this. We are not going to agree. We are not going to accept the kind of ramming through this government seems determined to bring in. Instead of doing it in a proper, thought-out fashion and taking the time that is required, they are determined to get it through by the end of this spring so it will be in place for this fall. There's no reason for this hurry. Rethink.

The Speaker: It now being 6 of the clock, this House stands adjourned till 1:30 tomorrow.

The House adjourned at 1801.

24 février 1997