L225 - Mon 8 Sep 1997 / Lun 8 Sep 1997
STANDING COMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT
The House met at 1334.
Prayers.
MEMBERS' STATEMENTS
LITERACY
Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): Today marks International Literacy Day. It focuses attention on the fact that more than 1.7 million adults in Ontario lack the basic literacy skills necessary to handle the simple reading and writing tasks they encounter in their everyday lives. That translates into one out of every five adults.
The statistics are staggering. The highest levels in Canada are found among our youth from 16 to 25 years of age. Youth in Ontario scored below the national average.
Poor literacy skills are associated with higher unemployment rates, higher dependence on social assistance and higher crime rates. The Mike Harris government has done little to address this ever-growing concern. At a time when his government is making sweeping changes to our education system and to our social safety net, he is failing to address the root of the problem.
With all this evidence supporting the importance and need for accessibility to literacy programs, the Minister of Education and Training responded in the only way he knew how: His realigned priorities actually cut the funding to literacy programs across Ontario, which resulted in a net loss of 6.6% of the total funding.
Groups across this province, including Kristen Gunn from the Sudbury Community Literacy Program, should be commended for their efforts. They have struggled with a government which only pays lip-service instead of literacy service for the less fortunate individuals.
ARTHRITIS
Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): September is Arthritis Month, and it's important as Arthritis Month goes on that we understand the effect of arthritis on our population.
While arthritis is often seen as a disease of the elderly, in fact it is not. The average age of onset is in the baby-boomer age, the 41-to-50-year-old group, and the Arthritis Society is warning us very seriously of the consequences of not supporting the kind of research that's necessary to deal with this disease.
Arthritis affects more Canadians every year than heart disease and cancer combined. Some 13% of the population is affected either directly or indirectly, 2.7 million workdays are lost each year due to restricted activity, and almost 2,000 people die each year directly as a result of arthritis or as a result of illnesses caused by medications to control the pain.
Arthritis is not just aches and pains. Arthritis is a very debilitating disease, and it is one which is increasing with our aging population.
During the month of September it is important for us to support the Arthritis Society as it looks for funding for research, because research alone will control this disease. Diet, exercise, all of the things we think of as controlling disease, will not help with this disease. Please support Arthritis Month.
LION DANCE FESTIVAL
Mr John R. Baird (Nepean): I rise today to share with the House a report on the beginning of a terrific new tradition in our province: the Lion Dance Festival.
In conjunction with Canada's Year of Asia Pacific, the first Toronto Lion Dance Festival was held at Nathan Phillips Square on Sunday, August 31. Despite overcast and sometimes rainy weather, more than 20,000 people from Toronto and across Ontario attended the event.
Lion dancing originated in China hundreds of years ago as a celebration of trade and economic prosperity. It is a form of dance based on the martial art of kung fu. The dancers themselves are not just performance artists but actually disciplined endurance athletes.
More than 500 athletes from Ontario, the United States and China made up the 28 teams which performed at the Labour Day weekend festival. Honoured guests at Lion Dance functions included many private and public sector event sponsors as well as representatives of the consul generals for the People's Republic of China, Japan and the Philippines.
The province of Ontario, through the Ministry of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism, supported this new initiative, and Don Mills MPP Dave Johnson served as the event co-chair. I wish to congratulate the organizers of the first Toronto Lion Dance Festival and look forward to the opportunity to invite the members to future Lion Dance festivals in Ontario.
1340
CONDUCT OF MEMBER
Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): The Minister of Education often talks about how shocked and appalled he is at any number of things. I was shocked and appalled on Friday to learn that the MPP for Halton Centre, Mr Terence Young, was standing in a secondary school yard, uninvited and unannounced, handing out letters to students to try and convince them that John Snobelen and Mike Harris are not hurting classroom education. The minister and the Premier were shocked and appalled that teachers might politicize the classroom, but they don't seem so shocked when one of their own politicizes the school ground.
What about the example Mr Young set in refusing to leave at the request of the principal? Hardly what the member for Halton Centre professes to believe about obedience and discipline. Maybe he needs to visit one of his colleague's boot camps to get a lesson in that regard. Let us not forget that this is the same member who has a private member's bill recommending stiff fines for students, teachers and principals who fail to follow rigid protocol.
Ironically, Mr Young shouldn't have had to do any of this. If Mike Harris's policies are good for education, the students will be the first to know, and they won't have to be told in a letter -- and no letter will convince them that Mike Harris's cuts aren't hurting them, with large classes and no textbooks, and more to come.
Students know what is happening in education today. They know what $533 million worth of cuts have done. The MPP for Halton Centre should have gone inside the classroom and asked the students what is happening to their education.
PUBLIC LIBRARIES
Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): Last Wednesday the government tabled a time allocation motion on Bill 109 -- that's the public libraries bill -- which to all intents and purposes would have meant that there would have been no third reading debate on this bill, something that I believe would be unprecedented for this Legislature. I understand now the government seems to be coming to its senses to some extent and will be allowing third reading debate on this bill tomorrow afternoon. We will wait and see if they change their minds yet again.
I want to say to the government that while I'm happy if they will allow third reading debate on this, I need to underscore for them that they are still not dealing with the essential problems that underlie this bill, the first of which is the removal from the legislation of the basic right that all of us now have to use libraries free of charges. They will of course claim that that protection will continue, but it will continue only in the regulations, where it can be changed much more readily than the basic protection that now exists in legislation.
Closer to home, I want to again remind the government members of something I thought they had given some indication of a willingness to change, but they still have not, and that is with respect to the governance of the Metropolitan Toronto Reference Library. This is a library that serves not just Metropolitan Toronto but indeed the entire province. There is consensus that it needs to continue to have its own governance structure rather than being amalgamated with the other library boards. I hope at least on that point the government members will come to their senses, the minister will come to her senses and bring in an amendment that will ensure that this library continues to be governed in --
The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you.
ETOBICOKE ECONOMY
Mr Douglas B. Ford (Etobicoke-Humber): I rise today to highlight good news from my riding of Etobicoke-Humber. In a move to increase the productivity, efficiency and international competitiveness of its operations, Labatt Breweries Ontario recently announced a $7.5-million capital investment in its Etobicoke operation.
The project, which focuses on upgrades to the brewery's two packaging lines, comes about as a result of an increase in worldwide demand for product from Labatt. Significantly, Labatt Breweries of Canada employs over 3,500 Canadians, including 1,100 in Ontario, 500 of whom are located in Etobicoke.
It is important to note that the project, expected to be completed in 1998, will increase the brewery's packaging productivity by 100%, while the new equipment will result in significant improvements to productivity of the brewery's two packaging lines. The announcement shows the confidence in growth being experienced throughout Ontario.
A great many projections for future growth of the economy in Ontario are also positive. The people of Etobicoke-Humber have my assurance that this government will continue to focus on initiatives to encourage more growth and opportunity across the province, just like that demonstrated by the people at Labatt's Etobicoke brewery.
This is true cooperation between management and the union at Labatt Breweries.
ARTS AND CULTURAL FUNDING
Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): The Ontario Liberal Party believes that culture matters in Ontario, but for the past two years arts, culture and heritage organizations and individual artists have watched helplessly as this government has sharply reduced its support for culture.
As a result, they're now pleading with Premier Harris to truly recognize the value of their contributions to the economic and spiritual health of Ontario. They have sent passionate testimonials to the good work being done bringing culture to their communities and of their efforts to both maintain and broaden Ontario's heritage.
This week Ontario artists are even presenting a slide show in the shadow of the Toronto International Film Festival which they hope throws light on what culture in this province means. This is but one visible gesture from an arts community crying out for a government that should be proud and supportive of their efforts and accomplishments, a government that must appreciate how important the arts are towards making Ontario a great place to live.
Today I am proud to stand in my place to present a motion signed by our leader, Dalton McGuinty, and all members of our caucus, calling on the government to declare a Culture Matters month in Ontario. This motion asks the government to recognize, promote and celebrate with pride the role of Ontario's art, culture and heritage communities.
I am sending the Premier a copy of this motion and I stand today to urge him and the members of his caucus to join us in this appreciation and celebration of arts, culture and heritage in Ontario.
Please, Mr Premier, be a true friend to the arts. Support this motion.
PAY EQUITY
Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): Today is a day of celebration for women right across this province. Think of this for a moment: Think of a dike. You know the story about the Dutch boy who goes up to put his finger in a hole? One of the things that happens when you do that is holes start springing up all over the place, and that's what's happening to the Harris government.
Today we got the news that part of Bill 26, that omnibus bill, that bill we told you you were moving on too fast, you didn't understand its implications and parts of it were downright discriminatory -- guess what? The courts agree with us. Today the courts strike down the Tories' repeal of pay equity rights as unconstitutional. It is so exciting for women in this province.
You tried to take away proxy pay equity from the poorest-paid women in this province, and the courts have said it is discriminatory, it is unconstitutional and section J of Bill 26 is now no longer of any effect. Do you know what that means? That means $418 million is going to have to be paid to women who had that owing to them. It means women are going to have a chance again for justice in this province. It means the New Democratic government's pay equity legislation will prevail, unless of course you decide you're going to appeal this. If you decide you're going to appeal to take away rights for women, you'll pay in the long run, and in the long run the government that will be re-elected will reinstitute that.
It's great day for women. It is a great day to celebrate. I'm glad to be able to share this with the Legislature.
MOTHER TERESA
Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener): I rise today with sadness in my heart to pay tribute to a woman who many people throughout the world viewed as a living saint, Mother Teresa, who passed away on Friday evening.
Mother Teresa, who said she saw God in every suffering human being, began her charity work with just a few helpers in a Calcutta slum five decades ago when she founded the Missionaries of Charity. Today the Missionaries of Charity order has more than 4,000 nuns and runs 517 orphanages, homes for the poor, AIDS hospices and other charity centres around the world.
Mother Teresa became known as the saint of the gutters. For her humanitarian, charitable and compassionate works, Mother Teresa was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. Mother Teresa was revered by millions of people throughout the world of differing faiths, cultures, nationalities and races.
Pope John Paul II in his Sunday address said, "She leaves us the testimony of the love of God that transformed her life into a total gift to her brothers and sisters." In an emotionally shaking voice, the pontiff earlier stated: "Travelling tirelessly the streets of the entire world, Mother Teresa marked the history of our century. With courage, she defended life. She served every human being by always promoting dignity and respect."
Other world leaders are stepping forward to pay their tribute to this wonderful woman. The president of the United States, the president of Russia, Prime Minister Jean Chrétien, Président Jacques Chirac of France and the Queen have all paid their tributes to Mother Teresa.
India's government declared a day of national mourning and will accord the Nobel Peace Prize winner a state funeral. In comparing her with India's spiritual father of independence and champion of the dispossessed, Indian Prime Minister Inder Kumar Gujral stated: "We had Ghandi in the first half of the century to show us the path to fight against poverty and in the second half we have the mother to show us the path to work for the poor." Mother Teresa will be missed.
REPORTS BY COMMITTEES
STANDING COMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT
Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I beg leave to present a report from the standing committee on general government and move its adoption.
Clerk at the Table (Ms Lisa Freedman): The committee begs to report the following bill, as amended:
Bill 96, An Act to Consolidate and Revise the Law with respect to Residential Tenancies / Projet de loi 96, Loi codifiant et révisant le droit de la location à usage d'habitation.
The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Shall the report be received and adopted?
All those in favour, please say "aye."
All those opposed, please say "nay."
In my opinion, the ayes have it.
Call in the members. It will be a five-minute bell.
The division bells rang from 1351 to 1356.
The Speaker: All those in favour, please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.
Ayes
|
Baird, John R. Beaubien, Marcel Boushy, Dave Brown, Jim Chudleigh, Ted Cunningham, Dianne Danford, Harry Doyle, Ed Ecker, Janet Elliott, Brenda Flaherty, Jim Ford, Douglas B. Fox, Gary Froese, Tom Galt, Doug |
Gilchrist, Steve Hodgson, Chris Johns, Helen Johnson, David Kells, Morley Klees, Frank Mushinski, Marilyn Newman, Dan O'Toole, John Ouellette, Jerry J. Parker, John L. Pettit, Trevor Preston, Peter Ross, Lillian Runciman, Robert W. |
Sampson, Rob Shea, Derwyn Sheehan, Frank Snobelen, John Sterling, Norman W. Stewart, R. Gary Tilson, David Tsubouchi, David H. Turnbull, David Villeneuve, Noble Wettlaufer, Wayne Wilson, Jim Witmer, Elizabeth Wood, Bob Young, Terence H. |
The Speaker: All those opposed, please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.
Nays
|
Agostino, Dominic Bartolucci, Rick Bisson, Gilles Boyd, Marion Bradley, James J. Brown, Michael A. Castrilli, Annamarie Christopherson, David Churley, Marilyn Cleary, John C. Colle, Mike |
Cordiano, Joseph Curling, Alvin Duncan, Dwight Gerretsen, John Grandmaître, Bernard Gravelle, Michael Hoy, Pat Kormos, Peter Kwinter, Monte Lankin, Frances Laughren, Floyd |
Marchese, Rosario Martel, Shelley Martin, Tony McLeod, Lyn Morin, Gilles E. North, Peter Patten, Richard Phillips, Gerry Pouliot, Gilles Silipo, Tony Wildman, Bud |
Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 45; the nays are 33.
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
Pursuant to the order of the House dated June 2, 1997, the bill is ordered for third reading.
INTRODUCTION OF BILLS
REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF SUDBURY STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE LA MUNICIPALITÉ RÉGIONALE DE SUDBURY
Mr Bartolucci moved first reading of the following bill:
Bill 156, An Act to amend certain statutes with respect to The Regional Municipality of Sudbury / Projet de loi 156, Loi modifiant certaines lois en ce qui concerne la municipalité régionale de Sudbury.
The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.
Mr Bartolucci, short comments?
Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): Very short comment: I introduced this bill to allow the chair of the region to be elected by the people of the region in the next municipal election rather than being appointed by regional councillors. Clearly this is a perfect time to introduce the bill. The people, through their municipal representatives, have said they want to be able to vote for the chair of the region.
A delegation from the regional municipality of Sudbury headed by Councillor John Fera will be coming down to visit the minister. I look forward to working with Councillor Fera and the other delegation members to ensure that this change takes place and that the Harris government will listen to what regional council and I have said and let the people decide.
MOTIONS
HOUSE SITTINGS
Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Government House Leader): I move that, pursuant to standing order 9(c), the House shall meet from 6:30 pm to 9:30 pm on Tuesday, September 9, 1997, and Wednesday, September 10, 1997, for the purpose of considering government business.
The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? All those in favour, please say "aye." All those opposed, please say "nay." In my opinion, the ayes have it.
Call in the members; it will be a 15-minute bell.
The division bells rang from 1402 to 1417.
The Speaker: All those in favour, please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.
Ayes
|
Baird, John R. Beaubien, Marcel Boushy, Dave Brown, Jim Chudleigh, Ted Cunningham, Dianne Danford, Harry Doyle, Ed Ecker, Janet Elliott, Brenda Fisher, Barbara Flaherty, Jim Ford, Douglas B. Fox, Gary Froese, Tom Galt, Doug Gilchrist, Steve |
Hastings, John Hodgson, Chris Jackson, Cameron Johns, Helen Johnson, Bert Johnson, David Kells, Morley Klees, Frank Maves, Bart Mushinski, Marilyn Newman, Dan O'Toole, John Ouellette, Jerry J. Parker, John L. Pettit, Trevor Preston, Peter Ross, Lillian |
Runciman, Robert W. Sampson, Rob Shea, Derwyn Sheehan, Frank Snobelen, John Sterling, Norman W. Stewart, R. Gary Tilson, David Tsubouchi, David H. Turnbull, David Vankoughnet, Bill Villeneuve, Noble Wettlaufer, Wayne Wilson, Jim Witmer, Elizabeth Wood, Bob Young, Terence H. |
The Speaker: All those opposed, please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.
Nays
|
Agostino, Dominic, Bartolucci, Rick Bisson, Gilles Boyd, Marion Bradley, James J. Brown, Michael A. Castrilli, Annamarie Christopherson, David Churley, Marilyn Cleary, John C. Colle, Mike Cordiano, Joseph |
Curling, Alvin Gerretsen, John Grandmaître, Bernard Gravelle, Michael Hampton, Howard Hoy, Pat Kormos, Peter Kwinter, Monte Lankin, Frances Laughren, Floyd Marchese, Rosario Martel, Shelley |
Martin, Tony McLeod, Lyn Morin, Gilles E. North, Peter Patten, Richard Phillips, Gerry Pouliot, Gilles Sergio, Mario Silipo, Tony Wildman, Bud Wood, Len |
Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 51; the nays are 35.
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP
Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Government House Leader): I move that the following changes be made to the standing committees:
On the standing committee on administration of justice: Mr Ford, Mrs Ross, Mr Young, Mr Chiarelli, Mr Christopherson be removed;
On the standing committee on estimates: Mr Beaubien, Mr Sheehan, Mr Vankoughnet, Mr Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin), Ms Lankin be removed, and that Mrs Johns be substituted for Mr Kells;
On the standing committee on finance and economic affairs: Mr Barrett, Mr Carr, Mr Martiniuk, Mr Cordiano, Mr Martin be removed;
On the standing committee on general government: Mr DeFaria, Mr Doyle, Mr Stewart, Mr Gravelle, Mr Wood (Cochrane North) be removed;
On the standing committee on government agencies: Mr Ford, Mr Preston, Mr Tascona, Mr Bartolucci, Mr Kormos be removed, and that Mr Newman be substituted for Mrs Elliott and Mr Spina be substituted for Mr Guzzo;
On the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly: Mr Baird, Mr Johnson (Brantford), Mrs Pupatello, Mr Wildman be removed, and that Mr DeFaria be substituted for Mrs Marland, Mrs Ross be substituted for Mr Tilson, and that Mr North be added to the membership of the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly;
On the standing committee on the Ombudsman: Mr Johnson (Brantford), Mr Murdoch, Mr Ouellette, Mr Lalonde, Mr Marchese be removed, and that Mr Ford be substituted for Mr Leadston and Mr Vankoughnet be substituted for Mr Boushy and Mr Agostino be substituted for Mr Crozier and Mrs Pupatello be substituted for Mr Hoy;
On the standing committee on public accounts: Mrs Johns, Mr Murdoch, Mr Skarica, Mrs Pupatello, Mr Pouliot be removed, and that Mr Beaubien be substituted for Mr Shea;
On the standing committee on regulations and private bills: Mr Clement, Mr DeFaria, Mr Vankoughnet, Mr Kennedy, Mr Bisson be removed, and that Mr Leadston be substituted for Mrs Johns and Mr Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin) be substituted for Mr Gerretsen;
On the standing committee on resources development: Mr Jordan, Mr O'Toole, Mr Spina, Mr Agostino, Ms Churley be removed;
On the standing committee on social development: Mr Leadston, Mrs Munro, Mr Newman, Mr Patten, Mr Wildman be removed, and that Mr O'Toole be substituted for Mr Parker.
Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): Mr Speaker, on a point of order, and I am hoping you'll bear with me: This is a motion which has been brought forward, to the best of my knowledge, with no notice to the House. I think the question of whether it is a routine motion or a substantive motion warrants some discussion and some thought.
In the standing orders of the Legislature under "Routine Motions," it does indicate under section 34 a description of various types of routine motions, and contained therein is a reference to motions for changes in membership of committees. On the surface, what the government House leader has brought forward would appear to be simply a motion in changes of committee membership and therefore fall under routine motions. But I draw to your attention that under section 48 of the standing orders, the definition of "substantive motions" -- of course, that is a motion which does require notice and which is therefore called as an order of the House and is debatable -- includes within its definition "motions for the appointment of committees."
As you are aware, in the recent changes to the rules, under section XX, "Committees," under section 105, the process is set out in terms of how committees shall be established. Later on within that section, you'll remember that there were changes to the minimum number of members who could be on a committee.
I ask you to take a look at this in the context that the change in the rules was not simply to change the members or change one member for another, which is the normal kind of motion that's brought forward to change committee membership. The change in the rules was to constitute a new set of committees in this Legislature which have a limited makeup in terms of their number and limited representation from particular parties, most particularly the New Democratic Party, which goes from two representatives on every committee to one representative on every committee.
It strikes me that the government House leader is playing a little fast and loose with this as he brings forward a motion and attempts to disguise it as a motion simply to change membership. I would ask you to look, in the context of legislative precedent in this place, at how these motions are normally carried out and what the normal motion for a change in committee membership would constitute. I think if you look at precedents in the House, you will see that most of those motions would have the name of a member deleted from a committee and someone else added on to replace that member.
The motion before us today does not do that. The motion before us, in its majority at least, seeks to remove a number of members from a committee. I believe the intent is to constitute new committees and that the motion should properly be brought forward as a motion to constitute new committees. It therefore would be a substantive motion, would require notice, and would therefore be debatable.
I would say to you, Speaker, that on the face of the words in the standing orders under "Routine motions," "a change in committee membership," you could find that that's all this motion does by its words, on the face of it. But I think if you look at how matters have been dealt with in this House, how these issues have historically and traditionally been handled, any change of committee membership motion has been, as I said, one which seeks to remove someone from a committee and substitute another.
I hope you will take some time, after hearing arguments, to review this and consider that the government House leader has in fact intended to get around the rules of the House by disguising this as a change in membership when it truly is constituting new committees.
1430
Hon David Johnson: Mr Speaker, I'm not trying to get around any rules or procedures. In terms of the size of the committees, the new standing orders that were approved by this House do reflect on that, but as we all know, there was also a motion in October 1995 that indicated that "for the duration of the 36th Parliament, no standing or select committee shall consist of more than 14 members." The motion brought forward today is also in compliance with that direction.
The motion today does add members, does remove members and does replace some members with other members. As the whip from the third party has indicated, standing order 34 does permit, under "Motions," routine motions that include "motions for changes in the membership of committees." To my recollection, that has certainly been used in the past. So I think your research will find that has been the case, that we're doing here what has been done in many cases in the past.
We're not striking new committees. There are no new committees involved. All existing standing committees continue to operate; nothing new in that regard. All existing Chairs and existing Vice-Chairs of the committees will continue. Indeed, the membership after this motion has been put into effect will be about 87% of the members who were there before, in the sense that 87% of the members who were there before will be there afterwards. There are only some 13 substitutions; I guess 13% of the membership will be substitutions. So in large part the members who were there before are the members who will make up the committees when they're reconstituted.
This does provide a good continuity of the committee membership, but I think it also reflects on the fact that this is a routine motion, when you think that 87% of the members are the same.
Interjections.
Hon Mr Johnson: But of the new members, 87% were there before. Of the members who will be in place afterwards, 87% --
Interjections.
The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order. I ask the opposition benches to come to order, please. I'm trying to hear the government House leader's point of order. I listened carefully. I think they allowed the point to be made by the member for Beaches-Woodbine. I ask that the same consideration be given. Member for Cochrane North, I think what I said was fairly clear. Thank you very much. Government House leader.
Hon Mr Johnson: The only reason I say that, Mr Speaker, is because if there is a portrait that is being painted that indeed this is quite different than what we had before, of the 101, I believe it is, members who will compose the committees in the future, 88 of them were on precisely those committees today and over the past several months. That I think speaks for the fact that this is routine in nature and should be considered in order.
Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I would take a different viewpoint from the government House leader. He might be surprised by that. There are occasions when the government House leader is right. This is not one of them, because clearly this is a substantive motion. It does, as the member for Beaches-Woodbine has appropriately pointed out, on the surface appear to be a routine motion, but indeed both of the opposition parties are substantially affected, more so than the government party, by this, because the two opposition parties are limited now to only three seats on these committees, two for the Liberals and one for the New Democrats.
This is a total reconstitution of the committees, in my view, and not simply a tinkering with existing committees. If it were simply a tinkering with the existing committees, the government House leader would be quite appropriate in making the argument that indeed this is a routine motion. This is a reconstitution of these committees. There are some significant changes to the makeup of these committees, not only in terms of the personnel but in the numbers that are permitted to be members of the committee from each party and the quorum which will be required in each case.
In addition to this -- whether it's relevant to this point, I'll let you be the judge -- the rules within the committees have been significantly changed as well so that their opportunity to carry out their responsibilities under the new rules -- that ability is severely restricted in our view.
I think the member for Beaches-Woodbine has made a significant and accurate point and we hope you will give full consideration to that submission.
Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I won't belabour this, but the government House leader said this was simply a change in membership of committees and he emphasized that once that is accomplished, when you look at the membership, I think he said 87% of the members were the same on committees. In fact this is a reconstitution of the committees. He is making new committees according to the new rules: fewer members from the opposition and from the government.
Frankly, we reconstitute committees when new parliaments are established after an election. Oftentimes members of those committees were members of the same committee prior to the election campaign, if they've gained re-election. The fact that they're the same individuals doesn't matter; you're still reconstituting the committees.
In this case we've had a rule change. The rules require a different number for each committee and this motion is a substantive motion in that it is establishing new committees as per the new rules; therefore it is a substantive motion and can be debated and should have notice
The Speaker: Allow me to take 10 minutes to recess and review.
The House recessed from 1435 to 1513.
The Speaker: We are faced with a situation that is fairly unique. I must decide whether or not what we are dealing with today is a routine motion. The standing order says that a motion that changes committee membership is a routine motion. Our practice has clearly been that routine motions of this nature have been simple substitution motions. In my view, the motion before us seeks to do more than this. It is a motion that changes the number of members and adds the participation of an independent member. I find therefore that the motion does not fit within the definition of "routine" and will require notice.
It's time for oral questions.
Mr Bradley: Mr Speaker, on a point of order: Could you tell us when question period will end today?
The Speaker: At 4 o'clock.
Mr Bradley: So it will be a 45-minute question period?
The Speaker: Yes, it will.
Mr Bradley: Abbreviated, okay. Thank you.
Mr Wildman: Mr Speaker, on a point of order: Just for clarification, the import of your ruling is that the government will have to give notice of such a motion if it is to call it again?
The Speaker: Yes.
ORAL QUESTIONS
YOUTH UNEMPLOYMENT
Mr Joseph Cordiano (Lawrence): I have a question for the acting leader of the government, the Chair of Management Board. Minister, there's no one in Ontario today who doesn't believe that there is a crisis with youth unemployment. Even the Premier acknowledged this. No matter how much you would like to manipulate the numbers, too many young people in this province are unemployed.
Over the course of this past summer, the Premier said he would like to make youth employment a priority of his government. I want to ask you, was the Premier just saying that or has someone over there finally taken responsibility for tackling this issue? Who is it going to be: the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Education, the Minister of Economic Development? Is anyone over there going to take responsibility for our young people? Who is it going to be, Minister?
Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Government House Leader): First of all, I'd like to say that I'm delighted to indicate that in the month of August, the month that has just gone by, Ontario gained more jobs in the youth area, some 16,600 new jobs in Ontario for youth.
This is particularly interesting because across all of Canada there were some 11,000 jobs created for youth, which clearly indicates that unfortunately there was a net decline in other provinces, but in Ontario 16,600 new jobs for youth. Nevertheless, a great deal more needs to be done. I know that the Premier is committed to this and that this government is committed to initiatives for young people. This will be a topic of discussions at the annual premiers' conference, and the Premier of Ontario will be taking a leadership role in that.
Mr Cordiano: Let's talk about what this government is doing. Your summer youth initiatives cut the number of hours and the number of weeks worked by students, and 20% of all students couldn't even find a summer job this past summer. This added to tuition fees that have increased by 30% since you've taken office, so that now students are facing debt loads approaching $40,000 -- a huge amount of debt on the backs of students. Tuition fees in Ontario are the second highest in the country and funding for universities is the lowest. That's a shame.
Is that what the Premier meant by saying that he would make youth initiatives a priority? Is that what he really meant, saddling youth with this kind of debt and closing off the option of going on to post-secondary education and precluding any possibility for summer employment? Is that what he meant when he said, "I'll help young people in this province"?
Hon David Johnson: This government has been dedicated to helping young people. Indeed, there have been initiatives this year involving 140,000 young people, which is 49,000 more than last year. The numbers are increasing and the assistance is increasing to young people. I find it interesting that the province of Ontario spends two and a half times as much money on youth as does the Liberal federal government in Ottawa.
Mr Cordiano: Minister, we're fast approaching the day in Ontario when the only winners will be those students who have wealthy parents. The only message you're sending to our young people is: "Get an education, you get into debt, and if you can't afford it, tough. Join the unemployment lines."
Tomorrow a group of students will be here in the Legislature with a petition protesting university cuts and tuition increases. Five thousand students signed that petition. Minister, it's obvious that no one in this government, in your cabinet, will stand up and take responsibility for youth and their plight. I've got to ask you: How can your government continue to ignore the plight of young people in this province with such high unemployment levels, tuition fees going through the roof and a debt that's going to be loaded on to the backs of students? They can't afford it in the future. I want to ask you, how do you intend to help young people in this province?
Hon David Johnson: I find it interesting that the member for Lawrence comments on tuition fees when apparently during the Liberal regime tuition fees rose by 35%. Nevertheless, this is an issue that we all need to take seriously in this House. The plight and situation and condition of our young people, the people who are going to be the future of this province, is a very serious issue. It's an issue that the Premier takes most seriously and this government takes most seriously.
The member says we haven't done a thing: the summer program this year, some 40,000 positions for summer employment, the 10% tax credit introduced in the budget for employers hiring young people, some 45,000 jobs over three years through the tax credit program. This government has taken initiatives in summer employment: 40,000 students; the tax credit, 45,000. More needs to be done --
The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you.
1520
FIRE IN HAMILTON
Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): My question is for the Minister of Health. On August 22 you told the Hamilton Spectator, "If authorities and officials charged with public trust to maintain health recommend an inquiry, I think politicians would be obliged to listen." On Friday, September 5, a media release from the region of Hamilton-Wentworth states, "The medical officer of health supports council's resolutions and welcomes any recommendations resulting from a public inquiry which could assist and respond to a similar incident of this nature in the future." In view of this now, will you stick to your commitment, your word, and recommend today to the cabinet a public inquiry into the Plastimet fire?
Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Health): I refer the question to the Minister of the Environment and Energy as lead for this issue.
Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of Environment and Energy): I have not received a letter or a request from the medical officer of health to hold an inquiry nor has she forwarded any evidence to me that there was any wrongdoing, any problem with regard to what has happened at the site. We are continuing to answer questions of the public with regard to this matter and we will continue to do that in the future.
Mr Agostino: I just sent the minister a copy. Now he's got a few seconds to look at the release from the region on Friday. I find it astonishing that you would hang the Minister of Health out to dry the way you have. Your Minister of Health came forward on August 22 and said that if the health department of MOH called for an inquiry, he in effect would support it. You said on Thursday you would consider that. Now you're basically saying that it doesn't matter what the Minister of Health says, you're not going to listen to him.
If you're not going to listen to your own Minister of Health, let me suggest to you that we now have the opposition party, the Liberals; David Christopherson, the member for Hamilton Centre in the NDP; firefighters; OPSEU; regional council -- I just spoke to Terry Cooke, regional chairman, again to reinforce that; city council; community organizations.
Minister, you were sent a letter at the end of July by your member for Hamilton Mountain asking you to call a public inquiry into the fire. You have all three political parties in the House, including your own members. We have the medical officer of health. What else are you waiting for? Will you do what the Minister of Health said on August 22 and call a public inquiry today?
Hon Mr Sterling: I am waiting for evidence that there is some wrongdoing or some misinformation or something wrong with regard to somebody's conduct during this, whether it be the firemen, the medical officer of health, the Ministry of Environment or anybody else. You don't call an inquiry for fun; you call it because there is some evidence of wrongdoing with regard to some public official, and none has been presented to me. I ask the member, please present that evidence to me, sir.
Mr Agostino: The evidence is over 100 firefighters who have been ill as a result of the fire. The evidence is residents who have been ill as a result of the fire. The evidence is a community that still doesn't understand what happened. The evidence is your equipment getting there 12 hours late. The evidence is an evacuation administered four days after.
What else do you need to know, Minister? There are hundreds of questions that I've asked, that the member for Hamilton Centre and the community have asked, and you have failed to come forward. You are totally gutless in dealing with the situation. You are afraid. You are scared to call a public inquiry because it will show a fault on your ministry's part, it will show a fault in the way public officials handled this.
You said, "I've said in the past that I'm not frightened of an inquiry." Show today you have the intestinal fortitude. Show today you have a commitment to the environment. Do the right thing: Back up your Minister of Health; back up your member for Hamilton Mountain; call a public inquiry. Otherwise, you've simply got to continue to run and hide. But you're not going to get away, because we're going to keep coming after you. Call a public inquiry today.
Hon Mr Sterling: I'm not running. I'm not hiding. I'm here to answer the question. I'm here to answer those hundreds of questions which you have not forwarded to me, Mr Member. If you want to represent the people of Hamilton and if you are concerned about the health of the people of Hamilton, please send to me your specific questions. I am more than willing, as I know the Minister of Health and any other member of this government are willing, to answer your questions and those of the people of Hamilton. We want to assure them that their health is not in jeopardy, that we have acted properly and will continue to do that.
PAY EQUITY
Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): I have a question to the Minister of Labour. Minister, for the past two years you've been bulldozing the rights of working women and men across this province. You've been in such a hurry that you wouldn't listen to anyone and you didn't care about what mistakes you made or who you were hurting.
Now the Ontario Court of Justice has taken a dramatic step and told you to listen. It has ruled unconstitutional that part of your omnibus Bill 26 that tried to take away pay equity rights from the lowest-paid women in this province. The court decision is great news for those 100,000 women. It means they get the $400 million a year that you tried to take away from them.
My question is this: Don't you think it's time you started to listen to people and consider the results of what you're doing? In this case, don't you think you should listen to the court and the law and pay the lowest-paid women in this province the money they're due?
Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Labour): I would certainly take exception to the words that we're attempting to bulldoze and we're not listening. We are, I can assure you, listening very carefully and we are endeavouring to build an economic environment in our province which will allow all women to benefit from the new job creation opportunities. Last month we created 33,000 new jobs.
I would also indicate to you that we are going to carefully take a look at the court decision, and obviously we will make some decisions.
Mr Hampton: This shows just how out of touch this minister is. Minister, you should read this court decision. You should read it, because this is what the judge says: He says that the pay equity law that was enacted by our government was enacted after years of careful study with pilot tests, extensive consultation and very careful consideration. Then the judge points out that your government acted in the absence of any study. He points out that you terminated the full-scale review of pay equity that had been started, that you acted without any awareness that you might be in effect acting in a way contrary to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, that you didn't even consider how much you were going to hurt the poorest-paid women in this province.
Minister, have you learned anything? Are you going to obey the court and obey the law and obey the Charter of Rights and Freedoms?
Hon Mrs Witmer: I simply want to indicate that we remain very strongly committed to the principle of pay equity. In fact, it was our government that committed up to $500 million to pay equity, the largest amount of money any government has ever committed to pay equity, and we will continue to carefully examine all the issues before us. As I said before, we are creating in this province an environment that will allow women to move ahead and have job opportunities.
1530
Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): What we wanted to hear from you today was that you were going to pay this money out, not appeal it. You don't listen to the people of Ontario, and you're showing today that you're not even listening to an important court decision. The judge said, let me remind you, your government made no effort to explain why the lowest-paid women in Ontario should take on the whole burden of your cuts.
Further serious attacks on pay equity are now pending in your Bill 136. This decision makes it very clear that the sections of Bill 136 that roll back even more pay equity rights for women should be withdrawn immediately. Will you commit today that this government, led by you, will withdraw these sections and finally stop its attacks on women in this province?
Interjection.
The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): I hope the Minister of Health was kidding when he said that.
Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Health): Yes, Mr Speaker.
Hon Mrs Witmer: Obviously, the ruling was only received late Friday. Our ministry will be carefully examining the ruling and we'll have an opportunity then to make a decision as to what future action will be taken.
DISTRICT HEALTH COUNCILS
Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): My next question is to the Minister of Health. We found out this weekend that you're eliminating one half of the district health councils across Ontario and the new health planning areas are so large as to be absurd. For example, in northwestern Ontario the new planning area is the size of Poland, the size of Italy, the size of Great Britain, with literally dozens of communities in it.
At the very time that your hospital closing commission is cutting and closing hospitals in community after community, at the very time when people in those communities need someone to speak up for local health care concerns, now you're going to put the knife to the only body that can do that: the district health council.
Minister, do you know what you are doing? Why are you putting the knife into the district health councils now, at the very time when local communities need them the most, need them to speak up for local health care, need them to conduct local health care planning? Why are you doing this now?
Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Health): The decision was made and was conveyed to the district health councils one year ago in London, Ontario, at their action centre, when all the DHCs in the province -- in fact, there was a very strong round of applause when I personally announced that the DHCs would be reduced significantly in the province. The people who are doing the planning realize that with 33 district health councils and the money available for administration today, there is not enough money in any one area to do full, comprehensive planning.
Our commitment is that we'll have fewer administrators, like we're asking the rest of the system, but more money in planning. We're not going to drive all the savings back to the ministry. Money is going back into the 16 remaining district health councils so they can hire more planners and do more comprehensive planning on a wider range, in a wider geographical area, all in the best interests of good planning for the patients.
Mr Hampton: No one believes what you're saying. You called the district health council reps in here last Thursday and you told them that you were putting the knife to district health councils. That's what you did.
This is what is really going on out there: Your hospital closing commission admitted in July that they didn't have any idea about how many long-term care beds are needed; they didn't know how many home care spaces are needed; they didn't know how much or what kinds of community mental health services are needed at the local community level.
Across Ontario, people are starting to question your commission's numbers, starting to question its conclusions and starting to question the kinds of dollar assumptions it's making. In fact, in Ottawa the district health council has had to test all the so-called numbers that your hospital closing commission put forward.
Isn't that what this is really about? Your hospital closing commission is running into trouble in community after community. Now you're going to do away with the district health councils, the only people who can speak up.
Hon Mr Wilson: That's a pretty farfetched scenario. Let me read a quote from the local chairman of the Ottawa district health council in the Ottawa Sun of September 6: "Dr Bill James, an Ottawa paediatrician, said the ministry essentially rubber-stamped a plan agreed to by all the affected health councils."
Let me read to you a quote from an area of the province you should be very interested in, from the chair of the Cochrane District Health Council, Jean-Paul Aubé, who says: "Let me begin by thanking you for removing the uncertainty that has been with us for the past few years. This change is consistent with the evolution DHCs have undergone over the last 25 years.
"Although the restructuring will result in larger planning areas," he goes on to say, "the changes which you have announced today will improve planning, the ultimate benefactors of which should be the patients."
I have letters from every district health council in the province, if you'd like me to go on and on. They developed this plan over the years. DHCs were brought in by the Bill Davis government. This is a natural part of their evolution. It has nothing to do with the Health Services Restructuring Commission. The very fact that we had to set up a commission to do the restructuring shows that more planning --
Interjections.
The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Final supplementary. The member for London Centre.
Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): Thank you, Minister, for being very clear that this is part of your revolution and that what you're doing is destroying local input again and again. You're destroying the community of interest for people by mixing together widely disparate parts of the province. We see the hospital commission dumping all of the services into great big corporate structures and away from community-based hospitals.
You very reluctantly agreed to our amendment in your Bill 26 that required you to have reference to the district health councils when this planning was going through for restructuring. Is this your way of completely subverting what this Legislature agreed to; that district health councils, with this broad experience they're going to have with hospital closings, are not going to be able to represent the local community of interest? It's another nail in the coffin of communities that are trying to save their health system. Don't try to quote the words of your sycophantic appointments to district health councils as an --
The Speaker: Thank you. Minister?
Hon Mr Wilson: On the one hand I am supposed to listen to these communities, and I do. I think the honourable member should give an apology right now to district health councils. These are people who get paid no money; they're volunteers. If you had allowed them when you were in government and gave them the tools to do the planning, the health care system would be integrated today, we probably wouldn't have had to set up a commission in the first place, and everyone would be singing from the same hymn book in our health care system.
You held them back. You didn't give them the tools to do the jobs. We're going to increase their core budgets and we're going to make sure they have the tools to do planning so that when we get plans from the local communities, those plans will get us down the road to an integrated health care system.
I think you owe an apology to the people who serve on our district health councils, who are the ears, eyes and conscience of the government and the people of Ontario and who are trying their very best to plan for the patients of Ontario. Get up and apologize today.
EDUCATION FINANCING
Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): My question is for the Minister of Education. In two meetings with representatives of Ontario teachers it was made absolutely clear that a non-negotiable bottom line for your government is getting the cost of education down to what you call the national average.
That takes us right back to your boast that you could take more than $1 billion out of Ontario education. You used inaccurate figures. You came up with a statement that we were 10% above the national average in our spending, and you said you could save $1.3 billion by taking us down to that phoney average.
Why are you so determined to take more than $1 billion out of education in Ontario? Is your Premier really so desperate for money to pay for the tax cut that he's going to make students pay for it?
Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Education and Training): What is inaccurate, of course, is just exactly how the member opposite has put the question. I have not said the things she's said I have said, so once again, the member for Fort William is inventing things as we go.
I can say this, though: This government remains committed to two objectives in all the reforms in education, many of which have been waiting for some time to happen in the province. One of those is to have the highest student performance in Canada. We think that's a worthwhile objective. The other is to provide that education at a real value to the parents, to the students and to the taxpayers. I am proud of both of those objectives, and we are moving forward on both of those objectives.
1540
Mrs McLeod: For the record, it was the Minister of Finance for this government who said that getting Ontario down to the national average would save $1.3 billion. If that's an invented figure, it is your colleague the Minister of Finance, who is going to control your budget, who invented the figure. You're out to take the balance of that $1.3 billion out and you made it a non-negotiable bottom line. You are consistent, but you are consistently wrong, in trying to take more money out of the classrooms of this province. It is clear that you want to make those cuts on the backs of the teachers, but you are going to be making them on the backs of students too. You have already taken $533 million out of our classrooms, and we are seeing the effects of that, with classes so large there isn't room for all the students, classes with no textbooks, junior kindergarten disappearing, adult education programs disappearing. What is going to happen if you take $750 million more out?
You have said in the past that one way to bring about change is to bankrupt the system, and you appear determined to do that with education. If you are serious about negotiations, if you care about education, will you abandon your goal of cutting $1 billion out of education?
Hon Mr Snobelen: Let me assure the member for Fort William by saying once again in this chamber what I have said for the last almost two years, which is that we will make sure there is a funding system in place that meets the individual needs of every student in the province and we will spend whatever it takes to make sure that's the best-quality system in Canada. That's the promise and that's the commitment of this government and this minister. I have said it over and over again, and I hope today that you will hear it, because what we will not do is what your government did when you were in power, and that is have our students pay for their own education. The cost of education is put on their backs by running higher and higher deficits and putting that burden of debt on their shoulders, on their future -- $41,000 per student in this province. It's unconscionable. We will not do that. We are making the changes we must make for their future.
YOUTH UNEMPLOYMENT
Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): My question is to the Chair of Management Board. Earlier I listened very carefully to your answer to the official opposition about the youth unemployment crisis that faces us here in Ontario, and I heard you spew out a lot of numbers. However, I hope that you would agree the bottom line is that there are 170,000 youth out of work in Ontario right now and that it is a shameful number and something needs to be done.
The federal government is supposedly today announcing an initiative. I think it's quite small, I don't think it's going to help a lot, but I think more should be done. I'm wondering if you have given any consideration to announcing any kind of similar program of a major expansion of internships within the Ontario government to allow young people an opportunity for a year of training, for a year of exposure to quite an incredible operation like the public sector and public policymaking. Can you add to what the federal government is doing to help address the crisis of youth unemployment in this province?
Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Government House Leader): I would say first of all that I agree with the member opposite that this is a problem and remains a problem. Notwithstanding the 16,600 new jobs, as I mentioned, for the young people last month and some 37,000 new jobs over the past four months, it still remains a problem that needs to be dealt with and encouraged.
The government is approaching the situation in the larger context of trying to encourage employment and investment in Ontario in general. To the degree that people invest in Ontario -- because the tax rate is competitive, because the red tape is cut, because the deficit is eliminated in the province -- for all those good reasons, then it will translate into jobs for young people.
I am more than prepared, and the government will be more than prepared, to take the federal announcement, have a look at it and see if there's some way we can work together.
Ms Lankin: There are a lot of numbers I could throw back at you, like the over $22 million you cut from youth employment over this last year, from the Summer Experience programs and others. The bottom line is, and you've acknowledged it, that this is an incredible problem facing us. Your approach in terms of job creation overall: I haven't seen a lot of success yet, but I hope you're right. At this point in time, though, the difference between adult unemployment and youth unemployment ranges from 8% to over 16%. That approach is not going to address the unique problem of youth who are not getting an opportunity to get the training, who are not getting an opportunity to get work experience and therefore be able to go out and get those new jobs that you say are going to be created.
Minister, the program that is being announced apparently is an internship program. I would like to ask you to take up the challenge, match the federal government's program and take it a step further: Put together a committee of people -- and I'll be willing to help -- to go out to the private sector and encourage at least 3,000 private sector firms to take on those kinds of internship programs at all. Would you agree to work with us on that?
Hon David Johnson: This government is always interested in working with other levels of government, whether it's the federal government or the other provincial governments. Indeed, there is the premiers' conference coming up soon; the ministers of health are getting together and the ministers of consumer and commercial relations. So we're always delighted with these kinds of working relationships.
When the member opposite says she hasn't seen any evidence of job growth in Ontario I'm a bit puzzled, because this year some 160,000 jobs have been created in the province. Since this government has come to office, about 220,000 people are off the welfare system in Ontario, most of them finding other employment. The employment opportunities have never been greater. There have never been more people working in the province. Your government lost jobs in Ontario when you were in office. This government is creating jobs through its policies, but we're always delighted to work with other levels of government to do even more.
AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE
Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): My question is to the Minister without Portfolio responsible for privatization. Mr Sampson also led the government's auto insurance reform initiative.
I've received calls from a constituent who has just returned from a one-year stay abroad. My constituent has told me that because he was uninsured for a year, his former automobile insurer has told him he will have to pay higher rates. This seems blatantly unfair to both me and my constituent. I thought this was addressed as part of the auto insurance reform. I would ask the minister to provide an explanation for my constituent, myself and the people listening today.
Hon Rob Sampson (Minister without Portfolio [Privatization]): I don't know why his constituent was told that, because it's not true. In fact, Bill 59 was specifically designed so that Ontarians who have a lapse of coverage are not caught by this particular rule --
Interjections.
Hon Mr Sampson: -- a particular a rule, by the way, that was put in place by my colleagues across the floor who are now barking at me.
I suggest to him that he inform his constituent that it is inappropriate for insurers to use a lapse of coverage as an underwriting rule. In fact, I have recently written insurers in Ontario instructing them and reminding them that it is not appropriate behaviour and should be stopped immediately.
Mr O'Toole: I'm shocked, quite frankly, but I'm pleased with your response.
My office occasionally gets calls from constituents who are displeased with the way the settlement of insurance claims is being processed and handled. Minister, could you outline what options are available to my constituents and their concerns or complaints regarding the insurance claim process?
Hon Mr Sampson: Because we felt that the consumer should be adequately covered and protected by auto insurance, we purposely required that insurers have within their own firm an ombudsman to deal with issues of concern. This is a new plan that we put in that previous governments felt was not appropriate or sufficient enough. We felt it was important for Ontarians and insureds in Ontario to have somebody within the company to go to.
We also felt it was important that the industry association itself deal with problems relating to the industry of auto insurance.
Finally, as a last resort, we felt it was important that the Ontario Insurance Commission have within its own jurisdiction, within its own employment, an individual who will deal with questions and concerns raised by Ontarians relating to auto insurance. We put that plan in place for Ontario drivers because we think Ontario drivers deserve that. Apparently the people across the floor didn't feel that was appropriate.
1550
PUBLIC HOUSING
Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services. It has to do with her bill that's before the Legislature seeming to do what no one else has recommended, and that is to dump social housing on to property tax. The taxpayers of Ontario, at Mike Harris's insistence, paid for a major study to be done by a panel handpicked by Premier Harris. That handpicked panel studied this issue. That panel strongly -- I use their language -- opposes a move to putting social housing on property tax. They are unanimous in the view that it's a mistake. The Premier's handpicked panel said, "Don't do it." The taxpayers funded that study to look at this in detail.
My question to the minister is this: Can you assure the House today that you have talked to Mr Crombie, that you have reviewed with him his findings and that he now is in agreement with what the government's planning to do -- dumping social housing on to property taxes?
Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Community and Social Services): As the honourable member well knows, the housing issue comes under the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. If he has not already talked to Mr Crombie, I'd be quite prepared to recommend to him that he do so. I myself have talked to Mr Crombie before about many of the recommendations he had made.
As the members of this House recognize, a number were made. At the end of the day, they realized that there were some significant problems with what they did. They had to go back and reissue some of their recommendations. Some of them we were prepared to accept, some of them we were not because of policy issues that we thought were important. For example, we did not want to contract out the delivery of social services. That was something we did not think was appropriate. I am sure, as we work through these issues with the implementation teams, the municipalities, we will be able to sort out any concerns they have.
Mr Phillips: Let's cut through the bafflegab and get an answer out of the minister here. It is your bill, Minister. Your name is on the bill. You are proposing to dump social housing on to the property tax. Nobody supports that. I go back to my question. I would like an answer.
Have you discussed this with the handpicked panel that Premier Harris selected to look into this issue? The taxpayers paid big tax dollars to fund that study. Have you discussed this recommendation with Mr Crombie? What is his response and why have you decided to go 100% against the recommendations of your own handpicked panel that says you are making a huge mistake? Can you give us a straight answer, Minister? Have you discussed it with Mr Crombie and why did he recommend 100% the opposite direction to where you're heading?
Hon Mrs Ecker: As I said to the honourable member, I've certainly discussed Mr Crombie's recommendations with Mr Crombie. I can't answer for my colleague Minister Leach. I would be surprised if he hasn't. I'd be very prepared to discuss it again with Mr Crombie, but I would like to stress that of the many recommendations he put forward, there were some we felt we should not accept for some very valid policy reasons; one I mentioned earlier, about contracting out social services.
The other thing I think the honourable member is forgetting here is that municipalities are currently involved in social housing. One of the things we have recognized is that their involvement in the social safety net out there is working extremely well. We want to build on that strength. We recognize that there needs to be further financial support and further steps taken so that this transition of social housing can occur effectively, without causing problems for people who depend on this service. That's one of the reasons we are putting forward literally millions of dollars for them to assist in upgrading the stock of this housing: so this transition can take place very effectively.
FIRE IN HAMILTON
Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): My question is to the Minister of Environment and Energy. The need to clear the air over the Plastimet fire with an independent inquiry is becoming more obvious every day -- obvious to almost everyone, that is, except you.
Despite mounting requests for an unbiased investigation into the toxic fire, you're still offering flimsy arguments against calling an inquiry that will get to the bottom of the problem. It's a shabby performance by a politician who gives the impression that you fear the government will be embarrassed by the results of a credible investigation into the fire and the mistakes that led up to it.
You certainly can't answer the litany of concerns and questions that linger about the fire and all its implications. It shouldn't be necessary for the people of Hamilton to drag you into an inquiry kicking and screaming. It's time for you to stop dithering and start putting the interests of Hamiltonians first, with a practical inquiry.
The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Minister. Supplementary.
Mr Christopherson: I'm sorry, Speaker, what happened there?
The Speaker: He feels he's answered the question, so he's answered it. Supplementary?
Mr Christopherson: You know, Minister, you can't continue to treat everybody and every community and every entity that cares about this with this kind of arrogance. That's disgusting, to sit there and not even get up and account and answer for yourself.
I want you to know that what I read to you in my initial question was yet another editorial from the Hamilton Spectator today, calling for a public inquiry.
We've said to you from the outset that this isn't about politics. You've got the other opposition member, the member for Hamilton East -- you wave your hand away -- the local council, the regional council, the MOH that you asked to come on side, every one of them, and I might point out there are some very prominent Tories on that city and regional council level. Those people and all of us are calling on you. As I said, this is the third editorial from the Spectator -- not a paper that has traditionally gone against most of your initiatives.
Minister, you've got no excuse, none whatsoever, except to further display your arrogance and your fear for a public inquiry. Stand up now and do the right thing. Say you'll give us what we deserve: a public inquiry.
Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of Environment and Energy): I have said before to the other member from Hamilton who has questioned me on this, and to my own members, that we are anxious to answer any and all questions relating to this. This member has not sent to me one question that I can remember with regard to any of the matters relating to Plastimet.
We are as open as you possibly could be on this. My staff are working hard to clean up the site at the present time. The progress is going well with regard to it. We have informed the people in the community of what we are doing. We have a citizens' group. We have given the city $40,000 to do their own independent assessment of it. We have done absolutely everything, but no one has brought one scintilla of evidence to me that anybody has done anything wrong in this.
SOCIAL ASSISTANCE
Mr Bart Maves (Niagara Falls): My question is for the Minister of Community and Social Services. As you know, a major part of this government's platform was reform of the welfare system. Many of my constituents are still very concerned about reforming that system.
I noticed, reading the papers over the last few days, that you released the province's welfare caseload statistics. The good news is that there is a downward trend in the number of people dependent on welfare. I wonder if you can tell me today if the Niagara region follows the provincial trend.
Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Community and Social Services): I'm very pleased to report that the Niagara region has indeed followed the provincial trend. As you know, we've seen in the last two years an unprecedented decline -- 16% fewer people trapped on welfare in this province -- because of job growth and our welfare reforms. In the Niagara region, there has been a 25% decrease of people trapped on welfare -- that's 7,000 fewer people -- at a taxpayer savings of $8 million. That's good news for the taxpayers in Niagara region and it's certainly good news for those individuals in Niagara who no longer have to rely on welfare and are out there in paid jobs, where they'd like to be.
1600
Mr Maves: It's good to know about the savings accruing to the region through that. I wonder if the minister can let the House know about savings accruing to the provincial government.
Hon Mrs Ecker: Yes, I'd be very pleased to do so. As well as the $8 million that Niagara region has saved the taxpayers of Ontario, there has been a saving of over $1.3 billion. I think that's a very good thing for the taxpayers of Ontario. But I would also like to stress that we went out last year and did a survey on these individuals who are leaving welfare -- no other government had done this -- to find out where they were going.
We found that the vast majority were going into paid jobs. That is what our welfare reforms are designed to do, to help those individuals off welfare and into the job market. That's where they want them to be and that's certainly where those of us who pay and support the system want them to be.
QUESTION PERIOD
Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I note on the clock that the time has run out on question period. I'm assuming that the clerks have set the time in accordance with rule 30(b) which says:
"Time limit on routine proceedings
"(b) At 4 pm on any day on which the House has not commenced Orders of the Day, the Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings and shall put every question necessary to dispose of the routine proceeding currently occupying the House and immediately call Orders of the Day."
I would like to raise a point of order, with three parts to it, with respect to this particular issue.
First, and I think this is a minor point, I would indicate to you that the hour on the clock for question period should have remained and that at 4 o'clock, if you felt that under this standing order you needed to interrupt the routine proceedings, you would do that as opposed to the clock having been reset.
Second, I would suggest to you that the reason question period began, I believe, around 3:15 -- I'm sure the clerks would have an accurate record of that -- the reason there was a delay, was because there had been a point of order raised and you felt the need to recess in order to rule on that point of order. I myself raised that point of order. I would think it is fair to say that it was not in any way dilatory; in fact, you found it to be a valid point of order and ruled in favour of the point I had brought forward.
As a result of the necessary time it took in order for you to make that ruling -- and we of course saw that -- question period began with only about 45 minutes left until the 4 o'clock time would be reached on the clock. That is a contingency that probably has not happened before or been thought of or provided for in the rules.
In that respect, I would like to make my second point to you. Under section 1(c) of the standing orders, "Conduct of Business," it indicates contingencies unprovided for. These are new rules; this is the first time this is being tested I believe.
"(c) In all contingencies not provided for in the standing orders the question shall be decided by the Speaker or Chair, and in making the ruling the Speaker or Chair shall base the decision on the democratic rights of members referred to in clause (b). In doing so the Speaker shall have regard to any applicable usages and precedents of the Legislature and parliamentary tradition."
If you look to the democratic rights of members that are set out, I would specifically ask you to look at 1(b)(iii), which is "to hold the government accountable for its policies." In particular, we know that the vehicle through which we most often attempt to do that is question period.
The second point I put to you is that in these circumstances a point of order was raised, a valid point of order -- whether or not you had ruled in favour of the point of order, it was not in any way a dilatory action; it was a question to be determined, and the length of time it took for you necessarily to review that, as opposed to any actions on the part of any members of this Legislature, took ourselves into that magic hour before 4 o'clock arrived on the clock of the Legislative Assembly.
I would think that in this case, it being a contingency not provided for, you have some leeway as a result of this clause to determine whether or not it is in the interest of the democratic rights of the members of this Legislature to hold the government accountable for policies and therefore to be able to continue with question period for the allotted period of time.
The third argument I would like to make to you -- and this is an argument in addition or in the alternative, whichever you may want to look at, but I think it's in addition -- is that if you look at the wording of the rule which is at question here, time limit on routine proceedings, 30(b), it says, "At 4 pm on any day on which the House has not commenced orders of the day, the Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings and shall put every question necessary to dispose of the routine proceeding currently occupying the House and immediately call orders of the day."
Mr Speaker, I would put it to you that if through the course of routine proceedings we were still, for example, dealing with motions -- as you saw today, the government House leader introduced a motion with respect to evening sittings for the rest of this week. At that point in time, when the question was put, there was a division; there was a 15-minute bell. If we had been still in routine proceedings at this time, when 4 o'clock came -- we were debating it, let's say -- and it was necessary for you to put a routine motion to a vote, like such a motion under section 9 or under any other section, there would be, if there was a division, a requirement for the bells to ring. I don't believe you would shortchange that just because it's 4 of the clock. You would take the steps necessary to dispose of the questions involved in that routine proceeding.
The argument I'm making to you is that the routine proceeding of question period is an hour by standard in this Legislature. It is an hour of questions of accountability to the government. It would seem to me that there is an argument that could be made that at 4 of the clock you could notify the members of the House that all the questions must be put and that there is an opportunity for the rest of the routine proceeding to be completed, either to the hour or in an opportunity for the members who had questions scheduled. I think the hour is the more important reference point for you, because it would be difficult on any given day, with interruptions, for you to know which of the members scheduled to ask questions would actually have been able to successfully get them on within the period of the hour. But I put that to you.
So the three points I raise are with respect to 30(b) and the rule on time limit on routine proceedings. First of all, there should not have been an automatic change in the timing of the clock. The routine proceeding was under way, and at 4 o'clock, had you felt or had it been drawn to your attention that it was necessary to interrupt the proceedings, that could have happened at that point.
Second, in the case we have before us today, there was a point of order. You recessed the House. You required that time. I don't take fault with the time that was necessary, but it took time away from the House proceedings in order to determine a valid point of order, and I think that's a contingency not provided for within the rules. Then I referred you to section 1(c) and the ability you have to make a ruling when a contingency is not provided for and that you "shall" base -- there is no discretion -- that decision on the democratic rights of the members referred to in clause 1(b)(iii), as I pointed out, "to hold the government accountable for its policies."
Thirdly, in addition or in the alternative, under 30(b), when 4 o'clock of the House arrives, it is necessary for you to put every question necessary to dispose of the routine proceeding. As I indicated, if we were currently in the middle of a motion and a question had to be put, the bells would ring; that length of time would take place. You wouldn't take away from that. I think there's an argument that you might be able to apply equally to the hour set aside for question period.
Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Again, I believe that valid points have been raised, Mr Speaker. In opposition, our concern about the change in the rules that we're now operating under, you will recall from many of our speeches, was that question period could be abbreviated, as it was today, if one were to interpret the new rules as they've been interpreted today, or second, that we might not even have a question period if there were any business that was to take place previous to question period, now that question period is relegated to seventh place instead of third place. The opposition is now in a position, as you will understand, that if we wish to contest anything that takes place before question period, the danger is that question period is either abbreviated or eliminated.
Specific to the comments of the member for Beaches-Woodbine as to the clock, it would be certainly my preference, my understanding -- I suppose I could put it that way -- that 60 minutes should appear on the clock, and at 4 o'clock, whatever happens happens. But my preference would be that we show the regular number of minutes that would be available for question period, that being 60 minutes.
1610
I also want to look at the hope that you are able to exercise the kind of discretion which has been requested by the member for Beaches-Woodbine as it relates to question period. She put forward the valid point that if there were a vote that were taking place, you would complete that routine proceeding, and since in the view of the opposition -- I'm sure many members of the House have sat in opposition before -- question period is the most important routine proceeding -- not routine proceeding but proceeding that we have in this House, I'll put it that way -- it should be completed regardless of what the 4 o'clock stipulation may be on the part of the government.
I hope you will give serious consideration to the arguments that have been made by the opposition, because if not, I foresee days where we will not have a question period at all or indeed many days where question period will be abbreviated or, alternatively, the opposition will have to sacrifice any of the very valid points -- I don't think one could say they were not valid points -- that could be made by the opposition in that period preceding question period.
Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Government House Leader): In terms of the clock setting, I thought it was handled very effectively and efficiently. I think the members of this House deserve to know how much time is left in the House, and the way the clock was handled today clearly demonstrated how much time was left in terms of question period. It left no room for confusion on behalf of the members, for example, and I think clarified the situation, so I would applaud those who handled it in that direction.
In terms of the rest of the points, I guess really what we're debating here again is that some of the members in the opposition don't like some of the rules. We went through a long debate. I think we went through five days of debate -- I think about three of them were till midnight -- long, arduous debate about these points. They made many of these points over and over again. The government made some concessions back in June on some of the points, made some concessions more recently on some of the other points, yet they continue to not like some of the aspects of the standing orders.
At some point in time, the government has to be able to get on with the business of the House. Notwithstanding that they may not like some aspects, the standing orders were passed. I think they're working quite nicely. I think a lot more members of this House are able to get involved in the debate, and I have heard that comment over and over again.
This may not be deemed to be a great situation for those in the opposition party who traditionally spent an hour and a half going on about --
The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Government House leader, there is a point of order on the table. I really don't know how you are addressing it.
Hon David Johnson: I'm addressing it to say that this is really a continuation of the debate on the standing orders. The point in contention, clause 30(b), that has been raised by the member for Beaches-Woodbine, is clear: "At 4 pm on any day on which the House has not commenced orders of the days, the Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings and shall put every question necessary," etc, and we carry ahead. It doesn't say that if there's a Speaker's ruling, for example, then we don't proceed at 4 o'clock, we do something else; it says at 4 o'clock we go to orders of the day.
The member opposite raises the issue of accountability. There isn't just accountability during question period. Accountability extends through all aspects of this House -- through the committee hearings, through the debates on orders of the day, through members' statements. Accountability exists through every component of the time we spend in this House and in committee work, and much beyond.
The day has not been shortened. Indeed, we had a motion earlier today to lengthen the amount of time, to go from 6:30 to 9:30 to allow the members to speak. Surely if the member was to be consistent she would say that the accountability has been increased because the members have more time to debate more topics and therefore have more accountability to the people of Ontario.
I would submit that this is all in order and that we should proceed with orders of the day.
Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): Point of order.
The Speaker: Member for Algoma, I don't want to cut anyone off. I'll hear all points of order. If they are not repetitious, it would be helpful, and succinct would also be helpful.
Mr Wildman: I'll be brief. I won't repeat the points made except to say one thing, and that is in response to the government House leader's statement that accountability is part of all the various debates in this House. That's quite true, but for him to argue that by having passed a motion as per the new rules to have additional time for debate in the evening, another day, if the government were really serious about wanting to extend accountability, they would have included in that rule the BC experience of an additional question period. Then we wouldn't be so concerned about cutting off the question period at 4 o'clock because we would have another question period in the extended debate.
I would also just point out that, in terms of the clock, I agree with my friend from Beaches-Woodbine and my friend from St Catharines that it is important for us to know how much time would have been available for the completion of the regular question period when 4 o'clock occurs. Whatever your ruling, it might happen that for whatever reason members of the House might give unanimous consent to complete question period, and then it would be important for us to know how many minutes are left. So it is important that we know exactly how much the question period has been cut if this rule applies.
Mr Peter L. Preston (Brant-Haldimand): Look at the clock.
Mr Wildman: If we look at the clock we cannot tell if the clock is operated as the clock operated today. Therefore, I would suggest that makes sense.
I would also suggest that if the government members are serious about wanting to ensure accountability, they will appreciate that it is important for question period to be completed wherever possible and not to be truncated.
Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): I will be very brief. I don't believe this is a debate about whether or not we like the new rules; we don't. The issue is really whether or not some aspects of the new rules, in ways perhaps not foreseen, are dysfunctional for the proper order of the House.
I believe, Mr Speaker, that it's incumbent on you in your role as Speaker, although you are clearly constrained by the law which passed these orders and put them into place, to ensure that they can operate to as great an extent as possible to preserve some democratic process in this place.
My concern, based on what happened today, is twofold: First, the arbitrariness of having to move to orders of the day at 4 o'clock will constrain members of the Legislature from raising points of order prior to that, even though the points of order may be legitimate, as the point of order raised today by the member for Beaches-Woodbine was. Even more serious, I think rigid interpretation of the 4 o'clock rule constrains you as Speaker and the time you take to make rulings on points of order. Obviously today I think it is constraining for you to take that degree of time, knowing that members' question period is being curtailed as a result of it.
I wonder if at the very least it isn't within your mandate within these rules to reserve judgement on points of order, if they don't immediately affect the routine proceedings, until routine proceedings have been completed.
1620
The Speaker: Thank you to the members whose submissions I did hear. First, I tend to side with the member for Algoma with respect to the hour. I don't see any problem with putting an hour on the clock. If the House wants to agree by unanimous consent to complete question period, it seems logical to me that there would be an amount of time left and they could agree to it very readily.
With respect to the time taken, your second point of order, to the member for Beaches-Woodbine, I think that's there in case there isn't a standing order directing me to do otherwise; in essence, if I'm in between standing orders or it's not clear, not written. It's very clear, without any doubt: "At 4 pm on any day on which the House has not commenced orders of the day, the Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings." It's just that simple: At 4 o'clock, I shall interrupt, wherever we may be, and we shall move on. I don't think that's difficult at all. It's as clear as glass as far as I'm concerned, and I don't have the least bit of concern in making that ruling.
With respect to the member for St Catharines and the member for Beaches-Woodbine with respect to the votes, it says in standing order 30(b), "The Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings and shall put every question necessary." There is no question to put in question period, other than the ones you want to put. Besides those, there's no question from the Chair to put. If we were in a voting process, I would stand and put the question. Then it would follow naturally that I'm disposing of it by having a five-, 15- or 30-minute bell.
I appreciate the points of order.
Ms Lankin: One for three.
The Speaker: One for three: right, basically.
Mr Wildman: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: In light of your ruling and in light of the time taken today and the government's desire to remain accountable, I would ask for unanimous consent to complete question period.
The Speaker: Okay, I'll say it was 15 minutes. Is there unanimous consent to go 15 minutes to complete question period? No, there's not.
Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: The one issue you did not address was the issue that was raised by the member for Fort William dealing with the fact that you in effect took a 10- or 15-minute recess in order to arrive at a decision. Would you not agree that since it was not a matter that needed to be decided right there and then, at least the deliberation on that particular issue could have waited until after question period was held?
The Speaker: With the greatest respect, I probably would reserve if it didn't have to be made there and then. The difficulty at the time was that the decision I was taking needed to be made there and then. I had to recess to render a decision because the House couldn't continue until I did. That's why I did.
Finally, just to comment quickly with respect to causing some stress or undue hardship on the Speaker because of the time he's taking cutting question period, you're probably correct, but I'll have to live with that stress.
Petitions?
Interjections.
The Speaker: Oh, right. We're not in petitions. Orders of the day.
ORDERS OF THE DAY
TIME ALLOCATION
Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Government House Leader): I move that, pursuant to standing order number 46 and notwithstanding any other standing order or special order of the House relating to Bill 148, An Act to deal with matters relating to the establishment of the new City of Toronto, when Bill 148 is next called as a government order, the Speaker shall put every question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill without further debate or amendment, and at such time the bill shall be referred to the standing committee on general government;
That the standing committee on general government shall be authorized to meet for the purpose of conducting public hearings on the bill at its regularly scheduled meeting times on September 18 and September 25;
That all amendments shall be tabled with the clerk of the committee by 12 noon on October 1;
That the committee shall be authorized to meet to consider the bill for clause-by-clause consideration during its regularly scheduled meeting times on October 2; and that the committee shall be authorized to meet beyond its normal hour of adjournment on October 2 until completion of clause-by-clause consideration;
At 5:00 p.m. on October 2, those amendments which have not yet been moved shall be deemed to have been moved, and the Chair of the committee shall interrupt the proceedings and shall, without further debate or amendment, put every question necessary to dispose of all remaining sections of the bill and any amendments thereto. Any divisions required shall be deferred until all remaining questions have been put and taken in succession, with one 20-minute waiting period allowed pursuant to standing order 127(a);
That the committee shall report the bill to the House on October 6. In the event that the committee fails to report the bill on the date provided, the bill shall be deemed to be passed by the committee and shall be deemed to be reported to and received by the House;
That upon receiving the report of the standing committee on general government, the Speaker shall put the question for adoption of the report forthwith, and at such time the bill shall be ordered for third reading;
That one sessional day shall be allotted to the third reading stage of the bill. At 5:45 p.m. or 9:15 p.m. as the case may be on such day, the Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings and shall put every question necessary to dispose of this stage of the bill without further debate or amendment;
That in the case of any division relating to any proceedings on the bill, the division bell shall be limited to 5 minutes.
The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Mr Johnson moves that -- dispense? Dispense.
Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?
Interjections.
The Speaker: Oh, we have a debate, sure.
Hon David Johnson: Mr Speaker, it's called accountability.
Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): He would have preferred that approach.
Hon David Johnson: No, we wanted debating time. I guess we'll have to sort this out, because as the clock is now at 4:30, we may have to make some arrangement, which I'll endeavour to do after I'm finished speaking, so that the third party can have some time. Otherwise they wouldn't have any time. We would want the third party to have some time.
Mr Wildman: We've just agreed to divide the time.
Hon David Johnson: We'll talk about that in a minute. But I am going to split my time with the member for Scarborough East and the member for York Mills.
I will say from the outset that this is an issue that has been a difficult one for me personally. This involves the creation of a new city of Toronto. Having had a history for over 20 years of involvement with the borough of East York, years I'm very proud of -- a very fine community and a great experience. To be both alderman, as it was termed in those days, and more recently mayor of the borough of East York was indeed a privilege and an honour for me.
I do believe, looking at the future, that while there may be some trepidation about the new city of Toronto in the minds of quite a number of people, there's every reason to believe the one new city will be a success.
I know people are hard at work in terms of putting the structure together. The team of people are working hard to ensure there's an excellent structure which incorporates all the municipalities, all aspects, whether they have to do with some issues I was involved with over the weekend, including the Hydro services in the new city, or the public health services or sanitation or any number of services that are very important to people in Metropolitan Toronto.
I think it can work. I think it will involve less expense. As a result of having one clerk's department, for example, instead of seven clerks' departments, having one audit department instead of seven audit departments, one legal staff instead of seven legal staffs, one treasury instead of seven treasuries, and on and on and on, there's every reason to believe there will be the savings that KPMG has reported in the hundreds of millions of dollars, and that that money should come off the tax bills, a reduction in taxes, as a result of savings to the people of Metropolitan Toronto.
However, I think maybe just as important, the new city will have to preserve the fine communities and the community spirit that we have in Metropolitan Toronto --
Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): I was worried.
1630
Hon David Johnson: I understand your concern but, you know, there's a history of fine communities in Metropolitan Toronto. East York itself, the township of East York, goes back to 1924, and the town of Leaside back to 1913, and of course the city of Toronto back --
Mr Marchese: Way back.
Hon David Johnson: Way back. There is a long history of communities. The Todmorden community in East York was there even before the township. There was a community at Main and Danforth, Little Main I think it was called, back in the early part of this century. Those communities will continue to exist. I've said many times, even when I was at the municipal level, that the strength in a place like East York was in the communities and the people who were involved in the communities. That, my good friends, will remain. That is what the new city has to foster and encourage, and I believe, with the community councils that have been set in place, that will be the case.
Our time is somewhat limited here today, but I just want to say that this bill, Bill 148, is a companion piece of legislation to Bill 103, which created the one city of Toronto. It's mostly a housekeeping kind of bill, with the main philosophy I guess and the main action being in Bill 103. But this is a bit of a housekeeping bill to deal with the agencies, the boards, the commissions, the very important agencies and boards such as the Toronto Transit Commission, the Metropolitan Toronto Zoo, Exhibition Place. It also involves ensuring --
The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): The member for Fort York, if you want to hold a conversation, do it outside.
Mr Marchese: Was I too loud, Speaker?
Hon David Johnson: He is a bit loud, isn't he, Mr Speaker?
Mr Marchese: Who was that from?
Hon David Johnson: I don't know if they can pick him up. I can't say who's in the House or who isn't --
Mr Marchese: Say it.
Hon David Johnson: All right, the member for Fort York. There you are. I identified that the member for Fort York is here today. One of your colleagues would give me heck for identifying who is here and who isn't here. At any rate the member for Fort York is here and he's heckling me sometimes and he's supporting me other times. It's always a pleasure to be with the member for Fort York.
The Deputy Speaker: Okay, let's continue the debate.
Hon David Johnson: Many functions --
Interjection.
The Deputy Speaker: Let's go back to the debate.
Hon David Johnson: There's authority with regard to police, with regard to ambulance services in this bill, and many of the important services. It's a technical --
Interjection.
The Deputy Speaker: The member for Fort York, I don't have to tell you again, please.
Hon David Johnson: I think he got the message that time, Mr Speaker.
We have had three days of debate on this bill. On Bill 103 we had 15 days of hearings, we had 100 hours, we had over 600 people come to make deputations. There has been a great deal of debate and public input on this whole issue, yet it doesn't end and there will be more debate and there will be more committee work and there will be more clause-by-clause and more debate in this House on Bill 148, and I think it'll all be helpful.
Some people would have you believe that a time allocation motion is something dreamed up by this particular government.
Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): No, just used frequently.
Hon David Johnson: My friend from St Catharines will tell you, "No, absolutely not," that the Liberal government, for example, when he was with that government even back in the 1980s used a time allocation process, believe it or not, and the time allocation process had not even been formalized. That was formalized by the NDP government. I wonder how many times the NDP government used time allocation.
Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East): Tell us.
Hon David Johnson: Twenty-three times. Yet they bemoan the fact that the government has to use it to bring an issue, after a period of time, after you've had days and days of debate, after you've had 100 hours of public hearings on a related matter -- yes, at some point in time you need to bring it to a head, and that's what we've done.
Hon Marilyn Mushinski (Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation): The social contract notwithstanding.
Hon David Johnson: My friend is mentioning the social contract.
Interjections.
Hon David Johnson: There's a lot of chatter going on here, Mr Speaker. It's hard to --
Mr Wildman: Yes, you are not keeping the attention of the House.
Hon David Johnson: Well, I hope the House does pay attention to this, because this is one of the key issues we've dealt with this year. It's a matter I know is in good hands. I have every confidence that this is going to work. We have to bring this matter to a head so that the new government coming into office through the elections taking place this fall, the new government coming into office next year, will ensure that it has the mechanisms and the tools to give good government in Metropolitan Toronto.
Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): Why didn't you think about this stuff before and you could have brought in one bill?
Hon David Johnson: The member opposite is heckling me and asking me certain questions.
We debated, for example, the gasoline bill. Last week we debated the gasoline bill and two parties, the government and the NDP, said, "Let's debate it for a certain period of time, but then let's bring it to a vote." The government said, "Let's bring it to a vote" --
Interjection.
The Deputy Speaker: The member for Kingston and The Islands.
Hon David Johnson: -- and the NDP said, "Let's bring it to a vote," but the Liberal Party would not allow it to come to a vote. They said, "No, we have to debate and we have to debate and we have to debate." Every once in a while all parties acknowledge that there is a time to take action. The NDP acknowledged that last week on the gasoline pricing motion, we acknowledged that, but unfortunately the third party, the opposition, the Liberals, wouldn't allow that to come to a vote.
This is a time today to finish with the second reading debate. We've had three days on it. We will spend some more time this afternoon. We'll spend time in committee. We'll get it right. We'll have it back to the House for third reading and we'll lay the foundation for those members who are going to be elected by the municipal council this fall to come in.
Mr Gerretsen: You didn't get it right the first time. That is why you have the second bill. Why did you make the changes in the first place?
The Deputy Speaker: The member for Kingston and The Islands.
Hon David Johnson: My prediction is we'll have a cost-effective municipal government and we'll have a government that respects communities and allows sensitive input from those communities into the issues and into the services that are so important to our communities in Metropolitan Toronto.
Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): Mr Speaker, I would suggest that retroactively we agree to divide the debate this afternoon equally between the three parties. Perhaps you would seek unanimous consent that we divide the time equally between all three parties.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent? I heard a no.
Mr Turnbull: Apparently the Liberals don't want to give equal time to all parties. So, okay.
We're debating time allocation on Bill 148 today. Time allocation means we are setting a time, that we have said there has been sufficient discussion in second reading and we want to move this out to committee. By moving this out to committee, we allow for public input. The opposition have indicated they would like some public input and we have indicated that we would allow time prior to the intersession to do this, since this is a bill which only affects Metropolitan Toronto. So there is a time element as to why we have to move forward with this.
Second reading of this bill is a needed step before we can go to committees. We must end this. This bill deals with agencies, boards and commissions and it's really a technical bill. We have always suggested that there would be two bills dealing with one Toronto. This is of a technical nature to ensure that services are in place for all of the citizens of Toronto, starting January 1, 1998.
1640
The list of the things this bill does is quite extensive. It allows us to continue to operate the Toronto Transit Commission, Exhibition Place, the Metro zoo, the Hummingbird Centre, the Guild Inn, ambulance services, homes for the aged, to regulate street vending, to provide police protection and lifesaving services for Toronto Harbour, to operate conservation authority lands and exempt those lands from property taxes, to resolve disputes regarding bridges and highways, to operate a licensing commission, to operate the Toronto Islands ferries, to plan and act in emergencies, to enter into water supply and sewage treatment agreements with other municipalities, and to receive and dispose of liquid and solid waste and to establish and operate controlled-access roads within the new municipality. These are all essential.
It ensures that official plans are in place to guide land use in the new municipality of Toronto and to provide for pensions and benefits of municipal and local board employees and retirees.
Clearly, these are all functions which are done by the various municipalities at this moment. We have seven municipalities. The first Toronto bill was highly debated and had very extensive hearings. In fact, the first bill, Bill 103, had over 100 hours of public hearings. We had over 600 individuals and groups that spoke to it and made presentations and we made changes and improvements to the bill based upon that.
We've had over 300 hours of legislative time spent on this piece of legislation. But this is technical in nature and it is time-sensitive because we must have it ready for the people of Metropolitan Toronto, which will become the city of Toronto on January 1.
Surely no member of this House could possibly argue about the need for the continuation of all the services I've just enumerated. The reason for all of these things is to ensure that the taxpayers get better value for money.
On page 17 of the Common Sense Revolution, the document which we took to the people prior to the last election, we stated: "We must rationalize the regional and municipal levels to avoid the overlap and duplication that now exists." This was a statement our party made a year before the last election. We fought an election on it and we won an election on that platform. The fact is, we are moving forward with that agenda.
I quite understand that the present members of the opposition don't agree with this, but as Winston Churchill once said, "The job of opposition is to oppose," and in that they are certainly doing their job.
But I would remind the members of the Liberal Party of the words of a former provincial Liberal leader. His name was John Wintermeyer. Wintermeyer said: "There is no other logical solution for Metropolitan Toronto other than total amalgamation. The metropolitan system of government is not the final solution. It is a step in between." I quote from a remark he made in the Toronto Telegram on August 4, 1962.
Of course, it's quite clear that the Liberal Party does not agree with saving the taxpayers money. That's why they doubled the expenditures of this province in the five short years they were the government. Let's just dwell on that for the moment: They doubled the expenditures of this province in five years.
Even the wretched NPD cannot match that record. They were profligate, agreed. But the Liberals doubled the expenditure of this province in five years, far exceeding the inflation rate. They will come back and say, "Oh, but there was high inflation at the time." But they far outstripped inflation by spending beyond the means of the taxpayers of this province, which had a direct result in the elimination of jobs in this province. We became less competitive and it cost the jobs of young people and old people alike in this province.
As we move forward with this legislation, we have one objective in mind, and that is to deliver services to the good citizens of Toronto in the best, most economical way. We're eliminating seven library boards. We've got six health boards, we've got two parking authorities and two historical boards. Why? Yes, it adds a few jobs for the people on those boards but it doesn't deliver efficient services to the taxpayers, and that is what this legislation is all about.
We will continue to work hard to make sure we deliver on the promises we made in the last election: the elimination of duplication and the elimination of wastage. This legislation also allows the new council --
Mr Gilles Pouliot (Lake Nipigon): That's why the taxes are going up.
The Deputy Speaker: The member for Lake Nipigon.
Mr Turnbull: Pay attention, you might find something of interest here. It allows the citizens and the councillors of the old areas of Metropolitan Toronto to be able to look at reserves that their municipalities built up. It allows the councillors in the new council to be able to distribute them to the benefit of the taxpayers who paid those -- not the whole of the new Toronto, but those people who have paid for it.
This legislation also allows for varying levels of service according to the areas, and it allows the councillors to be able to identify those services and whether the citizens want to continue them, and it allows for differing levels of taxation in order to be able to pay for them.
What could be more reasonable than allowing the citizens to say: "Yes, in our area of town we'd like to have a different level of service. For example, we would like to have the sidewalks plowed in winter and we will pay for it." That is perfectly reasonable and that is what this legislation does.
In cutting off further debate, after extensive debate, over 300 hours of debate, we want to move this into committee, which allows the public to have their input. That is why we're moving forward today.
I will not debate any longer simply because we want to ensure that the NDP gets an opportunity to debate. We will have to see whether the Liberals are prepared also to carry that thought in mind.
Mr Gilchrist: I'd like to add my comments to those of my colleagues from Don Mills and York Mills. There is no doubt the content of this bill follows very closely on the heels of Bill 103, the original City of Toronto Act.
You will recall that bill received literally 100 hours of committee hearings. We heard from over 600 groups. In addition to that, there were untold numbers who sent in their written comments, phoned and faxed.
I would remind the members opposite that back then many of those same people, those same groups, were commenting on the issues that are embodied in this bill here today. They were talking to us about TTC service, they were talking to us about the water and sewage, they were talking about the zoo and they were talking about all the other things the seven cities currently provide in the way of services to their citizens.
There is no doubt that under the umbrella of Bill 103, we have heard all of the various points of view. We have certainly heard from the members opposite that they believe the status quo is the only choice. They believe the duplication and the less than highest level of productivity that is received by having seven different agencies, seven different governments effectively delivering the same services, should be maintained.
We've heard from a number of citizens who were concerned about the future of their communities. In large measure, the substantive concerns about governance and the substantive concerns about how the future shape of those communities will evolve were addressed in the amendments that were brought forward in Bill 103.
Now before us are the purely technical issues that relate back to those governmental changes. What this bill is all about is quite simple: It is the technical changes that need to be brought about to ensure that all the services currently provided by the seven cities continue after January 1, 1998. This bill will ensure that the TTC continues to operate, that the zoo operates, the Guild Inn, that all the services we take for granted in this great city continue to be provided at exactly the same level and at exactly the same cost on day one.
1650
In the bigger picture, of course, there is the opportunity now for the new city council to find economies of scale, to find ways of consolidating their administrative aspects of these various services to ensure that savings are found there that can then be applied either back as tax savings to the overtaxed citizens of this city or to improve those services. Ironically, those who would vote for the status quo and would oppose the changes we're bringing forward here are those who would suggest that we don't find those savings, we don't find those economies of scale. But I would remind the members opposite this bill does something else -- and they themselves were very vocal about this issue back when Bill 103 was debated -- and that is on the issue of reserves.
First off, it should be said that there really only are two cities that have net reserves. Many of them took the time to talk about how many dollars they had in the bank but they conveniently left out of the equation that they actually have liabilities that exceed those dollar reserves in all but two cases. But we think it's appropriate -- and this bill makes it very clear -- that the reserves, if there are any, will continue to accrue to the benefit of those citizens living in the geographic portion of the new city of Toronto in which they were created. That's fair. We made you that commitment back in Bill 103; this bill now carries forward on that promise.
It also ensures that other important issues such as the pensions of all of the citizens who are employed by the seven cities right now continue to flow seamlessly and without any concern to those already retired or those still employed who are looking forward to their retirement years. It ensures that their pension plans continue unchanged and unfettered.
The bottom line is that this bill is just a technical addition to the very substantial government changes that were proposed and carried out in Bill 103. We have to look at it in the context of what is actually happening out on the hustings right now in this great city. We have at least one mayoral candidate who has looked at this bill, has looked at Bill 103, has looked at all the other issues that arise from this chamber, and he's made it very clear he believes -- in fact, he has used the word "guarantee" -- that if he's elected there will be no property tax increase.
The bottom line is that if a majority of the other councillors who are elected this fall share that point of view, then clearly all of the goals we set out in Bill 103 and in this bill will come to pass: tax savings, maintained or improved services, more efficient and effective delivery of government services and a greater ability for the city of Toronto to respond in the years to come and to ensure that it takes its rightful place leading all the other communities of this world, all the other great cities in terms of attracting new jobs investment.
With that, I'll remind you that the Liberal Party opposed the sharing of time equally. While we've only taken 27 minutes to comment on behalf of the two-thirds of the members in this House who were elected by the people of this province and who sit on the government benches, we'll now leave time available for the opposition. I hope the Liberal Party shows some compassion to their colleagues and similarly cuts their time to ensure that the third party has a chance to comment on the time allocation motion.
Mr Bradley: The first word that comes into mind is "phoney" because that's the most phoney statement I've heard in a long time in this House. Since when has a member of the Harris government ever been concerned about the time that an opposition party is going to get? You never have been, so don't be phoney about it. I'm going to tell you that there's always going to be appropriate time for all parties. That's always the way it has worked in this House. To make that kind of statement is just totally ridiculous. I think the members of this House know it; I hope the public knows as well that this is a government that's trying to give a lecture on the allocation of time for debate when the purpose of this motion this afternoon is to close off debate.
I listened to the government House leader start today by saying: "Aren't these rules great? They give more members a chance to speak." If the purpose of the rules -- and I know that's not the purpose of the rules -- was, as the government likes to suggest, to give more members a chance to speak, then the government would not be bringing in time allocation motion after time allocation motion. Almost every day we have a motion tabled in this House to limit debate, to cut down on the debate of any particular issue before this House.
Again, the word "phoney" comes to mind when the government suggests it's to give members more chance. There isn't anybody in this House who truly believes that, even on the government side. I'm sure the public and the news media won't be fooled by that contention, because the government is again bringing in a time allocation motion. The government likes to make references to previous circumstances.
The government now has the tightest set of rules, the most restrictive set of rules this Legislature has ever had. It allows the government to grease the skids for all of its legislation, controversial as it might be, reckless as it might be, drastic as it might be, to get through the House in record time. Yet even with these new rules, the government is still bringing in motion after motion to limit debate further.
We can see that the government does not have much interest in the democratic process. Ultimately, let me remind members of the House that even the government does a better job when it takes time to do things right rather than simply to do them quickly. We have to know, however, what the motivation of the government is.
The motivation is to get this controversial legislation, these drastic changes through as quickly as possible, for a couple of reasons. One is that in its last year in office there'll be very little legislative time. The government will be doing next to nothing except handing out money left and right in the last year. That's exactly what is going to happen. The government has no intention of sitting in the last days.
Hon Noble Villeneuve (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, minister responsible for francophone affairs): That was the Liberals.
Hon Ms Mushinski: That's not true.
The Deputy Speaker: Order.
Mr Bradley: You can see that I have managed to raise the anger of some of the members of the Legislature, particularly the hard-core right wing over there --
Interjection.
The Deputy Speaker: The member for Scarborough East, you had your turn.
Mr Bradley: -- the members of the Reform Party federally who must have invited Preston Manning to attend the YPC convention to give a speech. I'm pleased for my good friends -- I have many good friends in the Conservative Party across the province who are very perturbed by the fact, as I'm sure Mr Danford is, my good friend Harry, that the YPCs, the Young Progressive Conservatives, invited Preston Manning to speak to their convention.
Mr Gilchrist: No, they didn't.
Mr Bradley: Immediately after the convention, but very close to it.
I know this is a touchy subject with the members of the government because it's a slap in the face to the federal leader, Jean Charest, who worked so hard on behalf of the Conservative Party in the last federal election. Many of my good friends in St Catharines who are members of the Conservative Party are absolutely shocked when they hear that Preston Manning is invited to address the group that was gathered together for the YPC convention. That always perturbs the government. That's what happens: We can't discuss these matters as extensively as we might under the new rules.
Mr Douglas B. Ford (Etobicoke-Humber): Right on.
Mr Bradley: I know that the member from Humber agrees with me when I say that; he always agrees with me. He wants me to mention Brian Mulroney again. He always wants me to mention Brian Mulroney -- and I have that commitment to do so on behalf of my friend Noble Villeneuve to mention Brian Mulroney -- because of course he was the leader around whom all Conservatives rallied in years gone by.
But let's look at the implications of the legislation we're seeing. First of all, the legislation which is the subject of this closure motion, of this time allocation motion, is legislation which was rejected by 76% of the people in Metropolitan Toronto in the plebiscite which was held in Toronto -- 76%. What happens is that the members of the government, if they don't like the outcome, object to the process. If the process had produced a 76% vote in favour, they would have been applauding the process and saying, "Why is the opposition complaining?"
But I've listened to these members -- true Reformers many of them -- who say, "We have to rule by referendum; we have to consult the people." The municipalities consulted the people and a fine debate took place. There was a debate in this Legislature, there were debates across Metropolitan Toronto in each of the municipalities and when the results came in on election night, overwhelmingly 76% of the people within the boundaries of Metropolitan Toronto said they didn't want this legislation, they didn't want a megacity. They saw many of the examples south of the border.
1700
I know many of my friends on the government side idolize the Republican zealots, those in the Republican party who are the adherents to people such as House Speaker Newt Gingrich and some of the real right-wingers -- the governor of New Jersey, for instance. They idolize what these people do and they obviously like what's happened to large American cities.
One of the things most Americans tell us when come to Canada is: "One thing we like about your cities is they're liveable. You don't have the megacity governments that we have in the United States. You have individual communities, you have individual municipalities and you allow for that kind of local input." That's what they tell me.
Interjections.
The Deputy Speaker: Order.
Mr Bradley: I know it annoys members of the government to hear this, but you talk to Americans who come here. They like us the way we have developed over the years.
Hon Mr Villeneuve: They come for the casinos and you know it.
Mr Bradley: Mr Villeneuve, the member for Stormont, Dundas, Glengarry and -- ?
Hon Mr Villeneuve: East Grenville.
Mr Bradley: -- East Grenville, he always adds that; it's very important -- mentions "for casinos." Across this province, this government is bound and determined that it's going to put video lottery terminals or electronic slot machines in every bar and every restaurant on every street, in every neighbourhood, in every village and town and city in the province of Ontario.
Let me explain, because members over there justifiably will say, "How does this relate to that legislation?" I know they're going to ask that. Let me tell you how it does. It relates in the following way: If we were to actually consult the people at the local level and say, "Do you want these so-called charity casinos in your community?" then individually, as communities in Metropolitan Toronto, some could say, "No, we don't want them." But if it's simply Metro as a whole, then Metro could make a decision which is going to allow these charity casinos into Scarborough or into Etobicoke or into the Beaches area, where there's some opposition to it. But if we had those individual municipalities, then the individual municipalities in Metropolitan Toronto would be able to say, "No, we don't want them."
I know the members who are sitting in this House who ran on the family values issue. They were good family values people and they wouldn't allow casinos and video lottery terminals and other forms of gambling in this province. But today they are part of a government which is imposing them everywhere in Ontario. When you make bigger municipalities, they don't have the same opportunity to reject them.
I know the people of Kitchener, for instance, their council said, "We don't want these charity casinos with all these video lottery terminals," and I agree with them. Here we are, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year perhaps, these casinos will be operating in this province.
The good family values people who go to church on Sunday and walk out proudly and tell everybody they're good family values people are part of a government imposing those in Ontario. I'm surprised that they have not prevailed, because I know if this legislation were not passed, if we did not have one megacity, there may be people within those individual municipalities who would reject them, people who genuinely have those family values, who genuinely would run locally on those family values. They would say, "We do not want these operations in our community," and I would agree with those people. I would agree with their right to say that. We're not going to see that now.
I say to my friend from Humber, unfortunately, with the megacity, if the megacity council decides it's going to have them, then even a fine community like the old Humber part of Etobicoke will be stuck with these casinos, even if it doesn't want them, and that's most unfortunate. I can't believe the family values crowd that was elected would allow this to happen. But I don't want to dwell on that forever, because I know the government has to apologize for this.
Interjection.
Mr Bradley: The minister from Scarborough who interjects had a disastrous press conference. The news media were falling over themselves laughing at the end of the press conference because she couldn't answer questions about it. Now she interjects to me about them. You couldn't answer the questions, so don't interject about that when you can't answer the questions. They know now that they're going to have them 24 hours a day, seven days a week, with all these new video lottery terminals in those particular casinos.
Let's look at the philosophy which I have seen evolve over the years. One thing you always said about the Conservative Party in this province was that they were for strong local government. They said bigger wasn't better. I think of Mr Danford and the part of the province he comes from. He would know many of the mayors and the reeves and the deputy reeves and so on. They believed, as did the Bill Davis government, as did the John Robarts government, as did the Leslie Frost government, that local government was good. It was closest to the people; it was the most accountable to the people. They didn't believe in these huge megalopolises that are being contemplated by this government.
The new philosophy of this government quite obviously --
Interjections.
The Deputy Speaker: Order, order. Member for St Catharines.
Mr Bradley: The new philosophy of the Reform Party -- the Harris government -- is quite obviously different. They don't want to have these individual communities, they want to have huge communities and huge health units in the province -- it doesn't matter how big they are -- huge school boards that are larger in many cases than many European countries. They assume that bigger is automatically better.
That's not the Conservatives I remember; that's not the people who governed the people of this province in a moderate fashion, in a reasonable fashion, who didn't move ahead recklessly, who didn't destroy what had been built up over the years by many good people in the communities. But this zealous group of Conservatives we have now --
Hon Ms Mushinski: Tax, tax, tax, 60 tax increases.
The Deputy Speaker: You will all have a chance to speak. The floor belongs to the member for St Catharines.
Interjections.
The Deputy Speaker: No, order. The floor belongs to the member for St Catharines. I don't want to hear any interjections.
Mr Bradley: Thank you, Mr Speaker.
This zealous group of people don't believe in this. They want to make everything big. "Bigger is better," they say, unlike the Conservatives of the past.
Mr Wildman: That's right.
Mr Bradley: My friend Mr Wildman, the member for Algoma, has sat in this House since 1975. He will recall that while we had some differences with the Conservatives of the day, we recognized that most of those people who were in the government caucus of the day, the Conservative caucus, were people who believed in the local community. They didn't want to see a megalopolis. They recognized that the smaller the unit, the more accountable it is.
They probably today have read the paper put out by Dr Joseph Kushner and his colleagues at Brock University -- Dr Kushner being a man of very conservative background -- which in fact has pointed out that there are no savings when you make things bigger. They did a detailed study.
Dr Kushner sat on St Catharines city council for 21 years. He has been the consistent voice of restraint. He has been very cautious with the taxpayers' dollars, what you people say you are, and he has recognized through the study that he has done with other economists at the university that bigger doesn't produce better.
There has been only one study done on Metropolitan Toronto and of course that one study detailed, "Are there going to be savings or not?" That one study said there wouldn't be any savings. What you're prepared to do is to have a huge megalopolis and all the problems you have with that by losing accountability, by losing that local touch, by losing that local input. You're going to sacrifice all that and not save the money that you contend you're going to save. I don't know who sold this to the Conservative caucus, because the true Conservatives would never believe this is the case. True Conservatives recognize that the local authority, is closest to the people and that many of those decisions could be made best at the local level.
1710
The last referendum that was held in Metropolitan Toronto I guess you could say was the by-election. I never read too much into by-election results, but I look and say, if the government was very popular, if what the government was doing, for instance, on the megacity was popular with the people in Oriole and North York, then surely the Conservatives would have won that election, because that was yet another chance for people to express themselves on some of the issues of the day. If they felt overwhelmingly that what the government was doing was sensible, was going to work, was good for the municipality, they probably would have gone to the Conservative Party in droves and voted for those people, and they didn't, just as 76% of the people in the plebiscites held across the city voted against one huge megacity.
Some of those people too are just finding out today, as a result of the report that came into the House, that this government is ending rent control. I know that the large landlords are going to be absolutely delighted with this. If you own huge complexes in downtown Toronto and you're going to be able to now gouge people for whatever you want to gouge them for -- when the person moves out, you just put the rents up as high as you want -- then you recognize that rent control is leaving. I wonder how many seniors in Wentworth East would recognize that we now are ending rent controls in this province.
One of the areas where there was action taken initially to bring to the attention of the government the huge rent increases that were taking place in these large complexes was in the city of Toronto, not necessarily Metropolitan Toronto, but in the city of Toronto. That prompted Premier Davis, the Premier of the day, to announce in the middle of an election campaign in 1975 that there would be rent controls implemented in this province. Premier Davis obviously thought they were a good idea. He saw that there were people who were being gouged. He saw that the rents were getting totally out of control: nothing related to the cost of operating, nothing related to reasonable profit; they were just out of control. So Premier Davis, a Progressive Conservative Premier, with people such as W. Darcy McKeough, a very Conservative Treasurer in his day, brought in rent control in this province, and now this government is ending rent controls. I'm wondering how many seniors watching this Legislature this afternoon know this government is ending rent controls in this province and that they're going to be placed in a very vulnerable position.
Mr Ford: They will know now.
Mr Bradley: As my friend from Humber says, they will know now.
We're on a time allocation motion. With the new rules that exist in this House, I am at a loss to figure out why the government continues to bring in closure motions closing off the debate. I thought with the new rules limiting and restricting debate so much that the government should be able to tolerate a full and frank debate, a full discussion on the legislation that comes before it. This time allocation motion is going to stop that from happening, and that is most unfortunate. That exposes for the people of this province that the real agenda of the government was to ram its legislation through in record time, not to provide more chance for debate.
We would be delighted if the government were simply extending the hours of debate for the purpose of more debate, for the purpose of more members, but what the government does now is that the afternoon session is counted as one day of debate and the evening session is counted as another day of debate. In our democracy, it has been generally accepted that the government pays the price, if you will, of a question period for each day of debate that is recorded for the purposes of a bill. The government is getting two for one in this case, and that of course does not bode well for accountability or the democratic process.
Today we saw as part of the rules that we're talking about this afternoon that question period was in fact limited to 45 minutes, not an hour. It could happen on certain days that there would be no question period at all, because if the opposition -- or the government, for that matter -- is to raise any legitimate matters previous to question period and question period has now been relegated to seventh place from third place, then we wouldn't have a question period.
Yes, that affects the opposition the most, but it also affects non-cabinet members of the government who may wish to address their scintillating questions to the government, their penetrating questions that are directed to ministers on a daily basis, exposing some of the weaknesses of the government and of course raising issues of great importance to those individuals and their communities. I know there wouldn't be any government members who would simply get up and read a question that the minister had given to that person and be used in that way. I can't believe there would be any government member who would do that. I remember my friend Derwyn Shea, the member for High-Park Swansea, saying he would never do that. I'm trying to remember if has ever done that, but I know he wouldn't want to do that. So it even deprives members of the government who are not in the cabinet of their opportunity to participate in question period.
I would have thought this afternoon, with the great importance of the problem that my friend from Lambton and I have chatted about and that my friend from Quinte and I have chatted about on many occasions, gas prices, we would want to have more people on record expressing their views about gas prices, because that's a very important issue. But we try to get the government to call that as a matter of debate in this House and they refuse to do so.
They have one afternoon. They want to ram something through in one afternoon. We believe that members, even government members, should have their chance to express their views, to talk about how within the jurisdiction of this government lie many of the solutions to those high gas prices, right within Mike Harris's jurisdiction: not having to point the finger at the municipalities, not having to point the finger at the federal government, but right within their own jurisdiction. I wanted to have an opportunity for the government members to get up and express that view, and I would have hoped the government whip would not have limited the opportunity for some of the more vociferous and expert members in this field to speak in this House on that matter.
I want to say as well that this bill is, as you say, a technical bill, but it flows out of the more substantial bill which flew in the face of the democratic views expressed by the people of Metropolitan Toronto. So when my friend from Algoma and I, as House leaders in the opposition, have to deal day after day with a time allocation motion, with a debate-limiting motion, we begin to see the erosion of the democratic process.
I recognize the difference, and I've said this on other occasions in the House: There's a difference between a business and the democratic process in this House. This is not to say that within ministries one cannot apply business practices, and that's important to note. There are some things that can be applied to government, and we welcome when that kind of input is forthcoming. But this House isn't your small business. This House isn't where you snap your fingers and say it is automatically the law. That that's the way it is.
I do not say that your business has to be run as a democracy. I don't say that. I never contend that, because that is a different milieu; that is a different circumstance. But in this House, the democratic process should be pre-eminent, and I want to ensure that it's going to be pre-eminent. That's why when we get a motion of this kind, my colleagues and I from time to time will rise in the House to express our concern about it.
1720
I only implore the members of the government caucus to suggest to the government House leader, who takes his orders from the Premier, so to the Premier -- if you want to stand up to the Premier, there is a penalty to be paid, I suppose, but if you stand up in the caucus meeting and say to the Premier and the cabinet members who are there: "We believe we should slow down and do things right instead of simply doing them quickly. We believe there should genuinely be more time for debate in the House, more hearings available so we can get the kind of input that's necessary to bring forward legislation which is much better than that which we have seen come forward."
The angry right-wingers who are impatient with the process of democracy must understand how important that democracy is, because there may be a circumstance when some of those arch right-wingers are sitting in opposition and they should legitimately have their point of view put forward and they should be able to call the government to account. It doesn't always work on one side.
This afternoon my colleagues and I in this House have expressed some views which we think are important. We hope the people of this province agree with us. Certainly one of the messages, of many, that was delivered last Thursday was that many people are not happy about the way the government is proceeding because we saw a substantial drop in the percentage of the vote for the Conservative Party. That's got to be worrisome to some Conservative members of the House who agree with the people who expressed that.
What is ironic surely, Mr Speaker, to you and to me, is that at the very time that many members of the government who are not part of the cabinet are calling upon the government to slow down and do things right instead of simply quickly, when they're doing that, this government is doing exactly the opposite. There are some members, the zealous right-wingers, the real revolutionaries, who want to ram things through, and I understand that, but I think within the caucus there are probably some thoughtful small-c conservatives, the very thoughtful people who say: "Let's get it right. Let's not simply ram things through the House."
What this motion this afternoon is all about, this time allocation, this closure motion, is limiting debate and limiting democracy in our province.
The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): The Chair recognizes the member for --
Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): Dovercourt.
The Acting Speaker: The member for Dovercourt. How could I forget?
Mr Silipo: How could you forget, Speaker, after all the exchanges you and I had during the predecessor to this bill?
Mr Marcel Beaubien (Lambton): Well, he has been on holidays for a couple of weeks.
Mr Silipo: We've all been on holidays for a couple of weeks. That's fine. It's understandable.
Interjection: Was he in France?
Mr Silipo: No, I'm the one who was in France. I don't know where he was.
Interjection.
Mr Silipo: I'd be happy to tell you about my time in France but the time today doesn't allow for that. We'll save that for another time. I did tell the government members opposite of one interesting observation I made when I was in France earlier this summer. People know there is a socialist government there, elected overwhelmingly this past spring. In fact it was interesting that the first action that government took upon coming back from the summer recess was to announce its new job creation incentive for youth.
Again, I'll have the particular numbers on another occasion, but in a situation in which the youth unemployment there is lower than it is here in Canada and in Ontario, we have a situation in which the government there chooses to invest a significant amount of money to create 350,000 new jobs aimed at young people under 26. Here we have a government that believes the way to create jobs is through this trickle-down effect, which no doubt will have some positive effect but, by and large, will not work.
What we have now in front of us is a time allocation motion on Bill 148. I want to just spend a couple of minutes on this, because I know my colleague from Fort York will want to speak on this. Speaker, I should notify you, as I'm required under the rules, that I'll be sharing this time with my colleague from Fort York.
I just want to say that I need to put on the record, not just because it's part of my duty as the critic for our caucus on this very important issue but because I truly believe it, that I find it troubling and offensive that this government is resorting to a time allocation motion on Bill 148, which is the second of the bills relating to the amalgamation, the creation of a megacity here in Metropolitan Toronto. I say troubling because I'm not sure that it was really necessary to do this on the part of the government, yet not surprising because this is typical of how this government has chosen to behave on this issue of amalgamation within Metropolitan Toronto.
Who could forget the experience we went through on the predecessor bill, where we had to go to extraordinary measures to ensure that at the end of the day the voice of the people was heard. The government chose to ignore the voice of the people. The government chose to ignore the hundreds of people who came in front of the committee on Bill 103 and said no to the megacity. They chose to ignore 76% of the people who voted in the referendum across Metropolitan Toronto who overwhelmingly said no to the megacity.
The government chose to try to paint those voices as being opposed to change when in fact people were overwhelmingly saying, "Yes, we do support the need for change, yes, we're prepared to embark upon a process of change, but we want change that still maintains a sense of local communities and a sense of local structures in the lower councils, the city councils that are obviously large enough to function in a metropolis like Metropolitan Toronto yet small enough that we don't lose that connection that now exists between the elected officials and the people they represent."
That is, in my view, the biggest problem you have with the creation of one megacity: You create a council that is responsible for 2.3 million people, with 56 councillors. Whatever you may call it, you cannot call it a local council. It just can never function in that way, in the way that all of us who have had anything to do with local councils, whether on municipal councils or on school boards, as I had the privilege of doing for some years on the Toronto Board of Education, another board that is also losing itself in this new mega-board that is being created -- you cannot maintain that sense of relationship that has to be there between the electors and the people they elect to represent them on the new council, and particularly even the relationship between councillors, when you have or will have in this new megacity council a council that is going to be larger than the next Legislative Assembly of Ontario.
Mr Pouliot: It's a mini-Parliament.
Mr Silipo: It's a mini-Parliament, as my colleague from Lake Nipigon reminds us. It is going to create a situation in which that which we know to be best about local government will not be able to function as well. I am not going to stand here and say that some aspects of it won't work. Obviously some parts of it can. People, I think, are going to try as hard as they can to make it work, given what they've been given, but is it the best choice that could have been made? No, far from it.
We set out throughout the whole process, and on this not only did we object very strongly to what the government was doing -- we did and we still do oppose what the government has done in creating the megacity -- but also, I want to remind members opposite particularly, we were very clear throughout the process in saying, first of all, that we, as the New Democratic Party, supported the need for change and, second, we went beyond that simple line and that position and said, "Here's how we would go about bringing about this change."
We actually put forward what we thought and still think was a practical way to go about making that change, which was to follow the advice that the last two major studies on the whole issue of Metropolitan Toronto and the surrounding areas have told us. Both the Anne Golden study and the work that David Crombie did said that the first and most significant problem to be dealt with was not the issue of Metropolitan Toronto itself but was in fact the economic entity we know as the greater Toronto area, that the first line of attention should be put on to the GTA. We said that we believed, and we believe today, the first line of action the government should have taken was to set in place a process to work towards a greater Toronto council. I understand the difficulties politically. I understand the difficulties it would have caused for any of us, any of the three parties, had we been in government. Now it's obviously up to the Tory government to carry the can on this, as on other issues, because they're the government.
1730
The concept of having one municipal body, one overall regional government that's the size of the GTA, even with reduced boundaries within that, I can see from a provincial perspective might cause some hesitation. Yet it's what needs to be done, because that's where you need the coordination. That's where you need the coordination in terms of services, whether it's transportation, whether it's overall planning, whether it's waste disposal, any of the other big, important services.
That's where the government should have moved first, and then within that, set in place, as we had suggested, a process which would have involved, and we would have supported, the delay of the municipal elections by a year in order to show the seriousness of the government to move on this and yet slow enough to allow for some real discussion -- a time period within which you would have allowed some real discussion about then what other changes should be made to the local municipalities, not just within Metropolitan Toronto but within this whole greater Toronto area.
I am quite sure, as a result of that, had we had embarked upon that process, we would have come up with changes to the present structures. We would have come up with fewer municipalities at the local level than we have now. But we would not have come up with, I believe very strongly, one municipality for the whole of Metropolitan Toronto. That is something that, by and large, most people do not support.
It would have been far more sensible for the government to follow that process. You would have been able to listen to people and you would have been able to be the government that finally acted on this very important file and you would have been able to say that you acted in a way that was responsive and responsible. Instead, what we have is a government that at best can say, "We made a decision." I'm sorry, this kind of get-tough approach of saying: "We made a decision. You guys never made any decisions. We made a decision on this, therefore we showed the toughness of our convictions and we came to a decision," may be good at first blush.
That may impress a few people at first blush, but at the end of the day making a bad decision is not particularly good, in my mind at least. Making a bad decision, particularly in an area like this, is going to have its impact felt not just for next year or the year after but for a few years down the line, subject to whatever changes may be made down the line.
We've put on the record that if we form the next government we will re-evaluate this issue. We will look again at the kinds of changes that would need to be made to bring down this enormous structure that is being created. We don't think that one megacity for Metropolitan Toronto is going to work, so changes are going to have to be done.
Hon Ms Mushinski: Why didn't you do it?
Mr Silipo: Members opposite say, "Why didn't you do it when you were in government?" I wish we could have acted on every single issue when we were in government, but at least we had started the process. We were the ones who started the Anne Golden process. We were the ones who put in place that process and we were determined -- we knew that we had to act once the report came in. We knew there would be some difficult choices that would have to be made when that report came in. I thought I admitted earlier that the concept of one regional government was something I foresaw would have given us some trouble but something we would have had to come to grips with as a government. But I believe we would have done that, as opposed to what this government is doing, which is to simply go what I thought initially was the cheap politics route, if you will, and say, "We're going to put one massive council in Metropolitan Toronto."
If you recall, at the beginning the big line that was being carried by Mike Harris and Al Leach and everyone else associated with this was, "Look at how many politicians we're getting rid of." That was the line. Of course they then, as part of their backing off or their way of trying to appease people, had to double the number of politicians they were looking at from their original proposal in terms of the mega-council.
But the bottom line, as I see it, remains that the basic decision that was made was fundamentally wrong and was done the opposite to the way it should have been done. It should have started with the regional level. Whenever the government comes down with some legislation on that, I think you will find that we will be very supportive of anything that moves the integration and the coordination of services in that area. Mark my words: I certainly will continue to be supportive of that direction. I believe that's essential for the growth of this region regardless of my very strong feelings, despite my very strong feelings that the megacity within that is still wrong.
You're hearing that very clearly from people not just inside Metropolitan Toronto but also from political leaders and citizens in the 905 area. Why? Because they are very concerned as they see the move towards the coordinating body that we expect will come at some point. They see that they're going to have some problems as well, as members of that 905 area, relating to the other partner in this coordinating function, this coordinating body, whatever it turns out to be, having in effect half the size of the rest of the 905 area put together.
The balance is just wrong for those reasons as well, but it is particularly wrong when you look inside Metropolitan Toronto and expect a local municipality to function with the kind of size and shape we have in front of us in the megacity. Bill 148, which is in front of us today, carries on the next stage in the implementation of that process and puts together a number of bodies which now function at the Metro Toronto level and therefore are sensible in terms of maintaining their relationship directly as one body reporting to the new council. But it also amalgamates, in the style of the various actions the government has already taken, a number of other boards. Here again I believe the government is moving too hastily in making some of these decisions.
Despite the fact that I'm opposed to the way in which the government is proceeding on this, I'm looking forward, through the committee hearings on Bill 148, to hearing what is happening in a couple areas, particularly the work the transition team has been doing. I hope we will have cooperation on behalf of the government to have the head and the members of the transition team come in front of the committee, tell us what they have been doing in some particular areas of preparation they have been working on and tell us where they may be hearing from people some different models of implementing the new megacity, even among some of the local boards.
I'll be interested particularly to listen, and I say this knowing that the Minister of Citizenship is here -- I continue to raise this with her and with the House and hope she is still planning to bring us some changes with respect to library boards.
We have continued to hear from people about the issue of the Metro reference library board, the fact that there is consensus. I have yet to hear anybody, even on the government side, other than obviously through the votes, make a really strong case for saying that board should also be amalgamated with the other boards. It is a recognition of the unique nature of that library and therefore of the need for the governing structure to continue to be separate and distinct from the rest of the library boards. That is something I hope the government will, through an amendment to this bill, be prepared to rectify.
Likewise, I'll be interested in hearing from the transition team. I'd just say on that, when we dealt with Bill 109, the libraries bill, on that issue the committee unanimously agreed to refer that issue, a motion I had put at that time, to the transition team with a view to having them look at that issue and report back to the Legislature at some point. This is the time they need to report back to us.
Similarly, there are other bodies where it would be interesting to hear what work has been going on with the transition team and what the government is prepared to do to deal, for example, with the reality of the new community councils. Can they not, should they not play a larger role in some of these areas than simply going to one large board, whether it's for libraries or for any of the other services?
Those are the things we need to look at. They may be technical in nature, as some members of the government would have us believe, but they are indeed the nuts and bolts that will make the new city function or add to the sense of frustration people have had so far with this government. Here, I would say again to the government, is probably your last opportunity on this very important issue to show some flexibility as you put together the implementation of this, but particularly as that is reflected in this bill, Bill 148, because this will be the last legislative opportunity within the life of this government, I venture to say, for any of these issues to be addressed properly in so far as they require legislation.
1740
I look forward to the committee process on this with obviously mixed emotions and mixed feelings, in the sense that I oppose what the government is doing and yet want to make sure that we do everything possible to ensure that where some changes can be made to the legislation that will make the workings of the new council and the new city work better, that is done and the government is prepared to listen to that.
I hope that will happen on the library issue and on other files, and we will see whether, in the short time we will have in the standing committee, the government is prepared at all to make some of those very important concessions.
Thank you for your time.
Mr Marchese: I'm pleased to have an opportunity to add some thoughts to what the member for Dovercourt has already presented to this House. He spoke about process and spoke about what we had recommended as a caucus in the NDP. We suggested that would have been the way to go, but this government clearly doesn't like the kind of process that we suggested and recommended. In fact, it reflects very clearly the modus operandi of this government. As we have spoken about in the past and we continue to speak about, the modus operandi of this government reflects haste, reflects arrogance, reflects autocracy and a dictatorial approach to this place. That is the modus operandi of this government.
I suggest to you that this haste of yours is endangering many of the structures we have set in place in the past and endangering many of our social structures that we have put in place in the past. I suggest again to this government that the tumbling of Tory support in this province reflects their haste, their arrogance, their autocracy and their dictatorial approach to all the policy issues they present in this place. We see it day in and day out. We see it in the responses of every minister in this House, daily. They never answer questions. Speaker, you know that because you listen attentively in the back. You listen to these ministers, as I do. I tell you, I never hear answers.
I've listened to the Minister of Education day in and day out for the last two years and some odd months in this place, and all he tells us is that he's concerned about quality and that in order to achieve quality in education he's got to continue to cut to make it better. That's the only answer this poor fellow has to every question directed to him.
The Minister of Labour, even though she whacks injured workers and whacks every worker in this province, continues in her way always to say, "We care about them."
We've had a ruling on the issue of pay equity and you heard her answer today: She hasn't had an opportunity to read it, but she cares and they spend a lot of money in relation to the issues of pay equity.
Everything they do belies what we see, yet in the language they speak, you have the Minister of Labour saying, "We care," the Minister of Education saying, "We care; we're cutting to make it better." Day in and day out, that's all you get from these ministers: arrogance, haste, autocracy and a dictatorial approach to the issues of the day. That's the modus operandi.
We see it reflected again today in this closure motion. We're dealing with a closure motion on Bill 148, the son of megacity, the companion piece to Bill 103, the multiheaded monster. The mythical hydra is before us today. We've dealt with one monster, Bill 103, and they introduced a companion piece. Thus we have our mythical character hydra presented here today.
How many monsters can we deal with at a time? How many more companion pieces can they bring that we opposition parties, as small as we are, with fewer energies, can deal with? How many monsters can we deal with at a time? I tell you, this government continues to present them with incredible haste, day in and day out.
I know this government has many lawyers in the back benches who are quite eager and good soldiers. I know that they think they're capable of handling all this.
Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): They're practising law.
Mr Marchese: They're practising law?
Mr Kormos: Of course they are.
Mr Marchese: Imagine, some of these people are here and they have other jobs on the side. I don't know, but I see this as another monster that I have to deal with.
We listened to the member for York Mills and he says, like the Minister of Education --
Interjection: Why?
Mr Marchese: We listen because he's here; he speaks so we've got to listen to him. He says, "We are giving better value for our money." What evidence does he present for that, other than the fact that the member for York Mills, who is omnipotent, omniscient, seems to have a handle --
Interjection.
Mr Marchese: There are many omnis. I guess we have to trust his omnipotent knowledge, but I tell you, he presents no knowledge other than his omnipotence. That, to me, is evidence of nothing.
M. Beaubien est arrivé. Bonjour, Monsieur Beaubien. C'est bien de vous voir ici aujourd'hui. C'est important d'être ici à m'écouter parce que c'est une discussion très importante. Merci, Monsieur Beaubien.
The member for York Mills says we're going to save money. How? He doesn't ever explain. They never explain. All the ministers, all these poor unhappy backbenchers come here every day singing the same tune. They probably know the tune, but they can't dance.
We say to the member for York Mills, bring your studies. Where are they? We have seen studies to the contrary, showing that bigger is not better, showing that when you make it bigger it will cost more, yet this government in its arrogant way says: "We know better. Don't worry. By cutting, we're going to make it more cost-efficient." How?
Interjection.
The Acting Speaker: Order.
M. Marchese: C'est Monsieur Beaubien qui participe dans la discussion, et j'aime l'écouter. J'espère qu'il aura l'occasion de parler plus tard.
M. Pouliot: Mais jamais, mon collègue, jamais.
M. Marchese: Je l'espère. The member for York Mills says, and uses the words, "We are eliminating library boards." Take note of the language: "eliminating." He doesn't talk about merging, which is a little more euphemistic. He doesn't say, "We are bringing them together in order to make it more efficient." He says "eliminating," which is the language of autocracy, which is the language of a dictatorial approach to the issues.
The minister without portfolio for privatization is nodding his head, saying, "That's not true." This multi-headed companion piece, monster, mythical hydra before us will not make for more efficient services. We have no evidence for that.
Interjection.
Mr Marchese: Minister of Citizenship, you say, "Yes," but --
Hon Ms Mushinski: When you need six administrations --
Mr Marchese: When a government presents something before the House, they ordinarily would have some information before them that would say, "Here is the evidence." There is absolutely --
Interjection.
1750
The Acting Speaker: Order. We would all like to hear the member for Fort York and his interesting remarks about the motion that's in front of us. It's only Monday. Let's hear the member out.
Mr Marchese: Thank you very much for your support, Speaker. I appreciate it.
We are dealing again with the comments made by the member for York Mills where he says these are mere technical matters. Some of it might be, but when the government says that historical boards are all being merged, I don't see that as a technical matter. Do you? Does the public think this is a technical issue? I think it's a complicated issue, very political, and it has implications.
Merging historical boards indeed will create serious concerns and does for me in Toronto in terms of its implications. Will that lead to greater historical resources in the current city of Toronto? Will it get more attention? Will it get the attention it deserves? We argue and the historical boards argue, in Toronto that's not likely to happen. They're worried about a diminution of services and I tell you, that is all we're going to get: a diminution of services and nothing less.
The member for York Mills says that library boards and public health boards are being merged.
Interjection.
Mr Marchese: Bill 148 says that, Minister of Citizenship, it's there. They're being merged. The member for York Mills says it's technical. I don't find it that technical. Speaker, do you think that's a technical issue? I don't think you do.
Hon Ms Mushinski: It's a sensible issue.
Mr Marchese: I don't think it's a sensible one either. I think it's a matter of worry. If indeed services were to be increased everybody would be happy, nobody would worry, but everybody indeed is worried because when it costs $200 million to bring this bill about, people are worried about where that money is going to come from.
When the transition team says to all of the various cities, "You've got to cut 15% of your budgets," that's a serious worry. Public ed boards, library boards and historical boards are all very worried, and rightfully so. They need to worry because the premise of this government of course is that they've got to cut -- they say to make it better, but in cutting it they're cutting services. That is the bottom line. That's what it means.
My good friend, Mr Johnson, the Chair of Management Board, says the cities are still going to be there. Of course they're going to be there. Where else are they going to go?
Hon Ms Mushinski: Exactly.
Hon Rob Sampson (Minister without Portfolio [Privatization]): What's the problem?
Mr Marchese: A number of ministers are saying, "What's the problem?" The problem is not that East York is going to disappear, member from High Park. It's what happens to the democracy and the democratic process and the ability of the public in East York to be able to reach the mayor.
In the past they could do that. But in the future, when they've got to deal with a huge megacity, they're going to have a hard time getting hold of the mayor elected, as they're having a hard time getting hold of the Premier. It's the same comparison, it's the same problem, unless you're a rich Tory, and then you're going to have access to them, or a developer or a rich landlord or a rich banker, in which case you're going to reach the Premier and you're going to reach whoever gets elected. Otherwise, you're not going to be able to reach them.
That's the problem we're dealing with. The problem we're dealing with is access, not that East York is going to disappear, because to all intents and purposes it cannot disappear unless you blow it up, which this government is capable of doing, I suspect. But if they're not going to blow it up, it won't disappear. But that's not the issue. The issue is access. The issue is democracy.
Interjections.
The Acting Speaker: Order.
Mr Marchese: The issue is having the ability to influence your council, which you cannot do. With this new megacity you will not be able to have the power to be able to influence the mayor and all of those few councillors --
Hon Mr Sampson: I can see it now. We will blow it up, the NDP says.
The Acting Speaker: Order.
Mr Marchese: Speaker, in your gesture for order, we see reflected again the arrogance of these fellows across from me. You see the arrogance. You see the dismissive nature of their character and their comments. You see the haste, as I indicated, you see the autocracy, and you see the dictatorial character of these people across from me. I see it daily, and the public is seeing it. They smile as they tumble in the polls. Rome is burning and they're smiling.
Maybe that's the best way to handle their disappearance from this province. I'm not sure. Maybe that's why they're doing it. But I tell you the reason you are tumbling in the polls is that you are moving in such a way that people are frightened of what you are doing. They see that you are introducing bills day in and day out. They don't know what you are doing. They don't know the effects of what you are doing, and in fact they are afraid of what you are doing, because they feel you don't know what you are doing. That's why you're tumbling.
But all of you are very confident you're going to get elected, as indeed many of our members in our previous government were confident they were going to get re-elected. I tell you, I see the same fate for many of you, and if you have the smarts to see it, you will slow down the agenda and save Ontario. Save Ontario by doing less. Save us by not hurting us with a new bill every other day. That's what people are reaching out for, but you people are not listening.
Rent control: I have been in those hearings on rent control in the previous tenant package, and then I saw it in the tenant protection bill. These people come smiling every day: "We're listening. We are a government that listens. We like to listen. You see how we listen." The public knows you are not listening. The public sees you are not listening, and the fact that you pretend you are makes it worse.
What can we say about the son of megacity? It is as bad as Bill 103. The effects of it are as bad. I can only suggest to this government that you are not just moving too fast; you are making a serious mistake. Moving fast is only part of your mistake. The big part of the mistake is that you don't know what you're doing, and you're doing it with such haste that you're hurting us all. You're hurting us all.
Interjection.
Mr Marchese: I have the member for Nepean here coming to support the comments I am making. That's why he is here, I'm assuming. He's young enough to be able to learn from what we are doing in this place, and I hope that some of these guys and women on the other side are listening in order to protect your own interests. But I tell you, slow down your agenda, slow down and listen, not to the opposition, because you are wont not to do so, but listen to what the public is telling you, and they are telling you through the polls. Slow it down, retreat, eliminate, get rid of some of these bills that are hurting Ontario and that are hurting you especially. I'm looking forward to the debate that will pursue this ugliness of this government.
The Acting Speaker: Mr Johnson has moved government notice of motion number 34. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?
All those in favour say "aye."
All those opposed say "nay."
In my opinion, the ayes have it.
The division bells rang from 1759 to 1804.
The Acting Speaker : All those in favour, please rise one at a time.
Ayes
|
Baird, John R. Beaubien, Marcel Boushy, Dave Chudleigh, Ted Clement, Tony Cunningham, Dianne Danford, Harry DeFaria, Carl Doyle, Ed Elliott, Brenda Fisher, Barbara Flaherty, Jim Ford, Douglas B. Fox, Gary Froese, Tom Galt, Doug |
Gilchrist, Steve Grimmett, Bill Hardeman, Ernie Hastings, John Hodgson, Chris Jackson, Cameron Johns, Helen Johnson, David Jordan, W. Leo Klees, Frank Leadston, Gary L. Maves, Bart Mushinski, Marilyn Newman, Dan O'Toole, John |
Ouellette, Jerry J. Parker, John L. Preston, Peter Ross, Lillian Sampson, Rob Shea, Derwyn Sheehan, Frank Sterling, Norman W. Stewart, R. Gary Turnbull, David Vankoughnet, Bill Villeneuve, Noble Wettlaufer, Wayne Wood, Bob Young, Terence H. |
The Acting Speaker: Those opposed, please rise one at a time.
Nays
|
Bisson, Gilles Bradley, James J. Castrilli, Annamarie Christopherson, David Churley, Marilyn Cleary, John C. |
Gerretsen, John Gravelle, Michael Hoy, Pat Kormos, Peter Marchese, Rosario Martel, Shelley |
Martin, Tony McLeod, Lyn Patten, Richard Pouliot, Gilles Silipo, Tony |
Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 46; the nays are 17.
The Acting Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
It being past 6 of the clock, this House stands adjourned until 1:30 of the clock tomorrow.
The House adjourned at 1807.