Journal des débats 1997-nov-19 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): I can't even seek unanimous consent as long as you're wearing the green ribbon. You're going to have to take it off before you can even get the floor.

Mr Caplan: Okay, I'll take it off and then seek unanimous consent.

The Speaker: The member for Oriole is seeking unanimous consent to wear a green ribbon. Is the House agreed? I heard a "no."

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

EDUCATION REFORM

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): I would like to speak today about the Liberal Party's opposition to Bill 160. This is very reminiscent of the kind of legislation that was brought into California in 1976 with their referenda legislation, which essentially barred states from raising taxes for a whole variety of purposes without first being able to gain that support through referenda in the state of California. What that led to at that time was a proliferation of charter schools. The complete dissatisfaction of middle-class America in California because the public school system was simply not funded adequately led people to pull their children from those schools and move them into private schools.

The similarities here are quite startling, because this government has already cut millions upon millions from our public education system. We know the results of that: Kids who have needs simply are not having those needs met in our public education system today, thanks to Mike Harris.

Now we see with Bill 160 items like the amendment tabled and passed yesterday to remove the word "advisory" from parent school councils. What does that truly mean? It means that those parent councils are indeed not advisory but will be subjected to playing the role of something far more significant. Those parent volunteers who have been there to add to the classroom, add an advisory capacity, are now going to be forced to do we don't know what, because regulations have not been tabled to tell us that.

We fear that charter schools are just around the corner, and our party is completely opposed to that.

FIREFIGHTING AND AMBULANCE SERVICES

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): Privatization is very much a consistent theme with this government. Just a few weeks ago, training officers from a number of Ontario firefighting services were up at the Ontario Fire College in Gravenhurst. That's a facility directly responsible to the Solicitor General. While they were there, they were subjected to a presentation, a pitch by the notorious Rural/Metro, the corporate, private, for-profit firefighting company out of the United States, based in Arizona, which is poised to take over firefighting services and ambulance services across this province, as they have through much of the United States, replacing professional firefighters, among others, with what amounts to nothing more than scabs.

This government's naïve, indeed stupid and blind belief that non-profit public services are by definition bad and that the private, for-profit, corporate sector is good is ill informed, in fact incredibly dangerous and foolhardy.

Insurance rates and user fees rise and appear in areas which utilize private firefighting services. We now can count on our emergency services, and they have to be equally available to all members of this province and every member of every community. With privatized firefighting services, that's not going to happen. This government and Rural/Metro are putting lies and --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you.

EDUCATION REFORM

Mr Douglas B. Ford (Etobicoke-Humber): Some call it rhetoric, others call it foolishness, but when it comes to union leaders attempting to force into schools misinformation about Bill 160, students in Etobicoke have their word: "brainwashing." As reported in today's Etobicoke Life newspaper, students felt the need to start a blue ribbon campaign because, in their own words, "We felt we were being brainwashed by the union leaders."

I know my friends on the other side of the chamber are uncomfortable to know that their campaign against Bill 160 is getting resistance within the school system. They should also be embarrassed that it's the students who are crying foul.

During the last few weeks, I've spoken to frustrated parents upset about innocent children coming home with union-fed, bogus information. I have spoken to teachers who have been threatened by goons for not marching to the union beat.

Now students in support of Bill 160 are speaking out. The students point out that union leaders have only been using parts of the bill in an attempt to win people over, and fellow students are reacting positively.

There is no doubt about it. The holier-than-thou circus across the floor has hit a real milestone. Students, the very group they pretend to be protecting, have stood up and are fighting back. The public's frustration with union rhetoric is growing, and I commend the students at Silverthorn Collegiate for their initiative.

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

Mr Gerard Kennedy (York South): It will be heartening to the people of Ontario to see, finally, one of the ministers of this government reflect where it's coming from, when we had the Minister of Health say this week that there is no vision and no plan in the Harris government for health care. She said that to the Waterloo Record and she said it again to the Ontario Hospital Association.

If you live in York region, if you live in Durham region or Peel or Halton, you found out yesterday that you're the latest people to get let down by the Harris government when it comes to health care. In the 905 area, they're being shortchanged in a way that isn't reflected in the big, bold headlines today. Those large sums of money being talked about are nothing compared to what's in the deadly details of the announcement dropped on them by the hospital destruction commission of the Harris government.

Only one half of the money needed for those areas was provided in the announcement to deal with growth. No attention was paid to the fact that these areas have been underfunded for years in the past, because it's not provided for by this government. Hospitals like Mississauga General have to take over the operations of Queensway General Hospital with no extra money, or with not nearly enough extra money to deal with it. They're losing $79 million. A hospital is being closed in Whitby and the growth money they are depending on right now could be taken away. This indeed is a disappointment. The losses are real, and the promises are going to be paid off in Monopoly money.

If the government truly cared, they would have a growth policy, but then, to do that, they would have to have a policy at all.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Minister of Agriculture, come to order.

1340

EDUCATION REFORM

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): Despite the teachers' support for the new standard report card and testing and the ongoing curriculum change, this government is running advertisements trying to give the impression to the public that teachers and teachers' federations are opposed to educational reform. They state in their ads, "The union bosses want to protect the status quo." Today, I have a package, a CD-ROM and three booklets, produced by the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation. One is entitled Corrections, dealing with curriculum design; another, Assessment for Success, which deals with testing; another is Career Education. These are examples of about 40 different educational documents produced by the OSSTF to help teachers deal with change in our society.

The ministry has talked a lot about change, but they have produced nothing. All they've produced is attack ads against the teachers which distort the position the teachers take. This is a dissemination of misinformation about Bill 160. It's time the ministry was straight with the public and stopped trying to shore up the waning support for Bill 160. It's time the ministry started cooperating with teachers and teachers' unions to ensure that change is designed to improve the quality of education for our teachers and our students in the classroom. It's time this government really cared about quality education.

ROTARY CLUB OF GRAND BEND NATURE TRAIL

Mr Marcel Beaubien (Lambton): I am pleased to rise in the House today to inform you and my colleagues of the Rotary Club of Grand Bend nature trail in my riding of Lambton. The trail was officially opened on September 28. The seven-kilometre trail connecting the village of Grand Bend and the Pinery Provincial Park is the result of three years of dedication and hard work.

The trail was made possible by a partnership between the Rotary Club of Grand Bend and the town of Bosanquet. The 30-member club raised $150,000, and the town provided the engineering, tendering and accounting. More facilities are planned for the future to complement the trail, such as a toboggan run, soccer pitches and other recreational facilities.

This type of partnership is what Ontario is all about. I encourage more municipalities to consider this approach with service clubs, private business and residents when providing new services to communities. The Rotarians of Grand Bend can take great pride in their accomplishment, and I commend them for making our community a better place to live.

EDUCATION REFORM

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): Our visual today, in showing support for the parents, teachers and students who are opposed to Bill 160, is a display of green apples on each of our members' desks. Speaker, because we want to comply with the rules of the House, we are going to remove the green apples from our desks right now.

However, something far more critical is being removed from education because of Bill 160. Let me read you a portion of a letter that has been sent to every francophone parent council across Ontario:

"Attention all parent councils"

"In the way of political protest against the Harris government's Bill 160, we are asking all parent councils of the province of Ontario to submit, en masse, their resignations from their respective councils. This is a concrete way of showing our displeasure with the reforms to the education system and to demonstrate, without precedent, our support of the administrators and teachers with whom we work so closely in our schools."

So far, there are countless schools across Ontario doing that. Areas from Cochrane, Raymore, River Valley, Sturgeon Falls, Lavigne, Field, Timmins, Kirkland Lake, Thorn, Sudbury -- all schools submitting their resignations from the parent councils. Will this government and will the minister wake up? Bill 160 is bad for education.

TVONTARIO

Mr Floyd Laughren (Nickel Belt): This government is looking at privatizing TVOntario, a service that 97% of all households receive, a service which encourages children to learn in a fun and commercial-free way. TVOntario is a service Ontarians want to keep. We have built the system up to its award-winning status and we are not going to just hand it over without a fight to some private broadcaster.

The government says it is consulting with people about TVOntario, but these consultations are a sham. The panel is going to only six communities for three hours each. At the consultations, there is no opportunity for people to make presentations and to tell the government to keep TVOntario.

Instead of encouraging people to make presentations, the panel divides them into groups and gives them six questions to discuss with other participants. The comments are then filtered and then given to the panel.

People want TVOntario retained and improved. I encourage people from in and around Toronto to come to the Metro Toronto Convention Centre tonight at 5 pm to get information from the TVOntario Matters Coalition, and then at 7 pm, go to the panel and give them hell.

MICHI CORP

Mr Bill Grimmett (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): I am proud to be able to inform the Legislature about the ongoing economic growth and investment in my riding of Muskoka-Georgian Bay. On Tuesday, October 28, it was my pleasure to attend a reception hosted by Michi Corp in Midland. I was proud to join others in the community in welcoming this new employer to the Muskoka-Georgian Bay economy.

As some of you will know, the former Mitsubishi plant closed its production of television picture tubes last year. It has now been purchased by entrepreneurs, and over the next two years the owners plan to invest $5 million to $7 million in this new facility.

Approximately one third of the 372,000 square feet of the floor space in the plant will be used by Michi Homes to produce modular homes. This venture is expected to create up to 120 new jobs, with the date for full production set for March 1998. The owners are looking at the deep-water ports of Midland or Port McNicoll for shipping their product to market.

The remaining floor space of the plant will be redeveloped and leased to as many as 16 different businesses. Already, many interested parties have come forward and an estimated 100 new jobs will be produced. Extensive preparation to meet the needs of tenants for the remaining available space is under way, and the owners tell me the focus will be on new businesses that have export potential.

In addition to the obvious jobs that will benefit from this project, there will also be renewed confidence in the local economy for the people of my riding. I am very proud to make this announcement.

VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): I would like to inform the members of the Legislative Assembly that we have in the Speaker's gallery today His Excellency Gordon D. Giffin, ambassador of the United States of America to Canada. Welcome.

He is accompanied by Mr Gregory Johnson, consul general of the United States of America in Toronto. Welcome, sir.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

Mr Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa East): I beg leave to present a report from the standing committee on public accounts and move the adoption of its recommendations.

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

Mr Grandmaître: I have the privilege of tabling the 1996-97 annual report of the standing committee on public accounts.

Last fall we began the lengthy but productive process of examining 13 sections of the Provincial Auditor's 1996 annual report. We held public hearings with appropriate officials and staff from five ministries.

The report summarizes our findings, as well as those of the auditor, and includes 29 recommendations. Six of those recommendations relate to the Ministry of Health's assistive devices services activity; another five deal with the Ontario Transportation Capital Corp's Highway 407 central project. Many of the recommendations include deadlines. In each of these cases we have asked the ministries involved to report back or to appear before the committee.

At this time I would like to thank the members of the committee and staff who worked so hard for the last six months.

I move the adjournment of debate.

The Speaker: Mr Grandmaître moves adjournment of the debate. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

Mr Gerry Martiniuk (Cambridge): I beg leave to present the report from the standing committee on administration of justice and move its adoption.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Shall the report be received and adopted? Agreed?

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: I'm in the middle of a motion and a vote. I can't take a point of privilege.

Interjection.

The Speaker: It matters not. It's a vote.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): Speaker, is the motion debatable?

The Speaker: No, it's not.

Pursuant to the standing orders of the House dated October 6, 1997, the bill is ordered for --

Interjection.

The Speaker: I'm sorry. It was a "no." I didn't hear that.

All those in favour, please say "aye."

All opposed, please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Call in the members. This 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 to be recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

Arnott, Ted

Baird, John R.

Barrett, Toby

Bassett, Isabel

Beaubien, Marcel

Boushy, Dave

Carr, Gary

Carroll, Jack

Chudleigh, Ted

Clement, Tony

Danford, Harry

Doyle, Ed

Ecker, Janet

Elliott, Brenda

Fisher, Barbara

Flaherty, Jim

Ford, Douglas B.

Fox, Gary

Froese, Tom

Galt, Doug

Gilchrist, Steve

Grimmett, Bill

Guzzo, Garry J.

Hardeman, Ernie

Harnick, Charles

Hodgson, Chris

Johns, Helen

Johnson, Bert

Johnson, David

Jordan, W. Leo

Klees, Frank

Leach, Al

Marland, Margaret

Martiniuk, Gerry

McLean, Allan K.

Munro, Julia

Murdoch, Bill

Mushinksi, Marilyn

Newman, Dan

O'Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Palladini, Al

Parker, John L.

Pettit, Trevor

Ross, Lillian

Runciman, Robert W.

Sampson, Rob

Shea, Derwyn

Sheehan, Frank

Spina, Joseph

Sterling, Norman W.

Stewart, R. Gary

Tilson, David

Tsubouchi, David H.

Turnbull, David

Vankoughnet, Bill

Villeneuve, Noble

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Witmer, Elizabeth

Wood, Bob

Young, Terence H.

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

Nays

Agostino, Dominic

Bartolucci, Rick

Bisson, Gilles

Boyd, Marion

Bradley, James J.

Brown, Michael A.

Caplan, David

Castrilli, Annamarie

Christopherson, David

Churley, Marilyn

Cleary, John C.

Conway, Sean G.

Crozier, Bruce

Cullen, Alex

Curling, Alvin

Duncan, Dwight

Gerretsen, John

Grandmaître, Bernard

Gravelle, Michael

Hampton, Howard

Hoy, Pat

Kennedy, Gerard

Kormos, Peter

Kwinter, Monte

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Lankin, Frances

Laughren, Floyd

Lessard, Wayne

Marchese, Rosario

Martel, Shelley

Martin, Tony

McGuinty, Dalton

McLeod, Lyn

Miclash, Frank

Morin, Gilles E.

North, Peter

Patten, Richard

Phillips, Gerry

Pupatello, Sandra

Ramsay, David

Ruprecht, Tony

Silipo, Tony

Wildman, Bud

Wood, Len

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 61; the nays are 44.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

Pursuant to the order of the House dated October 6, 1997, this bill is ordered for third reading.

MINISTER'S COMMENTS

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege, and if I recall your ruling yesterday, you defined a point of privilege as something which makes it virtually impossible for a member to do his or her duty in carrying out our responsibilities for legislation.

You will be aware, Mr Speaker, that the committee whose report we just received completed its clause-by-clause hearings yesterday under a time allocation motion. At 5 o'clock yesterday afternoon, according to that time allocation motion, all debate was cut off and further amendments could not even be read; they simply had to be voted on. That's not my point of privilege. I know it's a time allocation motion, and as much as I think it is undemocratic, it has to stand; you can't alter that.

But what happened yesterday was a rather unusual occurrence. I would ask you whether or not it constitutes a violation of privilege. From my perspective it made it impossible for me to continue the work I was asked to do as a member of that committee.

It was approximately 20 minutes to 5, with 20 minutes left to consider amendments. We were approaching a series of amendments and the portions of the bill dealing with the power of the cabinet to set taxation bills, property tax bills, through cabinet without any reference back to the Legislature through statute. Obviously, Mr Speaker, that's a concern for us. That's not the point of privilege.

What happened at that moment in time was that we had a verbal report at our committee that the Minister of Education, whose bill we were considering, was at a committee next door, informing the members of that committee that he required those powers only for a limited period of time, only through the transitional period. We had just dealt with a number of sections of that very bill which limited the powers of cabinet to the period of transition that the minister in estimates committee was talking about.

Quite frankly, we did not know, as opposition members, how to proceed with the taxation portions of that statute, given the fact that what was in the bill we were being asked to consider was in direct opposition to the statement of intent that the Minister of Education was making to the committee next door.

I believe, Mr Speaker, that made it virtually impossible for me to responsibly carry out my duties as a legislator. I would ask you to rule on it as a point of privilege.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): Mr Speaker, you'll recall that I rose to ask for unanimous consent earlier this week to prevent the two committees from sitting at the same time dealing with the same policy area, on education. That unanimous consent was withheld by the members of the government party, so we had the situation where two committees were sitting simultaneously in rooms adjacent to one another. The minister made a statement in the estimates committee, as was outlined by my friend from Fort William, which was at variance with the bill and the amendments we were dealing with in the standing committee on justice.

We sought clarification from the parliamentary assistant who was carrying the bill. He could not give an explanation as to why there was this difference. We then attended the estimates committee and sought clarification from the minister. At length, the minister apparently made the statement that this was only for a transition period, despite the fact it doesn't say that in the bill, but he refused to define what the transition period might be.

This puts the members of the Legislature, of the assembly, in a very difficult position as we go to third reading, when we have to determine how we're going to vote on this bill. We don't know whether this power of regulation over taxation for education purposes is in fact going to be a permanent matter, or a matter that will be in place for some time and perhaps repealed at some future date by new legislation, or whether this is only for a transition period, and if so, what that period is.

Surely, it's incumbent upon the government to clarify this so that the members of the assembly and the public will know what exactly is intended by this government that apparently now has the regulatory power over $6 billion in education taxes in the province.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Basically -- I will go to the government House leader if he chooses -- you have a difference of opinion between what the bill says and what the minister has said. The fact is that probably could be a difference of opinion between what you think and possibly what the minister thinks. It may be a good question for question period, but with great respect, I'm not sure how it falls under a privilege point.

Are you being intimidated, not being able to do your job? Is there some portion of the privilege you're making that encumbers you in going about your business to do your job as an MPP? This is a difference of opinion, maybe a fundamental difference of opinion, and in the worst-case scenario it may be a mistake, but the fact is it's not an argument of privilege. Maybe you can help me.

Mrs McLeod: Mr Speaker, I think your point would be well taken if the bill we were considering in committee was not the bill presented by the Minister of Education himself. It was his bill. We're not now talking about a difference of opinion; we're talking about what the minister's bill says versus what the minister himself was saying. At the least -- I look for parliamentary language -- members who were dealing with the legislation were operating under a basis of misinformation about the government's intent and whether the legislation reflected the government's intent.

The Speaker: All I can do to help you there is that if you believe there is some difference between the intent of the bill and what the minister has said, then it's incumbent on you to make a decision on whether to vote in favour of the bill or oppose the bill. That's the decision you have left. It's not up to me to determine who's right, whether the bill is right, whether the minister is right. I can't get into that particular debate. And it isn't a privilege argument you're making here. It may be a good argument, it may be an argument for question period, it may be an argument for debate, but it's a decision you're going to have to take unto yourself, as to whether you support Bill 160 or whether you don't support it, and thereby is your decision.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Mr Speaker, on a point of order: Perhaps you can help me out. Is it true that under the new rules we're not allowed to debate this report from the committee to this House the way we used to be able to under the old rules? Is that true?

The Speaker: I believe that under the rules you're not allowed to debate under the time allocation motion. There are many time allocation motions moved, but under this time allocation motion it's not debatable.

Mr Bradley: You're saying further debate has been cut off then.

The Speaker: What I'm saying is it's not debatable. Again, those are definitions.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

THE LONDON COMMUNITY FOUNDATION ACT, 1997

Mr Bob Wood moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr91, An Act respecting The London Community Foundation.

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

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: As you know, November is Wife Assault Prevention Month. I am asking for the third time this week for unanimous consent for all-party statements on Wife Assault Prevention Month.

The Speaker: The member for Riverdale is seeking unanimous consent. Agreed? I heard a no.

Interjections.

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): Why don't you guys want to talk about it?

The Speaker: Order. The member for London Centre, come to order, and the member for Kingston and The Islands.

1410

ORAL QUESTIONS

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Minister of Education. You will be pleased to know there has been another significant addition to that growing list of people in this province who are opposed to Bill 160. Not only are teachers, parents, students and your own backbenchers opposed to Bill 160, but we now understand from today's newspaper that you yourself have some very, very serious reservations about one particular aspect of this bill. You're saying that taxation without representation is not on, that the bill should not contain that kind of a provision. I want to tell you, Minister, that on that score we agree completely.

You know this is wrong. You know this is fundamentally against everything you stand for as taxfighters, and that is this ability you're now going to reserve unto yourselves to raise taxes in a back room, without debate in this Legislature. Will you do the right thing now and withdraw this bill?

Hon David Johnson (Minister of Education and Training): The government's position on education property taxes is very clear; I might say clear, unlike the position of the Leader of the Opposition on the right to strike for teachers, whereby the Leader of the Opposition in 1993 said that teachers should not have the right to strike and then apparently three weeks ago urged them into an illegal strike.

This government's commitment is to reduce the residential component of the property tax by 50%; to freeze the other half of property taxes for education purposes so that they don't go up; to establish that through regulation in 1998, as is contained in the bill, entirely consistent with what's contained in the bill, the regulatory power in the bill. It's the intent of the government to move to a legislative process in the future.

Mr McGuinty: Because I know the minister hasn't had time to read the bill, I want to just bring to his attention the specific provision. Section 257.12 says, "The Minister of Finance may make regulations...prescribing the tax rates for school purposes."

There is nothing in here whatsoever to indicate that this is for purposes of transition or that it's of a temporary nature or that there's any kind of a sunset provision. If you insist that is in fact the case, then why don't you do it right now? Put it in the bill.

Just in case you forget already what you said yesterday, I'll quote for you. "Mr Johnson said the power to levy the $6 billion in taxes would be a temporary measure, but he refused to say when it might end or why the government would not set a timetable for legislative approval of the new levy."

Here's a direct quote of something you said: "A taxing authority of this nature should be debatable, rather than being set in regulation." We agree completely. So why don't you put it in the bill today?

Hon David Johnson: This government is clear on what needs to happen in terms of financing of education. First of all, there needs to be a process to move from the system we have today, an orderly process which is going to be governed by that regulation on page 132 of the bill, the regulatory process contained in the bill. The taxes are going to be frozen so that there is no increase in property taxes. This may be something the Liberals are not too keen on. The Liberals may want property taxes for education purposes to go up.

Between 1985 and 1990, there were 242 boards across --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order. Members for Scarborough-Agincourt and Ottawa West, come to order, please. I'd like to hear the minister's response.

Hon David Johnson: The problem has been the huge increases in property taxes because of education, particularly during the Liberal regime, 1985-90: 242 municipalities had to increase tax rates by over 40% during that period of time. That is the Liberal record. That is what we're trying to address.

Mr McGuinty: It's important for you, minister, and I think it's even more important --

Mr Garry J. Guzzo (Ottawa-Rideau): You weren't here then.

The Speaker: Order. I'll remind the member for Ottawa-Rideau that heckling is out of order. You're now out of order. I won't warn you again. Leader of the official opposition.

Mr McGuinty: Minister, I'm not sure that you have clearly explained to your back bench what this provision is all about, because it stands against everything you ever stood for in this House. If this party, the NDP, had introduced this kind of provision, you folks would have been swinging from these chandeliers. You're talking about giving the right to yourself, or to the Minister of Finance in the next government, the power solely, without bringing it into this Legislature, to raise taxes. There is no limit on that power to raise property taxes throughout the province.

You know in your heart of hearts this is fundamentally wrong, and so does every backbencher. You're asking Jack Carroll, you're asking Doug Rollins, you're asking Frank Sheehan to support this provision. They can't. You're making it really hard for them. They understand their seats are at stake. Will you do the right thing and withdraw this bill?

Hon David Johnson: Our members know a couple of things on this matter. One, they know there is a Liberal legacy of tax increases, tax increases at the provincial level, tax increases at the municipal level, huge property tax increases associated with education. That's what the people of Ontario know and our members know.

Second, they know that this system, whereby we've taken half of the burden off the residential property taxpayer, whereby we will be freezing through regulation the property tax payments in 1998, will result in a fairer, lower system of property taxes to the people of Ontario.

In the future, it is the intent of the government to move to a legislative process to deal with it, but in the immediate future this must be dealt with through regulation to ensure that the skyrocketing tax increases suffered under the NDP and the Liberals do not continue into the future.

1420

VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): I'd like to inform the members of the Legislative Assembly that we have in the Speaker's gallery today members of the Ontario-Quebec Parliamentary Association, led by Mr François Beaulne, accompanied by Mr Pierre Marsan and Ms Claire Vaive. Welcome.

EDUCATION REFORM

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My second question is also for the Minister of Education. Not only does it appear that you want to do things in back rooms under cover of darkness, but also we now understand that if anybody disagrees with you, you are prepared to punish them. That's exactly what you've done when it has come to Ontario's principals and vice-principals.

Everybody knows that the only reason you're going to do what you're about to do to our principals and vice-principals is because they had the guts to stand up in the interests of public education in Ontario.

Listen now, Minister. You've had time. It's time for cooler heads to prevail. You now understand the important role our principals and vice-principals play in the school setting. Will you agree, now you've had that time to reconsider and to understand that this is not about vindictiveness and it really shouldn't be about bullying, that those principals and vice-principals should continue to play the role they're now playing?

Hon David Johnson (Minister of Education and Training): I agree with the Leader of the Opposition in that principals and vice-principals do -- certainly, they do -- play a very important role, not only in the education system but in their communities. Principals and vice-principals are looked to as leaders within our various communities across Ontario and that's very much a role that I fully anticipate they will continue to play within the community, within the education system.

This action was taken because the principals and vice-principals are in a position of conflict, a position of conflict in which very few other people in Ontario or in Canada would find themselves, in that they have a very key and important management role to play within the schools, and at the same time they're members of the union, and those other members of the union are the very members who report to them and over whom they have those management responsibilities. The action was simply taken to clarify that situation and take them out of the position of conflict.

Mr McGuinty: Minister, really, I don't know how you can stand there and say that. That's not washing. Nobody buys it. Everybody in Ontario who has followed this debate closely, followed this controversy concocted by your government in the first place, understands that the only reason you have lashed out at our principals and our vice-principals is because they stood up for public education and against what you're trying to do to it through your bill.

Even the former Minister of Education, John Snobelen -- you can't get much lower on the education totem pole than that -- said you've got to keep the principals and vice-principals where they're at right now. All the principals want to do is get on with their work. All you want --

Interjections.

Mr McGuinty: Our principals and vice-principals just want to get on with the work and you still just want to get even. You don't understand that every time you try to get even, that you try to punish somebody in the education sector, it's our students who are paying the price. Why don't you call a truce and kill the bill?

Hon David Johnson: First of all, I think I should say that the leader of the opposition may wish to reconsider his personal attacks on one of the members of the government. We have a tradition in this House --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Member for St Catharines, take your seat, please. Minister.

Hon David Johnson: I could just say that we have a time-honoured tradition in this House of attacking policies -- that's fair game -- but not attacking individuals.

Mr McGuinty: It's interesting to note the indignation on the part of government members, but where was the indignation when they cut $17 million from children's aid societies? Where was the indignation when they cut health care? Where was the indignation when they cut classroom spending in Ontario?

Interjections.

The Speaker: I think it's enough now. I would ask all sides to come to order, please.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Members for Cochrane North and Sault Ste Marie, I'm not into a debate, I'm asking you to come to order.

Mr Gilles Pouliot (Lake Nipigon): Go and walk around Regent Park, Janet. It's a different world out there.

The Speaker: Member for Lake Nipigon, please. I don't want to debate it.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Look, I don't need any help from the government side about whom to throw out and whom not to throw out. Thank you very much.

1430

Mr McGuinty: We have always known that this is a government made up of bullies. We have always knows that they have refused to listen, but there is a new, additional and interesting element to this particular bill, and do you know what it is? The cracks have finally started to show.

Elizabeth Witmer, the Minister of Health, says she disagrees with the notion of what the government is about to do to principals. She is joined in her reluctance on this matter by Noble Villeneuve, the Minister of Agriculture. The parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Education says the same thing when it comes to principals and vice-principals, that it's the wrong move. You yourself, Minister of Education, have said that taxation without representation, as it's found in this bill, is a bad thing.

Parents are against this bill. Teachers are against this bill. Trustees are against this bill. Your back bench is against the bill. Half of the cabinet is against the bill. Why don't you do what's right and withdraw it?

Hon David Johnson: I think the real problem of the leader of the official opposition is that this government is doing what it said it would do, for the first time in the history of Ontario.

Interjections.

The Speaker: It's a blanket warning. Consider that you are all warned. No more heckling, please.

Hon David Johnson: We have a government that said it would eliminate the deficit; we are on track to do that. We said we would create jobs in the province of Ontario; 270,000 jobs were created in the last two years. We said we would spend at least $17.4 billion or more in health care; it's exactly what we're doing. We said we would reform the education system and redirect the funds back into the classroom, where they deserve it, make the reinvestments that are needed to improve the quality in our education system in the province, and that is exactly what we are doing. We are living up to our commitments.

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): My question is for the Minister of Education, and it's a very simple question: Does the Minister of Education believe in taxation without representation?

Hon David Johnson (Minister of Education and Training): Obviously, this goes back to the same issue. I've made the position of the government clear in that matter. The position of the government has been that, first of all, we take half the property taxes off the residential taxpayer; second, the government, through the regulations contained in the bill, will freeze this year or next year the taxation component so that taxes do not go up. That will be dealt with in regulation, as is contained within the bill. In the future, it is the government's intention to go towards a legislative process to deal with this matter.

Mr Hampton: I asked the Minister of Education a simple question: Does he believe in taxation without representation? He tried every way he could to avoid the question. The reality is here, that your government will set $6 billion in taxation behind closed doors, without any public input, without any public debate, without any public representation. That is about as anti-democratic as you can get.

To underline how anti-democratic this is, I'm going to send the minister a box of tea. If you know anything about history, you will know that taxation without representation began a revolution that was heard around the world. Would you give the minister his box of tea, please?

Minister, I ask you again: Do you believe in taxation without representation, without public input, without public debate, without any participation by the public at all? Do you believe in that? That is what you are trying to do through Bill 160.

Hon David Johnson: I think the problem the leader of the third party is having with the government's approach is that he knows that this government is intent on not having taxes increase, unlike the NDP government, which put taxes up 33 times in their five years in government, which saw the deficit of the province balloon and the debt of the province balloon. This government is different. This government is putting taxes down. This government has lived up to its commitment to reduce the provincial income tax and this government will live up to its commitment to freeze the residential portion of the property tax for the people of the province and at the same time guarantee a high-quality education system.

Mr Hampton: The Minister of Education and this whole government try very hard to miss the central point of democracy, that what you set out in Bill 160 provides for taxation without representation, provides for taxation without any input from the public, provides for one of the key decisions to be made behind closed doors, in secret, by your government. This is what Bill 160 stands for. It stands for cutting education funding behind closed doors, without any public input. It provides for taxation without any public input, behind closed doors. Do you understand, Minister, how anti-democratic this is? Do you understand that this flows against all the principles that this country and this province have been organized around?

If you have any respect for democracy, you will withdraw Bill 160. Will you do that? Will you respect democracy and withdraw Bill 160?

Hon David Johnson: For the people of the province of Ontario, for senior citizens, for businesses, for people trying to pay their property taxes, the central issue is that the NDP wants higher taxes. This government does not. The NDP wants higher spending. This government does not. The NDP loves deficits. This government does not. That's the central issue.

The property tax will be frozen; the 1998 rates will be the same as the 1997. In the future, once we've gone through this period, once this system is working well, the government will move to a legislative process to deal with this matter.

Mr Hampton: The only conclusion we can draw is that this is a government that does believe in taxation without representation. That is the only conclusion we can draw.

But I want to go back to Bill 160 in general. What we found out in this Legislature over the past few weeks is that Bill 160 and the deputy minister's performance contract contain a cut of $667 million to classroom funding in the next year alone, to be done behind closed doors, without any public input. Now we see that it provides for taxation without representation.

Minister, I'm going to give you an out here. This is your government's report on referenda. Your government wants and believes in referenda. You say that more questions should be decided by referenda. By your own government's rules, I ask you today, will you give the people of Ontario a say? Will you call a referendum on Bill 160, under your own rules?

Hon David Johnson: The people of the province have been voicing their opinion for years on this matter, for decades. There has been study after study after study about the education system, about improving the quality, about the financing: the Royal Commission on Learning, the Education Improvement Commission, eight studies this decade alone in terms of reforming the education system to make it better. Indeed, the former Minister of Education from the NDP is saying: "Get on with the reforms in education. It is time to go ahead with the reforms in education." It would be easy to not move, to stall like the NDP government did, to stall like the Liberal government did, but this government is going to move forward.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Member for Ottawa West, I've warned so many members. I've warned you for the last time. I name the member for Ottawa West, Mr Cullen.

Mr Cullen was escorted from the chamber.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, look, I know what I'm doing here, thank you very much. I appreciate your help.

Is this some kind of stunt, throwing a green apple?

Interjection.

The Speaker: Then I'd ask you to leave now, please.

Interjections.

The Speaker: To the rest of the members of the Legislature, this has been a very cantankerous question period. I don't want any more heckling. You're all on the same footing. I will only hear the questioners and the responses. It's just too much out of control.

I was with the minister.

1440

Hon David Johnson: We can find any number of reasons to stall and delay, and I am sure the leader of the third party has excellent ways and means to achieve further delay of the reform within the system, but for the sake of our children, for the sake of taxpayers and the people of Ontario, it's time to move ahead with the reform, to improve the quality in our system.

Mr Hampton: How can you stand there and say that?

The Speaker: Leader of the third party, I've just told everyone you can't heckle. I appreciate the fact you're upset. I appreciate everyone's upset. There is no more heckling. Minister.

Hon David Johnson: For the sake of accountability and efficiency within the system, this government believes it is now time to move ahead with this legislation and indeed all the reforms within the education system.

Mr Hampton: The Minister of Education tries to make trivial comment about one of the fundamentals of democracy. One of the fundamentals of democracy is that governments should not be allowed to raise or put taxes upon people without representation, without public debate.

I would say one of the other fundamentals is that a government should not be allowed to interfere or otherwise attack such an important public institution as education without public debate and public representation, but that is what you are trying to do through Bill 160.

Your own legislative committee said the government of Ontario should introduce legislation authorizing the holding of provincial referenda. Recommendation 2: "The Legislative Assembly should have the discretion to order the holding of a referendum on any matter of public concern."

I put to you that Bill 160 and the condition of our education system is a matter of serious public concern. Will you give the people of Ontario a say? Will you hold a referendum on Bill 160 under your own rules?

Hon David Johnson: I agree absolutely with the leader of the third party: This is a most important issue. This is an issue that is very important to the people of the province and the children. But in terms of stalling and delaying, what we're stalling and delaying on are reforms to ensure that the taxes associated with the education system don't continue to escalate. We're stalling on reforms which would give our students more instructional days in the classroom at the secondary level and at the elementary level. We're stalling on reforms which would limit class sizes so that class sizes don't continue to increase and increase, which is certainly not adding to the quality of our system. We're stalling on reforms which would make qualified individuals available to complement the teachers in the classroom.

Are those the kinds of reforms the leader of the third party would wish to stall and delay on? I hope not. This government is prepared to move forward at this time on all those reforms, including the curriculum, the report card, all the reforms to the education system.

Mr Hampton: Almost everything the Minister of Education now referred to is not in Bill 160. This is not about stall and delay. This is about the fundamentals of democracy, that your government should not be allowed to impose taxes without representation from the people, that your government should not be able to cut and destroy an important public institution like education without input from the people. This is not about delay. This is about the fundamentals of democracy.

Since your government is not prepared to give people a say, you're not prepared to have a referendum, you don't trust the people of Ontario to have a say about education taxes and about education funding, I'm announcing today, along with the East End Parent Network, that we will begin such a referendum campaign. I say to all those people out there that if they will take this petition and if every teacher and every parent who is out there on a picket line gets 10 people to sign, then by your own rules you should hold a referendum.

The Speaker: Question, please.

Mr Hampton: Minister, if we gather the signatures, will you hold a referendum on Bill 160? Will you respect the wishes --

The Speaker: Minister.

Hon David Johnson: What this is about is improving the education system. What this is about is what parents have been asking for for decades and decades. We have excellent teachers within the system. We have leadership in terms of our principals and vice-principals. But the system needs to be reformed. That's what this government is doing, before Bill 160, through Bill 160, and after Bill 160: before Bill 160 through the curriculum, through the report cards, through the testing; through Bill 160 through guaranteeing average class sizes don't increase, through mandating and ensuring the school councils are there to contribute to the accountability and the quality of our system, through ensuring more instructional days. In the future, I look forward to reforms around early childhood education, through secondary school reform, through the apprenticeship program.

These are the kind of reforms and this I is what --

Interjection.

The Speaker: Order. I don't need help, Minister, from you in how to manage this House. I don't tell you how to run your ministry; don't tell me how to manage this House. I don't need help from any members here. It's a difficult period. I don't want your assistance at this point in time. And don't heckle the Speaker.

Hon David Johnson: That's what this bill is about, that's what the government's total program is about, and that's what we are intent on proceeding with.

The Speaker: New question, official opposition.

EDUCATION REFORM

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): My question is for the Minister of Education. You have now finished ramming through your amendments to Bill 160 and your amendments make the bill even worse, even more frightening, than it was before.

One of the things that you did yesterday was take the word "advisory" away from the definition of school councils. Minister, every single parent council representative who made submissions to the committee hearings on Bill 104 and on Bill 160 made it absolutely clear they do not want to manage their schools; they want their involvement to stay advisory.

Why did you fly in the face of every parent council representative and their wishes and change the bill so that school councils are no longer advisory?

Hon David Johnson: The only desire of the government in terms of the school councils is to ensure they have an active role within their schools and involvement to approve the accountability of the system, to approve the quality within the system. The Education Improvement Commission, as I'm sure the member opposite knows, is looking at the role of the councils, of the school boards, and will be reporting in the near future. I look forward to the recommendations coming forward through the Education Improvement Commission in terms of determining what precise roles and functions the councils should have.

I think we would all agree that we want to see these councils active within their community, active within their schools and contributing. That is the desire and the goal of the government.

Mrs McLeod: You had a bill yesterday that said school councils would be advisory. You brought in an amendment and you made them no longer advisory. I was at every committee hearing on Bill 104 and every committee hearing on Bill 160 and I can tell you that the only people who wanted school councils to be more than an advisory capacity were the ones who wanted to abolish school boards altogether and wanted to be free to establish their own charter schools. That's what this is all about. They're the ones who felt your Bill 160 didn't go nearly far enough, Minister, so you decided you would listen to them -- just that handful of people and your own appointed head of your parent council -- and you changed the bill. Now parent councils across this province are terrified about what you're going to ask them to do. We today have had already 17 parent councils resign from their responsibilities.

We all know that what you've done is open the doors wide open to charter schools and to the privatization of public education. Will you reassure people, tell them categorically today you won't be turning the management of schools over to parent councils and you will not be launching charter schools across Ontario?

1450

Hon David Johnson: The school councils today are governed by policy memorandum 122, which sets out their role. I think what we need to do is have a little bit of patience and not exaggerate the situation. There has been no change made to this point. The Education Improvement Commission is looking into the roles, the functions, along with the school boards. Let's have the patience to wait until the Education Improvement Commission reports. Let's look at what the Education Improvement Commission recommends, and then I think we can move forward with a positive approach.

The Speaker: New question, leader of the third party.

Mr Hampton: A question to the Minister of Education again. You talk a good line about Bill 160 and education funding, but let's review the events of the last few weeks.

I disclosed the deputy minister's performance contract, which shows that your government has a plan to cut a further $667 million from elementary and secondary classrooms this year. Then yesterday I disclosed a private and confidential letter from education finance officials across the province who have seen your proposed education funding formula, and they make the point that this is all about cuts; it's not about adequate funding. Then we find out last night that the new Toronto Board of Education, in the next half year alone, will face a $60-million cut, just in a half year alone.

When are you going to come clean with the people of Ontario about your funding formula, about how much you intend to cut education funding just as you're cutting it here within Metropolitan Toronto? When are you going to do that?

Hon David Johnson: I think there are three different issues that the leader of the third party has raised. One is the comments from the 11 officials, which pertain to the stub year. They do not pertain to the general funding formula; they pertain to the stub year.

We have listened to various officials over the summer; there has been consultation in the fall. The Ministry of Education officials are looking at the results of that consultation, will take into account the 11 officials and their thoughts, and will be coming forward in the near future with the formula, with the stable funding in the stub year.

In terms of the Metropolitan Toronto board, there has been a situation with regard to assessment appeals. This is a matter that is being looked at in the same context, and that matter will be reviewed and considered along with the other problems that are being faced.

Mr Hampton: Minister, this is all about cuts to education, and don't try to weasel out of it any other way. Everybody up here in the press gallery has a copy of that letter from those education finance officials, and they know that it refers to the stub year and they know that the funding formula refers to the ongoing years. Those education finance officials pointed out to you that your education funding formula that they have seen so far is all about imposing cuts on the classroom from the top, imposing cuts on children by you, and it's not about anything more.

Here we are six weeks before these new boards are going to be brought into existence. You want a bill passed, Bill 160, that allows you to cut education funding behind closed doors, that allows you to raise taxes behind closed doors without public representation, that allows you to do all these things, and you're not willing to come clean with people about how it's all going to be done.

The Speaker: Question, please.

Mr Hampton: You won't share the funding formula.

Minister, withdraw Bill 160 --

The Speaker: Thank you.

Hon David Johnson: Let me say once again that in terms of the stub year, the various business officials from the various school boards from across the province were consulted during the summer. There was a further consultation process in the fall. We welcome the comments in the letter that has come forward recently.

Mr Hampton: A letter was sent to you on October 31. A letter was sent to you quite recently.

The Speaker: Leader of the third party, I've warned you enough times. You're heckling the Minister of Education. I'll have to name you. Mr Hampton.

Mr Gilles Pouliot (Lake Nipigon): Put him in a straitjacket.

The Speaker: I'm sorry, I just can't control the House with heckling.

Mr Hampton was escorted from the chamber.

Interjections.

Mr Pouliot: This is Bill 160 and this is our leader.

The Speaker: Mr Pouliot, I'll name you if you don't either take your seat or move. Minister?

Hon David Johnson: We welcome all these comments. There is a process going on. I guess the leader of the third party would have us come out partway through that process with a product that wasn't finished, that wasn't fair, that didn't take into account all the factors, but we're not going to do that. We're in the process of reviewing all the input we've received in the fall, through the summer. We've guaranteed that the funding will be stable for the stub year leading through to September next year, that there will be no cuts in grants, that there will be no cuts in the taxes. They will have this information later this year and this will carry them through in a more than adequate fashion with the kind of funding they have today right through the stub year until September 1998.

BEER AND LIQUOR SALES

Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): My question is for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, the minister who was most recently awarded the Windsor Star Rose Award.

Minister, last Friday you announced that as of December 7 all LCBO and Brewers' Retail stores will be permitted to open on Sundays on a year-round basis. Reaction from my constituents to your announcement has been generally very positive. Under your leadership -- I believe that this type of decisive announcement was long overdue.

It is important that my constituents of Durham East know exactly what factors influenced this government's decision to permanently open beer and liquor stores on Sunday. Minister, could you tell my constituents and indeed the members of this House exactly what these factors were and how the beer and liquor outlets will be determined, what stores will be opening on Sundays to ensure that this is a cost-effective program.

Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): I thank the member for Durham East for the question. It is true that consumers across the province have indicated to us that they want the convenience to shop at the LCBO and the beer stores on Sunday.

We ran a series of pilot projects last year just before Christmastime and the year before that, and the five Sundays in August of this year. We had the results of some polling that indicated about 65% of the people in the province supported being able to buy at the LCBO stores and the beer stores on Sunday. Not surprisingly, almost 90% of people who shop at the LCBO and the Brewers' indicated their support as well.

But this is not anything new. Certainly people had the opportunity before this to purchase alcohol in the province of Ontario. There are over 350 wine stores, distilleries and beer stores that sell on Sunday. In addition to that of course there are about 10,000 establishments which serve alcohol on Sunday. We are looking to make sure there is a business case provided to make sure that any of the openings that do occur in the beer stores and the LCBO stores make sense.

1500

Mr O'Toole: Minister, clearly you have done your homework. The decision was made after the successful number of factors that you've indicated, such as the pilot projects and that the individual store openings will be assessed on a business case basis. I am impressed. However, some municipalities throughout the province have some concerns about having their stores open on Sunday. Local councils, like Scugog and Clarington in my riding, want you to understand how a community feels about this issue. If municipalities in my riding do not wish to have beer and liquor stores open on Sunday, can they express this concern to the LCBO? Was this the case during the pilot project?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: Just to put some context to it -- if I look back at the pilot projects we had in August, we had five Sunday openings in Ontario, we only received 17 communities who decided not to participate in the project. We anticipate somewhat less this time. I must say that the municipalities have merely to indicate to the LCBO that they do not want to participate in the Sunday openings and that's all they need to do.

This is another example of our government, which will listen to the people and to the consumers, looking for ways in which to benefit both the consumer and the taxpayer in this province. We will not accept the status quo on this nor on any other issue. We are constantly looking for ways to make the system more efficient. We're looking for ways to modernize the LCBO to make it more accountable to both the taxpayer and the consumer in the province. We will continue to review any and all of our options to modernize the system. It's only through the benefit of the taxpayer and the consumer in Ontario and their suggestions that we're able to continue on in this initiative.

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a question for the Minister of Education. Yesterday I brought to your attention the great concern in this province about the vitriolic and vicious attack by this government on members of the teaching profession in the province of Ontario and on school boards, where you say: "The union bosses want school boards to keep the power to raise your property taxes. Higher taxes, bigger classes, less time teaching kids -- that is what the union bosses want to protect." Many people are appalled at this kind of vicious attack on those who deliver front-line education services in the province.

Even the person sitting beside you, the Honourable Elizabeth Witmer, Minister of Health, former chair of the board of education in Waterloo, has expressed her concern when she says, "It would be better to run ads that provide information about the facts contained in the legislation."

If you won't listen to those of us in the opposition, if you won't listen to fairminded people across the province who are turned off by these kinds of vicious attack ads, will you at least listen to Elizabeth Witmer and her good common sense in this and withdraw those ads from the air today?

Hon David Johnson (Minister of Education and Training): There is a need for each government to communicate. This government certainly has not attacked teachers. This government thinks very highly of teachers. This government understands the role of the teachers in the school, in their communities. But the fact of the matter is that the unions representing the teachers have negotiated higher class sizes. This is a fact that's happened in a number of instances across the province of Ontario. There is a need to proceed with reforms that have been resisted by the teachers' unions. The government has to deal with that particular set of circumstances.

I know that the Liberal government, when it was in office, in 1989-90 spent over $13 million -- you know that -- which is less than this particular government has spent in the last fiscal year on advertising. Each government has to communicate with the people of Ontario in terms of the difficulties it faces. That's what this government is doing.

Applause.

Mr Bradley: I'm surprised to hear Conservative members applauding that answer, unless they want to get into the cabinet or ingratiate themselves to somebody, because we're not even talking about the cost -- and you're running up the cost every time you have a new set of ads with your propaganda on some issue. We're talking about the most vicious, vitriolic kind of attack ads that we've ever seen in this province, paid for by all of the taxpayers of Ontario, ads which must make many of the government members feel very uneasy.

We have a person who has a good reputation in education, the Honourable Elizabeth Witmer, member for Waterloo North, who on the CBC today, in an interview outside of cabinet, has expressed her concern about the nature of the ads, asking that you provide information rather than having attack ads which try to place in the most unfavourable light people who are dedicated to delivering education services to the students. Will you now withdraw that set of ads?

Hon David Johnson: I am going to interpret the member for St Catharines' question in a broader context. Maybe what he's saying in broader context is, looking into the future, what do I see in terms of the relationship between the government and the teachers and indeed everybody involved in the education system? I am going to say that I look forward to the day, and I think it'll be in the near future, when we will sit down to debate and discuss and work together in terms of all components -- quality components, the curriculum, early childhood education, all aspects of the education system -- because we need to work together. We need to have the teachers, the principals, the directors, the school boards, the Ministry of Education, all the members of this House, working together for the betterment of our education system and the future of our children. That's what I'm hoping we can all do at some point in the future, and I think it'll happen. I look forward to that day.

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

Mr Tom Froese (St Catharines-Brock): My question is to the minister responsible for seniors: My constituency office has received a number of calls from seniors who have been notified by the Niagara Community Care Access Centre that they will see a reduction in service level in the near future. I know you are aware of the situation, as you and I met with the CCAC on November 6. Could you tell the House and my constituency what this government is doing to ensure that the Niagara region receives its fair share of health care dollars?

Hon Cameron Jackson (Minister without Portfolio [Seniors Issues]): I'd like to thank the member for St Catharines-Brock, and I'd also like to thank the members for St Catharines and for Lincoln, who joined me on November 6, when I travelled down to visit first hand the Niagara CCAC situation. All members will be aware that Niagara has been traditionally underfunded by previous governments. Through an equity fund we have injected an additional $5.8 million into that region in a one-year period. That's a 23% increase in home care funding into this area.

I know that my colleagues on all sides of the House were concerned that the CCAC was informing not only the local MPPs, but the minister responsible for long-term care, myself, as well as the long-term care office for the first time that day. We are working closely with this community care access centre, but I must share with the House that we've also written off a one-time grant of $1.4 million to the previous provider of the program, the Niagara regional health unit, for deficits they ran in preceding years. I think this government has acted very responsibly, in an accountable fashion, by injecting considerable new dollars, recognizing growth in the Niagara region.

Mr Froese: With all the money that's being added to the home care budget for Niagara, why are the seniors being warned of reductions to their service?

Hon Mr Jackson: I want to assure the members from the Niagara region that there is also a whole envelope of community-based support services that are being provided outside the community care access centre; that's about $400 million in the province. There are some announcements still under consideration by my colleague the Minister of Health and myself, and we look to make further announcements in the next while.

However, the situation in Niagara seems to be that instead of looking on a case-by-case basis -- each person who is receiving care in that region -- they have chosen to tell everyone that there will be a service reduction. We have told them that a more caring and sensitive and accountable way of dealing with client services is to begin reviews and evaluations on a case-by-case basis. By doing it that way, you avoid making wrong decisions about withdrawal of services, and we want to ensure that this government is deeply committed to making sure no one has a reduction in services if they need service. We don't wish that to occur and we believe the guidance we have given Niagara will assist them in doing that.

1510

EDUCATION REFORM

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): I hosted a press conference with the Scarborough Parents for Music Education. They were saying very strongly, "Don't take $667 million out of education through Bill 160 to fund your tax cut." They also said that if you do, their children's music program will be cut and their children's education will be compromised. These students have won international music competitions. Agincourt Collegiate, to which one of the ministers went, is one example, where out of 1,600 students, 700 participate in the music program. Music education, as you know, has significant effects on higher brain functions of young minds. Whatever your first language or your culture, music connects students.

Since this government says it's committed to improving the education performance of all students in Ontario, will you guarantee that music will be part of your core curriculum from kindergarten to secondary school graduation? Further, will you guarantee that adequate funding to support excellent and equitable music programs in every school will be maintained in this province?

Hon David Johnson (Minister of Education and Training): I will certainly guarantee equitable funding. That's what the funding formula being devised by the Ministry of Education is all about. But I'm pleased to see that the Ontario Catholic School Trustees' Association also believes that. It's not just the government that believes that, but the Ontario Catholic School Trustees' Association says that the province, through the provincial grant system, will equalize board revenues, and as a result each board will receive equitable funding. That's not the government saying that; that's the Ontario Catholic School Trustees' Association saying that, that it will be in a fair and non-discriminatory manner.

This formula is being developed, with input from school boards, from trustees, from all components of school life in the province. It's to ensure a student grant, it's to ensure proper accommodation, to ensure proper circumstances. The draft has been out. The Ontario Catholic School Trustees' Association believes it's fair and equitable, and so do I.

Mr Curling: Minister, don't start playing games with the people. You're talking about "equitable." I said "adequate" funding. When you talk about equitable funding itself, are there adequate funds there? We know that if you cut $667 million out of this program, there won't be adequate funding there, so don't tell me about equitable. Oscar Peterson and many prominent people in our community, Ben Heppner and all who have written with great concern, say that if you do this, you're going to destroy one of the most fundamental things that enhance education.

I'm asking you again, will you give your word that the $667 million that you will cut out of the education funding will not compromise musical education across Ontario, with which we have done so well? Your Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations was at Agincourt Collegiate. He's an alumnus who understands that program. Will you now commit to me that you will not cut $667 million out of the education fund?

Hon David Johnson: There was never a commitment to cut $670 million out of the education system. It was viewed at one time that on behalf of the taxpayer this may be achievable, because there are some people in the province who believe that when you're spending over $14 billion in the education system, there may be a little waste or a little duplication, that there may be an opportunity for the government to actually improve the quality of the system at the same time as recognizing savings from the system.

I can tell you that the mandate I have is to ensure that there is a high quality within the education system. I will guarantee through the funding formula that there is adequate funding to meet all the needs of the students of Ontario, but we won't spend any more money. We won't be spending money on a Taj Mahal, we won't be spending money where it isn't needed; we will spend precisely what we need to spend to ensure quality education and no more.

PETITIONS

EDUCATION REFORM

Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): "Whereas Bill 160 will seriously affect the quality of instruction in our schools, could lead to a unilateral education tax increase by the Minister of Education without consultation, in flagrant contempt for the democratic process and in violation of the rights of people to discuss taxes in a public forum, and will have a destructive effect on small, midsized and rural schools by designating voluntary activity in co-curricular areas as mandatory and reducing the number of sports, clubs and other activities; and

"Whereas Bill 160 would allow the Minister of Education to unilaterally set class size and eliminate preparation time for teachers without local input, recourse or limits, interfere with and undermine the teaching profession in this province;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Parliament of Ontario to pass a resolution to withdraw or substantially amend the proposed act now known as Bill 160."

I've also signed the petition.

MINIMUM WAGE

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): "Whereas the people of Ontario are being exploited by the right-wing agenda of Mike Harris; and

"Whereas those same people of Ontario need justice from this regime;

"We, the undersigned citizens of Ontario, petition the Legislative Assembly to increase the minimum wage to $10 from $6.85 an hour. If Mike Harris does not respond to the injustice he has created, Mike Harris should resign in utter disgrace."

This is signed by 430 people from across northern Ontario, and I affix my signature to this petition.

ABORTION

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

"Whereas the Ontario health system is overburdened and unnecessary spending must be cut; and

"Whereas pregnancy is not a disease, injury or illness and abortions are not therapeutic procedures; and

"Whereas the vast majority of abortions are done for reasons of convenience or finance; and

"Whereas the province of Ontario has exclusive authority to determine what services will be insured; and

"Whereas the Canada Health Act does not require funding for elective procedures; and

"Whereas there is mounting evidence that abortion is in fact hazardous to women's health; and

"Whereas Ontario taxpayers funded over 45,000 abortions in 1993 at an estimated cost of $25 million;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to cease from providing any taxpayers' dollars for the performance of abortions."

I affix my signature.

EDUCATION REFORM

Mr Peter North (Elgin): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario with regard to Bill 160.

"Whereas the provincial government, through Bill 160, has continued to undermine the democratic functions of the Ontario Legislature by moving decision-making from the legislative process to regulatory powers of cabinet; and

"Whereas the provincial government has ignored the majority of public opinion against Bill 160; and

"Whereas the provincial government, in an act of vindictiveness against teachers who protested against Bill 160, has introduced amendments to remove principals and vice-principals from their federations and thereby deny them collective bargaining rights; and

"Whereas it is clear that the government's agenda is to cut at least $667 million from education spending and further undermine public education;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to conduct a vote of non-confidence in the Ontario government and call for a provincial election."

I affix my signature thereto.

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas we, the principals, vice-principals, teachers and parents of students of the Waterloo County Board of Education's elementary schools, believe that the membership of principals and vice-principals in their respective professional federations is an important factor in creating and maintaining a positive, collegial learning environment for students.

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

"That principals and vice-principals remain as members of the Ontario Teachers' Federation and its affiliates."

This is signed by several hundred residents of the Kitchener-Waterloo area, and I have affixed my signature.

CHIROPRACTIC HEALTH CARE

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): I have a petition to the Ontario Legislature.

"Whereas the Ministry of Health has recently strengthened its reputation as the Ministry of Medicine through its $1.7-billion, three-year agreement with the Ontario Medical Association; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government is restricting access to alternative cost-saving treatments for the patients of the province; and

"Whereas two recent reports commissioned by the Ministry of Health called for increased OHIP funding to improve patient access to chiropractic services on the grounds of safety, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness; and

"Whereas over one million Ontario adults now use chiropractic services annually, increasingly those with higher incomes because of the cost barrier caused by government underfunding; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government has shown blatant disregard for the needs of the citizens of Ontario in restricting funding for chiropractic services;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to recognize the contribution made by chiropractors to the good health of the people of Ontario, to recognize the taxpayer dollars saved by the use of low-cost preventive care such as that provided by chiropractors, and to recognize that to restrict funding for chiropractic health care only serves to limit access to a needed health care service."

I am proud to affix my signature.

1520

VETERANS' HIGHWAY

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas Canadian and Allied veterans are recognized the world over for the effort they gave in fighting to preserve our free and democratic way of life; and

"Whereas the people of Ontario are forever grateful to the many dedicated men and women who bravely and unselfishly risked their lives for Canada; and

"Whereas too many Canadian children are unaware of the extraordinary courage and profound sacrifice Canada's veterans displayed in securing the safe and prosperous country we live in; and

"Whereas dedicating Highway 416 in memory of Canada's veterans would be an appropriate gesture of respect, reminding everyone of the contribution veterans have made to our society and preserving an important part of Canada's history;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to name Highway 416 the Veterans' Memorial Parkway."

Because I am in complete agreement, I have affixed my own signature thereto.

EDUCATION REFORM

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): I have thousands and thousands of petitions to the Lieutenant Governor from many, many people in Scarborough North and the surrounding areas, especially in Conservative areas who they can't give petitions to. It says:

"We, the undersigned, are very concerned about the passing of Bill 160 in its present form. We feel that local control must be restored to local boards of education so that parents and teachers can continue to have input in the future of education. Funding must be provided to enable schools to continue to offer quality programs."

I affix my signature because I fully agree with this.

EDUCATION FINANCING

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

"Whereas education is our future; and

"Whereas students and teachers will not allow their futures to be sacrificed for tax cuts; and

"Whereas students, parents and teachers will not allow the government to bankrupt Ontario's education system; and

"Whereas you cannot improve achievement by lowering standards; and

"Whereas parents, students, teachers want reinvestment in education rather than a reduction in funding; and

"Whereas students, parents and teachers won't back down;

"Therefore, be it resolved that we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly to withdraw Bill 160 immediately; and

"Further, be it resolved that the Legislative Assembly of Ontario instruct the Minister of Education and Training to do his homework and be a cooperative learner rather than imposing his solution which won't work for the students, parents and teachers of Ontario."

This is signed by the parents who belong to the Markstay Public School parent council in my riding. I agree with them entirely.

EDUCATION REFORM

Mr Bert Johnson (Perth): I have a petition signed by about 90 people that was given to me by Carol Hodgins from St Marys.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the parents and concerned citizens of Perth and Huron counties of Ontario wish to express opposition to Bill 160,

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

"That Bill 160 be withdrawn for the following defects:

"(1) Centralizing the decisions, by politicians in Toronto, which impact on our children;

"(2) Limiting the decision-making powers of the parents councils and the boards of education;

"(3) Withdrawing the principals and vice-principals, who also have teaching responsibilities, from the bargaining unit."

I will sign it so that it can be dealt with by this House.

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): This is to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and it reads as follows:

"Whereas the Ontario government wants to take an additional $1 billion out of the education system this year and every year; and

"Whereas the Ontario government has decided to hire uncertified teachers in kindergarten, libraries, for guidance, physical education, the arts and technology; and

"Whereas the Ontario government wishes to remove the right to negotiate working conditions; and

"Whereas the Ontario government would remove at least 10,000 teachers from classrooms across the province; and

"Whereas the Ontario government has become the sole decision-maker on class size, preparation time and the length of the school day; and

"Whereas the Ontario government proposes to take decision-making powers out of the hands of locally elected community-minded trustees,

"We, the undersigned Ontario residents, strongly urge the government to repeal Bill 160 and create an accessible public consultation process for students, parents, teachers and school board administrators to study alternative solutions that have universal appeal and will lead to an improved educational system."

I am affixing my signature to this document.

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I have a petition signed by over 3,000 Hamiltonians against Bill 160. This was coordinated by Liz Ruffall and Donna Brandow on behalf of the parents in the community of Hamilton-Wentworth. The petition -- thousands of them -- reads as follows:

"We, the undersigned citizens of Ontario, ask you, Mr Dave Johnson, Minister of Education, to withdraw Bill 160 on the grounds that it is flawed legislation that will (a) allow uncertified teachers to teach in the classroom; (b) cause a loss to kids of thousands of teachers and increase class sizes; (c) reduce teacher preparation time, which translates into less teachers and less time for students; and (d) allow the provincial government to set the education tax rate without provision for debate in the Legislature or at the school board level."

I proudly add my name to those thousands of Hamiltonians.

ABORTION

Mr Marcel Beaubien (Lambton): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and it reads as follows, and by the way it's signed by approximately 500 people:

"Whereas the Ontario health system is overburdened and unnecessary spending must be cut; and

"Whereas pregnancy is not a disease, injury or illness, and abortions are not therapeutic procedures; and

"Whereas the vast majority of abortions are done for reasons of convenience or finance; and

"Whereas the province has the exclusive authority to determine what services will be insured; and

"Whereas the Canada Health Act does not require funding for elective procedures; and

"Whereas there is mounting evidence that abortion is in fact hazardous to women's health; and

"Whereas Ontario taxpayers funded over 45,000 abortions in 1993 at an estimated cost of $25 million;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to cease from providing any taxpayers' dollars for the performance of abortions."

EDUCATION REFORM

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): A petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the government of Ontario is elected by the people to represent the citizens of Ontario; and

"Whereas the recent political protests have demonstrated that the proposed Bill 160 is a source of concern for a large portion of the Ontario electorate" -- I would add that they certainly have included an understatement in this petition.

"We, the undersigned electorate of Ontario, concerned citizens, parents and teachers, ask the Minister of Education, the Premier and cabinet to delay passage of Bill 160. We ask the government to resume talks with teachers and revise, delete and make amendments to this bill which are acceptable to those parties."

I add my name to this petition.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I have petitions regarding the Workers' Health and Safety Centre and clinics signed by literally thousands of union members and their representatives from all across Ontario. The petition reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas approximately 300 workers are killed on the job each year and 400,000 suffer work-related injuries and illnesses; and

"Whereas the government of Ontario continues to allow a massive erosion of WCB prevention funding; and

"Whereas Ontario workers are fearful that the government of Ontario, through its recent initiatives, is threatening to dismantle workers' clinics and the Workers' Health and Safety Centre; and

"Whereas the workers' clinics and the Workers' Health and Safety Centre have consistently provided a meaningful role for labour within the health and safety prevention system; and

"Whereas the workers' clinics and the Workers' Health and Safety Centre have proven to be the most cost-effective prevention organizations funded by the WCB;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to immediately cease the assault on the workers' clinics and the Workers' Health and Safety Centre;

"Further, we, the undersigned, call upon the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to ensure that the workers' clinics and the Workers' Health and Safety Centre remain labour-driven organizations with full and equitable WCB funding and that the WCB provide adequate prevention funding to eliminate workplace illness and injury."

On behalf of my NDP caucus colleagues, I proudly add my name to those of these workers.

1530

ORDERS OF THE DAY

CITY OF TORONTO ACT, 1997 (NO. 2) / LOI DE 1997 SUR LA CITÉ DE TORONTO (N^O 2)

Mr Leach moved third reading of the following bill:

Bill 148, An Act to deal with matters relating to the establishment of the new City of Toronto / Projet de loi 148, Loi traitant de questions se rapportant à la constitution de la nouvelle cité de Toronto.

Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): I'll be sharing my time with the member for Scarborough Centre, the member for York East and the member for Scarborough East.

I'm pleased to be here today for the third reading of Bill 148, a bill that will ensure the continuity of services for the residents of the new city of Toronto.

Before I begin, I want to take a moment to recognize all those who put their names forward as candidates in the municipal elections held across Ontario on November 10. Municipal councillors make a tremendous contribution to their communities and a tremendous contribution to this province.

These are important times for the municipal sector, and I look forward to working with the newly elected mayors and councillors. My congratulations go out to all those who were elected to represent their communities.

The November 10 elections also brought us a step closer to having one strong, unified city of Toronto that will improve economic development, reduce waste and duplication, save taxpayers money and provide better accountability.

Special congratulations go out to the new city of Toronto's first elected council and its first mayor-elect, Mel Lastman. Bill 148 will be of particular importance to them in the term ahead.

The City of Toronto Act, 1997, which was passed by this Legislature in April of this year, provides a framework to govern the new city of Toronto. It was drafted with the understanding that a companion piece of legislation would be required to deal with specific administrative, technical and transitional requirements.

Bill 148, the proposed City of Toronto Act, 1997 (No. 2), is that companion piece of legislation. It provides for legislative changes that would ensure the newly elected council has the legal and administrative authority it needs to function.

The bill serves three main purposes: It maintains certain boards and agencies, it ensures continuity of municipal services and it protects the pensions and benefits of the municipal employees and retirees.

The first purpose, maintaining boards and agencies, would ensure, for example, that the Toronto Transit Commission, Exhibition Place and the Metro zoo continue to operate in their usual manner after January 1, 1998.

The second purpose, continuity of service, would ensure the new city has the authority needed to provide the municipal services people expect, such as public transit. It would ensure that the services Metro Toronto residents use every day will continue uninterrupted when the new city comes into being on January 1, 1998.

The third aspect of this bill would protect pensions and benefits of municipal and local board members and employees and retirees. There is no question that these very important obligations should continue to be honoured by the new city. Bill 148 provides the legislative continuity required to ensure that they will.

It is important for residents to understand that continuity of services is a priority. Bill 148 will ensure that the transition to a unified city is smooth and is seamless. That priority is reflected in the content of the bill itself.

Bill 148 would give the new city of Toronto the legal authority, as its predecessors had under the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act, to provide many services residents now take for granted.

The functions the city is being given authority to perform in this bill are very straightforward: Ambulance services would continue without interruption. Policing and live-saving services for Toronto harbour would carry on as usual. Homes for the aged would operate without disruption. Conservation authority lands would continue to be maintained. The new city would take over the operation of the licensing commission. The Toronto Islands ferry would continue to shuttle residents and tourists across the harbour.

The new city would also be given the authority to plan and act in case of emergencies. It would enable the city to establish and operate controlled-access roads. The city would have the authority to enter into water supply and sewage treatment agreements, and it would also be able to properly dispose of liquid and solid waste.

As you can see, none of these are new or controversial powers. They are simply a continuation of the powers that have been afforded to Metro council in the past, powers which will allow the new city to carry out day-to-day responsibilities that the residents expect.

The bill before you also deals with some specific transitional issues.

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville): On a point of order, Madam Speaker: The minister always has interesting words. I would think we ought to have a quorum in the House to hear them.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): Clerk, can you check and see if there's a quorum.

Clerk Assistant (Ms Deborah Deller): A quorum is not present, Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker ordered the bells rung.

Clerk Assistant: A quorum is now present, Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker: Minister.

Hon Mr Leach: Now I'll have to start over from the top.

The bill before you also deals with some very specific transitional issues. For example, it provides that the current official plans for the Metro area will continue until the new council repeals or decides to amend them.

This bill confirms that there would be one public health board, one library board, one parking authority to ensure a cohesive structure is in place for the new unified city.

Last but not least, this bill would allow the new city council to develop an area rating system, which would help sort out any financial imbalances or any imbalances in service levels in the various municipalities. The new council could, for example, examine a former municipality's total financial picture and make adjustments to tax rates which would reflect its findings. In other words, if a former municipality had substantial reserves and very little debt or liability, the council could lower tax rates in that area, and can do so over an eight-year period, something I think is going to be a big help to many municipalities.

The transitional measures in Bill 148 are consistent with the interim recommendations released by the Toronto Transition Team on October 10.

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): What about health inspectors?

The Deputy Speaker: Member for Parkdale, come to order.

Hon Mr Leach: Their interim report, Toronto: New City/New Opportunities, was well received during the recent public consultations, and the transition team's final recommendations to the new council are expected to be released shortly.

The structure for the new city of Toronto has been in place since April. The residents of the new Toronto have elected their first mayor, they've elected the council and the work of the Toronto Transition Team is nearly complete.

Bill 148 is small by comparison to these events, but it is important to the success of the new city's operation. It will ensure that Toronto's new mayor and the new council have the practical measures needed to provide the quality services its residents expect. It would also enable the new council to integrate services and eliminate waste and duplication, so that one fire department would replace six and one roads department would replace seven.

We all know Toronto is a world-class city. It will now have the population, the political representation and clout to ensure that the greater Toronto area and Ontario continue to be the economic engine of this country. It will have one unified voice to capture the imagination of business communities around the world, attracting investment and creating jobs.

We listened to the valuable input we received during the public hearings on Bill 148, and a number of very technical amendments have been proposed. This is administrative legislation, and the amendments reflect that.

1540

Mr Ruprecht: On a point of order, Speaker: I'm really sorry to interrupt the minister, because he's making some good points, but on one point I have to object: He's saying he listened to the residents of Toronto on this item.

The Deputy Speaker: Member for Parkdale, that is not a point of order.

Hon Mr Leach: Thank you, Madam Speaker. You would think that a member who has been in the House this long would know when a point of order is appropriate.

The City of Toronto Act, 1997 (No. 2) will ensure that the new Toronto city council has the authority needed to continue to carry out its responsibilities as of January 1, 1998. It will also reassure residents that the transition to their new city is well under way and that a more efficient, a more effective and a less costly government structure will result.

Mr Dan Newman (Scarborough Centre): It is my pleasure to participate in the third reading debate of Bill 148, the City of Toronto Act, 1997 (No. 2). As the minister I think so properly said today, this bill is about ensuring the continuity of service within the new city of Toronto and ensuring that boards and agencies continue to operate within this new city, which is being amalgamated from the parts of the old city of Toronto, from Scarborough, East York, North York, Etobicoke, York and Metropolitan Toronto. We're going from seven municipalities into one municipality and it's important, as the minister said, that we have a smooth and seamless transition to this new municipality.

I think it's important, when we look at Bill 148 as being the companion piece of legislation that we said would follow Bill 103, the City of Toronto Act part one, that currently within the seven municipalities in Metro, 72% of all municipal spending is already being spent for amalgamated services. We're not going from 0% to 100% in this case; we're going from 72% of all spending at the municipal level within Metropolitan Toronto to 100%. It's not 0% to 100% but rather 72% to 100%, and we're making that last step.

I think a lot of people over the years from all three political parties have stated that we should have a single unit within Toronto. I look back to John Wintermeyer, who was the leader of the Liberal Party in 1962. John 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." That was his quote in the Toronto Telegram of August 4, 1962. The Liberal Party back in 1962 was advocating that a single municipality would be in order for Toronto.

It's also in keeping with what the Common Sense Revolution said. We stated on page 17 of the Common Sense Revolution, "We must rationalize the regional and municipal levels to avoid the overlap and duplication that now exists." That's what we're doing with this Bill 148.

In terms of the continuity of service -- as the minister mentioned, several of the agencies and boards will continue to operate on January 1 -- what we're doing is ensuring that we all have an enjoyable New Year's Eve, and that when we wake up the next morning all these agencies, boards, commissions and services are there to be provided for the people of Toronto.

What this bill allows is for the Toronto Transit Commission to continue to operate. I think that's very important. Madam Speaker, I know that in your riding, as in my riding, many people use public transit, and the Toronto Transit Commission is the way they travel to and from work. It allows for the operation of Exhibition Place and the Hummingbird Centre to continue, as well as the Metro zoo and the Guild Inn, which are located in Scarborough, where I hail from.

It also allows for the operation of ambulance services to continue. I think it's very important that those vital health services are there for the people of Toronto when they wake up on January 1, 1998, and know that there's that smooth and seamless transition to this new city of Toronto.

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): On a point of order, Madam Speaker: I don't believe we have a quorum in the House.

The Deputy Speaker: Clerk, could you check and see if we have a quorum.

Clerk Assistant: A quorum is not present, Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker ordered the bells rung.

Clerk Assistant: A quorum is now present, Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker: Member for Scarborough Centre.

Mr Newman: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. With all the heckling from the Liberals over there today, I have a whole bunch of Mike Colle quotes that I might use, but I won't use those today.

It also allows for the operation of homes for the aged. I think that's something the member for Parkdale would want to see continue in his riding, as I do in my riding.

It also ensures that there are regulations in place for street vending within the new city of Toronto. I think that's something that's important.

It also provides police protection and lifesaving services for the Toronto harbour, another thing that is very important to the people of Toronto and something that we want to see is kept in place.

It also allows for the operation of conservation authority lands and exempts these lands from property taxes. I know that you, Madam Speaker, being a friend of the environment, would want to see those conservation lands being fully operational. That's why, if we all vote for Bill 148 today, this will continue.

It also allows for the resolution of any disputes regarding bridges and highways to continue, and that's something that's very important, as is the continuance of the operation of the licensing commission so that we have proper licensing in place here within the city of Toronto.

It allows for the operation of the Toronto Islands ferry, which is something many people in the city enjoy. I know many people from my riding enjoy going to the Toronto Islands during the summer months, and that's what they're going to see.

Mr Ruprecht: Don't we have that now?

The Deputy Speaker: Member for Parkdale, come to order.

Mr Newman: It also allows the new city of Toronto to plan and act in the case of emergencies. I can't think of something more important than that. About three weeks ago in Scarborough we had an overturned propane truck -- I believe it was in the riding of Scarborough-Ellesmere at Highway 401 and Kennedy -- and the emergency services people provided an excellent job to the people of that area in the evacuation and ensured that their community was safe. I just want to commend them for that.

It also allows the new city of Toronto to enter into water supply and sewage treatment agreements with other municipalities, and that's something that's very important.

It also allows for the new city to receive and dispose of liquid and solid waste, and that too is something that's important, as well as the establishment and operation of controlled-access roads.

What Bill 148 also allows, if passed by this House, is for the continuance of existing official plans unless or until the new city council wishes to make changes.

It also provides that pensions and benefits for municipal and local board employees and retirees continue, and that's something that's very important. These people have earned those benefits over the years and they're entitled to be sure that their payments continue because they have paid into that over those years.

It also allows for the operation to go from seven library boards to one library board, to go from six health boards to a single health board, to go from two parking authorities to one parking authority and to go from two historical boards to a single historical board. This is what Bill 148 allows.

It would permit the new council to continue different service levels, if it desired, and to recover those costs. So if one area wants to have a different level of service from another, Bill 148 allows that to happen. I think that's very important.

What I found interesting about Bill 148 -- and I think we have to look at Bill 103 as well -- is that several of the people who appeared before the standing committee on general government were elected representatives at the time, and many people spoke against Bill 103. But many of those same people who spoke against Bill 103 ran for office themselves in this last election, and some of them were elected and some weren't. But I think it was quite interesting to see that the very people who were against amalgamation sought to run in the election on November 10.

1550

Mr Ruprecht: No choice.

Mr Newman: They have choices, I say to the member for Parkdale. It's important that we look at those election results of November 10 and see that the people of Toronto voted for a mayor who is committed to freezing taxes for three years. A resounding message was sent by the electorate in Toronto that they want to see taxes frozen. I say congratulations to the new mayor of Toronto, Mel Lastman. I also congratulate Barbara Hall on running a fine campaign. I say to Mel Lastman that I will be his worst nightmare if he doesn't deliver the tax freeze to the people of Toronto, because I know the people in Scarborough voted for Mel Lastman and they want to ensure that a tax freeze does take place. That's something that's very important.

It's also important to look at that election and see the high voter turnout, that people were very interested in this election, that they are committed to seeing that the new city of Toronto works and that it works well. That's why I think the voter turnout numbers were about 60%, which is far higher than a normal municipal election that runs somewhere 25% to 30% or into the low 30s.

In terms of amalgamation, there are some quotes from some people that are important to be read into the record.

I think of what John Nunziata, the MP for York South-Weston, said in the Toronto Star, January 9, 1997. He said, "I think the megacity is going to provide some exciting new opportunities. It's going to make Toronto a better place to work, live and play and I think it's something that all residents should support." I'm not sure if he was a Liberal at the time that he said that -- he may have been an independent -- but he was still a member of the House of Commons.

Mel Lastman, when he was the mayor of North York back in 1983, said, "I have done a lot of soul searching lately and have come to the conclusion that it is ridiculous to have six fire departments, six works departments and six of everything else in Metro." That was Mel Lastman in the Toronto Star, September 29, 1983.

Mel Lastman said in March 1984: "We look like idiots not amalgamating. Why do we have all these works departments and health departments, all this overlapping? Why do we need all these treasury departments and building departments? The work could all be done out of one big office." Or one single municipality I think is what he was really trying to say there in the Toronto Star, March 12, 1984.

There have been a lot of people who have said that. Madam Speaker, the Toronto Telegram in 1969 reported on the first New Democratic Party municipal nominating convention, something that I'm sure you are interested in. It says: "Their policy resolution papers for next weekend's first New Democratic Party nominating convention have proposed a whole new organization for Metro government and school board administration. The two major papers, which were released today, call for one large Metro council to govern an enlarged metropolitan area that would take in Markham, Vaughan and Pickering townships in an integrated municipality. A policy paper urging amalgamation of the city and the boroughs argues that there would be more equality of services and taxes across the whole Metro area and lead to many savings for the people." That's what the New Democrats were saying in 1969. I think that's quite interesting. They actually wanted to make the city larger than what we are proposing. That was almost 30 years ago. I know that interests you greatly, Madam Speaker.

I also looked at Christina Blizzard in the Toronto Sun, December 18, 1996. She said, "At last, someone has had the courage to go ahead and do what countless reports have urged for almost 30 years."

The Toronto Star said: "Replacing Metro's six mayors, councils and bureaucracies with one Toronto offers a chance to rid ourselves of needless politicians, red tape and duplication and to increase efficiencies of scale. Done right, it will bring better, more cost-effective government." The Toronto Star editorial, January 4, 1997.

We are doing it better and doing it right, which will lead to that more cost-effective government. That's what Bill 148, the companion piece of legislation to Bill 103, provides.

The Toronto Star continues in its support of amalgamation. January 6, 1997, some two days later, it stated: "Isn't it interesting that so many critics would lose prestige, if not a job, through amalgamation. Isn't it ironic that the cities of the deal all come from the school of urban thought that believes that community endlessly discussing every issue is more important than actually doing something." That was the Toronto Star; that wasn't anyone here in the government caucus saying that; that was the Toronto Star.

The Toronto Star said, December 18, 1996: "We applaud this government for setting Metro municipalities on the road to unification. Unified we will share each other's triumphs and burdens, liabilities and assets and be secure in our collective thought."

John Bech-Hansen, the economist from the Toronto Board of Trade, stated: "This is an exciting opportunity to make what is already a great city even greater. We have been headed slowly in this direction ever since Metro was created in 1954." I think he was absolutely correct when he said that.

We looked at what Allan Lamport, the former mayor of the city of Toronto, said: "I have the greatest respect for our elected officials and I can't blame people in office for trying to stay in office" -- that's what the member for Parkdale was alluding to -- "but the fact is that Metro is one city, but it has seven city halls, six mayors and a chairman, seven huge administrations that are costly. This shows how things have gotten out of hand." Former Mayor Lamport was absolutely correct when he said that.

That's why making seven municipalities into one is so important for the taxpayers of Toronto, of Scarborough, of East York, of North York, of Etobicoke, of York and of Metropolitan Toronto. There are savings and efficiencies found from going to this one level of government. As I mentioned previously, 72% of municipal spending today is already for amalgamated services like police, like transportation, like ambulance and social services. It's important to go that last step to make it 100%.

Several critics during the Bill 103 hearings gave examples of other municipalities where amalgamation didn't work. What they were speaking about was the fact that municipalities were going from 0% of their budgets for amalgamated services and making that giant leap from 0% to 100%. I too would have had the greatest of concerns with amalgamation here in Toronto if we were going from 0% to 100%, if we had to amalgamate the police, if we had to amalgamate the ambulance services and transportation, the TTC and social services. That is already done. Yes, we will go from six fire departments to one.

One of the examples that people spoke about was Halifax. They spoke about how it had cost the people of Halifax and the three other municipalities that had amalgamated more money. It cost more money for several reasons. As I mentioned, they had no amalgamated services whatsoever. It had a rural and urban component, whereas here in the new city of Toronto we basically have an urban component, with the exception of the northeast part of Scarborough which includes the Rouge area that several people still like to refer to as a rural area. Clearly they had an urban and rural component in Halifax; we have an urban area here in the new city of Toronto. In Halifax they had to amalgamate the police, the fire and the ambulance, which are very difficult things to do here. We already have the police and the ambulance amalgamated.

What was interesting when those four municipalities formed that one single municipality, the workers who were working for those municipalities were technically laid off and given severance packages by their former municipalities but hired back the very next day. That drove the cost of amalgamation right through the roof in Halifax. I would agree, if we were doing things here in Toronto like they did in Halifax, that the costs would be higher and amalgamation would cost more. But we're not.

We're going from that starting point of 72% of spending here. We're ensuring that the continuity of service continues. That's what Bill 148 is all about: ensuring that we have that smooth and seamless transition to that new city on January 1, 1998.

1600

When that first garbage pickup is made in Riverdale or in Scarborough, I don't think we'll notice a difference. Our garbage will continue to get picked up and we will continue to have and enjoy the services that we as taxpayers within that municipality enjoy. I think it's very important that this bill be passed. We have already had the election for the new city of Toronto, and I think it's very important that we get on with things and ensure that we do have that smooth transition, to ensure that places like the zoo, like the Guild Inn, which are located in Scarborough, and like the Hummingbird Centre in the city of Toronto and all other agencies, boards and commissions within the municipalities that are affected get on with things.

In closing, I just want to say that I will be supporting Bill 148. I think it's an important bill. Some would say it could have serious consequences if the bill was passed. I've listened to those individuals. Those points, I'm sure, were made in the standing committee on general government, on Bill 148. We want to ensure that we have that smooth and seamless transition to the new city of Toronto. It's important that we get on with things, go to that single city of Toronto.

Most important of all, it's important that we make this new city of Toronto work for all the people of Toronto, because I think what they'll see in the end is lower taxes, better service and the end of buck passing between the two levels of municipal government here in Toronto. When I have attended public meetings, as MPP and prior to being elected on June 8, 1995, in the riding of Scarborough Centre, Metro councillors and city councillors would pass the buck back and forth. The voters and the taxpayers of Toronto deserve to know that there's a municipal councillor who is in charge, who is their representative for all municipal issues within the city of Toronto.

I will conclude my remarks and pass the floor to the member for York East.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Further debate?

Mr John L. Parker (York East): Mr Speaker, may I welcome you back to the chair? It's good to see you back in the chair this afternoon.

I am very pleased to have this opportunity to add my remarks to this afternoon's discussion on the subject of Bill 148. Bill 148, as my colleague from Scarborough Centre has pointed out, might reasonably be entitled, "The City of Toronto Act, part 2." As we all know, Bill 103 achieved the amalgamation of the city of Toronto out of its component municipalities: York, East York, North York, Scarborough, Etobicoke, the city of Toronto. Those six municipalities, which have functioned quite well under the umbrella of Metropolitan Toronto since 1953, have finally, through the act of Bill 103, been brought together to form what in effect we have had all along, what has been evolving since 1953, what has developed quite naturally into a single, unified city.

What Bill 103 did was to take the entity of Metropolitan Toronto, which was divided by artificial barriers among those six constituent municipalities -- bearing in mind that what we had in the beginning, in 1953, was 13 constituent municipalities, later reduced to six constituent municipalities as amalgamations went on, as the ability of those communities to get together and to coordinate their services and to coordinate their civic administrations progressed, as the original 13 municipal structures was reduced in due course to six municipal structures. Then with Bill 103, those six municipal structures were reduced to a single municipality.

Really, what Bill 103 did was to take an existing entity and remove the internal partitions so that finally we could have full coordination right across the municipal area. That's what Bill 103 achieved, and that bill was passed earlier this year, subject to unprecedented scrutiny, unprecedented debate and, I might say, unprecedented controversy in achieving that, but Bill 103 has done that.

What Bill 148 does is address some of the detail that falls out as a natural consequence of that amalgamation. Bill 148 provides, as it were, the plumbing and wiring to complete the transition from seven municipalities -- Metro plus the six component municipalities -- into a single municipality. Bill 148 maintains certain local boards and commissions, boards and commissions that existed under the Metropolitan government, under Metro, and carries them on under the new unified city. It maintains certain services that existed under Metropolitan government, services such as police, such as ambulance. My friend from Scarborough Centre and I had the honour and pleasure of spending an evening with the Metro ambulance service during one of the most difficult evenings, on into the night and early the next morning, last winter, under blizzard conditions. We saw just how effectively the unified ambulance service in Metropolitan Toronto operates and has operated for some years, under unified conditions.

Mr Ruprecht: That is not all they told you.

The Acting Speaker: Order. The Speaker has warned everybody here for the last time.

Mr Parker: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I appreciate your efforts to stand up for the principles of free speech in this House. I truly appreciate your assistance.

The ambulance service that my friend from Scarborough Centre and I observed at first hand on that blizzard night last winter was a service that had already been amalgamated, was already functioning Metro-wide. It functioned under an emergency call system, the 911 system, which functions Metro-wide. It is, I would suggest, the finest ambulance service that certainly this area has ever had and the finest ambulance service across this country, a service that was amalgamated some time ago and a service that is preserved under Bill 148.

The effect of amalgamation and the achievement of amalgamation is consistent with the principles of this government and the principles on which the members of this party ran in the 1995 election. In our platform, laid out in the document entitled the Common Sense Revolution, you can see on page 17 that the members of this party ran on a platform indicating, "We must rationalize the regional and municipal levels to avoid overlap and duplication that now exist." That was what we were aiming at in bringing forward Bill 103 and that is the job we are completing with Bill 148.

As my colleague from Scarborough Centre pointed out, this is not only consistent with the platform that the members of this riding ran on in 1995; it is also consistent with the wisdom of the former leader of the Liberal Party of Ontario. In 1962, back when the Liberal Party apparently had some wisdom in its leadership, John 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." That was the leader of the Liberal Party in 1962 who said those words.

1610

Unfortunately, the Liberal Party has not been able to maintain consistency with its principles, with its roots. In those days, the Liberal Party was led by a man of vision, a man who understood the issues of this city and understood where the best course for the future lay. Unfortunately, the Liberal Party doesn't have the benefit of the guiding light of John Wintermeyer now, but they might do well to refer to him and to remember his words of wisdom as they formulate their own policy these days. I'm suggesting this on the assumption that they are interested in formulating policy. I see no indication whatsoever that they are interested in developing policy or putting forward any sort of policy alternatives whatsoever. But if perchance the day ever comes that they decide to venture into the realm of coming up with any good, solid, constructive ideas, they might just want to consult their former leader John Wintermeyer's wisdom in doing so.

Bill 148 was introduced before this Legislature in June 1997. That's about four and a half months ago. As I say, it followed the passage of Bill 103. What does Bill 148 do? It preserves certain boards, agencies, services formerly operated Metro-wide. It amalgamates some other services Metro-wide, such as boards of health, library boards, historical boards, parking authorities. During the debate on Bill 103, you may recall in this chamber being told time after time in various ways, in various words, in various fashions, with varying degrees of rhetoric and histrionics, that Bill 103 would turn the world upside down, that it represented this monumental change that would bring the sky down on top of all of us, so terrible would its consequences be.

If the amalgamation of public health efforts across this municipal area is going to have that effect, if the amalgamation of library services across Metro is going to have that effect, if the amalgamation of historical boards across this metropolitan area is going to have that effect, if the amalgamation of parking authorities across this metropolitan area is going to have that effect, then maybe there's some truth to what was being suggested at that time. But I would suggest that this city will be better for the amalgamation of those services, to have coordination across the city Metro-wide, and as John Wintermeyer said in 1962, the leader of the Liberal Party at that time, it's about time that we achieve those benefits. Bill 148 does that.

What else does Bill 148 do? It preserves some boards Metro-wide, it amalgamates some boards Metro-wide that were not formerly operated Metro-wide, and it preserves some other boards locally. It permits amalgamation if the new city council itself decides to amalgamate those boards and those services. Bill 148 also allows for differences between different localities. It does not immediately come through in a broad brush and homogenize the entire metropolitan area. It recognizes that different communities over time have developed different expectations, different levels of service, different standards of service, different priorities, and Bill 148 respects that and allows those differences to be maintained into the future.

Bill 148 contemplates that reserve funds built up in certain municipalities may be applied locally for the benefit of those municipalities that built up those reserve funds. It also permits different localities to maintain different service levels, so that if a municipality wants to have an enhanced level of service in one particular area or another, and if the voters of that area want to pay for that, then the new unified city has the authority and the power and the entitlement to allow those local wishes to be respected. So those who wish to maintain higher levels of services and to pay the extra cost of maintaining those services have the flexibility to do so.

But as my friend from Scarborough Centre has already pointed out, under metropolitan government, at the time of the draconian Bill 103 that was going to turn the world on its head and bring the sky down on top of all of us, 72% of the municipal spending in Metropolitan Toronto was already being carried out at the Metro level. Far and away the bulk of the municipal spending for the municipal services that were delivered were carried out already on a unified basis, so under Bill 148 that is respected.

What does Bill 148 do, for example, to the operation of the Toronto Transit Commission? Continue as usual. What does Bill 148 do to the operation of Exhibition Place, Metro Zoo, the Hummingbird Centre, the Guild Inn? Continue as usual. What does Bill 148 do with the operation of ambulance services across Metro? Continue as usual. What does Bill 148 do with the operation of homes for the aged? Continue as usual. What does Bill 148 do with the regulation of street vending? Continue as usual.

Police protection: Continue as usual. Life-saving services for Toronto harbour: Continue as usual. Conservation authority lands exempted from property taxes: Continue as usual. Resolution of disputes regarding bridges and highways: Continue as usual. Operation of a licensing commission: Continue as usual. Operation of the Toronto Islands ferry: Continue as usual. Plan and act in emergencies: Continue as usual. Enter into water supply and sewage treatment agreements with other municipalities: Continue as usual. Receiving and disposing of liquid and solid waste: Continue as usual -- a service that was already administered on a Metro basis, operated by the metropolitan government for all of the municipalities. Establishing and operating controlled access roads: Continue as usual. How about pensions and benefits for municipal employees at the Metro level and the local level? Continue as usual.

What changes under Bill 148? I'll give you some examples of what changes under Bill 148. Official plans: Official plans are the plans that govern development in each community, and that's very important to each resident, as a resident of a community, to know what the plan is for the development of that community. That's where the rubber hits the road for most residents in the municipality, the sense of where the community is now and where it will go in the future as development occurs. The official plan is the roadmap that governs future development in the municipality and future growth and planning in the community. It continues as usual, except that new planning can take place at the option of the new city council elected by the voters of the new city as they see fit, according to their priorities. There is flexibility there to allow for changes in the future.

Does Bill 148 change the official plan for any community in this city? No. Does Bill 103 change the official plan for any community in this city? No. Do Bill 103 and Bill 148 leave decisions concerning official plans in the hands of locally elected politicians and officials responsive to their voters, their constituents? Yes. That's what Bill 103 does and that's what Bill 148 does with official plans.

How about library boards? The library boards, under Bill 148, as I have mentioned, will be merged into one library board; public health will be merged into one board; and the parking authority will be merged into one board.

Mr Newman: Oh, no.

Mr Parker: As my friend from Scarborough Centre says, "Save us from the onslaught of a unified parking authority across Metropolitan Toronto." I'm going to suggest that the good people of Toronto are going to survive the shock of having their parking authority amalgamated on a metropolitan basis.

1620

How about the accumulation of assets, liabilities and reserve funds in various municipalities? Bill 148 will allow council to examine individual municipal financial circumstances, and if it so chooses, in the wisdom of the elected officials chosen by the voters of the city of Toronto, it may take steps to address imbalances. Reserve funds, for example, could be used to benefit the taxpayers in the area where those reserve funds were raised.

How about different levels of service across Metro? As I've suggested, Bill 148 permits the new council to continue different service levels and to recover related costs to those different service levels in different communities. As I said, if people want to pay for them, they can have them. Bill 148 provides for that.

Let's just talk about the effect of amalgamation as we've seen it so far. We heard much of local democracy during the debate on Bill 103 and how the amalgamation of Metro's municipalities would be the death of local democracy. Before Bill 103, local democracy, as demonstrated through the exercise of the voting franchise in municipal election after municipal election, was notorious for the low turnout of voters in those elections; 30%, less than 40%, was a routine turnout for municipal elections prior to amalgamation.

We've just finished our first election after the passage of Bill 103. Let me also suggest that what I constantly heard from municipal voters prior to Bill 103 was that people didn't know the candidates, they didn't know the issues, they didn't know where the candidates stood on the issues, they didn't know what they were voting for, they didn't really know what it was all about, they didn't really know who was running locally, who was running Metro-wide, what issues were dealt with locally or what issues were dealt with Metro-wide. They were frustrated. That, I'm going to suggest, is a large part of the reason why voter turnout at municipal elections was so abysmally low election after election after election.

My friend the member for Scarborough East has asked what happened this time around, in the election campaign just completed, operated under Bill 103, electing representatives to the new, unified city council. Record-high turnouts. They ran out of ballots. The returning officers couldn't keep up with the demand for ballots to participate in the election this time around. That was the result of Bill 103. Never before in Metro Toronto have we had as big a turnout, as much participation, as much enthusiasm for a municipal election as we had earlier this month when we had our first election under Bill 103.

I'm going to suggest something else. I'm going to suggest that never before have the issues before the voters been so clearly put and so clearly understood. This time, for the first time in the history of elections in this city, people knew what the choice was between candidate A and candidate B when they voted for mayor. They knew what the difference was between candidate A and candidate B when they voted for their councillor. They knew what their councillor was going to be responsible for when that councillor reported for work on January 1, because all the councillors who were elected in the election this fall are all going to be members of the same municipal council.

They will all be dealing with all of the issues that need to be dealt with in this municipal area. We are not going to have some issues resolved by one council involving one group of people and another set of issues resolved by another council, including another group of people, with one very select, élite group, the mayors of the six municipalities, being represented both locally and Metro-wide. Everyone who was elected this fall will participate in the unified council and will share responsibility for all of those issues that affect us municipally.

What about local issues? Strictly local issues may be resolved by subsets of that municipal council. Those members representing the areas coinciding with the original municipal areas can meet as a group, as a community council, to address those local matters. Strictly local matters can be dealt with locally by members elected locally. It all comes together at the top in the unified council under one mayor for all of us, with accountability directly to the voters in a process that is understandable by the voters, that is transparent to the voters, where nothing is hidden under the surface.

We no longer have the system I encountered last winter when I attended a public meeting of the ratepayers' association in Governors Bridge and Bennington Heights, which gathered to consider a proposal for development on the Bayview ghost lands, the vacant lands south of Governors Bridge, which were occupied for a time by the Bayview ghost. At that meeting the key issue that arose that evening was the issue of road access from the proposed development to the Bayview Extension. There was much debate that evening about where that road access should take place: Should it all be channelled through Nesbitt Drive, and siphon the traffic through Governors Bridge, or should there be direct access on to the Bayview Extension? The municipal officials who were there that evening, and there were many of them, all said: "Not our department. That's a Metro matter. We can't deal with that."

Those people who came out that snowy evening to deal with that issue and who focused their concerns on that one element of that issue could not have that issue addressed by the municipal officials who were there that evening, because it wasn't their issue to deal with. The Bayview Extension is a Metro road; it was a Metro decision.

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I apologize for interrupting the member opposite, but I did notice that there are only four minutes left on the clock in the government's time to speak, the first round on this, and I was just curious when the government was going to try to address the most recent screwup we've discovered in the bill, which is the date of the first council meeting.

The Acting Speaker: Curiosity is not a point of order.

Mr Parker: I appreciate that my friend the member for Dovercourt isn't confident he'll be able to get his own bit in when his turn comes around and he wants to share some time with me. I'm happy to generously share some time with him and maybe he'll afford me the same opportunity later on in this afternoon's proceedings.

I want to leave time for my friend the member for Scarborough East to wrap up, because I know he is so good on these issues, but he insists I complete this debate, and I'll see what I can do about this. Maybe I will use the time remaining to me, which my friend the member for Scarborough East has so graciously given to me, which my friend the member for Dovercourt seems to want to consume himself, to address the particular matter of my community of East York.

I have already mentioned the frustration felt by the ratepayers of Governors Bridge and Bennington Heights when they tried to deal with that Bayview ghost matter and they found out the local council couldn't deal with it because it was a Metro matter. It was a matter of one finger pointing in the other direction, and nothing was resolved that evening.

There has been concern in my community of East York as to its demise through amalgamation, that East York will cease to exist. There is a strong degree of concern about that. I have heard that concern. I take that concern seriously. I've heard the concern over the lack of a third councillor for East York and that perhaps East York does not have the representation on the new council some of us may argue it deserves. I have spoken on that matter. My thoughts are on the record on that point. I have spoken in committee at length in the strongest possible terms on that matter.

1630

The brilliance of Bill 103, as supported by Bill 148, is that, although I did not get my way on that particular point when I wanted to, the power rests with the new city council to address that matter. It can address not only the matter of my concerns concerning East York and the representation of East York, but the concerns that the voters right across Metro Toronto will have concerning representation for their communities on the new council, something that before could only be dealt with by this House, something that could only be dealt with by the provincial government.

Under the initiatives taken by this government, this matter of local representation in the new unified city of Toronto, which is strictly a local matter of concern most importantly to the residents of Metropolitan Toronto, can now be dealt with by the representatives of Metropolitan Toronto in their own elected city council, a city council that was elected in an election just past, a few weeks ago, with the greatest turnout of any municipal election in the history of this metropolitan area. That body, those public officials elected by that large participating public, will have the option to address that particular matter of representation for East York and for all of us. I think that is one of the great contributions Bill 103, as supported by Bill 148, gives to the residents of Metropolitan Toronto.

Mr Speaker, thank you for this opportunity to bring those comments to bear in this discussion here this afternoon. I look forward to participating --

The Acting Speaker: The member's time has expired. Comments and questions.

Mr Ruprecht: I really appreciate the remarks that were made just now, but I wanted to point out one fallacy in this issue.

The Minister of Municipal Affairs got up, and also the comments were echoed by the member for Scarborough Centre, "When this process took place" -- the major point -- "we, the government, listened to the people and we made changes accordingly." On this side, we know what that meant: that there were no significant changes made and people were not listened to. Why can we say this with some authority? Because there was an accompanying referendum done right across Metro Toronto and each of the constituent cities had a chance to say yes or no to amalgamation, yes or no to this great idea that we're going to save some money and we're going to be a better place.

What was the outcome? The outcome was an overwhelming rejection; an overwhelming no. Right across Metro Toronto we saw that 70% in one city, 75% in another city and I believe 79.8% in the city of Toronto, and right across Metro Toronto it was a definite no. How did the government listen to the people? In fact they did not. If they were to listen to the people, they would look at some facts. For instance, what is the formula of success for this city? Even National Geographic, a great magazine right across the globe -- coming from the United States -- said that Toronto was one of the most successful cities in the world. Why was it the most successful city in the world? I say "was" because we don't know what the future is going to bring. It's because we were communities of communities, either one community of communities or many. And so --

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

Mr Silipo: I'm sure the government members are feeling quite good about the fact that in the debate that will ensue this afternoon we will get, as a third party, no time to actually have our comments put on the record on this bill, but I think our views on this are well known. I found it really, really telling that in one hour of speeches given by three or four members opposite, not once did they dare to address one of the fundamental issues that's of concern to people in the new megacity of Toronto. That is, how is it that this new council is going to be able to maintain the level of services and the quality of services that each of the individual cities has developed to date without resorting to big property tax increases? That's obviously what most people said they wanted during the election. It's obviously what the majority of councillors who were elected in the recent election have said they want to achieve. The last piece of proof that we have seen, reported just yesterday, comes from the new CAO, Mike Garrett, who says very clearly that a property tax freeze with no cuts in services is not a sure thing for the unified city.

Why isn't it a sure thing? Because the government and the minister so far have not released the numbers, have not been able to assure the new city that there will be an even trade as the costs of various services get pushed up and down between the province and the municipalities. It's because they refuse to put that guarantee in the legislation that people need to continue to be concerned.

As strongly as I feel that the megacity is wrong, I wish the new council well as they try to grapple with this very difficult issue. But unless the government is going to be able to come through and is going to be willing to come through at the end of the day with a guarantee and with the money to maintain the funding for the services we have, the new council will have no choice but to either cut services or increase property taxes.

Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East): I am pleased to add my comments and my congratulations to the three members, including the minister, for their very astute comments: the importance of this bill, the fact that it is largely technical in nature and is an integral part of our strategy to bring the greatest efficiency possible to all the municipalities, and in this case the municipality of Toronto.

I think we've seen a harbinger of things to come in the addresses to follow by the Liberals and NDP. They're going to talk about a whole bunch of things that have nothing to do with this bill. That's what they've done throughout the whole process. They've brought in Who Does What, they've brought in health restructuring, they've brought in education reform as a means of establishing a smokescreen because they know full well that this bill is nothing but the technical movement of a number of integral and important sections of existing acts of the six cities plus Metro Toronto into a new framework, a framework that will provide for the efficiency, provide for the savings.

I'm sure they're quite frustrated on the other side when the transition team comes out with a draft budget that already identifies savings of $300 million to the overtaxed property taxpayers in the city of Toronto by the third year, and that's without any extraordinary changes. That's without really tightening down and finding those new ways of doing business that I'm sure will be the hallmark of the new city government. That $300 million is just the first sign of the positive spin that will result from the passage of Bill 148 and Bill 103, its companion piece of legislation.

The fact of the matter is, the province needs to hear more about these successes. They need to hear more than the doom and gloom scenario from the other side. It is very tiresome to keep hearing that the glass is half empty. The reality is, all across Ontario, 69 groups of municipalities have decided to restructure. They've recognized the importance. With this bill, we ensure Toronto has the tools to make sure it's the most efficient and effective municipal government in all of North America.

Mr Duncan: I listened with great interest to the member for Scarborough Centre and the member for York East quoting authorities from 1962 to justify what they're doing in 1997. It was interesting to hear that; it was absolutely funny to hear it.

The member for Scarborough East is quite correct: This is a companion bill that does a lot of technical things. I just wondered, in technical matters, in 1962 we didn't have fax machines; we didn't have synthetic fibres. I don't think we had the Don Valley Parkway. We didn't have a city nearly as big as this. Yet all these guys can do is look to the past, with no vision for the future.

"Cost savings. Cost savings." There's no guarantee there will be cost savings in this. Maybe we should ask John Robarts or look at what he had to say, or George Drew or Leslie Frost. Maybe we should all be driving Edsels. Maybe we ought not to have telephones. My goodness, John Diefenbaker was the Prime Minister of Canada. Maybe we ought to debate the Avro Arrow question again and what that did to Toronto. What tomfoolery. Address the issues. Don't be afraid. Don't be afraid to talk about today. Get your heads out of the past and look to the future. You can't seem to see that.

1640

You ignore referenda, referenda that you propagate as being a tool. You ignore them and you look to 1962 for sources as your guiding light for this great city. We say look forward, don't look back. My goodness. The member from York probably would like to drive a Hudson. This government's an Edsel. It'll be gone in a couple of years. What a scandal, that you would compare Toronto today to back then without any meaningful discussion of the bill.

The Acting Speaker: The minister to respond.

Hon Mr Leach: I would like to point out to the two opposition parties that this is a particularly proud day for me, to see that this bill goes through that will enable the new city of Toronto to continue, because Toronto and the other municipalities within Metro are great cities. This will give it an opportunity to become an even greater city.

There has been much conversation about whether we're going to be able to save money with this. I can tell the opposition members that the four mayors of the four major municipalities in Metro signed a report saying they could save $250 million without the amalgamation, so we know there's $250 million there that can be saved, and with amalgamation it will be even more.

The transition team has come in. They have reviewed the budgets of all the existing municipalities. They've come up with a draft budget for the new city for 1998 to present to the new council. They have said there will be absolutely no problem guaranteeing that there will be no tax increase. That's what's going to happen.

There is one other issue I wanted to make mention of and that was the comments that were made by the member for Dovercourt about the first council meeting. The first council meeting is set in legislation for January 2. Mayor Lastman approached the province and asked if that, for convenience, could that be changed to January 5. We said: "Absolutely, no problem as far as we're concerned. It would require all-party consent to do that." I can tell the mayor that the NDP refused to cooperate.

Mr Silipo: That's not true and you know it.

Hon Mr Leach: We asked to have it moved to January 5 for the convenience of the new city. We didn't get the cooperation of the opposition parties.

Mr Silipo: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would ask, through you, the Minister of Municipal Affairs to please correct the record. It is incorrect when he states the NDP was unwilling to cooperate to have the change made. We were willing and we still are willing to have the change made --

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: If I want some help, I'll ask for it. Other than that, would you please assume decorum. I would like to address the member for Dovercourt on his point of order. It is not a point of order. Further debate?

Mr Duncan: I am pleased to have the opportunity to join the debate on Bill 148, the so-called megacity transitional legislation, which is a companion piece obviously to Bill 103 and does, as the government has indicated, deal with a lot of regulations with regard to the new megacity here in Toronto and has far-reaching consequences for the people of this great metropolis, a metropolis that is central not only to the GTA but to the entire economy of the province of Ontario, and therefore all of us have a stake in the success of this great city.

I listened with interest as government member after government member extolled the notion that this is going to save money. I believe the member for Scarborough East said $300 million is projected in the first three years -- projected -- and don't think about the downloading that's going on. Ignore the comments of every major municipality in this province that taxes are going up. Ignore the impact of what pooling will do to taxpayers. Ignore what we saw, what we witnessed here in Toronto at the beginning of this debate on 103.

Megacity and downloading are a one-two punch aimed at the heart of this great metropolis, a one-two punch, a Tory punch, a punch with brass knuckles. Then you've got to consider reassessment. No question, this government will be remembered, and we will see it in the next election, as the government of increasing property taxes; a government that's afraid to deal with meaningful municipal restructuring; a government that believes in big bureaucracy and big government. That's what they're creating here in the municipal sector and indeed in education: a government that wants to centralize; a government that wants to have absolute power -- powers, we found out today in debating Bill 160, that would give the government the right by regulation to set property taxes, taxation without representation, no accountability, no reality.

I want to remind members that a legislative committee held six weeks of hearings on the megacity bill, six weeks of input that the government didn't want but was forced into by the opposition. We heard from expert after expert, and their views were unanimous: A megacity is the wrong vision for Metro Toronto.

The evidence is overwhelming and beyond dispute: A megacity will cause property taxes to soar, it will cause services to be cut and it will make government even more remote from the people it's supposed to serve.

Interjections.

Mr Duncan: The government members say, "Wrong bill." It's not the wrong bill. You can't consider this bill outside of the context of 103 and outside of this government's objective to raise property taxes on property taxpayers right across Ontario. I will remind the members opposite that Wendell Cox, an international public policy consultant, said this just makes no sense.

Interruption.

The Acting Speaker: There will be no demonstration -- none. Please remove the offender.

Mr Duncan: That's what it has come to, hasn't it? Firewalls on e-mail, unplugging fax machines, throwing people out of the chamber, that's what it has all come to. Sad, absolutely sad.

The members opposite shake their heads. They ignore what people say. They claim they're making the tough decisions. They're making the wrong decisions. They're setting this province back to 1962.

Hon Mr Leach: Shame.

Mr Duncan: The minister shakes his head and says, "Shame." The only shame is on your shoulders, Minister. You have taken one of the great cities in the world, Toronto, and you've undermined its future. You will be remembered for this, there's no question, not just for the process; the ignoring of tens of thousands of Torontonians, ignoring the results of a referendum, ignoring the advice of people like Wendell Cox who said: "This just makes no sense at all. I think in the long run the megacity is going to be a failed experiment."

Later on he told us that the megacity comes along with a $4.5-billion price tag for the next 10 years. That means a property tax hike of about $5,000 per household over the next 10 years, and that's before the effects of downloading, which are going to cost another $500 a year for every household in this great metropolis.

1650

Let's face it, as I said, megacity and downloading are the one-two punch with a brass knuckle, a brass knuckle that is going to affect property taxpayers in York East, is going to affect property taxpayers in Scarborough, is going to affect property taxpayers in Etobicoke, in Toronto, everywhere. This government's answer to making the tough calls is, "Dump them down to municipalities." This government's answer is to look to the past, to quote from 1962.

Jane Jacobs, the internationally renowned authority on cities who has chosen to make Toronto her home for good reason, said: "Amalgamation is the most stupid idea that's come along for ages.... If it ever happens, we'll just have to accept we're going to stagnate."

I indicated earlier, Mr Chair, that I listened with great interest to the member for York East quoting from the leader of the Ontario Liberal Party in 1962, a great servant of this province who served this Legislature and our party well. I made light of the fact that I really didn't think it was appropriate to be looking to sources from some 35 years ago with respect to policy and ideas for the future, although in the case of the government, they tend to look that far back and even further for their own inspiration.

I'd like to quote a leader of the Ontario Conservative Party. I went back to the 1870s and the 1880s and the 1890s and the early part of this century. We researched all the great leaders of the former Progressive Conservative Party and we looked for quotes, because the member for York East and the member for Scarborough Centre felt that those quotes from the past were really, really important to have, that if a leader of a party said something 37 years ago, by golly, the party today should have the same view.

This party may believe that what some of their leaders said a century ago or 40 years ago is worth believing, they may want to bury their heads in the sand and pretend, but I didn't have to go that far back. I only had to go back to Fergus, Ontario, in September 1994. Who was the leader of the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party at that time, soon to be the Ontario Reform Party? Who was the leader of that party? Was it some obscure name from the past? No. It was our current Premier, the member for North Bay.

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): Mike Harris?

Mr Duncan: Mike Harris -- that's the one. Mike Harris spoke at length in Fergus about municipal restructuring. He spoke with eloquence and passion. I have to quote, because I was really astounded that of all the past leaders of the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario, the current leader had great words of wisdom about municipal restructuring. You know what that Premier said? He said this speaking to municipal representatives about municipal restructuring, and I quote: "There is no cost for a municipality to maintain its name and identity. Why destroy our roots and pride? I disagree with restructuring because it believes that bigger is better. Services always cost more in larger communities."

That's our Premier. That's your boss. That's from the party and the government that said they wanted to balance the budget, and Mike Harris said that restructuring and bigger government lead to higher costs. We share that. But we understand that the government had a real predicament. It promised in 1995 that it could balance the budget, give a 30% tax cut, not touch hospitals, not touch classroom education and not touch community policing. On every count they have been wrong. So in a desperate attempt to meet a commitment, they broke with their own past. Their leader changed his mind. He flip-flopped. Before the election, "Restructuring is bad; big government is costly." Now: "Bigger government is better." Members of the government forget the lessons of declining marginal economies. At some point, not only do you not save, you add cost, and that's what's going to happen. That's why these technical amendments, though they are but a small part of the megacity initiative, are so important.

It also asks us some pretty fundamental questions. What does it mean for a town like Tecumseh outside of Windsor, a town like St Clair Beach, that want to maintain their identities, small towns adjacent to a large city, people who move there because they didn't want to be part of a large city? The people in Tecumseh and St Clair Beach in our area are fearful of what this government will do to them, because they know that this government's agenda is about taking away local authority, taking away local decision-making and raising local property taxes.

I'm pleased to have had the opportunity to join in this debate today. I say to the government, now that we've elected our first megacity council, our first megacity mayor, now is the time to acknowledge that what you're doing is raising property taxes, decreasing services, and when the chickens all come home to roost, this great city won't shine the way it did. At some point, changes will have to happen to recognize neighbourhood concerns, to recognize that the draconian measures you have taken are bad for property taxpayers and will cost the people in places like Etobicoke and Scarborough tremendously.

Give up on your downloading. Work with municipal officials. Take a broader perspective. This won't save anybody any money. There's only one taxpayer, and they're all going to be paying a lot more, a lot more in terms of increased taxes and a lot more in terms of decreased services.

Mr Curling: It's a pleasure and a good opportunity to speak on Bill 148, which is a follow-up of 103, in order to amalgamate and do all the technical things to bring together this great city of Toronto.

While of course there are reasons that your government had put forward to amalgamate this city, one of the special ingredients that is missing in all of this is democracy -- "consultation" is another word -- all those things about involving people in the process. It seems to me that it's the habit of this government that it could run a province without the people, that if only the people would make themselves disappear, they could have a proper city so they could do what they want, could transfer the money wherever they wanted, to their friends. They could also make sure they could dictate without anybody answering back.

But what has happened is that the people did not stand back, because many of them are children of those who have fought for democracy. Many of them have themselves fought wars in order to have a vote and a say in the running of their country and of their city and of their province. This minister, who is now saying he's happy to be here because this is going to be his happiest day -- what he has done and what his government, the Mike Harris government, has done is make sure that the people could not participate. Thousands and thousands of people were turned back without being heard. You are destroying their community, and they wanted to contribute and say what kind of community they want, but this government had already made up its mind.

One of the happiest parts of all this is to see the minister here today. I've had this complaint continuously, that I have seen legislation put forward in this House since this Conservative government has been here and I've never seen the ministers standing and defending whatever they believe in. They would send some parliamentary assistant who is half-baked and half-informed just to carry the word and toe the line, just dangle before them that one day they may be in cabinet, so just follow the line -- like the member for Scarborough East, who actually is a frightening ideologue, who himself, I am frightened to know, sometimes even believes what he says. If I believed that he did not believe what he said, I could pardon him.

1700

The fact is, the member for Scarborough East -- I think at one stage they pulled him away from the bill, because many things he was saying weren't making any sense. On many of the things he was saying to his constituents, he was found wanting in many areas. The couldn't find him. The people themselves wanted to talk to him, because what he has done is make sure he turned everybody off around this province.

I have never seen people come out with such emotion. Mark you, in Bill 160, as we see now, we saw 124,000 teachers come out to protest the direction, the dictatorial bully attitude of this government. There's one thing I can say: There's consistency in this government. Ever since they came in, they have pushed around the most vulnerable; they have pushed around those people who are not in a position to speak back.

At one stage they thought they could push the doctors around, and the doctors wrestled them to the ceiling, so the doctors came out better. Others they tried to push around. Then they took on the teachers. What they did was take on communities, and they decided they would just amalgamate and not listen to anyone.

Interruption.

The Acting Speaker: Order. Would you please clear the west gallery.

Mr Gilles Pouliot (Lake Nipigon): Every day it's happening. Why? Why?

The Acting Speaker: I'm naming the member for Lake Nipigon.

Mr Pouliot was escorted from the chamber.

Mr Curling: Mr Speaker, this government is nothing less --

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Order. Member from Scarborough, would you just wait until the gallery is cleared, please. Just take your seat in the meantime.

Member for Scarborough North.

Mr Curling: I don't know when the people of this province can speak. When they want to speak by consultation, they are shut out. When they are muzzled long enough, expression will come in some of the most unusual places. It will come in the galleries; it will come when they can't even go to their constituency offices. The attitude of people who are very peaceful, who are law-abiding people -- this government has turned the people to react in this manner. When are they going to stop this kind of bully, sledgehammer democracy that they have created in this province?

I hope the election will come very quickly, when they shall be tossed out as they were tossed out in the Brian Mulroney days, when they can hold their caucus in a telephone booth --

Hon Cameron Jackson (Minister without Portfolio [Seniors Issues]): The David Peterson days.

The Acting Speaker: Member for Burlington South.

Mr Curling: -- because what they have done is irritate the people to the point of lack of expression. They have ignored referendums. People have told them outright. Although they say they will listen to referendums, they have ignored them outright; they will not listen to the people. They have ignored 120,000 people who marched and said that the education bill is bad; they have ignored the fact that people would like to express how their communities will be.

I will tell you, whether one is sent out of the gallery, whether one is not received by ministers, whether one is not seen at a constituency office, whether the Conservative members are in hiding, the time will come when they shall be cast out. The megacity bill -- we only hope the people will have faith in those who take over later on and will make this community the best place to live, like we have had, and not be destroyed by this Conservative bully, sledgehammer-democracy government.

Mr Ruprecht: I appreciate the comments that my colleague just made. I have a number of points to make on Bill 148 and I am delighted that the Minister of Municipal Affairs is here to listen to this.

The first point I'd like to make is that he claims, along with some of his backbenchers, "We listened to the people." I think I've made clear on some occasions previously that if the government has listened to the people, then what about the referendum that has taken place? We know, and the minister knows full well because he was watching it through his window, there were over 10,000 people marching up Yonge Street. To do what? To ensure that their voice is being heard when they say "No."

The second point on this issue was that when the referendum was held, from one end of Metro to the other one voice was heard, and that was a No voice. Over 75% of the people of Metro voted No to Bill 148, No to the megacity. Now we've got the minister saying today, "We have listened to the people." If he has listened to the people, my friends, I don't know what that means. When I look at these statistics, I know he could not have listened to the people.

The second point I wish to make is that the minister says there will be cost savings. But you know, there's a difference here. The member for Scarborough Centre said -- at least I thought he said today -- that the cost savings will be over $300 million. The minister gets up just a few minutes later and he says, "The cost savings will be $250 million." Can you tell me, which is it going to be? Is it going to be $300 million cost savings or is it going to be $250 million cost savings? In fact, they don't know. If they're out by $50 million, then surely someone is not doing the calculations right. Somebody hasn't added it up. Somebody cannot add it up, simply because they to this point don't even know what the cost savings will be.

On our side we believe that in the end, when all the figures are coming in, when everything is done, when all the moves are being made to close some centres, to move all the councils to other places and so on, when all that's done, there will not be cost savings; in fact, there will be a loss. So the numbers will be in the red; they will not be in the black.

The third point I want to make is that they say amalgamation is a great thing. Speaker after speaker gets up and says, "We've already got some municipal services done in an amalgamated fashion throughout Metro Toronto." Of course we have.

The city of Toronto, in fact all the municipalities, are proud of the Metro Toronto Police Service. The Metro police are already amalgamated. Of course they are, because it makes sense that this service is amalgamated. The TTC, so proudly proclaimed by the member for Scarborough Centre -- "Of course, we're going to have better TTC service." But we've already got Metro amalgamated in terms of its transportation services, in terms of the TTC. We've already got that done. Where is the saving going to be there? Where is the saving going to be in the police department? Obviously there cannot be, because these services are already amalgamated.

1710

Then speaker after speaker gets up and says: "You know what? The Toronto ferries to the islands are going to be in better shape. The historical boards are going to be amalgamated and they're going to be in better shape. The libraries, the parking authorities, the street vending, the conservation authority lands will be one board." Of course. We've made that point before. Some services were amalgamated because it makes sense. Others were not. Why were they not amalgamated? Simply because local democracy was the overriding consideration of the people of Metro Toronto, each municipality. "We want local democracy," is the cry. "We want representation. We want no taxation without representation. We want to have input in local democracy, in issues that affect us directly." So it is clear that some services in some cities cannot be amalgamated, simply because it takes away the decision-making process from local municipalities. It takes away the decision-making process from local residents.

Sure, I want to have a say about what goes on in my municipality, in my community, and the reason we are great, the reason the city of Toronto is a success story, is known really all across North America, and I've mentioned it before. National Geographic magazine had a centre spread on Toronto, Toronto the Great. Why? Because we are a community of communities. That was our cry for democracy. That was our main move to maintain local identification and local democracy. That was important and, Minister, you are taking it away from the people.

You're from Cabbagetown, I understand. What are you going to say to all the residents of Cabbagetown? Are you proud today, as you said earlier, that this Bill 148 is going to pass because of the residents of Cabbagetown? Is that what you're proud of? You're snatching away from them the decision-making process. You're snatching away from them the input that they had previously when the city of Toronto was still in force. You're snatching away the right for them to be heard. It's clear, when you amalgamate, when you bring together the various aspects of all cities across Metro Toronto, you know that you're taking away the local decision-making process. You're taking it away from the residents, and that's an important part. Amalgamation, therefore, is not the good thing that the Conservative government today is talking about when they say, "We're going to be saving so much money." No, that cannot be the end result of all this.

Are we really more accessible because of amalgamation? Are our politicians more accessible? Will the mayor -- God bless him; I hope that he will be able to maintain his promises, because I will support him to maintain his promises and I've done that in the past -- be more accessible than the six mayors were previously? The answer to that is simple. He cannot be as accessible as six mayors were previously, because they had the jurisdictions cut back a bit. They had local considerations to look at and not the city as a whole.

What takes place in Parkdale, in Rosedale --

The Acting Speaker: Order, please. Member for Parkdale, take your chair for a minute. There are too many conversations going on. Order. You're talking too loud.

Member for Parkdale.

Mr Ruprecht: The government is saying that because of amalgamation there will be more accessibility to politicians. There cannot be more accessibility, simply because there will be too many demands. If that's the case, if the Conservative government really believes that amalgamation will lead to greater accessibility, then of course, why not amalgamate more? Why not amalgamate the GTA and bring everybody into one big pot? Why not do that? Yes, you're quoting Wintermeyer in the year 1962 when he says it may be a great thing. But why not combine -- in fact, why not do away with all municipalities and do it like Britain does, a central government controlled right here, controlled right from the Premier's office? Why not do that? Why stop at the boundaries of Metro Toronto if it makes such great sense? Because it doesn't make any great sense and there will not be any cost savings.

Finally, let me make a final point, and that is, "There will not be any tax increases." I hear this over and over again, and yes, I hope that promise will be kept, but how can you have tax savings when you want to maintain a level of services, when you have to spend some money on homeless people, when you have to spend some money on those who are downtrodden and on the poor? You have to maintain some of those services.

The mayor of North York said, "In North York we have great snow service equipment, and snow shovelling will take place." We know in Toronto it's not as good as in North York. That, of course, is why the residents of North York agreed with him. They have better service, and they voted for him in great numbers. But we also know what the new CAO of Metro Toronto says. Essentially he says a tax freeze can't be guaranteed if the same service is to be maintained. Of course, that is also a fact.

Finally, let's remember what made the city great. It is because we have strong communities, and under this plan of 148, I'm not sure at all that we can continue in the same way.

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I'm pleased to join the debate on Bill 148, which is the second bill on the megacity. I'd like to start really by congratulating Mayor Mel Lastman. I think all of us appreciate that he has a huge job ahead of him. I think anyone who has followed his career knows that he has done a terrific job in North York. He has built the city centre in North York, I think heavily as a result of his hard work and energy, and has proven to be a terrific mayor for North York, and all of us wish him the very best of luck in his new job. Clearly he's going to play a key role in the future of Metropolitan Toronto or the new city of Toronto, but I think it's fair to say that it's important for all of us in Ontario that the new city of Toronto work well and work efficiently.

I want to say that in our opinion the government, with a series of actions on the megacity, has made his job extremely difficult. I'll start not necessarily in any order of priority, but when I travel around the province -- I've talked to many mayors and councillors and reeves and wardens and they're not all familiar with the structure here in Metro Toronto -- I say: "Do you know what Mike Harris has done? He has set up a council of 57 people." They can't believe it, because they're mayors and they know that to deal with municipal issues, you've got to have a workable-sized council. I say, "It's a 57-person council." That's the first burden Mayor Lastman faces, and the government made that decision that they want 57 people on council. It is an unworkable number.

I guarantee you one of the reasons Metropolitan Toronto has worked so well to date is that we have strong neighbourhoods, and I give the old city of Toronto credit. They worked very hard at developing neighbourhoods. You drive along through the old city of Toronto, the Annex, Riverdale, the Beaches, just community after community where the community is indeed a community. One reason it is is that the community had access to their locally elected people, and more importantly, the locally elected people could actually influence how that neighbourhood functioned. It is as a result of that and, I might also add, because no matter where you live in Metropolitan Toronto, you can be guaranteed that your local school is a quality educational establishment, and if it requires extra resources, then those resources are provided.

So our first concern about what Mike Harris has done to Metropolitan Toronto is that 57 people trying to reflect the needs of neighbourhoods and communities simply is unworkable. I can't imagine any of the Conservative back bench came here believing that you would ever agree to establish a municipal council in the province of Ontario of 57 people. It's just an absurdity. In my opinion, it will lead to people not feeling they have a say in their neighbourhoods. I think I can guarantee this: When people don't feel that they can influence their neighbourhood and can work together with their neighbours, they turn inward. We start to see the bars on the windows, the double locks on the doors, and a belief that, "I'm going to have to simply look after my own family and not worry about my neighbourhood, because I can't influence my neighbourhood." That's concern number one that Mayor Lastman will face.

1720

Concern number two is that it is obscene to dump social assistance, social housing, on to property taxes. The evidence of that is David Crombie himself. I remember very clearly. We are coming up on the anniversary of when David Crombie sounded the alarm. He sent Al Leach a letter on I think December 23 last year, in desperation, begging the government not to proceed to dump social housing and social assistance on to property tax.

I remember it well, because David Crombie then was allowed to have a press conference the day before New Year's Eve. The Ministry of Municipal Affairs set it up. It was at 3:30 in the Macdonald Block, and it was hoped that no one would pay any attention to David Crombie that day. David Crombie said -- this is on putting social housing on to property tax, and remember that Mike Harris set this Who Does What panel up, handpicked the 14 or 15 people to sit on it. It was to this Who Does What group, led by David Crombie, that Mike Harris said, "Tell me what I should be doing around the relationship between the province and municipalities." David Crombie, when he heard that the province planned to put social housing and social assistance on property tax, in an emergency meeting gathered those 14 people around and said, "We've got to do something." So they all agreed, unanimously agreed with this: "The panel opposes such a move," putting social housing on property taxes. "We are unanimous in that view." Of course Mike Harris ignored it, ignored his own panel.

Now what we've got for Mel Lastman and the new council is a nightmare, because the province has decided to dump, download, force on to property taxes 100% of social housing. It means that people who need housing -- and I remind us that over half of these people are seniors, who don't have the resources. It's proven that they don't have the money, for whatever reason, because a spouse has passed away, they've not been able to save the money. They need social housing. Now, 100% of that is on property taxes, so you can imagine the challenges in the years ahead.

Right now the economy, for the last few months, indeed probably for the last year, has been good. The Canadian economy has been very good; the Ontario economy has been good. But we all know that those things change; hopefully, not soon, but we know there will be a downturn. Then we are guaranteeing conflict. To the people most in need in our province, to whom historically the province has said, "We're going to use all the resources of the province to help you through difficult times," we are saying, "You go and get your help from the property tax."

I think it is wrong in principle and it's morally wrong. Yet that is what Mayor Lastman faces. That is what Mike Harris has decided. He is dumping $660 million of added costs on to property tax. Now, I know exactly what he is going to do. He's going to provide some one-time funds to smooth it over in 1998. But municipalities won't be fooled. They will look at, "What long-term costs are we taking on?" And the one-time funds are simply going to be that, a one-time buyout to try to smooth it over, but they are going to leave to the property taxpayers these very sensitive issues.

I heard the minister himself on the radio when he was interviewed on this. The interviewer said, "Is it right, is it correct to put these programs on to property tax?" Al Leach himself said, "No, I think these things should be funded, paid for, not by property tax but by provincial taxes." The reporter obviously said: "Why are you doing it, then? Why are you putting social housing on to property tax?" The answer -- and you can look it up; it was on a local radio station here in Metropolitan Toronto -- was, "Well, sometimes it takes you a while to get where you want to go."

But it is a fundamental mistake, and we already are beginning to see the fallout of that, because now there is a fight brewing between what we call in this area the 905 and the 416; 416 is the area code for the city of Toronto and 905 is the area code for the phone system in the neighbouring areas. The neighbouring areas are being asked to pick up a part of the social housing costs. They're saying, "No, this should be a provincial responsibility." You can already begin to see the raw nerve-ends coming out on this.

I despair of the years ahead when people who need help on social housing have to go to the council, looking for property tax money for their housing. Understandably, in an economic downturn, one of the first things affected are the property taxes. Businesses can't afford to pay them and individuals have difficulty.

This will be one of the first problems Mayor Lastman faces. I read today where I guess he finally was apprised of the fact that the province was adding $660 million on to property tax around the province of Ontario, and he's now beginning to realize that's going to put him in a very difficult spot. What services does he cut? How many more services does he have to cut?

Bill 148 deals with tax matters. The new mayor of the new city of Toronto and his council are also going to face several significant tax issues. One is the extraordinary fact that for the businesses in the new city of Toronto, over half of their business property taxes go to fund education, and we now find out that that property tax rate will be set not by the Legislature, not in public; there will be no debate on it. The business property tax in the new city of Toronto will be set down the hall, in the cabinet room, in secrecy. None of the Conservative back bench will even know it's happening. None of the opposition will even know it's happening.

It will be set by something called regulation. For the public, what does that mean? In a room, the Minister of Finance will sign a document raising from our business community around the province $3.6 billion of property tax. For all the businesses in Ontario, over half of their taxes will be set by regulation.

It is amazing to me that the Conservative back bench would ever agree to this. The Conservatives I know have always told me that taxes have to be set by the duly elected people; that the public should have full input into it. As a matter of fact, the Conservatives say there should be a referendum to raise taxes.

1730

But the bill that will raise the taxes for the new Metropolitan Toronto says that the Minister of Finance may set different tax rates on business property, different for different municipalities, different within a municipality. The Minister of Finance could set one tax rate for the downtown area and another for Scarborough; could set a different tax rate on different portions of a property's assessment, so for the top five floors it would be one assessment, and for the bottom floor another assessment; different tax rates for different geographic areas; different tax rates for different parts of a municipality.

Earlier this week we had a letter from the Metropolitan Toronto Board of Trade saying: "The Board of Trade of Metropolitan Toronto is concerned that the provincial government has not yet announced its policy on commercial/industrial education taxes. As you know, Bill 160...commits only to establishing province-wide uniformity for residential taxpayers."

That's another problem that Mike Harris is putting on the backs of Mel Lastman and that 57-person council. The business community believes their property taxes should be set out in the open and that they should have an opportunity to participate in the setting of them; that there should be full discussion on that; that they should be aware of what the proposal is for setting property taxes; and they should have an opportunity to be present when that vote takes place. But no. In an amazing display of arrogance, the government has decided that the public need not be involved in this and the elected Legislature need not be involved in it. This setting of property taxes on businesses will be done behind closed doors, with no public involvement. I honestly find that obscene.

I was interested that the minister responsible for the bill that does this himself said yesterday, and it was in today's paper, that setting taxes should be debatable, that it shouldn't be done behind closed doors, that the public should have a say in it. Yet the bill takes away any opportunity for participation and public involvement.

The public must be shaking their heads, saying: "What is happening to my Ontario? Are you telling me that we are giving the minister, the government, the Premier and the Minister of Finance the authority" -- and this is what the bill does -- "to set whatever tax rate they want on businesses?" It can vary by municipality, it can vary within a municipality, it can vary within properties and it can vary within property classes.

Mr Parker: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'm going to suggest that maybe it's time the member for Scarborough-Agincourt brought his remarks to bear on Bill 148, which is the subject of this afternoon's debate.

The Acting Speaker: I think quite a few members commit the same sin. It's the responsibility of the Speaker to be extremely patient. I know the member for Scarborough-Agincourt will come back to the debate on the bill.

Mr Phillips: As you know, Mr Speaker, the bill deals in many places with the revenue and the taxation issues. Bill 148 is called An Act to deal with matters relating to the establishment of the new City of Toronto, and it deals in page after page with taxes. Over half of the revenue to run the new megacity comes from property taxes.

I can understand that Mr Parker doesn't want the public to be aware that the government is giving itself what can only be described truly as dictatorial powers. I've said this many times: If Bob Rae, when he was Premier and Mike Harris sat there as a leader of an opposition, ever introduced a bill that said, "I am going to set the property taxes for businesses in the province of Ontario and I'm going to give myself the authority to vary it by municipality, by class of trade, by properties, within classes of properties, by that," I guarantee you that Mike Harris would have been apoplectic. That is what the new megacity is going to have to deal with. That's what Mel Lastman and the new megacity that we're setting up with Bill 148 are going to have to deal with.

I want to talk about a third challenge for the new council and the new megacity. There is no question that many of the key services in this urban area cross boundaries, that we need a level of cooperation between the new city of Toronto and the GTA. The bill begins to deal with that, but only begins to deal with it. There is no question that on issues of the environment, on issues of sewer and water, on issues of transportation, on issues of economic planning, on issues of transportation, we've got to look at these issues on a broader basis than just the new city of Toronto.

But what's happening there as we're trying to establish that? The Mike Harris government has poisoned the well for cooperation between the 905 and the 416 communities. As a matter of fact, in the last couple of days many of the municipalities in the neighbouring area have expressed their concerns about what's happening to them in the newspapers, paid advertising to outline their concerns.

Here we are. The new council comes in January 1, roughly six weeks from now. We are looking for the new council to operate effectively but also to work in the neighbouring areas. The first thing that Mayor Lastman has on his plate is a challenge between the city of Toronto and the neighbouring areas created by -- dare I say? -- Mike Harris.

By the way, I would say that this is a pattern with the government. They introduce a bill and then they have another patch-up bill to try and fix the previous bill. We had it on the property tax bill; we've got it here; I guess we'll have it on the social assistance bill. It's an example where the bills are rushed. We had it on the bully bill where we had I think 150 amendments.

What we've got here on this bill are the problems that Mike Harris is putting on the new city of Toronto council. I despair, because there is no question that this area has been the most successful urban area certainly in North America. It has not been by accident. It's been as a result of thoughtful, sensitive councils. It's been as a result of strong neighbourhoods. I think if you were to assess what's the number one reason Metropolitan Toronto has flourished, it's strong neighbourhoods. Yes, we've got a strong economy, a terrific financial community, a terrific cultural community; we thrive on the auto sector; tourism is extremely good; we are blessed to be on the waterfront; we've got some great sports teams; we have all of those things but in the end it's because it's liveable and people will live in the city of Toronto.

Interjection.

Mr Phillips: I hear the occasional member for Brantford. Mr Johnson is here heckling. We very seldom see him.

I am offended that Mike Harris is doing as much damage as he is to the province of Ontario. He's doing damage to my city, and I guarantee you he's doing damage to my city. I'll just go through it again.

Putting social housing on property tax is offensive. It's offensive to anyone who's ever looked at it. It's putting our most vulnerable on the property tax, and it's wrong. Dave Crombie said it's wrong. The community said it's wrong. The board of trade said it's wrong. But Mike Harris is banging ahead with it anyway. You know why he's doing that? Because he wants to get at education. He's been looking for this fight with the teachers for years. That's what drove him. He wanted to get at education and get in a fight with the teachers.

Mr Johnson has been helpful to be heckling from his occasional seat. We very seldom see him, but he's here today. He is heckling because he doesn't want to hear the damage Mike Harris is doing.

The second damage that he's doing is he has set up an unworkable structure. A 57-person council is absurd. My friends on the Conservative back bench who have served on councils know that. It looks like what it is, and that is something that was not thought through.

The property tax situation is going to be desperate. Mike Harris promised that small business would be protected in property tax changes. He's done nothing of the sort. As a matter of fact, the property tax is going to penalize small business and reward big business. So while Mel Lastman is trying to develop the new city, small business is going to be penalized with the government's tax bill. The government has given itself the powers to set property taxes and our small business community will not even have an opportunity for any input into the setting of those property taxes. It's obscene.

David Crombie tried to stop it. He's someone who knows Metropolitan Toronto perhaps as well as anyone. He served as a mayor of the city of Toronto; was a federal cabinet minister who understood Metropolitan Toronto; understands the waterfront, the environment, all of those things, like nobody else. He knows how this city breathes and how it works and what's important to it. He did his desperate best to get the government to recognize that they are making a fundamental mistake in their approach to Metropolitan Toronto.

I'll conclude by my remarks that I started with, and that is that our Liberal caucus wishes the new council in the city of Toronto all the very best. Certainly we will work as cooperatively with them as we possibly can. They have a huge responsibility. We have the most successful urban area in the world here and Mike Harris has decided that he is going to tear away at some of the key fabrics of that most successful environment in the world. It is going to require all the energies of those 57 people and the community of Metropolitan Toronto to try and resist the damage Mike Harris is going to do to Metropolitan Toronto.

As we look ahead, we wish them the very best of luck. As I said earlier, certainly our caucus will be attempting to work as cooperatively as we can to make sure that this urban area can be successful.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Pursuant to the order of the House dated September 8, I am now required to put the question. Mr Leach has moved third reading of Bill 148. Is it the pleasure of the House 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 five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1745 to 1750.

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

Ayes

Arnott, Ted

Barrett, Toby

Beaubien, Marcel

Boushy, Dave

Brown, Jim

Carr, Gary

Carroll, Jack

Chudleigh, Ted

Clement, Tony

Danford, Harry

DeFaria, Carl

Doyle, Ed

Fisher, Barbara

Flaherty, Jim

Ford, Douglas B.

Fox, Gary

Froese, Tom

Galt, Doug

Gilchrist, Steve

Grimmett, Bill

Guzzo, Garry J.

Hastings, John

Hodgson, Chris

Hudak, Tim

Jackson, Cameron

Johns, Helen

Johnson, Bert

Johnson, David

Johnson, Ron

Jordan, W. Leo

Klees, Frank

Leach, Al

Leadston, Gary L.

Martiniuk, Gerry

McLean, Allan K.

Munro, Julia

Murdoch, Bill

Mushinski, Marilyn

Newman, Dan

O'Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Parker, John L.

Ross, Lillian

Runciman, Robert W.

Sampson, Rob

Saunderson, William

Shea, Derwyn

Sheehan, Frank

Spina, Joseph

Sterling, Norman W.

Stewart, R. Gary

Tilson, David

Tsubouchi, David H.

Turnbull, David

Vankoughnet, Bill

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Wilson, Jim

Wood, Bob

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

Nays

Bartolucci, Rick

Bisson, Gilles

Boyd, Marion

Bradley, James J.

Brown, Michael A.

Caplan, David

Castrilli, Annamarie

Churley, Marilyn

Cleary, John C.

Conway, Sean G.

Cordiano, Joseph

Gerretsen, John

Grandmaître, Bernard

Gravelle, Michael

Hoy, Pat

Kormos, Peter

Kwinter, Monte

Lankin, Frances

Laughren, Floyd

Lessard, Wayne

Marchese, Rosario

Martel, Shelley

Martin, Tony

McLeod, Lyn

Miclash, Frank

Morin, Gilles E.

Phillips, Gerry

Pupatello, Sandra

Ramsay, David

Ruprecht, Tony

Sergio, Mario

Silipo, Tony

Wildman, Bud

Wood, Len

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 58; the nays are 34.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

Resolved that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.

It being fairly close to 6 of the clock, this House stands adjourned till 11 o'clock tomorrow morning.

The House adjourned at 1754.

19 novembre 1997