L259b - Wed 10 Dec 1997 / Mer 10 Déc 1997
The House met at 1831.
ORDERS OF THE DAY
HOUSE SITTINGS
Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion to extend the House calendar.
The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Mr Curling had the floor, so therefore we'll proceed with rotation. The member for Beaches-Woodbine.
Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): I'm delighted to speak to this motion which extends the House calendar. I have to say that I always find these moments when we come near the end of a session interesting, to watch how a government manages its time and how it manages its legislative agenda. I have to say that if the government of the day had been subjected to the grade 3 testing that went on, we'd see the results would be very much below average.
I just want to relate three stories of what's happened in the last two weeks in this place and show you why I think it is, first of all, ridiculous that we are here debating a calendar motion to extend the House sitting by a week and how the government has mismanaged its agenda to bring us to this point.
We have had literally months of the House sitting with, in rapid succession, large pieces of legislation, very controversial pieces of legislation. We have seen consistently the government, in a very anti-democratic way, try to ram that legislation through the House, try to minimize public input, try to minimize both debate and any opposition or outside public attempt to convince the government to amend those bills. There's a long list of them, whether we're talking about when we were dealing in the spring with the megacity legislation or the Fewer School Boards Act, Bill 104, or whether of course we were dealing with Bill 160 this fall. Bill 160 overshadowed everything that was taking place in this Legislature.
But at the same time, while all of us were, in terms of the public, captivated by the debate that was going on about the future of our education system, we saw the government bring through final closure and final reading on taking away rent controls from tenants in this province; we saw them bring in a bill on workfare in this province that has elements in it which are so draconian in terms of the powers given to workers to investigate people's home situations and their finances.
Amazing things just slipped through. They didn't slip through because there wasn't an attempt in this Legislature to have serious debate, but they slipped through because under the cover of the controversy of Bill 160 this government used time allocation motions, limited debate, limited opportunity for public input and rammed through legislation in their continuing anti-democratic fashion.
While they were busy with all of those big pieces of legislation, a number of other bills, which the government says are important now, sat at the wayside and didn't seem to have the priority the government now says they have. Let me give you three examples.
The government recently introduced Bill 164. Bill 164 purports to be a piece of legislation about instituting tax credits in a number of fields dealing with research and development, dealing with the film industry, dealing with the child care tax credit. If I had time at this point to be speaking on Bill 164, I'd go into depth about the broken promise in terms of the government's commitment to creating more child care spaces in this province. The government stood up and said, in a budget two years ago, "We are spending more than any government in the history of this province," with their announcement that year of $40 million, the first down payment of $200 million over five years. Not a penny of it was spent in that budget year.
This year, that money accrues to $80 million; not a penny has been spent. Now they've wiped that out after all the boast of doing the most and the best and being the biggest and all of the superlatives that the government used and applied to themselves in a description of their agenda or their initiatives. Now we see that they're wiping all that out and they're proceeding with a child tax credit which actually takes money that the federal government has dedicated and passed down to the province to pass down to families to try and support poor children, families in poverty. What they're doing is pulling back that money from social assistance recipients and putting it into a tax credit and saying, "If you pay for child care and you can file for the tax credit and you're eligible for tax returns, well then you'll get some benefit out of this." But of course the poorest families whom this is designed to help are people who can't afford to put out the money for child care in the first place and will not be in a position to file a tax return to benefit from this tax credit. It is a sham in terms of its stated intention of helping poor families.
That's buried in Bill 164 along with a number of other tax credit initiatives. It is really and truly an omnibus piece of legislation. But interestingly enough, tacked on to Bill 164 are a couple of sections that actually are amendments to another bill, Bill 149, which, at the time that Bill 164 was introduced, hadn't even been passed yet. This is again another hallmark of this government, a government that moves so quickly, with such speed and such little attention to detail, that they make mistakes.
The legislative process of debate on second reading, referral to committee, public hearings and then clause-by-clause analysis before you bring the bill back for third and final reading - there's a reason for that process. That process is so people can give considered thought to a piece of legislation so that it can be reviewed, so that mistakes can be found and can be corrected in the legislative process of that bill.
But as this government rams things through and doesn't want to have hearings, it has to find other ways to correct its mistakes. So we see in Bill 164 amendments to other pieces of legislation that had not even been passed at the time they were introduced; a bizarre way to manage - I may say "mismanage" - the governance of this province and this Legislative Assembly and the government's legislative agenda.
That's Bill 164, a huge piece of legislation. Most of the elements of that were announced in the budget earlier this year. Nine months have gone by and the government never introduced the legislation to give effect those grandiose announcements they made. Technically under the House calendar this is the last week. What we're debating tonight is a motion that will extend the calendar for one more week so the government can deal with the business they've been unable to manage. So here we are in the last week, they've just recently tabled this legislation, they want it through second reading and they today tabled a time allocation motion which didn't even allow for it to go to committee.
Fortunately we in the New Democratic Party took some steps to force the government to send that bill to committee. We'll see what happens. The government may well table another time allocation motion and deem it to have been dealt with by committee and deem it to have been reported out. If you can sit in a Legislature like this under the government's new rules and have this evening session count as a separate day from the afternoon session that we finished just 25 minutes ago in Mike Harris' Ontario, in Mike Harris' Legislature, anything goes. So I suppose that they can pass a motion and deem it to have been dealt with, but again won't that underscore the point we make about the anti-democratic tendencies of this government?
So Bill 164 is there and they want it passed by the end of the year. There are some problems in it, but you know what? They'll fix them in another bill next year. That's the way this government operates.
Let me give you another example: Just last week, the Minister of Agriculture tabled a bill which has amendments to the Milk Act. It was announced that this was something they were talking to the Dairy Farmers of Ontario about months ago, but we've not had any report in this Legislature from the minister. We have had no update on those discussions. It turns out he's done a whole deal with the Dairy Farmers of Ontario and they have been patiently, for a while, and then anxiously awaiting the government, the Minister of Agriculture, to table the legislation. So it was tabled last week. This is technically the last week of the session, the final week of the session, and the minister wants us to have second and third reading. He says, "Don't worry, there's nothing to it."
1840
Hold on a second. Let's look at this. I actually find myself not in opposition to the bill. But we only got the technical briefing from the ministry today and we find that there are some other little amendments slipped in to fix up some other problems that have nothing to do with the main intent of the bill. The main intent of that bill is to transfer the dairy milk quality program, which is the inspection of raw milk - and it's at the farm, not at the processing plant - to a self-regulatory regime where the dairy farmers will self-regulate and ensure the quality.
There are some people who would have questions about that, whether self-regulation is appropriate or not. I think the dairy farmers have made a very strong case about what they're going to do, because it's in their interest as an industry to improve the quality of inspections. For example, there are currently nine inspectors working for the province. They're expanding the number to 16. They've offered jobs to six of those inspectors to come over; the other three have been offered jobs to stay in the Ministry of Agriculture if they want to stay in OMAFRA. They've worked through some of those issues, but isn't it to be expected that those would be questions you would want to ask and wouldn't you want to have time and wouldn't the consumers want to be able to know this legislation is coming through, be able to look at it, perhaps come to some hearings, make some points?
I think the dairy farmers would have been very happy with that kind of a process and actually find our concerns about the process quite legitimate. They want the bill passed but I think their anger now rests with the Minister of Agriculture who has botched the process. It wasn't a priority for the government. They left it till to the last two weeks to bring this in. They want it to pass third reading and into law within two weeks' time because the deal they cut with the Dairy Farmers of Ontario sees the startup operation of this new self-regulatory scheme beginning January 1.
We asked some questions today in the briefing. We asked, "Will this self-regulatory scheme cost the farmers any more money?" You know what? The ministry couldn't answer that. They have said they are giving $125,000 startup money to the Dairy Farmers of Ontario, the organization, for the capital costs and computer costs - this is just startup, onetime money - plus $300,000 a year for five years. The government is going to pay for this regulatory system to be put in place, this self-regulation, self-inspection. But nobody knows whether it's going to cost more than that or not and/or what happens at the end of the four years.
Some would argue it is appropriate for an industry, if you're self-regulating, to be paying for that. We could debate that. But wouldn't it be nice to know the answer to that? If the ministry can't provide us with the answer and they haven't provided the farmers with the answer, this is why you debate bills, this is why you have hearings. You sort through some of those things.
Let me give you a third example. The government informed us at the House leaders' meeting that there's yet another budget bill to be introduced. Budget bill number 3 it was called because it wasn't introduced at that time and didn't have a bill number yet, because it doesn't get numbered until it's actually tabled in the Legislature and introduced for first reading. Budget bill number 3 is going to deal with fuel taxes. This will be interesting. Guess what? The Minister of Finance wants it passed by the end of this session. As recently as Monday and Tuesday, when we were talking to them, they hadn't tabled the bill, but they want it passed by the end of the session, second and third reading. The end of the session should be tomorrow, Thursday, but if this motion tonight passes at some point, which I assume it will, we will sit next week. But in that period of time they want they bill to get second and third reading.
Who in the public is even going to have an opportunity to get a copy of it, to read it, to understand it, to pass on comments to their elected representatives so that we can represent the interests of concerned citizens with respect to the bill? This is a shameful display of mismanagement on the part of the government.
I don't know how the members of the Conservative caucus can rationalize this with their own constituents, can rationalize a process in which the legislative process around bills, which is designed to ensure that you have good legislation, is being given such short shrift. Don't you find yourself horribly embarrassed to have to explain that you're introducing bills to fix mistakes in previous bills, to amend bills that haven't passed because you went too fast, because you didn't listen to people; or, more to the point these last two weeks, because you didn't give people time to have any input? You didn't give them an opportunity to see the legislation or comment.
Mr Speaker, you have been here for a long time. You know that legislative process - that was a compliment, sir.
Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): He's been here a very long time.
Ms Lankin: A very long time, the member from Renfrew says.
You know that process is designed to ensure there are checks and balances on all of us. There is no greater court of opinion than public opinion. People who work in a field that may be affected by a piece of legislation know that field so much more intimately than any legislator, unless that legislator has a background in that specific field.
The process of a bill coming forward, of the opposition reviewing it and raising concerns and questions with the government, of it going to committee and the public being able to make representations on areas of concern, leading to the government sometimes making amendments or the opposition parties proposing amendments that the government may or may not pass, is a process that's been put in place and has been long-standing. People of good faith, people who believe in the democratic process, believe in a process that brings balance, and a process that has checks and balances, and a process that is dedicated to providing the best legislation, the best laws possible.
I say to the government members, there may be times when I disagree with your legislation but I still want the legislation to be workable. I still want it to be good legislation, even if it's bad content, even if I disagree with the direction of it.
The process of making laws is a process entrusted to all of us, as we are democratically elected to represent constituencies. We are here as a microcosm of the public of Ontario to bring consideration, to bring our expertise, to bring debate to a bill. I know sometimes that doesn't happen. I know sometimes we move into partisan camps in the way in which we relate to a bill.
I want to tell you a story. I particularly say to some of the government members, as someone who had the honour of serving in the executive council for the province of Ontario, who had the honour of holding a number of cabinet posts, I recall pieces of legislation that I sponsored into this Legislature where members of the opposition raised concerns about a number of things. I worked hard with those critics to see if there was a way of accommodating those concerns, and similarly with a number of organizations and groups that would come forward. If I felt there was a way of addressing the concern completely, I would. If I felt we could support addressing it partially, finding a compromise, I would.
I recall on a number of occasions, sir, working with the health critic from your party at the time who had some ideas that I thought were good ideas. You know what? I even worked with her to rewrite the amendment so it was an amendment that we could accept so that health critic could table the amendment and have that pass in her name. That's the way I think we should operate in this place.
Mr Conway: You helped with my cheese curds.
Ms Lankin: The member from Renfrew is talking about cheese curds. That's a story to be told in the halls of Queen's Park. That was an interesting day. It was a very interesting day.
That give and take is important, not just in terms of our duty and responsibility to the representation of the public of Ontario, but it is inherently important to the end product. Without that you pass bad laws. You are passing bad laws, which you demonstrate every day by having to bring in other bills to amend the bills where you made the mistakes. It's a litany of failure in terms of your management of the legislative agenda.
I guess the thing that I find the most offensive about this motion to extend the sitting - it's not being here next week. I have much work to do in my constituency, but that's fine. There are bills that we will debate and we will deal with that. That's fine. It's the - I'm trying to find a word that will not get me ruled out of order, the parliamentary word.
1850
Mr Conway: Quote Churchill.
Ms Lankin: Quote Churchill. You're never out of order if you quote Churchill, my friend says.
I believe that the government, by the direction they have set and continue to follow in this House with respect to their treatment of legislation, the disdain with which they treat the legislative process, the legislators of this assembly and, more importantly, the public of Ontario, the concerned public who care about pieces of legislation, who want to make representation - the utter disdain with which this government treats all those who should be part of the process of producing the laws of this province is, at the same time, breathtaking but unfortunately has become predictable.
I believe profoundly that one of the hallmarks of this government, no matter how much they want to wave around the flag of success of the Common Sense Revolution - many people would say it's not been successful - or the flag of success of how they've been able to stick to their agenda - many people would say the pain they have inflicted on people certainly makes it hard to call it a success - I believe what people will say about this government and will remember is the fundamental anti-democratic nature of this government.
I'm sorry to use excessive words, but the arrogance with which a group of people who have a majority feel they have the right to rule no matter what, have the right to push through - many, many members of the government caucus not even reading the legislation, just blindly following their cabinet members and then finding to their own embarrassment at times what that has meant.
It is a sad day when we see the matters of this House having fallen to a point where there is not the respect for democracy and people.
The Acting Speaker: Further debate?
Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): Don't the Tory members want to speak?
Mr John R. Baird (Nepean): I'm pleased to have a chance to speak on this, and I know one of my colleagues will speak to the office across the hall about this right now to find out the next speaker on this issue.
This is an important House calendar motion. It deals with the time lines under which we sit here and debate the salient political issues of the day. It's important that we finish the business of this place before we take a holiday for ourselves. It's important that we get the work done first and holiday second. It's very, very important that we finish up that work.
There is a group of important pieces of legislation. There is the right-to-farm bill and an important bill on milk production presented by our colleague, M. Villeneuve, and that is important to debate.
There are a number of other important pieces of legislation. Bill 164 would help create jobs, hope and opportunity; research and development. It would help child care tax credits and it would further advance the job of the government. It's a very, very important bill.
With our new rule changes, I've had the opportunity to speak on the Financial Services Commission bill last week, Bill 149 on property assessment, Bill 164. We have had the opportunity to speak - if you check the record, more members will have the chance to speak and to enter debate, and that is very important for the province of Ontario.
The job creation agenda of this government is very important because this province used to be the economic engine of Canada, this province used to be a magnet for jobs, investment and opportunity; and then the 10 lost years, particularly the last five years, from 1990 to 1995, where this province saw our debt go from $50 billion to $100 billion almost overnight - no hope, no opportunity. We became known as a mismanaged debtor, overgoverned, overregulated and overtaxed. It's extremely important that we turn that around.
The numbers have been very encouraging: more than a quarter of a million net new jobs created. Where are the jobs? They're at Northern Telecom, 5,000 new jobs in Nepean; Newbridge Networks, 4,100 new jobs in Nepean; a new Rona warehouse opening up in Nepean this week, 250 new jobs.
With this House calendar motion, we can pass more research and development tax credits, we can pass co-op tax credits, the graduate tax credits, credits to help small business, the economic engine of Canada. It's very important. The ability for this House to get the job done first before we break for Christmas is a very important one and is very crucial.
The House calendar motion extends the fall sitting of the Legislature. Then I would enjoy the opportunity, as we look at the finance committee, to go into prebudget consultations, to listen more to the public, to consult and learn more about what should be in this budget, what other job creation initiatives will assist the solid job growth we've seen, which is extremely important. That is very crucial.
The important agenda on welfare reform will be part of that job creation agenda, and if we can pass some of those pieces of legislation we can deal with next week, there will be more hope and more opportunity for the future.
Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): Jobs paying $6.
Mr Baird: "More jobs," the member for Fort York says; $60,000- to $70,000-a-year jobs - that is extremely important - many in the high-tech sector, well-paying jobs, jobs with dignity, jobs that people can raise a family on, jobs with benefits, spinoff jobs. It is a very important House calendar motion.
Look at the contribution that research and development and knowledge-based industries have made in this province. Mr Speaker knows. He has seen the impressive job creation in Ottawa-Carleton.
On a vu pendant les derniers six mois la création de beaucoup d'emplois partout dans la province, dans la région de Toronto, dans le comté de Fort York, où les industries financières et les banques -
Interjections.
M. Baird : Mon collègue le député de Fort York a toutes les grandes banques et les grandes entreprises financières situées dans sa circonscription. On a vu une augmentation du secteur privé dans son comté dans les deux dernières années. C'est très important.
We have seen some impressive job creation in the Durham region. We have seen some impressive job creation in Ottawa-Carleton, in the knowledge-based industries, which is extremely important. There's a lot of hope out there for job creation. That is really the centrepiece of the government's efforts and the important initiatives it takes to set the climate for job creation, including a number of the initiatives we'd like to be able to deal with next week with this House calendar motion. It's extremely important.
Ms Lankin: Like what?
Mr Baird: Like Bill 164, like the right-to-farm bill, like the -
Ms Lankin: But you had it at second reading.
Mr Baird: It's interesting, Mr Speaker. You hear every day in this House that there is not enough time for debate. We had all sorts of time for the opposition to stand up and debate Bill 164, but they had nothing to debate. I can only assume they were in complete agreement. They didn't rise to speak to the bill. They had had enough debate, by their own admission.
Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): What about your closure motion? Where were you?
The Acting Speaker: Member for Welland-Thorold.
Mr Baird: They had had enough debate on the issue, which is something very important.
If you look other important pieces of legislation, the right-to-farm legislation is before this House. If you look at a number of the private members' bills, they are very important pieces of legislation that could be dealt with next week.
I can see the member for York Mills, the whip, has arrived. I know he is going to look over to me right now and indicate how much more debate we should have on this legislation. He wants me to give them more information on our job creation initiative.
1900
Ms Lankin: You have 12 more minutes and you've got to keep it going.
Mr Baird: Our colleagues in the opposition don't like to hear about the job creation initiative and the other important pieces of legislation.
People in Nepean are looking forward to a brighter economic future. Thousands of calls have been made in Nepean and the voice at the other end of the phone said, "You got the job." People are able to provide jobs for their community. They have been able to provide for their families. That's an extremely important thing. Many young families in Nepean have a dream of owning their own home. The new jobs and increased economic activities that we've seen in Ontario directly as a result of many initiatives like those in Bill 164 are coming up.
The member for High Park-Swansea was in Nepean and he saw some of the good news going on there. They spoke to him. He visited the Nepean Museum and saw some of the excellent community participation we have. That's very important. The motion that will allow us to sit next week will help in that job creation issue.
I think it's extremely important that we are able to hear from other members of this place and have more debate. Because of that, I yield the floor.
Ms Lankin: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would like to ask for unanimous consent for the Conservative caucus to be able to split the time that was on the clock so that they don't lose any of it.
The Acting Speaker: Is there unanimous consent? No.
Mr Conway: I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak to the government motion standing in the name of the chief government whip, now the Honourable David Turnbull, which motion, as the member from the Beaches has indicated, is to extend the sitting time of the assembly through -
Ms Lankin: The member from the Beaches truculently said.
Mr Conway: Oh, I think the member from the Beaches is always funny and ebullient. I don't know where she gets that idea.
I'm happy to be here to have an opportunity to make some remarks about some issues of concern to my constituents. For the last couple of months I've been working diligently under the careful tutelage of the Reverend Derwyn Shea who is doing an admirable job of chairing the select committee on Ontario Hydro nuclear affairs. Prior to my experience in that committee, I always thought Derwyn Shea was just a noted Anglican divine from the west end, but I can tell you that having spent the last two months with the member from High Park, I've come to respect his not inconsiderable skill in chairing legislative committees. I say that with all seriousness. It's not been an easy task and he has done a difficult job very well.
Because Reverend Shea and Ms Johns and Mr Laughren and I have been down in the committee with others of our colleagues, we've been missing the opportunity to get on the Bradley channel, but I'm here tonight to get a few moments of time to address a couple of issues of concern to my constituents. One of the advantages of this kind of motion is that it affords honourable members an opportunity to raise issues that are of concern to themselves or obviously of concern to their constituents.
I'm particularly pleased tonight to have the Minister of Health in our midst. She is being advised by the member for Wellington. I'm sure the member for Wellington will know something of the issue I am going to raise this evening, and that has to do with the new process for getting or renewing a health card in Ontario.
Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Witmer and Arnott are two of the moderate members, I might add, of the Tory caucus.
Mr Conway: My friend Bradley says Witmer and Arnott are two of the moderate members of the rainbow coalition, and that's true. Every so often I go up into the library, sit down and quietly read the Kitchener-Waterloo Record. I want to say to my good friend the Minister of Health, I never cease to be amazed at how helpful, how candid and how constructive Ms Witmer is when talking to her constituents and the general readership of the Kitchener-Waterloo Record. Why, just a few days ago she gave what read like a most interesting editorial board with the K-W Record.
Hon David Turnbull (Minister without Portfolio): It's a good newspaper.
Mr Conway: It's a very good newspaper. The Kitchener-Waterloo Record is a very fine newspaper and there's nothing better in it than reading the observations of the Minister of Health about Bill 160 or about other aspects of the government's agenda.
Setting that aside, I want to say to the Minister of Health, and hopefully with the support of the rural caucus in this chamber, that the government of Ontario is, at an administrative level, making a significant change effective January 1, 1998, in the manner of renewing OHIP cards - the health cards. Very simply, the change is this: Now, if you are a resident of Ontario and qualify for a health card, you are going to have to present yourself at an OHIP centre for the paperwork, including the photograph to be taken. I suppose if one lives in Toronto or London or Ottawa or Hamilton or Thunder Bay that's not going to be an issue, because in almost all of those urban centres there is an OHIP centre. But in rural Wellington, in rural Kent and certainly in rural Renfrew it is going to be a very real issue.
I say to the Minister of Health, I'm happy to supply this information to her because I had every intention - I might still after tonight have the intention - of asking the honourable minister a question.
Some days ago, I received from Dr C.R.S. Dawes, who is a very fine rural physician practising in West Renfrew county - Ray Dawes happens also to be the current chair of the rural section of the Ontario Medical Association. He has practised medicine in rural eastern Ontario for the last 15 or 20 years and he has some very good experience in these matters.
Dr Dawes wrote to Mary Catherine Lindberg, the assistant deputy minister of health, health-related programs, on October 29, 1997. Dr Dawes said in part:
"I write to you as a rural physician who is extremely concerned about the effect on rural residents of the recent OHIP policy requiring Ontario residents to travel to OHIP centres to have their photo OHIP ID card updated. I cannot overemphasize the significant hardship that will be borne by many residents of rural Ontario in attempting to comply with this request."
Dr Dawes practises in the Barrys Bay area of West Renfrew county, a very rural part of Ontario located about one hour's drive from Pembroke and a two-hour drive from Ottawa. The nearest OHIP centre is in Ottawa, though there may be a satellite established in Pembroke. So if you're one of Dr Dawes' patients living in a community like Barrys Bay or Madawaska or Palmer Rapids or Combermere, you've got at least a 70- to 90-minute drive one way to Pembroke and a two- to two-and-a-half-hour drive to Ottawa one way to get to an OHIP centre for the purpose of getting your picture taken
Dr Dawes goes on to say: "My patients are receiving a rather `matter-of-fact' letter from OHIP instructing them to travel to Ottawa, a round-trip distance of some five to six hours. While some of my patients are well able to afford and arrange this trip, a significant number of my elderly and disabled patients are not. In fact many will not even understand the exact nature of the problem. If they read the letter" they receive from OHIP "and realize that they can call a 1-800 number, perhaps after several attempts to get through to the OHIP representative, they will be told that they can in turn make another long-distance call to Pembroke and arrange to have their photo taken there." This still represents a very considerable hardship.
He goes on: "I am surprised that not more consideration was given to rural residents particularly after the release of Mr Wilson's rural health policy which seemed to specifically recognize the needs of rural residents."
1910
Dr Dawes concludes by making a perfectly sensible recommendation, I say to my friend the Minister of Health, that this policy's administrative requirements should be amended so that rural residents could go to the nearest hospital to have that photograph taken.
I think that is an extremely practical and sensible suggestion, which I expect the eminently sane and sensible Minister of Health, Ms Witmer, to listen to and to respond to because it is a serious and immediate concern.
OHIP is telling people that the past policy of granting leniency and the benefit of the doubt to people in this connection will not carry on beyond December 31, 1997. That means that people are going to get only one general notice, and if they don't come up with an answer but show up and present themselves at their doctor's office or at a hospital some time in January, February or any time after January 1, 1998, they are going to be rejected.
Can you imagine, I say to the member for Wellington, what somebody from Alma or Arthur, a 75- or 80-year-old resident, is going to feel like if they travel down to Guelph or Kitchener and they haven't complied with some bureaucratic requirement and they're turned back at the hospital or the doctor's office? I think that's going to be a very nasty situation, not just for the patient -
Interjections.
Mr Conway: I'm not going to try and compete.
The Acting Speaker: Could you reduce your discussions? Or if you want to talk, you're free to go outside.
Mr Bert Johnson (Perth): Just give us a few minutes.
The Acting Speaker: Especially you, the member for Perth.
Mr Conway: It's a serious matter, I say to my colleagues in the House and particularly rural members. Certainly Dr Dawes's patients, who are two hours or more from Ottawa one way, are going to be very upset if they find that effective January 1 they are going to be turned back because they don't have an updated OHIP card. It's one of those small matters that's not an issue in urban Ontario.
I was struck, I might add, that the Ottawa Citizen, in an editorial of October 10, 1997, editorialized under the title "Access to Health Cards Vital." The Ottawa Citizen was supporting a complaint made by regional councillor Alex Munter, who was making the point that there was a hardship for people under this new plan. Senior citizens in West Carleton, in Kanata, were going to be seriously disadvantaged because they were going to have to go down to the Albert Street office in downtown Ottawa.
I can't disagree with the Citizen's editorial and I support the basic point, but let me say that if somebody living in Kanata or in West Carleton or in Rideau township is going to be disadvantaged by this policy because they've got a half-hour trip down the Queensway or on Highway 16 to the Albert Street OHIP office, can you imagine somebody who is 75 years of age coming from Palmer Rapids or Wilno or Rolphton down to Pembroke or more likely to Ottawa? That's just absolutely unacceptable.
I know the province is increasingly urbanizing and suburbanizing, but we still have a million or more Ontarians living in very rural environments. So I say to the Minister of Health tonight - and I know in saying this I can enlist the support of my friend from Arthur, the moderate member of the government caucus from Wellington - please take every opportunity between now and the end of this pre-Christmas session to make the changes at the department of health so there can be some reasonable redress along the lines Dr Dawes has suggested. Let there be an opportunity for people in rural environments to go to the local hospital or the local clinic.
I can think of a clinic up in Lennox and Addington. It's a long way from Kingston or Belleville. A lot of rural residents along that Highway 41 corridor could go to Northbrook and get their picture taken at the clinic, perhaps. But certainly as a minimum let there be an opportunity for rural residents to go to the nearest hospital. That may not solve all the problems but it is certainly going to solve many of the problems that have been identified by a number of people.
I cite Dr Ray Dawes because of his experience and his current involvement with a number of government initiatives, particularly in the area of rural health, and I am very hopeful that Ms Witmer is in fact going to respond to the suggestion that has been made in this connection.
I want to make a couple of other observations. I want to congratulate the government for the repeal of Bill 109. There's been so much activity around here that we sometimes don't stop and celebrate very significant and appropriate and thoughtful reversals. It is obviously the current fashion on the treasury bench to strike out at the opposition and say, "What's your policy?" That's a fair thing for any government to do and it's been done since the democratic dialogue began in a parliamentary context centuries ago.
I want to congratulate Ms Bassett for her very fine statement of I believe November 7. I also want to congratulate her for getting off a very good line at my expense last week, but she's not here. I hope my friend Reverend Shea will convey my commendation in that connection to her.
First of all, it's good policy. I'm very pleased that the government has understood the fundamental error that was made a year and has effectively repealed Bill 109 and is going to maintain provincial government funding for libraries. As a rural member, I can tell you that is important assistance. I note that the funding will be less than it has been. I can fight about that, but the basic point I want to make is that the government has effectively repealed Bill 109 and recognized the error of its ways in that connection.
This will not be the first retreat and this will not be the first repeal. I want to say that Mr Kennedy and Ms Boyd have, each in their own way, over the last number of weeks and perhaps months, been highlighting another area of basic and fundamental wrong-headedness in so far as current government policy is concerned. I cannot imagine that there is anybody within the broad ambit of the Ontario public service who thinks for one nanosecond that transferring responsibility for public health to local government makes any sense. It is madness on stilts, driven undoubtedly by a fiscal imperative. I can just hear my friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer saying years ago, "If we're going to trade, if we're going to take that 50% cost of education, I want a make-up of the corresponding amount of money." Unfortunately, public health got caught in that net.
Is there anyone in this House who really thinks for a moment that public health programs having to do with everything from sexually transmitted diseases and their amelioration in the community to tobacco abatement programs belong at the local level? I can't believe there's anyone. I know there will nobody at the Ministry of Health. It's not a big-ticket item. It is profoundly wrong-headed, backward-looking, counterproductive public policy and it will be changed. It cannot stand because it makes no sense. Regrettably, though it does not necessarily involve a great deal of money, it involves some very significant issues about health education and preventive health strategies.
Can you imagine, for example, a situation where - and I say this without prejudice; my 81-year-old father who smoked for 65 years and might even be watching will be reminding me of this later this week - at the local level we tied the tobacco producers of Haldimand, Norfolk and Oxford counties to support a public health office in Woodstock or Simcoe and part of that local tie is to go to support Dr Conway whose job it is, under a provincial mandate, to aggressively pursue tobacco abatement programs in the schools and public buildings and elsewhere across the region?
It is on the face of it absurd. I say that without prejudice to the tobacco farmers and I say that without prejudice to the good people who will run these programs at the municipal level. It is setting up such a contradiction in function and responsibility as to be impossible. I simply have to say that I expect to live long enough in this Parliament to see that policy reversed, just as the library funding policy of two years ago has been mercifully reversed by Ms Bassett.
1920
Time does not permit me to cover but one more subject, and I want to take a moment to raise again, on behalf of people living across the reaches of rural eastern Ontario - I'm glad to see my friend Mr Harry Danford here - that there is no doubt that highways and highway maintenance are always an issue in a province this large and in a climate where we have so much winter. I think it was some European, de Tocqueville type who came and said, "My God, Canada: too much geography and too much winter." Whoever that person was, he spoke an essential truth. It's amazing how many politicians and policymakers now seem to forget that self-evident reality about life in this part of what we used to call British North America. But I'll tell you, if you drive across the rural reaches of Hastings, Renfrew, North Addington and Haliburton and you do so between November 1 and April 1, you will understand that the combination of the rugged Shield territory and winter make for some very hazardous conditions.
The last couple of weeks along the Highway 17 corridor, which is a major provincial highway - it's the Trans-Canada Highway from Ottawa up to North Bay, the major provincial highway that will remain, after the downloading, a provincial responsibility. I have had a number of people, from commercial travellers to fire chiefs to regular motorists and municipal politicians, to name but four categories, complain to me in recent days about the deterioration of winter highway maintenance, and we have had some very serious accidents and a couple of tragic fatalities in recent days which have focused public concern on that issue.
I say to the treasury bench and to the House generally, no more important responsibility do we have than to ensure that we maintain particularly through the winter months an adequate and above-standard quality of highway maintenance so that everyone travelling - young, middle-aged and old - can do so safely and securely.
Mr Marchese: It's a pleasure to speak to this House calendar motion, because I've got to tell you, in speaking to a whole lot of people in my riding of Fort York, they want a break from this government. They don't want to have to suffer through another week of yet more perfidy perpetuated against them, and not just the people in Fort York, but the whole province. They want a break from a government that is about to impose on them market value assessment, which is referred to as actual value assessment but whose effect is the same. They are about to be whacked with property tax increases, and seniors are about to be whacked with that fairness bill as well, the same one, where many of them are going to experience tax increases.
The Minister of Finance says: "Don't worry. It's all about achieving fairness." "Fairness" is a big word with this government. "Don't worry; it's revenue-neutral as well. Some people are going to get hit and some are not. Some are going to get a break." The people who are going to get a break are hardly going to notice it, but those who are going to get an increase are going to notice it indeed. Actual value assessment is coming, and it's going to mean property tax increases for people in my riding of Fort York. I can tell you, they don't like it and they want a break from this government.
They want a break from the other mess that you have downloaded on to our municipalities. That's Bill 162, the download bill, the bill that is going to dump on to municipalities a heavy burden and responsibility. In our view, that burden will come in the form of higher property taxes and a lesser quality of service. They can expect both in my view. They argue that they have taken half of the education portion out of property taxes, but they are going to download to the municipality an equal amount of services.
But what do they download? They download an issue such as housing. No jurisdiction in the world that I'm aware of downloads housing as a responsibility to the municipality, yet this government is about to do just that. This bill will be proclaimed shortly, ready to go. Housing is being downloaded to the municipality. Who do you think is going to pay for that heavy responsibility? It's the homeowner and the tenant. Many of you observers may not know that tenants pay a hefty property tax. Some tenants do not know that. But the taxes are hefty, and they will be paying, and the homeowner will be charged with the heavy responsibility and burden of paying for housing.
Even David Crombie, a Tory buddy of theirs, said: "Don't do that. Don't download housing to the municipality." Remember, the former mayor, Mr Crombie, was obviously a city politician, and he understood that this is one service that should not be borne by the municipality, meaning the tenant and the homeowner. He knew that. He understood that. He understood, as a good Tory, possibly red, that this is a service that should be paid by the provincial government. It's a simple thing. Most people who are in the know, who are worldly, understand this isn't something you pass down. It doesn't speak very highly of this government when I say those in the know, those who are worldly, those who have a good understanding of issues know you don't do that. These people are.
They're downloading, as well as housing, public health, worth $225 million. These guys say, "Don't worry. It's a responsibility we can pass on" - not dump, pass on - "to these folks, because they asked for it. They want public health." Sure. If you put a gun to their head, of course they're going to say, "Please give it to me, and in a hurry."
Mr Kormos: Oh, they gave it to them.
Mr Marchese: They did, but they pretend there was no gun to their head. Public health, $225 million, competing with basic stuff like sewer, water, garbage, things of that nature - to be in a position where people are competing for soft services such as public health, housing, child care, welfare, competing with all of that at the same time? Most municipal people understand that it is fair and just to pick up the cost as a homeowner or as a tenant for things that are basic hard services such as water, transportation, garbage, sewers. They understand that. But to pick up all these soft services is, in the minds of reasonable-minded, ordinary people, wrong.
Not for these guys. That's because these folks here have a different ideology and they come from a different place. I'm not sure where, and it's unfair to call them amphibianlike in their style of politics, but I tell you, Speaker -
The Acting Speaker: Just be careful in the choice of your words.
Mr Marchese: Mr Speaker, I try, as you know, to choose my words very carefully, but when one says these things, one presents them in the form of an analogy so that people understand the style of the politics with something more graphic that they can appreciate.
The other day I mentioned the word - what was the word? It was a word that connects to "oil" and I was saying it's - what is the word? It escapes me. It's not "litigious." Even I have forgotten it, Speaker. There you go. But you get the drift.
Mr John L. Parker (York East): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I think the word that my friend is searching for is "lugubrious."
The Acting Speaker: I don't think that his debate is lugubrious at this time. Please proceed.
1930
Mr Marchese: "Lugubrious" is indeed a good word, and I love that word. It is the mood that this government creates for all of Ontario, because it's funeral-like. Their policies are so funèbre that people feel lugubrious in response to their policies indeed. That wasn't the word I was selecting carefully, but I appreciate my good friend John, l'avocat, for that particular word. I'm always looking for good words to depict the policies and the character of this government, because it describes the value system that these people are representing.
To go on on the download, these are the same folks who speak about disentanglement. Mr Wettlaufer would know, because I think he was with me on that committee, that they proudly speak about how we have disentangled things so that everybody understands what they're paying for. Imagine that. I thought -
Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough): You created that word.
Mr Marchese: We didn't create that word. It's true that we attempted a solution on that matter, and it is true that we didn't do it, quite correctly. You're quite right. But then you guys come along and you say, "We finally disentangled." For me, "disentangled" means you separate it - right, John? - and you say, "Okay, I got welfare."
Interjection.
Mr Marchese: John, listen to me.
The Acting Speaker: No, no. Member for Fort York, you're addressing the Legislature of Ontario. You're not in a bar. You're not in any other place. You are addressing the Legislature of Ontario, and I would expect you to act accordingly and talk accordingly.
Mr Marchese: Speaker, I appreciate the rectitude that you're trying to impose on this House. But, Speaker, through you, you can't sanitize the remarks that we make in this place. You cannot do that, because if you try to do that, this place will become insipid, and nobody is going to watch the proceedings of this House. The reason why they watch the proceedings is because we've got something to say, and it's often graphic enough that people appreciate it. You can't speak in either insipid terms or abstract terms, because if you do so, no one will follow the proceedings of the House. You've got to reach out.
I know the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale understands what I'm saying when I say that disentanglement means you separate two things. If you separate whose responsibility it is to pay for welfare, for example, people said, "Okay, the province pays for welfare." Municipalities and the rest of the electors, wherever they are, would say: "I understand that. That means we don't share the cost as a municipality. I see. It's the province that pays for welfare." That, Monsieur le député de Etobicoke-Rexdale, is what I mean by disentanglement.
Are you okay, member for Etobicoke-Rexdale?
Interjection.
Mr Marchese: I was worried for his health.
I'm trying to explain to the public. I know that he's obviously entertained by my speech, but more clearly -
Interjection: We're looking forward to his comments. He can be up next.
Mr Marchese: I want to hear from him, as always, but it's important for the public to understand that these folks disentangled nothing. Welfare has not been disentangled. Communities and the province share that. That is not a disentanglement. What does it mean? It means people are still confused about who's in charge. Child care has not been disentangled. They say it has, but it hasn't been disentangled. It means municipalities are paying for it, and the province. These guys say, "We finally disentangled. Everybody knows now who pays for what," but no, it isn't true. I don't think that is what disentanglement was intended to mean, unless they have a different definition for that.
They have dumped on to the municipality soft services that should be paid properly by an income tax system. Everybody's saying that. All those in the know who have a clear understanding of what should be paid by whom understand, accept and say it is the province that should have the responsibility for that. But not these guys. The reason they are dumping these responsibilities down is to get out of some of these responsibilities and shift down blame, responsibility and pain through the incursion of additional expenses through property taxes. They are going to be paying more. These guys say no. We argue yes. But wait for the property tax bill. Better still, wait to see whether or not the service you had before is still there. People want a break from these guys.
We had the amalgamation of the city of Toronto with all the other cities. Do you recall that, Peter? You'll recall that we had a referendum in this city and all of the other cities and the borough, and they said no. Overwhelmingly they said no; 77% said no. Speaker, do you think it is right?
Mr Kormos: Why didn't they listen?
Mr Marchese: Because it's an autocratic government, dictatorial in its approach to people and issues. They didn't listen.
You hear from time to time these fine ministers and the Premier say: "Oh, we listen. We want to listen to the people." Sure, it's coming. "We're going to listen to you after we get re-elected, when we have nothing else that we want to harm the province with." That's when they're going to listen to you. But in the meantime, when people have something to say on the issue of amalgamation, these autocratic folks have said no. They said no to that.
People want a break. They want a break from a government that has imposed Bill 160, a bill which these fine folks say is going to improve the educational system. Speaker, as a former teacher I can tell you - Mike Harris, the Premier, should know too. Mind you, he was a teacher, but it was a time when people could get in with grade 13. Not to diminish those folks who were there with only grade 13 and then they became teachers, I don't want to diminish that, but I worry, because if he claims that he was a former teacher, and I being one as well, I can tell you there is nothing in that bill that is intended to help teachers or students.
There are three things that this government and the Minister of Education say about this bill that are going to help people out.
They're going to say, "We're making it more accountable." Do you know what that means, Speaker? It means they are centralizing the finances of the educational system, taking hold of it, getting rid of the trustees, who usually knock most provinces that want to take money out: taking hold of the financing of the education system so they can start to give less. But they don't call that giving less to the system; they call that being fair. "Everybody's going to be treated fairly." That, to me - and that's why we're not getting the legislative grants - means that they will bring the educational grants to students down from where they're at. Metropolitan Toronto is going to be hit hard. Metro Toronto potentially can and will lose a whole lot of millions. Many of us are worried $500 million will disappear.
They say Bill 160 is going to improve the educational system by controlling class size, and they make it appear as if class size is going to be reduced. Nothing of the sort. They're talking about an average class size of 25 at the elementary level and 22 at the secondary level. Nothing has changed. You have done nothing. But these fine perpetrators of myth create the notion that somehow class size will be reduced. Not true.
The third one is that there's going to be more contact time, and that's going to improve the educational system. If you eliminate prep time but you don't bring those savings back into the classroom, you've done nothing by way of greater contact of those few teachers with the students. You've done nothing.
These are the only three issues that these people can talk about that are in Bill 160 that are going to improve the educational system. Speaker, I ask you, as a hopefully reasonable man, do you think that in the issues I have mentioned, those three items will bring greater fairness, equality and improvement in the educational system?
I say to you no. What will do it is if you bring greater parental involvement. You don't do it by selecting about 20 people to do that job, or 10 or five people to do the job in the school; you do it by involving those 95% of the people who never get involved in the education of the children. If they want to do that - the former Minister of Labour is a former trustee, I believe, and I'm sure teacher. She would know that would improve the quality of education. But there is absolutely nothing in Bill 160 that will improve it.
1940
We need to expose that myth. People want a break from this government, not another week of more perfidy perpetrated upon them. They don't need that. The rapidity with which they introduced bills has been short of incredible. They can't manage anything, because they've introduced too many bills.
When my good friend Sean Conway from Renfrew says he's happy that this government has taken back 109 and they have learned from their mistakes, I say to you they're incompetent. That's why they have taken that bill back. We used to fund libraries at $40 million a year. It's now $20 million less in that pot of money. We've had hearings upon hearings saying to these fine folks here, "Please don't do it." Then finally we get a new minister who says, "Okay, we learned a couple of things." I say nonsense. They're incompetent. They should have known when we had hearings that they were wrong, but they go ahead and do that.
People want a break from your policies. I urge those of you who are watching, we are engaged in a petition for a referendum campaign on Bill 160 to protest the reptilian policies of this government. I tell you, get involved -
The Acting Speaker: Order. I corrected you on the word "amphibian." "Reptilian" is in the same family, in my opinion, and I don't accept that. I find this demeaning; I find it insulting.
Mr Marchese: These cold-blooded Homo sapiens here on the other side are ruining our province, and we've got to fight back. I want to urge people to get involved in this petition for a referendum campaign. Put these people to the wall. They support referenda. If they do indeed support them, let's get the 700,000 signatures and bring that to them.
Mr Alex Cullen (Ottawa West): I came into this chamber expecting to debate second reading on Bill 170, An Act to amend the Milk Act. As a matter of fact, I was all prepared to milk this particular subject, but unfortunately I was given a bum steer and I'm a little cheesed off that I can't get to the meat of the matter. But now that I've exhausted my repertoire, I know your blood curdles at any further puns that I might make and there's no whey I'm going to do anything more. But I find myself instead standing before the House speaking on a calendar motion.
The calendar motion we have of course is to extend the sitting of the House. As all members know, the standing orders would have us finish our session tomorrow at 6 o'clock, but instead the session of the House has been extended a further week, plus we have the night sittings not only to 9:30 but to midnight. We're doing this because the government has a tremendous backlog of legislation to deal with.
I seem to be losing my audience here, Mr Speaker. I'm just wondering, is there quorum in the House?
The Acting Speaker: Would you please check if there is quorum.
Clerk at the Table (Mr Todd Decker): A quorum is present, Speaker.
Mr Cullen: It's gratifying to hear that I do have the attention of the House and the quorum of 30 members to do the job.
In speaking to this calendar motion, I have the opportunity of bringing but, I guess it is, two and half months' worth of experience of sitting in this House, which is not a lot compared to a number of members sitting around this chamber. I have to say, though, that in the brief time that I have been here, I have seen this government present time allocation motions. I have seen this government withdraw legislation, flip-flop on legislation. Bill 136 is one that comes to mind. I see as well major, significant changes going through this House with very little opportunity for public input and public hearings.
I have to reflect that it was only two and a half months ago that I was elected to this position, and in terms of my observation here in terms of how the House conducts its business and what business it conducts, clearly we are seeing a change from what I perceive to be the democratic process of representational government, of a deliberative government, because this is a deliberative House. This is a House of representatives who deliberate on legislation.
A long time ago, more years than I care to confess, I understood the legislative process: first reading; second reading; going to committee and the opportunity for the public to participate and help the government, the Legislature of the day, perfect legislation; third reading; and then it being adopted by this House as an expression of the sovereign will of the people of Ontario.
Quite frankly, that's not how things operate here. If I go back to the concerns that I dealt with in Ottawa West in my by-election, which I've tried to present here and debate on different bills - and I have to say that I'm pleased to have had the opportunity to participate in debate on significant legislation before this House. I can think in terms of rent control; I can think in terms of educational reform; I can think in terms of provincial downloading; I can think in terms of even the tax credit legislation we just had earlier today. But it seems to me that something is lacking in this process. Even though our time is being extended to facilitate the passage of business that presumably is to benefit the citizens of Ontario, quite frankly I think we have been shortchanged.
The concern I have is our ability to allow the process to function properly, our ability to allow the public to participate and our ability to remember that we are here at the behest of the people of Ontario. We are not sovereign in this House so that when we take this seat we are answerable to no one; we have a mandate and we can go as we please. Yes, governments are elected with mandates. I was elected with a mandate, but even so, it behooves us all to take into consideration the varying points of view, to take into consideration concerns raised by the public, and to make the appropriate accommodation when the circumstances require it.
I know there are other members of this House who have been on a school board, who have been on municipal council, regional council at the municipal level, and know that there is a requirement for due process. Due process protects us all. I alluded in my comments earlier today when we were dealing with Bill 164 to the whole notion of small-l liberal democracy - deliberative, consultative democracy that is at the behest of the people we represent - and how that runs into conflict with the government. To govern of course is to choose, and government itself, if it wishes to fulfil its mandate, has issues it must put forward if it wants to be efficient, if it wants to make sure its agenda is put in place and get on with the job, and sometimes these two values conflict.
We have seen it time and again. Indeed, every time the government comes in with what used to be an exception to the process, time allocation, for example - now we have time allocation being moved as a matter of course. What happens with time allocation? There's only so much time for discussion. Quite frankly, I thought being involved in politics meant that you had to have patience, you had to listen to people. I've done it at the municipal level; others have as well. It's part of the process, a necessary part.
But I find that when, for example, an issue goes to committee, indeed when there are only so many days for hearings and there are amendments being put forward and you're only allowed two hours to consider all the amendments that are concerned and amendments are voted on without the benefit of explanation, without the benefit of debate, without the benefit of consideration, and then we find afterwards this government coming in with bills after the fact to amend legislation they just passed but days before, weeks before, it calls into question the whole process.
My friends opposite may say: "Oh, it doesn't matter. We're dealing with the opposition. They always complain." But I can tell you, Bill 160 focused so much attention on the proceedings of this House that people are now very much concerned about how the deliberative democratic process works, never mind government. We give government authority; we give government money through our taxes. It is the choice of this House to do so, and government does its job. But when government is bringing in policy changes through this House, it has to give way to the democratic process, because if you do not, you bring the democratic process into disrepute and then people find other ways of ensuring that their interests are heard.
Why was it that when I was growing up in this province, we had a 29-year reign of Conservative government here in Ontario? Because that government knew when to pause, knew when to listen to other people, knew when to make accommodations. It didn't give way to everybody, but it continually got re-elected because people thought, on balance, it was doing a good job and you could talk to them. That's not the word for this government. No one out there in Ontario believes you can talk to this government, because no one in Ontario believes this government will listen.
1950
Here we're dealing with a House calendar motion that extends our time to deal with debate. It's at the sufferance of the government. They come in with time allocation motions, but quite frankly, they are not interested in the comments here.
I will say to this House that on our side here, our duty is to oppose, naturally, but in the process of opposition, we would provide criticism of legislation; we would show where the flaws would be. A sensible government, wishing to ensure that it is governing on behalf of all the residents of Ontario - another requirement or obligation of a government is to understand it's doing so for all of its residents - would then be able to take upon itself: "Well, here's a point. We don't have to acknowledge that it came from the member for Ottawa West or the member for any other opposition seat, but here is a point," and they make the appropriate adjustments. Who is to benefit? The residents of Ontario. Whose legislation is it? The government's legislation. What happens at the end of the day? We have a better product.
It's not that I'm expecting that my colleagues will listen to every word that I say with such fascination as I know, Mr Speaker, you do, but it's simply the process of forming policy, of deliberation. When I sit at municipal council dealing with a zoning bylaw, something that affects neighbours on a street, I'm obliged to hear everyone who comes forward and I'm obliged to take that into account. My discussion and my vote are transparent, public for all. There is a due process. It's not done all at once. There's a proper hearing, proper notification, a due process. Why do we believe in due process? Why do we believe in the rule of law? Because it's fair. It's fair for everybody.
When we walk away from that because it's inefficient for government - bear in mind that the exigencies of government often conflict with the democratic process. I know this. I've worked as a civil servant supporting my minister. Face it: In this place, the civil service does not work for the Legislature. Not at all. When I was a municipal politician, the civil service in the municipality, in the city of Ottawa or the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton, worked for council, so when I called up for a concern or an explanation, they responded. They understood that. But here it is not so. Here it is not so because civil servants work for the government, and the government is represented by 82 seats in this Legislature, not by all 133. We like to think they report to us because, after all, it is all 133 of us who pass the estimates, who set the laws in place. That may be so, but even then, when we're proposing or when the government proposes a piece of legislation and I call up and look for an explanation that I want to bring to a public meeting and I'm denied that, that only brings home the fact that they do not work for the Legislature; they work for the government.
The government has an awesome responsibility because it has all that power, all that obligation, all that responsibility. It has to do the job right. We may have our differences of opinion about how to deal with the deficit, we may have our differences of opinion about how to deal with welfare, how to deal with municipalities, but you've got to do the job right. I can pull out from under my desk example after example after example of abuse of process. Quite frankly, whether it's Bill 26 or the time allocation motions or anything else, if you believe that what you're doing is right, then you stand the heat, you take the time to listen to people and you do the job right.
I have seen members opposite in committee, at hearings, listening to the public, and they are doing their job. They may not agree with what the public is putting forward, but they do their job. But I just have to compare and contrast. I can look at other Legislatures where they would have taken the time to listen to people.
I look at the federal House. The federal House meets five days a week. The federal House does not move time allocation and does not shorten hearings. As long as there are people willing to come to a committee and speak to an item, by and large they accommodate them. That happens to be the tradition of that House.
Here we're seeing traditions change, even before I came in here. I took office on September 15. I'm seeing all these traditions change. I tell my friends opposite that when it comes to 1999 and we have the election on the record of the government, it will not only be the substance of the policies they put forward but how they conducted themselves. It's just proof positive.
For those who live and die by polls, it was just here this week in the newspapers: style. We know that perception is reality in politics. Style is important. Doing it right is important. People will remember how things were rammed through. Is it necessary to ram it through? Of course, the government points to the opposition for delay, delay, delay. Well, quite frankly, the rules mitigate against delay. We're long gone from the time when the member from North Bay could stand up and bring the proceedings of the House to a halt by reading off every lake, every pond, every -
Mr Kormos: That was bush league.
Mr Cullen: That may have been bush league, but it was the member from North Bay. It was well before he reached the government benches.
Mr Conway: Kormos was major league.
Mr Cullen: My friends are telling me who is major league and who is bush league in all of this. All I can say to you is that as someone who believes that legitimacy is conveyed because you do the process right, if you do the process wrong you make the product illegitimate and you pay for it. That's all there is to it. You get deflected from the substance of your issues because of how you conducted business.
Here we are dealing with a House calendar motion to conduct House business and extend the hours and extend the sitting of the House.
I seem to recall that earlier today we were dealing with Bill 164, a prime example: a bill that was supposed to deal with the outcome of the budget that was tabled in May, yet what happened? The bill does not get produced until November 22 or 25, whatever it was, some seven months later. We're into debate. There were no public hearings going to be held. Well, now suddenly it's going to committee, so we may have that opportunity. There was going to be a time allocation motion dealing with expenditures of millions of dollars, because the government was putting into place tax credit schemes to encourage job creation, yet we would not have the opportunity to debate that, to see if that's an appropriate use of public funds, because it actually is a tax expenditure.
Also, it was an omnibus bill and covered 20 other pieces of legislation unconnected to the creation of tax credits. Why? Because the government had passed earlier legislation that it had to go and amend. What happened with that earlier legislation? It was under time allocation. We didn't have the time to go through it properly, to hold our hearings properly, to have proper debate about it and therefore perfect the bill. So what happens? Now we find important amendments dealing with Bills 149 and 160, now on hold, going to a committee of the House, the standing committee on finance and economic affairs, and we are supposed to be out of here by December 18. How is this going to come to pass?
Obviously, the House leaders are going to come together and make some kind of arrangement. But it's just foolishness to find that a bill that's so important, because we passed two other bill earlier, that contains amendments to correct the mistakes the government made on its earlier legislation - we have yet a week to go, and I know the government opposite does not want us to come back until mid-March. I know the government would like to prorogue the session and come back to a new session, but it has to deal with this legislation promised back in May 1997 and encompassing amendments to legislation we just passed earlier this week.
As a matter of fact, there are House leaders from the opposition side, my party and the third party, who actually offered to give unanimous consent to allow for amendments to go through on Bill 160 to correct the mistakes the government made, but the government refused. So here we are in this pretty pass. It's ridiculous and it brings disrepute - well, never mind to the government; they will find themselves accountable in 1999.
One of the things I thought we would have seen some action on - and perhaps I'm naïve; I will admit to a certain amount of naïveté; I'm a rookie in this House. But there was, I believe, this summer, an expression of judgement by some elements in Ontario on the government's agenda. That was the by-election that sent me to this House; and the member for Oriole and the member for Windsor-Riverside.
2000
Although the politically astute may look at who held the riding before, what the turnout was, who the candidates were, you can still distil from what was said in those elections, what was spoken about, the issues raised, whether the government was gaining any ground in terms of its agenda. Quite clearly, the number one issue was health care. What do we have to this date? All through my time here, we have had questions raised in the House - even though we had the distraction, and a very worthwhile distraction, of this enormous change to education - about health care, constantly, time after time, questions about the quality of health care, particularly since this government has taken money out of our health care system, millions of dollars out of our health care system. So are we beginning to see this government begin to understand, react, respond to the concerns being raised here? To this date we have not seen that at all. I find this personally very disappointing.
I know we're going to have time in the next four or five days to continue to raise issues, to try to hold the government accountable, but January and February will not be a wasteland as far as members of this House are concerned. Many of us will be working in our constituencies, talking to our friends, neighbours, the Kiwanis Club, the hospital support group, teachers, what have you, to talk about the issues of the day. I tell you, health care will be a major issue, education will be a major issue. What the government believes to be the major issues will not be top of mind for most voters, because they are concerned about the quality of their lives and the responsibility the government has to maintain it and enhance it with their precious tax dollars.
Mr Silipo: I'm pleased to have the chance to say a few words on this important motion to extend the sittings. We need to remind people who may be watching that this one of the peculiar things about the way in which this place operates. We have a regular calendar of sittings which usually has two sittings during the year: We go from the end of March to the end of June and then from the end of September to what would be the second week of December, in other words, tomorrow. That's the normal calendar. Of course, governments in the past and certainly this government now, in an incredibly startling way, have changed that calendar around as they have seen fit and as they've chosen to.
Mr Marchese: Discombobulated.
Mr Silipo: My friend from Fort York, in his usual colourful language, uses the word "discombobulated." I think that's a not inappropriate word at all to describe what this government has done. I'm sure he meant it not just in terms of the House calendar but was in fact referring to what this government has done as a whole and what it is doing.
I want to talk a little about that. I want to come back to what has happened this year. Because we are on the eve of the holiday season, one would think we need to keep that in mind and perhaps temper our comments a little bit, but that's a question of individual choice and style and approach.
What we are doing here now is debating for the second day - "day" in terms of the calendar of this House, in terms of how a session of this House is seen - whether we should sit an additional week, into next week.
People might say: "What's the big deal? If you've got stuff to do, you should sit there and finish it. Then you can take a couple of weeks off for the Christmas holidays, and then committees can start to meet during the break." Usually, when the House doesn't sit, there is this perception out there that MPPs simply don't do very much. It's important that we remind people that in fact most of us are out there in our communities and we get a chance to talk to our constituents to a greater degree than we do when the House is sitting, but also committees sit during that time.
I don't know what the committee schedule is going to be during this particular session. I note that there isn't a whole pile of bills the government is sending out to committee during this break. There was one earlier today that the government wanted to pass from second reading directly to third reading, Bill 164, but we on this side of the House, particularly many of us in the New Democratic Party caucus, stood up, as is our right to do, and with 12 members in this House standing in their place, we were able to say, "No, that bill should go to committee, because there are important things in that bill that we think need to be discussed and need to have the opportunity to debate in committee."
I welcome my friend from Nepean here as he joins us.
Why did we do that? Because, as I said, the content of that bill was so important. Also, when we reflect on what has happened over this past year - I keep coming back to this past year because it has been particularly unusual, not just in terms of how it affects the House calendar but in how it has affected and how it is going to affect people in the province, not just in the months to come but in the years to come.
When we reflect back on the experience of this past year, when we look at what that particular bill, Bill 164, does - yes, Bill 164 has some useful tax credits in it. It's interesting, though, that the government thought they were so important that it waited until basically the eve of the House breaking before it even introduced the bill, but we'll leave that aside. We want to have a chance to discuss some of the other more important pieces in the bill, including, for example, what will or will not municipalities be able to say in the property tax bills that are also covered by Bill 164?
We want to take a look at those issues, hopefully through committee, although we understand that the rules of this House are such that the government can use its majority if it chooses to, take us through another day or so of debate and probably impose its will and bypass the committee, as it has done on occasion. But we would hope that when they reflect upon the usefulness of sending bills as major as that to committee, they will agree that what we did today was a wise step. They know it's in the public interest, because whenever a bill of that magnitude has gone out to committee, what have we found? Whether it was Bill 103, the megacity bill, whether it was Bill 152, the download bill, whether it was Bill 160, the major education bill, what has happened on any of those major bills and many others I could cite is that through the process of committee an incredible number of amendments has been passed.
Interjection.
Mr Silipo: My friend from Nepean wants me to talk about things like tax credits to create jobs, and I'll get to those. But I have to say I find it interesting that he had 20 minutes to speak on this issue and he sat down after 10 minutes. I even sent for some water for him so he could continue, and he didn't take his full time. Now he wants me to finish his speech for him. I'm a fairminded person and I try to look at things in a very objective way, but as objective as I am, I'm sure cannot do justice to the approach the member for Nepean would have taken in terms of Bill 164. If after I am finished he would like to seek unanimous consent to complete his time, I'd be happy to support him and I believe my colleagues would as well. It's up to the government members.
But I was saying that whenever a bill of any major significance has gone out to committee, Speaker - and you know this as well as I, better than I, because you have to deal with these issues as the arbiter of the various disputes we go through, procedurally and otherwise - what has happened is that those bills have come back with significant amendments. That shows us very clearly that the government has recognized that there were things in each of those bills that were wrong and needed to be changed. In fact, when we have the opportunity through committee to take a look at those bills, particularly when we give the opportunity to the public to have useful input, not just to go through the sham of a couple of days of hearings but to actually listen to what people have to say, we usually end up with better legislation, whether we agree with it or not. I can't remember a bill that's gone through that - oh, I guess there was one that changed the name of a township the other day that went through that I supported.
Mr Baird: The social contract.
Mr Silipo: No, I'm talking about bills I've supported during the life of this government. Creighton-Davies: We supported that. My colleague from Nickel Belt brought it forward, and others, the members from the Sudbury area, supported it. We said, "That's a good idea," and we did that. There was also another bill, I believe introduced by the member for Scarborough East, that dealt with the Princess Margaret Hospital, which we also supported. On things like that, which are important and can be dealt with relatively quickly, there usually is a good, generous spirit of trying to do that.
2010
The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Member for Nepean, I wonder if you'd find a different seat.
Mr Silipo: He's not bothering me, Speaker, but I'll leave that to your judgement.
When those major bills have gone out to committee, the experience inevitably has been that if the government is even half listening, what comes back to this House is a bill that's actually more workable. When they have chosen not to listen, the government comes back with bills to amend previous bills.
Mr Marchese: More incompetence.
Mr Silipo: That shows, as my colleague the member for Fort York points out, the incompetence that that been increasingly a part of this government.
Take a look at what has happened this year. This House has sat twice, probably three times the normal length. I don't say that to complain about the time I've been here. I've actually found it quite useful - frustrating, as much as anybody else, expressing the frustration out there among the constituents in my riding of Dovercourt and of many across the province; frustrating because the government generally has not listened to the goodwill expressed by the people of the province. I'm not complaining about being here, because that's part of my job.
The point I'm making is we have sat in this House three times as much as normal sittings in this House during a calendar year, and still, at the end of that process we have the government having to bring forward another motion to say, "We have to sit another week because there are still a few things we haven't done." And what are those things?
Hon Turnbull: It must be the week you took off the calendar when you were the government.
Mr Silipo: Oh, come on. The week we took off when we were the government? I say to the government whip, what has that got to do with anything? You agreed to that week being removed from the calendar. There was all-party agreement that the House calendar would be modified to that effect, so let's not use that. If we're going to be fair, let's be fair about it.
The point is that the government whip knows as well as you know and as well as I know, Speaker, that as we've been sitting here evening after evening, we have more than made up for any other time we haven't sat, because every evening we are here counts as an additional sitting day. But I don't want to get into this as a complaint about how long we're sitting. That's not the point. The point is that this government, even with all this time they've had, even with all the time they have forced in terms of discussion in this House, they still have not been able to manage their agenda, have not been able to put through all the different bills they wanted to.
A government that has become the epitome of centralism, that has put powers so clearly in the hands of the Premier's office, that has so centralized the decision-making process, you would think would be able to manage its way through the House calendar.
We're here, and at some point we presume this motion will pass. We will sit another week. We will deal with whatever business needs to be dealt with. After all, it's up to the government to decide what business it wants to call, what business is so important, what particular bills it wants to get passed in the remaining time we have. We will deal with those.
But we will do so in such a way that we'll continue to try to do our job, as we have tried throughout this whole incredible year, from the very beginning of January, when they deemed that spring began in January instead of March and had us here to begin the process of putting a series of bills through so they could embark upon their overarching policy of pushing down on to the property tax base the cost of many of the services that are now paid for as they should be, at the provincial level, through the income taxes and the other taxes collected at the provincial level.
I am not surprised to see the government members still choose not to believe that that is in fact what they have done throughout this year. I know that many of them have bought the line that Premier Harris and the three or four people around him who are masterminding and driving this agenda have put forward, because they have done a good job of selling it to their caucus and their caucus has been trying very hard to sell this notion out there.
But we will see over the next three to six months the real impact of the download. In my own community of Dovercourt, and I know it's the same in Fort York and I suspect it's going to be much the same in the Welland area -
Mr Kormos: If not worse.
Mr Silipo: - if not worse, we're going to see residence after residence, family after family, end up with huge tax bills. Will that be because municipalities are going to drive taxes up? No, because municipalities generally are going to do whatever they can to keep taxes down. Nobody, in this climate, wants to raise taxes. It's not going to come because municipalities are going to go out there and say, "We're going to raise your property taxes." But municipalities are going to be in a really difficult position. They're going to have to make some real choices.
When all the things are balanced out, we will not see an even trade, as the Premier has promised. We will not see the costs being pushed down versus the costs being brought back up to the provincial level equalize out. Maybe in some sort of balance sheet way that might be the case, because at some point they're going to have to pretend that's the case, are going to have to show somehow somewhere on the books that's the case, but in practical reality that's not going to be the case.
When I look at my own constituency of Dovercourt, when I look at the average family in a riding like that, a very healthily mixed riding in terms of the makeup both ethnically and income-wise, but still very much a working-class riding, with people who if fortunate enough to have a job in this economy consider themselves to be fortunate, and those who are not; an incredible mix of senior citizens; many injured workers; people on fixed incomes. Do you know what they're going to be facing? They're going to be facing user fees, they're going to be facing increases in taxes. That's going to be compounded in an area like that in the city of Toronto by this whole notion of market value assessment, or AVA, as the government wants to call it, actual value assessment.
We are going to see people's property taxes go up. I want to tell you, I'm going to be very clear with my constituents, as I have been so far, in terms of saying where that responsibility lies. It lies at the feet of Mike Harris. It lies at the feet of Al Leach. It lies at the feet of every Conservative member who has chosen, for whatever reason, to follow that line that Mike Harris has imposed or convinced them of. They will have to deal with that. They will have to take the responsibility for that.
It may very well be that in the whole experience we've gone through, government members, as we leave this place, some time towards the end of next week I suspect, will on the one hand be relieved to have a bit of time off from here and on the other hand feel that all in all they survived more or less unscathed. But I have to tell you, if that's the way people are going away, if they feel that because they may still be up there in the polls, somehow they're going to make their way through this next year, then I think they have miscalculated, because as horrible as the impact of the various cuts have been so far, we have yet to see the full impact of the download in areas like the city of Toronto, in areas like my own constituency of Dovercourt, mixed in with the whole question of market value reassessment being imposed as part of that package.
2020
When all of that is said and done, if you think the Mike Harris revolution has been significant, wait until you see the real revolution that's going to start, because there is nothing like people getting their property tax bill and being able to look at it and say, "I thought that Mike Harris said that my taxes were either going to go down or they were at least not going to go up." What they're going to see instead is big increases if there is any hope at all of even the same level of quality of services being maintained in any kind of similar way to what exists now.
I don't envy the job of the new mega-council here in Toronto as I certainly don't envy the job that every council across this province is going to have to undertake over the next six months particularly. I think, to be fair to them, they will try to do their best to maintain that very finite balance between keeping taxes down and maintaining services, but the sheer reality is they won't be able to do both.
They won't be able to do both, and at the end of the day we're going to see the impact of cuts in our school system. We're going to see a school system that's going to feel again in a big way the underfunding that will come as another series of major cuts are made, whether they're $700 million, as we finally got the Premier to admit, or whether it's going to be some other bigger number than that, as we fear, or perhaps even a slightly smaller number, as they try to readjust the figure. But there will be.
What I say to people who may be watching this is that the fight needs to go on. We will continue to raise these voices, and one of the ways in which that can be done is through the referendum process, through the referendum campaign that we have launched on Bill 160. We believe that that's a fundamental way of having 700,000 people across the province sign that petition so that we can say that the citizens of the province, Mike Harris, want you to hold a referendum on Bill 160 and to be held accountable for the actions that you've taken.
Ms Annamarie Castrilli (Downsview): I have been listening very attentively this evening to some very thoughtful comments on this side of the House, and it strikes me that this motion, coming as it does in the mid-term of this government's mandate, gives us an opportunity to reflect on what has transpired so far and to assess the government and its performance. All of us were elected to this House to represent the interests of our constituents. We all arrived with a great deal of energy to do just that, and I think most of us have done that to the best of our ability.
What has happened in this place, interestingly enough, is that it has very clearly demonstrated the difference between the parties, which is a difference of substance. It's a difference of ideology. It's a difference of process. It's almost a difference of principle. I'd like you to consider tonight what this government is about, how it is perceived by the people and what in fact it has accomplished in the last two years. I think it's fair to say that the perception out there is that this government has centralized power to an extent unknown in the province of Ontario.
The Acting Speaker: Order. There are some long-distance conversations and if you have to have them, please leave the chamber. We owe our attention to the member for Downsview.
Ms Castrilli: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. You are very kind. I'm not sure my thoughts are quite deserving of so much attention.
Nevertheless, this is a government that was elected on a mandate to make government smaller, to make bureaucracy leaner and more efficient. What we find, two and a half years later, is a government that has gone mad, a government that has grown to enormous size. You can see that through the various pieces of legislation that they've enacted and the kinds of powers that they've given unto themselves, that they've taken away from the Legislature, that they've taken away from tribunals and that they've concentrated behind closed doors of the cabinet.
This is also a government that presumed to be giving a voice to people, yet what you see in the record of the government is in fact a government that has gone to great lengths to make the process more difficult for people to access; to make the rules more undemocratic and unfair; to limit debate at every turn; to ensure that the ordinary individual has very little to say about its policies.
If they do manage to say something, then they will be labelled a special interest group. It's what happened to the doctors and the nurses and the police and the firefighters and the teachers, and the list goes on and on. Anyone who has not agreed with this government, anyone who has dared to raise their voice, has been determined by this government to be a special interest group. Oddly enough, I think if you add all the special interest groups, you have the overwhelming majority of Ontarians, and still they do not get the message.
This is a government, after all, that chose to go to court and argue that they had a royal prerogative to do as they wished because they had a majority. Outrageous. The court found in that particular instance that their claim was bogus, that a democratically elected government cannot rely on the royal prerogative. I would remind you, Speaker, that in faraway England, when the monarchs did in fact try that they tended to lose their heads, and so it will be with this government in the fullness of time.
Let me just take you through some of the legislation that leads Ontarians to the conclusions I have just set out for you.
I think the most notorious example of all was Bill 26. You may remember some two years ago we were in this Legislature filibustering against what appeared to be, and since then has been demonstrated to be, a signature piece of this government, a bill which, under the guise of trying to deal with fiscal matters, took powers away and into the cabinet.
The opposition at the time said: "We understand. You're a government that was elected to deal with the fiscal reality. You're a government that has a particular attention to bring to the matter of fiscal reality. We understand that you have issues that you want to deal with quickly. So what we will do for you is we will agree to sever those matters that deal with the fiscal situation and leave the others for debate. We will deal with the fiscal matters quickly and the others we won't subject to debate." The government responded, "No, it's all or nothing."
When you look at that bill, it's really very instructive. You find that, in particular, the Minister of Health is given unprecedented powers, unparalleled powers, the kinds of powers that have been offered to ministers of health before who have refused them because they bordered on the undemocratic: the power to close hospitals; the power to take over boards of hospitals; the power to determine what information would be released and what would be kept private; the power to take over the entire medical establishment if they so chose. All by regulation, none of it subjected to public scrutiny, none of it subjected to debate.
We were shocked. I think all of Ontario was shocked that a government would come in and so clearly flout the rules of democracy, the rules of convention, so we staged a filibuster to draw attention to the fact that this bill was unprecedented, unparalleled and unconscionable.
Since then, I'd like to report that the government learned a lesson as people demonstrated against that bill and as we indicated our opposition to it. But they boldly went on. They went on to Bill 103 to amalgamate the six cities of Toronto and surrounding Toronto into one city. The people said: "No, we don't like this. We want to be consulted. We want to talk about it. We have distinct identities that we want to protect. We feel that we have something to contribute separately. We feel that there are no efficiencies to be gained by amalgamation."
And you know what? The experts agreed with them. Not one expert on amalgamation said that this was a good idea. Not one of them said that this would in fact save money. Not one of them said it would be more efficient. Eventually even the government's friends began to be very concerned. The metropolitan board of trade said: "These arguments make sense. Maybe it won't be so efficient. Maybe you should really look at this." Still they didn't listen.
2030
Then the people held a referendum in all of the six cities affected by Bill 103, and the overwhelming majority of people said no, it was a bad idea. The government still didn't listen. It went on and amalgamated the cities nevertheless.
Then it was the turn of the schools. Having dealt with health, having dealt with municipalities in part, we then moved to Bill 104. Bill 104 sought to amalgamate school boards. It didn't sound too bad in principle: Reduce the number of school boards, reduce the number of trustees. There had been some discussion in the public about those and I think reasonable people would agree that there could be some changes. But I ask you what sense it makes to have school boards in Ontario that are the size of France, with virtually little representation from trustees - two trustees in such a huge area.
I ask you what sense it makes to take away the power from the local level to make decisions? We had hearings across the province with respect to Bill 104 and the overwhelming majority of people who came before us, whether they were students or parents or trustees or teachers, all said: "This is not a good idea. This hasn't been well thought out. You should consider such and such amendments." Again the government said, "We know what we're doing. We need to take control of the educational pot," and they didn't listen.
Then we moved on to Bill 152, which of course was the flip side of Bill 103. What the metropolitan board of trade was saying to the government is: "Yes, you amalgamate, but then you're going to download services. We fear that will be too much for the municipalities, that they will not be able to handle the services and the costs that you will impose on them." Bill 152 did just that. Bill 152 brought a whole lot of services on to the municipalities which they had neither the money nor the expertise to deal with.
In my own city of North York, it was estimated that just the upkeep of the social housing that would be dumped on the city would cost us $100 million a year. That pattern is repeated all across the province as you look at social services, social housing, ambulance, roads and the myriad of other services that were, without any meaningful consultation, dropped on to the municipalities.
Lo and behold, even AMO, the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, said: "Slow down. We're not sure this is what we agreed to when we elected you. We're not at all sure this is a good deal for the municipalities. We don't know that we have the tools to be able to deal with what you have given us. We don't know that we can do it without raising taxes."
Yet we've received assurances in this House that that absolutely would not happen, that there would be no tax increases. Ask yourself how that can be. Ask yourself how you can dump so much more on the municipalities and expect them to maintain the same level of service and not raise taxes. No reasonable commonsense approach to this issue leads you to the conclusion that Bill 152 will be revenue-neutral, that it will have no effect on the municipalities, that services will continue unabated, that municipalities will flourish and that taxes will not increase. The government didn't listen and the government proceeded.
Then came Bill 160. Bill 160 I think was when the majority of people truly understood the agenda of this government and the way that it does business. Bill 160, a 234-page piece of legislation purportedly about education, mentions education just twice in the title and nevermore in the body of the legislation. The entire legislation is about power, about money and about concentrating that power and the decision-making power about money in the Minister of Education. Bill 160 is possibly the most undemocratic piece of legislation that we have ever passed in Ontario.
Quite frankly, the worry out there is that having done that, there's very little need of any further public debates on education from here on in, because consider that it is the Minister of Education who will have power to determine what taxes will be, what will be taught, who will teach it. It doesn't necessarily have to be a qualified teacher, if the minister so chooses. The bill will allow the minister to determine whether a school should be sold, whether a board of the school is functioning, whether that board should be taken over, whether principals and vice-principals should remain as part of the federation of teachers, and on it goes.
Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound): That's already been decided.
Ms Castrilli: My friend says it's already been decided. Exactly, by Bill 160. That's precisely what we're talking about. I'm so glad you're listening.
I invite the member opposite to read the legislation, because it's really quite instructive. I don't believe you understand the scope of powers that you have given to the Minister of Education without quibble. You have already seen what the reaction is. There have been demonstrations throughout, there have been young children who have come here to say that this is bad legislation. There have been parents, there have been trustees, there have been teachers, there have been school boards. There have been demonstrations in this chamber and outside. There have been picket lines. There have been demonstrations in virtually every city in the province. Still the government insists on going on and still the government does not listen.
During all this the government thought: "There's too much opposition to the plan that we have in mind. There's too much opposition to the legislation that we want to put in place. Therefore, we also need to try and curtail debate as much as possible."
I won't talk about the kinds of mistakes that were made very early on, trying to curtail demonstrations of ordinary people, who were arrested when they tried to get into the chamber, but I will refer to the rules of this House, which have been so curtailed and so horrendous as to abridge the privileges of members of this House to be able to adequately debate the complex legislation that comes before us at breakneck speed.
On top of it all, not only has the government managed to limit the amount of debate, not only has it managed to double a sessional day by having two sessional days in one calendar day, but the government continues by regularly invoking time allocation motions. A time allocation motion, as you know, is a motion which limits even further the amount of time that we can debate in this chamber, and it has been ruled as a legitimate abridgement of a member's privilege.
2040
But I ask you to consider, when you have a time allocation motion that so abridges the ability to debate, whether that doesn't destroy the privilege altogether. When you have a situation where you can only spend an hour to debate particular amendments, how is that meaningful? How can you bring thoughtful intelligence to bear on the issue? How can you make reasoned decisions? How do you know that you're making just decisions if you don't hear all parties and all sides?
These are the hallmarks of this government. This is a government, as I have indicated before, that has argued it has a royal prerogative simply because it has a majority, and this is a government that behaves as though it is a monarchy. But it is a monarchy subject to the people nevertheless, and all of those people who have spoken out on all of that legislation and other legislation I've not had the time to mention here today will eventually have their say.
If you want some kind of sense about what people are saying about this government, it is not only that it's going too fast, too far, but that it lacks thoughtfulness, that it has gone way beyond the bounds of what they were elected to do.
If this government were to be given a report card now - and my friend from Ottawa West has already mentioned the by-elections which have already spoken as to this government - if we look at democratic process, there's no question that the people of Ontario would give this government a resounding F. If you look at their ability to consult, again you have a very resounding F. If you look at their interest in equity issues, in justice issues, in equality issues, I think F is too generous for this government. If you look at their fiscal responsibility, again you have an F, because this is a government that is determined that in spite of all that's going on, in spite of all the cutbacks that they are forcing on ordinary people, they are taking $5 billion and giving it to some of the wealthiest people in this province.
There is no corporation in the world that would give money away to its shareholders when it was trying to fight a debt. Let's not believe that they're doing this all in order to be fiscally responsible, because quite frankly that's not what this government is about.
I thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to comment on the performance of this government.
Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): It's with a certain amount of trepidation that I get an opportunity to speak on this motion, because what we're debating here is a House calendar motion on the part of the Conservation government and I think we need to put into context why it is that we're dealing with a House calendar motion.
For people who are watching or wondering what this is all about, the government of Ontario wants to pass a bunch of bills. The government, quite frankly, in this particular fall session has been pretty incompetent about how they've run things in the House and how they've introduced bills in the House and been dealing with things, so they find themselves in the unfortunate position of having to put in place a House calendar motion that will allow the House to sit later hours next week.
Now, I don't complain. As far as I'm concerned we can sit here 24 hours a day. That's what we get paid to do, that's what we come to Queen's Park for. But I think you have to ask yourself the question, why does the government find itself in the position that it is, especially when they introduced the rules of the House that they did last August?
Members in this assembly would know, as a lot of people in the public know, that the government last August introduced rules in the House that changed the way our standing orders work so that they're able to change how bills pass through this House, as compared to what it was, let's say, six months ago. In the past, if the government decided to introduce a bill, it didn't matter if it was Bill Davis's government, Frank Miller's government, David Peterson or Bob Rae, or even Mike Harris when he was first elected in 1995, you had to go through a process. It had something to do with what we call democracy.
This particular government says: "Listen, democracy when it comes to us is a foreign word and we don't understand what it means. Therefore we're going to do away with the ideas of democracy." So they introduced ideas and principles within the standing orders, rules are what they really are, that allow them to do all kinds of stuff, like on Monday morning come into the House, introduce a bill and have it passed into third reading by Wednesday.
Then the government has the audacity to come into this House two weeks before the end of the session in December and introduce a House calendar motion that allows them to sit until midnight every night of the week, or actually two nights next week, so that they're able to have the time to fix the mistakes they've made over the past little while.
Let's take a look at some of the things they mixed up. Members of this assembly would know - a bunch of people came to visit Queen's Park not too long ago, as a matter of fact this morning - but do you remember what the Minister of Agriculture, Noble Villeneuve, did today? He went out to the farming community of Ontario and said: "Come down to Queen's Park. I'm going to introduce an important bill for the agricultural community of Ontario." He invited all of the agricultural community down here and said: "I've got pull, I've got weight, I know how to do things. I've got a bill that's good for the agricultural community." He wanted to put in place a Milk Amendment Act, something that we would have supported.
What happened? The minister fouled up. Instead of dealing with the Milk Amendment Act, we're here dealing now with this particular House calendar motion because the government fouled up. What's really amazing is that the minister invited them down and hadn't even talked to the government House leader to assure himself that his Milk Amendment Act would be debated. You've got to say to yourself, what is it with these people? They're not able, with the new rules of the House, to pass bills through the House, which should take a lot more time than they do now so we could have some sane debate and make sure that the public is consulted whenever we pass bills.
What's even more amazing is that the Minister of Agriculture isn't talking to his own House leader. He goes to the agriculture community and says: "Come down to Queen's Park. View me as I do my job as the Minister of Agriculture representing the people of Ontario. We want to deal with the Milk Amendment Act." He didn't even have the courtesy to talk to the House leader because, obviously, the House leader had other ideas. He wanted to debate this House calendar motion.
On behalf of the Legislature of Ontario and on behalf of the New Democratic Party, and on behalf of the Minister of Agriculture, I would like to apologize to the agricultural community that came here today to hear this very important debate that should have taken place tonight. Did the Minister of Agriculture come into the House and make some kind of public statement and say, "Oops, I goofed, I blundered"? No. Again, they don't want to take responsibility for anything they do. I can't say the member is not in the House, because that would be against the standing orders. I can't say the Minister of Agriculture isn't here tonight to talk about what he did when he invited all of the agricultural community to come here. I know it's against the standing orders, so I won't mention that he's not here.
Another blunder on the part of the government: The government came here with Bill 164 a couple of weeks ago. I'm just trying to show a pattern here when it comes to this government. They're really incompetent. Can you imagine what they would have said about Bill Davis, David Peterson, Frank Miller or Bob Rae if they had had to come to the House to introduce a bill to amend a bill that had just recently been passed in the House? They would have said, "My Lord, if you can't figure out how to run the House, why are you Premier?"
No, Mike Harris is really smart. Normie Sterling, the member for Ottawa whatever, he's really smart too. They know how to figure these things out. Why did they bring in Bill 164? They brought in Bill 164 because they blundered. They had to amend Bill 149, the assessment act, because they made mistakes in Bill 149 and they had passed that bill just recently. Instead of saying, "We'll take our time, we'll send it to committee, we'll make the amendments that are necessary to get it right," they had to rush Bill 149 through the new rules process. They speedily passed Bill 149 through the House and they got it wrong, so they needed to bring in Bill 164 - Bills 149 to 164 ain't a lot of numbers; it tells you how recent Bill 149 was - to amend Bill 149 because they got it wrong.
But Bill 164 didn't just amend Bill 149; it amended Bill 160, a bill that we voted on not more than two weeks ago, or a week and a half ago. The government with great fanfare and insults to the teaching profession and trustees of this province brought in Bill 160 to destroy our system of public education and they couldn't even get their own bill right. Not that I agree with Bill 160; I think it's a terrible piece of legislation, but the least they can do is get it right. But no, they had to come back with Bill 164 and make amendments to Bill 160 because they passed Bill 160 through the House in record time under the new rules process. What happened? Here the government again has blundered, another incompetence, another time that the government demonstrated itself as not being able to pass its own bill through the House. But it doesn't end there.
2050
Yesterday, budget bill number 3; the government introduced budget bill number 3. The bill is this thick, about 200 pages thick. They introduce the bill into the House, one of their budget measures, and then they say, "We need to get this passed by January 1." Where have you guys been for the last six months? You introduced the bill last spring.
Mr Bradley: Changing the rules.
Mr Bisson: Exactly, that's the point I'm getting at. It's because the government members and the House leader of the time were busy getting the House back in August to do what? To change the rules of the House and pass a bill lickety-split so they can get things right, so they can rule for democracy. They've now introduced budget bill number 3, it's about 200 pages thick and they want this House to deal with budget bill number 3 in a week and a half of House time. It's not even a week and a half. We've got Thursday to deal with it and four days next week and they wonder why we're coming in with a House calendar motion. It's because this government blundered again. Again the finance minister couldn't talk to the House leader and figure out how to get the legislation through.
It doesn't end there. I remember last summer; I couldn't believe this. My good friends Len Wood from Cochrane North, Tony Martin from Sault Ste Marie, Mr Silipo from Dovercourt and I were members of the Bob Rae government. I remember when we had to pass bills through the House and bring bills to committee our members used to go the House and to committee and pay attention to what went on. Do you remember what happened last summer with Bill 142, the bill that amends the social assistance act? The Tories were sleeping at committee. They fell asleep.
Thank God for the people of Ontario that they fell asleep: Because of that rest, working people who happen to be unemployed at this point and on welfare are now protected under the Employment Standards Act, because the Mike Harris government, the one that says, "We're fair, we're reasonable, we're trying to do things in a balanced way," was trying to take away the employment standards protection of people in Ontario and that they would be on workfare. Luckily for us the Tories weren't paying attention and they fell asleep at committee and lost that particular part of the act. I think that's a good thing. I wish you would sleep more often. Unfortunately, I think it demonstrates just how this government is. They can't get it right. They blunder.
Tonight Bill 164, the very bill I talked about before - it's good thing you're in the chair, Mr Speaker. The government might have lost the bill. I'm glad you were in the chair because I wouldn't want to see the government lose the bill. That wouldn't be very nice.
Interjection.
Mr Bisson: Maybe we want them to lose the bill. What a good point. I'll tell you, this Mike Harris Conservative government goes on and on about, "We're good business managers, we're people who ran businesses before." What businesses did you run? Were you with Campeau? Who were you with? Were you with Bre-X? What businesses were you with? They were failed businesses, because you can't run this government. You can't get it straight. I'm telling you this government has got to start getting it right.
This government blunders to no end. We have to take a look at a very important document that I have in front of me now. This document is called the American College Dictionary. It's the dictionary the government gave us. It's a very tattered dictionary, I might add, because they don't believe in books. They burned most of them last week in a ritual they had. We found this book in the legislative library and it's called a dictionary. I want to go through the word "blunder" with you. I want people in the House and the people of Ontario to decide with me which of these particular definitions best describes what the government has done.
The word "blunder": "(1) a gross or stupid mistake." I want to know, is that what we would classify all of these examples as, a gross or stupid mistake? "(2) "to move or act blindly, stupidly or without direction or steady guidance." Is it number two?
Mr Cullen: Bill 160.
Mr Bisson: That's Bill 160. I think that describes it very well. Number (3) under the word "blunder," b-l-u-n-d-e-r, for those of you on the other side of the House who want to know what the word is: "to make a gross or stupid mistake, especially through mental confusion."
Mr Cullen: Bill 26.
Mr Bisson: Hang on, "mental confusion," I have something here that refers to mental confusion. I want members of the House to tell me which MPP said the following comments. Listen to this. I want the members of the House to pay attention. We are supposed to be the people that represent the people of Ontario, and I want you to tell me (a) what party does this member belong to and (b) who is he? All right? Here's the quote: "The most crime-free era was when times were tough during the Depression. When times are tough, crime drops. So there is no relationship in my mind between poverty and crime." I want to know who said that. What party?
Interjection.
Mr Bisson: The Conservative Party, you're right. Very good. You've figured it out. And the member was? Jim Brown.
Mr Bradley: That's the Reform Party.
Mr Bisson: It's the same thing: Reform Party, Conservative Party, same thing. I think that either would be classified as number 3, "to make a gross or stupid mistake, especially through mental confusion," or it falls under 2, "to move or act blindly, stupidly or without direction or steady guidance." I think it's one of the two. I need a vote. Which one is it? But it doesn't end there. The Conservatives -
Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): Let's have more poverty and less crime.
Mr Bisson: Oh, and more poverty and less crime, as the member for Sault Ste Marie says. Exactly. These are the people running the government, making comments like this, and it doesn't end there. I looked at the Toronto Sun, Wednesday, December 10. I want to show you the Sun. That is the bastion of Conservatism in Ontario. Who are these people on this picture? Well, we have pictures of Jim Brown, the same person who made the previous comment. We have Gerry Martiniuk and Bob Wood, all of them members of the Tory party -
Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): Not related to me.
Mr Bisson: Not related to Len Wood. I've got to tell you, in no way related to Len Wood. Len Wood would never say this.
In the Toronto Sun, listen to this headline - no, I don't want to read the headline now. I want to read the comments and then the headline. It says, and listen to this, "`I want to say to all the lawbreakers out there that people have had enough,' Tory MPP Jim Brown said. `And from now on, no more Mr Nice Guy.'"
Now listen to this part. "At the official launch of the Ontario Crime Control Commission yesterday, Tory MPP Bob Wood said, `Police should stifle all crime, no matter how small.'" And what crimes are we talking about? Jaywalking. Oh, my God, throw them in jail. And guess what? Public urination. Oh my. The headline reads, "Mind Pees and Qs, Crime Czars Warn."
I can tell you what they did with the last czars and it wasn't pretty, and we wouldn't want people to do that with you. But I come back to what this dictionary says. When you see Conservatives like Mr Wood making the comment that he wants to get tough on crime by punishing people and throwing them in jail for littering, jaywalking and public urination - my Lord, he's going to get tough on crime. My Lord, he's got his priorities straight, that man.
Now, I want to go back to the dictionary. The dictionary says, "blunder: to bungle or botch" - I don't think that's the case. I think he knew what he was talking about - "to utter thoughtlessly or blurt out" - I think he's still blurting as he speaks. It comes down to "a gross or stupid mistake." Which one is it? Is it close?
Interjection.
Mr Bisson: Okay, "blurt out." Or "to move or act blindly, stupidly or without direction or steady guidance or to make a gross or stupid mistake especially through mental confusion." I think it is number 3. There is plenty of mental confusion within the Conservative caucus of Ontario. Why else would they turn around and say the most crime-free era was when times were tough during the Depression and when times are tough, crime drops?
Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): They want a depression.
Mr Bisson: They want another depression; that's got to be what they're saying. I'm not joking. The sad part is, this is true. This is what one Tory MPP, Jim Brown, said, "There is no relationship in my mind between poverty and crime." I don't want Bob Wood -
Interjection.
2100
Mr Bisson: Oh my God, he agrees too. Jim Brown says, "There is no relationship in my mind between poverty and crime." I don't want to delve into this man's mind. It's scary, it's terrible. But in all seriousness, I think it demonstrates where this government is at. You have a gang of Reform-minded Tories who came to Queen's Park in June 1995. They are here to reform Ontario, to reform the laws of the province, to throw all the public urinators, the litterers and jaywalkers into jail.
This is a sad state of affairs. I always thought that Ontario was somewhat of a compassionate province. The Ontario that I grew up in was the Ontario that said, quite frankly, that all Ontarians have a place in our society that is important. Governments in the past, Conservative, Liberal and New Democrat, understood that in a caring, compassionate society, we have to have respect for each other; we have to understand that at the end of the day we have to be able to govern on behalf of all of the people of the province of Ontario.
I think this particular motion we have before us today demonstrates just at what point this government has lost. I repeat one more, when it comes to the word "blunder," there are five definitions. The definitions are "a gross or stupid mistake; to move or act blindly, stupidly or without direction or steady guidance; to make a gross or stupid mistake, especially through mental confusion; to bungle, botch; or to utter thoughtlessly or blurt out." In many cases, unfortunately, there is more than one member of the Tory caucus who fit all five of these definitions.
Mr Speaker, protect us from the evil of this government. We are in deep trouble.
Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): It's always interesting to speak on the night of a Christmas party. I want to tell you, in speaking to this calendar motion this evening, that actually I favour the extension of time here. I favour us being here. I think there's much work to do, particularly because the government has not addressed a number of the issues that I find are terribly important in my own constituency.
We have for some time, for example, lobbied, worked in order that, in the community of Elliot Lake, we would have long-term-care beds. As people know, Elliot Lake is a community that has been in transition, had made a phoenix-like rise from the devastation of losing about 4,000 very good industrial jobs in our mines and is now a retirement community. What that means, of course, is that the demographics of Elliot Lake have changed dramatically and that we have a population now that is more like the provincial average.
Before, the Elliot Lake of seven or eight years ago was a place where the average age was about 38, a very young community. Now, because in some ways it has imported its grandparents, it has become a community not unlike most communities across Ontario in terms of demographics. What it doesn't have is long-term-care beds and we've been trying to make this point with the Minister of Health for a long time. We have talked to your minister responsible for seniors about that. We have been attempting as a community, Mayor George Farkouh, Sister Sarah Quackenbush, Gil Contant from Huron Lodge, we have all been trying to make the point that long-term-care beds in Elliot Lake are a necessity. Here we are, coming towards the end of a session, and nothing has been realized in terms of dealing with those very significant issues for seniors in Elliot Lake.
I think you must understand over there that long-term-care beds in northern Ontario are in some ways more important. It's true, there are long-term-care beds available but they are available 60, 70 or 80 miles away. It is just not acceptable that we ask a senior to go to visit their spouse 60 or 70 miles away. We need those kinds of facilities right in Elliot Lake.
I want to talk about physicians and health care, because we have a problem with the number of physicians in the community of Elliot Lake. While it would not be described as a crisis, it is certainly a cause for concern. Many people are having problems at the moment getting themselves a family physician. We have lost a couple of physicians. Sister Sarah Quackenbush at the hospital and the mayor and his council and a whole host of people have been working very hard to recruit new physicians with some success, but it hasn't materialized that we have a sufficient complement of physicians in that community as of yet.
It is also a cause of concern that we have lost all our francophone physicians in Elliot Lake. With a sizeable French-speaking population there is a need for probably two bilingual physicians, which the Minister of Health has not done a great deal about. We look forward to the minister addressing that particular situation.
We've also had problems with people in the health care professions, whether it's physiotherapists or others.
When I'm in the constituency office, when our phones ring, those are the kinds of issues that we're hearing about that the government is just not addressing.
I want to talk a little bit about what's happening in - the government's acronym is CCACs, which really means home care, for people who don't understand the bureaucratic rattle of all these things. In that situation we're finding across the riding, regardless of community, whether we're looking at Manitoulin or Espanola or along the North Shore, that home care is becoming stressed out. It is not able to meet the needs of people who are being discharged from hospitals quicker and sicker, as they say, or have a need for long-term care, more chronic type of care. As we attempt to meet the restrictions of great cuts in funding to our hospitals by trying to go to a more community-based care system, the government is just not investing resources within that community care system to provide the kind of adequate care our people need.
I also want to talk a little bit about what else isn't being addressed. Education in our communities is suffering. Members may remember that last week I raised an issue of adult education along the North Shore and in Elliot Lake. Surprisingly, astoundingly, of the 70 graduates of that particular program, Mr Speaker - and you'd be interested in this - when they started in adult education fully 85% of them, if I'm correct, were on some kind of public assistance, whether that was unemployment insurance or social assistance or workers' compensation. Following their graduation, only 10% of those people were on any kind of government support. That is an astounding record and one that I think the government would want to encourage.
But we're hearing that now, under the new funding models, very likely adult education will not be delivered along the North Shore. With that kind of success, I wonder why any government would not want to invest in its people so that they can be productive citizens in our communities, have fulfilling lives and contribute to the wellbeing of all of us. But that's what's going on. We have some tremendous success stories which the government now seems to want to dismiss.
During the Bill 160 debate and the ensuing protest, I talked to parents and educators across the constituency, visited a lot of the protest lines at the schools. I found what only could be described as a strong resolve but a profound sadness. The government's intent appears to be to destroy publicly funded education within this province; that's clear. I don't know that many of the Conservative members took the opportunity to actually go out to the protest lines to find out what people were saying, what the parents who were on the lines and teachers and others were saying . But you should have done it, because your characterization of this group of union bosses couldn't be further from the truth.
2110
I talked to the elementary school teachers, the grade 3 teachers, the kindergarten teachers. They were truly saddened that they felt they had to do what they were doing. I think we should applaud them for being out on the protest, because they understood this was about children, it was about education, it was about the future of the province. They understood very well what this is about, and they were quite willing to sacrifice their salaries and their time to be out in the snow and inclement weather trying to make a point with Mike Harris and this government, to say, "We just can't do that."
Here we are in this place. Supposedly tomorrow would be the last day of the calendar, I believe. At this juncture we're seeing legislation still having to do with education in Bill 164, amending a bill that was just passed a week ago. We're seeing ourselves here with a number of issues not resolved to anyone's satisfaction. So I'm glad we're going to be around for another week. I'm hoping that early in the next year we can be back, because I think there are a number of issues that just are not being addressed here in Ontario.
We want to talk about the municipalities here for a minute. When we talk about municipalities, I'm not sure people really understand that what we're really talking about are the taxpayers. Those taxpayers happen to be the property taxpayers. I see that some of you over there might be interested in property tax.
Here's what the Association of Municipal Clerks and Treasurers says about the government's recent initiative: "The cumulative effect of Bills 106, 149, 160 and now 164 is that we no longer have a municipal property tax system. We have a provincial tax system administered by municipalities. The province controls the education tax, it determines classes and subclasses of land, it allocates tax ratios and transition ratios. And now it may determine what will go on the tax notice."
Mr Cullen: All by regulation.
Mr Michael Brown: Exactly. "All by regulation," my friend says.
This is not a radical group; this is the municipal clerks and treasurers. I want to read that again. It says, "The cumulative effect of Bill 106, 149, 160 and now 164 is that we no longer have a municipal property tax system.... We have a provincial tax system administered by municipalities." That's exactly what's going on.
What we have is a government that is taking total control of the municipalities, total control of school boards. It is all in the back room. It's not even responsible here, to the Legislature. Those decisions will be made by the whiz kids, Guy Giorno and his buddies in the back rooms. But the municipalities will have to now levy taxes over which they have virtually no control, and the government is betting that the electorate will not understand that the municipalities are just the group collecting the tax, that the real decisions are all being made here at Queen's Park, but Queen's Park does not want to take responsibility for those decisions. Interesting politics, and it's going to be interesting to see if you guys over there can get away with that: take total control, but all the responsibility is somewhere else. That's the smoke and mirrors we're seeing here today.
Interjection.
Mr Michael Brown: What was that?
Interjection.
Mr Michael Brown: Well, he is right. That's exactly what the clerk-treasurers are saying about what's going on in the municipalities. I guess the Conservative members don't think the clerk-treasurers' association of Ontario knows what's going on. That's what they say is going on in this province: "The province controls the education tax." It does. It "determines classes and subclasses of land, it allocates tax ratios and transition ratios, and now it may determine what will go on the tax notice." That's what they said. I don't think there's much debating what that particular piece of legislation says.
Interjections.
The Acting Speaker: Member for Grey-Owen Sound, come to order.
Mr Michael Brown: I'm pleased to continue. I've obviously piqued some interest on the other side. That's good. It means that a few of them are awake.
I also want to talk about this huge income tax cut -
Laughter.
Mr Michael Brown: You're laughing - that is being seen by everyone in this province for what it is. The bond rating agencies, for example, call it risky and dangerous, when you have a huge deficit to begin with. That's where you start, with a huge deficit, and you add this decrease in income tax. You're going to try to buy some votes with it, but that's what it's about.
What's interesting is who's paying. It's the property taxpayer who's paying. You've shifted it down to the property tax. If you include the previous cuts of the social contract, you've cut about $1 billion from education. You're going to cut another $700 million from education, according to your deputy minister's contract. So who is going to save the money? Is it the property taxpayer who's going to save the $1.7 billion? The answer is no. The best the government can do is feebly promise that this is going to be neutral, but $1.7 billion would reduce your property taxes by at least 10% in this province, probably closer to 15% or 20%. That's what's going on. You don't seem to recognize what's going on, over on the other side. I don't think the agenda of this government has been particularly -
Interjections.
The Acting Speaker: Order. I'd like to see everyone here with us until 9:30. Please be in order.
Mr Michael Brown: The government doesn't seem to want to have light shed upon what is really going on here these days. They don't want anybody to say what the real agenda is. The real agenda is to shift control into the back rooms at Queen's Park, to centralize power here at Queen's Park, to make sure that local officials have little or no input into what goes on. That is clearly the case. Bill after bill does that. It provides broad regulatory power that will not be reviewed by this Parliament. It provides that the decisions will not be made by local councils.
Disentanglement is a joke. I'd like the government to tell me what it is they've disentangled. They cannot find anything within this disentanglement, other than maybe giving sole control of ambulances to municipalities, which they never had before. That's about the only thing I can think of that isn't just as tangled or more entangled than it ever was.
I want to support this calendar motion, because we need to stay here and talk about these things. We need to be able to come before Parliament and bring these issues out day after day, hopefully so the government can understand that people in this province want to have some local input and authority, so they can choose their own destiny rather than have it dictated from a faraway Queen's Park through the machinations of the ideologues in the Premier's office. That's what it's all about. I think that agenda is becoming quite clear to the people of Ontario. The people of Ontario understand that this is about big government, about mega-government - more expensive, less responsive to community needs.
2120
Mr Cullen: Less transparent.
Mr Michael Brown: My friend says, "Less transparent." This is completely opaque.
Mr Murdoch: Who is your friend, anyway?
Mr Michael Brown: Ottawa West, I believe.
We're proud to go forward here in the House trying to keep the government accountable. We look forward not only to sitting next week, but hopefully coming back early in the new year so we can hold the government accountable for its no doubt strange agenda as we go forward through January, February and March. I think that's what the people of Ontario expect of us; they expect us to be here. I want to be here. I want to keep this government accountable. We want to make sure that some accountability can be kept before the people of Ontario.
Mr Speaker, thank you very much for giving me this opportunity to bring my views before the Legislature and to wish the constituents in Algoma-Manitoulin a merry Christmas, in case I don't have another opportunity.
Mr Martin: I'm with the member for Algoma-Manitoulin: I think it's a good idea that we're here tonight speaking on these issues that are so important to the people of Ontario. More debate, more contribution, more input, more discussion about the agenda of this government has to shed some light on what exactly is going on and the impact it will have.
I'm only disappointed that the members of the government have chosen not to participate, because I and many others out there are anxious to hear more from you about why you think what you're doing is good for Ontario, because their experience is exactly the opposite. Their experience is that everything that you've done so far is take away, everything that you've done so far is destroy, decimate, wipe out, throw into turmoil and chaos all the very valuable and important public structures that we've put in place collectively to educate kids, to keep us all healthy and to provide safety nets for people in an economy that continues to be very volatile - everything you do.
It doesn't surprise me at all, because that's what we get in this House from the other side in these debates. We get written speeches that are always in line with the ideology of the day, that never speak directly to the question, that never say anything about the issue at hand and do not in any way answer some of the very important questions raised by us in the House on behalf of the constituents we represent.
To speak here tonight -
The Acting Speaker: The Chair recognizes the member for Sault Ste Marie.
Mr Martin: Thank you. I don't know what that was all about.
The Acting Speaker: I'll just tell you what it was all about. It's one of the things I insist on, that I be able to see the person who is in debate. When I can't do that, I have to stop it so I can get that visual line. I not only want to be able to hear you, I want to be able to see you. I was just making sure I could do that.
Mr Martin: I appreciate that. At least there's one Conservative in this place who's interested in seeing and hearing what the opposition has to say on issues of importance to the people we represent. I truly appreciate that. I haven't felt that in the last two and a half years, but it's good to know, because none of you has taken the opportunity tonight to participate in the debate we have in front of us, to take the time.
I thought you changed the rules in this place, according to what I read and heard from you, so you might have more opportunity to participate, to speak on behalf of your constituents. The only conclusion I can come to is that what you're hearing from your constituents you don't want to bring back and share in this place, because it will be embarrassing to you, it will hurt you in some way politically, so you don't want to share. That's the only conclusion I can come to, the only reason I can think of that you wouldn't want to get up tonight and speak on this issue that allows you some latitude to talk about the agenda you're so proud to uphold and how it impacts on the people who live in your constituencies, the people who are affected by some of the changes you're making in the communities and towns and villages you represent.
However, I appreciate the extra time we get to stand and talk. It's interesting that the more I'm here - and that's why I'm supporting the move by the government to change the calendar so we can be here a week longer - the more I learn. I learned tonight from the member for Cochrane South in his speech - some of you will remember his speech -
Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener): You learned something?
Mr Martin: Yes, I did. Actually, tonight for me the light finally went on. I could not for the life of me understand why this government is so hell-bent on creating poverty in this province; I could not understand why that was your agenda. I could not understand why the very first thing you did was to take 21.6% away from the incomes of the poorest and the most marginalized and the most vulnerable in our communities. Do you know why they don't have jobs? Have you ever asked yourself that question? Because the economy of this province and the economy of this country naturally provides for -
Interjections.
The Acting Speaker: Order.
Mr Martin: I got a little carried away there. The members across were engaging me -
Interjection: It doesn't happen often.
Mr Martin: No, it doesn't happen often. You took 21.6% away from their incomes. Do you know what the result is? The result is a report that came out this past week that says that the number of poor kids in Canada has doubled, and Ontario rates the worst in Canada. That's what you're doing: You're creating poverty for families and you're creating poverty for children.
Let's look today at an article in the Toronto Star: "Youth Left Struggling for Basics as Companies Enjoy the Boom Times." I wondered why you're doing this. I wondered what the rationale was. Tonight I found out what we have over there -
The Acting Speaker: Order. It being nearly 9:30 of the clock, this House stands adjourned until 10 am tomorrow.
The House adjourned at 2129.