L053a - Mon 2 Nov 1998 / Lun 2 Nov 1998 1
The House met at 1333.
STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES
Prayers.
MEMBERS' STATEMENTS
SCHOOL CLOSURES
Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): Forget hunting season; it's school closing season in Sudbury and it opened with a vengeance, thanks to the poorly-thought-out funding policies of the Harris government.
On Sunday, the French-language Catholic school board met for seven and a half hours and managed to shorten the list of possible school closures from six to three. The fate of école Saint-Mathieu, école Saint-Pierre and école Léon XIII is now in the hands of the review process.
The reason for these possible closures is to try to cope with the new provincial funding formula that just doesn't provide enough money to boards. The Mike Harris government is refusing to fund our school boards adequately and refuses to address this board's $2-million shortfall.
If that's not bad enough, the Sudbury English public school board has a shortfall of $1.8 million for this year. As the superintendent of business said, there is going to be some consolidation, and the question is, which schools are going to close?
The English Catholic school board finds itself in a similar position. Under the government's formula they have 2,000 extra spaces, which translate into a possible seven school closures. How idiotic, how callous and how ill-conceived are the goals of this government for education. Their answer is to close schools, blame the boards and damn the teachers.
This government's 12-year-old mentality for governing has declared open season on our schools, and the people of Sudbury and Ontario won't allow it to happen.
Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): I just want to put on the record a list of some of the schools in western Toronto that are in danger of being closed as a direct result of the actions of the Mike Harris government: McMurrich public school, Regal Road public school, Hughes public school, Earlscourt public school, Dovercourt public school, Carleton Village public school, Palmerston public school, Shirley Street public school, Brock Avenue public school, Ossington/Old Orchard public school, F.H. Miller public school, Heydon Park secondary, Parkdale Collegiate Institute, Humewood Community School, J.R. Wilcox Community School, D.B. Hood Community School, George Harvey Collegiate, R.W. Scott, St Alphonsus Catholic school, St Peter Catholic school, St Raymond Catholic school, St Rita Catholic school, St Josaphat Catholic school - 22 schools just in west-end Toronto alone of the 160 schools throughout the new city of Toronto that are under threat of being closed by the actions of the Mike Harris government.
It should not surprise Mike Harris, Dave Johnson and members of the Tory government to have learned through their research and polling that most Ontarians believe that the government's motive in education reforms is cost-cutting. What I want to say to the government is, realize that and reverse your course rather than spending millions of dollars to try to change people's minds or to try to tell people they're wrong when they say what you're doing is cutting, cutting inordinately and cutting inappropriately in our school system. Change your course, not your message.
MICHAEL AND MATTHEW MCLENNAN
Mr Frank Klees (York-Mackenzie): Several weeks ago I had the pleasure of introducing to this House Matthew and Michael McLennan of King City, who were representing Canada at the World Age Group Trampoline Championships in Sydney, Australia. These two young men returned home on October 20 after competing on behalf of our province and our country on the world stage.
Matthew and Michael distinguished themselves in competition, with Michael finishing sixth overall in the individual 15-to-17 age group and fourth in the 15-to-17 age group for synchronized trampolining. Matthew finished 15th in a field of 50 competitors in his individual age group.
In the year 2000, Sydney will host the Olympic Games, where trampolining will be recognized for the first time as an official Olympic sport. Matthew and Michael have their sights firmly set on the Canadian team of 2004. That is another six years of training, and I must once again pay tribute to the support of the families of these Canadian athletes who give so freely. Until you rank among the very top in overall competition in this sport, there is no available funding.
The young men and women who train at the Skyriders Trampoline Place deserve our support and recognition for their enthusiastic pursuit of excellence.
Finally, their coaches, Dave Ross and Angelo Despotas, deserve our thanks for their tireless efforts on behalf of our young athletes as they pursue their dreams of Olympic gold.
ALBERT BOURDEAU
M. Jean-Marc Lalonde (Prescott et Russell) : La semaine dernière, la région de Prescott et Russell a perdu l'un de ses concitoyens les plus indispensables et remarquables. Monsieur Albert Bourdeau, âgé de seulement 59 ans, a perdu la vie à la suite d'une crise cardiaque, mais son dévouement et son engagement auprès des organismes de sa région demeureront ancrés dans la mémoire de tous ceux et celles qu'il a assistés.
Époux de Marie-Berthe Lavigne, ancien sous-préfet du canton de Russell, gérant administrateur du Centre Urgel Forget d'Embrun, président de la Commission de logement de Prescott et Russell et membre à vie de l'Association ontarienne des loisirs municipaux, Albert Bourdeau a mené une vie distinguée. Il fut un bénévole inépuisable, engagé dans de nombreuses activités communautaires, dont celles destinées à la jeunesse. Son sens de communauté l'a influencé dans tous ses projets, particulièrement les rénovations de l'église de la paroisse Saint-Jacques d'Embrun. Son approche chaleureuse et respectueuse lui a permis d'accomplir tout projet. Il fut l'institution de sa communauté.
Albert Bourdeau fut une pierre précieuse. Son travail et sa générosité ont surpassé les frontières de sa communauté. L'annonce de son décès laisse un grand vide dans le coeur des résidents des huit municipalités des comtés unis de Prescott et Russell.
1340
SCHOOL CLOSURES
Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): I spent the weekend, both Saturday and Sunday, in my community, out with parents with petitions for only two of the 11 schools that are on the hit list caused by this Tory government's education cuts and policies. For the record, some of these schools are Dundas Junior, Leslieville Junior, Pape Avenue, Earl Grey, Bruce, East York Alternative, Eastdale Collegiate and Greenwood, as well as Holy Name, St Anne and St William separate schools. There is also the First Nations school which will be affected, and the special Afrocentric program in Eastdale.
The potential closing of those schools has very wide-ranging effects in our community. They not only hurt the students who go there but they hurt daycares, ESL classes, breakfast clubs, lunch clubs, programs for a lot of low-income people and a lot of community programs. The community around those schools will be devastated if those schools are closed.
I want to say today that we are fighting as a community. The schools refuse to play the game of one school being pitted against the other. I would ask the government today to stop its scaremongering and to sit down with the people who have looked at this formula to try to work this out. The formula doesn't work. Please change it.
QUILT EXTRAVAGANZA
Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): Today, November 2, marks the beginning of a very special event in my riding of Durham East. The Durham Trillium Quilter's Guild will be holding its Quilt Extravaganza this week from November 2 to 7.
Over 200 handcrafted quality quilts will be on display throughout my riding, at Camp Samac and Port Perry, and the town of Bowmanville will be featuring a unique quilt heritage tour and show. In my constituency office, a beautiful handmade quilt featuring the provincial flowers from across Canada will be on display. This quilt is valued at $15,000. I'm proud, on behalf of my constituents, that one of these quilts will be featured in this display in my constituency office.
Carole Gould, a small business owner in my riding, is directing the festival. Her store, Gould's Card and Gift on King Street in Bowmanville, will be just one of the many displays during this week.
This is a very active group of non-profit volunteers who donate quilts to the Canadian Cancer Society, Lakeridge Health Corp and Denise House for abused women.
The extravaganza has planned a full week, including a display at the Bowmanville Museum, a heritage tour of town, a display at Ocala Orchards and Winery, as well as exhibits at the visual arts centre and Archibald's Orchards and Estate Winery, and a luncheon at St Paul's United Church. This is only a brief look at what is scheduled for the week.
I wish to thank the organizers and volunteers for this week, especially Carole Gould, Alice Carnegie, Joyce Hancock, Marilyn Martin and Betty Blaker, among others who have promoted -
The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you.
SCHOOL CLOSURES
Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville): I was reviewing clippings from the last election. Do you remember what Mike Harris said? Their cuts weren't going to affect the classroom. You know what? He wasn't kidding. They're not affecting the classroom; they're affecting schools, hundreds of schools right across this province.
In my community, Harrow District High School, Forster, Walkerville, W.D. Lowe - they're all on the block. None of them should be on the block. Western Secondary School.
What's it all about? It's about tax cuts. It's not about good education; it's not about healthy education; it's not about lower class sizes. It's about money. It's about broken campaign promises. This government is closing close to 600 schools throughout Ontario, and they're trying to blame the trustees. We have their communication strategy here, the communication strategy that's going to try to lay it out on someone else.
Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): Blame the boards.
Mr Duncan: Blame the boards; that's right. You blame the boards right across Ontario.
They are calculating their funding formula on a square footage basis. Does anybody know the only other organization in this country that does that? The correctional service of Canada. That's who calculates it: the correctional service of Canada and Mike Harris's education bureaucrats and this government. The people of Ontario know it's Mike Harris and every Tory member across this province who are closing schools. You'll pay the price next spring.
Interjections.
The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order. You are not to applaud in the galleries, by the way.
Member for Hamilton Centre.
Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I would point out, first of all, that my community -
Interjections.
Mr Mike Colle (Oakwood): What about the kids in the schools?
The Speaker: Order, member for Oakwood. Do you want to restart the clock?
Mr Christopherson: Thank you, Speaker. I would point out at the outset that my community of Hamilton-Wentworth, like all the other communities that are being mentioned this morning, is being devastated by the list of school closures, over 40 of them region-wide potentially to be closed.
I would also say that because our public school board is standing up to this government and saying no, they won't shut down that number of schools in a matter of weeks, we're going to be penalized to the tune of millions of dollars every year for 25 years. That is in addition to the continuing crisis around the property tax increases. The government thinks they've solved this with their capped percentages, but that's not doing it; that's not solving all the problems.
What do we hear in Hamilton from our four Tory MPPs, the government backbenchers? "Our local government hasn't cut enough. The problem is bad management. You folks haven't done enough."
Let me point out that our councils have cut out $50 million a year, and these members sit here, high and mighty, thinking that just because they are MPPs, suddenly they know better than anyone. Not a one of them has sat on a school board, on a regional council or a city council or at a cabinet table and made the tough decisions and faced the public.
I say to them, you want to review line by line in Hamilton-Wentworth? Come on in. Publicly sit down with the books and you tell the community what services you're prepared to cut to maintain and pay for Mike Harris's 30% tax cut. Come on in and do it in public. You do the job.
Mr Peter L. Preston (Brant-Haldimand): The bureaucracy, yes, I will.
The Speaker: Member for Brant-Haldimand, can you come to order, please.
ST AGNES PEACE GARDEN
Mr Jack Carroll (Chatham-Kent): As the students and staff of St Agnes school in Chatham-Kent watch on TV, I rise today to salute them on their success in building a peace garden.
The peace garden program includes 500 schools across Canada, with 200 gardens in Ontario. This garden serves as an outdoor classroom to teach our young students the civic virtues of care for public property, honesty, civic pride, and love of nature and one another.
The garden features quotes from famous individuals, including Winnie the Pooh and Charlotte of Charlotte's Web. Although the St Agnes Peace Garden is only a little over a year old, it has been the recipient of many environmental awards.
Perhaps this garden will not only teach our children but will remind us as adults what should be most valued. Recently in my community of Chatham-Kent, during our harvest festival, the students of St Agnes donated food which they had grown to the Women's Centre and Transition House. The students are showing us that peace and community fellowship are something we should all work at. I look forward to meeting with them this Remembrance Day.
For their efforts, I would like to congratulate the students and faculty of St Agnes for establishing such a beautiful natural habitat. I also congratulate Larry Kearns of St Agnes, who got the project started, and the organizers of the international peace garden program, two of whom are with us today: Julia Morton-Marr, president of the International Holistic Tourism Education Centre, and Ganis Alton, board member of IHTEC.
Maybe someday every school will have a peace garden.
INTRODUCTION OF BILLS
SOCIAL WORK AND SOCIAL SERVICE WORK ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR LE TRAVAIL SOCIAL ET LES TECHNIQUES DE TRAVAIL SOCIAL
Mrs Ecker moved first reading of the following bill:
Bill 76, An Act to Establish the Ontario College of Social Workers and Social Service Workers / Projet de loi 76, Loi créant l'Ordre des travailleurs sociaux et des techniciens en travail social de l'Ontario.
The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.
MOTIONS
HOUSE SITTINGS
Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): I move that, pursuant to standing order 9(c), the House shall meet from 6:30 pm to 9:30 pm on November 2, 3, 4 and 5, 1998, for the purpose of considering government business.
The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.
1350
COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTIONS
Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): I move that the following changes be made to the standing committees: on the standing committee on government agencies, Mr Cullen be removed and Mr Gerretsen be added; and on the standing committee on social development, Mr Cullen and Mr Barrett be added.
The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?
All those in favour, please say "aye."
All those opposed, please say "nay."
In my opinion, the ayes have it.
I declare the motion carried.
STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES
REGULATION OF SOCIAL WORKERS
Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Community and Social Services): Earlier today I introduced the Social Work and Social Service Work Act, 1998.
The purpose of this legislation is to establish a regulatory college for social workers and social service workers. If passed, it will accomplish two key objectives: to provide recognition to this important profession and to ensure that the public is receiving quality services.
If passed, this bill will provide enhanced support for public protection. Thousands of vulnerable children and adults receive services from social workers and social service workers every year in this province. They, and we, need to know they are receiving help that meets the highest ethical and quality standards possible.
As members know, last week I introduced important amendments to the Child and Family Services Act. The legislation I am introducing today fully supports the directions we are taking to reform the child protection system. A self-regulating profession will help to raise the skills of child protection workers and it will ensure that vulnerable children receive the best care possible.
The Social Work and Social Service Work Act fills a void that has existed for too long. Ontario is the only jurisdiction in Canada without legislation covering social work. For many years, the Ontario Association of Social Workers and, more recently, the Ontario College of Certified Social Workers, have both argued for legislation to recognize their profession. This government agreed and the Premier committed to grant legislative status to the profession. Today we are able to identify yet another promise made, and kept, by this government.
I would like to provide members with a brief outline of the purposes of this bill. The legislation would establish a self-funding and self-governing College of Social Workers and Social Service Workers. College membership would be required for any person in Ontario who wants to use the title social worker or social service worker.
The proposal to designate the two groups within this legislation - social service workers as well as social workers - warrants specific emphasis. The inclusion of social service workers puts Ontario in a leading position in comparison to other Canadian jurisdictions. It would expand significantly the number of practitioners subject to a code of ethics and standards of practice.
The proposed College of Social Workers and Social Service Workers would be governed by a council of 21 members. There would be equal representation from both professional sectors covered by the bill, as well as from members of the public appointed by the government.
The proposed college would support quality assurance, accountability and professional excellence within the profession. This includes establishing professional and ethical standards, as well as a process for handling discipline and complaints. There would be a publicly accessible register of all college members.
This bill is another of the many steps this government is taking to improve the effectiveness of our social and community services system and to protect and assist vulnerable people throughout this province. This legislation is in the interests of the members of the profession, of those they serve and of the people of Ontario.
I want to thank the staff and all of the groups whose input and time were invaluable in drafting this legislation, and many of them are here in the gallery to see this event today. They have worked very long and hard in the interest of their profession and we will continue to rely on their expertise. The experience of the Ontario College of Certified Social Workers will serve as a valuable knowledge base on which to build.
WIFE ASSAULT PREVENTION MONTH
Hon Dianne Cunningham (Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, minister responsible for women's issues): I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak about the serious issue of wife assault and about the serious need to work to prevent it from happening. This is the 13th year the government of Ontario has designated November as Wife Assault Prevention Month.
We need to continue to work so that no woman lives in an abusive relationship and no child witnesses wife assault. Every abused or assaulted woman needs to know there is help available, and we support and care for women who have been abused or assaulted. They need access to the supports and services that will help them.
After extensive consultation, we responded with our Agenda for Action in July 1997, after some seven months. It is the first province-wide strategy aimed to provide coordinated and seamless services across nine ministries for abused and assaulted women. It encourages local solutions and emphasizes the importance of building on community-based and specialized programs and services, services that women can depend on in times of crisis and during their contact with the justice system. The strategy is supported by three key themes of flexibility, coordination and partnership.
This year our government is implementing more than 20 new initiatives to further strengthen our safety and justice system responses and to support women and their children. The Ministry of the Attorney General is implementing its safety first audit to review the way police, shelters, victim/witness assistance program staff, crowns and cultural interpreters respond to women in crisis. Representatives from various sectors, including front-line providers, will review each and every point of contact to make sure the safety of women and their children in the system remains the number one priority.
The Ministry of the Attorney General will also pilot a program to provide specialized legal services for women who are leaving abusive relationships. This program will ensure that women can obtain protection orders, court-ordered mediation on family issues and interim custody and support orders. We must do better.
This year we are expanding cultural interpreter services to all of the domestic violence courts so that women of different cultures have full access to the courts. The Ontario Women's Directorate is leading two pilot projects to help women move from abuse to economic self-sufficiency through the Building Opportunities for Women initiative, to begin their new lives.
Our public education campaigns that raise awareness of violence against women issues are key to promoting violence prevention. To raise awareness of the issue of wife assault among the widest audience possible, we will air television public service announcements that capture the effects of wife assault and emphasize how none of us ignore this issue.
To raise awareness among our young people, we are working with our community partners and producing videos and teachers' resource materials for use in their very own schools and for teacher training, such as Peace Breaks, a series on violence prevention for eight- to 12-year-olds, and You Oughta Know: Teens Talk About Dating and Abuse, for use in our secondary schools. This builds on our successful resource, the Joke's Over, to stop the seeds of violence in our communities.
In partnership with community experts, we have produced resource materials for women and service providers on issues of violence, such as the resource The Guide to Services for Assaulted Women in Ontario that we produced in partnership with Community Information Toronto, and we have worked with other partners, such as the Ontario Human Rights Commission, you will remember, to educate on the various forms of violence. Last May, we launched a sexual harassment public education campaign that included transit ads and posters.
1400
Our government will not tolerate violence against women.
This government is fully committed to the rights of all Ontarians not just to be safe but to feel safe in their communities, in their workplaces and in their homes.
On July 2, the coroner's inquest into the deaths of Arlene May and Randy Iles ended with the release of more than 200 recommendations made by the jury.
As individuals, as a society and as a government, we all have a responsibility to end domestic violence. Ontario is taking a leadership role in protecting women from domestic violence. We've been actively implementing the May-Iles jury recommendations. We have already implemented, or are in the process of implementing, a majority of the recommendations, and we will continue to implement changes to ensure the safety of women and children in our communities.
The Attorney General is setting up a joint government-community committee to provide the government with expert advice on how to make the necessary changes to help victims of domestic violence and to eliminate this crime. This committee will be chaired by provincial court judge Lesley Baldwin.
We are continuing to work with everyone who wants to help us stop the violence. To ensure we get results, we are doing everything we can to improve the justice system, the crisis intervention systems and the necessary education and prevention to help abused women and their children.
During Wife Assault Prevention Month, we will continue to visit women's centres and other community service providers to speak to those women who are using our services. Their concerns are our concerns.
Finally, I urge everyone to accept personal responsibility to work towards ending violence against women and their children. We will ensure that we will continue to provide support and care to women and children who are victims of violence. Our government will continue to lead the way and work with all of our community, volunteer and private sector partners.
REGULATION OF SOCIAL WORKERS
Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I respond to the Minister of Community and Social Services just to say, particularly to the social workers and the public, that we in the Liberal caucus are very supportive of a legislative framework for the social workers of Ontario, very supportive of the establishment of a self-governing college, very supportive of including social service workers, which I think is a provision in the bill.
I would just add, to the public, that this is subject of course to looking at the specifics of the bill. We've got experience here of what looks like a good idea gone bad when we actually see the legislation. For your information, we've had six bills on property tax reform here since May of last year, in 18 months, with a seventh bill coming in the next few weeks. As I say, we're very supportive of the principle and we look forward to examining in detail the specifics of the bill.
WIFE ASSAULT PREVENTION MONTH
Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): I did not think the minister responsible for women's issues would rise to acknowledge Wife Assault Prevention Month without responding to the recommendations of the inquest into the death of Arlene May. Today she has barely acknowledged the 213 recommendations from that inquest, and the response to it is less than minimal. It's absolutely incredible that the government would not take more seriously the recommendations made by a jury that looked into what they described as "the tragic and preventable death of Arlene May" and made recommendations that they hoped would prevent similar tragic deaths in the future.
It's four months later, and we have this less-than-minimal response from the Harris government; four months, and eight more women who have been murdered in that four months, where charges have either been laid against their partners or their partners have subsequently committed suicide. This is not just shameful, this is a tragic lack of response from your government.
One of the recommendations which could have been acted on immediately, and the coroner's jury said, "Act on it immediately," was to set up a committee to begin to implement the recommendations. You've set up a committee, which you mentioned towards the end of your statement, but there's no mandate set out, there's no indication of the representation, and there's certainly no sense that its role is going to be to implement the 213 recommendations of the inquest into Arlene May's death.
There is so much that could be done immediately and we have seen so little action. The jury, for example, said there should be more rigorous charges against abusers who break restraining orders. The only kind of response we've seen from your government in the last month and a half is to finally reverse the 1996 decision that had women actually having to serve court orders on potential abusers, and the only reason that was reversed was because there was a woman who was actually run over by her estranged husband while trying to present him with a court order.
We have two justice bills in front of the Legislature right now, the courts administration act and the Legal Aid Act, both of which deal with administrative restructuring. There would have been plenty of time for the Attorney General to give very clear guidelines to the courts in terms of not granting bail when a peace bond or a restraining order has been broken. That could have prevented deaths, Minister.
Would it be too much to expect your government to take immediate action on that? Would it be expecting too much for your government to have at least set in place a meaningful committee, if not immediately, at least now four months later, and given it a mandate to look comprehensively at those 213 recommendations that might prevent tragic deaths in the future? Would it be too much to expect that shelter houses, for example, OAITH, might have representation on the committee, that this government might reach out and welcome the concerns, the knowledge, the expertise of those people who are saying to you, "We need to take action to make sure that women can escape from abusive situations"?
Maybe the reason you're hesitant to put in place this committee and to have it truly representative is that you won't have to deal with the financial implications, because undoubtedly some of those 213 recommendations would involve some financial obligation on the part of the government, maybe even replacing the 5% that you've cut from women's shelters that provide that kind of emergency shelter. Maybe there would have been a requirement that, instead of just changing the administration of legal aid, you actually do something about the fact that there has been something like over 40% cut in legal aid certificates available to women in domestic cases and custody cases, so that they're not even able to get before the justice system with adequate representation.
Minister, the message -
The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you. Responses, third party.
Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): Pauline May, the daughter of Arlene May, said this after the recommendations from the inquest came down: "I'm hoping" the recommendations "help someone else out in the future. Unfortunately, it took my mother's death to open people's eyes and realize there needs to be change."
The announcement by the minister responsible for women's issues today did not deal, once again, with those recommendations. I have no quarrel with, in fact I applaud, some of the initiatives she's taking today. All governments for a very long time have been putting money into these particular areas. The fact remains that this government has cut almost $10 million from shelter and second-stage housing since it came into office.
One of the key recommendations from the inquest was that shelter funding be reviewed and that money be put back into shelters, and also that additional front-line services be created for abused women and child witnesses. We have heard nothing about that today. After my leader and I asked repeated questions in this House about setting up this stakeholders' committee and the fact that women in some cases had to serve their court orders on their very abusers themselves, we finally got some response from the Attorney General on that.
But today there are very vague suggestions in her statement that they are moving on most of the recommendations. Minister, tell us what recommendations out of the 213-odd; tell us who are the front-line stakeholders youhave asked to be on this committee, after we asked repeatedly in the House that it be done because eight more women have died. Who are they?
I have heard today, for instance, that OAITH has not been invited to sit on this stakeholder committee, that the francophone women's committee has not been invited to sit on it, that the Older Women's Network has not been invited to sit on it, that the DisAbled Women's Network has not been invited to sit on it, that women in the shelter area have not been invited at all to sit on it.
This is outrageous. We want the minister to stand up today. It seems they're going ahead now, putting this committee together in secret. There are a whole bunch of stakeholders who are critical. OAITH was one of the two groups from the shelter sector that had standing at that inquest. I have been told they have not been invited to sit on it.
I say to the ministers today, if you're going to set up this committee, do it right. Make sure you have the representation that shows the diversity of the province.
1410
I ask as well that we hear from the government what recommendations they're acting on since these over 200 recommendations came on. We want to know what they're going to be doing about child care spaces, more and more of which are disappearing. We want to know what they're doing to help people with their rents since rent control disappeared, and given the fact that they've pulled out of social housing.
The safety nets have been pulled out from under women who are involved in domestic abuse, and we want some real answers to this crisis. We didn't hear anything about that today, so later I will be asking both ministers involved what are the answers to these questions that we're demanding. Women who are involved in domestic violence in this province deserve the answers today from this government. We want to see real action.
REGULATION OF SOCIAL WORKERS
Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): To the Minister of Community and Social Services, I want to say that we welcome the introduction of this legislation today.
We find it especially interesting that it embraces not only BSW and MSW graduates but, because of the inclusion of social service workers, would appear to embrace community college graduates as well. Our position here in the New Democratic Party is that it's imperative that social service graduates from the community college system be recognized for the important and increasing role they play in agencies and across communities.
The minister also made note of her amendments to the Child and Family Services Act. She should recall and she should be reminded of what was told to her after those amendments were introduced by social workers and family and children's services agencies across Ontario: that if you don't fund those agencies and provide for adequate levels of staffing by trained, skilled social workers and social service workers, all of the best-laid plans will go astray, and that it's incumbent upon you to provide adequate funding for those people so that they can achieve the job that you expect them to and that the community wants them to.
Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: It's such a rare occasion when we have the Premier, the Deputy Premier and 16 cabinet ministers in the House, I am seeking unanimous consent for second and third reading of Bill 64 today, which is An Act respecting Accountability for Ministerial Travel. I'm seeking unanimous consent.
The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Agreed?
It's time for oral questions.
ORAL QUESTIONS
GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING
Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): My question is for the Premier, the man who likes to characterize himself as the axeman or the tax cutter, the cost cutter. Premier, you have launched yet another barrage of partisan propaganda ads at taxpayers' expense, trying to justify the slamming shut of the doors on hospitals despite your solemn promise not to do so, and trying to convince people that the damage you are doing to our education system and the disruption and discontent you are inflicting are supposedly improving education in this province.
At a time when you are closing community hospitals, at a time when morale among our educators and health care workers has sunk to an all-time low as a result of your axe-wielding policies, at a time when you're closing hundreds of community schools, how can you, the self-anointed, self-appointed Taxfighter and cost cutter, justify squandering millions of dollars on yet another set of self-serving, clearly partisan television commercials whose only purpose is to try to get you re-elected as Premier of this province?
Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I think the member is quite right that when you have the courage to stand up and make the difficult decisions, to restructure the health care system after 15 years of your party and the NDP talking about it and sitting on your duff doing nothing, when you work hard at getting resources away from the fat bureaucracy in education and into the classroom, when you work hard at improving standards and quality of education, there are changes, of course, that have to be made. They're not always easy; they do affect some people. You would agree with us that even though we don't spend nearly as much as your government did, communicating those changes is an important job for the government to do.
Mr Bradley: Any pretence that these TV and radio commercials, newspaper ads and glossy pamphlets are non-partisan and simply informative is blown away by the leaking of a secret government document outlining your so-called creative and copy strategy. It reads as follows:
"Our creative must influence both the hearts and minds of our target audience. To be effective, our advertising must leave the target audience feeling comfortable with trusting the Mike Harris government with Ontario's education system. The emotional impact of our advertising is perhaps even more important than the content of the copy. The audience will be far more likely to sympathize with our message if it is presented in shades of grey, not as black and white....
"To be successful, our creative must be so straightforward and realistic as to completely evade the public's `political propaganda' meter. The audience must feel that the ads are informative and helpful....
"It should be designed to increase the level of trust that the audience has in our government with respect to managing the education system....
"The general concept for this phase of our campaign is quite obvious."
Premier, how can you, with a straight face, with any semblance of honesty, say that your TV commercials are anything but a political propaganda campaign and a waste of taxpayers' money?
Hon Mr Harris: I'm not sure, but I think you're reading from a memo that I believe the NDP released today. There was one that was the musings of a junior staffer in my office, but I don't know whether that was the same memo that was in Premier Peterson's office or the same memo that was in Premier Rae's office. When I look at the Liberal agenda from 1985 to 1990, I don't know why you spent so much money advertising, because you didn't do anything.
But I think very clearly that you would agree and the NDP would agree, and I think the public would agree, that this has been a very action-oriented government and it's important that we communicate what we're doing and why we're doing it to the taxpayers. We do it more efficiently and more effectively than you do, on the other hand, and we spent less, I think, over the history of our government than your government did.
The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Answer.
Hon Mr Harris: But clearly managing change and making the difficult decisions to improve the quality of education, to set new standards -
The Speaker: Thank you. Final supplementary.
Mr Bradley: Obviously there's one rule for the Mike Harris government and one rule for the people of Ontario. You chopped funding for virtually every program in this province but not for your government advertising, for you, Mike Harris. You will not provide funding to keep our community schools open, but you will spend recklessly on political advertising.
The Brantford Expositor probably put it best. It said:
"At the same time that school boards are closing schools, cities are cutting services and some municipalities are having trouble containing their tax increases due to downloading, the Harris government has managed to find millions to spread the word about how wonderful the Premier is. Maybe the Tory brain trust figures you really can fool all the people all the time. However, we have a higher opinion of the intelligence of Ontario voters and believe that they will see this Tory spending spree for what it really is, a shameful and deceitful abuse of power."
Premier, will you assure the people of Ontario that you are not about to launch yet another advertising campaign, on school closings this time, and will you do the right thing and have the Conservative Party reimburse the taxpayers of Ontario for your self-serving, squandering television ad campaigns?
Hon Mr Harris: I think the member will be aware of the amount of dollars his government spent, even with indexing for inflation. We have spent considerably less than that communicating the changes we're making.
We are communicating, as you have indicated, in health care and in education a number of things we're doing. For example, we're communicating the fact that we're creating 20,000 new long-term-care beds at a cost of over $1 billion. We had to do this, quite frankly, because the Liberals when they were in office froze the number of beds in the province. So it is important, because these are taxpayer dollars that we're spending. I think it's very important, even albeit at a much reduced advertising budget from the squanderous Liberals and the NDP, that we communicate those positive changes that we're making in health care and education.
1420
SCHOOL CLOSURES
Mr Mike Colle (Oakwood): My question is for the Premier. As you know, as a result of your school closing formula, over 159 schools in my city face closure. Over 20 schools in my general community of west Toronto face closure. People have asked me over the weekend to ask you directly, do you know what - I know you're laughing now and it's funny to you, but I'll tell you, there are a lot of children who are crying. There are a lot of parents who are distraught. They're saying: "Does the Premier know what he's doing to my neighbourhood? Does he know that a school is more than bricks and mortar? Does he know that he's ripping the heart of my neighbourhood right out?" Schools are more than just bricks and mortar; they're drop-in centres, they're daycare centres, they're seniors' centres.
Mr Premier, will you come to your senses, scrap your school closing formula and leave us alone?
Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I think that's for the Minister of Education.
Hon David Johnson (Minister of Education and Training): I agree with those parents that schools are important in communities. That's why this government is not closing schools. The Toronto school board -
Mr Colle: You are closing them.
The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Member for Oakwood, come to order.
Hon David Johnson: Frankly, I consider this list in Toronto to be outrageous. In an endeavour to try to help the Toronto board, I have suggested they look at three alternatives:
(1) In terms of the amount of administrative space they have, they have far too much administrative space. They could save millions of dollars.
(2) In terms of the way they run and operate the space that they do have in the schools, they are far more expensive than either the Toronto Catholic board or the other boards across Ontario. They could save millions and millions of dollars and keep those schools open, as we are suggesting they do, by being more efficient.
(3) Why not attract more community uses into their schools to assist in terms of the operation of the schools that are there today? They can attract either the other board or other community uses to help pay for the expenses and keep those community schools open.
The Speaker: Supplementary.
Mr Gerard Kennedy (York South): Minister, I'm here to ask you if that glib nonsense is the best the people of Toronto can get. Your Premier tries to talk about being courageous. If you're being courageous, you'll stand up today and say you're closing schools in Toronto.
You're offering the Toronto board $3.50 per square foot. You're closing places like Lambton school, which has only been open for five years. I want you to stand up and explain to Susan Fowlow, who is disabled and in a scooter and a wheelchair, where she's going to send her kid who has learning disabilities. It's taken her two years to find a program that would fit. You're wiping all of that out. You're wiping out three other schools in the exact same area. You're going to close King George school and you're going to close Warren Park. Where are those students going to go?
Minister, it's not good enough for you to sit there and shrug. It's not good enough for you to sit there and say you don't care. People in Toronto want to know why you've picked this funding formula, which is biased against the schools of Toronto, which doesn't allow for daycare, which doesn't allow for the old schools that they have to deal with.
Will you come and debate with me at King George school on Wednesday night, stand up and be accountable, be courageous and stand behind what you're doing to schools in Toronto?
Hon David Johnson: It's too bad that the Toronto board is dragging communities and parents through this process, which I think is highly unnecessary. If the Toronto board was to operate at the same efficiency as the Catholic board right here in the same city, they would save over $50 million and the Toronto board would not have to close any schools. This is what I'm telling the Toronto board to do. I'm asking the Toronto board to look at their administrative space, to look at how they run their schools, to look at other opportunities to share in the running of the schools before they disrupt one student, before they close any schools, before they disrupt any of the community schools here in Toronto.
The Speaker: Final supplementary.
Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): Mr Minister, in my riding of Scarborough North you're closing five schools because of your formula: Agincourt Junior Public School, Anson Taylor, Henry Kelsey, Dr Marion Hilliard, St Ignatius of Loyola. It is well know that Scarborough North is the fastest-growing community in Ontario. It is the most diverse, multilingual community in the country and it needs these schools to maintain its unique character which makes up Scarborough.
When you close our schools, you're not simply taking away buildings, you are denying a community a great sense of identity. It's a facility that houses far more than the academic learning you think is there. It's a place where students and parents can take great pride in what they achieve. When you shut down a school, you're shutting down a community.
Mr Minister, do you even care what happens to a community or are you just concerned about your blessed old bottom line and people can go to hell as far as you're concerned as long as you talk about saving money?
Hon David Johnson: I think it's a shame that the Toronto board is dragging communities through this, but I will say I have confidence in these communities to stand up against the Toronto board and insist that the Toronto board not close these schools.
The Toronto board is threatening to close schools. The provincial government, for its part, is setting standards for education, setting quality standards, improving the curriculum, implementing a new report card, implementing province-wide testing. That is what the provincial government is doing, in addition to offering advice to the Toronto board on how to keep those schools open.
I hope they take the advice of the Ministry of Education, take my advice, look at their administrative costs, look at how they run their schools and look at additional community uses within their schools to keep those schools open, because that's what we want.
1430
GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING
Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): My question is for the Premier. This is your leaked propaganda strategy and it gives us the details of your campaign. It also tells us that you know the people of Ontario don't believe your propaganda campaign. People know that your real agenda is to take money out of our schools. People know that your real agenda in closing schools is to get that money out. People want you to stop attacking teachers and stop attacking our schools and try to bring people together to work together. It also reveals that that is not going to be your strategy. Your strategy is going to be to spend more money trying to brainwash people.
Premier, can you tell us how much more money you are going to spend trying to brainwash people across Ontario into believing that it's going to be good for them to close their neighbourhood school, good for them to close their community school? How much more money are you going to spend?
Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I'm surprised at the preamble. It's not my leaked document. I didn't leak it and it's not my document. From what I understand, though, there was a document that -
Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): It is not his letter, not his government.
Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): He doesn't know anything about it.
The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order. Premier.
Hon Mr Harris: That being said, I understand there is a memo that indicates somebody, I believe it was a junior staffer, in my office - I'd like to communicate that -
Mr Christopherson: Junior staffer. Bet they feel good about that.
Mr Bradley: Since when is Guy Giorno a junior staff member?
Hon Mr Harris: I haven't seen the memo or read through it, but I understand that it indicates we need to do a better job of communicating, because our agenda is not about cutting spending, as you very well know, it is about more money in the classroom, it's about creating new quality education standards, it's about spending close to $600 million more in the classroom. Clearly you have indicated to us and the Liberals have indicated to us that the public doesn't perceive all this new money going into the classroom, even though the reality is it is. Clearly we have acknowledged that we need to do a better job communicating the truth, and the truth is that after 10 years -
Interjections.
Mr Christopherson: Orwellian truth.
Mr Bradley: Imagine Pinocchio telling the truth.
Hon Mr Harris: The truth is that after 10 years of seeing more money going into bureaucracy, we are now putting more money into the classroom for new provincial standards, new improved quality education, and I think it's important that we communicate that.
Mr Hampton: We're making headway here. First the Premier denies that it's his document, that it has anything to do with his government, and then it goes to being the product of a junior staffer, and then the Premier talks about the truth.
Premier, you don't have to spin a multi-million-dollar advertising propaganda campaign to get out the truth. You don't have to have lines in here that say, "The emotional impact of our advertising is perhaps even more important than the content of the copy," more important than the truth. What you're trying to do is you're trying to brainwash people, but people are on to you.
We hear from people all the time, in letters, in faxes, in phone calls and e-mails. They tell us about their children not getting the educational assistance they used to have. They tell us about their children having to bring their quota of Kleenex to school. They tell us about athletic events being cancelled because there's no money, libraries being closed half-time, children taking home textbooks because there are not enough to go around.
Premier, this is what you should do. You should take your propaganda strategy, you should rip it up, put the money back into the classroom. Would you do that?
Hon Mr Harris: I would think that the member would be very supportive of $100 million of new money for new textbooks put forward this year over and above the other levels. I thought you would have been supportive of the highest levels of student funding for post-secondary education, almost $200 million more. I thought you would have been supportive of making sure that our university and college system is the most accessible to all students regardless of ability to pay in all of North America. I thought that an NDP government would have been supportive of these moves to level the playing field, but perhaps you're taking Bob Rae's cue and you believe in unfettered capitalism, as I heard today. We happen to believe that it is important to assist those who need help, and we are putting dollars on the front lines to do exactly that.
Mr Hampton: Premier, let me be clear. I don't believe that closing 500 schools in Ontario is going to be good for our children or good for our communities. I don't believe that having the lowest per capita funding of our colleges and our universities, being next to the bottom in North America, is good for our students or good for our province. I don't believe that a funding formula that is going to cut the investment in education for 89% of the students in the province is good for us. It's not.
Do you know what else isn't good for us, Premier? It isn't good, as I read this document, that someone named Jaime Watt, a convicted fraud artist, is identified as being someone who's made a great contribution to this propaganda strategy.
Premier, can you tell me, what has been Jamie Watt's involvement in this? Is he a consultant to you? Is he a contractor to you? What's been this convicted fraud artist's involvement in your communications and propaganda strategy here?
Hon Mr Harris: In the document that I think you put forward I'm not sure there's been any involvement, but since you are so quick to condemn somebody who faced bankruptcy charges and who, I think it's well acknowledged, paid his debt to society and since that time has made an invaluable contribution in business, in the community and in charitable work, and is now acknowledged one of the leading experts in a whole host of fields - have we contracted from time to time with companies that use his services? Yes, we have, and we're very proud to be a party and to be a government that will accept people at face value who to the best of their ability have paid a debt to society and now are contributing substantially more than you or your party did in the five years you tried to bankrupt this province.
1440
SCHOOL CLOSURES
Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): My next question is also to the Premier. I guess, Premier, while you're out there attacking poor people, accusing them of fraud, and while you're out there going after injured workers and accusing them of fraud, it's OK if you keep your own fraud artist around to spread a propaganda and brainwashing campaign.
Premier, I want to ask you about all the daycare spaces that your government's going to close. The Ontario Coalition for Better Child Care held a press conference today where they identified that by closing the schools you've got on your closure list for the city of Toronto, 3,700 child care spaces are going to go as well. They have no idea where those children are going to get the child care they need.
They understand that closing schools is going to ripple through the whole community, and will affect not just school children but will affect adult learners, will affect children who are in child care. It affects the whole community. What happens to those 3,700 child care spaces that are going to be closed and lost when you close these schools?
Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I'll have the supplementary referred to the appropriate minister, but I want to deal with the preamble. I want to do two things. I want to invite the member outside to make the allegations he made inside the House, and I want to challenge the NDP to tell us their policy about anybody who has ever been charged with any offence, anybody who has ever been convicted, anybody who has ever served time. Is it the policy of his government that they never be allowed to work again in Ontario? I invite the member to step outside and tell us that.
Hon Robert W. Runciman (Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services): Total hypocrites.
The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Solicitor General, you have to withdraw that comment, by the way.
Hon Mr Runciman: I withdraw, Mr Speaker.
Mr Hampton: You can hire whomever you want, but it's about your standards. You're the government that's attacking poor people and accusing them of health care fraud. You're the government that, every time an injured worker gets hurt, is quick to say, "It's fraud." You're the government that has accused physicians of fraud in the past. I simply hold you accountable by your own standards.
Premier, the question was, what happens to those 3,700 child care spaces that go out the door when you close those schools? You can try to answer that one. While you're at it, do you recognize that many of the schools you're going to close are the very schools that provide the programs that help new Canadians become members in our society, that help them adjust to our society, that many of the schools you're going to close are going to have the impact of shutting those folks out as well? Premier, what do you say to those new Canadians, who are very much a part of this very large city, after you close down their community programs which go as a result of those school closures? What do you say to those people? Do you recognize that they're impacted too?
Hon Mr Harris: I say join with us in fighting an irresponsible Toronto Board of Education that is threatening to close down these schools. Join with my caucus colleagues; join with our Toronto caucus; join with our caucus all across this province so we can save the schools, save the child care and save the programs. That's what we were elected to do and that's what we're going to do.
Mr Hampton: Whatever school you go to, whatever neighbourhood, whatever community across this province, the effect of closing their schools is going to ripple through the whole community - daycare centres, athletic facilities, swimming pools, community centres, programs for new Canadians. You seem to have this idea that it's OK to shut down communities, OK to shut down community schools, that it's better to move people into mega-schools.
Premier, what have you got against communities? Why do you always seem to want to talk about mega-cities, mega-jails, mega-schools? What do you have against communities and schools that serve communities?
Hon Mr Harris: Absolutely nothing, which is why we're fighting these irresponsible closings.
The Speaker: New question, official opposition.
Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): My question is also for the Premier. Even millions of dollars in advertising will not let you escape the responsibility for the hundreds of schools that you are forcing to close not just in Toronto but right across this province.
You, and you alone, have put in place this arbitrary, inflexible, inadequate formula. You have decided that kids will be forced to squeeze into 100 square feet or 130 square feet of space. You put all the rules in place. You set the deadlines forcing the school closures all at once. You were warned by your own expert panel what the consequences of this kind of rigid formula would be. Your experts told you what would happen if you forced boards to shut down any spaces that didn't fit your 100-square-foot rule, and you chose to ignore that warning.
I ask you, Premier, what I have asked your Minister of Education over and over again: How many schools did you believe would have to close when you put that formula in place? Or did you not care enough to even ask?
Hon Mr Harris: I think the Minister of Education could answer that.
Hon David Johnson (Minister of Education and Training): There's no reason why any school should have to close unless the school board feels that's the appropriate way to go, in conjunction with the local parents and local community. We're not requiring a certain amount of square footage for each individual student. We're allowing boards an appropriate amount of money to make the decisions they would make. I might say that last week I sent a letter to the boards suggesting that they explore options for greater community use, such as including a university or a college, if a university or college needs that kind of space, a local municipality, a health clinic, a daycare, a library, a local utility, a community centre, a service club. These are all kinds of uses that I would encourage school boards to explore in addition to reducing their operating costs, and if they do these kinds of things, I don't think they should have to close schools.
Mrs McLeod: Minister, what you consider to be appropriate funding is only enough money to keep open the 100 square feet per elementary school student and 130 square feet per secondary school student. That's all. You've taken the rest away already; at least $150 million that you've shortchanged board maintenance budgets. You say they can make up for that money by leasing school space. They can only lease it to people who can afford to pay the going rental rates. That shuts out community use of schools. It shuts out the daycare centres. You want to try to deny responsibility by spinning notions that just don't work, like suggesting that the Toronto Board of Education can avoid school closings by shutting administrative space. It won't work. You know that there is only one million square feet of administrative space, and you demand that they get rid of 11 million square feet of space.
Minister, I say to you again, you control all the dollars, you make all the rules, you set all the deadlines. You wanted the control; you've got it. Now you've got the responsibility for what happens to kids.
The Speaker: Question.
Mrs McLeod: You could stop it now, Minister. Will you withdraw the rules that demand that boards across the province get rid of 35 million square feet of space, and will you put back the -
The Speaker: Thank you. Minister.
Hon David Johnson: The member opposite is not going to believe what the government has to say, obviously, but if we look at an article from Maclean's, April 8 of this year, it says, "Ontario tops the provinces in money spent per student." That's what it says right here in Maclean's.
I can tell you that the amount of money we're putting into the system over the next three years will go up and up and up, up some $583 million over the next three years in additional funding in education across Ontario. The good news is that more of that money will be focused in that classroom for the quality improvements we believe are necessary to improve the education system in Ontario.
You can keep on carping or you can join us; join us in pointing this out to the boards in our crusade with the boards to ensure that they spend this money wisely and that they make the right decisions for their schools and their communities.
HOSPITAL FUNDING
Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): My question is for the Minister of Health. The Minister of Health will know that the Ontario Hospital Association and the University of Toronto released a comprehensive study of the province's hospitals yesterday. The most compelling feature of the study tells us that people are worried. They are worried about getting the hospital care they need because of the $800 million you've cut from hospital budgets. Half the people surveyed said there weren't enough staff in the hospital. Almost 40% said access to emergency care was inadequate. Over half said that access to mental health services and chronic care were inadequate.
The people of Ontario don't need another $4-million propaganda campaign from you telling them: "All right. Don't worry; be happy." They need the 100 full-time nurses that $4 million would put back into the hospitals. On behalf of the people of Ontario, will you restore the proper funding to our hospitals so they can do the job they were intended to do, they want to do and people need them to do?
Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health): I want to congratulate the hospitals on taking this initiative and issuing this hospital report card. I think it's a very important document in helping us find ways. It allows the hospitals to become more accountable. It provides education to the public. It makes them better informed. Certainly, based on the information that is now available, it can help individual hospitals move forward and make the quality improvement steps and progress towards ensuring that we work collaboratively in order to ensure that the services are there.
I think this is a very good step forward. It's an initiative that I have certainly been supporting; it's something that this government is on record supporting. I congratulate the hospitals for undertaking this report card.
1450
Mr Hampton: Minister, we all congratulate the hospitals, but the issue is the over $800 million that you've taken from them. It's putting many of them into deficit situations and is resulting in understaffing, waiting lists and emergency rooms that don't work, or don't work to the level they should.
One of the things the report makes clear is that the most disadvantaged people in Ontario are in northern Ontario, except if you live in North Bay or Parry Sound, because that's actually where money has been going back into hospitals. Minister, will you make a commitment that it's not just the hospital in North Bay and not just the hospital that has been reopened near Parry Sound that will get the money, that those people who aren't getting the resources they need in northern Ontario will now start to get the resources they need after you've cut the money out? Will you put the money back at least for them?
Hon Mrs Witmer: The one thing that we did note in the report card was the high level of patient satisfaction with the services that had been provided. Also, as the member opposite knows, as we have done the restructuring, we have been responding to the needs of individuals, and what people have been asking us is that we invest the resources into the community services.
All last week, as we travelled throughout the province, and we were in Thunder Bay, we heard from people who were anxious that we invest the mental health dollars into the community services, that we make sure we have the community services there; that there wasn't the need for the number of psychiatric beds we've had in the past, and we need to shift the focus of the services. We are responding to the needs of people in this province. We recognize that more and more services are going to be provided in communities because that's what people are asking us for.
The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Answer.
Hon Mrs Witmer: So we're shifting services into the community, bringing services closer to home. We're introducing more prevention and promotion as well, and, as a result, we're starting to see -
The Speaker: Thank you. New question.
ALTERNATIVE FUELS
Mr Jack Carroll (Chatham-Kent): My question is to the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. It was my privilege to attend the official opening of the $150-million Commercial Alcohols ethanol plant in Chatham-Kent. As you know, Minister, this is the largest ethanol plant in Canada. It operates 24 hours a day, seven days a week and is currently processing at a rate of 380,000 tonnes of corn to produce 150 million litres of ethanol.
Despite the federal Liberals trying to take credit for this whole process, last week's celebration wouldn't have been possible without the support of the Mike Harris government. Could you give us a little update on the history of our government's commitment to ethanol?
Hon Noble Villeneuve (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, minister responsible for francophone affairs): I want to thank my colleague the member for Chatham-Kent. I was certainly pleased to attend with him the official opening of the Commercial Alcohols ethanol plant last month.
In fact, for 10 years I have been supporting an ethanol industry in Ontario. We need our own ethanol industry, and we now have a very good start on it with Commercial Alcohols. The Mike Harris government and I personally have been committed to this and the project from day one. In 1995, we were pleased to announce $5 million to that particular project, and the money was spent.
I notice the Liberals are kind of happy now, but a Liberal energy minister, one Lyn McLeod, told me in a letter of April 1990, "It does not appear that ethanol from grain can be produced at a sufficiently low cost to become an important component in Ontario's gasoline without significantly larger subsidies." That's interesting. The Liberal critic now, Pat Hoy, quotes a little differently. I'm sure that I don't need to tell you -
The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Supplementary.
Mr Carroll: Thank you, Minister, for that little history lesson.
Earlier this year I introduced Bill 34, an act that would mandate that all gasoline offered for sale or use in a motor vehicle must contain at least 2.7% oxygen by weight. It is currently being reviewed by committee, and I'm hopeful that the bill will pass so that we can create an even greater demand for ethanol.
Minister, can you inform the members of the House why ethanol is good for the environment and good for the economy?
Hon Mr Villeneuve: I believe all my colleagues know that ethanol is a clean-burning fuel. It has the logo of "environmentally friendly" and is creating a number of jobs not only in the Chatham area but across the farming community of Ontario.
The ethanol plant, which has been up and running now for almost a year, has processed more than 150,000 tonnes of corn a year and over 60 million litres of ethanol. We need more ethanol because our fuel industry requires it.
Thanks to the policies of this government, Ontario's agri-food economy is booming, and certainly in southwestern Ontario that's rather obvious. I'm very pleased to convey that message to all of my colleagues.
SCHOOL CLOSURES
Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I'll direct my question to the Premier. It has to do with the whole issue of school closings.
Premier, you know that since May school boards have been working to try and implement the dictates of the Minister of Education, which indicate that substantial numbers of schools, up to 500, have to close across the province. There is now chaos out there, neighbourhood schools are in turmoil, all because of a funding formula announced by your government in May.
My question is this. The minister today has indicated that he doesn't think schools should be closed. I believe that back in May you had to have had an estimate of how many schools would close as a result of the funding formula. Are you prepared to table today the estimates that were provided to cabinet on the number of schools in the province that would close as a result of the funding formula announced by the minister?
Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I'm happy to take the question and give you my recollection, that as a result specifically of the funding formula, there was no need for any schools to close. That's my recollection.
The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Supplementary.
Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview): My supplementary question is also for the Premier. It was you and the Minister of Education who decided on your funding policy, who decided as well on the square-metre policy per student. Arbitrarily, you have decided that. You have imposed the funding formula. Arbitrarily, you have imposed that square-foot policy per student. I have to say that this is not the yardstick to measure the quality of education in Ontario. You are blaming school boards for closing schools but you have imposed your bullheaded authority on them.
Tell the parents, tell the students of Emery Collegiate, Venerable John Merlini, St Gaspar, St Camillo and others that your policy is not working. Your yardstick policy to close schools is not working.
The Speaker: Question.
Mr Sergio: It's not acceptable to us, it's not acceptable to students and it's not acceptable to parents. Tell them today that indeed you will review your funding formula and your -
The Speaker: Thank you. Premier.
Hon Mr Harris: The Minister of Education has answered the question. I think it's very important to understand that as a result of the funding formula, not one school has closed in Ontario to date. Even the board of education in Toronto has never said that any schools have to close. They've said "may." They put a list together. We've asked for an accountability for that, and I hope you would, and it sounded to me like they threw darts.
What I would say to you is this: Given that the Toronto board has more money per student right now than any other board in the province to educate their kids, I would suggest that now is the time not for rhetoric, not for fearmongering, but for us to sit down and work with the Toronto board on how they can maximize that per pupil funding that not only is the highest in Ontario but is among the highest in the world, and on how we can keep all of our community schools open that should be open.
1500
The Speaker: New question.
Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): My question is to the Premier. You know that what is happening here has nothing to do with the Toronto Board of Education; it has to do with your funding formula, which is all about getting the money out to finance your tax cut that mainly benefits the rich. The people out there know that. You're not fooling anybody today.
I have in my community 11 schools closing. As my leader pointed out earlier, new Canadians, many of whom go to these schools, are hurt by your policies. We have in the Riverdale area, at Eastdale Collegiate, a program called Nighana. It's a program centred on the needs of young African Canadians. It is an extremely successful program for keeping young people in school.
Minister, nobody believes your propaganda that you are not responsible. You are responsible. Take the opportunity now to correct a mammoth problem and the crisis you've created. Admit today that the funding formula will not work and agree to change it.
The Speaker: Premier.
Hon Mr Harris: I think the minister can take it.
Hon David Johnson (Minister of Education and Training): What I'll admit to today and freely answer is that the funding formula intends to be fair to each and every student across Ontario. It will allocate more money this year than last year in totality. I'm here to tell you that even in the Toronto board more money will be spent this school year than last school year. The funding formula allocates more dollars per student in the classroom over the next three years: this year, next year and the year after.
I think the Catholic board was mentioned. The revenues from the Catholic board here will climb from about $624 million up to $695 million.
I hope the two school boards here in Toronto and school boards across Ontario will take that increased funding and make the best decisions for their students and their communities.
Ms Churley: I'm sorry the Premier would not answer my question.
I want to say to the Minister of Education that he's wrong and he knows it. He stands there today and defends, or tries to defend, his policy. Most of the time he knows he cannot defend it, so he finds somebody to blame, as usual. In this case it's the Toronto Board of Education. The Minister of Education should know better.
I want the minister to know that in my community and across this province, nobody believes you and no amount of propaganda is going to fix the problem. Your funding formula will not work. Your definition of a classroom is cold and dirty, perhaps with no lights, windows not cleaned. That's your definition of funding schools. That is not what -
Interjections.
The Speaker: Member for Riverdale.
Ms Churley: I want to say something in defence of the Toronto Board of Education. They have been the most innovative in Toronto in integrating newcomers into the Canadian mainstream. You are taking all those innovative programs away from us. We will not stand for it. Minister, will you announce today -
The Speaker: Thank you. Minister.
Hon David Johnson: My definition of education, my vision for education, is one where every child in Ontario has a fair and equal opportunity, in a safe and clean environment, to a high-quality education system, a higher quality than the system that's in place at present.
The Toronto board has a choice. It has a choice to look at its seven major administrative buildings and at its seven additional administrative buildings - 14 administrative buildings in total - and reduce the costs there first, or it has a choice to close schools. I say it has made the wrong choice. It also has a choice to look at how it runs its operations and save $50 million to $100 million. It has a choice to look at that part or it has a choice to look at schools. Again, I say the Toronto board has made the wrong decision.
WOMEN ENTREPRENEURS
Mrs Helen Johns (Huron): My question is for the minister with responsibility for women's issues. This past Friday and Saturday there was a conference held in Stratford called Connections '98. I understand that the Ontario women's directorate sponsored the conference and that you were in attendance. Could you inform the House about the conference, please?
Hon Dianne Cunningham (Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, minister responsible for women's issues): Thank you, to the member for Huron. We had a great conference in Stratford on the weekend, Connections '98. It was a link-and-think opportunity for women entrepreneurs, and women entrepreneurs in the last decade in Ontario, 1987 to 1997, increased some 84%.
It's extremely important for our government to help young women make the right kinds of choices so that they can become economically independent. It's even more important that we support organizations like Women in Rural Economic Development, who co-sponsored this wonderful conference so that those women entrepreneurs would be able to speak to their own colleagues, so that they could be part of a leading-edge business development seminars program, so that they could network and so that they could create partnerships across this province. It was a great conference.
Mrs Johns: Minister, I know that many of the entrepreneurs who were there were pleased with the conference and pleased with the information they received and also pleased with the group that's known as Rural Economic Development in our area. They have done a terrific job.
I was wondering if you would let the House know some of the topics that were the focus of the seminar this weekend.
Hon Mrs Cunningham: There were over 17 seminars and workshops. I think the Minister of Education might be very pleased to know, and the Minister of Economic Development and Trade, that women are doing conferences and workshops on export experts; new business opportunities and areas of growth in the health and alternative therapy sector - that one was for the Minister of Health and all those people who are looking for those new jobs; new business opportunities in areas of growth in the food sector, which I'm sure the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs will be interested in knowing; entrepreneurial assistance programs for youth.
Interjection.
Hon Mrs Cunningham: These kinds of workshops for Connections '98 are important to young girls and they are important to women. I'm sure the member for Kingston and The Islands would want to take this kind of concept back to his own riding, because this is the kind of thing that makes young women want to succeed, and entrepreneurs set up those networks to help each other.
1510
SCHOOL CLOSURES
Mr Pat Hoy (Essex-Kent): My question is directed to the Premier. Last weekend, parents and parent groups attended my meeting in St Thomas to protest the closures of rural and community schools that are being driven by your government's underfunding formula.
The Minister of Agriculture was in Dresden last week. He said he understood that rural schools are very much a part of rural communities, and I agree with him. He promised, "I assure you the money is now in place."
Neither of the two boards in my part of rural Ontario qualified for any rural grant money under your funding formula. Romney Central school in my riding was unfairly closed because of your funding formula. Romney received no rural funding. The amount of money that it was eligible for under the small schools envelope was not enough to keep it open. It did nothing. It's worthless. Romney enrolment didn't change; your funding formula did. Romney has become the symbol for rural Ontario. Is there new money available, Premier, for rural communities like Romney, Orford and Tilbury? Will it allow rural and community schools to remain open?
Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I think the minister should respond.
Hon David Johnson (Minister of Education and Training): First of all, I want to say I agree with the parents who are fighting for their schools. Their community schools are most important not only here in Toronto, as we've heard earlier today, but right across the province. I would encourage parents and communities to get out and fight for their schools.
Second, I agree with the Minister of Agriculture that indeed the funding is in place: the small schools grant that I think you mentioned, some $40 million for small schools across the province; the remote and rural grants, some $90 million for various boards across the province, and those boards will use those monies to keep small and rural schools open, even at much less than full capacity, but those monies will support those schools.
In summary, we've attempted to recognize the various needs across the province. Here in Toronto there are certain needs, in other local communities there are various needs, and certainly in rural areas such as you've indicated there are needs, and the funding formula attempts to deal with them as best it can.
The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Supplementary.
Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): Minister, you've been hearing about the situation throughout Ontario. In Ottawa-Carleton, for example, I spoke to a trustee today and he said, "You know, it's amazing that the region is planning for 50% of its housing growth within the greenbelt in the Ottawa-Carleton area, which is exactly where about 90% of the school closures are slated to be." The chair of the Ottawa-Carleton District School Board, Lynn Scott, said, "The province is not providing us with the funding to support the operation of the schools that we have." She went on to add, "The board is running 150 schools on the budget of 125 schools."
It seems to me that the minister's pants are on fire. What he's saying is that it's the board's responsibility. The government is the group that controls the formula. They've already cut the money out of this objective formula for these schools. These schools don't have the money. Then he says it's up to each board. Minister, the Premier just said, "Let's sit down and let's work this out." We're happy to come to a meeting and do that and bring anyone else you would like. Will you do that?
Hon David Johnson: The Ministry of Education has already been doing that with various boards.
Mr Patten: He said, "Let's sit down and work it out."
Hon David Johnson: Sure. Yes, we have been doing that with various boards, here in Toronto with the Catholic board, one board that we've sat down with; Lambton-Kent, another board that the Ministry of Education has had the opportunity to meet with and look at the details. We'd be pleased to sit down with Ottawa-Carleton.
Mr Patten: Good. When?
Hon David Johnson: At the earliest opportunity. We're happy to do that because we're confident that the monies that have been allocated for the various different aspects, needs within our communities across the province, are incorporated within this budget. Ottawa, for example, may need more monies for students at risk, more monies for ESL, those kinds of things. Here in Toronto the board gets a bigger share of those kinds of aspects of the budget. We're more than happy to sit down and work this out.
CASINOS
Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): To the Chair of Management Board: When the justice committee was considering Bill 75, your government's proposal to expand gambling and put VLTs in communities across the province, we know that your government blocked the disclosure, blocked the release of an OPP report on organized crime which talked about the vulnerability of your gaming scheme to infiltration by organized crime. We now learn that you and your government were in possession of a legal opinion prepared by an independent law firm at the request of the OLC which indicated that your government's operation of its casinos and its proposals was in contravention of the Criminal Code of Canada.
We were at first concerned about your program being infiltrated by organized crime. We find out now that the real criminals may have been in the cabinet themselves. Who suppressed the 1996 legal opinion, why, and why won't the government initiate an investigation into the allegation of its contravention of the Criminal Code now?
Hon Chris Hodgson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Minister of Northern Development and Mines): I'm not sure what the member of the third party is talking to. The issue is that we're operating under the same model established by the NDP government when he was in power. This report has a contrary view to that set up by the NDP government. We're still of the opinion that the NDP was right, that the OCC model, the Ontario Casino Corp model, is legal and in accordance with the Criminal Code.
ROYAL ASSENT SANCTION ROYALE
The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): I beg to inform the House that in the name of Her Majesty the Queen, Her Honour the Lieutenant Governor has been pleased to assent to a certain bill in her office.
Clerk at the Table (Mr Todd Decker): The following is the title of the bill to which Her Honour did assent:
Bill 35, An Act to create jobs and protect consumers by promoting low-cost energy through competition, to protect the environment, to provide for pensions and to make related amendments to certain Acts / Projet de loi 35, Loi visant à créer des emplois et à protéger les consommateurs en favorisant le bas prix de l'énergie au moyen de la concurrence, protégeant l'environnement, traitant de pensions et apportant des modifications connexes à certaines lois.
PETITIONS
SCHOOL CLOSURES
Mr Pat Hoy (Essex-Kent): "Whereas Mike Harris is cutting the heart out of many communities by closing hundreds of neighbourhood and community schools across Ontario; and
"Whereas this massive number of school closings all at once will displace many children and put others on longer bus routes; and
"Whereas Mike Harris promised in 1995 not to cut classroom spending, but has already cut at least $1 billion from our schools and is now closing many classrooms completely; and
"Whereas Mike Harris is pitting parent against parent and community against community in the fight to save local schools; and
"Whereas parents in Romney, Toronto, Ottawa, Stratford, Hamilton-Wentworth and many other communities are calling on the government to stop closing so many of their schools; and
"Whereas the closure of a school should be based on local decision-making and student population, with enough time to consider all options, not complicated formulas aimed at quickly cutting money from the system;
"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislature to call on Mike Harris to stop his headlong rush to close local schools."
I sign this petition because I'm in complete agreement with my constituents.
HIGHWAY SAFETY
Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I have a petition which was circulated by Mrs Margaret Pigeon of Goulais River. It is signed by 1,718 residents, and it reads as follows:
"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:
"Whereas the recent death of a Goulais River resident as a result of a collision with a moose on an unlighted stretch of the Trans-Canada Highway 17 north, approximately 25 kilometres north of the city of Sault Ste Marie - known as the Mile Hill; and
"Whereas the death of this person and the consequences of nine previous vehicle accidents involving moose in the vicinity of the Mile Hill since April 10, 1998; and
"Whereas the vicinity of the Mile Hill is well known to the Ministry of Natural Resources as an area where moose congregate due to the salt water runoff from the highway and to the Ministry of Transportation for the same reason; and
"Whereas the Ministry of Natural Resources, being aware of a problem of moose congregating near the highway, have tried placing salt licks back in the bush, without success; and
"Whereas the Ministry of Transportation has drained and filled roadside salt pools in an attempt to remove the attraction for the moose, was successful, but was discontinued due to it being too labour-intensive and costly to continue;
"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to investigate the installation of appropriate lighting for the stretch of the Trans-Canada Highway 17 north for approximately one half kilometre from the base of the Mile Hill northerly to the MTO plow turnaround, and further investigate the installation of electric fencing on both sides of the same stretch of highway, and respectfully request that the appropriate ministries report back their findings and decisions to the undersigned in a timely manner."
I've attached my name to the petition.
PALLIATIVE CARE
Mr Bob Wood (London South): I have a petition signed by 32 people.
"Whereas most Ontario residents do not have adequate access to effective palliative care in time of need;
"Whereas meeting the needs of Ontarians of all ages for relief of preventable pain and suffering, as well as the provision of emotional and spiritual support, should be a priority to our health care system;
"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to resolve that a task force be appointed to develop a palliative care bill of rights that would ensure the best possible treatment, care, protection and support for Ontario citizens and their families in time of need.
"The task force should include palliative care experts in pain management, community palliative care and ethics in order to determine effective safeguards for the right to life and care of individuals who cannot or who can no longer decide issues of medical care for themselves.
"The appointed task force would provide interim reports to the government and the public and continue in existence to review the implementation of its recommendations."
1520
SCHOOL CLOSURES
Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:
"Whereas due to the Harris funding cuts to education the Toronto Catholic District School Board is being forced to consider the closing of 29 Catholic elementary schools in the city of Toronto before next September; and
"Whereas the parents of the students at St Gaspar school do not want the school to be closed because it is operating at full capacity, and fear the further chaos and crisis the government is imposing on the education of their children; and
"Whereas there is apprehension and turmoil in the community that due to government rules to determine school capacity, hundreds of students will have to find a new school come next September;
"Now, therefore, we, the undersigned citizens of Ontario, petition the Legislature of Ontario as follows:
"We call upon the Minister of Education, who has the primary responsibility for providing a quality education for each and every student in Ontario, to:
"1. Listen to the views being expressed by the teachers and parents of St Gaspar school students who are concerned on the implications and disruptive effects the school closure would have on their children;
"2. Recognize the fundamental importance of our local schools to our neighbourhood community;
"3. Live up to its commitment to provide adequate funding for the important and essential components of a good education and not allow the closing of St Gaspar school, because it is operating at full capacity."
I agree with the content and I will affix my signature.
Mr Derwyn Shea (High Park-Swansea): I have a petition to the Parliament of Ontario signed by hundreds of parents in High Park-Swansea and in Parkdale and in York South, and it's directed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It reads:
"Whereas the Toronto District School Board has proposed the closure of over 130 schools in the city of Toronto; and
"Whereas the release of this list of proposed schools for closure is an irresponsible, fearmongering scare tactic by the TDSB which is causing pain to students and their families; and
"Whereas the TDSB is still using all six headquarters buildings and properties that are valuable real estate; and
"Whereas consolidating these buildings first before uprooting any students and selling the extra administrative buildings would give the TDSB a boost in capital which they can use to upgrade and renew existing schools, not close them; and
"Whereas the TDSB spent 50% more per pupil for maintenance and operations last year than the Toronto Catholic board, with the Toronto board spending $1,052 per pupil compared to $621 per pupil for the Catholic board; and
"Whereas by threatening to close schools before finding administrative efficiencies the TDSB is not placing the needs of our children and students first, but are putting administrators first by keeping their expensive, fancy administrative buildings open;
"Now, therefore, we, the undersigned, respectfully petition the Legislature of Ontario to force the Toronto school board to find administrative efficiencies first before closing any schools, and further that the Toronto District School Board be required to publicly release a line-by-line analysis of their budget justifying all administrative costs prior to any school closure, and further that the Toronto school board close and sell all excess administrative buildings before closing any schools, and that all savings found through closure and sale of excess administrative buildings and lands be invested in students first, and in upgrading and renewing existing schools and not investing in expensive, fancy administrative buildings."
I add my name to this petition.
HOTEL DIEU HOSPITAL
Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a petition to the government of Ontario. It reads as follows:
"Since the Hotel Dieu Hospital has played and continues to play a vital role in the delivery of health care services in St Catharines and the Niagara region; and
"Since Hotel Dieu has modified its role over the years as part of a rationalization of medical services in St Catharines and has assumed the position of a regional health care facility in such areas as kidney dialysis and oncology; and
"Since the Niagara region is experiencing underfunding in the health care field and requires more medical services and not fewer services; and
"Since Niagara residents are required at present to travel outside of the Niagara region to receive many specialized services that could be provided in city hospitals and thereby not require local patients to make difficult and inconvenient trips down our highways to other centres; and
"Since the Niagara hospital restructuring committee used a Toronto consulting firm to develop its recommendations and was forced to take into account a cut of over $40 million in funding for Niagara hospitals when carrying out its study; and
"Since the population of the Niagara region is older than that in most areas of the province and more elderly people tend to require more hospital services;
"We, the undersigned, request that the government of Ontario keep the election commitment of Premier Mike Harris not to close hospitals in our province, and we call upon the Premier to reject any recommendation to close Hotel Dieu Hospital in St Catharines."
I affix my signature as I'm in complete agreement with this petition.
ADOPTION
Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario from Linda and Rik Davies and a number of other people from my riding of Durham East, including Lisa Despate' and Janice Barber.
The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Would you like to read it?
Mr O'Toole: "Whereas the Adoption Reform Coalition of Ontario (ARCO) brings together various organizations to recommend reform of Ontario adoption law based on honesty, openness and integrity;
"Whereas existing adoption secrecy legislation is outdated and unjust;
"Whereas Canada has ratified standards of civil and human rights in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the UN Declaration of Human Rights and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, and these rights are denied to persons affected by secrecy provisions in adoption laws and the Child and Family Services Act and other acts in Ontario;" - there are several other whereases, but I'll conclude:
"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislature of Ontario to enact revision of the Child and Family Services Act and other acts to:
"Permit unrestricted access to full personal identifying birth information to adopted persons and adult children of adopted persons; and unrestricted access to the adopted person's amended birth certificate to birth parents, birth grandparents, and siblings and other birth relatives, when the adopted person reaches age 18."
I'm pleased to sign and endorse this petition.
DENTAL CARE
Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): I've got a petition here dealing with dental services for those who are disabled. It's addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It states:
"Whereas a new schedule of dental services for children and people with disabilities was introduced by the government under the Ontario Works Act and the Ontario Disability Support Program Act; and
"Whereas the new schedule fails to meet the special needs of children and people with disabilities, reduces services, places barriers to accessing care and creates an environment for various different dental programs across Ontario; and
"Whereas the move away from an emphasis on prevention under the new dental schedule brings significant health risks for children and people with disabilities who are often least able to practise good oral hygiene; and
"Whereas the new dental schedule interferes with the patients' rights to consent to treatment by requiring administrators, and not patients or substitute decision-makers, to authorize and deny dental treatment; and
"Whereas there is no method for the patient to appeal a decision by a plan administrator to deny dental treatment; and
"Whereas pre-authorizations, called predeterminations in the new plan, will require that a higher level of confidential patient health information be disclosed to dental plan administrators; and
"Whereas the Ontario government has caused confusion among patients by introducing the plan without adequate consultation and has not included any affected patient groups in consultations after releasing the new dental plan;
"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly as follows:
"Delay full implementation of the new dental plan until the requirement for predeterminations is removed, patient confidentiality is protected, the plan emphasizes prevention in oral health care, and the government consults directly with affected patients to ensure the new plan will meet the special needs of children and people with disabilities."
I have signed it as well as I am in complete agreement with it.
BOATING SAFETY
Mr Bill Grimmett (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): I have a petition signed by 19 citizens of Ontario, most of them from the Midland-Penetang area of Simcoe county. As is my practice and as is set out in the rules here, I'll just summarize the contents of the petition.
The petitioners express a concern about the dangers of impaired boating and urge the Legislature to move ahead with third reading of Bill 59, the Highway Traffic Amendment Act. I would like to submit that petition today.
1530
HEALTH CARE FUNDING
Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.
"Whereas the provincial government cuts have caused a major decline in our health care system; and
"Whereas our hospitals no longer provide attentive, compassionate care to patients; and
"Whereas severe cuts to hospital staff and nurses have often caused very ill patients to wait long hours; and
"Whereas access to quality health care can no longer be provided and the government's cuts to the Ontario health care system are a real barrier for the people of Ontario;
"Therefore, we urge the Premier and this government to stop the cuts and give us a universal and accessible health care system. We pay for it and we demand that we be treated fairly and equally by our government."
I will affix my signature as I concur with the petitioners.
SCHOOL PRAYER
Mr John L. Parker (York East): I continue to receive this petition and others like it and I continue to submit them to this House, in accordance with the rules. It is addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:
"Whereas we are firm supporters of the public school education system and the Protestant faith;
"We, the undersigned, hereby petition the government of Ontario to reinstate the Lord's Prayer in the public school system of Ontario."
ORDERS OF THE DAY
TIME ALLOCATION
Hon Rob Sampson (Minister without Portfolio [Privatization]): I move that, pursuant to standing order 46 and notwithstanding any other standing order or special order of the House relating to Bill 70, An Act to engage the private sector in improving transportation infrastructure, reducing traffic congestion, creating jobs, and stimulating economic activity through the sale of Highway 407, when Bill 70 is next called as a government order, the Speaker shall put every question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill without further debate or amendment, and at such time, the bill shall be ordered referred to the standing committee on resources development;
That no deferral of the second reading vote pursuant to standing order 28(h) shall be permitted;
That the standing committee on resources development shall be authorized to meet to consider the bill during the November recess as follows: two days for the purpose of conducting public hearings and one day for clause-by-clause consideration of the bill;
That, pursuant to standing order 74(d), the Chair of the standing committee on resources development shall establish the deadline for the tabling of amendments or for filing them with the clerk of the committee;
That, on the day designated for clause-by-clause consideration of the bill, the committee be authorized to meet until completion of clause-by-clause consideration;
That, at 12 noon on that day, those amendments which have not yet been moved shall be deemed to have been moved, and the Chair of the committee shall interrupt the proceedings and shall, without further debate or amendment, put every question necessary to dispose of all remaining sections of the bill, and any amendments thereto. Any divisions required shall be deferred until all remaining questions have been put and taken in succession with one 20-minute waiting period allowed pursuant to standing order 127(a);
That the committee shall report the bill to the House not later than the first sessional day that reports from committees may be received following the completion of clause-by-clause consideration, or November 30, 1998, whichever is earliest. In the event that the committee fails to report the bill on the date provided, the bill shall be deemed to have been passed by the committee and shall be deemed to be reported to and received by the House;
That, upon receiving the report of the standing committee on resources development, the Speaker shall put the question for adoption of the report forthwith, and at such time the bill shall be ordered for third reading;
That two hours shall be allotted to the third reading stage of the bill. At the end of such time, the Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings and shall put every question necessary to dispose of this stage of the bill without further debate or amendment.
Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: If the minister's going to be shutting down democracy in this place, the least he can do is require the minimum number of members present to conduct official business. I don't believe there's a quorum.
The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Would you check and see if there's a quorum present, please.
Clerk Assistant (Ms Deborah Deller): A quorum is not present, Speaker.
The Deputy Speaker ordered the bells rung.
Clerk Assistant: A quorum is now present, Speaker.
The Deputy Speaker: The Chair recognizes the minister from Mississauga West.
Hon Mr Sampson: I'll resume at the point that reads:
That two hours shall be allocated to the third reading stage of the bill. At the end of such time, the Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings and shall put every question necessary to dispose of this bill without further debate or amendment;
That the vote on third reading of the bill may, pursuant to standing order 28(h), be deferred until the next sessional day during the routine proceeding deferred votes; and
That, in the case of any division relating to any proceeding on the bill, the division bell shall be limited to five minutes.
The Deputy Speaker: Mr Sampson has moved government notice of motion number 37. Does the minister have some remarks he'd like to make?
Hon Mr Sampson: I do indeed, Speaker. Before I start off, I'd like to indicate that at the outset here I will be sharing my time with the members for Nepean and Durham East, and I believe we're sharing our time equally among the opposition parties as well.
I'm rising today to speak to the time allocation motion regarding Bill 70, which is the Highway 407 Act, an act that we truly believe will allow for a partnering with the private sector, a relationship with the private sector that will allow us to complete the highway that in previous debates I have referred to as the highway with no beginning and no end, while at the same time providing an important infrastructure for the people in the GTA as this area grows and develops and the need for infrastructure grows and develops. It's also a bill that will, as a result of the construction involved, create a number of new jobs in the construction industry, the road building industry in this province, which is of course also good news.
But before I go any further, I think it's probably worthwhile, since we are debating a time allocation motion on this particular bill, to talk to the urgency we have to move ahead with this legislation. As I've said to this House before and to the people watching, this legislation provides for the framework as we evolve towards selling the highway, cutting a relationship with the private sector so that they will indeed build the highway, maintain it and run it. It establishes the responsibilities of the private sector in that relationship and the responsibility of the public sector - government - in those relationships.
1540
It's important to do that in legislation so that while there will be agreements between a potential buyer and the government as a seller, at least there's some legislative support for those particular agreement, some basis upon which those agreements are founded. In the absence of that legislative framework - some of the members opposite have argued this and I agree; that's why we came forward with the bill - it's difficult to understand the fundamental construct of any particular deal one would cut with a private sector buyer.
We've heard debate from both sides of this House on what this highway currently is, its state of construction, what's completed, so to speak. As I said just a few minutes ago, what we have here in this area as it relates to Highway 407 is a highway where the middle has been constructed and completed for all intents and purposes, but there is not connection to some of the roads that it intends to divert traffic from. There's no logical connection to the 403 but in one particular area out in Mississauga. On the east end of the highway, one is travelling along and ends up in the middle of a small community. There's no eastern connection to either Highway 401 or any other of the roads one would expect it to be connected to in the construction of a highway that's intended to divert traffic from 401 and 403.
Mr Ted Chudleigh (Halton North): It's not a bypass.
Hon Mr Sampson: The member for Halton North is quite correct that it's not a bypass, it's not functioning as a bypass highway now, because it doesn't connect back to those highways or connect to those highways one intended to bypass or reroute traffic from. It's one of the bizarre parts of that particular highway. The GTA drivers and the local municipalities in the area have been telling us that highway extensions are vitally important in order that they can deal with the traffic volumes that are developing in their particular area. Anybody who has travelled Highway 403, gone to the QEW area around the Ford plant, for instance, where the 403 connects to the QEW, in fact all the way along that section to the Burlington section, will know that is an impossible section of the highway to travel at almost any time of day.
I was on that road late one evening and there were traffic jams. The highway was literally blocked. There wasn't an accident. It's just that you've got all this volume of traffic converging into a small section of the highway. It's bizarre and it's unmanageable and unworkable. The people in the Halton area of the GTA, the Burlington area, the people in Hamilton, need this highway.
We've heard calls to extend the highway to the east as well. Why? You're on the highway, you're going along, you get on the 407 - it's a beautifully designed highway, state of the art, impeccably maintained - but you're going along and all of a sudden it ends in the middle of a community. The road it was intended to connect back to, 401 there's no connection there whatsoever.
Clearly, highway users on both ends of the highway desperately want to have the highway completed and have been at governments for some time, and I suspect that at the time the NDP government was around and cut the original contract to build this highway, they were under considerable pressure to provide the east and west connections.
Let me share with you the input we received from the region of Halton regarding Highway 407. In their submission to us they state:
"In 1980, with the approval of Halton's official plan, Highway 407...was identified as the most important provincial transportation priority in this region. Since that time, the Halton, Oakville and Burlington councils have all reaffirmed the priority of this facility by way of resolution."
Halton's submission goes on further to say:
"Numerous...transportation studies indicated that Highway 407 should have been in place across Halton by the mid-1990s and at the very latest by 1998, a date that is obviously not possible to achieve" at this point in time.
Lastly, the submission states:
"At this point in time, congestion on the QEW is becoming a major impediment to attracting new industry and economic growth to the GTA and Hamilton area."
According to the people who work and represent that particular area of the GTA, we have an uncompleted highway restricting economic growth, economic development, the standard of living if you will, of the residents of that area. I say to the members of this Legislature, I say to the people watching here today and I say to the members of this Legislature who happen to also represent areas of Halton, drive that highway, QEW-Highway 403. Pick a time of day, drive it, and you will see the definition of congestion. I say to you in the Webster's Dictionary under the word "congestion" is probably a picture of that highway. It is full of cars.
The 407 will relieve that congestion. That is what it was intended to do, and with this legislation in front of us today, if we can get this legislation passed by this assembly, we will be able to move ahead so that we can relieve the congestion that has burdened parts of this GTA area for decades and provide the GTA with a highway infrastructure that will deliver goods, deliver economic activity and also, as I said at the beginning of my comments, deliver jobs.
I listened to the debate over the last few days. Members opposite - certainly the member from Kingston was quite vocal about this and wanted to know what public good would be achieved as a result of this legislation, and I say that's a very good question for the member to have raised. He raises a number of questions. This is perhaps one of the good ones he has raised. I won't comment about some of the other ones he has raised. But he's right. A bill should have some public good to be delivered as a result of it. That's what we are here in this assembly for, to provide some public support, some public good.
What is the public good of this legislation? I have been speaking for the last 10 minutes about a very important public good of this legislation. It allows us to move ahead and complete a highway that otherwise would probably lie essentially incomplete. It allows us to extend this road on the west to its connection in Burlington, on the east to its connections with the 401 and perhaps 115.
How about the jobs that are being created? I would say the jobs that this particular project will create are indeed another area of public good to be delivered.
How about the fact that taxpayers are required to pay for this particular highway, constructed as it is, through their tax dollars, by supporting the debt that has been raised to finance this highway, and at the same time being asked to pay the tolls to finance the debt that they're supporting? Talk about double-counting. I know the member from Scarborough likes to double-count; in fact, I gather his party double-counted quite a bit before they handed the tremendous debt of the province to the NDP when they lost the election in 1990. But double-counting, by requiring people to pay debt and at the same time finance it through tolls, is ludicrous. It's ridiculous, and we intend, through this piece of legislation, to eliminate that double-counting.
How about better management of the highway, perhaps better management of the tolling structure? Do you think that's a public good? I say to you it is. If we can get the private sector to use its consumerability, if you will, to generate additional volume on this traffic through perhaps much smarter tolling structures, we should pursue that. I think that's a public good. That's something that's good for the public as they drive this highway.
How about the investment that the additional construction of this highway will mean for this province? Let's talk about that as a public good. Let's talk about billions of new capital being invested in this province by people either within this province or within this country or perhaps, yes, investors outside of this country and province. Isn't it good to have substantial investment, I ask the member for Kingston and The Islands, who understands, I think, the value of substantial investment in this province. Isn't that a good public initiative, to encourage financing people, investors, to invest in this province, to create jobs, to create wealth, to create the economic activity that we need in this province to pay back the massive debt that both of those parties laid on the backs of our children?
1550
The member for Kingston and The Islands knows very well about tax increases because he is from a party that has now jacked up taxes substantially. Of course, he has an impeccable track record in the city of Kingston that he might want to speak to one of these days. We've encouraged him, of course, to talk to that item. He has been somewhat reluctant to speak to his experience as the mayor of the city of Kingston as it relates to municipal taxes, but I'm sure he'll want to deal with that when he responds to the time allocation motion today.
There is a long list of public good initiatives that we believe are attached to Bill 70. That's why we need to encourage this House to move along with the consideration of this particular legislation, to move along with the process so that we can have this framework that I spoke to earlier, this foundation that allows us as government to proceed to entertain requests for proposals from potential owners of this highway, to proceed with structure and arrangement financially and otherwise that will benefit Ontarians, whether they be taxpayers, residents of the area or drivers of the highways. We need to have the process moved forward. That's why we are bringing forward today this time allocation motion on Bill 70.
Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): Why are you doing that?
Hon Mr Sampson: Six thousand jobs. The member from Scarborough wants to know why we're doing this. I ask the member from Scarborough, are 6,000 jobs not important to you people over there any more? Do you not want to have jobs in this province? Do you not want to have capital investment in this province? Do you not feel it's important to relieve the congestion pressure in this province on the people in Halton and the people in Durham? I say to the member from Scarborough, he clearly does not stand for progress. The member from Scarborough does not stand for 6,000 jobs.
Interjection: What does he stand for?
Hon Mr Sampson: I don't know what the member from Scarborough stands for, I say to my colleague from Halton. I've been in this House for some time and I'm still trying to understand what exactly the Liberals are standing for. One day you'll get a position, the other day you'll get another position.
I say to my colleague, 6,000 jobs, we believe as a government that's important. We believe as a government it's important to relieve the terrible burden you have laid on the taxpayers' shoulders. We believe as a government it's important for us to make sure that the infrastructure of this province is constructed properly, fairly and on time, and that's why we have this time allocation before us today.
Mr John R. Baird (Nepean): I'm pleased to have the opportunity to rise to speak on this motion. I believe that this bill provides an innovative way to fund a very much needed expansion of Highway 407. It is, of course, an incomplete highway and to let it sit unused, not helping the people of Oshawa, would simply be a non-starter for the member for Durham East. He's been fighting very hard for his constituents on this issue and -
Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Would you see if there's a quorum in this House, please?
The Deputy Speaker: Would you check to see if there's a quorum present, please?
Clerk at the Table (Mr Todd Decker): A quorum is not present, Speaker.
The Deputy Speaker ordered the bells rung.
Clerk at the Table: A quorum is now present, Speaker.
The Deputy Speaker: The Chair recognizes the member for Nepean.
Mr Baird: As I was saying, we simply couldn't let Highway 407 go unconstructed for fear of the wrath of the member for Durham East, who has been pushing very hard for his constituents, as have a good number of other colleagues, on this issue.
I want to discuss two or three things on this motion before us today. The first is the motion itself. It would refer this bill to the standing committee on resources development. How long have we debated this bill? In fact we've debated it over three days, just at second reading alone, for nine hours. Does that constitute a significant amount of time? I wasn't sure, so I consulted the legislative record and saw what other parliaments used in terms of debate.
In the 35th Parliament the New Democratic Party spent on average in their first session only 48 minutes debating a bill - sorry, that's on third reading. On second reading they spent about an hour and 28 minutes in their first session debating a bill; in the second session they increased it dramatically, to three hours and 55 minutes. By the third session it was four hours and 49 minutes. Of course, the third session only sat for 20 days because the Legislature was not called back so the opposition could hold the government of the day accountable, something that is a staple of the Mike Harris government, where the Legislature is in session and is accountable to the people of Ontario. We look at this nine hours of debate. It's certainly significantly longer, 50% longer, than the largest sessions of the New Democratic Party.
Let's look at the Liberal government in the 34th session. On second reading they spent, in the first session of that Parliament, an hour and eight minutes, and in the second session they spent an hour and 38 minutes. What do we see here now? It's that Mike Harris believes we should be debating bills much longer than the Liberals or the New Democratic Party. Those facts may get in the way of a good line from our friends in the opposition, but just because they choose to ignore those facts they do not cease to exist. So we have nine hours of debate.
Does the debate end here, with that nine hours? No, that was in addition to seven months of in-depth study. The minister for privatization, the man who has taken the time to get it right, took seven months reviewing this issue, to reflect on the thoughts. He went forward to reflect on this issue, made an announcement some months ago that indeed this would be a candidate for privatization, and then brought forward legislation on first reading. There was a considerable amount of public discussion, then it came to second reading over a period of three days for more than nine hours, which is considerably longer than our colleagues in the opposition parties would have used. When you look at the facts, the numbers don't lie. The Mike Harris government is spending more time debating legislation on average than the past two socialist governments.
This motion would send the bill to the standing committee on resources development for even more debate. There would be a period for conducting public hearings and then an additional period to have clause-by-clause consideration of a bill that in its length is not long in comparison with other pieces of legislation. After that it would come back for yet more debate at third reading in this place, and the time allocated for that debate would be substantially longer than the New Democratic Party, which would debate things for an average of 48 minutes to two hours. The other socialist party, the Liberal Party, in the 34th Parliament on average in the first session debated bills on third reading for seven minutes.
We think the people of Ontario deserve more than seven minutes. That's why it's considerably higher under this motion, to allow more debate. But the Liberals, true to their word, got better in the second session, the member for Sudbury East will know. They went to 15 minutes during the 34th session.
Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East): Were they time-allocated? John, you forgot to mention that.
Mr Baird: The NDP record, I concede to the member for Sudbury East, was demonstrably better than the Liberal record. I concede her that point. The NDP did a better job than the Liberals. I concede that point. They are definitely the better of the two socialist parties in Ontario.
1600
Privatization is very important to the taxpayers. In the Common Sense Revolution, presented more than a year before the last provincial election, something rather unique happened. Rather than writing its policy platform on the back of a matchbook in the campaign bus during the election campaign, this government, this party and this leader put forward a plan more than a year before the provincial election, so that people would have a chance to resolve it. That was different from our friend Mr Peterson, who developed campaign strategy on the fly. He announced a tax cut during the 1990 election. The Liberals were falling in the polls, so they decided a tax cut should follow the Liberals.
This election platform was put forward a year before the election. Our election platform said the following: "Many of the things that government does can be done cheaper, faster and better if the private sector is involved." Specifically with the privatization framework this government has followed, we want to help boost the economy. There were three objectives to that framework: to see if there were better ways to improve service and value to the taxpayers; to identify where greater involvement by the private sector could help improve the quality, efficiency and choice of services; and to ensure that privatized services on business continue to meet public policy goals. I want to congratulate the minister for privatization. He took the time to get it right, in reflecting particularly on this bill before us today.
Under the framework, we have injected sound, proven private sector techniques into public sector activities in a good number of ways. In February 1998 we decided, after seven months of review, that Ontario doesn't need to own a toll highway. It's important to ensure that a new owner will start the construction of Highway 407, the east side and the west side, as soon as possible, because as the member for privatization said earlier, people in Halton, as the member for Halton North knows very well - he's been a big proponent of finding ways to alleviate congestion for his constituents - have been waiting for this since 1980. They shouldn't have to wait any longer. That's why the government wants to move, to get on with it.
I don't have time to go on all about the shortcomings of the Liberal and NDP governments and why they didn't start this bill. It wasn't a priority for the Liberal government. If you want to give some credit where credit is due, at least the NDP got the ball rolling on this issue. Despite increasing spending by more than 100% during their term in office, the Liberal government never got off the starting block, to start this thing. I'll give some credit where credit is due. The NDP government at least got this thing going. I know the member for Sudbury East just loves all the praise we give to the New Democratic Party. At least they got the ball going, but they didn't finish the job. That's why this government needs to step in, to move forward and finish this. We want to get going on this project.
The NDP government announced the privatization of Highway 407 as a toll highway back in 1993. It was to have been in the form of a private-public sector partnership arrangement. The Minister of Transportation, Mr Pouliot, our good friend -
Mr Marcel Beaubien (Lambton): A good man.
Mr Baird: The member is a good man. I acknowledge that.
Minister Pouliot said, "We will also speed up preparations on the balance of Highway 407 so we can improve highway access to the Oshawa area." June 1993, two years, and nothing happened. Thank goodness the people of Oshawa had the member for Durham East fighting to alleviate those congestion problems. I know he has spoken endlessly about this to his caucus colleagues, to make this happen.
An interesting thing the Minister of Transportation said here, "We believe working with the private sector is the best way to improve our transportation network." That's not Tony Clement, that's not Al Palladini, that's Gilles Pouliot. I agree with Gilles Pouliot when he said that. He knows highways perhaps better than any member of this province, since there are so many curvatures in his constituency, and highways. I agree with him.
I also agreed with the Premier when he said, "The degree of private sector involvement in the financing and building of Highway 407 could enable us to do it even faster and at less cost." That's what the Premier said. That's not Premier Mike Harris, that's Premier Bob Rae, on February 10, 1993.
Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener): The one who doesn't believe in socialism any more.
Mr Baird: "The one who doesn't believe in socialism any more," the member from Kitchener said. Yes. Indeed, this probably was the beginning of the end of his socialist dreams in his head. So that was interesting to note.
I want to very briefly talk about the importance to the economy of Ontario of getting goods and services through the greater Toronto area, because there is such solid economic growth in the province, and more people working and more development and more homes being constructed in the suburban parts of the greater Toronto area, that there is more traffic to take around, and this piece of legislation will seek to open up the GTA. Why? What needs to go off from the GTA? There are more products. Chrysler Canada is increasing their facility at Arnprior, and they're going to be bringing those goods forward to the GTA. There's terrific growth in the auto sector and in our exports, and we need to get these products through the GTA.
Highway 407 will be an alternative route. We still have Highway 401 and the other 400 series highways. It's important to note that on Highway 416 in my part of the province - and that's the primary access route, and we were very solid in our commitment to say there would be no tolls on Highway 416, no ifs, ands, buts or tolls on Highway 416. That is proceeding very well indeed. That will be completed hopefully by next August, a full year and a half ahead of schedule, because this government has delivered on its commitment for Highway 416 to the people of Ottawa-Carleton and indeed eastern Ontario.
I'm very pleased to yield the balance of my time to the very hard-working member for Durham East, since he has worked tirelessly as an advocate for his constituents on this very important issue.
Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): I'm privileged to share my time with the member for Nepean, who is the second-hardest worker in this House. In all sincerity, with Highway 416 Mr Baird is probably the person who got the shovels in the ground.
Coming from Durham, I drive to this Legislature every day, along with many of my constituents. Since the election in 1995, traffic has increased exponentially. Each year we're in office there seems to be more traffic. I finally analyzed it, and it's apparent to me that jobs are up, the economy is up. That's where you see it: You see it in the commuters back and forth every day from Durham. Highway 401 is the only commercial link to Durham, and I'm going to go through a bit of a history here of just how important it is for this government to get the shovels in the ground and get the business moving.
In my remarks earlier on this bill, I used a rather humorous line, but nonetheless it rang very true. I had a number of calls on it. I said, "If we build it, they will come." Those lines are from the movie Field of Dreams. It's really implying that if that highway is there, the economic viability of the eastern part of the GTA is absolutely dependent on the extension of the 407 into Durham region.
I know this issue has been on the books for some time. In fact, most recently - I'm going to go chronologically - just this past Friday the Honourable Janet Ecker and the Honourable Jim Flaherty as well as Jerry Ouellette and myself were in attendance at a meeting with the chamber of commerce. Number one of the items brought to our attention by the vice-president of the association, Mr Gerry Taylor, was, "What's the status of the 407?" I'm recounting to you that the president, Don Conaby, has asked us to feed back to them directly on this very important issue. They're asking if there is anything they can do to get the government off its duff and to get the shovels in the ground.
Just a little farther back, I have here a map of the 407 and the other transportation corridors, and if I look to the west part of Toronto I see the Queen Elizabeth Way, the 427, Highway 403 and Highway 407, all the linkages into the Mississauga and to the western area, the very heartland of Ontario's economy. I can make the analogy that the missing link into Durham of course is the completion of the 407 project, not just the immediate jobs, the 6,000 jobs that this will create for the economy of Ontario, for the people and the trades and all those who would be involved in the project, but most importantly the infrastructure to have the jobs in place for the people of Durham.
Not only that, but if I look at the 401, probably half of the problem - of course, there's a request for expansion of lanes to the east on the 401, which I endorse, but half the traffic on the 401 is large commercial vehicles. The argument could be made that if we can provide a fast alternative, a route around Toronto, the 407, arguably we'd have to spend less money on maintaining and widening the 401. So it's critical for the future development not just of Durham but for eastern Ontario. The GTA represents probably about 40% of the economy of this very country and we have to have the infrastructure in place to make Ontario work.
1610
This map clearly shows a deficiency from the 404. From the Don Valley Parkway east there is little infrastructure. In fact, to the credit of the previous government, they extended or started the 407. It was some time, as we all know, to get that moving properly, to get the project going. The only thing is, at the current time, as the minister said earlier in his comments, it ends literally in the middle of a community. I've driven it myself and found there's as much difficulty getting up to the upper highways, the 7A series or 48 or the other highways in that jurisdiction, or down to the 401. So we need a proper link to the 401 from the 407, and it's clear that the link should be in Durham.
I want to go through and, just for the record, name the people who were at the important meeting we had this past Friday with the Oshawa/Clarington Chamber of Commerce. There was Jack Barclay representing General Motors of Canada. General Motors of Canada tell me there are 2,000 or 3,000 trucks per day with the just-in-time inventory systems they have in place. It's absolutely required, not just for safety on our roads, to have the proper transportation infrastructure. There was Don Conaby, as I mentioned, from CONPUTE; Bruce Danford from the local newspaper, Metroland; Lloyd Fenemore, a business person, a chartered accountant in the area; Ian Johncox from Kitchen, Kitchen, Simeson and McFarlane; Gerry Johnston from Ontario Guard Services, who is very familiar with government business; Debra Sweetman, a barrister, a lawyer - all of these people were insistent that we make progress immediately - Bill Thompson from the Oshawa Centre, a very important shopping destination that would also be one of the more connected commercial links with this whole transportation network; MaryLynn West-Moynes from Durham College. Of course, Durham College and university centre is an important destination. Durham region has to have the infrastructure for the college and university centre, along with the highway, as well as the GO Transit system. I think Durham region is the place for opportunity and hope in this province. It's the future. Their time has come. There was John Williams from Hillebrand-Williams Consulting; Bob Malcolmson, who is the executive director of the Oshawa/Clarington Chamber of Commerce, and Wilma Metcalfe from the chamber of commerce as well.
There were other members in attendance. I mentioned Gerry Taylor, who is the vice-president of EDS Canada, a very large information- and technology-based company; Lynn Woods from Marshall Macklin Monaghan, a consulting firm, and a number of other people.
I couldn't list all of those in attendance, but out of respect for them today, I'm here to ask and ensure that this government delivers on its commitment: a promise made; a promise kept.
I keep looking at this map as a reference point of just how little infrastructure there is for the people of Durham. There are almost 500,000 residents, many of whom, like me, commute every day to Toronto. If they're not into mass transit, using the GO system, they're on the 401. Let me tell you about the traffic from way before Brock Road, starting at about Oshawa and Park Road. I leave every morning at about a quarter to 6 and usually it takes me just about two hours, maybe two and a half hours, to get here, and most of that is purely a congestion issue. I've tried GO Transit, but because of our jobs we sit here until 9:30, sometimes 10 o'clock at night and there's very irregular service to the Oshawa area.
Very early on, when I was on the Clarington council and on Durham region council, it was an important issue. In fact, I'm going to try to flip through my notes here and find the resolution that was moved when I was a member of council on June 14, 1993. I'll read it for the record:
"That the previous motion passed by the council on Highway 407 be rescinded and that the council of the town of Newcastle, now Clarington, endorse in principle the proposed technically preferred route of 407 up to and including the connecting link to locate between Bowmanville and Courtice, commonly known as the Courtice link between 401 and 407." So there it is.
The member for Kingston and The Islands should know that this has been discussed to death. Of course, he's new here, like the rest of us. He wasn't here when they were in government. He was the mayor of Kingston. But this has been in discussion for the last decade.
To the credit of the NDP, I have to recognize -
Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Make sure you give the NDP the credit.
Mr O'Toole: I mean that respectfully, that the NDP at least, even though they had no money, were still spending it. They were smart enough to go into a private sector consortium, but the only thing is they ended up with all the liability, all the debt. This agreement that the minister is looking forward to with Bill 70 is to allow this to develop as a full, functional, self-supporting commercial entity that ensures its viability of this. I'm sure the private sector will rise to the challenge.
I want to be assured, within the context of Bill 70 and this request for the opportunity to privatize the 407, that there are commitments, and I have this from the minister, to put the link in in Durham. We all know that the economics aren't there for the link according to the studies today, but clearly the persons who commit to this project and those groups of companies will recognize that if they build it, they will come.
If you look at the expansions along the western part, especially going through Mississauga, you can see that this is exactly the case. Imagine the head offices of major corporations that want to be connected to the Durham economy, the 500,000 people in that area. As part of the GTA infrastructure, this is an absolutely imperative piece to put this complete ring of infrastructure around the GTA. Going back in my own personal experience to 1993, it's clear that I was on record as saying that this was the right thing to do.
I want to also make it very clear that I have assurances in this that the current legislative framework will permit the environmental process to be completely respected. I refer here to section 38:
"Environmental Assessment Act
"Highway 407 shall be deemed to be an undertaking as defined in the Environmental Assessment Act and, for the purposes of management of that undertaking, the owner shall be deemed to be a public body to which the Environmental Assessment Act applies."
You have it there very clearly that there's no opportunity for whoever the developers are to ignore the importance of the environment. I said in my earlier comments that it's a very important opportunity for the Durham region, but that does not relinquish the responsibility to respect the environment on the technically preferred route, to respect the farmland in my riding. It's very critical. To respect the Oak Ridges Moraine is very critical, the headwaters for many of the creeks that flow to Lake Ontario, the freshwater creeks for the trout and other wildlife in the area. It's an important link, but it must be done in the right way at the right time, and I'm confident under this minister that he will certainly respect those requirements and we will be in the ground as soon as possible, without ignoring the obvious commitments to our environment.
1620
I think we learn about the future by looking to the past, and history's the greatest teacher. I look at what the minister did when he took a look at the auto insurance situation in this province. All of us know that every single one of our constituents -
Mr Bradley: He cut benefits.
Mr O'Toole: The member for St Catharines would know that this used to be the oldest nagging problem for every member: What about the annual 10% car premium increase? Now you can see that Minister Sampson has gone through a very open consultation and we have a more effective, more accountable and more efficient and affordable system for the taxpayers of this province. Insurance premiums are nothing more than a tax if you look at it that way, and if this minister is the same individual with his business background, I'm confident that this is the right thing to do at the right time. We have the right person in charge, there's no question of that, and if there's any person here who wants to dispute that, I think they've got some explaining to do.
It's important to put on the record that the whole issue in Durham has been rather controversial. Not that they don't want it; they do want it. The chamber of commerce and every public elected person wants the 407 and they want it in Durham now. I think the controversy has been over where exactly that link route should go.
I have to respect the mayor of Whitby, Marcel Brunelle. I served with him as a municipal councillor and I have a lot of respect for him. I know the first priority in his area is the importance of all of Durham and all of the GTA. But in looking for the most recent communications with the now Minister of Transportation, Mr Clement, this correspondence is dated February 17, 1998 - this is important, and I hope the other members will just listen for one moment and give freedom a chance or give this opportunity a clear, unconfronted ear:
"Easterly expansion of the 407 expressway
"The council of the corporation of the town of Whitby at a meeting held Monday, February 16, passed the following resolution in connection with the eastern expansion of the 407:
"Whereas the 407 expressway has intensified traffic flow along the Highway 7 corridor and its easterly extension, Winchester Road through the village of Brooklin; and
"Whereas this intensification will increase with further easterly extension of the 407; and
"Whereas the Brooklin area has and will continue to experience unprecedented residential growth; and
"Whereas Winchester Road is inadequate to handle the increased traffic flow; and
"Whereas the traffic will result in increased harm to the integrity of the village; and
"Whereas the traffic flow represents a serious threat to the safety of the village residents, especially children;
"Therefore, be it resolved that the Ministry of Transportation be strongly urged to construct a bypass along the village of Brooklin utilizing the 407 alignment to Winchester Road in advance of any further easterly expansion to the 407."
Again, there is no discussion that they want the 407; it's really an issue of the linkage. Arguably we have been hearing the same discussion from Markham. The whole issue of having the current alignment of the 407 end in the middle of a community has been controversial.
I think I'll try to move along here and just put down for the record that the township of Scugog wants to be on the record as well. Their recent correspondence was in 1998, addressed to Minister Clement, and I'll read it: "Resolution to the province in support of the construction of the Lakeridge Road-401 interchange with 407." There you have it.
I have always said if you look at this map that I'm always referring to, the map clearly shows the demarcation of where the urban area ends, and north of that, where the rural area starts. I think the 407 is widely needed, not just for jobs but for the economy of Durham.
The Deputy Speaker: Further debate?
Mr Curling: I just want to take this opportunity to make a few comments on this. As you know, my other colleagues will be making some comments here.
Many of the members here are speaking on Bill 70, but I don't think that Bill 70 is the focus now. It's the time allocation, which has become a routine procedure of this government as soon as they introduce any legislation. First of all, if they make a statement anyhow, they try to make it outside of the House. This is a way not to get criticism or any pertinent comments about the direction in which this government is going, and we have quite a few comments to make about the way this government has conducted itself.
When it comes to legislation, if they are forced because of the procedure to introduce it in the House, what they do is immediately tell you that they have to restrict the time. Today, although we have one hour on our side to do that, we will of course share our time with the member for St Catharines, Mr Bradley, the member for Kingston and The Islands, the formidable individual who is our whip, and the member for Scarborough-Agincourt.
I'm trying to be as calm as possible, because I get really irritable about the fact that the democratic process has put 130 of us in this Parliament here so that when legislation comes forward we can debate it and have good discussion on this matter. But this government doesn't go this way. Since they have taken the reins of power in Ontario, they have restricted over 30 times with time allocation; 30 times when, when members were anxious to give their point of view, to speak on issues, they shut it down. In other words, they have no respect for the parliamentary process. They have no respect for the democratic process.
Today, many of them are wearing this poppy, a symbol of the fact that people fought for this democracy, fought to be heard, fought so that we don't have dictators and many of the regimes of the past that conducted themselves in such a manner that we said, "No more of this." But the fact is that they continue to act in a very dictatorial and bullying manner.
On 30 different occasions, very important bills in this House that we'd like to have spoken on, we have been restricted. But again, they may feel that people are not observing them or it's going unnoticed.
I know they would love to have us, as the opposition, look rather irrelevant on things. But we know how relevant we are. You can see many days when we sit here and ask them questions in the House that few of these ministers are around. They are one of the most endangered species we have in the House these days. They don't come to Parliament to be accountable to the people. No. They hide. When we do corner one or two of the speakers, like the Minister of Housing - as you know, Mr Speaker, each time a question is asked of the Minister of Housing, he shifts it somehow. They're just hoping that time in the House will go away quickly, that they can have an opportunity not to be accountable. But we'll be vigilant in our process to make sure that this government, which has acted in a very dictatorial and rather bullying way, will be accountable. The ultimate accountability, of course, is the people.
Consultation is not in their language or vocabulary whatsoever. Consultation to them means speaking to some of their backbenchers in their own party and telling them to keep their mouths shut. Today I was observing how quiet they were when we were talking about school closings. Right in their own constituency they were shut out. Schools are being closed, and people want their voice to be heard. What are their members going to do about this when the government enforces and implements the formula to have their schools closed? Not a peep out of them.
Sometimes they even go as far as a good colleague of mine, a person whom I like as an individual, the member for Scarborough West, who is the crime commissioner. At one stage, here you are, a government wanting to - which they have done - put guns in the hands of 12-year-olds. In the meantime, contradictory to it all, the member is out there bashing young offenders and bashing people and talking about zero tolerance.
Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): Squeegee kids.
1630
Mr Curling: Yes, let's bash those squeegee kids, let's get them off the road. He wants to take the squeegees out of their hands, the sponge mop out of their hands, and put guns in their hands and say, "That's the way to go." That sort of contradiction and confusion baffles me.
As far as they're concerned about consultation, their own backbenchers can only speak when they are told to speak. A sad affair. They were elected to do that.
The electorate are watching them rather carefully to see how they have handled these things over a couple of years. They feel they are right. As I said, when I look across at the mass of them over there on that side, the government side, they remind me of the Titanic. They are glib, they look well, they're dressed so wonderfully and they say, "Listen, nothing can touch us, nothing in the world, we're sailing along so well." One of these days we're going to give them some warning that there's an iceberg out there they will be accountable to. I call that iceberg the people of this province who want to have some accountability and some input into this.
I wonder what they're hiding. Why is it that they're shutting down this debate? Why are they doing this, putting time allocation to it? Maybe they're scared we might ask them: "If you're going to sell off this highway, what is the accountability? What process are you going to take?" Maybe they're scared we will ask, "Is there a process of saying how we'll be accountable to these individuals whom we'll be selling it to?" Maybe they've got a friend they'd somehow like to sell it to and we may be asking too many questions. Why are we having this debate? Why do we have to go through second reading and consultation? Why would we have to go to third reading? Why don't we just put time allocation to this and end it all so that the opposition would only have such a limited time to speak?
We understand that. We understand that that is what you may want to do. Then come out and tell us. Tell us why you don't wish to tell us what accountability process you have. Quite often, what is done when the Conservative government is selling off anything, they go into the backroom, talk to their little buddies and they sell it off, just like Ontario Hydro. Maybe they know immediately whom they're selling the 407 to.
Don't you think that the people have a right to know what the process is, what sort of money, what deal has been cut? Is it accountable? Is there a way that we can hold these people accountable? It doesn't seem that those questions are too tough for them to answer. But can you imagine this government turning around and telling us: "Listen, we know what we're doing. We are the Titanic and we're sailing ahead. Just trust me. Trust me because I know, and we know what we're doing. We don't have to consult with you whatsoever because when we get down to it, we will make sure that we are very knowledgeable in the running of a public highway."
Many of the members over there have just said: "The minister has done so much research. He has done such hard work on this, he knows it all" - no consultation, no response. Here on the opposite side there are quite knowledgeable individuals, very knowledgeable individuals on the Liberal side. The NDP will have their contribution to make in this regard. There are individuals who can make their contribution towards this. But no, this government wants to say: "Trust me. I know what I am doing." We did that. They said: "Trust me. I won't close any hospitals. That's my mandate and that's my book I'm putting out here. I will not close any hospitals." But we know they're closing many hospitals today. Emergency wards are in crisis.
They said, "Trust us." He said, "I'm the Taxfighter and I will not increase taxes in this province, none whatsoever." We'll just change the name, to protect the innocent, to user fees. "We will bring in more user fees than taxes. Trust us, we won't do that." Can you trust a government that tells you: "Take my word for it. We don't need to debate this. Just trust me. Let's go along. We don't need a debate on this. Trust me. No taxes" - but we have taxes.
As recently as the weekend, you saw: "Trust me. I will not close any schools. I will put the weapon in the hands of individuals, and then if they want to close, we shall blame them." It's almost like putting the guns in the hands of 12-year-olds and saying: "Listen, guns don't kill people. People kill people. But I'll put the guns in their hands, and trust me, nothing will happen. Nothing whatsoever will happen in this regard."
How can you trust a government like that? The record speaks for itself, but the most important part of all this - I have such great confidence in the process - is that the people will realize that. If you want a visual aspect of this, many of the pages are at just about the age where the government would say, "I will put guns in the hands of all the pages here." Wonderful, intelligent people, but as I have stated before, if I put a bottle of beer in the hands of one of these kids here today, they would be charged; their parents would be charged. If I said to them, "Come on and drive my car right now; I feel you would have good fun and you could bond with me in that way," they would be charged - under age. They're saying: "Trust us because we know what we're doing. If we put guns in the hands of those young people, nothing will happen. It's just a matter of bonding."
Many of the debates that could go on in regard to many issues that are put forward here are restricted because of what we call time allocation. They don't want to hear the facts, they don't want to hear about the emotions on the ripping, on the pulling, on the tearing of communities, on which they have done an awful job. I just want to comment that if you also carry out the same process with the school closings, you will see what happens. If you restrict any of that debate and consultation out there - you think you're closing a building so you can get your money to balance your books and give it to the rich, who don't really need it, so you can honour some political promises you have made. I'm telling you that the closing of schools is the gutting of a community. It's like the nucleus of a community, where people come together to discuss their issues of safety, their issues of sports, their issues of community living.
What have they done? They will not have any consultation. They will restrict any type of debate in this House because they cannot face that music. As I said, as with the Titanic they look ahead and they see the iceberg and say: "What a beautiful reflection of the sun, of the glistening waters down there. Isn't that beautiful? We're heading straight for it because of its beauty." The iceberg you see is people who are just waiting for you. These nice, glib individuals out there - unsinkable Conservatives, the unsinkable Harris - they themselves will find that without the heed of the people who want consultation, the heed of the people who say, "Listen to me, I'll tell you where you're going wrong, tell you all of that" - but you refuse, of course, because you don't want to listen to the people, you feel that you have it right. The flip side of it, what it really boils down to, is arrogance, bullying, dictatorial, undemocratic, and you feel that no one will ever you stop you.
If you continue in this process, if you continue in this manner of not allowing this consultation, of not allowing people to debate and discuss this, of not allowing people who have sent me here and many of my colleagues here to discuss the issues that concern the specific issues within their ridings - because of course 407 passes above my riding and also will encroach at some time on the Rouge River. We want to know what has been happening. Who's buying it, what will it cost? It is an opportunity now for me to tell you I'm in complete disagreement with the process and the way you conduct yourselves in this House. I just want to put those matters on the record.
1640
Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I'm pleased to participate in the debate on time allocation to close off the debate on Bill 70, which is the bill designed to sell off the 407. Let me begin by saying that all of us are looking for contemporary and new ways of ensuring that our infrastructure in the province is refurbished and that the ways of the past obviously have got to be challenged. The previous government agreed to the construction of a toll road, the 407. It was a fairly big break for them to agree to that. At the time, the way it was positioned to the Legislature was that this would be a highway constructed by the private sector under a fixed contract, and financed by the private sector.
I was quite attracted to that idea, for a couple of reasons. One is that when the private sector is involved in actually raising the money, there is often a strong litmus test. By the way, I always felt that the gambling casinos should be owned by the private sector. I always thought it was a mistake that all the gambling casinos being constructed in Ontario were owned by the public. I had always felt that if the private sector had their money at risk, you would be awfully sure that they would spend more time making sure there wasn't that big a risk. Similarly, I felt the 407 should have been, as originally planned, financed by the private sector.
The second reason is that, had that happened, the construction consortiums involved in the project could have taken that expertise and sold it around the globe. As it was, they were able to sell their expertise on the construction, but not on the financing.
This leads me now to this bill. My fundamental problem with the bill is that it results in the sale of the 407 in perpetuity. It is a bill that will forever and a day see the 407 sold into private sector hands.
The reason the government wants to do that is that there is not much doubt there will be an election sometime, I think within the next six to eight months. The government wants to get its books dressed up as best they can. If you sell the 407 forever, you will get the maximum price for it because, believe me, if you look down the road at this metropolitan area 30 or 40 or 50 years from now, we all know that that band where the 407 will run will be extremely crowded, just as we see the 401 now, which is about four or five kilometres south of the 407, completely congested even with what I think must now be -
Mr Gilles Pouliot (Lake Nipigon): Twelve lanes.
Mr Phillips: At least 12 lanes, probably more, running across. It's completely congested. Imagine if the Legislature had had this debate 40 years ago and had said, "We're prepared to sell off the 401 forever." That's what the government is asking us to do. Is that really in the best interests of the public, knowing what we all know, that it is only a matter of time before this road will be like the 401 is right now?
I don't know why the government - I shouldn't say I don't know why. I can tell you why the government is doing this. It's because they will get, sometime in the next six months, the maximum possible price for it. They will show asset sales. As I say, they are dressing the books up as best they can. But I think they've made a mistake here. They should have put, clearly, time limitations on the length for which they will sell this property off.
The second concern I have in the bill is that, as I read the bill, it still calls for the final agreement between the government and the purchaser to be private. I don't understand that. I don't understand why it would not be a public document. As a matter of fact, I can remember Mike Harris in a rage -
Mr Pouliot: Big time.
Mr Phillips: My colleague Mr Pouliot, as these things happen, was the NDP minister at the time, and a fine individual, I might add. Mike Harris was absolutely apoplectic because Mr Pouliot would not make the contract public. Mr Turnbull, who was -
Mr Baird: Say it isn't so.
Hon Mr Sampson: Say it isn't so.
Interjections.
Mr Phillips: I didn't mean to get Mr Pouliot into difficulty, but now here we are, and this is, for me, quite a turn of events. Mike Harris wants to keep the contract private and he wants to do it through legislation. He's going to make absolutely sure that the contract is private. For those who read the fine print -
Mr Pouliot: On a point of order, Madam Speaker: With apologies to my distinguished, esteemed colleague and friend, Mr Phillips, he said, and it's verbatim, recorded in Hansard, that Mr Pouliot, when he was minister, would not make the contract public. As the former Minister of Transportation under the New Democratic Party government, I can assure you that our system was supervised by Price Waterhouse. I can assure you that everything -
The Acting Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): Member for Lake Nipigon, that is not a point of order. Take your seat, please.
Member for Scarborough-Agincourt.
Mr Phillips: Thank you. I'm sure it was.
We're dealing with Bill 70, which is the bill dealing with 407. It talks about, "Without limiting his or her powers under sections 2 or 3, the minister for privatization may," and then it essentially gives the minister an absolute blank cheque, "(a) determine the assets to be transferred; (b) determine the consideration to be paid for the assets; (c) establish terms and conditions relating to the management of Highway 407; and (d) at the direction of the Lieutenant Governor in council, incorporate or cause to be incorporated" etc.
It's really a blank cheque. I just say to ourselves, here we have what will be the second major artery running through this urban area: the 401 and then the 407. It will be extremely crowded in 10 years and will be not unlike the 401, I suspect, in 20 or 30 years.
"Let's let the private sector build it": We have no difficulty with that. "Let's get a fixed price": no difficulty with that. "Let's finish the 407": no difficulty with that. "Let's get the private sector financing that": no difficulty with that. But why would the government not limit the length of time in which the private sector would own this so that the public would not be 30, 40 or 50 years from now continuing to pay and pay and pay?
After all, recognize what we're selling here. It is a stream of revenue. That's what these companies are going to buy, a stream of revenue - tolls, and a guaranteed stream of revenue - because the province is not going to construct another major highway within many kilometres of this highway. All of the planning for the area has been based on this highway taking an enormous amount of traffic.
As I conclude my remarks, I find it unfortunate that the government didn't spend the time on this bill to, in my opinion, protect the public interest. It is another good idea gone bad. It's like health restructuring is a good idea and then it's gone bad. It's like all of us want to change the education system and then suddenly Mike Harris brings out what's called a funding formula, an idea to improve the education system, and we end up with hundreds of schools being closed.
Here we take a good idea, which is to help to fix our traffic, to utilize the strength of the private sector for a short-term gain. The short-term gain is that they will, without question of a doubt - the purpose of this bill, in perpetuity, is to heighten the selling price, drive it up. As one of the Conservative members said the other evening, this is a great time because you sell it in perpetuity. It hikes the price. The low Canadian dollar will surely attract some very interested buyers from outside our borders. So it's a short-term fire sale. I don't think we need to do that. We can accomplish our same objectives without selling this thing forever.
The Acting Speaker: Further debate?
Mr Gerretsen: There were some very interesting points raised by the member for Scarborough-Agincourt. They are much like the points that I've raised with the minister himself as well some time ago. Last week, as a matter of fact, I specifically asked him, "Give me a good reason why it's in the public interest to sell the road." Of course, he likes to talk then about all the jobs that it's going to create. We know that when you build a new piece of road jobs are going to be created regardless of who builds it, whether it's the private sector that builds it or whether it's the public sector that builds it. He seems to talk about it as if, if the private sector does it, the jobs that are being created in order to build the highway are different from if the public sector does it. I think that makes absolutely no sense at all.
1650
The only reason he and members on the other side have given me over the last two or three days that we've debated this is the fact that $1.8 billion will be taken off the public debt of this province. That's the reason that has been given. Hansard will clearly show that. I say to the minister, if he's really that concerned about taking money off the public debt, why did they, during their watch, allow the public debt of this province to go up from $88 billion to $115 billion, where it is right now? He could say, "Obviously, we couldn't be expected to balance the budget on the first day that we were in power," and I agree with that. But I say a good $10 billion of that $27 billion that it has gone up since they've taken office is due to the tax cut.
I'm in favour of a tax cut. The problem is that you can only afford a tax cut once the budget of the province has been balanced. You cannot afford to give people tax cuts when you're still running a deficit on an annual basis.
Mr Wettlaufer: You guys campaigned on a tax cut. What are you talking about?
The Acting Speaker: Member for Kitchener, come to order.
Mr Gerretsen: I'm just saying to him, Minister, if you were concerned about the $1.8 billion being taken off the public debt, and that's why you want to sell this highway, were you the person in cabinet who argued against the tax cut on the basis that we do not want to increase the public debt of this province? Every time I say this it always creates great furor in the House, because the members on the government side know that what I'm saying is so. The interest on the public debt annually has gone up from $7.2 billion back in 1995 to $9.1 billion today, almost $2 billion more than what we spent on the interest three or four years ago, and of course this in a time of low inflation.
I suppose what we should be talking about here is time allocation. The general public out there must be totally confused about time allocation, because this comes up in this House on at least two or three occasions each and every week. This is the 30th time - and I've got a complete list here starting in October 1995 going right through 1996, 1997 and now 1998 - that this government has invoked closure and time allocation.
I say to the government House leader, if you want to do away with the need for time allocations, why don't you bring forward at your House leader meetings a schedule, a program, as to what you intend to call during a particular session of Parliament? Say: "On Monday afternoon we're going to call the transportation bill. On Monday night we're going to call a budget bill." I think it would be a lot easier then for the people of Ontario to follow what we're debating here on an ongoing basis. A schedule can be published, both on the parliamentary station and in the newspapers, so that people, if they're interested in a particular bill, can actually know that on Wednesday afternoon they'll be discussing a bill dealing with property tax reform; on Thursday afternoon it will be a bill dealing with the sale of the 407, or whatever.
While I'm at it, of course, there are still hundreds and thousands of small business individuals throughout Ontario who want to know when this House is going to take a look at the latest bill dealing with the assessment situation in Ontario. Why hasn't that bill been introduced? People at one time were told, "You'll have until October 31 to appeal your assessment." I know I've been getting calls in my constituency office from people whose taxes have gone up 30% or 40% asking: "When can I appeal? Did that piece of legislation pass? The Minister of Finance said he would bring it forward. Why didn't he do so?" He still hasn't done so.
We understand that the bill may be introduced, probably not this week, probably once we come back in early December. It's obviously done in such a way to orchestrate the fact that it needs to be passed immediately so it cannot have open and public debate and it cannot go to committee for any length of time where we can have some input from outside of this chamber as well. That's what it's all about. People are confused out there, and this government is adding to that confusion in just about every piece of legislation they bring forward.
Of course, then from the other side, whenever you get into a fairly serious debate on a particular issue, you get the personal attacks going. That's always good for the level of debate. They start attacking people's individual personality or what they think that person may have done in the past, or this, that or the other thing, rather than sticking to the issues.
The issue here, quite simply, is this: Number one, why don't you work out a schedule with the other House leaders so that everyone can know some three or four weeks in advance what piece of legislation is going to be called on what day and the public can be better informed, so that you don't have to have all these closure motions?
Number two, dealing specifically with this bill, why do you want to sell this highway and the rights to build the balance of the highway? You can get the same job creation activity going if the government were to do it. So far, not an adequate reason has been given, particularly when you take a look at the bill and you see it has such wide powers in it for the minister. There's absolutely no transparency or anything like that in the bill. The bill basically is wide open. The other day I went through about four or five sections where the minister on his own behest can do almost anything without any transparency to the general public.
There are some very interesting sections in the bill. I'm not sure whether the members of the government even know that this particular roadway, Highway 407, is exempted from planning approvals, municipal bylaws, tax assessment requirements and other matters, to parallel this situation. That is really something, and I'm sure the member for Nepean wasn't aware of that, that this particular bill exempted any local municipal bylaws or planning approvals or tax assessment requirements. That's just one example. I could give you a few more. It allows all sorts of things to happen which have absolutely no public input, in which the public does not have a right to know what's going on with respect to this contract.
I simply say this: If the government is interested in setting out a schedule of debate, then meet with the House leaders and work out a schedule so that everyone knows exactly what's going to be debated over a particular session of Parliament. Also, call the most important legislation that you yourself have talked about first, so that the people of Ontario know what's going on.
I think the biggest error that this government has made in the last couple of months, outside of its school closure policy, which we know is affecting about 500 different schools and thereby communities in our province - that is an absolute travesty, what's happening right now across the province, and you saw the display today where both the Premier and the Minister of Education basically tried to blame the boards of education: "It's their problem." It is not their problem. It's their funding proposition, their funding formula, the way in which schools are funded by the province of Ontario, that's the problem. I think the people of Ontario ought to know that.
Certainly, the biggest area where there has been absolute chaos is the property tax area. Seven different bills have been introduced now. All of them are wrong. The small business owners of this province are now presumably going to get a bill, if this final bill ever gets introduced and passed, which would in effect tell them: "As a result of assessment changes, you may have thought you were getting a 40% or 50% tax decrease in your situation but, sorry, we were wrong about that. It's only going to 10% this year. That's all you're going to be allowed by way of a decrease from last year." How do you think the business owner is going to feel about that? They're not going to like that.
I will now turn it over to my colleague from St Catharines, but I once again call upon the minister to tell this House, without personally attacking people's motives or anything like that, what real advantages there are to privatizing this road over having the government build the last portion of the road. So far, we haven't heard that from him.
The Acting Speaker: Further debate.
1700
Mr Bradley: I should report to the people of Ontario that while we're dealing with this closure motion choking off debate on yet another piece of legislation, I was just handed another closure motion, yet one more closure motion choking off debate on yet another bill in this assembly. I would never see this happening in the courts of Ontario. I know my friend from Ottawa-Rideau must be very perturbed to see yet another time allocation motion being thrust on this House. So there's yet another. I'll give it to the opposition whip to see what it's all about.
We should not be debating a time allocation motion. I'm going to talk about some of the things we should be debating in this House that wouldn't require a time allocation motion, I'm certain.
One is the government advertising program that we see taking place in Ontario now.
Mr Wettlaufer: Why don't we talk about the Liberal advertising program?
The Acting Speaker: Member for Kitchener, come to order. You're not even in your seat.
Mr Bradley: Every time somebody turns on the television set now, they see a self-serving, highly partisan ad campaign on. If you watch the football game on Sunday, even if you watch an American channel, they impose Canadian advertising on it, so you get to see all of the government of Ontario ads. You see the child pulling the Band-Aid off. That's a $3-million Band-Aid, by the way, that's costing the taxpayers of this province; not the very rich Conservative Party, which has its coffers full with donations from the very richest and most powerful people in this province, but rather it is coming from the taxpayers of this province.
I think of Ian Strathern of Niagara Falls. I raised his case in the Ontario Legislature, as did Dalton McGuinty, who was asked by Mr Strathern subsequent to a speech at the St Catharines and District Chamber of Commerce about the situation facing Ian Strathern.
I have received a press release that was put out by his father, David Strathern, which talks about his concerns. Here we have a government blowing $3 million on yet another advertising campaign, yet they're fighting Ian Strathern and his family from getting funding to look after this individual. Let me share with you the press release. It reads as follows:
"Ministry of Health Move to Block Ian's Appeal." That's the headline.
"Ian Strathern, a life-support ventilated quadriplegic that has been fighting for his right to remain at home with his family and to continue his education at Brock University has had another obstacle placed in his path.
"The Ministry of Health has committed thousands of dollars of health care money to a legal battle with the Strathern family. The ministry have objected to Ian having his day before an impartial tribunal provided for by the legislation governing the home care program of the province of Ontario. Ian's family, who are already spending $1,500 per week for nursing services because of the Ministry of Health's failure to provide an appropriate care plan for their son, are now facing legal fees. A lawyer to represent Ian in his right to receive services as promised by the Long-Term Care Act has been hired by the family. The legal fees expected from this activity and the ongoing costs of providing care for their son places a huge financial burden on them.
"The local office of the Community Care Access Centre agree with the Strathern family that Ian should be allowed access to the Health Services Appeal Board. This committee reviews complaints by those receiving services at home by the home care program now provided by the Community Care Access Centre.
"The Ministry of Health has gone outside the legal support structure offered by the Attorney General's office and hired contract legal advisers from a downtown Toronto legal firm. This action creates an additional cost to the health care system, a system that is suffering from underfunding already. To direct additional dollars to outside contract lawyers has got to be a waste of scarce financial resources."
David Strathern, Ian's father, states: "We expect the Ministry of Health to claim that the home care program provided through the regional community care access centre office is not approved by the Minister of Health. It is our understanding that many families in similar desperate circumstances have been blocked by this unfair tactic by the ministry and therefore denied access to the appeal process. We have a plan to address this issue and block this heavy-handed approach by the ministry."
Mr Strathern states: "If the ministry claims that the home care program is not an approved program by the Minister of Health, then the $90 per capita spending in Ontario for home care is being spent by an unapproved agency. This total, nearly $400 million of taxpayers' money, is directed to an unapproved agency providing service in an unapproved manner to the citizens of this province. It completely baffles me as to how, on one hand, the CCAC regional office agrees with Ian as to his right to access this appeal panel while on the other hand, the Ministry of Health are prepared to launch a costly legal challenge preventing him from receiving the impartial review promised in the long-term-care legislation."
The hearing is scheduled in Toronto on November 25, 1998, where a review of this challenge by the Ministry of Health will be made. This is a press release dated October 31 by David Strathern.
Let me tell you something: David Strathern, the father of Ian Strathern, must be absolutely furious when he turns on the television set and sees the government squandering millions of dollars on government propaganda ads, or when he opens up the newspaper and sees Mike Harris's mug in there with a smirk on it while he's spending a lot of money advertising one thing or another, or when he goes to the mailbox and picks up an advertisement of some kind, a pamphlet, whether it's on education or welfare or health care, whatever it is. Mr Strathern must be furious. Or when he turns on the radio and listens to the jingles and commercials from this government.
Mr Strathern has put out this appeal, this press release. He has every right to be, first of all, seeking that assistance for his son and, second, to demand that the government stop its advertising program, which takes so many needed dollars from programs such as this.
Let me review for you the history of this. Ian Strathern, a young person, was injured in a hockey game. As a result, he was left a quadriplegic. He has struggled to lead as normal a life as possible. He needs care on almost a continuous basis. His family has provided a lot of that care already, but he needs some additional care. They went to see Mike Harris at a fundraiser in St Catharines. They attended this fundraiser, which was held at the Ramada Parkway Inn in St Catharines, and Mike Harris was there. I think they talked to Mike Harris, and his handlers said, "He's very concerned about this." They quoted the Premier in the paper saying how concerned he was about this, and the implication was that the Premier was going to do something about it.
We waited several weeks. That was May 7 in St Catharines, where there was an overflow number of people at the fundraiser - I want to say that - shelling out, how much was it per ticket on that occasion? I think it was $150 at a minimum. There they were, the Premier giving his promise. A month and a half later, giving the government a chance to deal with this, Dalton McGuinty rose in the House in late June 1998, this year, having given the government all the time it needed, he felt, to deal with this. He raised it with the Premier. Once again the Premier gave some kind of response as though he was going to do something about it.
1710
On September 30, at the annual meeting of the St Catharines and District Chamber of Commerce, Dalton McGuinty, the Leader of the Opposition and leader of the Liberal Party, was the guest speaker. At the conclusion of the remarks, they asked for questions. Mr Strathern went up to the microphone, brought an update to everybody at the meeting, and then asked the question, should his son, a person in these circumstances, not have access to care? Of course he should.
Then I raised it in the Legislature. I gave another week, because the ministry officials seemed to be looking into it. We went into the next week and nothing happened, so I raised it in the House again. I got an answer. The Minister of Health - it was a hot potato; she couldn't handle it. She fired it over to the minister responsible for long-term care. He blustered about it and blamed everybody else. The fact is that the ministry is spending all kinds of money on legal fees to prevent Ian Strathern and his family from even appealing. All he wants to do is appeal to the Health Services Appeal Board. But the ministry has hired downtown Toronto lawyers through the Ministry of the Attorney General to fight Ian Strathern in his battle to receive the kind of service he needs. So he has to be concerned about this advertising program.
I found it interesting, there was a document that appeared today from my friends in the third party. They were kind enough to share it. I want to say that today. The document is entitled, "Creative and Copy Strategy." If anybody thought Mike Harris's ads, the $42 million worth of ads which are strictly propaganda ads - remember, this government's undertaking a lot more advertising than that; there's a different kind that governments do. But this is on the propaganda ads alone. If you thought these ads were just informational, let me tell you what the secret document says. It says the following:
"As we proceed with this phase of the campaign, we should be reminded of some of the `first principles' that have been learned. These first principles include:
"Our creative" - that must be their advertising documents - "must influence both the hearts and minds of our target audience. To be effective, our advertising must leave the target audience feeling comfortable with trusting the Mike Harris government with Ontario's education system. The emotional impact of our advertising is perhaps even more important than the content of the copy." Does that sound like an informational ad? Of course not. It's a public relations agency involved in this ad, wanting to do what in essence, if the Conservative Party wants to do it, they should be paying for.
It goes on to say, "There is a strong aversion to copy that is glib, vague or over-written, and which makes unrealistic promises. Our copy must be....
"The audience will be far more likely to sympathize with our message if it is presented in shades of grey, not as black and white. This principle has been developed through Jaime Watt's observations of focus groups over the past several years."
Jaime Watt is an adviser to the government on these matters of advertising. He worked for the Tory caucus before, and he has reappeared now working for the Tory caucus as an advertising specialist. So this has nothing to do with information; everything to do with propaganda. That's why I'm wondering why I haven't read editorials in all of Ontario's papers condemning this, or heard the cranky talk show hosts in the major Toronto media condemning it, or perhaps heard the taxpayers' coalition come out with a press release on this, or the Canadians for Responsible Government and the one Stephen Harper heads up. I thought all those people would be complaining about it. It's quite obvious and clear that it is this government advertising.
Let me quote from other parts of it: "Messages and Issues:
"To be successful, our creative must be so straightforward and realistic as to completely evade the public's `political propaganda' meter. The audience must feel that the ads are informative and helpful."
Do you know what that sounds like to me? I think it's pretty clear. They said: "We've got to set these ads up so the people don't think they're political propaganda. We've got to pretend the ads are informative and helpful." This is sheer public relations, nothing to do with providing information.
They put a "Key Insight" in here: "Although gap voters like our education reforms regarding standards, they believe that money remains their primary motive." You know something? They're right, money is the primary motive.
They go on to say about the "Brand Character," the next title:
"This concept is critical to our success in setting the right tone through this phase of the campaign. A believable brand character statement will guide our positioning and help us build the right relationship with the target audience. It should be designed to increase the level of trust the audience has in our government with respect to managing the education system."
I go down near the end:
"Advertising Concepts:
"Drawing upon our consumer insights and brand character, the general concept for this phase of our campaign can be summarized as follows. Keep in mind that this is not an advertising script per se, but rather messaging parameters that could help the agency to hone in on specific things that the audience should take away from our campaign."
So clearly it is an advertising campaign, and it's absolutely an abuse of public trust. As the Brantford Expositor said so well, and I quoted them earlier in the day, when talking about this advertising campaign:
"When the Tories took office three years ago, they set themselves up on a higher pedestal, promising fiscal rectitude and vowing to bring an end to pork barrel politics. In fact, it was an essential ingredient in their whole strategy: Convince Ontario residents that everyone had to share the agony of cutbacks and downsizing on the road to the Common Sense Revolution.
"But as we see so clearly this week, the concept of sharing ends at Queen's Park. At the same time that school boards are closing schools, cities are cutting services and some municipalities are having trouble containing their tax increases due to downloading, the Harris government has managed to find millions to spread the word about how wonderful the Premier is."
The editorial from the Brantford Expositor goes on to say:
"Maybe the Tory brain trust figures you really can fool all of the people all of the time.
"However, we have a higher opinion of the intelligence of Ontario voters and firmly believe that they will see this Tory spending spree for what it really is, a shameful and deceitful abuse of power."
Indeed it is an abuse of power on the part of this government, just as this time allocation motion is an abuse of power. That's how I got into an abuse of power.
I want to tell you as well that people who see these ads, whether it's the ads on education, whether it's the Premier's mug in the newspaper congratulating jobs being created, whether it's the ad in the form of a pamphlet in the mailbox with a return where you can send back your comments - that's just so they can get you on Tory fundraising list, probably. That money could be spent on allowing PSA tests for people who have a concern about prostate cancer. This is called a prostate-specific antigen test and it is considered to be quite a reliable test to at least give an indication if a person might have prostate cancer, someone who wants to catch it early. They have to pay for the test now in Mike Harris's Ontario. That's OK for Conrad Black; he's got the money to spend on that. But other people who don't have the money have to pay for that, and it's often more elderly people.
I got call from Mike Lazarenko in St Catharines today. He was complaining that seniors now have to pay a $25 charge for eye examinations. He is a senior and he has diabetes, so he requires those kinds of examinations. His wife has a condition which requires her to have an examination every six weeks; she has to pay $25 every time. That's Mike Harris's Ontario. You will remember that Mike Harris said, "A user fee is a tax, there's no difference." So he has put yet another tax on. I've counted 476 tax increases since this government came into power, because they're increasing the user fees.
Those who want to see Dr Beiko in St Catharines, who's an ophthalmologist, are restricted from doing so because there's a cap on his billings.
1720
Mr Tom Froese (St Catharines-Brock): Tell them how much he earns.
Mr Bradley: The member for St Catharines-Brock says, "Tell them how much he earns." The people are more concerned about the service they're not getting now because Mike Harris has decided there shall be a cap on the number of times they can see a doctor they really like and really respect.
Now there's Anthony Chuck. Anthony Chuck phoned me a while ago. He was complaining about the $2 fee for seniors' prescriptions. I said, "We've raised this in the House a number of times, Mr Chuck, and we know that as a senior, in your years gone by you've contributed immensely to the people of this province and now to stick you with a $2 user fee is unfair to seniors," especially when Mike Harris has $42 million to spend on an advertising campaign on television, radio, in the newspapers and in pamphlets coming to houses.
The Hotel Dieu Hospital is going to have its door slammed shut by the commission set up by Mike Harris. It's called the restructuring commission. We even have the member for Lincoln on our side now. I'm happy to see him join us in this effort to keep Hotel Dieu Hospital open, because there have been many of us who have been fighting this battle for three years. First of all, we had the local restructuring commission, having to deal with about a $40-million cut in the operating funding to our hospitals, coming up with a plan that would close Hotel Dieu. Now the boots have been put to the Religious Hospitallers of St Joseph's. They're gone, out the door, just the way they were in Cornwall and in Kingston, because this government wants to get rid of Hotel Dieu Hospital. I'm going to tell you something: The people of the Niagara region will not stand by and see their hospital doors close, not a hospital that has served them so well.
I know my good friend the member for St Catharines-Brock and I attended an event, a launching of a book on the 50th anniversary, and he had a scroll from the Premier he read out saying what a great job Hotel Dieu had done over the years, wishing them well in the future. Now they're wondering what they should do with that scroll, and there have been some suggestions which cannot be repeated in this House as to what they might do with the scroll the Premier sent to St Catharines to do with the Hotel Dieu Hospital.
There are many people as well who are concerned about tuition. There are students concerned about tuition. Mike Harris said in St Catharines, when asked about the graduate programs: "They shouldn't be complaining. It will just be an extra year before they get their BMW." People sat there shocked at hearing this from our Premier.
Rent control has been removed. Seniors and students are really hit by this. The downloading on municipalities has shot the costs up municipally. There's tax chaos throughout the region. The province owes $18 million to the region to make up for the downloading that's taken place. Now they're going to close schools. The people around Merritton High School are very concerned, and other schools in St Catharines. There's instability and chaos and disruption in the education system. What do we get in this House? Any answers? No, we get another time allocation motion choking off debate on yet another piece of legislation.
Mr Pouliot: Madam Speaker, I come to you for help. It seems that every bill which has been tabled in this House is accompanied by a closure motion. We're talking here about the privatization, the intent to privatize what was our flagship when we were the government, the most important highway project ever commissioned in the province, that of Highway 407, exceeding $1 billion, 20,000 jobs. Now they wish to give it away.
Ontario is open for business. That's what they say. They're shutting down hospitals, they're shutting down schools and they're unloading concrete. Maybe what they're saying is that the road, whichever, doesn't lead to too many places once you get rid of hospitals, get rid of schools and have a friend of a friend of a friend purchase the highway.
I don't envy the minister's position. The minister responsible for privatization, if I may be so bold, must be under one heck of a lot of pressure. He must have a fire sale. He must unload Highway 407. He's without portfolio. As the minister for privatization, his record to this date is immaculate. He has done nothing, and in fact rumour has it he's about to lose the car if he doesn't come across and do something. But he wants to be with portfolio. He has to sell something. This is a fire sale. The estate has to go.
If one had seen the minister perhaps or someone had reported this last Saturday, Halloween Day, on Bay Street, one could be so bold as to suggest that the minister would have been wearing an oversize trench and saying: "I'm on Bay Street with all the millionaires. Do you want to buy a highway? Have I got a deal for you." I wouldn't put it past him. It's not something we would do.
Ms Martel: Dark glasses.
Mr Pouliot: Fedora. You know, with that furtive look about him. I wouldn't put it past him.
"Explanatory note: The bill allows the minister responsible for privatization" - the guy with the trench - "to transfer the crown's interest in Highway 407 to a private party."
Who is the party? The taxpayers have invested a lot in the infrastructure and in faith of successive governments. Is it someone that is a friend of a friend? Because this is a fire sale. Is it someone who treads the circle, who you will find at a certain private club? Who are those people? The taxpayers wish to know, because when you sell the highway, you're selling it forever, in perpetuity.
Under our administration, we said once the highway is paid for, you have the commitment of the government that the motorists will not have to pay additional tolls, but that doesn't seem to be good enough. You will pay, pay and pay again and say little.
We're asking a legitimate question. There was a study, you will recall, on privatization, paid for by the taxpayers of Ontario. The study was to tell us the intent and spirit, what style, what method, what approach the government would wish to take vis-à-vis its intent to privatize. We paid and we never got the ticket.
Interjection: But David Lindsay got a job out of it.
Mr Pouliot: Mr David Lindsay obtained some tenure out of it. I don't know David Lindsay, and I'll be fair. I want to wish him well. But why is it that when the taxpayers, people who are paying for all this, are asking to have a clear, transparent process, we don't have accessibility to what really is ours? We give the government a gift and they give us a gift back, a gift that we never get. Is it asking for too much? Now, again, they have the audacity, the gall, to move closure. We're debating, be it very structurally sound, a piece of highway. They're about to unload our infrastructure and they're moving closer.
Dave Lindsay was just about to have the job, and even then they couldn't respect the engagement, because Mitch Patten cut him off at the pass like you see in the western movies. My God, so they felt sorry for Mr Lindsay, but they said: "Not so fast, David. We know that you have been zapped, because Patten got the job." So they sent him to Ontario Hydro. I'm sure that at Ontario Hydro he is very well connected. You can take that to the bank. He did OK - US$250,000.
1730
There is no need to move closer. There is no need to give free hand to the future owners of our most prestigious highway, the 407. Those people will milk it. It's an invitation to do it forever in perpetuity. There is no protection for the motorist - little.
It makes no sense. What's next? You buy the 407 and you get two nuclear plants? Are we to expect this? It's not far-fetched; with these people it's not. "Or we'll throw in a couple of bridges. Close the schools, close the hospitals, unload the highway. Ontario is open for business." Not to my way of thinking.
This government simply has an attitude. They're on their heels. They've antagonized a lot of people simply because they've moved too fast. They are ideologues. Conservatism - there are so many "isms" among the lot that they constantly hurt people and then they need to defend themselves, they feel sorry, and they whack you left and left. Many of my colleagues share the same sentiments as I do. Highway 407 is yet another example.
Mr Froese: All 16 or 17 of you.
Mr Pouliot: The member opposite says, "All 16 or all 17 of you." I recall so vividly the good old days when there weren't that many more of you, but you sold your salad pretty well, you sold your goods, your wares, and you put it all in the Common Sense Revolution. If you were vulnerable you got whacked. But it was OK, it was sensitive: whack real good, big time. Your minister responsible for the vulnerable, social services, says, and I read it: "If we cut you off welfare, we're doing you a favour; it's good for you. It's good for you to find housing." Mathematically, I haven't arrived at that kind of reasoning yet, thank heaven, but obviously she has, because you're supposed to find the motivation sleeping on a bench across the street.
Minister, I don't envy your position. You've been asked to carry the can, to carry the spear for your government. You must be told what to do. You're on the prowl. You're searching to unload Highway 407. You're salivating, you can't wait, so what you're saying is: "We're going to invoke closure. We will not let the opposition speak too much on our intention to unload Highway 407."
Mr Christopherson: It's always a joy to listen to our critic and former Minister of Transportation speak to the transportation issues of the day. I just want to pick up on two quick themes he touched on in terms of the actual bill itself. Then I want to speak for the other few moments that I have to the issue of closure and this government's lack of respect for democracy, and a very clear track record of that, I would remind everyone.
First of all, one of the things - and I have had a chance to talk to the minister very briefly, informally, about this here in the House - is this business of the tolls remaining in place forever. The minister says to me that there's maintenance and there's to be expansion and a few other things, but I had a lot of difficulty understanding how it is that those costs - maintenance, even some expansion down the road, all of those things - are to be as great if not greater than the original cost of developing and building and opening this piece of highway. It sounds to me like we're selling one of the printing presses because you're going to be able to keep those tolls in place.
What struck me was the Skyway bridge in Hamilton. I remember when I was younger there were tolls on there, but they came to an end. There was an end to the tolls because eventually the bridge was paid for. I'll tell you, if nothing else, it sure made the people of my area of the province feel like we had achieved something, just like a young couple starting out, buying a home, taking on a mortgage; it seems like a huge amount and the day's never going to come when it's paid for. You pay day after day, year after year and eventually you reach that point when it's paid and that glorious moment comes when you can have the mortgage burning. We felt that in Hamilton when the bridge was paid for.
Interestingly, since then there's been a twinning and there wasn't a toll placed. There was a recognition this time, I believe - I wasn't here at that time but it seems to me the thinking would be that this was a major part of the transportation infrastructure of not just our region but the broader region, certainly one of the clear transportation gateways to our biggest trading partner to the south.
We faced a situation, however, where we needed to expand again in Ontario. Finances were of course tight. Free trade was costing us hundreds of thousands of decent-paying jobs in the manufacturing sector. The recession was taking hold. Mulroney was backing away from joining with provinces in getting through recessionary times, which had always been the way in the past. Capital had decided that as much as they could, they were going to go on strike because they didn't like some of the things we did. Yet, we knew as a government that we had an obligation to invest in this part of the provincial transportation network.
The toll decision was very controversial, but it was meant to have an ending. There would be that day I spoke of in terms of the young couple, where you would have it paid for. When it was paid for, then it would be treated the same as any other part of the Ontario transportation infrastructure, but not under this deal. Under this deal - which by the way I agree is being driven by the fact that the government hasn't been able to follow up politically on its promises of privatization, and for that I thank God. There was very little I heard them talking about that in my mind was going to benefit this province in terms of privatizing. I'm thrilled they backed away from privatizing TVO, privatizing all the liquor stores in this province, privatizing virtually anything that moved.
However, they were taking some heat from some of their fellow travellers and it was necessary for them to show something, to have something they could provide, a deliverable, and here it is: It's 407. This is the one they think they can pull off with the least amount of controversy, and if you get a little bit of controversy, hey, what the hell? Slap on a time allocation motion like we've got right now. I see the good judge over there nodding his head up and down. Slap on a time allocation motion and shut down debate, make sure it's all kept nice and quiet, do it close to the House recessing again, and hopefully everybody will forget about it. Then, when their pals say: "Why didn't you privatize anything? Why is that Sampson driving around in a limousine anyway? Why is he attending cabinet meetings?" they can say, "He sold 407 and look at the good friends he sold it to. He's a good Tory." That way they can save face.
I think the real deal here is the fact that those tolls are going to continue. I just think from a practical point of view - the minister has said that he's going to table documents that will explain it all. I look forward to seeing all those documents and those details because I want to tell you, I think the average person in this province listening to what's going on and listening to the debate, like me, at some point in this being as objective as they can, is going to say, "But why do the tolls continue forever?" Why does that happen? The road will be paid for. Why? Because that's where the profit is; that's where the bucks are.
Nobody is going to buy this as their contribution to the public good, nor should anyone expect them to. They're going to make this purchase like they would any other business transaction because they can make money. That's fine. Business should make money. That's why business is in business, but not to the point where they've got this kind of access to taxpayer money. It makes you wonder why it's not important enough to spend money on schools, it's not important enough to spend money on health care, it's not important enough to spend money on the poorest children in this province, but it's OK to open up the coffers to business so that this government can meet a political agenda wherein they have to show that they sold something. I think that says an awful lot about this government.
1740
I mentioned the undemocratic nature of this government and I want to take the last couple of minutes to go over the track record of this government when it comes to the lack of democracy, the lack of respect they've shown for democracy and the heavy-handed nature of the way they have abused their majority control in this House.
Bill 7, a brand-new Ontario Labour Relations Act: Never before in the history of Ontario have any changes to the Ontario Labour Relations Act been done without serious, meaningful consultation with the labour movement. When Mike Harris came into power, in fact one year ago on Halloween - not one year ago; it would have been three years ago - but on Halloween in 1995, after introducing a brand-new Ontario Labour Relations Act, Bill 7, in this House on October 4, they rammed through that legislation, a brand-new Ontario Labour Relations Act, taking away major rights that workers have had in this province for half a century. Not one minute of public debate, not one minute of committee hearings, not one minute for the public to have an opportunity to talk about Bill 7; in fact, it was written by private sector lawyers hired by the Tories before the election was even held because they expected to win when they saw the polls and they wanted to be ready to mobilize.
Bill 26, a bill that will go down in infamy: If anyone needs to question how serious it was, it was the one time since I've been here when the New Democrats and the Liberals agreed to work together on something, openly, willingly, decidedly and with mutual purpose. Why did we do that? Why would something like that happen? Because we had an occasion in this House when the government was ramming through a major piece of legislation, the omnibus bill, also known as the bully bill, Bill 26. That was the bill that created the health restructuring commission, the commission that's going around shutting down the hospitals in our communities. That was the bill that removed all kinds of legislation that used to need debate here in this House and moved it over to the privacy and the secrecy of the cabinet room under regulations.
They introduced it in the last couple of weeks of the session, which is a pattern, by the way, just before Christmas, and the only way we could force at least some semblance of decent hearings was to, yes, hijack this Parliament because this government had hijacked democracy. At the end of the day we had the people on our side and the government gave in and we got a couple more weeks of public hearings. We had to be thankful for that because we wouldn't have got it if we hadn't done what we did. But Alvin Curling sat there in that chair and became the symbol of democracy in this province, supported by, yes, Liberals but also New Democrats, in taking on the demagoguery of what was happening across the way.
I've just about run out of time, but I can talk about Bill 99, where you attacked injured workers and took $15 billion out of the pockets of injured workers and gave $6 billion to your corporate pals. Big promises about province-wide public hearings and all we got was six measly days in the dog days of summer, again hoping that it would slip through with no one watching. Recently there was the disgrace of Bill 31, which came in here and attacked the construction workers in this province, had major implications for the workers in construction in Ontario. How much public hearings? None. You rammed it through in a couple of weeks and you hoped, and it did happen, that no one would pay attention, that we'd get into the summer recess and people would forget.
Let me close by saying the Tories may think people have forgotten about these things, but all the injured workers and all the construction workers and all the OPSEU workers and all the people who work in hospitals and communities where hospitals are closing, all the people affected by the legislation I've mentioned here, where you ran roughshod over democracy, will not forget when it comes time to go to the ballot box and there they will express how they feel about this government and its total disrespect for the democratic tradition of this great House.
Ms Martel: I will speak for about 10 minutes and give the last five to my colleague from Fort York, because he's very interested in participating in the debate this afternoon.
As I begin, I must say that, if it's Monday, and it is, it must be a closure day in this Legislature. In this Legislature last Monday this House and its members also debated a closure motion by this government. At that time it was a motion to shut down debate on Bill 68.
Mr Bradley: And there is another one today.
Ms Martel: That's right. The House leader for the Liberal opposition reminds me, and my House leader did as well, that as we speak, as we debate this closure motion yet again by this government, the government has filed yet another closure motion to be debated in this House, probably tomorrow. The government has now put on the order paper a resolution that, pursuant to standing order 46, and notwithstanding any other standing order or order of the House, the Prevention of Unionization Act, Bill 22, is going to be discharged and the debate will be limited.
Here we go once again. If it's Monday, it must be closure day, and it looks like if it's Tuesday, it must be closure day. Every piece of legislation that the government is dealing with seems to give the government some kind of an excuse or reason to close down debate, to shut down members who want to speak, even with respect to legislation that the House was in agreement with, as we were last Monday on Bill 68.
What was interesting last Monday is that the government caucus, instead of trying to stand in their place and defend why they were moving yet another closure motion, ended up speaking to the bill. The government members spent the whole time talking about the bill. Instead of dealing with the closure motion, this House would have been much better served to allow the debate to continue, since it was quite obvious that a number of government members wanted to participate and had a great deal to say.
Mr Baird: The Liberals didn't even mention it.
The Acting Speaker: Member for Nepean.
Ms Martel: The message that we were left with is the reason that the government members spoke to the bill and not the closure motion is because they have no reason to justify why once again they are in this place bringing forward a motion to shut down debate. There really wasn't an excuse.
Last week, we looked at how much time had been spent discussing the second reading of bill 68: nine hours. I heard the member for Nepean today say, "This bill has now been debated nine hours," so that's why the debate should be closed. That must be the new standard that we are setting around here. Any bill on second reading that has nine hours of debate, whether or not members agree with it, is a bill that is destined for a closure motion. That appears to be the new order of business around this place, the new regime that we are trying to operate under, or have to operate under, given this government again and again using its majority to shut down legitimate attempts by the members of the opposition to try and have their say and represent their constituents.
We are dealing with a closure motion for a bill which has been terribly rushed by this government and can only lead the opposition to ask: Who is it that wants to buy this? Why is the government in such a hurry? Who are they dealing with behind closed doors who is in such a hurry to have a major public asset privatized?
I listened to the member for Nepean talk about the government study of privatization that went on for seven months and how much consultation there was and how Highway 407 was a part of it. I said to myself, "Why is it, then, that a document that has such consultation and involves Highway 407, the same thing we're talking about here today, was never released for public review and public comment?" Seven months of consultation, the member for Nepean said. That's why the government has a right to move on this issue. I say to the member for Nepean, if it's so good, share it with the public, share it with the members. Let's see what people have to say about the privatization of Highway 407.
I believe the reason that the document itself has never been released is because there's very little public support for privatization of a major capital asset that the public has had a share in paying for.
The minister of privatization has a problem. We know that. We feel sorry for him. He's a nice guy.
Interjections.
1750
Ms Martel: Well, some of us do and some of us don't. This poor man has already lost the director of the privatization secretariat, I believe the title was, who has abandoned ship. I think he's gone back to the private sector. Here he is desperately trying to get into cabinet, desperately trying to get the limo. People are bailing out all over the place because he hasn't been able to deliver on the government's promise to privatize everything that moves in Ontario.
Look at his record: No privatization of LCBO, although the government talked about that in the Common Sense Revolution; no privatization of TVO/TFO, although the government talked about that. Now I see that the Minister of Correctional Services last week announced that the megajail would not be privatized, so he's had to back out on that again.
Here he is, the minister of privatization, and people are bailing out left, right and centre. He needs to sell something. He needs to privatize something. Maybe the reason he's looking at the 407 is because the concrete can't fight back. Here we are going after a public asset that can't fight back. There's no one speaking for the 407 - it's a little bit different than TVO - so that's probably a good one to go for. He's hoping that if he can get it done, the Premier will leave him alone in a way that's quite different than what the Premier is doing to the Minister of Health these days. The Premier will leave him alone. He can be part of the club, get the limo back, get in cabinet perhaps full-time, and go from there. So we understand what we're doing here and we feel sorry for the minister, but we have major concerns about the government trying to privatize the 407.
We say to the minister, nothing in the legislation ends the tolls once the highway is paid for. Why should the public continue to pay and pay and pay through the nose when the public asset is paid for? Under our plan, once the highway was paid for, the tolls would end. That's nowhere in the government legislation.
There is no framework for negotiation, no guidelines, no rules, no conditions, nothing in the enabling legislation that would give us any comfort to think that we are not going to have a huge fire sale of a public asset. That's what we think is happening here. There are some friends of the government who are very interested, rubbing their hands behind closed doors, who want to get in on this deal, and we are very concerned that we will see a major fire sale of what is an important public asset.
I say to the minister, it's a shame that we are here today having debate shut down once again, having the opposition shut down once again, having our right to speak and represent our constituents shut down again by this government. It is very clear that the government is more interested in privatizing something than they are in having a full-fledged debate on this, and that's a shame.
Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): It's a pleasure to have some time to follow the member for Hamilton Centre and the member for Sudbury East and to add a few comments to what they have already said.
The modus operandi of this government is exactly to do what they are doing on a regular basis; that is, to shut down debate.
Mr Bradley: They are whacking them.
Mr Marchese: How else do you whack the opposition except - in many different ways, I tell you. You do so in this particular instance by shutting down the opposition, by not listening to the opposition and what they have to say. The less the public hears about this deal that the minister is cooking up, the better. I tell you, there's a whole lot of money there in them hills, and a whole lot of private investors are just drooling at the mouth, waiting for the big bucks to be made in this deal.
The minister last week was saying: "We're not privatizing this highway. We may not." Except the raison d'être of the minister is to privatize; yes, unsuccessfully in some cases, but in this particular case the intent is to privatize. I saw the minister. He was smug as we were pitifully looking at his lack of success. I saw him smiling, meaning to me - the smugness, at least - that there's something happening with this one. The deal is happening and someone is going to make some money. It's not Uncle Joe who's going to make money out of this.
Mr Christopherson: It's not my constituents.
Mr Marchese: I know it's not the constituents from Hamilton Centre or Sudbury.
Mr Baird: It is all your constituents. The big -
Mr Marchese: The member for Nepean knows full well the financial interests in my riding, the bankers, the insurance companies, the money traders, those who support the Tories and, I dare say, the Liberals, because they fund them too, big time, those poor people, the poor bankers who aren't doing too well these days, and the insurance companies too. The insurance companies were worried about those bank mergers because they thought, "Gee, what's going to happen to this deal if the mergers go ahead?" They were going to be swallowed up. Anyway, there's a lot of money to be made. Why else would they privatize except to make money, right?
A public asset, as the member for Sudbury East said, an asset that would return to the public 20 years from now, having gone into a venture which we thought was a good one and eventually returning this asset to the people so that it would belong to the public as a public interest, is going to be given away to the private sector.
We're talking big bucks here. I was saying last week that we're not talking little wallets. You know how you and I carry small wallets. I don't even have one. I only have small change. In fact, I have nothing in my pocket. We're talking about people whose wallets are thicker than the entire New Democratic Party caucus in this place. We're talking big pecunia. That's what we're dealing with here.
The member for Sudbury East said, "We want the contents of these deals open." They speak about transparency all the time. They speak about making government accountable. Make yourselves accountable as you make this deal and show the books. Make it transparent so the public knows what you're doing. For you not to show the deal means that you're cooking something.
Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville): Just like those financial statements in the NDP government.
Mr Marchese: The member for Windsor-Walkerville is a funny guy, one of my favourite members. I tell you, I love this guy and I'm looking forward to the election. I hope to be able to meet him in some debate, because I am looking forward to it. He's a funny guy.
Ms Martel: Are they for or against -
Mr Marchese: Are they for what? I'm not sure what this man stands for and I'm not sure what his party stands for, but I can tell you, they vacillate like the strong wind that we get across this big country of ours. It is a big country and it is difficult to contain those winds. As the tide is shown in turmoil, there they are buffeted from one side, but you can see them firmly rooted somewhere on the ground when the time comes. Those good Liberals will be firmly anchored when the election comes, somewhere, to be sure, right on that quicksand. But I love this member from Walkerville. I hope to meet him someday in some debate or other. But he distracts me. My focus is the malfeasance of this government, and then I have to deal with Liberal vacillation. I don't have time for that.
We want the books to be open. We want to see the deal they have cooked up. We want to see it, to make them accountable. We want the deal to be transparent so the public has a say in what is happening. We know the tolls will go on and on and on into eternity. Once it's paid for, the public using it, ordinary folks, will be paying that toll forever and ever. We want to hold them accountable and we want the public to make them accountable. They are the only ones who can do it. That's why we're speaking against this closure motion today.
The Acting Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?
All those in favour of the motion, please say "aye."
Those opposed, please say "nay."
In my opinion, the ayes have it.
Call in the members; a five-minute bell.
The division bells rang from 1800 to 1805.
The Acting Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please rise.
Ayes
|
Arnott, Ted Baird, John R. Barrett, Toby Bassett, Isabel Beaubien, Marcel Boushy, Dave Brown, Jim Carr, Gary Carroll, Jack Chudleigh, Ted Danford, Harry DeFaria, Carl Doyle, Ed Ecker, Janet Elliott, Brenda Eves, Ernie L. Flaherty, Jim |
Froese, Tom Galt, Doug Gilchrist, Steve Grimmett, Bill Guzzo, Garry J. Hardeman, Ernie Harnick, Charles Harris, Michael D. Hodgson, Chris Jackson, Cameron Johns, Helen Johnson, Bert Johnson, David Jordan, W. Leo Leadston, Gary L. Martiniuk, Gerry |
Newman, Dan Parker, John L. Preston, Peter Ross, Lillian Sampson, Rob Shea, Derwyn Smith, Bruce Snobelen, John Sterling, Norman W. Tsubouchi, David H. Turnbull, David Wettlaufer, Wayne Wilson, Jim Witmer, Elizabeth Wood, Bob Young, Terence H. |
The Acting Speaker: All those opposed to the motion will please rise.
Nays
|
Boyd, Marion Bradley, James J. Brown, Michael A. Christopherson, David Colle, Mike Crozier, Bruce Curling, Alvin Duncan, Dwight |
Gerretsen, John Hoy, Pat Kormos, Peter Lalonde, Jean-Marc Lessard, Wayne Marchese, Rosario Martel, Shelley McLeod, Lyn |
Morin, Gilles E. Phillips, Gerry Pouliot, Gilles Ramsay, David Sergio, Mario Silipo, Tony Wildman, Bud Wood, Len |
Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 49; the nays are 24.
The Acting Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
It being past 6 of the clock, this House stands adjourned until 6:30 of the clock this evening.
The House adjourned at 1808.
Evening sitting reported in volume B.