Journal des débats 1998-nov-26 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): I am pleased today to speak to Bill 78. The purpose of the bill is to facilitate the admission of a person to a psychiatric facility for assessment, to deal with people who are caught in a revolving-door syndrome, in and out hospital, never adequately treated. A person who suffers from such a mental disorder may be admitted to a psychiatric facility on an involuntary basis if his or her substitute decision-maker consents to the admission.

The bill also provides for patients to be allowed to live outside of the psychiatric facility under a leave agreement, sometimes referred to as a community treatment order.

My bill is based on the following principles:

Persons who suffer from severe mental illness such as schizophrenia should have the right to access the medical treatment they require as early in the course of their illness as possible.

Treatment should occur in the least restrictive environment possible.

Treatment should also be tailored to the needs of the individual.

There remains a need for involuntary hospitalization because of the reality of severe mental disorder.

Everyone requiring treatment in the absence of their consent does not need to be detained in a hospital in order to receive such treatment.

Bill 78 is an improvement in two ways on my original Bill 111, which was passed on second reading but died on the order paper. The first is the addition of a fourth criterion for involuntary admission, which is only done by a physician, for psychiatric assessment. The second is the addition of a leave agreement. The bill will still remove the words "imminent and" from serious impairment of the person, as did Bill 111. The widely acknowledged problem with the word "imminent" is its narrow and varied interpretations, causing difficulty.

Since introducing my first bill, many things have happened that have reinforced my intention to reintroduce a strengthened bill. These are:

(1) Meetings that I have had with several organizations, groups and individuals, including representatives of the Schizophrenia Society of Ontario as the core group.

(2) The recommendations of two inquests that I testified at, the Brian Smith inquest in Ottawa and the Kovalskyj-England inquest in Ajax, both of which supported my bill and also recommended a community treatment provision in the act.

(3) New research available, particularly confirming the importance of early detection and intervention, and research on new pharmacological therapies.

(4) The closure of psychiatric beds and the rationalizing of mental health services as a result of the report of the health restructuring commission.

(5) The publicity surrounding the recent Edmond Yu inquest, which brought to light that the severely mentally ill risk being the victims of violent death by police. In Toronto, five mentally ill patients were shot and killed by police between the years 1988 and 1997.

I am mindful of the consultative review undertaken by Dan Newman, the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Health, and the recommendations therein, which include a complete review of the Mental Health Act and related legislation by the government. Unfortunately, the severely mentally ill, who are subjected to the revolving-door syndrome, and their loved ones cannot wait for a comprehensive review of the act. Individuals with serious and chronic mental illness acting in a dangerous manner after not getting their treatment needs met are dying by their own hands, or sometimes by the hands of others, as in the case of Edmond Yu, 35, shot by police. Many others are involved in incidents of illness-driven violence. Recent cases include:

Alistair Deighton Jr, shot and killed by his mentally ill father, January 1995.

Brian Smith, popular CJOH sportscaster, gunned down August 1, 1995, in Ottawa.

Jennifer Kovalskyj-England, age 6, stabbed 69 times by her stepfather, April 2, 1996, Bowmanville.

Marian Johnston, Jennifer's grandmother, stabbed 34 times by her son and Jennifer's father, April 2, 1996, Bowmanville.

Mona Hamilton, an elderly woman, stabbed outside a downtown bus stop in Ottawa in July 1996.

I can go on and on. This list is not exhaustive but serves to illustrate recent cases that were subject to a lot of media attention.

Families often carry the burden of care, trying to protect their adult offspring. They live under tremendous stress, sometimes involving potentially violent situations when the options for accessing care are limited when the person does not believe they are ill and refuses treatment.

I would like to read part of a letter to me from Dr Heather Milliken, a psychiatrist with 18 years of clinical practice providing care to individuals with schizophrenia and their families.

"It is now recognized based on neuropsychological research that schizophrenia is an illness which can cause significant cognitive impairment. In particular, insight and judgment can be severely impaired. Amador in the United States conducted a study which found that almost 50% of patients suffering from schizophrenia did not acknowledge having any kind of mental disorder. This lack of awareness of suffering from a mental disorder is not merely psychological denial but rather is felt to reflect underlying disturbances in brain function. What this means, however, is that individuals - because they do not appreciate or acknowledge having an illness - do not seek nor do they accept treatment voluntarily....

"For the majority of patients it has been shown that each recurrent episode has a characteristic `signature,' ie, the progression of signs and symptoms follows a similar pattern each time. It is therefore possible to predict for those who know the patient well, ie, family members and their treatment team, the pattern of physical or mental deterioration that will occur.

1010

I am told that the newer anti-psychotic drugs on the market that are more expensive but have reduced side effects are not yet part of the provincial government formulary unless older drugs have been tried first. I ask you, are migraine sufferers forced to use older drugs before they can access the newer, more effective ones? We must have the highest quality and best use of medication. Not only is it inhuman, but it also creates a false economy. Patients discarding unpleasant, older medicines and repeating the cycle all over again end up being far more costly than the newer in the end.

With the coming trend towards outpatient and community psychiatric care, four other provinces already have established community treatment and a fifth is in the process of establishing it.

On June 3, the Minister of Health announced $60 million for expanding mental health services and the launch of a review of the mental health legislation. Media reports indicate that to date only $20 million has so far been allocated. We need the full allocation now and about five times that amount over the long haul.

As human rights critic for my party, I'd like to comment briefly on the right to refuse treatment and individual and public safety. We have a system that gives patients the right to treatment, but patients also have the right to refuse treatment. This is the rub. Many people who have a severe mental illness refuse treatment because they don't believe they are ill. The cost of withholding treatment, however, is often permanent damage. Medication can often free victims from their illness and restore their dignity, their free will and the meaningful exercise of their liberties.

I would like to quote from Hershel Hardin, former director of the BC Civil Liberties Association and active with Amnesty International in defence of liberty and free speech. He says:

"More and more people are showing up in the streets in need of help. Incidents of `illness-driven violence' are reported regularly. People ask, `Why don't we provide help and treatment when the need is so obvious?' Every cry of anguish is answered by, `Unrequested intervention is an infringement of civil liberties.' This stops everything. The rhetoric and the lobbying results in legislative obstacles to timely and adequate treatment. The psychiatric community is cowed by the anti-treatment climate. Far from respecting civil liberties, legal obstacles to treatment limit or destroy the liberty of the person."

I'm very aware of the charter protection rights such as the right to liberty, the right not to be detained arbitrarily and the right to security of the person. Limits on charter-protected rights must be clearly justifiable. It is important to recognize that persons have the right to be treated by the health care system especially if they are not capable of making that decision for themselves. My bill is for this very small group of people with very restricted criteria who have fallen through the cracks.

I believe people have a right to be healthy. We have an obligation to help severely mentally ill persons and their families access medical care when they need it. I don't see this as a partisan issue. As Selina Volpatti, president of the Schizophrenia Society of Ontario said, "This is not a political issue; it is a health issue and an issue of saving lives."

I'd like to read part of a letter from a constituent:

"I am 54 years old and this is the first time in my life that I write to a politician to ask for action. I am the mother of a 23-year-old bright, lively, wonderful son who saw his world collapse with schizophrenia two years ago.

"My son has required three hospitalizations in 15 months. His last hospitalization followed a failed suicide attempt. My numerous discussions with the dedicated doctors and nurses in psychiatric care as well as my first-hand experience with my own son make me realize that the Mental Health Act in its present form is not protecting the ill person against their own illness."

I would also like to point out that I have a letter here from Michael and Maureen Cassidy. Michael, a former leader of the NDP party, is asking all members to support Bill 78 "when it comes to second reading vote under private members' business in the Legislature this Thursday. Although this bill was prepared by Richard Patten, a Liberal MPP, I believe it contains long-needed changes to the way Ontario law treats people with serious mental illness, and deserves support from MPPs of all parties."

Time is running out; I have much more to say and my colleagues will join in the debate. I welcome the opportunity to listen to my colleagues in this House and their points of view on the importance of this bill.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): Nice to see you in the chair this morning, Mr Speaker. Let me say at the outset, to be clear, I am not supporting this bill this morning. I think all of the members in the House have agonized to some extent over this bill because of the conflicting interests that we have to consider.

I've talked to a variety of people to try to come to my own conclusion about where I stand. I have notes here from the Queen Street Patients Council, and I'm sure that the member for Ottawa Centre has seen or talked to some of the people who are advocates for the mentally ill about their views on this. Perhaps later when he speaks he can clarify this. But I'm hearing time and time again that the Mental Health Act already allows for people, as the member for Ottawa Centre says, the very small percentage of people who could be considered dangerous to themselves or to their families, to society, the Mental Health Act already has that ability. The problem is that most people, including the majority of doctors, don't understand this, don't know the Mental Health Act well enough, and society as a whole doesn't know that that power is already there.

It occurs to me that if that's the case, what we're doing here, if this bill is allowed to pass, is opening up the door to forced treatments, to forced hospitalization and the so-called leash treatment on people who might not or should not be considered within this category. I know, for instance, that here within the Toronto area over the years the homeless community - I find this a bit of a parody of words - has been growing. Some people like to say that people are on the street because they're mentally ill and they're getting kicked out or can't maintain a home or whatever. In fact, the evidence shows that it's the other way around.

What I'm really worried about here is that we're taking the approach that what we have to do is go out - because we're not, as a society, providing the kinds of support that people need to help them stay healthy, and they have been deteriorating over the past few years, as we well know, especially in terms of housing, but in terms of other services they need as well. There's all kinds of evidence which shows that many people who end up on the street and stay on the street are there because of housing crises, because they can't get a job, because the supports aren't there. If the supports were there to help them, they would be in at least reasonable health.

A lot of the people on the streets, because they don't have those supports or they've been ripped out from under them and they have nowhere to turn - if you don't have a home to live in, a roof over your head, a way to make a living, if you're not a part of a community, then of course I would say that you're going to get sicker and sicker.

We know that there's evidence, and I know Mr Patten mentioned, that there are new drugs and those drugs should be made far more accessible than they are, but they have horrific side effects. I know the mother of a young schizophrenic man. I know and have seen the results, the horrible side effects from some of those drugs. You've got to think, when you see those side effects sometimes, which is worse? I would say that based on my experience with this young man he's not a danger to society.

It's true, as Mr Patten said, that most psychiatric survivors and people who are mentally ill are not a danger. It's very difficult in many cases for scientists and doctors to figure out who's a danger or not, but in some categories and some cases, yes. Parents with adult schizophrenic children and other children with mental illnesses - I know that there are cases where parents are having very difficult times. I acknowledge that. It seems to me, though - and if there's dispute about this I'd like to hear it - that those powers for those people already exist.

1020

I am very worried that what we're doing here today is opening up the door for the power of the state to go out and start rounding up people who are not dangerous, who are in dire straits, and instead of as a society giving them the supports they need, we take this very punitive approach, where we start forcing drugs on their bodies, we start taking away their freedom, which I believe is a human right.

What I would like to see us as a Legislature doing is looking at the Mental Health Act. I've talked to the Queen Street Patients Council and others. If those conditions already exist under the Mental Health Act, why aren't we just making sure doctors understand them, that they're being used properly and that the people who really need this what I consider very draconian approach to their illness - I would agree and we all would agree that sometimes in order to protect people, to protect families, to protect communities, there may need to be, in some cases, draconian measures, but if that's already within the Mental Health Act, why in heaven's name are we doing this today?

I would suggest to the member that the most positive route to take today is to look at the kind of support systems that have been ripped out from under people, to look at homelessness and to urge the present government to get back into providing affordable housing, providing housing for the mentally ill. Rooming houses, for instance, where a lot of mentally ill psychiatric survivors live, are not regulated in any way. We hear horrific stories of what happens to people in some of these houses. In fact they prefer, in some cases, to end up on the street.

As I said, I am not supporting this bill. I look forward to the comments from other people and I look forward to Mr Patten's response to the very strong suggestion, very strong statement that the power in the bill he's putting forward today already exists and that this is unnecessary and is a very dangerous step we're taking, if we pass this, in terms of impinging on a lot of people's human rights.

Mr Dan Newman (Scarborough Centre): It's certainly my pleasure to join the debate today on Bill 78. I'd like to begin by commending the member for Ottawa Centre for his ongoing dedication and commitment to the issues of mental health. His efforts have once again brought us to this Legislative Assembly to discuss and debate amendments to the Mental Health Act.

There are several important issues that the member for Ottawa Centre has recognized and included in Bill 78 that I would like to acknowledge today. For example, Bill 78 attempts to rectify the misunderstandings of the term "imminent" in several sections of the current Mental Health Act; Bill 78 re-examines the criteria for involuntary psychiatric assessment and admission to psychiatric facilities; and last, Bill 78 examines the need to develop effective alternatives to involuntary hospitalization.

Overall, Bill 78 is an improvement from the member's previous bill, Bill 111. However, this bill is not consistent with our government's current mental health reform strategy. Earlier this year the Minister of Health, the Honourable Elizabeth Witmer, asked me to conduct a comprehensive review of the mental health system in Ontario. I met with stakeholders and received feedback on what was and what was not working in Ontario's mental health system.

In my review, a number of common themes emerged that I thought our government must address to reform the mental health system in Ontario. In these themes, I identified several key issues that became the basis for my recommendations to Minister Witmer. What I did not hear during my consultations was, "If you amend the Mental Health Act, everything will be fine." I didn't hear that once.

What I did hear was that a reform of the mental health system in Ontario must ensure that individuals with a serious mental illness have access to a broad range of services and supports that are appropriate to their specific condition and level of need. I also heard that mental health legislation should not only reflect the needs of the individuals, but also reflect the goals of the system.

That is why I recommended that our government create an integrated and coordinated system of mental health services that will provide a continuum of care for those with serious mental illness.

That is why I recommended that our government should (1) create an integrated and coordinated system, (2) ensure dedicated funding for the mental health system and (3) immediately begin an aggressive education campaign aimed at clarifying the intent and application of the Mental Health Act and related legislation.

More specifically, that is why I recommended that our government immediately begin a review of the Mental Health Act and related legislation and that any changes to the legislation must reflect the following fundamental principles: that legislation supports our government's creation of an integrated and coordinated mental health system capable of providing a continuum of care from prevention to in-hospital and community-based treatment; that legislation allows those who need mental health services in Ontario to access those services where and when they need them; and that legislation ensures public safety.

These recommendations have become fundamental in the development of a reform plan to improve the coordination, responsiveness and accessibility of mental health services throughout Ontario.

Unfortunately, Bill 78 is not consistent with our government's current mental health reform strategy. There is a need in Ontario for a strong legislative framework that will move mental health reform forward, and Bill 78 is not quite enough.

As I mentioned earlier, this bill raises a number of important issues. However, Bill 78 is too narrow in its focus of involuntary assessment and admission to psychiatric facilities and compulsory treatment, and it does not address mental health service delivery and access to service issues.

The community treatment proposal in Bill 78 does not address access to mental health services and supports. Legislation and accessible community supports go hand in hand.

Finally, Bill 78 uses vague and unexplained language such as "medical treatment" and "serious deterioration" that will lead to confusion and inconsistencies in the interpretation and application of the act and will lead to possible legal challenges.

These are critical points with respect to mental health legislation, but they are not addressed in Bill 78.

Our government recognizes the need for a strong legislative framework that is consistent with mental health reform. In fact, so do our stakeholders. This past Tuesday, I had the opportunity to meet with the Provincial Advisory Committee on Mental Health. They told me unequivocally that it is crucial to stay on course with the current plan for mental health reform. More specifically, they emphasized the importance of fulfilling our promise to conduct a comprehensive review of all mental health legislation and not to get bogged down with the first or second proposal that came along.

As a result, our government has taken several necessary steps that will ensure that mental health services are provided in a manner that is supported by a strong legislative framework. For example, Minister Witmer announced that $60 million would be allocated to enhance access to mental health services across the province. I'm pleased to say that $31.1 million of that is being spent to increase community-based mental health services across our province.

An important initiative is currently underway, and that's an extensive education program designed to inform mental health professionals, criminal justice officials, consumers and families about current mental health legislation. This campaign will provide important feedback for our government on the existing Mental Health Act and areas which may need to be revised. This campaign is being led by Michael Bay, the chair of the Consent and Capacity Board.

Lastly, our government has developed an implementation plan for mental health reform that outlines a mental health strategy for this province. These initiatives are fundamental to mental health reform. More important, they illustrate the necessary steps that must be taken to ensure that legislation is indeed consistent with reform. Bill 78 is not consistent with current mental health reform, and I will not be supporting it.

1030

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville): I'm pleased to join the debate on Bill 78, and I want to applaud my colleague for his continuing sensitivity to these important issues.

I don't want to use a lot of time today; I do want to address a couple of issues that have been raised. First of all, I will be supporting this bill. I get concerned when I hear the kind of language of debate that I heard from the member for Riverdale. This bill is not about leashing people; it's not about putting them away. This bill is about access to treatment; it's about how people who suffer very seriously have difficulties accessing treatment.

I'd like to read a quote from Dr Heather Milliken, the associate professor and director of continuing education in the department of psychiatry at Dalhousie University. She says:

"The proposed amendments to the Ontario mental health legislation are consistent with changes occurring throughout America. This does not represent, as some might argue, a retrogressive step backwards to the era of asylums, but rather represents a step towards ensuring that individuals who suffer from brain disorders such as schizophrenia and manic-depressive illness who as a result of the nature of their disorder are in certain cases unable to recognize they are ill and who therefore fail to access treatment are provided access to treatments which are effective and which they have a right to receive. Even with the proposed amendments, the Ontario Mental Health Act will continue to have narrower criteria for involuntary admission than other provinces."

What that says is that this is a question of the right of a person to treatment. It says that even with these amendments Ontario will still have a narrow definition of when somebody can be admitted involuntarily.

For nine years prior to being elected to the Legislative Assembly, I was the administrator of an alcohol and drug recovery program in Windsor called Brentwood. Every day on an ongoing basis we saw at our front door people who could not access treatment, who didn't know they were sick, who weren't on their meds. This is a result of years and years of deinstitutionalization, of failing to provide. The parliamentary assistant to the minister spoke about consultations and about this and about that. The reality is, more people are on the street sicker who are not able to recognize they need treatment or can't simply access it. We saw it every day at Brentwood.

This is a responsible approach to a difficult question that will leave Ontario with a well-defined methodology for dealing with these issues that does not, in my view, unfairly prejudice the rights of those who are stricken by these unfortunate situations. I support this bill. I challenge the government to quit talking about reforms and consultations and changes, when they in fact haven't done anything, and support this bill, which is well defined, which leaves us with a narrower interpretation than most other provinces but still affords those who need it access to treatment in a fair and responsible fashion.

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): I just want to begin by saying that I have no doubt that the intentions of the member who introduced Bill 78, the member for Ottawa Centre, are based on good motives and a desire to protect people. I'm assuming the member for Windsor-Walkerville feels the same. He said he's concerned about what the member for Riverdale said and that this bill is not about putting people away but is about access to treatment and all that. I'm not sure that he might be fully aware necessarily of what is contained in the bill, but I'm not sure that's entirely it.

While I have no doubt, again, about the intentions, when I listen to people from Queen Street Patients Council and the mental health legal committee and others, I do have serious concerns about the potential effects of Bill 78 on consumers themselves, on people who suffer mental illness. There's no doubt that the families of people who suffer mental illness feel strongly about needing to find better and greater supports and solutions to the problems their family members might be having. There's no doubt about that at all.

I must tell you I am lucky enough not to have had this problem in my own family or extended family. That doesn't mean that we're insensitive to the rights of those individuals and to the rights of the general public in terms of the effects that they might have on themselves and the public, but we have to balance out rights for individuals who suffer mental illness with the rights of the public and, to a great extent, the rights of families as well. We do. Whether Bill 78 is that bill, I'm not entirely certain.

Queen Street Patients Council says, "It's shocking that Ontario doctors are so ignorant of the law that they lobby for powers that already exist." Is that true or not? I'm not entirely sure of that except that the mental health legal committee argues that these laws already exist in law, and do we need additional language that simply would widen the criteria for involuntary admission of individuals with mental illness to a psychiatric facility? I don't believe we do.

While I agree with the member for Scarborough Centre that the language that is proposed in this bill could lead to legal challenges, as some of them propose, and while I agree that the language is somewhat vague, I'm not entirely sure about what they are about to propose or could propose by way of changes to the Mental Health Act. I am worried about what they have done in the past and worried about what they might introduce. So while I am in some agreement with what the member said, I worry about the changes they're likely to introduce themselves.

Part of the problem is that in Ontario we've had a few cases of violence by disturbed people and they have of course resulted in tremendous publicity, no doubt about that, leading a whole lot of politicians and members of the public to wonder whether or not existing laws are in place and/or existing supports are in place to protect them from themselves and from the general public. I read an interesting statistic, again given by the Queen Street Patients Council, that says, "In truth almost all crime, about 96%, is committed by `sane' people."

When we listen to some of the stories in the media of problems committed by those who suffer mental illness, they create the impression that there's a whole lot of crime committed by them, and that unduly discriminates against individuals who suffer mental illness. There is no doubt in my mind about that. What we need to do, and what the mental health legal committee recommends, is that we apply the law as it exists and apply it correctly, and make sure that people advocating for change understand what is currently in law before they propose criteria that expand the powers of certain individuals to put away those who suffer from mental illness and force them to take medication that some of them do not want to take.

The member for Riverdale pointed out that the side effects of some of these drugs are egregious. I read a whole page of side effects that some of these drugs have on individuals and, in my view, they are horrific. I've never had to take them, so I wouldn't know. But you have to take guidance from consumer-survivors who have gone through it and talk to us about some of the problems these drugs have had on their lives. Many of them argue that the side effects of these drugs have made their problems worse, not better. Who do we take guidance from? Yes, from consumer-survivors, and yes, to a great extent from those who treat them. It's a question of finding the appropriate balance.

What we desperately need is to deal with an underfunded in-patient mental health system, similarly engaging the individual in consensual care where the individual requires and requests this, and providing housing, employment and other income maintenance and support to allow for a comfortable quality of life for the individual. Those supports are desperately lacking, and unless we deal with that, we focus on how we can put these people away for their own good and for the good of the general public, and I believe that's wrong.

I won't be supporting Bill 78.

1040

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): First, I'd like to commend the member for Ottawa Centre for his concern and for bringing his concern forward in this particular bill, Bill 78. I can't exactly agree with it, but I agree with the concerns he has for mental health here in the province.

Too often we take for granted our health, whether it be mental health or other aspects of our health. Maybe it's related to my age, but I seem to be running into an awful lot of people my age who have children in their twenties who are schizophrenic, and as you hear their stories and tales you empathize with them. It's a kind of cross to bear that most of us shouldn't have to carry.

There have been tremendous advances in therapies in the last few decades to help people with mental illness to lead productive lives. Yes, I'm hearing and I'm aware that there are some side effects, but many of these pharmaceutical preparations help these people tremendously.

There's no question that the government is committed to a strong legislative framework that will protect the mentally ill. The changes that we make as we move along should be consistent with some of the government's direction, and Bill 78 isn't exactly consistent with the directions we're currently going in.

There's no question that people with mental illness need to have access to services. That's unquestionable. They need the supports in the community and they also need to be left with some individual choice and not always be caught in a corner.

To accomplish this, the minister has directed staff in the Ministry of Health to review the Mental Health Act and to look at the related legislation to ensure that there will be an integrated and coordinated system to provide for these patients so that they will have a seamless continuum of care.

Also, they're developing an implementation plan for mental health.

There's an educational campaign for mental health that's tremendously important, and also through this to have a very strong feedback mechanism.

The ministry and the minister are taking steps to ensure that these things happen, particularly the seamless continuum of care for the mentally ill.

I'm very pleased to comment that the parliamentary assistant, Mr Newman from Scarborough Centre, has gone out and there's been extensive consultation for mental health throughout the province. A reference was made a few minutes ago that consultation was needed, that there was a lack of consultation. That certainly is not true. Mr Newman has been out with extensive consultation throughout the province.

I commend the member for his concerns and bringing this forward, but I for one will not be able to support it.

Just in winding up, to leave a bit of time for my good friend Mr Klees, who will be speaking later, I'll draw a quick comparison. In the bill that was brought in by Mr Wildman, the member for Algoma and previous Minister of Environment, he wanted increased penalties for improper handling of waste. The idea was good, but it's only part of what needs to be done; it's only part of the overall plan. You will note that just on Monday the minister, the Honourable Norm Sterling, brought in Bill 82, which is all-inclusive. It will cover the total Environmental Protection Act. It will deal with the Pesticides Act and also the Ontario Water Resources Act. This is looking at it as an umbrella and covering all aspects of increased penalties and giving priorities to the importance of the environment; similarly with mental health, as I look at this Bill 78.

Thank you very much for the opportunity.

Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): Although I'm pleased to have the opportunity to speak today on Bill 78, my colleague from Ottawa Centre's Act to amend the Mental Health Act, I must say to all the members of this Legislature that I've had much difficulty in determining how I would vote on this particular piece of legislation.

Since first being elected in 1995, I've been humbled by the fact that we as legislators are continually asked to rise in this House and vote on legislation that can have and has had a dramatic impact on real people all across the province. In some instances, I will admit that I've cast my vote with mixed feelings, without 100% assurance within myself that the legislation we are pondering is absolutely good or absolutely bad.

My rule of thumb has been and will be to consider, how will the legislation affect the people I represent? Will it improve their lives? Is it legislation that has long-term value? Is it legislation that takes into consideration the best interests of us as individuals and as members of our society?

However, I will further admit that this particular government's legislative agenda has made this responsibility generally somewhat easier. Much of what the government has done I vigorously oppose, as the litmus test I've applied has come out strongly on the negative side.

Today the task is not nearly so clear or so simple. Mind you, I do not question the sincerity or the care with which my colleague has put together his private member's bill. Indeed, I applaud him for the tremendous courage he has shown by enabling this opportunity for debate on such a serious matter. I know my colleague has consulted widely, and he is probably more conscious than anyone of the potential ramifications of his legislation should it be passed, implemented and then become law.

Any legislation that compels individuals in our society to, in this case, potentially receive treatment against their will, must give us pause. The mere possibility that this tool could be used inappropriately or be seen as a quick fix is, I believe, a real concern. However, upon careful and somewhat painful reflection, I've come to the conclusion that Mr Patten's bill is worthy of support.

The fact is, we live in a society where the needs of the mentally ill are not considered a priority. I've spoken on many occasions in the Legislature about the mistreatment of people who suffer from mental illnesses and about how the government, in its headlong rush to restructure the health care system, has created a very real and a very immediate crisis in mental health care; about the horrific fact that 10% of the inmates at district jails in my part of the province are people who need psychiatric care, not incarceration; about the fact that community support and all that entails is the key to helping people avoid the revolving door syndrome or frequent readmissions to hospitals or, indeed, prisons; and the fact that this government has failed miserably to ensure that community supports are in place before they have, for example, cut psychiatric beds.

I believe that more than ever, and I further believe that Bill 78, if it is accompanied by a comprehensive package of community-based treatment and support services, could be helpful to individuals suffering from mental illness, to the members of their families who see the suffering first-hand, and to society as a whole.

We've heard and read about many tragedies that might have been avoided if proper treatment had been taking place. If this legislation passes, with its clear intention to see that persons who suffer from severe mental illness have the right to access the medical treatment they require as early as possible and in the least restrictive environment possible, there may be future tragedies avoided.

There are still risks involved in taking the course of action prescribed by this legislation. I am pleased that my colleague has tailored this bill to reflect those concerns. Bill 78 makes it clear that treatment should be tailored to the needs of each individual. While involuntary hospitalization may be occasionally necessary, he has also made it clear that everyone requiring treatment does not need to be detained in a hospital in order to receive that treatment.

Regardless, there are still risks attached to the legislation, and legislation as sensitive as this. Therefore, I believe that any concerns we have about a potential misuse or overuse of this mandatory treatment must be accompanied by implementing needed safeguards and by ensuring that any orders are monitored closely, including more frequent mandatory review board decisions.

This legislation tackles a very difficult problem and does it in a manner that deserves our gratitude for the sensitivity with which it has been dealt. It is a question of balance, and it is one that I believe my colleague from Ottawa Centre has dealt with and managed in an extremely sensitive manner.

I will be supporting Bill 78 today.

Mr Frank Klees (York-Mackenzie): I am pleased to rise today. I want to say at the outset that I congratulate the member for Ottawa Centre for bringing this very sensitive piece of legislation forward for debate this morning. I also want to say that I will be supporting this bill.

I have some reservations and there are some concerns, as have been expressed by other members of this House, over some of the terminology, the vagueness of some of the terms. I believe that the place for us to have this debate, in terms of refining this legislation, is in committee. I would very much like to see this bill be referred to a committee to debate not only this bill, but the whole issue of the importance of how we as a province and how we as a society deal with this important issue of mental health.

1050

I believe that my colleague from Scarborough Centre has done an outstanding job in terms of consultations over the last number of months around this important issue. We've seen some significant improvements already in a number of areas of reinvestments on the part of the Ministry of Health. However, I want also to be very clear that I believe we have yet some distance to go in order to ensure that people in our society who suffer mental illness are dealt with adequately.

It's important for us as legislators to note that many precautions have been taken in this piece of legislation to ensure that people are dealt with in a compassionate and reasonable way. The legislation clearly states that the person must previously have received medical treatment for a mental disorder and responded well to those treatments. It goes on to say that the attending physician is of the opinion that the person is suffering from the same mental disorder as the one for which he or she previously received medical treatment, and that the person is likely to suffer serious deterioration if he or she does not receive medical treatment.

I submit to my colleagues in this House that if we are simply asking and conferring an authority on to physicians and those who have, by virtue of their authority, substitute decision-making responsibilities, the opportunity to prevent serious harm not only to the individual concerned but also to his or her loved ones, I believe we have a responsibility to ensure that the appropriate legislative framework is in place in this province for that to work.

I agree with my colleague the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Health that this is not a stand-alone solution to the issue, that there must be other community supports, there must be an integrated and coordinated mental health system in this province - we're working towards that - but I also believe that this can form part and parcel of that integrated system within this province.

There are those who have labelled this philosophically to meet their political or personal ends, that this is a leash type of legislation. I don't believe that does credit to the intent of the member in bringing this forward. I don't believe it honours those for whom this piece of legislation is written. I believe that as a House we have a responsibility not to dismiss this legislation but to work with the member in committee to refine it, to improve it, and to ensure that the needs of those in our society who suffer mental health disorders are adequately met, that they're met in a timely order to their benefit and to the benefit of their loved ones.

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): I am pleased to join the debate and congratulate my colleague from Ottawa Centre for bringing forward this resolution today. I know he has put a great deal of effort and work into this. There already has been extensive consultation. I appreciate the tone that all members of the House are taking because this is a very difficult issue. It is not an easy issue.

I think the whole area of mental illness is one of the most complex, least understood things that we deal with today. It's not as easy as trying to deal with a physical ailment in the sense that someone needs surgery for some illness and it's done. People tend to understand what that's all about. But when it comes to mental illness, it's a much more difficult issue. It's one that is complex and one that most of us have experiences with in family members, relatives or friends who have gone through this very difficult situation.

You need to ensure that any legislation that deals with this is balanced and takes into consideration the rights of the individual and at the same time that fine line between forcing treatment, between forcing involuntary admission and stepping on civil liberties and the rights of individuals. It's a very difficult line to walk, and any legislation that can help to improve that I think is welcome by the consumers, by the families and by Ontarians as a whole.

The area I want to focus on briefly, and I'll leave a couple of minutes for my colleague, is that most individuals who suffer from mental illness are not a threat to themselves or to others. It's a very difficult situation, it's difficult for the family, but in most cases it is not a case of a threat. But there are situations where individuals, as a result of the illness, can cause harm to themselves or to others. This is what I'm hoping that this bill, even if it's a few situations that are critical here, can help address. We've all heard the frustrations of family members who have a difficult time trying to get treatment or help for someone because a person refuses to take that treatment or that help, and know there is a potential for danger, know there is a potential for suicide, know there is a potential to harm other individuals.

What is glaring to me, coming from the community of Hamilton, is an incident that occurred in my own riding a couple of years ago. As a result of years and years of mental illness and difficulties that this woman was having, the family tried desperately to get this person into some type of treatment, tried desperately to get this person admitted to a facility because they knew she was in a difficult situation and could potentially harm herself or others. Unfortunately, this resulted in a tragedy where a two-year-old boy was stabbed with scissors and killed while playing in an alleyway beside the house.

When this tragedy occurred, it was not only a tragedy for the family, it tore out our hearts in our community to see this happen to that two-year-old boy. But what made it more difficult was later listening to the family of the woman who has been convicted of killing this two-year-old boy, the difficulties the family had in trying to get treatment and help for this woman. They believe today, as I do, that if there were more flexibility in legislation, in cases like this a family somehow could force admittance into a facility if there's a danger there. It is available in the act today but the rules and conditions are so rigid that it often makes it very difficult. I believe, had this type of legislation been in place today, the tragedy of this two-year-old boy - and the inquest is going to start in Hamilton - would have been avoided.

I hope members look at this legislation in that compassionate, caring sense. It may not be perfect, it may need to be fixed a little bit, but I certainly believe it's a step in the right direction.

Mr Patten: I'd like to take a little bit of time to respond to some of my colleagues. I appreciate the comments made.

The first thing I'd like to say, in response to my friend from Riverdale, is that we've studied the bill and the bill has barriers. I'm told by families that bills have barriers. The word "imminent" is a barrier to understanding when you can treat someone. I'm asked by families and members who have friends with schizophrenia, "When does a physician make a determination of when someone is severely ill and imminently ill?" Often that is interpreted to mean right now, and it isn't. Psychiatrists pre-empt the board. They wait and they say, "The person isn't all that bad," and that encourages severe illness. The longer persons suffer from psychosis, the more difficult it is to treat them and bring them back to where they presumably were before they suffered from the event - extremely important. So the medical evidence flies in the face of what the bill provides.

The other thing is that it provides only for a physician - I've heard people say, "The police can start rounding up people off the street." No way. They cannot do this. This is the most restrictive criterion of any particular jurisdiction that I'm aware of in Canada or in the United States, to be very specific and to deal with those who are in a revolving-door syndrome. That means they continue to go to hospital and two weeks later they're out. They go back into the community, there's no supervision, no support for them, they deteriorate again, they end up back in the hospital and this goes on and on. That's what we're attempting to address. It moves from a model and a statute of this to a model of trying to provide care. All the safeguards that are in the bill now are still there, and in fact reinforced to protect the rights of people.

1100

The other is that Ontario at the moment does not have a community treatment program. Most jurisdictions in North America - all the states in the US, five provinces in Canada - have what's called community treatment programs. These aren't ways of maintaining shackles on people; these are ways to get people, as quickly as possible, out of institutions and into an environment in which they have contact with family, with friends, with other people, and can do some things in a less restrictive manner but continue a particular program in which they can begin to heal again.

This is the most restrictive, as I say, because we're talking about dealing with a very small population of people who have lost their capacity. When we talk about civil liberties, I believe we have the right to treatment; people have a right to access to treatment. But when you lose capacity to be able to judge the consequences of your own decisions, you need to be supported in order to get treatment.

That is there in the bill now. The problem is that you have to wait until the eleventh hour, just before someone is about to commit suicide, or they actually do commit suicide, or they actually do beat someone else up, or they actually do threaten someone else severely. There is no room for understanding the pattern. Medical practitioners know that there is a pattern leading up to a particular episode that happens again and again and again; it's almost like a fingerprint. Why can't we acknowledge and see, with the safeguards we have, that the very best care system is able to treat people when they need it? The present bill does not do that.

This is not an answer for everything. It's an interim step. I support the government in reviewing the whole bill. This is one step along the way, and hopefully we can support it.

SAVING LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN NORFOLK AND HALDIMAND ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 VISANT À PRÉSERVER LE GOUVERNEMENT LOCAL À NORFOLK ET À HALDIMAND

Mr Barrett moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 80, An Act to eliminate the regional level of municipal government in Norfolk and Haldimand, to cut duplication and to save taxpayers' money / Projet de loi 80, Loi visant à éliminer le niveau régional du gouvernement municipal à Norfolk et à Haldimand ainsi que le double emploi et à faire réaliser des économies aux contribuables.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gary L. Leadston): The member has 10 minutes for his presentation.

Mr Toby Barrett (Norfolk): It is with great pleasure that I move second reading of this bill. Let me say at the outset that I firmly believe this bill has its roots in the finest tradition of our democratic parliamentary process. It is in keeping with the wishes of over 10,000 of my closest advisers. They have all made the choice to sign a petition calling for the dismantling of regional government in Haldimand-Norfolk.

Somebody said, "Those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it." I have been studying regional government in my area for 27 years now. Back when the region was just a gleam in some bureaucrat's eye, I helped conduct focus groups for the Earl Berger study. This study was commissioned by the government of the day to gauge people's reaction to the idea of regional government. The result: People didn't want regional government then and they don't want it now.

We can learn from the past. In 1971, during these focus groups, the fear most people mentioned at public meetings was that of higher taxes, and now in 1998, 27 years later, we have seen the highest property tax increase of any region in the province of Ontario. A 17.9% hike has been thrust on residents of Haldimand-Norfolk.

Now, 17.9% is a tax increase that residents cannot afford. A fellow from St Williams told regional council this fall of his difficulties: "I came down here hoping for some answers. I know you don't have any answers this morning, but my taxes have gone up to the point where I will have to go out of business and I will have to sell my property."

I want to read some other quotes, both from 1971 and 1998, then and now.

In 1971, a man from Caledonia, again at these focus groups: "I just think of more and more men up there doing less and less...and taxing the farmers higher and higher just to keep them there."

Also in 1971, a Caledonia farmer: "The most frightening thing about regional government, as a farmer, are the taxes."

Again in 1971, a Cayuga resident stated, "The bigger the organization, the more feather-bedding, the more people can be hired and no one knows what they're doing." Today in our region, after Stelco, regional government has become the area's biggest employer.

This past fall, a fellow from Oneida speaking to council on the elimination of regional government stated: "Because you are in a crisis you have an opportunity to do something really big, really good - you have an opportunity to go down in history. Please don't miss it."

Back in 1971, an Oneida resident told the Earl Berger study, "When the government gets further away, administration gets hog-wild."

Attitudes have not changed over the years. Recently, a Caledonia citizen told council, "The biggest savings that I can suggest is to get rid of regional government."

A Woodhouse township woman agreed. She told council: "The problem here is that we are overgoverned. We have too much government - it was pointed out that we have a government for half a million people. We've got to do something about the size of our government."

I also want to tell you a bit about some of the findings of the Berger study of 27 years ago, and I quote some of their conclusions:

"There is strong opposition to regional government in all groups sampled both in Haldimand and Norfolk, and in the areas adjacent to the two counties, including Wainfleet township in the Niagara region. There is strong support for increasing the powers of local government."

Compare this to what we hear today. In a recent Angus Reid poll commissioned by our local Simcoe Reformer and Annex publishing, the number one concern for people in my area is property taxes; not health, not education, not jobs and the economy. Some 49% of the people in this poll named property taxes as their number one concern. With the highest property tax increase in the province, at 17.9%, this does not come as a surprise.

The Angus Reid survey, and this was just completed November 3, 4 and 5, as I recall, reported that 85% of Haldimand-Norfolk residents feel there are too many politicians; 71% feel regional government doesn't communicate; 64% don't believe that government is "fine and should be left alone," as was asked in the poll, and 60% support action now; 60% don't feel that regional government spends money wisely. According to Angus Reid, only 20% of people are attached to the region. Some 74% are attached to local government; 66% oppose losing their local level of government; 72% feel there are too many levels of government; and 39% of people favour one tier. Only 8% of residents want a mega-region. We can learn from the Simcoe Reformer survey. People in Haldimand-Norfolk have been polled, and they believe that change is needed.

Potential drawbacks to regional government mentioned in the Berger study of 1971 were higher taxes, rising costs, loss of community autonomy, a diminishing role for local government, remoteness from citizens, bureaucracy and red tape. From what I see, little has changed in the ensuing 27 years.

I feel that municipal restructuring is needed in Haldimand-Norfolk. Local people elected me to help fix government. As the former Ontario Department of Municipal Affairs said back in 1971 when justifying change: "No system of government is a sacred cow. It is only a device for helping people to live and work together safely, effectively, and harmoniously."

The restructuring powers contained in Bill 26, as members know, do not give regional municipalities the power to restructure. This is why I have brought forward this bill: to give citizens of my constituency the ability to design and institute a form of local government that they both favour and can afford.

The bill does several things. First and foremost, it gives municipalities in Norfolk and Haldimand the ability to come up with a restructuring proposal that eliminates the regional level and restructures the lower tier. Any successful proposal must be fully costed out, it must be subject to public consultation, it must limit restructuring to the current boundaries of the region, and it must be approved by a majority of local councils and by regional councillors.

1110

I feel the strength of this bill is its public consultation process. Any municipality making a proposal must hold a public meeting in each of the other six current municipalities. All citizen input must be recorded. The meetings must be well advertised, and anyone wishing to speak will be allowed to do so.

If no proposal is forthcoming, the minister shall appoint a commission. A commission plan is bound by the same rules as any municipality submitting a proposal; public meetings must be held. A commission report will be implemented on or before January 1, 2001.

Previous governments have studied Haldimand-Norfolk. We certainly have enough studies and enough experience now with regional government to know that it is not working. Our large agricultural area cannot support the current system. It was built on the assumption that 320,000 people would live in Haldimand-Norfolk by the end of the century. The population is still under 100,000, and the end of the century is only 13 months away.

In 1989 and 1994 studies were done, the Pennell report and the Barnes report respectively. The Barnes report of 1994, under the NDP, concluded that a reduction in councillors at both levels of government was needed. It reported that the regional system was too large, that it was "impractical and unresponsive to residents' needs." Regional council rejected the report's recommendations. The 1989 Pennell report conducted by the Liberals also provides insight. This report told us the regional structure came, but not the envisioned development and population growth.

Regional chairs also published a report in 1995 to reduce the number of elected officials and to eliminate levels of government, and people seem to be agreeing with those recommendations as well.

What this bill does is give local people an opportunity to have their say with respect to local government. They also want to fix government. Both opposition parties have sponsored reviews, and I look forward to hearing their position on restructuring today.

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): Let me first of all say that I wonder where the member was when we talked about setting up the new city of Toronto. Some of the quotes that he used certainly could have been used on that occasion. When he says that the bigger the organization, the more the feather-bedding, and when you look at what's happened here in Toronto with the megacity, where was he? I didn't hear him saying those kinds of things at that time. He also said that when government gets further away, the system goes hog-wild. Those were exactly some of the comments people were making at the time, so where were you at that time?

I guess the biggest difficulty I have with this proposal is that it doesn't set out all the possible options. It doesn't set out, for example, a one-tier, one-municipality option for Haldimand-Norfolk. It totally eliminates the possibility of the status quo, that maybe regional government the way it is currently structured is in the long run the desirable way to go. It makes a number of assumptions that those two options shouldn't even be considered at all.

Now, let's take a look as to why the taxpayers of Haldimand-Norfolk are upset about their tax increases. I got some information that clearly indicates - and this is from their treasurer and commissioner of finance. Let me just read to you what he says in his letter. He says that provincial estimates show that the program was to be revenue-neutral, the downloading. "The calculation made by our staff for the budget shows a tax impact of $5.8 million. This has occurred because the revenue-neutral guarantee did not include the cost of policing services and transferred roadways."

They've given me a summary page of their budget which clearly indicates that in police services alone there was an extra $1.5-billion increase in services and another $5.5 million - did I say "billion"? I meant "million" - for police services, and in the area of roadways and the transferred highways of $330,000. When you add it all together, they have clearly indicated that the tax impact as a result of the downloading was $5.8 million.

No wonder the people of Haldimand-Norfolk are extremely upset over what has happened there. They don't know who to blame. This has been the whole theory of this government, that we throw this all up in the air, we do a whole bunch of restructurings, we do some downloading, we bring in a system we call current value assessment and then we don't implement it because we make changes to it in seven successive bills, totally confusing the general taxpayers out there. They don't know who to blame, and the government is succeeding in some respect in shifting the blame to the municipalities, because people really don't know what to do any more.

I totally agree with them that there has always been a feeling in certain parts of regional municipalities, and I used to hear it when I was at municipal council, that regional municipalities aren't going to work and don't work. I heard it way back into the 1970s. But the one option that may be a very viable option in this case is rejected by them totally out of hand. That is just to have a one-tier municipality in exactly the same way that we've got a one-tier municipality here in the megacity. I don't know why he excluded that. Why would he exclude that as a possible option that they should look at over the next year or so?

I'm not going to get personal with the member because I respect the member, but I've been reading some of the editorials in his area, and just about every newspaper there seems to come up with exactly the same scenario. They all seem to say something like, and I'm just quoting from one of them, "The proposed legislation is nothing less than an attempt to divert attention and shift the blame for provincial government policies which are crushing the very foundation of Ontario, its property taxpayers." That repeats itself over and over.

Another one, a more positive one in the Simcoe Reformer, states: "Mr Barrett may have started the ball rolling, but where he fails is in providing details. In essence, Mr Barrett may have put the cart before the horse by calling for the abolition of regional government before studying all the options to replace it."

That is the real issue here. Yes, the people are upset, and I don't doubt the sincerity of his petition at all and how frustrated the taxpayers feel out there, but I think it simply isn't appropriate for a government studying something to in effect already exclude one or two of the viable options that may be out there. It's for that reason that we will not be supporting this bill.

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): I am happy to have this opportunity to respond to Bill 80 and would begin by saying that in the Tillsonburg News on October 28, Mr Barrett was quoted as saying he would table legislation in the spring if local ratepayers desired change. Instead of waiting, he has pushed ahead without, in my view, adequate consultation. That's one serious problem.

The other problem is that there was a meeting on October 27 at the Simcoe Legion on the issue of restructuring, and at the meeting my good friend from Scarborough East, Mr Gilchrist, assured local ratepayers that the ministry is looking for a local solution, not one designed by Queen's Park. It is somewhat inconsistent with what the member is introducing today. It is also inconsistent with what he said on October 28 with respect to introducing something in the spring should people desire something.

There's something afoot. I dare say it's political, obviously. We know from what the member said that people have been against regional government for a long time. Ever since they created a regional government in 1974, the good folks from that area were not happy. We understand that. They still seem to be unhappy, and he makes that point. But how do we deal with this unhappiness?

Well, he says, there have been tremendous tax increases over the last little while, leading me to believe, and the audience that's watching today, that these tax increases - they've gone up 17% - are due to the regional government, and for that we must teach them a lesson and presumably abolish the regional government.

1120

What he fails to mention is that these tax increases have nothing to do with the regional government as much as they have to do with the downloading of a whole lot of other responsibilities to the municipal government. But he conveniently blames the regional government for these tax increases and capitalizes on people's anger over these tax increases by making that leap and having people understand or make the assumption that the tax increases are due to the regional government. It's due to these guys here downloading everything to the municipalities.

It isn't just me saying it. It makes it appear that if a New Democrat says this, then it must be wrong because they're in opposition and they're against it. It's your own editorial in that community speaking about this and they say:

"The region has been bombed with new expenses for highways" - the writer uses the word "bombed"; I would use the word "whacked," but "bombed" is worse - "welfare, police, ambulance service, nursing homes and public housing. At the same time, farmers lost rebates for taxes on agricultural land.

"Barrett steadfastly has refused to recognize this. Instead, he has blamed regional government for adding these costs to property bills."

That's what we're dealing with. So we need to tell the general public who has caused these property tax increases. It is M. Barrett, the member for Norfolk, and his good buddies through the Premier, M. Harris, who have caused this problem, foisted this particular problem on to those communities. That's the first thing.

Second, what the member for Norfolk is proposing here is something that decentralizes, as opposed to centralizes, communities. It's not something I want but it's something the good Tories on the other side want.

You will recall M. Harris and so many others in Metropolitan Toronto arguing that we needed to get rid of all the cities in the Metro area, get rid of the waste, as is indicated by this bill. So the member for Norfolk argues that we need to decentralize to save money. It's ambivalent. To me it's paradoxical, contradictory. It's quite possible that the Tories can live with both, it's quite possible, but I certainly can't.

I know that the good people in Norfolk are dumbfounded and confused about these contradictions. What I'm assuming the member for Norfolk is saying is that he would want to have Haldimand-Norfolk end up with six welfare offices, six planning departments, six water and sewer crews and so on. So much for duplication, to follow the argument of Tories, not necessarily my own.

How do you deal with these inconsistencies and how do you deal with the fact that there are a whole lot of people in that community angered by the bill that the member for Norfolk has presented today? It isn't necessarily me being angry so much as pointing out the contradictions and problems connected with this bill. It is people in those communities who are angry, particularly councillors.

This particular article was written by Mr Reid. He quotes a Simcoe councillor, Mr Kent, who says the following:

"`The title annoys me. Just the first word makes me furious. I have four questions. Saving from what? Saving for whom? Saving for what? Saving from whom?'"

He continues by saying: "`How can we consider restructuring our corporation when we have all this downloading? It's bunk. All I can see in this is personal vendettas. All the malcontents in this region looking for an opportunity embrace this legislation. I'm furious with the paper I hold in my hand at this time.'

"Delhi Mayor Rover Vermeulen said the bill was just a `re-election' ploy."

Even others who supported this bill have concerns with it.

I read another poll done by Angus Reid which says:

"Respondents have indicated a number of options with near-equal support. A one-tier government garnered the most support with 39%, but 27% prefer a two-county system and 22% are in favour of the status quo."

What that clearly indicates is that there are a lot of different positions. But some of these alternatives that are supported by a high number of respondents are rejected by the bill, as indicated by Mr Robert Johnston. He wrote this letter on his own merits as an individual. He happens to be the treasurer, no doubt, I agree, but he says:

"The bill would limit options available for reorganization, including both the status quo and the one-tier municipalities, covering the entire geographic area of Haldimand-Norfolk."

That's a problem. I'm convinced that some of you good people from those areas would agree that this is a problem. How could you introduce a bill that prescribes certain options and eliminates - discards, literally - other options that are strongly supported by the people of those communities? I'm convinced that if Tories are reasonable, if that can be possible - I'm sure there are some - they would agree that this is a no-go, that this is a no-brainer, as the Speaker of the House used to say from time to time when he was in opposition. I agree with that. I don't mean to cast aspersions on the member at all. All I'm saying is that he introduces a bill that is resisted logically, reasonably by good-minded people of that community.

What you need to do is permit those communities to come up with their local solutions. That would be the most fair-minded thing to do. You've got to allow a certain level of democracy to exist. If you reject that model, meaning that local communities should come together to come up with their own alternatives of what they can support, you are rejecting a democratic process, which in all reasonable-minded countries is something that would be a problem.

I'm looking forward to hearing some other speakers who are obviously edgy and want to speak to the bill. I'm not sure if M. Klees wants to, I'm looking forward to that, but I've got a few more minutes. I want to hear your response. I want to see how you defend this particular bill. I'm interested. You might want to support a bill that nobody supports, but I'll tell you it's a problem. It is a problem in many different ways.

The provisions proposed in this bill are actually less democratic than Bill 26. Under Bill 26, a commission can only be appointed if 75 residents of a municipality request it. Under M. Barrett's bill, the province must appoint a commission if there is no local solution. No one, including the province, has any choice when you look at section 19. All proposals, whether municipally generated or imposed by a commissioner, must dissolve the regional council. Here again M. Barrett is prejudging this situation before it unfolds. All proposals must also leave at least two municipalities still standing - again, prescribing what should exist, as opposed to what people think should exist, as opposed to what they believe the appropriate alternatives should be for their communities.

1130

I am worried, first of all, about the inherent contradictions of the position that the member for Norfolk takes, and if his colleagues support this, they too will contradict themselves vis-à-vis their overall agenda to centralize everything as they did here in the city of Toronto, as they did with Bill 160 to centralize education finances in the hands of M. Harris; particularly the Minister of Education but really the Premier. That is the trend of these Tories, contrary to their old Tory position that big was bad.

They still say big is bad and yet the direction has been to make things bigger and bigger, and in my view they contradict themselves. I want to hear their position in this regard because I believe they're making a serious political mistake. I believe the member for Norfolk is making a serious political mistake, while he thinks he is doing good for himself by supporting a whole lot of people disenchanted with the regional government by pretending that he supports their concerns about high property taxes.

Everyone in the community will understand, as they read the newspapers, as I'm sure they do in those local communities, that property tax increases have a lot to do with your download and not with the regional government. So fix that problem, fix the downloading problem before you try to fix anything else, but I urge this member and urge the others present today to consider seriously the wrong direction this is heading in in terms of not permitting local municipalities to come up with their own local solutions for those local problems.

Mr Frank Klees (York-Mackenzie): I'm pleased to rise, and let me first of all correct the record. The member for Fort York referred to "Deli." "Deli" is in northern India. The "Del-hi" that is referred to in the references is actually the home, I believe, of the regional chair, Mr John Harrison, who is with us here today, and we welcome him.

I'm pleased to speak on this bill. I would very much have liked this bill to read in its title "An Act to eliminate the regional level of municipal government in York Region, to cut duplication and to save taxpayers' money." The objective of this legislation is set out very clearly in its title, and that is to cut duplication and save taxpayers' money. It's not at all surprising that our colleagues in the Liberal Party as well as the NDP would want to put the brakes on something that would reduce the size of government, that they would oppose an initiative on the part of a member of this House to bring some form of rationalization to government.

I'd like to address the issue from perhaps a rather practical purpose. For many years and in my other life I was involved to some degree in the development industry and I can't tell you how many times we questioned those in our industry at the time. Often in discussions with local councillors, when we brought forward proposals of development the frustration that was expressed was that we had to address, first of all, a planning department at the municipal level, and then we had to address a planning department at the regional level. We had to address an engineering department at the local municipality, and then we had to address issues at the engineering department at the regional level. And it goes on.

The question that was constantly asked, and a very proper one, and I believe this is the question the honourable member is asking through this piece of legislation, is, why is it that we need those additional levels of government and all of the bureaucracy that goes with it? Can we not, together, come up with a system of government that is not duplicating efforts, that strips away that red tape, that makes it much more efficient to make these decisions?

The original objective of regions was in fact not to be a level of government. It was intended to be a coordinating body and, as time would have it, it evolved into this great, lumbering creature that we have now throughout the province, which is doing the exact opposite of what it was intended to do, and that was to bring efficiency to a growing province and to growing populations.

I submit that the objective the member has is that the local municipalities have a say in what the new face of the government for the area would look like. He has made it very clear that the initiative should come from local municipalities, that there is an opportunity for consultation and, based on that process, at the end of the day a much more efficient system of government. What I commend the member for is that he's bringing leadership to this. I believe he's breaking a log-jam that has existed in this discussion, not only in this area but throughout the province.

I'd like to quote from the Delhi paper. It refers to Councillor Mike Columbus, who expressed his sentiments, adding that he'd be surprised if anything ever comes of Barrett's bill: "`We've had four different reports on restructuring that I know of,' Columbus said, `but when it comes to change, nothing has happened.'"

I believe that's the very reason the member is bringing this legislation forward, because on the one hand he recognizes that something needs to be done to change this constant duplication, this inefficient way of doing business at this level of government. What he is saying is that through this piece of legislation he's prepared to break that log-jam, he's prepared to break that inertia, and give leadership to the people in this area, give them an opportunity to have their say and bring responsible government, a government that reduces duplication and that will at the end of the day save taxpayers' money. I commend him for his initiative and I believe this will be a model for other areas in the province.

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): I'm pleased to join the debate today on the resolution of my colleague from Norfolk. As other members, my colleagues on this side of the House, have expressed clearly, I think this bill is much more of an attempt to duck responsibility for a government-imposed, government-hammered government-driven solution of downloading and passing responsibilities to local taxpayers.

What I would have liked to have seen and I think what would have been a much more appropriate resolution today that would have fit the needs in that community and right across Ontario is a resolution that would have asked the government to pay back to the municipalities and to the region of Haldimand-Norfolk the money that they owe in downloading. That would have been a step in the right direction. They were short-changed by close to $6 million. That, in my view, would have solved part of the problem.

But I recall when my colleague from Hamilton Centre brought forward a resolution asking the government to basically pay up the $37 million that they owe the people of Hamilton-Wentworth, that they screwed us out of in downloading. Every single member on the government side of the House voted against that resolution. In my view, that would have been the approach.

I find it absolutely bizarre when I look at this and at your past actions, I look at what you've done in Hamilton-Wentworth, I look at what you've done in Toronto - or what you haven't done in Hamilton-Wentworth - and I look at this resolution. These things just seem to be all over the map.

I don't understand how you think you can cut duplication by moving backwards rather than forwards. Every single study across North American has shown, and I challenge you to prove that wrong, that municipalities or regions up to about 500,000 people work much better with a one-tier structure, work much better with a coordinated planning of services, things such as police, health, welfare, planning, tax base. Every single study ever done across North America of every structure of government has shown that.

1140

This smacks of totally the opposite to that. We're going back now to saying each town will have its own planning department, so planning bylaws and zoning bylaws will change every mile. Each town now will have its own engineering department. Each town will now have its own clerks and treasurers. How does that cut duplication? The Tories were the government of less government. You were going to get rid of red tape; you were going to get rid of duplication. Now you have a resolution that says, "Let's go back to the old way, ensuring that we have 200 departments in every town and municipality across this province."

It makes absolutely no sense at all. It will only add cost. It doesn't ease the problem of downloading that you've forced municipalities across this province to deal with. That is a real problem, that you have decided you are going to shift cost to the municipal level to make your books look better. It's that simple.

Look what you did in Metropolitan Toronto. You took a municipality of 2.4 million and you forced amalgamation on that area. There was no consultation, there were no studies - a tremendous public backlash and outcry, and you imposed it. Then I challenge you to look at what you did in my own municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth, or what you haven't done. We've had 20 years of studies, reports, consultation, referendums, plebiscites and resolutions. We're not talking about a megacity there.

Think of this: You imposed one tier on this megacity of over two million people, when every study ever done says that doesn't work. Then you had an opportunity to act in a municipality like Hamilton-Wentworth, where there was a deal that had four out of six municipalities on board, where 85% of the public represented by those municipalities was on board, where you had piles of reports and consultant studies saying: "Yes, it's more effective. Yes, you'll save money if you move to a one-tier structure of regional government." Again, we're talking about less than 500,000 people here; we're not talking about 2.4 million or 2.5 million or 2.2 million.

You had those opportunities, and what did your Minister of Municipal Affairs and the cabinet do? They ducked every single time. It caused chaos. It caused a crisis in my region, because they failed to act. They were absolutely gutless in doing the right thing, where you had a consensus, where you had evidence beyond a doubt that showed it would save money and was the right thing to do.

So you ram it down the throats of Metro Toronto, which doesn't want it and you put in a system here that doesn't work. On the other hand, with a municipality that had consensus in four out of six, 85% of the population, you failed to act.

Now we have a resolution that strikes out totally in a third direction. I just don't understand, frankly, where this is coming from. I've had a chance to look at the editorials and I'll be honest with you: I'm not familiar with the ins and outs of that region. I don't live in that region. I don't represent that region. But I've had a chance to look at the editorials and read the letters that have come in. I'm trying to understand where the support or the rationale for this is coming from.

I like to see studies, I like to see evidence that the member can show us where going back to the old system, going back to every little town and empire running their own thing totally, with duplication, is going to save money. I would like to see some evidence of that, because all the information I have in front of me here, all the newspaper articles, letters and editorials that are here clearly do not in any way, shape or form address that or show us. It just shows the opposite.

I would like the member to respond, to tell me how going back to the system of continuing to ensure that we have possibly six police services, six social service departments, six health departments, six planning departments, six treasurers, six clerks, six licence departments, is going to save us money. Because you know what? Each one of those departments has a department head. Each one of those departments needs support staff.

Frankly, when you're dealing with a small area, a small community population-wise - it is not a megacity; it is not representing two million people. It's much smaller and you can do it much more efficiently. If you're going to move in any direction, I would suggest it's the opposite direction, rather than the direction this resolution suggests.

I go back to where we started on this: What is driving this? I can tell you what is driving this. The member, I'm sure, through his office, is getting the same abuse, the same phone calls that most government members are getting in regard to property tax increases. You can hide or you can try, but you have failed. As you failed to pin school closures on school boards, you are failing miserably to pin municipal tax increases on municipal governments. You're getting the heat, and rightly so, because most municipal governments across this province have done a tremendous job of eliminating duplication, of cutting where necessary, of trying to bring in budgets and taxes that do not negatively impact their taxpayers.

If they were left to their own devices in doing that, most municipalities would have come in at zero, below zero or with a tax decrease. But they couldn't cope with what you dropped on them. They could not cope with the millions of dollars you have shoved down the throats of municipal governments. That is what the problem is, and that is what the solution is trying to address.

I wish the member had taken the other approach. I would have been happy to support a resolution that said, "Let us give the good people you represent the money we owe them, because we shafted them in downloading." I would have been happy, and I would have stood and supported your resolution. But that wasn't the case. That is not what the Premier's office would have wanted you to do, because they're embarrassed, because that would have been an acknowledgement that your downloading exercise was not revenue-neutral. Nobody believes that it is revenue-neutral any more. You've lost that fight; you've lost that argument.

If you're going to help people you represent, I would suggest that you go back to your Minister of Finance, that you go back to the Premier, and say: "We've got a problem. We're facing tax increases of up to 17% because we have downloaded services to the municipal level. Give us the money you owe us." That would be the right thing to do. That would be the just thing to do.

Mr Jack Carroll (Chatham-Kent): I appreciate the opportunity to participate this morning. I'd like to steal a page from Charles Dickens's book A Tale of Two Cities, and talk about two parts of our province that aren't exactly cities, but for the purposes of this analogy we will refer to them as such. One of those is the area of Haldimand-Norfolk; the other one is my part of the province, which is called Chatham-Kent.

Now, these two parts of our province have some similarities. They both have a population around the 100,000 mark, a little less in Haldimand-Norfolk, a little more in Chatham-Kent, but certainly in that same ballpark. You'd be interested to know that at this current point in time those roughly 100,000 people in Haldimand-Norfolk have something in excess of 60 local politicians. Just by way of comparison, that's more local politicians than the 2.5 million people in the city of Toronto have. But anyway, the people of Haldimand-Norfolk have 60 politicians, somewhere in excess of that. The people of Chatham-Kent, the same number of people roughly, have 18 local politicians. The people in Haldimand-Norfolk have two tiers of government, a regional chair of government plus some local government. The people in Chatham-Kent made some difficult decisions and ended up with one chair of government. So we have two comparable volumes of people, but in one case almost four times as many local politicians, the area that has two layers of government.

Both of those parts of the province, along with all other parts of our province, were asked to go through a process called the realignment of services, where the province took back control of educational funding, which you and I both know has spiralled totally out of control in our province. The province has taken that back, and in exchange for taking back that responsibility we've asked municipalities to take on some other responsibilities.

1150

We asked Haldimand-Norfolk, with its two levels of government and its 60-plus politicians, to go through the realignment of services; and we asked Chatham-Kent, with its single level of government and its 18 politicians, to also go through the realignment of services. Now we have a situation where it comes to levying taxes for the 1998-99 year and, lo and behold, at this particular point in time the tale of two cities gets very different. Now we have the region of Haldimand-Norfolk imposing an unbelievable 17.9% tax increase on its citizens, and the people of Chatham-Kent enjoying, due to the hard work of our local politicians - only 18 of them, by the way - no tax increase. As Charles Dickens says in his book, "It was the best of times, it was the worst of times." It's not that difficult to apply which one of those particular phrases suits the area of Haldimand-Norfolk.

I'm not sure what is the right answer for Haldimand-Norfolk, because I don't live in the area, I'm not part of the area, but I know that in every area of this province, and the absolute proof of the fact of it is Chatham-Kent, we have substantially too much local government. The taxpayers of Ontario can no longer afford and no longer need all that local government.

The member has brought forward a bill that says, "We will eliminate one level of government in Haldimand-Norfolk." He hasn't gone much beyond that. He's allowed much latitude, much opportunity for input from the citizens of his area, but he has said that we have too much government. You don't have to look any further than Chatham-Kent to know the advantages of eliminating a layer of government.

I find it unconscionable that members of this House would continue to support, just because it happens to be the way we've always done it, an incredibly inefficient system of government in Haldimand-Norfolk that this year has resulted in an almost 18% tax increase, when on the other hand we know that a simple single-tier level of government in a likewise community just down the road has benefited from no tax increase.

I'm totally supportive of the initiative put forward by the member for Norfolk. I believe it is the right way to go to eliminate that excess local government in all the areas of our province.

Mr Bart Maves (Niagara Falls): It's a pleasure to join the debate and support Mr Barrett's bill today. I also support his bill because it puts forward a restructuring proposal and it gets on with the job of restructuring local government. As the member for Chatham-Kent has just said, we have dramatically too much government at the municipal levels throughout Ontario.

The members opposite have used the term "downloading" several times today and they actually used it incorrectly. Downloading is when one level of government transfers services to another level of government without any revenues attached. In the exercise we've gone through over the past two years, we've transferred services to the municipal level of government with revenue attached, and that revenue has been, as the member for Chatham-Kent just explained, those educational property tax revenues that had been going to education for so many years that now the province is picking up. That's something that needs to be clear.

I always enjoy the speeches of the member for Fort York, but I remember that if he wants an example of directly passing on a cost to taxpayers, he has to look no further than when he was a school board trustee several years ago and he passed on, I believe, an 80% salary increase directly to local taxpayers. That is a prime example of directly passing something on, and that's not the case here.

We must try to explain quite a bit of the very large - the largest, I think, in the province - tax increase passed on by the regional municipality of Haldimand-Norfolk. One of the main reasons for that was something that's well known across the province now: a budgeted 237% increase in transfers to regional reserves. That's the biggest chunk. There's also a 15.5% increase in operational expenses. The office of the regional chair allocated itself a 12.5% increase in operational expenses. But that shift to regional reserves was a big reason for property tax increases. That happened all over the province in the past fiscal year. My own region, Niagara, for instance - right from the regional budget; anyone can look this figure up -received $3 million from the province's special circumstances fund and chose to use only about $850,000 towards lowering a deficit that they might have at the end of the year and put the rest in reserves.

They had social housing costs in their budget estimated at $24.6 million when actual costs, they were told, were probably closer to $22.6 million. But without making that change, they'll have extra money left for reserves.

You can go through and look at some OMERS savings that weren't budgeted. You can look at all the regions around the province that have a declining number of people on social assistance partly paid for by the region. Most of those reductions in costs are not included in budgets.

I wasn't the only one back in my region when we talked about the budget debate about padding reserves. Thorold Mayor Tim Kenny tried unsuccessfully during their budget debate to move money proposed for reserves towards the tax levy. Kenny just couldn't buy setting aside money in reserves when taxes are going up 13%. "I call that padding the budget," said Kenny.

Subsequent to that, we learned a little bit more from regional councillors. The Welland mayor and a regional councillor in my area in October this year talked about the region's so-called pay-as-you-go policy for sewer and water treatment. He blasted it as being misleading and bordering on being fraudulent. He pointed out that, while the region tells everyone in our region that water and sewers are pay-as-you-go, last year they collected $37 million in water revenues, yet the cost to the region of treating the water and sewer was only $15 million, another area where they're padding reserves and at the same time increasing taxes. This happens everywhere.

Recently, my mayor in Niagara Falls has become fed up and has said in our paper, "Let's go it alone." He wants some restructuring down in my area, where we have 400,000 people and 13 levels of government. We need some change. Mr Barrett's bill proposes change. Ten thousand people in his constituency have asked for change, so I'm going to support their desire and Mr Barrett's desire for change in his municipality.

Mr Barrett: I would like to thank the members for participating in the debate on my bill. I appreciate the support and I wish to ask that this legislation move to the committee stage. After a vote at 12 I'll be asking for referral to the general government committee in order to deal with some of these concerns and to allow members of the opposition to have some further input.

I would like to wrap up the debate by restating some facts for the record. In contrast to what the member for Kingston and The Islands and the member for Fort York say, this legislation is unique in that it guarantees citizen participation. To the member for Fort York: You propose a Toronto solution, and I reject that.

With respect to citizen involvement, the ability of interested citizens to reorganize municipal government is a strong reason for them to make their views known and not to rely on just my option or my solution as an MPP.

Citizens of Norfolk and Haldimand will have the opportunity to take part in shaping their future environment. Local people wish to seize that opportunity and, as my colleague from York-Mackenzie confirmed, this bill guarantees citizen involvement.

No decisions on restructuring will be made without opportunities for every citizen to make his or her views known at public meetings and in writing. Not only individuals but municipalities, other public agencies and private groups and businesses will be invited to take advantage of these opportunities.

With respect to taxes, as the MPP for the area I don't like to see my constituents suffer under the unfair tax hike that has been imposed on them this year, a tax hike of 17.9% which will kill jobs, kill growth and kill communities in my area. Help me change that situation.

MENTAL HEALTH AMENDMENT ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LA SANTÉ MENTALE

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gary L. Leadston): We will now deal with ballot item number 33 standing in the name of Mr Patten.

Mr Patten has moved second reading of Bill 78.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour?

All those opposed?

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

SAVING LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN NORFOLK AND HALDIMAND ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 VISANT À PRÉSERVER LE GOUVERNEMENT LOCAL À NORFOLK ET À HALDIMAND

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gary L. Leadston): Mr Barrett has moved second reading of Bill 80. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour?

All those opposed?

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Call in the members. There will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1200 to 1205.

MENTAL HEALTH AMENDMENT ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LA SANTÉ MENTALE

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gary L. Leadston): All those in favour, please rise and remain standing until your name is called by the Clerk.

Ayes

Agostino, Dominic

Bartolucci, Rick

Bradley, James J.

Caplan, David

Carroll, Jack

Chudleigh, Ted

Cunningham, Dianne

Duncan, Dwight

Gilchrist, Steve

Gravelle, Michael

Grimmett, Bill

Klees, Frank

Kwinter, Monte

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Maves, Bart

McLean, Allan K.

O'Toole, John

Parker, John L.

Patten, Richard

Pettit, Trevor

Ross, Lillian

Ruprecht, Tony

Sergio, Mario

Shea, Derwyn

Spina, Joseph

Stewart, R. Gary

Tascona, Joseph N.

Wood, Bob

Young, Terence H.

The Acting Speaker: All those opposed will rise and remain standing.

Nays

Arnott, Ted

Barrett, Toby

Beaubien, Marcel

Churley, Marilyn

Elliott, Brenda

Hastings, John

Jordan, W. Leo

Marchese, Rosario

Marland, Margaret

Newman, Dan

Saunderson, William

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 29; the nays are 11.

The Acting Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

The bill is ordered to the committee of the whole House.

Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): I request that it be moved to the social development committee.

The Acting Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House? Carried.

SAVING LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN NORFOLK AND HALDIMAND ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 VISANT À PRÉSERVER LE GOUVERNEMENT LOCAL À NORFOLK ET À HALDIMAND

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gary L. Leadston): All those in favour please rise and remain standing until your name is called by the Clerk.

Ayes

Arnott, Ted

Barrett, Toby

Beaubien, Marcel

Carroll, Jack

Chudleigh, Ted

Cunningham, Dianne

Elliott, Brenda

Gilchrist, Steve

Grimmett, Bill

Hastings, John

Jordan, W. Leo

Klees, Frank

Marland, Margaret

McLean, Allan K.

Newman, Dan

O'Toole, John

Parker, John L.

Pettit, Trevor

Ross, Lillian

Saunderson, William

Shea, Derwyn

Skarica, Toni

Spina, Joseph

Stewart, R. Gary

Tascona, Joseph N.

Wood, Bob

Young, Terence H.

The Acting Speaker: All those opposed will rise and remain standing.

Nays

Agostino, Dominic

Bartolucci, Rick

Bradley, James J.

Caplan, David

Churley, Marilyn

Duncan, Dwight

Kwinter, Monte

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Marchese, Rosario

Ruprecht, Tony

Sergio, Mario

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 27; the nays are 11.

The Acting Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

The bill is ordered to the committee of the whole House.

Mr Toby Barrett (Norfolk): I request that the bill be sent to the general government committee.

The Acting Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House? Agreed.

All matters relating to private members' business having been completed, I do now leave the chair and the House will resume at 1:30 pm.

The House recessed from 1211 to 1333.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

TAXATION

Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview): I'm addressing my comments today directly to the Premier, concerning the continuous lament with respect to business taxes. This time the complainant is a small business operator from the city of Stratford, Ontario. This is not a big business; this is one of those businesses that on a daily basis a husband and wife or mother and father or a single person conducts on behalf of the people in Ontario.

This is what they had to say. It is addressed directly to the Premier. "I wish to bring to your attention that our city of Stratford has raised our municipal taxes excessively and is blaming that increase on your government." This is a small operator, a bed-and-breakfast operator, and their business taxes went up by a stunning 340%. Can you imagine, Mr Speaker, a small business operator, 340%. On this particular business, the tax went up from $9,000 to $38,000.

They are not alone. There are small business operators in Ontario such as this one by the thousands. They are calling on the government; they are calling on the Premier; they are calling on the minister who is here in the House today to do something about it. On behalf of all the businesses in Ontario, I'm calling on the minister and on the Premier to do something about it.

NURSE PRACTITIONERS

Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East): On November 24, the Harris government finally released the details of how funds targeted for nurse practitioners would be spent. The ministry press release specifically states, "This funding support enables a number of agencies to hire over 120 nurse practitioners." This statement is completely incorrect. In actual fact, only 22.5 new positions for NPs will be added to our system of community health centres; only three new NPs will be hired at nursing stations in northern Ontario.

The bulk of the remaining money will be used to increase the salaries of nurse practitioners already working in agencies to recognize their skills. Take the Centre de santé communautaire in Sudbury as an example. It will receive money to upgrade the salaries of the two nurse practitioners already employed. It will not receive money it asked for to hire two new NPs to provide more health care to residents in Sudbury, Rayside-Balfour and Valley East.

Across northern Ontario, a maximum of six new NPs may be hired: three in northern nursing stations and one in each of the community health centres in New Liskeard, Ignace and Longlac. New Democrats have urged the ministry to establish a special fund to allow nurse practitioners to work with family doctors in underserviced areas. The ministry did not listen. As a result, some 26 northern communities, five in the Sudbury region alone, which are all declared underserviced for health care, will not benefit by having a nurse practitioner come to provide health care.

We need to get more nurse practitioners working in Ontario. It's a shame the government rhetoric on jobs falls so short of the reality.

HURRICANE RELIEF

Mr Bill Grimmett (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): Across my riding communities are coming together to provide relief to the victims of Hurricane Mitch which devastated parts of Central America about one month ago.

One effort based out of Lake of Bays township in Muskoka will see eight local individuals, seven of whom are members of the township's volunteer fire department, leave for Honduras to personally contribute to the relief effort. The eight individuals who will leave next Thursday are Lake of Bays fire chief Kelly Serson, Frank Van Gelder, Jason Provencher, Steve Wolman, Peter Wrattan, Charlie Cunnington, Heinz Hubbert and Tom Brown.

In a week's time, these men will pack all the supplies that weight restrictions will permit and get on a plane destined for the Honduran capital. Many of the supplies, which include blankets and medicine, have been donated by the community. From the capital, they will travel for four hours to the community of Choletca.

The area around Choletca was hard hit by Hurricane Mitch with 7,000 confirmed deaths and 11,000 people still reported missing. In Choletca itself, the main medical centre for the area was completely destroyed by the hurricane. With medical teams from around the world working to help the victims of this tragedy, rebuilding the local medical centre is a priority.

These eight volunteers from Muskoka will be providing low-key medical support and delivering supplies. Perhaps most importantly, their main effort will be to reconstruct this medical facility as quickly as possible. The volunteers are planning to be in Honduras for 11 days.

On behalf of my constituents and the Legislature, I want to wish these local citizens good luck and recognize them for their selfless efforts.

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr Joseph Cordiano (Lawrence): Over the last few weeks I've visited many people in my riding and held many community meetings. The topic of discussion is always the same: Why is Mike Harris destroying public education in Ontario? Why are the cuts in education continuing? Why does the government keep picking fights with teachers? These are the same questions in every community.

I visited countless numbers of schools: Keelesdale, Weston Memorial, C.R. Marchant, George Harvey Collegiate, George Anderson, Dennis Avenue, Lambton Park. These schools are all threatened with closure.

I've also met with representatives of Pelmo Park, Flemington Public School, Frank Oke, Nelson A. Boylen, Gracefield, Brookhaven, Maple Leaf, Cordella Junior. On behalf of these parents, these students and these communities, I want to deliver a message to the government.

Premier, the people of this province want the cuts in education to stop. They want you to stand up and take responsibility and recognize that your funding formula just doesn't work. These parents are not deceived by the fact that you've rescinded and gone halfway. They know this is just a stay of execution.

Again, it's not about which schools will stay open and which schools will close. Your cuts in education have hurt just about everyone in Toronto. That goes for all the kids and all the communities. They want you to stop with these cuts.

1340

AUGUSTO PINOCHET

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): I, along with 200 Chileans, was very happy to celebrate yesterday's decision by the Law Lords which ruled that former dictator Pinochet cannot claim immunity for crimes that he committed.

His son, Augusto Pinochet Jr, said of this decision that it was "a political and Fascistic judgment." How sheltered this Augusto Pinochet Jr must have been all these years not to have noticed that this so-called frail old man led one of the most Fascistic regimes that tortured and killed thousands of innocent Chileans.

This ruling which was given yesterday by the Law Lords is a very important victory in the fight for accountability of perpetrators of crimes against humanity.

I hope the Home Secretary, Jack Straw, will do the right thing and decide to permit the extradition proceedings to go forward so that justice can finally come about and the final stages of healing will happen for the many Chileans who have been tortured over these years and the crimes this man has committed against them.

FRED WEST

Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): It's a pleasure to rise in the House today to honour a very special constituent. Mr Fred West, a veteran of the First World War, recently received the government of France's highest award for his military service and dedication. The Legion of Honour was presented to Mr West by France's Consul General at a special ceremony in Bowmanville on Remembrance Day.

This 99-year-old veteran is truly a remarkable person who at the age of 16 was helping to defend the Western Front as a machine gunner. Mr West has received many honours but the greatest was the recognition of the Legion of Honour from the government of France. The Legion of Honour is equivalent to the Order of Canada.

It has been 80 years since the end of the First World War, and I believe it is important now more than ever before that all veterans be thanked for their dedication to our province and indeed our country.

It is my privilege to congratulate Mr West for receiving the Legion of Honour from France. It's an honour to recognize him and all veterans for their service to country. The freedom we all enjoy is thanks to the many veterans, including Mr Fred West.

On a more personal note, it was a wonderful celebration. The community joined in: the mayor; John Greenfield, past president of the Bowmanville Legion; Lyne Pudister, who is now the legion's president; Doreen Park, who saw service in the First World War; Jim Connell, who is the new zone commander for area 10; and Neale and Shirley McLean, who bring respite service and quality of life to Mr West.

I'd like all members to thank Mr West for his service.

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville): As I picked up my National Post this morning and read the article "Master of US Attack Ads Works on Tory Campaign," I couldn't help but think of that old adage about my enemies' friend, in this case my enemies' friend Mike Murphy. According to Paul Rhodes, one of the whiz kids, he says, "He knows all kinds of advertising - negative, positive, what works and what doesn't." I bet he does, because you know what campaigns he has worked on? Senator Jesse Helms. Remember Senator Jesse Helms? And that great American patriot, Oliver North.

We've seen already for the last two weeks what this government is all about. It's about attack ads. Let me tell you, my enemies' friends are Oliver North and Jesse Helms. That's what this government's about. That's what they're going to do.

We're looking forward. We hope you will keep up the advertisements you've been running.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Member for Brampton North.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Member for Brampton North, come to order, please. I called your name three times.

Mr Duncan: I would say to the people of Ontario, in my defence, that the same guy who did all of Oliver North's and Jesse Helms's promotions has been spending 48 million taxpayer dollars for your phony right-wing propaganda.

STEEL INDUSTRY

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): We are facing a challenge of mammoth and potentially devastating proportions in our country right now. It is the very destructive and unprecedented dumping of steel by offshore companies. This activity affects Ontario in a major way, particularly the communities of Hamilton and Sault Ste Marie.

I'm calling today on the federal government, specifically the Department of National Revenue, to move quickly on the anti-dumping trade action brought forward by the steel industry. The ministry has now deemed that the case is fully documented. They now have to decide to accept the action and bring it forward to the Canadian International Trade Tribunal.

All of us here and anybody out there concerned about the future of the steel industry in Ontario, Hamilton, Sault Ste Marie, need to be writing or calling the federal Department of National Revenue and Minister Dhaliwal to move quickly. I am calling on the Ontario government, on behalf of the steel industry and the communities they support, primarily Sault Ste Marie and Hamilton, and the jobs these industries represent, to intercede with the federal government to act now before any more damage is done.

The US government, as we speak, is moving to protect their interests. This could put us in double jeopardy if we are not acting together. If the US deems itself to be injured by this dumping, steel heading for the US will now be coming to Canada, and that will hit us -

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Statements.

HAMILTON SEEKERS VOLLEYBALL CLUB

Mrs Lillian Ross (Hamilton West): Last night the Wall of Fame at Copps Coliseum saw the addition of some new inductees to its already distinguished list of sports celebrities.

I'm speaking today of the 12 girls, coach and coaching staff of the Hamilton Seekers Volleyball Club. This group of hard-working, dedicated girls has been described by their coach as terrific, happy kids who like to work hard, and indeed they have worked exceptionally hard.

Since 1978 this team has represented consistently and proudly the city of Hamilton at city, provincial, national and international levels. The Seekers Volleyball Club and their coach, Frank Lilliman, have brought home to Hamilton a great distinction in Canadian champions.

The Hamilton Seekers attended the Canadian Open Midget Championships in Calgary earlier this year and went undefeated in 11 games in a tournament that saw 115 teams compete. Their final game saw them come from behind to defeat the US champions, eventually winning the game 2 to 1 and giving them the title as Canadian Open Midget Champions.

I congratulate all the girls, their coach and their coaching staff for a job well done and a distinction well deserved.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT

Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): I beg leave to present a report on Bill 55 from the standing committee on general government and move its adoption.

Clerk at the Table (Mr Todd Decker): Your committee begs to report the following bill, as amended:

Bill 55, An Act to revise the Trades Qualification and Apprenticeship Act / Projet de loi 55, Loi révisant la Loi sur la qualification professionnelle et l'apprentissage des gens de métier, the title of which is amended to read "An Act respecting apprenticeship and certification / Loi concernant l'apprentissage et la reconnaissance professionnelle."

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

All those in favour, please say "aye."

All those opposed, please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Call in the members. This will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1349 to 1354.

The Speaker: All those in favour of adopting the report from the standing committee on general government on Bill 55, please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

Arnott, Ted

Baird, John R.

Barrett, Toby

Carroll, Jack

Chudleigh, Ted

Cunningham, Dianne

Doyle, Ed

Ecker, Janet

Elliott, Brenda

Flaherty, Jim

Ford, Douglas B.

Froese, Tom

Grimmett, Bill

Harnick, Charles

Harris, Michael D.

Hodgson, Chris

Jackson, Cameron

Johnson, David

Leach, Al

Marland, Margaret

Maves, Bart

McLean, Allan K.

Munro, Julia

Newman, Dan

O'Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Parker, John L.

Pettit, Trevor

Rollins, E.J. Douglas

Ross, Lillian

Runciman, Robert W.

Sampson, Rob

Saunderson, William

Shea, Derwyn

Skarica, Toni

Smith, Bruce

Snobelen, John

Spina, Joseph

Sterling, Norman W.

Stewart, R. Gary

Tascona, Joseph N.

Tilson, David

Tsubouchi, David H.

Villeneuve, Noble

Witmer, Elizabeth

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

Nays

Agostino, Dominic

Bartolucci, Rick

Bradley, James J.

Caplan, David

Christopherson, David

Churley, Marilyn

Conway, Sean G.

Cordiano, Joseph

Curling, Alvin

Duncan, Dwight

Kormos, Peter

Kwinter, Monte

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Lankin, Frances

Lessard, Wayne

Marchese, Rosario

Martel, Shelley

Martin, Tony

Morin, Blain K.

North, Peter

Phillips, Gerry

Pouliot, Gilles

Ruprecht, Tony

Sergio, Mario

Silipo, Tony

Wildman, Bud

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 45; the nays are 26.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

Pursuant to the order of the House dated October 14, 1998, the bill is ordered for third reading.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Simcoe Centre): I beg leave to present a report from the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly and move its adoption.

Clerk at the Table (Mr Todd Decker): Your committee begs to report the following bill as amended:

Bill 69, An Act to amend the Members' Integrity Act, 1994 and to enact the Lobbyists Registration Act, 1998 / Projet de loi 69, Loi modifiant la Loi de 1994 sur l'intégrité des députés et édictant la Loi de 1998 sur l'enregistrement des lobbyistes.

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

The bill is therefore ordered for third reading.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

VINTNERS QUALITY ALLIANCE ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR LA SOCIÉTÉ APPELÉE VINTNERS QUALITY ALLIANCE

Mr Tsubouchi moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 85, An Act to provide for the designation of a wine authority to establish an appellation of origin for Vintners Quality Alliance wine and to administer that system / Projet de loi 85, Loi prévoyant la désignation d'un office des vins afin d'établir et d'administrer un système d'appellations d'origine pour les vins de la société appelée Vintners Quality Alliance.

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

Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): I just want to say that this was the result of a co-operative effort. From the VQA I'd like to thank Len Penechetti, who is the current chairman, and Don Ziraldo, who is the originating chairman of VQA; the Wine Council of Ontario under the chairmanship of Bruce Walker; and the grape growers, under John Neufeld. As well, I'd like to thank the wine caucus of the government: members Tim Hudak, Tom Froese, Frank Sheehan, Bart Maves and Jack Carroll.

1400

ORAL QUESTIONS

PORK INDUSTRY

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): My question is to the Minister of Agriculture. A few moments ago you were on national television rightly commenting on the disastrous situation that pork producers in Ontario are currently facing. Earlier this week, in response to a question from a member of this Legislature, you indicated that the government of Ontario was monitoring the situation and preparing to take action.

Would you stand in your place today, recognizing the gruesome situation that producers and others are now experiencing in the pork sector particularly, and bring the House up to date on specific plans you have to aid what you yourself have rightly called a disastrous situation facing Ontario pork producers?

Hon Noble Villeneuve (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, minister responsible for francophone affairs): I want to thank my honourable colleague from Renfrew North. We do have a disastrous situation in the pork industry in Ontario, as they have across Canada and indeed across the world.

We have met with the pork producers. As a matter of fact, we spent almost two hours together with the Ontario pork executive last night - myself and our rural caucus. I have been in constant contact with my federal colleague the Honourable Lyle Vanclief, who was in cabinet this morning looking at the support that may well be available and the kind of program he will be setting forth.

We will definitely be participating in that program and we want to make absolutely sure that Ontario's producers get their fair share of federal money.

Mr Conway: Are you prepared, Minister, to stand in your place today and tell Ontario's pork producers and the related agribusiness that the Ontario government will match, dollar for dollar, the assistance we expect to be forthcoming from the government of Canada? And as a supplementary, are you prepared, as a provincial government in Ontario, to match the special funding offered by the Quebec provincial government to Quebec pork producers, which my colleagues from eastern Ontario tell me now runs at approximately $69 per sow?

Hon Mr Villeneuve: It is $69 per market hog, not per sow. However, that is something that is different in the province of Quebec than it is here in Ontario. Ontario's pork producers have suffered countervail in the past. All Quebec pork is processed in Quebec, therefore they are selling pork and not live hogs. We sell live hogs here in Ontario because we are an exporting province, and we ship hogs to Quebec and to the US. Therefore, if we mirrored the Quebec situation, we would be up for countervail immediately. We cannot afford countervail. We must bring dollars to our pork producers because they are presently losing some $60 per animal that goes to market, and you cannot tolerate that for very long.

When you ask me to match dollar for dollar, it's my understanding that the formula will soon come forth from Ottawa and it will be somewhere close to 60-40. So for me to tell you we'll match dollar for dollar - we will meet the requirements of the federal government, provided they're not countervailable.

Mr Conway: Minister, pork producers in my part of eastern Ontario, which is also your part of the province, are faced with the actions of the Quebec government. They have taken measures which clearly favour their pork producers and we had better, as a provincial government in Ontario, provide real assistance to our producers and do so in a timely fashion.

Given the gruesome situation in Ontario today, where reports are now coming in that pork producers facing unprecedented collapse in prices are shooting and gassing piglets and sows - it's come to that, apparently - what we need to know is: As members of this Legislature and as the community beyond, what specific measures are you prepared to take; and will you stand here today and tell us that these beleaguered and increasingly desperate pork producers in Ontario are going to get real and meaningful assistance before they are all out of business?

Hon Mr Villeneuve: I reiterate what I said in a previous answer: Yes, we will be there to support financially our pork producers.

The federal government I believe must take the lead here because this is a problem that covers all of Canada. Yes, it has repercussions to our grain and feed dealers and of course to the entire agriculture industry. The Canadian Federation of Agriculture has been lobbying the Liberal government of Canada for the last three months. They are now getting action, and as soon as the program is set forth, I can assure all my colleagues that the Ontario government will be there to support its farmers in the pork industry.

CANCER TREATMENT

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): My second question is to the Minister of Health, and it concerns one of the leading killers in Ontario, namely, cancer. To follow up on a discussion my leader had with the minister yesterday, I want to know why it is that over eight months have passed since the cancer clinics of this province submitted to your department a supplementary budget request of $16.4 million, and as of today Cancer Care Ontario tells me they have not had an official confirmation that the $16.4-million request will be granted. Minister, can you explain why it is and how it is that eight months after that request went to you, the cancer clinics of this province have not gotten the green light on all of that $16.4 million worth of supplementary requests?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health): I would just like to remind the member that it was our government that set up Cancer Care Ontario. Our objective was to ensure that we coordinated the treatments and access to services. As you know, prior to the establishment of Cancer Care Ontario, there were different levels of access and treatment of cancer throughout the province. We now have in place the CCO. We have in place the areas throughout the province where money is provided. We have approved their budget for this year and we are continuing to work with them in order to ensure that the appropriate level of funding is provided in the required areas that they have indicated to us are necessary.

Mr Conway: Minister, there is good work being done, to be sure, but let me come back to the statistics provided to this assembly some months ago by Cancer Care Ontario. Cancer is now the leading cause of premature deaths in this province. There are something like 45,000 new diagnoses of cancer on an annual basis in this province; 23,000 people will die in Ontario this year because of cancer. That's more than the population of the city of Owen Sound.

My questions remains: Given the urgency and the severity of the cancer challenge to the people of Ontario and the widespread concern in all quarters about the terror of cancer, can you explain how it is that eight months after Cancer Care Ontario, on behalf of the clinics, providers and caregivers, asked you for $16.4 million of additional funding to help with additional radiation treatment, to help with additional supportive services, to help with additional anti-cancer drugs, to name but three items, how it is possible, in light of the urgency of this challenge, that your government has not yet found time to approve that relatively small supplementary request?

Hon Mrs Witmer: We have approved the request from Cancer Care Ontario for $142 million. We are working with them on their additional request because we want to be absolutely certain that all money provided is going to patient services and not to administrative activities. I also need to remind you that we have made a commitment to three additional cancer centres in this province. There had been no reinvestment. There had been no increased access in this province to any cancer centres throughout Ontario. We now are in a position where we're going to have increased access for patients in Durham and Mississauga, and the commission also recommended another cancer centre in Kitchener-Waterloo.

1410

Mr Conway: The $142 million that the minister refers to is the base budget from last year. My point remains. You have been asked for $16.4-million additional dollars to meet the rising tide of requests and pressures within the system. Eight months after you got that request, you have not answered that request in any positive way. The cancer clinics need $16.4 million to meet additional pressures. They've had to wait for eight months. They still don't have a positive answer.

My question, not just to the minister but to her government, is: How is that they don't have an answer for their request, yet your government can find an additional $47 million to spend on government advertising that is literally blanketing the province, while the waiting lists at these cancer clinics grow and while the drug therapies are in abeyance because there is no money? Isn't it a crime and a shame that your government has money for all kinds of propagandistic government advertising, and eight months after you've got the request, you haven't been able to tell the cancer clinics they're going to get the supplementary budgets they need to help manage the rising tide of cancer treatment that is growing in this province?

Hon Mrs Witmer: The member opposite obviously forgets the improvements we're seeing in this province when it comes to reduction of waiting lists and providing accessibility to services. I quote to you from the Toronto Star on July 23, 1998, where the Star says that cancer waiting lists "were in a crisis situation in the late 1980s." I believe that's when your government was in office. It says they were in a crisis situation in the early 1990s, "when there were only 15 radiation machines to service Metro cancer patients, forcing some" - under your government and the NDP - "to go up north. Currently," the article says, "there are 27 machines."

We are doing more for cancer patients in this province at the present time than any previous government. We are going to make sure that every cent that goes to cancer goes to patient services. That's why recently we have announced new money for pediatric oncology.

ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES LEGISLATION

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): My question is to the Premier. I want to talk to you about keeping promises. This is with respect to the Ontarians with Disabilities Act. On May 24, 1995, you wrote a letter to David Baker and to the Ontarians with Disabilities Act Committee in which you said that a Harris government would be willing to enact an Ontarians with Disabilities Act in its first term of office. You also said, "I would be pleased to work together with your committee" - meaning the Ontarians with Disabilities Act Committee - "in development of such legislation."

Premier, I know you're going to tell me that your minister and her parliamentary assistant have met with these groups, and with the ODA Committee in particular, on a number of occasions. But they've written to you on a number of occasions when this bill has been stalled and slowed down and when they feared that it wouldn't come through and they've asked to meet with you. Now, I've got to tell you, they describe the legislation that has been introduced as a kick in the stomach. They don't have faith in your minister; they really want to meet with you. Would you be willing to live up to this promise and meet with the Ontarians with Disabilities Act Committee?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): As you have indicated, I have lived up to my commitment and my promise that our government would introduce an Ontarians with Disabilities Act. I indicated as well that we would work with the group. I believe that there now have been 10 meetings with either the minister or the parliamentary assistant and I say this: While the group might argue that the bill is not the bill they would draft and doesn't go as far as they would like, I think it's important to note that it is absolutely the first of its kind in Canada. It puts the most onerous requirements on the public sector, sending a signal that we want to work our way through this ourselves, before it is completely compulsory for the private sector. It requires government to review over 600 pieces of legislation, thousands of government initiatives and, if passed, it puts it into legislation for the very first time in the history of Ontario and indeed for the first time anywhere across Canada.

Ms Lankin: Premier, I know that's what the briefing note from the ministry says. You already had an obligation as a government under the charter to review all legislation and bring it in line with provisions of the charter and the Human Rights Code.

There is nothing new in this legislation. It is not a step forward and, Premier, I've got to tell you, there is nothing in the legislation that compels you to do anything after you've reviewed these 600 pieces of legislation, acts, policies etc. You've got to take a real step here and you've got to listen to people. It's not just a group. Please, don't dismiss them. There are a million and a half people with disabilities in this province. These people and all of their organizations are saying this legislation is a dismal failure and it doesn't deserve the name, the Ontarians with Disabilities Act.

Premier, please, would you just make one commitment here today? Would you commit to meet with the Ontarians with Disabilities Act Committee and at least listen to them yourselves so you can see if they make sense, common sense, in the argument they are putting forward?

Hon Mr Harris: Let me say, this government has taken more initiatives and more actions than any other government in Ontario's history and indeed any other government across Canada.

We brought in the Ontario disabilities support program. For the first time, we took disabled people off welfare, where you let them languish. Your government and the Liberal government and former governments for the 10 years of your two parties let them languish. We've created a separate program there with the support of your party, and I think you in particular.

We have had more people with disabilities, including a former New Democratic member who came forward and said of the move that we made, "This is the biggest breakthrough in the history of the Ontario Legislature." That's a former NDP member of the government who couldn't get you to move when you were in office.

Yes, I have written to Mr Lepofsky. I have indicated there will be ample opportunities. We're interested in more dialogue. This bill will work its way through the process. But I tell you this: It may not be perfect in your terms, but it's -

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you. Final supplementary.

Ms Lankin: Premier, I have a copy of your letter to Mr Lepofsky. It arrived today. I have the copy here. You completely ignored the central request they made, which was just to meet with you. Yesterday, you were fine to meet with people in Vaughan and have breakfast around a kitchen table and talk to folks. That's OK. Of course, it was a photo op. If they brought the cameras, would you be prepared to meet with them then?

Let me be serious here. I want you to please make a commitment that you will meet with these people, that you will listen to their concerns. They could tell you a whole lot of other things your government has done that have set back persons with disabilities. But that's not what the debate is about.

The debate is about a commitment you made for an Ontarians with Disabilities Act, and everyone understood to some extent what that would contain. What you've introduced is a sham in comparison. Premier, beyond anything else, if you want to be accountable to people, if you want to be accountable for your promises, you should at least be prepared to meet with them and to say face to face what your answer is. Will you meet with these people, Premier?

Hon Mr Harris: I think that the member has acknowledged, even in the question, that I have lived up to my commitment to introduce the act, to consult, to continue to consult, to take a leadership role for the first time in Canada.

I don't know how this member particularly has the nerve, after five years of doing nothing, after five years of Gary Malkowski begging you to do something, a member of your own caucus, and now he has come forward and said this Progressive Conservative government has done more for people with disabilities than any government has in the history of Ontario, including his own of which he was a member.

So for you to come forward now - the first time in Canada. I've put the bill there. The decision-making people are the committee, and I invite those people to meet with the committee members who will, with an open mind, as the minister has and as the parliamentary assistant has, work this bill through the parliamentary process.

Ms Lankin: Mister Accessibility, Mister Accountability. You won't even meet with them.

The Speaker: Member for Beaches-Woodbine. I caution the member for Beaches-Woodbine to come to order, please.

New question, leader of the third party.

1420

PSYCHIATRIC HOSPITALS

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): My question is also for the Premier. It's interesting that the Premier is so afraid to meet with disabled people in the province of Ontario.

My question is about the closing of psychiatric hospitals in Ontario. This is your quote, Premier, from the North Bay Nugget:

"We are woefully behind in providing community support for ex-psychiatric patients. All those community supports must be in place long before you would ever look at closing down a facility."

Two thirds, or eight months, of the fiscal year is now over and all that your government has invested in community supports for mental health is $20 million, just $20 million.

Glenn Thompson, the Ontario director of the Canadian Mental Health Association, says that in view of your closure of hospitals and the shutdown of other services, at least $300 million is required in community supports and community services.

Premier, will you make a commitment today that you won't close a single psychiatric hospital bed until and only until the community supports are in place? Will you make that guarantee?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I have made that commitment in Thunder Bay, in North Bay, in London, in every part of this province. I said exactly what you quoted. We are woefully behind in providing community supports thanks to 10 years of inaction and five years of your government's inaction in doing so.

The proposal from the restructuring commission is a recommendation at this point in time. That proposal, which is receiving input now from various - I understand the city of North Bay is generally supportive of the direction, but we will wait until that information is in.

That proposal suggests the North Bay Psychiatric Hospital, in its current form, the old one, should close some time around 2003 or 2004, after the new hospital wing is built with the new general hospital, after all the community supports are put in place. That is exactly our commitment.

Mr Hampton: Premier, I want to take you a bit further on this because you need to be pinned down. The North Bay Psychiatric Hospital has 307 beds. Last year, 330 new patients were admitted into those beds and 545 patients came back for further treatment. That's 900 psychiatric admissions for that year alone.

Let's take this a bit further. Your government has said 117 beds will be added to the general hospital in North Bay and 31 beds to Sudbury-Algoma. That still leaves at least 200 North Bay psychiatric patients with no place to go.

Premier, your government has not put community supports in place. You've made all kinds of phony announcements. Please tell us, where do the 200 patients who are left out of the equation go in North Bay?

Hon Mr Harris: The member says that my government has said. My government has said nothing. My minister has said nothing. I have said nothing. To date, we have a report and a recommendation from the Health Services Restructuring Commission which made recommendation of what should be in place in 2003-04, four or five years hence. If you wish to comment on that, I know they'd be happy to hear your comments, as they are from the professionals, as they are from the unions, as they are from the patients, as they are from the city of North Bay.

The only thing that you got right is that we are investing where you cut. You cut $60 million out of psychiatric hospitals and you put not one penny of that money into community care or into community supports. All you did was cut and we're playing catch-up to your cuts. Yes, we're putting more money in there.

Mr Hampton: The record will show that the ministers of health under the NDP government - one of whom is seated here to my left, and Ruth Grier - in fact began the investment in community services. As soon as you became the government you cut it. Don't try to tell people any other story.

The real question is, what happens to the 200 people in North Bay that you don't want to account for?

Let me read to you a letter from a constituent, Mr Lee Mantha. It's a letter from your colleague Ernie Eves. It says:

"Dear Lee,

"I am writing in response to your question of me at the Almaguin Highlands all-candidates debate regarding Mike Harris's comments about the North Bay psychiatric facility. Subsequent to the meeting, I have spoken directly to Mike, at which time I inquired about his position in this regard. Mike has assured me that at no time has he stated any intention to close psychiatric facilities in North Bay or elsewhere in the province."

Premier, the North Bay Psychiatric Hospital is full, funding for mental health services doesn't exist, community supports aren't in place and you still haven't accounted for the 200 people you left out of the equation. What's your answer now to Lee Mantha?

Hon Mr Harris: I am well on the record as saying that I thought it was time that an old, outdated, inefficient, wasteful hospital, falling apart, with hallways bigger than patient rooms, like the North Bay Psychiatric Hospital, to serve all of northeastern Ontario needs to be replaced with new facilities. I am well on the record on that.

I was on the record supporting the report that came in when the Liberals were in office in 1986 that said exactly that. It sat there through 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990. Then it sat there when you were in office, through 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995. Now, finally, we have a government with the guts to put more money and new facilities and new programs into place after 10 years of inaction by two of the most abysmal governments Ontario has ever seen in the history of the province.

IPPERWASH PROVINCIAL PARK

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): My question is to the Premier, and it's on the issue of Ipperwash. We spent nine months using some outside lawyers to finally get some valuable information released that shows that one of the problems at Ipperwash was the fact that you had no policy on First Nations. This finally released document says, "Actions to be taken" - this is two days after the shooting death of Dudley George - "the government create interim messages until the government's position on aboriginal issues is determined... establish an aboriginal policy framework by October 2" - and this is important; it says, "NB, the fact that the government is working on this should not be part of any message." In other words, you had no policy. You tried to develop it after the fact, behind closed doors, secretly.

My question is this: How in the world could the people who were attempting to manage this extremely sensitive issue at Ipperwash possibly handle this issue if you and your government had no policy dealing with aboriginal issues?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I know the Attorney General is -

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Attorney General.

Hon Charles Harnick (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): The response that was made was a very concrete response. We attempted to obtain a civil injunction. That was a fast response. The documentation was prepared by legal counsel. It was served. Certainly that response was a realistic response to try to peacefully end this situation. That was the approach of the government. That was the direct response that was made.

Mr Phillips: The Premier has just left the House.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Member for Scarborough-Agincourt, you're not allowed to comment on a member's attendance in the House. I would caution you.

1430

Mr Phillips: Let me just be very direct on this. A First Nations person died. The government had no policy, two days after the shooting, as you can see by information that took us nine months, using volunteer lawyers, to finally drag out into the public. What it shows to the public is that one of the major problems was that the government had no policy to deal with it, that people trying to deal with this sensitive issue had no idea of what Mike Harris was all about, other than some closed-door meetings where Mike might have been talking to his executive assistant. It says here very clearly, "Create interim messages." In other words, do something until the government arrives at a position on aboriginal issues. "Establish an aboriginal policy framework by October 2," and keep all of this quiet. Don't let anybody know you don't have a policy on it.

Nothing could be more serious than this. I charge you that one of the problems was that you gave no direction to the people trying to handle this. You had no policy, and after the fact you tried to hide it from the public. I ask again: Why did you have no policy to deal with the native issue and the burial ground claim of the First Nations? Why did you try and hide the fact and why did you take a month after the fact to develop that policy?

Hon Mr Harnick: The member is quite right. There was no direction that was being given to anyone. This was an incident that involved a policing matter. The police dealt with the incident. The appropriate response from the government was to seek a civil injunction. That's what we did.

In terms of disclosure, production of documents has been made. There are civil actions. There are ongoing claims. There are matters before the courts. Evidence has been adduced before the courts and certainly all matters in this situation have appropriately been made public in accordance with those cases. The response of the government was completely appropriate.

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): A further question to the Premier. You're spending tens of millions of dollars of taxpayers' money on partisan political advertising. In one of the ads you're saying that people deserve to know where their political leaders stand on the issues of health care. I happen to agree with that statement: People deserve to know. Premier, will you show the courage to have a public debate on health care? Forget about your American spin doctors. Will you show the courage to have a public debate on health care?

The Ontario Nurses' Association has agreed to sponsor the debate. I'm sure we can find a television station that would carry the debate. Premier, I know you love these debates, because before the last election you debated Lyn McLeod and Bob Rae five times. Premier, if it was OK to debate five times before the last election, show the courage now to have a public debate on health care.

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I know that the member is interested in talking about advertising and let me respond to that part of your preamble. We were asked by a number of people, by a number of editorialists, by the public saying, "We'd like to know more about what you're doing and why you're doing it." We have responded. We responded with a series of pamphlets and ads that invite response, that say, "Here are the facts, give us the response." I tell you that we would not respond to the kind of pap -

Interjections.

Mr Gilles Pouliot (Lake Nipigon): Speaker, you have got the nomination. Show them your power.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Stop the clock. That was subtle. Supplementary.

Mr Hampton: I'm happy that you're so interested in one of five posters that were made that actually cost less than $100. But the issue here, Premier -

Interjections.

Mr Hampton: Premier, the issue is health care. You say that the people of Ontario deserve to know where their political leaders stand on the issue of health care. It's impossible to debate you in here, because so far this fall you've been here four times. You've got the worst attendance record of any Premier in Canada.

What we're saying, Premier, is simply this: It would only take an hour of your time - that's all people are asking for, an hour of your time - to debate and discuss for the public this serious issue of health care. That's less time than it takes a teacher to sit down with two classes. One hour of your time. Rather than spending tens of millions of dollars on partisan political advertising, have the courage to face the people of Ontario in a public debate about health care.

Hon Mr Harris: I wish the member would keep the question more focused, because I can't resist talking about your $10-million "Smile, Ontario" campaign. Mr Speaker, I apologize for the prop, but I think most people thought he looked better with the beard. The voting was two to one on that.

Let's get back to the issue of health care policies. It's pretty clear where I stand. I've put my policies forward. Let me say, in respect to the leader of the New Democratic Party, that I will acknowledge you have had the courage to put forward your position and your policies, and I have offered to host the debate myself. I've offered to have the Speaker host it. I've offered to have it in the Legislature. I offered to be here, I offered to have it here. All I asked for was one thing. I asked, since this is a three-party Legislature, that the Liberal Party follow my lead and your lead and actually come out with some policy, because I agree with Alex Cullen. The reason he left that party is that they don't have, and don't appear to ever want to have, any policies.

1440

AIR QUALITY

Mr Jerry J. Ouellette (Oshawa): My question is for the Minister of the Environment. As you are aware, last April I tabled a resolution in the Legislature calling for the federal government to regulate the sulphur content of gasoline and protect the air quality of Ontario. In October, I'm pleased to say, the federal Minister of the Environment listened to the people of Ontario and announced the intention of the federal government to lower the allowable level of sulphur in gasoline sold in Canada.

Minister, I understand that on Tuesday of this week you attended the Environment and Energy Conference of Ontario. Can you tell us what this conference is about and how it will help in protecting Ontario's environment?

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): November 24 and 25 marked the fifth annual environmental EECO conference. This year's theme was "Solutions that don't cost the earth."

The conference in which the Ministry of the Environment is a primary sponsor, along with 12 other participating sponsors, provides for business groups and non-profit groups to come together to try to forge new solutions to old environmental problems.

Some of the topics the conference examined were benefits of industry and government partnerships; taking new products to market; how Canada and Ontario are responding to global warming and the challenges and opportunities global warming presents to technology, business and industry.

Some of the key speakers included Minister Jim Wilson of Energy, Science and Technology and James Seif, Secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. They also recognized the successful partners in our Partners in Air program. This was a great -

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Supplementary, please.

Mr Ouellette: Minister, you mentioned the Partners in Air program and how this was an example of government, local schools and industry working together to protect the environment.

I know that in my riding of Oshawa people are very concerned about the environment and want to be thankful for your commitment and help in projects such as the completion of the Durham Trail.

Oshawa has participated and done very well in national Communities in Bloom programs and volunteer support for many environmental initiatives such as the Lakeshore Wetlands and the Second Marsh.

Minister, can you explain to my constituents how the Partners in Air program works?

Hon Mr Sterling: The Partners in Air program is quite an innovative example of this ministry's and this government's concern with regard to air quality.

Partners in Air is a program which links students in high schools, industries and the Ministry of the Environment together. What happens is the high school students study air quality, they take measurements, monitor the air and put those results on a Web site in which they can share with each other.

This is a public-private sector partnership so all of the costs of this program are not paid through the taxpayers. We have asked companies to come forward to participate in this, and I am glad that we could honour at our conference Shell Canada, General Motors, Petro-Canada, Dofasco and Ontario Hydro who are putting up at least $40,000 towards this program.

As the members of the House know, air quality is one of our government's top priorities. Partners in Air is one of our government's top priorities. Partners in Air is just another example of it.

PORK INDUSTRY

Mr Peter North (Elgin): My question is to the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. I too would like to speak to the minister with regard to the pork producers of Ontario.

One of the concerns that was raised earlier in the Legislature is a concern with regard to Quebec. In Quebec there is to some degree, I guess, some sort of false bottom has been created in terms of price.

Yesterday, when I spoke to one of the pork producers in my particular riding of Elgin, a gentleman from Belmont, one of the things he was concerned about was that this false bottom or this low-end price that Quebec would support and sustain for its pork producers could create a problem in and of itself for Ontario pork producers in that pork producers in Quebec would have a feeling that they would never go below that bottom level, that there could be no complete fallout like there is Ontario at this point with regard to the industry.

This creates somewhat of an inequity or at least a concern or appearance of inequity between the people who are producing pork in Ontario and the people who produce pork in Quebec.

Can you, as minister, tell me what the Ministry of Agriculture in Ontario is doing to make sure that inequity does not create a crisis in and of itself in the pork production in Ontario?

Hon Noble Villeneuve (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, minister responsible for francophone affairs): I want to thank my honourable colleague from Elgin for that question. We discussed that at some length with members of the executive of Ontario Pork last night.

The concern they have is that the level of support in the province of Quebec could maintain some very, very low prices for a longer period of time than would be normal in the cycle that we're quite used to in the pork industry.

We here in Ontario have the safety nets: the NISA program and the GRIP, and those are normally sufficient to meet the low cycle as it normally was. This cycle is considerably lower than normal because we are now at disaster prices.

The government of Canada, I believe, will be setting forth a program that will be spread over possibly 18 to 24 months in order to bring the situation back to normal, where supply and demand equate to some degree, also hoping that there will be some purchases from Asia, as there have been over the past number of years. They have reduced very considerably. That is also affecting the province.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Supplementary.

Mr North: The second question that I have is, I think, somewhat similar in nature. During the ice storm that we had in the earliest part of the year, the province of Ontario made some unilateral decisions in terms of funding and in terms of crisis support for the people of eastern Ontario and some help in Quebec as well.

In this situation, one of the people I spoke to yesterday from the west part of the riding, in west Elgin, was concerned that our minister would wait and come hand in hand with the federal government with funding to help the people who are in trouble with regard to this crisis. The concern that this particular gentleman raised is that sometimes the federal government does not always move as fast as perhaps it could in terms of bringing this funding ahead. He asked me if I could ask you basically: What is your cut-off date? What is the date where you will simply move ahead unilaterally and help support the pork producers of Ontario?

Hon Mr Villeneuve: First, we have to get the signal from Ottawa just exactly what their formula will be in the program that I'm sure will be announced in the near future. Through the ministry we have been discussing with financial institutions a short stop-gap measure to provide some operating funds in the immediate future. Over the longer period of time, we will certainly be sitting with the people from the pork industry.

Countervail is always a problem and it was brought up on a number of occasions last night. We must make sure that we do not wind up in a countervailable situation. Quebec is very different and it would take a long time to explain. I think a lot of the people here do understand that.

We're going to proceed as swiftly as we can. I do not have a cut-off date. I certainly have some targets. It's urgent and I realize the urgency and we will be moving with promptness.

LANDFILL

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): My question is to the Minister of the Environment. This morning a report in the Globe and Mail outlined a number of potential serious difficulties with a landfill site in the Toronto area. We saw that in at least three landfill sites residents in that particular area were exposed to harmful chemicals, very dangerous chemicals to people's health.

This brings me to the question: What is going into the landfill sites? What controls do we have on those? What is our ability to control the dangerous gases and other chemicals from landfill sites across Ontario and the health crisis that could cause in those neighbourhoods to the people living there? What is of major concern, of course, is vinyl chloride, which is associated with brain, lung and other types of cancers.

Minister, there is concern about the fact that, to my understanding, residents in the area affected were not notified, when your ministry knew that there were concerns there. They're also concerned about the fact that this development barrier that had been placed around the Britannia landfill site was taken off by your ministry without any evidence from your own ministry information that would show us that it was safe to do so. Can you outline what steps you took to notify the residents and why the protected area for development was lifted by your ministry?

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): We are of course very concerned about landfill sites and the air quality around them. That's why we have introduced new standards with regard to landfill sites. All large, new landfill sites that are built must collect landfill gas now.

This result relates to 1994. I hope the member realizes that in 1994 this result was taken. The information was checked. All of the regulations of the ministry were found to be in place. A memorandum of understanding was signed between the municipalities, ratepayers groups. They were all given the information with regard to the results and the previous government signed a memorandum of understanding allowing this development to go ahead.

Mr Agostino: Minister, there appears to be ongoing concern about the safety not only in this area but generally of landfill sites across Ontario. If this has happened here, clearly it could be happening at the hundreds of other sites that we have across this province. My concern is that we still do not have a mechanism, first of all, for monitoring what is happening around those sites. These tests occurred here as a result of complaints by residents.

The concern is, what is happening at these other sites? How are we monitoring what is going on in these sites, what materials are going in? And what is the effect of these materials, if it is clear, even by your own ministry admission, that we do not yet have the type of technology today that could guarantee safety and that these gases do not escape and cause harm to people in the community?

I think it is important for your ministry to immediately undertake a review of all the areas around landfill sites right across Ontario to ascertain whether or not these same types of concerns exist at other landfill sites and to ensure that we take the steps to protect residents.

Will you today give the House the assurance that you will undertake to study right across Ontario every single landfill site.

Hon Mr Sterling: Each municipality which hosts the particular landfill site is required to take a significant amount of air quality sample tests. Each of those tests is checked by my ministry, and if there is a concern, the municipality or the private owner of those particular sites is called in and they deal with it with regard to their certificate of approval, which they require to operate this site. Under no circumstances, with regard to these gases, has my ministry had a failure in terms of the tests they've done.

I have contacted the mayors within all the municipalities with regard to the three sites that are mentioned in this article and have offered them our air quality monitoring if they should want to have some additional testing done.

We're very concerned about this, we're on top of it all the time and we will continue to improve the system, as we have in the recent past.

1450

SCHOOL BOARD DISPUTE

Mr Blain K. Morin (Nickel Belt): My question is to the Minister of Education and Training. Today in the members' gallery is Mr Bert Rollings, president of CUPE local 5555. Minister, the Canadian Union of Public Employees has asked you to appoint a commission of inquiry into the conduct and policies of the Kawartha Pine Ridge District School Board. This request is receiving broad support, especially in the community of Peterborough.

One reason for their request is the conduct of the board's superintendent of business, Ron Sudds. Mr Sudds recently recommended that the board accept a bid from benefits consultants Buffet Taylor despite a staff report supporting a lower bid. Mr Sudds later admitted to having received from Buffet Taylor tickets to Blue Jays and Maple Leafs games, and to attend the 1996 US Open on a weekend junket organized by that company.

Minister, do you agree with the Premier after his New York trip that this type of junket is a normal part of doing business, or are you going to support, positively, CUPE's call for an inquiry?

Hon David Johnson (Minister of Education and Training): I'm unaware of the circumstances. If any improprieties have occurred, I'm sure the local authorities would be more than happy to look into the matter. Beyond that, it's really impossible for me to make any other observations on a situation that I'm not fully aware of.

These kinds of matters, in terms of tenders, in general are under the control and authority of local school boards at the school level. I'm only speculating because I haven't seen any of the details. There may be reasons why a particular tender has a better quality as opposed to a better price, has more experience or whatever, so those are generally best left to local authorities to deal with, because they know the community and the local circumstances. However, if there are any improprieties, raise them with the local enforcement personnel. I'm sure they'll be happy to look into it.

Mr Blain Morin: You have the right under section 10 of the Education Act to investigate the conduct and policies of that school board.

Minister, this was delivered to you November 26 by fax and is being followed up to you. There are also over 100 newspaper articles, regarding the misconduct, asking you for that inquiry. That's not the only problem out in Peterborough.

You created cutbacks and a cutback environment in the local school boards. You may want them to operate in a more businesslike way, according to your thinking, or the way you think business operates. You want them to make money where they can, but after the amalgamation of the Pine Ridge board, it eliminated the community education program and laid off five staff members. A separate corporation, the community training and development centre, was set up, and surprisingly, the president of that centre is also the director of education. All this was done behind closed doors.

When questioned, Vicki Clarke, the education coordinator, was fired. She's in attendance today too.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you. Minister.

Hon David Johnson: I'm not quite certain what the member is alleging, but if there are improprieties, if the member is alleging inside dealing or influence or whatever, then by all means, feel free to raise it with the proper enforcement authorities. I'm sure they would look into it.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Minister.

Hon David Johnson: The third party is quite fond of alleging corruption etc without any facts. There may be facts in this particular case. My door is open. I receive comments from all members of the House. Feel free to send them over. Certainly the ministry staff will have a look at them. But at the same time, if you're alleging corruption or something that should be dealt with by the local police, then I say to you, don't waste any time, bring it to the authority of the local police as well.

NIAGARA ESCARPMENT

Mr Trevor Pettit (Hamilton Mountain): My question is for the Minister of Natural Resources. Among the areas that you are responsible for is the Niagara Escarpment. I think all members of this House would agree with my view that the Niagara Escarpment represents one of this province's most significant and beautiful natural features, topped off of course by the incomparable Shangri-La that is Hamilton Mountain. It's my understanding that among the changes made by Bill 25, which is the latest red tape bill, are changes to the Niagara Escarpment in terms of plan amendments and development permits. As you're well aware, Minister, changes to the act that protects the escarpment are obviously a sensitive subject. Can you please tell us what the reaction has been to these changes?

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Natural Resources): I want to thank the member for Hamilton Mountain for the question. I believe he's quite correct that most of the people in Ontario recognize the Niagara Escarpment as a very important feature in Ontario. It stretches some 725 kilometres from Queenston to Tobermory and has been recognized internationally for its ecological importance.

The member is further correct that any changes to the plan that protects this feature for future generations are a very sensitive subject and must be undertaken carefully with a maximum of consultation and discussion amongst all of the stakeholders.

I'd like to recognize the work of my parliamentary assistant, the member for Halton North, Mr Ted Chudleigh, for his fine work in this area. He has done an outstanding job. The challenge the NEC faced was to develop amendments to the act that would remove the red tape barriers that have been the subject of complaints by those who work with the NEC without compromising the protection the plan provides. It's a real challenge and we have met that challenge.

Mr Pettit: Would you inform the House, and for that matter the people of Hamilton Mountain, of the reaction of some of the stakeholders to these changes, reaction especially that would support your contention that changes made to the legislation that protects the Niagara Escarpment will indeed reduce red tape while at the same time maintaining protection?

Hon Mr Snobelen: The comments that we've heard from some of the stakeholders in this area are very informative. For instance, I can read a letter from the regional municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth that says, "Recent initiatives by the Niagara Escarpment Commission to streamline the process for plan amendments and development permits through improving legislation and regulations without detriment to the integrity of the plan are commendable and long overdue."

We have letters like that from the regional municipality of Niagara, from the township of Mono and on and on. A variety of people have said, "This is the right action for the Niagara Escarpment." They agree that my parliamentary assistant, Ted Chudleigh, has done outstanding work on this feature. I hope members of this House will support Bill 25 this afternoon.

1500

HOTEL DIEU HOSPITAL

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): My question is for the Minister of Health. I have in my hand a petition signed by over 6,000 people, in addition to the over 60,000 people who have signed previous petitions, asking that Hotel Dieu Hospital in St Catharines be kept open. You may be aware that the Hotel Dieu has a wonderful oncology clinic where chemotherapy is provided to cancer patients, a kidney dialysis unit that treats those who have afflictions with their kidneys, a palliative care unit, a diabetes program, an autistic people's program and an emergency department, all of which are essential to the city of St Catharines and the region of Niagara.

Your commission, the hospital destruction commission, set up by the Premier, has ordered the doors shut on the Hotel Dieu Hospital. I'm asking the minister today, will you assure the people of St Catharines that you will not close the Hotel Dieu Hospital but that it will be allowed to stay open and continue to provide these essential services?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health): As the member knows, the Health Services Restructuring Commission has issued its interim directions. There is now an opportunity for the community and individual residents to make their response to the commission. Certainly, I know the commission welcomes the input it is receiving.

Mr Bradley: Despite Mike Harris's promise during the last election campaign - I'll quote him: "Certainly, I can guarantee you it is not my plan to close hospitals." Despite that solemn promise by the Premier, your hand-picked hospital closing commission has, as I said, slammed the doors shut on the Hotel Dieu Hospital. That is its recommendation, that this highly regarded and essential health care facility, with its life-saving cancer treatment and kidney dialysis centres, be closed.

People who wish to register objections to the commission's report were given just a month to make a written submission, and forced to use a format that is virtually impossible for the average person to comply with. I know you are bound and determined to bolt the doors and board up the windows on hospitals before the next election, but surely people deserve a reasonable time to be heard. Will you now extend the deadline for submissions to the commission regarding the Niagara recommendations past tomorrow and at least to the end of December?

Hon Mrs Witmer: I think it's very important to recognize that our government is strengthening health services in this province. Certainly, a reflection of that is the fact that the community in Niagara has actually received more than $51 million since 1995-96. That includes $11.6 million for additional community services; it includes $5.8 million for additional cardiac, dialysis, trauma and MRI; it includes $8 million for hospital restructuring reimbursement. The level of service and the access to service is increasing in Niagara region with this additional investment of $51 million.

PETITIONS

HOTEL DIEU HOSPITAL

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): Following up on my colleague for St Catharines's petition, I submit this for the Hotel Dieu Hospital in St Catharines. It reads like this:

"We, the undersigned, oppose the proposed closure of Niagara's only denominational hospital, and the devastating effect that proposal will have on patients and potential patients from across the region. We ask that the health services restructuring committee reassess its recommendations for the Niagara region and ensure quality accessibility and affordability through a continued role for Hotel Dieu Hospital in St Catharines."

I will affix my signature. I'm in full agreement with this petition.

SCHOOL CLOSURES

Mr Dan Newman (Scarborough Centre): I have a petition here signed by 355 people in my riding of Scarborough Centre. It was presented to me at Chine Drive Public School. The petition reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas 138 schools across Toronto are candidates for closing due to changes in provincial funding formulas;

"We, the community of Chine Drive Public School, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to ensure funding is available to prevent the closing of schools.

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

It's signed by 355 people and I'm presenting it on their behalf today.

Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview): I have a further petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. There are over 700 signatures on this one here.

"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 Harris 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 implication and disruptive effects the school closure will have on their children;

"2. Recognize the fundamental importance of our schools to our neighbourhood's 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's operating to full capacity."

I concur with the signators and I will affix my signature to it as well.

PALLIATIVE CARE

Mr Bob Wood (London South): I have a petition signed by 49 people.

"Whereas most Ontario residents do not have adequate access to effective hospice 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 from all regions of Ontario be appointed to develop a hospice 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 hospice 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."

HOTEL DIEU HOSPITAL

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a group of petitions signed by over 6,000 people in St Catharines that read as follows:

"We, the undersigned, oppose the proposed closure of Niagara's only denominational hospital and the devastating effect that proposal will have on the patients and potential patients from across the region. We ask that the health services restructuring committee reassess its recommendations for the Niagara region and ensure quality accessibility and affordability through a continued role for Hotel Dieu Hospital in St Catharines."

I affix my signature as I'm in complete agreement with the contents of these petitions.

REMEMBRANCE DAY

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Simcoe Centre): I have a petition to the Parliament of Ontario.

"Whereas it is important to honour the courageous memory and sacrifices of Canada's war dead and of our veterans who fought in defence of our national rights and freedoms;

"Whereas there is a need for succeeding generations of young, school-age Canadians to learn more about the true meaning of Remembrance Day;

"Whereas Ontario veterans' associations have created excellent educational materials for use in Ontario schools on the meaning and significance of Remembrance Day;

"Whereas a special Remembrance Day curriculum for all grades in Ontario's education system, developed on the basis of the programs by Ontario veterans' associations and involving their direct participation, would increase awareness of and appreciation for Canada's wartime sacrifices in the hearts and minds of all Ontario citizens;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Parliament of Ontario as follows:

"That the provincial Ministry of Education and Training ensure that a suitable Remembrance Day learning unit be included in the curriculum of all grades of Ontario's educational system."

I support the petition and I affix my signature.

1510

ROAD SAFETY

Mr Mike Colle (Oakwood): I have a petition to the Legislature of Ontario.

"Whereas red light cameras can dramatically assist in reducing the number of injuries and deaths resulting from red light runners; and

"Whereas red light cameras only take pictures of licence plates, thus reducing privacy concerns; and

"Whereas all revenues from violations can be easily directed to a designated fund to improve safety at high-collision intersections; and

"Whereas there is a growing disregard for traffic laws, resulting in serious injury to pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists and especially children and seniors; and

"Whereas the provincial government has endorsed the use of a similar camera system to collect tolls on the new 407 tollway; and

"Whereas mayors and concerned citizens across Ontario have been seeking permission to deploy these cameras due to limited police resources;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislature of Ontario as follows:

"That the province of Ontario support the installation of red light cameras at high-collision intersections to monitor and prosecute motorists who run red lights."

I agree with the petition, and I affix my name to it.

SCHOOL CLOSURES

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, and it reads as follows:

"Whereas the Upper Grand District School Board has identified nine schools to be closed in their district, one of them being Arthur District High School; and

"Whereas the Upper Grand District School Board has not satisfied the stakeholders in Arthur District High School of the educational or financial benefits of closing the school;

"We, the undersigned, petition the government of Ontario to stop the closure of this school immediately."

It's signed by many hundreds of residents of Arthur and area, and I support it as well, and I affix my signature to it.

HEALTH CARE

Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview): I have a further petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It says, "Say no to the privatization of health care."

"Whereas we are concerned about the quality of health care in Ontario;

"Whereas we do not believe health care should be for sale;

"Whereas the Mike Harris government is taking steps to allow profit-driven companies to provide health care services in Ontario;

"Whereas we won't stand for profits over people;

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

"Do not privatize our health care services."

I concur, and I will affix my signature to it.

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

Mr Bart Maves (Niagara Falls): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It reads as follows:

"Whereas the Mike Harris government promised in the Common Sense Revolution to maintain health care spending at no less than $17.4 billion annually; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government has exceeded that spending floor every year since being elected; and

"Whereas total health care spending for 1998-99 will be $18.5 billion, the highest in Ontario's history; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government has achieved this despite cuts in transfer payments by the federal Liberal government of more than $2.4 billion; and

"Whereas a recent survey by the Fraser Institute proves that health care waiting lists in Ontario are the shortest anywhere in Canada; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government is placing a greater emphasis on community-based health services in order to better care for an aging population; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government is eliminating waste and duplication in the health care sector and reinvesting every penny into quality services; and

"Whereas this has resulted in reinvestments of over $3 billion; and

"Whereas Niagara region seniors will benefit from the government's $54-million investment to create 646 new long-term-care beds in the Niagara region alone; and

"Whereas $75 million is being invested over the next two years to open hospital beds during peak demand periods in order to handle emergency patients; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government has pledged $24.3 million to dramatically expand breast cancer screening; and

"Whereas 140,000 additional low-income earners are eligible to receive help with their drug costs through the expansion of the Trillium drug plan; and

"Whereas over 520 prescription drugs have been added to the Ontario drug plan formulary, giving seniors and others who rely on the ODB program a wider range of products to serve their health care needs;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to proceed with fulfilling the commitments made in the Common Sense Revolution and continuing to pursue policies which will make Ontario the best place to live, work, invest and raise a family."

I'll affix my signature as I agree with the petition.

SCHOOL CLOSURES

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario in regard to school closings. It reads as follows:

"Whereas Mike Harris is cutting the heart out of many communities by closing hundreds of neighbourhood and community schools across Ontario;" - including one of the most community-oriented schools, Regal Road Junior Public School - "and

"Whereas this massive number of school closings all at once will displace many children and put others on longer bus routes; and

"Whereas the government 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 and students in the city of Toronto and many other communities across Ontario are calling on the government to stop closing so many of their schools;

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

"We demand that Mike Harris's government stop closing local schools, especially those that are closely associated with their communities."

Since I agree, I am putting my signature to this petition.

PALLIATIVE CARE

Mr Bob Wood (London South): I have a petition signed by 25 people.

"Whereas most Ontario residents require adequate access to effective palliative care in time of need;

"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."

ROAD SAFETY

Mr David Caplan (Oriole): I have a petition to the Legislature of Ontario.

"Whereas red light cameras can dramatically assist in reducing the number of injuries and deaths resulting from red light runners; and

"Whereas red light cameras only take pictures of licence plates, thus reducing privacy concerns; and

"Whereas all revenues from violations can be easily directed to a designated fund to improve safety at high-collision intersections; and

"Whereas there is a growing disregard for traffic laws resulting in serious injury to pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists and especially children and seniors; and

"Whereas the provincial government has endorsed the use of a similar camera system to collect tolls on the new Highway 407 tollway; and

"Whereas mayors and concerned citizens across Ontario have been seeking permission to deploy these cameras due to limited police resources;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Ontario Legislature as follows:

"That the province of Ontario support the installation of red light cameras at high-collision intersections to monitor and prosecute motorists who run red lights."

I wholeheartedly agree with this petition and I affix my signature hereto.

LONG-TERM CARE

Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): I have a petition to present from one of my constituents, Jim Connell, and his wife.

"To the members of the Ontario provincial Legislature:

"We, the undersigned members of the Royal Canadian Legion, draw attention to the following:

"Whereas our primary mandate as members of the Royal Canadian Legion is to ensure that proper attention shall be paid to the welfare of all those who have served, and to see to the maintenance and comfort of those who require special treatment, particularly the disabled, sick, aged and needy; and

"Whereas those who served and need our aid may be assured of adequate assistance; and

"Whereas our mandate is to secure adequate pensions, allowance, grants and war gratuities for ex-service personnel and to labour for honour provisions to be made for those in declining years who are unable to support themselves;

"Therefore, be it resolved that the distribution of future long-term-care beds be immediately made available to those various geographical areas throughout the province of Ontario, ie, Kingston, Belleville and Bowmanville, to ensure that the veteran is located in an area close to his or her family and the community in which they reside, in turn meeting the veteran's current needs; and

"Further, be it resolved that support be given to the resolution passed at the Dominion Convention requesting an amendment to the income requirement of the veterans' allowance program; and

"Be it further resolved that steps be immediately taken by the government of Canada to ensure our veterans are brought to a standard of at least at or above the poverty level of income.

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Ontario members of the federal and provincial Parliament to resolve these matters immediately."

I'm pleased to endorse this petition.

1520

ORDERS OF THE DAY

GREATER TORONTO SERVICES BOARD ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR LA COMMISSION DES SERVICES DU GRAND TORONTO

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 56, An Act to establish the Greater Toronto Services Board and the Greater Toronto Transit Authority and to amend the Toronto Area Transit Operating Authority Act / Projet de loi 56, Loi visant à créer la Commission des services du grand Toronto et la Régie des Transports en commun du grand Toronto et à modifier la Loi sur la Régie des transports en commun de la région de Toronto.

Mr John L. Parker (York East): I'm pleased to lead off this afternoon with some comments which are supplementary to the debate that began last evening on the subject of Bill 56, the one before us now, which we might refer to by its short title, the Greater Toronto Services Board Act.

What this bill does is knit together finally, after years and years of study and debate and contemplation and inaction, the elements in the greater Toronto area into a coordinated whole so that planning and organization across the greater Toronto area can be carried out in a coordinated fashion and not in a haphazard way and not in a directionless way, which is what has characterized the circumstances for the past many years.

This is an issue which has been studied in great depth. The most significant study on the subject, I would imagine, was the one released by the Golden commission, which reported in the very early spring of 1996. It included this comment: "We have reached the point where the status quo is no longer an option. The GTA needs comprehensive change on a number of fronts. Without it, the region's economic competitiveness and prosperity will decline."

The Golden commission was struck in the first place in recognition that there was a need to address the lack of cohesiveness across the greater Toronto area, recognition that the greater Toronto area was in a sense a body, a population, centred on but by no means confined to the city of Toronto, and growth in that area was a matter that very much concerned all parts of that area, an area that consists of about four million people, half of whom are within the boundaries of Toronto, half of whom are in the areas in the vicinity of Toronto.

That immediately raised the question of what the future of Metro Toronto should be. This government took that question very much in hand and dealt courageously with that challenge and recognized what people subliminally have been aware of for many years, which is that the area within Metro Toronto had matured to the point where it was time to do away with the two tiers that managed matters within Metro Toronto to the point where some 70% of municipal spending was carried out at the Metro level and less than 30% of municipal spending was carried out at the local level and most of the long-range planning was dealt with at the Metro level, and rolled that together into one cohesive municipality so that within the boundaries of Metro Toronto we have greater cohesiveness and greater coordination of vision within the city boundaries, recognizing that it had become, for all intents and purposes, one urban region within the greater Toronto area.

That step was taken in the form of Bill 103. There was some apprehension on the part of some as to whether that was the right way to go, but the experience of the last 11 months has proven, I would suggest, the wisdom of taking that step as the megacity has jelled together most effectively and the issues of modern urban life in Toronto are being dealt with head on by the new Toronto council under the leadership of Mayor Lastman.

We have the most dynamic, the most exciting, the most cohesive city on the North American continent and we are already beginning to see the benefits of bringing together the six constituent lower-tier municipalities with the upper-tier Metro municipality in creating the single city of Toronto. But that in itself was not enough to address the challenges that were faced by the entire greater Toronto area. More must be done to knit together those other areas outside Toronto that form a vital part of the greater Toronto area and whose development and growth must be coordinated with that of the city of Toronto in a way that benefits the population of that entire area and indeed benefits the population of the entire province. That's what Bill 56, the Greater Toronto Services Board Act, the bill that is before this House this afternoon, does.

Now maybe a few comments on just where this bill has come from and what it does would be in order. This bill was introduced in June this year, and it would, if it's passed, create the Greater Toronto Services Board. The need for coordination of services across the GTA, as I've mentioned, has been recognized for decades, because under the current municipal structure coordination across the greater Toronto area has been very difficult and, in some respects, in some cases, it has proven to be absolutely impossible. Municipal boundaries should not be allowed to stand in the way of providing taxpayers and residents and citizens with seamless and efficient service, the kinds of services and the kind of planning and vision that are required if we are going to see this area reach its potential now and in the future.

What the GTSB will do is provide a productive forum for municipalities across the greater Toronto area to improve the coordination of their development and planning of infrastructure, transport, transit and growth management right across the greater Toronto area. It would certainly ensure that the GTA remains a thriving, growing and prospering region. The legislation would assist municipal governments in the GTA to work better for the people they serve directly.

In preparing this bill, the government has consulted broadly and widely to ensure that every municipality in the greater Toronto area, including upper-tier and lower-tier municipalities, will have at least one member on the Greater Toronto Services Board, and the concerns of the various stakeholders involved will be brought to bear as that board goes about its work. The job of the GTSB will be to promote coordination in the delivery of services, but the GTSB will not actually have the responsibility for the direct delivery of services except for the operation of GO Transit, which will serve the population throughout the GTSB and will be administered directly by the GTSB itself with the addition of the city of Hamilton.

The board no doubt will evolve over time. This is by no means a static model, just as the initial model of Metro Toronto was not static but set the stage for further evolution. As the growth and needs of the area evolved over time, so did the form of governance that was in place to deal with that municipality. Similarly, the GTSB will start off as an advisory body with direct responsibility for GO Transit, but as an advisory body, as a coordinating body, as a forum for debate by the representatives of the various constituent municipalities, but other than GO Transit, it will not have an active role to play in delivering services. But that doesn't mean that it has to stay that way. It is free to evolve over time as the area evolves and as the needs and aspirations of the area evolve.

As I've mentioned, the bill was introduced in June 1995, but the introduction of the bill followed many months of consultation and discussion. In March 1998 the province released draft legislation for the purposes of generating discussion on the creation of a Greater Toronto Services Board and the minister asked former Metro Chairman Alan Tonks to spearhead the consultation process.

1530

I have to say that Chairman Tonks has been nothing less than outstanding in his dedication to the task of meeting with people in Toronto, outside Toronto, at all levels, including at the provincial level, discussing the vision of a Greater Toronto Services Board, discussing the potential of a greater Toronto Services Board, and hearing back from upper-tier and lower-tier municipalities, provincial representatives, other service providers, other stakeholders, on just what such a board should entail, how it should be structured, how it should operate its functions and how the bill should be designed to address those concerns and those needs and those aspirations. I think we all owe a deep debt of gratitude to Alan Tonks for the work he has done in putting that vision on paper in the form of this bill and bringing to bear all the thoughts, aspirations, concerns and needs of the various stakeholders across the greater Toronto area in the development of the legislation that's before us this afternoon.

If this legislation is passed, it will create a Greater Toronto Services Board. I think it would be worthwhile just reviewing a number of the salient features and characteristics this board would have. To begin with, I should mention that the board would have 41 members on it, so that every municipality is represented, and then there would be one member for Hamilton-Wentworth who would sit only for purposes of administering the Greater Toronto Transit Authority, running GO Transit. Otherwise, Hamilton-Wentworth would be outside the realm of the operations of the GTSB.

There will be 41 members on the board, but there will be a system of weighted voting, and we owe Chairman Tonks credit for devising this method of addressing the need to recognize the interests of the various constituent elements of the greater Toronto area in a fair manner on the board. There would be 41 members on the board, but there would be a system of weighted voting that provides Toronto with 50% of the vote and gives the other areas surrounding Toronto a countervailing 50% voting power.

But as with other elements of the Greater Toronto Services Board, this is not a formula that is written in stone, it is not permanent, it doesn't have to remain that way. This is something that has flexibility to it, and that is a formula that could evolve over time. Right in the bill, a review of the composition is required after each national census.

The Greater Toronto Transit Authority is created to operate GO Transit. The Greater Toronto Services Board itself will exercise general direction and control and GT Transit, operating within the Greater Toronto Services Board, will have day-to-day responsibilities for the operation of GO Transit.

Again, the provincial level has removed itself from the operation of GO Transit, because the operation of GO Transit is something that affects the interests of the residents of the greater Toronto area directly and so the residents of the greater Toronto area will have more direct influence over the operation of GO Transit by administering it through the Greater Toronto Services Board, through GT Transit, and not having it operated out of Queen's Park by a provincial government. So more direct control for the people who are served by GO Transit, through the mechanism of GT Transit, operated under the aegis of the GTSB.

The GTSB may create strategies, such as infrastructure coordination, water, sewer and transportation services and so on, that affect the constituent municipalities and the residents across the greater Toronto area, because it's not enough that each municipality within the area tried to develop its own strategies for these services. These are services that affect and have an influence upon and are also influenced by the strategies of their neighbouring municipalities. The GTSB provides a forum for the coordination of these services right across the greater Toronto area.

The decisions brought forward by the GTSB in this respect must be approved by two thirds of the GTSB, so nobody has control over the voting power of the GTSB in this respect. It will require a two-thirds vote to approve decisions of the board in these areas, and the decisions are voluntary for GTA municipalities.

What a change from the past, where we have seen the debate take place on the front pages of our daily newspapers as the mayor of one municipality will put forward the interests of that municipality and the mayor or councillor of another municipality puts forth the interests of that municipality, and the debate takes place over the course of several days and several weeks on the front pages of our newspapers and on the editorial pages of our newspapers.

It's much more productive to have a forum in which the various interests are brought to bear and they have an opportunity to meet together to discuss in a productive and constructive manner how these concerns and needs can be addressed and moved forward in a coordinated and mutually beneficial manner. That's one of the visions of the Greater Toronto Services Board and that's one of the potentials it offers us that has been utterly lacking in the failure of having such a board in years past.

A review of the GTSB's size, composition, voting structure, powers and boundaries is required after January 1, 2001, so by no means is this a static model that is being placed before us to stay there for all time. This is something that is to be reviewed and examined and assessed on an ongoing basis, and if changes are indicated, then those changes can be brought about in very prompt order. As early as January 1, 2001, a review is required and no doubt will be acted on at that time.

The costs of operating the GTSB and GO Transit will be levied against the member regional municipalities and the city of Toronto. In the case of Hamilton-Wentworth, it will be for the purposes of GO Transit only. The costs will be assessed against the municipalities. This is not a new level of government with taxing authorities. The GTSB will not have the power to tax, will not have the power to reach directly into the pockets of the residents in the area, but the operations of the GTSB will be supported by the constituent municipalities.

I have every expectation that the efficiencies and benefits that are brought about by the coordinating efforts of the GTSB will more than pay for themselves in increased efficiencies and reduced costs for the constituent municipalities, so that the modest cost of supporting the structure of the GTSB will be more than compensated by the savings that all member municipalities will experience from having their planning and development practices coordinated across the GTSB and having that productive forum to discuss long-range planning rather than, as we've seen all too often in the past, this unproductive public debate on the front pages of our newspapers, which very seldom leads to a satisfactory resolution of the issues that inevitably will arise from time to time between municipalities which are, after all, neighbours of one another. Much as they serve the needs of one another and benefit from one another, being neighbours, there will always be times when their interests will diverge and there will be a need to reconcile the interests of one versus the interests of another. The Greater Toronto Services Board provides that much-needed forum to reconcile those diverging interests and diverging needs.

Coordination with respect to administration costs of social assistance and social housing will be made available through the mechanism of the GTSB, again another very important coordinating function.

1540

Who likes the idea of the GTSB? Well, practically everybody. The endorsements continue to flow in from municipalities throughout the GTSB and other commentators as well. For example, Toronto deputy mayor Case Ootes was recently quoted as saying, "We want the GTSB because that's the only way you can address the interregion transportation issues, the waste disposal issues and others that have interregion ramifications."

How about the mayor of Mississauga? Hazel Tonks - Hazel McCallion says that the GTSB will promote and facilitate coordinated municipal decision-making on issues and services spilling over -

The Acting Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): The member's time has expired. Questions and comments?

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): As I listened to my colleague in the Conservative Party, although he has added a new mayor to our list, Hazel Tonks, and talked about getting support from all over, even beyond the mayors around here, I was very enthused about the fact that he kept saying that everybody supports this. It reminds me that after the chaos that was created by the rushing of this amalgamation, there is a great sigh of relief when someone says, "We have to have some sort of coordination of this," so they were pleased to have this.

As the member talks about the fact that everyone supports that, just remember the kind of chaos your government brought about in this great amalgamation. I'm sure even the minister himself came to realize that. I see him here today. He has breathed a great sigh of relief at the fact that, with the mess he has created in the rushing of this amalgamation, he hopes this group that will coordinate some of the services will bring a bit of peace, some quietude and some structure to it. But I'm not quite sure this will happen. I think it will only happen when they come to realize the sort of situation they have made in this rushed amalgamation. Of course, Chairman Tonks, who is quite a capable individual, as you know, a very capable individual, will assist in this process. As you go along singing your praises, just realize that, with the mess you have made in the past, this board has a lot of work ahead of it and hopefully will bring some peace to it all.

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I was interested to listen to the government member's last comment, when he said that all these people like it and therefore it must be good. I'm pretty sure at least one of those people didn't like what you were doing in the area of the Toronto merger, so your formula there didn't seem to apply.

I have two quick things in the minute or so that I have to respond; one is that we will be, as we started to last evening, arguing that the board doesn't go far enough, that clearly the initial idea was - in fact, it was recommended initially that this board be done first, rather than the amalgamation of Toronto. But certainly it doesn't go nearly far enough to deal with the issues of a lot of economic development that takes place within the area outlined by the bill. Urban sprawl is not addressed in any way, shape or form. I suspect that the reason for that is that, given the late date in terms of an election being soon, the government did not want to rock any boats, so what they've done is the very, very least amount possible, not unlike their ODA - certainly not to the same degree in terms of the damage, because the ODA, Ontarians with Disabilities Act, is an absolute insult in terms of what it doesn't do.

This is more a question of they should have done more. It is an area where you could have really made your mark and instead you've backed away and done the minimum possible just to prevent being criticized in the upcoming election. That's really all that's happening here: It's meant to be able to put a little check-off beside the box of promises that said something about doing something with regard to a GST, and it really does not achieve the objectives.

Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): First of all, I would like to thank my colleague the member for York East for those very enlightening comments. He fully recognizes the benefits this act will have in providing coordination right across the greater Toronto area.

It's interesting that last night the member for Scarborough-Agincourt supported the bill and today his colleague the member for Scarborough North does not support it, which I guess is not unusual for the Liberals to do; on one hand they will, on one hand they won't. That was yesterday; this is today.

With respect to my colleague from the NDP, I'd like to point out that the first reading of this legislation was tabled for consultation last March, a full nine months ago, and has continued to have ongoing debate and consultation with all the stakeholders across the greater Toronto area for that period of time.

So this is not a bill that is being brought in and tabled to try to get something done before the end of the session and before the election, whenever that may be - next spring, next fall or a year and a half from now. This is a bill that's being put in place to provide much-needed coordination of the greater Toronto area. I think all parties recognize that coordination is needed. All the municipalities within the greater Toronto area recognize that coordination is needed.

This bill gives them the authority to operate GO Transit, but it also gives them the authority, if they choose, to develop strategies for waste management, for economic development, for any number of issues that the board feels are important. But it would be the members of that board, the representatives on that board from the municipalities, who would make that decision.

The Acting Speaker: The member's time has expired. Further questions and comments? The member for York East, you can sum up.

Mr Parker: I am pleased to thank the member for Scarborough North, the member for Hamilton Centre and Minister Leach for their comments on my remarks.

I appreciate that the member for Hamilton Centre didn't want to speak so much about the Greater Toronto Services Board as he did want to speak on the subject of the Ontarians with Disabilities Act. We recognize how the members of the NDP regret their failure to do anything whatsoever to bring forward an Ontarians with Disabilities Act during the five years of their government, and it bothers them that this government has taken action and brought forward an ODA during our term.

The member for Scarborough North was quite disparaging in his remarks with regard to this bill. I don't know whether, at the end of the day, he is actually against the bill or if he is just doing the usual Liberal thing, which is to walk down the centre of the line, a little bit to one side, a little bit to the other side, and avoid taking a position on the matter.

I mentioned the names of a few people who have endorsed the GTSB. I didn't get around to all of the people who liked the idea of the GTSB, and I'll give you one more. Who else likes the idea of a GTSB? Lyn McLeod likes the idea of a GTSB. Listen to this.

"The best hope for balanced growth across the GTA lies in shared planning, coordination and co-operation, so that each part of the super-city" - nice catchy term, super-city - "can attract the development best suited to it." Who said that? Lyn McLeod. When did she say it? In 1995, before there was a Bill 103.

She goes on: "Our prosperity and our quality of life will depend on the well-being of the entire region. The outlying areas cannot thrive if the core deteriorates." Who said that? Lyn McLeod. When did she say it? In 1995. That is exactly what the GTSB bill is about.

The Acting Speaker: Before we move on to further debate, I would like to welcome Margaret Harrington, the former member for Niagara Falls, who is sitting in the public gallery west. Welcome, Ms Harrington.

Further debate?

1550

Mr Curling: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Bill 56, an extremely important bill before us today. My constituents in Scarborough North, or Scarborough-Rouge River, as we'll become for the next election, have a great interest in this, because they have seen their city being rushed upon, ripped apart, without full consultation about where they're going to go, what this government called the great amalgamation, the great megacity. They're looking forward to and would like to understand the Greater Toronto Services Board and what it will do.

As I said, though the member and the minister seemed somehow to have missed the point, yes, it is necessary to coordinate services in the greater Toronto area and surrounding municipalities, but the chaos and confusion they have created along the way is going to make quite a challenge for the board. I don't see any power and authority for this board in what it will really do, but I can see the potential where the coordination is extremely necessary.

You must understand, before they had even put together the amalgamation, with the tremendous amount of downloading the province had done on the municipalities, abdicating their responsibility in many ways - and not only that; while they abdicated their responsibility, they even pulled back some of the funding that could do the job. I don't think the municipalities of the greater Toronto area would mind doing some of the jobs that the provincial government has tried to abdicate from, but not having enough funds has made it worse.

I heard the member saying that things like housing will now be coordinated under this great group. In the meantime, before it was even created, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing no longer answered to any questions in regard to housing and, worse yet, with regard to affordable housing, a drastic problem we have today in the greater Toronto area and many of the cities across Ontario.

What have we seen as the result of that? It's the worst we have ever seen - in fact, it's a disaster - with regard to what is happening with homelessness, with people on the streets of Toronto, Kingston, Windsor and many of the great cities of Ontario, all due to the way this government has behaved.

With the nightmare this government has created, they said what we should do is have another bureaucracy to coordinate all of this. I agree that we should have some coordination, but as I emphasize again, they created this great nightmare that we have on our hands today.

I haven't even touched on what they have done to property tax, and I could go on all day. My colleague from Scarborough-Agincourt eloquently and profoundly described the confusion that has been created in property tax. This government expounded on how they were going to resolve this once and for all, the shambles of the property tax, that they are going to make it fair. In the short time since they have taken responsibility for the province, they have introduced seven different pieces of legislation to deal with this problem. Remember, they introduced Bill 106, saying, "This is going to resolve the property tax and bring fairness." Then they had Bill 149, and that didn't work, so they introduced yet another bill, Bill 160.

They were talking about how much everyone was in agreement with what they had done with the restructuring committee. I clearly remember what the Association of Municipal Clerks and Treasurers of Ontario actually said to them when 106 came about, after they did 160, 164, then 16, then 61, and now 79. The association said, "We are now at the end of 1998, and a state of administrative chaos, we fear, has in fact come to pass," and Bill 79 will compound those problems.

As they stand today and talk about the wonderful things they're going to do with the restructuring committee in coordinating all that, they have created such chaos along the way, a wrecking crew along the road, with the fact that they can't even get it right - seven different pieces of legislation to deal with property tax, and they call it fairness. As you brag today about this piece of legislation, just remember the chaos you have created.

Let me take a moment to speak of a gentleman who I think has done a tremendously wonderful job. Of course I'm not speaking about the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing - not at all. It would take another day to talk about the chaos he has brought to housing and homelessness and many of the things we have today. As a matter of fact, he has destroyed housing in this province to the extent that there is no more affordability for those who need it, he and his cohort from community and social services, who declared war on the poor and took away their supports and said, "Go fend for yourselves," and created the homelessness situation we have today.

No, I'm speaking about Alan Tonks, Chairman Tonks, who has done a wonderful job. If only you could take a page from his book in terms of how he has done consultation, gone around to explain and tried his best to make sure one understands what this government is doing. Yes, he tried. I still do not fully understand the direction this government is going, but maybe if one decided to take taxes away from everyone to help those who most need government - because that is what government is about, helping those who are more vulnerable in our society. That's what we want government to do, certainly not to take the taxes and give them to the rich and beat up on the poor. Chairman Tonks came around and tried to explain how this coordination would take place. I want to take my hat off to him and the way he went about doing his work.

Let me focus for a moment on some of the recommendations this government has received over the years but not paid any heed to at all. David Crombie is quite a respected individual, one of the few Conservative individuals whom I respect. I respect David Crombie very much. When he was appointed to the Who Does What committee, I said to myself, "Here's an individual we can all listen to." When he brought out his report, we very much expected that this government would listen. We thought they would have taken his advice and gone forward on it, but no, they decided to take barely any of those recommendations and went through the exercise of saying they had consulted, but they did not. I hope you go back to what David Crombie said when he submitted his report and follow his direction.

I want to get back to housing, because I think in the years to come we're going to find a situation in this province that we cannot resolve. I'm speaking about affordability. Through the trickle-down theory of the Conservative government, they think, "Let's feed the rich and whatever they have later on will trickle down to the poor." The poor are now waiting on the streets. They're on the grates outside warming themselves because they don't have anywhere to go. There are those they've chased out of the hospitals who are not getting proper care.

It was a Conservative government that started the deinstitutionalization of psychiatric patients, sending them out without any sort of coordination whatsoever, without any kind of housing. When the Liberal government came to power, we put some strategies in place to have some homes, affordable housing. When the NDP came in, of course they also did some supportive work and followed through on some of the wonderful work that the Minister of Housing in the Liberal government had done.

We thought that was a foundation that was solid, to move forward from, that the only way to go from there was to improve. But lo and behold, this government came in and destroyed that foundation, and what we are seeing today is the evidence all over, people at food banks, people on the grates warming themselves, walking mindlessly on the streets with nowhere to go. Furthermore, there are no plans whatsoever to build affordable housing. What is this government saying? "We have this wonderful Greater Toronto Services Board that will be handling housing" - no money, no policy, not at all.

1600

I have to commend the mayor of Toronto, who said, "I should take a closer look at it." I know a year ago he hadn't seen any homeless persons, but when he came to wrestle with the fact that there were a lot of homeless people he was appalled. As a matter of fact, he actually declared a national disaster. The federal government also observed that they are concerned about it. The only level of government that does not see this in any way is this Conservative Mike Harris government, which says there is no problem whatsoever for affordability or for homelessness in our province.

How is he going to resolve this? The minister and his colleagues are saying, "We'll just hand it over to the Greater Toronto Services Board and they will resolve it" - no money, no strategies, nothing at all. They just hope it will go away. Homelessness is of course much worse during the cold, when people die; of course when it gets warmer that may not happen. For the 14 years I have been in politics here and observing this very closely, I have never seen a situation like this, caused very much by this Conservative government, this government that praises themselves for the fact that they are doing a better job than anyone else.

We all remember, Madam Speaker, and you remember too, that when this amalgamation, this megacity, was coming about, we said: "Let's slow it down a bit. Let's look at it very carefully to see what we are doing, what economic impact we're having on the different cities we are putting together, what social impact. While it may be a good idea, let's see if it will cause disaster." What was the response? "No, I am right; I know exactly what I am doing," and they went ahead and rammed it through without any consultation whatsoever. They said, "We've talked enough."

It's this same government that said: "All these people are special interest groups. We don't want to listen to them." All of a sudden, I hear the members over there saying: "We consult so much. We had this Greater Toronto Services Board debate nine months ago and we have had input on all aspects of it." It's funny how you have started listening now, after you have opened the gates and the horses are out. Now you are saying, "We can talk." Now, after the chaos and the confusion you have created, you can talk.

Yes, I support this, strongly so. I support the fact that we have some coordination, but I wish very much that you would start doing some consulting and some other strategies before you reach this situation and then praise and start listing those who are supportive. Yes, Lyn McLeod of course said, "We support this kind of strategy," and my colleague Gerry Phillips from Scarborough-Agincourt said: "Sure, I say the same thing. I support a coordinated strategy of how we do our transportation and the GO Transit." Of course we do. But my golly, what a challenge we have on our hands.

Giving this board no authority - and I don't know what the responsibility really is. You're saying, "Here is what you're going to do," but not giving them any power. I hope, with the pressure of it all, that you will give it some more funding and some more power to do the work it should do.

Yes, bringing in the external areas like Hamilton and around I think is a good move. The greater Toronto area is not an island unto itself. This government seemed somehow to feel that anyone in the 416 area was no longer a part of Ontario, that they could all go away, rot and die. People were getting concerned: Were you writing off the great city where four million people are, almost half the population of the province, with no care whatsoever, just to get more power, more seats beyond Toronto?

But they know. I think the 905 area woke up. It was almost like they were saying, when you would come to get people in the night: "They're only coming to get my neighbour. They won't be bothering with me." Then the 905 woke up and said, "This power-hungry group may come for us in the morning." They have now agreed that the way you are treating the 416 area is bringing chaos to the engine of the economy. This is where most of the economy is generated; quite a large portion of the economy is being generated here. It cannot be ignored and insulted in the way you gone about governing.

I hope the mandate of the Greater Toronto Services Board - as you said, it is not a closed shop; it is not locked down, where no one can be expressive and expansive later on. I hope they can look later on and say that whatever you do to the greater Toronto area, you had better make sure that it is included as an overall part of Ontario. Somehow, and I hope it doesn't come to that, we have two areas of Ontario: those in the 416 and the others.

Government must be for all the people, regardless of where they live. It doesn't seem so with this government. It doesn't seem as if this government wants to care for the most vulnerable in our society. As a matter of fact, you don't care, because they are the ones who are suffering most in all this restructuring you're going about doing in your ignorance: the insults you have put to the poor, as if it is their fault that things are worse off today, their fault that they cannot afford housing, their fault they are poor. This government collects its taxes and moves to give it to the rich, and somehow the poor are left out.

I'm saying it takes too much effort for this government to get things right. I can recommend to you that it's very easy in a democratic society. If you do consultation, if you listen, if you bring those kinds of comments back to the table and reflect what the citizens of this province want, you will get it right. But if you go ahead in the dictatorial, bullying way you have done things, with the closure of debates where one cannot debate things in this House, the fact is that you will have chaos. You'll be writing legislation seven times when you can't the taxation right. If you had just listened in the first instance and gone about it the way people told you, it's quite possible that you'd have gotten it right in the first place. Of course, with amendments through the process of debates in the Legislature and committee hearings, you will get better written legislation, but not going back to the table all these times, trying to get it right and seeing what you can do.

It's just like the school closings. People have told you that a school is not just a building where they teach students, but a part of the community. When thousands upon thousands of people came out and said, "Don't gut our community like that," what did you do, after you had extracted $1 billion from education funding? You quickly rushed $200 million back in and gave them a reprieve. You said, "OK, back off, because we're going to have an election soon, and if we can cool you off for a little bit" - but people are wise to all this, and $200 million won't buy the people of our province.

Let me just say in closing that the people are wise to it. When you form the Greater Toronto Services Board, it gives a little hope to people that coordination will come to the kind of mess you have made, that when it comes to some of the things you have not addressed over the years, or the things you have addressed in an erratic, dictatorial, bullying, undemocratic way, somehow there will be some sort of hearing and someone will be able to deal with the things that very much need to be dealt with. We hope that the transportation situation can be resolved and discussed in an intelligent way. We hope that housing and the school system will be dealt with in a proper way, so I will of course support this legislation.

1610

The Acting Speaker: Questions and comments?

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): The member for Scarborough North has raised a lot of points of course, many of which we agree with. It's all tangentially related in terms of concerns that he's raised. That's always important. But I'll be interested - of course, you might refer to some of the comments that the member from East York touched upon when he introduced this debate. "We have a whole pile of studies," he said, "and the status quo is simply not on. Inadequate. It's not an option. We need to do something because we need greater cohesiveness within the new Toronto council and the rest of the GTA councils surrounding it."

So when we look at this bill, one wonders, OK, they've reviewed all these studies, the Golden report and David Crombie's Who Does What report, and I say to myself, if they've read all these studies, why haven't they included some of the stuff that they supported themselves? What we have in front of us is very, very weak, and I know why it's weak: because there are a whole heap of politicians in the Durham area who are opposing this modest proposal that is before us. So I can appreciate the fact that what we have before us is something that of course people in the 905 region oppose, have a whole lot of questions about, but what troubles me is that this government makes it appear that they're moving on something, that it's earth-shattering, that the status quo is not on and we have something visionary coming from this crowd. Of course, it's nothing of the sort. It's a little step, not a big one. Please don't present it as if somehow you've solved all the questions around this. We have a whole lot of questions we want to ask as well.

Hon Mr Leach: I'd like to comment on the comments made by the member for Scarborough North, which I found shocking and appalling, to be quite frank. Why the member for Scarborough North would insult the mayor of Toronto by insinuating that a year ago, before Mr Lastman became mayor, there was no homelessness and now that he's been mayor it's a national disaster, I just find that appalling. I'm sure he didn't mean that and he might want to retract that if he gets an opportunity.

He did say something, though, and that's that Alan Tonks is doing a good job in consulting with the stakeholders involved in getting this bill together, and he has done a wonderful job. He has had well over a hundred meetings. He had 57 different sessions with stakeholders from every municipality in the greater Toronto area. The input that has gone into the creation of this bill has been as extensive as any piece of legislation that has gone through this House in perhaps the last 12 or 14 years.

The input from all of the areas of the region, whether it be the rural or the suburban or the urban, has been extensive. Everyone has had an opportunity to state their case and have their views made known. It's all reflected in the bill. All of the opinions of all of those various stakeholders are reflected in this bill. I only can conclude by knowing that that's why the members of the opposition are reluctantly supporting this bill.

Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview): I want to commend the member for Scarborough North for his comments. No wonder he has lasted so many years, being re-elected time after time, because when he gets up to give an opinion on whatever issue, he's really knowledgeable. With all due respect to the minister, who is in the House, I think the member for Scarborough North has given an excellent presentation on the views with respect to the creation of the Greater Toronto Services Board.

He has of course only touched on a few of the issues or perhaps consequences of the creation of this Greater Toronto Services Board, and yes, when he says that housing is one of those major issues, this is one of those issues that affects a lot of people, including the tenants, including the single wage-earner, including the pensioners who are living in a very touchy situation now where there is no more rent control, for example. I would say that this is going to be happening in the -

Mr Marchese: On a point of order, Madam Speaker: With all due respect, there is no quorum in the House. Would you check, please.

The Acting Speaker: Could you check and see if there is a quorum, please.

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

The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.

Clerk Assistant: A quorum is now present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Yorkview may continue.

Mr Sergio: Just to finish my 20 seconds or so, again I congratulate the member for Scarborough North for his presentation with respect to the creation of the Greater Toronto Services Board, and all the consequences that we may have to face if the government doesn't really present something that is accountable, that has depth and that can be accepted by all the parties concerned, not only here in Metro, but also in the GTA.

The Acting Speaker: Further questions and comments? The member for Hamilton Centre.

Mr Christopherson: I mentioned earlier in my responses to the member for York East my concern about the lack of breadth of the bill in terms of what it does. I want to say, and since I'm speaking next I will comment to a greater degree on that, it has a major impact on us in Hamilton-Wentworth because we are a part of the transit authority that is being created here but we are not a member of the Greater Toronto Services Board, for obvious reasons, and I'm not going to suggest that we should be.

The type of planning that takes place within the area that is comprised within this board has a major impact on our economy in Hamilton-Wentworth, on our social life as a result of whether we can have the kind of economy that we need in Hamilton-Wentworth to support the challenges that we, like all other communities, have. Urban sprawl, whether it's controlled or not, has a major impact on investment decisions that are made in Hamilton-Wentworth. All of these things have us continuing to sit by and watch whatever happens in either Toronto proper or now in the greater Toronto area through the Greater Toronto Services Board being out of our hands.

We have to more or less anticipate decisions that this authority will make as it impacts on Hamilton-Wentworth and react to them. Quite frankly, we would like to see a lot more planning and coordination happen. My colleague from York East talked about the fact that this bill allows coordination. We'd like to see a lot more coordination in this area from the Hamilton-Wentworth perspective. We'd like you to get a grip on urban sprawl and we'd like you to get a grip on the economic development of this part of the province because it does have a major impact on us, and when you get your act together, we can better get ours together.

1620

Mr Curling: I want to thank the member for Fort York, my good colleagues from Yorkview and Hamilton Centre, and of course the minister, who is here. I must commend him. Few ministers come here when they want to defend their own legislation, and he's here doing that.

I want to emphasize that I would still make the point of how important it is that we get some more decisive direction as to what this board is all about. I still find its responsibilities rather vague. To say, "To promote and facilitate coordinated decision-making among the municipalities in the greater Toronto area," has no legal powers of enforcement. It's nice to have laws, but if you don't have an enforcement aspect, where does that go? That is an aspect of it that I hope they will try to improve.

I think too that they have to do much more about the authority over how the social services' pooling of funds will happen. It is extremely important, because if the government does not understand the fact that social services in any city are an integral part of how its citizens behave, then we will have a very difficult time in managing and governing the city itself.

We will grow. The diversity of the greater Toronto area and its ethnicity is something we must focus on to make sure this sort of representation responds to those kinds of needs.

I just want to say that as we go through and approve this legislation, let us be mindful of some of the things you have done in the past that make this job much more difficult. We hope there will be sufficient funding there to do the job well.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Christopherson: I want to correct my own record. I believe in one of my earlier comments, rather than mentioning the GTSB - and I think I shortened it to GTS - actually I think I said GST. That could come from just staring at Tories too much every day, but I do believe I made that error.

Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East): I believe it's the other guys who promised to get rid of that tax.

Mr Christopherson: Well, you guys brought it in. The Liberals should have gotten rid of it. You guys are still Tories. You can deny the family all you want, you're still there. It's still Tories.

I want to begin my remarks by doing something very unusual for me, and that is, I want to thank the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, and I'll do that at the outset. I'm going to spend the rest of my time attacking his downloading, his government and a number of other things that I'm going to try and jam into the 20 minutes that I have, because it needs to be done, but I do want to express appreciation of the fact that he has recognized one of the major flaws in Bill 56 from a Hamilton-Wentworth perspective. I would like to put it on the record and also reflect the minister's commitment to correct it.

Members will note that subsection 10(1) states: "After each regular election, the members of the board described in clauses 4(a) to (c) shall elect as chair of the board a person who is not a member of a council of a municipality..." etc. The key thing is when it says "the members of the board described in clauses 4(a) to (c)." When we look at clauses 4(a) to (c), we find that they speak to:

"4. The board shall be composed of

"(a) the chair of the council of each regional municipality, other than the regional municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth, that is a participating municipality and the mayor of each lower-tier municipality..." etc.

What this does - and I'm not suggesting that it was done purposely or with any kind of mean-spirited intent, like other things you've done to us. I'm not suggesting that in this case here. I suspect that indeed it was a drafting error. The result of the way that it's phrased has left Hamilton-Wentworth without a vote on who the chair is. Given that this is now the governing agency for GO Transit, and that's a key element of our transportation system and of our future economic growth, we obviously deserve, just as every other member does, the opportunity to have a say in who the chair is.

Right now, under this bill as we are debating it, we don't have that right in Hamilton-Wentworth. Our regional chair sitting on this board, on this authority - I have to get the board and the authority straight - the Greater Toronto Transit Authority, will not have a vote. For that matter, we don't have one for the board chair either. Obviously that's unfair. There's no legitimate reason or rationale at all for Hamilton-Wentworth not having the same right as every other municipality to vote on the chair, given the influence that the chair of any organization has.

I understand that my regional chair, Terry Cooke, has raised this with the minister. I raised it with him prior to my rising here today, just a few minutes ago I talked to him about it, and the minister has given the assurance to both regional chairman Cooke and myself that an amendment will be forthcoming that will indeed give Hamilton-Wentworth a vote for the chair of the authority and the chair of the board. I believe that's the commitment. I see the minister nodding his head, so I want to say to him that I appreciate very much the fact that you've recognized that this omission is certainly unfair to my hometown and needs to be corrected and the fact that you've committed to ensure that there's a government amendment that will carry that will reflect what's right. Again, Minister, I appreciate your doing that on behalf of my community.

Now, having said all of that, let's understand that there's a major impact in terms of what this government has done vis-à-vis GO Transit in terms of part of the downloading on to my community. Let me go back in history a little bit. It was during our tenure in government, the NDP government, when the funding for our new GO Transit centre on Hunter Street began to flow. That allowed the construction and the conversion of what was the old TH&B station, which had been unused; it was all but derelict. We were losing the building. I don't believe there was a single train going through there, but if there was, it was almost a re-routing as opposed to anything purposeful.

We funded $70 million so that we could convert that old TH&B station into the modern station that it now is. I've talked about us saving historical buildings in my community of Hamilton before and how proud we are of our ability to do that, and there's construction going on now with the post office. Again, we started flowing the money when we were in government. It was on the rocks a little bit in terms of this government's chopping block. We got it back on the path of being funded. That is happening and we've saved a beautiful part of our heritage, and that will make a major -

Hon Cameron Jackson (Minister of Long-Term Care, minister responsible for seniors): Tell us about the Liberals.

Mr Christopherson: Yes, it did start under the Liberals, no question. They said yes; we funded the money; you guys almost said, "Maybe we need to cut it," and then you kind of straightened back up and now it's going forward. Knowing the Tories as the kind of politicians that they are, hopefully we'll be cutting a ribbon before the election. That's one I'll be proud to be at and will be glad to see. Maybe Cam can heckle whether or not that's going to happen before the election. Is that going to happen before the election, Cam?

Hon Mr Jackson: I'm talking about the old train station that Lily Munro -

Mr Christopherson: No, I'm talking about the post office. The fact of the matter is that it's interesting that Minister Jackson would want to heckle in the midst of all this, because he's on record after they formed power as saying that we were wrong to build it; we, the NDP government, were wrong to build the new GO Transit centre the way we did. This is a guy who the government puts forward as being Hamilton's voice in cabinet. What a joke.

1630

The fact is that this not only saved a historic building, a well-recognized historical building of great architectural value of the art deco period as well as the history of Hamilton, we also were able to move our very old bus terminal from Rebecca Street over here and it now serves three major purposes.

It serves as the new GO Transit centre for our region in a brand-new building, which by the way, I would remind members of the government when they like to talk about the amount of money that we invested in communities like Hamilton-Wentworth, kept hundreds if not thousands of construction workers working and earning a paycheque and able to pay their bills and put food on the table at a time when the measures of the federal Tory government were causing massive losses of jobs out of our community, by and large because of free trade and certainly because of the recession. As we know, the recession was deeper and longer in Canada than in any of the other G7 nations because of their interest rate policies. That is what caused the major part of the recession we faced. Our investment and flowing the money and letting this project go forward kept hundreds, if not thousands, of workers in the Hamilton area on the job receiving a paycheque.

In addition to that, as I mentioned, it provides us with a beautiful, brand-new transit centre right near the downtown. I would say for the interest of government members, there was quite a controversy in Hamilton where a lot of people thought it should have gone to the old CN station, to the waterfront down in the north end, mainly because of parking availability. But at the end of the day, and I was a member of the council that voted to keep it in the downtown core, the main reason we kept it down there was because of the need to keep as many people coming in and moving around in the downtown core as possible, and the new GO Transit centre is within walking distance of city hall, Jackson Square, the art gallery, Hamilton Place. All of the key attractions of our beautiful downtown Hamilton are within walking distance, so we decided to locate it there.

As I mentioned, it also allowed us to move our old bus terminal into this facility, so it also serves as the centre of our regional bus transit. Now we've got GO Transit and the train service in one location, within walking distance of downtown. We've got our new bus terminal contained in there as part of it, and the HSR, the Hamilton Street Railway, has changed their routes to allow their service to come through there. So we have three major focuses of transit centred in this new facility that I was so very proud to be a part of.

I would compare that, by the way, to the times we're in now, when the government likes to suggest that any money that was spent by the previous NDP was somehow lost or wasted. I would defy and challenge any of the other Hamilton members who are Tories to stand up and say that $70 million should not have been spent on a new GO Transit centre for Hamilton-Wentworth. I defy any one of them, and there are at least two in the House right now. The fact is that this was money well invested at a time when people needed jobs. It was money that was invested in our important transportation network and it was money invested in our future economic growth. Money that was invested - not wasted - in Hamilton-Wentworth, money well spent, money that the people of Hamilton-Wentworth and the businesses of Hamilton-Wentworth will benefit from for decades.

I want to also expand further on what I talked about in terms of the fact that the new board doesn't go far enough in its coordination powers. The reality is for Hamilton-Wentworth that we do live in the shadow of Toronto. It's very difficult sometimes to be recognized as the major urban centre that we are when we're so close to Toronto. Now as the governing tentacles of Toronto are growing and growing, which is a good thing, by the way, the impact on the planning of what takes place within this very large and very significant part of Ontario has a major impact on us in Hamilton-Wentworth.

It's difficult for us to come to grips with a lot of our planning issues when we're all trying to look three, five, 10, 30 years into the future; when we're making engineering investments in terms of sewage pipelines etc, very major capital costs within the regional government; very difficult when we're trying to come to grips with our own urban sprawl, because within the region we do have some beautiful farmland and natural acreage that we want to preserve for future generations. It's difficult for us to make firm planning decisions when we don't know where this large, huge entity that has such great influence on our future is going to go. It would have been our preference that indeed this legislation go further.

I realize that people say there's opposition in the 905. Let's be clear. When people say "905," they usually think of Mississauga, Burlington and the sort of suburban areas of Toronto, I say at the risk of upsetting municipal leaders in those communities. Hamilton-Wentworth is in the 905 area code, but our issues and our problems and our relationship with Toronto are very different from those others. When my colleagues and others refer to the 905, a lot of those opinions and attitudes are not necessarily shared by Hamilton-Wentworth. It is indeed, let me be very clear, to our advantage in Hamilton-Wentworth, in representing the citizens that we do, that there be as great a coordination of as many services and as much planning as possible in the Greater Toronto Services Board area, so I am one of those who would say: "Strengthen this, go further. It doesn't go far enough."

In the five minutes that I have left, I want to return to transit in terms of what it means. As people know, the GO Transit responsibilities and operating capital have now been downloaded to the municipalities. When we talk about GO Transit as public transit and recognize that it's good for the economy but that it's also good for the environment, it's not good that this has been downloaded to municipalities. Municipalities have been so handcuffed in terms of the money that they have to spend on other priorities that I am very fearful that public transit and GO Transit in particular are going to fall further and further down the list of priorities.

When we consider that in Hamilton-Wentworth we received as new costs, costs that we didn't have before, $3.3 million for GO Transit, and then look at all the other pressures that are on us financially, and remember that $36.3 million of the downloading to our community was not offset by removal of education taxes from the property bill, we were losers to the tune of $36 million.

I would remind the minister, should he choose to respond in his two-minute response to this part of my comments, that the person who oversaw the compiling of these numbers, the numbers that I'm using here today, the $36.3 million that you stiffed us for, the individual who oversaw these numbers being compiled you had enough faith in and enough trust in to hire as your new deputy minister. So I would strongly suggest that if his intent was, as he has done in the past, to call into question elected officials and staff officials of my community when I use numbers here in the House, that he remember that the person he just hired as his number two individual, his deputy minister, is the very person who oversaw the compiling of this document that shows that we were stiffed for $36 million when you did your downloading exercise. That's the reality.

When I think about GO Transit in the future as now a regional responsibility, with little or no help from the province, I'm very worried for it, because we don't have the money and because of the amount of new services that have been downloaded to Hamilton-Wentworth, the $36 million we lost on this, the $17 million that we've been hit with on the business education tax. Other communities didn't get hit with that amount, but we did; we're out $17 million. That's got to be paid for by business and residential taxpayers - that's the only place for it to come from - or from cuts in service.

1640

Given that we're now responsible for housing, ambulance services, increased costs in child care, public health services, and you downloaded a lot of the highways from the provincial system down to our area, when our councils have to make the decisions, not on where they're going to spend new money but on what they're going to preserve, GO Transit in terms of any kind of expansion is not even on the radar screen. I suspect the same will be true in a lot of other municipalities.

So what's the net result of that? It means less investment in public transit, less opportunity for economic growth outside the immediate greater Toronto area, less protection for our environment, more pollution as people look at a provincial transit system that doesn't meet their needs and stick with their personal automobile. If you're not going to provide a GO Transit that works, goes to where people need it when they need it, they're not going to use it and they're going to stay with their car. So I really worry about what this means overall for my community of Hamilton-Wentworth and for the greater Ontario region in terms of an economic entity.

The last thing I want to raise I accept kind of borders on petty, but it's the sort of thing that really bugs us in Hamilton. We had a perfectly good name: GO Transit. I believe it stands for Government of Ontario Transit. I see the minister nodding his head. It was Government of Ontario Transit, but now we're going to change it to Greater Toronto Transit, GT Transit. The fact is, Hamilton-Wentworth is as important a part of that partnership as any other community, unless the minister wants to stand up and say different. If we respect and accept the fact that Hamilton-Wentworth is a full and respected partner in GO Transit, when you change the name, you deny us a bit of our identity, a bit of the opportunity we're entitled to to be seen as part of the full partnership. In the context of other things you've done, this is not a big issue, but it is the sort of thing that drives us around the bend in Hamilton and therefore needs to be raised by a Hamiltonian in the context of this debate.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Mario Sergio): Questions or comments?

Hon Mr Leach: In response to the comments of the member for Hamilton Centre, I thank him for his kind comments at the beginning of his speech. They deteriorated slightly during his 20 minutes.

His premise is that the bill doesn't go far enough. I'd just like to point out that there were opposing points of view on that, as to whether it should be a very strong board or a board with limited powers to start. After immense consultation, it was determined that perhaps the board should walk before it ran. That is a comment that the Liberal member from Scarborough made last night. Its first responsibility when it's formed is to run and operate GO Transit, but it does have the ability to take on additional responsibilities if a two-thirds majority of the board chooses to do so.

With a two-thirds majority vote, they could take over the responsibility for economic development or waste management or any other strategy or issue that faces the greater Toronto area. They have the ability to do that. The bill allows them to do that if they choose to do that but it does not mandate that they do that, so we can give the Greater Toronto Services Board an opportunity to get up and functioning, get operating, get a handle on all the issues that are facing them, without being mandated initially to do that. But they will be able to do that in time.

With respect to the name GO Transit, I have a great deal of sympathy with the member's position because I was one of the original members of GO Transit. I founded it. I have a great deal of respect for that name. Move an amendment. You might get my support.

The Acting Speaker: Questions or comments? The member from Scarborough.

Mr Parker: No, try York East. I know that the folks from Yorkview can't tell the difference between East York and Scarborough, but bear with us. You'll learn.

I will keep my remarks very short. I simply want to make the observation that after time and time again in this House that this government has been criticized for going too far too fast with a piece of legislation, in the case of this bill we've just heard a long rant essentially criticizing the government for not going far enough fast enough.

In my remarks, I already indicated that this is a bold new step, the development of a Greater Toronto Services Board. It's never been done before. No other government ever had the courage or vision to take this step. This government has taken that step, has engaged in a broad program of consultation in bringing about this legislation and bringing this concept forward. But the concept is not written in stone, another point I tried to stress in my remarks. It is a beginning, but it has the potential to evolve over time to meet the needs and the aspirations of the communities in the greater Toronto area as they present themselves and as those needs must be addressed.

I say to the member from Hamilton, take some comfort from knowing that there is potential to move this bill forward and to take the model forward as the needs arise. But it is refreshing to hear the government criticized for going too cautiously, too slowly, not far enough, in contrast to what we customarily hear from the other side. I do wish they'd make up their minds about what they want us to do.

Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): It's my pleasure to comment on the member for Hamilton Centre's remarks on Bill 56. I will be commenting on this piece of legislation next week, but I want to go on the record as respecting the views of the member from Hamilton.

Also, it's important to recognize that the Durham region is impacted by the choices that are before us. I'm comforted by the minister's having said this afternoon that there is a broad range of options but he wants to get this organization up and established. My question of course is, is it another level of government? I'm certainly not for more government; I'm for less government. I have listened to the comments from the regional chair of Durham, Roger Anderson. On some aspects I agree with him; on many I disagree, some of his points most recently.

Alan Tonks visited Durham on a couple of different occasions. I arranged meetings with Mayor Moffatt from the township of Scugog, and I know he met with all the mayors of the Durham region, whether Ajax, Pickering, Whitby, Oshawa, Clarington or Uxbridge. I would say that generally it's a very tough decision for Durham region, for many of the same reasons the member for Hamilton Centre cited. It's a new growth area. It has been almost 25 years since the region was formed and they're just now maturing. In the rural areas, I know the comments were made in the Golden report that the northeastern region, the Uxbridge-Scugog-Clarington area, may not be mature enough to be part of this huge GTA. I have to listen to my constituents and I listened to the debate here, and I do not want another level of government.

Certainly there are areas within the region across the GTA that should be better coordinated. Economic development was mentioned. Waste management is in the news today. Clearly, the minister is listening, and the rural arguments must be heard in this whole debate.

Mr Bill Grimmett (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): I'm pleased to provide some remarks on the speech made by the member for Hamilton Centre. When he speaks, you always know what his position is on the issue and you never have any difficulty hearing him. I was impressed by the obvious long time and effort he has put into this whole issue, and I was equally impressed by the interplay between him and the minister, who obviously have had a lot of discussion on this. I am sure that the minister, who has already indicated that he will be following up on some of the remarks made by the member, will do so. That's really the substance of my remarks.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Hamilton Centre has two minutes to respond.

1650

Mr Christopherson: I appreciate the comments of the members who spoke. To the member for Durham East, I can appreciate very much that your concerns would be similar to ours in Hamilton-Wentworth and I suspect that as much as you're concerned about another level of government, there has to be a recognition that if these things aren't coordinated and planned properly by those inside the greater Toronto area, then we're going to be left in our respective regions responding to plans that aren't nearly as detailed and as full as they should be, thereby making it more possible that we will make mistakes when we do planning in our respective regions. So I think there is a real need to make sure we can see clearly where this major political entity is going in terms of the plans for expansions in the areas mentioned.

I thank the member from Georgian Bay for his recognition, and yet I have to tell you, it hasn't happened very often. Much to my disappointment, not that I would say it's entirely my fault, but it is my disappointment that there isn't more of that kind of interplay. But we have found it very difficult, to be truthful to you, to get a lot of your ministers to listen. Today the minister listened and I appreciated it and I'm prepared to acknowledge whenever that happens.

To the minister's comments that the speech got worse as time went on, it's funny, I felt just the other way about it. I thought the beginning was pretty shaky, but I felt a whole lot stronger about it as time went on and a lot clearer on the issue. I suspect the volume went up too as I went on, as I felt clearer on the issue. I want to tell him that I will do what I can to influence my caucus to introduce an amendment that would have it stay as GO Transit. I think that would be good.

To the member for York East who said it's nice to hear criticism about too far, too fast rather than the other way around, if you do the right thing you won't get criticism at all.

The Acting Speaker: The member's time is up. The member for Scarborough East.

Mr Gilchrist: I'm indeed pleased to add some comments to this debate on second reading of Bill 56. It's quite interesting, we've just heard from the member for Hamilton Centre bemoaning the lack of consultation in some areas, he claims, from time to time. Yet just this morning we concluded the clause-by-clause consideration of a very important piece of legislation, the new apprenticeship act, an act that's designed to ensure that there's far greater access, far greater involvement, far more opportunities for people who want to get involved in trades, who want to get involved in many of the growth areas of our economy but heretofore have not had those chances.

We listened and we listened very hard to the various trade unions, the employers, to apprentices themselves. They told us about defects in the system. They told us about ways we could make it better. Some groups told us that particularly as it affects the construction industry the existing act was doing quite well.

We not only listened to them, we responded to a degree that left the Toronto Sun this morning predisposed to have as their headline that the trade unions won their way. I'd like to suggest that what really should have been the headline is that once again the government truly reflected what was in the best interests of the greatest number of Ontarians. In this case, it was important to us to ensure that in a system that was working well in the construction trades we weren't going to change for change's sake.

That brings me to the bill before us here today. I don't think there's been a piece of legislation that has undergone more consultation than the bill before us. We had on the day we were elected the benefit of a work in process. To their credit, the previous government had commissioned Anne Golden to look at various governance issues in the greater Toronto area. We asked Ms Golden to accelerate the time frame of her report, and in January 1996 she came in with quite a weighty tome and a number of recommendations. From that we moved to set up a process specifically geared to the issues relating to the formation of a possible Greater Toronto Services Board.

Mr Marchese: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: There may not be quorum in the House. Will you please check?

The Acting Speaker: Would you check if a quorum is present.

Clerk at the Table (Mr Todd Decker): A quorum is not present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.

Clerk at the Table: A quorum is now present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker: Member for Scarborough East.

Mr Gilchrist: In a way, I thank the member opposite for ensuring that there are six times as many Conservatives as there are opposition members in to hear the presentation this afternoon.

There's no doubt then, following on the work done by Ms Golden, that the next step in our process was to ask a very experienced, very respected former official from the ministry, with a wealth of municipal experience, Mr Milt Farrow, to undertake a similar review, a more intensive review on the actual process related to the creation of a coordination body that would deal with the issues of those services that crossed certain municipal boundaries.

Mr Farrow did meet with all of the municipal councils in the GTA, with many of the individual councillors. He came up with his report in May 1997. We then followed up with a series of further consultations that took us into early this year, when Alan Tonks, the former chair of Metro Toronto, took a number of different steps to pursue even further consultation.

By this point we had certainly heard the positions of all the councils, all the cities and towns, the villages and regions in the GTA. We had also heard from a great number of individual citizens and groups. This issue had gotten a lot of publicity in the media. There were no secrets about the consideration that government was giving to the creation of something we've now come to call the Greater Toronto Services Board. So presumably all those people who had an interest in this issue had communicated that either to the ministry, to Mr Farrow, or subsequently, when Mr Tonks started his process, to Mr Tonks.

In March of this year, Mr Tonks consulted with 28 municipalities. He met with 29 other individuals and groups or received their written comments. In May Mr Tonks then held six forums on the issue of the Greater Toronto Services Board. Over 140 stakeholders participated. It isn't just that every council was consulted; every councillor in all of the regional governments, in all of the municipal governments and here in the city of Toronto government were invited to participate, and the overwhelming majority of them took Mr Tonks up on that offer.

At the same time, a very impressive list of other organizations made further representations to Mr Tonks, groups such as the Ontario Professional Planners Institute and Pollution Probe. We had individual ratepayers' associations write in to us or make presentations. We had the GTA economic development partnership and the municipal economic development directors. We had a wide range of groups and individuals who did feel that this bill was worthy of comment. Along the way, obviously a number of changes were made and of course ultimately the bill was introduced for first reading. First reading took place on June 25 of this year and since that time Mr Tonks and the ministry have hardly been standing still.

1700

There have been a number of further consultations. I know the minister himself has made phone calls to a variety of the mayors and regional chairs and has involved them in meetings, and at the same time others have considered the bill. Other councils have actually considered the bill during the normal deliberations of their council meetings. Fourteen of them have passed resolutions, some of which offered further suggestions, further amendments. Fifteen have not bothered to send any further critique, although some have actually said, "You may continue to carry the original position we articulated back in 1997." So we have tremendous comfort that this is a bill that has genuinely received adequate consultation, some might even say too much consultation.

At the GTA mayors' and chairs' meeting just last Friday, a number of mayors approached me and were concerned that this bill was not going to pass in these next few weeks during this session and that the January 1 prospective deadline would not be met. They were very concerned that we would miss an opportunity to start a coordination process that is long overdue.

The member for Hamilton Centre in fact made the observation that this is a very significant part of the province we're talking about. The commerce that takes place, the commuting that takes place in both directions now between the suburbs in the 905 municipalities and the city of Toronto clearly demonstrate that as an economic entity we are one. There is a tremendous incentive for the government to ensure that coordination of all the important services has some kind of a forum and we get beyond the individual or parochial initiatives and perspectives of any municipality.

The reality is that the municipalities have tried to form those sorts of fora in the past, the GTA mayors and chairs being just one example. They have formed the GTA marketing alliance. There are all sorts of other working groups that deal with issues such as sewers that cross municipal boundaries between Toronto and the 905. There's planning for obvious areas of coincidental interest such as the conservation authority, where already all of the municipalities play a role proportional to their share of the area covered by the Metro Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. We have lots of precedents of working groups of various municipal structures designed to integrate services, but we've never captured them all in one group, a group with legitimacy, a group with the stature and the presence in our community to ensure that the debate is as focused, orderly and thorough as it could possibly be.

From the outset, of course, the initial responsibilities of the GTSB will be to ensure coordination of planning issues and hopefully a promotion of various planning strategies. They will from day one have direct responsibility for the budgeting and the overall operation of GO Transit. Clearly, the budget of GO Transit alone means that the GTSB is a body of some significance. GO Transit is playing an increasingly important role in the transportation needs of the greater Toronto area. We've seen an increase in ridership this year and GO Transit is to be complimented for that.

But at the same time, we continue to see increasing bottlenecks on our roads, decreasing average speeds on our highways, particularly roads like the Don Valley Parkway and the Gardiner Expressway, and there is obvious need for even further integration of the various transit systems. This too will be one of the coordinating functions that the GTSB can take on as part of their mandate. We've heard from all of these groups about their individual issues, and they are many.

The member opposite has spoken about the need to balance even the transit requirements of Hamilton and Wentworth. They're not considered part of the GTA, never have been, but GO Transit does have a number of stops which leave what is considered to be the GTA, which ends at Halton region, and go into Hamilton-Wentworth. For that precise reason, we've not only guaranteed them a seat at the table, but, as the minister indicated earlier this afternoon, we're prepared to allow the regional chair to have the votes to ensure that even when it comes to picking the chair of the GTSB, Hamilton and Wentworth will have the appropriate share of responsibility in the oversight of this new coordinating body.

We certainly heard from a great number of councillors that they didn't want this to be another level of government, and I am pleased to say that it is not. It may be another committee that some councillors, mayors and regional chairs sit on, but it has no taxation authority. It gets its money merely by the allocations from the component municipalities. There is no direct election. You and I won't be going to the polls to cast a vote for a GTSB level of government.

The reality is, though, on the other hand, it does provide an opportunity for the politicians we already elect at the municipal level to come together in an appropriate forum with the powers and responsibilities shared on the appropriate pro rata basis and be able to debate and conclude, hopefully, long-term planning decisions which will have a significant impact on how the greater Toronto area grows and develops in the years and decades to come.

I'd like to mention as well that over those two years - over two years now; I guess we're approaching three years if you include the work done by Ms Golden - and in the course of all of those various face-to-face meetings, the various fora put on by Mr Tonks and Mr Farrow, and of course in comments they've made to the media, we've certainly gotten a lot of very constructive feedback from various politicians and others at the municipal level.

We have the Toronto deputy mayor, Mr Case Ootes, in the Toronto Star on November 25 saying, "We want the GTSB because that's the only way you can address the interregion transportation issues, the waste disposal issues and others that have interregion ramifications."

We've got the president and CEO of the Toronto Board of Trade, in a press release right after the bill was introduced, saying, "The GTSB is needed to cope with the stresses of rapid growth." There's no doubt that there's no part of Ontario that has seen more pressure related to its growth than here in the GTA.

Don Cousens, out in the 905, the mayor of Markham, has said: "We've got to have a way to cross the boundaries. The public isn't served unless we look for a way of working across the GTA." Even Mayor McCallion of the city of Mississauga said that Tonks's proposal would "promote and facilitate coordinated municipal decision-making on issues and services spilling over jurisdictional boundaries."

We've seen that sort of positive sentiment from the overwhelming majority of participants in these various discussion opportunities - the regional chairs. Emil Kolb, for example, has said, "The Greater Toronto Services Board legislation...provides an opportunity for the region of Peel to participate in the coordination of interregional services and infrastructure, such as transit, water, sewer and waste management." We agree.

All across the GTA we've heard that sort of feedback. But what's interesting is that there are other comments that have been heard by the people in Toronto over the past few years that are just as enthusiastic in embracing this concept. There's the quote, "The best hope for balanced growth across the GTA lies in shared planning, coordination and co-operation, so that each part of the super-city can attract the development best suited to it." Those words were, of course, spoken by Lyn McLeod in a 1995 Liberal paper entitled Lyn McLeod on the Greater Toronto Area. Truer words were never spoken. That is precisely what we're delivering in Bill 56.

She went on to say: "Our prosperity and our quality of life will depend on the well-being of the entire region. The outlying areas cannot thrive if the core deteriorates." Again, the then leader of the Liberal Party was bang on: You have to coordinate services, you have to provide a forum for all the mayors and councils to work together to find the greatest efficiencies, the greatest opportunities to deliver services at the lowest possible cost. That's an obligation we share with the municipalities. We're following through on our end of the obligation in Bill 56.

1710

I'd also like to mention a couple of other facts and figures, if I could. I think they're very telling, because we've heard some suggestion from the other side that somehow there will be a missed opportunity or something left out of the process if we don't have further deputations after second reading of the bill. When you compare the House statistics for the last three governments, they're very telling. In terms of the number of sessional days that have been sat, the number of government bills passed, the number of government bills passed per day, and the amount of time spent on second and third reading of government bills, a very compelling, very clear story emerges.

Under the Liberals, in five years they passed 183 bills. That's an average of two thirds of a bill every day. The NDP were slightly more measured in their approach. They only passed 163 bills; that's 0.4 bills every day. In our first three years, we passed 89 bills; that's one quarter of a bill a day. But let's look at it in terms of the amount of time we spent on second reading. The average time spent on second reading for every government bill in our government has been five hours and 33 minutes. Under the Liberals, it was incredible; it was one hour and 38 minutes.

On third reading - this is compelling - in the last session we spent one hour and 41 minutes on third reading. The Liberal government in their five years spent an average of 15 minutes per government bill on third reading. That, by the way, was in the second session. In the first session, they spent an average of seven minutes - only seven minutes on the stage of the bill which is by far the most significant, that's after the amendments have been put, after public consultation.

One of the most interesting statistics, though, is the time the government has spent consulting with people both in this building and across the province. When you look at the amount of committee travel time outside of Queen's Park, the Liberals spent 349 hours in five years, the NDP 645 hours. In less than three years, we had already accumulated 773 hours of committee hearings all across Ontario, from Kenora to Windsor to Ottawa.

The record is clear. Our government is one that listens, one that consults. This bill is very much the product of that extremely thorough consultation. All the groups that this bill affects directly, the municipal councils, have had at least three opportunities to give their comments, and they have. We've heard them, we've considered them, and a number of amendments will be introduced just arising from comments we've heard over the summer. This bill is an important addition to the legislative framework we're building to guarantee the growth and future prosperity of the greater Toronto area and all of Ontario.

The Acting Speaker: Questions or comments?

Mr Curling: As I listened to the member for Scarborough East, how amusing he became. I think he was almost repenting. He spent all that time talking about how democratic his government has been. Tell that to the people outside. With the number of closures you have put on bills, the number of times you have disallowed people to participate, people who want to consult with this government have been shut out. This is the same government that told everyone outside that they're a special interest group and they don't want to listen to them. Now he comes and says, "Look at all these hours," goes and gets these statistics and says, "Boy, did we ever listen."

Ask the people outside about the megacity, when you were going about it and they wanted to talk about how their destiny was determined and have input into the legislation - disallowed. Ask the people who arrived at many of these meetings and were shut out.

Now he's going to brag about the time they took to listen and consult. On much of their legislation, those huge omnibus bills you put in and expect us to just do overnight - you saw how people here literally demonstrated in the House and said there needed to be a democratic process to be heard.

This is the most undemocratic government I have ever seen. They were the scarcest individuals I have ever seen, especially at the beginning of 1995. I couldn't find a Conservative member anywhere. If I wanted to talk to them, I'd have to call them inside of here to have some kind of discussion. Some of their constituents were calling me and saying, "Let me speak to you, because I can't find a Conservative member." The audacity of the member for Scarborough East coming in and talking about how democratic they were.

If you had taken the same approach you have taken with Bill 56, had said, "Let us listen and have some consultation," you'd have had better legislation. That is why, as I said, they took seven attempts to write a property tax bill. Why? They wouldn't listen. They wouldn't consult. They knew it all.

Even though you come in now and reel off statistics, they don't believe you, and they will tell you so later on down the road.

Mr Christopherson: Under the comments I made earlier about the impacts and pressures on local governments that are going to have to fund GO Transit, I would remind us that one of the ways governments can, whether it's because they philosophically want to, like this one, or others who feel they have no alternative, is to privatize operations and contract work out. I'm advised that that indeed is exactly what is happening to GO Transit workers.

I'm advised that members of ATU local 1587 have received a notice that in 120 days, all of GO's operations, including their jobs, will be contracted out. If that's not the case, I certainly would appreciate that clarification from government members. But if it is, it again speaks to the difference in philosophy between this government and ourselves as New Democrats. This government just despises the idea that people who work in the public sector should get a decent wage and a decent set of benefits, so they want to privatize.

Of course what they focus on is that it costs the taxpayer less. The answer to that is, it does, but at what price? At the price of eliminating from our communities and our local economies and the families of our friends and relatives a decent income. When you privatize, the goal is to maximize the profit that can be made - fine in and of itself, but in this case going from public to private means lower wages. That's what it's all about, eliminating decent wages. That's why you brought in Bill 7, that took away successor rights to many Ontario public sector workers.

This speaks to the sort of thing that can and will happen to GO Transit in terms of local budgets.

Mr O'Toole: In response to the member for Scarborough East, he covered in some detail the technical consultations that have gone on on this particular piece of legislation.

I want to be on the record: This is an important issue in my riding. I have some significant difficulties until it's clarified for me that this isn't another level of government. That being said, there is an expression which has been shared by a number of members in Durham, that form should follow function. We all know that there currently is an organization referred to as the GTA mayors. That group has gotten together primarily under the vision and leadership of Hazel McCallion, arguably a very progressive mayor. She's really been kind of running Peel region, you might say, without any disrespect for Peel region.

1720

There was also a report, referred to as the four mayors' report, and the Oshawa mayor was saying: "We're well enough alone. We can manage it on our own." But in my riding, with part of Uxbridge and Scugog and Clarington, those municipalities have really been co-dependent with the region. I'm stating here that the region of Durham is not as mature as other regions and I've asked the minister to respect the fact that perhaps the time is not now.

I just want to make sure that when I look at one of the sections of the bill dealing with the formation of GT Transit - I don't like the name "Toronto" but it's not against Toronto; Durham region is the area that I live in - but there's a section here dealing with financial arrangements. The board will have the power under section 28 to raise money for its costs by levying amounts on the city of Toronto and the regional municipalities. It's by any other name another tax. I want to make sure that this is not going to cost my constituents more money. How can I be assured until I have all the details?

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): My concern with this legislation revolves somewhat around transit services that we're going to have. I think there's a need for some kind of coordination; everybody agrees with that. I don't know anybody who wouldn't agree with the need for some coordination of services within Toronto and the adjacent municipalities, which are very important.

I should warn the member for Durham East that I know Hazel McCallion watches this channel very often and he'd better be careful what he says or he's liable to find himself in some considerable trouble.

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Community and Social Services): But he has Nancy Diamond.

Mr Bradley: He has Nancy Diamond but Hazel has more experience. I want to warn you of that.

My concern is about transit. Not only in metropolitan Toronto and the greater Toronto area, but right in the city of St Catharines there's a need for good transit. The transit commission is meeting tonight in St Catharines. What the transit commission is talking about always is the fact that no longer does it get 75% of its capital costs covered by the province. No longer is there the more generous operating subsidies that used to be available to encourage public transit, to enable us to have to spend less on widening roads again and again and of course on making an environmentally desirable choice of providing some public transportation. I know the St Catharines Transit Commission will be concerned about that.

I'm interested in the member for Scarborough East - we're talking about transportation - whether he's worried about the fact that, if there were only one active treatment hospital in St Catharines, the St Catharines General, what would happen then in terms of transportation? It's going to put demands on the transportation. We can avoid those demands by keeping the Hotel Dieu Hospital open in St Catharines, and I would like to know if he's in favour of keeping the Hotel Dieu open.

The Acting Speaker: Response?

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker: I'm sorry, we already had the three. That's the fourth one.

Mr Gilchrist: Mr Speaker, you are to be complimented for your superior math skills.

I certainly would like to thank our colleagues on both sides for their comments, and I appreciate the issues they've raised. The member for Hamilton Centre, I'm pleased to share with you that GO Transit jobs are not being contracted out. GT Transit obviously will negotiate a new collective agreement and GO does not anticipate there will be any job losses arising from that.

As well, your comments that somehow this is an assault on certain workers, no, I think we've proved from our actions we are the only government in the last 15 years that is truly committed to the highest net income, after taxes, for all citizens of the province of Ontario, and we aspire that everyone in this province has the highest net income of any jurisdiction in North America.

We've heard other comments, and there's a wealth of quotes that I could have read into the record today. Just today we've heard from the Toronto Board of Trade, and of course they have over 10,000 members, representative of all sizes and types of business, large and small. It's the largest local board of trade.

They say today: "The creation of the Greater Toronto Services Board is an integral piece in the GTA governance reform process, and the legislation should be passed this year. The GTA is a focus of economic activity and power in today's economy, but it needs to have a governing body that can make long-term plans affecting the city region.... We believe that the need to establish the GTSB is more urgent than ever."

And who could possibly disagree with the Toronto Star? The Toronto Star, in their editorial today, says, "Years from now, we're confident that the creation of the Greater Toronto Services Board will be seen for what it truly is - a visionary step forward." I agree with the Toronto Star.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Alvin Curling): Further debate? Member for Yorkview.

Mr Sergio: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I have to tell you that it's a different view and a different perspective sitting there from anywhere else in the chamber.

I appreciate having the opportunity to make a few comments on this most important piece of legislation. We are dealing today with a piece of legislation that not only affects the Toronto metropolitan area, or the GTA, but a wider area as well. The bill as it has been written deals with the establishment of the Greater Toronto Services Board and the Greater Toronto Transit Authority and the amendment of the Toronto Area Transit Operating Authority Act. It does a number of important things and I am pleased that this has finally come to the House.

I know Mr Alan Tonks, the former chairman of Metropolitan Toronto, has been working very hard on this. I have to say "very hard" because I have met with him on a number of occasions, I have had meetings with him as well, and I know that during the process of evaluating the situation and getting support from the GTA members, the mayors and members of council and members of the various regional councils as well, it wasn't very easy for him.

He must be somewhat relieved that we are at this stage now, but I have to tell you that the feeling I received in attending some of those meetings and speaking to some of the outlying area elected members, that is, regional chairs, members in the GTA and members of the various councils, was that he didn't have an easy ride, and I'm sure there are still some members out there in the GTA who are not too happy to deal with Bill 56 as it was introduced by the government.

As has been said by some members of even the government, including the member for Scarborough East, quoting our member Lyn McLeod - when she speaks, she knows the issues and she knows what she's saying and she was quite correct when she made those remarks with respect to the GTA. I'm pleased to say that the members on the government side recognized what Lyn McLeod did indeed say.

But it is an important issue. Why? Recently, for example, when we dealt with Bill 70, concerning the privatization of Highway 407, almost no one from the deputants that we listened to, the mayors, regional councillors, regional chairs, spoke directly in length to the merits of privatizing or not privatizing 407. What they addressed their concerns to, and rightly so, is how 407 would affect their local municipalities.

I'm not saying that they were parochial in their views because, yes, they were speaking on behalf of their own municipalities. They were speaking on the interests of the people they represent. We had a comment from the mayor of Markham, who said, "We'd like to have 407 because this is going to bring development, it's going to improve the traffic situation, it's going to be better for our communities." Yes, indeed.

The same comments were expressed, if I remember well, by the regional chair of Halton region. They were expressed by the mayor of Oakville. They said, "We need it." Yes, indeed, for many years we have not really attacked the transportation problem that affects not only Metropolitan Toronto but the general area as well.

1730

So, yes, we have to do something, because there are certain areas where traffic is strangling the potential of those regions. I'll tell you, there are many people who, day in and day out, are coming into Toronto and leaving Toronto as well. We have too much traffic congestion. So what we are proposing, to extend the 407 east and west, is indeed fine. But let me go back to why they did not address the real issue in depth, if it's worthwhile to sell it or not to sell it. I will not deviate into that, because it's another issue and I could speak for about an hour on that alone. But they were saying, "If you do extend the 407 in our municipalities, we want certain things to be done, and done the way we see it, the way we feel it's going to improve traffic in our community."

For example, one of the councillors from Markham said: "We want to see ramps at a particular location, located in a particular way. We want to see landscaping a particular way, to our standards. We would like to have noise attenuance, sound barriers."

Just to give you an example of the size of the problem - and I'm pleased to see that the minister is here and may take some notes. If they are not in the bill, I hope they will bring some amendments to incorporate some of that so this will allay the fears and alleviate the concerns of those regions as well. This is telling us that they have reasonable, serious concerns when it comes to matters affecting their territory. I'm not speaking about the NIMBY syndrome, not-in-my-backyard syndrome. They were saying, genuinely, "If you do something in our area, we'd like to have input, and that's the way we would like to see it." The same concerns were expressed by the members about the extension of the 407 on the other side, on the west and south side. They said, "Yes, please do it, do it soon, but we'd like to have certain things our way." That's fine. That's wonderful.

Why do I say this, and why is it important? Once you create this - call it a board, call it a committee - it's another level of government. It's another layer no matter how you split it. Even though, as the member for Scarborough East correctly said, and I have to give him credit, we don't have to vote for these people, they have already been elected by their own local council, what's going to happen is that the member from Mississauga may not see it the same way as the member from Pickering or the mayor of Markham or the mayor of Richmond Hill or the mayor of Vaughan. That's when we are going to have serious problems.

While I laud the minister for bringing forth this bill, I have to say - and I only arrived, Mr Speaker, if you allow me, up to page 28. I was trying to really go through it very thoroughly. I have to make just one comment on the last page, because I think it's important that the minister, who is present today, hear this, about the problems that we are going to be facing and how they will be dealt with. If we don't do it right, Minister, this is going to come back to haunt us, it's going to come back to haunt future governments in a very diverse and negative manner. It's not only that the government of the day is going to be affected; it's going to affect the people in those regions.

We are saying that if we don't do it right the first time, we are going to end up with a number of other bills. It has been mentioned by other speakers with the tax reform, and, Minister, we still don't have it right. We have had since the introduction of Bill 61, I believe, the original bill of the tax reform, another seven bills. We have seen this with bill after bill. But this is important, this is too important, because it's affecting the core, the heart of Ontario, the region that is most in growth, it's sprawling. It's affecting a lot of politicians, I have to say. It's affecting a lot of people as well.

Let me read just the section where I ended up while I was trying to review it. Section 66, for example, deals with payments to GT Transit and whatever: "This section applies with respect to a bylaw of the board under clause 61(1)(d)....." What does clause 61(1)(d) say? Let's see. Section 61 says, "For the purpose of carrying out its object under paragraph 2 of section 3, the board may, by bylaw" - and here comes the dangerous part, and this is only one part. This is only one eye-opener, if you will, because once you deal with the GTA and the various interests, the various interested politicians, interest groups, there are a number of other problems.

What does this say? "The board may, by bylaw" - and we are speaking here of section 61, which does confer powers to the board, Minister -

"(a) approve, with the modifications it considers appropriate, the annual operating and capital budgets submitted to it by GT Transit;

"(b) apportion the costs of GT Transit, including the board's cost of borrowing for the purposes of GT Transit, among the participating municipalities" - this board will have the power to:

"(c) borrow money for, and pay such money to, GT Transit in respect of its capital requirements and issue debentures for the debt, subject to the Ontario Municipal Board Act."

It goes on in various length as to the powers conferred upon this board. When you have a board with such power, surely along the way you're going to have infighting among those 40 board members, whatever the final numbers may be. You're going to have such a chaotic situation if it's not done well that we will regret the day we did it.

Let me just finish with this by reading perhaps the most important part of section 61. The board can "do any other things incidental or conducive to the attainment of its object under paragraph 2 of section 3."

If I were either one of those bureaucrats or residents or elected members in the GTA, if you will, I would want to know how far, how much power this board has. What section 61 says right in here is that they can "do any other things incidental or conducive to the attainment of its object under paragraph 2 of section 3."

I would be a bit terrified. I'm scared, even though I won't be one of those members. But I tell you, I would seriously question this enormous power that the board will receive when this bill is proclaimed into law.

1740

My time is fast coming to a close. Knowing the knowledge, knowing the experience, knowing the amount of time that former Chairman Alan Tonks has spent on the issue, I hope we will be able to give this new board a workable document, where they can truly work in such a way that is going to benefit all those particular areas.

I won't question for a second the good intentions of the government or of the minister when they ordered this bill to be written, but I'm just being cautious. We have already said that we'd like to support it because at least we are moving somewhere, but I'm just cautioning the minister and the government. We were not an integral part of those comments in those meetings with the various chairs of other regions, local councillors and local mayors. I am sure of them as well.

Mr Tonks has been working on this for quite some time. I have to say that I'm delighted that Mr Tonks has been operating from an office in the Black Creek Conservation Area. For those members who are not familiar with the Black Creek Conservation Area, it's a wonderful place and I urge every member to visit. Mr Tonks has been operating from that particular area and I know he has been working hard with the mayors and councillors and other groups within those regions. I know he has been frustrated with some of those local politicians for not coming on board sooner so that Mr Tonks could have introduced to the government his views on this particular piece of legislation.

Is it needed? Yes, it is needed. But when we see that we are confronted with another layer of government - and we are really swimming in the dark at this particular stage because we don't know how it's going to work. We just have a feeling that there are going to be problems down the road, because what may be good for Scarborough and Markham may not be good for Mississauga or York region or Richmond Hill, or the mayor of Markham as well. They have been very vociferous when it comes to their communities, and rightly so. I give them credit for speaking up with respect to their communities.

I'm saying to the minister, do it right. Make sure that we try to eliminate as many of the problems that we will encounter in the future as we can.

I mentioned the 407, just one particular item, because I saw the reaction of those people when they came to the public hearings. They were not jealous of their particular community, but I would say they spoke with so much zeal on what they wanted for their communities, how they wanted certain things to be seen in their communities.

Let me end by reminding the minister that with the powers conferred on this board to do practically whatever they want, especially when it comes to levies and fees - it's right in here - they are saying that we may see a lot of in-fighting among the members of the new board.

Let me mention to you quickly that it's happening now as we talk, in the last few days. The mayor of Mississauga is up against members of city council from Etobicoke, who don't want a Mississauga bus to go on I believe Burnhamthorpe or one of their streets. Maybe they're right, maybe they're not - I don't have all the information - but this is the in-fighting. This is the problem we may face. And that's only one bus on one particular route.

I'm saying to the minister - and I thank him for being in the House - listen carefully, and hopefully bring some changes that will eliminate a lot of the complaints, a lot of the concerns that you have heard and that we have mentioned in this House.

The Acting Speaker: Questions or comments?

Mr Marchese: The member for Yorkview has raised a number of issues, and I want to add a few more issues to the table in my two minutes, because I won't have an opportunity to speak today.

While I agree that we need to be able to coordinate a whole lot of services in the GTA with Toronto - no disagreement with that - this bill only addresses in part some of the concerns we have raised in the past, and most of the power seems to relate only to GO Transit and very little else. That is, in my view, a deficiency of what else needs to be dealt with. We need to look at regional roads and expressways, waste management, sewer and water distribution and treatment, hydroelectric distribution, police board coordination, regional and infrastructure planning, social planning and coordination, watershed management, economic development. All these issues, in my view, are critical and of interest, I would think, to people from the villages of Caledon to the other folks in the east end, in Pickering, and even the south.

My sense is that this board can look at these matters, even though there appear to be no explicit powers in terms of what they could do. But even if they dealt with them, you would need a two thirds majority of that group of 40 people to be able to do anything. It essentially straitjackets the efficacy of this particular board. You'll never be able to get a two thirds majority vote to do anything, particularly when people in Durham, York and other places are nervous about this board and its powers, afraid of what they could do, presumably, to their communities.

I'm not sure. This is a little step, but in terms of dealing with all the other issues that I'm sure the Minister of Housing is concerned about, this won't do it. We need something greater than what we've got, and I think we need amendments to make this bill much more effective than it is.

Hon Mr Leach: My response is first to my colleague from the NDP when he says that the bill doesn't go far enough. I wouldn't disagree with that. I think this board eventually will have far more to do than this bill initially gives it. But as the member from Scarborough in the Liberal Party said last night, you have to walk before you run. Or perhaps I can put it in my good friend's terms, which he might have more appreciation for: Rome wasn't built in a day. It takes some time to make sure that all the aspects of a board that's going to have the responsibilities that this board will ultimately have - they need the opportunity to get up and get running slowly, so they can have appreciation of the magnitude of the issues they're going to have to deal with over time.

They will have the responsibility, and it's a large responsibility, to look after the operating and funding of GO Transit and to make sure that those services are run in a very efficient manner, as they presently are. They will have the opportunity, with a two thirds majority, to create strategies to deal with other issues, to deal with waste management, to deal with economic development. All those issues, all those things they will have the opportunity to look at, and so they should. But it's a new agency, a new board. It should be given the opportunity to transform into its new regime without having a mountain of responsibilities dumped on it in its first mandate.

The Acting Speaker: Further questions or comments? The member for Yorkview, you have two minutes to wrap up.

Mr Sergio: Let me thank the member for Fort York and the member for St George-St David, our minister. Let me say, just to add to the comments I made, there are planning issues and zoning and rezoning issues which are very big issues in those areas. They are the fastest-growing areas in Ontario and perhaps in Canada as well. When it comes to rezoning and zoning issues, that is really when we will see the sparks flying in those particular communities.

I am saying again to the minister, this is not just about creating a new layer, a new group, a board, whatever you want to call it; the fact is on that board we are going to have local elected politicians. I have to say they will be trying to protect their turf, and rightly so, because they will want the best for their community.

I'm repeating to the minister, please listen carefully to what the opposition is saying, listen to what the people are saying. Don't rush it. Get it right. If I can put in this plug, Alan Tonks may be the perfect person to carry on the duty when your government is ready to appoint the first chairman of this superboard.

Hon Mr Leach: It's not an appointment.

Mr Sergio: You say you do not appoint them. They are elected. But he will have good experience. He will be in a good position.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. Seeing that it's almost 6 of the clock, does anybody object if we adjourn until 6:30? If there is no objection, the House stands adjourned until 6:30 of the clock.

The House adjourned at 1752.

Evening meeting reported in volume B.

26 novembre 1998