Journal des débats 1998-déc-01 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr David Caplan (Oriole): Today is the first anniversary of the passage of Bill 160 and I want to take a moment to reflect on this government's record on education, both in Ontario and in my riding of Oriole.

It's been one year since this government took over total control of our educational system, and what have these changes meant? They've meant cuts to schools and daycare programs that operate in our school buildings.

Parents in Oriole are angry. They're frustrated that the provincial government does not listen to their concerns. They don't want to lose their daycare centres; they don't want them to close. They don't want to see their libraries threatened. They don't want to see money wasted on advertising by this government to sell them that everything is OK.

They're frustrated that the government did not listen to their concerns on the funding formula. Both before and after Bill 160, parents, students, teachers and other community members told you they wanted these changes to the funding formula so that it would not threaten their local schools. They told you they wanted the funding formula changed so that their children could receive bus service again. They were all frustrated when you only made changes on the threshold of an election, not because you've admitted that you need to start again and restore local input and flexibility to the education system, but because you're worried about votes.

This is a day that I will remember - the passage of Bill 160 - and I know that parents in my riding of Oriole will be doing the same. Parents in Oriole know that Premier Dalton McGuinty will repeal Bill 160. I'm sure that on election day the people of Don Valley East will remember that as well.

HIGHWAY ACCIDENTS

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I rise on a very important issue: to request that a coroner's inquest be held into the accident at the Root River bridge at approximately 7:15 pm on Friday, November 20, in my riding. This accident resulted in the death of 10-year-old Linton Muncaster, son of Mr and Mrs Kevin Muncaster of Desbarats, as well as in serious injuries to a number of other people. This accident was the last in a series of three accidents which occurred within a very short time on the three bridges on Highway 17, the Trans-Canada Highway, on the Garden River reserve between Echo Bay and Sault Ste Marie.

The bridge road conditions were very slippery because of black ice on all three bridges. The one salt truck that was on duty had not traversed these bridges. The first accident occurred on the Garden River bridge and the salt truck was then called out. The second accident happened on the Echo Bay bridge a few minutes later. There appears to be some confusion about whether this accident held up the salt truck. The traffic was allowed to proceed before the salt truck went through and the third accident happened on the Root River bridge, taking Linton Muncaster's life.

A number of questions must be answered: Why hadn't the salt truck spread salt on these slippery bridges earlier? Why was it only called out after the first accident? Why was there only one salt truck, instead of two, on duty in those weather conditions? Is this because of cutbacks to MTO? Why wasn't the road closed by the OPP after the first accident to prevent further serious mishaps? These questions must be answered by a coroner's inquest to determine all facts.

LENNOX GENERATING STATION

Mr Gary Fox (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings): I would like to update the members of the House and congratulate those involved in a unique and exciting project which was officially unveiled last week in my riding with the help of my colleague the Honourable Jim Wilson, Minister of Energy, Science and Technology.

Ontario Hydro's Lennox generating station near the town of greater Napanee, in co-operation with Union Gas, has completed its $40-million dual fuel conversion project, which will enable the facility to burn natural gas as well as oil in two of its four 550-megawatt units. This undertaking is a first in the energy industry and makes the Lennox generating station a one-of-a-kind facility, offering both oil-generated and natural-gas-generated power.

The successful completion of the project, six months ahead of schedule and on budget, was a fine example of what can be accomplished when the private sector and all levels of government work together in the name of the consumer. Burning natural gas would help lower Lennox's operating costs by about 20%, while helping to reduce sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxide and greenhouse gas emissions by about 25%.

Natural gas is expected to be used during the March-to-October period of each year when demand is lower, with the plant switching to oil during the winter home heating season. Lower fuelling costs will help Hydro maintain its commitments to consumers of no rate increases for the remainder of the 1990s, and should strengthen Lennox's competitive position as a supplier of electricity. These are the types of projects which both create and maintain employment in our province.

PLEA BARGAINING

Ms Annamarie Castrilli (Downsview): I have repeatedly, in this House, requested clear guidelines on plea bargaining. The issue was first raised by me as a result of the horrendous deal that was struck in the case of Karla Homolka and her part in the brutal killing of two young women. That deal has been widely called "the deal with the devil."

We pressed for an inquiry into the matter, and finally the Attorney General agreed to one. Mr Justice Patrick Galligan concluded, among other things, that the minister should look at establishing clear guidelines for plea bargains. Subsequently, in response to a question from me in June 1996, the Attorney General indicated, "The senior members in the criminal law division are working on this project, and I expect they'll have guidelines prepared and dealt with." Assurances to that effect were given to me again later that year by the Attorney General.

Yet here we are, more than two years later, having just witnessed the fiasco created by the government and the arrangement last week with Ken Murdock in Hamilton. I see little evidence of the Attorney General acting on his word. While this may not be the most sympathetic case, it is cases such as these that make precedents for the most tragic cases.

Ontarians want a government willing to create rules to bring clarity, ensure public confidence and enshrine accountability in our justice system. This was one of the key lessons in the miscarriage of justice in the Homolka case. It's time for the Attorney General to live up to his office and to his commitment. Stop the delay and bring forward plea bargaining rules, clear guidelines, now.

1340

EATING DISORDERS

Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East): Anorexia nervosa is a devastating disease which ends up being fatal in 10% of all cases. That's why governments must acknowledge the severity of eating disorders in our society and provide necessary health care close to home. Since January 1998, the Sudbury Regional Hospital eating disorders clinic has had a proposal in to the Ministry of Health to provide specialized services to children under 16. This clinic is the only ministry-funded community-based mental health program to provide outpatient, interdisciplinary care to sufferers of eating disorders throughout all of northern Ontario. It has served adult clients and their families for eight years now and has a proven track record.

The proposal to the ministry is to expand these specialized services to children. There are no services like this for children north of Toronto. This cannot continue. Because of the desperate needs of children, staff have been trying to help them through the outpatient clinic. But it's high time the clinic received the funding it needs to fully expand its services to sufferers under 16.

A constituent dropped off a letter to me yesterday about this matter, and said of the clinic and staff: "I do not know what we would do without all their support, because as strong as our family is, we could not get through this without the help and counselling they give to help us understand and deal with this. I thank God every night that the clinic is willing to help us even though she is only 16."

This Conservative government must fund this proposal now. It's unacceptable that we do not have services for children north of Toronto.

COMMUNITY SAFETY

Mr Jerry J. Ouellette (Oshawa): Community safety is an important issue in my riding of Oshawa, as it is in all of Ontario. I have met with many of my constituents in Oshawa and with the municipality where we discussed the concerns many Oshawa residents have about the safety of our neighbourhoods and our community.

In last spring's budget, the government announced its commitment to investing in new initiatives to promote safety in our communities and helping municipalities hire new front-line police officers to serve in our communities as part of the province's community policing partnership. Last week the province followed up on that commitment by announcing that it would help fund 1,000 new police officers in Ontario to keep the streets safe and protect our communities and families.

The final report of the First International Conference for Crime Prevention Practitioners, held in March 1996, called for partnerships with all levels of government which have responsibilities for policing and program development for community safety. The province's community policing partnership responds to the concerns of the residents of Oshawa and Ontario about community safety and the need for all levels of government to work together in making our communities safe.

For the Durham Regional Police Service, this announcement means that the Durham Regional Police Service would receive up to $5.54 million from the province for the hiring of 42 new police officers on our streets. These officers represent a net new addition to the strength of our local police force. Putting 42 new officers on the streets of Oshawa and other communities in the region of Durham is part of our commitment to building and maintaining a safe and secure community in which to live and raise our children.

EDUCATION LEGISLATION

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Anyone who thought that Bill 160 was about anything other than removing hundreds of millions of dollars from the education system and centralizing all control of education at the ministry office in downtown Toronto should now be aware that the real motive of the Conservative government of Mike Harris in ramming through their drastic and ill-conceived changes like some human wrecking crew is obvious.

At a time when the Harris regime, like its heroes in the Republican state of New Jersey, was giving income tax cuts which benefit the wealthiest and most powerful in the province the most, it was slashing per-student funding, causing disruption and anxiety among those who deliver education services on the front line.

Schools are closing, teaching positions are being eliminated, budgets for secretarial and maintenance staff have been significantly reduced, and relations between boards and employers have deteriorated badly. The morale in our schools is at an all-time low as educators and non-teaching staff have become yet another target of Mike Harris and his backroom boys who call the real shots in Ontario today, and students around the province see the sorry results.

Yes, Mike Harris, that self-appointed, self-anointed guardian of the taxpayers' dollar, is squandering over $50 million on blatantly self-congratulatory TV and radio commercials, newspaper ads and glossy pamphlets which seem to arrive in our mailboxes on a weekly basis. Now we know where the slashed budget in education and hospital care is going, to Mike Harris's re-election campaign, and the Ontario taxpayer is picking up the tab.

Mr Wayne Lessard (Windsor-Riverside): Today marks the first anniversary of the passage of Bill 160, this government's most destructive piece of legislation dealing with Ontario's education system. To mark this occasion, People for Education will be visiting their MPP's offices between 4 and 5 o'clock.

Unfortunately, I'll be unable to be in my office, and I wanted to take this opportunity to state publicly that I agree with the 15 points about education set out by the Wind-Ex group in my community. I'd like to highlight a few of them.

"(1) Our education system must be fully publicly funded. Privatization of the public education system is unacceptable.

"(3) The province must develop a funding formula based on students and programs, not square feet and dollars.

"(5) Savings from school board amalgamations must be reinvested in the education system.

"(10) The arts and physical education are an essential part of learning.

Finally, "(15) Charter schools and voucher systems must not be introduced in the province of Ontario."

The Liberals say they'll repeal Bill 160, but only the NDP will not only repeal Bill 160 but are committed to reinvest in public education and have a plan that says how they're going to pay for it. We'd like to see the Liberal plan.

KENNETH K. CARROLL

Mrs Brenda Elliott (Guelph): On behalf of my colleague the Honourable Dianne Cunningham, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and member for London North, I rise today to pay tribute to Dr Kenneth K. Carroll, who passed away on October 3, 1998. Dr Carroll was professor emeritus in the department of biochemistry at the University of Western Ontario and a pioneer in the field of nutritional biochemistry. He was instrumental in recognizing the links between dietary components and disease prevention, specifically with relation to breast cancer.

Dr Carroll was born in New Brunswick. He attended the University of Western Ontario, and in 1949 earned the first doctorate awarded by that university. He began his teaching post at Western in 1954 and spent his entire teaching and research career there, developing a lab that became an international training centre. During his tenure, he trained gradate students, post-doctoral fellows, research associates and visiting professors and technologists from across the world, because he had become known as an outstanding chemist and nutritionist.

He was in demand throughout the world to present papers and attend symposia on nutritional links to the prevention of cancer and was the founder of the Centre for Human Nutrition at the University of Western Ontario.

He was honoured with membership as a Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada and received an honorary doctor of science degree from the University of New Brunswick in 1993. He was also presented with a lifetime achievement award of the American Oil Chemists Society.

His significant contributions, dedication and energy made him a highly respected and internationally sought-out -

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you.

VISITOR

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Let me just take a moment. We have in the opposition members' gallery the member for Huron in the 35th Parliament, Mr Paul Klopp. Welcome back.

WEARING OF RIBBONS

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): Pursuant to the rules of the House, I would like to ask unanimous consent for permission for us to wear the red ribbons today, which are commemorative of World AIDS Day.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Agreed? Agreed.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

WOMEN'S INSTITUTE WEEK ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR LA SEMAINE DU WOMEN'S INSTITUTE

Mr Wildman moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 86, An Act to designate a week of recognition for the Women's Institute / Projet de loi 86, Loi désignant une semaine de reconnaissance à l'égard du Women's Institute.

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

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): The week beginning the second Monday of February in each year is to be proclaimed Women's Institute Week, in recognition of the 100th anniversary of the Women's Institute. February is a significant month in WI history: In that month, the first branch was formed in Stoney Creek in 1897; Adelaide Hoodless, WI's founder, was born and died; the Federated Women's Institutes of Ontario was organized to coordinate the work of the branches; and the Federated Women's Institutes of Canada was organized to work at the national level in that month.

It is desirable to recognize and acknowledge WI's real and continuing contribution to improving the lives of families and communities both in Ontario and throughout the world.

LOWER PROPERTY TAXES IN SUDBURY ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR LA RÉDUCTION DES IMPÔTS FONCIERS PRÉLEVÉS À SUDBURY

Mr Bartolucci moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 87, An Act relating to property taxes in Sudbury / Projet de loi 87, Loi concernant les impôts fonciers prélevés à Sudbury.

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

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): The bill is going to be entitled Lower Property Taxes in Sudbury Act. It will ensure fairness for all residents of the regional municipality of Sudbury with regard to property taxes, both commercial and private property.

1350

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

WORLD AIDS DAY

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health): I rise in the Legislature today and I speak on the occasion of the 11th annual World AIDS Day.

HIV and AIDS have touched many of our families and friends, and I stand in the House today to reaffirm this government's commitment to HIV/AIDS treatment and prevention.

This year's theme, "Force for Change: World AIDS Campaign with Young People," builds upon the momentum of last year's campaign, "Children Living in a World with AIDS." This theme is important for several reasons. Over 50% of the new infections with HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, are now occurring in young people in the 10-24 age group. Of the 30 million people living with HIV around the world, at least one third are young people aged 10-24. Every day 7,000 young people worldwide acquire the virus. To put it in very real terms, five young people are infected with HIV every minute.

Secondly, it is youth that are central to any discussion of HIV and AIDS. Today's youth will continue to strive to find a cure for this disease. It will require their vision and participation to reduce the spread of HIV as well as enlisting support for young people already suffering.

However, each of us has a role to play. For young people's participation to be effective, adults, especially parents, must be open to listen and communicate with children. This is a disease that does not recognize age, class or economic status. It is also a disease that is very close to home. The Bureau of HIV/AIDS and STD estimates that as of the end of 1996 approximately 54,000 Canadians had been infected with HIV and 42,000 Canadians were living with the HIV infection. In Ontario, 16,000 people are diagnosed every year with HIV.

This government takes pride in our ongoing efforts to help those inflicted with AIDS. We continue to be proactive in supporting HIV/AIDS prevention initiatives and have made HIV and AIDS care, treatment and support a high priority as a government. This year alone the Ontario government will spend $51.6 million for HIV/AIDS-related programs. That is $9.4 million more than the federal government spends for all of Canada. It is important to remember that this $51.6 million spent in Ontario does not include physician billings to OHIP.

Our funding supports important initiatives like the Ontario Advisory Committee on HIV/AIDS, the Ontario HIV Treatment Network, anonymous HIV testing and HIV outpatient clinics. Last year alone our AIDS hotline received over 90,000 calls.

These are just a few of our initiatives in our fight to both prevent the further spread of this disease and to encourage communities across Ontario to become more educated about HIV/AIDS.

However, we cannot rest. Later this afternoon, I will be announcing further steps that our government is undertaking to expand our prenatal screening program for AIDS. This will allow us to be even more aggressive in the fight to prevent the spread of AIDS, especially in children.

When discussing government initiatives, it is important to acknowledge the many individuals who have been working in partnership with the Ministry of Health and this government to ensure that we continue to prioritize AIDS issues within the overall health framework.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank Mr David Hoe of Ottawa, the current co-chair of the Ontario Advisory Committee on HIV/AIDS, and Dr Anne Phillips of Toronto, the other former co-chair who has recently left the committee, for their invaluable advice and assistance to the Ministry of Health and their tireless work on behalf of the AIDS community.

In addition, I would like to acknowledge the work of all other individuals involved with the Ontario Advisory Committee on HIV/AIDS, as well as all of the individuals and volunteers who are working in their individual communities to try to educate and support those with HIV/AIDS. On behalf of all Ontarians, we thank you for your hours of hard work and dedication to such a worthy cause.

As a society, we must ever be vigilant in our efforts as we continue to work to eliminate the AIDS epidemic. We must continue to fight prejudice, whether in the workplace or in the school yard, we must continue to educate our families and our neighbours about the devastating effect this disease can have and we must continue to offer our assistance and our help to our fellow Ontarians who are suffering.

By working together, whether we are young or old, we can someday hope to knock down all of the barriers that stand between us and a cure for AIDS.

Mr Gerard Kennedy (York South): I rise today not with a great deal of relish or pleasure but out of the grim necessity that we need, on World AIDS Day, to be addressing our role in the response to this disease.

Everyone in this House is affected, and maybe to understand that, we need to pretend that each one of us is infected and walk some of the streets and some of the paths that people with AIDS are having to walk right here in our province. We know there are five million people across the world and we know there are 54,000 people in Canada who have been infected, but let's try to bring it down to just one.

For those of us who attended a press conference earlier today and heard from the people from AIDS Action Now, we recognize that we have been deficient. While we have tried to keep this a non-partisan issue, we have to say that this government has been deficient in our response to the dignity and the simple requirements that people have in terms of being able to be provided for in this province.

The minister opposite would do well to listen to what the people from AIDS Action Now said today about having to wait since 1995, when they were promised by your predecessor there would be changes, to have access to the drugs they need to survive. Instead, today, Minister, you are going to make a partial announcement of some of those things that your government promised more than three years ago, almost four years ago.

When it comes to living up to the credentials, the ability for us to be a compassionate society, your and your government's unique job is to represent the rest of us, because you have the power. There is a test for that, and the test for that is how quickly we respond, how readily we recognize that real people are involved. We heard today from a mother and a young son who receive treatment not because we met the test; they're receiving treatment because they used their credit cards to get the medication they couldn't get easily and quickly through the Trillium drug program that this province has established and this government is now charged to try to approve and make accessible, because it has failed to do that over the last number of years.

1400

We also heard from people who are walking the path that all of us should put ourselves on, because it's the path of people who have an everyday need for our health system. The rest of us sit in fear of having to use an emergency room, a concern of not being able to access services. People with AIDS have to live that on a day-to-day basis. They're telling us and they're telling you, Minister, about home care hours that are being cancelled, about waits in emergency rooms of 24 and 48 hours to be seen when the manifestations of their disease become serious, about recent restrictions in not being able to see specialists for more than 10 minutes at a time except for one comprehensive assessment once in a lifetime. There's heavy irony to that. That's the kind of Ontario health care system you're creating.

Minister, you bear another test in terms of the ability of your government to stand up today on behalf of the rest of us in this province on the issue of AIDS, and that is, testing for AIDS in women who are pregnant. There's been a study in Ontario that is now four years old that told us something very simple: If we're able to make testing available to all pregnant women in this province, we can actually prevent AIDS in a huge number of these cases. I'm sad to report to the House today a study done in this province that talks about 35 preventable AIDS infections on the part of infants because we haven't implemented that. All of us stand reasonably accountable in terms of this not having come about, but it has been on the table, it has been promised, and it has not been delivered.

When it comes to a commemoration of World AIDS Day, when we want to afford to all those who are infected the full rights of citizenship, when we say to those who have contracted this disease through no fault of their own, because we don't subscribe to that, that they have the right of full citizenship, when we say we want to remove barriers, when we say we want to make sure they feel like they belong in this province and in this country, we are measured by our actions. Today, in 1998, on World AIDS Day, we cannot say that the Ontario government has lived up to that on behalf of the rest of us.

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): Mr Speaker, I'm pleased to be able to respond to the minister's statement, although I would say to you that we understood we had agreement, we had unanimous consent, for a statement about World AIDS Day, not a minister's statement which is a non-announcement. This minister dares to stand up in this House and say that later today she's going to announce something.

Well, the secret's out, Minister, and we know exactly what it is you're planning to announce. You're going to go to Sick Children's Hospital and you're going to announce a prenatal testing program for women. On the surface that may sound like an excellent plan, and it may indeed be in some cases, but there's a little matter of consent. You were told by the AIDS committees and by AIDS Action Now about the issue of unwilling testing and you have not answered those concerns. Furthermore, you have waited to announce this as part of the rollout of your great scheme to persuade the people of Ontario that your government has a new face.

As the member for York South pointed out, in December 1995, in celebration of World AIDS Day, the previous minister promised there would be changes to the Trillium drug plan to meet the demands that AIDS patients and their supporters had made. Those demands were very reasonable.

They pointed out, first of all, that anyone with a chronic illness who is having to pay a deductible up front without having that spread over a period of time creates undue hardship, particularly for those who are low-income earners.

Second, they pointed out that there was no pro-rated system. You pay the entire fee for the year in which you're applying for Trillium drugs, whether you applied the month before the year changes, now August 1, or on August 1. That was another issue for people.

The third issue was the elimination of the deductible payment for those people with AIDS who continue to try and work who are low-income earners or who are on long-term disability plan. Those long-term disability plan recipients are considered earners, so they continue to pay the deductible for their drugs even if their income is at or below the level it would be if they were on social assistance or on the ODSP.

Minister, your predecessor promised this three years ago. Here we are again. Canadian Press announced this morning that you were going to announce a change in this, to have the deductible be able to be paid four times a year. You know from the representations you've had from groups like AIDS Action Now that that doesn't really resolve the problem for low-income earners. So if you plan to try to say you are meeting the demands that have been made, you haven't.

I want to take a moment to talk very briefly about the importance of our honouring those who have acquired HIV and who have full-blown AIDS. Unlike my colleague in the Liberal Party, I don't assign fault to anyone who has this disease, and I think it is important for all of us to understand that this is a scourge on all of us.

We know that the numbers are appalling and we know that prevention is the most important aspect. One of the reasons we're so disgusted and disappointed with the download this government has made is the download of public health services to municipalities, where the possibility is very clear that some municipalities may not recognize the need for ongoing funding for AIDS prevention programs, and where they may try and stick their heads in the sand and deny that HIV and AIDS is a problem for every community.

We call on you again in honour of World AIDS Day to reverse this foolish decision around public health care and to restore full funding for HIV/AIDS programs from the provincial level so they will be available all over this province. It is the least you could do, Minister, if your fine words mean anything.

VISITOR

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): I'd like to draw the House's attention to the government members' gallery and introduce Mr Andy Watson, the member for Chatham-Kent from the 32nd Parliament. Welcome.

MOTIONS

STATUS OF BILL 72

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): Mr Speaker, I am seeking unanimous consent to move a motion without notice respecting Bill 72, the Intercountry Adoption Act.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Agreed? Agreed.

Hon Mr Sterling: I move that the order of the House of November 4, 1998, referring Bill 72, An Act to govern intercountry adoptions and to implement the Convention on Protection of Children and Co-operation in respect of Intercountry Adoption in order to further the best interests of children, to the standing committee on social development be discharged and that the bill be ordered for third reading.

The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

1410

ORAL QUESTIONS

DIALYSIS

Mr Gerard Kennedy (York South): I have a question for the Minister of Health. I'd like to ask you about your recent announcements in terms of dialysis services in this province. In particular, you made announcements recently in Cornwall, Belleville and Ottawa. These were services promised a very long time ago and finally realized. We want to give credit to the member for Cornwall in particular, John Cleary, for his tireless efforts to make sure his community did not receive detrimental treatment.

In awarding those contracts, you decided to give the dialysis contracts to private companies. I'd like to know in the House today why you chose private companies over bids that were put in by public hospitals, which could have used their space already publicly paid for, could have used some of their ability, some of their staff, some of their support. They could have done that and provided those services. Can you explain to us why you chose private companies to provide these services?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health): I want to tell you that yesterday was a very special day, because yesterday we saw the benefits of the announcements that the government has been making about making services more accessible to people throughout the province. We had made a commitment to people that we were going to be expanding dialysis services. We had made a commitment that we were going to ensure that we were going to bring services closer to home, and we have done so.

We have announced now the creation of 21 new dialysis centres in Ontario. We are bringing services closer to home. These are people who no longer have to travel hours each day back and forth and then be subjected to dialysis of three to five hours each day. I have to tell you there is universal joy in this province because of the improvements it's making in the quality of life of individuals. Yesterday we had people -

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Supplementary.

Mr Kennedy: Minister, if you will listen to the question, you will understand that it's not the joy of the hard-pressed, long-waiting dialysis patients in Cornwall, Brockville and Ottawa that we're questioning here. We're asking why you decided to give so much joy to private companies.

Particularly I would like to draw your attention to Bayshore Dialysis in Brockville. I know you were there recently. I'm wondering if you can tell us why Bayshore Dialysis, which receives a fee from your ministry to provide dialysis services, also houses Bayshore Healthcare, owned by the same company, Polar Valley investments, on the same site. Can you tell us whether Bayshore Healthcare pays you any rent for the space they use or is this being subsidized by the money you give them for dialysis?

Hon Mrs Witmer: Maybe the member has forgotten, because he hasn't been here all that long, but it was your government that brought in the Independent Health Facilities Act in the late 1980s under Elinor Caplan, and it was your legislation that paved the way for private companies to operate in this province.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Member for Beaches-Woodbine.

Mr Kennedy: Everyone watching you knows you didn't answer the question; you distorted it. The question was, why are you choosing private health care companies? First you gave it to an American company that had a problematic track record where somebody was hurt in the United States under their service, then you were sued by that company - your own mismanagement of the issue - then you tried to give it to the Kingston General Hospital and now you have awarded it to some other private companies.

Minister, what I asked you is, are you aware these companies are using the space that you pay them for for their other businesses? Also, are you aware that the square footage being rented is some 30% less than what they're actually telling you is available?

I'll ask you a simple question: Will you open the agreement that you made with Bayshore Dialysis in Brockville to the public so we can see that private companies are not getting any special treatment from your government when it comes to health care?

Hon Mrs Witmer: I would just remind the member that it was his government that brought in the Independent Health Facilities Act. It was your government that opened the way for private companies to compete. In fact, here's a quote from Elinor Caplan, July 7, 1993, where she says:

"We are seeing them" - meaning the NDP - "force the private sector out of the delivery of health services, all in the guise of health reform, and I will say to the minister, who's here today, that what is important...from my experience as a former Minister of Health is not so much who delivers the service, but the result.

"I believe there is a very important role for the private sector to play in the delivery of health and social services."

I agree. We are taking action today because your government refused to recognize the needs of dialysis patients in this province, and we are moving the services closer to home in order that people don't have to travel and they can have an enhanced quality of life that you -

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): New question, official opposition.

PORK INDUSTRY

Mr Pat Hoy (Essex-Kent): My question is to the Minister of Agriculture. Today nearly 2,000 pork producers travelled to Queen's Park, along with supporters of their industry, to bring to you the message that indeed their industry is in a crisis situation. They are looking at prices that have not been seen in 30 years. It was 30 years ago that prices were at this very low level. We're here to help, but you have known since July of this crisis.

The producers who travelled here today were hoping for a positive announcement, but they heard nothing. What they did hear was that an announcement may be made in 30 or 40 days. Minister, 30 or 40 days from now will be too late for many producers. You know that other provinces have already taken action. Why do you sit there and do nothing?

Hon Noble Villeneuve (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, minister responsible for francophone affairs): That is somewhat strange coming from a Liberal member. The Canadian Federation of Agriculture has been lobbying the federal government since the summer to put an emergency plan in place. Our hog producers are facing catastrophic prices. You're aware of that. We're all aware of that.

We are working with the federal government. The pork industry is very concerned about countervailing measures which have been applied to them in the past. We want to make sure that the program that comes forth is not countervailable. We must test that program before we initiate, and we are preparing to provide advance monies to those farmers.

Mr Hoy: Minister, you know that other provinces have already taken action, but this is what we've learned just in the last few moments from the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs public service announcement dated today: "The Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs has established a temporary hotline to provide advice and counselling to pork producers on financial and business management and animal care. The service will be available 24 hours a day, seven days a week." Yet another hotline from your government. Is this your response to a crisis within the pork industry?

1420

Pork producers need your assistance now. Thirty to 40 days will be too late. Many farm families are looking at a very bleak situation for this coming Christmas. People at the OFA convention said that almost a year after the ice storm disaster many people have yet to receive any of their relief money. Yours is a ministry of inaction. Will you not assist the Ontario pork producers immediately?

Hon Mr Villeneuve: I feel rather sad that the member opposite is against having some moral support for a hotline. If indeed that is the kind of thinking he is putting forth, then I think he should reconsider his position.

He spoke of the ice storm. On January 29 we had cheques made out to farmers at the ice storm. We will have advance funds to our farmers as soon as your federal friends come up with a program.

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound): We could spend $10 million a year.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Member for Grey-Owen Sound, come to order, please. Thank you. Final supplementary, member for Prescott and Russell.

Mr Jean-Marc Lalonde (Prescott and Russell): Minister, you say your government understands that this is a crisis situation. You say you met the federal minister last week to foresee a solution. The pork producers came today to hear what the solution was. Your government has ignored the problem for far too long. This help is needed and it is needed now, today. In eastern Ontario, the pork market is in dire straits. Quebec pork producers are overcoming our market, offering a lower price than Ontario producers because of the provincial subsidy they receive.

Minister, stop blaming the federal government. You are the Ontario Minister of Agriculture. Your government must act now. Other provinces have come to the aid of their producers. Ontario pork producers are tired of hearing promises. They need action now. They need it before the whole industry disappears. What will your government do today to ensure the pork industry's survival?

Hon Mr Villeneuve: I simply repeat to my colleague from Prescott and Russell, I am in constant and regular contact with the federal minister. He is saying there will not be any program forthcoming until the middle of December. I believe we have to work together. It will be a percentage funded by the province and a percentage funded by the federal government, as was the case in the ice storm. We will be providing advance funds.

The province of Saskatchewan is dealing with the federal government and they do not want to support any portion of the relief assistance. We're quite prepared to carry our portion, but we need to know from Ottawa what they are going to do.

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): My question is to the Minister of Correctional Services. Last Friday, the member for Welland-Thorold and I made an unexpected visit to the Elgin-Middlesex Detention Centre. We had heard that there was an unusually high number of mentally ill patients who were languishing in Ontario jails, and we decided to see for ourselves. What we found was much worse than we expected.

We asked to be taken to the male and female segregation units, where the mentally ill are most often housed. In fact, that's what's known as "the hole," and those units are seldom used for administrative punishment any more because so many of the mentally ill need to be kept there for their own safety. Again and again we saw doors with "medical observation" and "suicide watch" on them. The female unit has four of those cells; all four had mentally ill patients in them and three of those were on suicide watch. Similarly in the male units - we visited half of them - there were two offenders who had severe mental illnesses and two suicide watches.

Minister, there are people in those jails with serious mental health problems. When did you become responsible for the mentally ill, rather than the Minister of Health?

Hon Robert W. Runciman (Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services): I guess I could go back to the member who posed that question and ask, when did she become aware of a problem with mentally ill people in our corrections system? She was a justice minister and a Comsoc minister in the former government, and now she steps up in this House with a typical holier-than-thou attitude of a member of the NDP, suggesting that this is something new. This was identified by the Provincial Auditor in at least two reports to the Liberal government and the NDP government. This is the first government that is attempting to address this problem in a serious and meaningful way.

Mrs Boyd: As usual, this government tries to blame the problems they've caused by hospital closures on everyone else. Minister, we spoke to correctional officers who had worked for over 20 years in the jails, and they told us they had never seen anything like this. They told us how serious this problem is. In 1996, Toronto police alone apprehended people under the Mental Health Act 2,485 times. People who are apprehended that way are put in jail while they wait for trial or assessment. A leaked document obtained by OPSEU suggests that an average of 76 mentally ill patients are detained in Ontario jails under the Mental Health Act at any given time. By your own estimate, the estimate of your ministry, 15% to 20% of the prison population suffers from severe mental disorders requiring psychiatric treatment.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Question.

Mrs Boyd: I must tell you that you are responsible, and I want you to tell me, if this is the situation now at Elgin-Middlesex Detention Centre, what's going to happen when those two -

The Speaker: Minister.

Hon Mr Runciman: I believe the issue of the number of people who are suffering from some degree of mental illness in our corrections system was first raised by the Provincial Auditor in 1986. The NDP served as the government of this province from 1990 to 1995. I can recall during their years in opposition, with their friends in OPSEU, complaining about deinstitutionalization and the closure of mental health beds in this province. Then they formed the government, and what happened to OPSEU, what happened to the NDP with respect to deinstitutionalization policies in this province? Absolutely nothing.

If anything, they were accelerated. That's a reality. I don't like this holier-than-thou attitude and I don't believe the public of Ontario do. The reality is that this government is doing something about the situation through infrastructure renewal and providing facilities in our new institutions which will effectively deal with mentally ill offenders. We as a government are actually doing something about a real problem, unlike that party across the way, unlike the Liberal government, which had nothing but rhetoric to offer.

1430

The Speaker: Final supplementary, leader of the third party.

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): Talk about a holier-than-thou attitude. You are the government. You are the government that is going out there and closing psychiatric hospitals and opening mega-jails, and you say that's a solution.

These people are suffering from mental illness. They need beds and care, not jails and bars, and that's the only solution you're offering. When we were at Elgin-Middlesex, we spoke to a staff member who used to work as a psychiatric nurse. She told us, "My former patients are now my inmates."

There is a crisis in our jails. When you add closed psychiatric hospitals to overcrowding and understaffing in the jails and you multiply that by mentally ill inmates, you have a disaster that's about to happen.

In 1995 your Premier said that no psychiatric hospitals would be closed. Are you going to hold him to that promise, or are you going to continue putting mentally ill patients in jail?

Hon Mr Runciman: It appears the member didn't receive the message that since 1995 the government has taken steps to add 60 new forensic beds to the system and, in conjunction with the Ministry of the Attorney General, established a consolidated mental health court for downtown, increased funding for intensive case management services, and expenditures on forensic services are 15% higher today than they were in 1995.

The reality is, of course, that we see a position from the NDP which is consistent with their position in years gone by in opposition and a totally different position from when they were in government. In fact, they accelerated deinstitutionalization of mental health facilities while they were in government and did not provide the necessary community support. This government is going through an infrastructure renewal program in the corrections system. We're going to address the problems of the mentally ill. We're also moving expeditiously to provide the necessary community supports for people who are going through the deinstitutionalization process. We are addressing this problem, a problem that was neglected for many years by both the NDP and Liberal governments.

The Speaker: New question, third party.

Mr Hampton: I would say to the Minister of Correctional Services, you have made a lot of announcements about mental health; the only thing you've done is put mentally ill patients in jail.

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): My next question is for the Minister of Education. This is the anniversary of -

Hon Jim Flaherty (Minister of Labour): On a point of order, Mr Speaker -

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Minister of Labour, do you want to talk to me?

Hon Mr Flaherty: The leader of the third party gets up and addresses his question to the Minister of Education and then addresses -

The Speaker: I've addressed this on a number of occasions: I don't tell them how to ask the questions and I don't tell you how to answer them. Leader of the third party.

Mr Hampton: Minister of Education, this is one year after the date when you forced Bill 160 through the House. We all know now that Bill 160 isn't about improving education; it's about getting the money out of our schools so you can finance your income tax scheme for the most well-off people in Ontario.

Yesterday, I visited the city of Oshawa, Oshawa Central Collegiate Institute, an inner-city high school that is slated to be closed by your school closing formula. Gratefully, the Durham Board of Education voted last night not to close it, voted not to follow your funding formula, but that's going to cost them $5 million. Five million dollars is what you're going to take away from them now because they didn't close that school.

Your funding formula is pitting community against community. Minister, you changed the funding formula in Toronto. Will you change it for other communities before they have to close their schools?

Hon David Johnson (Minister of Education and Training): It's a little bit difficult to make any sense out of the question from the leader of the third party. The funding formula applies to all the school boards across the province of Ontario, applies equally to each and every school board across the province. That's the beauty of the funding formula, that it treats every child in Ontario on a fair and equitable basis, allowing for an equal opportunity -

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Minister?

Hon David Johnson: Every child across the province of Ontario will get the same opportunity through the funding formula, whether it's a child living in an urban or a rural area, whether it's a child in a wealthy or a poor community. The injection of over $200 million - $211 million, to be precise - in permanent funding affects each and every school board, including the Durham school board. They will realize the benefits of this injection of total, permanent funding into the system to support the maintenance of our schools right across the province.

Mr Hampton: Minister, you can continue with that line, but you and I both know that in places like the Durham board, in places like Kitchener, you're going to force, through your funding formula, those boards of education one way or another to close inner-city schools before they get any funding to increase the size of their suburban schools. It's your funding formula that's driving that.

Your funding formula is also driving scenarios where students who need extra help, students who have special needs, aren't getting those needs met any longer under your funding formula.

This funding formula doesn't work. It doesn't allow students to get the education they need, it doesn't allow special-needs students to get the education they need, and it's going to force communities to close schools. Will you, once and for all, permanently change the funding formula so that schools and education and students are the priority, not getting the money out for your tax scheme?

Hon David Johnson: More nonsense from the leader of the third party. In fact, this government is injecting more money into the education system than ever in the history of elementary and secondary schools. There will be over $15 billion spent in the education system in the province of Ontario over this school year, as opposed to about $14.5 billion in the previous year, and do you know what? More per pupil, and more per pupil in the classroom, where it really counts: for teachers, for books, for computers, for professionals to help out, for supply teachers, everything that counts in the classroom - more money for it.

Yes, I'm not embarrassed to say that we will be reducing funding to administration, to bureaucracy, to waste, but where it really counts, in the classroom, there will be more money in every board right across Ontario.

Mr Hampton: You should tell that to parents in Peel, who are now paying extra fees so they can have lunchroom supervisors; or the schools in Dowling that no longer have caretakers; or in Huntsville, where parents are volunteering to teach phys ed because they lost their gym teacher; or all of the parents across Ontario who have children who have special needs, who are worried that they don't have the educational assistance they used to have.

1440

Minister, independent analysis of the education funding shows that when you factor in inflation and increases in enrolment, you've actually taken $883 million out of the funding base. We disclosed your deputy minister's contract a year ago, which said she gets a bonus if she cuts $667 million in a year. Did you pay your deputy minister the bonus for getting the money out of the schools?

Hon David Johnson: The facts are these: There will be over $15 billion spent in the education system this year, probably closer to about $15.4 million. Last year, 1997, in the education system there was some $14.4 billion spent in elementary and secondary. There will be an extra roughly billion dollars spent in education across Ontario this year, all up, for all purposes. That money is being directed right into the classroom, where it counts to the best advantage.

We're doing this because education is a top priority of this government. The two most important services to the people of Ontario are education and health care. That's where we need to invest the money, that's what the people of Ontario want to see and that's where we're putting the money for the best advantage of the people of Ontario.

NORTHERN EDUCATION SERVICES

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): My question is also for the Minister of Education. It is indeed exactly one year since you took total control of all education funding, and for the past year we have had one fiasco after another. I want today to give you one more example of a fiasco that you refuse to fix: your remote and rural school grants.

The member for Renfrew North has already raised this issue with you because his board is not considered to be remote. Now we're learning of northern school boards that you have decided are too densely populated to get any extra funding. Once again, Minister, you have simply goofed up. You have left out huge chunks of northern Ontario from your calculations. I understand that you may never have visited northwestern Ontario, but we could at least have loaned you a map so that you get this right. When will you go back to the drawing board and fix your remote and rural schools factors?

Hon David Johnson (Minister of Education and Training): The member opposite raises the Renfrew Country District School Board as an example.

Interjection.

Hon David Johnson: That's one that you've raised today, and I am pleased to report, for example, that in the case of Renfrew last year, 1997, the funding available to the board was $74.5 million. This year, 1998, there has been an increase of over $2 million, to $76.7 million, including over $400,000 in small schools grants, recognizing the particular needs of that school board. I might also say that this money, which is permanent money, doesn't include another $2.5 million over and above that for textbooks.

Interjections.

Hon David Johnson: Mr Speaker, if I can over the caterwauling, another $2.5 million for textbooks and support for financial accounting through the transition fund. So the board this year will have over $4 million, almost $5 million, of additional funds.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Supplementary. Member for Kenora.

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): Minister, under your formula, the Keewatin-Patricia district board in my riding receives no additional funding - a big, fat zero. It's also very interesting to note that the Nipissing board is receiving more than $600,000 under this formula. Your formula has simply left out a huge part of land and population that the board now serves without any funding. Your calculations show your total disregard and a great lack of understanding for the geography this board covers, an area larger than France, an area of 75,000 square kilometres.

Minister, I ask you today, will you make a commitment to sit down with this board and discuss finding a solution to the mess you have created? Will you commit to that?

Hon David Johnson: Attempting to hear the question, I believe the member opposite referred to the Keewatin-Patricia board which is projected this year to receive $1.8 million through the small schools grant and $4 million through the remote and rural grant, according to the Ministry of Education; some $5.8 million through the small schools grant and the remote and rural grant.

All I can say is that the ministry staff have worked long and hard with school officials all across the province to establish support that recognizes special needs - special needs in rural Ontario, northern Ontario, eastern Ontario, in urban areas - all the different circumstances. Rest assured, the end result is that in the classroom each and every board, including the board you're referring to, will receive more money for teachers -

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

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): My next question is for the Deputy Premier. He was here a moment ago. Has he left for the day? Do we know?

The Speaker: I'll stand it down. We'll go to the government question and come back.

LONG-TERM CARE

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): My question is for the Minister of Long-Term Care. I want to ask the minister about some details on an announcement he made in Sudbury last month concerning veterans' long-term care in northern Ontario. Veterans have had a long-standing complaint that they could only receive long-term-care services in southern Ontario, far away from their friends and family. What has our government done to address these concerns?

Hon Cameron Jackson (Minister of Long-Term Care, minister responsible for seniors): I would like to share with the House the fact that for over a decade, veterans across Ontario have been lobbying provincial governments past to expand access to long-term-care beds for veterans. In fact, during the two governments between 1985-90 and 1990-95, when 11,000 beds were closed in hospitals in this province, there were also additional beds closed from access to veterans at the Sunnybrook here in southern Ontario.

Our government, recognizing this inequity, finally sat down with the veterans, and we're pleased that we were able to deliver as well as announce the expansion of 96 priority access beds for veterans in 15 northern centres all across northern Ontario. The veterans have received this with great appreciation, because it has been almost 13 or 14 years that they have been asking for this. We're very pleased that these priority access beds are being installed all across northern Ontario.

Mr McLean: I want to thank the minister for the leadership he's shown in this crisis that we've had over the years with regard to taking some real action to solve this problem.

I want you to clarify how this announcement is not part of the additional announcements that we've been hearing from you lately on the first new long-term-care beds in this province in the last 10 years. Minister, I was happy to host you when you came to Orillia to announce 150 new long-term-care beds for Simcoe county. Are any of these new beds you're announcing going to be claimed as part of the veterans' announcement?

Hon Mr Jackson: Previously veterans in Ontario could only receive these services at the three hospitals in Ottawa, Toronto and London. As our government is expanding the 20,000 new long-term-care beds, these additional 100 veterans' priority beds are separate and additional, on top of the 20,000.

What we're trying to make very clear to veterans in Ontario is that when the previous governments turned their backs on expanding long-term-care beds for seniors in this province for an entire decade, they were also turning their backs on veterans in this province. The government, recognizing that, is now expanding as quickly as possible with the announcement of 6,700 new long-term-care beds that have been announced and will be built in the next 18 months in this province. It's a $650-million investment, one that we're proud of and one that's long overdue for the seniors of Ontario.

1450

SERVICES FOR ABUSED WOMEN

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): I have a question for the Deputy Premier. Each year on December 6 we remember the women who were murdered by Marc Lépine in Montreal.

Now in Ontario there is a very long list of women and children who have been murdered. I can read some of the names: Carmie Jeannot and her daughter Josiane; Vanessa Ritchie and her two children, Tod and Fatima; Fran Piccolo and her children, Jason and Alisha. I'm going to send you a copy of the list. There isn't enough time to read it all during question period, but I'm sure you would agree that this cries out for action.

I've also got a copy of Team Harris's New Directions: A Blueprint for Justice and Community Safety in Ontario, which your party put out in 1994. Let me remind you of the promise. It says, "Decades of studies have established the need for more shelters for abused women and children."

Deputy Premier, you failed to keep your promise in this respect. I ask you today in memory of those women and children to put back the money into women's shelters and into the front-line community services that women and children -

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Minister.

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): The leader of the third party asks a very valid and sincere question. He should not doubt the commitment of people on this side of the House towards helping abused women and children.

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): Why not?

Hon Mr Eves: "Why not?" the honourable member from Hamilton says. Because when I was the Minister of Community and Social Services, I founded the first six pilot projects for homes for abused women and children in Ontario. So you don't have to lecture the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario about the need for such facilities for women and children.

There's not a single Ontarian, I hope, who takes any solace in the fact that there's one single person's name on this list that the leader of the third party has provided me with. The government will continue to do what it can to help abused women and children in Ontario.

The Speaker: Supplementary.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): Deputy Premier, the facts in the report of the Ontario Association of Interval and Transition Houses, the facts in the Anne Golden report, the facts in the stories from abused women, the facts from the May-Iles inquest paint a whole different picture than the one your government is trying to sell to the people of Ontario.

Your government has cut the very services that women and children need when they're finding their way out of abusive situations. For instance, you've stopped every dollar of investment in affordable housing. You've cut social assistance by 21%. You've cut money for daycare spaces. You've cut money for training and education that women need to start new lives.

We're talking about the Common Sense Revolution here. It has failed the women of Ontario. I'm asking you today, will you put money back into the services abused women need to help them live independently and get back on their feet?

Hon Mr Eves: The minister for women's issues has seen her budget for prevention of violence against women increase by 13% over the last two years. Arguably -

Interjections.

Hon Mr Eves: Just a minute. Arguably you could say that is not enough, that is not sufficient. She's also announced a comprehensive $27-million package to reduce violence against women comprising many components with respect to special courts, domestic violence etc.

I can assure the honourable member that as we sit down in the next few weeks to plan the budget for this spring, we will certainly be looking to assist the minister for women's issues in providing further aid to women and children in need in Ontario.

HEALTH CARE

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): My question is to the Minister of Health. The Saturday, November 28, edition of the Windsor Star, in a column written by Richard Brennan, quoted the Premier as saying, "The opposition continually misrepresent and lie and put out information that is not correct. I have to constantly try and correct that."

Minister, try and correct this. An Essex South constituent of mine named Margaret had an X-ray in August and waited until October for a biopsy that proved to be positive for cancer. She's been anxiously awaiting a scan which will not take place till December 8. Then she must wait until December 14 for the results. Five months will have elapsed and nobody knows yet when her treatment might start. Is this your definition of good care?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health): As you know, these waiting times related to cancer treatment and related to radiation therapy are totally unacceptable to our government. They have been brought to our attention, and for the first time a government in this province is taking action that was not taken by either your government or the government before. We will be spending $8.2 million immediately to help ease the radiation waiting list. Some of that money will be used to hire more radiation therapists. We are moving forward to set up a task force that can specifically look at the issue of radiation treatment. It will be responding within three weeks. We are setting up an individual who will act -

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Answer.

Hon Mrs Witmer: - in the capacity of a facilitator with Cancer Care Ontario.

It was our government that recognized the need to coordinate cancer -

The Speaker: Supplementary, member for Timiskaming.

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): Minister, one third of the people who live in Kirkland Lake today are without a family doctor. Part of the situation is caused by your uneven incentive program that attracts family doctors away from mid-sized towns like Kirkland Lake and New Liskeard to smaller ones throughout this province.

In Kirkland Lake there are terminally ill patients who sit for hours in the waiting room, because they don't have a doctor, waiting for treatment and waiting for a prescription refill. It's so bad that a trustee at the Kirkland Lake hospital said she would trade places with a terminally ill patient, to give up her spot with her doctor, so that patient could get treatment.

Minister, for these people time is not a luxury. They need the treatment now. These people are going without treatment. When are you going to allow the mid-sized towns like New Liskeard and Kirkland Lake to use the same incentive programs of salary and benefits to attract doctors to those people who need them?

Hon Mrs Witmer: As the member well knows, our government has taken many steps in order to ensure that we can not only increase the access to physician services in the north but also retain the physicians in the north. As you know, recently we introduced a new program for 20 communities in the north and we are providing increased reimbursement to physicians. We're recognizing the administrative costs. There will be an opportunity for physicians now to receive a bonus if they remain in the community for three years. This is an agreement that has been put together by the Ontario Medical Association and the Ministry of Health, recognizing the problems that this province has had for many years.

Our government has introduced many initiatives to encourage physicians to relocate in the north. We have underserviced programs. We recently introduced nurse practitioners and we made them available to the underserviced areas -

The Speaker: New question, third party.

1500

STEEL INDUSTRY

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): My question is for the Minister of Economic Development and Trade. Are you aware of the very devastating impact the unprecedented offshore dumping of steel is having on the industry in Ontario? The industry is making a case to the Canadian International Trade Tribunal and you have been silent. Will you and your government support the steel industry? Will you personally, as Minister of Economic Development and Trade, get behind this action?

Hon Al Palladini (Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism): I must ask the honourable member to repeat the question. Was it the steel industry? I will certainly do everything I can as the Minister of Economic Development, because we understand the importance of all industries in the province of Ontario, especially the steel industry in the northern sector of the province. I will take that under advisement and get back to the member to see what help this government can be.

Mr Martin: To fill you in a little bit on this issue, the steel industry is being faced with unprecedented dumping of steel in Canada as we speak, affecting the communities of Sault Ste Marie and Hamilton and this whole province. They have taken a case to the Department of National Revenue. That department has declared that the case is fully documented. Now we're waiting for them to decide to accept that case and to take it to the international trade tribunal.

I'm asking you here today to get on the phone and call the Minister of National Revenue and tell him how serious this is, because if we don't move now - the Americans are already taking action - the steel that's on the water today coming to the States will be redirected to Canada, so we will be in double jeopardy. The steel industry in Ontario is in a terrible state, while you sit there and obviously know nothing about it. Will you get behind this and call that minister and make sure this action happens as soon as possible?

Hon Mr Palladini: As the member well knows, our government dearly cares about the economic state of Ontario. We want to make sure we do what needs to be done in order to maintain this province strong. This province is becoming much stronger than it was under your administration, when you look at 441,000 jobs that have been created in this province since then. However, back to your question. I have taken that question under advisement. I would be very happy to go to Ottawa personally and talk to the minister of economic development in Ottawa to make sure no dumping is allowed in Ontario in any sector, not just the steel sector.

EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE

Mr Bart Maves (Niagara Falls): My question is to the Minister of Finance. I noticed today in the press that there is speculation that the federal government will be cutting EI premiums by a paltry 15 cents on every $100 of insurable payroll. What is Ontario's position on this proposal?

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): I'm sure all members of the Legislature read the reports today, or heard them, about the federal government's purported decrease of EI premiums by 15 cents per $100 earned. Of course, I hope no member of the Legislature would agree with such a reduction. It will only half-offset the 30-cent increase per $100 the federal government will be bringing in on January 1 for CPP premiums. At the very least, in my opinion, the federal government should be offsetting the increase in CPP payroll taxes with a reduction in EI payroll taxes by January 1.

Mr Maves: Minister, in essence you're saying that this EI premium reduction will actually be a payroll tax increase after the CPP premium changes. Ontario has always taken a strong position on cutting payroll taxes, especially EI premiums. What is Ontario's stance on this issue, and what benefits would we expect for Ontarians?

Hon Mr Eves: All provinces have agreed that the federal government should be reducing EI premiums by 50 cents per $100. Every single province, every single finance minister, every single government across the country, regardless of their political stripe, believes that the premium should be reduced to the traditional level of $2.20 per $100. By the federal government's own survey and study, this would create over 200,000 jobs Canada-wide. They should eliminate those premiums entirely for youth employees, which would create another 50,000 jobs for young people across the country. That is what we believe in.

I also understand today that Mr Pettigrew is going to announce some further enhancements to EI benefits. I would hope that the first monies he spends are to bring what the average Ontarian collects - which isn't much, because we contribute about $5 billion more a year than we take out of the system - up to the national average, at least. The average Ontarian gets about $415 in EI benefits, but if you happen to live in the Maritimes you get about $500 a month, if you happen to live in Quebec you get close to $600 a month, and we're paying the shot here in Ontario.

CANCER TREATMENT

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): My question is to the Minister of Health. On June 18 in the Legislature, and again on June 21 by way of a letter to you, as yet unanswered, I asked you to establish a committee to study workplace carcinoma.

Cancer Care Ontario has told you that 9% of cancer deaths are due to workplace environments. If you live in cities like Sudbury, Hamilton, Windsor and Sault Ste Marie, you have a higher risk of getting cancer because of the workplace environment. In northeastern Ontario, statistics show that the increase in lung cancer is 300% higher than in the rest of the province.

Will you listen to what Cancer Care Ontario asked you to do two months ago? Will you announce today that you will establish a committee to study workplace carcinoma and that you will guarantee that this committee will have representatives from industry, from workers' unions and from Cancer Care Ontario? Will you make that commitment and that announcement today?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health): We are certainly very concerned about any working conditions that contribute to an increased rate of cancer in the province and, as you know, we are working extremely closely with Cancer Care Ontario. It was our government that set up Cancer Care Ontario to ensure that we could coordinate all of the activities related to treatment, to prevention, each and every issue, the issue of human resources, and I can assure the member opposite that we are continuing to take a look and review those proposals.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Supplementary.

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): Minister, I want to ask you about the critical delays in MRIs for cancer patients in the Hamilton-Wentworth area, for someone who is declared to be in an emergency situation and doctors believe that an MRI should occur within 24 hours. Only 40% of these individuals can access that MRI in the 24 hours. In urgent situations the doctors classify that MRI must be done within a week. Fewer than 50% of those individuals can get those MRIs within that one-week period. The Hamilton Regional Cancer Centre, which serves a catchment area of two million people, is the only cancer centre in Ontario that does not have an MRI on site.

In your briefing notes you're going to give me your phony upcoming announcement about two more MRIs for Hamilton-Wentworth. The only problem with that is that your funding formula that only allocates $150,000 per machine does not come close to meeting the needs. Today, will you commit immediately to funding two additional MRIs for Hamilton, including capital and operating costs for the cancer centre on the mountain?

Hon Mrs Witmer: The member knows full well that our government is taking action when it comes to providing cancer care that is certainly very different than his government provided. Let me quote from what happened when the Liberals were in power. This is from the Toronto Star, September 13, 1989: "Princess Margaret announced yesterday it will refuse to treat new patients for six weeks after September 30, 1989, because of a shortage of technicians trained to give radiation therapy." "Patients are dying because their cancers have grown while they're waiting for treatment." That's September 7.

Let me assure the member opposite that we are moving forward, we are providing funding, and yes, we will be making the announcement in order to ensure that whether you live in Hamilton, London or Toronto, we are moving forward. In fact, yesterday I made another announcement whereby we are giving additional funding, as you know, for pediatric -

The Speaker: New question. Leader of the third party.

PORK INDUSTRY

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): My question is for the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. You will know that today over 2,000 farmers and their supporters demonstrated in front of this Legislature, asking you to support and fight for a farm income disaster relief program. They don't understand why you're so quiet about it. They see your government howl like a hyena at the Liberals in Ottawa about employment insurance premiums, they see you turn the switch for $50 million in partisan political television propaganda, but when it comes to speaking up and fighting for Ontario farmers, you and your government are very silent.

I'm going to ask you the same question I asked you last week: Will you not only fight, but fight vociferously, for a farm income disaster relief program, and will you support and contribute to it so that it happens before the new year?

Hon Noble Villeneuve (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, minister responsible for francophone affairs): Quite obviously, the leader of the third party was not listening as I was speaking to the farmers gathered this afternoon. Yes, we are working on that program, a program that will go beyond what we now have.

We're now spending $75 million a year on safety nets. We need a disaster fund and we are in disaster conditions in the hog industry. Yes, we are working on that with the federal government. They are not moving all that rapidly in Ottawa. We are ready.

1510

NOTICES OF DISSATISFACTION

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Pursuant to standing order 37(a), the member for Riverdale has given notice of her dissatisfaction with the answer to her question given by the Deputy Premier concerning services for abused women. This matter will be debated at 6 o'clock today.

Pursuant to standing order 37(a), the member for Timiskaming has given notice of his dissatisfaction with the answer to his question given by the Minister of Health concerning the shortage of doctors in Kirkland Lake. This matter will be debated at 6:10 today.

Dinner is at 6:30.

PETITIONS

SCHOOL CLOSURES

Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview): I have a petition containing over 800 signatures. It's addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas due to the Harris funding cuts to education, the Toronto Catholic District School Board is being forced to consider the closing of 29 Catholic elementary schools in the city of Toronto before next September; and

"Whereas the parents of the students of Venerable John Merlini school do not want the school 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 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 Venerable John Merlini school students, who are concerned about the implications and disruptive effects the school closure would have on their children;

"2. Recognize the fundamental importance of our local schools to our neighbourhood community;

"3. Live up to its commitment to provide adequate funding for the important and essential components of a good education and not allow the closing of Venerable John Merlini school, because it is operating at full capacity."

I concur and I will affix my signature to it.

LAND USE PLANNING

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): I have hundreds of letters and petitions here to the Honourable John Snobelen. This one reads:

"Dear Sir:

"During the 1995 election campaign, your government promised to create a system of protected areas that would fulfill Ontario's commitment to the endangered spaces campaign. The primary goal of Lands for Life was to create such a system of protected areas to ensure that future generations would benefit from the wilderness in Ontario that we have today."

I won't read the whole thing. It later says:

"The Lands for Life round table recommendations announced on October 30 have completely failed to protect wild spaces on public land in Ontario.

"There are no recommendations to increase the level of protection within parks or conservation reserves, only to decrease them.

"The round tables failed to achieve the goal of completing the parks and protected areas system, as required by the provincial government.

"The round tables created new designations such as `enhanced management areas,' `heritage waterways,' and `Great Lakes heritage coastlines,' all of which would allow industrial activity, including mining and logging, to continue within them.

"This is unacceptable. The government must reject the round table recommendations."

Later it says, "Please let me know what steps you will be taking to keep your government's commitment to protect our wild places and reduce the risk of serious, irreversible damage to our environment and climate."

This one is signed by L.D. Sweeton from my riding. I will be affixing my name to this letter.

HERITAGE CONSERVATION

Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): It's my pleasure to present a petition from my constituents Janie Dodds and Phil Paterson and a number of others to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas heritage is vitally important to the social and economic health of Ontario communities and Ontario residents; and

"Whereas community museums, galleries and heritage organizations work hard to protect, promote, manage and develop our provincial heritage resources; and

"Whereas the provincial government has a responsibility to the people of Ontario to promote the value of heritage and heritage conservation; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government has abdicated their responsibility for heritage by cutting support to community museums, galleries and heritage organizations; and

"Whereas the Harris government has not implemented a new heritage act that would give communities the ability to better protect heritage sites; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government has not undertaken meaningful consultation with Ontario's heritage community;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to provide stronger support to Ontario heritage institutions and organizations and to work with the people of Ontario to establish a new heritage act."

I'm very pleased to present this petition on behalf of the LACAC committee in the municipality of Clarington.

PHYSIOTHERAPY SERVICES

Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): "Whereas as of April 1, 1999, G-code therapeutic physiotherapy services will not be covered by OHIP; and

"Whereas the only recourse for patients will be through hospital outpatient services that already face waiting lists of three to four months; and

"Whereas these same services are provided in other areas of the province through schedule 5 clinics, which are funded through a $39-million allocation by the Ministry of Health; and

"Whereas of that $39 million none has been allocated for northwestern Ontario; and

"Whereas if the delisting of G-code physiotherapy services goes forward and because there are no schedule 5 clinics in northwestern Ontario, there is a real fear that a two-tier system for physiotherapy services will be the norm, in that one system would accommodate those who have private insurance or enough money to pay out of pocket, while the other tier will be one where those in need wait for months on waiting lists while continuing to suffer; and

"Whereas as our population ages, those requiring physiotherapy will increase, and without these services the strain on our medical system will only increase as people aggravate old injuries that were not properly treated through modern physiotherapy treatments; and

"Whereas the delisting of G-code physiotherapy services is further indication that there is a real erosion, by this government, of sound medical services in northwestern Ontario;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to stop the planned fee schedule delisting of G-code therapeutic physiotherapy services and provide northwestern Ontario with a portion of the $39-million Ministry of Health allocation for physiotherapy services."

It's signed by 283 people who are very concerned about this system. I'm very pleased to sign my name to this petition.

EDUCATION REFORM

Mr Alex Cullen (Ottawa West): "To the Legislature of Ontario:

"Whereas the government of Ontario has not listened to the public on Bill 160; and

"Whereas the government of Ontario has chosen to overtly deceive the people of Ontario as to the true objectives of Bill 160; and

"Whereas we, the people, believe that no government has a mandate to act in isolation of the wishes of the electorate of this province and we have lost confidence in this government;

"We, the undersigned electors of Ontario, petition that the Legislature be dissolved and that a general election be called forthwith."

I affix my signature to it.

REMEMBRANCE DAY

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Simcoe Centre): I'm very pleased to present a petition to the Parliament of Ontario, and it reads:

"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 education system."

I support the petition and affix my signature.

1520

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): Given that today is the anniversary of the passage of Bill 160, this is a very appropriate petition.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas education is our future; and

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

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

"Whereas you cannot improve achievement by lowering standards; and

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

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

"Whereas Ontario Liberal Leader Dalton McGuinty has pledged to repeal Bill 160;

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

"Further, be it resolved that the Legislative Assembly of Ontario instruct the Minister of Education and Training to do his homework and be a co-operative learner rather than imposing his solution which will not work for the students, parents and teachers of Ontario."

I bring this on behalf of all those who live on, in this case, Langlois, Elm, South Pacific.

ADOPTION

Mr Alex Cullen (Ottawa West): I have a petition here signed by residents in the city of Ottawa. This is to the Legislature of Ontario with respect to adoption reform, and I will simply summarize. The petitioners are asking the Legislature to pass Bill 39, entitled the Access to Adoption Information Statute Law Amendment Act. This bill would allow access to birth registration and adoption records for adult adoptees, birth parents, adoptive parents and other relatives; implement a no-contact notice option; recommend optional counselling; offer access to other adoption information; and acknowledge open adoptions.

I am in support and will affix my signature to it.

DRIVER EXAMINATION CENTRE

Mr Tim Hudak (Niagara South): I'm pleased to present a petition on behalf of about 400 or 500 members of the municipality of Port Colborne. It reads as follows:

"We would like to petition the provincial government of Ontario towards the implementation of a driver's test examination centre to be located here in our community of Port Colborne, Ontario."

It's addressed to Premier Harris, Minister Clement and myself, and I affix my signature in support.

ABORTION

Mr Pat Hoy (Essex-Kent): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I affix my signature to this.

ROAD SAFETY

Mr Alex Cullen (Ottawa West): I have a petition here dealing with red light cameras to make high-collision intersections safer.

"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 affix my signature to this.

PROTECTION FOR HEALTH CARE WORKERS

Mrs Brenda Elliott (Guelph): I have a petition here from 26 constituents in my riding. They request the Ontario Legislative Assembly to "urge the government of Ontario to enact legislation explicitly recognizing the freedom of conscience of health care workers, prohibiting coercion of and unjust discrimination against health care workers because of their refusal to participate in matters contrary to the dictates of their consciences and establishing penalties for such coercion and unjust discrimination."

I submit this on their behalf.

HOSPITAL FUNDING

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

"Whereas Ontarians are gravely concerned with the historic $1.3-billion cut to base funding of hospitals; and

"Whereas Ontarians feel that health services are suffering; and

"Whereas the government is reducing hospital funding and not reinvesting millions of dollars into the communities that they are being taken away from;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to call on the Conservative government to stop the cuts to base funding for hospitals across Ontario and to ensure that community services are in place before the removal of hospital services. The Conservative government must fund hospitals with a funding formula that reflects demographic and regional needs. The Conservative government must ensure that health services are available, including emergency and urgent care, to all Ontarians."

I have affixed my signature in full agreement with the sentiments.

HEALTH CARE

Mr Alex Cullen (Ottawa West): I have a petition signed by many residents within the riding of Ottawa West with respect to certain practices within our health care system, and I am pleased to table it on their behalf in the Legislature today.

PALLIATIVE CARE

Mr Bob Wood (London South): I have a petition signed by 64 people.

"Whereas most Ontario residents do not have adequate access to effective palliative care in time of need;

"Whereas meeting the needs of Ontarians of all ages for relief of preventable pain and suffering, as well as the provision of emotional and spiritual support, should be a priority to our health care system;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to resolve that a task force be appointed to develop a palliative care bill of rights that would ensure the best possible treatment, care, protection and support for Ontario citizens and their families in time of need.

"The task force should include palliative care experts in pain management, community palliative care and ethics in order to determine effective safeguards for the right to life and care of individuals who cannot or who can no longer decide issues of medical care for themselves.

"The appointed task force would provide interim reports to the government and the public and continue in existence to review the implementation of its recommendations."

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 Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): I am pleased to have the opportunity to comment on this bill and want first of all to thank the House for allowing us to defer this particular presentation until today.

I also want to indicate that I will be sharing my time with the member for Ottawa West and the member for Nickel Belt, who I know will have their own particular perspectives from their own areas of the Ottawa region and the Sudbury region to add to this debate.

This bill, as we know, deals with the establishment of the Greater Toronto Services Board as well as a new board to govern the GO Transit system in the greater Toronto area, although in terms of the GO Transit system, it stretches even outside of what are generally known as the parameters or the boundaries of the GTA to include even the area of Hamilton-Wentworth, and I want to touch a little bit on that issue as well.

When we look at the greater Toronto area, we know that we are dealing with a geographical area that, compared to the rest of the province, is relatively small, but in terms of the population that it houses is quite significant. There are about four and a half million people who call the GTA their home. That's about 40% of the population of the province. A lot of economic activity takes place here in this area. That is not in any way to take away from the importance of other areas in the province, economically and otherwise, but simply to put this issue in somewhat of a context.

As the minister himself reminded us when he began debate on this bill last week, this is an area that is governed by 29 municipal governments and there has been for some time now a sense about the need to coordinate the provision of services at the regional and local level in a far better way than has happened to date or is happening now.

Obviously the question of governance is central to this bill. It is one of the reasons, I indicate to the government, why we have some serious reservations with this particular piece of legislation. I want to speak at some length about that issue, as well, as I said, as touch on some of the actual powers, particularly the GO Transit piece, in this bill.

1530

It may be for most people out there that the issue of governance is not a particularly attractive one, but I want to bring to people's attention what we have gone through in this place and what that has meant for the GTA as a whole, particularly one half in particular, the new city of Toronto. I go back to the comment the minister made in reminding us that there are 29 municipal governments, at both the regional level and the local municipal level, now functioning in what we call the GTA.

It's particularly interesting that after the changes the Harris government has brought about we now have in the GTA a situation in which roughly one half of that population, that is, the population within the old Metropolitan Toronto and now the new city of Toronto, is now governed at the regional and municipal level by one local government, the new city of Toronto council, whereas the remaining half of the GTA population is governed by some 28 municipal governments. Am I saying there are too many other governments in the rest of the GTA? No, that's not the point I wanted to make, because while I'm sure there are arguments that could be made, and I would even support some of those arguments, for there being fewer governments at the local level than there are in the rest of the GTA, I am not one to stand here today and say that should happen, but I think a review of that should happen and needs to happen.

What I particularly wanted to underline in making that comparison was why the Harris government has chosen to, in effect, have such a dramatic difference in the way in which they have treated the governance at the local level within the same economic region, the same area in which people cross borders back and forth day to day, both to work and for various other reasons, as they go about their daily lives, and why in the most inner, core part of that greater Toronto area, the government has chosen the rationale that says, "We only need one government to deliver all the services," the ones that are delivered in the rest of the GTA at the regional level as well as the ones that are truly local, yet in the rest of the GTA they have not chosen to apply that same rationale, or even a slightly adapted version of that rationale.

I know the government doesn't want to get into this area in a particularly in-depth way, because if we did, we would have to remind the government and people across the GTA that what drove the government to make the decisions they did were far less reasons about good planning and good governance and were far more reasons and rationales having to do with sheer politics. They chose to pick on Toronto and suggest that there the governance could be done within one massive city council, yet in the rest of the GTA they have been afraid, because they have not wanted to alienate their own political base in that area, to tackle the thorny issue of how you should govern and set up the structures for governance into the next century and the next millennium.

I know that when the minister began debate on this bill he talked a lot about the coordinating function this Greater Toronto Services Board will provide. But he himself, at various points in his own speech, had to admit that there wasn't a lot in the way of powers that were and are being given to this new board. In fact, coordinating services, with the exception of the issue of GO Transit - as I say, I'll talk a little bit about that later in my comments. If you just put that aside for a second, there is nothing but the coordination of services that is being set out through this piece of legislation. Is that a bad thing in and of itself? No. It is probably better than nothing at all, but it is certainly not doing what needs to be done if we as a Legislative Assembly are serious in setting the course for what needs to happen in this region over the next five, 10, 15, 20 years.

This is an area that houses 4.5 million people, that is the heartbeat of much of the economic activity of the province. The one thing over which there has been common ground in study after study, which the minister and the government have chosen to ignore, is that any serious restructuring of how the region is to function and therefore how the region is to be governed at the local and regional level has to begin by taking into account the reality that the GTA region, however far out you want to draw those boundaries - but if you look at the regional municipalities that now make up that region, there should be a serious restructuring of the governance at the regional level. That is the best and most effective way of reflecting the reality that this region today is now more and more the region, that we no longer have a Peel region, we no longer have a Halton region, we no longer have a York region. Yes, they exist as structures, but the boundaries between each of those regions and the city of Toronto are ones that quite frankly don't make a lot of sense any more to people. They made a lot of sense 10, 15, 20 years ago, but they don't make as much sense in terms of the flow of people back and forth.

It was interesting; I know the minister referred again to the two previous studies that were done, the one by Mr Crombie and the one by Ms Golden. Wasn't it fascinating that the one thing the minister didn't talk about was that in both of those major studies of this very important region of the province, the first priority that each of those two studies set with respect to restructuring, particularly around the whole issue of governance and coordination of services, was that the major issue to address was the regional level of government? They said that's where any restructuring of local governance should begin, and only within that should you then take a look at what we should do with respect to local governments.

That was the point we kept making when we went through the whole megacity debate. That was the advice the government chose to ignore. What we have now reflected in this bill is not even a lukewarm first step towards acknowledging that this restructuring at the regional level has to happen.

We have taken, I want to reiterate today, a very clear position in the New Democratic Party caucus, which is that there should be a serious restructuring at the regional level to lead to, in effect, one regional government across the whole GTA. Our preference would have been that the government would have begun the restructuring of services, the restructuring of governance, by taking that as the first step rather than the amalgamation of the municipalities within the old Metropolitan Toronto. But even at this point, it makes a lot more sense now, having made the decision that the government has made to amalgamate within the city of Toronto, that there be a serious step taken towards amalgamating the regional governments in this new GTA region and dealing with and creating a new regional government, as opposed to the four remaining regional governments that exist, plus the city of Toronto, which now functions as a uniform, both regional and local, government.

That's the way in which the issues that are being dealt with by those regional governments now - the questions of planning, the questions of managing planning in a way that doesn't simply continue the level of urban sprawl that we have seen, the way to manage the issue of public transportation, the way to deal with the delivery of social services, for example, any and more of those services - all of the issues that deal with people's day-to-day lives, quite frankly in a much more direct way than even some of the things we debate and deal with directly at the provincial level of government, those are the kinds of things that need not just coordination at the regional level, but need an elected body that is responsible politically and accountable to the citizens who live in this part of the province. I'm afraid that we don't have in this bill anything along those lines.

I know the minister and the government want to talk about the importance of beginning this process with this very soft coordinating body, but what we don't see in effect is anything with real teeth, anything that provides for real accountability.

1540

It's interesting that we have gone from the Milt Farrow study that at least provided something of a structure that, in powers, wasn't substantially different from what we have here, but in terms of that balance between the current city of Toronto and the rest of the GTA, it at least provided a smaller body, which I would have thought the government wanted. But in this case the minister and the government have chosen, as a result of further discussions with the local politicians, to go to a body that will have 40 members, and in order to allow representation from each of the councils in that area they've had to go to a weighted vote system to take into account the balance they want to strike between having every council represented, with at least one person on there and some alternates in some cases, and weighing the votes, taking into account the reality that the city of Toronto has roughly half the population base and therefore, on a representation by population basis, that needs to be reflected in the vote.

If you're going to move in this direction, to that kind of structure, I don't have any problems with that. But where I do continue to have a major problem is that while on the one hand this government chose to play a tough role as they saw it, were making the tough decisions around governance within Metropolitan Toronto, they then chose not only not to play a tough role but to completely cave in in terms of any serious restructuring when it came to the rest of the GTA, the 905 area.

I continue to come back to this point, to why this government would not have demonstrated the same courage, to use their approach and their phraseology, that they chose here with respect to the city of Toronto. We now have a situation with the new council in the city of Toronto where, despite the many efforts that all the councillors there and the mayor are making - I may not agree with all the decisions they make, but I do agree wholeheartedly with the efforts I see there to try and make this new structure work - it simply is too cumbersome.

You cannot have a council with over 50 members that has to deal with myriad issues, both regional issues from child care to social services to transportation, and very local issues such as front yard parking and garbage pickup, and try and do that in a structure that doesn't allow yet a very good balance between the kinds of issues that are more local and therefore can and should be dealt with through what used to be the local councils but now are the bodies that have replaced those at the level of each of the old municipalities - and because there still continues to be this control at the overall city level, there just is an incredible continuing problem there.

What we are seeing is the result of the government not having heeded the advice that was given not just by us but by many in this area, certainly including the Golden study and the Crombie study, which both said that restructuring at the regional level was of foremost importance.

The government clearly is not going to back down from this legislation, although again I find it interesting that at the beginning of this legislative session we had a sense that the government wanted to proceed with this legislation, but then we heard very little about it for almost two months. Now here we are, a couple of weeks away from the House breaking for the Christmas recess, and the government all of a sudden has the full-charge-ahead approach, which is that now they have to finish this legislation in the remaining last couple of weeks.

I'm still waiting to hear and see whether this bill will get to committee, because we have a couple of important amendments that we would like to see put. I thought the minister yesterday talked about the bill going to committee. I hope that's going to happen, although my preference would be that the government not see January 1 as a crucial timeline that they have to now all of a sudden meet, after they've been sitting on this thing for the last year and a half.

The Milt Farrow study came out in 1997, almost a year and a half ago. Then I know the minister wanted to consult with people etc - and that's important; I don't want to deny that. But what we have again is this kind of thing of sitting around and now, all of a sudden at the end, rushing to get it done. This is too important a piece, too important a change, for us to be trying to rush this through, unless of course, as the minister himself indicated, this is just a coordinating body so it doesn't matter.

What I want to say to the government is that you can't have it both ways. You can't on the one hand tell us that this is not another level of government, just a coordinating body, and then say that because it's just a coordinating body it doesn't matter. If it's just a coordinating body, then what you're doing is simply adding another layer of bureaucracy on to the system, which we don't need. If you are adding another layer of government, I have to ask why it makes sense that half the GTA is going to be governed by one council and then be part of this structure, while the rest of the GTA, the other half, is going to have now not one, not two, but three levels of government: the municipality, the regional governments and now this Greater Toronto Services Board.

Either way you go, the rationale doesn't mesh, and it doesn't mesh because the actions of the government simply don't square one against the other and because the actions of the government have been based not on good, sound planning, not on what makes for good local governance, but indeed have been simply about politics. They thought they would gain political points by picking on Toronto and doing the harshest thing they could do there, and they have been scared as hell to touch this issue when it came to the 905 belt.

I believe the government is making a major mistake, because in doing what they are doing now, they are setting up another body which, as I say, at best adds another layer of bureaucracy to the existing system and at worst adds another level of government, which will mean a third level of regional and local government, for half the 905 belt, and that doesn't make much sense.

If the government intends to proceed in this way, we hope that at least a couple of things could be changed in this legislation. The first is that we would see some sense built into the legislation that this is in fact a transition body. I made the point earlier that we believe some serious restructuring at the regional level is what should be happening. We would be prepared to go to the point of saying, begin a process that over whatever period of time is necessary, if you can't make the decision now to make it effective at a certain point a couple of years down the line, which I believe we can do, but if the government isn't prepared to do that in terms of saying that at some point in time the existing regional governments will be collapsed into one regional government - that's the position we have taken and it's the position I want to reiterate here and offer again to the government and the people of the greater Toronto area that we believe is the most sensible solution over the next number of years.

Can that happen in one step? I think so, but again I say to the government that if you're not prepared to make that happen in one step, at the very least put in place in this legislation, in this bill, a sunset provision that means that by a certain time, two or three years down the road, the existence of this board will end and that something else will take shape, and I believe that something else should be a new regional government for the greater Toronto area. That, I think, is the only sensible solution for the longer term, and even for the foreseeable future.

At the very least, if that kind of amendment were put into this legislation, it would give everybody dealing with this a sense that while this body that is being put in place is not the preferred route that we would go, it at least is seen as a first step towards something else, that something else being a more logical, a more sensible governance level. I would also look at some of the powers that are set out in this legislation in terms of ensuring that even in the short term, there are some greater powers given so that it's not just a coordinating function, that there is an ability to deal, far more strongly than is in this legislation, with some of the problems that have to be addressed.

We see that to some extent with the issue of GO Transit, but in the GO Transit area, and I want to just touch on this for a couple of moments, we see another set of problems. There we have the incredible situation where the cost-sharing that the government wants to perpetuate by this piece of legislation, I think is unfair towards that inner core of the GTA which is the city of Toronto now.

1550

I don't understand on what basis the government can continue to justify having the city of Toronto property tax base pick up 50% of the costs of GO Transit when about 85% of people who use that service live outside the city of Toronto. You follow any of the logic that this government has used and you come up against this situation. It just does not make any sense. Again, the only rationale is not one that's based on good logic, on good common sense; it's simply one that's based on the politics. The government does not want to be seen to be putting the onus where it should be if they wanted to be fair about this, which is in the 905 area.

I know that there's an issue with respect to the role that the regional municipality of Hamilton plays on this, and they will have a voice and vote when it comes to the issue of GO Transit. I know that my colleague from Hamilton, Mr Christopherson, has addressed at some length the issue and the concerns he has from his perspective in that municipality around the still limited powers that are being given in terms of representation from that part of the province, and I don't want to repeat those but simply to echo some of the points that he was making.

I would just say to the government that what we have here is something that's not a first step towards anything better or greater and at the same time something that will simply add to the cumbersome nature of what we have now. As I watched the kind of hot-and-cold approach that the government has taken to this, if you had asked me a couple of weeks ago, I would have said to people that this legislation wasn't going anywhere. Then all of a sudden we hear again that the government is gung-ho about proceeding with this and that they now need to get this done before Christmas. All of a sudden the rush is on, because I gather some people have said to the government, "You need to get this done."

We would say that the government has not handled this particular issue very well. They've plunged ahead where they didn't need to plunge ahead and they've hesitated where they needed to plunge ahead. Given that they are where they are now, my advice and my recommendation to the government would be twofold.

One would be to put this aside and begin again a proper process that will result in some sensible legislation that sets up, if not immediately, over the foreseeable future, over the next couple of years, a real governance body to deal with all of the regional issues, to reflect the reality that the GTA is now one economic and social region.

If you're not prepared to do that in one fell swoop, then at the very least, I would say to the government, change this legislation, which we can do in this House, so that what this body, the Greater Toronto Services Board, becomes is simply a first step towards that, and a first step in a way that we can actually see the second step happening over the next two to three years. I think it can be done in that way. I think it would lead to some sensible preparation.

I know that government members will probably remind us again of the fact that they have built into this legislation a review process that talks about the review in a couple of years' time of the powers of the board. The minister, I know, talked about that. But none of that addresses the issue that I've been raising, because all of the things in here around the review simply deal with updating on the basis of the population shifts, the proportionate vote between the different municipalities, updating perhaps some of the responsibilities that the board will have, but it will not deal in any way significantly with the issue of governance in a fundamental way.

I would say to the government that if you want to show some leadership, if you want to show some sense that you are looking into the future, not simply as a political party but as the government of the day, if you want to set a course for real restructuring of the way in which this very important area of the province functions and therefore the way in which it is governed, then you cannot simply put in place this very mild structure which will just simply add to the bureaucracy that will have to be dealt with. Whether you say it's another level of government or not, it's going to be there as another layer and it's going to be another layer that people will have to deal with.

The mayors have been meeting now for some time on a regular basis. On the one hand, you're not really adding anything to that kind of coordination that comes from people talking to each other. The only way in which you're going to move into any kind of serious restructuring - and some of the mayors may not want you to do this, but then they're the mayors of their own municipalities or their own region and it's not their job necessarily to see the big picture, although I think it should be. But it is our job as provincial legislators to try and set the course for how this very vital part of the province is to be governed and is to have its services to its citizens coordinated, not just for the next couple of years but indeed for the next 20 to 50 years.

I think that's the point we're at. We're at the point where people understand that as things have evolved over the last 20 to 30 years, there have been good reasons why the structures we have have been built up. It is now time to go beyond that. The one piece that is significantly missing from any reform that's taken place in this area is the one area that the government has been most hesitant to act in and that is to create, if not immediately a structure, at least the place and the process that will lead to one new regional level of government for the greater Toronto area.

I can't emphasize that enough in terms of how important that is. I realize the hesitation in terms of establishing that kind of level of government which would have representation for four and a half million people. But I say to the government, if you saw fit to create one municipality here in Toronto in which one council is responsible for services to 2.3 million people, then why not do the more logical thing and build that structure and that accountability at the regional level so that you don't have one regional government pitted against another regional government, as happens now, and one regional government pitted against a local municipality, as happens now. You need to have that issue of services sorted out between what is truly local and what is truly regional, and not just public transportation and social services and other kinds of services.

I think the debate and the discussion about which of those services would apply in the kind of structure that I'm describing at the regional versus the local level is still very much something that can be open for discussion. But there is no doubt that in terms of planning and therefore the control of urban sprawl in terms of coordination of public transit, at the very least - and I would argue others such as the delivery of social services and other kinds of services of that nature - it makes sense and that the region is ready for a movement towards that kind of a step and that kind of a structure and that kind of a format in terms of its governance.

If you're not prepared to put this piece of legislation aside and bring something forward that would be more akin to that, then at the very least have the courage to accept amendments or to bring your own amendments to this legislation before you pass it in this House so that you establish some kind of a timeline on the Greater Toronto Services Board. We can also look at strengthening some of the powers that it will be given and, more importantly, set a sunset clause on it with the premise that it will lead to something closer to what I've been describing in terms of a new regional government.

That is what I believe should happen and that I hope we'll have the opportunity in committee to pursue with the minister and with the government. I have no idea whether there is any openness there at all. I suspect that there isn't, but we'll continue nonetheless to make the point, because I believe and we believe here in our caucus that this is the way that we should go in dealing with the future of this very important economic region.

If we do that, then we can build on the kinds of good things that have been happening. I note with particular interest the work of the greater Toronto marketing alliance, the good work that they have been doing in bringing together both the municipalities as well as the private sector in marketing this region as one region to the outside world and not competing between municipalities in terms of attracting business, which has sometimes been a problem in terms of one municipality competing against another municipality, because to the outside world this is one economic region.

Those of us who are part of this region, as citizens - and all of us have a responsibility as legislators towards this region - need to see it and need to respect it for that very vital area of the province that it is and for the fact that it represents 40% of the population of the province. It deserves the kind of looking forward in terms of the structures that is going to govern the services in this area for the foreseeable future.

1600

What this government is proposing to us today in this piece of legislation is just simply not good enough. I hope they will have the courage on this one to come forward as the government of Ontario and not simply as the Conservative Party that's afraid to alienate in any way its base of support out there. There are ways in which at least this legislation could be improved so that you can set that vision for the future in a way that doesn't simply say to people, "Let's just pass this and then we'll make our friends out there happy."

Nothing really will come of it unless another government steps in and has the courage to make the changes that have to be made. Certainly, I hope that we will have the opportunity as a government to do that. But I also call upon the government, as the government of the day, to take its responsibility and be prepared at least to amend this piece of legislation in a way that sets the course for that next step that has to be done, which is the establishment of a new regional government for the greater Toronto area.

I'm going to stop at that point and allow my colleagues to pick up from there, but I will continue to press this point with the minister and the government in the hope that there is still some small room there for them to listen and to make some changes to this legislation.

Mr Alex Cullen (Ottawa West): I'm pleased to follow on the comments from the member for Dovercourt with respect to this legislation. We are dealing today with Bill 56, An Act to establish the Greater Toronto Services Board, the Greater Toronto Transit Authority and to amend the Toronto Area Transit Operating Authority Act.

People may wonder what a member from Ottawa or any other region that's a little distance from the centre of the universe known as the city of Toronto might have to offer to this debate, but quite frankly, there is a great deal of commonality. We are dealing with the whole concept of urban growth and how to coordinate urban growth to best meet the needs of the community and the resources that a taxpayer is willing to provide, recognizing all our interests and all our unique diversity within Ontario.

You would think Ottawa-Carleton, with a population of over 700,000 people and 11 municipalities, pales compared to the issues we're dealing with today that affect some four and a half million people and some 29 municipalities, but there are some similarities.

The fact of the matter is, with this government's downloading provisions giving additional services and responsibilities to regional governments, not only do they already have the existing responsibilities with respect to water treatment, provision of sewer services, major arterial roads, transportation, public transit, the provision of social services, by law, particularly social assistance and child care, all those services that help build a community, but with provincial downloading of services you can throw in ambulances, you can talk about social housing, you can talk about public health and of course the abdication of the provincial responsibility for public transit and road maintenance.

All these things provide not only a greater burden on the local property taxpayer but also a greater responsibility on the local level of government to provide these services.

I have to tell you that in reading through the documentation dealing with this, I was struck by a comment that was made in the Golden report, the precursor to this bill. The Golden task force was established to look at the growth issues relating to Toronto, which brings forward this bill after many deviations along the road. The thing that struck me was the comment that was made that the current greater Toronto area boundaries, those 29 municipalities and five regional governments that we're dealing with, are based on county boundaries established 150 years ago. They do not correspond with the actual Toronto commutershed, the Statistics Canada census, the metropolitan area definition or even the obvious natural boundaries marked by the Niagara Escarpment and the Oak Ridges Moraine, nor are they aligned with the existing sewershed of pipe water and service areas.

So what we're dealing with here is an attempt to bring in more effectiveness, to modernize the decision-making processes, to provide for more rational allocation of resources to deal with urban growth or even urban sprawl.

In Ottawa-Carleton, I have dealt with this for the past six years as both a city councillor and regional councillor. We went through an official plan process where we updated our official plan to guide growth for the next 20 years, and we dealt with such issues as provision of services.

When we talk about a community, we talk from the municipal aspect of ensuring that when houses sprout in previous farmers' fields, they have appropriate road services, sidewalks, sanitary services - both sanitary sewer and storm sewer - the provision of community facilities, parks, recreation centres and also the provision of excellent transportation facilities so that the taxpayer is not paying out so much more money for more roads and wider roads, but indeed that there is a focus on affordable housing, a diversity in meeting social needs in terms of housing and services, as well as public transit. All these things are important ingredients to build a well-balanced community.

At some point or another, you have to take a look at what are the abilities to provide these kinds of services when you have a complex municipal level of government and you have continuing pressure for more and more growth. Indeed, in Ottawa-Carleton, we moved to a directly elected regional council because we found that issues of accountability were so very important. It wasn't appropriate to have mayors of different municipalities working out deals: "We'll provide the pipe service and road service to facilitate growth in your community, while you'll do the same thing for my community." That "you scratch my back, I'll scratch your back" approach to development was antithetical to well-ordered planning that met the resources constraints that were available and also the ability of the taxpayer to finance it.

One of the things we've discovered, not only in Ottawa-Carleton but everywhere else where there is urban growth, is that there are different forms of urban growth, some more costly to the taxpayer than others. I'm not speaking only in terms of the local property taxpayer but also the provincial taxpayer. All the same pocket, you say, and indeed this is true, but when we are dealing with the growth of new developments that have to be serviced by major roads and eventually by provincial highways, when we're dealing with inadequate housing and the costs therefore that come on to the provincial taxpayer to provide the support services that should have been put in place when the community was being built from the ground up, all these things are important.

Therefore, when we find the government coming forward with this particular piece of legislation, dealing with four and a half million people, 29 municipalities and five regional governments, and find that in essence the government has wimped out in terms of providing an adequate ability for these governments to represent their communities and their taxpayers, making the decisions and allocating resources according to a rational framework, then it is not good government.

What the government has done by coming forward with this bill is basically emasculate the ability of those communities to work together, go forward and allocate the resources to deal with urban growth.

One reads the bill and sees that the Greater Toronto Services Board is a body that represents the five urban municipalities: the regions of Durham, Halton, Peel, the city of Toronto and the region of York. They allocate representation by population. That's a good start, obviously. It's a fundamental democratic principle. But having put them there, they emasculate them by saying, "If you want to examine the capital budget for GO Transit," - which will now be called GT Transit - "you need 75% of the vote, or if you want to look at picking up some other aspects of coordinating activities, you need two thirds of the vote."

Why are these artificial constraints being put in place? We understand the politics of it, but if you are going to have a genuine planning body that will be able to allocate resources and have accountability, you will want to have a regional government that can make these decisions. But the government, after Bill 103, the megacity bill, has totally backed off. It went through the fire, a very badly put-together process where it ran roughshod over the wishes of the community to develop something.

Then, when they come to the second half of it, the second shoe of dealing with the urban growth problems of the greater Toronto area, they pull their punches. I'm sorry, as the member for Dovercourt said, that this is merely a weak, transitional bill towards something. It requires amendment, requires a sunset clause, is clearly a small step towards more efficient, more responsive, more responsible and more accountable planning that is needed for the greater Toronto area.

1610

The kind of infrastructure that should be put into place requires the coordinated effort not only of the local municipality but the regional municipalities and the provincial government and - we can speak as well in terms of housing - the federal government as well. When you need all that involvement, there is a provincial role in here and it's the provincial taxpayer who will end up paying for some of the infrastructure decisions that are going to be made by this body.

Let's have a reasonably efficient and reasonably accountable system in place because we don't want to find ourselves at the point where this coordinating service board puts into place urban growth that will require significant amounts of provincial contributions for infrastructure and it's expensive because it was the wrong kind of decision. It has to be a coordinated process, but it has to be an accountable process, and this bill falls far short.

I have to tell you that New Democrats have looked at the whole issue of upper-tier governance at the greater Toronto area. We support strengthened local municipalities with greater responsibilities, but we also know that many of the economic and infrastructure needs facing the greater Toronto region as a whole are best dealt with at the regional level.

Indeed, it is amazing. The member for Dovercourt mentioned it. Here is a situation where the government has put into place, through downloading, responsibility at the upper tier where 80% of the property tax dollar is going towards regional government and about 20% of the property tax dollar is going towards local government. What are they looking after now, dog catchers, stop signs, parks, recreation centres? That is the bulk of the work the local municipality will be dealing with.

There is so much responsibility that has been devolved to the regional level - we acknowledge, of course, that is not revenue-neutral - and we expect that this will be an issue in the next provincial election because some of those issues, the income transfer issues related to social housing in particular - and one could talk about public health and social assistance - will have to be rebalanced in all of this. But the fact is that the regional municipalities are now carrying more of the load. What was the rationale behind this?

When you go back to the Crombie commission, I have to tell you parenthetically that the Crombie commission said that the devolution of such income transfer programs as social housing and social assistance on to the property tax base was both wrong in theory and devastating in practice. If you just look at the history of what happened in Ontario and in Canada during the 1930s, when municipalities went bankrupt trying to meet their responsibilities for social assistance from the property tax base, you know he's right; and if you just simulate through what happened between 1990 and 1994, with that recession, in municipalities with their new responsibilities, again you'll find a tremendous tax burden that can't be met by property taxes. But I am off the topic and I acknowledge that I should focus on the bill at hand.

You have to remember that in dealing with all these issues, if it's that important for a regional government to coordinate these facilities, whether it's in Ottawa-Carleton or any of the other 11 or 12 regions that we have across Ontario, then when we come to the greater Toronto area, with its 29 municipalities and its five regional governments, there has to be a more effective, accountable process in place to be able to discharge those responsibilities. It doesn't meet, it doesn't match, the model that has been put in place, and there are sound reasons to have direct accountability and to have a means of looking at urban growth, the placement of that growth, the placement of the infrastructure to support that growth and looking at the most reasonable way to do it at the least cost to the taxpayer.

In Ottawa-Carleton, we're looking at a process that's basically pay-as-you-go. We want to have a process in place that when we extend the pipe, when we extend the water - I have to say to my colleagues across the way here that they know that regional municipalities, and local municipalities but I'll focus on the region, have to deal with a balanced budget approach. It is by law that their budgets have to be balanced. When we look at urban growth and we look at the choices faced by regional government - they have to balance their budget, they have to make sure the support systems are in place for social services to serve their existing population, and they're faced at the same time with, "How do we provide services?" whether it's public transit or water or sewer or roads or what have you going out to the new growth areas - there is a tension, a dynamic, because it has to be within a balanced budget process.

Can you imagine property taxpayers saying: "Why should we be subsidizing the infrastructure that's going out beyond in the new areas when we've paid for ours here, we've paid the whole freight here, why must we continue to pay property tax for additional services out there?" We know some people will say, "It's to encourage economic growth." Well, up to a limit, because there has to be some recognition that new growth must pay for itself and that it is inefficient to allow urban sprawl, low-density provision of growth, of housing, that in turn requires greater building of roads and creates a real problem with respect to providing public transit.

You can't have a bus going out running in a subdevelopment and going by maybe 400 homes in the course of an evening. That's simply a waste of taxpayers' money and you can't provide that service. What happens then is it's all car-oriented. They all go in their cars and drive down. They have to go in their cars and drive down to get a litre of milk and all -

Mr Marcel Beaubien (Lambton): Walk. It's better for your health.

Mr Cullen: If we could only walk but not drive.

We have all these traditional issues dealing with urban growth. It's important to have a planning body for this area. As a matter of fact, when we look at the whole purpose of the bill, it was in response to the point made by the Golden commission:

"We have reached the point where the status quo" - in the greater Toronto area - "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."

We're talking about the provision of basic services for this area. What we find instead is that the legislation being provided simply puts into place a forum for better coordination and integration of interregional services in the greater Toronto area. Give me a break. That's not what taxpayers want, a forum where the mayors get together and make deals about where this should go and where that should go. That's totally inappropriate.

What we're looking at here is a means of providing a sensible vehicle to coordinate growth. It's big bucks. There are tremendous pressures by the development industry. There are tremendous pressures by those industries looking to locate where there is the biggest subsidy in terms of the provision of water, in terms of the provision of roads, so that their employees can get there, in terms of nice housing surrounding their business locations, and yet there is a tension there with the taxpayer. It's an important issue. These are important issues that have to be addressed and are not being addressed within this bill.

1620

I want to speak briefly about the changeover of GO Transit. With the government bailing out of public transit across Ontario, this is an issue in Ottawa-Carleton. We're a growing community. As a matter of fact, we are among the fastest-growing communities in the nation. We are now faced with providing from our property tax base the infrastructure to provide good transit facilities so that people can get from their homes to their employment and to the other services they need, whether it's shopping, retail, the public infrastructure with respect to schools or what have you. The government has bailed out completely.

If we were to try to get the most effective investment into transportation facilities, we know public transit is the way to go. It's the biggest bang for the buck because it is expensive to build roads, to widen roads. It's costly to the taxpayer in terms of maintenance and in terms of providing the initial investment, and it's not very good for the environment. We have the downstream costs of congestion, and you get into a vicious circle. The more the roads get congested, the more businesses want to relocate elsewhere, and then the demand for more roads, wider roads and urban sprawl continues and continues.

There has to be a balance. There have to be more effective ways of providing these services, the whole issue of intensification of mixed housing, mixed development and appropriate planning. You can't have municipalities competing with one another, because within a community we all bear the brunt, whether we all have to trot out to Kanata or we all have to trot downtown. It doesn't make sense. We require balanced growth. To get that balanced growth, you need coordination and you need balanced planning. To have balanced planning in an urban framework requires a vehicle that is both accountable and responsible, that provides the money and can be held responsible to the taxpayers for the provision of that money in an open, democratic forum.

If it was good enough 50 years ago to leave growth for the municipality, for that council, and now we are in a modern world where we're dealing with a megalopolis, then we need to extend that system of governance to ensure that we have that responsible means of making those decisions. This bill doesn't do it. This bill doesn't cut it. It is a board with representatives from five regional governments that meets on a very restrictive matter. How is it going to make appropriate planning decisions? How is it going to have an official plan for the area?

There is an overwhelming need for an official plan so people can understand for the next 20 years where those new developments are going to go, where the people with low incomes are going to find housing, because if there is going to be a factory out there, there are going to have to be people to go to that factory to work, and not all of them are going to be able to afford two cars or a single-family home with a two-car garage etc. These are important things, yet we don't have this vehicle here.

Any GTA governing body must be accountable. We're talking about millions and millions of dollars to extend sewer, to extend roads, to extend bus service, to put into place the schools, the parks, the things that make up a balanced community. No longer can we build simple dormitory communities; it has to be balanced. No longer can we afford to build superhighways to take people from A to B if we have it within our ability to provide employment close to where people live in a balanced manner, so that we aren't all commuting from Hamilton to get up to the car factory in Alliston. People are doing it, but that is ridiculous.

We know that the planning issues that are before us require a more comprehensive approach. The member for Dovercourt, who spoke before me, has made the point that this bill can only be seen as a short, interim step. The member for Dovercourt has pointed out the inconsistency of this approach given what the government has done with respect to downloading on to regional municipalities and with respect to the initiative that was taken in Toronto.

I want to quote from the news release that was put out by the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, just to show the benchmark here, the rhetoric that the government puts out:

"The GTA municipalities" - greater Toronto area municipalities - "govern a common community of interest. Development decisions in one municipality often have a profound impact on the infrastructure, housing and environmental protections needed in neighbouring municipalities."

This bill does not meet these requirements that have been set out by the minister, and I hope that the government will rethink it. I will now pass over my speaking time to the member for Nickel Belt.

Mr Blain K. Morin (Nickel Belt): It's a pleasure to rise in the remaining two minutes and 55 seconds.

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean): We want to hear more.

Mr Blain Morin: I would agree. I know that many of the members in the House are probably wondering why the member for Nickel Belt would rise on a bill about the GTA. Obviously, with this government's cut-off of services like Northland buses, I guess I'm not going to be an expert on GO Transit, because when you live in northern Ontario it's really tough when you don't see too many of those trains coming through. But I know this government can relate to that and will be very kind in letting me speak about those issues.

I believe it's incumbent upon all the members in the House to get up and speak on an issue such as the Greater Toronto Services Board Act, especially as it pertains - and I'm going to try to condense some of my comments - to some of the issues around urban sprawl. The urban sprawl, especially around the GTA, is not only of concern to the people of the greater Toronto area; it's also of concern to all taxpayers and all ratepayers in Ontario, because there are costs associated with it throughout Ontario. It costs people in my riding, of course, and it's something we dealt with and are very concerned about up in Nickel Belt.

I'd like to make a couple of comments about the board itself. One of the things our party is indicating is that the board needs to be stronger and has to have the ability, and the accountability to the public, to deal with issues such as infrastructure and urban sprawl as well as economic development. My colleague has indicated that one of the things they have to have is that autonomy so we can plan for the future. We're really not sure that the power-making ability of the board is going to be there. A governing body has to be able to make those decisions. A services board with no power-making ability is a board that has no decision-making ability.

I believe we need a board that can promote the GTA to the outside world, because when we start looking at the GTA, we have to be able to take the bull by the horns, so to speak, and we have to be able to promote what we've got out there.

My time is up. I would have liked to speak a little more and I would have liked to talk about examples of the regional government in the regional municipality of Sudbury, which is very well run, and I know those members would probably be able to come in and add to this discussion as well.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Comments and questions?

Mr Ernie Hardeman (Oxford): It's a pleasure to rise and speak to the presentations made by the members for Dovercourt, Ottawa West and Nickel Belt. I guess I have more questions than I have answers to the comments that were made.

I found it rather interesting that the member for Dovercourt suggested we should get rid of regional government across the GTA. I'm not sure that the members of the regional council in the GTA would appreciate that. The NDP sees that the best way to solve local government reform is to completely eliminate one of the levels of government. I would question why, when the NDP were in government, they didn't make such suggestions. Obviously the circumstances in the GTA from 1990-95 were similar to today's, and they didn't seem to think that was the appropriate thing to do.

The other area I was somewhat concerned with is that the member for Dovercourt didn't deem it appropriate that every municipality that would be involved in the services board should have representation on the board. He suggested that there were too many members on the board and that some of those should be eliminated. I point out that the act has a reason for having that size of board, to make sure that we have representation not only by population but that every municipality that would be involved in it would be represented on the board. I think that would be very important for those people, and I'm not sure the people would appreciate very much being totally left out.

The other area that's very important to recognize is that this board is to coordinate regional services, not to provide the regional services, as is being suggested by the members opposite. I think it's very important to keep in mind as we go forward with the debate that that's the purpose of the act.

1630

The Deputy Speaker: Comments or questions? The Chair recognizes the member for Manitoulin-Al -

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): It's Algoma-Manitoulin, but that's actually where I am from. I live on Manitoulin, at Kagawong, and that's a good way to lead into this. Kagawong is a hamlet. Over the last 10 years, the whole township has gone from 400 people to 500 people, and most of that has been because people who had summer residences have converted them now to permanent residences. In short, we have not seen the huge pressures of growth that we have seen in the greater Toronto area.

When I look at this bill and what the government is attempting to do here, in some ways it seems to me that this could be described as a bill to boost the ratings of CITY-TV and Global and all the news networks here in Toronto and the various newspapers, because, being at least somewhat familiar with some of the personalities that will be involved here now and in the future, I can see that there will be at least some minor conflicts between these major players in the regions and the new megacity of Toronto.

I'm very much looking forward to the entertaining debates we will probably see on evening newscasts as the conflicting interests between these regions and the city of Toronto and among the regions are played out on a daily basis. It would help sell the cornflakes on their television programs, but I don't believe it is necessarily the way to approach government, to set up so many conflicts inherent in the legislation.

Hon Margaret Marland (Minister without Portfolio [children's issues]): This is actually quite an exciting day in the House, because we hear this brand-new position from our friends in the third party. It's also even more exciting because we're hearing the brand-new position from the newest member of the New Democratic Party. It's possible, of course, that the newest member of the New Democratic Party isn't quite clear yet what the position of his party is. Are you just celebrating the anniversary of your first week as a New Democrat? I think possibly that's true.

Mr Cullen: Margaret, you haven't noticed? Where is your card?

Hon Mrs Marland: I am speaking, actually, through the Speaker; I'm not addressing you directly across the floor.

I think it's unfortunate when legislation that really everyone in this House understands the need for is dissected and put in a totally different light, in a totally different perspective, just because it suits the purposes of the debate from that side of the House. Having spent 10 years on that side of the House, I respect the process, but I wouldn't want anyone watching to think that's exactly what this legislation is all about.

It is absolutely logical and needed that we would have a Greater Toronto Services Board to make all the planning decisions, particularly about a seamless transportation system. If you could just understand how GO Transit works, you would then be on the road to recovery in understanding the need for this excellent legislation.

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I want to comment briefly on the remarks that have been made with regard to the Greater Toronto Services Board Act. Many years in politics, dealing with different levels of government, lead me to believe that when we deal with a services board act dealing with metropolitan Toronto, there are many mayors around the city who have indicated that there is a need to get together and discuss various aspects of what's happening in the greater Toronto area.

When we look at transit, when we look at what's happening with regard to the Mississaugas of the world, the Markhams of the world, the Pickerings, the whole area around the GTA, sometimes it concerns me that we may be looking for another level of government. Whether we are or not, I'm not too sure, but this piece of legislation sometimes leads me to believe we're looking for Mr Tonks to be the head of it and have 40 members involved in that.

Are we looking for another level of government? That is the question that concerns me. Today in some cases across this province we're looking at amalgamating municipalities and making them into one level of government. Today we have a level of government here. Are we now talking about having another level of government around the GTA? There are concerns, and I think today the discussions will be on whether we're going to have the GTSB or not.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Member for Ottawa West, you have two minutes to reply.

Mr Cullen: I'd like to thank the members for Oxford, Algoma-Manitoulin, Mississauga South and Simcoe East for their comments.

I want to start out by informing the member for Mississauga South that the New Democratic caucus did have a position on the government discussion paper on the Greater Toronto Services Board, so this is not a new position or an evolving position but something we have given a great deal of thought to.

Quite frankly, all the comments that have been made about the need for coordination - yes, we agree; that's bang on. The problem is that this bill is so wimpy in trying to meet that need. We're talking about the provision of infrastructure that's required to accommodate urban growth, the development of communities. Let's just break that down. Here you have this territory of 4.5 million people, 29 municipalities, five regional governments, and you're going to build a new town. What goes into that? Everything goes into that: roads, sewers, houses, sidewalks, parks, lighting, community centres, buses, police, fire, all those things, and there has to be some kind of coordination when we're dealing with such a large item in planning.

This bill doesn't cut it. This bill is a tepid, timid half-step towards the coordination of services that are being funded by taxpayers' dollars, by provincial dollars. This bill doesn't do it. That's the point we're trying to make here. It's an inadequate, insufficient, timid, tepid approach. Yes, there's a need for this. The member for Simcoe East talked about, are we establishing a third level of government? With this coordinating board, it's true. That's not what's needed.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Simcoe Centre): I'm very pleased to join the debate on second reading of the Greater Toronto Services Board legislation. From a practical point of view the consensus is, from the opinions and the input that have been received on this piece of legislation, which I note went out in draft legislation in March 1998 and was introduced in June 1998, that there is a need for coordination. I think that's a given. What may be at issue is how that's to come about.

The studies of the greater Toronto area by Milt Farrow, Anne Golden, Libby Burnham and David Crombie have all told us that the greater Toronto area is a single community of interests. Golden said that the economic, social and environmental well-being of people across the GTA are inextricably linked, but both Golden and Crombie identified lack of coordination across the GTA as a barrier to the overall economic health of the region.

1640

That's what's fundamentally important, because the Liberal government of the day between 1985 and 1990 lost a golden opportunity, a tremendous opportunity, to coordinate the growth of this area. Quite frankly, they did nothing. All they did was look for ways to tax, look for ways to put barriers in the way of the true economic growth of the GTA and areas north of it, which is where I reside and the member for Simcoe East resides, in Simcoe county. They robbed them of 10 years of true prosperity in terms of reaching their economic potential.

It's just recently, from 1996 onwards, that we've been able to bring back the realization of the growth that should have occurred as a natural phenomenon of the growth from Metropolitan Toronto around the GTA and into the next sphere of influence, up into the Simcoe county area, because the detrimental policies of the previous government essentially killed economic growth in this province. We basically have dropped the ball for the last 10 years in dealing with service coordination, in coming to grips to make sure economic growth in this area, the greater Toronto services area, is accomplished.

There were comments on whether the GTSB, the Greater Toronto Services Board, will be another level of government. It won't be. The bottom line is that we're looking for service coordination. It has no service delivery responsibilities other than overseeing the operation of GO Transit, which is of fundamental interest, I may add, to my constituents in Simcoe Centre, and to all the residents of Simcoe county. That's a tremendously valuable piece of infrastructure that we lost. It was taken away from us by the previous government in 1992, for reasons that I think weren't sound and were very short-sighted in terms of GO Transit being available to the residents of the city of Barrie, the town of Innisfil and the town of Bradford-West Gwillimbury.

When we deal with GO Transit, what we're looking at with respect to the Greater Toronto Services Board in terms of their responsibility is that they'll oversee the operation of GO Transit but have no direct taxing authority. They cannot compel members to adhere to any coordination strategies they may develop. They will simply encourage and promote better coordination and co-operation among GTA municipalities. Quite frankly, that's what's needed: coordination. When you look at the endorsements that this piece of legislation has received - I will just review them at this point in time.

The Toronto deputy mayor, Case Ootes, indicated on November 25 of this year, "We want the GTSB, because that's the only way we can address the interregion transportation issues, the waste disposal issues and others that have interregion ramifications." The president and CEO of the Toronto Board of Trade states, "The GTSB is needed to cope with the stresses of rapid growth." Don Cousens, the mayor of Markham, states: "We've got to have a way of crossing our boundaries. The public isn't served unless we look for a way of working across the GTA."

In addition, Hazel McCallion, the mayor of the city of Mississauga, states, "Tonks's proposal would `promote and facilitate coordinated municipal decision-making on issues and services spilling over jurisdictional boundaries.'" Finally, Pat Olive, award-winning Durham region economic development officer, states: "Greater Toronto is one economic region. There is no doubt about that. That is one of the reasons we started the greater Toronto economic partnership."

As I am the member for Simcoe Centre, some may say, "Why would you be interested in this?" Quite frankly, if the service coordination isn't accomplished in the greater Toronto area, it's going to have a detrimental impact on the service requirements that are needed in our area because, quite frankly, the economic growth that is realized in the greater Toronto area directly and indirectly impacts my riding.

Indirectly because a lot of the residents in my riding - for example in the city of Barrie it's estimated that 40% of the residents commute to the greater Toronto area, which is a very significant number. Obviously their well-being and economic livelihood are dependent on the greater Toronto area achieving its true economic potential. Let's face it, jobs are what people want. They not only want to have their jobs, they also want to have more money in their pockets. But the bottom line is, you need a good job, and obviously the GTA provides good jobs.

Also, from a direct impact, Simcoe county has realized significantly the growth that is being experienced from the GTA.

I just want to comment on the statement made by the member for Ottawa West, which I thought was total nonsense. He said it was ridiculous for someone from Hamilton to commute to the Honda plant in Alliston. Why is that ridiculous? If a person chooses to live in the city of Hamilton, which is a very good city to live in, and they want to work at Honda in Alliston, who are we, in government, to say they shouldn't do that? Why would we interfere in where people want to live? Obviously the infrastructure is there for someone who lives in the city of Hamilton. They've made the conscious decision that they want to live in the city of Hamilton and they want to work outside of Hamilton. What is wrong with that?

People make those decisions every day, as I stated with respect to the commuters who live in my riding in the city of Barrie. They've made that conscious decision to move up to the city of Barrie for the affordable housing, for the quality of lifestyle, but they want to work in the GTA. That's their decision to make and the government shouldn't have any role in the decision-making of where people live. So I take great issue with respect to the premise that the member has stated as to why someone would want to do that.

It's also important to look at why it's important to have this service coordination. I really want to focus on the GO Transit issue. GO Transit as a form of public transportation is invaluable for many reasons. It creates an infrastructure that obviously is needed and it services the entire GTA, all the way out to the city of Hamilton. Quite frankly, if we had it in the city of Barrie, we wouldn't be looking at the tremendous amount of highway traffic we are facing, the tremendous costs that we're looking at in terms of maintaining that highway infrastructure.

Also, there are significant environmental issues that are faced with respect to the automobile being used as a transportation method versus rail. Obviously rail is much more environmentally friendly. I would say that what we should be trying to do in working with GO Transit is to make sure that they can succeed.

When you look at the operation of GO Transit, and I just want to review that for a moment as it would be dealt with under this particular piece of legislation, the Greater Toronto Transit Authority, reporting to the Greater Toronto Services Board, would be established to operate the existing GO Transit regional transit system. The GTSB will be responsible for approving the GO Transit operating budget, major service changes, expansion, fare increases and determining the formula by which GO's costs are apportioned among the GTSB municipalities.

That's fundamental for my area, for the city of Barrie and for all of Simcoe county, because we want to see GO Transit succeed. We want to see GO Transit come all the way up to the city of Barrie and connect into Simcoe county, because it makes sense for economic reasons. It makes sense for people who don't want to use the highway to go to Toronto and back. It's a very fundamental decision in terms of people who are from outside Barrie who would want to come up and visit the city of Barrie because it's such a great place to reside, visit its waterfront and much more, and they would use GO Transit to do that. But that's something that we have to work towards.

1650

The GT Transit would supervise the day-to-day operations of the transit authority under the direction of its own board of directors. The current GO Transit directors and chair would be a part of that GT Transit board. But what we're going to see as we move on would be greater municipality involvement in terms of the operation.

What we have to understand is that GO Transit is serving one large economic community and, quite frankly, if we really wanted to see it serve the economic region properly, it wouldn't be just restricted to the city of Toronto and the 905 areas; it would go as far out as the city of Kitchener and up to the city of Barrie to reach our true economic potential, because that's what investors look at in terms of your highway infrastructure and also your rail infrastructure, and that's something that's missing at this point in time.

The point that is made is, if we reach our economic growth potential in terms of all the economic growth that can be reached in the city of Mississauga and the areas around Metropolitan Toronto, you have to go out further. If you don't have the infrastructure in place and GO Transit reaching out as far as the city of Barrie, you've lost a vital link in terms of relying on truck transportation for everything.

It's fundamental, because the GTA is one large economic community. The benefits of efficient transit across the entire area are felt beyond the riders. The downtown businesses that employ those riders or depend on them as customers all benefit. GO Transit has a positive effect on the economic health of the entire GTA inside Toronto and in the 905 regions. Its potential for expansion because of the economic growth that is being realized through the policies of the Harris government, which has set up an economic environment second to none in this country - because the economic growth that is being accomplished through this country is certainly not through federal policies. Quite frankly, people are more heavily taxed by the federal government in terms of no protection through indexation of the income they earn because we have bracket creep, through an increase in CPP and through the failure to address UI. This has resulted in people not having as much money in their pockets as in 1989, because of federal policies.

What they basically have done is eaten up the 30% income tax cut that we have provided through very prudent fiscal management. The bottom line is that the federal government has basically abdicated their responsibility with respect to rail funding and rail transportation in this province.

We're not looking for any help from the federal government. We're certainly not looking for them to put barriers in the place of economic growth in this area because we would all be far better off if they basically worked with the provinces, and especially this government, in terms of giving taxpayers their money back. They seem to think its their money.

The interesting note that has been brought out is that in the last six months the federal government has realized a $10-billion surplus. If we aren't overtaxed, where did they get all the money? All it has come from is basically the economic growth that's been achieved. Does the common person achieve a better situation with respect to the money they take home? No, because they haven't done anything to deal with bracket creep. There's no indexation if you move up in terms of an income level. What they have done is increased CPP to the point where it will be up 10%, and they've done nothing in terms of the UI surplus.

So the economic potential for this area is far greater if we find the federal government getting in line with the policies of the Mike Harris government. They seem to forget that the province of Ontario doesn't compete with Quebec, it doesn't compete with Manitoba; it basically compete with the state of Michigan, the state of Ohio and the state of Indiana and, quite frankly, their policies are geared to making sure that the economic prosperity of the regions is achieved. They're not fighting with the federal government in the United States in terms of achieving their economic growth, because their unemployment rates are about one third the level that ours are. They're looking at 3% and 4% unemployment. We should be putting in place economic policies that encourage economic growth. That's really the focus, making sure we can better serve the needs of the people who live in Metropolitan Toronto and the GTA, making sure that service in transportation or whatever other services they need are there. But the bottom line is that the economic health of the entire GTA, the city of Toronto and the 905 region fundamentally impacts the entire province. That is the bottom line.

GO Transit, as I commented, is certainly a fundamental transportation link to the GTA and the city of Toronto and also to the areas where they should be reaching beyond. That is something we're going to value tremendously in the future of this province, not only for environmental reasons but also because we have to focus on creating a rail system. In the United States, that's where they're focusing. In the public sector, they realize the importance of rail in their heavy industrialized areas and their heavily populated areas. What are we doing in this country? The federal government has decided that they're getting out of the rail industry, especially in the province of Ontario. They've given CN and CP the green light to abandon rail all across this province. Where are they abandoning it? They're looking at abandoning the line between Bradford and Barrie.

We looked to work on this fundamental problem, because that's so short-sighted for CN to be leaving that particular area. Fortunately, the city of Barrie and the province have been able to work together and are looking to a resolution to this by purchasing that particular rail line.

Where's the federal government on this? They're basically saying: "It's not our responsibility. That's a provincial rail line." I've never heard such nonsense in my life. When did the railways become provincial? They've never been provincial; they've been a federal responsibility, regulated companies such as CN and CP. Those are federally regulated companies; they're the only companies that are involved in major transportation for rail.

Interjection: What do they collect for gas taxes?

Mr Tascona: That's another point, gas tax. What does the federal government collect in gas tax? What do they put back into the highway system of this province? They don't put back anything in terms of what they take out, but they say we have to be a part of this. Why don't they give back that money so they can increase and improve the infrastructure of this province?

The bottom line in dealing with the services we need is that setting up this Greater Toronto Services Board is fundamental. The federal government could play a significant role in terms of getting back and showing they're responsible by supporting the rail system and also supporting the highway infrastructure by giving us a fair shake on gas taxes.

The Acting Speaker: Questions or comments?

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): I have found it very amusing in the last couple of weeks or so that the members on the government side seem more interested in attacking the federal government than in dealing with the issues they ought to be dealing with here in this chamber. It just goes on and on. We heard it today with respect to the pork producers; now we're hearing it with respect to rail transportation. It almost seems to be on a continual basis. Why don't we stop this politics of blame?

If you want to talk about downloading, how about all the downloading you people have done on local municipalities? What are you doing, for example, about housing in this province? You have done absolutely nothing over the last three to four years. As we hear in report after report, there are more homeless in this province than ever before, people who are in absolutely desperate situations.

Mr Baird: How much money do you want to spend on social housing? Say, "I will spend X number of dollars."

The Acting Speaker: Member for Nepean, you'll have your turn.

1700

Mr Gerretsen: So don't you talk about what the federal government ought to be doing and is not doing, because you're doing exactly the same thing. You're downloading all of your responsibilities upon the local level of government.

What I find interesting is that we tend to forget in all this that the reason the province got involved in all these different programs that they're now downloading on local municipalities is because municipalities simply would not have the financial wherewithal, the financial capacity, to get involved in a lot of these programs if not for the subsidy dollars that used to come from the province.

As far as this particular bill is concerned, it is a step in the right direction, but as I said last week, it is only a very small, little step. If you want to make this board meaningful, you've got to give it more powers.

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I would also like to comment on the remarks of the member for Simcoe Centre and focus my remarks on downloading but take just a little different tack.

First of all, as much as the member - and I jotted down the quote when he said it. When he said he wanted to focus on GO as an issue, he said it was "invaluable and provides service that is needed." But the reality is that they, the Harris government, downloaded and dumped their responsibility for GO down to municipalities - the whole shot. They downloaded it. As I mentioned in this House last week, the difficulty for municipalities like mine in Hamilton is that as a result of other downloading we're over $36 million in the hole in terms of the services you've downloaded and the offsetting money you've provided. We're out $36 million.

GO is one of those areas that we're now expected to carry. When the member talks, on behalf of the government, about the need for GO service and public transit, they're empty words, because the commitment of dollars is gone. They've downloaded that to municipalities, so when we see the pressure build for expanding GO Transit and other forms of public transit, it's on the municipalities, which had the smallest base and the smallest amount of income to work with in the first place to pay for the responsibilities they had before, and now they're totally overwhelmed. The kind of expansion that we ought to see in GO is just not going to happen because of this government's downloading on to municipalities.

So when you talk about a commitment, you don't show you're prepared to back it up.

Mr Hardeman: I too would like to rise and commend the member for Simcoe Centre for his presentation and discussion of Bill 56, the Greater Toronto Services Board legislation, particularly as he spoke in such an informed way about the issue of GO Transit and how GO Transit provides transportation to some 90,000 individuals each and every day and how that helps the economy of the GTA, and that in the area the member is from, Simcoe county, those people too utilize the services on a regular basis.

He spoke to the issue of how this can be better coordinated and operated through municipal involvement. Obviously, we all know that the previous board for GO Transit was in fact structured from municipal government; it was not structured to totally control it but it was on behalf of the province. Now it will be part of the Greater Toronto Services Board and it will, with representatives from each of the municipalities, from each of the regions, be able to operate GO Transit in a way that will best serve the people of their communities. I look forward to that providing a very good service to not only the people living in the GTA but the area of Simcoe Centre that was referred to.

The legislation does allow the expansion of the service at any point in time, with mutual agreement of the new GO board and the area in which the service will be provided. To make it a practical and cost-effective and efficient service, everyone would have to agree for that happen.

Again, I want to commend the member for making a very solid presentation on the bill.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): What was disappointing about the speech was that it was a pretty routine speech of "blame everybody else." The new game - not particularly new, but I think newer in the latter part of the mandate - is just to blame somebody else, blame the previous Liberal government a long time ago, blame the previous NDP government that was just there, blame the federal government, blame the municipalities.

There may be some virtues to this bill; in fact, I think there are some virtues to this bill. I would have thought the member would spend his time trying to extol the virtues of this bill instead of simply playing the politics of blame: blame somebody else all the time.

I think the public's getting tired of that. They expect in the House that we're going to have an exchange with one another. They expect that. But they keep looking at this government and their hands are thrust in every different direction pointing at somebody else, when in fact very often if they want to find the blame, they should simply look in the mirror and they would find the blame in the mirror, when that individual happened to be making the speech.

I certainly understand the consternation that many have expressed about transportation in this province and what's going to happen to public transportation. This government has gotten out of the business of public transportation, essentially. It has withdrawn dramatically from public transportation. If you want to look at one area where a provincial government, regardless of what party it happens to be, has a significant role to play, it's in transportation, and they seem to have just thrown that back at the municipalities and said, "Do the best you can with the information that you have and with the money that you have."

They certainly subsidize the highways for all those trucks that are going out there, but I think a lot of people in all parties would like to see more use of rail - GO Transit is one good example of that - and of shipping and things of that nature. But all we got in the last speech was pointing the finger at everybody else for blame.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Christopherson: On a point of order, Speaker: Do the rules not allow the person who made the original speech, in this case the member for Simcoe Centre, an opportunity to have two minutes to respond to our two-minute responses?

The Acting Speaker: You're totally right, but the member is not here, so we'll proceed with the debate.

Further debate?

Mr Joseph Cordiano (Lawrence): It's unfortunate that we're not going to hear from that previous speaker, but in any case, I am very happy to speak on this bill, which I think is of great significance to the people of the greater Toronto area as it will impact on a variety of important issues facing the greater Toronto area, very important indeed.

Let me say from the outset that I believe the provincial Conservative government has not gone far enough. It certainly should have taken the view and adopted the vision that was put forward by Mr Crombie and that came out of the Anne Golden report, which I think would have been the right approach, to have a Greater Toronto Services Board council that dealt with a variety of matters that would be overarching in the entire greater Toronto area.

The bill, as stated, deals with a variety of things. It has an indirect council of 40, including all the regional chairs and also designated area councillors. It has a vague responsibility, and here is a quote, "to promote and facilitate coordinated decision-making among the municipalities in the greater Toronto area," but it has no legal authority to enforce these decisions.

It has poorly defined responsibility for coordinating a seamless GTA transit-wide system, which I think is a real shortcoming of this bill, and it has no authority over social service pooling costs, another major drawback. Those two areas should have been crucial for this GTA services board to administer and to have legal authority over, those two critical services which would bind the GTA because it is an economic entity unto itself.

1710

I believe that having a GTA-wide transit system is critical to the future success of this economic area and I think without it we're going to be put further and further behind in terms of our ability to compete, as what I would think is emerging in North America is the advent of city-states having to compete with one another for the purposes of attracting investment, jobs and ensuring the economic viability of those areas. Certainly the greater Toronto area is competing with the likes of not only New York, which is probably on a world scale much bigger than what we're talking about here, but Chicago and places like San Francisco and Los Angeles, to mention a few.

Mr Christopherson: Hamilton.

Mr Cordiano: Hamilton is a part of that greater Toronto area and will be a part of that in the future in terms of the economic planning that's important. I say to the member for Hamilton Centre that we need a coordinated approach to some of those economic plans. There are people who work in Toronto and live in Hamilton and vice versa. There is a question around transportation needs, and when you begin to understand that, we need a seamless web, we need that greater overarching kind of transportation system, which we fail to see on the part of this government coming forward with any kind of vision for that to take hold. By and large, we're seeing a tremendous gridlock beginning to take hold on the QEW, the 403 and the 401. Let me tell you, it won't be too long before the 407 experiences a capacity level.

Hon David Turnbull (Minister without Portfolio): You never spent any money on roads. How dare you say that? This is ludicrous.

Mr Cordiano: My friend says we never spent any money on roads. Let me tell you something: Roads alone are not the answer. We'll be choking with all the smog we're creating now on the roads. We had smog alerts over the past summer because we're not looking after the environment, we're not encouraging the use of public transit. In fact, your government's not funding public transit any longer. You've downloaded that responsibility on to municipalities. There's no coordinated initiative.

I haven't heard the Minister of Transportation say much of anything this session, but by and large he has not made any kind of utterance with respect to public transportation and how important that is to the viability of the economy in this province and the environment and how all of this must come together in terms of a coordinated initiative with this Greater Toronto Services Board. We're not hearing that from this government. We're not seeing any action on the part of this government with respect to that kind of initiative. It is absolutely critical for the GTA.

I want to be absolutely critical about this government. You have done precious little with respect to this issue. You can laugh over there, but you are going to face this issue in the next election. Many people not only in the city of Toronto but across the 905 area, which you may deem to be your personal fiefdom over there, many thoughtful people are beginning to see the effects of gridlock. It is a quality-of-life issue that affects many people. People are tired of having to commute from their place of work back to their home, and, by the way, it's not just from the 905 area into the 416 area; it is interregional. They're beginning to question the viability of having a lifestyle that imposes a one-hour to two-hour commute each and every day. It is difficult on the life of families, it is difficult with respect to a variety of things. It's not good for people's health etc. It is one of those issues that I think will come to the surface.

That dovetails with the whole issue of urban sprawl. There's no planning now that's taking place. This government does not see as a priority real planning concerns. Land use policies are non-existent with this government. With respect to a sound strategy around the environment, there is no discussion of that with this government. It's not part of the plan; it's not part of the vision. This is a government that entirely ignores the question of the environment, entirely ignores what that's doing to the quality of our air and what's happening with respect to the health concerns around that.

Tying it back into the Greater Toronto Services Board, it doesn't have enough teeth. We support this legislation because it moves ever so slowly in the right direction, but certainly not quickly enough and not to great effect. This GTSB should have been responsible for GTA-wide economic development strategy and planning, and a coordinated initiative, and it should have the authority to do that. It should have been responsible for overseeing the pooling of social costs, which it has no authority to do as well. It won't be able to administer regional roads, garbage, sewer and other types of services like that.

I believe this bill does not go far enough, and I think those are very important questions. They're very costly decisions that will have to be made by those regions. They're very costly with respect to what will take place in terms of development.

Going back to the question of urban sprawl, we're not making efficient decisions around those development questions, because the infrastructure that needs to be built isn't going forward as quickly as the development that's desired to take place, the population expansion.

We need to understand what impact this will have, and there is no discussion around these questions - not from the Minister of Municipal Affairs, not from the Minister of Transportation, not from the Minister of the Environment. They are silent on these questions, and I believe this Greater Toronto Services Board will be handcuffed and not able to deal with these very important questions.

The Acting Speaker: Questions or comments?

Mr Gerretsen: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I have great faith in our table officers, but I suggest that another 10 minutes be put on the clock since the member only had 10 minutes to speak. I would like you to confer with the table officers to see if that's possible.

The Acting Speaker: To the member for Kingston and The Islands, at 5 o'clock we had reached the seven hours allotted for these debates. Now we have to revert back to the normal procedure, which is 10 minutes and that's it.

Mr Gerretsen: On a further point then, Mr Speaker, since you're talking about the draconian rule changes that this government brought in: Since we have a prominent member here who represents the Toronto area, which is going to be heavily involved with the Greater Toronto Services Board, I would request unanimous consent that the member be allowed to speak for another 10 minutes to address his concerns with respect to this board.

The Acting Speaker: Is there unanimous consent? There is a no.

Mr Michael Brown: Who said no?

Mr Gerretsen: Who said no?

The Acting Speaker: I heard a no, period.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Is there a quorum present?

The Acting Speaker: Please check if we have a quorum.

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

The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.

1720

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

The Acting Speaker: Questions or comments? The member for Hamilton Centre.

Mr Christopherson: Thank you, Speaker. You and the table are looking at each other quizzically. I think I'm up for the two-minute response, right?

The Acting Speaker: Yes, you are. You have your two-minute response.

Mr Christopherson: Thank you, Speaker. To respond to the member for Lawrence, when he was talking about the fact that the GTA has to compete with other major international centres such as New York and Chicago, of course somewhat tongue in cheek, I said "Hamilton" from my seat. But as I noted on this bill earlier, the fact that there isn't a stronger coordinating and planning role for this new body does impact my community of Hamilton-Wentworth.

For the government to stand up and say there is a mechanism for this new board to go ahead and take on new strategic issues, first of all, it's non-binding and, second, it requires two-thirds support of the board. Everybody who analyzes the politics of who's going to be on there readily acknowledges that there's fast going to be gridlock on most of the key issues that we in Hamilton and others would like to see in terms of that stronger coordinating role.

I would remind the government that both the Golden report and David Crombie's Who Does What panel recommended a much stronger entity than the one that's being offered here.

So when I talk about Hamilton-Wentworth and the impact of a weak GTA planning board, if I can call it that, the fact is that if we don't know what you're planning in this area, we have a great deal of difficulty responding and putting in plans for our own region in terms of urban sprawl, land use, environmental control and transportation - all issues that affect our local economy - and we're going to be hurt by this weak entity.

Mr Baird: I listened with great interest to the remarks by my colleague the member for Lawrence, as we always do when he speaks. He spoke at great length about the gridlock, particularly in the greater Toronto area, and indeed as an interregional problem. The GTSB will provide a forum for GTA municipalities to develop strategies for things like transportation planning. It can look not only at GO Transit, but it can also look at roads and at seamless public transit. The goal to is use transportation infrastructure better in the GTA.

He did mention, as far as the government's transportation policies are concerned, the plan to move ahead and expand Highway 407. We sat together on a committee not two weeks ago with the bill to privatize Highway 407, albeit a project started by the New Democratic Party government, to expand it and to try and push forward the construction not just to the Halton region, on which we heard a very meaningful policy put forward by the regional chair of Halton, Joyce Savoline, about the folks in Halton being the missing link and the importance of pushing that ahead, but as well in the Durham region. The government of course will be pushing ahead with that piece of legislation to be able to deliver better transit and transportation for those folks. That will help alleviate the congestion on Highway 401 and indeed all the highways in the greater Toronto area.

He didn't mention Highway 416, and it's no wonder he didn't mention Highway 416, because Highway 416 is important transportation infrastructure of the province of Ontario. I give the important aspect. At least the New Democratic Party had the guts to start this project. The Liberal government promised the money for Highway 416 but it took an NDP government to get the first shovel in the ground and it took a Conservative government to finish off the job; even to get the great street of Brophy Drive redesignated on Highway 416.

Mr Gerretsen: Let me just say that on the last point the member is totally and completely wrong. The 416 was actually started by a Liberal government, under David Peterson. As a matter of fact, four successive Tory governments prior to that talked about building the 416 but did absolutely nothing about it.

I found it very interesting when the honourable government whip got up and accused a former government of not doing anything about the transportation problems in this province. Well, let me just say this: What this government has done with respect to the highway system in Ontario is absolutely disastrous. It is just horrible. You have basically -

Hon Noble Villeneuve (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, minister responsible for francophone affairs): The 401 has never been in better shape and you know it.

The Acting Speaker: Minister.

Mr Gerretsen: The 401 is in good shape now, by and large, I will agree with that, but how about all the other highways in Ontario that you have downloaded on to local municipalities? You've basically washed your hands of them and said, "From now on, they're your responsibility." I know you'll say, "They're in good shape." Well, some of them are, some of them aren't.

You know something? Even the local municipalities may be able to maintain them for a year or two, but what is going to happen four, five, 10 years from now when some of these roads that you have downloaded are going to need some major repairs, some major rebuilding? The local municipalities simply will not have the financial wherewithal to get involved in those massive reconstruction programs.

What you've done is criminal. You never should have taken the highway system in Ontario and downloaded it to local municipalities.

Interjection.

Mr Gerretsen: The Minister of Agriculture thinks this is quite funny. It is not funny and I think you will live to regret the day you did that.

Mr Wildman: I listened with interest to my friend from Lawrence. I want to say that we agree completely with his view that this board is not nearly as strong as it needs to be if it's going to have any real impact on growth in the GTA, whether it's in relation to the planning of GO Transit or other public transit in the GTA, and as it relates to other parts of the province. It's certainly not going to have any real impact with regard to urban sprawl and land use planning.

This board, as far as I can see, is going to be nothing more than a talk shop. There will be a lot of discussion, a lot of philosophizing, a lot of positions taken, but nothing really done except for the particular matters with regard specifically to GO, and in that situation it looks to me like the area around Toronto in the 905 belt will receive more out of this than Toronto. We all know that 85% of the riders are from 905, and that's a good thing because that means at least there are fewer cars coming downtown every day as people come to work, but at the same time, Toronto will pay a good portion of this.

The whole thing relates to the fact that this government does not really believe in systematic planning. Whether it's land-use planning, transit or traffic planning, it doesn't believe in it. It believes that the market should decide, and if the market decides on concentrating everything in Toronto, we're going to have continued congestion and all the problems that go with that.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Lawrence, you have two minutes.

Mr Cordiano: I want to thank all the members for their comments. I think it's important to recognize that this bill creates the Greater Toronto Services Board, which is a first important step. However, I hope this government does not allow this Greater Toronto Services Board to be used as an excuse for not involving itself in further planning issues and in further issues that are GTA-wide.

The role of the provincial government is essential because you have not given this Greater Toronto Services Board enough teeth to deal with the bigger questions around transit, around water and sewage and with respect to the pooling of social costs and issues like that. These are important issues and I don't think they're going to be resolved in any way, shape or form by this Greater Toronto Services Board as it is envisaged in this bill, Bill 56.

To respond to the member for Hamilton Centre, what happens to Toronto and to Hamilton is important, because if we did have a transit system - think of this - that linked up the two airports, the one in Hamilton and the one in Toronto, that would help the airport in Hamilton. It would help the flow of goods and people through those two airports. I think there needs to be a vision around those two airports that links the two regions up. Therein lies a legitimate role for the province to play in order to link those two, in order for the GTSB to be stronger, to have those kinds of planning powers.

It doesn't have that in this bill and that's a real flaw. I think it will limit growth in the GTA, and I look forward to further debate down the road in the years to come around strengthening that role for the GTSB.

1730

The Acting Speaker: Further debate.

Mr Wildman: I'd just like to go on from the two short comments I made in response to the remarks of the member for Lawrence with regard to this Greater Toronto Services Board Act.

As I said a moment ago, in the New Democratic Party we believe that if we're going to have an overall structure, a committee or a board that is going to be responsible for discussion and development of services in the greater Toronto region, then it's got to have more teeth. It has to have more strength than this proposed board because, as I said, this is just going to be a talk shop. It will not have the strength and the powers to deal with infrastructure, whether it's water and sewer, roads or transit. It won't be able to deal with urban sprawl and proper land use planning and it won't be able to do anything of significance with regard to economic development for the greater Toronto area.

This is of particular importance not just to Toronto and the surrounding communities but to the whole of the province, because those of us like myself who come from the hinterland have to recognize that the centre of economic development, the economic engine of the province is in Toronto. We would like to see less concentration, less congestion in Toronto. We would like to see a regional economic development plan from this government, but the Tories have never thought of that, going back to when the Duke of Kent used to be in the position of Minister of Finance. At that time it was called the Treasurer of Ontario. He did make some tentative moves towards regional economic development which were only tentative, I think. Subsequently, we had the Liberal government and then the NDP who did in fact move offices out of Toronto to other parts of the province.

Mr Cordiano: We did too.

Mr Wildman: That's what I said, the Liberal government and the NDP.

What happened to that when this government came to power? They cancelled all the programs that suggested the moves into the other areas, places like Sault Ste Marie, St Catharines and other places like that, and said, "We're going to concentrate everything in Toronto." Then they amalgamated the municipalities in Toronto against the wishes of over 70% of the population of this region. At the same time, ironically, they didn't do anything with regard to changes in the regions around Toronto. One wag suggested that might have to do with political representation in those areas. At any rate, they didn't do anything there.

Then, as an answer to the question, "How is this new megacity going to be able to deal with issues around economic development, urban sprawl, land use planning and the development of infrastructure as it relates to the areas and communities around Toronto?" the suggestion was, "We'll set up a board that will have representation from all of these areas, all of these communities, which will be able to deal with the issues of coordination." Then the government doesn't give this board any real power. I suppose that same wag would suggest that this is just a facade. It's just to make it look as if the government is interested in coordination. It's to give the municipal politicians one more place where they can sit around and talk to one another and take positions, but it actually won't be able to do anything. It won't make any change.

The government, the Minister of Municipal Affairs without Housing, has suggested that at some future date this board could take upon itself these powers and actually have some power to do something. The problem with that, of course, is that the bill requires that there be a two-thirds vote in order for the board to do that. We all know that is very unlikely to ever happen. It might happen at some future date when it's already too late, when the problems of urban sprawl and the lack of coordination for economic development, the development of transit and transportation planning has become so serious that everyone admits there has to be some coordination, but then it will be too late. You'll be trying to fix something that has already gone wrong, because frankly it's already beginning to go wrong.

Just try to get out of this city during rush hour. Anybody who has to travel those highways knows the problems we've got.

Mr Douglas B. Ford (Etobicoke-Humber): Thousands of people do it every day.

Mr Wildman: Oh, they do it, all right, but how long does it take them? Much longer than it should take them when you consider the actual distances, becomes sometimes places like the Don Valley Parkway should be called a parking lot, not a parkway.

This government has decided that one way it can deal with the income tax cut is by downloading all sorts of services to the municipalities. This is another way of saying, "OK, if we're going to give you all these responsibilities and costs - "

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Member for Nepean, Minister, member for Kingston and The Islands.

Mr Wildman: " - we're actually going to give you some say in how the programs and services are going to be provided."

What is this going to do? There's a lot in this bill to do with GO Transit, but there's nothing in here that is going to make it possible to ensure that the board actually is going to be able to ensure there is proper transit planning. We know the difficulties and the problems we face in this city on hot summer days with smog, the number of times there are respiratory concerns and orders where the authorities say to the public, "If you're an older person, if you're a child or if you're a person with respiratory problems, don't go outside." That's the situation we're facing now. It will only get worse if more and more vehicles are clogging our roads and idling as they sit in those parking lots that pretend to be roads during so-called rush hour. I shouldn't call it rush hour; it should be called gridlock hour.

We in our caucus believe that what is required is a strong GTS Board. In fact, during the megacity debate we suggested the abolition of Metro and the regions in the 905 area, keeping the lower-tier municipalities and creating a GTS Board that would serve as a regional level of government, a board that actually would have some say, some control, some teeth and responsibility as well as accountability.

We believe we need a board that will promote the GTA to the outside world and will be involved in economic development, not just another talk shop; that will coordinate the efforts of all of the communities in this region so we're not working at cross purposes, where Pickering is doing one thing and Toronto is doing another and other communities are attempting to compete with one another for economic development rather than coordinating what's going on. We want a body that will make decisions about infrastructure, that crosses municipal boundaries, that will deal with urban sprawl. As the municipalities compete now for economic development, all that does is exacerbate the problems of urban sprawl, and it costs the taxpayers of the GTA a great deal of money, about $1 billion a year, according to a study by Pamela Blais which was done for the Golden report.

1740

The Golden report supported a strong regional body on the GTA and, interestingly enough, so did David Crombie in his Who Does What report. This current Greater Toronto Services Board is a weak proposal compared to the suggestions that have been made by David Crombie and Pamela Blais and the Golden report. It doesn't really do anything. We're going to see the problems exacerbated. We're going to see the situation get worse until it gets so bad that indeed two thirds of the members of the Greater Toronto Services Board might come to vote to have more power and more responsibility. But then, mark my words, it will be too late because the problems will have become obvious because they are so difficult and so serious, and then we won't be able to resolve the problems.

The Acting Speaker: Questions or comments?

Mr Hardeman: I want to thank the member for Algoma for his presentation. I just want to express some disappointment in his analogy of the municipal politicians or the people who run municipal government and their ability to work together and to provide a quality service for the people they represent. I have more faith than his suggestion in his presentation that because legislation does not force and does not obligate municipal politicians to do certain things, they will not make the decisions in the best interests of their communities.

I think it's fair to say and I think we would all agree that coordinating these services on a more regional-type basis than the present region can do is good for their community and for their neighbouring community. I have every reason to believe that they will make those decisions.

I am not the only one who believes that. I just happened to have here an editorial from the Toronto Star, I believe it is. It says: "But one should not underestimate the influence of this new body. Collectively, the politicians sitting on it would represent 4.7 million people." That's bigger than all other provinces save and except Ontario and Quebec. "Moreover, the government has left the door open for the board to evolve into a more powerful body. We hope this will happen. For now, however, this is a welcome step forward."

In this case I would agree with the Toronto Star and suggest that I think this is a step forward, first of all to administer GO Transit, which is already across the whole GTA region, and secondly to improve on and look at regional services in a better and more coordinated way to make sure that the service does not stop at the regional boundaries but in fact can be extended to serve the people in the whole GTA area. I believe this bill will do that.

Mr Gerretsen: They've done it again. Another closure motion has just been filed with the Clerk of this House to the effect that this bill here is being time-allocated. Time allocation is a nice word for saying closure. The democratic will of the people will no longer be able to be heard in this House. As a matter of fact, next Monday this bill is going for clause-by-clause consideration between 9 in the morning and 12.

There won't even be any time for the general public to express its views on the merits of this bill. There may very well be some people who have something very good to say about this bill. Once again, you're cutting off debate, as you've done in so many other bills. I think this about the 30th bill that this government has invoked closure on. It doesn't want to hear from the people through its committee system and it doesn't want to hear from its elected representatives.

Remember, there is another news release that I just picked up, with respect to Bill 79, which was time-allocated last week, you may recall, dealing with the tax situations you've bungled up in this province. What does this say? This is issued by the regional municipality of Halton. Let me just read to you what the regional chairman says in this media release.

"The final straw is that the province is also breaking its commitment to fund their share of Halton's tax rebate program, which amounts to $1 million." I want the government members to listen to this: "I am concerned about how we do business with a government that won't honour their written commitments. Halton would expect to be able to take Minister Eves at his word."

So here we go again: For the 30th time, at least, since this government has been elected, they're invoking closure in a situation where we don't need closure at all.

Mr Christopherson: I rise to commend the speech of my colleague from Algoma. I hope that government members will take into account the fact that we're speaking of one of the most senior members of this House. He has served here 23 years, five of those as a cabinet minister, someone who has watched and been part of the discussion of all the evolution of modern-day Ontario. So when he underscores the Golden report and David Crombie's Who Does What panel report, emphasizing that this really should be stronger, that the GTSB as proposed should be stronger, I would think the government would be further ahead by listening to those kinds of voices and by listening to this kind of experience speaking.

I listened to other comments as they relate to what the member for Algoma has said, and we now hear this argument - I've heard it a number of times - that the government wants to walk before they run. They make the whole argument around the fact that it's prudent to be able to walk before you run and to be cautious. What I find so hypocritical about that argument is that it's the exact opposite of what this government has done in so many areas. Take education. They admitted they were going to create a phony crisis, did just that, took virtually all the powers away from school boards, vested every major decision in education into one minister, made him the czar of education and didn't listen to anyone who said, "Why don't you walk before you run at the very least?"

That's the point: They suggest that they've got this thought-through philosophy. The reality is they grab whatever quick little argument, try to solve the cracks that appear, and God knows there are going to be more than enough cracks in this board eventually.

Mr Baird: I want to congratulate my colleague the member for Algoma for his remarks. He always speaks eloquently and you always learn something from listening to him.

But in listening to my colleague the member for Hamilton Centre just now, I feel obliged to respond that you just can't get it right either way. You either move too slowly and don't get on with it or you move too quickly. That's the reality of being in government: You'll never make the opposition parties happy. At some point, though, you've got to make decisions, and I think Bill 56 reflects a compromise and a balance of the varied interests. Virtually everyone agrees that we need to move forward and get better coordination across the greater Toronto area. We need to get on with it. As the member for Hamilton Centre said, we've got to learn to walk before we can run.

Mr Christopherson: What about education?

Mr Baird: I don't think there's a need to make all the decisions at this time. The GTSB is being set up -

Mr Christopherson: What about property tax reform?

Mr Baird: On property tax reform, we've taken a slow approach and we're dealing with one issue at a time.

Mr Christopherson: You try to run and you still can't crawl.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Hamilton Centre, please.

Mr Baird: We dealt with education first. We dealt with the Ontario Property Assessment Corp later. We dealt with assessment review in another bill. We didn't put it all in an omnibus bill. We broke it up into bite-size pieces so that we could have more debate in the Legislative Assembly, which is extremely important.

But I digress. I should get back to the comments of the member for Algoma.

The board's responsibilities will undoubtedly evolve over time. The board may choose at a later date, with the consent of the folks from the various municipalities, to even take on an expanded role. The provincial government, whether it's two or three or 10 years from now, may choose to present an option for it to go further, but that doesn't mean we can't get on with these types of things today. That's something that's important.

The legislation we're debating today requires review in the year 2000 to see how it has evolved. Maybe it should be expanded, maybe it shouldn't be quite as broad, but the opportunity is there and that's exceptionally important.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Algoma.

Mr Wildman: I want to thank my friends from Oxford, Kingston and The Islands, Hamilton Centre and Nepean for their comments. I would just say to the member for Oxford that in his disappointment he probably didn't hear what I was really saying. I was not being critical of municipal politicians. I recognize that they are elected to represent their communities, to represent their ratepayers and to do what they can for their local government.

But the provincial government has a responsibility beyond municipal boundaries. The provincial government has a responsibility to give direction for development outside a particular municipality. That's why GO Transit was developed by the provincial government. It could not be done by the municipalities in co-operation with one another no matter how much goodwill there was among the municipal politicians.

1750

The member for Hamilton Centre points out a couple of things. First, he's quite right that I can look back to Darcy McKeough, the Duke of Kent, and his attempts at economic development across the province, and see how tentative the steps were at that time. But I don't understand why this government has not accepted the Golden report, and particularly the Crombie report, because Crombie's commission was set up by this government to make recommendations. He made recommendations and the government hasn't followed through.

The argument that the government must walk before it runs, that this board must walk before it runs, is so silly when you consider the other things this government has done. The member for Nepean says they're going to be criticized whether they go too fast or too slow. Why not approach it with moderate speed, listening to what people have to say, and do it in a responsible way, rather than having one snafu after another like you've had with assessment. The fact is that this government doesn't like debate. That's why they brought in closure, and that's why we're not going to have a real discussion of this bill.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mrs Julia Munro (Durham-York): I'm pleased to rise today and speak on behalf of Bill 56. As the member for Durham-York, I'm in a rather unique position in that I represent two municipalities in Durham and three in York. It has certainly come to my attention over the years that we had to work towards what we have today: a piece of legislation that is in fact enabling legislation.

It's almost 10 years ago that we first heard of the creation of the GTA by the office of the GTA in the Liberal government. It came as a shock for many of my neighbours sitting on their farms to think of themselves as being part of the greater Toronto area. However, as that office came into being and with the change in government, and the NDP then commissioning the Golden commission, it allowed for discussion and recognition to become part of that public consciousness. When the Golden commission was published, we had an opportunity; I as an MPP was given the opportunity to have consultations in different parts of the riding. I certainly remember those public meetings in Beaverton and Uxbridge, where people came forward to discuss their concerns over what they felt was a major step in seeing themselves as part of the GTA.

When we look at that whole process of consultation from Anne Golden, Libby Burnham, David Crombie and Milt Farrow, we had the opportunity then within our communities to become part of that consultation process. Each allowed for its own style of public input. I would say to you that those opportunities were vital, because they demonstrated the necessary building of awareness on the part of the public and on the part of municipalities to see themselves in that broader framework.

When we look at this piece of legislation it becomes clear, and it became clear to my constituents: They came to understand that there were some key issues, that there was a need to have a seamless and efficient delivery of service. That is something people have come to understand in the last couple of years. They've also come to recognize the need for shared planning and coordination and co-operation among their communities. They also understand the need for representation, including upper- and lower-tier municipalities. Finally, they recognize that they don't need another level of government. It is in the recognition of those imperatives that we can see that this piece of legislation matches those needs.

It's very clear that there is a recognition of the need for co-operation. There's also a need for a forum to deal with infrastructure, transportation, transit and growth management. The people I represent recognize the fact that infrastructure is critical. The investment in infrastructure is the most important issue that government can undertake in order to look at the opportunities for growth, for jobs and for investment. It's issues like water and sewers and that coordination that are absolutely paramount in communities such as mine. It's also paramount to look at the creation of the GO Transit, now the GT Transit, and certainly people in my area are very pleased to know that starting in January there is an increased service coming from Beaverton down to the Toronto area.

It's also clear to my constituents that the experience of the early 1990s demonstrated the hole in the doughnut, the intricate relationship between Toronto and the GTA. This was dramatically demonstrated in that period, and it has become clear to my constituents that regardless of where they are in the GTA, people recognize that there is a need for coordination, for economic development and for growth management. That's where I look at this piece of legislation as the answer to many of those needs. By making up the composition as it is outlined in this legislation, it clearly answers some of the concerns that many people have indicated to me over the past three and a half years. Everyone felt it was important that every municipality had a voice, and that is very clear in the way this legislation has been proposed.

It's also clear to me and to my constituents that it is only appropriate that Toronto have 50% of this membership. It's also clear to us that it's important that there be that flexibility that responds to those population shifts. By being tied to the changes in the census-taking, I believe that we have struck that important balance for everyone in the area.

When you look at its mandate, it appears to me that it meets those community needs that I have heard over and over again in public forums, in letters and in discussions with individuals. Everyone recognizes the need to have a forum that addresses those issues that are common to all. Everyone recognizes the need for coordination of economic development. Over and over again in my area we look at the fact that we're the northerly municipalities of two regions, and the importance then of having a voice at the GTSB is vital. It's also vital to provide coordination, because these municipalities and these constituents recognize that economic development and coordination of that economic development are what will make the entire GTA strong. They recognize the importance of infrastructure and of a transit pattern.

It's critical to move to formalize this forum, to move forward from the studies to meeting those concerns of almost four million people. I think the most critical aspect of this piece of legislation is its flexibility. This is not a new level of government. It is mandated to have a review that takes place before the end of the year 2000. For my constituents this is absolutely critical. There is such a divergence in terms of agricultural commitment and the kinds of activity that go on within the communities that I represent. They recognize that there are very strong, compelling reasons that make this legislation necessary, but they also recognize the need to have their different communities of interest represented at that table.

Finally, it allows us to have a process to review the boundaries, the membership and the powers of the GTSB. I want to end on the issue of this flexibility and draw particular attention to the issue of the review of boundaries, because many of my constituents have recognized a rural-urban problem, or at least a tension, and they want to be assured that in the future those discussions will have an opportunity for fulsome debate. They want to be assured that those options are there for them. It is through this kind of enabling legislation that we can be sure that those voices will continue to be heard.

The strength, then, is this flexibility of allowing for change. That is what is the strength of the GTSB. I think it's important to recognize that the work that has been done in the last few months by Alan Tonks has allowed this kind of flexibility to appear in the legislation we are looking at today. It has allowed the general public to understand the complexities of coordination and it is that public understanding that has to be met as we move forward with this legislation.

1800

Mr Gerretsen: Mr Speaker, I'd like unanimous consent, since this is a government member speaking on a bill that her own government has proposed, that we be allowed a time period for questions and answers.

The Acting Speaker: Unfortunately, as you look at the clock, it's already 1800 hours. Normally at this time I would say the following: Pursuant to standing order 37, the question that this House do now adjourn is deemed to have been made.

ADJOURNMENT DEBATE

SERVICES FOR ABUSED WOMEN

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Pursuant to standing order 37(a), the member for Riverdale has given notice of her dissatisfaction with the answer to her question given by the Deputy Premier. It's related to services for abused women.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): I want to take this opportunity to respond to the answer. I don't have the instant Hansard in front of me from this afternoon but I recall that the Deputy Premier, Mr Eves, said in answer to my question and to my leader Mr Hampton's question about funding to shelters and other programs for victims of spousal abuse that the Ontario Women's Directorate was actually spending more money than ever before. It's certainly an opportunity for me now to correct his record and I'm going to do that.

There is absolutely no dispute, and I doubt very much if whoever is going to be responding to me is going to dispute this, that a 5% cut was made across the board to shelters across the province back in 1995, and that still stands. In fact, there have been $11 million cut from shelter funding in 1996 and 1997. The government likes to say, for instance, "We took over the municipal funding for shelters," but all they're doing for that is paying the per diem rate and not the full amount that was there before. In this case, ironically, as a result of the government uploading it, shelters are not getting as much money as they were getting before. Altogether, we're talking here about $11 million cut from shelters, which, as yesterday's report from OAITH which we were referring to states, the shelters cannot deal with because the demand has gone up.

I also want to put on the record, based on public accounts, that the overall expenditure for the office responsible for women's issues has declined from $21.8 million in 1994-95 to $14.5 million in 1996-97. In 1996-97 there was $17.3 million allocated but only $14.5 million spent. This year's budget allocation, 1997-98, was $19.4 million.

What we have here is the old shell game this government plays over and over again to try to fool the people. They take a whole bunch of money out and then put a small portion of that money back in and get up and brag, "We just increased the budget," in this case for something as fundamental in a decent society as services for abused women and their children in this province.

Having put that on the record, let me also talk about the other issues raised by me and the leader of the NDP, Howard Hampton, this afternoon. We raised the issue around the other services that have been cut across the board by other ministers. The single most negative effect of all the cuts, according to the United Way report, which also just came out last week, was the cut in welfare rates. This is having the biggest negative impact on women who are trying to flee from violence and there's nothing, no special allowance, nothing, to help these women, nothing to replace it.

Because this government got completely out of providing affordable housing, the reality now is that there are tens of thousands of people on a waiting list to get into subsidized housing. My colleague from Fort York pointed out yesterday, again from another United Way report, Anne Golden, that there are 31,000 children in Toronto alone now on waiting lists for subsidized housing, no doubt. We have evidence that some of those women and children are fleeing from abusers. This is unacceptable.

There have been more cuts to legal aid, so it's harder for women to get access to family court. Yes, the government has invested in and done some things in the criminal justice system, but not all women go through that system. They need the supports there in the community. Training programs have been cut, and on and on.

In regard to all the safety nets and the supports which I say were not adequate before 1995 - our government improved on them, but they needed to be improved more - this government has made the situation worse. That's what we were trying to point out today and I implore the government now to listen to what we're saying and reinstate the money that has been cut from shelters and from the other programs that help women.

Ms Marilyn Mushinski (Scarborough-Ellesmere): This is a very serious issue, and I believe the member for Riverdale warrants a response to her concerns, certainly in terms of the government initiatives on violence prevention.

I think it's important to note that Ontario does indeed devote $100 million annually to support programs that address the prevention of violence against women and their children. This is an increase over the annual funding allocated in 1994-95. In 1997, $27 million in new funding over four years was announced through the agenda for action strategic framework. In fact, our government is the first government to have a comprehensive approach to provide coordinated, effective services and programs to assaulted and abused women and their children.

Programs that are supported through our violence against women prevention initiative in 1997-98 are in the areas of crisis intervention and support, where we spent $79.8 million, which includes providing supports for abused women and their children through 98 shelters and related counselling services; providing supports to victims of sexual assault through 33 sexual assault centres and 27 sexual assault treatment centres and related counselling services; and providing nine cultural interpreters programs; in justice, where we spent $1.3 million, which includes 30 male batterers programs, emergency legal aid, domestic assault prosecutors programs, mandatory charging policies; in prevention, where we spent $2.4 million, which includes training of professionals and service providers who support abused women and children, 126 school-based services programs, developing resources for teachers on violence prevention and supporting community-based violence prevention projects through grants.

With our agenda for action, we've announced many new initiatives: in crisis intervention and support, we spent $1.3 million -

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): You're announcing it, but you're not spending any money.

Ms Mushinski: To the member from Kingston, this includes implementing a services plan to enhance services for abused francophone women; piloting and evaluating the sexual assault treatment model for victims of domestic abuse in six sexual assault treatment centres; enhancing cultural interpreters' program for abused women; undertaking board development training for 33 rape crisis centres; piloting services for abused older women; and enhancing support for women with disabilities in domestic violence courts.

1810

In justice, we committed a further $2.6 million. That includes evaluating and operating six domestic violence courts; providing male batterers programs at six domestic violence courts; providing additional emergency legal aid funding to serve abused women; piloting specialized legal services for abused women; providing cultural interpretive services in eight domestic violence courts and six sexual assault treatment centre pilots; and undertaking a safety first audit to improve the systemic response to violence.

In prevention, we spent another $1.7 million, if the member for Kingston and The Islands is interested. This includes training children's aid and victims' assistance workers to respond to child abuse cases involving violence against women; developing a training package for elementary teachers on violence issues; and in evaluation and research, we spent $200,000 more, which includes developing and piloting a performance management system for agencies serving abused women.

HEALTH CARE

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Pursuant to standing order 37(a), the member for Timiskaming has given notice of his dissatisfaction with the answer to his question given by the Minister of Health concerning the shortage of doctors in Kirkland Lake. The member has up to five minutes to debate the matter and the parliamentary assistant may reply for five minutes.

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): I must say I'm very disappointed that the Minister of Health is not here, because I wanted to use this opportunity to reinform her about the very critical situation we have in the riding of Timiskaming, especially in the town of Kirkland Lake, with the severe doctor shortage we have. I have never in my 13½ years here ever used this opportunity before, and I thought it would be an opportunity to engage the minister directly in this debate.

The problem is, and I'll direct this now to the parliamentary assistant, that any of the incentive programs this government has announced in the last few years to help the underserviced areas of this province have not dealt with any of the mid-sized towns in my riding, such as Kirkland Lake and New Liskeard. All your efforts have been geared towards towns that are serviced by between two and seven doctors. Quite frankly, now they're doing fine.

But with this sort of mishmash of incentive programs, you've really distorted the playing field out there. Examples in my riding of Timiskaming would be a doctor from Kirkland Lake who went 40 miles down the road to Englehart to practice because of the incentives, and in the Tri-town area based around the New Liskeard-Timiskaming hospital, we lost a doctor there to another northern Ontario small town because he chose to take the salary and benefit package options.

What I'm saying to the minister is we have to have a level playing field here so that all the northern underserviced areas have access to salary and benefit packages. Doctors being attracted to Kirkland Lake can only be given the fee-for-service payment system, and I'm finding, when I talk to doctors who have graduated recently from medical school, that the newer, younger doctors prefer the salary option.

I'm saying to the minister, in order for the north and our towns, who are working very hard in addressing this problem, to attract more doctors to our communities, we have to have a greater arsenal of incentive programs. Towns such as Kirkland Lake, whose complement is 17 doctors for their catchment area, are at a disadvantage compared to smaller towns that can't supply one or two homes for a doctor; they'd have to supply 17 homes if they had to throw that into a sort of local incentive package, and that's not right either. I don't want to see local communities getting into a local bidding war across the north when our communities don't have the resources to do that. It's the responsibility of, number one, the OMA and the Ministry of Health to ensure that all Ontarians are receiving proper medical care.

When I hear stories out of Kirkland Lake that we've got terminally ill cancer patients sitting in the Kirkland and District Hospital waiting room to try to see a doctor to either get that treatment they need or to get their prescriptions refilled, that is not acceptable in this Ontario. I would hope, if the minister were here, she would admit too that that is just not acceptable.

I've written her letters on that as far back as June 17 of this year, and on September 1 I sent her a letter with some positive ideas about how to try to alleviate the problem, and this came up in her response she gave today in regard to the nurse practitioner program. That is a $5-million funding program that will allow nurse practitioners to practise, but again it doesn't apply to any of the health facilities we have in most of northern Ontario and specifically Timiskaming, and that's the problems.

I gave her some ideas of how to change the program so that, number one, local hospitals in the north could hire a nurse practitioner who could act as a gatekeeper in the emergency departments and could start to schedule people to the proper area or service that patient herself or himself; two, allow northern doctors to be able to hire, if they put the funding there, a nurse practitioner so that somebody like me who has a winter cold could be seen by a nurse practitioner and the doctor could see people with more serious problems.

We're not utilizing the nurse practitioners who are graduating out of northern Ontario. Most places in the north cannot hire them because they can only be hired by community health centres, nursing stations and native access centres. We don't have any of those, except for one small francophone centre in New Liskeard. So you've got programs there that you've announced but we can't access them. The same with the small doctor incentive programs: You don't have the incentive out there for mid-size towns like Kirkland Lake and New Liskeard. You've got to do that. We've got a crisis here and I won't stand here and allow you to allow terminally ill people not to be served in the riding of Timiskaming.

Mr Tim Hudak (Niagara South): I'm pleased to respond to the member for Timiskaming's statement. Thank you for bringing it to the House. In fact, I'm pleased to hear that he had some positive suggestions with respect to the program. The leader of the party, for example, is big on criticism and headlines but bereft of policy. It's very rare that we get policy suggestions from across the floor and I appreciate Timiskaming bringing some forward, which I will relay to the Minister of Health.

We recognize that the issue of recruiting doctors to the north, to rural areas, in fact, is a long-standing problem. The member for Timiskaming, I can understand - coming from Niagara myself, I'm increasingly concerned that doctors are retiring in the Niagara Peninsula and Niagara South in particular. I would like to see some improvements to the underserviced area program to enable doctors and other health care professionals as well to more readily choose to come to the underserviced areas, Timiskaming for one and Niagara for another. In fact, I'm working - let me add that for a moment - with Dr Jeff Remington from Port Colborne in my riding on Niagara's application for underserviced area.

This is a long-standing problem. We have made a number of policy prescriptions to help address the underserviced area challenges that we face and particularly for doctor recruitment in the north. Many of these incentives are general to the north and some are to specific areas. I think the member would agree that it makes sense that if the ministry is going to address problems, they should address the areas of the highest need first, some areas totally without doctors in their community or maybe only one or two. I understand that Timiskaming, a larger centre in the north, has a much larger complement, and the incentives we've brought forward are going to encourage doctors to choose any of these areas in the north - Timiskaming, or some of the smaller communities like Ear Falls as well.

The member for Timiskaming talks about the need for the number of doctors. I should say to him too that the agreement we've made with the north, announced this past week with great support from a number of the municipalities that are that a joint OMA and government team, led by Graham Scott, whom you probably remember, a former deputy minister at the Ministry of Health, will be reviewing the number of physicians required for communities in northern Ontario to ensure that the appropriate complement of physicians is in place to serve the population. So the Minister of Health, Elizabeth Witmer, is listening and has moved to ensure that the proper complement of doctors is in the community.

As part of that announcement, physicians working in 20 of the underserviced northern communities will now be eligible to receive a base salary annually of $128,000, which is 20% more than the provincial average for fee for service, with other incentives on top. For example, emergency service, on call, stipends for specialty services like anesthesiology and obstetrics will be doubled from current levels. Retention bonuses of $10,000 will be offered to physicians providing continuous service in the community for three years, as well as $60,000 annually for overhead costs associated with these practices.

I have to say too that I've enjoyed my work with PAIRO on this issue. I know this is very important for them in northern Ontario as well as other parts of Ontario in trying some new incentives that had not been tried by previous governments. I think they've done some good work bringing suggestions to the minister, who has acted for those communities.

In the North Bay Nugget, Mayor Peter Brushey of Powassan viewed the news as positive. He said, "We do have a vacancy and perhaps this will address that."

In the Thunder Bay Chronicle-Journal: "I think that this will be good for the north. It will guarantee and stabilize physicians. The income issue is resolved and the doctors' quality of life is" restored.

Dr William Orovan, president of the Ontario Medical Association, recognizes that "this is a long-standing problem and we can't address it all at once."

That's true. It's a long-standing problem that governments have attempted to address, whether they were Conservative under Davis and Miller, Liberal under Peterson or NDP under Rae. That long-standing problem was not resolved by those previous governments. But under the leadership of Premier Harris and Health Minister Elizabeth Witmer, we are moving to address these problems, and as I just said, there are a large number of positive comments about what we've done to address the issue of doctor shortages in the north. I think that is substantial progress, especially when juxtaposed to the lack of action from the previous two governments. We're making progress. I look forward to seeing more doctors in the underserviced northern areas of the province.

The Acting Speaker: There being no further matter to debate, I deem the motion to adjourn to be carried.

The House will adjourn until 6:30.

The House adjourned at 1823.

Evening meeting reported in volume B.

1 décembre 1998