role="main" class="main-container container js-quickedit-main-content" id="main-content">

April 21, 1997

36th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

L177 - Mon 21 Apr 1997 / Lun 21 Avr 1997

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

PUBLIC LIBRARIES

RELIGIOUS HOLIDAYS

ANNIVERSARY OF VIMY RIDGE

EDUCATION LEGISLATION

LABOUR DISPUTE

TREVOR WILLIAMS

EMERGENCY SERVICES

ADULT EDUCATION

EARTH DAY

RESIGNATION OF MEMBER FOR ORIOLE

VISITOR

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

BUDGET DATE

ORAL QUESTIONS

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

CHILDREN'S SERVICES

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

SCHOOL BOARDS

CHILDREN'S SERVICES

CARDIAC SURGERY

WATER AND SEWER SERVICES

FAMILY SUPPORT PLAN

SELF-MANAGEMENT

TRANSFER OF PROVINCIAL HIGHWAYS

PROPERTY ASSESSMENT

MOTIONS

ORDER OF BUSINESS

ORDERS OF THE DAY

CITY OF TORONTO ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 SUR LA CITÉ DE TORONTO

The House met at 1332.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

PUBLIC LIBRARIES

Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): Today marks the beginning of Information Rights Week in Canada, a week dedicated to discussion on the rights of all Canadians to accessible and affordable information. On this side of the House, I can report that the Ontario Liberal Party strongly believes in the individual's right and freedom to choose and access information.

There's a growing fear sweeping across Ontario that the freedom to information liberties we now enjoy is being threatened by this government's Bill 109, the Local Control of Public Libraries Act. By eliminating provincial library transfer payments to municipalities, Ontarians, particularly those in small and northern communities, may lose community library services altogether. This is a direct violation of our information rights.

By allowing user fees for electronic forms of information, this government is infringing on the rights of all Ontarians to government documents, which in many cases are now only available in an electronic format. This creates a system where those who can pay get the information and those who can't pay do without. This clearly is a violation of our information rights.

By removing the obligation for arm's-length, majority citizen participation on library boards, this government is moving towards political and special interest tampering of our library resources. Indeed, as the Peterborough Examiner said just last week, without public participation on library boards, it's not a large leap from financial control to political control and finally to censorship. While some members of this House appear to advocate such a point of view, we in the Ontario Liberal Party stand strongly against it.

I call upon the Minister of Culture to accept the amendments for Bill 109 that will deal with these problems.

RELIGIOUS HOLIDAYS

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): Last week over two million Muslims from Canada and around the world performed the annual pilgrimage of Hajj in the Saudi Arabian city of Mecca. However, this year's Hajj was struck with a tragic fire that swept the tent city on the plains of Mina. Hundreds of pilgrims perished in the flames, while many more were trampled to death.

On behalf of the NDP caucus, I want to offer our condolences to the Muslim community of Canada and the families of the victims. I also want to take this opportunity to wish the Muslim community a happy Eid-ul-Adha, which fell on the day following Hajj.

Last week also saw the celebration of Baisakhi in the Canadian Sikh and Hindu communities. This is of course a great occasion of joy and celebration. Again, to the Hindu and Canadian Sikh communities, a joyous and happy Baisakhi on our behalf.

The celebration of Eid-ul-Adha and Baisakhi in Canada is a testament to the multicultural nature of this society and our ability to work together as a community, embracing the religious and ethnic diversity that we have in this country. It is indeed in this unity that our diversity is most cherished, and it is that unity and diversity that make Canada the best place in the world to live and work.

ANNIVERSARY OF VIMY RIDGE

Mr Jerry J. Ouellette (Oshawa): It's an honour to be able to rise today to recognize the valiant sacrifice of many young Canadian soldiers and to say a few words about the anniversary of Vimy Ridge.

It was a wet 5:19 am, April 9, 1917, 80 years ago, that over 100,000 Canadians in four divisions fought side by side and took a key, heavily fortified position. This was a feat that neither the French nor British forces had been able to accomplish.

It was young Canadian soldiers such as Mr Henry Price, a veteran and resident of Oshawa, who advanced on the hill with the 128th Battalion. These brave soldiers demonstrated to the world what could be done with Canadian planning, determination, courage and a commitment to duty.

Mr Price was born in 1897 and will celebrate his centennial birthday this August 12. Mr Price, when in Toronto, was a CPR telegraph operator at the corner of Yonge and King before the war. As a signaller in the war, Mr Price was constantly reporting on the enemy from within enemy territory, well ahead of the front lines.

Veterans such as Mr Price, a signaller at Vimy Ridge, have made great contributions to the world, Canada, Ontario and our communities. In the city of Oshawa, veterans and their associations continue with pride to support local sports, youth and many other activities within our communities. All gave some and some gave their all in the performance of what they saw as their duty and trust to their comrades, families and nation.

EDUCATION LEGISLATION

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): In its quest to find scapegoats and victims for the so-called Common Sense Revolution of Mike Harris and his band of right-wing zealots, the revolutionary Harris government has determined to bulldoze Bill 104 through the Legislature with its 82-seat majority and, in doing so, deprive thousands of loyal, dedicated, capable and experienced employees of boards of education of their livelihoods.

Under the provisions of Bill 104, the Harrisites seem determined to demean and downplay the importance of non-instructional or non-teaching staff by encouraging boards of education to privatize and outsource positions which have traditionally been an important part of the educational team. Anyone who is at all familiar with the field of education is aware that the educational support personnel -- librarians, guidance counsellors, custodial, maintenance and cleaning staff, and secretarial and administrative staff -- are indeed part of a team which functions best when there is certainty, continuity and coordination.

This bill could result in an enormous loss of jobs, the disruption of thousands of lives, the stripping away of benefits and the cutting of wages and salaries for people who have devoted themselves to education for years and sometimes decades.

I call upon Premier Harris to withdraw Bill 104 and engage in a meaningful consultation that will reveal the immense value of the staff the Premier is so eager to marginalize and reject. Educational employees in Ontario will not forget the attack on their integrity and worth.

LABOUR DISPUTE

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): On Saturday past, the workers at Stelpipe Page-Hersey, who, as you know, were forced on to picket lines almost six months ago, gave a resounding and solid no to the embarrassing, indeed insulting, offer of the employer, Stelpipe. Some 97% of the workforce membership showed up for a vote, and 96.8% of them said no to an offer that required more from them by way of concessions than offered them by way of what they had been seeking: modest pay increases and some fairness and decency when it comes to pension.

These workers and workers before them have been making profits for Stelpipe and Page-Hersey in the city of Welland for decade after decade after decade. Over the last four years, these same workers have improved or increased productivity by 120%. Now they're being called upon by Stelpipe, with the assistance and the endorsement of this Harris government, to take cuts and to do with less when they deserve more. They deserve far better treatment from a company that has enjoyed their hard work and productivity for so many generations.

I speak for the vast majority of people in Welland-Thorold and across Niagara region when we express our strong support for those workers and demand for them the same fairness and decency by their employer, by way of modest pay increases and decent pensions, that we would expect for any hardworking person in this province.

TREVOR WILLIAMS

Mr Ted Chudleigh (Halton North): In recognizing great Ontarians, it is my pleasure to stand in the House today and introduce you to an individual in Halton North who has made an outstanding contribution to our community.

On March 18, Trevor Williams was honoured for his lifetime of achievements as the 1996 Georgetown Lions Club Citizen of the Year. A resident of Georgetown since 1929 and a veteran of the Second World War's D-Day in 1944, Trevor's dedication to his community spans over 50 years.

Among his achievements are a 35-year member of Georgetown Agricultural Society; a volunteer ambulance driver for 25 years; a volunteer firefighter; a Legion member for 37 years; an active member of the cancer society for 35 years, and still drives patients to various cancer treatment centres; a 30-year volunteer of the Red Cross and a 98-time blood donor; and an active member of St John's United Church for almost 50 years.

It is humbling, in this day and age of short attention spans, to put into perspective the kind of contribution in time, dedication and commitment that Trevor Williams has made to Halton North. Trevor, I salute you for your efforts. You're an example of the type of Ontarian we should all strive to become and are one of the reasons that this province is such a great place to live.

To Trevor, his wife, Nora, his four children and 10 grandchildren, I say congratulations.

EMERGENCY SERVICES

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): Today is a very difficult day for the people in Windsor-Sandwich, in fact for the people for all of Essex county. As the Conservative caucus knows, the emergency room on the west side of Essex county is now closed. You knew 18 days ago when it was going to close. You had plenty of time, we told you daily that it was 17 days to go, then 16 days to go, but all of you refused to help get a message to the Minister of Health and the Premier of this province that we needed to have measures in place in Windsor before that emergency room was closed.

Today, after a weekend of no emergency service on the west side of Essex county, what we have is more patients, longer waits, turned ER into a war zone. The reason I'd like to bring this to your attention today is that what the hospital closing commission, which has been going around, traipsing around Ontario, has told you are announcements of what will be coming to your neighbourhood in your town and in your city.

What we currently have in Windsor-Sandwich is no emergency service for the people who live on the west side of Essex county. It is not acceptable. We asked for a meeting with the Premier and we were denied. We asked for a meeting with the minister and we got a 40-minute phone call of excuses as to why they can't give us even interim support, some interim help for the people of Windsor-Sandwich. It's not acceptable.

ADULT EDUCATION

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): Adult learners spoke out this morning. The beloved and esteemed members of our press gallery I believe were a bit alarmed to come into their gallery this morning to find dozens of adult learners there to give a message to the Harris government that they are very alarmed and frightened that they are going to lose the education system for adults in this province.

I also want to point out that today is a very special day in the House. One of the very few fallouts, I suppose, for us in the megacity filibuster was that we can't wear buttons here any more, but we can still wear the colour yellow. As you can see, I'm wearing my yellow sweater today, and I notice that many other people are wearing yellow. It of course symbolizes the fight against --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you. Yellow is not out of order.

EARTH DAY

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): Tomorrow people around the world are celebrating Earth Day, and there is no better day to reinforce this government's commitment to protecting the environment. As custodians of the environment we take our job very seriously. We're not just talking about environmental protection; we are taking action to ensure that there will be clean air and water for future generations.

Since we took office in 1995, we've moved carefully and deliberately to ensure Ontario's environment is better protected. We've improved environmental assessment practices, making them more effective in protecting the environment, more timely for everyone involved and less costly; we are updating the regulatory system to ensure strong and consolidated environmental protection in Ontario; we are developing an aggressive smog plan that will ensure that people in this province have cleaner and healthier air to breathe; and we've introduced new soil cleanup guidelines which will allow for quicker cleanup of contaminated sites so they can be turned into cleaner productive lands.

We will continue to set tough environmental standards and we will be vigilant in ensuring that these standards are met. We are determined to make our environment next year better than this year and that our environment in 1999 will be better than our environment in 1998.

RESIGNATION OF MEMBER FOR ORIOLE

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): I beg to inform the House that a vacancy has occurred in the membership of the House by reason of the resignation of Elinor Caplan, member for the electoral district of Oriole. Accordingly, my warrant has been issued to the chief election officer for the issue of a writ for a by-election.

VISITOR

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): I'd like to introduce in the government's gallery the former member for Wellington, Mr Jack Johnson. Welcome.

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Please join me in welcoming the 10th group of pages to serve the 36th Parliament of Ontario: Michael Berlin, Mississauga West; Christopher Bremer, Simcoe Centre; Megan Campbell, Waterloo North; Emma Cochrane, High Park-Swansea; Jillian Davey, Lambton; Jonas Didzbalis, Etobicoke West; Amanda Dube, Windsor-Riverside; Scott Evans, Cambridge; Erika Fagerdahl, Rainy River; Bethany Hammond, Muskoka-Georgian Bay; Timothy Johnson, Durham West; Kaley Keefe, Mississauga East; Peter Lipscombe, St George-St David; Christina MacDonald, Eglinton; Tyler McNaughton, Chatham-Kent; Suzanne Morrow, Markham; Jonathan Odumeru, Guelph; Michelle Pilozow, Kenora; Ethan Rabidoux, Perth; and Stuart Smith, Etobicoke-Humber.

Please join me in welcoming the new pages.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

BUDGET DATE

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): It's my pleasure to rise in the Legislature this afternoon and talk about the past year that Ontarians have had seeing the benefits of the measures introduced in our government's first budget. Jobs are being created in the province of Ontario --

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): Just say May 6 and sit down.

Hon Mr Eves: I say to the member for Beaches-Woodbine, I tried that last year; I thought I would just announce the date and sit down, only to hear a bunch of drivel come from the opposition benches for 10 minutes after.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): After 20 minutes I've already lost control, so that's par for the course.

Hon Mr Eves: I'm sorry if I've helped that along in any way, Mr Speaker. I'll try to make it up to you somehow.

Indeed jobs have been created in Ontario in the last year. Depending on any measure used by StatsCan, one being of course a survey done of employees, it says that 113,000 jobs have been created in the province. If you look at the StatsCan employer survey, it says that 176,000 jobs have been created in the province. In the month of March alone, the federal government says that 46,000 jobs were created in Ontario.

The province is returning to prosperity. There is renewed optimism for a future of greater opportunity.

I am pleased to announce, as I've indicated to my two opposition critics, that the budget will be presented to the Ontario Legislature on Tuesday, May 6, at 4 pm.

The 1997 budget will show how the government's plan is making Ontario better now and will make it better in the future. It will show how our plan is attracting private sector investment and stimulating economic growth that creates jobs. It will show how our plan is returning Ontario to economic and fiscal health while reducing taxes, protecting priority public services such as health care and education, and promoting government efficiency.

The 1997 Ontario budget will show the deficit is coming down and that we are indeed on track for a balanced budget by the fiscal year 2000-01.

The 1997 budget will continue the course the government began when we were elected in June 1995. It will ensure that Ontario leads the way in growth, prosperity and quality of life for present and future generations of Ontarians. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I'm pleased to respond to the minister's statement on the budget date and say that we're looking forward to the budget and an opportunity to debate the government's fiscal plans.

I might say we were surprised at the date. We had been expecting the budget would be presented next week. It's customary, as you know, Mr Speaker, for the Minister of Finance to announce the date roughly a week in advance, and it's clear to us the government is having some difficulty getting its fiscal house together.

There is no question -- municipalities will understand this -- that the government has downloaded, dumped $1 billion of extra costs on to municipalities. What's going on right now? Every municipal leader in this province knows it, has called your bluff and has said you are dumping $1 billion. Every senior citizen in this province knows you have dumped seniors' housing on to property tax. Every senior citizen know you have dumped long-term care on to property tax. Every child who requires social assistance knows the province has dumped its responsibility on to property tax.

It is clear the municipalities understand that and will have nothing to do with it. That's why the budget has been delayed until May 6.

On the job front I will quote the minister's own statements. The ministry puts out a document every month outlining jobs. What does this document say? It says, if you can believe the numbers from the minister's own statement, Ontario has lost 11,000 jobs in the last seven months. The rest of Canada over that same period of time has gained 88,000.

We have a serious unemployment problem in Ontario. And what does Mike Harris say? "No, we don't." He doesn't trust the numbers; says, "No, there's no problem." We in the Liberal caucus say we have a serious, significant, dramatic problem in unemployment, and we'll be looking for this budget to spell out the measures that are going to solve the unemployment problem. I would just add that it is particularly tragic among our young people.

What this document shows is the unemployment rate in the first three months of 1997: first three months, unemployment rate among our young people, 15 to 24, all of those young people who have worked hard, many of whom have gotten college and university degrees, looking for work. What has happened to them? The unemployment rate, and you can see the numbers right here, is 18.5%, up from 16.2% the same period a year ago. So, yes, we'll be looking for the budget and some comment on how they are going to begin to tackle this serious unemployment problem.

The next thing I would like to talk a little bit about is the tax cut, and I hear Mike Harris saying, "Well, the tax cut's paying for itself." He can't believe that. He cannot believe that. Again, I go to the minister's own figures. Here's what they show: that in 1995-96 personal income tax revenue was $16.2 billion; in 1997, the numbers the minister gave us only a few weeks ago, $15.6 billion. We have seen the revenue drop from personal income tax by $600 million at the same time they should have been growing by $600 million.

There is no question the personal tax cut has cost Ontario $1 billion in lost revenue. There's no question of that. The minister may yell and barrack from the other side and the Premier may hide somewhere and say it hasn't, but it has. As a matter of fact, the minister's own budget said it would cost $1 billion. The reason I raise all of this is that when the seniors of this province see what you're doing to them, forcing social housing, their housing onto the property tax -- why? To fund this $1-billion tax break, last year $5 billion in total, and I might add to all of the business people out there, every penny of that is borrowed money -- every penny of it.

The people of Ontario will say, "If we have to deal with a serious deficit problem, tell me again how the province can afford to borrow $1 billion," which we did do for this tax break, and I might add finally, $500 million of that tax break goes to people making more than a quarter of a million dollars. The people of Ontario, as we look forward to this budget, should say, "My hospital is being closed, but we can give a tax break worth $500 million to people making a quarter of a million dollars?" I don't think so.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. The member for Lake Nipigon, I appreciate your assistance.

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): We are pleased that the government is going to bring in what I guess will be its second budget, because we too want to debate some of the things that this government spends a lot of time bragging about. We in fact want a chance to examine once again their tax cut scheme, a tax cut scheme that puts two thirds of the benefits in the hands of the 10% of people who are at the top of the wealth and income ladder; in other words, a tax cut scheme for the wealthy.

We also want to point out to the government that today, as we approach the end of its second year in office, there are 100,000 more young people unemployed in Ontario than there were two years ago at this time. In fact there are 58,000 more adults unemployed in Ontario than there were two years ago at this time. In fact, two years into its mandate, by any count, any measure, this government is 600,000 jobs behind the 725,000 jobs it promised in its election campaign document, the Common Sense Revolution.

But more, we want to talk about the fact that good, stable, well-paying jobs are disappearing in Ontario as a result of this government, and what we're seeing, as a result of this government, are more minimum-wage, part-time, temporary McJobs: not the kind of jobs that can support a family, not the kind of jobs that can support our communities. This is the historical record of this government.

The government also wants to talk about health care. Well, the health care system in Ontario has never been under greater attack in the history of this province than it is now. In fact what we are seeing across this province are more and more cuts to health care in every community across the province, but it's all part of this government's agenda to prepare the health care system for piecemeal privatization, American-style. That's what we're seeing in our health care system.

Then there is education. What's the history in education so far? We are fast headed towards a situation where you either need to be wealthy or your parents need to be wealthy if you hope to go on to university or community college. More and more, you had better hope that you are lucky enough to live in a wealthy neighbourhood because otherwise the school system in your community or the school system in your neighbourhood is starting to show more and more cracks, more and more holes.

Finally, we see the last element in this government's desperate fiscal plan: to take important health care services, important community services and to throw them down onto the municipal property tax; to take a good fire service and privatize it, American-style; to take ambulance services and set them up for privatization. What we're seeing is a wholesale attempt by this government to turn Ontario into the Alabama of the north. So we look forward to your budget presentation. We look forward to the debate, Mr Finance Minister.

Mr Gilles Pouliot (Lake Nipigon): Treasurer, with respect, from your page 1: "Tax cuts have put money in the pockets of Ontarians." I guess it's okay if you're rich and if you can run faster to get away from the field, but when is enough enough? EI, CPP, health levy has taken the tax cut away and we're all very much aware of that.

Your page 2, "protecting priority public services such as health care and education": Thousands of nurses, thousands of teachers are being asked to go on the dole in the next year or two, the fault of this government. Then, Minister, "a balanced budget by 2000-01." At that long-awaited time they'll be out of office. They'll be left with carrying the guilt but it will be a sign of yesteryears.

The figures simply do not add up and the middle class, because of this government, is under a state of siege, under a state of erosion. They're guilty of it. The long-awaited budget will not --

The Speaker: Thank you.

ORAL QUESTIONS

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My first question today is for the Minister of Municipal Affairs. We have now given you a few extra weeks to reconsider and to look at the real facts about your megacity. Think of it as a bit of cooling-off period. We've given you time to listen. We know you have heard but you haven't listened. You've now had the time to listen to the hundreds of thousands who voted against your megacity by way of the referenda. You've had the time to listen to the experts, who tell us that the savings are just not to be found.

You had time to listen to groups like the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, who are telling us that taxes are going up, and you've had time to listen to your own backbenchers, who have had the courage to speak up on this issue. That kind of courage, it would seem to me, ought to be rewarded and not punished.

Mr Minister, you've had time to listen and we want to know where you stand today. Will you do the right thing? Will you not proceed with the megacity bill?

Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): To the official Leader of the Opposition, he's right. We did listen and that's why we've made almost 30 amendments to the bill. We listened to the concerns about the size of council. We increased the size of council. We listened to the concerns about the trustees. We dealt with the trustees. We heard the concerns about the transition team and, again, we dealt with those.

We dealt with the community councils to ensure that all of the communities have an opportunity to maintain their identity. All of those things we listened very carefully to, to the 600 deputants that came in to the town hall meetings, to the meetings at my constituency office. We listened to everybody and we took into consideration their comments and made 30 changes to the bill.

Mr McGuinty: Minister, you've done a lot of things, but by no stretch of the imagination can it be said that you honestly, genuinely and with any real intent listened to the people who are going to be affected by your change. Let's not forget the past, although you're anxious to do so. In the Mike Harris Metro task force, which you were vice-chair of, you said, through recommendations in this report, that the present number of six local governments will be retained. You said that. You signed this report; you endorsed it.

Then in the Common Sense Revolution, at the last page, after you've laid out the master plan for change in Ontario, you say: "The Next Step -- Public Involvement," and the last sentence on this page is, "But how we get there will be discussed in partnership with all Ontarians."

Not only are you hiding from the facts, breaking your promises, you're ignoring your backbenchers and you're ignoring the very people that you serve. Another chance, Minister: Will you withdraw the megacity bill?

Hon Mr Leach: Again to the Leader of the Opposition, I'm glad he referred to the Common Sense Revolution, because it did specifically talk about eliminating waste and duplication, getting rid of a level of government. All of those things are happening to municipalities across Ontario, and particularly here in Metropolitan Toronto.

We are eliminating the second level of government, which is going to eliminate a lot of waste and duplication. We are protecting the identities of the communities by establishing community councils, which will give each of the existing six municipalities an opportunity to ensure that the concerns of their citizens are taken care of. All of those things have been done. We're now moving forward into the 21st century. We have a great city before us, and it's going to be even greater at that time.

Mr McGuinty: The single most important fact that you seem so willing to overlook, Minister, is the fact that 76%, more than 400,000 people who are going to be affected by your change, looked at the bill, found it wanting and rejected it.

Understand, this affects more than just Metro Toronto. You yourself have said that this kind of change is going to be used as a model for restructuring right across the province. If you proceed with 103, contrary to your campaign promises and contrary to the wishes of the people that you serve, I'm telling you now, it's going to come back to haunt you, because what this really means at the end of the day is that this minister, this government doesn't understand that it's the people who are in charge of the government and not the other way around.

One final chance, Minister: It's all up to you. Will you withdraw 103?

Hon Mr Leach: To be direct, I guess, no, I won't withdraw 103. Bill 103 is a bill that's going to improve conditions in Metropolitan Toronto and for all of the 2.4 million people who live in this community.

What are we talking about here? At the present time, the majority of the funding goes to the upper tier. Most of the services that are presently provided to the citizens of Metropolitan Toronto are already amalgamated. We're talking about the remaining 28% of funding being moved to a single tier. The vast majority of people in this area -- they said 400,000 voted against it; that leaves about two million that didn't.

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

Mr McGuinty: It's that kind of attitude that makes us look forward to the next election.

CHILDREN'S SERVICES

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My next question is for the Minister of Community and Social Services. This weekend the Toronto Star ran a very disturbing exposé outlining some of the brutal conditions faced by too many children growing up in our province. We saw stories of children who face vicious cycles of neglect, physical abuse and even death at the hands of their own parents or at the hands of guardians who are supposed to protect them. A lot of the public learned for the very first time about the deplorable conditions in which some of Ontario's kids are being raised, but none of this is new to you.

I'm asking you to put children at the top of your agenda. I'm asking you personally to take responsibility and I'm asking you in particular to declare a state of emergency for Ontario's children. I want you to commit to emergency measures that will begin to put an end to these horror stories. Minister, will you do that?

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Community and Social Services): To the honourable member, thank you very much for the question. This is indeed a very important, very controversial, very sensitive issue. I think anybody who has read those stories in the Star or has read the reports from the coroner's task force cannot help but be shocked and appalled and very alarmed about what we need to do to improve the system.

That's one of the reasons why last spring we undertook to review all the safeguards in place for children. It's one of the reasons why we were quite prepared to support and participate with the coroner and the Association of Children's Aid Societies in the task force, so that we could come up with recommendations and information about how to improve the system. That's why we've undertaken to bring in a new computer system, a new database, so that children are not falling through the cracks. It's also one of the reasons why we think we need to improve the training, and we've begun work to do that as well.

There are a number of issues that we have undertaken to pursue this very important issue.

Mr McGuinty: The single most important thing that you have done in your capacity as the Minister of Community and Social Services is you have cut funding to the children's aid societies to the tune of some $17 million. The problem, of course, is that the damnedest thing about kids is they don't know how to get their act together. They don't write us, they don't lobby us, they don't organize bus convoys, they don't put together placards, they don't protest. That's why, Minister, you above everybody else in this Legislature has a special responsibility to bring those concerns forward.

Nobody wants to hear of any more stories about kids with broken bones, fractured skulls, cigarette burns and shattered spirits. Nobody wants to hear that kind of stuff any more. You tell me right now: How much longer do you think Ontario's kids are going to have to wait until you take some real action on their behalf?

Hon Mrs Ecker: With all due respect, perhaps the honourable member needs cards and letters from children in order to exercise the responsibility, but we certainly do not. For example, last week the Premier, with the support of the Minister of Education, the Minister of Health and myself, announced spending of almost $45 million. That $45 million is going to the kind of intervention and prevention programs that start to identify these problems early. We know we have to do a better job in the system. We know the staff people need better training, we know they need better support.

But if the honourable member would also pay attention to some of the information that's been put forward by the coroner's task force, he would recognize that simply throwing money at this problem will not solve it. What we need is better training, what we need is better information. There are a number of things that are happening. That's why we are working with the task force to put those steps in place.

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): Why are you cutting the CAS?

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): You're cutting the CAS.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Members for Hamilton East and Kingston and The Islands, I ask you to come to order.

Mr McGuinty: Minister, you may not want to hear this, but the fact of the matter is, it's going to take some money. Painful as that very concept may be to you, and perhaps even foreign to you, it's going to take some money to help these kids, and I for one am not about to apologize for those kinds of expenditures.

In a couple of weeks' time, the Minister of Finance is going to tell us that he's going to benefit us with another part of a tax cut bonus to the tune of $1.25 billion. You had to cut $20 million from the children's aid societies' budget, but you're going to give us all another $1.25 billion so that at the end of the day we'll have $5 billion and we can bank a bit more.

You'd better stand up in this House right now and assure all of us that kids are first and foremost on your agenda, that when the cabinet meets, you're in there, you're fighting for Ontario's kids, because nobody else is. Stand up and tell me that right now.

Hon Mrs Ecker: The honourable member can try and turn this into a partisan issue if he wishes, but I don't think that's the appropriate way to deal with this issue. Even the children's aid society has acknowledged --

Interjections.

Mr Garry J. Guzzo (Ottawa-Rideau): Where were you then, Dalton?

The Speaker: Member for Ottawa-Rideau.

Mr Guzzo: I apologize.

The Speaker: I thank you for your apology. Minister?

Hon Mrs Ecker: I might draw to the attention of the honourable member that we are spending $350 million on child welfare in this province, that one of the reasons under the Who Does What initiatives that we decided to undertake the full funding for children's aid societies was so that we would be able to work with those children's aid societies to improve the services for these children. We've also put out $800,000 for better training for the workers who are out there on the front lines, who are trying so hard to make those decisions.

Interjections.

Mr Gerard Kennedy (York South): Blame the workers. You are doing it.

Hon Mrs Ecker: I hear the honourable members over there trying to say that somehow or other we're blaming the workers. I really wish they would stop this, because those individuals out there need their support. They're trying to play politics with this again instead of trying to work with us, with the agencies, with Ottawa. Tell Ottawa to get the national child benefit in place sooner. That's one of the other things we're working on, because we do take this issue extremely seriously, sir.

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): I have a question to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Today your government wants to ram through Bill 103. In the process, you'll rob 2.4 million people of their local government, you'll rob them of control over their own communities, and you will have ignored the fact that 76% of the people of Metropolitan Toronto voted against your bill in a referendum.

Minister, you're acting more like a general in a South American junta than like a leader in a democracy. You've got one last chance. Say that you'll withdraw Bill 103 today. Do the democratic thing.

Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): Again I will say that what we're giving to the people of Metropolitan Toronto is better government. By getting rid of the confusing two layers people will finally know who to call. They'll have one local elected representative they'll be able to talk to about all the important issues they have to deal with. They'll no longer have to put up with all the waste and duplication that goes on by having seven planning departments and six fire departments.

All that will finally be resolved so that the people of this area, the people of Toronto, the people of the GTA and the people of Ontario, will finally have an area in Metropolitan Toronto that works well, once and for all.

Mr Hampton: I'll try again. Minister, even your own MPPs don't believe you. The member for Grey-Owen Sound has said publicly that 70% of your Toronto caucus would vote against you if it were a secret ballot. When the referendum was held you couldn't get any of your own party's supporters to come out and support your position. You've got members of your caucus calling the Premier a dictator because of some of the positions he's taken on this. They don't believe your nonsense about Bill 103.

Minister, you've still got a chance to show that you have some respect for democracy, that you have some respect for the will of the people. Will you show that today? Withdraw this bill. Show some respect for democracy.

Hon Mr Leach: The leader of the third party talks about democracy. Two weeks ago we offered them two more weeks of meaningful debate on this issue, that we would go back to committee for two weeks so they could have more input and make more suggestions. What did they decide to do? They decided to take nine days and waste it on reading silly resolutions with which the only thing different was the name. They talk about democracy. You should be ashamed of yourself. You had an opportunity to get more input into this bill and what did you choose? You chose nonsense.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Final supplementary.

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): Minister, let me tell you, we're pretty proud of what we've managed to do in this House. We know that at the end of the day you can insist on passing your megacity bill and ramming this through the legislature. We saw no usefulness in two weeks more of debate so that we could hear you talking about why you've listened and made no changes whatsoever on the essential point people said to you, Minister, that they didn't want the megacity.

People said no and you've continued to ignore them, but as bad as that is, your megacity plan, we know, is also going to cost municipal taxpayers plenty. Metro Toronto says your mega download will cost taxpayers in Metropolitan Toronto over $500 million. Now you've tried to fiddle with the numbers, you've pulled together people around you to try and fix those numbers, but even they aren't buying your numbers.

Minister, before you ram through your megacity bill, will you at least have the decency to level with the people of Metro Toronto and tell them what your download is going to cost them?

Hon Mr Leach: I am very happy to talk to the people of Ontario and mention the cost savings that will occur. We estimate we'll save about $865 million in the first three years and $300 million every year thereafter. As far as a cost-saving exercise is concerned, it will save a lot of money, but even better than that, it's going to get rid of the waste and duplication and the confusion in the various levels of government we have now.

The member said he's very proud of how they wasted the time of this House over the past few weeks, that it was one of their best accomplishments. Well, for that party it probably was one of their best accomplishments. With the kind of record they have of putting this province $100 billion into debt and having interest payments of $9 billion a year, they have the nerve to talk about cost savings.

SCHOOL BOARDS

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): A question to the Minister of Education and Training: Minister, over the past few days you've been busy holding press conferences trying to convince people across this province that your Bill 104 isn't about setting the stage for more cuts to education, but nobody believes you because you've already broken your promise not to cut funding to classroom education.

Recently in a visit to a high school in Waterloo we were given this textbook. It's a high school poetry anthology. It's used fairly widely in high schools across the province. What's interesting about this book is that it's falling apart. It came in about three parts. It's held together by an elastic band. That's the state of things in Waterloo high schools. When we asked the board about buying new ones, they said they don't have the money. Minister, can you tell us how Bill 104 is going to help give these students new textbooks that aren't held together by elastics?

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Education and Training): I echo my colleague's views on the use of the time of this House during the committee of the whole proceedings, but I acknowledge the fact that the leader of the third party was in the chamber during that process. Whether he's proud or not proud of it, at least he was here, in stark contrast to the Leader of the Opposition.

In direct response to your question, I believe that Bill 104 will help us begin to build a new and improved education system in this province, one that --

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: With that remark I'm just wondering whether he could tell us if the Premier was at the Masters for the final vote.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): No, that's not a point of order.

Hon Mr Snobelen: I believe the leader of the third party was here while his amendments were being read.

Bill 104 will do much to improve the system of education as a building block; we build on the foundation of what's right in our education system. We're going to reduce the amount of money we gave to spend on bureaucracy and on politicians in our education system. It will allow us to focus our resources on the classroom, on the materials and teacher supports and things that make a difference with our students. That's clearly the premise of these improvements. That's clearly the direction of this government.

Mr Hampton: A very interesting answer. The Minister of Education continues to talk about how he's going to take money out of the school boardroom and put it in the classroom.

We've had a look at the minister's own paper that talks about the fact that he believes you can get $150 million by collapsing the number of school boards. He says that's going to be the savings. But when you look at the details of the savings, what do they show? They show that $9.9 million of the savings are going to come out of classroom supplies and equipment. In other words, they're going to come out of things like textbooks. Can you explain this, Minister: How can you plan to save almost $10 million on supplies and equipment when students are using textbooks like this, that come in three parts?

It doesn't add up: $150 million, yet you're planning to take some out of textbooks. How are you going to do that?

Hon Mr Snobelen: This may be difficult for the leader of the third party to understand, but the outside consultants who have had a look at our plans to restructure, who say there are significant savings available, have identified the fact that when you put together a larger purchasing unit, you can purchase more school books for less money. That may be difficult for the leader of the third party to understand, because it's hard for him to understand that spending $2.5 million on a filibuster is 100,000 new textbooks for classrooms, and the leader of the third party has just wasted that money.

The Speaker: Final supplementary.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I guess that number is about the same amount it took the Premier to renovate his new office over in the Whitney Block.

The minister is referring to this Ernst and Young report that was done. Keeping in mind that Ernst and Young themselves said they weren't sure they could stand by the figures, they said that out of the $150 million, $9.9 million was coming from classroom supplies. At the press conference this morning, the minister could not even commit that the $150 million referred to in this report, that he keeps repeating, would actually go back into the classroom.

Also, he admitted that the transition costs in amalgamating boards would increase costs, at least in the short term, and he didn't give any indication where that money was going to come from. Surely that money is going to come out of the $13.6 billion spent annually in Ontario on education. In other words, classroom education is going to suffer even more.

Are you going to commit to give transition funding, at least, so you can protect classroom funding?

Hon Mr Snobelen: I'm glad the member for Algoma is paying attention to the press conferences; perhaps now some of his criticisms might be more accurate. Yes, the report did suggest that savings could be had by purchasing more classroom supplies for less money by having a larger network of purchasing. That's called purchasing power, and there were some suggestions that would happen so we can improve the classroom.

Bill 104 is clearly designed to reduce the amount of money that's spent on bureaucracy, reduce the number of politicians involved in education in Ontario and focus our resources on the classroom. We'd like to get on about the business of making that transition, about improving the education system. We'd like to answer the questions about the transition costs and lay out a plan for it. We cannot do that until Bill 104 is passed, so I would ask the member for Algoma to quit delaying passage of this bill. Let's get on with improving the system.

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): My question too is for the Minister of Education. Again this morning you refused to give a guarantee that there would not be further cuts to education once your new school boards are in place and you are in complete control. Once again this morning you refused to acknowledge the cuts that you have already made and that you are going to make.

You keep playing word games, trying to make people believe that you're going to give school boards something you call stable funding. Your idea of stable funding for this year has meant $250 million more cut from education, and now we are seeing more programs lost and more teachers laid off. Now you're talking about stable funding for the first six months of these new amalgamated boards, but those boards have to pay all the startup costs of that forced amalgamation in those six months, and the money for your amalgamation is going to come right out of the same budgets that pay for teachers, that pay for busing kids to school, that pay to provide textbooks.

Minister, this is a huge new cut, and I ask you, why are you making students pay the price of pushing your agenda through?

Hon Mr Snobelen: That is simply untrue. We made an announcement yesterday that said that school boards will be able to make the transition during the 1997-98 school year without affecting the programs that are offered students, because we do not want this transition period to cause any disruption in the classrooms in Ontario. Because of our announcement yesterday, we can assure parents and teachers and, most important, students that this will be the case: There will be a stable funding base for 1997-98; all of the programs will be offered. That's the commitment of this government.

Mrs McLeod: It's hard for me to determine what the minister defines as "truth," because the only thing that counts as truth is what is borne out by the facts. The facts are, according to this minister's own written statements, that school boards will have to pay all the startup costs for amalgamation and there will be no further funding. That means stable funding is actually a cut. The minister doesn't want to acknowledge that. He doesn't know what the figures are. He doesn't want to know, because then he'd have to acknowledge that he is going to hurt students with his amalgamation.

Let me ask you a very specific question, Minister, so I can get your sense of what this amalgamation is going to mean to kids in the classroom. Let me just take as an example two boards that are going to come into a multiboard amalgamation. One of the boards, because of your cuts last year, had to decide to drop its French immersion program so it could keep junior kindergarten. The other board made a different decision; they decided that they would keep French immersion but they didn't have enough money left after your cuts to keep junior kindergarten.

Minister, I want to ask you, under the amalgamated boards, are you going to fund both the junior kindergarten and the French immersion program for all the kids in the new amalgamated board or which program will you --

The Speaker: Thank you. Minister.

Hon Mr Snobelen: Surely the member opposite is not suggesting that you would somehow change the program offering midyear. That's the whole purpose of our announcement, to provide stability for the programs that are offered for the students.

When you talk about trust, in the red book you committed to reducing the number of trustees; you committed to reducing trustees' salaries; you wanted to recognize the part-time nature of a trustee's job; you committed to getting the province's education dollars spent in the classroom. Those were the things you said during the election campaign in this province, yet you've criticized this government's efforts to make those a reality. Which way is it, this way or that way, yesterday or tomorrow? You keep flip-flopping on this, and I can tell you the people of Ontario know who to trust to get a better education system. It's this government.

CHILDREN'S SERVICES

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services. I was disturbed by some elements of your answer earlier with respect to children's services and child welfare.

I want to review with you your government's record with respect to children. We hear a lot about how much you care, but let's take a look at the announcement you made last week for about $45 million in children's services: important services, but it was a reannouncement of $45 million that you first announced in last year's budget. We're a week away from fiscal year-end. You didn't spend a cent. You also announced in last year's budget 40 million new dollars for child care spaces in this province. You said you were going to spend more than any government ever had. You haven't spent one penny of that.

In fact, you cut another $50 million of capital out and many thousands of child care spaces have disappeared. You've taken money out of CAS programs, where we know high-risk children are getting services. We have to improve them. You've talked about that; I would support you in that. But you've taken money out of those programs.

The bottom line is that you're balancing the budget and giving a tax break on the backs of kids. Why won't you commit those unspent dollars today to intervene in the CASs to give them the money they need?

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Community and Social Services): There's no question that the announcement we did last week talked about the budget commitment for speech and language, which was a budget commitment we are proceeding with. Secondly, the healthy babies initiative was also a budget commitment.

I'd like to remind the honourable member that the investment we have given to the Invest in Kids Foundation, which focuses on prevention and intervention work for young preschool children, was a new investment.

Secondly, the announcement that we are continuing as a permanent program the Better Beginnings, Better Futures program I think is also new. There is a program where we have seen that with the right community supports, with the right programming in high-risk communities, we can have a very dramatic impact on the number of children who need the care of children's aid or any other kind of intervention procedures.

So I think we have indeed moved forward and will continue to move forward. For example, the national child benefit: I was at a meeting again last week with my colleagues to see how we could improve services for low-income children.

Ms Lankin: Minister, your Invest in Kids amount was a very small amount of money to an agency that didn't even request money from you when you've got CASs where the workers' caseloads are growing daily. There are more poor kids in this province; there are more families at risk and families who need help. You can see how critical this is when you see the results if we don't have the system working well.

I admit to you and I agree with you that the system has needed work for a long time, but right now we're facing a crisis in terms of these kids. You've got to step in. There's over $150 million unspent from last year's budget that you allocated to kids. Surely you could proceed and allocate moneys to needed child care spaces, where families are desperately needing that in order to get the relief they need or to get out and get work. Surely you could restore the $17 million to CASs so they could bring down the caseload.

Surely you could ensure that an investigation is being done of children's services across all the community and not just CASs. Minister, you've got to take responsibility. Please tell us you're going to act today.

Hon Mrs Ecker: Forgive me, but I thought one of the things I was talking about was the things that we had already done or are doing. I do believe we are taking responsibility for this, as are the children's aid societies, and we look forward to working with them on the coroner's task force when they complete their recommendations. We've already begun some of the work to do that.

Yes, the families need help, and I'm pleased that the honourable member recognizes that, but it's not a question of simply throwing more money at the problem. Yes, resources are very important, but the other important question, the other thing the experts recommend to us, is how we're spending that money. Are we spending it on intervention and prevention? Yes, we are shifting to that. Are we providing more supports for the workers? Yes, we are. Those are the kinds of things that will make sure we're doing a better job for these children who need our support and care.

CARDIAC SURGERY

Mrs Lillian Ross (Hamilton West): My question is to the Minister of Health. In my riding of Hamilton West, the single biggest issue that's been raised through my office has been the issue of health care, in particular cardiac surgery. We have heard of some of the reinvestments your ministry has made in patient dollars saved through reinvestment. In light of those recent announcements, can you tell me and the people in my riding in what areas we can expect to see improved cardiac services?

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Health): Thank you to the member for Hamilton West. Hamilton, in the recent announcements I was able to make there on behalf of the government with respect to cardiac care, with respect to dialysis services, trauma services and transplant services, is an excellent example of the benefits that come from restructuring, getting rid of the waste and duplication in the health care system and investing every dollar, and more, back into services.

I was in Hamilton recently to announce $7.3 million in hospital priority programs, and that falls on top of $2 million in cardiac services in Hamilton just late in 1996. By this time next year, with those investments in Hamilton and with the $35-million unprecedented reinvestment in cardiac care in this province, we will have the shortest waiting lists in the history of this province by this time next year in cardiac care. That's because we've not cut one penny in health care. In fact, we're spending $300 million more in health care and we're shortening the waiting list to an all-time low --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you.

Mrs Ross: Minister, what does this mean in terms of reinvestment in my community of Hamilton West? What does this mean in terms of patient care that we can expect there?

Interjections.

The Speaker: The member for Windsor-Sandwich, come to order. The member for Hamilton East.

Mr Gilles Pouliot (Lake Nipigon): She's not coming back anyway.

The Speaker: Member for Lake Nipigon, come to order. I'm not warning you again.

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): Pucker up, guys. Here comes the Premier.

The Speaker: The member for Welland-Thorold as well.

Hon Mr Wilson: The people of Hamilton were very appreciative, and so were the cardiac surgeons and so were the people who put in new hips and knees and the surgeons who look after trauma patients. Dialysis services are available today that weren't available a year ago in Hamilton. All of that is a credit to the honourable member, because she understands health care, she understands that we're putting every dollar and more back into the system.

At the end of the day what it means to your constituents, I say to the member for Hamilton West, and all constituents across Ontario is that there will be modern hospitals with more services; no more half-empty buildings, no more huge administrations, but modern, full-service hospitals, with the newest technologies and the newest drug therapies and the shortest waiting lists in the history of health care in this province. That's what restructuring is all about and that's what the reinvestment strategy is all about.

I know that the doctors and nurses I met in Hamilton when I was down there recently understand that fully, and the patients were very grateful to have shorter waiting lists and a greater access to a range of hospital services.

The Speaker: New question, the member for Hamilton East.

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): It's unfortunate the minister didn't speak about hospital closures in Hamilton.

The Speaker: I still need to know who your question is to.

WATER AND SEWER SERVICES

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): My question is to the minister of privatization. The government's obsession with privatizing absolutely everything that moves in this province, absolutely anything that is essential, has now carried on to your next goal, and that is privatizing drinking water in this province. It started under Bill 26, when you took away the right of referendums from municipalities that choose to privatize their drinking water. It then continued through your massive downloading and dumping on municipalities. Now, Bill 107 is the final step, where you've turned the rest of the assets over to municipalities to allow them to privatize drinking water.

Very clearly, we have seen the experiences throughout the world. We have seen the British experience of an increase of 1,000% in rates, the health care difficulties. They turned off the people's water when they couldn't pay, and we are moving in that direction as a result of Bill 107.

Minister, can you tell the House why you believe it is appropriate for municipalities to have the power to sell their water and sewer assets to the highest bidder?

Hon Rob Sampson (Minister without Portfolio [Privatization]): I think the honourable member across the floor will know that if he looks at the bill he's speaking to, that question is better addressed to the Minister of Environment. But in his absence, I will tell you that the assets we're dealing with in that particular bill were actually owned by the municipalities anyhow, and we're just doing what would have been done over the course of time anyhow.

As it relates to privatization, of course the member knows that we've been working over the last number of months to try to establish a framework so we can move ahead on privatization in a fair and open environment. In fact, we hope to be able to come forward with that framework shortly to deal with matters of privatization in the way they should be dealt with.

Mr Agostino: I'm astonished at the lack of knowledge of this issue since it clearly is going to fall under the jurisdiction that you have responsibility for once municipalities start moving to privatize their water services because of the fact that you have downloaded so much on to them that is the only asset they have. Frankly, the private sector would love to get its hands on and be able to control the water rates.

Very clearly, it's not a question of moving the other 25% of the services to the municipalities. This is an issue about your government having the responsibility and the power to very clearly say to municipalities across Ontario: "We're not going to allow you to privatize drinking water. It is not for sale to the highest bidder. It is a vital service to Ontarians."

Minister, we are going to introduce an amendment to Bill 107 that would prohibit municipalities from privatizing and losing control of the ability to set rates for water and sewer services. Can you tell us if you and your government are going to support that amendment that would stop municipalities from selling off their water to the highest bidder and in the process shafting homeowners and residents of this province and holding them hostage to corporate greed rather than --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): The minister without portfolio responsible for privatization.

Hon Mr Sampson: What I can tell the member across the floor is that we intend to set up a framework that will deal with privatization matters on a fair and open basis so that all the issues related to privatization can be discussed, all the options associated with privatization can be discussed and the range of opportunities and options around asset sale or partnership or whatever can be discussed in a full and open environment. We intend to have that full and open discussion.

FAMILY SUPPORT PLAN

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): I've got a question to the Attorney General. During the fall of last year, Attorney General, after you laid off almost 290 family support plan staff and shut down eight of the regional offices, day after day you told this House that your mega-office in Downsview was up and operating. It was only on November 7, when Shelley Martel and I brought back videotape, that your incompetence was revealed and it was demonstrated that the office was nowhere near operational and that's why women and kids weren't getting the money you were responsible for delivering to them.

You then brought forward Bill 82, and after a mere four days of hearings it was passed before Christmas 1996. You promised that the new enforcement procedures in Bill 82 would be proclaimed by January. It's now April, and women and children are still going without their family support payments. Why did you break that promise other than for your sole incompetence and inability to run your ministry and the family support plan?

Hon Charles Harnick (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): We have passed a bill that will bring in what I believe are the toughest enforcement measures anywhere in North America to collect family support payments. We have worked very hard to bring service improvements to the plan so that 95% of cheques are processed within 48 hours, and we will continue to focus on service.

In addition, we're doing something different with the family support plan, and that is that we are changing the focus from cheque processing to enforcement. We are going to develop an enforcement agency and that will effectively change the way this plan operates. Rather than the passive approach that has always been taken in the past to collect family support payments, we have implemented in this bill 30 new techniques that provide active enforcement, something that never existed in any plan in this province before.

We're now working very hard to ensure that the tools are implemented so that we can bring in our enforcement mechanisms in the most effective way.

Mr Kormos: Attorney General, your singular incompetence rears its ugly head once again. The fact is that only 50% of the 2,000 phone calls a day are being answered. The fact is that hundreds and thousands of families in this province, women and their kids, still aren't receiving moneys that you're responsible to deliver to them, and the fact is that you promised that this bill would be proclaimed by January. It's now April. You can't even give a commitment as to when it will be proclaimed. You can't even give a commitment as to when the most basic enforcement tools that were contained in Bill 82 will be in effect so that you can start utilizing them.

You're an embarrassment. You express nothing but disdain for the women and children of this province. You ought to do the right thing and confess your incompetence, acknowledge it, resign. Let somebody else, if there is anybody else in that miserable caucus, take over your responsibilities.

Hon Mr Harnick: At least I wasn't dumb enough to be a Sunshine Boy.

I am surprised about the member's question, because in 1993, when these enforcement measures were sought by a mother --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Attorney General.

Hon Mr Harnick: I am surprised that the member is pressing on this issue so hard, because in 1993 when --

Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East): You're incompetent.

The Speaker: The member for Sudbury East come to order. I'm warning you to come to order.

Hon Mr Harnick: In 1993, when Mothers Against Fathers In Arrears sought this kind of bill, they were turned away by the NDP government. When we were debating Bill 82, the opposition NDP brought an opposition day to stop the bill altogether, and now they want this bill.

I can assure them that we are working very hard to implement the bill in a way that will be most effective, that will provide a new dimension to the family support plan, which for the first time will have an enforcement branch to it that will effectively be able to actively pursue arrears, something the NDP government rejected, took no steps to develop. We are doing this so that women and children can get the money to which they are entitled. Enforcement mechanisms have not existed to permit the plan to do that. They will exist very shortly.

Mr Kormos: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Serving notice upon this incompetent minister, the one who bungled and breaks promises --

The Speaker: If you want to serve notice, you better do it in the proper manner.

Mr Kormos: -- upon the Attorney General that he or his parliamentary assistant, whoever it happens to be today, is going to have to come back at 6, because that answer isn't adequate.

SELF-MANAGEMENT

Mr Ted Chudleigh (Halton North): My question is to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Minister, two years ago we campaigned on the premise of less government regulation and a return to more self-reliance. In the 1996 business plan of your ministry and subsequently the passing of Bill 54, the Safety and Consumer Statutes Administration Act of June of last year, the government outlined an initiative to move towards self-management for a number of business sectors regulated by your ministry.

I have a number of constituents who fall into this sector and will be affected by the legislation. I was wondering what the status of this initiative is and when they can expect changes to be in place. Could you inform the Legislature as to the progress you are making towards implementing self-management by real estate brokers and agents, travel agents and wholesalers, and automobile dealers?

Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): As the member knows, we outlined our intentions in Bill 54 to delegate certain responsibilities for the administration, enforcement and licensing of certain industries to non-profit, independent, private-sector organizations. I'd like to advise that we have made a fair amount of progress in our efforts in industry self-management.

As the member is aware right now, the Ontario Motor Vehicle Industry Council, OMVIC, is now up and running. We then proceeded to work on the real estate council as well. I had an opportunity to first speak about this real estate council to members of the greater Hamilton real estate board, which was attended as well by the member for Hamilton West, whom I'd like to welcome as my new parliamentary assistant, Lillian Ross, at the same time, and also thank the member for Durham Centre for the work he did as parliamentary assistant to the ministry. We then signed the agreement with the Real Estate Council of Ontario on March 1.

I'd like to refer to a certain remark by Alan Silverstein, who is a well-respected lawyer and Toronto Star columnist who had this to say. He said, "Never before" --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): I'm afraid you'll have to do it in the supplementary.

Mr Chudleigh: Thank you very much, Minister. On the flip side of the issue, some of my Halton North constituents have commented to me that in turning over these responsibilities to the private sector, consumer protection will be put at risk. Can you tell the House what protection will be in place to assist the consumers of Ontario and address the concerns of my constituents?

Interjection.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: Mr Speaker, I will finish that thought at the request of the member from over there. Mr Silverstein did indicate: "Never before have business and consumers had an opportunity for greater input. If anything," the industry "should be concerned that its activities will now be subject to greater public scrutiny, higher levels of competence and ethical conduct, and tougher sanctions."

Mr Speaker, we are embarking upon self-management, not self-regulation. What this means is that certain functions that the ministry used to do will be handled by the industry, such as administration and some licensing functions. We will still maintain the policy and regulatory functions for the ministry. We'll be responsible for monitoring.

Certainly this has worked in other provinces. Other provinces which have raised the bar in terms of standards for the industry are Alberta, British Columbia, Quebec and Saskatchewan.

We will maintain the consumer protection. We will have consumer representatives on all these councils. We will have government representatives as well just to make sure the consumer is protected.

TRANSFER OF PROVINCIAL HIGHWAYS

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): My question is to the Minister of Transportation. The minister will know that on March 25, the town council at Jaffray Melick passed a resolution to reject the 41.5 kilometres of highway that the minister has attempted to download on them. Minister, you will know that many other municipal leaders along with Mayor Canfield have stated that they and their councils are unwilling to accept these highways. The minister will also know that the mayor and council went out and covered the signs that announced the transfer of highways to the motorists in black plastic.

Now that the town has refused your downloading, I want to ask you, who is responsible for the safety of the motoring public and also the maintenance of these highways?

Hon Al Palladini (Minister of Transportation): I would like to inform the honourable member that these highways have been transferred to the local municipality, and they are the ones who are going to be responsible for the upkeep of safety. I do expect that municipalities will maintain safety on their new provincial roads.

Mr Miclash: They've rejected taking on these highways; they're not taking them. They've told you they don't want them. We know that many of these mayors and councillors are very dedicated. They are dedicated leaders and they're trying to protect their municipalities, municipalities that are having enough of a tough time maintaining the roads they now have.

Mayor Canfield and his colleagues are asking the question on the minds of other municipal leaders across the north, that being, does the province have the right to bankrupt their municipality? Minister, again, these municipalities have said they do not want these highways. They have rejected them. I ask you, what do you say to Mayor Canfield and others who fear the worst and have told you they will not accept these highways?

Hon Mr Palladini: The highways that have been earmarked and transferred to the municipalities have been done. As of April 1, they're going to be responsible. But I also want to say to the member that the municipalities are going to control the land use and the zoning and they will also have control on the entries and building permits that possibly are going to be erected from this particular point. I also want to say that municipalities are going to have an excellent opportunity to increase local development with these transfers, so there are positives in what has been going on.

I must say, these highways have been transferred in the best of condition, and if there are some situations where they have to be addressed, there are funds available to make sure that these transfers are going to be done in an orderly fashion.

PROPERTY ASSESSMENT

Mr Gilles Pouliot (Lake Nipigon): A question to the Minister of Finance. Minister, we've just finished two weeks of public hearings on your Bill 106, that of reassessment Ontario. These are some of the impacts of your bill. Bill 106 demands a complete reassessment of some 3.8 million properties across Ontario, with a possible 900,000 appeals. Bill 106, the same bill, will involve a massive tax shift whereby the big banks, the big conglomerates, will save some 40% of their business occupancy tax and the slack will be picked up by those smaller businesses.

Homeowners and tenants in Metro Toronto will be subjected to a massive increase. Rural municipalities will have to assume a new responsibility, that of the farm tax rebate -- all this in a one-year tax frame.

Tell the House, Minister, what's your rush? What's the big hurry?

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): The honourable member will know that the system of property taxation and assessment we have in Ontario today is very unfair and unequal across the province. We have some people being taxed on 1940 values and we have other people being taxed on 1992 values.

I say to the honourable member, he's making an assumption. If he thinks that municipalities are going to pass on what is now the business occupancy tax to residential homeowners, I think he's making a very serious mistake indeed. There is no need for municipalities to pass that on to residential homeowners. As a matter of fact, municipalities will now have six classes of properties. They can take the entire revenue that they now gain on business occupancy tax and ask businesses to continue to pay it or they can distribute it as they see fit.

I might also point out that the city of Toronto alone loses over $100 million a year because of an out-of-date property tax assessment.

Mr Pouliot: Minister, let's snap out of it. Let's get into the real world here. The devil is in the detail. The city of Oakville, for instance, will be asked to pass $18 million of industrial assessment on to the commercial sector and to the residential sector.

The Premier and the Treasurer are very good at looking across the fence and saying, "You must streamline; you must get leaner; you will find those savings through efficiencies," and yet this is a government that is spending more money this year than last year and more last year than the year before. You have no credibility. Why don't you start doing your own work instead of downloading on the smaller people, the municipalities, which is the last resort? You have no credibility. You are in a mess, with nine months for implementation. We don't want you to simmer in it. Why don't you come to your senses? Withdraw the bill or give it a little more time. Do what's right, Minister.

Hon Mr Eves: We are doing what's right. The reality is that there are thousands upon thousands of Ontario taxpayers who have been paying more than their share; some for decades have been paying more than their share. We are changing the system so that, for example, Metro Toronto won't lose $100 million a year in lost revenue due to appeals. There are over 40,000 appeals currently pending in Ontario today. In municipalities all across this province right now there is over $200 million in arrears under the business occupancy tax. It's an outdated tax that was started in 1904. It's totally unworkable, as well as inequitable.

After we are done with this process we'll have a far more equitable system across Ontario, where everybody knows they will be treated the same. If the honourable member, as indeed other members, has suggestions he'd like to see improvements to Bill 106, we're quite prepared to listen to them.

MOTIONS

ORDER OF BUSINESS

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Government House Leader): I move that we do now proceed to orders of the day.

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

All those in favour, please say "aye."

All those opposed, please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Call in the members. It'll be a 30-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1506 to 1536.

The Speaker: Order. Order, member for Hamilton Centre.

The government House leader has moved a motion to move to orders of the day.

All those in favour, please rise and remain standing.

All those opposed, please rise and remain standing.

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 70; the nays are 38.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

CITY OF TORONTO ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 SUR LA CITÉ DE TORONTO

Mr Leach moved third reading of the following bill:

Bill 103,

An Act to replace the seven existing municipal governments of Metropolitan Toronto by incorporating a new municipality to be known as the City of Toronto / Projet de loi 103, Loi visant à remplacer les sept administrations municipales existantes de la communauté urbaine de Toronto en constituant une nouvelle municipalité appelée la cité de Toronto.

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Government House Leader): Just to indicate up front, I understand there is unanimous consent that the opposition parties would be allocated about 50 minutes each and the government will take the remaining time beyond that.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): That's okay if you want to do that; it's just unusual. Unanimous consent to 50 minutes each to the opposition parties and the government will take the remaining time? Agreed.

Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): This is a historic day for Torontonians, because today Bill 103, the City of Toronto Act, comes before this House for third reading.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Members for Lake Nipigon and Sudbury East, I would ask that you come to order. The Minister of Municipal Affairs has the floor. Member for Yorkview.

Hon Mr Leach: Historic because today we take the final steps towards unifying Metropolitan Toronto and its six area municipalities into one city of Toronto, and today the people who live and work in this region are one step closer to better government. They're one step closer to government that will result in lower costs, lower taxes, fewer politicians, better services and increased accountability. They're one step closer to a strong, globally competitive city of Toronto and they're one step closer to a future that includes jobs, prosperity, hope and progress.

Torontonians deserve a future that's built on optimism, a future dedicated to positive change and a future that says yes to new and exciting possibilities.

There have been dozens of studies, each showing that the status quo was not an option. Even the six mayors agreed with that. The Who Does What panel recommended fixing the GTA core and so did the Golden task force. They recognized, as we recognize, that this is a great city but it simply cannot afford to sit back and rest on its laurels.

We knew we had to take action to maintain its international position as a vibrant and thriving metropolis. We knew action was necessary to deal with a global economy, new technology and new ways of doing business. So we got down to brass tacks and we introduced Bill 103 to galvanize this great city, to propel it into the 21st century and to ensure its rightful place on the cutting edge of prosperity and growth.

What's so important about creating a unified Toronto? Improved economic development potential: one city presented to business investors, not six cities competing with the same prospects; one strong council and one mayor, not seven competing voices.

Better political accountability: Taxpayers won't have to deal with two levels of government, only one. Savings: Taxpayers can save up to $865 million over three years and $300 million every year thereafter.

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): Even your own civil servants don't believe that nonsense.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Leader of the third party.

Hon Mr Leach: An end to duplication and waste: One fire department, not six; one roads department, not seven. Closing the loop on service amalgamation: Three quarters of the amount spent on city services is already amalgamated. Police, public transit, social and ambulance services are already consolidated. It's time to bring the final quarter on board.

Last, but not least, a solid GTA core, a strong centre to an area that is Ontario's economic engine: A unified Toronto will have the population, political representation and clout to ensure that the GTA and Ontario continue to thrive. In fact, I expect to receive the final report on recommendations for a Greater Toronto Services Board very shortly, and unifying Metro is the first and very logical step towards reform of this entire area.

These are the reasons we introduced Bill 103. We expected opposition, and we certainly got it, but we also knew that we would have support, and we got that as well. People voiced their opinions at committee hearings, town hall meetings, in letters and phone calls, through public opinion surveys and yes, even in referenda.

The government listened very closely. This input -- the input from 600 deputations, from town hall meetings -- helped us to understand how we can improve our legislation for the benefit of all of Toronto, and we responded. Our fundamental goal of one city of Toronto remained intact, but we introduced more than 30 amendments to our legislation, amendments that combined the benefits of unification with the strengths of local community representation.

Have we pleased everyone? Obviously not. We recognize there are naysayers out there who will be satisfied with nothing less than scrapping Bill 103 in its entirety, but for those looking for honest improvement, we believe we have come up with fair and workable solutions that address their concerns.

People said our initial proposal didn't give them enough local representation. We have increased the number of locally elected councillors to 56 within the current Metro ward boundaries.

People told us they were concerned about protecting and preserving their neighbourhoods, so we strengthened those provisions. There will be six community councils based on existing municipal boundaries.

Mr Mike Colle (Oakwood): They're a joke. You admitted they're a joke yourself.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Oakwood.

Hon Mr Leach: People were worried that the board of trustees was too powerful. We have replaced the board of trustees with a financial advisory board with limited powers.

People told us our proposed transition team placed too much power in the hands of unelected officials. Again, we listened. The transition team will now be an advisory and consultative body which will make recommendations to the new city council on how things might work.

People told us they were afraid a new, unified council would increase their taxes. We don't believe that's the case at all, so the transition team is going to prepare a 1998 draft budget for the new council's consideration. This budget will reflect the principles of tax stability and continuity of services.

We believe the new council, as duly elected officials, will work hard to find the efficiencies in the new, unified city that will allow it to once again avoid tax increases, and we believe it is only logical that moving from seven governments to one will produce savings.

Some citizens told us they felt their cities' reserve funds were open to grabs by the provincial government. The fact is, these reserve funds were never at the mercy of the province at any time. But again, we acknowledged this concern and introduced an amendment to our bill that clarified that the province will not be able to access municipal reserves.

These are the major amendments which we introduced and which have brought us to this point in Toronto's history. Bill 103 is now up for final debate. One strong city of Toronto is now on the horizon. This is a new day, a new beginning for all of us. But the work is just beginning, public consultations are just beginning and the transition will take time to complete. With the goodwill and the perseverance of everyone in this great city, one new and better Toronto will emerge for all of us.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): At one level this debate is about the structure of government for Metro Toronto, but at a deeper level it's about something else. It's about our vision for one of the greatest cities on the planet and it's about our values as a society. Before we vote on this bill, I think we should each ask ourselves three separate and distinct questions: First of all, is a megacity the right vision for Metro Toronto; second, do the people of Toronto really want a megacity; and third, what does the passage of this bill say about the Harris government and its view of democracy?

With respect to the first question, earlier this year a legislative committee held six weeks of hearings on the megacity bill, six weeks of input that this government didn't want but was forced into by the opposition. We heard from expert after expert, and their views were unanimous: A megacity is the wrong vision for Metro Toronto. The evidence is overwhelming and beyond dispute. A megacity will cause property taxes to soar, it will cause services to be cut and it will make government even more remote from the people it is supposed to serve.

We heard from Wendell Cox, an international public policy consultant who said: "This just makes no sense at all. I think in the long run megacity is going to be a failed experiment." Later on, Mr Cox told us that the megacity comes along with a $4.5-billion pricetag for the next 10 years. That means a property tax hike of about $5,000 per household over the next 10 years, and that's before the effects of downloading, which are going to cost us another $500 every year per household. Let's face it: Megacity and downloading are a one-two punch aimed at the very heart of Metropolitan Toronto.

We also heard from Jane Jacobs, the internationally renowned authority on cities, who has chosen to make Toronto her home for good reason, who said: "Amalgamation is the most stupid idea that's come along for ages.... If it ever happens, we'll just have to accept we're going to stagnate." We heard from expert after expert who said that bigger cities are not more efficient and cheaper; they are less efficient and more expensive.

I remember when Mike Harris used to make the same point. I remember when he said: "I disagree with restructuring because it believes that bigger is better. Services always cost more in larger communities." That's what the then leader of the third party said. But that was then and this is now. Opposition leader Mike Harris used to speak out for strong local governments. Now, Premier Mike Harris kills them.

Next question: Do the people of Toronto really want a megacity? I think the answer to that one ought to be pretty apparent to all of us. Over the course of six weeks, we saw nearly 1,000 people who love this community -- and I use that word advisedly. They love this community; there is a strong emotional bond with the communities in which the people of Metropolitan Toronto happen to live. We saw those 1,000 people testify at committee. We saw 10,000 people march down Yonge Street. We saw meetings night after night in municipality after municipality, from 15 to 15,000 people.

I don't think this city has seen so many people so involved in an issue in nearly three decades. The message they sent was loud and very, very clear: "We don't want to be part of a megacity and we don't want you forcing a megacity on us."

We saw referenda in six municipalities, referenda that this government tried to derail, referenda that it said it would ignore and ultimately referenda that it tried to buy with a million-dollar advertising campaign. Yet when all was said and done and all the votes were counted, 76% of those who voted said no to the megacity.

It would seem to me that's pretty clear; in fact, I'd call it unequivocal. It ought to be unequivocal, and it is to everybody but this government. People said "No." They didn't say, "No, unless they make some token changes," and they didn't say, "No, unless they make some minor amendments." They said, "No." They said, "No means no," and they said, "No means no megacity." There was only one decent, honourable and responsive thing for this government to do: Kill the bill, put it out of its misery.

I remember the good old days when Mike Harris used to speak in favour of referenda. I remember when he said the government should listen to the people it serves. But that was then and this is now. Opposition leader Mike Harris used to listen to people. Premier Mike Harris runs roughshod over them.

The third question: What does the passage of this bill say about the Harris government and its view of democracy? The people of Metro Toronto have sent a clear and unequivocal message to this government. If this government insists on using its majority to force through Bill 103, it will send a clear and unequivocal message back to the people. The Harris government is saying to the people of Metro Toronto: "We don't care what your vision of your community is. We don't care about your belief in strong local government. You're getting a megacity, and you're getting it whether you like it or not."

That kind of bullheadedness is of concern not only to the people of Metro but to people right across this great province, because if this government insists on forcing its will on the largest and most powerful community in this province, then surely it will not hesitate one instant to run roughshod over the smallest and the most powerless.

The contempt for public opinion that this government is showing today is nothing less than sledgehammer democracy at its very worst. A great deal has been said about this government's style of operation, but the member for Wentworth North perhaps captured it best. He said, and remember we're talking about a Conservative member here, "This government is controlled by the Premier's office in conjunction with a bunch of kids who I say have a college or university degree in one hand and Machiavelli's Prince in the other, and not a whole lot in between." He added, "And those are the people, for ideological reasons, that are coming up with this policy." That's what one of their own said.

I'm going to make an appeal now directly to the Conservative members opposite. When you cast your vote on this bill, you can send the Premier one of two messages. You can say it's okay for the Premier to run this province like it's his personal fiefdom; it's okay to ignore the wishes of the people of Ontario and the members they elect, even government members; it's okay for a small, unelected clique inside the Premier's office to force its will on the people. Or the members opposite can stand up for the people who voted for you and you can vote against this bill.

You can send a loud and clear message that it's not okay for the Premier and a small group of ideologues in his office to ignore the people of Ontario and those they elected to represent them. It's not too late, in fact it's never too late, to stand up for real democracy instead of sledgehammer democracy. Even at this 11th hour, it's not too late.

That's why I'm tabling an amendment to this bill. It's called a reasoned amendment, which our rules allow even on third reading of a bill. It says, in part, that Bill 103 is fundamentally defective in principle, which every member of this House knows in their heart to be true, and that Bill 103 ought to be withdrawn, which every member of this House knows is the only action that is in keeping with the will of the people we happen to enjoy the privilege of serving.

It was over 200 years ago that one of the greatest students of democracy, somebody by the name of Alexis de Tocqueville, wrote, "Governments usually perish from impotence or from tyranny." In the case of this government, it is certainly risking both. In forcing through this bill, this government has lost a sense of the very real privilege of government, a sense that what we are really all about in this chamber is public service. Those who lose touch with this concept, who lose touch with the people we happen to serve, are a government that has lost the support of the people.

This government and this Premier can try to rule by imposing their will on the people, can choose a path quite different from the path of democracy, but they should not be surprised when the people respond decisively at election time. The people of Metropolitan Toronto will not just accept this vote and go quietly into the night and the people of Ontario will not forget what happens here today. If this government chooses to sow the wind, then it had better be prepared to reap the whirlwind.

I want to conclude by moving the following reasoned amendment:

That Bill 103,

An Act to replace the seven existing municipal governments of Metropolitan Toronto by incorporating a new municipality to be known as the City of Toronto, be not now read a third time but be returned to the standing committee on general government to determine the following matters:

The amount of the shift in tax burden from provincial taxes to municipal residential, commercial and industrial property which is occurring as a result of the downloading and offloading of provincial costs on to the municipal tax base;

The impact of the offloading of the provincial costs on the taxes, services and the voice of communities across Metro. The government should present evidence to demonstrate how the legislation will reduce taxes in Metro and to show how services will be protected;

The implications of ignoring the Golden and Crombie task force recommendations to replace the five existing regional governments with a GTA-wide council or board made up of representatives from the municipalities within the GTA;

The implications of studies showing that once a city gets over one million people, economies of scale in municipal operations start to disappear. The government's own studies showing what savings are expected should also be presented at this time.

I now ask for unanimous consent for me to move this particular amendment and for us to have an opportunity for a vote.

The Deputy Speaker: You have moved it; I have to read it.

Mr McGuinty has moved a reasoned amendment:

That Bill 103,

An Act to replace the seven existing municipal governments of Metropolitan Toronto by incorporating a new municipality to be known as the City of Toronto, be not now read a third time but be returned to the standing committee on general government to determine the following matters:

The amount of the shift in tax burden from provincial taxes to municipal residential, commercial and industrial property which is occurring as a result of the downloading and offloading of provincial costs on to the municipal tax base;

The impact of the offloading of provincial costs on the taxes, services and the voice of communities across Metro. The government should present evidence to demonstrate how the legislation will reduce taxes in Metro and to show how services will be protected;

The implications of ignoring the Golden and Crombie task forces' recommendations to replace the five existing regional governments with a GTA-wide council or board made up of representatives from the municipalities within the GTA;

The implications of studies showing that once a city gets over one million people economies of scale in municipal operations start to disappear. The government's own studies showing what savings are expected should also be presented at this time. April 17, 1997.

Further debate? The member for Dovercourt.

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): Usually when we stand --

Mr McGuinty: Point of order: Do we have unanimous consent?

The Deputy Speaker: No unanimous consent required.

Mr Silipo: When we rise to speak we usually begin, many of us, with the words, "I'm pleased to rise and speak" to whatever the motion or the matter may be. I'm not particularly pleased to stand here today and to speak on third reading of Bill 103. I'm in fact quite angered at the fact that this is where we are in the proceedings of the House, but I'm not surprised.

Even the reasoned amendment that we've just seen presented I know will find the same conclusion that in fact any other reasonable proposal that has come forward from any of us in the opposition and indeed, and particularly, members of the public will find, which is that the government will simply ignore it. They will ignore it because for them this is not about reason, this is not about doing the right thing, this is about doing the ideologically correct thing for them.

This is doing the thing that controls and continues to put the control and the power into the hands of fewer and fewer people and takes that control more and more away from the citizens -- in this case, the citizens of Metropolitan Toronto. That is what's driven this government on many of its actions and that's certainly what is driving this minister and this government on this particular action.

I could speak in the short time that I'm going to be speaking about all of the reasons why the government should, even at this late stage, pull back, pause, reflect, figure out a way to send this bill away, but I know that I would be simply repeating things that the government would not care to hear and things that quite frankly would not make a difference at all.

So I would rather spend a few minutes talking about what this all means; not what this means so much in terms of the next stage in the implementation because, let me tell you, the debate is just beginning on that, but what this means in terms of what's happened through this whole process in terms of the understanding that's developed among the people, not just in Metropolitan Toronto -- yes, in spades in Metropolitan Toronto -- but indeed across the province about what this government is all about: the undemocratic nature that they have gone to, the undemocratic measures that they have used to ram through this bill, to ignore completely what the vast majority of residents in Metropolitan Toronto have said, not just through the hearings but through the referendum.

Quite clearly people have begun to understand that. They know that if this government is prepared to go to these undemocratic means, is prepared to ignore so clearly an expressed view as that of 76% of the people in Metropolitan Toronto saying no to the megacity in a referendum, that they will stop at nothing to implement their horrendous agenda.

I think, quite frankly, that there is at least a tremendous amount of value to what's happened in the last few months because I have seen a citizens' movement develop here in Metropolitan Toronto that I have not seen for some years.

The minister can stand here, even upon third reading of the bill, and talk about, "We expected some opposition and we got it," or he can talk about, "Those people out there are naysayers." I want to say to the minister, take a look up in the galleries, on both sides, listen to the noise that you hear out there because that's the sound and these are the faces of the people that you are choosing to ignore.

You will ignore them not just at your own political peril but you will ignore them and you will end up at the end losing on your revolution because people understand now what your Common Sense Revolution is all about.

They understand that it's not about more democracy, they understand that it's very much about less democracy. They understand that it's about concentrating more and more power in the hands of fewer and fewer people, in the hands of unelected people, unaccountable to the public. They understand that, Minister. You may get away with passing this bill on third reading today but if you think for one second that's the end of the matter, then you really haven't heard a thing out there, because in the courts this will continue to be fought, in the implementation this will continue to be fought.

At every stage from here till the last day that you will stand up as Minister of Municipal Affairs to whoever will succeed you and to the last days of your government, there will continue to be opposition to this, not because we in the opposition have to muster that opposition but simply because what you are doing is fundamentally wrong and people understand that.

When people understand that what their government is doing is wrong and when they are prepared to continue to tell you that in all sorts of ways, then the opposition that's out there which has been tremendous up until this point will not wither away, it will grow. It will be expressed in different ways but it will grow. At the end of the day it will result in your government being defeated and it will result in the people being able to win the day. Why? Simply because they are right and you're wrong. It's as simple as that.

You can muck around with this bill as much as you want. You can make as many amendments as you want, but if you continue to persist, as you are obviously doing here today, in your insane approach that says that this megacity is the way to go, then you have either not heard, not understood, or you have heard and understood but chosen to ignore the will of the people. When any government acts contrary to the will of the people, the only thing that it has left is a little bit of time and that's the time between now and the next election. That's the only thing you have left.

You have no credibility, you have no ability to convince people, even in some of the smaller measures that you might want to bring about, because people have seen through your façade. People have seen through the Common Sense Revolution.

They have seen it for the charade that it is and yet they understand the seriousness of it, because people have made the connection between the megacity, the mega school boards that are being created under Bill 104 and all of the other measures that particularly we are seeing in this special session of the Parliament which will result, all for the sake of the tax cut, in democratic power being taken away from the people and put more and more into the hands of fewer and fewer people.

The minister can say, "We've increased the number of politicians." It's not about the numbers, Minister, it's about the process, it's about the link there is and it's about the decision-making power.

You can continue to ride this through. You presumably have the numbers this afternoon to pass this bill. But at the end of the day, the voice and the will of the people will ride over what this government is doing.

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): It always does.

Mr Silipo: It always does, as my colleague the member for Sault Ste Marie says, and it certainly will in this case.

So I stand today with a lot of sadness because we have not managed to convince this government that what it is doing is wrong, but I stand today also very firm in my mind that this is but another

chapter in the ongoing fight against this ludicrous notion of a megacity that Mike Harris and Al Leach want to continue to impose upon the people of Metropolitan Toronto, despite the fact that the collective wisdom of the people has said no, will continue to say no and will persist in saying no until either Mike Harris and Al Leach listen, or quite frankly until Mike Harris and Al Leach are here no more and therefore it doesn't matter whether they listen or not. But the will of the people, at the end of the day, will have the day, because that's the way the democratic process is and should continue to be.

Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East): It's my pleasure to rise on what is indeed an auspicious day as we give third reading and final consideration to a bill which will have a dramatic and positive impact on the people here in Metro Toronto.

Interruption.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): Would the member for Scarborough East take his seat for a second, please. Could I ask the members in the gallery to please not make that hissing noise. It is against the rules here and I have to ask that you obey the rules when you're sitting in those seats, please. Thank you.

Mr Gilchrist: I know the leader of the second and third parties, Mr Sewell, is in attendance. Perhaps he can counsel his members to respect the rules here in the Legislature.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Scarborough East, take your seat for a moment. I would ask the member for Oakwood to come to order. The member for Scarborough East, I don't think it's appropriate or indeed helpful to the situation to provoke members or insult members of the gallery either.

Mr Gilchrist: We'll stay on topic then, and the topic is indeed the fact that this --

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): On a point of order, Madam Speaker: I think you appropriately cautioned the member, but I would suggest it is out of order to refer to members in the gallery and/or to refer to them by parliamentary names like "the leader of the second and third parties." I would suggest that the member for Scarborough East could facilitate this by simply withdrawing in a polite fashion instead of the arrogant display we've seen.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Come to order, please. Member for Beaches-Woodbine, there was nothing out of order according to the rules of the House. If the member chooses to apologize to any members of the public, then that is his choice, and I offer him that opportunity.

Mr Gilchrist: I certainly didn't mean to offend anyone in the public if they took exception to who has been one of the more outspoken critics, because as we saw during the filibuster, at times when there were no members of the official opposition in attendance here, clearly if there were criticisms to this bill, they were better articulated outside this chamber sometimes than inside.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order. Member for Scarborough East, take your seat.

Mr Colle: On a point of order, Madam Speaker: This member continues to basically insult and antagonize people. Will he withdraw his first comment?

The Acting Speaker: First of all, I would caution the member for Scarborough East to not be so provocative. I think you know what you're doing, and it would help matters all around in a difficult debate like this if you would not do that. Again, the member for Scarborough East has not used unparliamentary language. I again caution the member, however, and I'd ask all members as we debate this to try to not insult and provoke each other.

Mr Gilchrist: Certainly, the use of the facts I hope will never be inflammatory or cause any great concern, because the root of what we are about to conclude here was a bill that was introduced on December 17. At the outset, a statement was made categorically that there would be ample time given to public hearings. In fact, we gave 105 hours of consideration to this bill, one of the longest consideration periods before a legislative committee of any bill in the last 10 years. That was something outlined by the government the very day the bill was introduced.

If the other side wants to deal with the mythology that their 48 somehow forced our 82 to do certain things, I'll leave that to the public to decide the math and the accuracy of that.

The bottom line is, in those hearings we did hear some very specific suggestions. People's concerns basically fell into three categories: They were concerned that somehow this bill would have an impact on the evolution of their community; they had a concern there might be an impact on the democratic representation being offered by the municipal politicians in their area; they had a concern that there might be an impact on taxation.

I am absolutely convinced, and I think any reasonable person reading the amendments we brought forward would conclude the same, that every one of those substantive and specific concerns was addressed directly in the form of those amendments. We took out all the references that we thought were building in extra protection for taxpayers in this city, protection that would ensure that the trustees and the transition team would be allowed to do their work without frivolous and vexatious opposition and time wasting.

We recognized this was an important initiative and that once people were charged with the task of going forward and making this project work, they had to have the flexibility to do that in an efficient and effective manner.

We heard certain criticisms about the fact that the bill would be retroactive; we took them out. We heard criticisms that the decisions of the trustees would be immune from any court prosecution; we took them out. In fact, we took out every single specific reference to what others considered undemocratic or anti-democratic actions. Every one of those sections was removed.

We heard too, on the subject of representation, that to go from 106 politicians down to 44 was too great a cut all at once. Interestingly enough, Metro council itself reduced back in 1988 by over 20% the number of members at Metro council, and many other communities across Ontario have seen dramatic reductions in the number of councillors, voluntarily initiated. Here in Metro we saw no grass-roots initiative on the part of the seven local governments to bring about that greater accountability, so that was something we had to do. But we heard concerns that 44 was too few. We reflected that by going up to 56.

I have to say at this point it is clear, to anyone who understands the Municipal Act and understands this bill, that effective the first day that new council is formed, the evolution of the city of Toronto government will be totally in the hands of those 57 politicians.

All of their decisions in terms of future boundary changes, in fact whether they even keep 56 councillors and one mayor, those decisions will be made by the city government as they are made by city governments all across this province as a result of our Bill 86, passed last December, which gives those authorities specifically to the communities and removes their need to have to come cap in hand to Queen's Park. So we heard the criticisms about representation and we acted on them, I think very directly.

At the same time a majority of the people who criticized the bill in the legislative hearings said that they thought there was a need to reflect the traditional boundaries of the six existing cities. I think there were others who suggested that those were to some extent outdated and irrelevant and that we should have looked at something that more evenly distributed the workload of the community councils. But having said that, enough people made it clear to us that they thought there was value in respecting those old boundaries that we said the new community councils will in fact conform exactly, precisely, 100% to the boundaries of the existing six cities.

To the extent that the new councils and the new councillors decide to either preserve those boundaries or change in the future, that decision will be totally a made-in-Toronto decision. But at the outset, everyone who said East York is somehow different from York is somehow different from Etobicoke etc will have the ability through their local councils, the community councils, to make sure those differences continue to be respected.

Of course, the third criticism was that there would be an impact on taxation. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, one of the tasks of the transition team will be to prepare a budget that proves categorically that it is possible to maintain all existing services, even though those services may differ from one of the old communities to another.

Interruption.

Mr Gilchrist: Perhaps you might have that person removed.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please. I would caution members in the gallery again. I think you've been well informed even by the Speaker of the House, who attended a meeting at one time, about the rules of the House. You must remain quiet as you sit and listen to the debate. Thank you.

Mr Gilchrist: Clearly the transition team will be charged with the task of coming up with a budget that shows you can preserve all of the services as they exist right now, including the differences between North York's and Scarborough's snowplowing and all the other examples we heard about during these last few weeks, and maintain exactly the same tax. The mill rate need not change.

If the new council, after January 1, decides to take a different course and decides to build more subways or build more libraries or shut down a service or do any change, that will purely and simply be a decision they have made and in no way related to this bill itself, because one of our commitments was that we will be able to provide that proof, that nothing in Bill 103 will impact the taxation of the property owners in the new city of Toronto.

The process has worked and it has worked extraordinarily well. As every member opposite knows and as they themselves practised during their respective five-year terms of office over the last decade, bills that are introduced in this chamber, the thousands of pieces of legislation that have come through this House, are carried out in a particular format. We have first reading, which is nothing more than reading the title of the bill. We have second reading, where quite frankly the three parties just put on record their respective positions. Then the real work takes place of listening to the public. We did that: 105 hours of hearings.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please. Member for Scarborough North, come to order.

Mr Gilchrist: We also attended the town hall meetings. In fact every member of the government of Toronto hosted their own town hall meeting at least once. The bottom line is, you add to that all the letters and phone calls and faxes we received, and I know this may be a great shock to the members opposite, but in my riding a majority of the people who came to the town hall meetings, a majority of the people who wrote and phoned and faxed, support this bill.

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): They ran you out of your town hall.

The Acting Speaker: Member for Windsor-Sandwich, come to order.

Mr Gilchrist: The fact of the matter is, in my home community of Scarborough right now, despite the fact that we had three months of the press absolutely suggesting that the world was going to come to an end, absolutely suggesting that this bill was some terrible, draconian instrument that was going to be the death of all our communities, 81.2% of all the people in Scarborough weren't concerned enough to mail back a ballot. That's how concerned the people in my riding were about this bill. The suggestion that 16% of the people in Scarborough voted no, 16% of the eligible voters --

Mrs Pupatello: How many votes elected you, member? A lot of those votes put you in that seat.

The Acting Speaker: Member for Windsor-Sandwich, come to order.

Mr Gilchrist: Math class may have been a long time ago, but 82 is still bigger than 16%. To suggest that the 74% of the people across Metro who didn't have enough concern to even vote, in the case of North York to pick up their phone and take two minutes, the suggestion that somehow they are the only people who should be listened to, and the other 74%, or in the case of Scarborough the other 81%, don't have a right to be heard and their views are not to be factored in by the members sitting in this chamber I think is preposterous.

Obviously there is no precedent. Nobody over there ever took direction in the form