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

January 27, 1997

36th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

L151 - Mon 27 Jan 1997 / Lun 27 Jan 1997

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

JASPER MINER

SOCIAL SERVICES

CHRYSLER CANADA

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES

LONG-TERM CARE

RAMADAN

NORTHERN ONTARIO

EDUCATION FINANCING

SPEAKER'S RULING

ORAL QUESTIONS

PROPERTY TAXATION

SOCIAL, COMMUNITY HEALTH AND HOUSING SERVICES

MINISTRY OF MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS AND HOUSING

RED TAPE REDUCTION

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

SOCIAL, COMMUNITY HEALTH AND HOUSING SERVICES

CHILD POVERTY

PROPERTY TAXATION

IPPERWASH PROVINCIAL PARK

WORKPLACE FATALITIES

SOCIAL, COMMUNITY HEALTH AND HOUSING SERVICES

FAMILY SUPPORT PLAN

PETITIONS

CLASS SIZE

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

HANLON EXPRESSWAY

PROTECTION FOR WORKERS

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

ONTARIO CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTE

NORTH YORK BRANSON HOSPITAL

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

ORDER OF BUSINESS

ORDERS OF THE DAY

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

The House met at 1331.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

JASPER MINER

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): I rise today to pay tribute to a very special constituent of mine, Jasper Miner, who passed away last week at the age of 86. Mr Miner, the last son of world-renowned naturalist Jack Miner, continued his father's conservation work at the Jack Miner Bird Sanctuary in Kingsville well into his 80s.

Jasper Miner was a man who truly held his father's love and appreciation of nature. For the countless visitors who made their way to Kingsville, Jasper Miner was the public face of the bird sanctuary, entertaining all by driving his all-terrain vehicle among the geese, prompting them into flight for what became known as the sanctuary air show.

His dedication to conservation and his devotion to public education at the sanctuary were instrumental in keeping the work of his father alive for future generations to enjoy. Jasper took special pride in the banding of hundreds of birds each year in order to further our knowledge and appreciation of wildlife, and wild geese in particular.

A deeply religious man, Jasper Miner held deep respect for his fellow persons and all things under the sky. He will truly be missed, not only by the people of Essex South but all those who share a love and respect for nature and are dedicated to its preservation.

SOCIAL SERVICES

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): East End Network is a network of community agencies in the east end of Toronto that are involved in linking residents to community and social services that are so needed. They have been dealing with the impact of the government's cuts, particularly to social welfare spending, and what it means in families' lives as they see the demand on their organizations or agencies and their services increase.

They decided they needed to do something to allow people to express their point of view and they started a card campaign, "East Toronto Speaks Out Against the Provincial Cuts." Almost 1,000 people filled out these cards, which I'm going to send over to the Premier for his information: 87% of the people who filled out the cards said they'd had cuts to their income; 84% said there was more hunger and hardship in their families; 76% said people were spending less in their families; 86% said they had seen more people borrowing or begging for money; 79% believe there is more crime or violence as a result of it.

It goes on to deal with issues like hopelessness and fewer jobs and more evictions and more homelessness.

Some of the individual comments written on the cards were very instructive, like: "a hopeless future to look forward to"; "children feeling helpless and dealing with more worries"; "cuts to school programs and welfare affecting independent and homeless youth."

This is a litany of community opinion. It is an important opinion to listen to. I hope the Premier will take the time to review it.

CHRYSLER CANADA

Mr Joseph Spina (Brampton North): It gives me great pleasure today to recognize the outstanding accomplishments of my riding's biggest employer, Chrysler Canada.

This past Friday morning I was fortunate enough to be in attendance when Chrysler rolled off the one millionth LH sedan at our flagship Bramalea assembly plant located in my home riding. Chrysler's Bramalea assembly plant has been producing top-quality Canadian automobiles since 1987. Its current product line includes the Chrysler LHS, Concord, Intrepid and Vision.

Operating in a just-in-time environment, the workers and management of Chrysler produce 1,072 cars per day -- that's 68 units per hour -- a great accomplishment by any standard.

These accomplishments are outstanding not simply because of the numbers but because behind the numbers is a great story. They are rated the number one North American plant within Chrysler, voted the best plant among the Big Three by the well-respected Harbour and Associates report, and awarded the "Best car built in Canada" award three years in a row by the Automobile Journalists Association of Canada.

The commitment and hard work of Chrysler Canada and its union people is a demonstration of the confidence in Ontario. I ask all members of this House to join me in congratulating the management and staff of Chrysler's Bramalea assembly plant and the rolling off of the millionth LH sedan. Maybe there be a million more.

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

Mr Gerard Kennedy (York South): We see by the headlines this weekend that health care is once again in the news, news created by this government, how Ajax and Pickering General hospital has notified of 201 layoffs, how health and social service workers are taking the brunt of the job cuts in the health system, and how doctors are now warning patients not to go to hospitals alone without their families because of the nature of the cutbacks. The health care crisis in this province has reached a dangerous state where physicians have had to actually start warning patients with that kind of advice.

In Ontario, where once our health care system was the envy of countries around the world, we now have the laying off of hundreds of nurses because this government's plans to gut health care are now putting patient care in jeopardy. An entire floor of Mount Sinai Hospital just down the street is being closed, with the layoff of 94 registered nurses and 50 beds being shut down. That's in addition to 69 nurses at Oshawa General, 88 at Ajax and Pickering General, 387 at Toronto Hospital and so on and so on, and yet this government refuses to take responsibility.

This doesn't even mention the hundreds of nurses who are being laid off in communities affected by the government's hospital destruction commission.

There is no point talking any more about our having the best health care system. It's rapidly being dismembered. Why are people speaking out now? Because they no longer have any confidence that this government has a plan. The Ontario Nurses' Association, the Ontario Hospital Association and the College of Family Physicians all say they don't believe integrated health care can be brought, because this government does not have a plan for making that system happen. What we have instead is a sad state of affairs with our hospital system falling apart.

PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES

Mr Floyd Laughren (Nickel Belt): On Thursday of last week a demonstration was held outside this Legislature. This is not a rare event these days with this government in power. The people protesting are employees of this government. They work in the print shops and mail rooms of government ministries.

Fifteen ministries want to privatize their print shops and mail rooms for the sake of privatization. More than 120 employees are affected, many of whom have worked for 10 to 15 years at the lowest-paid jobs and a significant number of whom have some disabilities. These people will have an extremely difficult time exercising bumping rights, or even finding another job. If employees stay with the new employer, they face wage cuts, loss of benefits and pension rights.

If the government really wanted to save money, they should ask the people who do the jobs now where savings can be found. The government could look at reorganizing existing services to provide better service more cost-effectively. None of this occurred. Was there a cost analysis comparing reorganizing existing services with privatization? The union has asked this question and the government has yet to respond.

This government is on a privatization bent like we have never seen in Ontario. They believe that the private sector can do things cheaper and better than the public sector. The changes occurring in the Ontario public service are a direct result of this government's pro-privatization stance. We have the first minister of privatization in Ontario. They want to privatize Hydro, TVO, the Ontario Clean Water Agency and the LCBO, but the majority of Ontarians don't want their public services in private hands.

LONG-TERM CARE

Mr Ted Chudleigh (Halton North): I was pleased to have the Minister of Health, the Honourable David Johnson, visiting my riding and the long-term-care facility at Georgetown District and Memorial Hospital last Friday. The minister, however, was there for more than just a visit. He announced the government's investment of $1.95 million in capital funding to increase long-term-care services for area residents in Georgetown and Halton region.

This long-awaited announcement is welcome news. My community has been chronically underserviced in this area, having the lowest number of long-term-care beds per 1,000 of population over the age of 75 in Ontario. This is good news for all area seniors who, when in need, have a local option to remain in their community, close to their family and friends.

This announcement reaffirms our government's health care commitment to all Ontarians to spend future health dollars where they are most needed.

Renovations to the Bennett Health Care Centre will provide 57 new beds. The total cost of the project will amount to $3.9 million, half of which will be covered by the hospital.

I want to conclude in paying tribute to the hard work and dedication of the present and past hospital boards and the many volunteers who have devoted a countless number of hours in raising funds for the community project. I salute these groups for their efforts and the community spirit in making such a worthwhile project a reality. It shows once again why Ontario is a great place to live, why Ontario is a great place to work and raise a family, especially in Halton North.

RAMADAN

Ms Annamarie Castrilli (Downsview): As the end of Ramadan approaches, I rise to comment on the significance of this happy occasion for Ontario's Muslim community, a significant community in our multicultural society.

Ramadan is the ninth and holiest month of the Muslim year, which follows the lunar calendar. It marks the period during which the holy book, the Koran, was first revealed to the Prophet Muhammad, peace be to him. He in turn urged followers to learn it by heart and obey its commands.

It is a time of abstinence. This peaceful act of denying oneself gives Muslims a realization and an appreciation for poverty and hunger and allows them to overcome selfishness. In doing so, they feel closer to God, to each other and to all fellow citizens.

Fasting is one of Islam's five pillars of faith. As such, it is respected as being the fundamental or cardinal worshipping principle of Islam.

As Ramadan ends, Ontario's Muslims will join with over one billion Muslims worldwide and celebrate the thanksgiving festival of Eid-Ul-Fitr. The celebration can include a morning service, a charitable donation and visits to friends and relatives.

I would like to take this opportunity to wish all our Muslim brothers and sisters who are observing the holy month of Ramadan the very best and happy Eid Mubarak in advance on behalf of our entire Liberal caucus.

NORTHERN ONTARIO

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): I direct my statement today to the Minister of Northern Development and Mines on no strategy or plan for the north.

In a press conference you gave last week in Sault Ste Marie you announced that a specific northern investment strategy has been developed to respond to the higher service delivery costs in the north. You said, "The strategy surpasses the former northern support grant ratios and will ensure that northern Ontario gets its fair share of support when the changes in municipal-provincial relationships start taking effect in 1998."

The so-called northern strategy is part of a province-wide reserve and not specific to northern Ontario. When a reporter at the press conference suggested it was not a northern strategy at all, you responded, "That's right." You then added that an eventual northern strategy will be worked out and that you assume it will happen.

I'm greatly disturbed by your remarks. First of all you make this phoney announcement about helping northerners. Northerners don't buy it, Minister, and you owe an apology to northerners for pretending that your government has developed a strategy to respond to their specific needs when it obviously hasn't. Second, as the Minister of Northern Development, you are the one responsible for developing a strategy for northern Ontario and you're supposed to stand up for northerners.

It's quite clear that you're not doing your job. We can't live on assumptions. We demand real action and we want it before this whole disentanglement mess takes place.

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mr Terence H. Young (Halton Centre): This government's Who Does What initiatives are about removing $5.4 billion from the property tax bill, or 60% of the total. In exchange, we are moving services that should have been delivered locally all along on to the property tax. The result will be an end to waste, overlap and duplication and it will create improved accountability for the property taxpayers of this province.

But don't just take my word for it. John Ibbitson of the London Free Press writes:

"In many ways, the changes simply bring Ontario into line with the rest of Canada.... For years, Ontario governments struggled to reform the province's education system. Powerful school boards repeatedly raised teacher salaries and property taxes faster than the cost of living. Meanwhile, student test scores lagged behind British Columbia's and Alberta's. Education Minister John Snobelen rushed in where other education ministers had feared to tread."

In addition to being out of touch with fiscal reality, as they have been for the last 10 years, the opposition parties are out of touch with what taxpayers and parents want for their children when it comes to education. They should stop blindly defending vested special interests and start acting responsibly on behalf of the taxpayers of Ontario.

SPEAKER'S RULING

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): On Thursday, January 23, 1997, the member for Beaches-Woodbine (Ms Lankin) brought to my attention some material that she had downloaded from the Internet. The material dealt with the same subject matter that I had previously had brought to my attention by the member for Oakwood (Mr Colle). My ruling of Wednesday, January 22, dealt quite specifically with this particular issue. Subsequent to that ruling, the minister rose in his place, apologized and indicated that it was an inadvertent error. He did in fact apologize to the House.

Following Ms Lankin's point, the government House leader said that the government respects the ruling given and will be reviewing its communications packages to ensure that in future they all comply with the new ruling. I would expect also that each and every ministry will have read the ruling and understood the ruling so they will in fact comply for future communications packages as well. I accept the word of the government House leader in this regard and I am confident that the ministries will take note of this ruling.

I say to the member for Beaches-Woodbine that I am of the view that a reasonable amount of time must be allowed for that review to take place. It seems reasonable on all sides of the House that the government be given some window of opportunity in which to adjust its plans and make the necessary changes. Although I appreciate the fact that you brought this point of order forward, I think it's incumbent on myself and the rest of this Legislature to allow the government an opportunity to conform with that particular order, and I would expect it will.

It makes no sense, further, to go back retroactively and have me review previous advertising campaigns during previous time. From this point forward, the government will be expected to follow the ruling that was made. I think they have given us their undertaking, and as honourable members I think we should give them the opportunity to put that house in order.

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: As you know, I gave notice on Thursday of my intention to bring forward a point of personal privilege and that I would hold it until today, respecting the fact that you did not want to consider new points of privilege while we were in the middle of a debate of censure.

The point of privilege I wish to raise follows very directly from the ruling you gave last week that says government actions that imply legislation has passed or will most certainly pass regardless of the outcome of any debate or vote taken in the Legislature constitute, in effect, contempt of the legislative process and of the Legislature.

You'll be well aware, Mr Speaker, that on Thursday morning last week the Minister of Education indicated his intention to name two co-chairs to the Education Improvement Commission. He also named the two specific individuals who would be appointed as co-chairs. That Education Improvement Commission is not yet established in law, because the law that would establish it is only in second reading. Furthermore, the commission itself is to implement the legislation that is currently before the House and has only had second reading and has not yet gone out for public hearings.

I believe that the actions of the minister, in announcing at this point not only that he intends to appoint two co-chairs but who the co-chairs will be, are very clearly, following your ruling, contempt of the legislative process, show a disregard for legislative debate or for at least the possibility that that piece of legislation may not pass through this House. They certainly show a complete disregard for the public input that is to be received during public hearings, which the government has indicated it intends to hold.

I would say further that given the fact that the Thursday morning the announcement was made -- and I respect your ruling just offered that there needs to be some time line for the government to be able to incorporate the significance of a ruling -- was the day after a ruling had just been made that the government had been in contempt of the Legislature, the Minister of Education taking immediate action in order to put in place a process that was not yet established in a law on a piece of legislation being debated in the House either was very much in-your-face not only contempt of the Legislature but disregard for the ruling of the Speaker that week, or else it was very clear evidence that the government simply doesn't get the significance of your ruling.

I'd ask you to consider this further as contempt of the Legislature.

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): On a point of privilege related directly to this, Mr Speaker: In addition to what my colleague has brought to your attention, there have been orders in council signed by the Premier and the names of these two appointees to the Education Improvement Commission have been sent to the members of the government agencies committee.

You well know, sir, that they then can be called before that committee and we could find ourselves in the ludicrous position where we have to call these individuals if we so choose before the committee, review their appointments and, as has been pointed out, the legislation for which they're being appointed hasn't even passed second reading.

I would ask, Speaker, that you take these appointments of order in council and their possible appearance before the government agencies committee under consideration as well.

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Minister of Health, Government House Leader): Mr Speaker, your ruling last week I think was fairly clear in terms of the communications and the marketing, that the advertising the government does relevant to various programs should not presuppose that the final debate has been held and the final vote has been held.

Nevertheless, in terms of the planning of various issues I think you, Mr Speaker, and members of this House would agree that a government does have to do certain background planning. Now that doesn't presuppose any particular debate in this House, any particular vote in this House; it's simply part of the ongoing planning process. But clearly the government, as you indicated earlier and as I indicated in my comments last week, will be reviewing all of its advertising in light of your ruling.

At the same time, there needs to be work behind the scenes to ensure that proper planning and proper processing take place, and I think that's the light that this should be considered in. It's certainly not any violation of the ruling you made last week, which the government fully intends to comply with.

The Speaker: If I could ask the member for Essex South, I'm having difficulty understanding your point of privilege, if you could quickly state it again.

Mr Crozier: Certainly, Speaker. The point of privilege is that the names of the appointees to the Education Improvement Commission have already been signed -- the orders in council have been signed by the Premier. The time in which they could be called to appear before the government agencies committee could expire before the legislation that would enable them to be appointed is even passed. In other words, I suggest that the legislative process has not yet been followed and that it simply could be a done deal before the legislation is even passed. It's premature.

The Speaker: I appreciate the points of order brought forward by the members for Fort William and Essex South. I will take those in consideration and report back at the earliest time.

ORAL QUESTIONS

PROPERTY TAXATION

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Premier. It has now been a couple of weeks since the mega-week announcements and the smoke has cleared and it is perfectly clear to all objective observers in this matter that the net impact is going to be a property tax increase to be shared collectively by property taxpayers throughout the province in excess of $1 billion.

The list of those opposing your scheme, as you well know, Premier, is growing every day. Those opponents could hardly be categorized as being nay-saying leftists. Listen to some of those who oppose it: The Board of Trade of Metropolitan Toronto, Moody's bond rating agency, the Canadian Taxpayers Federation and, of late, 24 of the 25 GTA mayors. Everybody knows that dumping the costs of welfare and seniors' long-term health care will cause property taxes to skyrocket. Premier, you've had time to reconsider. You now better understand the arguments against this. Will you now reconsider and go back to the drawing board?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I think a lot of people are concerned when there are changes being made. You have used the very incorrect figure of $1 billion, which would be about 8% of the taxes collected now by municipalities. We think your $1 billion is all wet, that when you look at the year 2000, of $6.2 billion in education, we believe that municipalities will find their costs will, if not stay the same, go down and that there will be savings there for them to go down.

Nobody knows for sure how much they'll be able to cut taxes. It obviously depends on various municipalities across the province. What we have heard is a number concerned about whether there's an uneven impact of the changes --

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

Hon Mr Harris: -- and we're certainly willing to sit down. We have a year to work this out with our partners and I'm quite confident we'll be able to do that.

Mr McGuinty: Premier, you've got to admit that there is virtually universal condemnation for what you're doing. You can't ignore the fact that municipalities right across the province are starting to calculate now and come up with their own numbers. You would not or could not produce the numbers, so municipalities have taken it upon themselves to come up with numbers.

Kingston has determined that additional costs to it will be in the neighbourhood of $23 million; Brantford, $18.5 million; Niagara, $43 million; Sudbury, $105 million; and in Ottawa they're looking at $500 in new property taxes per household.

You can't just dump costs on property taxes so you can cut income taxes. Not only is it intellectually dishonest, it's unfair to our seniors and our poor. I want to ask you again: Are you going to back down? Would you reconsider? Would you forget your plan to dump more than $1 billion on to property taxpayers and go back to the drawing board?

Hon Mr Harris: Let me just set the record straight on a few things. We don't plan to dump any costs over and above the tax capacity that's there for municipalities. As I have said --

Interjections.

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): There is only one taxpayer.

The Speaker: Order. Member for Kenora, come to order.

Hon Mr Harris: -- that is there, along with the education coming off the property tax, somewhere in the order of -- I have the figure here -- $11.5 billion. What we are working towards is having that $11.5 billion that is now being collected in property taxes and available exclusively for municipalities -- our goal is to make sure that when we finish the transfers we have, we do not increase that capacity. What we believe is that by sorting out and with the efficiencies that are there, that will allow municipalities to reduce that $11.5-billion --

The Speaker: Thank you. Final supplementary.

Mr McGuinty: Premier, you don't have to believe what I'm saying, but of the dozen or so municipalities that have crunched the numbers, not a single one has been able to determine there are going to be fewer costs. In fact they've all come up with additional costs. The Toronto board of trade calculates from the business perspective that small businesses in Metro are going to have to pay as much as $7,900 more each year in property tax. Brantford Mayor Chris Friel said you were "insulting the intelligence of every taxpayer in the province" when you talk about property tax decreases.

If you won't listen to me and you won't listen to the business community, listen to your backbenchers. The members from Hamilton, when they saw the numbers in Hamilton-Wentworth, said --

Interjections.

Mr McGuinty: Well, ask them how they feel about the $121-million increase in new property taxes the people in Hamilton-Wentworth are going to have to withstand this coming year. Tell me how increasing property taxes is consistent with the Common Sense Revolution. Tell me how adding $1 billion to property taxes is common sense.

Hon Mr Harris: It is not consistent with the Common Sense Revolution and that is why it will not happen. What is consistent with this government is lower taxes: lower property taxes, lower income taxes, lower payroll taxes. The only thing that higher property taxes is consistent with is the record of the Liberal government from 1985 to 1990, when 231 municipalities had mill rate increases of 40% or more: Lakefield 82%, Port Hope 69%, Oshawa 67%, Temagami 61%, Whitby 57%, and so on and so on. That's the only consistent record of massive property tax hikes; that was from the Liberal government. Under our government we would expect property taxes to go down.

SOCIAL, COMMUNITY HEALTH AND HOUSING SERVICES

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My second question is also for the Premier. What you're doing, and I'm sure you understand this, is moving essential services, through which we care for our most vulnerable, back on to the property taxpayer. This is something that we have taken decades to move away from. You're turning over the care for our chronically ill seniors to our municipalities. You are telling our smallest towns that they are responsible for ensuring poor children get the food and clothing and shelter they need.

Why are you going against the recommendations of every expert who has ever addressed this subject? Why are you dumping responsibility for the poor and seniors' health care on municipalities?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): We are asking, in exchange for $6.2 billion of tax relief on education, for our municipal partners to share in the delivery and costs of human services, those services to help people who need help. They already are involved in a number of those areas, as you very well know, and I think Mr Crombie recommended that they be even more involved. Mr Crombie talked about some funding, about who would pay for things.

There are two things here: There is who does what, and we believe and agree with Crombie that closest to the people you will find the best compassionate decisions made for people; and who funds what, which is a different issue. We think 50-50 is a very fair way to do that. I can tell you that under our proposals we'll have better services, helping more people, without the massive property tax increases we had when you were in power.

Mr McGuinty: So we're very, very clear on this, Crombie, handpicked by you, an expert on this matter, who spent considerable time studying it, recommended against this. He said you don't transfer welfare and long-term care into property taxes. That's your own expert.

Let's talk about the numbers for a minute. By your own admission, there is $1 billion in new costs being dumped on the property taxpayers, but you're only providing $300 million to cover those new costs, and that's because you've killed a $700-million fund. When it nets out, the $300 million is all that's available to cover the new costs. That's a difference of $700 million. When you add the Crombie numbers, that's when you come up with a total net cost, factoring in all of your rainy day funds, of a billion new tax dollars to be added to property taxes throughout the province.

Municipalities are going to be able to do a lot of things under this new regime, but one thing they're not going to be able to do is print money. Given that you're shortchanging municipalities by more than $1 billion, how can you possibly expect them to provide these essential services?

Hon Mr Harris: Mr Crombie recommended that municipalities deliver welfare, closest to the people making those decisions.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Premier.

Hon Mr Harris: Mr Crombie recommended that municipalities deliver welfare services. He felt that was the government closest to the people, that they would know the files better, that they could deliver the services most efficiently. Given the $6.2 billion in tax capacity, because we will now fund 100% of education off the residential property tax, what we have determined is that we should fund it 50-50, that we should be partners in making decisions and in developing the programs, and in addition to that, the province would pick up any significant upside liability with a special fund.

Of course what happened under the Liberals, because they would not be so generous with municipalities, is property taxes went up 160% in Mattawan township, 39% --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Thank you. I think it's probably safe to give the entire Liberal caucus a warning at this point in time rather than picking and choosing. I'd ask you to come to order. It's difficult to hear the answers and it's better --

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): We get a different answer every day, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: With the greatest respect, I'm not going to have a debate and it's really out of order to heckle the Speaker. That really sets it down right there. Final supplementary.

Mr McGuinty: Again for the record, David Crombie begged you, he pleaded with you not to download social services on to municipalities because he fully understood both the economic and social implications of so doing. You obviously do not. Let's recap.

You tried to fool the people into thinking that this was going to be a wash for municipalities. That has proved to be untrue. You tried to tell us property taxes were going to go down by 10%. That clearly is not the case. You said there was a new $1-billion fund, but when you subtract the old $700-million fund it turns out that your $1-billion fund is in fact only $300 million. You said there was a rainy-day fund for welfare, but we now find out municipalities are going to have to pay for it.

Premier, nothing your government has told us in the last two weeks has turned out to be true. I'm going to ask you again: Will you forget this madness? Will you go back to the drawing board -- take all the time you need; this is very important stuff we're talking about --

The Speaker: Thank you, leader. Premier.

Hon Mr Harris: Quite frankly, I want to say directly to the leader of the Liberal Party and to all who are watching that it is your complete lack of understanding of the numbers that led to the $10-billion, $11-billion deficit in this province, that led to massive property tax increases, that led to income tax increases, corporate tax increases.

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): That is a distortion of reality. That is a lie.

Hon Mr Harris: Listen, we are prepared to be judged by the numbers. What we are doing by the year 2000 will lead to the kind of capacity that we believe property taxes can be reduced, in some cases up to 10%, which is totally contrary to all the misinformation that you are talking about across this province.

The Speaker: I'd ask the member for Scarborough-Agincourt to withdraw that comment that he put on the record.

Mr Phillips: In deference to you, Mr Speaker, I withdraw it.

MINISTRY OF MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS AND HOUSING

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): My question is also for the Premier. It's about a memo that the Ministry of Municipal Affairs has put out to employees in that ministry, employees who staff the telephones and deal with complaints and calls that come in about your megacity proposal and your downloading.

What's amazing about this memo is that it says that staff are supposed to tick whether someone's in favour of megacity or against it and staff are supposed to tell callers that their comments are going to be passed along, meaning into the minister's office, but then further down in the memo it says: "Do not fill out any call forms. Do not document any comments. Do not pass on any concerns or criticisms you hear. Do not forward any comments. Never promise a call back." Don't you think it's a bit dishonest of your government to be telling people who are concerned about these issues that their comments are going to be passed on and then you --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you.

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I'm sure the minister has a perfectly logical explanation for what you speak about.

Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): It's only common sense, which is probably why the member across doesn't understand it. Certainly we want to get information from callers. Yes, we ask them if they have any comments on the amalgamation of the city of Toronto and I want that information passed back to me. It's important that we know what people think, and because the members opposite won't put second reading through so that we can get to debate and have public hearings on this issue, we're relying a lot on phone calls directly to us from the general public.

Mr Hampton: The Premier obviously doesn't appreciate the importance of this and the minister just contradicted his own memo. I'll read the memo for you again. It says, "The minister's office has been swamped." This memo tells your staff who are answering the phones, "When somebody calls up, tell them that their comments are going to be passed on, tell them that their comments and concerns are important," but then later on in the memo it says, "Don't fill out any comment forms, don't pass on any comments, don't pass anything on, don't tell them they'll get a call back."

Minister, you were cited for contempt in this House last week. Now we've got a memo from your ministry that is being completely dishonest with citizens. It's telling them that their concerns are important and then it says later on, "Don't pass on any comments." Who's right, you or your memo?

The Speaker: Leader of the official opposition, I appreciate the fact that you're talking about a memo being completely dishonest, but with due respect, that directly reflects back on the minister and the ministry.

Mr Hampton: Speaker, maybe you could help me out here.

The Speaker: You can only help me at this point in time, and you can help my by withdrawing the comment about being completely dishonest.

Mr Hampton: Speaker, I withdraw the comment about being completely dishonest.

I want to ask the minister, who is right here, them or you?

The Speaker: That's fine. We're now at the minister's part.

Hon Mr Leach: The member is holding up a piece of paper that I personally haven't seen, but I know that the staff at the ministry have been asked to take messages on amalgamation. There is a lot of interest being shown by the people of Toronto, and as soon as we can go out to hearings and have public debate, they'll have an opportunity to come and personally ask members of this Legislature about our proposals. In the meantime, I still encourage my staff to take calls, to take messages and provide the information to my office.

Mr Hampton: We've shown this memo to a few people and we've asked them, "What would you conclude from this?" I know the Premier doesn't take this issue seriously, but I think you should, Minister. I really think you should in view of last week.

Are you prepared now to completely withdraw this memo? Are you prepared to admit that this is deceptive, telling people that their comments and concerns are important but then instructing staff not to pass on any comments, not to pass on any concerns, to treat the whole thing like a public relations matter? Are you prepared to say that's completely wrong and are you prepared to start listening to the people of Toronto? Are you finally prepared to start listening to them instead of trying to snow them?

Hon Mr Leach: I can assure the member opposite that I will continue to encourage my staff to take messages and to pass that information on, and I will also try and get the members opposite to pass second reading of this bill so that when the member says, "Give the people of Ontario and the people of the GTA and the people of Toronto an opportunity to take

part in the debate, provide us with their information, provide us with their comments, tell us about their concerns," we'll be able to do it, instead of blocking it at every step, instead of interfering with the democratic process. Just get out there, put this bill through second reading so that we can get out to the people of this province.

The Speaker: New question.

Mr Hampton: I would just say to the minister that I think this memo shows contempt for the public, but I'm not surprised at that, coming from you.

RED TAPE REDUCTION

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): My question is to the Premier. Last week, while people were trying to deal with your mega-download announcements, you quietly launched another attack on the environment, on human rights, on pay equity and on workers' rights. You released this report. You call it Cutting the Red Tape, but I read through your report, and some of the things that are in it are truly disturbing.

Let's take the Human Rights Code and let's take a woman who has been the victim of sexual harassment. We know that the Ontario Human Rights Commission is swamped with complaints now, but you're planning in your so-called red tape review to make it even harder for a victim of sexual harassment to file a complaint. There will be new time lines and she will bear the onus of proof. I call that punishing the victim. Can you tell me, Premier, how making it more difficult for someone who is the victim of sexual harassment is cutting red tape?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): The minister responsible for the Human Rights Commission is not here today, but let me assure you of a couple of things. The red tape commission reviewed a number of ministries, a number of regulations, a number of procedures to see if we couldn't streamline them to make it more efficient, to make it better, particularly in this case, and easier to understand for women, for those who may be making a complaint, and these are recommendations to the ministry and to the government.

Probably that recommendation was made because the backlog and the lack of access to the Human Rights Commission under the former government was probably the biggest disgrace to human rights in this province, and so we have looked, and we encouraged the red tape commission to look at the procedures that were there: Can we help those who have complaints? Can we help them better? Can we streamline the process to deal with this horrendous backlog, which in effect was justice denied under the NDP government. So we'll look at those --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you, Premier. Supplementary.

Mr Hampton: Premier, I would say to you, don't be patronizing to women and other people who have to deal with these issues. What you're doing is making it much more difficult for them to bring a complaint before the Human Rights Commission. You are making it more difficult for victims of sexual harassment and other human rights issues.

Let's just move on to pay equity. Your report also says that you would change the regulations so workplaces where you've got 100 employees or less would not be subject to pay equity. What this means is that women who work in those businesses would in effect be pushed into wage ghettos. Can you explain to me how pushing women into wage ghettos is removing red tape, how denying fair pay to women has got anything to do with red tape? Can you explain that?

Hon Mr Harris: You come up with probably the silliest of accusations and ask me to explain. I can't explain how your silly mind works. I can't explain how you think that is anti-women. I can't explain any of that. Only you can explain that.

Interjections.

The Speaker: It's tough to rule when you can't have order. To the Premier, it certainly isn't parliamentary to refer to anyone in that fashion. I ask you to withdraw.

Hon Mr Harris: I would certainly withdraw either "silly" or "mind" or both, whatever you say, Speaker.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Are you on a point of privilege or order, or are you just heckling at large? I'm sorry?

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: Either he withdraws or he doesn't. You use the same measure for them as you do for us.

The Speaker: With all due respect, the member for Sault Ste Marie, the words were there, they were withdrawn and in fact it was in order. The tenor and the tone I can't control, and you're asking me to; it's impossible. It was withdrawn as far as I'm concerned.

Supplementary.

Mr Hampton: I'll read the recommendation. It's not in my mind; it's recommendation 114 in a report your government has put out: "Amend relevant sections of the Pay Equity Act to exempt either small employers (fewer than 50 employees) or preferably small and medium-sized employers (fewer than 100 employees) from its application" -- in other words, do away with pay equity for women where there are 100 employees or less. You're right, it's silly. It's incredibly damaging.

I want to ask you about the environment. You also say you want to relax regulations on the storage and transport of PCBs; you want to make recycling voluntary for industry; you want to reduce testing of industrial sewage that can find its way into our drinking water. Premier, can you tell me how attacking the environment and allowing more pollution has anything to do with red tape? Can you tell us that, please?

Hon Mr Harris: You know, we had a red tape commission to review all the regulations, not the purpose. The purpose of the regulation is to protect the environment. When it comes to pay equity, which was part of your question, this government, upon taking office, added money to pay equity. We're paying more money now, added to it, the budget for pay equity, higher than the New Democratic Party, at the same time as we inherited an $11-billion deficit, so we are looking: Are there ways that we can streamline the regulation on the environment so we protect the environment?

We'd like our dollars to go directly to people who need help. We want to fight pollution. We want to fight those areas that are there. We just don't want to waste money on it.

Mr Hampton: Allow more pollution, force women into wage ghettos, deny women fair pay, that's what you're all about. Deny women fair pay, pollute the environment.

Hon Mr Harris: So while the member busts a gasket interjecting and screaming and yelling --

The Speaker: The leader of the third party, I want you to come to order, and it's a warning. You must let the answer be put. Premier.

Hon Mr Harris: While the member screams and yells about pay equity, if you'd like to put our record and the amount of dollars we're putting into pay equity against yours, go ahead. We're spending more on pay equity, and have increased the budget, than any government in the history of Ontario, and I think you're going to find that when it comes to protecting the environment, this government will take a back seat to nobody in the country and nobody certainly in this Legislature.

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): My question is for the Premier. Last week your government was found in contempt of the Legislature by the Speaker of the House for engaging in self-serving, blatantly partisan Conservative government propaganda ads. In his ruling the Speaker said, and I quote:

"I feel that it is wrong for a government to attempt to influence public opinion through advertising that is paid for with public funds -- which, I might add, are not available to the opposition -- instead of through debate in this House."

Despite this ruling, a series of clearly partisan propaganda ads funded by the ministry of Municipal Affairs and the Ministry of Education and paid for by taxpayers continue to appear on our TV screens. Premier, will you now do what is right: withdraw these TV ads immediately, save Ontario taxpayers the hundreds of thousands of dollars you are squandering on this propaganda and respect the ruling of the impartial Speaker of the Ontario Legislature?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): We take the Speaker's ruling very seriously. I think he ruled there was a prima facie case with regard to one pamphlet. I think he also indicated he reviewed the TV ads and found them quite in order. I might add, not only are they in order, but the total government advertising bill will be less than half what it was in any year that the Liberal government was in power.

Mr Bradley: Premier, you and your spin doctors have tried to narrow this to one pamphlet, to one piece of propaganda, when everybody is talking about your entire propaganda ad campaign. Every time taxpayers in this province see your face on the television set in self-serving government ads, reading the propaganda on the teleprompter, they should know they are paying the shot.

The Speaker of this House has found your government in contempt of the Legislature because of a propaganda pamphlet produced and circulated by your government at a cost of approximately $300,000 to Ontario taxpayers. Remember, you were going to be different. You're the penny-pincher. You're the Taxfighter. Will you now ask the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario to reimburse the taxpayers of this province for that $300,000 ad put out by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and condemned by the Speaker of this House?

Hon Mr Harris: I would like to read into the record what Mr Speaker said. He said this: "On the contrary, the commercial" -- the commercial you are referring to -- "does nothing more than explain in a simple and general way the government's philosophy and its broad reform agenda." He is of the view that that is quite in order and quite legitimate.

We are very different from the Liberals. In the last year you were in power you spent $22 million on government advertising. We will spend less than half that amount of money. And by the way, I would say we're explaining much more positive programs than you were trying to rationalize away for $22 million.

SOCIAL, COMMUNITY HEALTH AND HOUSING SERVICES

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): My question is to the Premier. Almost everyone is realizing that your scheme to download services on to the property tax base is a disaster. What's startling and what's interesting is the number of voices that are coming in opposition to your scheme from good, solid Tories.

We had a slew of them last week. On Friday Gordon Chong was on Studio 2, saying that your mega-download of social services would cost Metro taxpayers $1 billion. The day before, he joined the board of trade and the United Way in a press conference, both of those groups calling on you to drop your download, saying it will lead to big property tax hikes that would drive both businesses and homeowners away. Then on Friday even the 905 mayors -- that's the home of most of your backbench members -- said your mega-download is all wrong and should be abandoned.

With all these voices, particularly these Tory voices, coming to understand what is going on, have you finally understood how wrong it is to download welfare and other social services on to the property tax base?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): Let me assure you, we listen to all voices. We don't ask people when they phone or write in, "Are you Liberal, Tory, NDP or any other?" We listen to all voices. We listen to the London Free Press: "Downloading responsibility is good for democracy. Local government is closer, more responsive to the voters." We listen to -- I think York region feels it will lead to a tax cut or less costs for the region. I think I heard that on Friday.

But what's most important is that the changes we are talking about presume a couple of things: One, the status quo is not acceptable. Clearly all the municipalities, all the parents with children in school, all the taxpayers told us that, and they told you that loud and clear in the last election: that the status quo needs to be changed and we have to find better solutions.

The second thing is that, come 1998, 1999 and 2000 as we implement these changes, we have committed to municipalities that we're prepared to work with them to ensure there is no added pressure on --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Premier, thank you. Supplementary.

Mr Silipo: Premier, we will see whether you listen to all voices. But knowing that you don't listen to all voices, I thought it would be useful to bring to your attention those voices that you might indeed listen to.

Nobody is talking about defending the status quo, Premier. I know that you like to keep going back on that horse because it allows you to then justify in your mind at least all of the cuts and all of the slashing that you do, which you're doing only and foremost to be able to fund the tax cut. That's the only reason you're into this game.

More and more of your political friends are realizing that's what you're doing, and they're saying, "It's wrong." We all agree that changes need to come about, but more and more of your friends are also saying that downloading social services on to the property tax base is the worst thing you could be doing.

Premier, will you come to your senses? Will you realize that is wrong and will you retreat from that stupid course of action that you embarked upon?

The Speaker: Order. I think what we're trying to do here is maintain a level of debate that is beneficial to this place. "Stupid course of action" I think doesn't bode well as the Premier's comments didn't bode well to your leader. I would ask the member for Dovercourt to withdraw and let us try and rise above those kinds of comments.

Mr Silipo: I withdraw that comment, Speaker, if you find it unparliamentary. I would just ask the Premier, will you withdraw from that ill-advised course of action?

Hon Mr Harris: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. It is indeed that you're asking us to go back to the status quo.

Mr Silipo: We are not, and you know it.

Hon Mr Harris: I thought you would since you were the government of the status quo. That was your policy. If even you are saying that the status quo and the way you governed was terrible, fine, I accept that, and I thank you for realizing that a year and a half too late.

But what I think is important is this: We have to make some changes and what we have committed to do is to make sure that we will consult with municipalities. We'll work this out with them over the next year or two or three. Some things will take two or three years to phase in and we're very confident that (

a) the public will get better services and (

b) we will lessen the burden on the property taxpayer.

I would say with respect to the income tax cut that it will be financing itself. You will see when the figures come in for the end of the year that the revenues to the government of Ontario in spite of the tax rate reductions will actually be higher, the reverse of what it was under the NDP.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Thank you, Premier.

Interjections.

The Speaker: You promised me no more heckling, member for Lake Nipigon.

New question, member for Nepean.

CHILD POVERTY

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean): My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services. One of the greatest challenges every society faces is how it can address the needs of its most vulnerable citizens. Irrespective of party or ideology, I know that every member and every citizen across Ontario would like to see us alleviate child poverty in our province.

Recently, we've heard a great deal about the federal government and the provinces meeting to discuss a national child benefit to help alleviate child poverty in Canada. Could the minister inform the House what the position of the government of Ontario is with respect to the creation of a national income support benefit for children?

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Community and Social Services): I'd like to thank the honourable member for the question. Ontario is looking forward to continuing the discussions we're having with our other provinces and Ottawa. We're meeting again tomorrow as we try and narrow down the options to actually have a child benefit in this country that might well help address the issue of poverty of children. I must say it has been a remarkably non-partisan exercise that we have been engaged in.

One of the things we are trying to ensure as we move forward with this is that it continues the incentive to make sure that families can get into the workforce, be working and not pay any penalties. The other concern, of course, is that some of the administrative options that were being looked at, because of their complexity, would actually mean we would be lowering our welfare rates in Ontario to try and match this benefit from Ottawa. I don't think that's an appropriate step for us to take. I look forward to working further with them on this. It's a very important initiative.

Mr Baird: Some other provinces have stated that they already have introduced a child benefit for children. Could the minister tell this House if those initiatives in other provinces have made a difference and how they compare with the province of Ontario.

Hon Mrs Ecker: Yes, some of the provinces have attempted to do a child benefit on their own. I think it's worth noting, however, for example in British Columbia, that with some of the work they have done a sole-support mother on welfare with two children, even with their additional benefit, would still obtain more benefits here in Ontario than they would get in BC. I think also we have one of the most generous earning exemptions for those on social assistance, to encourage and keep them and get them into the workforce.

There are a number of things we have been doing: the child nutrition program, our healthy babies initiative, the money we've allocated for pre-school children with speech and language difficulties. There are a number of initiatives we have undertaken. We hope we can come to an agreement among the provinces and Ottawa that will allow us to improve and make even better the programs we want to have for children in poverty.

PROPERTY TAXATION

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): My question is for the Premier. Premier, Thunder Bay businesses are absolutely reeling from your double whammy. They now know that they're going to have to pay their share of a municipal property tax hike that will be a minimum of 20%. That increase could be as high as 40%, depending on how much of the municipal support grants you took away Thunder Bay is able to beg back from you. Now our businesses have realized that on top of this huge increase in property tax that will result from your government's unique version of a mega-dump, they will still be paying for education taxes.

Premier, do you have any idea at all of the impact of this huge property tax increase on small businesses and on jobs?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): We expect no tax increases, unlike the 40% under your party, and therefore it will be a positive impact on jobs across the province, including Thunder Bay.

Mrs McLeod: I think both the Premier and the Minister of Finance should stop talking about the sheer myth of property taxes decreasing, because every community that is looking at its numbers is seeing the kind of increases in property tax that Thunder Bay is seeing. The reality in Thunder Bay is a minimum of 21% and as much as 40% if we can't get back a little bit of the support grants you've taken away. Businesses understand that is on top of their continuing to pay property taxes to support education.

The Thunder Bay Chamber of Commerce understands the impact, Premier, if you don't. They have said very clearly: "The impact on local business will be severe. We are just starting to turn our community around. We do not need this additional tax."

Small business in my community means jobs. We have already been devastated by your job cuts. If small businesses in our community can't survive this property tax increase, we'll lose even more jobs. Are you so desperate for dollars to pay for your tax cut that you don't care how many jobs are lost?

Hon Mr Harris: I want the member, who I know cares very much about businesses and jobs in her community, to be able to go back with a great deal of confidence and tell the municipality that unlike your government nothing we are doing will put pressure on their property tax.

IPPERWASH PROVINCIAL PARK

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I have a question of the Premier. Too many questions remain about the sequence of events that led to the shooting of Dudley George at Ipperwash last September. The faxes your office published from the member for Lambton to your office give a broad outline of the government's role leading up to that tragic event. One fax that the member for Lambton sent to your office just before the shooting had attached to it a letter from a constituent who referred to natives as "hooligans" and urged the government not to back down.

The quote was: "If people are hurt, so be it.... all levels of government have adopted a non-confrontational approach when faced with natives.... This must stop."

The member for Lambton said he totally agreed with that.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you. To the member, I'm sorry and I appreciate it, but we all get the same amount of time for questions and I must put it.

Mr Wildman: Well, there is not a question I have put, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: Well, then, Premier.

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I think we would all agree that the shooting in the Ipperwash incident is one that concerns us all, is something nobody is very happy about, obviously, particularly this government, acting, as all governments have, in as fair and as reasonable a way as we can in these situations.

As the member is aware, there are criminal charges that have been laid as a result of the shooting. We will await the outcome of those charges before any further action is taken. If at that particular point in time it is deemed appropriate, if there's more information we believe could particularly avoid anything like this ever happening again, then we'd be prepared to take further action at that time.

Mr Wildman: The member for Lambton was quoting, in agreement, the statement, "If people are hurt, so be it." Could the Premier clarify for us if anyone in the government ordered the immediate removal or arrest of the natives as a result of this advocating by the member for Lambton. Also, could the Premier please explain what the fax means when Mr Beaubien says, "I can take the heat -- but will not be the fall guy." The member for Lambton has refused to explain what that means, what he was saying he would not be the fall guy for. I assume the Premier has read this fax, since it went to his office.

What did the member for Lambton mean when he said he would not be the fall guy? The fall guy for what?

Hon Mr Harris: You have to ask Mr Beaubien that. I would assume he meant for anything that takes place there. Nobody was asking him to be the fall guy for anything. Nobody is the fall guy. Nobody gives direction to the police, certainly not I, not the Solicitor General and certainly not a member of caucus. But I can tell you this: The member for Lambton had very grave concerns about the safety of natives and non-natives within his riding during a very tense situation around the Ipperwash situation that took place a year ago September.

I think he was frustrated. He didn't want anybody, native or non-native, to be hurt. He was trying to let people in the government know of his concern. We were aware he was concerned. I was concerned. All of Ontario was concerned. Natives were concerned. But to suggest that any member of this government would ever give direction to police on how to carry out their duties is irresponsible.

WORKPLACE FATALITIES

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Labour): I am pleased to rise and respond to a question which the member for Hamilton Centre posed on Tuesday, January 21, concerning an issue relating to the Ministry of Labour investigation into two fatalities which occurred at Dofasco in Hamilton on January 17. It is my understanding that the employee co-chair of the Steel Cat Task Force Incorporated Joint Health and Safety Committee is participating in this investigation.

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I appreciate the response from the minister. I would point out to the minister, however, that it's my understanding that these actions you announced today didn't take place until after I'd raised this with you in the House. I've since met with members of the Steelworkers union as well as members of the families of the workers who died there and they're not satisfied to date with the action of your ministry and they're certainly not satisfied with your refusal to acknowledge that you'll call an inquest. We need an inquest into the two deaths that tragically took place at Dofasco in Hamilton and we need you to announce that today on their behalf.

You've got a record of not caring about injured workers. You've gutted the WCB, you've eliminated the Workplace Health and Safety Agency, you've taken away rights under the Employment Standards Act and you announced the other day that you're watering down the right to refuse unsafe work. Today I understand you refused to meet with 30 injured workers who already had an appointment with you. Minister, that's your track record and that's why nobody believes you're sincere.

Hon Mrs Witmer: It's unfortunate that you pursue that line of rhetoric. As you well know, we are trying and we are doing what no other government has done before to make the workplaces in this province among the safest in the world. We've indicated that we are setting targets. We are actually travelling to other parts of the world because other countries are recognizing that the initiatives we're going to take are going to save lives and are going to prevent injuries and illnesses --

Mr Christopherson: What a lot of garbage. Nobody believes you. All you've done is take away rights from workers.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Member for Hamilton Centre, I ask you to withdraw those comments. They're certainly not parliamentary.

Mr Christopherson: I withdraw the comments.

Hon Mrs Witmer: I would just conclude by saying there's a very intensive and extensive investigation taking place at Dofasco, and certainly at the end of the day recommendations will be made.

SOCIAL, COMMUNITY HEALTH AND HOUSING SERVICES

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): My question is to the Premier. Your government's dumping of responsibilities on to northern municipalities has everyone in the north in shock. Your Minister of Northern Development and Mines's announcement last week in Sault Ste Marie has done little to appease the fears that we have in the north. The more you talk today, the more we see that you really don't have any type of strategy to offset the extra costs.

Premier, will you guarantee today that Thunder Bay will get back the extra $15.2 million this dumping is going to cost them, that the city of Sudbury will get the extra $13.1 million it's going to cost them, that the regional municipality of Sudbury will get the extra $105.4 million that your dumping is going to cost the region? Will you tell the House today that they will get this money back, that your mega-dumping will cost them 0% in a tax increase?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): We've been very clear that we believe that any changes -- us paying for education, the municipalities paying a bigger share of welfare -- will in fact have zero impact on taxes, and then we have indicated, as we work our way through that over the next year or two, that to deal with any discrepancies that may be there we've allocated $2.5 billion.

Mr Bartolucci: That really doesn't appease the fears of the people in the north.

On December 19 your Minister of Northern Development and Mines and your Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing mutually agreed that it costs more money to deliver services in the north, approximately 16.2% more to provide these services. Will you tell us today, tell the people of the north, how much extra money it will cost the entire north because of this mega-dumping of responsibilities and how much extra money the entire north will receive because of this dumping? The people of the north don't want adjectives like "significant." We want to know how many real dollars it is costing the north and how many real dollars it is going to get back.

Hon Mr Harris: I would be happy to empower you to go back and tell them, and I will tell them directly and anybody who's watching, that we don't believe that these changes will cost one single dollar more to anybody in northern Ontario, in Toronto, in southern Ontario, in eastern Ontario or in western Ontario. We understand that some changes are taking place, and contrary to the 40% increase in property taxes when the Liberals were in power, we believe that property taxes will remain frozen in spite of inflation and perhaps decrease.

We're prepared to stand by our three- or four- or five-year record -- I don't want to prejudge how long we go before an election -- against your three- or four- or five-year record, apples to apples. Who downloaded on municipalities more than the Liberals? Nobody.

FAMILY SUPPORT PLAN

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): For the Attorney General: You and your ministry keep trying to make the public believe that the problems you created by destroying the family support plan have been resolved, and it's just not the case for hundreds of families in this province. Take my constituent Cathy Richardson, two of whose three children are supposed to receive $400 per month. They did receive that under the support deduction order until November, when only $76 was received by FSP.

Although the payor's employer has confirmed, and the FSP office confirmed on January 3, that the full amount was deducted, was sent to FSP and was cashed by FSP, Cathy and her children have received no money. Minister, you destroyed this plan. What do you say to Cathy and her children?

Hon Charles Harnick (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): I have indicated that I cannot comment on individual cases. What I can say is that I believe that the family support plan, now the Family Responsibility Office, has a much brighter future than it's ever had before in the sense that we are now automating the way cheques are delivered to people. That wasn't the case before. We're now finally going to have an office that can chase people who aren't paying their family support orders, and we can do that with some success by suspending drivers' licences, by referring matters to credit bureaus, by getting private sector collection agencies involved.

What we're trying to do is take an office that has traditionally been losing $100 million a year and not collecting that money pursuant to orders and try to start collecting that money and getting the money to women and children. That's been a big problem with this plan since its inception, and we finally passed a bill in this Legislature that will permit us to collect the monies.

Mrs Boyd: The family support plan did not lose money at all. In fact, it made three times the amount of money that it cost to run that office.

You talk about automating this plan. Cathy Richardson is on a direct deposit system. That money came to the Family Responsibility Office and it has not gone to Cathy Richardson. It's gone somewhere, but it didn't go to her. You put all of your faith in this automation and it clearly isn't working. What's more, Cathy Richardson, once she contacted that office on January 3, has had a refusal consistently from that office to deal with her because they say they need 30 days to deal with her kind of situation and they won't speak to her until February 3.

It's a lot of nonsense that you've improved this plan. We bring up case after case where families do not have the money they need in order to feed themselves and clothe themselves and keep themselves in shelter, and you keep saying everything's fine. What do you say to all these people? What are you going to do about this situation?

Hon Mr Harnick: Nothing has ever been fine in the family support plan, now the Family Responsibility Office. When the member says that the family support plan made money, I don't think it was intended to make money. What it was intended to do was collect money for people who need it, who have orders, and the fact is that the orders haven't been complied with. Payors haven't been paying, and the reason they haven't been paying is because the plan has never had the authority to chase the people who aren't paying. Now we can suspend drivers' licences, we can refer these things to credit bureaus, we can get third-party collection agencies to go out and collect the money --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order. If you want to have a little debate, you can do so outside. The member for London Centre, you have to come to order.

Hon Mr Harnick: We're trying to set up a plan that will effectively collect more money and that will put money in the hands of women and children, not a plan that every year was running $100 million behind in its collections.

PETITIONS

CLASS SIZE

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): This petition is to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It's the first of many, I hope.

"Whereas the private member's bill introduced by Rick Bartolucci, MPP for the riding of Sudbury, limits the number of pupils that may be enrolled in a class in a school in Ontario; and

"Whereas this limit depends on the grade level of the class; and

"Whereas studies have concluded that there are clear benefits from smaller class sizes; and

"Whereas there is greater student involvement and interaction; and

"Whereas there is improved student performance; and

"Whereas there is the opportunity for greater individualization; and

"Whereas smaller class sizes allow for more varied and constructive education for students;

"Therefore, we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to support this private member's bill as it enhances classroom education."

I affix my name to it as I agree with it.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): We'll just wait for a minute. If members want to leave the House now, please do so. There are too many people standing.

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): I have a petition which reads:

"Stop Megacity Madness: Citizens Have Democratic Right to be Heard."

"To the Legislature of Ontario:

"Whereas `bigger government is not better' and the Mike Harris government has no right to dictate a megacity upon the citizens of Metro Toronto; and

"Whereas the megacity is being imposed on 2.3 million citizens in Metro Toronto without giving people a voice in the future of their cities and neighbourhoods; and

"Whereas a megacity could lead to mega property tax increases, mega user fees and mega cuts in services; and

"Whereas the Tories never proposed abolishing local government in favour of bigger government during the election campaign;

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

"To give the 2.3 million people in Metro Toronto a say in the future of their cities and stop the imposition of a megacity."

I will affix my signature to this petition.

HANLON EXPRESSWAY

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville): A petition to the Legislative Assembly from Ben Bennett and a group called No No in Guelph:

"We, the undersigned, urge the province to call an immediate halt to the tendering process for the proposed Hanlon Expressway/Wellington Street interchange project and instead implement modifications to the existing traffic signal system and add warning lights on the Hanlon Expressway."

PROTECTION FOR WORKERS

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the Mike Harris government is attacking workers' compensation benefits and the rights of injured workers; and

"Whereas Tory plans include taking $15 billion from injured workers and giving $6 billion to employers, including the government's rich corporate friends; and

"Whereas Cam Jackson, the former Minister without Portfolio with responsibility for gutting the WCB, refused to hold public hearings, choosing to meet secretly with business and insurance industry representatives; and

"Whereas the WCB has about $7.6 billion in assets and its unfunded liability has been steadily shrinking; and

"Whereas the Jackson report and WCB legislation are just part of a coordinated attack on occupational health and safety protections for working families in Ontario; and

"Whereas Tory plans also include abolition of the internationally respected Occupational Disease Panel; and

"Whereas the government needs to hear the message that taking money from injured workers and lowering incentives for employers to make workplaces safer is not the way to make Ontario a better place to live or work;

"Therefore, we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to hold full, province-wide public hearings on WCB reform; to listen to the voice of the people calling for improved occupational health and safety protection; and to tell the Tory government to call off its attack on the dignity and standard of living of injured workers and their families."

As I am in support of this petition, I add my name also.

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Mike Colle (Oakwood): I have a petition entitled Stop Megacity Madness: Citizens Have Democratic Right to be Heard.

"To the Legislature of Ontario:

"Whereas `bigger government is not better' and the Mike Harris government has no right to dictate a megacity upon the citizens of Metropolitan Toronto; and

"Whereas the megacity is being imposed on 2.3 million citizens in Metro Toronto without giving people a voice in the future of their cities and neighbourhoods; and

"Whereas a megacity could lead to mega property tax increases, mega user fees and mega cuts in services; and

"Whereas the Tories never promised abolishing local government in favour of bigger government during the election campaign;

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

"To give the 2.3 million people in Metro Toronto a say in the future of their cities and stop the imposition of a megacity."

I affix my name to this petition.

ONTARIO CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTE

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): This is a petition to the Legislature of Ontario.

"Whereas we, the undersigned, believe that helping reduce crime and abuse in our communities is our responsibility as employees of the Ministry of Correctional Services, as professionals in related fields and as concerned citizens;

"Closing institutions which provide specialized services to women and treatment to men does not achieve that goal;

"Physical, emotional and sexual abuse is often transmitted from one generation to the next, with tremendous cost to society;

"Treatment aimed at breaking the cycle must include the abuser so that another generation of children is not raised with the same destructive lessons;

"As Mr Ross Virgo stated, the Ontario Correctional Institute is `a therapeutic community known around the world for their techniques';

"Research statistics support anecdotal evidence that we are effective in changing abusive behaviour;

"A therapeutic community cannot exist in a superprison;

"Save victims and money by keeping what works open."

I have affixed my signature.

NORTH YORK BRANSON HOSPITAL

Mr Monte Kwinter (Wilson Heights): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the final report of the Metropolitan Toronto District Health Council hospital restructuring committee has recommended that North York Branson Hospital merge with York-Finch hospital; and

"Whereas this recommendation will remove emergency and inpatient services currently provided by North York Branson Hospital, which will seriously jeopardize medical care and the quality of health for the growing population which the hospital serves, many being elderly people who in numerous cases require treatment for life-threatening medical conditions;

"We petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to reject the recommendation contained within the final report of the Metropolitan Toronto District Health Council hospital restructuring committee as it pertains to North York Branson Hospital, so that it retains, at minimum, emergency and inpatient services."

I have affixed my signature to it.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I have a further petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario regarding the health and safety of workers in this province.

"Whereas it is vital that occupational health and safety services provided to workers be conducted by organizations in which workers have faith; and

"Whereas the Workers' Health and Safety Centre and the occupational health clinics for Ontario workers have provided such services on behalf of workers for many years; and

"Whereas the centre and clinics have made a significant contribution to improvements in workplace health and safety and the reduction of injuries, illnesses and death caused by work;

"Therefore, we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to oppose any attempt to erode the structure, services or funding of the Workers' Health and Safety Centre and the occupational health clinics for Ontario workers; and

"Further, we, the undersigned, demand that the education and training of Ontario workers continue in its present form through the Workers' Health and Safety Centre and that professional and technical expertise and advice continue to be provided through the occupational health clinics for Ontario workers."

Mr Speaker, I add my name to theirs.

ORDER OF BUSINESS

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): The member for Oakwood.

Mr Mike Colle (Oakwood): Speaker, I move that we proceed to orders of the day.

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

Orders of the day.

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): "All those in favour." There was a no.

The Deputy Speaker: I didn't hear a word.

All those in favour of the motion proposed by the member for Oakwood that we move to orders of the day? Is it agreed?

All those in favour will say "aye."

All those opposed will say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Call in the members; a 30-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1506 to 1536.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Mr Colle has moved that we proceed to orders of the day.

All those in favour please rise and remain standing and be recognized by the Clerk.

Those opposed?

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 76; the nays are 0.

The Speaker: We now proceed to orders of the day.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

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

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of 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.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): The member for Oakwood has the floor.

Mr Mike Colle (Oakwood): If I could continue where I left off a week ago, the one thing that is quite clear in all the media hype and all the propaganda about this megacity bill which is being proposed is that it is really a Trojan horse, and I think this government has itself exposed that the megacity bill is a Trojan horse for the most dramatic dumping of provincial responsibilities on to the property taxpayers of Metropolitan Toronto and all of Ontario.

Never in the history of this province have we had a provincial government that basically is walking away from its responsibility for care for seniors, care for the elderly; now it's going to be on the property tax. Welfare, social services, even family benefits are going to be on the property taxpayers of Metro. Public transit is going to be 100% on the taxpayers of Metro. Subsidized housing, social housing, is now going to be on the property tax. That is why this government has rushed into proposing this megacity, that is why they're doing this and that is why it's a package.

Bill 103 is part of this unprecedented offloading, dumping, downloading of provincial responsibilities on to those least able to pay, that is, the property taxpayers of Metropolitan Toronto.

That is why the government wants to ram this bill through. That is why the government, as you know, even tried to pre-empt debate on this. They tried to give the impression to the people of Toronto that this bill was already law. That is why the minister was found in contempt, because he tried to give the false impression that there's no use resisting, that there's no use fighting the megacity bill because this is a decree.

Where this is more evident is not only in the propaganda campaign which is trying to say that this proposal is already law, but even look at the bill itself. It has two unprecedented sections in it which impose a trusteeship over the 2.3 million people of Toronto and also a transition team of Tory technocrats which will oversee the government.

Those two unprecedented impositions of trusteeship and the transition team are done without any public input; in other words, the day the bill was introduced, on December 17, the trustees took over their roles, just as that contemptible pamphlet went door to door almost the same day the bill was introduced and the Ministry of Municipal Affairs tried to tell people: "Don't debate this bill. Don't look for the other side of the story except the government decree as being law." That is why so many people are coming out against the megacity proposal, because in essence it is contrary to basic democratic due process.

I know this government always talks about a government that wants to hear from people and I know the members are offering referendum legislation, but listen to what the Minister of Municipal Affairs says about referendums. This was in the East York Mirror last week. It's called, "A Talk with Al Leach: Referendum Like Holding a Cuban Election."

The minister was asked, "What would it take for you to recognize the referendums?" This was the East York Mirror to the minister. You know what the minister replied? This is the minister who says he wants to hear from people. "In my view, a referendum is not democratic." That's what the minister said. He said: "It's like a Cuban election. You have one candidate to call the vote, so you have one question then you call a vote."

That is what is so upsetting to people, that even though the citizens of Metropolitan Toronto and all the six municipalities have said they want to hold the referendum, that they want to hear from people, the minister is saying the referendum is not democratic. He's saying, "We will ignore it," and his own Premier says he will ignore the referendum. That is why people are so upset. They're not upset about whether there are changes in boundaries; they're upset about their democratic rights being denied.

When a minister of a party that espouses referendums says, "In my view, a referendum is not democratic," you can see the stage they're setting. They're going to ignore, and they've said it categorically, the results of the referendum. They say: "We don't care what you say. Go ahead and do it. These are Cuban elections." That's what the minister is saying. That is at the heart of the opposition to this megacity imposition, forced amalgamation.

This is from a government that always says bigger government is bad government. This bill will introduce one of the biggest governments in Canada, the same size as Alberta, with one of the biggest bureaucracies that's going to oversee a budget of over $7 billion. They're saying that is better government because it's bigger. That's what they're saying.

Then it talks about layers. In the GTA we're going to have three layers of government in the 905 area. They're going to have local government, regional government and then the new GTA level, three levels of government they're imposing on the 905 area.

Inside Metro there are going to be about four or five; you can't stop counting. There's going to be the mega-layer, then there's going to be the GTA layer, then there are going to be appointed community councils, appointed neighbourhood councils under the control of the mega-councillors or the mega-mayor. So there's going to be more government, less accountability.

What this debate really gets to the heart of is that this government is doing this for one reason: They want to ensure that their dumping agenda is carried out. They want to dump over $1 billion on to the property taxpayers and they're dumping the most volatile services.

They're taking education, which is now more controllable because they've knocked off grade 13. They've knocked off junior kindergarten -- the demographics show there are going to be fewer young people in that category, so they've taken that over and they're going to control it out of Minister Snobelen's office.

What are they going to give to the property taxpayers of Ontario and of Metro? They're going to give homes for the aged, long-term care, transit, child care, welfare. Some of these services have gone up 200% or 300% in cost and will continue to escalate because the population is aging.

Then it's doubly unfair to Metro because Metro has most of the social housing in the GTA. They've got the greatest number of caseloads in welfare. They've got an aging infrastructure stock of housing that needs over $500 million in retrofits. They're dumping that on to the property taxpayer. No wonder the mayor of North York says that this megacity will bankrupt North York and its taxpayers, because never mind paying for social housing, they cannot afford to pay the millions needed to retrofit the housing this government is downloading and offloading on to the people, the taxpayers of Metropolitan Toronto.

The board of trade has unequivocally stated that this mega-dumping is going to imperil the most economically viable city in Canada. Last Thursday they had a press conference and said that the megacity and the mega-dumping will result in a $7,900 increase per business in Metro -- the board of trade. They also said "an average increase of $350 per property tax in Metro." That's what this package of megacity and mega-dumping will result in, a property tax explosion, and if you add that to the minister's, whatever he calls it, actual value, market value, mega-value assessment system --

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): Current value.

Mr Colle: -- current value, he's just trying to change the name, but everybody knows what it is -- this new system of market value is going to impact again on hundreds of thousands of taxpayers in Metro. So you've got the double whammy of the dumping of all these services on to property tax, then a whole new property tax scheme.

The Minister of Finance and the Minister of Municipal Affairs have the numbers on each property in Metro neighbourhoods and they refuse to give out those numbers. Three impact studies show the property tax impacts in Metro, three studies that the Minister of Finance said are confidential cabinet documents.

We know what would happen if those three impact studies on the property tax increases were released. The public would see that this scheme, this megacity scheme with all the new taxes and so forth, is going to be, as the board of trade said, a fiscal disaster for Metropolitan Toronto. Even USA Today had an

article last week saying:

"Isn't it ironic that just a month or two ago Toronto was proud of its new reputation as being the most livable city in the world and all of a sudden this megacity dumping is comparing Toronto to a bombed-out city?"

This is having reverberations right across North America, this mad agenda that doesn't add up, a mad agenda which is trying to do everything it can to block public input on this. That is why they don't want to listen to the referendum. That is why they try to do everything they can to just push propaganda at people, whether it's the KPMG report, which should have been written on Swiss cheese, it's got so many holes in it, or all the government ads or all the government propaganda that was done not according to proper procedures.

We know the government is trying to ram this thing through without the other side having its say. That's why the people of Metropolitan Toronto want the hearings to go out to the communities. They want them to go out to Etobicoke, North York, York, East York, Toronto, Scarborough. Let the hearings go out there, because they want to see and hear at first hand what this legislation will mean to their future community.

We can't get them to go out. They're saying, "Well, this is a central location; we have to have it here." The committee room here will only hold 50 people. I'm sure if you had a public meeting on this megacity proposal you would get hundreds and hundreds who want to be there to see and hear what the real facts are. That's why the government is afraid to take it out to the community, even though in the East York Mirror the minister was asked the question, "Is there a plan at this point to take these hearings on to the road to go to East York and Scarborough?" What did the minister say? Leach: "I'm sure we will do that. I agree to that. No problem."

We've heard him say that in the House, yet the House leader is saying, "No, we can't go out to the communities of East York and Scarborough because we've got television here." We should remind the House leader that television hookups are available in all the municipalities, in the city halls. We could easily do the television hookups and house 200, 300, 400 or 500 people who want to be there when their communities are being dismantled.

The hearings should be out in the public realm; they shouldn't just be contained here for a few hours a day, a couple of days a week. We want three, four, five weeks of hearings, every day of the week. They should be going out because the people are crying out. That's why every Monday night throughout this metropolitan area there are hundreds of people, if not thousands, trying to find out what is going on and what is going to happen to their city. Tonight again there will be another couple of thousand people at the Metropolitan United Church, and they will be there because they're very concerned about a government that's not listening, a government that won't listen to alternatives.

It's strange that this started off as a process where there were a lot of good alternatives out there, yet the minister is refusing to look at alternatives.

There's one that's very clear and one that keeps coming out, and people ask, "Why won't the government look at it?" That is what Hazel McCallion is saying, it's what Greenberg is saying and it's what Anne Golden is saying, that you have to have a viable GTA government model along with independent, balanced cities that make up the federation within the GTA, and if you have this mega-monster in the middle, it doesn't work, because you've got one big giant with all the rest, so the balance doesn't work in the GTA, you don't have the competitive, innovative, flexible cities.

Why doesn't the government look at the process and allow for the process to get it out of this swamp it's in? Use the referendum as a way of finding out what people really want. Find out whether the people of Scarborough really want to be part of the megacity or want their independence. Use the referendum as a good way of finding out what people feel. Listen to the referendum. Maybe the majority in Scarborough or the majority in Etobicoke or the majority in North York will want to go one way or another. Use that as a way of shaping the new GTA. Maybe it comes down to being only two or three or four or five cities that want to be part of the GTA; they don't want the megacity.

Use the input. Use the scholarship of the Golden people who worked on it for about a year, use Greenberg and his recommendation about a balanced GTA and use the common, hard-nosed political sense of Hazel McCallion that says the megacity is a mega-mistake, that you have to have balanced cities that work together. That is the logical, rational way out. It could be done quickly, because most of that has been researched. It's been documented.

But you know why the government won't listen to Greenberg, won't listen to Golden, won't listen to McCallion? Because their agenda is simply to mega-dump their responsibility on the taxpayers. That's what they want to do. They want to dump welfare, social housing, child care and public transit on to the property taxpayers.

Therefore a balanced GTA that works cooperatively and works into the 21st century is going to be ruined by this government. In fact, this megacity proposal is going to create such an imbalance that it's going to create a chasm between the 905 and the 416. This exercise started off as a way of correcting that, but as the board of trade said, this now has turned into an exercise where the very future viability of Metro is in peril because of the pig-headed attitude this government has towards what is better for the GTA, what is better for the province and what is better for the citizens of Metropolitan Toronto.

The solutions are staring you right in the face. The options are there. They've been quantified. They've been essentially detailed by experts, from an academic sense and also from a political sense. These experts have said: "Go ahead and create new governance models but do it right. Do it where you take into account the fact that there is an economy for the whole GTA, but don't put more roadblocks between the cooperation between the 905 and the 416." This government is doing just the opposite. In fact, it is going to aggravate the thing even more.

Look at the costs that are being downloaded on Metro. This is the peril that Metro is in. It's ironic that the minister went to the board of trade to make his announcement, proclaiming the greatness of the megacity. On Thursday the board of trade had to come back and say: "Minister, your figures don't add up; your rationale makes no sense. You're going to destroy Metro."

Do you know why they said that? Because this minister is going to dump $290 million of general welfare on to the property taxpayers of Metro; $350 million of family benefits costs on to the property taxpayers; $200 million in long-term care being dumped on to the property taxpayers; $369 million worth of housing, and that doesn't include the hundreds of millions they'll need to retrofit the housing in Metro. TTC, child care -- $51 million -- hostels, ambulance service: All dumped on the property taxpayers of Metropolitan Toronto.

As you know, David Crombie in his report was unequivocal, saying, "This is the worst thing you can do"; that is, dump the most volatile of services on to the property taxpayer. As you know, the property tax is the most regressive of taxes, so what you'll do is put the most volatile services on to the property taxpayers.

This taking education off is basically letting the province off the hook, because they can just control one thing. The municipalities and the property taxpayers are going to have to find out how to control the cost of long-term care. All the professionals in this field say this is utter madness, asking municipal property taxpayers to control the cost of long-term care and to fund it.

This is a ticking tax time bomb for Metropolitan Toronto. That's what megacity is. It's the most destructive package ever unloaded on a city in North America. This is something they wouldn't even do in New Jersey, Louisiana or Alabama. Only here in Ontario we've got this government running amok with some kind of backroom rejigging of basic, sound economics which says you can't unload soft services that are so volatile on to the property taxpayers.

This is again a situation that has made Conservatives like Joyce Trimmer, Gordon Chong, supporters of the megacity like Metro Chairman Alan Tonks say this is going to be a tax explosion for Metropolitan Toronto. The board of trade, again, I might mention how much they supported the government until they realized what the hidden agenda was behind megacity. The hidden agenda is basically to dump, offload provincial responsibilities on to the property taxpayers of Metropolitan Toronto. We've heard accounts of what it's going to be all across Ontario, not to mention what it'll be in Metro.

Let me quote again from the fact that there are so evident solutions in this process. What is most disturbing is that there's no chance to have the alternatives put on the table, just like the rent control debates, when the minister said: "I've made up my mind. We're going to do it. I'm not listening." That is why in the rent control legislation there wasn't one amendment. The same thing proposed in the white paper was put forward in the legislation. What is so frightening about this thing is that they won't listen.

As I mentioned, Ken Greenberg, an expert urban planner from the Toronto firm of Berridge Lewinberg Greenberg Dark Gabor Ltd, has been involved in municipal affairs and municipal issues for a lot of years and he gives the government some very interesting advice. I put it on the table again for some of the backbenchers to listen to. He says:

"Disentanglement and simplification yes, but not the loss of local vigilance which explains much of our livability and distinctive urban culture. The fierce determination of existing cities from amalgamation is not to be viewed cynically as a knee-jerk turf protection. They embody a complex history of fine-gain negotiations that have resulted in cities that work. The various city halls throughout the region are well-used civic places that evoke real pride in their citizenry."

I point to a city like East York that is a small city but probably one of the most efficient cities in Ontario. They have a community that is so well-knit that they help each other, they volunteer. The chairman of the East York campaign, Team East York, is the former mayor of East York, Alan Redway, and a very strong, lifelong Conservative. But Alan Redway feels so strongly about the destruction of his community that he stood up and said to his Conservative colleagues: "This is wrong. This is pigheaded.

Listen to us before you proceed on this road to destruction." I know they have been categorizing people: "It's just the left saying this" or "It's just self-serving politicians." These are your own respected leaders like Alan Redway, who is saying, "Listen to the people of East York before you bulldoze into this."

I'll continue to quote from Greenberg, who I think reinforced what Alan Redway is saying. "There is an alternative model," and that's what I've been saying. "It too is conceptually simple. It acknowledges the need for two tiers of governance, one for the entire urban region known as the greater Toronto area where the big issues are played out and another made up of the constituent cities with a demonstrated ability to stay in contact with their citizens."

That is what, as I said, Greenberg is saying, Golden is saying, McCallion is saying, that there's no need to dictate the abolition by forced decree of the six cities. Let the cities and their elected officials and the taxpayers decide through the referendum. Listen to them. Some of those citizens may decide they want the megacity. That's fine, but listen to them. Don't say to them that the referendum doesn't count because they're using PIN numbers, as the Premier said, and telephones. This is part of the new legislation the Minister of Municipal Affairs is allowing to happen; it's part of the new process on referendum.

Listen to the people when they go and speak out on the future of their communities, and listen to people like Ken Greenberg. Listen to David Crombie, who said you can't unload welfare on Metro; it's going to kill it. That is what megacity will do. It will create such diverse pressures on Metro that it will have to do one of two things: dramatically cut services or dramatically increase property taxes. That's what the megacity leaves as the alternative to the people of Metropolitan Toronto, and it's totally unnecessary.

The most disturbing thing about it is that there are viable solutions, there are viable ways out that talk about rational economic and political ways of doing this right. We will never have another chance at this for a long time.

People who care about their cities and their neighbourhoods are saying: "Listen to us. Listen to the experts." Even Paul Pagnuelo, the Ontario chairman of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, is saying that this is going to end up with mega-tax increases. Andy Sancton, professor of urban economics, urban politics, University of Western Ontario, who studied amalgamations in North America, said that this megacity will increase costs by 20 to 30 per cent.

Wendell Cox, who may be the most renowned Tory-type privatization, downsizing expert in this field, has said that by making a city this large, you're going to guarantee greater costs and less democracy. Wendell Cox, who is known as a person who looks at the dollars and cents, said that on two fronts he is against the megacity proposal, because it's going to increase costs and diminish local democracy and make governments less efficient, less competitive, less innovative, as Jane Jacobs has said repeatedly. She said that what you're doing by this megacity is reducing the potential for benchmarking, reducing the potential for competitiveness.

The government thinks it will be able to get away with this because it's got the majority. They have said unequivocally: "We're going to do it. It's a fait accompli." Their advertisement says: "We've done it. We've made up our minds. We don't care what the opposition thinks. We don't care what the mayors think or the councillors think. All we care about is that we're right and we're going to barge ahead."

When they do that they're forever setting the citizens of Metro against this forced new puppet government they're going to impose. Forever people will say, "This was not right, this was not acceptable, because you did it without our concurrence." Sure, the government will think: "We have won the day. We have forced this legislation through. Aren't we great? We won."

But there are people all over Metro who are saying, "We will never forget this government for refusing to look at the viable alternatives, the alternatives that have been put forward on the table as being economically, politically viable." This government is going to risk the economic future of Metro and one of the most successful urban centres in the world.

This government, it seems, does not appreciate the investment that people have made in this city, people who have stayed behind, invested in small businesses, invested in their homes, renovated, got involved in community groups, got involved in their churches and synagogues, got involved in their mosques, got involved in their community, made this community a success story to be lauded across the world, and this government says: "It's so bad. It's broken. There's an emergency. We'll get rid of it. We'll put you under trusteeship." This is what they say to the most successful, dynamic community in the world.

I think it was Richard Gwyn who said in the Toronto Star this weekend, "Toronto works. Why are you risking it?" It's not as if we're talking about a city that isn't working. It's a city despite its challenges -- people coming from all over the world, people coming with all kinds of different viewpoints who have been able to live next door to each other and achieve economic successes, cultural successes, educational successes -- and this is being refuted by Bill 103, the megacity bill.

What's it saying to these people who have made this city safe -- and sure we've got some problems -- who have made this city work -- and sure we've got some unemployed -- who have made this city and its neighbourhoods and its other cities clean, as I've mentioned before? Is there a city the size of North York that's cleaner? Is there a community that's more cohesive than East York? Is there a city that's taken on more challenges than the city of York, with its population that has been coming from all over the world, with unemployment and so forth?

They've taken on that challenge and provided quite well despite all the problems we have in Scarborough or Etobicoke. They've done very well with these challenges. The government now comes along and says: "We don't care what you did. We are going to make it to our liking."

The most basic premise of democracy is that you give the people a right to be heard. It's shameful for this government to keep on blocking and belittling the referendum process, as the minister has done, when all that people are saying is: "We want to be heard on this issue. We want a say. We want to be part of the process. We don't want to be shut down and shut up. We want to be able to have a vote and we want you to respect the vote and not to belittle our partaking in the referendum."

These are all the things people are saying. They're saying it in church basements. They're saying it in the Annex. We were at a meeting in the Annex last week with 500 people all saying one thing: "Right or wrong, we want the facts. What is the megacity going to do to our neighbourhoods, our services? What's it going to do to our property taxes?" They want to know that, and you know what the government's response is.

We must realize that fundamentally the megacity bill has to come back to what people want, respect what people want, because these are taxpayers. They've built these cities. They've built the neighbourhoods. They've made the schools work. They've made the community centres work. There are thousands of vibrant neighbourhoods, and they've worked so well because the city governments were able to pay attention to them. If four or five ratepayers go to Scarborough council, Scarborough council listens. They may not always agree with them, but they listen.

If four or five citizens go to Toronto council, they get listened to. Paying attention to those small things, as Greenberg says, is what the secret of Toronto and Etobicoke and East York is all about.

It's not a perfect system. It's a system that needs some reform and some change but it doesn't need dismantling, it doesn't need destruction, because not only do you destroy Metro, you destroy the whole GTA. What this government is doing, and its plan is quite clear as of last week, is that when it dumps all its responsibilities on the most vulnerable in Metropolitan Toronto, it creates a wider gap between the 416 and the 905. This exercise originally was about a level playing field. Now with a megacity you destroy the future.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Questions or comments.

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): I'm glad to comment briefly on the presentation made today and last week by the member for Oakwood, and I'm looking forward to the opportunity I'll have to debate this bill a little bit later on.

I just want to say that I agree very much with the member for Oakwood in the stress he has put, particularly in today's part of his presentation, on the whole process of democracy and that what this government is doing in proceeding with this bill in the way they have been doing is trampling upon the very essence of democracy and the democratic process as we know it. Those are words which I certainly don't use very lightly, but they are the conclusion I come to as one who sees the way in which this government continues to behave on this issue of Bill 103, and indeed unfortunately being reflective of how they behave on a number of other important bills.

Here they are, wanting to make significant changes to the way in which the municipal government of Metropolitan Toronto, with the 2.3 million people who live in Metropolitan Toronto, is established, and yet they have, to this day, continued to say they don't believe that the people who live in this important region should be given an opportunity to express their opinions through a referendum. They believe, and the minister continues to say, that isn't important to them, that they will simply disregard those results.

They can continue to say that, but it will be another thing to actually see them continue to impose this legislation against the will of the people as expressed through a referendum. That is why I'm happy that at least to date we have had the government give in and agree to having the referendum take place prior to the legislation being imposed, because that, I think, will put the government really in a position to have to make a decision about whether they want to continue to ignore the role of the people on this issue.

Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke-Rexdale): It's most unfortunate to have the description of the member for Oakwood's presentation today named as a presentation. I think it's more of a rant than it is a presentation. For example, let's take a couple of minor considerations in this whole thing of the obsessive rhetoric with terms like "destruction," "the loss of democracy," "higher taxation."

Let's take a look at the existing status quo: We have in Metropolitan Toronto, in terms of taxation, a highly inequitable, unfair taxpaying situation. The member for Oakwood talks about an attack upon the vulnerable. Well, I would comment to him that the status quo, which he so readily embraces and vigorously defends, in essence is actually an attack on the vulnerable taxpayer in Metropolitan Toronto.

I don't know if the member has travelled around Metro; I hope he would have. If his eyes were open he would see that in the present situation, in terms of property assessment in all the six cities, we have been ravaged by the recessions of the past few years. We have a whole litany of empty buildings, whether they be in downtown Toronto or in the suburban cities. I suppose that seems to be justification for keeping the status quo in terms of property taxation, that we're considered to be a world-class city if we have a declining property tax base. You have fewer commercial and industrial taxpayers to pay the freight. That seems to be quite acceptable.

Well, it isn't at all acceptable to the government of this province, and that's the rationale for moving on a new, unified city.

Mr Gerretsen: First of all, let me congratulate the member for Oakwood for putting the whole matter of the megacity into its proper context in this hour-and-a-half debate.

It's interesting that since the Premier's come back there's already been agreement reached that this bill will not be given third reading until the referendum has been held some time in early March. It was interesting that prior to this the rest of the members in the government couldn't agree to that.

The second thing we now want to clearly establish is that the government will agree to at least one public meeting in each one of the six city halls that are involved in the megacity proposal. That's really what we're asking for and I think it's very reasonable.

Let's also remember that there are two issues here that are very closely connected, not only in Metro Toronto but indeed throughout the entire province, wherever amalgamations take place. We're talking about restructuring, amalgamations, so that we can create larger units so that there will be a larger tax base to pay for some of these costs that have been dumped on municipalities.

In my own municipality of Kingston, for example, a headline today in the Whig-Standard read: "Swapped Costs Shock City Staff." They have calculated -- and this is not a partisan political document; this is a calculation for the city hall staff by a highly respected CEO and treasurer -- that the extra costs to the city of Kingston alone will be $23 million.

As a matter of fact, $25 million will come off the property tax roll by taking education off, but $48 million, being made up in welfare, day care, social housing, long-term health care, public health programs, special care homes, transit etc, will be added on, for a net increase of $23 million, which will cost the citizens of Kingston, based on last year's tax system, an extra 20% in taxes. There's a non-partisan calculation of what you're doing to this province. Shame on you.

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): I want to congratulate the member for Oakwood on his remarks around Bill 103. I agree with him when he sounds the alarm around the particulars connected to this bill. People have a lot to fear. The member for Etobicoke-Rexdale talks very generally, but always non-specifically, about the issue of, do you support the status quo or not?

Mr Hastings: Where have you been for the past --

Mr Marchese: This person from the other side says that there are not going to --

Mr Hastings: Hundreds have left. Wake up.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Etobicoke-Rexdale.

Mr Marchese: The member for Etobicoke-Rexdale, please, calm down a second so I can respond to your remarks.

He speaks very generally about the fact that things are not working, that the status quo isn't working, so they have a plan.

Interjection.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Etobicoke-Rexdale, I don't want to warn you again.

Mr Hastings: Why don't you apply that to your own participants over there sometimes?

The Deputy Speaker: Have a little more respect for the Chair; otherwise I'll ask you to leave.

Mr Hastings: I may just leave anyway shortly.

The Deputy Speaker: Well, please, there won't be any debate then.

Mr Marchese: The member for Etobicoke-Rexdale says the status quo doesn't work, so they come up with a plan, and the plan is, "We're going to amalgamate the cities," even though Leach and Harris and all the others said before the election, "We won't do that." Then they have another plan, and the other plan involves the dumping of other services on to the municipality and the taxpayer. That's their plan. Is that the problem they're trying to fix, to put on the local taxpayer more of those costs? Because that's what it means, and the alarm is quite appropriately being raised by the member for Oakwood. Thank you for that opportunity.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Oakwood, you have two minutes.

Mr Colle: In terms of the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale, what I referred to in my presentation was that there is an alternative that's part of the future. If you listen to Golden and Greenberg and McCallion, where you create the GTA with competing, balanced municipalities, that is what the clear alternative is. The government's refusing to look at that.

In terms of the comments from the members for Fort York and Kingston and The Islands, they recognize that this government is refusing to listen to alternatives, refusing to listen to the citizens. What is most disturbing about this whole debate is that people all over Metro know that if this megacity plan goes through, what the board of trade predicted last week is going to happen 10 times.

There is going to be a flood of people leaving Metro because of the tax-dumping on Metro. If there's been an exodus out of Metro because of the tax differential, after megacity you won't have anybody left to pay the taxes, and that is why the board of trade and Conservatives like Gordon Chong and Alan Redway are saying: "Listen to the alternative. Don't barge ahead with this myopic view, because there's too much at stake."

What's at stake is the most successful city in North America, maybe one of the most successful cities in the world, where people want to participate, where they want to give to their community but they won't stand for being dictated to, they won't stand for being run roughshod over. They're saying