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

December 12, 1995

36th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

L038a - Tue 12 Dec 1995 / Mar 12 Déc 1995

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

SERVICE CLUBS

CANDLELIGHT VIGIL

LANDFILL

OMNIBUS LEGISLATION

CHILD CARE

FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY

CANADIAN ASSOCIATION OF RETIRED PERSONS

LONDON DEMONSTRATION

WESTVIEW SENIOR PUBLIC SCHOOL

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

WORKPLACE HEALTH AND SAFETY AGENCY

ACQUIRED BRAIN INJURIES

OATH OF ALLEGIANCE

WORKPLACE HEALTH AND SAFETY AGENCY

ACQUIRED BRAIN INJURIES

OATH OF ALLEGIANCE

WORKPLACE HEALTH AND SAFETY AGENCY

ACQUIRED BRAIN INJURIES

MEMBER'S PRIVILEGE

MEMBERS' PRIVILEGES

ORAL QUESTIONS

MUNICIPAL TAXATION

PRIVATE CLINICS

MUNICIPAL TAXATION

STAR$

MUNICIPAL TAXATION

TENANTS

ARTS AND CULTURAL FUNDING

MUNICIPAL TAXATION

AFUA BOATENG

CORRECTIONAL FACILITY COSTS

PETITIONS

CHILD CARE

HIGHWAY SAFETY

CHILD CARE

OMNIBUS LEGISLATION

WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD

JUNIOR KINDERGARTEN

COMMON SENSE REVOLUTION

EDUCATION

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

COMMENTS OF THE MINISTER RESPONSIBLE FOR WOMEN'S ISSUES

COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

KIRKENDALL STRATHCONA NEIGHBOURHOOD HOUSE

ADULT EDUCATION

SUDBURY MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

HIGHWAY SAFETY

VEHICLE LICENSING OFFICE

HIGHWAY SAFETY

LABOUR LEGISLATION

SUDBURY ACTION CENTRE FOR YOUTH

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE ACT, 1995 / LOI DE 1995 SUR L'ASSURANCE-AUTOMOBILE

ORDERS OF THE DAY

SAVINGS AND RESTRUCTURING ACT, 1995 / LOI DE 1995 SUR LES ÉCONOMIES ET LA RESTRUCTURATION

The House met at 1333.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

SERVICE CLUBS

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I want to take this opportunity, as the year comes to a close, to wish our service clubs the very best of luck in 1996. I think we all appreciate that they're going to be very busy.

I think the first new task for them is that the Harris government has asked them to run the workfare programs for the government. That will be an enormous challenge for them, as they try to help implement the government's workfare program.

The second big thing we saw is that the government is cutting back on grants to municipalities. What that is going to mean, of course, is a whole new set of user fees. Our young people particularly will now be charged for getting books out of the library, for using gymnasiums, for using the skating rinks. To some of our most challenging young people, who should be given every encouragement to use the library, now the government's saying, "The service clubs should raise the money to allow them to use the library."

I also say that 1996 will be slightly disruptive for the service clubs, because when the government was asked how hospitals are going to make up for lost revenue, the advice was, "They should start to cater the service club luncheons." We'll now see in all the hospitals, "Rotary meets here every second Tuesday, the Optimists every third Thursday night," as the hospitals attempt to make up for their shortfall by catering service club luncheons. Indeed, the service clubs will be very busy in 1996 trying to help this government out of the mess it's creating.

CANDLELIGHT VIGIL

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): On Thursday, December 14, at 5:30 pm there will be a candlelight vigil on the front lawn of the Legislature. The organizers, three concerned women, Nora McCabe, Penina Coopersmith and Pat Chartier, are calling it a vigil to mourn the Ontario we took for granted.

They have asked that there be no speeches and no placards, just concerned Ontarians expressing their sorrow at the passing of so many things we value. Everyone listening here in this House or watching at home is invited to join in this peaceful demonstration. In my many years in public life I have not heard of any event quite like this: people standing up more in sorrow than in anger, mourning the way this province is changing.

The organizers have chosen the date and time to coincide with the closing of the House for the Christmas break. As we leave for our constituencies, we carry with us the knowledge that this will be a hard Christmas for too many. We will carry with us this powerful image of ordinary Ontarians holding candles, fearing that this government is leading us into dark times.

LANDFILL

Mr Toni Skarica (Wentworth North): I rise in this House today to speak about a proposed dump site that threatens the community of Greensville in my riding of Wentworth North.

In March, a joint hearings board, after 140 days of testimony, ruled against the proposed South Quarry dump in Greensville proposed by Redland Quarries. Redland is now appealing this decision to cabinet and has asked for a new set of hearings.

In the initial March ruling, the board ruled that the proposed dump was environmentally unsound and would result in no significant economic benefits to the community. The towns of Flamborough and Dundas, where the proposed dump would sit, as well as the region of Hamilton-Wentworth, are all opposed to this dump and are therefore unwilling hosts. The residents are not only unwilling hosts, but they are outraged at the prospect of having to go through another set of hearings when the first set of hearings was perfectly sound in process and decisive in outcome.

This case has already cost taxpayers millions of dollars, and the public would not be better served by wasting more money on new hearings. The hearings proved conclusively that this dump is a bad idea. Nothing has change. The site for the proposed dump is a fractured limestone quarry. This is a geological sieve that has the potential to contaminate drinking water for thousands of people.

I have with me over 2,500 letters which were sent to several cabinet ministers as well as MPPs on both sides of this House, all of which ask cabinet and this government to reject the request to overturn the joint board decision.

Let me add that I continue to be supportive of the Wentworth North residents and I have the over 2,500 letters here with me today.

OMNIBUS LEGISLATION

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): With a little over 12 days left before Christmas, Mike Harris and the Tory cabinet must be getting awfully excited about the gifts they know they are about to receive from all the Santa clauses contained in Bill 26.

Indeed, so happy are the members of the Tory cabinet that many have taken to singing Christmas carols in the corridors of the Legislature -- careful, of course, to lower their voices as they pass the offices of their colleagues in the back benches. Why, just this morning I heard several of them singing the praises of Mike Harris to the tune of a classic Christmas carol. I'd like to repeat it now for the benefit of those in the back benches opposite. The final verse went something like this:

From the Tory party wish list Mike Harris did decree:

Government dictating,

Lower prices grabbing,

Drug prices leaping,

Pension fund bilking,

Poll taxes coming,

No public input,

Health care dwindling,

New user fees,

Closing hospitals,

Liens on property,

Americanization

And the end of patient privacy.

Even though most of the Tory goodies contained in Bill 26 are still under wraps, hidden from the public, many details are beginning to unravel. It is my belief that with the start of the public hearings, Bill 26 will be revealed for what it truly is: a huge power grab. When the public rejects it, it will be a very blue Christmas for the Mike Harris cabinet.

CHILD CARE

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): I direct my statement today to the Minister of Community and Social Services. Members of the parent committee for Centre de garde d'enfants/Child Care Hearst have raised with me their concerns about your government's cuts to children's services. These changes are made without considering the short- and long-term repercussions for families in this province. The first cuts were announced on July 21, and now we are expecting more, more and more to come.

The child care centre is a resource centre which houses, among other things, a day care and child care centre, a resource centre for families and a toy library. The centre is the only access point for a wide range of essential services for children and families in Hearst and the surrounding area. They also counter the effects of isolation in a remote northern community.

Additional cuts will threaten the quality and scope of services, even the existence of the centre. We urge you to spare regulated day care services and resource centres from additional cuts.

Your government's solution of having children cared for by family and neighbours is not realistic and does not respond to the needs of families in this region. Regulated day care services are crucial to the stability and health of a community, particularly a northern community. Your government must reconsider and preserve the quality of daycare services for the children of this province.

I might point out that I got a letter from Hearst, from André Rhéaume, who's the president of the association -- he's also a grandfather -- and Nicole Lauzon, who's a parent. They're very much concerned that the Conservative government is trying to close down this day care centre. They want it preserved for the safety of the children in northern Ontario.

FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Simcoe Centre): Since our government came into power on June 8, we have been working towards balancing our budget. The overspending by the previous two governments in the last 10 years has left Ontarians paying $9 billion on interest payments on our provincial debt. That is more than we spend on social assistance, more than the budget for hospitals and more than we spend on all levels of education, including colleges and universities.

I wish to state my support for the government's actions. We are simply trying to correct the irresponsible spending of the two previous governments. In his economic statement, the Minister of Finance delivered a solid financial plan which will help get our province back on track. We will work towards eliminating our deficit. We will work to ensure that our services do not deteriorate. We must look to the future and plan our children's future.

I wish to state that as the MPP for Simcoe Centre, I look forward to working with individuals, organizations, community groups and other levels of government in my riding to succeed in achieving this goal.

CANADIAN ASSOCIATION OF RETIRED PERSONS

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): I rise today to add my voice to the growing list of opponents to the Conservative government's draconian power grab, Bill 26.

The more people know about this bill, the more upset they are. Today we heard from the Canadian Association of Retired Persons. Were they concerned about Bill 26? You bet they were, and why shouldn't they be? Bill 26 imposes new user fees on seniors' medication, something the Conservatives promised they would not do. Bill 26 deregulates drug prices, driving up the costs to consumers. Bill 26 creates myriad new hospital user fees, something I know seniors in my riding are concerned about.

At their news conference this morning, CARP admitted that many of their members had in fact voted Conservative. They did so because Mike Harris promised them that he would protect seniors and protect health care. Mike Harris has not kept his promises.

No one voted to give the Minister of Health the unilateral power to close hospitals with the stroke of a pen. No one voted to give municipalities the power to impose a head tax. No one voted to give the Minister of Health access to their health records. No one voted for the draconian, dictatorial powers contained in Bill 26.

Now that the people know what's in this bill, there is no way you are going to get away with it.

LONDON DEMONSTRATION

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): Yesterday, I had the privilege, along with my colleagues from Beaches-Woodbine, London Centre and Welland-Thorold, of joining the protestors on a bitterly cold day in London, where over 10,000 Ontarians converged on London en masse as an indication of the first step, the very first step in Ontarians fighting back against this undemocratic, dictatorial government. We will see many, many more. We will continue to see these kinds of protests grow as people begin to fully understand, now that we've finally got a little bit of light and public input on Bill 26, exactly what this government is up to.

I found it interesting that the Premier said, commenting on this, that they didn't like the labour legislation because they have lost some power. The Minister of Labour said people have been calling her supporting the government. I'm not sure what world the Minister of Labour is living in, but if she ever decides to go to some of the public events she's been invited to and speak as the Minister of Labour, she'd really find out what people in Ontario think about her legislation and this government's legislation. I can assure you that London is very much just the beginning.

WESTVIEW SENIOR PUBLIC SCHOOL

Mrs Lillian Ross (Hamilton West): Last month, two boys, aged 10 and 11, went on a vandalism spree at Westview Senior Public School in my riding, causing upwards of $80,000 in damage. These two boys left behind piles of broken glass, spilled paint and broken computers. The event left the community traumatized. The students, staff and families were shocked at the damage to the school.

But this past Saturday was a very special day for the staff and students of Westview Senior Public School as they decided to do something about it. Rebound Day was held on Saturday to raise money to help cover the cost of replacing some items not covered by the insurance. Their goal was to raise $10,000 at this one-day event. In the end, after the craft sale, penny sale, silent auction, bake sale and other events, they not only met their goal but exceeded it, and found their results at the end of the day totalled $10,500.

The event was spearheaded by Mary Beth Beasley and Jim Moffat, who were concerned that the children of Westview would develop a victim mentality after this terrible incident. These two individuals wanted to show the students how to make the best of a bad situation. I would like to applaud Mary Beth Beasley, Jim Moffat and principal Chuck Taylor for their time and energy in organizing this wonderful event, and the staff, students and community for their participation. I congratulate everyone involved --

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): The member's time has expired.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

WORKPLACE HEALTH AND SAFETY AGENCY

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Labour): In late August, I asked the Provincial Auditor to conduct a comprehensive financial audit of the Workplace Health and Safety Agency in conjunction with the government's decision to revoke the appointments of its board of directors and dismantle the agency.

The report of the auditor indicates that the agency suffered from management and accountability problems. Specifically, the auditor says the agency's "management systems, controls and practices were weak; there was a lack of due regard for economy and efficiency in the acquisition and management of resources," and "adequate procedures were not in place to measure and report on the effectiveness of the agency in meeting its objectives" of reducing workplace accidents.

I would like to review some of the auditor's findings. His report says there were "serious delays" in the development of the sector-specific training programs due to several factors, including "the inability of the agency's senior bipartite management to reach consensus on several key issues, including duration of training, delivery methods and program pricing."

As a result, training was ready for testing in only one of 20 sectors at the end of October of this year, even though the agency had spent $9 million on the sector-specific project. That's why the project was suspended on November 9.

In addition, the auditor reports that just over half of the estimated 60,000 workers and managers who require core certification training had been trained by the end of October, even though the cost of the program to employers has been $83 million to date.

The auditor also outlined a series of management problems. The agency spent $22 million over a five-year period to buy goods and services without adequate planning, and in some cases without adequate needs assessments or cost analysis or without following proper competitive purchasing processes. For example, requests for proposals were not obtained for a series of management consultant studies totalling $817,000, contrary to government requirements. As a result, operating costs billed by the consultant were significantly higher than those charged by other companies.

According to the auditor, the agency paid about $750,000 per year for 37,000 square feet of office space, almost double the per capita space considered necessary under the Ontario Realty Corp guidelines. The auditor found that the agency acquired advertising and creative communication services exceeding $500,000 in 1995 despite a Management Board freeze on advertising and without using the Advertising Review Board, as required by Management Board.

The auditor also found that in recruiting staff for the agency, open, competitive recruiting practices were not followed. In addition, severance packages prepared for senior management and non-bargaining-unit employees last August would have been about $1.1 million in excess of the amount allowed under the agency's original policies. These have been rescinded.

As well, five members of the agency's senior management were provided with leased cars at agency expense even though none of them were entitled to have a vehicle under Management Board rules. These leases have been cancelled.

The auditor's report confirms the government's decision to disband the agency and undertake a thorough review of the health and safety delivery system in the province. Brock Smith, a former Ontario deputy minister, is heading up the team, which is now reviewing the health and safety system, including how to best merge the activities of the agency into the Workers' Compensation Board. The auditor has made a number of recommendations as a result of his review, and they will be given to Mr Smith as well as the Workers' Compensation Board when it assumes responsibility for health and safety.

Workplace health and safety is a priority for our government. We will take whatever action is necessary to provide workers and employers with effective health and safety training. The auditor's report, combined with the work of Mr Smith and his team, as well as the other measures that we are taking to educate and promote health and safety among our young people, will ensure that we have in this province the best possible health and safety program for all of our workers.

ACQUIRED BRAIN INJURIES

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Health): I'm pleased to announce major improvements to our services to people with acquired brain injuries. By reinvesting in Ontario-based acquired brain injury services, we are increasing Ontario's capacity to provide services and saving taxpayers $9 million a year.

Currently the government pays $21 million annually for the 76 patients that are being treated in the United States. Under our new plan, we will bring home within the next three years all 76 patients currently receiving rehabilitation in US health care facilities.

It will allow every Ontario resident, if they are so unfortunate as to be struck down by an acquired brain injury, the opportunity to receive rehabilitation and treatment services in Ontario. Not only is it cruel to force patients to be treated outside of the province, away from their families and loved ones, but it is also much more costly.

This is a much more efficient way of doing business than has been practised in the past here in Ontario. As most members will know, the former government refused to provide funding for these patients to be treated in Ontario-based facilities. This made us totally reliant upon public facilities, which couldn't handle all of Ontario's needs.

The Ministry of Health will use the expertise of acquired brain injury professionals, providers and consumers to help us coordinate the new plan.

I can't emphasize this enough: I'm extremely pleased to be able to make this announcement today.

An acquired brain injury is a truly devastating disability. It is one that occurs after birth. Traffic accidents cause about 50% of them, and young males from the ages of 16 to 24 are the largest single group affected. Other causes of acquired brain injuries for young people six to 15 years of age include bicycle and bicycle-motor vehicle accidents. Seniors and children under the age of two can experience acquired brain injuries as a result of falls.

There are about 12,000 new acquired brain injury patients every year in this province. Most never return to full-time employment. Up to 2,500 are left with lifelong physical, intellectual or behavioural difficulties.

I hope today's announcement brings a great deal of relief, security and satisfaction to the many thousands of Ontario residents who are either directly or indirectly affected by acquired brain injuries.

I would like to thank Chedoke McMaster Hospital and the provincial acquired brain injury advisory committee for their work to improve the lives of people with this disability. Thousands of people across Ontario have benefited from their efforts.

The best Christmas present that my government can give to the families of brain-injured patients is the hope that loved ones will soon be back home. I'm proud to say that with today's announcement we have provided this hope by expanding Ontario-based services.

OATH OF ALLEGIANCE

Hon Bob Runciman (Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services): Today I'm pleased to announce the amendment of regulation 144/91 under the Police Services Act to reinstate the reference to Her Majesty the Queen in the prescribed oath or affirmation of office taken by new police officers, special constables, first nations constables, auxiliary members of a police service and members of police services boards.

This government made a commitment to restore a number of traditions that still have a central and important role in our lives.

The amended regulation now provides an individual with the option to swear loyalty to Her Majesty the Queen in addition to swearing allegiance to Canada and upholding the Constitution of Canada.

Allegiance to the monarchy of Canada is one of the hallmarks of our society, and I am pleased and proud to restore this symbol of loyalty to Her Majesty in policing legislation.

WORKPLACE HEALTH AND SAFETY AGENCY

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville): It's interesting that the Minister of Labour in tabling this report of the auditor has not tabled and will not table in this House the reports of her review team on health and safety. But I guess we shouldn't be surprised, because the government seems intent on not discussing meaningful issues in this House, it seems intent on not having hearings in this province, and the behaviour is completely consistent.

I challenge the minister and I challenge the government, when the review team that's looking at how we deliver health and safety in this province tables its report, we challenge you to bring it to the House and we challenge you to have full hearings on it.

We know what your agenda is. Your agenda is to gut health and safety in this province. Your agenda, the agenda of that committee, is to see to it that we have no more functioning, effective enforcement of health and safety in this province.

But of course you won't want to talk about that. You won't want to talk about it just like you didn't want to talk about Bill 7. You won't want to talk about it just like you didn't want to talk about the 43 bills in Bill 26. You won't want to hear what the people have to say. You won't have to hear the important contribution that people in this province can make to this legislation.

I challenge the minister not to abuse the processes of this House, not to abuse the privilege of members. Bring forward the report. Allow it to be debated, allow it to be heard, and let the people of this province cast judgement and have input into it. We challenge you to do that and will look forward to debating it in the House.

ACQUIRED BRAIN INJURIES

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): Indeed, nothing is more devastating to an individual and a family than brain injury. However, today what we hear from the Minister of Health is nothing more than his continued communication strategy, a rollout of good news.

I would say to him that it's an unbelievable statement for him to suggest that any previous government did not want to see these services provided in Ontario. I can say from my perspective, that is patently untrue. The establishment of a centre that could provide appropriate, compassionate and comparable care with the kind of care that individuals had been receiving in specialized centres I think was the goal for all of us here in Ontario.

We wanted people to be able to be treated as close to home as they possibly could, but we wanted to make sure that treatment was not only appropriate but was going to respond to giving them the best quality of life and the best chance to recover that's possible.

This plan that the minister has announced today is very short on details, and I would ask him in very short order to give us the details of that plan so the families can have comfort that those in their family who are suffering from acquired brain injury will know what their future holds. He says that this is a three-year plan. Minister, you must put those details out so that people can start planning their lives and know what will be happening to their loved ones.

I do go on, just to point out that I believe the purpose of the minister's announcement today is to distract attention -- it is a manipulation -- from the absolute powers that he is giving himself: the powers to close hospitals; the powers to control how, what, when and for how much doctors will practise; the power to bring in new user fees and higher drug costs to the people of the province of Ontario.

I say to him, to the members of the Conservative caucus, you can have a good-news announcement in this House every day from now until Bill 26 passes. What I tell you is, you can continue that rollout until the day of the next election. Nobody will forget. Nobody will forgive you for accumulating the kind of absolute powers you are giving to this minister, and this announcement and others will not detract from the absence of democratic process that you are choosing to do that with.

OATH OF ALLEGIANCE

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): It's ironic that the Solicitor General's announcement talks about the reinstatement of traditions and yet he's not here in the House to hear the response from the opposition, which I guess is very typical of this government, because of course they are also trashing the traditions of parliamentary debate and trashing the traditions of the representative and the role of an MPP in this House.

I would ask that the government bring back those cherished traditions and that the role of the elected member should be cherished also in this House, and the cherished tradition of parliamentary debate, of having that thoughtful debate back and forth on issues that you have decided to suspend with the introduction of Bill 26, is something that we in the opposition implore you also to bring back.

We have an opportunity now in January, thanks to some precipitous action on behalf of both opposition parties, only after which have we made it possible for the people of Ontario to have some input on this amending bill of 44 different pieces of legislation. So I would again ask the government to start to bring back some of those traditions.

WORKPLACE HEALTH AND SAFETY AGENCY

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): As seems to be the pattern with this government, the document in question, the actual auditor's report, I didn't receive until the minister was already into her statement. Therefore, it's difficult to comment on the individual specifics, but I do have a number of points to make that I think are important to get on the record.

First of all, in the amount of time I've had to look at this, I haven't seen anything that's particularly new in terms of some of the findings, the overall general findings. In fact, there was a report commissioned by our government, by our Minister of Labour, in February 1995 that was conducted by Dr Tuohy, and anyone familiar with the health and safety movement in Ontario will be familiar with Dr Tuohy's report. In this report, she goes at great length to examine not just the accountability structures that are in place but indeed all aspects of the health and safety agency, at the request of our government, because it was a new entity and because it's so important.

I would suggest, with the greatest of respect, that the intention of the government with regard to asking the auditor to do this was nothing more than trying to provide some political cover for a decision they had already made. They had said on August 23 that they were firing all the members of the board and that they were planning to kill the agency and then on September 7 said that they were going to have the auditor come in and have a look at it. If you're going to remove the agency, why bother looking at the detailed aspects of its functioning, when indeed that's already been done?

Since you're planning to create a different structure for the delivery, I don't think that makes an awful lot of sense.

I would again put on the record that the health and safety agency provided more training, lowered injuries and fatalities in this province and did it at a lower cost than when it was with the WCB before. No matter how hard the government tries, it can't escape that fact.

ACQUIRED BRAIN INJURIES

Mr Bob Rae (York South): I want to comment on the announcement made by the Minister of Health. I would say to the minister with great respect, as we say, that the way in which he's made this announcement is truly unworthy of him and of somebody in his office. I say it for this reason: He must know, as was pointed out by my colleague the member for Oriole, that over the last several years many, many patients have been brought back to Ontario.

Just a few short weeks ago, there was an opening of an expanded facility at the West Park Hospital in my constituency. The planning for that expansion, and indeed funding for that expansion, took place throughout the time in which I was the Premier and in which my colleague the member for Beaches-Woodbine was the Minister of Health and Ruth Grier was the Minister of Health. For him to stand in this place and say that funding was refused by previous governments is a grotesque attempt to turn something like this into a partisan issue. It is truly unworthy of somebody who's Minister of Health. I could not believe my ears when I heard him say it.

The Chedoke McMaster centre, which he quite rightly applauded today, the entire work of that centre, the planning that was carried out by that centre, has been carried out under Liberal governments, under New Democratic Party governments and now by Conservative governments.

I say to the minister that there are times and days when he stands up in this place and says that health is too important to be turned into a partisan issue. He talks about giving to the families of people who have been injured in accidents a Christmas present, as if somehow he's some kind of benevolent despot who on one day decides to close a hospital and on another day decides to give certain people a Christmas present. He turns it into a partisan issue.

It is despicable that the Minister of Health would engage in that kind of conduct and turn this announcement and turn this direction, which I must say has been one that's been followed by all governments over the last several years, into some kind of cheap partisan announcement on behalf of his party. It's unworthy of him and is only a sign of how truly desperate he and his colleagues have become because of the steps they've taken in Bill 26 and the steps they've taken in restructuring. The Minister of Health should be ashamed of himself.

MEMBER'S PRIVILEGE

Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of personal privilege. This emanates from the point of privilege that my colleague the member for Timiskaming had asked you to rule on and that is still under consideration by you.

On November 23, in response to a question from the member for Peterborough, the Minister of Correctional Services stated that the directive issued on November 7 to which the member for Timiskaming referred had indeed originated in 1989, when I served as Minister of Correctional Services.

You can appreciate that I've done some research on this matter, Mr Speaker. I have copies of two memos, from August and October 1989, to which the minister referred in his response on November 23. In fact, in 1989 they related to a specific job action at the Toronto Jail. Nowhere in these memos is surveillance of MPPs' offices mentioned. In fact, I would submit to you that the directive of November 7 resulted directly from the office of the Minister of Correctional Services and I felt it imperative for me to bring this to your attention.

I would ask the minister if he would correct the record. I might add that had these memos in 1989 referred in any way to contact with MPPs' offices, I would have omitted without doubt any such reference, as I believe that freedom of assembly is still a right in Ontario.

Mr Speaker, I offer these memos to you in your consideration on this ruling.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): I thank the member very much. My staff and I discussed the issue yesterday about getting back to the member for Timiskaming and we will be doing that.

MEMBERS' PRIVILEGES

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: I have a memo dated November 9 from the manager of policy and planning for the freedom of information corporate unit to all area managers for Comsoc.

That memo, and I'll pass that on to you, Mr Speaker, if you have not seen it, in effect requires now that all inquiries to Comsoc on behalf of a constituent by an MPP be accompanied by a written consent form from that constituent.

I believe as an MPP you've got the right and the ability to serve your constituents. When they call your office, you are an advocate on behalf of your constituents and your job is to cut through red tape and help your constituents.

I think what this has done is impeded our ability for MPPs to serve their constituents, particularly individuals who have difficulty in mobility, disabled individuals who now can no longer simply pick up the phone, call their MPP and allow us to go to bat on their behalf.

What happens now is we must ensure that those people somehow get into the office and sign that form, and process that form through before we can make a simple inquiry why someone's cheque may have been delayed by a day or two or why an appeal has been denied.

I think it severely infringes on my rights as a member of provincial Parliament to deal with my constituency. I would ask you to rule on that, because if this is allowed to continue, what you are doing again is shutting down the opportunity for MPPs to be able to properly and effectively represent their constituents and fight on their behalf. I would ask you to rule on that.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): The point has been made. Perhaps a question in the House would be a good place to start.

ORAL QUESTIONS

MUNICIPAL TAXATION

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My first question is for the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Minister, it appears that yesterday, advertently or inadvertently, you confirmed the fact that Bill 26 does indeed allow municipalities to implement poll taxes. You also stated that these provisions of Bill 26 were simply in response to requests from municipalities for greater powers, part of the flexibility that you claim you wanted to be able to provide municipalities.

You indicated it wasn't the Finance minister who wanted this for his budgetary purpose; it apparently wasn't the Chairman of Management Board who wanted to allow municipalities to charge a head tax or a poll tax. You did it in response to a request from municipalities.

I ask you today, could you please explain to us exactly which municipalities in Ontario asked for this very specific new authority to implement a poll tax?

Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): The legislation says and the

section says absolutely nothing about poll taxes. It is a general

section to provide for user fees. It reads as follows:

"Despite any act, a municipality and a local board may pass bylaws imposing fees or charges on any class of persons,

"(

a) for services or activities provided or done by or on behalf of it,

"(

b) for costs payable by it for services or activities provided or done by or on behalf of any other municipality or local board; and

"(

c) for the use of its property including property under its control."

I read that because obviously the members opposite haven't.

Mrs McLeod: We can at least read. We don't have a lot of time to read what's in this bill. We certainly can't get explanations of what the minister's intent is in introducing this bill, but we can read the bill. We can read a bill which goes on beyond what the minister just read, after having said that the local board may indeed "pass bylaws imposing fees or charges on any class of persons," and any class of persons may indeed be an individual, to say that this bylaw, under this section, may provide for "fees and charges that are in the nature of a direct tax for the purpose of raising revenue." It seems pretty clear in the language.

I want to come back and talk to you about poll taxes, poll taxes that are just one of the kinds of taxes which potentially a municipality could put in place to be able to recover some of the 44% in grant revenue loss because of the cuts your government has made. Don't stand up and tell us, as you always do, that all you're doing is giving municipalities flexibility, that you're just giving them what they ask. All you're doing is giving them the flexibility to raise new revenues to make up for the ones you've taken away from them, and in this specific case, the possibility of a poll tax, a poll tax which could be charged against each individual in a household.

Let's just assume for a moment that the poll tax would be $100 and that you've got a family of four, so the municipality, under your law, could charge $400 per family presumably for the use of libraries in the community, or for the skating rink, whether they use the libraries or the skating rink or not.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Put your question, please.

Mrs McLeod: If you don't think that's going to happen, tell me why your law makes it possible? And if you don't think the law makes it possible, will you simply amend this law, will you withdraw this

section which makes it possible to introduce --

The Speaker: The question has been asked.

Hon Mr Leach: I'm going to repeat it.

We're going to give the municipalities the authority and the autonomy to do the job that has to be done, and we're going to continue to do that. The legislation says nothing about a poll tax, it says nothing about a head tax. There is no poll tax. If you want to make a straw pony out of an issue that just isn't part of the plan --

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): I have.

The Speaker: Order, the member for Oriole.

Hon Mr Leach: -- give me the name of one municipality that you believe is going to implement a poll tax. Is it Thunder Bay? It must be Thunder Bay if you're so concerned about it.

Mrs McLeod: I would certainly hope that no municipality would ever consider it. I can't imagine a less equitable tax, a tax that has nothing to do --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, the member for Hamilton East.

Mrs McLeod: -- with personal income, that has nothing to do with property, that has nothing to do with services actually used by the individuals that could have this tax put on their heads, each individual head in a household.

The minister has said that the reason it's here, the reason it is even a possibility, is because municipalities asked for it. Minister, I tell you again, the language is very simple, very direct and very dangerous. It says "fees and charges in the nature of a direct tax," and that wording is broad enough that it may include not only the possibility of a head tax but also the possibility of municipalities charging any other kind of tax.

You say you're only doing what they asked you to do. Do you intend to allow municipalities to charge local sales taxes? Do you intend to allow municipalities to charge a gas tax? We understand at least one municipality has asked you for this. Are you prepared to put any limits at all on the direct taxation powers of municipalities? Where will you draw the line on this simple and dangerous part of Bill 26?

Hon Mr Leach: I'm really disappointed and quite shocked that the member would take this type of approach. The municipalities are duly elected members who represent their constituencies -- devious plots to do it, I don't know. I have faith in the municipalities to be able to carry out their responsibilities. Why you don't just amazes me.

The Speaker: New question.

Mrs McLeod: A lot of faith. I would just like to know that this government is not going to say you can do anything you want to do, including a new gas tax.

The Speaker: Who's your new question to? New question.

PRIVATE CLINICS

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): I will direct my second question to the not-so-benevolent despot, the Minister of Health, because I want to turn to the sections of the bill that I truly believe are going to put Ontario's health care system on the road to two-tiered health care where those who can afford it are going to be able to go to profit-based clinics where the services are paid for privately and those who can't afford to pay privately are going to have to wait in line for a very weakened public health system.

I know the minister is already shaking his head, but I believe that's what happens, that as this government squeezes the dollars out of the public health care system this minister is opening the door to new for-profit clinics to operate. That's what the bill tells us, Minister.

You've brought in amendments to the legislation that give you sweeping powers, without any check, to be able to open American-style, for-profit clinics, to decide what services they're going to offer and to determine unilaterally who's going to run them, who's going to operate them. You can call it what you like, but I truly believe that opening this door is opening the door to two-tiered health care.

I ask you, why did you decide to give yourself this power? Why have you decided to open up Ontario's health care system to American-style, profit-making health clinics?

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Health): In the first part of the honourable member's question she seems to have problems with these clinics. There are 970 independent health facilities providing diagnostic services, X-rays, abortion services, dialysis, plastic surgery. I ask the honourable member, which one of theses clinics today in Ontario would you like me to close?

Mrs McLeod: As I understand it -- the minister has brought forward these amendments, so I trust that the minister can speak to them -- independent health care facilities now can indeed provide insured services. The amendment that the minister proposes in Bill 26, which we are trying to understand in its entirety, will allow clinics which now provide non-insured services, the services that are paid for privately, not by the public system, to become independent health care facilities, clinics that the minister determines will open, determines who will run them and determines what services they will offer.

I think, Minister, in bringing forward this amendment you have made a fundamental change, and I have to assume that you want to make this change, that you want this new power, this new designation, in order to have new clinics that can offer services now offered by our hospitals, since you are also giving yourself the power to decide what services hospitals will offer and what services your new clinics can offer.

I have to ask you, Minister, what services you are prepared to see operated by these new clinics. I want you to give us today, because I want to make this clear -- I don't want to raise alarm bells, if this is not what you're planning to do -- an absolute assurance that you will not allow these new clinics, clinics that today in Ontario could not provide the services that hospitals provide, only the services that are not insured services, to provide services that the hospitals now provide.

Will you assure us that you're not going to let these clinics provide services that are publicly funded, clinics that can charge others privately for the services they provide?

Hon Mr Wilson: I'm a little confused by the question, but I think I get the gist of it, and that is that you want to make sure, and we are in full agreement on this side of the House, that we do nothing that would violate the Canada Health Act.

There is nothing in Bill 26 that would allow this government to violate the Canada Health Act, and I'd remind the honourable member that non-insured services like plastic surgery already occur in clinics and patients pay directly for that. They're licensed by the province. Quality assurance provisions are there, and they are beefed up in Bill 26. For independent health facilities we of course pay the operating or technical fees, overhead costs, and we pay the professional fees in those facilities, and we'll continue to do that.

But, yes, for example, in some of our restructuring studies there are suggestions coming forward that small hospitals that may want to become ambulatory care centres would become ambulatory care centres providing outpatient services under the Independent Health Facilities Act. That is the reason why in every case of conversion to an independent health facility we don't require a tender, because we would hate a particular hospital to then have to tender out its services in an RFP process.

It would make sense in that case if it were to convert to ambulatory care -- it would no longer be under the Public Hospitals Act; it would have to come under the Independent Health Facilities Act -- that those patients would be covered fully under the Canada Health Act and under insured services, so I'm not sure what the honourable member is so worried about here.

Mrs McLeod: One of the reasons we're worried is because we're having difficulty knowing exactly what the minister is doing with his amendments and with his proposed restructuring. You can appreciate, Mr Speaker, that when significant changes to the public health system are being proposed and the minister will have all power to implement these changes if this legislation passes, we want to know exactly what the minister is planning to do.

Minister, the explanation you've just given me doesn't hold because, as I understand it, if you want to close a hospital and make that hospital into an independent health care facility still providing insured services, you can do that now. You don't need this amendment. You don't need an amendment that allows you to bring the clinics that now provide uninsured services, the services paid for privately, into the Independent Health Facilities Act.

I'm concerned that you're going to mix them, that you're going to have clinics that provide some services that people pay for and other services that the health care system is supposed to pay for, only the health care system can't afford to buy the services from that clinic.

I just want to take a moment to try, because I think this is so important -- I worry. I've got a community that doesn't happen to have an MRI machine, which is the most up-to-date diagnostic technology you can get. I worry about the fact that my hospital -- no hospital in northwestern Ontario can afford to put in an MRI machine because they don't have enough dollars to do it, and they have even less dollars because of your cuts. I know that people in my community who can afford it go to the United States to get what they believe is the most up-to-date technology.

Minister, if you let a private clinic in my community provide that MRI service for those who pay for their service for an insurance physical, how are you going to say no to the person who says: "Why should I go to the States? I can afford to buy the service two blocks away from home. Why won't you let me buy the service?" Will you give us an absolute guarantee that you will never, ever allow a clinic to charge full-cost recovery so that the rich can get the best and those who can't afford it have to line up for publicly funded services?

Hon Mr Wilson: Thank you for the question. I can give you the absolute assurance that we will continue to cover MRI services as required under the Canada Health Act. In your own community in northern Ontario they used to have, up until a year ago, a portable MRI that did WCB claimants and did insurance claimants, and nobody complained about that.

Hotel Dieu Hospital in Windsor along with an American firm have thrown around an idea of putting a portable MRI there. But I agree with the honourable member, just to make sure the public understands the clarification, that's for those paying --

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville): Why don't you answer the question?

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Order. The member for Windsor-Walkerville.

Hon Mr Wilson: -- out of their insurance policy or out of workers' compensation. We are not changing that policy through our changes to Bill 26. We will continue to pay, in a single payor system, in a medicare system, for those services deemed medically necessary, including MRI services. There's no other plan here.

We did need some legislative changes to acts that needed to be updated over the past few years. I agree, there's quite a bit being done at once here. But the fact of the matter is, yes, we did need a legislative change to give us a good statutory basis to prevent hospitals from charging fees. Laurentian Hospital has been trying to charge fees for laboratory services and some of their pathology services.

I don't have that power. It's before the courts. It's one of the reasons we've got to get Bill 26 through. We expect the court case to come up in January, and our lawyers say we'll probably lose it because we only have regulatory power and we don't have a good statutory basis. This gives us a good statutory basis to make it very clear that hospitals cannot charge their patients for insured services under the Canada Health Act.

MUNICIPAL TAXATION

Mr Bob Rae (York South): I have a question for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. I'd like to ask the minister, if he's got a copy of the act in front of him, perhaps he could turn to page 147.

Mr David S. Cooke (Windsor-Riverside): No, he didn't have a copy.

Mr Rae: It's always a good idea to have the laws around when you're trying to change them.

Under

section 220.1 and then it goes on to subsection 220.1(3) -- I'm reading for the minister's benefit -- in the middle of the page there's a little thing at the side that says, "Contents of bylaw." It says, "A bylaw under this

section may provide for," -- and I'm quoting -- "fees and charges that are in the nature of a direct tax for the purpose of raising revenue." I wonder if the minister can tell us what he understands that phrase to mean.

Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): To the leader of the coalition, I had that right there to read back to you. Completely lost. Mr Speaker, give me two minutes. Let me take that on notice and I'll get back to you.

Mr Rae: I'm not sure I can simply take notice on that question, Mr Speaker. The government is asking the Legislature today on second reading to approve the bill. We're being asked to vote today on the bill, and I'm asking the minister who's responsible for this

section of the bill to tell me what he understands a "direct tax" to be. I'd like to know, and I think the citizens of the province would like to know, since municipalities are about to be given this very broad new power to charge direct taxes. I'd like to ask the minister once again, what does he understand by the term "direct tax"?

Hon Mr Leach: I found it, Bob: "In the nature of a direct tax" was included in the legislation to make it clear that there is no authority for charges of an indirect nature. This would be beyond the constitutional authority of the province. Municipalities will not be able to impose an income tax or sales tax. However, they can impose fees or charges for financial services on a consumption basis, as an example, per cubic metre of water used per residential unit or business property etc.

Mr Rae: Sometimes when we look at these things, it's important to look at the term. There are two kinds of taxes, as I understand it. There are direct taxes and there are indirect taxes, and we're now making it very explicit that the municipalities have the right to raise, generally speaking, direct taxes.

Under this heading of a direct tax, would you agree with many observers who say that it would now be possible for the municipality to levy a charge or a tax on all the people living in the municipality, regardless of their age, or some people living in a municipality? Would you agree with me that that is what is being proposed in this particular measure?

Hon Mr Leach: As I said yesterday, theoretically it probably does, but practically, if you can name one municipality of the 815 municipalities in this province that is going to take that action, give me their names. I'll go talk to them and tell them about the folly of their proposal.

I can also tell you that there are members on the opposite side that asked for this. The member for Kingston and The Islands, when he was head of AMO, asked for legislation like this. AMO has been after it for years. I'll be glad to carry back the message to the municipalities that this party wants to give them autonomy and responsibility, and I'll let them know that you don't think they're responsible enough to carry that out.

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: My involvement with AMO was approximately 10 years ago. If the minister can show me that we ever asked for a gas tax or a sales tax, I would like him to produce that right here and now.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): New question.

Mr Rae: All I would say to the honourable member on that score is that the honourable member asked me to build a couple of subways. We did it, and you cancelled them. Don't talk to me about who asked whom to do what when they were in a previous responsibility.

I want to continue with the Minister of Municipal Affairs. I know he's getting some prompting from another former mayor. Perhaps he's confusing the member from Kingston with the member from East York, who, for all I know, did ask for these extraordinary powers. I don't know.

During the election campaign, the Premier said that if there was going to be a change in taxes and an increase in taxes, he thought there should be a provincial referendum before such a tax would be brought in. In fact, he committed himself to doing that many times and on radio programs.

One of the ironic features of this legislation is that it takes away the requirement for referenda with respect to changing certain bylaws. I'd like to ask the minister why a municipality that was about to introduce a tax of this kind wouldn't have to hold a referendum, since the referendum seems to be the preferred policy of the provincial government. Could you tell me why you would have taken away that requirement? If you're giving this extraordinary power to impose a brand-new tax and a brand-new set of taxes to the municipalities, why wouldn't you insist on a referendum?

Hon Mr Leach: There is a referendum, and it's held every three years.

Mr Rae: You may want to think about that answer before you go outside. I'm not sure it'll stand up to too much examination, because the Premier of the province didn't take that position and you're part of his team. He's not here today, but the Premier said that he thought if there were going to be taxes, which are bad things, by the way -- I just thought I'd remind you. It's apparently bad for the province to bring them in but it's a good thing for municipalities to have the power to bring them in. This is the new commonsense doublespeak.

If a referendum is good enough for the province before it introduces a new tax increase, why wouldn't a referendum be required for a municipality that wants to introduce a direct tax?

Hon Mr Leach: I don't think there's anything in the legislation that stops a municipality from having a direct election any time it wants to on any issue it wants to. What we're saying is that you don't have to, that we know municipalities are responsible and will carry out their duties responsibly. If they want to have a referendum, that's their choice. We want to give them choices, not dictate to them like many others did.

Mr Rae: I'd now like to ask the minister to turn to page 153 of the bill. At the bottom of page 153, on the left-hand side,

section 257.7 says, "If there is a conflict between a provision in this part and a provision of any other

section of this act or any other act, the

section that is less restrictive of a local municipality's power prevails."

I wonder if the minister can explain that

section for me and tell me why it doesn't mean that what is contained in this bill, which expands the unilateral power of a municipality, is increased even more by that section.

Hon Mr Leach: That's another one I'm going to take under advisement.

The Speaker: New question, the member for Scarborough-Agincourt.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. It's your time you're wasting.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Would you like to come to order? We could have another question.

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I have a question for the Minister of Municipal Affairs. We talked today to the legal officials in the Ministry of Finance about what you likely mean by "direct tax." What was indicated to us in that conversation was that "direct tax" did indeed mean a head tax, but it also could be a sales tax, it could be a gas tax or it could even be an income tax.

My question to you is quite simple: What taxes did you envision the municipalities wanted to implement when you gave them this right?

Hon Mr Leach: They could charge for the use of arenas, for water, in rural municipalities I understand they can charge for street lighting, any number of things that municipalities have been after for many, many years.

Mr Phillips: I think the public is beginning to realize now that this is the bill this government wants passed today.

It is very clear, Minister, that what you're doing is giving the municipalities the unilateral right to impose these taxes. They've asked for it and you've said you're going to give it to them. You also take away any right of people to appeal to the OMB. That's part of this bill -- no appeal to the OMB.

I say again, yes, we understand user fees, but we want a direct answer to a direct question. Surely you know the answer to this: What taxes do you envision the municipalities implementing as a result of you giving them this power to put on a head tax, to put on a sales tax, to implement income taxes? Specifically, what taxes are you expecting they will implement?

Hon Mr Leach: "Garbage" is a good answer to that question. They can put a tax on it. But I don't understand where you got the idea that they can't appeal to the OMB. The only thing that can't be appealed to the OMB is minor variances. You can still go to the OMB.

The Speaker: New question, third party.

Mr Rae: To the same minister, under the Constitution of Canada, the federal government has the power to levy indirect taxes and the provincial government has the power to levy direct taxes. That's the distinction that's set up in our Constitution. That means the province has the power to levy sales taxes, it has the power to levy property taxes and it has the power to levy taxes directly on a person or on a class of persons. That's how we understand it.

I would come back to the minister. You've used a term here, "direct tax." Would you not confirm for me, Minister, whether this effectively means that what the province is doing is devolving all of its taxing power to the municipalities for the same class of taxes and the same group of taxes that the province itself now levies? Can you explain to me, if I'm wrong -- and I hope I am wrong -- why you would have used these words and why you would devolve that kind of power to a municipality?

Hon Mr Leach: As I said before, "in the nature of a direct tax" was included in the legislation to make it clear that there's no authority for charges of an indirect nature. The municipalities will not be able to impose income tax or sales taxes.

Mr Rae: No, whoever wrote that briefing note doesn't understand what a direct tax is and what an indirect tax is, and that's the problem you've got.

The province has the power now to levy direct taxes. That's established under subsection 92(2) of the Constitution. That power has very clearly been defined through a whole series of tax decisions of the last 125 years. The province has the power to levy taxes on sales, it has the power to levy taxes on consumption, if it's paid by the person who's actually consuming the product.

I want to ask the minister again: You are devolving an incredible set of powers to a group of municipal politicians, you're requiring no referendum, you're potentially changing the entire nature of the tax system in this province in terms of who will pay. Whatever happened to that old song, "There's only one taxpayer"?

Hon Mr Leach: I go right back to the original part of this debate. We're reducing the amount of money that's going to be available to municipalities. The municipalities came back to us and said, "Give us the tools to do the job." We agreed that we would give them the right to have user fees and licensing fees. They have it. We believe that the municipalities are responsible, that they'll carry it out responsibly, and I'm sure they will.

The Speaker: New question, the member for Kingston and The Islands.

Mr Gerretsen: My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. In an answer to my colleague here, you just indicated that there is an appeal to the OMB with respect to these taxes. I wonder if you could just take a look at page 148, subsection 220.1(9). It states, "If a municipality or local board has imposed fees or charges under any act, no application shall be made to the municipal board under clause 71(

c) of the Ontario Municipal Board Act on the grounds the fees or charges are unfair or unjust." You just indicated that there is an appeal to the OMB. This is in direct contravention to this section. How do you explain that, Minister?

Hon Mr Leach: I stand corrected. Thank you.

Mr Gerretsen: Since the minister obviously didn't realize this

section was in the act, let me ask you this: From the comments that were made to the media by both the Minister of Finance and the Chairman of the Management Board, one would get the distinct impression that those two particular ministers don't agree with the poll tax idea either, so why don't you put it in the legislation that under no circumstances can municipalities either charge a head tax or a poll tax? Why don't you do the right thing?

Hon Mr Leach: There's absolutely no intent to have a poll tax or a head tax. Everybody in this House knows that. If you can name one municipality that's going to do it, just one, any of the 815 municipalities, John, just name one that's going to do it and I'll put it in.

The Speaker: New question.

Mr Rae: Let me again come back to the minister. What you've done in this bill is that you've devolved your taxing power to the municipalities. All the range of things which the province can now tax you're saying the municipalities themselves can tax. That's what you're doing with this measure.

Having done that, I'd like to ask you this: In the last election, Premier Harris promised that he would introduce a taxpayer protection act which would allow for a referendum requiring majority public approval or a general election for any provincial tax increase. What you are doing in this measure is devolving your power to the municipalities and then you're saying: "You guys go ahead and raise your taxes. We'll lower our taxes. You raise your taxes."

I want to ask the minister once again, why would you not at least require a referendum to be held before this kind of tax increase can be imposed? In the case of Metropolitan Toronto, you're talking about two million people living in this municipality. One council, on one night, can make a decision to impose a tax, a power they've never had before which you're granting to them. Why would you not insist on a referendum before they carry out that kind of tax increase?

Hon Mr Leach: As I said before, because we have faith in municipalities to be responsible. They're duly elected by the same citizens who elect us. Why do you think they're not responsible enough to carry out their elected duties? They certainly are. If they want to have a referendum, they can have a referendum. If they don't choose to have a referendum on any specific issue, that referendum is held every three years, as I said before.

Interjections.

Mr Toni Skarica (Wentworth North): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'm in the rump here and I cannot hear the minister's answer, because the opposition constantly interrupts the minister.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. I'm having trouble hearing too. I don't understand why we can't have some decorum in the Legislature.

Interjection.

The point of order can come afterwards. Supplementary?

Mr Rae: If my colleague is in the rump, he must be where all the brains are.

I'd like to ask the minister by way of final supplementary -- I've obviously upset my colleague.

I wonder if I might ask the minister this simple question: The Premier told us all in the last election that if he raised taxes he would resign. That's the most solemn commitment he made to the people of the province. He told us that he would resign if he raised taxes.

Can the minister tell us why, when you in fact are simply transferring this power which you have to raise taxes directly to the municipalities, the Premier shouldn't have to resign, because he's clearly broken his promise?

Hon Mr Leach: That really is not a very appropriate question. We're not raising taxes. We have no intention of raising taxes. Most of the municipalities, and I include the city of Toronto, the city of Scarborough, the city of Mississauga, indicated that they won't be raising taxes to accommodate these cuts.

Mr Gilles Pouliot (Lake Nipigon): Get the hell out.

The Speaker: Order. The member for Lake Nipigon is out of order and I will not warn him again.

Interjection.

The Speaker: The member for Fort York is out of order and I won't warn him again.

STAR$

Mrs Janet Ecker (Durham West): My question is for the Chair of Management Board. In my riding, the community of Ajax instituted an eight-week pilot project which saved over half a million dollars in taxpayers' money by implementing the cost-saving suggestions of the town's employees last year. This was a model that was adopted from successful private sector models for saving money.

The program is still used by Ajax, and they anticipate a $2-million saving in the coming fiscal year. The project is called STAR$, Saving Town of Ajax Real Dollars. It was a major success story which has been covered by the television show W5. Has the minister heard of this program and its success?

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): I just happen to have a leaflet with regard to the program, and I must say, over the caterwauling from the opposition party, I happen to believe that this program, the Saving Town of Ajax Real Dollars program, shows that this particular municipality and most of the municipalities, if not all of the municipalities, of Ontario are very mature, very responsible and spend, I must say, money much more wisely than this provincial government has done over the last 10 years.

I commend the town of Ajax for its initiatives in terms of reducing spending by some $500,000 in terms of over 1,000 initiatives, and I can say it's refreshing to see a municipality that's spending taxpayers' money wisely when the advice that I received, as mayor of East York in my former capacity, from the previous government, the NDP government, was that the municipalities should take on more debt. That's the kind of advice we got from the previous government. Here's the kind of action we're getting from local government in the province of Ontario, real savings for the taxpayers.

Mrs Ecker: Would the minister be willing to review the Ajax program to see if it could be adopted as a model for cost savings, both within the government and as an additional tool for our transfer partners?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Order. The member for Hamilton East is continuously out of order and I won't warn him again.

Hon David Johnson: The member for Durham West raises a very legitimate question and suggestion, and I'm sorry that the members opposite don't treat this more seriously, because indeed the municipal governments have a great deal of expertise. I see some of the members acknowledging that. Frankly, in the debate that we've had here today, earlier in this Legislature, you would wonder on the level of confidence in the municipalities, and I can tell you that my party and this government have a great deal of confidence in municipalities and, yes, there are many good suggestions in here. We will certainly look at the comments and the suggestions of the town of Ajax.

The province of Ontario, as you will know, is going through a process of restructuring the civil service. We have committed to reducing the internal workings, the operations and the administration, by some $1.4 billion. I think Ajax and other municipalities, who are responsible and who are spending taxpayers' dollars wisely, have a great number of comments that we could take to heart and will assist us in running the province of Ontario.

MUNICIPAL TAXATION

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing and I'd like him, once again, to turn to page 147 of his bill.

Minister, it could not be clearer in subsection (2) of

section 220 of your bill that this legislation clearly provides municipalities with the right to enact bylaws to impose user fees. That is clearly the intention of subsection (2).

But on to subsection (3), and the language is equally clear. Your bill, in language that is crystal clear, makes plain that you will, by this legislation, give municipalities the right to impose, by bylaw, direct taxes which are, I remind you again, gasoline taxes, sales taxes, head taxes, to name but three. The language of your bill is crystal clear.

If you do not intend that municipalities have this power to impose these kinds of direct taxes, why do you in your bill provide the right for them to do so?

Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): Again, we're giving the municipalities the autonomy and the authority they require to do the job. It's autonomy and authority that they've been asking for for many, many years. We know that they're duly elected by the taxpayers, the same taxpayers who elect the members of this House. I am very confident that if the municipalities don't carry out their authority responsibly then they'll pay the price at the polls, as they should.

Mr Conway: I ask you now to turn to the bottom of page 148, looking at subsection (2) of

section 223, where it says very clearly that a council which proposes by bylaw to impose head taxes, gasoline taxes, sales taxes, income taxes, can, according to this section, "eliminate the requirement to obtain the assent of the electors" before passing such a bylaw.

Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): Incredible.

Mr Conway: Incredible. Your bill -- let me repeat -- gives municipalities clearly the right by bylaw to impose head taxes, sales taxes, gasoline taxes or income taxes, and your bill gives municipalities the right to waive any opportunity for electors to have a say about the imposition of such direct taxation.

Why would you want to proceed in such an incredible fashion, given the stated policy of your Premier about his concern about taxes generally, the thought of raising direct taxes of any kind, and particularly Taxfighter Mr Harris's solemn promise that there should be no such increases in taxation of a direct kind without the electors having their say through a plebiscite or referendum before such direct taxes might be imposed?

Hon Mr Leach: The question sounds familiar. The answer is the same. The municipality can have a referendum if it chooses to do so. If it chooses not to do so and it carries out some actions that are offensive to the taxpayer, the taxpayer will sort that out in the November elections that come every three years. That's the ultimate referendum.

TENANTS

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): My question is to the same minister. Minister, as the critic responsible for housing issues for my party, I've had the opportunity to meet with numerous amounts of tenants across this province. These tenants are telling me that they're desperately trying to get in to see you in order to talk to you about what you plan on doing in regard to your housing policies in this province.

We're finding out that even after they get a commitment to meet with you, in the end you end up backing out of those particular meetings. By way of example, you were to speak at the annual general meeting of the Federation of Metro Tenants' Associations on October 28. What did you do? You backed out. You were supposed to meet with other particular tenants' groups. You were supposed to meet and they had commitments to meet with you. You backed out again.

I want to know, if you're making changes to housing policy to the extent that you are in this province, which tenants are you meeting with in this province in order to get input into the process?

Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): I'm quite prepared to meet with any tenants' groups, and I have. United Tenants of Ontario is a great example; I met with them on several occasions.

Mr Bisson: If you're prepared to meet with any tenants' groups, why are you not meeting with the tenants within your own riding? The tenants at Regent Park have been trying to meet with you now on a number of occasions. They're here in the gallery because you won't meet with them; they've got to come down here and try to find you. On two occasions, the tenants from Regent Park have contacted either your minister's office or your member's office in order to get in to see you, and you don't have the decency to show up to the meetings that you're supposed to go to.

I want to ask the minister very directly one simple question: Are you prepared today, exactly right now after question period, to meet with the tenants of Regent Park and give them the opportunity to meet with you? If they can't meet within your riding, at least meet them here at Queen's Park.

Hon Mr Leach: If they contact my constituency office, I'll meet with them.

Mr David S. Cooke (Windsor-Riverside): They have.

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): They tried that and you said no.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Order.

Hon Mr Leach: If they contact my constituency office, I'll meet with them on Friday.

Mr Silipo: I guess that's a no.

The Speaker: New question, the member for Halton Centre.

Mr Silipo: If you don't meet with them and you don't read legislation, what do you do?

The Speaker: The member for Dovercourt is out of order. The member for Dovercourt, I won't warn you again.

ARTS AND CULTURAL FUNDING

Mr Terence H. Young (Halton Centre): My question is for the Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation. Minister, in the wake of November's financial statement, we've been hearing a number of concerns about cuts to the arts community. Some of those concerned individuals have even gone so far as to say that infrastructure built up over the last 30 years is in jeopardy.

Minister, can you reassure this House that the province's arts community still has the means to remain viable into the next century?

Hon Marilyn Mushinski (Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation): To the honourable member for Halton Centre, I'm very pleased that he asked that question. What I can tell the honourable member is that during the NDP's term in office, the Ontario Arts Council's budget increased by 37%; that's 37% in five years. Indeed, that included a one-time $7.5-million addition in 1991-92.

What I can also add is that the recent financial statement in-year restraints and the targets for next year mean that we are returning the Ontario Arts Council's budget to levels that are more consistent with past practice. That's before the implementation of the NDP's hand-over-fist spending policies.

Mr Young: What steps has the government taken to assist the Ontario Arts Council and other cultural agencies in light of the recently announced financial statement?

Hon Ms Mushinski: I met with many of the administrators of the various agency groups in September and they suggested to me that they are willing to go out and seek independent funds. However, they needed the tools with which to do that. Contrary to what previous governments have done, we have given many of our agencies crown status to put them on a level playing field to go out and raise funds from the private sector.

MUNICIPAL TAXATION

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): My question's to the Minister of Municipal Affairs, and it's still on page 147. It is the subsection (3), "A bylaw under this section...." It's the one dealing with your intent to allow municipalities to impose taxes: head taxes or sales taxes or gas taxes or even income taxes. Clause (

e) here says that this bylaw may provide for dealing with "different classes of persons" and may allow them to "deal with each class in a different way." Can you indicate what different classes of people you had in mind here and what way you might treat them differently?

Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): We had in mind seniors, for example, or school children, where they get half fares or they can be exempted from costs.

Mr Phillips: So just to be clear on that: As you are allowing municipalities to implement the head tax, or a sales tax, you are also giving them the complete flexibility to decide which groups will pay the head tax and which groups will not pay the head tax. You are not planning to put anything in this document around fairness and equity, but rather leave it to each municipality to decide what taxes they are going to impose and what groups, or classes, as you call them, of people they're going to impose them on. Is that the intent of your law?

Hon Mr Leach: The intent of this legislation is to give the municipalities the autonomy they need. If municipalities want to exempt seniors, then I think they should have the right to do that. If they want to exempt children from certain fees, they should be able to do that. I think, again, that municipalities are responsible.

AFUA BOATENG

Mr David S. Cooke (Windsor-Riverside): My question's to the Solicitor General and it concerns the death of four-year-old Afua Boateng, the four-year-old that the Roman Catholic children's aid society has been involved with for quite some time.

I'd simply like to ask the minister, since he has responsibility for the coroner, this is a very tragic situation that the children's aid obviously had been involved in for several weeks, and I'm sure it's a concern of his, as it is of ours, that the society would be that heavily involved with this child and still there was a death, and I'd like to ask whether, in addition to the police investigation and the judicial proceedings, the minister is prepared to commit to a coroner's inquest that would look at the role of the children's aid society in this particular case to discover what went wrong so that a tragedy like this never occurs again in our province.

Hon Bob Runciman (Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services): I appreciate the member's concerns surrounding this issue. I know that we all are very much concerned about the tragic circumstances surrounding this death. As the member knows, the matter is now before the courts. There's been a charge of second-degree murder laid in respect to this incident.

I'm advised that the Ministry of Community and Social Services has asked the Catholic children's aid society to conduct a review, and it will provide a serious occurrence preliminary report, according to ministry guidelines. Also, the Toronto area office of the ministry will review the society's actions and submit a final report to the ministry.

That does not in any way, shape or form preclude involvement of the coroner's office, and certainly I will apprise the chief coroner's office of the concerns raised here today. It's not within my area of responsibilities to direct the chief coroner to undertake such an investigation, but I'll certainly make him aware of the member's concerns.

Mr Cooke: The minister will be aware that cases like this have happened in the past, in particular a number of cases in the 1970s, and I'm not asking that a coroner's inquest would be held into items that would be in conflict with the court case that will now be going on. There were coroners' inquests that were held in the 1970s that made some very specific and helpful recommendations both for changes to law but also changes to procedures used at children's aid societies.

I think that an internal investigation is obviously appropriate, but it's also very appropriate that there be a public process so that any changes in policy and any changes in law that would be helpful to prevent this from happening again could in fact take place. That can only take place with public scrutiny.

So I'd ask the minister again. He can make a request to the coroner that this be examined and I'd ask that this be considered. This is a very serious situation that has to be dealt with in order to maintain confidence in our child welfare system.

Hon Mr Runciman: Again, I recognize the importance of the question the member is posing. I have some concern in respect to anything that might be inferred as directing the chief coroner's office to do certain things. I certainly will, as I indicated in my earlier response, make sure that his office is very much aware of the concerns being expressed here today.

I share the views that he expressed related to the results of inquests into somewhat similar circumstances in the past and serious incidents in the past where the recommendations of coroner's juries have indeed led to significant changes, positive changes in terms of how the province and agencies of the province deal with individuals in Ontario society.

At this point all I can do is again reiterate my assurance to the member that I will convey his concerns and the concerns of many of us in this assembly to the chief coroner.

CORRECTIONAL FACILITY COSTS

Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): My question is also for the Minister of Correctional Services. Recently, top federal corrections officials stated that swift action is needed to avoid a financial and social crisis in the federal penal system. The sentencing and corrections review group stated that the growing prison population has created spiralling costs and that a crisis was looming. In the medium term if government does not act to create an effective, sustainable system of policing, sentencing, corrections and parole, the system is in trouble. Minister, do we face a similar problem in Ontario?

Hon Bob Runciman (Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services): I thank you and I appreciate the question. We do indeed face many of the same challenges that the federal system is facing with respect to its corrections system. In fact, Ontario, as I've indicated in this House in the past, has the highest incarceration costs in Canada. We've discussed with many members of this assembly, who have some of the older jails in their ridings, the challenges we face in trying to get those costs down and at the same time recognize the unique circumstances of some of those jails located in remote areas, and that indeed poses us with significant challenges.

We're trying to address it in some respects with electronic monitoring, which I know the federal government is looking at as well, and I think we'll move into in a big way. Technology is improving and we're looking at a number of initiatives in this area, risk assessment so that we can move low-risk offenders out of facilities and institutions into the community, but at the same time imposing a punishment upon them while ensuring that we can keep our incarceration costs at a reasonable level.

There is a whole range of challenges out there and we're trying to come to grips with them.

PETITIONS

CHILD CARE

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and it reads:

"We, the undersigned, are firmly opposed to the erosion of the child care system. We are most particularly concerned about the unregulated child care sector, which represents the choice of most Ontario families, many living in rural areas. We urge this government to make its budget reduction in areas where children and families will not once again be the targets of cuts. Family resource programs support the informal sector of child care, which includes parents caring for their own children and care provided by grandparents, home child care providers and nannies."

I have attached my name to that petition as well.

HIGHWAY SAFETY

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): I beg indulgence to present a petition on behalf of my colleague Bud Wildman, the member for Algoma. It goes like this:

"Whereas further to your plan to cut back on snowplowing, a woman was killed Sunday, November 12, 1995, at the Whitefish exit of Highway 17, west of Sudbury, and her 15-year-old daughter was critically injured while the driver and passenger in the second vehicle were also listed in critical and serious condition respectively; and

"Whereas the incident occurred more than 24 hours after a snowstorm and the roads were not yet cleared or sanded and were in deplorable condition; and

"Whereas the hospital and rehabilitation costs of this accident alone far outweigh the costs of snowplowing, notwithstanding the horrible mental anguish which family and friends of the victims are and will go through that cannot be accounted for in dollar figures;

"We, the undersigned students, staff, parents, guardians of W.C. Eaket Secondary School and those of the community of Blind River petition the Legislature of Ontario to rescind the decision, for safety's sake, to cut funding to northern Ontario roads."

I add my signature to this petition.

CHILD CARE

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): I have a petition here signed by some 36 constituents from Northumberland. This petition is from the parents of Sunshine Heights day care with regard to the proposed voucher system:

"Whereas we disagree with this system due to the negative effects it will have on the quality of child care that is available and the effects it will have on parents' ability to continue work and studies knowing that our children are in centres of our choice;

"We, the undersigned parents of children at Sunshine Heights day care, respectfully request that the Parliament of Ontario take action to have the proposed voucher system eliminated and leave current subsidies in place."

OMNIBUS LEGISLATION

Mr Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa East): I have a petition that reads as follows:

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to withdraw Bill 26, Savings and Restructuring Act, 1995.

"We object to the bill because it terminates the partnership between the government and the physicians to manage health care on a joint basis; gives unilateral power to the Minister of Health to make cuts and dictate medical practice."

I have signed this petition as well.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I have a petition from Dan Gilbert and Pearl MacKay of the United Food and Commercial Workers, Local 1000A, on behalf of all their members who have signed these. It's addressed and it says:

"We, the undersigned, are opposed to the proposed changes to workers' compensation in Ontario, including the elimination of the current bipartite board of directors, the reduction of temporary benefits from 90% to 85%, the introduction of an unpaid waiting period for compensation benefits, legislated limits on entitlement, including repetitive strain, chronic pain and stress claims, reduced permanent pensions and pension supplements.

"Workers' compensation is not a handout, it is a legitimate obligation that the employers of this province have to workers in Ontario. We demand no reduction in existing benefits, improved vocational rehabilitation, tightened enforcement of health and safety to prevent accidents, no reduction in current staff levels at the WCB and continued support for the bipartite board structure."

I'm pleased to add my name to it.

JUNIOR KINDERGARTEN

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas countless studies have shown that children who attend junior kindergarten stay in school longer; have improved reading, math and language skills; a greater chance of future employment; lower rates of teenage pregnancy and delinquency; and higher enrolment in post-secondary education; and

"It has been shown that each dollar spent on early childhood education can reduce future spending on social problems by $7 and junior kindergarten funding cuts will obviously have long-term repercussions for us all; and

"Whereas the provincial government is considering making junior kindergarten optional in schools in Ontario,

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to maintain the present funding of junior kindergarten."

This is signed by some 402 among many other constituents in my riding, and I affix my own signature.

COMMON SENSE REVOLUTION

Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East): I have a petition which is signed by 16 residents in the riding of Sudbury East. It reads as follows:

"Whereas Mike Harris said on May 30, 1995, `If I don't live up to anything that I have promised to do and committed to do, I will resign'; and

"Whereas Mike Harris promised on May 3, 1995, `No cuts to health care spending,' but in his November 29 economic statement we see $1.3 billion or 18% in cuts to hospital spending over the next three years and a further $225 million in cuts from the health care budget; and

"Whereas Mike Harris has clearly broken his promise to defend health care cuts in funding; and

"Whereas Mike Harris promised in the Common Sense Revolution that, `Aid for seniors and the disabled will not be cut,' but in his November 29 economic statement Mike Harris is cutting the Ontario drug benefit plan and making seniors and the vulnerable pay for their drugs; and

"Whereas Mike Harris has clearly broken his promise to seniors and the disabled;

"We, the undersigned, demand that Mike Harris keep his word and resign immediately."

I have signed my name to it and I agree with the petitioners.

EDUCATION

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean): I have a petition signed by almost 1,000 residents of my constituency, led by Shari Ritter. It reads:

"We, the undersigned, want education legislated as an essential service."

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

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;

"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 name.

COMMENTS OF THE MINISTER RESPONSIBLE FOR WOMEN'S ISSUES

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly.

"Whereas six women present at a meeting held by the minister responsible for women's issues, Dianne Cunningham, at her constituency office on October 25, 1995, agree that they heard the minister state, `Within the context of this government, you need to understand that groups or agencies that are seen not to be working with this government, providing an oppositional voice...will be audited and their funding eliminated'; and

"Whereas the minister responsible for women's issues denies having made this statement;

"We, the undersigned, request that the government establish a legislative committee to determine whether the minister responsible for women's issues abused her authority as a minister of the crown by making threatening and intimidating remarks at the meeting described above."

This petition is signed by more than 100 women from all parts of Ontario, and I am pleased to affix my signature.

COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): I have a petition signed by 246 people from eastern Ontario. It reads as follows:

"To the Parliament of Ontario:

"Whereas the teachers of Ontario are already accountable to the province of Ontario through the Ontario Teachers' Federation; and

"Whereas the proposed College of Teachers would create a new, unneeded and costly bureaucracy,

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

"To refrain from enacting legislation with respect to the College of Teachers."

I also affix my signature to that petition.

KIRKENDALL STRATHCONA NEIGHBOURHOOD HOUSE

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I have petitions signed by over 1,300 people in my riding, forwarded to me by Anna Maria Martello and Birgit Bolton of Wesley Urban Ministries.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"It is with great concern that we are writing to you as consumers of the services at Kirkendall Strathcona Neighbourhood House. We understand that a large portion of provincial funding is being cut from the services that Wesley Urban Ministries provides at the Kirkendall Strathcona Neighbourhood House. We are users of these services and feel that they have tremendous benefit to our health and wellbeing.

"We know others who come to the community kitchen, to the day care, to the exercises classes, to the Scouts and Brownies, to the Christmas store, where they receive free food and gifts, and to many other activities.

"Many of us will be very isolated and without assistance because of our language and cultural barriers if the doors of Kirkendall Strathcona Neighbourhood House were closed and the services discontinued.

"The services are extended also to the seniors who are homebound. Without these services and other services provided, for example by VON, the seniors would not have been able to stay in their own homes.

"We know we would not be as healthy and as happy without Kirkendall Strathcona Neighbourhood House and without the services provided there, and all our friends say the same thing. Please don't cut the funding to Wesley Urban Ministries, which support Kirkendall Strathcona Neighbourhood House services."

I affix my signature.

ADULT EDUCATION

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): I have a petition from a group called Preserve Adult Education Programs Action Plan.

"To the Legislative Assembly:

"We, the undersigned, believe that, as adult learners who are residents and parents as well as students in our own right, there should be no discrimination in education on the basis of age.

"Statistics show that adult education programs in public high schools get people off welfare into retraining and into better jobs.

"We, the learners, believe we deserve the right to public education in order to better our lives and that of our province."

I've affixed my signature.

SUDBURY MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): This petition was circulated by Kerry Carswell, president of the ONA at Sudbury Memorial.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Sudbury Memorial Hospital is the most fiscally responsible health care facility in Sudbury; and

"Whereas Sudbury Memorial Hospital is the regional cardiovascular centre for all of northeastern Ontario;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to maintain Sudbury Memorial Hospital as an acute care centre."

HIGHWAY SAFETY

Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): I've a petition signed by over 5,000 northern Ontario residents who continue to be concerned about the downgrading of winter road maintenance in northern Ontario. The petition reads:

"Whereas the Ministry of Transportation is intent on reducing northern winter road maintenance services; and

"Whereas such downgrading places the lives of northern resident at undue and unnecessary risk;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to disallow these reductions in service and to guarantee that winter roads across the northern regions of the province receive the necessary maintenance to ensure the safe passage of drivers."

I'm proud to sign my name to this.

VEHICLE LICENSING OFFICE

Mr Pat Hoy (Essex-Kent): I have a petition signed by 1,383 persons from in and around the village of Ridgetown.

"We, the undersigned, are asking the Ministry of Transportation to re-evaluate their position in regard to putting a vehicle licensing office back into the town of Ridgetown.

"By signing this petition, we are saying that the licensing office is needed here."

HIGHWAY SAFETY

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the Ministry of Transportation is intent on reducing northern winter road maintenance services; and

"Whereas such downgrading places the lives of northern residents at undue and unnecessary risk;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to disallow these reductions in service and to guarantee that winter roads across the northern regions of the province receive the necessary maintenance to ensure the safe passage of drivers."

I've affixed my name to that petition as well.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I have 200 signatures on these petitions. They read as follows:

"We wish to register our opinion regarding Bill 7. We understand you would not know how your individual constituents feel about this issue unless they informed you.

"We work at the Penetanguishene Mental Health Centre, of course, with the OPSEU union. We are very concerned about the future of our jobs, our work, our homes, our community and the level of service that will be provided to the public in the area of mental health with the passing of Bill 7.

"We have worked long and hard and bargained in good faith to reach agreements that have worked well for the employer, the employees and those who need our services, and feel it is unfair to negate all this with the passing of a bill.

"An agreement should be an agreement. We are expected to uphold our end of it, and do. With the last government, it was a social contract; now with the Conservatives, it may be no contract."

I sign my signature also.

SUDBURY ACTION CENTRE FOR YOUTH

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Sudbury Action Centre for Youth has helped nearly 130,000 people since 1986;

"Whereas more than 35,000 youths have come to the centre for various services;

"Whereas nearly 10,000 people have filled casual, full- or part-time jobs;

"Whereas 372 youths have returned to school; and

"Whereas the government of Ontario has decided to close community youth support program including the Sudbury Action Centre for Youth;

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

"That the government of Ontario continue to fund the Sudbury Action Centre for Youth."

I have most supportively affixed my signature to the petition.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT

Mr Gilchrist from the standing committee on resources development presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bill without amendment:

Bill 15,

An Act to amend the Workers' Compensation Act and the Occupational Health and Safety Act / Projet de loi 15, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les accidents du travail et la

Loi sur la santé et la sécurité au travail.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Shall the report be received and adopted? Agreed.

Shall Bill 15 be ordered for third reading? Agreed.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE ACT, 1995 / LOI DE 1995 SUR L'ASSURANCE-AUTOMOBILE

Mr Sergio moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 29,

An Act to provide for Fair Automobile Insurance Practices / Projet de loi 29, Loi visant à prévoir de justes pratiques en matière d'assurance-automobile.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

SAVINGS AND RESTRUCTURING ACT, 1995 / LOI DE 1995 SUR LES ÉCONOMIES ET LA RESTRUCTURATION

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 26,

An Act to achieve Fiscal Savings and to promote Economic Prosperity through Public Sector Restructuring, Streamlining and Efficiency and to implement other aspects of the Government's Economic Agenda / Loi visant à réaliser des économies budgétaires et à favoriser la prospérité économique par la restructuration, la rationalisation et l'efficience du secteur public et visant à mettre en oeuvre d'autres aspects du programme économique du gouvernement.

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I'm pleased to continue debate on what we call Bill 26, what I think many of the public may have come to know as the omnibus bill. Before I get into the details of the bill, I might once again indicate the importance of this bill to Ontario and the reason why it is so imperative that everybody in Ontario have an understanding of this bill. I would urge people in Ontario to pay attention to the bill and to let their voices be heard.

I would say that it was less than two weeks ago that we first saw this bill, on November 29. This bill is huge. It's 210 pages. It is sweeping. It touches 47 different acts in this province. It has major, major implications. We never saw this bill, the public never saw this bill, until November 29, and it was the government's intention to force this bill through by the end of this week.

This would have gone from no one seeing this bill on November 29 to law on Thursday. In our opinion, and I think in the opinion of the people of Ontario, that's simply wrong. It is dead wrong to try and force through something this major, touching, as I will talk in a few minutes, on every single person in this province, dealing with 47 different statutes. To try and ram this through in two weeks is wrong. The people of Ontario, I think, are beginning to realize what's in here. This isn't an innocent, little bill. This is, as I'll show in a few minutes and other speakers will show, extremely important.

I hope the government recognizes the anger that we in the opposition feel, that frankly now many groups in the province feel. I think at the end of this exercise the people of Ontario will feel, "How in the world did the government believe it had the right to force this thing through in two weeks?"

It is only now that people who are going to be affected by this -- hospitals, doctors, pharmacists, every municipality, every senior who will have a user fee put on them, the people who are going to be laid off in the public service and are going to lose pension benefits, every firefighter, every police officer, every hospital worker, every teacher has their bargaining rights fundamentally changed in this bill.

It is only now that the associations that represent them are beginning to get into the bill. I can tell you that as a member daily now I get phone calls and faxes from groups saying, "This bill changes our life, and we need an opportunity to be heard."

Perhaps I might speak firstly to the process around here, because I do think to the people of Ontario it is extremely important. What was that battle we had here last week all about? It was about the need for a reasonable debate on something this fundamental, instead of trying to ram it through, from the time we saw it to the time it was law, in virtually two weeks.

I might add another minor concern relative to the bigger concern: This bill was introduced while we were in what's called a lockup. I am the Finance critic for our party, the Liberal Party. It was essential that we be in a lockup when the government was presenting its fiscal statement on November 29. So at 9 o'clock in the morning, I, along with many of my colleagues in our caucus and many of the NDP members, went to a lockup to be briefed on this fiscal statement.

While we were in that lockup, not allowed out until 4 o'clock, the government introduced this bill and forced through what's called first reading at 3:30 in the afternoon. That was deliberate. It was a deliberate attempt to introduce the bill when many of the members were not in the House, for understandable reasons. This is what's called a finance bill. It is a bill that I am the critic for. It was introduced with the full knowledge that I could not possibly be in the House. There was no way I could be in the House. It was deliberately done and I think it was a mistake by the government -- again, not to be repeated, I hope.

Just to begin to get into the content of this bill, because the people of Ontario, I think, are beginning to recognize what's in this bill and frankly beginning to recognize that the government doesn't know what it's doing on the bill.

Just this afternoon, we saw the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, who has a very large

section in this bill dealing with municipalities, and frankly, he had no idea what was in the bill. When one question was asked on an absolutely fundamental point about what taxes he was going to permit municipalities to levy, rather than answering the question, he said, "I'll have to take that as notice." For those who may not be familiar with that term, what it means is: "I don't know. I'm going to have to find out and I'll get back to you tomorrow." That is amazing. This bill gives the municipalities the right to levy what is called direct taxes, and the minister did not know what they were.

The minister also responded to another question, where it was said, "Not only are you giving the right to introduce these taxes, but you're taking away the right of citizens to appeal those taxes to the OMB, the Ontario Municipal Board, a traditional right they had." We said, "Why are you taking that right away?" The minister said, "I'm not taking that right away." Then about two minutes later, he had to get up and acknowledge he was wrong. He didn't know the bill. He didn't know that this bill very specifically says, "No application to the OMB." It goes on in a paragraph here to say that they are taking away the right of appeal of citizens on these taxes that they are going to introduce.

Why I'm raising this is to indicate that not only does the public have no idea what's in this bill -- and understandably -- but the ministers don't. The Minister of Municipal Affairs -- it was embarrassing today frankly that he didn't know what was in the bill. I might also add he had a briefing note that was clearly wrong.

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): It was the wrong briefing note.

Mr Phillips: It was the wrong briefing note. So the public, I think, can begin to understand the anger that's on this side of the House when we are looking at sweeping changes. This change, just one change, allows for the first time ever the introduction at municipal levels of head taxes. It allows them to introduce sales taxes. It is clear that some municipalities have asked for this, we understand that, but the minister is giving them carte blanche authority to introduce them, to introduce them with a bylaw. There is no need for them to get the consent of the electorate.

In fact, part of this bill specifically says now, when you used to have to go and get approval from the electors, you can simply pass a bylaw to eliminate the requirement to obtain the assent of the electors, before passing the bylaw under this section. In other words, you can introduce a mere bylaw and introduce the tax.

I would like to perhaps move quickly through other aspects of this bill that are equally sweeping and equally important that they are trying to ram through, originally in two weeks. Here's another one. It looks fairly innocent; it's

schedule L. It's the amendments to the Public Service Pension Act and the Ontario Public Service Employees' Union Pension Act. We asked: "Why are you doing this? What is this little two-page" -- it's just two pages out of 210 pages. "Why are you doing this?"

Here was the answer: "We are planning to lay off perhaps 10,000 people. If we don't enact this, they would be entitled to benefits worth $225 million of pension benefits. So here's what we're going to do. The first thing we're going to do is we are going to exempt ourselves from the Pension Benefits Act."

The Pension Benefits Act, for all of us here, was

an act enacted by this Legislature to protect pensioners; public sector pensioners, private sector pensioners, to protect them. It's often referred to as the Conrad Black bill because, some of you may remember, some time ago -- we've all been to Dominion stores. In fact, in the briefing it was referred to as that. It said this bill, the Pension Benefits Act, came in as a result of Conrad Black attempting to do some things with pensions.

But this bill exempts the government from it. In other words, it says, "We don't care what's in the Pension Benefits Act; we're exempting ourselves from it." Why? Because you're going to lay off a lot of people and because they would be entitled to $225 million worth of benefits. You may say: "Well, these are tough times. We have to do it." But surely the people who are impacted by that at least deserve an opportunity to be heard, to come to a committee, to have an explanation and to express their concerns about it. But no, we were going to pass this in two weeks, with virtually no public debate on it.

I'm skipping through various sections of this because my time speaking is going to be limited today. But there's another

section in here around hospitals and hospital care. I think many of the members of the Legislature have probably served on hospital boards. It's an important part of community service. It is a historical way in Ontario that communities have been able to, with their hospitals, reflect the community need, to have community input into the service offered in those hospitals and, frankly, to ensure that we have a sense of community around our health care.

Today the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing was saying: "We believe in giving local autonomy. We believe the community understands the needs. That's why we're going to give them the right to put taxes on." But in health care, in the hospitals, the minister and the minister alone will have the right to direct hospitals "1. To provide specified services to a specified extent or of a specified volume" and instruct hospitals "2. To cease to provide specified services" and "3. To increase or decrease the extent or volume of specified services."

The minister and the minister alone has the final authority to tell every hospital in this province what services they can and what services they cannot provide. The minister and the minister alone has the authority under this bill to tell which hospitals are open and which hospitals are closed; unprecedented authority. Frankly, for those of us who have a sense that perhaps our local hospital has a sense of the community, this is total, total management at Queen's Park of our Ontario health care system, strange and sweeping powers.

Again I don't know why the backbench members have not raised their voices because many of them, I would have thought, have served on hospital boards and would be concerned about these sweeping powers.

Mr Len Wood: They don't understand it.

Mr Phillips: My colleague says they don't understand the bill and, after today, I dare say you're right. I do not think --

Mr Len Wood: It's quite obvious they don't understand the bill.

Mr Phillips: In fairness to all of the members -- I am what's called the critic for this bill. I carry the thing around with me and I read it a lot, and it has taken two weeks to begin to understand the bill -- to begin to understand it. Every day my colleague Mr Arnott also has the same bill with him. Every page now as I get into it has major implications for Ontario, but it was the intention of the government to put it through in two weeks.

Just this morning I talked to some of our doctors who, I might add, are extremely worried about this bill. On page 91, dealing with confidentiality, it says, "The minister may enter into agreements to collect, use and disclose personal information concerning insured services provided by physicians, practitioners or health facilities," and later on in the bill it says if that happens to get out, the minister and whoever else released it are not responsible in any way.

The Minister of Health says to us, "Well, that language exists elsewhere." I say to him, with all due respect, it does not exist elsewhere. This is broad, sweeping -- I hate to use the term "dictatorial" because it sounds almost like we're exaggerating -- but dictatorial powers for the Minister of Health to collect and to have available and to release with no penalty this information.

I don't think there are many things that people in this province feel as strongly about as their relationship with their physician. If we destroy that, if we destroy --

Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke-Rexdale): You helped to do it.

Mr Phillips: Now there's the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale yelling in the back and he, I guess, is saying to the doctors of this province: "This is fine. I don't mind the Minister of Health collecting this information and releasing it."

Mr Hastings: We're talking about what you did.

Mr Phillips: Well, there he is -- he's barking over there now. He supported not having public hearings, I gather, and I gather he supports this. I will just say to him, you're going to be very, very embarrassed when the truth begins to come out about this bill and you yourselves will have a stack of amendments that you're going to want to push through, trying to patch this bill up. I know you've been told to come in here and bark and barrack and yell, not listen.

Mr Len Wood: Try to intimidate the opposition.

Mr Phillips: "Try to intimidate the opposition," my colleague says. I would just say to you, it's going to be embarrassing for you when you have to stand and approve a whole bunch of amendments to this bill because you were wrong. I predict that will be the case and your face will be as red as your tie.

The confidentiality provisions in here, according to the doctors, and frankly I listen to the doctors in this matter, are unprecedented. They don't exist anywhere else and the Minister of Health is saying -- I'd ask you to go to your caucus and ask him to prove that because the doctors showed me the existing legislation and there are no penalties as a result of it.

On the confidentiality section, it's clear that these are sweeping powers. I might just say this as an aside: I watch new cabinet ministers in action and the ones who start saying, "I," "I," "I," "I" are the ones you watch, and the Minister of Health --

Hon Charles Harnick (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): Not me.

Mr Phillips: The Attorney General's here and I don't think he used the word "I," but the Minister of Health now thinks he owns the system. He's the big boss of the system and it's "I," "I," "I." You watch. And this bill reflects that. I would say to the back bench, listen to the cabinet ministers who start to think they and they alone have authority.

On the physician services delivery, which is

schedule I, there's not much doubt that the government wants the right to tell doctors where they can and cannot practise in the province. That's what this bill is all about. You eliminate the Ontario Medical Association, essentially, as the doctors' bargaining agent.

I would say to you, do that at your peril, because the OMA does, I think, an excellent job of mediating among physicians, and they are a challenging group, because they each obviously have strong opinions. But the OMA has done a good job of mediating among the doctors and trying to reach a consensus among them. You are going to take on that responsibility yourself, and it's a mistake. There are other ways, in my opinion, of solving the underservicing in the north and other communities. But you want to use the big stick here, and it is a huge stick. It essentially takes the OMA out of the piece.

I'm leafing through the bill just to indicate on almost every page the seriousness of some of these moves. This one is not a big deal, but this has to do with putting liens on one's house if you haven't paid a toll. What this is, there's a highway called Highway 407 that will be a toll road. The government wants to make absolutely sure that anybody who hasn't paid their toll will pay their toll. So they go to the extreme measure here of saying, "If you don't pay the toll, we can put a lien on your house or a lien