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

January 20, 1997

36th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

L147 - Mon 20 Jan 1997 / Lun 20 Jan 1997

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

ROAD SAFETY

FAMILY SUPPORT PLAN

ASSISTANCE TO FLOOD VICTIMS

SERVICES FOR THE DISABLED

WORKPLACE FATALITIES

MARTIN LUTHER KING JR

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

SCHOOL ACCOMMODATION

EDUCATION FINANCING

VISITOR

ORAL QUESTIONS

PROPERTY TAXATION

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

PROPERTY TAXATION

AIR QUALITY

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

TERMINATION AND SEVERANCE PAYMENTS

SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS UNIT

PROPERTY TAXATION

BAIL SUPERVISION PROGRAM

HIGHWAY FINANCING

FOREST INDUSTRY

SEPTIC SYSTEMS

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTIONS

PETITIONS

NORTH YORK BRANSON HOSPITAL

FAMILY SUPPORT PLAN

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

PAY EQUITY

ONTARIO CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTE

BEAR HUNTING

EDUCATION REFORM

YOUTH UNEMPLOYMENT

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

NUCLEAR WEAPONS

FIRE SAFETY

PUBLIC LIBRARIES

HOTEL DIEU HOSPITAL

HIGHWAY SAFETY

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

SCHOOL PRAYERS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

WATER AND SEWAGE SERVICES IMPROVEMENT ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 SUR L'AMÉLIORATION DES SERVICES D'EAU ET D'ÉGOUT

STREAMLINING OF ADMINISTRATION OF PROVINCIAL OFFENCES ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 SIMPLIFIANT L'ADMINISTRATION EN CE QUI A TRAIT AUX INFRACTIONS PROVINCIALES

LOCAL CONTROL OF PUBLIC LIBRARIES ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 SUR LE CONTRÔLE LOCAL DES BIBLIOTHÈQUES PUBLIQUES

OPPOSITION DAY

METROPOLITAN TORONTO REFERENDUM

The House met at 1331.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

ROAD SAFETY

Mr Pat Hoy (Essex-Kent): Last Thursday on Highway 401 near my home a transport truck lost a part, which bounced into the path of a vehicle. The car is a write-off and the driver was taken to the hospital with three broken fingers.

In the midst of the media storm created by government inaction on truck safety, followed by several serious accidents over the Christmas break, the Premier personally promised to do whatever it takes to get unsafe trucks off the road. This is not a problem which only occurs in the GTA or the Golden Horseshoe; it happened on Thursday near Merlin, Ontario.

The government is so busy restructuring the face of Ontario, making mega-announcements, spending mega-dollars on advertising and dumping mega-responsibilities on to municipalities that it doesn't have the time to solve the road safety problems and protect innocent drivers.

This is another example of the government's rhetoric on safety: In the past five years 10 children have died in school bus accidents because of inadequate laws.

My private member's bill will protect children riding school buses. However, as with truck safety, the government is ignoring the real actions necessary for school bus safety by stalling and refusing to

schedule my bill in the standing committee on resources development, which currently has no other business before it. I call on the Premier to protect Ontario school children by immediately calling Bill 78 to the standing committee on resources development.

FAMILY SUPPORT PLAN

Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East): Last Friday MPPs were sent more information from the Attorney General, pretending that things are under control at the family support plan. Nothing could be further from the truth. The memo asked MPPs to encourage constituents to contact the program directly in order to discuss their case with a client service associate.

At 10:10 this morning my assistant dialled 1-800-267-4330, as instructed. The phone rang busy and the line went dead on two attempts. She then called the automated information system for payment information for a client. She dialled 1-800-267-7263, as instructed. The message said that if she wanted to speak to an operator directly, to call the same line that went dead this morning.

The message then advised clients to enter "1" for payment information, "2" for enforcement information, and then it said, "If you have any new information, for example, regarding the support payor's place of employment, please write to the regional office where your case is registered," the same regional offices that were closed by this minister in mid-August.

The memo did not include 1-800-830-4353. This is the number to call for information on compensation if you've incurred additional costs as a result of late payments. While the Attorney General had to give me the number last week in response to a question, it was not given to MPPs in the package last Friday because the minister doesn't want clients to have it, because he doesn't want to pay them.

The crisis at the family support plan continues, and the minister's incompetence in dealing with the changes continues too.

ASSISTANCE TO FLOOD VICTIMS

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound): I rise with a plea of support for a community in my riding that is in a state of emergency.

On January 8 the town of Durham was forced to evacuate many residents and businesses after ice blocked the Saugeen River and flooded the town. Two hundred and fifty residents, or 10% of the population, were displaced from their homes, many of whom will be unable to return home until spring or summer.

Thank you to my colleague the honourable Dianne Cunningham for travelling to Durham last week. Local officials were grateful to have a member of cabinet witness the situation first hand. Both the minister and I were overwhelmed by the flood damage, and despite snow and subzero temperatures, the volunteer effort has been exceptional. My personal thanks to these individuals.

Today the flooding is under control but the battle is far from over. The time and money required to rebuild will be massive, and many homeowners do not have insurance. Unlike a tornado, flooding is not a standardized insurance hazard, thus many will suffer a large financial burden. This morning I learned that estimates show personal property damage in excess of $1 million. This far exceeds local relief abilities.

As a result the council of the town has requested aid under the Ontario disaster relief assistance program. I support this request and I am confident our government will see fit to match local effort. Also, the Ontario municipal support grant allows the minister to make a grant or loan to a municipality in circumstances beyond its control and of an unusual nature. I believe the town of Durham warrants such consideration.

Finally, there is much work to be done. Donations to the relief fund are being accepted at many locations.

SERVICES FOR THE DISABLED

Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): I rise today to introduce the members of this House to one of my constituents, who is with us in the gallery today. A Thunder Bay resident, Veronica Manuel has fought for years to keep her severely disabled son Dylan at home. Through all the challenges that Dylan faces daily, he has one very special champion: his mother.

Veronica's message to all members of this House is that despite her love for her son and her desire to keep him at home, this government's cuts and cruel policies have set up the system so that she will fail.

At the request of the Liberal caucus, the social development committee will begin hearings today that will provide an opportunity for groups and individuals from across the province to bring their belief in the importance of disability services to Queen's Park.

These hearings are pretty much the only way we can bring forward the significant damage this government has caused through its cuts since taking office 18 months ago. It's becoming abundantly clear that many of their cuts, ranging from user fees for the Ontario drug benefit plan to the recent complete dumping of services like Wheel-Trans and Handi-Transit in Thunder Bay to municipalities, will have a dramatic effect on persons with disabilities.

I want to take the opportunity also to recognize some of the Thunder Bay groups that provide services to persons with disabilities but couldn't be with us today. The Lakehead Association for Community Living, the Organization for the Multi-Disabled, PACE, PUSH Northwest, the Independent Living Centre, the Handicapped Action Group and the George Jeffrey Treatment Centre all provide invaluable service to the Thunder Bay community.

WORKPLACE FATALITIES

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I am today calling on the Harris government to immediately call a coroner's inquest into the deaths of two workers at Dofasco's bayfront steel mill. Two employees of Auburn Industrial Services, a maintenance company contracted for the past six years by Dofasco, died last Friday while performing maintenance work on a tank used to treat molten steel. It is suspected that the two men, one from Hamilton and the other from Burlington, suffocated because of too little oxygen in the tank.

This accident raises grave safety concerns, and the Harris government must immediately call an inquest to get to the bottom of the matter before any more workers are killed. How do other workers and their families know it won't be them next time?

The United Steelworkers of America, Local 4153, which represented the two workers, is also calling for a coroner's inquest. This accident needs a thorough investigation that includes the full participation of the United Steelworkers of America.

I conclude by offering the condolences of my colleagues in the New Democratic caucus to the families and friends of those workers who were injured in the line of their work.

MARTIN LUTHER KING JR

Mr Jim Brown (Scarborough West): Today the world pauses to remember and celebrate the life of Martin Luther King Jr, and reflect on the ideals for which he struggled and for which he died.

As minister of the Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta, Dr King was catapulted into international prominence as the leader of the Montgomery bus boycott in 1955. He founded the Southern Christian Leadership Conference to spearhead non-violent mass demonstrations against racism. Dr King's campaigns were instrumental in the passage of the US Civil Rights Acts of 1964, 1965 and 1968.

As a result of his activism, Dr King lived in constant danger. His home was dynamited, he was almost fatally stabbed and he was jailed 30 times. Despite all this, Dr Martin Luther King Jr remained true to his code of non-violence.

After delivering his greatest prophetic sermon at Washington Cathedral on March 31, 1968, Dr King was brutally murdered by an assassin's bullet four days later. A non-violent activist, he died a violent death.

Today Martin Luther King Jr is acclaimed by the world as a martyr, a prophet and patron saint of the human rights movement. Like the biblical Elijah, he went to the mountaintop where, like Moses, he had seen the promised land, and he knew that one day he and all people would be free at last.

I am extremely proud to have personally marched in support of Dr King.

I invite all members of the House to join me in the Martinsday celebrations, organized by the Toronto Martinsday committee, taking place throughout Toronto. May the person and the ideals of Martin Luther King Jr --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you.

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): Last week the government managed to fire off many, many announcements -- mega-announcements. The reality is that last week's announcements were about dumping costs on to Ontario's cities and towns. City leaders and town leaders have yet to realize the dramatic impact that the dumping of these costs is going to have, but so far they're putting on a brave face. Hardly could we expect that city and county leaders would at this point dare to stand up against a Harris government, seeing as anyone who does that to this heavy-handed group faces regular penalties that it's prepared to dole out to anyone opposed to its agenda.

The real facts are these: The Harris government is dumping huge costs on to cities, towns and counties across Ontario, dumping costs of seniors' homes, roads, buses, welfare, child care, and the list goes on. Whom are they dumping them on? Residential taxpayers. Let's make no mistake about what last week's announcements were about: dumping on to residential taxpayers.

City leaders will be hard-pressed not to raise taxes. Their choices become one of two: They either raise taxes or they cut service. This brings us back to the depression-plagued 1930s. The province had to take back these services. Why? Because Ontario towns couldn't afford them. They were going bankrupt.

Last week's announcement --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you.

Interjection: Is that okay?

The Speaker: No, that's not actually.

Interjection.

The Speaker: It may be an announcement, but you can't accuse the government of --

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): You cut her off, so it's not in Hansard.

The Speaker: Yes, I cut her off; it's not in Hansard. It doesn't matter; I heard the member for Windsor-Sandwich. I don't know if you know, member for Windsor-Sandwich: You can't accuse the government of perpetrating the big lie.

Interjection: She said the announcements were.

The Speaker: Announcement or not, it's still an accusation. It's out of order.

Statements.

SCHOOL ACCOMMODATION

Mr Gilles Pouliot (Lake Nipigon): Last week, I received a petition signed by more than 200 students of the Marathon High School in the riding of Lake Nipigon. Truly, this petition is a sad reflection of the current state of education in the province of Ontario. The students state emphatically that the government's cuts are having a negative impact on everyone at the school. They describe outdated textbooks, defective science equipment, inadequate supplies and a poorly heated high school. Last week, the thermometer plunged to a wind chill factor of minus 60.

They voice their frustration at this government's indifference to the large student-teacher ratio and the overcrowding of students in small, stuffy classrooms. They do not depict conditions conducive to good learning order.

The culmination of this pent-up frustration will no doubt lead to the inferior education of students, and yet they will be expected to compete and lead this province into the future. These students are eager to face these challenges. They must have a solid education if they are to be well equipped to defend and cope with society in the future. I join the students from the Marathon High School and demand that this government stop the cuts immediately.

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mr Marcel Beaubien (Lambton): Many constituents are contacting me every day to congratulate this government for its commitment to remove $5.4 billion from the property tax bill and bring in greater accountability and move local services to local governments.

One of the criticisms levelled at this government by the hysterical opposition is that our education reforms will make the public school less democratically accountable. Rory Leishman, of the London Free Press, has this to say about that:

"That's nonsense. Ontario's publicly funded school boards and their bureaucracies could hardly be less accountable than they are already.... It has long been evident that Ontario's publicly funded schools have become intolerably expensive, inefficient and unaccountable to the public. Last year, the Harris government slashed both spending and taxes, only to have 70% of school boards increase their residential taxes once again." He calls what my colleague the Minister of Education and Training is doing "sound reform."

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

VISITOR

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): I'm sure the members will want to know that in the opposition members' gallery today is, from the previous Legislature, the member for Wentworth North, Mr Don Abel. Welcome very much.

ORAL QUESTIONS

PROPERTY TAXATION

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Minister of Municipal Affairs. The dust has settled somewhat since mega-week, Minister, and I think it's become clear to all of us that what you did last week was that you lit the fuse on a bomb that's going to cause a property tax explosion right across this province. At the end of the day, last week's announcements meant one thing and one thing alone: Residential property taxpayers are going to be left holding the bag when you saddle them with your decision to dump $1 billion in new costs on their shoulders.

After a week of announcements that were deliberately designed to confuse, but didn't have their effect, will you today come clean and admit that your dumping is going to lead to property tax increases right across Ontario?

Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): To the Leader of the Opposition, it is quite the contrary. The announcements we made last week are going to lead to better government. They're going to lead to more consistent decisions. Taking $5.4 billion off the property tax is going to give significant room for municipalities to implement the programs they've been asked to look after. I am sure they can do that, and I'm quite confident that if they do it with the expertise they have within their municipalities, they will be able to reduce taxes.

Mr McGuinty: That's not what people are saying out there, Minister. That's not what people are saying out there. You're not hearing them.

We've done the numbers, we've done the calculations, and they clearly show we're looking at an additional $1 billion in costs that property taxpayers across the province are going to have to pick up. That's even after working in your bail-out fund. You're still over $1 billion short. That's $1 billion in new property taxes.

Take the people of Hamilton. They're going to be $61 million short -- that's $61 million in new property taxes. My community, Ottawa, will be $80 million short -- that's 184 bucks a year in new property tax increases for the average homeowner in the Ottawa area.

Minister, how can you justify dumping over $1 billion in new costs on the backs of hardworking, decent, law-abiding property taxpayers right across the province?

Hon Mr Leach: The Leader of the Opposition says they've developed the numbers. Well, right away I have some suspicion as to the credibility of those numbers. We said last week that we were going to take about $6.4 billion off the property tax and that we would expect the municipalities to be able to absorb a like, equal amount.

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): Could you speak up, please?

Hon Mr Leach: I'd love to speak out if I could, Sandra, believe me.

We looked at this to be a wash if the municipalities could be able to absorb -- and we're quite confident they can -- through efficiencies any differences that may occur from one municipality to another. There's no doubt that some municipalities are going to be ahead of the game and some municipalities are going to be slightly behind the game, but we're sure that with the fund we've set up to help them, it will all work out as a wash in the end.

Mr McGuinty: I want to say again to the minister, this is not the case of a wash. If the minister has not done the calculations, we have. We're talking about one billion new dollars in additional costs that are going to have to be borne by property taxpayers. The figures are right there in black and white.

My colleague from Ottawa-Vanier was able to speak with four mayors in the Ottawa-Carleton area and they told him quite clearly that, if anything, property taxes were going to go up, not down. It's not just the people in larger cities either who are going to see their property taxes rise: The people in the riding of Prescott-Russell are also going to see the effects of your property tax explosion. You've short-changed them in Prescott-Russell by $23 million.

Minister, stop pretending this is a fair shake. This is not an even swap, it's not a wash. Call it what it is, please: Call it the largest dumping of services on the property taxes this province has ever seen.

Hon Mr Leach: I don't know where they came up with their $1-billion number. It must be from the same people who calculated their days-of-protest crowd.

We have said and we continue to repeat that there are some municipalities whose funding is going to be less than they would like and there are some municipalities that are going to be ahead of the game. That is why we set aside $1 billion of our restructuring fund to assist those municipalities that may require help in this process. It's just for that purpose. We know there are some municipalities, whether they're the municipalities that the member opposite has mentioned or not, I do not know at this point in time, but if there are municipalities that require help, that help will be there.

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

Mr McGuinty: My next question is to the same minister. With respect to that new $1 billion, let's be straight about that: That's a fraud. What we're really talking about here is the same old municipal support grant. It's the same darn thing. You've just given it a new name. There's no new money there.

The second question: If you want to talk about studies, let's home in on some studies here. You've got at least three impact studies on the neighbourhood-by-neighbourhood effects of your property tax changes. Last week we asked the Minister of Finance to release those studies so residential property taxpayers could figure out exactly what the implications of AVA were going to mean to them. He refused.

Minister, why are you keeping those studies, which we know you have, private? Why are you keeping them secret? What do those studies show that makes you so afraid to release them to us?

Hon Mr Leach: I personally don't have any house-by-house impact studies. I think everybody knows, including the opposition, that the numbers for the new assessment system, AVA, were developed by taking the 1992 market value assessment numbers which were published widely across Metropolitan Toronto -- as a matter of fact, it was the reason that Metropolitan Toronto's assessment process went down the tubes by at least $100 million a year. What we did is we took those numbers, factored them up to 1995 and said, "This would be the approximate impact on our neighbourhood study."

The city of Toronto has those numbers, the city of Scarborough has those numbers, the city of North York has those numbers; everybody has those numbers. The only people who probably don't have them are the members of the opposition, and I'm sure that if they looked in their files, they would probably find them.

Mr McGuinty: This is incredible. What we're talking about here is the most significant change in property tax assessment in the history of this province and there have been no impact studies done.

Let's move on to another area where I hope you did some studies. I assume you wouldn't be turning over new responsibilities to our municipalities without first knowing the community-by-community impacts that are going to be felt. Surely you've got to have some idea of the costs that will be incurred by each municipality as a result of your dumping on them. So I'm going to ask you to release that information, as distinct from any AVA studies. Tell us exactly what those studies show. Tell us -- show us -- how your dumping can lead to anything but a property tax explosion right across Ontario.

Hon Mr Leach: I find it strange that the Leader of the Opposition could stand up just two minutes ago and say that they've done all the numbers -- he was quoting municipality-by-municipality numbers -- and then say he doesn't have any information. Where did he get this number? Obviously the information is available to the opposition, or this individual wouldn't be able to produce numbers such as that. Of course, it may be that they're just making them up; I don't know. From the sounds of it, they could well be.

We have said on a number of occasions that some municipalities are going to be slightly ahead as a result of the transfer of responsibilities and some are going to be behind. That's why we're setting up that $1-billion fund.

Mr McGuinty: The only reliable information that's been put forward in this House is our figures. We're not afraid to show these. They're right here in black and white and they clearly show that property taxpayers in Ontario are looking at an additional $1 billion in taxes. Those are the only numbers that are on the table. If you disagree with ours, then put up yours. It's as simple as that.

Since you refuse to release your information, we can only consume our facts, and our facts say you shortchange Ontario taxpayers by $1 billion. Again, for the record, Hamilton-Wentworth, $60 million in new taxes; Ottawa-Carleton, $80 million; Prescott and Russell, $23 million; Metro Toronto, over $378 million short.

Minister, let me see if I've got this straight. Either you have no idea what the costs of your dumping are going to be, or you know exactly what those are and you are refusing to release them. Which is it?

Hon Mr Leach: Again, we're going around this question. We know that we're putting about $6.4 billion on the municipalities. We know that we are taking roughly the same amount off and that --

The Speaker: Order. I can't hear the minister's response. It's just a general din, I think, about the hall here. If I could get some order from all the members, I'd appreciate it. Thank you. Go ahead.

Hon Mr Leach: Just to state it again, we know that by taking $5.4 billion off the property taxes, municipalities are going to have that large window of opportunity to deal with the programs we've asked them to be responsible for; that, along with the $1 billion in additional funding that's going to be made available to those municipalities that need it. I'm sure that all of them will be quite well off when we're finished.

The Speaker: New question.

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): My question is also for the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Let's cut right through the baloney. There is no additional $1 billion. You used to have a municipal support grant. You've wiped that out. It came to close to $1 billion. You're now calling it this transition fund. So there's no extra money here. You take away money with the left hand that you say you're giving with the right hand. But when you cut through it, I think the mayors of all the cities in Toronto and Metro Chair Tonks are right, that in terms of Metropolitan Toronto you're going to push down an additional $388 million on to property taxpayers. That's how much you're offloading.

Why don't you just come out and admit it now, Minister? Why don't you admit that Metro taxpayers from across Metro Toronto are going to have to pay for your tax scheme for the wealthy? Why don't you just admit it, be honest about it? Everybody knows it.

Hon Mr Leach: To deal specifically with Metropolitan Toronto, we're taking about $1.3 billion off the property tax by removing education from it. We're asking them to assume a like amount.

The $384 million that has been quoted in the newspaper has some questions about it. I'm not conceding that number is correct, but let's assume for the sake of argument that it is correct. The new city of Toronto is going to have a budget of roughly $7 billion. If anybody can't cut or reduce expenditures by 4%, 5% or 6% out of $7 billion, they shouldn't bother running for election.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Hold on. The member for Oriole. Thank you.

Hon Mr Leach: I hope they'll recall I didn't concede the number was correct, but I'm saying that if it was in that neighbourhood, every government ministry has dealt with cuts of 10%, 20% and 30% from their operating budgets. Any municipality that can't absorb a 4% reduction in spending -- they shouldn't run again.

Mr Hampton: I think the minister just let the cat out of the bag inadvertently. What this is all about is putting health care costs down on municipalities, putting social assistance costs down on municipalities and then saying to municipalities: "You cut. You do the dirty work so the Conservative government can give its wealthy friends a big tax break." That's exactly what it's all about and you just let the cat out of the bag.

The Metro chairman is very forthcoming with his figures. He shows exactly where they're coming from. He shows exactly where this is going to mount up. He shows that over time the health care costs are going to go through the roof. If you doubt their figures, let's see your figures. If you're the government of Ontario and you're so sure all this is going to work, then let's see your figures that give some proof this is going to work without having to cut health care, without having to cut all those other services that have made Toronto a good community to live in. Let's see your numbers.

Hon Mr Leach: To deal with the numbers for Metropolitan Toronto, I saw the list of numbers, the same numbers the leader of the third party got from his research people at the Globe and Mail. The number of $389 million I believe was shown as the cost of social housing. It is shown as a number that is going to be resolutely taken care of at one single point in time. We were very clear to indicate that the cost of social housing, for example, would be phased in over two or three years. A number of the figures quoted there are 1996 numbers, I assume.

We have to remember that the cost of education was increasing and continues to increase at about 5% a year. Based just on that number, there will be a $60-million reduction to the municipalities next year and another $60-plus million the year after that; in the next two or three years the savings from education alone will solve that difference.

Mr Hampton: This minister wants to say, "This is what's going to be saved from education." Let's look at what you've pushed down. You've handed Metro Toronto and every other municipality in this province a ticking time bomb in terms of health care costs. In the case of Metro Toronto, there are 50% more seniors per capita in Metro Toronto than elsewhere in the province. In other words, the long-term health care costs are going to go up even faster than education would have gone up.

Let's look at the number of people who need social assistance. They're higher per capita. In other words, that number is going to go up.

Let's look at the social housing numbers. In fact, there's a greater percentage here in Metro Toronto than elsewhere. Those numbers are going to go up.

Look, Minister, everybody else can add. Everybody else looks at the figures, looks at the projections, and knows that what you're doing is pushing down health care, social assistance and housing, and you're going to force municipalities to cut all those things. Why don't you come clean and admit it? Everybody else can see it.

Hon Mr Leach: I don't know where the leader of the third party has been over the last several years, but since this party came into power, welfare costs are declining. They've gone down. That's that one.

Our calculations are that the costs of social services will continue to decline over the next several years. The cost of education would have continued to climb. Social services are continuing to go down. The municipalities are going to end up with about the same amount of financial responsibility as they have now.

The Speaker: New question.

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): Back to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. The municipal affairs minister will know that every government in the western world is worried about the costs of long-term health care. In fact, the Davis government back in 1983-84 started looking at long-term care. What you've tried to do is to push that down on to municipalities. You've tried to push all of those future costs on to municipalities, knowing they'll have to cut health care.

I want you to give people a guarantee today. I want you to give people in Metro Toronto and elsewhere a guarantee that municipalities will not have to cut health care because you forced these very expensive costs on to them.

Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): I'm going to refer that question to the Minister of Health.

Interjections.

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Minister of Health, Government House Leader): Not too popular again, Mr Speaker.

Far from reducing long-term care and far from having a poorer service, the objective in terms of working with municipalities, in terms of having a partnership with municipalities on a 50-50 basis, is that this will allow for the integration of long-term care, that this will result in a greater coordination of long-term care. It is my prediction that we will see a better quality of service and that we will see services tailored to municipalities.

Mr Hampton: Even the chair of the government's health care restructuring committee doesn't agree with that. The chair of the health care restructuring committee has clearly said this is not going to work; it's not going to provide for integration.

I want to go back to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Minister, you've appointed three trustees. This is how a government at the Metropolitan Toronto level gets run by you now: You appoint trustees. In order that we can get some real answers and some real figures, we think these trustees should be answering questions from the press, but you've put a gag order on them. You've told these trustees they are not to talk to the press. It's called accountability, Minister. We can't get any answers from you, so why don't you allow these appointed trustees to at least answer some questions of the press so there can at least be some accountability, some answers to the chaos you're trying to create?

Hon David Johnson: This is a question clearly posed to the Minister of Municipal Affairs, and I will ask the Minister of Municipal Affairs to deal with it.

Hon Mr Leach: I read that story in the Toronto Star as well about a gag order being put on the trustees. I have no idea where it came from. It's blatantly untrue. The trustees are free to speak to anyone at any time, anywhere. The only issue that has been of some concern is that the city of Scarborough has launched a legal action against the validity of the trustees, and all members of my ministry and government and the trustees were advised to approach that question with caution. But any other question on any other subject that they're dealing with, they are at liberty to speak to whomever they think it appropriate to speak to.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Supplementary.

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): That's at least of some help, and we will see how that plays out in terms of, at least while Bill 103 is being debated, the trustees' not being shut out from the public and not being shut out from the media.

There are other aspects of the bill that we have been raising in this House with you as well, particularly around the timing of this bill. I want to again ask you today, will you ensure that the democratic process will be allowed to unfold in such a way that you will not ram through the bill before the referendum takes place in Metropolitan Toronto? Will you ensure that there is ample time for this bill to be debated in committee and that the debate is set up in such a way that you will not try to ram the bill through before the referendum takes place?

Hon Mr Leach: The member opposite has indicated that he wants the public to be heard on this issue. So do we want the public to be heard, and that's why we're asking the opposition parties to assist us in getting this bill through the House as quickly as we can, so that it can go to committee hearings where people will have the opportunity to make deputations, provide input, give whatever criticisms they feel are appropriate. That's the kind of democratic action we would like to see. We want to see this bill get to committee so that the people of this area can have a chance to have their input.

PROPERTY TAXATION

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and it has to do with the impact that the moves will have on what historically has been the finest urban area in North America. I would say to you, I don't believe your numbers. You are telling what I regard as -- if I can use this, Mr Speaker -- the big lie in the report.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): I appreciate the fact you consulted me, and no, you can't use that. I ask you to withdraw it.

Mr Phillips: I think the public should be very aware. The government has said that it has a $1-billion fund, but what you've neglected to tell people is that you have cut out completely $666 million of another fund, so what we're talking about is $335 million, not $1 billion, and that will have a devastating impact on community after community. The question has to do with Metropolitan Toronto because I think you are going to destroy Metro Toronto.

Firstly, you have added hundreds of millions of dollars of extra cost. Your fund will not come close to covering the cost. You have eliminated something called the business occupancy tax, which is over 15% of the revenue. You could not have made a decision of this magnitude without having the numbers before you. My question is very clearly this: Will you agree today to release the impact on Metropolitan Toronto?

Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): Again, the numbers that the opposition has put forward indicate something in the neighbourhood of $300 million. When the new city of Toronto is set up, it will have a budget of roughly $7 billion. We're asking the municipalities to work with us. We have an opportunity when we set up that new city to set best-practice standards that we're convinced will save substantial amounts of money, certainly far more than 4% or 5% of their operating budget.

Mr Phillips: What I just heard you say is that you expect that property taxes in Metropolitan Toronto could go up by as much as 10%. If you are suggesting that the increased cost you have loaded on to the municipality is $280 million or $290 million, that for the residential taxpayer is an increase of over 10%.

It is extremely important for the property taxpayers of Metropolitan Toronto to see your numbers. Will you agree today to release the study that indicates that you have support for a conclusion you have already reached that there are substantial savings and we won't see a 10% increase in property tax in Metropolitan Toronto? Will you release those numbers today?

Hon Mr Leach: We released that report some time ago. It was the KPMG report that indicated that with the establishment of a single city there would be a saving of roughly $865 million --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Minister.

Hon Mr Leach: They indicated they would save $865 million over three years and $300 million every year thereafter. That's net of the implementation costs. That report is out for the opposition to use.

The Speaker: New question.

Mr Gilles Pouliot (Lake Nipigon): My question is to the same minister, that of municipal affairs. Minister, last week, yourself and other colleagues in your government were boldly saying to the people of Ontario that they can expect a tax decrease in the order of some 10%. Al Tonks says that with an inventory of 100,000 social housing units, it would be an impossible situation. Mel Lastman, who stood to benefit, said, "If we are forced to pay 50% of welfare as well as child care, we will go broke." Terry Mundell, chair of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, says, "We can no longer protect property taxpayers."

Minister, are you saying that three years down the line property taxpayers of the province of Ontario can expect to pay 10% less than what they're paying today?

Hon Mr Leach: To repeat, with the municipalities being relieved of $5.4 billion off the property tax, an amount that's growing by 5% a year, by assuming costs of programs that in some cases are reducing, as the Minister of Finance said last week and I concur with him, if the municipalities are prudent in their application of being relieved of that heavy burden on the property tax, it's quite within the realm of possibility that they could reduce taxes by as much as 10%, yes.

Mr Pouliot: Minister, please stop dancing. This is bad opium you sell through your numbers. First you say that taxes will not go up because of efficiencies at the municipal level, and then you say taxes will go down by 10% because of the same efficiencies. That's double counting. You can't have it eight different ways. Minister, come clean. You don't know what you're talking about.

We have our own calculation that proves that what you're saying and what you're hoping for while you keep your toes and your fingers crossed is that if you take today's trend and compound it for three to four years, taxes would have been so much, and then what you do is you conveniently duck 10% of what it would have been. This is very thinly veiled. This is a charade that does not even convince children. People don't believe their taxes will go down. They believe you're dumping on them with more responsibilities and more taxes. Come clean and tell the truth, Minister.

Hon Mr Leach: The member opposite said that we said there wouldn't be any tax increases. That's absolutely correct. And then we said there's a possibility that if the municipalities apply good processes and work efficiently with the programs they've been asked to be responsible for, they should be able to reduce taxes. I don't see anything inconsistent with those two statements whatsoever.

AIR QUALITY

Mr Joseph Spina (Brampton North): My question is for the Minister of Environment and Energy. Minister, in a recent

article in the Toronto Star, it reported reductions of air monitoring stations in Brampton, Markham and Mississauga. I would like the minister to please comment on the validity of what was reported and clarify the ministry's position regarding Ontario's air quality.

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of Environment and Energy): Thank you very much, because I consider this a serious matter because of not only the factual incorrectness of the

article but also the inference that it made.

The

article incorrectly claims that air pollution monitoring no longer exists in Markham and Brampton. Number one, there has never been permanent air pollution index quality monitoring in Markham. Number two, there is a site in Stouffville which not only is operating but also recently has been upgraded to state-of-the-art monitoring for ozone. In Brampton, there are four monitoring sites which remain at the Brampton Brick site. While the

article claims that there is only one station in Mississauga, there are in fact seven stations in Mississauga. As well, there is also an extensive air study being conducted by Petro-Canada in Clarkson, thanks in great part to the member for Mississauga South. As the Minister of Environment, I want to ensure that air quality is at the top of our priority list.

Mr Spina: In addition to the permanent air monitoring sites, what other initiatives is the ministry undertaking to protect air quality across the province?

Hon Mr Sterling: I think it's important to note that in addition to the permanent air quality monitoring stations, we have as well mobile emergency response capability; we have air monitoring mobile units as well to go across the province to measure the air quality in different areas.

We are also focusing for the first time in 20 years, because of the lack of previous governments' concern over air quality, on the setting of standards, as pointed out by the Provincial Auditor of this province. We have also indicated that we are examining very seriously a vehicle inspection maintenance program to deal with vehicle emissions. We are moving more aggressively with regard to air quality in this province than any previous government has ever done.

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): My question is for the Chairman of Management Board. I was just reviewing the Hansards of some of the questions that your friends Ernie Eves and Mike Harris, when they were in opposition, asked about "blatant" government advertising. You were labelling the NDP advertising as that.

Today, when you are spending over $2 million of hard-earned taxpayers' dollars on self-serving government propaganda at a time when you are cutting essential services and closing hospitals in this province, how can you possibly justify the expenditure of well over $2 million on self-serving, partisan government propaganda?

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Minister of Health, Government House Leader): I would assume that when the Premier and the Minister of Finance were concerned about blatant advertising, they may have been thinking of some $22.3 million spent in 1990-91 by the government of the day, of which the member opposite was a representative. I know the member opposite is concerned that the government in 1990-91 spent $22.3 million on advertising through the ministries, and I will assure the member opposite that this government will spend considerably less money than that $22.3 million.

Mr Bradley: Every time the taxpayers of this province turn on their television sets and see one of your self-serving government ads or open a newspaper or listen to the radio and hear or see this government propaganda, they should know that their hard-earned tax dollars are going to this despite the fact that you characterize yourself as a penny-pinching government that watches tax dollars.

The people of Ontario are also interested in fairness. At a time when an important debate is taking place, you are abusing your government position to spend all of this money to put forward a case which is clear government propaganda.

Minister, will you do the right thing? Will you today order the withdrawal of all these blatant propaganda ads and return to the people of this province some $2.350 million of their dollars that you are spending to further your own case?

Hon David Johnson: Notwithstanding the fact that previous governments, both NDP and Liberal, have spent considerably more on advertising than this government will spend, it is a good question. This government is leading by example and this government believes that the members of the government --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Government members, order. Minister?

Hon David Johnson: The people of Ontario have every right to know that this government is leading by example. We have reduced the number of MPPs from 130 to 103. We have reduced the compensation of the members of this Legislature. We have, as the first government, I think, ever in the history of government, actually spent our own party money, some $800,000, on advertising. We did not put that to the taxpayers of Ontario to pay and we are reducing the costs of government so that all the people in the economy will benefit.

TERMINATION AND SEVERANCE PAYMENTS

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): My question is to the Minister of Labour. You will know that in 1989 Rizzo Shoes in Brantford went bankrupt, putting over 800 workers out of work. The previous government fought on behalf of those workers, these non-union workers, for six years through the courts to get them the termination pay they're entitled to.

In the summer of 1995, just a couple of months after you took power, you very quietly abandoned this claim and abandoned these workers. One of them is here today, Mr Creador, and he's listening very carefully to your answers. When you abandoned that claim, the Canadian Labour Congress stepped in because of the importance and provided the funding to hire lawyers to continue that case in front of the Supreme Court. Last month, in what must be a major embarrassment for you and your ministry, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled they would allow the appeal and waive the time lines.

Minister, my question to you is this: Will you today admit your mistake, apologize to Mr Creador and the other workers there and announce that you'll rejoin this case and fight for those workers like you should have been doing in the first place?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Labour): As the member knows, we are taking many actions on behalf of workers in this province, and I would simply indicate to you that since this issue is currently before the courts, I am obviously not in a position to make any further comments about the specifics of this case.

Mr Christopherson: What a joke of an answer, because this is about your abandoning these workers. It's not about the case. What we want to know today and what the workers have a right to know is, why did you abandon them? Why did you leave them high and dry? In fact, you didn't even tell them; you didn't notify them that you were dropping it. You notified no one. Why didn't you do that? Apologize to those workers. Don't hide behind some flim-flam argument about the merits of the case. Announce today that in light of the Supreme Court of Canada decision, you will stand up and fight for those workers like you ought to have been doing from the beginning. Announce that today, Minister.

Hon Mrs Witmer: I simply indicate to you once again that we are doing and taking many reforms on behalf of workers in this province and already we've seen some new job opportunities for workers.

I think I need to remind you of the fact that there was a change made under Bill 7. Bill 7 clarified and strengthened the right of employees under the Employment Standards Act to claim termination and severance pay in situations where their employers had become insolvent.

SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS UNIT

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean): My question is for the Attorney General. I understand that at the end of last year the new director of the special investigations unit, André Marin, concluded a very serious investigation into a motor vehicle accident in my part of the province. This investigation was completed in just 30 days. Could the minister inform the House what time lines the taxpayers of Ontario can expect in the very large number of cases before the special investigations unit?

After years of long delays in similar investigations, the public in my part of the province welcomes the speedy result of this investigation. Could the minister inform the House of the timetable for other investigations?

Hon Charles Harnick (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): I thank the member for Nepean for the question. Since the government appointed André Marin as the permanent director of the SIU at the end of September, the unit has made significant strides in its performance. I have received 86 reports in just over the last 70 working days.

As you're aware, the unit is responsible for handling very sensitive investigations. The new director has been attacking the caseload on two fronts: first, by reducing the number of outstanding cases, and second, by instituting new internal policies that streamline the investigative procedures and processes, allowing for a high quality of investigation to be completed within 30 days.

Mr Baird: Given that in the past some special investigations unit investigations have taken up to two years to complete, could the Attorney General update the House on the current status of the total SIU caseload?

Hon Mr Harnick: When I first became the Attorney General, decisions within the SIU could often take up two years. I'm pleased to report that the SIU no longer has a backlog situation with respect to the current caseload. As of January 13, 1997, the total number of active cases in the unit was 17. I'm pleased by the progress Mr Marin has made in completing cases. Providing decisions quickly will help restore the confidence of communities across Ontario in the SIU.

PROPERTY TAXATION

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. We've been hearing for the last week or so the rhetoric coming out of your government regarding the impact of this massive mega-dumping that you're putting on to municipalities across Ontario. Reality is going to set in. Municipalities are starting to see very clearly the impact your dumping is having on them.

In Hamilton-Wentworth, the latest figures we have are that your additional costs to the taxpayers of my region -- and the numbers will actually go up -- are now $69 million. That equals an almost 25% tax increase, 25% more in municipal taxes. You sit there and smirk. I'll show you the numbers in a second, because it is reality because of what you have done.

You have talked about the fund. You have talked about the $1 billion. Very simply, can you guarantee today to the residents of Hamilton-Wentworth that you will cover every single cent in additional costs as a result of your municipal dumping on the region?

Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): I don't know whether the numbers the member has quoted take into consideration the vast amount we're taking off the education tax. I assume they do. I don't think any municipality where we're asking them to deliver certain hard services such as transit or parks is anywhere near a 45% increase in property taxes. As we've said earlier, we're quite confident that if the municipalities, with the window that's open to them with the reduction of $5.4 billion off the education tax, implement the services we're now asking them to provide, they will in fact be able to reduce taxes.

Mr Agostino: You've not opened the window, Minister. You've blown the roof off the house; you're going to blow the roof off municipalities across this province. You've talked about a fair shake. Well, this is a shakedown. You're shaking down municipal taxpayers to benefit your tax cut.

Minister, I have an invoice for you of $69 million that you owe to the people of Hamilton-Wentworth --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order. Member for Hamilton East, you're out of order. Would you like to continue?

Mr Agostino: Minister, it's very simple: Your government, which is a master of deception, has deceived the people of Ontario. You will not deceive the people of --

The Speaker: Order. Minister.

Hon Mr Leach: Thank you, Mr Speaker. With all the rhetoric that was going on over there --

Mr Agostino: -- $69 million.

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

Interjection.

The Speaker: I am not arguing with you. Come to order.

Mr Gilles Pouliot (Lake Nipigon): Sixty-nine million.

The Speaker: Member for Lake Nipigon, you're not helping. I appreciate the thought, though. Minister of Municipal Affairs.

Hon Mr Leach: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. He rambled on there at such length I don't think he ever did get around to a question. We can only repeat that the municipalities are going to be in a far better position to deal with property taxes after the changes we make than they were before.

I think everybody recognizes that the one growing cost every municipality was faced with was the increasing cost of education. With that program off their backs, being able to deal with the programs that we've asked them to look at, we're quite confident that the municipalities will not have to increase taxes.

There may be some municipalities where these programs have more of an effect than others, and that's why we've set up the $1-billion fund: to look after them. We'll ensure and we're quite confident that no municipality in this province will be unduly affected by the changes we've introduced.

BAIL SUPERVISION PROGRAM

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): My question is for the Solicitor General. Last week you cancelled the bail programs throughout this province, supposedly on the grounds of financial constraints. It's important that you understand that all sectors of the justice system -- police, judges, crowns, defence bar, justices of the peace, all parts of the justice system -- are criticizing this decision and disagree with the cancellation of this program.

Dr Gail Kellough, who is associate professor at York University, is conducting research into the bail program funded by the Ontario government, and she wrote you a letter dated September 20, 1995, in which she stated:

"While such costs may appear significant in the short run, they are substantially less so than either costs incurred by unnecessary pre-trial detention, the costs of correctional beds, of supervised transportation to and from courts, for correctional intake processing, the cost of hiring duty counsel, the cost of income to the local tax base," and she goes on.

Minister, you obviously decided to ignore her research --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you, member for London Centre. Minister?

Hon Robert W. Runciman (Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services): This is not an easy decision to come to with respect to this program. We don't disagree with the principles of bail supervision, but part of the process that we undertook upon assuming office was to review all of the core services provided by individual ministries.

The program that has been conducted through the Ministry of Correctional Services for a number of years is not a mandated program. In fact, when we took a look at all of the implications with respect to this program, we relied to some degree on a study conducted by the previous government, the NDP government, in 1992. One of the major thrusts of this program when it was instituted in 1980 was theoretically to relieve pressure on the corrections system in Ontario. In fact, the 1992 study indicated quite clearly that it was having no measurable or meaningful impact on the remand population in our institutions.

Mrs Boyd: Minister, that's just a ridiculous comment for you to be making. Neil Webster, the director of the Toronto bail program, who's in the members' gallery today, says that it costs the Toronto bail program $4.05 a day to supervise a person out on bail as opposed to approximately $120 a day for someone in jail.

The Toronto bail program has conducted a survey of judges and justices of the peace and the majority of those said they wouldn't release people without the bail program. Therefore, what you're doing is adding to the total overall costs and you are endangering the public safety, because these people will not be supervised when they are out on bail and that is a very serious matter.

We know of very serious crimes that may be committed by people who are not in jail, and that's exactly why the judges and justices of the peace will say they won't take a chance. They will keep people in jail, and it will cost many, many times more to keep the 1,500 people who are currently on bail province-wide in the jails.

Why are you doing this? It makes no sense: no economic sense and no social sense.

Hon Mr Runciman: The cost argument is really not a comparison of apples and apples. With respect to the cost savings and our costs of incarceration, we really are not going to achieve the kinds of savings that this member and others perhaps are suggesting unless we, for example, close down an entire unit of a corrections institution. By taking someone out of a bed, we do not achieve the kinds of savings the member is suggesting.

The fact is as well that approximately 37% of the participants are already supervised in the community justice system, a significant duplication. I get back to the crux of this matter, that we're talking about people who have not yet been through the justice system, have not been found guilty of an offence and should not in any way, shape or form be the responsibility of the corrections ministry.

HIGHWAY FINANCING

Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): My question is to the Minister of Transportation. Further to our discussions a week ago, when we discussed that your ministry was transferring provincial highways back to the municipalities, the minister announced that his responsibility for 72.1 kilometres of King's Highway was transferred to the united counties of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry. Local engineers estimated the cost to bring the highway up to today's standard at $15 million.

After negotiations with the councils and your ministry, the terms with your ministry were negotiated by your Ottawa staff at $8.471 million in five payments. However, after the agreement was submitted to the Kingston staff, the offer stood at $5.061 million. How could this offer have been changed?

Hon Al Palladini (Minister of Transportation): I want to thank the honourable member for the question. I don't know the exact particulars of the highway deal that was initially made or the renegotiation, but I really want to say that this government is going to treat every municipality the same, and it's going to be fair and consistent.

Mr Cleary: I don't think you have quite answered my question. This is a long

section of highway that runs through three municipalities. As part of your election platform, the government correctly stated that there was only one taxpayer. I ask you to play fair with those local taxpayers in our municipalities. Will you at least go back to the agreement negotiated with your Ottawa staff? How could this change have happened like that?

Hon Mr Palladini: Like I said earlier, I believe this government will be fair and consistent and treat every municipality the same. There are clearly highways that no longer serve a purpose as provincial highways, so therefore we must turn these things over to the municipalities. If there is a disagreement as to the funds that the government is allowing the municipality, as the member is saying, in refurbishing the roads, according to the local engineer who has put that project together, we'll take a look at it. Again, I want to say to the member this government will be fair and very consistent and treat every municipality, when it comes to highway transfers, exactly the same.

FOREST INDUSTRY

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): I have a question for the Minister of Northern Development and Mines and the Minister of Natural Resources. In April, in response to a question I asked regarding the 15% export tax on Ontario softwood lumber, your colleague Mr Saunderson said, "Jobs, we feel, will be gained because of the excellent climate we are creating in this province to create jobs and encourage business."

Minister, let me tell you what the reality is. Small sawmills in Ignace, Red Lake and across northern Ontario will be forced to close, and large mills will have to cut production this year due to the tax blows delivered by the federal and provincial governments last fall.

The mills' quotas have been reduced by 15% to 20%. Quotas for new entrants have been cut even deeper. "The Spruce Falls mill received such a minuscule amount, it's not even worth mentioning," says the president of Tembec, "and if the quota is not adjusted properly, there will be major repercussions. Ontario got a raw deal compared to other provinces. The Ontario market is going to be flooded and prices are going to collapse."

Minister, why did you not stand up for Ontario at the cabinet and during the negotiations on the agreement?

Hon Chris Hodgson (Minister of Natural Resources, Northern Development and Mines): It's not very often that I agree with the opposition, in that this was a tax that the federal agreement has the legal right to impose and it is an agreement that they entered into with the United States. Ontario never supported it. We told that to the federal government and to other provincial leaders. We have tried to make the best of a bad situation and we have stood up for Ontario's rights.

Mr Len Wood: We know that you stand up for your colleagues on Bay Street. What we want to know is, are you going to stand up for jobs for workers in northern Ontario communities who are at risk as a result of you failing to stand up for them, for jobs for the sawmill workers in Ignace and the woodland workers in Kapuskasing for whom a whole way of making a livelihood has been put at risk? Are you going to stand up and speak for these workers who are at risk of losing their jobs?

Hon Mr Hodgson: We have been standing up for the working people in this province for a year and a half, to try to reduce the debt and the burden that has been placed upon all working people.

The federal government, as the opposition know --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Member for Nepean, come to order. Thank you.

Hon Mr Hodgson: As I was mentioning, the federal government has the legal right to do this. Ontario never supported it, and we spoke to that. We have said that they have to implement the quota, and they are going about implementing it.

Ontario has elected 98 out of 99 MPs of the federal government. They have the legal right to do it. The third party knows that and they are trying to mislead the public into saying this is an Ontario issue. It's not. We have, for northern Ontario, reinstated the heritage fund. We are also trying to work with forest industry products companies to diversify our markets, and that has been well received.

SEPTIC SYSTEMS

Mr Bill Grimmett (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): My question is for the Minister of Environment and Energy. Recent changes --

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Member for Riverdale. Thank you.

Mr Grimmett: Recent Who Does What changes, Minister, have indicated that the municipal governments will be responsible for inspections of septic systems, particularly the

part VIII inspections which have traditionally been done by your ministry. I've had numerous questions from constituents in my riding about this, and I'd like you to assure the people in my riding that the municipalities in my riding will have the capacity to carry on these

part VIII inspections of septic systems.

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of Environment and Energy): This is an important question, particularly for rural Ontario. We are planning to put municipalities in charge of inspecting and approving this particular kind of sewage treatment in the rural areas. We believe, however, it's necessary for the inspectors to be properly certified and taught how these particular systems should be put in and that the installer should be certified as well.

We believe that by devolving this on the municipalities, they can recoup their costs, they can provide a more timely service, and with the proper certification and teaching of how this should be done, we can have improved systems across the province, and I think it's a win-win situation for all.

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): Mr Speaker, on a point of privilege: It's in relation to the point of privilege I raised regarding government advertising last week. I have a further submission. I'm awaiting with some anticipation your ruling, but I want to refer you to the statement made in this House on January 13 by the Honourable Al Leach, Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, on Who Does What.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order. I need to hear this point of privilege. If you have a meeting, I suggest that if you could take it outside, I'd appreciate it.

Mr Wildman: Thank you, Speaker. I'm referring to the statement by the minister in the House in which he outlines in very general terms the agenda for the government that was being introduced last week. He states in it, "We simply don't need every layer of government we have now or the cumbersome bureaucracies supporting them." Further on he says, "We believe our decisions will" -- that is, the decisions --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Look, I can't hear the point of order. If you have a meeting, go outside and take up the meeting, please. Thank you. Member for Algoma.

Mr Wildman: Thank you, Speaker. Further on, the minister says, "We believe our decisions" -- that is, the decisions related to the legislation that was being introduced last week -- "will result in simpler, smaller, more accountable and less costly government at both the provincial and municipal levels."

The very same day that the minister made that statement in the House, his ministry issued a press release which I have submitted to you, dated January 13, 1997. The press release is entitled "Ads to Explain Plans for Better, Less Costly Government." In that news release it states, "The advertisements will tell people how the government is untangling the bureaucracy that drives up the cost of government services." Then there's a quote from the minister saying, "That's why we're making government smaller, simpler and less expensive."

I submit to you, Speaker, that the wording in the press release explaining the reasons for the advertisements is almost word for word the wording in the minister's statement. That is the point, that the advertisements are directly related to the legislation the minister was introducing in his statement and referring to in his statement, and we now have a situation where the government is advertising as if -- actions have been taken by the government as if legislation has indeed been passed when it has only been introduced at first reading.

As I submitted to you in my point of privilege last week, based on the decisions and the statements made by Speaker Fraser in the House of Commons and Speaker Warner in this Legislative Assembly, those two Speakers criticized governments for doing just that.

The Speaker: Again, I'll take it as notice and I'll report back. As far as the reporting out on that point of privilege, I think I could say fairly safely that I will be coming to the House some time this week with a decision, hopefully by as early as Wednesday.

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Minister of Health, Government House Leader): I move that Mr Danford and Mr Cleary exchange places in the order of precedence for private members' public business and that the House will commence at 11 am on Thursday, January 23, to discuss ballot item number 57 only.

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

COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTIONS

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Minister of Health, Government House Leader): I move that the following substitutions be made to the membership of the standing committees:

On the standing committee on estimates, Mr McLean be substituted for Mrs Elliott; on the standing committee on general government, Mrs Munro be substituted for Mr Carroll; on the standing committee on finance and economic affairs, Mr Rollins be substituted for Mr Arnott; on the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly, Mrs Marland be substituted for Mr Clement; on the standing committee on the Ombudsman, Mr Murdoch be substituted for Mr Galt and Mr O'Toole be substituted for Mrs Marland; on the standing committee on public accounts, Mr Shea be substituted for Mr Gilchrist; on the standing committee on regulations and private bills, Mr Gilchrist be substituted for Mr Shea, Mr Arnott be substituted for Mr Rollins, and Mrs Ross be substituted for Mr O'Toole; on the standing committee on resources development, Mrs Elliott be substituted for Mr Gilchrist, Mr O'Toole be substituted for Mr Carroll, and Mr Galt be substituted for Mr Murdoch; on the standing committee on social development, Mr Carroll be substituted for Mrs Ross.

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

PETITIONS

NORTH YORK BRANSON HOSPITAL

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

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

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

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

I have affixed my signature.

FAMILY SUPPORT PLAN

Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario which reads as follows:

"Whereas Mike Harris and Charles Harnick promised to improve the family support program; and

"Whereas Mike Harris promised in the Common Sense Revolution that `government should concentrate its efforts on tracking down deadbeat parents and enforcing payment orders'; and

"Whereas the closure of the family support plan's regional offices have caused a decrease of quality service and lengthened delays; and

"Whereas cuts to the family support plan have eliminated community-based services, replaced enforcement staff with technology and limited communication;

"We, the undersigned, demand that Mike Harris reopen the regional offices and guarantee adequate staffing numbers to provide quality service to recipients and children."

This is signed by 17 citizens who live in the riding of Sudbury East. I agree with them and I have affixed my signature to it.

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Toni Skarica (Wentworth North): I don't believe I will overstate matters by indicating that today is a pivotal day in the history of the town of Dundas, which has a population of 20,000 and is nestled in the riding of Wentworth North. This year, Dundas either turns 150 years old or becomes extinct forever. Today there are 150 residents, in fact closer to 200, in the galleries on both sides of you and in front of you who have come to the Legislature to be heard and to present me with a petition and to present the House with a petition. What's significant about the petition is that it bears approximately 9,000 signatures.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Member for Wentworth North, I appreciate this, but this is petitions. I need to hear your petition.

Mr Skarica: It is as follows:

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

"We object to the recently proposed supercity model for restructuring local government within Hamilton-Wentworth.

"Specifically we oppose any model which would dissolve the town of Dundas.

"We insist that any model for local government reform guarantee full citizen input and support prior to its implementation."

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): You're supporting it, aren't you, Tony?

Mr Skarica: In response to the opposition, I indeed support it and have signed the petition. I am one of 9,000 people who have signed it out of a population of 16,000 voters.

PAY EQUITY

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): "Whereas pay equity must remain a separate, proactive law with a distinct and properly funded commission and tribunal;

"Whereas unions must stay as equal partners in the pay equity process;

"Whereas the poorest-paid women in the public sector deserve pay equity. You took it away through the omnibus Bill 26;

"Whereas there is a need to restore funding to PEALS -- Pay Equity Advocacy and Legal Services. Women fighting for their rights under the law must be supported;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to commit to supporting pay equity legislation."

This petition is signed and supported by a large number of citizens across the province, and I have affixed my signature.

ONTARIO CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTE

Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East): I have a petition which is addressed to the Legislative Assembly as follows:

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

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

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

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

"That," as Mr Ross Virgo has stated, "the Ontario Correctional Institute is a therapeutic community known around the world for their techniques;

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

"That a therapeutic community cannot exist in a superprison....

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

This is signed by 16 residents of the province of Ontario, and I have affixed my signature to it.

BEAR HUNTING

Mr Terence H. Young (Halton Centre): I present, on behalf of 136 voters from my riding of Halton Centre, a petition to end the spring bear hunt.

"Whereas bears are hunted in the spring after they have come out of hibernation; and

"Whereas 30% of the bears killed in the spring are female, some with cubs; and

"Whereas 80% of the orphaned cubs do not survive the first year; and

"Whereas 95.3% of the bears killed by non-resident hunters and 54% killed by resident hunters are killed over bait; and

"Whereas Ontario still allows the limited use of dogs in bear hunting; and

"Whereas bears are the only large mammals hunted in the spring; and

"Whereas bears are the only mammals that are hunted over bait; and

"Whereas there are only six states in the United States which still allow a spring hunt;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Parliament of Ontario to amend the Game and Fish Act to prohibit the hunting of bears in the spring and to prohibit the use of baiting and dogs in all bear hunting activities."

I support the petition and I affix my name.

EDUCATION REFORM

Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview): I have a petition to present to the Legislature of Ontario on behalf of residents of my riding, and I'd like to read it as follows:

"Whereas the Harris government is proposing tremendous changes to education services in Ontario;

"Whereas the government's obsession with the fiscal bottom line will result in a reduction of the quality of education services for our children;

"Whereas inclusive and open consultation on education reform has not taken place;

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

"That the government of Ontario reconsider its direction in terms of education policy and that they halt any further changes to the education system until a thorough and inclusive review has taken place."

I too concur with the petitioners and I will affix my signature to it.

YOUTH UNEMPLOYMENT

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): I have a petition from the students at St Mary's Secondary School in Cobourg, addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

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

"Youth unemployment is over double the national adult average, nearly 20%. We, as youths and potential employees, feel that this is unacceptable. We strongly urge that the provincial government take further steps immediately to ensure better prospects for youth employment in the future."

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Ms Annamarie Castrilli (Downsview): My petition is from various citizens of Metropolitan Toronto. It reads as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

I affix my signature.

NUCLEAR WEAPONS

Mr John L. Parker (York East): I have a petition here which bears the signatures of some 26 Toronto-area residents, including that of Dr Foster Smith of 14 William Morgan Drive, that reads in

summary as follows:

"We, the undersigned, petition that

whereas there continue to exist over 30,000 nuclear weapons on the earth; and

"Whereas the continuing existence of nuclear weapons poses a threat to the health and survival of human civilization and the global environment; and

"Whereas the Secretary General of the United Nations, Boutros Boutros-Ghali, has said that the most safe, sure and swift way to deal with the threat of nuclear arms is to do away with them in every regard; and

"Whereas Canada and all state parties to the 1969 United Nations Treaty on the Non-proliferation of Nuclear Weapons reaffirmed their commitment to undertake to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to the cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament;

"Therefore your petitioners pray and request that the Parliament of Ontario support the immediate initiation and conclusion, by the year 2000, of an international convention which will set out a binding timetable for the abolition of all nuclear weapons."

FIRE SAFETY

Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): I have a petition in response to Bill 84 sent in to me from some Thunder Bay firefighters.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the firefighters of Thunder Bay and Ontario are very concerned about Bill 84;

"Whereas we feel Bill 84 is unfair;

"Whereas we feel Bill 84 is discriminatory;

"Whereas we feel Bill 84 endangers the wellbeing of the people of Ontario;

"Whereas we feel Bill 84 requires extensive changes;

"Whereas we feel Bill 84 needs broad provincial public hearings before implementation;

"We, the undersigned, therefore petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to demand the Solicitor General to rewrite Bill 84 before being enacted into law and only after extensive public hearings across Ontario."

I am pleased to sign my name to that petition.

PUBLIC LIBRARIES

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas we believe that provincial interest in public libraries in Ontario is fundamental to the rights of all Ontarians;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to maintain the provincial interest in public libraries by ensuring the continuance of the following:

"(1) grants to ensure that all Ontarians have equalized access to library materials and services;

"(2) coordination of resource-sharing programs such as interlibrary loan and Internet access;

"(3) policy to ensure the future of the network of Ontario public libraries;

"(4) provincial assistance directly to libraries at the service level, for example, through Southern Ontario Library Service and Ontario Library Service-North;

"(5) legislation that maintains the autonomy of public library boards."

This is signed by different people from throughout my riding.

HOTEL DIEU HOSPITAL

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): My petition is to the government of Ontario.

"Since the Hotel Dieu Hospital has played and continues to play a vital role in the delivery of health care services in St Catharines and the Niagara region;

"Since Hotel Dieu has modified its role over the years as part of a rationalization of medical services in St Catharines and has assumed the position of a regional health care facility in such areas as kidney dialysis and oncology;

"Since the Niagara region is experiencing underfunding in the health care field and requires more medical services and not fewer services;

"Since Niagara residents are required at present to travel outside of the Niagara region to receive many specialized services that could be provided in city hospitals and thereby not require local patients to make difficult and inconvenient trips down our highways to other centres;

"Since the Niagara hospital restructuring committee used a Toronto consulting firm to develop its recommendations and was forced to take into account a cut of $40 million in funding for Niagara hospitals when carrying out its study;

"Since the population of the Niagara region is older than that in most areas of the province and more elderly people tend to require more hospital services;

"We, the undersigned, request that the government of Ontario keep the election commitment of Premier Mike Harris not to close hospitals in our province, and we call upon the Premier to reject any recommendations to close Hotel Dieu Hospital in St Catharines."

I affix my signature to this petition as I am in full agreement with its contents.

HIGHWAY SAFETY

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): On behalf of the residents of my riding, I wish to submit a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It reads as follows:

"Whereas we, the undersigned, are residents of Cochrane North;

"We are very concerned about the severe road conditions in the area, specifically on Highway 11 between Smooth Rock Falls and Kapuskasing. This part of the road is extremely dangerous during wintertime. We are asking the government to take the necessary measures to ensure our safety on our roads."

I support this petition and I affix my signature to it.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Mr Terence H. Young (Halton Centre): I have a petition related to cooperative housing which I wish to present to the Legislature.

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview): This is addressed to the Legislature of Ontario from residents of my community and I wish to read it to the Chair.

"Whereas the Harris government's proposal to create a megacity bureaucracy will result in less responsive municipal government;

"Whereas the residents of North York are satisfied with the level of service afforded by their local government;

"Whereas the proposed changes will create a giant bureaucracy that will reduce service and eliminate responsive local government;

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

"That the Harris government withdraw its proposal for a megacity and that they work with the local municipal council to reform the system within the framework which currently exists. We want to save our city -- North York."

It is signed. I will sign it myself.

SCHOOL PRAYERS

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly from the Grand Orange Lodge of Ontario West.

"Being a firm supporter of the public school system and the Protestant faith;

"We, the undersigned, hereby petition the government of Ontario to reinstate the Lord's Prayer in the public school system of Ontario."

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

WATER AND SEWAGE SERVICES IMPROVEMENT ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 SUR L'AMÉLIORATION DES SERVICES D'EAU ET D'ÉGOUT

Mr Sterling moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 107,

An Act to enact the Municipal Water and Sewage Transfer Act, 1997 and to amend other acts with respect to water and sewage / Projet de loi 107, Loi visant à édicter la Loi de 1997 sur le transfert des installations d'eau et d'égout aux municipalités et modifiant d'autres lois en ce qui a trait à l'eau et aux eaux d'égout.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of Environment and Energy): This bill does two things. The bill sets up the legislative framework to transfer the ownership of 25% of the sewage and water plants to the rightful owners: the municipalities from across this province. The second part of the bill deals with the approval of septic systems in rural parts of Ontario and sets up the legislative framework to transfer this responsibility to local municipalities in order to provide that service.

STREAMLINING OF ADMINISTRATION OF PROVINCIAL OFFENCES ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 SIMPLIFIANT L'ADMINISTRATION EN CE QUI A TRAIT AUX INFRACTIONS PROVINCIALES

Mr Harnick moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 108,

An Act to deal with the prosecution of certain provincial offences, to reduce duplication and to streamline administration / Projet de loi 108, Loi traitant des poursuites concernant certaines infractions provinciales, réduisant le double emploi et simplifiant l'administration.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley) : Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

LOCAL CONTROL OF PUBLIC LIBRARIES ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 SUR LE CONTRÔLE LOCAL DES BIBLIOTHÈQUES PUBLIQUES

Ms Mushinski moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 109,

An Act to amend the Public Libraries Act to put authority, responsibility and accountability for providing and effectively managing local library services at the local level / Projet de loi 109, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les bibliothèques publiques de façon à situer à l'échelon local les pouvoirs, la responsabilité et l'obligation de rendre compte concernant la fourniture et la gestion efficace des services locaux de bibliothèque.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

OPPOSITION DAY

METROPOLITAN TORONTO REFERENDUM

Mr Hampton moved opposition day motion number 1:

Whereas the government of Ontario has introduced Bill 103,

An Act respecting the City of Toronto, which will affect municipal representation and public services for every citizen in Metropolitan Toronto; and

Whereas the mayors of municipalities within Metropolitan Toronto have decided to conduct a public referendum on the province's legislation, to ensure that the voice of all citizens is heard; and

Whereas the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing has expressed concern that the question on any referendum ballot might be subject to manipulation, in order to affect the outcome;

Therefore, this House demands that the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing meet with the mayors of Metropolitan Toronto's municipalities to draft a referendum question which fairly and accurately describes the government's proposal for an amalgamated city of Toronto; and further, that the Legislative Assembly respect the results of the referendum.

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): I would ask for consent that the member for Beaches-Woodbine can kick off the debate for us.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): Agreed? Agreed.

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): I'm glad to have an opportunity to spend a bit of time in this House talking about the importance of democracy in the province of Ontario and particularly with respect to this government's treatment of Metro Toronto, the citizens of Metro Toronto and the local governments of Metro Toronto.

Our opposition day motion that we put forward is one that we feel is very necessary to have debated in this House and to have the responses of the three political parties on the record in this House, because I tell you, it has been very difficult -- in fact, it's been near impossible -- to get any kind of a commitment from this Conservative government with respect to the process of dealing with Bill 103, which most people refer to as the megacity bill, that being the legislation proposed by the government which will amalgamate all the cities within Metro Toronto into one megacity, one supercity.

You know that this is an issue that is very controversial. There have been many controversial issues brought forward by this government, and most often we hear from this government -- part of their mantra, in fact -- "Everyone knew we were going to do this. It was set out in the Common Sense Revolution. Our commitment was clear. It was debated during the election and the people of the province made a decision when they elected this government."

One could argue with that point in a number of areas where they've raised that as their defence. But very clearly with respect to this -- I was going to say "new initiative" -- abomination they're doing in Metro Toronto, nothing could be further from the truth. If one were to have followed the debate during the election campaign, one would very clearly remember the now Premier of this province, the then leader of the third party, saying that what he was committed to was the elimination of Metro government, an upper tier of government, and moving towards what we all suspected would be coming forward in the Golden report, some form of GTA governance.

I remind members of the House, I remind my colleagues that through the discussions and the reports and the studies, the questions that were being examined arose because of the problems of the day. The problems of the day which exist today are problems of the economic region. They're problems of property tax equity across the economic region; they're problems of coordination of transportation services across the economic region; they're problems of coordination of services that relate to development initiatives, like sewer and water systems, across the economic region; they're problems of economic development across the economic region.

I keep using that phrase, "the economic region," because of course you will know that the economic region is the greater Toronto area, the GTA; that is, cities within Metro, the Metropolitan Toronto region, and what is often referred to as the 905 belt, but including regions of Mississauga and Peel, the cities of Brampton and Vaughan, out into the Durhams. That whole area is part of the greater Toronto area economic region.

I come back to something that has just been confounding since this government has taken this 180-degree turn from what the Premier, then leader of the third party, said during the election campaign. I come back to this problem: If the problems are of the economic region, how can the solution be just Metro Toronto? It can't. I put it to you that it can't.

In our government that was moving ahead, that was committed to moving quickly on the Golden report, you will recall, Madam Speaker, they shortened the time frame for the Golden commission to do its work and there was work left undone as a result of that shortened time frame. I think that was unfortunate, but the government said it was because it wanted to move quickly.

They got Golden, and what did they do? They then appointed Burnham to go out and try to get a different answer because their political colleagues in parts of the 905 region didn't like the Golden solution. Then after the second report came down, they appointed yet a third commission, the Who Does What panel, to look at all these issues. None of them has come to the conclusion the government is now proceeding with and implementing, not any of the reports and studies.

The Minister of Municipal Affairs is wont to repeat over and over again that this has been studied to death. In fact, in the most recent times, the studies that have examined the economic region and how to bring health, wealth and wellbeing to the economic region, not one of those studies, considered studies, not one of those reports, considered reports, has recommended the abolishment of local governments.

Most of them, with respect to the cities, have said, "If you want to make this work, you need to have strong cities; you need to have cities that are close to the people in their neighbourhoods; you need to have cities that are revitalized and that can deal with neighbourhood issues, that can deal with the delivery of the services at that level, as well as a broader coordination of economic interests across the region." We know the government's solution does not do that; in fact it's quite the opposite.

Today the focus of the motion that's before the House is one that deals with democratic process, because not only has this government changed its position 180 degrees from what the Premier said during the election campaign, not only is it proceeding with a policy that is not referred to, mentioned or spoken about in the Common Sense Revolution, which is what they hold up every other time they want a defence for what they're doing -- they don't want to listen to people -- not only is there no reference, no base, no history to this, and not only did it come out of the blue in August or September of last year as supposedly just a thought, an idea, a dream, a twinkle in the eye of the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, but now we see legislation in the House in that short a period of time.

Madam Speaker, you'll know, having been a former cabinet minister, that things don't move that quickly through the bureaucracy, that these plans had to be in place being churned away while all the supposed consultation through the Who Does What process was under way.

Not only all that, but we have a policy that virtually every single municipal government, city government that is affected has opposed, and through polling a majority of residents in each of those cities; therefore, a majority of residents in Metropolitan Toronto oppose the direction this government is imposing, is forcing on the area of Metropolitan Toronto.

The natural response from people in a democratic society is to say: "Listen, we want to have our say. We want to have some input into this process." That grass-roots uprising, reflected through the democratically elected city councils, has been given an expression through a decision by those cities to pursue a referendum vote on the question, "Do you want your city to be amalgamated, along with the other cities in Metro Toronto, into one megacity?" That's a reasonable question.

But perhaps the Minister of Municipal Affairs thinks that question isn't well worded. If that were the problem, one would think some discussion between the minister and the mayors might resolve that problem. The mayors have offered that over the course of the last two months as they were moving towards the development of such a question.

The minister has steadfastly refused to sit down and have a discussion with the mayors about what the question should be, and yet hides behind an accusation that whatever question they put forward will be a loaded question, will be a biased question, couldn't possibly give a clear answer to such a complex problem, hides behind that as a defence of why he sees no need for the government of Ontario to listen to the democratic expression of the people of Metro Toronto, as will be provided through this referendum vote.

I don't think that's good enough in a democracy. I'll tell you very honestly, I'm a sceptic about the tool of referenda. I think they have to be used very carefully. I know the government, through discussions in one of the standing committees, has been proposing the introduction of legislation to allow for referenda in the province. How ironic.

Here's a government that's promoting this as a mechanism of grass-roots democracy, yet when the real opportunity is here before them, they do everything they can to discredit the process, to discredit those who would come forward with a question, to discredit essentially the democratic expression of the people of Metro Toronto. They say, "It doesn't matter what you say; we're not going to listen to you." I don't know how people can stand for that.

I don't think it matters whether you support the concept of the megacity or you're opposed to the concept of the megacity. When there is such controversy, when there is such social change happening at such a rapid pace, when people are concerned and the majority of people, as far as we know, through the expressions of polling, have opposed this, how can the government simply say, "We're not going to do anything to facilitate a testing of public opinion on this, our major platform in this area of municipal reform in Metro Toronto"?

How can they say that the tool they propose to be a democratic tool, a referendum -- in this case referenda, a number across the cities -- is not an appropriate tool? How can they hide behind a defence that the question will be biased when they refuse to sit down and help shape the question?

Our motion is directed towards this. We're asking that the Minister of Municipal Affairs sit down with the mayors of the cities and work together to develop a question that is appropriate in his mind to test the opinion of the citizens: a very democratic request and a very democratic procedure that should be followed by a government that purports to support grass-roots, local, citizen-initiated referenda.

The government speaks often in response to this by saying, "Let's get it out to committee and let's hear from people," and raises concerns that the opposition is stalling letting it get out to committee. Fair enough. The New Democratic Party is in fact stalling at this point in time, but with very good reason: because we've had no commitment from the government with respect to how long those hearings are going to be, with respect to how many people will be heard. We know that 500 to 600 people have applied already and the notice hasn't even gone out for committee hearings yet.

We've had no commitment from the government that people who want to be heard will be heard or that there will be every effort to facilitate that.

We've had no commitment from the government that they don't intend to ram this through on third reading before the results of the referenda are known. How can you claim to be democratic? You know that a citizens' vote is coming up and we can't even get a commitment from you that third reading won't be passed until after we know what the democratic wish of the citizens of Toronto and Etobicoke and Scarborough and York and East York and North York is.

I understand if you say you're not going to pay any attention to it. I think that's foolish, but you are the provincial government; you are the government of the day. You can make that decision. But to say you're not even going to allow the results of that democratic expression to be known before you take your final decision -- how can anyone view that as serious consultation, as a serious democratic process?

How can anyone view it other than as a government that wants to ram this through and undermine the efforts of the cities to have a referendum, a government that doesn't want those results to mean anything, in fact doesn't want the vote to take place, and so is committed to ramming it through?

We have had two days of debate on this bill under the rules of the House. So far that's actually been a total of about an hour and 30 minutes of debate. Under the rules of this House, when there are three days of debate -- it doesn't matter how long we spend on it in that particular day -- the government is in a position to move what's called a time allocation motion. I'm not going to get into all the picayune detail about this, but what it means is the government can bring forward a motion at that time and not before then that says: "This is when second reading will be over.

This is how long there'll be for hearings. This is when third reading will take place. This is when the vote will take place," all set out.

Normally that would be open to discussion with the parties. But this government has not given any commitment, has not given any indication that they will talk to us about whether or not that vote on third reading should be delayed until after the referendum.

We've made our case. The government House leader has gone away and simply said: "I'll take it under advisement." That was four days ago. We have still heard nothing back. So if you wonder why, on Thursday, for example, the New Democratic Party, through use of legitimate points of order, stopped the government from being able to call that bill for a third day of reading, I'll tell you, very simply: Because after that, you would have been within your rights under the standing orders to introduce this time allocation motion.

And you know what? We believe there should be some discussion about the process. We believe there should be some commitment about the public hearings and the number of people who will be heard and there should be some commitment about the timing of the third reading vote.

And you know what else? Each day we understand a little bit more about the mega-announcements that the government has made. You know, it has taken several days since Tuesday's downloading of social services and child care and long-term care and housing and transportation, sewer and water etc on to the municipalities; it has taken through until this weekend, until today, to start to actually get a sense of what the costs are to the citizens of Metro Toronto. We know now it's about $380 million more cost to Metro Toronto. That means it necessitates a mega-tax increase to pay for the mega-dumping of services.

We need to have public examination, we need to have a full review of the facts and we need some time to have the facts come to the forefront, because this government has rammed through announcement after announcement, has confused all the issues, has muddled it all together, has made it very difficult.

The efforts of the New Democratic Party caucus are to ensure that there is time before this goes out to committee for people to have a full sense of what the government is in fact doing, to ensure there are adequate public hearings so that people can be heard and to ensure that that third reading debate does not occur until after the referendum and the democratic expression of the people of Metro Toronto is known.

That, we believe, is both democratic and reasonable. For that reason we've brought forward this motion and for that reason we will watch with great interest to see how the supposed democrats across the floor, the ones who support referenda, will vote on our motion today.

Mr Dan Newman (Scarborough Centre): It is a pleasure to speak and participate in the debate today on the opposition day motion by Mr Hampton regarding a referendum on the new amalgamated city of Toronto.

The opposition seems to raise the issue of referendums when it's convenient, that is, when it's an issue that they themselves are not in favour of. The opposition parties, both the Liberals and NDP, and their members continually say that they are the defenders of democracy, today the saviours of democracy, if you listen to them, that they are the only ones who are listening to the people of this province, that they are the ones who have a monopoly on the ability to consult and listen to their constituents. Well, they don't.

Where was the leader of the third party during the last government? Was he advocating a referendum on every piece of legislation that the government of the day was bringing forward? Was he advocating a referendum on each and every one of the 33 tax hikes that his government brought forward? Was he advocating a referendum to ask the people of Ontario if they wanted to see the debt of the province increase by $50 billion? No, he wasn't.

In fact, in 1992 when the member for York Mills, David Turnbull, presented a private member's bill entitled the Provincial Public Consultation Act, every single NDP member who even bothered to show up for the vote voted against that bill -- the supposed democrats we hear today. So I say to the leader of the third party, you and your party are not the great defenders of democracy that you portray yourselves to be.

I represent a riding within the city of Scarborough. The city of Scarborough has decided to have a ballot that can be mailed, faxed, e-mailed or dropped at local city buildings in order to poll the citizens of Scarborough on their thoughts on the amalgamation of seven municipal governments into one.

What will the question be? What safeguards will be in place to ensure that only those who are eligible to vote in a municipal election will be the ones voting in that referendum? Will it truly be a secret ballot? Some have told me that a signature will be required on the ballot. If this indeed is the case, then it is simply not democracy when there's not a vote by secret ballot. Will the decision be considered if it's a 50% majority, a 60% majority, or is it 66%? Will it require a certain percentage of eligible voters to vote? Will it be decisive if only 10% of voters even bother to vote?

There are various ways of gauging the views of our constituents on any issue, and this issue is no different. We can look at the number of letters we receive, the number of phone calls and the discussions we have with our constituents not only in our offices but within the community, including town hall meetings. More people have contacted my office regarding fur trapping in my riding than regarding amalgamation of the city of Scarborough within a new, amalgamated city of Toronto.

Those opposed to amalgamation will lead us to believe that all neighbourhood communities will suddenly disappear on January 1, 1998. Those opposed will lead us to believe that local representation is going to be lost and local input in decision-making is going to be lost on January 1, 1998.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): What are you afraid of?

The Acting Speaker: Member for Algoma, come to order.

Mr Newman: This is not going to happen. You see, I can turn to history to show and actually prove that this will not happen.

My community of Scarborough has a rich history as a municipality that has evolved and changed over time. It has not always been a city as some may lead us to believe. Present-day Scarborough was first inhabited by aboriginal peoples in approximately 1250.

Mr Wildman: They did things by consensus.

The Acting Speaker: Member for Algoma, come to order.

Mr Newman: In 1796 the first Scarborough land patent was granted by the crown, thus opening the township to settlement. In 1850 Scarborough was incorporated as a self-governing municipality with a population of 3,821 people. In 1967, our country's centennial, Scarborough township became a borough, and in 1983 Scarborough became a city.

In Scarborough we celebrated our bicentennial in 1996, but it was 200 years of Scarborough not as a city, not as a borough, not as a township but as a settlement. I am confident that in the year 2096 there will be a wonderful tricentennial celebration in Scarborough. But throughout all the changes in Scarborough, from township to borough to city, there has never been a referendum conducted on any of these changes.

We in Scarborough know what a great place Scarborough is to live in, but where would we be today if that township of 3,821 people had stayed as a township? We wouldn't have the wonderful community that we enjoy today had the visionaries of the past not been progressive in bringing about much-needed reform. We wouldn't have the community we have today unless change had been made in the past. In Scarborough we've had 171 years of Scarborough as a township, 16 years of Scarborough as a borough and only 13 years of Scarborough as a city.

I see Bill 103 taking the people of Scarborough into the future to be part of a single, unified city where taxpayers pay less tax and see barriers to growth and investment removed and jobs created. I see Scarborough and its citizens having real input, greater input into the democratic process through community councils and neighbourhood committees.

Throughout the transformation of Scarborough from township to city the communities that make up Scarborough have remained. Look at atlases from 50, 60, 70 years ago and you will see the communities of L'Amaroux, Malvern, Agincourt, Woburn, Highland Creek, West Hill, Wexford and Birch Cliff; and in my riding of Scarborough Centre, Bendale, Scarborough Village, Scarborough Junction, Cliffside, Cliffcrest and Cedarbrae, just to name a few.

These communities have survived. All these communities and neighbourhoods have survived the transformation from township to borough to city, and I believe they will continue to thrive under a unified city of Scarborough. Why? Because it's people who make communities, not artificial boundaries created by pieces of legislation. They do not make communities.

I will not be supporting this resolution. I appreciate the opportunity to participate in the debate today on Mr Hampton's resolution.

Mr Mike Colle (Oakwood): It's a great pleasure to support this resolution by the third party. I think the third party is trying to emphasize the point that no matter how many times the government makes excuses for why referenda should not be held on March 3, the fundamental issue here is that they're afraid of what the people of Scarborough, the people of East York, the people of Toronto, York, Etobicoke and North York will say. They know that most of them do not accept this complete change in direction of this government.

Traditionally, people who advocated referenda said they were needed because if a government changed course and a government didn't have a mandate, a referendum would have a very valuable role to play, and this is a perfect example of a government changing course.

As you know, in the election and prior to June 1995, this government categorically stated in the Trimmer report that it was going to support, enforce and encourage local government. They said categorically they were going to replace Metro and keep Scarborough and the other five municipalities. Now this government has changed course.

Also, the other thing this government has changed course on is referenda. The now Premier, when he was Leader of the Opposition, called for referenda on everything from casinos on down. They were advocates of direct democracy. Now, when the most fundamental change is being made in the history of this province in terms of local government and how it impacts on 2.5 million people in Toronto, they are all of a sudden no longer supporting referenda.

Whose purpose does it serve now to change course? Now is the time for the people to have a say, a direct say. This government is advocating even wider referenda in the future, so if that's the government position before the election and after this megacity bill, you notice there is the gap right now. Before the election, they said, "Yes, we want referenda," and in the future they want referenda, but now when the future of the metropolitan area of Toronto is at stake, they say no. That is what is most upsetting to the people of Metropolitan Toronto.

They do not believe this government when they say there are all kinds of excuses and they mention all the complications. This government is saying we need to have voting by phone, voting by e-mail, voting by mail, so why would they oppose it now when they are recommending it in legislation as in Bill 86 where they are advocating wider use of voting?

The trouble is this government is not listening. The Premier and the Minister of Municipal Affairs have said: "We don't care whether you have a referendum. We won't listen." If that isn't an affront to basic democracy, what is, when they say categorically that they won't listen to a referendum that the people in each one of the six cities have said they want? What is the harm in having those referenda? Why not wait until the people have a say? They might get some good ideas. They might find out how costly this megacity is going to be.

I think today we're beginning to realize, through the smokescreen of propaganda, that this megacity bill is also part of this mega-dumping of social services, unheard of in the western world, on municipal property taxpayers. If there was ever a time for the residents to have a say, it is now, because not only are they getting a megacity, they're getting a mega-dumping of provincial responsibility on to the property taxpayers of Scarborough, Etobicoke, East York.

I certainly think there was no mention of mega-dumping of welfare on to property taxpayers during the election campaign of 1995. Not one MPP, I'm sure, ran on that platform of dumping.

Here's what they're going to dump on Metro: $290 million in general welfare assistance that wasn't there before and now the people of Scarborough will have to pay for, and family benefits. These are income maintenance programs. They don't do this anywhere in the civilized world, they don't dump income maintenance programs on the local taxpayer, because those are the same people who may be out of work or on welfare, so you get a double whammy. You lose your job. You're on welfare. What happens? Welfare rates go up; your taxes go up. That is why in most civilized countries they don't do it.

But here there's been a dramatic shift by this government, a dramatic ideological shift to the extreme right, in offloading this type of maintenance program, and they say to the people of Scarborough and East York and North York, "Oh, you do not have the right to have a say on this dramatic shift." If there's anything as fundamental as this -- there's never been this fundamental change in Ontario. It's a radical, extremist change in direction, unheard of in this province, even unheard of in New Jersey, in Michigan.

This is a dramatic shift and why you need a referendum, because when a government makes a dramatic shift in direction, the people should have a right to be heard. That's why a lot of people who at one time thought, "Well, this is just about changing political boundaries and about city halls," know now that this megacity revolution, this mega-revolution is about fundamental structural changes in this province, in how we take care of our poor, our children.

Health care: Incredible. They are telling the people in Scarborough, "You have no say in the fact that the provincial government is going to dump health care on to the property tax." That's what megacity means. You get the megacity and you get the dumping of health care on to the property tax.

Long-term care: $200 million in Metro dumped on to the property taxpayers. If that isn't a fundamental change -- and it's a very shrewd dumping, a very shrewd swap. The government is taking on education and saying, "Oh, we're going to pay for education," but it knows education is controllable. It knows the demographics; in other words, fewer and fewer young people are going to be going through the blip. But this government also knows that he population is aging, so where are the pressures going to be?

They're going to be on programs like long-term care, which has gone up a couple of hundred per cent in the last 10 years, a 200% increase at least in long-term-care costs. That's what they're putting on the property tax bill.

You've got welfare, and we went through the welfare explosion in Metro in 1989-90 when the recession hit. At that time in Metro we paid for only 20% of GWA, and that recession manipulated our whole budgetary process at Metro. We had t