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

December 4, 1996

36th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

l133 - Wed 4 Dec 1996 / Mer 4 Déc 1996

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

PHYSICIANS' SERVICES

FAMILY SUPPORT PLAN

GUELPH GRYPHONS FOOTBALL TEAM

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

PROTECTION OF PRIVACY

VANIER CENTRE FOR WOMEN

MARTIN AND OLIVIA STREEF

SPEAKER'S RULING

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

GOVERNMENT'S AGENDA

ORAL QUESTIONS

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

IPPERWASH PROVINCIAL PARK

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

GOVERNMENT CONSULTANTS

EDUCATION FINANCING

ONTARIO WORKS

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

GROW ONTARIO

LIQUOR CONTROL BOARD OF ONTARIO

NATIVE CHILDREN'S SERVICES

INVESTMENT IN ONTARIO

ASSISTANCE TO NORTHERN ONTARIO

MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION CONTRACT

PETITIONS

NORTH YORK BRANSON HOSPITAL

HIGHWAY SAFETY

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

FIRE SAFETY

TVONTARIO

WATER AND SEWAGE CHARGES

STUDENTS WITH SPECIAL NEEDS

FAMILY SUPPORT PLAN

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

RENT REGULATION

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

CITY OF OTTAWA ACT, 1996

ORDERS OF THE DAY

BETTER LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 SUR L'AMÉLIORATION DES ADMINISTRATIONS LOCALES

FEWER POLITICIANS ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 RÉDUISANT LE NOMBRE DE DÉPUTÉS

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

PHYSICIANS' SERVICES

Mr Jean-Marc Lalonde (Prescott and Russell): My statement is addressed to the Minister of Health and it concerns the continued job action by Ontario's doctors. Minister, Ontarians cannot be kept in the dark any longer. They deserve to know the status of your so far fruitless negotiations with Ontario's doctors. Ontarians deserve to know what you are doing to ensure their timely access to doctors' services.

I have with me 50 letters, mostly from women, pleading with the minister to settle the dispute with doctors so that obstetricians can continue to provide their vital services. I also have heard from several constituents who have been unable to get the health care they desperately need.

M me Lise Desforges-Breau of Hawkesbury recently suffered an angina attack. She is in hospital and has been told that a cardiologist will not be available to see her until next April. Five months is much too long a wait for a patient in this condition. M. Jean-Marcel Morin, also from Hawkesbury, cannot get a much-needed appointment with an orthopaedic surgeon. The list goes on and on.

I have answered every one of these letters, Minister. I also hope that you will do the same. But more importantly, I hope that you will put an end to this very tragic situation that is causing unnecessary anxiety and frustration --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you.

FAMILY SUPPORT PLAN

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): I want to direct my statement today to the Attorney General. December has always been a month of celebrations and festivities, but this year, because of the government's incompetence, a large number of single parents and children in Cochrane North and across the province will not feel like celebrating.

Because of the cutbacks and changes this government has made to the family support plan and your inability to deal with the mess you created, single parents and children of this province are struggling day after day to survive. Those parents are struggling to keep a roof over their families' heads. Month after month, single parents, mostly women, are placed in the humiliating position where they have to go to their landlords to beg for an extension on their rent. Many of those parents cannot afford winter clothing for their children. To add to their despair, they cannot even get through to the plan's hotline to resolve their situations.

I am urging this government to act now and to guarantee that this tragic situation be resolved by Christmas to give the single parents and children the money they are entitled to and which they so badly need.

It's a disgrace to see this government dragging its feet the way it is and saying it's trying to correct this problem. They're blaming it on a computer glitch, but we know it's because they fired 295 workers in this province and shut down all of the family support plan offices and moved everything to Downsview. It's a mess. Everything is still sitting in cardboard boxes over there, and you can't plug cardboard boxes into the wall to make sure the computers work. It's a shame.

GUELPH GRYPHONS FOOTBALL TEAM

Mrs Brenda Elliott (Guelph) : Today I proudly wear red and gold, the colours of the Guelph Gryphons. It's my pleasure to announce that the University of Guelph Gryphons are the provincial champions of the Ontario University Athletic Association. They defeated the University of Waterloo to capture the prestigious Yates Cup, the oldest cup in football, dating back to 1898. It's their third Ontario championship since 1984.

As well, the Gryphon locker room has won a berth in the Canadian Football Hall of Fame and Museum in Hamilton for a display to be completed in May 1997. Nicknamed the Gryphon Lair, the room was chosen after a competition open to all of the teams. This display will depict the complete red-and-gold locker room and is decorated with many action photos of former Gryphon players and champions, including my colleague from Quinte, Doug Rollins. A six-foot gryphon is painted on the wall because as the players have headed for the field they have traditionally touched the front claw for good luck. Not only was the team victorious, but coach Dan McNally was also honoured as Coach of the Year for 1996.

Sometimes people jokingly refer to the University of Guelph as "Moo U" because of its agricultural excellence. Well, this university has a terrific athletic presence in Canada, and I congratulate everyone in the University of Guelph sports organization for their excellent representation of the university and of the city of Guelph.

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): Earlier today in Thunder Bay, Health Minister Jim Wilson announced the details of just what his ministry is willing to provide to our community in the wake of the restructuring commission's final directives and the subsequent proposal made by the regional hospital related to a new acute care hospital in Thunder Bay.

While I am pleased that the minister listened to my call for an increase in the proportion of capital funding provided by the province, it is impossible to not be disappointed and frustrated that he will not allow the 70% provincial commitment to be used to build a new single acute care site in the city. I remain convinced that the minister, without any engineering or architectural reports, has grossly underestimated the cost of a refurbishment of the Port Arthur General site, and on the other hand has overestimated the cost of a new site, leading him to justify his decision on a faulty financial basis.

Perhaps more importantly, I regret that the minister will not allow our community to have a choice in what or where their permanent acute care site for the long-term future will be. That decision should be ours.

As well, there are so many other aspects of the minister's announcement today that need to be addressed. We still remain gravely concerned about our bed numbers, the future of our psychiatric services and our long-term-care facilities and needs.

We'll be watching closely and working together as a community to ensure that all of these areas of concern are addressed. But for now this minister should know that we will continue to fight, because our lives depend on it.

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): I continue to receive letters and petitions from many citizens in my riding and other parts of Metropolitan Toronto who are upset about the haste with which this government is moving on amalgamation of cities within Metropolitan Toronto. I want to read out one letter that comes from a long-time supporter of the Conservative government and a constituent of mine, Donald C. Harrison, who writes:

"Dear Mr Harris

"As a lifelong citizen of the city of Toronto, and as a long-time supporter of your party, I urge you to proceed with great caution about amalgamating the city of Toronto with the surrounding sea of suburbia. It seems to be quite unclear that this will save anyone any money. It will result in a much larger and less sensitive bureaucracy. It will be too large for the ordinary citizen to know and have ready access to local municipal politicians. Toronto will lose its unique character as a series of different neighbourhoods.

The downtown core of the city is the business and financial centre for all of Canada, and has its own particular problems, which simply cannot be lumped in with the problems of the dormitory suburbs.

"Certainly improvements in the present arrangements can and should be made. But what is all the rush about? The citizens living here in the city should have their say as to what should be done, and hard and hasty decisions should not be imposed dictatorially from the top down with little or no discussion or involvement. I urge you to make haste slowly, and only after fair consultation with those of us who live here and call the place home."

I know the words of Donald C. Harrison of Wychwood Park in my riding are reflected by many in the riding of Dovercourt and across the province in calling upon the government to go slowly on this very important issue.

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Bert Johnson (Perth): Members of the Huron-Perth District Health Council task force conducted an options information session in Mitchell recently. The purpose of this session was to announce the three hospital restructuring options established for the counties of Huron and Perth.

The task force established and considered a long list of options to reconfigure the hospital system in Huron-Perth. They have set their goal at eliminating duplicated services and excess capacity while accelerating the shift from inpatient to outpatient care, all the while maintaining or improving patient care. These options are by no means final. The options are in fact starting points for detailed analysis and consultation.

The next step being taken by the task force is to hold open house discussions across Huron and Perth. These sessions will be used to inform the people of Huron and Perth of the preferred option established by the task force and to obtain feedback.

I'm encouraging everyone in Perth to participate in this process and bring forth their ideas on how to meet their health needs now and in the future.

Well aware of the need for change, people in the riding of Perth are working together to come up with the resources and fresh ideas necessary to make quality, affordable health care a reality.

PROTECTION OF PRIVACY

Mr Pat Hoy (Essex-Kent): Since taking office, this government has taken an axe to the budgets of every single ministry. Jobs and services have been cut, leaving crucial programs without sufficient staff to properly administer the needs of Ontario residents. Services have been privatized without due care and attention to safety issues, to administrative issues, to labour issues and to issues involving the protection of the privacy of personal information of Ontarians.

Just this week, one of my constituents has been the victim of the ineptness of the Ministry of Transportation and the company hired by the ministry to distribute licence plate renewals. My constituent received an envelope addressed to him, but inside that envelope was the plate renewal for some other person. His renewal, which gives vital personal information, has been sent to someone else. It includes his name and address, yet the ministry and the company refuse to take the steps necessary to retrieve his information. If you hire somebody to do a job, they should be competent to begin with and at least willing to correct their errors.

What kind of false economy is the government practising and how are my constituents' privacy rights going to be protected?

VANIER CENTRE FOR WOMEN

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): The government's proposed closure of the Vanier Centre for Women in Brampton and the placement of all provincial women prisoners into a superjail is both foolish and costly.

The Vanier Centre is a dedicated facility for women which has developed programs specific to the needs of women. A woman's reality is substantially different from that of a man, due in large part to her perceived secondary status in society. Female offenders are almost invariably victims of male violence. They experience low self-esteem and have not developed the ability to act on their own behalf. Women offenders typically have depended upon men or society to maintain themselves economically. They are often caught up in destructive lifestyles that lack purpose and reason.

Vanier is a unique facility which provides specialized programs to deal with issues like physical and sexual abuse, lack of trust in relationships and low personal aspirations. Based on compassion and understanding between staff and offenders, the Vanier program provides support, role modelling, behaviour modification and problem-solving skills. Offenders in the Vanier program are 15% less likely to reoffend than offenders who receive no treatment.

The Vanier Centre is a facility whose success in preventing recidivism is proven. The cost of effective corrections at the provincial level must be balanced with the cost of recidivism if specialized programs are not provided. Shame on the government for even considering closing the Vanier Centre.

MARTIN AND OLIVIA STREEF

Mr Ernie Hardeman (Oxford): I rise in the House today to honour and congratulate two of my constituents, Martin and Olivia Streef. The Streefs were recently named Canada's outstanding young farmers at the Royal Agricultural Winter Fair.

This award recognizes young farm couples who exemplify excellence in their profession based on their achievements in conservation, agricultural production and community involvement. Earlier this year, the Streefs were named Ontario's outstanding young farmers.

Martin and Olivia operate Streef Produce Ltd in Princeton, where they grow potatoes, baby carrots, pickling cucumbers, along with yellow and green beans.

During the competition the Streefs had to present a speech based on the topic, "How would you improve your sector of agriculture in today's Canadian business climate?" I believe this passage from the speech is appropriate, "By taking care of problems one by one as they arrive and correcting the wrongs of the past, we will make our sector just a little stronger, fairer, more level and equal for everyone involved."

I would like to congratulate this couple on their contributions to farming and to the community of Oxford.

SPEAKER'S RULING

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): The member for Essex-Kent rose on a point of order yesterday with respect to the Speaker's robes and wearing them in the assembly. I suggest to the member that it wasn't out of order specifically for the member for Perth, I think you were responding to, but having discussed this today at presiding officers' meeting, we will be more vigilant in the future and give you our undertaking that specifically that kind of instance wouldn't happen again. Thank you for raising it.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

GOVERNMENT'S AGENDA

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I wish to rise today to make an important statement regarding our government's agenda.

On May 3, 1994, I stood in the media studio downstairs from this House and launched the Common Sense Revolution. This plan was four years in the making. It was built upon hundreds of hours of consultations and dialogue with the voters of this province.

On June 8, 1995, after 13 months of campaigning on this plan, we were elected to implement the changes that would benefit all Ontarians.

The Common Sense Revolution, developed by Ontarians, is a plan to bring jobs and hope and opportunity not only for the people of Ontario today, but also for all of our children tomorrow.

This goal of a stronger, more sustainable future is built on five key principles: (1) lowering taxes to encourage more consumer spending and create jobs; (2) less government spending; (3) removing barriers to growth and investment; (4) doing better for less; and (5) a fully balanced budget.

Over the past 18 months, our government has already kept many of the commitments we made to achieve these principles.

We have cut personal income taxes, giving back to Ontarians more of their own hard-earned money. How Ontario families spend their own money will create far more jobs than government can ever create by spending it for them.

We're already starting to see the results. Retail sales were up a full point in September alone. Housing starts were up an encouraging 6.2% in the third quarter. Auto production reached an all-time record level, averaging 220,000 units in the second quarter of 1996. Consumer confidence in Ontario has risen by 19.2% so far this year.

We have cut payroll taxes, effective January 1, in an effort to reduce the cost of doing business in Ontario. We have cut red tape and we have moved to reform a number of agencies that have stood in the way of job creation. We have also ended corporate welfare.

The results? Since our government's first throne speech, 136,000 net new jobs have been created in Ontario, more than 60% of all the jobs that have been created in the entire country. I invite Ontarians to contrast this with 10,000 net lost jobs during the entire five-year period from 1990 to 1995.

We are particularly encouraged by the results we are seeing in youth employment. In the past year, October over October, youth employment decreased in the rest of Canada by 63,000. At the same time in Ontario, youth employment increased by 10,000, contrary to the trends in the rest of Canada.

We have ended unfair job quotas, thereby restoring the merit principle in hiring and promotion decisions. We have repealed job-killing labour legislation and we've restored a balance between labour and management in labour relations.

The results of these measures are clear: Businesses in Ontario are planning to increase plant and equipment spending by 11.9% in 1996. Nationally, 53% of businesses surveyed cite Ontario as the most desirable location, the most desirable province for investment and job creation.

We've already identified $5 billion on an annualized basis of the $8 billion we need to find in waste and overspending while maintaining, and in many cases enhancing, our priorities. For example, we are spending $300 million more this year on health care than we committed. We will spend $200 million more on child care, $5 million on school nutrition programs, $10 million on a healthy babies initiative, to name just a few.

The deficit will be slashed by 40% by next year and, as the Dominion Bond Rating Service, one of the toughest rating services, has confirmed, the deficit is fully on track to being totally erased by the year 2000-01.

When we took office the deficit was over $11 billion annually. The debt had tripled to nearly $100 billion, the equivalent of $46,600 for each and every school child in Ontario. Unacceptable.

We have set welfare rates at 10% above the average of the rest of the country. We have reformed the welfare system. We are making mandatory work for welfare a reality in Ontario. We have provided incentives to work by allowing welfare recipients to earn money up to the level of previous welfare rates without any penalty.

These changes, coupled with an income tax cut of more than 40% for low-income families and increased access to the Trillium drug benefit plan, are encouraging the work ethic in Ontario and providing incentives for individuals to work. The result? One hundred and ninety-five thousand men, women and children are no longer dependent on welfare today, down from 1.3 million in 1995.

Ontario is on the move again. For the first time this decade, Ontario is leading the country in growth, jobs and investment. We're nearing our goal of a better province for our people and our children. The momentum is there and the results are clear.

We still face an ambitious agenda and many difficult challenges, but we are on track to achieving the five key principles we set out in the Common Sense Revolution that will help us reach our goal of a better Ontario today and for our children.

It is not enough to just cut taxes to create jobs today; we must tackle the problems that led to those high taxes in the first place. We must not just cut government spending; we need to restructure government itself. No one would argue with the view that government in this province has become too big, too wasteful and too complicated.

To address this, we are leading by example. In addition to cutting MPPs' pay by 5% and scrapping the gold-plated MPP pension plan, we've brought in legislation to cut the number of MPPs at Queen's Park from 130 to 103, but we must do more at all levels of government. There is still waste and there is still duplication that can be eliminated.

For example, I have in front of me two stacks of what is 130 pieces of provincial legislation that tell municipalities exactly what they can and what they cannot do.

For example, when a family in North York goes to Earl Bales Park they might find any number of staff from two levels of government and a conservation authority, all working in this one park. In Metro Toronto alone there are 217 municipal politicians, including 111 school board trustees.

In education, we have begun to restore excellence and accountability to our school system by putting students first. We are setting clear, high standards for student performance and we're developing --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order. That was the opposition. I'm having difficulty hearing the Premier. I ask that you come to order, please. Thank you.

Hon Mr Harris: We are setting clear, high standards for student performance and we are developing real, tangible methods of measuring a student's progress. While we are confident that we have the best classroom teachers in the world right here in Ontario, we do need to look more closely at the system, a system where the highest-spending school boards spend almost $2,500 more per student than some other boards in the province, a system where 47% is spent outside the classroom.

Since 1985, school enrolment has increased by 16%, inflation by 40% but operating expenses increased by 82%. These examples illustrate why we decided to establish the Who Does What panel earlier this year.

Just as we said in the Common Sense Revolution, we do not need every layer of government that we have now. Taxpayers deserve a restructuring of these cumbersome bureaucracies.

We asked David Crombie and a panel of distinguished Ontarians how we could make the provincial and municipal levels of government in Ontario work better for the taxpayers they serve by cutting the size and cost of government, by rooting out waste, by ending duplication and overlap and by doing better for less. Despite over 60 studies on municipal government in Ontario in the past three years and despite 22 studies on school boards, no action had been taken.

The Who Does What panel was asked to give us advice on how we could, once and for all, take action. Specifically, the task force had two main components: how municipalities are governed, and what each level of government should do.

This Friday, Mr Crombie will be releasing his advice on municipal governance. We will review his recommendations and bring forward our first piece of legislation before Christmas in order to ensure that changes can be implemented before the next municipal elections.

The task of reviewing governance also included schools in Ontario. Members will know that Mr Crombie delivered his recommendations on education on November 13. We will be signalling our intentions on this very important decision early in the new year, again in order to make changes before the next municipal elections.

The second task undertaken by Mr Crombie and his panel was to root out waste in government by ending duplication and overlap between the province and municipalities. This disentanglement process was started under the previous government. Ten letters of recommendation on this issue have already been delivered, with final recommendations from the panel and the wrapup expected within the next two weeks.

After receiving these final recommendations, we will bring forward the legislation necessary to ensure that the newly defined responsibilities will be in place for 1998, following the 1997 municipal elections.

In the meantime, starting tomorrow and continuing over the next few weeks, individual ministers will be confirming transfer payments for 1997. Spending by the province, school boards and municipalities totals now close to $80 billion a year.

We're confident that these decisions stemming from the Who Does What exercise, as well as our ongoing efforts within Queen's Park, will allow us to meet the fiscal goals we have set. We are confident that ending waste, eliminating duplication and overlap, reducing the size and cost of government will save the less than four cents on every dollar spent that we need to achieve by the turn of the century to fully balance the Ontario budget.

These are important decisions that require focused attention and require appropriate public input and consultation. That is why today we are calling for a special session of the Ontario Legislature to deal with the various pieces of Who Does What legislation.

Beginning January 13 and throughout January, February and March, we will have an opportunity to debate, to hold public hearings and to finalize the changes that need to be made to reduce, once and for all, the size and the cost of government in Ontario that will lead to savings for the taxpayers of this province.

This special Who Does What session will be busy, but it will go a long way in ensuring that Ontario truly turns the corner towards jobs, prosperity, opportunity and renewed hope for our children's future. I'm calling on all members on all sides of the House to lend their support and to lend their cooperation for this very special and this very important session.

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): This gives me an opportunity to contrast my vision for our province with the one just put forward by the Premier.

It's interesting to note that "the goal of a stronger, more sustainable future is built on five key principles." I'm quoting from the minister's statement. He talks about the importance of lowering taxes, reducing government spending, removing barriers, a balanced budget, and generally doing better for less.

I think there's more than a fiscal test to be applied to government. The fiscal test is surely an important test, but there's more to government than that. It was Hubert Humphrey who spoke about the importance of a moral test. He said that it was important to ask ourselves how we're treating those in the dawn of life, our very young; how we're treating those in the dusk of life, our very old; and how we're treating those in the shadows of life, our sick, our poor and our disabled. I believe in the importance of applying the moral test to government, and that makes me different from the Premier.

There is no reference in this statement to the needs of the homeless or what this government might do to address those problems. There's no reference in this statement, in any real sense, to the special needs of women, particularly abused women, women in need in this province, or what this government might do to address those needs. There's no reference in this statement to poor children and their special needs and the special obligation this government has to address those needs. This government is doing nothing of any real substance to address those needs.

There's no reference in this statement to the special needs of the sick in this province. What we do know when it comes to the sick in this province is that this government is continuing to hack $1.3 billion from our hospitals. They're closing hospitals, they're shutting down emergency wards and they're taking 13 million caregiving hours out of the system. On top of that, they've imposed $225 million in additional, new user fees for seniors who try to buy drugs.

With respect to education, at a time when we ought to be doing everything we can to ensure that we have the best-educated, the most skilled population on the planet because we live in a global economy, because we all understand that if we're going to get ahead in the new economy, we're going to do it with brain power, at that time, what are we doing? We're slashing classroom spending. We're putting students in larger classrooms. We're closing school libraries. We're increasing tuition fees. We're making cuts to colleges and universities.

It's interesting to note that last year, 45 out of 50 American states increased funding to their public universities. What is it that they know that we don't know? We cut funding to our universities. They understand the importance of investment in education, of investing in their people.

But let's for a moment stick to the fiscal test. I don't believe this government is even going to pass its own fiscal test. The government believes it's important to introduce some business principles into government, and to some extent that has some truth. But I can tell you, if we were all sitting around a corporate boardroom table today and our finance person were to tell us that we were bleeding profusely, that we were losing money, and somebody else were to propose that we declare a dividend to benefit the shareholders or that we give all the employees a bonus, the rest of us would say, "We can't do it because we simply can't afford it."

The same applies with respect to the 30% tax cut. We're going to borrow $12 billion, at great expense, not only financial, but at great expense and great cost to the people in this province. Ultimately, that's what government is all about: We're not for bigger interests or bigger government or bigger business or bigger unions or bigger interests of any kind; we're for people. This government doesn't understand that. It's the people who are being hurt by its actions.

We had hoped that there'd be no more cuts to schools, that we'd have a plan here today to combat child poverty, that we'd have a new plan for jobs other than simply cutting and privatizing them. Unfortunately, for the sick, the old, the disabled, the poor and the unemployed, this Premier hasn't heard their message. Unfortunately, this Premier has failed to learn that as a government you've simply got to marry fiscal goals with compassionate concerns.

What the Premier is telling Ontarians is that if you don't like what he's done so far, if you don't like the cuts to schools or to municipalities, if you don't like closing hospitals and universities, you ain't seen nothing yet, you ain't seen the Who Cuts What session. It's a sad day for Ontario --

The Speaker: Thank you. Responses. The leader of the third party.

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): Twice now in less than a week the people of Ontario have been treated to two spin-doctoring exercises; one by the Minister of Finance, who strives desperately to avoid telling people across Ontario where he is going to take the next $3 billion from, who strives desperately not to tell the people of Ontario who is going to lose their job, how much is going to be taken out of education, how much is going to be taken out of health care, how much is going to be taken from the disabled, how much is going to be taken from kids, how much is going to be taken from seniors. That is the issue that this government is confronted with.

We see yet again today an effort by the Premier of the province to somehow spin doctor himself away and around that. The Dominion Bond Rating Service two weeks ago produced their paper where they said that the government, in order to finance their phoney tax scheme, will have to cut another $3 billion now and very likely another $2.8 billion down the road.

That is the real issue that confronts Ontario. The fact of the matter is that health care is being cut, education is being cut, children are being cut, communities are being cut, seniors are being cut and the disabled are being cut in order that this government can finance its phoney tax scheme to benefit some of the wealthiest people in the province.

I just want to give a few examples of that. The Premier talks about jobs; the fact of the matter is that there are 57,000 more people unemployed in Ontario today than there were a year ago.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Can I ask the government members to come to order. The member for Etobicoke-Humber, it's difficult to hear when you're heckling, and the member for Brant-Haldimand as well. Thank you. Leader of the third party.

Mr Hampton: The other fact is that the Premier talks about jobs. In the Common Sense Revolution, he talked about 725,000 new jobs over four years. If you take where the government is at currently, the government is going to miss its mark by at least 225,000 jobs. That means 225,000 more people unemployed as a result of this government.

The government talks about child care. They want to spin it for people that they're spending more on child care. How is it, then, that child care centres here in Toronto are closing, that thousands of child care spaces are being lost across the province? How is it that child care workers are going to be asked to take a $4,500-a-year pay cut by this government at the same time that this government gives bank presidents a $200,000 tax break?

Another example: Women's crisis centres are having to close their second-stage housing. They're closing down their counselling services. Women who have left abused relationships are having to return to those abused relationships because this government's cuts have left them no alternative. Children are being forced to go to food banks because this government shut down the family support plan, shut down the eight regional offices, laid off 290 of the staff, can't deliver the child support cheques any more. Children who are entitled to child support, legally entitled to it, don't get it any more in order that this government can give their corporate friends a large tax benefit.

It goes on and on. The Premier talks about his government's agenda for education. The only agenda we've seen from this government was to take $800 million from education last year, and it's going to take another $800 million this year. This has meant that children don't get special education any more, that children who need to learn how to read don't have access to the school library any more, because there's no one to staff it. This means that children are losing so that bank presidents can get a tax benefit from this government. Children lose.

I could go on, but let me just say this: We welcome a special session of the Legislature this winter. We're going to come here and hold this government accountable. We're going to ask this government how they can take $15 million from injured workers to give their corporate friends a further $6 billion; how the education system can improve when you're taking almost $2 billion out of it; how it makes sense to force things like ambulance services and homes for the aged down on to the municipal property tax base.

ORAL QUESTIONS

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Premier. You are destroying health care in Ontario. You aren't restructuring it, you aren't reforming it; you're destroying it. Yesterday your hospital elimination commission rolled into Pembroke and closed Pembroke Civic Hospital. It shut down 55 acute care beds, more than one third of the beds in town. It put 300 people out of work. Premier, why are you shutting down 55 acute care beds in Pembroke and firing 300 caregivers?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): The Minister of Health is not here, but I have some information on the Pembroke restructuring. I'm told it was pretty much in line with the district health commission, that the recommendations were consistent with what was developed locally. These are initial recommendations. As I said, it tends to confirm what the locals had decided would be in their best interests.

The ministry received the report I think late yesterday afternoon as well. We will review and study the report. I hope you will too, and perhaps the local member, and we'll all make our recommendations on advice on how we can deal with the health care system. It clearly has too many beds, many of them shut down by your government and the NDP government, but does not have enough money, unless we find savings where there is waste, to provide a number of the new services, the new technologies it's our goal to provide.

Mr McGuinty: Premier, the difference between you and me when it comes to health care is that you see health care through the eyes of an accountant. To you it's just something to cut. I view health care through the eyes of the community. A hospital is part of a community's soul. That's where your babies are born, that's where you take your kids when they're sick and that's where your parents pass on. How can you rip 96 years of history out of the Pembroke community? Why did you stop believing in communities and their traditions?

Hon Mr Harris: I have a media release here from the district health council. These are the local residents. This is from the chair of the Renfrew County District Health Council. Here's what the local people are saying, those who are involved in providing quality health care for those in the area. The district health council says it welcomes the report of the Health Services Restructuring Commission that was made public today. They believe that this will allow us "to serve people much closer to home" and will very much improve services in their own community.

There were, for the last 10 years, governments that cut the number of beds. I think between the Liberals and the NDP, a total of 8,000 beds were closed in the province but not one hospital. If we are able to find the real savings from those beds that you have shut down, then in fact we'll be able to help many more people, individuals, in their home, closer to home, more services, reinvestment, new technologies, ensuring the best medical services. It's what the people of Renfrew county want, the people of Pembroke want, and I would think that you would want to be supportive.

Mr McGuinty: There's an expression in law for what's just happened. The DHC is acting under duress; it's hardly acting of its own free will, and it certainly does not represent the views of the local community.

My view of a better health care system is one where people get all the health care they need when they need it and where they need it. Your view is a system that pleases no one but the bean counters. It's just a place to chop $1.3 billion.

Let me tell you what the people of Pembroke are saying. One nurse at the Pembroke Civic Hospital says, "I'm pretty devastated by the number of acute-care beds we're losing." Here's what a lab technician named Garland Wong has to say: "It's not a win-lose situation. Everybody lost. We're losing beds. We're losing staff. What more can the people do?"

Premier, isn't this the case in every community in Ontario? As you close hospitals, aren't you putting every community in a lose-lose situation?

Hon Mr Harris: I am really surprised at this member. On September 22, 1996, in the Kitchener-Waterloo leadership debate, Dalton McGuinty said: "I am convinced there is enough money in the health care system. I don't think we're spending it as effectively as we can." That is exactly the problem.

What the district health council in Renfrew said is: "We have enough money here. You have allocated us enough money, thank you very much, Jim Wilson, but it is not being spent as effectively and appropriately as it can." Accepting their advice, we are assisting them with the restructuring required so that they can use those resources to provide far superior, closer-to-home, seamless health care to the people of Pembroke and Renfrew counties.

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

Mr McGuinty: I have never said there wasn't enough money in the system. On the other hand, I've never said we should be taking $1.3 billion out of it.

Interjections.

The Speaker: First off, government members, it's difficult to hear them. I warn you. It's question period. I understand the time is more valuable to the opposition. I want you to come to order.

You must direct your question, please.

IPPERWASH PROVINCIAL PARK

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is to the Premier. One of the major concerns we've had with the events leading to the clash at Ipperwash, where Dudley George was shot dead and a police officer now faces charges resulting from that death, was the widely reported fact that someone in your government had said, "Get those effing Indians out of the park, even if you have to use your weapons."

Premier, you've investigated those charges now. You've reported that your investigation showed those comments were not made at cabinet, but you have not stated whether or not your investigation found that these comments were made at any other government meeting. Will you now state unequivocally that your investigation found that no government official made those comments at any time at any meeting?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): Yes, that is exactly what I have said, and I'm happy to repeat to you today that from our investigation, that of the Attorney General and of my office on anybody who was at any meeting, including September 5, no statement by any government official, to the best of our knowledge, like that was made.

Mr McGuinty: This is very important. The Premier now says his investigation found that these comments were not made, not at cabinet, not anywhere. This is news, Premier. It's news because your lawyers didn't say the same thing.

Given that you now say unequivocally that those comments were not made, can you explain why your lawyers would not say the same thing? Why did your lawyers, working under your instructions, refuse to say those comments were never made?

Hon Mr Harris: The case is, as you know, there is a matter of litigation that is there. You are a lawyer; I am not. I can't explain how and when lawyers decide to divulge information, but you're free to ask the lawyers when they plan to divulge it.

Mr McGuinty: Premier, the reason this is important is because a man is dead. There's evidence that you and your office were involved in the decisions leading up to that death. Your executive assistant was at a planning meeting just prior to the shooting, the minutes of which you have refused to release. Marcel Beaubien was sending faxes to your office and talking to Bill King. You refused to release those faxes.

Premier, we need to know how extensive an investigation you conducted. Will you release all the documents surrounding your investigation, including details relating to who you spoke to and which meetings you looked at? Will you release all that information today?

Hon Mr Harris: I think you will know that this is a matter of litigation; it is before the courts. As a lawyer, you know we will take the advice of the lawyers as to when they would wish to release information. As far as any of the litigation, there is also a very serious criminal charge that has been laid as a result of this tragedy.

I might indicate that you indicated and said in this House that there is evidence. There's not a shred of evidence. You don't have it and you will not say that outside of the House with the immunity that you have here.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): New question, leader of the third party.

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): My question is also for the Premier. It concerns the Ipperwash incident. It is clear that the OPP handled the circumstance at Ipperwash park a year ago, in September 1995, in a different manner than they had been handling previous disputes with native communities. The OPP have historically taken the approach of trying to avoid confrontation.

Premier, if not for political interference by your government, why would the OPP have suddenly changed their long-standing historical approach when dealing with disputes of this nature? Why would they have gone from non-confrontation to an armed buildup but for political interference by your government?

Hon Mr Harris: The whole matter is obviously before the courts in a number of venues. I think it's a very huge stretch for you to suggest that the OPP did anything differently. It has been reported to me and accepted to me by the OPP. There has been absolutely no change in how they planned to handle this situation from other situations. Their first priority is peacefully with negotiations. They have reported to us that this was their modus operandi before we were elected, after we were elected and today, that that is how they had hoped and still hope in the future to settle any disputes of this nature.

Mr Hampton: The facts speak for themselves. Prior to June 8, 1995, the public position of the OPP was to avoid confrontation with first nations, to negotiate, to discuss, and at all costs to avoid confrontation and conflict. Right away after this government assumes office there is an armed buildup by the police at Ipperwash, and as a result of that someone died. So the facts speak for themselves.

Related to that, I have another question for the Premier. On May 29 of this year you said, "At no time...was there any direction given by any political staff or any politicians as to what the OPP should do or how they should carry out their job." Now we see that when a direct question is put to them, your government lawyers refuse to respond to a direct question about whether any government officials were involved.

Premier, do you deny categorically that directions were given to officers or representatives of the OPP by one or more of the Ontario --

The Speaker: Thank you, leader of the third party.

Hon Mr Harris: To the best of my knowledge, absolutely, categorically deny. Not only that, but you indicated that you felt when you were in government that the OPP would at all costs avoid confrontation. That is what the OPP report to us is their intention, was at Ipperwash, and is today in matters of this nature.

Mr Hampton: Here's the crux of the matter. Your officials, when the question is put to them about a September 6 cabinet meeting, clearly deny that anyone said, "Get the" -- expletive -- "Indians out of the park even if you have to use weapons." So they give a clear denial about the meeting that took place on September 6, but about the meeting that took place on September 5, they don't deny it.

Premier, do you categorically deny that someone at the September 5 committee meeting said, "Get the" -- expletive -- "Indians out of the park"? Do you categorically deny that some official, someone in the government, said that at the September 5 meeting?

Hon Mr Harris: I've been very clear on this. I was not at the meeting. Everybody I've talked to who was at the meeting categorically denies any of the allegations that you make in this regard, that quote and any of the other allegations. Quite frankly, in the case that is there, it's before the courts. I'm not a lawyer. You go figure. You guys are both lawyers, you two leaders. The plaintiffs clearly have drawn conclusions from responses to two separate questions in a formal exchange of the legal documents. All of the answers will come forward, all of the answers that you have there.

We're in the hands of the lawyers. One of the most foolish things that somebody could do is pretend they're a courtroom or a legal expert and go over and take over this case.

I can tell you the facts as I know them, and I have shared the facts as I know them, but as long as you, and now the new leader of the Liberal Party, try to talk about widespread allegations, I have to tell you that to the best of my knowledge they are totally false and quite frankly tend to come --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Premier, come to order, please.

Mr Hampton: My next question is also for the Premier. I would only say to you that there is an apparent contradiction between yourself and the government lawyers who are charged with handling this case.

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): Premier, yesterday I asked the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing to hold a referendum on your government's plan to abolish local government, to abolish local democracy within Metro and create a megacity government. You said it wasn't appropriate to hold a referendum.

You are a great supporter of referenda. You've released a discussion paper on referenda and you have a committee that is pushing the issue forward about holding referenda. Premier, 75% of the people in Metro Toronto want a referendum before you proceed with a megacity. They don't think the question is too complicated, even if your minister does. They want a say in how they are going to be governed. Will you call a referendum on your megacity plan? Will you let the people have some say in how they're going to be governed?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): First of all, I don't have a megacity plan, so let me be clear about that. When you get into restructuring and when you get into governance issues of this nature, there are a number of proposals that are on the table. So we could have a referendum on Golden. We could have a referendum on a number of things.

But referenda really suit, as you indicate, yes or no answers. We are not interested in what will not work. We are not interested in slowly over the next 15 years eliminating any of the 15 options. What we are interested in is coming up with the best option, and we believe the process that you began with the Golden report and we then were elected to conclude is the best consultative process to follow.

Mr Hampton: I want to follow up on that because I clearly heard the Premier say earlier today that the government's going to introduce legislation. I clearly heard the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing on the radio this morning saying that megacity is in the works and megacity is part of that.

Premier, I have a questionnaire here that you signed. It has your signature on it. It's a questionnaire that you filled out in the last election. It was from your friends at the Ontario Taxpayers Federation. I draw your attention to question 7 on page 9. You were asked about this statement: "If elected, would your party eliminate local municipalities and transfer their responsibilities to regional or county governments?" You said at that time no. You said you disagreed. Premier, you are breaking a personal promise. You are moving in the opposite direction. Will you admit that you have broken the promise you made at election time and will you admit that 75% of the people of Toronto --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Leader of the third party, come to order please.

Hon Mr Harris: Since we've not made a decision on this process that your government began, it's really very difficult for me to admit anything. I can tell you this: It is not my intention, I have not been lobbying for it and no decision has been made. You've heard some of the preferences of the minister, but you have not heard me lobby for entrenchment of regional government or two-tiered government. I am really hopeful, when we come to a final solution, it won't be that form of government, as the questionnaire said.

Mr Hampton: The issue is, the people of Toronto, the largest city in Canada, want a say on how they're going to be governed. You didn't think it was too complicated at election time to simply answer the question yes or no, and that's what the people want a chance to have a say about now. They want to have a chance to say yes or no about megacity.

Premier, yesterday the mayor of Toronto wrote you a letter. She invited you to come to a public meeting next Monday night to discuss why you want a megacity. Even if you intend to ram your megacity plan through with no formal public consultation, even if you want to deny people the democratic right to decide for themselves how they're going to be governed, will you at least agree to attend the public forum sponsored by Toronto city council next Monday night to show that you are interested in hearing people's views? Will you at least go listen to people, Premier?

Hon Mr Harris: Before I answer your question -- I will answer it directly -- let me say that probably no matter on governance, of all municipalities but particularly Metropolitan Toronto, has had more study, more hearings, more open houses. We had them before we were elected, Golden had them, we had committees that had them. There has been more consultation.

Let me assure you of this: Whatever the final decision is that we make, it will not be made without having even an additional hearing process whereby before anybody -- right now, you're having hearings on what might be an option because maybe Howie Hampton said. That's a good bet it's not the option, by the way, because that's your track record. But let me tell you, when we know the direction we want to go in, we will ensure ample public hearings for the people of Toronto.

GOVERNMENT CONSULTANTS

Mr Joseph Cordiano (Lawrence): I have a question for the Chair of Management Board. Minister, I want to ask you about your plans to hire outside consultants at $2,600 a day to advise you on how to cut the civil service immediately, which will result in eliminating more day care workers, taking money out of the classroom and laying off highway safety inspectors. Have you developed an overall plan for restructuring your government's operations? Will you table that today? Oh, and by the way, how much is it going to cost taxpayers for you to reward your friends with government contracts?

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet and Government House Leader): I can assure the member opposite that the procedures we're going through will guarantee that the taxpayers will pay less. This particular process to select consultants on one basis rather than on an individual basis will save about a third of a million dollars by itself. The whole process involves using the expertise in the civil service staff to maximum advantage, but then there will be occasions when consultants are needed and this list will provide that expertise.

I also would like to point out to the member opposite that we are attempting to control and reduce consultant costs. For example, in 1989 the government of that day, represented by the Liberals, spent $45 million on management consultants. This year, we have spent, as we come to the end of this year, well less than a third of that amount.

Mr Cordiano: Sure, and in 1989 we had a balanced budget. You have a deficit. You forget.

Interjection.

Mr Cordiano: That's right, the first balanced budget in this province for over 22 years.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order, please. Thank you.

Mr Cordiano: It's obvious this minister hasn't got a clue. He's got to hire outside consultants to tell him what to do and he wants to do it real quick. He wants to cut all of these positions because he's got to fund his tax cut. It makes no sense, Minister, to go out and hire people at $2,600 a day to tell you what you already know: that you've got to reorganize and restructure the government. You've got to get people in your ministries doing it. You know that's critical. If it doesn't happen that way, it's not going to happen.

Furthermore, the minister knows that at $2,600 a day he's spending an awful lot of money. How can he justify that when he's laying off day care workers, when people are losing their jobs out there, providing real service for people who want that service, who need that service? How can you justify that? Are you so desperate that --

The Speaker: Thank you, member for Lawrence.

Hon David Johnson: This government intends to use all of the expertise, including the expertise within the civil service, to restructure this government, to make this government more affordable and to make sure that we have better services for the people of Ontario. Yes, on occasion, we will use outside consultants.

I will say, returning to the year 1989, it was in 1989 when the Liberal government was in office that the Provincial Auditor specifically expressed his concern that consultant fees had increased between 1985 and 1989 by 92%. The government represented by the member opposite had increased consultant fees by 92% within four years. Not only that, the number of people in the civil service had also increased by over 7,000 members.

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I have a question for the Minister of Education and Training. I have a confidential government document from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs dated in October. It talks about removing so-called barriers to restructuring. It talks about extending this government's ban on successor rights to school boards and municipalities and about overriding contracting-out clauses in collective agreements.

This opens the door for privatizing school services, among other things. It means that school boards would be able to fire their school janitors, who keep the schools clean and safe, and replace them with temporary workers hired by private contractors. Does the Minister of Education and Training agree with removing successor rights and overriding contracting-out clauses in collective agreements?

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Education and Training): I want to thank the member opposite. I don't have a copy of this so-called leaked document, but I can tell you that the member for Windsor-Riverside has represented --

Mr David S. Cooke (Windsor-Riverside): Don't blame me.

Hon Mr Snobelen: I'm sorry, my apologies to the member for Windsor-Riverside.

The member for Algoma has represented a great number of things as leaked documents, and this is typical. There's nothing on here that would indicate where this comes from or what it is. But I will tell you this: Once again, if anyone is considering scrapping collective agreements or overriding collective agreements, it must be on the template set by the member opposite's government, which did just that with the social contract, and now has the gall to stand in the House and ask me that question.

Mr Wildman: I don't know why the minister became so nonplussed. The document I sent over is dated in early October and it's from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. It's a briefing note providing for options on how to make it possible to take money out of the extended public sector by overriding contracts.

This minister has indicated that he wants to take at least an additional $600 million, a total of over $1 billion out of education in the province. The Crombie panel has said that school boards and municipalities will be operating physical plant. You want to slash and cut the education funding in the province. Apparently, this document gives you some ideas on how to do it.

The Premier has made his statement that there are going to be announcements this week, or coming before Christmas, on legislation. The question is, do you intend to extend the removal of successor rights to the broader public sector?

Hon Mr Snobelen: Let me say very clearly that whatever this is, it doesn't advise me of anything. This is someone else's document. It certainly hasn't been in my possession and it certainly wasn't created by my ministry. I quote, "I am looking forward in the coming weeks to making announcements that will improve the education system."

From the information or misinformation sheet sent around by the Ontario New Democratic Party, I quote this. It says, "The Crombie report has struck fear in the hearts of school board workers across the province." What strikes fear in the hearts of parents across the province is that your government, sir, was willing to have low standards of achievement for students in this province and this government is not. You, sir, were willing to send the children of this province a bill for their own education, and I can assure you, sir, as I have on previous occasions that this government, myself and my colleagues, will not do that.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): I've got a point. Minister of Education, you can't claim a party is disseminating misinformation. You must withdraw that comment.

Hon Mr Snobelen: I'm sorry, Mr Speaker. I do withdraw that.

ONTARIO WORKS

Mr Ed Doyle (Wentworth East): My question is for the Minister of Community and Social Services. There's been a great deal of media attention of course and questions about the program called Ontario Works. I wonder if the minister can give us an update on the status of Ontario Works and indeed what happened last night in my own area of Hamilton-Wentworth?

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Community and Social Services): I'd like to thank my colleague from Wentworth East for the question. Yes, I'm very pleased that last night Hamilton-Wentworth decided to join our expanding group of communities that are participating in Ontario Works, our work for welfare program. That's certainly good news for their taxpayers. It's certainly good news for those people in their community who are trapped on welfare.

This brings the total number of communities to 14 now that are moving ahead with our workfare plan. We had Northumberland county and Huron county join recently, as well as Waterloo and Halton. I look forward to more communities as they get into their workfare plans.

Mr Doyle: I wonder if you could tell us the kind of activities participants are engaged in in these programs in the 14 approved sites.

Hon Mrs Ecker: We've been very pleased and very impressed with the quality of the programs the municipalities are putting forward. Not only do we have individuals who are participating in employment support activities, learning job clubs, job résumé and job skills and things that they need as well, but they are also providing many opportunities for those on welfare to contribute to the community.

We have those employed working as a marketing assistant with a historical site, as community placements, as library assistants, learning how to be computer tutors in libraries, tour guides, research assistants, peer support group and resource centres, maintenance and housekeeping for a local church, working with a community service club to get a clothing depot up and running. The list goes on. We're very impressed and very pleased with the opportunities they are providing.

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): My question is to the Premier. Before and during the recent election campaign you promised, often and solemnly, that if elected Premier you would not cut health care funding and you would not cut hospital funding. In fact you said, often and solemnly, "Not a penny will I take out of the health care budget."

Against the backdrop of those promises you made, what do you say to the people of Pembroke today who have been told in the last 24 hours by your commission that in the next 12 months they are to lose 40% of their hospital budget in the city of Pembroke, representing a net loss on an annual basis of $14 million in that community, representing 300 lost jobs in the health care community?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): What I will say to them is this: I committed over a year before the election, during the election, yesterday, today, tomorrow, and going into the next election that not one cent will be cut out of health care in the province of Ontario. Second, I want to assure them that we have appointed a commission that has made a recommendation consistent with what their own district health council made as to how we can provide better health care services to the people of Pembroke, Renfrew county and indeed the province of Ontario.

We would still welcome more advice from the honourable member, from the people of Pembroke. The government will confer as well on Dr Sinclair's report. Then we will make a decision on how by reinvesting the savings, so there's not one cent of reduction, we can provide better health care to the people of Pembroke.

Mr Conway: You said in the leaders debate in the last campaign, "It is not my plan to close hospitals." You said elsewhere, "Not a penny will I take out of the health budgets."

In Pembroke yesterday you didn't take a penny; you plan to take on an annual net basis $14 million out of the city of Pembroke hospital budget. You are going to send 300 health care workers to the unemployment rolls, and your brutal surgery to the Pembroke hospital sector is going to put enormous pressure on the non-hospital sector to meet the patient needs in and around the city of Pembroke.

Premier, is it not obscene that you should ask the patients of Pembroke, the people of Pembroke and the health care workers of Pembroke to contribute on an annual basis $14 million so that you and Ernie Eves can make your voodoo economics, your crazy tax scheme add up, which we know it can't and won't?

Hon Mr Harris: The only thing that I would say is obscene when it comes to health care is the Liberal Party of Canada, through Paul Martin, slashing health care spending by over $2 billion to the province of Ontario. However, in spite of the fact that 98 Liberals in Ontario supported the Liberals taking $2 billion out of health care in Ontario, the kindly old soul to my right has cut not one cent out of the health care budget. He has found not only the $2 billion; he found another $300 million. Thank goodness, I say to the people of Ontario, for the Minister of Finance, the member for Parry Sound.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): New question.

Mr David S. Cooke (Windsor-Riverside): I also have a question to the Premier. You have referred this afternoon and in the previous question to the need for reinvestment. I'm assuming you're talking about reinvestment of the savings in capital and community supports.

This morning your Minister of Health was in Thunder Bay and he announced your capital expenditures as part of the restructuring of the health care system in Thunder Bay. Mr Sinclair has the responsibility of re-engineering the hospital system. He can only make recommendations on community supports and capital. Why did your minister make no commitment, and why has he still made no commitment, on community supports in Thunder Bay?

Hon Mr Harris: The minister was, or I guess still is, in Thunder Bay today announcing a significant capital reinvestment program. He will be announcing a program for the entire province before Christmas, but for Thunder Bay, 70% of the capital costs for redevelopment will be provided by the kindly old soul to my right to make sure that restructuring can take place.

As the member has indicated, that's not nearly enough. In addition to the backgrounder to the announcement that was made today, there are significant other community supports that need to be provided. There's a whole host of programs reinvesting in Thunder Bay and area because it is a regional hospital. There are a number of those reinvestments that have already been made and new ones that are coming: the regional cancer centre; lifesaving defibrillators; $150,000 to the northern Ontario health sciences network; $308,000 to expand supportive housing; $820,000 for dialysis.

I think there will be a supplementary, at which time I will attempt to complete the more lengthy list of reinvestments being made in Thunder Bay and northwestern Ontario.

Mr Cooke: I think the people in Thunder Bay and in other communities that are having their hospitals restructured are looking not to the kind of rhetoric that you just answered with but to specifics about community support programs that are absolutely essential if the restructuring of our health care system has any chance of working.

Can the Premier confirm that the reason there was no announcement this morning on community supports in Thunder Bay is because your government is going to offload things like long-term care to the municipalities? Does he not understand that Mr Sinclair, in whom you have a lot of faith -- and quite frankly, so do we -- said that if that happens, "It's 180 degrees out of phase with the philosophy; ours is an integrating philosophy; this is a disintegrating philosophy," referring to any plan to offload long-term care and other community support programs to the municipalities?

Can the Premier assure the people of Thunder Bay that he will not be doing that, which, if he does, will destroy the restructuring of health care?

Hon Mr Harris: You're quoting from a "what if" scenario in a report and a comment that was made in reaction to misinformation that was printed in the Toronto Star, totally inaccurate.

GROW ONTARIO

Mrs Barbara Fisher (Bruce): My question is for the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. As part of this government's commitment to rural Ontario and to the agrifood industry, all members of the House remember that the Minister of Finance in his May budget announced the new $15-million Grow Ontario program. In my riding alone I know of two applications to such a program, one by the Market Grey-Bruce Committee and one by the Bruce Economic Development Corp. Can the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs advise the House on how the industry has benefited from this program to date?

Hon Noble Villeneuve (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, minister responsible for francophone affairs): I thank my colleague from Bruce for that question. The Grow Ontario program has been very well accepted by food producers and food processors of Ontario. It will help make them more competitive on the world stage, do more research and development.

We have announced $237,000 in support from the Grow Ontario program to launch the Ontario Soybean Growers' Marketing Board plan to double Ontario's soy exports from the current $140 million a year to $280 million a year in the next five years; developed Grow Ontario funds for a new fish product, $250,000 from the Grow Ontario program in a joint project, fish product innovation in Kingsville in southwestern Ontario, Pelee Treasures, Kingsville; asparagus growers; Grow Ontario to assist promotion of tobacco exports, $250,000, very well received by the food producers of Ontario, the Ontario Federation of Agriculture. It is good news.

Mrs Fisher: Could the minister tell the members of the House how many projects he could expect to be approved under this program and how the members of this House could actually participate in it?

Hon Mr Villeneuve: The good thing about the Grow Ontario program is that it matches funds from the province of Ontario. It is not, "The cheque is in the mail." It is a very good partnership with producers and processors. In the first wave, on September 1, we had over 50 applications. In the second wave, at the end of November, we had 77 applications, and the time is still open until January 1 for anyone to apply to the Grow Ontario program: $15 million to match the private sector. It is good news.

LIQUOR CONTROL BOARD OF ONTARIO

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. The last time I asked this, the most foolish answer I've heard came from the previous minister: that the private sector would be more secure in not providing liquor to minors than the public sector; in other words, the LCBO.

The LCBO provides a safe, secure and controlled way of retailing alcoholic beverages. It provides the best method of restricting the sale of liquor to minors in Ontario, has an excellent program of quality control of the product sold in its stores, provides a wide selection of product to its customers in modern, convenient stores, has moved forward with the times and is sensitive to the needs of its customers and clients.

Why would you and your government ever consider letting go a safe, secure, successful operation and turning it over to the risky operation of those who, understandably so, only wish to make a profit from the sale of liquor in this province?

Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): Clearly the member across the floor hasn't paid much attention to the previous discussions. We have said, and we've been very consistent through the Common Sense Revolution and throughout our term of government, that we are committed to looking at the modernization of the LCBO. We laid out very clearly the several factors we would look at. One of them certainly was the priority we had on issues of control in public safety. These are some of the issues we are looking at.

Our commitment is to make sure that this is going to be a good deal whatever way we go in terms of modernization for the consumer and for the taxpayer, and certainly we do have a keen interest in public safety.

Mr Bradley: The last time Norm Sterling, the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations in years gone by, was in --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): It's the Minister of Environment and Energy, and it's not a member's name you use. Thank you.

Mr Bradley: I remember this person I mention used to be the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, and when he was in Alberta he was extolling the virtues of privatization. Yet those who are involved in the grape and wine industry in the Niagara Peninsula and in other parts of this province are very concerned that if you turn liquor sales in this province along with wine over to the private sector, away from the LCBO, we lose the one tool we have, the best tool we have, to assist our farmers and to assist our wine makers in having a successful industry.

Will you assure the House today that you will not turn the LCBO and the operations of the LCBO over to the private sector, to your Tory friends who are lining up to take advantage of selling liquor and other kinds of booze to the people of this province?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: I certainly don't agree with the assumptions the honourable member is making over there, but clearly the government recognizes the very special role that the Ontario wine industry and the grape growers play in this province as an industry. Certainly we're very supportive of them.

I may remind the member at this point in time, if we reference our comments to the Common Sense Revolution again and our consistency throughout our term in government, that point number 4 -- the last time I talked about point number 5 -- says that we acknowledge the special role of the Ontario wine industry. These are the factors we look at in terms of modernization. We recognize the special role the grape growers play. We are certainly supportive of the industry, and we have been consistent.

NATIVE CHILDREN'S SERVICES

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I have a question for the Minister of Community and Social Services. The minister will be familiar with native child and family services agencies such as Weecguttewin in the Fort Frances area and Tikinaugen in the far north that serve first nations communities in those areas and that are experiencing significant deficits. She will also be aware of a number of other native child and family services agencies that have been developing but have not yet been designated.

Could the minister indicate when she intends, on behalf of the provincial government, recognizing that a good portion of these moneys are recoverable from the federal government, to deal with the deficits of the established agencies and to designate and provide ongoing funding to the developing agencies?

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Community and Social Services): Thank you very much for the question. We've been working very closely with the native group because we want to make sure that if we are to make any change in responsibility and if they are to assume more responsibility for child welfare in their community, we have the supports and the arrangements in place to ensure that quality services and child protection services will be delivered in the best way possible.

Hon Mr Wildman: I appreciate that, but I don't think, with respect, the minister has really answered the question. Perhaps I could be more specific. The minister will be familiar with Gzaa-Gaah-Naa-Nig, which is an agency that is developing in the Parry Sound-North Bay area, serving a number of first nations in that area. She will know that her ministry announced in July to the agency that their funding was being cut, gave them four days' notice and told them they had $80,000 with which to operate for the rest of the year, $80,000 to cover staff, rent, overhead and all of the operations. There have been discussions with that agency.

Could the minister explain when this matter will be resolved? Will she meet with the agency, and will she in fact provide them with the moneys they require in order to carry out their services, which are so important for the protection of children and assistance to families in the native community?

Hon Mrs Ecker: As the honourable member knows, we have about $120 million that we are expending on aboriginal services and to support the services in their community, and there's no question that last year, to respond to the serious financial pressures we were under, many agencies had an across-the-board cut. No one was happy about that, no one wishes to repeat that, which is one reason why the restructuring exercises that this government has under way are so important in making sure that we can try to protect priority services.

I wish I had the faith in being able to rely on moneys from Ottawa. We have tried to do that in the past, and sometimes it is not as dependable for our groups out there as we would like it to be. We want to make sure before we make any change that there is funding in place and that, secondly, child protections and safety protections are there.

My staff have met with them before. If we need to have another meeting to resolve this issue, either I or my staff would be more than pleased to do so to try to resolve this matter.

INVESTMENT IN ONTARIO

Mr Dan Newman (Scarborough Centre): My question is to the honourable Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism. Recently, I met with one of my constituents, Mr Derek Rosario. Mr Rosario is production manager with BCB Technology Group Inc, who are makers of PC DART digital recording and transcription systems. Mr Rosario's company is contemplating investment in the near future and is undecided as to whether it should invest in Ontario or in another jurisdiction. My question to the minister is, why should this company invest in Ontario today?

Hon William Saunderson (Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism): I would like to respond to the question from the member for Scarborough Centre. There are four points I would like to suggest that he give to his prospective investor. First of all, Ontario is the high-tech province of this country, it really is. The second thing is that because of the statement that the Premier made today and all that that contained, Ontario obviously is the most business-friendly province in this country.

Also, because of the speech that the Premier gave as well, there is an improved access to capital in this province. Finally, I'd like to say that because of lower payroll taxes and the reduced personal income tax rates in this province, I think this is the province for your company to expand in.

Mr Newman: Would the minister kindly outline for the members, who may be contacted by potential investors, what the Market Ontario initiative is and what we should tell our potential investors?

Hon Mr Saunderson: Further to the supplementary question, I'd like to say this about Market Ontario: Market Ontario is designed to convince businesses and investors to come to Ontario and invest here. We hope that because of Market Ontario, we will obtain a 2% increase in our share of international investment, and that would produce 240,000 new jobs in this province, which will of course be a great help to the employment record of this province.

It was going to cost us $17.8 million a year, which will be money well spent because of the jobs that will be created. We will be selling the province on its many merits regarding its business climate. Also, we'll be selling it based on our quality of life in this province.

We're bullish in Ontario -- we want to get that message across -- and we want business everywhere to know this. We want to say that we are open for business.

ASSISTANCE TO NORTHERN ONTARIO

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Minister, a very significant partnership has formed in Sudbury between the Sudbury and District Chamber of Commerce and the Sudbury and District Labour Council. This new partnership is called the Partnership for Community Prosperity. It's chaired by businessman Gerry Lougheed Jr.

The mission of this partnership is to support and enhance the social and economic life of not only the Sudbury region but also of northern Ontario. Their immediate concern is the issue of the northern support grant, or what this group would like to be referred to as the northern resource revenue payment. There have been conflicting messages with regard to this particular payment. Minister, will you categorically deny today that that payment will be reduced or eliminated?

Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): I can advise the member for Sudbury that the municipal support grants are being developed and being formulated as we speak. I expect to inform the municipalities within a matter of days as to what grants will be available to them this year. I can assure the member for Sudbury that northern Ontario will be treated in a very fair and equitable manner.

Mr Bartolucci: In all honesty, we've heard that song before. We got stung last year, and we cannot afford another decrease. You know that the north has a lower economic assessment base and you know that any reduction has severe impacts on the communities of northern Ontario. We have a ministry that's assigned to protect the north, to speak for the north, to set policies for the north. The Partnership for Community Prosperity is advising your ministry that the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines should be responsible for the grants, rather than your ministry. Will you allow the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines to operate the grant as opposed to your ministry?

Hon Mr Leach: I'm pleased to see the member recognize the member responsible for northern affairs. He's in the north right now assuring the people of northern Ontario that they will be well represented when the grants are distributed this year.

The issue the member speaks about, having the ministry of northern affairs responsible for the northern grants, is something we have under active discussion. I'm sure that when my colleague gets back from northern Ontario, I'll take it up and discuss it with him.

MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION CONTRACT

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): My question is to the Chair of Management Board. You would remember that a couple of weeks ago we had an exchange in the House in regard to the government's plans to privatize MTO road maintenance in the province. At that time, you indicated that the government would not be going forward, or at the very least would stop and look over the situation, if you were not able to prove that you could save at least 5% by going over to the private sector.

As it turns out, in the contract you gave in Chatham-Kent, the IMOS contracts, the saving turns out to be some 2.8%. If your policy is that you won't go forward unless you get a 5% saving, why did you go ahead with a contract where you only save some 2%?

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet and Government House Leader): What I said to the member opposite and I'll say again today is that the initial pilot project, which was in the Chatham area, was a learning process for us. This was an opportunity for us to deal with the private sector on a broader basis, although a good number of the services are already pursued through the private sector, but the level is being raised.

That particular experience has taught us a great deal. Yes, the savings were in the order of 2.8% or 3%. Our view is that we should do better than that in the future, that the savings should be greater. The benchmark we set for future contracts, having learned from the Chatham contract, was that future contracts should have savings of 5%, and if they didn't, we would not automatically go forward with them; they would have to be re-evaluated.

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've affixed my signature.

HIGHWAY SAFETY

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I have a petition signed by a number of residents of St Joseph Island. It is requesting that there be an installation of a flashing red light and a caution light at the intersection of Highway 548 and the Second Line Road on St Joseph Island. Also, they are requesting that street lighting be installed at this same location for safety reasons. I support the petition.

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr John L. Parker (York East): I have a petition here bearing 56 signatures, including that of my good friend Willis Blair. It reads simply:

"We want East York to continue as is."

It is not technically in the form that's appropriate for submission to this Legislature but I wanted to do my friends the courtesy of reading it out at this time.

FIRE SAFETY

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): This petition is in response to Bill 84, and it's to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the firefighters of Sudbury 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."

Because I agree with this, I affix my name to it.

TVONTARIO

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): I have a petition here signed by over 500 individuals and organizations across northern Ontario which reads as follows:

"We, the undersigned, strongly protest any plans to privatize TVOntario. The privatization of TVOntario would jeopardize Wawatay radio network's native language programming and Wahsa distance education services because both depend on TVO's distribution system."

I affix my signature to the petition as well. I agree with it.

WATER AND SEWAGE CHARGES

Mr Bill Grimmett (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): I have a petition here signed by approximately 175 of my constituents. This petition relates to an objection to the increase in local water and sewer charges in the village of Port McNicoll. I file it today.

STUDENTS WITH SPECIAL NEEDS

Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): Ms Alda Graham of Community Living has organized a petition that reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Minister of Education has stated numerous times that integration of children with special needs is the norm in Ontario, inclusion is not;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to change the Education Act to state that inclusive education will be the norm and that the proposed amendments to regulation 305 be passed."

This petition has been signed by 369 residents of my riding and of S-D-G & East Grenville.

FAMILY SUPPORT PLAN

Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly 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 services 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 services to recipients and children."

This is signed by 22 people who live in Belleville. I agree with the petitioners and I have signed it as well.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

Mr Tony Clement (Brampton South): A petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas Mike Harris is considering massive changes to workers' compensation that would drastically reduce benefits and coverage to past, present and future workers;

"Whereas the proposals put forward in the government's discussion paper on workers' compensation released in January 1996 will place severe economic hardship on injured workers and their families (it will do this despite the government's commitment not to reduce benefits and services for disabled people);

"Whereas the discussion paper has not been widely distributed and most people are not aware of the impending changes that would dramatically affect their lives;

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

"We reject the current proposals and demand that full-scale public hearings be conducted into the workers' compensation system before any legislative changes are proposed or tabled."

I for one am looking forward to public hearings on this issue.

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): I have a petition here.

"Whereas many of the area residents are very dependent on the services of the specialists in Sudbury hospitals; and

"Whereas the northern Ontario travel grant is paid for obtaining their services in Sudbury,

"Therefore,

be it resolved that the Ministry of Health reassess the closure of two hospitals in Sudbury and follow the recommendation of the health council to close only one hospital in the next three years."

I affix my signature to this.

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): I have a petition signed by over 130 citizens of Toronto and I have affixed my signature to it as I agree with it. It reads as follows:

"Whereas the provincial government has not given the citizens of the Toronto area any opportunity to speak on the issue of amalgamating the six municipalities within Toronto to create a megacity of 2.3 million;

"Whereas studies reveal that amalgamation does not save taxpayers' money;

"Whereas Toronto was recently cited as the world's best city in which to live and work,

"Therefore,

be it resolved that the provincial government undertake a public consultation process before proceeding unilaterally with the amalgamation."

RENT REGULATION

Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview): I have yet another petition with respect to the removal of rent control and I wish to read it to the Legislature.

"Whereas the government of Ontario has announced its intention to remove rent control from apartments that become vacant so that landlords can charge whatever rent they want; and

"Whereas the government's proposed law will eliminate rent control on new buildings, and allow landlords to pass on repair bills and other costs to tenants; and

"Whereas the government's proposal will make it easier for landlords to demolish buildings and easier to convert apartments to condominiums; and

"Whereas due to the zero vacancy rate in Metro Toronto the removal of rent control will cause extreme hardships for seniors and tenants on fixed incomes and others who cannot afford homes;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to keep the existing system of rent control."

I do concur and I will affix my signature to it.

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): I have a petition. They're coming in by the thousands from people all over Ontario. It reads:

"To Premier Mike Harris and the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing Al Leach and members of the Ontario provincial Legislature.

"We, the undersigned, protest this government's actions against tenants described below.

"The Rent Control Act protects Ontario's 3.3 million tenants. Rent control allows for security and stability in their homes and communities. Uncontrolled rent increases leave tenants, their families and Ontario communities open to eviction, personal distress, and contribute directly to social instability. We want this government to stop any action that would allow uncontrolled rents.

"Further, this government is considering changes to the Landlord and Tenant Act favourable to landlords for easier and faster evictions. This is unacceptable to Ontario tenants and damaging to Ontario's communities.

"This government also plans to get rid of public housing and has halted the creation of basement apartments and a new supply of affordable non-profit housing. These types of housing are necessary for low- and moderate-income tenants to obtain accommodation they can afford. The government must cease all actions that reduce the affordability and availability of these kinds of housing.

"This government has eliminated funding for United Tenants of Ontario, five municipal tenant federations and other important tenant services at a time when they're attacking all tenant rights. Funding for these groups must be reinstated so that Ontario's tenants and not just their landlords are able to bring their views to bear in government deliberations on tenants' rights and protection. A consultation process with tenants' organizations should be initiated immediately to develop a plan for sustainable funding for services to tenants."

I support this petition and affix my signature.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

Mr Silipo from the standing committee on government agencies, on behalf of Mr Laughren, presented the committee's 27th report.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Pursuant to standing order 106(g)(11), the report is deemed to be adopted by the House.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

Mr Barrett from the standing committee on regulations and private bills presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bill as amended:

Bill Pr35,

An Act respecting the Ottawa Civic Hospital.

Your committee begs to report the following bill without amendment:

Bill Pr40,

An Act respecting the Association of Architectural Technologists of Ontario.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Shall the report be received and adopted? Agreed.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

CITY OF OTTAWA ACT, 1996

Mr Grandmaître moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr73,

An Act respecting the City of Ottawa.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

BETTER LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 SUR L'AMÉLIORATION DES ADMINISTRATIONS LOCALES

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 86,

An Act to provide for better local government by updating and streamlining the Municipal Elections Act, the Municipal Act and related statutes / Projet de loi 86, Loi prévoyant l'amélioration des administrations locales en modernisant et simplifiant la

Loi sur les élections municipales, la

Loi sur les municipalités et d'autres lois connexes.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Mr Patten had the floor.

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): I don't think he'll use the time.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I'm pleased to participate in this debate and recognize that there has been an effort made by the government to respond to the concerns my colleagues have raised in this discussion as we've debated Bill 86.

I think most who have read the bill have understood that there are a lot of good moves in terms of changing the way municipal elections are conducted; some innovative approaches to determining how people can exercise their right to vote, dealing with new technologies, making it possible for people to vote in elections in municipalities where they own property that in the past might have been difficult for them to do.

There are a couple of things that have raised some concerns. It has been suggested by our critic, the member for Fort York, that while we might understand the purpose in requiring a deposit for municipal candidates -- I recently saw a report on television which indicated that in the Vancouver city election for mayor there were some 50 candidates registered, one of whom was a clown. Of course, I suppose those of us in this business might find that people in the public sometimes call all of us clowns. There is some suggestion that perhaps we should have serious candidates and maybe one of the ways of doing that is to require a deposit. The question is how large a deposit.

Mr Ernie Hardeman (Oxford): Not too big.

Mr Wildman: The parliamentary assistant says "not too big." The problem with the bill is that it simply says it will be set by regulation. Essentially that means giving the Lieutenant Governor in Council, the cabinet, the discretion to set the level. It's easier to change a regulation, all of us know, than it is to change legislation.

I think members of the government party will understand that in a Parliament -- which is exactly that -- which is set up to ensure that the representatives of the people can speak and can exercise their responsibilities to represent their constituents by speaking in debate, it can indeed take a while to get legislation through. When the government has an enormous agenda, sometimes it's not as easy to get things passed as it might appear in the first place, even if the government has a large majority, because there are provisions made to ensure that there is proper debate. That's what makes our system stronger than most other systems of government in the world.

Oftentimes governments are tempted to put in legislation provisions that make it possible for the cabinet to set or make decisions by regulation, which of course then don't have to come before the Legislature. Eventually they have to go before a committee, I suppose, but essentially they are passed through by cabinet and there isn't full-fledged debate. It makes it easier.

So we are concerned about the possibility of a regulation being set that could in fact not be just not too big, as the parliamentary assistant has indicated.

One of the reasons that this bill might have been more difficult for the opposition and for some members of the public was that there was provision in

section 79 to give the minister the power to intervene in community transportation by signing agreements with service providers. Now, this is something that has been discussed by the previous government as well as this government with interested parties, but the people who work in the transit systems in this province were particularly concerned about the provision of

section 79.

The community transportation action plan foresaw legislation that would allow municipalities, school boards, hospital boards etc to work together to provide transportation solutions, to integrate transportation, to avoid duplication and save money.

However, the Amalgamated Transit Union, which was involved in those discussions, was concerned about the wording of this

section and had indicated that it thought there should be some changes. They had suggested a number of possible amendments. Until we understood whether or not those amendments might pass or be accepted by the government or similar amendments introduced by the government or some action taken on

section 79, we felt that we would have to debate this to the full length of the rules.

The Amalgamated Transit Union, I understand, did provide some suggestions, as I indicated, for amendments. They suggested perhaps we could amend subsection 79(6) of the bill to delete subsection (4) of the act and rename subsection (5) of the act; in other words, delete subsection (4). They also suggested another way might be to amend subsection 79(6) to insert the policy that the minister can only sign an agreement with service providers upon recommendation of the organizations within the area that purchase transportation services.

You see, what the transit union was concerned about was that the bill, as written, allows the minister, the Minister of Transportation in this case, to choose with whom the ministry would sign an agreement, and this could be done unilaterally. It could be done without the agreement of the service providers, all of whom have been involved in this process of trying to work out how we can avoid duplication. This might then make it possible for an agreement to be signed which would in fact abrogate the rights of the workers who are employed in transit.

I understand that the government has indicated that it is prepared, and I hope the parliamentary assistant can reconfirm this, if I have his attention --

Interjections.

Mr Wildman: I'm not sure how to get his attention. I hope the parliamentary assistant can reconfirm that in fact the ministry intends to withdraw

section 79 from this bill and to have further discussions with the Amalgamated Transit Union over the winter to determine how the provision can be made in another piece of legislation to ensure that agreements can be made to allow municipalities, school boards, hospital boards and other agencies to work together to provide for transportation in the community which would avoid duplication and save money and yet protect the rights of the Amalgamated Transit Union workers, their members, and ensure that they will be part of the decision-making and will be involved in any agreements.

Is it correct that the ministry intends to withdraw

section 79? The parliamentary assistant could simply nod if that's the case.

Mr Hardeman: I'm not quite in agreement with your total statement.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Alvin Curling): All I ask is to debate to the Chair.

Mr Wildman: No. I wouldn't debate with you, Mr Speaker, but I will direct my comments to you. All the parliamentary assistant has to do is confirm that the

section will be withdrawn.

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet and Government House Leader): Yes, it will.

Mr Wildman: Good. The House leader has come to the aid of the parliamentary assistant. That is, in this case, showing that the government has been prepared to listen, and I appreciate that, because unfortunately in the past, even on bills like this, which in many parts deal with housekeeping on how we operate municipal elections and so on, this government hasn't demonstrated a willingness to listen. So I appreciate very much that in this particular case in order to facilitate the debate and the passage of this legislation so that we can get it in place prior to January 1, the government has listened.

I understand that the government is concerned about passing the bill before the end of the session because candidates can begin to register for the municipal elections next fall in January and can begin to raise funds. It'll help them run their election campaigns. So, there are a number of provisions in this bill that deal with municipal elections that the government felt should be in place.

I might raise two matters, though. Number one, I understand that the municipal clerks of Ontario have written to the minister and have said that the provision of this bill that allows them to reject candidates for municipal office is not a power that they wish to have. They do not want to have the responsibility for saying, "This person should not be able to stand for office." If that is the case, if the municipal clerks have expressed that view to the minister, why is it that the government continues to have this as part of the bill?

Can we have assurance from the parliamentary assistant that this bill will not give the power to the clerks to reject candidates, because they don't want that power.

The other question is a larger one, and I know, Mr Speaker, you will indulge me if I digress somewhat. The Premier made a statement in the House today about the Who Does What, to whom, for how long, for how much committee. He said that Mr Crombie and his colleagues will be giving their final report, I believe, Friday and that the government intends to bring in legislation before Christmas. Now, we know that legislation will not be passed before January 1.

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): We can try.

Mr Wildman: Yes, you can try, and I'm sure that the members of the opposition will do everything to assist you in that effort. But I really do doubt, with the serious efforts of all of us, that the bill, whatever bill is introduced by the government, will become law before January 1. The member for Northumberland was being facetious, I think, when he said that they could try to have it passed before January 1, because I think even he would agree that whatever legislation is introduced as a result of the who does what to whom for how long panel is going to require hearings.

It's going to require consultation across the province because I suppose it will mean substantial changes to boundaries of municipalities and to the responsibilities of municipalities, and perhaps even the taxing powers of municipalities. I suspect it will mean major change.

It is quite possible that we will have candidates registering in January for municipal elections next fall, which is the reason the government wants Bill 86 passed before the end of the calendar year. We will have these candidates registering to run in elections for municipalities that may not exist if the other legislation that the Premier is proposing finally does pass this House. You would have the very odd situation of candidates who have been registered and are raising funds, as per the provisions of this legislation and the Municipal Act, running in elections for municipalities that may no longer exist by the time the municipal elections occur.

I'm just wondering how the parliamentary assistant can explain that conundrum. Will it be that if the other legislation is introduced and passed, say, by the summer -- I don't know how long it might take, but let's say it's passed by June, if it is passed -- that legislation might then retroactively say that candidates who had registered would be deregistered and would pay back whatever money they had raised for their campaigns? Or would it reregister them, if they wished, for election in other new municipalities, new municipal structures? I suppose, conceivably, that the new legislation, if it's brought forward, might just change the registration date.

I'm trying to be helpful here. It's quite possible, I suppose, that the bill, when it's introduced, as the Premier has said, before Christmas might say that the registration date is not going to be January 1 but June 30, which would make for a very short campaign and raising of funds. But we're going to have a very short time to restructure the municipalities, if it's a major restructuring that this government is talking about, if the government is going to be serious about consultation with the people of the province.

I suppose that's a big "if," because we've seen the honourable Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing and the honourable Premier both state in this House and elsewhere that they aren't really interested in hearing what the people of Metropolitan Toronto think about the possible restructuring of municipal government in this metropolitan area.

Even though this is a government that has said that it is in favour of referenda, that it believes in direct democracy and increasing the participation directly of citizens in the province on questions that are of importance to them, both the Premier and the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing have said that this is an inappropriate question for the citizens of Metropolitan Toronto. Somehow they think it's too complicated to be answered by a yes or no in a referendum.

It's passing strange, though, that the now Premier, when he was the leader of the third party running for election prior to June 1995, was able to answer a very similar question on a questionnaire with a simple yes or no and said that no, he was not in favour of eliminating lower-tier municipalities and giving their responsibilities to regional government. That was a yes or no question, and it got an answer from the now Premier. I don't understand why the Premier would be able to answer that question with a yes or no -- an emphatic no -- but doesn't want to give the same opportunity to the people who live and pay taxes and use the services in this municipality.

But we're here as an opposition, a responsible, constructive opposition, to assist the government to pass this piece of legislation prior to January 1 so that it can be in place for a municipal election that is scheduled for this coming fall in 1997. This will make it possible for candidates to register and to know the rules of election that will be changed by this legislation -- that is, if they're not rejected by the clerk for some reason or other -- even though there may not be a municipality in place that they are campaigning for once this other legislation is passed.

It might be reasonable to expect the government to do it all at once and have a proper consultation so that everybody could be involved and express their views, not only about the so-called housekeeping changes and some of the important changes about voting and regulations around municipal elections that are in this bill, but whatever the government is planning to do when Mr Crombie reports from his who does what to whom for how long panel.

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): And at what cost.

Mr Wildman: And at what cost, yes.

Perhaps the parliamentary assistant will be able to clarify this rather unusual situation for me. I just hope, with all due respect to the member, the honourable parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, that he will be able to clarify these questions more easily than he was able to answer the question I put to him about

section 79, because the government House leader is not present and it required him to assist the parliamentary assistant to answer the question about

section 79.

I know, Mr Speaker, it's not parliamentary to refer to the absence of a member, but you'll understand that I was bringing this up simply because I had to explain my concern about whether the parliamentary assistant would be able to answer the question in the absence of the government House leader. I hope he will.

Why isn't this being done in a systematic way that will ensure that we can have proper consultation so that the citizens of the municipalities across Ontario will be able to express their views on changes in the municipal structures in this province, the responsibilities of municipalities, the services that municipalities will provide and how we conduct municipal elections all at once? Why is it we have this bill now that must be passed before January 1 when we may see major changes in a piece of legislation that certainly will not be passed before January 1?

I would just conclude by saying that I'm very pleased that the government has listened to the concerns raised about

section 79, that in order to deal with the concerns of the Amalgamated Transit Union the government is prepared to withdraw

section 79 and to have further discussions with the members of the union so that we can have a proper planning for transportation that will involve the municipalities, the school boards, the hospital boards in a community, that will take into account the concerns of the workers involved in the provision of public transportation in a community.

I'm very pleased that the government has done that. In agreeing to withdraw the

section now, have further consultations to discuss how we can properly resolve the concerns and then move to legislation later on, it is going to make it possible for us to deal with this legislation now and have it passed as per the government's concerns and wishes prior to the end of the calendar year.

Would that the government were as forthcoming and willing to listen on all matters as they have been in this case. I guess the Minister of Transportation, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing and the government House leader have just been caught up in the Christmas spirit and have decided to be cooperative and to listen and to respond in a way that I think governments should act all year round, not just at the Yuletide season.

I hope that in passing this legislation, the government will take into consideration the concerns also of other groups -- the municipal clerks on the mechanics of a number of the changes for municipal elections -- so we don't have a situation where we are bestowing on those officials powers that they do not want, don't desire, don't think they are capable of exercising. We all know that municipal clerks are the chief electoral officers for the municipalities. If they are giving the government advice in this regard, that advice should be listened to and responded to.

I hope you'll respond to those concerns in the same spirit in which you've responded to the concerns of the Amalgamated Transit Union workers.

I conclude by saying thank you to the government for listening on this bill, Bill 86, by removing

section 79. We are pleased as an opposition party to facilitate the passage of this legislation, as the government desires, before the end of the calendar year so that it will be in place before the municipal election this fall.

The Acting Speaker: Questions and comments?

Mr Hardeman: Just very quickly, we'd like to thank the honourable member for his presentation on Bill 86 and his strong support for the bill as it will exist with the removal of

section 79. In terms of the member speaking about

section 79, I would point out that we are withdrawing it, but the total rendition that went with his presentation about why and how and what would happen to it beyond that point was not something I would quickly agree with.

On the issue of the clerk and the responsibility, I want to point out that in the present legislation it is the clerk who is responsible for approving and deciding whether a nomination form is the appropriate nomination form and whether it should or should not be rejected. With the change in the legislation, the reason the clerks have some concern is that we are combining the nomination and the registration form, and as opposed to the nomination coming in on nomination day or the week prior it will now be available to come forward any time during the year.

The clerks have some concern about the fact that they would have to make decisions in January whether a nomination form would be appropriate for the election in November; they have some concern about a sufficient amount of information being available. The suggestion of removing that from the legislation becomes very difficult because, as the member mentioned, the clerk is the chief returning officer. Who other than the chief returning officer should make such decisions? Again, it is not that we are not listening to the clerks, but the appropriate answer is I believe what is in the bill.

Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview): I am pleased to congratulate the member for Algoma on his presentation on Bill 86. I think the member has brought to our attention and stressed some of the points included in that particular bill, especially the powers to the local municipalities. He has mentioned quite extensively the concern I think municipalities will have and the implications as they evolve from the approval of the bill.

One particular area I want to stress is that especially next year, with a possible federal election coming up and the confusion that could be created at the local level as well -- as those who have municipal experience and are familiar with the municipal act know, if there is a by-election after March of an election year at the local level, there is no by-election. I should perhaps say that the local municipality has the option either of calling a by-election or not calling a by-election, but I'm quite positive that if it is after March of an election year there is no by-election.

I think this would create quite a mess at the local level if this were to happen, and given what's going on with the possible federal election -- it could be in the early spring, could be late spring, could be in the fall -- this might well happen.

Why do we have these possibilities, this confusion? Because the government has not well thought out the content of this bill and has not given us directions. They are solely interested in pushing and ramming this bill through.

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): I just want to take a moment to comment on the excellent presentation the member for Algoma has made and also, at the same time, the excellent negotiations he has brought forward to make sure that

section 79, which our caucus was very much upset with, is removed from the bill.

This is the type of negotiation that we've been hoping would have taken place over the last 16 or 17 months, and I am pleased to see that the member for Algoma was able to relay that in his message during the last 20 or 25 minutes.

It's a move in the right direction, and it shows that when there is cooperation, when amendments are suggested and brought forward, if there is cooperation and listening on the part of the parliamentary assistant and Manageme