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

January 30, 1997

36th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

L154 - Thu 30 Jan 1997 / Jeu 30 Jan 1997

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

REMEMBRANCE DAY OBSERVANCE ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 SUR L'OBSERVATION DU JOUR DU SOUVENIR

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

REMEMBRANCE DAY OBSERVANCE ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 SUR L'OBSERVATION DU JOUR DU SOUVENIR

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

MODEL PARLIAMENT

SIMON JONCAS

LLOYD PERRY

EDUCATION FINANCING

ROAD MAINTENANCE

THISTLETOWN SENIORS

HEALTH CARE

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

WINTER CARNIVALS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

TEACHERS' LABOUR DISPUTE

ORAL QUESTIONS

SOCIAL, COMMUNITY HEALTH AND HOUSING SERVICES

PROPERTY TAXATION

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

HOMELESSNESS

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

PESTICIDE TESTING

ECONOMIC OUTLOOK

EDUCATION FINANCING

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

FARM LAND TAXATION

PROPERTY TAXATION

CHILD CARE

VITAL STATISTICS REGISTRATION

PETITIONS

COURT RULING

ONTARIO CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTE

VETERANS HIGHWAY

CHILD CARE

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

NORTH YORK BRANSON HOSPITAL

CLASS SIZE

PROTECTION FOR WORKERS

PRESCRIPTION DRUGS

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

MANDATORY INQUESTS

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

NORTH YORK BRANSON HOSPITAL

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

LENNOX AND ADDINGTON COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION AND TEACHERS DISPUTE SETTLEMENT ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 SUR LE RÈGLEMENT DU CONFLIT ENTRE LE CONSEIL DE L'ÉDUCATION APPELÉ THE LENNOX AND ADDINGTON COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION ET SES ENSEIGNANTS

ORDERS OF THE DAY

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

LENNOX AND ADDINGTON COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION AND TEACHERS DISPUTE SETTLEMENT ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 SUR LE RÈGLEMENT DU CONFLIT ENTRE LE CONSEIL DE L'ÉDUCATION APPELÉ THE LENNOX AND ADDINGTON COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION ET SES ENSEIGNANTS

ROYAL ASSENT SANCTION ROYALE

The House met at 1002.

Prayers.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Phillips moved private member's notice of motion number 39:

That in the opinion of this House, the government of Ontario should release to the House and the public the secret studies showing the community-by-community impact of their downloading so the mayors, councils, ratepayers, community organizations and the public can fairly evaluate the massive changes in municipal restructuring that the Legislature is being asked to approve.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Pursuant to standing order 96(c)(i), the honourable member has 10 minutes for his presentation.

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): This is a resolution that I hope will have the support of all members of the House. It's undeniable that the announcements by the government in the last two weeks are going to fundamentally change Ontario. I'll stick to the government's own numbers: The government has announced that it is planning to take about $5.4 billion of expenses off property tax, that is, the residential portion of education, but it is going to add $6.355 billion of new costs to the property taxpayer. Those are the government's own numbers and so I hope that on the government side there's no disputing those numbers.

That is a massive shift of costs on to property taxpayers, and mainly residential property taxpayers. We have been told that there will be some funds available to offset that. That's $1 billion more that the people in Ontario are going to be asked to pay on their property taxes, $1 billion taken from provincial responsibility and put on property tax.

We've been told: "Well, don't worry about it. There are funds available to handle that." The problem is, when you cut through it all, as we now are finding out and certainly as the municipalities are finding out -- we have a report here from municipalities showing that in their opinion the province has now added about $1.2 billion of costs on to the property taxpayers.

The funds that they say are available are taken into account. The province says: "Don't worry. We're going to give you a billion-dollar fund to handle the offloading." The problem is that at the same time as they announced that they announced that they were cancelling a $666-million fund. So without question property taxpayers in the province of Ontario are being asked to take on $1 billion of added costs and the province will provide, at maximum, $335 million of extra revenue. Those are the province's own numbers.

In addition to that, the province has announced that something called the business occupancy tax is gone. The province eliminated the business occupancy tax. That, according to the government numbers, is $1.6 billion of revenue to municipalities. That's about 11% of the property tax revenue that was available to municipalities, that was being used to cover costs in the municipalities. A week and a half ago the government said: "That's gone, eliminated. You can no longer have a business occupancy tax." But it has to be made up somehow. The municipalities can't simply find $1.6 billion out of thin air, so that, according to the government, will be loaded on to the other property taxpayers.

People who are paying property tax in this province should recognize two clear things from the government announcement: They have added $1 billion of extra costs and they've told the municipalities, "No longer can you have business occupancy tax of $1.6 billion."

What does all that mean? What we're hearing from mayors and regional chairs across the province is that just to cover those things property taxes are going to have to go up 10%. I'm sure all the residential property taxpayers who are listening will say: "That is incredible. How am I going to pay 10% more property tax just because the province has decided to offload their responsibilities on to the residential property taxpayers?"

The proposals that have been announced we were told were in response to the Who Does What panel. Mr David Crombie headed it up, but it was 12 individuals selected by the Premier, hand-picked, people I assume he had confidence in. Mr Crombie said about the proposals to download, and this was a letter provided to the government on December 23, that if the province proceeded with this downloading it would "undo much of the work accomplished by the disentangling proposals." Much of their work would be undone by this. He further said: "The panel strongly opposes such a move.

We are unanimous in the view that if there is a choice between placing education or health and welfare on the property tax, it is clearly preferable to continue to rely on the property tax for the funding of education."

What we have is the government acknowledging that it is adding to the property taxpayer $1 billion of extra costs, the panel that proposed the key recommendation of the government telling it, "Don't do it. We strongly urge you not to do it. We are unanimous in rejecting it," and it's proceeding with it.

I don't know how other members are finding it, but I am finding in my municipality that the councillors, the mayor, but equally important, residents, property taxpayers, are saying: "What is this going to mean? I see you people down there voting on things. I see you are being asked to approve six major bills." The public should recognize that the government has six major bills before the Legislature -- here they are, from Bill 103 to Bill 108 -- and we are being told we must approve these. The government plans, I gather, to have them as law in the next few weeks, and yet we do not have from the government what it means to residential property taxpayers. That's the purpose of this resolution.

Surely all of us, Liberal caucus members, NDP caucus members and government members, are owed from the cabinet the information that they based their decision on to make these moves. We surely can't proceed to approve in principle laws that will implement the things the government is talking about without knowing what it means to residential property taxpayers, and the government has those numbers. The government, the cabinet, made the decision on the basis of these reports, but they are not sharing them with the public, so we are being asked to approve something where we're not being given the information we need to approve it.

We've talked, for example, with AMO, the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, a well-regarded organization of our municipal leaders, and they're saying they need it. They have to have that information from the government to make an informed decision about what you are proposing here. Certainly I suspect that all of us, as we head home to our constituents tonight for our meetings with them tomorrow and over the weekend, will want to be able to answer questions from them.

When the mayor or the council phones us and says, "What does all this mean to me?" I don't think any of us want to be in the position of saying: "The cabinet know it. The cabinet made that decision but they won't give us the information." So I'm proposing this resolution simply to say to the cabinet: "Share with the House the information that you used to make this decision. What will be the impact on our communities?"

I for one find it impossible to make a decision on fundamental shifting of long-term care for our seniors. Our seniors should recognize that their future long-term care is being shifted on to the property taxpayer. I find it difficult for our young people who rely on social assistance for their housing, their clothing, their shelter, to say that it's being shifted on to the property taxpayer without knowing the implications of that.

I find it very difficult to approve this where we are shifting child care on to the property taxpayer without knowing the implication, and ambulance services and health services, all going on to the property taxpayer without knowing the implications. Very clearly, surely the cabinet owe us that. Surely they owe us the information that they made the decision on and surely they owe us the tabling of those reports so all of us can deal with our constituents on a reasoned, rational basis.

As we embark on what is a fundamental, total shift in the way Ontario services will be provided, I think all of us should support this and we will finally get the information the cabinet made its decision on.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): I rise today as the representative of the NDP caucus to give our support as a caucus to the motion that is being brought forward by the member who happens to be the finance critic for the Liberal Party.

I find it really ironic that a Conservative government in 1997 puts itself and puts the rest of the province in the position of going ahead and doing the amount of restructuring that it's doing within municipalities without releasing any kind of information, without releasing any kind of impact study about what this means to municipalities and, more importantly, what it means to the taxpayers of the city of Timmins, the city of Toronto and the rest of the people in Ontario.

I remember well and the finance critic from the Liberal Party and other members who were here from 1990 to 1995 remember well how the Conservative Party, the then third party in this House, used to at every occasion come to committee and come to this Legislature every time saying to the NDP government and prior to that the Liberal government under David Peterson, "We want financial impact studies." They would come before the committee and say: "How can a government move forward with any kind of initiative without having some kind of financial impact study? The private sector would never do that. We're smarter than you. We need to make sure there are impact studies."

The Liberal government and the NDP government did that. We released information whenever we were going forward with a huge initiative such as what the government is doing, and the numbers were shared, the information was given. People at least knew the direction the government was going and had the details of that direction so that they could figure out how best to deal with it, either working with the government or working against the government.

In this case, the Tories completely forgot what they said when they were in opposition. It's a complete flip-flop in position from the position they took when they were the opposition party in this Legislature. I remember well that it was the position of the Tories that nothing should happen by the hand of the provincial government without having a financial impact study. They are now government and what do they do? They will not release what should be public information to the citizens of this province in order to be able to determine what the effects of the policies of this government are.

What's worse, they're keeping that information from people. It's almost as if they're trying to operate in secrecy, behind closed doors of the cabinet, and to not allow people in this democracy to have a say.

I say to the Conservative government, you were right when you were in opposition to demand that governments provide financial impact studies. We did it when we were the NDP government. Why don't you do the same? That's the first thing I would say to you.

The second thing is I would say specifically to the direction this government is going with regard to transferring over the amount of services it will be transferring to municipalities that you have a real big credibility problem. When you started off this whole exercise of downloading services on to municipalities, you had same fair-weather friends. You had people out in the business community, you had prominent Tories, you had mayors, you had councillors who were saying: "Yes, this sounds like a good idea. We believe in disentanglement." Well, we all believe in disentanglement until it starts to entangle us.

The governments at the municipal level are starting to find out that indeed this is not disentanglement; this is strictly offloading.

The wheels are starting to fly off the wagon of the Tory party because we are now starting to see people in our community across Ontario speak out in opposition to what this government is doing, not only here in Metropolitan Toronto but across the entire province. Those speaking out are not just New Democrats or Liberals who you would expect to be speaking out in opposition to what this government is doing because philosophically, as New Democrats or Liberals, we believe it's the wrong direction. Tories themselves, prominent Tories across this province, are standing up and saying: "This is wrong. You're going in the wrong direction."

A case in point is your own appointee to the Who Does What committee. Mr Crombie, a prominent Tory cabinet minister of the past, a chair of the board of trade, a person who has had party membership within the Tory party for years, the person you appointed to the committee, is saying: "Whoa. You're not doing what we recommended as a commission. You're going in the opposite direction and in fact what you're doing is wrong. It's going to hurt people and it's going to hurt the financial position of the province of Ontario."

The board of trade of the city of Toronto, certainly not an NDP bastion of support, is standing up and saying the government is going in the wrong direction. Chambers of commerce in northeastern, northwestern and central Ontario are now starting to speak out in public and say, "There is a problem in the direction this government is taking."

Point in fact: In the community of Hearst the chamber of commerce is saying: "Whoa. This is not disentanglement. This is offloading. Offloading means to say that we as business owners in our communities will end up having to pay an increasing amount of tax to be able to offset the transfer of services that you're imposing on the municipalities," and the residents as well are speaking out the same.

So it's not just people in opposition who you would expect to be speaking out in opposition to what you are doing. There is grass-roots, widespread support for the opposition view, which is that the government is going in the wrong direction.

Should the government try to find ways to run government more efficiently? Of course. That's what the government of Bob Rae was doing, that's what the government of David Peterson prior was doing, and that's what I would expect from the government of Mike Harris.

But the principle by which we moved as a provincial government under Bob Rae was that we believed that public services were an important part of our community and that we had to ensure that health care, that education, that cleaning our streets, that public transit, all of those services on which we depend not only for the social side of what it means to our community but for the economic growth, need to be maintained in some way. How you make those work and how you make them more efficient, nobody argues, but what you're doing is not making them more efficient.

You're going to allow municipalities over a period of time to get rid of all those services entirely because they won't be able to afford to foot the bill.

A case in point is the city of Timmins. They're one of the municipalities that probably got their numbers together quicker than most other municipalities across the province. The city of Timmins has so far figured out what this offloading of services means to the citizens of the city of Timmins. They've quantified. They said: "What does it mean when the province transfers over 50% of the cost of family benefits on to the municipality? What does it mean when they transfer over 50% of the cost of GWA? What does it mean when they transfer over 100% of the cost of public transportation or transit authorities?

What does it mean when they dump all the highways on to the municipality? What does it mean when they transfer over 100% of the cost of ambulance services on to the municipality? What does it mean to the citizens of Timmins when they transfer over the entire cost, or 50% of the cost, of community long-term care such as Meals on Wheels and home care and VON? What does it mean to the taxpayer?"

They've gone through all of this and they've looked and they've quantified it. Do you know what it comes out to? When we figure out the amount of money that the city of Timmins is going to be getting back by way of the educational portion of assessment of property taxes on residents, and you figure out what they're going to have to pay in addition, the shortfall at this point -- are you ready? -- is $12 million. Now, to the city of Toronto, where there are a lot of people, it may not sound like a lot of money. But in our community, if the municipality was to try to offset the loss in revenue by strictly a tax increase, do you know how much of a tax increase that would be? Over 40%.

I don't think the city of Timmins will raise taxes by 40%, but the Mike Harris government is putting the city of Timmins in a position where they have to decide, do we give the citizens of the city of Timmins a 40% tax increase in order to afford the services that we presently have in the city of Timmins, or do we get rid of the services altogether? Well, I know what the answer's going to be. It's going to be a combination of both. You're going to see property taxes over the next couple of years skyrocket.

We have had no tax increases, or minimal tax increases, in most cities across the province of Ontario -- a case in point is the city of Timmins -- for at least four or five years. Municipal governments have been very responsible in keeping the lid on taxes.

This provincial government is going to put those cities in the position where they're going to have to make a decision: "Do I get rid of public transportation? Do I cut back land ambulance transfer services in a community? Do I shut down the Golden Manor or reduce services to seniors in our community?" I know what Dennis Welin and I know what Mike Doody and I know what Phil Goudreau and I know what Mayor Power are going to say in the city of Timmins: "Of course not. We can't afford to do that.

If we get rid of those services, people are going to get hurt." So they're going to try to find some ways to find some efficiency in the system, but they ain't going to find it because, let me tell you, there ain't no fat on the bone. We're having to cut into the core of the bone at this point.

What do you think municipal governments have been doing for the last five years? They've been reducing expenditures within their municipalities and making themselves more efficient so they didn't have to give a tax break. But you're making them make the choice of raising property taxes and cutting back on services. And when the citizens of the city of Timmins start getting their tax increases, which they will get over the next couple of years, they will remember the Mike Harris government, I can guarantee you.

They will remember the Mike Harris government as the government that put municipalities in the province of Ontario in a position of having to raise property taxes in double-digit numbers. Mark my words.

They will also remember that it was the Mike Harris government that made it so that services in communities that we presently enjoy, basic services like ambulance service, like transit, like cleaning the snow from our streets -- because it does snow in northern Ontario -- taking care of seniors in their homes, when those services start to deteriorate, the citizens of Timmins, as they will across the province of Ontario, will remember it was the Mike Harris government that started that.

What is Harris really up to? This has nothing to do with balancing a budget. This whole move on the part of the provincial government in the end is not doing anything towards trying to deal with the issue of the deficit. What really this is all about is for them to be able to pay for their $5-billion tax cut. How ludicrous. What business in their right mind, what business with any kind of common sense, would say, "As I'm trying to restructure my operation so that I can lower my costs, I'm going to lower my costs and at the same time I'm going to lower the amount of revenue that comes in the door"? Come on; give me a break. What do you think people are?

I was at the Timmins chamber of commerce meeting on Monday where we had an economist from the Bank of Montreal give a dissertation about what the economy is going to do in the future, and in the end do you know what the business community leaders in our community were asking this guy? "Sir, can you explain to us the tax cut? It doesn't seem to make a lot of sense." That is what the business leaders in our community were saying.

I don't say that they don't support the Tory government at this point. They still do, but they are really starting to worry about what this government is doing, because it doesn't make a whole bunch of sense. When they look at what you're doing, downloading all of the services on to the community, they're starting to say, "What government in their right mind, anyone with any kind of common sense, would try to fund a $5-billion tax cut through the kind of offloading you're doing to municipalities?" And I subscribe. I think it's absolutely ludicrous.

If the government wants to reduce costs, that's one thing, but you don't reduce costs and cut taxes at the same time. It's counterproductive. In actual fact, it will hurt the economy; it won't help it.

The other thing that I think needs to be said in the last couple of minutes I have is the whole manner by which this government operates. One thing that I'm hearing more and more -- and I'm sure we're hearing it in northwestern Ontario, we're hearing it in Toronto, we're hearing it in the Ottawa Valley, we're hearing it in southwestern Ontario -- is people are really beginning to wonder: "Do we have a democracy in Ontario? Is there a democracy in this province?"

This government is moving forward and is dismantling -- first of all, they eliminated a number of MPPs in this House for the next election. Most people at first said, "Yes, we like that, we like politicians to be picked on," but they look at what's happening with municipal governments as that you're basically eliminating the ability for public representation on municipal governments. You're doing the same on school boards, and you're moving forward with your agenda without any regard for the public.

In fact, you're saying that if the people in the city of Toronto were to vote by referendum en masse in opposition to your megacity project, you wouldn't even listen, and people are saying there's something wrong here.

I want to remind you, and I need to say this: In Ontario, as in the rest of Canada, we do not have an executive democracy. We don't have a democracy where only the Premier and the cabinet are the ones who are able to call the entire shot.

There's supposed to be a role for backbenchers of the government, as well as opposition members, to bring forward points of view to this Legislature so that whatever the government does, it's tempered against the views of the various people of this province and we're able to find some sort of accommodation in the agenda of the government so that yes, the government agenda can be met, but it's met in a way that satisfies some of the concerns of the people of Ontario.

The one thing I'm hearing all over as I travel around this province is that the people of this province are really starting to doubt the sincerity of this government when it comes to the question of how they operate, and second of all, they're saying, "We are losing our democracy." They're really uncomfortable with how this government is operating by not allowing, as this resolution calls for, the information that should be public information into the public realm so that people can take a look at the effect of what you're doing. I say to the government, you're wrong. This is supposed to be a Legislature for the people of the province of Ontario. The public has a right to know.

The member for Scarborough-Agincourt asks very simply that the government release what should be public information to the people of this province so that the people themselves in our democracy are able to take a look at the information and say: "What are the pluses and minuses to what this government is doing? If there are pluses, fine. If there are minuses, let's deal with them, but at least let us as a people get the information so that we can take a look at it and cut through the chaff and see what really is going on."

So I call on the government and I call on members of the back bench specifically in the government to do what your party said you would do when you were in opposition, and that is to release that kind of information so there can be real debate, so there can be real information in the hands of people, so that they're able to deal with what the government agenda is all about.

Ms Isabel Bassett (St Andrew-St Patrick): I welcome the opportunity to respond to Mr Phillips's resolution. I'd like to use this time to address some of the misconceptions and misinformation that it contains about the government's efforts to realign government services and sort out funding and the delivery of services to Ontarians.

First of all, I'd like to remind the House about some of the things that this government is doing to help municipalities deliver effective services to Ontarians and relieve the burden on property taxpayers. The greatest burden on the residential property tax base is the cost of education. Education costs make up as much as 60% of the residential property tax bill. It's the fastest-growing item of that tax bill. From 1984 to 1995, the cost of education spiralled up a staggering 82%, contributing to property tax increases of about 120% during this same time frame.

By taking education off the property tax bill we're accomplishing two things: First, we're ensuring a future of stable, consistent education funding right across the province; and second, we're relieving residential property taxpayers of a burden that we project to reach $6.2 billion by the year 2000.

By assuming responsibility for funding education, the government is freeing up tax room so municipalities can take control of their new responsibilities and deliver a tax cut at the same time. Through the Fair Municipal Finance Act we're getting rid of the business occupancy tax, an outdated and cumbersome system of taxing business that reflected the reality of the business community in 1904 when the tax was first imposed.

Municipalities will have the flexibility to recover this revenue through property taxes on any or all classes of property, so long as they don't add to unfair differences in tax burdens between property classes; or by acting responsibly and planning effectively and creatively, they can find efficiencies in their spending and pass these savings on to their taxpayers. If they choose to recover the business occupancy tax revenue, they can certainly do so through property taxes on any or all classes of property, so long as they don't add to unfair differences in tax burdens between property classes.

Mr Phillips seems to suggest that the government is divesting itself completely of responsibility for social assistance and long-term health care, and offloading them on to the municipalities. As we've been saying, the province is entering into a 50-50 partnership with municipalities to fund and deliver these services. With the steady decline in social assistance costs that we've seen since June 1995 and with the investments the government will be making in municipalities, there is every reason, with prudent and efficient management and planning, municipalities should be able to deliver both a tax cut and better services to their communities.

Municipalities will take control of the delivery of services like libraries, policing, municipal transit, land ambulances and provincial offences. This division of responsibilities makes sense. Local governments understand their communities better than Queen's Park can and will now have the opportunity to set their own priorities and deliver services in a more effective manner. Taxpayers will now know what level of government to hold accountable.

We acknowledge that these are significant changes and we'll be consulting with stakeholders to determine how these changes should be designed. The exact design of these changes will depend in large part on the results of feedback from our stakeholders.

Over the next five years the province will invest more than $6.3 billion in municipalities to help them adjust to their new responsibilities. Besides taking education off the residential property tax bill, the province is investing $1 billion every year through the community reinvestment fund to meet special community needs.

My colleague the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing has also announced a fund of $800 million over the next four years to help municipalities with short-term capital and operating adjustments. The $700-million social assistance fund will help communities that face costs arising from unforeseen economic circumstances. The amount is enough to cover the municipal share of potential welfare cost increases, even in the unlikely event of a severe economic downturn. The government will provide an additional $1.6 billion in 1996 and 1997 through the municipal support grant.

The government is also planning to consult with stakeholders to obtain their views on how these investment funds should be distributed and administered.

An up-to-date property assessment system will also cut back on the number of assessment appeals -- 200,000 province-wide in 1995, of which 100,000 were in Metro Toronto -- that have eroded the property tax base and property tax revenues over the years.

Mr Phillips's resolution suggests that our reforms will have a profound effect on local taxpayers. If he's referring to the reduction of as much as 10% in residential property tax that we predict by the year 2000, our reforms will affect taxpayers, there's no doubt about it. If he's referring to the fact that taxpayers will be able to see clearly that their taxes are based on local spending decisions, not on an uneven and unfair assessment system, of course taxpayers will be affected by our reforms, but positively affected. As I have pointed out today, we are changing things profoundly for taxpayers, profoundly and for the better.

In bringing forward the reforms we've introduced this month, we've weighed a number of factors with great care. We've considered all the recommendations of the Who Does What committee. Their recommendations have been of immense help in delivering this package of reforms to the province. We've adopted many of the panel's recommendations, in whole or in part.

Because not all of the design elements of the changes we've introduced this month have been determined yet, it would be premature and speculative to develop municipality-by-municipality analysis of impacts. Any analysis developed currently won't necessarily reflect what municipalities will ultimately experience. For example, the allocation of the costs of GO Transit to municipalities has been referred to Milt Farrow as part of his review of the Greater Toronto Services Board.

We also want to consult with municipalities about the design and allocation of the community reinvestment fund, and the allocation method will obviously affect the overall impact on municipalities.

As the Premier and the Minister of Finance have said, this government is prepared to listen to and work with our municipal partners and with municipal organizations to help them manage changes so that taxes don't have to increase and services are protected.

We understand that municipalities need and want information. Key information is being gathered right now by assessors across the province, the complete reassessment of Ontario's properties and the development of a new property assessment base. The Ministry of Finance intends to release information on the impacts of reassessment under the proposed new system when a sufficiently large sample of data based on current 1996 values is available, in August of this year.

The measures we've introduced this month will go a long way towards seeing that Ontarians get the kind and quality of services they need at a price they can afford. We're making sure that Ontario truly turns the corner towards jobs, prosperity and renewed hope for the future and our children's future.

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): I would like to begin by congratulating my colleague the member for Scarborough-Agincourt on this, which I consider a timely resolution. This member has explained the government's very own numbers very clearly to the people of Ontario. I have to say that my municipal leaders are certainly looking for these numbers and for the documents, which the cabinet does have, that will explain to each municipality what effect it's going to have on them.

When I contacted 13 municipalities in the region of northwestern Ontario, I found out from them that in their initial estimates it's going to cost them much more to pay for the services that are being dumped on them; not one of those 13 municipalities indicated that it was going to cost their taxpayers less. Every one of them indicated that there would be increased taxation and the possibility of a reduction in services, and that's what this government is going to do.

We remember that famous document the Premier brought to northern Ontario during the campaign. It was called A Voice for the North. He suggested in it that there would no longer be the imposing of solutions to northern Ontario problems by Queen's Park. He said that right in that document. Folks in northern Ontario who are aware of that commitment know that this is not what's happening today. He also said that a Harris government would work closely with northern communities to forge a better working relationship. My municipal leaders are saying that is not happening, and I think the resolution today speaks very well to that.

I'll be meeting with my municipal representatives in Sioux Lookout next week and so will the parliamentary assistant. I would think by then the parliamentary assistant will have those numbers the resolution is asking for from the cabinet, the studies that show the community-by-community impact. The reason I say that is that the minister himself, the Honourable Mr Leach, said only two days ago in this House that the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Northern Development will also be able to provide all the answers that anyone in Kenora riding would care to ask for.

What he's saying is that he's confident this parliamentary assistant is going to provide those answers. What I'm saying is that he's going to need those community-by-community documents which the resolution suggests we all have to see, so I'm certainly looking forward to that.

What Mike Harris has done in essence is broken a promise to northerners in which he has indicated there would be no dumping of service on to the local taxpayer. We remember that very clearly. In his Common Sense Revolution he stated very clearly that there would be no dumping, this dumping would not take place. In essence, what we've seen here and what we've seen very clearly explained by the member today is that yes, there will be a cost.

The previous speaker just indicated they're removing the education tax from the tax rolls. They're doing that, but what I'm hearing from every municipal leader is that in return they're giving us additional taxation. As has been indicated earlier, that will certainly appear on the tax bill of every resident in every community across the province when that's in.

As we all know, the Premier has made a commitment to the people of Ontario. He has made a commitment that he will follow through on at any cost. We have a good number of people suggesting that it's the bottom line, it's this government's bottom line that's leading to all of this. What the Premier wants to do is to ensure that his friends get that tax cut, and that tax cut, we all know, will benefit the richest in the province, those who have the highest earning capability in this province. It's going to be services, it's going to be an increase in municipal taxes for all of my communities in northwestern Ontario.

I look forward to the cabinet showing us those documents that we know they have to indicate what it's going to do to each community in this province and to the communities in northwestern Ontario.

I would just like to congratulate the member for bringing forth some numbers and explaining them very well in terms of what this is going to do to every municipality in the province.

Mr Toby Barrett (Norfolk): This resolution from the member for Scarborough-Agincourt makes note that the government will remove $5.4 billion from the property tax levy. We all know this is the education portion of the property tax base, and the resolution states that we then are transferring $6.355 billion of current provincial spending to the property tax base, for a total of $955 million more expense.

I feel it points to the fact that the opposition knows what we on the government side have been saying all along, that these measures will save property taxpayers money, because when you add the $1-billion community reinvestment fund to the $5.4-billion education cost reduction, one has $6.4 billion to work with. This is just for starters.

Using the numbers presented in this resolution, we find that this means collectively municipalities are being handed a $45-million surplus. This is a far cry from the tales of woe we've been hearing from the opposite side and in fact reinforces what the government has been saying: that property taxes can decrease.

Now add an additional $700-million initial contribution into the municipal social assistance reserve fund and an additional $800 million for the municipal capital and operating restructuring fund, which we've also heard today. You now have $1.545 billion over and above what the municipalities need to function and to deal with these changes.

In addition, education costs, which we know are being taken off property taxes, are rising -- 82% over the past 10 years in Ontario. Welfare, one of the key concerns of local government, as its share goes from 20% to 50%, is declining in cost and will continue to decline as Ontario's work-for-welfare programs come on stream. Education alone is projected to rise to $6.2 billion by the year 2000. I know my farm land and my home can no longer afford this kind of school-board-driven property tax increase. Ontario data show a 120% increase over the past 10 years.

This government is investing in change to cut taxes. We are investing in municipal restructuring to cut property taxes. We are putting up the money to help municipalities restructure and to make their operations more efficient. That is why this government has established the $1-billion-a-year community reinvestment fund, the $800-million capital and operating restructuring fund and the $700-million social assistance fund that we have heard of earlier this morning. In total, the province is investing $6.3 billion in municipalities in the next five years. Previous governments never did that.

They studied disentanglement, they set up committees to go around the province to consult with municipalities, but there was no action.

We could spend months debating all of the studies that have been done on municipal governance in this province which were never acted upon, but that would only add to the money wasted and the disrespect shown to the people who did those studies. Why didn't governments act on those studies and reports? Very simple: They are afraid to change. Really, the whole debate in this House over the last three weeks has been about change and who dares to try. The changes introduced will have a positive impact on governance. The status quo will not.

Our government has a vast and clear vision. Opposition objections have tended to be half as vast and only half as clear. Education taxes were going to increase; we will remove that constant burden from the property taxpayer. We know that many municipal councils would wait for the school board to set the education levy and then the municipal councils would try to reduce their own budget to buffer the tax increase caused by the school board. The result: Many councils delivered their service inadequately because of the school board.

Municipalities have learned to deliver very effectively, and I'm proud to say that in my riding in 1995, according to a Towntrak benchmarking study, Delhi was ranked the most cost-effective municipality in the province when compared to communities of similar size. In fact, five municipalities in Haldimand-Norfolk were judged to be significantly above the average. That's why I'm confident municipalities will continue to deliver in the most effective way when they implement the new changes that have been announced.

As this government is committed to helping municipalities through the transition, we will consult with local government to obtain their views before making final arrangements on any transfer of dollars from the funds which have already been mentioned.

To conduct a municipality-by-municipality analysis of impacts is premature and speculative at this time. Any analysis will not reflect the real changes that will affect municipalities, but the community reinvestment strategy is designed to ensure that no municipality is unfairly affected. As municipalities make projections for property tax levels for next year, 1998, and beyond, they should bear in mind our projections for the year 2000 and the fact that local government will not have to raise that $6.2-billion board of education burden by the year 2000. Ontario's property taxes will be 10% lower than they are now. That's the bottom line.

Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview): I rise in support of the resolution presented by the member for Scarborough-Agincourt. I think what the member has very simply and very clearly brought to the House asks what he and members of the opposition have been asking ever since the government has been downloading on to the various municipalities.

Today the government has an excellent opportunity to come out clearly and to show the people of Ontario that it cares, that it wants to inform the people of Ontario about its actions, about its decisions -- but not only that; I think it's important to show how they do that.

The reason why the member for Scarborough-Agincourt has brought this resolution to the House today and why we have been pestering the government with calls to give us the information is so that we can debate the actions of the government in this House and so that the people of Ontario can judge for themselves who is right, who is wrong and who is giving the right information or who is passing the wrong information. When the government says, "We are doing certain things, we are going to lower taxes," the resolution simply says, "Give us the information, give us those figures."

Do you know what the problem is with the government when it says to do one thing and it cannot back up that information? Take for example the city of North York, my own city, which is no different from any other city or municipality in Ontario. You have taxpayers who have paid very dearly through their realty taxes to build good parks, community centres and recreation facilities. You have the mayors of those municipalities saying: "You know what? You are downloading on us a huge responsibility. Our people won't be able to afford to use those recreation facilities we have built with their tax dollars over the years."

If the mayors of those municipalities are wrong, then the government today has the sacrosanct responsibility of giving us that information, of passing that information to the taxpayers so they can see for themselves that the government is right and that we are wrong, so the people can assess that information and say: "The government is right when it says taxes are going to come down." But we'd like to know, we'd like to have that information.

The fact is that even the government itself says there's going to be a shortfall. The government keeps on saying we are going to have a $700,000 or $800,000 fund to cover just in case of some problems various municipalities may run into. They are saying they're going to have a $1.6-billion or $1.8-billion reserve fund. What do they say? That the local municipalities will have to contribute to this particular fund, and that is not fair, that is not right. They shouldn't be doing that. We are saying, "If you're going to do that, then give us the information where the local municipalities are going to get the money."

We are not the only ones accusing the government of covering up the truth, the information we should be having. Take for example the board of trade or independent businesses of Ontario and Canada saying to the government: "Don't do that. This is going to decimate the small business communities in our province and in Metro." Mr Crombie says, "Don't do that because taxes are going to go up." Can you imagine some $350 or $400 for each individual homeowner? I think it's going to be disastrous.

I encourage the members of the House, the members of the third party to support the resolution as presented by the member for Scarborough-Agincourt. It's the information we need, the information the people need to base their decision on the referendum that is coming up. It's an opportunity for the government to show the opposition, to show the people of Ontario that it really wants to pass the true, good information.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I'm pleased that the member for Scarborough-Agincourt, Gerry Phillips, has put forward this resolution because he is asking what so many people and municipalities across Ontario are asking. He's saying, "Please give us the figures." He's saying, "In the opinion of this House, the government of Ontario should release to the House and the public the secret studies showing the community-by-community impact of their downloading so the mayors, councils, ratepayers, community organizations and the public can fairly evaluate the massive changes in municipal restructuring that the Legislature is being asked to approve." What a marvellous resolution this is.

The people I just described, the Premier described as whiners. I was reading a headline the other day in a newspaper that in fact said that. It said "Harris Chides Municipal Whiners." You may have seen that yourself, Mr Speaker. I was shocked because I know many people in the municipal field right across Ontario, some who are Progressive Conservatives, and they must have been shocked to see that the Premier was calling them whiners simply because they were standing up for their own communities. But they needed more information.

That's what my colleague the member for Scarborough-Agincourt is trying to do, get this information for them. If the information is so favourable to the government, then surely they would want to release it. It makes me believe that the secret reports to which Mr Phillips is referring are embarrassing to the government and that that's why they're burying them.

Certainly we won't find them on the television commercials we're seeing on a daily basis on our television screens. We have the Premier one day in a classroom, and the next day he's with some electrical wires and he's going to straighten that out, and the next day he's at a hockey rink. Most of these ads, certainly the ones from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and the ones from the Ministry of Education, are being paid for completely by the taxpayers of this province. Every time somebody turns on the television set and sees the Premier on the television set, they should know that they are paying for it, that they have to reach into their wallet.

The people who are seeing their municipalities downloaded upon, seeing their hospitals close, seeing significant changes that are taking away essential services, should know that money instead is going to put the Premier on the television screens, and they should be justifiably annoyed about that.

You hear the government speakers out there, and they have the code words they're supposed to use given to them by the Premier's office. Message of the day: Anybody who opposes them is for the status quo, or people oppose change, because they've been told by their American friends in the Republican Party that these are good words to use, that they will resonate well with the public, except the public knows this government is moving too quickly, too drastically and is not looking at the ramifications of its actions. That's what my colleague is talking about in this particular resolution.

All of this that is being done, all this downloading that we're seeing -- I know in my own area, the region of Niagara, it's going to cost them $43 million more; the region of Hamilton-Wentworth, $121 million; Metro Toronto, $387 million; and so on -- is being done to finance this bizarre tax scheme.

My colleague Gerry Phillips, the member for Scarborough-Agincourt, who is the Liberal finance critic, months ago pointed out that this government, by moving in the direction of having to borrow $5 billion per year to give an income tax cut to people, was going to get itself into trouble: first, have to borrow money and increase the accumulated debt of the province of Ontario; and second, have to make drastic cuts that even the most ultraconservative of government members would not have recognized were going to come about.

Who warned us of that? Gerry Phillips warned us of that. That's why today in this resolution he's simply asking for information. He's asking for hidden reports out there, secret reports which will reveal on a municipality-by-municipality basis what the impact will be of all this government dumping on to the municipalities, dumping areas that are bound to rise in cost while relinquishing an area that they know is going to level off and begin to decline in cost. I commend my colleague and I hope all members of the House will support this resolution.

Mr Phillips: Just to summarize in the remaining two minutes -- I appreciate the comments of all members -- to refresh our memory, what we're asking for here is something I have no idea why the government members will not support. It's simply saying to the cabinet, "Give us the information on which you made this decision." We have had the Association of Municipalities of Ontario asking for this, the mayors asking for this, and your own handpicked Who Does What panel, Mr David Crombie, saying, "This must be provided."

I think you'll have difficulty in defending to the Chatham council that you refused to give this information, to the Woodstock council, to the Niagara Falls councils, to the Etobicoke council, certainly to the Scarborough council, all of which are saying, "Give us the information." I assure you that this request is coming from across the province, from mayors, councillors, the United Way, the board of trade, all of them saying, "What's this going to mean?"

I don't know what the cabinet told you to say today. They probably said, "Listen, the last thing we want to do is release the information." We heard a couple of prepared speeches on it, but I think the members will want to reflect on this: that the mayor of your city will phone you up and say, "Why did you decide to stonewall the release of these reports?" Because that's what it will be.

I look forward to the ultimate vote. I would say to all members that it's in all of our interests that these come out and come out quickly.

REMEMBRANCE DAY OBSERVANCE ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 SUR L'OBSERVATION DU JOUR DU SOUVENIR

Mr Kells moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 112,

An Act to observe two minutes of silence on Remembrance Day / Projet de loi 112, Loi visant l'observation de deux minutes de silence le jour du Souvenir.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Mr Kells has 10 minutes to make his presentation.

Mr Morley Kells (Etobicoke-Lakeshore): Today I am pleased to rise, rather appropriately at 11 am, in a time reserved for private members' bills and to ask for support for the reinstatement of a noble and enduring ceremony, the two minutes of silence traditionally given on Remembrance Day. I am pleased for two reasons over and beyond the context of my bill.

First, I am pleased because I support the institution of private members' business, as I believe it is an extremely worthwhile allocation of time and is in reality the only specific time given to backbenchers to express and solicit support for their particular ideals. Second, I appreciate this opportunity because indeed it is the first time that I have participated in a non-partisan debate since my re-election to the House in June 1995.

With this in mind, my bill, which is simple in scope but strong in message, has considerable personal meaning for me and flows from personal experience and carries historical impact within my own family and indeed in many ways sums up the reasons I entered public life initially.

Simply put, the legislation is

an act to provide for the observance of Remembrance Day in the way that it was initially meant to be. With this in mind, please allow me to explain some of the origins of this moving ceremony and of my reasons for bringing this bill forward now.

By planning and not by chance, I was in London, England, in Remembrance Day week this past November, and because I knew I would be there on this occasion and because I was staying at the Royal Air Force Club, I arranged to take a wreath from the province of Ontario to be displayed at the club and then to be placed on the cenotaph located in Whitehall. Whitehall is the main street leading from Nelson's monument in Trafalgar Square to the House of Commons and is lined with government buildings.

I do not have to tell you that the British place great significance on the reasons for and the celebration of Remembrance Day on the Saturday or Sunday closest to November 11, but I was surprised to learn that the tradition of two minutes' silence on November 11 specifically had fallen into disuse.

Somewhat surprisingly, as these things happen, it finally dawned on a significant number of people that this omission had become the rule and not the exception, and the British set about to rectify it in 1996. As a result, they called for the reinstitution of two minutes' silence at 11 am on November 11. I was there and it was a very moving moment. Everything and everybody stopped to pay homage.

We must remember that we are not just honouring the fallen; we are reaffirming our opposition to wars and particularly to the senseless slaughter that characterized the trench warfare in France in the First World War.

The next logical question would be, why and where did the two minutes' silence originate? Quite by chance, I found the answer in a book. Just recently, I read the latest biography on George Curzon, who was by far the most able Viceroy of India ever sent to govern that great subcontinent. Unfortunately, he never made it to the office of Prime Minister of England, but few would argue with the fact that he was a gifted and extremely well-educated politician whose achievements stand out in the golden era of parliamentary democracy in Britain.

He was a member of the coalition government under Lloyd George that took over half-way through the First World War and he was a personal witness to that terrible carnage. With the war ended, he was called upon to supervise the erection of a permanent cenotaph in Whitehall and to design a moving ritual centred on two minutes' silence along with the haunting lament of the last post. At this juncture I'd like to quote from the book about Curzon:

"Determined that the ceremony should be one of poignant simplicity rather than high-ranking grandeur, he insisted that widows and ex-servicemen should be given priority on the occasion.

After it had been decided that the unveiling of the cenotaph should be accompanied by the burial of an unknown soldier in Westminster Abbey, Curzon again planned the ceremony and again stipulated that places should be given `not to society ladies or the wives of dignitaries, but to the selected widows and mothers of those who had fallen, especially in the humbler ranks.' Conducted in an atmosphere of emotional intensity seldom matched in Britain, the event aroused such strong feelings that popular opinion demanded an annual service at the site of the cenotaph.

One final ceremony was thus given to Curzon to devise, and it has lasted as long as anything he ever did. The Remembrance Day service still performed three quarters of a century later is his creation.

"Curzon gave himself no public role in these ceremonies and, apart from a mention in the Pall Mall Gazette, received no credit for them. Yet they owed their success to his ability as an organizer and to the sensitivity with which he created events in which everyone could participate and share a common grief. Curzon was a man of almost unparalleled contrasts, but none is so remarkable as the fact that the director who created the Delhi durbar (to celebrate Queen Victoria's diamond jubilee) also produced Remembrance Day, a ritual that can move to tears even people born after the Second World War. It is typical of Curzon's fate that he's been remembered for the wrong ceremony."

From world history, let me turn to my family history very briefly. Back in 1976, in honour of my own mother, I wrote a short family history for her side of the house. In the process of researching this, it came home to me in a very dramatic way how the two great wars had affected the fortunes of so many Ontario families in so many different ways. Their occurrences disrupted family life, created migration to the cities and to the western provinces of Canada. Again, may I quote from my own little book and my mother's description of the first armistice spontaneous celebration. Bear in mind, my mother was five at the time. She said:

"The McWatters girls on the farm in 1918 can remember vividly the announcement of the armistice that ended the First World War. The mill whistles from Elmvale and Hillsdale blew all day and horns and cowbells could be heard ringing throughout the countryside."

Similarly, as a young lad of nine years old, I can recall vividly the celebrations in Toronto surrounding VE Day and VJ Day. The one picture that stays with me is the sight of the streetcars on Oakwood Avenue draped in bunting and covered with streamers, with the streetcar bells clanging and the crowds filling the streets and doorways.

Nothing explains the meaning more forcefully to me than a little plaque on the United Church in Waverley, the small village from which I hail. There are 30-some names on that plaque representing 10 families. In other words, each family name sent three of their brothers, sons or cousins to war, and this from a church that on a crowded Sunday could only hold 100 parishioners.

From these memories, may I turn to another reason why I believe the recurrence of the two-minute silence is also important. We have in years since the end of the Second World War allowed extensive immigration into Canada, and these new Canadians have played a vital role in the prosperity of our country. Realistically, many who have arrived from countries which were not so vividly involved in the First and Second World Wars and even the subsequent wars in Korea and the American conflict in Vietnam.

As a result, they and their children are unaware of the background and historical significance of Remembrance Day. It is fitting at this time in Canada's history to renew our vows to those who have fallen in war and to explain to our new citizens the reason for these considerations. In this way we can help teach them the value of their vote and remind them of the personal sacrifices made by generations of earlier Canadians in support of democracy, which guarantees that same vote.

I think I have time for a personal anecdote. On the Sunday that I walked from Piccadilly to Whitehall, I dropped into the Sherlock Holmes pub. It was crowded with veterans and I got talking to a veteran air force pilot from Kent. He asked about his navigator, who was a Canadian, who had promised to come to London year after year but never got past the airport. It was nice that he thought that I might know him, but of course I didn't. He spoke very well of the Canadians who had participated in the war, particularly because the British ranks had been decimated.

In my humble opinion, two minutes of thoughtful time once a year is owed to those we should not forget. But even more important, we should pause to reflect on the futility of conflicts, cherish our democratic right to free speech and the vote, while never forgetting that it is a privilege fought for years ago by a generation who felt the cause was worth the price of their very own life. In my opinion, we should let the tradition continue.

Mr Gilles E. Morin (Carleton East): I am very pleased to have the opportunity to speak to the private member's bill put forward by the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore.

I would like to compliment him on his presentation and on his moving account of the reasons behind his bill. I am happy to support his proposal of legislating voluntary compliance with two minutes of silence on Remembrance Day because I believe it will help to more firmly establish an important tradition into the social fabric of this province and set a good precedent for the other provinces in Canada.

At the extreme, I imagine some might say, "There is no need for this bill because we observe Remembrance Day as it is by buying poppies and tuning in to Remembrance Day ceremonies broadcast on television or on radio, while our children do special exercises at school."

Many of us, like myself, have attended Remembrance Day ceremonies at monuments such as the war memorial in Ottawa and at similar memorials in many communities across Ontario where veterans and widows have a place of honour for the laying of wreaths in memory of the war dead. In the cold, grey stillness of a November day, the reality of all that was lost is profound and unforgettable. However, more often than not the significance of the day is not given enough importance in our involvement in our day-to-day responsibilities. In that context I would like to consider the impact of the ceremonies as they are enacted in Britain, as described by Mr Kells in his speech.

They are the model of what he is proposing today and I believe are something to aim for here in Ontario. Mr Kells has described the special effort that is made by everyone to stop what they are doing at an appointed time, to stop and join together to mourn and honour those who suffered and those who died. Even those who might let the moment pass are reminded of it by the silent witness of those around them, a very simple and a very powerful statement.

In Britain and in all of Europe the ceremonies are especially meaningful because nearly every family was touched by loss and every country was either threatened at its borders or in the air or overrun by enemy forces. By luck of circumstance and geography, neither Canada's borders nor our civilians were threatened by the enemy, so unless we or someone in our families served overseas, we have no personal knowledge of war, all the more reason for us to bring the experience home in a way that will have real meaning for us and for our children.

I feel so extremely lucky to be Canadian, but the things that make this country special are the things that allow us to take so much for granted, something we should try not to do. Enactment of this bill would represent our conscious choice to once a year step aside from the rush and hurry of our daily lives to give silent honour to the noble sacrifice of many young men and women who struggled and perished to secure our freedom.

Two minutes of silence: What does that really mean when the ultimate freedom we have is the ownership of our minds and hearts? Of course we cannot legislate pious thoughts for the dead. We do know, however, that habits become part of us, ingrained, as evidence of those values that matter to us most. Habits become traditions and these we leave to our children.

As time presses on and our distance from the great conflicts in history recedes, more than ever we need to make vivid the memory of the deep losses that our country and every nation on earth have borne. The world wars are many years behind us, but we must never assume that the danger is passed. We must not forget that even today there are some 45 regional wars around the world and nations that do not yet accept that wars have no real winners. The lessons of history must be remembered to be lasting, and our responsibility to make sure they are remembered has not diminished.

War is a vicious exercise and the costs are enormous. The beaches at Normandy bear witness to that for visitors to this day. The experience of walking through a cemetery of the war dead is incredibly moving. The names and the very young ages of the soldiers lying there, one next to the other, speak quietly of the waste of each young life, of the promises of youth never to be fulfilled. Each and every name calls up a deep sorrow. For all the words we speak on their behalf, there really are no words, because their own voices are stilled forever.

Our two minutes of silence on Remembrance Day can be our symbolic acknowledgement of those young men and their collective, and most eloquent, silence. I am therefore pleased to support Mr Kells's bill and I encourage every member here today to do so as well.

More than that, I urge this House, when the vote is called at the end of this debate, to proceed directly from second to third reading of the bill. I'll tell you why. Although private members' business is a valuable forum for backbenchers and opposition members to bring forward, in an open forum, issues of particular interest to them, we know very well that bills introduced this way have very little hope of passage. Even if they reach committee and win all-party support, private members' bills almost always die on the order paper. I have had that experience twice.

However, sometimes a bill like Mr Kells's comes along which has a simple and indisputably fine and honourable intention to which no one could object. Passage of this bill would represent a wonderful gesture of honour and respect for the best qualities that our armed forces, past and present, and the people of this country have offered to the world.

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): I rise to speak in support of this bill. I regret only that I can't do it with the same eloquence as Mr Kells or Mr Morin.

I've listened carefully, as I hope everybody has, to Mr Kells's rationale, his argument on behalf of this, not that a great deal of persuasion should be necessary, but it's important I suppose to understand, among other things, the origin of silence as a mode or a form of recognition.

Mr Kells is very candid and the bill is very straightforward in that it's a most unusual law. It's most unusual because it's more symbolic and it's more a plea, it's more an exhortation than it is a requirement. Mr Kells, in his bill, speaks of it as being compellable only by virtue of voluntary compliance. Obviously that contradicts compellability, but's it's important.

I recall that we last addressed this issue when Mr Boushy presented a bill before the House which received the support of the House, and that was a request of a consideration that Remembrance Day become a statutory holiday. I appreciate that there were perhaps some concerns raised about that, not so much as to the intent or spirit of it but as to the practicality of it. I supported Mr Boushy's bill, as I do Mr Kells's today, and quite frankly don't share some of the concerns about Mr Boushy's bill that were expressed more privately than in the course of the debate.

Down in Niagara, down in Welland-Thorold of course we have Remembrance Day and then Decoration Day, Remembrance Day almost inevitably on a cold, slushy, damp Sunday. Those of us who might feel somewhat aggrieved by virtue of feeling compelled in our own right to stand in those cold winds on November 11 or the Sunday closest to it need only to look, as it is in Welland, at the cenotaph to our left and see the last of the last of the veterans, aging and their knuckles swollen with the infirmities of the arthritis that attacks all of us as we age, and fewer and fewer in number as well.

The course of time will take from us increasingly those veterans who compel us with their memories of their fallen comrades and with their memories of their own sacrifices -- and the sacrifices they make to the present, because the survivors of those wars live with the memories of the tragedy of the loss of life, with the tragedy of what were almost inevitably youngsters, children thrust into the most difficult and demanding of circumstances.

We have to recall that during the Second World War the population of all of Canada was but approximately 10 million -- it was nine provinces then, because Newfoundland had its own participation, independent of the Canadian forces; it wasn't yet a part of Confederation -- a population of only 10 million people in this country, which from those 10 million garnered troops, forces in the three branches, that very much distinguished Canada on the world map. They consisted of people like so many of our parents, my own father, so many of my colleagues' fathers.

They were part of that postwar return to small-town Ontario that when they came back struggled and began to build: build communities, build factories, build economies, build a prosperity for their children.

When I attend those ceremonies in Welland or Thorold or Port Robinson or Pelham, I look first to the smaller and smaller numbers of veterans and then I look inevitably to the Boy Scouts and Girl Guides and Air Cadets and Navy Cadets and Army Cadets; again, youngsters who, and I'm impressed by this, in increasing numbers have built a great commitment to participation in Remembrance Day ceremonies.

I'm sure I'm not alone: When one has an opportunity to address the participants, one of the things that it's necessary, I feel, to remind the participants of is that the responsibility for remembering, for commemorating and for celebrating the courage and the sacrifice of members of our armed forces falls increasingly upon those young people, because the old vets simply aren't there any more.

Jules Beauchamp, a member of the Welland Legion, a fixture at those Remembrance Day ceremonies, as he got older couldn't march any more and had to use his canes. The sad thing is, I still look to where he used to stand in front of the cenotaph, not able to participate in the ritual, in the ceremony, but always there. Well, he's not there any more, but inevitably, as we march into the compound, I look to my right where Jules should have been with his wife. We've lost Jules; we've lost so many others.

I've attended far too many funerals over the course of the last several years where I've witnessed the ribbons across the left breast of the deceased, where I've seen the photographs mounted in commemoration of military service. Again, when you look at the photographs of young and healthy and bright-eyed men and women and then you look down to the worn and sometimes tired face of an old-timer, that encourages us to reflect on who it is who fights wars. It's the youngest and inevitably the best.

One has as well to reflect on the selflessness particularly of Canadians in their involvement in the two world wars and in Korea. Canada has been blessed because for over 150 years -- perhaps a little longer, of course; I was trying to calculate 1812 versus 1997, over a century and a half since Canada has entertained combat on its soil.

So we're talking as well about young people, and again we have to acknowledge the Canadians who served in other conflicts, who served in Vietnam. We're beyond the point of debating the appropriateness. The fact is that young people again felt compelled, driven by any number of things, but inevitably by a courage and a commitment, to serve in these conflicts as well as up to the present, where Canadians perform a valuable and highly lauded service internationally and are recognized. Notwithstanding what the occasional criticism might be, the fact remains that Canadians remain a highly regarded peacekeeping force internationally and have acquired an international respect because of it.

There's no secret about why, when you're in any number of places in the world, Holland, for instance, the identification of yourself as a Canadian will bring with it an incredible generosity of spirit and accommodation, why one can travel as a Canadian to any number of places in the world where, by and large, westerners, North Americans, aren't perceived in a particularly generous light, but once one identifies oneself as a Canadian -- I've used that Canadian passport myself, and I know others have, as almost an amulet, because proffering that by way of identification is responded to with the greatest of generosity and goodwill.

That goodwill and generosity in response to us as Canadians, I'm convinced, was won and earned in no small part by participants, young Canadians, in the military interventions in the tyranny of Hitler's capture of most of Europe, in the oppression and tragedy of that totalitarianism.

So I want to indicate strong support for this bill. It's one that says so much in such a compact way. But it's important as well as new generations mature and, as I say, as the veterans become fewer and fewer in numbers, that there be some official recognition, encouragement, endorsement of the need for new generations to continue to remember the sacrifice of their parents, grandparents and great-grandparents and to understand that those people were but their age, youngsters, when they were motivated, indeed felt compelled, to make the sacrifices and pay the supreme sacrifice as so many did.

I can indicate to Mr Kells, and I anticipate passage of the bill, that if he were to seek unanimous consent for the bill to go directly to third reading -- now, Mr Kells may feel obliged to put this before committee. I've read the bill; clearly others have. The bill is extremely carefully prepared. If there's a need down the road, if there's a wish or a desire to expand the scope of the bill, that can be done by way of new bills amending this bill.

I simply tell Mr Kells that if he were to move and seek unanimous consent to send this bill directly to third reading, and I understand unanimous consent would permit that, rather than referral to a committee, he won't receive anything but support from this side. I'm confident I speak for all the members of my caucus and, I trust, our colleagues in the official opposition.

I suppose I regret that the bill is advisory only or relies on voluntary compliance. I appreciate that one of the arguments against making Remembrance Day a statutory holiday is, for instance, that if you have young people in their classrooms in their schools, you can then utilize the day to conduct programs.

I was down with our federal member, Gilbert Parent, and a whole lot of leaders in the community -- the mayor, Dick Reuter, and some city councillors -- at a joint celebration over at the Sacred Heart Church last Remembrance Day for our francophone students, elementary school students. These young people, through their presentations and their murals -- they did skits, they did recitations of any number of poems and prose -- displayed a remarkable cognition, understanding, of these important parts of our Canadian history and world history.

I suppose the only concern, and this is clearly not in the scope of this bill, is that there would be in response to this bill some very clear policies developed within various ministries, including education, including ministries that might have control over public workplaces, to set out appropriate periods, not just of remembrance, as this bill suggests, but to compound that -- and there's reference to that in the bill, in the ways Mr Kells suggests that the bill might be given effect to -- to provide for programs to deal with specific issues in response to the need to remember the sacrifice of these great Canadian women and men.

Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough): Before I address the House on this bill, let me first congratulate my colleague the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore for bringing forth this legislation. I believe it extremely important legislation.

The issue before us today has been a very important one for me personally. Remembering our fallen soldiers is something that many of us tend to take for granted. I'm honoured and proud to stand in this House and speak to such a special piece of legislation that relates to freedom -- freedom for a nation and its people, freedom given and preserved for us by our veterans.

For as long as there has been war, there have been many ways of honouring those who fought for peace. In many parts of the world November 11 has become a very important day since the end of the First World War in 1918. The following year, 1919, marked the first observance of the armistice. All countries involved in the war recognized three minutes of silence to honour those who gave the most precious sacrifice of all, one's life.

As a small boy, I remember my father coming home from the Petawawa camp and talking and telling my mother about the young men he once trained who were returning home from the Second World War without limbs, without eyesight or suffering from shell-shock and other mental disorders. He knew of many young, strong, vibrant men and women who had their entire lives still ahead of them who were returning from war-ravaged Europe in a state of mindless confusion and emotional turmoil. He also witnessed the pain and anguish suffered by friends who were not fortunate enough to see their loved ones return home.

The communities both at home and abroad witnessed the loss of many great people -- many factory workers, farmers, fishermen, merchants, both male and female, and worst of all, the children. My own community was no exception.

In a passage entitled We Must Work for Peace, we read of some children who had just learned of the death of their father. Let me quote:

"After the surrender, we thought of nothing but father's return. How we longed for news of him. In 1945, great-grandfather died and there was no one to look after the house. The workers had to take turn staying home. Still no word from father. Then in the autumn of 1947, two years after the surrender, a telegram came. It told us that father was dead. He died for nothing. We were angry, but we did not know with whom. Our hearts were filled with hatred. We only knew that our father had been taken away from us for nothing."

My friends, these are the words and the emotions of the living, words that must not be forgotten, words that will never be forgotten with the passage of this bill today. As the explanatory note of this bill indicates, it will declare that we will observe two minutes of silence at 11 am on Remembrance Day in honour of those who died in war and in peacekeeping missions.

The intentions of this act will be achieved through voluntary observance and through our collective desire to remember. Some may ask how this differs from what we currently do on Remembrance Day.

I believe it is appropriate to officially recognize two minutes of silence in this Legislature. This would be the least we can do to honour the sacrifices made by the great men and women of this country and indeed this province. When we consider that in a year there are 525,600 minutes, I do not believe that taking two minutes out of one's day once a year to remember the sacrifices of others is asking too much.

It is worth noting that the two minutes of silence being called for is not only to ponder our fallen heroes in the First and Second World Wars and the Korean conflict but it is also a time to remember those men and women who are sacrificing their lives as we speak to preserve the principles of freedom and democracy, principles that we, as legislators, should hold close to our hearts and our souls. If it was not for the efforts and the sacrifices made in the past, this very chamber we occupy on behalf of the people of this province would not exist.

As we read our newspapers and watch our televisions, we are exposed to a great number of world conflicts, conflicts where the aggressors are attempting to circumvent many of the fundamental freedoms and principles that our fallen soldiers fought so gallantly to preserve and defend.

In a world that cannot afford to have another major global conflict, it is imperative that we educate the young people in our society as to the evils of our past, a past that stripped many young people of their innocence and their future, a past that left people carrying with them forever the grief and sorrow of losing a loved one to war.

I encourage all members of this democratic House to support the bill before us today, a bill that will ensure that we never, ever will forget. If we forget our past, then we as a society are destined to repeat it, which is something none of us can afford.

Mr Gary L. Leadston (Kitchener-Wilmot): As an associate member of the Royal Canadian Legion, I rise with honour to support Mr Kells's bill to observe two minutes of silence on Remembrance Day.

I'd like to take you back to the first Remembrance Day. On November 6, 1919, Sir George Foster, the acting Prime Minister of Canada, rose in the House of Commons to read a message from King George V addressed to all the peoples of the empire. It read:

"To all my people:

"Tuesday next, November 11, is the first anniversary of the armistice which stayed the worldwide carnage of the four preceding years and marked the victory of rights and freedom. I believe that my people in every part of the empire wish to perpetuate the memory of that great deliverance and of those who laid down their lives to achieve it.

"To afford an opportunity for the universal expression of this feeling it is my desire and hope that at the hour when the armistice came into force, the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month, there may be for the brief space of two minutes a complete suspension of all our normal activities. During that time, except in the rare cases where this might be impracticable, all work, all sound and all locomotion should cease, so that in perfect stillness the thoughts of everyone may be concentrated on the reverent remembrance of the glorious dead."

Those words by the King, his wishes, were duly observed throughout Canada. Across the country at 11 am local time, businesses, factories, offices, legislatures and even traffic came to a stop for two minutes of silence.

During the war to end all wars a young surgeon, a young soldier from the city of Guelph, my home town, expressed more eloquently than I or anyone in this Legislature could possibly express the emotions of war and his desires for peace and to remember. Colonel John McCrae wrote In Flanders Fields. Many of us recited this poem as young men and women. Today I'm not sure the same commitment rests with our young people in our educational system. I'd like to take a moment to read Colonel John McCrae's poem, In Flanders Fields:

In Flanders fields the poppies blow

Between the crosses, row on row,

That mark our place; and in the sky

The larks, still bravely singing, fly

Scarce heard amid the guns below.

We are the dead. Short days ago

We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,

Loved and were loved, and now we lie

In Flanders fields.

Take up our quarrel with the foe:

To you from failing hands we throw

The torch; be yours to hold it high.

If ye break faith with us who die

We shall not sleep, though poppies grow

In Flanders fields.

I support Mr Kells' bill. I quote again: "If ye break faith with us who die / We shall not sleep, though poppies grow / In Flanders Fields."

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Whenever we have a resolution of this kind, or a discussion of Remembrance Day and those who made the supreme sacrifice on behalf of those of us who are here today, you find a consensus in this House that you don't often see. In my experience over 20 years in this House, I have seen one day where we can always count upon the members of all three parties speaking in one accord, speaking with one voice, and that is when we pay tribute to those who have made that sacrifice.

My colleague M. Morin, who speaks on behalf of the Liberal Party, certainly in the latter years when he has been in the House has spoken eloquently, as have representatives of the Conservative Party and the New Democratic Party. It's particularly true of those who have had a personal experience serving in our armed forces in times of conflict.

Indeed, I remember speaking to the Port Dalhousie Legion not that long ago in St Catharines and I used as the basis of my speech, almost the entire speech, the words of the three representatives of the political parties in the House, including M. Morin. It was rather moving. The people in the audience were very impressed that, first of all, we had unanimity in the House on an issue because they often see conflict. That's what they see when they turn on their television sets or read their newspapers or listen to the radio. They were quite intrigued that there would be unanimity and that the members were speaking essentially from the same book.

It's because all of us, regardless of our political affiliations or experience in life or politics, are eternally thankful for those who made that sacrifice. The member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore has, I think, captured that very well in this particular bill, because he suggested some very reasonable and concrete ways in which we can pay tribute and remember those individuals who have made that sacrifice, and even those who have served and are yet with us.

I know that our legions, our veterans' associations and others who work on this will be thankful for this particular bill. I want to pay tribute at this time to those people, to our veterans' associations, to our legions, who spend so much time helping others to remember.

I've always found it an important and moving and emotional ceremony going to the cenotaph at the appropriate time. Of course in most cases it's November 11 at 11 am, but there are other times where we remember as well. The member has mentioned ways we can do so on a voluntary basis, which is quite reasonable. The Remembrance Day service at the war memorial or cenotaph is so important, and I think it's great to see the kids coming from the various schools, along with their teachers, to be present to see that ceremony.

Because time has passed us so often, our veterans from the First World War do not exist in great numbers today and many are unable to make it to the cenotaph. Our veterans from the Second World War are now people pretty well into their 70s and older, and we have people from the Korean conflict and other conflicts who are there.

I think the suggestions that are made, for instance, pulling our vehicles to the side of the road and sitting quietly just for that two minutes, announcing silence on the public address system in places of business and institutions, gathering in common areas our places of business or institutions and briefly, where it's practical -- I know the member means shutting down assembly lines where it's practical to do so for that two minutes.

Assemblies at our schools, colleges and universities are particularly important. Many of us were not around for the war or cannot remember the war as it took place, the last great wars being the Second World War and the First World War. We know from history books, we know from documentaries on television or on the radio the great sacrifice that had to be made, the difficulty of war. Very often it's glamorized in commercial television or commercial movies, but those who actually served know that there wasn't a lot of glamour, that these were very difficult times.

One thing we don't think of very often as well, because the veterans who are with us are usually people in advanced years of age, is that the people whose names appear on war memorials and cenotaphs are very young people. They are people who never had a chance to go on in life. Many of them were in their late teens, their early 20s, and never had the opportunities others had, and yet they made that sacrifice in very difficult times, in times where the outcome of the war was never really certain.

When we have

an act of this kind come before the Legislature, I would be extremely surprised if we didn't have unanimous consent to this bill, and I'm confident we do have. I want to say that it's appropriate for this assembly to deal with this bill in this manner and I think all its provisions are practical, reasonable and in keeping with the reverence we have for those who have made the supreme sacrifice and have served in conflict.

Mr Kells: I appreciate the opportunity to wrap up the debate this morning. Actually it can hardly be called a debate. I appreciate the support from my colleagues and I particularly appreciate the words and the feelings expressed by the member for Carleton East, the member for Welland-Thorold and the member for St Catharines.

In the few minutes left to me I'd like to tell you another little anecdote that always comes to mind for me on Remembrance Day. My Aunt Violet had six boys and a daughter and when the war was on three of the boys were old enough to go to war. My cousin Carlyle, who was called Caddy, went to Italy with the army, and his younger brother Bill joined after and ended up in France -- actually ended up in Holland.

Because my cousin Caddy was in the engineers when the landing took place in Normandy, he was transferred from Italy to the battlefront in Holland. He was riding down the road in a truck and there before him was his brother whom he hadn't seen for a number of years, quite by chance. You'd have to be Canadian for this to happen. There they were greeting each other, and they rolled down the hill almost into the water. That's the kind of thing I remember during the two minutes' silence.

Both of my cousins are gone now, but Caddy's widow, Margaret Drennan, watches these proceedings regularly, and I promised her today that I would mention this anecdote. I think it helps sum up the feelings we have towards the two minutes' silence.

In closing, I would like to quote again, this time from the Globe and Mail editorial page dated November 15, 1996. It's entitled "Two Minutes For The Dead," and it reads:

"There is nothing quite as expressive as silence. Britain discovered that on Monday when it stood still for two minutes to remember the war dead.

"Trains, buses and cars came to a stop. Children stood by their desks with heads bowed. Office workers took their phones off the hook. The floor of the stock exchange fell silent. TV networks turned off the sound. In a hurry-up world that leaves little for contemplation, it was a magnificent gesture of national solidarity.

"Is there any reason that Canada should not follow the example? Canadians observe Remembrance Days in many ways -- in schools, at Legion halls, on Parliament Hill. But remembering together, at the same moment, all across the country would lend the event a new force at a time when memories of war are fading. Let the Prime Minister declare that, beginning next year, Canadians from sea to sea shall observe two minutes of silence at the same time every November 11. We owe it to the dead. We owe it to the yet unborn."

Personally -- I have a couple of more anecdotes because I see I have another minute or so left -- I was a young man during the war. I remember I was always a great newspaper reader even as a youngster, and I remember reading about the war. Every evening, with that pink Tely, we'd sit on the floor and read about it and worry about it and listen to our parents talk about it. Then we'd have, as everybody must remember, or my vintage, my era, remembers, we had those great newspaper drives to continually collect newspapers, which was part of the war effort.

Finally, if I may go back just a bit, I think back to the First World War, and there's my grandmother who has 11 children, four boys, two of them at war, isolated on a farm, no electricity, no phones, rarely seeing a newspaper and wondering daily how the boy at the front is doing.

So it seems to me that two minutes of silence once a year just to remember is something that we all should probably get back to. We can all take our own memories and think about them in those two minutes. We can all educate our children and grandchildren, and I think it would make us all better Canadians for the exercise. Again, thank you.

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): We will deal first with ballot item number 59.

Mr Phillips has moved private member's notice of motion number 39. Is there any member opposed to taking a vote at this time? Is it the wish of the House that the resolution carry?

All those in favour, say "aye."

All those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it.

We will defer the vote and there will be a bell.

REMEMBRANCE DAY OBSERVANCE ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 SUR L'OBSERVATION DU JOUR DU SOUVENIR

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): We will deal now with ballot item number 60, second reading of Bill 112, Mr Kells. Is there any person opposed to a vote being taken at this time? Mr Kells has moved second reading. Is it the wish of the House that the motion carry? It is carried. The bill should be ordered for committee of the whole.

Mr Morley Kells (Etobicoke-Lakeshore): Mr Speaker, I seek unanimous consent that my bill, as mentioned by the other two parties, be ordered for third reading today.

The Acting Speaker: Is it the wish of the House that third reading be moved for this bill? It is agreed.

Call in the members; there will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1201 to 1206.

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Mr Phillips has moved private member's notice of motion number 39. All those in favour, please rise and remain standing until recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

Agostino, Dominic

Curling, Alvin

Miclash, Frank

Bartolucci, Rick

Grandmaître, Bernard

Morin, Gilles E.

Bisson, Gilles

Kennedy, Gerard

Patten, Richard

Bradley, James J.

Kormos, Peter

Phillips, Gerry

Castrilli, Annamarie

Kwinter, Monte

Pupatello, Sandra

Churley, Marilyn

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Sergio, Mario

Colle, Mike

Laughren, Floyd

Wildman, Bud

Conway, Sean G.

McGuinty, Dalton

Wood, Len

Crozier, Bruce

McLeod, Lyn

The Acting Speaker: All those opposed, please rise and remain standing till recognized by the Clerk.

Nays

Arnott, Ted

Gilchrist, Steve

Parker, John L.

Baird, John R.

Grimmett, Bill

Pettit, Trevor

Barrett, Toby

Guzzo, Garry J.

Preston, Peter

Beaubien, Marcel

Hardeman, Ernie

Rollins, E.J. Douglas

Brown, Jim

Hastings, John

Ross, Lillian

Carroll, Jack

Johnson, Ron

Sampson, Rob

Chudleigh, Ted

Jordan, W. Leo

Sheehan, Frank

Doyle, Ed

Kells, Morley

Spina, Joseph

Elliott, Brenda

Leadston, Gary L.

Stewart, R. Gary

Ford, Douglas B.

Martiniuk, Gerry

Tascona, Joseph N.

Fox, Gary

Munro, Julia

Wood, Bob

Froese, Tom

Murdoch, Bill

Young, Terence H.

Galt, Doug

O'Toole, John

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 26; the nays are 38.

The Acting Speaker: I declare the resolution lost. It being after 12, this House stands adjourned until 1:30 o'clock this afternoon.

The House recessed from 1209 to 1332.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

MODEL PARLIAMENT

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): Tomorrow in this Legislative Assembly there will be a model Parliament. For the first time the three official political parties of Ontario youth sections are participating: the Ontario New Democratic Youth, the Young Liberals of Ontario and the Young Progressive Conservative youth.

These young people will be sitting in the House together debating three bills, a question period and members' statements. The three bills these young people will be debating are workfare, tax cuts and labour. This model Parliament is a great opportunity for all young people to participate in the democratic process of this province.

It is interesting to note that the Conservatives will be in power one more time. The Conservative government received 66 seats, the official opposition Liberals received 35 and the third party, the NDP, received 29. MPP Ron Johnson, the member for Brantford, will be the Speaker for the day.

The NDP youth have selected Louise James as their leader, Wynn Hartviksen as House leader and David M. Lyons as their whip.

Much work has been put into this by all members of all three parties to make sure the day will be serious but fun. I would especially like to commend Alex Ng, James McAughey, David M. Lyons and Alex Johnson for their hard work. They are with us in the gallery today.

It's great to see so many young people of this province getting involved with politics to make this a better place to live. I wish them all good luck, but particularly the NDP in defeating all the government bills tomorrow.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I request unanimous consent to revert to the Liberal Party this afternoon since we missed our first turn going around.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): I can seek unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent to revert back and allow the Liberals to take their turn?

Interjections.

The Speaker: I hear a no.

SIMON JONCAS

Mrs Lillian Ross (Hamilton West): January 23 was a special day in the life of a very special person in my riding. You see, on that day, Mr Simon Joncas celebrated his 100th birthday.

Mr Joncas was born on January 23, 1897, near the town of Waubashene, Ontario. He and his two brothers fought hard for their country during the First World War. After the First World War, he became a pilot on the Great Lakes. He then went on to begin his own business in laying hardwood floors and laid the floor in the historic Right House building in Hamilton.

But his real passion is the game of bridge. At the age of 11, Mr Joncas began to play bridge, and it has become a daily occurrence for him. For those of you in this House who play the game, you will understand that it is not an easy game, it is one that commands you keep your wits about you, so to be an expert in the game is not easy, but to be an expert in the game at 100 is truly amazing.

I met Mr Joncas last week at a special party to celebrate his birthday. Mr Joncas, better known as Jim, is an extremely intelligent, witty and charming gentleman. The room at Sackville Hill was full of well-wishers and friends who have a great deal of respect and love for this truly fine gentleman. I wish to add my name to the list of well-wishers and I look forward to celebrating his 103rd birthday in the year 2000. Happy birthday, Jim.

Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: The member for St Catharines made a point that the Liberal Party had not been given the appropriate allocation of time for a question and I was seen to have voted opposed to that. I would withdraw that and propose unanimous agreement that they be given their opportunity.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Is there unanimous consent to allow the Liberals to take the turn they missed? Agreed.

LLOYD PERRY

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): It is with great sadness that I stand to recognize the recent passing of Mr Lloyd Perry, QC, a great Canadian and a dedicated Ontarian, a prominent member of the black community, a respected community activist and a personal friend. Lloyd Perry passed away January 8, at the age of 77, after a long and distinguished career.

Born in Halifax in 1919, he graduated from the University of Michigan in 1940. He served in the Royal Canadian Air Force in the early 1940s and graduated from Osgoode Hall in 1950. He then joined the legal staff of the official guardian and rose to be the official guardian, where he served from 1975 to 1985. He was responsible for the legal wellbeing of children and of persons with disabilities, having to act as an advocate, investigator and counsel for their best interests.

He received several appointments over the years to committees, serving on War Amps Thalidomide Task Force, as an executive member of the International Society for the Prevention of Child Abuse and as co-chair of the NATO Advisory Board Commission on Social Issues. He lectured around the world on legal matters related to children and civil rights. As well, he often sent submissions on behalf of minorities and other disadvantaged groups to the United Nations Human Rights Commission. He was also active in furthering the diplomatic interests of Caribbean and African countries in Toronto.

Mr Perry was involved in the African Methodist Episcopal Church and was an active member of the parish. He will be remembered at a memorial service on Saturday. My condolences to his wife, Margo, his daughter, Kathy, son, Ian and sister, Inez.

EDUCATION FINANCING

Ms Annamarie Castrilli (Downsview): I have in my hands just a few of the hundreds of letters, cards and petitions that people in my riding have been sending, parents who are concerned about education. I can assure you that although these people live in Downsview, they represent the views of parents all across the province, parents that the Minister of Education is refusing to hear.

These concerned parents are appealing to the minister to stop the cuts, as they say. If I may quote, "Your government is hurting our children today and endangering their tomorrow." They request at the very least that the government halt all further cuts to education and allow the people of Ontario to suggest alternative methods for education reform.

Surely a government that has often publicly claimed to listen to the taxpayers must agree that more input to those who are using the system is absolutely essential. These parents recognize that their children must have the best possible education in order to be able to compete in Canada and internationally. That requires a government's policies that are founded on excellence, not the kind we have seen that have adversely affected the classroom environment. The parents of Ontario are not prepared to tolerate the erosion of the education system in Ontario.

I hope the minister will read all these letters, listen to what the parents have to say and answer each one individually.

ROAD MAINTENANCE

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): As we speak, my constituency office is getting telephone calls from concerned citizens around the cities of Timmins and Iroquois Falls and Matheson about the condition of our northern highways.

For upwards of a week or two now Highways 11 and 101 have been in such a state that many accidents have happened, many cars have ended up in the ditch because the Ministry of Transportation, for whatever reason, has decided to cut back on the winter maintenance budget and in addition to that is sending out the proper amount of equipment to maintain our highways to the standard that is needed for citizens of that area to be able to commute within the city and around the northeastern part of the province.

I hear people as they call my office and when I'm talking back to them and they really wonder if this government cares. Does this government care if people in the north have to go at risk strictly because they have to drive from one community to another? I was talking to Mayor Graham of the town of Iroquois Falls just yesterday and again today. He is also being flooded by phone calls from citizens in his community in Iroquois Falls with the same kinds of complaints.

How many more citizens will have to be put at risk, merely because they decide they need to drive on a highway, just because this government refuses to put the money that is needed to keep our highways to a proper maintenance standard? I say to this government and specifically to the Minister of Transportation, get off your high horse, do the job you were elected to do and make sure our highways are properly maintained so citizens of northern Ontario are not at risk every time they have to go on a highway.

THISTLETOWN SENIORS

Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke-Rexdale): I rise in the House today to welcome, on behalf of my colleagues, the Thistletown Seniors 55+ group from my riding who are sitting in the members' and public galleries. This fine group of senior citizens is very active in improving the quality of life for all Etobicokians through its efforts in fund-raising ventures and volunteerism.

Some examples of their many fine contributions are the Meals on Wheels program; driving for day centre and visiting services; the Woodchuckers group, who make excellent wooden toys for our younger set; and most recently the packing and delivery of 353 food baskets for needy families in northern Etobicoke this past Christmas.

Having dined with them downstairs earlier today, I can tell you that Etobicoke maintains its reputation as a desired place in which to live, thanks to the hard work these many seniors have given to their community throughout the years.

I ask all members of this House to join with me in welcoming the Thistletown Seniors 55+ group to the Legislative Assembly today.

HEALTH CARE

Mr Gerard Kennedy (York South): In recent times it has become very clear that the Ministry of Health has created chaos with respect to health care in this province. All their initiatives with respect to doctors have had to be reversed over the past year at an incredible cost.

The provision of and responsibility for long-term care and public health have been downloaded on to municipalities, there's a reckless program of hospital restructuring that's been started without any sense of direction or destination and seniors and social assistance recipients have been made to pay for prescription drugs despite endless promises by this government about no new user fees. There is no evidence of any kind anywhere which shows that the actions of this government are resulting in any improvements to the health care system. In fact just the opposite is true.

Two days ago this government was told by Justice Dubin that the Ministry of Health was groundless in its efforts to take away liability coverage for doctors. We've paid a big price for this mistake. More important, patients have paid the biggest price. The government's decision to deny doctors financial assistance to deal with their liability for malpractice premiums meant a crisis in the health care system: Services were being withdrawn when doctors refused to take on new patients, obstetricians in places like Toronto and Windsor stopped delivering babies and so on.

These actions put an individual's right to quality health care at risk. The ministry has to accept responsibility for this and the part-time minister we have now has to stand up and tell us the cost of the doctors' deal, that the $42 million that Dubin added to will be paid --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): With all the attention, and rightly so, placed on the megacity issue here in Toronto and the downloading on to municipalities, the government might think for a minute that the workers of this province have forgotten the attack they've been facing from this government from the beginning. As much as people are now beginning to see the undemocratic nature of this government in the issues I've just mentioned, workers have faced the wrath of this government from day one, particularly in the area of health and safety.

We continue, for instance, to demand that there be an inquest into the two deaths at Dofasco that shouldn't have happened and so far the Minister of Labour has refused to respond. What else has this government already done? Bill 15 has been passed, where they ripped away the right of workers to have an equal say on the Workers' Compensation Board. They've already killed the Workers' Health and Safety Agency. Why? Because they had 50% representatives on the board. This government can't stand workers to dare be thinking that they should be anywhere other than under the thumb of their friends.

You've cut the costs, cut money, to the Workers' Health and Safety Centre, the centre that provides training on health and safety. Workers training workers: It works. You don't like it. You've cut it.

Your Red Tape Review Commission, tabled just the other day, said very clearly that this government intends to water down the right to refuse unsafe work. Bill 99, your WCB attack on injured workers, takes $6 billion and gives it to your friends.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you.

WINTER CARNIVALS

Mr Bill Grimmett (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): During the upcoming month I'll have the opportunity to participate in many different winter carnivals in my riding. I believe it is the strong community involvement which makes these carnivals such a success.

Tourists come from all over North America to Muskoka-Georgian Bay during the winter season, making this area a year-round attraction. Each year the growth of cold-weather tourism activities mounts, attracting skiers, snowmobilers, fishing enthusiasts and resort patrons.

I'm looking forward to attending the Snowarama in Gravenhurst this Saturday, to welcome the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario, the Honourable Hilary Weston, at its opening. Snowarama is a large tourism event in Gravenhurst, which raises funds for the Easter Seal Society, with snowmobilers collecting pledges on a 100-mile ride around Lake Muskoka.

In addition to last week's Midland Winter Carnival, other winter festivals in my riding that Ontarians will want to attend are the Winterfest in Huntsville this coming weekend, the winter carnivals in Bracebridge and Port Carling on the weekend of February 8 and 9, the 49th annual Penetanguishene Winterama, the Dorset Snowball Winter Carnival on February 14 and 15 and the St Patrick's Winter Carnival on the weekend of February 22 in Dwight.

I hope all Ontarians have the opportunity this winter to visit Muskoka-Georgian Bay and enjoy these treasures of the winter season. By the way, we have lots of snow.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

TEACHERS' LABOUR DISPUTE

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Education and Training): Mr Speaker, I rise today to inform you somewhat sadly that following question period today I intend to introduce legislation to send secondary school teachers of the Lennox and Addington County Board of Education back to work. The legislation proposes an arbitrated end to the dispute between teachers and the board.

Earlier this week I wrote to both the board and representatives of the striking secondary school teachers urging them to come to an agreement. They were unable to do so.

Over the past weeks the board and teachers were provided with assistance by the Education Relations Commission to help them resolve their differences. Yesterday I was informed by the Education Relations Commission that the school year of students would be in jeopardy if the strike continued. Therefore, I am taking immediate action and will be introducing legislation to end the dispute.

Today marks the 29th school day lost to the 2,509 students of the Lennox and Addington secondary schools. Contract disputes also disrupted students' studies in Lennox and Addington in 1986 and 1993-94.

Across Ontario there have been 11 other job actions this year which have disrupted students' studies. Over the past 20 years, 17 million student days have been lost to job action. It's unacceptable that students and their parents are caught in the middle of these disputes. Last fall, Leon Paroian reported that these disputes have had a negative impact on students' learning. I am now in the process of reviewing legislation to achieve the right balance between the right to strike and the rights of children to an education.

Today I am asking the Legislature to join me to help the students of Lennox and Addington. I ask all members to recall the proud record of this chamber in dealing with these issues in the past and to give this legislation quick approval.

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): We will be most interested in seeing the legislation actually tabled so that we can look at the specifics of the legislation that the minister intends to introduce. Quite clearly, it would not be appropriate to go too far in terms of the specifics of the legislation until we've been able to see it.

I would say that it has been the history of our caucus to support back-to-work legislation when the Education Relations Commission makes a finding that students' education is in jeopardy. That's a principle to which we have always applied ourselves, both in government and in opposition, and that principle will remain a very strong one for us.

Having said that, I have some concerns about the entire climate in which the collective bargaining process is taking place in Ontario today and in which this announcement is being made. I need to take a moment of my five minutes to indicate why the process of the Education Relations Commission's involvement is so critical to the entire operation of collective bargaining in Ontario.

The Education Relations Commission was put in place when Bill 100, which established a reasonable forum for collective bargaining, was put in place. That commission was established in order to create an independent, arm's-length, apolitical body that would have as its concern, firstly, to make sure that the collective bargaining process went smoothly, but secondly, and perhaps paramount, to ensure that students were not in jeopardy.

It was very clear to the government of the day, a Conservative government that established that legislation, that put the Education Relations Commission in place, as it has been to successive governments, that the Education Relations Commission was the body through which the whole process could be depoliticized, where government would not have to make political decisions on behalf of one party or the other, nor would they have to weigh the wellbeing of students against the whole collective bargaining process.

That task, that responsibility, was assigned to this arm's-length body, the Education Relations Commission.

I'm not going to go any further in a history lesson today in terms of reviewing how well that's worked or how well that hasn't worked, other than to again say that the recommendations of the Education Relations Commission have always been the basis in government and in opposition for our ability to determine whether students' wellbeing was in jeopardy.

I am concerned to see the legislation because I am concerned to see whether in fact due process is being followed with this legislation today. The concern arises for me, and perhaps it's the first time I've had to express this concern, for a couple of reasons. One is because the Minister of Education and Training this week has been publicly talking about his dissatisfaction with the process, his intention to review the process to bring in changes, speculating on that at a time when there has not really been an opportunity for public debate or any clarity from the minister as to what his position will be.

Our concern will be to see whether the legislation holds to the principles established in Bill 100 that set out due process.

I'm concerned too because the very operation of the Education Relations Commission is today, this afternoon, itself in jeopardy. It is our understanding that as of tomorrow the Education Relations Commission will no longer be able to function, whether in the resolution of this dispute or in the resolution of any of the disputes which are currently going on in collective bargaining between boards and teachers, because the Education Relations Commission will not have a quorum.

Unless the minister is also prepared to announce today that there will be new appointments to the Education Relations Commission so that that essential, arm's-length, independent body can continue to mediate the collective bargaining situation, can continue to recommend to this minister and this government when students' wellbeing is jeopardized by the continuance of a strike, we will have a very serious, chaotic situation on our hands.

Lastly, I want to express my concern that the Minister of Education's goal so clearly is to take over not only educational funding but the management of education, with the goal of being able to make major cuts in education. I can't help but have some additional concerns about what would normally be a due process of support for back-to-work legislation on a finding of student j