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

August 27, 1997

36th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

L220a - Wed 27 Aug 1997 / Mer 27 Aoû 1997

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

ONTARIO STUDENT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

CASINOS

PROJECT TURNAROUND

FERRY SERVICE

METROPOLITAN TORONTO REFERENCE LIBRARY

FRANK MCKECHNIE

GASOLINE PRICES

NORTHERN HEALTH SERVICES

SCHOOL CURRICULUM

VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

EDUCATION FINANCING

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

CHILD CARE

RÉFORME DU RÈGLEMENT / STANDING ORDERS REFORM

METROPOLITAN TORONTO REFERENCE LIBRARY

PUBLIC SAFETY

GASOLINE PRICES

INTERPROVINCIAL TRADE

CASINOS

IPPERWASH PROVINCIAL PARK

PETITIONS

COURT DECISION

RENT REGULATION

VEHICLE REGISTRATION FEES

COURT DECISION

PAY EQUITY

SCHOOL COUNCILS

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

COURT DECISION

VEHICLE REGISTRATION FEES

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

PROTECTION OF PRIVACY

CANCER PREVENTION

VEHICLE REGISTRATION FEES

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

GASOLINE PRICES

VEHICLE REGISTRATION FEES

AMBULANCE SERVICE

PRESCRIPTION DRUGS

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

VEHICLE REGISTRATION FEES

ORDERS OF THE DAY

CITY OF TORONTO ACT, 1997 (NO. 2) /

LOI DE 1997 SUR LA CITÉ DE TORONTO (N O 2)

The House met at 1334.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

ONTARIO STUDENT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): I was alarmed to learn earlier this week that the Ontario student assistance program office in Thunder Bay is closing the doors at the end of this month to all walk-in inquiries. This decision means that from now on the only access students in Thunder Bay will have to this system is through the telephone -- read "voice mail" -- or the ministry's Web site.

All members of this House have decried the government continuing to distance itself from the people it is meant to serve, and what is becoming more clear is that government cuts to all of its services are relegating the people of this province to a voice mail world that is frustrating, costly in terms of people's time and just plain wrong.

While the latest move is enormously frustrating to all of those who have used the personal services of this office in the past, it only adds to the shock that students all across Ontario experienced when they recently learned that ownership or leasing of a vehicle is now to be assessed as part of a student's income, effectively cutting off access to OSAP for many needy students.

The dreams of many young people are being dashed by this government's hard-hearted approach. As Lisa Jostiak, a constituent of mine whose last term of academic studies is threatened by this new assessment requirement, put it: "I am not asking the government to give me money for my tuition. I simply want to borrow it, teach, and repay my debt with gratitude."

Minister, please change this decision so that thousands of students across the province are not denied access to the education they need and deserve.

CASINOS

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): Last night in my community a group titled Residents Against Gambling Expansion held a public meeting. It was very informative. They invited guests from other communities. There was Mr Don French from Barrie, who is part of Citizens Against Gambling Expansion Ontario, and Nancy Langille from Belleville, who has been spearheading the organizing drive in that community to get their local municipality to reject the imposition of many gaming clubs on that community. Person after person from my community who got to the mike said that the Mike Harris government should stop forcing these casinos on communities.

We saw the economic impacts, the social impacts; experts provided us with information about what it would mean in our own economy. In my own local community, this new gaming club that the Harris government is forcing into the Beaches is likely to take $25 million out of that neighbourhood economy. The local retailers, the local businesses, the local service clubs, all of them recognize that this is a huge threat to the integrity of the community, the economy of the community and the social fabric of the community.

I beg the government to stand back and to look, like they're doing with commercial casinos, at the option of letting communities decide for themselves. Hold a referendum. Communities can make that decision.

PROJECT TURNAROUND

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I'm pleased to draw attention to the fact that former Camp Hillsdale in my riding has a new life. Constituents in the riding of Simcoe East enjoyed employment and services from Camp Hillsdale until the former government, in what I consider blind wisdom, closed the minimum security facility, leaving productive land and jobs to welfare, waste and weeds.

Tomorrow morning I will accompany the Solicitor General at the official opening of Project Turnaround, a young offenders strict discipline facility designed to reduce the rate of repeat offenders.

This government is fulfilling an election promise. We promised to get tough with young offenders. Project Turnaround will do just that. Young offenders will spend their time at Camp Hillsdale in a highly structured 16-hour day developing life skills, literacy skills and problem-solving techniques with an emphasis on teamwork.

For the community, reopening this facility should mean 97 acres of farm land will again be productive and jobs are available for approximately 40 people. It is my hope that the operators will take full advantage of the agricultural opportunities at this site.

Ontarians called for tougher sanctions against youth crime, and Project Turnaround in Oro-Medonte is answering the call. The community has raised the issue with regard to security which I had, and I believe that the necessary steps have been taken to alleviate all those concerns.

FERRY SERVICE

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): The ferry service between Tobermory and South Baymouth is an important transportation link for the people of Ontario. The ferry service transports tens of thousands of people in vehicles every year, saving thousands of hours, thousands of litres of gasoline and considerable traffic on our overburdened north-south highways.

It was improved in 1974 with the addition of a new ship, the M.S. Chi-Cheemaun, replacing two smaller, slower, aging ships. In 1988 the service was further upgraded with the purchase of the Nindawayma. The additional ship added valuable sailings, eliminated most waits and added both considerable revenue and, most important, reliability to the service. If the Chi-Cheemaun was disabled, the Nindawayma was able to provide and maintain adequate service while necessary repairs were made.

Since 1992 the Nindawayma has been ingloriously tied up in Owen Sound, unable to build traffic between Tobermory and South Baymouth and unable to provide backup in case of failure of the Chi-Cheemaun. On two separate occasions this summer, the Chi-Cheemaun experienced difficulties, causing grave inconvenience to the travelling public and costing the local tourist economy untold thousands of dollars. Last year the Chi-Cheemaun was taken out of service before the season ended for mechanical reasons.

Clearly the Minister of Northern Development cares little about this service. He should commit to putting the Nindawayma back in service for the 1998 season and assure the travelling public and the employees and business owners of the Bruce Peninsula and Manitoulin of a reliable service so necessary for a growing economy.

METROPOLITAN TORONTO REFERENCE LIBRARY

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): This week we saw here in Metropolitan Toronto yet another example of the impact of the Mike Harris cuts. The Metro reference library, a public institution which has served not just Metropolitan Toronto but the whole province well for many years, has had to shut its doors for a period of time to deal with the cuts to its budget.

While I don't expect the government to do anything to ameliorate that situation, there is one area with respect to the Metro reference library where the government can act to render some justice and to make the running of the facility a little bit easier; that is, through Bill 148, to do what even some of its government members seem to be inclined to support, and that is to maintain the unique governance structure that this institution has.

That would help at least in ensuring that there is attention paid to the needs of this particular body, a reference library that serves, as the last survey showed, people from across the province, but by and large people who are students, people who are small business, a group, by the way, which certainly this government purports to want to support; a reference library which is in fact well known throughout the province and which needs to continue to have its own governance structure rather than be amalgamated into the other public library board that is going to be created under the new city.

I hope that the Minister of Municipal Affairs and the Minister of Culture will at least come to their senses in allowing for the governance structure that exists now to continue even into January 1 of next year.

FRANK MCKECHNIE

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): It is with the greatest respect and deepest admiration that I stand in this Legislature today to pay tribute to Mississauga city councillor Frank McKechnie, who died last Friday, August 22.

Frank's legacy for us all is that we will always think of him as an exemplary role model for the true meaning of community service. Throughout his record 39 years as a municipal councillor, he never changed his commitment to the people he served. He was as concerned for the little person nobody knew he was helping as he was for the president of a large corporation.

Naturally, Frank McKechnie retained his pride in his Scottish heritage as he also worked with strong allegiance for his new homeland of Canada. It was this feeling of loyalty that encouraged Frank and me to design a coat of arms for the city of Mississauga and to present it as our gift to the city. The motto on the coat of arms is "Pride in our Past, Faith in our Future." Frank lived these words in his daily life. He was always optimistic and positive in his approach to life and exuded this outlook to us all with his always cheerful smile and warm greeting.

Known as the mayor of Malton, he worked tirelessly for many organizations within that community while he served on most of the committees of Peel regional council, Mississauga city council, township of Toronto council and Peel county council.

Councillor Frank McKechnie received many awards for his public service, including Rotary International's highest honour, the Paul Harris Fellowship.

Frank's most endearing quality, which we will always cherish, was his sincere caring for people. For those of us who were privileged to know him and work with him, we will never forget this very gentle man who touched our lives and thousands of others, and always served with great dignity.

We extend our deepest sympathy to Frank's beloved wife, Annette, and their family.

GASOLINE PRICES

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): Gas prices all over Ontario continue to be too high and the government of Mike Harris is doing nothing about it. The Liberals have given the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations a solution, but we see no action from the Mike Harris government.

The level of patience in consumers is running on empty and their frustration level is on full. Mike Harris is not gauging the level of anger consumers are getting at the hosing they're receiving at the gas pumps.

Added to this is the fact that the Mike Harris government will impose a new tax on northern motorists starting on September 1 when he institutes the new northern vehicle registration tax, the new Mike Harris tax on northerners.

Mike Harris just doesn't understand, but the northern Liberal caucus is proud that our leader, Dalton McGuinty, and our entire Liberal caucus does. Dalton McGuinty and a Liberal government have committed to scrapping this new tax on northerners.

We know this is an unfair tax which does not recognize the extra costs associated with driving in northern Ontario. This new tax is going to cause my fellow northerners millions of dollars. Clearly, this new tax is another Conservative government tax grab on the backs of northerners.

NORTHERN HEALTH SERVICES

Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East): Recently, this government advised community care access centres of its intention to test a new computer system. Specifically, the long-term care division indicated two or three centres were needed to participate in the beta pilot testing of a new CCAC information system.

Each centre was sent a list of requirements which had to be met in order to participate as a pilot site, and the majority of these criteria make sense. But what caught my interest, and then made me very angry, was the requirement that the pilot site must be within two hours' drive of Toronto. Apparently, this is necessary so that vendors and the CCAC project team can quickly support the pilot site.

As far as I am concerned this is another example of how this Conservative government discriminates against the north. There is no good reason to exclude northern community care access centres from participating in the pilot project. In fact, it would make good sense to specifically include a northern site, to be sure the new computer system will respond to the unique needs and challenges facing northern communities and the community care access centres.

I call upon the minister without portfolio responsible for seniors and the Minister of Health to do the right thing: Quit discriminating against the north and drop this geographic requirement immediately. Select a northern site like the centre in Sudbury and make sure the computer system works right the first time and all the time.

SCHOOL CURRICULUM

Mr Jim Brown (Scarborough West): As children across Ontario head back to school this week, some of them will discover that school has become more challenging. This is more than just the result of facing a new year and a new grade. This change is the result of the introduction of new curriculum and rigorous performance standards to the classrooms of Ontario.

This September marks the implementation of the government's new curriculum for students in grades 1 to 8. Precise standards in both mathematics and language have been set by the provincial government and will be applied in classrooms across the province.

What will this mean for the children of Ontario? The old, vague Common Curriculum that was introduced by the last government has been replaced by strict new guidelines. These guidelines will stipulate what level of performance students are expected to achieve by the end of each school year. Parents who are interested to know what their child will be responsible for learning this year can simply refer to the curriculum's checklist.

In addition to ensuring our children receive the best possible education, a goal of this new curriculum is to provide teachers and parents with concrete tools by which to measure the progress of students. The introduction of a standardized report card will ensure that all students are measured relative to other students across the province. This also provides greater accountability to parents.

New, higher standards of education will also ensure that our children are prepared for the challenges they will meet later in life, challenges in their jobs, in colleges and universities and in the ever more complex global economy.

VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): I'd like to take this opportunity to introduce in the Speaker's gallery today Mr Joseph Pararajasingham, member for Batticaloa of the Sri Lankan Parliament. Welcome.

Also, the former member in the 35th Parliament for Halton North, Mr Noel Duigan. Welcome.

ORAL QUESTIONS

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Joseph Cordiano (Lawrence): I have a question for the Premier. During the last election campaign you told the people of Ontario that you had the magical solutions everyone was looking for. You said you would balance the budget, cut income taxes, not close any hospitals, nor cut education budgets. But the truth is, Premier, you're a lousy magician and people are seeing a trail of broken promises everywhere.

Today you're expecting municipalities to take the blame for the promises you can't keep, and you're already blaming municipalities for not being able to absorb $670 million of additional costs that you're downloading on to them. Premier, will you admit today that municipalities will have to absorb additional costs or cut services to their citizens? Will you admit this is not a revenue-neutral exercise?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I think if you will go back to the campaign and the Common Sense Revolution, we never said it would be easy. We said it would be difficult. We said there would be sacrifice. We said it would be difficult but that we would be fair, that we would be reasonable, that we could cut taxes, that we could create many more private sector jobs, that we could balance the books, and we're ahead of

schedule on all of those.

Secondly, it's not $670 million. We asked municipalities, as their share of the $11.2-billion deficit fiasco that your party and the NDP gave us, to see if on their total spending they could not absorb $1.4 billion in reductions; ie, in 1995, when we took over government, there were transfers to municipalities of $1.4 billion, and we said that by the year 2000, to balance the books, we wanted to work with municipalities to eliminate those grants.

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

Hon Mr Harris: We've eliminated half of them. There have been no tax increases as a result of that. They've done a marvellous job and I'm quite confident they can carry on doing that job --

The Speaker: Thank you. Supplementary.

Mr Cordiano: Premier, the members of AMO have little faith in your government's promises and the promises you're making. They've certainly lost faith in the consultations thus far.

I want to quote from Hazel McCallion, mayor of Mississauga, who says, "Consultations so far have been a waste of time." Terry Mundell, outgoing head of AMO, said, "You've broken faith with municipalities." The bottom line is that they say your downloading will mean that this time next year the people all over this province will be facing increases in property taxes.

Premier, you're all over the papers today whining about the fact there's a perception out there that people don't believe you. If you're so concerned about your credibility, then come clean: Back up your claims that this will be a revenue-neutral exercise. Show us the numbers. Will you do that today?

Hon Mr Harris: As we speak or some time this afternoon, the Ministry of Finance is meeting with AMO, where they are getting both upper-tier and lower-tier numbers. Today at AMO, the new president and the first vice-president, in introducing and thanking me, said: "Thank you, Premier. We believe you; we trust you. If you say it's revenue-neutral, it's revenue-neutral."

Interjection.

Mr Cordiano: Maybe we should ask the Solicitor General's mother if she believes that statement.

Premier, you introduced legislation and made claims that the download will be revenue-neutral. It's simple. Today again you're telling us you haven't got the numbers to prove it. When the mayors of London, Brampton, Thunder Bay and Mississauga say that the extra cost they'll have shoulder will be in the millions, why shouldn't we believe them? Why should people believe you?

In fact, your own member doesn't believe you. He doubts your credibility. Tony Skarica said: "I won't spread lies for them or anyone else. The truth is, downloading is not revenue-neutral."

The Speaker: You can't quote second hand what you can't say first. You can't use it, I'm sorry.

Mr Cordiano: I take it back if you allow me to edit that quote and say that the Premier was far from the truth when he said what he said.

The Speaker: No --

Mr Cordiano: I take it back. I'm sorry.

Interjections.

The Speaker: I appreciate you've withdrawn it, I take it. Thank you.

Mr Cordiano: Will you do the right thing and withdraw your downloading legislation, or show us that this will be a revenue-neutral exercise? Do one or the other. Will you come forward with that?

Hon Mr Harris: Certainly. Of course. We are happy to share the numbers as we are sharing with AMO. I think the Liberal Party had research at AMO this morning where the standing ovation said: "Thank you, Premier. We trust you." But I would have to say this to you: Perhaps you haven't had a chance to talk to staff. We're happy to share those numbers.

Certainly the president of AMO indicated that, as I said. The first vice-president indicated that. The numbers are there on the record. I committed unequivocally and I said that this exercise -- Who Does What is to help them deal with the downloading of $1.4 billion that we started in 1995; I asked them if they could handle it. They said, "Yes, we can if you give us tools, if you give us legislation, if you work with us, if you give us time, if you give us interim money along the way."

We're happy to share that with you. I would ask you to check with your research staff. Given they haven't had anything right so far this week, maybe they don't have it right, but I'll share them with you myself.

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): My question is for the Minister of Education. I believe that he is expected.

Interjection: Here he comes now.

Mrs McLeod: No. I'll stand down my question.

The Speaker: Is he expected? Is that a yes? Yes, he is. Okay, you can stand it down.

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): My question is for the Premier as well. I say to the Premier it is indeed a very strange standing ovation when half the people in the audience sit on their hands. Perhaps the Premier missed that.

When you spoke to the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, you tried to make it sound as if everything is fine. You tried to pretend there isn't the download of over $1.2 billion. The reality is, everybody out there in the audience, all the municipal leaders know there's a download, know that it's very severe. What really bothers them is that you don't seem to be worried about what happens to fire services. You don't seem to care about what happens to ambulances. You don't seem to be worried about public health and protection of public health. You don't seem to be worried about policing.

Premier, they are worried. They're worried about all those important services and they keep making the plea to you, "Will you hold off on this until you finally disclose the true numbers," and they can really know how bad this is going to be? Will you do that?

Hon Mr Harris: Yes.

Mr Hampton: Premier, when the new president of AMO withdraws from your implementation committee, when he says, "I'm not going to take

part in this implementation committee," because of the download effect, they're trying to send you a message. When over half the delegates at the AMO convention vote against your Bill 136, they're trying to send you a message. Your talk is about consultation but your walk is all about bulldozing. That's the reality of what's going on here. Would you do this as a sign of good faith, withdraw Bill 152 until there is some agreement on the numbers? Will you withdraw that bill?

Hon Mr Harris: No.

Mr Hampton: Let's try Bill 136. People in municipalities -- you saw it. Over half of the delegates at the AMO convention are worried about the long-term labour relations in their communities, are worried about the long-term working environment. The people who provide policing services, the people who provide fire protection, the people who look after public health, the people who provide ambulance services are all very important people. The mayors and reeves out there don't want to have long-term bad labour relations. They want you to withdraw Bill 136. Instead of bulldozing ahead, will you withdraw Bill 136?

Hon Mr Harris: I had a meeting, of course, and chatted last night with the president of AMO, Michael Power, former Liberal candidate. I also talked with the outgoing president; I also talked with the first vice-president. They unanimously said: "Take your time. Make sure you get 136 right, but please, please, please, Premier, do not withdraw Bill 136. Take your time, consult with the unions, consult with us, get it right, but we need 136 or the equivalent to have good, peaceful union relations and services for the people of this province." I've respected their wishes.

The Speaker: New question, leader of the third party.

Mr Hampton: I have a question again to the Premier. I would say it's showing a sign of respect for democracy when you acknowledge that over half the delegates at the AMO convention voted against your Bill 136.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): My next question concerns the plight of a number of workers in this province who complained to the Ministry of Labour about their health and safety conditions, about the lack of observance of the Occupational Health and Safety Act in their workplace.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): He's going to bounce this to the minister.

Mr Hampton: The Ministry of Labour replied, "Since your employer has fired you for complaining, we're not going to investigate the complaint and there's nothing we're going to do about it."

Premier, can you explain? Is this what you mean by "open for business," that workers in Ontario who are now working in a workplace that has serious health and safety concerns are told, "Because your employer has fired you, we're not going not investigate your complaint"?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): The member for St Catharines suggests I refer it, and I accept that advice.

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Labour): I would simply indicate to the member of the opposition that I think the situation you're talking about is a situation where complaints were received by us on July 18. Subsequently, there were eight orders that were issued and some of the employment standards complaints are being investigated at the present time. I can tell you, we are addressing the issue that I believe you're bringing to our attention.

Mr Hampton: About three weeks after the complaints were first lodged by the employees and after Ministry of Labour personnel said, "Because the employer has fired you, there's nothing we're going to do about it," the employees, or in this case the fired employees, found themselves a lawyer, and the lawyer wrote to the Ministry of Labour raising all the health and safety issues, all the obvious violations of the act. Only when that lawyer rubbed the Ministry of Labour's face in it, only then did the Ministry of Labour respond.

My question is still the same. These workers complained to their employer, then they complained to the Ministry of Labour, and the Ministry of Labour sloughed them off. Is that the new rule in Ontario, that you have to get a lawyer to go after the Ministry of Labour before you enforce your own laws? Is that the new rule?

Hon Mrs Witmer: I would advise you to take a very careful look at the sequence of events, because I would like to indicate to you that there was an investigation that did take place before any letter was received from the lawyer. In fact I have a copy of that letter here, and as I've just indicated to you, the orders were issued before the letter was received.

Mr Hampton: Minister, I invite you to make that public, because what I've got here is the letter that was written to the Ministry of Labour, written by fax on August 1, and only afterwards, August 14, do we get a handwritten investigation and report by the Ministry of Labour.

The original complaint by the employees was back on July 18, and nothing happened. Every one of those employees -- former employees now, because the employer fired them -- will tell you that they were literally told, "Nothing we can do for you because you've been fired." It wasn't until after the letter by lawyer Linda Vannucci that your Ministry of Labour people said, "Gee, we'd better get down there. This looks serious and this could be embarrassing." I'll give it to you. This is the date of your ministry's investigation and report and it is well after the letter from Linda Vannucci.

Is this the new rule in Ontario, that you have to --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Minister of Labour.

Hon Mrs Witmer: I would just respond to you one more time. There was a full and complete investigation done of the workplace and there were subsequently eight orders issued. The investigations regarding the employment standards violations are still under way.

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): My question is for the Minister of Education. We're starting to see the first proof of what your taking control of education funding is going to do to kids in the classroom. In your need to take another half a billion dollars out of the education budget, you're going to shortchange the funding for heat, light and school maintenance, and that's only the beginning.

The Toronto area schools spend $6.70 per square foot to heat, light and maintain their schools. They do spend more than the provincial average, in part because 70% of their schools are more than 20 years old, because they keep their schools open to the community at night, and because they maintain 490 classrooms for child care spaces. Minister, which of these areas do you think they should cut to get down to your $5.50 funding? Should they close some of the older schools, should they lock up their schools at night, or should they shut down the child care rooms?

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Education and Training): Once again today you present to this chamber absolute nonsense. We will be receiving a report from expert panels who have looked at the best practices for providing a safe environment for students in classrooms in Ontario.

We would expect that once that expert panel has reported to us, and it has not yet, we will take their observations, their studies, their conclusions, look at what would be the case in different jurisdictions around the province and make sure that in the final analysis, when we put a funding formula together, it be fair to all students in Ontario and able to provide them with a better quality of education. That's our objective. We are on course to do that, and we are of course receiving expert opinion on how much we should spend and in what area.

Mrs McLeod: You know very well that your expert task force is about to recommend $5.50 per square foot, which is about a provincial average. And you know very well that you've not given your expert task forces the time to actually look at the unique needs of each region and that you don't actually want to understand those needs anyway. You want to fund everybody at the lowest common denominator and then blame the school boards when they can't meet the needs of their students. That's exactly what you're setting out to do.

Another example: Northern boards have high heating costs for reasons that I think should be obvious. With your $5.50 in funding, the Lakehead board in northwestern Ontario will be $1.8 million short of what it needs to maintain, to heat and to light their schools. In that region it happens that one of the needs is in the rural areas where the hydro rates are 15% higher than in the city.

I wonder whether you think that school board should solve the problem by closing the rural schools to save some of the $1.8 million, or should they just turn off the heat and the lights for kids in the country?

Hon Mr Snobelen: I'm shocked and appalled that the member for Fort William would be so poorly informed. We laid out very clearly, before we started down this process of improving on the general legislative grant program -- which you failed to correct although studies told you that you should have. When we started to go down this path we specifically mentioned that we know the costs will be different in different areas of the province and that we would address those, and we intend to do that.

I don't know why the member opposite insists on bringing up this conjecture, which is clearly contrary to the record of this government and our intentions that have been stated.

Mrs McLeod: This minister is always shocked, appalled and totally irresponsible, even as he takes over educational funding.

I might have thought, since you've decided to take over control of the funding, that you might have some idea of how the decisions that school boards are going to be forced to make will actually affect students in the classrooms in their areas. I would have thought you might have given some thinking to whether some boards might actually be expected to close down older schools and force more students into the classrooms that are left.

I thought you might have suggested to me, "They can solve the problem if they just slash the wages of the custodians," who make an average of $24,000 a year, because your Bill 136 will make that very easy to do. But I thought most likely you would tell me that you wanted the boards to privatize the custodial services, because that's what you wanted in the first place and you only backed away because parents were outraged at the idea.

I want to know what you, the minister responsible for funding, are going to say to parents who don't want dial-a-cleaner their schools when you force school boards to privatize custodial services.

Hon Mr Snobelen: Once again, clearly the member opposite is not well researched on this subject. We have said very clearly that our objectives are to make sure we meet the needs of every student in the province. That's why we have commissioned expert panels to look at what are the best practices in schools in Ontario and other schools, so we can make sure that at the end of the day we have the right funding formula for students.

You know that the general legislative grant system has made second-class students of some people in Ontario. It's not fair; it's not right. We're going to fix it and we're going to make sure that the dollars we spend in education make a difference with our students. That's why these expert panels are working and that's why people across Ontario are helping us make the right system for our students and for the future of this province. I'm proud of those actions, I'm proud of the people who are working on this, and we will receive their advice and we will make the system better.

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Gerard Kennedy (York South): My question is directed to the Minister of Health. I think people in this chamber realize, and some of the public, that you're actually in court this week. You're being sued by the hospitals, along with your commission. You're in court because you've abdicated some of your responsibility as minister. The public wants to know why this expensive process has been made necessary, why you haven't responded, from your own responsibilities that this government grabbed for you under Bill 26.

You're the minister who has the power to talk to hospitals. You're the minister who has decided -- you're sitting on your hands -- that you won't respond to Doctors Hospital when they tell you that Toronto General Hospital has had access to the commission, that they were not given a fair hearing. You won't respond to Women's College, and Women's College is a unique resource to this province. You will not stand up as minister and deal with them. Tell us, why are you letting Toronto Hospital set health policy in this province and why aren't you being the health minister?

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Health): The member knows that the matters are before the court and therefore it's inappropriate of me to comment to any great extent, except to say that the matter is between the commission and the hospitals and all the accusations you just mentioned are strictly between the commission and the hospitals. The government was not involved in the commission's decision-making.

Mr Kennedy: The minister would do well to read some of the affidavits coming in, would do well to pay attention to the way the commission has been allowed to operate by him. The commission doesn't have powers; it only is on loan for the minister's powers. The minister refuses to tell us once again why he is sitting on his hands. Why is he letting Toronto General, for example -- tell us today, who is the employer of your assistant deputy minister? Who does he work for, the person in charge of hospitals, in charge of restructuring, in charge of long-term care?

Who is your assistant deputy minister working for, if you believe you're so far and apart from this operation that is letting Toronto General and other large hospitals set health policy through the restructuring commission?

Hon Mr Wilson: The assistant deputy minister whom I assume the honourable member is talking about, because he's the assistant deputy minister in charge of hospitals, used to work for the Ontario Hospital Association, not for one particular hospital. He's highly regarded by all hospitals in the province. He's been a tremendous asset, and we're very fortunate that just about three or four months ago he agreed to leave the Ontario Hospital Association and come work for the Ministry of Health.

CHILD CARE

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services. I wanted to get you to help me understand the implications of the bill you introduced last week as part of the omnibus downloading bill, the part,

schedule C, which affects the Day Nurseries Act.

As you know, I've asked you a number of times in this House about how we can be sure that municipalities under financial crunch don't cut back on the number of child care spaces. To my delight, you responded in this House that you were going to make the provision of child care service and service levels mandatory. I've got some quotes from you on that which I can refer to.

But in looking at the legislation, I see how you have made mandatory cost-sharing for prescribed services beyond the current subsidies -- wage subsidies and resource centres and other things. I see how you have made the delivery in terms of licensing and those sorts of things mandatory. But nowhere in the legislation do I see where you guarantee service levels, the number of spaces, or that municipalities won't, in facing budget cuts, cut back on their portion and therefore lose spaces. You said you were going to make it mandatory. Am I missing something? Is there another way in which you're going to address that?

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Community and Social Services): As the member knows, the legislation sets out the framework for the transfers of funding responsibilities etc. There is much work that obviously will be done at committee, much work that will be done in terms of the development of the regulations, and I wouldn't want to prejudge that process.

However, I would like to confirm to the honourable member what we have done, what we are doing and, assuming the legislation passes, what our intention is: that the amount of service being provided by a municipality as of the beginning of this year is the amount of service that the funding is being calculated on. I agree that we don't want to lose any financial resources in the system or any spaces that are already there. We've had an increase in licensed spaces. We want to make sure we can maintain that service, and that is certainly the policy intent of the government.

Ms Lankin: It's reassuring to hear you reiterate that. You have said that in the House before. On February 10, you said something very similar, that that's the point we're starting from, that's where we're calculating from. On June 17, you said: "We also know at the end of every year...unfortunately some municipalities have not been able to pick up their 20 cents when we've had the 80 cents on the table.... That's why we're changing the system...to make it mandatory." You're quoted in the Star as saying, "But participation in child care will be mandatory and, unlike the current situation, cities will no longer be able to cut day care programs when they face a budget crunch."

I want to work with you to make that happen, but I've looked through your bill; it's not there. You have made cost-sharing mandatory and you have made licensing delivery mandatory. You have not guaranteed the service levels. You have not made the number of spaces or the level of service mandatory. That's what you promised. Will you amend the bill to make sure that's what you deliver?

Hon Mrs Ecker: I find it passing strange that in this Legislature we're frequently told we don't listen, there isn't consultation and that somehow or other the committee process is not being used. I have indicated to the honourable member the policy intent of the government. I have indicated that this legislation will go through the process as other pieces of legislation do.

If there need to be amendments that make our intent clearer, I'm certainly prepared to consider those, although I would like to remind the honourable member that we have taken a number of steps to try to make sure the child care system that is there continues to provide the support that we know many working parents, sole-support parents, need. We have more licensed spaces now than we did two years ago. We have made a regulation change so that municipalities have more flexibility and more resources to pick up subsidies.

We have also made additional money through the tax credit for low-income families, which will amount to $140 million, so they will be able to better afford the child care their families need.

RÉFORME DU RÈGLEMENT / STANDING ORDERS REFORM

M. Gilles Pouliot (Lac-Nipigon) : Un point d'ordre, Monsieur le Président : J'aimerais, avec respect, attirer votre attention sur le Règlement de l'Assemblée législative ici en Ontario, à la page 15, _Les Règles de débat :

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Member for Cochrane South.

M. Gilles Bisson (Cochrane-Sud) : Sur le même point d'ordre, en tant que député néo-démocrate de Cochrane-Sud, j'ai été délégué par mon caucus à assister à l'assemblée de l'Association des municipalités de l'Ontario. Aujourd'hui c'est la première journée, comme vous le savez, que j'ai l'opportunité de venir ici à la Chambre pour participer à la période de questions.

The question then arises, if the standing orders are not provided in both official languages which are used in the Legislative Assembly, is the House properly constituted in acting on these rules? If the House is not properly constituted, then that raises questions about all the things that have transpired in this place in the last number of days.

The question is, are we in order if we are operating under rules that are only provided in one of the languages that are appropriately used in this House? If we are not properly constituted and we are out of order because the standing orders have not been provided in both official languages, then what is the status of everything that has transpired in this House this week?

The Speaker: Government House leader.

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Government House Leader): Mr Speaker, you've already made a ruling with regard to the standing orders, last Wednesday I guess it was. Your ruling at that point was that the standing orders would come into effect at midnight on Thursday. There was no provision in that particular ruling that the standing orders would not be in effect until translated. You ruled that they would come into effect midnight Thursday night. You did not rule that they would come into effect when a final version of the French translation was available.

The word "service" under the French Language Services Act is defined, I'm told, as "any service or procedure that is provided to the public by a government agency or institution of the Legislature and includes all communications for the purpose."

There is a clear distinction between the public and the service provider. The Legislature is the service provider, not the service recipient. Consequently, the translation is not required. However, the translation obviously is being prepared. I'm not so sure when the clerks are going to bring it forward, but it is not required for the House to carry on its activities. If any member needs assistance with translation, then that assistance is available.

The Speaker: I'm going to have to recess just briefly to investigate a few issues. What I want to do before I leave -- you have another point of order?

Je pense que cela a besoin d'être lié à cette situation. Quand ça vient au Règlement de la Chambre, le même Règlement a besoin d'avoir lieu. C'est le point que je veux additionner et auquel vous avez besoin de refléchir.

The Speaker: I want to say first and foremost that we are duly constituted. That is not what I will be ruling on, with respect to whether or not we're constituted. We are. What we have done, we've done. We are operating under the new standing orders.

I will take into consideration the comments outside of those particular issues and review them and report back in 15 minutes. Stop the clock. Thank you.

The House recessed from 1430 to 1449.

The Speaker: I'd like to thank the members for their submissions. I undertook to get a number of copies at the table for any members who would wish to have the standing orders translated for them. If they would just go to the table clerks, they'd be happy to provide them.

Further questions?

METROPOLITAN TORONTO REFERENCE LIBRARY

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): My question is directed to the Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation. Yesterday in the Toronto Star the lead editorial was talking about the Metropolitan Toronto Reference Library. That editorial describes this library as a jewel that most Ontarians really treasure. The editorial went on to comment that there are some 1.5 million visits to that library every year. It's my understanding that this week there's a brief closure of that particular library and it's suggested that this is because of provincial budget cuts.

Can the minister explain to the House, and possibly to the many patrons of that library, why the library is closed this week and what roles your ministry and the Ontario government had to play in this action?

Hon Marilyn Mushinski (Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation): I'd like to thank the member for Northumberland for his question. I find it really hard to believe that one could suggest that the provincial government is responsible for the closure of the Metro -- and I repeat "Metro" -- Toronto reference library. The Metro Toronto reference library receives 86% of its funding from the local level. In fact, my ministry only provides it with 8%. Our relationship with the reference library won't change as a result of Bill 109. Under the legislation, Bill 148, provisions have been specifically made for the retention of the reference library.

This was a point that had the support of all members of the standing committee which examined Bill 109. The reference library is a key provincial resource and that's why we continue to support it. The decision to close the library this week was made by the Metro Toronto library board.

Mr Galt: Along with that recent editorial I heard some comments down at the conference of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario in connection with the Who Does What exercise that libraries may be very easy targets when the municipalities are looking at some of their cuts.

My constituents certainly value libraries very much and they want to keep them open. What reassurance can you give to my constituents that libraries and their important services will not be closed as a direct result of our government and its Who Does What exercise?

Hon Ms Mushinski: Obviously we don't agree with the doom-and-gloom gang across the way. When the Who Does What exercise was announced, the president of AMO at that time, Terry Mundell, commented specifically on libraries and stated that he welcomed the changes. He does not believe that budgets will be decreased as a result of those changes. We're simply saying, who better to make decisions about local library service than those in the community who use them? That's why we call them local libraries.

This government believes that municipalities will make responsible decisions. They already fund an average of 85% of local library costs. Now we're giving them greater flexibility and tools by which they can make these decisions to make sure they can operate their services more effectively.

PUBLIC SAFETY

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville): I have a question for the Minister of Transportation. Yesterday evening I attended, on behalf of our caucus, a memorial service to a woman who was killed as a result of a terrible accident at Steeles Avenue and Highway 404. A truck went through, came off the road, jumped the berm, smashed into this woman's home and killed her as she was doing her laundry. Last evening was the first anniversary of her tragic death.

At the time of the accident you promised speedily to deal with the issue of a berm or special wall to provide protection for that community. You have made several promises subsequent to that. My question is this: Why, after one year, has absolutely nothing been done, other than to talk about the question, to build a retaining wall or a berm to afford protection to the residents who still live in that community?

Hon Al Palladini (Minister of Transportation): I'm disappointed with the member asking that question because I really feel it is a very partisan question and I wonder if it has anything to do with the election going on presently in that riding. I want to say this: The previous member of that riding treated it as a non-partisan issue and I want to commend her for that. I wish I could say the same thing for the member opposite.

I believe MTO has acted very admirably and acted very immediately on the concerns of the community. I believe we have done a lot of things to get us to the position that we presently are in. Again I want to say to the member, I'm disappointed that he asked such a partisan question.

Mr Duncan: You promised that community a year ago, one year ago, that you would deal with the question. You promised the community last November, and we cooperated with you. I have communicated with your office off the record on a number of occasions. We were invited by the residents of that community to attend this session, to attend the memorial and to plant a tree, and we were glad to do that. We were glad to do it but sorry that we had to do it because you failed to take action.

If this is such a partisan issue on our part, why did you send a letter to every resident in that court after you have broken five promises? In your letter you said that North York Hydro had not dealt with the questions around power. North York informed us yesterday that they've dealt with it. Let's quit talking about partisan issues.

Will your staff meet with the people of that community tomorrow and give them a plan so that that berm can be built and the retaining wall can be built and any future tragedy can be averted in this terrible situation?

Hon Mr Palladini: I am not surprised, obviously, because it is a bunch of manure. We have been in touch with the municipality. We have been in touch also with the community. We've tried to resolve the problem right the first time. In other words, we went to the drawing board and made efforts to see what was going to work, what was going to prevent a future tragedy.

We have continuously kept the municipality in touch. Councillor David Shiner says MTO has done everything they possibly could do, and it was because of the utility's relocation that we were not able to react as quickly as maybe we should have. But things are under control, and yes, North York Hydro did agree; yesterday they agreed. So contrary to what the member is saying, it is partisanship, and I am really disappointed in you, Mr Duncan.

GASOLINE PRICES

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): My question is for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. You're aware of the substantial increase in gasoline prices happening across the province and the country in the last couple of weeks and the hue and cry that's been raised. You've stated in this Legislature that gas pricing will probably be on the agenda of the interprovincial ministers' conference next month.

Yesterday my federal NDP colleague, John Solomon from Regina-Lumsden-Lake Centre, outlined an action plan which calls on the federal government to open the books on gas pricing by conducting a public inquiry. My colleague states in a press release:

"Setting energy prices is no different than regulating communications services. When Rogers cable set prices which were deemed unfair, they voluntarily rolled them back. When Bell Canada wants to increase prices, the CRTC reviews their request to ensure it is fair and justified. Gas pricing is no different. Gas prices are viewed by the public as being set unfairly and unjustifiably and they must be reviewed."

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

Mr Martin: Minister, will you today join the call for a federal inquiry on this matter?

Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): I've got to tell you that I, like everyone else in this whole House -- we're all outraged at the prices for consumers these days with the high prices.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Why don't you do something about it?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: I hear some babbling over there from the member for St Catharines, but I might remind him that he certainly had the opportunity to do something. To his credit, Mr Martin -- he stood up the other day in the House, I think it was yesterday, and indicated, as I recall, that Bob Rae was elected businessman of the year in Buffalo, because his government had the same issue and I think he concluded they did nothing. At least we're going to put this on the agenda for the interprovincial ministers conference.

We feel strongly about this. We strongly believe consumers in Ontario should get the best price, and certainly this will be a discussion we'll have, but I also remind you that this is a federal issue, as the member has recognized. I appreciate the fact that he does recognize that.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I'd like to bring to the minister's attention the effects of these price increases, particularly in northern Ontario, the economic effects this is having across the north on the cost of goods, the cost of travel, the effect on tourism and the effect on the travelling public in a part of the province where a vehicle is a necessity.

The regular price of gasoline in Dryden today is 65.9 cents a litre; in South Porcupine, 68.5 cents a litre; in Heyden, just north of Sault Ste Marie, it's 68 cents a litre; in Kapuskasing, it's 69.9 cents a litre; and in Wawa, it is 72.5 cents a litre.

We recognized when we were in government that this government could do something and we took the registration fee off motor vehicles for northern Ontario drivers. You reimposed it. You reimposed it at a time when gasoline prices are higher than they were when we took it off. Is the minister prepared to recommend to his colleagues in cabinet that northern Ontario drivers will no longer have to pay a registration fee in order to --

The Speaker: Thank you, member for Algoma.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: We believe this is bad for the consumers in Ontario. We believe that by putting it on the table with the ministers across this country -- this is not an Ontario issue only -- this is a way we can address the issue finally.

I will remind the member for Algoma, though, that when the Honourable Brian Charlton was the minister under your government, sir, he indicated -- this is a quote from him; it comes from Hansard of May 27, 1992 -- "In fact he was talking about giant Canadian oil companies, and the problem to which the member for St Catharines refers" -- at least he's consistent -- "is in fact a national problem. The price increases to which he refers are not price increases that have been imposed exclusively in the province of Ontario this week; they have been imposed right across the country."

Yes, we believe it's bad for the consumer in Ontario, yes, we believe the federal government should do something and, yes, we're going to put it on the table at the interprovincial ministers conference so we can do something to protect the consumer in Ontario.

INTERPROVINCIAL TRADE

Mr Dan Newman (Scarborough Centre): My question today is for the Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism. Eliminating trade barriers between the provinces has been a long-standing issue that is very important to all Canadians. Most people now recognize that the flow of products and services with our neighbours to the south is easier than confronting trade barriers between our provinces.

I have heard that the new chair of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce has said Canada must break down interprovincial trade barriers for the sake of international as well as domestic trade, and that means jobs. I wouldn't imagine the federal Liberal government is listening to these comments, but I know Ontario is. Can the minister please tell this House what Ontario is doing to help resolve this problem between the provinces once and for all?

Hon William Saunderson (Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism): I want to thank the member for Scarborough Centre for his question. It's a very timely one. I have to say that resolving this issue has been a particularly challenging thing for us. We recognize the positive advantage of a more open, barrier-free trading environment in Canada.

As you know, this government is making every effort to improve the business climate. That's why our government is taking the lead in interprovincial trade. Last year we signed three bilateral trade agreements with Quebec. Two dealt with procurement in the broader public sector and one with construction labour mobility. In fact, the Quebec minister and I have offered the procurement agreement to any other interested parties. We hope to hear from them and we will pursue it.

Mr Newman: I thank the minister for his insight. I know my constituents in Scarborough Centre will be pleased to know our government is listening and acting on what they hear. Perhaps some of the other levels of government can take a lesson from our minister.

My constituents, like all Ontarians, are becoming more and more upset that nothing is being done to remove these trade barriers. Can the minister tell the House where we go from here and what can be done once and for all to eliminate trade barriers between all the provinces in Canada?

Hon Mr Saunderson: I'm happy to respond to that supplementary. I want to assure the members that we're doing everything possible to move this issue towards resolution.

In April, as an example, I wrote to my trade colleagues in the other provinces and I urged them to conclude an agreement. I also wrote to the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, which represents 170,000 businesses in Canada. The chamber has pleaded with the federal and provincial governments to get rid of the remaining barriers. The former president indeed has commended Ontario's lead role on changing the system as far as internal trade is concerned.

There will be a trade ministers' meeting this fall and I'm sure the trade barriers will be the main issue on the agenda. I'm committed to removing interprovincial trade barriers and will continue to urge my colleagues in other provinces to agree on a solution at the trade ministers' meeting. I believe better internal trade will result in improved external trade as well. We are doing all that we can in this government to move the business environment to a much better situation.

CASINOS

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): My question is for the Minister of Citizenship and Culture, not the Minister of Natural Resources, who was worried that I was going to ask him a question about the abysmal appointment to the Niagara Escarpment Commission.

It is becoming increasingly apparent that the Harris government is about to prey upon the most desperate, the most vulnerable and often the poorest people in our society by establishing 44 permanent 24-hour-a-day casinos in 44 different neighbourhoods in Ontario. You have been very evasive when asked by members of the news media how much money the provincial government is going to get from these charity casinos, as you call them. Will you reveal today to the people of Ontario how much money the Harris government will be bleeding from the most vulnerable, the most desperate and often the poorest people in our society? Will you please not palm this question off on someone else?

Hon Marilyn Mushinski (Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation): Thank you for the question. I'll refer it to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations.

Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): I really think what we should do with this issue is put it into context for a second. If we're looking at the charity gaming clubs, the table games are being divided 50-50 between the government and the charities. We're talking about $80 million there for the charities, $80 million they didn't have before, quite frankly. We're talking about 150 video lottery terminals and a charity gaming club. That's not really a lot of machines.

To put this further into context, there are other costs that have to go into this equation, of course. There's 10% that's going to the operators -- we all know that -- and if you look at the racetracks, we're talking about 15% of the proceeds going to the operators there. We're talking about $9 million going to assist in terms of problem gambling. On top of that there are other types of undetermined costs at this time.

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

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: We have the installation of machines, a central computer system, the maintenance of the system, the regulation of the system, the ongoing monitoring. At the end of the day, the Ministry of Finance has estimates --

The Speaker: That can happen in the supplementary. Supplementary.

Mr Bradley: It's quite obvious that the government is getting the lion's share of the money, that you're simply using the charities of the province as a front to bleed more money out of desperate people to fill the coffers of the provincial government because you've chosen to give a tax break to the richest people in our society. That's what this is all about.

You're also going to have very significant impacts on a number of neighbourhoods in this province. I don't think you should be establishing these things anywhere, personally, but since you people are supposedly going to ask the people in the neighbourhoods where they're going for their permission or their acquiescence to these, are you now prepared to say that wherever one of these --

The Speaker: Question, please.

Mr Bradley: -- establishments, these casinos, is to be set up, you will have a local referendum to have the people judge on those?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: If you want to talk about culpability, I'd like to remind the member that his government under David Peterson brought in the three-day roving casinos.

Mr Bradley: You're missing the whole point.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: No, you're missing the point. Inherent in this whole argument is that at risk is the integrity of gaming in Ontario. To the NDP's credit, they brought in some rules to regulate gaming in this province. You did not.

I'll tell you something, since you refer to Staff Sergeant Fotia, who is with the OPP, who indicates -- let's look at the facts. This is from the Ottawa Citizen. "In the first six months of this year nine casino operators, or more than 10% of the total, have been charged with 34 separate offences under the Gaming Control Act and they face 15 gaming-related charges under the Criminal Code" because the system right now does not work. We're trying to bring some integrity to this system, which you had a chance to do. You did not.

IPPERWASH PROVINCIAL PARK

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I have a question for the Premier. The handwritten notes from the meeting on September 5, 1995, that were tabled, state, "Public safety not an issue, reduces urgency."

It seems to indicate that the interministerial committee and the OPP felt that the occupation of the Stony Pointers was peaceful and non-violent. The OPP is quoted as saying in the press: "Our position is to control the situation and to come to a peaceful resolution. We're not in a rush. We are not looking to ram anything through."

Premier, if this is the case, that the OPP identified no public risk and the interministerial committee meeting held that the public safety was not an issue, why did the OPP build-up occur the next day? Why did the OPP use force to enter Ipperwash Provincial Park? Was it because you had directed Deb Hutton to say, "Out of the park only -- nothing else"?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): No.

PETITIONS

COURT DECISION

Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas women's going topless in public promotes exploitation of women's sexuality and prostitution, taking away the moral and ethical values of our children and ourselves;

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

"To take this issue seriously and produce a law making it illegal for women to go topless in the province of Ontario."

That's signed by 1,030 of my constituents and constituents from S-D-G.

RENT REGULATION

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): "We, the undersigned concerned citizens of Ontario, Canada, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario that:

"We do not agree with the proposed Tenant Protection Act, Bill 96,

section 200, which would make it legal for landlords to refuse to rent to low-income people.

"Many landlords would be happy to be able to legally refuse to rent to people on welfare, FBA, disability, single mothers, seniors with low pensions and other low-income people such as large numbers of minorities people.

"This change to the Ontario Human Rights Code is a violation of the Charter of Rights which Canada signed.

"We therefore request that the words `income information' be removed from Bill 96,

section 200."

I will affix my signature to this petition.

VEHICLE REGISTRATION FEES

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): "Whereas the new Mike Harris northern vehicle registration tax does not recognize the uniqueness of the north; and

"Whereas Mike Harris should know that gas prices are higher in northern Ontario; and

"Whereas the new Mike Harris northern vehicle registration tax is blatantly unfair to the north; and

"Whereas we have no voice for the north fighting for northerners around the cabinet table;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to revoke the new tax imposed on the north and convince the Tory government to understand that indeed northern Ontario residents do not want the new Mike Harris vehicle registration tax."

I affix my signature to this petition.

COURT DECISION

Mr Bob Wood (London South): I have a petition with 188 names. It reads as follows:

"To the Parliament of Ontario:

"Whereas at this time in the province of Ontario it is not illegal for a woman to appear topless in public, and due to the fact that this lack of restriction offends a large percentage of Ontarians;

"We, the undersigned, petition the government of Ontario to introduce legislation that would make it illegal for a woman to appear topless in any public place."

PAY EQUITY

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

"Whereas the Harris government has introduced Bill 136; and

"Whereas Bill 136 strips entitlements to employee status and therefore pay equity rights for home child care providers; and

"Whereas home child care providers are predominantly female; and

"Whereas home child care providers are one of the lowest-paid groups of workers in the province;

"Therefore we, the undersigned citizens of Ontario, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to withdraw Bill 136 and its implications for the Pay Equity Act."

Since we're in the middle of debate on Bill 136, I proudly add my name to these citizens'.

SCHOOL COUNCILS

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the Ontario Parent Council is a group of politically appointed individuals who do not have school council representation at their table; and

"Whereas the Ontario Parent Council communicates directly with the Minister of Education and Training on what they assume to be the needs and concerns of school councils across Ontario; and

"Whereas school councils of Ontario are made up of dedicated, thoughtful parent volunteers who, regardless of their political beliefs, work for the betterment of the education and welfare of their children;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to establish an elected provincial board of school councils that will speak directly to the Minister of Education and Training on issues related to school councils."

This is signed by dozens of constituents from my riding and from Thunder Bay, and I affix my own signature.

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas over half the people in Ontario are women;

"Only 5% of the money spent on medical research goes to research in women's health;

"Women have special medical needs since their bodies are not the same as men's;

"Women's College is the only hospital in Ontario with a primary mandate giving priority to research and treatment dedicated to women's health needs;

"The World Health Organization has named Women's College Hospital as the sole collaborating centre for women's health for both North and South America;

"Without Women's College Hospital, the women of Ontario and of the world will lose a health resource that will not be duplicated elsewhere;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to ensure the continuance, independence, women-centred focus and accessible downtown location of the one hospital most crucial to the future of women's health, Women's College Hospital."

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

COURT DECISION

Mrs Julia Munro (Durham-York): I have a petition that reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Ontario Court of Appeal has ruled that women have the lawful right to appear topless in public;

This petition is signed by 17 people from Keswick who are constituents of my riding of Durham-York. I agree with this petition and I have affixed my name to it.

VEHICLE REGISTRATION FEES

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the new Mike Harris northern vehicle registration tax does not recognize the uniqueness of the north; and

"Whereas Mike Harris should know that gas prices are higher in northern Ontario" -- especially this month -- "and

"Whereas the new Mike Harris northern vehicle registration tax is blatantly unfair to the north; and

"Whereas we have no voice for the north fighting for northerners around the cabinet table;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to revoke the new tax imposed on the north and convince the Tory government to understand that indeed northern Ontario residents do not want the new Mike Harris vehicle registration tax."

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

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

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas over half the people in Ontario are women;

"Only 5% of the money spent on medical research goes to research in women's health;

"Women have special medical needs since their bodies are not the same as men's;

"Women's College is the only hospital in Ontario with a primary mandate giving priority to research and treatment dedicated to women's health needs;

"The World Health Organization has named Women's College Hospital as the sole collaborating centre for women's health for both North and South America;

"Without Women's College Hospital, the women of Ontario and of the world will lose a health resource that will not be duplicated elsewhere;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to ensure the continuance, independence, women-centred focus and accessible downtown location of the one hospital most crucial to the future of women's health, Women's College Hospital."

I will affix my signature to this petition as I fully agree with it.

PROTECTION OF PRIVACY

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): I have a petition that reads:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Premier of Ontario, Mike Harris, has proposed the fingerprinting of all Ontario citizens; and

"Whereas fingerprinting Ontarians was never promised in the Common Sense Revolution or in his election campaign; and

"Whereas universal fingerprinting of Ontario citizens is a direct violation of basic civil rights and fundamental rights of privacy; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government is intervening and intruding into all aspects of daily life, from megacities, user fees, rent controls and market value taxes, which he never promised in the election campaign;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislature of Ontario to oppose Mike Harris's plan to fingerprint Ontario citizens, and to respect their privacy and to stop creating a mega-government that does not respect the basic freedom and individuality of the citizens of Ontario."

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

CANCER PREVENTION

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

"Petition to reprint and enact the recommendations of the Ontario Task Force on the Primary Prevention of Cancer:

"We, the undersigned, request that the Ministry of Health reprint the Report of the Ontario Task Force on the Primary Prevention of Cancer, March 1995, and that the Ontario government set up the cancer prevention network in order to enact the report's strategies and targets for reduction of site-specific cancer incidents;

"Further, we demand that primary prevention be a major focus at Cancer Care Ontario and that at least three members of its board have a prevention focus which incorporates environmental factors."

I will affix my signature to this petition as I fully support it.

VEHICLE REGISTRATION FEES

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): I've a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the new Mike Harris northern vehicle registration tax does not recognize the uniqueness of the north; and

"Whereas Mike Harris should know that gas prices are higher in northern Ontario; and

"Whereas the new Mike Harris northern vehicle registration tax is blatantly unfair to the north; and

"Whereas we have no voice for the north fighting for northerners around the cabinet table;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to revoke the new tax imposed on the north and convince the Tory government to understand that indeed northern Ontario residents do not want the new Mike Harris vehicle registration tax."

I proudly affix my signature to this petition.

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): I have a petition signed by hundreds and hundreds of people regarding the Wellesley Central Hospital Staying Alive campaign.

"We, the undersigned, are vehemently opposed to the proposed closure of the Wellesley Central Hospital.

"We see this as cutting services which will negatively affect the overall health of our community.

"We are deeply concerned about our future health care for treatment of acute illness and emergency care.

"We support the alliance between Wellesley Central Hospital and Women's College Hospital as the only solution."

I'm proud to affix my signature.

GASOLINE PRICES

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas we, the consumers, feel gas prices are too high throughout Ontario;

"Whereas we, the consumers, support the Ontario Liberal caucus's attempt to have the Mike Harris government introduce predatory gas pricing legislation;

"Whereas we, the consumers, want the Mike Harris government to act so that the consumer can get a break at the pumps rather than going broke at them;

"Whereas we, the consumers, are fuming at being hosed at the pumps and want Mike Harris to gauge our anger;

"Furthermore we, the consumers, want Mike Harris to know we want to be able to go to the pumps and fill our gas tanks without emptying our pockets;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to introduce predatory gas pricing legislation in order to control the amount of money we, the consumers, are forced to pay at the gas pumps."

I'll be affixing my signature to this.

VEHICLE REGISTRATION FEES

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

"Whereas the new Mike Harris northern vehicle registration tax does not recognize the uniqueness of the north; and

"Whereas Mike Harris should know that gas prices are higher in northern Ontario; and

"Whereas the new Mike Harris northern vehicle registration tax is blatantly unfair to the north; and

"Whereas we have no voice for the north fighting for northerners around the cabinet table;

"Therefore, we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to revoke the new tax imposed on the north and convince the Tory government to understand that indeed northern Ontario residents do not want the new Mike Harris vehicle registration tax."

I have affixed my name to that petition as well.

AMBULANCE SERVICE

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

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

"That the Fort Frances ambulance dispatch not be moved to Kenora."

This is signed by over 100 petitioners, and I have affixed my name as well.

PRESCRIPTION DRUGS

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): I have a petition that reads:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas on July 15, 1996, the government of Ontario forced seniors with incomes over $16,018 to pay an annual $100 deductible on prescription drugs;

"Whereas this user fee imposes significant financial hardship on vulnerable seniors;

"Whereas on April 1, 1997, the government of Ontario unfairly and knowingly forced Ontario seniors to pay that $100 deductible again;

"Whereas the time between July 15, 1996, and April 1, 1997, is only eight and a half months and not one year;

"Whereas the Ontario government has wrongly taken an additional $30 million out of the pockets of seniors for prescription drugs;

"Whereas Ontario seniors feel cheated by the government of Ontario and this $30-million ripoff shows a tremendous disrespect for Ontario seniors;

"Therefore

be it resolved that the government of Ontario credit Ontario seniors for the three and a half months' overpayment they were forced to pay on prescription drugs by making the effective date for the 1998 $100 deductible July 15, 1998, instead of April 1, 1998."

I have affixed my name to that petition as well.

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

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

"Whereas over half the people in Ontario are women;

"Only 5% of the money spent on medical research goes to research in women's health;

"Women have special medical needs since their bodies are not the same as men's;

"Women's College Hospital is the only hospital in Ontario with a primary mandate giving priority to research and treatment dedicated to women's health needs;

"The World Health Organization has named Women's College Hospital as the sole collaborating centre for women's health for both North and South America;

"Without Women's College Hospital, the women of Ontario and of the world will lose a health resource that will not be duplicated elsewhere;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to ensure the continuance, independence, women-centred focus and accessible downtown location of the one hospital most crucial to the future of women's health."

This is signed by 92 citizens from all over the province, and I am proud to affix my signature.

VEHICLE REGISTRATION FEES

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): I have a petition that reads:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the new Mike Harris northern vehicle registration tax does not recognize the uniqueness of the north; and

"Whereas Mike Harris should know that gas prices are higher in northern Ontario; and

"Whereas the new Mike Harris northern vehicle registration tax is blatantly unfair to the north; and

"Whereas we have no voice for the north fighting for northerners around the cabinet table;

"Therefore, we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to revoke the new tax imposed on the north and convince the Tory government to understand that indeed northern Ontario residents do not want the new Mike Harris vehicle registration tax."

I have affixed my name to that petition as well.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

CITY OF TORONTO ACT, 1997 (NO. 2) / LOI DE 1997 SUR LA CITÉ DE TORONTO (N O 2)

Resuming the adjourned debate on Bill 148,

An Act to deal with matters relating to the establishment of the new City of Toronto / Projet de loi 148, Loi traitant de questions se rapportant à la constitution de la nouvelle cité de Toronto.

Mr Dan Newman (Scarborough Centre): I'm pleased to be able to rejoin the debate where I started off last night. I really didn't get an opportunity to get into my speech last evening because I was interrupted by the member for Yorkview when he was using several delaying tactics to impede my ability to represent the people of Scarborough Centre here in the Legislature. I think it's quite indicative of the opposition --

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I believe the member for Scarborough Centre imputes motives to the member for Yorkview. That is against the orders of the Legislature.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gary L. Leadston): To the member for London Centre, raising the point of order, I apologize. I was in conversation with the Clerk. I did not hear the member for Scarborough Centre or what he is alluded to have said. However, the member for Scarborough Centre, if you in fact have impugned the motives or a statement from the honourable members, I leave it to your best judgement as a gentleman of the Legislature and a member --

Mr Newman: Thank you, Speaker. I don't believe I have, but I will withdraw it none the less.

The point I was trying to make is that I sit here in my place and read the words on the wall: "Audi Alteram Partem," which means, "Listen to the other side." To me, it means not just government members listening to opposition members, but opposition members listening to government members. I think that's something that is lost in the discussion.

I also just want to put on the --

Mrs Boyd: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: The member is talking about listening to the other side. There is no quorum in this House at this time.

The Acting Speaker: Is there a quorum present?

Clerk Assistant (Ms Deborah Deller): A quorum is not present.

The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.

Clerk Assistant: A quorum is now present.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Scarborough Centre.

Mr Newman: I'm pleased to re-rejoin the debate today on Bill 148, the City of Toronto Act (No. 2). The City of Toronto Act, 1997, became law in April of this year and provides the basic legislative framework to establish the new municipal corporation. It was intended to indicate the overall direction of our government and to allow the November municipal elections to go ahead as scheduled. I'm proud that our government has achieved that.

The second city of Toronto bill is a surprise to no one. Our government has said from the outset of debate on the first bill, Bill 103, that we would be introducing a second bill to deal with the administrative, technical and specific transitional matters surrounding the amalgamation process. This bill is about protecting services to the people of Metropolitan Toronto, services that they currently enjoy, services that they can expect and have begun to depend on.

What would happen to my constituent in Scarborough Centre who has to take the TTC to work on January 2, 1998, if it was not for this bill? Would the TTC continue to operate? And what about those 157,000 new jobs that have been created in the province of Ontario, many of them in Metropolitan Toronto and many of them within Scarborough and Scarborough Centre? How would these people be able to get to work? This bill ensures that services currently available to all residents will continue to be available during the transition period.

This bill is not about new powers. It is about a continuation of powers currently afforded to Metro council, powers currently afforded to Scarborough council, powers currently afforded to North York, Etobicoke, East York, Toronto and York city councils. This bill is a necessary step. It is for the most part a housekeeping bill that needs to be passed quickly to protect the residents of Metro Toronto.

I say to the members opposite, stop stalling, stop playing political games, stop looking for media hits, and let's get on with passing this bill so that my constituents in Scarborough Centre can feel secure, as they should, that their municipal services will continue after January 1, 1998.

Why are the members opposite stalling this bill? They should be fully supportive, shouldn't they? Even the member for Riverdale last night said that it's a simple bill. If I say it's a simple bill, let's pass it; let's get on with it. Let's get on to the other pieces of legislation that need to be discussed in this place. After all, they seem to think they are the only ones in this House looking out for the people of Metropolitan Toronto. Or are they?

I find it interesting that the member for Oakwood, who just happens to be spearheading Mel Lastman's campaign for mayor, would not be calling for quick passage of this bill so that his candidate could reassure the people of Metro Toronto that their services will be indeed protected during the transition. The member for York South, who is actively involved in Barbara Hall's campaign, should also be supporting this bill that protects the residents of his riding, along with every resident in Metropolitan Toronto.

We know why members are not supporting this bill even though they know full well that it is necessary and that it is correct: because they won't have a shot at getting any media hits. That's what is important to them. That type of rhetoric and political gamesmanship is what the people of Metropolitan Toronto do not need. They've had enough of it.

What the people need are hardworking politicians, politicians committed to creating a better Toronto, a stronger Toronto and a more vibrant Toronto, politicians like Scarborough councillor Paul Mushinski and Scarborough councillor Mike Tzekas, who I've had the pleasure of speaking with on numerous occasions regarding the creation of the new city of Toronto. Councillor Mushinski and Councillor Tzekas have told me that Bill 148 is needed. They didn't come to the Bill 103 hearings like many of the socialist-leaning councillors from other municipalities who, I might add, came with cameras and had pictures taken, which I'm sure will show up in campaign literature this fall.

These councillors understand that their constituents need to feel secure that their services will be protected during the transition. Councillors Mushinski and Tzekas are working hard on behalf of their constituents, working to keep them informed and working to protect their services. They are not playing political games like the members opposite and like a number of municipal politicians are. All along, councillors Mushinski and Tzekas have said they will work to make the new city of Toronto the best it can be and to ensure that their constituents retain uninterrupted services. I applaud them for that.

At this time I want to make an appeal today to every candidate running for municipal office in the new city of Toronto. I say to them, I want those candidates to pledge to the people of Metropolitan Toronto that they will do everything within their power to make the new city of Toronto work, to make the new city the most vibrant city in the world. If these candidates will not make that pledge to the residents of Metropolitan Toronto, I suspect the voters will be quick to deal with them.

I hope we'll soon have the cooperation of the opposition parties to ensure that the services provided Metropolitan Toronto's residents remain in place for a unified Toronto. It's only a hope, but I suspect that they will continue to play games as they did last night and as they did here this afternoon. It is certainly in the best interests of everyone to ensure that this bill is passed in a timely manner.

Let's examine what this bill ensures for the residents of Metropolitan Toronto.

It ensures that the operation of the TTC will continue as usual. How can the Liberals and NDP members here today be against that?

It ensures that the operation of the CNE, the Metropolitan Toronto Zoo, the Hummingbird Centre and the Guild Inn, which is in the riding of Scarborough East, will continue as usual. I say again, how can the members of the Liberal and NDP parties be against that?

It ensures that the operation of ambulance services will continue as usual. I wonder how the members opposite can be against that.

It ensures that the operation of police services and life-saving services for Toronto harbour will continue as usual. I ask you, Speaker, how can the opposition parties be against that?

It ensures that the operation of homes for the aged will continue as usual, and I wonder how the opposition parties could be against that. It ensures that the regulation of street vending will continue as usual, and I wonder how the opposition parties can be against that. It ensures that the operation of conservation authority lands will continue as usual. Again I ask myself, how can the Liberal Party and the NDP be against that? It ensures that the operation of the licensing commission will continue as usual. It ensures that the operation of the Toronto Island ferry will continue as usual.

It ensures that the new city will continue as usual to plan and act in case of emergencies. It ensures that the new city can continue to act and to enter into water supply and sewage treatment agreements. It ensures that the new city will continue as usual to receive and dispose of liquid and solid waste and that the new city will continue to establish and operate controlled access roads. It ensures that existing official plans of municipalities will continue as usual, and I wonder how the opposition parties can be against that.

It ensures that pensions and benefits of municipal and local board employees and retirees will continue as usual. I know that's something that is very important to the members on this side of the House and I would trust that the opposition members in the Liberal Party and the NDP would move to get this bill going forward so that the pensions and benefits of retired municipal and local board employees will continue as usual. It's something that I think they would want to be in favour of, but perhaps they're not. We'll see in their responses.

It will ensure the library board, the health board, the historical board and the parking authority for residents of the new city of Toronto.

I challenge the members opposite to get this bill passed and get on with the important work ahead of creating a vibrant new city of Toronto. I ask them today on behalf of the residents of Scarborough, I ask them today on behalf of the residents of the city of Toronto, I ask them today on behalf of the residents of East York, I ask them today on behalf of the residents of Etobicoke, the residents of North York and the residents of the city of York, let's have a smooth and orderly transition to this new city of Toronto where we move from seven municipalities into one municipality.

I ask the members opposite to speed it up. Let's get Bill 148 passed and we can get on to other legislation.

The Acting Speaker: Questions and comments?

Mr Joseph Cordiano (Lawrence): I enjoyed hearing the member opposite's speech as he talked about how this bill would ensure all of the services that Metro Toronto provides currently to its citizens. The member failed to outline for the people of this great city that in fact these services were being provided before megacity was invented by this government and the only thing that's in question here is whether these services will continue to be provided after megacity.

This bill is made possible because the government moved so quickly to enact megacity, rushed right into it and is now trying to ram it down people's throats. In fact, the only reason that this bill is necessary is because the government got it wrong the first time when they brought in their megacity bill. There are gaps throughout this bill. This is a fix-it bill.

What the member failed to tell us was that this government hasn't ensured for the people of this city that property taxes won't go up as a result of their megacity bill. This bill fails to ensure that those services that people in Metro Toronto have come to appreciate and come to value and that have come to become very critical in their lives will continue to be there in the future, child care, TTC. He talked about the TTC. Service has been cut by the TTC over the years. More specifically in the last couple of years there have been cuts to those kinds of services. GO Transit is being dumped on to municipalities.

Social housing is being dumped on to municipalities. The member opposite failed to tell the people of this city and this government fails to tell the people of the city how they're going to shoulder that burden for social housing and additional social costs that they're dumping on to municipalities.

That's why this legislation is being passed today. You need to fix up what you did before and that won't get you very far either.

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): I'm pleased to have the opportunity to respond to the member for Scarborough Centre. I want to address his comments that opposition members are somehow game-playing in opposing a bill like this and it's all about media hits.

First of all, I think that should have been ruled out of order. There is a sort of imputing of motive there. But let me say to you that if you review the Hansard of my opening remarks on this bill, I think I made it clear that my opposition and that of my colleagues is because we oppose the concept of the megacity to begin with. But given that there is a megacity, I agree entirely that there is a need for this kind of a transition bill.

What the member didn't talk about, when he said on behalf of the residents of Scarborough, the residents of Toronto, the residents of Etobicoke, the residents of York, the residents of North York and the residents of East York, was the plea that I made to the government members to please acknowledge that the residents of East York really want this transition bill to address a fundamental concern of lack of democracy and lack of fair representation.

You have an opportunity through the amendments I am putting forward to this bill to pass measures either on an interim basis or on a permanent basis that will bring about the kind of fair representation that the constituents of East York deserve. I understand you have a concern that perhaps the megacity council should be making these decisions, and in three years' time they can at the next election, but in the meantime it is important that the provincial government set this up in a way that is fair to begin with.

One of the versions of the amendments I'm putting forward actually allows you to do this on a transitional basis for the first term of the megacity council, which I hope addresses those concerns that the minister has raised.

I look forward to working with you on committee to see these kinds of amendments passed, to ensure that the transition to the megacity, which I think is a fundamentally flawed idea in the first place, guarantees equitable representation for the residents of the borough of East York.

Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East): I'm pleased to add my comments to those of the members for Beaches-Woodbine and Lawrence in response to the speech from my colleague from Scarborough Centre. I find it not at all surprising that the member for Lawrence would suggest that somehow in all of this discussion here today we should wrap it in the context of Who Does What and bus deregulation. I'm sure there are 20 or 30 other bills we passed that he would love to wrap this into and totally avoid the fact that Bill 148 is purely related to specific technical amendments.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would beg your assistance here. I believe we are responding to the comments from the member who made the speech and I see the member for Scarborough East, as always out of order, commenting on what another member had talked about in regard to the speech. I think the standing orders are clear. He is to respond to the comments made by the speaker and I would ask you to direct him so. Thank you.

The Acting Speaker: Order. The first thing we'll do is resume the hour and 20 minutes on the clock. Your point of order is well taken. I would address my remarks to the member for Scarborough East. Your comments should reflect the remarks made by the member for Scarborough Centre. Would you address your remarks to him and to the remarks in his debate. I think the Speaker has some flexibility in making this determination.

Mr Gilchrist: Thank you, Mr Speaker. It's certainly a flexibility that has been stretched to the breaking point.

Mr Bisson: Mr Speaker, would you stop the clock for the member across the way? I want to be fairminded in this. The member across the way suggested to my colleague the member for Beaches-Woodbine that when we, the members of the opposition, debate a government bill, we are not to talk about amending a government bill in our debate. I'm wondering, is this a new rule the government wants to introduce, that members cannot move to amend a government bill or even speak about how to make a government bill better?

The Acting Speaker: That is not a point of order.

Mr Bisson: Or is the member again trying to make a travesty of democracy and trying to tell people we only can do things the Tory way?

The Acting Speaker: That is not a point of order. The clock resumes at the original time. The member for Scarborough East.

Mr Gilchrist: I'm assuming it's back up to the minute and 20.

The Acting Speaker: I've asked that the clock be reset.

Mr Gilchrist: Thank you very much. I know they would love to monopolize the time in the House and demonstrate that kind of thuggery, but the bottom line is that Bill 148 is all about technical amendments.

The Acting Speaker: Order. To the member for Scarborough East, I'd ask you to withdraw that comment. It is unparliamentary.

Mr Gilchrist: It's been used a number of times before, but if it offends you, Mr Speaker, I'll be pleased to withdraw that.

Bill 148 is purely and simply the technical amendments to Bill 103 -- the technical additions to Bill 103; forgive me. The members opposite would want us to reopen the whole issue of the unification of the city. That's not going to happen. That's not part of this bill. As the member correctly pointed out, this is all about making sure that the services which currently operate -- and as was wisely pointed out by one of our members from northern Ontario, people will have the certainty they still operate on January 1. We don't govern by looking in the rear-view mirror.

We are making provision that the services will continue to be there for many, many years to come, that the people of Toronto will have that peace of mind and that the municipal candidates, including the NDP municipal candidates running in this election, will have that certainty. That won't be one of the fears they face.

The bottom line: This bill is purely technical, it's necessary and it's going to make Toronto an even greater city.

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): The member for Scarborough Centre talks about cooperation from the opposition parties in the House. I have to say to him that I've heard from more sources than one that there's no one out there saying that this government is going too slow. I've yet to hear that. What I suggest to the member for Scarborough Centre is that he may want to take that back to his colleagues, to cabinet, to the decision-maker, the dictator, as he's been referred to a number of times by his own caucus members, being of course the Premier, Mike Harris, that people out there are saying: "Slow down. Let us get a grasp on what you're trying to do to us."

Let the people of the city that we talk about here today, and not only that but the people of the province, review what this government is doing rather than doing everything out of the corner office of Mike Harris. It's not until the Premier and the cabinet understand that that the member for Scarborough Centre will see some cooperation, not only from other members in this House, but also from community leaders, like AMO this week, that we deal with on a regular basis. Until he and his caucus colleagues, the Premier and the cabinet, get that through to themselves, they will not receive that cooperation he talked about in his remarks to the House here today.

He talked about needing democracy. I tell you, I hear more and more from my constituents, from people in this city, from constituents across the province that there is a definite lack of democracy in this House and regarding this particular piece of legislation. To the member, until he figures that out and gets that through, there will not be the cooperation he is looking for.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Scarborough Centre.

Mr Newman: I want to begin by thanking the member for Lawrence, the member for Beaches-Woodbine, the member for Kenora and of course the member for Scarborough East. I always enjoy listening to his speeches. I think it took three opportunities for him to try to get his two minutes in with the opposition today and I thank him for really putting that effort forward.

The member for Lawrence spoke about, I believe, police services, that those will still be in effect on January 1, 1998. Well, so will the ambulance and transit if this bill is passed, and everything else that's included in this bill. We shouldn't lose sight of the fact that 72% of all municipal spending within Metropolitan Toronto today is already for amalgamated services.

To my colleague the member for Beaches-Woodbine, I know her comments regarding representation had absolutely nothing to do with redistribution and where she might be running in the next election, so I appreciate her comments on that.

To the member for Kenora, we are listening to what people are saying. I think all members should take the time to listen. Just yesterday and today I met with some residents of the Kenora riding who happen to be in Toronto for a convention, and they're very much in favour of what the government is doing. I was pleased to -- oh, the member is laughing.

Mr Miclash: Name names. Is that Craig Nuttall?

Mr Newman: Craig Nuttall is one of the people who is in town, along with several other people from the Kenora riding. Those residents of his riding are in favour of what the government is doing. They're in favour of the jobs that are being created, they're in favour of the lower taxes that are being seen across this province, the positive investment climate that's being put forward in this province. I guess anything looks fast compared to the Liberals and NDP from 1985 to 1995. The only thing they were quick to do was raise taxes.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Lawrence.

Mr Cordiano: I am very happy to have this opportunity to speak to this piece of legislation, which is a fixer of the previous legislation on the megacity. It speaks to the reasons why we have this piece of legislation. The government is proceeding at such a rapid pace that it's getting things wrong. It's that simple: It's getting things all too often wrong.

There are consequences to this. We've tried to point out time and again to this government that the faster it moves, the more likely it will do serious damage to this province and its economy and its governing structures at the municipal level and at the school board level. What's the hurry? That's what people are asking now. It's reflected in the public opinion polls. They're asking why this government is moving with such rapidity.

It leads one to suspect the motives of the government. It leaves one with the impression that this government has something to hide and that it's running away from everyone. It wants to get all the difficult stuff accomplished and passed through this Legislature before anyone takes notice. So what do we have? It's quite obvious to those of us on this side of the House that the government's modus operandi is to pass legislation and ram it down the throats of everyone concerned before the public takes notice.

How did they accomplish this? To accomplish this, the government has seen fit to introduce new standing orders, new rules for this House, so that they can indeed move even faster.

In democracy today, it is critical for citizens to be even more informed than ever before. The amount of information that exists in our society, coming at people constantly, it's a barrage. We can't process that information quickly enough. That's what people are saying out there, "We need time to digest this, we need time to examine it and we also need time to be consulted," something this government is failing to do. So it leaves one with the impression that they have something to hide. What other conclusion can we come to? What other conclusion are people coming to?

It's hurting you in the polls. I'm not a great believer in polls; I don't follow them. It's sport.

Mr Gilchrist: If you had only had that in the leadership, it would have saved your fortune.

Mr Cordiano: No, I don't think so. I think the results on the leadership prove that it was a very close race and it could have gone anywhere, notwithstanding that it took all night to figure that one out.

At the end of the day, it is indicative. What the poll does tell us and what is significant about these polls currently for the government is not where the parties are in the standings, but that people are genuinely concerned that they're not being consulted, that they're not being listened to and that this government is violating their democratic right to be consulted.

That's what's fundamental about the poll results currently. So I say to the government and to the backbenchers especially, it is your responsibility to ensure that this cabinet understands, that this executive understands, that the Premier understands. You on the back bench have the moral authority, by virtue of being elected by your constituents, to demonstrate to the Premier, to the cabinet, to those who are making decisions on your behalf, which you then have to go back to your own constituencies and sell, that they have a right to be heard.

It's the same thing in the way this government operates in its caucus. They're not informing you. I know the way governments undertake to make decisions. From time to time, power is more concentrated in the Premier's office than any of us would like. That's happening all too often under Mike Harris's jurisdiction. In his administration you're beginning to see that the corner office has even greater significance.

I'm going to quote from the member for Wentworth North. I like this quote because it demonstrates very aptly what I think is going on in the Premier's corner office: "This government is controlled by the Premier's office in conjunction with a bunch of kids who I say have a college or university degree in one hand and Machiavelli's Prince in the other, and not a whole lot in between."

Ms Lankin: It's a great quote.

Mr Cordiano: I think that's a great quote. It sums it all up. It indeed demonstrates the frustration that the back bench of this government is feeling today. You're not being consulted. You're not being told what's happening within the executive ranks of the government. In fact, there's an inner cabinet that isn't even being told what's going on because it's the Premier's office that controls everything, and the more that happens, the more difficult it becomes for you.

Hon Cameron Jackson (Minister without Portfolio [Seniors Issues]): Tell me again what you've got against the Italian Machiavelli.

Mr Cordiano: A brilliant guy. It's the way your government is being operated. Even Tony Skarica is saying it's the way your government is being operated. It's Machiavelli's Prince, a bunch of whiz kids who are running around telling the Premier what to do. It's not even the Premier, he's suggesting. It's a bunch of whiz kids. How much more undemocratic can you get?

Bill 148 demonstrates and makes this case, that you are going too fast. You have to fix everything you introduce after the fact. You introduce a piece of legislation and then it requires numerous amendments. Bill 26 was such a piece of legislation. You went too fast, you didn't think it through and you had to come back and change it.

Mr Douglas B. Ford (Etobicoke-Humber): That's democracy.

Mr Cordiano: It's not democracy, because you introduce the legislation and then you think about the consequences after the fact. That's what we're seeing on the download. They have introduced legislation which will see the municipalities shoulder the burden of all these additional costs, and they're not sharing the information with municipalities. They're not disclosing what the true costs of that download will be. They're not disclosing information to the general public about how much property taxes will go up.

We see this time and again. Almost every piece of legislation that's introduced is flawed, and not only because we disagree with it in principle, but there are technical flaws in almost every piece of legislation this government has introduced. We're seeing amendment after amendment. We're seeing government then come back into this House and rush further amendments. They are not proceeding at a pace any reasonable citizen would deem to be democratic, and thus you hear the cries out there that this government appears to be undemocratic, unjustifiably dictatorial.

When it comes to megacity, there's another interesting poll out today -- "Megacity to Cost More: Citizens." This is a poll that I believe was conducted by the transition team, hiring a bunch of students to do this poll. Some 4,000 Metro residents were surveyed and it found that "53% of those surveyed believed amalgamation -- and the province's decision to make municipalities pay a greater share of social services costs -- would lead to higher operating costs in the new city." Fifty-three per cent believe that. So you're not fooling anyone. You're not doing yourselves any favour by moving even quicker than you had planned.

As you hear the calls for slowdown, the calls for greater consultation with the public, you are beginning to realize that this is having an impact, which we warned you about, and in the end it will have dire consequences for the people of this city and, I believe, for municipalities across Ontario.

We will see that property taxpayers will be paying for the Mike Harris government's income tax cut. On the one hand you have cut income taxes, and you said you wouldn't close hospitals, and you said you wouldn't cut education, and you said that you could do that and at the same time balance the budget -- magic. Now we're seeing that to accomplish that you're going to have to pass on costs to municipalities which will have to increase property taxes, or in the alternative, they'll have to cut vital services to their citizens.

That's not the kind of Ontario we want. That's not the kind of Ontario people have come to appreciate over the years. The previous speaker, the member for Scarborough Centre, talked about all these great services the people of Metropolitan Toronto want to see continue to be there for them in the future. These great services were provided as a result of the foresight that previous governments had -- Conservative governments, I might add. They had great vision. They realized that to have viable cities, you had to have a quality of life that could be sustained and that would be the envy of the world. Yes, it did cost them money, there is no doubt about that, but it was sustainable.

What you are doing is undermining the ability of these municipalities to maintain that quality of life. Why is that the case? Because you're burdening them with additional social costs which weren't there before. No previous government ever conceived of the idea to pass on social costs to these municipalities, because we have paid for those services through the much more progressive system of taxation, income taxes, and there was a very good reason for doing so.

Income taxes provide a more stable base of funding, far more progressive, far more likely that those services would not be jeopardized during difficult economic times, in periods of recession. When we move to this new reality, you can see already what's going to happen. Social housing will be sacrificed. At some point in the future there won't be the necessary funding that will go into housing that has worked, and others have come to study to see how it does work.

The city of Toronto has a great number of housing projects that it put into place, and that's because we used the mixed income model of housing. This government doesn't agree with that. They have talked about bringing in shelter allowances. We haven't seen any discussion around that. We haven't seen the minister stand up and talk about that in any way, shape or form. He tells us he's lifting rent controls and that's going to spawn a building boom.

At the end of the day, there will be no additional housing units on the market, social housing costs will fall on the shoulders of municipalities, they won't be able to sustain it, and when that is the reality, the private sector will move in and probably purchase these units at a huge discounted cost.

Now this leads into the agenda for privatization of social housing because at some point those units will be discounted so much that, of course, any private sector developer would love to buy those units at half or more of the original cost for those units. A great deal, and I'm sure they'll make huge profits out of that. Again, what we're doing is sacrificing the kind of quality of life that we've had in this province in municipality after municipality. That's what this is all about.

This is a technical bill, but it leads back to the original piece of legislation and it ties into megacity downloading and it ties into downloading right across the province. It's all about the same thing; it's all about this government finding ways to download on to municipalities those additional costs. And why? What's the impetus for this? What's driving this is their promise to cut income taxes.

But I think the people of this province are very smart indeed. They're not going to be fooled by this, and that is why the members of AMO, municipal leaders, have sounded the alarm. They're saying, "We can't handle these additional costs." They see what's coming down the road. They see that they're going to be forced to increase property taxes and/or cut vital services; services that have made Ontario what it is today, a real envy for the rest of the world, made Metropolitan Toronto the kind of city it is, so livable. What you're doing is undermining the ability to sustain that quality of life.

This technical bill, by the way, once again speaks to the government's need to move quickly, to expedite all of these matters so that, lo and behold, six or eight months from now when we're getting into a pre-election period, the government's going to coast. They're going to say, "We did all the tough stuff." The last year of its mandate the government is going to say: "Aren't we nice? Let's reconcile our differences with the municipalities. We're doing such wonderful things. There's nothing more on the agenda that we have to deal with that will upset anyone." That's their modus operandi. Get it over with.

No one pays attention. Ram it through. The consequences won't be felt for several years down the road, well after the next provincial election, and hopefully the public won't take notice. But I say to you that the people of this province understand what's going on here and they'll make a judgement. They'll make a judgement whether this is acceptable or not.

They believed Mike Harris when he said in the last election campaign that he could figure out a way to solve our problems, that he could balance the budget and cut income taxes and not close hospitals and not cut education. But they had no idea that what he meant was that property taxes would inevitably have to go up to pay for those promises. That's what we're witnessing here in this Legislature, in the course of debate over Bill 148, megacity, and all of the other downloading issues that are attached to this. We're seeing the true costs of the original revolution gone mad.

The additional costs and who's going to pay for; it's not just about who does what, it's about who is going to pay for what. It's not about doing more for less; it's about doing less and getting less. Yes, getting less. You forget to mention that to people. In the end, it isn't going to cost any less because you're passing on those costs to municipalities.

What did the Premier say to municipalities? What did he say about municipalities? He said those that are well run won't see any cost increases, they can deal with it. On the one hand, he admits that there will be additional costs, and on the other, he says: "Don't worry, it's a wash. It's revenue-neutral." What are we to believe? What are the people of this province to believe? That it is revenue-neutral? That the download this government is imposing on municipalities is in fact revenue-neutral? Or that municipalities will have to absorb the additional costs and those that know how to manage their affairs properly will find ways to cut costs? No thanks to the province, which will mean inev