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

May 2, 1996

36th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

L068 - Thu 2 May 1996 / Jeu 2 Mai 1996

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE

ROAD MAINTENANCE

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE

ROAD MAINTENANCE

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE

ROAD MAINTENANCE

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

ANNIVERSARY OF POLISH CONSTITUTION

REESOR SIDING LABOUR DISPUTE

ARBOR WEEK

RABIES

EDUCATION FINANCING

ONTARIO ADVISORY COUNCIL ON WOMEN'S ISSUES

GREATER TORONTO AREA

ST THOMAS PSYCHIATRIC HOSPITAL

LABOUR DISPUTE

CYSTIC FIBROSIS

VISITOR

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

AGRICULTURAL LEGISLATION / LOI PORTANT SUR L'AGRICULTURE

ORAL QUESTIONS

INDEPENDENT HEALTH FACILITIES

HEALTH CARE FINANCING

INDEPENDENT HEALTH FACILITIES

EDUCATION FINANCING

POLICE SERVICES

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL JURISDICTION

NORTHERN ONTARIO HERITAGE FUND

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

GASOLINE PRICES

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

PETITIONS

RENT REGULATION

TAXATION

NORTH YORK BRANSON HOSPITAL

CHILD CARE

EDUCATION FINANCING

PRESCRIPTION DRUGS

ST THOMAS PSYCHIATRIC HOSPITAL

ST JOSEPH'S HOSPITAL

EDUCATION FINANCING

RENT REGULATION

COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

ALZHEIMER RESPITE CARE

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

EDUCATION FINANCING

LIQUOR CONTROL BOARD OF ONTARIO

ADJOURNMENT DEBATE

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE,FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE LE MINISTÈRE DE L'AGRICULTURE, DE L'ALIMENTATION ET DES AFFAIRES RURALES

CITY OF TORONTO ACT (TRAFFIC CALMING), 1996

CITY OF TORONTO ACT, 1996

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TORONTO ISLANDS AMENDMENT ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LES ÎLES DE TORONTO

TORONTO ISLANDS AMENDMENT ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LES ÎLES DE TORONTO

MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE LE MINISTÈRE DES RICHESSES NATURELLES

The House met at 1003.

Prayers.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE

Mr Clement moved private member's notice of motion number 16:

That in the opinion of this House, since Ontarians are entitled to high levels of service from the public sector; and

Since Ontarians sent a clear message in the June election that the status quo is not acceptable and called for a government committed to driving substantive reforms in the delivery of public services; and

Since the Progressive Conservative government has already taken steps to respond to this message by reviewing all public expenditures; and

Since it is important that this process does not neglect the needs of Ontarians and should include the establishment of guiding principles within the public service that will ensure that it is responsive to the public's expectations;

Therefore, in order to provide Ontarians with a better, more accountable and more responsive public service, the Chair of the Management Board should investigate the establishment of a mechanism to ensure that the following principles and standards are adopted by the government of Ontario:

(

a) Measurable standards need to be established whereby the public as consumers of public services can assess how services are delivered on a regular basis;

(

b) Information needs to be readily available to the public that will allow them to understand what services cost, who is in charge and how they can benefit from the service;

(

c) The public must be consulted on a regular basis to ensure that the service is still achieving its desired objectives and continues to be a service which the public sector should be providing;

(

d) The public's needs must be paramount in determining how to deliver a service;

(

e) The public must be treated equally and with dignity and respect;

(

f) The public must have access to a system of redress whereby the government must accept the responsibility for the delivery of services in an appropriate manner; and

(

g) The taxpayer must be protected by ensuring that government services are delivered in an efficient and economic manner within the context of the existing fiscal environment.

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

Mr Tony Clement (Brampton South): Thank you for the opportunity to speak to this resolution.

I mean no disrespect to the government or members of the public service when I say that the manner in which government services are delivered in this province is sometimes problematic. What I mean by that is this: As members, I'm sure we have heard over the term of our office that perhaps there are numerous examples where constituents of ours have spent far too much time in lineups; the government itself provides services using outdated delivery methods; there seem to be at times instances where changes in format or delivery of those services seem to occur without rhyme or reason.

There are lots of examples of those sorts of situations that we have all faced and have had to try to resolve as members of the Legislature.

In my opinion, the system lacks a comprehensive and coherent set of guiding principles and standards which can be used by the public themselves to measure the effectiveness of the public service and to ensure that the public service is achieving the desired objectives, the objectives we all hold dear. At times the public does not know what it can reasonably expect from the public service, and the public service itself, if I may speak in its defence, lacks the tools to ensure it is providing citizens with the proper type of service, with the service the public demands.

Just as we heard on June 8, in the last election, Ontarians are demanding a better system. The status quo is not acceptable. We as a government and we as members of the Legislature -- it's not only the government; it's all of us as representatives of our respective ridings -- must drive some substantive changes at the core of government and change the way the public service at times functions. By supporting my resolution, I believe this House will be sending a clear message to Ontarians that it is their government and that we are making the attempt to make the system more responsive and accountable to them.

If I may be permitted then to take each proposal one at a time, item (

a) refers to standards. I believe there is nothing wrong in saying that our government must be engaged in businesslike productivity. That drive must be on a massive scale. We're a large organization delivering very essential services to the public. We have to do so in a way that has measurable standards. Measurable and appropriate standards, once they are put in place, can guarantee, I believe, to a greater extent than right now, superior service.

I would like to offer members of the Legislature some examples of what these standards might entail: standards of courtesy, standards of helpfulness, standards of accuracy, standards of the assurance of privacy and confidentiality, and an upfront commitment to prompt action. For instance, waiting times should be reduced and should be set out. Those are the types of standards that a lot of businesses in Ontario have to live with, day in, day out, in order to accomplish their goals of service, productivity and growth in their own business, and I think it is right to apply those standards and to meet the expectations for those standards in the public service.

Secondly, information: I believe there should be no secrets about how the bureaucracy operates in the province of Ontario. We must be able to set out for the public the cost of delivery of those specific services so that people know how their taxpayers' dollars are spent, and they can assist in the public policy discussion and the judgement as to whether those tax dollars are spent wisely or unwisely.

I believe we need full and accurate information to be made readily available, in plain language, to the public in different forms; for instance, Braille, audio-video tape, different languages that the public uses, mother tongues. Those are the sorts of things that can make a difference in the everyday lives of many people who rely on government services.

I believe those standards of any particular department in the government must be made available and that department must also be able to demonstrate on a regular basis how it is performing against those standards. It's what is called benchmarking, and the idea is that we all have to be measured against some standards.

In item (

c) I talked about a form of consultation with the public and that the public service must be responsive to a changing environment, and the only way to do that is to allow for consultation with Ontarians on a regular basis. Users' views about services that they use on a regular basis should be sought regularly and systematically to inform decisions about what services should be provided and what services should not be, and how those services that are to be provided should be delivered.

We cannot allow services to be entrenched in our system simply because they were done in the past. I've heard that argument so many times when dealing with certain aspects of public service, not from all members of the public service, but from some people the answer seems to be, "Well, that's the way we've always done it." I don't think that's good enough any more for the citizens of Ontario. We must explore other means of delivering those services -- outsourcing, privatization -- or better delivery within the public service as well.

In item (

d) I talked about the public's needs. It's the end user, the public, who should determine what those needs are. The lifestyles, the schedules, the mobility of Ontarians themselves must be considered when setting up and updating delivery mechanisms. As an example I offer to this House, we must consider how late and how many days a week driver's licence renewing offices need to be open to allow working people adequate access to those services. That's the sort of thing Ontarians, with their varying lifestyles, now need from our public service.

Item (

e) refers of course to non-discrimination, that all citizens must be treated equally with dignity and respect and that service providers must make every reasonable effort to accommodate the needs of Ontarians.

Item (

f) is redress. I would say as a matter of principle that Ontarians are entitled to an apology if things go wrong and a good explanation of why they went wrong. How many times have we heard that the hours of a particular public service office are from 8:30 to 4:30; a constituent shows up at 4 o'clock and, for reasons that are not evident, the office is closed.

There might be a perfectly good explanation why that has happened, but I believe that Ontarian deserves, firstly, an apology that the stated hours have not been met, an explanation as to why those hours have not been met, and then an expectation: Is that going to occur in the future or are we thinking of ways to ensure it does not happen again? That is what I mean by redress.

Finally, we must consider the fiscal climate. We cannot spend haphazardly. We must keep in mind the limits that the current situation imposes upon us. Taxpayers must be guaranteed that their money will be used efficiently and appropriately.

If I can conclude, the principles and standards which this resolution calls the Chair of the Management Board to investigate will allow us to contemplate a wide range of mechanisms when improving the public service. These can include but are not limited to privatization, more competition, contracting out, performance-related pay or perhaps in some cases, more resources into the public service to ensure that the job is done properly for the people of Ontario.

In the long run, I would like to see specific criteria established for health care, the police, education, housing and so on to ensure that Ontarians are able to hold the public service accountable by scrutinizing its performance against the public and understandable principles and standards which I outlined.

It is ambitious. When the project takes hold, people will find themselves less frustrated when dealing with the civil service and with government and will be able to reclaim the public system as their own. Thank you for this opportunity to speak to my resolution.

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I am pleased to join in the debate and to say I support the thrust of this resolution very much. My background is, like many, from the private sector, and certainly in the businesses I've been involved in we did set some very specific goals and we measured ourselves on a constant basis against that.

Probably the first test of this will occur on Tuesday when the budget's presented. There was quite a comprehensive report called the Ontario Financial Review Commission report, Beyond the Numbers: A New Financial Management and Accountability Framework for Ontario, which is really what we're talking about, accountability. It was a commission that was appointed by the new government. A group of people who are extremely competent made the recommendations and it was tabled, given to the government on November 20.

I think the first thing we will look at, and I assume that other members will, is to what extent those recommendations were incorporated in the budget, because their recommendations very much mirror what the member's resolution talks about. It says:

"This report presents a new framework for better use of resources throughout the public sector. It will move government from its current process orientation to a performance orientation. It lays out a cycle of planning, reporting, monitoring and evaluating," etc.

I thought it was a pretty good report actually. So I think, for all of us, we will look Tuesday at the budget and ask, to what extent did it incorporate those recommendations? If the government members feel strongly about the thrust of the resolution by the member, I think your first responsibility is to hold your own government accountable. On Tuesday, I would suggest to you, take this report with you and evaluate the budget presentation against it, because it incorporates many of the recommendations that are laid out in this resolution.

To be candid with the members, I frankly have been very disappointed in the lack of information from this government. It's the first time since I've been in opposition that I have not been able to get from the government what's called a medium-term fiscal outlook, a look at where we are going over the next three years on revenue and on expenditures. The only number we get is the deficit number.

This report from a blue ribbon committee is very specific and it says that the budget has to outline the revenue, expenditure and economic projections for the upcoming year and the following two years, and it goes on to outline the various things that have to be in the budget for it to provide this accountability framework.

I raise this because I think the backbench members can have a significant influence on the way the cabinet responds to your wishes. I would first urge you all to get this report -- the Chair of our economics committee is sitting beside the member; he will know the report -- read it and judge the budget on Tuesday on how well it performs against that.

The second thing I'd say is that, without doubt, our public sector has to be held accountable. I would say, however, that the government perhaps wasn't aware of the structure of the public structure or, for whatever reason, wasn't clear on the numbers in the public sector.

I raise this because, if you recall, when you ran in the campaign, you said, "We're going to get the bloated public service back to 1985 levels." In fact, I think in your bible, the Common Sense Revolution, which I carry around, of course, with me all the time, it says, "We will trim the cost of the direct provincial government workforce by 15% -- the equivalent of some 13,000 employees, returning the system to the approximate size it was in 1985." In other words, we've got to get rid of this bloated bureaucracy.

You now know that the numbers in the Common Sense Revolution weren't the facts. As a matter of fact, in 1985, before the bloated bureaucracy, the number of public sector employees was 81,000. On March 31, 1995, 10 years later, the number of public servants was 81,251. Essentially, the public sector when you took office was exactly the size it was 10 years ago, in 1985. So I know it's publicly very popular to talk about the bloated bureaucracy --

Mr Ted Chudleigh (Halton North): Another promise kept.

Mr Phillips: The member says, "Another promise kept." It was another false promise. Frankly, you ran on something politically very popular that was, dare I say, not true, and you knew that. You knew the public service was the same size as it was in 1985, but it's very good politics to say: "We've got to get the public sector trimmed down, the bloated bureaucracy. They're all over there doing nothing."

Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview): It sounded good.

Mr Phillips: It sounded good, but it was not true. The bureaucracy was exactly the same size when you came into office as it was 10 years ago. Those aren't my numbers; they're your numbers.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr Phillips: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I know they don't like to hear this, but it's the truth.

Also, I know you ran on a platform of law and order. That is, frankly, politically very popular too. But I will say this. Even though the bureaucracy, the public service, over that 10-year period was exactly the same size, 5,000 more people were in law enforcement and 5,000 fewer people in all the other areas of government. So where was the big bloating in the bureaucracy? It was where I gather you believe it should be, and that is law enforcement, OPP, correctional services, our court systems.

I raise those things just because it is, I know, politically easy to attack the public sector; I know that. You've been very successful at it. I very much support the need for some clear standards and I will be supporting the motion, but I simply say, let's be careful that we don't blame the people delivering the service and that we hold ourselves accountable. It is us who will determine what services we want.

When I say "us," that exaggerates my own importance; it will be the government that determines it, and we'll observe it. It will be the government that sets these standards, and frankly I very much look forward to you setting the standards and I very much look forward to hopefully those standards being ones we can support, and then I look forward to holding you accountable for the quality of health care, the quality of education, the quality of our communities, our quality of life, our standard of life, our social infrastructure, because in the end that's what we're all about.

So I don't have a problem supporting the thrust of the motion and look forward, as I say, to those standards.

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): I as well appreciate the opportunity this morning to speak to this piece of work put forward by the member across the way. I want to say that I find it very difficult to get excited about it, although I suppose at the end of the day our party will probably support it as well, in that there's nothing in here that I think anybody in this House disagrees with.

The only troubling part of it is that it is being presented by a government that so obviously doesn't believe in government. I find it, yes, consistent in some ways, and I'll explain that in a minute, but I also, with consistent, find it quite hypocritical, cynical and in fact quite disrespectful of the people of Ontario, of the process that government is supposed to be in Ontario in 1996 and of this place.

It's consistent because it flows from what I saw as a very bully-boy type approach to business by government in this province, beginning with the announcement in July of a 22% cut in the take-home pay to the poorest in the province. It was akin to, in my mind, a school yard where the bully walks in, picks out two or three of the smallest kids, pummels the heck out of them and then says, "Okay, now I'm in charge," and that sends out the message. It sets the tone and it creates the environment.

Then, after you've done that and after you've got everybody shaking in their boots, you bring them all together and you say, "Okay, let's sit down now and talk about the rules that will apply in this yard." That's exactly what you've done and it's exactly what you're doing here, and I suggest to you that it is, as I said, cynical, it's hypocritical and it's disrespectful. However, as I say, it is consistent.

You have shown both by what you've said in the Common Sense Revolution, what you've done since the election and what you propose to do, I suspect, in the budget that's coming down next week that you don't believe in government, that you believe government should play a smaller and smaller role and that the private sector out there should be in control, the private sector whose sole focus -- I don't criticize them at all for this, because they know and we know what it's about -- is the bottom line and making profits.

Government in a civilized society, in a modern society, has a fundamental role to play in the development of an economy and in protecting people's rights and the development of the health of a jurisdiction, and you haven't done that.

Our party certainly believes Ontarians are entitled to high levels of service from the public sector, but the threat to delivery of any services at all, let alone high levels, comes in this instance and in this day in Ontario clearly and solely from the government benches. This government is slashing billions of dollars from public services and laying off tens of thousands of workers in the Ontario public service and the broader public service, and you suggest that in that climate somehow or other we should set some standards and begin to talk about performance objectives?

To cause such unprecedented damage and then offer a slick resolution in favour of high levels of public service sets new standards for unmitigated gall, beating out the famous case of a person who axes his father and mother, then asks for mercy as a poor orphan.

Virtually from the day Mike Harris became Premier, this government has defined itself with its attacks on public employees, public services and the poor in the province. In the campaign, the Tories may even have lured some government workers into voting for them, like lambs to the slaughter. Here's what the Common Sense Revolution says: "The Ontario Public Service Employees Union has developed several commonsense proposals for ending waste and duplication. We will work with government employees, listening to their ideas and eliciting their help in taking action."

Is that what you were doing when you brought the police in here and started to bang heads on that infamous day of a few weeks ago? Instead, the government opted for confrontation with its workers and their unions.

In Bill 7, the Harris government abolished successor rights for Ontario public service employees, taking away a right enjoyed by every other unionized worker, public and private sector.

In Bill 26, the government stripped away pension rights enjoyed by all other workers in Ontario. After tying one of the union's hands behind its back, the government provoked a strike and was astonished that the workers didn't collapse.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Sault Ste Marie has the floor.

Mr Martin: It took a completely unnecessary and wasteful five-week work stoppage before the government relented and agreed to a fair deal.

Then there are the cuts to jobs and spending, and I could go on and on with the examples of disrespect and misunderstanding this government has for the role that government and the public service play in a modern, civilized society in 1996.

To bring this piece of work forward today is a cynical approach. Even though we may at the end of the day support it because everything in it is motherhood, the fact that you're bringing it forward makes it very much distasteful.

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): It is indeed a pleasure for me to be able to respond to the resolution of the honourable member for Brampton South.

The Ontario public service has tried on two previous occasions in recent years to reform our customer service. The Tomorrow project was initiated under the Liberals in 1989. Sponsorship for the program rested with the senior civil servants rather than with the ministers, and possibly this was a mistake in that effort.

A separate committee was then struck to examine customer service. Later, presentations were made to the government's policy and priorities board, and these were endorsed for the New Directions.

After the surprise defeat of the Liberals in 1990, the NDP established the Customer Service Task Force. This task force then launched an ambitious research project. The overall findings were that the public rated every service provider, including banks, department stores, even the post office, at a higher level than the Ontario public service was providing. The only exception that was lower than the Ontario public service was the service received by the federal government. Only one in five felt they were getting good value for tax dollars. As mentioned earlier, the status quo is not satisfactory.

The report identified a very significant service quality gap in the public's perception. The NDP government showed little interest in the Tomorrow project but gave some support to its own Customer Service Task Force recommendations. Although some specific recommendations of the Customer Service Task Force were acted on, a strong strategic direction did not emerge from this exercise. Many of these initiatives were window dressing such as the Amethyst Award and Customer Service Week. The Clearing the Path project of MCCR is one of the few successes that emerged from that process. This has been adopted and enhanced by our government.

In the past, it seemed to have been the policy was to throw money at any problem, and that was the case with these previous projects.

We believe that major changes that flow from restructuring and spending reductions will also provide an opportunity to improve the delivery of public services. In fact, improved customer service should be viewed as a means to control costs within government. Premier Harris has already asked senior bureaucrats to energetically pursue new models for service delivery.

Our government has also indicated that, as it reduces costs, it will move to reduce internal duplication, offer one-stop access to services and improve delivery. By adopting a doing-it-right-the-first-time strategy, customer service/quality improvement has led to operational efficiencies in many companies. In fact, some studies have shown that poor customer service and ineffective customer communications cause up to one third of the entire workload of an organization.

We recognize that service sloppiness steals from the bottom line. Therefore, the potential payoff from service excellence within the Ontario public service is considerable, both in giving the public better service and in reduced costs. With service excellence, everyone wins: The customer wins, the employees win, management wins, the community wins, the Ontario government wins and the taxpayers of Ontario win.

While it appears that mediocre service in the Ontario public service is common, this is definitely not a given. In many ministries we have examples of departments delivering superb service. We must analyse these examples, build on them and find ways to make them work across the Ontario public service. A mistake that the two previous governments made was trying to drive the process from above at the deputy ministry level without involving ministerial buy-ins. The real key to creating a genuine customer service focus is indeed leadership -- leadership that offers direction, that offers the means, that offers the inspiration to sustain committed service in the Ontario public service.

At the same time, customers and employees must be consulted and allowed to give their input. We must recognize that in any service organization the customer must come first. After the customer, then comes the first-line manager, then comes the senior management, and finally in our case would come the Ontario government.

I've often asked educators who is the most important in their system, and invariably they tell me that the teachers are the most important in the educational system, and they're dead wrong. The most important people in the educational system are the students. The students are the most important and the students come ahead of the teachers. Without students there'd be no teachers. Then come the principals, then the superintendents and directors and finally the board of education.

When we forget and lose track that the students are the most important or that our customers are the most important, then we've lost everything. Within the Ontario public service, the pyramid has been inverted for far too long, with the civil servants focused on pleasing the boss instead of the customer.

We must develop a new vision for customer service. It is a strategic goal. A customer bill of rights is a good starting point for vision-building, but the process of change must also take place on the front line. Customers should be asked what their expectations are. Employees should be asked to identify ways to improve customer service. Who is better qualified? Often cost savings and operational efficiencies are identified by the front line in many companies. Employees must be rewarded for finding ways to improve service delivery and meet customer needs.

Far too long we've had a reverse reward system in government and in many other organizations. We ask for one thing but we reward for something else, and it's time that we change our reverse reward system that so often occurs.

We are committed to providing the people of Ontario with a smaller government that costs less and does a better job. Successful implementation of a service quality initiative will play a key role in shaping the Ontario public service into a customer-driven organization. It is dependent on having a vision. A strategic plan establishing a customer bill of rights is a step in the right direction and one that I endorse.

It is also necessary to involve employees and involve management in the process and constantly ask what it is that the customer needs and what it is that the customer wants. When customer needs are identified, the government must respond quickly by redesigning services to meet any change in requirement. That is how a successful customer service program is built and sustained. In today's environment, customers expect no less from private sector companies. We, as the public sector, can't afford to be any different.

Mr Sergio: I'm delighted to join the discussion on this particular motherhood or fatherhood issue this morning brought by the government side. I'm quite pleased indeed to join the member for Brampton South in the discussion and the rest of the members.

I would call this

an act of contrition from the government side, and it's quite interesting that this comes -- I should say, what a difference a few months make. If I could remind the government side, this is the total opposite of what they said they were going to deliver during the election and what the public is getting now after the election.

But I don't want to embarrass any of the government-side members with some rhetoric, because I think they will be doing that for themselves. What they are presenting to us today, this will be brought to their attention on a daily basis so that the people of Ontario will be reminded that they were elected to deliver exactly what they are proposing here today and nothing less. But unfortunately, what we are seeing is a total about-face.

When we are telling the people of Ontario and we are telling those who are serving the people of Ontario that they expect accountability, fairness, justice, delivery of services on time, availability of information on time, I have to say to the members of the House that this comes first with you people; this comes first with the direction and the leadership that the government gives to those people.

Should I dare say that yesterday we saw an example of that leadership and that direction, and of the service the public of Ontario is entitled to expect from the government and its members, every elected member? We have seen yesterday that in the quest of privatizing service, the people of Ontario would have been stuck, if you will, with giving up a very important portion of health service to an American company, a disreputable company, I should say. This is exactly what this resolution or this bill proposes to do, to give the people of Ontario what they should be entitled to get on a fair share basis. It is not what the people of Ontario are getting from the government of the day.

I'm pleased indeed to say, not as the government side says, I am going to support this in principle, but this is a famous line and I'm going to use that time and time over. But today, for the sake of discussion on this particular item here, I will support this resolution. I'm delighted to support this resolution, not in principle but in fact because this is exactly the gospel that I think the government side should be attaining itself on a daily basis.

I think the public is entitled to know what actions the government or the Minister of Health are going to be taking with respect to those bureaucrats from which the interests of the people, the service, accountability, was expected. Isn't that nice that on something of such importance, a dialysis clinic, some bureaucrats knew three months ago that there were problems with this particular company. Wasn't it brought to the attention of the government or the minister?

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): I don't believe it.

Mr Sergio: We don't believe it either. I don't think they themselves believe it. But we are told that the minister, his own staff, the government -- let me tell you that something like that is not an issue that you make a decision in 24 hours; it is based on a period of time. I wouldn't be surprised if the Premier knew about it and didn't do anything about it, and the Minister of Health knew about it and he didn't do anything about it. They would, but for the opposition, have given a contract to provide dialysis service to an American company that is being disgraced in its own place.

I am delighted to support this resolution here, but let me remind the members on the government side that this is according to their own gospel and it's one document by which you will have to abide, on which you have to deliver and for which you have to be accountable to the people of Ontario. On your own document here, on page 7, it says: "We will not cut health care spending. It's far too important." Isn't that nice, that from the government side on a daily basis we see all the cuts to service that are being given to the people of Ontario.

Interjections.

Mr Sergio: Mr Speaker, they don't like the truth, you see. You have to wait because you have to give an account to the people of Ontario.

On page 8 of their own Bible, they say, "Classroom funding for education will be guaranteed." Do they know how many millions of dollars they have cut which affects the education in the classroom? This comes from their bible.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. Time has expired.

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): It gives me pleasure to be able to make some comments on the private member's resolution from the member for Brampton South on the notice of motion.

There are a lot of things that have been spelled out and I've looked at the resolution,

section (c),

section (d),

section (e),

section (f), where the public must have access, the public must be consulted. I know this might be the member's own personal feelings, but it's quite obvious from reading this resolution and hearing the comments today that this member has very little influence on what is happening within his own Tory caucus and within cabinet, because what he is saying in this particular resolution is completely contrary to what is happening out there.

Last July they slashed $1.9 billion and 20% of the welfare cheques. In November, another $6 billion was announced including slashing to hospitals, classroom education, and other areas that the Tories had promised during the election campaign they would not touch, these services would be protected. You cut funding to hospitals, to classroom education and thousands of notices have gone out to teachers who have been notified that they're going to be laid off. Teachers are telling me they're going to be reduced to crowd control in the classroom. The Conservative government has no control over what is happening out there.

They've also chopped 10,000 jobs from the public sector. In northern Ontario, the cuts they've done to the Ministry of Natural Resources, Ministry of Environment, Ministry of Agriculture -- it's got to be some kind of a joke when the Harris government is saying it's interested in high levels of service at the same time as it's decimating the public sector. I'm sure there are government employees who are out there listening today to what is being discussed in this resolution, saying: "Yes, we'd like to have what the member for Brampton South has put in his resolution. We'd like to have public consultation and public input, but it's a joke." It's not happening.

I have a letter here dated May 1 from the mayor of Cochrane. Since April 11, when the town of Cochrane was faxed a letter from Chris Hodgson, the Minister of Northern Development and Mines and MNR -- since April 11; the letter I have today is May 1 -- the mayor in the town of Cochrane is receiving so much pressure from the public in that community with the announced closure of the MNR buildings and the layoff of 42 people, and yet nobody on the government side has had the respect since April 11 to agree to sit down with the mayor and the chamber of commerce and listen to the proposal they have.

When you're talking about in the resolution that the public must be consulted, the public must be talked to, it's not happening. I beg the Tory caucus, I beg the member for Brampton South to meet with Mike Harris, talk to Chris Hodgson, who has become a joke of northern Ontario. In previous governments, even in the Conservative government back in the 1970s and 1980s, the Minister of Northern Development and Mines was considered to be the Premier of northern Ontario. Now we have a minister who is a complete joke. Headlines in the newspapers have no respect for him whatsoever because of the fact that he wants to run the whole show out of Toronto, out of the Premier's office.

I'll be supporting the resolution because we'd like to see some of these things happening, but it is not happening. It's the big lie that is out there. The Conservative member puts this down on paper and says this is what we'd like to do, but it's not happening. It's the big lie right across Ontario. With that, I know the member for Cochrane South wants to make some comments, so I'll wrap up there.

The Acting Speaker: I believe the members understand there are certain words we cannot use in the House. It incites the ire of the members and I would suggest that perhaps you could use another word.

Mr Len Wood: I'll withdraw the word. This is what is happening on the front pages of the newspapers right across Ontario, but if it upsets some of the members in the Tory caucus, I will withdraw that particular word. There are other words that can be used, because what we have here is that they're saying, "The public must be consulted...," "The public's needs must be paramount...," and the public must have access to information. There is no access to information. The public is not being consulted. You have a group of people -- some call them the whiz kids -- who are around Mike Harris and he's calling all the shots.

The other day I made some comments that what is happening within the Tory caucus reminds me very much of Jonestown. Reverend Jones put so much fear into his whole community that he told them, "Either you drink the poisoned Freshie or you'll get shot." It wiped out the whole town.

The Tory caucus seem to be fearful of speaking out to Mike Harris and to the cabinet ministers and saying, "What we're doing now is completely contrary to what we promised we were going to do during the election campaign." You got elected, sure. The public supported a lot of the things that were being said during the election campaign, that they wanted change, but they did not vote for the OPP to be called out to beat up the poverty group that came here on the opening day of the Legislature, beat them up with clubs.

They did not expect that the Tory government was going to bring out the OPP and have heads bashed in because they could bring a few Conservative cabinet ministers through a picket line on the opening, on March 18. It's sad when you look at all the headlines that are in the newspapers and then you hear one member saying, "This is what we'd like to see happen," and it's not happening.

It's a resolution that a lot of people would have a lot of respect for if it was really what was happening out there within the Tory government of Ontario, and it's not happening.

I know the member for Cochrane South would like to make a few comments on this as well, so I'll leave him a bit of time.

Mr Bob Wood (London South): It is with some pleasure I rise today to urge support for this resolution from a Management Board perspective. This resolution will empower taxpayers, put the service back into public service --

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order. I would remind the two members in the back to remain quiet. This is all part of the dignity and the decorum of the House, to let the person who has the floor speak, please.

Mrs Helen Johns (Huron): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I think that comparing us to Jonestown and talking about --

The Acting Speaker: Please take your seat. The member for London South.

Mr Bob Wood: This resolution will empower taxpayers, put the service back into public service and increase the accountability of the public service.

There are a couple of things we note about this resolution that it does not do. We do not think it requires a new and expensive process of consultation; we think that's an important aspect of it. We do not think there has to be a process of redress that will require the creation of a new bureaucracy.

We believe many of the principles and standards set out in the resolution are already being incorporated into the government's new approach to business planning. Each ministry is developing a business plan with a results-based performance measurement allowing taxpayers to determine the effectiveness of core programs and services.

The needs of Ontarians are at the centre of this planning process as the government determines the best way to deliver core services in an efficient and cost-effective manner. As the Chair of the Management Board said recently, "We are meeting these" financial "targets and changing the way government operates by developing and implementing ministry business plans that are thorough and fair."

We think this resolution is on the right track and we are pleased to recommend this resolution to all members of the House.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): In the minute and 37 seconds that I have, I will try to be succinct and to the point. As a New Democrat, I too don't have a problem with the body of what the member has put in his resolution. Other than the first line that talks about the status quo not being acceptable, the rest of the body of what's in the resolution is acceptable, because we all believe the public needs to be involved and there needs to be some accountability in regard to the public knowing what they're getting for their taxpayers' dollars.

The problem I've got with this is the basis on which this resolution comes forward. The member says, "The status quo is not acceptable." He's saying to you students up there in the gallery and other people across the province that the entire system of taxation and the entire system of services we have does not work, and because it doesn't work, they have to undergo a whole bunch of changes.

This is the same idea the Minister of Education, the person responsible for your education, has: "I'm going to create a crisis within the system of education and with the ministry so that I'm able to go forward and make the kind of changes I want to make so I can change the system of education to my view."

I say to the member and the Tories: Shame on you. That is wrong. The system is not broken; it's not a question of the system being broken. The simple problem is that we have less revenue coming in than we have money to pay for the programs and services people want. If we want to deal with those issues in regard to how do we make the two meet so that we have an equal amount of money to the amount of services going out, I think we can deal with that. But buyer beware, these guys don't believe in public services, they don't believe in government.

They would much rather see the entire thing thrown in the private sector, so that if you want to go to college or university, young people up there, you would pay through your nose and you'd never be able to go under a Tory government.

Mr Clement: I would like to thank all honourable members who have participated in this debate, either officially or unofficially, in terms of your comments. It was gratifying to get support from all three political parties that are represented in this chamber with respect to my resolution. If it pleases the Speaker, what I would like to do is respond to some of the comments that were elicited from the discussion.

Mr Bisson: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Normally in private members' hour, in the 15 minutes that are given to each party, members from the caucus have an opportunity to address the motion and then the member who sponsors the bill speaks in the last two minutes. I'm sure there are Conservative members -- you should at least ask to see if --

The Acting Speaker: It's totally within the procedure. There were four minutes left that the member for Brampton South is entitled to use, with the agreement of his own colleagues, plus his two minutes. The member for Brampton South, you have the floor.

Mr Clement: The first thing I'd like to do is comment on some suggestions made by the honourable member representing Scarborough-Agincourt. The member for Scarborough-Agincourt made an excellent point which I would like to expand on for a minute. He commented on, from his perspective, the lack of information the government provides. I happen to think we are providing the information he seeks, but let me say this to the honourable member: There is, I believe, an inherent problem in government, a systemic problem, when it comes to giving the right information to the public.

He has a personal concern about the information that has been made available to him, but on a general level his point is well taken. There is a tendency of government -- and I think there are members of this House in all three parties who have participated in governments at particular points in time -- to cloak information, to shield information, to shield themselves from the proper accountability to the public.

In the sense that the honourable member for Scarborough-Agincourt was talking generally about the lack of information that sometimes occurs when we deliver public services to the community, I agree with him absolutely and I think we as a government have to do a better job and we as members of the Legislature have to do a better job of getting that information out.

The honourable member for Yorkview indicated that he felt this resolution was a motherhood or parenthood issue for members of the House. I would like to honourably disagree with him. I think this is quite a radical measure. It may sound like motherhood; maybe that's part of the problem. It sounds like motherhood because we all want proper service and proper accountability, but the fact is we haven't had it. We have not had it for a long time. As a result of that, this is a radical formulation.

What a radical idea, that perhaps the customers, the taxpayers, Ontarians, deserve accountability, deserve better service. That is a radical idea in the province of Ontario. Would that it were not so, but it is so, and that is why we need substantive change in this area.

I'll deal with the honourable members of the third party now, because the consistent theme that I heard from them, the thread of their theme, was that they didn't want to see any sort of change where you had less service. Let me tell you this, Mr Speaker, to the honourable members opposite, their solution was more equals better -- more spending, more debt, more people doing repetitive things. That is not the solution. That got us into the mess in the first place. That is what the people of Ontario have rejected.

It is not to say, though, that less equals worse. I believe we can do more with less and my government believes that as well. I believe that with proper benchmarking, with proper standards, with proper accountability, with assisting the civil service to do their jobs and to have that accountability, we will allow them to do their job for the public in Ontario. We will allow them to have the proper standards so that when they are doing their job, they know exactly what is expected of them, not from the government, not from necessarily the members in this chamber. We are 130 taxpayers but we are not 10 million taxpayers.

The opportunity and the task for us is to ensure that they reach the expectations of the public of Ontario, because they are the ones who deserve better, they are the ones who pay the bills. They are the ones in times of need in their lives -- whether it is simply for a driver's licence, but in more cases than not it is something more than that and something more substantive than that -- they deserve a public service that has the highest standards, not only in Ontario, not only according to what business in Ontario does; I want to see and we want to see a public service that is the best in the world, bar none.

That's what the people of Ontario deserve, that's what they expect, that is their right for paying the taxes that they pay to the government of Ontario and it is our job, it is our responsibility, not only on the government side, but as 130 elected representatives who serve our constituents, to set those standards, to set the framework and that is what this resolution does.

Is it going to be a task-oriented effort, is it going to be something that will take some thinking and some creativity? Yes, it will. Are we accountable for how we manage this? Yes, we are. That is the burden and the obligation of government and we as a government have to do better with less, but I believe with this resolution we can do better for the people of Ontario.

ROAD MAINTENANCE

Mr Colle moved private member's notice of motion number 15:

That in the opinion of this House, since the roads in this province constitute a $100-billion asset; and that the Ministry of Transportation is responsible for the construction and maintenance of the provincial highway system, which consists of about 22,000 kilometres of roadway; and

Since the 1995 annual report the Provincial Auditor has concluded that 60% of highways are currently considered to be in poor or substandard condition; and that if immediate actions are not taken to repair highways the condition of the infrastructure will continue to deteriorate to the point that a massive and costly reconstruction effort will become necessary; and

Since the average cost of rehabilitation is estimated at $80,000 per kilometre lane but if not implemented immediately the reconstruction cost per kilometre lane escalates to $250,000 per kilometre lane; and that poorly maintained roads jeopardize the safety of motorists and increase the number of accidents, resulting in higher repair and insurance costs; and

Since representatives for the Ontario Road Builders' Association who appeared before the finance committee earlier this year told committee members that since this government came into power no money has been spent on the roads and highways in the province, thus increasing the deterioration of roads; and that provincial cuts to the road maintenance and repair budget mean increased costs for future road reconstruction; and

Since the provincial government is transferring thousands of kilometres of provincial roads to municipalities which in addition have had their provincial operating grants drastically cut; and that a comprehensive long-term government investment strategy in road maintenance and repair will maintain and encourage economic growth and commerce in communities across Ontario and can readily be undertaken by a highly trained and highly skilled local workforce;

Therefore, the government of Ontario should immediately establish a road maintenance and reconstruction fund whereby the government guarantees that a fixed portion of the gas tax along with other government revenues be designated to go directly towards the road maintenance and reconstruction fund for road maintenance, repair and reconstruction in order to systematically eradicate the existing substandard condition of 60% of our provincial roads.

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

Mr Mike Colle (Oakwood): Let me at the outset say that the main intention of this resolution is to focus attention on the need to invest in our existing road infrastructure assets. It's not to say that this condition came to light as a result of this one government or another government before it. It's in essence been a state that's existed, I think, in Ontario and across Canada really for the last probably two decades where systematically, because of competing interests, whether it be social services or whether it be recreation centres, there just aren't enough dollars to go around.

Systematically there hasn't been an attempt to reinvest in our road infrastructure, and I think it's about time we tried to bring that back to focus so that the taxpayers in Ontario will appreciate the importance of our roads, not only to the people who use them commercially or recreationally or for regular service, but also to our economy.

That's what we can do here today by saying that perhaps one way of getting the focus back to ensuring that we don't spend millions and millions extra down the road because we don't fix what has to be fixed today, we should set up a fixed fund that comes from the existing gas tax -- it could be other revenues to give the government some flexibility -- that is put aside and earmarked just for road reconstruction. You do it over a 10-year period.

You can say, "We're going to take so much out of the gas tax or other revenues and that earmarked fund is going to be used solely for road repair or reconstruction." So there isn't a period of time where you're competing with another emergency or whatever, where that road reconstruction budget may be depleted and you're basically losing out to another interest.

People who use the roads, whether it be motorists or truck drivers, are already paying for those roads through their gasoline tax etc; they pay general taxation. So some of those moneys could be earmarked, again, systematically and we could have perhaps a 10-year plan of getting our roads back to where they should be.

One of the things that is important about this is that we have a highly trained and skilled workforce right across Ontario, so immediately we could have the private sector go in and undertake these road repair and reconstruction programs in every community in Ontario. We don't even have to have a government workforce to do it; the private sector, big and small, can do it. They're ready and able to do it. What we need is for the government to put these moneys aside, and these moneys have to be solely used for road reconstruction.

What is a challenge too is to ensure that, as these moneys are put aside, we also adhere to the directions of the auditor. He said we need to implement life-cycle costing analysis. In other words, we can't just spend money on roads and expect that the problem is going to be solved. You have to have a comprehensive life-cycle cost analysis. You don't just look at the cost of the road in terms of the design-and-build construction aspect of it; you have to include in the costing what the future repair and maintenance costs will be, what the future inconvenience to the public will be for a repair.

Those have to be included so that you don't have a situation where you always go for the lowest bid but the lowest bid doesn't include what it's going to cost you five or 10 years from now to repair a road that wasn't built up to standard. Life-cycle costing has to be included.

The second thing that has to be included is a significant, comprehensive warranty system, which means that if a road is not built to standard, there be significant penalties for the builders of that road. There's a case the auditor points out where there's a

section of road that basically split apart, segregated itself, after four or five years. The cost of repairing that road for the government was $500,000. The fine to the roadbuilder was $2,500. What happened is the roadbuilder paid the $2,500 fine and the government ended up picking up the $500,000 cost of reconstruction. If you're going to have this fund set up, you have to have those guarantees also in place that the money will be well spent, that the road will not just be built on the lowest tender without regard to future potential costs to the taxpayer. That is a critical part of the costing.

In terms of the present system, as you know, there has been a marked difference. At one time, when you came across the border from Quebec at Hawkesbury or you came across from Windsor or at Fort Erie, you could see the marked difference. The Buffalo side or the Detroit side was always in worse shape. The Quebec side always was worse than Ontario. Now you see a reverse pattern occurring. Now the potholes, the rough sections of road are on our side. Those of us who have driven across Ontario in the last year have noticed this marked difference.

That's a warning signal to us that we have to invest in this infrastructure, because what we don't repair today -- and it's very obvious. The cost of doing some momentary repair is $80,000 per kilometre. If you delay that, you'll pay three times as much. Deferral and delay mean tripling, quadrupling the cost.

That's what's been happening in municipalities, in regional governments and in provincial governments; they kept on deferring and delaying. Basically they did a lot of resurfacing, but the resurfacing is essentially hiding what's below the surface. It's a waterproofing, and it looks good for a couple of years or a year, but what was really needed was reconstruction. The money for reconstruction wasn't put there, but the roads, the shiny blacktop looked good. Underneath, you had a crumbling infrastructure of that road.

This fund is not just for resurfacing; it's for a comprehensive reinvestment in roads that will save you money down the road -- no pun intended. This is something that will not only help, as I said, all the communities in Ontario in terms of travelling on the roads, but it can encourage commercial development because good roads mean good business, good roads mean safety, and that's what it's all about. It's not just about roads for the trucking industry -- the trucking industry, as you know, is in dire need of good roads. You know the impact of bad roads on that industry, the impact of bad roads on all industries and especially on the travelling public.

We know, for instance, that the growth of the number of transport trailers across Ontario, the weight of them, the frequency of them with just-in-time delivery has increased dramatically so there's an extra load, literally, on our roads. There are extra pressures on our road infrastructure because of the frequency of trucks. We cannot look at this as if it were 1950, 1960 or 1970. The number of trucks and vehicles on our roads is increasing dramatically and that puts more wear and tear on our road infrastructure.

This is an investment in an asset that Ontario has built upon over the last 50 years. Like any asset you have, it's important to systematically reinvest in it, because the cost of not doing that will go through the roof astronomically, not only in terms of extra construction costs in the future but in terms of the cost in added insurance. There is the cost in front-end alignments; talk to people about what it costs now to fix your front end, because most automobiles are front-end alignment automobiles, and $1,000, $2,000, $3,000 is not uncommon. Those potholes, those rough roads mean expensive auto repair bills.

They also mean accidents, the number of accidents that occur. It also, as someone says, could increase gas consumption. There's a cost in many ways if you delay and defer this.

I ask the government to be brave. I know they've asked us for constructive suggestions and I think this is a constructive suggestion. Start with a minimal amount put aside in a fixed, dedicated fund for road reconstruction and repair. You can send a very strong signal to the federal government, you could send a strong signal to other provinces and the people of Ontario and to municipal governments that you are concerned about the state of our highways. I challenge you to take this constructive suggestion.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): I would like to speak in support of this resolution in general principle, but I'd like to say at the outset that I, and I imagine some other members of this House, not only within the New Democratic Party, would have some problems with moving to a designated fund, on a philosophical belief, because designated funds in themselves can become problematic for any government and any province over a period of time, because then a lot of programs that need to be delivered are not as supportable on the part of some taxpayers because they're not directly affected.

You would get into a situation where the glitzy and easier items to fund such as highway maintenance would be fairly easily supported when it comes to designated funds, but I would argue that other things around education and social services would have a more difficult time.

In general I support what the member is doing because I know what he's trying to say here. The member is trying to say that we have a problem when it comes to the maintenance and the reconstruction of our highway system in Ontario.

Let's be blunt here. I stand here as a New Democrat to say that when we were in government we spent a lot of money on road maintenance, on road reconstruction, but the reality is we didn't spend half as much as needed to be spent according to the auditor. The auditor himself said that the road situation in Ontario needed a vast influx of capital to bring them up to the standard set out within the Ministry of Transportation. If I remember correctly, the number quoted by the auditor was that about 60% of our highways was in need of a huge amount of influx of capital to bring them up to standard.

In saying that, quite frankly, there isn't enough money out there to be able to do the job properly. I think we need to be clear on that, be it a New Democratic government or a Conservative government.

Where I have some problems with what the government is doing is that the government in its zeal to move forward on its agenda is saying, "We're in a hurry to cut in a whole bunch of different areas so that we can be seen to be doing our job of balancing the budget." One of the things they've done is they've gone to the highway capital budgets and they say, "We're going to reduce that," because it's an easy way you're able to reduce expenditure and you don't see the effects immediately.

I have some difficulty with that because highways, as the auditor has pointed out, are not getting the amount of money they need to keep them up to standard and we're going to be in trouble. I remember that in the last year of our government, it seems to me that our capital budget in regard to the amount of money spent on highway improvements was half more than what the Conservatives are spending now.

The Conservatives, since coming to government, have cut that capital budget by almost half, and I say that's a danger, because in the longer run that's going to cost the province a lot of money. If you don't spend the money now, it's going to cost you two and three times that amount of money as you go back to reconstruct the highway five, six or 10 years down the road. That's short-term, shortsightedness on the part of the government in trying to save money on the front end.

The bigger problem I have is what the government is doing with highway maintenance. This is a huge problem in northern Ontario, and equally as bad I would imagine in a lot of other places in Ontario.

The government again, in order to address its financial situation, has said, "We're going to go to the Ministry of Transportation and we're going to have it play its part when it comes to the fiscal agenda of this government." They've gone to the Ministry of Transportation and they've done a number of things. They've cut back the amount of salt and sand that's applied to our highways in northern Ontario during the winter. I can tell you as a member who drives from Timmins at least twice a month -- I normally take two trips a month where I drive down and two where I fly -- those highways have never been in worse shape than we've seen them this winter.

The Conservatives can argue we've had a heavier winter. I agree, it's been a worse winter than we've had in the past, but even in bad winters we have never seen our highways in the situation they are. There are entire stretches of highway a day after the snowfall that have not been plowed. You'll see that even four or five days after the snowplow they haven't been salted, and we've seen a huge increase in accidents on highways in northern Ontario and we've seen a lot more fatalities than we've seen in the past years, I would say. I think if you pull the stats and you compare it year over year, the numbers would bear out those numbers quite to the point.

What we've got is a government that's saying it's cut back on the capital side, and it's also cut back on the operational side of maintaining our highways. That is quite dangerous to the travelling public, and the member for Oakwood brings forward this resolution to say to the government, as the critic for his party, that he's trying to figure out a way and an alternative to what the government is doing so that we're able to deal with making sure we have the amount of dollars necessary to protect our highways. So he brings forward this resolution for designated funds.

I say to the government members that it is actually quite sad the member has to come forward to do that. If the government had been doing its job and if the Minister of Transportation, Mr Palladini, had taken seriously the job of highway maintenance and reconstruction, the member for Oakwood, quite frankly, wouldn't have had to come forward to this House today and bring forward that resolution.

I would say to the member for Oakwood and to the rest of the members of the House, I'll support the resolution on the basis that I know where you're going with it, but I want to put on the record clearly that I have a problem with designated funds. I think they lead to problems.

The only other point I want to make is this: Another thing that's happening in regard to highway maintenance -- this is not spoken about because it's not a "glitzy issue" with voters -- is that the government of Ontario is going to municipalities across this province and they're saying, "We're going to transfer over highways that are under the control of MTO on to the municipalities." At a time when municipalities are facing huge cuts in transfer payments from the provincial government this year, with more coming, this is really going to make it difficult for them to keep those highways up to pace.

The government, in its scramble to figure out what they're going to do when it comes to maintaining our highways, is saying: "We got a solution. We're going to transfer over 1,700 kilometres of roads on to municipalities and let them deal with it."

Municipalities are having a hard enough time as it is trying to deal with maintaining their own municipal roads in light of everything that's gone over the past number of years. Under our government, the NDP government, they didn't get a transfer increase for at least three to four years. They've basically had flat-lined budgets over the last three or four years. Most of the municipalities did not increase municipal taxation to a large extent, so they really have the same amount of money they had four or five years ago to provide services that are increasingly becoming more expensive.

On top of that, you've got the provincial government coming down and saying, "I'm going to cut your transfers from last year's municipal transfers." They've been hit by 40% to 50%, depending on which communities were affected, and now they're going to transfer 1,700 kilometres of road maintenance on to municipalities. That's kind a of tricky way to get out from under your responsibility as a government, but by passing it on to the municipalities, I don't think the best interests of the travelling public are going to be dealt with in a positive way.

They're having a difficulty as it is right now maintaining their own roads, and having you do that I think in the end is just going to lead to more problems. I'd like to thank you, Mr Speaker, and I look forward to other debate.

Mr Jerry J. Ouellette (Oshawa): I'd like to respond to Mr Colle's resolution. Mr Colle resolved that the Ontario government would create a fund that would dedicate provincial revenues for road maintenance, repair and reconstruction.

First of all, I'd like to assure the members and the public that despite financial restructuring, this government will spend what it takes to keep Ontario roads safe. Ontario's transportation system is an economic asset that quite literally keeps the province moving. We must preserve that asset. However, we must also work within the reality of Ontario's fiscal situation. We cannot continue to spend more and more of the taxpayers' money. We must spend more wisely and certainly we must spend smarter than has been spent in the past.

Mr Speaker, 60% of our highways infrastructure is in imminent or immediate need of repair, and believe me, the Ministry of Transportation appreciates and shares all members' concerns about this.

In the past few years, however, the previous government focused capital spending on expansion. With less money for highway repairs, the result should have been obvious, as was stated earlier. Today the pavement tells no lies. Our highway system could really use an overhaul. Ontario's roadways must be in tip-top shape if Ontario is to remain competitive. The longer they go without routine repairs, the more they will cost us to maintain in the long run and the greater the pressure to take on costly rebuilding projects.

That's why the Ministry of Transportation has reviewed its spending priorities to refocus resources on high-priority areas. When money is tight, we must spend only where the need is greatest.

Today MTO has a new focus and that focus is on preserving, not expanding our investments in roads and bridges. We will no longer build every highway or every subway that is proposed. We will concentrate on ensuring safety and we will put money towards preserving, repairing and maintaining the current system. That way we'll be able to keep down the long-term costs of looking after them and possibly avoid having to rebuild some of them altogether. In the past year, this government invested $3.4 billion in capital spending and MTO's portion of that was almost half. That money keeps our roads, highways and bridges well maintained and safe for Ontario's seven million licensed drivers.

Shortly we will announce our capital spending plans for the coming year. Although I can't give you the details, I can assure you that we are doing everything possible to balance the government's promise to rein in spending with the need to put money back into the highway system. We are already doing that by cutting ministry overhead so that more capital goes towards highway construction. We will also remove or postpone non-critical items in reconstruction contracts so that more money is spent on actually filling a pothole or repairing a bridge, and we will ensure that our road maintenance budget at the very least preserves acceptable road conditions until we can afford major reconstruction.

I'd like to move to another point. I think the members here today should know that Ontario pays for all of its highway construction and upgrading. That includes work on highways that are part of the national highway system, yet Ontario receives virtually no funding from the federal government. In 1994 the federal government collected $1.8 billion in gasoline and diesel fuel taxes from Ontario, yet it did not invest one cent in our highway network, and then, with last year's federal tax increase, the Canadian government collected even more revenue from Ontario road users, close to $2 billion.

This government expects fair treatment from the federal government in the form of a national highway program. It seems the federal government favours bilateral agreements with individual provinces, such as the agreement it signed with New Brunswick last June. It is a three-year, $340-million agreement, cost-shared 50-50.

The members might be interested to know that the federal government contributions to highway spending for all of Canada amount to only about 6% of the total spending on highway jurisdictions. This compares very poorly with other major industrialized nations, for example, 31% in the US, 44% in Italy, 49% in Australia and 68% in France. Certainly the taxpayers and drivers in Ontario should be aware of the lack of federal funding for our highways. Ontario is the hub of Canada's economy and Paul Martin certainly knows this.

The federal government should reinvest a fair share of its revenues it collects from Ontario back into our highway infrastructure so it can remain safe and efficient.

Finally, I'd like to say one thing before closing. This government will continue to invest in transportation projects that are vital to our long-term economic health, and road maintenance is at the top of our list. We simply can't afford to let the transportation system deteriorate. This government will continue to make appropriate investment decisions regarding Ontario's infrastructure, and those decisions will be based on safety and the greatest return to the economy and the people of Ontario.

Mr Pat Hoy (Essex-Kent): I'm pleased to join this debate in support of my colleague from Oakwood and his resolution. Every municipality in Ontario is suffering the effects of the government's downloading. The municipalities have had their operating grants cut by $660 million, or 48%, over two years, plus the government has identified 3,700 kilometres of highways which will be downloaded to municipalities, without ensuring that each proposed highway is brought up to standard or that the funding is provided to make it so.

Further cuts to road maintenance and repair budgets means municipalities will have to try and address their existing roads and bridges with greatly reduced budgets. At the same time, the government is forcing the burden of underserviced provincial roads on to municipalities. This can only mean additional taxes and user fees for local residents, and they face the spectre of unsafe highways, which are a threat to their families and their businesses. Where is the justice for local ratepayers?

The Provincial Auditor's 1995 annual report confirmed that the province is not spending enough to maintain the existing infrastructure of highways. Currently, 60% of highways are considered to be in poor or substandard condition. The report confirms that the cost to renew and rehabilitate a road at its practical life expectancy is $80,000 per lane kilometre. If left beyond that period, it could be $250,000 per lane kilometre. We all know that poorly maintained roads are unsafe. This increases the number of accidents which, in addition to the human toll, further drain our tax dollars and increases the cost of owning and maintaining a vehicle.

The rebuilding industry is one of Ontario's largest employers. Over 20,000 full-time jobs in every part of the province rely on road construction. The government is creating a climate of uncertainty which could result in unprecedented layoffs in the industry. What hypocrisy from a government which emphasises that it is open for business. Mr Harris promised 725,000 new jobs for Ontarians, yet he has no plan and no strategy.

My colleague Mr Colle points out that the highway infrastructure of the province constitutes a $100-billion asset. We must not allow our highways and roads to deteriorate. Maintaining the infrastructure is an investment in Ontario's future which will provide jobs to a highly trained and skilled workforce. The government must ensure that municipalities are given the funds to ensure the integrity of Ontario's highway infrastructure. My colleague's bill would ensure that this would occur.

The government has earmarked only $50 million for compensation packages across the province. Some municipalities have already made agreements with the province with 100% compensation, while many other municipalities, including some in my riding, may only receive 22% funding. This would only be enough money to do a two-inch resurfacing of the transferred roads and would not address any other necessary repairs. With truck traffic increasing, that might last two years in my riding. Then what?

The government promised moneys to bring the roads up to standard. However, both counties in my riding have been hurt when these agreements have been revoked without consultation. This is simply one more example of the government's attack on rural and small-town Ontario. There are many Mike Harris policies that take aim directly at rural Ontarians. I'm talking about bus deregulation, which threatens service for small Ontario communities. I'm talking about the closing of licence and vehicle issuing offices throughout rural communities.

In my riding we have already lost the licence-issuing office of Ridgetown, which the car dealers, businesses and individuals depend upon. Just recently, the government closed the Leamington licence-issuing office, which serves a part of my riding, and two part-time licence-issuing offices and driver's licence examination centres called "travel points," one in Tilbury and one in Ridgetown.

Jobs, programs and services have been lost at three agricultural colleges in Ontario. Who else does this affect but farmers and rural Ontarians?

I'm concerned also with the government's plan for Ontario Hydro. There is a threat to small public utilities that have been providing excellent service at far lower rates than Ontario Hydro, which could be absorbed, causing huge increases for rural Ontarians. Then there are "small usage fees," which will force rural costs up.

A change which will adversely affect municipalities' abilities to provide drainage loans is another possibility and policy that will hurt the agricultural industry and the people of rural communities.

Finally, I would like to make mention of a very serious problem in many ridings, and mine in particular -- that of doctor underservicing -- which the government has paid only lip-service to. The Conservatives have said that they will force physicians to practise in rural areas. This use of force was not asked for and will not work; it will only create bitterness among doctors and citizens, while forcing the brightest and best out of our country. The attack on physicians has already created an exodus across the border, and this promises to get worse.

The Mike Harris agenda is not working in rural Ontario. Mr Colle's resolution will force the government to live up to its responsibilities in the transfer of provincial roads to municipal governments. I'm delighted to support his resolution.

Mr Floyd Laughren (Nickel Belt): I want to rise for a couple of minutes to talk about this resolution by the member for Oakwood. I commend him for bringing it forward. I have a bit of a problem with designated taxes, since when we were in government we didn't designate taxes to any particular cause. It is fraught with danger in that it can allocate to some things but there are other areas that don't have a source of revenue, and the danger is that you eat into those other important services in the province. However, I'm not going to quibble with the member for Oakwood. I think he's done the right thing by bringing this forward.

I find it passing strange to hear the Tories in this House, after almost a year in office, blaming the previous government for the condition of our highways, which have deteriorated so much in the last year. I have never, never seen the highways in the condition they're in now. My colleague the member for Renfrew North, who sits to my right, was telling me about the condition of Highway 401 near, I think he said, Napanee. I haven't seen it myself, but it is truly incredible the way you've allowed the roads to deteriorate in this province. I know it's been a tough winter on the roads.

We've had other tough winters on the roads in this province as well. Coming from northern Ontario, most of our winters are tough on the roads. But I have never seen them in the condition they're in now.

What you are basically doing is imposing a user fee on motorists in this province without being up front and honest about it. I read in the Legislature a week or so ago a letter from a constituent of mine, a Mr Sauvé. When he was driving from Chelmsford, which is up near Sudbury, to Ottawa, he ran into two potholes; he just couldn't avoid them, with oncoming traffic and so forth. The total bill, when he got everything fixed up, with realignment and a new rim and a new tire and so forth, was almost $600 -- $585.94. He'll be tickled pink when he gets his tax cut, because you've imposed a user fee on him because of the condition of the highways; not just on him, on a lot of other people too.

I have never seen Ontario's roads in the condition they're in now. For you people to be standing on your hind legs and saying that somehow another government was to blame for what you've allowed to happen in the last year you've been in office -- it's in the last year that the roads have deteriorated so badly; it wasn't before then.

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean): June 7. They just got so bad.

Mr Laughren: Well, do a survey of Ontario residents and ask them if they've ever seen the highways deteriorate to the level they have in the last year. I'll bet you they'll tell you that's absolutely correct. I'm the first to acknowledge that the severe winter had a bearing on that, no question about that, but if you think you can put all the blame on God, then you're wrong, because you have a major role to play in this. You have abandoned Ontario's roads. The Minister of Transportation has done it by withdrawing winter maintenance all across the province. You can't avoid that.

It's time you faced up to the fact that you are government. How long do you think you can get away with saying, "It was the NDP and it was the Liberals who allowed the deterioration of the highways"? That's absolutely ridiculous. Take it on. It's your responsibility. You wanted it; you got it.

It's time, therefore, that you started delivering what you said you were going to. I heard members opposite say this morning that you were going to concentrate on highway maintenance rather than expansion of the highway system. Fine. Get on with it. When does that happen? When does it start? It sure hasn't started yet. You've cut your budget and you're telling me you're going to put more into it? Please. We know what's happening to our highways and we know that you're to blame. We know that you're to blame because it's happened in the last year.

You could look around to blame anybody you want. The fact is that at some point you have to take responsibility for governing and for what you do and don't do as a government. I know that you'd like to pretend that everything that's happening in the province that's wrong is somebody else's fault. Grow up, folks. You're the government. Get on with governing and take care of our highways.

Mr Derwyn Shea (High Park-Swansea): I rise, and I am pleased to do so, in response to some comments particularly by my distinguished colleague from Nickel Belt, who gave a spirited defense of God, and I think in fact I ought to echo that point. He's quite right: God needs no help on this issue. The facts speak for themselves. I'd like to bring them to the attention of all honourable members in this House today.

What particularly intrigues me by this -- when I first saw the motion, I really thought my distinguished colleague from Oakwood was indeed joshing us. Now I'm persuaded that he has been walking on the road to Damascus and a marvellous conversion has taken place. I have seen the metamorphosis before my eyes and I have suddenly seen the butterfly emerge as a magnificent caterpillar. I want to respond to a couple of points that are outlined before us today in this motion.

The honourable member would have the people of Ontario believe that this government is allowing the transportation system of Ontario to disintegrate, and you know and we all know that nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, there are two points upon which the member's argument fails.

The first picks up on a theme that the honourable member for Nickel Belt would try to slide by very quickly in a marvellous fashion. The fact is that the claim that 60% of the province's roads are in poor or substandard condition is certainly a figure that comes forward from the auditor's report. I want to remind this House that the figure in 1979 was 40%. If we take a look at the 20% in that period of time, who the heck do you think was in government during that period of time?

Last time I took a look, it was the Peterson government, it was the Rae government, it might even have been Premier Bob White, for all I know. The fact is that 20% of deterioration occurred during that administration and this government is now setting about to put the record straight.

Let me make it very clear that the quotes given to us by the Ontario road builders to back up the statement of the member that since this government came to power no money has been spent on the roads and highways I suggest is a misreading of what the Ontario road builders have said, even though one might suggest that there be some bias in that source. I wouldn't put that before us, but I would suggest that maybe we'd want to review again the source of that quote.

I want to remind us, for example, that the Ministry of Transportation estimates are showing that this government will spend a total of $500 million on highway construction this fiscal year, of which a higher portion will be dedicated to rehabilitation than in previous fiscal years. In fact, expenditures for roadway maintenance and repair are $236.5 million in 1995, compared to only $225 million in 1994. So it seems as though the member for Oakwood may be attempting to create some kind of crisis where none exists.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr Shea: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I know it's difficult to keep them in line.

What is the solution, for example, to this non-existent problem that the honourable member for Oakwood is trying to address? Well, surprise, surprise, surprise: It involves introducing what essentially becomes a new tax for the people of Ontario. How characteristic that is indeed of the Liberal Party and perhaps even of my colleague in terms of how they deal with the people of Ontario. Old habits do die very hard.

Mr Colle proposes, and I quote, "that a fixed portion of the gas tax, along with other government revenues, be designated to go directly towards the road maintenance and reconstruction fund." Obviously he feels, first of all, that half a billion dollars is not sufficient to begin the work of reclaiming the roads and improving the road conditions in this province.

What is very interesting is that he makes no comment of where that other revenue should come from. Should it come from education? Should it come from health care? Should it come from police services or public transit, dare I suggest? Or should I suspect that Mr Colle is really suggesting this should come from an increase in taxes? Frankly, Mr Speaker, you and I both know that simply cannot happen. The Liberals may try to have it both ways; they can't have it both ways in this case.

What I want to make very clear is that the member has also shown a distinct lack of awareness when it comes to the gas tax.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order. There should not be any exchange between members across the floor. The member for High Park-Swansea has the floor. I hope this is clear.

Mr Shea: I remind the House that it is the federal Liberal government which collects approximately $2 billion a year from the gas tax on Ontarians, and you and I don't see a penny of that, Mr Speaker. I wonder if anybody could tell us how much money in the last two, three, four or five years the federal government has put towards the roads in this province out of the $2 billion every year it takes out of this province from the gas tax. I haven't seen a nickel of it. I plead on behalf of my colleagues from northern Ontario; they haven't seen a nickel of it either.

I think it's time for the federal government to begin to accept some of its responsibility in this regard. Mind you, it's also the same Liberal government that is currently proposing to subsidize the Maritime provinces in their efforts to harmonize the GST, and of course that may be where some of our road tax is going.

The provincial gas tax currently goes into the consolidated revenue fund, and that's where we get the $500 million to do road repairs, need I remind us? So I can only conclude from the member for Oakwood that he is proposing we increase the provincial gas tax to solve this invented problem. Or perhaps he feels we should direct money away from other services such as hospitals or schools. I really hope that is not what he is suggesting.

Finally, I am particularly amused that this transformation of my dear colleague has occurred before our very eyes, a colleague for whom I have consummate respect and indeed know well, as he served for six years as a chairman of the Toronto Transit Commission and part of that as the chairman. He must have forgotten some of the things that occurred and that he proposed when he was a Metro councillor.

I have some press clippings here. According to the Toronto Star of July 21, 1990, then councillor Colle proposed taxing motorists $53 per month, or $636 per year, to be allowed to drive to work. I must suggest that that money he was going to tax was not going to go for the urgently required road repairs in Metro. Even if the Gardiner Expressway was crumbling and other Metro roads were disintegrating, that money was not going to be directed; it was going to go to public transit, not for the roads for which this member now argues that more money is necessary. A week later, he is quoted as saying, "It's time for a crackdown on driving," using both stiff tax increases and transit incentives.

Clearly, the member before us really has his eyes more fixed on public transit than automobiles, but the motion before the House now would say exactly quite the reverse. Clearly, Mr Colle now feels that cars are no longer evil and that we should do everything in our power to make it convenient to drive all over the province.

Finally, this government has been working diligently to undo the damage of the previous last decade of Liberal-NDP mismanagement. The Minister of Transportation will ensure that the roads are put back into good --

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. Your time has expired.

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): I rise in support of the motion from my colleague the member for Oakwood because it makes perfect sense. You've heard from the member for High Park-Swansea; you've heard some "common sense." Well, I stand in support of perfect sense.

I would like to relate to the House a little bit more about common sense and what the common sense proponents have said. In the document issued in January 1995, called A Voice for the North: Report of the Mike Harris Northern Focus Tour, they were committed to roads. It said, "The Ontario Transportation Capital Corp will raise money to build new roads in the north and to continue four-laning." It also said, "Improving transportation in northern Ontario will provide better service, preserve communities, safeguard existing jobs and allow more opportunities for job creation." Now, that was common sense, and that was said in January 1995.

Almost one year to the day, on January 18, the three members from the nickel basin received letters from the Ministry of Transportation which said: "Over the next few years, the Ontario government's transportation priorities in northern Ontario will focus on providing for the safeguard of motorists. To meet this goal, the Ministry of Transportation will concentrate its efforts on maintaining, rehabilitating and, where required, upgrading the existing highway system." What they said was that they were going to cancel the environmental assessment of Highway 69. The headlines all over the north were "Four-laning of Highway 69 Cancelled by Tories."

The people in the north said, "They lied to us," and I said: "No, `lying' is not the proper word. They broke a promise. But they're going to continue the maintenance of highways."

Well, on April 11, in the business plan announcements, we notice that in the business plan announcement for the Ministry of Transportation you will see a 17.2% reduction in northern highway funds. What's going to happen to the road maintenance in northern Ontario? It's going to be non-existent. Again the people of the north said, "What's happening? It doesn't make common sense," and I said: "It's not a lie, it's a broken promise. We cannot use that terminology because it's incorrect." So we have another broken promise.

When we hear the proponents of common sense speak, they utter broken promises. The member for Oakwood makes perfect sense, because this will allow, if you people adopt this resolution, the opportunity to create a fund that will go exactly to where it is supposed to go, to what you said in the Common Sense Revolution you would do, and that's commit to maintaining highway safety.

The member for Oakwood's resolution makes perfect sense. Help us help you look good and live up to your commitments in the north and support the resolution from the member for Oakwood, because it makes perfect sense. Common sense is filled with broken promises. Perfect sense offers a direction for repair, and I stand in support.

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): The member for Oakwood has brought forth a resolution. The way I see it is that he's saying the funding is being cut for highways, and it's quite true. The Ontario Road Builders' Association is saying that the Tories spent only $179.9 million in a year on highways compared to the $393.4 million that the NDP government spent in the same time frame.

If you look at the roads in northern Ontario, it's quite obvious that the member from the Conservative Party who spoke must only ride on streetcars and take the subway. If he were on the highways he would know that this is the worst year anybody has seen as far as winter maintenance is concerned. We've never seen a year like this, where the Ministry of Transportation does not have the money to go out and plow and sand the roads.

What did they do? They send out the OPP and block off the road for a couple of days. Just yesterday and the day before, the roads in Kapuskasing were closed because the snowplows and the sanding trucks were not able to be out there on the road. It's quite obvious that these things are going to happen when you realize that MTO has reduced its budget by 12% for snowplows, 11% in the number of seasonal staff -- that's a total of 125 -- and this has happened during one of the worst years we've had for snow.

The ground has not been seen in northern Ontario, especially in Kapuskasing, since the end of October, and we're still getting snowstorms. At the same time, the Conservative government is cutting back drastically on the amount they are prepared to spend on winter maintenance and on summer maintenance.

There were promises made: "The Conservative government will continue the trend of installing passing lanes and repairing the roads in northern Ontario." Now they've broken all those promises. We see members at the federal level resigning over broken promises. It's quite obvious that the Tory caucus should resign en masse for all the promises they broke, promises they made during the election campaign, promises they made immediately after. They've broken all of them.

When we look at this resolution, to get more money into repairing the roads, I believe it's a good resolution and should be respected. The Tory caucus should come forward and support it.

The Acting Speaker: Before we continue the debate, I would like to remind the members that there are too many conversations going on. It's all part of the decorum in the House to give a chance to the person who is speaking, to give them a chance to have a say.

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): I am particularly pleased to support the member for Oakwood's resolution this morning which is calling for Ontario to spend a reasonable amount of money on maintaining our highways.

I'm from Algoma-Manitoulin and I'm most familiar with the roads that impact us directly. I'll tell you, I have had more complaints about Highway 17 this year. Some people even talk about it as a roller-coaster. In the member for Nickel Belt's riding they stopped construction on Highway 17, the only four-laned portion, and left that road with only two of the four lanes open, with oncoming traffic -- a very dangerous situation. We had a bad accident up there. It is a terrible situation, and the government left it there.

What the member for Oakwood is talking about here is seeing something that, in Ontario, happened; it wasn't designated, as Mr Colle is suggesting here, but up until 1990, through all governments up until 1990, there was a rough correlation between the revenues generated by fuel taxes and other taxes on transportation and the amount spent in the Ministry of Transportation. That did change in 1990 and I think all the member for Oakwood is saying is, "Let's get back to a system that is more or less the same."

One of our members has brought to your attention the increased cost of insurance when you hit these potholes. I want to tell you, I'm a little bit concerned about this. The government has a vested interest in having insurance rates go up. It sounds a little strange, but we all know there's an 8% premium tax on automobile insurance: 3% that's hidden, 5% you see. It seems to me as insurance rates go up over there, Mr Eves is very happy to collect the $300 million or $400 million that comes into this province by taxing the drivers of Ontario.

What we're suggesting over on this side is this money should be put back into our transportation system so that when Mike Brown or any of my constituents or anybody in the north is driving down the abominable Highway 69, attempting to get to Toronto or points in the south, or our transportation, our trucks, the things that are vital to the economy of northern Ontario, move up and down that corridor -- when we hear that it's cancelled, they're not going to do anything more, we are absolutely bewildered, given the government's promises when they were in opposition.

I want to say to you, given the size and increase in revenues that are coming from transportation, from fuel taxes, from licence fees -- have you paid your licence fees lately? Have you renewed your licence? It is just crazy the amount of money that the government has coming in from the drivers of Ontario, and at the same time we're seeing the cutbacks in service, not near as many licensing points. In my constituency, I'm going to have people driving 40, 50, 60 miles to take a driver's exam. That is going to be just absolutely incredible: a downsizing in service and yet they can't maintain our roads.

Highway 6 needs work, 108 needs work, and surely the government could find the money to do something about 17 west of Sudbury, which is just phenomenally bad, Mr Speaker. I'm sure you've driven it and you know the situation. I'm getting letters. I have a constituent that sent to my office a bill for 400 bucks that he has spent in order to repair his vehicle because he hit a pothole on Highway 17.

So I'm saying to you, Mr Speaker, this resolution calling for the government to dedicate at least some of the huge flow of revenues that they're seeing from taxing the drivers of Ontario, through fuel tax, through insurance taxes, and all the other taxes on drivers, put some of it there.

Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): I'm pleased to stand here in support of my colleague from Oakwood's resolution to establish a road maintenance and reconstruction fund.

The government often tells us: "How would you deal with this situation? What are your alternative solutions?" Today we have an opportunity to support a creative, constructive plan that would deal with a really serious problem across the province, a problem that impedes economic development, threatens public safety, and if not dealt with will cost the province a lot more.

In my riding there are various places that need road work immediately but they've been postponed or cancelled. I support this resolution. We've got to fight for it. It makes perfect sense. We support our member strongly.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Oakwood, you have two minutes to respond.

Mr Colle: I want to thank the members around the chamber for their support and their debate and contribution.

I just want to say that this is a constructive offer that we've made whereby a government who talks about accountability -- how can they refuse this basic accountability and making sure the taxes that are now collected through gasoline taxes etc are put back into repairing roads? How can they talk about accountability if they don't support this?

I would say that I was just astonished by the member for High Park-Swansea who has the gall, a person who lives in downtown Toronto, to say to northern members and people in rural Ontario that the roads are just fine, that this is an artificial crisis like the Minister of Education has created.

Obviously, the member from downtown Toronto has not been to Napanee. He has not been to Sudbury. He has not been to Thunder Bay. He hasn't been to Cornwall. He sits in his big fancy limousine in downtown Toronto and thinks that everything is okay in the rest of Ontario. This bill, this resolution, is a direct message to say that just because the streets are fine in downtown Toronto, they're sure not fine in small-town Ontario. They better wake up to this. Even myself, as a transit advocate, I've seen the light. Things are so bad on our roads that even I can see that something has to be done.

I was the chairman of the TTC and when he talks about the TTC, he's the parliamentary assistant to the minister who used to scold us at the TTC because we weren't spending enough money. He was saying we were clowns when we told him, "Wait, can you afford it?" So I find it very hypocritical.

This is the message: Be accountable. The taxes already collected: Put some apart to fix those potholes in small-town Ontario.

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): We will deal first with ballot item number 25, standing in the name of Mr Clement. If any members are opposed to a vote on this ballot item, will they please rise.

Mr Clement has moved private member's notice of motion number 16. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour of the motion will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

We will deal with this vote in a few minutes. Please take your seats.

ROAD MAINTENANCE

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): We will now deal with ballot item number 26, standing in the name of Mr Colle. If any members are opposed to a vote on this ballot item, will they please rise.

Mr Colle has moved private member's notice of motion number 15. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it.

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

I had forgotten to explain to you something of a small incident that happened last week, last Thursday. Before we proceed with the voting today, I would like to address the members that on Thursday last, there seemed to be some confusion as to the procedure we were following on the deferred votes for both items of private members' public business.

I want to assure all members that the procedure followed was completely in accordance with standing order 96(

f) and was the procedure we have followed in the House for many years. When a vote is requested on the first item of business, the calling in of the members by the Chair is deferred until we determine if there is to be a vote on the second item. The members are then called to the House once with one five-minute bell, and both votes are taken in succession.

We have tried to accommodate those members in the past who have wished to vote on the first item but not the second by pausing between the questions to allow those members to leave the chamber before voting on the second item. This also allows other members who may be waiting in the lobbies to enter the House to record their vote on the second item. This procedure, I admit, is cumbersome at best. However, we have to follow the standing orders that require the votes to be taken in succession. If it is the wish of the members, I will cause the doors to be open for 30 seconds of the clock after the first vote, rather than an unspecified pause, as we have done in the past.

In the third session of the previous Parliament, this House operated under a special order, dated April 20, 1993, wherein the votes on Thursday mornings were taken individually. In that case there were two five-minute bells, which seemed to work much better than the current procedure. However, until a similar order is passed, we have to proceed with our present procedure.

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

The division bells rang from 1210 to 1215.

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Mr Clement has moved private member's notice of motion number 16. All those in favour of the motion will please rise and remain standing until you're recognized by the table.

Ayes

Agostino, Dominic

Fisher, Barbara

Pettit, Trevor

Arnott, Ted

Ford, Douglas B.

Phillips, Gerry

Baird, John R.

Fox, Gary

Preston, Peter

Barrett, Toby

Froese, Tom

Pupatello, Sandra

Bartolucci, Rick

Galt, Doug

Ramsay, David

Beaubien, Marcel

Grandmaître, Bernard

Rollins, E.J. Douglas

Bradley, James J.

Gravelle, Michael

Ross, Lillian

Brown, Jim

Hampton, Howard

Sergio, Mario

Brown, Michael A.

Hastings, John

Shea, Derwyn

Carroll, Jack

Hoy, Pat

Sheehan, Frank

Castrilli, Annamarie

Johnson, Ron

Smith, Bruce

Chudleigh, Ted

Jordan, Leo

Spina, Joseph

Clement, Tony

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Stewart, R. Gary

Colle, Mike

Laughren, Floyd

Stockwell, Chris

Conway, Sean G.

Leadston, Gary L.

Tilson, David

Cordiano, Joseph

Marland, Margaret

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Crozier, Bruce

McLeod, Lyn

Wildman, Bud

Curling, Alvin

Munro, Julia

Wood, Bob

Danford, Harry

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Duncan, Dwight

Parker, John L.

The Acting Speaker: All those opposed will please rise and remain standing until their names are called by the table.

Nays

Bisson, Gilles

Churley, Marilyn

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 58, the nays are 2.

The Acting Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

Let me explain now what's happening. The doors will be open for 30 seconds to permit people to leave, if they so wish, and others to come in, if they so wish. Just watch the clock.

ROAD MAINTENANCE

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): We'll now deal with ballot item number 26 standing in the name of Mr Colle. All those in favour of this motion will please rise and remain standing until your names are called by the table.

Ayes

Agostino, Dominic

Cordiano, Joseph

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Bartolucci, Rick

Crozier, Bruce

Laughren, Floyd

Bisson, Gilles

Curling, Alvin

McLeod, Lyn

Bradley, James J.

Duncan, Dwight

Phillips, Gerry

Brown, Michael A.

Grandmaître, Bernard

Pupatello, Sandra

Castrilli, Annamarie

Gravelle, Michael

Ramsay, David

Churley, Marilyn

Hampton, Howard

Sergio, Mario

Colle, Mike

Hoy, Pat

Wildman, Bud

Conway, Sean G.

Kormos, Peter

The Acting Speaker: All those opposed will please rise and remain standing until your names are called by the table.

Nays

Arnott, Ted

Froese, Tom

Rollins, E.J. Douglas

Baird, John R.

Galt, Doug

Ross, Lillian

Barrett, Toby

Hastings, John

Shea, Derwyn

Beaubien, Marcel

Johnson, Ron

Sheehan, Frank

Brown, Jim

Jordan, Leo

Smith, Bruce

Carroll, Jack

Leadston, Gary L.

Spina, Joseph

Chudleigh, Ted

Marland, Margaret

Stewart, R. Gary

Clement, Tony

Munro, Julia

Stockwell, Chris

Danford, Harry

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Tilson, David

Fisher, Barbara

Parker, John L.

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Ford, Douglas B.

Pettit, Trevor

Wood, Bob

Fox, Gary

Preston, Peter

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 26; the nays are 35.

The Acting Speaker: I declare the motion lost.

All matters relating to private members' public business having been completed, I do now leave the chair. The House will resume at 1:30 of the clock this afternoon.

The House recessed from 1222 to 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

ANNIVERSARY OF POLISH CONSTITUTION

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): May 3 is of special significance to citizens of Polish ancestry, who are celebrating the 205th anniversary of the Polish Constitution. The Constitution of Poland already 205 years ago guaranteed a great deal of personal freedom and, for the first time in Europe, divided authorities into the legislative and controlling body, the Parliament; the executive body, the ministers; and the independent judiciary, the courts. For the first time, it really diminished a great deal the royal power and the power of the oligarchy.

The May 3 Constitution was a remarkable instrument for its time, in several ways. It was proof of the Polish nation's drive towards individual and national freedom which had manifested itself throughout history, and it was adopted without violence, unlike the counterparts in the United States in 1787 and in France in 1791.

This year, the anniversary also reminds us of the great and significant contributions that Polish Canadians have made to Canada in all walks of life, and especially their determination to keep Canada united.

Finally, May 3 will be celebrated by Polish Canadians all across Ontario. We do have, however, a special invitation to all of us from the president of the Polish-Canadian Women's Federation, Jadwiga Sztrumf. She is here today, and she welcomes all members to join at the special prayer service at the Katyn monument on King Street West.

Remarks in Polish.

REESOR SIDING LABOUR DISPUTE

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): A day of mourning was observed on April 28 to pay respect to working people who have died or suffered illness or injury on the job.

It's appropriate, then, that today I speak to you about the unveiling of the Ontario Heritage Foundation provincial plaque last Thursday, April 25, 1996, to commemorate a tragic day in labour history that occurred at Reesor Siding on February 11, 1963, in Kapuskasing in my riding of Cochrane North. It was a day that won't soon be forgotten.

A contract dispute between management and members of the Lumber and Sawmill Workers' union led to a strike in January 1963. Striking workers tried to shut down the paper mill in Kapuskasing by blockading the pulpwood shipments from independent contractors. More than 400 workers were approaching Reesor Siding on February 11 when shots rang out. Three strikers were killed and eight others were wounded.

In commemoration of this unforgettable event in the history of the Ontario labour movement, a plaque sponsored by the Ontario Federation of Labour, in cooperation with the local Industrial Wood and Allied Workers of Canada, was unveiled April 25 at Reesor Siding, 35 miles west of Kapuskasing.

This event is still very vivid in the minds of people of Cochrane North and will probably remain that way for many years to come. Labour peace is important to us all. To be able to live and work together in harmony is a goal that all of us should try to achieve.

ARBOR WEEK

Mr Frank Klees (York-Mackenzie): I rise today to recognize two important initiatives that focus on the government's natural resource management mandate.

The first one is Arbor Week, which started April 26 and runs until May 12. The objectives of Arbor Week are to educate people about trees and to encourage them to plant and care for trees. During this time, municipalities and community groups across the province will be involved in many activities, including tree-planting events and educational initiatives.

We have many partners helping us to celebrate Arbor Week. They include the Ontario Round Table on Environment and Economy, Arbor Day Council of Canada, Landscape Ontario, Guelph Arboretum, the Ontario Horticultural Association, the Ontario Forestry Association, the Ontario Shade Tree Council, Union Gas, the Ontario Ministry of Education and Training, and Tree Plan Canada.

RABIES

Mr Frank Klees (York-Mackenzie): The second event I am announcing today is that May is Rabies Awareness Month. The purpose of Rabies Awareness Month is to raise everyone's awareness and knowledge of the potential problem posed by all forms of rabies, in particular, raccoon rabies.

Our partners in Rabies Awareness Month are the Ontario Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, and Agriculture and Agri-food Canada.

I encourage all members to support initiatives offered in their community as part of Arbor Week and Rabies Awareness Month.

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview): The wholesale dismantling of the educational system in the province has to stop. The Minister of Education, without any regard for the children of this province, is taking an axe to our educational system and chopping away at the hope and future of this province.

The deeds of this minister are already well documented. He once spoke of manufacturing a crisis so as to give the excuse for deep spending cuts. He then turned his attention to firing teachers across the province and robbing school boards of property tax dollars, all in the name of deficit fighting.

Now we find out that he's cutting the number of hours of class time and resorting to threats, coercion and intimidation of local school boards and their personnel to hit their financial targets. It is no wonder members of his own party have called the minister "out of control" and "a little out of whack right now."

Finally, the province's future prosperity depends on high standards of education. This is one lesson the Minister of Education should not forget. It is time for this government to do its homework and seriously study the impact these cuts will have on the quality of education in Ontario.

ONTARIO ADVISORY COUNCIL ON WOMEN'S ISSUES

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): There is apparently no measure this government won't take to silence its critics. It is a sad irony indeed that just when their voice was needed like never before, the Ontario Advisory Council on Women's Issues has been ended by the Harris government. This event alone speaks volumes of the swing to the radical right of the Ontario Conservative Party. It was a much more moderate version of Tory government that in 1973 appointed the advisory council in the first place.

This was an active and valuable council. In its 23-year history, it immersed itself in every major issue of the day, from pay equity and employment equity to women's health, environmental standards, reproductive choice, child care, women's poverty, violence, native issues and racism.

The original intent was that the council would serve as an arm's-length body, able to comment when the government of the day fell short on its commitment to women's equality. I think it's increasingly obvious to women that this commitment no longer exists.

Recent polls have shown a gender gap in support for the Conservative Party. Women continue to be sceptical of the Harris government's commitment to their wellbeing. This government's appalling track record stands in stark contrast to the contribution of the Ontario Advisory Council on Women's Issues.

I'd like to take a moment to give my heartfelt thanks to all of those who over the past years have served on this council to the benefit of all Ontario women.

GREATER TORONTO AREA

Mrs Janet Ecker (Durham West): I rise in the House today because I will be submitting to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing a collection of surveys from the voters of Durham West on the important matter of GTA reform. Put forth by the Ajax/Pickering News Advertiser, these surveys constitute a response to the recent recommendations of the GTA task force report, otherwise known as the Golden report.

I request that the minister bear in mind the views presented because they clearly show that while the people of Ajax and Pickering agree in principle with the notion of greater cooperation among the regions, they are weary of the establishment of new government institutions to solve our problems and, in particular, with the impositi