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

December 11, 1995

36th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

L037a - Mon 11 Dec 1995 / Lun 11 Déc 1995

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

OMNIBUS LEGISLATION

SPRUCE FALLS INC

HUMAN RIGHTS

OMNIBUS LEGISLATION

LONDON DEMONSTRATION

GEORGE GARDINER

GOVERNMENT HOTLINES

SPENDING REDUCTIONS

HIGHWAY 416

ROLE OF THE SPEAKER

ORAL QUESTIONS

PROTECTION OF PRIVACY

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

USER FEES

RESTRICTIONS ON NEW DOCTORS

USER FEES

RED HILL CREEK EXPRESSWAY

VISITORS

HIGHWAY TOLLS

RESTRICTIONS ON NEW DOCTORS

COMPRESSIONS BUDGÉTAIRES

USER FEES

PETITIONS

HIGHWAY SAFETY

PORNOGRAPHY

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

COMMON SENSE REVOLUTION

TAX EXEMPTION

HIGHWAY SAFETY

MINISTER'S COMMENTS

CHILD CARE

COMMUNITY-BASED JUSTICE OPTIONS

EDUCATION FINANCING

CHILD CARE

MINISTER'S COMMENTS

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

COMPULSIVE GAMBLING

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

CHILDREN'S LAW REFORM AMENDMENT ACT, 1995 / LOI DE 1995 MODIFIANT LA LOI PORTANT RÉFORME DU DROIT DE L'ENFANCE

TD TRUST COMPANY ACT, 1995

CITY OF SCARBOROUGH ACT, 1995

CITY OF OSHAWA ACT (OSHAWA TRANSIT COMMISSION), 1995

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT (SIMCOE DAY), 1995 / LOI DE 1995 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LES MUNICIPALITÉS (FÊTE DE SIMCOE)

TOWNSHIP OF SIDNEY ACT, 1995

ORDERS OF THE DAY

SAVINGS AND RESTRUCTURING ACT, 1995 / LOI DE 1995 SUR LES ÉCONOMIES ET LA RESTRUCTURATION

The House met at 1334.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

OMNIBUS LEGISLATION

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville): I rise today to talk about Bill 26, a powerful bill that gives to the Conservative cabinet dictatorial powers to do things that are unprecedented in our democracy.

It's clear to us now, after having read the bill, why the Conservatives had wanted to rush it through without public input. The Conservatives know that if the public knew what was in the bill, if their own backbenchers knew what was in the bill, there's no way their own backbenchers would let them get away with it.

This bill allows the Minister of Health to singlehandedly close any hospital. It gives the minister access to confidential health records. It creates new user taxes on senior citizens, the poor and disabled.

Bill 26 and the way the Tories introduced it remind me of an old Christmas story:

'Twas the week before Christmas and all through

the House,

Tory backbenchers were stirring, wondering what

Bill 26 was about.

Closing hospitals, raising taxes, the Premier did say,

That's not what we promised, thought backbenchers

with dismay.

The revolution was written by the Premier with care,

Words of user fees or poll taxes could never ever be

there.

When all of a sudden there arose such a clatter --

the Liberals were screaming --

The Tories finally realized something was the matter.

Everyone was happy till the Conservatives came on

the scene,

Now all we have in Ontario are policies that are mean.

Bah, humbug, and shame on all of you.

SPRUCE FALLS INC

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): Today I want to talk about the success of Spruce Falls in Kapuskasing. It was November 1991 when the people of Cochrane North and the employees of Spruce Falls came up with the money to be part of the employee-owned paper mill.

Battling difficult economic times, 980 employees and 470 non-employees managed to contribute over $14 million in a short period towards the purchase of this company. The effort reflected a strong belief by the people of Cochrane North that the company would survive under their stewardship.

And survive it has. Spruce Falls has had a record-breaking fiscal year and shareholders are smiling. For the 1995 fiscal year, Spruce Falls generated net earnings of $50 million, compared to $16.7 million last year. The increase in earnings is mostly due to higher selling prices of newsprint and specialty printing papers.

Improvements were made at the mill over the last year. Some $20 million was spent to complete the construction of a new sawmill, $16 million towards the construction of a thermo-mechanical pulp line and over $11 million was used to upgrade the number one paper machine. Also, Spruce Falls Inc sold nearly 4 million shares of Mallette to Tembec and made $1 million for the company.

Spruce Falls Inc employees own 52% of outstanding shares of Spruce Falls Acquisition Corp; 41% of the shares belong to Tembec, a top pulp and paper producer; and the remaining shares are owned by residents of Kapuskasing and surrounding communities.

The NDP government facilitated negotiations --

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): The member's time has expired.

HUMAN RIGHTS

Mr Tony Clement (Brampton South): For everyone who values equal rights and opportunities, dignity and mutual respect among all people, December 10 has a profound meaning. On that date 47 years ago, the nations of the world came together to sign the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Its principles are reflected in the Ontario Human Rights Code, making discrimination illegal in our province.

To commemorate December 10 as a landmark date, the United Nations declared it International Human Rights Day. It is an opportunity for all of us to pay tribute to the continuing struggle to recognize human rights as the foundation for liberty and social justice in the world.

International Human Rights Day follows by one week the date proclaimed by the UN as International Day of Persons with Disabilities. Its goals are to promote understanding and to ensure equal opportunities for all.

I encourage everyone to help raise awareness of both of these two days.

As an Ontarian, an MPP and parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation, I am proud that our government is hard at work on our equal opportunity plan. It will help make sure that the principles of human rights, including equality of opportunity, will be foremost in the minds of Ontario's employers. Built on fairness, this plan will have a positive effect for all Ontarians.

The Ministry of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation is taking the lead in developing an equal opportunity plan that will support the efforts of employers and employees to have workplaces where hiring and promotion decisions are based on merit.

Our government's plan will help us reach the goals of the International Human Rights Day and International Day of Persons with Disabilities not just one day of the year, but 365 days of the year, every year.

OMNIBUS LEGISLATION

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I too want to talk about what's called Bill 26, which is the omnibus bill, just to say to the public what this fight is all about.

It was only 11 days ago that this bill was introduced in the House, when, I might add, most of us were in what's called a lockup. It was dropped on our desks without any notice, in our opinion deliberately, and it was the government's intention that this be the law of the land this Thursday: 15 days from the time it was introduced to the time it was law.

It fundamentally changes Ontario. It gives the minister the right to release confidential medical records, to unilaterally tell hospitals what services they can provide, to set user fees on seniors, to take $225 million out of the pensions of people who are going to be laid off by exempting them from a law called the Pension Benefits Act, to introduce poll head taxes, to take away some fundamental bargaining rights from a whole group of people in this province: all being done in 15 days.

That's what that fight was all about last week. We had a simple request -- "Give us four more weeks to look at this bill" -- and that was being denied by this government. That's why I salute my colleague Mr Curling for taking a stand on a fundamental right.

LONDON DEMONSTRATION

Mr David S. Cooke (Windsor-Riverside): Today, thousands of people have gathered in London to express their upset --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Order.

Mr Cooke: They're obviously very sensitive, Mr Speaker.

Today, thousands of people have gathered in London to express their upset in a day of protest against this government. We must ask ourselves why. It's very clear.

Bill 7 is part of the reason why people are in London today. There was a complete rewrite of the Ontario Labour Relations Act in a matter of weeks, much more than anything that was contemplated in the Common Sense Revolution. There was no consultation. There were no hearings. There was no democracy.

People are also in London today because they're upset with social assistance cuts, children's services cuts, cuts to our health care system when there were promises that there would not be cuts to our health care system, cuts to education when there were promises there would be no cuts to our classroom education. Again, no consultation, no hearings, no democracy.

Why are people upset? They're upset because this is their province and they have a right to be part of the discussions and the decisions about the future of their province. Eighty-two members of provincial Parliament in the Tory caucus do not have the right to act like a bunch of dictators. That's why people are in London.

GEORGE GARDINER

Ms Isabel Bassett (St Andrew-St Patrick): I am pleased to rise in the House today to recognize the generosity and leadership of George Gardiner, an outstanding philanthropist and, I might add, one of my constituents in St Andrew-St Patrick.

Last Wednesday, the Council for Business and the Arts in Canada presented the $20,000 Edmund C. Bovey Award to George Gardiner in recognition of his leadership in support of the arts.

In accepting his award, George Gardiner warned that given the country's fiscal crises, governments won't be able to continue funding the arts to the same degree as they have done in the past. Mr Gardiner called on those who believe in the importance of the arts to urge the private sector to give even more. And in the spirit of generosity and leadership so characteristic of this man who donated his ceramic collection, together with the funds to build the George R.

Gardiner Museum to house the collection, George Gardiner donated his $20,000 prize money back to the arts, half of it going to the arts and media administration program at York University and the other half to the George R. Gardiner Museum.

The Council for Business and the Arts in Canada is hoping that others in the private sector will follow George Gardiner's example by making private donations.

GOVERNMENT HOTLINES

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): I was flipping through the new government of Ontario telephone directory last night and I thought there might be some phone numbers of interest to the folks at home.

If you're concerned about your safety after deep cuts to snow removal or emergency roadside services, give the Minister of Transportation, Mr Palladini, a call. His number is 1-800-NEW-LIMO. He can also be reached on his cell phone at 1-800-DOG-SLED.

If you want to chat with the Minister of Health about the Conservatives' countless broken promises in health care, just call 1-800-HUGE-CUT, and if you're a senior citizen he even has a special number for you: 1-800-USER-FEE.

Got a question for Mr Tsubouchi or simply want to talk to his $25,000 image consultant? Just call 1-800-EAT-TUNA, and if the line's busy, try 1-800-CUT-POOR.

Want to ask the Treasurer why every penny of his $5-billion tax cut will be added to the debt? Give Mr Eves a call. His number is 1-800-CUTS-R-US, but you'll probably be cut off.

However, if you want to get the real goods, I have to tell you my mother, Lorna, my father, Ernie, and my wife, Joan, are in the members' west gallery today, and when they want the straight goods they call 1-800-CALL-SON.

SPENDING REDUCTIONS

Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East): While some Conservatives might want to view the workers protest in London today as a special-interest protest, they would be well advised to take a serious look at what is happening in Ontario now in response to the Harris cuts.

On Saturday morning in Timmins in the bitter cold, some 200 people marched through the downtown core to protest the Conservative cuts. They represented social service agencies, seniors' groups, the disabled, native organizations, trade unions and those concerned about child care.

A similar cross-section of the community was out in North Bay on November 2, in a rally organized by the Nipissing Coalition of Social Justice. Some 600 people protested outside a $175-a-plate Tory fund-raiser held in the Premier's home town.

In Sudbury on November 24, 1,200 people stood out in the freezing cold to draw attention to the Conservative cuts. The event occurred outside a hotel where a $150-dollar-a-plate Tory fund-raiser was under way. The demonstration was notable not only because of the many and varied groups that chose to participate, but because the security measures put in place exceeded those used for Bob Rae's visit and for Prime Minister Chrétien's visit to Sudbury in 1994.

Mike Harris's response to this protest clearly emphasizes why there will be more protests and why they will get bigger. He told the media, "I didn't see the mothers and wheelchairs." I guess not, because with the security measures in place, he never would have gotten close enough to the crowd to see who was there. The fact is, the mothers were there, the disabled were there, children were there, trade unionists were there, churchgoers were there and the list goes on and on.

While the government might want to continue to mock all of those who come out to express their concern, this government can't continue to operate in the high-handed and arbitrary fashion that it has and expect that there won't be some serious consequences.

HIGHWAY 416

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean): For decades now, provincial governments have talked about the need to build a four-lane highway linking Ottawa-Carleton to the rest of the province of Ontario. Today Ottawa-Carleton, the second-largest region in the province, the national capital of Canada, lacks a major transportation route.

Toronto, Barrie, Guelph, London, Windsor, Hamilton, Niagara Falls, Kingston and Cornwall all have a four-lane highway connecting them to the rest of the province, but Ottawa-Carleton does not. All that changed when Mike Harris made a clear commitment to complete Highway 416; no ifs, ands, buts or tolls.

True to his word, Mike Harris is following through on yet another election promise. We said we would complete Highway 416, and we are. On Friday, Transportation Minister Al Palladini announced this government's funding commitment to finish Highway 416 by the year 2000.

A four-lane highway is key to economic development in the region. In addition, it's a question of public safety. Each year, accidents take more and more lives on what has become an overcrowded and congested death trap.

For too long the residents of Ottawa-Carleton have felt that the provincial government has simply ignored them. In just under six months, Al Palladini has done more for Ottawa-Carleton's economic development than the two previous governments accomplished in more than 10 years.

People in my region are always suspicious when someone arrives and says, "Hi, I'm from Toronto and I'm here to help." Al Palladini has accomplished the impossible: He's giving politicians from Toronto a good name.

ROLE OF THE SPEAKER

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): With the forbearance of the House, I would like to take a few minutes to contemplate the events of last week.

The refusal of certain members to vote on Wednesday last and the subsequent disregard for the authority of the Chair caused this House to be in deadlock for several hours. I would urge all members to reflect on these events, not in terms of what ends may have been achieved, but rather in terms of their effect on the institution of Parliament. Certainly, there have been occasions in the past when the business of this House has been impeded by the actions of one or more members. However, the circumstances in which we found ourselves last week are unprecedented.

There have been a number of comments and reports with respect to what the Speaker may have or may not have done in this particular situation, and I must admit there were times when I myself was tempted to pursue another course of action. However, any action that a Speaker takes in these kinds of circumstances must be considered carefully, mindful of the rules by which this House is governed. Standing order 28(

c) is clear. During a division in this assembly, every member present must vote.

While we do have two precedents in this House that suggest a Speaker might cast a vote in the name of the offending member, they conflict in their application. We have more recent and consistent precedents that define a course of action for the Speaker to take. Members will know that course of action to be to name the member who refuses to vote.

The authority of a Speaker to name members of this House for disorderly or unparliamentary conduct is time-honoured. It is a tool that the Speaker may use to facilitate the function of Parliament. The use of force to ensure compliance with a decision of the Speaker has never before been required in this House. It is my fervent hope that it is never required again.

The degree of force to be used to remove a member from this House is a decision for the Speaker to make. Any such decision must be considered with great care. The consequences of any further action on my

part last week would, in my view, have had devastating consequences for the future of this House.

The Speaker has a responsibility to facilitate the work of Parliament, but circumstances such as we saw here last week are beyond the control of the Speaker. On March 18, 1982, upon the conclusion of two weeks of bell ringing in the House of Commons in Ottawa, Speaker Sauvé had this to say:

"The authority of the Chair is no greater than the House wants it to be. When the rules are clear and offer precise guidance to the Speaker, the authority of the Chair is absolute and unquestioned, for this is the will of the House. On the other hand, when there are no rules to fall back on, the Speaker must proceed very cautiously indeed. The most the Chair can do is to lay the matter before the House, which can then itself create a new precedent."

It is my hope that we never again see a situation such as we saw last week. If we do, the Speaker will have a responsibility to consider the new circumstances with great care, keeping uppermost in his or her mind the future of this great institution that we serve.

ORAL QUESTIONS

PROTECTION OF PRIVACY

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My first question is to the Premier. There is a growing sense of alarm across this province today as people begin to study and become aware of the implications of Bill 26, your omnibus bill. I would say to you that people are particularly concerned, and I think it's fair to say even frightened, by the extraordinary, broad, sweeping powers that the Minister of Health proposes giving himself; powers particularly related to viewing, copying, removing and disclosing personal medical files.

Premier, will you now admit that Bill 26 will indeed give the Health minister unprecedented powers to access and to disclose personal medical information, powers that no Health minister should have?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): Unfortunately, the Minister of Health is not with us today; he could probably give you more precise information than can I on the details of the bill itself.

I can tell you, it is not the intention of the bill to violate any privacy agreements or conventions that should be there. I know the minister does have a ruling from the Ministry of the Attorney General that says the bill does not. On the other hand, I believe the Information and Privacy Commissioner had raised some concerns, and the minister had agreed to consult with him and officials to make sure that privacy, utmost in all of our minds, of medical records was not in jeopardy.

So I would assure the member and all Ontarians, and I understand the concern as the issue is raised, that if there is something in the bill that might, because of drafting or inadvertently, allow for records to be made public that ought not to be, particularly individual records, then it is the intention of the minister and of the government to amend that.

Mrs McLeod: Premier, this was not just another drafting error that could somehow be missed. This is legislation that you have presented, that your government was determined to ram through to make law by Christmastime, legislation that gives your Minister of Health, among others, absolutely unprecedented, sweeping powers that are dangerous.

Premier, although the Minister of Health is not here to speak to this today, you surely are ultimately responsible for this legislation and indeed for the conduct of your Minister of Health. Premier, you are surely aware that we raised this issue with the Minister of Health very directly on two occasions last week in the Legislature. The Minister of Health's response was to accuse us of scaremongering.

In fact, at one point he said we had pestered the privacy commissioner for his opinion, since the Minister of Health had failed to ask the privacy commissioner for his opinion, even though he said the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act would be the only protection that citizens of this province would have once this bill became law.

Indeed, as you have suggested, the Minister of Health brought in what he called his own best legal advice to assure us, as he said, that there is nothing in any of these amendments which changes the minister's authority to access or disclose any kind of personal information, including health records. Indeed, the privacy commissioner, Premier, has some concerns. In fact, he said that schedules F, G and H of this bill --

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Would you put your question.

Mrs McLeod: Yes, Mr Speaker -- those dealing with health care, "have the potential to significantly increase the amount of personal, health-related information that will be gathered, significantly increase the number of uses that may be made of this information and raise the possibility of new and troubling disclosures of the information."

Premier, I ask you how you can condone attempting to ram through a piece of legislation that would allow the Health minister to literally invade the privacy of every individual in this province, and how you can today condone the minister's denials that no new powers are granted to him under Bill 26.

Hon Mr Harris: If the question is, do I condone powers which would allow any minister to release information about personal medical records, the answer is an unequivocal no, I do not.

I know the member is aware that the Independent Health Facilities Act brought in by her government and the minister at the time, the member for Oriole, contained ministry inspection powers into all kinds of information. Perhaps we should look at the wording that was used by the former government on that act.

If you have suggestions on how the ministry can make sure that it accesses the information required to be able to respond with the appropriate measures to ensure that we maintain an absolute first-class health care system accessible to all in conformity with the Canada Health Act, unlike most other provinces or the former government, we're very interested in having that information. But I can read you the list of acts -- the Ambulance Act, the Charitable Institutions Act, the Healing Arts Radiation Protection Act, the Homes for the Aged and Rest Homes Act -- that have those similar powers.

We do want to make sure the minister has access to the information required to make informed decisions to stop fraud, to properly administer the health care system, and if the wording doesn't cut it, in your eyes, we'll change it.

Mrs McLeod: It really is beyond belief that this Premier could stand in this House today and propose that the opposition bring forward suggestions to change legislation that just a few days ago he was absolutely determined to make law by Christmastime. I truly can't believe the bravado of this Premier and I wonder if even today the Premier has in fact read the letter from the privacy commissioner and if he takes the privacy commissioner's concerns seriously.

Premier, in case you haven't seen it, I will tell you further that the privacy commissioner went on to say, "The types of information governed by the acts which are being amended are among the most sensitive of all personal information." He did go on again to condemn the fact that no action, according to this proposed legislation, could be taken against the Minister of Health, the general manager of OHIP, any member of their staff or indeed any other person or organization for disclosing information contained in these medical files, and this is clearly unacceptable.

Premier, I believe that the privacy commissioner has made his concerns absolutely clear. He is concerned that the powers granted to the Minister of Health under this proposed legislation would threaten the privacy of every citizen in the province. Premier, if you say you do not condone this, I ask whether you will commit today to removing those sections of Bill 26 and to ensuring that no further amendments in regard to the access to patients' medical files go forward until, as the privacy commissioner has suggested, privacy legislation that protects our citizens is put into place?

Hon Mr Harris: Let me respond to a number of comments that were made by the member. The first is that we didn't want hearings. In fact, as I understand it, the agreement worked out by the House leaders last week was for 300 hours of hearings. We had offered 360 hours of hearings.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Order.

Hon Mr Harris: So under the new arrangement --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Would the members come to order, please. Premier.

Hon Mr Harris: Thank you very much. So under the new arrangement worked out, there will be actually fewer hours of hearings than we offered but over a longer period of time, and we clearly have indicated that perhaps this may be advantageous. Certainly we wanted to take the best advantage of it that we can.

I can tell you that the legal opinion of the lawyers of the Ministry of Health and the Attorney General is that the provisions contained in Bill 26 are nothing new. They are in fact drawn upon the powers that were bestowed upon inspectors of the ministry in the Independent Health Facilities Act brought forward by Ms Caplan in 1988 when the Liberal government was in power. They're there. They're the same lawyers, you see; the same lawyers who were there are the same lawyers giving us advice. So when they defended the powers, when you jammed that through -- the powers did not in fact infringe upon privacy. They're now giving us the same advice.

However, unlike you, we're prepared to listen. Maybe we'll change all the powers. Maybe we have to look at different wording in the existing legislation. So I can assure you as well --

Interjections.

The Speaker: The member for Kenora is out of order.

Hon Mr Harris: -- with the privacy commissioner last Thursday and staff --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Order. The member for Kenora is out of order. I will not warn him again.

New question.

Mrs McLeod: If the Premier is prepared to listen, perhaps he will listen to the privacy commissioner since they chose not to consult him. He has offered his opinion and we would like the government to listen to him.

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): Much of what the Premier has just said -- and my second question to the Premier really does not merit a response because this Premier has already created such a fundamental credibility gap for his government that it is clear that this Premier cannot be taken at his word.

We learned this rather hard truth as a result of this government's broken commitment on health care, a commitment in which the Premier said repeatedly that he would not cut a penny of the health care budget. "Not one cent" was that campaign platform and then we saw it cut by $1.5 billion.

We also heard, prior to the election campaign and during the election campaign, this Premier say over and over again, "There will be no new user fees for health care," and that was a categorical, clear, unequivocal statement. And yet we saw in the economic statement that $225 million is to be gained in government revenue by imposing user fees for drugs on the elderly and the disabled and the poor, and in Bill 26 we see the government give itself power to move unilaterally in this area and impose those user fees.

Premier, I ask you to come clean today and acknowledge that you did indeed say one thing before election day, "No new user fees," and something quite different in the economic statement and in Bill 26. Will you just acknowledge that simple truth?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): What I would like to acknowledge is that we inherited a $10-billion annual deficit, $100 billion in total debt. What I think clearly needs to be acknowledged is that doing nothing, carrying on with the status quo, is a non-starter, that we have to fundamentally find creative and imaginative ways to deliver quality services within the budgetary confines that we have in the province of Ontario, something two previous governments in fact did not do.

We committed to look at the health care system, to pursue the objectives of hospital restructuring, to find savings within the system so that we could reinvest those savings so that at the end of the day the $17.4-billion health care budget would have been cut by not one cent. That's our commitment, and we will live up to it.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): The member for Windsor-Walkerville is out of order.

Mrs McLeod: The Premier surely knew there was a deficit that would have to be dealt with when he made his commitment and when people took him at his word that there would be no cuts to health care and that there would be no new user fees in health care. We have heard the Premier attempt to qualify that commitment when he and his minister have said, "Well, no new user fees for services covered under the Canada Health Act, no new user fees except for those things which are not medically necessary," and we're still trying to understand how any prescription drug prescribed by a physician is not medically necessary.

There were no exceptions when the Premier made his commitment. There was no fine print. He said, "No new user fees for health care," and yet they are now bringing in new user fees for health care, putting in place user fees on people who are welfare recipients, on the disabled, on the seniors: those disabled and seniors whom he also said he was going to protect.

Premier, I ask you again, why did you say one thing in your campaign platform and then turn around and give yourself the power, with legislation drafted in secret, to do the exact opposite: to impose new user fees for health care on the poor and the disabled and the seniors of this province?

Hon Mr Harris: First of all, let me say, nothing was drafted in secret. These questions were first raised by the leader of the New Democratic Party. I think the first question when the House returned -- and, I might add, although completely off topic, we've now sat more days in this little session than we did in the whole previous year to have public accountability -- I believe that was asked by the leader of the New Democratic Party was, "Are you looking at copayments in the area of the drug plan?" and we responded, "Yes, we are."

Interjection.

The Speaker: The member for Oakwood is out of order.

Hon Mr Harris: We are the only province now that does not have some form of cost-sharing among some segments of the population on the drug plan. I might add that the vast majority of Ontarians now pay 100% of the cost, either through a drug plan that they have to pay for themselves or their company pays for or they pay themselves.

The vast majority of Ontarians pay all the cost of their drugs, and I'm pleased to say that by looking at restructuring the drug plan, those who can afford will pay a little bit more by way of copayment, and yet those working people -- we are going to add 140,000 people who were paying 100% of the cost of these drugs under your scheme --

Interjection.

The Speaker: The member for Windsor-Sandwich is out of order.

Hon Mr Harris: -- assistance for the taxpayer. That seems to me to be pretty fair.

Mrs McLeod: Premier, I just come back to your words. You said your government was going to be different. You said you would take responsibility for your commitments. In fact, you even said you would resign if you broke your promises. During the campaign you said, over and over, "There will be no new user fees for health care." No limitations, no explanations, no conditions -- just, "No new user fees for health care."

Premier, I believe you have broken faith with the people of this province. You have broken faith with the most vulnerable people of this province. You are levelling new user fees in direct violation of your commitment, and you're levelling them on the backs of seniors, the disabled and the poor, for one reason only, and that is to pay for your income tax cut, for the kind of cut that is going to give $5,000 a year to somebody earning $150,000 a year and $7,500 for somebody earning $200,000 a year and $28,000-plus for somebody making $250,000. Will you just acknowledge that you broke your commitment on user fees to help finance a huge tax cut for the most well-to-do in this province?

Hon Mr Harris: Let me say a couple of things. Number one, there was a myriad of copayments that were in the system on those areas not covered by the Canada Health Act, and we want to restructure some of those copayments so 140,000 of the neediest get some help and the others who can afford to will pay a very small amount, as do all the other provinces. That clearly has been our new commitment, and that's been our commitment that we've talked about. To suggest otherwise is simply not true.

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): What?

Hon Mr Harris: Simply not true. When I look at the Liberal Party talking about broken promises that far exceeded any of the commitments that they may have kept -- talk about a party that says one thing and does another, even in this last election campaign. Their record in government was abysmal, the most broken promises, a record that was tried to be matched by the New Democrats; I don't think it was.

Then you look at their commitments in the last campaign versus what they're saying now in the House: "Don't cut here, not there. Don't do this, don't do that." I'm telling you that it strains believability and credibility among all Ontarians and members of this side of the House, as we try to cope with the mess that you left with us, when you start talking and you wave the "Not One Cent" posters that are there. We freely say, that was our commitment and that's where we will be.

USER FEES

Mr Bob Rae (York South): Is it the Premier's view that a copayment is in fact a user fee?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): It could be in some circumstances, and clearly I think the public needs to get an understanding. Was it a copayment or a user fee when you forced 70% or 80% of Ontarians to pay 100% of the costs of their drugs? People have been trying to get a definition of this. As long as you're prepared, with me, to talk apples to apples, I'm prepared to talk apples to apples to you.

We are reducing a lot of the copayments that you had. We're trying to get away from this 100% delisting; that's what you called it. You didn't call it a user fee; you said it was 100% delisting. So there are delistings; there are 100% payments; there are copayments; there are words like "user fees" bandied about. What we clearly have tried to do is make sure the public understands the terminology.

We will not violate the Canada Health Act. We will uphold the Canada Health Act, which sets standards for all Canadians. We're very proud we are the only government, I believe, now not violating the Canada Health Act or under investigation by the federal minister for doing the same, and we had to make a couple of changes to correct that from what we inherited from you.

Mr Rae: I'm not sure I heard an answer to my question, but on November 30, 1993, the member for Nipissing said: "I've been calling for a full and an open discussion on the issue of user fees. Let's be fair. A copayment is a user fee. Rationing leads to user fees. Parental contribution is a user fee."

Then on the next page it says, "The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations,

"(

a) prescribing insured services for which hospitals may charge insured persons."

As far as I'm aware, this is the first time the government has given itself the regulatory power to change services in hospitals and to permit hospitals to charge for services for which they have not previously been allowed to charge.

I want to ask the Premier: Is he aware of these changes, and does he not see them as a way in which hospitals will be permitted to charge all kinds of new user fees to patients who are in the hospital for which they were not previously charged?

Hon Mr Harris: It's a good point that you raise. It gets into

definitions, I suppose, of what's there. Private rooms right now have significant copayments; semi-private rooms have copayments; parking you might call a copayment or a user fee, call it what you will.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Parking?

Hon Mr Harris: Well, I don't know. In some cases we know that for food for long-term-care patients who are in hospitals, there is a copayment for that portion of it. But I can assure you of this: There will be no copayments, or user fees, call them what you will -- we tend to call user fees something that contravenes the Canada Health Act.

Mr David S. Cooke (Windsor-Riverside): Who knows what your definition will be next week?

Hon Mr Harris: Well, so that everybody can clarify, instead of your four or five words -- you see, you have one word in government and another word in opposition -- there will be no user fees. There will be no copayments either, because that becomes a user fee if it contravenes the Canada Health Act.

We are going to provide all medically necessary services equally to all, regardless of where they come from or any other plan they have. That's our commitment, that's what we must do, and that's what we intend to do.

Mr Rae: I don't think people have any particular belief in the new commitments that are being made, because the old commitments were very clear -- no new user fees -- when we're now being told that, yes, there will be new user fees, only they won't be called user fees, they'll be called -- now we're told that parking is a form of copayment. Parking is parking. It's got nothing to do with anything else.

I want to ask the Premier this question: Do you not see a difference between the charges that will be paid for parking and the charges that will now be demanded from sick people for medically necessary medication? Do you not see a difference between those two things?

Hon Mr Harris: I do see a difference. That's why we're providing for 140,000 more working people in Ontario access to some form of copayment for their drugs. It's why we supported the Trillium drug plan you brought in, why we are improving the drug plan, trying to include in our resources more of those who have difficulty paying.

This is the way I think seems to make sense to us under something that is not covered under the Canada Health Act, but clearly we want to ensure that medically necessary drugs are accessible to all Ontarians. That's why we want to target our resources, the way other provinces have, at those who need the most help, and that indeed is what we're doing.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): New question.

Mr Rae: I think most people would say that a government that can charge a disabled person for their medically necessary medication is a government that's perfectly capable of turning around in a short while and charging them for services which are now deemed to be medically necessary in hospitals or for doctors. That's exactly what we can expect.

RESTRICTIONS ON NEW DOCTORS

Mr Bob Rae (York South): I'd now like to ask the Premier some questions on the subject of the conscription of doctors. Our government commissioned a study by Mr Graham Scott, who is a former Deputy Minister of Health, former executive assistant to Robert Stanfield, the former leader of the Progressive Conservative Party in Canada, and Mr Scott produced a report which was the basis for some of the announcements made by the Minister of Health recently.

Mr Scott was asked to look at the entire question of the problem which has been difficult for all governments for many, many years, and that is, how do we ensure the delivery of health care across the province and how do we ensure that in smaller communities in the north and in the south the people have access to qualified physicians?

The Premier's government is the first government in the history of the province which intends to create a new class of physicians called "eligible physicians." Those are the doctors who are going to be allowed to practise and who will get an OHIP number. There will be other doctors who are perfectly well-qualified, who are perfectly well-trained, who have all the capabilities of medical practitioners, but they will not be eligible to receive an OHIP number unless the Minister of Health decides that that's what he wants to do.

Can the Premier tell me where in any report, either in the Scott report or in any one of the mediation reports that have been done over the years, can he show me one single, neutral, third-party report or can he show me anywhere in the Common Sense Revolution or in any document associated with the Conservative Party where he has decided to conscript doctors, to restrict access to practice and to tell the graduates who are now coming out of our medical schools that they're out of luck when it comes to practising medicine in the province? Where have you ever said this before?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): The leader of the NDP correctly points out something that Progressive Conservative governments, Liberal governments, NDP governments have not been able to deliver on in the past, and that is, a better distribution of doctors and medical services across the province, particularly in some of the small towns and in northern Ontario. Everything that we've tried so far has not worked very well.

In British Columbia an NDP Premier came in with a program to only give billing numbers to those doctors where they needed doctors as opposed to the other. I'm assuming from the question that this NDP leader disagrees with that NDP leader. But that was one proposal that was brought forward to try and accommodate that, and the minister, I know, said, "Hey, we should look at that and see how that's working in British Columbia and see whether this will help break the logjam."

I'm quite pleased to report, and the minister when he comes back can give you more details, that my understanding is that the OMA, which has not been able to deliver these services, not been able to fulfil their obligation under the memorandum of understanding, signed by the NDP, to have doctors in underserviced areas, is quite confident that they will be able to and will be able to work with the minister now as we begin to implement some of the Scott report -- and we put more dollars into the system, I might add, as well -- quite confident that they can deliver.

That of course is the way in which we want to do it, in an area of mutual understanding and cooperation with the union representing the doctors and the government. Both, through the memorandum of understanding that your party signed, have an obligation to provide health care services all across this province, not just in the big centres.

Mr Rae: Is the Premier (

a) aware of the fact that his legislation gets rid of the memorandum of understanding, and (

b) is he alleging today that the Ontario Medical Association supports those sections of Bill 26 which conscript doctors? Is that his allegation today?

Hon Mr Harris: No.

Mr Rae: That's what you just said; at least that's what you clearly implied with your answer. There's no other implication. You're turning your answers into a joke. You clearly don't understand the legislation or its impact. You don't have any understanding of what's here.

The Professional Association of Interns and Residents of Ontario, which represents 2,400 interns and residents in the province, has stated that it believes this legislation to be unlawful. In fact, the previous time it was tried in British Columbia, by another government, not an NDP government, it was found to be unlawful by the British Columbia Court of Appeal. They find that it's coercive; they find that it's intrusive to a degree which no other government has ever tried in the province before.

I want to ask the Premier this question: Why would you be bringing forward such a coercive, such a centralized and such an authoritarian solution to a problem that is admittedly difficult, when it's very clear that the solutions that have been proposed by Mr Scott do not in any way condone the kinds of steps and the sort of direction you have taken?

Why would you have gone so far off the deep end, in changing the way in which medicine is practised in the province, in changing the rights of young graduates who are coming out of university, in changing the rights of specialists? Why would you have decided to take on such an authoritarian solution to a problem which demands greater sensitivity and more willingness to compromise than you've so far demonstrated?

Hon Mr Harris: That's not our intention at all and the minister has made that very clear. The tools that we inherited were -- even though we have a significant surplus of doctors in Ontario, the only mechanism without the cooperation of the OMA to make sure that northern Ontario communities and rural communities had doctors was to give even more numbers to new immigrant doctors or to doctors who didn't come through our health care system. All this did in the long run was to contribute to the oversupply. That's something the former government did, I think we did 15 years ago, the Liberal government did, you did and we've now moved in that direction as well.

However, I'm really pleased to report, one more time, that the Professional Association of Interns and Residents of Ontario said on December 1, "We're planning to take the minister at his word; he'll give recruitment and retention measures a real chance to work without imposing billing number restrictions," and further to that, the OMA now tells us and tells the minister they're quite confident that they're going to be able to work out an agreement.

You see, once you become a union and have compulsory checkoff, as you gave the OMA, and they will speak for all the doctors, they also have an obligation to provide services all across the province. That was not happening; it is now beginning to happen today.

USER FEES

Mr Gilles E. Morin (Carleton East): My question is for the Premier. In speeches and party literature, the Premier has repeatedly stated that health care expenditures would not be cut. This is a fact. The Premier may choose to reinterpret his own words, but when his own documents read, "There will be no cuts to health care funding by a Harris government," you assume that is what they mean.

The Premier and his cohorts have since proceeded, by way of Bill 26, to impose fees, or copayments, as they call them, upon the people who can least afford them. This is the same Premier who said: "User fees tend to discourage low-income people from obtaining the medical treatment they need. That makes them unfair."

Can the Premier explain, not just to me but to the many seniors and low-income persons concerned, where the fairness is in imposing, in his own words, unfair user fees upon those who can least afford them?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): Yes, I'm happy to continue to explain to you and to respond by telling you that the letters coming into my office from seniors are overwhelmingly in support, saying, "Look, we understand the serious mismanagement of the last 10 years; we understand the seriousness of the deficit and debt problem; we understand that one of the prices we pay" --

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): The member for Hamilton East is out of order.

Hon Mr Harris: -- "is for something nobody else in Canada had, that no other government provided, Liberal, NDP or Conservative." One of the consequences of that was this $10-billion deficit or, as you've already heard, $1 million an hour more going out in expenditures than are coming in. They've said to us, "Two bucks is cheap to fix the problem and make sure our children and our grandchildren have an opportunity, like we had, to live and grow and work in this great province of Ontario."

Mr Morin: This is Orwellian language, any way the Premier puts it. The fact is that he is penalizing elderly and low-income Ontarians for being sick. He broke his promise about not cutting funding for health care, and now he reaches for savings into the meagre incomes of our most vulnerable citizens. Up to 1.3 million seniors will be affected by the new dispensing fees to be charged to them under Bill 26. This is a user fee, by any other name.

You said it yourself: "User fees are unfair." How is Ontario a fairer society today? How is it fair to target elderly and low-income Ontarians?

Hon Mr Harris: The member will know that the vast majority of Ontarians pay 100% of their own drugs -- the vast majority pays 100%. Those, however, who are on welfare, or senior citizens, will pay an absolute minimal fraction of that, less than in most other provinces, although you might be able to find an individual case somewhere that's there.

Quite frankly, I have to tell you that with the overall mismanagement of the system, the Health ministry, the Education ministry, throwing the money around that you didn't have -- that your government didn't have, the New Democratic Party didn't have -- we've had to make some very, very difficult decisions.

If your question is, "Are you now telling us, Premier, that there's no free ride, free everything for everybody in Ontario?" that's right, there is not. That's a change, and that's what we were elected to change.

The Speaker: New question.

Mr Bob Rae (York South): In response to the Premier's announcements and Bill 26, a number of local municipalities would appear to be planning to make some rather major moves in the field of user fees and other fee hikes. When the Premier hears, for example, that North York is going to charge up to $7 for an annual membership in the public library system, I wonder what his response is to something like that.

Hon Mr Harris: Those are decisions for local municipalities to work out. Let me tell you of an experience that really surprised me. My family is now going to school here in the Toronto area for the first time, and I was absolutely astounded. We had to pay user fees or copayments for our kids to go public skating or to do things in North Bay, and now we find that in Toronto it's all free. We're actually astounded at the number of things, privileges which we're quite happy to pay a modest amount for.

What I would hope is that if municipalities are looking at user fees or copayments in some areas, (

a) that it would not be for necessary services, (

b) that they think about it very carefully, and (

c) that if they're planning to charge a buck or five bucks for library privileges, they make sure that those who may have any difficulty at all affording it get it for free.

Mr Rae: One of the issues around public libraries which the Premier perhaps wasn't aware of is that the Public Libraries Act now in fact requires that libraries not charge for particular services, including loaning books. Is it the intention of the government to enforce the Public Libraries Act and reduce transfers to those library systems in the province which break the Public Libraries Act and start charging people for the use of a public library?

Hon Mr Harris: I've not heard of any municipality that's planning to do that. Perhaps some are planning to charge for a card. Some now do charge for a card, which is legal under your legislation that we have inherited. That's different, though.

Some charge now for videos that go out; some do not; they compete with free videos with all the private sector businesses that charge a buck or two or three to rent a video. My understanding is that some municipalities are looking at: "Should our libraries be competing with the private sector giving free videos? Is that what we were set up to do? Is that what the Public Libraries Act empowered us to do?"

Clearly, it is our intention to work with our partners, who I think will be far more responsible than you suggest, to make sure that the citizens of Ontario can afford unexcelled, unparalleled services with virtually any other jurisdiction in the world. We believe we have the resources to do that and we're confident that will happen.

RED HILL CREEK EXPRESSWAY

Mrs Lillian Ross (Hamilton West): My question today is for the Minister of Transportation. During the last provincial election, our government reaffirmed its commitment to the completion of the Red Hill Creek Expressway. I would like to ask the minister today if you could reaffirm to this Legislature and to the residents back home what your commitment is to the Red Hill Creek Expressway?

Hon Al Palladini (Minister of Transportation): I want to thank the honourable member for the question and certainly make clear once and for all that this government understands the importance of the expressway to the region of Hamilton-Wentworth, and a Mike Harris government is keeping its promise once again.

Over the next five years, we will be providing $100 million towards the cost of the completion of the expressway. This will allow the expressway to be finished by the year 2000. The $100 million is a firm commitment even if the region is able to find savings in areas, and we believe the region will be able to find savings.

Mrs Ross: I'm pleased, as I'm sure most of the people back home are, that the government has recognized the importance of this expressway.

The minister would be aware of the fact that in July, 50% of the funding was deferred, an amount of $6.75 million. Can the minister please tell us whether that amount is included in the funding arrangement for this year?

Hon Mr Palladini: This is another Harris promise kept. I am pleased to inform the honourable member that, as promised back in July, the $6.75 million deferred will be restored next year, and that is in addition to the $20-million commitment we have in 1996. The region next year will receive $26.75 million towards the construction of the expressway.

VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): If I could just take a minute, we have some guests in the Speaker's gallery who have to leave very shortly, and I would like to introduce them. They are members of the coaching staff of the Colorado Avalanche: Marc Crawford and Jacques Martin. Welcome.

HIGHWAY TOLLS

Mr Mike Colle (Oakwood): I have a question for the Minister of Transportation. Last week, I asked the minister whether he was aware of the fact that under the Bill 26 amendments to the Capital Investment Plan Act, the Ontario Transportation Capital Corp has the power to register a lien on private property, including people's homes, for unpaid toll fines. The minister's response, to quote from Hansard on December 5, was, "As far as liens are concerned, we're talking about vehicles here, so we're not talking about liening someone's house because they haven't paid their toll."

I wish to draw the minister's attention to the omnibus Bill 26 subsection 43.1(1), where it says, "Any toll, fee or interest owed under this part by any person is, upon registration by the corporation in the proper land registry office of a notice claiming a lien and charge conferred by this section...."

My question to the minister is, did you not read the act, or did you announce an amendment to the act and you're not going to have liens on people's homes when they don't pay their tolls?

Hon Al Palladini (Minister of Transportation): The honourable member is fearmongering. I would like to say this: Houses don't drive on highways, cars do. We will register a lien on a vehicle if -- number one, it has to be a substantial lien. But to put fear in the people of Ontario that we are going to be liening someone's house because there's a $100 toll or a $1,000 toll, the honourable member doesn't have a clue.

Mr Colle: I'm not sure what the minister is talking about, about houses driving on highways, but my question is very simple. Who is telling the truth: Is it the minister or is it the act? Is the minister saying that the act is wrong when it says it's going to charge liens on people's property? Why would you be going to the land registry office for a lien on a car? Isn't it enough to put a lien on a $10,000 or $20,000 or $30,000 car? Why do you have to go that far, to put a lien on people's homes if they don't pay their tolls?

Hon Mr Palladini: No one is saying we're going to go that far. We're going to make the attempt to collect the outstanding tolls. A lien on a vehicle is a standard, customary business procedure. This government is going to operate in a business-efficient way. We will do whatever we have to do so all Ontarians are going to get that benefit.

The member is referring to Bill 26. That is a general bill. I want to talk just about tolls. I want to talk about what we are going to do if people don't pay their tolls. We will lien a vehicle in order for us to collect that money that's owed.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): New question. The leader of the third party.

Mr Colle: What's he saying? Is there a lien or not?

The Speaker: The member for Oakwood is out of order.

RESTRICTIONS ON NEW DOCTORS

Mr Bob Rae (York South): I don't know whether the Premier is really familiar with the legislation or the comments people have made, but just to create a sense of balance in terms of the record today, the president of the Ontario Medical Association described Bill 26 as extreme, unprecedented and harmful to patient care. I want to put that on the record.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Who said that?

Mr Rae: The president of the Ontario Medical Association.

The head of the Professional Association of Interns and Residents of Ontario, the executive, came to see me. They describe the bill as unlawful; they describe it as arbitrary and authoritarian; and they describe it as having implications for the practice of medicine which are disastrous. The only jurisdiction which will benefit from it, in their words, is the United States.

The powers being given to the Minister of Health and to the ministry to tell doctors where and when they will practise are more authoritarian and more centralized than any powers which have been given to the Ministry of Health bureaucracy since the beginning of medical care; in fact, in the entire history of the province we've never given this kind of power to the bureaucracy.

I want to ask the Premier, why are you taking such an authoritarian approach when there's absolutely no neutral third party that has ever argued in favour of taking this kind of approach to how people will be allowed to practise medicine in the history of the province? It's never been tried before, never been done before. Why would you take such a totalitarian approach?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I might add that the Ontario Medical Association said very similar things, in similar language, about your government at negotiation time, as it did about the Liberal government when it was dealing with the Independent Health Facilities Act.

Mr Rae: We're not talking about negotiations.

Hon Mr Harris: Well, they have. We have the rhetoric. It seems to be a part of negotiations, and we understand that.

We, on the other hand, think it makes far more sense to sit down, work cooperatively, work productively. We say this to all unions -- we say this to the Canadian Auto Workers, we say this to OPSEU, we say this to CUPE -- that we're prepared to sit down and work in a logical way to uphold the mandate we've all been given.

I indicated earlier in response to the member that the former Progressive Conservative government -- it's going back quite a long time, so long ago that it's hard for me to remember those good old days -- the former Liberal government and the former NDP government all tried to address this issue of physician and doctor dispersement, if you like, or distribution across the province of Ontario. The more you wrestled with it for five years and the more the Liberals wrestled with it for five years, the worse the situation became.

I have to tell you that we need to look at new and different and creative ways to break this impasse and make sure we have doctors where they are needed across the province, in the specialties that are required, so that we don't end up with this still overall surplus in some parts of the province and a shortage in others.

If you have suggestions -- you may have, after you've failed for five years, on what didn't work -- we'd be glad to hear those as to how we can make sure this happens.

Mr Rae: My comment to the Premier in terms of a second question would be this: You're not talking about negotiations here; there's nothing in this bill about negotiations. This is not

an act which sets out negotiations. You keep talking about how you're prepared to sit down with the OMA. To what? To negotiate the act, to renegotiate the act, between now and January 29?

Is the Premier now saying that he's prepared to withdraw the draconian and authoritarian sections in the act and prepared to sit down with the Professional Association of Interns and Residents of Ontario and sit down with the Ontario Medical Association and negotiate a new arrangement?

Or is he saying that the act stands as it is and that he's happy with the fact that the Minister of Health and the person in charge of OHIP now has unilateral authority to tell a doctor where she will practise, how she will practise, on what terms she will practise, in which part of the province she will practise, how long she will practise, and if she's not prepared to practise there, then she isn't going to be allowed to practise in the province of Ontario? That's what your legislation says; that's what it means. Are you prepared to withdraw that legislation now? Yes or no?

Hon Mr Harris: We are prepared to meet with the OMA, and the Minister of Health has been doing it. We're prepared to meet with those still in medical school and the association of interns and residents, and the Minister of Health is doing this. We would like to make sure we can work this out in full cooperation with those providing the services. But let me tell you something. At the end of the day, we're going to make sure that northern Ontario municipalities, that isolated municipalities, that rural municipalities get the health care you didn't give them.

COMPRESSIONS BUDGÉTAIRES

M. John R. Baird (Nepean) : Ma question s'adresse au ministre de l'Agriculture, de l'Alimentation et des Affaires rurales ; ministre délégué aux Affaires francophones.

Suite au discours budgétaire du ministre des Finances de l'avant-dernière semaine, le ministre a annoncé qu'il devrait amalgamer ou centraliser des bureaux d'agriculture dans l'Est ontarien. Est-ce que le ministre pourrait bien m'expliquer la raison pour laquelle une telle décision a été prise ?

L'hon Noble Villeneuve (ministre de l'Agriculture, de l'Alimentation et des Affaires rurales ; ministre délégué aux Affaires francophones) : Je veux remercier mon collègue le député de Nepean pour la question. Avec une dette qui s'accroît à au-delà de un million de dollars à toutes les heures, à tous les jours, nous avons un problème économique majeur ici en Ontario et nous devons le corriger.

D'après nos rencontres de table ronde et notre sondage annuel auprès de nos cultivateurs, ils nous ont dit qu'ils sont prêts à utiliser le téléphone, le télécopieur pour faire affaire avec leur bureau d'agriculture. Alors, avec ces outils qu'ils ont, ils vont pouvoir faire affaire avec n'importe quel bureau agricole, que ce soit le Collège d'Alfred, le Collège de Kemptville, ou n'importe quel bureau. C'est ce que les cultivateurs nous ont dit et c'est essentiel, qu'il faut dépenser sagement.

USER FEES

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Mr Minister, Bill 26, in the sections dealing with the changes to the Municipal Act, states that a municipality and a local board may pass bylaws imposing fees or charges on any class of persons, and it also goes on to say that the fees and charges are in the nature of a direct tax for the purpose of raising revenue.

My question to you is something that was raised in the media over the weekend by a number of different people: Are you going to allow head taxes to be introduced by municipalities? Yes or no?

Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): As you know, we have been working very closely with the municipalities. The municipalities have asked for autonomy to do certain things. As a matter of fact, AMO says, "AMO successfully lobbied the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Municipal Affairs for broader authority to impose user fees on a range of services."

The municipalities want to work with us and be part of the solution, not part of the problem as in the past. What user fees or what licensing fees are brought in by the municipality will be the responsibility of the municipality.

Mr Gerretsen: Let me just see if I got it exactly correct. Are you saying that they can impose head taxes? Yes or no? That's the question.

Hon Mr Leach: Theoretically the municipality could do that, but theoretically I could get an intelligent question and I haven't got that either.

Mr Bob Rae (York South): Let me try again. We're now told that the Premier is in favour of libraries charging for services for which they've never charged before, and now I understand the Minister of Municipal Affairs is telling us that as far as he is concerned, municipalities will be allowed to charge a head tax.

Can the minister confirm once again clearly for the House today: Is it, in his view, permissible for a municipality to charge a general fee on every single citizen in that municipality simply because he or she is living in that municipality? Is that now permitted?

Hon Mr Leach: As I said, we're giving municipalities the autonomy to take action as they see fit. They've been hobbled for years by draconian legislation. They want to help us get rid of the problem that we've inherited and we're going to let them do that. What issues they choose to have licensing fees for is up to them.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): The time for oral question period has expired. Routine motions?

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance and Government House Leader): Mr Speaker, during motions, I believe that there is some agreement among the three parties to split the time evenly during this afternoon's debate.

The Speaker: Agreed? Agreed.

PETITIONS

HIGHWAY SAFETY

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): My petition is to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and reads:

"Whereas the Minister of Transportation is intent on reducing northern winter road maintenance services; and

"Whereas such downgrading places the lives of northern residents at undue and unnecessary risk;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to disallow these reductions in service and to guarantee that winter roads across the northern regions of the province receive the necessary maintenance to ensure the safe passage of drivers."

That comes from a great number of communities in my riding as well as some from Manitoba and across the province.

PORNOGRAPHY

Mr Bob Wood (London South): I'd like to present the following petition to the assembly:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas we, the Catholic Women's League of St John the Divine, London, Ontario, as an association agree the protection of our children against pornography is paramount;

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

"We petition the Legislative Assembly to enact legislation against child pornography. Bill C-128 does not go far enough."

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

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

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

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

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

I have affixed my signature.

COMMON SENSE REVOLUTION

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

"Whereas Mike Harris said on May 30, 1995, `If I don't live up to anything that I have promised to do and committed to do, I will resign'; and

"Whereas Mike Harris promised on May 3, 1995, `No cuts to health care spending,' but in his November 29 economic statement we see $1.3 billion or 18% in cuts to hospital spending over the next three years and a further $225 million in cuts from the health care budget; and

"Whereas Mike Harris has clearly broken his promise to defend health care cuts in funding; and

"Whereas Mike Harris promised in the Common Sense Revolution that, `This plan will create more than 725,000 new jobs,' but in his November 29 economic statement we see a prediction of only 253,000 jobs created over the next three years and an unemployment rate of 8.6% in two years, which is the same as it is today; and

"Whereas Mike Harris has clearly broken his promise to create significant jobs in this province; and

"Whereas Mike Harris promised in the Common Sense Revolution that, `Aid for seniors and the disabled will not be cut,' but in his November 29 economic statement Mike Harris is cutting the Ontario drug benefit plan and making seniors and the vulnerable pay for their drugs; and

"Whereas Mike Harris has clearly broken his promise to seniors and the disabled;

"We, the undersigned, demand that Mike Harris keep his word and resign immediately."

That is signed by eight people who live in the riding of Sudbury East. I have signed it and I agree with the petitioners entirely.

TAX EXEMPTION

Mr Toby Barrett (Norfolk): I have a petition from the congregation of St Andrew's, Hagersville, and Knox, Port Dover, Presbyterian churches re recommendation 104 as proposed by the Fair Tax Commission of the government.

"We, the members of the aforementioned congregations, do hereby petition you, our Premier and representatives, to not proceed on this recommendation of the Fair Tax Commission relative to legislating its proposal that, `The local property tax exemptions for churches, cemeteries and religious and educational seminaries should be eliminated.'

"We would remind you that such action will undermine the stewardship of our members concerning their present support of the provincial, national and international welfare and humanitarian needs of people, because it will financially strap them in their ability to continue to give support to these needs.

"Furthermore, such action will put the onus and the accountability for such undermining of our welfare and humanitarian support squarely on the shoulders of the present government, placing a greater burden upon its finances relative to the need to cover those areas of support the religious organizations would be forced to cut back on.

"We are of a unanimous mind that the proposed recommendation of the Fair Tax Commission and any legislation to its effect is self-defeating, as far as the welfare and care of people is concerned in our province, nation and world, and we again respectfully ask you not to proceed on them."

I affix my name to this petition.

HIGHWAY SAFETY

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

"Whereas the Ministry of Transportation is intent on reducing northern winter road maintenance services; and

"Whereas such downgrading places the lives of northern residents at undue and unnecessary risk,

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to disallow these reductions in service and to guarantee the winter roads across the northern regions of the province receive the necessary maintenance to ensure safe passage of drivers."

I will affix my signature.

MINISTER'S COMMENTS

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

"Whereas six women present at a meeting held by the minister responsible for women's issues, Dianne Cunningham, at her constituency office on October 25, 1995, agreed that they heard the minister state, `Within the context of this government, you need to understand that groups or agencies that are seen not to be working with this government, providing an oppositional voice...will be audited and their funding eliminated'; and

"Whereas the minister responsible for women's issues denies having made this statement;

"We, the undersigned, request that the government establish a legislative committee to determine whether the minister responsible for women's issues abused her authority as a minister of the crown by making threatening and intimidating remarks at the meeting described above."

It's signed by about 40 people across the province and I've affixed my signature to it as well.

CHILD CARE

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): "Whereas the Ontario government has decided to replace our current child care system with one that lacks compassion and common sense and is fraught with many dangerous consequences; and

"Whereas the concept of affordable, accessible and quality child care is a basic, important and fundamental right for many members of our community who are either unemployed and enrolled in a training program or are working single parents or where both parents are working; and

"Whereas if our present provincial government is sincere in getting people back to work, they should recognize the value of the child care component of the Jobs Ontario program and acknowledge the validity of the wage subsidy to the child care workers;

"We, therefore, the undersigned residents, business owners and child care providers for Parkdale and High Park, urge the Progressive Conservative government of Ontario to immediately suspend their plans to implement cuts to our present child care programs across the province and restore funding to the present levels."

I've attached my signature.

COMMUNITY-BASED JUSTICE OPTIONS

Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): "Whereas community-based justice programs, such as diversion, alternative measures, community service orders, bail supervision etc, have proven valuable; the screening and supervision of accused and offenders within well-defined programs contribute to public safety; for over 20 years community-based options have made a positive contribution to the welfare of communities in Ontario;

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

"We believe that these programs must not be viewed as dispensable. As with many recent cuts, short-term fiscal expediency holds no long-term value. Credible links with the community and quality programs for the citizens of Ontario must be maintained."

I affix my signature to this petition as well.

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mr Pat Hoy (Essex-Kent): "To the Legislature of Ontario:

"Whereas all students in Ontario deserve equal educational opportunities; and

"Whereas we understand the importance of controlling costs; and

"Whereas reductions to core grants severely impact assessment-poor boards;

"Therefore,

be it resolved that we, the undersigned, petition the Legislature to effect reasonable reductions in the education system and to ensure that the reductions are shared in a fair and equitable manner."

CHILD CARE

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): I have a petition signed by many people, I think it's about 100 signatures, from the Vaughan Nursery School on St Clair Avenue West. It's to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"We do solemnly petition the government of Ontario to recognize and affirm:

"

(1) The economic and social value to Ontario of the highest possible standards of child care;

"

(2) That Ontario is no longer the Ontario of the 1920s, '30s, '40s, '50s, '60s, '70s or '80s, and that the necessity and/or desire for parents to work outside of the house has fundamentally changed child-raising practices in Ontario;

"

(3) That the public good is created by providing all Ontario's children, regardless of the income, social class, ethnic or racial background of their parents, with access to the same standards of child care;

"

(4) That Ontario needs to act to protect the asset represented by the skills and capabilities of trained and qualified child care staff in providing positive, nurturing experiences for children outside of the home and family setting;

"

(5) That the volunteer contributions made by parents to the success of licensed child care in non-profit cooperative centres be recognized and encouraged in any proposed changes to the child care system;

"

(6) The necessity, on behalf of Ontario children, and regardless of provincial deficits, tax cut promises or other business challenges, to allocate sufficient public funds in order that access be available for all to licensed, high-quality child care services where required; and

"

(7) That community by community, region by region, public consultations and discussions precede any changes that affect Ontario's existing child care system."

I'm happy to support this petition. I'm affixing my signature to it as well.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): This petition is from a number of people who reside in the Niagara Peninsula.

"The governments at provincial and regional levels are threatening cuts to child care programs. We see child care as an essential service to the community. A reduction in subsidized child care programs would result in unaffordable and unavailable child care, causing higher levels of unemployment and welfare dependency."

I submit this petition for consideration of the House.

MINISTER'S COMMENTS

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): "Whereas six women present at a meeting held by the minister responsible for women's issues, Dianne Cunningham, at her constituency office on October 25, 1995, agree that they heard the minister state, `Within the context of this government, you need to understand that groups or agencies that are seen not to be working with this government, providing an oppositional voice...will be audited and their funding eliminated'; and

"Whereas the minister responsible for women's issues denies having made this statement;

"Therefore, we, the undersigned, request that the government establish a legislative committee to determine whether the minister responsible for women's issues abused her authority as a minister of the crown by making threatening and intimidating remarks at the meeting described above."

I affix my signature to this petition.

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): "Whereas Mike Harris promised on May 3, 1995, not to cut one cent from health care spending; and

"Whereas that promise was broken when the Conservatives cut more than $1.3 billion from Ontario hospitals; and

"Whereas Mike Harris also promised in the Common Sense Revolution that, `Aid for seniors and the disabled will not be cut'; and

"Whereas that promise was broken when the Conservatives slapped a new user fee on the drugs seniors, the disabled and the poor are prescribed by their doctors when they are sick; and

"Whereas Mike Harris promised in the Common Sense Revolution that there would be no new user fees; and

"Whereas that promise was broken when the Conservatives added $225 million worth of user fees on the Ontario drug benefit plan; and

"Whereas Mike Harris has clearly broken every single promise he has made with respect to protecting health care; and

"Whereas Mike Harris and the Conservatives are now planning, through Bill 26, to bestow upon the Minister of Health new dictatorial powers which would allow him to singlehandedly close any hospital in the province with the stroke of a pen; and

"Whereas Bill 26 will allow the Minister of Health to close any hospital in the province without any public input whatsoever; and

"Whereas Bill 26 will allow the Premier and the cabinet to usurp the rights and privileges of the elected members of this Legislature and thereby the rights of every person in this province;

"We, the undersigned, demand that Mike Harris reverse his policies, which will clearly jeopardize the future of quality health care in Ontario; and we further demand the Conservative government withdraw their heavy-handed, dictatorial budget bill, Bill 26."

I'll add my signature to that.

COMPULSIVE GAMBLING

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): "We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"

(1) That the Canadian Foundation on Compulsive Gambling (Windsor) continue to receive funding in order to meet the growing need of the compulsive gambling constituents of the area.

"

(2) The government is allowing the expansion of gambling activity in the Windsor area. At the same time they are eliminating the sole source of funding to the only organization which specializes in assisting the compulsive gambler to understand and overcome their addiction.

"

(3) The amount of funding which is required is only 0.032% of the net profits recorded by the Ontario Casino Corp for fiscal year 1994-95."

It's signed by the undersigned, several of the people from Windsor. I hereby affix my signature.

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): I have an additional 2,000 signatures collected by Mae Mussolum and Rose Kulimouski addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, which now makes over 6,000 signatures regarding health care. The petition ends:

"Therefore we, the undersigned, call on the Minister of Health to restore the $132 million that was cut on July 21, 1995, in order to maintain the promise made by this government to protect health care funding and not cut health care; to reaffirm this government's commitment to no new user fees; and to ensure that the health care budget will stand at $17.4 billion for every day of the life of this government."

I have signed my signature to this petition.

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): I have a signed petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"

(1) To immediately implement sole governance for the Sudbury hospital system and to allow the sole governing body the total discretionary power to restructure the present system to more effectively meet the current and future needs of the people of Sudbury and northeastern Ontario.

"

(2) To defer all restructuring until the sole governance board is operational and able to assess the impact from a local and regional perspective; and

"

(3) To actively protect the regional programs for northeastern Ontario."

This was collected by Kerry Carswell, president of the Ontario Nurses' Association, and I submit it.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

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

Your committee begs to report the following bills without amendment:

Bill Pr44,

An Act respecting the City of York

Bill Pr38,

An Act respecting the Waterloo-Guelph Regional Airport.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Shall the reports be received and adopted? Agreed? Agreed.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

Mr Bob Wood from the standing committee on government agencies presented the committee's second report.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Does the member wish to make a brief statement? No?

Pursuant to standing order 106(g)11 the report is deemed to be adopted by the House.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

CHILDREN'S LAW REFORM AMENDMENT ACT, 1995 / LOI DE 1995 MODIFIANT LA LOI PORTANT RÉFORME DU DROIT DE L'ENFANCE

Mr Hastings moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 27,

An Act to amend the Children's Law Reform Act. / Projet de loi 27, Loi modifiant la Loi portant réforme du droit de l'enfance.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke-Rexdale): Essentially, this particular piece of legislation would permit grandparents to make custody and access applications and is amended to mention them specifically. As well, the bill amends the Children's Law Reform Act to emphasize the importance of children's relationships with their parents and grandparents.

TD TRUST COMPANY ACT, 1995

Mr Marchese moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr24,

An Act respecting TD Trust Company and Central Guaranty Trust Company.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Is it the pleasure of the House the motion carry? Agreed.

CITY OF SCARBOROUGH ACT, 1995

Mr Newman moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr41,

An Act respecting the City of Scarborough.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Is it the pleasure of the House the motion carry? Carried.

CITY OF OSHAWA ACT (OSHAWA TRANSIT COMMISSION), 1995

Mr Flaherty moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr49,

An Act respecting the City of Oshawa.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Is it the pleasure of the House the motion carry? Carried.

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT (SIMCOE DAY), 1995 / LOI DE 1995 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LES MUNICIPALITÉS (FÊTE DE SIMCOE)

Mr Gilchrist moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 28,

An Act to amend the Municipal Act to name Civic Holiday as Simcoe Day / Projet de loi 28, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les municipalités en vue de désigner le Congé civique sous le nom de fête de Simcoe.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East): I think it is fitting that we recognize the British heritage and some of the founding fathers of this province, and recognizing civic day as Simcoe Day would, in large measure, be such a recognition.

TOWNSHIP OF SIDNEY ACT, 1995

Mr Rollins moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr46,

An Act respecting the Township of Sidney.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

SAVINGS AND RESTRUCTURING ACT, 1995 / LOI DE 1995 SUR LES ÉCONOMIES ET LA RESTRUCTURATION

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 26,

An Act to achieve Fiscal Savings and to promote Economic Prosperity through Public Sector Restructuring, Streamlining and Efficiency and to implement other aspects of the Government's Economic Agenda / Loi visant à réaliser des économies budgétaires et à favoriser la prospérité économique par la restructuration, la rationalisation et l'efficience du secteur public et visant à mettre en oeuvre d'autres aspects du programme économique du gouvernement.

Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): Bill 26 has been presented for second reading, and this afternoon I would like to talk in more detail about the municipal

section of Bill 26.

It amends a number of acts dealing with municipal finance and governance. This legislation gives municipalities freedom to make decisions locally, to spend money on their priorities. Municipalities need this freedom now more than ever.

Last week, the Minister of Finance told the House why the provincial subsidies had to be reduced, and the people of Ontario had made it very, very clear that they cannot afford to pay more taxes. This means municipalities will have some difficult choices ahead, but municipalities across the province have said they can make this work without increasing taxes.

Municipalities know that services are important to taxpayers, but not who delivers them. People don't care who picks up the garbage; they just want to get it done, and they want it done cheaply. I am confident that municipalities will find ways to deliver services for less.

Municipalities are just as interested in getting rid of waste and duplication as this government is. The problem is that many Ontario municipalities don't have an effective structure to address economic, fiscal and servicing issues. Current legislation makes the situation worse. It prevents municipalities from making changes to their structure without legislation from the province.

Taxpayers have made it clear that they want less government, more cost-effective government, more efficient government. Our legislation will make this happen, and it will ensure that the services that are important to people get delivered more efficiently.

Municipalities have recognized the province's debt problem. They're ready to work with us and be part of the solution. Mayor Hazel McCallion of Mississauga has said, "We'd better smarten up and realize we've got to get this province out of debt." The debt of the province is preventing economic development.

Mayor Jim Gibson of Fergus said: "Now is the time to face reality. We've got to balance the provincial budget. We can't continue to rob from our children's future."

Closer to my riding of St George-St David, Mayor Barbara Hall of Toronto and her council passed a resolution last week not to raise taxes as a result of the government reductions.

Many municipalities haven't waited for this legislation and have started redesigning how they deliver services already. Earlier this year, the regional municipality of Halton transferred its entire sludge treatment program to the private sector. Because of this, Halton region expects to save $2 million over the next eight years, or about $250,000 a year.

The city of Toronto has started to reorganize to have just four commissioners. This move will streamline decision-making and reduce administrative overhead.

Another example is the city of Hamilton and the regional municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth, where the city's treasury department and the region's finance department are being merged for a savings of up to $1 million a year.

It is this spirit of cooperation that will make this legislation work. It's not just the province that thinks it's time for change; many municipalities obviously agree that the time for change is now.

I'd like to take some time to tell the House the details of the legislation. The legislation we are presenting for second reading today responds to municipalities' requests for increased autonomy to manage their costs and expenditures and prioritize service and delivery. Municipalities have been asking for this autonomy for many, many years.

I want to assure the House that when this legislation is passed, municipalities will have more freedom to make local decisions. I am confident that municipalities will make the right choices for their communities, choices that are cost-effective and give people the services they need. In the end, the taxpayer will be the winner.

In fact, we're sure enough that municipalities will make the right choices that we are giving them the flexibility to decide how to spend the money we give them. In the past, municipalities received money from the province under a number of different programs. Most programs had detailed and specific conditions, conditions that the province really should not have had an interest in.

The new legislation removes unnecessary restrictions. The municipal roads grant and the northern community transportation assistance grant will have funding conditions removed. They will be transferred, together with the unconditional grant, into a lump sum or block fund called the municipal support grant. Municipalities will be able to spend this money on local priorities.

The province will still set minimum standards when it has a significant interest. For example, there will be a provision to ensure that municipalities comply with interprovincial trade agreements signed by Ontario and other provinces.

I don't want to gloss over the fact that municipalities will be receiving less money. Some municipalities, probably many municipalities, will need to restructure to manage their reductions. Municipalities can restructure by streamlining their operations or by realigning jurisdictions, but they must do whatever it takes to deliver services for less.

Some people get nervous when there's talk of changing municipal boundaries. They worry that taxes will go up and they worry that they will lose their sense of community identity. I believe that restructuring can result in a municipality providing the services taxpayers need at a cost they can afford. Moreover, this can be accomplished without any loss of identity. Government structures may change, but not communities. Communities and the things that make them communities, like the local ball team, the community newspaper, the community service clubs, will all continue to exist.

New Tecumseth in Simcoe county is just one example of successful restructuring. Before 1991, the present town of New Tecumseth contained four separate municipalities: Alliston, Beeton, Tecumseth and Tottenham. Since these four municipalities amalgamated, spending and property taxes have declined. General government spending has been reduced by more than 11% and there are 13 fewer local councillors and fewer municipal staff. The former reeve of Tottenham fought hard to stop that merger. She now acknowledges that the new municipality is leaner, more efficient and better equipped to attract and handle growth.

When asked if she would like to return to the old days, the former reeve replied, "In my heart I would, but in my head I know we shouldn't."

If successful restructuring is already in place, why do we need to change the legislation? It is because the current legislation is cumbersome, inefficient and expensive. Unless there is 100% consent by the affected municipalities, provincial legislation is needed to implement restructuring. In the past five years, only 16 restructurings were done. Twelve of the 16 required provincial legislation. In my mind that's not local decision-making and it's certainly not getting the provincial government out of the way of local decision-making.

Let me tell you how we're making it easier for municipalities to restructure themselves.

Under the current system, if only one municipality doesn't want to restructure, the other municipalities and all the taxpayers suffer. Under the proposed legislation, a group of municipalities will be able to restructure if the majority wants it. By "majority," I mean a majority of the municipalities representing a majority of the population. In fact, some municipalities have already told us that they want to amalgamate but the current system puts up too many roadblocks. I've also received requests since Bill 26 was introduced for municipalities that want to restructure under the new legislation.

I want to assure the House that any restructuring will be initiated locally. A commission will be appointed only on request either by at least one municipality or by a petition of residents. I should point out that regions and the restructured Oxford county are not included in the new process. This is because many regions are already actively involved in their own restructuring process and some, such as Ottawa-Carleton, recently completed the job of restructuring. Oxford county has done that as well, and that is why it is excluded from the new legislation.

As my colleagues know, the future of the GTA is currently being considered by the GTA Task Force headed by Dr Anne Golden. Again, it seemed reasonable to wait for the Golden report rather than include the regions of the GTA in this legislation.

For municipalities that are streamlining their operations, the proposed legislation includes a toolkit to help them. These tools will help municipalities reduce costs and raise revenues. As I said before, municipalities have been asking for these changes for many years.

Municipalities will be able to control costs by cutting out some of the inefficiencies and duplication. Currently, for a service such as municipal roads, both levels of local government have certain responsibilities. Even though each level has a defined role, overlap and waste occur. We're changing the legislation so that responsibilities for services such as this can be transferred from one level of local government to another.

For example, roads, fire services or transit could be assumed by the upper tier if there is a majority approval by the upper-tier council and a majority of local councils representing the majority of electors. I'd like to point out, however, that no changes will be made at this time to welfare or policing.

The large number of special-purpose bodies ties the hands of municipalities and prevents them from managing their budgets efficiently. Taxpayers support the budgets of special-purpose bodies but in many cases they have no say in who is appointed to the board or in the decisions they make. The proposed legislation will allow municipalities to change or even dissolve special-purpose bodies. Some examples of special-purpose bodies that could be dissolved or changed by municipalities are licensing commissions, parking authorities or transit commissions. A full list will be identified in the regulations.

Police services boards are exempt from dissolution. A review of the structure and financing of police was introduced last week by my colleague the Solicitor General. School boards will also be exempt from dissolution.

The proposed legislation will give broad, general authority to municipalities to charge user fees. Municipalities will be able to increase their revenue by establishing new fees or charges for services such as emergency false alarms. This means that people who use certain services will be the ones who pay for them, not all the taxpayers in the municipality.

I am confident that municipalities will be reasonable in the user fees that they charge. Under the current legislation municipalities are allowed to charge user fees for certain services, such as garbage collection or transit. Experience has shown that such fees charged have been fair and reasonable.

The new legislation will allow municipalities to license most retail businesses or trades and set appropriate fees. This is another area where the current legislation is grossly outdated. Right now, a municipality cannot even recover the cost of postage when it licenses a bakery. The $1 fee for a bakery licence is set out in legislation, and so is the $20 fee for a restaurant licence. This doesn't make any sense and obviously needs to be changed.

We have an excellent example of where this was handled very responsibly, and I'm referring to the city of Brantford, which received general licensing authority in 1985. I have every confidence that other municipalities will respond just as responsibly.

For years, municipalities have wanted to be able to establish private-public partnerships for service delivery. Our legislation will allow municipalities to make decisions on how their public utilities are provided, without a referendum. For example, if a municipality wants to privatize water services through a franchise, it will be able to do it without putting the question to voters.

Not many municipalities deliver gas utilities, and those that do are regulated by the Ontario Energy Board, so our legislation does not make any changes for the delivery of natural gas.

Regulations will also allow municipalities to downsize through early retirement. They will be able to extend early retirement on an unreduced pension until the year 2000.

Another area covered by the new legislation is performance measures. The province is getting out of the municipalities business. We've reduced or eliminated the conditions on grants, so they can now stop sending us the mountains of paper and information on how they spend their money.

Instead, this bill makes municipalities more accountable to the people who really need to know -- the residents themselves. It's the people who live in municipalities who need to know how well their municipalities are performing, so municipalities will have to publish the financial information their ratepayers need to know.

My colleague the Minister of Natural Resources is making some changes to the conservation authorities through this legislation. There will no longer be provincial appointees on conservation authorities. Membership on the boards will be controlled by municipalities. Municipalities will decide what the role or function of the conservation authorities should be. In fact they will even be able to dissolve conservation authorities.

Flood control will continue to be a municipal responsibility, whether there is a conservation authority or not. A conservation authority's power to levy will be restricted, and municipalities will be able to appeal their levy to the Mining and Lands Commissioner.

As you know, Mr Speaker, the Ministry of Transportation's roads grants have been brought into the block grant. Municipalities will have the freedom and flexibility to spend, based on their local roads needs, and they will also be able to streamline their programs and services.

The province will also have a transition fund to meet its commitment for certain projects and initiatives affected by the change. Maintenance costs associated with the sections of provincial highways that run through towns and cities will be funded as part of the block grant system.

I believe this legislation will help municipalities find ways to reduce costs and deliver services to taxpayers at a price they can afford.

The Association of Municipalities of Ontario issued a news release after the economic statement in which its president, Mr Terry Mundell, said: "We expected the cuts to be deep and we were right. We are prepared to take action, but we need continued cooperation from the province to eliminate red tape and outdated rules that tie our hands." Bill 26 is proof that this government is listening and moving in the direction of increased municipal autonomy.

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): As undoubtedly everybody in this assembly is aware, there has already been considerable controversy engendered by the presentation of this bill, controversy engendered by the way in which the bill was presented with absolutely no notice, controversy over the scope of the bill and the nature of its measures, controversy engendered by this government's determination to push this bill through before Christmas with no public hearings and with no opportunity for legitimate debate.

There will now at least be some public hearings despite the government's very strong resistance. There will be some opportunity to examine the details of this bill more fully and to propose amendments. There will even be time for the government to propose amendments as it is forced to acknowledge what it has done.

This preliminary debate on second reading can only be a precursor to what will now be a more intensive examination of the bill outside the Legislature itself. Even then it will be difficult to focus the hearings or to carry forward any kind of thorough amending process, because this bill simply covers too many areas. It makes too many fundamental changes to be able to do justice to it even with three weeks of hearings and a week for clause-by-clause consideration and the amending process.

I can't even begin to speak to the highlights of this bill in a thorough way. We cannot, in a two-day debate, speak even to the highlights of the bill in a thorough way. In the 90 minutes that I have as the leadoff speaker for our caucus to address this bill, I cannot begin to address the highlights.

This bill is 211 pages long. It affects 47 different pieces of legislation. There are single clauses in this bill that bring about fundamental changes that deserve to be debated and challenged in public hearings, and I can't even read this bill into the record in 90 minutes of debate time. But at least this debate that is about to begin, that will be given only two days, two days of debate before we've even begun to have a chance to analyse what's in the bill, at least now this will not be the only consideration that this bill receives before it becomes law.

I believe that the government's original intent in bringing forward this legislation, in wanting to ram it through despite its scope, was absolutely breathtaking in its arrogance and its sheer disregard of any due democratic process.

It is still impossible to debate this bill as it has been presented because it is not one bill but many. Each

part introduces sweeping changes unrelated to one another. Each requires due consideration on its own merits or the lack of them. Some parts give unprecedented powers to this government, dictatorial powers, yet this government presents the changes in an omnibus bill with no prior notice and no time allowed for debate.

Nor was there any consultation in the preparation of this bill, even though it becomes increasingly apparent that this is a bill that was developed in a great deal of detail over a very long period of time, because it was presented to us in its full 211 pages fully translated, yet this government could take no time for consultation, no time to give prior notice, allowed no time for debate. I suggest it was not because there wasn't enough time but because there was a deliberate desire on the part of this government to limit awareness of what it is doing.

Never before have we seen such an extensive piece of legislation prepared in such total secrecy. If you believe you are right as a government, if you believe you're going to have public support, I wonder why you would make such an effort to keep the public unaware, why you would be so determined to ram this legislation through before there could be due awareness or due debate.

We asked that very question over and over again in the Legislature last week, and the only answer we got back from the government was that the government needs to give itself these powers to back up its cuts. So let us call a spade a spade and let us see clearly that this is a budget bill by any other name, and ironically, it's a budget bill without a budget, because we have now gone, as we approach the end of this year, for the first time in history, a full year with no budget.

Again, we wonder why the government could not have a presented a budget. They've presented us with two expenditure statements. They've presented us with a budget bill to back up their budget-type measures. Why could they not have presented us with a full budget?

I suspect it's because this government does not want to be slowed down by such a time-consuming thing as public consultation on a budget or a full public debate on a full budget -- not before they have made their brutal cuts and established a direction of destruction of our public programs which will not be able to be reversed. This government would not want to be held accountable for the defence of a full budget before they have established their savings, as they refer to the cuts in the expenditure statement.

They said this government knows there have been few real savings yet, there have been only cuts, and so they need what they call a restructuring before there can be any real savings achieved. And that's what the government claims Bill 26 is all about. "It's just a restructuring bill so that we can make the cuts that have to be made."

Now, this government's view of what constitutes restructuring is as sweeping as this bill itself. It includes restructuring the way health care is provided to people in this province, restructuring the way our drugs are paid for, restructuring the way our municipalities are managed. It even goes so far as to restructure the way in which freedom of information is controlled.

Some of the changes are fundamental, some may seem to be much less drastic, but there is an underlying pervasive theme that emerges when you combine the government's brutal cuts with this "restructuring" bill. It is clear that this government wants to restructure our society, and our social programs in particular, to fit their vision of the world as they want it to be, and as they in fact need it to be if they are to bring in that promised tax cut in their first real budget.

So this government can't wait to debate the nature of its proposed restructuring. They can't wait for people to actually know what they're doing or what this province will look like when the restructuring is done. And they certainly aren't going to take any chance that anyone might have objections to the way the restructuring is being carried out. So they give themselves unilateral, sweeping powers to step in and make the decisions, or give others the ability to make the decisions, with no need for legislation or debate in a forum where the decisions can be publicly challenged.

After all, debate would be time-consuming. Legislation brings people's attention to what is being proposed. It forces dissident views to be taken into consideration, or at least heard, and the government, this government, simply can't take the time for that. They need to find some savings before they can bring in their budget and their tax cut, and they need to make those savings happen fast.

This government talked about partnerships with municipalities. Yet they tell them nothing about what is in this particular piece of legislation, and they certainly didn't want them to find out before it was law.

They talk about partnership with the Ontario Hospital Association. They say they're only doing what the partners want, but the partners had no idea what the minister was about to do. The minister still claims that he was only doing what his partners in the Ontario Hospital Association asked for, even when they have said as clearly as they can possibly say it, "What you are doing goes far beyond anything we discussed."

This government talks about partnerships with physicians, but they discuss only the issues the government plans to act on. The other steps the government is going to take never get mentioned, and there is no openness in that kind of a partnership.

The pharmacists now seem to be completely ignored as partners. They offered consultation, and they were not talked to at all, because the government knew what it was planning to do and knew the pharmacists would not agree. The pharmacists have been forbidden to even try to stir up a little bit of opposition. This government's message is: "You cannot be a partner unless you agree to my dictates. It's my terms or nothing at all."

I think it's important to try to give at least a flavour of what this bill does at the beginning of the debate, just a few of the highlights of this ominous bill that takes so many changes under its wing and that the government wanted to ram through in two weeks with one vote on the whole thing. So we have proposed just the 10 top reasons to oppose Bill 26:

(1) It gives the Minister of Health unilateral power to close or amalgamate hospitals and to terminate services that hospitals provide.

(2) It allows for $225 million in new user fees for prescription drugs, in effect taxing the sick.

(3) It deregulates the cost controls on prescription medication, leading to sharp increases in the price of drugs.

(4) It gives the Minister of Health unilateral power to remove health care services from OHIP coverage, meaning these services will have to be paid for by the public.

(5) The Minister of Health is given the power to inspect, copy and disclose personal medical records.

(6) The government can place a lien on your house or car if your highway tolls aren't paid promptly.

(7) It gives the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing new powers to merge or dissolve municipalities.

(8) It allows municipalities to charge new per-person poll taxes whether or not you use various municipal services.

(9) It implements new user fees for freedom of information requests and provides greater powers to the government to keep files secret.

(10) It gives the government the power to claw back over $200 million in payments to retired civil servants.

Those are the top 10 of the moment. The list keeps changing as little by little we become aware of all that this legislation would do.

In spite of the fact that this legislation is so sweeping in its scope, I don't suppose any of us should be surprised that this is a government that sees no need for more than a few hours' debate on all of these measures taken together, because this is exactly the same government which believed it was doing the opposition a favour giving us just two days to debate its expenditure statement.

They make huge cuts that will have devastating impacts on programs and people across this province. Now they bring in legislation that gives them enormous power to make those cuts possible, and yet they think it is somehow doing the opposition a favour by allowing any discussion in the Legislature at all.

If you needed any further evidence of this government's total disdain for the democratic process, you have it now. We have had much past evidence of a government that is impatient to carry out the nastiest parts of its agenda with as little public scrutiny as possible.

We have a government that did not bring the Legislature back until September 26, almost three months after it was elected. Now, the House leader gets indignant at our criticism that they were late bringing the House back. He said he brought it back according to the schedule; they even delayed it a day in respect of the Jewish holiday. But this House could have been recalled in July, when the first expenditure statement was brought in. In fact, we could have had a budget then. We could have had the budget debate that we would have welcomed when this government first started down its slash-and-burn path.

But that would not be consistent with the style that this government has adopted from its very first hours.

This was the government that cancelled its hearings on school closures because it didn't want to hear from people who would have vested interests. This is the government that rammed through labour legislation with no public hearings. This is the government that closed halfway houses with no notice at all. This is the government that is preparing to privatize our public sector programs with little or no debate. This is a government that still refuses to present a full budget after six months in government.

Then, with no notice, while we were in the lockup, required by the government if we wanted to learn of its cuts, this government slipped in an omnibus bill, an omnibus bill that is usually a housekeeping bill. Now, were we expecting an omnibus bill in the House before Christmas? Yes, we were. There's always, or often at least, an omnibus bill. But we didn't know what would be in this bill, we didn't know it was going to come in while we were in the lockup and we certainly expected that whatever omnibus bill was brought in it would fit the usual description of items that might not need a lot of debate or public consultation.

This bill that this government brought in while we were all in the lockup learning about the cuts affects everything from the Municipal Act to pay equity to drug pricing. It gives sweeping powers to the government to close hospitals or to amalgamate municipalities, and this government wanted all this passed by Christmas. This government wanted in the worst way possible to exercise the most dictatorial abuse of power in the history of this province.

The government said we were notified that the omnibus bill was coming, that it was not without notice; and we did know it was coming. We did, in fact, expect it to be a little more than usual given the rumours we were hearing, but we had no idea it would be so sweeping. It was particularly offensive that this government would bring in this bill during the budget or non-budget lockup.

I guess they hoped that the opposition and the media would somehow not notice the unprecedented changes of this huge new bill, and here again is arrogance beyond belief, arrogance and complete lack of respect, not only for the role of opposition in a democracy, but even for the capabilities of opposition members. Did they really think we would not notice, that we wouldn't understand? Did they really think we wouldn't do everything in our power to stop this?

Who knows what they thought, because their action to me continues to be absolutely inexplicable. Maybe the only answer is that this government simply didn't care. Introducing this bill while we were in a lockup was rather like dismissing us out of hand in the most offensive way possible. Yet, in a way, it worked. It worked because it succeeded in diffusing our critique of the cuts they were making that same day, diffusing our critique of the broken promises that littered the political landscape that Wednesday while we focused on trying to stop the next and even worse step this government was about to take.

But we should remember, as we debate this new draconian bill, how closely this bill, this bully bill, is linked to those very cuts that they announced in their non-budget expenditure statement that same day, and how it is serving to pave the way for the savings they want defined to fund their tax cut in their next budget or first budget.

This is a budget bill. It backs up the budget-type cuts in the revenue proposals; revenue proposals like new user fees, new user fees for health care. Yet we have no budget; we don't have a budget debate because there's no budget. If this had been a budget, there would have had to have been some debate, but that would have been much t