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

December 2, 1996

36th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

l131 - Mon 2 Dec 1996 / Lun 2 Déc 1996

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION

EDUCATION REFORM

WORLD AIDS DAY

SLOW-MOVING VEHICLES

SCHOOL BUS SAFETY

TENANT PROTECTION

DRINKING AND DRIVING

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

WORLD AIDS DAY

LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION

ORAL QUESTIONS

CHILD POVERTY

EDUCATION FINANCING

FISCAL AND ECONOMIC POLICY

HEALTH CARE REFORM

ECONOMIC STATEMENT

CHILD CARE CENTRES

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

DEVELOPMENT CHARGES

FAMILY SUPPORT PLAN

ONTARIO FILM INDUSTRY

LONG-TERM-CARE REFORM

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

TIME-SHARE FRAUD

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

PETITIONS

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

OMNIBUS LEGISLATION

ABORTION

EDUCATION REFORM

CHILD CARE

BLOOR VILLAGE VIDEO

USER FEES

ONTARIO CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTE

COURT CHALLENGES PROGRAM

LONG-TERM CARE

TEACHERS' PREPARATION TIME

PUBLIC LIBRARIES

BEER STORE OPENINGS

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

FIREARMS CONTROL

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT

ORDERS OF THE DAY

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

The House met at 1332.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION

Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): I'm proud to be the first speaker in the House to congratulate Dalton McGuinty, our new Liberal leader. I have known Dalton for many years and we share riding boundaries in Ottawa. I'm confident we'll all find in him a strong and compassionate Liberal leader and a future Premier of Ontario.

EDUCATION REFORM

Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): I note that the Minister of Education has extended the consultation deadline for the high school reform to January 2, 1997. Even so, many of my constituents as well as parents across this province are still unhappy. They are unhappy with the process and the content of the consultations held by the ministry.

The high school reform initiative has incredible ramifications throughout the system and will affect the system for the next 10 years or so. Many parents of children currently in grade 7 are worried at the moment.

Parent Diane Van Abbe of Toronto wrote to me and she says:

"I am a mother of three children in elementary school. The oldest is in grade 7, a very vulnerable position" to be in at the moment. "If the proposed high school education reform takes place, he will be graduating with the children who are in grade 8 this year -- double the amount of high school graduates in one year! At a recent public forum meeting, the question was asked: `Have the universities/colleges been made aware of this fact? How are they preparing for this? What plan does the board of education have in place to deal with this problem?' The answer was `None.'"

WORLD AIDS DAY

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): As an honorary patron of a community organization, Voices of Positive Women, I'm pleased today to rise in the House and make a statement with respect to World AIDS Day. December 1 is a day of celebration for people living with HIV/AIDS as well as a day of remembrance for those who have died in Canada and worldwide.

As of July 1996, UNAIDS estimated that there were over 22 million people currently living with HIV/AIDS with over five new infections each minute. In Canada over 14,000 AIDS cases had been reported to Health Canada's Laboratory Centre for Disease Control by September 1996, and when adjusted for reporting delay and underreporting, this number rises to over 20,000. This does not include those who are HIV positive and have not yet progressed to AIDS.

I want to urge the federal government to respond to the community's cry for renewal of the national AIDS strategy. Most people will know that the national AIDS strategy will run out -- phase 2 in March 1997 -- and there has been no commitment from the federal government to renew its funding to support for this important area of research and coordination with respect to this disease.

Certainly, under the circumstances of the expansion of this disease and the infection rates, we know it doesn't make sense that Canada will be abandoning its efforts to deal with HIV/AIDS. Our main hope for World AIDS Day is that the national AIDS strategy is renewed and I add my voice to join with the community to call for that.

SLOW-MOVING VEHICLES

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): As you know, Bill 176,

An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act with respect to Slow Moving Vehicle Signs, came into effect yesterday on December 1. This act makes changes which, among others, will require vehicles that cannot maintain the speed of at least 40 kilometres an hour to use a slow-moving vehicle sign, including roadbuilding equipment, horse-drawn carriages and farm and antique vehicles.

People have been calling for these improvements for many years in order to increase the safety of those who travel Ontario roads.

Mrs Morgan has travelled from Brighton today to be present in the Legislature on the day these amendments to the Highway Traffic Act come into effect. She watches today, as a representative of some 20 years of dedication through the Ontario Farm Safety Association, dedication to better road safety laws in Ontario for all who travel here.

I would ask the honourable members today to carry this important message to their constituents: If you see the red and orange triangular sign which designates a slow-moving vehicle, please reduce your speed, stay well back, proceed with caution and pass only when it is safe to do so.

Having said this, I'd like to take a moment to acknowledge the commitment of Mrs Patricia Morgan, president of the Ontario Farm Safety Association. Please join me in welcoming Mrs Morgan here today.

SCHOOL BUS SAFETY

Mr Pat Hoy (Essex-Kent): I would like to take this opportunity to publicly thank the members of this House and the government for their unanimous support last Thursday of my private member's bill to protect Ontario school children riding school buses. I owe a debt of gratitude to the thousands of supporters of my bill in every community in the province who have lobbied the government on my behalf to get the tough measures contained in this bill implemented, as well as the Ontario School Bus Association, the Ontario police association, the Federated Women's Institutes of Ontario, and many, many school boards, municipalities and groups, all of whom raised public awareness of the problem.

Most particularly, I want to thank Larry and Colleen Marcuzzi for their selfless commitment to this cause. Their courage is an inspiration to us all.

The next hurdle is to have my bill scheduled for committee and brought back to this House for third reading and royal assent. I have already spoken with many of the organizations and individuals supporting my bill and they are poised and ready to begin the campaign to ensure that Bill 78 is passed quickly.

I look forward to working with the government and the minister, Mr Palladini, to accomplish this and improve child safety in Ontario.

TENANT PROTECTION

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): Tomorrow, December 3, we celebrate International Day of Disabled Persons. Unfortunately, this will not be a day of celebration for disabled tenants across this province if the government's proposed Tenant Protection Act is passed. There are three areas of concern to tenants with disabilities.

First, the loss of rent control will mean huge shortages of accessible units. Without rent control, the few limited units that do exist will be in great demand and landlords know that where there is little supply exorbitant rents can be charged.

Second is the question of tenants living in care homes. The proposed tribunal to be set up to deal with landlord and tenant matters would be making decisions about the adequacy of tenant health care, and that is clearly not their area of expertise. If a disabled tenant lives in a care home and the landlord decides the tenant needs more services than the landlord can provide, that tenant can be evicted.

The third concern is that the proposals will make it possible for landlords or property owners to demolish care homes or convert these apartments to condominiums without municipal approval. What a blow to any tenant, let alone a disabled tenant. The tenant must now start to search for another apartment, one that will probably take him or her farther away from family, caregivers and support workers.

Without a doubt, the new Tenant Protection Act will surely compromise the rights of tenants with disabilities. It is an outright crime to subject disabled tenants to this type of anguish and indeed discrimination, and I urge the government to scrap their proposed legislation.

DRINKING AND DRIVING

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): The holiday season RIDE program began last weekend. This year, our police officers have a powerful new tool to help them. Now drivers' licences are automatically suspended for 90 days if a certified breathalyser test finds the driver's blood alcohol level to be over the legal limit. On November 29, the first day when administrative driver's licence suspension was in effect, 53 Ontario drivers received 90-day licence suspensions.

It already appears that ADLS is making people think twice before they drink and drive. In Metro Toronto only seven drivers received 90-day suspensions in the first three days of the RIDE program, compared with 21 drivers who were charged with impaired driving in the same three-day period last year.

While ADLS is an effective deterrent against impaired driving, it is just the beginning. I look forward to the passage of my private member's Bill 85, which will require education and treatment, lengthens licence suspensions and permanently revokes the licences of drivers who have repeatedly committed this crime. We still need tougher measures against the hard-core, repeat offenders who commit the majority of impaired driving offences.

I too welcome the new leader of the official opposition, Dalton McGuinty.

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): On Thursday I was fortunate to be able to participate in an environment rally which was held outside the Minister of Environment's office. We were all dismayed to see that the Minister of Environment himself was not present and chose not to address the groups which arrived to tell the minister what we have been saying for some time, that this Conservative government is paying absolutely no heed to what the environmentalists in Ontario are saying about the changes they are making to the environment laws in Ontario.

As a member who comes from Windsor, I can tell you that it took a Liberal minister during a Liberal government to get scrubbers on the incinerator in Detroit on Zug Island. When you come from my part of Ontario, it is critical to see what kind of environment laws you need in the province of Ontario.

We are very disappointed that while everyone took their time during a busy

schedule in the cold weather on Thursday to participate, to speak with the minister, the minister himself couldn't take the time to meet and speak with the people who are truly concerned. We must say too that while it was snowing and cold, he really should have taken the time to explain why he is changing the assessment rules, why he is changing it so that companies which really are the bad apples in that business are not going to be told to toe the line for the environment in Ontario.

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Floyd Laughren (Nickel Belt): The Sudbury Health Services Restructuring Report is fundamentally flawed. It has neglected to take into account Sudbury's unique nature of health care. It will cripple Sudbury's ability to act as a health care referral centre and jeopardize both the quality of care and the range of services offered by Sudbury's hospital system.

The member for Sudbury East and I have made recommendations which we believe will enhance this report and subsequently help the constituents of the Sudbury region. I hope the Harris government has the common sense to heed our advice and pursue the changes that are needed to this report.

First, the new system the report provides is critically undersized and does not have the flexibility and capacity required to meet the real needs of Sudbury and northeastern Ontario. Secondly, the commission must come clean as to the number of staff layoffs expected. A labour adjustment plan must be clearly outlined to the employees. Once this is done, the numbers will show the devastating impact layoffs will have on patient care.

Furthermore, the report ignores the subject of community-based care, transitional care and home care. The implementation time line is too fast, too arbitrary and is arguably unworkable. Finally, the operational savings must be reinvested into Sudbury's community.

The current recommendations combined with the absence of leadership from the minister have created a crisis of confidence in the future of hospital care in Sudbury.

WORLD AIDS DAY

Mrs Julia Munro (Durham-York): Members of this House know that yesterday was World AIDS Day. I am pleased to be able to reiterate this government's and the Ministry of Health's five-part plan to combat HIV and AIDS.

First, we have announced a reinvestment of $2 million to begin an HIV viral load testing program which has already begun and will be fully operational by the new year.

Second, between June 1995 and July 1996, we spent more than $11 million to provide HIV and AIDS patients with important AIDS drugs. This is approximately $5 million more than the previous year.

Third, we have taken steps to reduce the amount of paperwork that doctors had to complete, to give people easier access to promising new AIDS-related drugs by placing them on the facilitated access list. The slashing of red tape and paperwork ensures that these drugs are more readily available to the people who need them most.

Fourth, we have maintained funding for community-based AIDS programs. This allows communities to operate programs that meet their needs, such as counselling and education.

Finally, we have asked the federal Minister of Health to extend the national AIDS strategy. This plan demonstrates this government's commitment to people living with HIV and AIDS.

LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): I beg to inform the House that Mr Dalton J.P. McGuinty, member for the electoral district of Ottawa South, is recognized as leader of Her Majesty's loyal opposition.

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I wonder if we might have unanimous consent to say a few words about the new leader. He doesn't have a pension any more, but he got a --

The Speaker: The Premier seeks unanimous consent. Agreed? Premier.

Hon Mr Harris: I do want to take the opportunity to say a few words of congratulations to the member for Ottawa South. It was with a great deal of interest for those of us who have been through this experience not just to watch the weekend but to reflect upon, in many cases, years and months of campaigning and of travelling the province and, as you get closer, long months and long days and long hours. I can say this, that I don't think the late bedtime phased any of the honourable candidates for leader and I think it showed, and my congratulations for that.

I want to congratulate particularly all the members of the Liberal Party who put their names forward as candidates this past weekend. I know that having spent these past months on the hustings, you'll have many cherished memories, all of you. You'll have renewed insight, I believe, into this great province of Ontario. You will have found many solutions to the problems, more so than there can possibly be. I know that from travelling the province myself. Particularly during leadership and particularly in opposition there are lots of ideas out there, but there are a lot of great people in this province of Ontario and you've had the opportunity to meet them.

To the honourable member for Ottawa South, you've been charged with an important responsibility. There will be some emotional debate, there will be demands from the Chair to come to order, it may seem as if questions you ask have no definitive answer, but then when your caucus meeting is finally over, you will have to come to question period and to the Legislature. I say that because I've been there. I've been there in opposition and I've been there in government.

I was interested to learn that you are the first leader of the Liberal Party to come from eastern Ontario since George Perry Graham in 1907. Mr Graham served for only nine months as leader back then because he left Ontario politics to take a position in the cabinet of Sir Wilfrid Laurier. I'm not sure of the significance of that precedent. I'm going to leave it to others to draw their own conclusions.

But in all seriousness to the Legislature, I want to say, Leader, that we have served together in this place for six years. We've come to know you as someone who has a strong commitment to your family -- and I offer my congratulations today to your family -- that you have a wide range of interests, both political and personal, a popular profile and commitment to the people you represent in Ottawa South and now the challenge, of course, to take that across the province.

I was interested to read in the Star this morning about how the availability of preprinted lawn signs was an important factor in seeking this office in the first place and the decision to follow in the footsteps of your late father as the MPP for Ottawa South. I might say to you, as the younger half of a successful father-son combination, you set a good example for my son Mike Jr who, I have to tell you, on many occasions thinks the name is a drawback. Not every day in the school grounds has he thought this was a positive thing.

I want to say directly to you that, having been elected leader of my party just a very short six years ago, I understand the challenges you're going to be facing today. Your expectations are limitless, the demands on your time are endless, your office is phoneless, and you will find quite a significant change. You will need your family to help you with that change; you will need your friends to help you with that change. There will be some difficult adjustments. You and your family will face many challenges; some will be very exciting, some will be very difficult as you all adjust now to a different way of living.

I say to all members of the House, and the leader of the New Democratic Party I'm sure is beginning to understand this, that it is different and it does change. It's especially true, I would say, representing a riding that is not within the same commute distance from Queen's Park as many members of the House have. That adjustment is even more difficult as well for a family.

I want to say that I look forward to what I know will be many lively exchanges in this Legislature. I think that conflict of ideas and of competing visions for the direction of our province are what bring the vitality, the vibrancy to the political process in our parliamentary democracy that we cherish and that I believe this great province is very fortunate to enjoy. Congratulations and welcome to you on this, your very first day in the Legislature as Leader of the Opposition.

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): I would also like to congratulate the member for Ottawa South on his election as leader of the Liberal Party and the official opposition. I can say that the member for Ottawa South and I have something in common: We went to the same law school. He predated me by a couple of years. I know he and I share many of the same friends in the Ottawa legal community. Unfortunately, too many of them are Liberals. But we'll have our chance to talk about that and I'm sure even argue about it.

I knew his father. I, in fact, had the privilege of serving on committee with his father when I was first elected to this House. His father brought a delightful sense of humour to everything we did in this House. I would say to you that you will need some of your father's sense of humour in the weeks and months to come.

Like many of you, I stayed up very late Saturday night watching for the results on television. I can say to you I've never watched so much Hockey Night in Canada in my life. It wasn't until 2:30 that I couldn't make it any more, so I already appreciate your stamina and your capacity to work.

I want to wish you good fortune with your caucus. You will have work to do there. I also wish you good fortune in getting some answers from the government when we do come to question period. I would say to you that I know that all of the Irish of the Ottawa Valley have been celebrating not just Saturday night but are probably still celebrating, knowing something about that community and all the towns of the Ottawa Valley, which I'm sure are all very proud of you. I've had a few telephone calls from friends of mine in Ottawa who tell me that everyone is happy and everyone there congratulates you.

I think it's important for our democratic institutions to go through the kind of process you have gone through. I know from talking with your caucus colleagues that this has been a long, hard march and that you have earned your position after much long, hard work.

I look forward to our relationship both here in the Legislature and on the hustings. I'm sure it's going to prove to be a very interesting one. Congratulations.

The Speaker: The leader of the official opposition.

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): I want to thank the Premier and the leader of the third party for their kind remarks. I'll cherish them especially because I assume they'll be the last until the date of my retirement.

We had a very exciting convention, as every one of you will have heard by now. It took us into the wee hours, the late hours of the morning, 5:30, 6 o'clock, until the final results were announced. I want to advise members who did not have the opportunity to see it on TV that it's out on video. The abridged version is available in a 15-volume set. If you can believe it, we've got films of the caucus doing the macarena. You may have seen my macarena. It's sort of like Al Gore's but not quite as colourful.

I want to take the opportunity to thank all the candidates who participated in the race. They have all been strengthened in their capacity as public representatives. The Premier made reference to this, but one of the things the race does is that it requires you to vacate Queen's Park.

From time to time, of course, we get caught up in everything that goes on in here, and there's no doubt that what we do here is important public business, but sometimes there's a marked difference between that and what's important, what's on the minds of people at their doorstep and when you get to meet them in cafeterias, in church basements and wherever we could pull a group of people together to speak with them.

It's an invigorating experience to get out there and get plugged into what people are thinking and bring that back with us, and I think we're all better armed and better able to deal with the issues we address in here.

Politics for me remains an honourable profession, and reference was made to my father, who sat here between 1987 and 1990. I grew up as one of 10 children at home, but one of the things he used to impress upon all of us was that we had an obligation, that it wasn't good enough simply to get up in the morning, go to work and pay taxes, that if the opportunity should ever present itself, even if the opportunity did not present itself, "Find an avenue, find an outlet to serve your community."

I am delighted to have the privilege of serving the greater community of Ontario and I'm honoured to have the support of all my caucus members. I'm excited about the future. I'm especially proud to serve as leader of the Ontario Liberal Party, a party with a long and distinguished tradition in our province. I look forward to engaging you, Mr Premier, and your colleagues in debate during the course of this session and I look forward, of course, to forming the government in 1999.

I want just for one moment to say hello to some of the members of my family sitting in the gallery -- there are only 28 members of my immediate family here today -- who have been there for me throughout this undertaking. I have relied on them for advice, inspiration and support, and without them I simply could not have done it.

Applause.

Mr McGuinty: Thank you very much.

The Speaker: Just as an anecdote, I was out Saturday as well and I knew it was going late because I phoned home and my son answered the phone. I said, "Run downstairs and tell me who's winning the Liberal leadership convention." He came back and said, "Vancouver." I said I'd never heard of him, but "Good luck."

ORAL QUESTIONS

CHILD POVERTY

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Premier. Child poverty is a big problem in Ontario, and you and your government are doing nothing about it. Compared to other provinces, we have the greatest number of children living in poverty, a staggering 350,000. In 1996 over 70,000 kids in Metro alone used the food bank, and sadly the number of children growing up in shelters instead of their own homes has grown dramatically.

The big difference between you and me is that I believe we have a responsibility to deal with child poverty. I'm committed to doing just that. You've been in government for 17 long months and your policies have only made it worse. Premier, when are you going to do something of substance to help Ontario's kids?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I appreciate the question. I know, as do our caucus, our party and our cabinet as well the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, that we have joined forces with the other first ministers from across the country to deal with the whole issue of children: children's hopes and dreams and aspirations within this great country of Canada.

I might add and give credit to the premiers of British Columbia and Saskatchewan, who brought it to our meetings, enthusiastically endorsed by all the premiers and now working in conjunction with the federal government in a coordinated way. Minister Pettigrew from the federal government I think received plaudits from the other provinces to deal with the situation where clearly not all are sharing in what are the beginnings of recovery in this province and the country.

Mr McGuinty: I didn't get any answer in that question at all, nothing there that would lend any comfort to kids in Ontario.

Let me tell you what it means to grow up poor in Ontario. It means you're more likely to do poorly in school, it means you're more likely to have behaviour problems, it means you're more likely to get into trouble with the law, it means you're more likely to need social assistance and it means you're more likely to need health care services.

One in five kids in Ontario lives in poverty, and your policies have only made it worse: your policy to cut social assistance, a program that almost one half-million Ontario kids rely on; you've got a policy to cut junior kindergarten; you've cut funding to children's aid; and you've cut women's shelters as well. The mess you've created with the family support plan and the threat you've made against child care workers are also hurting kids. Your actions in government are hurting kids.

Premier, when will you start making a real investment in Ontario's children?

Hon Mr Harris: The reason I sought the leadership of this party and developed the Common Sense Revolution campaign in this province and our whole raison d'être is for my children and for their generation, that they can have similar opportunities to ours or better ones than we had. Unfortunately, after 10 years of your party and the NDP, my children and their generation were looking forward to a legacy of debt.

What have we done? We are reducing that deficit, taking that burden off them.

In addition to balancing the books, getting our affairs in order, taking that burden, specific proposals are new funding for nutrition programs in elementary schools; enhanced child care support, $200 million over five years, bringing funding for child care to the highest level in our province's history, significantly higher than any other province on a per capita basis; funding for immunization of school children; expansion of early intervention services, $10 million annually for expectant mothers and families with children under six to help implement wellness strategies that target at-risk population; expansion of a leading-edge computer technology, $40 million; $59 million with Ontario summer jobs --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you.

Mr McGuinty: That sounds more like bureaucratic tinkering than real action on behalf of Ontario's kids. Maybe the problem is this: You know, the damnedest thing about kids is they can't get their act together. They don't organize busloads to march on Queen's Park, they don't write us as MPPs, they don't telephone us. What that means is that we have a very special responsibility as members of this House to represent those concerns.

I don't feel, and anybody who knows anything about kids in this province doesn't feel, that your government is properly representing the interests of children here. Ontario kids are counting on us to make their lives better. I'm going to be a voice for them. I'm going to propose programs that will make a difference. Premier, when are you going to do that?

Hon Mr Harris: Before I was cut off, I listed about 12, and they're there. Let me say that I welcome an added voice, in addition to my own and our cabinet and our caucus and our colleagues, for children.

What have been the results of some of the programs so far? The results have been that children in Ontario are the best off anywhere they are in the entire country. We have more child care dollars and more child care spaces per capita than any other jurisdiction in the country.

Between December 1989 and December 1994, we had a 121% increase in the number of families with children on social assistance under the NDP. Since December 1994, our policies have led to an 11% decline in the number of families with children on social assistance in this province.

So the policies are there, they are working, children are better off. But I have to tell you, there is more that we need yet to do. It's why the first ministers have set the priorities they have; it's why we've instructed our minister; it's why we're in politics, and now we are happy to have another voice from the Liberal Party to help us.

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My second question is also for the Premier. I believe that of all the things that government can do for people to prepare them for the future, the most important is to provide them with the best possible education. Not only does education allow people to make a success of themselves, it allows our province as a whole to succeed. You and I both know that in a global economy, the best jobs and the best quality of life depend on a world-class education.

At a time when we should be investing in our future through education, you've cut junior kindergarten, you've increased class sizes, you've forced more students into portables and you've increased tuition fees.

Premier, would you not agree that the quality of our future depends on the quality of the education we offer our people in this province?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I know the Minister of Education agrees and I'm sure he'd be glad to answer.

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Education and Training): Yes, I'm very pleased to address that question by the Leader of the Opposition. In fact, as the member probably knows and as I've said in this chamber before, we have found ourselves with an education system where our students, our young people in Ontario, are not performing as well in international standards, international tests, as their peers in other countries and other provinces. We are moving now very quickly to change our education system, to improve it, to set higher standards for our students, to have a more rigorous curriculum for our students, to test better for our students.

We are also looking at the legacy of the last decade, where we have in those 10 years put 8,000 additional portables in our school system across the province. I find that deplorable. I find the state of our education system when we took office to be deplorable. We are making those improvements. We are making them for the benefit of the students of this province.

Mr McGuinty: Nobody here is indicating that education is perfect in Ontario, but I think the very last thing that you would do is take money out of it. We need every cent in there spent in the most effective way possible. The last thing you'd do is take money out of it.

One of the big differences between we Liberals over here and you Tories over there is that we see education as an investment in our future; you see it purely as an expense. You talk about making education a priority, but our students, teachers and parents all know that the only time education is a priority for this Conservative government is when you're looking for more money to cut.

Post-secondary education is a good example. Thanks to your cuts, Ontario now ranks 10th out of 10 in per-student funding. We are last, and that doesn't bode well for our future. When it comes to other things this government does, you like to cite your spending in relation to the national average. Minister, why is it, when it comes to post-secondary education, we have to settle for last place?

Hon Mr Snobelen: I thank the honourable member for the question, because I think if I can point out to him the difference between this party and his party, it's very simple. When we look to the future of children in this province, we look at their whole future.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order. Members of the official opposition, it's difficult when you're all heckling.

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): Yes, I want to hear John again.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Apparently you're not that hoarse; I can hear a few comments.

Hon Mr Snobelen: Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I thank you because I believe this is an important distinction. It's not just partisan politics, it's an important distinction, because we look at the whole future for the young people of this province, and that means having the opportunity for a decent job and a career and to raise a family in this province. That means not saddling them with the kind of high debt your government has or the high spending your government has. It means leaving them with some investment in this province and a chance for a real job, and that's a task we're taking on, preparing the future for those young people. I take that task very seriously.

Mr McGuinty: Talking about borrowing money, it's going to cost taxpayers in this province a total of $12 billion to fund this tax cut. You could do one heck of a lot in education with $12 billion.

I believe our children need an education that will enable them not only to survive but to thrive in the 21st century, to secure the best jobs and meet the demands of responsible citizenship. For me, that starts with junior kindergarten. One of the first decisions you made was to cut funding to early childhood education, to take away the tools which allowed our kids to get a jump-start on learning. Minister, will you today admit that your decision to cut junior kindergarten was wrong and shortsighted? Will you restore funding to junior kindergarten?

Hon Mr Snobelen: No. Having spent the last year and a half or so looking at not only the education system in Ontario but education systems around the world, I can tell you this: What has happened to the education system in Ontario is a lack of standards, and we are restoring standards to the education system.

What has happened is that we have spent money outside of the classroom that should be directed at the classroom to make a difference in young people's lives. We are correcting that, because we believe a more affordable system, a more accountable system and a higher quality system is an absolute imperative for this government. We are moving forward quickly on that front.

FISCAL AND ECONOMIC POLICY

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): My question is for the Minister of Finance. Last week, the Minister of Finance let the people of Ontario down. He told them about the government's phoney tax scheme, but he refused to tell people across Ontario where the $3 billion in cuts will come from to pay for his tax scheme. People across this province know that the $3 billion in further cuts will hurt health care, education, colleges, universities and municipalities, and they also know it will cost thousands of further jobs lost.

Can the Minister of Finance tell us now where the $3 billion in cuts will come from, and can he guarantee that he will not be offloading responsibility for important services like health care and social services on to the municipal tax base? Can he guarantee that?

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): The leader of the third party knows full well -- he was in committee for the better part of an hour, until he decided to go to a scrum --

Mr Floyd Laughren (Nickel Belt): Oh, Jeez.

Hon Mr Eves: It's true. Gilles was there. Excuse me.

As I explained to the honourable member on Thursday, when the government is in a position to announce its restructuring exercise, it will do so, but it's not going to do so in a thoughtless and careless manner. Municipalities and hospitals were told on November 29, 1995, what funding levels for the fiscal year 1997-98 would be. That is a full 15 months or more before those fiscal years started. I appreciate that you may not be able to understand that, because your government never did that. As a matter of fact, in 1994 your Treasurer informed municipalities --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you. Minister of Finance, come to order, please. Supplementary.

Mr Gilles Pouliot (Lake Nipigon): Minister, allow me to continue the same line of questioning on your fiscal plan. Last week when you released your so-called economic statement, you exuded confidence, and yet at the marketplace, once you step out of here, out of the media room, you don't find the same confidence among shoppers, among Ontarians.

I would like to turn your attention to last week's Report on Business. It says, "Where have all the shoppers gone?" Keep in mind that demographics are two thirds of everything. This is what Mike McCracken of Informetrica says: "I would love to be an optimist. But we won't get the real growth in disposable income to sustain any kind of consumer strength in the coming years."

You have to snap out of it. You're about to release tax cuts on the people of Ontario, and yet job cuts and $3 billion in expenditure cuts --

The Speaker: Thank you, member.

Hon Mr Eves: Consumer confidence is up 19.2% in the province of Ontario in this calendar year. Those are the Conference Board of Canada's figures. New housing starts are up in excess of 21%. House sales are up 24%. There are 127,000 net new jobs created since July 1, 1995. I know you find that difficult to believe, representing a party whose legacy to employment was a loss of 10,000 jobs in the five years you were there, but 127,000 net new jobs have been created in Ontario in the last 16 months.

Mr Pouliot: Save me your political spin. Numero uno, bankruptcies are at an all-time high. Credit cards, plastico: all-time high. Job rate among young people: 15.5% unemployment. This is what the bond rating agencies, the people who grade those people -- and the only reason Ontario was not downgraded is because of his zeal to cut yet more jobs and more into the economy. This is what they're telling you: If you're off a single one percentage point in your projection, you will have to raise another $2.8 billion. That's $3 billion that you have yet to announce --

Mr Dan Newman (Scarborough Centre): You're off several points.

Mr Pouliot: -- plus $2.8 billion on top of the $7 billion that's already been announced. This government, this minister will have us in the poorhouse in no time. When are you going to come clean?

Hon Noble Villeneuve (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, minister responsible for francophone affairs): Listen to who's talking. Wow.

Mr Pouliot: When are you going to come clean and tell us about the real projection for the province of Ontario? Tell us, Minister.

Interjections.

The Speaker: I ask the government members to come to order, please. It's very difficult to hear the question. Have you finished putting the question? Yes, you have. Minister.

Hon Mr Eves: He is referring, of course, with respect to the projections of DBRS, and they're quite accurate as far as they go, but they say, "If the province of Ontario's forecast was out by 1% a year for four consecutive years, there would be a necessity to find another $2.8 billion." He's quite correct, but he also knows that in this fiscal year that we're currently in, our projections were 1.9 real GDP growth. We're now saying it's going to be 2.3, and most private forecasters are well ahead of that. What he's not saying is the other side of the coin.

If we underestimate how the economy performs by 1% a year for four consecutive years we will have a $2.8-billion surplus, or we will balance the books of the province one year ahead of time. Heaven forbid that should happen in Ontario.

HEALTH CARE REFORM

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): My next question is for the Minister of Health. We've heard from sources inside your government that you are contemplating moving the responsibility for community health services to municipalities. I asked you this question last week and you did not deny it.

You know that community health centres represent $103 million worth of health care expenditure. They provide care in many communities across this province. They provide integrated care to the populations they serve, allowing people to see the appropriate health care professional at the appropriate time, saving money and providing complete health care services to the populations they serve.

Minister, last week you would not deny this $103-million shift of community health centres to municipalities. Are you still contemplating pushing the important health care work of community health services on to the property tax base in municipalities?

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Health): My answer to the honourable member is the same as when he asked the question last week: that in the Who Does What discussions which are taking place across all ministries the government, along with municipal partners and others who are helping out, is trying to figure out exactly how we can get rid of duplication, waste and overlap in the system and drive every dollar towards, in this case, direct patient care.

I say to the honourable member that community health centres will continue to be an important part of the primary care health care system in Ontario, and that would be regardless of where all their funding would come from. At the end of the day, I can assure you, they are an important part of the health care system today and will continue to be that way.

Mr Hampton: There's an issue here. These community health centres, which provide some of the most efficient care in the province and cost the province $103 million, are very worried about any plan to transfer them to the municipal tax base, because you know, as you go around cutting hospital services, that puts more and more pressure on community services. Those community services have to pick up more and more of the patient load. If you're going to put community health centres on to the property tax base, you know what's going to happen.

There isn't enough strength in the municipal property tax base to fund the pressure you're pushing off on community health centres. This will be a very dangerous offloading indeed. The association of community health centres wants to know: Will you guarantee that they will be maintained as an important provincial health care service and that they will not be pushed off to the limited municipal tax base?

Hon Mr Wilson: This government doesn't need any lectures about the importance of community-based care. This government just a few months ago made the largest single investment in modern history in health care in Ontario: $170 million into community-based care, creating some 4,400 new jobs for nurses and front-line providers; and expanding those services, creating access to those services to between 80,000 and 100,000 more seniors and disabled and children who need the community-based services.

I repeat my answer to the previous question and my answer of last week: Community health centres will continue to be an important part of health care in Ontario. They will continue to be part of a comprehensive health care delivery system. Because the direction we're going in is the same direction as nurses and doctors and other providers, a fully integrated health care system, at the end of the day community health centres will be part of that new and fully integrated health care system, which is the vision of the government and the vision of health care for this province.

Mr Hampton: This is what community health centres find so frustrating. You told them and the public that in a move towards integrated health care, you would have some pilots up and running involving community health centres in providing that overall integrated health care.

I'll tell you what they're really worried about: that this is how you're going to cut health care, that you're going to push the dirty work off on to municipalities, and they'll have to either increase their municipal taxes significantly or watch those important health care services start to wither. That's why they want the guarantee. If you're about true health care change and not about health care cuts, you can't put this on the municipal tax base. Give them that guarantee.

Hon Mr Wilson: I think the honourable member is splitting hairs here. At the end of the day, I think we can agree there's one taxpayer. Frankly, what they want to see is the best use of their dollar, and they want to see that dollar not go towards administration and more government, which was what you were all about. In the five years you were in office and in the five years the Liberals were in office, this place and its bureaucracy grew beyond anyone's wildest imagination, totally out of control.

We will not retreat from our determination to delayer the system, to get rid of the red tape, to get rid of the waste, to get rid of the duplication and give those single taxpayers the best value for their dollar, and that includes the health care dollar, that we can humanly muster on this side of the House. That's our commitment to the people of Ontario. As I've said, we are moving towards a fully integrated health care delivery system, and the government today reiterates its commitment to at least spending $17.4 billion in health care in this province.

I really can't answer the honourable member's question better than that.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): I'd ask the leader of the official opposition and member for Algoma to come to order please.

ECONOMIC STATEMENT

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): My question is for the Minister of Finance and it has to do with last week's financial statement. I remember that a year ago, in your fiscal and economic statement, which was exactly a year ago, you gave quite a lecture to what you called the transfer partners about the need for them to plan better, to get at their core businesses, to function more efficiently and all those sorts of things. It was an interesting lecture.

But part of it was that you said: "For the transfer partners to plan effectively, they must know, as early as possible, the funding. That is why the government is announcing the plans for the transfers." So last year you said: "Plan effectively. We will tell you your transfers." Now we've found out that contrary to what you had told us, you don't know what the transfers are going to be for colleges, universities, school boards. Last year you said that to plan effectively you would give them the transfers. Are you now saying that because you cannot give them the transfers they will now not be able to plan effectively?

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance): No, I am not saying that at all. The honourable member for Scarborough-Agincourt knows full well. He heard the question the leader of the third party asked today and in committee, as indeed he did himself last Thursday. Municipalities and hospitals knew 15 months ago roughly what the transfers would be.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): But there are more cuts coming.

Hon Mr Eves: That is simply not true, I say to the honourable member. For hospitals and municipalities, the transfer levels were announced on November 29, 1995.

With respect to boards of education, colleges and universities, as I told the honourable member and other honourable members on Thursday afternoon in finance committee, as soon as the Minister of Education is able to make recommendations following the submission of the Crombie report, which will be done early this month, and after we have the report in about colleges and universities, which is scheduled to be in on December 15 or shortly thereafter, the minister of colleges and universities and education will be able to provide those details as well.

Mr Phillips: The fact is, you can't get your act together. It's getting embarrassing. You promised these transfers. There are colleges, school boards, universities.

I will say to the minister also that I see on your economic numbers that now, six months after the budget, your projections for retail sales are lower for 1996 and 1997 than in your budget. Your projection for housing starts for 1997 is lower now, six months later, than it was in the budget. Your projection for growth in personal income is lower than it was in your budget six months ago. Your projection for corporate profit is lower than it was six months ago. The four key economic indicators -- personal income growth, growth in retail sales, housing and corporate profits -- are all lower than six months ago.

Can the Minister of Finance explain why you have had to downgrade all four of those in the last six months in this economic report?

Hon Mr Eves: The honourable member knows full well, if he reads the entire statement and all the background information, that we will exceed our target of an $8.2-billion deficit this year, just as we exceeded it by $582 million last year. He will also know that housing starts are up 21%, consumer confidence is up 19.2%. I'd be more than happy to have this discussion with the honourable member at the conclusion of this fiscal year, and I'd be happy to compare the results of any forecast. Our numbers have always been cautious, prudent numbers. Unlike previous administrations, we do not predict that the economy will grow by some exorbitant rate to make our figures look good. They are very --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Minister of Finance, just come to order for a minute. Members of the opposition, Minister of Finance.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Minister of Finance, when I'm standing in my place, there's got to be no one else standing. I would caution you to come to order. I will say to the opposition, it's difficult to hear the answer. Particularly today, there are some cantankerous responses coming from this side. Please, please, keep it down. I want to hear the members.

CHILD CARE CENTRES

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services and it's with respect to child care and her report on the child care system in the province of Ontario. In your proposed directions, you set out that physical plant requirements that you say are unnecessary and too costly should be limited, and you use this example. You say, "These include compulsory provision of windows larger than current building code specifications."

The Day Nurseries Act regulations state that every operator of a day nursery shall ensure that the window glass area in each play activity room of each day nursery that is operated by an operator and has a program that runs for six hours or more contains an area that is at least equivalent to 10% of the floor area of the play activity room.

What is it about 10% natural daylight for toddlers and preschoolers that has you so bothered that you want to eliminate that regulation?

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Community and Social Services): Thank you to the honourable member for the question. We raised the issue in the child care report that there were some building code specifications, some items in the requirements put on day care centres that we were told perhaps added additional costs and may not contribute to quality. We felt it was worthwhile exploring that suggestion, since people from the child care field seemed to think that it might be of assistance, so we are exploring that recommendation.

As the honourable member knows, we are continuing to consult and I look forward to getting the information that I'm sure she will have for me as well before we make final decisions about how to improve the child care system.

Ms Lankin: The only people who have said that windows for kids are an unnecessary regulation are the commercial for-profit operators, and that's who the minister seems to be listening to. Let me give you another example of what you cite as an unnecessary and costly provision: "overly restrictive requirements for fencing playground areas." That's from your report.

The Day Nurseries Act regulation: "Every operator of a day nursery shall ensure that each playground and each day nursery operated by an operator used by children under six years of age is fenced to a minimum height of 1.2 metres and the fence is furnished with one or more gates that are securely closed at all times."

As I travelled the province in urban centres, I heard about the need for fences to stop kids from bolting out into busy streets, from keeping ill-intentioned strangers out of the play yards, to prevent child abduction in custody and abuse cases. In northern rural Ontario, I was in a community at a centre where they regularly have cougar alerts and bear alerts.

Fences seem pretty necessary. What is it about fences for our preschoolers and toddlers that has you so bothered that you want to eliminate that regulation?

Hon Mrs Ecker: The honourable member knows we are not talking about eliminating necessary fences around child care centres. Of course we need fences around child care centres, and she well knows that.

What we are talking about is looking at options that may actually help us improve this child care system. We've got parents out there who say they want child care and they can't afford it. I think this government should pay attention to what those parents are saying so that we can give them the supports they need, instead of being so hung up on everything having to be the status quo. Whenever we talk about trying to change, they stand up and say, "My goodness, we can't change anything," at the same time as those same people are saying that more parents need more choices and more quality care.

That's what this government is interested in. And as for consultation, our government let in groups to consult with on child care that their government, when they were there, refused to speak to.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): My question is for the Minister of Environment and Energy. In my riding of Durham East, there are many knowledgeable professional and volunteer organizations, like SAGA, STORM and private sector firms, that want a role in sound environmental decision-making. I would like to ask you today what roles you see for private sector and public sector involvement in environmental protection in Ontario's future.

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of Environment and Energy): My ministry is looking for new ways to forge ahead in environmental protection not only by regulating as we have in the past, not only by the command and control approach of the past, but by looking for new partnerships with private industry, with private industry groups and with non-profit groups as well.

We, the Ministry of Environment, are not the only body that's responsible for the environment. Everybody in Ontario is responsible for the environment. In essence, what our government is doing is that we're going to look for new ways because the old ways haven't worked; we're looking for new partnerships to deal with old problems.

Mr O'Toole: When you were speaking of various non-profit and private sector initiatives, what types of ideas and approaches are you seeing and which industry groups are bringing these suggestions forward?

Hon Mr Sterling: Many industries are developing environmental codes of practice which help the individual businesses manage their environmental waste and emissions. Other groups are joining together to attack waste problems. For instance, the household battery association, representing manufacturers of batteries, has submitted a proposal for an industry-led recycling project. Another group is the photo-finishing industry, which has forged ahead in recycling a lot of the silver waste from their processing chemicals.

Recently, I challenged the Recycling Council of Ontario for other major industry groups to come forward with other ideas. Other provinces have been able to forge new alliances, have tried new ideas which have worked in the past, and we're willing to accept any new idea which will improve our environment.

DEVELOPMENT CHARGES

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. You may recall that last week when you were asked a question by my colleague related to the Development Charges Act changes you indicated that if Mississauga was prepared to put a freeze on development, the people in Brampton and Vaughan and York and Durham would be quite happy to hear about that. Well, we've since learned that in effect those municipalities are intending to freeze development as well. Basically, they're saying that if there are any changes in the act, their taxes may go up by as much as 25%.

What we would like to know is why you would go against the recommendation of your own Who Does What committee when it suggested in writing to you that "the development charges are a critical and essential municipal revenue source to finance growth-related capital infrastructure and any amendments to the act to reduce the scope or permitted level of development charges will mean higher municipal taxes or user fees."

Minister, why are you in favour of higher local real estate taxes?

Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): To the member opposite, what we are in favour of is affordable housing. We don't like to see the municipalities put high charges on new home buyers, young families who are trying to buy their first home who have to pay $20,000 on a $160,000 house as a head tax. We brought in a bill to bring some fairness and equity to the Development Charges Act. It gives the municipalities the opportunity to have growth pay for growth, but in a reasonable and fair method.

Mr Gerretsen: You know as well as I do that no non-profit or housing that is relatively cheap to accommodate people is going to be subjected to a $40,000 kind of charge under the existing act. No municipality is going to allow that to happen.

Why are you not simply allowing municipalities to do what they're elected to do? You've always talked about an equal partnership with municipalities. Let the municipalities decide what kind of services they want to have subject to the development charges. Why don't you allow them to simply make up their own mind whether or not they want any development charges in their municipality, and how much they're going to be and for what kind of services they are going to be?

Hon Mr Leach: I think development charges are discretionary and a municipality can either charge them or doesn't have to charge them. Many municipalities are not charging the amount they are allowed to do now.

We want to bring in a system that is fair. I know that all the development within the community is paid for by that, that the works that are done outside serve all members of the community -- like recreation centres, like the widening of an arterial road. I don't think it is unfair at all to see the general tax base pay for 10% of a road that everybody in the community is going to use.

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): Why don't you limit the amount developers can charge for houses.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Member for Essex South, will you come to order, please. New question.

FAMILY SUPPORT PLAN

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): My question is to the Attorney General. Over the weekend we read reports about your family support plan blitz up at Downsview, trying to empty those boxes out and get them filed away and processed before Christmas.

Last week in this House I raised the case with you of Susan Wilkins. It took over a week to find her file in those boxes up at Downsview, and when they did find it they found the court order that had been registered with the family support plan on August 2 sitting there in that file. It had not been acted on for five months.

That file sat, like thousands of others, in those boxes because you laid off 290 staff and closed the regional offices without having a replacement system up and running. For months you've been defending yourself and saying that everything is fine and is on track. If that is true, then how do you explain to Susan Wilkins and her three children that they have not received one cent from family support?

Hon Charles Harnick (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): There have been people who haven't been receiving money from the family support plan from the days their orders have been registered with the plan because there has been an inability for many years to make collection on a lot of those orders. We, through Bill 82, are developing a better plan to in fact make enforcement more effective and to be able to collect some of the money that accrues on the basis of arrears of $100 million a year. I can tell you that in the month of November almost $34 million was disbursed to 110,104 recipients.

Ms Lankin: You can't collect money if you don't file the garnish order with employers. It sat in that file for five months. You took no action. It's got nothing to do with an ex-spouse's refusing to pay, nothing to do with an employer who's refusing to cooperate. It sat in your files, in boxes, at Downsview for five months with no action. Take some responsibility.

Susan Wilkins has a support order for $1,300 a month. She is owed $7,800 now. She's not going to get a cent, according to family support plan, who's just filed the garnish order with the employer last week, until February. By then she'll be out over $10,000. Minister, it's four weeks before Christmas. Susan and her three children do not have that $7,800. It is your fault. Would you give us a commitment today that your government will advance Susan and her three kids the $7,800 before Christmas so that they can have a merry Christmas, like your family will?

Hon Mr Harnick: The member knows that of people who receive money from the family support plan, only 23% of orders, at a maximum, have ever been in full compliance. The number of people who get nothing from the family support plan, even though they have an order that's been registered with the plan, is over 50%.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): You don't even file them, so why bother?

Ms Lankin: You didn't file this one. It is your fault.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order. The members for London Centre, Algoma and Beaches-Woodbine, please come to order and allow the minister --

Ms Lankin: You didn't file it.

The Speaker: The member for Beaches-Woodbine, allow the minister to respond.

Hon Mr Harnick: With the new bill that has received second reading, we will now be able to start to do a much better job than we've ever been able to do before dealing with the issues of enforcement. As soon as that bill receives third reading, we can implement driver's licence suspensions; we can implement better collection procedures, referring issues and notifying credit bureaus; getting at people who shelter. Once that becomes law, those tools will then be available to the family support plan.

ONTARIO FILM INDUSTRY

Mr John L. Parker (York East): My question is for my colleague the Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation. As you are aware, my riding of York East is home to a great number of filmmakers. In fact, I suspect that we have more filmmakers per capita in my riding than we have in any jurisdiction in North America outside Hollywood.

Last week, following the presentation of the Genie awards, for reasons that I can't explain, my good friend the member for Port Arthur stood in this place and criticized our government for its policies regarding the film industry in Ontario. Minister, I wonder if you can set the record straight and explain for this House what your ministry is doing to support the film industry in Ontario.

Hon Marilyn Mushinski (Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation): To the member for York East, first of all I'd like to start off by congratulating all of the award winners of last week's Genie awards and particularly to recognize the solid representation of Ontario's film industry. I think this is a strong statement of the quality and the vitality of the province's film industry.

I'd just like to point out that the government continues to support the industry through the Ontario film and television tax credit, and it's anticipated that this credit will inject about $15 million into the Ontario film and television production community in its first year.

Mr Parker: Minister, I wonder, by way of supplementary, if I could ask you to explain to my good friends opposite what the response of the film industry has been to your initiatives.

Hon Ms Mushinski: To quote the Globe and Mail of November 7, reporting on the latest figures, it stated that Ontario was also the most profitable place to be in the film and television business. Producers in the province raked in operating profits of $58.3 million, or 91% of the industry total.

I might add that this quote comes from Mr Gerry Phillips, the member for Scarborough-Agincourt: "The programs on film development, clearly that is a growth industry, one that we all want to encourage. It is a unique industry that I think is a terrific industry for Ontario and will support clearly the things that help develop that."

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): I say to the members, particularly the member for Cochrane South, ministers are allowed to read answers it they choose to, excerpts from issues. The only thing I would caution is, if you ask ministers not to read answers, then you have to be prepared not to read your questions. So that's the point.

LONG-TERM-CARE REFORM

Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview): My question is to the minister for seniors issues, the member for Burlington South. Minister, you and your government continually attack the most vulnerable in our society, our seniors, especially those who, because of their age and health conditions, seek the ultimate health care in a nursing home.

After being hit with prescription fees, Wheel-Trans cuts and cuts that affect seniors' services in many other ways, you and your ministry have now imposed a punitive $40-a-day charge while waiting for a nursing home bed. This is an intolerable action towards our seniors. They are now required to pay immediately the $40-a-day charge, the same charge as if they were receiving the care and attention of a nursing home.

My question to the minister is this: With a waiting list of some 4,500 people -- I said this is my question to the minister; I hope the minister is listening -- and a freeze on nursing home beds, please tell us what you are going to do --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you, member for Yorkview.

Hon Cameron Jackson (Minister without Portfolio [Seniors Issues]): I'd like to thank the member opposite for his question. I know all members of this House are concerned about the long-term-care needs of Ontario seniors.

The member opposite would be aware that this government has embarked on an ambitious investment plan to ensure that seniors have access to appropriate care. We inherited a system, quite frankly, a patchwork system of overbedded and underbedded areas all across this province. I want to advise the member opposite that his assertion that there are 4,500 people on waiting lists is a little high compared to the data that we're using and that is generally accepted within the industry across Ontario by health care professionals.

The truth is that we have people who are currently in chronic care beds in hospitals who can move comfortably to nursing home beds which are available. The principle that is being established here is that seniors should receive the most appropriate care where it can be sensitively presented at the least amount of cost. The very expensive chronic care beds are not the most efficient use of Ontario's precious health care resources.

Mr Sergio: Is this the best message you can deliver to our seniors? Is this the best you can do for our seniors? Did you consult our seniors? Are you willing to have our seniors languishing in a hospital corridor, neglected, abandoned, uncared for, with no other option or alternative? You are treating our seniors and those in need of a nursing home with disrespect and shame.

I'm asking you again. You have created an intolerable crisis. Will you commit to discontinue your policies which are causing seniors so much anxiety and which are affecting the quality of health care they deserve and they need? Will you please commit yourself to that?

Hon Mr Jackson: I want to remind the member opposite that this government is committed to making sure that seniors receive the most appropriate care where it meets their best needs. The fact is that your government, for five years, worked on long-term care, reduced its transfer payments to chronic care hospitals, and the litany goes on. Our colleagues in the third party worked on long-term care. At least they got it to a legislative change and to a bill in this province. But seniors waited 10 years for these reforms so that they could have not only adequate services but appropriate services.

This government has moved decisively to ensure that those beds are available in those parts of the province where they are badly needed and were badly neglected over the last, quite frankly, more than a decade, and we'll be the first to admit that. But I want to reassure the member opposite that the taxpayers have requested that health dollars be spent wisely, judiciously and sensitively, and we will believe these programs, especially the review of chronic care bed utilization, are appropriate for the province of Ontario.

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): I have a question for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. It's becoming clearer and clearer as you proceed with your amalgamation of municipalities in Metropolitan Toronto that you seem to be guided far more by political expediency than by the practical realities of what is going on and what best planning is able to be put in place.

One of the things that shows this distinction is that you seem to be very determined to proceed to amalgamate within Metropolitan Toronto the six area municipalities into one, yet you don't seem to want to apply the same logic to the surrounding areas -- Peel region, Durham region, York region, for example. I'd just like to ask you minister, why is it that your logic around restructuring municipalities within the GTA is confined only to Metropolitan Toronto?

Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): I don't think anything could be further from the truth. We intend to deal with all the regions throughout the province of Ontario. Many of them have asked us to provide some assistance. The region of Hamilton-Wentworth, for example, has asked us to provide a facilitator. We've done that. They're in favour of a single tier; they're in favour of putting six municipalities into one municipality. We're going to assist them in doing that. There are other issues that face the regions in the GTA, and we will be dealing with them as well when we deal with the city of Toronto.

Mr Silipo: I don't know if the minister was simply evading my question, because in his answer he didn't mention at all the regions I referred to, which are the other parts of the GTA in terms of Peel region, Durham region and York region, for example, or if he's just now told us that there will be changes to those municipalities, which is what I was trying to find out.

The other point I want the minister to address is why in this whole issue he is forgetting about the fact that the economic entity around Toronto is the greater Toronto area, however we may want to define that. The point is that the issue is bigger than just Metropolitan Toronto. You can look at ways of restructuring local municipalities, but you still will need to deal with the reality of the economic region, which is the greater Toronto area, and we would suggest even to look at the governance question as it applies to that entity.

What I want to ask you is, why are you not bringing forward any proposals to deal with the governance of the greater Toronto area?

Hon Mr Leach: I guess the honourable member didn't hear my response. I said we would be bringing forward recommendations on all of the regions within the GTA in the not-too-distant future. I'm meeting with the regional chairs very soon to go over the requests they've made to restructure and reshape their municipalities. I intend to bring all that material together roughly at the same point in time. We will be dealing with the Metropolitan Toronto issue and we will be dealing with the GTA regional issue, as well as with other regions throughout the province.

TIME-SHARE FRAUD

Mr Dan Newman (Scarborough Centre): My question is for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Recently, I met with a constituent, and during my meeting with her we discussed the issue of time-share fraud and the fact that many people purchase time shares outside the province of Ontario. Some, my constituent tells me, do not fully understand what they may be getting into. My constituent spoke about high-pressure sales tactics with no cooling-off period, questionable promotions, lack of disclosure and poor management. What is the government doing to protect consumers like my constituent from this type of scam?

Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): Project TimeShare, which is a joint task force composed of the OPP, Peel Region police, our ministry and York Region police, was established in 1995 to deal with the complaints against the time-share industry. Our ministry does refer the complaints to Project TimeShare, and in fact consumers can directly contact Project TimeShare through an established hotline, at area code 905-612-7042, if they have a complaint.

Project TimeShare has had extensive investigations which have led to the arrest of a former York region resident in connection with the fraudulent sales of time-shares in vacation resorts. The press release that was issued about a month ago indicated that of course the resorts have lost money as a result of time-share fraud and the consumers who have purchased the time-shares have lost money and have lost any time they might have had.

Mr Newman: What else is the government doing to ensure that consumers are aware of these time-share schemes? Can the government work with responsible businesses within the industry to help eliminate the problem people?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: The typical problems that have been with us in the time-share industry have been some of the very high-pressure sales tactics, with no cooling-off or cancellation periods; questionable promotions and advertising; a real lack of disclosure and alleged misrepresentations; high-risk developments; and poor management. Certainly this is a huge risk for consumers right now.

Our ministry also produces a consumer package called Consumer Beat, which informs the consumer on a regular basis about many of the consumer fraud initiatives, also specifically on time-shares. We are prepared right now to work with the legitimate time-share industry, to prepare certain standards that will assist in avoiding these types of problems in the future. These are a few of the initiatives, but once again I do encourage any consumer who has a problem to contact Project TimeShare.

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): I have a question for the Minister of Health. You realize that the merger between the Clarke Institute of Psychiatry and the Queen Street Mental Health Centre is proceeding because you want to save money. The state of mental health care in Ontario is near collapse. Hundreds of patients are roaming our streets. You have provided no support or after-care once you've pushed them out of these institutions. Metro police alone are reporting over 300 escapes from both these institutions over a period of 11 months. How will your mental health care system improve when you continue to reduce the dollar amounts and propose to cut 102 psychiatric beds?

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Health): I'm not directly involved in the talks the honourable member brings forward with respect to the Clarke and Queen Street Mental Health Centre. Those are voluntary talks right now. In fact, I don't even know if they're still ongoing; the last I heard, they weren't talking any more.

All of our health care administrators and institutions in the province are having discussions with other institutions similar to themselves to see if they can find efficiencies. Why do we have two administrations down there within spitting distance of each other? It doesn't make any sense. I prefer they do it on a voluntary basis, but they have to have these discussions, they have to get their administration down and they've got to drive those administrative dollars and that waste and duplication -- all that money has to go into patient services.

I will remind the honourable member that this government has invested $20 million in the community investment fund. We've done that without seeing any money saved in the administration that we're asking them to save. We've done that out of money we found through getting rid of waste in the --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Minister, thank you very much.

PETITIONS

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): My petition is to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the Health Services Restructuring Commission has recommended the closure of two" acute care "hospitals in Sudbury; and

"Whereas the overall number of available beds will be reduced by approximately 35%; and

"Whereas the reduction in beds will affect Sudbury's ability to remain the referral centre for health care in northeastern Ontario; and

"Whereas there will be a large number of layoffs in the health profession, impacting the quality of local health care and our Sudbury economy; and

"Whereas the global annual budget for Sudbury health care will be reduced by 25%;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to rescind the Health Services Restructuring Commission's recommendations to close two" acute care "Sudbury hospitals."

This brings the total number to 18,504 who have signed this petition, and I again affix my name to it.

OMNIBUS LEGISLATION

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): I've got a petition I received in the mail this morning. It's addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It says:

"I oppose Bill 26. I protest this Tory proposal to deregulate the price of prescribed medicine, to dismantle the services that make up the common fabric of our communities; to introduce a two-tier health system, one for the rich and one for the rest of the citizens of our province.

"This Bill 26 is draconian. The way it's being handled by the Tory government is anti-democratic. The government should withdraw or repeal this bill and commence broad community-based consultations on the future of public services in Ontario."

It's signed by Donna Speck from Thorold Road and Pam Hardman from Iron Street and a whole bunch of other people from down Welland-Thorold area.

ABORTION

Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): It's a pleasure to rise today to present a petition to the Parliament of Ontario.

"Whereas pregnancy is not a disease, injury or illness;

"Whereas abortion is not therapeutic;

"Whereas abortion is never medically necessary;

"Whereas the Canada Health Act does not require elective procedures to be funded;

"Whereas there is no right to publicly funded abortion;

"Whereas it is the responsibility and the authority of the province exclusively to determine what services will be insured;

"Whereas there is mounting evidence that abortion is, indeed, hazardous to women's health;

"Whereas the availability of abortion at public expense leads to the use of modern abortion as a means of birth control;

"Whereas Ontario taxpayers funded 45,000 abortions in 1993 at an estimated cost of $25 million;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Parliament of Ontario that the government remove abortion as a service or procedure covered under the provincial health insurance plan."

I affix my name to this petition.

EDUCATION REFORM

Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): I have a petition regarding secondary school reform in Ontario that reads as follows:

"We believe that the heart of education in our province is the relationship between students and teachers and that the human and rational dimension should be maintained and extended as proposed reform. The Minister of Education knows how strongly we oppose the secondary reform recommendations being proposed by the ministry and government.

"We strongly urge the Minister of Education to delay the implementation of secondary school reform so interested stakeholders -- parents, students, school councils, trustees and teachers -- are able to participate in a more meaningful consultation process which will help ensure that a high quality of publicly funded education is provided."

That's signed by 44 residents of Cornwall, and I also signed the petition.

CHILD CARE

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): This is a petition to the Legislature of Ontario from literally hundreds of people from Sault Ste Marie and area.

"Whereas child care is an essential service and children should not be used to make money;

"Whereas reducing current standards to minimal building codes compromises the safety of children;

"Whereas providing funding to the private sector will lead to reduced accountability for tax dollars;

"Whereas children's growth and development could be in serious jeopardy without trained professionals caring for them;

"Whereas reducing monitoring inspections and increasing staff-child ratios will result in poor-quality child care programs; and

"Whereas staff wages are a major indicator of quality, proposed reductions in wage subsidies will have a negative impact on child care; and

"Whereas the need for parental choice in child care is recognized;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislature of Ontario to reconsider the directions proposed in Improving Ontario's Child Care System, the report released by Janet Ecker, as we feel it will have a negative impact on the families of Ontario."

I sign my name to this petition.

BLOOR VILLAGE VIDEO

Mr Derwyn Shea (High Park-Swansea): I rise to present a petition signed by hundreds of my constituents which reads:

"We, the undersigned and residents of the riding of High Park-Swansea, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to take every action possible to prevent the eviction of Bloor Village Video, currently occupying premises located at 2327 Bloor Street West in the Bloor West village of Toronto.

"We support and endorse the view of the province that small business is the economic backbone of Ontario. We hold the opinion that the increasing concentration of financial institutions at the expense of retailers threatens the future viability of this business area.

"We call upon the Parliament of Ontario to intervene on behalf of Bloor Village Video by asking the mayor of Toronto and city planners to urgently address this intensification of financial institutions that threatens the economic vitality of this retail community."

I affix my name thereto.

USER FEES

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): I keep receiving hundreds of petitions against the senior user fee and I have a petition that reads as follows:

"Whereas the Ministry of Health has started to charge a senior $2 user fee for each prescription filled since July 15, 1996; and

"Whereas seniors on fixed income do not significantly benefit from the income tax savings created by this user fee co-payment or from any other non-health user fee; and

"Whereas the perceived savings to health care from the $2 copayment fee will not compensate for the suffering and misery caused by this user fee or the painstaking task involved to fill out the application forms; and

"Whereas the current Minister of Health, Jim Wilson, promised as an opposition MPP in a July 5, 1993, letter to Ontario pharmacists that his party would not endorse legislation that will punish patients to the detriment of health care in Ontario; and

"Therefore, we, the undersigned Ontario residents, strongly urge the government of the PC administration to repeal this user fee plan because the tax-saving user fee concept is not fair, is not sensitive, is not accessible to low-income or fixed-income seniors; and lest we forget, our province's seniors have paid their dues by collectively contributing to the social, economic, moral and political fabric of Canada."

I agree with this petition and I'm affixing my signature to it.

ONTARIO CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTE

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): "Whereas we, the undersigned, believe that helping reduce crime and abuse in our communities is our responsibility as employees of the Ministry of Correctional Services, as professionals in related fields and as concerned citizens;

"That closing institutions which provide specialized services to women and treatment to men does not achieve that goal;

"That physical, emotional and sexual abuse is often transmitted from one generation to the next, with tremendous cost to society;

"That treatment aimed at breaking that cycle must include the abuser so that another generation of children is not raised with the same destructive lessons;

"That the Ontario Correctional Institute is a therapeutic community known around the world for their techniques;

"That research statistics support anecdotal evidence that we are effective in changing abusive behaviour;

"That a therapeutic community cannot exist in a superprison;

"Therefore, we urge you to save victims and money by keeping open what works."

This is signed by hundreds of people all over Ontario.

COURT CHALLENGES PROGRAM

Mr Bill Grimmett (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): I have a petition today on behalf of the member for Simcoe East. This petition requesting the government to institute a court challenges program of Ontario is signed by one constituent from the riding of Simcoe East and I file it today.

LONG-TERM CARE

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

"Whereas the quality of care for residents of nursing homes and homes for the aged is being directly and adversely affected by the funding policies of the Mike Harris Conservative government;

"Whereas the funding deficiencies are forcing these institutions to reduce available staff assistance to residents to unacceptable levels;

"Whereas the user taxes placed on prescription drugs unfairly discriminate against residents of nursing homes;

"Whereas the residents of these institutions are the very people who built this great province and country;

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

"To provide adequate funding for long-term-care institutions and eliminate the user taxes on prescription drugs for seniors."

This is signed by numerous people from the district of Manitoulin.

TEACHERS' PREPARATION TIME

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I have a petition signed by almost 3,000 secondary school teachers in which they express opposition to any loss or reduction in preparation time for teachers since they believe it will have a negative impact on the quality of education that those teachers provide to their students.

I support the petition and I affix my name thereto.

PUBLIC LIBRARIES

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): I have a petition here addressed to the Legislative Assembly.

"Whereas we believe that the provincial interest in public libraries in Ontario is fundamental to the rights of all Ontarians;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to maintain the provincial interest in public libraries by ensuring the continuance of the following:

"(1) grants to ensure that all Ontarians have equalized access to library materials and services;

"(2) coordination of resource-sharing programs such as interlibrary loan and Internet access;

"(3) policy to ensure the future of the network of Ontario public libraries;

"(4) provincial assistance directly to libraries at the service level, for example, through Southern Ontario Library Service and Ontario Library Service-North;

"(5) legislation that maintains the autonomy of public library boards."

BEER STORE OPENINGS

Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): I have a petition signed by about 50 constituents, very concerned about increased access to beer stores over the holiday season. The petition reads:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned, protest in the strongest terms the recent decision made by the government of Ontario to allow beer stores to remain open the three Sundays prior to Christmas;

"The present practice of these stores being open six days a week for 12 hours per day allows sufficient time to purchase this product. Traditionally, Sunday has been regarded as a day of worship and rest from the work of the previous week. This political decision will result in the further erosion of the family values upon which this country was built."

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I have a petition forwarded to me by Kathleen Zarowny on behalf of the members of OPSEU Local 340. Kathleen is the health and safety co-chair and Local 340 is in the Oshawa area. The petition reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Harris government has begun a process to open the Occupational Health and Safety Act of Ontario; and

"Whereas this act is the single most important piece of legislation for working people since it is designed to protect our lives, safety and health while at work and allow us to return home to our families in the same condition in which we left; and

"Whereas the government has made it clear they intend to water down the act and weaken the rights of workers under the law, including the right to know, the right to participate and especially the right to refuse; and

"Whereas this government has already watered down proper training of certified committee members;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario not to alter the Occupational Health and Safety Act or erode the rights of workers any further and ensure strict enforcement of the legislation."

I add my name to theirs.

FIREARMS CONTROL

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas we welcome real gun control and support those portions of Bill C-68 which provide tougher penalties for the criminal use of firearms, new offences related to firearms smuggling and trafficking, and a ban on paramilitary weapons; and

"Whereas existing laws requiring the registration of handguns have done little to reduce the number of crimes committed with handguns or lower the volume of handguns smuggled into Canada; and

"Whereas the national gun registration provisions of Bill C-68 will result in a massive misallocation of the limited resources available to law enforcement agencies, with no practical effect on the traffic in illegal firearms or the use of guns by violent criminals; and

"Whereas the gun registration provisions of Bill C-68 will take police officers off the streets and involve them in bureaucracy rather than fighting crime and will make the task of real gun control more difficult and dangerous for police officers;

I have signed this petition.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT

Mr Carroll from the standing committee on general government presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following report without amendment:

Bill 81,

An Act to reduce the number of members of the Legislative Assembly by making the number and boundaries of provincial electoral districts identical to those of their federal counterparts and to make consequential amendments to statutes concerning electoral representation / Projet de loi 81, Loi visant à réduire le nombre des députés à l'Assemblée législative en rendant identiques le nombre et les limites des circonscriptions électorales provinciales et fédérales et à apporter des modifications corrélatives à des lois concernant la représentation électorale.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Shall the report be received and adopted? Agreed. Shall Bill 81 be ordered for third reading? Agreed.

Mr Carroll from the standing committee on general government presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bill, as amended:

Bill 53,

An Act to Promote Full Financial Accountability of Labour Unions and Employees Associations to Their Members / Projet de loi 53, Loi visant à promouvoir la responsabilité financière complète des syndicats et des associations d'employés envers leurs membres.

The Deputy Speaker: Shall the report be received and adopted? Agreed. Shall Bill 53 be ordered for third reading? Agreed.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

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

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

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

Loi sur les élections municipales, la

Loi sur les municipalités et d'autres lois connexes.

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): It's my pleasure today to speak to Bill 86,

An Act to provide for better local government by updating and streamlining the Municipal Elections Act, the Municipal Act and related statutes.

There are a number of things in this bill that are very useful, interesting, and some of them, to be fair, make sense. At the same time as they're being debated, however, the government, with no consultation whatsoever, is getting ready to rob the people of Metropolitan Toronto of their right to responsible, accessible government. It's important to make this link because here we have a chance to discuss and debate some matters of interest to all of us, and we would like to be able to debate what this government is doing around the elimination of city governments. We think it's a problem.

The minister has refused to look at the Golden report, or if he has, he says, "No, it's not workable." The minister has rejected the Robarts report which didn't advocate the elimination of local government. The minister comes back saying: "We have plenty of studies. There are 64 studies that we have on this issue so it's time to move on." So what does he do? He says, "We're going to get rid of city governments."

We think that's a problem. We think it's a back-door kind of politics that isn't fitting of any government. We believe that when you have no public hearings, no public input, no public debate, then we've got a real problem.

This is the style of the government that many people in Ontario are getting accustomed to and it frightens them. And I have to tell you, it frightens me. When you are about to eliminate city local governments and you call that leadership, without any consultation, without any hearings, without any debate, we have a government that is oppressive in the way it deals with public policy. It is unheard of that any government can simply decide to get rid of local governments without giving those local governments and the public they serve a say.

It's ironic that Minister Leach, before he became minister, said, "What we should do is get rid of the Metro government." He gets into government, changes his course and decides, "What we need to do is get rid of local government." It is complicated for the public to understand how they make decisions when the minister himself had one position before the election, gets into government, and lo and behold, we've got another position by that member. We've got a problem. The public has a problem.

We met with the mayors this very morning in fact and they gave us their understanding, their perception of why local government is important to keep, and I have to tell you that I agree with them. As we consult around issues to change municipal elections, we are about to eliminate these local mayors and eliminate local government.

I'm not arguing that we should eliminate the Metro government. I don't believe that's the right thing to do. But he argues that local governments are very responsive to the electorate in areas of their responsibility, and they are. He gave one example to show how responsive they are. He talked about snow removal.

He said they've developed a system that is able to not just push the snow from the street, which often goes on to the sidewalk, causing a great deal of irritation and anger to the householders, but they managed to develop a system that pushes the snow on top of the sidewalk while at the same time removing it from the sidewalk. He says, "We are the only local government that has done that." That's responding to the wishes of the people in North York. He said, "We pick up our garbage in North York twice a week." Why? "Because," he argues, "we want a clean city and the people of North York want that."

Naturally, the service varies from one municipality to another. The point is, though, that municipalities respond to the various differing needs of each municipality, and that's good.

Before this government engages in changes that are so radical, the public in Toronto, the people I've been meeting in Toronto, say, "Don't change the system without consulting us." In fact many have said, "We've had a referendum on municipal government here in Toronto," and in that referendum they argued to keep local government and get rid of Metro, if that's what they had to do. In that particular referendum, the people of Toronto spoke.

If this government is big on referendums and believes the public should have a say, in Toronto they have already spoken. If they have spoken in this regard, they should listen. They should not set aside that referendum and decide that what we need here in Ontario is leadership. If that leadership means we will not have public hearings, that there will be no public input and that there will be no public debate, this is the worst type of leadership in Ontario. It would be unprecedented for any government to lead in this manner, this manner that we believe, many of us, is very, very oppressive.

Some have in fact said at some of the meetings that if you want to be informed about the way this government is acting, you should read some of the Soviet dissidents, some of the writers who have spoken about the style of leadership in the Soviet Union, to get a glimpse of the way this government is behaving, the way this government is acting. If that's the leadership that they think is what the people want, they've got it all wrong, because that's not what people want. On issues of major importance, the public wants to be consulted and, in my view, deserves and needs to be consulted.

Around this particular issue, we've got a serious political problem. I believe that the issue of city and Metro is a very political issue; it's not an economic one.

I asked Minister Leach in my question to show us studies that show that getting rid of cities would make it more economical. In my question, I said to him that Anne Golden and the GTA task force that the minister praised said that amalgamation won't work. A study of Ontario municipalities published this year by the Canadian Tax Journal says, "Costs are affected by the quantity and quality of services provided, not by the government structure." A Price Waterhouse study of Ottawa-Carleton done in 1992 said, "One-tier government would increase taxes by 5% to 16%." An

article by George Boyne in the journal Public Administration says, "Based on US experience, a one-tier system may not lead to greater efficiency" and that "the advantages of a two-tier system have been underestimated." Harry Kitchen, professor of economics at Trent University, Peterborough, says, "Not all services get cheaper with amalgamation."

When I read the research, I'm convinced that this government is in the wrong direction. What studies do they bring to our attention to show us that we're wrong? That's why we say the decision around this has nothing to do with economics but has a lot to do with ideology. It's politics. The reason they decided that perhaps we should eliminate the cities and maybe not Metro was because Golden recommended something different. She recommended a GTA coordination of services with a weaker sort of GTA government but a GTA-type of municipal governance structure.

I think it was a very useful suggestion to look at because some of the issues overlap; in fact, important issues overlap between Metro and the GTA.

But the people around the GTA did not support the Golden recommendation, and because the political support of this party is very strong in the greater Toronto area, they decided they should not introduce any policy changes, any governance changes that would anger the Conservative support in the greater Toronto area. In order not to be politically attacked by their friends, they decided that the best thing to do would be to eliminate cities, under the guise of saving money. Study after study that I have referred to say there are likely not to be any savings, so what I have concluded is that the reasons for those things are political, having nothing to do with economics whatsoever.

But we are hopeful that we are going to have in this province a process that will allow the people in Metropolitan Toronto to decide the kind of governance they want. We are hoping that this government will not step over the democratic right of people in this Metropolitan area to have the decisive vote around what kind of governance they should have. We're hoping that the members of the Metropolitan area, Conservative members, are going to convince Mike Harris and M. Leach that they are on the wrong course and that they must consult before they make radical changes of this kind.

While we are looking at tinkering with the municipal process, which in some ways may be useful, sometimes practical, sometimes probably the right thing to do, they are wielding the hammer in dealing with the issue of governance here in Toronto and Metropolitan Toronto at large. We tinker in Bill 86 with many changes that are interesting and useful but, "We're going to rule with an iron fist when it comes to deciding how we're going to deal with the cities of Toronto."

I find that shameful for this government. I find it shameful, and I'm hoping that the people who watch this program through the parliamentary channel will not only call me to tell me that they agree with me but will call M. Leach and M. Harris and let them know. Write your letters to Mr Leach and to the Premier of this province and put on that envelope "Private and confidential," so that it gets directly to their political office.

Don't send that letter to the minister without doing that, because if you don't write "Private and confidential," it will go through the civil service and the political staff and the Premier will never see it. The time they will see it is when they're out of office. That's too late.

They need to write a simple letter. It doesn't have to be long. It doesn't have to be an academic study. It doesn't have to be a research paper. Pen or pencil, it doesn't matter. Write on the front of that envelope "Private and confidential." Send it to Derwyn Shea. Send it to him, because I know he's a member who really cares about what's going to happen to Toronto. "Send it to Derwyn Shea because he cares," he says.

When he comes to those meetings he will explain to the public how he's going to defend the right of Toronto to have a say in this matter. Surely this member's not going to go out there not defending a process that should be democratic. Surely he's not going to go into that caucus, as he meets once a week with the Premier, and simply allow the Premier to stomp all over Toronto. He's not going to do that, I hope. If he's going to do what is right, he will defend the people of Ontario, the people of Toronto to have the right to have a say.

Send your letters "Private and confidential" to the ministers. To the local members it doesn't have to be "Private and confidential" because they will get it in their offices and their assistants will show it to them, but to the ministers, that's what you need to do.

If you agree with us, you can't just sit back wherever you are and decide this is wrong and not do anything to fight against what you believe is the wrong course this government is taking us on, this journey that is a mistake to begin with, this leadership by the iron fist that is the worst type of leadership you would want in a democracy. You'll have to write them, you'll have to tell them, because if you don't do that, you will be part of the problem. You will tacitly be agreeing with this government if you're not writing that letter, if you're not out at that public meeting forcing these Conservative members to come to the meetings.

I can tell you from my experience, many of them are not showing up to those meetings. They have an excuse, as always: they're busy, they're somewhere else, they've got another meeting. But when there are tough issues like rent control, where I have been at a number of meetings already in Mr Saunderson's riding, in Mr Shea's riding as well, some of the MPPs don't show up. They don't show up because they're afraid to defend the policies they have introduced in this House. They're afraid.

Mr Gilles Pouliot (Lake Nipigon): The Toronto Club, the Boulevard Club, the Canadian Club.

Mr Marchese: They may be at other meetings but it's not political meetings. In fact it's at a club probably.

Mr Pouliot: One of those private clubs.

Mr Marchese: One of the private clubs perhaps. You never know.

Some of you have a duty. Mr Parker came to a meeting. I will give him that. We had a meeting on rent control and Mr Parker came. He had the courage to come and defend what this government is doing on the issue of rent control, and I respect that. I respect people -- politicians -- who come to the meetings to defend their policies. There's more respect in that than simply not showing up, for whatever reason. It doesn't matter. You might have a good reason, you might have an excuse, you might not want to show up, but it's important for the public, for the electorate who may have elected you, for you to have the courage to go back into those constituencies and defend yourself and your policies.

This government claims it wants local people to make local decisions. That's what they do, that's what they say, and in the rest of Ontario Mike Harris has said to the various municipalities, "You go out and solve the problems of duplication or inefficiency and amalgamate where you need to." That's what he said to other municipalities across Ontario, but here in Toronto he's ramming his one big government model down the throats of the people of Toronto. It's wrong. Then what else does he do? He hides under the cloak of the David Crombie Who Does What group of people. They hide behind that group of people.

It is wrong to allow a group of people behind doors to make decisions on matters that are very important.

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I don't believe we have a quorum in the House presently.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Would you please verify if there is a quorum?

Acting Clerk Assistant (Mr Todd Decker): A quorum is not present.

The Deputy Speaker ordered the bells rung.

Acting Clerk Assistant: A quorum is now present.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Fort York.

Mr Marchese: What this government has created is a Who Does What panel. Mr Speaker, to you and to the public that's watching, do you know who this group is? Do you know where they meet? Do you know what they do? They are meeting behind closed doors, making decisions for this government. They are the foil for this government's dirty work. When they need them, they use them; when they don't need them, they make them wait so that they can think about what they need to do, and then they communicate with Mr Crombie about the kinds of things that they have in mind. It's a back-door kind of politics.

Is that the kind of democracy we want? People want and deserve to have these kinds of decisions dealt with in a very public, visible, transparent way, and they don't see transparency or honesty in the way we do things when they know there's a group of people, not elected, not accountable, working behind the doors doing the dirty work for this government. It's a perfect foil for the massacre this government wants to hand out to the people of Ontario.

This panel deliberates, and every now and then, like a terrible striptease, they bring out these reports. Every week, every other week, they bring a report, willy-nilly. Let me read you some of these reports here.

"Who Does What Panel Recommends New Municipal Act: David Crombie today recommended a new Municipal Act that would give municipalities more flexibility to deliver services taxpayers want at a price they can afford." It sounds like Mike Harris, doesn't it? Sure it does. We get this one week, August 14.

October 11: "Panel Recommends Province Pay Full Social Service Costs: Welfare, employment programs and child care fee subsidies in Ontario should be managed and fully funded by the provincial government."

Another report, November 4: "`Municipalities should deliver and pay for sewer and water systems and municipal transit service,' Who Does What panel chair David Crombie told the province today."

Every couple of weeks you get another report. I've got them here in my hand. Does that give you a sense of a government that is operating under a vision, that is being guided by some vision of what it wants to do? No.

Every couple of weeks you get another report. Here, another one, November 12: "`Municipalities should be fully responsible for setting police budgets and for appointing community representatives to police service boards,' Who Does What panel chair David Crombie recommended today."

November 13: "Province Should Pay Bigger Share of Education Costs, Panel Says: `The provincial government should take a bigger role in funding education, developing curriculum and setting standards,' Who Does What panel chair David Crombie recommended today."

Every week or every other week you've got this Who Does What, and to whom, with what guidance, what parameters, what principle, what vision? I don't see any vision here. I see this unveiling of this onion on a weekly basis coming through. The public is perplexed by it. They are working behind doors. It's not the kind of politics the people of Ontario want. You can't dismiss the public in this way, you cannot. That's what they're doing. You can appoint a few of your good friends to do the dirty work for you, as you've done, we understand that, but the public is deserving of more. They deserve more than this. They deserve to be able to participate, because that's what democracy is all about.

Democracy is about participation. If you take that right away, then democracy is diminished; then you no longer have a democracy, you have something else, which is what you call leadership, which is an oppressive type of leadership because it tells what's good to the people of Ontario. It doesn't let them decide what's good for them, you tell them what's good for them. That's not democracy.

A number of people I've heard say, "Read a number of the Soviet writers to be instructed about how this government is being guided and is operating." I thought that very interesting. I thought that if a socialist said that they would say, "Oh, my God." But it wasn't a socialist, I can tell you that. The NDP, if we were in power doing that could have been accused of some terrible socialist, even Stalinist, things. We could have been accused of that. But for a Tory government, my God, eh? I mean, it's a bit odd. But that is your style of leadership. You have gone beyond Conservative politics; you have gone to Reform politics.

I was reading one of -- his name escapes me. The Toronto Star; he's a regular writer. It was I think yesterday.

Mr Pouliot: It wasn't Walkom?

Mr Marchese: No, no. He's a former Tory staffer, a well-know Tory staffer at the federal level. He was saying that this government has crossed the line, that the politics of this government is not Conservative, it is Reform, and it's frightening. People are beginning to understand that that's not the kind of politics they want.

Let's look at some of the changes this government has introduced. As I say, some of them are very useful and some of them are debatable. They have said, "The bill allows municipalities to vote by phone or Internet or whatever means they choose." That to me sounds good; it even sounds 21st century. But if you let everyone vote by Internet, will you be creating a problem for yourselves? Are we going to be able to monitor that in ways that everybody will feel protected, in ways that everybody will feel that we will have no fraud as people vote by phone or by Internet? While it sounds 21st century, I am not sure that we have taken the measures to prevent fraud from happening.

Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke-Rexdale): What are they?

Mr Marchese: The member asks, "Who are they?"

Mr Hastings: No, what are these measures against fraud?

Mr Marchese: We've got a problem. I think voting through the Internet may cause unforeseen problems that we have not yet thought about. I think this government needs to think through, before it passes this particular component of facilitating the voting process, that we put in measures that will prevent fraud. That's important, because I can see it happening. The mayor of East York raised this with me today at the meeting with the mayors. The very point he made is, "How will they prevent fraud from happening?" I agree with him, because that was my initial reaction. While it sounds 21st century, sexy even, I think it can create problems of its own, and we need to be mindful of that.

Others have argued, "Isn't it great that we have made it possible for a 20-year-old computer whiz kid to be able to get into the Internet and from home simply type it in, and there you go, he's voted." But what have we done for older seniors who are going to, as they get older, have more difficulties getting to the poll? Are we making it easier for them to vote, and how are we doing that? The Internet is not going to make it easier, necessarily, because I suspect a lot of the seniors have not learned to use the Internet.

We've got several little problems. First, how do we make it possible for seniors to have an easier time getting to the poll, and have we thought about that? Second, have we thought about how we're going to control fraud in relation to the use of the phone or the Internet or any other means that municipalities might think of?

The government is changing the rules around the election recounts. Municipalities are required to hold recounts if the vote was close. This problem existed in the past and it's led to wide-open

interpretations and endless recounts. That is a good thing, that we are finally getting to solving that particular problem. On the other hand, the question I raise is, does this go too far? The only time we're going to have an automatic recount is if there is a tie vote. It may not at first blush seem like a problem. It may seem reasonable: You have a tie vote, you have a recount. Or if the court decides or rules that because of that, there is a right to a recount, then you would have that as a measure. That's fine, but I think it may be going too far.

What this will do, of course, is that for candidates who feel they might want to go for a recount, they will face big court costs to ensure a fair election. In many of these cases, we're going to have a lot of people saying: "I'm not sure I can afford it. Yes, I might have noticed or my election workers might have noticed that there were some irregularities here and there that I might decide to go for a recount." If they do that, they have to pick up the costs, and the costs could be costly.

Not all the candidates who run for politics are rich like most of the Conservative members. By and large, they're well-to-do. Not all the people who run for municipal elections are wealthy individuals. Some of them are just modest-income Ontarians. So if they go for this recount, they've got a problem.

Could the government have decided to define a close election by a certain percentage of the vote and have mandatory recounts in those cases? I think it could, I think it can, and I think you should look at that a little more closely, because simply leaving it to a tie vote may not solve some of the problems that some of the candidates face in those elections. I think we should look at what a close vote might look like, establish some parameters, define a little bit, put some percentage attached to it. I think that would go a long way to solving some of the predicaments tha