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

December 2, 1998

36th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

L063A - Wed 2 Dec 1998 / Mer 2 Déc 1998 1

ESTIMATES

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

DIALYSIS

LONG-TERM CARE

ELK RELEASE PROGRAM

PROPERTY TAXATION

ABORTION

LONG-TERM CARE

SLOT MACHINES

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

STUDENT ISSUES

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

ADOPTION DISCLOSURE STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE LA DIVULGATION DE RENSEIGNEMENTS SUR LES ADOPTIONS

CITY OF KINGSTON ACT, 1998

LOWER PROPERTY TAXES IN HAMILTON-WENTWORTH ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR LA RÉDUCTION DES IMPÔTS FONCIERS PRÉLEVÉS À HAMILTON-WENTWORTH

MOTIONS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

ORAL QUESTIONS

ROAD SAFETY

CLASS SIZE

FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL JURISDICTION

RENT REGULATION

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

SENTENCING

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

MEMBER'S COMMENTS

HYDRO RATES

VEHICLE REGISTRATION

PETITIONS

HOTEL DIEU HOSPITAL

ADOPTION

GERMAN HERITAGE

PROPERTY TAXATION

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

BEACH USE

GLENGARRY OUTREACH SERVICES

CHILD CARE CENTRES

PALLIATIVE CARE

NORTHERN HEALTH SERVICES

EDUCATION FUNDING

REMEMBRANCE DAY

HERITAGE CONSERVATION

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

PROTECTION FOR HEALTH CARE WORKERS

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TIME ALLOCATION

The House met at 1331.

Prayers.

ESTIMATES

Hon Chris Hodgson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Minister of Northern Development and Mines): Mr Speaker, I have a message from the administrator of the government, signed by his own hand.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): The administrator of the government transmits estimates and supplementary estimates of certain sums required for services of the province for the year ending 31 March 1999, and recommends them to the Legislative Assembly.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

DIALYSIS

Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): I am pleased to announce that dialysis patients from the greater Cornwall area began receiving treatment in the new Cornwall dialysis facility today. Indeed, this is welcome news to the patients and families in the area who have called on the provincial government to follow through on its April 1996 commitment to open a dialysis unit in Cornwall.

For the past two and a half years, residents from my area have urgently requested the government to act. However, the government stalled time and time again in forcing local patients to travel to Ottawa and Kingston three times each week for treatment. It is inexcusable that the government dragged its feet for so long on the issue. This has been a life-and-death struggle for local dialysis patients.

At long last, the persistent efforts of area residents have finally paid off. However, the minister knows that the initial announcement numbers do not fully meet the needs of local patients.

I would like to thank the hundreds of Cornwall and area residents who have contacted me on this very important issue, in particular to thank the many individuals, groups and organizations in my area, like the Royal Canadian Legion and others, who offered money and supplies to get the clinic up and running.

I am pleased that the local dialysis patients will finally receive treatment closer to home, and it is thanks to the residents of the greater Cornwall area. I would like to wish Dr Posen, the staff and the patients good luck.

LONG-TERM CARE

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): This morning, people from the Service Employees International Union from Sarnia-Lambton and from Kitchener-Waterloo came to the Legislature to talk about their concerns about the switch from chronic care beds to long-term-care beds in their areas. Their campaign is called Save Our Beds. They are very concerned.

I'd like to read into the record some of the words of Evelyn Teft, a 69-year-old woman whose disabled husband will be one of those affected by the switch from chronic care to long-term care.

She indicates:

"My husband and I have lived through many government changes, both good and not so good. We, like many others, have absorbed the changes and adapted where needed. Mr Harris, you and your hospital restructuring committee have gone too far. You have accomplished what no others before you have. You have angered this average `little old lady' from Sarnia, Ontario. Your government's pursuit of the almighty dollar at any cost is the final straw."

Mrs Teft went on to say:

"I am not a politician. I'm just a very stressed-out lady who is concerned about where my husband will end up. I promised to take care of him in sickness and in health and that I will do to the best of my ability. But how does one compete with people who have no feelings? They are getting rid of the nurses who take care of these people like my husband, because they can hire unqualified help and save the almighty dollar. Will this help recognize when patients need medical help -"

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): The member's time has expired.

ELK RELEASE PROGRAM

Mr Harry Danford (Hastings-Peterborough): Last Saturday night I had the privilege of attending the first annual Conservation Banquet and Auction for the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, York River chapter, in Bancroft.

This banquet was attended by over 150 people and raised almost $10,000 to go towards the reintroduction of elk in the Bancroft and north Hastings area. This $10,000 will help the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation meet its commitment of $100,000 per year over the next four years for the elk release program. This program is a joint program with approximately 10 partners, including the Ministry of Natural Resources, the Safari Club and the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters.

I'd like to congratulate the organizers of Saturday's banquet. They include John O'Donnell, Barry Wanamaker, Nancy Nieman and Al Woodcox. These individuals are very committed to seeing the successful reintroduction of elk in the Bancroft and north Hastings area. I would like to congratulate all of them on a job well done.

I would also like to add that I look forward to a decision on north Hastings' suitability as a location for the release of elk. Elk were once found in north Hastings, which I believe makes this location a perfect one for the reintroduction of elk.

I also know that many constituents of mine feel that Bancroft would be an ideal location for this program. Given that broad public support in my riding for this project, I hope the Ministry of Natural Resources will give the green light for Bancroft and north Hastings to participate in the elk release program.

PROPERTY TAXATION

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): I want to bring to your attention another bully tactic that Mike Harris is using against every property taxpayer in this province.

Mr Speaker, you were probably as outraged as I was when the government dropped its 33rd closure motion yesterday. Do you know that both the Greater Toronto Services Board legislation and the seventh property tax bill are going to committee the same day, at the same time?

What is more outrageous is that the Harris government will not allow public input on either bill. If any government in the history of Ontario needed help, it's this one. Who needs to hear from the experts more than Mike Harris, Ernie Eves and Al Leach?

On Monday, a government member took

part in the debate on this bill. It seems to me he pretty well summarizes the attitude this government shows for local politicians. He said, "If we made a mistake, it was because we believed the municipalities had the intelligence to use the tools we provided them to ensure that small business would get the benefit of the tax cuts."

How arrogant can that be? This is clearly the contempt Mike Harris has for elected municipal politicians. Why don't these guys just listen to the experts and withdraw the bill? Let the people who know what they're doing do it. Listen to the Frontenac management board: "Withdraw Bill 79." Listen to the clerks and treasurers: "Withdraw Bill 79." Listen to the town of Prescott: "Withdraw Bill 79."

Let me tell you, these guys aren't going to be around to clean up the mess they're creating. They are following the Peter principle and have risen to the level of their incompetence.

ABORTION

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): I'm sure everybody has heard by now that the Hamilton Spectator has received another chilling, frightening package of materials from an anti-abortion messenger. The package contains truly frightening, chilling photographs, I understand, from what I heard in the news, of an image of a doctor and a policeman with a gun pointed at them. This has been part of a whole series of messages sent to this newspaper. As we well know, there was a doctor recently murdered in the United States, and we have had three shootings in Canada, one here in Ontario.

If people will recall, an all-party resolution put forward by myself was accepted by this House on October 29. I understand from the minister responsible for women's issues, in response to a question I asked, that the Solicitor General has met with the OMA. I don't know yet what happened as a result of that meeting, but that resolution called upon this government, indeed the federal government as well, to co-operate and put money into the special investigation unit. This latest development calls on the government to act immediately to put an end to this.

LONG-TERM CARE

Mr Tim Hudak (Niagara South): I'm pleased to rise in the House today to put my full support behind the Northland Manor project in Port Colborne.

The Northland project is the proposed redevelopment of Northland Manor at the Port Colborne General Hospital site. I believe this proposal will help bring even better quality care to the seniors and long-term-care patients in the Port Colborne area, as well as delivering operating savings to the taxpayers.

As you may know, Northland Manor is an 87-bed home for the aged that is owned and operated by the region of Niagara. The quality of staff and the programs at Northland Manor are excellent. It has a strong reputation. However, the physical building that exists today does not meet the higher ministry standards for long-term-care facilities.

This summer, as many here will know, the Ministry of Health committed $6.6 million to upgrade or rebuild Northland Manor to meet the new higher ministry standards. To facilitate the redevelopment project, the hospital itself has committed the property, a $4-million contribution to capital costs and has undertaken to raise another $1.5 million.

I encourage the region of Niagara to promptly complete their evaluation of long-term-care facilities and needs in Niagara. I expect their review will result in a strong regional endorsement to match my own of the Northland project.

I am pleased that Mayor Badawey, regional councillor Bob Saracino and the hospital board have dedicated their considerable energies and efforts behind this proposal. I think with this broad-based approach we can get the Health Services Restructuring Commission to support it as well.

SLOT MACHINES

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Tonight is a historic night in the town of Clinton. Concerned residents of this southwestern Ontario community, determined to halt the Harris bulldozer which is trying to impose a bank of slot machines on the town, have organized a public forum pitting Professor John Warren Kindt, an internationally recognized expert on and critic of the economic development argument put forward by the pro-gambling set to justify the expansion of gambling in any jurisdiction, against the well-funded and determined forces of the Ontario Lottery Corp.

Clinton residents understand that despite the pious pronouncement of the Harris government that it would not proceed with its plan to force 44 so-called charity casinos, more appropriately known as Mike Harris gambling halls, on communities across Ontario; that despite this announced retreat in the face of widespread public opposition, Harris government agents are quietly trying to sneak thousands of slot machines into cities, towns and villages under the guise of assisting race tracks.

In the absence of any meaningful consultation, Clinton citizens conducted a door-to-door survey of 844 residents and found 70% against the establishment of a new casino and only 10% in favour. This result hasn't stopped Mike Harris's lottery corporation from trying to impose the slot machines you find in their casinos on the people of Clinton.

Mike Harris has gone from being a politician who wanted nothing to do with gambling revenues to a Premier whose appetite for gambling expansion knows no limits.

We wish the people of Clinton the very best as they try to stop the Harris gambling steamroller from forcing his slot machines on their town.

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): While the government continues to waste taxpayers' money by spending millions of dollars on advertising trying to convince them that the health care system is not in as bad shape as it really is, people back in our communities, like mine in Hamilton, know exactly what's happening.

Yesterday's headline: "Hospital Funding Falls Short by $20 Million." Today's headline in the Hamilton Spectator: "Region Wants Answers about the Future of St Peter's Hospital."

The minister rolled into our community earlier this week and announced that she was providing tens of millions of dollars for health care. What she didn't talk about was the fact that, first of all, it's based on numbers that lowball the total cost of restructuring. Secondly, she didn't point out that a third of the total cost, even her low numbers, has to be picked up by our taxpayers. It's another phantom download.

We're already out $36 million because of your downloading, money that our property taxpayers and businesses have to pay for. We're also out $17 million because the business education tax discriminates against Hamilton. And we're still out the $38 million that our hospital, the Hamilton Health Sciences Corp, is out in terms of operating costs for this year. Then the minister has the audacity to come into Hamilton and pretend she's doing us some kind of favour. The fact is, you're dismantling Hamilton's health care system piece by piece just to pay for your phony tax scam.

STUDENT ISSUES

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): When I learned that Ontario youth were being asked to comment on their future, I suggested students from Orillia participate. I was proud when three students from Patrick Fogarty were invited to make a presentation at the recent Premier's conference. Joe McCann, Joe Lauer and Erin Brownlee described their future goals and thoughts on how they envision Ontario in the year 2009.

Under the guidance of teacher Brian McKenzie, the students identified possible obstacles in their path. Major issues for the students were economic uncertainty, access to jobs and job markets, and the cost of post-secondary education. In describing how these issues can form blocks, the students outlined the solutions. Among the recommendations were: public-private partnerships to establish job registries and job search databases; improved education about our economy; job shadowing in the workplace; and job shadowing so students can see how their governments work.

The students concluded that the Ontario government, business and education leaders must recognize the need for change. They asked for change with partnership, not partisanship - wise words from our future leaders. I thank these three young people for their interest and contributions to their province and to the conference.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

Mr Toby Barrett (Norfolk): I beg leave to present a report from the standing committee on regulations and private bills and move its adoption.

Clerk at the Table (Ms Lisa Freedman): Your committee begs to report the following bill without amendment:

Bill Pr23,

An Act respecting the Corporation of The Town of Richmond Hill.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Shall the report be received and adopted? Agreed.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

ADOPTION DISCLOSURE STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE LA DIVULGATION DE RENSEIGNEMENTS SUR LES ADOPTIONS

Ms Churley moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 88,

An Act to amend the Vital Statistics Act and the Child and Family Services Act in respect of Adoption Disclosure / Projet de loi 88, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les statistiques de l'état civil et la

Loi sur les services à l'enfance et à la famille en ce qui concerne la divulgation de renseignements sur les adoptions.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): Just briefly, this is a long-standing issue in the Legislature. I know that my colleague Alex Cullen, the member for Ottawa West, also introduced such a bill, and Tony Martin before me. I'm hoping very much that this time I can get all-party support to pass this vital bill, which deals almost exclusively with disclosure for all parties involved in the adoption triangle.

CITY OF KINGSTON ACT, 1998

Mr Gerretsen moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr22,

An Act respecting the City of Kingston.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

LOWER PROPERTY TAXES IN HAMILTON-WENTWORTH ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR LA RÉDUCTION DES IMPÔTS FONCIERS PRÉLEVÉS À HAMILTON-WENTWORTH

Mr Agostino moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 89,

An Act relating to property taxes in Hamilton-Wentworth / Projet de loi 89, Loi concernant les impôts fonciers prélevés à Hamilton-Wentworth.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): Briefly, this bill will ensure fairness for all residents and businesses in the regional municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth in regard to property taxes. It would ensure that for businesses that were to receive increases, the cap that is there will continue to apply, but businesses that were to receive decreases will be able to receive those decreases they're entitled to as set out initially.

MOTIONS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): I believe we have unanimous consent to move a motion without notice with respect to the standing committee on administration of justice and Bill 53, the Law Society Amendment Act.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): The government House leader is asking for unanimous consent without notice with respect to the standing committee on administration of justice. Agreed? Agreed.

Hon Mr Sterling: I move that the standing committee on administration of justice be authorized to meet on Wednesday, December 9, 1998, outside of its regularly scheduled meeting times, but not during routine proceedings, for the purpose of considering Bill 53,

An Act to amend the Law Society Act.

The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: In view of the results in the Quebec election and in view of the very close relationship between Ontario and Quebec, I wonder if we might have unanimous consent for the Premier to state the government's position with respect to the results in Quebec and also for the Premier to tell the people across Ontario what strategy Ontario intends to pursue, given that the government of Quebec has indicated they are not interested in pursuing any sort of quick referendum process.

The Speaker: Agreed? No.

ORAL QUESTIONS

ROAD SAFETY

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): I have a question for the Premier. Ontarians are questioning your commitment to public safety on our roads. You will know that there is a simple, effective and, from your perspective, cost-free solution that will help address the fatalities. There are over 200 that take place every year on Ontario streets at our intersections. That effective and simple method is red light cameras. Cities across the province are now asking for the right to be able to install, at their own expense, red light cameras to provide greater assurance of safety to members of their own communities.

Premier, why are you continuing to stall on this issue, which we have been pushing in this Legislature now for over two and a half years?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I think this is for the Minister of Transportation.

Hon Tony Clement (Minister of Transportation): Pursuant to the question from the honourable Leader of the Opposition, I believe this government stands for indeed the best way to deal with what has been an issue that has caused fatalities on our roads, the red light running.

Pursuant to that, I can report to this House that the Ontario cabinet has decided to pursue pilot projects on red light running which would include traditional police force road safety blitz enforcement, funded either by the municipality or through a proposal by the Insurance Bureau of Canada to fund up to $1 million matching by the municipalities funds for police forces for road safety enforcement. But this pilot can also include red light cameras targeted at the vehicle plate registrant or targeted to the vehicle owner or the use of videotape cameras. This is the best policy and it's the policy that I think will make the most sense for Ontarians.

Mr McGuinty: I can't agree that that is the best policy. We're dragging you kicking and screaming towards red light cameras in Ontario. They've been up and running in dozens of other jurisdictions for over 15 years. They have been proven to save lives. They are effective. Why can't our municipalities, at their own expense, proceed to install red light cameras if they choose to do so today? Why can't they do everything that they could possibly do to prevent injuries and fatalities on their streets today?

Hon Mr Clement: I think we've got an obligation on all sides of this House to come up with an answer that actually works. The rhetoric is fine for campaign brochures perhaps, but we've got an obligation, at least on this side of the House, to do the right thing. The right thing is to look at projects from a variety of different sources: police blitzes, videotape cameras, targeting the driver, targeting the owner. All of those proposals are part of our proposal, not the one-sided, rhetorical proposal of the Liberal Party, but a proposal that makes sense to get at the best solution. That's the proposal that we on this side of the House are very proud of.

Mr McGuinty: This technology, Minister, is up and running, as you well know, around the world. It has been in place for over 15 years. The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police says it's a good idea. The Ontario Traffic Conference says it's a good idea. The Canadian Automobile Association says it's a good idea. Why can't we take advantage of that good idea today to help reduce the risk at our intersections in communities right across the province to help save lives? Why can't we have red light cameras now?

Hon Mr Clement: I think the better idea is to actually test whether these things work. Some jurisdictions photograph the driver. Some jurisdictions photograph the back plate. Some jurisdictions have safety blitzes with real, live police officers. We think it's a good idea to test these out in a pilot project with any municipality that wants to test this out and we will get to the solution that actually works. The rhetoric of the opposition is strictly that: rhetoric. We say get the good ideas on the table, test them out, and we will see what will work and we will implement what will work.

That is the commitment of the Premier and this government. It is the best commitment to guarantee the safety of lives of Ontario drivers and pedestrians.

CLASS SIZE

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): I have a question to the Premier. When you took control over all education everywhere in Ontario, you told Ontarians that they could look forward to smaller class sizes and you spoke at great length of your new caps. Today we've heard that at the elementary level there are over 550 classes which exceed your cap. There's a kindergarten class with 32 students; a grade 2-3 class with 35 students, eight of whom have special needs; a grade 5 class with 39 students, 12 of whom have special needs.

Premier, what happened to your cap? You specifically promised there would be a cap on class sizes in Ontario. Do you think it's now justifiable, do you think it's a good thing, for us to have in one classroom as many as 39 students?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I know the Minister of Education will answer.

Hon David Johnson (Minister of Education and Training): We did promise we would halt the growth in the increase in class sizes, because unfortunately over the last number of years the class sizes have been going up and up, particularly at the elementary level. Each and every year the class sizes across Ontario have been increasing. Yes, through Bill 160 we did bring in a number of improvements to our education system. One was to put a cap on the average size of the classes so that they could not exceed 25 on average in each and every board at the elementary level and they could not exceed 22 at the secondary level. This is what we promised to do and this is exactly what we've done.

The leader of the official opposition wants to know what has been the result. I'll tell you what the result has been. In London, the Catholic district school board: last year, 23.7 students per class; this year, 21.9 - down. Lakehead district school board, elementary: 26.79 last year; this year, 24.3 - down. Dufferin-Peel Catholic District School Board, secondary: over 25 last year; this year, 21.74 - down. The cap has stopped the growth of the average class size. I appreciate the -

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Supplementary.

Mr McGuinty: Minister, word on the street is that Mike Harris capped class sizes at 22 for high schools and 25 for primary schools. That's why they're very disappointed to discover today that at the elementary level there are over 550 examples of cases where we've got classrooms that exceed the cap.

Let's take a look at one of the pieces of propaganda you have put out recently. This particular piece cost $800,000, it was delivered to four million Ontario households, and it specifically says that it caps class sizes, no explanations, no conditions attached. You said that you were going to cap class sizes. That's exactly what Ontarians understood. That's what you spent $800,000 telling them. Now they are rightfully outraged. Why are there over 550 classes at the elementary level alone which exceed your cap?

Hon David Johnson: We have been clear all along that we would cap the average class size across the province at the elementary level and at the secondary level. This has been a clear and consistent message that we have portrayed, and indeed it's working. Way over half of the classes are beneath each of these two targets, and I can say that we are funding the school boards, giving them money so that they can reach these targets.

I appreciate the fact that the Elementary Teachers' Federation of Ontario has raised this issue, because the question goes out, where are the boards spending this money? We are giving each and every board in the province the money to have the class sizes at 25 at the elementary and 22 at the secondary.

The secondary board in Durham: 24.6 last year, 21.7 this year - down. On and on, boards across the province -

The Speaker: Final supplementary.

Mr McGuinty: You took control over all education. That's what you wanted. Fine, you have got it. Then you made a specific commitment and you spent $800,000 advertising that commitment. You said you were capping class sizes - not the average; you said you were capping class sizes - and Ontarians understood that it meant 22 in high school and 25 at the elementary level. That's what this says.

Why is it today that there are at least 550 cases at the elementary level alone where you have exceeded your cap? It's your cap. They're your classrooms. It's your education system. You've broken your commitment. Tell Ontarians why you told them you were going to cap class sizes when in fact you haven't.

Hon David Johnson: That's absolute nonsense. We've done exactly what we said we were going to do. We said -

Interjections.

The Speaker: Minister.

Hon David Johnson: The Liberals were in power between 1985 and 1990. They had a chance to do something and they did absolutely nothing about class sizes. We have taken the step to do exactly what we promised to do: to limit the average class size.

The Liberals indicated there would be 10,000 teachers laid off; they were wrong. They indicated there would be 10,000 fewer teachers; they were wrong. They indicated there would be $1 billion taken out of education; wrong again. Today, once again, wrong again.

The proof is in the pudding: Simcoe Muskoka, 1997 average, 27 students per classroom, and today, 24.6; Durham Catholic District School Board, elementary, 25.1 last year, and this year, 24.5; Simcoe County District School Board, elementary, 26.3 last year, and this year, 25; and on and on it goes.

We have put a cap on the average class size exactly as we said we would for the betterment of education in Ontario.

FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL JURISDICTION

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): My question is for the Premier. One of the results of the Quebec election is that the Premier of Quebec has indicated he is not interested in calling a quick referendum but he said he will concentrate his efforts on pursuing a social union and discussions around a social union. It means there is an opportunity for all of us to move forward in building a stronger Canada. This creates a delicate situation, with a key role for the Premier of Ontario. Premier, I wonder if you can define for us your position on the social union.

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I'm in favour.

Mr Hampton: On an issue which may have an awful lot to do with a lot of relationships in this country, I think you owe it to the people of Ontario to tell them more than just, "I'm in favour."

The reality is that there is some difference on a definition of the social union. As a New Democrat, I believe the social union means that in the future no province should fear drastic unilateral cuts in funding by the federal government to areas of health care, education and social services. It means that provinces should be able to count on these things and provinces should be able to guarantee to their citizens a certain level of funding for health care - and high quality of health care - education and post-secondary education.

I ask you, Premier, what's your definition of the social union? What leadership are you going to provide on behalf of Ontario?

Hon Mr Harris: As you're probably aware, I'm meeting with the chair of the premiers' council, the Honourable Roy Romanow, later today. I have been chatting with him on the phone, I've been talking with the Prime Minister, and a number of our ministers have been meeting with their ministers.

The social union discussions have been ongoing now for two years. Ontario, quite frankly, is acknowledged as the province that is leading the way in these discussions. We had seven or eight provinces onside originally and finally last summer we were able to get 10 provinces and two territorial governments to agree when the Premier of Quebec concurred that disentangling who does what - and we've made great progress in those areas - putting aside supremacy of exclusive provincial jurisdiction versus federal spending power and instead concentrating on how we work together to deliver the best-quality health care, the best-quality social programs -

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you, Premier. Final supplementary.

Mr Hampton: If you insist that you are leading the way, I think the citizens of Ontario at least deserve to know from you what direction you want to lead in on this very important issue. Is it Preston Manning's direction? I can tell you, when I listen to Preston Manning, it means unilateral authority over health and education and social services moving to the provinces. I can tell you from listening to some of his other speeches, it will mean more cuts to health and education and social services.

People in Ontario have experienced your cuts to hospitals, your cuts to colleges and universities, your cuts to education, your cuts to transit, your cuts to social assistance. We need to know, is this about ensuring that the federal government puts the $6 billion back that it took from health and post-secondary education? If that is the case, does it mean that you're prepared to go to the table and guarantee, as the western premiers are prepared to guarantee, that all of that money will go back into health and education?

Hon Mr Harris: I've said about 50 times now that, yes, of course we'll guarantee that's where the dollars go. The social union discussions are ongoing, and the transfer of dollars. As you know, contrary to what you said in the House - and you actually know it - we have cut no funding to health, to education, to other areas. In fact, the only cuts that have been made to health and education have come from the federal government in Ottawa. We are in discussions, as you will know, and our first priority is asking for a restoration of the heath care dollars that the Liberals took away from the provinces. That is the first priority as part of the discussions.

What I think is going on here is that an NDP Premier is coming to visit me this afternoon and for the first time in three and a half years you've expressed some interest in social union.

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

Mr Hampton: My next question is also for the Premier. I merely want to ask you what your position is on the social union and to get you to spell out the direction you want to go in. I don't know why it has to be as painful as pulling teeth. You should be willing to come forward with those facts and that information.

RENT REGULATION

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): The question I want to ask you now, Premier, is this: Could you tell us how much you think the rent for a two-bedroom apartment in Toronto has gone up in the last year? Do you have any idea of that?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): No, I don't precisely know the amount but I'm pretty sure you do and you're going to tell me, and I welcome that.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Stop the clock.

Leader of the third party.

Mr Hampton: Premier, the reason I asked you is because I've got a report here from the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp. It is their annual rental vacancy survey. You and your housing minister go around the province saying that your so-called Tenant Protection Act won't force up rents for average families in the province. In fact, we now have the evidence which shows that rents are going up very seriously. For example, this survey done by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp shows that the average rent for a two-bedroom apartment in Toronto has gone from $821 a month up to $881 a month.

That's a jump of $720 a year for tenant households, who make an average of just $34,000 a year. Premier, can you tell us how you justify forcing families with an income of $34,000 a year to pay a rent increase of $720 a year?

Hon Mr Harris: I know the Minister of Housing can.

Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): It's very simple. It falls under the Rent Control Act, which uses the same formula to control rents that the NDP had when they were in power. It's exactly the same formula.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Minister.

Hon Mr Leach: The rent control formula stayed in place. Anybody living in an apartment who had an increase in their rent this year falls under the rent control guidelines. The opposition parties, the Liberals in particular, keep standing up and saying that rent control is gone, which is absolutely false. The rent control formula stayed in place. For anybody who lives in an apartment who has an increase this year, or any year, the amount of the rent is controlled by the rent control formula.

Obviously, if somebody moves out of an apartment and the apartment is vacant, it's not an increase in rent, it's just a new rent.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Supplementary.

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): I don't mean to be disrespectful, but I don't think you know what you're talking about. This is a 7.3% increase that we are talking about, nothing to do with the Rent Control Act that you're talking about.

Your rent decontrol scheme was and is designed to jack up rents. That's all it was intended to do. We've always said to you and to your government that this was a big hidden cost of the Harris agenda. Lower middle class families get a small income tax cut but they get to pay higher property taxes through their rents; they get to pay much higher tuition fees, higher transit fares and higher drug costs; they face a health care system and an educational system that is on the brink of ruin.

In my view, it is your responsibility -

The Speaker: Question.

Mr Marchese: - and the Premier's responsibility to protect modest-income earners from these skyrocketing rent increases. What do you believe is your responsibility towards -

The Speaker: Thank you. Minister.

Hon Mr Leach: It certainly is our responsibility to ensure that tenants are protected, and that's exactly what we did and that's why we left the rent control formula in place, for exactly that reason.

The other thing the member mentioned was property taxes on apartment buildings. When your government was in power they were four times higher on an apartment than on a single-family residence. This government has taken action to allow municipalities to bring that back to single-family residence.

We've taken action to protect tenants, action that you never did, and I can't understand why you didn't. You stand up there and say that you're the party that protects tenants and you didn't do a damned thing to protect them while you were in office. We've taken action to make sure that property taxes on apartments are brought down. We've made sure tenants are protected by making sure -

The Speaker: Thank you. Final supplementary.

Mr Marchese: To continue with this, again, we're talking about a 7.3% increase -

Interjections.

Mr Gilles Pouliot (Lake Nipigon): Apologize to the member, Speaker.

The Speaker: I apologize to the member for Fort York. It was my mistake. It was not a supplementary. It's a new question. Official opposition.

Interjection: Roll back the clock.

The Speaker: It stopped.

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): But you took time off us.

The Speaker: Six seconds, come on. A six-second mistake I'll accept. New question.

Interjections.

The Speaker: I'm not going anywhere near that one.

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): I have a question for the Premier. I have a question which goes to your personal integrity. In 1994, when it was brought to your attention that the NDP government had spent $1.5 million promoting Jobs Ontario, you responded as follows:

"It's a propaganda blitz so you can pat yourself on the back to voters. It's certainly morally a misuse of taxpayers' dollars. I'm shocked that they're doing it. I think it's wrong."

Premier, if you believe that spending $1.5 million on political propaganda is morally a misuse of taxpayers' dollars, what do you call it when you spend $47 million of taxpayer dollars on political propaganda?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): When it comes to the amount of money, I call it -

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Premier.

Hon Mr Harris: I think there are two parts to the question. When it comes to the amount of money, I call it still far short of what the Liberals spent six, seven, eight years ago. When it comes to indexing the cost of advertising for inflation, it is significantly less than the Liberal government spent, by any measure, over the life of your government or, year for year, what the Liberals spent while they were in government. I think it is -

Interjections.

The Speaker: Supplementary.

Mr McGuinty: Premier, this goes to your personal integrity. When the NDP government spent $1.5 million on their political propaganda, you said it was morally a misuse of taxpayers' dollars. You said you were shocked they were doing it. You said it was wrong. You today are spending, to this point in time, 47 million taxpayer dollars on political propaganda. What happened? You said it was wrong. You said it shocked you. You said it was morally a misuse of money. What happened to your integrity? Why is it that we're not spending this money on health care and education? Why is it that you're no longer shocked? Why is it suddenly no longer morally a misuse of taxpayer dollars?

Hon Mr Harris: As I said, there are two parts: There is the content of the ads and there is the amount of advertising. On the amount of advertising, it's a matter of public record - accepted, I'm sure, by all 130 members of the Legislature - that we spend far less than the Liberal Party spent when they were in office. Second, you have to look at contents of ads.

We criticized ads like Smile Ontario - $10 million that we didn't think was particularly beneficial in communicating a program. We criticized the ad with the big poster of the now leader of the New Democratic Party that was promoting parks or some feel-good stuff, as opposed to ads that publicized programs or invited input or invited comments back.

We have been responding to a huge number of requests that said: "Talk to us. Involve us more. Give us questionnaires. Let us have a say." All of our ads promote Ontario abroad. They promote our companies, they promote our businesses, they promote our tourist establishments and they promote our programs. We invite -

The Speaker: Thank you. New question.

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): I want to ask the Premier about another of his outrageous statements. As we know, the Premier was out last week with his jar of loonies searching for photo opportunities where he could tell people about his 30% income tax scheme. But you kept running into people who said that they would rather see the money going into health and education. Then you encountered someone who said that they were very concerned about tuition fees. When you were confronted about the problem of lower-income students and tuition fees, you said: "If a university turns them down for reasons of finances, we'll shut the university down. That's our commitment."

Premier, yours is the government that has cut university and college funding by $400 million a year. You're the Premier who has frankly influenced colleges and universities to increase tuition fees. We know that tuition fees have to be reduced. I've said we should reduce them by rolling back some of your income tax scheme. Could you tell us how you're going to help those students by shutting down the university?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I was making the point that if you want to get public money from this government and run a university or a community college in the province of Ontario, you must guarantee access, regardless of financial circumstances, for every student who qualifies in the province of Ontario. That was our commitment. That is the commitment of the colleges and universities.

What has been the result of that to date? The result of that to date has been: The percentage of 18- to 24-year-olds participating in post-secondary education in 1997-98 was 35%; under your government, 28%; under the Liberals, 23%. Clearly, far more young people are now, under our government, because of our massive infusion of OSAP money -

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you, Premier. Supplementary, member for Nickel Belt.

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): You're making the numbers up. Enrolments are dropping.

Hon Mr Harris: You are a disgrace. Your party was a disgrace.

The Speaker: Premier, come to order, please.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hold on. Member for Nickel Belt.

Mr Blain K. Morin (Nickel Belt): To the Premier: You claim to be providing more funding, but your numbers just don't add up. We've been asking for a full accounting of your funding claims, without much success. The stakeholders are asking as well, and they can't get answers.

Let's look at the facts. This government slashed funding by $400 million. The latest figures from Stats Canada show a sharp drop in student enrolment linked to the funding cuts. Tuition is soaring, colleges and universities are squeezed, and student debt keeps going up. The Canadian Federation of Students is also calling on you today for answers.

When you mix unbelievable claims that you've increased funding with reckless threats to close universities, why should anybody believe you today?

Hon Mr Harris: If you can find a university or a college that is turning down a student who has academic qualifications for lack of money, I want you to bring that student to my attention. They are not allowed to do that and operate with public money in Ontario. What has happened -

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hold it. Member for Nickel Belt, member for Ottawa West and member for Cochrane South, come to order. Premier.

Hon Mr Harris: What has happened since we have taken office? There is $134 million more in OSAP; $87 million more from the 30% tuition set-aside; $7.5 million in Ontario graduate scholarships; plus $20 million more in the Ontario student opportunity trust fund; plus $60 million more in the access to opportunities program - over $300 million - plus tax credit for student loan interest, $20 million; plus tax-free RRSP withdrawals for students, $10 million; plus tax relief for part-time students, $25 million; plus $600 million in new bursary money. That's why there are more students in colleges and universities and a far higher percentage than when you were in office.

SENTENCING

Mrs Julia Munro (Durham-York): My question is for the Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services and concerns the impact of federal legislation on Ontario's public safety. Minister, yesterday the very highly regarded president of the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police and the chief of York region's police, Julian Fantino, was denied an opportunity to speak to the House of Commons committee on justice and human rights. The committee is considering a private member's bill which provides for the imposition of consecutive sentences on criminals who commit multiple murders or multiple sex offences.

My constituents and local law enforcement officials have told me they want to see more accountability in the justice system. They have told me they want to see criminals sentenced appropriately for serious repeated offences. They have told me they are frustrated by a justice system that does not match the punishment with the severity of the crime -

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Solicitor General.

Hon Robert W. Runciman (Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services): I want to thank the member for Durham-York for asking about this very important issue, and I want to assure the member that the government is following the hearings on this legislation quite closely. We're very concerned about making sure criminals are punished appropriately.

I think the treatment of Chief Fantino by the Liberal majority on the committee was nothing short of shameful. They offended not only the police officers in this province but victims' organizations and the public on this issue. I can tell the member that the Attorney General and I have written to the sponsor of the bill expressing Ontario's support for the principles of consecutive sentencing and, in effect, truth in sentencing for convicted criminals in this country.

Mrs Munro: Minister, thank you for speaking up for law-abiding Ontarians who want the justice system to work for the victims of crime, not the criminals.

There have been reports that ultimately the federal government will kill this legislation and take no action on the issue of consecutive sentencing. My constituents want something done about repeat serious offenders. Is this going to be just another example of the federal government's mishandling of the justice file?

Hon Mr Runciman: I hope the federal government does take action on making sure that repeat serious offenders serve appropriate jail sentences for their crimes. To the Liberal members across the room who are heckling on this issue, I want to ask them to step back, think about this one and encourage their colleagues in Ottawa to take this issue very seriously indeed.

Ontarians expect and deserve a better justice system than one that grants get-out-of-jail-free cards to criminals who serve time for just one of multiple offences. If the Liberals were serious about fighting crime, they would follow Ontario's lead by investing in front-line police officers, quit rubber-stamping pardons for sex offenders, abandon their expensive and ineffective gun registry scheme, and take effective public safety measures like cracking down on gun smuggling.

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Gerard Kennedy (York South): I have a question for the Minister of Health. Originally I wanted to ask the Premier, until he left the House.

The Premier maybe could take this question; he's back.

This question has to do with a complaint that 5,000 people in Kitchener-Waterloo have about you and the other members locally, Minister. For the last number of weeks and months, they have had a campaign to save the beds that you have cut in their hospitals.

Premier, these people want an answer. Why are you ripping beds that are needed out of St Mary's hospital such that now they're releasing people and in the last 17 days they have had to shut down 20 times to new patients? It's the same thing at Grand River hospital. They have also had an increase in people going to emergency, partly because they have to let people go too early.

There has been a campaign to save these beds in Kitchener-Waterloo. You may know what they aren't aware of: that, yes, you have cut $16 million, fired the nurses and got rid of the beds, but you plan to cut some more.

Will you stand up and give back to the people of Kitchener-Waterloo the beds that you have cut and assure them you will not take away more?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I think the Minister of Health -

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

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health): I am very pleased to respond to the member opposite. Unfortunately, the member opposite continues to distort many of the facts. Certainly yesterday -

Interjections.

The Speaker: You can't accuse a member of distorting the facts.

Interjection.

The Speaker: You know what? You've got to withdraw that too, so let's not go there. Withdraw the comment.

Hon Mrs Witmer: I withdraw that, Mr Speaker.

I think what the member across the way needs to do is to get all of his facts as accurate as they can be in order that the information being communicated is accurate. We know that yesterday some of the information that was communicated was not accurate as it related to Brockville.

I would say to you today that fortunately for the people in Kitchener-Waterloo, our government has addressed years of inaction by your government and by the NDP government, and we have added $59 million in spending. In fact, the commission has recommended major improvements to the health system in Kitchener-Waterloo. They have recommended an MRI. They have recommended a new cancer centre.

The Speaker: Answer.

Hon Mrs Witmer: We have made changes that will enable our community to be the beneficiary of services at home. They won't have to travel -

The Speaker: Supplementary.

Mr Kennedy: Minister, the people of Kitchener-Waterloo are again going to be disappointed. There are 5,000 of them here who have signed a petition against those kinds of phony answers.

There are another 12,000 people in Sarnia who also understand what you and your government are really about. These 12,000 people include the people who delivered them today. They are the housekeepers who clean the linen, they are the RPNs providing the care -

Interjection.

The Speaker: Member for Simcoe West, come to order, please.

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): You've had your chance.

The Speaker: Order. I'll deal with it, thank you. Member for York South.

Mr Kennedy: Some of the other people here today are the cooks providing the meals, the porters who carry these patients, and they know what you refuse to accept: 49% of the chronic care beds in Sarnia are being eliminated. You have cut from there, just like you cut 251 beds and all kinds of money out of Kitchener-Waterloo. You've done the same thing in Sarnia.

We've heard from spouses who want to know what is going to happen. We have heard from the people who provide the care, and they know that the care isn't there any more.

They want you to answer simply and directly as the Minister of Health: Will you guarantee that those beds will be there and that you will stop the cutting of chronic care and acute beds in Sarnia? Will you do that, Minister?

Hon Mrs Witmer: I'm not surprised that the member didn't respond to the facts as I stated them. You and your party alleged initially that we had removed $8.6 million from health care in Waterloo region. I have just told you that we have increased health spending by $59 million. That's how the facts are not communicated accurately.

But let's take a look at Lambton county, because again we are taking the initiatives to reform the health system in this province -

Interjection.

The Speaker: Minister, this is not helpful. Please.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Order. Member for Renfrew North, please come to order.

I want to just ask the members, let's just try and get back on the rails. I think it's derailing here. We'll respond to the questions and try to stay away from the personal attacks. Minister.

Hon Mrs Witmer: I'd like to quote from a comment that was made by the chair of the Petrolia board in Lambton, who said, "This government is creating a modern, efficient and integrated system of care for patients," referring to the patients in Lambton. I would also indicate to you that our government has increased health spending in Sarnia-Lambton by about $41.5 million. As well, if we take a look at the hospital facilities, every facility is staying open, and the number of beds in Lambton county is actually increasing from 1,272 in March 1996 to 1,374 in 2003. There are going to be -

The Speaker: Thank you. New question, third party.

MEMBER'S COMMENTS

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): My question is for the Premier. We have called on you to seek a written apology from -

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order. Member for Wellington, I caution you.

Mr Silipo: Premier, we have called on you to seek a written apology from Conservative member Doug Ford for his reference to "dark people" in a televised interview. You have written back to our leader declining to do this, citing what you call Mr Ford's "sincere personal efforts to reach out to all cultural and ethnic groups." From Mr Ford, on the other hand, the only response has been an aggressive, unrepentant attack on my leader, Howard Hampton.

Laughter.

Mr Silipo: This may be funny, and at some levels it is, but it's also quite serious, because the tone and climate that you and your government set is extremely important in our society's efforts to secure that racism is unacceptable throughout the province. I want to ask you again, do you not understand the importance of finding the kinds of comments that Mr Ford has made completely unacceptable and therefore asking him unequivocally to apologize for those comments?

The Speaker: Stop the clock.

I don't know if that's a government question, and I understand where you're going on it.

I'll let the question stand to the Premier.

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I think you did send me a letter asking me to speak with Mr Ford. I did. I sent you a letter back, along with his explanation and his personal assurance. The matter is closed.

Mr Silipo: Premier, this is not just a question of Mr Ford's personal assurances; it's a question of whether he acknowledges and whether particularly now you acknowledge as Premier that what he did was wrong and therefore warrants at the very least a clear apology. That is something you completely ignored in your letter. Let me suggest to you that therefore what concerns us is your government's actions and your actions as Premier in how you deal with this issue and issues similar to that. Every time you do not take a clear stand against this type of activity, you lead to the perpetuation of this type of mentality throughout the province.

I could cite to you all the actions you have taken as a government to get rid, piece by piece, of all the anti-racism activities in the Ministry of Education, in the Ministry of Citizenship and in all other ministries. Perhaps that's why you're not prepared to take the tough decisions that you should. But I also want to tell you, what troubles us is that we see then a growing racism in the province that is reflected in all sorts of ways. It's reflected in the kind of regrettably derogatory comments that we've seen throughout and in the kind of -

Interjections.

The Speaker: Stop the clock. Order. Government members, listen. The member can ask the questions. It's not up to the Speaker to determine whether they're acceptable questions; it's up to the broader public. I just want to ask the members to come to order. You have five seconds left to place your question, member for Dovercourt.

Mr Silipo: We expect a high standard from the Premier of the province, as citizens do. Will you understand that and ask Mr Ford to apologize for his comments?

Hon Mr Harris: I have acted and I appreciate your advice and concern on the matter.

HYDRO RATES

Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East): My question is for the Minister of Energy, Science and Technology. Earlier this summer I was honoured to sit on the standing committee that dealt with Bill 35, the Energy Competition Act. Certainly, the representations we had heard left me with the impression that this was a bill that would result in savings for energy consumers all across Ontario.

Accordingly, I was concerned yesterday when I read an

article by Robert Blohm in the National Post that indicated he believed that the Energy Competition Act would cause an increase in my constituents' hydro bills in the form of hidden taxes. Minister, what reassurances can I give to my constituents that their hydro bills will not in fact increase as a result of this legislation?

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Energy, Science and Technology): I thank the honourable member for Scarborough East for the question. I appreciate the opportunity to clarify Mr Blohm's comments yesterday. It's unfortunate that the National Post would print such an article. It's erroneous, because the

article contains not one iota of truth in it. It talks about raising prices and hidden taxes. There's no such thing in Bill 35. Clearly, there are no new taxes introduced in the legislation. Clearly, the consensus in the province is that hydro prices will go down as a result of the actions we've taken.

Anywhere in the world where we've seen competition introduced into the electricity sector, including Australia, the United Kingdom, Argentina, Sweden and California, we've seen prices fall. So Mr Blohm has no basis anywhere in the world that we're aware of - and the honourable member for Scarborough East sat on a committee and reviewed this with all parties -that prices would go up, so I don't know on what basis he wrote his article.

Mr Gilchrist: Minister, I guess the other part of his

article that caused me some concern was the suggestion that somehow there would be barriers brought in by this legislation that would effectively discourage new investment in the energy sector in Ontario.

In the committee hearings all parties heard just the opposite, particularly in Sarnia, that this bill would prompt new investment.

I know from the presentation you made before the committee that you've been meeting with energy players in the industry over the past year. As we approach the open energy market that is the goal of Bill 35, is it true that companies will be making new investments as a result of that bill being passed?

Hon Mr Wilson: Yes. The allegation was made in the

article that no new jobs will be created; 1,000 new jobs have been created, and that was before the bill even passed through this Legislature.

We've seen the largest cogeneration plant of its kind announced by TransAlta, a $400-million new project creating hundreds of jobs in Sarnia, other companies like Sentinel - Sudbury Hydro is building its first cogeneration plant. Toronto Hydro is building its first cogeneration plant with a Montreal company called Boralex. That one is great for the environment because it tears down the smokestack that's on the sewage treatment plant that's down on Commissioner Street. It will tear down the smokestack and use the methane gas to produce electricity, something that other governments should have done a long time ago and failed to do.

To date in

summary on the job front, the bill only passed a couple of weeks ago and we've seen $1 billion worth of new investment in this sector. We have many more companies poised to make new investments in this sector and I think you'll hear those announcements in the very near future.

VEHICLE REGISTRATION

Mr Mike Colle (Oakwood): I have a question for the Minister of Transportation. Because your ministry is not doing its job, because of its lack of control when it comes to registering vehicles in Ontario, car thieves and con artists are using your ministry to launder stolen cars and sell them to the unsuspecting public.

Using your ministry's documents for protection, innocent and unsuspecting victims like Mrs Phyllis Lamont, who is in the gallery here today, are being defrauded of thousands of dollars - in her case, $25,000.

Because of your pathetically loose procedures and any lack of safeguards or checks in your ministry, our car thief was able to defraud Mrs Lamont of her hard-earned $25,000, paid unknowingly for a stolen car that was registered too easily through your ministry by a car thief.

Minister, don't you think your ministry should be held responsible for what happened to Mrs Lamont and what is happening to people like Mrs Lamont in this province? Because of your negligence, because of your not doing anything, you've got car thieves hitting a bonanza here in Ontario.

Hon Tony Clement (Minister of Transportation): I am pleased to inform this House that, despite what the honourable member says, this ministry has been doing a lot to ensure that the car thief ring industry is reduced in this province. In fact, in July of this year we announced the stolen and salvaged vehicle project, which amounted to branding for cars, so we could track the cars through the system. No longer can car thieves go out and purchase a VIN through an auction and then track it through the system on a stolen vehicle.

The case that the honourable member mentions is a new twist by the criminal element to launder their stolen cars. I can tell the honourable member that we are working with the province of Quebec and other provinces to ensure that their information on stolen cars and whatnot is shared with us, and vice versa, so that that particular avenue is closed for car thieves in Ontario.

Mr Colle: Minister, you don't know what's going on in this province. Car thieves are using your ministry to launder stolen cars. As we stand here today, car thieves are walking in, giving their first names and registering cars. They're using stolen vehicle registration permits from Quebec that your ministry doesn't have connected with your computers. It's a joke. Subsequently you've got innocent victims like Mrs Lamont, who wrote asking you to do something, and you're not doing anything.

Your ministry is a farce when it comes to registering vehicles. The police know it's a farce, the insurance investigators know it's a farce, innocent victims know it's a farce. You are not protecting innocent people who are trying to register cars. When are you going to take responsibility?

Tell Mrs Lamont you're getting to get her money back. Get her $25,000 back, which is the result of your negligence, because all your ministry does is rubber-stamp applications. It doesn't even ask for names, it doesn't ask for any ID; it just gives the registration form, no questions asked. It's a joke.

Hon Mr Clement: Obviously it's of great concern to this government when cars are stolen. It's one of the most common crimes in this province, unfortunately. That is why, after years of dithering by former governments, we announced the stolen and salvaged vehicle program this summer. That was applauded by the insurance industry and it was applauded by police services, because they know that with branding and with the proper information available to the police services, we can get at these problems. There is always a new scam out there, and I want you to know that this government will not stand still and will not rest until these scams are dealt with.

Mr Colle: Get her money back.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Member for Oakwood, come to order.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Member for Kingston and The Islands, come to order. Minister, do you want to -

Hon Mr Clement: I'm done.

Interjection.

The Speaker: He had his time. He didn't use it all.

PETITIONS

HOTEL DIEU HOSPITAL

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a petition with over 6,000 names in support of the Hotel Dieu Hospital in St Catharines. It reads as follows:

"We, the undersigned, oppose the proposed closure of Niagara's only denominational hospital and the devastating effects that proposal will have on patients and potential patients from across the region.

I affix my signature as I'm in complete agreement with the petition.

ADOPTION

Mr Alex Cullen (Ottawa West): I have a series of petitions here signed by residents in Spencerville, Brockville and Iroquois Falls with respect to adoption reform. I will summarize the petition.

These petitioners are asking the Legislature to adopt Bill 39, the Access to Adoption Information Statute Law Amendment Act, which would allow access to birth registration and adoption records for adult adoptees, birth parents, adoptive parents and other relatives, implement a no-contact notice option, recommend optional counselling, offer access to other adoption information and acknowledge open adoption.

I am proud to affix my signature to it.

GERMAN HERITAGE

Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the people of German descent have been a part of Ontario's history since the days of pre-Confederation; and

"Whereas the German culture has always been an integral component of the cultural mosaic of Ontario; and

"Whereas we wish to demonstrate official recognition of the positive contribution of German heritage in the province of Ontario;

"We, the undersigned, respectfully petition the government of Ontario to pass the bill entitled the German Pioneers Day Act and we respectfully petition the government of Ontario to designate the day following Thanksgiving Day as the date of the annual German Pioneers Day."

I am happy to affix my signature.

PROPERTY TAXATION

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): I'm pleased to present today a petition gathered by the reeve of the great townships of Brudenell and Lyndoch, signed by over 800 people in the country of Renfrew, which petition reads in part:

"Whereas the Ontario government has directly downloaded services such as policing, general welfare assistance and certain provincial highways to municipalities, resulting in substantial expenditure increases; and

"Whereas the Ministry of Natural Resources has offered some municipalities one-time funding for reconstruction purposes of certain crown land access roads with all future maintenance costs to be incurred by the individual municipalities;

"Therefore,

be it resolved that since municipalities have received many downloaded services causing additional expenditures to local property taxpayers, the province be petitioned that having regard to the fact that the Ontario government owns very substantial amounts of property in rural counties like Renfrew that the province now be required to pay full taxation on the lands and properties owned by the government of Ontario in counties like Renfrew."

I'm pleased to sign this petition and present it to the House on behalf of the good people of Brudenell and Lyndoch.

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): I have a petition signed by 5,765 people. It reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas we are the residents covered by the tri-county Lambton-Kent-Essex; and

"Whereas we are the taxpayers covered under the Health Services Restructuring Commission, Lambton hospitals; and

"Whereas we are the health care providers and users;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to reinstate all complex continuing care beds and transitional care beds and funding slated to be removed under the Lambton hospitals restructuring report."

I am proud to add my name to this petition.

BEACH USE

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): "To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the Parliament of Ontario as follows:

"That the Attorney General or his representative take action on behalf of the people of Ontario, by injunction, to prevent further prohibition of the public's use of traditionally used beaches of Tiny township."

The Preserve Beach Use Association is a large group of concerned citizens who feel that the reasonable public use of historically open beaches should continue and are well aware that use of the beach is the issue as opposed to ownership. The over 1,600 signatures enclosed represent a number of concerned citizens as well as some who are not physically in the area. This is signed by the co-chairs, Ross Hastings and Gail Barrie.

GLENGARRY OUTREACH SERVICES

Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas we, the residents of north and south Glengarry, request an inquiry by the Ministry of Health into the hereunder:

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly as follows to investigate:

"The administration and management of the funds of the Glengarry Outreach Services regarding: (

a) Audit covering April 1, 1997 to March 31, 1998 (closed). (

b) Audit covering April 1, 1998 to August 31, 1998 (pending);

"Whereas we, the residents of north and south Glengarry, request an inquiry by the Ministry of Health into the hereunder:

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly as follows to investigate:

"The reason the Victorian Order of Nurses was chosen to administer the funds for Glengarry Outreach Services when the finances of the Victorian Order of Nurses have been reported to be in a serious state of deficit.

"Whereas we, the residents of north and south Glengarry, request an inquiry by the Ministry of Health into the hereunder:

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to investigate:

"The disbursement of monies accumulated by donations and fundraising activities."

That's signed by 100 of the residents of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry and the Cornwall riding.

CHILD CARE CENTRES

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): I've got a petition from Centro Clinton Daycare. It's addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and it reads:

"Whereas providing daycare spaces is critical for the families in Toronto that need access to them; and

"Whereas the well-being of children should not be sacrificed for tax cuts; and

"Whereas the provincial government has significantly cut the budgets for Toronto school boards; and

"Whereas under the provincial government's ill-conceived Bill 160 there is no flexibility for boards to make up for those cuts; and

"Whereas daycare spaces in schools are now threatened by these cuts with the prospect of full-cost recovery arrangements with daycares and the threat of school closures;

"Therefore,

be it resolved that we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly to repeal Bill 160 immediately, and

"Further

be it resolved that the Legislative Assembly of Ontario instruct the Minister of Education and Training to restore meaningful and flexible funding to the Toronto school boards to ensure that they are able to continue to accommodate our community daycares; and

"Further

be it resolved that the Honourable Dave Johnson, Minister of Education and Training, takes responsibility for his government's funding cuts rather than passing the buck to school boards who have no control over provincial government spending cuts."

I support this petition and I'm signing it.

PALLIATIVE CARE

Mr Bob Wood (London South): I have a petition signed by 67 people.

"Whereas most Ontario residents do not have adequate access to effective palliative care in time of need;

"Whereas meeting the needs of Ontarians of all ages for relief of preventable pain and suffering, as well as the provision of emotional and spiritual support, should be a priority to our health care system;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to resolve that a task force be appointed to develop a palliative care bill of rights that would ensure the best possible treatment, care, protection and support for Ontario citizens and their families in time of need.

"The task force should include palliative care experts in pain management, community palliative care and ethics in order to determine effective safeguards for the right to life and care of individuals who cannot or who can no longer decide issues of medical care for themselves.

"The appointed task force would provide interim reports to the government and the public and continue in existence to review the implementation of its recommendations."

NORTHERN HEALTH SERVICES

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

"To the Honourable Mike Harris:

"Whereas there are circumstances at the Lake of the Woods District Hospital that could cause the cessation of the anaesthetists' services, the loss of two psychiatrists and the loss of the diabetic education service in the near future; and

"Whereas these facilities are required by the people in a very large area of the Kenora district; and

"Whereas even a short-term elimination of these facilities could result in the loss of the professionals providing these services;

"Therefore, we, the undersigned, are calling on your government to provide an immediate long-term solution to guarantee the continuation of health care facilities currently available at our district hospital."

I have certainly added my name to that petition.

EDUCATION FUNDING

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): I have petitions and letters from the people of Riverdale, parents and students, who came to my office yesterday on the anniversary of the passage of Bill 160. The petition reads:

"Whereas the province must develop a funding formula based on children and programs, not square feet and dollars, and it must reflect the differing needs of communities across Ontario;

"Whereas the province must immediately cease spending our tax dollars on education advertising;

"Whereas the new high school curriculum has been developed too hastily and implementation must be delayed for at least one year;

"Whereas Bill 160 gave the Minister of Education the obligation to fund the needs of all Ontario students;

"Therefore, on December 1, the anniversary of the passage of Bill 160, we join parents and students across the province to demand that the minister live up to that responsibility."

I will affix my signature to this petition.

REMEMBRANCE DAY

Mrs Julia Munro (Durham-York): I have a petition here to the Parliament of Ontario.

"Whereas it is important to honour the courageous memory and sacrifices of Canada's war dead and of our veterans who fought in defence of our national rights and freedoms;

"Whereas there is a need for succeeding generations of young, school-age Canadians to learn more about the true meaning of Remembrance Day;

"Whereas Ontario veterans' associations have created excellent educational materials for use in Ontario schools on the meaning and significance of Remembrance Day;

"Whereas a special Remembrance Day curriculum for all grades in Ontario's education system, developed on the basis of the programs by Ontario veterans' associations and involving their direct participation, would increase awareness of and appreciation for Canada's wartime sacrifices in the hearts and minds of all Ontario citizens;

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

"That the provincial Ministry of Education and Training ensure that a suitable Remembrance Day learning unit be included in the curriculum of all grades of Ontario's education system."

I support this petition and have signed it.

HERITAGE CONSERVATION

Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): I have petitions coming in from all across the province from people concerned about this government's abdication of responsibility for heritage, both built and natural, and the petition reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas heritage is vitally important to the social and economic health of Ontario communities and Ontario residents; and

"Whereas community museums, galleries and heritage organizations work hard to protect, promote, manage and develop our provincial heritage resources; and

"Whereas the provincial government has a responsibility to the people of Ontario to promote the value of heritage and heritage conservation; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government has abdicated their responsibility for heritage by cutting support to community museums, galleries and heritage organizations; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government has not implemented a new heritage act that would give communities the ability to better protect heritage sites; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government has not undertaken meaningful consultation with Ontario's heritage community;

"Therefore, we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to provide stronger support to Ontario's heritage institutions and organizations and to work with the people of Ontario to establish a new heritage act."

I have some from the Norfolk Historical Society, Brockville and various other communities, and I'm glad to sign my name to the petition.

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): I have a petition signed by approximately 600 people, which reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas we are the residents covered by the Waterloo-Wellington-Dufferin District Health Council; and

"Whereas we are the taxpayers covered under the Health Services Restructuring Commission, Waterloo health services restructuring report; and

"Whereas we are the health care providers and users;

"Therefore, we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to reinstate all acute care beds and funding slated to be removed under the Waterloo region health services restructuring preliminary report."

I am proud to be able to affix my signature.

PROTECTION FOR HEALTH CARE WORKERS

Mr W. Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): I have a petition I want to present on behalf of the member for Leeds-Grenville, the Honourable Bob Runciman. It reads:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas nurses in Ontario often experience coercion to participate in practices which directly contravene their deeply held ethical standards; and

"Whereas pharmacists in Ontario are often pressured to dispense and/or sell chemicals and/or devices contrary to their moral or religious beliefs; and

"Whereas public health workers in Ontario are expected to assist in providing controversial services and promoting controversial materials against their consciences; and

"Whereas physicians in Ontario often experience pressure to give referrals for medications, treatments and/or procedures which they believe to be gravely immoral; and

"Whereas competent health care workers and students in various health care disciplines in Ontario have been denied training, employment, continued employment and advancement in their intended fields and suffered other forms of unjust discrimination because of the dictates of their consciences;

"We, the undersigned, urge the government of Ontario to enact legislation explicitly recognizing the freedom of conscience of health care workers, prohibiting unjust discrimination against health care workers because of their refusal to participate in matters contrary to the dictates of their consciences and establishing penalties for such discrimination."

That has been signed by a number of constituents of Leeds-Grenville, and I add my signature.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TIME ALLOCATION

Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): I move that, pursuant to standing order 46 and notwithstanding any other standing order or special order of the House relating to Bill 56,

An Act to establish the Greater Toronto Services Board and the Greater Toronto Transit Authority and to amend the Toronto Area Transit Operating Authority Act, when Bill 56 is next called as a government order, the Speaker shall put every question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill without further debate or amendment, and at such time, the bill shall be ordered referred to the standing committee on general government;

That no deferral of the second reading vote pursuant to standing order 28(

h) shall be permitted;

That the standing committee on general government be authorized to meet for clause-by-clause consideration of the bill on Monday, December 7, 1998, from 9 am to 12 pm and following routine proceedings until the completion of clause-by-clause consideration;

That at 4:30 pm on Monday, December 7, 1998, those amendments which have not yet been moved shall be deemed to have been moved, and the Chair of the committee shall interrupt the proceedings and shall, without further debate or amendment, put every question necessary to dispose of all remaining sections of the bill and any amendments thereto. Any divisions required shall be deferred until all remaining questions have been put and taken in succession with one 20-minute waiting period allowed pursuant to standing order 127(a);

That the committee shall report the bill to the House not later than the first sessional day that reports from committees may be received following the completion of clause-by-clause consideration. In the event that the committee fails to report the bill on the date provided, the bill shall be deemed to have been passed by the committee and shall be deemed to be reported to and received by the House;

That upon receiving the report of the standing committee on general government, the Speaker shall put the question for adoption of the report forthwith and at such time the bill shall be ordered for third reading;

That two hours shall be allotted to the third reading stage of the bill, after which time the Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings and shall put every question necessary to dispose of this stage of the bill without further debate or amendment;

That the vote for third reading of the bill may, pursuant to standing order 28(h), be deferred until the next sessional day during the routine proceeding "Deferred Votes"; and

That, in the case of any division relating to any proceeding on the bill, the division bell shall be limited to five minutes.

I think all members of the Legislature would agree in principle that now is the time to move forward with a Greater Toronto Services Board. I think it's recognized that there is a tremendous need to coordinate the services across the GTA to make sure they are delivered in an efficient, expedient and cost-effective manner. It's important for everyone to recognize that this bill, Bill 56, should be passed before the Christmas break. Then we will have the GTSB up and running on January 1.

That's important because there have been steps taken previously to transfer the operation of GO Transit to the municipalities and this legislation will allow the Greater Toronto Services Board to be responsible for the operation of GO Transit.

It's also my hope that the new board will be up and have its first meeting early in the new year so that it can begin that very important work of providing better cooperation and coordination of the greater Toronto area.

All the municipalities have for the most part agreed in principle that there's a need for better coordination of the delivery of services in the GTA. There are some differences of opinion from different municipalities as to whether the board should be stronger than has been recommended. There are certain municipalities that feel we should initially give total responsibility to the board to be responsible for all services and all aspects of service delivery within the Greater Toronto Services Board.

There are other municipalities, on the other hand, that feel the board is too strong as it is and that we shouldn't put the board in place and should only transfer the responsibilities for GO Transit to the municipalities at this time and then wait for some future date to do it.

I think the time for that debate has come and gone. Now is the time that we have to show some leadership and decisive action in making sure that we get this very important piece of legislation through the House and enacted and in place by January 1. Obviously, that is why we are moving this time allocation motion.

Time allocation motions are designed specifically for that purpose, to make sure that we can take important pieces of legislation and get them through the House in a timely fashion so that their recommendations can be implemented in a timely fashion, so that the legislation that is designed to provide better services to the municipalities can be enacted. That's the principle behind the time allocation motion, and I think this bill is a prime example of why time allocation motions should be enacted on occasion.

Some would think that the first order of business for the Greater Toronto Services Board would be the election of the new chair. We have given the board authority to elect its first chair, and I would like to point out that that is a departure -

M. Gilles Bisson (Cochrane-Sud) : Sur un point d'ordre, monsieur le Président, la

section 11 du Règlement nous dit que,

«

a) la présence d'au moins 20 députés, y compris le Président de l'Assemblée, est nécessaire pour que l'Assemblée puisse valablement exercer ses pouvoirs.»

Je crois qu'on n'a pas les 20.

Le Président suppléant : Vous avez entièrement raison. Nous allons vérifier s'il y a quorum.

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

The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung / Le Président suppléant fait entendre la sonnerie d'appel des députés.

Clerk Assistant: A quorum is now present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker: Minister.

Hon Mr Leach: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.

As I was saying, I thought the first order of business for the Greater Toronto Services Board should be the election of the chair. We have given the board itself the authority to do that, which is a departure from what has taken place when other regions were formed. I think for all of the regions in Ontario that were put together in the late 1970s and early 1980s, the government of the day appointed the chair to ensure that they would have someone in place who could carry out the direction of the government and make sure that it got up and running efficiently.

We, on the other hand, think the most democratic process would be to allow the Greater Toronto Services Board itself to deliberate, to search, to find an individual, male or female, who can provide the leadership to the board to ensure that the coordination and delivery of services is done well.

It's a very important position. It's one that I know the board, when it is entering into those deliberations, will take a considerable amount of time and effort to perform.

I know there are several individuals who are prepared to put their names forward to act as chair for the first term of the board. The several individuals I am aware of are very capable. I don't want to name them at this point in time, but I'm sure that most individuals would know who they were and that anyone of that quality and of that stature would be able to do a very fine job. I think when the board does its search and does its review of an individual to chair the board, there will be a great number of individuals who will put their names forward, and I'm sure they will have a very difficult choice to make in selecting the best of a very fine group of individuals.

Another aspect of discussion on this bill is the amount of public consultation that has taken place. There have been some comments made by members of the opposition that further public input and further public debate is required before we move forward on this bill. I would like to point out that in my view there has probably been more public input, more study, more debate, more individual meetings with members of council, with councils as a whole, of all the municipalities within the greater Toronto area, than with any other piece of legislation we've dealt with.

Just as an example, I'd like to point out the past studies that have taken place on the GTSB issue.

The GTA task force by Anne Golden reported to the government in January 1996. I'd like to emphasize the point that there is strong recognition and acceptance in principle of the need for more coordination in the greater Toronto area. Anne Golden was appointed by the previous government to undertake a study of the greater Toronto area, which I think emphasizes, as I pointed out, that all parties recognize the need for the GTSB to be put in place as quickly as possible.

Following the Golden report, there was a review panel on the GTA task force by Libby Burnham, who took the recommendations of the Golden report throughout the GTA for further input and further refinement and reported back in April 1996.

Further to that, David Crombie is a former mayor of the city of Toronto, a former member of the federal Parliament and a former cabinet minister with a great deal of expertise on Toronto and the surrounding area. He's presently chair of the Waterfront Regeneration Trust and has extensive knowledge of what is required to ensure the delivery of services and coordination throughout the greater Toronto area. He took the reports, met with numerous individuals and reported his recommendations and findings in December 1996.

We then formed some draft recommendations on where we felt the government should go with the creation of a Greater Toronto Services Board and we retained Milt Farrow, who was, prior to his retirement, a career civil servant involved in municipal affairs. Mr Farrow was recognized by all the municipalities within the greater Toronto area as having unique experience and expertise to understand the total issues of what was required to serve the greater Toronto area. He met with the councils in whole and individual councillors for all the municipalities throughout greater Toronto, and he provided some recommendations to us as well.

I think that's a pretty good indication that the consultation that has taken place was pretty extensive and far-reaching, and certainly a lot of input over time.

I should point out that the individuals who carried out these studies didn't do it on an individual basis. For example, David Crombie's Who Does What panel that consulted on this issue in 1996 was made up of a variety of individuals, including Mayor Hazel McCallion, Gordon Chong who is presently a councillor in Toronto, Tom McCormack, a very well-known individual from Oakville, Steve Lowden, a respected businessman from Toronto, Enid Slack and Terry Cooke, presently the regional chairman of Hamilton-Wentworth.

I think you can see from this that there was a broad cross-section of expertise, people with a lot of knowledge who put their minds to determining just what was best for the future of the citizens of this greater Toronto area, some 4.6 million people.

Following Milt Farrow's review in early 1997, we drafted the legislation. We took action that is not common practice by various governments, but is a procedure I have personally a lot of respect for, and that was to draft the legislation and then have that legislation taken out and distributed to all the municipalities, all the councillors, all the affected stakeholders, and that includes the urban development industry, the hotel association, any number of stakeholders who have an interest in ensuring that the Greater Toronto Services Board works efficiently and effectively.

We put that draft legislation out to everyone, all the stakeholders, in April 1997, not after first reading but before first reading so we could have, as a government, an opportunity to make sure that the legislation we were putting in place would suit the purposes of everybody. We did that and we received more comments, more input and more feedback from the municipalities, from the regions, from the lower-tier municipalities, from all the interested stakeholders. They all provided further input. We took that information, refined the legislation taking that input into consideration and then, and only then, did we introduce it for first reading, and that happened in June.

After first reading of the bill, we made another move that is not generally accepted government practice. We took the refined first reading bill back out to the same stakeholders, to the same municipalities, to all those councillors, to ensure there was input from every municipality, at the region, at the lower tier, by every stakeholder, by private citizens, to ensure we were going in the right direction, because there's no doubt that the creation of the Greater Toronto Services Board is a major step in the right direction.

This is something that's going to affect the governance of the greater Toronto area for many years to come and the government wants to ensure that whatever we do is done right and is done properly.

Mr Alan Tonks was retained by my ministry to take that legislation out. He had over 100 meetings on that bill with various stakeholders to review the bill after first reading. It was only after that time that we felt we had sufficient input to introduce it for second reading, where it is right at this point in time.

I've talked about various individuals we have retained to review the bill and meet with stakeholders, but I'd also like to point out that I, as well, met with numerous stakeholders personally to extract their input so that I was very comfortable with the structure of the board we were recommending, that I was comfortable with the voting methods that were determined, to make sure that every municipality would feel comfortable that they had a place at the table.

I should point out that every municipality in the greater Toronto area has a seat at the table. That was one of the concerns of the rural municipalities when we first started. They felt they may not have a strong voice at the table. That's one of the changes we made during the process of getting the bill in shape to bring it in for second reading: to change the composition of the membership to make sure that every municipality in the greater Toronto area was represented.

I think we all know that, on a population basis, the city of Toronto forms about 50% of the population of the greater Toronto area, and they were concerned that the city of Toronto wouldn't be properly represented. So we developed a method of weighted voting which allows a balance of representation between the urban centre in Toronto, the suburban centre in the 905 and the rural centre in the outlying parts of the 905. It's a very well-thought-out, weighted voting system that gives everybody an opportunity to make sure that their voice is heard and that they have input into the important issues that will be facing this greater Toronto area in years to come.

As I mentioned, this is a board whose time has come. I was very pleased, when we introduced first reading, that Mr Phillips, the Liberal member from Scarborough, agreed that this was the time for this board to go on. In his view, he felt the board could be somewhat stronger, but he also agreed that we had tried to put in some balance. I think the words he used were, "This bill was designed to allow the Greater Toronto Services Board to walk before it ran." I think that's a good quote.

That certainly was the intent of the government, to make sure that we put in place procedures that would allow the board to move slowly into additional areas of responsibility. The legislation gives them that ability.

By a two-thirds majority, the board can develop strategies that would deal with very important issues like the disposal of waste, which is an issue that has been controversial in the greater Toronto area for the last two decades. Now, with the passing of this legislation and the creation of the board, we'll have an avenue that will allow for that extremely important issue to be dealt with in the best interests of all the citizens of the greater Toronto area.

Another issue that was strongly recommended that the Greater Toronto Services Board become involved in was economic development. I think all members of the House and all parties would agree that economic development is key for the proper operation of the greater Toronto area. Toronto, I believe, is the hub, the engine of the greater Toronto area; the greater Toronto area is a key component in the operation of the entire province; and of course we all recognize that a strong and prosperous Ontario is key to a strong and prosperous Canada, something which we all support.

So you can see that the moves we're making here are all integrated to make sure that the rights of citizens right across this great country are protected.

We're doing it in a planned, coordinated fashion to make sure that the board, again to quote Mr Phillips, has an opportunity to walk before it runs. It may not be as strong as some people feel it should be; it's stronger than some other people feel it should be. So I think we have a balance of a Greater Toronto Services Board that should satisfy the vast majority of the stakeholders involved.

I say the vast majority because I know there are individual municipalities, there are individual regions, there are individual members of this House and there are individual members of this party who have some reservations about the direction of the Greater Toronto Services Board. Again, there are those members who feel the board is not strong enough. There are other members who feel it is too strong.

But I would urge those members to consider the absolute need for coordination of service delivery in the greater Toronto area. If they would stand back and look at the broader picture, I think they would recognize the absolute need for service to be coordinated, and the time to do that is now.

I may have failed at the beginning of my remarks to indicate that I intend to share my time with the member for Oxford and the member for Durham East. This might be an appropriate time for me to make that pass-through to the member for Oxford.

Mr Ernie Hardeman (Oxford): It is a pleasure to rise and speak to Bill 56, the Greater Toronto Area Services Board Act. First of all, I'd like to commend the minister for his presentation on the act and what it will do for the people of the greater Toronto area and, I suppose, for his going on to assure those who have concerns with it about what it will not do for the people of the greater Toronto area.

I want to point out that this act did not just appear as it was introduced. It had a lot of study. There have been numerous studies done, as was mentioned earlier, first of all the Golden report. Anne Golden was appointed by the previous government to prepare a study on how best to govern the area in the GTA. In fact, her report suggested that there was a great need to coordinate the services across the greater Toronto area, not just across each individual region.

The panel was reviewed by Libby Burnham again in April 1996 and came back with similar recommendations, not necessarily that there was a need to structure a regional government for the whole area, but that there was a need to coordinate services across the area.

I think it's very important to recognize that when David Crombie, as he was looking at the realignment of municipal services between the provincial and municipal governments, immediately recognized that some of those services would require some extensive coordination between the different regions in the GTA and that we would need some type of structure set up to accommodate that.

Milt Farrow was appointed to look at all the reports and to talk to all the stakeholders that would be involved with it and come back with some recommendations on how this could be implemented to serve the needs of all the participants. From that discussion, draft legislation was introduced in March 1998 for public consultation.

I want to point out that Mr Alan Tonks, the former mayor of Metropolitan Toronto, was retained to do the consultation process for the greater Toronto area and to look at how best we could implement some type of structure for that coordinated delivery of services. Of all the studies that were done over time, Mr Tonks's study perhaps included the participation of more people or more stakeholders than many of the other studies had done.

I have here a list of people and municipalities and organizations that were consulted. The list is extensive. I find it interesting that as I go over the list, members of provincial Parliament - I don't believe there is anyone not on this list who represents any area adjacent to or in the greater Toronto area, including members of both sides of the House. As I look over the list, I see they were also consulted.

It was a very intensive consultation and a very telling consultation. It became quite evident from that consultation that there were different views in the greater Toronto area of how best to provide coordination for the services that need to cross regional boundaries.

I think almost exclusively the position of the municipalities or the regions that were involved was that yes, there was a great need for coordinating the services, but most, if not all, felt that it was also very appropriate that the provision of those services remain with the regional governments, that there was no specific need to have a new body that would become a governing, taxing body that would take over a portion or all of the regional services. They felt that yes, the coordination was needed, but no, it should not be a third level of government.

I think that's very important, that we don't create a third level of government. That's not to say that as time goes on and as the world changes, the services presently being provided by one level of government could not be changed to another, but I don't think any of the restructuring the provincial government has embarked upon in municipal government has been to encourage more levels of government or more politicians in the process.

I think it was very evident from the consultation that the municipalities felt that a coordinating body that would have no taxing authority but would be responsible to the municipalities that elected the members of the board would be the appropriate way to set up the structure.

As was mentioned by the minister in his presentation, it was also evident that there was somewhat of a difference of opinion or there were different concerns in the more urbanized parts of the GTA and those areas that are still in agriculture and are a more rural nature in the GTA. The more rural parts of the region were concerned that as a governance model it was going to become autonomous in the more urban centres and would take away their ability to control their lifestyle and their services in the more rural parts.

They felt it was very important that it become a coordinating body operated by and for the different municipalities. That's what the end result of this bill will do: It will create the greater Toronto area services board to coordinate and it will be operated by the elected officials from the other municipality.

I know there's been some concern expressed in the previous debate about the fact that they do not have the teeth in the legislation to implement what they recommend, but I think it's very important to point out that all the members of the board will be elected representatives from the municipalities. Indeed, I think municipal politicians can be counted on to make the decisions in the best interests of their community at large, not necessarily just in the community that they may be directly elected for.

I think as they serve on the board, they will make coordinating decisions to the benefit of the whole region to which they are accountable and they would then proceed back to their local municipality and implement those decisions as they were put forward.

I think it's very important to recognize that the board will be made up of the regional chairs of all the regions and it will be made up of councillors from the city of Toronto. In order to recognize the difference in population between Toronto and some of the other regions, they will have extra members of their council serve on it. For a similar reason, there will be an extra representative from the city of Mississauga in order to complement the disparity of population in the different areas. In fact, the rest of the representation by population will be taken care of in the board based on the weighted vote process.

In some of the urban areas, "weighted vote" may not be a common term or a common approach to doing business. I can assure you, representing rural Ontario, that for many years quite successfully there have been counties that, because of the disparity in size of municipalities at the lower tier, when they go to county council have the weighted vote. So a municipality that has three times the population does not necessarily have to have three times the members on the upper-tier council.

In fact, they have multiple votes and their vote carries the weight of three votes as opposed to the smaller municipality which carries one. It's a very efficient and effective way of having a manageable board size and still making sure that we have a fair and honest way to adjust the authority within the board so that, as everyone is paying the bill, we have equal representation based on how much money they're expected to pay.

The other area where there has been some concern, and a suggestion that there is a bit of problem with the ability of the board to operate properly because of the split between the vote, is that one municipality would have 50% of the vote and they would always be at - what shall we say? - a 50-50 split. I had the opportunity for quite a number of years to serve on an upper-tier municipality where it was structured in exactly the same way, where the lower tiers were based on a 50-50 urban-rural split.

I can tell you, in all the years I served on that council, that is not the way the political representatives voted. Once you take the partisan politics that we have in this place out of the system, the members all vote based on what they believe is in the best interests of their people, and I can assure you that in municipal government that does not necessarily divide down the lines of urban-rural or, in this case, the Toronto-and-everyone-else scenario.

Mr Garry J. Guzzo (Ottawa-Rideau): No parochialism there.

Mr Hardeman: Exactly, no parochialism in rural Ontario.

It might become unmanageable, and this is particularly true in the area of finances in the service board, if on the straight 50-50 you could change the proportion of funding certain of the functions or you could decide to either perform some of those functions or not perform some of those functions. If you based that on the straight 50-50 vote, strictly the majority rules, there may be times when that could create some difficult situations.

The bill accounts for that. For certain areas of changing jurisdiction or changing the proportion of funding for the services they are providing, it would require a two-thirds vote to change those. The bill goes to great lengths to make sure that those things are looked after.

As I mentioned earlier, there is no ability for the board to tax any of its members. The only ability to collect funding would be at the discretion of the participating municipalities, save and except that the cost of their operation will be billed to the municipalities proportionately as their assessment would relate. It's also very important to recognize that the bill points out the need to re-evaluate the proportion of the board from time to time.

So if the census suggests that the population in one area is growing dramatically more than in another, over a period of time you would not have an inappropriately functioning board. The adjustments would be made in the weighted vote scenario to make sure that everyone was getting equal say for their pay.

It's also important to realize that beyond the coordinating activities of the board, they will also become responsible through the transit authority for the operation of GO Transit. As we've talked about the GTA area in the bill, we recognize that only for GO Transit purposes is the region of Hamilton-Wentworth part of the GTA scenario. For that reason the region of Hamilton-Wentworth will have a member on the Greater Toronto Services Board but will only be voting on issues that deal with GO Transit.

As it relates to their portion of the GO Transit, that vote would be weighted in order to have more than one vote because of the size of the region of Hamilton-Wentworth. But they would only be involved with the board as it relates to transit.

I would point out that in terms of the ability of the transit to be expanded, as with all other services, it's the vote of the majority of the board to recommend such expansions and if they have the required support, then those services can be expanded, again, with the participation of those municipalities to which those services would be expanded. It provides the opportunity for local government to make the decisions on how best to provide local government services.

I think it's very important that we do not lose sight of the fact that the government has the responsibility to put the legislation in place for this coordinating purpose, but the function of that will be done by locally elected officials to provide the services that their local people require.

I could go on, but I will at this point turn it over to the member for Durham East. He has some comments he would like to make on the bill.

Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): It's certainly a privilege. I thank the Minister of Municipal Affairs for giving me the opportunity to express my views on this very important issue with respect to the residents of Durham, whom I represent.

This debate is not new. I think it's important to put it in context. In my research, I can trace for you, without boring you, that this government and all previous Progressive Conservative governments, beginning with Leslie Frost in 1950, are responsible for the structure and governance models that we have in this great province of Ontario today.

If you think back and look at January 16, 1950, when Leslie Frost met then with the 13 municipalities that made up Toronto, and where we are today, all of the changes between 1950 and 1996-97 were made by a Progressive Conservative government for the right reasons: to provide good governance and good leadership and government with vision for the province of Ontario.

That's really what we have before us today. Without going through too much chronology, I want to share with you in my research the history of how we got to this very important piece of legislation, Bill 56.

I was first elected to regional council - actually, I was first elected in 1982 as a school trustee, but I always kept an important eye on my community and watched through a role as a councillor and as a regional councillor the important events of the day. Those important events on this issue, the Greater Toronto Services Board or GTA, were first started, I might add, by the Liberal government. They had a report. At that time the Deputy Minister I think was Liz McLaren for the greater Toronto area. The report was called GTA 2021 - The Challenge of our Future: A Working Document, a study that was reported to the House in March 1992.

The next report was done by the same sort of group, which was the Office for the Greater Toronto Area, which set up by the previous government, the NDP government. They set up a report, Shaping Growth in the GTA. That report was tabled in September 1992.

The purpose of this background is very important. It's one thing to study. The most difficult thing is to govern with leadership and courage. That's the central theme here: The importance of governance with leadership and courage; the courage to follow through on the studies of the professionals and the consultants who are employed and the taxpayer of Ontario pays for.

I'm going to go back further and say that even in our document to be elected in June 1995, there's a lot of background, deliberate recognition that governance, the amount of money - we coined a phrase that we were overgoverned and overregulated. I don't think there's one taxpayer today who would disagree that that was the case, and this government has made significant changes in the governance. There's been a great of reluctance and there's a great deal of trying to delay any implementation of change.

The previous government started off by appointing the Golden commission, which is the next study. These are all studies, these are all background that our Minister of Municipal Affairs, the Honourable Al Leach, has continued relentlessly with. He brought to task the Golden commission, which reported in January 1996, again serving as a reference document, refining it from the earlier late-1980 report by the office for the greater Toronto area, much of it focusing on the coordination role, their need to recognize the governance and coordination.

All the speakers have made reference, but I've gone to the trouble of actually reading these. Even before I got to this House, I knew, looking forward, that we had to have less governance and less bureaucracy so you could get through the layers of making change. There was the Moving Forward Together report, known as the four mayors' report, which was part of the discussion that the ministry and I received by Mayor Hazel McCallion, Mel Lastman, then-mayor of the city of North York, Mayor Nancy Diamond from the city of Oshawa and Mayor Barbara Hall from the city of Toronto, filed in January 1996.

Their position was that they could stand on their own - of course, they were the largest: Peel, North York, Oshawa and the city of Toronto - because they had the assessment base, the growth and the wealth. What this coordination is about is being able to share the strengths within an economic region. Arguably that region is the GTA.

How do I translate that vision? It doesn't take very much science, technically. I drive every single day to this House. I leave my house at 6 o'clock in the morning, around that time, and I see my constituents driving westbound on the 401 or getting off to take the GO Transit, and I encourage the expansion of GO Transit to help my constituents who live in Durham and work in Toronto. That's the reality. The reality is that as I get into Pickering and Ajax, you can barely tell where the boundaries of Toronto start and Durham region ends.

That report, Moving Forward Together, was received, and it had its own particular persuasion. Then the minister wanted to refine the analysis. Really what he did was he set up an excellent small committee, which was the Libby Burnham committee. In fact, Libby Burnham - Walter Beath was the first regional chair of Durham, appointed during the Davis government, remember? It was only a Progressive Conservative government that ever had the courage to make significant change. Is it perfect? We will ensure that we work with the change agents to move forward. As far as having a political war, we leave that to the opposition and the third party.

The third member of that was Ron Starr, who, as the minister said earlier in his comments, was an eminently qualified member of that panel who listened. I attended presentations in Durham and I think they did a fine job of commenting on the differences in the regions. Whether it's Halton or Durham or Peel or York, they all have differences. Arguably, the point they made in their report was that some regions were more mature than others. Obviously I would support that observation.

There are other reports: the six mayors' report called Change for the Better, and that was the mayor of Scarborough, Frank Faubert; Doug Holyday of Etobicoke - this was prior to the new city of Toronto. The six mayors had their report, and there were further reports. As the minister has mentioned, there was the Milt Farrow report, the Crombie report and also the minister's latest report, which finally was the Alan Tonks report, I guess, which really served as the basis for the legislation we're talking about, Bill 56.

I've given you a bit of chronology of how this bill got here. First it took the courage of this government to bring in Bill 56, and Bill 56 was introduced in June 1998. A considerable amount of consultation has occurred in that whole process. But the difficulty for me is I want clear assurance that the rural portion of Durham region, as mentioned in the Golden report as well as the Burnham report, must have special consideration. That's absolutely critical. At the same time, the dilemma, why I may appear to be sitting on the fence, I want clear opting-out provisions.

To satisfy my need to support this particular bill, I need to be assured by the minister - and I can assure you he does listen. I respect both the Premier and the minister in this government. We are listening and we are able to respond to any kind o