36e législature, 1re session

L172 - Tue 4 Mar 1997 / Mar 4 Mar 1997

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

NORTHWESTERN ONTARIO

SCHOOL TOUR CAMPAIGN

JAKE TERMORSHUZEN

MUNICIPAL REFERENDUM

SARNIA RIDING

MUNICIPAL REFERENDUM

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

ELAINE BURSZTYN

ESTIMATES

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

ORAL QUESTIONS

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

EDUCATION REFORM

COURT SYSTEM

SERVICES EN FRANÇAIS AUX HÔPITAUX FRENCH-LANGUAGE HOSPITAL SERVICES

SCHOOL BOARDS

HEALTH SERVICES RESTRUCTURING COMMISSION

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

PETITIONS

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

DRINKING AND DRIVING

HOSPITAL FINANCING

EDUCATION LEGISLATION

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

DRINKING AND DRIVING

HOSPITAL FINANCING

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

DRINKING AND DRIVING

EDUCATION REFORM

FIRE SAFETY

DRINKING AND DRIVING

HEALTH CARE WORKERS

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

HOSPITAL FINANCING

FIRE SAFETY

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

4588 BATHURST ACT, 1997

750 SPADINA AVENUE ASSOCIATION ACT, 1997

OPPOSITION DAY

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING


The House met at 1331.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

NORTHWESTERN ONTARIO

Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): I want to address my statement directly to the Premier today. This past weekend members of the Thunder Bay District Municipal League overwhelmingly supported a resolution that called on their membership to look into the pros and cons of forming a union with the province of Manitoba.

A radical step, you might say, but one that was prompted by an extreme level of frustration being felt by our municipal leaders in northwestern Ontario. Frustration has been building as this government and the Premier continue their assault on the programs and policies that once made this province the envy of all our provincial counterparts.

The final straw was the massive downloading on our municipalities that will sadly define this special session of the Legislature.

So it was, in an attempt to do something to stop this rampaging government, that Terrace Bay town council took the dramatic step of forwarding this resolution to the membership of the municipal league, a resolution that will now go forward for discussion to the annual meeting of the Northwestern Ontario Municipal Association in May.

Premier, you may wish to continue to arrogantly dismiss this action by our municipal leaders, but frankly, you simply cannot. Our mayors, reeves and councillors are simply doing their job by fighting to protect their citizens from the huge tax increases your dumping will inevitably produce.

Premier, what can you do? First of all, you can apologize to Reeve Ziegler for your rude and dismissive comments and you can directly face up to this issue by attending the NOMA convention in Fort Frances the first weekend in May. If northern Ontario really matters to this government, now is the time to --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you. Statements. Member for Algoma.

SCHOOL TOUR CAMPAIGN

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I rise to encourage all MPPs to attend the school day with the Ontario Public School Teachers' Federation. On March 21 all MPPs are being invited to attend school for a day, along with the Ontario Public School Teachers' Federation.

The federation is concerned that few MPPs have a real understanding of what is happening in the schools and believes that a school visit would provide the opportunity to witness firsthand the challenges facing public education and to discuss with school staff and parents their concerns about the impact of anticipated future education cutbacks.

The school visit on the 21st is planned as a positive educational opportunity for MPPs and other community leaders, and an opportunity to raise public awareness about the extent to which important educational programs are at risk as a result of the government's changes in education and cutbacks in funding.

I challenge the members of the government side to go beyond the ledger analysis of education provided by the minister in order to see the real face of education in Ontario. Go to school on the 21st and get a bit of education about our education system.

JAKE TERMORSHUZEN

Mr Peter L. Preston (Brant-Haldimand): I rise this afternoon to honour Mr Jake Termorshuzen, Cayuga and District Lions Club citizen of the year. A husband and father of three, I can't think of anyone more deserving to be named citizen of the year.

Jake joined the Ontario Provincial Police in 1967, and in 1970 was assigned to Expo '70 in Japan, one of 14 constables to be chosen to provide security at the Ontario Pavilion. But it's his role of volunteer to the youth of Haldimand that exemplifies Jake's character.

Jake has been a minor hockey league coach, has been active in scouting for nine years, and has been an active member of the Haldimand Youth Soccer Club for 10 years. Jake joined the soccer club as a coach in 1987 and a year later became a member of the club executive. In 1992 he was assigned as overall project coordinator for the proposed 22-acre, eight-field Haldimand Youth Soccer Park in Cayuga. I am pleased to say that through the tireless efforts of Jake, the park is now open, providing a home for 1,200 members of the Haldimand Youth Soccer Club.

Ontario Provincial Police officers in general display a deep regard for the community, and even in this group of dedicated people Jake stands out. I am proud to be called his friend and I am doubly proud to present Jake Termorshuzen to the Legislature today.

Applause.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Welcome.

MUNICIPAL REFERENDUM

Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview): My statement is addressed to the Premier. Yesterday the people of Metro Toronto had their say. United with one voice, a very strong voice, their message to you and your government was clear, unequivocal and unmistakably loud. The residents of Metro Toronto have said no to Bill 103. They have said no to the process. They have said no to the unilateral actions of your government. In your own words, "Ontarians must once again feel like citizens with a stake in the public life of their province rather than as spectators who pay the bills but have little say in deciding what government does."

The people of Metro Toronto want to be part of that process. They want to have a say because they have a stake in their city. You cannot ignore the people, you cannot ignore their will, and you cannot ignore their call. They are saying withdraw Bill 103. No means no. Listen to the people and do the right thing.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): I'm wearing today a button which says, "We Said No. Now Listen, Mike." The vote results for Metro Toronto I'll read for the record: Toronto 73.5%, North York 79.4%, Scarborough 81.5%, Etobicoke 70%, East York 80.8%, York 71.2%. A total of 76.1% voted no. Make no mistake about it, last night was an incredible victory for democracy in the Metro Toronto area.

Also make no mistake about this: Contrary to what the government is saying, that the vote was so high against the megacity because there's confusion out there and people have it all mixed up with downloading etc, the people out there are not stupid. This government tried to ram this down their throats by saying, "We'll cut red tape and get rid of duplication," and thought people would just buy it. They forgot to think that people are intelligent and, furthermore, that people have a good spirit about their community. This isn't just about money and cutting red tape, although the government could not prove it would indeed do that; this is a message to the government that people care about their communities and want to keep their communities. We ask the government today to work with us to come to a solution --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you, member for Riverdale. I would caution the members in the House that it's out of order to wear a button. It's probably even more out of order to refer to the fact that you're wearing a button. I just caution the member for Riverdale.

1340

SARNIA RIDING

Mr Dave Boushy (Sarnia): In my riding people have often referred to the Sarnia area as one of Ontario's best kept secrets. I'm going to blow the whistle today and let everyone know what makes our community so terrific: It's the unique and special people from all walks of life who continue to demonstrate our home-town traditions of dedication to excellence -- people like Allen Ping-Lun Ho, who came from Hong Kong in 1970 and studied accounting and business administration at Lambton College, one of Canada's most innovative learning institutions.

Our Premier, who recently honoured him with the 1996 Premier's Award, can attest to Mr Ho's exceptional career achievements at DataSar and his devotion to community service through the Rotary Club and the Lambton Chinese-Canadian Association.

Then there's our own Mother Teresa, Dr Helene Shingles, who survived Nazi-occupied Germany and now operates, without any government support, Canada's only free dental clinic for seniors with no dental insurance. Dr Shingles has received many honours and most recently was invested in the Order of Canada. She officially retired as a dentist in 1976, but now sees more than 1,000 patients a year, exemplifying Sarnia's spirit of hard work and volunteerism.

Sarnia Sting captain Trevor Letowski showcased the essential life skills of teamwork and commitment as he helped Team Canada win a fifth straight gold medal in Switzerland, a very proud and emotional moment for a hockey town like ours.

Our secret's out: If you want to see dedication, caring and community spirit, the Sarnia riding is the place to go.

MUNICIPAL REFERENDUM

Mr Joseph Cordiano (Lawrence): Last night the citizens of Metro sent a very powerful and clear message to this government: "You'd better listen to what we have to say," they said. The results were clear. They said no to your megacity in a mega no vote.

I tell the members of the government and the Minister of Municipal Affairs, who's sitting there across on the other side, you started off by saying you wouldn't listen to the results of any referenda because they would be largely irrelevant and it didn't matter. Even a few days ago, the referendum as considered by the Premier, as he said it, was put this way: "It will be a slam dunk for the no side and it doesn't really matter." Even as short as a few days ago the Premier said it won't matter.

We're saying to you today, listen very carefully. People feel threatened, and why do they feel threatened? Because you're threatening their way of life in Metro and across this province. People are saying to you, "You'd better listen to us." I tell backbenchers of the government, you'd better listen to everyone out there in your constituencies. What they're saying to you is: "Slow down. You're threatening our way of life. It's a life we've built in our communities, cities and towns right across this province." That's what this message was last night. You'd better listen.

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): Yesterday the people of Metropolitan Toronto sent a very clear message to the Harris government. They said very clearly that they reject the amalgamation notion this government and this minister continue to persist in. This morning our leader, Howie Hampton, and our caucus put out what we believe are constructive suggestions as to how to deal now with the reality we are faced with.

We believe there needs to be change, we believe the broad public understands and accepts the need for change, but we believe that change needs to happen in a way that involves people and involves the citizens, and in a way that deals with the very real issues we should be facing, which are, how do we govern and provide for effective services not just at the local municipal level but indeed at the regional level, and that today the region, as it applies to Toronto, is no longer just Metropolitan Toronto but is the greater Toronto area.

We have suggested and we ask the government to take seriously into account a proposal that would delay the municipal elections in the GTA for a year, that would put in place a citizens' assembly with the task of sorting out the very complicated issues that exist, but also to try to build that consensus we believe exists out there in a very real way that sorts out the governance issues at the regional level from the local level, and that brings back a report to this Legislature that could be turned into legislation to be put into law and implemented in a way that truly reflects the consensus we know can be achieved on this issue.

ELAINE BURSZTYN

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Simcoe Centre): I'd like to offer my congratulations to Elaine Bursztyn, a teacher in my riding who recently received the Prime Minister's award for excellence in teaching.

Ms Bursztyn teaches intermediate-level science and math at Prince of Wales public school in Barrie. She holds four degrees, including a PhD in immunology. She is the author of more than 20 scientific articles and has also done post-doctoral work in Finland. On top of this expertise, Elaine Bursztyn brings to her classroom an enthusiasm for learning and an excitement about science and math, two core subjects that we know are very important to our children's success.

She readily explains that she expects her students to work very hard. They in return are learning that if you're going to do something, you may as well do it the best you possibly can the first time.

Today Elaine Bursztyn is judging projects at the Prince of Wales school science fair. I expect that many of the students embarked on their research with the same interest and enthusiasm her peers say she brings to the classroom.

Many of us can recall a teacher who made a difference, a teacher who made learning fun while challenging our minds and encouraging our success. For the students of Prince of Wales, Elaine Bursztyn is that teacher.

On behalf of my constituents, I extend our congratulations and appreciation.

ESTIMATES

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Government House Leader): Mr Speaker, I have a message from the Honourable Lieutenant Governor.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): The Lieutenant Governor transmits estimates of certain sums required for the services of the province for the year ending March 31, 1997, and recommends them to the Legislative Assembly.

Dated Toronto, March 4, 1997.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): I am here today with a message for the people of Metropolitan Toronto.

During committee hearings, at town hall meetings, in letters and phone calls to their MPPs, through public opinion surveys and in yesterday's process, the people of Metropolitan Toronto have expressed concerns on a number of different fronts.

We have been listening. Their voices were heard. We're going to reflect on the concerns we've heard and we're going to take the time to respond to make sure we have a plan that works.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order. Can I get some order in the Legislature, please?

Hon Mr Leach: Thank you, Mr Speaker.

The comments and feedback from the people of Metro Toronto fall into our basic categories: (1) the effect of the Who Does What trades; (2) the impact the "one Toronto" proposal may have on property taxes; (3) the need to protect local communities and their distinct identities;

(4) the need to ensure that the process of reform respects principles of democracy, accountability and representative government.

We've been listening. Taking into account what we've heard, the government will work to respond to every concern.

First, Who Does What: We're working with the Association of Municipalities of Ontario towards our mutual goal of eliminating duplication and waste so that all levels of government can provide better services at lower cost to taxpayers. The joint provincial-municipal implementation teams are already making progress. We will continue to improve the Who Does What package in ways that work better for taxpayers, for local governments and for the province.

1350

Second, local property taxes: Mayor Mel Lastman reflected the views of many when he asked for a guarantee that taxes won't go up because of Bill 103. He has suggested that such a guarantee be enshrined in legislation. While we are confident that our proposals would lead to savings and lower costs, the mayor's suggestion deserves further consideration. We want to hear from the people on whether tax stability should be guaranteed in legislation, and if so, how.

Third, community identity: Mayor Barbara Hall and many others have stressed that any change must preserve our neighbourhoods. We agree. Clearly we need to digest what we've been hearing and, working with everyone concerned, develop improvements to our proposals that will protect and preserve local communities. We will be doing so in the coming weeks.

Fourth, the process, including the role of trustees: The most consistent message from individuals appearing before the committee was that the transition and implementation process must respect local democracy and the role of representative local government. We agree. We want to work with the people of Metro Toronto and with local municipal officials on ways of ensuring a democratic and accountable process, so we will take the time to get it right.

The people have expressed concerns. We have heard their concerns and we are committed to resolving them. Over the next month we will reflect on what we've been hearing and respond with improvements that address each of their concerns. Working together, I am confident that by April we can produce a better balanced package that serves all of us.

The Speaker: Responses? Official opposition, the member for Oakwood.

Mr Mike Colle (Oakwood): I think the minister still doesn't get it. Some 76% of the voters in the six municipalities of Metro yesterday overwhelmingly said no to his megacity amalgamation. They all said no to his scheme, yet he still says he's going to barge ahead, he's still going to bulldoze ahead --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. I would ask the members, including the members for Oriole and Kingston and The Islands: Those signs are out of order. Those signs, yes. That sign too, as a matter of fact. That sign, yes; that sign, that sign. You see, all those signs are out of order, so as long as it takes for you to put them all down -- you'll notice the clock is running for your responses.

We can continue. The member for Oakwood.

Mr Colle: This minister continues to ignore and continues to lack in respect for the voters who came out and rejected his megacity. He's still going to bulldoze ahead by April 1 -- that's probably appropriate -- and ram this bill through despite the fact that people all over Metro have been meeting in church basements and in city halls, rejecting his proposal.

He hasn't been listening. He refuses to acknowledge their democratic right to be heard. They have said clearly, unequivocally, no to the amalgamation of the six cities. This minister, despite a case of contempt being found against him by you, the Speaker, despite the court's ruling that he acted illegally in making the trustees above the law, despite 76% of the people rejecting amalgamation, has the unmitigated gall to say that he's going to do it anyway. He's saying that no matter what people say, no matter how many people voted, he doesn't care. This government doesn't care. Mike Harris and Al Leach are going to bulldoze ahead and destroy and risk one of the most vital, workable communities in all of Canada, if not North America.

This unmitigated attack on people's right to have a say in their future is being denied by this minister when they went through a process that this minister and his government tried to, first of all, discredit, saying they weren't going to listen to a referendum. Then they tried to disrupt it; even paid staffers were sent down to disrupt the voting at the city of Toronto. Now he's denying what the people have said.

Minister, look at the results. The people overwhelmingly, in the six communities, have said no, no, no to your megacity. They don't want it. They will not listen to your tinkering proposals, your quasi-community councils. They want the real thing. They want real, accountable councils. They will not stand by and allow you to try and ram this thing through even after you've lost a further mandate, because this was not in the CSR.

You, as the vice-chairman of the Trimmer commission, advocated stronger local government. Now we have over 400,000 voters in Metro going out to vote, the vast majority saying no, and you still charge ahead. No wonder people are beginning to question what happened to democracy in this province when despite votes and rulings of the court you continue to say: "I don't care. I'm going to do it anyway. I'm right. All the citizens are wrong. I'm not going to listen."

People are not going to let you get away with it. They are going to continue to meet. They will continue to organize. They will continue to fight you and Mike Harris as you try to dictate your wishes upon them. They are citizens. They are mature adults who have said no to your megacity madness. You have no right and no mandate to continue down this road. You must stop and do the right thing and pull this bill. Withdraw Bill 103 today.

Interjections.

The Speaker: I'd call you to order, but I'd have a tough time calling that a demonstration. Responses? Leader of the third party.

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): It's already evident that the government caucus is not listening. They mistake "No means no" for "Go, Leafs, go." It shows you how carefully they are listening to anything people are saying, and that goes for the minister and what we've just heard today, because the minister --

Interjections.

Mr Hampton: I know the government caucus does not want to hear this. I know that. That's very clear. The minister doesn't want to hear it either, but if the minister was watching last night, he would have noticed that there was a record turnout in many of the municipalities within the boundaries of Metropolitan Toronto, and over 76% of the people turned you down. In fact, more people voted against your proposal than voted for the Progressive Conservative Party in the 1995 election. You should pay attention to that.

You should also pay attention to the fact that they didn't just indicate mild opposition; they didn't just indicate criticism of a few items. They said very clearly no to Bill 103, no to your whole process, and if you were really listening, you would acknowledge that.

You would also acknowledge that the public will was expressed last night. The public will across the municipalities in this Metropolitan area was expressed last night, and you ought to listen to the public will. That's what democracy is all about. That's what democracy involves, listening to people, but it's clear you haven't done that.

1400

It is so sad, the path this government has had to travel to get to this point, and still they don't get it. We've had the minister cited for a prima facie case of contempt of this Legislature. We've had the government trying to use taxpayers' fax machines, breaking federal department of communications regulations regarding the use of fax machines, trying to put out a partisan campaign. We've had them trying to use taxpayers' money to sell their message. We've had them using legislative caucus print shops to print partisan Progressive Conservative Party propaganda about this. Over and over again this government has shown contempt for the legislative process, contempt for democracy, and what do we have here today? After an overwhelming No vote, after an overwhelming expression of the public will, the minister comes in here and shows that still, once again, he is not listening; that still, once again, he does not get it.

The only thing I can say for this government is that it is somehow appropriate that this minister indicates that he wants to come back here on April 1 and try to ram this through, that he wants to start again on April Fool's Day on an agenda the people have already clearly rejected. In my view that says it all about this government: They don't want to listen to people; they don't practise democracy; they don't recognize that democracy means listening to people. So we're right back where we started from. How unfortunate.

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): Let me just say that I find it really troubling that after all that's happened, the minister would not even have the decency to refer to yesterday -- yesterday's process is what he called it. He doesn't even have the decency to call it a referendum, because that's what it was, and it was a clear expression of the citizens --

Interjections.

Mr Silipo: The response from the government caucus speaks volumes, Speaker, but I want to try in the short time that's left to reach the Premier, because it seems to me he's the only one who can bring any sense to this. I want to say to the Premier, if I could get his attention, that we have today put forward a constructive proposal for how to get the government out of this dilemma they've painted themselves into: We believe that the establishment of a citizens' assembly with full discussion, full consultation, together with holding off one year the municipal elections in the GTA, setting up a real process, will get us out of this morass. More important, it will help us find solutions that will help us to govern the city region into the 21st century. That's what we should be doing. We call upon the Premier to come to his senses --

The Speaker: Thank you.

ORAL QUESTIONS

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My first question is for the Premier. Last night was one heck of a night for democracy in Ontario and the results are worth reviewing. In Toronto, of those who voted, 73.9% voted no; in Etobicoke, 69.7%; in York, 71.2%; in East York, 81.5%; in North York, 79.4%; and in Scarborough, 78.1%. Metro-wide we're talking about 76.1% of voters voting against the megacity.

Premier, you wanted a unified city and now you've got one. You've got six cities unified against the concept of a megacity, so I've got to ask you: Did you hear the roar out there last night? Did you hear it? Did you hear the strong vocal majority who shouted no, and more importantly, are you now going to listen and withdraw Bill 103?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): Of course we've been listening, not only last night but during the hearing process, and the number of people, the polls that have been over the weekend -- we heard all kinds of people say: "We understand the need for reform. We understand you're the only government that's had the courage to move forward in a number of these areas." But they said: "We're concerned about taxes. We're concerned about other things."

So they've asked us to move, they've asked us to make the difficult decisions that have been postponed, but they've asked us to do so very carefully. They've asked us to take our time, they've asked us to make sure that we get it right, and indeed that's what we plan to do.

Mr McGuinty: They asked you to do one thing alone: They asked you to withdraw Bill 103. It's as simple as that.

Let's take a look at the government's record in these matters because it is far from spotless: (1) The government tried to ram through Bill 26, the omnibus bill;

(2) we had the Minister of Municipal Affairs being found to be prima facie in contempt of this Legislature; (3) we had a judge rule that the actions involved violated the fundamental principles of responsible government.

Premier, there's only one thing you could do that I could think of that would make this matter worse, only one thing you could do to worsen the record: You could tell me you're not going to withdraw Bill 103. So tell me right now that that is not true, that in fact you've decided to withdraw Bill 103.

Hon Mr Harris: We think we still have some more consultation to do and we'd like to reflect on what we have. I can tell you that --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Premier.

Hon Mr Harris: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I can tell you that already we clearly have listened far more than you or your party or your colleagues have listened. For example, on amalgamation, people are telling us that they're worried about tax increases and service cuts, that they want to keep the unique character of their neighbourhoods, they want to have strong local representation --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. We can't continue under the process, so unless there's going to be some order, I'll have to continue getting up. Premier.

Hon Mr Harris: So I think it's important that we not only reflect on the polls that were released last weekend, which actually had some scientific basis to them, we also ought to reflect on the sentiment yesterday --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Premier.

Hon Mr Harris: As flawed as the process was, I think it's important we do reflect on the number of people who have concerns about a number of areas. I think there are some things that are important that we must understand about that. Many people were concerned about different issues, so just to simplistically postpone, put off as you people did for 10 years -- clearly we heard a message loud and clear: "Do not procrastinate, do not do nothing but listen" --

The Speaker: Thank you. Final supplementary.

Mr McGuinty: The Premier doesn't get it: No means no. It's no more complicated than that. Bill 103 is beyond redemption. It can't be revived. It's dead. The only decent and honourable thing to do now is to withdraw it and bury it. The people voted no. There is nothing left to interpret. It was simple, straightforward and unequivocal. They said they are against turning six cities into one. End of story. They don't want amendments; they want you to withdraw Bill 103.

1410

Premier, you put forward the megacity notion and you've lost. It's time for you to pick some sides here. Either you're going to be with the people or you're going to be against them. Whose side are you on?

Hon Mr Harris: I think you will find through my whole political career, which has had some successes and some not-so-great successes, that listening carefully and being with the people and ultimately at the end of the day making difficult decisions that will bring back the heart and soul and the strength to Toronto is indeed -- people will respond to that.

What we've also found out is that they didn't respond very well to five years of Liberal disaster inaction or five years of NDP-Liberal inaction. Clearly they would like people to listen carefully, they would like a very thoughtful response, they would like the kind of government that will carefully measure what they have to say and then act in their best interests. That is a dramatic change from the 10 years of disastrous government that led to a lost decade and a backwards slide in Toronto.

The Speaker: New question. Leader of the official opposition.

Mr McGuinty: My second question is for the Premier. This from a man who travelled throughout this province and told people that he was in favour of direct democracy and that he would respect the results of referenda. That was then.

Premier, people oppose megacity because they believe it's going to lead to higher property taxes; they oppose it because they believe it's going to lead to bigger and more remote government; and they oppose it because they believe it's going to lead to a loss of sense of community, that which holds them together. They oppose your megacity, and we shouldn't overlook this, because it's contrary to everything you promised during the last election. The bottom line is that people just plain oppose megacity.

Any member of this Legislature who dares to ignore the will of the people, which has been duly expressed by way of referenda held yesterday, is putting their own political career at risk. Premier, your megacity was a mistake. Will you listen to the will of the people and will you withdraw Bill 103?

Hon Mr Harris: I want to acknowledge and agree with the leader of the Liberal Party, who said what it was that people expressed last night: They're concerned about their taxes going up, they're concerned about local government, they're concerned about all those things. We believe we can respond to those things. None of those have anything to do with whether you have one government or seven governments, but they are all, in the minds of the people who voted last night, related to making sure that whatever happens after Who Does What, whatever happens after Bill 103, whatever happens after we go from seven councils and layers of government to one, we can respond to those areas.

I agree with you. You have correctly identified what they were voting on last night. We will correctly and appropriately respond to those concerns.

Mr McGuinty: Is it any wonder that every day more and more people are losing confidence in this government? Is it any wonder? Premier, you have shown time and time again that you simply don't care about what people have got to say. Despite all the fine speeches delivered during the course of the election and prior to that about direct democracy and how you believe in the importance of referenda, you are about to ignore the clear and unequivocal results from last night's referenda.

Premier, anything short of withdrawing your megacity is going to be an affront to the people of Metropolitan Toronto. It is a complete and wanton disregard for their wishes. Some 391,689 people voted against the megacity. That's 76.1% of those who voted. We're at somewhat of a loss here. What is it going to take before you stop and listen to the majority of the people, who voted against the megacity?

Hon Mr Harris: In spite of the fact that obviously 75%, the overwhelming majority, did not vote, and in spite of the fact that those who did vote were there, in spite of all that --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Harris: In spite of the fact that those experts on referenda and on polling would say that, unfortunately, this was a good example of how not to do it if you want people to have credibility in referendums, and in spite of the fact that Dalton McGuinty, the leader of the Liberal Party, on Focus Ontario, February 1, said, "I'm not, generally speaking, a big fan of referenda," in spite of all that, I want to say directly to those who participated in the process, we intend to listen, we intend to reflect on the messages that were sent, we intend to respond and, in the fullness of time, hopefully you can put behind you that process and maybe one day we can have meaningful referenda.

The Speaker: Final supplementary, leader of the official opposition.

Mr McGuinty: There is only one meaningful response to what happened yesterday and that is to withdraw Bill 103. Premier, my questions to you today have been about the basic functioning of a democracy, about the fundamental right of citizens to have a say in how they are governed, to decide who governs them and to have elected representatives who truly represent their concerns.

You may want to plow ahead and to ignore the results of yesterday's referenda, but I'm wondering, what about the back bench? I'm wondering, are you going to allow your back bench to respect the wishes of their constituents? Are your backbenchers going to be allowed to truly represent their constituents by voting against the megacity bill, or are you going to force them to vote against the very wishes of those who put them here in the first place?

Hon Mr Harris: I want to comment on the word "withdrew." What happened was your party for five years and the NDP for five years withdrew from responsible decision-making, you withdrew from changing the assessment system, you withdrew --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Premier.

Hon Mr Harris: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I know how difficult it is to maintain order here and I appreciate what a good job you do.

Interjections.

The Speaker: I don't think he was being provocative there. I think that's fair comment. Premier.

Hon Mr Harris: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. So it is because, during that lost decade, those 10 years when your party and the NDP withdrew from responsible government, withdrew from responsible decision-making, that's what led to commercial concentration tax, led to the deterioration of Toronto, led to jobs and investment leaving Toronto, led to massive increases in not only your own taxes but property taxes as well.

We are determined to do two things: to listen very carefully to what the people have to say, reflect on that, take our time, as we heard last night from a number of people, and make sure we get it right, right for Toronto.

1420

The Speaker: New question. Leader of the third party.

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): My question is also for the Premier. I wonder if you realize that last night 391,689 Metro Toronto people said no to your megacity? In comparison, in the last election you received the support of only 330,000 people in Metro. If that's not a direction from the people to withdraw Bill 103, your megacity bill, I don't know what is. That's an overwhelming turnout and it was an overwhelming voice of no from people.

Today, my GTA caucus colleagues and I put forward a proposal called A Greater Toronto Area for the 21st Century, a proposal that addresses the need for change while respecting people's democratic rights. Premier, it's time to respect the people's wishes and withdraw Bill 103. Will you do the honourable thing? Will you withdraw Bill 103 now?

Hon Mr Harris: I know nobody more honourable or who listens more intently than the minister, and I'm sure he can respond.

Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): What we've all heard, in the events that took place yesterday and the hearings that have taken place over the last five weeks, is that people have concerns about the changes being put forward, changes that they all agree are necessary. I think everybody agrees that the status quo is not an option. I know that the NDP have said the status quo is not an option and the Liberals have said the status quo is not an option. Change is required.

I believe that the principles behind Bill 103, when you deal solely with amalgamation, are the best option for this government and for the people of Ontario and for the people of Toronto. What has happened -- I've had so many people mention to me over the last few days, "I don't have a problem with amalgamation but I do have a problem with amalgamation and property tax reform." If we could separate those issues and deal with them -- and we're going to do that. We heard what people were saying and we're going to --

The Speaker: Thank you, Minister. Supplementary?

Mr Hampton: I asked the question of the Premier for a specific reason, because frankly, I believe this minister has been totally discredited on this issue. He has shown time and time again that he is incapable of listening to people, incapable of respecting people's democratic wishes, and he's indicated already by his statements here today that he just doesn't get it, that he's not listening to people.

I'll say this again to the Premier: Our proposal, A Greater Toronto Area for the 21st Century, is intended to work with the enormous citizen interest in municipal government. It's intended to be democratic and open. It's not a status quo proposal. It's a proposal for change based on strong, accessible, responsible local government.

Premier, you should have learned a lesson from last night. It's clear the minister won't learn any lessons, but you should have learned a lesson. Will you form a citizens' assembly, as our proposal suggests, and begin a real consultation with the people who reside in the Metropolitan Toronto and the GTA regions? Will you do that? Will you begin a real process?

Hon Mr Leach: I'm sure the member of the third party would recognize that there has been a very democratic process taking place over the last number of months: the public hearings where over 600 people have had the opportunity to come in and present their views, to point out their concerns, to offer suggestions. That democratic process has allowed for input from the people of Ontario.

On top of that, we heard the results of the process that took place yesterday. We understand that people have concerns about a number of the proposals being put forward. We know that the vast majority of them approve of moving to a single city, approve of property tax reform, approve of changes in education, approve of the disentanglement process. We know that and we're going to address those areas where they have some concern over the next three or four weeks to ensure that we slow down and we do it right. That's what we intend to do.

Mr Hampton: Every time the Premier refuses to answer and every time this minister tries to answer, they simply reinforce what everyone knows: They're not listening. If this minister had been listening he would know that overwhelmingly the people who have come before the committee have not talked about amendments to Bill 103; they have very clearly said no to 103. They don't want it. They don't believe it will work. They believe it will lead not to better conditions within the boundaries of Metropolitan Toronto, but will take people back in terms of the direction this city needs to go in.

Minister, what's so hard to figure out here is that the Premier voted in the referendum. He obviously understood the question. The question was, "Do you want a megacity or do you not want a megacity?" All those people out there understood the question as well. They voted no. We're trying to give you an opportunity here to move forward but to involve people. Will you show some humility, admit you were wrong, admit to the people you were wrong --

The Speaker: Thank you. Minister of Municipal Affairs.

Hon Mr Leach: I think what I recognize here is the frustration of the opposition in dealing with a government that has the will to get the job done. There's a government sitting across there that tried to deal with this issue for five years. They tried to deal with property tax reform and they failed. They tried to deal with disentanglement and they failed. They failed at every one of the policies that we have had the ability to get up, get on the table and get action on.

We intend to carry out our agenda. It's the agenda the people of the province want carried out. They want property tax reform, they want changes in education, they want disentanglement, and we intend to bring all those issues forward and pass the legislation to make them work.

The Speaker: New question. Leader of the third party.

Mr Hampton: To the Premier again, and to the Premier because it's obvious once again that this minister doesn't get it, that this minister is not listening.

Over 76% of the people who took part in the referendum, and there were record turnouts for the referendum, voted against your proposal. They didn't vote "maybe," they didn't vote "yes, well, possibly, sort of," they didn't for amendments, they voted clearly no, just as you voted in the referendum; just as you voted in the referendum and you understood the question, they understood the question.

I put it to you again: Will you listen to the people who care about democracy, who took part in a democratic process? Will you withdraw Bill 103? Will you go back to the drawing-board and begin a process which involves people and involves an agenda for change? Will you do that?

Hon Mr Harris: I know the minister would be pleased to respond.

Hon Mr Leach: The people of Metropolitan Toronto, and the people of Ontario for that matter, know that the status quo is not an option, so obviously we have to make changes. The changes we're proposing I think provide for a level of government that does exactly what we said we would do in the Common Sense Revolution: eliminate a layer of government, strengthen local government and create a GTA services board to deal with interregional issues. What the people have been asking for is what we're proposing to carry out.

The members across say the status quo is not an option, and yet in the five years they were there and in the five years the others were there, what did they do? They did nothing, absolutely nothing. Well, they did do something: They put us $100 billion in debt is what they did. But as far as carrying out the agenda the people of Ontario want to see carried out is concerned, this government is doing it.

The Speaker: Supplementary. The member for Dovercourt.

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): I want to say to the minister, if you were to put aside your arrogance and your continuing insults to the citizens of Metropolitan Toronto just for a few minutes, you would see that what we are suggesting is not a defence of the status quo.

1430

We are clearly saying to you, "Here is a proposal, here is a suggestion that helps you get out of the morass, out of the corner you've painted yourself into." It involves one important aspect, and that is your stopping Bill 103, withdrawing Bill 103, and setting in place a citizens' assembly that consults people and discusses with people over the next number of months on the changes to come about at the greater Toronto level and at the local level. Will you look at that, Minister? Will you do that?

Hon Mr Leach: As I mentioned earlier, the public process we're going through now is giving the people of Metropolitan Toronto an opportunity to have input into the process. The proposal that is being put forward by the NDP is a proposal that always comes forward: "Come forward, do another study and do nothing." That's what they propose to do.

We've had the public hearings. We've had 600 individuals, groups and businesses come to this Legislature and provide input into the process. The boards of trade, the Scarborough chamber of commerce, all the industries, all the people, all the municipalities involved have had an opportunity to say their piece, to voice their concerns, to offer suggestions and alternatives. We've listened to those. We will be proposing changes to this bill, changes that will address the concerns that have been addressed by the citizens of Metropolitan Toronto, and I'm sure that when all that is on the table, everyone will be quite happy with what the situation is.

Mr Silipo: This is not a proposal to study this indefinitely. What we are suggesting is a time line. Maybe the minister hasn't read it, and if he hasn't, that's fine. I would just ask him to take a look at it and consider it because we are trying to be helpful.

We are suggesting a process that involves delaying the municipal elections in the GTA for a year to ensure that change does happen, because we believe change needs to happen, but that change needs to look first and foremost, as Golden told you and as Crombie told you, at the need to coordinate services like transportation, economic development and other issues at the greater Toronto level first, and then within that and only within that look at what amalgamations and what delivery of services can be improved and strengthened at the local level.

That's what we're proposing, and the time line we have set out would ensure that happens with a delay of one year in the municipal elections, and legislation that you would be able to bring here with the support of a broad citizens' movement. That's what we're proposing. Will you take a look at that?

Hon Mr Leach: The member from the third party mentioned the Crombie recommendations and the Golden recommendations that said deal with the GTA. We are dealing with the GTA. We are setting up a process to ensure regional services are delivered across the entire GTA area. We know and recognize that you must have a strong central core and you must have a strong greater Toronto area if this community is going to work in global markets.

To continue to delay, to continue to procrastinate, to continue to have an agenda that says, "Do nothing," is not an agenda this government can live with. We know that we campaigned for a long time on change, and on the change that was necessary, on eliminating waste and duplication, on eliminating levels of government, on eliminating the number of politicians in this area. That's what this program is all about, and that's the program the people of Ontario want.

The Speaker: New question. The member for Oakwood.

Mr Mike Colle (Oakwood): I have a question to the Premier. Premier, you've been ducking this issue from when it was first introduced. You ducked the debate in Scarborough when the other two leaders were there. You refused to allow the committee to go to the city halls when you were proposing elimination. Now you've got 76% of the voters, citizens in Metro, saying no.

How can you still sit there and not listen to them? How can you still sit there and deny all the people who have come before the committee and said, "Withdraw Bill 103"? How can you continue to display such arrogance and disregard for ordinary people who are saying, "Don't do this to my city"?

The Speaker: Premier.

Hon Mr Harris: Thanks, Mr Speaker. I know the minister will be pleased to answer.

Hon Mr Leach: The member talked about the hearing process, and there are first amendments that said we should move from city to city. I don't think that anybody had any difficulty getting down to the hearings that took place here over the last five weeks and that are continuing, for that matter. Everyone was accommodated. All of the spectators who wanted to attend were accommodated.

I think the democratic process of having hearings, letting people have an opportunity to speak, having the opportunity for everybody in Metropolitan Toronto to be able to see that process on television so they could form their opinions, was by far a wide democratic process that gave everybody in the greater Toronto area an opportunity to keep abreast of what was happening, to call in suggestions, to speak to their MPPs and make suggestions. That process will continue over the next few weeks because we're going to do this and we're going to do it right.

Mr Colle: This is most disappointing. The Premier keeps ducking the people of Metropolitan Toronto. I ask the Premier why he is refusing to debate this issue. Will you stay for the emergency debate about the withdrawal of Bill 103, Mr Premier? Will you go face to face with people who are saying no to your megacity? Because it's your proposal, Mr Premier. The buck stops at your door.

How do you have the right to deny people a right to be heard on what's going to happen to their cities? Why are you ducking the people of Metropolitan Toronto? Why are you hiding? Why are chickening out? Are you afraid to face the people of Toronto? Why won't you come out and debate it? Defend your megacity, Mr Premier.

Hon Mr Leach: I wonder what the member for Oakwood's position today is on amalgamation. As I've mentioned in the House before, this is a member who campaigned on amalgamation, campaigned on getting rid of his city of York, which he now stands around and says it's impossible to do. There is absolutely no consistency there whatsoever.

What we wanted to do, as we have continued to say, is to give the people of Metropolitan Toronto an opportunity to speak. They've had that opportunity. Six hundred came to the hearings and said, "We have concerns." Many of them said, "Carry on with your agenda." The last time I was at the hearings, seven out of 10 delegates were in favour of amalgamation. I think that to say this government hasn't carried out the democratic process is absolutely wrong. The democratic process is giving them the opportunity to say their piece. We allowed that.

EDUCATION REFORM

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I have a question for the Premier. Some of the members of the government party such as the honourable member for Scarborough East have said that last night's referendum vote was not just a vote against the megacity but rather a vote against the government's whole agenda.

A major part of the agenda is Bill 104, the Fewer School Boards Act. We've been hearing from many parents in the committee hearings who are concerned about what is happening to their children's education here in Metro and across Ontario. People like Annie Kidder, Jacqueline Latter and Gay Young have expressed concern about the loss of local representation and accountability and concerns about cuts in education that will affect their children. Parents are asking to be consulted by your government on your plan for education. They point out that you haven't even followed the Sweeney report and that you cancelled consultations on that report not long after you became the government.

My question is simple and straightforward: Will you withdraw Bill 104 and initiate province-wide consensus-building processes to develop the best plan for education in Ontario?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I appreciate the opportunity to respond about education, because the dillying and dallying and the studies and the Sweeney report that your government commissioned, and the royal commission that you commissioned and then really didn't act on very much, are some of the reasons why we are getting an increase in class size in some of the schools, which is totally unacceptable to us. We will not accept any increase in class size. Clearly those increases that took place under your government, and even the first year of our government under the failed structure that's not working very well, are not acceptable to us.

1440

Second, we heard through the royal commission and we heard through all those processes that you had, the Sweeney report, concerns about quality of education, concerns about getting resources into the classroom and --

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

Hon Mr Harris: -- concerns that the current structure was in fact not doing that. So we are responding to the concerns that were expressed to your government. You did not act, and we are acting.

Mr Wildman: The Premier's government responded to the concerns by cutting $400 million out of education in this province.

Central to the government's restructuring package is the removal of education funding from the residential property tax. One of the excuses you've given for your downloading of social and health care services to the property tax has been the removal of education costs from the property tax. Since you've had some difficulties obviously as a result of the referendum and the transfer of soft services like health care and long-term care to the property tax, it has been suggested that one of your approaches may be to take those services and those costs back to the province and to transfer the cost of school maintenance, custodial services, transportation and so on to the municipal property tax --

The Speaker: Thank you very much, member for Algoma. Premier, response.

Hon Mr Harris: No. Our plan is to do this: Stop the erosion of education in the classroom; stop the erosion of standards; stop getting test results back that say we're seven out of 10, 10 out of 10 in math and science here in Canada. So we are bringing forward proposals.

I want to say very clearly to all members of the House and to every parent and to every businessperson concerned about the quality of graduates, and I want to say directly to every student that everything we are doing is 100% for better-quality education in the classroom.

I also want you to know this: Absolutely nothing that we are doing will affect class size or quality of education in the classroom. It is exactly those erosions over the last period of time, particularly under your administration, that we are trying to correct, and in that we have the overwhelming support of parents and of students and of businesses that are concerned about standards in this province.

COURT SYSTEM

Mr Garry J. Guzzo (Ottawa-Rideau): My question is for the Attorney General. I read in the press this morning of problems in the provincial court (family court division), and as your department statistics will reveal, sir, this is not just the hardest-working court in this province but in the entire Dominion.

Sir, the clients of that division are people who have paid taxes in prior years and who will pay taxes in the future, as opposed to maybe clients of the immigration court who have never paid a nickel in tax in this country, and indeed in our own criminal courts some have never paid a nickel in taxes.

I'm asking you today, sir, with regard to that problem, what you are able to do to aid the people and the clients of that court.

Hon Charles Harnick (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): I had occasion this morning to speak to Chief Judge Linden, who described the article that was written as highly exaggerative of the situation. However, we do know that because there have been problems with legal aid, which is now on a sound fiscal basis, we are now taking a look, through Professor McCamus, at reviewing legal aid and reviewing the way we deliver legal aid. I'm looking forward to receiving his report.

In the meantime, I can assure you that legal aid, which is run by the law society, is receiving exactly the amount of money that the law society agreed to accept when it made an agreement with the former government. I have every confidence that they will be able to run the legal aid system pending the outcome of Professor McCamus's review of better ways in which we might be able to deliver legal aid to those who need it.

Mr Guzzo: My supplementary deals with the expansion of the Unified Family Court. In particular I note from my own riding that the federal government has money for Bombardier and Pratt and Whitney in Montreal and for a canoe museum in the riding of Shawinigan. Indeed, the member for Shawinigan has free advice but no money with regard to hospitals in the Ottawa-Carleton area. I'm wondering if you have had any luck to pry money away from the Attorney General for the federal government with regard to expanding the unified court?

Hon Mr Harnick: I appreciate the question from the member for Ottawa-Rideau because it is a very important question. We now have the Unified Family Court in Hamilton, London, Barrie, Napanee and Kingston. It's a court that works very well. It's a court that has consolidated all of the family and matrimonial cases in one place.

I have been urging the federal minister to expand that court, particularly into Metropolitan Toronto and the GTA, and to consider expansion into northern Ontario. Certainly the experience of this court is that it works. It responds to the needs of people. It's administratively the right thing to do, and I've been urging the federal minister to expand the Unified Family Court. I hope he does, because I think it will be of great benefit to those who need the services of the family court in Ontario. I do hope the Minister of Justice federally, Mr Rock, will pay heed to our request.

SERVICES EN FRANÇAIS AUX HÔPITAUX FRENCH-LANGUAGE HOSPITAL SERVICES

M. Gilles E. Morin (Carleton-Est) : Monsieur le Président, ma question s'adresse strictement au ministre délégué aux Affaires francophones.

Hier, au cours d'une entrevue avec un reporter de la télévision de Radio-Canada, le ministre Villeneuve a déclaré qu'il appuyait le mouvement SOS Montfort. Monsieur le Ministre, 500,000 Franco-Ontariens vous regardent en ce moment. La nation vous écoute. Puisque vous appuyez SOS Montfort, allez-vous maintenant vous opposer publiquement à la fermeture de l'hôpital Montfort ?

L'hon Noble Villeneuve (ministre de l'Agriculture, de l'Alimentation et des Affaires rurales ; ministre délégué aux Affaires francophones) : Il me fait plaisir de répondre à mon collègue de la région de l'Outaouais ontarien. Comme vous le savez, la commission de restructuration a fait ses recommandations. Je félicite Gisèle Lalonde et le regroupement SOS Montfort. Je les encourage fortement à faire une présentation forte pour indiquer exactement leurs nuances, leurs inquiétudes, et puis faire leurs recommandations pour une solution.

Alors, je les appuie fortement. Comme vous savez, les recommandations de la commission sont absolument les leurs et n'ont absolument rien à faire avec le gouvernement ontarien. Alors, je les encourage. Ils ont encore une vingtaine de jours, et je suis persuadé que la commission va les écouter. Les recommandations découlent strictement de la commission.

M. Morin : Entendre une réponse aussi ignorante m'insulte. Il se souviendra que le ministre Runciman n'a pas hésité un instant pour exprimer son mécontentement à la suite de la fermeture d'un hôpital dans sa circonscription. Quand allez-vous intervenir, Monsieur le Ministre, afin que les Franco-Ontariens ne subissent pas l'humiliation d'assister à la fermeture définitive de l'hôpital Montfort sans que le ministre des Affaires francophones lève le petit doigt ? Quand allez-vous manifester votre désaccord ?

L'hon M. Villeneuve: Je remercie encore mon collègue. Je suis convaincu -- on n'est pas obligé de répéter mais, par contre, ça vaut la peine d'être répété -- que dans la région de l'Outaouais ontarien, nous avons environ 800 lits d'hôpital qui sont vides maintenant, l'équivalent de trois hôpitaux de moyenne grandeur.

1450

Je vous dis que strictement, la commission a été établie il y a un an et demi, complètement rien à faire avec la politique. Vous me demandez de politiser avec ce dont vous étiez bel et bien d'accord il y a un an et demi. Nous ne politiserons pas la commission continue à oeuvrer, et n'oublions pas que le gouvernement fédéral aura tranché au-delà de 2 $ milliards, ce qui est environ 40 % des transferts pour les soins de santé en Ontario.

Mr Morin: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'm sure the table is advised that I will participate in the late show on Thursday evening.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Please file the appropriate papers. New question.

M. Howard Hampton (Rainy River) : J'ai une question pour le premier ministre. Hier vous avez dit aux journalistes que vous êtes fermement engagé à offrir des services en français là où la demande existe. Mais la fermeture de l'hôpital Montfort menace ces services non seulement pour les patients de la région d'Ottawa mais partout en Ontario.

L'hôpital Montfort est le seul hôpital francophone d'enseignement médical en Ontario. C'est pour cela que ça représente une question d'unité nationale. En fermant l'hôpital Montfort, vous menacez la capacité de formation des médecins et infirmières francophones en Ontario, menaçant ainsi l'accès aux soins de santé pour toute la population francophone. Je vous demande donc aujourd'hui de renverser cette décision et de protéger l'hôpital Montfort.

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I want to say that I appreciate the member's support for my colleague and for our government in providing French-language services across the province and ensuring that we are able to do so in the future. I have made no decision, so there's nothing for me to reverse.

But I think it's important we do express our concerns to the restructuring commission to ensure that anything post-restructuring will provide at least equal or better access to services for francophones in Ontario. That certainly will be our commitment. That is what the minister is expressing. That is what I am expressing. I'd be pleased to pass on your support for that to the commissioner as well, unless you want to do it yourself.

The Speaker: Supplementary. The member for Cochrane South.

M. Gilles Bisson (Cochrane-Sud) : Monsieur le Premier Ministre, ce n'est pas acceptable. Vous avez besoin de comprendre que l'hôpital Montfort est le flambeau, c'est l'espoir, c'est là où nous, les francophones, nous retrouvons. Mais plus important, l'hôpital Montfort est responsable pour être capable de trouver un milieu pour faire l'entraînement nécessaire de nos médecins et tous ceux qui sont professionnels dans le domaine de la santé.

Dans Kirkland Lake, Timmins, Windsor et toutes les communautés où on a besoin de desservir la communauté francophone, l'hôpital Montfort joue un rôle pour faire cet entraînement. En fermant cet hôpital, qu'est-ce qui va arriver avec ces services ? Qu'est-ce qui va arriver avec l'entraînement ? On vous demande encore une fois de renverser la décision qui était faite et de démontrer par vos actions que les services en français sont importants pour la communauté ontarienne et que vous les soutenez.

Hon Mr Harris: I think you've heard me express and you've heard the minister express, and I've expressed to the Prime Minister and to Ms Copps -- who congratulated us on the extensive French-language commitment in education, by the way, to francophones here in Ontario -- and to others that we are committed to ensuring that not one whit of service to the francophone community in education and in training of doctors and others that have been provided will be acceptable to us after the final decision has been made. I appreciate your support of my colleague and our government, and I'll pass those concerns on to the commissioner as well.

SCHOOL BOARDS

Mr Dan Newman (Scarborough Centre): My question today is for the Minister of Education and Training. Last Friday I met with parents from Anson Park public school and John A. Leslie public school to discuss, among other things, Bill 104, the Fewer School Boards Act. Parents and students are concerned about what a single, united Toronto district board of education will mean to the many excellent and innovative programs that currently exist at the Scarborough Board of Education, specifically, for example, Scarborough's zero tolerance policy against violence and weapons program.

Can the minister explain to me and the parents from Anson Park public school and John A. Leslie public school who will be responsible for deciding which programs will be kept by a new, united board if and when Bill 104 passes?

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Education and Training): I want to thank the member for Scarborough Centre for the question. I know this is a concern for people around the province because we do have a lot of very different programs, some very excellent programs, offered by various boards. When the school boards are amalgamated, if we have passage of Bill 104 in its current state, it's our intention and it's the intention of the bill to make sure that the new, elected school board would have the right to take on those policies that they'd like to.

My sense of this, having talked to people who serve as trustees and to parents and educators in the province, is that this is really an opportunity to take the best policies and the best practices from a variety of different boards and put them together in a way that works best for the young people in that area, and that's what I trust will happen.

Mr Newman: Now that the minister has clarified that for the House, could he please tell my constituents in Scarborough Centre, including those parents, what steps they might be able to take to ensure that those excellent programs within the Scarborough Board of Education like zero tolerance are retained by the new, united board?

Hon Mr Snobelen: Of course there will be trustee representation on any new board that's created. I can assure the member, again from my conversations with people who are involved in both the administration and the practice of education in the province, that there is a great concern about school violence, to make sure that our schools are safe. I know all the members from Scarborough share that concern, so I believe there is absolutely no reason to be concerned about that program being dropped by a new board. In fact I think that program will be enhanced and spread into other areas where there is a real concern about the safety of children.

Again, I congratulate the Scarborough board on the zero tolerance program. I believe it will be a model for other boards as we work to have a system of education governance with less waste, less duplication and certainly fewer politicians.

HEALTH SERVICES RESTRUCTURING COMMISSION

Mr Gerard Kennedy (York South): My question is to our Minister of Health, asking him to improve on the response coming from the government side today about responsibility-taking. I'm this time referring to the Health Services Restructuring Commission. We know that the problems of hospitals are directly linked to the cuts that you signed, that have come off your desk. But we know as well that they're now also suffering from this Health Services Restructuring Commission you set up as a political instrument dressed up as some kind of health solution.

You have now lost the confidence of all the major health service providers. This week the Ontario Medical Association, Dr Gerry Rowland, said you're moving too fast and you should block this commission. Earlier this month the Ontario Hospital Association said your plan of restructuring was seriously flawed and must be fundamentally changed. The Ontario Nurses' Association said that patients are not being protected, that you're focusing on bricks and mortar instead.

Minister, will you please stand in your place today and take some responsibility for your commission that is closing hospitals in this province, and will you stop this commission until you have it set up on some kind of a more responsible basis?

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Health): Since we're doing who said what today, let me read the London Free Press of this morning, which says:

"What indication has the Harris government given that it plans to renege on these firm and unequivocal election commitments?" -- referring to the health commitments. "This year the province plans to spend $17.7 billion on health, up from $17.4 billion three years ago. That's quite an achievement, especially as the federal Liberals have slashed transfer payments to the province for health and social services by $2.1 billion.

"What Ontario's Liberals and New Democrats could not do was muster the political courage to close entire hospitals," after they closed over 10,000 beds in the province. "As a result, the hospital sector is grossly inefficient. Currently, only about 38% of the physical space of the sprawling London and St Thomas psychiatric hospitals is in use; the rest stands empty."

1500

It goes on to commend the government and the commission for ensuring that every dollar goes to patient services and away from administration and redundant bricks and mortar.

We have a solid plan, a plan that will put health care in Ontario on a very firm footing --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you, Minister. Supplementary.

Mr Kennedy: Minister, the fact is and the fact has been revealed daily, you have no plan. You have no basis under which to bring things together. But what you do have is responsibility for the restructuring commission.

Yesterday your aide was quoted in the paper as saying you couldn't stop this commission. The act that created it, Bill 26, which took away powers of hospital boards, says that you can. You can "amend or revoke a direction made under this section" where you consider it to be in the public interest. All across this province are patients waiting for you to get hold of the public interest, to tell them that the guidelines that have been used by this restructuring commission are your responsibility, that those faulty benchmarks that are closing hospitals across this province, that are now causing you to have this commission meet with your Conservative caucus, that are politicizing this process, that you'll stand responsible for them.

Minister, will you stand up today and take responsibility for your commission and tell us when you'll use your power to work in the public interest, for Montfort, for the other hospitals in this province that need you to be the Minister of Health, and not give those powers away to some unelected group that isn't accountable?

Hon Mr Wilson: The honourable member has a lot of nerve. It's his party that cut $2.1 billion from health care in Ontario. We've done everything we can as a government to increase the health care budget. It's up significantly. We spend 6% more per person in Ontario than any other jurisdiction, any other province or territory in Canada. We're right up there with the rest of the world, and that's in spite of the uncooperative atmosphere we've had from the federal government with respect to the cash transfers to our province. The beds are closed. You closed the beds. We've got to get fewer buildings, more services, modern hospitals, new technology and the best services available for the patients of Ontario, because that's what they need and deserve.

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): A question to the Premier. It's already very troubling today. We've been listening to your Minister of Municipal Affairs, and it's clear that he has not listened to the hundreds of people who have come before the committee, the hundreds of people who said they don't want amendments to Bill 103, they want Bill 103 withdrawn. It's clear he hasn't listened to all those people who have been going to meetings, meeting after meeting after meeting, in opposition to your megacity concept. It's quite clear he does not understand the message people tried to send him last night.

Your government has been cited for contempt. Your government has had to face an Ontario court judge who said you're not behaving like a responsible government or a responsive government. People want to see from your government a willingness to listen. People want to see a recognition from your government that you've got it wrong. Premier, will you withdraw Bill 103, go back to the drawing board and respect the wishes of the people who live across Metropolitan Toronto?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): What we've had to face is an $11.2-billion deficit we inherited from one of the worst governments in the history of Canada, let alone just the province of Ontario. That's what we've had to face. After having faced that and consulting in a whole host of areas and bringing forward decisions that you put off, postponed, that led to this deficit, now, all of a sudden, you say you have an idea. Six years later you say you have an idea.

Let me say this: Maybe the lightbulb has gone off; maybe now you recognize the disasters. Let me also congratulate you. At least you've thought of something, which is more than the Liberals have done. They continue to be the old-style politicians, negative this. "I'm against referendums," McGuinty says, "I'm against change, I'm against all those things." So let me at least acknowledge that perhaps the lightbulb is going off and you recognize there need to be solutions.

Let me also say this: Nobody has listened more carefully and is prepared to respond --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you very much. Motions? No motions. Petitions?

PETITIONS

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a petition which reads as follows:

"Stop Megacity Madness: Citizens Have Democratic Right to be Heard.

"To the Legislature of Ontario:

"Whereas `bigger government is not better' and the Mike Harris government has no right to dictate a megacity upon the citizens of Metropolitan Toronto;

"Whereas the megacity is being imposed on 2.3 million citizens in Metro Toronto without giving people a voice in the future of their cities and neighbourhoods;

"Whereas a megacity could lead to mega property tax increases, mega user fees and mega cuts in services;

"Whereas the Tories never proposed abolishing local government in favour of bigger government during the election campaign;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislature of Ontario as follows:

"To give the 2.3 million people in Metro Toronto a say in the future of their cities and stop the imposition of a megacity."

I affix my signature, as I'm in full agreement with this endorsed-by-a-referendum petition before this House today.

DRINKING AND DRIVING

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean): I have another petition on the issue of drunk driving in support of the Margaret Marland bill.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas drinking and driving is the largest criminal cause of death and injury in Canada;

"Whereas every 45 minutes in Ontario a driver is involved in an alcohol-related crash;

"Whereas most alcohol-related accidents are caused by repeat offenders;

"Whereas lengthy licence suspensions for impaired driving have been shown to greatly reduce repeat offences;

"Whereas the victims of impaired drivers often pay with their lives while only 22% of convicted impaired drivers go to jail, and even then on average for only 21 days;

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

"We urge the provincial government to pass legislation that will strengthen measures against impaired drivers in Ontario."

I affix my own signature thereto.

HOSPITAL FINANCING

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

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas Ontarians are gravely concerned with the historic $1.3-billion cut to base funding of hospitals; and

"Whereas Ontarians feel that health services are suffering; and

"Whereas the government is reducing hospital funding and not reinvesting millions of dollars into the communities that they are being taken away from;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly to call on the Conservative government to stop the cuts to base funding for hospitals across Ontario and to ensure that community services are in place before the removal of hospital services. The Conservative government must fund hospitals with a funding formula that reflects demographic and regional needs. The Conservative government must ensure that health services are available, including emergency and urgent care, to all Ontarians."

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

EDUCATION LEGISLATION

Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): I am pleased to present a petition to the Legislature of Ontario.

"Whereas the government of Ontario has introduced Bill 104, the Fewer School Boards Act, into the Legislative Assembly of Ontario; and

"Whereas Bill 104 seriously undermines the job security of caring professional support staff of the educational system of Durham Region;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to stop the process of outsourcing or the privatization of essential support staff, namely, custodians, maintenance, office, clerical, technical, secretarial and educational assistant staff. They are an essential service to the Durham Board of Education and the Durham Regional Roman Catholic Separate School Board and to the students of the region."

I'm pleased to sign my name to the petition.

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): "Stop Megacity Madness: Citizens Have Democratic Right to be Heard.

"To the Legislature of Ontario:

"Whereas `bigger government is not better' and the Mike Harris government has no right to dictate a megacity upon the citizens of Metro Toronto;

"Whereas the megacity is being imposed on 2.3 million citizens in Metro Toronto without giving people a voice in the future of their cities and neighbourhoods;

"Whereas a megacity could lead to mega property tax increases, mega user fees and mega cuts in services;

"Whereas the Tories never proposed abolishing local government in favour of bigger government during the election campaign;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislature of Ontario as follows:

"To give the 2.3 million people in Metro Toronto a say in the future of their cities and stop the imposition of a megacity."

1510

DRINKING AND DRIVING

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

"Whereas drinking and driving is the largest criminal cause of death and injury in Canada; and

"Whereas every 45 minutes in Ontario a driver is involved in an alcohol-related crash; and

"Whereas most alcohol-related accidents are caused by repeat offenders; and

"Whereas lengthy licence suspensions for impaired driving have been shown to greatly reduce repeat offences; and

"Whereas the victims of impaired drivers often pay with their lives while only 22% of convicted impaired drivers go to jail, and even then only for an average of 21 days;

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

"We urge the provincial government to pass legislation that will strengthen measures against impaired drivers in Ontario."

HOSPITAL FINANCING

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): I am pleased to present this on behalf of the people from Bruce and happy that the member for Bruce is here to hear this. A petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas Ontarians are gravely concerned with the historic $1.3-billion cut to base funding of hospitals; and

"Whereas Ontarians feel that health services are suffering; and

"Whereas the government is reducing hospital funding and not reinvesting millions of dollars into the communities that they are being taken away from;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly to call on the Conservative government to stop the cuts to base funding for hospitals across Ontario and to ensure that community services are in place before the removal of hospital services. The Conservative government must (a) vote for the Pupatello resolution; find a funding formula" --

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Community and Social Services): Oh, it's now the Pupatello resolution.

Mrs Pupatello: Okay, I did add that -- "that reflects geographic and regional needs. The Conservative government must ensure that health services are available, including emergency and urgent care, to all Ontarians."

This is signed by the people from Bruce county.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I have a Christopherson resolution I'd like to read.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

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

On behalf of my caucus colleagues, I add my name to theirs.

DRINKING AND DRIVING

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): I'm very happy to present this petition which supports my private member's bill against drunk driving.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas drinking and driving is the largest criminal cause of death and injury in Canada;

"Whereas every 45 minutes in Ontario a driver is involved in an alcohol-related crash;

"Whereas most alcohol-related accidents are caused by repeat offenders;

"Whereas lengthy licence suspensions for impaired drivers have been shown to greatly reduce repeat offences;

"Whereas the victims of impaired drivers often pay with their lives while only 22% of convicted impaired drivers go to jail, and even then only for an average of 21 days;

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

"We urge the provincial government to pass legislation that will strengthen measures against impaired drivers in Ontario."

I'm very proud to lend my support to this petition.

EDUCATION REFORM

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned, acknowledge the high quality of secondary education which has been developed in Ontario;

"We acknowledge that quality is maintained only through ongoing evaluation and improvements in the curriculum. We also believe that any improvement must be the result of long-term planning and broad-based consultation.

"Since this planning and consultation is not evident in the current reform proposal, we urge the minister to withdraw his proposal until such time as a draft is developed which is based on sound educational research and planning."

I'm pleased to affix my signature along with the thousands of others of my constituents who have signed this petition.

FIRE SAFETY

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I have a petition supporting the firefighters of Ontario.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Firefighters need speed, experience and teamwork to save lives. I oppose any legislation that could undermine the work of my local firefighters and jeopardize fire safety in my community. Please listen to professional firefighters and amend Bill 84 to eliminate the threat to fire safety."

I proudly add my name to theirs.

DRINKING AND DRIVING

Mr Toby Barrett (Norfolk): "Whereas drinking and driving is the largest criminal cause of death and injury in Canada; and

"Whereas every 45 minutes in Ontario a driver is involved in an alcohol-related crash; and

"Whereas most alcohol-related accidents are caused by repeat offenders; and

"Whereas lengthy licence suspensions for impaired driving have been shown to greatly reduce repeat offences; and

"Whereas the victims of impaired drivers often pay with their lives while only 22% of convicted impaired drivers go to jail, and even then only for an average of 21 days;

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

"We urge the provincial government to pass legislation that will strengthen measures against impaired drivers in Ontario."

I am in agreement with this petition and hereby sign my name to it.

HEALTH CARE WORKERS

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

"Whereas we, the health care consumers and health care providers of Ontario, request that the Ministry of Health take steps to ensure that direct patient care is provided by adequate numbers of regulated health care workers whose skills and knowledge match the role they undertake;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislature of Ontario as follows...."

The petition has been signed by 100 residents of the Cornwall riding and S-D-G & East Grenville. Another 40 people signed the letter accompanying the petition.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas it is vital that occupational health and safety services provided to workers be conducted by organizations in which workers have faith; and

"Whereas the Workers' Health and Safety Centre and the occupational health clinics for Ontario workers have provided such services on behalf of workers for many years; and

"Whereas the centre and clinics have made a significant contribution to improvements in workplace health and safety and the reduction of injuries, illnesses and death caused by work;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to oppose any attempt to erode the structure, services or funding of the Workers' Health and Safety Centre and the occupational health clinics for Ontario workers.

"Further, we, the undersigned, demand that education and training of Ontario workers continue in its present form through the Workers' Health and Safety Centre and that professional and technical expertise and advice continue to be provided through the occupational health clinics for Ontario workers."

I proudly add my name to theirs.

HOSPITAL FINANCING

Mr W. Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): I have a petition about health care in Ontario and it reads as follows:

"Whereas Ontarians are gravely concerned with the historic $1.3-billion cuts to base funding of hospitals; and

"Whereas Ontarians feel that health services are suffering; and

"Whereas the government is reducing hospital funding and not reinvesting millions of dollars into the communities that they are being taken away from;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly to call on the Progressive Conservative government to stop the cuts to base funding for hospitals across Ontario and to ensure that community services are in place before the removal of hospital services. The Conservative government must ensure that health services are available, including emergency and urgent care, to all Ontarians."

I submit this petition on behalf of my constituents with the understanding that the Mike Harris government is restructuring to improve the system by maximizing the amount of dollars that go towards direct care.

1520

FIRE SAFETY

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): This is a petition in response to Bill 84.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the firefighters of Sudbury and Ontario are very concerned about Bill 84; and

"Whereas we feel Bill 84 is unfair; and

"Whereas we feel Bill 84 is discriminatory; and

"Whereas we feel Bill 84 endangers the wellbeing of the people of Ontario; and

"Whereas we feel Bill 84 requires extensive changes; and

"Whereas we feel Bill 84 needs broad provincial public hearings before implementation; and

"Whereas speed, experience and teamwork save lives; and

"Whereas we don't want to get burned by Bill 84;

"We therefore petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to listen when we say firefighters need speed, experience and teamwork to save lives. I oppose any legislation that could undermine the work of my local firefighters and jeopardize fire safety in my community. Please listen to professional firefighters and amend Bill 84 to eliminate the threat to fire safety."

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

4588 BATHURST ACT, 1997

Ms Bassett moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr74, An Act respecting 4588 Bathurst.

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

750 SPADINA AVENUE ASSOCIATION ACT, 1997

Ms Bassett moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr75, An Act respecting 750 Spadina Avenue Association.

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

OPPOSITION DAY

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Mike Colle (Oakwood): I move opposition day motion number 3:

Whereas the Harris government is wiping out the existing municipalities of Toronto, the city of York, East York, North York, Scarborough and Etobicoke and replacing them with one enormous megacity of 2.3 million people;

Whereas Mike Harris and his party platform made no mention of amalgamating the six municipalities composing Metropolitan Toronto prior to the 1995 provincial election and were not elected on that basis;

Whereas the Harris government has no mandate from the people to amalgamate Metropolitan Toronto into a megacity;

Whereas, as recently as 1994, Mike Harris said: "There is no cost for a municipality to retain its name and identity. Why destroy our roots and pride? I disagree with restructuring because it believes that bigger is better. Services always cost more in larger communities";

Whereas the Harris government is forcing the people of Metropolitan Toronto into a megacity to hide the $531 million in increased taxes for Metro residents that will be caused by the Harris government's dumping of provincial costs on to the municipalities of Ontario;

Whereas the ill-conceived plan to create this megacity is based on a three-week KPMG study carried out behind closed doors and without consultation;

Whereas the KPMG study contradicts the recommendations of every other study carried out on greater Toronto area restructuring over the last 40 years;

Whereas even the author of the KPMG study admitted that "there has been no amalgamation of which I am aware in the current fiscal environment that would demonstrate the certainty of savings";

Whereas the Harris government has stated that it plans to drive the legislation creating the megacity through the Legislature by April, without leaving adequate time for study or consultation;

Whereas the Harris government's plans to force the people of Metropolitan Toronto into a megacity will cause property taxes to soar, will lead to more cuts in services and will make government even more remote from the people that it is supposed to serve;

Whereas studies have shown that once a city grows to over one million people, economies of scale in municipal operations disappear and per capita costs for basic services go up;

Whereas Mike Harris and Al Leach have failed to provide the people of Ontario with any numbers to support their contention that amalgamation will lead to cost savings;

Whereas the Harris government's own study anticipates transition costs of $150 million to $220 million following amalgamation;

Whereas unprecedented grass-roots opposition to the megacity plan has sprung up all over Metropolitan Toronto;

Whereas thousands of Metro residents have spontaneously and vocally expressed their opposition to the megacity plan;

Whereas the public hearings on Bill 103 conducted by the Harris government have failed to reveal any widespread support for this legislation and instead have revealed deep and consistent concern about this plan among citizens of all political stripes and affiliations;

Whereas the Harris government has refused to conduct its own referendum on the issue of amalgamation;

Whereas the Mike Harris government has stated that it plans to proceed with its plan to force the citizens of Metro Toronto into a megacity regardless of their wishes;

Whereas the Harris government is consistently ignoring the voice of the people of Metropolitan Toronto by continuing to plow ahead with its megacity plan and is acting undemocratically by forcing this massive change down the throats of the citizens of Metropolitan Toronto without proper consultation or a mandate from the people;

Therefore this House calls upon the provincial government to reverse its decision to amalgamate Metropolitan Toronto into a megacity, to withdraw Bill 103 and to proceed to consult with the people and the governments of Metropolitan Toronto, to develop a plan to restructure the greater Toronto area for better coordination of services and strengthened local government and to make this a better place for all citizens to live.

That's the motion. Thank you.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Opposition day number 3 moved by Mr Colle:

Whereas the Harris government is wiping out the existing municipalities of Toronto, the city of York, East York --

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): Dispense.

The Speaker: No, I think I'll go through it.

-- North York, Scarborough and Etobicoke and replacing them with one enormous megacity of 2.3 million people;

Whereas Mike Harris and his party platform made no mention of amalgamating the six municipalities composing Metropolitan Toronto prior to the 1995 provincial election and were not elected on that basis;

Whereas the Harris government has no mandate from the people to amalgamate Metropolitan Toronto into a megacity;

Whereas, as recently as 1994, Mike Harris said: "There is no cost for a municipality to retain its name and identity. Why destroy our roots and pride? I disagree with restructuring because it believes that bigger is better. Services always cost more in larger communities";

Whereas the Harris government is forcing the people of Metropolitan Toronto into a megacity to hide the $531 million in increased taxes for Metro residents that will be caused by the Harris government's dumping of provincial costs on to the municipalities of Ontario;

Whereas the ill-conceived plan to create this megacity is based on a three-week KPMG study carried out behind closed doors and without consultation;

Whereas the KPMG study contradicts the recommendations of every other study carried out on greater Toronto area restructuring over the last 40 years;

Whereas even the author of the KPMG study admitted that "there has been no amalgamation of which I am aware in the current fiscal environment that would demonstrate the certainty of savings";

Whereas the Harris government has stated that it plans to drive the legislation creating the megacity through the Legislature by April, without leaving adequate time for study or consultation;

Whereas the Harris government's plans to force the people of Metropolitan Toronto into a megacity will cause property taxes to soar, will lead to more cuts in services and will make government even more remote from the people that it is supposed to serve;

Whereas studies have shown that once a city grows to over one million people, economies of scale in municipal operations disappear and per capita costs for basic services go up;

Whereas Mike Harris and Al Leach have failed to provide the people of Ontario with any numbers to support their contention that amalgamation will lead to cost savings;

Whereas the Harris government's own study anticipates transition costs of $150 million to $220 million following amalgamation;

Whereas unprecedented grass-roots opposition to the megacity plan has sprung up all over Metropolitan Toronto;

Whereas thousands of Metro residents have spontaneously and vocally expressed their opposition to the megacity plan;

Whereas the public hearings on Bill 103 conducted by the Harris government have failed to reveal any widespread support for this legislation and instead have revealed deep and consistent concern about this plan among citizens of all political stripes and affiliations;

Whereas the Harris government has refused to conduct its own referendum on the issue of amalgamation;

Whereas the Mike Harris government has stated that it plans to proceed with its plan to force the citizens of Metro Toronto into a megacity regardless of their wishes;

Whereas the Harris government is consistently ignoring the voice of the people of Metropolitan Toronto by continuing to plow ahead with its megacity plan and is acting undemocratically by forcing this massive change down the throats of the citizens of Metropolitan Toronto without proper consultation or a mandate from the people;

Therefore this House calls upon the provincial government to reverse its decision to amalgamate Metropolitan Toronto into a megacity, to withdraw Bill 103 and to proceed to consult with the people and the governments of Metropolitan Toronto, to develop a plan to restructure the greater Toronto area for better coordination of services and strengthened local government and to make this a better place for all citizens to live.

1530

Mr Miclash: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Might I ask for unanimous consent to have my leader go first, please?

The Speaker: The member for Kenora is seeking unanimous consent to allow the leader of the official opposition to lead off debate. Agreed? Leader of the official opposition.

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): I'm looking forward to this opportunity to participate in what I believe to be a very important debate for this House.

Yesterday the people of Metropolitan Toronto spoke loudly and very clearly. They sent Mike Harris and the Ontario government an unmistakable message. They said, "We do not want your megacity." They said, "We do not want you imposing change on us." Finally, they said, "If you continue to try and destroy the communities that we've worked so hard to build, we will fight you every single step of the way."

This isn't the first time the government has been given this message. It's the same message that has been delivered every day at the public hearings by citizen after citizen, group after group, and expert after expert. It's the same message that was delivered by thousands of people marching down Yonge Street, and it's the same message that is delivered every night of the week in every corner of Metro Toronto by groups numbering from 50 to 1,500. I say again, the message has been delivered loudly, clearly and unmistakably.

The question now is: Will this government listen? There are just a few days before the end of public hearings on Bill 103, the City of Toronto Act, a bill which might more appropriately be called Megacity, Whether You Like It or Not.

The government argues that this issue is complex, too complex, it says, for the people to decide. But it really all boils down to two simple issues: (1) Is the megacity the right vision for one of the greatest urban centres in the world? and (2) Does this government really believe in democracy? Does it believe in the right of people to decide on the type of community they want to live in?

Let me first speak about the megacity. I want to say up front that I do not believe a megacity is the right vision for Metro Toronto. I believe in strong local governments. I believe in local government because that is the level of government that is closest to the people and that is the level of government to which people can get closest.

When I talk to people in the borough of East York or the city of York, they tell me that one of the great things they love about their communities is that when they have a problem they can call the mayor's office and someone will get back to them the very same day. That won't happen in a megacity of 2.3 million people. When I talk to people from North York they tell me that one of the things that makes their community special is that their garbage gets picked up twice a week and that they have the best snow clearing in all of Metropolitan Toronto. That too will disappear in a megacity.

I'll say again that I'm a very strong advocate of local government, but that doesn't mean I support the status quo. Far from it. By all means let's change towards an integrated transit system, but not just in Metro Toronto; we need it across the greater Toronto area. Let's change towards integrated land use planning, but not just in Metro -- across the GTA. Let's change towards an integrated economic strategy that will attract more investment and jobs, but not just in Metro -- right across the GTA. Let's recognize that all of this has to be anchored to something in order to work, and that something is strong local government.

There's nothing particularly new or unique about this vision of strong local governments and better coordination across the GTA. That's the vision that was put forward by the Anne Golden commission -- in my view, the right vision for Metropolitan Toronto.

It's also a vision that coincidentally used to be shared by Mike Harris, now Premier. Mike Harris used to be the great defender of local government. In fact, I remember when Mike Harris was campaigning in the town of Fergus and someone asked him about amalgamation, and he said: "Why destroy our roots and pride? I disagree with restructuring, because it believes that bigger is better. Services always cost more in larger communities."

He was right. Mike Harris was right, but that was then and this is now. Leader of the Opposition Mike Harris was a great defender of local government; Premier Mike Harris sings a completely different tune.

I also remember when Mike Harris went to Scarborough and told them that their fiscal efficiency was a model that should be followed by other levels of government. I hope you heard that correctly, Mr Speaker. He said "followed by other levels of government," not "swallowed by other levels of government." He was right again; in fact, he was absolutely right. But that was then and this is now. Opposition Leader Mike Harris understood the efficiencies then of local government; Premier Mike Harris sings another tune altogether.

Mike Harris used to sing another tune too, the tune of the Taxfighter, but the best experts on city planning tell us a megacity will increase our taxes. This courtesy of the Taxfighter. If you ask me, the Taxfighter is taking a dive. But that's not just my opinion. Let me read into the record what Paul Pagnuelo, the president of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, has to say. He says: "A single Metro Toronto government will be more costly, leading to higher taxes. It will result in lower service quality and make the Metro area less competitive and will stifle innovation." That from a traditional ally of the Harris government.

I also want to read into the record what Joyce Trimmer had to say. The members opposite will be very familiar with the name of Joyce Trimmer. She was the person Mike Harris appointed before the election as his principal adviser on matters related to the GTA. Here is what Mrs Trimmer had to say about Mike's megacity: "The public simply doesn't know what it's in for. They might think less government is a good idea, but they've been sold a bill of goods if they believe all the propaganda that this will save money."

Now I'd like to say a word about Bill 103 and democracy. Democracy is in some ways a simple concept, although many have fought and many have died for it over the years. Democracy is rarely convenient and tidy. Instead, it's a slow and messy miracle. At its heart, it means that people must have a say in how they are governed. They must have a say on the future of their communities. Democracy clearly imposes a responsibility on people. It's their responsibility to understand the choices before them, and it's their responsibility to choose wisely.

Democracy imposes responsibility on those who govern. Democracy gives the people a voice, but it also compels those who govern to listen to that voice. Democracy isn't just something that takes place once every four years. Democracy is what is supposed to happen in a free society each and every day. Democracy is what took place yesterday across Metro. People were asked if they wanted to be a part of a megacity, and they said no. They said no loudly. They said no overwhelmingly. They said no on every block in every neighbourhood in every city and borough right across Metropolitan Toronto.

Mike Harris and Al Leach view the referenda results as an inconvenience, and with one wave of their hands they dismiss the results of all the referenda across Metro. They say that the question asked was not the kind of scientific question that Environics or Angus Reid would ask. What then of the pollsters themselves? Where have they weighed in when it came to this issue?

Environics released the results of an extensive poll just last week, and the poll showed that there was overwhelming opposition to the megacity right across the GTA. The megacity was rejected by every single demographic group: men, women, rich and poor, old and young. Angus Reid just released a poll showing nearly 60% of people siding with the No side. There was one further poll released this past weekend by pollster Allan Gregg. His poll showed that nearly two thirds of people in Metro want the provincial government to respect the results of the referenda. Even people who voted yes believe the government should listen to the results of the referenda. But Mike Harris and Al Leach apparently still intend to bow their necks and bull ahead.

1540

I and my caucus are still interested in what the people have to say. A few weeks ago we began a process that this government would never have thought to undertake. We started going out and asking people across this province how the dumping of $1 billion in new costs will affect their lives and the quality of their communities. Tomorrow I'll be sharing with you the results of this consultation, but I want to quote today from one of our presenters, Dr Charles Pascal. Dr Pascal is now executive director of the Atkinson foundation, but I believe his name is well-known and well-respected by all members of this Legislature as the former Deputy Minister of Community and Social Services and the former Deputy Minister of Education and Training.

Dr Pascal came to our hearings because he is deeply disturbed by what this government is doing to the quality of life in our communities. Here's how he wrapped up his presentation: "Good policy administered badly is harmful enough, but bad policy administered quickly can be devastating." That is exactly what this government is doing with its megacity and mega-dumping. It's ramming through bad policy quickly.

I want to tell you, though, that in spite of all of this I have hope. I still have hope because the megacity is not yet a done deal. So I urge everyone here from all three parties to support the resolution that is now before us, and if the government does not have the common sense to immediately withdraw Bill 103, I urge them to vote against this bill when it reappears before this Legislature in April for final reading. I do this because I do not see the future of one of the great metropolitan areas of the world, a community that took generations to build but could be destroyed by one act of folly by one government, I do not see the future of Metro Toronto as a partisan issue.

A few weeks ago, when I joined the thousands of people marching down Yonge Street, the thing that struck me most was how diverse a group it was. There were Liberals against the megacity, New Democrats against the megacity and, yes, even Conservatives against the megacity. I know there are members opposite who are opposed to the megacity and I'm urging them, I'm calling upon them to follow their consciences. I appeal to them directly. You've seen how your constituents voted in the referenda in your communities. You've seen the No signs on the houses and lawns in your neighbourhoods. You've been to neighbourhood meetings and you've heard the anger and emotion that this bill has sparked. I urge all the members opposite, but especially those from Metro Toronto, to vote with your constituents and against this bad policy, against the megacity bill.

There's a fine line between leadership and being out of touch and I suggest to the members opposite that to ignore the clear and unequivocal results of the referenda would not be to show leadership; it would be to ignore the will of those you represent.

Everyone in this Legislature ought to support this resolution. It's a win-win proposition. We, as legislators, can win because we will have listened to the people and we will have made the right choice, and the people of Metro will win because they will be given the opportunity to continue growing and changing in a way that works best for them.

Let's all vote our conscience today. Let's bring home a win for the people of Metro Toronto and let's bring home a win for democracy.

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): I'm glad to rise today and to lead off debate on this resolution presented by the Liberal Party and to indicate on behalf of the New Democratic Party caucus our support for this resolution.

It's clear that yesterday the voters and the citizens of Metropolitan Toronto sent Mike Harris a very clear message. In the words of one of the three Toronto dailies that has been most adamant in its support for the megacity, which had this morning on its masthead, "It's Mega No to Megacity," it was clearly a resounding rejection of the megacity proposal that Al Leach and Mike Harris have been so persistent in insisting on.

It's clearly a rejection of the other pieces that are so linked to what they are proposing to do: the downloading on to the property tax base of services that don't belong there and the equally destructive approach they are taking to our school boards and our education system with Bill 104.

I've heard certainly on more than one occasion the Premier and other ministers and other members of the government say, "You know, when people were voting yesterday, they weren't just voting on the megacity bill," as if to say that all of a sudden it made the vote more acceptable to them.

I've been following and have been part of the committee process as we've been discussing Bill 103 in particular, and it's true that people have made very clearly the connection between that bill and the downloading and the destructive approach of this government with respect to education. They haven't had to search very far to make that connection because in fact the government has made that connection for us and for the citizens of Metropolitan Toronto and indeed of the province with respect to the downloading and the education changes.

When Mike Harris says, "People were actually voting on other issues," then perhaps he should go a little bit further than that and acknowledge that in voting no, as people did so overwhelmingly yesterday in Metropolitan Toronto, just perhaps they were also voting no on that whole package he put together in front of people. It should leave him, as the Premier of this province, with something to think about; it should leave him and all members in this Legislature with something to reflect upon.

Yesterday, despite all the efforts this government has made, the money that's been spent, the millions of dollars in advertising in trying to get people to sort of feel good and forget about the individual issues that are being dealt with, in trying to pretend that everything is fine, in the persistence of ministers and members of this government to say no to call after call from citizens, from groups, from a variety of individuals, calling the ministers and the members of this government to come to their senses, despite that persistence, despite the fact that the Speaker of this House found a prima facie case of contempt against the Minister of Municipal Affairs, despite the fact that a judge found their actions in appointing the trustees to be illegal, despite all those things, the government was still persisting and today is still persisting that what it is doing with the megacity bill is appropriate, but they cannot in any way ignore the strength of the rejection that was there yesterday, the clarity, the vigour of that rejection, the clear message residents in Metropolitan Toronto sent Mike Harris, and Al Leach in particular, yesterday.

What's important in supporting this resolution and this motion is for all members, particularly government members, to come to grips with that reality, the reality being that you lost, the reality being that the people have spoken against you, the reality being that the people understand now more than ever your agenda and don't like it, don't approve of it and told you so in clear, unequivocal terms.

1550

The question now turns to what should be done about it. What is the appropriate response to such a clear objection, such a clear demonstration of the people's will against the actions of the Mike Harris government?

I see what happened yesterday as being far more significant than just the strong vote of no to the megacity bill, as incredibly important and significant as that is. I see it as being even more important in the sense that the people, in this case the citizens of Metropolitan Toronto, have refound their voice.

There has been a sense throughout the province, certainly including here in Metropolitan Toronto, since this government came to office, in the last 20 months of devastation that they have sown right across the province, that there was perhaps no way to get to them, that there was no way to get them to understand the devastation they were causing, that there was no way to get them to move from the arrogant positions they were continuing to take, that there was no way to get them to understand that their actions both in process and in substance continued to show incredible contempt for the parliamentary process, and more importantly, for the people of this province.

What happened yesterday was that people finally realized they had a way to tell the government of the day, to tell Mike Harris that they don't approve of what he's doing, that they object strongly to what he's doing. That they did, so clearly, so strongly, so forcefully yesterday in the large number of people who voted, generally larger than happens in municipal elections, and then even more incredibly with the large, resounding voice which ranges from 73% to 80%, 81%, 81.5% of people saying no, an unequivocal, very clear objection to what Mike Harris is doing.

This should give the government real concern because one of the things that I think people were saying to them yesterday was, "You cannot continue to govern in a way that positions the people as the enemy." That has been the attitude we have seen time after time from this government, that somehow the people out there were the problem and that it knew best, as a government, what should be done regardless of what the people felt should be done, that they were the ones who knew and know what the answers are to the incredibly real problems that exist.

Once again, yesterday, with the referendum results, the people of Metropolitan Toronto, at least, said: "No, we do understand what's going on. We don't believe our government should see us, the people, as the enemy. We do believe in the notions of peace, order and good government." They sent a very real warning to Mike Harris. The test of whether they've really listened, whether they've really heard what was said yesterday will come in the days that follow.

As I looked and listened to the Premier and the minister deal with questions today, I'm one who still wants to give them a little bit of room. I still find, I have to tell you, the attitude particularly of the Minister of Municipal Affairs offensive as he continues to insult the process and the people. But even in his statement he read out today there seemed to be some indications of the door sort of being left open just a tiny bit to some changes, not the kind of small cosmetic changes that they inevitably will bring forward in terms of amendments to Bill 103, but I hope the door left even slightly open to what really has to happen, which is a withdrawal of Bill 103, a withdrawal of Bill 104, a halt to the downloading and a real discussion beginning.

We today, taking as we do the results of all that's gone on in the last number of weeks and particularly the results of yesterday, have come forward with what we believe is a useful, constructive proposal. We've called it A Greater Toronto Area for the 21st Century, a proposal for that, and we have put it forward sincerely and truly in a constructive way, as a way to try to say to the government: "There's a dilemma. You've painted yourselves into a corner. We know you have to get out of it. We know you have to find a way to get out of that morass and we want to try to be helpful, because at the end of the day, the issues that we are dealing with are, quite frankly, more important than the Conservative government and the Conservative Party or the Liberal Party or the New Democratic Party."

What we've suggested is that the first step that has to take place is that those two bills, in particular Bill 103 and Bill 104, be withdrawn. Then we've said very clearly that we are not here to defend the status quo. We are not here to say, "Don't do anything." I think there's a substantive difference in what we've suggested to what some others perhaps have said, because we are not saying, "Don't do anything."

It seems to me that if I've heard correctly what citizens have said out there, they too agree that change needs to happen. While there have been a few that have said, "The status quo is just fine by us," large numbers of people who have come in front of the committee on Bill 103 have said, "Yes, we agree there needs to be change, but not this way."

We have put this proposal based on three very important principles, the first being that change is needed, but that change needs to be done so as to ensure effective local government that is responsive to the people and to our communities.

The second principle we believe in very strongly is that the issue that has to be addressed here is not just boundaries within Metropolitan Toronto and the amalgamation within Metropolitan Toronto, but that the GTA as a region is the issue that has to be addressed. What has to come forward are solutions to how we provide for effective delivery of services like transportation, planning, dealing with urban sprawl, dealing with economic development for what is now the city region, because that's no longer something that's contained to either Metropolitan Toronto or to any of the other individual municipalities or regional municipalities within the greater Toronto area.

In fact, the economic entity today is the greater Toronto area. What we are saying is that is the first problem that has to be addressed and, lo and behold, that has also been what many people have said and what the last two major studies on this issue have also indicated, namely, Mr Crombie and Ms Golden's work. We are saying that's the second issue that has to be addressed.

Third, we are saying, let's be clear that whatever changes we make are not changes that are going to be made for another year or two years. The impact of those changes and the consequences of those changes are going to be around for at least the next 30 to 50 years, so we have to get it right. We have to ensure even more so, for that reason, that the citizens of the region are very much involved in that process, because we are doing nothing short in this process of in effect developing the new constitutional framework, if you will, for how to govern the city region and how to provide effective delivery of services both at the regional level and at the local level, as I say, for the next 30 to 50 years.

That's something we should not take lightly and it's not something you resolve by saying, "Well, we have to do something. It's time to do something, and even if what we're going to do is going to devastate things, we're just going to do it. We're going to steamroll ahead." You do that by taking the time and doing it properly.

But we also agree that you don't do that by prolonging study into the next half decade, because we believe there is both an appetite and an understanding about the need for change to come about. That is why we have also suggested that what we need then in terms of the process is for two important things to happen.

One is a citizens' assembly to be established that would be given the task to consult with people broadly, a group that would be representative of people from various walks of life, including politicians but certainly and most clearly including citizens right across the region. It would be given the task to consult more broadly with the wider citizenry and would be given the task of beginning with the studies that have been done, not recreating the wheel but beginning with the studies that have been done, and particularly the Golden study as a good starting point, to come up with effective recommendations about how you deal with eventually replacing the five regional governments that we have now with one regional government structure that would take a look at the region that is today and that will be there for the future, which is the greater Toronto area; and secondly, looking at the lower level of government, looking at the local government and a way to strengthen that relationship and, within that, at what possible amalgamations could take place, not just within Metropolitan Toronto but indeed in the rest of the GTA.

1600

The second important point that we are making to show that we believe in very clearly and we support very much the notion that change has to happen, that we're not simply advocating just endless studies, is to say let's get real. Let's show people that we are real about making this change. It can't be done with the present time lines but it can be done if the government is prepared to delay the next municipal elections as they affect the greater Toronto area for a year. That would give us the time we would need to ensure over the next number of months, beginning in April with the establishment of the citizens' assembly, that we would use the period between May and September, into the fall, to do the serious consultation and discussion. We would be able to bring back in the late fall proposals to the Legislative Assembly that could be turned into legislation and that would still then give time for those to be implemented in time for elections to be held within the GTA in November 1998.

So one year's delay in the municipal elections, a real process of involving people and an understanding that with those two things will come real change; not change that simply plays around with a few politicians here and there, but change that really looks at the problems that have to be addressed.

I would just say in conclusion, we have put forward this proposal in a sincere effort to be helpful, and if the government treats it with the seriousness with which we have put it forward, we will give our full cooperation to ensuring that the process works. Because what we are dealing with here is a very significant issue, I call upon all members to understand the significance of what we are dealing with today. You ignore what happened yesterday at your own peril, but worse than that -- because people can deal with you at the next election and get rid of you, and you've guaranteed your defeat if you don't hear what people have said -- I'm more worried about the devastation that will have been caused in the meantime.

So I say to the Premier, I say to the minister, I say to government members, particularly those in the greater Toronto area and those more particularly inside Metropolitan Toronto, please listen to what people said to you yesterday. If you're not quite ready to go the route that you need to go, if you're not quite ready to make the move today, then take a walk, with all due respect to my colleagues opposite. Don't make things worse by rejecting this motion today that calls at least for one part of what we have been saying we need.

I ask members of the government in particular to pay strong attention to the message that was given yesterday by the electorate here in Metropolitan Toronto and to understand that people are ready for change. We can make that change happen in a structured, useful way that involves people, or you can continue your destructive process and pay the price later on, but unfortunately you will have caused great damage in the meantime. I call sincerely on the government members in particular to heed that message and to work with us to find a solution to the problem that's now facing us.

Mr John L. Parker (York East): I'm pleased to have a chance to rise in this House and address this matter for the first time, in my case, since the matter first arose. I have spoken publicly on many occasions in public, in town halls, in various forums, and I've met with many people in my riding, in my constituency office and around the riding, and have discussed the matter at some length. I intend to continue to do so, but this is the first chance I've had to rise in this House and speak on the subject of Bill 103 and the government's initiatives in this whole area. I intend to touch also on last night's results of the recent referendum. I think it's fair we do touch on that.

I think one of the most helpful comments that's been made to date in this entire discussion, in public and before our legislative committee that is assessing Bill 103, was made by Councillor Gordon Chong of Metro Toronto, who said: "Get a grip. I think there has been more hysteria, more misunderstanding and more confusion surrounding Bill 103 and the government's motives, intentions and plans in respect of Metro restructuring than on just about any other issue I can think of since I arrived here."

Mr Gilles Pouliot (Lake Nipigon): Denial.

Mr Parker: My friend from Lake Nipigon says I'm guilty of a case of denial. Well, I'm going to suggest that perhaps he's denying the degree of confusion and consternation that has arisen over this whole matter and a number of issues that have been rolled into consideration of Bill 103.

The mere term "megacity" is itself a highly charged word, charged with tremendous connotations of some huge monster that's going to be impossible to grapple with, impossible for people to deal with, impossible for people to understand, something too big for people to cope with. The mere use of that word, and our friends opposite use it at every opportunity, creates an impression that is calculated to intimidate people and make them fear the entity that's being discussed.

We're talking about a municipal area that already has about 2.3 million people in it. The people are already here. What we're talking about is how we govern that municipal area. We're not talking about bringing more people in. We're not talking about expanding the boundaries. We're talking about facing up to the reality that in Metro Toronto we have an integrated region of 2.3 million people. We're asking the question of how best to administer that region, how best to provide government for those people and how best for those people to participate in the important decisions that must be made to administer a region of that size.

Let's take Gordon Chong's admonition and step back and try to put this whole question into some degree of perspective. What we now call Metro Toronto has evolved over many years and has grown over many years, and there have been many amalgamations over the years this area has been settled.

From the late 19th century until halfway through this century, the city of Toronto grew by amalgamation at the rate of about one amalgamation every two years. The population has been expanding, the city has been growing, and the surrounding communities have been growing, and there have been consolidations and amalgamations all the way along.

By the early 1950s it was clear we now had a region that was something greater than the sum of its parts and that it was time to address that. That's what gave rise to the Metropolitan Toronto government in 1954. The Metropolitan Toronto government was established as a means of coordinating services across the region, recognizing that it wasn't just a matter of the city of Toronto, the township of North York, the township of Etobicoke and so on, that there were certain issues that spanned the entire region and it was time we had a structure to recognize that. Metro was put in place to do that.

1610

Metro was at first indirectly elected. It was in a sense a creature of the component municipalities, and there were 13 of them at the time, 13 separate, distinct municipalities within Metro when Metro was first established.

We know what's happened since then. In the early 1960s, three of the component municipalities -- Long Branch, Mimico, New Toronto -- recognized that it didn't make sense for them to be on their own any more, that it made sense for further consolidation to take place.

I'm pleased to see my friend from St Catharines has just rolled in. I didn't think we would get through an afternoon without him. Perhaps he'll favour us with a few comments later on. I don't know. It would be rare if he didn't.

In the early 1960s some of the municipalities voluntarily recognized that it made no sense for them to carry on as independent municipalities and that it was time to take a further step and amalgamate further.

Before that was done, the provincial government commissioned Carl Goldenberg to look generally into that question of what further amalgamations made sense at that time. That gave rise to the amalgamations that were put in place in 1967 and we were reduced to the current six municipalities.

Some recommended it should have gone to four at the time. I think that's what Mr Goldenberg recommended. Politics being what they are, and political pressures being what they are, the provincial government at the time backed off from a four-city model and went with a six-municipality model, and we had a number of townships and one city. Those townships were later -- I guess at that time they were given the name "boroughs" and later on most of them became cities, although East York, where I live, retained the title of "borough."

Nobody knows, by the way, what a borough is. Nobody knows the difference between a borough and a city, but it's a moniker that the community of East York has held on to and they wave it with some pride. It's one of the things East Yorkers are kind of attached to. They like the label of being Canada's only borough. I understand that. It's nice to have that sense of distinctiveness. What it means in reality frankly is nothing, but it's one of those things people like to cling to.

Metro has grown since that time and the role of the Metropolitan government has increased since that time. Increasingly, the Metropolitan Toronto level of government has take over responsibility for spending more and more of our tax dollars within Metro Toronto. They tax more than our local municipalities do and they spend considerably more than our local governments do. I say they spend considerably more because they have sources of revenue other than merely property taxes. But even if you only look at their property taxes, you find that the Metro level taxes more than our local municipalities tax. Increasingly, more and more decision-making power has vested at the Metro level, and progressively less is in the hands of the local municipalities.

At the same time, the kind of questions the local municipalities within Metro have to deal with has also changed. When Metro was first established in the early 1950s, we had a solid city core, Toronto, surrounded by pretty much vacant pasture land in the suburban areas, in the townships. I remember that. I remember that when you went north of the city limits it was farm land. When you went into North York by any distance at all you were into Windfields Farms and you were into clear, rural farm land that was being administered -- it looked the same on the ground in the late 1950s and early 1960s as it had for decades, but through the 1960s and the 1970s and into the 1980s that land in North York, Etobicoke, Scarborough and elsewhere has been pretty much fully subdivided and developed.

The subdivision and development phenomenon through that period was a very important matter on the agendas of the local governments. The local governments had to administer that. They had to make the decisions. They had to pass the bylaws. They had to monitor the development of those rural lands. It's fully developed now.

That job of the local governments has now been done. From time to time a building is bulldozed and a new building goes up, and the local governments have to make some decisions around that. From time to time a new piece of land becomes available for someone to do something with. It's been a long time since that's happened in my municipality of East York, although there's one piece of land that has been sitting there for some time and it looks as though there might be something happening with it soon. I'm talking about the Bayview ghost lands. East York has been pretty much developed for some time now, although the Bayview ghost lands have been sitting there waiting for the go-ahead to proceed with something, and it looks as though we now have a state where the go-ahead may be given for a subdivision to go in there. It's been a long time since a new subdivision went in anywhere in Metro Toronto. There are subdivisions going in around Toronto, but within Metro it's pretty much a thing of the past.

There's less and less of that sort of work for local municipalities to do but we have major issues at the Metropolitan level: subways, expressways, water conservation, water treatment, water distribution, garbage disposal -- these are all Metro responsibilities -- recycling, and we're recycling more and more these days, more than ever, and I hope we continue to recycle even more in the future. These are matters the Metropolitan level of government administers. That's why the Metropolitan level taxes more than our local governments do.

Metro also has responsibility for other social services. They spend some of our local tax money on that and they get some from the provincial level for that. Again that adds to the workload of the Metro level.

But we've seen a migration of the overall total degree of responsibility for municipal government in Toronto. We've seen that evolve and transfer from the local level to the Metro level. Remember that through this period, Metro was indirectly elected. It twigged in the minds of some people that there was a lack of accountability at the Metro level and it was time to do something about that, and that's been on the minds of people for some time. Mr Peterson, when he was Premier, turned his mind to that issue and he came up with a solution that he thought might help and he implemented the change that took Metro from indirect election to direct election. That was a career maker for Mr Colle, of course, but in those days Mr Colle was in favour of total amalgamation. He sang that from the rooftops and ran for election in Metro on the basis of total amalgamation of all of the Metro area.

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): You'd never know that today.

Mr Parker: You'd never know it today, but that was his platform in his early Metro career.

It has continued to be a concern to people, however, that even with direct election to Metro we still don't have the degree of accountability at the Metro level we need, given the amount of decision-making power that rests at that level. There's a frustration that has arisen as a result of that and it has manifested itself in various ways. One particularly clear-cut way in which that frustration was manifested took the form of a referendum, 1991, when the city of Toronto put a referendum question on the ballot. I'm paraphrasing now, but the question was basically, "Do you approve of doing away with the Metro level of government and proceeding with a single-tier system of government for Toronto?" That referendum question was put on the ballot for the voters of the city of Toronto in 1991, and that referendum question received a resounding answer of yes. The people of Toronto voted, frankly, to do away with the Metro level of government and to proceed with a single tier.

You might wonder what the response of the provincial government of the day was to that referendum. The provincial government of the day was Mr Rae's government. The provincial Minister of Municipal Affairs was Mr Philip. Mr Philip was asked for his response to the referendum result, and it was a very simple response, very direct, very unequivocal. His response was, "So what?" He didn't care. He wasn't going to be bound by a referendum carried out in the city of Toronto. It wasn't going to change his mind. It wasn't going to affect his decisions. It wasn't going to tell him what to do. He was the Minister of Municipal Affairs. He was going to make the decisions as to what happened.

As we say, as I've heard very often around this House from the other side in particular, that was then, this is now. In those days our NDP government didn't listen to referendum results. They rejected them out of hand. The response was, "So what?"

1620

Mr Pouliot: Are you going to drink that water or not? You're making me nervous.

Mr Parker: My friend from Lake Nipigon would like a glass of water. If the pages are available, they might bring him one. I'm glad my friend from Lake Nipigon is so entertained.

The NDP government did a rational thing as a result of or in the aftermath of the 1991 referendum. They honoured political tradition. They honoured a long-standing political tradition in this House and in Ottawa and throughout the Commonwealth. They honoured the tradition that when you are faced with a difficult question, when you are faced with a tough challenge, when you are faced with a question, a decision that is going to be controversial, you punt. You name a royal commission and you kick it over to another term.

That's what the Bob Rae government did with the whole issue of governing Metro Toronto. You may recall that MVA, market value assessment, arose during the course of their mandate. Those with particularly well- tuned memories may recall that once upon a time there was a little bit of discussion in the Metro area on the subject of market value assessment. Didn't the previous government make a decision on the question of MVA? Sure, they made a decision on the question of MVA. They punted that one too. They decided that the only way out of this was to find someone to bail them out of an impossible situation.

"Whenever you can duck a difficult decision, duck it." That's the tradition that has been honoured in this House until now and that was the tradition that was honoured by the previous government. They brought in the Golden commission and they said: "Save us. We don't want to have to make any decisions on what to do about Metro Toronto governance. We don't want to have to decide what to do about assessment reform." Assessment reform has been kicking around as an issue for over 20 years. That's why the assessment system was taken out of the municipal governments and brought into the provincial government in the early 1970s, so that the provincial government could do something about it. Successive provincial governments have dodged the bullet.

Anne Golden and her commission was asked to look into the matter and come forward with some proposals. To their credit, the previous government recognized another question that needed to be addressed.

Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East): -- voted for the party line, did they understand the question? Do you understand the question?

Mr Parker: That's okay. I can yell loud enough to be heard over all the chattering from opposite, but maybe if you calm down I won't have to yell so loud.

Ms Martel: You don't like what the people had to say to you last night. It was no to you and no to your agenda. That's the message you should get.

Mr Parker: I'll just carry on.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Order. I'd ask the House to come to order. Each of the parties gets a chance to debate. Each of the parties gets a chance to listen. I would ask the member for York East to proceed.

Mr Parker: For a group of people who criticize others for not listening, I find it interesting that I don't detect anyone very much listening over there right now. But that's okay. I'm not counting on them to listen, and if they do listen, I'm not counting on them to understand.

But if you listen, you'll hear a compliment because you'll hear me acknowledge that the previous government also recognized another question that had to be addressed, the question of the greater Toronto area, because we now live at a time where the greater Toronto area is very densely populated. You could almost make the case that we face the same sort of situation now on a large scale that the government faced in the early 1950s within the confines of the current Metro Toronto boundaries, where you have a highly developed, matured urban core surrounded by a suburban belt. The populations are about equal. We have about two million people within Metro and we have about two million people in the ring, which has come to be known as the GTA, that surrounds Metro. There are some parallels between the situations. We have a larger scale that we have to deal with now. Governments have to address that, have to look at, how do we recognize the reality that we have an urban core that is larger than it was when Metro was created in the early 1950s and we have a suburban belt that has expanded beyond the Metro boundaries? We have to look at those questions.

Those questions -- the question of Metro Toronto governance, the question of tax assessment reform and the question of the GTA -- were all punted over to the Golden commission. The Golden commission took submissions from far and wide and eventually brought forward a report. My own community submitted a report to the Golden commission. In the fall of 1995 East York made a submission to the Golden commission and made a number of points in its submission.

In its document that was approved by council in September 1995, one of the recommendations, the first recommendation, was that there be revised boundaries for the borough of East York. Why? Four reasons were given. They recommended that there be revised boundaries "to promote wholeness of communities, divisions along natural and urban barriers, acceptable commercial/industrial to residential assessment ratios and regularized service areas." I'll address these one at a time.

First of all, "to promote wholeness of communities": One of the concerns that has been brought before our Bill 103 hearings over the past four or five weeks has been a concern that if the government's proposals on Bill 103 go forward it will shatter our communities, or that by erasing the municipal boundaries we currently have within Metro we will lose our communities. Well, East York in the fall of 1995 said we had to make some changes in order to promote the wholeness of communities, and I know why they said that: because communities are distinct from municipalities. We have communities within municipalities. The Beach is a community that is within the larger municipality of the city of Toronto. Forest Hill is a community that is within the larger municipality of Toronto. Municipal boundaries do not define those communities.

In East York we once upon a time had the town of Leaside, a very distinct community. That was amalgamated with the old township of East York in 1967. Leaside remains a community even though it was amalgamated. Those people who live in Leaside will tell you that there is a clear difference between Leaside and north Leaside, that those are two distinct communities in and of themselves. But those aren't defined by municipal boundaries; they're defined by the people who live there. They're defined by the church they go to, the stores they shop at, the stretch of sidewalk they walk along on Saturday afternoon, the schools their kids go to, all of those facts of everyday life. That's what defines communities, not lines on a municipal map.

We've got communities that cross, that span, that straddle municipal boundaries. In East York we have Greektown down at the south end, which includes a long stretch along the Danforth and south of the Danforth. That is not in East York, that is in east Toronto, but it extends up into East York. That is a very distinctive, very cohesive, very strong community, and it actually crosses the municipal line. That's what East York was talking about when they said they needed to make some changes to the municipal boundaries to promote wholeness of communities. Right now -- the status quo -- the municipality boundary divides that community. There are also other communities East York identified that straddle municipal boundaries. Most significantly, across Victoria Park Avenue there's a community that's partly in East York and partly in Scarborough, centred on the park in that area. The park crosses Victoria Park as well.

One of the reasons for revised boundaries was that revising the boundaries would promote wholeness of communities. Translation: The current boundaries do not reflect the existing communities. Don't be fooled by people who say we need to keep our present municipalities, need to keep the status quo, because we need them to define our communities.

1630

"Divisions along natural and urban barriers." There's a recognition that the status quo does not recognize the current natural and urban barriers. We need a change there.

"Acceptable commercial/industrial to residential assessment ratios." That's a key one, because East York is saying there that unless there's a change made, the current commercial/industrial to residential assessment ratio is not acceptable, and it goes on at some length on that subject. I won't get into that because I'm getting the cut sign from my whip.

It comments also on the need for regularized service areas. I'll just quote briefly from the report: "Under the status quo, basic services such as garbage collection and snow clearing are impeded by awkward street borders." The status quo does not provide for regularized, natural, basic service delivery because there are unnatural boundaries that get in the way of delivering services.

I could go on at some length. I intended to get into the further rationale that led to the process of consultation this government has gone through over the past year leading up to Bill 103, the attack that has been made on Bill 103 culminating in last night's referendum, and the course that lies ahead of us, but I will now yield the floor to other speakers.

Mr Joseph Cordiano (Lawrence): I'm very happy to engage in this debate, which I think is of huge significance and importance to people not only in Metro Toronto but right across the province of Ontario.

I think what people said very clearly last night to this government was no, not only to megacity, but they also rejected this government's attempts to change our way of life in Ontario. They said no to a further erosion in their quality of life.

I think it's very clear and instructive that the opportunity that was given to the residents and citizens of Metropolitan Toronto to express their democratic views was greatly appreciated by those people as they turned out in some cases in record numbers: in North York, a 40% voting turnout for the referendum; not ever been done before in a municipal election campaign. It's quite clear that people right across Metropolitan Toronto wanted this opportunity to express themselves democratically. That should not be overlooked by this government.

When we started off this debate around the megacity and the idea of having a referendum, the idea of giving people the opportunity to have a say, at that time the government had no plans to have any real hearings on this matter. It was through our efforts in this Legislature, through members of the opposition, both Liberal and NDP members, who suggested to the government that it was moving too quickly; that its haste would indeed make waste and that it was a problem; that it should heed the calls for people to have a say; that hearings were an important part of what we do, the business we conduct in this Legislative Assembly.

It's not just the opposition speaking for opposition's sake. We pointed out numerous times there were flaws with this legislation, flaws in the manner in which they were proceeding, that it did not give people an opportunity to be heard. Clearly, time and again, this government has ignored those calls on other occasions. There's a pattern here, a pattern at work whereby this government moves with lightning speed to bring forward their legislative agenda lest anyone take notice of what they're doing and begin to oppose it.

Well, the citizens of Metropolitan Toronto took notice and they said no. They said no to this government. They said no to the idea of a megacity which held out the promise of a bigger bureaucracy, huge increases in property taxes and an irresponsible downloading of very important services on to municipal property tax bases, one that could not be supported financially come the future.

People were very troubled indeed about what this government was about to do because they recognized a profound sense of loss, the profound sense that their communities were being threatened, jeopardized; that education would be threatened; that quality-of-life issues such as child care, long-term care, housing, the very essentials that maintain the threads that run through communities would be cut and that ultimately those communities could not be sustained. That's what the people of Metropolitan Toronto are saying today. That's what they said loudly and clearly through their No vote in the referenda.

When the government talks about there not being any alternative, it's important also to recognize that what we're talking about is an alternative that has a much broader vision. The vision of a megacity, the vision of a unified Metropolitan Toronto is a narrow vision. It does not take into account that there is an economic entity that we call the GTA, that it is an entity that has been growing, that it is bound together through the economic initiatives that have been undertaken. Economic activity does not stop at Steeles Avenue. There's another city there. There's Vaughan, there's York. We need the integration of services -- transportation, sewer and water -- so what we're calling for is a much greater vision of the GTA. That's the alternative vision.

It's in keeping with what has already taken place throughout the years historically. Metro came about as a result of the recognition for the need to integrate those services because there was a larger entity that was emerging. What you're calling for is too narrow a vision.

What we're asking you to do is to stop and look at these alternatives, because as Anne Golden put it, "We will be entertaining an American-style urban nightmare with your proposals and the downloading that that entails." So I ask the members in the back bench in particular, the Metropolitan Toronto members of this government, sitting backbenchers, to consider voting against their government on Bill 103 and voting with us today on our resolution to put an end to Bill 103.

Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke-Rexdale): I'm certainly glad to join in this debate today in terms of several issues that face this government, and I want to build a case for a rational justification for change. I want to start with the whole area of amalgamated councils.

When I spoke on this subject approximately two months ago, one of the prime justifications I gave in my remarks at that time involved the necessity of introducing and injecting greater accountability into local government decision-making within Metropolitan Toronto. I have cited publicly at my town hall meeting as well as in this Legislature that under the current system, the two-tiered system of regional government that we have in Metropolitan Toronto, we have an exquisite system of diffused accountability in government. That is to say, when local government has to make up its budgets for tax purposes in a budgetary context, the Metro level of government plus the school boards simply hand over to the local councils how much money they are going to have to raise on their mill rate.

The Metro level of government does not have to justify why it requires whatever its expenditures are for that year, 1997 or 1971. It just passes the bill on and under the Municipal Act, the local governments in Metro Toronto simply create whatever the amount of money is required to tax all kinds of commercial, industrial and residential ratepayers across Metropolitan Toronto. Hence, we have an extremely diffused system of accountability for the taxpayer.

Who created this situation in terms of how much money was raised? You can say it's the school board, it's the local council. We do not have a clear line of accountability in this diffused system of government in Metro today.

1640

Taking it from there, when we first went to elected council in Etobicoke in 1988, the first priority of the Metro council under direct election was: "Please provide us, you local councillors, with the Metro portion of the tax dollar. We don't care how you raise it, we simply want our money. We won't wait 30 days. You can go out and borrow it." That's what was called greater accountability by the Peterson government when it introduced that legislation. In my estimation, that was diffused accountability because the taxpayer to this day still does not necessarily know who is responsible for what. It led to the Who Does What panel.

Bill 103 will clearly establish that line of accountability. There will be 44 councillors and an elected mayor, and when the taxpayer asks himself or herself, "Who raised this money?" they can go to those 44 councillors. There's no other line of people back here saying, "It's those folks who are responsible." That's the prime justification in my estimation for an amalgamated, unified Toronto. That's why it is inexorably linked to the whole situation of changing the property assessment system across this urban area.

We have right now a system which according to the critics -- and I have listened for almost five weeks, hearing them say: "I don't see any reason for any change. Everything is working just fine." If everything is working just fine, I guess if you were looking at the Toronto Sun's "It's Politically Taxing" on Sunday of this week, it's very evident you were a recipient of lower taxes in certain parts of Metropolitan Toronto. Using the mayors as profiles, there are two examples here that in my estimation show another justification for the need for fundamental change.

We have the mayor of the city of Toronto, who lives at a given address and pays right now, would you guess, $1,513. Under the market value assessment proposal that the previous government had introduced and then decided while it was in committee that it would sideline and get rid of, the mayor of the city of Toronto today would be paying $3,204 -- nearly double. But under the existing assessment system where you can have six councils, or even more, because we have to have communities protected under the existing system, if you go to Mayor Holyday in the city of Etobicoke, which is in central Etobicoke, where there are not as many taxpayers who would benefit under a property assessment reform -- get this, Speaker -- Mr Holyday pays $5,050 for a property at his address. Under market value assessment, he would pay $2,957. That's almost a 45% reduction.

However, if you listen to the critics in the committee, they say there's hardly any problems. In other words, they're either deliberately blissfully unaware or they're completely ignorant of the extremely inequitable and unjust property assessment system we have in this area, in this urban form, and they're prepared to say it's fine to stick with this present existing inequitable system. That is one of the other reasons why we need to make these changes, not only for residential taxpayers but also for commercial and industrial.

If you look at the books that were put out by the Metro treasury department back in 1992-93, there are innumerable examples. I don't want to get into the quotes but they are certainly here. Generally speaking, not in every instance, but usually in most examples -- I would say 90% of them across northern Etobicoke -- commercial and industrial taxpayers would benefit by tax relief under the old MVA. If you tie the old system or the new one in with an amalgamated, unified city of Toronto, you can see the necessity and justification for bringing equity and fairness to taxpayers across this city. That's one of the fundamental reasons, I believe, that we hide behind the code words of democracy and concern for democratic futures in Metropolitan Toronto. They may not like to accept that reality, but I have to come to the conclusion that is certainly one of the things they're hiding behind.

Which leads me to the third reason why we need a unified city, not only for tax relief under the old system or under actual value assessment, but if we can get some tax relief to the folks who own the businesses, who create the jobs in Metropolitan Toronto, and for those people who would be the potential entrepreneurs, that's another reason why we would like and need a new amalgamated city council with an amalgamated, unified, fair, equitable property assessment system. Taxes will be raised on a generally equitable basis, which means, by the way -- nobody wants to make this connection but it needs to be made -- that those folks who are the entrepreneurs of tomorrow or the employers of today can then get on with certain stability and certainty that they can hire some people.

I have talked to innumerable folks who have come to my community action office or whom I've visited when I go to see businesses or in any other context, and they will tell you in many instances that there is a pile of jobs we could create within Metropolitan Toronto if we could get a more unified playing field. This is no more true than when you look at the hospitality and tourism industry on Dixon Road in Etobicoke-Rexdale. If you drive by and take a look at the product of those hotels, if you talk to the general managers, if you talk to the owners, if you talk to the employees, the workers who live there in the riding, who work there, who come from other parts of Metropolitan Toronto, they will tell you one general theme: The major corporations, the owners are not prepared to put new investment money into those properties because they are paying too high a room tax, too high a business tax, too high a hospitality tax.

What does that mean? A tired product. Where do they go? They move downtown. They don't stay at the airport because those hotels, with the general exception of three or four, are tired products. When you don't have good-looking products available, when you do not have a physical maintenance program in place that's required in many of these instances, you do not create the traffic into the hotels. You do not create the jobs that we need in this city of an amalgamated nature. We're not going to get those kinds of things, and the opposition should be looking at these propositions as much as the other stuff that they've been criticizing this government for.

I just want to reiterate those are three of the central reasons, in my estimation, why we need to change this system and bring some greater equity and balance so that we can create some jobs for people, which this side has not forgotten about at all. But the conditions weren't conducive, and still aren't, until we rectify those situations.

The Acting Speaker: The Chair would like to recognize, visiting our Ministry of Environment and Energy, in the Speaker's gallery, Ms Heidrun Heidecke, Minister of Environment and Energy for the state of Saxony-Anhalt in Germany. Welcome to our Legislature.

The Chair recognizes the member for York South.

Mr Gerard Kennedy (York South): I add my welcome to our distinguished visitor because our visitor is here seeing the House on what is a very significant day. It's not spring yet, but we still feel a sense of warm air and fresh air that's come in because of the referendum vote last night to what has been sort of dank and cold air across the way opposite; this freezing of people's minds, the idea that somehow there was a cynical approach that would work.

1650

This could be the day that marks the end of cynical politics in this House, the idea that this government, leaning only on slogans and publicly-paid-for commercials, thought it could push through things without people asking real questions, thought it could hide things away from people, thought it couldn't answer questions about things like MVA, not release the studies, and all it has done instead is create quite the opposite. It has compounded people's concerns.

People didn't fall for the divide-and-conquer idea, the idea of vilifying the mayors or vilifying the people who are in the municipalities, trying time after time. It has failed utterly, and in that failure I think is a good day for Ontario, a very good day, the idea that there cannot be this artificial type of politics practised any longer. It means more than a better future for Metropolitan Toronto.

People in my riding were subject to that cynical assumption on the part of this government that it needs to break the habit of. They thought that maybe people in the city of York, with their difficult economic times, would lend themselves to this kind of project, to a bill that tells them nothing about their future, to the simple wide assurance of this government to say: "Give up on your local elected officials; don't look for any representation." Instead, people from areas as diverse as Baby Point and Jane and Woolner all voted in ratios of 2 to 1 and 3 to 1 against this government's cynical megacity proposal, the proposal that would have taken $1 billion out of this city and also taken away that essential character we have in terms of this complex metropolitan area, a complexity and a desirability obviously not yet understood by enough of the members opposite, because even today in the Legislature we learned that the megacity proposal stands, in their eyes.

We learned also last night that the town of Mount Dennis, the birthplace of Municipal Affairs Minister Al Leach, has rejected him as he tried to reject them, that some 4,643 people in ward 7 said no to the megacity, compared to only 1,700 who could fall to the blandishments of this government, to this simplistic idea that somehow they would look after Toronto even as they plundered it. People's seeing through this cynical manoeuvre give us the basis for some hope in this House today.

The significance is not simply for the members opposite, many of whom squirm in their seats, looking at their legitimacy in question, the whole basis that brought them into this House. This referendum -- admittedly not as tidy, not as neat but certainly not subject to the kind of criticism we've heard from the side opposite in the House -- the government had the power to tidy up that referendum, to change it any way they wanted, to vary the question if they thought it would make it fairer. They can't come and complain afterwards and say this isn't the finding.

Instead we see a clear finding, an unequivocal finding that nobody from any part of this province sitting across can say that the people of Metropolitan Toronto have not rejected Bill 103. I would say today that it's only a matter of time before this House comes to that arrangement and that agreement itself. While the numbers may say that they have 81 members and that we have many less, that they have the legal authority, they have lost the moral authority to rearrange affairs in Metropolitan Toronto, and that's painfully evident to everyone across the country, let alone this province, today. We see that loss of legitimacy, the basis of a broken trust, and we see the members opposite having to wrestle with a very difficult decision with their vote today.

Will the members opposite try and repair that trust? Will they show that most essential thing for all governments, some sense of character, the ability to admit that they're wrong? Will we see that from the members opposite today and in subsequent actions in the House? Will they recognize that when asked, after much discussion that they tried to close, people did not want to live in Mike Harris's Toronto? It was proposed and it was rejected.

Instead we have in front of us the possibility of this government trying to repair its broken trust, for us to move with something that was a byproduct, a certainly unintended, and I'm sure for the members opposite an unfortunate creation of the megacity debate as it evolved, the chance to do better, the chance to have a civic assembly that would bring together this interest that has been brought out on the part of the people. If it isn't responded to, if you don't give that some life today by drawing back Bill 103, I would say to the government members opposite, look what happens when you close hospitals, watch what happens when you try to dilute the quality of the classroom, because the same thing is going to happen again.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate? The Chair recognizes the member for High Park -- I'm sorry, Fort York.

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): Mr Speaker, that's all right. I know it takes some time to identify us.

It's a pleasure for me to speak to the motion we have before us. I want to start by congratulating the countless deputations we have heard over the last four and a half weeks, individuals who have taken time out of their lives to come to depute because they felt strongly about what this government was about to do to them. Many of them came here day in and day out not just to make their deputation but to sit in as well.

I said to this wonderful woman who is approximately 79 years old: "Why is it that you come here daily? Is it because you like punishment?" She said, "No, I am here because I am angry." This 79-year-old woman was here day in and day out because she is angry at what this government is doing. This is only one bill out of many of the bills they are uncorking daily.

But as people discover what is contained in some of these bills, beyond the title, which belies what is within it, people are discovering there's a problem they have to deal with. I thank each and every one of those deputations, because in my view they were poems, each and every one of them, individual testimonies of why people wanted to preserve local democracy, local autonomy and their local government. They're afraid of losing it. That's why they were here day in and day out.

I have to tell you that this kind of advice and expertise, which under different circumstances would be very costly, was being offered to this government for free, expertise from countless individuals who came to try to assist this government with their ideas. Under normal circumstances, we would lap it up as politicians, but not with this government. This government is completely disregarding everything they have to say, as if the individual testimony of evidence was insufficient.

We had other evidence by other experts. We have had Professor Kitchen and Professor Sancton comment on amalgamation because they have done worldwide studies and have shown that there is no amalgamation that has been done that saves money. That's what drives this Reform-minded government. They want to do this, they've said, to save money. But the evidence is irrefutable, at least for those who can read and want to try to understand the issue; Professors Sancton and Kitchen and many other experts.

Another individual, Mr Wendell Cox, an American, has done a study of amalgamations and has shown that it's a particular problem. About the things that are happening, he argues that smaller governments are more accountable, smaller governments are more responsive, smaller local governments are more attuned to communities and neighbourhoods; and that larger governments are more susceptible to special interests.

By the way, he's not referring to poor people's special interest, he's not referring to people with disabilities' special interest, he's not referring to women as a special interest, he's not referring to aboriginal people as a special interest, he's not referring to battered women as a special interest, the very women who are looking for family benefits that this government has refused to correct, because it has caused the bungling; these are not the special interests that are about to influence this megacity. No. M. Cox is talking about your friends as the special interest, the very developers you were trying to help, who have come in front of this committee saying, "We like amalgamation." The developers -- in fact I've got their brief -- came and said, "We like amalgamation." Why? Because these poor people who are scratching for money are upset to have to go to Toronto for a planning permit. They're upset to have to go to Etobicoke, Scarborough, East York, York, North York and Metro, because, you see, they've been impoverished by the economy. So each time they have to make a trip down to Toronto or some other municipality, it's costly for them, very intimidating for these rich developers who don't have any political experience whatsoever.

They came and said to Leach -- they probably had a good lunch together, perhaps in one of these fancy Italian restaurants downtown -- they talked about it and said, "M. Leach, how do we solve this problem because we're tired, we have been impoverished by the NDPers before you, and now we need you to come and give us a hand because we are not making enough money." So Leach said, "Don't worry, my friends, we're going to solve it."

1700

I know M. Leach said something else prior to the election. "Yes, it is true, I wanted to eliminate Metro, but I have learned the error of my ways." Mike Harris too, who said prior to the election, "We need to get rid of Metro and keep local government," has learned the error of his ways. When confronted by the shadow cabinet called "the developers" who manipulate the marionette and pull the string, Mike said: "I'm with you. I have learned the error of my ways." The developers and their corporate friends and the corporate raiders have a great deal of influence on these easily manipulated Tories who hand in hand want to fix the agenda for the corporations and these poor starving developers. That's what it's about.

By the way, for your information, M. Leach unilaterally, just about last year, it was last year, decided that what he needed to do was to relax the basement drainage protection rules and he eliminated the full-height insulation requirement. Again, he must have had a good lunch with some of the developers at one of the fancy Italian restaurants, possibly French. Leach and possibly Mike Harris might have been at the same luncheon and they talked about this -- the Urban Development Institute of which M. Kells was a former president -- they sat down together. We know, they talked, and they said: "Premier, M. Leach, help us out, because these measures, the full-height insulation for basements and the elimination of the drainage," which keeps water out of basements, "cost too much money for the new homeowner. But if you take that requirement off, we're going to save anywhere from $1,000 to $3,000 for the new homeowner." It was fascinating. So M. Leach said, "Oh, that's fine, we can do that." And he did.

Interjection: You don't know what you're talking about.

Mr Marchese: I don't know what I'm talking about? This fine gentleman here -- I don't have the time to find out where he's from -- says I don't have any knowledge of what I speak. I don't know where he's coming from, but as the critic for Municipal Affairs and Housing, I know where I'm coming from. M. Leach had lunch with the fine developers from the Urban Development Institute and they talked about getting rid of two essential areas: elimination of full-height insulation requirement and relaxing of the basement drainage protection rules. They would save money, they said.

The Canadian Energy Efficiency Alliance, made up by the way of many interesting groups, some of them your corporate friends, did a study to determine whether or not there were savings, because the developers said there were going to be savings for the homeowner. They did the research and this is what they say: "A survey of home builders" -- which they released at the news conference -- "reveals that an earlier revocation of another energy efficiency standard" -- the one I just referred to -- "last summer did not reduce the price tag of a new home by $1,000 as Housing Minister Al Leach had claimed it would. In fact, the survey shows the prices being charged for these less energy efficient houses are higher."

Isn't that the argument this fine, Reform-minded government is making, that if we amalgamate we're going to save money? It's the same argument. But the evidence is proving that when you amalgamate into a bigger structure you don't save any money. Individual testimony proved it. The evidence by Professors Kitchen and Sancton has proved it.

Are we to believe these people? They're about to get rid of development charges and they say, "God, when you take those development charges that new homeowner is going to benefit because the housing prices are going to drop by anywhere up to $20,000."

If you were to believe M. Leach when he says you're going to save $1,000 if you could get rid of the full-height insulation requirement and the drainage requirement, if you would have believed him, you would have thought the new homeowner saved money. But that's not what drives the prices for homes. It's not that. And what do you think the developer did? He pocketed the money. The poor developers who have been scratching and scraping under our government are pocketing the money.

Speaker, I'm glad you're listening, because some of your friends over here aren't. They're reading, they've got other things to do. I appreciate that, but I have to tell you that the people of Metropolitan Toronto are quite angry and the anger is palpable wherever you go.

I remind you, Bill 86 -- your bill, not mine; the bill that you passed in late December -- allows the municipalities to do several things. First, "Municipalities may pass bylaws providing for the use of alternative voting methods such as phone or mail-in voting," including the Internet. My friends, my Tory friends -- I've got a few; not too many, but a few -- this is what you passed. You passed this, not me. You did it. You also said here in the same bill, "Municipalities, elected local boards and the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing are entitled to have questions placed on the ballot," which is what you called a referendum in committee when we were dealing with it.

In committee you fine, honourable members who were part of this hearing to deal with Bill 86 said that municipalities would have the power in between elections to have a referendum, and that's what the people of Metropolitan Toronto did. It's fine for you fine, honourable Tory members to dismiss it now as just a public opinion poll, but when you were dealing with Bill 86, your bill, you called it a referendum, that municipalities would be able to have a referendum. I remember the language. I was there; I was in committee.

Interjection.

Mr Marchese: I'm waiting with delight for the member for Durham Centre to speak. I'm always interested in his views. When your turn comes around, please refute what I said, what you said in this bill.

I remind the fine, honourable members, this bill has permitted our municipalities to do what they have done, and what have they done? They have voted overwhelmingly in Metro to say no to the megacity. That's what they said. They didn't say no to parts of the bill; they said no to the bill in its entirety.

When Harris comes around, when he and his Harrisites and other disciples come around and say, "We're listening," they're not listening very well, because people have rejected and refuted the entire bill. When Mikey comes around -- I apologize. When the Premier comes around and says, "We will make amendments," we are not interested in amendments. The people of Metropolitan Toronto are not interested in amendments. They are rejecting the entire bill. But if there's something you want to do, those of you who have fumbled the ball -- one of the previous speakers used a football analogy and talked about our previous government "punting" something or other. You people have fumbled the ball on this issue and the people of Metropolitan Toronto picked up the ball and ran with it. They ran with that ball and they've said no to your referendum.

You might listen to our leader and Tony Silipo and the others who spoke on this issue today. We are proposing a citizens' assembly to deal with two issues, Metro and the GTA. We need Metro and the GTA to be reformed in a different governance structure to deal with transportation, to deal with economic development, to deal with environmental issues and regional planning. Those are the issues we need to define, and our party has put forward that proposal. We hope this government will listen to that suggestion.

1710

Mr Douglas B. Ford (Etobicoke-Humber): I like looking around this chamber. They're discussing Bill 103, and most of these people in the chamber are from the Toronto area, which I am very familiar with from many years ago. I watched this city grow from the dirt roads, the milk wagons and the service wagons that had horse and wagon. I listened to some of the chatter as I was a little boy, and the greatest economist I ever met in my whole life was my mother. My mother had nine children and she didn't take any welfare and she had the kind of pride I haven't seen for many, many years.

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): What's that got to do with Bill 103?

Mr Ford: I'm talking about Bill 103. Please: I gave you your time; I would like my time.

We're talking about living in two rooms with nine kids. The older ones took care of the younger ones. My mother worked every single day of her life. She used to brush my hair and I used to say to her, "When I get older, you'll never have to work," and she used to laugh. Every day I'd see her go out and I'd see her come back with a bag of groceries or something. Heating those two rooms -- I used to go down to the coal cars down on Eastern Avenue, take the coal, put it in a bucket and bring it home on my wagon.

Some of you people don't even know what life's all about. You're always talking about more money, more money. It was disgraceful the way the NDP squandered the wealth of this province. You can smile, but you wasted that money and squandered it. You'd better bow, because you know something? That's very difficult.

As for you people, you're the same and your government in Ottawa's the same.

Mr Gerretsen: Now you're going too far. We're not going to take that.

Mr Ford: Yeah, that's right. I'll tell you one other thing. You talk about this government here; this government is concerned. The government has been listening to the public and the people up there and the people over there who are lobbying from the audience every day. I've been listening and I watch them all. I wonder if they've got time or they work for a living. I don't know.

The government has been listening to the public. Over 600 deputations --

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order. No, please take your seat. The Chair recognizes the member for Cochrane South on a point of order.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): Mr Speaker, there is a long-standing tradition in this Legislature that members in debate not only respect the members of the assembly, but certainly to God we respect the public, the people we're here to serve. I am sure I heard the member opposite make extremely derogatory comments about the public who come to view the proceedings here at the Legislature. Speaker, I don't think that is acceptable.

The Acting Speaker: Take your seat. I was listening carefully to the speaker. I did not hear him say anything unparliamentary.

Interjections.

Mr Bisson: What a bunch of Fascists. You're a bunch of Fascists.

Mr Ford: A Fascist? You don't even know what a Fascist is.

The Acting Speaker: Order. I would ask the member for Cochrane South to withdraw those remarks.

Mr Bisson: Speaker, if the member is allowed to call the public a bunch of no-goods -- I withdraw, Mr Speaker, if --

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. Please take your seat and come to order. The Chair recognizes the member for Etobicoke-Humber.

Mr Ford: Everyone agrees that the status quo is not an option. The mayors, the business community, even the Leader of the Opposition all agree there must be change. We are impressed by the fact, according to a survey in the Toronto Sun, that residents, when presented with governing alternatives, support the government's proposal.

Interjections.

Mr Ford: Are we still talking? Thank you.

When this government has 75% of the people don't show up, with all the pressure groups, with all the various mail pieces, and with all the garbage on the streets, with these referendums floating around on the streets, I don't call that a proper election.

We are impressed by the fact that according to a survey in the Toronto Sun, residents when presented with the facts on governing alternatives, support the government's proposal. I repeat that because that's a fact.

Mr Gerretsen: Time out. Look at the whip. The whip says, "Time out."

The Acting Speaker: Member for Kingston and The Islands, come to order.

Mr Bisson: The whip is too embarrassed by what you're saying and he wants you to sit down.

Mr Ford: Why don't you shut your mouth.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order. Please take your seat.

Mr Ford: The whip says I should sit down because my friend across the floor can't keep quiet.

Mr Pouliot: He's the reason I'm against cloning.

The Acting Speaker: Would the member for Lake Nipigon come to order as well. I would like to remind the member for Cochrane South that I will not warn him again.

Mr Bisson: Mr Speaker, on a point of order --

The Acting Speaker: No. The chair recognizes the member for Etobicoke-Humber.

Mr Gerretsen: No, he doesn't want to speak any more.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview): I'm pleased to join the debate and to be supportive of what my colleague has introduced in the House.

Before I make my remarks, let me say that I'm totally delighted and I want to compliment the municipalities within Metro for the amount of work they have done during the past month or so, trying to bring to the attention of the people what Bill 103 actually is and continues to be. A special compliment goes to the city of North York, the mayor, and everyone who got involved in getting this absolutely tremendous turnout, that 79.4%, which is higher than the turnout during the last normal municipal election. If we can't pay heed to that, then I wonder what we have to pay attention to.

Interjections.

Mr Sergio: I don't think they like the results, so I can sympathize with them, and while we are indulging ourselves with the result that the people have given to this government and to us yesterday, they may not like it unfortunately, but I hope they pay attention, because not only during the past four weeks or so that we have had public hearings, but even yesterday, those people have exercised their will, their right. In doing so they wanted to send a message to the people on the other side, to the Premier, to the minister, and still today they say, "We don't have to listen to what the people have said."

It is most unfortunate that they don't like to hear the truth from the people who are most affected. The funny thing is this: Even our side and the people who are being affected have been saying: "We can support some change. We can support some minor changes, if you will, and we can go along with that. But certainly as to the bill as it has been presented, and its contents, the process with which it's being pushed through, we can't accept that."

The minister himself said this is going to be a good base. The funny thing is he doesn't have any building plans to build on this foundation. We already have a strong foundation here. We have a very strong and vibrant bunch of communities that through good government have been able to deliver the best local government in the country. Why would we want to destroy that? We have had people who continuously have been saying, and among those people who have been speaking on behalf of Bill 103 and its contents we have had local people, people from across Metro, lawyers, engineers, architects famous throughout the world come and tell us, "Don't destroy what you have here." These are the people we should be listening to. If there is a message the people wanted to send to the government it was yesterday: "Look, we don't like Bill 103. We don't like what you're doing. We don't like the content. We don't like the way you're going about it, so give us a chance to work with you, with the government."

1720

The changes that we feel are necessary and that we can support can be done in such a way that will be acceptable to you, the government, and to us, the people who have to pay the bills. When Mr Harris was saying, "We don't want you to feel like spectators but we want you to feel like part of the process and not solely like people paying the bills and being spectators alone," what has changed in the mind of the government and in the mind of the Premier? I would urge the government, because my time is up, unfortunately, the members on that side over there, first to support our views and the ones of the people who have sent the message not to approve of the bill at the committee level, and then to tell the Premier, tell the ministers to go back and redraw in accordance with the will of the people.

Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East): In the very brief three minutes that we have to deal with this motion I'd like to go back to the motion, a motion that's filled with myths, half-truths, rhetoric, out-of-context quotes, which are typical of exactly what the party that is espousing this motion has been putting forward in the committee hearings, has been putting forward at town hall meetings. There is no Liberal plan, there is no Liberal vision, there is no Liberal sense of how we take Toronto, a great city, and make it greater. Their only suggestion is that we're wrong, that they're right; they don't have a plan, they can't tell you exactly what they'd do differently, but that our vision is wrong. What do they offer up as proof of that? All 60 studies that were done in the last five years -- 60 studies that deal with the issue of consolidating municipal services, and every one of those studies concluded that there were incredible dollars to be saved by consolidation -- they would have you believe that every one of those studies was flawed.

They would have you believe that the work of Mr Crombie's committee, which came out split at the end -- Mr Crombie himself supported the idea of amalgamation, but in fairness, Hazel McCallion and a few others were on that committee, and I don't know who voted how, but not surprisingly it was not unanimous in its support. Some wanted to see a different federation within Toronto. When we looked at the two choices, it was clear to us that there was only one direction to proceed in if we were truly committed to doing the best job for the taxpayers of this city, truly committed to the idea that you could live with smaller government with fewer politicians, that you could end duplication and overlap, that you really could find a vision for Metro Toronto as one common market looking around the world, seizing new investment, seizing new jobs. That is the vision we articulated in Bill 103.

Clearly, as was expressed last night, the people of this city have concerns about this bill, but lumped in there are concerns about a number of other issues that have nothing to do with Bill 103. Obviously the provincial government, recognizing all the input we've had so far, should take the time to consider what we heard last night, take the time to consider what we've heard in the legislative committee hearings, what we've heard at town hall meetings, what we've heard face to face with our constituents across all of Metro, and we're going to do that over the next month. The result of that consideration will be even more amendments, even more specificity to how this bill will deal with the challenges that face Toronto not today but in the years and the decades to come.

I'm very proud that we've laid out a vision. I'm proud that we were the first government to take action, to recognize the failings, to recognize the opportunities to move forward and bring a bill that will guarantee more jobs and more prosperity in Metro Toronto in the decades to come.

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): This is an important day in the historic life of the greater Toronto area. March 3, 1997, is an important day for Ontario, and most important, it is an important day for democracy.

This government decided to declare war -- they call it a revolution -- on democracy. They decided that if they are in power with any kind of majority, they have this power to do anything they want. The people of this province and the people of greater Toronto told them that if they feel they can take democracy in their hands and be a dictator and a bully to the people of this province, they will show them. They even tried to regard the referendum that they introduced in this House, the process that they introduced, to say it's no good.

They spoke so loudly, so emphatically: 76% of the people said no, and no means no. If you think it ends today -- it's just the beginning of what's to come. They're going to make sure that they squeeze Bill 103 into the ground, as much as all those who are posturing over there and talking about how they don't care what the results are.

I am so happy that democracy reigns so high and loud on the deaf ears of many of their ministers and their members over there; that the people have said, "If you continue, we'll continue to make sure that democracy reigns."

Bill 103 is just a little example -- it's the son of Bill 26 -- the same way they bullied through 26, the same way they want to do 104, without any consultation, without any involvement of the people. The people will stand up and say, "No way." They also stated that bigger doesn't mean better.

They would like to suppress all the communities they can find, especially those that are not funded by any sort of well-oiled machinery of money. People want to be heard. It is their community. They don't want to be marginalized by a bunch of thugs who believe they can push anything through without hearing the people. They are standing up to be heard. If they continue, although they may stay a long time, in the next election, these people won't be around -- I know some of them are such tall and good individuals, they're coming to their senses.

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean): Name the members. Point them out.

Mr Curling: My good friend from Scarborough West is saying: "I have to think very deeply about how I vote. I may have to change my mind, not be pushed by the whip."

I heard the member for High Park-Swansea is saying, "I also may have to change my mind if we get a vote telling us that we have to go in another direction."

I'm very happy about it. I have hope in the people. I have hope that even some of the Conservative members are changing their tune now. If your whip will say to you, "You must toe the party line," go to your conscience, because I'm telling you, my friends, the people are watching you and they want to deep-six 103 in all the ways they can. It's dead. We want to give it a nice, decent funeral. So we are asking you first to give it that kind of funeral or else we personally, with the people, will bury 103 in the way it deserves, without any representation by the people themselves.

I am so happy today that democracy is alive and well. This is only the beginning, where we will tell you and tell you emphatically that your days are numbered. But again, there is hope for you to change your minds and to come forward for a full consultation and involvement with the people. They want their community and they will defend it in the best way they can. I hope that you have listened carefully. Yesterday, March 3, 1997, was a great day for democracy.

1730

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): From the time the two co-founders of Toronto, Governor Simcoe and Moll-Berczy, founded Toronto, Toronto carefully built up its reputation as a city that works. In fact, we are in the enviable position today that the whole world says Toronto is the best place in which to live. But this Bill 103 is now coming to its detriment, and we in Parkdale especially, a local community, see in the future what will happen when Bill 103 bulldozes its way down the throats of the residents who voted overwhelmingly to defeat this bill.

Just imagine, as it stands right now, here's the future: The services that are presently provided in Metro Toronto and not provided in the 905 area, people will want these services and consequently will go to and live in those areas where the services are provided. We see that happening today. You take one example, and that is the mental health centre on Queen Street. What happens is that if anybody in Halton -- as far away as Halton is our catchment area -- has a mental health care problem, they will end up, as it is today, on Queen Street. Consequently, because the services are not there back in Halton, they will therefore stay in our area, and that would mean there's a great imbalance, a great shift.

As was said before the committee by Mr Philip, who was a former minister of the NDP, the poor have moved from the outer regions of Toronto into the Toronto area, consequently we are paying a great deal in terms of the welfare costs. Should there come a recession, and we might find ourselves in one very quickly, you will find that indeed that has taken place.

The Acting Speaker: The Speaker ruled earlier on the demonstration and on the signs. I wanted to warn you that I'm taking a very dim view of seeing them.

Mr Ruprecht: To conclude my remarks, I just wanted simply to tell you what is happening here, that there will be a shift of population, a shift of the more poor in our society to where the services are. In short, you will see the Americanization and consequent destruction of the inner city. I'm sure the Conservatives, and especially the backbenchers who know this process will take place, will not want to have this on their conscience.

Consequently along with our leader and our party, we're asking you to search your conscience because you know this move is taking place today. This move will be aggravated from the 905 into the Metro area to a much greater degree when Bill 103 is passed. We're asking you today to kill it, review it and ensure that this does not take place.

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): I'm the last speaker for our caucus on this resolution and I want to say off the top that I will speak in favour of the resolution.

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of Environment and Energy): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Under standing order 42(f) it says:

"The Speaker or the Chair of the committee of the whole House, as the case may be, shall apportion the time available for any matter to be debated or considered under this standing order equally among the recognized parties in the House. The time for a reply by the mover of a motion under this standing order shall be included in the time apportioned to the party of which the mover is a member."

Mr Speaker, you saw earlier this afternoon that the member for Etobicoke-Humber was attempting to make a speech in this House. He was continually interrupted by members of the third party, the NDP. I would ask --

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: It is a point of order. I asked the member for Etobicoke-Humber if he wanted to continue, and he felt that his time was up, I think, so I would ask the member for Rainy River to continue.

Hon Mr Sterling: Perhaps you could hear my point of order in total so that I could explain it to you.

Mr Hampton: Mr Speaker, can he do this on his own time, please? Have him bring it up at the end of the time.

Hon Mr Sterling: Perhaps previous points of order would have been raised on your own time too, Mr Speaker.

The point is this: These debates are time-limited. The member for Cochrane South continued to interrupt the member for Etobicoke-Humber, thereby robbing the governing party of its fair share of time in this debate. I would ask you to reallocate some of the time of the New Democratic Party to the governing party so we could have our fair share of the time in this debate.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please. It is a point of order, and I have some degree of sympathy with it. The time, I feel, if it should have been reapportioned, already is. I would ask the member for Rainy River to continue.

Mr Hampton: Speaker, when I started, I believe I had 13 minutes. I wonder if you could return the clock back to 13 minutes, please.

I rise to support this resolution, and I rise to support this resolution because -- there are many reasons why it should be supported, but at the end of the day, for me, I support this resolution because what we have seen with respect to Bill 103 from this government, from the beginning until just a few moments ago with the member opposite, is a complete disregard for the workings of democracy. We have seen contempt shown for the electorate, we have seen contempt shown for the democratically elected councillors, the democratically elected mayors within the boundaries of Metropolitan Toronto.

We have seen a government that is so desperate to ram through its legislation and to ram through the process that it goes to court and argues that it still has the royal prerogative. My God, the House of Lords gave up on the royal prerogative in Great Britain in 1946, but this government is so desperate, so incredibly desperate to dictate to people, that it goes to court and argues it still has the royal prerogative.

Thank God we have judges in this province who weren't appointed by this government. Thank God we have judges who simply read the case and say to this government: "Get out of here. You can't use the royal prerogative to appoint trustees which legislation won't allow you to appoint." I say to the member for Scarborough East, who tried to carry this abomination for the government, that the High Court judge said you were breaking the law. The High Court judge said you were showing no respect for responsible government. That's what the High Court judge said, but you don't even listen to him.

So here we are today: The people of Toronto have voted. Over 76% of them have said to the government, "We don't want your megacity, we don't want your Bill 103, we're opposed to it," and what is the government's response? Do they show some humility? Do they show some respect for democracy? No, none. What we heard from the person who claims to be the Minister for Municipal Affairs, although we're not sure any more -- he claims to be the Minister for Municipal Affairs -- is more stonewalling, more arrogance, more contempt and, frankly, more disrespect for democracy.

But that's not the end of it, because we understand that the government is now putting together a scheme for amendments. Let's call these amendments what they are: It's trying to give this tired bill a new hairdo. It's trying to dress it up with some bells and whistles and say to people, "We've done something with it." Frankly, it demonstrates again that this is a government that doesn't listen to people. This is a government that thinks democracy is exercised once every four years, and whoever wins the election then gets the right to dictate. That is becoming every day more and more clear. That is the attitude of this government. They won an election a year and a half ago; now they get to do whatever they want to whomever they want whenever they want. That's their attitude.

1740

I want to point out what we understand is now the government's strategy for amendments. We understand that the government is thinking of not introducing their amendments until we come back in April, and we won't see the amendments until we go to committee of the whole. This is what this government calls debate. This is what this government calls democratic discussion.

The people of the province, and especially the people who live within the boundaries of Metropolitan Toronto, need to know exactly what this government has in mind. There has been, in effect, a time allocation motion by this government to deal with this bill, and the time allocation motion limits debate in committee of the whole to one hour. In other words, the amendments that this government says are going to redress all that is wrong with Bill 103 are going to have exactly one hour of public airing, one hour of debate.

What a demonstration that you have learned absolutely nothing. What a demonstration that your fallback position is to be more arrogant than ever, to be more anti-democratic than ever, to be more dictatorial than ever, that you think you can come in here with the amendments at the last minute and you can limit them to one hour's debate and think that is possibly going to suffice. What a sad, sad, sorry lot you are.

I will read, just for the record, the time allocation motion, because people need to know what this government is now planning: "That one hour shall be allotted to consideration of the bill in committee of the whole." That's quoting directly from the time allocation motion. "At the end of that time those amendments which have not yet been moved shall be deemed to have been moved and the Chair of the committee of the whole House 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 and report the bill to the House."

In other words, what this government calls amendments, what this government calls debate and discussion, is nothing but the long march conducted quickly, in one hour's time: further demonstration you have learned nothing. If anything, your defeat in the referenda has made you more anti-democratic, has made you more arrogant and has made you show even more contempt for the public.

The fact of the matter is that anybody who has attended even the committee has gone away from the committee with the feeling that the government members are not interested in listening one bit, that the government members snicker, that the government members guffaw, that the government members attack anybody who presents any position which argues with the bill or which criticizes the bill.

All that is happening, everything that has happened from day one from the person who calls himself the Minister of Municipal Affairs, who is saying, "No need for debate" -- he even said that all that was needed was very limited public hearings. He said no need for discussion, no need for consultation with anyone, no need for referenda. "Don't hold a referendum; we'll ignore it." Everything that has gone on from day one, and everything that continues from this government, shows nothing but contempt for the people. Nothing but contempt; nothing but arrogant disregard.

There are probably a dozen reasons why I would support this resolution. I would support it because I know that this whole megacity scheme will not work. I know that this whole megacity scheme is going to render Toronto an urban environment much closer to Detroit and much more like Detroit than the present-day Toronto is. I know from what I've heard that there are no efficiencies in a city of 2.3 million people. In fact, efficiencies of scale start to disappear after one million population.

We know that there is no integrity to this concept. This concept is being presented, is being pushed by the government, because they want to create confusion within Metropolitan Toronto. It furthers their real agenda of downloading $531 million in costs, if not more than that, on to the property tax. That is a good reason for voting against it.

I should vote against it and I should support this resolution because, frankly, this whole scheme does not address any of the issues that were identified in the Golden report; it doesn't address the issues that were identified by the Crombie report; it doesn't deal with the issues that were identified by the Metropolitan council itself; it doesn't deal with the issues of spillovers between Toronto and the GTA; it doesn't deal with the issues of the externalities of economies; it doesn't deal with the issues of urban sprawl, which cost this province about $1 billion a year in additional costs; it doesn't deal with coordination of transportation; it doesn't deal with any of those things. I should support this resolution for that reason as well.

But what it comes down to for me is that this government has learned absolutely nothing through this whole process, nothing. They are just as arrogant today as they were when they introduced the bill. They show contempt today for the public, just as they showed contempt when they introduced the bill. They show complete disregard for democratic process now, just as they did when they introduced the bill. They've learned nothing.

Oh, possibly they have learned something: They're learning to hide that contempt a little better. They say now, "We'll introduce amendments," but we have to do a little research before we find that their plan for introducing the amendments is not to introduce them till the last minute and then force-march them through the House. They're learning a better disguise, that's about it. For that reason, we'll be supporting this resolution.

Mr Colle: The last speaker reminded me of the path the government has gone on in terms of Bill 103. As you know, this started with a minister and a government being found -- a case was established for contempt of the Legislature for the first time in the history of this province, unprecedented. Even the courts supported the opposition, supported the people who said that putting appointed trustees in control of local governments and making these trustees basically above the law, not subject to the courts, was illegal. The courts had to come in and say that.

The Speaker had intervened. This government still did not listen. It still drives ahead, trying to bulldoze any opposition. It has a smugness about it. It has a contempt for people. They are so arrogant that even despite the fact that last night 76% of the people of the six communities voted overwhelmingly no to their megacity proposal, they have the smugness and the arrogance basically to laugh it off, disregard it and say it doesn't count.

What we're dealing with here is a government that basically is not a real government, because it has broken its contract with the governed. You cannot govern in a democracy unless you have the consent of the governed. They no longer have that consent in Metropolitan Toronto. They have violated the basic tenets of democracy.

No matter how many speakers have come before them in the hearings who say, "This bill is fundamentally flawed" and "Withdraw it," they still bulldoze ahead. We've had people who have spoken emotionally, philosophically, on a financial basis, on a political basis. The experts have been saying almost unanimously that this bill cannot be supported through independent analyses. Andrew Sancton, Wendell Cox, Paul Pagnuelo, expert after expert, have said that this bill is not sustainable economically, politically or democratically.

1750

They don't listen to them. They don't listen to the people. Seventy-six per cent: this has never happened in the history of Ontario, where so many people voted in a local plebiscite, overwhelmingly. What does this government do? It laughs it off, ignores it and marches ahead and is going to do it anyway.

This is a government that has basically lost any mandate to dictate to the people of Metropolitan Toronto because this was never in the Common Sense Revolution. In their own pre-election document, the Trimmer report, where Mr Leach was the vice-chairman, they said that they were going to do the opposite, that they were going to strengthen the six local governments. So they have no mandate. They don't have the consent of the governed.

How fundamental can we get in this province? You wonder why people are frustrated, why people are angry, why people are meeting all over this municipality called Metropolitan Toronto, despite the government's attempt to discredit the referendum, to discredit the opposition, despite this government's support by major big media. The Star, the Sun, the Globe and Mail, the editorial boards, the electronic big media, all supported them.

Despite spending millions of dollars on propaganda -- every time you turn on the television you have the Premier. Every time you pick up a newspaper, there are editorials, article after article, overkill.

The most disgusting thing I saw through this whole debate, and it has been a debate, is you had 10,000 citizens marching up Yonge Street saying, "Respect our voice," and one of the major propaganda vehicles the government has been using, the Toronto Star, has the gall to put on the front page of the Star, the day after the march, a picture of Roger Clemens and his luxury home in Houston, pushing back to the middle of the paper a small article on the people, joking about the people's march.

That's all people have now because big media, big government is shutting them out. They're showing contempt for their expression of their democratic will. That's all they've done and they get laughed at. They get attacked for doing that.

We heard a comment about the mayor of Toronto because she has a home in Cabbagetown; her taxes are not what they should be. That is what we've come to: Attacking the homes and the taxes they pay. This is what is wrong with this bill and what is wrong with this so-called government. It is no longer a government. This has become an autocratic regime. Simply, that's what it is. When they disregard the election, it's no different than Belgrade; that's what they've done, because the people in Metropolitan Toronto yesterday did what we do in municipal, provincial, federal elections: They voted.

Despite the government's attempt to block the voting, they still voted; despite the attempts of major media to discredit the voting, they voted; despite all the ridicule and all the attacks on the opponents of the megacity, the people voted and they voted overwhelmingly no. They did so because they're disgusted not only with this bill and the mechanics which dismantle local government, but they're disgusted with a government that usurps their right as citizens. That is what Bill 103 does.

The courts have agreed with it. Judge Brennan said the trusteeship was basically a total attack on responsible government. That's what he said. The Speaker attacked the government for its use of propaganda improperly.

What else do we need than 76% of the people, almost 400,000 people, saying no to this bill, the arrogance of this government. What else will people have to do to get their message across? What will the people have to do if this government continues to laugh, to ridicule, to be arrogant? The Premier didn't even have the guts to go to Scarborough and debate this bill with the other two leaders. He didn't have the respect to go there.

The same government didn't even have the guts to go to the local municipalities and tell them to their faces in their city halls that they were going to be eliminated. They wanted to hide here at Queen's Park because they were afraid to go to the city halls that they were going to be dismantling.

We're dealing with a sneaky, arrogant government that has contempt for all the people of Metro and all of Ontario. I tell the people all over Ontario that if they can do it to us here in Metro, they will do it to you all over Ontario. They'll do it to you in Ottawa and Kingston and Kenora and North Bay and Sudbury, so don't think this is just a Toronto thing. The people of Ontario should be disgusted and appalled, as the citizens of Metro are disgusted and appalled, with the arrogance and the disrespect for democracy this government shows.

Despite what happened yesterday with the vote, they still march forward, saying, "We don't care what you do." I ask the people all over Ontario to stand with us here in Toronto, East York, York, Etobicoke, North York and Scarborough. Don't sit passively by because if they're doing it to us now and you're quiet, they could be doing the same thing to you in your home town in the weeks and months to come. Don't think it's just something that's localized. This is fundamentally anti-democratic; it's autocratic, it's a sledgehammer against democracy, Bill 103, and you should have the intestinal fortitude to vote no against Bill 103 and support this resolution.

The Acting Speaker: The member's time has expired.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order. Mr Colle has moved opposition day motion number 3. Is it the wish of the House that the resolution carry?

All those in favour, say "aye."

All those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it.

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

The division bells rang from 1758 to 1803.

The Acting Speaker: Order. All those in favour, please rise one at a time.

Ayes

Bartolucci, Rick

Gerretsen, John

McLeod, Lyn

Bisson, Gilles

Gravelle, Michael

Miclash, Frank

Boyd, Marion

Hampton, Howard

Patten, Richard

Bradley, James J.

Hoy, Pat

Phillips, Gerry

Caplan, Elinor

Kennedy, Gerard

Pouliot, Gilles

Christopherson, David

Kormos, Peter

Pupatello, Sandra

Cleary, John C.

Kwinter, Monte

Ramsay, David

Colle, Mike

Lankin, Frances

Ruprecht, Tony

Cordiano, Joseph

Marchese, Rosario

Sergio, Mario

Crozier, Bruce

Martel, Shelley

Silipo, Tony

Curling, Alvin

Martin, Tony

Wildman, Bud

Duncan, Dwight

McGuinty, Dalton

Wood, Len

The Acting Speaker: Those opposed, please rise one at a time.

Nays

Arnott, Ted

Harnick, Charles

Pettit, Trevor

Baird, John R.

Harris, Michael D.

Rollins, E.J. Douglas

Barrett, Toby

Hastings, John

Ross, Lillian

Beaubien, Marcel

Hudak, Tim

Saunderson, William

Boushy, Dave

Johns, Helen

Shea, Derwyn

Carr, Gary

Johnson, David

Sheehan, Frank

Carroll, Jack

Johnson, Ron

Skarica, Toni

Chudleigh, Ted

Jordan, W. Leo

Smith, Bruce

DeFaria, Carl

Kells, Morley

Snobelen, John

Doyle, Ed

Klees, Frank

Spina, Joseph

Ecker, Janet

Leadston, Gary L.

Sterling, Norman W.

Elliott, Brenda

Martiniuk, Gerry

Stewart, R. Gary

Fisher, Barbara

Maves, Bart

Tascona, Joseph N.

Flaherty, Jim

McLean, Allan K.

Tsubouchi, David H.

Ford, Douglas B.

Munro, Julia

Turnbull, David

Fox, Gary

Murdoch, Bill

Vankoughnet, Bill

Froese, Tom

Mushinski, Marilyn

Villeneuve, Noble

Galt, Doug

Newman, Dan

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Gilchrist, Steve

O'Toole, John

Wilson, Jim

Guzzo, Garry J.

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Wood, Bob

Hardeman, Ernie

Parker, John L.

Young, Terence H.

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 36; the nays are 63.

The Acting Speaker: I declare the motion lost.

It being after 6 of the clock, this House stands adjourned until 1:30 of the clock tomorrow afternoon.

The House adjourned at 1807.