Transcript: Show #81 | Jan 26, 1997

The opening sequence rolls.

In animation, the title "Fourth Reading" spins against a red background.

Then, snippets from the current episode play.

Paula says THIS WEEK,
MEGA FALLOUT.

Mel Lastman is in his fifties, clean-shaven and with short and thinning curly brown hair. HE wears a black suit, white shirt and printed blue tie.

Mel says I SAW THIS WAS
A PACKAGE.
AND THIS WAS SOMETHING
THAT WAS GOING TO DESTROY
METROPOLITAN TORONTO, PUT
METROPOLITAN TORONTO
INTO BANKRUPTCY.

Paula says METRO TORIES
BLAST THEIR PROVINCIAL
COUNTERPARTS AS THE COST
OF MEGA WEEK SINKS IN.

Paula Todd, Ruth, Hugh and Richard sit with a guest around a table in the shape of a number 4.

Paula is in her early thirties, with short slightly wavy blond hair with bangs. She wears a burgundy blazer and a white shirt.

Ruth Grier is in her sixties, with short white hair.

Hugh Seal is in his mid-forties, with short straight brown hair.

Richard Mahoney is in his late forties, clean-shaven, with short white hair.

Paula says SHOCK WAS REPLACED BY
ANGER THIS WEEK
IN SOME MUNICIPALITIES
ACROSS THE PROVINCE.
THEY'VE BEGUN TO
CALCULATE JUST HOW MUCH
RECENT MOVES BY QUEEN'S
PARK TO DOWNLOAD SERVICES
ARE ACTUALLY GOING
TO COST THEM.
AND NOWHERE IS THAT
ANGER MORE PALPABLE
THAN IN METRO
TORONTO.
GOOD AFTERNOON, EVERYONE,
I'M PAULA TODD,
FILLING IN FOR
STEVE PAIKIN.
WELCOME TO THIS EDITION
OF 4TH READING.
EVEN SENIOR CONSERVATIVES
IN THE TORONTO AREA,
ONE OF WHOM IS
WITH US TODAY,
ARE PUBLICLY CALLING FOR
THE GOVERNMENT TO BACK OFF.
WHEN ALL IS SAID AND DONE,
IT LOOKS LIKE METRO
WILL HAVE TO PAY ALMOST
A BILLION DOLLARS
IN EXTRA COSTS.
AND AS CHURCH HALLS FILLED
THIS WEEK WITH PEOPLE
OPPOSED TO THE
GOVERNMENT'S PLANS
TO AMALGAMATE METRO'S
SIX CITIES,
THE TEMPERATURE INSIDE THE
LEGISLATURE SKYROCKETED.

A fast clip shows MPPs having a discussion at the legislature.

Paula says 12 DAYS OF DEAL MAKING ON
CANADA'S ASIA TRADE MISSION
ENDED ABRUPTLY FOR
PREMIER MIKE HARRIS.
HE WALKED INTO ANOTHER
STORM OF CONTROVERSY
AT QUEEN'S PARK.
THIS TIME, OPPOSITION
POLITICIANS HAMMERED
THE PREMIER OVER THE BIGGEST
SWAP IN ONTARIO'S HISTORY.

A caption reads "Howard Hampton. N.D.P Leader."

Howard is in his mid-forties, clean-shaven and with short straight blond hair. He wears a gray suit, white shirt and printed tie.

He says I THINK YOU OWE IT TO
PEOPLE TO BE HONEST.
WHICH OF THESE PEOPLE, HOW
MANY OF THESE PEOPLE
ARE GOING TO
LOSE THEIR JOB?

Paula says EDUCATION MINISTER
JOHN SNOBELEN TOOK
5.4 BILLION DOLLARS IN EDUCATION
FUNDING OFF HOMEOWNERS'
PROPERTY TAXES.
BUT SNOBELEN'S CABINET
COLLEAGUES IMMEDIATELY
PUT 6.4 BILLION DOLLARS BACK ON
HOMEOWNERS' TAX BILL.
CRITICS OF THE GOVERNMENT'S
RESTRUCTURING PLANS
SAY DOWNLOADING SOCIAL PROGRAMS
ONTO MUNICIPALITIES
WILL IMPOSE HUGE FINANCIAL
BURDENS ON HOMEOWNERS.

The caption changes to "Mike Colle. Liberal M.P.P., Oakwood."

Mike is in his early fifties, with short wavy white hair and a brown moustache. He wears a dark green suit, white shirt, striped tie and a a large red pin that reads "No Mega City."

He says IF YOU LOOK AT
THEIR OWN FIGURES,
AND YOU LOOK AT
THE CROMBIE FIGURES,
THERE'S A BILLION
DOLLAR GAP.
IN OTHER WORDS, THERE'S
GOING TO BE A BILLION
DOLLARS YOU ARE GOING
TO HAVE TO MAKE UP
WITH HIGHER PROPERTY TAXES.

Paula says BUT FINANCE MINISTER
ERNIE EVES INSISTS
THE SWAP WILL BE
REVENUE NEUTRAL,
EVEN SUGGESTING HOMEOWNERS
COULD SEE A REDUCTION
IN THEIR PROPERTY TAXES.

Ernie Eves is in his early fifties, clean-shaven and with short wavy light brown hair. He wears a gray suit, white shirt and patterned black and white tie.

Ernie says WHEN THIS EXERCISE
IS COMPLETE,
AND MUNICIPALITIES ARE
ABLE TO DELIVER A LOT
OF THESE LOCAL PROGRAMS FAR
MORE COST EFFECTIVELY
THAN THE PROVINCIAL
GOVERNMENT COULD,
THEY WILL HAVE THE
ABILITY TO, IN FACT,
LOWER PROPERTY TAXES IN
THE PROVINCE OF ONTARIO,
NOT RAISE THEM.

Paula says BUT OPPOSITION
POLITICIANS QUESTION
THE GOVERNMENT'S MATH.

The caption changes to "Dave Cooke. N.D.P M.P.P, Windsor-Riverside."

Dave is in his mid-forties, clean-shaven and with short wavy brown hair. He wears a white shirt and a printed tie.

He says MAJOR URBAN AREAS IN THE
PROVINCE ARE GOING TO HAVE
HIGHER COSTS BECAUSE
THEY'VE GOT LARGE NUMBERS
OF PUBLIC HOUSING
UNITS, NON-PROFIT,
AND CO-OP HOUSING UNITS
THAT HAVE BEEN PUT
IN THEIR TO SERVICE
THEIR COMMUNITIES,
WHERE YOU HAVE MORE
DIVERSITY IN TERMS
OF ECONOMIC BACKGROUNDS
AND MORE POOR PEOPLE
LIVING IN URBAN AREAS.
MORE IMMIGRATION.
AND THEN YOU'VE GOT ALSO
MORE SOCIAL SERVICES
SO YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE
MORE WELFARE COSTS,
AND DURING A RECESSION,
THOSE URBAN AREAS
ARE CLOBBERED.

Paula says THE MUNICIPALITY
OF OTTAWA-CARLETON SAYS
IT WILL HAVE TO MAKE
UP A SHORTFALL
OF UP TO 160
MILLION DOLLARS.
AND HAMILTON WENTWORTH, A
121 MILLION DOLLAR SHORTFALL.
BUT IT'S METRO TORONTO
THAT WILL BE THE BIG LOSER.
IT'S FACING A STAGGERING
SHORTFALL OF ALMOST
A BILLION DOLLARS.
THE UNEVEN EFFECTS ON
URBAN MUNICIPALITIES
ARE ALSO WORRYING SUPPORTERS
OF THE GOVERNMENT,
INCLUDING THE METRO
BOARD OF TRADE.
PROMINENT METRO TORONTO
TORY SUCH AS METRO
COUNSELLOR GORDON CHONG,
FORMER SCARBOROUGH MAYOR,
JOYCE TRIMMER, AND NORTH
YORK MAYOR, MEL LASTMAN,
ARE ALL BEGINNING TO
BACK AWAY FROM
THE GOVERNMENT'S AGENDA.

Mel says I SAW THIS WAS
A PACKAGE.
AND THIS WAS SOMETHING
THAT WAS GOING TO DESTROY
METROPOLITAN TORONTO,
AND PUT METROPOLITAN
TORONTO INTO BANKRUPTCY.

Paula says IN WHAT COULD BE THE
FIRST SIGN THE GOVERNMENT
THE RESPONDING TO
GROWING CRITICISM,
PREMIER HARRIS SAID THE
MEGA CITY BILL WON'T BE
PASSED UNTIL AFTER THE
MEGA CITY REFERENDA
ON MARCH 3RD.

Mike Harris is in his early fifties, clean-shaven and with short wavy gray hair. He wears a gray suit, lilac shirt and patterned red tie.

Mike says AND DO I EXPECT THIS LAW
WILL BE PASSED BEFORE
ANY PIN NUMBER OR PHONE
CALL OR WHATEVER FORMS
OF CONSULTATION
WILL TAKE PLACE?
NO, I DON'T
THINK IT WILL BE.
Total: 949 million dollars."

Paula says SO JUST HOW MUCH MONEY
ARE WE REALLY TALKING
ABOUT HERE WHEN IT COMES
TO METRO TORONTO?
LET'S LOOK INSIDE
OUR FACT FILE:

A slate appears with the caption "Metro Toronto Shortfall. Services-education tax tradeoff: 379 million dollars. Cancelled business occupancy tax: 570 million dollars."

Paula says THOSE NUMBERS, BY THE
WAY, ARE COURTESY
OF THE MUNICIPALITY
OF METRO TORONTO.
AND WITH US HERE TO
TALK ABOUT THE POLITICS
OF ALL THIS, GORDON
CHONG, METRO COUNCILLOR
AND THE CHAIR OF METRO'S
HUMAN SERVICES COMMITTEE.

Gordon is in his late forties, clean-shaven and with wavy brown hair. He wears a blue suit, striped shirt, paisley tie and a burgundy pocket square.

Paula says HE'S ALSO A LONG
TIME CONSERVATIVE.
AND OUR REGULAR PANEL OF
QUEEN'S PARK ANALYSTS,
FORMER ONTARIO NDP CABINET
MINISTER, RUTH GRIER,
RICHARD MAHONEY, AND ONE
TIME HE WAS THE PRESIDENT
OF THE ONTARIO LIBERALS,
AND NOW WITH FRASER
AND BEATTY IN OTTAWA,
AND HUGH SEGAL,
SENIOR PROGRESSIVE
CONSERVATIVE ADVISOR.
WELCOME, EVERYONE.

Hugh says HELLO.

Paula says I THINK WE SHOULD JUST
CUT TO THE CHASE
BECAUSE THERE'S
BEEN SO MUCH NOISE,
AND SO MANY NUMBERS;
GORDON CHONG,
WHAT'S WRONG WITH WHAT
THE GOVERNMENT IS DOING?

A caption reads "Gordon Chong. Metro Toronto Councillor."

Gordon says WELL, PHILOSOPHICALLY,
MOST PEOPLE OPPOSE
HAVING SOCIAL SERVICES,
THE SOFT SERVICES,
PUT ON THE PROPERTY TAX
BASE AND FUNDED
BY THE PROPERTY
TAX BASE.
SO FROM A PHILOSOPHICAL
POINT OF VIEW,
MOST PEOPLE, INCLUDING
SOME TORIES,
ARE OPPOSED TO THAT.
IT'S PRETTY OBVIOUS WHAT'S
HAPPENING IS A DESIRE
TO TRY AND BALANCE
THE BOOKS.
AND I DON'T BLAME THEM
FOR TRYING TO DO THAT.
AND CLEARLY, THE GOVERNMENT
HAS ALSO ACKNOWLEDGED
THAT THERE'S GOING TO BE
A SHORTFALL BECAUSE
THEY'VE SET UP A NUMBER OF
RESERVE FUNDS TO MITIGATE
THE POTENTIAL NEGATIVE
EFFECTS OF THAT.
SO I MEAN THE FIGURES
YOU'VE PUT FORWARD
ARE ACCURATE FIGURES, AND I
WOULD SAY, AT THE MOMENT,
THEY ARE CONSERVATIVE
ESTIMATES AS TO WHAT
COULD POTENTIALLY HAPPEN
IN THE CURRENT CONTEXT.
NOW, MINISTER LEACH
HAS SAID ONCE
THE NEW AMALGAMATED
CITY IS FORMED,
AND THEY HAVE A
BUDGET OF 7 BILLION DOLLARS,
IT SHOULDN'T BE HARD TO
FIND A FIVE PERCENT CUT.
THAT MAY VERY WELL
BE IN THE FUTURE,

Paula says BUT WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT
NOW IS THE CURRENT CONTEXT,
AND THE CURRENT CONTEXT
SAYS THAT UNDER TODAY'S
CIRCUMSTANCES, WE'RE
GOING TO BE SHORT
THIS AMOUNT OF MONEY.
BUT AS YOU
MENTIONED YOURSELF,
THE CONSERVATIVE GOVERNMENT
HAS PUT INTO PLACE
A NUMBER OF
TRANSITION FUNDS,
ONE'S AS LARGE AS
A BILLION DOLLARS.
THERE'S ALSO THE
POSSIBILITY YOU'VE
GOT TO BUSINESS OCCUPANCY
TAX COMING OFF.
THERE'S A
POSSIBILITY, I GUESS,
OF RAISING COMMERCIAL
AND RESIDENTIAL TAXES.
CAN'T YOU MAKE IT UP?

Gordon says WELL, THE PROBLEM
WITH HAVING THAT
IS THE TRADITIONAL,
HISTORICAL RELATIONSHIP
BETWEEN A MUNICIPALITY AND
A PROVINCE IS MUCH AKIN
TO THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
THE PROVINCES AND
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
NO MUNICIPALITY WOULD LIKE
TO GO CAP IN HAND TO
THE PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT
AND SAY, BY THE WAY,
WE'RE SHORT A FEW BUCKS,
CAN YOU GIVE US
SOME MORE MONEY?
BECAUSE IT'S ALWAYS
BEEN THE PROVINCIAL'S
GOVERNMENT POSITION,
IRRESPECTIVE OF THE
POLITICAL PARTY IN POWER,
THAT CERTAIN EXPENSES
ARE ALLOWED, BUT THEY HAVE
TO BE APPROVED EXPENSES.

Paula says SO THERE'S ALWAYS SOME
TO-ING AND FRO-ING
WITH WHAT IS APPROVED AND
WHAT ISN'T APPROVED.
SO IT'S NOT SO MUCH THAT
YOU FEAR MAYBE GOING CAP
AND HAND, BUT THAT YOU
MIGHT COME BACK WITH THE
CAP EMPTY, OR NOT AS FULL
AS YOU'D LIKE IT TO BE?

Gordon says CLEARLY THAT'S
THE PROBLEM.

The caption changes to "Ruth Grier. Former N.D.P cabinet minister."

Ruth says BUT PAULA,
THAT'S ENTANGLEMENT,
AND WHAT THIS WAS ALL
ABOUT WAS DISENTANGLEMENT,
BY SETTING UP THE
RESERVE FUNDS THEY'RE
NOT DISENTANGLING,
THEY'RE SAYING
TO THE MUNICIPALITIES,
WE'VE GOT MONEY,
WE KNOW IT'S REALLY A
PROVINCIAL RESPONSIBILITY,
YOU COME AND MEET
THESE CRITERIA,
AND YOU CAN HAVE MONEY.
AND THAT'S HOW THE SYSTEM
HAS GROWED TO WHAT IT NOW IS
FROM PRECISELY THAT
KIND OF ACTIVITY.

Paula says I WANT TO ASK YOU A
SENSITIVE QUESTION,
YOU'RE A CONSERVATIVE,
GOOD REPUTATION,
GOOD STRONG TIES.

Gordon says THANKS VERY MUCH.

Paula says WHY ISN'T THE GOVERNMENT
LISTENING TO YOU
AND OTHER MEMBERS
OF THE PARTY?

Gordon says I THINK THERE'S
AN INDICATION
THE GOVERNMENT
IS LISTENING.
I'VE GOTTEN SOME
PRELIMINARY FEEDBACK
THAT THEY ARE ACTIVELY
RECONSIDERING
WHAT THEY'VE BEEN DOING.
BUT YOU HAVE TO APPRECIATE,
AND FAR BE IT FOR ME
TO DEFEND WHAT THE PROVINCIAL
GOVERNMENT IS DOING NOW,
BUT THEY OBVIOUSLY WANTED
TO TRY AND BALANCE
THE BOOKS, AND THIS IS
ONE OF THE SOLUTIONS
THAT THEY PROPOSED.
WE DON'T HAPPEN TO AGREE
WITH THAT SOLUTION.

Paula says I DON'T KNOW, HUGH, THAT
SOUNDS LIKE A PRETTY
MAJOR NEWS FLASH TO ME.
IS THE ONTARIO CONSERVATIVE
GOVERNMENT ACTUALLY
THINKING ABOUT BACKING
AWAY FROM ITS ENTIRE
DISENTANGLEMENT PLAN?
WE SURE HAVEN'T
HEARD ANYTHING.
The caption changes to "Hugh Segal. Progressive Conservative Advisor."

Hugh says I DON'T KNOW
THAT'S THE CASE.
I DON'T THINK THAT'S
WHAT GORDON SAID.
LOOK, MIKE HARRIS HAS
ALWAYS SAID THAT
THE CHANGE IN DIRECTION, WHICH
HE FEELS HAS BEEN MANDATED
BY THE PUBLIC IS
PRETTY FUNDAMENTAL.
WE WERE HEADING OFF
A CLIFF, FISCALLY.
WE HAD TREMENDOUS INJUSTICE
IN OUR PUBLIC SCHOOL
SYSTEM BETWEEN WEALTHY
AREAS AND POOR AREAS,
AND ALL OUR STUDIES INDICATED
ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD
IS THE WAY TO ADVANCE
SOCIAL JUSTICE IS TO MAKE
SURE THE EDUCATIONAL
SYSTEM IS RIGHT,
WHICH IS WHY IT'S
BEEN MOVED UPSTAIRS,
OFF THE PROPERTY
TAX BASE.
BUT HARRIS HAS SAID
ON MANY OCCASIONS,
WE'VE CHOSEN
THE DIRECTION,
BUT IN TERMS OF HOW
BEST TO GET THERE,
WE DO LOOK FOR ADVICE, WE
ARE GOING TO TAKE ADVICE,
AND THERE WILL BE CHANGES
AND CALIBRATIONS.
AND THE FIRST THING HE DID
UPON RETURNING FROM ASIA
IS SAY, ACTUALLY, THERE ARE
GOING TO BE PUBLIC HEARINGS.
AND WE'RE NOT GOING TO
MOVE UNTIL, FOR EXAMPLE,
THE PEOPLE OF TORONTO
HAVE VOTED AND WE HAVE
A SENSE OF THAT
INTENSITY.
AND I THINK PEOPLE
SHOULD TAKE A VALIUM.
TAKE A VALIUM?
THERE IS A PROCESS
HERE WHEREBY MUNICIPAL
GOVERNMENTS AND OTHERS,
AND HOPEFULLY EVEN
THE OPPOSITION, WILL
APPEAR BEFORE COMMITTEES
OF THE HOUSE AND SAY, HERE'S
THINGS THAT WON'T WORK.
HERE'S THINGS THAT
HAVE TO CHANGE.
AND I DON'T THINK THERE'S
ANY EVIDENCE TO SUGGEST
THAT THIS GOVERNMENT
ISN'T GOING TO LISTEN.

The caption changes to "Richard Mahoney. Former Ontario Liberal Party President."

Richard says HUGH, THE PEOPLE WHO SHOULD
TAKE A VALIUM ARE THOSE
WHO ARE DIRECTING THESE
REFORMS AT QUEEN'S PARK.
LAST WEEK, WE HAD
AN ANNOUNCEMENT,
THE DAY OF MAJOR
STRUCTURAL REFORMS,
WE'VE HAD FURTHER
ANNOUNCEMENTS THIS WEEK.
LET'S JUST HAVE A LOOK
AT WHAT'S THAT'S ABOUT.
THE GOVERNMENT'S OWN
FIGURES, AS GORDON SAYS,
INDICATE THERE IS GOING TO BE A
BILLION DOLLAR SHORTFALL.
THERE IS A LOT OF
MUNICIPALITIES AND
INTERESTED OBSERVERS WHO
THINK IT'S GOING
TO BE QUITE A BIT MORE.
BUT LET'S ASSUME A
BILLION DOLLARS IS RIGHT.
THE TRANSFER - WHEN I
SAY A BILLION DOLLARS,
THAT'S THE DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN THE COST OF EDUCATION
BEING UPLOADED
TO THE PROVINCE,
AND THE COST OF SERVICES
BEING DUMPED DOWN
ONTO PROPERTY TAXPAYERS.
THAT BILLION DOLLARS, WHEN
IT'S ALL SAID AND DONE,
WHEN ALL THE TRANSITION
FUNDS ARE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT,
AND ALL THE SPIN
IS TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT,
THAT BILLION DOLLARS HAS GOT
TO COME FROM SOMEWHERE.
IT'S GOING TO COME FROM
PROPERTY TAXPAYERS.
THAT'S WHAT THIS
IS ABOUT.
YOU, IN YOUR
QUESTION TO GORDON,
AND GORDON IN HIS REPLY,
INDICATED THAT ONE
OF THE THINGS THE GOVERNMENT
IS TRYING TO DO HERE
IS REDUCE COSTS.
THIS IS NOT JUST ABOUT
DISENTANGLEMENT,
THIS IS ABOUT REDUCING
PROVINCIAL COSTS
TO BOTH TRY AND CORRECT
A FISCAL PROBLEM,
AND TRY AND CORRECT
A FISCAL PROBLEM
WHEN THEY ARE ALSO
GIVING US A TAX CUT.
NOW, I THINK WHAT'S
HAPPENING HERE IS HARRIS
IS NO LONGER THE TAX
FIGHTER ANYMORE.
WE MAY GET A TEN PERCENT
REDUCTION IN OUR OVERALL
INCOME TAX WHEN IT'S
ALL SAID AND DONE,
BUT WE'RE GOING TO
ALL FACE PROPERTY TAX
INCREASES BY THE
GOVERNMENT'S OWN ADMISSION.

Paula says BUT I WANT TO GO BACK TO
WHAT GORDON SAID.
WE CAN WAIT FOR THESE
PUBLIC HEARINGS,
AND WE'LL ALL PAY A LOT
OF ATTENTION, OF COURSE,
BUT LET'S DO A LITTLE
MEDIATING RIGHT HERE.
GORDON, WHAT IS IT THE
ONTARIO GOVERNMENT COULD DO?
WHAT COULD THEY CHANGE
OR ALTER THAT WOULD
HELP METRO OUT?

Gordon says WELL, ONE OF THE THINGS
THAT METRO WOULD
HAVE PREFERRED TO SEE IS THE
WELFARE COSTS BE UPLOADED
TO THE PROVINCE, THE
CHEQUE, THE ACTUAL BENEFIT,
THE ADMINISTRATION OF
THAT BECAUSE METRO,
LIKE SOME OF THE OTHER
REGIONAL GOVERNMENTS,
WOULD LOVE DEARLY TO BE
ABLE TO REFLECT REGIONAL
DIFFERENCES AND
PREFERENCES.
WE WERE PREPARED TO GO AS
HIGH AS SAYING WE WOULD
PAY THE ENTIRE COST
OF ADMINISTRATION.
I WANT TO GET BACK TO
SOMETHING RUTH SAID
AS WELL ABOUT
DISENTANGLEMENT.
I WAS PART OF THE
CROMBIE EXERCISE,
AND AS WE GOT THROUGH IT, WE
CAME TO THE REALIZATION,
AND I THINK THE
PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT
HAS COME TO THE
REALIZATION THAT
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
THE MUNICIPALITIES
AND PROVINCE, NO MATTER
HOW MUCH OR HOW GREAT
THE DESIRE WAS TO TRY
AND DISENTANGLE,
FINALLY CAME TO THE
REALIZATION THAT
RELATIONSHIP, THAT
HISTORICAL RELATIONSHIP,
CAN'T BE CLEANLY
SEVERED.
AND WHAT HAS HAPPENED
NOW IS THEY'VE TAKEN
A TRADITIONAL RELATIONSHIP
THAT WAS 80-20, AND SAID -

Paula says 80-20 WITH
THE PROVINCE PAYING
80 PERCENT OF
THE WELFARE BILL.

Gordon says BUT IT REALLY WAS A
PATCHWORK BECAUSE
IT DEPENDED ON WHEN A
PARTICULAR PROGRAM
WAS NEGOTIATED,
WHETHER IT WAS 80-20,
WHETHER IT WAS
50-50, AND SO ON.
SO I'M SYMPATHETIC.
I FEEL KIND OF SCHIZOPHRENIC
HERE TRYING TO -
I'M UNDERSTANDING
AND SYMPATHETIC
TO WHAT THE PROVINCIAL
GOVERNMENT IS DOING,
AND AT THE SAME TIME
HAVING TO PUT FORWARD
A MUNICIPAL
PERSPECTIVE ON IT.
I'M SYMPATHETIC BECAUSE
THEY'RE HEADED IN
A DIRECTION THAT I'D
LIKE TO SEE THEM HEAD.
I JUST WISH THEY HADN'T
TAKEN THAT STEP
AND DOWNLOADED THE
SOFT SERVICES
TO MUNICIPALITIES.

Ruth says WHICH YOUR COMMITTEE
DIDN'T RECOMMEND.

Gordon says NO, OUR COMMITTEE
DIDN'T RECOMMEND.

Richard says LET'S JUST READ
WHAT THEY SAID,
THE COMMITTEE
GORDON WAS ON -

Ruth says THE CROMBIE
COMMITTEE.

Richard says THE CROMBIE COMMITTEE SAID,
IT BECAME CLEAR TO US,
HOWEVER, THE ONLY WAY THE
PROVINCE COULD CARRY OUT
ITS FUNDING
RESPONSIBILITIES,
AS RECOMMENDED
BY THE PANEL,
WOULD BE TO UNDO MUCH OF
THE WORK ACCOMPLISHED
BY THE DISENTANGLING
PROPOSALS,
SUCH AS, MOVING HEALTH
AND WELFARE BACK
DOWN TO PROPERTY TAX.
THE PANEL STRONGLY
OPPOSES SUCH A MOVE.
WE ARE UNANIMOUS
IN THE VIEW THAT
IF THERE IS A CHOICE
BETWEEN PLACING
EDUCATION OR
HEALTH AND WELFARE
ON THE PROPERTY TAX, IT'S
CLEARLY PREFERABLE TO CONTINUE
TO RELY ON THE PROPERTY TAX
FOR FUNDING EDUCATION.

Paula says THIS GETS BACK TO THE
QUESTION, I MEAN,
OBVIOUSLY THE ONTARIO
GOVERNMENT READ
THE CROMBIE REPORT.
NEVERTHELESS, THEY MADE THE
DECISION TO SHARE WITH
THE MUNICIPALITIES, TO
GET THE MUNICIPALITIES
TO PICK UP A LARGER
SHARE OF WELFARE.
WHAT ARE THE
CHANCES THEY ARE
GOING TO BACK
DOWN ON THAT?

Ruth says BUT PAULA, REMEMBER
WHY THEY DID IT.
BECAUSE THEY WANT
TO GIVE A TAX CUT.
AND IN OTHER WORDS TO GIVE
THE TAX CUT, THEY HAVE TO -

Hugh says TO WORKING PEOPLE.

Ruth says TO WEALTHY PEOPLE.
EVERYBODY.
OKAY, THEY WANT TO GIVE
AN INCOME CUT WHETHER
YOU'RE PAYING 30
PERCENT MORE ON YOUR
PROPERTY TAXES
AND YOUR FEES.

Hugh says THEY ACTUALLY WANT
TO TAKE OUR HANDS
OUT OF PEOPLE'S
POCKETS.

Ruth says CAN I FINISH
MY POINT?

Hugh says I'M SORRY, RUTH.

Ruth says OKAY.
THEY WANT TO GIVE A
TAX CUT TO THE WEALTHY,
MOSTLY WHO WILL BENEFIT
BECAUSE THE POOR WILL BE
PAYING MORE PROPERTY TAXES
AND MORE FEES AN SERVICES.

Hugh says BECAUSE THE POOR HAVE
SO MUCH PROPERTY.

Ruth says AND IN ORDER TO DO
THAT, THEY NEED
TO CUT THE COST
OF SERVICES.
SO THEY TOOK EDUCATION
SO THEY COULD CUT
EDUCATION COSTS.

Hugh shakes his head.

Ruth says AND
THEY HANDED THE REST
TO THE MUNICIPALITIES,
SAYING, AS THE PREMIER
DID IN YOUR CLIP,
THE MUNICIPALITIES
WILL FIND WAYS
TO CUT COSTS.
SO THIS ISN'T ABOUT
DISENTANGLEMENT,
THIS ISN'T ABOUT
BALANCING, IT'S ABOUT
CUTTING EXPENDITURE
ON PUBLIC SERVICES.

Paula says AND I TAKE IT THAT THE
IDEA GORDON HAS HERE
THAT PERHAPS THE
GOVERNMENT COULD TAKE BACK
SOME OF THE COST OF WELFARE,
YOU DON'T THINK THAT'S ON?

Richard says I DON'T KNOW
THAT'S ON OR NOT.
I SAW
THE GLOBE OF MAIL
WHO NORMALLY IS QUITE
SUPPORTIVE, AND CERTAINLY
BEEN SUPPORTIVE OF THE
DIRECTION HARRIS, SAID
LOOK YOU GOT IT 75 PERCENT
RIGHT, BUT THE 25
PERCENT YOU HAVE WRONG,
WHICH IS TRANSFERRING
HALF THE COST TO WELFARE,
IS SO WRONG YOU MIGHT HAVE
TO DITCH THE WHOLE THING.
WHAT THEY SUGGESTED IS HAVE
WELFARE COST PICKED UP
BY THE PROVINCE ON A
PER CASE LOAD BASIS.
SO IF METRO HAS 38 PERCENT
OF THE WELFARE CASE LOADS,
THEY WOULD GET 38 PERCENT
OF THE PROVINCE'S
CONTRIBUTION TO WELFARE.
THAT MAKES SENSE TO ME.
I THINK IF THE
GOVERNMENT DID THAT,
THEY'D BE FAR
FURTHER AHEAD
THAN WHAT THEY ARE
DOING RIGHT NOW.

Paula says HUGH'S NODDING.
DOES IT MAKE
SENSE TO YOU?

Hugh says I THINK THERE'S A HOST
OF VERY CONSTRUCTIVE
COMPROMISES WHICH CAN
MAKE THIS A PACKAGE
WHICH IS NOT QUITE SO
PANIC-STRICKEN FOR PEOPLE
IN MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT.
BUT WE SHOULD, I THINK,
KEEP ONE THING IN MIND.
THERE IS NOT AN ASSUMPTION
HERE THAT ALL THESE SERVICES
ARE GOING TO BE
DELIVERED WITH PRECISELY
THE SAME COST STRUCTURE
AND APPROACH WE'VE USED
FOR THE LAST 327 YEARS.
THERE ACTUALLY HAS
TO BE SOME CHANGE
IN THE WAY WE
DELIVER WELFARE.
THERE ACTUALLY HAS TO BE
SOME CHANGE IN THE WAY
WE DELIVER HEALTHCARE.
AND THERE HAS TO BE
SOME CHANGE IN THE WAY
WE APPROACH
SOCIAL HOUSING.
THE NOTION THAT WE LEAVE
ALL THOSE PRESENT COST
STRUCTURES IN PLACE AND
MAKE NO CHANGES
IS NOT WHAT THE PEOPLE
OF ONTARIO VOTED FOR.
THEY VOTED FOR FUNDAMENTAL
CHANGE SO THAT WE COULD
PRESERVE THOSE THINGS
WHICH MATTER THE MOST.
AND ONE OF THE THINGS
THAT MATTERS THE MOST
IS EDUCATION, WHICH IS WHAT
THIS IS ALL ABOUT IN TERMS
OF SOCIAL JUSTICE AND
EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY.

Paula says OKAY, BUT LET'S STICK WITH
WELFARE FOR ONE MOMENT.
YOU SAID THERE'S A HOST OF
THINGS THAT PERHAPS
THE GOVERNMENT COULD DO TO
EASE SOME OF THE PANIC.
CAN YOU GIVE
US ONE EXAMPLE?

Hugh says I THINK, FOR EXAMPLE, ONE
OF THE ISSUES THAT WOULD
MAKE A LOT OF SENSE IS
TO REALLY HAVE A GENERAL
LEGISLATIVE GRANT
AROUND EQUALIZATION.
AND THE EQUALIZATION ISSUE
IN TERMS OF THE CAPACITY
OF DIFFERENT
MUNICIPALITIES AND REGIONS
WOULD BE ADDRESSED ON AN
ANNUAL BASIS IN A FORMULAIC
FASHION, AS WE HAVE DEALT
WITH OTHER EQUALIZATION
ISSUES IN THIS COUNTRY
QUITE CONSTRUCTIVELY.

Ruth says OR THEY COULD
HAVE THE SAME LEVEL,
ADMINISTER BOTH GENERAL
WELFARE AND FAMILY BENEFITS,
WHICH GORDON HAS
SUGGESTED,
WHICH EVERY HAS BEEN
TRYING TO NEGOTIATE FOR -
CERTAINLY OUR
GOVERNMENT DID.
THERE ARE THINGS
THEY COULD DO
THAT WOULD SIMPLIFY
THE SYSTEM.
BUT THEY WOULDN'T GIVE
THEM THE MONEY TO
GIVE THEIR TAX CUT.

Richard says THEY NEED A BILLION
OUT OF THIS,
AND THEY ARE GOING TO GET
A BILLION OUT OF THIS.
ONE OF THE REASONS WHY
EDUCATION - I DISAGREE
WITH YOU ON ONE THING, ONE
OF THE REASONS EDUCATION
HAS NOW GONE TO
PROVINCIAL CONTROL,
AND WE'VE ALL SAID ON
THE SHOW BEFORE
WE THINK THAT'S
PROBABLY A GOOD THING,
IS BECAUSE THEY ARE GOING
TO GET ANOTHER BILLION
DOLLARS OUT OF THE
EDUCATION SYSTEM BECAUSE
THEY NEED A TOTAL OF
3 BILLION DOLLARS IN FURTHER CUTS.
THAT GETS THEM 2 BILLION
DOLLARS THERE.
THEY NEED ANOTHER BILLION
DOLLARS FROM SOMEWHERE ELSE.

Hugh says I DON'T BUY THE IDEOLOGICAL
CONNECTION WITH THE TAX CUT,
BUT LET'S ACCEPT IT
FOR PURPOSES -

Richard says IT'S NOT IDEOLOGICAL,
IT'S FACT.

Hugh says THEY NEED ANOTHER
BILLION DOLLARS.
FOR PURPOSES OF DISCUSSION,
THE MONEY THAT GOES
TO THE TAX CUT, WHAT
HAPPENS TO IT?
PEOPLE TAKE IT,
THEY SPEND IT,
THEY PAY OFF
THEIR DEBT?

Ruth says HOW DO YOU KNOW?

Paula says OKAY, YOU KNOW WHAT,
WE'RE GOING TO -

Hugh says IT GENERATES JOBS.

Paula says WE DON'T HAVE TIME
TO DEBATE THE TRICKLE DOWN
TAX REBATE THEORY BECAUSE
I WANT TO ASK RUTH
ABOUT THE POLITICS
OF THIS SITUATION.
I'M SURE EVERYBODY
REMEMBERS THAT WHEN
THE NDP, YOUR GOVERNMENT,
BROUGHT IN THE SOCIAL
CONTRACT, WE SAW THE
IMAGE OF LOYAL NDP-ERS
FIGHTING THE NDP
GOVERNMENT.
IS THERE A RISK THAT RIGHT
NOW THE PROVINCIAL TORIES
HAVE THEMSELVES INVITED
OPPOSITION FROM FAITHFUL
TORIES LIKE GORDON CHONG?
SOMETHING SIMILAR
COULD HAPPEN?

Ruth says WELL, I WISH IT COULD
HAPPEN TO THIS GOVERNMENT.
[laughter]
I WOULDN'T COUNT ON IT.
THERE'S A WHOLE LOT
OF DIFFERENT THINGS.
FIRST OF ALL, WE DIDN'T WISH
TO DO THE SOCIAL CONTRACT,
IT WASN'T SOMETHING WE
WERE IDEOLOGICALLY
COMMITTED TO.
IT WAS WHAT WE THOUGHT
WAS BEST TO THE PEOPLE
OF THE PROVINCE.

Hugh says BECAUSE OF
LIBERAL INCOMPETENCE
AND OVERSPENDING.

Ruth says SECONDLY, THE WHOLE
CULTURE IS DIFFERENT.
I THINK FOR THE
CONSERVATIVES THERE'S
A MUCH GREATER, AN
UNDERSTANDING OF SOME
OF THE PRESSURES AND
TENSIONS OF WIELDING POWER.
AND THEREFORE MANY OF THE
PEOPLE WHO MAY BE OPPOSING
THEM WILL HAVE AN
OPPORTUNITY TO SEE SOME
CHANGES MADE THAT WILL
ENABLE THE CURRENT
OPPONENTS TO SAY, OH, WELL,
THEY MADE SOME CHANGES,
WE'RE NOW HAPPY BECAUSE
THEY UNDERSTAND
FOR THEM TO KEEP THIS
GOVERNMENT IN POWER
IS WHAT IS MOST IMPORTANT.

Richard says YOU MAY BE ON TO
SOMETHING THERE, PAULA
BECAUSE RATHER THAN
THE DANGER OF THEM REALLY
ANGERING THEIR OWN BASE, I
THINK THERE'S A LITTLE BIT
OF MODUS OPERANDI ON
THIS GOVERNMENT'S
PART OF CREATING
FLURRIES OF ACTIVITY,
THE ATMOSPHERE OF CRISIS,
SOMEONE LIKE HUGH
COMES ALONG AND SAYS,
LET'S TAKE A VALIUM,
AND THEY PULL BACK
ON ONE OR TWO THINGS,
AND THEY APPEAR TO BE
A BIT MORE REASONABLE.
THEY DID THAT
WITH THE DOCTORS,
THEY DID THAT WITH
THE PUBLIC SERVANTS,
AND PERHAPS THEY'RE
NOW GOING TO DO THAT
ON THE SO-CALLED
DISENTANGLEMENT, OR WHAT
WE CALL DUMPING SERVICES
DOWN TO TAXPAYERS.

Gordon says NOTWITHSTANDING MY
OPPOSITION TO
THE PHILOSOPHICAL THINGS
THEY'RE DOING WITH RESPECT
TO WELFARE, I'M
NOT CUTTING UP
MY MEMBERSHIP
CARD TO THE PARTY.
I JUST THINK THERE'S MORE
THAN ONE WAY TO SKIN A CAT,
AND THEY SHOULD BE
LOOKING AT OTHER
POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS.
AND RICHARD IS RIGHT,
THAT WITH THE FLURRY
OF ACTIVITY THAT'S HAPPENED,
MUNICIPALITIES
HAVE HAD TO
RESPOND QUICKLY.
AND IN THE PROCESS OF
RESPONDING QUICKLY,
WHETHER WE HAVE ALL OUR
NUMBERS RIGHT IS OPEN
TO QUESTION AT THIS
PARTICULAR TIME, AS WELL.
BUT EVERY NUMBER,
WHETHER IT'S PUT OUT
BY THE PROVINCE, OR WHETHER
IT'S PUT OUT BY US,
IS A GUESSTIMATE AT BEST.
AND UNTIL THE DUST SETTLES,
YOU DON'T REALLY KNOW
JUST HOW ACCURATE
THESE ARE.

Ruth says BE YOU DO KNOW THE
PROPERTY TAXPAYER
IS THE CAT THAT'S
GOING TO BE SKINNED.

Gordon says IN THE
CURRENT CONTEXT.

Paula says THIS IS ALL
THE TIME WE HAVE,
BUT IT SOUNDS LIKE WE'RE
GOING TO HAVE TO COME BACK
AND DEBATE IT WHEN WE
ACTUALLY SEE HARD NUMBERS.

Gordon says YES.

Paula says GORDON CHONG, THANK
YOU SO MUCH FOR BEING HERE.
AND COMING UP, AN
UNPRECEDENTED RULING
BY AN UNPRECEDENTED
SPEAKER, THROWS
THE LEGISLATURE
INTO TURMOIL.

A clip from the legislature rolls with the caption "Chris Stockwell. Speaker."

Chris is in his forties, clean-shaven and with short receding brown hair. He wears a court robe.

He says HOW IS ONE TO INTERPRET
SUCH UNQUALIFIED CLAIMS?
IN MY OPINION, THEY CONVEY
THE IMPRESSION THAT
THE PASSAGE OF THE
REQUISITE LEGISLATION
WAS NOT NECESSARY, OR WAS
A FOREGONE CONCLUSION.
AND IN DOING SO THEY
APPEAR TO DIMINISH
THE RESPECT THAT IS
DUE TO THIS HOUSE.
I FEEL IT IS WRONG FOR A
GOVERNMENT TO ATTEMPT
TO INFLUENCE PUBLIC OPINION
THROUGH ADVERTISING
THAT IS PAID FOR
THROUGH PUBLIC FUNDS.
[applause]

Mike Colle says THE MINISTER OF
MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS,
IN HIS DIRECT CONTEMPT OF
PARLIAMENTARY DEMOCRACY,
AND THAT WE MOVE A MOTION
OF CENSURE AGAINST
THE MINISTER OF MUNICIPAL
AFFAIRS AT THIS TIME.

The caption hanges to "Al Leach. Municipal Affairs Minister."

Al is in his fifties, clean-shaven and with short slightly wavy white hair. He wears glasses, a blue suit, white shirt and printed tie.

He says TO THE DEGREE THAT
DISRESPECT
FOR THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS
HAS BEEN INFRINGED UPON,
I APOLOGIZE, MISTER SPEAKER,
TO YOU AND TO
EVERY MEMBER OF
THIS HOUSE.

Paula says SO THE ONTARIO GOVERNMENT
HAS BEEN FOUND
IN CONTEMPT OF THE
LEGISLATURE.
THAT UNUSUAL RULING BY
SPEAKER CHRIS STOCKWELL
CAME AFTER THE GOVERNMENT
ISSUED PAMPHLETS
EXTOLLING THE VIRTUES OF AN
AMALGAMATED METRO TORONTO
BEFORE THE LEGISLATION
HAD EVEN BEEN PASSED.
STOCKWELL SAID THAT'S
TANTAMOUNT TO USING
TAXPAYERS' MONEY FOR A
PARTISAN POLITICAL PURPOSE.
AND THAT'S FROM A
SPEAKER WHO IS A STAUNCH
CONSERVATIVE HIMSELF.
WELL, WHAT DO
YOU MAKE OF IT?
FAIRLY UNPRECEDENTED.
WHAT'S SO UNUSUAL
ABOUT IT, HUGH?

Hugh says WELL, I THINK IT'S
UNUSUAL TO THE EXTENT
THAT A SPEAKER ACTS WITH
THAT SENSE OF PRECISION
AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT OF
WHICH HE WAS ONCE A PART.
BUT HE'S ELECTED BY ALL
MEMBERS OF THE LEGISLATURE,
THAT'S THE
RESPONSIBILITY HE HAS.
I WAS PROUD OF
HIM, AS A SPEAKER,
AS A PARLIAMENTARIAN,
AS AN ONTARIAN,
AND I WAS PROUD OF THE
MINISTER FOR APOLOGIZING.
I ACTUALLY HAVE NO
RECOLLECTION OF A LIBERAL
EVER APOLOGIZING FOR
ANYTHING IN THE HISTORY
OF MANKIND, BUT
I WAS GLAD -

Richard says YOU HAVEN'T BEEN PAYING MUCH
ATTENTION TO OTTAWA LATELY.

Ruth says ALLAN ROCK
DOES IT EVERY DAY.

Hugh says IT WASN'T ACTUALLY
MUCH OF AN APOLOGY,
BUT THAT'S
ANOTHER DEBATE.
I ACTUALLY BELIEVE
THIS IS A GOOD THING.
IT SETS LIMITS.
I THINK IT'S IN THE
INTEREST OF PARLIAMENTARY
DEMOCRACY, AND I THINK
IT'S AN IMPORTANT MESSAGE
TO SEND TO GOVERNMENTS
EVERYWHERE.

Paula says BIG EMBARRASSMENT,
DO YOU THINK?

Ruth says BUT, PAULA, I THINK ALSO
YOU HAVE TO REMEMBER,
I HAPPENED TO HEAR THE
POINT OF PRIVILEGE
THAT BUD WYMAN, THE
MEMBER FROM ALGOMA MADE,
AND HE LAID OUT A VERY
STRONG CASE OF PRECEDENT
IN THE FEDERAL PARLIAMENT
WHERE A SPEAKER
HAD MADE A
SIMILAR RULING.
SO I THINK IT WOULD HAVE
BEEN QUITE DIFFICULT,
FOR CHRIS, GIVEN THE
WAY IT WAS PRESENTED,
TO IN FACT RULE
OTHERWISE.
BUT I ALSO THINK IT WAS
THE RIGHT THING TO DO,
AND I GIVE HIM FULL
MARKS FOR DOING IT.

Paula says OKAY, I'LL ASK YOU.
HOW BIG AN EMBARRASSMENT
IS IT FOR THE GOVERNMENT?

Richard says WELL, I MEAN, I THINK
IT'S PRETTY BIG.
IT'S A BIT OF A
PROCESS ISSUE,
SO I DON'T THINK IT'S GOING
TO LAST FOR A LONG TIME.
BUT NEVER BEFORE HAD THE
GOVERNMENT OF THE PROVINCE
OF ONTARIO BEEN
FOUND IN CONTEMPT
OF ITS LEGISLATURE
AND ITS PEOPLE.
SO THAT IS UNPRECEDENTED.
THE MINISTER APOLOGIZED.
I DON'T SUSPECT WE'LL BE
SPENDING A LOT OF TIME
TALKING ABOUT THIS.
BUT I'VE GOT TO SAY,
ON THIS SHOW BEFORE,
WHEN STOCKWELL WAS
ELECTED SPEAKER,
I SAID I DIDN'T THINK
HE'D HAVE THE DIGNITY
AND THE PERSONAGE
TO PULL OFF SPEAKER.
FROM ALL SIDES, PEOPLE
THINK CHRIS STOCKWELL
HAS BEEN A VERY
GOOD SPEAKER.
AND I THINK THAT RULING
TODAY, I AGREE WITH HUGH,
SHOWS HE'S A DECENT,
FAIR-MINDED SPEAKER,
WHO CAN CALL A
SPADE A SPADE,
AND MAKE THE
APPROPRIATE DECISION.

Paula says OKAY, WHAT ABOUT
HAVING ANY POWER.
I MEAN, THE SUBSTANCE
OF WHAT HE SAID
WAS YOU SHOULDN'T BE USING
TAXPAYERS' MONEY TO MOUNT
WHAT IS IT, AN 800 MILLION DOLLAR
AD CAMPAIGN IN TOTAL.

Hugh says NO, I THINK IT WAS
AN 8 MILLION DOLLAR CAMPAIGN.

Paula says SORRY,
SORRY, 8 MILLION.
IS THERE ANY CHANCE MAYBE
THE ADS WILL BE PULLED?
THAT THE SPENDING
WILL STOP?

Hugh says I THINK IT WAS A BROCHURE
THAT WAS PARTICULARLY -

Richard says HE MENTIONED
THE ADS, TOO.

Paula says IT'S THE BROCHURE, BUT
ISN'T IT THE PRINCIPLE
THAT THERE IS SOMETHING
WRONG WITH USING
TAXPAYERS' MONEY.
SO CERTAINLY WE KNOW THIS
ONE HAS BEEN TALKED ABOUT,
BUT WHAT ABOUT THE
GENERAL PRINCIPLE?

She holds a brochure with the title "Toronto for all of us."

Paula says THE GOVERNMENT RIGHT
NOW IS TRYING TO SELL
ITS MESSAGE ABOUT
RESTRUCTURING.

Hugh says I'LL GIVE YOU MY VIEW
OF THE PRINCIPLE.
I THINK GOVERNMENT
HAS THE RIGHT,
NEW DEMOCRATICS DID IT
WHEN THEY WERE IN OFFICE,
TO SHARE WITH THE PUBLIC
INFORMATION ABOUT
CHANGE THAT'S GOING TO
AFFECT THEIR LIVES.
WHEN THEY DO IT,
AND HOW THEY DO IT,
IS THE BASIS UPON WHICH
IT SHOULD BE JUDGED.
IF IT'S STRAIGHT
INFORMATION ABOUT CONTENT,
DONE AT APPROPRIATE
TIME, THAT'S ONE THING.
IF IT APPEARS TO
GO BEYOND THAT,
IN A FASHION THAT'S
INAPPROPRIATE,
THEN IT DOES GO
OVER THE LINE.
I THINK THE PAMPHLET,
THE SPEAKER IS CORRECT,
WAS PERHAPS INADVERTENT,
BUT NEVERTHELESS
OVER THE LINE.
I'M NOT SURE THAT THE
OTHER INFORMATIONAL STUFF
IS IN THE SAME CATEGORY.

Paula says WHAT DO YOU THINK?

Richard says OBVIOUSLY, THE PAMPHLET
WOULD HAVE TO BE WITHDRAWN.
THEY'LL HAVE TO OBEY THE
SPEAKER'S RULING IN SOME WAY.
IT'S OUT THERE SO THEY
CAN'T REALLY TAKE IT BACK.
INTERESTING, I READ THE
SPEAKER'S DECISION AND
HE WENT BEYOND THE PAMPHLET
AND TALKED IN GENERAL
TERMS ABOUT THE
ADVERTISING CAMPAIGN.
AND HE SAID TO THE
EXTENT THAT IT PRESUMES
THE LEGISLATURE HAS
ALREADY ACTED,
OR IT'S NOT IMPORTANT
IF THE LEGISLATURE
ACTUALLY PASSES THE
BILL AND HAS HEARINGS,
IT WAS "OFFENSIVE" TO
PARLIAMENTARY DEMOCRACY.
SO I THINK THE GOVERNMENT
SHOULD TAKE ANOTHER LOOK AT
WHETHER OR NOT THEIR
ADVERTISING CAMPAIGN IS ON.
BECAUSE HE USES
THE WORD OFFENSIVE.
AND HE DID BROADEN IT OUT
BEYOND THAT BROCHURE.

Paula says WE ONLY HAVE A LITTLE
BIT OF TIME LEFT,
AND I'M WONDERING, THIS
IS A TIME QUESTION.
HOW MUCH TIME DO YOU
THINK COULD BE TAKEN UP
WITH THIS ISSUE?
WILL IT DELAY THE
LEGISLATIVE AGENDA?

Ruth says LOOK, THE TORIES HAVE
MANAGED TO AVOID QUESTION
PERIOD FOR TWO DAYS
BECAUSE THIS DEBATE
IS HAPPENING.
AND AS A GOVERNMENT
YOU ALWAYS WANTED
TO AVOID QUESTION PERIOD.
I THINK IT'S DEFLECTING
ATTENTION FROM THE HORRORS
OF WHAT THEY'VE DONE
IN THE DUMPING ON
THE PROPERTY TAXPAYERS.
I THINK IT'S A FAIRLY IN
DISCUSSION THAT THE GENERAL
PUBLIC IS NOT PARTICULARLY
SEIZED OF IT.

Paula says DO YOU AGREE WITH THAT?

Hugh says THE OPPOSITION HAS TO
CHOOSE WHICH HORRIFIC
EVIL THEY'RE
GOING TO PURSUE.

Richard says AND I THINK THEY'LL
PURSUE THE SUBSTANCE
OF THE DUMPING OF SERVICES
DOWN TO PROPERTY TAXPAYERS
RATHER THAN THE PROCESS
OF THE SPEAKER'S RULING.

Paula says ON THAT NOTE, WHERE
DOES THE TIME GO?
HUGH SEGAL, RICHARD
MAHONEY AND RUTH GRIER,
THANK YOU SO MUCH.
WE ALWAYS ENJOY YOUR
FEEDBACK TO OUR PROGRAM.
PLEASE WRITE TO US
WITH YOUR COMMENTS AT:

A slate appears with a caption that reads "4th Reading. Box 200, Station Q, Toronto, Ontario. M4T 2T1"

Paula says OR YOU CAN REACH US
ON THE INTERNET:

Another slate appears. It reads "4th Reading. Internet address: fourth_reading@tvo.org"

Paula says STEVE PAIKIN WILL
BE BACK NEXT WEEK.
THANKS FOR WATCHING.

Music plays and the end credits roll, as Steve and the rest continue the conversation.

A production of TVOntario. Copyright 1996, The Ontario Educational Communications Authority.

Watch: Show #81