Hansard Transcript 1986-Jun-23 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Mr. Speaker: I beg to inform the House that I have today laid upon the table the individual members' expenditures for the fiscal year 1985-86. In case members are interested, they will find their copies placed in the desks in the chamber.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

VISITORS

Mr. Barlow: In every community, there are people who not only take care of their own family and home but also extend themselves way beyond that responsibility and find time and energy to show an interest in their community, their city, their province and, indeed, their country.

We have just such a group of people visiting us today from the city of Cambridge. It gives me great pleasure to introduce to the assembly the members of the Cambridge Progressive Conservative Women's Association and their guests who are in the east gallery this afternoon.

Would members please join with me in welcoming them to the Legislature.

INSURANCE RATES

Mr. Swart: I want to recognize in the gallery a group of people from my riding. This group is sponsored by the Liberal women's association of our riding. They are as concerned about insurance as everybody else. Although the doctors' strike, Chernobyl and South Africa may have pushed the insurance crisis out of the lead stories, let us make no mistake about it; it is ongoing and it is escalating.

A few days ago, I had a call from Gauley-Gage Cartage Ltd. of Toronto, which has approximately 80 trucks and an equal number of employees. In the trucking industry, insurance premiums are frequently levied as a percentage of gross revenue. In the case of Gauley-Gage, the rate was $1.98 per $100 revenue in 1984, $4.88 in 1985 and this year, two days before the expiry date, Mr. Gauley was notified that it would be $8.85 per $100 of revenue. That is not all. The coverage will be reduced from $5 million to $1 million, and while there was no deductible previously, it is now $2,500. Further, he had to pay much more of the premium up front.

John Gauley said, "You can quote me as saying that it can put me out of business." There is little doubt that the lack of any investigation or objection by the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Kwinter) has led to the situation where these companies are still increasing their premiums.

BRAMPTON FESTIVAL

Mr. Callahan: It gives me great pleasure to rise on this occasion to indicate to the people of this Legislature as well as to the people of Ontario that the great city of Brampton will be celebrating a tremendous ethnic event. The formal opening will be on June 30, but the events themselves will take place on the weekend of July 4, 5 and 6. The pavilions are about 16 in number. We will have almost every ethnic community represented during this festival time.

We are very pleased as well to have the Minister of Citizenship and Culture (Ms. Munro) open the India pavilion on Friday evening, July 4, at seven o'clock. It is particularly significant because one of the young ladies involved in the Air-India crash was a dancer at the festival the year before that crash. We are honoured to have the minister come. I invite everybody from Ontario, even from cities less fair than Brampton, to attend.

INSURANCE RATES

Mr. J. M. Johnson: I wish to advise the House of a very serious problem pertaining to the unavailability of liability insurance coverage for our agricultural society fall fairs.

Law Insurance Brokers Ltd. has advised the Ontario Association of Agricultural Societies that it has approached all insurance companies it deals with and it has been declined liability insurance by all.

Len Patterson, president of the association, from the neighbouring riding of Grey, contacted me over the weekend and asked whether I would make the government aware of its very serious concerns. Approximately 120 agricultural societies were insured by Law Insurance Brokers. Mr. Patterson states very emphatically that never before in the history of the association has the board had to deal with a more serious matter.

As there are 17 fall fairs in and adjacent to my riding of Wellington-Dufferin-Peel, I am very concerned that many of these fairs will have to be cancelled if the government does not take some action to help the fall fair boards obtain the necessary liability insurance to protect themselves and the general public. On behalf of rural Ontario, I appeal to this Liberal government to take some immediate action to resolve this very serious problem.

SMALL CLAIMS COURT

Mr. Ramsay: I bring to the attention of the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) my dissatisfaction with his tardiness in dealing with the inequities of how much money one is able to go after in the small claims court system.

I refer him -- and I wish I had my glasses here for effect -- to the question I asked on December 9, when he said it was very high on his list of things to do. I ask him now, seven months later, whether he will look into this. I am now getting letters from small businessmen who feel it is patently unfair that people outside Metro cannot avail themselves of a $3,000 limit, as they do in Metro, and that businessmen, chambers of commerce, etc. -- for whom I am the spokesman right now, by the way -- are saying they feel that maybe they can go after it through the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is something that should be addressed.

An hon. member: The clock is still ticking.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Two more seconds.

Mr. Ramsay: Instead of a $3-million system, why do we not go back to the good old days and have a circuit judge routine so that one would know in some of these rural areas that every two or three months one could put in a bigger claim and we would not have to have all the facilities? We have the facilities there. Let us not go for the big answer. We could be looking at some simpler systems.

POLISH CENTENNIAL

Mr. D. R. Cooke: One hundred years ago the concerns of the member for Wellington-Dufferin-Peel (Mr. J. M. Johnson) would not have been needed, because 100 years ago we did not need insurance companies. We were much more attuned to the needs of our fellow man.

This week Canada's oldest Polish society is celebrating its centennial. The St. Joseph's and St. John's Society began operating in Kitchener -- Berlin at that time -- in 1866, before insurance companies were common. It was known as the Mutual Assistance Society Under the Protection of St. Joseph and for 100 solid years that organization has brought help to the poor, to the needy, perhaps to the needy for the short-term, and to new immigrants of Polish extraction in the Berlin and Kitchener area. It would be appropriate on behalf of all members of the House today to say, "Pozdrawiam i gratuluje."

RAPID TRANSIT

Mr. Gregory: On June 5, I put forward resolution 38 in support of the proposed rapid transit line along Eglinton Avenue. This line, which would service residents in and around the city of Toronto, was given unanimous support by members of this Legislature.

The proposed Eglinton rapid transit line also has the support of the cities of Etobicoke, York, Brampton and Mississauga as well as Peel region, the Harwood Ratepayers' Association, the York Federation of Ratepayers and the Board of Trade of Metropolitan Toronto. As stated in my resolution, this rapid transit line is critical to the future wellbeing of so many individuals, businesses and industries both inside the city of Toronto and in neighbouring cities, regions and municipalities.

The Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Fulton) is on record as having said the province would give priority to future transportation plans that deal with regions rather than individual municipalities.

Metro council, however, has indicated its support lies with a Sheppard line, which would, in fact, service only the city of Toronto.

Tomorrow, members of Metro council will meet to vote on which of the three proposed lines should be given the green light.

Because the Eglinton line is the only one to meet the directive of the minister and because the minister controls up to 75 per cent of the funds required to implement the chosen route, I urge him to use his good offices to ensure that tomorrow's council vote is one that will, as he has so aptly put it, "promote balanced development" in and around Metro Toronto.

The only line that will do that is the Eglinton line.

VISITOR

Mr. Speaker: I have just been informed that we have Mr. John Parry, member of Parliament for Kenora-Rainy River, in the members' gallery. Please join me in welcoming him.

2:12 p.m.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

EXTRA BILLING

Hon. Mr. Scott: Last Friday, after many days of debate, Bill 94 was passed by the members of this House and later that day proclaimed into law. It is now the law of this province and it is the government's intention to enforce the law just as it enforces all other provincial statutes.

I am very much aware, however, that many of our doctors strongly disagree with Bill 94. Dr. Railton, president of the Ontario Medical Association, has publicly indicated that the OMA desires the question of the constitutionality of the legislation be argued before the courts as soon as possible.

The government is mindful of the very strong view of the OMA that the legislation is unconstitutional. This government disagrees with that position. We believe the Constitution Act and Charter of Rights permit this government to determine the manner in which our citizens should pay for the publicly funded health care system of the province. Notwithstanding that view, we are prepared to do what we can to ensure that the OMA's case is heard as quickly as possible by the appropriate court.

There are two possible ways to achieve this. The first is for the OMA itself to apply to the court for a declaration that Bill 94 is unconstitutional. The OMA has previously indicated that it will follow this course of action. The second method, and one we are prepared to consider, is for the government to refer the bill to the Court of Appeal for a decision as to its constitutionality pursuant to section 19 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The OMA, through its legal counsel, will undoubtedly want to review at length the various aspects of both routes before deciding which method it prefers. The choice of the best method is a complex one. For example, the Court of Appeal is usually more restrictive in reference cases about the range of evidence it will hear. In those circumstances, the OMA may, on reflection, decide that the application route, the first route, is preferable because it allows more scope to lead evidence of the impact which Bill 94, it is alleged, will have upon both individual members of the profession and the profession as a whole.

My officials and I, however, are prepared to meet with the OMA at its convenience to discuss the methods by which the constitutionality of Bill 94 can be tested. The OMA believes that this bill raises a serious constitutional issue. We believe that the OMA is entitled to an early resolution of that question, and as Attorney General I will do everything in my power to expedite the court challenge in a manner which is consistent with this government's desire, and the apparent wish of the OMA, to have a quick, full and complete hearing.

Mr. Pope: I would like to reply to the statement of the Attorney General with respect to Bill 94.

I note with regret that neither the Premier (Mr. Peterson) nor the Minister of Health (Mr. Elston) has reported today to this Legislature or to the people of this province on the state of affairs in our hospitals and in the giving of health care to the people of this province. At a time when the health of thousands of Ontario residents is at stake, there is no statement from this government on the situation as it exists.

The truth of the matter is, in spite of the assurances from the government and the third party, the strike is not over with the passage of Bill 94, the issue has not been resolved at all, as the Attorney General admits through his statement today.

What we got from the Attorney General today was not a method of resolving the dispute between the doctors and the government, but more legal flim-flammery, a remote analysis of legal options and processes some time down the line. We have today an offer to meet with the Ontario Medical Association representatives from the same government that refused to meet with it over the past four weeks, that refused to pick up the phone and that refused to appoint a mediator. Now it has the gall, after the passage of legislation, to offer to have a meeting to analyse with the OMA its legal options. In the meantime, the Attorney General is going to enforce fully the provisions of Bill 94.

The option of putting this bill in a constitutional reference was available to this government from the time of first reading. It could have exercised that option in December and had the constitutionality of this legislation resolved before third reading of the bill. It chose not to do so. It chose to continue its confrontation with the doctors. Again, the health of thousands of people in this province is at risk because of the government's strategy and attitude of confrontation towards the doctors of this province.

Do we have greater accessibility in this province today, reminding ourselves that the OMA offered last fall to guarantee accessibility to seniors and those who are financially disadvantaged and for emergency room services? Do we have more accessibility today as a result of Bill 94? Not one whit. Thousands of people are not having operations performed and are not having medical treatments undertaken because of a withdrawal of services for which this government has to bear responsibility. Thousands of Ontario residents are suffering in fear today because of this government's attitude and the way it has handled this matter.

Mr. Rae: I want to comment briefly on today's statement by the Attorney General with respect to the reference to the court. I do not think any of us can possibly object to doing what needs to be done to see that the Ontario Medical Association's legal objections are brought to the attention of the Court of Appeal as soon as possible. At the same time, it is fair to say the overall legal situation is one that is in desperate need of clarification.

I know the Attorney General is familiar with letters that are sent out by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, since they are normally drafted by legal counsel to the college and the Attorney General was legal counsel to the college at one time. He will be aware of the letter sent out by the college to its members as recently as last Thursday, which said:

"We understand that our society accepts, as a legitimate form of protest, the right of groups to withdraw their services with resultant public inconvenience in order to promote certain changes or results considered beneficial to the group interest. The issue now before you and your council is to ensure that such protests are made without endangering patient life or health."

I am interested, as I know the Attorney General will be, in this statement of law by the college of physicians and surgeons. It is also interesting that it apparently applies to doctors but not to people who cook the meals or who clean the floors in hospitals. It does not apply to people who work in nursing homes or to nurses who work in our public hospitals. It apparently does not apply to anybody else except the doctors, according to the college of physicians and surgeons.

I also find it interesting with respect to the legal situation that in no communication of the college of physicians and surgeons does it mention those specific sections of the Health Disciplines Act and the Public Hospitals Act that it has an obligation to enforce. In their letter to the members of the college, they manage to touch upon many subjects, but they do not manage to relate directly to the members of the college precisely what aspects of the law they are expected to maintain.

Just as we are in favour of seeing that the college -- that the Ontario Medical Association -- excuse me, I almost said the college of physicians and surgeons, and we certainly want to keep that distinction between the OMA and the college very clear in all our minds since from day to day it becomes more and more difficult to tell.

We are least entitled to say that just as it is the job of the government to make sure a constitutional reference is referred as quickly as possible to the Court of Appeal, so is it the duty of the government of Ontario to clarify for the benefit of the people of the province precisely what the legal situation is, what rights the patients have, what rights physicians have, what rights the public has and just how the government of Ontario intends to enforce and ensure the rights, which rights now are distinctly up in the air, of all the partners in the health care system.

TRESPASSING

Hon. Mr. Scott: I have a second statement in which I want to advise the House of another of this government's initiatives in the field of race relations.

For a number of years, concerned individuals and groups have suggested that unduly restrictive and occasionally discriminatory enforcement of the Trespass to Property Act is occurring in relation to youth, and particularly minority youth.

As members will recognize, this is a sensitive and important issue. It is not easy to establish a fair balance between the rights of property owners to control the use of private property and the right of others to fair treatment in the use of property to which the public customarily has access.

This is not a problem which can be solved from within the confines of Queen's Park. Rather, it is one which must be reviewed and assessed in the light of a detailed investigation of the concerns of youth, particularly minority youth, owners and managers of private property and representatives of those who enforce the present law.

Accordingly, I have appointed a short-term study of this problem. Mr. Raj Anand, a highly respected Toronto lawyer with experience in this field, has agreed to review the matter in detail and to report his findings and recommendations to me by March 1, 1987. Mr. Anand is in the member's gallery, and I would ask the House to acknowledge his presence and to wish him well.

This government intends to listen to the concerns of minorities and to the recommendations of Mr. Anand. Where we can act quickly, we will. For example, on race relations and publicly assisted housing, where we inherited the previous administration's completed review, we took appropriate decisions within months of assuming office. There are other examples of that kind of activity.

I am confident that Mr. Anand's inquiry will provide an informed basis for creative and responsive law reform in this important area.

TOURISM

Hon. Mr. Eakins: It appears that this year Ontario will be more popular as a summer tourist destination than in the past, particularly for visitors from the United States.

I am sure Americans recognize the marvellous opportunities for vacationing in Ontario. They know because our government's marketing and advertising initiatives have been aggressive this year, but we are all aware that our increased popularity is also partly a result of international tensions.

This is no time to become complacent. We must redouble our efforts to make Ontario a truly incredible and unforgettable place to visit, so that tourists will come not only this year but also next year and the year after.

Advertising by word of mouth is what we are after and the best way to achieve that is for all of us in Ontario to be pleasant, helpful and friendly to all our visitors.

As the throne speech and the budget indicated, the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation will be mounting a tourism hospitality and awareness campaign. It will be developed this year to be put in place just before the peak tourist season next year. The overall objective of the campaign will be to improve the quality of service to visitors to Ontario. This includes everything from receiving fair exchange on the currency to friendly, courteous service.

We will train managers and owners in the tourism industry to train their staffs. We will provide leadership guides and employee hospitality kits for participants and will aim to increase everyone's awareness of the importance of tourism to our economy.

Our training program and awareness campaign will cost approximately $1.5 million to develop this year. We will be working closely with our client groups over the next several months to structure this initiative to meet their needs.

I have advocated this type of initiative over the past 10 years in this Legislature, so I am especially pleased to see our government take this very important step. I am convinced of the demand for this type of program and I am confident it will turn many one-time tourists into repeat visitors for years to come.

Mr. Rowe: We welcome the tourism hospitality and awareness program of the Minister of Tourism and Recreation. It is interesting that the minister has been in office for one year, that it will take one year to develop the program and that it will not be in effect until next year. It will be three years after he took office before we see this much-touted program. I hope our American visitors can wait.

It is true the tourist trade is great this year, but the government got lucky. Overseas terrorism and a 38 per cent to 39 per cent exchange rate on the American dollar have helped a great deal. The minister cannot take all the credit, or even a great deal of it, for the tourism season we have. I might remind the minister we had numerous marketing programs and commercials that won international awards, and we used real scenes.

Mr. Hayes: I want to compliment the Minister of Tourism and Recreation for his efforts in trying to encourage and increase tourism from our American friends. However, if the government truly wanted to improve on that industry, perhaps the minister should talk to some of the other ministers. Let us do something serious about lowering the price of gasoline in this province, and there will be lots of tourism in Ontario.

AIR-INDIA DISASTER

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I rise today to commemorate and honour the memory of the victims of one of the worst air disasters of our time, the crash of Air-India flight 182.

This senseless tragedy stunned the world. Two hundred Ontario citizens, Canadian nationals of Indian descent, were killed. Eighty-four families in this province were touched directly. All of us shared their grief.

In that context, I would like to call to the House's attention the presence in the gallery of the consul general of India, Surinder Malik, and several members of the community. We all welcome him warmly.

On the first anniversary of the Air-India tragedy, I would like to reaffirm the government of Ontario's support of the families of the victims.

I am gratified that through co-operation with the office of the federal Secretary of State and with the help of the East Indian community, Ontario has been able to help ease the traumatic after-effect.

At this time, I would like to thank those counsellors and volunteers who assisted victims' loved ones and provided them with legal advice and financial and family counselling.

There are still many ways in which we can help. The Ministry of Citizenship and Culture is still working to help families meet their long-term needs. With the Canadian Mental Health Association, the ministry has established an advisory committee that meets every three months with representatives of a committee established by the families themselves. This is a transitional support system which will lead to the development of a self-help group and will also make available individual counselling on a long-term basis.

Today, many loved ones of the victims are in Cork, Ireland, for the first anniversary memorial service. Ontario will be represented by Thomas Wells, Agent General of Ontario House, London, England.

As they commemorate the disaster and pay respects to the victims, I know I can say with assurance that the thoughts of all of us are with them.

Mr. Harris: On the anniversary of this very sad and tragic day, and with special guests in the gallery, I suggest it would be appropriate for the leaders of the two opposition parties to respond at this time.

Mr. Speaker: Agreed? The Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Grossman: We in this party want to join in the sentiments expressed by the Premier (Mr. Peterson) to our fine consul general, who is with us today. On these occasions, we can hardly muster words which can adequately express to the families, friends and relatives of those who were selected by fate, and by unknown terrorists, to be the innocent martyrs in a very tragic circumstance.

One shudders when one thinks of the shattered lives of families, and plans which were shattered a year ago on flight 182. I suppose all of us in public life are jolted now as we were a year ago. One hopes that the very least we can do in these circumstances is to be jolted into a rededication of ourselves to do everything we possibly can to fight terrorism, certainly to take all steps to fight the tyranny and the circumstances which give solace and support to those who find the slightest crack in the determination of people in every nation to fight this sort of terrorism.

When we are jolted back like this, it seems to me we must all, as legislators, look back to the underlying reasons and the circumstances which give rise to this, and in this country in particular, a country with a reputation surpassed by none for understanding, tolerance, looking after one another, keeping this kind of tragedy out of the bounds of our country and fighting it in whichever country or land it is found. In this country and in this province in particular, we must not wait for the anniversary of the death of 329 innocent men, women and children to continue that fight to make sure that neither our land nor any land becomes the scenery, the backdrop or the home for this kind of tragedy and terrorism.

We, in this party, join all other parties and all Ontarians in expressing their sadness, grief, shock, outrage and their rededication to what makes this land a land where that sort of thing is not acceptable, permitted or condoned, or a place where it ever occurs.

Mr. Rae: Twelve years ago I was flying from Belfast to London. After the flight had been in the air for no more than 15 minutes, we were told to be ready immediately for an emergency landing. We went down very quickly, out the emergency chute, ran from the plane and spent all day being interviewed by the police. As it turned out, there was a bomb on the plane. The pilot had been phoned by an anonymous caller who said the plane was going to blow up.

We discovered that the device, as it was euphemistically called, had failed to go off. The intended victim was a Roman Catholic, who was the head of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. Since that time, the meaning of terrorism has been a very personal thing for me.

There is no cause, there is no political or moral end, there is no justification for an act of terrorism. There can never be and never will be any. Those who, in a strange perversion of political ideology, think there is are, frankly, enemies of all mankind.

The tragedy that took the lives of so many of our citizens of Indian origin is one that brought home to Canadians in a very unique way the fact that none of us is safe. We live in the illusion that somehow there are harbours or places that are separate. We live in the illusion that somehow our own society is unique, that we are different from others and that we will never be subjected to these kinds of attacks. We have had to learn, in the hardest possible way, that is not the case.

All of our hearts go out to the Indian community. On behalf of all of us in this Legislature and I know on behalf of all the citizens of this province, we continue to mourn with Mr. Malik. We know that many lives will never be the same. Perhaps time makes the loss more bearable but, as all of us know from our own experience, time does not heal all wounds.

Let us in this brief moment affirm once again the simple truth that life must go on but it goes on vigilant in the understanding that each of us, regardless of our political persuasion, racial background, where we come from, what we believe, who we are, has a stake in the fight against terrorism. Terrorism takes away lives that are truly innocent.

STUDENT VENTURE CAPITAL PROGRAM

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I have a brief oral statement recognizing 14 very bright, very dynamic young people in our gallery. I have just had the honour of presenting to these 14 young people the minister's Award for Outstanding Achievement for young people who have started up businesses with student venture capital loans through the startup program under the Ministry of Skills Development.

These young people have shown real creativeness and dynamism in putting together business proposals, and with the assistance of the Ontario Chamber of Commerce and the Royal Bank of Canada, they have started up businesses that have been successful in their own communities.

With the indulgence of the House, I will mention the names of the young people, their localities and the businesses they have started:

Kevin Fox from London, who started up Tan 8 Video Productions; Anne Triebner from Exeter, who started up the Cotton Collection; Wayne Floreani from Sudbury, who started up Green Thumb Services; John O'Rourke from South River, who started up Almaguin Windsurfing; Paul Cudahy from Gloucester, who started up Sky High Roofing; Lori McNulty, Dawn Gorrie and Christine Martin from the Ottawa area, who started up Advantage Advertising; Taras Hucal and Mark Piazza, both from Toronto -- Mr. Speaker, you will enjoy this one -- who started up the Kissing Bandit; Arnold Villeneuve Jr. from Toronto, who started up Direct Access Mailing; Alayne Reid from Markham, who started up Summer Adventures Day Camp; and, finally, Kelly Rand and Ian Porter from Emsdale, who started up East Gate Cheese Shop.

These truly are 14 very dynamic individuals. They won awards among more than 1,100 young people who started businesses under the student venture capital program, and they are to be congratulated today.

Mr. Jackson: I am pleased to join with the Minister of Skills Development in applauding and complimenting the 14 students who have demonstrated successfully their entrepreneurial skills and business initiatives under the student venture capital program. Incidentally, that program was started by the then member for Scarborough East, Margaret Birch, as Provincial Secretary for Social Development.

The program grew to be much in demand. In fact, it was Ontario's first skills development minister, the member for Brantford (Mr. Gillies), who is currently in the Legislature, who increased the grants from $1,000 to $2,000. We compliment the minister for his vision in retaining this program. He has even gone so far as to retain the sponsors. He has the same confidence in the Royal Bank and the Ontario Chamber of Commerce as the previous government had. We are pleased the Liberal government has become a recent convert to the entrepreneurial spirit for which Ontario is famous.

Mr. Warner: I wish to join the Minister of Skills Development in congratulating the 14 recipients, who are seated in the gallery, and recognizing their talents, skills and imagination. I understand these young people have employed, in and of themselves, other young people in their various businesses, again demonstrating it is small business that has created much of the new employment in this province and will continue to do so.

Finally, in noting their imagination, drive, desire and energy, I am sure at some time we may interest them in turning all those talents to some very useful public enterprise as well.

TABLING OF INFORMATION

Mr. Harris: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I rise under standing order 88d, which states, "The minister shall answer such written questions within 14 days unless he indicates that he requires more time."

We have brought this standing order to your attention on several occasions. Usually when we raise this matter it is because the minister has not met his or her deadline for responding, in several cases by several months.

In Thursday's Hansard, we received a large volume of responses to some very old questions in Orders and Notices. It is good to see this government trying to clean up some of its backlog. However, it was with some surprise that we noted the signature of the member of Oriole (Ms. Caplan) on many of these responses. There is a serious point to be made. The member for Oriole stepped down from cabinet on Monday, and yet questions with her signature were tabled in Orders and Notices on Thursday.

Obviously, one of two things has happened. Either these answers have been ready for a week at least but have been held back for some reason, which would show an arrogant contempt for this Legislature, or we have more serious administrative problems with the tabling of documents, such as the warrants of several weeks ago and the request of the member for Brantford (Mr. Gillies) of the Premier (Mr. Peterson) in regard to Exploracom.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I assure the honourable member that the fact the former Chairman of Management Board's signature appeared was nothing other than an oversight. The answers were prepared. As House leader, I follow it quite closely, although it is not directly my responsibility, and urge that the answers be tabled so we do not have a succession of points of order. There is a competent and fairly large staff working out these answers. We are not collecting them to keep any information away from the House. The answers are tabled, without exception, as soon as they are available to me.

2:45 p.m.

ORAL QUESTIONS

EXTRA BILLING

Mr. Grossman: My question is for the Premier, who confidently predicted the passage of Bill 94 would somehow end the strife in the health care system. We have learned this morning that three hospitals, York-Finch General Hospital, Humber Memorial Hospital and Northwestern General Hospital, are going to close shortly, thus indicating not a reduction but an escalation in the action taken by the doctors to protest the Premier's action on Bill 94. Will the Premier tell us today how he proposes to protect the care and safety of the people of Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I am not sure I agree with my honourable friend that I have confidently predicted anything in this whole discussion. He will be aware of the discussions we have had. I am not aware of the information the member brings to the House at the moment. He may know something I am not aware of. I will look into the matter at the first available opportunity.

Mr. Grossman: The Ontario Medical Association released information a couple of hours ago that three major hospitals in Metropolitan Toronto were going to close and stop admitting patients today or tomorrow. Having created this chaos in the system, is the Premier coming to this House some three hours after the information was made public and telling us he is not aware of these dangerous circumstances that are about to occur in Metropolitan Toronto?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: If the member had asked me, I could have given him an up-to-date list of everything that was happening as of 1:30 p.m. today, to the best of my knowledge. As the member knows, the Ministry of Health has been monitoring the situation carefully, with emergency plans in place. If he is interested in knowing what I know at this moment, I will be very happy to share the information.

Mr. Grossman: It is quite evident, and Hansard and electronic Hansard will show, that three hours after information became public that three major hospitals in Metropolitan Toronto were about to close, the Premier of this province, charged with ensuring the safety and care of the people of the province, did not have that information and was not prepared to respond to it. The Premier has in front of him his up-to-date list of what is happening. There is obviously a lot more happening that he does not have on his list and is not aware of. What steps is he going to take now to ensure the health and safety of the people of Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Before the partial closings of emergency departments started a week or so ago, emergency plans were in place for every one of those institutions. We have followed them and tracked them on a daily basis in this House. The information is shared here. It has been shared by the newspapers as well. The ministry is on top of that on an hourly basis. This government, the Minister of Health (Mr. Elston) and I have not indulged in speculation about what might or might not happen, but there has been a plan in place.

I can assure the member that the ministry will be very much on top of this situation. If there is something I am personally not aware of, then I apologize to my friend. I do not pretend to know all the information from hour to hour, but I am confident the ministry is aware of it. A number of discussions are going on currently at a number of levels. We hope to find a resolution to this matter in the very near future.

Mr. Grossman: It is not sufficient to apologize for not knowing what is going on in the system. The chaos was created by the events of last week. The minister is here daily telling us that it is only an inconvenience and we should not worry and that everything will be sorted out, but this afternoon the government is not aware of the closure of hospitals and has no idea how to respond.

Given that Bill 94 has passed and given that at this too late date he is trying to hold out an apparent olive branch and is talking through the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) of co-operating in a court challenge, is the Premier prepared today to announce, together with that court challenge, the appointment of a mediator and the installation of a moratorium period to get the doctors back to work while the court challenge is on?

2:50 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: There are a number of things. In response to my honourable friend's question, I was not aware of the suggestions he made in the House because that is not what has transpired. No hospitals have closed, and I do not think the member wants to create that impression inadvertently in this House or anywhere else. As I understand it, the hospitals are admitting no new elective patients, but what the member has tried to characterize as the hospitals closing is just not the case and he should know that.

Second, the member has asked me to appoint a mediator. I have had discussions with Dr. Railton this morning, as I did on Friday last. I hope to meet with him in the very near future to discuss the situation. A number of issues have been raised in this discussion: questions of liberty, questions of doctor-patient relationships and other things that, frankly, we did not feel were in Bill 94. Bill 94 dealt with one issue, and one issue alone, which was extra billing.

Given that the medical profession has raised a number of concerns, however, I can assure the member, as I assured the doctors, I am prepared to sit down and subject these matters to independent review, to the consultation process, and to work with them as very best we can in the circumstances to satisfy some of the concerns they have raised that are not in the bill but that they think may or may not happen some time in the future.

The third question the member asked me is about when the bill will become law. It became law on Friday, as he knows. It received royal assent and was proclaimed on that day. It would be unfair, and indeed inhuman, to deceive people in any way as to the intentions of the will of this House.

Mr. Grossman: To clarify the record, I indicated it had been announced that the hospitals will close and will stop admitting patients, not that they already had.

I should also clarify that we did not suggest the bill had not become law. To bring this back to reality, I want to ask the Premier this: Given his attempt to be reasonable and moderate, does he not now agree it would be advisable, to stop the escalation of activity, for him to indicate when he next speaks to Dr. Railton that he is prepared to have a moratorium on enforcement of Bill 94, pending the court action, if the doctors will return to work?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I am not sure what my honourable friend finds so offensive about being reasonable and moderate. I do not think it is a bad posture in these circumstances. Perhaps he could look at that approach himself.

We intend to be fair but flexible in the implementation of this. As of Friday, it is illegal to extra bill in this province, and any patient who is extra billed will be reimbursed. It might take some time to work out the bookkeeping systems of the various doctors who extra bill at present. Believe me, we will work with the doctors to implement it in their own ways, given their own bookkeeping systems. We have no problem being fair-minded at all turns.

Mr. Grossman: I will tell the Premier what I find offensive about his suggestion that he be reasonable and moderate. I find it offensive to hear the Premier talk about that, because it is like a drunk driver who has killed someone in an automobile accident calling up the family of the victim and saying: "I would like to come over and chat with you to assure you I will not drink and drive again. I will not run over or kill your other children. I promise to be good from now on." It is the Premier's unreasonable and immoderate activities that have caused this situation.

Mr. Rae: Making that analogy is the sign of a truly sick man.

Mr. Grossman: When the member finally got around to criticizing him, his leader said it was just rhetoric. "Just rhetoric," he said. Terrific.

My final supplementary is this: Given that we now have all sorts of problems in the health care system, does the Premier not agree that the appointment of a mediator to try to bring a new presence to the table, given the enormous ill will that has been created between the government and the OMA, would be an appropriate response to try to get the doctors back to work?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: With respect to my honourable friend's preamble, it is fair to say we all have our own standards of what is offensive. I would say his analogy would be judged offensive by most people observing what he has said today.

With respect to his second point, I will be very happy to answer it. We suggested last Friday, and some time before, that we should look at some of these questions with respect to health care delivery in conjunction with someone having the independent credentials of, say, a Dr. John Evans. For example, we have specifically put that forward as one idea in conjunction with the OMA. Drafting the terms of reference and participating in those discussions can assist in addressing the very questions the member raises here.

These are not new questions. They are old questions and they have been around for a long time. I am sure the member opposite will know that this government is prepared on all occasions to face up to its responsibilities and to try to deal with these things and not sweep them under the rug. If those are concerns of the medical profession, I assure the member we are prepared to sit down and deal with them in an honourable way.

Mr. Rae: I have a question for the Premier. Given the announcement that three hospitals were informed this morning by the doctors that they would be withdrawing from emergency services indefinitely and that no more elective patients would be admitted, is it his view that the doctors who so informed the staffs of the three hospitals in question, Humber Memorial Hospital, Northwestern General Hospital and York-Finch General Hospital, in so advising those hospitals acted in conformity with the law of Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I am not in a position to give my honourable friend a legal opinion on that matter. I do not know. The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario will be looking at this situation. Pending better advice than I have at the moment, I am not in a position to say whether that is legal or illegal. Obviously, it is my fondest hope that we can stop this kind of response by the medical profession, as the member knows. I repeat that the hospitals are not closed; they are just not admitting elective patients, as they have not been since the withdrawal of services. There is a very serious difference in terminology.

Mr. Rae: Earlier today, in my comments about the Attorney General's statement, I said the public does not know what the law of Ontario is because the Premier does not know and the Attorney General has not stated it. The college has said today, "Similarly, we understand that our society accepts, as a legitimate form of protest, the right of groups to withdraw their services with resultant public inconvenience in order to promote certain changes or results considered beneficial to the group interest."

Is that the government's view with respect to the actions being taken by the doctors? If it is good enough for the doctors, why is it not good enough for the nurses and the dietary aides? Why is it not good enough for all the other people who work in what the government has until now deemed to be an essential service, the public hospitals in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: My understanding is that the college has said that to close down a hospital would be deemed to be professional misconduct. The college is the adjudicator of that matter at present. In his question to me, the member raised questions about the broader public policy implications of this situation. He talked about the difference of treatment of staff as opposed to the medical profession.

Those are perhaps legitimate questions to be raised at some point in the future, but I do not think it is constructive at this moment to start a public discussion of those matters when we have the situation that we have. As this thing unravels, I am sure we will discuss all the issues that have been raised during this discussion.

3 p.m.

Mr. Rae: The patients of the province, as well as the doctors and all the other partners and parties in the system, are entitled to know just what rules we are playing by now, what is acceptable and what is not acceptable, what is is lawful and what is not lawful. In that regard, in an earlier statement the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario said, "It is unacceptable to have a serious disruption of emergency capabilities in referral or tertiary care institutions." The Premier will know that is code language for teaching hospitals that are providing what is deemed, even by the college, a more essential service than that which is being provided by Humber, Northwestern or any other regionally based hospital.

Can the Premier explain why the college has so far said nothing about the closure from time to time of Mount Sinai Hospital and of the Wellesley Hospital, both of which qualify under this category? If he cannot tell us, does he not recognize that the system of telling the patients, the public and the profession what the law is has now broken down and that something needs to be done to re-establish it clearly for everybody?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: As a highly trained lawyer, my honourable friend will understand it is one thing to have a statement of the law, as he has read to us, and another to apply that and interpret it vis-à-vis the facts of a situation. I am sure he would not want to prejudge this very sensitive situation.

The college has had a great deal of pressure on it from both sides. The member is very aware of that as well. The college has made a clear statement of its principles. Now the question is the application of that law to the specific situation. One of the problems in this whole discussion is that sometimes there is an oversimplification of the terms used. People use a word such as "closed" when it is not in fact closed. That is why it behooves us all to look at the facts of the situation very carefully before we generalize or constitute ourselves as a court of inquiry in this matter.

EQUAL PAY FOR WORK OF EQUAL VALUE

Ms. Gigantes: My question is to the minister responsible for women's issues. He will be aware that there was a press conference held this morning by the Equal Pay Coalition, the Young Women's Christian Association of Metropolitan Toronto, the Canadian Union of Public Employees, the Ontario Public Service Employees Union, the Business and Professional Women's Clubs of Ontario, the Coalition of Visible Minority Women and the Ontario Federation of Labour to ask this government to table legislation governing equal pay for work of equal value in the private sector.

Is the minister now prepared to do that?

Hon. Mr. Scott: The timetable I provided a couple of weeks ago remains the one that the government intends to utilize.

Ms. Gigantes: Is the minister aware that even the union which stands to benefit from the very limited coverage that will be provided by Bill 105 for what is called the public sector is now saying it does not wish to be isolated from the rest of working women in Ontario? How does he respond to the union's request that legislation be tabled now and that it does not want to be used by the Liberals as a false symbol of equal pay in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Scott: As the Minister of Labour (Mr. Wrye) has said, Bill 105 will in due course be debated at second reading, I think shortly, and the views of unions and other persons who may be expected to come within that bill can be canvassed by the House or the committee to which the bill is referred.

The timetable for the private sector bill remains as I stated it. We will introduce a bill in the next session, following the completion of the studies that are being done at present.

Ms. Gigantes: The minister knows the studies he has created for the summer period are not necessary to the announcement of the legislation or to the announcement of the principles of the legislation for equal pay coverage.

Will the minister tell us how he expects the government to have credibility on this issue? The longer we go on, the more we know women's rights are being comprised.

Hon. Mr. Scott: In the end, I believe the credibility of the government on this or any other issue will be judged by the result of the bill it produces. We want to produce the best possible bill in the circumstances of the case. I cannot say, and would not dare say, the studies that are proceeding this summer will not change anybody's mind. The purpose of having studies is to form as thorough a view as we can about a subject before a decision is taken. One does not have studies after conclusions, in order to fortify one's own views about what is right.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

EXTRA BILLING

Mr. Grossman: My question is for the Premier. With an invitation to deal directly with the real problems faced by patients whose surgery has been cancelled, whose beds will not be available for them at York-Finch General Hospital, Humber Memorial Hospital and Northwestern General Hospital, today, tomorrow and the next few days, I wonder what advice the Premier now has to offer those people whose surgery is cancelled. Is his advice that it is only an inconvenience and they should not worry? Is his advice to call the Ministry of Health, which in turn will tell them to call their doctor or go to emergency? What precisely should the patients in this province do, given this horrendous circumstance which he has created?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: My advice to the patients in those circumstances would be to speak to their physicians and say to them: "I understand you have a difference of opinion with the government, but I hope you would not take it out on me, personally. I hope you would assist me as my doctor because I trust you and your medical judgement." I hope patients would be able to persuade doctors that they could deal with them in a professional way. They can come back and work out the other outstanding differences they have with the government, but they should not to carry those resentments or difficulties into their professional relationships with their patients. That is the advice I would give the patients.

Mr. Grossman: The Premier and his colleagues have, one way or another, so agitated and irritated the medical profession over the past few months that, whether he likes it or whether I like it, those calls to their doctors are not resolving the problem. The surgery is being cancelled. The hospitals, to use the Premier's words, will not schedule any more surgery. Because of the situation he has created, the arrogance and the irritation he has shown towards the doctors, those calls are not getting the patients looked after.

Given that the solution he recommends clearly will not work and has not worked for 12 days, is the Premier now prepared to help these struggling patients get their surgery by saying to the OMA: "Let us cool it off. Let us have a mediator. Let us postpone the implementation of the bill, and let us get the surgery done to get rid of the disorder"? It is more than an inconvenience. It is a dangerous situation.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: This is the same question the honourable member has asked me three or four times today. I will give him the same answer. We are very happy to sit down with the profession. As I told the member, I talked to Dr. Railton today. We hope to get together very quickly, and it is my hope and ambition that we could put in place a mechanism to start addressing some of the problems the medical profession has raised.

If my honourable friend is recommending legislation of some type or other, then he should stand and say so. He cannot have it both ways in this whole discussion. The minister has been very steady on course in this matter. We have been open and conciliatory and we are advancing exactly the way we said we would.

ACCESS TO ABORTION COMMITTEES

Mr. Rae: I have a question for the Attorney General. It concerns the subject of abortion. The Attorney General will know that a number of hospitals have shut down their therapeutic abortion committees. There are widespread press reports that we can only assume are reliable, as well as reports from the two clinics that are performing abortions, that a number of referrals are coming from these committees and doctors to those private clinics. Since the Attorney General has already told the press that what these doctors tell their patients to do is none of his or anybody else's business, can the Attorney General tell us today what his intentions are with respect to the doctors who are now performing therapeutic abortions at the free-standing clinic?

3:10 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Scott: The answer to that requires a little preamble. The question of where and under what circumstance an abortion can be performed is a matter of federal law and the law provides that an abortion can be performed in Canada only in a hospital, after approval by a therapeutic abortion committee, according to the standards the law sets for that committee. An abortion performed anywhere else or under any other circumstances in Canada is unlawful. It is unlawful if it is performed in one's home, in an office or in a clinic.

Mr. Crosbie, the Minister of Justice, has indicated plainly on a number of occasions that he and the government alone are responsible for the federal Criminal Code and that they do not propose to change the law at the present time that makes abortions performed at home, in an office or in a clinic unlawful.

The solution to women's problems, which are very real, will not be served by having therapeutic abortions done contrary to law in the province.

Mr. Rae: The Attorney General will know the defence that has been used successfully three times in Quebec and that was used to the satisfaction of the jury in Ontario, the only time it has been charged, was the defence of necessity.

Would the Attorney General not agree that defence can only be strengthened by two things: first, a number of therapeutic abortion clinics are now closed and referrals are now being made by doctors who are practising medicine right across the province who are now referring patients to those clinics; second, it is strengthened by the refusal of this government to deal with the question of access, to deal with the problem of the number of therapeutic abortion committees that are disbanded and to deal with the reality that women simply cannot get service under the system as it now stands in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Scott: The member is correct if he refers to an acquittal by a jury. That is what happened. What the Court of Appeal said, unlike the ultimate situation in Quebec, was that there had not been a trial according to law and it directed a new trial. We have undertaken to proceed with that trial when the appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada is finished.

The solution for access for women to those places where an abortion can be completed in accordance with law is a medical question. Colleagues of the Minister of Health (Mr. Elston) have made representations to him about that issue. It is no solution to say that the problems of women are to be responded to by creating operations which can only occur outside the law.

I put my position this way: "We believe that access to abortions must be achieved within the context of law. We therefore cannot condone the establishment of illegal clinics." Those are not my words. Those are the words of the caucus party committee of the New Democratic Party on abortion, spoken by the late Jim Renwick, whose judgement I respect in this matter.

CHILDREN'S AID SOCIETY

Mr. Cordiano: I have a question of the Minister of Labour. Can the minister bring this House up to date regarding the status of striking workers in the Children's Aid Society of Metropolitan Toronto? I have had a number of phone calls. Can he bring us up to the point where he now perceives the current situation?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I thank the member for that question. The House will know that the Metro children's aid society strike began a week ago last Friday, after the employees of the children's aid society voted to turn down the last offer. The mediator has stayed in close contact with the parties since the walkout began. There are indications that the parties may get back together later this week, perhaps as early as Wednesday.

I want to advise the member, so he can tell his constituents, that Mr. Lapp is in close contact with both parties in the dispute and we hope to see some real progress in the next short while.

Mr. Cordiano: Does the minister see any possibility of an early settlement with regard to the strike?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I am advised the mediator, Mr. Lapp, has been in contact with both parties and earlier today indicated it may be fruitful to get back to the bargaining table in the next short while. Obviously, we hope that when mediation resumes we will move rapidly to a settlement and put this dispute behind us.

ACCESS TO ABORTION COMMITTEES

Mr. Andrewes: My question is to the Premier. It follows on the question of the member for York South (Mr. Rae).

We now know that five therapeutic abortion clinics are without medical advisers. There have been resignations from five hospital clinics. That is not a narrow-based problem. It is a problem right across Ontario: in Brampton, Burlington, Kitchener-Waterloo and Sarnia as well as in Metro Toronto.

Abortions are being cancelled, no new cases are being scrutinized, and women are being denied access to this important health care. What is he going to do about this problem of health care inaccessibility?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: We are trying to persuade the doctors to return to their normal responsibilities in this regard. We know the press reports, but we understand that things are carrying on in hospitals.

Mr. Andrewes: The Premier and his government have spoken on many occasions about improved access for women to therapeutic abortions. Now he faces a situation where his policies have meant that access has been reduced. Access for some women has been eliminated.

I ask the Premier again, what is he going to do to provide this essential health care to the women of Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I am interested in my honourable colleague's new position on behalf of his party. It is interesting to know.

We are concerned now, as we were concerned a year ago, that everyone in this province have equal access to quality medicine everywhere in the province. That is why we brought in programs such as the northern health travel grant program and a lot of others: to make sure people do not suffer from being in one region or another.

This is one aspect of it, and I can tell the member that the ministry is looking at this matter very seriously. He will see some results with respect to equal access everywhere in this province.

HOUSING POLICY

Mr. Reville: I have a question for the Minister of Housing. Two bills on the Orders and Notices paper that are waiting to be called relate to housing. There is Bill 11, which purports to protect the rental housing stock, and there is Bill 51, which purports to protect renters.

Can the minister explain to the House why both Bill 11 and Bill 51 create two classes of tenants in this province: those who live in buildings of six units or more and those who live in buildings with fewer than six units?

Hon. Mr. Curling: As a matter of fact, the assured housing policy that was introduced tried to address all tenants in this province, and both bills tried to address concerns that some inequities were being experienced. The bill is not intended to differentiate among or separate different tenants. It is a matter of bringing equity to all tenants in the province.

Mr. Reville: The minister says he is creating equity for all tenants, but his executive assistant is quoted in today's Globe and Mail as saying, "At some point, you have to draw the line."

Why would the minister draw a line that leaves the tenants of 446,000 units on the wrong side of the line, a line that offers them no protection from eviction because of demolition and offers them inadequate protection from illegal rents?

Hon. Mr. Curling: If the honourable member wants to be completely fair about it, he is including even 12,7,000 single units. Is he saying that we should restrict people from converting single units? He speaks about approximately 400,000 units that are not being protected. Those buildings of six units or more are where the bulk of the activity of conversions, demolitions and evictions is concerned, and we are concentrating in that area.

3:20 p.m.

CHILDREN'S AID SOCIETY

Mr. Callahan: I would like to direct my question to the Minister of Community and Social Services. During the currency of this strike, how are the services through the Children's Aid Society of Metropolitan Toronto being performed?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: At present, 130 management workers from the society are meeting the needs of the children who have the most urgent needs.

TECHNOLOGY FUND

Mr. Gillies: I have a question of the Premier regarding his technology fund grant of $17.5 million to the Exploracom project.

I have here a financial planning summary from Exploracom, dated April 21 of this year, which indicates very clearly that $17.5 million would be forthcoming to the project from the government of Ontario. In view of the fact that this document predates the throne speech which announced the technology fund, predates the budget which announced the funding for the technology fund and accurately predicts to the last penny the amount of the grant, could the Premier tell me whether his friend Mr. Schwartz is a clairvoyant or did he have inside information that $17.5 million was coming his way?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: One of the things that is quite obvious to the member and everyone else is that Mr. Schwartz is a very bright fellow or else he would never have been able to bring a project such as this to fruition.

Mr. Speaker, you will recall that the application was originally made in 1984 and it went up through the bowels of the ministry. I am not sure whether the minister saw it. It was reviewed by this government. As a matter of fact, the committee of deputy ministers decided, I believe on March 27, that it should be in the throne speech and funded in the budget. It had all these checks along the way.

I cannot tell the member the specific date of that situation but I assume that was the amount in the original application.

Mr. Gillies: In fact, the original submission for this program, which came out some time ago, as the Premier indicated, was completely different. The funding amounts were all different. It even had a different name, the Canadian Computer Museum.

Therefore, I go back to the original question. Before the Premier announced that his government was going to institute a technology fund, before he announced the amount of funding he would be putting into that fund, five weeks before he announced the grant going to Mr. Schwartz's project, he confidently projects to the last penny a $17.5-million grant from the Ontario government.

This is the third week we have asked the Premier to table documentation in this House surrounding this application. Will he now clear up that there was no inside dealing and no inside information in the awarding of this grant? I say to the Premier that the appearance is very substantially to that effect.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: My honourable friend asks very legitimate questions, and my understanding is that the information will all be tabled tomorrow.

As the member has raised some of these questions about how these grants are made, we have looked into a number of other grants and we will share all the information with him of the approval process that has gone on in this government and in his government. I think it is something that should be looked at. I think he will want to call the committee of deputy ministers that made this decision on March 27 and then passed it on to the cabinet. I think my friend opposite will find some very interesting reading in the whole matter.

Mr. Pope: So the Premier admits there was an inside deal?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Once again, interjections are out of order.

Mr. Pope: About 2,000 patients are missing a little bit of leadership from the Premier right about now.

Mr. Speaker: To the member for Cochrane South (Mr. Pope), order.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD

Mr. McClellan: I have a question of the Minister of Labour concerning the behaviour of the Workers' Compensation Board at the leading case which is being heard by the Workers' Compensation Appeals Tribunal, the case of Mario Villanucci. Can the minister explain to the House why the WCB appears to have given false information to the tribunal with respect to to one of the doctors who examined Mr. Villanucci? The board said the doctor had been retired from the board when he was working full-time for the board, and then it said he was too sick to appear when he was working full-time, making claim and pension decisions.

Can the minister explain why the compensation board stonewalled for three days against Mr. Villanucci's request to call WCB doctors to testify as witnesses?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: The honourable member knows the reputation of the people at the board well enough to know that any problem -- and there may be a problem here -- was simply an oversight. It is not the intention of the board to stonewall in this very important case. The matter is an important one and the board acknowledges that. We acknowledge it. I am sure in raising these questions on this very important test of subsection 45(1), the member realizes this case is far too important to get into that kind of situation.

I am sure the board will co-operate as fully as possible with the Workers' Compensation Appeals Tribunal as this matter moves forward.

Mr. McClellan: I agree with the minister that this case is too important to allow it to be sabotaged by the board. Will the minister agree to meet with the chairman of the WCB and report back to this House the position of the board with respect to the appearance of doctors at the Villanucci hearing, and specifically whether the WCB will agree voluntarily to allow its doctors to testify at the Villanucci hearing without restriction or the threat of challenges in higher courts?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: As I understand from this morning's press, the threat of challenge came from the chairman of the tribunal. There have already been some discussions on this matter. I am sure the honourable member knows the appearance of doctors in this case would be quite unusual in terms of the historical precedent. However, I will be pleased to discuss this matter with Dr. Elgie in the hope that it can move ahead as quickly as possible.

Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Financial Institutions has a response to a question previously asked by the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart).

INSURANCE RATES

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: On June 4, the member for Welland-Thorold asked me a question regarding the go-kart insurance for the Seabrooks' Del-Mar drive-in and campground at Iron Bridge.

Members of my staff -- Grant Swanson of our insurance department and Al O'Donnell of our market assist team -- have been in contact with the Seabrooks, who operate the go-kart track in question, and have been working to help them find insurance. Mr. O'Donnell informs me that insurance is available for the Seabrooks through Doussault and Associates providing that the go-kart operation meets certain underwriting requirements. Mr. O'Donnell understands that with some modification, the Seabrooks' operation can meet those requirements. This insurance would not have any participant exclusion. The Seabrooks have been told this option is available to them.

Also, the Ontario Liability Insurers have provided the Seabrooks with a quotation for insurance which is limited in that it has a participant exclusion.

TECHNOLOGY FUND

Mr. Gillies: I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. To the extent that we have any knowledge of the technology fund from the throne speech, it says, "The council will direct moneys to business, universities and colleges by way of shared financing." Will the minister clarify the impression left in that statement that the grants made by the technology fund will be made on a matching dollar basis with other sources of financing?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: It is hoped the technology people, being part of the technology committee, will be meeting during the first part of July and some of those decisions will be made at that time.

Mr. Gillies: When the council finally meets and makes some of these decisions, will it be setting the criteria retroactively for the Exploracom grant, which was announced some weeks ago, clearly in the absence of any funding criteria, application procedure, council or anything else?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: As the Premier (Mr. Peterson) mentioned, that material will be tabled tomorrow and the information will be there for the member.

3:30 p.m.

INSURANCE RATES

Mr. Swart: I have a question to the Minister of Financial Institutions. I am sure he will be aware that this past week Herbert Phillips, the chief actuary of the Insurers' Advisory Organization, stated that liability insurance rates were up by 63 per cent in the first quarter of 1986 and said of auto insurance rates, "There is every likelihood of 30 to 40 per cent increases in Ontario this year." As the minister responsible for insurance and insurance rates in this province, will the minister tell this House whether these levels of increase are justified?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I thank the member for his question, but I should correct him; I am not responsible for the insurance rates in this province, with one exception, and that is the Facility Association.

The speculation in the press that the rates may go up is just speculation. We are looking into all aspects of insurance. We are waiting for public response to the Slater task force by July 31, and will be reacting to that.

Mr. Swart: Given that the minister has just refused to assure this House that these kinds of increase are justified and has refused even to consider a public system like those in the western provinces, where there have been no increases, will he not admit that sections 369 to 371 of the Insurance Act would give his ministry the power to control and limit premium increases? Why does he not get out of the insurance companies' pocket, say enough is enough, proclaim those sections and limit increases to the inflation rate in this second year of massive hikes?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I am going to repeat again for the member, and I have repeated it to him for some time, that we are looking at all aspects of the insurance business, but at this time we are not looking at getting into the insurance business.

PHARMACEUTICAL LEGISLATION

Mr. Leluk: In view of the absence of the Minister of Health (Mr. Elston), I would like to direct my question to the Premier. As currently drafted, Bills 54 and 55 threaten consumer rights because they encourage pharmacists, when filling prescriptions, to substitute interchangeable drugs without having to inform consumers. Does the Premier agree that consumers should be told in advance by a pharmacist whenever a prescribed drug is being substituted for with an interchangeable product and that consumers have the right to know and choose what they are getting? Will the Premier guarantee consumer rights in the final legislation?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: We have had a very full discussion in this House on the matter, and I gather the discussion will continue and the member will have a perfect opportunity to put forward all his very thoughtful views at that time.

Mr. Leluk: I want to remind the Premier --

Mr. Speaker: By way of supplementary, I hope.

Mr. Leluk: Yes, it is a supplementary. In the present legislation, we do not have those guarantees for the consumers in this province. Bill 54 requires that pharmacists supply the lowest-cost list drug for the elderly and welfare recipients under the Ontario drug benefit plan. The bill as currently drafted denies consumers the right to pay the price difference between the lowest-cost drug and the drug prescribed by the doctor. Will the Premier assure this House that final legislation will allow seniors and those on welfare the right to choose and pay the price difference if they wish, or will they forced to swallow the pill the government tells them to?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: We on this side of the House never make anyone swallow bitter bills. I appreciate my colleague opposite's new-found advocacy for consumers, and I know he will want to take advantage of discussion in this House to put forward his views on behalf of the people of this province. That is who we are fighting for all the time, the consumers, the people of the province, and we are glad to have the member join us.

HERITAGE LANGUAGES

Mr. Grande: My question is for the Minister of Education regarding the arbitration board decision in the matter of the heritage languages program.

The minister knows that in the dispute between the Toronto teachers and the Toronto Board of Education, the arbitration board has decided what the New Democratic Party has known for years and what the Tories have always refused to accept, namely, that heritage languages must be integrated during the school day.

Will the minister tell us what steps he intends to take to ensure that ethnic children in our elementary schools will no longer be segregated, ghettoized and treated as second-class students? Specifically, will the minister move to change the Education Act so community languages can be taught during the five hours of the school day?

Hon. Mr. Conway: The interest arbitration in this matter, which was handed down late last week, made clear that boards of education have the right to exercise the option to offer heritage languages instruction during the regular day. The arbitration was quite clear and strong about that. Of course, ministry regulations provide that option to boards. The actual delivery of the program, as the honourable member noticed, has been thus far a matter of local board option.

We as a government are strongly supportive of the heritage languages program, and recognizing the interest that this arbitration has generated and the debate that has taken place around the subject, particularly here in Toronto but also elsewhere in the province, I am reviewing ministry policy. I have taken note, for example, of the member's Bill 80, which he tabled last week. Later this summer, I hope to share with him the results of my thinking with respect to the interest arbitration and other input I will be receiving in this very important area.

Mr. Grande: I hope the opinions of the Minister of Education are not changing from what they were in 1978, when he said in this Legislature while debating this very bill, that "sometimes we are given too much...to the `cannots.' I think it is time we took a look and asked, `Why not?' I feel...this heritage languages bill is a very positive and important one."

Does the minister not realize it is exactly the ghettoization the arbitration board talks about that is created by the heritage languages program as it was set up? The memorandum of 1976 says, "such classes may be offered after school or on non-school days or where numbers justify an extension of the required five-hour school day." My question is --

Mr. Speaker: Order. The question has been asked.

Hon. Mr. Conway: What has not changed is my commitment or this party's and government's commitment to the very important heritage languages program that has been developed throughout much of Ontario. It is now in 73 school boards and is funded by more than $10 million from the Ministry of Education.

As a party and as a government, we are strongly committed to heritage languages instruction. Perhaps we differ from the member and his colleagues in this connection: We intend in this matter, as in other matters, to do so in a co-operative and collaborative way, recognizing the important role that local boards and teachers have in the delivery of this very important and positive part of education.

SMALL CLAIMS COURT

Mr. Callahan: The Attorney General has set up a study of the justice system by Mr. Justice Zuber. I should like to inquire whether his terms of reference will include the updating of the rate for small claims courts throughout this province as opposed to where they have been held for the testing periods thus far.

Hon. Mr. Scott: Mr. Justice Zuber is certainly entitled to consider that matter. As the member knows, the government is committed to extending the jurisdiction of the small claims court. The problem is that it costs somewhere between $10 million and $15 million to do so. The government is considering where on its list of priorities this matter should lie.

3:40 p.m.

RENT REVIEW

Mr. Gordon: I have a question for the Minister of Housing. Last week, the minister confirmed again in this Legislature that there is some kind of magic formula in his new Bill 51 that will mean tenants living in buildings that have chronically depressed rents will have some protection while the rents go up by 7.2 per cent next year. Will the minister take the time to open the bill I just sent over to him -- it is his bill -- indicate on which page the formula is and then explain it to us?

Hon. Mr. Curling: I know the member would like me to read along with him, but I do not think the House would give me the time to assist him by reading Bill 51 along with him. As the member may have seen by now, I have prepared a guide to the proposed Residential Rent Regulation Act. It was done to assist the member to understand the bill.

He has asked the question about chronically depressed rents on numerous occasions. I offered to give him an answer, and if he did not understand, I went further and offered him the legal advice of my staff, who would sit down with him. He still did not understand.

I would like the member to help get Bill 51 read a second time in the House. I would like him to prepare himself to pass the bill and to make any amendments or suggestions he wants in regard to the bill if he feels he is not comfortable with the manner and the formula that will be put forward to deal with those chronically depressed rents. He has all those opportunities to do so.

Mr. Gordon: I consider that to be a very arrogant answer. Last week, in the House, the minister held up the very guide he had a minute ago and said to me, "No, the formula is not in there." Today, the minister cannot even pick the formula out of the bill, and it is his bill. He indicated last week that the formula was in the bill. Either the minister knows there is a formula or he does not. When is the minister going to tell us what the formula is? Is it going to protect those tenants?

Hon. Mr. Curling: If you will allow me, Mr. Speaker, I will read it to him in the short time we have: "Hardship Relief." He asked me to read it to him.

Mr. Speaker: A very brief reply.

Hon. Mr. Curling: I hope so.

"There are two types of hardship relief" -- page 35. Now I want to go through the guide.

"There are two types of hardship relief for a landlord, hardship relief and chronically depressed rents. Under hardship relief, if a landlord is making a profit which is less than two per cent of his total revenue, rent review can allow a rent increase which allows the landlord two per cent more than his total cost."

Is the honourable member with me still? I will go on.

"In other words, if the landlord's total cost is $100,000 and his total rent revenues are $101,000, rent review can allow his total rent revenue to increase to $102,000."

ALGOMA CENTRAL RAILWAY

Mr. Wildman: I have a question for the Minister of Northern Development and Mines in regard to a letter, dated June 17, that was sent to him by Stanley Black, vice-president of Algoma Central Railway. In that letter, Mr. Black indicates the concessions requested of his company by Algoma Steel Corp. will most likely result in the shutdown of the rail operation, meaning a layoff of 340 rail jobs and 1,000 to 1,500 jobs in the tourist industry. Can the minister explain what response his government has made to Mr. Black and what he is doing to protect the jobs at the Algoma Central Railway and in the tourist industry in the Algoma district?

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: I received that letter last week. I am waiting for another letter today or tomorrow. I will be meeting with the people concerned from the mine, Algoma Steel and Algoma Central Railway in the next few days.

PETITIONS

ROMAN CATHOLIC SECONDARY SCHOOLS

Mr. Sterling: It is my great pleasure to present 5,880 petitions, which state in part:

"Ontario is a multiracial, multicultural and multifaith society that is well served by a strong public school system. Your government's proposal to extend public funding to the Roman Catholic separate schools is a backward step since it will grant special status to one specific denominational group.

"I urge you and your government not to proceed with this divisive proposal."

NATUROPATHY

Mr. Cordiano: I have a petition which reads as follows:

"To the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of the province of Ontario:

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

"We petition the Ontario Legislature to call on the government to introduce legislation that would guarantee naturopaths the right to practise their art and science to the fullest without prejudice or harassment."

ABORTION

Mr. Pollock: I wish to table a petition of 327 names from the Quinte area:

"To the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of the province of Ontario:

"We, as Canadians, request that abortion be stopped. We firmly believe that each human life has the right to the utmost respect from conception until natural death. We are fearfully and wonderfully made. We are convinced that human problems must be solved by loving. There are other alternatives to abortion. Abortion does not solve problems. It adds to them. Most Canadians have been misinformed about the damages abortion has caused to the people involved.

"There is no such thing as a truly safe abortion, even under the best circumstances. It has also been proven that legalized abortion does not reduce the number of illegal abortions. Whether you refer to abortion as killing or induced death is largely a question of semantics. The effect on the child is the same. Abortion is a human issue that affects all of us. By not opposing abortion you are giving it your unspoken support. One fact stands out above all others. In 1978 alone, abortions took the lives of 62,290 unborn children in Canada. If that is an improvement in the quality of life, we fail to see it."

SALE OF BEER AND WINE

Mr. Rowe: I wish to table a petition signed by 130 people from the Central United Church of Canada in Barrie:

"To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"The United Church of Canada speaks out opposing the sale of beer and wine in our grocery stores. On the one hand, we discourage our young people but, on the other hand, you are making beer and wine more available. The undersigned do not support beer and wine to be sold in our grocery and corner stores."

REPORT

STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Laughren from the standing committee on resources development presented a report on the impact of the announced layoffs at the Algoma Steel Corp. Ltd. in Sault Ste. Marie and Wawa.

MOTION

COMMITTEE SITTING

Hon. Mr. Nixon moved that the standing committee on public accounts be authorized to meet this afternoon following routine proceedings.

Motion agreed to.

3:50 p.m.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

House in committee of the whole.

EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT

Consideration of Bill 30, An Act to amend the Education Act.

The Deputy Chairman: Are there any questions or comments on this bill?

Some hon. members: Carried.

Mr. Sterling: I just heard the New Democratic Party members saying, "Carried." Perhaps they, like many members of this Legislature, would like this to carry with little discussion. That is something I find very distasteful.

Mr. Chairman, I have delivered to you three amendments. I believe they were in the hands of the Clerk some time ago, and I bow to your suggestion as to which one I will introduce first.

Mr. Chairman: The amendments should go in this order: sections 2 and 3, then the preamble.

Section 1 agreed to.

On section 2:

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Sterling moves that subsection 1361a(1) of the act, as set out in section 2 of the bill, be amended by striking out "after the 10 school year period mentioned in subsection 1361(6)" in the fourth and fifth lines.

Mr. Sterling: As Bill 30 stands, it permits a Roman Catholic separate secondary school board to discriminate on the basis of religion during the first 10 years of the life of this piece of legislation so that a young non-Roman-Catholic person entering the teaching field does not have the same opportunities in that profession as a Roman Catholic.

I have long said I would attempt to make this bill as evenhanded as possible. I do not countenance the discrimination condoned in any part of Bill 30, but perhaps this is the place where it is condoned in the most glaring and obvious example.

I therefore urge other members to look to the other part of subsection 1361a(1), to retain the catholicity of the Roman Catholic school system, that teachers hired will still be required to respect the philosophy and traditions of the Roman Catholic separate school in the performance of their duties.

Mr. Allen: I rise to address the amendment proposed by the foregoing member. We had a lengthy clause-by-clause discussion in the standing committee on social development on the various aspects of this bill. The amendment in the first instance was our own; it arose from the New Democratic Party.

Our concern was that the main thrust and character of the bill, and what it sought to accomplish, should not be compromised by a highly controversial addition that would be likely to go before the courts and render the substance of the bill, as it was, eminently challengeable. We therefore considered that the most efficient way of moving this amendment, resulting in this section, was to separate it from other sections of the bill and provide for it in a separate section of its own.

The member readily recognizes the sensitivity of the question, that the rights of the separate system are constitutionally entrenched. They are not just anachronisms left over from 1867 but have been confirmed as late as the debates on the Constitution which led up to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1982 and are as clearly established as ever in section 29 of the charter.

Moving to abridge denominational rights, or any rights established in the Constitution, is a very sensitive matter. While this party is concerned about some aspects of the hiring practices of the separate system, it has felt it should move in such a way as to provide the separate schools and the board with a time and opportunity to look at that issue and arrive at their own adjustment to new hiring practices under the 10-year period. We hope they will also adopt measures and approaches that would give effect to the general spirit of this amendment.

It is not wise to remove the hiring provision and that right at this time. As the legislation stands now, even as it stood prior to the addition of this section, it requires considerable adjustment, modification and abridgement of the hiring rights of the separate system.

One cannot argue that this section or even this bill introduces a pattern of hiring that is somehow new or that has not prevailed. Both the 10-year period and the section to which the member alludes take excessive steps towards another situation, which we hope will have some effect in the overall direction and character of hiring by the separate system in the future, but we stand opposed to this amendment.

4 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Conway: I want to comment on the second amendment of my friend from Manotick. As the critic for the New Democratic Party just indicated, the matter has been discussed at considerable length in the committee stage of this legislation. It is a matter that is central to the question. As minister, I have never denied that.

I want to repeat in the House what I have have said on previous occasions, during clause-by-clause examination and elsewhere. That is the essence of the government's view with respect to the public policy we seek to enact in Bill 30. With this legislation, we seek to complete the public funding of the 12 grades of a school system that has enjoyed public funding for many decades. It is one that enjoys clear constitutional protection. In that connection, through Bill 30 we seek to complete one system with one set of clear and consistent constitutional rights and privileges.

I know my friend the member for Carleton-Grenville (Mr. Sterling) respectfully disagrees with my interpretation in this regard. I respect his view, but I do not accept it. As Minister of Education in this government, I feel it is important to reiterate that with Bill 30 we are completing one system with one set of clearly established and consistent rights and privileges. We have argued successfully in the Ontario Court of Appeal that one of the most fundamental of the constitutional rights enjoyed by the separate school trustees is their right to hire teachers who will give effect to the denominational character of their separate school system. That is the case we have made in this chamber, in committee and elsewhere, and certainly in the courts. The Ontario Court of Appeal accepted that case.

Courts elsewhere have also recognized that case. I submit to my friend from Manotick that in the Caldwell case of 1984, the Supreme Court of Canada recognized the right of the separate school trustees to hire teachers who give effect to the denominational character of the separate school system.

In Ontario in 1978, the Court of Appeal ruled similarly in favour of the right of the separate school trustees to hire teachers who give effect to the denominational character of the system.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Conway: My friend in the official opposition who is the spokesman for educational matters said, as he has said before, that this is in matters of elementary education only. I say again to my friends in the opposition, whose views I respect but do not accept, that is not the view of this minister or of this government.

We cannot accept this amendment any more now than we could in committee some weeks ago. With Bill 30, we are completing one system with one set of clearly established and consistent protections under section 93 of the British North America Act. We are not starting something new. We are completing something that is old and very fundamental to the way in which public education has been organized in Ontario since the 1840s. For those reasons, I respectfully suggest to the member for Carleton-Grenville that we cannot accept his amendment this afternoon.

Mr. Baetz: I would like to speak in support of this amendment. I do so realizing full well that the likelihood of its being accepted is not very great. With one or two notable exceptions, we saw one Conservative amendment after another defeated in committee, almost with the precision and the dependability of a Swiss timepiece. In this, our last kick at the can, I am not at all sure we will fare any better, but I would like to make this one final appeal, particularly because it now looks as if within a very short time, a matter of hours, this bill will go for final reading and become law.

I still feel very strongly that we must remove the religious discrimination in the hiring of all teachers and do so immediately, not just starting 10 years from now.

I keep asking myself, and I ask the New Democratic Party, if something is unconstitutional, abhorrent or repugnant 10 years from now, surely it is unconstitutional and repugnant right now. That is the one major point I would like to make here.

I know the minister has told us in committee that he sort of held his nose when he accepted the end to discriminatory hiring on religious grounds at the end of the 10-year period, the NDP amendment. He held his nose and agreed with that because, as he said at the time, he could count -- unlike Joe Clark. He implied that when he got his majority there would perhaps be some changes made or perhaps in the meantime the courts would come to his rescue and declare the whole thing unconstitutional.

Frankly, I believe and hope that the minister is wrong and that the courts will not find discriminatory hiring practices on the basis of religion to be unconstitutional. I realize the minister and I are in fundamental disagreement on this point, and we have gone into this before. He has made his point again in his short presentation here, saying that he thinks the elementary and secondary Roman Catholic school system is one system, one continuum. It cannot be divided into two sections; one has to see it as one system.

In spite of all his eloquence and rhetoric -- and he has a great deal of both; he makes very compelling arguments -- I still have to disagree with him. I still think we have two very distinct systems here, both Roman Catholic, but two distinct systems that can, will and should be treated somewhat differently.

The minister goes back to the Court of Appeal decision back in February of this year to make his case that there is only one system. I go back to that decision -- the decision of the majority there -- to confirm and strengthen my conviction that there are indeed two systems. I will read it into the record again:

"The entire five-member panel agreed that court judgements in the 1920s, known as the Tiny township case, were binding on the current court. Those judgements determined that Canada's Constitution guaranteed government financing only for elementary grades in Catholic schools. The government was not required to provide grants for Catholic high schools. However, Justices Tarnopolsky, Zuber and Cory concluded that the government had the power to decide to finance a Catholic high school system," and so on.

There is no choice in the matter. Surely the Constitution requires that the elementary system be financed, but according to the Tiny township case and the decision of the appeal court it does not apply to the secondary school system. As I say, the minister and I are in real disagreement on this issue.

4:10 p.m.

Unlike the case of the elementary school system, the government can set up a whole number of conditions through this legislation in the way it wants to finance the secondary school system. In fact, I would remind the minister, that is exactly what is in this legislation. There are all kinds of conditions, requirements and regulations in here, pertaining to things such as the transfer of teachers with no discrimination and the single-school community, that must be followed if the government is going to finance the secondary school system. They go on and on. Those things do not apply to the elementary school system.

Therefore, with regard to this whole matter of discrimination in hiring young graduates coming out of our teacher colleges for the next 10 years, I think in this very last moment we should very seriously once again look at the possibility of saying there shall be no discrimination for them either. Surely, we are in a situation in which we can defend or offend a great many people.

I know there is an almost fatal dilemma. There is an inherent contradiction in what we are trying to reach in this bill. On the one hand, we genuinely want to make it possible to extend public funding to the Catholic secondary school system. On the other hand, we are doing it in an environment in which we all know discrimination on the basis of religion in hiring is out of tune with a lot of the thinking of the day.

The mood of the day is integration; it is not segregation. The mood of the day is to reach out for better understanding. The mood of the day is a spirit of ecumenism, yet in this bill we are trying to serve these two almost incompatible objectives; one, setting up, funding and financing a segregated school system and, two, trying to find some balance that would recognize the era of ecumenism and the new era of multiculturalism in which we live.

I realize this is a very difficult thing to do and I can understand the concern the Roman Catholic educators have to maintain their catholicity. I know how they feel about the need to have teachers who can view the system with this kind of spirit. I can fully appreciate that.

At the same time, I can appreciate the view that is held by so many people that discrimination in hiring offends. For this reason, I appeal to members that in the last hours we would go the whole mile for the sake of compatibility and peace in our time, especially as there is trouble with the New Democratic Party, which feels it is going to be unconstitutional in 10 years but it is not unconstitutional at present. That is something that is of enormous concern to me. I appeal to members that we consider this amendment once again and apply the nondiscrimination practice immediately.

Finally, to add one more reason I feel so strongly about this, we have heard time and again that there is this famous quid pro quo dating back to the Constitution, back to 1867, whereby we were going to do for the Protestants in Quebec what we are prepared to do for the Catholics in Ontario. Surely we are far removed from an era -- thank God -- when it appeared necessary for the state to protect the Protestants from the Catholics. Thank God we have advanced far beyond that.

In the course of setting up this quid pro quo, I would remind members of one final thing. We have been saying, "What is fair in Quebec is fair in Ontario," and I agree, but in Ontario the Protestant school board has been practising nondiscrimination in hiring since 1965. In the name of fairness between the Ontario scene and the Quebec scene, we could very easily approve this amendment.

Mr. Ashe: I will not be supporting this amendment. I do not think it is appropriate.

If we go back two years ago to the announcement of the Premier of the day, the intent was very clear. Rightly or wrongly, in the minds of many people, discrimination -- and I use that word only in a positive sense rather than a negative one -- is a very important part of maintaining the catholicity within the separate school system. I appreciate that some of my colleagues differ in that regard. I am quite sure the decision will be made ultimately by the court system.

Having said that, I am sure we will have lots of opportunities for that in the next 10 years. I hope it will not be in the courts for 10 years, but we know the court system sometimes works very slowly and 10 years may even be incorrect. That was probably the intent of the original legislation that was changed on a consensus basis within the committee itself.

My colleague the member for Ottawa West (Mr. Baetz) referred to the fact that generally within our environment today, people and denominations have become more ecumenical. I think that is so. Obviously, that has been a very positive step in the right direction.

Whether we like it or not -- and I know some do not -- the British North America Act predates the current Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It predates many of the problems society has had in living with itself for the last number of years. This protection of the catholicity of the system is very important. It includes some obligation on the part of boards and their hiring policy.

Mr. Davis: I rise in support of this amendment. Some individuals have asked from where the amendment arises. I can tell them it did not come out of a vacuum. It came out of the process of consultation and dialogue with various members of the sectors of the community that make up the educational family. It came from our dialogue with Catholic parents, trustees and members of the clergy.

It is a difficult issue because, as we know, there is a division, not only within society but also within the separate school community itself and the public school community. We can see it within parties. As we strive to place together this bill in a sense of fairness and justice, we believe it is fair and just that non-Catholic teachers should have the right to access the secondary separate school system upon completion of this bill.

The new amendment speaks to one of the concerns that was raised by the NDP Education critic for some protection for the catholicity of the separate school system. I maintain this inclusion, which is a different amendment than we had in the committee and which agrees to respect the philosophy and traditions of Roman Catholic separate schools in the performance of their duties, grants and gives that protection.

As I stated within the committee, I find it very difficult to comprehend the NDP's amendment. If the party believes it is constitutional for the separate school boards to hire only Catholic teachers, it should not have placed the amendment it did. What the party says by its amendment, supported by this government, is that we will accept discrimination for 10 years and after that we will rule that it is out of order.

As we move together on this issue, we need to have a sense of togetherness, openness and sharing. I believe this amendment moves towards that conclusion. I will be supporting this amendment.

4:20 p.m.

Mr. Sterling: I would like to ask a question of the Education critic for the New Democratic Party and of the Minister of Education (Mr. Conway). They do not have to respond if they do not want to, of course. Is their argument that we must have, in this legislation, discrimination for 10 years in order to live within the Constitution?

Mr. Chairman: Does the minister wish to respond to that?

Hon. Mr. Conway: No.

Mr. Allen: I think the answer to the question the member has asked is that, this being a very contentious issue constitutionally -- the member for Ottawa West (Mr. Baetz) referred to this as somehow residing within the years of Confederation and to the world somehow having got past all that, which misses the entire point.

There is under the Constitution an ongoing right, confirmed in 1982, and one can read it quite plainly and clearly in section 29 of the charter, that those rights are still there and that they are still indivisible. One can talk about extending the secondary system as though it was somehow not an extension. Nothing in the Tiny township case can be construed as saying that once a government has extended the system, under the right the Tiny township case confirmed was there, no one can then argue that the rights that attach to the lower part of the system do not also attach to the continuation of the system. The rights are one and indivisible. They are given to an identified class of persons and there is no question about that.

If one looks at the jurisprudence around the hiring and firing of teachers and around denominational rights questions in our courts, there is simply no court case in which those rights have ever been challenged and won. That being the case, entering this kind of amendment was obviously a very sensitive undertaking. We recognized not only that it might very well be eminently challengeable but also that it probably would be challenged. We did not want to put it in that class of undertakings in the bill which would be part of the immediate and upfront impact, because we did not want the rest of the bill to become ensnared at the outset in the litigation and, in some likelihood, the reversal of a major clause such as that.

I think that is a very sensible way to proceed. We also did it in order to send a message that there is unhappiness with some aspects of the hiring practices of the separate system. At the same time, the amendment was construed the way it was to underline the recognition that the teacher is central to the delivery of education in any system and to the delivery and maintenance of the spirit, ethos, values, direction, quality and character of education in any education system. Given the nature of the protections of the separate school system and the teacher being central to that guaranteed character under the Constitution, the issue is obviously one that had to be addressed with the utmost of care.

The question does not hinge upon whether it is constitutionally right in 10 years or constitutionally right today, or constitutionally wrong today or constitutionally wrong 10 years from now. It has to do with the necessity of a process of addressing a very central and sensitive issue.

Hon. Mr. Conway: With respect to the member's invitation, I have nothing to add to my earlier comments.

Mr. Sterling: It will become apparent during this debate that the government will continue to talk about guarantees under section 93 of the Constitution. Let us be clear on what the Court of Appeal, in a three-to-two decision, decided in February 1986: that the Legislative Assembly was under no legal obligation to provide funding to the end of the secondary school system. There is no right.

The court did say that the assembly is permitted to discriminate if it wants to. If we want to discriminate in favour of one group in our society, the Court of Appeal said we could. That is what we are doing today. It is misleading for the minister to compare the extension of that part the court has clearly said is not the same as the elementary school system and to fudge his words in decisions relating to the elementary school system. I should not say misleading; I withdraw that. It confuses the issue.

Let no punches be pulled in this affair. The New Democratic Party, the Liberal Party and perhaps one or two other members are condoning discrimination when we are given the opportunity not to discriminate.

Mr. Chairman: All those in favour of Mr. Sterling's amendment will please say "aye." All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the nays have it. Motion negatived.

Section 2 agreed to.

4:30 p.m.

On section 3:

Mr. Sterling: I have delivered copies of this amendment to all the critics. I do not know whether it is necessary to read it out in full or take different subsections of it. I will be explaining them in full.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Sterling moves that section 3 of the bill be amended by adding thereto the following subsection:

"(1a) The said act is further amended by adding thereto the following part:

"Part V-A

"Consolidated School Boards

"(1) One or more public boards and one or more Roman Catholic school boards may jointly propose to the minister that the boards be merged to form a consolidated school board.

"(2) Before making the proposal to the minister, the boards shall each hold a public meeting to provide information to the public and to enable persons who attend the meeting to make written or oral presentations in respect of the proposal.

"(3) The boards shall include with the proposal the text of the written presentations and a summary of the oral presentations made at the public meetings.

"(4) The Lieutenant Governor in Council, with respect to each proposal, may make regulations,

"(a) dissolving the boards and establishing a consolidated school board where, having regard to the proposal, the written presentations and the summary of the oral presentations, the Lieutenant Governor in Council is of the opinion that such action will provide for better administration of the educational system in the area of jurisdiction of the boards to be merged;

"(b) prescribing the provisions of this act and the regulations that apply in respect of the dissolved boards and in respect of the consolidated school board;

"(c) varying the application to the consolidated school board of any provision of this act or the regulations;

"(d) prescribing or providing for such matters as the Lieutenant Governor in Council considers necessary or advisable for the establishment and operation of a consolidated school board.

"(5) A consolidated school board is a corporation with the name `The...Consolidated Board of Education' (inserting the name selected by the board and approved by the minister).

"(6) If it is finally determined by a court that any of subsections (1) to (5) prejudicially affects a right or privilege with respect to denominational schools guaranteed by the Constitution of Canada, subsections (1) to (5) are repealed, it being the intention of the Legislature that the remaining provisions of this act are separate from and independent of the said subsections.

"(7) If subsections (1) to (5) are repealed under subsection (6), the Lieutenant Governor in Council may make such regulations as the Lieutenant Governor in Council considers necessary for the re-establishment of the boards that formed the consolidated school board."

Mr. Sterling: I hope the reading of my amendment did not put to sleep everyone who was watching on television or in the public gallery. The thrust of the amendment is to provide a permissive section to allow two school boards in any one geographical area to come together to provide the best possible services for students in both the separate and the public systems. I feel this would be most advantageous in areas of Ontario that are sparsely populated, be they in the north, the east or wherever.

The amendment will kick into effect only if both school boards agree to it. While no boards have agreed to this specific amendment, I believe the legislative framework should be put in place at this time to allow this kind of union to take place, if in the future two school boards -- a denominational school board and a public school board -- want to help to improve the services to their students by forming such a union.

Mr. Allen: I rise to oppose the proposal. We opposed this for good and sufficient reasons in the committee, and we oppose it for the same reasons now. The mover may remember the old adage of Bismarck that politics is the art of the possible. I keep being reminded of that in a negative sense by the amendments that the Conservative Party brings forth with regard to various parts of this bill, namely, that politics appears to be, in their view, the art of the impossible.

It really is stretching the imagination to think this is the possible solution to anything. The notion that there are separate boards out there that will consent to be dissolved, or might even be within their rights to let themselves be dissolved, in the eyes of the larger Catholic community, to which those rights are accorded under the Constitution, begs a lot of questions in my mind. It is a matter that does more to sow mischief than to resolve anything, and our party stands opposed to it.

Mr. Harris: I rise in support of the amendment. Of all the proposed amendments that have been put forward on this bill, I believe this is the most reasoned and ought to be the most acceptable. I cannot understand the government not accepting it, and I cannot understand the third party not accepting it.

We are dealing with a permissive clause. Both boards have to agree. In fact, both boards have to want to co-operate to save money, which I suggest to this Legislature and to those boards across the province is not an ignoble purpose. They have to agree that by coming together they could provide better services for whatever amount of dollars are allocated to them through this Legislature, through this government, and through whatever they have to make up with what I submit to this chamber is a very excessive tax burden that is now borne locally.

They may agree that they can co-operate. They may agree that they can provide denominational and nondenominational education in a shared capacity. If they should agree it will not work in this area of the province -- in Toronto and in Hamilton, perhaps -- why should this be discouraged? Why should this not be allowed? Why should some areas of the province dictate to others and say, "No, you cannot co-operate; you cannot provide services perhaps more efficiently or in a more streamlined fashion, or perhaps save money," if that is what they see fit to do in their ridings, their jurisdictions or their areas of the province?

I was not one of those who had the privilege of being on the standing committee on social development throughout the extensive hearings and throughout the extensive discussion in the clause-by-clause debate -- my colleague reminds me I might have been able to get on had I asked -- but I understand the minister had some concerns about the constitutionality of such a permissive section in this legislation. I submit to the members that in my opinion it would be constitutional, although some members may point out that I am not a lawyer or a constitutional expert.

4:40 p.m.

Is that the only reason the minister has for not accepting this clause? I have talked to the minister on a number of occasions. He is cordial and co-operative. I know it is the minister's wish, as it is mine, that there be co-operation out there in the educational community for the provision of what Bill 30 has extended to the separate school boards. If the constitutional argument is the only argument, I point out that the last part of the amendment offers to strike this out of the bill if the minister is right that it is unconstitutional and I am wrong. I do not think I am wrong -- I think the minister is wrong -- but if the minister is right, it will be struck out of the bill.

I understand the minister has come up with this ingenious method of solving the problem of the constitutionality of the amended version of the amendment that just lost -- the famous 10 years of discrimination, following which there can be no discrimination.

It is a very logical amendment. I will wait with interest to hear what the minister has to say, if he has some other arguments for co-operation, for boards working together, for saving money and for delivering educational programs to both school systems in an efficient manner, if that is the method that boards in some jurisdictions deem to be what is right for their areas of the province. If there are other reasons, I would like to hear them from the minister. The only one I have heard is the unconstitutionality.

I believe the reasoned amendment put forward by my colleague the member for Carleton-Grenville covers that. That is the difference between the amendment as it is being put forth today and as it was put forth in committee: If that is the only argument, this covers it in the very same way the minister covered his constitutional concerns about the amendment on teacher access.

Mr. Ashe: I will be very brief, because my colleague the member for Nipissing (Mr. Harris) said it pretty well the way l would have.

I rise in support of this amendment. I appreciate and understand the comment of the member for Hamilton West (Mr. Allen) that this is not going to be applicable everywhere. I suggest it is not going to be applicable in most areas. As we discussed a little earlier, the environment is changing, and in some smaller communities this situation may happen. If it happens, I do not see anything wrong with a permissive section.

I support it because it is permissive. It is not mandatory or binding if one board wants it and the other does not. It will come into effect only if there is agreement. If there is any way we can sponsor two boards to work together more closely, particularly in smaller and more remote areas, which is where it might be applicable over the years to come, that should be encouraged by an act of this Legislature.

If the minister is using the business about its not being constitutional, as we have discussed in all parts of this bill and in the last reasoned amendment that was put forth, the courts are going to be deciding many of these issues in any event. The section that would permit two boards to get together would undoubtedly be decided in the same way. I see nothing against that at all.

People in this party are possibly somewhat more positive than the members of the third party. I hope the government, whose position is espoused by the Minister of Education (Mr. Conway), will see it accordingly.

Hon. Mr. Conway: I very much enjoyed the contributions of my colleagues opposite, especially that of the member for Nipissing, who brings to this chamber long experience as the chairman of the Nipissing Board of Education, among his many other activities.

I want to say to the member for Nipissing and to the proposer of the amendment, the member for Carleton-Grenville, that there is no difference of opinion about the desirability of co-operation between two publicly funded school boards that will exist in those areas where the separate school board makes an election to offer secondary programs. I believe we are agreed on that.

My friend the member for Hamilton West will agree as well that when the committee discussed this, there was a high degree of consensus about the desirability of providing, both in the legislation and in the administration of this important public policy, mechanisms that will encourage co-operation between the boards.

I want to make it clear that is my view, as the member for Nipissing has correctly noted. The question then is, how do we best achieve the kind of co-operation we all feel is desirable? In consideration of this important issue, I submit to my colleagues in the official opposition that the standing committee on social development, in writing section 136ka into the bill, has achieved an appropriate mechanism to help and encourage boards to work together in those areas of mutual interest.

I do make very clear my view that there will be, from time to time and from place to place, more or less opportunity for boards to cooperate. We have seen some of that in the months following the announcement some two years ago by the then Premier, William Davis, of this initiative that we come to conclude in this chamber today.

I believe the mandatory liaison committees that are now provided for in section 136ka are an important, positive step in the direction of increased co-operation between boards. I note, for example, that the standing committee in its wisdom took particular effort to include in the mandatory liaison committee those boards, and I can think of some, where an extension that is made on the separate side will necessarily involve two or three coterminous public boards. In considering that possibility, the section to which I make reference is helpful. I note that the committee took into account the issue of francophone representation; that too is addressed in the section to which I have made reference.

I do not accept the amendment because, on balance, I do not think it is as appropriate or as helpful a mechanism for the desired interboard co-operation we all seek as is the better section 136ka, which in its wisdom the standing committee wrote into the legislation. Let there be no doubt at all that there is a high degree of consensus about the need and desirability for co-operation. We want that. I believe section 136ka will materially help us achieve that, and in that respect, I believe it to be a better mechanism than that which has been respectfully submitted by my friend the member for Carleton-Grenville.

Mr. Sterling: I find the minister's arguments somewhat specious when he tries to say cooperation cannot be achieved in this manner. If he is truly for co-operation between the boards, he should offer as many possible solutions as possible. This is only another one.

I agree with him with respect to trying to encourage co-operation so our students, be they Roman Catholic or non-Roman-Catholic, or be they pupils of one board or the other, get the best possible education our province can afford to give them.

All the minister is doing is throwing back at me his intransigence on the fact that he will not accept that some parts of the province may choose to take this route to provide the very co-operation he is talking about. I find his argument very specious, and I thought he could do better than that.

4:50 p.m.

Mr. Harris: I will be brief and not prolong the debate, but I also find the minister's argument very weak. By not including a permissive section to allow the ultimate in co-operation when any two boards so choose, I believe he is sending out a signal he does not intend to send out. I cannot understand, knowing he does not want to send that signal out, through what stubbornness he refuses to allow this permissive section to stand in the bill. I say to my colleagues in the third party, I do not understand their stubbornness in not allowing this amendment to go forward. I am very disappointed in both of them today.

Mr. Jackson: I too would like to reply to the minister's response. I thought it was a fairly good response, although it was a little narrow. I am disappointed. Given that the amendment sets itself out as a model for co-operation, which all three parties hope to achieve and to which he now refers with such appreciation, it is deficient in so far as the minister spoke against the representation of the teachers' federations and possibly students or members of the community at large to serve in that capacity.

I thought the minister's remarks were right on but, unfortunately, too narrow. If the minister has had an 11th-hour conversion on this specific point I invite him, quickly and with the patience of the House, to draft amendments allowing for the very structure he now indicates would be helpful in seeking out the solutions that he and all parties want on this bill for the years to come.

Mr. Chairman: All those in favour of Mr. Sterling's amendment will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the nays have it.

Motion negatived.

Section 3 agreed to.

Sections 4 to 8, inclusive, agreed to.

On the preamble:

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Sterling moves that the preamble to the bill be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

"Whereas the Legislative Assembly of the province of Ontario wishes to grant to Roman Catholic school boards public funds to support education in Roman Catholic separate schools to the end of secondary school."

Mr. Sterling: I propose this amendment because reading the preamble to an Act to amend the Education Act under Bill 30 leaves a distinct impression that this right or privilege given to one group results from a right in the Constitution of Canada. The Court of Appeal decided in May that no such right exists. I believe the Legislature should therefore put forward that it is giving this right as a matter of its own choice. The right is not springing from the Constitution.

Mr. Allen: On behalf of my party, I reject both the argument and the amendment. The amendment that the member proposes says, "Whereas the Legislative Assembly of the province of Ontario wishes to grant...." The fundamental question that raises is why the Legislature wants to grant the funds or why it wants to extend the system.

The original preamble said it is there because there are constitutional grounds for it and there are certain reasons it should be extended to meet the educational needs of the students in question and so on. All the preamble in the bill does is spell out what the member wants to say, namely, the reason the province wishes to do this. It states that in a very economical and straightforward fashion and provides a sensible and even somewhat eloquent preamble to a very impressive and important piece of legislation.

Mr. Baetz: I would like to support this amendment. I do so because it is short, factual and to the point, whereas the preamble in the bill is very long and sounds more like a homily that the minister wrote himself. The voice of the minister comes through here very strongly. I do not think any bureaucrat, no matter how educated he or she is, would write this preamble. This has to be somebody with the minister's feeling about this legislation.

I go back to my fundamental problem with it. This preamble talks as though it were one system. That is not the case, as my colleague has pointed out. The Ontario Court of Appeal decision made it very clear that there are two systems, the elementary school system and the secondary school system. What one does for the secondary school system is permissive and not obligatory under the Constitution, whereas what one does for the other system is obligatory. The whole preamble is filled with this spirit. As I say, it is not factual; it is more a matter of opinions, some quite cleverly worded, so that one could read a dozen things into them.

I am also convinced there are thousands of people who would not agree with what is in the preamble. They would say it is not historically factual. As a matter of fact, they would be offended by it. Therefore, the preamble for some people can even be inciteful. Why go through it? Why drag this red flag across the ring? Why not simply stick to the facts as the member for Carleton-Grenville has stated them? Let us make the preamble brief and stick to the facts.

All of us here are aware of this. Today, we had another petition carrying some 5,000 names of people who are entirely opposed to the bill. There is a lot of feeling out there about the bill. Why come out with an inciteful preamble like this? Of the people in Ontario, 52 per cent have indicated they do not like the legislation and are opposed to it.

5 p.m.

In my own riding, between 75 per cent and 80 per cent are opposed to it. A preamble such as this is not going to help that kind of attitude at all.

However, I heard what the member for Hamilton West (Mr. Allen) said about this. I heard what he said about the two previous amendments. The trend is all the same; it is simply going to be, "No, no, no." The unholy alliance is at work, and we are hearing today what we have heard all through the sittings on the clause-by-clause consideration. Anything we introduce is automatically, a priori, dismissed and shot down. With that rather unhappy and pessimistic note about this bill being amended, I take my seat.

Mr. Chairman: Is there any other honourable member who wishes to participate in this amendment?

Mr. McClellan: Where is his missing limousine?

Mr. Breaugh: At least he still has a chair.

Mr. Chairman: Order. It has been very settled today. Let us keep it that way throughout, please.

Hon. Mr. Conway: Mr. Chairman --

Interjections.

Mr. Chairman: The minister is having trouble. Members are giving the minister difficulties.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Conway: Mr. Chairman, may I say that your last injunction about how it has gone this afternoon was very wise counsel that I hope is heard by all in the assembly.

I want to briefly touch upon the amendment which has been put by my friend the member for Carleton-Grenville (Mr. Sterling) and an amendment which was put previously by another member. Perhaps it was the member for Ottawa West (Mr. Baetz) -- I cannot recall -- in the clause-by-clause examination of the bill.

May I say to my friend from Ottawa West, whose views I always listen to and always respect, although they are views I do not always accept, it is not true to say that amendments put in committee by the official opposition were not agreed to by the committee. I can think of some amendments that were put by the official opposition that were agreed to and now stand as part of the bill.

I want to put that on the record, and I also want to quickly say that the preamble, which is now a matter of discussion by virtue of my friend's amendment, is from my point of view an important part of this bill. This is an important and historic piece of legislation, about which, as the member for Ottawa West rightly notes, there is not unanimous agreement.

What we have tried to indicate in the preamble is something of the historical context and development of this very significant aspect of public policy in the educational community of Ontario. I submit to my friends in the official opposition that the preamble sets out properly and accurately the historical developments that led to the introduction of Bill 30 almost one year ago.

Having regard to the important aspect of public policy we are dealing with in Bill 30 and noting the long and controversial debate that, in so far as the Legislature is concerned, will now be concluded when we pass Bill 30, I think it is important for those who follow to note that this Legislature had some sense of the historical development and some appreciation for the historical context in which Bill 30 was introduced and in which it was passed.

For those reasons, I stand with the preamble and, therefore, do not accept the amendment put by my friend from Carleton-Grenville.

Mr. Chairman: Shall Mr. Sterling's motion carry?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the nays have it.

Motion negatived.

Preamble agreed to.

Section 9 agreed to.

Bill 30 ordered to be reported.

On motion by Hon. Mr. Conway the committee of the whole House reported one bill without amendment.

EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Conway moved third reading of Bill 30, An Act to amend the Education Act.

Mr. Harris: Mr. Speaker, there are several members who have indicated a desire to speak on third reading.

Mr. Speaker: That will be fine if those members will get on their feet.

Mr. Harris: Mr. Speaker, you are on your feet. We have always been told we cannot get on our feet while you are on your feet.

Hon. Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: It was my expectation that there would be a debate on third reading in which honourable members would be participating. We are moving to that stage. I regret the confusion that might have been caused.

Mr. Reycraft: I am pleased to be able to participate in this debate today. I am sure the bill will prove to be a very significant one in the history of Roman Catholic denominational schools in this province. However, while the day may be one of significance, I suggest it is not the final step in this process. Rather, the implementation of the policy will likely take several years.

Nevertheless, it is a very significant day in a process that started some time ago. I do not refer to last July 4 when the Minister of Education introduced Bill 30, nor do I refer to that occasion more than two years ago when then Premier Davis rose in the Legislature to announce that separate secondary schools in this province would be funded equally with those in the public system. Rather, it is a process that dates back to the active union in 1841 to which others have referred this afternoon. It has been addressed subsequently in the British North America Act of 1867 and most recently in the Constitution Act of 1982.

5:10 p.m.

When Bill 30 was introduced by the minister last July 4, the debate on its principle which followed introduction was a very extensive one. As I recall, there were very few members of this Legislature who did not participate in that debate. The debate concluded on July 11, a week after the bill's introduction when, I remind members of the assembly, they voted 117 to one in support of Bill 30. I am sure members will recall that the bill was then referred to the standing committee on social development along with the minister's request that there should be public debate on the issue and that there should be no arbitrary deadline applied to those public hearings.

The hearings started very promptly after referral to the committee, on July 16, just five days after second reading, and concluded slightly more than four months later, on November 19, as I recall. During those four months, the committee travelled to seven cities outside Toronto and received almost 900 submissions. I think the exact number is 876 but I stand to be corrected on that.

We heard submissions from individuals, some of them very interesting individuals, as my colleagues on the committee will recall. We heard submissions from groups. We received input from students, parents, teachers and boards of education. We received presentations from citizens, some of them with very distinguished educational backgrounds. Others were citizens who simply held very strong opinions about this policy and wanted to express those opinions.

The submissions came to the committee in a rather wide variety of forms. Some of them were very extensive and comprehensive. Some of them were even accompanied by rather impressive audio-visual presentations. Others, in contrast, consisted simply of single-page presentations and some were made to the committee orally.

The opinions and advice contained in those almost 900 submissions covered a wide range of topics. Most of the messages were directed to the policy. Many of them were expressions of concern about the impact of Bill 30. Others consisted of very helpful advice on how the policy could be implemented in a way that was fair and consistent with the six principles the minister identified as the basis of the bill this past July. A good number of the messages contained in the almost 900 submissions were directed at educational issues beyond the scope of Bill 30. The ministry has addressed itself to some of those already and will be addressing itself to others in the months ahead.

I know I speak for all of us on the committee when I say we listened very carefully to those who made the presentations before us. Since that time, I and others in the ministry have read the submissions, considered the advice and opinions rendered to us, and as a result of the hearings that went on for just over four months and as a result of almost 900 submissions, we proposed a number of amendments, many of which were very substantive, to the bill. The amendments will, in our opinion, allow for a much fairer and a much smoother implementation of the policy.

Subsequent to that, we listened very carefully in clause-by-clause debate on the bill to the committee members from other parties as they put forward their amendments and expressed their arguments in support of those amendments. Despite what the member for Ottawa West (Mr. Baetz) suggested this afternoon, some of those amendments proposed by the official opposition have found their way, albeit in slightly amended form, into the Bill 30 reported to the Legislature this afternoon.

I would like to comment on just a few of those amendments. The bill as it has now been amended will provide what I think is very considerable protection to the single-school communities in this province. I am quite prepared to admit that the amendment now in the legislation was put forward by the critic for the official opposition. Again, after some debate and with some slight adjustment, it has found its way into the legislation with our complete support.

I am pleased that we have been able to provide that kind of protection. I remind the critic and other members opposite that protecting the viability of the public school system was, as the minister indicated, the very first principle on which the bill was based when he introduced it a year ago. His statement that no single-school community would lose its school as a result of extension was made again and again -- last summer, last fall -- in the time since the bill was introduced.

Section 136v of the act, as set out in section 2 of the bill, identifies some specific criteria which must be met before the Commission for Planning and Implementing Change in the Governance and Administration of Secondary Education in Ontario can recommend to the minister that the implementation plan of a separate school board be approved.

The legislation as now amended also provides much more extensive protection for employees of public boards whose employment might be jeopardized as a result of a shift of students to a Roman Catholic school board following implementation of the policy. Changes that have been made to that section, 1361, now allow much more flexibility than was permitted by the original bill -- flexibility in identifying the people who may be so affected and the ways in which their employment may be protected.

There were a lot of other changes to that section which I am sure will better provide such protection, on which I will not go into any detail.

The amendments will also result in a secondary educational system in which all schools supported by public funding are fully accessible to all students, regardless of the designation of their parents' property taxes or their religious convictions.

In addition, provisions are now made for the exemption of non-Roman Catholic students who go to separate secondary schools from courses in religious education. Both of those are, in my opinion, very healthy changes, changes that will provide a better overall secondary system of education in this province.

The amendments to the bill generally add considerably more flexibility than the original Bill 30 would have provided. Much of that flexibility is needed to address the diversity of the educational system in this province. This is a diversity that all members of the committee came to realize as they listened to the presentations made before them between July and November 1985.

Because of that diversity, implementing this policy is going to be very complex. It is going to require sensitivity and co-operation, perhaps unprecedented, between boards of education. It was observed last year that where the implementation has gone smoothly, there has been co-operation. It is going to be required in the months and years ahead.

5:20 p.m.

Before I conclude my remarks, I want to express my appreciation to my colleagues on the standing committee on social development, particularly those involved in the debate and public hearings from beginning to end. It was an unprecedented experience for all of us, one that we will perhaps never have the opportunity to go through again.

Many of us were new to the Legislature, and because of that I particularly want to compliment the chairman of the committee, the member for Scarborough West (Mr. R. F. Johnston). He has handled what has proven to be a very controversial public policy in a thoroughly sensitive manner, and I compliment him for that.

Because a number of us on the committee were new to this Legislature, he had to do a little teaching as well and acquaint us with the parliamentary procedures as they are followed in a standing committee of this Legislature. He did so with a great deal of patience and expertise. I want to thank him very much for his leadership.

To the colleagues from my caucus who were on the committee almost throughout the entire experience, the member for Mississauga North (Mr. Offer), the member for Waterloo North (Mr. Epp) and the member for Haldimand-Norfolk (Mr. G. I. Miller), I say all of them have approached what has been a very demanding and a very challenging experience in a responsible way. I thank them for their commitment to the committee.

To the members on the committee from the official opposition who were with the committee throughout the hearings, the member for Scarborough Centre (Mr. Davis) and the member for Burlington South (Mr. Jackson), both of them brought to the committee an educational background with experience on boards of education that proved to be very helpful to us not only through the clause-by-clause debate but also through the hearings.

To the member for Hamilton West (Mr. Allen), the critic for the New Democratic Party, his very extensive knowledge, not only of the history of the province but also of its educational system in particular, was of great assistance to me and to the other members of the committee.

The experience on the committee in association with this policy has provided me with one of the most interesting, challenging and valuable experiences of my political career. I am very pleased to have been a part of it. Having said that, I am pleased we are now approaching third reading.

Mr. Sterling: Let me begin by first thanking the many members of this Legislature who sat on the standing committee on social development over the past year to deal with this very complicated, complex and difficult issue of Bill 30. I appreciate the time and effort they have put forward to try to make this as good a piece of legislation as is possible.

I also would like to congratulate the minister and his staff on how they have handled themselves during the past year in keeping conflict to a minimum.

I speak in opposition to Bill 30. I do not do it to be vindictive against any one religious group. Both of my children, Ian and Sarah, attended the separate school kindergarten. I have no hesitation, or would have no hesitation, in entrusting my children to that very fine system of education.

Last year, during the debate on second reading of this bill, I expressed my opposition to the bill on philosophical grounds. I said that at the time when we forge our thoughts, goals, and personalities during our childhood, I do not believe it benefits us or society to be divided in society on religious grounds. This is what we are doing today. We are extending the divisions that already exist in Ontario society. I do not believe the state should voluntarily pay to indoctrinate children in one religious belief to the exclusion of all the others.

Our Attorney General (Mr. Scott) has told this House of his pride in being one of a group in his family that has pushed for Roman Catholic education for almost 130 or 140 years. I can understand his pride, joy and feeling, and that of many others such as my friend the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel), in achieving the extension of separate school funding. However, that very successful lobby which has existed over the past 130 or 150 years does not apply to what Ontario is today. It is not 1841, 1867, 1899 or any of the other magical dates that are quoted to us. It is, in fact, not June 12, 1984. Ontario is a pluralistic society and is becoming more so every day.

Our society will not tolerate bigotry, racism or discrimination. This legislation, in my estimation, takes us back. It leads us back to confrontations and misunderstandings in our society that existed some time ago, but fortunately have been disappearing in more recent years. Let us be clear about what Bill 30 does. Bill 30 clearly discriminates in favour of one religious group over all other religious groups. As a director of a separate school board said to me one or two months ago, "Anyone who says this legislation does not discriminate does not know what Bill 30 is all about."

In 1982, this Legislature passed a resolution in favour of our Constitution of Canada. Included in that constitution were guarantees for separate school funding under section 93. However, it also included a Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which limits the powers of our Legislature to make laws as it deems fit. As legislators, we are not afforded the capability any more to make unreasonable discrimination in favour of, or against, one group. Subsection 15(1) of our charter says, "Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on...religion...."

I deem the meaning of this Legislature in approving our Constitution of 1982 to be very significant in that we not only stated what we wanted in a charter but also that we were willing to limit what we should decide in the future, that whenever we were given the opportunity in this assembly to discriminate or not discriminate, and it was a toss-up whether we should take the direction of discriminating in favour of a group, we should balance ourselves off by subsection 15(1) of the charter and say, "We should not do it because that is what we agreed to as a general principle in making laws in this province."

Two or three weeks ago, I sat in this Legislature with all the other members to listen to Bishop Tutu, who was not 15 feet from me. Looking around this Legislative Assembly then, I could not help but think and say to myself, "How do the white people of South Africa justify their discrimination against the black people of Africa, something I abhor?"

The comparisons are nowhere fair and the exaggerations are great when talking about South Africa.

Mr. Rae: If they are not there, do not make them.

5:30 p.m.

Mr. Sterling: There are some comparisons. When a group of people try to discriminate in favour of another group or against a group, they go back to a historical background. They try to paint the fact that they can discriminate on the basis of some number of historical facts. The Court of Appeal has not decided that there is a legal obligation on this Legislative Assembly to grant these rights. It is not in the Constitution that those rights exist. We are given the opportunity to make this move.

Perhaps members will forgive me because of my feeling in terms of the principle that has been ingrained in my character in regard to discrimination. I believe the citizens of Ontario should be equal as far as is humanly possible, but I look with some scepticism at the reasons for condoning the actions of this Legislative Assembly.

In talking about what the Court of Appeal decided in February, I have indicated to this Legislative Assembly that there was no right to the funding. In some ways, the Court of Appeal was pretty smart in the way it dealt with it. They said, "You have given us the ball, but we are going to give you the ball right back."

In July 1985, when I voted against this bill on second reading, I said:

"I think many members of the public and of this Legislature believe we do have a constitutional, legal obligation to fund separate schools to the end of high school. Quite frankly, I hope the court resolution says that in spades. If it does, I have no problem. I will vote for this bill on third reading and have no problem at all. But if it does not say we have a constitutional, legal obligation to support separate schools to the end of high school, then we must treat every group the same. We cannot discriminate against other groups. I will stand here and fight against that."

As many know, the Court of Appeal decision has been appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada. That decision may be decided in the early part of 1987. Many of my colleagues, as lawyers, have come to me with unsolicited remarks about the majority judgement of the Court of Appeal and expressed some concern over the reason behind that majority. They indicated to me that they do not understand how the Supreme Court of Canada can uphold that decision on the same grounds. Several newspapers have also questioned the decision of the Court of Appeal.

I do not know how our courts are going to deal with this matter, but, as I have said before, it is not the responsibility of this Legislature, the separate school boards across this province or the government to forge ahead until the legitimacy of this legislation is confirmed by our highest court. The three-to-two decision of the Court of Appeal reinforces this caution and this approach. I hope the lives of many of the young people who are acting on our legislation and our moves to fund separate school boards in the interim are not damaged when this issue is finally laid to rest.

Perhaps more important than the issue itself was the failure of our democratic process to have an open and public debate on this issue before it was decided. As members know, I was a member of the cabinet of Ontario when this issue came before us at 11 o'clock on June 12, 1984. In 20 minutes the issue was decided by cabinet. One can imagine the range of discussion that took place during that period of time and how great an amount of discussion might have taken place. My caucus met before two o'clock when the announcement was made, so in the time between 11 o'clock and two o'clock, our caucus and our cabinet were supposed to have been sold on this issue.

For the opposition parties, there was even less notice, because until the opposition parties came to the Legislative Assembly at 2 p.m. and heard the words of former Premier Davis, they had no inkling of the issue and they had no inkling of the repercussions of making a decision on this. However, a decision was made by all three parties at that time -- at least that is what we keep hearing thrown back to us time after time.

For two years we, as politicians in this province, have been defending a decision in which we have had little participation, if any. All three parties and all three leaders continue to close down open debate on the central issue. Legitimate questions about the very thrust of the basic decision were not answered. In the May 2, 1985, election the people of Ontario did not get an opportunity to have the issue debated in the open, as all three party leaders avoided the issue like the plague.

We heard all kinds of excuses both inside and outside the party: "In the name of party solidarity, we must hold fast." "We cannot change our position," as we heard from press reports of the New Democratic Party convention this weekend. "Our leader will look weak to the media and to the press if our caucus is divided." Excuses, excuses about why we could not discuss this major issue in the open.

Thus, with the exception of the hearings of the standing committee on social development after second reading, after the principal issue had already been decided, we did not have any semblance of open debate.

We went ahead and provided interim funding. I do not know what the intention of the government was in doing that. Perhaps it was an attempt to prejudice the decision-making process that was going on at the same time in the Court of Appeal. To go ahead without the legal question having been answered, in my view, was irresponsible and wrong. It may still be proved wrong if the Supreme Court of Canada upsets the Court of Appeal.

Even to this day deals are being cut among the three parties. We have read in the press that the parties have decided to limit debate in committee of the whole House and on third reading, that it is so important to have this debate over in one day, the most important debate on our education system that we have ever entered into, at least within the history of my political career of nine years.

5:40 p.m.

No party in this Legislature will accede to a free vote. I do not know what the result of a free vote might be, but I suggest it would be close. The issue has shown me that our political system is in trouble. It is in trouble when the power of a Premier, the power of a leader of his party is such that MPPs are not willing to stick with their principles, at least until they have an adequate time of consultation before a policy which contravenes a major part of their political makeup is brought forth. When that happens, I believe there is a major problem with our political system here in Ontario, and perhaps in Canada.

It might have been better if all three leaders had met and decided the issue in a room. For the people of Ontario to go through an election campaign without a chance or choice on at least one of the major issues is hardly a lesson in democracy. Today we are closing another chapter, although perhaps not the last, because this Legislature may still have to wrestle with Bill 30 and its constitutionality if something does happen in the Supreme Court of Canada in 1987.

As many members know, I was a professional engineer and a lawyer before I came to this Legislature some nine years ago as the member for Carleton-Grenville. I am proud of what I have been able to achieve during my lifetime. I was not the son of a lawyer, a doctor or any special person in society. My father died when I was two and my mother brought up a family of four young children on her own. She taught me that if I worked hard and followed my principles, I could achieve any goal I wanted to achieve. She taught me that justice and fairness were the most important things we could have in our Ontario society.

While we are not all alike and we have different talents, we should all be given the same opportunities as far as is humanly possible. I believe this piece of legislation perpetuates and encourages the existence of different classes of people; or even worse, different classes of children. They are put into different streams of society. That differentiation is not based on any rational or logical grounds, but on what the religious beliefs of the parents of those children happen to be.

In my view, to vote for Bill 30 is to vote for discrimination which Ontario society should not tolerate. To vote for Bill 30 is to vote for a division of our society on religious grounds, or at least an extension of that division. To vote for Bill 30 is to vote against everything I believe in.

Mr. Allen: I rise to participate in the last stage of our consideration of Bill 30, a process which began, as we know, two years ago in one sense, but many years back in another. The issue has seized the province for almost time without end. I am, therefore, immensely pleased to be part of a Legislature which has finally closed a chapter and opened a new door, which has said that a bargain made at last is a bargain kept and that a wrong is righted and justice is done.

In 1970, this party was the first of the parties in this province to reverse long-standing positions on this issue and to adopt a comprehensive resolution to address the question of the discrimination that existed as the laws were with respect to the separate school system in Ontario. I want to say at the outset that while this bill does not resolve all matters of discrimination in relation to education or anything else, none the less it does resolve some major and central issues of discrimination.

If it is legitimate in our country to enrol one's children in a separate system, if the government is obligated by law to fund even the elementary years up to the end of grade 10 and if the government and this Legislature are committed to equal opportunities in education, then it is patently discriminatory on the part of this Legislature and on the part of this province, and discrimination of the most flagrant sort, not to provide the 500,000 separate school students for whom they are responsible with equal and full funding in a complete system of education.

One can argue the question of obligation until the cows come home, and maybe the Supreme Court of Canada will settle that once and for all, but at the heart of the Court of Appeal's decision in the argument it gave in February was the observation that this province had not kept a bargain that had been made. I remind members that it was a bargain made by all parties to that agreement at that time.

It would be a luxury to stand here and recall all the process we have been through, to look at the range of impacts this legislation will have, to examine the bill in detail and to see who contributed what to what part of it. I say that would be a luxury because, given the business before this Legislature at this point, I do not think there is time for all of us to do that at the length at which the member for Carleton-Grenville (Mr. Sterling) has just done it.

It would be a luxury to attempt to answer point by point and, in particular, the very invidious observation that this piece of legislation in any remote sense bears comparison to anything that exists in South Africa or existed under the discriminatory practices in the United States with regard to a particular race of people.

When Egerton Ryerson observed that he did not like the fact that there was a separate system developing in Ontario in his day, none the less he counselled generosity. He recognized a principle was being fought for by those people in his time, and it has continued to be a principle that community has fought for, that is, the essential integrity of the relationship between religion and culture and between culture and education. From their perspective, those cannot be divorced. They have been consistent, indeed they have been the more consistent, with regard to their approach to and structuring and direction of the education they have wished for their children.

In the strength of opinion this party has developed and, not least of all, reiterated at our recent convention by an overwhelming vote, nothing that we have done or intended to do with respect to separate education in the public system detracts in any measure whatsoever from our commitment to see the public school system, elementary and secondary in this province, well funded and equally funded between the elementary and secondary panels.

Nothing detracts from our intention to attack in this province the embarrassing existence of 1.4 million who are functionally illiterate, to deal with the curricular problems of general level students, to deal with the difficulties of those who are now getting more adequate and mainstream attention under special education legislation in this Ontario of ours.

5:50 p.m.

I repeat that nothing we have intended and nothing we have done in this bill is intended to impact and adversely affect. All 13 amendments we accomplished in this bill have provided for a much more open and flexible system. I want to pay tribute to the minister for the accommodating spirit in which he approached this bill and for the diligent way in which his parliamentary assistant related himself to the committee in an attempt to meet the concerns of as many members of that committee as possible.

We have provided for a much more cooperative system of education than has ever existed in this province in the past. That will be the accomplishment of Bill 30 and, in a significant measure, the accomplishment of this party and of this Legislature. For the first time, our amendments have provided for joint-board committees to magnify and escalate the amount of sharing that will exist between the systems. We have provided for equal access between the systems as far as students are concerned and, hence, maximized the flexibility of programming to which they have access.

We have provided for a foolproof system of teacher transfer and staff transfer and all the protections that go with that. We have provided for substantial guarantees for single-secondary-school communities. Broadly speaking, in amendment after amendment we have done things for public education in Ontario that did not exist prior to this bill. In a certain sense, that is a result of the resolution this party passed in 1970 for which we have fought with a consistency I do not think any other party has matched.

Within the past two years, with a sense of maturity, discipline and responsibility with respect to our task, we have listened carefully to all sectors of the educational community and we have listened carefully to the public. I want to pay tribute to the members of the committee who, in those months of intense hearings, listened with such patience and responded with such care to the public that there were times when in our meetings in those communities that the committee was actually applauded at length when it drew its hearings to a close. All people present on those occasions recognized that something very significant was happening in terms of public process.

Mr. Speaker, with your indulgence, I want to conclude my remarks on the bill by reading into the record the resolution of 1970, which started this whole process afoot. I want to read it because it is an unusually thoughtful resolution. It was devised with great care, and it is amazing how it has stood the test of time.

"New Democrats define the goals of education in terms of the equal opportunity for education of every individual child in Ontario. We have accepted the principle that continuous education must be equally open to every child in this province.

"The existence of two public school systems is deeply embedded in the Constitution and history of this province. If there are now those who believe that a religious dimension is not a necessary complement to the full education of a full person, Roman Catholics insist that it is. They have backed their conviction with great self-sacrifice in sustaining a separate system of education.

"As Ontarians, we understand the history of our province. As socialists, we accept and must defend the principled diversity of our community. We would repudiate a situation which would effectually starve Roman Catholics into subservience to a majority view of secular education.

"The present situation cries out for a solution. The public separate school system in Ontario suffers bitterly from the limitation of grants from grades 9 to 10 and their total absence from grades 11 to 13. The educational opportunities available to Catholic students are, therefore, stunted. Their parents are subjected to what is effectively double taxation. The whole community suffers from this failure.

"The separate system of education in Ontario will not disappear. That fact is confirmed by more than a century of struggle. Furthermore, we state that its continued existence and support is not in question here.

"Therefore, the separate public system must be rendered able to provide full opportunities for its share of Ontario students with a minimum cost in division and duplication of existing educational programs.

"It is to this end that the New Democratic Party endorses the concept-of-sharing plan. We offer Ontario a way of doing justice to Catholic children without imposing large extra costs and the waste of duplication. We call for full grants for Catholic school children from kindergarten to grade 13 on the condition that separate school boards and public school boards join in planning shared facilities and services to meet the needs of all students in every community. In many parts of Ontario, programs of sharing are already in operation at the junior level. We know that this co-operation can be extended in such areas as buildings, provision of special consultative services and student busing. Implementation of this concept of sharing promises justice to both the majority and minority of our province."

We are satisfied that this legislation fulfils the objectives of our resolution of 1970.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I do not come from a religious or a community background that would normally have supported the initiatives now coming to fruition on this historic day. From that background I was able to enthusiastically support the concept of completion many years ago. I am delighted and honoured to be associated with my colleagues and others in this House, as the numbers have swelled to the point where we believe this bill will carry on third reading almost unanimously.

To those who might be interested, I want to recall the historic debates in this Legislature in 1935, 1936 and 1937 on this matter and indicate in modern history the Liberal Party's association with the principle we are discussing.

I also want to say that Dr. Frank Walker of Loyola University in Chicago wrote the definitive historical review and piece of literary work about the politics and realities of this issue. I remember reading his volume with care. At a time when this was particularly difficult for me, it set out in a clear and orderly way the evolution of events from our constitutional, religious and educational history in this jurisdiction.

Probably my greatest recognition must go to the late Archbishop Pocock who, in his senior position in those days, undertook to assist politicians of all parties to review the past and consider reasonable alternatives. I will never forget his ability in a reasonable and moderate way to persuade politicians such as myself, representatives of the Progressive Conservative Party and the New Democratic Party, to come to a meeting of minds. He, probably more than anyone else, made it possible for me to support this policy. I am very grateful to have known such a great man.

I would also like to recognize the role played by Carl Matthews, SJ, the present chairman of the separate school board of Metropolitan Toronto who has attended many sessions of this Legislature and is in the gallery now. For many years, he saw that all sides of the Legislature were adequately and fully informed of the statistical situation associated with the funding of separate schools, particularly compared with the then public system. I appreciate his tenacity, his ability to set the facts forward fairly and his continuing friendship.

This is a great day. As a former Methodist, there is only one word that occurs to me, and that is "hallelujah."

6 p.m.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I appreciate the opportunity to speak in this debate. I am sure the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Sweeney) appreciates why I am not taking part in his estimates at the moment.

I wanted to speak today because, as chairman of the standing committee on social development, I have not had a chance to talk for the past 10 months. Everybody else has been talking around me on this issue. I have been listening carefully and I want to have at least some words in these last few minutes before this bill finally becomes law.

First, I want to compliment the committee. The committee sat through long hours. Anybody who thinks committees travel about only to test the cuisine in various parts of the world should have been with that committee, which often sat 14 hours a day and sat six days in one week and put in very long hours listening to people.

There is a gulf of misunderstanding on this issue that is just phenomenal, as any members who have had discussions with constituents on one side or the other of this issue have all found. So much so that even today I gather there were again comparisons of this law to what one might find in South Africa. That is the kind of extremism and the kind of unfortunate misunderstanding of what we are trying to do.

As committee chairman, I watched people on all sides of the committee wrestle with how to extend to a school system minority rights which are entrenched as part of the Canadian fabric, how to allow Catholic kids to have the same kinds of rights to a good education as we are guaranteeing in the general public system, how to balance that somehow with the question of civil rights and with whether some of the powers and discriminations vested in the Catholic system to maintain its catholicism need to be maintained or even enhanced as we end the 20th century.

I thought I saw people coming in who had fixed minds on this, and I might even include myself in this because of my own bias on this issue. One of the first election campaigns I was involved in was with Walter Pitman in Peterborough in 1971 when, in my view, he lost because of this issue. I have noticed those people in that committee change during the many months and understand that many subtleties on both sides needed to be taken into consideration.

If there were ever going to be a time when the art of compromise was necessary, it was going to be on this legislation. All the skills we could muster were going to be necessary to give not only the semblance of bridging the gap by our hearings, when almost 1,000 groups came before us, but also to give effect to the fact that we had been listening to both sides and trying to find some kind of balance that would make sense in Ontario, something that would not be perfect for either side, something that would not rest this issue for all time in the minds of the citizens of this province but at least something which we could look back on and think we did the best we could.

We made the kinds of value judgements that were very difficult, and the 10-year phase-in on the civil rights question gave many members a lot of difficulty. The whole question of whether it should be total open access also gave us a great deal of difficulty from both the sides of catholicism and civil rights.

I have to compliment all members of the committee for their creativity. I, from my own bias, especially would like to congratulate the member for Hamilton West on a number of the initiatives he took which made the legislation much better than it had been before. Forgotten by many groups is something outside of this bill that, of all things, is going to give perhaps the best protection to teachers. That is the superannuation change that we made, allowing teachers to retire early. I thank the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) for conceding to that change and for allowing this to be the best buffer we could have for those teachers.

Today, I sit down thinking that this bill is finished and passed finally, that we have done that which we as a party have been committed to for many years and that in the process we have been both honest and reputable in the way we have dealt with both sides on this issue; that we have produced the best possible legislation we can produce at this time in Ontario.

Mr. Davis: As the member for Scarborough Centre and as the Education critic for the Progressive Conservative Party, I am most honoured and privileged to participate as this historic event in the life of Ontario unfolds with the passage today of Bill 30, which concludes the dreams and aspirations of many citizens in Ontario for the education of their children.

It is indeed a strange twist of destiny that two years ago, on June 12, 1984, the then Premier of this province, the Honourable William Davis, announced his intention to introduce legislation to provide public funding to Roman Catholic secondary schools, and that this afternoon another Bill Davis, of the city of Scarborough, rises to speak on behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party as we consent to third and final reading of the legislation that will provide funding to the separate secondary schools. Today we join with the separate school community in the joy and celebration of achieving their dreams.

I would like to express my appreciation to the member for Scarborough West for the excellent leadership he provided to our committee, which comprised many rookies. He took us through a very difficult time with expertise, compassion and concern. I would also offer a special word of appreciation to the members of the standing committee on social development. In the interest of brevity I will not list them all, but they know who they are. They gave countless hours as they brought this bill together.

The amended legislation that is before the House is not an expression of the will or desire of one single political party in this province; neither does it represent the sole recommendation of any particular group or individual involved in the debate. This legislation came out of the souls of the people of Ontario who expressed their feelings on this controversial issue and offered concrete, insightful, concerned comments to the social development committee, in spite of their belief systems, ideology, fears, anxiety, hopes and dreams. Through a spirit of dialogue and consultation and a willingness to compromise, the committee was able to forge ahead and to put together legislation that may not necessarily express one's desire or point of view, but it is certainly framed within the guidelines of fairness and justice.

Always at the heart of the debate was our recognition that education is extremely important to the people of Ontario. It is seen as society's responsibility for future generations. As my colleague the member for York Centre (Mr. Cousens) so appropriately stated during the debates in July 1985, education is a foundation-stone for life.

I am proud of our contributions to this legislation. It was always the intent of former Premier William Davis to ensure the viability and preservation of public education in Ontario while at the same time providing for the extension of funding to Roman Catholic secondary schools. Through our amendments, my colleagues and I have remained true to those guiding principles. Because of our persistence and uncompromising demands, we accomplished a very significant achievement with our amendment, which will enshrine in legislation protection for the 182 single-school communities in Ontario.

The New Democratic Party would offer only hazy, vague protection for these communities by employing such phrases as "in the best interests of public education" or "the viability of secondary education," leaving a definition of such phrases up in the air. On the other hand, the only concrete protection and guarantee the Liberals offered to concerned citizens of these communities was, in the words of the minister, to "trust me," but no written guarantee was offered. In fact, when a school was to be transferred to the separate school board, this government recommended, although the proposal was withdrawn, that the school closing policy required by the Education Act be suspended. Such action would most effectively silence the voices of parents, teachers, students and citizens of these communities if their schools were to be closed or transferred.

With our amendment, there is a guarantee that the public board of education will have jurisdiction in these 183 communities and will exercise the determination of the local school with respect to closing, leasing or transfer of these facilities.

6:10 p.m.

We are pleased to join with the NDP to provide for the creation of boards of management which will, we hope, contribute to a high quality in efficient implementation of this policy. We are disappointed that neither party would support our amendment which would have more specifically defined the membership of these boards of management. This government that boastfully states at every opportunity that it is a government without walls -- no barriers, open for consultation and co-operation -- along with its accomplices, the NDP, said no to involving parents, teachers and students as designated representatives of these committees. These individuals, who have a personal attachment and a deep interest, not just in the bricks and mortar of the school buildings but also in the delivery of quality education within their community, must now depend upon the invitation by school boards to participate on these management units.

It is my view that my party has substantially improved this legislation as it affects the rights, privileges and security of teachers and other staff whose livelihood will be touched by this legislation. At our insistence, and with the support of the Liberal members, we have built in a flexibility for the transfer of teachers to include not just the voluntary process but the option of secondment or the assignment of services, providing a wider choice for teachers and boards.

We were greatly disturbed when the Liberal Minister of Education introduced amendments that provided for the termination of certain designated teachers after two years. We were pleased, after much consultation, to support the NDP amendment which guarantees every teacher who transfers a teaching position or retraining for new teaching responsibilities.

It was from our principles of justice and fairness that we believed the discriminatory hiring practice of the separate secondary schools should not apply to the secondary panel now they are to be publicly funded. One finds it difficult to rationalize the position of the NDP. Either one allows discrimination, or one does not. My party chose to support the latter position.

We also felt it was important as part of the vital healing and consensus-building process, which must continue, to allow the public and separate boards to merge where there was community support for the idea. However, that attempt to allow for consolidation was defeated. Past experience indicates that when traumatic changes are implemented in the life cycle of education without providing some process for reflection and the review of the new directions, weaknesses and irregularities appear in what many believe is a sound, flawless piece of legislation.

During the past year, numerous individuals have expressed deep concerns that the viability of public education and the catholicity of the separate schools could be in jeopardy because of this legislation and the amendments made thereto. I regret that the government and its allies, the NDP, were unable to support our amendment for a provincial review five years after the passage of Bill 30, which would allow us to affirm our direction or make the necessary adjustments.

I believe our amendment, which will not allow for the transfer of property from the public to the separate boards for the next five years except in cases where both parties agree, will be a positive contribution to ensure a smooth and agreeable transfer of facilities where necessary. My party heard and responded to the voice of the Catholic parents, students, teachers and clergy who asked that non-Catholic students who choose to attend their institution should be required to take courses in religious education. Unfortunately, the other parties desired a more permissive option in the matter of religious education. We introduced a compromise amendment that we believe places this sensitive area in the hands of the parents of those students who will make the determination of religious education for their child in the separate school.

I was deeply saddened when our amendment -- which I believe was framed out of our conviction for fairness and justice and which would have enabled a separate school board to provide a teacher to instruct separate school students in religious education, guidance, health and family life, and to provide for the liturgical services in those jurisdictions within the public system where a separate board determined not to provide secondary education -- was defeated by the Liberals and the NDP.

It is my opinion that although this bill does not incorporate all our wishes and desires, it is a sound piece of legislation. To make this legislation work, it will require from all parties goodwill, creativity, courage, determination, sensitivity and co-operation. We shall be called upon to rise above our partisan views, our historical perspectives, our intolerances and, yes, our bitterness to make this legislation work for the betterment of students -- the young men and women of our school system.

If we fail in our task, if we sabotage our responsibilities, then we not only fail our calling to education but also handicap the children of tomorrow in this province, who expect nothing less than to inherit a legacy of equal opportunity and quality education.

The education torch is lit. Together we must covenant to carry this new flame into tomorrow in the spirit of harmony and co-operation.

Mr. Allen: Many of us have paid tribute in many directions to people who have been a part of this process, and I am sure the Conservative critic would like to join me in paying tribute to his aides. I know that Graham Murray in particular was of immense assistance during a long, two-year period. I know the minister will be doing that when he gets up to speak and I just want to acknowledge that.

Mr. Rae: I want to say a couple of words. First, on behalf of my colleagues, I congratulate our critic and the chairman of the committee, who I think everyone agrees has done an absolutely outstanding job in bringing this to the conclusion we have reached.

It is crucial for us now to look to the future. We now have two publicly funded school systems that will be completed to the end of high school. We have attempted, by means of our amendments, to do this in a way that is as nondiscriminatory on the one hand, and as nonthreatening on the other hand, as possible.

The philosophy that has moved our party and that has moved all of us in our caucus is a view that, in order to achieve co-operation in the future, we have to assure the Catholic system that its existence is in no way threatened; that the catholicity of the system can withstand the kind of nondiscriminatory protections that we think are essential for the long-term future.

6:20 p.m.

I also suggest that as we move to a world of equal funding, we have an even greater obligation to all our children to ensure that there is co-operation, that there is dialogue, that there is, yes, a sharing of facilities where that is in the best interests of everyone in the community, that there is an ongoing institutional relationship and that the world of the two solitudes, which has been so much the world of education and the world of bringing up children for so long in this province, is now changed into one where we recognize, because of our maturity, the rights of everyone; where we recognize, in particular, the special historical and sociological reality of the Catholic community, but, at the same time, the importance of increasing the kind of co-operation and dialogue that takes place.

As I reflect on my own constituency, I cannot help making a comment I have made on other occasions. There are a great many kids in my riding who drop out in grade 10. If I could be irreverent for a moment, I suspect that as they transfer -- and some of them do transfer to the Catholic system -- perhaps they will drop out in grade 11.

All right, let us be tough about that. Let us recognize that Catholic teachers and those in the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation, Catholic trustees and public trustees have to come together in a dialogue that recognizes the common challenge -- to keep kids in school for as long as they want -- and to be there to meet that challenge, the sense of the kids' own future, in a progressive way.

We can do that. That is what our party has been all about. The thrust of our work from now on will be to ensure that we have two publicly funded systems that are not only the best in Canada but the best in the world in terms of providing opportunities for all our children.

Mr. Grossman: I rise for a few short minutes on what is a historic day for every member of the assembly and, obviously, a day of many emotions for my party.

We did not anticipate, in June 1984, the complications, implications, stresses and emotions that the next two years had in store. I suspect few other members of the House did. I would say to all members of the assembly that an analysis of the events of the past 24 months -- be it from the political side, the educational side, or, most importantly, the public policy side -- would perhaps be a very fundamental lesson, and one of the most important lessons anyone could learn about government, politics and society in Ontario in the 1980s.

As is too often the case, even legislators learn the hard way. No member of this House, regardless of the political complications, benefits, rewards and punishments, can fail to have been touched by the responses in his or her riding; the responses to the principle and procedure involved, and the responses of the boards of education, teachers' federations, parents and students.

It is a lesson in communication, dialogue, consultation, procedure and implementation, in bringing people together and in explaining and understanding what an important change is all about. Most important, it is a lesson in understanding the views, feelings and emotions of a society when one plans to make significant and important changes.

We cannot deny that this particular move, the announcement of then-Premier Davis on June 12, 1984, played a role in the alignment of this Legislature and the place in which my party finds itself today, although not as major a role as some might believe. However, it certainly played a role.

Notwithstanding that, today is a day when all three parties can reflect upon a major step forward. It has not been without difficulties. It has brought to the fore some important thoughts and sensitivities. Every member of this assembly ought now to reflect upon his or her role. I would suggest, almost without exception, that the members of this assembly -- and, to be fair, those of the one immediately preceding -- have played important and principled roles in how we got to today.

It has not been an easy time for any of the 125 people who sit here. However, each party had its leader: respectively, the Minister of Education, the member for Scarborough Centre in this party, and the Education critic of the NDP and chairman of the standing committee on social development. They led the members of this assembly through a difficult time. They did so not without conflict and disagreement, but in such a fashion that all three parties can sit here today, not with total comfort because we will never have that on legislation such as this, but with relative ease and comfort, secure in the knowledge that the issues now have been well understood, albeit a little late, and that the steps have been put in place to make this implementation a lot better than it would otherwise have been without the intense, fair, tough and thoughtful scrutiny given the legislation by all members of all parties, particularly the members of the committee.

On this day, I want to share the thoughts and comments of the leader of the NDP when he reminds us all that if the past two years have been tough, the challenge now lies ahead. I and my colleagues urge all, as I know all members of this assembly do, now to turn the page on the controversy with regard to how we got here. Many people will never accept how we got here and many people will always have reservations, but we are here now. It is important that we turn the page today. Happily, I sense that this assembly is about to turn that page in a dignified, thoughtful way that reflects a consensus, not the full consensus we otherwise might have thought we might have today, but a genuine and relatively full consensus.

Based on that, I join the other party leaders in turning our attention to the reinforcement of the public school system, of the entrenchment of the things that have made that system strong and great. However, candidly, in my view it is not what it could be and not what it ought to be today. Equally, we must ensure that the new funding provided for the separate schools turns out to be constructive, turns out to produce another school stream at the secondary level that is as strong and successful as we must ensure the public school stream is. To those efforts, we dedicate ourselves. Controversies lie ahead. Challenges inevitably will present themselves. Controversies will be on the floor of this House.

In this debate, I am sure we have learned that the point of the exercise is that the dedication and thoughts of every member of this assembly must be pointed towards the improvement of the public school system and the enrichment of the separate school system. On this important and noteworthy day, I pledge our party's efforts to that task and I join the other parties in recognizing the contribution made by all members of this House. Let us not forget the contributions of the teachers' federation and the stresses put on everyone in the system, all of whom -- from the boards to the federations to this assembly -- responded in one way or another, and did so, regardless of their points of view, with an eye on the betterment of education for our young people.

In closing, I say to the minister that his year has not been without controversy. We have not been without criticism. We will have more in the future and we will not forget the past criticism, but we urge him to approach the next year as he has, on occasion, tried to do in the first year, with a view to being open to reconsideration of those things that might improve both the public and separate school streams, and to be open to the suggestions that emanate from this side of the House -- as he has, not always but from time to time, been over the past year.

Our party is anxious to join with the consensus that I expect this House will be sharing in a few short moments.

Mr. Speaker: Are there any comments or questions? Does any other member wish to participate in the debate?

Standing order 3(a) states that the Speaker shall adjourn the House at 6:30 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: We request unanimous consent to hear the minister before the question is put.

Agreed to.

6:30 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Conway: I am very pleased to join with my colleagues in this debate this afternoon. I particularly want to thank the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Grossman) for his kind words and his very good advice, which I shall, to the very best of my ability, try to follow.

It has been a good debate today, as it has been for the past 50 weeks since the 33rd Legislative Assembly gathered in the spring of 1985. As honourable members on all sides have indicated, this is a debate which has been before the people of Ontario on so many other occasions before so many other governments and legislatures. As I indicated to my friend the member for Ottawa West, it is an important debate, a debate of truly historic importance and, yes, a debate which has addressed one of the most controversial issues in the public life of this province.

My friend the member for Hamilton West has, as he has done so eloquently on so many previous occasions, drawn our attention to the fact that the debate began almost 145 years ago. It has been commented upon by a number of observers both in this assembly and elsewhere. It has been a case the government has argued in this assembly and in the courts of this province, as has been mentioned. This question of separate schools is something fundamental to this province, as the very distinguished former Conservative Prime Minister of Canada, Charles Tupper, said. Reflecting back at some later point on the Confederation debates, he said the denominational school question was a precedent to the establishment of the Dominion of Canada in 1867.

It is not just a matter of what happened in Charlottetown, Quebec or London in those two and a half years prior to the historic agreement of 1867. Equally important is what has happened in the intervening 118 years, because successive governments of varying political stripes have, over those years, increased the support to the separate schools of this province.

I want to note the very significant contribution made 23 or 24 years ago by the late John P. Robarts, who was Premier of this province. He introduced the very important foundation tax plan which allowed the separate schools in that period to grow and to continue in existence in the face of some very significant adversity.

My colleague the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) pointed out how, in the 1930s, a government of which his father was a Deputy Premier and in which my grandfather had the pleasure to serve, introduced a number of initiatives to help that school system through the crushing financial burdens of the Depression.

There has been a long history, a history which quite frankly has been at times quite controversial, I will be candid in admitting. It seems to me that the historical evolution is one which would have the reasonable observer conclude that for this province over many years and decades, separate schools as provided for in our Constitution have been an important part of public education. So it was, as the Leader of the Opposition noted in his remarks, that a new government came to office in May-June of 1985, faced with the responsibility and the opportunity to complete this last chapter in this long and important historical journey.

It is important for me this afternoon to indicate what the separate school policy was for the new government, the new administration which has been led so very well for the past number of months by my friend the member for London Centre (Mr. Peterson).

When we took office almost a year ago, the new administration committed itself to a separate school policy that had the following characteristics: We committed ourselves to an immediate introduction of a bill. Bill 30 was introduced by me seven or eight days after we were sworn in to office in late June 1985. In introducing the bill very quickly, we also committed ourselves to full legislative hearings so that the public would have an opportunity to have an input, as would members of the assembly.

I will recognize that it was not a perfect process. Some members in this debate this afternoon have pointed to that, but the government of the day, our government, committed itself to an, immediate introduction of the legislation and to have full public consultation both in terms of members of the assembly and the community beyond, recognizing that there was a rare unanimity among the three political parties about the principle, recognizing that important point.

Furthermore, the new government committed itself to an immediate reference of the bill to the Ontario Court of Appeal and we gave an undertaking that third reading of the bill would not be called until Ontario's highest court had passed judgement on the constitutional validity of the legislation.

Yes, in the summer of 1985 we also committed ourselves to interim funding because we felt that young people and their teachers, who had made a commitment almost a year before, who had acted in good faith -- based on the three-party commitment that quickly developed after the announcement by the former member for Brampton, Mr. Davis -- should not be jeopardized as they prepared to meet the school year of 1985.

Today, 50 weeks after we began as a new government along this course of our announced separate school policy, it is with some genuine pride that I stand here to say I believe we have fulfilled our commitment. We have fulfilled, as a new government, our commitment in this very important connection because of the diligence, determination and goodwill of the many people who have been involved in this debate over the past year.

In a very particular and personal way, I want to thank all who have participated, many of whom are gathered in this chamber this afternoon, not all on this main floor. I have come to know many of them quite well because, with the very best of intentions, they have opposed me and our government in this connection. I very much appreciate the vigour and the commitment they have brought to this important debate.

There are, in this connection, some people I want to thank in a particular way. Having been a member of this Legislature for 11 years, I cannot recall an enterprise legislatively that involved so many individuals. Particularly, I want to thank all members of this assembly to whom has fallen the responsibility and opportunity to complete this historic journey, members who today and for the last 340-odd days have been quite free and forward in providing the minister with their counsel and advice.

I hope that in some real way, as minister, on behalf of the government, I have responded by incorporating as much of that advice as I could in the amending process of this bill. I know my friends, such as my good friend the member from Manotick, will say with vigour and commitment that I have fallen short. But I have tried to listen carefully to what members of this assembly have had to say about an initiative which is truly important.

I want to thank particularly my friends the members for Scarborough Centre and Hamilton West, who must surely receive some special legislative award of merit for the tremendous commitment and dedication they have brought to bear on their responsibilities. I cannot think of a time in my 11 years when opposition critics worked so well, for so long and often in very difficult circumstances. I want to say, as Education minister, how very sincerely I have appreciated their contribution because it has truly been enormous and most helpful.

The Attorney General and officials in his department have, through these many months, been very supportive. I want to thank my colleague the Attorney General, not only for his advice but for the very successful way in which he argued our case at the Ontario Court of Appeal.

I want to thank my colleagues in cabinet whose support has been unfailing and whose encouragement has been much appreciated. I want to thank, in a particular way, the Premier and leader of this government, who has never wavered in his support of this minister or of this initiative. For that I am truly grateful.

6:40 p.m.

I want to thank, as well, the many people in the Ministry of Education, too numerous to mention. They have been engrossed in this initiative since the coming to office of the new administration. I know of the very real dedication and commitment of the officials within the Ministry of Education, at least two of whom are underneath the gallery, to my predecessors in the Education portfolio since the announcement made by Mr. Davis in June 1984. I want to express in a very personal way my heartfelt thanks and appreciation. Their contribution to a neophyte minister has been very important indeed.

To the members of the Commission for Planning and Implementing Change in the Governance and Administration of Secondary Education in Ontario, a commission struck by the predecessor administration, I say again a personal word of thanks for their tireless efforts over a very difficult period. To all those individuals referred to earlier in this afternoon's debate who came forward -- and I think there were more than 850 submissions to the standing committee -- I want to thank them for the important role they have played in making this government and this assembly aware of their concerns. By and large, their criticism has been very constructive and it has helped in the development of a better public policy in this connection.

I want to thank in a particular way as well the standing committee on social development. It soldiered long and well. What can I say of the chairman of the social development committee, except that Pembroke has never produced a finer chairman of a parliamentary committee -- and we produced a very distinguished Speaker of the House of Commons. I want to say very directly to the member for Scarborough West that his role as chairman in this regard has been exemplary and outstanding. I have never seen a chairmanship so ably discharged in my entire time here over the past 11 years. It was that wonderful balance between good humour and firm and fair judgement that allowed this bill and this process to move forward as well as it did. Bill 30, which we will conclude today, should bear the stamp of the very distinguished member for Scarborough West who, I say again, has played an extremely critical and exemplary role in all of this.

I say a word on this important and, for me, happy day to my parliamentary assistant, the very distinguished member for Middlesex (Mr. Reycraft), who, as was mentioned earlier, as a new member was sent forward with this responsibility. I have to say to the member for Middlesex and to all his constituents, who I am sure have watched with great admiration his progress and his contribution, that I would only that I might have performed as well in my first year as a member of the assembly.

Mr. Martel: He may be looking for another job in this place.

Hon. Mr. Conway: In an aside, the member for Sudbury East says, "He may be looking for another job in this place." There is not a job in this place that the member for Middlesex could not fulfil. I am quite confident he will have a long and distinguished career in this Legislature and in the government of this province. I want to thank him again in a very public way for his helpful support and considerable contribution over the past year and some months.

As I conclude my remarks this afternoon, I think it is important as well for me to note that as we complete this important chapter in the history of Ontario education I look with members of the assembly for a brief moment to the future and the important promises we must keep. As the leader of the New Democratic Party and the Leader of the Opposition have properly noted, we must look to the future with optimism and, from my point of view, some vigilance.

We must ensure that as we go forward our public school system is not jeopardized and our separate school system is not penalized. We must look to the future with a keen and priority interest for these some 550,000 young people who are currently in our secondary schools, and the almost two million young people who are in elementary and secondary education in Ontario today. First and foremost, we must keep the interests of our young people, in so far as their education is concerned, as our top priority. In that connection, we must recognize that we must have a highly motivated teaching profession that feels it is appreciated and making a contribution, as I believe it is.

We must ensure as well that we make every effort to bring about the co-operation and the co-ordination between our two school systems -- which will now be fully publicly funded -- in areas of program, facility and special interests, so that the young people of Ontario in publicly funded education will enjoy the best education it is possible to have.

I will conclude this debate by indicating that I look forward to the coming months and years with much excitement and optimism. I do so because of the nature of the province in which we all live. John A. Macdonald once said that we can afford to be generous because we are strong, and he was absolutely right. Fundamental to the greatness of our province is the generosity of greatness that is so basic to the people of this great land.

It is with a great sense of honour and history that I now conclude this debate. I invite all honourable members to join with me in at last ending this long and important chapter and journey in the history of this province and to join with the young people in the schools of this province now in looking to the future with optimism, with excitement and with opportunity.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Conway has moved third reading of Bill 30.

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Motion agreed to.

The House adjourned at 6:48 p.m.

June 23, 1986

MEMBERS' EXPENDITURES

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

VISITORS

INSURANCE RATES

BRAMPTON FESTIVAL

INSURANCE RATES

SMALL CLAIMS COURT

POLISH CENTENNIAL

RAPID TRANSIT

VISITOR

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

EXTRA BILLING

TRESPASSING

TOURISM

AIR-INDIA DISASTER

STUDENT VENTURE CAPITAL PROGRAM

TABLING OF INFORMATION

ORAL QUESTIONS

EXTRA BILLING

EQUAL PAY FOR WORK OF EQUAL VALUE

EXTRA BILLING

ACCESS TO ABORTION COMMITTEES

CHILDREN'S AID SOCIETY

ACCESS TO ABORTION COMMITTEES

HOUSING POLICY

CHILDREN'S AID SOCIETY

TECHNOLOGY FUND

WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD

INSURANCE RATES

TECHNOLOGY FUND

INSURANCE RATES

PHARMACEUTICAL LEGISLATION

HERITAGE LANGUAGES

SMALL CLAIMS COURT

RENT REVIEW

ALGOMA CENTRAL RAILWAY

PETITIONS

ROMAN CATHOLIC SECONDARY SCHOOLS

NATUROPATHY

ABORTION

SALE OF BEER AND WINE

REPORT

STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT

MOTION

COMMITTEE SITTING

ORDERS OF THE DAY

EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT

EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT