Hansard Transcript 1988-Nov-03 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

That, in the opinion of this House, the issue of the location for the new national space agency has become unnecessarily divisive between provinces; that such initiatives should be founded on existing strengths, recognizing that the aerospace industry in Canada is predominantly shared between Ontario and Quebec and the administrative functions based in Ottawa-Hull; that therefore, the logical location for the space agency is in the national capital region; and that the government of Canada should announce forthwith its intention to establish the agency in the capital region.

The Deputy Speaker: The member has up to 20 minutes to make her presentation and may reserve any portion of it for the windup.

Mrs. O’Neill: It is an honour to introduce a resolution of such importance this morning. The question of where the federal government is to locate its new national space agency is one that deserves the attention of all members of this Legislature.

What is at stake in this discussion is whether we, as Canadians, will continue to build upon our excellence in the many areas of science and technology in which we presently play a leading role. One of these areas is in the field of space science and technology, an area where Canada has been a leader for the past two and a half decades.

I know that all members in this House were pleased with the announcement made by the federal government in the 1986 speech from the throne that it would be establishing a Canadian space agency. I congratulate the federal government for making that commitment. Our future as a trading nation will be determined, at least in part, by the manner in which we meet the technological challenges posed in this and the next century by other countries. Initiatives like a national space agency will consolidate the type of expertise that will develop and enhance much of Canada’s high-technology industry.

The strategy of building upon our excellence is one that has been followed in this province and by our government. Through its initiatives such as the Premier’s Council and the establishment of centres of excellence, we have built upon our strengths to ensure that Ontario will continue to have a leading competitive edge. The decision to establish a space agency was, of course, only a first step. To proceed further will require a number of subsequent but equally important decisions. A central decision is the location of the new agency.

The motion that I am introducing here today specifically addresses this decision, which I think is long overdue. I am asking the Ontario Legislature to strongly urge the government of Canada to continue its commitment to build upon our excellence in science and technology by making its decision on the basis of which area of the country offers the type of existing infrastructure and resources to best support an institution of this type.

I call on the members of the Legislature to urge the federal government not to treat the issue of location as a political reward. Instead, the federal government must recognize that our space agency should be logically located in the national capital region of our country, an area that offers the type of existing industry, technological resources, administrative and research facilities and overall infrastructure needed to support a national space agency, and, more than that, is the present home and place of work of many of the aerospace experts in our country.

I speak about these important aspects of the national capital region with a great deal of pride. As a member from that area, I know at first hand the important resources that are available to the further development of a national space program within the national capital area.

The issue of the location of the space agency is not a new question. It has been the focus of much activity by our provincial government since the federal announcement was first made in 1986. An endorsement of this resolution is but another step in assisting the government of Ontario in its continued efforts to lobby the federal government -- indeed, now each of the federal candidates -- for locating the new space agency in the national capital region.

Soon after the announcement of a proposed space agency was made by the federal government in October 1986, the then Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, the member for Quinte (Mr. O’Neil), sent his deputy minister to meet with federal representatives on the issue and press the case for the national capital location. This effort was followed in February 1987 by a formal letter from the member for Quinte to the Honourable Frank Oberle, the Minister of State (Science and Technology), stating how critical this issue was for the Ontario government. Later that February, the Premier (Mr. Peterson) wrote the Prime Minister directly, firmly stating Ontario’s preference for the national capital location.

The government of Ontario continued to make its position clear. In March 1987, the Premier spoke forcefully about the space agency in his annual speech to the Trillium dinner in Ottawa. By locating the space agency in the national capital region, the Premier said the federal government would provide a “shining example of interprovincial co-operation and national leadership at the very same time.”

The member for Quinte echoed these sentiments in his keynote address to the Space Business Conference which was held here in Toronto in June 1987. Since then, this government has been continuing its lobbying efforts. I know that in addition to his letters, the Premier has spoken personally with the Prime Minister on a number of occasions on this matter, continuing to make his case for the national capital choice.

It is important for members to remember that Ontario’s position has also been supported by much of Canada’s aerospace industry. Over the last two years, representatives of this industry and the more broadly based economic and academic communities have corresponded, submitted briefs and met with the Premier and the two ministers of Industry, Trade and Technology -- the member for Quinte and the member for Wilson Heights (Mr. Kwinter) -- to extend their support for our efforts.

We have encouraged these industries to continue to work with us in our efforts to try to persuade the federal government to locate the agency in the national capital region.

Our present Minister of Industry, Trade, and Technology (Mr. Kwinter) has continued the efforts of the member for Quinte. He has met on numerous occasions with industry representatives and has lobbied privately as well as publicly, through speeches in the press, for a decision favouring the national capital. In addition, I know that Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology officials have continued to meet with their federal counterparts to discuss this matter.

1010

I am sure many members are aware of the open letter recently written by our Premier to the Prime Minister on this subject, outlining the many reasons the national capital is the ideal location for the space agency. Most important, the Premier stated that if the space agency is located in the national capital region, Ontario would be prepared to participate financially with the government of Quebec in creating a world-class institution.

I applaud the efforts of the Premier and the entire government of Ontario. They have been involved in this effort since the very beginning. I know I am joined in my congratulations by all members from the Ottawa-Carleton area.

In addition, the Ottawa-Carleton Liberal caucus has undertaken its own lobbying efforts to have the national space agency located in our region. Individually, members have written to the Prime Minister and to federal cabinet ministers involved in the decision. This fall, we as a caucus wrote the Prime Minister outlining the many advantages of locating the centre in the national capital region and requested a meeting to discuss the matter further. To date, we have merely received a letter of acknowledgement.

Before examining in greater detail the many advantages that the national capital region offers, I would like to spend a few moments this morning discussing the importance of space technology and science and the important role they have played in our country’s development. It is perhaps best to begin 25 years ago, when Canada officially joined that exclusive group of countries contributing to the development of the world space program. Through the designing, building, testing and launching of the artificial satellite Alouette I, Canada began what would become a significant contribution to the development of space science and technology.

Some of us are old enough to remember the pride that was engendered in each by that very first undertaking. Those original scientists, researchers and industries have become the core of what has developed into an important segment of Canada’s high-tech industry. Since then, Canadians have contributed greatly to the field of space science and research through their work in government, private laboratories and universities, with the core of the work, I add, being done in laboratories and space program offices situated in the national capital region.

As manager of the government’s space programs, the agency would co-ordinate and centralize the space-related activities of various federal departments and agencies, including the departments of Communications, External Affairs and National Defence, the National Research Council and Telesat Canada, all of which are presently located in the national capital region.

Space technology and science is imperatively global. Hence, the space agency will be working closely with other nations, exchanging information and co-operating in space initiatives and introducing and participating in very necessary international negotiations that surround the global space program. This co-operation would be greatly enhanced and facilitated within the national capital, which, as we all know, is home to the world’s embassies and their diplomatic representatives in Canada.

I would also like to reiterate that almost all of the government personnel with expertise and experience in the area of space science and technology live in the national capital region. It has been estimated that 80 per cent of the necessary and very specialized human resources needed for the space agency are already located there.

The region also boasts many of the related government-sponsored, high-tech space laboratories and test facilities needed to support the activities of the agency. These include the David Florida Laboratory housed at the Communications Research Centre, which presently serves as the existing national space test facility, and the Canadian Centre for Remote Sensing.

The national capital region offers much more than its important proximity to government. It possesses an outstanding industrial and academic infrastructure. These factors have combined to make the national capital region an already established centre of high technology, recognized throughout North America and, indeed, the world.

The national capital region currently has 15 companies employing 2,000 people in various aspects of space technology and its applications. These include a number of leading Canadian companies that the government of Ontario has been able to assist through technology fund grants, such as Canadian Astronautics Ltd., a world leader in satellite-based radar design.

Academically, the region boasts three leading post-secondary institutions -- two universities, the University of Ottawa and Carleton University, and Algonquin College of Applied Arts and Technology -- all of which are involved in hightech research and study. Each brings a high level of expertise in a number of fields important to space science and technology.

The University of Ottawa is an international leader in satellite and digital communication research. Algonquin College of Applied Arts and Technology offers a variety of specialized programs in the area of high technology, training the technologists and technicians who assist in the development of research. The college is involved in the areas of microelectronics, manufacturing technologies, digital technologies, linear circuitry and design.

Carleton University boasts a first-class engineering faculty which includes an aeronautical engineering department. I was very pleased to learn that this year, 1988-89, Carleton is offering the first undergraduate degree in aerospace engineering in Canada. I know how pleased the Premier was recently to tour the engineering facility at Carleton, during which time he met with local representatives of the aerospace industry to discuss the space agency issue.

I would also like to add that I recently received a letter and a visit from the Carleton University Students’ Association supporting the efforts of our government in lobbying the federal government to establish the space agency in the national capital region and offering its assistance.

Much of the work of these institutions has been brought together with that of government and industry through the Ottawa-Carleton Research Institute. Since its formation in 1983, this institute has become one of the largest nonprofit research co-operatives of its kind in Canada. The institute serves to pool the expertise that exists within the national capital region at the academic, industrial and government levels to undertake major research projects. The projects the institute has undertaken include work in the fields of microelectronics, communications and computer technology. The Ottawa-Carleton Research Institute is an important aspect of the existing infrastructure in the area and would obviously be greatly utilized by the new space agency.

May I remind the honourable members of the Ontario Legislature that I am reviewing the outstanding features of an area of this country which was chosen more than a century ago as our nation’s capital, Canada’s capital. Nations’ capitals have always traditionally been home to the world’s space agencies. A nation’s capital is best able to serve the national interest. The neutrality it brings to nations and its important role in steering the course of the nation have resulted in almost every industrialized nation in the world with space capacities locating its space agency in its capital.

As members are aware, one of the roles of the new space agency will be awarding government contracts in the space technology and science fields to companies located in a number of regions in this country, Placing the agency in an area that is home to most national agencies which award contracts seems more than appropriate. Canada’s national capital region equally serves all regions of this country and is centrally located between the two provinces most involved in space science and technology, Ontario and Quebec.

The Premier has stated that our government has no objection to the space agency being established in the portion of the national capital region located in Quebec. Ontario in no way wants the discussion over the location of the space agency to turn into a regional or divisive battle.

It is also important to note that even if the decision is made not to locate the space agency in the national capital, the valuable human and research resources that exist in the federal capital would indeed need to be consulted and, in time, deeply involved in offering their experience and expertise, for they are the Canadian experts.

Of equal importance, many key institutions would be required either to relocate a portion of their operations elsewhere or to move entirely. Such a situation would create obvious inefficiencies and prohibitive costs. For example, it is estimated by the Ottawa-Carleton Economic Development Corp. that the cost of construction and relocation involved with establishing the agency elsewhere would cost $100 million. Manpower relocation and recruitment costs have been estimated at $5 million. Another point which must be taken into consideration is that a substantial amount of staff would decide not to relocate, choosing not to disrupt their lives, and thus depriving the new space agency of their talents, knowledge and expertise.

Presently, within the area of the national capital, new enterprises are being created with local investment and resources. In other words, the dream of a Silicon Valley North has become a reality, however new and fragile. If key industries and government agencies were removed to support a new space agency outside of the national capital region, significant damage would be done to an economic base that has taken years to develop.

There is no overall gain and certainly no national advantage, and there is no advantage to the Canadian people as a whole, to be made from transferring well-established, successful industries and expertise from one region of the country to another. National achievement is much more easily and efficiently made, in my opinion, through building upon existing foundations.

1020

Through many efforts, including today’s resolution, Ontario is attempting once again to encourage the Prime Minister of Canada and members of the federal government to establish this Canadian space agency in the location that offers the longest tradition, the most experience, the concentration of human resources, the laboratories of research -- in other words, the most logical, unbiased and efficient location, the national capital region.

I hope that all members of this House will join me in supporting this important resolution.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. M. C. Ray): Thank you. I am sure honourable members would like me to remind them of standing order 24(b): “When a member is speaking, no other member shall interrupt him, except on a question of order.”

Mr. Morin-Strom: I am pleased to be able to address this issue as the Industry, Trade and Technology critic for the New Democratic Party. Certainly research and development is the key to Canada’s future. We have been a nation that has been remiss in our level of spending and our level of investment in our future when it comes to research and development. In terms of western world countries, we have one of the lowest percentages of gross national product investment into research and development as a nation, as federal and provincial governments and in terms of our major private corporations.

The objective of a national space agency is a very valid one. It is an area that holds tremendous promise for the future in terms of new developments and spinoffs into all areas that affect our society and the economic development of our country for years to come. It is a vitally important one to Canada, as it is to other nations of the world, one that we must have a significant share in.

When it comes to a decision such as this on the location of the national space agency, it is so unfortunate that it becomes tied up in an election campaign as a political issue of regional conflict between various areas of the country. I think it is quite unfortunate when political parties use an agency such as this as a tool for pure political gain in one region of a country versus another, and that certainly applies to the position that both the Prime Minister, Brian Mulroney, and the leader of the Liberal Party, John Turner, have taken in terms of their commitment to locate this facility in the Montreal area.

At this time I do not want to take a specific view with regard to this amendment that it should definitely be in the Ottawa-Carleton area. In my view, what is needed are valid, objective criteria for these kinds of decisions, criteria that are laid out in advance and in which a clear, fair evaluation is done of all the potential areas within our country for the location of such an agency. This should be done outside of political campaigns, and I think it is unfortunate that we have here a resolution from the provincial Liberal members that again is trying to make it part of the current federal campaign.

This is exactly the same as what happened on the CF-18 fighter contracts. On that kind of proposal there were criteria laid out, and the various potential competitors for that major contract in the maintenance of the CF-18 were evaluated. In that case, Winnipeg -- Bristol Aerospace -- was the winner on valid, objective criteria, and the Prime Minister, Mr. Mulroney, used his political sway and the sway of his own Conservative members to change that decision and to put that maintenance contract into the city of Montreal. I think it is so unfortunate when that type of action happens.

I believe there are many positive things about the Ottawa-Carleton area, certainly in terms of its research capability, in terms of the types of agencies that are there today and in terms of the current level of private research and development in the Ottawa-Carleton area. I myself had the opportunity to be able to work in the Ottawa-Carleton area for a year and a half, earlier in my working days, for the largest research and development corporation in Canada, Bell-Northern Research Ltd. I know the kinds of talents and the kinds of abilities that are in that area. I think Ottawa-Carleton would do very well in a fair and open competition.

I do not think we should just arbitrarily say that it should be the winner because we are here as representatives of the people of Ontario. I think we should be saying that we should have valid criteria, fair and equitable criteria laid out and that that decision should be made outside of the political realm and outside of an election campaign, when it is used as a pork-barrel tool by both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, John Turner, as a way of buying votes in a city such as Montreal, which has about 30 races going on there, in comparison with Ottawa or in comparison with other communities in Ontario or elsewhere in Canada that, as well, may have valid arguments.

I would suggest that, as a provincial government, we should be looking at what we can do to improve the level of research and development in our province. This is an area in which I think this Liberal government has left us far behind. This government has not taken the initiative needed to make a significant improvement in the percentage of research and development spending in Ontario. It particularly has not done so in terms of the criteria it has laid out for research and development dispersion. It continues to put almost all funds into the areas that already have strong universities and strong research components.

One of the components of any evaluation of major government spending, particularly technological development, has to be what regions and what areas need the development and what industries require competitiveness to be at world scale and in the forefront of new developments in their particular industries. It is not just the areas of high technology. It is not just the areas of communications and computers that we have to invest in. We have very important fundamental industries in terms of our resource industries and in terms of basic manufacturing in Ontario which are keys to our economic success, which are major portions of our export product. We have to ensure that they maintain their competitiveness and are in the forefront of those areas.

This government has been extremely remiss in investing in those areas. The amount it has invested, primarily in the high-technology area, is small. Because the funds have been so small, they are unable to make a significant impact in those areas. The amount of investment that goes into high technology has to be enormous in comparison with what a more modest amount could do in basic industry. This province has not taken those steps and has not invested in areas of the province and in industries in this province that have been vital to our past and are vital currently in terms of our trade surpluses and will continue to be vital in the future.

Certainly, as the resolution has suggested and as the member for Ottawa-Rideau (Mrs. O’Neill) has said, there are very valid arguments for the Ottawa-Carleton area to be chosen for this national space agency. The National Research Council is located in Ottawa. That is an important research institute of the federal government. That could be played on in terms of synergies with a national space agency.

Again, I would suggest that we should be more objective and more fair, take this out of the political realm and insist that this type of pork-barrel campaign does not become a part of this election campaign. It should not have been a part of it, and I think it is unfortunate that the member for Ottawa-Rideau is using this as a political tool to promote her own particular regional interest in the middle of a federal election campaign.

1030

Mr. Sterling: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that members of the government party will heed your warning about the rule, whatever number it was, and not interrupt me.

This resolution is the height of hypocrisy. When a member of the provincial Liberal government brings forward a resolution in favour of the national space agency in Ottawa-Carleton two years after it was originally proposed by our federal government, we know how desperate they are to control the damage that has been caused to them by their lack of action in the past.

The Liberal and New Democratic candidates running in the federal election in Ottawa-Carleton are cringing today because both of their leaders have said during this election campaign that the space agency should be located in Montreal. I will quote Mr. Turner later.

In the early parts of this particular campaign, the Liberal candidates in Ottawa-Carleton were saying to the Conservative candidates in the federal election, “Why have you not got it here in Ottawa-Carleton?” Since Mr. Turner affirmed in the debate --

An hon. member: In the French one.

Mr. Sterling: -- in the French debate, not the English debate but only in the French debate the other night, that he favours the national space agency in Montreal, the members of the Liberal team in Ottawa-Carleton have started to remain silent.

I want to go over the history of this, because the inaction of this government is shameful.

In October 1986, the federal throne speech announced that a federal space agency would be established. Immediately the province of Quebec sent delegations down to Ottawa to lobby the federal government for the location of the space agency in Quebec and, more particularly, in Montreal.

On January 12, 1987, a committee from the Ottawa business community high technology centre which included Dave Daubney, the member of Parliament for Ottawa West, Bill Tupper, the MP for Nepean-Carleton, and Barry Turner, the MP for Ottawa-Carleton, got together with the high technology community and tried to influence the government. They have successfully kept the government at bay from making a decision to go to Quebec, notwithstanding all of the lobbying that Quebec is doing, and very precious little is being done here.

Interestingly enough, one of the members of that group happens to be Gordon Gow, now the Deputy Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. One of the reasons the member for Ottawa-Rideau has brought this message to us is the fact that Gordon Gow -- not an elected representative, somebody who was appointed in the last few months -- has finally awakened this government to the fact that it had better get off its duff and start moving. A bureaucrat is moving this government towards making a statement on this, not in fact the politicians who represent the area.

On January 15, 1987, I stood in this Legislature and asked the Deputy Premier (Mr. R. F. Nixon) what, in fact, the Liberal government of Ontario had done to lobby the federal government to locate the space agency in Ottawa-Carleton, The answer, three months after the announcement was made, was that they had done nothing, absolutely nothing. Only after my urging did they start to react, and even that reaction was minor. Perhaps it is a reflection of the fact that they do not consider Ottawa-Carleton, even after a question is asked in this Legislature, an important area.

Later in 1987, I wrote to the Premier and asked him in fact what he had done and what his ministers had done to locate the space agency in Ottawa-Carleton.

His answer to me was on November 27, 1987, one full year after the space agency was announced. I was told by the Premier of this province that neither he, his minister nor his deputy minister had requested one meeting with Mr. Oberle, Minister of State (Science and Technology), or the Prime Minister of this country. Sure, they had written a couple of letters, standard letters that their staff had churned out, to the minister and to the Prime Minister.

Mrs. O’Neill: I’d like to see that letter.

Miss Nicholas: Send that letter over.

Mr. Sterling: They did not take one step until one year after that.

Miss Nicholas: Let’s have a look at all that.

Mr. Sterling: I will produce and table this letter in the Legislature. This morning was the first time I ever heard of any meeting between an official of the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology and any member of the federal government. I am irate at the actions of this government in terms of what it has not done on behalf of the Ottawa-Carleton area. I think it is absolutely amazing that a Liberal member in the Ottawa-Carleton area has the nerve to bring this resolution here two years after they should have started acting.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr. Sterling: We have eight Liberal MPPs in the area and one Conservative. I happen to be the Conservative member in that area. I have done five times as much as the eight of them combined and I did it when it counted. I got this government at least off its duff to write a letter. That is what they think is action,

Miss Nicholas: Are you pointing at us?

Mr. Villeneuve: Are you the government or are you not?

Mr. Black: On a point of order, Mr. Sneaker.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay on a point of order.

Mr. Sterling: I hope this is not taking away from my time, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Black: Mr. Speaker, I bring to your attention and to the attention of this House that yesterday I was reprimanded by the Speaker for speaking out when I was not sitting in my normal seat. This morning we have the member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry (Mr. Villeneuve) who continues to interject, something that he should not be doing; but to make it even worse, he is doing it from a seat other than his own. I would ask that he be asked to sit quietly so that we can hear the speaker.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr. Sterling: They do not want to hear. They think this is a joking matter, the Liberal members. I do not think it is a joking matter, because the location of the space agency in the Ottawa-Carleton area will mean thousands of jobs to that area, The Liberal leader of the federal party, if he should ever be elected Prime Minister, is going to take thousands of jobs out of Ottawa-Carleton and transfer them to the city of Montreal.

John Turner, the Liberal leader, disagrees with so much of what the member for Ottawa-Rideau has said today. I will quote from La Presse, September 23, 1987: “Liberal leader John Turner favours Montreal as the site of the future Canadian space agency.... According to Mr. Turner, Montreal is the logical site” -- I say to the member for Ottawa-Rideau -- ”for the agency, an institution which Ottawa wishes to found in order to co-ordinate its programs in the high-technology sector.

“‘Considering that the aeronautics industry is now centred in Toronto,’” -- not in Ottawa -- ’“I believe that the space agency should be concentrated here in Montreal,’ the Leader of the Opposition said yesterday....”

I am also informed that Ed Broadbent has said during this election campaign that it should be located in the city of Montreal. I want to say to the people of Ottawa-Carleton, if you want an opportunity to have the space agency located in Ottawa-Carleton, you cannot vote for John Turner and you cannot vote for Ed Broadbent. Vote for candidates in Ottawa-Carleton. Vote for Bill Tupper in Nepean who supports and will convince his government that the space agency should go in Ottawa-Carleton. Vote for Barry Turner, Dave Daubney, Bob Plamondon, Paul Dick, Barry Moore, Claudy Mailly and Nicole Moreault.

I am going to hold my nose and vote for this resolution because I cannot vote against it.

1040

Mr. J. M. Johnson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I would like to make the point that I am a little concerned that in private members’ hours we have these irresponsible points of order raised, especially in the 10-minute time frame. It takes away from the private member’s time. We are each allocated 10 minutes and when the speaker who has just spoken has so many important things to say, how --

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Sterling: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.

The Acting Speaker: I have not yet heard the point of order of the member for Wellington.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: The point is quite simple: Do not allow irresponsible points of order.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Can we continue with the member for Ottawa South (Mr. McGuinty)?

Mr. Sterling: Mr. Speaker, I had a point of order.

An hon. member: There was no point of order.

Mr. Sterling: I was denied approximately a minute with regard to what I wanted to say because the member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay (Mr. Black) --

Interjections.

Mr. Sterling: Maybe he does not think it is important that there is a space agency in Ottawa-Carleton, but we think it is important. I would like to ask for an extra minute or so to wind up my remarks.

The Acting Speaker: I take that as a request for an additional minute. Is there unanimous consent to grant the member for Carleton-

Some hon. members: No.

The Acting Speaker: May we now --

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Ottawa South, please.

Mr. McGuinty: I am surprised by the statement made by the honourable member for Carleton. Actually, the motion before us has to do with the location of the space agency, not with the scenario going back two or three years regarding the kind and degree of pressure that was exerted by this government. In fact, it seems strange to me that he would chastise my colleague the honourable member for Ottawa-Rideau for not having taken action two years ago in this House, when as far as I know she was not even in the House.

Members will recall a few years ago when the Americans were somewhat upset by the launching of Sputnik into space, Wernher von Braun was one of the great German scientists working at Cape Canaveral. Bob Hope’s comment on that was simply: “Well, let’s not get too upset. That simply means that the Russians’ German scientists are better than our German scientists.” I think that time has long gone by. In Canada, we have the Canadian talent to work effectively in this area.

This government has shown an interest in this program since 1996, and I have references to statements and pressures by the member for Quinte going back to that point. As the honourable member for Ottawa-Rideau has stated, more recently, in September of this year, the Premier lamented the perception that the discussion of the space agency location appeared to have evolved into a political debate between Quebec and Ontario.

Mr. Sterling: You made it political in this Legislature?

Mr. McGuinty: The member for Carleton chastised his fellows across the floor when he began to speak for having -- he reminds me of one time when John Barrymore was acting in a Broadway play, Henry V actually. One line in the play goes: “A horse! A horse! My kingdom for a horse.” Somebody, similar to my colleague from Carleton, brayed from the first row. John Barrymore did not lose a line. He simply said, “Enough, good man. Yon braying ass will do.”

The Premier has stated that the real issue is how to ensure the space industry is competitive with the rest of the world. To this end, the location of the space agency would be most appropriate in the National Capital Region, be that location Ottawa or Hull, Ontario or Quebec In that place, it would be a model for intergovernmental co-operation between Quebec and Ontario, the other provinces and the federal government, with individual strengths pooled to create a unique world-class institution.

As my colleague the member for Ottawa-Rideau has indicated, the practical reasons for the location of the space agency in the national capital region are compelling and convincing. They include, among other things, easy access to the government departments that have vested interests in this area: the Department of National Defence, the Department of Transport, the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, the Department of Communications and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

There would be easy political co-ordination with the federal government. All but one of the countries in space research and development have their space agencies in their nation’s capital to enhance the national context of aerospace research and development. Major federal government labs are already located in Ottawa -- the Canada Centre for Remote Sensing, for example. There are space companies in the Ottawa region such as Canadian Aeronautics and Space, and Telesat. To facilitate the coordinating of space activities with foreign governments, the embassies are conveniently located in Ottawa.

The formulation and development of a national space policy would be more acceptable, and therefore credible, if it is carried out in the national capital region, be it Ottawa or Hull. The international perception resulting from a decision to locate the space agency in Montreal would not be positive, as it would convey the message that Canada is more interested in regional factors than it is in the formulation of a national strategy for the use of space.

The National Aeronautical Establishment of the National Research Council has five labs and employs approximately 200 people, 50 of whom are professional engineers. The NRC also has a space division. There are other Ottawa-based companies that work in the field of aerospace propulsion. The Communications Research Centre is an important aerospace facility in Ottawa that does environmental testing of satellites primarily. Canadian Astronautics Ltd. is a large Ottawa-based company that is very much involved in aerospace research and development, especially in the fields of antennas, communications, radar and remote sensing. It has up to 400 employees with 60 professional engineers.

In addition, there are two major universities in Ottawa-Carleton -- Carleton University and the University of Ottawa -- both of which are eminently qualified to participate in and contribute to the work of the space agency. As my colleague has referred to, Carleton University has offered masters’ and doctoral programs for 25 years and has recently initiated a program in aerospace engineering. The University of Ottawa is willing and able to make a constructive contribution to this great program.

For these reasons, as a national undertaking with a national significance in the international world, the situation of that space agency would be most appropriate in the national capital region. I ask for the members’ support of this resolution.

1050

Mr. Wildman: I rise to participate in this debate. I regret very much that private members’ hour is being used essentially for fighting the federal election in Ottawa-Carleton in the Ontario Legislature. To have the member who introduced the resolution get up and make a pitch, basically to try to influence the votes of the people in Ottawa-Carleton, and then to have the member for Carleton end his remarks by listing all the Tory candidates in the region and saying that people should vote for them --

Mr. Runciman: Good people.

Mr. Wildman: I am not suggesting they are not good people. For that matter, most of the people who live in Ottawa-Carleton are good people. But I am suggesting that this is not the place to be saying, “Vote for Such-and-such.”

This is not the federal election campaign. I think it demeans private members’ hour. It makes it a mockery. It just persuades everyone that what is going on in this place on Thursday mornings is really a waste of time and just a big joke.

The matter put before us, the national space agency, is an important question. Frankly, as a member who is interested in research and development, who is concerned about the general lack of research and development in this country as compared to other industrialized nations, and who is concerned about the future of our industrial development because of the inadequacy of research and development in Ontario and in Canada, I think this is an important matter.

I am concerned that the federal Conservative government, in its first few months of office, took it upon itself to substantially cut the funding for agencies such as the National Research Council of Canada, to denigrate the research efforts that were made by the federal government in the past, and to actually put in jeopardy the jobs of many important scientists who obviously were concerned about the future, and as a result, decided to leave.

Interjections.

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, I believe one of the members who is interjecting was objecting to other members interjecting earlier.

As I was saying, many scientists whose futures were not secure chose to choose positions outside of this country because of the cutbacks that were made by the Conservative government when it came to power.

This was not just true of the National Research Council. We saw similar attacks on the scientific community by the Conservative government even in the Department of the Environment, the Canadian Wildlife Service and so on. It was not just in research and development; it was in important research related to the protection of the environment in this country. So I do not think there has really been any concerted effort by the Conservatives at the federal level to encourage the scientific community.

As a matter of fact, the establishment of the space agency in itself was part of that attack on the National Research Council, because as we all know, Canada’s efforts in space have been largely related to its significant contributions in the field of communications and satellite communications. Those efforts have been centred largely, though not completely, in the NRC. By the establishment of a space agency, the federal Conservatives were attempting to hive off a very important part of the work of the NRC to some other agency and to use it, for whatever reasons, to try to curry favour with another region of the country.

I think it is unfortunate, though, that we have before us right now a resolution which basically says we should not be concerned about the objective criteria for determining where such an agency should be established, but that rather we should say, “It should go to this particular area as opposed to another one, whether or not that one area is better than the other.”

We have seen the problems we have experienced in this country as a result of decisions such as the CF-18 contract, where in fact there was an independent criterion considered for determining where that contract should go. After that assessment was done, the decision was it should go to Winnipeg, Manitoba. Instead, for political reasons, the federal government decided to locate it in Montreal, Quebec. There is no question that in that case there was technical expertise in aeronautics in Quebec and in Montreal, but the fact was that an independent agency reviewed the proposals and decided that a particular contract should go to a company in Manitoba. That was overruled for political reasons. This resolution before us basically attempts to do the same thing,

As my colleague the member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Morin-Strom) indicated, if this issue were left to an independent analysis of objective criteria, we think the Ottawa-Carleton region would do very well. I have mentioned the contributions of the National Research Council, the concentration of scientific expertise particularly in the communications and satellite fields, in that area. My colleague mentioned Bell-Northern Research. We have seen the advances, although there have been some difficulties subsequently, in the Ottawa-Carleton area in the field of computer technology.

Frankly, we think that if we were to leave these issues, as has been suggested by my federal leader, to objective criteria analysis rather than political pork barrels, in this case Ottawa-Carleton would do very well. For that reason, I have some serious problems with the wording of this resolution.

It would be very difficult for any member of the House to vote against this resolution. I am gratified that the member has at least admitted that when she is talking about the national capital region, she is including Hull, Quebec. It is difficult to say no, to vote against this, because it would be like saying these agencies should not be in Ottawa.

What we are saying is that if Ottawa were allowed to compete with Montreal or whatever other centre in this country on an equal footing, we think Ottawa would do very well. That is unfortunately not what is said in this resolution. The resolution does not say all communities should be considered objectively and it should be decided on the expertise available, on the companies, the agencies, the economic aspects that are available in the communities, and decided on that alone rather than on political preferences.

Mrs. O’Neill: No; you weren’t listening.

Mr. Wildman: I did not hear, in any part of this debate, a suggestion that the presenter of the resolution would acquiesce in the establishment of a space agency in Montreal, Quebec, if an objective analysis decided Montreal was better than the Ottawa-Carleton area.

Mr. Black: You weren’t listening.

Mr. Wildman: The member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay says I was not listening. After reading his report, I am wondering if he has been on something this morning.

Mr. McGuigan: You are imputing morals.

Mr. Wildman: I certainly would not impute good morals.

I hope the member will accept the view that these things should be decided on their merits rather than on the old Liberal-Tory approach of a political pork barrel. We have had enough of that in this country.

Mr. Jackson: Isn’t that what Ed Broadbent said?

Mr. Wildman: Ed Broadbent has said in this campaign that these decisions should be made objectively, and that is true of appointments as well.

I will vote in favour of this resolution, not because I think it is a good one, but because to vote against it would be to say that we are against Ottawa-Carleton. Having grown up in that region, I can hardly vote that way.

1100

Mrs. O’Neill: The member for Sault Ste. Marie and the member for Algoma (Mr. Wildman) were intimating that politicians are not elected to make decisions. Anyone who thinks that this decision is not going to be made politically has his head in the sand.

I am not trying to influence anybody’s vote in particular or speak on behalf of any party other than the constituents I represent. What I am doing this morning is appealing to every single federal candidate in this country to consider objectively the criteria that exist in the area that I represent.

I examined the criteria. I think I did it objectively. I gave at least 10 points for why our area was the area that had the infrastructure, that had the communication systems, that had the science laboratories, that had the human resources. All of these things have been substantiated and supported nationally and internationally by members of the aerospace industry itself and by scientists who have come to the area to study, and those things have been well documented and researched in many journals.

Our Premier has been very statesmanlike in his activity throughout this whole endeavour. He has been statesmanlike because he has suggested that we can work interprovincially on this matter. He has stated that very publicly. In fact, he has stated that we would participate financially interprovincially.

Then we have also the possibility of a much better federal-provincial triumvirate being created there in the national capital area. That is the way we want to go: Quebec, Ontario and the federal government.

This issue cannot be divisive; it should not be divisive; it should not be partisan. I totally agree with those statements. It should not be a decision based upon regional need.

We have the traditions. We have built the foundations -- academic, scientific and economic. We have the experience in the area I represent. The people who have been involved in this industry for the last quarter of a century live within Ottawa-Hull. The research facilities have been developed. The economic background is there. The communication and technical structures are in existence.

I strongly request that the members Of this Legislature consider my request this morning for support for a national space agency to be located in the national capital region of our country.

ZOO LICENSING ACT

Mr. Philip moved second reading of Bill 129, An Act to regulate the Care of Animals kept for Exhibition or Entertainment.

Mr. Philip: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank you and other members for your attention in the consideration of the case that I shall be presenting as I urge members to support Bill 129, An Act to regulate the Care of Animals kept for Exhibition or Entertainment.

This bill is supported by zoologists, by animal behaviourists, by environmentalists, by humane societies across the province and, indeed, by the Canadian Federation of Humane Societies and the Canadian Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.

It is supported by veterinarians across the province, and members will have received a letter of endorsement written by Dr. Donald McKeown, president of the Society of Ontario Veterinarians. It is also supported by tens of thousands of ordinary citizens in this province who have visited certain private zoos and other animal exhibits and who were appalled by the conditions the animals must live in and by the lack of safety precautions for visitors.

I was called out of the House just a couple of minutes ago to receive a call from Calvin White, the general director of the Metropolitan Toronto Zoo. He expressed the support of the zoologists and the people at the Metro Zoo for this bill and said that I should tell the government that he and his colleagues are willing to work with the government to implement, to devise, and to revise if necessary, any of the regulations under this bill. He said that the bill has his full and complete support.

I want to thank all of these people for their support. I want to thank those who took time to review and offer constructive advice and changes in the original draft bill which I sent to them. I think that those who have done so will find their concerns are reflected in this revised bill which we are debating today.

It is impossible to name the many citizens and the professional organizations that have spent hours working with me in drafting the bill. However, a few should be singled out. Barry Kent MacKay, a columnist for the Toronto Star and a naturalist, is a person who has always been a source of advice and support to me on this bill and on other concerns that I have brought to the floor of this House. Liz White and Holly Penfound have been of tremendous help in getting our arguments distributed and listened to by people across the province.

Our own legislative library research staff and the legislative draftspeople have, as always, performed in a professional way. Dr. Ron Orenstein, who is in the gallery, is an internationally recognized zoologist and also a lawyer who has specialized in laws related to animal care. He has provided a tremendous amount of advice, both in terms of the content and in understanding the laws of other jurisdictions that might be of help to those of us in Ontario.

Most important, I want to thank Rob Laidlaw, the founder of Zoocheck Canada and the author of Captive Animals in Ontario. He best exemplifies what I think it is to be a solid citizen in a democratic country. Rob is an ordinary citizen who saw a serious problem that needed correction. He spent a considerable amount of his own money travelling to the various zoos and other animal exhibits across the province.

He is not a radical by any sense of the imagination. He is an ordinary citizen who felt that he must speak up and point out a problem. When the bill or its facsimile becomes law, either today or tomorrow or at some point in time, as it by necessity will have to become law, it should be Rob Laidlaw who takes the bows and takes the credit and not myself.

This bill requires that a person, to acquire a licence to operate a garden, park or other establishment that keeps animals for the purpose of exhibition or entertainment, must first of all obtain a licence. The bill does not apply to circuses or pet shops. Applicants for a licence are required to submit a detailed plan documenting how they propose to care for the animals and ensuring that they have adequate financing to properly care for the animals.

The bill sets out standards for providing and caring for animals. The bill provides for the inspection of the premises of such establishments. A person who contravenes this would be subject to a fine or, indeed, the animals could be taken by the Ministry of Natural Resources.

There are, thus, two thrusts or objectives of this bill: One is safety for the public and the other is the humane treatment of the animals. They are perhaps best summarized by the endorsement of the Society of Ontario Veterinarians whose resolution reads as follows:

“The Society of Ontario Veterinarians is concerned about the inhumane conditions of captive animals in some privately owned zoos in Ontario, as well as the lack of safety precautions for visitors, evident in these zoos.

“It is for these reasons the Society of Ontario Veterinarians is actively involved in the formulation of some legislation in Ontario to make the licensing of these zoos mandatory and thereby instituting clearly definable standards and regulations for zoo animal care and inspection.”

The idea of the government requiring certain operators of various types of businesses to obtain a licence is not a new and radical idea. At present, there are roughly 50 acts in Ontario requiring some kind of licensing. Examples of these are the Animals for Research Act, the Game and Fish Act, the Dead Animal Disposal Act and the Amusement Devices Act which provides some standards and some protection for public visiting fairs, exhibitions and so forth. The Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act gives some power to the Ontario humane societies to intervene where domestic animals are very obviously physically abused but it does not satisfy the objectives of this bill, which combines both public safety and animal protection.

1110

There are those who will advocate the abolition of all zoos. That is not the objective of this bill. There are those who believe that zoos, be they private or public or publicly owned, serve useful purposes. These people feel comfortable with this bill. They argue that well-run zoos can serve the purposes of education, preservation of endangered species and research of a nonintrusive kind into the wonders of animal behaviour. Without standards, most of the private zoos in this province do not yet serve these purposes. There are some that do meet these standards, I might add.

In this province, any person can open and operate a zoo without any proof that he or she knows anything about the animals he or she is exhibiting, without any regulation regarding food or housing of these animals, without any plan for adequate safety for the public visiting these places whatsoever and without any proof of financial capability to keep on caring for the animals. Without being overly dramatic, that is as insane as giving your seven-year-old son a rifle and telling him to go in the backyard and learn how to use it. It makes no sense whatsoever.

I only wish that each and every one of you here had read the report by Rob Laidlaw which documents the dangers and horrors found in some of the private zoos in Ontario. If you did, I know that this bill would receive unanimous support. Allow me, though, to list just some of the problems which I observed when I visited one of the private zoos with Dr. Dianne Balfour, an animal behaviourist, and Barry Kent MacKay, an author and wildlife expert. In this particular zoo on one morning, we observed just a few of these items.

Some cages may not be able to contain their captives if the animals were to become excessively agitated, frightened or aggressive. Stand-off barriers intended to keep the public a safe distance from the cages are not designed to discourage children from crossing over them or crawling under them. Many of the stand-off barriers are so close an individual can lean over and put his hand into the cage. Feeding doors for many cages are unlocked and easily accessible from the public walkway.

Much of the wire fencing is affixed to the exterior of the wooden cage support posts, exposing the wood directly to the animals. Dense brush surrounding many of the cages would make it difficult to locate an escaped animal. A public walkway comes to an end by a wolf enclosure, a situation that could be potentially a trap for a visitor if the animal escaped. Exits are not clearly sign-posted. There is no map of the zoo grounds available to the visitor. During two inspections, no staff members were seen tending to the animals or supervising the visitors beyond the admission gates. Stand-off barriers do little to protect the animals from the public. Many animals are in confined conditions and have no escape from public view. Potentially hazardous protrusions and loose pieces of wire are evident on many of the barriers.

Most animals have little, if any, cage furniture and few playthings to stimulate and occupy them. Many of the animals exhibit repetitive movements such as pacing back and forth in their cages, which would be a sign of stress and boredom. That is not just my observation. It is the observation of Dr. Balfour, a trained animal behaviourist, and of Barry Kent MacKay, a wildlife expert and author. That is just one of the zoos that we visited in preparing this bill.

I understand that the Solicitor General (Mrs. Smith) has stated that she and her officials are currently studying the matter and that they endorse the basic principle of the bill. A year ago I was told the same thing by the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio). However, he has been silent and has failed to meet with the various professional groups that asked to meet with him to discuss this bill.

I applaud the Solicitor General, if she is studying this problem, and I hope that this bill and the work of Zoocheck and the various humane societies and zoologists who have been writing to government members have played some role in stimulating her interest in this.

I gather that she has stated, or her officials have stated, that they would like a wider sweeping bill, one that would cover pet shops, circuses and a few other things. That is fine, but at the moment we have an immediate problem. I took forward to seeing any broader legislation which the government, be it the Solicitor General or the Minister of Natural Resources, might introduce.

I remind this government that in 1977, I introduced a bill and the then Conservative Minister of Natural Resources stated that he agreed with it, but he was bringing in a broader bill. At that time, I presented to him and his officials the argument that it would make more sense for my bill to be allowed to go to third reading and proclaimed and then he could introduce his legislation at some time in the future and incorporate my bill or, indeed, if he wished, abolish my bill. I think he had the maturity and the professional character that he could accept that a member of the opposition could have a good idea, worth implementing by the government, and he did so.

I credit the Solicitor General and the Minister of Natural Resources with the same integrity as that Conservative Minister of Natural Resources in 1977. I say to the members of the government, this bill stands on its own. It is very similar to legislation that is now working successfully in Great Britain. Indeed, members of Parliament from Great Britain have told me that on examining my bill, with the experience of the British bill, if they had their opportunity they would introduce my bill rather than the British legislation. None the less, it is quite similar.

My bill, according to the British parliamentarians, is a little bit more practical in terms of the way in which enforcement is carried out. I say to members, pass this bill today. Let it be called for third reading. Do so before another child or a visitor to a zoo is injured. If the government wants more comprehensive legislation, we in the opposition, both the Conservatives and the New Democrats, will welcome this. If the government wants more comprehensive legislation, I am sure this bill will fit into the context of that more comprehensive legislation.

We are now facing a winter season when a majority of the private zoos will be closed. This is the time when they can spend time reconstructing, building and improving the facilities. If this bill is passed today, it will be a signal for them to do so. We will see that come springtime, when these private zoos open again to the public, they will be improved zoos.

Indeed, when Dr. Orenstein and I told a particular zoo that we were paying a visit, we discovered that massive improvements, and I really mean dramatic improvements, were made in a few days pending our visit. We had sent in people before to look at the zoo and, in fact, they documented that there were improvements that were made, just on the knowledge that we were coming to look at the facilities.

I say to members, pass this bill today. The present legislation is inadequate. Members have received from the zoologists and other people involved in Zoocheck this morning in their mail, a letter that urges members to support the bill. In their latest letter they say:

“The Ontario Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act can, in very limited circumstances, prevent gross neglect or physical abuse, but it does absolutely nothing about the shocking conditions that result in animal suffering or death. It does nothing about cage size, layout, design, floor space, cage accessories, presentation, psychological wellbeing of animals, health management or veterinarian care, nutrition, animal acquisition and disposition policies, cage labelling, owner expertise, educational programs and a whole assortment of other conditions that must be met in order to run the facility in a competent, professional and humane manner. It does absolutely nothing about public safety!”

It is fairly clear by the admission of the Solicitor General that she is looking into this that she recognizes that the present legislation is inadequate. I say to members that this legislation has worked elsewhere and I ask them to support this bill. I thank members for their attention.

1120

Mr. Villeneuve: I too am pleased to participate in the debate brought forth by the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale (Mr. Philip), Bill 129, An Act to regulate the Care of Animals kept for Exhibition or Entertainment.

I say at the outset that our party will be supporting this bill. However, I think I will touch on a few areas of concern to myself, and particularly to members of the agriculture and farming community.

The bill, I believe, is quite in order. I do know that some zoos have experienced some very difficult situations and things that probably should never have occurred. I believe Bill 129 will in many ways correct some of the problems that have occurred, particularly in some of the private zoos.

I must admit that I have only visited a couple of zoos, the one at Granby over in Quebec, which is well known to many people, and of course the Metropolitan Toronto zoo at the eastern extremity of this city, and I was very impressed with what I saw. However, we know that many wild animals -- and we have to remember these are animals that were adapted to the wild -- when in captivity run into some pretty major problems that even people who are well-intentioned create for these animals.

The area of concern I have is exhibition or entertainment. I think immediately of hobby farms. I guess a hobby farm is looking after mostly domestic animals in an area; that is done for entertainment and for the love of animals and not particularly for economic gain or any other gain. I wonder in a legal interpretation of Bill 129, and maybe the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale can comment on this, just what would happen. Where do hobby farms fit into this situation?

The Ontario Federation of Agriculture, and I know the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale is very familiar with the OFA, having been an employee of the OFA for many years in his previous incarnation, has expressed grave concerns about animal rights groups. When I first heard of Bill 129 it was immediately brought forth to me that again animal rights groups and activists were at work trying to interfere and create problems for the agriculture and farming community.

I full well realize, having studied Bill 129 fairly extensively, that it is not in any way, shape or form, part of the animal rights group of well-meaning people who have created havoc in other countries. They tell us that the feather industry has effectively disappeared from the Netherlands because of overactive animal rights groups. They are well-intentioned people; however, things get carried away.

Farmers are always concerned whenever, without infringing directly on their jurisdiction, we have a bill that touches on the care and wellbeing of animals. We are talking about wildlife and we are talking about wildlife in captivity. However, based on some of the experiences of animal rights demonstrations and animal rights actions that have occurred, the agricultural community, I think justifiably, gets nervous.

We do have a very efficient agriculture and farming community. We have a very efficient federation of agriculture looking after farmers’ interests, lobbying -- and that is their job; it is not a dirty word -- on behalf of the people who pay the freight for them. This has become a major concern -- domestic animals at the farm level.

We talk about layers in cages; yes, and they do produce to, and sometimes beyond, 80 per cent on a daily basis. I recall well many years ago throwing wheat out to the poultry in the farmyard. Yes, they were wild and had the run of the place. However, the efficiency left a great deal to be desired. In today’s world, efficiency is the name of the game. However, we always must remember that the man, the agriculturalist, the farmer who owns the animals is probably the one who cares the most for and about his own animals.

It is always of concern when a bill comes in. “‘Inspector’ means an inspector appointed under section 8 of this act.” Farmers and inspectors, particularly when they are government inspectors, do not always get along very well together,

“The bill requires persons to acquire a licence to operate a garden, park or other establishment that keeps animals for the purpose of exhibition to or entertainment of the public. The bill does not apply to circuses or pet shops.” I would like to see agriculture included in there, the broad definition of agriculture. I think that would put some of the people in rural Ontario a little more at ease.

Slotted floors in hog, dairy and beef barns: our animal activist people frown on slotted floors. As one who has fed cattle for a living, I do want that three and four pounds of gain per day and slotted floors have worked well. However, I think many of the do-gooders in our society, without really realizing some of the implications, tend to get carried away to the point where they have caused agriculture a great deal of concern,

They have caused farmers to take a second look at their method of operation and indeed the possibility of having these types of groups interfere directly in the operation and the caring of their livestock. I re-emphasize that the true farmers -- and I am talking about the vast majority, probably 99.9 per cent of the people who own livestock -- are the ones who really do care for animals, and we are talking about domestic animals.

The humane society, I believe, does a commendable job. The society for the prevention of cruelty to animals also does a commendable job. However, their area of jurisdiction is limited, and I realize the bad experiences of some of the private zoos that have come to light over the past number of years necessitate Bill 129. I would respectfully ask the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale to possibly exclude hobby-type farms and agriculture in the broad sense of the word.

I believe the Ministry of Natural Resources is the right ministry to administer Bill 129. We know that in agriculture the Ministry of Agriculture and Food is supposed to, and does by and large, speak for and care for agriculture, but we are noticing more and more that the Ministry of the Environment, for example, is superseding and coming before the Ministry of Agriculture and Food in many areas that involve agriculture directly or indirectly.

I think this is an area that must be addressed by this government, because our farmers are becoming fewer; they are going through some very difficult economic times. The last thing we need is additional inspectors to come and regulate, regiment and interfere with the normal operation of our farms. Yes, farmers are probably the best policemen of themselves and their neighbours. They do know what is happening at the neighbour’s place, particularly if it involves the lack of care for domestic farm animals. They would be the first to assist, help or report, if indeed nothing can be done, when they know animals are not being cared for in a proper fashion.

In conclusion, our party will be supporting Bill 129. I commend the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale, and from his knowledge of the farming and agricultural community, I would like him to consider the exclusion of domestic animals and hobby-type farms, possibly in the regulations that will be applying to Bill 129.

1130

Mr. Kanter: I would like to commence by recognizing the concerns raised by Zoocheck Canada and the many individuals and organizations endorsing its objectives. Clearly Rob Laidlaw, as the coordinator of Zoocheck Canada, has spent a tremendous amount of time and effort investigating the issue personally and helping to organize others around this issue. I understand that Dr, Orenstein of the International Wildlife Coalition is with us this morning and that the Society of Ontario Veterinarians and the Toronto Humane Society have also been heavily involved in this matter.

I also want to commend very sincerely the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale for refining the concerns that these groups have into legislative form, the legislation that is before us today.

The government agrees that there is a need for action with respect to the care and protection of animals in zoos in this province. In fact, the issue touches on the responsibilities of six or seven ministers, including the Solicitor General, the Minister of Natural Resources, the Minister of Tourism and Recreation (Mr. O’Neil), the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Riddell) and several others.

It has been decided that the Ministry of the Solicitor General should take the lead responsibility on this issue, as we are the ministry which is responsible both for administering the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, which protects animals in distress, and also for public safety, the very two issues raised by the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale.

I would, with respect, disagree somewhat with the member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry (Mi. Villeneuve), who suggested that some other minister ought to be responsible. I think we are the appropriate ministry to respond to both of these concerns, the safety of animals and safety of the public; very valid concerns brought forward with respect to discussions of this bill.

However, the government cannot support the proposed legislation in its current form for a number of reasons. First, the scope of the bill is limited to zoos and it therefore results in a fragmentation of responsibility for animal protection.

Let me give the members just one example. There has been concern about puppy mills, kennels that produce a large number of substandard animals. I am just reading from the most recent issue of Animal Action, a publication put out by the Ontario Humane Society, which expresses concern about this issue.

It states that in the absence of any regulations, any guidelines or any minimum standards of any kind, anybody can set up a breeding establishment. It suggests that the Ontario Humane Society has no power to create standards or regulations in this area and the provincial government has not enacted any legislation to control this activity. It examines the possibility of the Canadian Kennel Club doing this. It says this may not work and deals with the alternative: to persuade the government of Ontario, and the other provinces, to enact specific legislation licensing, regulating and setting minimum standards for the construction, equipment and operation of breeding kennels, a very similar problem, in our view, and one which also requires a response from the government.

The legislation contains no process for appealing a minister’s decision to deny or revoke a licence. I know the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale referred to a number of other licensing provisions. There are, of course, many others in other areas and I think that almost invariably, for fairness, there needs to be such a provision.

Third, the bill designates the Minister of Natural Resources to be responsible for the administration of this act. I have already pointed out several problems that would result from this: first, the fragmentation in having the Minister of Natural Resources responsible for zoos where the Solicitor General is responsible for animals in distress and public safety in most areas.

Fourth, it describes a licensing scheme. There may be other options for regulating zoos and other establishments which should be explored.

Fifth, a broad range of interest groups must be consulted before any legislation in this area is formulated. Yes, I have seen the quite impressive list of people who stand behind Zoocheck. Until we had some new information, very fragmentary information this morning, I thought it was quite significant that no zoos, public or private, were listed as people who have been consulted.

I was pleased to hear that Mr. White of the Metropolitan Toronto Zoo, which is highly regarded, is willing to work with the government in this area. We think this is an important and significant addition and I, as a representative of the minister in this case, certainly support that involvement.

I would like to emphasize the fact that it is not just legislation alone that is going to have a significant effect in improving this situation. As the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale stated, just the mere prospect of a visit or the actual undertaking of a visit by him had a positive effect.

I noted with interest in the report by Mr. Laidlaw, which I have had the pleasure to read -- I should not say pleasure, because there is some very disturbing information in here -- which I have had the opportunity to read, that in the case of one of the five operations he visited, he noted that there was new ownership and he expected that there might be some substantial improvements. I was also interested to learn that a second one of the five zoos he visited and accounted in this particular report was considered to be fairly satisfactory. So not all zoos or private zoos are necessarily substandard.

I would say that legislation may be a component. Visits that have been undertaken by the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale and others have had an effect. I think the very fact of this debate is also going to have an effect on improving standards in this area.

As has been referred to, the Ministry of the Solicitor General has already begun consultations to determine the best way to address the concerns raised by Zoocheck and others.

Yesterday morning, Domenic Alfieri, the assistant deputy minister in our ministry, met with representatives of Zoocheck Canada, Rob Laidlaw and Holly Penfound, prior to the press conference which they held yesterday.

Ministry staff also wish to consult with a number of other organizations such as the Society of Ontario Veterinarians -- I understand it supports this legislation -- and the Metro Toronto Zoo, and we would like to discuss this further with Mr. White and others -- humane societies, the Canadian Association of Zoological Parks and Aquaria, the University of Guelph and representatives of pet stores and other establishments that offer animals for sale.

We believe there is a need to consult with all affected groups before a remedial program is formulated. Establishments like zoos, pet stores and others offering animals for sale are the most directly affected by this legislation and they have had very little input to it. Any standards that are developed should be known ahead of time so that those affected by them have time to prepare.

Our ministry will review existing programs dealing with the current protection of animals for display or sale purposes, develop a comprehensive program that will address any concerns arising from the review and present options for consideration by the minister. Such options might include new legislation or amendments to the existing Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act.

As I indicated, these consultations have already begun with ministry staff and are expected to be concluded within six months.

This will take some time but I would point out to members and those interested in this issue that the implementation of a bill like Bill 129 will also take some time. The passage of third reading will of course take some time and it will take, I would submit, a considerable period of time to implement this particular piece of legislation.

For example, there is a call for regulations to set out care appropriate to individual needs of various species, appropriate diet, appropriate space, privacy and contact with other animals, appropriate physical exercise, the provision of a physical environment appropriate to its needs, the provision of appropriate professional veterinary care, barriers that are adequate to protect the public, feeding and watering areas for the animals that are adequate. These standards are somewhat vague; they will obviously require considerable time to flesh out.

In conclusion, I would like to thank Zoocheck and their supporters for bringing these concerns to our attention. I would like to commend the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale for raising them in the context of a private member’s bill. We support the objectives of the bill but feel that it is limited in scope, that it will result in fragmentation of legislative authority, another act, another set of regulations, another delivery system and a diffusion of scarce resources and expertise in this area.

We feel a more comprehensive approach is required which cannot be addressed adequately by this bill. I wish to assure all members we will proceed with dispatch to bring forward recommendations to the minister and come up with a new, comprehensive program which will address not only the concerns brought forward by Zoocheck but other issues that need to be addressed with respect to animal care and protection.

Mr. Wildman: I rise to participate in this debate and I want to say, as other members have, that I congratulate my colleague the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale for his efforts in this regard and for bringing forward this bill for consideration by the assembly.

I also want to say that I, as a member of this House, have found the information provided to me by Zoocheck very useful in consideration of this legislation.

I must say I am a little perplexed by the comments of the parliamentary assistant. I understand his concern and the government’s concern that they want to have proper consideration of protection of animals and the public before bringing in comprehensive legislation. I can understand that. I certainly would be in favour of having broad consultation before developing regulations but, frankly, I do not think it is necessary to vote against this piece of legislation in order for that process to take place.

I think the legislation presented could be accepted, and as my colleague for Etobicoke-Rexdale has indicated, if at some future date the government is going to bring in more comprehensive legislation, that new legislation can incorporate this legislation.

The parliamentary assistant has said he believes the regulations required by this piece of legislation would take a great deal of time to develop. I think that is correct, but I think it is time to start. Certainly the consultative process which has been suggested by the parliamentary assistant would be part of that process of developing proper regulations. I do not think it is necessary to vote against this private member’s bill because of the concern that there should be more comprehensive legislation and that it will take time and it will be rather complex to regulate this problem.

The reason I favour this legislation is that as a northern member I have seen many cases where individuals capture wild animals or in some cases have found the animal young -- perhaps the mother has been killed and the young are left, whether they be bear cubs or fawns or small animals like raccoons or rabbits -- and they think they should keep these animals, make them into pets and in some cases put them on display.

I think of one particular instance which I found most alarming. I had stopped at a gas station, my children were with me and I found they were quite excited when I finished paying for the gasoline because they had gotten the key and gone around to the washroom, and just at the side of the building where the washrooms were, there was a large cage with two large bears in it.

As I can recall, when I went around to investigate, it was just chicken wire around the cage and these were fully grown bears. These apparently were bears that had been found as cubs and were raised by the people and were pretty tame.

Mr. Speaker, I do not know what your experience is with bears, but I think anyone who has seen an adult bear will realize that even a tame bear, if it is startled or alarmed, can react in very unexpected ways, and even a declawed bear could easily kill a human being. One swipe of those powerful front paws would kill anyone here. The bear could just do it because of fear if it was startled and unsure of its situation. Certainly that was an unsafe situation.

As I understand it, there are right now no regulations to prohibit this kind of thing. I suggested the police might look into it, but they were not able to take proper action.

I am very concerned about the aspect of safety and I am concerned about some of the information Zoocheck has provided to me about the way that animals are kept and what this might mean for public safety. The examples that have been pointed out were of young children who put their fingers through the bars and had them bitten off.

I am also very concerned about the welfare of the animals themselves. I think it was most inappropriate for these two adult bears to be kept in such a small space. The owners, I understand, did exercise these bears. They walked them on a leash, but that then raises all the questions about public safety as well. It just was not adequate.

I really have some concerns even about some of our public zoos. I have gone to Marineland and enjoyed the show, as much, I am sure, as anyone here who has seen it, but I wonder what it must be like for a whale to be kept in a pool, no matter how large the pool; it must be like living in a bathtub for the whale, when one considers the area and territory that a whale could normally cover in a day. I understand that the life expectancy of whales in captivity, even in the best facilities, is much shorter than it is estimated to be in the wild, and I suspect it has to do with the inadequacy of the space that is provided and the situation in which we find many animals in zoos.

I am not sure that I agree with the parliamentary assistant’s argument, that to pass this legislation would be to fragment animal protection. Again, I think this could be moved ahead with now and that we could include it in the comprehensive legislation later.

I also do not think the parliamentary assistant was correct when he said this affects pet stores and those who keep animals for sale, because it is my understanding that the bill itself specifically exempts them.

Mr. Kanter: The bill does not relate to pet stores or keeping animals for sale, but there are concerns in those areas as well.

Mr. Wildman: What I am concerned about is the suggestion that it should be the Solicitor General who has the responsibility for it. I am not heavy on one side or the other on that, but it does seem to me that the Ministry of Natural Resources has personnel who have specific expertise with regard to wildlife. They have people who are experts on moose, deer, bears, small game and nongame animals.

It seems to me it would make sense to have the agency of government that has the expertise in wildlife be responsible for drawing up regulations to determine how much space an animal needs, what the proper way would be to protect the animal and the public, and ensuring that the animal is treated properly, gets the proper food and has the proper exercise and so on. It would seem they are the people to do it. I do not quite understand the argument for saying that we should put the Solicitor General in charge when the Solicitor General’s responsibility certainly is public safety, but the staff does not have any expertise in wildlife and the requirements of specific kinds of animals.

At any rate, I again commend my colleague for introducing this piece of legislation. When the parliamentary assistant says the government does not support this, I would hope that is not a signal to individual members of the House as to how they should vote on this particular bill. This is a very important issue, one that has concerned me for a long time, and I know it has been a matter of central interest to my colleague the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale. I would hope all members of the House will treat this, indeed, as private members’ hour and will decide on the merits of the legislation themselves, individually, so that we will have a free vote -- that is how private members’ hour is supposed to be -- on this legislation and that it will be carried by the assembly.

1150

Mr. McLean: I am pleased to have this opportunity to provide some input today on Bill 129, An Act to regulate the Care of Animals kept for Exhibition or Entertainment. This bill requires people to acquire a licence to operate a garden, park or other establishment that keeps animals to show to or to entertain the public.

It should be noted quite clearly that this legislation does not apply to pet shops or circuses. Licensed applicants must submit a detailed plan which indicates how they propose to care for the animals and also must demonstrate that they have adequate financing to care for the animals properly. Bill 129 sets out standards for providing and caring for the animals and provides for the inspection of the premises of such establishments. Those who contravene this legislation will be subject to a fine and/or the confiscation of the animals.

I have already noted that Bill 129 does not apply to pet shops or circuses. However, it does apply to such places as the Elmvale Jungle Zoo, the Hostery Bird Sanctuary at Severn Bridge, the Ministry of Natural Resources zoo at Midhurst and the Wasaga Beach zoo.

I must admit that I have mixed feelings about this type of legislation. On one hand, I have concerns about the inhumane conditions to which some captive animals are subject in some privately owned zoos in Ontario. As well, I am concerned about the lack of safety precautions for visitors to some zoos in this province. On the other hand, I am worried about what this type of legislation will ultimately lead to, but I will get to that later.

Zoocheck Canada, an organization concerned with the welfare of animals held in captivity, discovered numerous cases of animals suffering because of human ignorance, neglect or, in some cases, greed. Some of Zoocheck Canada’s findings include animals confined in tiny cages that are barely twice their body length, social animals forced to live out their lives completely isolated from others of their own species, animals pacing back and forth or mutilating themselves. These factors alone should be enough to convince all of us here today that some form of regulation or control is necessary.

At the present time, virtually anyone can open and operate a wildlife display or zoo, regardless of his or her education, experience with animals, financing or concern for public safety. This is clearly a sorry situation that demands to be rectified and rectified now. Currently, any qualified person can open a private zoo. Clearly, the existing system is wide open to abuse and as a result there are some extremely poor private zoos and wildlife displays scattered throughout Ontario.

Along with my concerns for animal welfare, I am also worried about the very serious problem of public safety. Some of these establishments are a risk to public safety. They are dangerous, and I am rather surprised that we have not read newspaper stories about individuals who have been maimed or killed at some of our zoos or wildlife displays. There are instances where small children could easily come in contact with such animals as lions, camels, foxes, monkeys, porcupines and raccoons. There were inadequate or no barriers to keep the public a safe distance from these animals.

In some instances, cages are left unlocked and cages are poorly constructed. There are no emergency procedures, poor security or supervision and no adequate fencing. What happens if one of these animals gets loose? What happens if someone is attacked? Where can the public seek a safe haven if an animal gets loose? These are the types of things I would personally like to have regulated and controlled.

Many people are raised in a large metropolitan area where the only wildlife they may encounter consists of pigeons, robins, sparrows, cats and dogs. There is a need for private zoos or wildlife centres. They offer a chance for children and people to view and learn about a variety of species they might not otherwise get to see, but we must ensure that the animals displayed are treated humanely. We must also ensure that members of the public can expect a safe environment for them to come to view these animals.

There has to be a balance and I think Bill 129 accomplishes that. Our wildlife is a precious natural resource that in many cases is disappearing from the face of the earth at an alarming rate. If some of these animals are to be displayed to the public, then we must ensure that they are kept in an environment that is humane and will not kill them off. That has to be balanced with public safety.

We tend to feed and house murderers and rapists better than we do our wildlife, whose only crime is one of roaming freely over our land or through our skies. What a sorry state of affairs when our criminals have more humane treatment and quarters than our wildlife. That just does not make sense. The time has come, and it is long overdue, to treat our animals with the humane respect they so rightly deserve. The time has come to ensure that the public is safe while visiting private zoos or wildlife displays. I think my comments clearly indicate that I support the principle of Bill 129. I do have concerns about pieces of legislation that could lead to things such as this in the future.

I would like to point out that I am particularly enthused about section 7 of Bill 129, which clearly lays out the standards of care for animals in private zoos or wildlife displays. As a farmer and pet owner myself, I can certainly appreciate these standards, which include an appropriate diet and amount of drinking water, the provision of appropriate space, privacy and contact with other animals, an opportunity for the appropriate amount of physical exercise, the provision of a physical environment appropriate to its needs, whether at the licensee’s premises or away from them, and the provision of appropriate professional care by a veterinarian.

These standards for care make complete sense. You simply cannot argue about them because they are logical if animals held in captivity are to he treated properly and fairly.

In closing, I would like to note that the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals can act in very limited cases to prevent gross neglect or physical abuse, but it does nothing about public safety and it does nothing about important factors in cage size, layout design or floor space. This bill, I believe, covers that.

Mr. Philip: I want to thank the members for their constructive comments. The member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry points out that hobby farms or farms are not covered by the bill. In order to reassure him, we could simply add that to the exemption section in section 1. I am sure that would meet with his approval.

The member for Simcoe East (Mr. McLean) pointed out the need for balance between the needs of important purposes that zoos serve and the need for safety. I appreciate that he comments that this balance is being achieved in this bill. The member for Algoma (Mr. Wildman) represents a northern riding. With his great interest in the field of natural resources and wildlife, I think he brought a particular understanding to the bill. I appreciate his endorsements and his comments, as well as his concern about some of the abuses this bill is attempting to deal with.

I must say I was disappointed with the comments from the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick (Mr. Kanter). He suggests that the Solicitor General is the best person to deal with this and that yet another study is being conducted.

We had looked at the possibility of whether the Solicitor General should have authority over this bill. After consulting with numerous people and looking at legislation throughout the world, we came to the conclusion that, as my friend from Algoma has pointed out, the Ministry of Natural Resources and its staff members are best versed in issues related to wildlife, and therefore would be in a better position than the police in dealing with this.

The member for St, Andrew-St. Patrick says that the scope of the bill is limited to zoos. That is correct. I had pointed out earlier that there are numerous pieces of legislation, which this government is not abolishing, that deal with care, or indeed with the interaction of man and animals. He is not suggesting we somehow have a comprehensive bill dealing with all of the world’s problems or all of Ontario’s problems related to animals. It simply is not possible. This bill deals with one problem. If he wants to introduce a broader bill at some other point, then he can do so.

He points out there is no appeal section. Of course, there is an appeal section in every piece of legislation that deals with a decision by government. That is the appeal through the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman in this province would have jurisdiction over this. It is in his act, so it does not need to be put in this act.

He also says that there are many other ways than going the licensing route. In fact, we have studied this. The lawyers working with me who are familiar with this have looked at it. They say that this is the best route to go and that this is the way it works in Great Britain and in other jurisdictions.

The member says that our visits to zoos have had a positive effect and have resulted in some changes, but the positive effect they have had is because the private zoos realized legislation was being brought down and that it was going to be debated today. He talks about the need for more consultation. We have consulted.

I ask the members to support this bill. If the government wants to introduce other legislation later, it can do so.

1200

NATIONAL SPACE AGENCY

Mr. Speaker: Mrs. O’Neill has moved resolution 44.

Motion agreed to.

1206

ZOO LICENSING ACT

The House divided on Mr. Philip’s motion for second reading of Bill 129, which was agreed to on the following vote:

Ayes

Adams, Allen, Black, Breaugh, Callahan, Cooke, D. R., Cooke, D. S., Cordiano, Cureatz, Daigeler, Faubert, Harris, Hart, Henderson, Jackson, Kozyra, Laughren, LeBourdais, Martel, Matrundola, McCague, McLean, Morin-Strom, Philip, E., Rae, B., Reville, Sterling, Stoner, Wildman.

Nays

Bossy, Epp, Fawcett, Fleet, Haggerty, Kanter, Keyes, Lipsett, Lupusella, McGuigan, Miclash, Morin, O’Neill, Y., Oddie Munro, Pelissero, Roberts, Smith, D. W., Sola, South, Sullivan.

Ayes 29; nays 20.

Bill ordered for standing committee on resources development.

The House recessed at 12:10 p.m.

AFTERNOON SITTING

The House resumed at 1:30 p.m.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

HEALTH SERVICES

Mr. Reville: I have a statement that illustrates some of the systemic problems in our health care system.

There is a gentleman named Robert Sanderson who, while visiting his daughter this summer, had a medical emergency. He was taken to a small hospital in Dundalk, from there to a hospital in Owen Sound and subsequently to a hospital in London, the Victoria Hospital, where he indeed received wonderful care.

The problem is that it is now November 3, 1988, and Mr. Sanderson is still in the Victoria Hospital, occupying a very expensive bed, when in fact what he requires is an extended care facility or a chronic care facility.

The other difficulty is that Mrs. Sanderson lives in the east end of Metropolitan Toronto. She must travel to London to be near her husband and help support him in his recovery and she is piling up hotel bills, even while the Ministry of Health is piling up bills in respect of Mr. Sanderson’s care.

This matter has been repeatedly brought to the attention of the Ministry of Health not only by the Sandersons but also by officials at the Victoria Hospital, and nothing has been done. This kind of folly has to stop and it should stop soon. There are good ways to care for Mr. Sanderson and not in the Victoria Hospital.

TRUCKING INDUSTRY

Mr Cousens: An incident occurred at yesterday’s meeting of the standing committee on resources development. This is truly indicative of this government’s method of dealing with the issues. The Supreme Court of Ontario ruled on October 20 that the Ontario Highway Transport Board should have the authority to issue international and interprovincial trucking licences in Ontario, not the Minister of Transportation (Mr. Fulton).

Yesterday, the resources committee was surprised to learn of the minister’s intention to appeal this decision and perhaps more surprised by the method of the announcement. It was only through pointed questioning that the deputy minister matter of factly revealed the minister’s intentions.

The minister’s decision to appeal the Supreme Court ruling is no small potatoes. It affects the legality of each and every licence issued to a trucking operation in Ontario since 1954. Perhaps the minister hopes that truckers will not take notice of his actions and the matter will be quietly resolved with no need of a formal announcement. Perhaps the minister is embarrassed to announce outright that yet another piece of Liberal legislation will snake its way through the court system, largely the result of inadequate attention to detail.

I suggest to the minister and his government colleagues that they take a proactive role in drafting new legislation rather than the reactive role to which they are becoming accustomed. Ontario taxpayers cannot afford to have much-needed legislation hung up in the court system, a waste of valuable time and money.

STUDENT FUND-RAISING

Mrs. Fawcett: Last year at this time, I rose in the House to pay tribute to a group of fine teachers and students who had excelled in giving.

This year, they have done what many deemed the impossible. With their annual Terry Fox run in September, staff and students of East Northumberland Secondary School surpassed last year’s mark and raised $14,288, which now brings their grand total to $50,000 -- the highest not only in Ontario but in all of Canada.

I was delighted on Friday, October 27, to join with my colleague the Minister without Portfolio responsible for disabled persons (Mr. Mancini) for the presentation of the cheque to the Canadian Cancer Society. In his address to the student body, the minister praised them for their efforts and impressed upon them the need to continue their understanding and commitment to the disabled.

While there, someone remarked, “I wonder what special ingredients are present in this school that others lack?” I believe it is the dedicated staff which is the catalyst, people like head secretary Lillian Peister, teachers in charge, Ann MacDonald and Tim Larry, and Principal Don Dawson, people who care that the proper values are stressed along with the academics. I am sure that all members will once again salute this remarkable achievement by the staff and students of East Northumberland Secondary School in Brighton.

NATIONAL SALES TAX

Mr. Laughren: Most Canadians are aware of the fact that the federal government has launched its so-called tax reform program. What a lot of Canadians do not know, however, is that phase 2 of that program will take place after the federal election if the Progressive Conservatives win. What a lot of Canadians do not understand is that phase 2 consists of the biggest tax grab in the history of this country. The second-largest tax grab was what this Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) did last spring with the Ontario budget, when he grabbed $1.3 billion from the Ontario taxpayers.

The intention of the federal government is to roll in the provincial sales taxes with its new national sales tax program. What the Treasurer of this province has done is criticize the federal program without saying whether or not Ontario will acquiesce and be part of that national sales tax program. It is not appropriate for the Treasurer simply to sit back and criticize the federal program without telling us one way or another whether he intends to take Ontario into that national sales tax program. It is simply not appropriate, because the Treasurer will be regarded as an accessory to the fact if that ever happens.

WATER TRANSFER CONTROL

Mr. McCague: We are delighted that the Premier (Mr. Peterson), the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio) and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. B. Rae) have all endorsed the recommendation regarding the Water Transfer Control Act made by this party in its minority report on free trade. In that report, tabled last month, we recommended that the government of Ontario either withdraw Bill 175 or substantially amend it to clearly prohibit the large-scale transfer or sale of Ontario water.

To our New Democratic friends, I would say that while their minority opinion did not address this issue, we welcome their support of our position. To the Premier and the Minister of Natural Resources, I would say how pleasantly surprised we are that their government has indicated its willingness to accept and implement fully one quarter of the Progressive Conservative Party’s recommendations on the free trade agreement. This shows that they are not totally afflicted by water on the brain and gives us some hope that they will eventually support and implement our other recommendations.

The degree of protection provided by the bill is negligible when compared to that offered by the federal bill, and I would hope that the minister will look at it carefully before he comes back into the House with Bill 175.

HAP EMMS

Mr. Owen: I would like to draw to the attention of the Legislature the passing, on October 23, of Leighton Emms. In Barrie, Hap Emrns was referred to as “Mr. Hockey.” Hap Emms was born in the Barrie area in 1905. Hockey was always a great love. He spent 11 years in the National Hockey League with the Montreal Maroons, New York Americans and the Boston Bruins. However, he is best remembered to the people of Ontario as one of the pillars of Junior A hockey. In fact, the Ontario Hockey League named one of its two divisions after him.

Hap Emms helped found the Barrier Flyers Junior A hockey club and coached it to two Memorial Cup championships. When Hap Emms moved the Flyers to Niagara Falls in the 1960s, he added a third Memorial Cup to his collection for that city. Hap Emms managed to leave behind a legacy of cups and wins in the area of hockey, but I believe an even greater legacy which he left behind him was a sense of decency and sound standards which he instilled into the boys who played under him.

When a youngster plays in the Junior A league, he must leave the security of his family, friends and school for a strange community and a new school. Hap Emms had a wonderful sense of humour, but he never seemed to overlook what a boy was going through and was always there to support and guide. We offer our condolences to Mabel, the widow of Hap Emms, his son Paul and the grandchildren. We thank them for what Hap Emms has left behind by way of hockey achievements, but more, we thank them for what Hap Emms has left behind of fine men in the community who learned their values from a caring coach.

Mr. Speaker: The member’s time has expired.

1340

HURONIA REGIONAL CENTRE

Mr. McLean: My comment is directed to the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Sweeney) and concerns the Huronia Regional Centre in Orillia. I noted with interest that the recent Ontario Hospital Association newsletter indicated his ministry has provided the necessary funding to enable the Alzheimer’s day care centre at St. Joseph’s Home in Guelph to treat patients seven days per week.

I still maintain that the minister should give serious consideration to using part of the Huronia Regional Centre as a place for Alzheimer’s patients to live and be treated. It would solve a problem about keeping staff at the centre employed as we gradually move developmentally handicapped patients out of the facility and into the community. I urge the minister to use the Huronia Regional Centre for the care and treatment of Alzheimer’s patients.

Mr. Speaker: This completes the allotted time for members’ statements.

Statements by the ministry. None?

Oral questions. The Leader of the Opposition.

ORAL QUESTIONS

HOSPITAL SERVICES

Mr. B. Rae: I have a question for the Minister of Health. I am sure the minister will have seen the reports in the press today of the death of Brendon McLean.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I wonder if we could have the attention of the members. I have asked the Leader of the Opposition to ask a question. Thank you.

Mr. B. Rae: Brendon McLean died on October 10 while waiting for a heart operation. When he finally got in to see his specialist, Dr. Feindel, on October 4, the specialist told him that he should have surgery “tomorrow.” He could not: he was put on a waiting list. Mr. McLean died on October 10.

The minister, with great fanfare, last June announced the establishment of a so-called bed registry which she said would begin to deal with this problem. I wonder if she could explain why it is that some six months after her announcement, the bed registry still has not happened.

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: First, let me say to the Leader of the Opposition and to all members of this House that it is with sympathy and concern that I hear these kinds of stories. It tells me of the need to make the kind of changes we have been talking about within our health care system. But it also is extremely important for us to remember that in fact the Ministry of Health and the people of this province rely on physicians to make the decisions about who requires urgent care and to ensure, based on their very best medical judgement, that people most in need of that care receive it first.

Regarding the cardiac registry, at the present time the project is under development with the participation of physicians.

Mr. B. Rae: The minister is putting doctors in an impossible position with the shortage of nurses and the problems in critical care units. She announced in June the establishment of new critical care beds for heart patients. Those critical care beds cannot be established for the simple reason that there are not the nurses in place in those hospitals in order to allow those beds to be opened.

Mr. McLean was diagnosed in May as having severe angina. He waited six weeks for an angiogram. He then had a series of other tests. It took all this time for him to become eligible for the surgery, which in his case was obviously a very real necessity. Is the minister saying that doctors alone are responsible for Mr. McLean’s death, that it is their decisions, in the face of an incredible number of emergencies and urgent situations, which in fact are the cause of what happened? Is that who she is blaming?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I have said on numerous occasions that, given the demands and the incredible and compelling stresses on our health care system, which are not unique to Ontario, the enormous challenges facing us -- ageing population, changing demographics, and as I have said economic realities, and specifically changing technology which is allowing us to do much more than we ever dreamed possible: the modern medical miracles -- what I am saying to the member and what I have said in this House is that it is not my place nor his nor anyone’s to assess blame but to acknowledge and recognize that these are enormous stresses and challenges facing us. There are many steps that we must take to deal with these and I think we are making enormous progress. Yes, we rely on the physicians and their best medical judgement to make sure that those in need of urgent care get it first.

The ministry is doing its part as well. We have acknowledged and have flowed the money for additional resources in cardiac beds and in chronic beds. We are dealing with the technologists who are needed to give that kind of treatment and, in fact, we have expanded training programs for respiratory technology as well as cardiovascular perfusion. Let me tell members, these are new specialities that have responded to the changes in medicine. This is the sort of thing that we are finding. Many changes have taken place in the past decade and will continue to take place in the future.

Mr. B. Rae: Let me just ask the minister to consider this case, since she is obviously not prepared to listen to what is taking place in our hospitals today. Arthur Mills learned in March of this year that he needed a triple heart bypass. His surgery has been cancelled twice and he has now been given a new date. It was first scheduled for October 28. Then it was rescheduled for November 4. Now it has been cancelled again, at the end of October, with no date given.

Mr. Mills’s doctor is Dr. Baker at St. Michael’s Hospital, and we have spoken with Dr. Baker’s secretary. Dr. Baker has 44 patients waiting; seven of them are classified as urgent. The waiting time for so-called elective surgery -- and the minister knows how misleading that term can be -- is now about six months. Last month Dr. Baker had to cancel 13 surgeries. There are seven intensive care beds for cardiovascular cases. They are all full. They have funding for four new intensive care unit beds, but they cannot get the nurses.

The minister has known for all this time that the nursing crisis and the lack of central direction and leadership from her ministry are as responsible for what is happening to these patients as anything else in the system, yet she has not managed to do anything about it. How can she justify that?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I think, in fairness, it is important for us to acknowledge, as we do, that yes, there are many challenges facing us, but much has been done and much will continue to be done. Not only will we have a central bed registry operating to help physicians notify patients where they can get treatment as quickly as possible and to help them make those decisions by giving information across this province, because this kind of treatment is provided in a number of centres, but we also have increased the capacity by some 500 places.

One of the things that we know is that this technology has increased the number of people who have been recommended for this surgery by some 50 per cent, and we have responded with a cardiovascular coordinator to make sure that we have a coordinated program across the province. We know that the challenges facing us will not be resolved overnight, but we must work together in this House, because health care is not a partisan issue, to resolve the challenges and make the changes necessary to ensure our health care future.

Mr. B. Rae: I have a new question for the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Riddell). It was my understanding he was going to be here today, so I think I will stand it down until he turns up.

WASTE MANAGEMENT

Mrs. Marland: My question is to the Minister of the Environment. Just before I ask him the question, I would like to congratulate, on behalf of our caucus, the people involved with OMMRI, Ontario Multi-Material Recycling Inc., and the people of the province of Ontario whose municipalities currently have the blue box program in place. We have just celebrated today the one millionth blue box, a program that was initiated by our government, the Progressive Conservatives.

Mr. Speaker: I am waiting for a question.

Mrs. Marland: Last week the Liberal government voted against my private member’s bill, which would have required municipalities to offer recycling programs. The minister and his parliamentary assistant, the member for Brampton North (Mr. McClelland), are on record as favouring mandatory recycling for municipalities. They both answered yes to the Project for Environmental Priorities’ 1987 questionnaire on this issue, which was just prior to the election last year.

1350

Mr. Speaker: Question?

Mrs. Marland: My question is that today, as we heard the minister discussing the benefits of recycling, I wonder if he would tell this House why his government voted against a bill that would ensure this great success story across the province.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I thank the member very much, to begin with, for the compliments she has paid to so many people in the province who have been successful in making recycling work, particularly at the blue box level. She has appropriately pointed out individual environmental groups around the province, municipalities and all members of this House from all sides. I know that both opposition critics, the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore (Mrs. Grier) and the member for Mississauga South, served at the municipal level and were strong proponents of recycling then.

I think the answer is quite simple. The recycling program in Ontario has been so eminently successful in terms of volunteer actions. When the two opposition critics and others who sit on the other side of the House and our side of the House were there as individuals of municipalities, they worked along with environmental groups and established recycling in this province.

It has been exceedingly successful. We have over a million households now on the blue box recycling program. We have some exciting new initiatives in terms of composting, in terms of apartment buildings, in terms of specialized equipment, which we believe are going to make the program grow right across the province. With close to 100 municipalities on it now, with new municipalities coming forward to participate almost on a daily basis, I think when we have a program that is that successful on a voluntary basis, it would have more of a dampening and condemning effect to impose recycling on a compulsory basis.

If we saw, for instance, that it was not working -- and this is where the member asked the question about compulsory --

Mr. Speaker: Order. Perhaps you might leave something so that you can respond to the supplementary.

Mrs. Marland: I am not surprised to hear the minister talk about the success of the program. In fact, there are 92 municipalities presently in the blue box program, but that is really only 10 per cent of the 843 municipalities in Ontario.

In spite of this program, we still have a very real crisis in having to deal with the 99 per cent of the garbage that is not recycled. The minister’s recycling program will not solve the problems now facing many municipalities across the province whose landfill sites are bursting at the seams, with no solution in sight.

Will the minister tell us if he is going to offer some real solutions, or is he going to continue to allow the problem of the lack of landfill sites and affordable space to continue for those municipalities?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I think the thrust that we have taken in the field of recycling is doing exactly that. When people ask me what should be the major thrust in terms of the provincial government and its assistance to municipalities, I invariably say that it is in the field of recycling.

I was in Etobicoke as it was launching its -- I believe it was the 95th Ontario municipality involved in recycling. I think in 1984 or 1985 there were only 50,000 blue boxes out there. Today, there are well over a million blue boxes and people are participating in it. That tells me the program is working exceedingly well in this province.

When I see that we now spend $7.7 million as a government, as compared to $750,000 before we came into office, I see that as a major investment. I anticipate that investment is going to continue to grow as more and more municipalities become involved in the kind of waste management projects that are designed to manage waste as opposed to dispose of waste. The more our government can do to assist municipalities and work with them -- and this is what they are asking us to do on a voluntary basis -- the more we can do in that direction, the faster this program will grow. It will grow in the kind of way where there will always be markets for those goods. That is the way it is working at the present time.

I congratulate the two critics on the other side for the role they have played, along with everyone else in the province. I think they should be excited about --

Mr. Speaker: Thank you.

Mrs. Marland: I am very excited about what we are doing with recycling, but it is the percentage of the garbage that is being recycled and it is the balance for the landfill sites which is the question this minister has not answered.

Peel and Metro now have nowhere to put their garbage and certainly in two years the crisis is only going to be escalating, as this minister well knows. The situation in Peel and Halton he is familiar with. Halton has been sending its waste to the United States. It takes at least five years to locate a new site, leaving these municipalities with nowhere to dump their garbage for three years. If the minister were concerned about the environment, why would he not address this inevitable crisis now rather than waiting for the municipalities to start sending it to the United States to be burned? My question is, what is the minister waiting for --

Mr. Speaker: Order. You just asked a question.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I do not think there is really anything new about the fact that it is difficult for people at the municipal level to make decisions on where to locate landfill sites. That has traditionally been a difficulty; again, the member, from her own experience at the local level, would know that is in fact a difficulty. However, they are going through a process which is designed to ensure that the site or sites or the particular instruments they use are the best possible ones environmentally. This is difficult. It takes time to do it.

Her leader mentioned the other day, I think in Halton it took 17 years or 14 years; one of the two, maybe 14 years. I would think that would have been 11 years under the Progressive Conservative government and three years under this government. It goes to demonstrate that, regardless of what is happening out there, it is a difficult problem to address, but we are working with them. We are working with the regional municipality of Peel, for instance, trying to find the best possible method of making an environmentally good selection, and we will work with Metropolitan Toronto, Durham and other people in providing the necessary advice.

I know I am very pleased with the upward trend of the amount of recycled material we are seeing in Ontario. When the previous government was in power, it was one per cent. It is rising as our government is in power, not simply because we are in power and setting out all these incentives, but because there is a lot of excitement out there and a lot of help among environmental groups and municipalities. I think we should all be positive about that. Here is one example where the private sector citizens and government are working well --

Mr. Speaker: Thank you. I see the Minister of Agriculture and Food is here. Would the Leader of the Opposition like to place the question?

WINE INDUSTRY

Mr. B. Rae: A question to the minister. The minister will no doubt be aware that the grape growers have in fact held a meeting, considered the plan which he and his federal counterpart have put to them, and have refused to participate in the plan for the principal reason that the plan, in which Ontario is an equal co-partner, provides for only roughly $4,500 an acre, whereas the plan which is in place in British Columbia provides something in the area of $8,100 an acre to those farmers who are going to be pulling out their vines.

Can the minister tell us what Ontario’s position is with respect to the $100-million amount or, more precisely, what Ontario’s position is with respect to its $50-million amount, which is the amount that Ontario as a co-partner with the federal government in this plan has put forward?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: As I indicated in previous questions on this matter, the British Columbia proposal and the proposal here in Ontario are two entirely different proposals. In British Columbia, they are losing over two thirds of their grape acreage. In other words, they are responding to the free trade agreement and, in all likelihood, British Columbia will end up with no industry whatsoever or maybe a very small cottage industry.

In Ontario, we have introduced a $ 100-million program which we think will help our industry adjust over a period of 12 years in keeping with the decisions of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. In other words, at the end of that 12 years, we will have an industry which we believe will be competitive and viable. That is the difference between the Ontario proposal and the British Columbia proposal.

I am aware that the grape growers are not content with the $100-million program. They have met with us -- I believe that they met with the Premier (Mr. Peterson) yesterday -- and we have always told them that if it is a case of getting more money in order to meet with the free trade agreement, the people they should be talking to is the federal government.

I believe that the grape growers are going to approach the federal government to see if, indeed, there is more funding available for them.

1400

Mr. Speaker: Thank you. Order. Supplementary.

Mr. B. Rae: The minister cannot play it all ways. He has to accept the fact that his leader told the grape growers, not once but several times, and not just recently, not just yesterday but has been telling them over the last two and three years, that he would not abandon them, that he would stick up for them, that he would be there for them, that he was not going to see them go down the tube. That is exactly what he has done, because the question is not the global amount.

What matters is how much he is prepared to spend per acre. He has already accepted the fact that he is liable. He has already accepted the fact that he is in for 50-50.

The question that I have for this provincial minister -- who is, together with his federal colleagues, again, just as the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) was yesterday a co-conspirator on the sales tax, the Minister of Agriculture and Food is a co-conspirator when it comes to shafting the grape growers of this province -- is why is Ontario not prepared to say to the grape growers that they will receive an amount per acre which will, in fact, compensate them in real terms for their loss and not force them to bear that loss on their own backs? This is precisely his plan which he is participating in and part of exactly what it requires.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Minister.

Hon. Mr. Riddell: That is a question that I would hope the grape growers would ask the federal government. But I want the Leader of the Opposition to know that there were many meetings and many negotiations being held with the Ontario Grape Growers’ Marketing Board and with federal and provincial government staff regarding the $100-million program, so the $100-million program at that time had the concurrence of the grape board. The grape board was part of the decision to bring in a $100-million program to help the industry adjust over a period of 12 years.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Riddell: Well, the grape growers were not content with that decision, so now we are saying: “All right, it is back to the drawing board. But, grape growers, we strongly recommend that you go to the federal government to see if there is additional money, if you feel that you have been treated unfairly in comparison to the response that they made in British Columbia to the free trade agreement.”

Mr. B. Rae: First of all, the minister tries to say that the grape growers themselves are responsible. I gather what he is saying is that they found it acceptable, yet we have the statement on the record from Jim Rainforth who is marketing board secretary, whom I spoke with on the phone today and who also told the St. Catharines Standard: “We are faced with two basic problems. The amount of money falls far short of what growers expect and need in order to survive. Secondly, because there isn’t enough money to go around, it becomes harder to reach a consensus.” That is what he is saying. He is saying they have been put in an impossible position. The amount that they are getting per acre is not sufficient. That is what Jim Rainforth says from the marketing board.

The minister said that he thinks the amount is adequate. I spoke today with Russell Duckworth who is the official from Ontario who has been involved in these discussions all the way through, and Mr. Duckworth told me , not once but a couple of times: “My instructions are” -- meaning his instructions from the Minister of Agriculture and Food -- “that the dollars available from Ontario are adequate and correct for the industry.” Those are Ontario dollars.

Mr. Speaker: And the question?

Mr. B. Rae: Those $50 million are Ontario dollars. They are not Brian Mulroney’s dollars, they are Jack Riddell’s dollars. Is the minister saying that money is enough for the industry?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: Let me tell the honourable Leader of the Opposition that when the federal government, through some kind of a leaked message from one of its own members, indicated that there was only going to be $70 million available, this government got into the act, this ministry got into the act, and had that stepped up to $100 million.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Riddell: I am going to tell him that the grape growers’ marketing board was very much a part of the negotiations for this $100-million program and the various components of the program.

As I indicated, the grape growers are not satisfied with the decision that was made by the grape growers’ marketing board and the two levels of government, so we have said, “All right, if you don’t think you’re being treated fairly in making comparisons with the BC program, you had better go back to the federal government, express your views and see if the federal government is prepared to come up with more money.”

Mr. B. Rae: Your dollars are on the table as much as theirs are.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

YORK REGION LAND DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Harris: My question is to the Premier concerning the development of land around the greater Metro area. The Premier will know a great deal of concern has been voiced about how this development has occurred. Just recently, a ratepayers’ group in Richmond Hill has asked for a public inquiry, not a police inquiry, to resolve these concerns. A ratepayers’ group in Markham has also asked for a public inquiry. Many of the local politicians involved, against whom allegations of conflict of interest have been made, have approached the government, asking for a public inquiry.

All these groups believe, as we do, that a police inquiry is too narrow in focus and would not resolve allegations that fall beyond the limits of what is considered to be “criminal activity.”

The Premier has said repeatedly he has nothing to hide, his ministers have said they have nothing to hide, “We have nothing to hide, nobody has anything to hide.” Given that, why will the Premier not say yes to the people of these areas who want the opportunity to clear their names, who want to have their say, who want to get to the bottom of this and have the matter settled once and for all and call for a full public inquiry?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I think the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) dealt very specifically with that question yesterday or the day before, and the difference between a police inquiry and a public inquiry in order to protect the rights of the police to prosecute as well as the rights of individuals. It is the judgement of the law officers of the crown that is the appropriate way to proceed in the circumstances, with a full police inquiry.

That, of course, does not rule out any other inquiry after that, should that be necessary, but the fairest way to dispense justice in this particular case, it is the judgement, as I said, of the chief law officer, should be through a police inquiry.

Mr. Harris: I understand where the chief law officer is coming from on the jurisdiction that involves him. But I ask the Premier, in the much broader jurisdiction that, really, we all are concerned about and he, as Premier of this province, has to show the leadership on, clearly the questions have some immediacy, go beyond a police investigation, deal directly with the integrity of the individuals involved, the integrity of the system, and a police investigation is not going to do anything to clear those up.

For the past eight days, a number of individuals have had their reputations put at risk by a series of articles that appeared in Canada’s national newspaper. They want, and I believe they deserve, an independent public inquiry so they can clear their names and their reputations. They know, as I do, and as the government should, that a police investigation is not the answer for that part of it.

So I ask him, for the sake of the individuals involved, to protect their integrity, will the Premier not authorize a public inquiry?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The member has asked me the very same question in his supplementary that he asked me in his original question and my answer is the same. I think the Attorney General has explained why he believes that is the appropriate route in these circumstances. Obviously, if there is any suggestion of illegality or criminality, that must be tracked down and prosecuted, and as he said, a trial is our way and our system of taking those matters into account. That does not preclude any further look at the situation, should that be necessary at the conclusion of this police investigation.

Mr. Harris: Let me try it one more time. The Premier is not concerned about the reputations of those individuals who have been named, at least not enough to respect their wishes for a full public inquiry. Perhaps he will be more concerned about the integrity of the system.

A police investigation cannot, and I would suggest to him should not, deal with the whole question of our municipal structure, the role of the provincial government in the planning process or the ability of the government to check the depletion of our agricultural lands. All these things in that area can be dealt with only in a full public inquiry, so I will ask the Premier for that part of the investigation. Will he not show his concern for the individuals and the system, which goes beyond a police investigation? He says it can go on, coexistent, I am presuming. Why does he not proceed now before the municipal elections and let them have some confidence in the system? Let them have a full public inquiry.

1410

Hon. Mr. Peterson: It is the same question the member asked me just a moment ago. Indeed, I am concerned about public reputations. I am concerned about how others handle these situations and the judgement required by all of us. I have seen situations in this House where someone will stand up, a member of the member’s own party, and make incorrect allegations about someone else outside this House. Once that charge is made, that allegation stands there. His colleague the member for Cochrane South (Mr. Pope) did it last week. If the member is so concerned about public reputations, I think he would want personally to exercise some of his considerable leadership skills in making sure that he uses restraint and that his party members use restraint when casting allegations that are unfounded.

We believe the police are the appropriate independent mechanism to check into these matters. As I said to my friend, if it is necessary or there is other information that has to be unturned, then obviously we can proceed further.

Mr. B. Rae: When I was speaking to a spokesman for the York Regional Police and asked him how long he thought the investigation would take, he told me this morning, “You might as well ask me when the end of the world will come.”

The reason I put that perspective into this discussion --

Mr. Speaker: Question to the Premier?

Mr. B. Rae: My question to the Premier really is that there are two very separate problems here. There are allegations with respect to criminal activity. Also, if you look at the overall problem being raised by all the ratepayers’ and residents’ groups that have appeared and spoken, it is not the matter of reputation so much; it is a question of the planning process, the strength of the Planning Act and the leadership of the provincial government in relationship to planning, not only in York region but in all those areas that are facing such rapid growth.

I wonder if the Premier would not agree that surely there is a place for a public inquiry that will deal quite separately with these questions of planning, the strength of the Planning Act, the relationship with municipal councils and the question of the monopolisation of land. These are not criminal questions. These are not questions of people’s reputation. This is a question of good government, good planning, intelligent use of our resources and the protection of agricultural land. These are issues that are surely the subject of a good public inquiry.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: My honourable friend opposite has a different view than the member of the third party who wants to look at different matters. Everyone you talk to has a different view of the things that should be looked into, whether it is certain individuals’ behaviour, certain politicians’ behaviour or the processes. I say to my honourable friend that the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Eakins) is constantly reviewing a number of pieces of legislation under his jurisdiction, be it the Planning Act, the processes or the conflict-of-interest legislation that applies to municipal politicians. Certainly, we have absolutely no hesitation in looking into those matters, looking at ways to make it more fair and more efficient.

My honourable friend will understand that on the one hand we have been working very hard in the ministry, because of the shortage of housing, to accelerate the planning processes, to try to cut the time line in half, because that was seen as one of the considerable drags on getting housing built. On the other hand, now people are saying we have to take more time at these matters. We have said that housing is a priority. We are trying to move as much on to the market as we possibly can, to assist from a governmental point of view.

We have no problem and the minister has no problem with reviewing these matters with the member and his colleagues and any ideas they have to make sure these programs are scrupulously fair and administered in a fair way, that the municipalities assume their responsibility and that we accelerate the plans to assist with the priorities of this province.

Mr. B. Rae: In the absence of leadership from this government, there is planning taking place. It is taking place by developers and it is taking place on their behalf, for them, for their profits, for their monopoly and for their position in the marketplace. That is the crisis we now face.

The issue, really, for the Premier is one he cannot avoid any longer; that is, is he prepared to do something on behalf of people, and is he prepared to do something on behalf of good planning and good government, or is he going to continue to see what can only be described as planning chaos and development on behalf of the development industry and not on behalf of the people of this province?

This is how the issue is now joined. The Premier should surely realize that and exercise leadership and say: “All right. Let’s have an inquiry into the planning process to ensure that York region, Peel region and the citizens in those areas, and in Durham, can be proud of their governments and know that decisions are being made on their behalf and not on behalf of the development industry.” That is the issue that faces the Premier quite squarely.

Mr. Speaker: The question was asked.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I hear what the honourable member is saying, and we are now in the middle of the best form of democracy known to man, i.e., a municipal election, and these issues --

Mr. B. Rae: They don’t have the power. They don’t have the capacity --

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I do not agree with my honourable friend, and if there is a suggestion of bad judgement or suggestion that someone is subjected to improper influence --

Mr. Reville: That’s what they say.

Mr. B. Rae: It’s not a matter of judgement.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Sure it is. There is a question of political leadership, and then the people in York region and Markham or wherever can make their own judgements in that particular matter.

Mr. B. Rae: Why don’t you show some leadership. You don’t have the organization.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I do not agree with my honourable friend, unless he is saying the province should go in and expropriate all this land that has been bought up by developers, but to drag a question on for two, three or four years under a public inquiry into these things, I think, is not going to be particularly productive. I think we are in a position --

Mr. B. Rae: I’m talking about looking into the integrity of the whole planning position.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: My honourable friend has a different view from my honourable friend the member for Nipissing (Mr. Harris) and so many others with respect to this matter. I understand. They read a newspaper article and they cannot really get their hands around it, so the automatic response of an opposition is to call for an inquiry of some type or other, and that is it.

I say to the member that we are looking at the specific allegations, without question, and the Minister of Municipal Affairs is looking at the legislation under his responsibility. If my honourable friend has any ideas on how to improve it, we would look forward to hearing them.

HOSPITAL SERVICES

Mr. Eves: I have a question of the Minister of Health. Because of the ministry’s inability to address the funding needs of hospitals, hospitals are being forced to close beds, lay off staff and cut services to the bone. If the minister needs any more evidence, all she has to do is read the three Toronto newspapers this morning.

Hilda McGuire of Women’s College Hospital is quoted as saying that some 55 beds at Women’s College are closed because of lack of provincial government funding and shortage of nurses. These are issues that both opposition parties have raised repeatedly in this House for many months. Patients are waiting for anywhere from 24 to 36 hours, according to Dr. Kirwin, in the emergency department at Women’s College Hospital. We have the case of patients waiting on stretchers in hallways for 16 hours, in the case of Alma Tarlattini. Worst of all, we have another case of a 40-year-old man, Mr. McLean --

Mr. Speaker: Do you have a question?

Mr. Eves: -- dying while he was on the waiting list for heart surgery. When is the minister going to realize that the health care system in the province is on the verge of falling apart and when can we expect some leadership and some responsive action to be taken by her and her government to address this problem?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: Over the course of the past year, for the information of the honourable members, I have been travelling this province and I have been talking with health care providers in every community of this province. Do you know what I was hearing, Mr. Speaker? I am hearing an acknowledgement of the enormous challenges facing us and a willingness to work with us. There is an acknowledgement that in fact we have the best-funded national health system in the world and that we face enormous challenges, and they are willing to work with us.

We are working with the Ontario Hospital Association and with all the major health care providers. I am meeting with nurses on an individual basis, physicians and with hardworking, decent physicians who want to help us meet these challenges. I encourage the member opposite to join with us and be constructive.

Mr. Eves: Those of us on the opposition side of the House have been meeting with these people long before the Minister of Health started to do so.

For the minister to get up in the House this afternoon, which she did earlier in response to a question from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. B. Rae), and blame doctors for people dying while they are on the waiting list for cardiovascular surgery is almost ridiculous. It is almost beyond -- I do not even know why I am wasting my time talking to her about it, quite frankly. It does not seem to sink in. It is a well-known fact, and almost every cardiovascular surgeon in this province will tell the minister that a patient stands a higher percentage chance of dying while on the waiting list for heart surgery than he does on the operating table itself.

How can she stand there as Minister of Health and say we have a world-class health care system when that statistic exists in the province of Ontario today?

1420

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: As I said to the member and to the Leader of the Opposition, there is much that we have done, and yet there is much to do. The one thing I have been told, and I have been told this by physicians across this province, is that it is not a question of assessing blame. In fact, we all have a responsibility. The physicians have a responsibility to assess the patients and to determine who should be treated and in what order, based on the urgency of their cases. We have a responsibility. I believe we have lived u to that responsibility. We have expanded hospital base budgets by some 40 per cent in the last three years. We have added $1 billion between 1985 and 1988 to the Ontario health insurance plan for physician expenses.

Let me tell members that we know that by any international indicator, we have sufficient resources in our system. Physicians are telling me, physicians themselves are saying that we must make more intelligent and effective use of our resources, This is an enormous challenge. We must all work together. I believe we are doing that.

RENTAL HOUSING PROTECTION

Mrs. Grier: My question is to the Minister of Housing. It concerns the Rental Housing Protection Act. In June, the Ontario Municipal Board upheld a decision of Etobicoke city council and allowed the demolition of four small apartment buildings containing 31 units. On June 29, the tenants gave notice to the minister of their intention to appeal this decision to cabinet. In July, they filed a full submission. In August, they wrote to the minister saying they were concerned about the delay. On September 28, the minister replied that it was before cabinet and she could not comment.

Last Monday, the solicitor for the developer who wants to build condominiums informed Etobicoke council that the buildings were now almost empty, and that therefore the council has decided that if it does not hear from the minister before November 14, it will issue a demolition permit.

How can the minister explain the inexcusable delay in getting a decision for these tenants from cabinet? Does she not recognize that the uncertainty and delay has contributed to making these apartments vacant?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: I am indeed very concerned about those buildings, as I am about all the rental housing stock in the province. That is the reason we have undertaken a complete review of the Rental Housing Protection Act, which we in fact are in the process of doing. We will try to meet the concerns the member has raised.

Mrs. Grier: How long is such a review going to take? These are tenants who have been forced out of their apartments because they could not get an answer from this minister. Presumably, she could not win in cabinet on the issue. When is the minister going to do something concrete? Is she going to help these tenants? What is she going to do to change the Rental Housing Protection Act so this cannot occur again, and to change it now?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: The concern the member raises about vacant buildings is one that we have heard raised before and one I am very aware of. That is one of the reasons we have looked at all of the Rental Housing Protection Act and all of its strengths and weaknesses. We have worked at that for quite a while. I understand the concern the member raises. Let me assure her we will try to do something about it.

TRADE WITH UNITED STATES

Mr. Harris: I have a question for my good friend the government House leader. In this morning’s Globe and Mail, the government House leader is quoted as saying he would like us to debate the Liberal bill permitting water exports, Bill 175, because he wants “a good debate.” We, too, welcome a full debate on this matter. We are pleased that during yesterday’s question period, the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio) and the leader of the New Democratic Party, on behalf of their parties, adopted the recommendation of our party in the report of the standing committee on finance and economic affairs on free trade.

Therefore, in the interest of good and full debate on this matter and to allow the minister some time to rewrite Bill 175, would the government House leader agree with me that a more appropriate course of action would be to set aside the debate on the water export bill, and instead debate the finance committee’s report on free trade, which a committee of this House spent more than a year preparing and which on November 22 is not going to have a lot of relevance?

Hon. Mr. Conway: The government has a very clear agenda. Nowhere is it more clear, nowhere is it more definite and nowhere is it more protective of the Ontario interest than in Bill 175, standing in the name of the Minister of Natural Resources. As I have indicated in the past, the government is quite prepared and quite anxious to move forward with the discussion of and with the passage of those bills. We had a very amiable discussion this morning at the House leaders’ meeting and we have set the business for the next week. The honourable member for Nipissing will want to be here next Wednesday when my friend the Minister of Natural Resources moves second reading of that particular bill and puts very clearly and very strongly the position of the government of Ontario on this very important and vital matter affecting the water resources of Ontario.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Harris: I am trying to read this as the Minister of Natural Resources gave it to me.

This House has already heard the Minister of Natural Resources indicate he supports our party’s fourth recommendation in our minority report on the free trade agreement.

There were three other recommendations in our minority report. If the House leader is not prepared to debate the report in its entirety next week in place of the scheduled debate on Bill 175, as I suggested in my question, can he tell us which of our other three recommendations he will be adopting next and when we can anticipate debating legislation on one or all of our remaining three recommendations in that minority report?

Hon. Mr. Conway: At what was a very constructive and very positive House leaders’ meeting this morning, my friends the member for Nipissing and the member for Windsor-Riverside (Mr. D. S. Cooke) and I decided that of the four days in the House next week, fully three of those days will be given over to debate the free trade question.

If my friend the member for Nipissing is somehow suggesting that the provincial Tories do not want to be here to discuss the issue of free trade, then I cannot believe my ears, because this government, under the very capable and strong leadership of this Premier (Mr. Peterson), is very prepared to be here to speak to our very strong position on free trade as it affects water, social programs and a whole host of other very important issues. If the Tories want to run from that debate on free trade here, as they appear to run at the federal level, that is their right in a free country.

REFUGEE CLAIMANTS

Mr. Owen: I have a question for the Minister of Community and Social Services. Backlogs in the federal refugee determination process have placed considerable pressure on community, provincial and municipal government resources, not only in Metro Toronto but in regions across the entire province.

In today’s Toronto Star, we read how federal immigration policy has filled Metro hostels to overflowing and is forcing Metro to book refugees into motels at a cost of thousands of dollars every day. Federal policy dictates that refugee claimants are not permitted to work until they have an oral hearing, and it is a process that literally has stopped altogether.

My question to the minister is, can he tell the House what the impact of the federal government’s inability to administer an efficient and equitable work authorization program has been on his ministry and the coffers of his ministry?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: The last figure I saw for the total number of refugees in the province was approximately 11,000, and nearly 9,000 of those are in the Metro area. Our best estimate in terms of our interviewing of these refugees on our case load is that approximately 75 per cent of them are employable and, quite frankly, are desirous of working. There is work available for them. However, the federal government’s process will not allow them to do that. The cost to the provincial Treasury of this particular process is about $31 million and I believe the cost to the municipal coffers is about $4.5 million.

1430

Mr. Owen: We seem to be faced with a situation in Ontario where businesses cannot fill vacancies where there are jobs to be filled and these refugees want to work but legally cannot do so. The issue cannot be unfamiliar to the federal minister, the Honourable Barbara McDougall, but her lack of action would suggest that a resolution is not a high priority for the Canada Employment and Immigration Commission.

My supplementary question to the minister is, has he received any information from the federal minister that would suggest a serious effort will be given to resolving the existing backlog of claimants and streamlining the length of time for processing work authorizations? If not, will she reimburse the provincial and municipal governments the unnecessary costs of millions of dollars that we are facing because of her refusal to act?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: Approximately six months ago, shortly after the Honourable Barbara McDougall became minister, I wrote her a letter and explained what this situation was doing in Ontario and particularly what it was doing to the refugees themselves. These are people who want to work and for whom there is work available.

I indicated that I understood her difficulty in terms of actually accepting them as bona fide immigrants into the country but made the proposal that the federal government could enact, in the short term, time-limited, renewable work permits. That could be done and could meet this particular difficulty. As a matter of fact, I wrote about a three-page letter.

About a month later, I got back a three-sentence response which essentially said: “Thank you for your interest. I’ll look into it and I’ll get back to you.” We have not had any response whatsoever and we are still waiting.

My last understanding from Metro is that the oral review process has come to a complete stop in terms of any new applications.

ONTARIO ROUND TABLE ON ENVIRONMENT AND ECONOMY

Mr. Wildman: I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture and Food.

If the provincial Liberal government is really committed to environmental protection, to the protection of the interests of Ontario’s farm community and to the proper stewardship of the land, water and air quality in this province, could the minister explain why there was no input from the Ontario Federation of Agriculture or other farm organizations on the membership of the Ontario Round Table on Environment and Economy?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: We do have an excellent agricultural person on that round table, a person by the name of Grant Collins.

When these appointments were made, I do not believe any groups were consulted. They were appointments made by the Chairman of the Management Board (Mr. Elston). He just followed the same procedure with all appointments, as he did with the appointment of the agricultural person. We are just delighted that we have a person representing the agriculture and food industry on the round table.

Mr. Wildman: Can the minister explain why, at the time the announcement was made, of the 19 appointees to the round table, they included six businessmen, one from labour, one from the municipal sector, four environmentalists, one academic and six ministers, and there was nobody from the agricultural sector?

It was only subsequently that the Chairman of the Management Board consulted with the county federation in his own area to get a representative. The OFA and OFA executive were never consulted in this matter, and the president had to phone the Premier (Mr. Peterson) to complain about the fact that the minister had bypassed the provincial executive.

Hon. Mr. Riddell: Did I hear a question there? If there is a question there, I believe the answer is that, at the time, there was no confirmation.

HOSPITAL FUNDING

Mr. McLean: My question is for the Minister of Health. The board of directors at Orillia Soldiers’ Memorial Hospital was told by her officials that she would decide by March 1988 whether or not it could proceed with plans to build a second campus for acute care, while existing facilities would be used for long-term care. March has come and gone and the board is still awaiting word from her.

Can she tell us today if the hospital board can proceed with the planning required to build a second campus?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: As I have mentioned to the member before -- and I know his interest in Orillia -- the capital planning for the province is under review at the present time. I was recently in Barrie, where I met with the health providers from the communities surrounding Barrie, such as Orillia. I believe there were some people there from Midland as well. We had an opportunity to talk about the health needs and of our vision for the future and the important role our capital planning plays in that, to make sure we are planning for the future needs of the province.

Mr. McLean: With regard to the minister’s vision for the future, the people of Orillia would like to know when they can proceed to planning for the new hospital. They have raised over $4 million out of the $5 million they set out to raise. It is a substantial amount. The fund-raising drive has been very successful. It has come to the stage now that unless she says they can proceed with planning, that fund-raising is going to cease. When will she give us the assurance and the approval to proceed with the planning?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: As the member would likely know, I also met with some of the municipal and regional representatives of that region. We talked about the need for regional planning and their concern that whatever the province does in moving forward with its capital plans has an impact on the capacity of the municipal partners and the region to raise their fair share. It is the reason I believe we must do the kind of regional planning not only for the delivery of services, but also in the area of capital.

I am looking at the capital needs of the province with that vision of planning for the year 2000 and beyond, as well as planning on a regional basis to make sure that we acknowledge that not every hospital can or should provide every service to everyone. Everything we do must give us access to the most effective quality services as close to home as possible.

TORONTO AREA TRANSPORTATION

Mr. Faubert: My question is to the Minister of Transportation. In the past few days there has been much misunderstanding contained in publicity over a letter from the minister to the chairman of the Toronto Transit Commission, Jeffrey Lyons, regarding the Spadina subway line extension to Sheppard Avenue. Can the minister advise the House of exactly what was contained in that letter?

Hon. Mr. Fulton: I appreciate the member’s interest in transit issues in Metro Toronto and, of course, across Scarborough. Basically, there were three issues raised in the letter, a follow through from the statement we made here in the House last May that we would move to protect a Sheppard corridor and consider further discussions with respect to other transit initiatives. We talked in general terms about other initiatives with respect to fair integration and co-ordination of services between TTC and GO Transit and matters of that type.

Mr. Faubert: Because certain municipal candidates in Scarborough are misrepresenting the intention and impact of this extension on the future of the Sheppard line, can the minister advise this House of what the real effect an approval of the Spadina line extension will have on the future of the Sheppard subway line proposal?

Hon. Mr. Fulton: Certainly there seems to be some very serious misunderstanding on the part of certain municipal candidates, but this seems to be the season for that. What we are saying is that in order to build a subway, you simply do not draw a line down a road map; you must know precisely what is underground, what may be planned at intersections and other possible station locations.

What we are doing, in precise terms, in conjunction with the TTC, is providing the funding -- roughly $1 million -- as we said we would do, in order to protect the corridor the full extent of the Sheppard line, including the Scarborough component, which the member would know was originally excluded from the Network 2011 initiative.

METROPOLITAN TORONTO HOUSING AUTHORITY

Mr. Breaugh: I have a question for the Minister of Housing concerning 793038 Ontario Ltd. This of course is the company that is involved in the questionable decision by the Metropolitan Toronto Housing Authority on two counts now. One is, it appears that the housing authority is involved in a scheme to prevent a union from being formed with that new company, not to mention its breaking its own rules; and the second point is that the lawyer for the company appeared to have in his possession confidential records from the housing authority.

There appear to be substantial irregularities in the letting of that contract. What is the ministry doing to review that particular instance?

1440

Hon. Ms. Hošek: Yesterday, I told the House that if there were any ambiguities concerning MTHA’s decision on that contract, when the committee of the OHC board met on this topic, its decision would reflect those ambiguities. Indeed, this morning, the Ontario Housing Corp. committee met and decided to refer this entire decision back to the MTHA board to act on.

The MTHA board, as I will remind members, is made up of appointees from all three levels of government. There are appointees from Metro Toronto, appointees from the federal government and appointees from the provincial government. It is within the power of the Metropolitan Toronto Housing Authority to make this decision. It is now back at the MTHA board to make this decision.

Mr. Breaugh: We not only know how the appointments are made, we actually know who sits on the authority and we know what their part was in each little portion of this decision-making process. Yesterday, the minister said it was not their decision. Is it true that she just said now that it is their decision? Just exactly what is the Ministry of Housing doing in the middle of all this, which, to be polite about it, appears a highly irregular action?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: I said yesterday that it was up to MTHA and the Ontario Housing Corp. to make operational decisions. I have repeated that today.

What has happened is that the OHC committee has in fact looked at this decision, said there were too many ambiguities in it and sent it back to the Metropolitan Toronto Housing Authority board. Now it is going to be handled by the MTHA board, which has, as I repeated earlier, membership from all three levels of government, appointed by all three levels. I know the board will make a decision about how to behave in this matter consistent with the guidelines and methods of operating.

Let me also say I have been assured that all tender bids for MTHA comply with the Ontario labour laws and meet the Ontario fair wage schedule.

WINE INDUSTRY

Hon. Mr. Riddell: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: A question was asked by the Leader of the Opposition regarding the grape adjustment program.

I was partly in error in my response when I said that the Ontario Grape Growers’ Marketing Board assisted in negotiating the $100-million package. On reflection, I believe the grape growers’ marketing board asked for $156 million. Both levels of government made available $100 million, feeling that would be an adequate package to help the industry adjust to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade decision, but the grape growers’ marketing board did participate in negotiations as to how that $100 million would be appropriated to the various components of the program.

CIVIL SERVANTS’ LEGAL FEES

Hon. Mr. Elston: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: It deals with a question asked yesterday by the member for Leeds-Grenville (Mr. Runciman). I had undertaken to get back soon with information on that particular item. He made allegations which I understood or felt at the time probably were baseless, as they mostly are from that member. He has failed to turn up in the House today and I wonder if you could actually suggest that somehow we can put on the record, when we have a response to that type of question, the real material that is required for the public to understand.

Mr. Speaker: The usual procedure is that if a member accepts to return with a response, he may respond in the following question period. Usually, it has been the tradition here that most members have recommended that the question be responded to when the member is present. However, the minister also has the opportunity to respond during ministerial statements if he so desires.

Mr. Brandt: I would just like to advise the minister, in the light of the comments he has made, that the member for Leeds-Grenville is in fact ill today. It was not through some form of malicious planning that he inadvertently is not available in the House, but I would like to advise the minister that he should not read something into the member’s absence that is not there. He is just unavailable for today’s session.

Mr. Speaker: Well, we can go on so long.

Mr. Harris: I would indicate to the minister who raised the point that I know it would be very acceptable to our critic, who is ill today, and to our party if the minister would make a statement during ministerial statements on Monday.

PETITIONS

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION FUND

Mr. Reycraft: I have a petition addressed to His Honour the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It reads as follows:

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

“To amend the Teachers’ Superannuation Act, 1983, in order that all teachers who retired prior to May 31, 1982, have their pensions recalculated at the best five years rather than at the present seven or 10 years.

“The proposed amendment would make the five-year criteria applicable to all retired teachers and would eliminate the present inequitable treatment.”

CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY

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

“To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

“Whereas the crown in the province of Ontario continues a lengthy, futile and expensive prosecution against the Church of Scientology; and

“Whereas at no time in recorded history has an entire church been charged with a criminal offence for the actions of individuals, and freedom of religion in the province is at risk; and

“Whereas the alleged offences occurred over a decade ago and those responsible have been expelled from the church or rehabilitated,

“We petition the Attorney General and the government of Ontario to withdraw the charges against the church and end this prosecution.”

This petition is signed by 212 people, most of whom appear to be residents of Riverdale, and I have affixed my signature thereto, as is required by the standing orders.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. Dietsch: I have a petition to the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

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

“Whereas we strongly oppose the intention of Bill 113 for Sunday opening, we believe that the Ontario government must act to maintain Sunday as a common pause day.”

It is signed by a number of employees from the Checkpoint Chrysler in my riding and I have affixed my name thereto.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

TAVONE ENTERPRISES LIMITED ACT

Ms. Collins moved first reading of Bill Pr63, An Act to revive Tavone Enterprises Limited.

Motion agreed to.

GAME AND FISH AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Wildman moved first reading of Bill 185, An Act to amend the Game and Fish Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Wildman: The purpose of the bill is to require hunters to wear not less than 3,250 square centimetres, approximately 500 square inches, of blaze-orange material or such other quantity of coloured material as the regulations may permit for the purpose of protecting them in the bush so that they are visible to other hunters. A similar amendment was moved by the minister last spring, but he has not moved any further on getting it passed through the House.

1450

ORDERS OF THE DAY

La Chambre en comité des subsides.

House in committee of supply.

CRÉDITS, PROGRAMME DES AFFAIRES FRANCOPHONES / ESTIMATES, FRANCOPHONE AFFAIRS PROGRAM

M. le Président: Monsieur le Ministre, voulez-vous faire votre présentation?

L’hon. M. Grandmaître: Monsieur le Président, avec votre permission, est-ce que je pourrais m’approcher de la table? En plus de cela, j’aimerais avoir la permission d’avoir deux personnes avec moi.

Je suis heureux de me présenter devant le Comité en ma qualité de ministre délégué aux Affaires francophones, afin de soumettre aux députés les provisions du budget des dépenses de l’Office des affaires francophones et de la Commission des services en français pour l’exercice financier de 1988-1989.

Comme vous le savez, Monsieur le Président, l’Office des affaires francophones consacre depuis près de deux ans la quasi-totalité de ses énergies à coordonner la mise en oeuvre de la Loi de 1986 sur les services en français. Cette loi, aussi appelée la Loi sur les services en français, atteste la volonté du gouvernement de reconnaître la contribution de longue date de la langue et de la culture françaises à la richesse de notre province.

D’ailleurs, le préambule de la Loi évoque avec éloquence l’intention de l’Assemblée législative lorsqu’elle adoptait la Loi sur les services en français à l’unanimité, le 18 novembre 1986. Les députés ne sont pas sans savoir que cette mesure législative a eu un effet considérable sur le programme des services en français.

Comme je l’ai déjà mentionné, la plus grande partie des activités de l’Office des affaires francophones dans l’année dernière a porté sur ce dossier, et l’Office, bien entendu, continuera d’y consacrer toutes ses énergies afin d’assurer la mise en oeuvre de la Loi sur les services en français d’ici novembre 1989.

Nous sommes appuyés par la Commission des services en français dans la réalisation de ce défi d’envergure. La Commission a pour mandat de conseiller le gouvernement au sujet de la mise en oeuvre de la Loi, et je vous ferai part des activités de la Commission, Monsieur le Président, un peu plus tard au cours de cette présentation.

De mon côté, j’ai consacré beaucoup de temps à des rencontres de consultation et d’information au sujet de la Loi sur les services en français. Ces rencontres portaient sur tous les aspects de la mise en oeuvre.

À ce propos, je tiens à souligner publiquement l’apport très important de l’Association canadienne-française de l’Ontario lors des fréquentes rencontres que nous avons eues. L’ACFO a manifesté un esprit de collaboration qui a été très utile dans l’évolution de ce dossier. D’ailleurs, ce nouvel état d’esprit a aussi entraîné des retombées bénéfiques pour le milieu francophone.

Je pense qu’il n’est pas exagéré de dire que nous sommes témoins d’une nouvelle ère de la francophonie en Ontario. Cette nouvelle réalité entraîne la mise en commun d’intérêts qui évoluaient auparavant de façon indépendante, souvent à l’insu des autres. Citons en exemple le groupe de travail établi entre le ministère des Affaires municipales, l’Association des municipalités de l’Ontario et L’ACFO afin d’étudier la question de la prestation de services en français par les municipalités.

J’aimerais aussi mentionner le colloque sur les services sociaux et communautaires en français, une entreprise conjointe de l’ACFO, du ministère des Services sociaux et communautaires et de l’Office des affaires francophones, qui s’est tenu en juin 1987 et qui a été rendu possible grâce au financement accordé par ces organismes. Un colloque semblable doit avoir lieu en novembre 1988, et plus précisément à Sudbury, dans deux semaines, pour discuter des services de santé.

On le constate donc à plusieurs niveaux: l’avenir de la collectivité francophone de l’Ontario est plus que prometteur.

J’ai souligné souvent l’importance pour la collectivité de participer activement au processus décisionnel pour faire avancer la cause des Franco-Ontariens. Je pense ici à la nécessité que des francophones siègent aux conseils d’administration des hôpitaux, ou encore au sein des comités des bibliothèques.

Les députés ne sont pas sans savoir que certaines personnes s’acharnent depuis quelque temps à présenter la Loi sur les services en français comme une mesure inacceptable aux anglophones.

I believe we have a responsibility to explain to the people that the intent of this legislation is to recognize the rights of francophones living in designated areas to receive government services in the French language and that it in no way affects the rights of anglophones in this province.

In this regard, I personally or my officials are available to speak to any group interested in hearing about our French Language Services Act. If any member is aware of any such groups, I would be grateful if he could let me know of their concerns. It is of the utmost importance that we continue providing information regarding the provisions contained in this act.

J’aimerais profiter de cette occasion pour rappeler les principaux aspects de la Loi.

La Loi reconnaît et garantit le droit de tous les francophones de l’Ontario de recevoir des services gouvernementaux en français dans les régions désignées. Les services garantis sont ceux qui sont offerts au public par les sièges et les administrations centrales des organismes gouvernementaux, de même que par des bureaux qui sont situés dans des régions désignées ou qui les desservent. Ces services comprennent notamment les communications verbales et écrites, l’affichage et les avis publics, les formulaires et documents, les services d’information et les audiences publiques en français.

C’est pour cette raison que la Loi prévoit que les garanties législatives se rapportant au droit de recevoir des services en français entreront en vigueur trois ans après la date de la sanction royale de la Loi, c’est-à-dire le 19 novembre 1989.

En ce qui concerne la législature, la Loi prévoit que le recueil des Lois refondues de l’Ontario de 1990 contiendra les versions française et anglaise des lois qui seront en vigueur le 31 décembre 1990. Par ailleurs, une autre disposition stipule que tous les projets de loi publics qui seront présentés à l’Assemblée législative après le 1er janvier 1991 seront présentés et adoptés en français et en anglais.

Avant d’entreprendre la revue détaillée des activités de l’Office des affaires francophones et de la Commission des services en français, j’aimerais dire quelques mots au sujet des provisions des dépenses budgétaires des deux organismes.

The program’s total budget is $3,584,600. This includes $694,100 for the French Language Services Commission of Ontario and $2,890,500 for the Office of Francophone Affairs. I would like to point out that this program has received no increase in funding since last year except for salary awards and an increase in the grants program.

1500

Let me explain. The Office of Francophone Affairs in 1987-88 increased its staff to 28 in order to implement the French Language Services Act. This year the staff has remained the same. The total salaries in 1987-88 were $1,020,800 and in 1988-89, $1,066,500, an increase of $45,700, which represents a 4.4 per cent increase. As for the Ontario French Language Services Commission, the staff numbers seven. Last year’s salaries were $274,500, and this year, $286,900, which also represents a 4.4 per cent increase.

As for the offices and the commission’s direct operating expenditures, they have remained the same over the last two years: $731,200 for the office and $357,000 for the commission. The office also has one transfer payment program to the community support fund. Last year this program’s budget was $870,000, and this year, $910,000.

I would like to point out that requests for funding amount to well over $3 million. While they have distinctly different mandates, the Office of Francophone Affairs and the Ontario French Language Services Commission work closely together. They will help us carry out the important commitment made by our government regarding the provision of services to Ontario’s francophone population. I cannot emphasize strongly enough the utmost importance of the role of the commission, which, together with the Office of Francophone Affairs, will ensure that all government ministries and agencies comply with the French Language Services Act.

Naturally, the commission will have to keep in close touch with the francophone community to be able to determine the real needs of the francophone population with respect to French language services. Allow me to bring to members’ attention that the agenda for next year is extremely full. We need to continue our work towards implementation of this act we have passed. As one can see, there is still a lot to be done before November 19, 1989, the date when all services should be in place.

J’aimerais maintenant parler du rôle du directeur général de l’Office des affaires francophones. Sa première tâche a été de rencontrer les coordonnateurs des services en français dans le but d’élaborer, avec leur participation, les mécanismes de mise en oeuvre de la Loi de 1986 sur les services en français. Évidemment, le succès de cette entreprise reposait principalement sur de bonnes relations entre l’Office des affaires francophones et le Comité interministériel des coordonnateurs des services en français.

Depuis son entrée en fonction, le directeur général a coordonné toutes les activités de l’Office. Un manuel des procédures de mise en oeuvre de la Loi a été préparé. En étroite collaboration avec les coordonnateurs, ce document a été distribué à tous les cadres des ministères, de façon à leur permettre d’entreprendre l’élaboration de leurs plans respectifs de mise en oeuvre.

Depuis le mois de juin 1987, l’Office a consacré beaucoup de temps à étudier les plans qui ont été soumis par les ministères. Ce processus exigeant se déroule selon l’échéancier prévu. Entre-temps, il s’est avéré nécessaire de procéder à une réorganisation administrative de l’Office des affaires francophones en fonction de son nouveau mandat, maintenant défini par la Loi.

L’Office compte maintenant trois unités administratives distinctes, à savoir: la Direction des services aux ministères, la Direction des politiques et de la recherche et la Direction des communications et des relations communautaires. J’aimerais maintenant faire part aux députés des réalisations de chacune des directions de l’Office.

La Direction des services aux ministères a été créée le 1er avril 1987. Elle se compose d’un directeur, d’un conseilleur juridique, de quatre analystes et d’un commis. Son rôle principal est d’aider les ministères dans l’élaboration et la réalisation de la mise en oeuvre ainsi que dans la gestion des services en français.

Après de nombreuses consultations à tous les niveaux, un manuel de procédure de mise en oeuvre de la Loi a été distribué à tous les ministères le 3 mars 1987. Une lettre accompagnait cet envoi, indiquant clairement les priorités de l’Office pour l’an un, c’est-à-dire l’exercice financier de 1987-1988. Ces priorités étaient de nature structurelle, c’est-à-dire qu’elles devaient servir de bases solides au développement des étapes subséquentes de la mise en oeuvre dans chaque ministère.

Les premiers plans ont été requis par l’Office au début du mois de juin 1987 et les autres ont suivi tout au cours de l’été. Au fur et à mesure de leur arrivée, les plans ont été distribués aux analystes, qui les ont étudiés et ont procédé à une évaluation de chacun en vue de la préparation des présentations officielles par les ministères.

Au cours de l’exercice financier 1987-1988, presque tous les ministères, offices, secrétariats et grandes agences ont présenté leur plan à l’Office et à la Commission des services en français. Ces présentations ont été une occasion pour les ministères de décrire clairement leurs responsabilités, leur champs d’action, leur méthodologie de travail et leur philosophie de services au public et, en particulier, au public francophone.

On a demandé à l’Office de préparer un rapport global sur le financement de la mise en oeuvre pour l’exercice 1987-1998 et de le soumettre au Conseil de gestion pour son approbation. À cet égard, les éléments prioritaires ont été identifiés à partir des plans soumis. De nombreuses consultations de clarification furent tenues avec les ministères et les analystes du Conseil de gestion chargés des budgets de dépenses de chaque ministère.

Ainsi, les ministères se virent allouer par le Conseil de gestion des fonds supplémentaires d’une valeur totale de onze millions de dollars. Dans l’exécution de son mandat pour l’exercice financier 1988-1989, la Direction des services aux ministères utilise l’information issue de l’analyse des plans, des présentations faites par les ministères et des nombreuses rencontres tenues avec des groupes et des personnes de tous les secteurs de l’activités gouvernementale afin d’identifier les difficultés principales se rattachant à la mise en oeuvre et d’y trouver des solutions innovatrices acceptables à toutes les parties intéressées. À cette fin, le personnel de la Direction coordonne et participe aux activités de plusieurs comités interministériels mis sur pied par le directeur général.

This analysis and presentation of the ministry’s implementation plans last year allowed the office to identify not only the corporate issues and issues of common interest to several ministries, which led to the creation of the committees, but also unresolved issues particular to each case.

The most important of those unresolved issues have been the object of a diligent and assiduous follow-up. Meetings are ongoing between the executive director, assisted by the ministry services branch and the ministries concerned. At the end of June, the office also requested all ministries to revise their original plans and to adjust them so as to ensure that services will be in place by November 1989. These amended plans will be evaluated by the branch and, once approved by the commission, will constitute the final and binding versions against which all future evaluations will be made.

With the November 1989 deadline in mind, the branch is already developing the procedures, conditions and instruments necessary for the designation of certain government offices for the purpose of delivering French-language services as well as for the exemption of services that the ministries will request. The designation of offices refers only to those ministry operations with several service outlets in one city, some of which may, in accordance with the act, be designated to provide services in French. This type of designation was permitted by the act in order to avoid duplication while respecting the rights of francophones to services in their own language.

1510

Les priorités de mise en oeuvre pour l’an deux ont été communiquées aux ministères en décembre dernier. Les demandes des ministères furent transmises à l’Office et analysées au cours de l’hiver. Les résultats furent ensuite communiqués au secrétariat du Conseil de gestion.

J’aimerais maintenant parler des activités de la Direction des politiques et de la recherche. À la suite de la restructuration de l’Office en 1987, le mandat de cette direction a évolué considérablement. Elle s’est vu confier un rôle central dans les efforts de l’Office pour assurer l’accès aux services en français dans les régions désignées.

Au chapitre de la mise en oeuvre de la Loi 8, la Direction a continué à participer à des consultations et à des discussions avec les ministères et les organismes communautaires afin d’assurer une interprétation éclairée et une application saine de la Loi. Pour ce faire, elle a réalisé des recherches qui lui ont permis de fournir des renseignements aux coordonnateurs et à d’autres fonctionnaires du gouvernement sur les programmes en place et sur les données statistiques. La Direction a aussi entrepris plusieurs recherches dans le but de répondre à des questions soulevées par l’Office, par d’autres ministères ou par le public.

As minister responsible for francophone affairs, I am responsible for administering the French Language Services Act. On my behalf, in compliance with clause 12(2)(d) of the act, the policy and research branch of the Office of Francophone Affairs investigates and responds to public complaints about the quality of French-language services provided by government ministries and agencies. To this end, in 1986 the branch chaired a subcommittee of French-language services coordinators whose mandate was to establish procedures for ensuring the efficient and fast handling of complaints. These procedures are now in place.

Between May 1, 1986, and May 31, 1988, the office received 180 complaints from the public and various agencies. In general, ministries took necessary measures to ensure that similar problems did not recur. However, some concerns raised dealt with more complex issues and will most likely be resolved as the French Language Services Act is implemented.

Une des tâches principales de la Direction des politiques et de la recherche est l’analyse des soumissions présentées au Conseil des ministres. Depuis le 1er avril 1987, elle a analysé plus de 150 soumissions. Dans ses analyses, la Direction s’est concentrée sur les dossiers les plus importants à l’égard des services en français et des besoins de la population francophone. Entre autres, le domaine des services sociaux et de la santé, de l’éducation, de la formation professionnelle, de l’administration, de la justice et des relations intergouvernementales ont retenu son attention.

Les analyses des soumissions ont révélé que les besoins des francophones ne sont pas toujours pris en considération lors de la planification des programmes. L’Office s’est servi de ces analyses pour faire aux ministères concernés des recommandations sur la façon d’incorporer les services en français dans leurs soumissions et dans l'élaboration et la mise en oeuvre de leurs programmes.

La Direction des communications et des relations communautaires a la responsabilité d’assurer des communications internes et externes au sujet des activités du ministre délégué aux Affaires francophones et de l’Office des affaires francophones. Elle doit coordonner la préparation et la diffusion des documents, rapports et publications du ministre et de l’Office. Elle doit aussi renseigner et conseiller les directions de communications des ministères.

Par le passé, la Direction a organisé des réunions d’information régulières avec les communicateurs francophones des ministères et entend poursuivre ces activités dans l’année 1988-1989.

La Direction joue aussi un rôle important dans l’élaboration de stratégies de communications gouvernementales visant à informer les francophones sur les services en français. L’Office doit aussi, lorsque nécessaire, élaborer des directives pour le Conseil de gestion du gouvernement sur des sujets variés et complexes.

Il est entendu que l’Office doit maintenir des liens avec les médias d’information de langue française et de langue anglaise, électroniques comme écrits. L’Office entretient des rapports étroits avec, entre autres, l’Association de la presse francophone hors Québec. D’ailleurs, en mars 1988, la Direction publiait, de concert avec cette association, un cahier spécial portant sur la Loi sur les services en français intitulé « Zoom sur les services en français ». Plusieurs ministères ont collaboré financièrement à la réalisation de cette initiative, dont je suis particulièrement fier. Ce cahier a été distribué à plus de 130 000 exemplaires par le biais des journaux hebdomadaires francophones de l’Ontario.

De plus, l’Office administre depuis plus de sept ans le Fonds de soutien à la communauté. Le Fonds de soutien à la communauté permet à l’Office des affaires francophones de soutenir les efforts de développement communautaire de la population franco-ontarienne. Ce fonds finance, en tout ou en partie, des activités ou projets qui visent à améliorer les services offerts à la population francophone.

En 1987-1988, 870 000 $ ont été alloués aux organismes franco-ontariens pour des projets communautaires un peu partout en Ontario. En tout, une centaine d’organismes communautaires franco-ontariens ont bénéficié, en 1987-1988, de l’appui financier du Fonds de soutien.

Une importante composante de la Direction des communications et des relations communautaires est le programme Renseignements Ontario. Il s’agit d’un programme qui vise a améliorer les communications entre les francophones et le gouvernement provincial. Pour ce faire, Renseignements Ontario offre des renseignements téléphoniques gratuits à tous les citoyens de l’Ontario. Ce programme demande beaucoup de recherche, car les appels sont souvent fort complexes et requièrent non seulement une connaissance générale des services et des programmes gouvernementaux mais une analyse des problèmes présentes pour savoir à quel ministère, agence ou palier du gouvernement le client s’adresse.

En plus d’être un service d’information, Renseignements Ontario agit comme service de recherche en permettant de résoudre les problèmes que les citoyens peuvent rencontrer lorsqu’ils communiquent avec le gouvernement.

En plus d’assurer un service d’information téléphonique, le personnel de Renseignements Ontario parcourt la province avec un kiosque d’information duquel on peut se procurer en français les renseignements les plus récents sur les programmes gouvernementaux. En 1987-1988, le kiosque de Renseignements Ontario était présent à des événements aussi populaires que Contact Ontarois, la Semaine francophone de l’Université d’Ottawa, le Salon du livre de l’Outaouais, le congrès de l’Association des municipalités de l’Ontario et le Sommet de la francophonie.

The office has also met with a number of groups to inform them about the French Language Services Act. These meetings were conducted by communications and community relations branch staff. What is more, the branch has made a video to be used for this purpose. The English version of this video has been shown throughout the year to Ontario civil service personnel at workshops and management meetings. In addition, the French version has been shown on a number of occasions to community groups.

The office has an extremely important role to play with respect to both civil servants and the Ontario public. Naturally, the passage of the French Language Services Act raises questions in the minds of unilingual civil servants who believe that their opportunities for advancement will be limited because of the fact that they speak only one language. These concerns must be addressed by any information activity undertaken by the office.

Pour ce qui est des communications externes, l’Office a tenu, depuis 1980, plusieurs campagnes de publicité dans les médias de langue française. Ces campagnes visaient à informer les francophones de la disponibilité des services en français dans les régions désignées.

1520

L’Office était présent au pavillon de l’Ontario lors du Sommet de la francophonie qui s’est tenu à Québec en septembre 1987. Cette présence nous a permis de constater que les Québécois étaient très peu informés au sujet de la francophonie en Ontario. Le pavillon fut une révélation pour bien des Québécois, qui se sont montrés fort intéressés par la Loi sur les services en français et par les initiatives gouvernementales à l’intention des francophones.

S’il est important d’informer les francophones et les anglophones de la province, il est aussi important que l’Ontario soit perçu par les autres provinces comme conscient des besoins des francophones et soucieux d’y répondre et de mettre en oeuvre cette Loi sur les services en français, adoptée à l’unanimité par l’Assemblée législative, le 18 novembre 1986.

Pour cette raison, au cours des prochaines années l’Office accordera une attention prioritaire aux communications: communications aux niveaux provincial et national et même, comme on l’a déjà fait lors du Sommet de la francophonie, au niveau international.

J’aimerais maintenant dire quelques mots au sujet de la Commission des services en français de l’Ontario. La Commission amorce présentement la dernière année de son mandat d’une durée de trois ans. Créée lors de l’adoption de la Loi sur les services en français en novembre 1986, la Commission a pour fonction essentielle, comme je l’ai déjà indiqué, de conseiller le gouvernement et de l’aider dans la mise en place des services en français au sein des ministères, organismes, conseils et commissions.

En termes plus précis, le mandat de la Commission est le suivant: examiner la disponibilité et la qualité des services en français et faire des recommandations en vue de leur amélioration; recommander la désignation des organismes offrant des services publics et l’ajout de régions désignées à l’annexe de la Loi; recommander des modifications aux projets des organismes gouvernementaux en ce qui concerne la prestation des services en français; faire des recommandations en ce qui concerne les exemptions proposées de services en français.

Présidée par M. Gérard Raymond et composée de quatre membres à temps partiel, la Commission se réunit périodiquement, à raison de deux ou trois jours par mois, pour étudier diverses questions touchant l’application de la Loi sur les services en français.

Ces membres à temps partiel ont été nommés par décret et choisis à l’extérieur du gouvernement. Ils apportent à la Commission leurs propres connaissances et compétences dans le domaine des services en français. Le directeur général de l’Office des affaires francophones est membre d’office de la Commission. Le président et les membres sont appuyés de six employés.

Nous étions bouleversés d’apprendre, il y a quelques semaines, le décès d’un des membres de la Commission, M. Jean-François Aubé, par suite d’un cancer du cerveau. Il était d’un dévouement, d’une sensibilité et d’un charme remarquables. Il manquera à tous ceux qui sont associés à la Commission.

Dans l’exécution de son mandat, la Commission s’intéresse particulièrement aux questions telles que l’offre active des services et leur spécificité par rapport à la situation particulière des francophones, tant au niveau culturel qu’au niveau régional, ainsi que leur équivalence en termes de qualité, permanence, accessibilité et disponibilité.

En ce qui concerne l’orientation générale de la Commission, elle a retenu quatre domaines prioritaires: l’éducation, dans son sens le plus large; les services sociaux, communautaires et culturels; la santé; et les services juridiques. La Commission a identifié ces priorités en tenant compte des besoins pressants de la population francophone de l’Ontario.

Comme pour l’Office, un champ d’activité important de la Commission est l’étude des plans de mise en oeuvre de la Loi présentés par les ministères et leurs agences. La Commission a porté une attention particulière à la prestation et à l’accessibilité des services, à la coordination des programmes, à l’élaboration de politiques appropriées et à l’image de marque des organismes. Elle examine également la structure décisionnelle de ces derniers pour s’assurer qu’elle tient compte des besoins et préoccupations des Franco-Ontariens.

Au fur et à mesure que l’échéance de novembre 1989 approche, la Commission mettra davantage l’accent sur l’examen des plans révisés de la mise en oeuvre de la Loi et sur l’étude des divers services offerts par les ministères et organismes. À cet égard, la Commission poursuivra l’élaboration de directives visant à aider les ministères dans la mise en oeuvre de la Loi sur les services en français.

Elle s’est déjà prononcée sur la question de la signalisation à l’intérieur et à l’extérieur des édifices gouvernementaux et sur la question de l’utilisation du français dans le processus d’appel d’offres relatif aux contrats gouvernementaux, ainsi que dans la préparation d’expositions, de présentations et de matériel audiovisuel. La Commission a également contribué à l’élaboration de la ligne directrice sur les publications, mentionnée plus tôt.

Avec la participation de l’Office, la Commission examine également les services offerts par les ministères qui n’ont pas l’intention de désigner de postes pour la prestation de services en français. Cet examen permettra aux ministères de savoir si leurs plans en matière de dotation en personnel, aux fins de l’application de la Loi, sont adéquats et respectent bien les dispositions de la Loi.

En outre, la Commission a pris en considération les conclusions et les recommandations d’un certain nombre d’études qu’elle à entreprises au cours des derniers mois. Ces études ont examiné la qualité et l’accessibilité des services en français au sein de plusieurs ministères ou agences gouvernementales.

La première étude faite par la Commission porte sur le statut du français dans le système judiciaire dans certaines régions du Nord de l’Ontario. Elle visait les services offerts en français dans les districts juridiques de Cochrane, Timiskaming et Nipissing et, en particulier, les cours criminelle, familiale et des petites créances.

L’automne dernier, la Commission à examiné les services en français qu’offre TVOntario à la population francophone de la province.

Pendant la même période, la Commission a entrepris une étude sur les services offerts en français par le ministère de la Formation professionnelle. L’étude portait sur les besoins et perceptions de la communauté francophone ainsi que sur la qualité et la quantité des services disponibles. Cette étude fut bien accueillie par le Ministère, et plusieurs de ses recommandations ont mené à des améliorations mesurables aux services.

Compte tenu de l’importance qu’accorde la Commission à l’éducation, elle à mené deux études complémentaires portant sur le Collège de technologie agricole et alimentaire d’Alfred. Ces études ont examiné les services offerts aux étudiants par le Collège ainsi que ceux qui sont offerts à la communauté franco-ontarienne. Elles ont également comparé les programmes disponibles en Ontario aux collèges agricoles de langue anglaise avec ceux qui sont offerts par le Collège d’Alfred.

De plus, la Commission vient de terminer une étude sur les services financés par le gouvernement mais administrés par certaines municipalités dans des régions désignées de la province. Cette étude portait sur des domaines importants à la population franco-ontarienne, notamment les services de santé publique, tels que l’aide à domicile et la planification familiale, et les services sociaux, y compris ceux qui sont offerts aux personnes âgées et à l’enfance et l’aide sociale en générale.

La Commission et l’Office poursuivent, par ailleurs, les discussions qu’ils ont entamées avec les ministères touchés par les conclusions de ces études dans le but d’apporter des améliorations durables aux services examinés.

1530

En collaboration avec l’Office, la Commission à parrainé une étude dressant le profil de la communauté franco-ontarienne. Cette étude portait sur les aspects socio-démographiques de la communauté franco-ontarienne et faisait une description de la vie familiale et communautaire des francophones en Ontario. En outre, la Commission mène actuellement une étude sur les besoins de services en français dans la communauté francophone de la région de Sudbury. Cette étude tient compte, en particulier, de questions de la plus haute importance pour la population francophone, à savoir l’éducation postsecondaire, les services sociaux et communautaires, la santé et le système judiciaire.

Un élément connexe et intéressant de cette étude était la participation des francophones de la région, qui ont décidé de s’engager en créant leur propre groupe communautaire. En fait, la Commission est régulièrement en contact avec la population francophone de l’Ontario pour déterminer ses besoins et priorités en matière de services gouvernementaux en français. Des exposés ont été présentés et continueront à l’être, dans toute la province, aux associations locales et provinciales qui s’intéressent au fait français.

Parmi les groupes rencontrés, je peux noter le Conseil provincial et exécutif de l’Association canadienne-française de l’Ontario et le chapitre ontarien de l’association Canadian Parents for French. Ces conférences donnent l’occasion à la Commission d’expliquer aux divers représentants de la population les dispositions, les garanties et le processus de mise en oeuvre de la Loi sur les services en français et lui permettent de cerner leurs préoccupations dans plusieurs domaines.

Du côté plus administratif et bureaucratique, le président de la Commission et moi avons signé un protocole d’entente qui décrit les responsabilités et les rôles de la Commission et de l’Office des affaires francophones, ainsi que les miens, par rapport au Programme des services en français. Ce protocole fut approuvé par le Conseil de gestion.

L’importance de la dernière année du mandat de la Commission s’accroîtra au fur et à mesure que les ministères et les agences accéléreront le pas de la mise en oeuvre.

In the next few months, the commission will conduct a final review of ministry and agency implementation plans. This process should be completed early in the New Year in order for ministries to have sufficient time to act on the commission’s recommendation for improvement where necessary. The commission will also be addressing the issue of exemptions under the act. In some rare and specific cases, it may not be possible to provide full service in French by the November 1989 deadline. In these cases, an exemption will be required as provided for in the act. However, exemptions will only be granted if they are deemed reasonable, necessary and do not derogate from the spirit and intent of the act.

In addition, and in accordance with its mandate, the commission will review the question of the possible addition of designated areas to the schedule of the act. This review will take into consideration the distribution and concentration of Ontario’s French-speaking population, as revised in the most recent population statistics compiled by the federal government. For the duration of the period remaining in its mandate, the commission will take a particular interest in the designation of public service agencies in co-operation with the office of francophone affairs and the ministries concerned.

À cette fin, la Commission a déjà établi un certain nombre de critères qui tiennent compte de la permanence et de la qualité des services en français; de l’accès adéquat à ces services; de la représentation efficace des francophones au sein des conseils d’administration, des comités et aux divers niveaux de direction de ces organismes; et de l’imputabilité pour les services en français. Ces critères servent à juger de l’acceptabilité des plans de désignation dans le but de formuler des recommandations.

Il convient de noter, toutefois, que la désignation des agences est un projet très complexe et de longue haleine qui ne s’achèvera pas pendant le mandat de la Commission. Il est évident que c’est un processus qui continuera à évoluer pendant un nombre considérable d’années.

Bien que leurs mandats respectifs soient distincts et différents, l’Office des affaires francophones et la Commission des services en français de l’Ontario travaillent en étroite collaboration. Ensemble, ils nous aideront à mener à terme l’importante mission entreprise par notre gouvernement dans sa grande clairvoyance et qui vise à la préservation de la langue et de la culture de la population franco-ontarienne.

Monsieur le Président, ceci conclut mon rapport sur l’étude des crédits de 1987-1988.

Mlle Martel: Je voudrais dire deux choses pour commencer. Premièrement, je ne voudrais pas parler aussi longtemps que le Ministre. Il doit être bien fatigué, et moi, je ne veux pas parler aussi longtemps que lui.

Deuxièmement, je voudrais remercier les personnes qui font l’interprétation simultanée de mes propos. Je sais bien que je suis la seule personne qui aura besoin d’aide cet après-midi. Je les remercie bien, tous les deux.

C’est pour moi un plaisir de participer au débat cet après-midi. C’est aussi la première fois que je participe à l’étude des budgets de dépenses ici, à la législature. Je voudrais dire d’abord deux choses qui me préoccupent, puis après, s’il me reste assez de temps, je voudrais faire de petits commentaires à propos des détails dans ce cahier-ci.

Avant de commencer, je voudrais rappeler encore une fois le mandat de la Direction des politiques et de la recherche; c’est d’analyser et d’évaluer les lois, les politiques et les programmes gouvernementaux pour s’assurer qu’ils répondent aux besoins des francophones. À mon avis, il est important de se souvenir de cela, cet après-midi. C’est important en particulier si on considère la réponse de l’Office des affaires francophones au recensement et son effet sur le projet de loi 125.

I must say that the conflict concerning Bill 125 really started with Bill 77. In recent weeks, we all know what has gone on in terms of the enumeration, in terms of the court challenge and the result as of yesterday. I want to say, first of all, that having been occupied with Bill 162, I regret that I was not in as much of a position as I should have been to respond to what has happened in recent weeks since we have returned to this Legislature.

I must say that I do want to take a look at the history of that now and make some comments concerning what happened on the part of the government, what I think happened on the part of the minister responsible for francophone affairs (Mr. Grandmaître) and how we are certainly in a difficult predicament, even in spite of the decision reached by the Ontario Court of Appeal yesterday.

I am certain that the member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry (Mr. Villeneuve) will comment upon this, but I certainly remember the debate that went on around Bill 77, which in fact introduced the enumeration system that was used for these municipal elections. I remember that at the time, we on this side of the House, in both opposition parties, expressed many concerns we had with that bill.

We, members of both parties on this side, spoke at length about the concerns we had. We tried to warn the government what was going to happen because the bill was so rushed and because we felt there would be an inadequate amount of time to sensitize, in particular the francophone population so it could respond adequately to the enumeration. We tried to warn the government that this bill should never have been brought in in a period where there was a municipal election.

Unfortunately, the government wanted the bill. They wanted it badly. They went on without any amendments, without any changes to the forms and we ended up with what I think is quite a fiasco in the province at this time, in spite of the fact that the municipal elections will occur.

I want to go back to some of the concerns I raised, because I did speak in that debate, and reiterate them here today. The first one was the whole question of timing itself. We looked at the bill at the beginning of April. There were some strict time limits put into that bill that had to be met. The many problems included timing; that is, that by May 1, the enumeration, or at least the mailing of the forms and the return of those forms to the Ministry of Revenue, was supposed to occur.

1540

We were sitting on April 7 with this bill not having been passed, no amendments we could look at, no public hearings going to be promised, and yet we were supposed to have all this in place and those forms sent out within three weeks. I certainly remember my colleague the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh) at the time going through this at great length in his speech. He was very concerned that the time limits could not be met, or if they were met, the effects, the consequences for the municipal elections were going to be dramatic.

There was a second problem I referred to in particular, and that was the question of a comprehensive publicity campaign around Bill 77 and around the enumeration itself. I remember that on the day the bill was introduced, the minister responsible for francophone affairs announced, in conjunction with the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Eakins), that there would be a great publicity campaign around the bill. They would be in contact not only with the francophone community, but also with many of the multicultural communities around the province to describe in detail the importance of filling out the form, what it meant, the importance for municipal elections. That was going to occur.

Also in terms of timing, we on this side of the House could not understand how that kind of campaign could occur within three weeks, because at that point in time there were three weeks between the time the bill was passed and the time the forms were supposed to start coming back to the Ministry of Revenue. We expressed some grave concerns there, and perhaps the minister, when he responds to my concerns, can give us in this House some idea of how much money was spent on that advertising campaign and who would have been involved in that.

There was a third concern that we raised. That was actually raised by l’Association des enseignantes et des enseignants franco-ontariens. They had requested of the ministry in advance some detailed plans as to what the ministry was going to do in terms of its own publicity campaign, the reason being that the association itself wanted to run a parallel campaign in the francophone community across the province to try to reiterate and impress upon francophones the importance of responding, of identifying themselves as French electors in order to be able to elect French trustees during the municipal elections.

They were concerned at the time, because they had got no response from the government. The government was proceeding with the bill. The association had no idea what kind of campaign was going to be run. They wanted to play a role, but had had no response from the government about what they could do and what role they could play. Perhaps the minister can respond and let the House know what kind of role they did play, if there was any parallel campaign run in that regard.

Finally, I raised a particular concern with the form itself. I remember that the day I stood to speak on the bill was also the first day I had ever seen the form, and it was the first day most members who were speaking about the bill had actually seen the form. I raised the concern at that point that due to the nature of the questions, there would be a fairly significant number of Canadians who were not born in this country, whose first language was neither French nor English but who identified with the francophone community, who would not be able to identify themselves as French electors and elect French trustees.

There was a problem with the form. I remember the parliamentary assistant said it did not affect great numbers of people, but in any event it did affect a significant population in this province, people who should have had the right to identify themselves as francophone supporters.

The people I mentioned at the time were mainly from Arabic countries whose first language would have been neither French nor English. Because many of them had lived in countries that were former French colonies, certainly their second language would have been French. They would have come to Canada and associated themselves with the francophone community, yet they were disqualified from identifying themselves electorally, because of the questions and the way they were worded on the form.

I remember making that point and there was no response from the minister at that time. It was evident that there could not be, because we had such a short time at that point. The forms were already printed. They could not be pulled. The changes could not be made. As a consequence, I think there were a fair number of people in that category who could not identify themselves as French electors and therefore French trustee supporters.

Several of my colleagues made some other comments. One was a concern with the mailout process. I know that many of us here do our mailing into our constituencies three times a year. It may have been my colleague the member for Oshawa -- I am not clear at this point, but one of my colleagues did indeed say that he on occasion got hundreds of returns because there was a problem with mailout. His concern at that point was that if you took away the door-to-door portion of it and relied strictly on the mailout for the first round in, you would lose or miss a lot of people.

Second, a concern that was raised by all of us, which was the most important, was that we felt the whole thing was being rammed through in an election year, which never should have been done. We should have dealt with Bill 77 in November when the House resumed, and we did not. Instead, it was left until the final moment for a dramatic change in the enumeration system and indeed in the way French trustees were going to be elected, and yet it was done within several months of the municipal election.

We said quite categorically on this side that we wondered why the government was in such a rush at that point, in April, when the sensible thing would have been for it to address the issue fully in November 1987.

As I say, the debate went on. Many concerns were raised on this side of the House. We did not get many responses from the other side of the House, and in fact there were no amendments in the end. The form was not changed in the end. There were no hearings in the end. The government just continued to roll on and continued to proceed with the enumeration. We are in a tenuous position now as a consequence of the very rapid decisions that were made at that point in time.

I remember the minister telling my colleague the member for Beaches-Woodbine (Ms. Bryden) that the enumeration was very successful. He responded at that time that about 90 per cent of the population responded across the province. I suppose you can base the success that way, that 90 per cent responded, if indeed that was the end figure. But I have to ask the minister, what else was happening in the province at the same time? He may have got 90 per cent of the respondents across Ontario, but in the francophone community of this province there were some real problems that went on and that have not yet been addressed.

There were huge numbers in the francophone community who did not respond, and the minister is aware of that. There were huge numbers that, for whatever reason, may not have received the form and then did not respond as a consequence. We had the problem of the exclusion of those new Canadians who did not speak English or French, who were excluded from the process because of the forms and the way they were written.

Finally, we had an exclusion of large numbers because if francophones did not identify themselves as francophone supporters, they were automatically identified as majority supporters. Had the situation been reversed and they were anglophones and had been automatically designated as francophone supporters, I think there would have been a hue and cry across this province as a consequence.

Certainly, the minister can base his success on the large percentage that responded, but the percentage that did not respond are the people who are most affected and who are going to lose the most in terms of what will happen over the trustee question, both during this municipal election and in the future when the Court of Appeal has to bear the case of the constitutionality of the enumeration process.

I was surprised then when the minister responded in the press, when he was asked about the large numbers of francophones who did not respond, “Il y a des francophones qui ne se sont pas donnés la peine de répondre.” I was a bit surprised by that, because there were large numbers who did not receive the forms in the first place. I go back to what Sylvio Morin said in Le Droit: “Comment le ministre peut-il dire que les francophones ne se sont pas donnés la peine de répondre, alors que je n’ai moi-même jamais reçu de formulaire, et ce même après l’avoir demandé?”

In Ottawa-Carleton alone, there were some 68,400 francophones who identified themselves as francophone supporters. Statistics Canada estimates there are over 100,000 French-speaking people in the Ottawa-Carleton area. They are losing thousands of people in Ottawa-Carleton alone who were not identified, for whatever reason.

In Frontenac county, there were 1,500 francophones on the voters list, when in fact the francophone population in that area is nearly 5,000. There were some tremendous problems with the enumeration, and it is not just a case of people not taking the time to fill out the forms. There was something very wrong that went on with this system. We tried to warn the ministries involved at that time that they were going to have some serious problems because there was not enough time to sensitize, in particular, the francophone population on the need to respond and what it had to do to respond correctly.

1550

I think where the real tragedy has occurred as a consequence is the application of the enumeration system to the provisions of Bill 125, and there the effects of the badly flawed enumeration have really become evident, in particular in the last number of weeks.

Members of this House will know that under Bill 125 the number of trustees on school boards to be determined is now determined by the number of French voters and that is a change from what we have had in the past. The problem was that the identification of French electors in the province is so poor that the number of French trustees has in fact dropped dramatically in a manner that does not represent, in any factual way, the francophone population in many parts of Ontario, and that is a dramatic problem.

We have heard from many people about how this is going to affect their areas and different school boards in the province, but one of the consequences, according to l’Association français des conseils scolaires de l’Ontario, is that more than 40 per cent of the 450 francophone trustees would have been dropped from school boards as a consequence of the enumeration and its application under Bill 125. Francophones in at least 12 school board districts may be underrepresented due to flaws in the enumeration system. That is a fairly significant proportion of the population. It makes some dramatic changes.

In particular, in Sudbury, it reversed the majority altogether, and that happened in at least six school boards across the province. I know it happened in the school board district of my colleague in the Conservative Party. It happened in Nipissing as well, and in Algoma.

I think what we have seen in the last number of weeks over this whole problem, the court appeal, etc., is that it has been a real fiasco; and we warned the government. We tried to tell them this was going to happen, and the consequences in the francophone community have really been drastic.

We know that last week in his ruling, Judge Sirois condemned the enumeration process and he condemned it in very strong terms, which the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) certainly did not state in this House. I would just like to go over what he concluded in the appeal. He said of the enumeration system:

“It would result in an injustice if substantial errors in the enumeration of the voters were not corrected. The unreliability of the list will result in irreparable harm to be suffered by several thousands of section 23 right holders, firstly in their right to vote, and also their right to vote for the proper number of members or trustees to represent them. My conclusion is that this amounts to a clear denial of constitutional rights and it is inconsistent with the provisions of section 23 of the charter.”

I think that is fairly strong language. That is much stronger than the Attorney General admitted to in this House, that is for sure.

We know that as a consequence, the government went on. They have appealed this ruling to the Court of Appeal in Ontario and a decision was rendered yesterday.

Two things came of that decision that I think are noteworthy to mention in the House. First is that the Court of Appeal has agreed that the constitutional challenge is serious enough to warrant a full trial in the future, and second, the elections will proceed under Bill 125, not as Judge Sirois wanted to do under the old rules before Bill 125, and also six boards, in particular the boards I have mentioned, will have a double-majority system.

I must say that the government and in particular the minister must have been quite pleased with the decision yesterday. It certainly got them out of a very hot and rather unpleasant situation. We could well have had the elections nullified, and certainly none of us in this House would have wanted to see that, but I go back to the point that a number of us tried to tell the government there would be a problem with this. It is too bad the government did not listen, but insisted on forcing this bill through and so we are running into the problems that we have now.

It is going to be interesting to see what indeed happens when the constitutional challenge begins, because we certainly could be in the position in future that we will have to have new elections in at least six districts in the province where now we are going to have a double voting system as a result of the decision rendered yesterday. That is certainly going to be a waste of taxpayers’ money and time, and I wish the government had seriously considered what we had to say when this bill was going through, in fact when both bills were going through.

I do want to say to the minister, because of course Bill 77 was a result of co-ordination of his ministry with the ministries of Municipal Affairs and Education, that there are some consequences of the government’s decision to appeal. I think there are some dramatic consequences in terms of the effect that will have on the francophone community. When he said, “La décision a été prise par le Conseil des ministres, et vous savez que la solidarité ministérielle s’applique,” ce n’est pas aussi simple que tout cela.

I think he should have been, at the time these bills were going through, pressing for the government to back off and take a serious look at what was going to happen, take a serious took at what was going to happen in the francophone community in particular, as he is the minister responsible. He should have tried to convince his colleagues at the time that the period during the municipal election or several months before the municipal election was not the time to try and bring in these bills which were going to change the system this dramatically.

I go back to a comment my colleague made when he talked about this. He said it was a long, sorry tale about the registration of French voters and securing of adequate representation for the French community. I think he was right. It is a long and sorry, sad tale and the worst part is that it is not over. When we go into the appeal and we see what happens concerning the question of the constitutionality of the enumeration system, we are going to have to go through all this again, grind up all the old feelings about it. I certainly wish the minister in particular would have been at the forefront of convincing the government not to proceed when these bills did go through last April.

Ma deuxième préoccupation, c’est à propos de la Loi 8. Je voudrais dire tout de suite que je suis complètement d’accord avec la Loi 8, cela ne fait aucun doute. J’ai dit la même chose pendant la campagne électorale à Sudbury-Est. Mes électeurs connaissent très bien ma position à ce propos, et ma position n’a pas changée depuis sept ans.

Mais je reste encore vraiment préoccupée par la mise en oeuvre de ce projet et je dois dire honnêtement que j’espère que le Ministre va écouter mes inquiétudes et y répondre, et aussi celles de mon collègue, car je suis sûre que celui-ci va parler des mêmes sortes de problèmes.

À mon avis, la majorité des citoyens ontariens reconnaissent pas du tout la substance de la Loi 8. Par exemple, ils ne savent pas quelles sont les régions désignées de l’Ontario, ils ne savent pas que les municipalités sont exclues des stipulations de la Loi; et je suis convaincue qu’il n’y a pas assez de renseignements disponibles à propos de la Loi, ni pour les francophones ni pour les anglophones de l’Ontario.

Je suis convaincue aussi que la désinformation, ou le manque d’information, est au fond des inquiétudes, des craintes de la population à propos des services offerts aux francophones. Peut-être que les ministères peuvent dire que tout va bien, on continue et il y a seulement de petits problèmes à propos de la Loi. Ils peuvent dire, par exemple, que l’Office s’occupe de cette question. Il y a des gens qui veulent parler des problèmes concernant la Loi, etc., avec n’importe qui. Ils peuvent dire, par exemple, qu’on continue conformément à l’horaire et qu’il ne faut pas s’en inquiéter.

Mais moi, je m’en inquiète. Je m’en inquiète parce que, à mon avis, la mise en oeuvre des services ne sera pas terminée le 18 novembre 1989. Ainsi, le gouvernement devra en expliquer le pourquoi aux francophones.

I want to give an example of that. I will use the Sudbury case in particular, because I was at the meeting which the francophone group in Sudbury had concerning the results of the study it had been doing in the city in terms of a study of the justice system, health, social services, and what the services in fact were which were available in the community. I remember meeting with them just before the meeting took place and they said to me that as a consequence of the work they had done. the meetings they had had, the research they had done in the various areas, they were convinced that there was absolutely no way the government could have the services necessary in place by November 1989.

They were very adamant on that point, that there remained a great deal of research which had to be done. They were worried about the great amount of confusion, particularly in the government ministries in Sudbury, as to what was happening, what was required of them, how many positions would be designated, whether French-language services would be offered to the present employees so they would be able to move up in their employment.

1600

They were quite worried about that. The confusion in the government ministries alone was evident enough for them to state that there was no way the government of this province could have everything in place by the deadline of November 1989. That worries me.

It worries me that not only will the government have a problem in explaining to francophones why the services are not in place by November 1989, but on the other hand, I really feel the government continues to be very vague about what is happening under Bill 8, about the implementation plans of the various ministries and how that is coming together.

There has not been anywhere near enough information given to members of this House and to the public in general about what is happening, and I am extremely worried that the lack of information and the apparent secrecy that has come with that lack of information is causing grave concerns in Ontario. People do not understand what is happening with this bill. They do not understand the provisions of it. They do not know what is required. They have no idea of the numbers which will be designated and if they are going to lose their jobs as a consequence. It is a real fear out there and it is not going away.

I am asking the minister to try to understand what I am saying. I am not here to state that I am in disagreement with the bill or to try to use scare tactics. I am merely trying to point out to him that it has become very evident to me in the last year during which I have been a member that people are extremely concerned about this bill. They do not understand it. They are fearful about it. They are fearful about the cost. They are fearful about what it means for their jobs.

There has not been any effort on the part of this minister, as far as I can see, to try to relieve some of that fear, to try to get information out to the municipalities and to the public in general to let them know exactly what we are looking at.

I want to give him a couple of examples, so he understands where I am coming from and why I am telling him this at this point in time.

I go back to a problem he is aware of which happened in Sudbury concerning the designation of particular francophone positions in several liquor stores in Sudbury. Both myself and the member for Sudbury (Mr. Campbell) were involved in this and were grateful that the ministry responded and did set up meetings and tried to resolve the situation.

I go back to the real problem. The coordinator of French services in the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations was trying to work with the Liquor Licence Board of Ontario to determine the number of stores across the province which were going to have designated bilingual positions in order to meet the requirements under Bill 8.

She was having great difficulty doing that. I certainly do not want to get her into any trouble with her Deputy Minister or indeed with the ministry here, but as she explained to me quite clearly, and this was in June, there were no guidelines in place. There was no uniform policy she could see in her dealings with other coordinators in other ministries which each of them were to be guided by. She had no idea, in effect, what kind of percentages should be applied in different areas in designating francophone jobs. There was no set pattern. Most of us assumed it would be based on the proportion of the francophone population in that area. She could not answer that question.

She said to me quite clearly: “There are no directives. The policy directives we get change quite dramatically. There’s a great deal of confusion. We don’t know where we’re heading. We’re certainly worried about it, but I don’t know what else I can tell you.”

That bothered me a great deal because this is an individual who is trying extremely hard to implement the government’s policy under Bill 8 but is not getting any direction as to how that should be done; has no sense of really what is required in terms of numbers under this bill; cannot tell me if there is going to be French-language training provided so current employees do not have to lose their jobs; and cannot tell me, in fact, where we are heading.

I am concerned, because that is only one example we have had and that is only one ministry. From what I could gather from her in our conversations, it was widespread in all the ministries and everyone was feeling under siege and everyone was concerned by what appeared to be a definite lack of direction.

Let me go into the public at large and say that last week I received a phone call from a municipality in Algoma, my colleague’s riding. The municipality was calling because of Bill 8. They were not sure (a) if the bill had been passed, they had some questions about that, and (b) they wanted to know what the bill entailed and they wanted to know, as a municipality, what they were expected to do in order to provide French-language services.

They did not know that, as a municipality, they were not in any position to have to actually provide services, even though they were in a designated area. They did not know that, as a municipality, they could vote in that municipality and decide if they wanted to offer services in both French and English.

They were extremely confused. They had never received any information from the government about the bill. They had no idea what their obligations were, and they were quite surprised to find out that in fact the bill had been passed even in 1986.

I say there is not information out there; people do not know what is happening.

I received a call a couple of weeks ago from an individual who is very concerned with the hiring policy going on at Cambrian College. As he went through his statement to me that it was all because of Bill 8 that Cambrian College has this bilingual hiring policy now and Bill 8 was terrible and how could we allow that to happen, I had to stop him and say: “Hold on. The college is not designated under the bill.”

Colleges are not at this point designated under the bill. There is no provision in place to allow the college even to be designated at this point. There has been nothing established to do that.

In fact, Cambrian College designated itself bilingual in 1975, so it is up to the board of directors and the college to sort out the hiring policy that is in place, but it certainly is not a consequence of Bill 8.

The fourth example I would like to use goes back to the Sudbury situation. It goes back to the work the francophone community was doing there in terms of trying to find out what services were even in place at this point, on the part of the ministries in Sudbury and some of the government agencies there.

They related to me a story that when they were looking at the justice field in particular, they made arrangements to talk to some officials from the Ministry of Correctional Services. They went over to the ministry, made arrangements to meet with someone and discovered when they arrived that the ministry had actually brought someone in from Toronto to speak to them about services in the Sudbury office, that they had no one in the Sudbury office who could talk to them about Bill 8 because no one in the Sudbury office knew what was going on. Someone from Toronto was forced to come in to deal with them when the local ministry that is there permanently could not respond to those concerns.

I think there is something very wrong. There is something very wrong when ministry staff across the province, albeit they are not in Toronto, do not know what is happening, do not know what is required of them, do not know how many positions are going to be designated bilingual, do not know if French services are going to be offered to their own employees, or if French-language training is going to be offered; there is something very wrong.

How can the minister expect the public to know what is happening, and how can he expect the public to accept what is happening if people do not understand, if they have no sense of what is entailed?

What is happening is that we have more and more concerns being relayed, to my office in particular, about people who really want to know what is going on and why, and why there has been no information around this bill.

I guess I have to go back. Not only do ministry staff and members of the general public not know what is going on, but I also do not think very many members in this House even have a sense of what is happening under this bill. I think that is unfortunate. I know I speak for myself, and perhaps it is because I have not done enough work on it, I will admit to that, but I certainly do not think we have been given any sense or any direction of where the government and the people who are out there trying to sell it are heading on this.

I just want to go through three areas which point out some of the concerns that I, as a member, have when I do not have access to any of this type of information and yet I am trying to say it is a good thing and it is something that should be done in the province.

1610

Let me just go back to the mandate of the Ontario French Language Services Commission; it is listed in our estimates book. I want to read to the members what it states here as part of their mandate: “recommend changes in the plans of government agencies for the provision of French-language services and make the plans and recommendations public” as well as make recommendations concerning proposed exemptions of French-language services and make these recommendations public.

I am not sure if that is supposed to happen now or after 1989, or when we will be advised and when the public will be advised as to what is happening here, but I certainly know that I have not had any information forthcoming to my office on any of those concerns in any of those areas.

Let me go back to what Gérard Raymond said to the press in July 1988. This is also from the Ontario French Language Services Commission.

Il dit qu’il reste un tas de choses à faire, mais il pense que les ministères doivent adopter leurs plans. « Il y a eu un plan d’implantation pour la première année, dit-il. On y apportera des modifications au cours de la deuxième année. »

I am assuming he is referring to the implementation plans that were submitted by all of the ministries and have been studied in terms of what numbers are going to be used and how we can ensure that all the ministries are providing adequate services.

I can understand that it is ministry documentation and that as members we probably should not have any type of access to it, but I want to say to the minister that when designations of positions are already occurring -- and they are, because we have seen it in Sudbury; we have had positions in the Liquor Control Board of Ontario designated as a consequence of Bill 8 -- then we as members have got to have some access to those plans to find out what the grand scheme is, to find out what kinds of numbers are going to be designated, to find out if French training is going to be provided to government employees. We should be able to find that out now, because the designations are happening now.

It is a little difficult for us to respond to constituents about the numbers that are going to be used, the numbers of positions that are going to be designated, when we have no idea. The government is formulating its plans among the various ministries, revising them, reviewing them and at the same time implementing changes that we know nothing about; we do not know the reasoning behind them, we have no idea what decisions have been made and where, or what other positions will be designated and how many.

I must say to the minister that it is fine if he is going to review, and after the bill comes into effect in 1989, then make the changes. I can appreciate that. I would say, “Then I will see the plans, look at the details and review things.” But when the changes are happening now, the members of this House have a right to know what is coming down, because we cannot respond to our constituents. We have no information on what is being designated.

I think the minister has to look seriously at what is happening in that regard. Even though those documents may be confidential, or there may be review work going on in them, we certainly should have some draft copies, so we have some idea of what is being suggested and what is going to happen and indeed to know what is happening at present.

Those are two examples of what members of this House are dealing with. I go back to the minister and say I am extremely concerned because (a) I do not think that people in the ministry, any of the staff, know what is going on to a large extent, (b) the public certainly does not and (c) members of this House, except for the minister himself and his parliamentary assistant, really do not have any sense of that. I do not know how, as members, we deal with the concerns that are out there when we have no information ourselves as to what is happening.

I want to leave the minister with this thought. The process since I came here in November 1987 has appeared barely more than secretive in nature; it really has. I am worried about that, because if I get that impression as a member of this House, then certainly the public must have that impression even more.

Secondly, there has not been any information to municipalities that I am aware of. The one time I am aware that the ministry responded quite quickly to requests for information from municipalities involved North Bay. The ministry responded quickly because at that time the Alliance for the Preservation of English in Canada was coming to talk to them about a vote for English only. There was a quick reaction to that; information went into that municipality and in the end that resolution was defeated.

But certainly the municipalities in this province have every right to know what the bill contains, what their responsibilities may be in future. They have to know that information so they can respond to groups which are coming before them on this bill. I go back to the fact that I do not think there has been very much information to government employees or to the public at large.

I must say to the minister, in concluding at least this portion of my remarks, that I do not think the problem is going to go away. As we come closer and closer to November 18, 1989, when this bill is going to go into effect, the problem is not going to go away. It is becoming larger in many cases. The concerns and fears around this bill remain. They are not going away as we come any closer to the date when this is to be implemented.

I do not think we can continue much longer without providing some meaningful and adequate information to the public to try to undercut some of that, to stem some of those fears and to say to people: “We understand you have concerns, but here is the information. This is what we are doing. This is where we are heading.” That is the only way we are going to undercut some of the problems I see happening in the province now.

I want to reiterate that I am completely in accord with Bill 8 and its provisions and its principles. That is not why I am raising my concerns today, but as someone who must carry that and agree with that and try to sell that, I certainly would be much happier knowing that all kinds of information and publicity were going on so that people have the right information in their hands and can make judgements based on the proper and correct information about this bill.

Those are some of the concerns I had in terms of the office in general. Before dealing with some of the particular concerns I have in terms of the estimates themselves, I am going to allow my colleague the member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry to get his concerns on the record and then we can start through the rotation.

M. Villeneuve: Il me fait plaisir de participer au débat sur les provisions budgétaires du Programme des affaires francophones ici, cet après-midi.

Premièrement, Monsieur le Président, laissez-moi féliciter M. Gérard Bertrand, qui n’est plus à la Commission mais qui a fait un travail exceptionnel quand il était à la Commission des services en français. Je veux féliciter aussi le nouveau président, M. Gérard Raymond. Avec son expérience dans la fonction publique, je sais que la Commission des services en français est en bonnes mains.

Je veux aussi exprimer, comme l’a fait mon collègue le député de Cochrane-Sud (M. Pope), nos sincères condoléances à la famille de M^e Jean-François Aubé, qui est décédé tout récemment. C’était quelqu’un qui, lui aussi, avait oeuvré longuement et durement pour la cause des francophones. Je demanderais au Ministre de nous dire quand le poste de M. Aubé pourrait être pourvu. Est-ce que ça va se faire prochainement? Est-ce qu’on peut s’attendre à quelqu’un du Nord, à quelqu’un de l’Est, ou a-t-il quelqu’un en vue pour pourvoir le poste laissé vacant par feu M^e Jean-François Aubé?

Je veux aussi féliciter les quatre autres membres de la Commission: Marc-Yvan Giroux, Marie-P. Poulin, Pat Webster et M^e Rémy Beauregard.

Certes, nous n’avons jamais estimé que le projet de loi 8 serait facile à mettre en oeuvre. Nous avons, comme l’a expliqué ma collègue la députée de Sudbury-Est (Mlle Martel), plusieurs questions qui demandent des réponses. Nous avons plusieurs municipalités dans l’Est ontarien qui se sont déclarées, pour une raison ou pour une autre, unilingues; ou qui auront un référendum lors des élections municipales prochaines, situation qui n’aurait pas dû exister tout simplement, car la vaste majorité de ces municipalités sont déjà dans des régions non désignées, des régions où les nombres de francophones ne sont pas suffisants pour avoir des services en français.

1620

Nous avons quelques municipalités, oui, qui sont dans des régions désignées bilingues et qui auront un référendum, et ça devient une façon, peut-être, de sonder la population. Par contre, dans les régions qui ne sont pas désignées, il semble un peu bizarre que ces municipalités, pour leurs raisons -- des raisons qui proviennent, peut-être, d’un manque de communication de la part de l’Office et de la Commission -- veuillent organiser un référendum.

Tout simplement pour toucher un petit peu à la situation du projet de loi 125, j’en ai déjà parlé et ma collègue en a parlé avant moi. C’est une situation dont M^e Jean-Charles Sirois a dit que les droits de nos francophones avaient bel et bien été violés. Par contre, nous n’avons pas pu convaincre le gouvernement, lors du débat aux mois d’avril et mai derniers, qu’une situation presque unique était en train de se produire, une situation très difficile où nos francophones, en remplissant les formules d’énumération, se déclarent bilingues ou se posent des questions et, sans trop de bonnes indications, se voient finalement déclarés anglophones, pour une raison ou pour une autre.

I want to touch on Bill 125, and I realize it is not this minister’s responsibility as the minister in charge of francophone rights. However, it certainly touches him as one who is and has declared himself the champion of the francophone community in Ontario.

The court imposed a double-majority system on six Roman Catholic school boards where Bill 125 reduced a francophone trustee majority to a minority. I represent one of those areas. Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry happens to be one of those six areas in the province where I know it will be most difficult, barring great co-operation, and I know there is and has been great co-operation. However, there will have to be even more so now under the double-majority system that was imposed by the courts to try, not to rectify but simply smooth over a situation that was created by Bill 125, a situation which must be corrected. I am not sure just how this government will proceed to do that.

Du côté de la francophonie, et de l’Office et de la Commission des services en français, la mise en oeuvre pose de nombreux problèmes. Quand M^e Bertrand a démissionné de son poste, nous avons posé certaines questions au Ministre et nous avons eu très peu de réponses. Tout récemment, j’ai eu l’occasion de discuter personnellement avec Me Bertrand de sa démission du poste de président de la Commission des services en français, et nous nous posons toujours la question: qu’est-ce qui s’est produit, exactement? A peu près à mi-chemin de la mise en oeuvre du projet de loi 8, notre président démissionne et s’en va ailleurs.

Nous avons de nombreuses régions désignées. Le problème survient dans des régions comme celle que je représente: Stormont, Dundas, Glengarry et Grenville-Est.

It is a situation where lack of communication has left a great deal to be desired, particularly in those areas that are adjacent to designated areas. I will cite a few examples, as my colleague previously did in northern Ontario. We certainly have them in eastern Ontario. It has created a polarization of certain areas and communities; polarization that is rather sad to see, because we have lived together side by side, worked together, played together, and all of a sudden we have people who are posing questions which remain unanswered. For example, in a hospital situated in a nondesignated area but servicing a designated bilingual area, what happens? Who will be hired, how many bilingual staff do we need?

Ontario Hydro represents much the same situation wherever an Ontario Hydro office is situated, be it in a designated area or immediately adjacent in a nondesignated area. How many bilingual employees will they need, how will the new hiring procedures occur when we relate to linguistic skills, how much weight will linguistic skills be given in relation to the actual hands-on work to be done, how will these choices occur and who will be making these choices?

Does it go as far as Meals on Wheels, for example, people volunteering their time? We have had many discussions, as the minister well knows. Many statements have been made by people for their own particular and personal reasons. They are very difficult to answer, because as my colleague has alluded, the process of implementation of the French Language Services Act has been done very quietly and this Legislature has not been kept informed.

Will there be programs where employees of crown corporations have the opportunity to improve their linguistic skills? In the hiring process, are we going to look at straight and singular bilingualism or are we going to look at the so-called cultural sensitivity? That is a difficult one to answer. We have been told -- and I cannot refute, agree or disagree -- that in some of these jobs that are designated bilingual you have to be French because if you are not, you are considered to be nonsensitive to the culture. It is a difficult one to get a handle on. We need guidance.

Yes, Bill 8 passed unanimously in this Legislature and I certainly agree with the principle. But we have too many unanswered questions, we have too many questions that, by not being answered, have created a great deal of animosity between our two basic founding linguistic groups. It need not happen.

Une autre question que j’aurais, et puis on ira un peu plus à fond, est de savoir où en est rendue la mise en oeuvre de la traduction des projets de loi, traduction qui est en plein essor, comme on le dit en ce moment. Quel est le coût de la traduction? Est-ce que cette traduction est faite par des gens qui travaillent sous contrat ou par des employés de la fonction publique?

Pour ce qui est de la façon dont les différents ministères procèdent à la mise en oeuvre de la Loi sur les services en français, est-ce que c’est ce ministre-la qui en est responsable, on est-ce que nous allons avoir de petits départements dans différents ministères qui seront chargés de la mise en oeuvre du projet de Loi 8 dans ces ministères? Si la Commission est en train de le faire, nous aimerions en savoir plus long là-dessus. De quelle façon est-ce que le tout est en train de se produire?

I look forward to participating in this exercise. I will certainly be posing additional questions as time goes on this afternoon and I welcome the opportunity of having some answers. Our party and I personally endorse very strongly the implementation of Bill 8 going to a standing committee of the Legislature for input from all parties and concerned citizens. We do have many concerned citizens out in the province. In particular, I emphasize that most of these concerns are in the areas adjacent to designated areas. Many people do not know what is happening.

Monsieur le Président, je vous remercie pour l’occasion d’exprimer quelques pensées et je vais certainement participer activement au débat pendant la durée de cet après-midi. Merci infiniment.

1630

M. le Président: Monsieur le Ministre, voulez-vous répondre?

L’hon. M. Grandmaître: Je crois que les deux présentations, celle de ma collègue la députée de Sudbury-Est et celle de mon collègue le député de Stormont, Dundas et Glengarry (M. Villeneuve), se ressemblent beaucoup. Peut-être que je pourrais tenter de répondre aux questions et tenter de les satisfaire. On a parlé de la Loi 125, on a parlé de l’énumération, on a parlé des postes désignés, on a parlé du budget publicitaire et de toutes ces choses-là. Alors je vais tenter très rapidement de répondre à toutes leurs questions.

Lorsque la Loi a été acceptée, et je répète les mots que mes deux critiques ont employés d’une façon unanime, le projet de loi était pourtant très clair à ce moment-là. Vu la complexité de la Loi, on nous demandait de donner trois ans afin de nous permettre de mettre la Loi en vigueur.

Strangely enough, the Tories of the day wanted two years, not three years, to implement Bill 8. They thought it was too long, They wanted to amend the law to say that in two years everything had to be in place.

We tried to explain it to the Conservatives of those days. My friend the member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry was a member of that party at the time. We made them realize that we did not have the institutions, we did not have the services and we lacked the French personnel in all of our ministries. Would you believe that in 90 per cent of our ministries, when we took over this government, no francophones were present? I wonder why.

I am pleased to say today that after two years -- it will be two years very shortly -- since Bill 8, every ministry has francophone, French-speaking or bilingual personnel. That is quite an achievement. Having said this, we still have a long way to go. I agree with the member for Sudbury East. It is a start. But we do have to start somewhere.

At least give us the three years permitted by Bill 8 to put these services in place. Then if members want to criticize the services, the quality or the number of services, I will welcome assisting them. I will be the first one to criticize or remind my ministerial colleagues about having these services in place.

I think the Commission des services en français de l’Ontario and l’Office des affaires francophones are doing the very best they can. I want to congratulate them. I think they have done a tremendous job in the last two years. All plans are in place and are being evaluated and improved every day. Let’s face it, I know we are an open government and I think we are a great government, but we cannot do everything in two years. It is impossible.

The opposition can criticize us for not doing enough, but give us another year and we will have Bill 8 in place and most agencies -- I say agencies; never mind ministries because I am quite certain ministers and their staff or their assistant deputy ministers are working very hard on their plans, and they will be in place. I am very satisfied at the progress of this government. Imagine what we can do with another two or five years.

Very briefly, I want to talk about Bill 125, because both of my critics addressed Bill 125 and enumeration. As members know, we have just received the judgement from the court about enumeration and Bill 125.

Mr. Villeneuve: If you liked the judgement, you will appeal it.

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: No, that is totally wrong. The member had better get his facts straight.

Mr. Villeneuve: You’re appealing it.

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: I am very pleased some leeway was given to the two opposing parties. I know the Association française des conseils scolaires de l’Ontario and the Ministry of Education are determined to find a solution very shortly and I am sure they will find a solution. I was talking to both sides yesterday and they confirmed to me their willingness to meet again. I know time is very short. The member for Sudbury East was saying Bill 125 was shoved down their throats on the very last day. This is something that maybe the Minister of Education (Mr. Ward) can better address. I am sure he will be delighted to talk about Bill 125 and its implementation.

They were also asking where the minister responsible for francophone affairs was on Bill 125. I want to remind the members that instead of using the newspapers, I was using caucus and cabinet to deliver my message. Members can be assured what the message was. That is for them to think about.

On a parlé des municipalités et du manque d’information. Je n’en croyais pas mes oreilles lorsqu’on a parlé de la municipalité d’Algoma en disant que ces gens-là, deux ans après, ne savaient pas que la Loi 8 existe.

Lorsque j’étais ministre des Affaires municipales, j’ai écrit à 839 municipalités, leur expliquant la Loi 8 et ce qui touchait les municipalités. L’Association des municipalités, qui représente 617 municipalités qui se rassemblent une fois par an, a considéré, s’est arrêtée à la Loi 8 et l’a expliquée à au moins 617 municipalités. L’actuel ministre des Affaires municipales (M. Eakins) a lui-même écrit aux municipalités, leur rappelant que la Loi sur les municipalités permettait aux municipalités d’offrir des services à leur gré.

Je crois que la Loi 8 est très claire lorsqu’on dit aux municipalités: oui, vous pouvez offrir des services, c’est à votre gré. Je peux nommer certaines municipalités qui ont des règlements, aujourd’hui, leur permettant d’offrir des services en français.

When I hear that a mayor from a municipality -- I am not going to repeat the area, because I think it is a shame. I am not going to blame the federal government or the post office, but I am surprised that after the two years this bill has been in place, that municipality did not know Bill 8 existed. I am very surprised.

She also talked about Cambrian College. I would like to remind my honourable friend that Cambrian College is an agency. As she knows, agencies will be looked into, and those agencies that would like to be designated, if they are not designated, will have to deal through the Ministry of Colleges and Universities and not through the commission. That is the way it is done; that is how designation is done.

1640

It is very difficult for me to stand in this House and tell the member what is going on between the ministries and the commission or the Office of Francophone Affairs when they are negotiating the possibility of being designated. They have a board of governors and I am sure these people are very responsible. I do not know if the member wanted to let me know that the governors of that college were not responsible, but I think they are and I hope the office will hear from them very shortly.

Mon collègue le député de Stormont, Dundas et Glengarry me rappelle encore une fois que certaines municipalités se sont déclarées unilingues. Alors, pour mon plaisir personnel et le plaisir de la Chambre, je veux rappeler à mon collègue de Stormont, Dundas et Glengarry qu’environ 40 municipalités avaient signalé, au début, la possibilité, ou avaient voté une résolution à leur conseil municipal stipulant qu’elles devaient organiser un référendum, ou plébiscite lors des prochaines élections municipales.

Par contre, 50 pour cent de ces 40 municipalités ont refusé. Alors je pose la question à mon collègue: pourquoi ont-elles refusé? Laissez-moi vous dire, Monsieur le Président, que ces municipalités, les municipalités qui ne comprenaient pas la Loi, ont été influencées par certains groupes qui méprisaient la Loi 8, qui ne comprenaient pas la Loi 8, qui disaient qu’on l’avait mal employée.

Pour ce qui est des communications qui manquaient, comme mes critiques l’ont mentionné, c’est par l’entremise de ces communications, de cette publicité, au-delà de 300 000 $ en publicité... Ils me critiquaient tantôt. J’apprécie le fait qu’ils me critiquent, et puis peut-être que 300 000 $, ce n’est pas tout à fait assez. J’espère qu’ils vont convaincre mes amis au Conseil des ministres de m’en donner encore plus que ça. Peut-être qu’avec 600 000 $ je ferais encore un meilleur travail.

Je dois assurer les députés que la Commission et l’Office des affaires francophones font un très bon travail avec le peu d’argent qui nous est alloué. Sans doute qu’on parlera tantôt des chiffres, et je suis sûr qu’ils seront émerveillés de voir ce que la Commission et ce que l’Office des affaires francophones font avec si peu de dollars. J’aimerais que mes collègues m’appuient, qu’ils écrivent au Premier Ministre (M. Peterson), qu’ils écrivent au Conseil des ministres pour les encourager à me donner plus d’argent. J’en ai besoin.

Tantôt, mon collègue de Stormont, Dundas et Glengarry parlait d’Hydro. Comme mon collègue le sait, Hydro a un plan de mise en oeuvre, et je dois dire que le plan de mise en oeuvre d’Hydro est un bon plan. Ce n’est pas la fin du monde, mais par contre, imaginons: Hydro a un plan de mise en oeuvre. C’est quelque chose qui, il y a cinq ans, n’existait pas, et aujourd’hui on aura les outils nécessaires pour permettre aux gens bilingues, aux francophones aussi bien qu’aux anglophones, de se prévaloir de ces postes désignés.

I would like to spend about three minutes on our advertising budget or publicity budget, whatever you want to call it. I think we have gone a long way with very few dollars. I think every coordinator in each ministry is doing this kind of publicity, free publicity. We have produced a video and managers, deputy ministers and even staff -- public servants -- have seen this video explaining what Bill 8 is all about and how it pertains to their particular jobs, assuring them that nobody will lose his job because of Bill 8.

This year, we will be using the Topical newspaper, if I can call it a newspaper, or tabloid. A series of articles will appear in Topical and Zoom. I mentioned in my opening remarks this great flyer, if one wants to call it that, on cahier spécial; 130,000 copies were delivered right across this province. I wish I had more money and maybe I could have sent out 500,000, but we are doing a lot with very few dollars.

Je dois rappeler à mes collègues...et je dois les remercier en même temps; je comprends leur anxiété. Ils veulent m’aider, je le crois sincèrement; même si je les appelle mes critiques, ils veulent m’aider. C’est un projet de loi très complexe qui touche tous les ministères, toutes les agences du gouvernement, et j’ai besoin de leur appui tous les jours. On fait face à des problèmes; par contre, je suis très encouragé par les résultats de tous les jours.

Présentement, le gouvernement et les francophones font face à un problème très aigu avec la Loi 125, avec l’énumération; je le comprends. Laissez-moi vous assurer, Monsieur le Président, que ma responsabilité en tant que ministre délégué aux Affaires francophones fait que je vais continuer à défendre les intérêts des francophones.

My colleague the member for Sudbury East alluded to a problem that existed in one of the liquor stores in Sudbury. I can tell the members that the Liquor Licence Board of Ontario has a program in place. It is a complex program because none of these agencies and none of these ministries were ever asked to provide French services.

I have to tip my hat to these ministers, deputy ministers and managers of these agencies because this is a brand-new program for them. I must congratulate them because they had to start from scratch and they are doing a great job. I want to congratulate them.

Crédit/vote 402:

L’hon. M. Grandmaître: Je pourrais continuer, et je suis sûr que mes collègues voudraient passer à mon budget, à mes dépenses budgétaires. Alors tout en répondant aux questions budgétaires, peut-être que je pourrais continuer à leur répondre, d’une façon encore plus précise, au sujet de ce qui se passe à l’Office des affaires francophones et à la Commission.

Mon collègue de Stormont, Dundas et Glengarry me posait une question au sujet du remplaçant de Jean-François Aubé. Je veux assurer mes deux collègues que Jean-François Aubé sera remplacé dans un avenir très rapproché. Nous avons pressenti des gens très qualifiés. Maintenant, il s’agit d’accepter ces gens par décret.

Quant à la traduction des lois, la seule chose que je puisse répondre à mon collègue de Stormont, Dundas et Glengarry, c’est qu’elle est la responsabilité du Procureur général (M. Scott) et que le tout est à point. Par contre, je suis sûr que le député pourrait obtenir de meilleures explications en les demandant auprès du Procureur général.

M. le Président: Est-ce que d’autres députés voudraient faire des commentaires? La députée de Sudbury-Est.

Mlle Martel: Je voudrais faire quelques réponses au ministre délégué aux Affaires francophones.

We are very much aware, on this side of the House, that what the government has undertaken is extremely complex. It has never been done before. I was not here for the debate about whether it should be two years or three years, so I do not want to go back into that and either apologize or support one side or the other. But I want to say that the problem is this: The minister has said that the plans are in place, they are being evaluated, they are being approved, they are being reviewed. I could live with that if I knew that outside of that there was not either hiring or designations of positions going on before members of this House had a chance to review and understand what was happening.

1650

The problem we are getting into, and I go back to the situation in Sudbury with the Liquor Licence Board of Ontario, is that in fact some ministries are moving, they are designating positions and they are trying to implement the provisions of Bill 8, yet members of this House do not have any idea of what is happening or why or what positions are going to be designated.

I understand it is a long process. I would not care if we had three years to review before action was taken, but the problem is that action is being taken and we, as members, are in no position to respond to the concerns of our constituents because we do not have any of the information as to what is going on in the various ministries, what the implementation plans contain, what positions are going to be designated, if French services are going to be offered to employees. I go on and on. That is the problem I ask him to address, and that is the concern I raise. If these types of things are going on, then we, as members, have to have the information so that we will know how to respond, as well, to questions we are receiving from constituents.

I want to ask him again. This review is going on. Can he tell the members of this House when some of those plans, the implementation plans from the various ministries, are going to be available to members of this House so that we can review them, so that we can perhaps criticize them and ask him to review them, etc.? If he wants input from members of this House on where they are heading, then he has to give us the information beforehand.

Second, I want to go back to the question on colleges. I have worked with the board of directors at Cambrian College. I spoke at their graduation. We have a very good relationship and I get all of the correspondence that they are sending to the Minister of Colleges and Universities (Mrs. McLeod) concerning being designated under Bill 8. That is not the problem.

The problem is that the general public does not know what is included in the bill. It was not someone from Cambrian College who called me, stating its case about the positions that have been designated. One of my constituents who had a concern about the hiring policy said the hiring policy was due strictly to Bill 8, which it is not. It is a hiring policy that the college set itself. The real problem is that the public does not know, and that is what I am trying to get him to address -- nothing about the college. They are doing a superb job. I have no problem with that.

I want to ask him if he can give this House some idea of what information about the bill has been sent out to the general public, both anglophones and francophones, about what the bill entails and what services they can expect.

There was one further thing. When I was making my statements about Bill 77, I asked if the minister might be able to give me some idea whether there was a publicity campaign that was carried out after May, when this bill was passed. Perhaps he can give me some idea of what the price of that campaign might have been.

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: Some $300,000 was expended on publicity, Also, the Ministry of Education spent approximately $250,000 for special initiatives. I think these amounts are very, very gratifying.

Also, the member referred to Cambrian College. I would like to remind the honourable member that we have had at least three meetings with Cambrian, and I am not talking about other meetings with other members of the commission or the Office of Francophone Affairs. If, after three meetings, Cambrian College is still having a problem, I think it should write to us and let us know what the score is and we will be pleased to help.

The member also referred to plans. As the honourable member knows, this is in the second phase of these plans. Again, these plans are being evaluated and improved. I go through every plan and we keep reminding deputy ministers and ministers of their responsibilities towards Bill 8.

It is a back-and-forth kind of negotiation that is taking place right now, so it is very difficult for me to stand in this House and let members know on an everyday basis what kind of negotiations are going on with 7,000 agencies and 30 ministries. It is very difficult.

These people are working on this every day. I wish I could provide the member with more information. The commission provides this House with an annual report. Members have received the first one, and very shortly, within the next couple of weeks, they will receive the second annual report. If it does not satisfy the member’s needs, I am sure the chairman of the commission will be only too pleased to sit down with her and go over his report.

Also to my friend the member for Sudbury East, I would like to offer the assistance of la Commission, l’Office des affaires francophones, or even myself, to brief her caucus. We are that open. If she thinks her caucus would like a briefing, would like to see the video, we will be only too pleased to do it. I think l’Association canadienne-française de l’Ontario has met with the member’s caucus and with the third party caucus. It has done a good job, not only of trying to promote Bill 81 but to talk about the consequences of Bill 8 for francophones.

I think we are doing a good job. We could be doing better with more money and more time, but I am satisfied that we will meet our deadline of November 1989. I will be the first one to criticize my colleagues in cabinet if they are not up to date.

That is the way I feel about Bill 8. It is my responsibility to see that Bill 9 is respected. It is one bill that touches every ministry. It does not matter if it is the Ministry of Education or the Ministry of Health, they phone me. So it makes it very difficult, but I try to cope with them to the best of my ability. Again, I want to ask them to be patient for one more year, not 42 years, and Bill 8 will be in place.

M. le Président: Est-ce qu’il y a d’autres députés qui voudraient faire des interventions? Madame la députée de Sudbury-Est.

Mlle Martel: Merci, Monsieur le Président. Je dois le dire encore une fois: There is not a problem with Cambrian College. If I can go back to the minister, the problem is that the public does not know what is included in the bill. There was a constituent who called to say that he thought the college was wrong, that the hiring practice is in place because of Bill 8, and that is not the problem. The college is not designated.

The point I am trying to make is that there is all kinds of confusion out there as to whether hospitals are included or not, whether municipalities are included or not, whether colleges are included or not. It is not the college I am talking about, it is the general public looking at it, trying to sort out what the bill entails and if it is going to affect them.

So I want to go back to the question I asked on that, which was: Can the minister outline to me what type of information has been sent out to the general public, both anglophone and francophone, about this bill? That is all I am asking.

1700

The second thing is this: I understand the difficulties and the complexities of dealing with deputy ministers in each of the ministries in trying to put together how this bill will be implemented in each ministry. All I am asking the minister is if he can give this House some idea and some assurance that we as members are going to see what is going on in the ministries, because we are not going to get it out of here. We are not going to get the plans of each ministry and what it is doing and what the agencies are doing from the annual report.

I would like to ask him when that information will be made available to us, because the implementation of those services is already being put in place. Not next November; it is happening now. It is increasingly difficult for us as members to respond to that when we have no information on what is happening or why or the positions to be designated or if training is going to be provided. Are we going to get to see some of that? Are we going to find out what is going on before all the changes take place?

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: Again, on advertising or publicity or promotion, here is an example. Five thousand of these were printed: French Language Services Act Implementation Procedure Manual. Not every civil servant in this province is aware of this booklet, but I am sure that more and more people are learning every day what the implementation of Bill 8 is all about. I have pointed out Zoom; 130,000 copies.

Every minister has the responsibility of promoting Bill 8 within his ministry. I think it is a golden opportunity for the New Democratic Party members to ask ministers, when they give their budget estimates, “What about Bill 8? How many positions have you designated?” and the cost and so on and so forth. It is a golden opportunity. At budget estimates, they can do this. The ministers will have to provide them with good answers. Then members will be able to applaud them or criticize them.

I guess that is it. These were the two questions. I wish we could do more promotion, but for the time being, with one year to go, I think we are not only doing a good job with municipalities, we are doing a good job right across this province. Mind you, when I hear that one municipality, after two years, has never heard of Bill 8, I do not know. There must be something wrong.

M. le Président: Merci. Est-ce que le député de York-Nord aurait une présentation à faire?

M. Beer: Oui; merci, Monsieur le Président. Jaimerais faire quelques commentaires sur les remarques du Ministre et aussi sur celles de mes collègues la députée de Sudbury-Est et le député de Stormont, Dundas et Glengarry.

Tout d’abord, j’aimerais féliciter le Ministre pour le travail que son ministère a accompli depuis l’année dernière en développant les plans pour la mise en oeuvre de la Loi 8. Il peut être assuré qu’on attend avec impatience, surtout dans la communauté francophone, l’entrée en vigueur du programme l’an prochain.

Avant de faire mes commentaires, je pense qu’il est important dans nos discussions de rendre hommage à quelqu’un qui n’est plus ici mais qui a beaucoup travaillé pour la cause francophone, pour la cause franco-ontarienne. On a déjà fait mention de M. Jean-François Aubé, qui a travaillé pour la Commission et pour la francophonie. J’ai trouvé dans une allocution prononcée la semaine dernière, à Ottawa, par M. Gérard Raymond, qui est maintenant président de la Commission des services en français, quelques paragraphes que j’aimerais lire pour le Hansard, car ce n’est pas souvent qu’on a quelqu’un qui possède les talents de M. Aubé.

Alors, je cite les paroles de M. Gérard Raymond de la semaine dernière:

« Nous connaissons tous l’engagement de Jean-François Aubé à la cause franco-ontarienne et ses réalisations, tant dans les domaines de l’animation de la jeunesse, de l’éducation, des communications et de la justice. Il était membre de la Commission des services en français depuis le tout début, et il en a même assumé la présidence par intérim. J’ai la conviction profonde que Jean-François connaissait l’inévitable depuis un certain temps déjà. Pourtant, même dans l’adversité, je l’ai senti redoublé d’effort et d’enthousiasme. On reconnaît là l’étoffe d’un grand homme et d’un grand chrétien.

« Jean-François fut et demeure pour moi une source d’inspiration; il en est de même pour des milliers d’amis et de collègues qui ont eu le privilège de le côtoyer. À la douce mémoire de Jean-François, j’exprime le voeu qu’il en soit ainsi pour la jeunesse franco-ontarienne. Puissent les jeunes, à l’instar de Jean-François, s’engager dans leur communauté, viser l’excellence, poursuivre des études et donner leur pleine mesure. Jean-François est un modèle à émuler, pour les jeunes et les moins jeunes. C’était un homme d’une finesse hors pair, d’un courage enviable et d’un dévouement qui transcendait le devoir. »

Nous n’avons pas assez de gens comme M. Aubé; mais surtout, pour une minorité, une telle perte est vraiment difficile à accepter. Quand on dit que nous allons essayer de remplacer M. Aubé, on sait fort bien que ça va être extrêmement difficile. Il est juste pour nous, dans cette Chambre, de rendre hommage au travail qu’il a accompli, et je pense que ces mots de M. Raymond expriment clairement et d’une façon importante le rôle qu’il a joué dans la communauté francophone.

I think there is one thing as we discuss Bill 8 and how it is being put in place. I think some of the comments which my colleagues have made are ones that, indeed, we do want to ask. We want to make sure that the public is aware of the nature of the program. We want to be sure that people are not frightened by it and that it is a good program based on a solid approach that is meeting the rights of the francophone community in a practical and sensible way. Surely, knowing and having information questioning the different departments of government so that we can have a better sense of their programs is very important.

It is interesting, perhaps, to note that 20 years ago -- in fact, 20 years ago just about now -- John Robarts had set up four task forces on various kinds of bilingual services in Ontario that dealt with this House, with the provincial public service, municipalities and legislative services, especially the debates and bills. I think it is important at times to look back at that time and then to look forward and have some sense, none the less, of where we have come. As the minister has said, quite correctly, there is still a lot to do. None the less, a lot has happened. I would like to just note briefly a few things that I think are important to underline in this regard.

If we leave aside the whole area of education, which has been, in a sense, dealt with in a separate fashion and where, undoubtedly, we see the most progress over the years, we can none the less look at various other important areas of government, whether we are talking about the courts or whether we are talking about a variety of other government services where we now have in place personnel, programs and documents in French, serving the French-speaking population of Ontario. I suspect that if those who were in this House 20 years ago were here today, and in fact there are a couple who were here then, they would have not thought that we would have accomplished as much as we have.

1710

I think one of the things that happens as you proceed and try to implement a greater program of bilingual services is that you also, of course, raise expectations. As soon as you have dealt with putting some of these services in place, other requests come forward because people want to have as full and as broad a range of services as is possible.

If we look into the future, I think we recognize that for the francophone community, issues such as day care centres, illiteracy and the training of teachers, as well as the development of the different social service and health service issues, are certainly going to be extremely important. If we can really attack those through Bill 8 and ensure that the programs we have in the different ministries are sensitive to those needs, which in many respects may be different from those of the anglophone community -- it is not just the case of providing services but being, I think, very sensitive to what are the Franco-Ontarians’ needs in terms of those services, where there are perhaps cultural differences in leading forward.

In this Legislature -- the Minister of Skills Development (Mr. Curling) was here earlier -- we have talked often about the problems of illiteracy. We know that within the francophone community that poses a particular problem, especially with those older workers who have perhaps had to work in English or have had to work in a kind of franglais. Through the creation of the Office of Francophone Affairs and the commission, I think we now have vehicles whereby we can look at the different programs the ministries are bringing forward to ensure they really do respond to the needs the francophone community has identified. I think it is extremely useful for us to review the nature of the program with the minister today.

I think all of us will want to pay particular attention to how we work with the public and especially, as the member from Sudbury East has said, be able to have the information to explain clearly and carefully the nature of the program when we are meeting with those working in the provincial public service or in other areas. I think one of the things that has developed within Ontario is a greater acceptance that these services are required. I think people of good faith, when they have the information they require, can then see that we can proceed with sensible and adequate programs. I think that in response to the minister, all of us would want to assist him in whatever way we could.

The various publications, such as Zoom which I took around to all the French-language schools in my riding, were a terrific hit because here were vehicles for communicating that were lively, that had various articles and stories. I think we probably need to be looking at more of that kind of thing to reach out to people, so that they are aware of the different programs that are developing.

I think a great deal has gone forward. I think the ministry, the minister’s staff have done an excellent job over the last two years in moving us to the point where we are. We know what the work is ahead and I think that a year from now we will have an important and substantial program in place.

M. le Président: Est-ce qu’il y a d’autres députés qui voudraient faire des commentaires, des présentations? Le député de Stormont, Dundas et Glengarry.

M. Villeneuve: Merci bien, Monsieur le Président. Tout simplement en réponse au Ministre tout à l’heure, mon ancien collègue de Cornwall était le critique de son ministère au moment où le projet de loi 8 fut appuyé à l’unanimité ici, à l’Assemblée législative, et la raison pour laquelle nous voulions précipiter la chose de trois à deux ans était pure et simple: c’était pour éviter l’agonie qui continue. C’est un mal qui s’explique avec difficulté dans la mesure où nous sommes un peu dans le noir sur ce qui se passe dans les différents ministères.

Comme je lui ai posé la question tout à l’heure, il semblerait que oui, Hydro a peut-être une façon de procéder à la mise en oeuvre du projet de loi 8. Maintenant, qu’est-ce que c’est? De quelle façon est-ce que ça s’applique? Qui est-ce que ça touche, surtout dans une région tout près d’une région désignée bilingue? C’est là qu’est le problème. C’est la même chose pour la Police provinciale de l’Ontario, pour la Régie des alcools et pour différentes sociétés de la Couronne.

I could go on and on about the areas of the unknown, the vacuum, and that is why we wished to precipitate from three to two years, so that at this point in time people would know exactly what is happening. We are still wondering what is happening.

As I mentioned in French, what is the policy of the Ontario Provincial Police in areas very close to designated areas? Is it a standard policy in areas that are away from designated areas? Hospitals, the same thing; and agencies, boards and commissions. I can tell you, the St. Lawrence Parks Commission down in the area I represent is faced with a dilemma and we now have the polarization that has occurred, and it has only occurred since the implementation of Bill 8. Possibly it was there before, but it certainly had not surfaced.

We have a number of areas that are irritating a number of people and we have to clarify those. We have to clarify them as quickly as possible, and that was the main reason we wanted to precipitate the time to put the legislation in place from three to two years.

I think the minister referred to there being no services in French prior to this government’s taking office. Well, I have to beg to differ with him. I have not been a member of this Legislature for a long time. I came in December 1983. In the period of time when the previous government was in place, not once did I hear complaints that were related to linguistic problems. French letters were being answered in French. We did not have designated areas, but we certainly had civil servants who were able to converse in the two official languages of our country.

I certainly support Bill 8. However, the unknowns about it have created problems and we must, as quickly as possible, enlighten our public and make sure people know what is happening.

Mr. Wildman: I want to commend my colleague the member for York North (Mr. Beer) for his comments, I really did not intend to get involved in this debate, but I was provoked by my colleague from the united counties. To suggest that prior to 1985 there were no problems or no complaints about the availability of French-language services in this province is ridiculous.

Mr. Villeneuve: I heard none.

Mr. Wildman: The man may not have heard. There are none so deaf as those who will not hear.

I come from a part of northern Ontario where about 20 per cent or 25 per cent of the population is francophone. One community in my riding that is well-known to the francophone community of Ontario is Dubreuilville, which is 90 to 95 per cent francophone. Actually, it is a piece of Quebec in northern Ontario. Most of the inhabitants of Dubreuilville are originally from Quebec, many of them from Gaspésie, and many of those people are unilingual francophones.

If no one else has raised complaints in this House or in letters to the minister, I will tell my colleague from the united counties that I raised many complaints about the fact that my constituents, my electors from Dubreuilville, were unable to get services from the provincial government and government agencies in their mother tongue.

1720

I commend the government for its attempts to move in this area, but I think the minister would agree with me that there is a long way to go,

For instance, in terms of hospital services, if an individual from Dubreuilville requires hospitalization, the nearest hospital is in Wawa, the Lady Dunn General Hospital. It provides very good service but that service is not usually available in French. There is very seldom a bilingual nurse on duty and in most cases, if there is translation required, it has to be done by one of the custodial staff for the nurses and the doctors.

Even worse, if a constituent from Dubreuilville is transferred to Sault Ste. Marie for medical attention, there is nothing that provides him with French-language service. As a matter of fact, if there is bilingual service available in Sault Ste. Marie, it is most likely to be Italian and English, not French and English. I think that Italian service is necessary. I am not debating that, as 25 per cent of the population of Sault Ste. Marie is of Italian extraction.

But over the years, I have been raising the need for medical services in French, particularly first-line medical services but also psychological and psychiatric services and social work services, because if a person is dealing with an emotional problem and has to explain his or her feelings to a professional, that is difficult in itself, but to require that person to do it in a language which is not his or her first language makes it even more difficult.

I recognize that in northern Ontario we have a very difficult time in attracting professionals of all sorts and it is even more difficult to attract French-speaking professionals because there is a demand for their services elsewhere.

I think it is a bit much to have anyone in this House pretend that there were not complaints. I am not a person of perverse nature. I am not someone who just complains for the sake of complaining. I am not the only person who has brought these concerns to the fore in this House. Members from all three political parties in the past have pointed out the difficulties of providing French-language services, particularly in the medical field, in northern and eastern Ontario. To have my colleague from eastern Ontario suggest that he never heard any complaints I find very hard to take.

I would hope that all of us in this House would strive to provide services, whether medical services, social services, police services or services of government agencies and ministries, in both official languages in areas where there are significant numbers of people of both languages.

I commend the minister and the work the government is doing. When I still complain, as I do, about the services that are available, it is not because I do not recognize that progress has been made, but because, as the minister would agree, we still have a long way to go.

M. le Président: Monsieur le Ministre, voulez-vous répondre?

L’hon. M. Grandmaître: Mon collègue le député de Stormont, Dundas et Glengarry m’a accusé tantôt d’avoir répété en Chambre qu’il n’y avait aucun service en place. Je crois que je vais faire la vérification du Hansard, Monsieur le Président. Ce que j’ai dit, c’est qu’on n’avait pas de personnel en place. C’est beau d’avoir une vitrine avec toutes sortes de belles choses dans la vitrine, mais lorsque nous voulions nous faire servir en français, il n’y avait personne pour nous donner ces services.

Je me souviendrai toujours de ma première journée, le jour où j’ai été nommé ministre des Affaires municipales. On cherchait une machine à écrire avec des accents; on ne pouvait pas en trouver à Toronto, de machine à écrire avec des accents. Alors on dit qu’il y avait des services en place. Je crois que mon collègue a la mémoire très, très courte.

If I may address a few comments to my friend the member for Algoma (Mr. Wildman), my friend knows northern Ontario like he knows the back of his hand, and I appreciated his comments. I support him 100 per cent when he claims that northern Ontario is in dire straits. They need more medical services, medical attention from professional people, from bilingual people, from francophones. I agree with him that it is difficult to attract people to northern Ontario, but we are trying to put a program in place. We are trying to educate our own people through our own institutions and it is not easy.

Par contre, je dois dire que le Gouvernement a fait du progrès, on a fait un bout de chemin. On ne peut cependant pas former des médecins, des avocats, des spécialistes de ce genre en deux, trois on quatre ans. Il faut penser à nos institutions, il faut penser à nos collèges. Je crois que le Gouvernement, il y a un mois, il y a cinq on six semaines, a parlé d’un collège dans l’Est de l’Ontario, et je suis sûr qu’on verra un collège dans le Sud, dans le Nord de l’Ontario dans les années à venir. Je veux rappeler aux députés que le Gouvernement est déterminé à améliorer ces services, tout en offrant aux francophones la possibilité de recevoir un enseignement, d’être instruits dans leur langue, et je suis convaincu que nous allons réussir.

Alors si on pouvait passer aux chiffres, Monsieur le Président...

An hon. member: Fat chance.

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: Fat chance?

M. le Président: Est-ce qu’il y a d’autres députés qui veulent faire des présentations, qui ont des questions ou des commentaires? La députée de Sudbury-Est.

Mlle Martel: J’ai une question à propos du budget des dépenses, à la page 23 de notre cahier. J’ai de la difficulté à comprendre les chiffres qui paraissent sous les rubriques « dollars refusés » et « pourcentage dollars refusés ». Je voudrais avoir une explication de la méthode par laquelle le Ministre a calculé les chiffres qui paraissent ici.

The problem I have, if I can just go through it quite quickly, is this: I am not sure how the two figures were actually arrived at in terms of the amount of money not granted, the percentage of dollars refused, because as we tried to go through it to put it into some order, our numbers were different in those two areas. Perhaps the minister can go through those two sections just to tell me how he arrived at the figure of $1.5 million, and second, the percentage of 50 in the category of dollars refused. If there is a problem with that, I can explain to him what we have done and how there is a discrepancy between that and what appears here.

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: We are on the same page; 82 projects were turned down. Most of these projects were turned down for a very simple reason: We did not have the money. I am sure the honourable member will notice, just above the refusals, some $870,000 was distributed, but we received 172 requests and we could only respond to 90.

As I mentioned in my opening remarks, si mes deux collègues pouvaient convaincre le Premier Ministre et mes collègues au Conseil des ministres que l’Office des affaires francophones a besoin de plus d’argent, les demandes sont là. Je dois dire que chaque année, surtout depuis les trois dernières années, les francophones deviennent beaucoup plus... Ils ne sont pas exigeants, mais ils reconnaissent qu’ils ont des outils, qu’ils ont des moyens de travailler. Par contre, vu le montant limité que nous avons à distribuer, ça devient très difficile. Si on fait la comparaison des demandes de trois millions de dollars et des 1 500 000 $ que nous avons refusés, j’e crois que c’est très difficile.

Par contre, je leur demande encore leur appui. If they can write to the Premier and my cabinet colleagues and remind them that I do need more money in l’Office des affaires francophones, I would appreciate it. I wish I could ask for more.

1730

Mlle Martel: Ce n’est pas le montant, c’est le calcul. D’accord? C’est-à-dire...

M. Villeneuve: Les mathématiques.

Mlle Martel: Oui, c’est ça. Il y a un montant d’argent demandé de presque trois millions de dollars, puis pour l’argent donné -- c’est la troisième colonne -- on a un résultat qui, à mon avis, n’est pas correct.

The problem we see is that we think the money which was refused, the $1.56 million that is mentioned, should come from money demanded minus the amount of money given. We have arrived at a different figure and I am just trying to sort out if that is the way the calculation was done.

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: I have an answer -- do not try; you will not be able to get the right figures. If one wants to read above the $870,000 donnés, 90 projects were accepted. That represents the number of dollars needed for those 90 projects.

If one looks below, 82 projects were refused, totalling $1.5 million. But one cannot go up and down the column and try to add those figures. They only represent the number of projects, 82, which were refused, and those refusals totalled $1.5 million; and 90 projects which were accepted represent $870,000. Does that answer her question? It is difficult.

Mr. Wildman: I have never had a problem in this House of admitting I do not know the answer to something, although we on the opposition usually try never to ask a question unless we already know the answer.

I do want to ask the minister if he could give me some information with regard to another aspect of francophone affairs besides what I was referring to a few moments ago, that is government services to franco-Ontarians, assistance to help the francophone community have a sense of community and assist in the development of French culture, particularly in the smaller communities which do not have a lot of cultural activities of any kind beyond sports and that sort of thing. For instance, I know in Sault Ste. Marie there has been the establishment of a centre francophone.

Also in Blind River in my riding, and I understand in the riding of Nickel Belt in Chapleau, there has been a similar organization assisted by the provincial government which serves as a centre for the francophone community and also enables the community to get involved in cultural activities, whether it even be just a library, a bibliothèque, or theatrical productions or a meeting centre, those kinds of things.

I am wondering if the minister could clarify for me what ministry -- I doubt it is his; perhaps it is -- provides that kind of assistance and how perhaps an unorganized group of francophones in a small community might go about getting organized and being able to organize this kind of a centre which would then help to develop the French fact in the small communities across northern Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: In most, let’s say large or urban areas, there is always an ACFO or community centres, les centres culturels. Sault Ste. Marie is a very good example, and Timmins for instance, and Windsor. I will be in Windsor on Sunday. These people organize themselves and want to promote French culture and also want to promote themselves. They want to be part of the community and to be recognized as community-minded people. But in unorganized areas, where francophones are very, very few, it is very difficult.

I wish that these people -- and I am sure the member does this in his part of this province -- would write my office or write the Office of Francophone Affairs or even the commission, and we will certainly try to assist them, financially or otherwise. There is not only my office or my ministry that can provide these services, but also the Ministry of Citizenship, the Ministry of Education, Ministry of Community and Social Services and Ministry of Health. It depends on their needs. I will certainly assist those groups, if I can refer to them as groups, unorganized groups. We will certainly try to assist them.

Mr. Wildman: I appreciate the comments of the minister and I will just tell him that the largest community of my riding in my riding, the metropolis of Algoma, Wawa, which has 5,000 people in total population, has a significant francophone community and there is an effort now to organize that community in such a way that it might be able to tap into whatever assistance is available from the provincial level, to assist them in developing a centre francophone, similar to ones that were developed in Chapleau, Timmins, Sault Ste. Marie, Blind River and so on.

I will pass along the minister’s comments to the individuals who are initiating this effort in Wawa and look forward to whatever assistance he can provide them. I have already put them in touch with the centre in Sault Ste. Marie and also with the Ministry of Citizenship and Culture, so hopefully they will be able to get some assistance. I would be quite happy to have the minister visit Wawa to open the centre after he has funded it.

Mlle Martel: J’ai une question à propos de Renseignements Ontario. Je voudrais savoir deux choses. Premièrement, quel est le budget de ce programme? Deuxièmement, est-ce que le programme va continuer après le 19 novembre 1989, après la mise en oeuvre de la Loi 8?

L’hon. M. Grandmaître: Bonne question. Peut-être que je devrais répondre à la deuxième question avant de procéder à la première.

Oui, nous avons l’intention de poursuivre le programme Renseignements Ontario après le 19 novembre 1989 parce qu’il répond certainement aux besoins de la communauté. Nous n’avons aucune intention d’abolir le projet; je crois que c’est un projet qui en vaut la peine.

1740

En ce qui concerne le budget, sans donner de chiffres, je peux dire à la députée que c’est un grand service: il y a deux employés, une ligne téléphonique. Imaginons: tantôt, j’ai demandé à mes critiques d’écrire à mes collègues du Conseil des ministres en leur disant que j’ai besoin de plus d’argent. Cela en est la preuve: deux employés, une ligne téléphonique. Est-ce qu’on peut trouver un chiffre? Peut-être 2,75 $ on 2,95 $, quelque chose comme ça. C’est très peu. On ne l’a pas?

Interjection.

L’hon. M. Grandmaître: Ah, bon,

M. le Président: Est-ce qu’il y a d’autres députés qui ont des questions, des commentaires?

M. Villeneuve: Le Ministre a plusieurs projets communautaires qui ont été financés par son ministère; il y en a plusieurs qui ont été refusés. Peut-il nous décrire un peu les grandes lignes de la façon de procéder pour être soit accepté ou refusé? Qu’est-ce qui fait qu’une demande est admissible?

L’hon. M. Grandmaître: Je crois que mon collègue parle des critères à satisfaire. Je dois avouer que je ne connais pas tous les critères. La plupart des programmes qui sont acceptés d’année en année, ce sont des programmes qui sont prouvés. La plupart de ces groupes-là reçoivent très peu, 2000 $ ou 3000 $; ce sont des sommes très minimes. Je dois dire que la plus grande somme qu’on remet, on la remet toujours à l’ACFO, et l’ACFO la dépense très bien et rapidement. Si je pouvais lui en donner encore plus, je suis sûr que l’ACFO ferait encore plus de travail qu’elle n’en fait présentement.

Ce sont surtout des organismes ou des groupes à but non lucratif qui sont là pour promouvoir des services en français, pour promouvoir leur culture. Comme je l’ai mentionné tantôt à mon collègue le député d’Algoma (M. Wildman), ils sont axés sur le développement de la communauté et la promotion du civisme.

Alors les critères, je regrette d’avouer que je ne les connais pas. Par contre, je suis sûr que je pourrais donner tous ces critères aux critiques par écrit. Les objectifs du programme sont les suivants: augmenter la qualité des services offerts, améliorer la qualité des services existants et répondre aux besoins spécifiques de la population francophone. Je suis sûr que je pourrais en offrir d’autres à mes chers collègues; je pourrais leur faire une liste de ces critères-là.

M. Villeneuve: Est-ce que le manuel que le Ministre a mentionné tout à l’heure est maintenant disponible? Il a mentionné une fois qu’il y en avait 10 000 copies, 5000 copies qui avaient été préparées. Si je me souviens bien, je crois qu’un de mes collègues, à un moment donné... Puis je dois avouer que je ne l’ai jamais vu. J’en discutais ici avec ma collègue de Sudbury-Est et nous n’étions même pas au courant de l’existence de ce formulaire. Est-ce que le Ministre peut nous dire depuis quand c’est disponible et depuis quand c’est disponible pour le public?

L’hon. M. Grandmaître: Depuis 1987.

Interjection.

L’hon. M. Grandmaître: Mon collègue a parlé du public, depuis quand c’est... Non. Ce que j’ai montré tantôt n’était pas distribué au public, du fait que c’était le “French Language Services Act Implementation Procedure Manual”; ça concernait les ministères. Alors, ça a été distribué aux gérants, aux sous-ministres, aux ministres, à tous ces gens-là.

Est-ce qu’on a une liste de ces gens-là, des 5000? C’est interne dans les ministères? 5000 copies?

M. Villeneuve: C’est un petit problème, vu que nous avons fait la demande d’une copie, il y a à peu près six mois, et elle nous a été refusée.

L’hon. M. Grandmaitre: Je m’excuse, Monsieur le Président, je n’ai pas compris la question.

M. Villeneuve: Un de mes collègues a fait la demande du manuel, exactement celui dont on parle, et puis on nous a dit qu’il n’était pas disponible pour le public. C’est la raison pour laquelle nous n’avons jamais eu l’occasion d’en obtenir copie pour savoir ce qui se passe quant à la mise sur pied; c’est précisément ce dont on parle cet après-midi.

L’hon. M. Grandmaître: Je répète que ça concerne les ministères. Peut-être qu’on a refusé cette copie au collègue du critique parce que le manuel ne touche pas les personnes à l’extérieur des ministères. Par contre, il y a 5000 autres “kits”, ou pochettes d’information, si vous voulez, qui ont été distribués au grand public.

Cinq mille, je dois reconnaître qu’on a 500 000 francophones et beaucoup plus d’anglophones qui auraient pu être satisfaits de recevoir une pochette. J’ai un budget limité, je le répète. J’aimerais bien distribuer 500 000 pochettes. Par contre, nous sommes très limités. Je crois que nous faisons un très bon travail avec ce que nous avons.

M. Villeneuve: Finalement, un des problèmes que nous avons, c’est la communication. Nous avons mentionné à plusieurs reprises que la communication laisse à désirer, puis je crois que, surtout si au moins les critiques et nos collègues à l’Assemblée législative pouvaient en avoir des copies, nous serions en mesure d’expliquer au moins un petit peu plus facilement à nos gens qui ont de la difficulté à accepter, à comprendre et à se rendre compte de ce qui se passe en ce qui concerne la mise en oeuvre du projet de loi 8 dans les différents ministères.

L’hon. M. Grandmaître: J’inviterais mon collègue à répondre aux gens à qui ça a été refusé - je ne sais pas à quel endroit ça leur a été refusé, à quel bureau - si le Député veut bien me donner le nom et l’adresse de cette personne-là, et s’il avait dit qu’il était un député, j’ai de la difficulté à avaler une telle chose, puisqu’un député fait partie du gouvernement de l’Ontario. J’aimerais en savoir plus long sur qui lui a refusé un tel document.

Mlle Martel: J’ai demandé une copie du document aussi parce que, quand j’ai reçu le rapport annuel, j’ai vu que quelque chose comme cela existait. Je m’y intéresse pour savoir comment le ministère va mettre en oeuvre des programmes par rapport à la Loi 8. Alors c’est moi et mon cabinet qui avons demandé une copie de cela. Je ne suis pas sûre à qui mon assistante a parlé, mais de toute façon, on nous a dit qu’il était impossible d’en avoir copie, que cela n’existait pas en édition reliée; alors c’est la raison pour laquelle il m’était impossible d’en avoir copie.

L’hon. M. Grandmaître: Je m’excuse au nom de cette personne-là. Assurément, les députés ont accès à un tel volume et je leur en ferai parvenir un demain matin - pas par la poste, mais personnellement.

M. le Président: Est-ce qu’il y a d’autres députés qui ont des questions ou des commentaires? Sinon, Monsieur le Ministre, avez-vous des commentaires finals?

L’hon. M. Grandmaître: Si on a deux ou trois minutes, je voudrais réitérer le plaisir que je ressens aujourd’hui; c’est la deuxième occasion. Je répète que je veux remercier non seulement les francophones de l’opposition mais je veux également remercier les anglophones, qui sont très sensibles en ce qui concerne la question culturelle, la question du bilinguisme en Ontario. Je m’aperçois que chaque semaine, chaque mois, on rencontre des gens très sympathiques qui veulent que l’Ontario se développe du côté culturel, et non seulement du côté anglophone ou francophone; on le voit chez les Chinois, les Italiens, les Vietnamiens, tous ces gens-là.

Alors c’est pour ça que le Gouvernement, il y a une semaine à peine, parlait du Programme d’enseignement des langues d’origine. Alors ça, c’est le respect du patrimoine, de notre langue. Ce sont des programmes que le Gouvernement se propose d’améliorer, d’augmenter au cours des prochaines années. Je profite de l’occasion pour remercier, je ne les appellerai pas mes critiques aujourd’hui, pour remercier mes collègues, qui ont cette sensibilité envers la culture française.

Le crédit 402 est adopté. Vote 402 agreed to.

À la suite d’une motion présentée par l’hon. M. Grandmaitre, le comité des subsides fait rapport d’une certaine résolution.

On motion by Hon. Mr. Grandmaître, the committee of supply reported a certain resolution.

Mr. Speaker: The government House leader may have some information for the House.

Hon. Mr. Conway: The Speaker was attending to some domestic responsibilities in the adjoining room that were quite impressive, I want to say to my friend from Moose Creek.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Conway: Pursuant to standing order 13, I would like to indicate the business of the House for the coming week.

On Monday, November 7, we will deal with second reading of Bill 147, the Independent Health Facilities Act.

On Tuesday, November 8, we will debate the nonconfidence motion standing in the name of the honourable the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. B. Rae).

On Wednesday, November 9, we will deal with second reading of Bill 175, the Water Transfer Control Act.

On Thursday morning, we will consider private members’ business standing in the names of the member for Carleton (Mr. Sterling) and the member for York Mills (Mr. J. B. Nixon). In the afternoon of Thursday we will deal with the estimates of the Ministry of Government Services.

The House adjourned at 5:53 p.m.