Legislative Assembly of Ontario

The House met at 1332.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

CROP DAMAGE

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): In the early part of July of this year, farmers in the Niagara Peninsula faced some rather devastating news and devastating circumstances. They have experienced severe problems over the past few years. Members know that the effect of the free trade agreement with the United States and the general agreement on tariffs and trade, or GATT, rulings have eroded their competitive position.

They were hit with yet another disaster in early July of this year. Hailstones the size of golf balls slammed into peach, pear, plum and cherry trees and ripped away at the grapevines, causing perhaps millions of dollars of damage during what Curt McConkey of the Niagara district weather office described as one of the worst storms of its kind he has seen in 10 years.

The damage was not simply to the fruit but also to the vines and the trees themselves. The cost of replanting those, which is not covered by crop insurance, is estimated at $4,000 to $5,000. This is obviously going to have great ramifications for the Niagara Peninsula. It also takes three or four years to produce fruit from the new vines and trees.

For this reason, I hope the Ministry of Agriculture and Food and the minister, Elmer Buchanan, will assess the damage very carefully and provide whatever assistance is possible to farmers in the Niagara region who are compelled to continue to farm the land and retain that property. To do so successfully, they must be able to make a living, and the Ministry of Agriculture and Food can assist.

TOBACCO INDUSTRY

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): Throughout the history of Tillsonburg, innovation has been a key factor in its development. The realization that tobacco could turn sandy wasteland into highly productive farm land changed Canada's future. The tobacco belt towns have flourished, building strong education systems and communities for the future.

Currently Canada receives $8 billion in tax revenue annually from the Canadian tobacco industry. However, the decline of the tobacco industry has caused great hardships locally. Like a pebble tossed into a pond, the direct and indirect effects in the midst of a recession are immense.

Recent cuts by local boards of education of vital services should be a major warning signal that our system is crumbling. Economic times have created a dangerous abyss into which many special programs are descending; programs for family studies, speech and language, industrial arts and the gifted are all in danger of being lost. Our education systems have survived previous recessions because the rationale underlying special programs remained strong.

Our Legislature needs to be concerned when the education system is being restructured. Some of the proposals being put forth are nothing short of devastating for our most potentially able learners. Cutbacks to programming for the gifted and talented pose serious threats to services for students of high potential. How can our country be expected to compete internationally when we are stifling our own future?

This was submitted by Brandon M. Bruce Sheppard, a legislative page of the Ontario provincial Parliament during our last session, the representative from Tillsonburg.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mr Will Ferguson (Kitchener): Much has been said and written about the proposed changes to amend the Labour Relations Act. We have heard about misleading surveys and questionnaires that have falsely predicted nothing short of doom and gloom for the province of Ontario. Unfortunately, reasoned debate has been replaced by irrational rhetoric.

Consider the latest poll by the Council of Ontario Construction Associations, which stated most people don't want labour changes in the province of Ontario. The same poll also indicated that 45% of those surveyed were not even aware of the legislation and had no idea what it was about or what was in it, but these same people were asked their opinion on the issue nevertheless.

This is the same organization that carried out other questionable studies. The first one predicted job losses of around 495,000; the second one suggested a loss of around 280,000 positions.

This study has not dealt with the proposed changes at all. It's the kind of mindless, negative advertising that some have decided to engage in. That has done more to deter investment in the province of Ontario than any changes to the labour laws would.

Like every other jurisdiction in North America, Ontario no doubt has been hit hard by the recession. With the combined factors of the goods and services tax, the trade agreement and the value of the Canadian dollar, we have lost 250,000 jobs, but no rational person would believe we would lose twice that number because we decide to change a few labour laws in Ontario.

HOUSING POLICY

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): At a time in this province when the government is insisting on simply moving ahead with its dogmatic philosophical viewpoints, we have a crisis in the region of Peel in the area of housing.

I asked a question of the Minister of Housing last week in this place about the fact that the Peel Non-Profit Housing Corp was shut out of any housing allocations in her recent announcement of housing subsidies, which went entirely to the co-op sector, with nothing to the non-profit sector.

It goes beyond just Peel Non-Profit; it goes into all of the very many charitable organizations trying to build housing for seniors and for needy families, whether it's in the Polish community, the Filipino community, the Italian community or whatever. There are numerous organizations in my community that have applied and have been turned down.

All housing groups in Peel combined received only 7% of the total provincial allocation, while groups in Metropolitan Toronto received 58%. I would think it shameful to pit Metro groups against Peel groups because they're all needy, but the reality is, as my colleague says, it would appear to be pure politics. The fact that there were no NDP members elected in the region of Peel might leave someone to feel a little bit suspicious that they are simply feathering their own nest and giving their housing allocations to the ridings that are held by their colleagues.

1340

DRUG BENEFITS

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): I would like to draw the Minister of Health's attention to the case of an 18-month-old child in my community who has been diagnosed as suffering from the serious blood disorder congenital neutropenia.

This child, whose name is Allison, requires daily injections of a drug manufactured under the trade name of Neupogen. The cost of this treatment has recently increased from $100 a day to some $200 per day, and it is estimated that the cost could reach as much as $300 per day. While Allison's mother does have some medical insurance and is receiving some assistance from the severely handicapped children's benefits program of the Ministry of Community and Social Services, the cost of Allison's treatment far exceeds her mother's financial resources.

The alternative is for Allison to be hospitalized on a regular basis at considerable cost to the health care system, an alternative which Allison will be forced into if this family is not provided with financial assistance. It would be less expensive to pay for the drugs which would enable Allison to live an independent and longer life than it would be to have her hospitalized.

I'm sending the Minister of Health a letter requesting her to look into this situation, which is by no means an isolated situation. There is one other family, the Cox family of Everett, where the father and two of the children have been afflicted with this condition. They too are facing staggering costs for treatment. I urge the minister to assist these families in their time of need.

EVENTS IN KINGSTON

Mr Gary Wilson (Kingston and The Islands): Kingston and area was alive this past weekend with its usual variety of fascinating summertime activities. Among these was the Kirk Muller-Scott Arniel all-star slow pitch game in support of Almost Home, a home away from home for families with children being treated at one of Kingston's two general hospitals.

A second was the fourth annual buskers festival featuring over 40 groups and individuals performing music, magic, mime and juggling. Rounding out the weekend was the Ontario regional drum and bugle corps championships where nine bands competed for top honours. These acts and others defied the cloudy and at times rainy weather to entertain Kingstonians and visitors, support worthy causes and generally strengthen community spirit.

There was, however, a cloud of a different sort this weekend. A constituent, Mr Vince Maloney, brought me a flyer left on his windshield by the Ontario Tories. The contention of the flyer is that provincial taxes are too high. Mr Maloney's immediate reaction was penned on the back of the flyer:

"To Mr Michael Harris, leader of the third party: I am fully aware of who is responsible for my increase in income, fuel and property taxes. Among the most insidious is the GST, which you fail to mention."

The weekend events I mentioned earlier depended in part on public services. Two of them took place at Richardson stadium, part of Queen's University. Many of the busking activities used Kingston city hall as a backdrop, symbolizing the public nature of these entertainments. I believe Kingstonians are willing to pay through their taxes for services that support these essential activities.

CHEQUE CASHING BILL

Mr Gilles E. Morin (Carleton East): Peter C. Newman wrote an article about cheque cashing businesses in 1989. At that time Money Mart had 96 outlets across Canada. Today it has over 100 in Ontario alone. In 1989 Money Mart's chequing volume exceeded $1 billion. It charges a 4.9% fee to cash a postdated government cheque. Calculate the rate of return. We're talking about millions of dollars, dollars desperately needed by low-income Ontarians who depend upon their monthly cheque to meet basic needs.

How can the Treasurer and the Minister of Community and Social Services tolerate this blatant exploitation of the neediest and most vulnerable members of our society? Why does the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations not act immediately to protect the interests of low-income consumers?

Many members of this government are outraged to see millions of dollars wasted. We should all be outraged. Unfortunately it seems that some people are comfortable with the status quo. The Treasurer has told me he is not prepared to support Bill 154 because cheque-cashing businesses are a legitimate business. This must mean that charging a fee to cash a family benefits cheque is a legitimate practice also. The Treasurer adds that social assistance recipients will not be well served by Bill 154. Frankly, I am perturbed by this type of reasoning.

TAXATION

Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): Everyone in Ontario has just spent six and a half months working for the government. Until July 12, their earnings paid for one tax or another. Ontario is the highest-taxed jurisdiction in North America and Ontario people work longer just to pay their taxes. How has this happened?

During the economic boom of the mid-1980s, the Peterson Liberals increased spending at an average rate of 10% annually, which was more than twice the rate of inflation for the period. But the billions of dollars collected throughout the boom wasn't enough for them. They gave us 33 tax increases before being booted out of office. The NDP has added another 22 tax increases since September 1990 and, even worse, they ballooned the deficit. A deficit is just deferred taxes.

Think about it: Can the people of Ontario afford to keep working just to support governments that spend too much? The Ontario Progressive Conservative caucus believes that taxes are too high and it's time the government started living within its means. Maybe it's time for some of the facts. Maybe it's time for the people to find out what high government spending, high taxation and high debts are doing to them.

Mike Harris has put together a facts booklet called Today's Deficits are Tomorrow's Taxes. If you would like a free copy of this deficit and taxes brochure, please call 1-800-665-6453.

CANADA DAY CELEBRATIONS

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): That sounded like a paid advertisement on the part of the Tory caucus.

I'd like to present to those members here in the assembly a little flag I got from the good citizens of Iroquois Falls during Canada Day. All members, I'm sure, during the Canada Day celebrations, went around the various parts of their ridings to participate in some of the functions --

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): Hold it up a little higher.

Mr Bisson: If I pull it up any higher you won't be able to see me. We can still have fun, Mr Speaker.

The point is that all members within this Legislature participated in activities within their ridings in regard to Canada Day. The good people of Iroquois Falls thought it would be fitting to hand-make this Canadian flag, as you can see, and many people within the community signed it, I guess in an effort to express their love and their belief in this country, seeing that we're going through many difficult times.

People on that day talked about what was going on in the constitutional discussions and how much people are going to have to come together to reconcile some of the differences in this country. I think this flag somewhat symbolizes how much the good people of Iroquois Falls, like all the people within this province, no matter where they might be, from southwestern, southeastern, to the north, really believe in this great province and this great country.

With that, I'd like people to reflect for a moment and remember how great this country is and how great this province is. Rather than dwelling on the negative, we should sometimes take time to look at the positive and be thankful for the country we have.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): On behalf of the government I welcome the announcement by General Motors of Canada that the number 2 car assembly plant in Oshawa will produce the Buick Regal and the Chevrolet Lumina for the 1994 model year. The number 1 plant will also continue to produce the Chevrolet Lumina for the 1994 year. This is very good news for the 8,000 people who work at the two plants and, I might say, very good news for the people of Ontario.

Government officials have been in close touch with management at GM and the Canadian Auto Workers union, while together they convinced the parent company in Detroit of the high quality of the Oshawa plant and the advantages of continuing its highly productive history. We are very pleased that the parent company agreed.

Today's good news from GM follows the launch late last month of the new Chrysler LH car to be built in Bramalea and the announcement in April of Ford Motor Co's $2-billion investment in new minivan production in Oakville and new engines in Windsor. Clearly the big three automakers recognize Ontario as an excellent place to invest in today's highly competitive environment.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

1350

ART GALLERY OF ONTARIO

Hon Karen Haslam (Minister of Culture and Communications): Today I am announcing the creation of an independent task force on the Art Gallery of Ontario. This is a commitment I made last month when I announced --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order. Would the minister take her seat, please. I was unable to hear the minister. Would she be kind enough to begin, please.

Hon Mrs Haslam: Certainly. Today I am announcing the creation of an independent task force on the Art Gallery of Ontario. This is a commitment made last month when I announced a funding package to the AGO of $3.8 million this year, in addition to the $8.5 million it already receives from the province. At that time, it was indicated that a task force would be set up to help the AGO find long-term solutions to its financial problems.

The AGO is an important provincial cultural institution. Its future health and stability are important to this government and to the people of this province.

The task force will make recommendations on how the AGO can reorganize and restructure with its newly increased base funding. To do this, the task force will review the finances, the governance, the overall operations and the public policies of the art gallery. The task force will also consider the roles and responsibilities of the board of directors.

The review of public policies will assess how access, education and outreach activities, as well as support for artists in communities throughout this province, reflect the diversity of Ontario and the importance of contemporary Canadian art. The task force will consult staff, board members and the union at the AGO, cultural institutions, members of the arts community and the public. The task force is also free to pursue areas it feels are integral to a healthy, functioning AGO.

The task force's recommendations will be detailed in a report to me and to the board of the AGO. I expect the report will be submitted in November.

The members of the task force have been selected in full cooperation with the board of directors of the Art Gallery of Ontario. A member of that board, vice-chair Alan Schwartz, is present today in the gallery, as is the executive director, Mr Glenn Lowry. In the gallery also are two of the three members of the task force, Terrence Heath and Colette Whiten.

The chair of the task force is Terrence Heath, an independent curator and writer. A former director of the Winnipeg Art Gallery, Mr Heath was a member of the task force which assisted in setting up the four national museums in Ottawa as arm's-length agencies.

Ms Whiten is an artist who has exhibited extensively in Canada and internationally. She taught experimental arts at the Ontario College of Art for 16 years.

The third member of the task force is Mr Ian H. McLeod. He is a recently retired financial consultant from McKinsey and Co who has served on the boards of many arts organizations, including the National Ballet and the O'Keefe Centre.

I want to thank the distinguished members of the task force for taking on this important responsibility on behalf of the province and on behalf of the Art Gallery of Ontario. The task force's report will form the foundation on which the AGO can build a dynamic and thriving organization in the future.

RESPONSES

ART GALLERY OF ONTARIO

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I don't think there's a member, or a person in Ontario perhaps, who doesn't regret what has transpired over the last several months in the Art Gallery of Ontario.

I think all of us appreciate that this is a world-class organization that now is closed. I don't think there's any doubt that there is an enormous tension between the art gallery and the government. The people who have devoted their volunteer time to helping us in this province have, as I said, a world-class facility have had an enormous period of tension and distress.

It would have been our hope that rather than it coming to this, with the art gallery closed and with a pitched battle between many members of the community and the government, we could have seen a resolution of this before it had come to this.

I would say to the minister that this, along with last week's announcement when she came into the House and said, "We are doing such and such for the Guelph community" -- we've seen that what has really happened is that the Ministry of Culture and Communications slashed its budget in half to create a slush fund for the minister to go around and make announcements, get her picture in the paper, have this neat Jobs Ontario letterhead, go out and hire a brand new advertising agency and have John Piper and the group send out press releases, when what the people of Ontario want is straight goods from the province. They don't want a public relations exercise.

As I say, I regret it's come to a task force with the art gallery. I would have hoped the government could have found a way to work it out with the art gallery before we see it closed for a lengthy period of time, with all the anguish that causes. I hope the minister will stop playing political games and get on with running the Ministry of Culture and Communications as it should be.

AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): It's an interesting day when the Premier of the province has to stand in the Legislature to announce that a plant is not closing and is in fact staying open. It is good news when the Premier is able to do that, because so often we're confronted, as we were in the city of St Catharines, with the loss of some 3,000 jobs at the foundry and the engine plant, and the general layoffs in St Catharines. I'm pleased that at least in 1994 the General Motors Oshawa plant will be continuing to produce the Buick Regal and the Chevrolet Lumina.

What is of concern to the people of Oshawa and all those involved in the automotive industry in Ontario is the future beyond 1994. As a Legislature, we will have to ensure that we make that investment welcome in Ontario; that we do not impose further taxes such as the Treasurer has done, the so-called gas guzzler tax; that we do not continue to see the escalation in hydro-electric power rates in Ontario, and that we do everything possible to maintain that investment here.

It would be my hope that General Motors is at least prepared not to shut down the Oshawa plant in 1994, because we know there are still some 60,000 jobs to be cut by General Motors out of the 74,000 announced by Robert Stempel in December. We hope, of course, that we will see those jobs retained in Ontario.

It is going to be important, because we will have to know that those trucks will be driving past St Catharines with engines soon to be produced in the United States to go into the vehicles that are being assembled in Oshawa. You know that engine plant line that is closing down in St Catharines? You will see trucks that will be going past St Catharines and down Highway 401 with engines from the United States to replace that.

We will be interested to do everything possible as a Legislature, to have the government encouraged to do everything possible not only to retain investment in Ontario but to expand that investment.

For the 3,000 people in St Catharines who are losing their jobs there is still a lot of genuine concern. Their hope would be that General Motors headquarters in the United States will respond positively to the resolution I presented to the Legislature on Thursday morning, which was endorsed unanimously by members of all parties in this House, that it keep the foundry open in St Catharines, that we have the engine plant continue to produce all the engines that were produced before and that in fact we have new work for Ontario. So it's with some cautious optimism that we approach today's announcement.

Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): It is a sad state in the province of Ontario when the Premier, not the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, thinks it's such a big deal that a plant will stay open that he has to announce it in the Legislature -- not that there are new jobs, not that there is new investment. He went around the world in his travels and didn't come back with any new jobs. All the ministers have been all over the world and Japan and there is no new investment. The Premier of Ontario, under this socialist government, thinks it's a big deal when plants stay open, not that we're expanding or that there's any new investment or new jobs. If we just have the status quo, he thinks it's great.

This province has lost 250,000 jobs. Eighty per cent of the jobs lost in Canada have been in Ontario. This has been an Ontario-led recession.

In the standing committee on finance and economic affairs the member for Wilson Heights said the Ford Motor Co made its decision during the 1990 campaign. The Liberals tried to get them to announce it during that period of time. They spent $500 million on a plant that's now sitting up there and is open, and that's why they decided to remain here.

It is indeed a sorry state when the Premier of the province of Ontario thinks it's a big deal when plants stay open and there's no new investment. I say to this Premier, "You'd better do something to start creating jobs instead of scaring them away from the province of Ontario."

1400

ART GALLERY OF ONTARIO

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): I want to respond to the Minister of Culture and Communications. Her announcement of the task force today, as far as we're concerned, is just a further endorsement of the fact that her play-acting role as Cinderella with Prince Charles is going to go on as long as she's minister. It's unfortunate, actually, that the previous minister isn't still responsible for this portfolio. At least the previous minister made a commitment to the Art Gallery of Ontario.

It's ludicrous to suggest that this announcement of the task force lets this minister off the hook for the fact that the Art Gallery of Ontario is closed today and closed for six months and people who voluntarily took a 20% pay reduction two months ago are out of work today. This organization, which incidentally is a transfer agency supposedly at arm's length of this government, is indeed troubled but not for anything its board did. The suggestion that a task force has to be established to look into those areas that are directly the responsibility of the board is an insult to that board.

I find it very amusing that in the minister's statement she says that "the task force has been selected in full cooperation with the board of directors." Well, of course. What would you do if your hands were tied behind your back and you were backed up against a wall? Of course you would do anything in cooperation with this socialist government, which doesn't know the priority or the meaning of the word "culture" in our province today. They do not recognize what kind of institution the Art Gallery of Ontario is. They have no idea what culture and the Art Gallery of Ontario stand for.

When we look at the programs this government has foisted on the Art Gallery of Ontario, such as pay equity -- the wage parity which came about after a study the government paid for and made recommendations to that board, and no accompanying funding -- how could this board possibly implement the government-mandated program without the accompanying funding?

The previous minister said his commitment was very clear: He would work with the AGO. This minister is working against the art gallery. This is the organization that the previous minister at least understood had fiscal responsibility. For this minister to say that the present board is fiscally irresponsible -- as far as I'm concerned, if the minister hasn't said it in words, the fact is that she thinks a task force has to look into the finances and their base funding.

I would like to ask this minister -- because she has no confidence in the board of the Art Gallery of Ontario -- is she intending to take it over herself and remove the arm's-length relationship?

ORAL QUESTIONS

UNEMPLOYMENT

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My first question is for the Premier. We're certainly all pleased that the announcement from General Motors today is that there will not be more people laid off in the province of Ontario, particularly following the unemployment figures released on Friday. It is a reality that, since the Premier made jobs his number one priority in April, the number of Ontario's jobless has increased by 30,000 individuals. On Friday we learned that the number of people out of work in this province in June had risen to 588,000.

It seems interesting that in that same period seven provinces have actually seen their unemployment figures drop. New Brunswick, for example, has reduced its unemployment rate by almost two percentage points from April, and there are other differences. In New Brunswick the government chose to cut taxes; in Ontario the government raised taxes. New Brunswick had its bond rating go up; Ontario saw its creditworthiness drop another notch. One economic development officer in New Brunswick has reportedly said that Bob Rae is his province's best friend.

I would ask the Premier: What does he feel he can learn from the provinces that are actually having some success in putting unemployed people back to work? Why would he not follow the lead of his New Brunswick counterpart, for example, and introduce some initiatives that would stimulate economic recovery, such as cutting taxes?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I appreciate the question. We all recognize that the economy in this part of Ontario has had as rough a time, I think it's fair to say, as any economy in this province for many years. I don't think there's any getting around that fact. I wouldn't expect the Liberal leader to notice it, but in June 7,000 new jobs were created in Ontario. In the past two months 44% of the new jobs created in Canada were created in this province, even though we have only about 38% of the population. So if you want to make comparisons with other provinces, the fact of the matter is that we have been creating more jobs in this province.

We have also seen more people coming into the labour force, and we're seeing more people coming back into the labour market looking for work more actively, which is what one would expect at this time in the economic life of the province.

We all recognize what needs to be done, but let me say to the honourable member that when you compare our overall economic situation with that of other jurisdictions, when you compare the efforts and focus that we're putting in this province on jobs and on job creation, I think you can see there has been a very solid effort by this government and by all the people working in this province to create more work.

Let me also say that while people on the other side may mock the General Motors announcement, when a company says there's no guarantee of a product line in 1994 and then it says it has looked around and examined the competitiveness and the ability of plants, the cost-effectiveness, the tax structure, the health care structure, the overall impacts, and says that Canada, Ontario and Oshawa present the most competitive opportunity for that company, that tells you something about how we must be doing at least something right in the province of Ontario, even though I recognize it's difficult for the Liberals to admit it.

Mrs McLeod: Today's announcement was certainly reassuring to the workers at GM who will not be laid off. The Premier's response to that question does not bring much assurance to the 588,000 people who are out there looking for work right now. Perhaps it was too simple an equation for us to try to make, but it seemed to us the New Brunswick government had cut taxes in order to create consumer confidence, and it worked. Somehow that seemed to be more real than all of the Premier's rhetoric.

In Sudbury the Premier was quoted as saying that a large part of our economic problem still lies with consumer confidence. He is quoted as saying, "I think the average consumer wants more clear signs that the economy is becoming strong." Yet it seems to be a catch-22 situation, because many feel the economy will be stronger only when consumers have the confidence to begin spending. The reality is that consumers are going to spend more only if they have more to spend. I would ask the Premier: How is taking $1.2 billion more in taxes from the Ontario consumer, a tax grab that is described as the largest since Confederation, going to give the average consumer more confidence in the economy?

Hon Mr Rae: Whoever made that description of any tax policies of our government was being inaccurate. I am not surprised the Liberal leader would repeat it, but at least she should try to make it accurate, coming from a party which raised taxes dozens of times in the past, 33 times I think in total during the time in which she served as such a loyal member of the government, without a squeak of complaint from any of the Liberal cabinet ministers who are now on the other side urging us to cut taxes. I didn't hear a peep. Did you ever hear a Liberal cabinet minister object to any feature of any of the 33 tax increases? I didn't hear the former Minister of Energy, the Minister of Natural Resources, the Minister of Colleges and Universities, complain once when the income taxes and the sales tax went up. I didn't hear her complain at that time.

I want to say to the honourable member that we are faced with a challenge, with a major cut in transfers from the federal government, a major problem we face with respect to the federal government. We have to get the money from somewhere in order to pay for health care services. I think that in their heart of hearts the people of Ontario understand that things have to paid for, programs have to be paid for, and I think they have a clearer sense of that than the Liberal Party, which taxes while it's in government and then, while it's in opposition, suddenly gets religion and says, "No, everything we did over the past five years was a mistake." Give me a break.

1410

Mrs McLeod: The reality is that none of us can remember in recent years when Ontario had an unemployment rate of 11%. The reality is that unemployment is continuing to rise in Ontario and that, in spite of all of the Premier's words, the government seems to be doing very little about it. In the heart of hearts of Ontarians, I think what people are looking for is some confidence in the future, some confidence that people are going to be able to work in this province.

Perhaps that reality is not more true for any group than the young people of this province. We know that in the unemployment figures announced on Friday youth unemployment was a large part of that increase. We know that in Ontario our youth jobless rate has hit 20.8%. This government continues to dribble out announcements of its summer job programs for jobs that aren't in place, even though the summer's half over.

Worse still, if we can look beyond the youth unemployment of the summer, we know that unemployment among young people is not going to disappear once the fall comes. These people are going to be looking for full-time jobs -- jobs that are not going to be there. I ask the Premier if he and his government have begun to look at how many of these unemployed young people will not be returning to school in the fall and will be looking for work. What will his government do to help these unemployed young people when their summer job programs run out? Does he not realize that he cannot be successful at job creation, that none of these job creation programs are actually going to work, unless the economy begins to recover?

Hon Mr Rae: That's exactly right. I couldn't agree more with the honourable member. I say to her that surely she would appreciate that, with an economy like ours, almost 30% of which is dependent on trade with one other jurisdiction -- that is to say, the United States -- we've begun to see some signs of improvement, but not steady, strong and firm enough for us to say everything has succeeded.

I say to the honourable member very directly that it's precisely the growth throughout the industrialized world and in improved economic conditions here and around the world that we have to look to for the long-term strategies. But when she talks about the youth employment strategies that are in place, I would have thought that the Liberal leader would at least have recognized what any sensible observer would recognize, which is that we are spending more money and employing more people this year through the government of Ontario youth employment programs than any government in the history of Ontario. I'm surprised the Leader of the Opposition didn't recognize that in her question.

JOBS ONTARIO CAPITAL

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My second question is to the Minister of Tourism and Recreation. It revolves around another of the government's so-called job creation programs and some of the concerns we have with that program. My question to the Minister of Tourism and Recreation is about his involvement in the Treasurer's shell game known as Jobs Ontario Capital, the fund the government was promoting as new money, you may recall, when it's just a repackaging of the same amount of money that was promised for capital projects last year.

I wonder if the Minister of Tourism and Recreation could explain to this House what special features a project receiving money under his ministry's portion of Jobs Ontario Capital has to have in order to receive funding and how his ministry sets priorities when it decides what projects are to be funded under this program.

Hon Peter North (Minister of Tourism and Recreation): Under the program we offer, there are a number of different opportunities for funding and a number of different opportunities for employment. We have in the past looked at job creation, we've looked at the particular area in which a program or work is to be done and we've based what we're doing on the policies and objectives of the government, the policies and objectives of the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation and also the interests put forth by that particular region or area.

Different opportunities for funding are put forth by certain regions, community groups and certain tourism associations and things of that nature. That is what we base our decisions on.

Mrs McLeod: I appreciate the minister's answer because, if I can recap what he said to me, in setting priorities he said the funding will go for projects of the government first, the ministry second and the region third. That brings me to my supplementary question. There's just one more attribute I would suggest the government seems to be looking for in projects that are funded under Jobs Ontario; that is, to look for projects that no one seems to be asking for, that aren't needed and that replace existing facilities. I would give one specific example of my concern.

At the Pigeon River border crossing in northwestern Ontario, the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation is building a brand-new, $1.6-million tourist information centre. The problem is that no one in the region is asking for it. Furthermore, the province is tearing down an existing building in order to build a new one. In the meantime, the city of Thunder Bay has been working for some years now towards plans for constructing a new tourist information centre. Now that the plans are all in place, the city is told there is no money.

I wonder if the minister can please attempt to explain why his ministry is wasting money tearing down a building in order to build a new one when 60 miles up the road the city of Thunder Bay cannot get money for a project that's all ready to go and that would cost half as much as the project the ministry is supporting.

Hon Mr North: First of all, I'd like to say that the idea the government's wasting money is the leader's opinion. It's certainly not the opinion of this government; it's certainly not the opinion of this minister.

We've had an opportunity to talk to a number of different people in this region she speaks of. I will tell the member very clearly that we invest in border crossings with this type of project. It's a good investment. It's an investment for more than just Thunder Bay; it's an investment for the region. Certainly there are a number of opportunities for people who come in across the Pigeon River border crossing to visit the tourist information centre and to get the information that they need and that they will use throughout the region. I would suggest it's a good investment to make sure people have the information they would need to travel in that particular part of the province. We're interested in being a part of that.

Mrs McLeod: Let me be very clear in my understanding. The province has given the green light to a tourist information facility that nobody except people in the ministry seem to be asking for and that nobody is actually ready to build, and it has turned down a similar project in Thunder Bay, a project seen as the highest priority for that region, a project which has been four years in the planning stages.

When the city of Thunder Bay asked the ministry why the Pigeon River facility was getting money under Jobs Ontario and a similar project in Thunder Bay could not be funded, the ministry simply said, "It's a different program and we can't transfer funds from one program to another."

If I can sum up the ministry approach, it seems to be that it won't approve projects that are ready to go; it will approve projects that no one wants that aren't ready to go and that consequently won't even get built this year. A cynic might wonder whether or not this is a direction from the Treasurer to the minister that under Jobs Ontario Capital you don't approve the projects that are actually ready to put a shovel in the ground. You approve the projects that aren't even in the planning stages and then the Treasurer won't have to flow the money and next fall he can announce his cutback in his capital spending.

I would ask the minister, is this decision just another example of complete mismanagement, on the part of his ministry, of decisions that have no sense of priority and that don't make any sense, or is it part of an overall shell game to announce projects that this ministry knows will never get built?

Hon Mr North: Again, everything the leader has said so far up to this point, the discussion she's had and the questions she's posed, are all based on opinion and it basically is based on her opinion. That's fine. Everyone certainly has his or her opportunities to have an opinion, and obviously the leader has hers. In my opinion, in the opinion of the people I've spoken to and in the opinion of the people of the region -- obviously not the people she has spoken to -- most people generally would like to have an investment in their particular area.

In this case, the investment we're making is an investment in people in terms of jobs to build a building, in terms of people in the community, in terms of the tourism outfitters and people of that region. This is a tremendous opportunity, I would say, for the whole region and for Thunder Bay. I would suggest to the leader that if she has a different opinion, that's up to her.

1420

ONTARIO HYDRO STAFFING

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): I have a question of the Minister of Energy. Ontario Hydro customers are facing rate increases of some 20% over the next two years, yet we have inflation currently running at about 1%. We have Ontario Hydro with a staff of some 30,000 people making an average annual wage of $69,000 a year. Now surely that is a perfect example of government bureaucracy run amok and out of control. How can you justify fattening the staff of Ontario Hydro by some 850 people at this time?

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Acting Minister of Energy): It's an interesting question that the member of the third party raises. It's a question, though, which I think reflects too much research being done from newspaper articles and in isolation.

Last August the Ontario Energy Board expressed some concerns about the staffing levels at Hydro. This government has also expressed concerns about the staffing levels at Ontario Hydro, the size of the operation and some serious inefficiencies in the operation of Ontario Hydro. The board and the chair at Ontario Hydro have been working extremely hard over the last year to reduce the operational costs at Ontario Hydro. I should just say directly to the member that the overall staff complement at Ontario Hydro in 1992 will be significantly smaller -- not larger, not fatter -- than last year.

Mr Eves: Just as an aside, I'd like to say to the minister that his 1991 operating budget at Ontario Hydro was $6.9 billion, up half a billion over the previous year, so obviously they don't have things under control over there at all. You brought in Bill 118 so your government could directly control Ontario Hydro, so I don't think that's even an issue any more. In a recession when the public is suffering, you have your NDP buddy Marc Eliesen raising rates, borrowing money, spending money and now going on a hiring binge. Can you tell me what you and your buddy Marc are doing to control costs at Ontario Hydro?

Hon Mr Charlton: The member opposite in his question again has repeated a number of allegations that have been made by the leader of the third party which are just factually not correct. First of all, there has been about $250 million cut out of Hydro's capital budget this year. Second, as I said earlier, everybody I think understands that when you set a new direction for a crown corporation like Ontario Hydro, there comes a need to do some realignment and reallocation of resources. There are some --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order. Would the minister take his seat.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Minister.

Hon Mr Charlton: There are some new positions being created around demand management and a number of other initiatives that are being taken --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Would the minister take his seat.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Minister.

Hon Mr Charlton: I guess the net point, in response to the member's question -- what are we doing, what is the so-called spending chair, as he referred to him, doing at Hydro? -- is reduced capital expenditures this year by $250 million, reduced operating expenditures by $150 million, and net this year the employment at Ontario Hydro will be reduced by 600 people.

Mr Eves: I suppose the thought that comes to mind is, what's 850 more civil servants at 69 grand a year among NDP friends?

The leader of my party has disclosed on several occasions examples of multimillion-dollar contracts being let without tender. We find that Mr Eliesen, on top of his large salary, his golden benefits package, his phone, his security system, the public paying for his financial tax adviser, now wants Ontario taxpayers to fork out even more money for rates and now wants to hire another 850 people to do his bidding, which he doesn't believe in doing anyway. Mr Minister, the lights are on at Ontario Hydro, but is anybody home?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Minister.

Hon Mr Charlton: Perhaps I should pick up on the the analogy of member of the third party. As we move into energy conservation, the lights are certainly out much more frequently and some of those lights will be out permanently. The member has some difficulty with his arithmetic. The reduction of 1,450 staff positions and the --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Would the minister take his seat, please.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Minister.

Hon Mr Charlton: The reduction in overall staff positions by 1,450, the redeployment of 850 people in new areas of endeavour, in any event, in anybody's math, means a net reduction of 600 positions at Hydro.

LANDFILL

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): My question is for the Minister of the Environment. As minister, you've often spoken about a so-called traditional arrangement between Metro and York region in which York has agreed to accept Metro's garbage. This has been your explanation for basing landfill in York region.

There is only one written agreement between York and Metro Toronto, and I have it here and I've sent a copy over to you. This was written and agreed to in 1983, in which Metro agreed to supply a waste disposal site for York, not the other way around. Would the minister please explain why she has so blatantly misstated the facts to justify the unjustifiable?

Hon Ruth A. Grier (Minister of the Environment): I'm not a lawyer and I hesitate to interpret legal agreements, but the member was kind enough to send over to me a copy of the agreement to which he refers, and it states very clearly that the Metropolitan corporation undertakes to supply a waste disposal site for all waste generated within the regional area. It makes no mention whether that site should be in Metropolitan Toronto or should be in York, and it was for that reason that the Interim Waste Authority was directed to select a site to serve both York and Metro and to have as its area of site search Metro and York.

1430

Mr Cousens: The minister has read section 6 of it correctly. The agreement clearly states that Metro will look after York region's garbage, not the other way around. I believe the minister owes this House an apology. In your public statements and in your ministry documents you keep referring to an agreement that does not exist. York has never agreed to take Metro's garbage. Metro agreed to look after York's garbage instead.

The only tradition around here is one that has been established by your government: twisting the facts to suit whatever purpose you might have at a given moment. Will the minister stop reducing, reusing and recycling her facts and agree to rescind her decision to base a Metro garbage site in York region?

Hon Mrs Grier: No.

Mr Cousens: No to rescinding, no to recycling the facts, no to doing all the things the people are looking for. Let's talk about the NDP tradition of consultation and cooperation. At least that's what you talked about when you were in opposition and didn't have to worry about making good on your promises.

I'll spell it out again, Madam Minister: The only agreement that exists between Metro and York region has Metro agreeing to take York's garbage. It does not involve any tradition of York region taking Metro's waste. Minister, will you stop throwing inconvenient facts on the trash heap and agree that you will start looking at other options for waste disposal, including the rail haul option?

Hon Mrs Grier: I began my response to the member's first question by acknowledging that I was not a lawyer and hesitated to interpret agreements, but I would like to say I think I question his interpretation of an agreement that is based upon Metro taking Metro's and York's waste to a site in York region, namely, Keele Valley. That being the basis of the agreement to which the member has referred, I'm afraid I can't concur with the other premises that flow from his lack of understanding of that.

RELATIONS WITH SOUTH AFRICA

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): My question is to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. The political situation in South Africa is constantly shifting --

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order, the member for Etobicoke West. Perhaps the member for Scarborough North would be kind enough to start over.

Mr Curling: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. As I said, my question is to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. The political situation in South Africa is constantly shifting, and there's no question that the people of Ontario are concerned with what is happening there. Can the Premier update this House as to the current status of Ontario's relationship with South Africa?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I want to thank the honourable member for his question and say to him that this government, together with other governments at the officials' level, without any decisions being taken by cabinet with respect to authorizing any changes, has obviously been considering the impact of the decisions that have been made by the Commonwealth, for example, to allow for the exchanges of individuals and groups.

But I can tell you that any cabinet decision with respect to authorizing any change in the policy -- which is the policy which the former member of the cabinet was fully aware of and indeed participated in those decisions -- is obviously going to wait for us to see whether there are more positive signs of a successful resolution of the political crisis in South Africa. As of this point, for example, there is no relaxation of our policy with respect to trade and commercial exchange. So far as I'm aware, there's been no change with respect to a number of other policies that are currently in place with respect to South Africa on the part of the government or individual ministries.

I can tell the honourable member that the federal Department of External Affairs has been encouraging discussions among various provincial officials about what will happen when the international economic boycott of South Africa is ended. Obviously, we're preparing for that possibility, but we are certainly not about to undertake any such change given the nature of the crisis in South Africa at the moment. I think it would be premature and very unwise. If I may say so, the informal contacts that our government has with the African National Congress have been such that we're led to feel very strongly that we're on the right track with respect to maintaining the current boycotts in place.

Mr Curling: I appreciate the Premier's effort to answer the question and I appreciate the extent to which he went. My concern is that I've just received, Mr Speaker -- and I ask you very much for maybe the protection of the OPP not investigating me on this issue -- a confidential cabinet document, dated June 23, 1992, entitled Ontario's Relations with the Republic of South Africa.

That document itself recommends lifting cultural, educational and scientific sanctions to South Africa and adopting a strategy to discuss the lifting of economic sanctions. These are obviously very important issues, which makes the next part of the document even more difficult to understand. Under the heading of "Communication," the document recommends none. It says, "Once a decision is reached, no announcement will be made."

Premier, given your party's commitment to openness and accessibility and given the high level of interest in Ontario's relationship with South Africa, do you feel this secrecy is appropriate? If so, why?

Mr Ian G. Scott (St George-St David): Whose signature would be on that? Someone called T. Armstrong. Who is that?

Hon Mr Rae: Well, I'm just about to find out. I have a note here from someone saying, "We've not seen or heard anything about this," which shows you that secrecy has been maintained very successfully.

That document does not reflect government policy. It does not --

Interjection.

Hon Mr Rae: No, it does not. If the member for St Catharines will just listen for a moment, it doesn't reflect --

Mr Scott: It did 20 minutes ago.

Hon Mr Rae: No, it didn't; it never did. The former Attorney General will know full well that all kinds of submissions are drafted. I've just checked with the Attorney General now with respect to the cabinet committee on justice. That submission has not been discussed in cabinet committee on justice, it has not been discussed in the policies and priorities board of cabinet and it has not been discussed in cabinet. It in no way reflects the policies of the government of Ontario.

Interjection.

Hon Mr Rae: You've asked a serious question. I'm giving you a serious answer. What you have is some recommendation from some civil servant or public servant with respect to an approach that might or might not have been recommended a month or two ago. It in no way reflects government policy. It in no way reflects the political approach of this government. The short answer to your reproach with respect to whether it should be secret is that of course it shouldn't be secret. I'm quite open to a discussion about this. I'm quite open to any recommendations that come forward.

I had a meeting with the Canadian representative of the African National Congress just two week ago. He indicated his support of the position our government is taking and of the approaches we've taken. I can assure you that is the approach that is being taken, and not some bureaucratic document which the member is quoting from.

RED HILL CREEK EXPRESSWAY

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): My question is to the Minister of Transportation. The most recent consultant's report on the Red Hill Creek Expressway on alternative routes has been -- after that the minister has told the people of Hamilton that it's his way or no way. He seems to want the widening of Highway 20 rather than proceeding with the road through the Red Hill Creek valley. The minister's way accomplishes nothing. He has to expropriate approximately 74 houses.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order, the member for St George-St David.

Mr Turnbull: You have to relocate many businesses and you have to create a highway on a 5% grade rather than the 2% grade which is on the Red Hill Creek route.

The potential users of this route have expressed grave concern about the safety factors. Given the fact that the minister has just recently announced the creation of a crown corporation charged with road safety, how do you justify the different route?

Interjection.

The Speaker: Would the member for St George-St David come to order.

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation): One more time, it's always a renewed pleasure indeed to welcome people's interest and hopefully we're on the eve of finding alternatives.

Let's go back and we can do this together for the edification of the critic opposite. When the Red Hill Creek Expressway proposal was put forward, this government rejected any encroachment on the valley and yet it said, "Let's ask for alternatives," so that the recognized north-south needs of motorists in the Hamilton-Wentworth region can finally be addressed.

Our position has not changed. We've been consistent. We have indicated a willingness to participate in terms of the planning, the engineering, the design and the funding. This is the capacity, the jurisdiction of the province. But rightly, when you reject a proposal, with the highest of respect, because environmentally it will not be the order of the day, when an alternative presents you with the same thing, obviously you have to be consistent while being reasonable and say, "No, but we're looking for alternatives to the transportation needs of Hamilton-Wentworth," which is the proponent.

1440

Mr Turnbull: That answer is absolutely unsatisfactory. On the environmental issue there is no suggestion that this is wrong. A bunch of NDP councillors and one of your ministers here got together and decided it was a bad route. The people of Hamilton have told you they want that route -- it's the only viable route, it's the only safe route -- and by moving the route to the east, it does not achieve the goal of moving the traffic out of Hamilton.

Minister, you're ignoring what local politicians and the local taxpayers want. Why are you ignoring the wishes of the taxpayers of Hamilton? Your own environmental assessment has said that this route is okay.

Hon Mr Pouliot: This government is not interested in political stripes or a philosophy based on partisanship, on bias and prejudice. What we're saying is that the environmental issue is not an important component, it is the catalyst, it is the decision-making. It's a tough decision, but we stand by and beyond our decision.

Having said this, we're fully cognizant that you have to respond to the needs of motorists in the Hamilton-Wentworth region. We intend to do this. It's not impossible. The member perhaps sees it as impossible, but on this side of the House we see it as the art of the possible, that the glass is always at least half full. There is no problem collectively with the willingness to make it happen. It shall happen.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mr Brad Ward (Brantford): My question is for the Minister of Labour and it's dealing with labour reform. I read with interest last week and heard the member for York Mills refer to a study -- they call it a study; I think it's more of an informal poll -- completed by Ernst and Young and it refers to 295,000 jobs that will be lost because of labour reform and untold billions lost in investment.

Mr Minister, I seem to recall that this report or poll came out in early 1992, that it was immediately, in my opinion, discredited because it was not based on statistics or any type of fact, but it was opinion. My question is, why do you feel the opposition is referring to this poll and what are your thoughts on this?

Hon Bob Mackenzie (Minister of Labour): First of all, this poll measured the employers' perceptions only and the pollsters acknowledged that there may even have been an exaggeration in the poll in an effort to influence the direction of this legislation.

Second, the pollsters measured attitudes towards the November 1991 discussion paper and in Bill 40, as most people now know who have read it, half of the discussion paper's proposals have been amended or dropped directly in response to the consultation process we went through.

Mr Ward: Mr Minister, I'm pleased to hear that because that was my impression as well. I realize that the Toronto Star last week had labour problems and perhaps the person who implemented this headline didn't quite do his or her homework. I'm glad to see the professionals are back now.

I don't think this report could have been based on fact because if Ernst and Young had contacted some business people in Brantford, if they had contacted the German owners of BASF, if they had contacted the American owners of Gates Canada, if they had contacted the Canadian owners of Keeprite, if they had contacted the local owners of Eastern Coatings, they all would have said they have enough faith in the people of Ontario, in the people of Brantford and in the economy of Ontario to invest, and these statistics would have been different.

When you look at the labour reforms and you realize that all 10 provinces already have security guards' right to join any trade union, that all 10 provinces allow full- and part-time workers' the right to single-unit representation and that all 10 provinces -- nine provinces, sorry, not counting Ontario -- already restrict petitions, Minister, don't you think that by referring to these inaccurate polls and reports and using headline scare tactics, that's where the real economic harm could occur?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I found it significant that in the actual poll there was a disclaimer which should have caused anybody to have second thoughts about it. I think it is true that there has been more debate on what can happen, not based on fact but on what can happen, and that it has not been helpful for Ontario and for investment in the province -- I would be the first to admit that -- but it is information that is being disseminated that is not accurate.

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

Mr Monte Kwinter (Wilson Heights): I have a question for the Attorney General. We have heard today that unemployment is at the highest level in eight years. Certainly it is an employer's market and there are dozens if not hundreds of applicants for most jobs. The government claims it is practising fiscal restraint in this difficult economic time, notwithstanding that the government spent $200,000 on guards protecting the budget and is spending $1.9 million moving the cabinet offices across the street. We now have another example. Is the minister aware and -- this is even more important -- can he justify the spending of over $10,000 for an advertisement for one government appointment?

Hon Howard Hampton (Attorney General): I'm not aware of the advertisement which the member alleges. If he would care to provide me with more detailed information, I can get back to him on the nature of the advertisement. Simply based on an allegation that an advertisement cost $10,000, I am not in a position to respond without having more details. Sorry.

Mr Kwinter: I'm delighted to provide the minister with the details. This is a copy of the Friday Globe and Mail. If you take a look in this top corner you will see an ad "Assessment Review Board" by the Attorney General. It is for the vice-chairman of the Assessment Review Board in charge of adjudication. That ad cost $10,548. At the bottom of the page you will see -- if we talk about employment equity -- the government of Alberta is advertising for the president and chief executive officer of the Workers' Compensation Board.

I think any employee equity adjudication would show that this job is far more important than this job, but given the job market we are in, why would this government, which is practising constraint and this ministry which is cutting back and doing all these things, waste $10,548 on an ad when he would probably get hundreds of applicants if he had run three lines? Could he justify that?

Hon Mr Hampton: A couple of points: One of the things we have said to the public, and we have said it very clearly, is this: When we have positions either in the civil service or with related boards, agencies and commissions that are important positions, we will advertise those positions so that they are widely known, so that everyone in Ontario and indeed outside Ontario will have an opportunity to apply for those positions. That is called fairness and we're interested in fairness.

Second, I believe the members opposite should know, because they left us with the mess, that the Assessment Review Board has recently undergone a reorganization to result in greater efficiencies. Part of that reorganization is to locate the kinds of skills and abilities in executive positions that will allow that position to work through the backlogs we inherited from the former government.

Yes, it's a $10,000 ad. It will help that board reorganize its capacities to deal with very important work. Yes, we believe in fairness. We believe that people across this province should know about these important positions.

1450

AGRICULTURAL FUNDING

Mr Noble Villeneuve (S-D-G & East Grenville): To the Treasurer: The government last fall announced $35.5 million to support agriculture in really tough times. Then of course the Treasurer came along and took some of that money back even though the question of adequate compensation for drought in the southwestern areas of Kent, Essex and Lambton was never resolved. Treasurer, you met with farm and municipal representatives on June 25 last. Can you tell us today that you will be coming forth with some support for that area?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Treasurer and Minister of Economics): The member for S-D-G & East Grenville is correct that there was $35.5 million allocated to the farm income assistance program for 1991-92. Out of that $35.5 million there was $5.9 million, I believe, that was not spent. I understand why the member of the Conservative caucus wants us to spend that money. But I think he would also understand that in a time when we're trying to listen to cries from his colleagues in his caucus that we should be saving every penny we possibly can, we're not prepared to bump up the assistance any more than we already have.

Mr Villeneuve: Treasurer, you allocated that money to agriculture. Then you took it away. That to me is not being sound government, particularly in an area where it was very drastically required. That is what you call Indian giving.

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Natural Resources and Minister Responsible for Native Affairs): Order, order.

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation and Minister Responsible for Francophone Affairs): Come on; come on.

Interjections.

Mr Villeneuve: I will withdraw, Mr Speaker. That is what you call not keeping your word. It's withdrawing the money that was provided to agriculture. In 1991 this unfairness worked very much to the disadvantage of producers in Essex, Kent and Lambton who suffered severe drought losses and came to this Legislature asking for some $20 million just to cover those three counties.

In 1991 the formula for the proposed projects was wrong and it was corrected. With a corrected formula, agriculture should be getting considerably more money. You cut them in the budget. You withdrew almost $6 million from the $35.5 million. Treasurer, you owe agriculture some funding. When will it come forth?

Hon Mr Laughren: I just realized that the Minister of Agriculture and Food is here. I wouldn't be answering this question if I'd realized it earlier. To be fair, the money wasn't yanked out of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food; it was reallocated for other programs within the Ministry of Agriculture and Food. It's not fair for the member to imply or state directly that this money was taken away from the agricultural community. That's simply not the case.

Interjection.

Hon Mr Laughren: One of the members wants to know what we did with it. I believe we put it into other programs such as the farm tax rebate program.

The member is not being fair when he implies that we didn't put this money back into the agricultural community. It's my understanding that's exactly what we did do, although there was underspending in that one particular program.

The members of the Conservative caucus in this Legislature have to get their act together with some degree of consistency. Here we go again, demanding that we save money across government, and the very next question they're on their feet saying, "You should be spending more money." If that party was in office, it would drive this province into bankruptcy.

WASTE DISPOSAL

Mr Ron Hansen (Lincoln): My question is to the Minister of the Environment. Madam Minister, as you know, an environmental assessment hearing board is currently considering the proposal --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Would the member take his seat.

Interjections.

The Speaker: The member for Lincoln.

Mr Hansen: Madam Minister, as you know, an environmental assessment hearing board is currently considering the proposal by the Ontario Waste Management Corp to build a giant toxic waste treatment facility in my riding of Lincoln. Originally these hearings were supposed to last for a couple of months, but they've dragged on for a couple of years, costing over $110 million. Can the minister please tell me and the residents of Lincoln when they can expect the hearings to finally come to an end?

Interjection.

Hon Ruth A. Grier (Minister of the Environment): A very good question, as my colleague the Treasurer is saying. As the member is aware, this is a facility for which a province-wide search was conducted to find the best possible site anywhere in Ontario for toxic waste. The hearing has dragged on now for several years, but I'm glad to be able to tell you, Mr Speaker, and the House and the province and the Treasurer, that it is anticipated the hearing will finish the hearing of evidence by September 1992, later on this year. I understand there will then be a brief pause while the participants prepare their final briefings and arguments, and the board will convene in late November or early December in order to hear argument.

Mr Hansen: Once the recommendation is made by the board, who will make the final decision concerning the Ontario Waste Management Corp's proposal?

Hon Mrs Grier: Let me answer that in two parts. First, let me say to the member and to anyone who is interested in this facility that there is a very firm distinction between the decision about the environmental assessment and the decision then as to whether or not a facility should be constructed in accordance with that decision, whatever it is. But when the board has made its decision, that decision will be reviewed by cabinet, so the final decision will be made there.

LANDFILL

Mr Charles Beer (York North): My question is to the Minister of the Environment. Minister, I want to take you back to the letter that was sent to you by Eldred King, the chairman of the regional municipality of York, who said very clearly in his letter that there is only one agreement between Metro and York, and that is the one that relates to the Keele Valley landfill site only. I am quoting what Mr King says, "There is absolutely no other agreement between Metro Toronto and York region beyond the completion of the Keele Valley site."

Minister, will you please make clear in this House that indeed there is no agreement beyond the Keele Valley landfill site or, if there is some agreement, will you table it here in this House? There is tremendous confusion being caused by your public statements. Minister, is it not true there is but one agreement between York region and Metro, and that is to do with Keele Valley, and there is no other agreement at all?

1500

Hon Ruth A. Grier (Minister of the Environment and Minister Responsible for the Greater Toronto Area): There is only the agreement the member has referred to between Metro and York, which applies to the use of the Keele Valley site by Metro and York, and then has within it the provision that in fact if a new site is found, I think the phrasing is:

"If Metro applies to the regional corporation for consent to use any site within the regional area other than the Maple site as a site for receiving, dumping or disposing of waste, such application will be treated as a new application and will be subject to such terms and conditions as may be applied by the regional corporation at the time of such application."

Mr Beer: Then very clearly, Minister, there is no agreement. Now let us end the other canard in this whole matter, which is when you say there is some special relationship between Metropolitan Toronto and York, which therefore means York must accept this huge megadump to handle Metro and York's garbage.

Clearly, Minister, by putting into Bill 143 that York region had to take Metro's garbage, there is no precedent for that, there has been no discussion with York region about that, there has been no understanding with York region on that point. As I asked you last week, and knowing now that there is no agreement, why is it that York region shall -- must -- accept the garbage from Metropolitan Toronto? What is the reason why you put that into the bill to ensure that it would happen?

Hon Mrs Grier: It's the question I've answered many times before. That provision is in Bill 143 because of the agreement we've been discussing today, which specified that York and Metro have a special relationship with respect to dealing with their waste for at least 20 years after the coming into force or the operation of the Keele Valley landfill site, which I think was in 1984.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): My question is to the Minister of the Environment as well. I was hoping to ask the Premier a question on the Constitution but, seeing as he's left, I'll direct my question to the Minister of the Environment.

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): He wouldn't be here now. He's busy watching afternoon TV programs.

Mr Stockwell: I imagine that's right. If Mr Bourassa's not on, maybe he's catching Family Feud.

This minister is twisting the truth, and I'll be very categoric about that statement. The truth is, Metropolitan Toronto and York region did make a deal, yes. They made a deal on a site at Keele Valley, yes. That deal had to do with 20 million tonnes of garbage or 20 years, whichever came first. Once that was reached, there was no new deal. There were no new sites. There was no new agreement. If they wanted to dump more garbage in Keele or in York, they would have to make separate application to council and it would be a separate decision.

My question to the minister is this: Minister, you have given the distinct impression to the people in the GTA that there is some kind of commitment out there between York and Metro for York to take Metro's garbage. That is patently untrue -- not true -- and is not the case. My question is this: Why are you forcing York region to take Metropolitan Toronto garbage when you abrogated the original deal by expanding Keele Valley? Your suggestion that it was 20 years is factually wrong, because they're going to reach peak long before 20 years.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Will the member conclude his question, please.

Mr Stockwell: The question: Why are you insisting on pretending there's a deal between York and Metro when that deal simply does not exist?

Hon Mrs Grier: When the question has been asked before, it's been why did I continue in 143 the arrangement that had previously been agreed to. I continued in 143 the one area for the disposal of waste, being York region and Metropolitan Toronto, because that had been the historical and the traditional arrangement between York and Metro, starting with the agreement to which reference has been made today.

The Speaker: The time for oral questions has expired.

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

Mr Cooke moved that Mr White and Mr Mills exchange places in order of precedence for private members' public business and that the requirement for notice be waived.

Motion agreed to.

HOUSE SITTING

Mr Cooke moved that notwithstanding standing order 9(a), the House shall continue to meet until 10 this evening, when the Speaker shall adjourn the House without motion until the next sessional day.

Motion agreed to.

PETITIONS

MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES

Mr Ron Eddy (Brant-Haldimand): I have a petition.

"To the Legislature of Ontario:

"Whereas the report of Mr John Brant, arbitrator for the greater London area, has recommended a massive, unwarranted and unprecedented annexation by the city of London;

"Whereas the arbitration process was a patently undemocratic process resulting in recommendations which blatantly disregard the public input expressed during the public hearings;

"Whereas the implementation of the arbitrator's report will lead to a destruction of the way of life enjoyed by the current residents of the county of Middlesex and will result in the relevant portions of Middlesex potentially not being economically viable,

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

"That the Legislature of Ontario reject the arbitrator's report for the greater London area in its entirety, condemn the arbitration process to resolve municipal boundary issues as being patently an undemocratic process and reject the recommendation of a massive annexation of land by the city of London."

It's signed by 199 residents of the county of Middlesex, and I've affixed my signature.

GAMBLING

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): I have a petition today signed by 80 residents of Ontario, including many people in my riding, from West Garafraxa township, Fergus, Arthur, Bellwood and so on. It reads as follows:

"Whereas the NDP government is considering legalizing casinos and video lottery terminals in the province of Ontario; and

"Whereas there is great public concern about the negative impact that will result from the abovementioned implementations,

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

"That the government stop looking to casinos and video lottery terminals as a 'quick-fix' solution to its fiscal problems and concentrate instead on eliminating wasteful government spending."

I have affixed my signature to this petition.

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a petition I wish the Premier were here to hear, but he left halfway through question period, as usual. It's to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas Premier Rae of the province of Ontario has forced upon the Ontario Legislature a change in the rules governing the procedures to be followed in the House; and

"Whereas Premier Rae has removed from members of the opposition the ability to properly debate and discuss legislation and policy in the Legislature by limiting the length of time a member may speak to only 30 minutes; and

"Whereas Premier Rae, who once defended the democratic rights of the opposition and utilized the former rules to full advantage in his former capacity as leader of the official opposition, has now empowered his ministers to determine unilaterally the amount of time to be allocated to debate bills they initiate; and

"Whereas Premier Rae has reduced the number of days the Legislative Assembly will be in session, thereby ensuring fewer question periods and less access for the news media to provincial cabinet ministers; and

"Whereas Premier Rae has diminished the role of the neutral, elected Speaker by removing from that person the power to determine the question of whether a debate has been sufficient on any matter before the House; and

"Whereas Premier Rae has concentrated power in the Office of the Premier and severely diminished the role of elected members of the Legislative Assembly, who are accountable to the people who elect them,

"We, the undersigned, call upon Premier Rae to withdraw the rule changes imposed upon the Legislature by his majority government and restore the rules of procedure in effect previous to June 22, 1992."

This is signed by several interested citizens in Ontario. I have affixed my signature to this document in agreement with it.

1510

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): "Whereas the proposed changes to the Labour Relations Act reflect the fact that more women, more members of visible minorities and more part-time employees are in the workforce today than ever before; and

"Whereas these workers deserve the same access to the right to join together and bargain collectively as workers have had in the past under the act, which has tended to serve men working in large factories; and

"Whereas the proposed changes to the Labour Relations Act will bring about greater worker participation and reduced conflict and confrontation in labour-management relations,

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

"That the Ontario government and all the members of the Legislature effect speedy passage of the changes to the Ontario Labour Relations Act, so as to promote better labour-management relations and to provide women, visible minorities and part-time workers with the same rights as other workers have under the act."

I sign my name to this petition.

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas Premier Rae of the province of Ontario has forced upon the Ontario Legislature a change in the rules governing the procedures to be followed in the House; and

"Whereas Premier Rae has removed from members of the opposition the ability to properly debate and discuss legislation and policy in the Legislature by limiting the length of time a member may speak to only 30 minutes; and

"Whereas Premier Rae, who once defended the democratic rights of the opposition and utilized the former rules to full advantage in his former capacity as leader of the official opposition, has now empowered his ministers to determine unilaterally the amount of time to be allocated to debate bills they initiate; and

"Whereas Premier Rae has reduced the number of days that the Legislative Assembly will be in session, thereby ensuring fewer question periods and less access for the news media to provincial cabinet ministers; and

"Whereas Premier Rae has diminished the role of the neutral, elected Speaker by removing from that person the power to determine the question of whether a debate has been sufficient on any matter before the House; and

"Whereas Premier Rae has concentrated power in the Office of the Premier and severely diminished the role of elected members of the Legislative Assembly, who are accountable to the people who elect them,

"We, the undersigned, call upon Premier Rae to withdraw the rules changes imposed upon the Legislature by his majority government and restore the rules of procedure in effect previous to June 22, 1992."

It is signed by several people, and I affix my signature to it as well.

LANDFILL

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly.

"Whereas the town of Whitchurch-Stouffville has traditionally been a mixture of agricultural and residential land, both areas would be drastically affected by a megadump; and

"Whereas the Interim Waste Authority has identified sites in the town that would consume large tracts of class 1 and 2 farm land, the areas identified by the Interim Waste Authority would severely interrupt the vibrant agricultural community. The farm families in these areas have continued to invest large sums of money into their farm lands. These communities would be destroyed by the Interim Waste Authority putting in a megadump; and

"Whereas most of the people in Whitchurch-Stouffville depend on groundwater for their drinking water and the dump would threaten their clean water supply; and

"Whereas the effects of the megadump would destroy local economies of these communities,

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly as follows:

"We oppose the Interim Waste Authority's proposal to take prime farm land in the heart of the town and turn it into Metro's and York's megadump.

"We further petition the Legislative Assembly to seek and entertain alternatives to landfill and to implement aggressive reduction, reuse and recycling programs."

I sign my name.

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

Mr Remo Mancini (Essex South): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas Premier Rae of the province of Ontario has forced upon the Ontario Legislature a change in the rules governing the procedures to be followed in the House; and

"Whereas Premier Rae has removed from members of the opposition the ability to properly debate and discuss legislation and policy in the Legislature by limiting the length of time a member may speak to only 30 minutes; and

"Whereas Premier Rae, who once defended the democratic rights of the opposition and utilized the former rules to full advantage in his former capacity as leader of the official opposition, has now empowered his ministers to determine unilaterally the amount of time to be allocated to debate bills they initiate; and

"Whereas Premier Rae has reduced the number of days that the Legislative Assembly will be in session, thereby ensuring fewer question periods and less access for the news media to provincial cabinet ministers; and

"Whereas Premier Rae has diminished the role of the neutral, elected Speaker by removing from that person the power to determine the question of whether a debate has been sufficient on any matter before the House; and

"Whereas Premier Rae has concentrated power in the Office of the Premier and severely diminished the role of elected members of the Legislative Assembly, who are accountable to the people who elect them,

"We, the undersigned, call upon Premier Rae to withdraw the rules changes imposed upon the Legislature by his majority government and restore the rules of procedure in effect previous to June 22, 1992."

I affix my own signature to the number of signatures that are on this petition.

LANDFILL

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): I have another 2,000 signatures from the people in Markham, Unionville, Thornhill, Milliken and Locust Hill concerned with the choice of dump sites.

"We, the undersigned, hereby call on the government of Ontario to discontinue the consideration of locating a waste disposal site in Markham M6, 11th Concession, south of Locust Hill, and in Markham M3, between McCowan and Kennedy north of 16th, and in all other areas that are located in the immediate vicinity of environmentally sensitive areas of York region."

I have affixed my signature on this petition for consideration by the government.

MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES

Mrs Irene Mathyssen (Middlesex): I have a petition signed by 56 residents of the county of Middlesex, who ask the Legislative Assembly to set aside the arbitrator's report for the greater London area so that agricultural land can be protected. They have requested that the size of the annexation be reduced and they also ask the Legislative Assembly to be mindful of the rural way of life in Middlesex.

I have signed my name to this petition.

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

Mr Ian G. Scott (St George-St David): I have a petition signed by a number of persons.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas Premier Bob Rae of the province of Ontario has forced upon the Ontario Legislature a change in the rules governing the procedures to be followed in the House; and

"Whereas Premier Rae has removed from members of the opposition the ability to properly debate and discuss legislation and policy in the Legislature by limiting the length of time a member may speak to only 30 minutes; and

"Whereas Premier Rae, who once defended the democratic rights of the opposition and utilized the former rules to full advantage in his former capacity as leader of the official opposition, has now empowered his ministers to determine unilaterally the amount of time to be allocated to debate bills they initiate; and

"Whereas Premier Rae has reduced the number of days that the Legislative Assembly will be in session, thereby ensuring fewer question periods and less access for the news media to provincial cabinet ministers; and

"Whereas Premier Bob Rae has diminished the role of the neutral, elected Speaker" -- that's you, Mr Speaker -- "by removing from that person the power to determine the question of whether a debate has been sufficient on any matter before the House; and

"Whereas Premier Bob Rae has concentrated power in the Office of the Premier and severely diminished the role of elected members of the Legislative Assembly, who are accountable to the people who elect them; and

"Whereas Bob Rae has some nutty ideas about the Senate of Canada, which really worry us,

"We, the undersigned, call upon Premier Rae to withdraw the rules changes imposed upon the Legislature by his majority government and restore the rules of procedure in effect previous to June 22, 1992."

That, Mr Speaker, you will be pleased to hear, is signed by a number of people, and I am happy to sign it as well.

1520

LANDFILL

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): Mr Speaker, I have a petition here to the Legislative Assembly.

"Whereas the town of East Gwillimbury has traditionally been a mixture of agricultural and residential land; both areas would be drastically affected by a megadump. The town possesses a significant amount of land which has historically been and remains devoted primarily to agriculture; and

"Whereas the historical significance of our area is typified by the Sharon Temple and its many patrons, and the pastoral quality has considerable significance to this area; and

"Whereas the effects of a megadump to the water supply of this area would be catastrophic to the township of East Gwillimbury, the water supplies of the Newmarket and Aurora area,

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

"We oppose the Interim Waste Authority's proposal to take prime farm land of historical significance in East Gwillimbury to turn it into Metro and York's megadump, and

"We further petition the Legislative Assembly to renew and seek to entertain alternatives to landfill and to implement aggressive reduction, reuse and recycling programs."

I sign my name to this.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

SCHOOL BOARD FINANCE STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE LE FINANCEMENT DES CONSEILS SCOLAIRES

Mr Silipo moved third reading of Bill 27, An Act to amend the Education Act and certain other Acts in respect of School Board Finance / Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'éducation et certaines autres lois en ce qui concerne le financement des conseils scolaires.

Hon Tony Silipo (Minister of Education): Mr Speaker, I think I made the comments that I wanted to make on this bill on second reading, so I'll just listen to further debate.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Are there any other members who wish to participate in this debate?

Mr Charles Beer (York North): I want to make just a few comments on third reading because I think that this particular bill, while it speaks to a number of specific issues that deal with the financing of school boards, none the less underlines, and I think that in this place we want to stress, the need for fundamental reform of the educational financing system. I would certainly say to the minister that the next time we debate educational financing in this House indeed we will be looking at very significant proposals from the government that are directed to putting the whole educational financing system on a much firmer basis.

The minister will know -- and we have raised it in this debate, raised it in estimates and raised it in questions over the last couple of years -- that there are a number of specific concerns that school boards would want raised and feel are very important to be settled.

The first, of course, is the issue around 60%. I believe the other day in our estimates discussion the minister said that it is still his belief that there should be a 60% figure and that the Ontario government should be funding 60% of the system. The minister also recognized that what had happened was that at the present time we're looking at about 40% across the province, with 60% being funded by the boards themselves.

A number of the studies that are under way looking at education financing are supposed to be completed over the course of the next number of months. The minister indicated that in September the property tax working group of the Fair Tax Commission is going to be bringing in its report. He has said that early in 1993, in January, proposals will be going to cabinet to reform the system. Again in our discussions he has indicated that it is hoped that a number, if not all, of those changes will be able to be in place for the next fiscal year and that those proposals will go forward.

I think it's just very important that we remind the minister and underline for the minister how important that issue is.

Earlier today my colleague from London North read a statement with respect to education, noting in particular a number of the very important programs that are being directly affected by the lack of funding by the province to school boards, and the simple fact that because this year only 1% was transferred to school boards these important programs have had to be cut back.

What is of real concern to so many of us is that the programs that have been cut far too often are related to special education, to programs for children with special needs. That is something I think in this province we simply can't afford. We've got to ensure that all the young people in this province, no matter where they live in this province and no matter whether they are within a public board's jurisdiction or a separate board's jurisdiction, are going to be able to receive and have access to the same high quality of education that we would want all of them to have.

I think when we talk to not only trustees on school boards but to teachers, and most important when we talk to parents, what people in this province want is a fair funding system. They want to ensure that young people, whether in the separate schools or the public schools, are going to have access to the kinds of programs they require and that the way in which the funding is set out will be more equitable.

Clearly one of the key questions that raises for the minister is the place of the property tax and other local taxes in funding that system. How much should be coming from the provincial income tax? We've discussed again the importance of ensuring local accountability so that school boards are raising some of the funds that they are going to expend on education. I think that is something we would all agree to, but clearly we know that the system is out of whack when in this particular year the load on school boards has in fact increased, and where because of the very low transfer payments they simply are not able to maintain the range of programs and the quality of programs that they have had in the past.

This is a very serious issue. It's one that is raised when one goes out and speaks to groups interested in education. There is a real fear that because of the financial crunch the kind of education that young people today entering the system are going to receive, as compared to earlier times, is going to be inferior; that there simply will not be resources, human and physical, to ensure that education is at the level we would want to see it.

I would simply say to the minister that while many of the changes that are suggested in this particular bill speak to earlier decisions and continue from various discussions and plans that were being discussed several years ago, the fundamental issue on everyone's mind is around how we are going to change the way in which we finance elementary and secondary education. He has a responsibility as minister to ensure that his timetable is met.

We will certainly be looking forward to seeing specific proposals that we are going to be able to debate, and that all of those interested in the educational system are going to be able to debate, so that by the next fiscal year everyone in this province, whether as a taxpayer or a person interested in quality education, is going to see changes that will make the system work far more effectively than it does today.

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): Last Thursday when we were dealing with second reading I raised the incident, reported in the newspapers, that indicated the Minister of Education had intervened in discussing what would be appropriate levels of reimbursement for the teachers of this province by indicating that teachers had better back off on their request for increases in salary and benefits. I raised that in the course of questions and comments to the member for York North's speech of that day, fully anticipating, however, that the Minister of Education would have stood in his place in windup of that second reading debate indicating what his true intention was.

When we speak about an intention personally to carry 60% funding from the province to the local school boards for funding education it makes a great deal of difference if the Minister of Education of the day is also saying that there are to be no increases in payments to teachers, either by way of salary or benefits.

1530

I think, if the report from that particular newspaper is accurate, the Minister of Education should in fact stand and tell us that is their policy, that he is telling the teachers of the province there are no increases in salary or benefits over the next few years so that his ministry can then transfer fully 60% of the moneys needed to meet the payments of the local school boards. That is for my friend the member for York North to comment on in his final two minutes.

I also wish to bring to the attention of other people that while we seem to think here that we are the only ones who are concerned about school costs and otherwise, I had a very stirring discussion with a former member for Bruce, Ross Whicher, in the town of Wiarton not that long ago and it is on his mind as one of the really major concerns for our democratic society. More on that later.

The Deputy Speaker: Further questions or comments?

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I was waiting for the member to deal with certain other issues that have arisen that are related to this bill, no doubt, and one in fact was the issue that was raised by my colleague the member for Bruce about the rate of remuneration for teachers in Ontario.

I know that people like Liz Barclay and Larry French of the Ontario Teachers' Federation affiliate the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation, Malcolm Buchanan and Menno Vorster and Jim Head, all of those people who were strong supporters of the NDP in the past, including a good friend of mine Rod Albert, will be wondering why the Minister of Education, who benefited from this act of support from at least the leadership of the teachers' federations, would be telling teachers once he's elected that they should be taking less pay, that they should be lowering their requests for benefits, that they should not be working towards better working conditions.

He continues to impose upon the boards of education very onerous programs that require the boards to spend money on those programs. They're happy to do so as long as the province is paying its fair share. But rather than the province assuming 60% of the cost of education, in fact the province has a diminishing percentage of the cost of education it's paying.

I know that many people in the teachers' federations who had the daily bulletins on the bulletin board saying what wonderful things the NDP was going to do for them would be disappointed to hear that the minister on many occasions has now told boards to be creative, teachers to lower their demands and so on. This would have been much more effective if, during the election campaign, he had been prepared to say that. Some would say it is politically opportunistic to do so today as opposed to then. I wondered whether my friend the critic for the Liberal Party was prepared to deal with that matter.

The Deputy Speaker: Further questions or comments? If not, the minister of York North, you have two more minutes.

Mr Beer: Mr Speaker, I'm glad to learn that I'm the minister of York North. I'm not quite sure what that entails, but I accept the nomination.

I would like to thank my colleagues the member for Bruce and the member for St Catharines for again underlining the real problem that school boards have faced because of the funding policies of this government. Clearly with a 1% transfer it is indeed impossible to then be able to maintain all of the programs as well as to bring in salary and benefit changes that go beyond that. There have been any number of questions from this side of the House, trying to get the Minister of Education to indicate more clearly what specifically he is prepared to do on that matter.

We have suggested at different times that clearly, given the nature of the crisis the system faces, the minister has to bring together all of the key stakeholders to look at what that balance is going to be, what kind of dollars we can be looking at in terms of salary and other remunerations and where the dollars are that we are really going to need in the classroom to ensure that the kids who are there get the kind of education they want.

I think both boards and teachers need a much clearer sense of direction from the minister beyond simply saying, "Look, try to cooperate, try to work in a coordinated way together." I think far too often boards feel they are being left to the side or various teachers' organizations are not quite sure what the message is that in fact is coming from this government.

But at the root of that problem, as well as at the root of all the problems around program cutbacks and needed services that are being cut back, is the fundamental educational funding policy of this government. It's why I say to the minister that the next time we have a major debate on funding in this House, it must be around real change to the current system.

The Deputy Speaker: Are there any other members who wish to participate in this debate?

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): I'm taking the opportunity to speak to Bill 27, the School Board Finance Statute Law Amendment Act. I'll begin by saying this: There are a lot of things I think we ought to be talking about, a lot of issues in education, a lot of priorities that we haven't had an opportunity to address. Certainly many conditions in the province of Ontario with regard to finance, with regard to curriculum, with regard to parent input, with regard to matters that have come before the standing committee of the Legislative Assembly over the past four or five years that I've been involved in it, have never, ever had the opportunity to reach legislation in this Legislative Assembly with the input from the many individuals and students and parents we represent.

But here today we find ourselves talking about finance. Instead of talking about some of the curriculum changes and training changes we need, instead of talking about the tremendous challenge we have in providing capital dollars to our education system and whether or not we can be more efficient with the sharing of facilities, instead of talking about whether we have early childhood education or day care in our school system, we find ourselves talking about something that is actually being spoken about at great length in another committee -- not a committee, but certainly in another area within our purview, and that is the property tax group or the Fair Tax Commission, which was also mentioned by the member for York North in his address today.

It's extremely frustrating to keep our comments on this particular bill, because in fact we thought these kinds of things would be discussed at great length and brought along with other recommendations with regard to changing the fundamental taxation and funding of our education systems here in Ontario. But since it is here, I'll speak specifically to two parts.

The non-share capital corporations, which are sections 1, 2, 4, 6 and 7 of the legislation, certainly will make a difference with regard to the funding that goes to separate school boards. I think I'm correct when I say that the Ontario Public Education Network commissioned its own impact study, which indicated that it would cost the province $414 million to fully compensate public boards. With this piece of legislation, I think we're looking at the last piece, some $80 million -- I believe that would be the correct number; I stand to be corrected -- but I'm pretty certain that we're talking $60 million to $80 million in this last piece that should in fact go to the separate school boards.

It is with the understanding, I think, that there be no loss to public boards. That was the promise with the implementation of Bill 30. We're speaking in favour of this piece of legislation today because we feel the minister will in fact keep that promise to the public boards, so we'll be looking very carefully to the mathematics and the implementation, financially, of it to make certain that this promise is kept. All three parties were part of it, and it's my understanding that this will be at the top of the priority list of the minister upon implementation, so that's why we're speaking in favour.

There's another section I'd like to spend just a minute on. It's the borrowing powers, which is section 3. I'm sure the minister wishes he would not have to bring this one before this House in the form of legislation. For the first time, I find myself finding in legislation encouragement to school boards, in effect, to borrow because of a track record. This track record, it's my understanding, would go to the Ottawa-Carleton French-language school board, which finds itself accumulating a deficit of some $19 million for 1991.

This is of tremendous concern. Everybody, it seems to me, would like to see the success of French-language school boards. There's no doubt in my mind. But we have to have some accountability in finance before we can expand these boards and support them, or any school board. Now we find ourselves looking at many of the separate school boards that find themselves in debt. What are we saying through this piece of legislation today?

1540

We're legislating the borrowing powers of school boards. We are now saying in the act:

"(7) A board may borrow more than the amount authorized to be borrowed under the other provisions of this section if,

"(a) at the time of borrowing, control over the administration of the board is vested in the Ministry of Municipal Affairs under part III of the Municipal Affairs Act; and

"(b) the Minister of Education approves the borrowing."

I just have to say I never thought in all the years that the minister, myself and the member for York North have been involved in education that we would find ourselves looking at school boards in this province, whether they be public, separate or French-language, having to borrow money to operate on a day-to-day basis.

That tells us something about the concern of financing in Ontario, with particular focus on school boards that have the right to go back to the public, in most instances, to raise money. We're not only allowing them, by looking the other way, according to the present legislation, to borrow money; we now say we're in such dire straits we're giving them the authority under the law to borrow money. I never thought in all the years I or my colleagues in this caucus or other members of this House have been personally involved in sitting on school boards we would ever we see a piece of legislation come before us like this.

By supporting this -- and not all of my caucus colleagues do that; I underline that we all have our reasons for supporting or otherwise -- we can only support it because we have no choice. We're absolutely desperate in Ontario, and I now have to say I wonder why.

After 42 years of government under the Progressive Conservatives, we never had to do this. We built the schools and we managed them. When I came down here in 1988, we were looking at some $20 billion in deficit in this province. It's one of the reasons I let my name stand for election. I now look across at my Liberal colleagues, who increased the deficit by some $10 billion or more, half of what we had, and now we have a debt of some $30 billion in Ontario. This government is promising $10 billion a year more debt, at the end of its tenure in office we're looking at some $80 billion and now I'm being asked to support this legislation, which I have no choice but to do because some children may not be in school if I don't do it.

Needless to say, I'm perturbed. I can't stand the interjections of the Liberals who seem to be so righteous from time to time, and they did such a rotten job of managing the finances of the education system in this province. Now we're looking to this government for some leadership, because it's here for three more years, and we have to solve the problems.

Interjections.

Mrs Cunningham: In spite of interjections from some of my favourite ministers, I have to tell you we have to put our collective heads together and solve the problem. This one is not solving the problem except in the short term.

I close my comments with this: Yes, today I did speak in this House and I made a statement on behalf of the concerns of a young man, a legislative page, who had spent his time here. His name is Brandon Bruce Sheppard. He wrote this statement because he was concerned.

In his town of Tillsonburg, because of the existing financial crisis in education, poor management by governments, both the provincial government and school boards -- I have to say that -- and with regard to what the Liberals said about teacher expectation and promises, it's all just a pile of crap. We cannot afford increased wages. We cannot afford more benefits. We all have to pull up our socks and make sure the next generation of young people will get a quality education and that it won't get saddled with the burden of debt.

So hats off to the young people who take the time to write a statement like this and say: "Look, people aren't paying taxes, and at the same time we're losing things in education. We're losing our special education programs. Our system is crumbling." That's what a young, 11- or 12-year-old boy wrote and we haven't got the intestinal fortitude to sit down and solve the problem. What it means is that people won't get as much.

We won't be able to afford to do the kinds of things we did in the past unless we get this big bureaucracy under control and start putting money in the classroom with the teacher and the child and get rid of everything else. I'm now talking about special education children, young people who need training and everybody else who deserves at least what we had when we were growing up in this great province.

Thank you for the opportunity, Mr Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker: Questions and comments?

Mr Beer: I think the member for London North always brings out a number of key points. Her first one is that far too seldom in this House do we really debate the more fundamental issues around education. By the nature of the legislative process, we end up talking about many specific, what we often call "housekeeping," bills but rarely do we get to talk about the specifics around where do we want to go with special education, what do we see as the future of junior kindergarten, of destreaming; there is simply a whole host of issues about the direction of our educational system that I think we really ought to debate in this House more frequently, because those are questions that people certainly are bringing to us in our constituency offices or issues that are being raised when we are out talking with school boards.

I think as well that the member for London North quite correctly noted that in the changes that are going to be brought about in terms of funding the separate school system there was a commitment made by the former government and continued by this government that stated that the public boards would not lose moneys. The figure of $80 million the member for London North referred to is one that I referred to last week in the debate on second reading, and I think that is correct.

I simply say to the member that my own discussions with people throughout the province have indicated that teachers, parents, trustees, taxpayers -- everyone -- are concerned about the health of our system and are anxious to come together to find some way to resolve the fundamental funding problems we have. But clearly the way we're going to do it is by bringing people together and working together. I think if we can do that, we will then see across the board much better wage settlements as well as a much fairer, more equitable funding situation on the part of the province with respect to school boards.

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): I would just like to congratulate the member for London North on her presentation and comments on this bill this afternoon.

I want to say to her that I don't think anybody understands better than I do the real mess we are in in this province with education funding. We have had two successive governments, the Liberal government and now the New Democratic government, that have mandated educational programs and policies without ever talking to anybody. They don't talk to the school boards.

In my riding we have an example. The Minister of Education is here. He may recall that two weeks ago I stood in this House -- at 11:30 at night, as a matter of fact -- and for half an hour explained areas I have very real concern about in my riding regarding much-needed funding. The interesting thing is that one of the areas I talked about that night with the minister present -- I must say, he also was here until midnight that night -- was St James School.

St James is a small elementary school of the Dufferin-Peel separate school board. St James has been the top priority of the Dufferin-Peel separate school board for renovation for the last two years. They asked for $2.5 million. Last week the minister's staff announced that this school would get $1 million. The irony is that I've been asking for that school's addition and renovation since the Liberals were in government. For seven years we've been asking for this funding. When I started asking seven years ago, it was $1 million. It now is $2.5 million, because that's what it costs. That's an indication where the underfunding in this province is costing the taxpayers more money.

1550

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): I'm delighted to add a few comments to the speech from the member for London North. When I was in the previous Parliament, I had the honour for two years to chair the select committee on education. It was an all-party committee whose members, by and large, dealt very well with one another and tried to reach some consensus on education issues.

One of the topics we looked at very extensively was the financing of education. I find the remarks of the member for London North, also substantiated by the member for Mississauga South, to be somewhat strange, because when we were looking at the financing of education, the Conservative members on the committee certainly did not feel that the Liberal government was making a mess of the financing of education and agreed in fact with most of the programs we were bringing in. In fact, we had a unanimous report come out of the select committee on education; a committee that came up with a unanimous report.

We said a number of things. We said that the financing of education was too complicated, that it needed to be explained in much greater depth, particularly to the school boards which were having difficulty understanding it. This was a system that was developed under the Conservative government, I might add.

We made other recommendations, but at no stage did the Conservative members say that the Liberal government's direction in education was wrong. So I'm very surprised that several years after the fact, we find Conservative members now on the attack, saying that the whole world has gone to hell in a handbasket.

I don't like the fact that we're getting into partisan issues here. I would rather we reiterate what the member for London North also said and look at the children, look at the programs they need, look at what our education system needs, and not just fall back to partisan attacks.

Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): I want to make a few comments. I'm not going to do it in any partisan way, because education is far too important a subject to be cut and thrust in terms of partisanship, but I would like to make a few comments.

The cost of education in my community, in terms of the burden, is directly related to the number of new subdivisions being built. In the context of the building of these subdivisions, they do not put in the facilities that are necessary for the people who live there to participate with.

For example, in Ajax alone, we know that over $72 million worth of new schools are necessary because of the urban sprawl of the subdivisions. That's just the public system alone. In Pickering, we have almost the same number, both in the public and the separate school boards. It's important to understand that these costs have accumulated very rapidly over a short period of time.

One of the things that is also interesting to note is that when the member for London North was talking about special education, the cost of special education is very high because it needs very specialized people. The cost of failure to provide this, I think, is even higher in that we will then send out to the workforce people who are unable to work, unable to learn and unable to participate. This hurts us all in terms of their being not able to participate fully.

So it's a cost that is necessary but, as the member for London North said, in the 1950s, as the population was increasing, the schools were provided, but they were provided at a very high pupil-teacher ratio, which also kept the cost lower, in that you didn't have to have the same size of school. So these questions are very complex. Also, what didn't help in my riding, in particular, was the fact that the Durham Board of Education refused to debenture or borrow money to build schools, starting in 1972.

Mrs Cunningham: Some days it's not easy -- having been the chairman of a school board when the Liberals were in power -- not to be partisan.

I'm just going to tell you right now that one of the great concerns of school boards has been the mandating of programs here at Queen's Park and then asking the local taxpayer to pay for it. I know the member for Eglinton is very proud of her record. I wouldn't be particularly, because that is the government that mandated junior kindergarten, although this government's going to make sure it's implemented.

The worst thing they did was to mandate class size with no -- well, they did give some money that went with it initially. But they know that that's all within the first year or so -- actually it's in this year's budget -- and then it runs out, stops.

Mr Speaker, I have to tell you right now, this bill is about finance, and finance of education in this province has been discussed ad nauseam. If you're in power for four years and you had it on your plate when you got there and you haven't done anything about it after four years, I wouldn't be proud of that track record, not at all. This government has the responsibility, because it was one of the greatest critics, to do something about it.

The non-partisan part of this particular aspect is that we are looking at it right now along with the government, and my challenge is to do something about it. The government has told us it will have it completed in 1993-94 and I'm looking forward to it -- along with the change in the fiscal year; I just have to get that in while the minister's in the House.

The public of Ontario is fed up and sick of studies. We know what direction to move in when it comes to skills training and development and apprenticeship programs, and I would challenge the government to get that done during its term of office. We know what we should be doing when it comes to child care and early childhood education. We need public consultation to finish off the input from the public, of which it's had none. On that point, thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to respond.

The Deputy Speaker: Are there any other members who wish to participate in this debate?

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I'd like to participate in this debate even though I'm restricted under the new rules of Premier Bob Rae to 30 minutes to discuss a bill of this importance. However, I will try within the time that's allocated to me to make a few remarks that are relevant. Of course, I resent very much the fact that that's all I have, if I wanted to use 30 minutes, and that if I went any further the Sergeant at Arms would have to escort me from the room for engaging in the debate any longer than Bob Rae thought was necessary for members of the House.

This bill is most interesting in what it doesn't include as much as for what it does include. It's been described by many of the speakers today as a housekeeping kind of bill, something that fixes a few problems that are out there but doesn't address the fundamental problems that exist in terms of education finance in this province.

If we look at the plight of boards of education across Ontario now, we will see they have been hit with a 1% transfer increase from the province. Why this is particularly interesting is that the Premier of this province constantly whines at federal-provincial conferences and in this House and protests everywhere the fact that the federal government won't give him sufficient funds to carry out what he feels is his mandate and his responsibility. Yet his government does exactly the same thing to the municipalities, to the local transfer agencies, including the boards of education. For this reason, many of them feel betrayed, particularly those that listened to the promises of the last election campaign and watched how aggressive and determined the Leader of the Opposition and his colleagues were when they sat on this side of the House in wanting to advance more funds from the provincial Treasury to finance the cost of education so that the amount spent locally would not be so great.

If we look at the specific instances right now, every board is going through it. Every board is facing a difficult dilemma. That dilemma is this: Either you increase taxes and maintain the services, many of those services and programs mandated by the provincial government, or you have the other option of cutting services. Most boards in fact are engaging in both activities, and they are accepting the criticism, taking the flak, when in fact it is the provincial government which should be receiving that criticism.

I've received telephone calls and letters from time to time from parents who are concerned about the change in the transportation policy of the Lincoln County Board of Education, for instance. I'm sure the Lincoln County Board of Education would like nothing better than to maintain its policy of transportation with its wide-open boundaries, for students to have access to the various high schools in the city of St Catharines so they can take the subjects they want to take, so they can study in areas they feel familiar with and comfortable with and those areas that are going to be important to them in post-secondary education or when they go into the world of work.

These people previous to this year have had an opportunity to have transportation provided for them when they had to travel many miles across the city. The local board of education, the Lincoln County Board of Education, has been compelled to change that policy in an effort to limit some of its costs that are increasing rather drastically with the 1% transfer increase from the province. So that's one example, and there are so many examples.

The other example that comes to mind certainly emerges from Bill 82 and the implications of Bill 82. Those who were in the House at that time recall the great expectations flowing from the introduction, debate and implementation of Bill 82, a special education bill which would provide new and expanded services for those who found it difficult to cope with what we call the mainstream in education. Those people at long last had the opportunity to avail themselves of education, at an increased cost to the taxpayer of course, but probably in the long run at a diminished cost to the taxpayer, because these people could become much more productive members of the community if they were able to obtain the appropriate education.

Now we have this government that has said, and in the past was critical, when the previous Liberal government was transferring 6%, 7% and 8% to the boards of education across the province, that it was not enough. Those same boards must face a 1% increase this year from this government and they must wonder if it's the same people who sat on this side of the House, or in the past in another capacity as chair of a board of education or some other position, whether these are the same people.

We also look at library services, which are very important. The reason the investment in education is particularly important -- I am sure the Minister of Education and the Minister of Colleges and Universities both understand this and would like to have more money to spend and invest in that area -- is because we are in an extremely competitive world. The kids coming out of our school system today are going to have to compete with those in emerging countries, emerging in terms of their industrial capacity, their ability to trade effectively and their ability to play a key role in the world.

Many of the countries damaged by war in the Second World War, or considered to be Third World countries perhaps just a generation ago, are now becoming competitive and gearing their education system to producing the kind of students who can help those countries be competitive. That's why, when we look at the cutbacks taking place in education, we know a lot of people at the local level are going to be sad indeed.

The other option is putting up taxes. There isn't anybody in politics today who doesn't know that the public will not tolerate more taxes or is disappointed to receive a budget with more taxes. Governments face the dilemma: The Minister of Education weekly would meet with people who tell him they want more services. He faces the Treasurer who says we don't have the money to provide those expanded services. In fact, we may have to contract some of the services.

Mrs Marland: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'm sorry to interrupt the member for St Catharines, but since the government is so bent on us sitting in July to pass its important legislation it could at least hold a quorum and I don't believe a quorum is present.

The Deputy Speaker: Would you please check if there is a quorum?

The Deputy Speaker ordered the bells rung.

1604

The Deputy Speaker: A quorum is present.

Mr Bradley: I appreciate the member for Mississauga South ensuring that there are sufficient members in the House to make this a relevant debate this afternoon. One of the areas I wanted to discuss, as well, that the minister would be aware of in terms of costs incurred by local boards of education, is the transfer of schools. Of course this bill deals partially with the issue of transfer of schools.

When one of the boards loses its schools -- usually it's a public school board transferring to a Catholic school board in the province -- that board requires more accommodation for its students because it has to consolidate students in a number of other schools. The Lincoln County Board of Education, for instance, could use capital funding to accommodate those people who are now going to be concentrated, from the north end of St Catharines, from the four schools that existed in the public board to three schools. On the other hand, the Lincoln Catholic school board is going to require sufficient funding to be able to renovate and refurbish a school it would be receiving, or its other schools to ensure that it has proper accommodation for its students.

All this is done in the context of the fact that the minister, here in July, mid-July of 1992, has not yet announced the capital allotment for boards of education. This is an all-time record. Usually the boards are aware somewhat earlier in the year of what they might expect from the provincial government, from the Ministry of Education, in terms of capital grants. They can do no planning.

I suspect, though I cannot confirm this, that it is a plot by the government -- perhaps not the Minister of Education himself but by the government as a whole -- to leave the decision so late that most boards won't be able to take advantage of whatever money is forthcoming. That is just what they keep their fingers crossed for on the other side of the House.

I'm quite -- I was going to say I'm surprised but the member for Etobicoke West says I should be surprised at nothing this government does and perhaps he has a point there.

I also look at the fact that we want to put an emphasis on science, for instance, among other subjects. To place the necessary emphasis on science and technology, we have to have up-to-date equipment, yet we'll find shops throughout the province, we will find labs for science throughout the province that are ill-equipped, and libraries that don't have the necessary resources and books for the students who wish to take advantage of them.

Why is this happening? This is happening because this government has made a decision to transfer only a 1% increase in terms of education this year, and it was done at a time when many boards were in the middle of a contract. The Minister of Education and his colleagues and the previous Minister of Education didn't come to the boards and say, "Watch out, 1% is coming." When they assumed office, they just went on their merry way and gave no signal, so boards of education were signing contracts where their employees were receiving somewhat above the 1% which would now be suggested by the minister.

They're left in the lurch and the pressure is on those who work for boards of education to somehow give their money back, having negotiated in a collective bargaining climate they felt was fair and aboveboard and mutually acceptable to both sides.

We also look at French immersion programs, which are still popular in Ontario. When the crunch comes, certain programs will begin to be cut, and those who wanted their children to be able to know at least one other language and to be immersed in it, to be fluent in it, are losing that opportunity in some cases as those programs are cut back.

What we've got to watch out for, compounding this problem, is the whole issue of disentanglement; that is, the Minister of Municipal Affairs has talked about setting up a situation where you clearly define the role and responsibility and expenditures of the provincial government as opposed to the local government. I think municipalities and boards of education are going to rue the day they ever engaged in these discussions on disentanglement, because I think they'll find foisted upon them a lot of programs and a lot of costs they had not anticipated. The province will take over certain other responsibilities, but the local municipalities will be very sorry they ever decided to move in this direction.

I look at the issue, as well, of destreaming in the province, because many in the secondary school level particularly have expressed concern, teachers in the classroom, some of whom are strong supporters of the NDP, perhaps over pension issues, perhaps over what they anticipated would be the level of funding, who forgot that we have an ideological government in power that is going to have that ideology applied to its educational policy -- which is certainly acceptable. I certainly accept that because the government when it's elected is entitled to do so. But we now see that we have destreaming taking place without the necessary resources to do so.

There are those who are adamantly opposed no matter what resources would be available, because they feel that the children who are in the basic level, when placed into the same stream as everyone else, are going to be frustrated and that students who are in today's advanced level will be bored by what is But what they were most concerned about was that there is not the necessary resources available to them for the implementation of this program and that it's being implemented extremely rapidly. So I remind the minister of that in the context of this bill he has before the House.

Also there's the problem that's quite obviously confronting schools in this province, and that is of violence in schools. How I would like to rise in this House and ask the Minister of Education questions about what he's going to do about violence in the schools. However, we have a limited number of questions and there are other pressing issues of the day which often take precedence. But I can tell the member who is the Minister of Education today -- who was a chair, and a good chair it was reported to me, of a board of education in Metropolitan Toronto -- who would know, that there is an expanding problem of violence in the schools.

1610

When you have teachers -- I read about it in Scarborough -- who have to have a panic button now, where you have violence in the hallways, where you now have police officers assigned to schools, one has to wonder how far away we are from New York City. My sympathy goes out to those teachers who are on the front line in the classroom who are confronted with this situation, who have had many of the tools that they had in the past taken away from them because now students have rights and the response of many parents about the disciplining of students may be different today than it was a generation ago.

Sometimes we have boards of education which aren't as helpful as they might be to those teachers who take a stand when the flack starts flying or when the court case is initiated. So we have to worry that we will have a generation out of control if we do not address the issues of discipline and violence within the schools. There are going to be prices to be paid if we allow this to continue.

If one talks about this, the unfortunate thing is that one is branded as some kind of right-wing ideologue. I don't think the minister would agree with that, because I'm sure he has a concern about violence in the schools and how to address it. It's not a problem that has an easy answer. There are answers that can be stated easily in this House, but the implementation and implications of those easy answers have to be looked at carefully as well. I hope the necessary resources are there. I hope the policy is there to support teachers who are prepared to maintain discipline in the schools and that the disturbers -- we won't use the first part of that -- within a school system who are intent upon causing problems, who are intent --

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation): The disturbers --

Mr Bradley: Well, I'm going to tell the member for Scarborough you said that. Anyway, kids who are in school who want to learn, the overwhelming number of people in the school system who want to learn, are often deprived of that opportunity by those who cause problems in the classroom and in the school. If we bend over every time to accommodate the wishes of the troublemakers within a school system because, "You have to understand what they've gone through in their life," or, "You have to understand this aspect or that aspect," one has to remember that we have a lot of students in the school who want to learn and they can't learn as long as they're threatened with the kind of violence we're seeing.

I used to hear teachers say, certain teachers at least, "Oh, the kids are concerned about nuclear warfare; that's what their number one concern is." I would suggest to you the number one concern some students have today is the warfare that's taking place in the hallways of the school and in the school yard and on the way home from school, and that their concerns about a nuclear holocaust are somewhat in the background, particularly with the changing times in which we find ourselves.

I ask the minister -- and this bill has allowed me and he's been patient over there, as he always is. The member for London North indicated that on many occasions we don't have the chance to address these general problems that confront the system, so when a bill of this kind comes up, if we have an accommodating Speaker in the chair and a patient House, we're able to address some of them.

I did notice one thing that I did not want to get into. I probably shouldn't. The member for Etobicoke West will chastise me and say the enemy is on the other side, and he and I happen to agree that that's where the focus of attention should be.

I just want to note, because my friend the member for London North, whom I've always liked in this House and still do, has joined some of her colleagues in now attacking the official opposition -- I don't know whether they've seen a poll. Has there been a poll out lately? I've seen two different polls, or something, and they start to attack us.

Mrs Cunningham: We've been doing that since 1988.

Mr Bradley: We're past tense. I tell the member we're past tense.

I always wanted to be friendly with the member for London North because she makes eminently good sense in so many cases; not always, but in so many cases. I would hope she will remember that the polls go up and down and that the real enemy, I think, for her and for her party is going to be sitting on the other side of the House, and she won't have to focus on the good old days of the Liberal government of 1985 to 1990. You used to call them the good old days back in those times.

I know the minister is eager to listen to whatever else he has to listen to today. He has other business at the shop to go back to deal with, pressing important business, and I appreciate the opportunity.

I like the House sitting in the summer, by the way. I hear people say, "Well, the House shouldn't sit." The government now says, "We want to sit two or three fewer weeks," and so on. I like the House sitting in the summer, I really do, because it allows an opportunity to deal with issues.

Folks are at home and watching now. My friends from the teaching profession who aren't taking courses at this time of day or aren't preparing for next year have a chance to see the Minister of Education in action and to enjoy this kind of debate in the House.

As we go on into the summer, I'm prepared to be here each day to engage in debate on matters of great public importance, particularly bills of this kind, as I know the Minister of Education is. I know none of the ministers are going to feel relief when the House is finished and they don't have to face question period again. I can't believe that would be the case.

So thank you very much for this opportunity. I would welcome any questions or comments that other members might have on the matters that I have drawn to the attention of the House this afternoon.

The Deputy Speaker: Questions and comments? The member for Mississauga South.

Mrs Marland: I feel compelled, as someone who has been in this House the same number of years as the member for St Catharines, which is now seven years, to respond to his comment about why our --

Mr Elston: Fifteen.

Mrs Marland: I'm sorry. It's 15 years. I thought the member for St Catharines was very young. I apologize for the other eight years for which I didn't give you credit, my friend the member for St Catharines.

But for those of us who have been in this House for seven years, we recall the concerns we had, and I say this to the current Minister of Education so that all the blame does not fall solely at his feet. We did have a great deal of concern with the policies and the lack of funding that came from the Liberal Party when it was the government, and obviously our concerns were also shared by the people of Ontario, because the people of Ontario decided to eliminate the Liberal government in 1990. So I think that speaks more volumes than I need to comment on this afternoon.

I do want to finish the comment I was making, as an example for the minister, of St James school in Mississauga South, because this school, which has now finally received $1 million in funding -- or $800,000, actually, from the ministry, with permission to put $200,000 on the local taxpayers' shoulders -- but the fact is, you see, that it's now too little, too late and the school board is scrambling around to see what it can do for this school that needs $2.5 million to make the same changes that it has needed now for seven years.

The Dufferin-Peel separate school board is an example of a board where over half the students are in portables and the standard of education is not the same as in other school boards where the children are not in portables.

1620

The Deputy Speaker: Further questions or comments? The member for Bruce.

Mr Elston: Mr Speaker, you heard me speaking earlier and asking the member for York North what he thought of the Minister of Education intervening in the collective bargaining program by saying that teachers would have to forgo any increases in salary or benefits.

While I haven't yet heard a reply from my friend the member for Dovercourt, perhaps the member for St Catharines, who spoke at length about finances and other issues in education and the frustration of the professionals in the classroom, would like to comment very briefly on what effect he thought the interjection of the member for Dovercourt about teachers' aspirations for higher incomes and benefits would have on the morale of those front-line service deliverers.

I would also like to say that while we look at what is taking place in education in the province, it bothers a lot of us. As I said, I was able to talk with Ross Whicher, the former member for Bruce, who lives now in Wiarton. Jane and Ross and I had a long chat about the concern both of them have for our young people and the prospects that our young people have upon graduation from secondary school, and indeed post-secondary education facilities, of really being able to compete in the international market because of what is seen to be, in the communities, a lack of preparation.

I know that the member for Dovercourt, in his current incarnation as the minister following a career as the chair of a major school board, would have some secrets up his sleeve to propel the delivery of education services to our young people in a way which would encourage or at least enhance their educational skills and qualifications. I think the member for St Catharines might also want to comment briefly on that, although really my interjection is to alert the minister to the fact that we expect him also to comment on this issue in his wrapup.

The Deputy Speaker: Further questions or comments? The member for London North.

Mrs Cunningham: I'd like to bring the debate back to the bill and respond to a couple of the statements here with regard to finances. There seems to be some concern with regard to my friend the member for St Catharines and my criticism on the tenure of his government. There are some things I would say that would be rather complimentary, but this isn't one of them.

I don't think there has been good management in the school systems of Ontario probably for the last decade, which gets us in on that as well. I think the public of Ontario has been looking for some leadership and direction when it comes to finances, and right now I have to say that there are too many school boards, there are too many levels of government, there are too many administrators, there are too many regional offices and there are too many area offices. There is just too much governance in education and not enough focus on children and what they ought to be learning, and not enough focus and accountability in our system so that we know that teachers are teaching what we want them to teach and children are learning what we want them to learn.

Basically it's all so simple. All we have to do is politically get in there and do it. It isn't that we're not studied to death, as I've said before. We ought to just get on with it.

In closing, this is a finance bill. It allows school boards to borrow. I'm not happy about that. School boards should not be in debt and should not be borrowing money. I have to say that there is very little incentive, if any, in the education systems in this province and certainly on behalf of the Ontario government, to give credit and incentives to school boards that balance their budgets, that do a good job, that educate children and that are not in debt. There is no incentive in this province for good management.

The Deputy Speaker: Further questions or comments? The member for Eglinton.

Ms Poole: I would like to congratulate the member for St Catharines on an excellent speech. I have a question for the member for St Catharines, because I'm somewhat confused by what I'm hearing from my physical left but my ideological right in that the Conservatives keep saying day after day in this Legislature -- and this is my question to the member for St Catharines -- that the Liberals spent too much. "The Liberals spent too much on this; they spent too much on that. They taxed too much; they spent too much." Today we have two members of the Conservative Party, the member for Mississauga South and the member for London North, both saying that the Liberal government didn't spend enough.

I'd like the member for St Catharines to answer this when he gives his response: Did the Liberals spend too much on education, did the Liberals not spend enough on education or did the Liberals spend what was possible within the realm of fiscal responsibility? I'm very anxious to hear the reply of the member for St Catharines to this particular question.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for St Catharines, you have two minutes to reply.

Mr Bradley: I'm going to respond to as many of the interventions as I can this afternoon, but the one the member for Bruce brought to my attention got me back on the issue of what the anticipated policy of the government would have been by the leadership of the various affiliates of the Ontario Teachers' Federation and what was actually being delivered today.

I know they monitor the House. They're probably watching right now. They have a legislative liaison officer, Larry French, a strong New Democrat from Sault Ste Marie who is neutral once he's in that position, I'm sure. They're going to be very interested. In fact they would have anticipated some significant increases in pay and benefits, some significant improvements in terms of working conditions under an NDP government, and they've had exactly the opposite being delivered. I don't know how my friend Jim Head, who read daily on the bulletin boards about the Conservative government and about the Liberal government, is going to explain that to the membership of the OSSTF. I always liked reading OSSTF Update to see what the government was doing wrong, whether it was a Conservative or a Liberal government. I don't know whether that continues on today.

We have a situation in education, then, where everyone in the province anticipated, as my members have said, that on average 60% of the cost of education would be paid for by the provincial government across the province. That's in the Agenda for People, and we did not have to get that document from the civil service or from somebody in a brown envelope. So the Ontario Provincial Police will not be investigating me or anyone else; that's in the Agenda for People. I see now that so many of those items in the Agenda for People simply no longer exist. That in itself is revealing.

The Deputy Speaker: Are there any other members who wish to participate in this debate? If not, Minister.

Hon Mr Silipo: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I was just hesitating a moment longer, but I'm glad I'm on my feet.

This has actually been quite an interesting hour or so. I think the member for St Catharines continues to make his point well about the rules, not just in his statements but in taking opportunities, of course, as he has today, to speak about financing in general and forget about the specifics of the bill. I say that in good humour, because I appreciate the comments he's made none the less.

I think it's important. Of course, on a bill like this that touches on some aspects of education finance, I suppose it's not unusual for people to stray somewhat off the path of what the legislation proposes to do and to talk in general about some of the bigger problems that we all recognize exist in education financing and to talk about promises that indeed we've all made and promises that I think we're all trying to approach.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Not me, my friend; I didn't make that promise.

Hon Mr Silipo: The member for Etobicoke West makes the point that the Conservatives never made that promise. He's quite correct. The Conservatives, if I can get partisan for just one moment, didn't make that promise. They were the cause of the problem we have now in taking financing of education from the 60% level down to more or less the realm that we find ourselves in now.

Of course the Liberals did make that promise of returning to 60% and didn't quite manage to get us there. We have made that promise and we continue to work at trying to get there. I think, as I've indicated here in the House and as I've indicated through the estimates process, we continue to work on this issue and we continue to believe that we have to move towards that objective.

Having made that partisan remark, I want to say that I do agree with a number of other comments that were made. One of the things we all agree on is that whatever we do with the education financing system as a whole, it certainly needs to be a lot simpler than it is now. I think that can be done and we are trying to look at what we can do in that respect.

1630

I'm not going to go into all the points that were made. I know the member for Bruce would like me to get into the whole area of interfering in teacher negotiations. I will resist that temptation at this point, because it isn't really in the legislation that's before us. What I will say is that he will know quite well, in talking as I have been about teacher negotiations and other negotiations, that we have been trying to encourage school boards and teachers' federations to find that appropriate balance between lower wages on the one hand, wages more realistically in line with inflation, and the kind of compromises and give and take that have to exist at the local level in the collective bargaining process. That has to continue to be there.

I will just conclude by talking about a couple of specific aspects of the bill that I know people touched on as well.

First is the impact on public school boards of one of the provisions in this bill, which is to complete the process begun in earlier legislation, that will allow corporations without share capital or incorporation, such as the Archdiocese of Toronto, one classic example, to be able to allocate their property taxes to public or separate school boards as they determine. It's actually interesting that under the present legislation, a group like the Archdiocese of Toronto doesn't have the ability to say it would like its taxes to go to the Catholic school system, as one might expect in that case.

We know that's something that should happen and that's one of the things this bill does. We know that will have some impact on public school boards. Others have talked about some figures. I think I've indicated and want to indicate again that we're conscious of that. In the continuing phasing-in of the pooling provisions, we will be looking at the kinds of adjustments we need to make to take that into account.

The last point I want to make is with respect to the comments around borrowing powers. I just want to be clear that what this bill does not do is give all school boards the power to borrow or go into a deficit to deal with operating costs. What it does in a very limited case is allow some boards that are under the jurisdiction of the trusteeship, through the Municipal Affairs Act, as exists now in the Ottawa area with the French-language school board, to borrow as part of a plan that would have to be approved by the Minister of Education. That is quite clearly there, because we believe it's necessary as part of the process of getting that board back on the financial track. Obviously it would be used in very limited circumstances. In fact the legislation would limit that to situations where school boards are being overseen under the Municipal Affairs Act.

With that, I will conclude. Once again, I express my appreciation to members of the opposition for their support of this legislation, notwithstanding some of the concerns they might have, and also thank them for allowing this legislation to be passed in the kind of time frame it was possible to do.

Motion agreed to.

CO-OPERATIVE CORPORATIONS STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE LES SOCIÉTÉS COOPÉRATIVES

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for third reading of Bill 166, An Act to amend the Co-operative Corporations Act and the Landlord and Tenant Act with respect to Co-operatives / Loi modifiant la Loi sur les sociétés coopératives et la Loi sur la location immobilière en ce qui concerne les coopératives.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): When this bill was last debated, Mrs Marland had the floor and had concluded her remarks. Are there any other members who wish to participate in this debate?

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): Today I'd just like to ever so briefly congratulate my colleague the member for Scarborough Centre for all the hard work he's done on this bill, pulling the pieces together and talking to all of the folks who will be impacted very positively by it.

In Ontario we actually have a very active co-op sector in both the financial area and the housing area, but there's also another, smaller, very active co-op sector in the worker co-op movement that deserves a lot of credit and that has been working very hard in this province over the last number of years to put together new ways of bringing capital to play under a more democratic ownership structure so that the economy of this province could be renewed in a way that more people would benefit.

Our government committed itself, over a year ago, to renewing the economy of this province in face of the very difficult recession we have in front of us now. Certainly the amendments that will be brought forward to the co-op act by this particular piece of legislation will go a long way towards including more people in shouldering some of the responsibility so that all of us in the end might benefit.

As I did in starting, I end my very brief comments by again congratulating those who have been involved in this very important piece of work and hope that it will move forward quickly through the House and become the law of the day in this province.

The Deputy Speaker: Are there any questions or comments? Are there any other members who wish to participate in this debate?

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): I am very pleased to enter this debate about amendments to the Co-operative Corporations Act and the Landlord and Tenant Act. I am particularly pleased because as Housing critic I am quite supportive of a number of changes being made to this piece of legislation.

I would like to talk about a number of things. First of all, I'd like to touch on the need for changes to the Co-operative Corporations Act and then talk about some of the changes and why they are helpful. I'd like to describe what a housing cooperative is and what it does, because I sense from comments from a number of members on Thursday that they really don't quite have a handle on what co-op housing is all about. Then I'd like to talk about some of the benefits of co-op housing. Finally, I'd like to touch on some of the difficulties in the co-op housing program and some of the things I feel that the Ministry of Housing should have put in this piece of legislation that it did not.

As far as the need for this legislation is concerned, it encompasses all sorts of co-ops, not just housing. But certainly housing cooperatives are one of the groups that have been most desperately seeking changes to the Co-operative Corporations Act. The legislation hasn't been updated since 1973, and as all members know there have been substantial changes since that time. Quite recently, there was a court decision which gave some urgency to the matter. It was a decision in the Ontario Court of Appeal, McBride v Comfort Living Housing Co-operative Inc, in February 1992, which has disrupted the workings of the legal system in Ontario so far as housing co-ops are concerned.

What the courts decided was that co-ops are not subject to any part of the Landlord and Tenant Act. This made it extremely difficult for the cooperatives to continue to work. They could not evict tenants who should no longer be in the co-op. It has made it very difficult to manage a housing co-op in a businesslike fashion. This piece of legislation will actually solve a number of the problems related to that.

The greatest area of growth in the co-op movement has, I think, been in the area of housing. The growth has been steady for a number of years, but since the NDP has put a great amount of effort, resources and dollars into the co-op program as of the last year and a half, this has certainly exacerbated the need for change.

1640

I mentioned the decision from the court, which actually resulted in some urgency. Perhaps I should explain to the members of the House that the co-ops were previously subject to certain parts of the Landlord and Tenant Act but not others, so there was a great deal of confusion around this. The court decision certainly brought everything to a head.

Under this piece of legislation, Bill 166, co-ops will have the right to evict tenants. Of course, there are some provisos for the protection of the tenants in the co-op, the first being that it has to be based on reasonable grounds. It has to be based on criteria and reasonable grounds; it cannot just be arbitrary. The other thing is that the tenant of course is given a right of appeal.

I guess, having gone through the rent control legislation in the not-too-distant past, this gives me pause to reflect, because two of the things I wanted in the rent legislation were that the director could not act without reasonable and probable grounds if he thought a fraudulent situation was occurring and, second, the right of tenants to appeal. Those were two issues we fought very hard to have included in the Rent Control Act, and the minister rejected them. I am glad to see that the Minister of Housing must have had some input to the Minister of Financial Institutions, or maybe the Minister of Financial Institutions was a very good influence and overrode the Minister of Housing, because in this particular piece of legislation there are now these provisions that there have to be reasonable grounds for the eviction, for instance, and that the tenant does have a right to appeal. I think they're both very important considerations.

The other thing to do with housing co-ops is that student housing co-ops had their own unique set of problems because of the transient nature of students and the need to terminate eligibility for membership at the end of the students' enrolment in the educational facility. What this bill does is to remove that whole uncertainty and provide criteria to assist in that particular case.

The proposed amendments also reflect a need to maintain the integrity of the co-op system, particularly in the housing sector once again. Although it has never occurred in Ontario, to the best of my knowledge, rapidly escalating real estate values and the lack of any legislation to the contrary could, with the support of a cooperative's membership, allow individual co-ops to pay off the mortgage, disband the cooperative, sell the assets and distribute the proceeds to the membership. Under Bill 166 this can no longer happen. It says the dividends have to be declared and distributed on the surplus arising from operations; only the proceeds of assets sold in the ordinary course of business can be distributed. That was, again, another very important consideration in this legislation.

There are a number of housekeeping items in Bill 166, particularly relating to housing co-ops. One is that the entitlements of the membership, ie, the tenants, are defined in the legislation. So the rights are more clearly defined; I think that's very positive. Second, the procedures for removing a member from his or her apartment is described, and it is specified that if you give up possession of an apartment you relinquish membership in the co-op and vice versa. I think that is important clarification as well.

Those are a number of things I would like to relay to members as being quite helpful in the area of the housing cooperatives. I know members of the advocacy groups in the cooperative housing field have been quite anxious for these changes and will be very glad to see this legislation pass as soon as possible.

Mr Speaker, I mentioned to you that when we had the debate last Thursday a number of members made comments that led me to believe they really didn't understand how a housing cooperative worked, so I thought that if I just took a minute or two and described some of the ways in which a housing cooperative works and some of the benefits, it might be helpful to certain members of the Legislature.

First of all, housing co-ops are based in a community. It is a group of people who get together and design, develop and obtain financing for a housing project in which they will all become joint owners. The residents don't pay rent; they pay a monthly charge which covers the cost of the mortgage, taxes and operating expenses of the development. They don't own their individual units. This is called a non-equity co-op. They have a stake instead in the entire venture. They can stay as long as they want and as long as they obey the rules of the co-op, but when they decide to move out, they cannot sell at a profit. This is why it's called a non-equity co-op. This allows the affordable component to be maintained. It allows people to have an ownership stake and yet it doesn't allow for any gouging at the end, so that the unit still maintains its affordability.

One of the aspects of a housing co-op is that the members are extremely involved in the rules and the regulations and in how it's run. Every member of the co-op has an equal say in selecting new members, for instance, in deciding monthly charges, in upgrading or renovating the project and on questions of maintenance and administration.

One comment by the Minister of Housing federally -- this was when the federal government was still supporting the co-op program -- was that, "Cooperative housing provides shelter while offering a supportive environment and the opportunity to develop skills learned through cooperative management." That was housing minister Elmer MacKay last December, not too long ago.

Since that time, the federal government has withdrawn from the cooperative program. This was quite surprising because the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp, CMHC, had done a review of the federal cooperative program and found it extremely effective; found that it was cost-effective. In fact, if I may take a moment just to quote from the study they did, they found that co-op housing operating costs are at least 40% below those of roughly comparable public housing units and approximately 25% below those of roughly comparable non-profit units.

They mention that savings are primarily in the cost of operations such as professional fees, janitorial services, garbage and snow removal, insurance and administration. A major factor contributing to these savings is the volunteer time contributed by the co-op households: on average, 95 hours a year. You can see why this would certainly reduce the cost of cooperative housing when that type of time and energy is put into it by volunteers in the co-op movement.

One of the interesting things the CMHC study found was that close to 65% of co-op households in all three federal programs have incomes below $30,000 a year. So certainly on the federal scene, it was found that co-op housing was meeting the needs of people who were in need. I think that's a very important consideration. Certainly CMHC is the definitive word in housing, and its statistics have always been extremely reliable and been a model for the industry, so I found that quite interesting.

I was recently reading the June 1992 issue of Municipal World and I found an article where municipalities are asking for reinstatement of the co-op housing program federally. It said: "The Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) called on the federal government to immediately reinstate the cooperative housing program which was cut in the February 25 budget.... The federal cooperative housing program was introduced in 1986 on a five-year demonstration basis. A 1990 review of the program by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp (CMHC) showed it to have been highly successful and cost-efficient." So again there is an unbiased viewpoint by municipalities in Canada, which felt the program was worthwhile and was working.

There was a very good article in the Toronto Star by Carol Goar immediately following the budget cuts by the federal government where she talks about co-op housing, what it means and what the benefits are. She started out by saying, "Suppose you wanted to build the kind of housing that will serve Canada well in the 21st century."

1650

She says, "Ideally, they would be economical to produce, immune to the wild speculative swings of the real estate market, and designed to foster a sense of community.

"They would be affordable, but free of the stigma attached to low-rent housing developments. They would be near schools, stores and public transit. People would be proud to live in them."

"That sort of accommodation," Carol Goar says, "already exists. It is called cooperative housing."

She outlines in this article a number of benefits of co-op housing. She says that according to the government's own statistics, "Two thirds of co-op households earn less than $30,000 a year," and that was in the CMHC study I just quoted from, which I'm sure Carol Goar got her statistics from.

Second, "Close to a third of co-op households are led by single mothers. Because child care is often available in co-ops, eight out of 10 of these women are working."

Third, "Co-ops have an unusually high proportion of natives, recent immigrants, disabled people and women over 55; groups that normally have difficulty finding affordable housing."

Finally, she says that "Co-op housing is 40% cheaper than subsidized rental housing to operate." Those are certainly a number of benefits.

Now I would like to get to the other side of the coin, that is, some of the difficulties in the co-op program in Ontario. It's not that the concept of co-ops is not a good concept -- it is a good concept -- but obviously there is much concern as to how it is to be implemented.

One of the concerns I've had is that the new legislation doesn't include any reference to overhauling or opening up the process by which membership to cooperative housing is granted. At present applicants for housing co-ops are accepted or rejected on the basis of committees' recommendations with no clear criteria delineated or required in legislation. There is no master list. Every co-op has its own list. It is sometimes very difficult to see why certain people are rejected and why certain ones are eligible. The Co-operative Housing Association of Ontario does provide parameters. However, co-ops are not consistent in their application.

I would like to go to the auditor's report in this regard -- this is the auditor's annual report from 1991 -- where it refers to co-op housing and some of the problems the auditor found. The auditor mentions in the report that "Municipal and private non-profits established after 1986 must have at least 40% 'deep need' units in their projects." On the other hand, cooperatives must have 25% of the total units dedicated to deep need.

What the auditor said is that "In some cases, referrals by LHAs" -- local housing authorities -- "to non-profits and cooperative housing agencies are not done according to the OHC's" -- the Ontario Housing Corp.'s -- "point system. That is, the most needy are not necessarily referred.

"Some non-profits and cooperatives refused referrals from LHAs we visited by simply stating that the applicant was not suitable for their project. In other cases, non-profits and co-ops have not asked for referrals from LHAs as required." In fact they pointed to one area where for over three years 26 non-profits and co-op programs in that particular area did not contact the local housing authority for referrals during that three-year period.

The auditor also reports that "Conflicts have occurred from non-profits using different selection criteria than" the local housing authorities and that "Non-profit housing corporations prefer to use their own selection criteria and select tenants from their own waiting list." That's what I have made reference to, because it is not only important that this process be fair, but that it be seen to be fair. If you do not have criteria set out that can be used universally, even if you could have some differences from one co-op to the other -- it doesn't have to be rigid -- then how can people know whether they in fact have been fairly rejected or in fact fairly accepted by the co-op program?

It says further that local housing authorities "are frustrated that they lack the authority to make non-profits and cooperatives accept applicants referred to them."

What it comes down to is that it's a very good concept, and certainly in the federal cooperative programs they found it was meeting a deep need, that two thirds of those in the federal program were earning under $30,000. I certainly think that's the type of need that members of this Legislature would support, but there does appear to be a problem in Ontario in that we are not having the same degree of deep need met. I think I'm getting signs that I'm about to wind up, Mr Speaker. The deep need is not being met to the same extent, and the criteria are not there to make sure that it is being properly administered.

I'd like to close by quoting from a number of the questions that were listed in A Housing Framework for Ontario, put out by the Ministry of Housing a number of months ago, because they're questions that I think we need answers to.

"To what extent should non-profits have a choice of needy applicants referred from local housing authorities? What kind of social mix targeting is acceptable within assisted housing programs? In what way should targeted plans be more flexible? What changes should be made to allow access to the existing stock for client groups having special needs? How could a better match be achieved between applicant needs and existing accommodation?"

It's been over a year now since A Housing Framework was released and we're not getting the answers. The Ministry of Housing is proceeding with more allocations, more building, without answering those very important questions. They aren't stopping to reassess the program. They've completed 30,000 with Homes Now, or they're on the verge of it, and that would've been a good spot to stop and take hold and say: "Okay, before we allocate more, let's make sure that need is being met. Let's make sure that it's being done cost effectively. Let's make sure the program is being delivered properly. Let's make sure that it is working right."

Instead, last year the government targeted another 10,000 to be built and, in this year's budget, another 20,000 to be built over the next three years, without stopping to make sure the program is working effectively.

I don't believe, like the Conservatives, that cooperative housing should be thrown out the window. I think they're wrong, because I think cooperative programming can be a very cost-effective method. But I say to the government, unless it's willing to fine-tune the program and make sure that needs are met, it will not have the public on its side, because the public is saying right now: "We want to make sure that our dollars are being spent wisely. We want to make sure that they're being spent on people who are in need, because the purpose of non-profit and cooperative housing was to deal with people in need."

It's a warning for the government. You could've made those amendments and those changes in this particular piece of legislation. The Minister of Housing could have announced that she was reassessing. Instead we just get more words.

I would just close by asking the government to take a serious look at this, because if it wants public support for the cooperative program and the non-profit subsidized program, then it has to start making sure that its implementation is right, that it is fair and that our public dollars are being spent in the most cost-effective way.

1700

The Deputy Speaker: Questions or comments?

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): I just want to make a few comments on the remarks of the member for Eglinton on Bill 166.

One of the things I had the pleasure of doing recently was opening up a cooperative in York region, the Fitzpatrick housing cooperative, which was established by the Steelworkers. It had a real interesting mixture of town houses and apartments.

One of the things the member for Eglinton talked about was the way it's controlled and owned by its membership. I guess one of the things that's established with a board like that that's established is to take a look at some of the needs of the people who'll be living there. They've pointed out the need for child care. I think they have within that establishment one of the finest child care establishments I've ever seen. It's a terrific mixture. I guess it comes because you've got such a range of different people in there and a mixture of incomes and what not. So housing types are all different.

The control and the ownership being by the membership, as the member had spoken about, and the savings by volunteers, I guess that's one of the exciting things about living and being involved in a cooperative unit. I know that the Jackson's Point Co-op up in Jackson's Point in my riding has that sort of cooperative nature. They certainly come out strongly on different social issues that affect the residents in their housing cooperative.

She mentioned the problems in housing, and she pointed out some of them in the Provincial Auditor's report. As a member of the public accounts committee, that's one of the things we had talked about looking at in that committee. We've kind of put that on our agenda as something being fairly high from all members of the Legislature, not just members of opposition in that committee but all the members. There are ways for us as members of this Legislature to be effective. The committee work is also very important, so I thank the member for Eglinton.

The Deputy Speaker: Further questions or comments?

Mr George Mammoliti (Yorkview): I'd like to start out by saying that believe it or not, we agree on a lot of issues with the previous speaker, the member for Eglinton. I find her to be very accurate at times, but at other times I disagree with her wholeheartedly. She knows how I feel on a few separate occasions on different housing matters.

On this one, however, I'd like to talk a little bit about flexibility, because I'm a firm believer that boards, co-ops and non-profits should be flexible. I think that in selling co-ops and non-profits, not only to the people who would live in the co-ops but to the people who live around the potential sites, the flexibility issue certainly would sell to the community at heart. I know you have to have some flexibility to be able to run a co-op and a non-profit, and I say that to me that flexibility is certainly very important.

I think the fact that this bill stops profit is certainly important. I've always been an advocate of non-profit -- everybody knows that -- and I would like to say that stopping the possibility of profit-making in housing is an area I'm glad we're addressing. I would like to commend the minister and tell the minister to keep doing the work they're doing in this particular ministry. I hope the Minister of Housing will now reflect on a lot of this as well.

The Deputy Speaker: Further questions or comments? Back to the member for Eglinton. You have two minutes.

Ms Poole: I would be pleased to very briefly respond to the comments of the member for Durham-York and also the member for Yorkview.

The member for Durham-York talked about the fact that public accounts is going to take a look at the issue of non-profit and cooperative housing. That is very true. In fact, just by coincidence I had subbed in quite recently where the committee decided that after the next auditor's report, which is going to take another look at the non-profit housing sector, comes out, the public accounts committee is going to take a very thorough look at this whole area. I really welcome that because I think it's time we reassessed. But my concern is that this should not be waiting for that committee to act, because it's going to be at least another six months before the auditor's report comes out and the committee has an opportunity to meet.

I would like the Minister of Housing to be taking a look at this right now because, again, I cannot emphasize enough that public perception is very important. When you have articles like the ones that have been published in Eye magazine stating how costly non-profit, subsidized housing is and how the deep need is not being met, it is incumbent upon the Minister of Housing to show statistics and reports that say the opposite is true. If she cannot, then the public will say, "This is a waste of taxpayers' money and we're not getting good value for our dollar." I would like the Minister of Housing to act and to act now.

The comment from the member for Yorkview had me very concerned when he said, "We agree on many things." I was going to stand on a point of order or a point of privilege and say, "I very rarely agree with the member for Yorkview although I'm pleased to hear he sometimes agrees with me." Anyway, I thank both my colleagues for their comments.

The Deputy Speaker: Are there any other members who wish to participate in this debate? If not, the parliamentary assistant.

Mr Stephen Owens (Scarborough Centre): I'd like to begin by thanking the opposition for its sage commentary during the last couple of days of debate and I can certainly say that while in some senses I agree wholeheartedly with what they're saying, in many, many more senses I heartily disagree with some of the analysis that's taken place.

This piece of legislation, the amendments to the Co-operative Corporations Act and the Landlord and Tenant Act, is essentially landmark legislation and it is going to put us into a position where we are going to be able to ramp up to a more competitive position with respect to how cooperatives are treated in this country. As I said in my remarks on second reading, in terms of how the province of Ontario views co-ops, we are essentially 12th out of 10 provinces.

These amendments to the Co-operative Corporations Act will, as I say, provide a good ramp-up to putting us into a more competitive position. With that, I thank the opposition members again. I'd also like to thank the Co-operative Housing Federation of Toronto, the Co-operative Housing Association of Ontario, John Brouwer from the Ontario Worker Co-ops Association and the many, many staff people at the ministry who made this bill possible.

Motion agreed to.

The Deputy Speaker: Orders of the day.

Hon Marilyn Churley (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): Mr Speaker, the 19th order.

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: The member who has the floor, I believe, is the member for York Mills and I told him just before he left the House that I would stand and ask on his behalf if we might restore six minutes to the clock. As you recall, when we rose here the last day we were debating this, there was a little but of a ruckus that was caused and in the course of that, while he held the floor, he lost some six or even more minutes from his speaking time. Mr Speaker, it was not his fault that he could not participate in it. I would ask for unanimous consent of the House to restore another six minutes to his speaking time and I would ask that this be considered now.

The Deputy Speaker: You are not asking a ruling from the chair; you're asking if there is unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent for and we back the clock by six minutes? Agreed? Agreed.

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I'd like to thank all the members for that gesture.

I will start out today by mentioning the fact that Ontario already has the most comprehensive labour legislation --

The Deputy Speaker: Would you please take your chair for a minute. We haven't called the orders of the day.

LABOUR RELATIONS AND EMPLOYMENT STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI A TRAIT AUX RELATIONS DE TRAVAIL ET À L'EMPLOI

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 40, An Act to amend certain Acts concerning Collective Bargaining and Employment / Loi modifiant certaines lois en ce qui a trait à la négociation collective et à l'emploi.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): We'll start as if nothing had happened. The member for York Mills.

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Ontario already has the most comprehensive labour legislation in North America. But with these changes incorporated in Bill 40, we know that in fact the government has cherry-picked from jurisdictions right across North America and Europe.

There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that reforms will improve the cooperation between labour and management. I'd like to look at some of the results of this legislation.

This bill has created an uncertain economic climate and it has already contributed to investment and job losses across Ontario -- in fact, 260,000 in the last 18 months -- and undoubtedly it will continue to do so. In today's international money markets, capital can be rerouted around the globe at any time. Governments have very little control over capital flows, so these labour laws in fact ignore the economic realities that cause investors to look elsewhere.

1710

A recent study by Ernst and Young indicates that 295,000 more jobs will be lost and that $8.8 billion in investment will be lost over the next five years if this bill is passed in its present form. The auto makers particularly worry that even a hint of labour troubles in Ontario will tip the balance in favour of plant relocations in the USA.

I'd like to quote from the Globe and Mail from January 1992: "Ontario risks a devastating loss of business investment and the possible shutdown of major auto plants if it persists with its controversial proposal to change labour laws. The Big Three North American auto makers" --

Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): That's a lie.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Order. Would the honourable member who uttered that unparliamentary comment please withdraw it.

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker: You're not in your seat. I would like to remind the honourable member that --

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker: You must go to your seat, and interjections are out of order. I want you to withdraw, please.

Mr Perruzza: Mr Speaker, in no way was my comment directed at the member, but I withdraw the comment and would just question those statistics.

Mr Turnbull: I would ask that the time be added to the clock.

"The proposed changes to the Ontario Labour Relations Act are the number one economic issue for the province today." This is a quote from the vice-president of General Motors of Canada at that news conference in January.

I'd like to read into the record some letters of constituents who have written to me on this subject. A letter from Advanced Monobloc says: "First, let me say that the government's OLRA changes seem to favour union proposals and offer only lipservice to the concerns of business. They would tilt the union-management balance in favour of unions, something that will increase workplace acrimony and confrontation." He goes on to say: "Second, I am not convinced that there is a demonstrated need for these changes. At a time when our unemployment rate is so high, when business confidence is so low and when the challenge of competitiveness is so real, these changes do nothing to put the economy back on the road to economic growth. If the government is serious about getting Ontario out of the recession, then why are they introducing a scheme that could drive thousands of jobs and billions in investment out of Ontario?"

In another letter from Deep Foundations Contractors Inc: "The proposal, if adopted, would seriously impair our competitive position. The thrust of the NDP concept is to make it easier for unions to become certified and to give unions greater power during any dispute. Their proposals are 180 degrees in the wrong direction. For the sake of our economy, the Ontario government should disavow these proposals as quickly as possible."

Another letter from a Mr Peter Harris: "I am very concerned about any changes that will increase the power of unions in our society. It is power for which there is no public accountability."

A letter from Dr Nicholas Pairaudeau, "I know that both you and I have the experience of socialist governments in the United Kingdom. This government is no different from that of the Harold Wilson years of the mid-1960s, and look where that got us." Indeed, that is so true.

From the Ontario Natural Gas Association: "The amendments in question are unanimously viewed as retrograde from a social policy perspective and inconsistent with basic democratic principles.... Government's role should be one of neutrality with the objective being to foster a balanced environment in which labour relation problems can be amicably resolved."

From North York city council: "that council endorse a motion to call upon the government of Ontario to either abandon the proposed changes to the Ontario Labour Relations Act or at least alter those proposals to ensure:

"(a) that third parties such as landlords and adjacent businesses or tenants are protected; and

"(b) that the use of replacement workers and contracting-out continue to be allowed during a strike in accordance with present legislation."

In another letter, from Mr Jerry Borins: "I am the owner (since 1969) of the Wheat Sheaf Tavern and employ 20 employees. Every year, more legislation is being imposed on me, to the point that it is proving to be unprofitable to carry on business in Ontario.... Some of the suggested changes in the Labour Relations Act will affect my business, and quite possibly force me to lay off staff and even close my doors.... I believe we must work together cooperatively and I will do this freely without legislation, as I have already done for the last 23 years."

The changes presuppose that job security can be achieved through union representation. That attitude fails to recognize the fact that the only way we have job security is by being competitive in a global economy. This can only be achieved through worker and management cooperation. "Cooperation" should be the watchword of all dealings between labour and management, consensus-building by establishing a tripartite task force composed of equal numbers of business, labour and government representatives to review Ontario's labour relations system and make recommendations for constructive changes.

I believe the tripartite task force of the kind that has been suggested would be the best way of beginning a new start in labour relations in this province. The creation of a joint business, labour and government task force would allow a thorough economic impact analysis, and indeed that is probably the most critical element missing today: The government has consistently refused to do an economic analysis of this.

The consequence of this legislation could be that it removes an employee's legal right to work. An employee who disagrees on a strike issue with a union is forced to go on strike. They would not be allowed to enter the work even though they thoroughly disagree with the union. Newspapers could be shut down, threatening their viability due to the loss of advertisers and subscribers; indeed, we can see the kinds of implications this could have for the Toronto Star. A few maintenance people on strike in a complex could close down a whole industrial complex. This could cost thousands of jobs and incomes to workers because of a dispute by a very small number of people.

Turning now to Quebec law, which was born out of violent strikes in 1977, security guards opened fire on 500 workers at the Robin Hood flour mill and eight people were wounded at that time. Now here's the important issue: In spite of the replacement worker law, Quebec still has more strikes and lost days due to labour unrest than Ontario, so where is the demonstrated success of the Quebec model?

Furthermore, it forced Quebec businesses to construct other plants in Ontario and south of the border in order to fulfil their contractual obligations. The big difference between Quebec and Ontario is that in Quebec a union can't walk out without first winning the approval of a majority of members in a secret ballot vote. That is not so under these proposed NDP laws. In Ontario, if the majority of workers don't support the strike called by union bosses, workers can still be forced out on strike.

1720

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation): Why don't you go?

Mr Turnbull: I see the Minister of Transportation seems to be a little agitated today.

What this law does is it tips the delicate balance in a negotiating process to the union, instead of being balanced between the two parties.

Consumers have three days to rescind a contract for purchasing goods or services, but there will be no sober second thought when joining a union under these laws.

The elimination of the $1 fee, without payment of which workers are not allowed to join a union at the moment, will have significant impact. It's much easier to get somebody to sign something, maybe when they're out at the pub, if there's no money transacted. That $1 -- in fact, it probably should be $5 -- makes people understand that this is consideration of a contract that they're signing. There is no part of this legislation that mandates that unions should disclose what the union dues will be if somebody joins that union.

Further, turning to the question of picketing, allowing third-party picketing can mean that we can have injustice on picket lines. We can have people going to shopping malls and picketing in shopping malls outside of a shop, disrupting the traditional right of the landlord to say, "You are trespassing." This is very unfortunate, the idea that somebody who owns property can have his property rights absolutely trampled. Indeed it's a continuation of what this government has done in the constitutional debate. They have steadfastly refused to have any consideration of property rights in any constitutional accord.

These proposals infringe on employees' rights of freedom and civil liberties. The purpose clause is to facilitate employees joining and being represented by a union, which alters the current balance in legislation, which also protects employees' rights to remain non-union or to decertify a union. We can have certification without a vote, which certainly undermines the freedom of choice. Third, employees cannot revoke the membership card after certification. This certainly undermines any aspect of freedom of the individual. We need a secret ballot vote of the nature that my colleague Mrs Witmer, the Labour critic, introduced.

I have the results of a survey which was just done by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. They asked their 40,000 members across Ontario the question: "Should automatic union certification be decided by a supervised secret ballot vote?" In all cases 79% said yes, 11% said no, 4% were undecided, 6% said there was no interest in the issue.

Overwhelmingly, people are saying it is appropriate to have a secret ballot, but the union bosses who are the paymasters of the NDP government are saying no, they don't want any of those things.

What obligation should unions have to members? This legislation gives unions new rights but does not give any accompanying responsibilities to the unions. There is no onus on unions to provide information on dues or levies. The responsibilities are left untouched.

The bill before the House fails to enhance workplace harmony by improving the parties' ability to resolve issues internally. Instead the bill likely increases government and third-party intervention in the employment relationship; that is, it allows the Ontario Labour Relations Board to settle contracts. If a union is in a legal strike or lockout position for 30 days, the OLRB can settle the first collective agreement if the employer or the union applies.

The results: These changes will do nothing whatsoever to make us more competitive, attract investment and renew or strengthen the economy. What it will do is increase political and economic power of union bosses and cement their support for the future.

A more productive and peaceful workplace will benefit both sides; it's an important ingredient in making Ontario a competitive player in the world marketplace. But that goal can only be reached if concerns and ideas of both sides are given equal consideration.

The workers of the province would be better served by creating jobs, not by creating a business climate which discourages investment and makes it impossible for businesses in this province to compete in an increasingly global marketplace. These changes threaten jobs in Ontario, and jobs, not changes to the collective bargaining process, are what working people in this province need.

In conclusion, we need an impact study, we need a tripartite committee to look at this, composed of labour, employees and government, and we need a secret ballot clause to handle strike votes. That would help Ontario workers to have secure jobs, and secure jobs are what the Conservative Party is most concerned about.

The Deputy Speaker: Questions and/or comments?

Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): In response to some of the comments that were put forward, the Conservative Party thinks it is the leader in the democratic rights of individuals. Embodied in our Constitution is a provision for workers to have secret ballot votes, both on contracts and on ratification of strike votes. That is embodied in most constitutions and in bylaws of local unions, which we allow our workers because, as we've been the fighters for workers' rights, we also believe in the right and the ability to express their opinions.

One of the other things the member mentioned was the surveys that are out there. It's the same people who, I remember back during the free trade arguments, were sitting there saying how many jobs, jobs, jobs, and I think Brian stole the line after a while. Now when it's an NDP government out introducing rights of workers, all of a sudden we're going to lose jobs. They started at 480,000-something jobs, and they're now down to 200,000-something jobs, and they say to do an impact study.

They talk about the fear of investment. The tactics that are being used currently by that business community group and the other groups that are out there, the major lobby campaign that's on, are creating more harm because people are being fearful because of the myths out there.

One of the things we always have to remember is that the people will not organize a workplace unless they've been mistreated. When they've been mistreated by an employer, that's the time they will seek representation on a collective right. Remember that it's not only one individual at that workplace who has been mistreated, but over 50% of the population employed there has been mistreated and wants fair representation, and that's why they want collective representation.

In the Eaton's in Chatham, this union settled without labour dispute, beyond the time frame of their contract and stuck in there to make sure they came out with a fair collective agreement for both employer and employee.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): The crucial point that needs to be enunciated again, and the member for York Mills was very clear and poignant in his comments, is that there seems to be some difference of opinion about the effect of this legislation on job creation or job loss in the province of Ontario. That can be considered a point of debate.

The difficulty I have with the government is it simply refuses to offer any statistical analysis of the impact of this legislation. Their only defence is, "We don't believe the studies and polls that have been done by the private sector." In the absence of any fact or study or poll, what is one left to believe? One is left to believe that either the information out there is absolutely correct or the government is too frightened to do a poll or study for fear of the results.

If that is not the case, the challenge before this government is simple. It's a simple and fair challenge. The challenge being taken to you, being raised by the private sector, being raised by the business communities is: Please commission a study and do a report to measure the effects of this legislation, because there's real concern that it's going to be detrimental to the economic health of the people of the province of Ontario.

That's not unreasonable; it's not unfair; it's not unquestionable. What scares the people out there is that this government is not prepared to do that study/poll because it's frightened of the results. It's like not going to the doctor because you're scared about what he's going to tell you. It's nuts.

1730

The Acting Speaker: Further questions and/or comments? The member for Downsview.

Mr Perruzza: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, for this brief opportunity to address this very important issue. I couldn't help but listen to the member for York Mills recite statistics and recent private polls commissioned by very special interest groups and powerful corporate interests. I couldn't help but sit here and realize that, quite frankly, in this province there're two sets of realities. There's a reality in this chamber and there's a reality out there in the workplace where people have to work every day of their lives. It seems to me that many members in this chamber don't understand the reality in the workplace; they don't understand the pain and the hurt that some working families are undergoing during these very difficult and hard economic times.

Speaking to some bricklayers in my community, I recently discovered that they are working five days a week but currently being paid for four days. They work four days for themselves and their families and one day they work for their employer, their contractor. Quite frankly, this harsh reality doesn't seem to sink in with some of the members of this chamber. That's not just uncommon within that industry or that sector; it prevails in many of the industries and sectors out there. So when working people ask for extended rights at their workplace, governments shouldn't simply buckle under to big corporate interests and deny them that little voice they might otherwise have.

The Acting Speaker: We can accommodate one final participant.

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): I've been listening to this debate with great interest. It's very sad to see the animosity that has developed between the business community and unions in Ontario. I've never seen that at such an accelerated, heightened rate as we see that right now.

Interjection.

Mr Ramsay: The member across the floor asks me, "Who started that?" The introduction of this bill started that, so I bring the member back to the history of the Ontario Labour Relations Act in this province.

This bill has been developed over the years in incremental steps. What the government of the day has done -- we all want to make this legislation more progressive -- is brought the two sides together, sat the two sides down and said, "Now's the time to reform the Labour Relations Act of this province." It forced the two sides in a room and started to look for some leeway from both sides to make it more progressive legislation.

Instead, this government has really brought the hammer to the business community and to the workers of Ontario and said, "These are the changes we're going to bring in, the changes we're going to force in." That's causing a war, and that's not what we need.

The Premier talks about partnership, and that's what we do need. Everybody in this province knows we have to move progressively with this legislation, and we're all willing to do that. The legislation today is not perfect and there need to be some changes, but this all-comprehensive reform, so-called, being brought through is causing great uncertainty in the investment community. It's causing great angst among all the people of Ontario, and that is not what we need today. The economy is facing a time of restructuring and tremendous change, and we need to instil a sense of confidence in all people around the world that Ontario is the place to invest and to create jobs for our people.

This is not doing it and that's what's wrong. We need to start over and start talking about this in a sensible and rational way so we can bring through some good reforms we all agree with and move on in building the new economy for Ontario.

The Acting Speaker: This completes questions and/or comments. The honourable member for York Mills has two minutes in response.

Mr Turnbull: The curious thing in listening to debate and listening to the questions and answers is that both in question period in the House and in debate, every time we talk about the need for an impact study, on the one hand the government vehemently refutes any credibility to those studies which have being done by the private sector and yet also refuses to do any itself. What have they got to worry about if they're so convinced that it will show the right numbers that they want? They don't believe in it. They know that this is payoff time for the union, for the NDP union bosses. That's what it is, pure and simple.

Indeed, my colleague the member for Timiskaming spoke correctly about the fact that the economy is being restructured. We're facing this on a worldwide basis. It's not just something that's going on in Canada, it's not just happening in Ontario, but Ontario has to respond to that. The only way we're going to do that is by remaining competitive. Some of the union bosses and their hangers-on can stick their heads in the sand and believe that somehow you can barge through a different set of rules in Ontario than exist in any administration in North America, but the acid test is: Is money coming to Ontario? Are new jobs being created? Unfortunately, to a great extent the answer is no.

The absence of the studies is the most significant element of all this debate. It's quite obvious that the Minister of Labour is scared to do an impact study. This is the same government that will spend money on paying off all its old union buddies like Wally Majesky to do studies -- studies that are not needed and not tendered. That is the acid test of this whole debate.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate on the second reading of Bill 40?

Ms Anne Swarbrick (Scarborough West): I rise to speak in strong and proud support of my government's proposed amendments to the Ontario Labour Relations Act. The Ontario Labour Relations Act has not been updated for 17 years. It's geared to the needs of a primarily male workforce in large workplaces. That doesn't reflect the reality of today's workplace and workforce.

Women now make up almost half the workforce. The ethnic and cultural mix at work is far more diverse. Recent years have seen a rapid expansion of employment in the service and retail sectors, with workplaces that typically contain small numbers of workers, many of them part-timers, often women and members of minority groups. Their group is frequently characterized by low wages, few benefits and limited opportunities. It's time for reforms to Ontario's labour laws to deal with these new realities.

Two years ago Toronto city council was persuaded to establish the Worker's Information and Action Centre after it heard deputation after deputation from groups across the city that showed it the serious injustices that many workers, especially women and immigrant workers, face in today's workplaces. I want to share with this House a few of the many situations that my government is responding to by bringing forward our reforms to the Ontario Labour Relations Act. For those who want impact studies, what I want to tell you is more than just part of an impact study; it's part of the realities under today's Ontario labour laws.

The Federated Building Maintenance Co employed 185 workers, almost all women, as cleaners at First Canadian Place, a major tower in the city. The Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce retendered that contract. Federated then laid off all its workers. These women were given no severance pay. Most had worked hard at their job for anywhere between eight and 18 years. They had no other job skills. Most spoke Portuguese or Greek, not English. These hardworking women were laid off with no severance pay, but they had no union, so they had no recourse. They didn't know where to turn to get help. Through family members and community organizations some of them eventually made their way to Parkdale Community Legal Services, which pursued their case with the employment standards branch. Parkdale won. The company appealed. These women finally got their money in February 1992, but the layoffs had occurred in December 1987.

1740

Severance pay is intended to provide a financial bridge between jobs. In the case of these women and in the case of many others like them, the employer failed them, the laws failed them and, although they won their case, the justice system failed them, as this was a perfect example of "Justice delayed is justice denied."

Approximately 80 of the women were offered jobs by Hurley Brothers when it took over the cleaning contract at First Canadian Place, but their workload was doubled for the same salary. They lost the long-standing benefit of having a holiday on their birthday and they lost any benefits accumulated through their previous years of service.

I hope all members of this House would agree that the above situations are totally unjust and need legislative change to prevent them from continuing to happen. My government's reforms will ensure that workers like these women do not lose their jobs nor their established conditions of work simply because, through the tendering process, their employer loses the contract to provide these services.

I also want to tell this House a story about Lark Industries. Lark Industries employed 148 workers, again mostly women. They closed their doors with a half-hour's notice to its employees. They paid no termination pay, they paid no severance pay, they owed their workers wages for work already performed. The workers report that Lark Industries moved its machinery next door and opened under a new name. They believe these same employers did this not just once but two or three times.

The employment standards branch took a long time to act. Again the situation came to the attention of community groups, including in this case the Woodgreen Community Centre. These groups arranged a people's inquiry which attracted the media attention they needed to get the Ministry of Labour under the then government to prosecute the company. The women won their case for the money owing to them four years later, and they still haven't got their money. With a union and with my government's labour relations reforms, Lark Industries could not have treated those workers in such an abominable fashion.

I want to tell you about one more story that's being actively dealt with right now. There's a manufacturing company that recently laid off its workers, again with only a few hours' notice.

Interjection.

Ms Swarbrick: If the member from Etobicoke would allow me, I'd like to give another example of the horrendous stories that occur under the present Labour Relations Act.

Mr George Mammoliti (Yorkview): Isn't that Chris Stockwell?

Ms Swarbrick: That is Chris Stockwell, George, yes.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for Scarborough West has the floor. All members will have an opportunity to question and comment as soon as she has completed.

Ms Swarbrick: There is now a manufacturing company that recently laid off its workers, again with only a few hours' notice. Those workers were again paid no severance pay, no termination pay. Almost all the workers had spent between 10 and 30 years of their lives working for that company. They're owed up to $20,000 each in severance and termination pay. You want impact studies. Here's the reality under today's labour relations laws.

The employment standards branch has issued an order for the company to pay. The company is trying to negotiate to pay less than the minimum standards called for in the Employment Standards Act and far less than these workers, including many older workers, need and deserve after up to 30 years of devoted service. These workers look to their severance pay to give them a financial bridge until they can obtain new work and to help prevent them from eventually being forced on to welfare during a time when even younger workers face great difficulty in finding new jobs.

Interjection.

Ms Swarbrick: The company knows and these desperate workers know, but the member for Etobicoke West doesn't seem to care.

Mr Stockwell: Mr Speaker, on a point of order: My privileges have been breached by the member. I would ask that she address the issue and not whether I care or not. It's not for her to determine.

The Acting Speaker: It's not a point of order; it's really just a difference of opinion. The honourable members, as I mentioned before, will have the opportunity to question or comment. We are on time allocation and this is cutting into the time of the honourable member for Scarborough West. Please, the member for Scarborough West.

Ms Swarbrick: Thank you, Mr Speaker. All I ask the member for Etobicoke West for is the same courtesy I extend to him when he speaks; that is, to listen.

Again in the case of this current situation, the company knows and the desperate workers know that the case, if they let it, could be tied up in the courts for many years to come. It was only because the children of some of these older immigrant workers found their way to community agencies that this case is now being dealt with.

I understand that problems like the ones I've just described are also occurring throughout the retail industry during its restructuring in today's recession. From small retail stores to large department stores, I'm told that workers, mostly older women workers, are having their hours reduced and are being replaced with younger workers who cost less.

People at Toronto's worker information and action centre tell me they hear from many workers describing petty tyrannies that they feel bound to put up with because the unorganized employers know they can't do anything. The centre tells me of dismissals over minor incidents. With the introduction of Sunday shopping, workers are looking for ways to give effect to their right to refuse and they are looking for fair systems to decide who will work when.

A number of legal and practical obstacles in the act now deny access to collective bargaining for large numbers of employees, particularly to women, part-timers and members of minority groups in the rapidly growing service sector. My government's labour law reforms will remove some of these barriers to help ensure that working women like the ones I have described will finally have a better chance to be treated fairly. They won't go as far as the women's movement would like them to, nor in fact as far as I would like them to, but our labour law reforms will be a solid step forward to help take those women towards greater chances of justice in their workplace.

We claim we're a democracy. We say that Ontario workers have the right to join a free union, yet the reality in Ontario is that most people are terrified to whisper the word "union" in a non-union workplace. In fact, many people are afraid to be identified with the union in unionized workplaces. They're afraid of being fired or, at the very least, of dooming themselves from opportunities for advancement.

Those leading the campaign of terror against reform of the Labour Relations Act claim that we're going to tilt the balance of labour relations in Ontario. But what balance? The grave injustices, like the ones I have just described to you, illustrate the total lack of justice and the total lack of balance that exist under today's labour laws. Those grave injustices show the grave need for the reforms that my government has introduced.

I come from the labour movement. I remember well the calls that we frequently received from workers who had been treated abominably by employers and who were calling us frantically for help, but when I proposed the option of meeting with someone about the possibility of helping to form a union at his or her workplace, most backed off in fear. They hoped the employment standards branch of the Ministry of Labour might be able to help them, but seldom could it.

What about when we found workers with the courage to help bring a union into workplaces where employees needed representation? The meetings sometimes had the flavour of the infamous Watergate meetings with Deep Throat, as we helped people overcome their fears and tried to ensure that the employer wouldn't find out and wage a campaign to scare people off. I felt I was training a team of investigative detectives to identify all the employer's locations, to try to identify the names of the people who worked there, to identify their phone numbers and their addresses so that they could contact them after hours, to identify their position so they could determine what bargaining unit they belonged to.

Again I ask, what balance? It is my government's reforms that are what finally might create some balance in labour-management relations in Ontario. It's the Ontario NDP government that has at long last given priority to creating equality for women on all fronts. Now my government is working to ensure that women, including immigrant and minority women, will enjoy the right of free collective bargaining. The fact that many labour unions are predominantly male is not the fault of the unions; it's the fault of Ontario's labour laws which discriminate against the workplaces in which women predominate.

1750

The reforms my government is proposing are extremely moderate. Contrary to the claims of the opposition, my government has followed an extremely democratic process in its attempt to modernize Ontario's laws to meet today's needs. We sought extensive input from both business and labour. From that input we developed and distributed proposals and a discussion paper. The Minister of Labour then toured the province, receiving the input and reactions of all those who wanted to be heard about their opinions on our proposals for labour law reform. Our government consulted; we listened and we modified.

Any fine-tuning that might be required can be further considered in the extensive committee hearings that will be conducted around Ontario throughout this summer before the legislation returns to this House for final debate in the fall.

There are people who are creating a campaign of terror against these reforms, claiming they will drive business out of Ontario. This campaign reminds me of the one waged against Ontario's health and safety reforms a few years ago. It reminds me of the threats of doctors when Tommy Douglas's government introduced medicare in Saskatchewan. The reality is that today's economic crisis is crying for a new era of cooperation in our labour-management relations, and it's my government's reforms that can help to make that new era happen.

To reach that new era of cooperation, though, we need business to take the high road. We need business to deal with the reality and the need for this new era of workplace cooperation. The reality is that it is today's existing laws that are polarizing working people and managers and that leave years of bitterness between labour and management following disputes. It's those conditions we're trying to correct.

Today's labour laws are in desperate need of reform. Ontario needs labour laws that will foster a win-win situation in the economy, one that will result in greater mutual respect and greater productivity. It's those goals that my government is trying to meet with its proposals to reform the Ontario labour relations laws. We need reform of Ontario's labour relation laws to bring labour-management relations into a new era of workplace harmony, productivity and fairness.

I'm proud of the work our Minister of Labour, his parliamentary assistant and their staff have put into developing these reforms to Ontario's labour relations laws. I commend them for their tremendous hard work in trying to bring greater justice, harmony and productivity to Ontario's workplaces. The time for it is long overdue.

The Acting Speaker: Questions and/or comments?

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I just want to comment on a couple of things the previous speaker said. I think she used the term "campaign of terror." I just say to all members of the House that there is legitimate concern out there by legitimate people about your proposals. I say to the NDP that to brand people who don't agree with you as conducting a campaign of terror is the wrong way to go.

Interjection.

Mr Phillips: The member choses to heckle, but I just say to all the members of the NDP that you can't go around branding people who disagree with you as conducting a campaign of terror.

I'm interested in the letter the NDP sent out, attacking virtually every single business in the province, attacking General Motors, attacking Ford, attacking IBM and saying that they are conducting a campaign of terror. If you want a partnership, which we on this side want, of all the workplace parties, just because someone has legitimate concerns about what, by all accounts, are the most sweeping changes of the Ontario Labour Relations Act ever undertaken, by your own admission the most sweeping changes, if there are organizations and groups out there that want to express legitimate concerns, you can't dismiss them and try to shut them up by saying they are conducting campaigns of terror.

We in opposition won't allow that to happen. We will ensure there is a forum for legitimate people who want to express a view that you may not share. You may not want to hear it, but you're going to hear it. We on the opposition side will make sure you do hear it.

The Acting Speaker: Further questions and/or comments?

Mr Stockwell: I'd like to address a question with respect to the three examples that were given earlier in the speech by the member for Scarborough West.

First, I'd like the speaker to address this question: Cite exactly where the labour legislation changes that you're making would have made a difference with respect to those issues that those people were facing with respect to the job layoffs or closures. I can't seem to understand exactly where in your labour legislation changes there would have been any difference.

The argument may well be made that they weren't unionized, that therefore they could have been unionized, and by being unionized this kind of thing wouldn't happen. I beg to differ. I represented an area in Metropolitan Toronto known as Lakeshore-Queensway in the late 1980s when we were facing a number of plant closures. They were unionized and non-unionized closures and, yes, the unionized closures faced the same uphill battle for severance pay etc as the non-unionized shops. I give as an example the Goodyear plant down on Lakeshore Boulevard near Kipling Avenue that closed some few years ago. The member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore stood up in this House and made grandiose promises that in fact could not be lived up to.

The question to the speaker is, "Exactly where in the labour legislation would your changes have protected these people any differently than they were protected during those periods of time?" Simply by suggesting they be unionized flies in the face of logic, simply because unionized shops were closed down and they faced up to six years of battle to get their severance pay.

Last, I want to comment on the "campaign of terror." Every time someone disagrees with you, it becomes a campaign of terror. That's unreasonable.

The Acting Speaker: Further questions and/or comments?

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): I want to comment on this issue of a campaign of terror as well. There's no doubt there are people who disagree with the changes and want to make what they feel are legitimate concerns and arguments against the proposed bill. That's fine and that's fair in a democratic society. Certainly the Minister of Labour and the ministry gave many groups a fine opportunity during the public hearings that went across the province.

When I first started going out and canvassing in elections about eight or nine years ago, I only ran across one or two people who said, "You're a communist," and there was this red-baiting. But now it seems to be popping up again. We now have billboards popping up all over the province which have pictures of Lenin and Marx and Bob Rae.

Interjection: Who's doing this?

Mr Sutherland: The people who are doing this are remaining unidentified, but quite clearly those types of billboards -- and I'm speaking solely to those billboards -- to me are a bit of a campaign of terror because they are making an analogy that isn't really accurate and isn't fair.

We live in a democracy. This government is carrying out its reforms in a very democratic fashion. It has gone around the province. It has listened and has amended accordingly, based on some of those consultations.

I think the comments my colleague the member for Scarborough West made about a new era of collaboration and partnership are very key in this whole discussion, because there seems to be some sense being portrayed out there that all workplaces aren't going to operate any more. Well, from my standpoint, in those workplaces where they already have good labour-management relations, these changes aren't going to affect them. What it does mean, though, is that in many other workplaces where there haven't been good labour-management relations hopefully a new era will develop and a new partnership will develop. That is in the best interests of everyone's wellbeing and of the economy of this province.

The Acting Speaker: We can accommodate one final participant.

Mr Joseph Cordiano (Lawrence): I only caught the last part of the debate that was unfolding when the previous speaker had the floor. I'm going to allude to what I believe was the subject matter just mentioned previous with respect to a campaign of terror that's being launched against this legislation. I know members will sit around the Legislature and talk about outside forces having an opinion and the tactics that are being used or deployed to deal with what's taking place in the Legislature.

I'm a little sceptical about cynics and critics of the way in which campaigns are conducted these days. Of course, third-party advertising is now a subject that is being taken up by the federal committee looking at the whole question. It is now before the House of Commons. We too have to look at this as subject matter that would concern us for the upcoming next election. I would simply say this to members: I recall, in the last provincial campaign that the slogans and the advertisements that were used were not entirely what I would call the practice of politics we were accustomed to in this province prior to that election campaign.

1800

The things that were said in some of the reigning government's advertisements, I believe, pointed fingers at the previous administration which were not factual --

Mr Hope: It's facts.

Mr Cordiano: No, they were not factual; they were complete fabrications. At this point I think it's a little late for members sitting on the government benches to say that this kind of advertising, this kind of sloganeering, was not acceptable. A campaign of terror was launched during that campaign.

The Acting Speaker: This completes questions and/or comments. The honourable member for Scarborough West has two minutes in response.

Ms Swarbrick: This government and I have no problems with disagreement and dissent. The problem is not with people who legitimately, as the member for Scarborough-Agincourt refers to the problem, disagree with or dissent from what we're trying to do. I totally respect that. The problem is that often I've sat down and talked with people who come in with their understanding or their misunderstanding, in fact, of the present law. When I've talked through with those business people what the realities are --

Interjections.

Ms Swarbrick: It would be nice to be able to hear myself think when I'm trying to speak.

Mr Mammoliti: Is it Chris Stockwell again?

Ms Swarbrick: Yes, it is Chris Stockwell again. The problem is that when I'm talking and trying to discuss the issues with business people in my riding or in my area and they come with all kinds of misinformation, when I get through explaining what the realities are, in every case so far they've ended up saying, "You know, the problem isn't really the reality; the problem is the perception." That perception is the one that's created by people who have put their vested interests and a lot of money into trying to stir up those misunderstandings. That's what I have a problem with.

The campaign of terror and misunderstanding are being created by a few and inflicted on the many, who then bring their legitimate concerns -- unfortunately it's difficult to then deal with all the realities when people are so whipped up. You can't get to everyone. The reality is that this government is working very hard in partnership with business, as I am in my riding, as all the rest of the members on this side of the House are in their ridings and I'm sure the members on the other side are too. We're working very hard. I know that partnership sense is felt by those employers I speak to on the other areas.

If we could only deal in a reasoned fashion on the labour relations issues, as happens when I talk with them, as I say, they end up coming to the conclusion that it's not the realities they have a problem with. In fact, the realities they accept are totally fair and needed.

Mr Stockwell: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would like to ask for unanimous consent to allow the speaker to have another two minutes so she may respond to the questions I asked. I guess she inadvertently forgot.

The Acting Speaker: That's not a point of order. Do we have unanimous consent?

Interjections: No.

[Report continues in volume B]