Hansard Transcript 1993-Jul-21 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): Yesterday I told the House of an administrative problem plaguing the St Lawrence Parks Commission at a time when tourism is suffering in eastern Ontario as a result of this government's inability to appreciate the work of the private sector in promoting tourism.

Any member who has sailed in eastern Ontario during the past 30 years will remember the presence of the Stormont Yacht Club on the St Lawrence River at Long Sault. Commodore Bill Girard has spoken to me about the extensive delays in renewing the lease on the land. The government has assured the club that the lease would be approved in March, and then in July. The $200,000 project promises construction jobs in my riding, but the approval is needed so construction can start in September. The 160 members of the club, who bring many tourists from all over Ontario, are wondering what the holdup is.

There is more. Lynn MacDonell of Cornwall has been attempting to negotiate with the parks commission over her popular paddleboat concession lease, which expired some nine months ago. The parks commission dragged its feet until June, when they told her that after four years of successful operation, she now had to fulfil several new requirements. Questioning why it took so long to inform her of the new policy, she was told that the parks commission had many more important things to do.

I would ask the minister to negotiate the reopening of the park by considering every alternative and appreciating the work of the private sector in promoting tourism.

WEST CARLETON MUNICIPAL BUILDING

Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): It is my great pleasure to inform the Ontario Legislature that the township of West Carleton will be holding the official opening of its new municipal offices and council chambers on Saturday, July 24, 1993.

The building is truly unique in its design and construction, in the democratic and consultative manner in which it was built, and with its prudent financing.

Mayor Roland Armitage and the councillors of West Carleton -- Sue Lebrun, Dan MacMillan, Egbert Reitsma, Dwight Eastman, Orville Kemp and John Caldwell -- together with clerk Bruce Leclaire, treasurer James Raycroft, engineering supervisor Brian Carry and secretary Janet Stanton, formed a building committee which also included volunteer residents Sheila Laughlin and Oliver Drerup.

They envisaged a building that would be sensitive to the unique history of eastern Ontario, that would reflect the rich heritage of overall buildings in the township, that would be state-of-the-art with respect to the building structure as well as the operating systems, and, most important, that would be a friendly building that encouraged open access to all.

Their success in conveying their dream and working with the architects, Barry J. Hobin and Associates, has resulted in a most distinctive building that looks as welcome as the old homestead, yet is as functional as any modern office tower. Members of this House will be impressed with the fact that the project was completed under budget.

I ask members of this assembly to join me in extending well-deserved congratulations to Mayor Roly Armitage and the people of West Carleton.

BICYCLES

Mr Robert Frankford (Scarborough East): It's gratifying to see more and more bicycles on our streets as a daily method of transportation. They are cost-effective and energy-efficient. Bicycle transportation is in keeping with low-impact, mixed-use urban design. Bicycles are a self-sufficient technology. They're easily and inexpensively repaired and maintained.

Jane Jacobs details in her book The Economy of Cities how the Japanese industrial economy developed from bicycle maintenance, producing import replacement.

Bicycles are economically viable. They require very little additional infrastructure and cost very little to buy, store and maintain relative to other modes of transportation. A particular benefit is the recycling of bicycles that would otherwise have been scrapped, thereby adding to our problems of solid waste.

Combining these benefits with a wish to encourage fitness and recreation has led to some community initiatives that I would like to recognize.

The Cabbagetown Bike Club in Regent Park has been an outstanding success in the past three years, helping youth, women and displaced workers refurbish and use bicycles. In my riding of Scarborough East, a project called Recycle Cycle has developed from modest beginnings in Metro Housing through the initiative of community residents David Hisson and O'bert Puck. It has now moved into an underutilized industrial area. Not only are they keeping local children occupied; they're also helping the police with bicycle maintenance.

These and other projects are linking to form a community bike network involving community centres and organizations across Metro. I would encourage the ministries of Environment and Energy, Transportation, and Culture, Tourism and Recreation to support this admirable grass-roots initiative. As an indication of the growing importance of the economic benefits, there is going to be a Bikes Mean Business conference in October which will further add to this important work.

MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT

Mr Robert Chiarelli (Ottawa West): In May of this year, NDP minister Evelyn Gigantes promised Ottawa-Carleton elected officials that legislation reforming Ottawa-Carleton government was going to cabinet in May, to be introduced in the Legislature in June for first and second readings. She expressly acknowledged that we had a time problem. However, the Ottawa-Carleton legislation was not on the list disclosed today by NDP House leader Brian Charlton of legislation to be dealt with before the summer recess.

Anything short of introducing a bill for first and second reading is a broken commitment. It is clear that the NDP has cold feet and is not prepared to commit to legislation to date.

The government has left little time for local officials and the public to establish new ward boundaries before the January deadline. Delaying the legislation is grossly unfair to candidates for election, who will be forced to make last-minute decisions, because they have no ward boundaries, and won't for some time, no salary levels and indeed no redefined powers for the regional and local levels.

The NDP government has again created needless confusion. Simply providing Ottawa-Carleton with draft proposals, as is expected for tomorrow, represents another failure of leadership by the member for Ottawa Centre, Evelyn Gigantes.

1340

SOCIAL CONTRACT

Mr David Johnson (Don Mills): Today in the media we see that the social contract agreements are falling into place, but only with last-minute chaos and the government abandoning several of its ill-conceived restrictions.

For example, it would appear that the government has finally recognized what municipalities have been saying and what the Progressive Conservatives have been saying: that you have to give municipalities the flexibility to make their own cuts.

We indicated that municipalities must be allowed to manage without having union participation legislated on to them. We indicated that municipal and provincial fiscal years are different and that the social contract must recognize this difference. We indicated that a $30,000 salary ceiling would not work, as the majority of small municipalities have employees who earn less than this amount and therefore there would be no salary concessions.

First, the government tried to spend its way out of a deficit problem. Too late, they realized this approach would not work. Finally, with virtually no consultation, they imposed the social contract process on municipalities and other partners. The end result is poor legislation.

Municipalities and other partners have suffered through a process that has been arbitrary, uncertain and unworkable, and ultimately the government will fail in its prime objective to receive $2 billion in cuts through the social contract to reduce the deficit.

HOME COUNTY FOLK FESTIVAL

Mr David Winninger (London South): I rise in the House today to recognize an event in London which enhances the cultural life of our province. I refer to London's Home County Folk Festival, which celebrated its 20th anniversary last weekend.

Folk artists who got their start at the Home County Folk Festival in London include Joni Mitchell, Valdy and the late Stan Rogers.

Run completely by volunteers, the festival is one of the few left in Canada that do not charge admission. It attracts more than 30,000 visitors from Canada and the United States each year.

In addition to the best in Canadian folk music, this year's festival featured 10 different dance groups, performing everything from Latin American rhythms to Scottish reels. There was a record number of performers, over 35, and more than 145 craft booths. The weekend began Thursday night and continued till Sunday to accommodate all the performances.

I congratulate the Home County Folk League, organizers of the festival, on the 20th birthday of this event. Deepest appreciation is extended to the league chair, Rob Brady, the festival publicist, Kathryn Hazel, booths coordinator Judy Morris, the monthly Hoot Night supporter Dennis Humble, over 180 volunteers and thousands of enthusiastic patrons for the ongoing success of London's Home County Folk Festival.

LONG-TERM CARE

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): Married couples are sometimes faced with difficult decisions, especially when one of them is forced to live in a long-term care facility.

How the new fee increases in these facilities are calculated is influenced by how pensions and other income is calculated for each partner. This can have a dramatic impact on the increased fees the NDP is demanding as of July 1, 1993.

Some couples who have lived together for decades are now being forced to live apart, not by choice but of necessity in order to afford these increases. Some seniors are considering having their status changed to involuntarily separated.

The reality of asking government for a separation definition for financial reasons only is putting added stress on these couples. However, for couples who take this step there may be compelling financial reasons. The recent announced fee increases are based solely on the income of the single resident, and by asking the government to process the involuntary separation it may increase an individual's chances for supplement benefits, especially if they have no private income.

This means that the spouse in the facility will be judged on their income at the lowest level, below the arbitrary rate of $15,377 per annum that the Minister of Health has said will make you eligible for the lower fee increase.

At this point, we have been told by the Ministry of Health that the spouse's income will not be tested, only that of the spouse in the facility. This is a good news and bad news scenario: Separate from your spouse and you'll save money. For many seniors who have been married for decades, this is simply something they cannot do. Their marriage vows are too sacred a trust, something this NDP government has forgotten.

EMPLOYMENT EQUITY

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): On July 14, I listened with a great deal of interest to the remarks made by the Conservative Party in respect of the second reading debate of Bill 79, the Employment Equity Act.

As I listened to the debate, I began to wonder if suddenly I was living in a time warp of some 100 years ago. I was reminded of things in the past as I listened to the Conservative government suggesting that Bill 79 would shut out a generation or more of young people who have been told that they have no future in this province through the provisions of Bill 79.

This goofy assumption is nothing less than a colossal putdown of young people in this province and their future. My own 16-year-old granddaughter has told me that she found the comments made by the Conservatives offensive. I've also listened with interest to the Conservative member who stated that he was personally concerned about his own family's lack of opportunities in this province.

I say to you, look back to the 42 years of rule of that party over there. You could not get a job anywhere in this province. You couldn't get appointed to a licence bureau, you couldn't work for the beer stores, you couldn't work for the liquor stores, you couldn't work for the Ministry of Transport; you could do absolutely nothing unless you were anointed by that party that was the government at the day. As I stand in my place today, that is the God's truth.

LANDFILL

Mr Charles Beer (York North): A week ago today, together with my leader, Lyn McLeod, and the member for York Centre, Greg Sorbara, we spent a good part of the day in the region of York visiting the --

The Speaker: Would the member for Durham East please come to order. Just relax.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. I ask the House to come to order. We are making an effort to keep the temperature low. The honourable member for York North may wish to begin again. We will start the clock again.

Mr Beer: A week ago, as I was saying, the Leader of the Opposition, Mrs McLeod, and the member for York Centre, Mr Sorbara, and I spent the day in York region visiting with a number of groups around the different dump sites. If the feeling which was just exhibited in this room is any measure, I can tell you that the feeling of those who are affected by the potential dump sites is even hotter, and those feelings of wanting to see a change in the government policy are as strong as ever.

It's now been over a full year since the government went forward with its very flawed process of the Interim Waste Authority and said that there shall be a dump in York region which is supposed to not only handle York region's garbage but also Metropolitan Toronto's.

Again, what the people of the region are saying is very simple. They want a full and fair environmental assessment which is going to look at all of the various sites and proposals. That has not happened. Bill 143 remains one of the worst pieces of legislation that has come forward to this Legislature, and it is directing that York region is going to have to take Metropolitan Toronto's garbage.

What people were still saying to us, as we toured the sites last week, is that we've got to continue to be vigilant, we've got to continue to fight. The commitment that we have made, not only to the people of York region but to Peel and to Durham, is that as a government we would not put them through the kind of miserable and botched process which this government has. We're going to ensure that those megadumps simply don't happen.

1350

ROYAL ASSENT / SANCTION ROYALE

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I beg to inform the House that in the name of Her Majesty the Queen, His Honour the Lieutenant Governor has been pleased to assent to certain bills in his office.

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees (Ms Deborah Deller): The following are the titles of the bills to which His Honour did assent:

Bill 9, An Act to amend the Representation Act / Loi modifiant la Loi sur la représentation électorale

Bill 25, An Act to authorize borrowing on the credit of the Consolidated Revenue Fund / Loi autorisant des emprunts garantis par le Trésor

Bill 87, An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act with respect to Firefighters / Loi modifiant le Code de la route relativement aux pompiers

Bill 96, An Act to establish the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board / Loi créant le Conseil ontarien de formation et d'adaptation de la main-d'oeuvre

Bill 164, An Act to amend the Insurance Act and certain other Acts in respect of Automobile Insurance and other Insurance Matters / Loi modifiant la Loi sur les assurances et certaines autres lois en ce qui concerne l'assurance-automobile et d'autres questions d'assurance.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

ONTARIO TRAINING AND ADJUSTMENT BOARD

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Education and Training): It's my pleasure to rise in the House today to make a statement regarding the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board, the new agency which our government has created to lead the reform of the labour force training and adjustment system in Ontario.

This is an historic day because it is the culmination of one of this government's most important undertakings. For the first time in North America, users of the training and adjustment system, the people who know it best, will manage the system. OTAB will bring Ontario to the forefront of labour market development by adapting proven models from western European training systems.

The launching of OTAB today is critical to the future prosperity of our province. The concept of cooperation and partnership in the way we develop our labour force will now become a fact of life.

I am pleased today to announce the names of the people who will lead this important initiative, the men and women who will comprise OTAB's board of directors. This leadership is very important to Ontario because OTAB will be charged with the significant responsibilities that are absolutely central to our economic future and the strength of our social fabric.

Let me quickly describe the job ahead for OTAB. Just yesterday in this House, we gave Bill 96 third reading. We stand now at the beginning of an exciting new process for training Ontario's workers and helping them adjust to economic and technological change. Our current array of programs and services will be gathered together from the various ministries where they are now scattered and transferred to OTAB. A single coordinated partnership of representatives of the labour market will organize and focus these programs and services.

The result of this focus will be a more efficient system because of the elimination of overlaps and duplication. It will be a more responsive system because it will be based directly on the needs of the people the system is intended to assist. OTAB will also make sure it is a straightforward and much simpler system so that employers, workers and potential workers can avail themselves of it more easily.

We are doing more than just fine-tuning; we are striving to foster a new training culture. We are sharing power with our labour market partners to ensure that an emphasis on our people and the working skills they possess is the foundation on which we build and sustain our economy.

OTAB will make Ontario attractive to investment and job creation with its highly skilled workforce, OTAB will strengthen our traditional industries by assisting their shift to higher value-added goods and services, and OTAB will ensure our competitiveness and success in a knowledge-based economy that depends on the ideas and innovation of its workforce.

It is with a tremendous sense of satisfaction, with real pride and with a very sincere belief that we are taking a historic step that I wish to inform the House that all our labour market partners have nominated an excellent team of people to lead OTAB.

The government has been presented with the names of eight representatives of business, eight representatives of labour, one representative from each for women, for racial minorities, for people with disabilities and for francophones, and two representatives for educators and trainers.

I'm pleased to advise the House that we have with us in the gallery today the two people who are proposed as co-chairs of OTAB's board of directors: Mr Don Gree, representing business, and Mr Glenn Pattinson, representing labour.

These nominations will of course be reviewed by the public appointments process, but I wish to emphasize that it is our labour market partners themselves who have made these selections. They are handpicked by their peers and not by government.

This careful selection process has been based on the government's request that our partners make sure that the composition of the OTAB board of directors would reflect the diversity of Ontario. We asked them to submit names of people from both genders as well as from various geographic regions, economic sectors, occupations, cultural backgrounds, with a wide variety of experience and physical capacities, and so on. That was our stipulation. We wanted a true cross-section of Ontario that could ensure fair treatment for all Ontarians.

This government fully supports the nomination of the 22 men and women. I would also like to offer my thanks to our partners for the effort they have made to get us to this landmark day for Ontario. I wish to thank the labour market partners' steering committees, who have engaged with us for a year and a half on this ambitious undertaking.

These committees worked with the government, they worked with each other and they worked within their own communities to build a consensus, to open up dialogue, to spell out what was important to them and to listen and learn about what others felt was important. They are the real leaders of OTAB and I hope that the way we enlisted their help to develop Bill 96 signals an evolution in the way we, as elected representatives, do our jobs.

I would especially like to acknowledge the effort of my colleague from Hamilton West, the Honourable Richard Allen, who really provided the leadership.

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation and Minister Responsible for Francophone Affairs): He's not here.

Hon Mr Cooke: He was here. I think all labour market partners appreciate his vital contribution, for which we all thank him.

I also wish to acknowledge the hard work and dedication of my parliamentary assistant from Kingston and The Islands, Mr Gary Wilson, whose assistance has been of great help during the clause-by-clause review of the bill as well as during the committee of the whole.

I wish to conclude by returning to the labour market partner nominees, the human face of OTAB, because they are the ones we will look to in the coming years. They will face the challenge of fashioning a superb system of programs and services to ensure Ontario has a highly skilled workforce. In doing so, they will shape our continued prosperity, ensure opportunity and fair access to all Ontarians and support for our economic recovery. The new partnership will help us meet the challenges for the future.

SOCIAL CONTRACT

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): I'm very pleased to tell this House that I have designated five new agreements as sectoral frameworks under the Social Contract Act. In total, these frameworks and those already designated will allow local agreements to be worked out that will benefit roughly 350,000 of Ontario's public sector workers. We have tentative agreements that will create a framework for another 250,000 workers. In total, these agreements when fully accepted would cover two thirds of public sector workers in this province.

These historic agreements grew out of our fair and balanced approach to meeting Ontario's needs. These agreements save thousands of jobs in communities across Ontario, they protect the rights of the lowest-paid workers, they preserve the vital services that the people of this province value, they create new and better ways of providing these services and they bring a new openness and accountability into the public sector.

The agreements which I have just signed create frameworks for municipal workers, for police, for utilities, for the Ontario Provincial Police and for Ontario Hydro. Together these agreements go a long way towards helping us meet our target of $2 billion in savings this fiscal year. The agreements also benefit those who participate in them. By reaching agreement, as the Social Contract Act spells out, employers have their savings targets lowered.

Each of the sectors in the public service is unique and so each agreement also has unique features. The revised target for the broad municipal sector which includes municipal workers, police forces and utilities, totals $220 million a year over the three years of the Social Contract Act. Because municipalities are already more than halfway through their fiscal year, we have deferred $50 million of this target for 1993-94, but those funds will be recouped at the end of the three years of the agreement. There is no change in the total targets, except for an overall lowering to reflect the fact that this sector reached an agreement.

1400

In this sector, we have also allowed for local bargaining agents to negotiate agreements under which workers who earn less than $30,000 a year would contribute to the cost savings. I stress that this would be the choice of local bargaining agents as a way of protecting the jobs of low-income workers who would otherwise be permanently laid off. The Social Contract Act expressly forbids employers from unilaterally imposing social contract measures on low-income workers. By allowing this negotiated participation, we are providing greater flexibility to meet targets without loss of jobs or services.

The agreement for the Ontario Provincial Police allows for meeting the full savings target of $14.4 million. At the request of negotiators, we will release details of this agreement once it is accepted locally.

Our agreement with Ontario Hydro, which employs almost 30,000 people, reflects the stringent cost-cutting measures which the utility has already taken as part of a major restructuring. The assigned target of $100 million for Hydro is currently being met by its existing program, which will benefit Hydro's ratepayers. Hydro itself will address further compensation questions in its discussions with workers' bargaining agents as part of its normal collective agreement process.

These social contract agreements, and others already reached, call for a contribution from public sector workers, just as we have already asked others in Ontario to contribute to the solution of our fiscal problems through our expenditure control plan and revenue increases.

Our three-pronged attack on our rising debt reflects our very real belief that everyone in Ontario can help in the solution. It is not up to teachers alone or nurses or business people or government workers or any one group; it is up to all of us. We all have something to contribute. The people in Ontario and the people who worked so hard to reach these agreements recognize the validity of this fair and balanced approach.

I would like to thank everyone involved in reaching agreements under the social contract and to express my hope that I will soon be able to report similar success in the sectors which are still at the table.

ONTARIO TRAINING AND ADJUSTMENT BOARD

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I want to respond first to the statement by the Minister of Education and Training, to say that there's no doubt in anyone's mind that this is a fundamentally important area.

I'm pleased that the board is here today to hear these comments, because I think the legislation is clear that our party has a problem with the board. We are concerned about ending and truncating the lifelong learning that we think should be going on by setting up an independent arm's-length agency. I appreciate that these 22 people are probably very talented. I don't know them at all, but I don't doubt that they're a very talented group. But we think it's fundamentally wrong to set this up as an independent arm's-length agency.

The minister's announcement today, in the background material, indicates why we're concerned. It says that all OTAB directors must bring their labour market views to the table. We think that's partially important, but we think they should be bringing more than just those views to the table. We think it's, as I say, a fundamental mistake to set this up as an independent arm's-length agency where the 22 delegates will be coming essentially to represent their interest groups.

I hope it will work. You have our concerns. You have our best wishes, because if there is an important area that we're trying to deal with, it's this one.

SOCIAL CONTRACT

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I want to now turn to the Minister of Finance's comments on the social contract, to say that I think he's outlined clearly for the House the concerns now fully before us that many of us have had with the legislation. We have two major concerns, one I'll talk about second, and that is that the $2-billion target seems to be sliding away very quickly. More importantly, we see in the minister's statement a complete reversal of many of the things we thought the government was proposing in this bill.

We now find that people earning less than $30,000 can be negatively impacted. You stood in the House and said this was a fundamental part of the bill. You promised the people of Ontario they would not be negatively impacted, and now you have personally signed sectoral agreements that negatively impact people earning less than $30,000.

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): No, you are wrong.

Mr Phillips: I'm just saying you went back on what you said was in the legislation --

Hon Mr Laughren: You are wrong. You are dead wrong.

Mr Phillips: The minister says I'm wrong, but the agreements that you're indicating today can negatively impact people earning less than $30,000.

The second thing I would say is that several times we raised the question about how you're going to get the money out of Hydro. Now we find $100 million of your target you won't be getting, not just this year but next year and the year after, $300 million that you had promised you won't be getting from Hydro.

We also find now that of the $2-billion target, $100 million is gone from Hydro, we now see from the municipal sector $50 million gone, and following the same logic you have in here, there's no doubt that you will see another at least $100 million from the educational sector gone. So now we see clearly at least $250 million of the $2-billion target gone.

I'd also say that the Premier promised that we would see some confirmation of where the $500 million on the pensions was coming from. We've yet to see it. We've yet to see that confirmation. We passed the legislation without that confirmation, and an important ingredient of this was the $500 million.

I would say to the Minister of Finance that this statement today confirms that we have lost at least $250 million of your $2-billion target, gone completely, acknowledged in this statement, and we furthermore have some questions about the pension. We would ask the Minister of Finance and the Premier to come forward with the confirmation that in fact the $500 million that you are assuming will be saved will be saved. So I would say that what we have now in the statement is confirmation of the concerns that many of us raised.

Finally, the Minister of Finance has acknowledged that the municipalities and the school boards were well into the year and would have difficulty in funding the complete savings. He acknowledged that finally. The $30,000 cutoff for low-income earners has been thrown aside, so the protection that you promised those people is gone, and you have now signed two sectoral agreements that get rid of that. Now we find Hydro, where you had counted on $100 million of savings, won't be there.

This is exactly what we predicted would happen when you introduced the flawed social contract legislation. It's all coming true.

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): I too want to comment on the Treasurer's statement today concerning a number of the agreements. You know, the Treasurer and the Premier have told us that $2 billion has to be cut: It's important, it's imperative, every nickel of that is significant for the financial integrity of the province. You told a million public sector workers and their families they had to pony up, they had to contribute or the province was going to go bankrupt. It was that critical; it was that important; it was that urgent. Then, as has been pointed out by the critic from the Liberal Party, we see exception after exception after exception after exception after exception.

The Treasurer talked about a three-pronged attack on the deficit. He said public sector workers are one of the prongs, $2 billion. We've now seen erosions of that of over a quarter of a billion dollars a year. Over $250 million a year has now been off that target. Plus, there is no question, if you're going to exempt the grid for health care workers, I'd like to see how you're going to explain the $100-million exemption with no exemption for teachers for their grid.

I'd like to be in that negotiating meeting when you explain to teachers: "Oh well, that was nurses. We'll give them the increments on the grid, but not teachers." So we're now closing in on a half a billion --

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy and Minister Responsible for Native Affairs): The teachers are not negotiating.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Harris: Well, teachers don't want to sit down and negotiate this flawed --

Hon Mr Wildman: Don't you think they should negotiate?

Mr Harris: "We'll punish those guys. We'll punish them because of that." What absolute nonsense.

1410

The $30,000 principle: I listened to the Treasurer interject and say: "We haven't violated the $30,000 principle. Well, maybe we've violated it, but only to save their jobs."

Interjection.

Mr Harris: Well, that's your statement. It says here "to save their jobs." "Those who earn less than $30,000 will contribute now as a means" -- he stresses -- "to save their jobs."

That's why we moved the amendment to Bill 48, to allow those making $30,000 a year to save their jobs. We told you that you had to do that, and you and the Liberals said, "No, we won't support that amendment." Now you're doing it anyway and you've got a flawed bill out there for those making less than $30,000.

Every time you stand up in the House, you say one thing one day, one thing the next day. In your first budget you said: "We want a big deficit. The bigger it is, the better it'll be, the more people will get back to work." Then all of a sudden you say, "No, no, we've got to get the deficit under control."

Your lack of consistency is what is scaring people out of this province. It's your lack of consistency that's scaring investment, that's scaring jobs, that's scaring hope, that's scaring opportunity out of this province. You never cease to amaze me with the new inconsistencies you come forward with.

The three-pronged attack started out with a $2-billion tax hike, $2 billion back from public sector workers and $2 billion in cutbacks in your own spending. We looked at your budget. You increased your own spending and you're making announcements every day of how you're going to spend new money.

Secondly, the social contract coming out of the wage package. We see exemption after exemption. You call it slippage. "Slippage" is the new word. Your slippage is showing, Treasurer. It's slippage. Now we're left with a one-pronged attack, the taxpayer. We're back to the taxpayer. That's the one thing we know: The taxpayer is in for $2 billion and the taxpayer will be in again to make up for your slippage.

You are a disgrace, your government, your cabinet, your Treasurer, your lack of consistency. You are a disgrace and you are hurting seriously the credibility of this province.

ONTARIO TRAINING AND ADJUSTMENT BOARD

Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): I'm pleased to comment on the OTAB statement here today. It's ironic that this government is standing up and saying "We need more training, we need more skills," and at the same time it's saying to nurses and teachers, "You're going to be cut back." The people who have already got the skills and the training, they're going to be cutting back on their salaries.

It's also interesting to note that in the very last sentence, this minister says, "They will shape our continued prosperity." I want to tell you, Mr Minister, the people of this province don't think there's prosperity, and quite frankly, it's a direct result of this NDP government that we don't have prosperity in the province of Ontario.

ORAL QUESTIONS

SOCIAL CONTRACT

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): My question is to the Minister of Finance. The Minister of Finance presented a budget in this House two months ago in which he said that he needed and was fully counting on $2 billion worth of savings that would be achieved in this fiscal year, 1993-94, as a result of his much-talked-about social contract.

Yesterday and today, the Treasurer has admitted that he is experiencing some slippage in the $2-billion saving that he said he needed to keep this year's deficit at $9.2 billion. Will the Treasurer tell the people of Ontario today precisely how much slippage and how many millions of dollars he has lost on this $2-billion budgetary requirement for this fiscal year?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): I will respond to the member for Renfrew North, who one day doesn't want us to engage in this process and achieve these savings and the next day is complaining because we're not achieving the savings. However, I will respond to the question that the member puts to me.

When we started the process, we indicated that we were breaking it up into sectors and, in total, we wanted to achieve $2 billion in public sector compensation. Since that process began, there is one major area where we will not achieve the target that we set out at the beginning; that is, with Ontario Hydro. Ontario Hydro, though, I should tell the member opposite, will achieve more than the $100 million in compensation per year for the next three years; so it's going to save more than was the target, and that will benefit ratepayers all across this province.

The other area, and I want to give a complete response to the member for Renfrew North, is the municipal sector, where we had a certain target for each year of the next three years, as with other sectors. Because of the municipalities being on a calendar basis versus the province being on a fiscal-year basis ending March 31, what we said to the municipalities was that we are not going to alter the target for their savings, but in recognition -- and I'm sure fairminded members of this assembly would want us to do this; I'm sure they would want us to do this -- for this year we will allow $50 million to be deferred. We still get it, but we don't get it until the first quarter of 1996.

The total slippage, as the member refers to it, not as I refer to it, totals $80 million, because we achieve $20 million coming to us from Ontario Hydro anyway, and the $50 million in the municipal sector, which is a deferral, will not be achieved this year.

Mr Conway: My supplementary concerns the Treasurer's budget, of which the social contract savings of $2 billion for this year were a central part. The May 19 budget makes no reference to what's going on at Hydro or on the moon. It talks about a first-order requirement, in this fiscal year, to get $2 billion worth of savings.

My Liberal colleagues and I have done an analysis of the deals that you people have made to date. Our conservative calculation is that in three deals and in three sectors alone -- Hydro, the municipal sector and the health sector -- you have already surrendered $200 million worth of savings this year; so your negotiators, by our very conservative accounting of what you have done to date, have already surrendered or abandoned 10% of the targeted requirement for this fiscal year.

My question to the Treasurer is, how and where do you intend, in this fiscal year, to make up that difference? Do you intend to run the $9.2-billion deficit higher or, God forbid, do you intend to add even more to the $2-billion tax increase which you imposed in this budget of May 19?

Hon Mr Laughren: I know that I'm supposed to answer the questions, not ask them, so I'll refrain from asking the member for Renfrew North how it is that one day he's saying we shouldn't be extracting money from Ontario Hydro and the next day he's flailing away at us because we recognize the contribution that Ontario Hydro has already made in the compensation package to its employees. There's a remarkable amount of inconsistency.

Also, I hope that the member for Renfrew North doesn't expect us to buy into Liberal accounting. We saw what that did during the 1980s.

1420

Mr Conway: No answer to my questions about his government's policy. It's your budget, and your budget made plain that you had to have $2 billion worth of social contract savings in this fiscal year, 1993-94, if you were going to keep the ballooning deficit to $9.2 billion.

Your negotiators and your fellow social contractors, in their pathetic effort to "Let's make a deal" have clearly, in three sectors, in health and in Hydro and in the municipal sector have already surrendered, at the very least, $200 million worth of savings this year. You have already, by this account, given up 10% of the $2-billion social contract requirement that you said you needed to have this year.

My question to you remains, and the taxpayers of Ontario will want to know, since they would want me to believe you to be an honourable man, where and how do you intend, in this year, to make up the hundreds of millions of dollars that you have already lost in your effort to make deals at Hydro, in the health sector and in the municipal sector?

Hon Mr Laughren: This comes from the party that didn't even want a bill brought before this Legislature. They just wanted to negotiate and negotiate and negotiate for ever and ever and ever and be flexible, flexible, flexible. That's what the Liberal Party wanted.

I would say to the member for Renfrew North that I've already detailed the amount of money that will not be achieved through the social contract. One is the $80 million from Ontario Hydro, which, I might add, is being saved because that's going to be reflected in the freeze on rates, and I would ask the Liberals what they did with hydro rates when they were in office for five years. We have tackled a very serious problem. The other part of the social contract target that will not be achieved this year, but will be achieved, is the $50 million.

He keeps talking about hundreds of millions of dollars, and I'm not surprised that the Liberals talk in those kinds of terms, because that's the way they talked when they were in government as well.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Second question.

Mr Conway: The Liberal Party of Ontario said that your social contract policy was an unworkable, unachievable, muddled mess --

The Speaker: Would the member place his second question, please.

Mr Conway: -- and it is becoming more and more apparent with every passing day that it is that and probably worse.

The Speaker: Does the member have a second question?

Mr Conway: In my view, this social contract is a fat, pregnant Trojan Horse that is going to give birth in this place to calamity.

The Speaker: Will the member please take his seat.

Mr Conway: My second question, Mr Speaker --

The Speaker: Would the member take his seat.

Interjections.

The Speaker: The member with his second question.

Mr Conway: My second question is to the Minister of Finance: I have in my hand the municipal agreement that I gather the Treasurer, the Minister of Finance, has in recent moments authorized. Reading this municipal agreement, I can scarcely believe my eyes to read that in section 2.7, it is very clear that Bob Rae's social contract policy is going to affect all public servants in that sector irrespective of whether or not they earn $20,000 a year or $90,000 a year.

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): False.

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Education and Training): Read it again.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Conway: It couldn't be clearer from a reading of this particular agreement. I want to ask the Minister of Finance how this can be so.

Hon Floyd Laughren: I know that the member for Renfrew North is frustrated and angry that we are achieving these sectoral agreements, because he didn't think we would ever be able to do it. The fact is that we are reaching voluntary agreements.

If I could address specifically -- and I hope he'll give me the time to do this, Mr Speaker -- the municipal agreement that was signed voluntarily by representatives of employees, the municipalities themselves and the government negotiating team, that agreement allows people at the local level, if they voluntarily agree at the local level, that in order to prevent permanent layoffs of people who earn under $30,000, they can voluntarily agree to be part of the social contract savings in a municipality.

There is nothing -- nothing -- in the agreement that imposes anything on anybody earning under $30,000. If people at the local level do not want to be part of this sectoral agreement, they don't have to be part of it. They can resort to the fail-safe mechanism that begins on August 1.

Mr Conway: We now have two agreements, the municipal agreement and the community services agreement, where it is absolutely clear that workers, public servants, who are earning below $30,000 a year will be exposed to the impacts of this policy. It couldn't be clearer.

My supplementary question -- to St Bob Rae, who comes in here to object but won't answer questions -- my question to the Minister of Finance: Given those agreements and given the exposure that the under-$30,000 workers are going to face, how do you square that with your statement to this Legislature on June 14, when you introduced the legislation, that this legislation "exempts all public sector employees making less than $30,000 a year"?

How do you further explain that St Bob Rae, on June 19, spent $84,000 of the taxpayers' money --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Would the member for Renfrew North please take his chair.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Would the member please be seated. I realize that the honourable member has a very serious question which he's posing. I know also that the member is aware of the practice in our chamber of referring to other members of the assembly either by the name of their constituency or by the title they hold, and I know that the honourable member would want to maintain that historic tradition. Could he please pose his question.

Mr Conway: I appreciate the advice and I will withdraw the reference to the saintliness of the member for York South.

The Premier of this province spent $84,000 on June 19 to take out government advertising to tell the people of Ontario, and I quote one line, "I, Bob Rae, want to point out that this social contract law protects public workers who earn below $30,000 a year." That was a solemn promise that he made and that you repeated. It is clear from these two agreements that you have broken that promise and that you have broken faith with those public servants. Do you not agree?

Hon Mr Laughren: In response to the dyspeptic dilettante from Renfrew North, I would simply say that the ad to which he refers deals specifically with Bill 48, the Social Contract Act. The Social Contract Act does indeed completely protect people earning under $30,000 a year. What the member is referring to today is a voluntary sectoral agreement worked out between the municipalities, the employees of the municipalities and the government, which if people --

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): Do you hang them out to dry if you have an agreement?

The Speaker: Order, the member for Willowdale.

Hon Mr Laughren: -- at the local level wish to have themselves -- who earn under $30,000 -- as part of the savings targeted for that municipality, they can do so if they voluntarily agree to do so. Nothing, absolutely nothing, has been changed with Bill 48.

The law referred to in that advertisement is strictly an agreement which allows people to voluntarily agree to do that rather than be subjected to permanent layoffs. If the member for Renfrew North would rather see people laid off than protected in this way, let him stand in his place and say so.

Mr Conway: Yesterday, it was bad-faith bargaining on the part of this government, and today it is clearly a case of, at the very least, misleading advertising. It's your policy, it's your legislation, it's your commitment, it's your advertisement, and it couldn't be clearer, and you have broken faith and you have misled these people for whatever reason. If you didn't know what you were doing two months ago, if you didn't figure this out, then that's your problem, not the problem of the opposition and not the problem of the working men and women of this province.

Does the Treasurer still not understand that these agreements that have come to light in the municipal sector and in the community services sector clearly expose people earning less than $30,000 a year to the impact of the social policy, and that this exposure is a complete and flagrant contradiction of the solemn promise that he made on June 14 and that the Premier has made and repeated across the province for the past number of weeks?

1430

Hon Mr Laughren: We could get into a debate about who's misleading whom, but I can tell the member opposite that absolutely nothing has changed in regard to that advertisement or Bill 48. Absolutely nothing has changed.

I said right from the beginning of this exercise that the best agreements were ones that would be worked out voluntarily prior to August 1. No one is imposing anything on anyone earning under $30,000, and it will not affect anyone under $30,000 unless they voluntarily, through their bargaining agents, agree to this and say, "We would prefer this to permanent layoffs."

The member for Renfrew North hasn't yet replied to my challenge to stand in his place and say that he'd rather see people earning under $30,000 laid off than voluntarily be part of the social contract savings.

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): I'd like to come back to the Treasurer and follow up with just exactly how much your slippage is showing. Can you confirm for us today that you planned to get $100 million from Ontario Hydro and now you plan to get zero from Ontario Hydro; $100 million which you're going to spend on something else, which, as far as the deficit's concerned, is zero?

Let's talk about how much the deficit's getting here. One hundred million dollars was going to go on the deficit from Hydro; today it's zero. As well, $55 million has now been deferred beyond the three-year period to the municipal sector, well beyond your mandate and any prediction that any one of 10 million Ontarians think you'll be in government beyond that period of time. That's $155 million.

Then we have $50 million that's a little signing bonus for the municipal sector. Then we have $53 million that you're now saying can carry on in the grid with the health care workers.

That comes to over a quarter of a billion dollars of slippage that is showing. Can you confirm that what we are talking about to date in your agreements is over $250 million, or do you refute any one or any part of those numbers I've given you?

Hon Floyd Laughren: I said in response to the first question from the official opposition that Hydro was going to achieve its compensation savings separate from this social contract --

Mr Harris: Oh, so they're going to give you the money.

Hon Mr Laughren: Allow me to finish -- and pass on those savings to its ratepayers.

The purpose of the whole exercise is to reduce public sector compensation by $2 billion. That's going to be achieved not to the consolidated revenue fund, I acknowledge. I said that right at the beginning.

Secondly, in the municipal sector, the roughly $50 million that will be deferred will not be achieved this year as savings for the government. That's absolutely correct.

No other targets have been altered for the other sectors. As a matter of fact, the municipal sector target hasn't been altered either; it's simply that that has been deferred by one quarter and will not be achieved this fiscal year, but that'll still be a saving in public sector compensation. It just will be put off until the beginning of 1996 in order to be fair to the municipalities. The leader of the third party, I suspect, would agree that this was a more thoughtful and fair way of doing it than to simply demand that $50 million in this year, the part of the year that's left for the municipalities. I thought it was exercising good judgement and flexibility.

Mr Harris: I assume, in terms of the others you haven't commented on, that you agree that amount of slippage is showing.

I'd like to come back to Hydro. You say that the wage bill will be cut under a plan that Hydro has but that you will not get the money, which gets me to the fundamental reason for a social contract in the first place.

We were told it was for the financial integrity of the province. It was to get the deficit under control. It was to control the size and cost of government, and that cutting the size and cost of government and its agencies, that money would be returned to the Treasurer, to the province -- that's what I assume you're telling the Toronto public school board -- as their share of reducing the deficit.

But now you're saying that's not the reason in Hydro's case. You're only left with one rationale in Hydro's case. Your purpose was to take money away from public sector workers. As long as you accomplish that, you're happy.

My question to you is this: Is the purpose to reduce the deficit or is the purpose to punish public sector workers, and that as long as there's a plan, in the case of Hydro, to punish them, take 5% off their total wages, that's okay? Is that the purpose?

Hon Mr Laughren: First of all, at no point did we or anybody in this government say that there was going to be any effort or attempt to punish public sector workers. That's a ridiculous assumption the leader makes; that is downright silly. Why would we punish the very people who work in the public sector? The vast majority work extremely hard.

In terms of Ontario Hydro, Ontario Hydro is going through a very profound fundamental restructuring. The leader of the third party would understand that for the first time in living memory -- and I've been here only 22 years -- I can see real restraint being exercised in Ontario Hydro, something that his government didn't even encourage as it went on its nuclear spending spree during the 1970s and 1980s.

I would say to the leader of the third party that he's right in one sense: the purpose of the social contract was to lower the compensation bill of the Ontario government. To the extent that Ontario Hydro is going to pass on those savings to its ratepayers rather than to the consolidated revenue fund, he's correct. That does impact -- I said that right at the beginning -- on the social contract saving and is reduced from the $2 billion that we set out as a target at the beginning of this process.

I think, though, to have said to Hydro, given particularly its latest numbers on how much it's losing this year, "Now, we demand the $400 million back from you, on top of all the other problems you're going through," the leader of the third party would have been the first one on his feet to denounce us for being too hard on a utility that's going through a very difficult restructuring.

Mr Harris: There's absolutely nothing new today in this area, in Hydro's area, that wasn't known this spring, that wasn't known last fall, that hasn't been known, that we haven't been telling you day after day after day after day since you took office. You keep changing and you keep moving the target. Now it's no longer $2 billion for the integrity of the debt. You've already admitted $200 million is gone already of that amount of money.

I want to talk as well about one of these sacred principles that was raised by the Liberal Party: the $30,000. You have said that the $30,000 is only in the bill. If you rely on the fail-safe provision of the bill, your $30,000 is protected.

However, you have also acknowledged that the bill, if you're relying on it, is unworkable, because the choice then facing the employee is a cut from their wage, if they're under $30,000, of 5%, or they can have zero. You've just acknowledged that; you said in your statement that the reason they can voluntarily take the 5% cut is so they don't lose their job.

You tell me, in the bill and in the amendment you refused to accept, do you think it's fair to say to those people under $30,000, "Pick door A, 5% off your wages, or door B, everything off your wages; you've lost your job." Those are the two choices you have left for those under $30,000 in many of the areas in your bill. Do you think that's a fair choice, "Pick this, nothing, or this, a 5% cut"?

Hon Mr Laughren: I think the leader of the third party is somewhat confused, but let me first deal with the beginning part of his question. In the beginning part of his question, he wasn't talking about the under-$30,000; he was talking about Ontario Hydro in the beginning part of his final supplementary. He said that nothing has changed. Well, what has changed -- and maybe the leader of the third party was elsewhere when this was being discussed in this chamber -- is that Ontario Hydro's projected revenues have changed to the tune of $200 million. He may not think that's important, but I think it's important and I think it was important to take that into consideration as we went about the social contract exercise. I think that's significant.

1440

On the $30,000 low-income cutoff, I would simply say to the leader of the third party that under the legislation, Bill 48, the Social Contract Act, if that takes place and there's no agreement at the local level and the municipality must achieve its target and that municipality decides at some point in time to close down the department, then of course those people would lose their jobs, if that was the only way in which that municipality could reach its savings target. What this does is say to the employees, "If you wish, only if you wish, you can, rather than do that" --

Mr Harris: Rather than lose your job.

Hon Mr Laughren: Which they would lose anyway.

The Speaker: Would the minister conclude his response, please.

Hon Mr Laughren: The leader of the third party seems to think that, even though he wants $2 billion in savings, wants it desperately, he wants more --

Mr Harris: More.

Hon Mr Laughren: More, he says, more. He thinks that can be done without anybody in the province losing a job, that the municipalities can reduce their expenditures with nobody losing their job. The leader of the third party is falling over his own contradictions.

The Speaker: New question.

Mr Harris: I haven't said all these things. You're the ones who have said it. You said $30,000 is sacred. You said $2 billion or the province is down the tube. You said we had to do all these things.

The Speaker: Does the leader have a second question?

Mr Harris: I do, and it's to the Premier, because it's becoming increasingly clear that the reason for the social contract, the reason for the $2 billion in wage cuts, is all over the map, and I would like to give the Premier an opportunity today to explain exactly why we are saying to employees, "We're going to reduce your standard of living by a minimum of 5%," why we're going to have to downsize the cost and size of government, why we need the $2 billion. We heard lots of reasons earlier on: It was because of the deficit; we heard it was for the financial integrity of the province. I would like to give the Premier an opportunity today, in view of all that we've heard and all the different rationales we've heard, to explain to this House exactly why we are going through this turmoil and this exercise called social contract. Could you give us the why?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): If there's been a lot of different reasons offered and comments made, they haven't been made by members on this side or by the Minister of Finance or by any of us who have been trying to explain to people and going over the ground over many, many months why this kind of step is required.

It's required because Ontario has a significant deficit problem, and it's required because all our public sector institutions have to, in our view, make a contribution that will match the reality that's been under way for some time in the private sector, and that includes Ontario Hydro; it includes all of our public sector institutions. They will and they are making a contribution, as have people in the private sector made a very dramatic contribution because of what's taken place in the economy.

We decided as a province that we simply cannot afford to borrow in order to protect, if you will, the overall public sector from the reality of the extraordinary downturn that took place starting in 1989. It would be irresponsible of the province to continue to borrow to do that, and that is why a reduction in the size of the public sector is required and that's why a reduction in the size of public sector compensation is required.

If we pass on the saving to ratepayers in Hydro or if it's reflected in terms of the changes that are effected, the efficiencies that are effected in municipalities, in our health care system and elsewhere, well, that's all to the good.

I don't expect there to be an outflowing of gratitude from among public sector workers when we are in fact asking them to take a reduction in order to help the province through an exceptionally difficult time. I don't expect them to be happy about that.

The Speaker: Would the Premier conclude his reply, please.

Hon Mr Rae: But I dearly wish the opposition would come clean and tell us consistently, what is their position? Where do they stand with respect to this issue? I hear far more understanding from the general public, much more appreciation from the general public, than I do from members opposite, who have nothing but criticism.

The Speaker: Could the Premier conclude his response, please.

Hon Mr Rae: If we negotiate, we're criticized. If we insist on legislation, we're criticized. All you want on this side is for the whole exercise to fail, and I can tell you --

The Speaker: Would the Premier please resume his seat. Supplementary?

Mr Harris: I merely ask the Premier, why? Why all this turmoil? We support the original principle, and we still do: Downsize the size and cost of government; get the deficit under control. We still support that. But surely, Premier, you can understand the confusion of one million public sector workers and their families. First of all, $2 billion is sacrosanct; then we don't know. Then the slippage comes.

Now, Premier, according to a statement you made -- not the opposition, not even the Liberals, who were the biggest spenders until you came along -- July 7 at the McMichael gallery, the purpose of the social contract, in the speech you gave to the nurses -- they had to cut back -- was so you could fund the building of a new theatre. Members of the Ontario Nurses' Association who were present on July 7 tell us you said that a $7-million IMAX movie theatre at the Ontario Science Centre was made possible by social contract savings.

Can you explain to the nurses, can you explain to the public sector workers, can you explain to one million public servants and their families the difference between what they are perfectly willing to do -- you said you didn't expect any credit. They want to help. They want their children to have an opportunity in this province. They want to see the deficit tackled. But their worst fears were confirmed when you told them the reason for it was so you could fund your pet NDP projects. Can you explain that to them, that that's the reason for the social contract talks?

Hon Mr Rae: The honourable member, if I may say so, is relying on thirdhand accounts of comments I made, that I have, again, made consistently in this House and that the Treasurer has made consistently in the budget. It's quite true. The Minister of Finance has stated it. I've stated clearly that we want to maintain the integrity of capital budgets. We want to maintain the ability of the province and the public sector and the private sector to invest. We've said that time and time again.

Yes, I think the first investment in 25 years made by a government in the Ontario Science Centre is a good idea. What would you do to the science centre, tear it down? It's going to attract new investments. It's going to attract new visitors. Those are good things to do. The fact of the matter is that some of the savings we are able to effect because of the reductions in public sector compensation are allowing the government and are allowing the public sector to make investments. We stand by those investments.

Over $3.5 billion in Jobs Ontario capital, in capital formation in the public sector. What did you do in the early 1980s? You stopped the school-building. You stopped the house-building. You stopped the road-building. You cut back on capital investment. We're not going to do that. We're going to maintain capital investment. That has nothing to do with anybody's pet projects. That has to do with sound public policy, the creation of jobs in the face of what we've been through in the last few years. I'm proud of that.

The Speaker: Could the Premier conclude his reply, please.

Hon Mr Rae: I'm proud of the social contract and the fact that we're asking everyone to make a contribution at a time when we're going through such significant change.

Mr Harris: With all due respect, Premier, I say to you in this House, listening to your statements, listening to you today, listening to the original purpose, that you're losing it. You are becoming so irrational that nothing you say makes sense. You, quite frankly, are losing it.

By way of final supplementary, the Premier says I relied on unsubstantiated accounts of nurses who happened to be at the McMichael gallery when he gave the speech there. I wouldn't rely on that alone. I got many phone calls; so I phoned your office to confirm. They confirmed that, yes, that is indeed what you said. You have confirmed in this House that you want capital spending, you want projects, you want to build this, you want to build that.

1450

The very, very worst fears of taxpayers, who are prepared to contribute to save this province, and the very, very worst fears of a million public servants and their families are coming true, that you do plan to take their $2 billion, or $1.8 billion -- we've seen the slippage today -- but when you get that money, you plan to fritter it all away on new government housing, new government day care, new capital projects --

The Speaker: Would the leader place a question, please.

Mr Harris: -- and that you do not intend to use that money to solve the deficit problem, to save the province, to provide a future and hope and opportunity for their children, as was done for 42 years of Progressive Conservative government in this province. Their worst fears are being confirmed.

The Speaker: Does the leader have a question?

Mr Harris: I would ask you, Premier, to reflect on what you've said today and reassure us that every cent of the wages you're asking them to give up will in fact be used to solve the deficit problem, not to spend on your favourite NDP patronage, whatever it is, special projects.

Hon Mr Rae: History will determine which one of us, the leader of the third party or I, has either lost or regained or recaptured some, all or part of our marbles. But I would say to the honourable member with great respect, as they say in political life, that my understanding of the future includes child care, my understanding of the future includes roads, my understanding of the future includes housing, my understanding of the future includes science centres. It includes projects which have traditionally had the non-partisan support of all members of the House. There's nothing that's been said in these --

Mr Harnick: This sounds like Bob Rae telling the electorate to vote for him. I heard all that in the last election. Remember the Agenda for People?

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): My agenda includes people injured in automobile accidents being able to sue. Your Ontario included lots of things in the summer of 1990 it doesn't include now.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Rae: I listen to what I hear opposite. I ask you, who's really losing it, Mr Speaker?

Interjections.

The Speaker: New question. The honourable member for St Catharines.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): There's a lot of noise in the House.

The Speaker: Order.

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a question for the Premier. I heard the Premier make reference to history, and I would like to deal a bit with the history of the views of the Premier of Ontario on certain important issues. One of those issues is wasteful government spending.

I asked the Premier some time ago whether he was going to quit polling, spending his money on the polls. He's trying to get Mr Charlton back to palm this question off on him, but I don't think the Premier today will palm the question off on someone else.

In the context of a time of restraint and austerity and in view of the fact that the Premier in the past has been one of the strongest advocates of removing government advertising of a self-serving nature from the expenditure list of government -- certainly he and I in opposition fought side by side on this issue -- I ask the Premier how he can possibly justify full-page ads -- and the information in them seems to be changing a bit -- which are nothing more than NDP propaganda paid for by the taxpayers of the province of Ontario.

How can he possibly justify putting those kinds of ads in newspapers when, as the government, he already has the same access as everyone else to the news media?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): The ads may be a little on the dull side, but they certainly do reflect, I think, factually the situation. They're an effort to convey information to the public, and I think a government has a responsibility, as all people have a responsibility, to convey information to the public.

I would assume that your caucus conveys information with respect to your activities. Our government conveys information with respect to something which is a matter of public record and public policy. It would be irresponsible not to communicate with the public.

Mr Bradley: When the Premier and his government are out in the press conferences that they have access to, when they're issuing their press releases, when they're speaking in the Legislature, they have the opportunity to put their message out. But the Premier recognized, in his years gone by in this Legislature and the federal House of Commons, and he has certainly been critical of the federal government for this particular practice, that this is nothing more than the purveying of NDP propaganda.

We're not talking about a health ad which says the list of drugs that you are removing from seniors or an ad which might say that people who might have a problem with blood transfusions should report to certain centres. They're factual ads that everyone would agree with. We have here ads which are just government propaganda.

I ask the Premier, in conscience, and in the context of the policy of restraint which he's enunciating, will he discontinue this particular practice and set a good example for the people in this province?

Hon Mr Rae: I find it interesting when we convey information. For example, I recall the questions that were raised during the budget. I'm proud of the fact that we did put out a four-page publication on the budget. The Liberal Party doesn't mind spending money issuing a 30-, 40-, 50-page briefing to the chartered accountants community or to the Canadian Bankers' Association or those people. No, no, that's fine, but if you try to present information in a way that's readable to the average person, to the average family in a form that's accessible, in a way in which it can be read, I think that's part of the responsibility of government.

Government has that responsibility, because I believe that information doesn't just belong to the bankers, doesn't just belong to the lawyers and doesn't just belong to all those people who have a vested interest in a situation. Information belongs to the public.

The public has a right to know and the public has a right to know what its government is doing and the public has a right to make their choices. We'll let the public make its choices rather than see it all tied up the way the Liberals used to do with all the vested interests. That's where you want it tied up.

WOMEN'S CENTRES

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): In the absence of the Solicitor General, I'm going to refer this question to the Premier. He may want to refer it to someone else as well, I'm not sure, but it has to do with the wise and judicious use of taxpayers' dollars, a rather modest amount in terms of the total provincial budget but a significant one in terms of the fact that it's supposed to be directed towards victims of crime, specifically vulnerable women who are victims of sexual abuse.

We've heard recently of two investigations conducted by the Provincial Auditor into sexual assault centres in the province. We don't have access to those; they're secret reports, apparently. But we do have access to an independent review of the sexual assault centre in the Hamilton area, which is partially funded by the Ministry of the Solicitor General.

1500

I'm just going to deal with one aspect of this in my initial question. One element of this independent review talks about the centre's image as a radical lesbian organization where victims have reported that counsellors disclose their own sexual orientation, that victims are complaining about the fact that the counsellors have prepared a list of individuals they can speak to who are also put on this list because of their sexual orientation.

The final comment in this report indicates that there has been virtually no monitoring and evaluation by the funder and no follow-up if performance of a centre in its various capacities is inadequate.

Premier, certainly the Solicitor General has had this report in his hands for some time now. How do you respond to these charges by victims of crime, victims of very serious sexual assaults and the way your money is being spent to supposedly assist these individuals?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): In the absence of the Solicitor General, I would refer it to the Attorney General and minister responsible for women's issues.

Hon Marion Boyd (Attorney General and Minister Responsible for Women's Issues): We too take the allegations very seriously, and I know the Solicitor General takes them very seriously. Not only the concerns that the auditor has expressed, but obviously any time a service that's funded by government gets that kind of criticism from those it is supposed to serve, it has to be a concern to all of us.

I understand from the Solicitor General that there are a whole series of new mechanisms that have been put into place in terms of monitoring the sexual assault centres. It is quite right to say that these centres were funded through a ministry that had not previously had the experience of dealing with community-based agencies to the extent that some of the other ministries have and that it has taken some time to set up procedures.

I understand from my colleague and from colleagues on the interministerial committee that oversees the sexual assault prevention program that these allegations are being taken very seriously and are being investigated and that the process by which services are delivered is being monitored very carefully.

Mr Runciman: This report was dated June 7. Now the minister says that the operations of various centres are being monitored very carefully, and this is dated less than five weeks ago.

She's not responsible for this particular portfolio, but she's standing up in the House today and saying they're being monitored very carefully. One has to question that and talk about the whole matter of victims in essence being revictimized. She's the minister responsible for women's issues, and this is a rather pat answer coming from her, I believe, and not responsible.

There's another element of this which I think is frightening and perhaps even horrific, and that deals with the complaints by clients of this centre in respect to the anti-police attitude on the part of counsellors. This has been reported by victims.

I'll just give the perspective of the police. They believe that the centre is deliberately persuading women not to report, that they tell women not to undergo the physical examination involved in the use of the rape kit because they will no longer be able to chose whether or not to report once this examination has been completed.

I've described this as a rather horrific, frightening document, and I'm asking the minister to get up, the minister responsible for women's issues, and condemn this sort of approach on the part of counsellors, people who are out there dealing with very vulnerable women in the province, people she's supposed to be advocating for in this House. Let's hear you condemn that sort of approach in sexual assault centres funded by your government.

Hon Mrs Boyd: For at least two days last week in this House we talked about the presumption of innocence when people made accusations against other people. These are allegations. They are being looked into. We take them very seriously, as we take any complaint of this issue, but we, unlike the member, do not make an assumption that those allegations can be borne out in fact. We make a presumption of innocence until that investigation is completed.

In answer to the preamble to the question, in which the member wondered how we could be monitoring, he knows very well how auditor's reports go. The auditor informed the Ministry of the Solicitor General some months ago that he had concerns, and the Minister of the Solicitor General at that time, the member for Oshawa, met with me, as Minister of Community and Social Services and minister responsible for women's issues, to set up a process whereby we could begin to ensure that the monitoring was complete.

I know for a fact that over the last few months there have been a number of changes put into place in terms of the administration and the management of those programs to deal not only with the financial issues but with the kind of program issues that have been raised by the member today.

I want to assure him that I will speak with the Solicitor General and he will be happy to let you know more detail about what that monitoring process is.

GOVERNMENT PUBLICATION

Mrs Irene Mathyssen (Middlesex): I too have a question for the minister responsible for women's issues.

The publication Words That Count Women In, was released by your office earlier this year. I found it a simple and easy-to-use guide to gender-inclusive language. It has a lot of ideas that make language clear, bias-free and removes distortion. It's been very popular in Middlesex. Can you tell me how this publication has been received by the general public?

Hon Marion Boyd (Minister Responsible for Women's Issues): Thank you to the member for the question. You're quite right. In general, it has been received very positively.

Of course, we produced the document in response to requests from the general public. There is a desire on the part of the public I think to be sure that language that's used is inoffensive and that it is inclusive.

We have had a real influx of requests. In fact, our first run of the document was sold out. There were 20,000 copies printed and it was sold out.

We know it has generally been received very well by all sorts of community service groups, businesses, the media itself. We're very pleased that the general public takes this matter seriously because language is our way of expressing what we think of one another. So inclusiveness is very important.

Mrs Mathyssen: I'm glad to hear that it has been positively received. I understand by the reaction opposite that they too have been busy reading this book. My problem is that I've run out of copies. I need more. When can I expect to have those available?

Hon Mrs Boyd: The member is not the only one who ran out of copies. The directors ran out of copies as well. We had to do another run. We had 24,000 copies on back order while we did this. We've made a few adjustments in the new edition of this because there was some feedback from the public that led us to believe we needed to adjust it.

Forty thousand copies have been ordered. I believe they've been received in the last couple of weeks. I would advise the member to order her copies early if she really wants to get them.

CLOSURE OF GOVERNMENT OFFICE

Mr Monte Kwinter (Wilson Heights): I have a question to the Minister of Economic Development and Trade. That's you, Frances.

Back in June, the Premier complained loud and long about how Prime Minister Kim Campbell had left Ontario and Metro without any representation in an economic portfolio in her cabinet. He said it was unfair to ignore Canada's largest city and its economic heartland this way. I want to quote. He said, "This cabinet represents the most serious blow to Ontario, to our economic position in Confederation, since the origin of cabinet-making."

Now I find that the shoe is on the other foot. It seems that you will be shutting the Willowdale office of the Ontario Development Corp. This means that there will be no ODC office in Metro Toronto, an office that not only serves Metro but serves York and Durham regions as well. The closest office of this important economic agency to this city will be located in Peel.

Given your government's criticism of Kim Campbell's neglect of Metro Toronto, how can your government close down the only ODC office in the Metro Toronto area servicing Metro Toronto, the region of York and the region of Durham?

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Economic Development and Trade): I'm sorry, I didn't hear the beginning when the member was addressing the question to me just because of the general noise, but I heard the full question. I appreciate the opportunity to answer it.

As part of our attempt in terms of setting up a budget with strong fiscal controls in it, we were doing a number of exercises within the ministry of streamlining operations. The Ontario Development Corp is one of them; so are our domestic offices in the trade division as well as, the member well knows, our international offices.

1510

With respect to the Ontario Development Corp, we have had the opportunity to take a look at the operations there and to determine that we can effectively serve people from a smaller number of offices in the Metro area. Of course we do have a head office down here in the Queen's Park area and the branch office in terms of the Willowdale office. Those facilities and services will be combined both back down to the head office and to the Peel area, as you have indicated.

I think one of the things that's really important to understand about the changes we are making is, yes, we are closing bricks and mortar operations and we will be saving money from that, but we will be maintaining the same level of service. I think in fact in the way we're reorganizing our ministry and the way we do business to bring about client account management we will be providing better service, both on our domestic side and on the ODC side.

I had the opportunity to recently meet with the new president of the ODC. I'm quite confident that she will do a tremendous job in ensuring that the streamlining is done in a way that will maintain a high level of services to the corporations and the industry in Ontario and in the Metro area.

Mr Kwinter: We are talking about consistency. On the one hand the government gripes about how Ottawa is ignoring Toronto and Ontario, but on the other hand this government is doing the same thing by closing down the ODC office in Willowdale. In fact, the person responsible for Metro Toronto will now be located in the London ODC office, about 200 kilometres away. The only group that is going to benefit from this move is the telephone company.

What the government's closing has done is to make it harder for Metro Toronto companies to access the assistance the ODC offers, such things as loan guarantees and the other services that come out of that. In the middle of Metro Toronto's already fragile recovery, does it serve the purpose of what this particular area needs to close the only office that is really servicing that group and also servicing the key areas of Durham and York region?

Hon Ms Lankin: Again, I have to say that I disagree with the premise of the member's question, that this action is discriminatory towards Metro Toronto. We are streamlining our offices across the province, both ODC offices and our domestic offices, and we are working on this with other ministries. There are other ministries with regional offices where we can combine into the same office location and still continue to provide high level of services but at a lower cost to government.

I think that's smart in terms of a way of doing business, and I think we can take advantage of -- the member makes a joke about the telephone, but with telecommunications, computers, travel, we can be places and meet with people and be out there in the field without having the bricks and mortar in an expensive rental location.

I would also say that in the work we have done with Metro Toronto through our Jobs Ontario training program, the community economic development initiative, the work we've been doing with respect to the development of the west downtown lands --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Would the minister conclude her response, please?

Hon Ms Lankin: Yes, I will. Thank you, Mr Speaker -- a major area of development in which we are putting together a leadership framework from the province, our commitment to Metro Toronto is one in which I stand proud of the record.

Interjection.

The Speaker: I understand the member for Parry Sound's concern, but the clock tells me that the time for oral questions has expired.

Petitions. The member for York Centre -- York North.

PETITIONS

HEALTH CARE

Mr Charles Beer (York North): Thank you, Mr Speaker, but you're ahead of me, because it is my pleasure to stand today for the member for York Centre, Mr Sorbara, and present a petition from some 445 persons in his riding. The petition reads as follows:

"We, the residents of Ontario, disagree with the government's radical cuts in health care spending. We fear that the quality and access to health care will continue to deteriorate as a result of your proposed cuts."

I have signed that petition for myself and for Mr Sorbara.

NURSING HOMES

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): I have a petition which reads as follows:

"As a resident of the Hamilton area, I have become aware of the application made to your ministry by the Christian Home Association of Mount Hamilton to develop and operate 150 nursing home beds in the city of Hamilton. I understand this home will be open to all on a non-sectarian and non-denominational basis. I further understand that there have been no nursing home beds made available in Hamilton for some time and there are several hundred individuals in the Hamilton placement services list awaiting placement in existing nursing homes. Clearly these beds are very urgently needed in our community."

"The undersigned wholeheartedly supports the application by the Christian Home Association and highly recommends it to your consideration. I sincerely hope that you will be able to decide in favour of this application.

"As residents of the Hamilton area, we are acutely aware of the urgent need for additional nursing home beds in our community. We believe the Christian Home Association proposal has merit and accordingly recommend it most highly for your kind consideration."

There are hundreds of signatures on these. I know the government House leader will be particularly interested in this petition and I'm very happy to support it.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): I have a petition here that has about 800 signatures from people from Wallaceburg, Chatham, Dover and Dresden, dealing with the Sunday shopping bill, Bill 38. It says:

"We, the undersigned, hereby register our opposition to wide-open Sunday business.

"I believe in the need of keeping Sunday as a holiday for family time, quality of life and religious freedom. The elimination of such a day will be detrimental to the fabric of our society in Ontario and cause increasing hardship on retailers, retail employees and their families.

"The proposed amendments under the Retail Business Holidays Act, Bill 38, dated June 3, 1992, to delete all Sundays except Easter (51 per year) from the definition of 'legal holiday' and reclassify them as working days should be defeated."

I hereby affix my signature in support.

HEALTH CARE

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): I have a petition which reads as follows:

"We, the undersigned, demand that the government honour the existing contract with the Ontario Medical Association. The government should look to the medical experts for cost-cutting measures in medicare."

The petition is signed by several hundreds of residents of Burlington, Oakville, Stoney Creek and Hamilton and I affix my name to this petition.

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas proposals made under the government's expenditure control plan and social contract initiatives regarding health care in the province of Ontario will have a devastating impact on access to and the delivery of health care; and

"Whereas these proposals will result in a severe reduction in the provision of quality health care services across the province;

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

"The government of Ontario move immediately to withdraw these proposed measures and reaffirm its commitment to rational reform of Ontario's health care system through its obligations under the 1991 Ontario Medical Association/government framework and economic agreement."

This petition is signed by about 1,000 residents concerned about health care in North Bay.

GAMBLING

Mr Dennis Drainville (Victoria-Haliburton): I have, again, hundreds of signatures from the city of Windsor and other places against casino gambling. They say:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the New Democratic Party government has not consulted with the citizens of this province regarding the expansion of gambling; and

"Whereas families are made more emotionally and economically vulnerable by the operation of various gaming and gambling ventures; and

"Whereas creditable academic studies have shown that state-operated gambling is nothing more than a regressive tax on the poor; and

"Whereas the New Democratic Party has in the past vociferously opposed the raising of moneys for the state through gambling; and

"Whereas the government has not attempted to address the very serious concerns that have been raised by groups and individuals regarding the potential growth in crime;

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

"That the government immediately cease all moves to establish gambling casinos and refrain from introducing video lottery terminals in the province of Ontario."

I'm very glad to affix my signature to this very important petition.

1520

GO BUS SERVICE

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

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows: to object to the proposed cuts to the GO Transit bus service to Markham, Stouffville and Uxbridge.

"Whereas this will be a major inconvenience to non-drivers and will substantially increase time for travellers and all users;

"Whereas the lack of transit services will increase traffic, thereby increasing air pollution levels at all times, and all levels of government are making efforts to reduce pollution and to encourage public transportation systems;

"Whereas the cuts leave no alternative means of commuting in and out of Toronto for individuals working with flexible work arrangements and child care commitments (the earliest train departs from downtown at 5:20)" -- and there is no train that goes to Uxbridge.

"Whereas it will have a negative impact on the local economy;

"Whereas the lack of GO buses will force passengers to incur expenses, finding and using alternative forms of transportation;

"That the government of Ontario overturn GO Transit's decision and continue the GO bus transit service to Markham, Stouffville and Uxbridge."

I met with the council yesterday in Uxbridge and tomorrow night I'll meet with the residents in Uxbridge about this very important issue. I have signed my name to this petition.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): I remind all members that interjections are out of order and that the honourable members have the floor very legitimately.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr Robert Chiarelli (Ottawa West): I have a petition signed by over 250 people from my riding of Ottawa West and surrounding ridings.

"To the honourable Lieutenant Governor and to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned, hereby register our opposition in the strongest of terms to Bill 38, which will eliminate Sunday from the definition of 'legal holiday' in the Retail Business Holidays Act.

"We believe in the need of keeping Sunday as a holiday for family time, quality of life and religious freedom. The elimination of such a day will be detrimental to the fabric of society in Ontario and cause increased hardship on many families.

"The amendment included in Bill 38, dated June 3, 1992, to delete all Sundays except Easter (51 per year) from the definition of 'legal holiday' and reclassify them as working days should be defeated."

I've signed the petition.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: I remind members that shouting across the floor will accomplish nothing.

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT PROGRAM

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): I have a petition from the North Bay Golden Age Club. The North Bay Golden Age Club petitions the Legislative Assembly as follows:

"We object strenuously to the province's proposed user fees on select drugs."

It's signed by several hundred members of the North Bay Golden Age Club.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Ms Sharon Murdock (Sudbury): I have here hundreds of signatures where it says:

"We, the undersigned, hereby register our opposition to wide-open Sunday business.

"I believe in the need of keeping Sunday as a holiday for family time, quality of life and religious freedom. The elimination of such a day will be detrimental to the fabric of society in Ontario and cause increased hardship on retailers, retail employees and their families.

"The proposed amendment of the Retail Business Holidays Act, Bill 38, dated June 3, 1992, to delete all Sundays except Easter (51 per year) from the definition of 'legal holiday' and reclassify them as working days should be defeated."

Under the standing orders, I affix my signature.

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

"To the members of provincial Parliament:

"I, the undersigned, hereby register my opposition in the strongest of terms to the proposed amendment of the Retail Business Holidays Act.

"I believe in the need of keeping Sunday as a holiday for quality of life, religious freedom and family time. The elimination of such a day will be detrimental to the fabric of society in Ontario and cause increased hardships on many families.

I present that petition to you.

GO BUS SERVICE

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): This is a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

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

"To object to the proposed cuts to GO Transit bus services to Markham, Stouffville and Uxbridge.

"Whereas this will be a major inconvenience to non-drivers and will substantially increase the travelling time for all users;

"Whereas the lack of transit services will increase traffic, thereby increasing air pollution levels at a time when all levels of government are making efforts to reduce pollution and encourage public transport systems;

"Whereas the cuts leave no alternative means of commuting in and out of Toronto for individuals with flexible work arrangements and child care commitments, with the earliest train departing from downtown at 5:20 pm;

"Whereas it will have a negative impact on the local economy;

"Whereas the lack of GO buses will force passengers to incur extra expenses in finding and using alternate forms of transportation;

"That the government of Ontario overturn GO Transit's decision and continue the GO transit bus services to Markham, Stouffville and Uxbridge."

I submit this petition with my name affixed to it, with the hopes the government will do something.

HEALTH CARE

Mr Noel Duignan (Halton North): I have a petition which I'm presenting on behalf of my colleague the member for High Park-Swansea. As you know, as Minister of Citizenship, she cannot present petitions in the House.

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

CLOSURE OF AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE

Mrs Joan M. Fawcett (Northumberland): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food has decided to close Centralia College of Agricultural Technology and the veterinary services laboratory diagnostic laboratory at the college as of May 1, 1994,

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

"To reverse the decision to close the Centralia College of Agricultural Technology and the veterinary services laboratory located on Centralia's campus."

I have attached my signature.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): I've got a whole whack of petitions here. Some are phrased in different ways, but they all deal with Bill 38, Sunday shopping. Rather than take up the time of the Legislature in reading the full text of them, suffice it to say that there are about 1,000 people in North Bay who are opposed to Bill 38 because they believe it leads to wide-open Sunday business and shopping in the province of Ontario, and they would like that expressed to the Legislature.

HEALTH CARE

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): I have a petition here that was forwarded to me by a local psychiatrist by the name of Pramil Tahlan. It's a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, and they want the government to withdraw proposed measures and recommit to the 1991 Ontario Medical Association/government framework and economic agreement.

GAMBLING

Mr John Sola (Mississauga East): I have a petition here which reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the New Democratic Party government has not consulted the citizens of the province regarding the expansion of gambling; and

"Whereas families are made more emotionally and economically vulnerable by the operation of various gaming and gambling ventures; and

"Whereas creditable academic studies have shown that state-operated gambling is nothing more than a regressive tax on the poor; and

"Whereas the New Democratic Party has in the past vociferously opposed the raising of moneys for the state through gambling; and

"Whereas the government has not attempted to address the very serious concerns that have been raised by groups and individuals regarding the potential growth in crime;

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

"That the government immediately cease all moves to establish gambling casinos and refrain from introducing video lottery terminals in the province of Ontario."

HEALTH CARE

Mr Charles Beer (York North): Again, on behalf of my colleague from York Centre, I have the pleasure to present a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario signed by several hundred representatives from York Centre:

"Whereas these proposals will result in a severe reduction in the provision of quality health care services across the province;

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

"That the government of Ontario move immediately to withdraw these proposed measures and reaffirm its commitment to rational reform of Ontario's health care system through its obligations under the 1991 Ontario Medical Association/government framework and economic agreement."

I have affixed my signature thereto.

1530

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

VIOLENT CRIME CARDS ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR LES CARTES ILLUSTRANT DES CRIMES VIOLENTS

On motion by Ms Poole, the following bill was given first reading:

Bill 76, An Act to restrict the trade of Violent Crime Cards / Loi visant à restreindre le commerce de cartes de crimes violents.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): The honourable member for Eglinton has some opening remarks.

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): In view of my difficulties in speaking today, I wonder if I could have unanimous consent for the member for York North to make a few comments on my remarks.

The Acting Speaker: Do we have unanimous consent? The honourable member for Eglinton does have a problem with her voice. Agreed.

Mr Charles Beer (York North): I'm pleased to be able to assist my colleague today. Ms Poole has brought forward this bill because she is extremely concerned that serial killer trading cards imported from California are now available for sale in Ontario. These cards depict colour sketches of convicted serial killers, mass murderers and organized crime figures.

Ms Poole is very concerned that these cards are sending the wrong message to our children. Trading cards have traditionally been used to glorify sports heroes. Are we telling our children that their new heroes are serial killers?

Our children must be protected. It is her hope that the government will take up her private member's bill, which would restrict the trade of these serial killer cards to young people under the age of 18, and make it government legislation.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): The honourable government House leader.

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): The fourth order.

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees (Ms Deborah Deller): The fourth order, third reading of Bill 103, An Act to provide firefighters with protection from personal liability and indemnification for legal costs, Mr Christopherson.

Hon Mr Charlton: I move that the order for third reading of Bill 103, An Act to provide firefighters with protection from personal liability and indemnification for legal costs, be discharged and the bill be referred to committee of the whole House.

This is simply a motion to get the bill back into committee of the whole so we can move a couple of amendments that correct some errors or discrepancies in the French version of the bill so we can then pass it this afternoon.

The Acting Speaker: Agreed? Agreed.

Hon Mr Charlton: The ninth order, committee of the whole House.

The Acting Speaker: I do now leave the Speaker's chair and go into committee of the whole House.

House in committee of the whole.

EDUCATION STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE L'ÉDUCATION

Consideration of Bill 4, An Act to amend certain Acts relating to Education / Loi modifiant certaines lois en ce qui concerne l'éducation.

The Second Deputy Chair (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Questions or comments or amendments to Bill 4 as it now stands? We are dealing with Bill 4, as was ordered by the government House leader. Last call for amendments or changes to the bill as it now stands.

Seeing none, shall sections 1 through 60 of Bill 4 stand as part of that bill? Agreed.

Shall the title carry? Agreed.

Shall I report the bill to the House? Agreed.

FIREFIGHTERS PROTECTION ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR L'IMMUNITÉ DES POMPIERS

Consideration of Bill 103, An Act to provide firefighters with protection from personal liability and indemnification for legal costs / Loi visant à accorder l'immunité aux pompiers et à les indemniser de leurs frais de justice.

The Second Deputy Chair (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Does the member for Durham East, as parliamentary assistant, have some opening remarks?

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): My colleague the member for Sudbury is going to move the amendments.

Ms Sharon Murdock (Sudbury): I have two motions to introduce today to correct the French-language version of Bill 103, the Firefighters Protection Act. These motions will ensure that the French- and English-language versions of the legislation are entirely consistent with each other.

I move that the French version of section 1 of the bill be amended by striking out the definitions «équipe de protection contre les incendies» and «pompier» and substituting the following:

«équipe de protection contre les incendies» Équipe de protection contre les incendies mise sur pied en vertu de la Loi sur les commissaires des incendies pour assurer des services de prévention des incendies et de protection contre les incendies dans les territoires non érigés en municipalité. («fire protection team»)

«pompier» Employé à plein temps ou à temps partiel d'un service des pompiers, membre volontaire d'un service des pompiers (qu'il reçoive ou non une rétribution modique pour ses services) ou membre d'une équipe de protection contre les incendies. («firefighter»)

The Second Deputy Chair: We will deal with the first amendment. Ms Murdock has moved an amendment to section 1 -- dispense? Agreed.

Debate on Ms Murdock's amendment: Does Ms Murdock have some further explanation? Debate?

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): I realize that these are technical amendments and that we're going to proceed today with third reading, I believe, with the consent of the House. Once again, I know the critics from both the Liberal Party and the Progressive Conservative Party rose to correct the record of the parliamentary assistant, the member for Durham East, who very erroneously reported to the House in his comments on this legislation alluding that the opposition parties were not entirely enthusiastic or supportive of this legislation.

I also recognize that the parliamentary assistant, after he was straightened out by members of his own caucus, I believe, made some comments to correct the record.

Let me say how much I regret that that partisan cheap-shot attitude exists within the member for Durham East in the first place on a piece of legislation that is the rarity around here, where the minister and the critics from both opposition parties worked so positively and cooperatively together. Any slight when we finally do -- we've talked about new rules. We've talked about new ways of coming together, of government and opposition working together. The public is crying out and demanding that we begin to change the way we operate in the Legislature and in our legislatures across the country and in the House of Commons as well.

I just wanted to congratulate the critics. It's very difficult in opposition when that attitude exists within the government and obviously is on the top of the mind of the parliamentary assistant, the member for Durham East; in fact, one of the attitudes that is preventing this Legislature from assisting and facilitating this type of legislation and other types of legislation.

Let me also say congratulations to the firefighters and the association for the effective job they did in making sure that all members on all sides of the House understood the purpose and the intention of the legislation and the importance of it, and how pleased we have been, as an opposition party and as a caucus, to facilitate that.

1540

The Second Deputy Chair: Further comments to Ms Murdock's amendments?

Is it the pleasure of the House that Ms Murdock's amendment to section 1 carry? Carried.

Shall section 1, as amended, carry? Agreed.

We have further amendments.

Ms Murdock: Subsection 2(2): I move that the French version of subsection 2(2) of the bill be amended by striking out «La Couronne et les municipalités sont responsables d'un tel délit comme si le paragraphe (1) n'avait pas été adopté» in the 7th, 8th, 9th and 10th lines.

The Second Deputy Chair: Ms Murdock has moved -- dispense? Agreed.

Comments on the amendment? Further comments on the amendment?

Shall the amendment, as suggested by Ms Murdock, to subsection 2(2) carry? Agreed.

Shall section 2, as amended, carry? Agreed.

Shall sections 3 through 5 of Bill 103 carry as presented? Agreed.

Shall the title carry? Agreed.

Shall the bill, as amended, be reported to the House? Agreed.

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): I move that the committee rise and report.

The Second Deputy Chair: Mr Charlton moves that the committee rise and report. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

I do now leave the committee of the whole to resume the Speaker's chair.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): The committee of the whole House begs to report one bill without amendment and one bill with amendments and asks for leave to sit again.

Shall the reports be received and adopted? Agreed.

FIREFIGHTERS PROTECTION ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR L'IMMUNITÉ DES POMPIERS

Mr Mills, on behalf of Mr Christopherson, moves third reading of Bill 103, An Act to provide firefighters with protection from personal liability and indemnification for legal costs / Loi visant à accorder l'immunité aux pompiers et à leur indemniser de leurs frais de justice.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Opening comments, parliamentary assistant.

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): I'm going to be very brief, and I feel somewhat obligated to respond to the leader --

Interjection.

Mr Mills: No, I'm not going to say anything. Okay.

This bill is very important to firefighters across Ontario, and I want to take a brief moment to introduce some of the fire chiefs from Ontario who are here in the members' gallery this afternoon to be a party and a witness to this third reading of very important legislation.

I'd like to recognize Chief Ramsay from Etobicoke; Deputy Chief Colhoun, from Etobicoke too; Chief Anderson from my colleague's riding of Chatham; Chief Beckett from Markham; the fire chief from Scarborough, Tom Powell; the fire chief from East York, John Miller; and the fire chief from Port Colborne, Douglas Lockyer.

Finally, I'd just like to thank my colleague the member for Sudbury, who ably provided the French translations I was unable to do at this moment.

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): I just want to place on the record once more the fact that the PC caucus is very supportive of Bill 103. We are indeed happy that we are at third reading of this bill, An Act to provide firefighters with protection from personal liability and indemnification for legal costs. It goes without saying that obviously this bill has been a long time coming and probably should have been passed many, many years ago.

It's hard to realize that this kind of legislation was even required. It should have been a foregone conclusion that firefighters would have been protected at all times from personal liability or the risk of legal costs.

How ironic that those people in our public service, not only in this province but across this nation, who, as I referred to yesterday, take tremendous personal risks to protect us, the public, and at all times there's never any hesitancy on the part of firefighters in this province to execute their duties, which often involve tremendous bravery. We are all truly indebted to those people who are willing to serve as firefighters in Ontario, and I too welcome the fire chiefs who are here today and know many of the others who are not here who would have liked to have been here to witness this third reading. We are most happy about it in the Progressive Conservative caucus.

Mrs Joan M. Fawcett (Northumberland): I too want to place on the record our party's definite support of this bill. We too believe that the firefighters across Ontario give so much to the safety and also personally of their own time and energies for so many. I want to say that certainly I was extremely happy when I had all-party support for my bill, Bill 87, and now again we are showing our support for this particular bill, which will provide peace of mind, I think, more so, for the firefighters. I'm happy to have been able to meet with some of the chiefs, and I just wanted to definitely say that our party supports this 100%.

Mr Robert Chiarelli (Ottawa West): Just very briefly, Mr Speaker, on behalf of our caucus I certainly want to share in welcoming the firefighters to the gallery here today, and without going into a lot of detail certainly refer to the comments that we made yesterday, which are recorded in Hansard, on second reading.

The firefighters in the execution of their responsibilities face tremendous pressures and risks in the performance of their jobs, and the last thing that they should have to worry about, is the risk of civil suits and being dragged into the courts in the performance of their responsibilities in good faith.

We're certainly pleased to support this legislation and we're certainly pleased to have seen all three parties get together and support this and get it through as quickly as possible.

The Acting Speaker: Questions or comments? Further debate? It appears that there is no further debate. Would the parliamentary assistant have some closing remarks?

Mr Mills: I think enough has been said, Mr Speaker.

The Acting Speaker: Mr Mills has moved third reading of Bill 103. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Be it resolved that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.

1550

TORONTO ISLANDS RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY STEWARDSHIP ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR L'ADMINISTRATION DE LA ZONE RÉSIDENTIELLE DES ÎLES DE TORONTO

Mr Philip moved third reading of Bill 61, An Act respecting Algonquin and Ward's Islands and respecting the Stewardship of the Residential Community on the Toronto Islands / Loi concernant les îles Algonquin et Ward's et concernant l'administration de la zone résidentielle des îles de Toronto.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Does the Minister of Municipal Affairs have some opening remarks?

Hon Ed Philip (Minister of Municipal Affairs): It certainly gives me a great deal of pleasure as the minister responsible for the greater Toronto area and the Minister of Municipal Affairs to present this bill for third reading.

First of all, let me say that I think a great deal of congratulations go to the islanders, who for many years have been frustrated by a very awkward situation that they lived under but who kept on appearing before government after government and presenting their concerns and acted in so reasonable a manner.

Secondly, a lot of credit has to go, I think, to my predecessor, the member for Windsor-Riverside, Mr David Cooke. He has certainly impressed me that, as a minister, he is not afraid to tackle complicated issues and to deal with issues that are often controversial. That stamina and that sense of responsibility, I think, are shown in the work that he did on this bill.

Gordon Mills, who is the member for Durham East, presided over the hearings and I think became quite loved by the residents of the community, as well as respected by them, for the work that he did in piloting and in steering that committee and in dealing with many of the issues that arose in those hearings. I know that he's planning on attending the celebration, as I am, on August 1, and as a singer of some renown he will no doubt entertain all of us with The Good Ship Lollipop and other appropriate songs.

An awful lot of credit goes, of course, to Richard Johnston, my former colleague, and I'll say a few words about that in a minute.

I think the other person who deserves to be recognized in this long battle, of course, is the MPP for Fort York, Rosario Marchese. Rosario initially was able to impress our cabinet that this issue, among so many important issues, deserved priority for this government. He worked closely at every step of the way on the legislation. He was in constant communication with the island community, with my ministry, with the various stakeholders to ensure that a successful solution would come to the many problems we faced. Today, I think it's important that we recognize him for his important contribution.

Last, but not least, I've had to be impressed by the quality of the staff that I have, both in the ministry of the greater Toronto area and in the Ministry of Municipal Affairs since I became minister. They've acted in a professional way, they've acted in a flexible way, they've acted in a creative way, and both the political side of my ministry and the ministry side have won, I know, not only my respect but the respect of every citizen whom they are dealing with, including those who are closest to this bill.

I'll just take a few moments, because of the time limits, to deal in a very short way with this bill. The legislation will, first of all, finally resolve the long-standing dispute over the residential community on the Toronto Islands. It does so in a way that I believe is fair to the islanders, fair to the city, fair to Metropolitan Toronto and, most of all, fair to the people of Ontario.

I would like to sketch just briefly the history of this unique Ontario community. The Toronto Islands community is as old as this country. It began as a cottage development in 1867, the year of Confederation. Twenty-one years later, the city of Toronto established a 200-acre park there.

The attempted dismantling of this close and independent community began in 1956 when Metro Toronto first took over the island. Four hundred homes were demolished in 1957. In 1968, the first homes were demolished without any compensation whatsoever. Since 1974, when Metro terminated the islands' leases, members of the community have led a precarious existence, uncertain about their future. The legislation before you for third reading will give that community a sense of security that it needs to plan for its future.

The Toronto Islands are the home of 650 people who occupy some 250 homes on 33 acres of land. Despite various comments to the contrary, that's less than 5% of the total land on the islands. According to a 1991 survey of island residents, 65% have lived on the island for 15 years or more. Fifty-four of the 250 houses are owned by retirees, and more than 22% of the residents have a household income of less than $20,000.

Clearly, this is a community worthy of consideration and of preservation, not only for the benefit of those who live there but for the thousands of people who love to visit it yearly.

On March 13, 1991, my former colleague Richard Johnston was appointed by the Minister of Municipal Affairs as special adviser to the Toronto Islands. He was given 60 days in which to report on the fairest way to ensure preservation of the residential community on the Toronto Islands. Mr Johnston's dedication, his vision, his perseverance, indeed, deserve to be acknowledged, and we should applaud a colleague whom I hold dearly and respect so much.

Mr Speaker, the legislation before you is based on Richard Johnston's recommendations and is the result of extensive consultation and negotiations among the province, Metro Toronto, the city of Toronto and the islanders themselves, all of whom made accommodations and compromises from their original positions. This bill represents the best, the most comprehensive solution to a very long-outstanding thorny issue.

Members will recall that this bill was introduced in June 1992 and received second reading in November 1992.

The legislation includes these measures:

Land comprising the residential community will remain in public ownership, being transferred from Metro Toronto to the province.

A Toronto Islands community trust will be established to manage the lands. The province will lease the land to this trust for 99 years.

Homes will be returned to the island residents.

Island residents will be offered 99-year leases for the land.

The city of Toronto will receive about $12 million through the sale of land leases to the island residents. In addition, the city will be able to collect a portion of its prior water and sewer infrastructure investment.

Property sales will be strictly regulated to ensure that no windfall profits accrue to anyone.

The islands community will be increased by up to 110 new housing units, most of them managed by a housing cooperative.

Finally, Ward's Island will continue to be a welcoming gateway to the island park.

Several changes have been made in the original bill. These are provisions that will protect individuals who occupy a home on the island but who are not entitled to ownership on it.

I believe the changes we have made and the original components of the bill provide a creative, a fair and an equitable response to the debate over the future of the Toronto Islands. I congratulate everyone who was involved. I'm proud to be the minister who has moved third reading of this bill.

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): Very briefly, this bill will go through, obviously, today, and I just wanted to point out that although the member and minister, in his capacity as Minister of Municipal Affairs, pointed out some of the good parts to this, there was some controversy and continues to be some controversy about the settlement that was made.

I think it's fair to say that when we were here on November 17 and 18 when this bill was discussed on second reading there were very lengthy and interesting speeches, some with some of the most dramatic choreography I have ever witnessed in this place attached to the words.

But there are some very strong feelings about this legislation. I don't think it would be fair to let anyone who is watching the proceedings today go without heeding the fact that there are several questions, and perhaps if they wanted to take a look at Hansard of November 17 and November 18, 1992, around pages 3292 and following, they would probably be able to come to grips with some of the difficulties that some people have observed about the settlement.

1600

There isn't any question in my mind that if there is anything that has to be done and be seen to be done, it is that it has to be fair and has to be seen to be fair. But quite honestly, as we go through social contract, with the elimination of certain obvious incomes for some people under the social contract and the cutbacks that are going on with respect to services, the type of agreement here seen under Bill 61 is going to be noted very much as special status activities being carried on.

Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): But, Murray, be up front about it.

Mr Elston: I just can't bear having the member for Yorkview, I think it is, yipping again about this. All I'm saying is that there has to be fairness seen to be done, and there are so many people when they have looked at this who don't think it is fair that I think the minister should acknowledge that this is problematic with this particular public policy piece.

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): I guess the most appropriate thing that the Minister of Municipal Affairs has just said about Bill 61, the bill that gives public property to some very special people on the Toronto Islands, was that he referred to somebody singing The Good Ship Lollipop. I want to tell you that that's a very apt description of this bill. This bill is The Good Ship Lollipop for those people who are going to benefit from it.

I listened very carefully to the minister's chronology and history of the island homes, and if the people who originally lived in those homes were still there today, I would be standing here saying something entirely different. But the reason that we so strongly oppose this legislation is that it is purely an élitist piece of legislation to people who happen to have made a decision to support the New Democratic Party. It is very élitist when you look at the list of the people who live there. I want to tell you that, in referring to something that my colleague the member for Etobicoke West has said about this bill in the past, frankly I think this could only happen in socialist Ontario.

If we were looking to protect people who couldn't afford to live anywhere else, I would say, "Yes, a dollar a day for 99 years is okay," but we're looking at a dollar a day for 99 years --

The Acting Speaker: Time has expired. Further questions or comments? The honourable member for Ottawa East.

Mr Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa East): It's not only a lollipop deal; I called it at second reading a sweetheart deal, because I know that a lot of people, a lot of families, a lot of seniors in this province are on a housing waiting list and would like to get this kind of sweetheart deal.

But with the presence of the minister in the House, I do have a few questions of the minister concerning Bill 61. Under this legislation, a commissioner is supposed to be appointed to review ownership. My questions are very simple: Has the commissioner been appointed? Has the review started? Those are two of my questions.

I'd also like to point out to the minister that part of the islands concerned -- there's a floodplain area that restricts the construction of any type of buildings. I've heard the minister referring to the addition of 110 residential units to be built on the island and it's right in the floodplain. So my third question to the minister: Has this been resolved? Will the 110 units be built in the floodplain? You pull the plug on a major development because of the floodplain area and I'm asking you today, will you still go ahead with your 110 units to be built on those islands?

The Acting Speaker: We can accommodate one final participant. Seeing none, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and responsible for the greater Toronto area.

Hon Mr Philip: I'll just take one minute to respond. First of all, this is a fair settlement. It's a problem that has been outstanding under both the Liberals and the Conservatives. We've dealt with it in a reasonable and responsible manner.

I respect the fact that the member for Vanier, who was the mayor of Vanier and who represents working-class people, can understand that and that he's been reasonable in his comments in committee. Therefore, it comes as somewhat of a surprise to me that he and his party would find so much fault with this bill.

With regard to the comments from the member for Mississauga South and indeed all of the members of the Conservative Party, many of whom have been a lot more outlandish in their comments than the member for Mississauga South -- their problem is, of course, that they don't believe ordinary people should be able to live in an outstanding and extraordinary location. That's their problem.

If you look at who lives on the island, we have in the gallery a woman who lived in a concentration camp. It's hardly somebody, then, who is an élitist. She put herself through an extraordinary set of circumstances and lived through it.

Mrs Marland: Engineers, architects, psychologists, university professors. There are about 10 people who are original residents; everybody else is a professional and these professionals can afford to live somewhere else.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please.

Hon Mr Philip: Mr Speaker, 20.5% of the island householders are low-income householders as compared to 13% in Metro Toronto and as compared to the people who live in the riding of the member for Mississauga South. She should be ashamed of herself that she doesn't want ordinary people to live in an extraordinary location.

Mrs Marland: If they were single moms or people who needed help it would be different, but you are giving 99 years to university professors, architects, businessmen, lawyers, teachers, consultants, therapists. How interesting. It is unfortunate that you don't know who is living there.

Hon Mr Philip: She doesn't want me to tell the truth because she's been out there with her party spreading mistruths, spreading all kinds of gossip about these ordinary people and using words like "élitist" to describe them. That simply is unfair; it's politically deceitful and she should be ashamed of herself.

I'm proud of this bill and I'm proud of what --

The Acting Speaker: The time for responses is complete.

Mrs Marland: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would ask the minister to withdraw his comments suggesting that I am deceitful. I understand that's unparliamentary language.

Hon Mr Philip: I withdraw any remarks that may have offended the member.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. Further debate? The member for Mississauga South.

Mrs Marland: I do not plan to spend very much time on this bill because this bill is going to pass regardless of the public opinion. But I think when the minister stands up and talks about the poor people who live in these homes on the island, he would do well to have his staff give him a list of who these people are who own these homes currently on the island -- or who, pardon me, don't own them, but who reside there.

Fortunately, we do have a list. I'm not going to refer to anybody by name, but I think it's very important, first of all, to know that we're talking about $1 a day for 99 years. We're talking about $30 a month for these 99-year, lifelong leases.

1610

We're not talking about people who need affordable housing exactly; we're talking in some cases about civil servants who work in this province and I would suggest that civil servants who work in this province, for the most part, have their income guaranteed by taxpayers.

We're talking about doctors. Goodness knows, perhaps by the time this government is finished its treatment of the professions in this province, people like doctors may need to be given accommodation at $1 a day for 99 years, but right now the doctors in this province certainly don't need that kind of subsidy in terms of their living accommodation.

We're talking about lawyers. We're also talking about psychologists, several businessmen, engineers, architects, teachers, consultants, therapists, university professors. I wish somebody could tell me who in that category needs this kind of sweetheart deal.

Most importantly, of course, what we're dealing with here is a pure sellout for the sake of having one NDP member guaranteed a seat in this Legislature. I have no difficulty with who the current member is. I'm simply saying that we're dealing with a political buyout here.

And it is élitist. You only have to go over to those islands to recognize that this lease is only the beginning of the cost for the taxpayers in this province, and indeed in Toronto and Metro. What about all the services that go to support those homes and those residents being there? If they're people who are in these professions, we are not talking about the working poor, so I can't sit in this House and say, "You don't know who you're talking about and you should be ashamed." I'm not ashamed.

What I'm ashamed about for this government is the fact that it's not dealing with the original home owners, because the original home owners are long gone from these houses on the island, with the exception of about three or four families. What we're dealing with is people being given a 99-year lease that they can pass on through their families, regardless of the income and the ability to provide their own housing of their children and grandchildren and great-grandchildren and great-great-grandchildren, for $1 a day. What kind of a subsidy is this?

If they are bound and intent to keep this preserve, this élitist preserve, then why aren't they looking at it for housing for the people who really need it, not people who are in a position to provide their own housing?

We're talking about city councillors. It's the same thing as the fact that we have government members in this House who live in co-ops that are subsidized by the taxpayers of this province.

How is it that on the one hand this government says, "We need millions of dollars to build government housing for the people who can't afford it," and in the same party we have members who earn in excess of $80,000 a year who live in subsidized co-ops? And if somebody starts the argument that co-ops aren't subsidized by the taxpayers in this province, then it really just shows that they don't know what they're talking about.

This bill is atrocious. That land should be saved for all of the people in this province, and particularly as an escape for all of the people who live in the downtown, densely urban core of the greater Toronto area. I think this idea of giving these leases to these people, regardless of their future -- I mean, even if they wanted to argue that the people in those houses today had some need, then let them take a needs test. Let them have a means test to establish whether or not they should have accommodation given to them for $1 a day, and then everybody else who comes along must go through that same means test and find whether they are truly eligible for this sweetheart deal at the expense of the taxpayers.

If you were truly being altruistic about this, Minister, you would be saying, "Yes, we will keep this housing for those people who need it, because these people can't afford any other kind of housing." You would not be passing a bill that gives 99-year leases at $1 a day. It is totally unjust in the overall interests of people who do need affordable housing in this province, and you can't argue it both ways.

The Acting Speaker: Questions and/or comments? Further debate? Would the minister have some wrapup remarks?

Mr Grandmaître: Mr Speaker, I'm sorry --

The Acting Speaker: The member for Ottawa West, further debate.

Mr Grandmaître: Ottawa East.

The Acting Speaker: Ottawa East; I'm sorry.

Mr Grandmaître: I came from the west.

Mr Minister, I've asked you three questions and you haven't answered my questions. Have you appointed a commissioner? Is the residency resolved? Also, what about the floodplain? Is Metro at the present time working or is the province working on the floodplain area to make sure that the 110 units you're proposing to build will be built in a safe area? I've asked you three questions.

Hon Mr Philip: The answer is yes, yes, yes. I'll be happy to supply the data to the member in writing.

The Acting Speaker: Mr Philip has moved third reading of Bill 61.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, please say "aye."

All those opposed, please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it. I declare the motion carried.

Be it resolved that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.

EDUCATION STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE L'ÉDUCATION

Mr Cooke moved third reading of Bill 4, An Act to amend certain Acts relating to Education / Loi modifiant certaines lois en ce qui concerne l'éducation.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Mr Cooke, some opening remarks.

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Education and Training): I have some comments that I want to get on the record in response to concerns that have been expressed by the opposition critics, by members of the committee and others. I'm going to plow through these comments. There's already been considerable discussion of this bill at second reading and in the standing committee on social development, so I will try to be relatively short.

Before I do get into the actual comments, I would like to pay tribute to my parliamentary assistants who have played a positive role in the progress of this bill. The member for York East, Mr Malkowski, led the debate in second reading and Tony Martin, the member for Sault Ste Marie, played a key role in getting this bill dealt with in the standing committee. I certainly want to thank them for their assistance and their leadership on this bill.

I'd also like to thank the other members of the standing committee, and in particular the critics from the two opposition parties for their informed and constructive contribution to the consideration of this bill: the member for London North, Dianne Cunningham, and the member for York North, Charles Beer. Both made a number of positive suggestions and amendments. I very much appreciate their cooperation and participation. In fact, I think the process that's been used on this bill, and some of the issues that were identified, has been a very good one. We've tried to work together to find some solutions to issues that were appropriately identified.

1620

There were a number of amendments to the bill made in standing committee which I believe were supported by all members of the committee. I would like to highlight some of them very briefly.

As you know, this bill contains provisions for setting a maximum period of 20 days for the suspension of a student. Where a student is suspended for the maximum period or more than once during the school year, an amendment to the bill will now require the school boards to review the suspension and, where appropriate, advise the pupil and the parents of services available in the community to assist the pupil. I hope that this amendment will assist in ensuring that the root causes of a pupil's behaviour are dealt with so that the pupil can participate fully in the school program.

In response to a suggestion from the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation, the committee also amended the bill to extend the grounds for which a pupil may be expelled. The amended section provides that a pupil may be expelled where the pupil's presence is injurious to teachers or other staff as well as to students. I believe that this amendment reflects a commitment we all share to ensure that our schools are safe for all who study and work in them.

I'd also like to mention that we introduced an amendment to the bill which will ensure that children of persons illegally resident in Ontario are able to attend schools in their local boards on the same basis as other pupils. This amendment incorporates the substance of Bill 24, introduced by the member for Oriole, Mrs Caplan. That member had talked to us before the bill went into committee and I'm quite pleased that we were able to incorporate her suggestion and her bill in this legislation as well.

I'd like to turn now to the final and very important part of the remarks today with regard to Bill 4. The passage of Bill 4 will repeal the portion of the Education Act which deals with the so-called hard-to-serve students. I want to emphasize that our reason for proposing this amendment to the Education Act is to ensure that all students in the province, including every exceptional student, is able to receive an appropriate educational placement in the publicly supported school system. We believe that this is an objective which should and can be achieved in Ontario.

I note that there are approximately 165,000 exceptional students presently enrolled in the school board programs across the province. Included in that number are over 78,000 learning-disabled students who are receiving education in their local school boards. The school boards across our province ensure that the overwhelming majority of our exceptional students are provided with excellent education placements by caring professionals in their local communities. The provincial and demonstration schools supplement these opportunities with excellent programming for students with particular needs. However, I am well aware of the sincere and important concerns that have been expressed about the repeal of the hard-to-serve provisions of the act.

We have heard from several organizations and parents about their fear that a small number of students may be allowed to fall through the cracks if their local school boards are not able to provide an appropriate placement for them or are not willing to purchase from one of the other school boards.

I've been especially troubled by reports that students with severe learning disabilities or with learning disabilities in combination with behavioural and attention-deficit disorders have not been adequately served by existing publicly supported programs. Parents have told us of the difficulty they have experienced in working with school boards which they feel have not provided adequate programs and which they also feel have not been entirely cooperative in working with parents to find better options.

In response to these concerns and to ensure that pupils have a safety net available to them, my ministry has made a commitment to do the following:

Bill 4 will permit the minister to pay towards the educational cost of students who require care and treatment outside Ontario which is covered by OHIP.

The ministry will increase the number of places in the demonstration schools by approximately 20. Placements will be phased in on an as-needed basis over a period of at least one year as eligible students come forward.

Current admission guidelines will be revised to ensure that places are available for students with learning disabilities in combination with attention deficit disorders.

A regulation will be developed to establish the provincial committee on learning disabilities and to set out its expanded mandate. The regulation will ensure that students, parents and boards have an appropriate role before the committee. It will also clarify the relationship between the committee's process and that of the existing identification placement and review committees. The Learning Disabilities Association of Ontario and other affected stakeholders will be consulted about the regulation.

The expanded mandate of the provincial committee will include the following: to evaluate the needs of the pupil; to admit the pupil to a demonstration school, where appropriate; or to determine that the school board shall provide an appropriate placement for the pupil directly or through the purchase of services from another school board; or to facilitate the placement of a pupil whose primary need is for care or treatment in a government-approved care and treatment facility.

In addition, the provincial committee will be asked to make recommendations about the appropriate placement of pupils who are returning to local school boards from a demonstration school program.

Additional funding will be made available to school boards to ensure that a small number of pupils who are eligible to attend a demonstration school receive additional support in local settings. Such funds will be provided to a school board when the provincial committee so directs.

In addition to these commitments, I have asked the ministry to take certain steps to ensure that we meet the needs of students in this transition period. I would like to advise the House of those measures.

Bill 4, as amended, provides that all students designated hard to serve prior to June 30, 1992, will continue to receive funding for their educational placement for the 1993-94 academic year. It is worth noting that these will include all students who are now designated as hard to serve in the province. The ministry will work with those students and their parents to ensure that, beginning in September 1994, they receive appropriate placements in the publicly supported education system, where the students and parents desire it.

The ministry will work with parents and boards to ensure that students who have begun the application process receive an appropriate placement within their local boards or at the demonstration schools. The same assistance will be provided to students who have applied for, but not been offered, a placement in the demonstration schools.

Finally, and to reiterate a point I made in the House some time ago, I confirm that no families will be asked to refund the ministry for funds paid towards hard-to-serve placements.

The last matter I would like to raise concerns the overall system in place for exceptional students in our province. The Learning Disabilities Association of Ontario has advised me of its concerns about the accountability of the existing system. They have suggested that enforcement of the Education Act and regulations and the proper operation of the identification, placement and review system by local school boards is the best guarantee that all students in Ontario will receive the placement they need. I share their desire to ensure that our current system works well for all students in an atmosphere of cooperation between parents and school boards. In order to address these concerns, I have agreed to do the following:

First, I will ask the Minister's Advisory Committee on Special Education to review the IPRC process and make recommendations to ensure the necessary accountability of the system.

Second, I will ask the advisory committee to review a draft of the guidelines for the parent handbook distributed by boards. The purpose of this review will be to ensure that all parents are aware of the programs offered at provincial and demonstration schools.

In conclusion, I would like to thank again the members of the standing committee on social development, my parliamentary assistants and all those who took part in the consultations. I believe the process that has been used and the problems that have been identified have been resolved to the point that they have been because of the cooperation between the members of the committee and the ministry. I very much appreciate that approach.

The Acting Speaker: Questions or comments on the minister's remarks? Further debate?

Mr Charles Beer (York North): I am pleased to rise as we conclude the debate on Bill 4 and would want, at the outset, to underline that in our hearings I think all members of the committee worked very hard at trying to find some solutions to some of the issues we were facing. I certainly appreciate the work of both my colleagues in the opposition as well as on the government side.

One of the things I would want to put on the record at the outset is that even with a committee that wanted to try to do its job and to deal with all the various components of Bill 4, I think it did underline the difficulty of dealing with what we call omnibus legislation. There were a number of very key and critical issues here which, frankly, we believe should have been in separate bills to really allow for a broader public discussion and to make sure there would be an ability for more people and more groups to come before the committee. I say that because I think many of these issues, particularly in the education area, are ones where there are some very deeply held convictions, whether it's junior kindergarten or the hard-to-serve issue or that of child care. These are ones that I think we need a broader discussion on. I simply want to put that on the record at the beginning.

1630

I want to make just a few comments and I don't plan to talk at great length, because as the minister has said, I think we had an opportunity to discuss these issues in detail, both at second reading and in committee.

I begin, then, with the minister's statement, which has largely dealt with the whole issue of hard-to-serve, I think quite appropriately. As the minister has noted and I think we all experienced, both in the committee and also in terms of people who came to see us about this bill, when dealing with special education, we are dealing with an issue that if your child has an exceptionality, has special needs, you can't wait till next month, next year, five years; you want to make sure those programs and those supports are in place so that your child will be able to maximize his or her potential.

So we heard some very compelling and really very frustrated and in some ways tragic testimony from parents who believed, and I think we would have to agree, that somehow the system had failed them, that we were not able as a society to provide the kinds of programs and services that people needed. We were faced with the issue that the government wanted to remove the hard-to-serve designation from the Education Act. It was our view that this should have been dealt with in a broader piece of legislation that would have encompassed a number of other changes to the whole area of special education.

But given that we had to deal with it in terms of the omnibus bill, through the presentations from the witnesses who came before us and through discussion among committee members, I think we do recognize that the statement the minister has made sets out in Hansard, in the public record, a series of steps which the government will now take. I accept the sincerity with which those proposals have been made and simply say to the minister that we will be watching with more than casual interest to ensure that those things do come to pass.

I think it would not surprise the minister to hear that a number of the groups out there -- and to be very honest, no matter who the government is, there is a lot of cynicism about what any of us has done in government in terms of really addressing some of the particularly difficult special needs that some families have in the province, so I think it is important that we try to make sure that the process the minister has laid out here will be one that will work.

In particular, I hope he would ensure that there is as broad a discussion as possible around the regulation which is going to be developed to establish the Provincial Committee on Learning Disabilities, a committee which exists but which is going to have an expanded mandate. Again, the minister has said that will be done. I think it is important, and I think that way we can come up with the best possible regulation. The expanded mandate of the committee, which is touched on in the minister's statement and which we discussed in committee, reiterates those points; I think those are very good ones, very important ones.

I also think it was critical that we remove from the legislation, and through amendment we did remove, what appeared to be possibly a mechanism whereby the provincial government could seek to take money back from families which had already received it for educating their child or their children. The minister noted that he had, in answer to a question in the House, said he wouldn't do that. That has been removed from the legislation. I think it's important to underline that this has happened.

In finishing my remarks with respect to this hard-to-serve issue, as we go forward and put in place this new process and this new structure, even though we know that in terms of numbers, we're dealing with a relatively small number of pupils who have these so-called hard-to-serve needs, we recognize as parents, or if we don't have children, certainly we recognize how our own parents felt, the importance of ensuring that we deal with each child as an individual and, particularly in this period of transition, that we do everything we can to work with the parents of those who are hard to serve to make sure they get the kinds of services they need.

I would hope as we approach this that this will have a very positive impact on the demonstration schools, the programs that we have here in this province, because I think a number of us noted that one of the things that is very frustrating is where parents have to send their children not only out of Ontario but out of Canada to find the appropriate services. We have to do a much better job at making sure that those services are here.

On that particular topic of hard to serve, while we would have preferred to have handled this in a different way, with a separate bill, we believe the commitment that has been made by the government is an important one and that it does provide greater protection and guarantees to families. It is therefore all the more important that we ensure that those guarantees and commitments are real and that people can see direct benefits from those changes.

The second point I want to address is the amendments that were brought to the Education Act dealing with the Day Nurseries Act and the change through the Day Nurseries Act that will allow school boards to run child care centres. As you know, in the legislation at the present time, while it provides for child care centres in schools, they must be run by community groups.

We have brought forward an amendment to the government's proposal to try to stress the need that representative community groups run these centres, but we do recognize that in certain parts of the province, in certain situations, it is difficult to do that, and school boards have asked if they can have the authority and the power to run those day care centres.

Again we regret that this issue is not being resolved within a broader debate around the provision of child care. We noted in committee, as well as during second reading, that the government had a draft cabinet proposal around the future provision of child care and the role of the education system, but we are still waiting for any final proposals that are going to come forward.

This really is an issue where there is not a consensus out there in the population and where we need to have that kind of debate around what kind of child care we want, the facilities we need, how we're going to support parents in a whole variety of different workplace situations in providing the kind of child care we need.

We say to the government, as it goes forward now with this bill, which will undoubtedly pass today, that it is critical that this clause not be used as a kind of back-door approach of turning over the child care system to the education system. I think we need to look at that very, very carefully to determine if that is in fact the way we want to go and what mix we want to see in the provision of child care.

While our party does not object to the fact that school boards may in effect run child care centres within schools, it is still our belief that we need to have a very flexible and adaptable system that will have many players to meet many different kinds of needs. We would simply urge the government to ensure that when it develops its framework, that it has a full debate in this House and that it has a full debate in terms of public hearings.

1640

The other issue that the minister noted and that we spent some time on related to student suspensions, and I think both my colleague from London North and I spoke about this issue. Some amendments were moved to try to strengthen it. We felt that there were comments made on behalf of a number of teachers' organizations where we needed to agree that we have a problem with the safety in schools, and we've got to make sure that there's flexibility so that principals and teachers can deal with situations that become very difficult.

By the same token, we wanted to ensure that if a student is suspended, that child -- or that young adult, in many cases -- is going to be able to be directed to the kinds of services that are available in the community to get the help that he or she needs to be able to return to school and to get the maximum benefit out of his or her time at school. So we think there have been some important changes made there as well.

The minister also noted that the private member's bill which my colleague the member for Oriole, Mrs Caplan, had brought in had also been brought in and made part of the bill. We thank the government for working with Mrs Caplan and bringing that in. We think it's important. As was noted, there have been problems around refugee children in particular who have been denied access to schools. We simply want to ensure that whatever the jurisdictional battles that go on between the federal and provincial governments or the province and school boards, those are not visited upon children, that we make sure that when there are children in this country, they are going to be able to go to school and get the education they need. That was the aim of Mrs Caplan's bill. The government has placed that within this omnibus bill, and we support that.

I mentioned at the beginning that one of the difficulties with omnibus bills is that they're frustrating because there are things that you agree with and there are things that you disagree with. The one issue, and it was a fundamental and is a fundamental issue in the bill, is that around junior kindergarten and the whole question of the mandatory nature which the government has now set out with respect to the provision of junior kindergarten.

I want to be brief but I want to be very clear that what we have said is that at a time of budgetary restraints through the social contract, through a variety of constraints that have been imposed upon school boards, this is not a time when we can be mandating programs, and that at this point in time we should have left what existed whereby school boards were, as they could, implementing junior kindergarten. While most have, of the 18 or 19 that haven't -- I forget the exact number -- those are, for the most part, large boards in fast-growing areas. Those who came before the committee, my own board from York region, but others from Wellington and Durham and other boards, at this point in time want to develop their programs, but without recognizing that the dollars would be there, this was just something that they couldn't do if it were to be mandated. So what our advice is, and was, is don't mandate this program unless you can make sure that the dollars flow.

We had proposed an amendment with respect to capital dollars which was defeated, unfortunately, and which we felt would have been of help. We had a long discussion in the committee around the capital dollars that the government has made available with respect to junior kindergarten. I want to stress that I think it's very important that those dollars continue to flow, but in our view, it is not sufficient to make this program a mandatory one.

By all means, we believe, and I think most of the representatives, if not all of those who came and spoke on behalf of the growth boards, made the point that they believe there was much of value in junior kindergarten programs, but at this point in time, it must be left optional. Let the local communities make that decision. Because the government has chosen to go forward with the bill in the form that it put it forward in, we are not able to support that. For that reason, we can't support the bill. But as I say, there are other parts of it that we do support.

Finally, I would note that the changes that are being made to the use of American Sign Language, we support. I think that is a most positive change. We had a fair bit of discussion on how that was going to work, and I think that is something that will certainly be of real benefit to those children and young people in the school system who either cannot hear or who have hearing disabilities of various kinds.

I close my remarks by saying again that I think we ought to have dealt with some of these issues in a broader context and through at least two bills, if not three, so that we could have had more effective public participation in the discussion.

I think we still need to have a broader discussion around special education. The changes which the minister has noted in his comments are welcome, and I would hope that when the council on special education completes its work, it will lead to that broader bill that at one time we expected and we want to discuss.

As I said, there are a number of things we think are supportable and are going forward. We do think the government needs to rethink its approach on junior kindergarten and for that reason we cannot support the omnibus bill in total.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Dennis Drainville): Questions and/or comments?

Mrs Yvonne O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau): I'd like to first of all commend my colleague the member for York North not only for what he's done today on this bill but for all the many people he has met with outside of this chamber on these issues -- I was part of some of those meetings -- and certainly for the work he did in the committee, along with the other members of the social development committee.

I would like to suggest and add to some of the things he said regarding more active participation, because we had more requests for hearings than hearings that were held, and I find that rather difficult in a bill of this magnitude.

There's still much work to be done in this province, even when this bill passes, by teachers and by trustees, indeed by students and parents. This bill has a lot of work to be done in the local setting. It requires a great level of trust and I hope the trust can be well placed, because we have over three times in this document read by the minister today "appropriate educational placement."

Appropriate educational placement costs money, and in the publicly supported school system which is under stress that money must come from the province as well as from the ratepayers.

With the removal of the hard-to-serve designation then, as my colleague the member for York North has stated, there is a real difficulty knowing whether what's going to happen is going to be as good as what we have, and we know this is a very, very small number of students, but students with very great needs.

My colleague also stated that the students in suspension are going to have extra care, and I'm really pleased that our amendment was accepted, that these people, the families and the students, will be given every resource possible as they try to rebuild a difficult situation.

I again commend my colleague the critic for Education in the Liberal Party and he will continue his good work, I am sure.

The Acting Speaker: Further questions and/or comments?

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): I just wish to speak briefly about special education programs and the hard-to-serve children in our province. As the spokesperson for people with disabilities for our PC caucus, I just want to be sure that this government does make a realistic commitment to those people with special needs.

I think it's unfortunate that the government decided to lump its special education amendments in with all the other items in this omnibus bill. I feel that in that manner these amendments no longer got the attention they deserve, and we, as the PC Party, feel that all children would benefit from integration, and that if those children who fall into that category of integration, if the parents wish that for their children, we feel they should have that opportunity.

But we feel there are a number of concerns which need to be addressed to make the integration option successful. Certainly this government has to provide provincial resources to support that program, and I think whatever the education needs are of our children with special needs in this province, that has to be first and foremost, the major priority of this government.

I don't think it's too much to ask for the priority to be made in terms of human need first, and with special-education children there's no question that they can't survive without special programs. Other kids, let's face it, will survive one way or another, but special-needs children do not have that advantage.

1650

The Acting Speaker: Further questions and/or comments? If there are none, then I would recognize the honourable member for York North.

Mr Beer: I'll be very brief. I think what both my colleagues from Ottawa-Rideau and Mississauga South were underlining was the need in this area, especially dealing with special needs, to work together. I certainly know in both Mississauga and Ottawa there have been very active community and parent organizations, whether through Community Living or through other groups that exist, that have really fought long and hard back to the time when the first special-education bill came in in the early 1980s.

I say to the minister, and I think he would accept, that all of us seek the same goal and what we must do is continue to work together to ensure that we can provide the best education possible for all of our children with special needs.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): It is with mixed feelings that I respond to this legislation this afternoon, and I have to tell you that most of it has to do with the process.

We all found ourselves on June 13, a couple of years ago, looking at Bill 125 when it was first introduced. A little later, about a year later, we dealt with Bill 20, in May 1992. Then Bill 88, October 1992, and then Bill 114, on May 30, 1991, was the special-education legislation. Then, furthermore, Bill 37 received its first reading on June 2, 1992, about a year ago, with regard to special education.

I have to advise the government -- not specifically this minister -- that there was work that had to be done and some of it, in fact, could have been introduced under the title omnibus legislation. Some of it was clearly, in all of our views, necessary amendments to the Education Act in long standing, but some parts of this legislation are clearly parts that need extensive, in my view, public deliberation and debate.

The three that I would underline in that regard would be, first of all, compulsory junior kindergarten; secondly, the education for hard-to-serve students in the province of Ontario; and, thirdly, the whole issue of who should be responsible for operating child care facilities, whether it be the Ministry of Community and Social Services or the Ministry of Education, and the whole issue of early childhood education in the province of Ontario.

I know that the minister is anxious for us to pass this legislation, but I regret seriously that the proper and appropriate amounts of time for public consultation and discussion were not provided, at least in the three areas that I've mentioned, and I say that for a number of reasons.

Many of us in political positions don't always have the opportunity to be updated with regard to the day-to-day operations of our schools, especially as they relate to programs that are new or programs for the very challenged students in our school system. The kind of research and programming that's going on, I think, around the world and in North America, certainly in Canada and especially here in Ontario, is worthy of our serious consideration and is worthy of our consideration not only for support but for change as required.

We know here in Ontario that there are families that look to this province for our leadership and for the programs that we've been able to pass and provide over the years. There are also other parts of North America where some of our young people have to go to school because they in fact have programs that are more successful than our own, not because we wouldn't like to provide them but because in some areas they've just made more significant gains, not only in the provision of the day-to-day programming but in the involvement of parents and certainly in the area of research, whether it be medical or educational.

For that reason, I think that I myself, and I know that many members of special groups that support our young people and our school-age students -- who I think still deserve and require for the success of our province and our country to receive at a very early age the best education programs that we can provide for them.

I just have to say to the minister, who I do appreciate being in the House this afternoon, because I know he is a minister who does take the time to listen -- and every once in a while he makes some pretty good speeches, and I thank him for the remarks this afternoon and for his compliments. I think there were parts of the legislation where we did work together to make improvements, and I do appreciate that opportunity.

I don't appreciate the fact that this standing committee only had a few afternoons -- I think it was some six afternoons -- to deliberate some pretty important changes to the Education Act. I don't appreciate the fact that we sent out throughout the province an announcement that invited citizens to attend our standing committee meetings that began on June 7. Most of them had less than two weeks' warning -- maybe three, to be kind -- on the public deliberations of this legislation.

I really felt that this probably could have been better dealt with perhaps over the summer. I would have preferred it next fall, because I think that, like all others in Ontario, people do need a break and many of our educators, and our parents especially and our young people, are thinking other things during the month of June and now especially in the middle of July. Who would have guessed that we would still be here talking about educational changes that will affect the lives of our young people?

Many of the families won't have warnings about these kinds of changes. I think educators are on hold right now to see what opportunities this bill will provide for, especially the hard-to-serve students. Many non-profit groups are looking towards entering our school system with regard to the provision of child care. Many educators are not here and available to give the kind of direction and support to these groups as a result of this legislation, because they in fact will be given the opportunity to assist in the management.

I also believe that there are many school boards that will complain about the fact that, once again, this ministry, this government, is downloading programs that they neither want nor need on local taxpayers. I'm now specifically talking about junior kindergarten programs, where we have had many school boards talk to us about the fact that that wouldn't be their priority.

We know in fact that we have almost taken -- I'm trying to count them here for the minister -- some 19 boards in fact that will not have programs next September, and they intended not to provide these programs because the education dollar in their particular municipality was going to be spent in different ways. In fact one board that has a program now had at one time passed a motion to discontinue it in September 1993.

I have to say to the minister that in fact he was a member of a campaign team that went out in the last election and was appalled at the former Liberal government that thought up programs at Queen's Park, decided that they were important for school boards, school boards decided that in fact they weren't important, and instead the government of the day moved forward and required not only smaller classes in the elementary grades, but certainly the junior kindergarten programs began under their particular government.

I thought the minister might like to hear what he said, actually. During the 1990 election campaign, in response to the OSSTF questionnaire, this is what the Premier said:

"The NDP opposes the Liberals" --

Hon Mr Cooke: Those were all done centrally.

Mrs Cunningham: The minister tells me these were done centrally. Ours were too, but I'm stuck with a few things we said, and every once in a while I have to remind you what you said.

"The NDP opposes the Liberals passing the buck to the municipal level. A New Democratic government would provide" -- and I think this is even more important -- "100% provincial funding for appropriate specialist staff."

That applies in the implementation of this legislation.

"This would ensure that hard-to-serve students have an equal opportunity to reach their potential regardless of the strength of the local municipal taxation base."

Everybody knows that we have a by-election in the neighbouring riding to the minister, and I know that some of these clauses are going to be made very much available for the deliberation of the taxpayers when they're making their selection of the candidate. I also know that this minister will have to live up to the changes that he makes in the next campaign, which will probably be a couple of years from now, although I'm sure members of the government would wish that they would be sooner, not to speak of the taxpayers.

1700

I have to tell you right now, Mr Speaker, and certainly I'll advise the minister, that when it comes to special education programs and services, this was a government that made a very clear commitment to families of hard-to-serve students. I think that in good faith, the minister today, and I'm going to quote from his own speech, has said that he hopes that they will be able to meet the needs of the hard-to-serve students, even though I will remind him that we amended this legislation to the extent that we expected the clause to remain in the Education Act.

What we would have preferred was that the committee be provided with the success or failure rate of the hard-to-serve recommendations that the minister has received in the past, perhaps, 10 years so that we could take a look at where we have had some success and where we should be moving forward. There are programs outside of Ontario and Canada that we're very much aware of. I'm certainly aware of the staff and the professionals at the Trillium School, who look for leadership around the world, as others look to our province for leadership in things that we're particularly good at.

But he did say today that Bill 4 will permit the minister to pay towards the educational costs of students who require care and treatment outside Ontario which is covered by OHIP, and I approve. Certainly I shouldn't say "I." I think the public of Ontario would approve of that direction, and it is a necessity, not that the education dollar is being certainly extended far beyond its ability to cope. Perhaps some of the health care money and some of the social service money should be considered for direction towards the cost to educate many of our young people with learning and other physical disabilities.

"The ministry will increase the number of places in the demonstration schools by approximately 20. Placements will be phased in on an as-needed basis, over a period of at least one year," as qualified applicants come forward.

I would ask the minister how he chose the number 20. If this is a budget item, then I think we ought to know about it. We are certainly aware of at least that many young people, whose parents and associations, on their behalf, made presentations to the committee. More importantly, more of them wrote letters and made us aware of their special needs. I know the minister is going to be very busy dealing with these in the next few weeks and months.

The good thing, I think, that came out of these committee hearings -- although a lot more could have been dealt with in a more careful way and I think we could have probably made better decisions if we had taken this section of the bill and dealt with it separately, which I thought was the intent of the government at one time. We would have learned a lot more about our demonstration schools in Ontario, and demonstration schools -- I think they're probably referred to as independent schools in parts of the United States. I would have enjoyed that opportunity, and I think the government would have gained a lot from that.

It goes on to say -- so I'm now saying, why did you choose the number 20? -- "Current admission guidelines will be revised to ensure that places are available for students with learning disabilities in combination with attention deficit disorders."

I'm glad the minister is doing that, but you didn't have to change the legislation to do it. That's ongoing administration of the Education Act itself. I'm glad that you're changing it. I can't imagine that anybody didn't understand that attention deficit disorders are all part of the whole learning disability challenge and I can't imagine somebody just finding that out.

The regulation that will be developed to establish the provincial committee on learning disabilities and to set out its expanded mandate: I was pleased to note that the minister said that he would consult with the Learning Disabilities Association of Ontario, and I think he should consult with other associations that would be interested as well. In fact, he did say "other affected stakeholders." I hope, although it's a regulation, that it will be treated with the same kind of respect and authority that section 37 of the act had before it was removed from the bill.

The expanded mandate of the provincial committee, as the minister described to us today, is to include the following: "to evaluate the needs of the pupil." I really hope that somebody takes the time to talk to the local school boards and the local IPRC committees, and that no one duplicates and slows down the placement of any young person because we have yet another provincial committee.

I really feel that in education right now, especially with children with learning disabilities, it takes so long, first of all, not so much for their needs to be evaluated but to find the appropriate placements. It may seem like a time-consuming and expensive process, but I know all of us understand and know that any delay in appropriate programming will only take away from the opportunities of the young people to succeed. We know what happens to our young students who don't succeed and who do not receive the appropriate programming in our school systems.

If we're talking about money, I can tell you, and you know, Mr Speaker, yourself, as do other members in this Legislative Assembly, that we spend far too much money in our court system, in our mental hospitals and in other jurisdictions throughout Ontario to support people who haven't had the proper prevention services and the proper treatment facilities and the proper education programs to help them to the best of our ability as a province, as taxpayers, as citizens who are interested in the success rate of our young people so that they can become contributing citizens.

Unfortunately, and I think the minister understands this, the school system is, at this time, the great success story for these families. There are many areas where we can improve. I use the word "unfortunately" carefully because I think we should be working with the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Community and Social Services to provide the added funding we need for the social and mental and physical health needs of these young people, because these are not just educational disabilities we're dealing with.

When we leave young people with learning disabilities too long, we then have the health and social service disabilities because they become behaviour problems and they become depressed and they don't have the hope and aspirations we would want them to have.

I have spoken a lot to the hard-to-serve section of this bill. I must say that I had hoped to be able to learn more, to make better decisions and to support the government in a more effective manner through the deliberation of this bill when it was introduced separately, either as Bill 114 or as Bill 37, so that we could have dealt with it in a more thorough and efficient manner.

There are a couple of other sections I wanted to talk about. First of all, this omnibus bill dealt with some 28, I believe, separate and unrelated changes to the Education Act. I've already stated that I don't think this is the way we should be making changes in the province of Ontario.

I really don't know why we couldn't have had some discussions about early childhood education; the junior kindergarten programs; the role of schools and child care centres; the appropriate management processes; the reason we have empty child care facilities in our new secondary and elementary schools in certain communities; why non-profit boards need the kind of support they do to get up and going and be operational and successful; why it is another downloading to ask educational managers to supervise and help non-profit child care boards; who is going to give the dollars for this educational administration to the local boards. No one talked about that.

We asked many questions in committee. We didn't always get the kinds of answers we had hoped for. But I do think that in the area of junior kindergarten, this is something that down the road you'll see future governments move away from, because I don't believe that three- and four-year-olds need to be in every school system throughout the province of Ontario.

1710

I think that for many of them, their real needs are in the area of child care; many families are being pressured, in fact. It then becomes a universal program by nature of peer pressure for both parents and young children. If we really look at the needs of three-year-olds, they probably need to nap and take walks and play outside to a far greater extent than we allow them to do in many of our school systems, especially in our rural Ontario systems where busing is so expensive and we find these young people not in a two-and-a-half-hour program but in all-day programs.

We need some very serious discussions about what we do in Ontario with regard to providing programs as appropriate and as essential from time to time for three- and four-year-olds, either in our child care system or in our education system. I'm not pleased with the direction. It's not news; the minister knows that. I'm certainly around and available to assist, as appropriate; it's probably an area I know a little bit about. I have to say that the staff within the ministries and I do have discussions about these kinds of things, and I'm always appreciative of the fact that they ask my opinion from time to time.

I did want to advise the minister, with regard to the public school boards in Ontario right now, that I believe they ought to be complimented for the work they are doing in special education and for the --

Hon Mr Cooke: Did you see that, Dianne?

Mrs Cunningham: Yes, I saw. My time's up. The minister wished I'd stopped about 10 years ago -- 10 years ago is probably correct -- 10 minutes ago. There is some discipline within our caucus, so I will wind down.

But I did want to say, Mr Minister, in all seriousness, that the school boards across this province are making tremendous efforts in the area of special education programs and we've made great gains in the last decade. I think we should build on our great strengths and improve upon our areas of weakness.

I wanted to conclude by saying that there are parents who are advising us of their tremendous concerns with regard to their own children.

They're telling us that we do have young people, especially people in their teenage years, who have been identified as being learning-disabled for some five or six years; the minister will be hearing about a number of these. We also know that these young people who are learning-disabled have been diagnosed or found to be, through doctors of psychology and otherwise through testing, very intelligent. Some of these young people, of course, are the hard-to-serve.

We know that the parents have taken a look at the demonstration schools in Ontario and also the independent schools. They've looked at the purpose of these schools, the programs that are available, the instructional methods, the instructional levels, the educational goals, the teaching staff, the program focus.

These are people who want the best for their children and who have spent most of their lives trying to find the right answers. They've taken a look at the differences between the length of their school year; how families are included in the programming; whether staff are there in the daytime or the evening; whether they have meals that staff are part of; the recreation time of young people, which is extremely important, whether it's supervised or whether the staff is part of it, whether it's structured; ratios; success rates of all of the programs; and, just as importantly, the cost.

Many of these parents who have written to me and, I know, the minister, have advised us of the expense of our schools here in Ontario. You know how expensive it is at the Trillium School. They've also advised us that there are other schools outside of the province that are running programs at one third to one half the cost per pupil. We should be seriously looking at the success rates of both programs, whether here in Ontario or out of the province, and the cost for the government of Ontario if in fact we have to send some of our young people to schools, especially American schools, to help, as we've been told, to change the lives of these young people.

In closing, I have to say that my great criticism would be of the process. I don't believe there was enough time for public debate. I think many of the special groups of people we depend on to advise us as they represent special students, as they represent professionals, as they represent school boards, were particularly rushed to deal with at least the new sections of this education bill.

I do agree with the minister that where possible we did have good exchange of ideas and did make a couple of good amendments. I have to advise him that he only accepted one of the 15 that we offered, but that was probably one more than the last committee I sat on.

Interjection.

Mrs Cunningham: I think probably four out of some 20, and the one we put forward that was accepted was the one that was put forward by the OSSTF. The one you spoke to actually was an amendment that the Progressive Conservative caucus put forward.

But the problem, and I'm sure the minister would agree with me, was the amount of time we had. The other problem we have in this Legislative Assembly, particularly in committee, is members who go to those committee meetings who are not as well versed as they ought to be, who sometimes get their marching orders -- not all the time -- from the government and where there isn't the opportunity to make the exchanges of ideas and accept a reasonable amendment.

All I can say is thank goodness for the staff who are listening carefully to our debate and sometimes go back to the minister and say: "Do you want to know something? That member" or "that party had a good idea. It's worth your consideration." Far too many of the elected members of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario go to committee meetings, they are not well versed, they do not ask questions and they don't listen.

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): That's insulting, Dianne.

Mrs Cunningham: That is not insulting; that is the truth. I speak for all parties, but especially members of the government. It is a fact; it may be insulting. Mr Speaker, thank you for the opportunity. Sometimes, as the member for London South reminded me earlier today, the truth does hurt.

The Acting Speaker: Questions and/or comments?

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): A very brief comment in response to the speech by the member for London North. I simply want to compliment my fellow member of the Ontario Legislature, also the deputy leader of the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party, for her eloquence in the way she's represented so many concerned about the questions that have arisen in respect to this piece of legislation and the fact that she has done such an able job on behalf of so many who are interested in the education systems in the province of Ontario. I simply want to compliment her on a job well done.

The Acting Speaker: Further questions and/or comments? If there are none, the honourable member for London North has two minutes to make a response.

Mrs Cunningham: I am particularly surprised at some of the members of the government who feel somewhat offended by my observations. I say if the truth hurts, tough; if the shoes fits, wear it. There are far too many people who get elected in this Legislative Assembly who go into committee and who have not done their homework.

The minister reminds me that it's the responsibility of the critics. When I sit on a committee and my colleagues sit on committee, it's the responsibility of all of us. When I say "my colleagues," I mean every member of this House. It's their responsibility to find out about the legislation, to get themselves briefed and to contribute to the democratic process.

I object to people saying that I am being unfair. I think that was the word -- in fact, the word was "insulting." Well, I have to say that I think one of the downsides of this House and of the committees is that far too many people don't stand up and try to present solutions to the problems as we face them here in Ontario. I'm very proud that from time to time I am able to do that.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate. If there's no further debate, then I would call on the honourable minister to wrap up.

Hon Mr Cooke: I'll just move third reading of Bill 4.

The Acting Speaker: Mr Cooke has moved third reading of Bill 4. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour of the motion, please say "aye."

Those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Carried.

It is resolved that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.

1720

RETAIL BUSINESS HOLIDAYS AMENDMENT ACT (SUNDAY SHOPPING), 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LES JOURS FÉRIÉS DANS LE COMMERCE DE DÉTAIL (OUVERTURE DES COMMERCES LE DIMANCHE)

Mr Mills, on behalf of Mr Christopherson, moved third reading of Bill 38, An Act to amend the Retail Business Holidays Act in respect of Sunday Shopping / Loi modifiant la Loi sur les jours fériés dans le commerce de détail en ce qui concerne l'ouverture des commerces le dimanche.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Dennis Drainville): Does the honourable member have some opening remarks?

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): I have at hand here an opening statement which I'm not going to use, because I think that, in fairness to everyone in the Legislature, this is a matter that we've covered over and over again. There's been so much debate on the so-called Sunday shopping. I know that I myself, along with some of my colleagues in the committee, toured the province on many occasions to listen to the comments from the people who appeared before that committee. I think the whole subject matter has been well thrashed out. I'd also like to point out that after all is said and done, Sunday shopping has been in effect for the last 18 months or so.

In closing, I would just like to thank all members and all parties that have participated in this debate over the months. I'd like to thank all those people who appeared before the committees, their different points of view. We're all different in many respects and we can't always do what everybody wishes that we could do, but nevertheless I think this bill is very, very important to be passed. Without much more ado, I will sit down in my place and await the vote.

The Acting Speaker: Questions and/or comments? If there are none, further debate? There being none, do you have any concluding remarks?

Mr Mills: No, thank you, Mr Speaker.

The Acting Speaker: Mr Mills, on behalf of the minister, has moved third reading of Bill 38, An Act to amend the Retail Business Holidays Act in respect of Sunday Shopping. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour of the motion, please say "aye."

Those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

I declare the motion carried.

Resolved that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.

FARM REGISTRATION AND FARM ORGANIZATIONS FUNDING ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR L'INSCRIPTION DES ENTREPRISES AGRICOLES ET LE FINANCEMENT DES ORGANISMES AGRICOLES

Mr Buchanan moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 42, An Act to provide for Farm Registration and Funding for Farm Organizations that provide Education and Analysis of Farming Issues on behalf of Farmers / Loi prévoyant l'inscription des entreprises agricoles et le financement des organismes agricoles qui offrent des services d'éducation et d'analyse en matière de questions agricoles pour le compte des agriculteurs.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Dennis Drainville): Does the honourable minister have any opening remarks?

Hon Elmer Buchanan (Minister of Agriculture and Food): Very briefly, as members know, Bill 42 replaces Bill 105, the Farm Organizations Funding Act, and responds to concerns that were raised following the introduction of Bill 105. The purpose of this proposed legislation is to ensure that Ontario's general farm organizations receive the kind of stable financial support they need to continue serving all Ontario farmers.

The efforts of the general farm organizations of this province are considerable. They have brought strength and unity to our entire agriculture and food industry. Their initiatives include education, research and providing policy advice to the government. This bill will help ensure their important work will continue. It will also improve the government's ability to develop and implement effective plans and programs for the benefit of the entire agriculture and food community.

Under the legislation, all Ontario farm businesses with gross incomes of $7,000 or more will be required to register with my ministry and update the information annually. These farm businesses will also be required to pay an annual fee of $150 to one of three general farm organizations: the Christian Farmers' Federation of Ontario, the Ontario region of the National Farmers' Union and the Ontario Federation of Agriculture. Other farm organizations with a broad-based mandate are also welcome to apply to be recognized for funding purposes.

Bill 42 provides eligible farm businesses with the option of requesting a full refund of the farm organization's fee from the appropriate general farm organization. As well, this bill does not contain an offence provision, and rather than creating a farm organization funding corporation, the bill allows my ministry to assume the role of collecting and distributing farm organization fees and farm business data. The legislation also provides for special funding to an eligible francophone farm organization.

This legislation was developed in partnership with the three general farm organizations that I mentioned earlier. I'd like to thank them for their dedicated efforts. I would also urge the members of the House to encourage the important work of Ontario's general farm organizations by supporting this legislation.

Just in conclusion to my opening remarks, I would like to thank the opposition critics. We have worked closely on this bill. We've been at this with the general farm organizations and with the two opposition parties for some two and a half years now. We have tried to get it right. I think we have it right now. I encourage all members to indeed support Bill 42.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I was very interested in the initial remarks of the Minister of Agriculture because we in the Niagara region are of course confronting a very difficult problem. The minister may not be aware of this -- and I was surprised perhaps in his initial remarks he didn't refer to this -- that the price of cherries is considerably below the cost of production.

I have had farmers who have phoned my constituency office to register a complaint. They have said that they have phoned the Minister of Agriculture's office and can't get through. Well, that's understandable. You would have people calling from all over Ontario. I'm not being critical of that, but I know that the minister wanted to be aware that the cherry farmers are very concerned about that. How they feel on this bill, I suppose depends on which one you talk to.

There is, as the minister is well aware, some division within the farming community on this: many who are very supportive; some who are not supportive. It's interesting, I think the minister would have noticed this himself, that even within geographic regions there are people who are for and against.

I know that it has taken a lot of discussion on his part and consultation and the contribution's been made by the opposition to try to bring together those who initially were concerned about this. But I do want him, when he is thinking of this bill, to be thinking of the farmers in the Niagara region.

I was just talking to a person who is an expert in cherries. In fact, a person by the name of Josh Wiwcharyk, who was eating cherries, and saying how good they were, from the Niagara region, but wondering how the farmers were ever going to continue to exist.

Also, I hope, while he's thinking of this bill, he remembers the conservation easements which had been promised to farmers in the Niagara region to allow them to stay on their land while preserving the agricultural land and being able to eke out a living, even if it is a subsistence in this case.

Mr Noble Villeneuve (S-D-G & East Grenville): I won't take a lot of time. Thank you for the opportunity to the minister. I want to thank him for bringing in this bill now.

The very reason that we need a bill such as this is what the member for St Catharines just referred to. The price of cherries is down between 10 and 15 cents a pound. I'm not sure if he was aware of that, but that is way below the cost of production. I can tell you that grain producers across Ontario, and indeed across Canada, are not covering their costs of expenses.

The problem with agriculture is, what's good for a neighbour is not good for the other neighbour. It's a dichotomy that we need to get together on. I think this bill will do it. I compliment the minister on making it happen. Yes, there is some opposition, but I think now that the bill has been repaired and corrected, Mr Minister, I commend you for bringing it forth and certainly you've got my support and that of my party.

1730

Mrs Karen Haslam (Perth): In the short time that I have I would also like to commend the minister. I'm very pleased to see this come forward. I'm only sorry we can't do third reading before we break for the summer; that is, if we ever break for the summer. The summer might be over by the time we're out of here.

But I am kind of sorry that we're not going to go on and do third reading because I think it does have a majority of support of those of us here in the House and a majority of support of those of us who have rural ridings and who have the farm community contacting our offices and saying: "When are you going to bring this in? We really need it."

Yes, there are a few out there who don't want it but I think I can stress that it is a few. They may be a vocal few, but they are a few. Most of the farmers I have talked with in Perth county want to see this come forward. They need this. They think it's an admirable piece of legislation. Yes, we did have a little bit of confusion over one of the clauses and that's been taken care of, so I would like to commend the minister for bringing this in. I look forward to seeing it passed today, although it's only second reading. I'm pleased to be here to partake in that.

Mr Noel Duignan (Halton North): I'm going to be very brief. While I don't have tender fruit production like in the Niagara region, there's an expanding agricultural base in my riding, and the fact of cherries etc. I know that three farm organizations in my riding support this particular bill. It's a pity it can't reach third reading today. We have to wait for the fall or Christmas to get third reading of this bill. I wholeheartedly support this bill, and the farm organizations in my area also support this bill.

The Acting Speaker: The honourable minister has two minutes to make a response.

Hon Mr Buchanan: I appreciate the comments people have made. I would particularly like to refer to the comments made by the member for St Catharines when he talks about the problem we now face, particularly in the sour cherry market. In fact, cherries are now selling for 11 cents. That's what the farmers are receiving. Last year they got 42 cents and the year before they got 50 cents. Most things are going up in price, yet what farmers are receiving for cherries is going down.

It's just for that reason we need strong farm organizations that can make their issues known to the public. In some cases it's paying for marketing and advertising and in other cases it's just awareness. They need to make governments at the local, provincial and federal level aware of the problems they face. They certainly are facing a number of problems in the horticultural industry. The sour cherries are another example, and I appreciate the member for St Catharines bringing that up.

In response to that part of his response, I want the member for St Catharines to know that at the recent ministers' meeting my number one priority was to get enhanced NISA for horticulture. This isn't necessarily the answer to all of their problems, but we are aware of the problems faced by the tender fruit industry and the sour cherry producers. We are trying to address their concerns.

This bill will allow the three general farm organizations to address those concerns, make government people aware and make the general public aware of the importance of buying Ontario-grown produce. The reason we have a problem with the price of sour cherries is that Michigan has a bumper crop this year and they are putting their product into Ontario at 11 cents a pound, which is about seven cents below the cost of production here in Ontario.

We need strong general farm organizations. The farm population is in decline and this is our attempt in cooperation with the organizations and the opposition to give general farm organizations an opportunity to have a very strong voice so they can be heard in the future.

Mrs Joan M. Fawcett (Northumberland): I'm very pleased today to put some remarks on the record on Bill 42, An Act to provide for Farm Registration and Funding for Farm Organizations that provide Education and Analysis of Farm Issues on behalf of Farmers. A long title, to be sure, but most in Ag and Food circles know this as the stable funding bill.

The dialogue around the topic of stable funding has been long in duration, many years in fact -- I guess it's since the late 1960s -- encompassing each party in the government and many presidents of the farm organizations. It has been at times an emotional as well as controversial debate, and, for that matter, I think it still is. But it would appear that finally some headway is being made and Bill 42 is on the way to becoming law.

I will be supporting this bill even though there are some concerns that I hope can be addressed in the hearings.

Our Liberal caucus has always supported the concept of stable funding so that the various accredited farm organizations could better provide education and analysis of farming issues, which is so key to the success of farmers trying to compete in today's markets.

Our previous Liberal government worked with the three general farm groups, the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, the Christian Farmers Federation of Ontario and the National Farmers Union, in examining various proposals for obtaining fees and whether or not to make them mandatory. Progress has been slow in finding an appropriate model because it is hard to find an existing funding mechanism to attach a fee to that would apply to all farmers.

Our government was ready to proceed with legislation in the fall of 1990, but unfortunately this was halted with the election results of September 1990. The present minister continued the dialogue and promised to bring a stable funding bill forward.

Finally, Bill 105 was launched November 26, 1992, and promptly exploded, big time. The minister lost his chance to be a hero because either he didn't know exactly what he was doing or the ministry staff and legal counsel didn't know or maybe it was (d), all of the above. At any rate, instead of solving a need out there, all efforts had to be concentrated on damage control and backtracking.

The result is what we see before us today in the new bill, Bill 42, which does seem to have addressed some of the concerns. Hopefully, the minister will listen to some of the changes we would like to see made which could make the bill even better for all concerned.

While most marketing boards and commodity organizations have legal authority to charge mandatory fees to all their members to finance their operations, general farm lobby groups, such as the OFA, CFFO or NFU, rely mainly on voluntary contributions. This necessitates committed farmers using up their valuable time to sell memberships by knocking on doors like salespeople. Keep in mind that these doors are often many kilometres apart.

In a world that is becoming increasingly competitive and complex, I believe that general-interest farm organizations are necessary in order to have balanced agricultural and food policy development. Agriculture in Ontario is a viable industry, viable if its participants stay innovative and knowledgeable about all aspects that affect the business.

General farm organizations provide valuable assistance to individual farmers and to rural communities. They increase public awareness of agriculture and focus farm policy debates among farmers and public officials. I've had the opportunity to attend some of these information nights and farm open-house visits in Northumberland, my riding. They have been most informative and go a long way to bringing urbanites into 1990s-type agriculture.

Another area that is most impressive is the up-to-date lesson plans and materials and all the information that is available for teachers to use in the classroom. This can be a most effective tool for getting the ag message out.

The work of general farm organizations creates benefits for all farmers. They provide a pipeline to the government by lobbying for orderly marketing, fair taxes, financial assistance programs, sensible land use and environmental policies. Since all farmers benefit from any advantageous results of the farm organizations' hard work and efforts, they feel that the cost of their work should be carried by all farmers.

Approximately 20,000 of Ontario's 68,000 farmers directly support the work of general farm organizations. If the cost of such work was shared among all farmers who enjoy the benefits, a reasonable cost per farm operation would be possible.

1740

The difficulties facing agriculture continue to intensify. The individual farmer's ability to cope with issues is declining as markets become more international and business success depends upon the management of information. The farm perspective needs study and explanation more than ever before. This implies a greater demand on the resources of farmers' associations.

Last fall, the ag world was abuzz when the word was out that the long-awaited legislation was ready to be introduced by the minister in the name of Bill 105. Unfortunately, the buzz soon became a loud roar of anger and disappointment as many organization leaders and farmers realized the bad flaws in the bill, especially the penalty section. To his credit, the minister went back to the drawing board and, I'm sure upon much reflection and thought, withdrew the badly flawed bill and replaced it with Bill 42, the bill we have before us today for second reading.

The new bill is much shorter than the previous legislation and does contain some major changes. The registration fee is now refundable. Farmers are required to remit $150 per year with their registration, but they will be able to write a letter to the designated general farm organization to ask for the money back.

The specific penalty provisions have been removed, and a provision is now in the bill that only a farmer with a valid registration number is entitled to benefit from designated programs or subsidies from the ministry. Some farmers are having trouble with that particular provision, because they are fearful about the unclarity around how a valid registration number is to be obtained.

With the registration fee, cheques are now payable directly to a general farm organization instead of the farm organization funding corporation, as was in the last bill. The corporation and its function have been dropped from the present bill.

Since becoming Ag co-critic with my colleague the member for Cornwall, I have taken the opportunity to tour around many parts of Ontario. I've always taken the opportunity to ask as many farmers as possible for their thoughts and feelings on stable funding. I would have to say that the majority I discussed the topic with were in support of the bill. Some expressed some scepticism simply because they, generally speaking, don't trust government. But they felt strongly enough that if farm organizations had a stronger voice, then they would be better equipped to deal with government.

In my own riding of Northumberland, there is no doubt about their stand -- I would have to say overwhelmingly in favour of the bill -- and they expect me to vote in favour. I will be doing that, voting in favour of the bill. Interestingly enough, Northumberland was one of the few areas that supported the minister's first attempt at Bill 105 and wrote him a letter demanding that he go ahead with it. Even though I knew of the serious flaws, I would have abided by the wishes of my constituents and supported that bill.

I for one am very pleased with the changes in the new bill, Bill 42, but I am hopeful that there will be other considerations in the hearings that would be accepted by the government. I believe there definitely should be a review after three years, not just "may be a review." Any program needs to be reviewed and assessed to see that the goals are being achieved and the benefits enjoyed.

Also, I would hope that the new registration system would allow registrants to fast-track government programs and not just subject farmers to yet more red tape and duplication with more forms that somehow get lost in someone's filing cabinet.

I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge that there are farmers out there who do not feel that this bill is democratic and therefore oppose the bill. The National Farmers Union and the group known as the Silent Majority have campaigned hard against. My Howe Island NFU voice, Peter Dowling, has expressed concern to me that they were shut out of the final meetings on Bill 42. Apparently, they did refuse to go to one meeting earlier, but that shouldn't mean they don't get invited to other meetings. Even Kim Campbell hasn't given up on Bob Rae. All the players should be given equal opportunity to participate and voice their concerns.

The Silent Majority has many concerns that I know other members may want to discuss, but I would like to put on the record that in discussion with the deputy minister she assured me that the religious consideration for the Mennonite community had been thoroughly discussed by her in a meeting with 25 of the Mennonite elders in March of this year. An agreement was reached which satisfied all.

There also seem to be some concerns around the regulations that accompany this bill. Of course, we are always wary with this government's regulations as you never know what can be hidden in regulations, which of course don't get debated in the House.

Many farmers are worried about the information that will be obtained by the government on the registration form, and more importantly, how it will be used. When I asked the deputy minister about the registration forms, she said that they would be ready soon and that the ministry is planning a test run with a group of farmers to make sure they would adequately do the job and not be detrimental in any way.

Those of us in rural Ontario who want to see a strong, vibrant agricultural industry flourishing in Ontario realize that we must all work together to meet the challenge of producing enough food, with sufficient return for the farmer. Although we have concerns about the stable funding legislation, we want to work in partnership with farm organizations to ensure that they have the resources they need to make certain the survival of the family farm through the difficult times ahead.

I am pleased to see that it would appear now that there will be two weeks of hearings. I thought this was agreeable with everyone when I heard today that there would be two weeks of hearings. This will allow the democratic process to go and allow those who have genuine concerns to make them known, which can ultimately result in a better bill that is going to affect all farmers.

I look forward to participating in these hearings and I thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to place these remarks on the record.

Mrs Haslam: Since I'm not going to be debating at length, I'm going to take the opportunity to use a bit of time in questions and comments to say how much I appreciate the member's comments. I know that she has risen in the House a number of times to speak on behalf of her constituents and especially the agricultural sector in her constituency.

I do agree with her that the agricultural industry is a viable industry, but we all know that it needs some help. When you find farmers coming to your constituency office saying to you that they are selling their product at 5 cents a bushel or for less than it costs them to produce it, you know they need some help. I think the stable funding and assistance to the Ontario Federation of Agriculture and the farm organizations is one way we can help them, because it does mean we have to increase public awareness. I think we have to educate the public to how much it costs to produce the food and how important the farm industry is to all of us in Ontario.

Farmers are the land stewards and they're the ones who are very concerned about the environmental issues on their farms. Farmers are also the ones who are taking all these courses. People don't realize that farmers are small business people. They take computer courses, they take business courses, they take a lot of courses to help the small business community which they are part of.

Interjection.

Mrs Haslam: No, I'm not going to cut it short. I have to talk for the farm community that I represent and I will not cut it short, thank you very much.

I am a firm believer in the farm community. I'm a firm believer in stable farming. I know the number of people involved in farming because of the number of people who come into my riding office about it. These are small business people, they are a viable lobby group and they should be supported.

I'm in agreement with what you say, I'm in agreement with this piece of legislation and I ask everybody to join and support this legislation today.

There, I've left nine seconds for you.

Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): In the two minutes that are applied to me, there are a couple of questions which I wish to pose to the member opposite who speaks in favour of this legislation, because I have reservations about some areas of this legislation.

Let's talk about the Mennonite community which you brought up. You were reassured by the deputy minister that they would take this under consideration. I pose the question to you, how long is it going to take under the accreditation tribunal system for the exemption for the Mennonite process?

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): The minister is just down the aisle, Randy.

1750

Mr Hope: Calm down over there. I thought Mike Harris was against unions. Just relax.

I just wanted to pose another question. You mentioned the words "going from farmhouse to farmhouse," and you talked about the voluntary process. Would the member opposite not agree that the voluntary process should take place at the kitchen table, along with the family when the papers are being made out; the voluntary affiliation to the organization versus having to apply, pay your $150 and then ask for a refund later on? Can you imagine the responses you're going to get in your constituency office when they've asked for their refund and they have not been able to get their $150? How are you doing to deal with that as a member in that local area who's going to have call the tribunal and have to call the farm organization to get that $150 back for those farmers? We're talking about farmers who are finding it very difficult in these times, so when you talk about the ability to be voluntary, then let's deal with it at the kitchen table.

Another thing to help the farm organizations, if the member opposite wishes: Why don't you put more applications in there, so the spouse can apply for the farm organization or the son who works on the farm? Hey, if you want it voluntary, make it voluntary and also allow my other family members who work on the farm to contribute.

I just wish to pose those questions to the member opposite who stands in support of this legislation.

Mr Bradley: I was intrigued when I was listening to the member for Chatham-Kent, who obviously has some very great concerns about this. While I know that I'm supposed to be commenting on the excellent remarks of the member for Northumberland, the Liberal critic, I was listening with a good deal of attention to all of the debate taking place, and I must say that the kind of dissent which has been expressed is refreshing within the New Democratic Party, because I know you've been unanimous on so many issues over there lately.

On the social contract, they were as one in the party, and I know there was no dissension at all in that regard. Now I see that we have a bit of dissension here. I've always respected the member for Chatham-Kent for showing this kind of independence, and I know when the discussions were on the social contract, he probably expressed those as well, because he's a strong supporter of the trade union movement and always has been in his part of the province in Ontario.

I think the Minister of Agriculture is always wise to listen to the counsel of as many people as possible. I'll tell you, I admire people who will stand up from a political party and express the kind of concerns that have been expressed this afternoon by the member for Chatham-Kent. I would have hoped he was --

Interjection.

Mr Bradley: Well, it's suggested by the Minister of Agriculture that you come to this side of the House.

Mr Hope: I will never sit over there, either side.

Mr Bradley: I would have said perhaps there was a chance of that after the next election, but perhaps you know more than I do and perhaps you won't be sitting on this side of the House. I don't know that yet; that remains to be seen.

I hope the Minister of Agriculture and Food will listen carefully to the very wise counsel which has been provided by the member for Northumberland.

The Acting Speaker: Further questions and/or comments? If there are none, then the honourable member for Northumberland has two minutes to make a response.

Mrs Fawcett: I thank the members who have commented on my remarks, I believe, but those are very interesting words from the member for Chatham-Kent. I have to compliment him on his attempt to represent his constituents in the best way he can, but I will remind him that his minister is to his right there.

In answering your questions, I would just suggest that maybe that's why we really need these weeks of hearings, because then all of these kinds of questions will be answered and people then will have a lot of their fears quelled.

I would also like to point out to the minister, who I know is very concerned that he will possibly not get third reading as soon as he had anticipated, that had we come back into this sitting of the Legislature on time and had this bill come forward sooner, then possibly there would have been time for all of these things to have been discussed and maybe his wishes would have come true: that he would have got this on the road and also the OFA members and the various farm organization members would be happier as well.

They are the government and they are in the position to bring forward these bills and get them put through. You have seen there is support for the bill, so you could have had it finished.

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Education and Training): I believe there's agreement for unanimous consent to sit past 6 for completion of this item, and therefore I request that.

The Acting Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to sit past 6 until we finish this debate? It appears there is agreement.

Mr Villeneuve: It's a pleasure to rise for this long-awaited bill. It's been a while in the mill. As a matter of fact, it had a false start, but it now looks like it's on the go.

I appreciate the comments from the member for Chatham-Kent. I know he represents a very important part of agriculture, coming from the area of Chatham-Kent. I have to think he must be speaking for the people he represents, but there's a bit of a dichotomy there, as there has been with agriculture for many years. What's good for one individual is not good for the other.

However, Bill 42, I believe, can meet the requirements of agriculture. I'll remind the member for Chatham-Kent that in the last five years we've lost just about all the beef processors we had here in Ontario. Would you believe, a lot of the people in the silent majority are saying that basically they're beef producers; they want to stay in the beef business. Well, you've got to market the stuff. Are they going to ship it to Alberta? I don't think so. That's where beef processing has gone. Why? Because governments have not looked after, attempted to support, and the industry went through a very rough time. I'm a former beef producer; I can tell you about it. I sat across from the bank manager many times to get cattle in from the west, feed them out, turn out good cattle and barely cover my expenses.

I think we need in agriculture a united front. I'm not talking about a union. I know the member for Chatham-Kent is a strong union man. I'm amazed: A lot of people are saying this is union legislation. Well, I'm sorry. It's simply attempting to survive. Family farms are the backbone of not only this province but of the economy here.

Many people would say they're not the largest but the second-largest industry. I would beg to differ because in agriculture we have the ripple effect. Less than 3% of the population, the 10 million people in Ontario, are producers, considerably less than 3%, yet they provide all of the food that's consumed in this province and whatever's exported from this province, and they could produce a lot more if the economic climate were right.

I say we have a tremendous sleeping giant in agriculture, a food-producing province, and yes, we are protecting farm land; we're doing those things we have to do. We're not protecting farmers. Those are the people who count. They are the people with families. They are the people who are paying the taxes, tightening their belt.

I sold grain corn in 1980 at more money than they're going to get in this year's market, and it's a rising market because of the floods in the United States. It doesn't make a lot of sense to say we will survive at the whim of the market.

Governments are pulling out of research and development. The industry and the producers will have to be the ones who do the research and development. I'll go back with a little bit of history.

1800

It's not only this government that's to blame. All three parties that were in government in the last 10 years took agriculture for granted. Why? Because we always went to the supermarket and there was always a great selection of food at very affordable prices. Let's not forget that. Those of you who think that agriculture and farmers are having it too easy in this day and age, never complain with your mouth and belly full, because there may come a time -- and those of us who've had the opportunity to travel to other countries can tell you that not everyone in this world has the opportunity and, indeed, the privilege of going to a supermarket and purchasing quality food, which is what we have taken for granted way too long.

In 1988, a Liberal majority cut the agricultural budget, and it was understandable because they had 95 members in this place and agriculture is only 3% of the population. So they did cut the agricultural budget by quite a number of million dollars whilst they were increasing spending in many other areas.

In 1989, the same Liberal Party announced a $30-million cut to the farm tax rebate. I'll tell you, the former Treasurer, Mr Nixon, the member for Brant-Haldimand, got a lot of heat on it, and I say to you one of the reasons why some 35 rural members from the NDP in southwestern Ontario became members in this Legislature was that one primary reason: they fiddled around with the farm tax rebate. It cost them dearly, they now know.

I was quite disappointed that this government did not realize this when I brought my private member's bill here last Thursday, a week ago, and it did not support enshrining the farm tax rebate into a situation that it would not be political, it would not be added to the budget of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, which is now less than 1% of the overall budget of the province of Ontario.

Mr George Mammoliti (Yorkview): It's a money bill.

Mr Villeneuve: It's a money bill of course, but it would have locked in a rebate which is not support to the agricultural community; it's simply fairness and equity to a tax on education, on farm land and buildings that should never have been paid in the first place.

In 1990, the Liberals announced a series of surprise cuts to their agricultural budget. The five-year Ontario pork industry improvement program was cancelled with one year to go. Applications to the beginning farmers assistance program, BFAP, brought in by a Tory government, were cut off. Instead, the problem plagued the Liberals. On the Ontario Farm-Start program, which they initiated, the window was open for about five months; it was totally taken up, they ran out of money, they had to cut off the program. It was supposed to last much longer, and agriculture, once again, got the short end of the stick.

Again, these same Liberals did cut the agricultural engineering service, the municipal drains program, staff reduction was made in veterinarian labs and services to the ag rep branch, the farmers' help line and telephone service was cancelled, and the overall Liberal spending increases continued while agriculture took less and less of the budget. This is happening now again.

I realize that under the social contract the government is attempting to reduce quite a large amount of money, $2 billion. I want to make you aware, in Agriculture and Food a 10% cut occurred in the last fiscal year and a 10% cut occurred this fiscal year. In my farmer's mathematics, that's 20%. If we were to reduce the cost of government by 20% we would not have a deficit at all. Ag and Food suffered the 20% cut in the last two years, while all other ministries, with very few exceptions, saw increases at or above inflation. In 1991, the NDP budget increased spending well in excess of inflation and yet agriculture's share of the budget declined.

The minister, a good friend of mine, has listened to the folks from on high. I see the Minister of Finance there, he's one of the boys from on high, listens well. Yet agriculture, which produces 20% of the jobs and all of the food that we consume -- and I want to emphasize, 20% of the jobs directly and indirectly and yet they are the forgotten country cousins out here. "Sorry, we go to the supermarket on the weekend, or whenever, and the shelves are full, so why should we worry about agriculture?" Yet our family farms are struggling out there, I can assure you; they are struggling.

In 1992, there was a $45-million cut by this government to the Ministry of Agriculture and Food. In 1993, the previous year's budget cuts, the NDP announced further cuts, and that was 10% per year, so we've got a 20% reduction in the last two years.

The farm tax rebate was frozen in 1992-93 at $159 million. They saved $7.1 million. Now, under questioning to the minister recently, he told me that he expects the tax to be 72% or 73%, the farm tax rebate, as the portion that will be refunded to agriculture.

We had two agricultural colleges, which train our future farmers, our future agribusiness people, that were cut. An independent study program and technology transfer programs from the University of Guelph were eliminated.

What we have is a shrinking portion of public moneys being turned over to agricultural funding for research and development, for all of those studies that are needed.

Under GATT negotiations, we need more proof positive of what's happening here in Ontario, here in Canada.

Stable funding is a most important aspect, particularly at this time, whenever we are faced with a global attack on the way we operate. The family farm must survive, and if it does not, we, the consumers of Ontario, will pay dearly and for ever. So we must look after that family farm.

I like the refundable aspect of this new bill, Bill 42. The previous bill apparently could have been amended, but it's always a tricky thing when there is a majority government if, for some unforeseen reason, they all decide they like what they see in the bill. I had the minister's assurance that it could be and would have been, and I appreciate that. But again, we went through the social contract, Bill 48, and we thought we submitted some excellent amendments that would have helped the government, 29 of them. Not one was accepted. It makes the opposition a little weary when these things occur.

The regulations I am concerned about, because regulations are put together by bureaucrats, who sometimes not only don't wave at farm mailboxes but seldom go out to the country. I think the bureaucrats should at least have the opportunity of dealing with the agricultural community, the folks who get their hands and feet dirty out on the farm. So I say that the regulations must be watched very closely, and in three years' time, with all due respect to my colleague the Minister of Agriculture and Food, I say that it should go to a standing committee of the Legislature, with all parties represented, to assess and analyse the first three years of stable funding.

A vote may be required, and I have no problem with a vote except that we cannot have a vote right now because we don't have a voters' list. A voters' list is most important when you're having a vote, and yet a lot of people say, "Well, just send out ballots to the people who get the farm tax rebate." Well, I'm sorry, that doesn't work. We have many people who own different parcels of land, so we would have an individual farmer with possibly three, four, five and six votes. That's not democracy. Democracy is one person, one vote.

We have a situation here that I would like to see this bill proceed quickly. I think third reading should possibly be considered today in this Legislature. I don't know whether the Liberal Party or even members of the government would be ready to go to third reading, but I want to make sure that the regulations -- and they are a lot more important than what we debate here today -- are such that they meet the agricultural community's, the family farm's requirements.

1810

That's why I say in three years, Mr Speaker, through you to the minister, that we should be going to a standing committee of the Legislature. Take it away from the Minister of Agriculture, whoever he or she may be at the time. Maybe it will be my friend who is the present minister, and if it isn't, well, he will be replaced by someone. I think it should go to a standing committee of the Legislature, where all parties are represented, where concerns can be brought and indeed a solution or changes to the stable funding act, Bill 42, be brought.

I know it's way past 6 of the clock. I appreciate the acting government House leader allowing me the extra time to put these few remarks on the record. I am supportive of stable funding in order to save the family farm, to save agriculture and to have people who are able to put it all together in spite of the dichotomy that faces agriculture in many instances.

The Acting Speaker: Questions and/or comments? If there are no questions or comments, further debate?

Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): I have a comment on the statement of the member for S-D-G & East Grenville. He must be looking at a somewhat different financial statement than we are looking at when he talks about the cuts between 1985 and 1990. I think, with the statements that he made, he should check his facts.

The other thing that he mentioned was on the municipal drainage. It used to be one-third provincial, one-third municipal and one-third federal. The cut there was the federal program that his own Tory government was involved in. I know that the former government, with a drain that's right in his own backyard, the province of Ontario came up and paid the one third on that drain because the federal government wouldn't. It is very interesting that he should bring that up.

The other thing I should mention -- and I agree with what he had said in the beef and the cash crop. I've been involved in agriculture all my life and I know that what was being sold last year was as low as it was many, many years ago. Those are my remarks.

The Acting Speaker: Further questions and/or comments? If there are none, the honourable member has two minutes to make a response.

Mr Villeneuve: I thank my colleague from Cornwall for his participation. Yes, there were considerable cuts by the Liberal government, particularly when one considered the total overall budget in relation to that portion which was allocated to agriculture. Yes, after a lot of lobbying on the Payne drain -- I remember it very well -- we did get some additional funding right in Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry. However, the federal joint program on drainage had run out in 1981. I'm not going to get petty, and you know who was the Prime Minister in 1981. That did run out at that time, the agreement --

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): And it was restored in 1984.

Mr Villeneuve: No, it was not restored at all, and that's why the federal government wasn't able to participate. However, let's not get too political here. We're dealing with agriculture and the survival of family farms and the survival of the industry itself. It's a very important industry.

We live on the fringes and we know that last year -- on the fringes in that when the temperature and the weather do not go with you, you are very much at the mercy of not only the elements but also markets that can be very unkind.

The Americans in the Midwest, in the breadbasket of America, as they like to call it, where corn and soybeans are king, are going through terrible flooding. The only reason why the markets are strong -- and I know the minister is smiling because the markets are strong, because over $100 million was paid out last year in crop insurance.

Let's hope that we have a crop that ripens, a good crop that the crop insurance fund can replenish, because we cannot drain again. We need to have a strong lobby group, people who will replace governments in doing the R&D so that agriculture can put its right foot forward continuously.

Mr Cleary: I am pleased to participate in the stable funding debate, as Bill 42 is perhaps recognized as. In one form or another, it has been considered in the Legislature, in farm organizations, in boardrooms and of course in the fields and farms for some time now. As a lifelong farmer myself -- I have been involved in dairy, beef, cash crop and many others -- I can recall there being discussions on the need to provide direct funding to general farm organizations for over 20 years.

Of course the issue gained tremendous prominence in the late part of the 1980s and has now become the focal point on the agenda of many farm organizations. No wonder. Stable funding potentially has stakes for everyone in the industry, because, as we know, agriculture is the second largest employer in this province.

Over the years there have been many extensive negotiations on the best way to administer and implement a method to fund farm organizations. I can well recall when one excellent proposal came close to fruition in 1989 and 1990 which allowed for voluntary participation. At that time, farmers would have been encouraged to register and thereby, being registered with the ministry, would have benefited from reduced application and processing delays for any ministry program they may have chosen to participate in. Unfortunately, the electoral winds changed and blew the option aside.

More recently, I find the latest attempt of the Minister of Agriculture and Food to be a vast improvement over the previous effort, the much opposed and frankly dictatorial Bill 105. In fact I was completely shocked when I learned about the details of the legislation that the minister introduced in the fall, particularly the provisions for charging farmers up to $2,000 for not obliging with the ministry's paperwork. At that time, and even today, I charged that no real friend of farmers would ever think of imposing such a criminal penalty.

Even after the minister admitted that he was not aware of the fine provision and that he would remove it, I was still not totally relieved. Suspiciously, I worried what else would be slipped into the bill without the minister's attention. So it was with an overwhelming sense of caution that I reviewed the minister's latest version, now called Bill 42. While I am pleased that the more shocking provisions have been removed from Bill 42, I do not find the bill to be acceptable as it currently stands.

First, I share the concerns of many farmers that they are simply not being given a real choice in the matter. I still believe that a voluntary program is the way to go in this democratic and free-will society we all share. I believe that farmers would appreciate and benefit from a non-compulsory option.

As well, I find the bureaucracy behind the bill tedious, as it demands a lot of extra and unnecessary paper shuffling. I refer to the fact of course that the minister is still forcing all farmers to send a cheque, even though they may ask for a full refund at the same time. I presume that the minister, like the GFOs that stand to directly gain from the cheques, is hoping that farmers will simply forget to ask for their refund.

1820

To that, I will be seeking assurance that every accredited organization receiving funds must have appropriate insurance to ensure that they will always be in a financial position to make the refund to the farmers when requested.

As well, I must insist that the minister table information that is received from the registration process -- in terms of all crop figures and not personalized farm incomes -- as well as the costs. If ever the administrative costs exceed the fees taken in, then the program should be abandoned. After all, how could the minister possibly justify the cost of establishing more paperwork when other essential agricultural services are being cut, such as the field staff and the dairy inspectors and the closure of agricultural colleges?

I am also concerned about the inconsistent application of the $150 registration fee towards annual membership to the organizations. I believe that farmers must gain something concrete from the process. Therefore, should a farmer choose to direct his money to a general farm organization, it should be worth one vote within that organization. I feel very strongly about that. After all, despite speculation that I have heard, I certainly hope that the registration process is not somewhat related to a unionized process. There are also fears that the information gathered on the registration forms may be used against farmers in some unforeseeable way.

These are some of the concerns, but all being said, I certainly believe that the stable funding process will benefit and I'm supportive. Someone has to take the blame for everything in this world, and I cannot help but say in my remarks that if this government would have got its act in place and got back here when it was supposed to have done, three weeks earlier, the problems in Bill 42 could have been ironed out and the bill probably could have been legislation by now.

On the positive side, I firmly believe that the process of gathering up-to-date information and statistics will assist farmers in planning coordinated food strategies, while at the same time allowing the minister to react and develop effective policies and programs.

I find in this day and age, with the communication and the accessibility we have, at a time when the Minister of Agriculture and Food continually talks about the agrifood industry becoming part of a new global economy, that he is not certain how much corn and beans are planted within this province. Most of us can find that information out with one phone call.

As well, I certainly hope that farmers will benefit from the education, research and policy advice that each of the accredited farm organizations will be able to produce upon receiving the funds. I am very proud of some of the programs in the Ministry of Agriculture and Food. Where we have agriculture in the classrooms, I'm very pleased about that.

Another thing that I think more members should take advantage of, being legislators, is the agricultural exchange. I think that many would benefit in that way. I'm very supportive and I will work towards that goal.

I have heard it said that the three major organizations that stand to receive funds under the bill -- the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, the Christian Farmers Federation of Ontario and the National Farmers Union -- combined do not raise more than $3.25 million. The stable funding registration fee will amount to more than double that. Of course, it is interesting and fair to note that of the estimated 65,000 farmers in the province, only about 20,000 have chosen to join general farm organizations. I do know that those general farm organizations, which I have been part of over the years, their membership and their executives work very hard to increase the numbers to have a strong voice, and I'm very supportive of that.

I maintain, as I always have, that if stable funding is to be implemented, it must be the will and the choice of the farmers, and it's our duty to discuss that with the agriculture community. At this point there certainly does not seem to be a clear, single voice on the issue.

For my part, I'm not a lawyer and I'm not able to determine with a fine-tooth comb every possible ramification and implication. I have, however, spent much time listening to the concerns and suggestions of farmers through this, combined with my own personal observations.

I will be recommending a number of amendments to Bill 42, and I encourage the Minister of Agriculture and Food to do the same. The minister must expand upon the advice he has received from all parties who stand to financially gain in this bill, and take the time now, before the bill goes any further, to go to the farmers of Ontario and explain and listen to their concerns as well. Only then may we build together an effective farm registration process and an effective farm organization funding process. We have to all work very hard to get the support of our second largest employers in this province and we have to work for that goal.

Mr Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to speak on Bill 42, and I shall look forward to participating in the full hearings of the bill where all farmers can be heard, as well as resolving a number of questions that remain about the provisions of the regulations. Together I think for all parties the end result will be very rewarding and I will be pleased to participate in those hearings.

The Acting Speaker: Questions and/or comments, the honourable member for York North.

Mr Charles Beer (York North): I want to congratulate my colleague from Cornwall as well as my colleague from Northumberland for their remarks, and just stress one of the key points: the importance that this bill go to committee.

I understand there's been agreement and that it will go out for some two or three weeks to the resources committee where the various organizations are going to be able to come forward on the kinds of questions the member for Cornwall had mentioned, and indeed the member for Chatham-Kent, and I gather perhaps some other members on the government side want to put some amendments to make the bill better.

I think it's important that one of the points that has been made is that as this has evolved, it has become a better bill, and what the members of my party have said to the minister is that it is by working together, by bringing forward amendments to make it stronger, to make it more representative of what the farm community wants.

I know in my own riding, where I have a good part of the Holland Marsh, which makes a significant contribution to agriculture in this province, there have been many discussions among the farmers in my area, concerns that they have about the bill, although I believe that on balance they support it, as do I.

But I think it is one of those bills where it will be very useful to have it in committee to be able to look at the detail of that bill and to make sure that in effect all the farm organizations, all the farmers and everyone can be satisfied that what we have done as legislators is to make sure that we have a bill that will help the family farm, that will provide the kind of stable funding that the family farm requires and that will be truly representative of the farming community.

I again want to congratulate the member on his speech and for his remarks, and we all look forward to the discussions in committee.

The Acting Speaker: Further questions and/or comments, the honourable member for S-D-G & East Grenville.

Mr Villeneuve: I will not take the full two minutes. I simply want to congratulate my colleague and neighbour from Cornwall. We've worked together on a number of things, both when he was in power and now.

It's interesting. I was ready to move third reading. It would have been an interesting move. I gather that there's not much point in doing it now, but --

Mr Mammoliti: Do it anyway.

1830

Mr Villeneuve: I gather the farmer from York North has said that he has a number of amendments that he wants his party and his colleagues to bring. I have a few amendments that I think could assist. However, I have to remember always, we go back to Bill 48, when the Liberals brought in no amendments at all. We brought in 29, and none of them were accepted, so that was a little bit discouraging. I hope my colleagues from the Liberal Party have a little more luck than we had on the social contract in trying to amend a piece of legislation that needed to be amended very badly.

So again to my colleague from Cornwall, I look forward to working with him. It looks like it's going to go to committee. The farmer from York North said three weeks. I think he's stretching it a lot. Maybe three days might be a little bit better, and I look forward to seeing the farmer from York North in that committee indeed if he wants to bring in a lot of amendments.

Mr Beer: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would just like to remind my friend the member for S-D-G & East Grenville that York county has a very strong federation of agriculture. As I noted, in the northern part of York county that I represent we provide to this province, and indeed throughout the country, both carrots and onions and it is a strong agricultural community --

The Acting Speaker: Order, please. That's not a point of order. I thank the honourable member.

Further questions and/or comments? If there are none, I recognize the honourable member for Cornwall. You have two minutes to respond.

Mr Cleary: I just want to thank my colleague from York North. I know that over the years he always has had a great interest in agriculture, because we talk from time to time. When he travels around the province, I know he's interested in what crops are growing and where. I do know one thing: He's said that he has an agricultural community in his own riding, and I know he's an expert on strawberries.

I also thank my colleague the member for S-D-G & East Grenville for his remarks. Also, I must say that I'm sure he will have some amendments, because I'm sure that some of the same people who talk to him have talked to me, and I hope that between all of us -- there are the three parties -- we can work out a bill that will serve the residents of this province for many, many years.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate? If not, I would ask the honourable minister if has some concluding remarks.

Hon Mr Buchanan: Just very, very briefly, I'd like to tie up a couple of things that were mentioned. There were some concerns mentioned around the regulations, and indeed we have consulted and are meeting with the farm organizations so that we put the regulations in place to suit the needs of the farm organizations. That work has already started and will continue.

There was a mention of the voters' list. One of the concerns that's still out there on this bill and the previous bill was the concept of having a vote. The member for S-D-G & East Grenville mentioned the voters' list issue, which is an issue that I concur with him on, that we need to get a voters' list and any future time we want to have a vote it would be possible.

But we are consulting, and this bill has been put together, quite frankly, over the last almost three years. There's been a lot of consultation. There have been meetings virtually in every county around this province put on by some of the groups, mostly in favour and a few groups have sponsored meetings in opposition, but basically there's been a lot of dialogue and a lot of acceptance. We have listened to what the concerns are and this is the bill that we've brought in to replace the previous bill, which had some flaws, in the minds of many people.

Just to conclude, the Ontario Federation of Agriculture had their directors' meeting this afternoon, and we have some people in the gallery: Dona Stewardson, who is the second vice-president with OFA; Geri Kamenz, who is the senior manager; Gavin Smuk, director, who is from Hamilton-Wentworth; and another gentleman, Carl Sulliman, who is the chief executive officer with the OFA.

I appreciate the work that the OFA membership has put into this, along with the NFU membership and the Christian Farmers Federation. This is a collaborative bill that's been brought together by work from the opposition and the farm groups. I appreciate all the support and constructive comments we've received over the last couple and a half years.

The Acting Speaker: Mr Buchanan has moved second reading of Bill 42. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour of the motion please say "aye."

Those opposed, please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

I declare the motion carried.

Shall the bill be ordered for third reading?

Mr Cleary: I ask that this bill be sent to the resources committee.

The Acting Speaker: I say to the minister, is resources committee agreed upon?

Hon Mr Buchanan: Yes, Mr Speaker.

The Acting Speaker: That is agreed.

Is there a business list for tomorrow?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon Elmer Buchanan (Minister of Agriculture and Food): Yes. The business for tomorrow will be second reading of Bill 40, the Community Economic Development Act, and third reading of Bill 169, the public service amendments.

I would like to move adjournment of the House.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Dennis Drainville): Mr Buchanan has moved adjournment of the House. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried. This House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 of the clock.

The House adjourned at 1837.

July 21, 1993

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

TOURISM

WEST CARLETON MUNICIPAL BUILDING

BICYCLES

MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT

SOCIAL CONTRACT

HOME COUNTY FOLK FESTIVAL

LONG-TERM CARE

EMPLOYMENT EQUITY

LANDFILL

ROYAL ASSENT / SANCTION ROYALE

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

ONTARIO TRAINING AND ADJUSTMENT BOARD

SOCIAL CONTRACT

ONTARIO TRAINING AND ADJUSTMENT BOARD

SOCIAL CONTRACT

ONTARIO TRAINING AND ADJUSTMENT BOARD

ORAL QUESTIONS

SOCIAL CONTRACT

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

WOMEN'S CENTRES

GOVERNMENT PUBLICATION

CLOSURE OF GOVERNMENT OFFICE

PETITIONS

HEALTH CARE

NURSING HOMES

RETAIL STORE HOURS

HEALTH CARE

GAMBLING

GO BUS SERVICE

RETAIL STORE HOURS

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT PROGRAM

RETAIL STORE HOURS

GO BUS SERVICE

HEALTH CARE

CLOSURE OF AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE

RETAIL STORE HOURS

HEALTH CARE

GAMBLING

HEALTH CARE

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

VIOLENT CRIME CARDS ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR LES CARTES ILLUSTRANT DES CRIMES VIOLENTS

ORDERS OF THE DAY

EDUCATION STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE L'ÉDUCATION

FIREFIGHTERS PROTECTION ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR L'IMMUNITÉ DES POMPIERS

FIREFIGHTERS PROTECTION ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR L'IMMUNITÉ DES POMPIERS

TORONTO ISLANDS RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY STEWARDSHIP ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR L'ADMINISTRATION DE LA ZONE RÉSIDENTIELLE DES ÎLES DE TORONTO

EDUCATION STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE L'ÉDUCATION

RETAIL BUSINESS HOLIDAYS AMENDMENT ACT (SUNDAY SHOPPING), 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LES JOURS FÉRIÉS DANS LE COMMERCE DE DÉTAIL (OUVERTURE DES COMMERCES LE DIMANCHE)

FARM REGISTRATION AND FARM ORGANIZATIONS FUNDING ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR L'INSCRIPTION DES ENTREPRISES AGRICOLES ET LE FINANCEMENT DES ORGANISMES AGRICOLES

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE