Journal des débats 1988-mai-03 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mrs. Grier: This morning the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley) issued a press release. He issues one every morning, but today’s says that Metro’s main sewage treatment plant “is the single largest polluter of Toronto shoreline waters.”

Surprise, surprise! Some of us have been saying that for years. The members of the Canadian Union of Public Employees who work at Ashbridges Bay have been saying that for years. The citizens’ committee that produced a waterfront remedial action plan for the city of Toronto said that to the minister two years ago.

There are more surprises, or nonsurprises, in this press release. “Improvements in water quality could be achieved” if we cut down on lake filling. Where is the moratorium on lake filling that I asked the minister to impose three years ago? Where are the strict controls on dumping in the lake all across Metro’s waterfront, not just on the Leslie Street spit?

“More effective measures to control discharges from storm sewers”: Where are the detention tanks we called for in July 1985? Unfortunately, the solution of the minister is no surprise either: “MISA will greatly reduce pollution of Toronto’s offshore waters.” If we could wait so long.

When is this minister going to give some priority to a remedial action plan for the Metro Toronto waterfront? The International Joint Commission called for one to be completed by December 1986. It is now well into 1988, and what are we getting? More announcements, more studies and no sense of urgency.

TRANSIT SERVICES FOR THE DISABLED

Mr. Wiseman: I have with me here today a copy of a letter written to the Minister of Transportation (Mr. Fulton) from the president of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario. The letter deals with the important issue of transportation for the disabled and the ever-increasing need for this valuable service in Ontario.

Because the government has recently proposed a broadening of the criteria for these services to include all persons who are physically unable to use conventional transit as opposed to those unable to board ordinary transit, as the previous ruling held, AMO predicts that the number of trips requiring this special service will increase by at least 20 per cent.

The number of disabled transit riders already increases at the rate of about 12 per cent annually, so the combined 32 percent increase in the number of users of this special transit will represent a major financial burden, a burden which the province is now planning to turn over to the municipalities.

AMO also indicates that the province is going to provide an operating subsidy to cover only 50 per cent of the operating costs, while it is already providing a 75 per cent capital subsidy for regular transit service. It would only seem fair that if the province is going to legislate a different definition --

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

EDDIE WHITALL

Mr. Mahoney: I would like to bring to the attention of this House a good-news item, a story about a very courageous young man from Mississauga.

One year ago, on April 20, 1987, Eddie Whitall fell beneath a train on the Canadian National tracks in Port Credit. Doctors, nurses and ambulance attendants rushed to the scene and found that Eddie had lost two arms and a leg. Today, one year later, Eddie has one artificial arm and an artificial leg, and his other arm was sewn back on at the Hospital for Sick Children in a marathon 12-hour operation.

He was interviewed by the Mississauga News last week in tribute to the way he has handled the accident and the great strides he has made in one year. Eddie is a grade 8 student, and one of his favourite pastimes is to ride about on his new bike. He certainly has not let the accident get in the way of all his activities and he enjoys keeping active every moment of the day. The Hugh MacMillan Medical Centre has aided Eddie in learning how to use his artificial limbs. He is now a very independent individual.

The two things that were highlighted during Eddie’s interview were his sense of humour and his maturity. He is certainly a young man who has conquered the trauma of a near-fatal accident and who continues to face life’s challenges with independence and strength, a young man whom we can all look up to with pride and gratitude for showing all of us how to deal with adversity. Thank you, Eddie.

BOISE CASCADE CANADA LTD.

Mr. Hampton: Last week Boise Cascade Canada announced it was permanently closing its stud mill operation in Kenora, a decision that will affect approximately 80 full-time, permanent jobs. This announcement by Boise Cascade is one which several ministers should take note of.

First, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Sorbara) should take note. While the corporation announced that the closure is, in part, because of the softwood lumber export tax, there is also some hint that the closure may have something to do with a labour relations dispute which is currently under way. If that is the case, the Minister of Labour should look at this very carefully, because Boise Cascade has a long history of very serious and very deleterious labour disputes in northern Ontario.

Second, the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio) should take note, because if the mill is going to go out of production, and it has been allocated a timber supply, that timber supply should possibly go to someone else who can make better use of it.

Finally, the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) should take note, because we are aware that the softwood lumber export tax has had an impact on all these communities. Now, with the loss of 80 permanent jobs, perhaps some of the $30 million that sits in the Treasurer’s account can come to the aid of those people displaced in Kenora.

LANDFILL SITES

Mr. Speaker: The member for Durham East.

Mr. Cureatz: Indeed, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections.

Mr. Cureatz: I can only say to all the Liberal back-benchers that they should be in their ridings fielding questions about why the Treasurer (Mr.
R. F. Nixon) raised the tax to eight per cent from seven per cent. They are not going to get elected in here. They should go on back to their riding offices. Now that I am on the topic, to heck with the speech.

I want to say to the government and to the Treasurer, who is here this afternoon, that with that money, that tax grab he has made -- and I say this to the House leader -- he has not spent a cent yet on the topic that is going to be close and dear to my heart; that is, landfill sites. I told the Treasurer last week, I am going to remind him again this week and I am going to be talking about it next week, that he is doing nothing.

The Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley) is travelling all around North America -- Washington, New York, Detroit -- talking about acid rain, but it is about time he got back to Ontario and started talking to Metropolitan Toronto about why it is going to be filling up the town of Newcastle with its garbage.

I say to the Treasurer that he should be ashamed of himself. Where is the Minister of the Environment? He is not here to listen to this. I say to the House leader -- I say to both of them, the only two of the four people with some substance here -- that they should be getting their act together and doing something about the tragedy we have in Ontario about landfill sites, where municipalities are pitting themselves against each other.

1340

VOLUNTEER SERVICE AWARDS

Mr. Offer: I am pleased and honoured to rise and bring some more good news from the city of Mississauga, to rise and pay recognition to a number of individuals in my riding who have recently received Volunteer Service Awards.

These individuals are Jack Almedia, Maureen Bunt, M. Piara Singh Panglia, Fook-Sung Yau, Bisham Barran, Robert Houle, Mary Porter, Pearl Basnayake, Shanta Mendis and Digvijay Rana. They have all been recognized for many years of service performed for a nonprofit organization.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, all members of the Legislature are well aware of the great contribution by our volunteers throughout the province. In many ways our volunteers provide the push and impetus for so many worthwhile community projects.

In my riding of Mississauga North and indeed throughout the city of Mississauga, we are fortunate to have a great many dedicated, committed and tireless people like the award recipients. Volunteers are the heart, soul and spirit of the community, making an immeasurable contribution not only to my riding but also throughout the province.

Volunteerism is something which is found in every community, district, town and city. It is really characterized as people caring about others. To those award recipients and to those who have not received a formal award but who give so much of themselves, I offer my thank-you.

ELECTROSHOCK THERAPY

Mr. Reville: Mental Health Week observances continue. Two former psychiatric patients who tried to hand out information on electroshock therapy to patients at the Clarke Institute of Psychiatry were arrested and charged yesterday.

If Mr. Weitz and Mr. Wild are found guilty, I think the Ministry of Health should pay the $53.75 fine. If the Ministry of Health had got its act together and produced information about electroshock therapy for patients, as was recommended in 1985 by the Clark report, Mr. Weiss and Mr. Wild would not have to be doing it.

This is another case in which this government is asleep at the switch.

ORAL QUESTIONS

TAX INCREASES

Mr. B. Rae: I was hoping to be able to ask some questions of the Premier (Mr. Peterson), but given that he is not here, I will go to the Deputy Premier, the Treasurer, with a question on his most recent budget. The public has now had some time in which to digest the tax increases that the Treasurer imposed on the public nearly two weeks ago.

Surely the Treasurer did not mean to increase the sales tax paid by a family at the poverty line by $146 and yet, at the same time, to increase its tax credits by $120. Surely the Treasurer made some mistake in grabbing $26 in extra sales tax payable by families in Ontario living at the poverty line. Say it ain’t so, Treasurer, say it ain’t so.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: I try to be grammatical and, in so doing, I want to tell the Leader of the Opposition something that he has heard from me once or twice before. That is, this budget, in line with the three previous budgets I presented to the House, has increased the tax reduction program of the province. At the same time, we have restructured the tax credit system, so that we feel the burden is not unfairly distributed on those least able to pay.

Taken as a whole, those people in the large group paying tax on incomes of $25,000 or less are paying no more now that this budget has been brought down than they did before. I cannot say there are no individuals within that group paying more, but from that group we are able to ascertain that the total revenues are no larger. In other words, the increase in revenue is designed to have an impact on higher incomes.

Mr. B. Rae: I did not hear a specific denial from the Treasurer that when it comes to the one per cent hike in sales tax -- which this Liberal Party did not campaign on in the last election -- when it comes to that sales tax increase on families at the poverty line, in fact, even when one rolls in the tax credits that the Treasurer referred to in his answer, that family is paying $26 more to the Treasury of Ontario than it was last year.

Could the Treasurer also confirm that a middle-income family, a family making $40,000, with one earner and two children under 16, is paying an increase in sales tax of some $220 and that this family receives no tax credits for 1987 or for 1988?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: I think the honourable members may be aware that Treasury this year, following an initiative begun last year, has set up a computer in which honourable members or any citizen can feed in information having to do with the income situation and credit situation of any family in the province -- not, of course, by name or by any kind of identification, but typical families. In that way, the tax payable is registered.

For me to know what the tax payable is for each of these many thousands of combinations and permutations is not possible. In answer to the honourable member’ s question, no.

Mr. B. Rae: The fact of the matter is that when it comes to the sales tax, this government is gouging people. It is taking money out of their pockets and it is doing it in a way that can only be described as unfair. At the same time, upper income people are still net beneficiaries of so-called tax reform as passed by the federal government.

I wonder if the Treasurer could explain why a family of four with one income earner making $90,000, and two children under 16, would be paying $103 less in income tax in 1988 compared to 1987, when a family making $40,000 is paying more in terms of their provincial tax. If the Treasurer is so interested in tax fairness, why is the family of $90,000 paying less when the family of $40,000 is paying more?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: I think the honourable member is aware that with this budget we have strengthened the surtax payable by the top income earners in the province. At approximately $80,000 to $85,000 of income, an additional tax of 10 per cent is applied. With this particular change, we have attempted to increase the fairness and equity in the tax system.

But I think there is something else that has to be said, that the honourable member, in changing from his questions on sales tax to the tax payable under the personal income tax, has adjusted the emphasis somewhat. I would be the last to try to convince the honourable member or anyone else in the House that there are not additional revenues paid because of the budget. For the sales tax alone, even though it is the sixth highest in Canada, this fiscal year there will be additional revenue of $730 million. Because of the adjustments in personal income tax year over year, the revenue will, in fact, drop by about $250 million.

These are judgements the honourable member would not have made, but I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that as far as this government is concerned, the policy is directed towards achieving as much fairness and equity as is possible.

NURSING SERVICES

Mr. B. Rae: I have some questions for the Minister of Health. The minister will be aware of her answers in the House yesterday in which she said how concerned she was with the nursing shortage though she had no solutions to the problem.

I have in my hand a letter signed by Martin Barkin, MD, BScMed, MA, FRCSC, who is the Deputy Minister of Health. It is a letter that was sent to hospitals throughout the province, dated April 21, 1988. This is a letter in which Dr. Barkin reads the riot act to the hospitals in terms of their future funding.

He says, “Without intending to limit the scope of any plan, we expect that it will address cost reduction objectives through labour productivity improvements and other efficiency increases, staff hiring curtailments” -- I repeat -- ”staff hiring curtailments, purchasing and supply consumption controls and, on a contingency basis if necessary, service realignments.”

This letter is a bombshell dumped on the hospitals by the Deputy Minister of Health, telling them they are going to have to stop hiring people and are going to have to change their services. How can the minister stand in the House and say she is serious about dealing with a nursing shortage when her own deputy minister is telling hospitals they have to curtail the staff in their own institutions?

1350

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I think the Leader of the Opposition and every member in this House will realize it is extremely important that we have predictability in budgeting in this province. We are determined to assist hospitals to make sure that they deliver essential services and that they meet their approved budgets within the province.

Mr. B. Rae: The minister did not answer the question. She cannot stand on her feet on one day and say how troubled she is by the staff shortage problem in our hospitals and how worried she is that hospitals are closing beds, and have her deputy minister, just as she is standing on her feet, say to the hospitals that it is time they started firing people and realigning services and time they stopped hiring people. She cannot have it both ways. She is giving a completely mixed message to the people of this province with respect to health care.

I would like to ask the minister, how does she expect to solve the nursing shortage when her own deputy minister is telling hospitals they have to stop hiring people?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: We believe manpower planning for hospitals is extremely important. As well, I believe that the hospitals will be able to respond to the assistance being offered by the ministry and that the reviews of the 22 hospitals with deficits will give us the answers to the chronic deficit problem. The majority of hospitals in this province provide high-quality care with a level of fiscal responsibility that I think should be applauded and emulated.

Mr. B. Rae: The minister will be aware of the recent study that was done for the Ontario Nurses’ Association by Mr. Goldfarb. I think it is fair to say that Mr. Goldfarb is someone not unknown to the minister or indeed to other members of her party.

One of the things Mr. Goldfarb says in the survey that he did for the ONA is: “Lack of adequate staff ranks highly as a reason for the nursing shortage. This would indicate the situation is likely to get worse without attention to the other issues that need to be addressed to encourage nurses to stay and to improve attitudes within the profession.”

I come back to the fundamental question. We have been asking questions in this House for several months now on the question of a nursing shortage, on the question of staff shortages throughout our hospitals and the fact that beds are being closed, waiting lists are being closed and admissions are being closed in some hospitals. Can the minister confirm that these shortages are no accident and that it would appear, from what Dr. Barkin is saying, that we can expect further shortages, not as an accident but now as a matter of direct government policy in Ontario?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: Quite to the contrary: I think it is very reasonable for us to work with hospitals to make sure that their programs are delivered efficiently and that they have the staffing resources they require. We intend, and I intend, to work with the Advisory Committee on Nursing Manpower to address those issues that will allow the areas of hospitals that have had difficulty in attracting full-time nurses, such as the critical care units, the intensive care units, to attract the staff they need to offer those services.

However, on the area of hospital funding, I want to say that we expect that the review of the 22 hospitals will identify areas where we can help hospitals achieve their budget objectives and at the same time provide essential and important services to their communities.

TAX INCREASES

Mr. Brandt: My question is to the Premier and it is related to the budget. As the Premier is aware, these particular notices are appearing in local newspapers relative to the anger some people want to pass on to the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) and to the Premier with respect to their feelings in regard to this budget. A lot of the anger has been centred and directed towards the Treasurer, but some of that anger obviously should be directed towards the Premier because he is the co-author of that document.

I wonder if the Premier will confirm for this House that the actual tax grab in this budget that has been tabled in this House is not a gross increase of $1.3 billion in additional taxation, but in fact is an increase of $1.8 billion? Will the Premier confirm that?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The Treasurer will be happy to answer a question pertaining to the budget.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: I cannot confirm that.

Mr. Brandt: I anticipated the Premier would probably refer the question and I thought the Treasurer would own up to the fact that the gross increase in this budget, which has been well publicized, is in the range of $1.3 billion, but the Treasurer has very conveniently forgotten about well over $450 million in pass-through transfers from the federal government, which impact at almost $500 million on this budget.

Will the Treasurer simply confirm that without the federal money which is in his document -- and I can give him the precise page if he wants to refer to it -- he in fact has a grossed-up number in this budget in terms of an increase of $1.8 billion? It is a very simple question.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: I think the member is aware that the federal tax reform has had a substantial impact on all the taxpayers of Canada, but the emphasis has been on the taxpayers and the corporations in Ontario. A number of changes have come from the federal government and, in each instance, we have tried to parallel the tax reform base changes. These occur both in the personal income tax and in the corporation income tax. In the case of the corporation income tax, the change in the capital cost allowance has interfered with our ability to compete with Americans, and on that basis we have a number of additional programs to assist our industries in that regard.

But if the honourable member is talking about some sort of hidden transfers, I really do not know what he is talking about. He may be referring to a speedup in the money that is owing to us in Ontario from the personal income tax. As the honourable member knows, it is collected in Ottawa, and when it is collected it is provincial money. Ever since I was elected, I have been urging the Minister of Finance to see that the province’s money is remitted without delay. In order to make them as nearly neutral as possible from the federal aspect, the Minister of Finance has speeded up those transfers, and that was announced in the Legislature on at least two occasions when we were talking about the tax reform white paper, which is now just about a year old.

Mr. Brandt: My final supplementary is to refer the Treasurer to page 20 of his budget document, which does outline very clearly the federal transfer money. As I have indicated to the Treasurer, had that money not come through in additional revenue to his ministry, the gross increases that he has incorporated in this budget year would effectively be $1.8 billion. I would like the Treasurer, when he has an opportunity to review those figures, to confirm that with the House.

But if I may take another question from the budget, in the light of the fact that over the past four years the Treasurer’s increases have averaged about 10 per cent annually, which is about 40 per cent over the four budgets he has brought in, would he indicate to this House whether or not that is the largest increase over those four years of any provincial government in the entire country?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: I think the honourable member is concerned that we may be spending too much on programs which his colleagues have been urging we spend more money on. He would perhaps feel more comfortable and sleep more soundly in his bed at night if he were to remember the facts that were presented in the budget: that we in Ontario are paying, on a per capita basis, at a level about sixth out of the 10 provinces; and that we are not overspending on these programs, and many sensible people indicate that they feel we should be spending more on hospitals, more on schools, more on roads, more even on the environment than we are. On that basis, we think we have struck a very good balance, accomplishing fairness and equity in the province.

Mr. Brandt: The Treasurer constantly refers to the fact that Ontario is sixth on a per capita basis. What he fails to mention -- and he has mentioned this figure in the House on a number of occasions -- is that he is quickly losing his grip on the fact that this province had a much lower per capita spending record when he came to power, and it has been escalating and accelerating at a rapid rate as a result of his budget. That is an absolute fact.

By way of question to the Treasurer, I want to say to him that not all that many years ago this province had the lowest per capita spending record, and he has absolutely destroyed that with his --

Mr. Speaker: You are sure you have a question?

Mr. Brandt: I do.

Mr. Speaker: Please place your question.

1400

Mr. Brandt: Recognizing that 90 per cent of all new jobs are created by small business, there was a survey taken in April 1987 indicating that 50 per cent of them felt that the major problem to their survival was provincial taxes. Recognizing that 90 per cent of new jobs are created by that sector of our economy, does the Treasurer have any concern that his budget is going to affect small business, which creates most of the jobs in this province?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: Speaking to the preamble from the honourable leader, I would say that aside from the transcendental leadership of the Premier (Mr. Peterson), the fact that the former government had underfunded our schools and our hospitals is the reason the member is over there and we are over here.

I think that sensible taxpayers in this province are in support of this budget in so far as it allocates more adequate funding to our hospitals, our schools, our roads and our housing programs. I do not think there is any doubt about that.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: Dealing with the specific matter raised by the honourable member, a careful reading of the budget would bring to his attention the fact that this budget eliminated capital tax for small business doing $1 million worth of business or less. We believe that is a stimulus to the growth of small business, and in fact it is generally recognized as such.

Mr. Brandt: I will tell the Treasurer how well small business recognizes the growth stimulus that he has put in his budget. In February 1988 the same organization, taking a poll of small business some few months later, determined that 60 per cent of its members were now concerned about the kind of tax increases that were being brought in by his government.

Does he not share the concern that the very engine of growth in this province, namely the small businesses that create 90 per cent of the jobs, are going to be adversely affected by the budget that he has tabled in this House?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: I think it is interesting that the honourable member would indicate the concern of small business in February, because that is about the time that the federal budget came down, which in fact over two years removed an additional $1.6 billion from Ontario.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: Even in the gas tax situation, the federal government put one cent per litre on in January and another 1.1 cents in April. It really means the federal gas tax has gone from about five cents to 10 cents in the last four years. It is even higher than our provincial tax, which some people think is unnecessarily high. I do not agree with them in that.

Mr. Brandt: While the federal tax went up five cents, as the Treasurer points out in some four or five years, the leaded gas tax in his budget went up four cents in one budget in one year. That is a statement of fact.

Mr. Speaker: And the question?

Mr. Brandt: This is the largest tax grab in the history of this province. If businesses come forward indicating that his budget is going to create a survival problem for them, is the Treasurer prepared to look at some realistic rollback of some of the tax increases he has incorporated in his budget?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: The honourable member, I know, is a fair man and he is the sort of person who would read the budget carefully. He would know that at the same time we removed totally the capital tax from small business, we allocated specific funds to assist small businesses in research and development -- that was an additional $45 million -- and also, beginning next January 1, a 15 per cent stimulus to capital expenditure, which is going to not only increase the abilities of our small businesses to compete but also make more jobs. That is the expressed policy and the aim of this government, and we feel that it can be fairly achieved by those initiatives.

SPECIAL EDUCATION

Mr. Allen: To the Minister of Education: Hard-to-serve children who are bright but have multiple learning disabilities are being victimized in our education system because of the rigid, unbending attitude of his ministry as to what constitutes hard-to-serve.

For example, Robbie Thompson in East York had his school board’s refusal to recognize him as hard-to-serve overturned twice by government review boards. But now that his board accepts that he is hard-to-serve, the minister has rejected that on a technicality. The Supreme Court of Ontario recently judged that he was wrong in this case and now he plans to fight Robbie Thompson in the Supreme Court of Canada.

Why is the minister laying such a heavy hand on these kids? Will he not now withdraw his appeal and get on with giving these special children the appropriate education they deserve under the act?

Hon. Mr. Ward: I want to indicate to the member that I do share his concern relative to the needs of hard-to-serve children in this province. As the member points out, recently the courts did uphold a decision made in the Robbie Thompson case relative to the fact that the board did have the power and the jurisdiction to do what it did. But after having reviewed the case with solicitors from within my ministry, we clearly had some ongoing concerns and, as a result, we have filed an appeal.

Mr. Allen: There have been ongoing concerns, certainly. If the minister has them, he needs to look at his own officials because his ministry from the very beginning has treated the hard-to-serve provisions in Bill 82 in an incredibly narrow fashion. In fact, no child has ever been found hard-to-serve under Bill 82’s provisions by his officials, which action specialists all across the province have said is not only mistaken but probably even perverse.

The minister has major amendments in the works with respect to Bill 82. Why does he not go the less costly and more humane route of accepting the Ontario court decision and fixing the bill and the amendments? Or is he telling us by his court case that he is going to keep on building his Berlin Wall, complete with mine-fields, around the hard-to-serve provisions to keep these kids out?

Hon. Mr. Ward: As the member indicates, we do indeed have amendments currently under consideration relative to Bill 82. It would be my hope that we could introduce some of those amendments either before the end of this session or early in the next. But relative to the specifics of the Robbie Thompson case, the matter is under appeal before the courts, and I do not believe that it is appropriate for me to comment beyond that.

WHEEL-TRANS LABOUR DISPUTE

Mrs. Marland: I had hoped that I would not have to ask this question because we were hoping that the Minister of Labour would come in the House this afternoon with a statement that he had resolved this problem.

Mr. Speaker: Question to which minister?

Mrs. Marland: My question is to the Minister of Labour. Another day has passed and this minister is still content to sit back in his chauffeur-driven car while thousands of disabled people are trapped in their homes. Yesterday the minister, in his smug approach to this issue, said that I did not have any idea what collective bargaining is all about. I can assure the minister that I have a very clear idea of what disabled persons’ difficulties are all about.

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mrs. Marland: Since obviously this minister does not care about the disabled as long as he can pull off a negotiated settlement to boost his profile as the new labour guru, when is this minister going to do the humane thing and end this strike?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I hope the member for Mississauga South did not get the wrong impression yesterday from my comments. The thing I think I really resent is the suggestion in the tone and tenor of her question that she is the only person in this House who has any care or concern for the disabled community.

I think every one of us in this place would like to see a resolution of this dispute. I think every one of us in this House has a very deep concern that there are disabled people within Metropolitan Toronto who perhaps are not getting to work or perhaps are not taking part in events that they normally take part in.

The fact is that in this sort of circumstance, perhaps as the member for Mississauga South suggests it would be very easy to say we will just end it, but in collective bargaining the best solution is a solution that the parties themselves negotiate and settle upon.

Mrs. Marland: If any one of the Liberal government members felt about this issue as I do, he would do what I am going to do shortly in this House, which is introduce a private bill to legislate the end of this strike.

At 12:30 p.m. today, I spoke to Mrs. Beryl Potter, who is the president of the Ontario Action Awareness Association, and she is quite discouraged. She indicated to me that it did not look as though the negotiations were going very well at all. In fact, she does not think the negotiations are going anywhere at this time.

1410

In order to ensure that the disabled community is not threatened in the future again with similar strike action, will this minister show his compassion and deem Wheel-Trans to be an essential service, something which Mrs. Beryl Potter and the rest of the disabled community have been calling for since the last strike two years ago.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: Once again, I simply point out to the member for Mississauga South that her compassion and her concern about disabled people who are being inconvenienced by this strike is shared by every other member in this House. I am glad that she has taken the opportunity to meet with Beryl Potter. I, too, have had an opportunity to meet and have heard her comments on the tenor of the negotiations, on her concern for the disabled community and on her gratitude that my colleague the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Sweeney) has provided assistance to disabled people to ensure that the strike is not as disruptive as it might otherwise have been. I have also heard from employers who have made commitments to make sure that their workers who are disabled are being helped to get to work.

No one wants this strike to go on, but the fact is that if collective bargaining is going to work in this province, we are going to have a system which allows parties to reach a reasonable resolution.

TOURISM INDUSTRY

Mr. Adams: My question is for the Minister of Tourism and Recreation. I think it is now widely accepted that tourism is a truly major industry in this province. It is also accepted that this is an industry which affects all parts of the province, not just a few specialized resorts. There is real concern that this vital industry be managed in as systematic a way as possible with both short- and long-term plans. What is the minister doing to ensure that tourism in Ontario develops in a co-ordinated fashion?

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. O’Neil: I would like to thank the member for Peterborough for his question because, whether the opposition believes so or not, it is a very important question. The opposition, or some of the opposition members, should be aware that tourism generated in Ontario last year close to $9.3 billion, provided approximately 400,000 jobs and generated close to $1 billion in tax revenues. At the present time, the previous minister and myself have been working along with the industry on a tourism strategy for the province. It is hoped that this will be coming forward very shortly.

Mr. Adams: I think the minister knows from personal experience that eastern and central Ontario feel neglected in various ways in this province. Tourism is a pillar of the economy of those regions. What is being done and what can be done to fully develop the tourism potential of eastern and central Ontario?

Hon. Mr. O’Neil: Again, all the members of the Legislature will be very pleased to know that eastern Ontario, as far as tourism is regarded, is not being left alone at all. There are a lot of great things happening. I can tell members that with our Destinations East program for festivals and events we are attracting a lot of tourists to the east. I can also tell them that the assistance we are giving to the tourism industry in the way of loans has helped greatly. We are also doing quite a bit to make sure that eastern Ontario is advertised in many of our magazines and a lot of the newspaper advertising that is going on. We see great things happening for eastern Ontario as far as tourism is related.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. There are quite a number of other members who would like to ask questions and to be heard.

SCHOOL FUNDING

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I have a question of the Minister of Education. The minister will be aware that last year his ministry gave the Board of Education for the City of Windsor $38,000 in capital grants; this year he gave us zip. This past weekend I visited the William Hands Secondary School and looked at its roof, which to replace is $620,000. There are holes in the roof. The inside of the school is deteriorating because that roof cannot be repaired without capital grants from his ministry.

When is his ministry going to recognize that there are school boards in this province that may not have growth situations but still have capital requirements for renovations and maintaining their capital stock, which is ageing and deteriorating? When is he going to properly address that issue, instead of constantly ignoring boards like the Windsor board of education?

Hon. Mr. Ward: As the member knows, this year’s capital allocation was primarily directed to the needs of growth boards. I think he would also recognize that the great difficulty we have in dealing with the many, many capital requests we receive is making a judgement as to whether most of the money should be directed to upgrading facilities that currently exist or whether most of the money should be directed to providing accommodation for students who will be showing up next September with no place to go.

I do share his concern, however, relative to the needs of those areas without growth. I do share his concerns relative to the needs to upgrade existing capital stocks. I will say that under emergency situations, where circumstances warrant, the ministry is in a position to be able to respond. I would be happy to have the regional office in the southwestern area report to me on the situation at that school.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: The minister might want to talk to his regional office, because the regional office recommended this. They recommended it last year too, but the head office ignores it.

I would like to ask the minister about another capital situation in our area. In Essex county, he will understand that we went through a very difficult time and a negotiated settlement came about where General Amherst District High School shared with the Catholic school board in order to have, not a new high school but shared facilities in Amherstburg.

Does the minister not understand that while the ownership of this high school remains with the public school board, his ministry allocated capital grants to the separate school board and nothing to the public school board and that, as a result, this agreement for shared facilities is now in jeopardy and he has accelerated and increased the antagonism that exists in that community with the phasing in of Bill 30? Will he review that situation immediately?

Hon. Mr. Ward: Frankly, I have to say to the member that I think his information, or at least his basic premise, is fundamentally incorrect relative to the capital allocation. The member knows full well that in many circumstances local boards from their own revenue sources do from time to time provide funds for the upkeep, the renovation and the maintenance of facilities.

If the member truly believes that because the separate board within a shared facility chooses to put in new carpet and paints its walls out of current funds, therefore this has become an issue relative to the capital funding or to Bill 30, I think he is wrong.

SCHOOL ACCOMMODATION

Mr. Jackson: My question is also to the Minister of Education and it also deals with the inconsistencies around capital funding and the minister’s approach in matters relative to Bill 30. Yesterday in this House, we learned of the minister’s reversal in policy with respect to his ministry’s role, and his as the minister, in school space negotiations. in light of the fact he has now intervened in the Metro board negotiations, will he apply the same rules to Hamilton and build the students of Hamilton a new school?

Hon. Mr. Ward: Again the member operates under what I believe to be a complete misunderstanding of the process relative to Bill 30. He knows full well that boards of education throughout this province are required to strike joint negotiating committees in an attempt to resolve the utilization of surplus space within the public school system.

1420

In this case, the board, during the course of its negotiation, as has virtually every other board in this province, approached the ministry, either through the regional office -- in this case it was a direct approach -- relative to making a determination as to what its long-term needs would be. It requested that we participate at the joint negotiation session in an attempt to bring about not just a short-term solution for September 1988 but rather a solution that would serve the needs of the eight school boards involved in these negotiations long into the future.

Frankly, I think those boards showed great leadership. They showed a tremendous willingness to come to terms on a long-standing basis with a very difficult situation. I was delighted to accede to their requests and participate with them.

Mr. Jackson: The minister indicates that there were elements of leadership in Metropolitan Toronto. I do not know what he is trying to say was the attitude of the school boards in the Hamilton-Wentworth situation when they essentially became the guinea-pigs for this legislation. He says he was asked to get involved in this process. If any boards in the Hamilton-Wentworth area were to approach him now with a genuine interest and with a rational plan for a long-term proposal to resolve the school space negotiations and their needs, does he not agree that it would be incumbent upon him to reopen the discussions on Sir Winston Churchill Secondary School?

Hon. Mr. Ward: I think I have indicated to the member clearly the differences in the situation.

Mr. Jackson: You have two sets of rules.

Hon. Mr. Ward: There is only one set of rules. The joint committee negotiations were complete in the Hamilton-Wentworth community among the three boards. The three boards asked for and agreed to the assignment of a mediator in that circumstance. When mediation failed, an arbitrator was appointed, and the hearings were held as per the provisions of the act.

If the member is asking me if any board of education would come forward with a long-range, planned approach that showed clearly a complete willingness to deal with these issues in the long term, of course I would listen.

ROAD SAFETY

Ms. Collins: My question is for the Minister of Transportation. The minister is aware of the dangerous intersection of Highway 20 and King Street in my riding. He is also aware that this intersection has been the scene of numerous accidents involving trucks travelling on Highway 20 down the escarpment towards King Street. Recently this intersection was the scene of two fatal accidents, again involving transport trucks. Can the minister please tell the House what action his ministry is planning to take to improve safety at this location?

Hon. Mr. Fulton: I would like to commend my colleague the member for Wentworth East on the manner, the energy and the aggressiveness with which she has pursued this very important safety matter. She brought it to my attention a very short while ago at a meeting in my office and another one yesterday. I am able to tell the member and this House today that our ministry will be working very quickly to install a very large sign that will be directed particularly to the truckers who are heading down this very long road into that area. We will be installing an additional sign that will direct attention, particularly to motorists in general, which will give them --

Mr. Wiseman: Is that what you told her yesterday?

Hon. Mr. Fulton: If the members opposite are interested in saving lives, they will stop their interjections. It will flash in advance --

Mr. Jackson: Why can’t she ask the minister? She is making all that extra money as his parliamentary assistant. Can’t she walk across the hall?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Fulton: It will provide for flashing advance signs to give notice of change of the signalized intersection.

We will also be increasing truck inspection before they enter the grade, with particular emphasis on checking truck safety and braking systems. We will also be continuing to monitor the intersection with the local municipality, which has a role to play in outlining to the particular companies --

Mr. Speaker: Thank you. That is a thoroughly complete answer. Any further supplementary?

Ms. Collins: I want to thank the minister for responding so quickly to these concerns. It is unfortunate the member for Burlington South (Mr. Jackson) is not interested in road safety in this province.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. There are a number of other questions I am sure could be asked in the next 17 minutes if – order. Supplementary?

Ms. Collins: Can the minister give some commitment as to when the short-term measures will be implemented and whether he is considering any longer-term initiatives?

Hon. Mr. Fulton: It may be that members opposite are not concerned with public safety, but I do appreciate the member’s complimentary remarks.

Another meeting is taking place onsite today, and I can tell the member that the signage will be completed within the next two weeks.

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

Mrs. Grier: I have a question for the Minister of Health. Tonight, at a dinner in Etobicoke to which the minister has been invited, it will be announced that Etobicoke has been selected as one of three cities across Canada to participate in a unique demonstration project for the delivery of mental health services.

This project is funded in part by the Department of National Health and Welfare and in part by the Canadian Mental Health Association. It provides an opportunity for the Etobicoke mental health services agency to show the way to other communities in Ontario.

The other two demonstration projects are going to be in Saskatchewan and in New Brunswick. Both of those provincial governments have promised funding to the community that has the demonstration project.

Can this minister commit herself to provide the same kind of support for the project that is going to take place in Etobicoke?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I am very proud of the commitment this government has made to mental health, and particularly to community mental health. Since 1985, we have increased the budget by 70 per cent and further made a commitment to triple the allocation in the next three years.

Mr. Reville: The project in Etobicoke, like the projects in Prince Albert and Moncton, will demonstrate the important principles of personal empowerment and community capacity in the delivery of mental health services.

Those principles envisage a balancing of the delivery of mental health services so that the person with the mental health problem is at the centre, supported by a framework that would consist of the formal mental health care system, community agencies, families and friends groups and self-help groups.

Does the minister support those principles? If so, why will she not commit funding to this project in Etobicoke?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: Our commitment to double community mental health funding over the next three years speaks to the commitment.

Further, we have asked Robert Graham to bring forward a model for the establishment of comprehensive community mental health programming. I expect to have Mr. Graham’s committee report in the very near future and I hope to have a statement in this House.

CONGRATULATORY SCROLLS

Hon. Mr. Patten: In response to a previous question, I think this is something that affects and is of interest to all members. It deals with the official documents which are sent to constituents on behalf of the province.

The members will know that for the past 20 years there has been essentially one style and one format. That has now changed. These are for the purposes of congratulatory messages for birthdays, weddings and other special events.

As of this week, there is a new format in terms of framing and wording. As well as being more aesthetically pleasing, the documents will be far easier to handle, especially for older recipients. The new folders are lighter in weight and have a more modern style of print. There will be six different styles so that members can choose from these.

Members will be pleased to hear they can sign the scroll at the request of the recipient, which was one of the questions that was asked of me, and that the new folder can accommodate a business card or letter on behalf of the members. In fact, if the members are interested in these scrolls, they will be able to preview them downstairs, outside the dining hail, where they will be on display for the remainder of the week.

1430

Mr. J. M. Johnson: Will the minister please tell the House if any members besides the Premier (Mr. Peterson) had input into the decision to go this route and change the plaques? It is my understanding, in checking with the ministry, that the nursing homes complained about the dusting. Also, there was some factor about the cost; it was starting to cost too much. Since the ministry has now moved to 80th birthdays and 40th anniversaries, it would seem to me the cost has increased.

The plaques are certainly not nearly as nice as they were in the past. The only signature that appears is the Premier’s. If the plaques are sent from the minister’s office, how does a member have the opportunity to have a card inserted?

Hon. Mr. Patten: Many of these requests, as the member will know, come by way of constituency offices or by way of members. In fact, there were complaints from seniors’ residences about the old format, that it was very bulky and causing damage. The format now provides for the MPP’s card or for a letter, and to be signed if the recipient makes that request.

Mr. Speaker: New question, the member for Parry Sound.

Mr. Eves: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether I can follow that act or not. I guess the plaques were too difficult to dust. That is the response we got back from the ministry.

HOSPITAL FUNDING

Mr Eves: I have a question of the Minister of Health. The majority of hospitals do not plan their deficits. I tried to emphasize that point yesterday, but I will try to make myself perfectly clear. In very simple words, due to uncontrollable circumstances, whether it be unusually high demand or exceptional expenditures, these hospitals either have to operate with a deficit or cut services, cut beds, stop admitting patients.

Hospitals in high-growth areas view the minister’s 2.5 per cent increase, which she gave them for growth, as a joke. For example, York Centre’s projected growth this year is eight per cent to 10 per cent. Will the minister pick up the deficits of hospitals with unplanned deficits or not, yes or no?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: As the member knows, the goal of the Ministry of Health is to provide the highest quality of service with the greatest possible efficiency in our hospitals. We have undertaken a review of some 22 hospitals that have recurring deficits to find the root problems and help them resolve those so that we can have predictability in hospital budgeting.

Mr. Eves: The minister cannot have it both ways. Either she picks up the unplanned deficits of the hospitals or she should indicate the services these hospitals should cut. It is her responsibility.

My question to the minister is very simple: Which services is she telling hospitals to cut? Should they close beds? Should they lay off staff? Should they cut programs? Should they stop admitting patients? If so, which patients? Which is it?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: It is important for members of this Legislature to realize that from 1984-85 to 1988-89, hospital budget increases have been 39 per cent. We recognize that there are adequate resources within this sector, what we are attempting to do is make sure that they are fairly funded. I believe the reviews will go a long way to pointing out what those difficulties are and allow us to give hospitals the adequate resources they require to deliver services their communities need.

ONTARIO VETERINARY COLLEGE

Mr. Ferraro: I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture and Food. I am sure the members of the third party will not like this question. A few years ago, the Ontario Veterinary College lost its full accreditation as the result of a ruling of the American Veterinary Medical Association. They lost this full accreditation precisely because the government of the day did not provide enough funds. I remind the House and the minister that this 126-year-old institution, renowned throughout the world, is the alma mater for 60 per cent of all the veterinarians in Canada. Everyone should know that this week the Ontario Veterinary College regained full accreditation.

My question, in two parts, to the minister is: Can he advise the House and the people of Ontario whether this accreditation is permanent or will it have to be reviewed? Second, what is he doing to ensure that this great institution, part of the University of Guelph, will never get into the sort of
--

Mr. Speaker: Order; minister.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Riddell: Restoring full accreditation to the Ontario Veterinary College is yet another example of the kind of expenditure of taxpayers’ dollars that this government has had to make in order to compensate for the neglect of the educational system by the previous administration. Had the Tory government injected the funds where they were needed back at the time when they were needed, the Ontario Veterinary College would never have lost its full accreditation.

This government has undertaken two major developments. First, in 1986, we provided enhanced funding of $3.6 million to allow the farm animal health program to provide undergraduates with an opportunity to gain field experience between the second and third year. Second, my ministry, in conjunction with the Ministry of Government Services, is also in the process of constructing a $5.4-million world-class animal health research centre at --

Mr. Speaker: Thank you. Order; new question.

USE OF TIME IN QUESTION PERIOD

Mr. D. S. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order. I think at some point you are going to have to look at the questions the Liberal Party is asking during question period. There is a standing rule that says the questions are supposed to be of urgent public importance. If the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Riddell) wants to make a statement, it should not be set up by one of his own back-benchers. There is a time to do that.

Mr. Speaker: I appreciate the assistance of --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Ferraro: Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Speaker: On that point of order?

Mr. Ferraro: I think, Mr. Speaker, if you are going to entertain that point of order, you should entertain mine. I would only ask for equal treatment. If we cannot ask a question we do not know the answer to, then they should not be able to.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I would like to thank the member for --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Well, we will just wait once again, if you want to waste the time.

Order. I would like to thank the members for their assistance in organizing the question period. However, I am trying to follow the pattern set out in the standing orders set by these members. I feel my main job in the chair is to make certain that as many members as possible have the opportunity to ask questions and to get responses.

CORRECTIONAL TREATMENT SERVICES

Mr. Farnan: I would like to direct this question to the Minister of Correctional Services. The president of the Ontario Public Service Employees Union and the ministry’s own figures variously estimate that between 15 and 20 per cent of inmates in Ontario’s correctional institutions, not treatment centres, are in need of psychological treatment but are not receiving it. This works out to approximately 6,500 inmates.

Unfortunately, even with the proposed new treatment beds projected at Vanier, Millbrook and the Sault, only a mere 7.6 per cent of all treatable inmates will be able to receive treatment.

My question to the minister is this: What does the minister plan to do with the remaining 92.4 per cent, or over 6,000 inmates under the care of the ministry, who are in need of treatment; and will it hire new psychiatrists and psychologists to treat the mentally disturbed inmates languishing in Ontario’s prisons?

1440

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I really welcome that question because treatment and care of our inmates is high on my agenda and we have been increasing the professional staff in all our treatment centres. In the women’s prison, Vanier Centre for Women in Brampton, we have just completed the construction of one of the cottages into a treatment centre for women. We are just completing our staff hiring for that centre. In all the different centres across Ontario, we are increasing our treatment and spending up to $3.6 million this year on the treatment of Ontario offenders.

Mr. Farnan: Despite what the minister says, and we appreciate any expansion, let me give an example of Robert Colakoglu, who has been, for the past four months, in the Cambridge detention centre. Robert has been variously diagnosed as suffering from chronic schizophrenia at the Cambridge Memorial Hospital, the Homewood Sanitarium, the London Psychiatric Hospital and the Penetanguishene Mental Health Centre.

Just over five weeks ago, at the St. Thomas Psychiatric Hospital, his pre-trial assessment recommended the following -- I would like the minister to listen to this – “We recommend he serve his sentence at St. Thomas Psychiatric Hospital forensic service so that he is further ahead by receiving treatment at the earliest possible time while his motivation is still high.”

Mr. Speaker: What would the question be?

Mr. Farnan: That was over five weeks ago. Robert Colakoglu -- this is important, Mr. Speaker -- is still in the centre.

Mr. Speaker: I am sure it is very important. Would you place your supplementary question?

Mr. Farnan: Taking the case of Robert Colakoglu, who has been subjected to a prolonged period of solitary confinement, in this case where the man’s hand was broken and it took four days before he was brought to the hospital for treatment, what will the minister do --

Mr. Speaker: Are you sure this is a question?

Mr. Farnan: -- about Robert Colakoglu and the 6,000 others like him who are in need of psychiatric help and who are languishing in institutions without treatment?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I would be quite happy to look into that individual case the member brings to my attention, but also I would like to tell the member that in Burtch Correctional Centre, just south of Brantford, we are just finishing off another treatment-centre area so that we will be able to provide better service for the people of southwestern Ontario.

PETITIONS

Mr. Harris: I had a petition outside today:

“We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly as follows:

“We congratulate the Treasurer of Ontario, Bob Nixon, for his recent budget and for his careful scrutiny of expenditures and his concern for the average taxpayer of this province.”

Mr. Speaker, it is signed by -- oh, I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, nobody would sign it. I cannot table it.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Perhaps the member for Nipissing will look a little more closely at the rules for petitions.

Mr. Harris: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I will have to withdraw it.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. D. R. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, I have three petitions and I can assure you they are all legitimate.

They are each opposed to Sunday shopping or the extension of Sunday shopping in the province.

One is by 54 members of the Women’s Missionary and Service Commission of the Mennonite Church in Petersburg, one is by 55 adherents to Calvary Memorial Church in Kitchener and one is by 103 members of the First Christian Reformed Church in Kitchener.

1987 CONSTITUTIONAL ACCORD

Mr. Velshi: I have a petition signed by about 21 women from the Voice of Women. It is a petition against the Meech Lake accord:

“To the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly:

“We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the Legislative Assembly as follows:

“Canadians must ensure that women’s equality rights are clearly written and well protected in our Constitution.

“The risks we see in the proposed Meech Lake accord should and must be removed before ratification. For women, any risk is too much risk.

“We reject any proposal for companion resolutions to ‘fix it up later,’ because we cannot trust all provinces not to exercise veto.

“The accord must be revised to read that nothing in it will abrogate or derogate from any of the rights and freedoms guaranteed in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.”

I have signed this petition.

Mr. Speaker: There are about 14 private conversations going on at the same time. I feel it is not necessary.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. Daigeler: I have the pleasure to introduce a petition signed by 182 residents of my riding and of the Ottawa-Carleton area. It is addressed:

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

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

“We are opposed to open Sunday shopping and want to retain a common pause day in Ontario.”

I have signed this petition.

Mrs. Marland: I have a petition:

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

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

“Whereas Premier David Peterson wants world-class Sunday shopping, but the people of Ontario do not, we request that consideration be given to the views of 83 persons from different parts of Ontario who have signed a petition.... ”

Mrs. Marland: I have a second petition to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, which says in part:

“On the recommendation of its Outreach Committee, and after consideration, the official board of Christ Church United” -- at 1700 Mazo Crescent, Mississauga – “passed the following resolution:

“That the official board on behalf of the congregation of Christ Church United advise the province of Ontario represented by the Premier ... that we are opposed to Sunday retailing and in favour of retaining the present legislation, which we feel should not be eroded.”

It gives me pleasure to add my signature to that petition.

ABORTION

Mr. Kozyra: I have a petition from a group of Cochrane parishioners:

“We, the undersigned, parishioners of Ste-Angèle de Merici, Frederickhouse, Ontario, request that the provincial government initiate financial assistance and moral support programs for future mothers with the objective of encouraging them to keep their babies and not undergo an abortion.”

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

WHEEL-TRANS LABOUR DISPUTE SETTLEMENT ACT

Mrs. Marland moved first reading of Bill 127, An Act respecting the Labour Disputes between All-Way Transportation Corporation (Wheel-Trans Division) and Local 113, Amalgamated Transit Union.

Motion agreed to.

1450

Mrs. Marland: The purpose of this bill is to end the labour disputes involving All-Way Transportation Corp., Wheel-Trans division, and Local 113, Amalgamated Transit Union. The bill provides for the immediate return to work by the employees and the immediate startup of operation by the employer. Under this bill, the dispute is to be settled by compulsory arbitration.

In view of the urgency of this matter of transportation for the disabled, I request unanimous consent of this House that it will have second reading of this bill today.

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Some hon. members: No.

Mr. Speaker: Introduction of bills.

Mrs. Marland: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I felt that we did receive unanimous consent of this House.

Mr. Speaker: Oh, I am sorry. I guess I was not listening carefully enough. What is your request?

Mrs. Marland: My request was for all-party consent in this House, and I heard some members of the Liberal government perhaps declining. I was not clear and I wondered if you could clarify it.

Mr. Speaker: What is the request?

Mrs. Marland: My request is for second reading of this bill. I wondered if the member for Bruce (Mr. Elston) --

Mr. Speaker: In other words, you are asking unanimous consent that this bill go to second reading before it is printed. Is that what you are asking?

Is there unanimous consent?

Some hon. members: No.

Mr. Speaker: No. I am sorry. There is not unanimous consent.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Introduction of bills. Any other bills? Have you another bill?

Mrs. Marland: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Do I understand that the Liberal government is opposed to this bill?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I did not understand originally what the member was requesting and I admitted I was not listening carefully. You repeated it, and I informed you of the view of the House that there was not unanimous consent. I hope that you heard that.

Hon. Mr. Conway: I would like to speak to that point, just so that the record might be very clear. On behalf of my colleagues, I certainly cannot deal with a bill that I have not even seen. I think my honourable friends would want to know that.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Pope: Mr. Speaker, just on a point of order.

Mr. Speaker: Oh, a different point of order.

Mr. Pope: I want to speak to that point of order.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Cochrane South.

Mr. Pope: Speaking to that point of order, Mr. Speaker: The government House leader rose to clarify the record. He knows full well what the content of the bill is and the issue. The fact of the matter is that this Liberal government does not want to help the people who are dependent on that service.

Mr. Speaker: I have listened very carefully to what to me has been a point of view by the members who have spoken.

On a new point of order, the member for Windsor-Riverside.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, it is on a slightly different point of order. Perhaps if the member for Mississauga South (Mrs. Marland) had wanted members of the other parties to take this matter seriously, she might have considered circulating her bill to the other two parties ahead of time so we could take a look at it.

Mr. Speaker: On that point of order, the member for Nipissing.

Mr. Harris: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. The member for Mississauga South certainly indicated her intention during question period today. The bill she has tabled is a replica of a previous bill that all members will be very well acquainted with. There was no intent to surprise anybody and she simply asked for unanimous consent, as is asked many times by the government during emergency situations. They did not agree to it, and we accept that. They do not think it is a problem, and we do.

Mr. Speaker: I have been listening carefully. The matter of unanimous consent for second reading had been dealt with previously, even though the member just brought it up once again. The supposed point of order by the member for Windsor-Riverside (Mr. D. S. Cooke) was certainly a good point of view and, I suppose, a suggestion for other members in the future.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

OTTAWA-CARLETON FRENCH-LANGUAGE SCHOOL BOARD ACT / LOI SUR LE CONSEIL SCOLAIRE DE LANGUE FRANÇAISE D’ OTTAWA-CARLETON

Hon. Mr. Ward moved second reading of Bill 109, An Act to establish a French-language School Board for the Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton.

L’hon. M. Ward propose la deuxième lecture du projet de loi 109, Loi portant création d’un Conseil scolaire de langue française pour la municipalité régionale d’Ottawa-Carleton.

Hon. Mr. Ward: I am delighted to rise today and move second reading of Bill 109, An Act to establish a French-language School Board for The Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton.

Monsieur le Président, en proposant aujourd’hui la deuxième lecture du projet de loi 109, je tiens à rendre hommage de façon particulière à ceux et celles qui se sont consacrés à la création d’un conseil scolaire de langue française dans Ottawa-Carleton. Depuis près d’une génération, en effet, ils ont oeuvré sans relâche. Leur ténacité, leur acharnement et leur dévouement sont autant de preuves du feu sacré qui les animait. Leurs efforts conjugués témoignent d’un courage digne de notre estime.

Taken in its historical context, the creation of a French-language school board represents the culmination of a long series of events, dating back to pre-Confederation when the first school established in Upper Canada was l’Assomption de détroit, now the city of Windsor.

From the late 1880s until 1960 the use of French in public and separate schools was severely restricted by government policy. Regulation 17 -- l’infâme règlement 17, as it is referred to by all Franco-Ontarians -- passed in June 1912, banned the use of the French language in schools, except in the first year if children did not know English. This regulation was put in abeyance in 1927 and eventually repealed in 1944.

However, severe limitations on the use of French as a language of instruction continued to exist at the secondary level until 1968, when legislation was enacted to allow for the establishment of French-language secondary schools in Ontario. Members will recall, as I am sure my honourable colleague the member for Ottawa East (Mr. Grandmaître) does, that a French-language school board for Ottawa-Carleton was first proposed by the Mayo commission in 1974.

Although the government of the day failed to act on that report, and with all due respect to those who devoted time and energy in keeping the issue alive, other events have since that time paved the way to the recognition of the rights of francophones in this province to school governance. The enactment of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in our Canadian Constitution in 1982 and the 1984 decision rendered by the Ontario Court of Appeal form, without a doubt, the basis of the educational rights held by the linguistic minority of our province, the rights of the Franco-Ontarians to manage and control their schools and classes.

This government has demonstrated its commitment to the educational rights of Ontario’s francophone minority. Bill 75, passed in 1986, provided legislation to ensure those rights. It also set in motion the establishment of a French-language school board in the nation’s capital through the creation of an advisory committee chaired by Albert Roy. The Roy report was released in January 1987. The course of action proposed since then by my ministry supports many recommendations contained in that report.

The legislation provides for: the creation of one French-language school board with two sectors, one Roman Catholic and one public, the board’s composition’s being a minimum of seven elected trustees per sector and additional trustees to be determined by a formula set out in the legislation; the duties and powers that are exclusive to each of the sectors and to the full board; the exclusive right of the new board to offer instruction to French-speaking pupils who desire and qualify for a French-language education; the transfer of staff working in or on behalf of French-language schools from the four existing boards to the new board or its sectors under the collective agreements or employment relationships currently in force; the transfer of school facilities currently occupied by the French-language pupils and the transfer of other assets from the four existing boards to the new board; and a mechanism for the resolution of disputes that arise during and after the implementation of the French-language school board.

1500

Another important aspect to this bill addresses the financial needs of the new French-language school board for Ottawa-Carleton. To all intents and purposes, members will realize that we are creating not only a new school board but a new structure within the Ontario school system.

For this reason, it was felt that providing special temporary grants was the best way of enabling the sectors of the new board to offer the same quality of education that is available to French-language students in Ottawa-Carleton today. As I have already stated in this Legislature, these temporary grants are to be provided only until such time as this government has adopted new funding measures following its review of the financing of elementary and secondary education in Ontario.

In summing up, I wish to emphasize that Bill 109 was born out of a long and constructive consultation process. With that spirit in mind, I genuinely believe that we have addressed in this landmark legislation the constitutional rights set out in section 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which deals with minority-language education, as well as in section 93 of the Constitution Act, which refers to religious education rights.

Finally, I am mindful, as I am sure all members of this Legislature are, of the relatively short time afforded to us if we are to witness fruition of the measure in time for the municipal and school elections of November 1988. Having said that, however, I want to emphasize the commitment I made to this House upon introducing this legislation a few weeks ago. Indeed, it is my hope that Bill 109 will be referred at the earliest possible time to a committee of the Legislature and that public hearings will be held in both Ottawa and Toronto.

In so doing, members of interested parties will have a chance of perfecting an already fine piece of legislation. Indeed, officials of my ministry are now incorporating several of the suggested changes brought forward by concerned groups with a view to clarifying the language of the bill.

Ce projet de loi historique répond de façon positive aux attentes longtemps exprimées de la communauté francophone d’Ottawa-Carleton. J’invite tous les députés à l’Assemblée à démontrer que l’Ontario entend reconnaître les droits de la minorité francophone sur le plan de l’enseignement, et ce, en appuyant avec moi ce projet de loi.

M. Daigeler: En tant que conseiller scolaire d’un conseil qui représente une grande partie des francophones de la région d’Ottawa-Carleton, cela me fait un grand plaisir d’appuyer avec enthousiasme le projet de loi soumis par le ministre. J’invite tous mes collègues à se joindre à moi dans ce projet historique, lequel restera projet, puisque même après son renvoi à un comité parlementaire, il restera des questions posées, il restera des problèmes. C’est à nous tous de montrer de la générosité d’esprit, de la générosité de coeur pour aborder toutes les questions reliées à ce projet.

I invite all the members in this House to support this initiative. There will be questions that will remain after discussion in the committee. I invite all the partners in this enterprise to show an openness of spirit and heart to the ideas that lie behind this project of legislation for the recognition of the cultural identity and uniqueness of our francophone brothers and sisters in the Ottawa-Carleton area. I am pleased and proud of this project that the minister has introduced.

Mr. Sterling: On a point of order, Madam Speaker: I do not think it really matters in this because we are in second reading debate and the member for Nepean (Mr. Daigeler) could have an opportunity to speak on second reading, but I think it is improper to use the response time to make a statement of his support for a piece of legislation, particularly through the second -- I think it is of a minor nature but I just point it out in terms of what that response time should be used for. It should be used to respond to what the minister has said.

The Acting Speaker (Miss Roberts): With respect to the point of order that has just been brought to my attention by the member for Carleton, the standing orders indicate that there may be comments or questions. That comment may be favourable or unfavourable, I do believe.

L’hon. M. Grandmaître: Madame la Présidente, je veux certainement indiquer mon appui du projet de loi 109, aujourd’hui. Je crois que c’est la grande fête pour les Franco-Ontariens et Franco-Ontariennes de célébrer la deuxième lecture du projet de loi 109.

Je fais cela pour plusieurs raisons. Je crois que les deux raisons les plus importantes seraient que je suis le ministre délégué aux Affaires francophones et, en plus, le député d’Ottawa-Est, et ma municipalité représente à peu près le plus grand pourcentage de francophones dans l’Est de l’Ontario,

La présentation du projet de loi en deuxième lecture aujourd’hui reflète le travail qui a été fait depuis une dizaine d’années, et surtout au cours des trois dernières années, par le gouvernement de l’Ontario. Je me souviens de la présentation de cette loi, de la préparation de cette loi par le député de Renfrew-Nord (M. Conway); et aujourd’hui, le ministre de l’Éducation (M. Ward) vient d’apporter le glaçage sur le gâteau.

L’adoption de la Loi 75, il y a tout près de deux ans, constituait sans doute le premier fruit, la première étape de la création ou de l’adoption de la Loi 109. Je suis sûr que tous mes collègues vont appuyer le projet de loi 109, qui élimine, comme l’a si bien mentionné le ministre tantôt...

The Acting Speaker: Order. Time is up, the two-minute time.

M. Poirier: Madame la Présidente, également à titre de député de la circonscription de Prescott et Russell, dont une partie se trouve à l’intérieur des limites de la municipalité régionale d’Ottawa-Carleton, j’ai de la difficulté à vous décrire mon plaisir de voir la deuxième lecture du projet de loi 109 que propose le ministre de l’Éducation.

Évidemment, j’ai apprécié le contexte historique que mon collègue le ministre a bien voulu faire dans la présentation de la deuxième lecture. Les Franco-Ontariens et les Franco-Ontariennes se rappelleront le long cheminement qui leur a permis d’accéder à la gestion de leurs propres institutions scolaires, mais aussi, et comme l’a mentionné mon collègue le ministre délégué aux Affaires francophones, tout le travail qui a été fait depuis quelques années pour s’assurer que la population francophone de l’Ontario pourra contrôler ses ressources en matière d’éducation.

Il reste des choses à faire, mais quand même, nous avons fait un bon bout de chemin. Je tiens à féliciter mon collègue le ministre de l’Éducation et j’invite également tous mes collègues de l’Assemblée législative à appuyer activement ce projet de loi, dans l’espoir qu’à l’échelle de l’Ontario, dans un avenir rapproché, toute la population francophone pourra avoir accès à la gestion scolaire au sein d’un conseil scolaire homogène de langue française.

I hope that all my colleagues will see the great step forward of this legislation and I hope that they will support the initiative of the second reading of Bill 109 to make sure that the Franco-Ontarian community of Ottawa-Carleton can see that dream come true. I also hope that the other areas where francophones represent a significant number of the population can benefit from the governance of their own homogeneous French-language school board.

1510

Mr. Speaker: Are there any other comments? The member for Ottawa South. One minute, I believe.

Mr. McGuinty: I am very proud that the minister referred to this as landmark legislation. Prior to 1965, the francophone people of the Ottawa area did not even have their own secondary schools. I think this landmark legislation is a logical extension to development beyond that point.

I think it is truly right and appropriate in that the French schools have particular needs with regard to books, busing, staff, program and students, and likewise appropriately should have their own school board. This legislation is the logical extension of the good development that has been under way since 1965. I am very proud to be a member of a government which is going to implement it.

M. R. F. Johnston: Je suis fier de prendre la parole et d’appuyer le projet de loi, mais j’ai aussi beaucoup de questions concernant son application. Cela fait certainement longtemps que nous attendons l’arrivée de ce projet de loi et la reconnaissance, enfin, des droits des Franco-Ontariens. C’est pour cette raison que notre parti, à cette étape de la procédure, veut appuyer le projet de loi. Mais peut-être que je pourrais mieux parler en anglais et plus clairement pour poser mes questions au ministre concernant le projet de loi.

It has been a long time coming, many decades. The consultation process, I agree with the minister, has been unique and very important. It is nice to see here the assistant deputy minister who did so much work on it for the ministry in terms of trying to bring this to reality.

I would say, however, that there are still some concerns I have about the congruence of the laws we now have around electoral reform and how they impact on Bill 109. It is my concerns around that which I would like to raise.

First, I would like to start with a question about the bill itself, which was raised by l’Association des enseignantes et enseignants franco-ontariens in a communiqué they put out just recently, in which M. Hallé, the president, a expliqué que l’appui que l’AEFO accordait au projet de loi était conditionnel à ce que la section catholique et la section publique du nouveau conseil disposent de ressources financières suffisantes pour maintenir la qualité des programmes et des services dont bénéficient présentement les élèves francophones de la région d’Ottawa-Carleton.

I think this is a very important point. He wants to make sure that in fact there will not be less money as a result of the changes here than there was before this bill was brought forward. The reason he has that concern, as the minister knows, is that it would appear that the amount of money the boards may get will be based on the enumeration that is being done. There are some severe concerns about that enumeration: who will be identified, who will be left off and whether, in effect, the two existing boards will transfer sufficient funds to maintain the programs that have already been started through the generosity of those boards in the past.

I guess I would want to hear about that before we get to third reading of this bill, and perhaps even before we go out to committee, so that those people who are coming to speak to us at committee will have some idea of the government’s guarantee on this, as to whether the government will guarantee that the new French boards will not have less money to deal with than is presently available in the Ottawa-Carleton area for programs.

The second consideration I would like to hear from the minister is something I just received about 20 minutes before we sat down today, so I am not exactly current on it, and my translation services here -- the member for Lake Nipigon (Mr. Pouliot) and I have not had a chance to go through it in detail.

It is a concern raised again by M. Marion, who is the president of the French boards of Ontario, l’Association française des conseils scolaires de l’Ontario, concerning the revised Bill 76 -- which you may remember, Mr. Speaker, I have spoken on in this House -- now known as Bill 125, projet de loi 125, and its potential implications for Bill 109. I am not clear whether the concerns raised by the AFCSO affect Bill 109 or not and I think it is really important to get some kind of clarification on that as well.

The Minister of Education (Mr. Ward), I presume, has already received this reaction piece from the AFCSO. If not, I will send over a copy. I happen to have one. I am sorry, I did not realize when I was speaking to him earlier that he did not have it.

They raise a series of concerns which touch on the very constitutionality of Bill 125. The reason it has an implication for this bill we are now talking about is that it also deals with the whole enumeration question and the determination through enumeration of the number of representatives one will have on a school board.

The great concern that seems to be put forward in this position paper is that it is possible under this new enumeration that in fact there could be fewer representatives on French boards than were guaranteed under Bill 75, which has already been passed into legislation. If this were the case, of course, it would be running counter to our goals of l’épanouissement of the conseil scolaire français.

I want to raise with the minister the concerns from M. Marion about that and I would like to read one them into the record, if I might:

« Le gouvernement veut utiliser les données de recensement pour déterminer le nombre de conseillers scolaires dans les sections linguistiques des conseils scolaires. Ceci aura pour effet de diminuer le nombre actuel de conseillers dans les sections de langue française, alors que leur nombre est déjà un minimum avec lequel il est extrêmement difficile de travailler. Le nombre de conseillers scolaires francophones ne doit pas être inférieur à ce qui est prévu par la Loi 75. »

That is the concern I was just raising in English. I want to ask the minister, does that affect only French sections of other boards or is my reading of Bill 109 correct, that in fact it could easily affect the numbers of people who would represent the French-speaking electors on the new Ottawa-Carleton French boards?

If it does affect them, I would say to the minister that perhaps we have a fair amount of work to do to try to correct that problem, because in his compendium which goes along with the bill, I note there is a guarantee of a minimum of seven elected trustees per sector. In trying to determine that in the bill, I found in going through it that I was a little confused as to whether there was this final guarantee or whether, in fact, we have a possibility that we may see fewer representatives than that on the boards or a number inappropriate to the actual population that should be supporting this bill.

In this piece that is brought forward by the AFCSO, I would also talk about the very serious problems of the enumeration. They try to lay out for the ministry the fact that there are major differences between the English on the enumeration and the French and, as a result, there are many people from the French community who may not fill this out correctly and may not understand that two things will be affected: the amount of money that will be going to the school board and the number of representatives that school board may get. If they do not fill it out correctly, they will discover that in point of fact they have not been able to elect the kind of school board that we hope will be the case coming out of Bill 109.

1520

I would just say to the minister that I have raised in this House in the past the problem of this whole package of bills and the fact that they have been coming in at different times on slightly different premises and that we seem not to have them all working together.

Given the seriousness of the suggestions in this reaction paper to the effect that they feel strongly enough about this that they believe it runs counter to the charter and their guarantees that they have won under section 23, perhaps now is the time to try to clear this matter up in the House before we then go out to committee, as the minister is suggesting we should do -- and rightfully so -- to have the input from these groups in Ottawa and elsewhere on the actual administration of Bill 109 in the Ottawa community.

I do not want to go into a lot of the detail now about the other concerns of the AFCSO, because they are directed to Bill 125. But the point I am trying to make is that whether or not there would be an impact by Bill 125 on Bill 109 in terms of the numbers of people elected and in terms of the amount of money that the board is going to get to be able to operate French programs is something I hope will be responded to by the minister in the House.

The other thing I did not hear him talk about, and I hope that in wrapping up the debate he may talk about this as well, is correspondence that some of us have received, and I presume he has received, from other boards in the province indicating their concerns about the constitutionality of this particular unified board, for want of a better term for what is being attempted here in the Ottawa-Carleton area. Perhaps he can talk to us a little bit about his approach to the potential constitutional problems that the other groups are bringing forward, specifically in terms of this being potentially a diminution of the rights guaranteed under section 93 to the Catholic ratepayers of Ontario.

Those concerns being raised, I would say again that I am not wanting to say that we are in opposition to this direction in any sense at all. We are very supportive of what is taking place. We just want to make sure that the results are what we all have been after in terms of finally seeing French gérance taking place in the school boards of Ontario and that we are not undermining that somehow by the mixing of the various laws that are involved.

On behalf of the New Democratic Party, I would just like to say again that we support the bill on second reading. We look forward to the minister’s response.

We also wish it to go out to committee so that people can come forward. I heard the minister say he would hope that we would be able to meet here and in Ottawa around this issue. To do so, we will need the concurrence of the House and the special permission of the ex-Minister of Education, the present House leader for the government, the member for Renfrew North (Mr. Conway), so that we may adjourn from place to place while this House is sitting, an unusual suggestion usually not given but in this case definitely warranted. I hope the minister will use his suasion to allow that to take place.

The Acting Speaker: Would any member like to comment on the remarks made by the member for Scarborough West? If not, the minister. I am sorry, the member for Nepean.

Mr. Daigeler: I thought I was tall enough be seen, but --

I would just like to reiterate, in response to the member, what I said earlier. I am sure there will remain open questions even after the very serious effort by the committee to improve, if possible, the legislation, which already is very good.

I would really like to encourage all the members here and those who will be looking at the legislation, and especially those who will be implementing the legislation, to remember that we are looking at a project -- as they say in French, un projet -- and that what is most important is having the school board established. Over time, we can have a working out of any of the difficulties and any of the shortcomings that may be there.

It will require, without doubt, a sense of commitment to the principle, a sense of listening to those who are of a different opinion, a working together, a sense of co-operation among the anglophone school boards and the francophone school boards in the Ottawa-Carleton area.

I would just like to say that I appreciate that we are called to improve the legislation as much as possible at this point, but we should not forget that the most important thing here is the principle itself and that generosity of spirit and heart is what will make it ultimately work.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Of course, we want that kind of generosity to be seen, and I presume it will be seen, because it certainly has been part of the consultation process up to this time. But I think there are very practical matters that need to be addressed and that can be addressed before this has to be dealt with.

For instance, one of the problems that cannot be addressed now, because we rushed through an earlier piece of legislation, is the question of the definition of the francophone elector. I have a concern that in the Ottawa area there are many people whose first language is not French, whose second language is not English or French, and who want their kids to go to a French school because their second language is French. They are not going to be able to send their children to that school or be electors for that school system because of the failure of the government to move the appropriate amendment on another bill which we hurried through.

I am just saying this is the time for this government and for this Legislature in committee to produce the kinds of refinements to this bill that will make sure that we are not disenfranchising many people or underfinancing the new board that we are establishing and setting it off in a worse condition than it might have been if it had been in the old style. That is all I am saying.

Mr. Sterling: It is a pleasure to speak in support of Bill 109, which will be supported by our party on second reading.

I was encouraged to hear from the minister that we will be travelling to the Ottawa-Carleton area to give people a chance to have input into this particular bill. Several groups have talked to me about their desire to put forward the position of their particular interests on this matter.

I apologize for not being able to speak in French for the French electorate, who have a particular interest in this matter, but my French is just a little better than the minister’s French. I thought I would spare everyone in the francophone community the pain. I also do not have the same facility to have my remarks translated into French as the minister does.

You might be encouraged to know, Madam Speaker, that both of my children are fluently bilingual. When they come to take my place in the near or far distant future, they will be able to converse quite fluently in French.

I would like to take this opportunity to explain a little bit with regard to the problem that many of the groups in Ottawa have in understanding the intention of the government.

I believe that only a few short months ago, the minister sent out a consultation document setting forth the intent of the government and asking for a response from various interested groups, but he gave them only a very short period of time. I was encouraged to see that several groups, although they were given only a very short period of time, made very good representations to the minister, most of them dated in March. I believe the end of March 1988 was the time they were given to respond to the consultation document.

I am told by some of the particular groups that did respond that the legislation totally reflects what was in the consultation document, and very few of the concerns they expressed in their responses were taken into account in the final draft of Bill 109. Therefore, I hope the minister will retain flexibility and an open mind with regard to arguments that are put forward for reasonable amendments to this particular act.

1530

As the member for Scarborough West (Mr. R. F. Johnston) brought forward, there has been an expression by several groups, including the Ottawa Board of Education and the Carleton Roman Catholic Separate School Board with regard to the constitutionality of this piece of legislation. As you may remember, Madam Speaker, I asked the minister in this House why there was a difference in terms of the government’s position on the constitutionality issue at this point in time, when it says there can be unified boards; that is, having a public sector and a Roman Catholic sector under one unified board. Why is that constitutional now, when in fact in June 1986 it was not constitutional?

The government has changed its mind with regard to the constitutionality of a unified board and has perhaps crafted the legislation in such a fashion that it thinks this meets the constitutional argument. Notwithstanding any previous position I may have had with regard to the extension of separate school funding, I have no desire to see a situation where a mess is created by Bill 109.

If he would be kind enough, I would like the minister, in his response to my remarks, to tell me and various groups what reports and what opinions he is relying on with regard to the constitutionality of this particular bill.

I will tell members why that is important. As we go through this process and as we bring forward amendments to Bill 109, I think it is important for the members of the committee and members of the public who are making submissions to the committee to understand the limits to which those particular amendments can go.

If, in fact, within this bill there are certain sections which cannot be tinkered with because of the constitutional problem, if one wants to put it in that context, then I think the committee that hears the submissions and the public in general should know where those limitations are.

In talking to one individual in one group today, one of his concerns about Bill 109 related to the inflexibility of certain sections as to what can be shared between the two boards. He drew as an example the problem where there is a program which the board wants to offer -- let us take the example of children with a mental handicap -- where the classes would be so small in terms of the joint board that it would make no economic sense to have two programs under this particular board.

I think the unified board, the people in the Ottawa-Carleton area and in the francophone community would like to go to the limits of the constitutionality but have as much flexibility as possible within the act in order to be able to allow the board to provide joint services where there is a very small number of students requiring those joint services. So the joint board could say that when there is a program for five students -- say, two from the public sector and three from the Roman Catholic sector -- it will put those five students in a program and run it as a one-time program.

That is what I think the minister is going to hear when he travels to Ottawa. There is going to be some concern with some of the sections that are very rigid in their nature and do not allow the joint board to provide that kind of a program to a small group of students.

The other concern that has been raised -- and I know the minister has indicated in his opening remarks that he intends to address it -- is the financial viability of the new board.

This joint board or unified board makes five or six boards in the Ottawa-Carleton area. It depends on whether we look at the unified board as a double board or we look at it as a single board. As we split up the jurisdiction or the number of students that are being educated in the Ottawa-Carleton area, there is a limitation on the amount of administration, on the amount of top-ending that we can have in any system. We are not only concerned, in our caucus, with regard to the financial viability of the new francophone board, but we are also very much concerned with the financial viability of the boards from which these students are coming. That includes both of the public boards that will remain, the Ottawa Board of Education and the Carleton Board of Education, and the Ottawa Roman Catholic Separate School Board and the Carleton Roman Catholic Separate School Board.

How will they be compensated with regard to the loss of revenue which will result from the exodus of a significant number of students? I am told that the new board may have as many as 20,000 students within this new structure. We are not talking about a small transfer of a small number of students to a new structure. We are concerned, first of all, that the new francophone board have a fair shake in terms of its financial viability and we are also concerned about the financial viability of the boards from which those students come.

The last thing that I might say is that we have a critical situation in both the Carleton Roman Catholic Separate School Board and in the Carleton Board of Education in the way in which this government has treated those particular boards. This government, this minister and his parliamentary assistant in particular, who represents part of the area, have deemed the Carleton and the Ottawa area as a very rich area. They have said that in public.

The end result means that this year, the member for Nepean will know that his taxpayers are going to pay $116 more on average per household in property taxes because his government, the member for Nepean’s government, the Liberal government, has dropped its support in the Carleton Board of Education area from 48 per cent to 43 per cent in one year. It has dropped the provincial support by that much because it says we are too rich in that area. The minister should try to tell a property taxpayer that is the situation.

With all of these problems with regard to funding -- and I have not mentioned the meagre amount of the funding for capital that this government gave to the Carleton Board of Education, which is pressed enormously with regard to housing its students and has had to expend dollars in that whole area which is normally assumed by the provincial government
-- again, the property taxpayer has to pick up that kind of an expenditure.

We have a situation where we have financial pressures because of this government’s -- I think -- maltreatment of both the Carleton Board of Education and the Carleton Roman Catholic Separate School Board. We already have a critical financial situation with regard to those boards; now we have another situation which could create another problem in relation to the financing of education.

I am very much concerned that the quality of education in the Carleton board and the Carleton Roman Catholic Separate School Board is in jeopardy and will be put in further jeopardy if the minister does not properly finance this new board and tries to take it, again, out of the hides of the property taxpayers in the Ottawa-Carleton area.

On an optimistic note, I hope that when the minister comes to Ottawa-Carleton, and I hope the minister himself will be there because he is going to hear from people in that particular area with regard to their concerns over this bill, he is going to hear about problems he has already created with regard to funding in Ottawa-Carleton, and I hope he gives a sympathetic ear for a change.

1540

Mr. Daigeler: In case he does not know, I would like to point out to the member for Carleton that in Nepean we are doing very well, thank you, under the present minister. In fact, the reallocation across the province for the school boards is due to a victory for Nepean city council, which has fought for this readjustment for many years. We have received a $4-million repayment from the province for this unfair taxation system which had been in place since 1971. In fact, very soon the Nepean public school ratepayers will be receiving from the city a cheque in the amount of approximately $50, and the separate school ratepayers will be receiving a cheque in the amount of approximately $25.

Perhaps the reason the member for Carleton is so critical of this initiative, which establishes greater equity among the boards, is the fact that in his area they used to pay less and we in Nepean used to pay more, and now we are finally getting some justice for Nepean.

The Acting Speaker: Does any other honour-able member wish to comment? If not, does the member for Carleton wish to comment? Two minutes.

Mr. Sterling: I would love to comment. I am so happy the member for Nepean is happy with his government charging each and every individual public school taxpayer $116 more per residence because of its action. If he feels comfortable that is greater equity, then I only hope he will not object to them printing in the brochures in the next election his complete happiness with the equity and the treatment he is receiving from this Liberal government. I am very happy with the member’s speech this afternoon.

M. Pouliot: Cela me fait plaisir, comme d’autres collègues ont su si bien le faire il y a quelques minutes, de prononcer quelques mots sur le projet de loi 109. J’aimerais adresser mes félicitations à l’actuel ministre de l’Éducation, ainsi qu’à son prédécesseur, pour leur courage calculé. Quand je dis courage calculé, je fais allusion à la décision de la Cour d’appel de l’Ontario, celle de 1984, qui affirmait les droits des francophones à la représentation dans la gestion scolaire.

Néanmoins, le gouvernement actuel a su passer de l’idée sur papier à un projet de loi, début encourageant, car il y a très longtemps que la francophonie, plus précisément les francophones de l’Ontario, attendent l’occasion d’être représentés en matière scolaire comme les autres, en majorité, le sont dans la province de l’Ontario.

Permettez-moi, Madame la Présidente, d’attirer l’attention du ministre de l’Éducation sur quelques mises en garde concernant le projet de loi 109. J’aimerais attirer son attention sur les méthodes de recensement touchant la région d’Ottawa-Carleton. Il est difficile de passer d’un texte qui est assez ambigu, à l’éducation de la population en ce qui concerne ses droits dans le recensement. Bien sûr, c’est beaucoup plus facile pour les anglophones, qui, eux, n’ont pas à s’identifier. Mais pour les francophones, qui doivent s’identifier, les outils ou le mécanisme ne s’y trouvent pas.

On pourrait croire, bien sûr, que ce projet de loi a été pensé en toute hâte, comme si on se devait de faire rapidement ce qu’on avait omis de faire depuis si longtemps. Mais non, les ressources ministérielles sont en place. Ce qui porte à penser, et j’essaie d’être positif, que si les mêmes ressources ministérielles sont en place pour permettre que la justice soit faite également aux deux groupes linguistiques, bah! ça me force à penser simplement: Pourquoi ne l’a-t-on pas fait? Les situations ambiguës continueront-elles? Et si on permet qu’elles continuent, pourquoi? Pourquoi ne pas clarifier la situation de la représentation des francophones dans le comté d’Ottawa-Carleton?

Car si celle-ci est importante, il faut aussi penser à ce qui va suivre le prototype d’Ottawa-Carleton. Une occasion pour se réjouir, sans doute. Que va-t-il se passer dans l’avenir? Donc, l’importance capitale d’être certain que la situation d’Ottawa-Carleton pourra servir de prototype, avec des données plus exactes que celles que le ministre nous confie en ce moment.

Permettez-moi en conclusion, Madame la Présidente, de me joindre encore une fois aux autres membres de l’Assemblée législative pour féliciter le gouvernement sincèrement de ses efforts, mais aussi et surtout pour féliciter la population francophone, chez qui la patience n’a jamais été moins qu’une vertu mais qui a continué, néanmoins, à croire qu’un jour ce serait possible. Le gouvernement a beaucoup de travail, son courage est nuancé. Vous savez, avec les décisions de la Cour d’appel, on finit par faire ce qu’on a à faire. Mais félicitons l’ancien ministre de l’Éducation, le député de Renfrew-Nord, et l’actuel ministre de l’Éducation.

The Acting Speaker: Would any honourable member wish to comment upon the remarks made by the member for Lake Nipigon?

Mr. Beer: Madam Speaker, I would like to comment on what the member for Lake Nipigon has just said because I think it is important, when we are developing here a piece of legislation that in many respects is historical, to recognize some of the people who have in earlier days worked very hard to ensure French-language educational program services in schools for the Franco-Ontarian population.

I would like, in particular, to note the work done by the late Roland Bériault who was with the Ministry of Education for many years and also served as the head of the Ottawa Roman Catholic Separate School Board in Ottawa. As many members will recall in 1967, former Premier John Robarts had announced the creation of a committee headed by Mr. Bériault to set up for the first time legislation creating French-language schools.

I can recall during those discussions -- and at that time I was the secretary of that particular committee -- that there was discussion about the possibility of creating a French-language board in the Ottawa-Carleton area.

I think Mr. Bériault understandably and wisely at that time felt that the first step was to get the legal recognition of French-language schools and that would come with time. I am sure for many it has taken too long, but the important thing is that that now has come and I think we should all recognize the work that Mr. Bériault did during that time in bringing that about.

I would also like to note briefly the work that Professor Thomas Symons carried out a few years later, also in laying the groundwork for the kind of step which has been taken today.

1550

Mr. Jackson: I too wish to add my voice in support of this bill on behalf of my party. I also wish to indicate that when responding to the bill back on April 11, I suggested that the Minister of Education carefully consider and come back to this House and state three basic assurances about this historic piece of legislation.

First, we asked at that time that both the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) and the Minister of Education provide assurances to this House that the francophone community itself will unanimously support this legislation. It has broad implications for the entire province and, therefore, although it deals specifically with Ottawa-Carleton, it is an important first step which will have implications for all francophone education in this province in years to come.

The second one, and specifically why I requested the Attorney General’s participation in the debate, was that he assure this House that there are no legal impediments to the government’s creating such a francophone board in Ottawa-Carleton, as suggested in the government’s Bill 109.

Finally, we asked for assurance that both the public and the separate school boards involved can become wholly supportive of the proposed reorganization. All three political parties have indicated that they support referring this bill to committee for the very reason that, as the minister stood in the House today, he was unable to provide the assurances that we called upon him to provide on April 11.

He has had, as he stated, an extensive period of consultation in which he could have resolved these outstanding issues. For some reason, he has been unable to do so, and he may wish to respond at the end of my comments as to why he has been unable to provide those assurances. Having said that, it is important that we do resolve them in the process of the public hearings. Our party supports their being conducted in the city of Ottawa and in the greater Ottawa-Carleton region, as well as here at Queen’s Park, to provide access for the broader francophone community in Ontario.

As my colleagues the member for Lake Nipigon, the member for Carleton (Mr. Sterling) and the member for Scarborough West have all indicated, we have serious concerns about the economic implications of proceeding with this historic step for francophone education, which quite literally represents the third official educational system for this province, at the very time when the ministry’s record in terms of financing has generated public comments, with board after board left wanting in the areas of their operating grants and their capital grants.

So we need assurances, as does the French-language educational council of the Ottawa Board of Education, which in its brief indicated its concerns about funding. It stated quite clearly, and I quote from that report, “As the bill remains silent on the specifics of the proposed method of funding, we feel that it will be impossible to maintain the exceptional quality, range and variety of services and programs presently offered by the Ottawa Board of Education to its French-language students.”

This clearly explains why teachers, students, parents and educators have expressed some reservations which were not criticisms of the intent of this bill. But it is important that we, as legislators from all parties, approach this bill with an open mind about ensuring that it can be made better. I use the analogy to the minister that this being a historic piece of legislation, it is like a child’s first step, and it is important that we do not burden the child with too much responsibility too early or he will fail. It is important that we provide all the expertise and the forethought into that first step to ensure that it succeeds, that it is funded properly and that it does not have negative impacts on the balance of the educational family in the Ottawa-Carleton area, the other four boards that will be operating in coterminous harmony with the new Ottawa-Carleton francophone board.

The Association of Large School Boards in Ontario, ALSBO, as well has expressed its fear quite openly that this legislation will set, in effect, the government’s requirement to address the issue of pooling of industrial-commercial assessment in Ontario. We know the government is considering the Macdonald commission report. We have also even heard that staff members from the Ministry of Revenue are actively working, not only within a committee but also on the side, on the various models for the implications of pooling industrial-commercial assessment for school boards and it has been suggested that will be presented before cabinet for consideration.

It would appear that the whole agenda on education, whether it is francophone, representational in terms of where trustees run and their apportionment or on their funding, seems to be further complicated by the ministry’s lack of setting out an ordered, clear sense of vision and direction for the Ministry of Education at this time. The bill we are referring to committee has references within it to elements of Bill 76, and that bill had to be withdrawn by the minister within the last week because of complications and further amendments which seem to be compounding on the minister.

It is clear now, as the member for Scarborough West has indicated, that there is a lot of thought required to ensure that this bill can work from the simple point of the democratic rights and representation of trustees in the greater Ottawa area.

I wish to indicate my dismay that the Attorney General has remained silent, has made no public comment about the implications of this bill. He was, as this House is very aware, a prominent speaker before the Supreme Court on the matter of Bill 30. He took a very clear and articulate position with respect to the issue of unified school boards, and yet he seems unable or unwilling to respond to the questions that have been raised, quite frankly, by political representatives in this House from all three parties. We wait for the Attorney General to give some clarity to that.

Hopefully, he will appear before us in committee and will indicate that there are no legal impediments for the government to proceed in this regard. We will participate actively in the committee hearings. We welcome the opportunity that process will provide in order to amend this bill in a manner which will ensure a stable first step for the long-term success and future of francophone educational rights in Ontario.

Mlle Martel: Je voudrais me joindre à mes collègues du Nouveau Parti démocratique en faisant des félicitations au ministre de l’Éducation pour ce projet de loi. Je sais, en lisant l’histoire de cette question, que c’est une question importante pour les gens d’Ottawa-Carleton et pour la province de l’Ontario en effet, et je voudrais offrir mes félicitations au ministre pour son travail et pour le travail de l’ancien ministre dans ce domaine.

Cela dit, il faut absolument dire qu’il existe quelques problèmes à propos de ce projet de loi, et je voudrais souligner ces problèmes, en particulier en ce qui concerne le conseil scolaire catholique de Sudbury, qui m’a parlé de cela et qui voulait vraiment obtenir des réponses à ses questions sur ce sujet.

1600

I just want to outline for the minister some of the concerns that have been raised by the Sudbury District Roman Catholic Separate School Board concerning this particular bill and how it may affect the board in the future. I ask that, during the committee proceedings and during the course of this bill through second reading and on into third, their concerns be taken into consideration.

First, if I may go through them, the separate school board had some great difficulty with the consultative process itself surrounding Bill 109; that is to say they were very concerned that the process did not provide any opportunity to other boards in the province to make their concerns known to the minister. I understand the case is very specific to Ottawa-Carleton, but I also understand we are setting a precedent here that could have a tremendous impact on separate school boards and public school boards across the province.

Taking their concerns to heart, I note they were asked to respond to the consultative document concerning the Ottawa-Carleton process. However, the document itself did not arrive in the Sudbury education office until March 16. They were asked to respond by March 26, which in effect did not leave the boards -- that is, the French and the English sides -- time to get together, to make recommendations and to outline their problems to the minister. They were extremely concerned that if the government wanted to keep it local, that is, to hear only the concerns expressed by the four boards in the Carleton region, then other groups should not have been asked for their input in this regard if there was not enough time for them to respond. I say to the minister that in future if we are going to look at having this process put in place in other areas of the province, then the consultative process has to be lengthened and other boards have to be able to have some input.

Second, they are concerned about the duties and the powers which are outlined in the bill which are going to be exclusive to each sector, that is, the separate school sector and the public school sector. Their concern is that the duties and powers may in effect not be clearly outlined, and the mandate of each sector may in fact not be clearly outlined. Therefore, trustees who are elected to either board are going to have to share in some responsibility concerning both the separate and the public school vein of education. They are very concerned that trustees may be put in that situation which could be very untenable for them if the mandate and the responsibilities of both sectors are not clearly outlined under the legislation. I would ask the minister, when he establishes what the duties and powers of both sectors are going to be, that they be very clearly defined for both and they know what their responsibilities in both areas are.

Third, they did have some concerns that the rights of French-speaking school supporters in either sector were not having their rights either protected or upheld; that is to say that French-speaking school supporters, either separate or public, would now have no choice but to belong to the mixed French-language school unless they wanted to renege on their linguistic rights, and I am sure most of them would not want to do that.

English school supporters will continue to maintain the choice of belonging to either the separate school board or the public school board, but this right will effectively be taken away from the French school supporters. I realize that may be very much the choice and the desire of school supporters in the Ottawa-Carleton region, but I ask that the minister have some consideration, therefore, that it might not work around the rest of the province. In fact, it may be a case particularly special for the Ottawa-Carleton region which they are willing to accept but that process may not work around the rest of the province and that will have to be taken into consideration if we are going to look at establishing a similar process around the rest of the province after this is established.

Fourth, they had some great concerns again about the financial assessment. I know my colleagues and members from the Conservative Party have also expressed some of their concerns on it. It was the feeling of the separate school board in Sudbury that perhaps the inequities or the inequalities of the financing, in particular corporate financing, should have been addressed before there was any attempt to create a mixed school board.

I know the minister has said it today, and in the legislation it states that special grants will be put into place until the government adopts some new measures as a consequence or after reviewing the elementary and secondary school funding in the province. But I must say there has been a great deal of concern expressed to the ministry about this particular problem by the trustees’ association, the Commission on the Financing of Elementary and Secondary Education and also by l’Association des enseignantes et enseignants franco-ontariens. The minister has not been able to address that question before actually establishing this legislation and putting the school board into place.

I truly hope the review by the ministry of elementary and separate school financing will be done as quickly as possible so that if this is going to occur again across the province, some equitable method of financing will be in place before we go on to establish another mixed board.

Finally, they expressed some reservations about possible future actions by the ministry in this regard, and their concern was that the situation in Ottawa-Carleton was going to be established before, in fact, the minister’s own government released studies on the feasibility of regional French-language school boards in the province. I take it that that study has been under way for some time and that whoever is doing the study is actually supposed to report on this some time in December 1988. It was their concern that perhaps if we are going to move to French-language school boards across the province, then that study should have been released beforehand and we could all have seen what the possibilities were for other school boards in the same vein as Ottawa-Carleton to be feasible across the province.

I can appreciate, I want to say to the minister, that the situation is indeed special, that there have been calls for a particular mixed board in the Ottawa-Carleton region since the mid-1970s. I can appreciate that the ministry wanted to look at this situation, this case in point, establish it and see how it would work in one area of the province. I would advise, though, once the board is established and the problems are ironed out, that if we are going to move to other mixed boards across the province, the consultative process itself be broadened. It has to include other interested parties, both separate and public school supporters in both linguistic groups, who are concerned that it may not be applied as well in their own areas or that it cannot be feasibly applied in their own areas. I just ask that if this does work and we are going to expand it across the province, the consultative process and the views of other organizations be broadened and that their opinions be taken into regard.

I want to say in closing that I did want to put those comments on the record. I know the school boards in Sudbury, particularly the separate school board, do have some problems, but they are quite willing to attend the committee hearings in order to express their concerns there and their hopes for the future.

I want to congratulate the minister again on presenting the project, and I hope he will keep in mind all the comments made by all members today as we move through this bill.

Mr. Beer: If I might, I will continue briefly in these two minutes with a historical note on the legislation we are dealing with.

Je voudrais souligner le travail de quatre personnes. Je parle ici de quatre sous-ministres adjoints, en commençant par le docteur Laurier Carrière, qui, si ma mémoire est bonne, a commencé vers la fin des années 60. Il a été suivi par Gérard Raymond, qui est toujours dans le gouvernement; et, après Gérard, Berchmans Kipp et, aujourd’hui, M^me Mariette Carrier-Fraser. Les quatre, y compris M^me Carrier-Fraser aujourd’hui, ont travaillé très fort pour la population francophone dans le domaine de l’éducation. Nous oublions parfois le travail que ces gens ont fait pour assurer l’épanouissement de la communauté francophone en Ontario.

I would like, if I might, to take from the analogy the member for Burlington South (Mr. Jackson) used of a child taking its first step. I think I would rather look at it as a mature adult whose time has finally come and that what we are doing here with this legislation is right and proper.

The Deputy Speaker: Merci. Other comments and questions, please. If not, would the member wish to respond? Are there other members who wish to participate in the debate?

Mr. Allen: I would like to join in this debate on this very historic bill the minister has introduced, which we now are accepting for second reading. There is no doubt at all that this is one of the more important pieces of legislation in the domain of education that has been passed, or will be passed, by this Legislature.

I recall very clearly when we were wrestling with this issue under the previous government and finding considerable difficulty in moving towards a concept of French schools governance that would allow for anything more than French-language committees or sections within the context of existing school boards -- despite the fact that there had been a major court reference in 1984 that had been responded to by the Ontario courts with the judgement that it was the proper right of French-speaking persons in Ontario to expect to be able to govern their own schools in Ontario, regardless of existing school boards or school board boundaries -- that none the less, that government was reluctant to move.

I recall very clearly an evening early in the new regime of the Liberal-New Democratic Party accord when the member for Prescott and Russell (Mr. Poirier), the member for Carleton East (Mr. Morin), the member for Lake Nipigon, the then member for Ottawa Centre, myself, the minister at that time the member for Renfrew North and his principal aid in this field, Mariette Carrier-Fraser, spent a long-tortured evening discussing how we would break through from that particular standpoint we had been left with by the previous government.

We in this party pushed very hard on that evening, as I recall, for a multimodel approach to the question of French schools governance in Ontario so that there would be options available, depending upon the degree of development of each French-language community in different parts and regions of the province, that would be appropriate to their circumstances.

In the course of that, we recognized that the model that has been developed since in Bill 75, the French-language-section approach, was appropriate to some parts of the province. We recognized that there was at least one part of the province, namely, the Ottawa-Carleton region, in which there had been substantial historic sounding of the issue of a homogeneous French board for the French community in that region, and that there might also be some reason to have a slightly different creation for the Metropolitan Toronto area.

It is interesting to see that out of that discussion at that time has come, in point of fact, the three separate initiatives that outline the different structures that have been emerging around the whole question of French schools governance.

The minister was not involved in the discussions directly on Bill 75, but he will probably be quite aware, as it is now his responsibility, that in the context of Bill 75, we in this party also pressed very strongly for some further exploration of the question of regional French boards in this province, and that the ministry was charged with the responsibility of establishing a commission that would examine the possibility and viability of French-language boards on a regional basis in other parts of the province.

I understand that group is still at work. I believe its timetable is to bring in a report, according to the legislation, by the end of this year, December 1988. We will be looking forward to that report with considerable anticipation.

I would want to underline in that respect that the concerns my colleague the member for Sudbury East (Miss Martel) has noted will of course be ones that will have to be met in the future as we move in this direction.

I know my colleague the member for Prescott and Russell himself represents a region where the representatives of the boards in that region, working through the particularly difficult schooling arrangements in their school district, have themselves come to the conclusion that the only solution to that region’s problems is to consolidate a French-language board out of that and then to have separate and public English boards parallel with that structure, which would simplify the governance of the school system in that area.

I think it is highly likely that what we are debating in this House with respect to the legislation now proposed for Ottawa-Carleton will indeed become a model that will provide at least some indication to other regions, as they mature and wish to take advantage of it, of what can be a possibility for them too. We all want for the French community in Ontario the fullest governance possible of its educational structures.

When the ministry appointed the commission under Albert Roy, and Roy reported, in the document we have all looked at, I think with some care and interest, there were a number of problems that we had at that point in time. A number of them have obviously been worked out by the implementation committee and others have been refined somewhat in the legislation, but there remain a few items that do concern us.

Some of these undoubtedly are the subject of negotiation in the local region. For example, the problem of the transfer of educational buildings other than schools is a matter of some negotiation. The question of the transfer of equipment remains somewhat outstanding.

There was in the Roy report no real discussion of the financial implications or the financial resources necessary to the new boards. Much of that is now in place, although I want to underscore the concerns of our critic in this field, the member for Scarborough West, when he suggests that it will be necessary for us to look very carefully at those resources.

There is some possibility that with the way the registration of electors will take place and the way in which the commercial-industrial assessment will play out in the area, there may well be some inequity involved and the resources to provide an equivalent education to that which the students have been used to in the boards they have come from will not be appropriately maintained at a high level of quality. None of us would want to see this experiment result in any reduction of quality in education for the pupils involved.

While there are some concerns, we none the less applaud the work of the implementation committee and of the ministry in bringing it all together into what, on my first reading, is overall a reasonably acceptable document for the implementation of the new board.

I also want to compliment the various boards, teachers and staff organizations that have been involved in the negotiations for the transfer of staff. My understanding is that this has been done in a very harmonious fashion and that, in particular, with regard to most staff and the teachers, there are no outstanding problems in that regard. There may still be some with regard to those in superintending and consulting positions in boards, where the consolidation may make their roles somewhat superfluous. I hope the minister will find a way, along with the implementation committee and the new boards, to work that out to everybody’s satisfaction.

What is of course most striking about the new board is the fact that it is a unified-board model that includes both separate and public entities. This is something that has not gone without notice in the English community in Ontario and many are somewhat envious, I think, of the degree to which there has been a significant breakthrough in the French community on this subject. I think one has to recognize that the issue, after all, beds down on the willingness of the community itself to close ranks around that question and to accept that model, which makes it possible to satisfy at one and the same time the separate schooling rights under the British North America Act, and to join in an administrative structure with the public side of education.

1620

I understand there have been at least five or six different legal opinions rendered on that question. Only one of them has some significant reservations about whether the structure stands the test of constitutionality. It would seem a very substantial majority of legal and constitutional opinions on the subject appears to bear out the viability and the constitutionality of the structure in question. That is, of course, very good news.

What that issue rests upon is the willingness of those who are party to those rights and who are the inheritors of those rights under the Constitution for separate schooling to join in such an arrangement.

The question is not one of the possibility of an instant constitutional reflex that would make the same possibility, the same structure, happen for the rest of the province overnight. Obviously that is, for the anglophone community in Ontario, a matter of ongoing debate. That will have to be resolved in its own way. Those of us who supported Bill 30 so strongly believed it was only by completing that system that we would be able to move towards a healthy basis of co-operation between the separate and public boards in anglophone Ontario that might open up adventures in new and co-operative living, if I can put it that way, in the field of education.

Without wishing to extend my remarks on this subject, I want to say that I am glad to see that the very original recommendations that came from the Mayo commission on municipal government back in the late 1970s have now been brought to the point of a major piece of legislation before us. I look forward to having it go to committee, as I expect it undoubtedly will, for further comment by interested parties so that we may all, quite expeditiously, get on with the creation of this historic board structure in the Ottawa-Carleton region which should serve, I think, as a landmark for the French community of Ontario at long last.

The Deputy Speaker: Are there any questions and comments?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I would like to make a brief comment. As I sit in the House and listen to the debate today, it has been a long time since we heard such support for an initiative from the Minister of Education. I want to just note and applaud the remarks from my colleagues on the opposite side of the House and say that it is kind of nice to hear this kind of unanimity for a change in the Legislative Assembly.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I feel obliged to rise and inform the House and especially the Minister of Health that any time there is legislation and other initiatives forthcoming that are worthy of support, they will get it.

The Deputy Speaker: Are there any other questions and comments? If not, would the member for Hamilton West wish to respond?

Mr. Allen: Only that I think Madam Minister was not in the House for the first part of my remarks in which I explained how very much this was a joint product, that the decision to move in this direction really did require our support at that point in time as a party, or else perhaps nothing of this sort might have happened.

I know she is not trying to introduce in a roundabout way a new note of disagreement among us at all. I certainly accept her reflection on the occasion being one of those marvellous moments when we can agree on the main thrust of a major project like this. I think it is good for all of us to have that experience.

The Deputy Speaker: I must admit that being a Speaker is a very pleasant task this afternoon. Is there any other debate, please, from other members? If not, does the minister wish to wrap up?

Hon. Mr. Ward: I want to extend my appreciation to all members of the House for their contributions to the debate today. Certainly, a number of issues have been raised during the course of the afternoon’s discussions, issues relative to trustee representation on the board about to be created, issues relative to its financing and its constitutionality, and issues that are of a much broader nature relative to the rights of franco-Ontarians to school governance, not only in the Ottawa-Carleton region but throughout this province.

I want to respond to the member for Scarborough West on a couple of points he raised on the issue of financing. It was indeed a concern of the government and the ministry that the board to be established in the Ottawa-Carleton region, at least in the short term, have access to the necessary resources to provide the kinds of services the residents of that community are accustomed to, albeit that many of the services they are accustomed to are a result of a rather extensive assessment base, and both boards do in fact spend considerably above ceiling, at a higher level than most boards of education in this province.

I suppose that in part responds to the concerns of the member for Carleton who has ongoing concerns relative to the utilization of an equalized mill rate. He knows full well the alternatives to that method and those points have been made, I think, during the presentations that were made during the Macdonald commission. I will take his point of view and that of others into careful consideration when we look at the long-term needs of elementary and secondary school financing in this province.

With reference to the issue of trustee representation, the principles that were put in place in what was initially Bill 76, subsequently replaced by Bill 125 to include the school boards in Metropolitan Toronto, do apply with an exception; that is, the minimum representation of both sectors on these boards is seven. Frankly, I think it is appropriate.

In dealing with this legislation, I think it is important to note that it is a very specific piece of legislation that applies to the very special needs of one community in this province. I think the member for Sudbury East very clearly indicated concerns that had been expressed by many francophones throughout this province in regions other than Ottawa-Carleton.

Clearly, over the course of the coming months, we will have to turn our attention to how we wish to proceed relative to the French-language governance rights of francophones as they relate to school boards, but I think it is important that this legislation not be seen as the prototype. What is good for Ottawa-Carleton in this regard may not necessarily be good for Prescott and Russell or for Nipissing, Sudbury or Timmins.

I want to assure all members of the House that we are indeed committed to looking very carefully at this issue and coming up with a mechanism that I hope can be applied in any jurisdiction in this province. As the member for Hamilton West acknowledged, no doubt it will have to have within it some great flexibility, because the circumstances are so different from community to community.

I want to speak also about the consultation process because there have been some references, particularly by my colleague the member for Burlington South, that there is concern that much of the input that came forward as a result of the consultation process was not reflected in any amendments to the language of the bill as it was available at the time.

I think it is important that we all recognize that the consultation process utilized for Bill 109 was unprecedented. Prior to the bill’s even being printed, a document was circulated, a compendium of the legislation. so that parties that had a specific interest in this piece of legislation could begin to review and to prepare their input.

1630

The member for Burlington South, I think, is aware that we are under very, very severe time constraints relative to the legislative process. I would never comment on how legislative time is used within this Legislature, because I know it is always used effectively. However, sometimes it is difficult to make sure we get all the input we possibly can, and I look forward to the committee hearings so that we can look carefully at those submissions --

Mr. Jackson: Are you going to go to Ottawa?

Hon. Mr. Ward: -- in Ottawa, as well as in Toronto. I am willing to visit any part of this province, but particularly the Ottawa-Carleton region, because I am very fond of that community and we have done great things in education in Ottawa-Carleton over the course of the past year.

Mr. Sterling: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: Do we get a chance to respond to the minister’s allegations during these wrapups?

Hon. Mr. Ward: I just want to say that I am very grateful for the input we have received from all members of the Legislature. I look forward to the committee hearings and to the ongoing co-operation of all members of this House as we take what I believe is a very, very significant step with regard to the rights of francophone residences in the province.

Motion agreed to.

La motion est adoptée.

Bill ordered for the standing committee on social development.

Le projet de loi est déféré au Comité permanent des affaires sociales.

MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Eakins moved second reading of Bill 106, An Act to amend the Municipal Elections Act and the Municipal Act.

Hon. Mr. Eakins: This bill will improve the local government electoral process in Ontario. It is very important that the process by which municipal school board and public utilities commission representatives are elected is as open and accessible as possible.

This bill is the end result of an extensive consultation process which began with the establishment of the Advisory Committee on Municipal Elections early in 1986. Municipalities, school boards, public utilities commissions and their respective organizations and other interest groups have given us their input at many different points during the process.

This legislation will establish limits based on a formula related to the number of electors within the municipality or school board area in which the candidate is running. It will also limit campaign contributions to a candidate to $750 per individual contributor. This is consistent with the rules that apply to provincial elections.

While there will be limits on individual contributions, there is another provision that will encourage people to contribute to the local election campaigns. The legislation will permit municipalities, school boards or public utilities commissions to adopt a campaign-contribution rebate system modelled on the provincial system. In jurisdictions that choose to implement the system, campaign contributors will be eligible for rebates up to $350. The system will be administered by the Commission on Election Finances for the local government elections in 1988 and 1991. After 1991, the system will be reviewed. The rebates will be funded by the jurisdictions that choose to adopt the system.

In keeping with this government’s commitment to openness in government, the legislation also provides for mandatory disclosure of campaign financing. Given the diversity of local government, the disclosure process will vary according to the amount spent by the candidate.

In jurisdictions that choose not to implement the rebate system, candidates who receive $1,000 or less in contributions and spend $1,000 or less will be required to make a statutory declaration. Candidates with more than $1,000 in either contributions or expenses will be required to file detailed, unaudited statements of contribution and expenses with the municipal clerk. Those with more than $20,000 in either contributions or expenses will be required to file detailed, audited statements with the municipal clerk.

In those jurisdictions that adopt the rebate system, all candidates will have to file detailed, audited statements with the Commission on Election Finances and the municipal clerk. These statements will be available for public scrutiny.

The legislation calls for two mandatory advance polls instead of the one that is now required. Both advance polls and regular polls will be open from 10 in the morning to eight o’clock in the evening. The new legislation also requires that all advance polls be accessible to the disabled and physically challenged for the 1988 elections and that all polls be accessible for the 1991 elections. This government will not allow anyone to be disfranchised simply because of a physical disability.

During the consultation process, concerns were expressed about the recount procedure and the burden it places on the courts. This legislation permits recounts to be undertaken by a recount officer rather than the courts. The recount officer will be the municipal clerk or someone appointed by the clerk well in advance of the elections. Recounts will automatically be undertaken at the request of a candidate if the spread between the winning candidate and the runner-up is less than half a vote per poll. Such a request will have to be made within seven days of the declaration of results. Other requests for recounts will have to be made within 30 days of the announcement of results. Appeals, disputes and irregularities will continue to be dealt with by the clerk.

Another change will require elected representatives to maintain their qualifications for their entire term. This means a municipal representative’s seat would be declared vacant if he or she moved away from the municipality and was no longer eligible to vote in that municipality.

A strong local government depends on the participation of its citizens both as candidates and as voters. The legislation I am proposing will encourage that participation, which is so important to the democratic process. I know honourable members will not want to delay the legislation, so that it can be in place for the early planning of this year’s municipal elections.

Mr. Breaugh: For a number of years now, many of us, on all sides of the House, I think, have called for something like this. Essentially, we have called for some form of restriction on spending in municipal campaigns and we have talked about some way to provide the same tax advantages to people who make a contribution to a municipal campaign as are available for both federal and provincial contributions these days.

We are going to oppose the bill, precisely because we think the principle of introducing this type of legislation in its final form in April of an election year, debating it now on second reading in May of a municipal election year, and putting it into law some time in the month of probably June or July, is a rather impractical way to go about it.

I note that this bill has some 54 pages of detail which will substantially alter the electoral process for the municipal elections this fall. It will become law probably some time in the month of June or July. Unfortunately, that happens to be for many municipal governments, as it is for most industries, in the middle of a vacation period, so it will mean that in many small municipalities they are going to have notice of these changes -- some will argue now -- by means of the statements that the minister has made previously or by means of discussions that have gone on in municipal organizations over the years. In a sense, they have had that kind of notice; but they have not seen the final bill until April of this year, and they will not know exactly what that bill will look like until probably about four to five months before the election occurs.

1640

There are some municipalities which are in fact equipped to handle this kind of intense change to the election process in short order. But I want to point out that there are many which will not be able to cope with these changes at all and I want to point out that the stimulus from the government side for this type of change probably came from a major report it did on municipal elections, I believe about three years ago, chaired by, among others, Anne Johnston.

As I recall it, one of the prime conditions that they put on changes to the process was that after January 1 of any election year there should be no further change. I think basically they were simply recognizing that in their knowledge of the municipal process -- and they had a good blend of people from larger urban centres, small towns and rural areas in Ontario -- they knew that municipal councils and their local administrations differ somewhat in their ability to respond to legislative changes.

So one of their prime arguments, as I recall, was very simply that whatever changes the government might choose to make having to do with municipal elections, it really does have to give a lot of notice. I am reminded constantly that as things go through, as legislative changes are made here, it does take some period of time until they are fully understood all across Ontario.

I believe that there is an honest attempt here to try to do some good. I want to go in some detail into some of the things that I think really do have to be done. It should be obvious to everyone now that there is some need for some cap on election spending in municipal elections. It is not a major problem in many of our communities. In many of our small towns, I know people who get elected to municipal councils repeatedly and who do not spend $50 in an election campaign, and I am sure all of us who have any working knowledge of municipal politics will know that there is no campaign team and no election process. They walk around town and talk to people, which in many ways is the electoral process at its finest because it allows direct communication between those seeking public office and those who will elect them.

In many parts of Ontario that is the norm. All of us know people who have been elected repeatedly over the years, who have served their own municipalities well and have never spent really a dime, so to speak, on elections and have never really run an election campaign, as we know it, for example, as provincial members. That is the nature of municipal politics.

At the other extreme, I suppose, would be the kind of election campaigns that we will see in Metropolitan Toronto this year. Most of us are mindful of the newspaper reports of the kind of fund-raising events that certain members of council have entertained and the kinds of moneys that have been spent in the past, for example, to run for mayor of the city of Toronto. I do not know what the estimates will be for this year, but I know that in previous years it has been estimated that people spent between $150,000 and $200,000 to $300,000 to run for that one position.

From that flows, I think, the logical legislative response: to put some limit on election spending. Whether this is a workable limit or not, we will know after the next election. I have no problem with that part of the act, quite frankly. I believe some limit, arbitrary in nature, as we have in our elections, as the federal members have in their elections, is now simply a responsible legislative process to go through.

There are some problems with this bill and the problems all centre on not what the bill is trying to do. If the government had brought forward this legislation last fall, and I know the diversion of it was alluded to in a ministerial statement, if the government had processed the legislation last November, I would have no argument with it today at all. Whether it agreed to all the conditions that I put forward or not, we would have at least given people proper notice. They would have been able to have had ample time to get together a campaign group, to raise money and to do so under the techniques that are provided for under this legislation. If the law had been proclaimed in January, in my view not one municipal council around Ontario could stand up and say, “We did not know what the law was and we were unable to get ready to carry on a municipal election in November under this new law.”

The difficulty is that many of us asked the minister to proceed last fall, and whether it was anybody’s fault in particular, or whether just the legislative flow got a little clogged up for a while and it was not possible to bring this forward at that time, he did not proceed.

My option would have been to say I would like to put in place some law of this kind, but I am reminded that different municipalities have a different capacity to respond to this kind of legislative change. I put to the government that in many respects it is creating problems now by proceeding with the legislation at this time.

I believe that the disclosure provisions that are in this bill are a reasonable way to proceed for most municipalities, but I am reminded by many that the clerks in many municipalities have absolutely no capacity to do additional work and that to talk about disclosure provisions and increased responsibility for municipal clerks, as is in this bill, is suitable for some municipalities but not for others. I do not see much of an accommodation here.

I am reminded by many people who are interested in running for municipal office this fall, that this bill is going to become law when they have spent about the last six or eight months doing fund-raising for their campaigns, because they recognize that it is kind of tough to raise money for municipal election campaigns during the months of July and August.

Many of them know, quite frankly, that in practical terms if they want to do a little fund-raising they have to do it in the latter part of the winter or through the spring period because in July and August it is kind of tough to get that money together. By the time September and October roll around, really whatever the government might have decided are the campaign periods under this legislation, most municipal politicians will tell the members that the campaign starts somewhere after the kids get back to school at the end of August and proceeds until we have the elections in November.

The pace is a little different and there is not quite as much campaigning in the sense that we are familiar with it, but that is what municipal politics is about. It moves in many of our municipalities at a slightly different pace than our campaign periods do. It is a little less frantic and perhaps a little more genuine.

I believe, and I want to put this on the record this afternoon too, this is a government acting with good intentions. I know that I for one have called on it to do something about municipal elections and to do something about, for example, disclosure of who is donating because I think that is important.

But I do not think that its provisions under this act have much of a chance to succeed. That is my problem with it. In some municipalities, yes. I believe that there will be some municipal councils that will be very aggressive in pursuing those disclosure statements, but I know that in many municipalities they will not be.

They will not be very aggressive because it would be absolutely silly in that municipality to expect the town clerk to get all these forms put together and to publish all these disclosure statements. I know this too -- there are going to be some town clerks who say: “Listen, I have no way of checking the validity of the statement. If you want me to, I can receive this as a disclosure statement from a candidate in a municipal election, but I cannot validate it.”

There is a provision in here, an option to have auditors appointed. That may enter into the picture in some municipalities and put a little more professional weight to it. But in many of the municipalities there will be professional clerks saying, “This is a law that I cannot administer,” and I think they will be right.

I am growing increasingly concerned, as I see a number of legislative changes to municipal politics flowing through this chamber in the latter part of the spring session, that this could be one of the most confusing municipal elections that we have ever seen in Ontario.

I am concerned somewhat that this kind of detailed change to the process at this date is going to cause even more confusion, and I dare say that there are liable to be a lot more appeals about the election process not being legitimate after this fall’s municipal election than we have ever seen before, because the changes proposed in this bill are substantive and there are a number of them.

There is a practical problem if one reads the bill and notes that the option is in here for a municipality to provide for a tax refund if it is prepared to fully fund that process. That is an option which I am sure this government thinks is probably the best option available. I am not so sure it is, but let me point out a problem for those members who even think that is the way to proceed.

1650

At this time, most municipal councils are in the final stages of their budgetary process. At this point in our history, municipal councils are finishing up the budgetary process and, in fact, most of them have just gone through a round where they have said to the local rape crisis centre: “Sorry, we’d like to fund you, but we can’t. There is no more money in the till.” They have finished hearing the representations from ratepayers’ groups which said, “Our roads are full of potholes,” and the council’s response has been, “Sorry, we can’t get that into this year’s budget.”

They have just finished the hard part of the process, which is to say to different groups in their municipality: “We would like to accommodate you, but we can’t; we can’t build that road. We’d really like to put an arena in there, but we just can’t get it into this year’s budget; we’ll try for next.”

Many of our schools boards, having just received the news of provincial grants, are now in a position -- l know mine is -- of having to deal with those parents who demand school facilities. They are now going to have to turn around and say to them: “The budget is closed. We cannot possibly finance the school construction that we’d like to do next year.” That is the position they are in now.

Is it really rational, then, for them to turn around and say, “Next week, we want to set aside $400,000, $500,000, $1 million in municipal tax funds to provide for a tax receipt for election purposes”? Do members think they could do that, if they sat on a municipal council this week and said to a ratepayers’ group, “We can’t afford to build your road,” or “We can’t afford to build a school for your children,” but the week after that, they can afford to set up a fund which will provide the means that finances, in part, the election campaign this fall? I believe that is a pretty untenable position to be placed in, and that is essentially what the government is doing.

There are a few municipalities -- I have heard this argument, and it is a reasonable one too -- which, frankly, have been trying for years to get something like this put together by means of a law. They may have sufficient staff to be able to respond, but the provisions of the bill demand almost an immediate response from the municipality if it is to be used in this fall’s election. Only those municipalities that have an ability to respond very quickly to substantial changes will be able to do that for this year. I am not aware of any that had the foresight to set aside a portion of this year’s budget to provide for a rebate system for the election contributions. If they did, they may be able to use it this year. In reality, we are probably talking about the next time around, probably four years away.

If that is the minister’s intent, I probably would have preferred that he take a little more time and perfect that system a bit. I always try to be pragmatic about this kind of thing. I believe in this kind of stuff. I believe there ought to be limits on spending for municipal campaigns. I believe there ought to be some kind of rebate process, but the government has made it the most difficult thing to defend that I could imagine.

I will tell the minister the truth. I cannot defend the notion that a school board which cannot afford to build its schools should set up a fund that will finance the elections for the trustees. I cannot defend that. Maybe the minister can, but I cannot, as someone who has advocated for a long time that there ought to be some kind of rebate system. If I were on a local council, I could not defend the fact that we could not pave somebody’s road or build a sidewalk for kids but we could afford a campaign fund for election expenses. I think that is intolerable.

There will be some municipalities that will be able to muster that argument. I am glad I am not there having to do that. I simply wish the government had followed the advice of its own report on municipal elections. I wish the government had said to itself, “If we can get it done by January 1 of the election year, we will do it, and if we can’t, we won’t.” I think the government would have been better advised to take that route.

I know the minister tried to get this legislation in front of the House last fall, but he could not. I note that what he talked about in his statements last fall is substantially different from what is proposed in the legislation. You can see there really are differences of substance between what he said he intended to do last fall and what he has actually done in this bill. I do not think he would give me an argument that it is exactly the same thing. It is similar and it is going in the same direction, but it is not exactly the same thing. There were changes.

I guess what I am trying to put in front of the House this afternoon is the caution, and I have made this caution, that if it were one simple change being proposed here for this fall’s election, there would be no problem, none. Everybody could handle that. The difficulty comes about by means of the fact that we have changed the enumeration system; that is going to cause additional work and additional problems in setting up the electoral rolls.

Maybe they could have handled that challenge. Now we are changing the whole structure of the election in terms of financing. That is going to cause a second set of problems. I am not terribly confident that they can all handle that. I am aware that some of our municipalities are already sending motions to the minister’s office saying: “Enough. No more changes in how elections are held this fall. No more boundary changes. No more rules about election expenses. No more new this or new that. Leave us alone for a while and let us get on with our business.” I have some appreciation of the difficulties they are in, because I believe they are going to be compounded.

Finally, I want to get on the record today some concerns I have that I think are going to be real problems, not with the passage of this bill but by the end of the next municipal election. We have had some difficulty in dealing with what I might categorize as contested elections; that is to say, there is always somebody somewhere in Ontario after every municipal election who says the elections were illegal. We do not quite know how to handle that. It is a little awkward.

We have had that problem provincially, and I would remind members that provincially, where there are a lot fewer people running for a lot fewer seats, we do not handle that particularly well either. But I think the government can rightfully anticipate that after this fall’s election there will be people in council chambers around Ontario standing up and saying, “Somebody did not file his disclosure form on time and therefore the election is illegal.”

People will question the amounts that were disclosed. All they have to do is read the Toronto newspapers. In Toronto, for example, the accounts of how they raise the money are there, the amounts of money are there and the type of event that was held is there. That is all printed; it is all a matter of public knowledge. If the disclosures do not exactly match the stories that are already published in the Toronto papers, there are the grounds for saying the election was illegal.

There will be, I think, a lot of occasions when people will stand up in the council chamber and say, “The clerk didn’t do what the clerk is supposed to do under this bill.” That is going to put clerks in a difficult position. Also, of course, there will be allegations about how much money was spent. And who will investigate those allegations? I do not know. Somebody will get that job. It will not be me, thank God, but somebody will get a rather awkward and difficult job.

If one takes the second option, which makes reference to the Commission on Election Finances, the problem I see is that I do not know the practical way to get into that process this quickly. If one does that, then one would say: “Well, the commission will do the investigating. The commission has developed expertise over the years on how to gather together statements and claims and disclosures and do all of that kind of stuff.” And it does. I have talked to the commissioner himself, and he feels quite happy that he would get a chance, as I recall, to try this out a bit this fall.

I hope I am wrong, quite frankly. I hope there will not be all of this confusion. I hope that for the first time in the history of Ontario there will be some limits put on people that are practical and real and that they can abide by. If we had done this last fall, I would say there is a real, practical chance this could be done without any great disruption.

The difficulty is that in April of this year, when the bill was tabled, there were not many people around Ontario -- I dare say there are not many municipal clerks who have read this legislation and are now getting ready to implement it. I think there will be a general awareness that such legislation is being brought forward, but I doubt very much that they actually know the details or what will be expected from them when this bill passes and becomes law.

I know there are not very many people who will be running in this fall’s municipal election who have a real grasp of the details. I know that the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, for example, is an organization of municipal councillors that has had the opportunity of seeing this bill and discussing it and I know it has made representation to the minister over the years.

1700

There is not very much that is new in terms of concepts being brought forward here. That really is not the problem, though. The problem is the detail, and the problem is the lateness of the hour in trying to implement it.

I wish I could commend the minister, and I would like to, but I will be as blunt as I can about it. If this were last October and the minister had brought forward the law at that time instead of his statement, we would be in great shape to carry it out, to voice our support for it and to believe, at least with some confidence, that municipalities around Ontario could carry this out for this fall’s municipal elections with a minimal amount of disruption.

Any time you make this type of change, you are going to have some disruption. I do not think that can be avoided, but I believe that with the number of changes that are being proposed under this bill it is not practical to try to implement at this date. If they were brought forward in isolation, without any other changes to enumeration or boundaries or the number of trustees or anything of that nature, then I believe you might stand a chance.

My difficulty is that this is an idea I would like to see implemented, and I see it being brought forward at a time when the chances of doing so without creating a whole lot of other problems are nil. I regret that. I wish very much that we had been able to deal with this last fall when it was first talked about, or talked about in the sense that the minister made a statement on it. I wish, frankly, we had been able to do this when the report on municipal elections was first tabled, because it seems to me that would have given us a lot of lead time.

As I am going through my opposition to the bill this afternoon, I notice the minister and his parliamentary assistant tittering. I want to give them the opportunity to titter and giggle this afternoon, because I want to tell them that this fall, when the municipal elections are over with and the greatest mess we have seen in some time occurs, they will not be giggling on the back benches at Queen’s Park. I am going to boot their little tails out the front door. I will let them face everybody who was elected in Ontario, and I will invite them to tour around the province and tell them precisely why they screwed it all up.

It is not because they did not have notice. Their own government-appointed committee tabled its report some time ago. It is not because the Legislature was not able to deal with it. It was able to deal with it as soon as they introduced the legislation. The government has just about enough members to control the agenda in here these days, and if it had wanted this bill last December, the government could have had it. I do not think there is much room for argument there.

I really wish this had not occurred. I really wish it had been brought forward at a date when it could be implemented at a reasoned pace, when the problems that I know are going to be there could be ironed out. I am concerned that this is a good idea gone bad, brought in at the wrong time. My problem with that is that this is not very practical legislation, from some people’s point of view.

To suggest that a municipality, for example, run something like a subsidization program for municipal election campaigns is a difficult notion to sell at the best of times, let alone at a time when municipalities across Ontario are really straining at the seams with financial problems. It is ironic that the economy is booming, but our municipal levels of government have really been loaded up over the years with additional responsibilities and are struggling to try to put together balanced budgets. They are struggling with the idea that property tax increases should be kept to a rather low level.

It is just after an election year for the provincial government, but it is just going into an election year for municipal governments. For some strange reason, as they go into municipal elections, local councils kind of like to keep the tax increases to a minimum. So I doubt there are going to be very many takers on the provisions of this bill which provide for some kind of rebate system.

All of that being said, it is a little difficult to suggest that political contributions to a municipal campaign are not as valid as political contributions to a federal or provincial campaign. I believe they are, and I believe that with a little co-operation on the part of the government, a program could have been worked out that would have been fair.

I believe now that we are going to have different kinds of elections in different municipalities. This is a tough theoretical question to deal with. Is it fair that some municipalities will have a different set of laws governing their election than others? I am not so sure about that. I know the practical problems that are there and they do have to be addressed.

I know that what looks appropriate in downtown Toronto looks ridiculous in Kenora. It just does not make sense in rural Ontario. That, of course, is the quandary that several of us have tried to deal with. Is there a way to develop different approaches that would be more suited to the local municipality? I am not so sure there is great success in meeting that problem head on in this bill.

I do not want to speak at great length, but I did want to put my concerns on the record this afternoon. I feel particularly acutely that I must get those concerns on the record here today because I am already on the record a number of times as having said I believe very much that there should be limits. I believe very much that there should be some way of addressing contributions to individuals who are campaigning in municipal government, as we do now federally and provincially.

The general thrust or idea behind this bill is one that I personally have called for many times here, and I would not back away from that for a moment. My problem with it solely is that I think the government is doing it at a time when it is not going to work. Of course, for things that I propose, I am pretty anxious that, the first time out, they be successful. I am anxious that they get off on the right foot. I believe this is a good idea at the wrong time and the government is going to have great difficulty.

I hope that in many municipalities the response may go something like this: “This is a reasonable way to proceed. We will not get excited about the contributions part this time around. We will set that aside and maybe try that or some version of that the next time.” That may be what they do.

There may be some who have followed these issues for some time and are ready to implement now. I can think of a few municipalities that could do that tomorrow morning; if the government brought all of this package in, they have the internal capacity to respond that quickly and there will not be a problem. The difficulty is that the law applies to every municipality in Ontario, and I am not convinced that many municipalities in Ontario can respond this quickly. I am not convinced that many of them will be able to go through an election period smoothly under this type of legislation. I know they have made their arguments to me very dramatically that they cannot respond; they are not set up to do business on this basis and this is going to cause real problems for them.

We do not want to hold up the bill. I have put on the record this afternoon the concerns that we have. I believe they are valid concerns. I believe those who are tittering and giggling over there this afternoon will not be doing so next December, because by then I believe we will have a large number of problems all related to the holding of municipal elections this fall. They will be problems that will have been caused by legislation such as this. If this bill were brought in by itself, perhaps we could do that, but considering the other changes that have been made concerning municipal elections this fall, I do not think we have much to look forward to except a number of problems.

I know it is not hard to get people like Howard Moscoe, for example, to say, “Great stuff,” because Howard is one who has been active in municipal organizations over the years and has steadily and consistently called for this kind of legislation. I know that many people like Howard Moscoe will be going through the election process in a large municipality. If there are any in Ontario that can handle this type and this amount of change that quickly, the large urban municipalities in and around Metropolitan Toronto should be the ones that can do it.

I think the problem will be that there will also be a number of inherent problems in there, because those elections have tended to be a little on the expensive side. People have been gathering campaign funds for the better part of a year. While in one sense it looks like the administration of the municipality will be able to cope with it, I know that the practical problems that have been alluded to, shall I say, in the Toronto press, about how municipal politicians gather up money for campaign purposes are probably going to be the centre of a major controversy in this bill.

1710

If I were the clerk in one of these municipalities and the option to require audited statements was not exercised, I would be very careful of accepting the statements of candidates, particularly when there are published reports that those statements may not be correct and that those candidates may not quite have followed the guidelines that are put in law. It will be a moot point.

People have asked me this: What if we gathered money quite legally up until April 1 and this bill passes? What happens? Did they break the law even though they gathered the money prior to the law being passed, even though they may well have gathered the money prior to the campaign periods and the time limits set out in this law? That is going to be an interesting problem. I think the lawyers are going to be busy this fall. I think the ministry is going to be very busy this fall.

I think there is going to be trouble with this. I am simply trying to say this afternoon, in voicing our opposition to this bill, that there is trouble here and the government had better be prepared for it. There are going to be difficulties in the holding of municipal elections this fall. They will not all be caused by this one single piece of legislation, but they will be caused by the cumulative effect of changing boundaries, changing the number of representatives, changing the enumeration system. changing the election expenses system and the way that elections are held.

When all of those are added up, it is inescapable: There are going to be real problems trying to hold municipal elections this fall. The problems may happen prior to the election, as people try their best to conform to the legislation. They are more likely to happen after election day, when the lawyers enter the picture and start to examine what all these laws mean, what all these changes mean. If your person loses the election, are there grounds there to challenge the validity of the elections?

I must say that the Legislature of Ontario has certainly given lawyers ample food for thought. There will now be a multitude of new grounds for challenging the validity of the municipal elections this fall.

I regret that we were not able to deal with this legislation and the other bills affecting municipal elections much earlier and to abide by the recommendations of the government’s committee on the matter, which essentially said very simply: “If you can’t get it done by January 1 in any election year, don’t do it.” That was good advice. It is too bad the government ignored it.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I would like to basically align myself totally with the remarks of the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh) and suggest that the confluence of bills which have been put forward and the timing of those bills are going to cause us enormous problems. Here we are in May, expecting the results of the first enumeration to be completed by May 12 even though most of us have not received anything in the mail as yet. All we have seen are these really peculiar ads on TV of somebody putting his sandwiches into a mailbox as an explication of what people are supposed to take seriously.

We just went through the problems which might be inherent in Bill 109 because of the revisions to Bill 76 which have just been tabled with this House and which, I have just learned, a lot of the French community believes runs counter to decisions made by the federal courts and is basically disenfranchising even more Franco-Ontarians than we already did with the enumeration bill which we have already passed.

The member for Oshawa is perfectly right: What is going to happen is an election which people will dispute, people who are unhappy with how long it takes to be able to determine just exactly what the ward boundaries are going to be in which they are going to run. That is going to put a huge advantage into the hands of incumbents who are well known and have declared themselves as running again, wherever it may be, before others have done. In the long run, what was a great idea -- that is, municipal election reform for the first time -- is going to be messed up and leave a sour taste in everybody’s mouth because of the way it has been brought in and because the government has not heeded the request for taking a longer period of time to bring this in, which many groups have asked the government to look at.

Mr. Breaugh: At the risk of implying that there is a new alliance, I concur with the comments by the member for Scarborough West (Mr. R. F. Johnston).

Mr. McLean: I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak on Bill 106, An Act to amend the Municipal Elections Act and the Municipal Act.

Once again, I must point out that I am somewhat dismayed and puzzled by this government’s timing in bringing in this bill. It is a very important bill that will have serious ramifications on the process used for electing our politicians at the municipal level.

We have the government again trying to ram through legislation that will have an impact on municipal elections in Ontario, and those elections are only six months away. For this bill to take effect in time for the November municipal elections, this Legislature will have to move quickly, and that opens up all kinds of avenues for rush decisions that could ultimately prove harmful to the method we use for electing our representatives.

I believe this to be the grass-roots level of politics in this province, but I fear that this government will once again use its overwhelming majority in this Legislature to push through this bill without sending it first to committee, where all of the bugs and kinks could be worked out.

This government has done this before, and unfortunately there is little we can do to prevent this rush process from happening again. This bill is too important and will radically alter the local election process dramatically only to receive a rubber-stamping by the members of this Legislature. The provisions of this bill are vast and complicated and deserve a thorough airing out in committee.

On Bill 77, An Act to amend the Municipal Elections Act and the Assessment Act, the Association of Municipalities of Ontario had indicated that they wanted to take the opportunity to register their disappointment that their concern and advice with respect to Bill 77 were not considered during the process of enactment.

The association’s proposal was submitted to the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Eakins). The leaders of the opposition noted in February that the AMO supported the provisions of Bill 77, with the exception of section 14, and requested that it be deleted from the bill. Section 14 in Bill 77 provides for the changing of the date of nominations of candidates from 21 days to 28 days before the election. The principal rationale provided to the association was that changes were required to accommodate municipalities in northern Ontario who were experiencing difficulties in getting ballots printed.

I am referring to the rush of putting this bill through and I am referring to Bill 77, which was put through in a rush. It was indicated that the association surveyed a number of municipalities in the north and found that there was only one municipality which had advised the Advisory Committee on Municipal Elections; that was what the problem was. Well, it was really inappropriate in the opinion of the AMO, and they did not feel that they had the input they wanted with regard to that bill, which extended the election from 21 days, really, to 28 days.

I will be the first one to say that any legislation aimed at making the municipal election process fair and more accessible to candidates and voters alike is a good idea and something that is required in Ontario. I will also be the first to say that, while some of the amendments may be noncontentious, there are others, such as the limits on campaign contributions and expenses, that need to be fully discussed in committee.

Possible amendments to this bill could include relieving the municipal clerks of all or some of the responsibilities given to them by creating an independent municipal election finance commission instead of depending on the provincial body.

Now, that is only a suggestion, and it is a good example of why we should not be rushing this through the Legislature. Sending this bill to committee for a review would also give us time to determine the reaction of local councils in our ridings to Bill 106. What is this bill aimed at doing? I think that by providing a summary of the amendments I will show members just how vast and complicated Bill 106 really is.

1720

This bill would limit campaign expenses on the basis of a formula related to the number of electors in the ward, the municipality or the school board area in which the candidate is running. For heads of councils, such as reeves or mayors, the formula would be $5,500 plus 50 cents per elector. For all other candidates the formula would be $3,500 plus 50 cents per elector.

I believe that when we are talking about the figures and the costs and what is allowed, we are looking at large urban areas. We are not looking at villages of 1,000 people. I think this bill is aimed at the large urban areas, not the small ones.

This bill will limit campaign contributions to a candidate to $750 per contributor and will require all candidates to disclose their campaign contributions and spending, which is fair. To me, that part of the bill is fine. This disclosure will take the form of an audited statement for any candidate who raises or spends more than $20,000; an unaudited statement for any candidate who raises or spends $1,000 to $20,000; or a statutory declaration for any candidate who raises and spends less than $1,000. I still say that, really, the basis of the bill is aimed at the large urban municipalities.

This bill will permit municipalities to establish campaign contribution rebates similar to those in effect for federal and provincial candidates. For those municipalities, the provincial Commission on Election Finances, rather than the municipal clerk, will supervise the declarations and the rebates.

This bill will require two mandatory advance polls rather than the one that is currently required, and the hours for advance and regular polls will be standardized, with all polls open from 10 a.m. to 8 p.m. Any elector who is unable to attend the poll will be allowed to vote by proxy, which could get into another complicated problem, which I would hope would be ironed out in committee. Advance polls will be required to be accessible to disabled and physically challenged voters for the elections this November, and all polls will be required to be accessible for the vote in 1991. I agree with that section.

This bill would require all recounts to be conducted by a recount officer, generally the municipal clerk, rather than the courts, and recounts will automatically be undertaken when requested by a candidate within seven days of the declaration of results. If the spread between the winning candidate and the runner-up was less than half a vote per poll, as the minister indicated in his opening remarks, appeals, disputes and irregularities will continue to be dealt with by the courts.

This bill will require elected representatives to maintain their qualifications for the duration of their term, which means a municipal representative seat would be declared vacant if he or she moved away from the municipality and was no longer eligible to vote in that municipality. I agree with that point.

This is what Bill 106 is supposed to do. Now I would like to outline briefly some of the concerns that I have with the bill.

This bill requires every candidate to be furnished with two copies of the preliminary list of electors who are entitled to vote. I believe this is unnecessary and will create unwarranted costs and administrative difficulties for the municipalities and the municipal clerks.

The legislation requires advance polls to be accessible to the physically handicapped for the 1988 municipal election and requires all polls to be accessible by 1991. I fear that having all polls accessible by 1991 cannot be achieved, given the size of municipal expenditure required to meet this requirement. Why do we not consider decentralization of polls as the most direct solution to this requirement?

The bill states that, effective January 1, 1991, electors will no longer be able to make a declaration at the poll and vote, even though they are eligible but not on the list. This may make life easier for poll personnel, but it flies in the face of attempts to increase voter participation. The provision in this bill for a second mandatory advance poll on the Thursday before polling day is really not necessary in the smaller municipalities scattered throughout Ontario. The current provision, which allows local councils to establish as many advance polls as they feel are necessary, has adequately served the voting public, and I believe one mandatory advance poll is sufficient, especially for the small urban and rural municipalities.

A provision in Bill 106 which I believe will lead to wide-open proxy voting should be tightened up and require the person voting by proxy to be: employed in a business the nature of which involves long-distance travel by railway, air, water or motor vehicle; away on business at his or her employer’s direction; ill or physically incapitated -- I mean incapacitated; or a full-time student registered at a recognized educational institution.

While I welcome and support any initiatives that make the municipal election process fair and more accessible to both candidates and voters alike, I find that many of the details, duties and responsibilities contained in some sections of Bill 106 are put upon the candidates and upon municipal election officials.

I feel that only the conduct of an election will fully determine the workability of this legislation and its practical application to all municipalities and candidates, but I do not believe this bill should be test-driven on an election to see if it works. Instead, it should be sent to committee for fine-tuning and adjustments. It should be safely checked before we turn it loose on the municipal election in Ontario, as I see there are some problems within it.

When the minister first announced the amendments in December 1987, the proposals fell well short of the Johnston report, which recommended moving the municipal election date to October, providing tax credits to people who contribute to municipal candidates and appointing an election finance commission similar to those in the provincial and federal electoral systems.

I guess the minister has had some great revelation from on high, because his tune has changed. It has changed dramatically since last December, and he has now provided for a commission. He has now provided for an optional tax credit rebate system, with the provincial Commission on Election Finances serving in a so-called watchdog capacity.

As members can see from my outline, my summary and my concerns, this bill is filled with too many loopholes and complications for us just to give it a rubber stamp, especially when you pause to consider that the elections it will affect substantially are only six months away.

Because of the vagueness and complicated nature of this bill, we in this Legislature are obliged to send it to committee, and perhaps it can be whipped into a more manageable shape in time for the 1991 municipal elections. Let us maintain the status quo in 1988 and strive for a bill that can be implemented before 1991. I am talking about a bill that will truly make the municipal election process really fair and accessible to both candidates and voters alike without turning Ontario’s municipalities into mini-states of chaos.

Section 166 of the bill talks about the local campaign expenses in detail. It goes on and it talks about the auditors. It states in subsection 168(1):

“Every candidate, at the time of appointing a chief financial officer” -- every candidate in the province, when they appoint a chief financial officer – “shall appoint an auditor licensed under the Public Accountancy Act and shall immediately notify the commission of the full name and address of the auditor.”

The government is putting the people in the small urban and rural parts of Ontario in a situation they have never been used to before. They may live 40 miles from the closest town, they are in rural Ontario, they want to be candidates and now they find that they have to have a chief financial officer and, in turn, they have to have a licensed public accountant. I see that as being totally unacceptable in this bill, and I am referring to that part which certainly indicates to me it is for the large urban areas in this province.

1730

Subsection 169(1) says, “The chief financial officer of every registered candidate shall, within six months after polling day, file with the Commission...” Does the government think people in rural Ontario, in the small rural municipalities, are going to want to go through going to town? Who is going to pay for the cost of this auditor? They are not used to this. I find it unacceptable that they would have to do that.

When we get into section 170, where we talk about surpluses, it goes on to state that if you do not use your surplus, it is lodged with the clerk and he keeps it until the next election. If you do not run in the next election, that money is then turned over to the clerk of the municipality. Everybody has already got their tax receipts. What is the municipality going to do with that money?

When the government is dealing with a bill that has approximately 54 or 55 pages in it, introduces it on April 5, comes in here and wants second reading in the first week of May and wants to have it in place within six months for an election, I find that totally unacceptable. I think the government will find that most municipal politicians across this province at the present time will find it unacceptable too, because there would not be 10 per cent of them who know what it going on here. There is not 10 per cent of them who know that the government has extended the election period from 21 to 28 days. How many times can you shake hands in a village of 1,000 people? You have a month to do it? I find that unacceptable.

I think I have had my input on the bill and I am pleased to have had the opportunity to do it.

Mr. Wildman: I listened attentively to my friend’s comments and I found them most enlightening but I do think one comment he made is somewhat extreme. To suggest that there should be provision made when voters are decapitated, I think, is really to go a little far. I would think that to decapitate a voter would certainly incapacitate him.

Mr. Callahan: I would like to indicate that in some of the comments that were made by the member with reference to small communities -- I have to suspect that he is saying that there are no public accountants in those communities. He is suggesting that the process be delayed. I suggest that the process has been delayed, probably 42 years too long.

When one recognizes the fact that people who are committed to the public trust in performing their functions perhaps are required to seek contributions from sources which may prove to be a conflict for them somewhere down the line, the people who are the real losers in that respect are the people of Ontario. I think there is sufficient use of this, through the recent provincial and federal campaigns, that everyone in Ontario who is running for public office should have sufficient understanding of it to be able to recognize that and to be able to comply with it.

I can remember the first election I ran in, in 1969. It cost me exactly $142, so you certainly did not need a great deal of auditing to do it.

I recognize what the member is saying, but I think that, in the long run, it is time, it is time, it is time, and this bill should be enacted in order to provide for no possibility of people’s being either said to have a conflict -- justice should not only be done, but appear to be done.

Mr. Breaugh: Just to give chapter and verse to one practical problem, there are no accountants in many small Ontario communities. Those of us who were born and raised in rural Ontario will tell the member for Brampton South (Mr. Callahan) that we do not have accountants in many of our small hamlets and villages and rural areas.

There are accountants available. There is no question about that. If you want to travel 50 miles, or 100 miles in some cases, to get to them, you can. The honourable member who spoke is from a part of Ontario that is in many respects a rural part, and his experience in municipal politics is in a rural area. I would like him, when he is responding, perhaps to convey to the member for Brampton South what it is like to campaign in municipal politics in a part of the province that is not strongly urbanized.

Maybe that is one of the problems we have to face here, that we come from different backgrounds and different experiences and this is a huge province, geographically and demographically much different from one end to the other. It is difficult to draft a law on this type of topic which you really can apply.

I think that the member for Simcoe East (Mr. McLean) is one member here who has municipal experience and who can perhaps give us a better idea of the practical ramifications of what is being suggested in this bill. It is not that people are opposed to the basic concepts that are being proposed here. That is not the question we are discussing at all. What we are worried and concerned about is how practical it is and whether it can be applied to this year’s municipal election.

Mr. Wiseman: I was not going to say anything about this bill but I think --

An hon. member: You were provoked.

Mr. Wiseman: Yes, I was provoked by the member for Brampton South, who comes from a very rich area where there are a lot of accountants, as there are lawyers, I suppose, too, and they love making money out of little people out in the rural area. We all know what it cost us for accountants to audit our books after the last election. We are probably looking at $1,000 or more. People who are running in many of these small municipalities may not have spent as much as the member for Brampton South on the election.

Then the government is telling them that maybe they are going to have to have an accountant and pay somewhere in the neighbourhood of $500 to $1,000 just to be able to run. With all the other roadblocks that we are throwing at them, I am afraid that many people out there who give of their time in these small communities will say: “To heck with it. It is costing us too much money.” The minister comes from one of those small communities that has many rural parts in his riding and I feel he should be more sensitive to that.

Sure, we want to have things audited but, by golly, to say you have to have an auditor to do it, and he must be a commissioned auditor rather than somebody who is good at keeping books, I think is wrong. Furthermore, when I was out for a minute, I was just talking to a representative of one of the largest municipalities in Ontario and he went right along with what the member for Oshawa had said earlier, that it is going to cause a nightmare, with the money he has in his hope chest, to run in the next election. How is he going to cover off that?

Mr. McLean: I am very pleased that the member for Brampton South got up and spoke briefly because, really, what he did was make the point that I have been talking about here for about 20 minutes. The very point that I have been talking about is that many in the large urban population have no idea what the biggest majority in the 838 or 839 municipalities in this province have to go through. They have not a clue, and that is the problem.

The problem is that they have drafted Bill 77, they have drafted this Bill 106 and they are not sure --

Hon. Mr. Eakins: Why don’t you read it?

Mr. McLean: I have read it very thoroughly. The minister asks me why I do not read it. I have probably read it better than he has because he has probably just been briefed by his staff, who drafted it not knowing what goes on in rural Ontario. I say to the member for Brampton South that is exactly the point I was trying to make when I mentioned in my remarks that you may have to go 40 miles to get an auditor. That is going to happen in a lot of cases in Ontario, and it is for sure.

The comments that were made, and what the member for Oshawa has just indicated, also support what I have been saying. This bill, if it is not done properly, will be a disaster. As I said, probably not 10 per cent of the politicians in Ontario today, knowing what is in this bill, knowing that it is being brought forward and knowing that they will have to go and get an auditor, will want to run this fall. How many people who want to run this fall will say, “If I have to go through all this, I am not going to bother”? There are going to be lots of them who will do that. The government is catering to the large urban areas and, to me, that is not what the intent of this legislation should be.

1740

Ms. Bryden: My colleague the member for Oshawa has set forth some very compelling reasons why we in this party are opposing this bill. He has pointed out many of the flaws in this long-overdue reform of our municipal electoral system. He has warned this House that the government has so bungled the process by its procrastination and by not having the opportunity for any proper public hearings of a sufficiently broad nature that the province-wide municipal elections will be badly messed up, or may be. They may be the most messed-up elections that this province has ever experienced.

As my colleague says, there may be all sorts of court challenges to the results because of the uncertainties and ambiguities in the bill. There may be challenges and recounts because of the hastily conceived new system of enumeration being put in at the same time under Bill 77. There may be elections which will be invalidated by the ambiguity of sections and lack of information provided to municipal clerks running the elections. There may be challenges from electors who feel that they have not been properly enfranchised.

Because we have waited so long for municipal election reform and need it so badly, we find it very difficult to vote against the bill, however flawed it is, but if we feel that we must express our strong opposition to this kind of legislative bungling and procrastination, then I think we are duty bound to vote against it. Those who do vote for it will have to be ready to assume responsibility for the unholy mess in our municipal elections which we are predicting.

We in this party introduced many calls for electoral reforms over the past 20 years. We moved motions and had them debated in private members’ hour. I myself introduced such a motion several times for a proper municipal election bill which would provide for the same kind of electoral processes as we have at the federal and provincial levels.

Over those 20 years, there was no response from the Progressive Conservatives during their period in government. They were prepared to leave us with an electoral system which was not fair, which was open to charges that there could be corruption and there could be influencing of candidates. There was no disclosure to indicate from what sources the candidates received their support.

At the provincial and federal level, we have recognized that fair elections depend on three principles. We must have limits on expenditures. If one candidate can spend $100,000 and another only $15,000 because of his means, then it is not a fair election. Second, there must be limits on contributions. If there are opportunities for individuals and companies to provide sums of money which may be so large as to raise questions of their motivation, then it is not a fair election. The axiom of he who pays the piper calls the tune comes into play here. Third, if there is no disclosure of contributions, then it is hard to find out who is paying the candidate’s bills and how large are the sums being donated. Those are the three principles of a good and fair electoral system.

This bill starts to move in the direction of implementing those three principles, but the procrastination in bringing it in -- it is getting on for three years since the new government came in -- is what we are complaining about, because it is going to create such chaos throughout the electoral system in the province.

I have just the one little point raised by the immediately preceding two speakers about the auditors and how smaller municipalities do not usually have an auditor or a person who could fulfil that function on their staffs and have to go out and hire one. I think any auditor’s costs should be paid for by the province under the act, as is done under the federal and provincial election expenses acts, for the auditing of the statements that must be submitted. That would at least relieve the smaller municipalities of an extra cost that they have not budgeted for.

I fault the Progressive Conservatives for refusing electoral reform at the municipal level for so many years. They did not seem concerned about our concerns regarding conflicts of interest or possibilities for corruption. But I also fault the Liberals for being so slow in bringing in this reform legislation.

Hon. Mr. Conway: Marion!

Ms. Bryden: To let the municipal election coming up on November 4 be operated on legislation that has been in effect for less than six months is really irresponsible. Actually, to let the various candidates build up war chests in the period before January 1, 1988, without any controlling legislation on either the amount supporters can contribute or the amount they will have to disclose is of course extremely irresponsible, I say to the member for Renfrew North (Mr. Conway). That is exactly what has happened in Toronto. We understand from the press, which has done considerable investigative reporting on this, that many of the incumbent candidates, or even ones who are contemplating being candidates, have built up big war chests in the period --

Hon. Mr. Conway: Listen, I read Robin Sears’s assessment of this legislation on the weekend. Can there be any more authoritative comments on its greatness?

The Deputy Speaker: Order please.

Ms. Bryden: Our position has been debated at length, and we have made the decision in caucus that we must draw attention to this very flawed legislation.

Another disadvantage of the procrastination and the delay is that potential candidates at both municipal and school board levels are not able to start raising funds for their election campaigns until they know whether there will be a rebate system, until they know what the limits on contributions will be and until they know what the rules generally will be. That is a great defect in this legislation and puts many candidates at a great disadvantage. In fact, they cannot really plan their election campaigns.

I question very much whether courts will allow the retroactivity in the limit on spending that may be adopted if this bill is enacted, because they will say, “How can you say there will be disclosure of amounts contributed before the bill was in effect? How can you limit amounts given if some of them were given before the bill went into effect?” The question is also, can they be counted as expenditures if some of the money was spent before the bill went into effect? That is one of the great flaws in this bill.

Second, I fault the Liberals for ducking the only fair solution to the demand for treating all municipal electors in the same way with regard to tax rebates on contributions. Instead, the Liberals have done as they are doing in the Sunday shopping laws. They are resorting to local option on the matter of tax rebates, but their motives in this seem quite different. They are in effect ducking out and saving themselves money, because the rebates are going to have to be provided out of municipal tax sources -- property tax -- or other municipal sources.

1750

It is great for the provincial Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) to pass this proposal on as a local option to the municipalities, but it is murder for municipal treasurers who have just finished their budgets for 1988 and have probably not made any provision for a tax rebate system. It may be that the rebates would not be claimed and paid until 1989, because there will be a period of reporting before applications are processed. How would you as a candidate like to face the electorate with the proposal that you are going to put in a tax rebate system that may require an increase in municipal taxes in 1989? It is not a very popular platform on which to run.

The provincial Treasurer, in tossing this to the municipalities in the way of costs, is really following the same practice he apparently learned from his predecessors in office. They always switched as many expenses as they could to the local taxpayer and then went out and spent high, wide and handsome at the provincial level.

The provincial Treasurer, with his $1 billion of new tax revenue, could surely have put in some money for some income tax rebates under the municipal system. He should of course also have got the federal Minister of Finance on side to treat municipalities the same way as federal and provincial election systems are treated, having federal and provincial tax rebates. The provincial Treasurer could well have afforded it with that great budget grab he has made this year. But no, he has other ways of spending it, rewarding the corporations and things of that sort. That is the second great fault in the bill.

The third is the rejection of the idea that is behind a proper system of tax rebates; that is, that there should be encouragement to the small contributor so that there will be more contributions from small contributors and so that candidates will not be beholden to a few big contributors. The limits on spending and contributions will help to some extent, but if you do not have the tax incentive to make contributions, you will not get as many of the small contributors digging deep in order to help make elections more democratic and to relieve the candidates of being so dependent on the big contributors.

That is the third flaw in the legislation. Without a province-wide system of tax rebates, there is not going to be a democratization of contributions to candidates and operation of election campaigns on a democratic basis.

Really, what the Liberals are doing is letting the municipalities choose whether their electors will get the kind of tax rebate system that we have at the federal and provincial levels or that some municipalities will have at the local level. It is grossly unfair.

Hon. Mr. Conway: Is it? In Wawa? Do you think it is unfair in Wawa? I don’t think it is.

Ms. Bryden: I think the people of Wawa require a rebate just as much as anybody else if they put up their hard-earned money for election purposes.

I want to say that these are the reasons we have decided to vote against this bill, and I suggest that those who vote for it should remember that they are taking the responsibility for a very flawed system. It is regrettable that this seems to be the choice we are faced with at this time. We have decided that we want to express our opposition to such badly bungled legislation.

The Deputy Speaker: Any questions and comments on the member’s statement? If not, do other members wish to participate in the debate?

Mr. McCague: It is a pleasure to speak on this bill. Just so that the minister is not uneasy, I would like to first congratulate him on many of the things he has brought in in this bill.

The member for Brampton South says it is 42 years -- now 45 years -- too late in coming. Be that as it may, that riding was not very big 42 years ago, or 45 years ago, and probably no changes were necessary at that particular time.

I can think of one change that would be a good idea right at this particular time and he might happen to know what that is.

Mr. Smith: Expand on that.

Mr. McCague: He is quite expansive himself.

The member for Oshawa has a very good perception of all this, especially when he comes from an area of the province that is quite a large urban area. I happen to come from an area that is half rural, half urban, as does the minister. A lot of the things that are in the bill, while they may be acceptable for the large urban areas, are not the same for the rural areas.

I know the minister is going to get up and tell me that a lot of the things that are in the bill are permissive. And with that nobody can disagree. If you can read, you can tell that it is permissive.

There are a couple of things that have not been mentioned today that I have a lot of problems with. Number one, there have been a lot of volunteers, and whether the member for Brampton South liked Bill Davis or not, we talked for years about voluntarism, and voluntarism has served this province well for many, many years. There are still many politicians out there who are volunteering their time. I suggest that a bill like this is intimidating to people like that. There are people with money who have different interests from those people who are really, truly interested in serving the people they seek to represent. In that regard, I think what the minister is proposing here does pose a difficulty for those kinds of people.

However, the really important point in this whole thing is the recommendation the minister received from the Johnston committee, as some people like to call it, where it told him that he should not be tampering with any acts in an election year and that minor changes should not happen for at least six months prior to an election.

That recommendation, which I considered to be the most important recommendation of all the ones they made to the minister, he seems to have ignored. I consider that in this regard he has erred. He is putting Bill 77 and Bill 106 upon them. Another minister is doing Bill 125. We do not know yet what other tricks the minister has up his sleeve, but everything he has up his sleeve I think is going to be a trick on the municipalities.

It is another thing like Sunday shopping. He does not know what to do with it, so he dumps it on the municipalities in a permissive way. Look at the similarities. The government does have a tendency that any question raised in this House is either a federal matter or a municipal matter. Obviously, there have not been enough things put on the municipalities, so the minister is proceeding to put more on them right at this time.

Mr. Speaker, l have several more things I wish to say on this bill. It being close to six o’clock, I move the adjournment of the debate.

On motion by Mr. McCague, the debate was adjourned.

The House adjourned at 6 p.m.