Journal des débats 1989-janv-19 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

That, in the opinion of this House, the government of Ontario, the municipalities and the banking institutions should enter into an agreement whereby recipients of welfare and social assistance cheques are provided with identification cards that would give them easy access to banking services without having to resort to using cheque cashing services for a percentage fee.

Le Vice-Président: M. Morin a présenté la résolution en son nom. Le député a jusqu’à 20 minutes pour faire sa présentation et il peut réserver quelque portion que ce soit pour la fin.

Le député de Carleton-Est.

M. Morin: Merci. J’aimerais réserver les quelques minutes qui me resteront après avoir présenté mon sujet.

I consider it a privilege to be able to present this important resolution to the Legislature. As we all know, even when economic times are good, there is always a segment of society that remains on the fringes of economic independence and prosperity. As a government, but particularly as members of this Legislature and members of our own communities, we must be sensitive to the hardships experienced by others and be willing to try to rectify injustices in the system.

If I may quote from the recently completed report of the Social Assistance Review Committee, “We begin with the belief that each person is of inherent worth and should be presumed capable of reason, choice, self-realization and independence.” Society has a responsibility to assist its members in their development and integration within a framework of economic equality and social justice. It has become a fact of life in the modern age that an individual’s identity in a society hinges on his or her relationship with financial institutions and all the services that they offer: credit, loans and credit ratings.

The chartered banks assume a very important role in the national economy as conduits of financial resources and information. A child’s first bank account has the symbolic significance of the rite of passage to adulthood. It is the first step in a lifelong relationship. However, there is a glaring gap between what is taken for granted by one segment of society as compared to another.

I am referring to the growing number of Ontario citizens who are forced to depend on small operations which provide limited financial services for a percentage fee, more particularly, the cheque cashing operations. It is a generally held view that the growth of these questionable services is symptomatic of a much larger problem: the limited access that low-income consumers have to traditional financial services.

Cheques, credit cards and the electronic transfer of funds have all become the normal way of conducting financial transactions for the majority, but these critically important services are beyond the reach of many. The instant teller has all but replaced the friendly teller who used to do our weekly transactions. In large urban centres, the customer at any bank is often identified only by a number and a financial history. At the press of a key, a bank can call up an extensive profile on any one of its customers. Decisions to grant loans, mortgages and credits are all based on that profile. This, unfortunately, is the reality of the computer age.

There are a significant number of people who are denied access to the financial services that are regularly used by most Canadians. These are the poor, the unemployed, single mothers on welfare and the disabled. They do not require the range of services you and I might need. They simply want to cash their cheques without unfair costs the same way we do. It would certainly seem like a simple and normal expectation. Unfortunately, in many instances that is not the case.

In the course of researching this issue, what struck me was that any two branches of the same bank in the same town could have different practices when it comes to cashing cheques. Practices often vary from region to region and community to community. Each bank has its own general policy in dealing with individuals who are not branch customers. I met with the Canadian Bankers’ Association which stresses that there are no bank policies specifically addressing the servicing of welfare recipients for the encashment of welfare cheques.

It is because of the lack of this consistent policy within the banking community that I feel that it is imperative that we in this Legislature take the initiative to make normal banking services and confidentiality accessible to everyone.

1010

For most Canadians, the prospect of not being able to cash a cheque is inconceivable. Yet every month thousands of low-income Canadians find themselves in the position of receiving cheques which they can cash only with a great deal of difficulty or for a percentage fee. Many banks are reluctant to handle government cheques because of the potential of financial loss due to fraud. Low-income Canadians are much more dependent on government cheques than middle- and upper-income Canadians.

Probably the most significant barrier between the poor and banking services is identification. Most of us carry around every conceivable form of identification. Drivers’ licences, social insurance cards, credit cards, birth certificates -- name it, we carry it. The poor, on the other hand, because of their financial situation, may not have access to these means of identification. Those without a fixed address have an even greater problem in obtaining identification and then keeping it, because of the nature of their lifestyle.

In order to cash a cheque at a financial institution, an individual must either be an account holder or, if not, he must produce sufficient identification. Even if a low-income individual successfully opens a bank account, he is required to wait a few weeks until the cheque clears before being able to withdraw funds.

Many financial institutions have a policy which provides that nonactive accounts be closed. The accounts of many social assistance recipients would not qualify as active, because they contain insufficient funds or are not accessed frequently enough.

Provincial and municipal social assistance and welfare cheques are mailed to recipients. The cheques are sometimes delayed, lost or stolen. In these cases, the cheques have to be reissued, invariably causing a great deal of hardship and stress for the recipients.

Faced with these hurdles, many low-income Ontarians have been forced to look to alternative sources for cashing their cheques. These sources include owners of rooming houses and apartments, corner stores and businesses and, particularly, cheque cashing operations. They require little or no identification. They are easily accessible and much less intimidating than banks. The disadvantage is that these services are offered for a fee, anywhere from 2.9 per cent to 4.9 per cent, for cashing a social assistance cheque.

Cheque cashing operations had their start in western Canada. On July 1, 1982, the first of these businesses, National Money Mart Cheque-Cashing Centres Ltd., opened a branch in Edmonton. By 1985, the company had opened some 30 offices across Canada. At least two more companies have recently entered the business and are competing for the lucrative profits to be made from cheque cashing. They are Canada Cheque-Cashing Services and Money Exchange.

In Ontario, welfare cheques range from approximately $375.75 to $875 per month for a single person under 65 years of age. Three per cent of this equals between $11.27 and $26.25. If a person is forced to use this service every month, he or she will lose between $135 and $315 every year. This lost income could go for food, clothing for children or perhaps pay for some small pleasure in the course of the year. Money marts profit from this situation to the detriment of low-income persons.

The chartered banks in Canada are governed by the federal Bank Act. This act outlines acceptable business practices, organization and administration of banks. Subsection 203(1) of the act does prohibit the charging of a percentage on the exchange of government of Canada cheques, but I must emphasize that this federal legislation applies only to banks. This means that cheque cashing outlets are not regulated.

Only Quebec has passed legislation under section 251 of the Consumer Protection Act respecting the practice of cashing government-issued cheques. The legislation states that no one may charge a consumer to exchange or cash a cheque or money order issued by the government of Quebec, the government of Canada or a municipal corporation. This legislation, in effect, closes those loopholes left by the Bank Act that allow cheque cashing companies to operate.

I would think that members would have a very strong objection to paying a percentage fee for having our cheques cashed. Think of it in terms of those who can least afford it. At first glance, the fees charged by the cheque cashing outlets might not seem too unreasonable, but when one calculates what these fees represent on an annual basis, the true significance of this situation comes across. These are tax dollars being redirected from their intended goal of helping the poor to generating profits for cheque cashers. This is an intolerable situation and one that needs to be remedied as quickly as possible.

This problem has been identified by the Social Assistance Review Committee in its report. It has also been noted by the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations in its legislative review project and by the National Anti-Poverty Organization. It is also seen as a problem by the Canadian Bankers’ Association. With all these interested, concerned and affected parties, I would hope that, with some co-operation and initiative, we could rectify this inequity.

Governments have often been accused of being slow to respond to problems. This is the perfect time and a perfect issue to prove that accusation wrong.

Let me now take a moment to share with you some of the recommendations that have been put forward to solve this problem. I would like to emphasize that the adoption of any of these would be done on a voluntary basis -- not imposed on anyone but done on a voluntary basis; this is important.

From the outset, it should be pointed out that no solution or recommendation is ever 100 per cent foolproof. However, I am confident that the three options I am proposing today will go a long way towards solving the problem.

One of the most commonly suggested solutions is direct deposit. The direct deposit system allows for the payment of social assistance benefits through the use of a computer that electronically transfers a client’s payment directly to his or her bank account.

The benefits of direct deposit are that it would eliminate lost and stolen cheques; there would be no need to worry about the inconvenience of mail lost or postal strikes; from the administrative point of view, direct deposit is time-saving and cost-effective. This method preserves client dignity and fosters self-determination. It is a method that is also favoured by the banks.

One drawback to this method of payment is the fear of garnishment of benefits. Under existing legislation, welfare cheques cannot be seized by creditors. However, nothing prevents a bank from taking a payment that had been deposited directly into an account. If a client has outstanding debts and feels that his benefits may be threatened by garnishment, he should have the option to opt out of the direct deposit and be eligible for another option.

The Canadian Bankers’ Association has proposed the assurance of a government identification card as an option for those individuals who prefer to receive their cheques or do not have a bank account. I have been told that the banks are willing to negotiate with both the municipal and provincial governments to come up with an acceptable policy for the encashment of cheques.

1020

I have spoken to the Minister of Transportation (Mr. Fulton), asking him to look into the feasibility of using the ministry’s equipment in order to produce an identification card that would be equivalent in credibility to a driver’s licence.

There are a number of factors that would have to be studied before the system could be considered, such as the cost to the province and municipalities, criteria for issuing a card, and a monitoring system to prevent the possibility of misuse and fraud.

The National Anti-Poverty Organization also suggested that these cards could be provided by the banks free of charge and be kept by the banks, replacing the signature cards that they currently keep on file. Unlike the signature cards, one would not need to have a bank account in order to have a photo card on file. Thus, nonaccount holders would have easy access to cheque cashing services at any bank where they are registered.

I spoke to the bankers’ association about the feasibility of this proposal. It felt that this option would be administratively cumbersome and would too obviously identify social assistance recipients.

However, the government-issued identification card would retain the plan’s confidentiality and access to the same services and consideration as any other account holder has. Again, I stress that the acquisition of this card would be completely voluntary.

The third option would be the withdrawal card. It is a system by which clients can obtain funds from a teller or an automated teller machine. The funds would be held by the province or the municipality. This option would give clients access to their benefits 24 hours a day through the Interac network of automated teller machines.

In the United States, they are testing the feasibility of the Smart card. The Smart card differs from a regular withdrawal card because it has a built-in memory and an expanded capacity. This electronic payment system is being tested in the United States to issue welfare benefits and unemployment insurance benefits.

The pilot test has shown that the Smart card fits the clients into the mainstream of society, letting them make machine transactions just like everyone else. It also provides safety and convenience and reduces embarrassment for the client.

These options would provide welfare and social assistance recipients the same service, flexibility, consideration and confidentiality that every middle- and upper-income Canadian has access to. This should be a given and not an exception.

Mr. Allen: It is a privilege always to participate in private members’ hour and to discuss the resolutions and proposals that members bring forward concerning the public business of this province. Certainly there is one subject which needs a great deal of attention and constant concern on the part of this Legislature, and that is, of course, the condition of the neediest in our communities.

The member has put forward a resolution which proposes to address one of the awkward and difficult moments in the life of a recipient of social assistance, namely the problem of cashing a cheque. Many of us, indeed, have had the experience, even though we are not on social assistance and even though we may not be poor, of finding ourselves in a community where we are not known and expecting to be able to be recognized in some fashion and trying to cash a cheque. The embarrassment at the difficulties is indeed extreme.

One knows that one may send young people from one’s family off to another community, for example, and give them a deposit cheque to place in a bank in another community where they may be going to university, only to find that the money cannot be used for an indefinite period of time until somebody has certified that this person somehow is an acceptable person in the eyes of the bank, and then one has to scramble and make arrangements for that member of one’s family on an emergency basis.

Those inconveniences are nothing compared with the problems that people on social assistance face day in and day out, or perhaps one should say month in and month out, as they receive their cheques and then attempt to cash them.

The difficulty, of course, is compounded by the obvious fact that the levels of social assistance that are available to people in many of our high-priced communities do not meet the needs of the monthly expenses of the person or family concerned. I certainly have had representations from any number of sole-support mothers, for example, who find that after they have paid their rent, their utilities and their outstanding commitments that are required at the beginning of every month when they receive their cheques, they either have nothing or $2 or $3 or perhaps $40 or $50 left over. Others sometimes are hit with a 50 per cent charge simply for rent alone.

Those are not uncommon situations for people to be in. Those of us who have played The Poverty Game here will realize with some personal directness the extremity and difficulty of the situation that a person on social assistance is in and the extreme need to have the resources of that cheque almost instantly available, if not sooner.

It is with some reluctance, however, that I really raise some difficult questions in my own mind about the proposal the member has made with regard to requiring or establishing a specific identity card which those people on social assistance, the welfare recipients, would have as a necessary identification mark to pledge the fact that they are indeed genuine recipients of social assistance. That, in itself, is inherently stigmatizing. While I recognize the good intentions and the careful research by the member with regard to this question, none the less, I think his note that it would be voluntary hints perhaps at a certain recognition on his part that that would remain the case.

It is, for example, my understanding that at the moment there is supposed to have been an understanding between government, banks and municipalities that the provision of three pieces of identification would serve. Even so, a story in last week’s Toronto Star tells us that a young woman by the name of Maureen presented three pieces of identification which were quite suitable and which included a driver’s licence. That was apparently not acceptable as identification.

I do not understand why it is that institutions of this kind can deny people recognition on the basis of the provision of one or two satisfactory pieces of identification. Certainly, they do it for most of the rest of us. Corner grocery stores often do it for many of us simply on the provision of a single piece of identification.

The concern that the banks might have of being defrauded in the process is surely not a very real one in the light of the fact that the cheques in question, which we are discussing this morning, are issued by governments. When the member says that banks can call up on their computer screens a profile of the financial asset and credit situation of their clients at the push of a few buttons, surely the question that has to be asked is why they cannot recognize the creditability of the government of Canada, the government of Ontario or the government of a municipality.

Surely some of the options the member mentioned are preferable and foolproof enough for any of us so that we might avoid the stigmatizing element of issuing an identification card simply and strictly for the person who is on social assistance.

The government of Quebec, the member has said, has required that there be no fee paid upon the presentation of a government cheque to any financial institution. Surely that requirement would take out of circulation, at least, the issue of the money that has to be paid over. Surely, the government can require by legislation that its cheques be cashed. Quite apart from getting into the electronic methods that the member has referred to, much of the problem in those two measures would surely be solved.

1030

There is within, figuratively, throwing distance of this Legislature, out in Peel county, an administration which does now automatically open bank accounts for those on social assistance. It is done very easily. Most municipalities have the capacity to do that. I understand that in Metropolitan Toronto there is some technical problem at the moment in doing that, but surely that could be overcome within a relatively short space of time, if minds were addressing the problem.

Certainly, I think the best solution is the solution that apparently is used in New York City -- again, the member referred to this kind of an option -- where the use of a bank machine card simply gives a social assistance recipient access at any time to the funds that are available to him or her on account for that month.

That would seem to be the handiest, readiest, easiest and simplest solution and, as the member himself said, it is the kind of solution, as the Peel county solution is, which puts a social assistance recipient in the mainstream. He is using normal methods of access to funds that all of us use every day and there is nothing that separates him or her from the rest of us in the process. The stigma is gone and the alienation that is represented by having that separate identity card, not necessarily that it is inherently bad in itself to be receiving social assistance, but we all know how many people in our communities feel and react in stereotypical terms when they even hear the word “welfare.”

I should say in addition that there is an additional practice by this government which could be easily instituted. I do not think this has been changed recently, although it may have and I have not heard of it. Like the federal government, it would be very useful for this government not to post-date its social assistance cheques which would make them a more flexible instrument for the social assistance recipient to receive.

My hope would have been that the member would have perhaps left this issue a little bit more open-ended and focused on us choosing among the various items that he was proposing as possible solutions to the problem. As the resolution stands, focusing simply on the creation of an identity card that would only be held by that proportion of the poor in our community who receive social assistance, I reluctantly have to stand in opposition to that specific proposal, recognizing the overwhelming good intent that the member has and in the hope that one of the other solutions will be found to solve this problem.

Mrs. Cunningham: I, too, would like to state to the House that I very much appreciate the opportunity to speak during this private members’ hour and would like to congratulate the member for Carleton East (Mr. Morin) for his resolution this morning and for the work that went into it.

I think for the members who are not here and have not been able to hear the member for Carleton East, it is most important that they do check Hansard for this particular debate and discussion because there is much more to his resolution than what appears on Orders and Notices and for that we very much appreciate his discussion.

It is extremely important to know that we are not just talking this morning about the issuance of an identification card for a very special group of people. I think that the member in his speech stated that he was going to investigate even other alternatives to solve a very real problem for some people that we very much care about.

I think that as we try to get some information from our own constituencies as we all looked at this resolution, one of the more important statements that I think was made in London, as we called back, over a period of time, was on behalf of our mayor, Tom Gosnell. His first reaction was that we would support anything that would stop welfare recipients from being ripped off by people charging fees and I think it is basically that. That is exactly what it is.

As a person who worked in a very special agency for a very long period of time and was responsible for advising people around their finances and advising them around their great challenges in life -- and those were the stresses that single mothers face in raising their children -- I can assure you there are charges such as six per cent on a government cheque, 10 per cent on a government cheque from another province, three per cent even on a regular paycheque, two per cent on an old age pension cheque. I cannot begin to describe to you what happened when these mothers would fill in their income tax returns and expect rebates and have as much as one third of their rebate deducted from a cheque, because they were so desperately in need of money. So this is a very real problem.

I think that my great appreciation this morning was especially when the member for Carleton East talked about options. I hope he really will take this motion and the trust that we have as elected members with him in the negotiations and see it through. I think it will take a very long time to accomplish what the member wants and we would support him in some probably very lengthy discussions. They are not new. The first discussions and recommendations that we were party to were basically in 1973, as we looked at the needs of single parents in the city of London and ultimately across Ontario and Canada. This issue was raised as a very real concern then in my own personal involvement.

The direct deposit should be looked at very carefully, because everyone knows one of the real problems for any of us when we get a cheque two days before the date we are allowed to cash it is the frustration of having to carry that around in one’s wallet or purse or pocket, and to even keep it safe. That is a very real problem for some of our special people, as it is for ourselves. So I think it is very important to look at the direct deposit.

I really appreciated the note that was made on behalf of the member for Carleton East, when he stated that there is a very real fear of garnishment there, and therefore, we all would like to underline the word optional. I think all of the alternatives that we are looking at this morning must be optional, even the identification part. I think that is important.

We looked at the willingness of the banks to negotiate around these identification cards. I think the banking institutions should take on more of a responsibility for all of the customers they serve. In fact, they should be taking on more of a social responsibility, as most institutions are within our own province. People look to us for support for sometimes very short periods of time in their lives -- that is why I have trouble sometimes with the identification card, because we do not want them to carry it for ever.

But, really, if we look at people on social assistance, most of them need our help and support for a very short period of time. Usually, it is when they are raising their young children, which may be for two or three or four years. As all the members know, the policies that we support are those policies which help them to become independent. But during that short period of time, I think it is just terrible that they should be taken advantage of because of their tremendous need -- not just because of the urgency to cash the cheque because they want the money, but because they need the money.

Therefore, I think the banking institutions should take these discussions very seriously and in fact should be looking at some of the recommendations that have been made to them many many times in the past.

We even looked at a recommendation at one time in a committee of this Legislature that said that the Ontario government passed legislation prohibiting anyone from charging a fee to cash a cheque or money order issued by any of the governments of the province. I am sure that if the member for Carleton East is not successful in his negotiations, we should in fact be looking at that kind of a recommendation.

1040

We also looked at the Bank Act. In particular, there were recommendations that would require the schedule A chartered banks to cash welfare cheques with no questions asked. We looked at recommendations that severe. I think the banks and the banking institutions should consider themselves quite fortunate that the kind of recommendation, with the options the member for Carleton East has presented today, is what we are discussing, as opposed to those two recommendations which they could be dealing with instead. If we cannot come to some kind of compromise, I think we should be taking even stronger stands.

The member talked about a withdrawal card as being another option he would be discussing with the municipalities, which I think is very important. I congratulate the member on this one, because there are costs to the municipality in this particular recommendation and I think it is very important to know that we are discussing this in advance with the government of Ontario, the municipalities and the banking institutions; we are looking at an agreement in advance so that everyone is totally aware of the cost of this particular recommendation.

I think the Smart card is a good idea. I think, again, we should be looking at optionality. I really appreciate the word “confidentiality,” because I think all of us have had experiences in banks over the years where we have not been treated as confidentially as we had hoped.

These special people, whom we all know well, with whom some of us have worked over the years, deserve more credit than they are given. Many of them are people who are raising young children on their own and who are dealing with their children’s challenges at school and with the normal medical problems of dealing with very young children. They are often without the support of another family member and they need our support at this time.

I would just like to state in closing that I hope the member is successful in these negotiations. The Provincial Coalition for the Cashing of Cheques made a number of recommendations. I hope the member is aware of that report, as I am sure he is, and that he will take those recommendations to his discussions. I have them for him, if he does need them.

I think the banks should also be looking at their three requirements for opening accounts: the social insurance number, the driver’s licence and the credit card. The last two are not available to many members of our society because they choose not to operate with credit cards or they are not eligible for them; they choose not to drive cars or they simply do not have them. I think those three requirements should be seriously discussed as the member enters into negotiations on our behalf.

I thank him for his motion. I think it is a very caring motion which will help members of our society in a very real way.

Mr. Offer: It is an honour and a privilege for me to take part in this very important debate with respect to the private member’s resolution of the member for Carleton East. First, I am in total support of the resolution. Second, it certainly would be remiss on my part not to congratulate the member for the work he has done, for the analysis, for the research, for his commitment, for his determination and for the effort he has put forward in this type of resolution.

I have known the member for a number of years and I know this is a continuation of the type of effort he has put forward. I remember that a number of years ago this kind of resolution was put forward in terms of tax discounters and the hardship they put on those who are least able to afford it. This is a continuation of the member for Carleton East’s determination, effort and commitment to help those who most need help.

I think this is a matter about which those who might be watching these debates on television say, “I’m not even aware that this happens to be a problem.” They look upon their bank as a place where they go once a week, maybe twice a week, and when they think of going, they think of a minor irritation that they may have in terms of lining up or what is in their account, but never in terms of whether they in fact have access to that bank.

This is indeed a problem, which of course those who are in the middle or upper class do not have, but it is a very real problem for those on assistance. It is a problem that we must, first, identify as a problem and, second, address our minds to how it can be solved.

We have to work on the basis and accept the principle that this type of problem is indeed solvable. The member for Carleton East has put forward in his resolution the use of identification cards. We have heard some other alternatives to the solution of this problem, so we work on the principle that this problem, with a will, is indeed solvable.

Why do we have this? For the majority of Canadians, banking is really just a part of life. It is a thing that you have to do. It comes with some irritation of a minor nature, but it is something that we do. It is something that we accept. We never question our access to the bank. But for a significant number of Canadians, their dealing or lack of dealing with the bank is more than just a minor irritant, because across not only this province but this country there is indeed a lack of access to financial services. Access to financial services is indeed restricted.

When I talk about financial services, I am not talking about services that might be deemed or thought of as luxurious services. We are talking about the most basic of services. We are talking about the service of an individual to cash a cheque. For many in our society, this is a service that is very, very difficult. The result of this difficulty is not only that the cheque cannot be cashed but it manifests itself in the fact that people do not have money to purchase food.

Why do we have this problem? One of the problems that has been discussed by all members is the whole question of identification. When we talk about identification, we think about licences, ownership, insurance. Of course, we think about a social insurance number. We think about wallets that contain so many pieces of identification we do not even know all that is contained. But we must also realize and understand that is not available to those persons who are under and have social assistance.

These items of identification, such as drivers’ licences, automobile insurance ownership cards, are items that many low-income Canadians cannot afford. It results in a difficulty in providing identification, which results in a difficulty in then cashing cheques, which manifests itself in a difficulty of then being able to use the money from the cheque for the purpose for which it was received.

There are alternatives to the banks. There are alternatives such as grocery stores, landlords, relatives, friends. All of these may or may not have a fee. The point is that there is also the growth of these cheque cashing services that impose a fee on people who are least able to pay that fee. Because of that, it imposes upon all of us an obligation, a responsibility to do what we can to make certain that those persons who need those cheques cashed, who are having difficulty in accessing financial services, are able to have cheques cashed without a fee imposed. This is a very fundamental type of problem. It is a problem which boggles the mind in terms of one individual being issued a cheque and not being able to cash it.

1050

There are solutions to this problem. Some of the solutions have been brought forward by, particularly, the member for Carleton East, who has, as I indicated earlier, devoted much time to investigating this problem. We have heard the whole question of photo identification cards to facilitate a solution to this problem, because there is a solution to this problem. There are alternatives to this type of problem that people are having in getting cheques cashed.

In the short time available to me, I would like to say that I know the region of Peel has dealt with this problem through the whole mechanism of direct deposit, another alternative for the solution of this problem. We know that in the region of Peel it is a direct method of paying welfare benefits using a computer to electronically transfer a sum of money from the agency of issue directly to the client’s bank account.

Of course, it is an obligation and it foists responsibility on, for instance, the region of Peel to have a well-defined computer system. This they have done. The region of Peel has been using this system for a number of years. The type of system they have worked out is that four days before the payment date, welfare workers review and approve the list of recipients entitled to benefits. The list will include the following: the client’s name, address, date of birth, bank branch address, bank account number and the approved amount to be paid.

It is the experience of the region of Peel that the cost of using this service is less than the cost of using cheques. The region of Peel has taken a step in the solution of this problem. We have heard other alternatives such as photo identification, all of which are able to be used, all of which are able to solve this problem.

I commend the member for Carleton East. I think he has raised an important issue and I stand in support of his resolution.

Mr. Farnan: I want to share with the members of the House this morning the story of very good friends of mine, Alex and Eileen Mullin, formerly of Cambridge. They are senior citizens who have moved away from Cambridge, but I think their story is very indicative of the difficulties that many people have in getting cheques cashed.

Several years ago, Alex went to his bank. He had a couple of cheques that he wished to deposit into his bank account. One of them was current, which he was able to do, and the other was post-dated. In order to leave the cheque with the bank and have it put into his account, it would have cost him a fee of $3. When he learned of this, he decided to take the cheque back and go to the bank the following day or the following week and to then deposit that cheque.

These were senior citizens. There are literally thousands of individuals like this and many of them, without a car, having to take public transportation or having to walk a considerable distance to the bank, are being forced to pay an unnecessary fee. In summer, you might say that a stroll to the bank is fine, but is this what we want for our senior citizens during cold winter months, and for welfare recipients, for a young mother trying to take care of her children, trying to rear a family? Is this what we want, that she would have to make an unnecessary trip to the bank in order to save that precious $3 that may go towards a new pair of shoes for the kids? This is not the type of society and this is not the type of banking service that I want to see in effect.

When I look at the banks, I can legitimately say that there are dual purposes to the banking system: there is the purpose of profit and the purpose of service. I would say that the banks have a social responsibility to respond to the weakest and most vulnerable in our society. If the banks do not willingly undertake a generosity of spirit that will respond to the needs of those individuals who are in need and who are vulnerable, then indeed there is a role for legislation.

As far as the agencies that will cash cheques for a fee are concerned, I think my own view is perhaps that in their treatment of the poor, they are literally the barracudas of the financial world. There is an insensitivity, a lack of generosity and a lack of feeling on the part of these institutions. I would not be in the least bit remorseful to see controls placed on this particular type of agency which would make it impossible for them to gouge the poor and the needy.

I do believe it is important and I commend the member for Carleton East for intending to make banking services accessible to the poor and the needy. However, I do find difficulty, I am afraid, in supporting the concept of having identification cards issued. I am just not supportive at all of identifying those who are poor and those who are needy by a special card. I think if they are in receipt of a government cheque, then that cheque should not be post-dated. They should simply be able to go to the bank, deposit that cheque and have it recognized.

I do like some of the suggestions put forward by the member for Mississauga North (Mr. Offer) and the examples he gave of the initiatives in Peel county. I think we could look in that direction, but I do believe there is a responsibility for government. The quality of any government, in my mind, depends on the manner in which it deals with the needs of the poor and the most vulnerable in our society. We cannot look ourselves in the mirror with any dignity if we continue to treat our poor and our needy in this manner.

I commend the member for Carleton East for raising the issue. I hope we will proceed to solve it, but I am afraid in this particular case, because of the inclusion of identity cards, I cannot personally support the motion.

1100

The Acting Speaker (Mr. M. C. Ray): The time remaining will permit only the opportunity for the member for Carleton East to give his wrapup.

Mr. Morin: The public’s general perception of government is that it is slow to respond to problems and inequities. However, I hope the proposals I have put forward today will help to stimulate discussion and eventually result in measures that will alleviate a problem faced by many low-income Ontarians.

To recap these options, they are as follows: direct deposit to a client’s selected bank, a government-issued identification card that would secure the client’s ability to cash a government cheque, and access to a central government fund through use of an instant bank card up to the limit of the client’s entitlement.

I believe this range of options constitutes a practical and workable solution to an obvious problem that needs to be addressed as soon as possible. I appeal to the members of the Legislature for their support.

J’aimerais aussi souhaiter la bienvenue à des jeunes élèves de l’école William G. Davis Jr. qui, selon ce que mon collègue m’a expliqué, apprennent le français.

AGRICULTURE IN THE CLASSROOM PROGRAM

Mr. Reycraft moved resolution 56:

That, in the opinion of this House, recognizing that agriculture continues to be a vital component of the Ontario economy and contributes significantly to the social and cultural character of the province; and recognizing that general awareness of the nature and importance of the agrifood system in Ontario has diminished as the province has become increasingly urbanized; and further recognizing that it is essential to present topics addressing the social and economic importance of the agrifood system to Ontarians through integration into the curricula of both elementary and secondary schools; the government of Ontario, through the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, should establish a provincial headquarters for the Agriculture in the Classroom program, to function as a collection and distribution centre for learning materials and as a learning centre for teachers and students.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. M. C. Ray): The member is reminded that he has up to 20 minutes for his presentation and may reserve any portion thereof for a wrapup.

Mr. Reycraft: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure how long I will be with my opening remarks, but I do intend to reserve a couple of minutes to respond to comments that are made by other members.

I am very pleased to be able to present this morning to the assembly a resolution that addresses an issue I am very interested in, one that is of considerable importance. It certainly addresses an issue that is regarded as important by those involved in the agrifood businesses of this province. It is one that is also recognized as important by a good number of educators in many different regions of this province. However, it is an issue, I am sorry to say, that is not recognized as being important by educators in some parts of the province, nor is it recognized as being important by many other people in Ontario.

The issue is agricultural literacy, which can be loosely defined as a general knowledge of how our food is produced, how it is processed and how it is distributed to consumers in Ontario. Agricultural literacy is an issue that was of very little concern to educators only decades ago, because our society in this province was very much different then. Today, in 1989, less than three per cent and perhaps as little as two per cent of the population of this province, of its 9.5 million people, are directly involved on the farm in agriculture. In 1899, some 100 years ago, that percentage was some 67 per cent.

Certainly back then, and in fact not very many years ago, everybody either worked on a farm or had relatives or close friends who did. Everybody had at least a basic knowledge of how our food was produced, processed and distributed, because if you did not live on a farm then at least from time to time you visited relatives or friends who did and you learned from them how your food arrived at the table.

Everybody at that time had farm roots, and agricultural literacy, as it is now defined, was something people acquired outside the school system. But gradually, from decade to decade, the situation has changed and today fewer than three people out of every 100 are directly involved in food production. Now we have a large percentage of our population several generations removed from agriculture and from the agrifood industry. Many of those people have very little idea where their food comes from, how it is processed and how important the whole agrifood industry is and how important it has been to this province. Because of the gradual transformation of Ontario from an agrarian province to an urban one, we are in danger of producing a generation of Ontarians who are agriculturally illiterate.

To that concern, some people might say, “So what?” They might ask, “Why does it matter that most of the people in this province are poorly informed about our agrifood industry?” There are a number of reasons why it matters.

First, this country of ours rightfully earned a reputation as the food basket of the world and because of our climate, our geography, the kind of soil we have, we still have the potential to make a major contribution to feeding a very hungry world. It is estimated now that the average farmer in this province produces enough food to supply 90, 100 or perhaps more people. Our agrifood industry has the ability to produce not only enough food to feed our own population, but to supply other provinces and to export to other nations as well. In fact, Ontario alone does export about $2 billion worth of agrifood products each year, making a very significant contribution to this country’s economy.

But there are some other reasons why we should be well-informed about our agriculture. While only about 130,000 to 150,000 people in the province now actually work on farms, the number employed in various agribusinesses throughout the province is much larger. Indeed, as many as 1.5 million people in this province are employed in some kind of business involved or related to the production, processing or distribution of agricultural products in Ontario.

The 1.5 million jobs, the $2 billion worth of exports and the domestic food supply are not the only reasons our young people should leave school with at least a general knowledge of agriculture. These young people need to know how their food is produced and how it is processed, because the way in which our foods are produced and processed can most certainly determine the effect of those foods on our health. As we continue to become more and more a health-conscious society, that knowledge becomes essential if our young people, our citizens, are going to make informed decisions about what we eat.

1110

There are other reasons. The young people who are in our school system today are the future policymakers of this province. They are the people who are going to be politicians at all three levels of government. They are the people who are going to be civil servants, administrators, professionals providing advice to politicians and administrators. They are the people who are going to make decisions or advise on decisions that will address a whole host of issues like the use of land, environmental restrictions, health regulations, decisions about the support that is going to be provided by our society for the producers and processors of agricultural products in the province. It is, therefore, in the best interests of everyone that those young people leave our school system knowledgeable about the agribusiness of this province.

There is another reason too. Not everybody who is not involved in the agribusiness of this province lives in an urban situation. Throughout the rural parts of the province, there are many people who are not involved in any way in agribusiness nor have any background or knowledge of the agribusiness of the province. Those people live on residential lots in rural areas and they too need to have an understanding of the agribusiness so that they can understand why the farmers and the food processors who live near and around them conduct their business in the way they do. In fact, maybe if those nonfarming neighbours now had that kind of understanding I have talked about, we would not need right-to-farm legislation such as this government has just recently passed.

For those reasons and others, a general understanding of the agribusiness is important for all citizens of the province. The reality is that if you eat, you are a partner in agriculture in this province. Agribusiness is everybody’s business. Whether you are a farmer, a food processor, a distributor or a consumer, agriculture is your business.

While there is concern about the number of people in this province who are agriculturally illiterate, who do not have that general knowledge about our agribusiness, there is some cause for us to be encouraged that the problem has been recognized. We can be even more encouraged by the fact that considerable action has been taken to address the problem.

I am proud of the fact there is no part of this province where more has been done, where more action has been taken to address this problem than my own home county of Middlesex. I would like to take just a couple of minutes to talk about what has been achieved there by a relatively small group of very dedicated volunteers.

The story starts about six years ago, when three delegates from the Middlesex Women for the Survival of Agriculture attended an international conference on agriculture in the classroom in Washington, DC. They came home from that conference with a real sense of purpose about the need for action here in this province, indeed throughout the country.

Since that time, those individuals have done a number of things. They have been very active in lobbying both the Ministry of Agriculture and Food and the Ministry of Education to try to see an expansion and an improvement in the teaching of agriculturally related topics in our schools. They have produced a number of agrikits, the central feature of which is a set of puppets that can be used by teachers to introduce pupils in their classrooms to several farm industries. Those agrikits are available at a central location and they can be borrowed by teachers throughout the county for use in their classrooms.

They have organized professional activity days for teachers. They have organized farm tours for teachers and students to familiarize them with modern farming practices. They have been instrumental in the organization of other similar organizations throughout the province.

Perhaps their most notable achievement, in a long-term sense anyway, is the fact that they were involved in the organization of the very first national conference in Canada on agriculture in the classroom. That conference took place in 1987 in London and it was extremely successful, so successful that it led to a second national conference which occurred last year in Saskatchewan.

Two of the members of the Middlesex Women for the Survival of Agriculture, who were involved in that trip to Washington, who have been involved in those initiatives I have talked about since and who were, certainly, key individuals in the organization of that national conference, are here in the members’ gallery on the east side.

I want to recognize in a public way and acknowledge the contribution of Suzanne Leitch and Jean Johnson to this whole initiative because their contribution has not only bettered the cause of agricultural literacy in my county of Middlesex and throughout Ontario, but indeed throughout all of Canada.

I want to also recognize the fact that there are many other counties now where Agriculture in the Classroom initiatives have been undertaken and where excellent learning materials and teaching aides have now been produced for use in the schools of our province.

I also want to recognize the fact that the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food has made much progress in expanding its Agriculture in the Classroom program. The program was originally established in 1984 when the ministry appointed an educational specialist. Since then, it has been active in organizing professional activity days for teachers, in providing displays at conferences of all kinds, in producing resource materials that would be helpful for teachers in their classrooms, in providing input into curriculum development and in providing workshops to assist teachers.

Certainly, the ministry has recognized the importance of the project. Just last year it expanded the program significantly by appointing an additional staff person, an educational co-ordinator, and by seconding three teachers who are now involved in reviewing the existing curriculum throughout the province and in identifying opportunities to include agrifood topics in that curriculum. It has produced a number of new resources for use in the classroom, including, I want to mention specifically, a teaching kit called Many Nations, Many Farms, that recognizes the contributions of ethnic groups to agriculture in this province.

Perhaps one of the most significant developments, though, from the ministry’s point of view has been the appointment of an Agriculture in the Classroom steering committee. That was done a little more than a year ago, in 1988, with a steering committee of 12 members, including representatives of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, educators, agribusiness and commodity groups. The steering committee’s mandate is to make recommendations to the minister on how he can take actions that will increase the awareness and appreciation of the agrifood system in this province.

Certainly, across Ontario there have been many initiatives undertaken in the whole area of agriculture in the classroom by a number of different organizations and by commodity groups. I recognize the fact that today in Ontario there is certainly a wealth of learning materials available to assist teachers. But I have a concern that the availability of those learning materials and of other means of assistance is still unknown to many of those teachers.

Therefore, I am suggesting a resolution that a provincial headquarters for the Agriculture in the Classroom program should be established, because that headquarters could then function as a centre where samples of these learning materials, perhaps even quantities of them, could be collected, stored, and distributed to teachers throughout the province.

1120

Teachers who wanted materials would have an opportunity to visit the centre, to learn about the materials, to become familiar with them and to obtain them for use in their own classrooms. The headquarters would also have the potential to function as a learning centre for teachers where workshops could be held that would provide an opportunity for teachers to learn more about agriculture and how it is practised in this province today and in 1989.

Many locations have been suggested by people I have talked to about the headquarters and, frankly, I am not in a position at this point to recommend any particular location. I recognize that the Agriculture in the Classroom program is one that is an evolutionary mode. I recognize that significant advances have been made over the last five years and I hope that expansion continues because it is obvious that much more needs to be done to ensure the agricultural literacy of the population of this province.

It seems to me that the very logical next step would be the establishment of a provincial headquarters for this program. That is what this resolution recommends, and I am looking forward to the comments of other members on my proposal.

Mr. Wildman: I rise in support of the resolution presented by the member for Middlesex (Mr. Reycraft) and I agree with his comments with regard to the importance of informing young people, and people of the province generally, of the importance of the agrifood business in Ontario. I want to make some comments with regard to that.

However, I should make clear one concern I have regarding the resolution. I really am not certain why there need be a centre, a location in a particular place. If there is the commitment on the part of the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Agriculture and Food to making this happen, it seems to me that there may not be a need to have a centre separate from the normal curriculum development process of the Ministry of Education.

As long as there is adequate input from the agricultural community in the province and also from the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, I wonder whether there need be a centre for the development of curricula, the development of learning materials and the distribution of learning materials. That could be done without a physical building or centre for the dissemination of this kind of material.

I am tempted to suggest that if there were to be such a centre it should be located in a place like Sudbury where there is so little literacy with regard to agriculture and people know almost nothing about agriculture.

Mr. Villeneuve: You will notice there are no Tories in that area.

Mr. Wildman: Perhaps that is because the Tories do not know anything about mining, but that is another matter. I will say, though, in a serious vein, that I agree with the member about the need to inform our young people about the importance of the agrifood business as a contribution to our economy and the society of Ontario.

As a former educator, I can say that it is somewhat difficult to persuade -- and I know the member for Middlesex may have had this same experience -- people in the Ministry of Education and people in the teaching profession of the need to review curricula on a basis of providing educational programs with which they are not personally familiar.

I know the difficulty in the past, for example, of persuading people involved in the history programs in Ontario, or for that matter in the business programs or sociology programs, of the need to develop educational curricula related to the importance of labour and the history of labour and its contribution to Ontario, or the development of women or the development of various ethnic groups and their contributions to our society.

Agriculture though, being if not the primary industry certainly one of the primary industries in this province, should not be one that would be difficult to develop. Certainly the contribution of agriculture and the importance of agriculture crosses many educational disciplines. We can look at the history programs, the sociology programs, the economics programs and even the science programs in schools that should all be able to benefit from the development of learning materials related to agriculture and the agrifood business.

As the member for Middlesex indicated, we are entering an era, not just in Ontario but throughout the industrialized world and even the Third World, where it is important that our population become more and more aware of the fragility of our relationship with the land and the air and the water on this planet.

It is especially important that we encourage people to understand the need for good land stewardship and for development of environmental controls and environmental processes that will make it possible for us to continue to feed the ever-growing population on this planet.

Also, we are becoming more and more aware of the possible concerns related to certain additives in our food and the health hazards that might develop from the use of certain types of chemicals or new, more modern farming processes that enable fewer and fewer farmers to produce more and more food at even less cost in some ways, but at the same time may have longer-lasting effects that we are not aware of now.

I think that by educating the public, particularly now that so few people are directly related to agriculture -- at one time up until just after the Second World War, the vast majority of Canadians, if not from the farm themselves, had a grandfather or an uncle or an aunt or cousin who was on the farm. That is no longer the case. Approximately five per cent of the Canadian population is directly involved in agriculture, or less than that. Yet we are still producing far more food than we did in 1950 because we have modern equipment and agricultural practices that make it possible for fewer and fewer people to produce more and more.

But with intensive farming methods, perhaps we are producing a situation where in the future we may have serious difficulties in providing the food that we need. We have seem some of the problems that we have experienced on the Prairies just recently regarding the drought and the need for new types of tilling methods to ensure the preservation of the topsoil in that part of Canada, which is one of the bread-baskets of the world.

We cannot do that if we ignore agriculture in the classroom. We cannot do that if we do not have an informed public: not a public that has some sort of idyllic, romantic view of farming, of the rural way of life, but one that has some sort of idea of the reality of agriculture and the importance of not just the production of food itself but the food marketing, the processing, the distribution, the advertising, the production of seed, the production of equipment and its importance to them for producing jobs in our economy and helping us to have positive gross provincial and gross national products.

1130

I think that we need to be developing these learning materials. I congratulate the members of the farm community who have taken the initiative to encourage schools and school boards and the Ministry of Education to become involved in this.

I support the efforts made by the Ministry of Agriculture and Food to encourage the Ministry of Education and teachers’ organizations across the province to become involved in this through professional development programs, the production of learning materials, farm tours for both teachers and students and other methods. For those reasons, I support this resolution. But as I again reiterate, I have some reservation about whether or not we actually need a physical centre.

I am not going to oppose the resolution on that basis, because I think it is an important resolution, one that highlights the need to have education in the classroom as a priority, not just for schools in rural Ontario but for schools and school boards in urban Ontario and also for the Ministry of Education.

I congratulate the member for bringing forward the resolution. I will support it. I have some reservations about one aspect of it, but I certainly recognize the need to inform our young people and our educators of the importance of agriculture and all of the ancillary industries related to it in our economy and our society and for the production of materials that will make it possible for us to have a real presence for agriculture in the classroom.

Mr. Villeneuve: I too want to commend the member for Middlesex and indicate at the outset my personal support and our party’s support for his private member’s bill on the topic of agriculture in the classroom.

Suggestions for aiding, however, should have emphasized a number of other points that I will maybe touch on today. I certainly wanted to agree with the member for Middlesex as he introduced Suzanne and her colleague over here in the members’ gallery. I too have a number of active ladies but, in particular, Dorothy Middleton from Chrysler in the riding that I represent, who is very active in the movement Women for the Survival of Agriculture. Certainly, that support is appreciated.

The very worthwhile idea for the Agriculture in the Classroom program originated quite some years ago. I believe it was 1982 that a former Minister of Agriculture and Food and colleague of mine, Dennis Timbrell, announced that the Ministry of Agriculture and Food and the Ministry of Education had agreed that there was a need to promote agricultural awareness in the classroom.

Indeed, a number of high schools in the riding that I represent and, in particular, Ecole secondaire Glengarry District High School did have an agricultural program until about 1986, when it was cancelled. We wonder why it was cancelled. However, it is great to see the member for Middlesex promoting and reviving what I think is a most important concept of teaching our young people.

Ontario’s agricultural population, as has been touched on by the previous speakers, is certainly down to less than three per cent and probably somewhere around two per cent, and yet that industry is a very basic and major industry in Ontario. It employs some 20 per cent or more of the population both directly and indirectly and certainly is the basic industry and probably the reason why our country and our province is in good economic condition.

Agriculture used to be taught as a credit course in secondary schools. Today, it has effectively disappeared from the curriculum. It is hardly surprising that even children from agricultural and rural areas see little relevance in agriculture when it is no longer covered or even touched on in the school curriculum.

For some years now, farmers and farm leaders have commented on the fact that the average age of farmers has been rising steadily. That means that we are not replacing our hard-working agriculturalists and farmers in this province.

Agriculture in the classroom is the first idea to come along which hopes to reverse this historic trend towards little or no knowledge of agriculture. Even though almost seven years have passed since the idea was first raised, agriculture in the classroom has failed to receive the support it deserves from this current government. While the member for Middlesex might be speaking out strongly in support of agriculture in the classroom, the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Riddell) certainly does not seem to be listening.

I appreciate that his parliamentary assistant is in the chambers here this morning. He may well be the next speaker for the government. I certainly hope the message will go to the minister that we do need additional knowledge, particularly at the secondary school level. Certainly the Minister of Education (Mr. Ward) should be made aware of it as well.

In fact, the Minister of Agriculture and Food has not even been listening to farmers too well. The reduction of 60 per cent in the Ontario family farm interest rate reduction program and the farm tax rebate confusion which exists now reflect to some degree the fact that somehow or other, agriculture is being relegated to the bottom of the importance ladder of this government.

Back on topic, we can certainly say that compared to six or seven years ago, the Agriculture in the Classroom program has made clear and definite progress. It is only when we look at what must still be done that we realize so very little has actually been accomplished to date and so much remains to be done. The objective is quite clear: Our population must have a better understanding of agriculture.

The food industry is life itself. In the spring of the year the plants come to life, proceed throughout the summer and fall, and then we have a killing frost and death. In animal life, the whole ritual and sequence occurs again. I think it is most important, it is a very essential knowledge that our young people must have about life itself, and that is what happens out on the farms in rural Ontario.

To accomplish this goal, we must first convince teachers, school boards and the education bureaucracy that the objective is most worthwhile. Having done that, we must ensure that teachers have the resources and materials to provide the necessary instruction and that the material provided fits into the existing school curriculum.

In 1983, the Ministry of Agriculture and Food hired a consultant to review the existing situation. The resulting report found that there were indeed many ways in which agriculture could and should fit into the school curriculum. It also found that the Ministry of Agriculture and Food offices were contact points for teachers seeking information about agriculture and it could fit into the school curriculum. General farm organizations and commodity groups also saw the wisdom of such teaching in the classroom and are very supportive of it.

In the following year, 1984, the Ministry of Agriculture and Food appointed an education specialist, which led to a resource binder available as a classroom aid. Development began and additional resource meetings were held involving producers, agribusiness, schools and the teaching profession. Middlesex county became the first county to have a professional development program for teachers on agriculture in the classroom. I want to put in a little plug for the predecessor of the current member for Middlesex; Bob Eaton was the member at that time.

While the quality and usefulness of the resource kits were high and the professional development days generally successful, there were problems, some of which still exist and which this government has not done a great deal about. One major problem is the lack of an adequate number of resource kits. For example, the multiculturalism kit the member mentioned, Many Nations, Many Farms, will not be available until some time in 1990. It was so popular that they ran out of it. I think that is a shame. There is a need here. It was developed in 1987 and is available at two levels, one for grades 5 and 6 and the other for grades 9 and 10. It is available in both official languages.

It seems that this Liberal government at Queen’s Park wants to be remembered in history for creating waiting lists for everything: the pamphlet I just mentioned, people needing heart surgery, classroom resources, etc.

I think the member brings up a very worthwhile private member’s motion and I hope the members of this very strong Liberal government, strong in numbers at least, will move forth and act on the private member’s resolution this morning.

1140

The member for Middlesex, I believe, earnestly wants to see more agricultural information disseminated from the classroom. I think he is in a position to act accordingly and bring forth the resources that are so badly needed.

We should think about having resource materials produced so that schools can buy what they need instead of waiting for a loan. We must always use the argument that we should always have an answer, but an answer that provides and produces what it is that is needed.

Regarding students receiving the normal French-language education, there is a large portion of francophones in eastern and northern Ontario. I think certainly the material should be oriented towards them as well and not produced only in one language.

Eastern and northern Ontario have lagged behind central and western Ontario as far as agriculture in the classroom is concerned. I am very pleased that there is a move afoot. As a matter of fact, today, January 19 happens to mark the date of the agriculture in the classroom workshop for teachers and librarians in the Ottawa region. Others will be held across Ontario.

Certainly, I think that is a move in the right direction. I can tell the member that the Ottawa workshop has been oversubscribed and that people have been turned away. The problem is, if it is that successful, why not proceed with it and not do what is being done on Sunday shopping, which is not very popular and will not likely be very successful.

In conclusion, in the remaining few seconds that I have, I would like to mention two people who are doing a great deal to promote agricultural education in eastern Ontario. One is Brian Goudge of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food. He is a consultant for agriculture in the classroom in eastern Ontario. The other person is Lise Ledoux in Stormont county, where I live. She is our rural organizational specialist. Last Saturday she organized a day-long program for eight students from Cornwall Collegiate and Vocational School at the Avonmore Ministry of Agriculture and Food office. It was a most successful day. These people went to the farms and saw just what happens on farms in eastern Ontario.

Mr. Miller: It is a pleasure to rise this morning and participate in the debate. I had hoped it would have been a little more constructive, rather than destructive, but I think agriculture does play a tremendous role in the economy of Ontario, producing about $15 billion worth of activity. One in five jobs are created by agriculture. I would like to congratulate the member for Middlesex for bringing this resolution forward and giving us an opportunity in the early part of 1989 to debate and promote agriculture in this Legislature through our private members’ hour.

The member is a former principal of an elementary school and a teacher in a secondary school. He has firsthand observations to provide for this Legislature on how effective our school system has been. I think the member for Algoma (Mr. Wildman) is also a former teacher and he made a good contribution. The member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry (Mr. Villeneuve), a farmer, was just kind of raking over the past and not really looking to the future.

Mr. Pelissero: They always do that.

Mr. Miller: I think we have to look to the future in agriculture with a positive approach.

Mr. Villeneuve: Give a little bit of credit where credit is due.

Mr. Wildman: The party of the past.

Mr. Miller: However, in response to the question raised by the honourable member for Middlesex --

Mr. Villeneuve: You didn’t see those polls, did you, Bud?

Mr. Miller: Yes, we did. We keep an eye on the polls. Like the Premier (Mr. Peterson), we do not always believe in polls, but they are an indication.

We are certainly proud to be farmers and farmers totally. I do not think there are too many members of the Legislature representing the ridings around the province who received their education on the farm. I am proud to say that I have been able to achieve that with a little help from I am not sure where.

We were in Guelph on Wednesday of last week celebrating the 25th anniversary of the university. I had the opportunity of representing the minister. I was proud to do that, even though I only gained my education at the Jarvis public and continuation school. We have been able to achieve much and I do not think we have quit learning even though we did not have those opportunities.

This morning, I would like to respond to the question raised by the honourable member for Middlesex about what is being done to educate Ontario students about the importance of agriculture.

The Ontario government is firmly committed to teaching future generations about the agrifood sector, not only to make them understand how food gets from the farm to the dinner plate but also to appreciate the economic importance of the province’s second-largest industry.

I think that is the underlying fact, how much it means not only to rural Ontario but to our urban friends, whether it is in Metropolitan Toronto or other large cities across the province; to the population generally.

In 1984, the then Minister of Agriculture and Food launched the Agriculture in the Classroom program. I think the member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry should get that correct. I indicated that. Through this program, three important new educational resources have been produced for use in the schools: first, a resource binder for the food and energy sector of grade 9 science curriculum; second, a variety of printed and video materials for the use of elementary and secondary students; and third, a multiculturalism in agriculture resource kit called Many Nations, Many Farms for use by teachers in grades 5 and 6 and grades 9 and 10. A kit for grade 7 and 8 is now being developed.

I think that is really what the member is talking about with this resolution. We do need a centre to make sure that this material is updated and is available for all education centres across the province. I think that is really what we are talking about this morning.

As well, the Agriculture in the Classroom resource catalogue has been updated. As a future refinement, this inventory of educational materials from all different sources in Ontario has been grouped into four categories: primary-junior, intermediate, senior and French.

Thanks to the co-operation of the boards of education throughout Ontario, agriculture is once again becoming an active part of the school programs.

To promote the use of the materials which have been produced and compiled by the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, some 13 workshops called Ag Aware, Why Care? are being presented to teacher resource librarians at various locations around the province. Also, many local agricultural organizations are providing volunteer assistance to help implement the Agriculture in the Classroom program. For instance, local groups have been helping out by presenting professional development days for teachers across the province.

I think, as the member for Middlesex pointed out, we have a group here this morning that played an important role in that. In fact, one of the most interesting initiatives is being organized in my honourable colleague’s riding by the Association for Food and Agricultural Awareness in Middlesex. It is called Adopt a Classroom; the idea is for local farmers to each adopt a classroom for a year, visiting the schools to explain their work as the seasons progress and then bringing the students out to their farms for tours. I think that is an important role that has been played and will continue to be played to get young people to the farms so they can actually see the changing of the seasons, the harvesting and that process which is very intriguing as our seasons progress.

So far, response to the Agriculture in the Classroom program has been good and the demand by teachers for the resources made available by the Ministry of Agriculture and Food has been growing.

In all of 1988, the ministry received 170 requests for their Agriculture in the Classroom videos; again, to the member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry. In 1989 there have already been 153 requests for the multiculturalism in agriculture kit alone.

This greater interest results in large part from the efforts of three professional educators who were seconded by the Ministry of Agriculture and Food from their teaching positions to help promote the agriculture in the classroom program.

1150

Other new initiatives and improvements to this program are now under consideration. The ministry will soon be presented with a final report from the agriculture in the classroom steering committee. This committee is composed of representatives from the education system, producer groups and agricultural organizations as well as the Ministry of Agriculture and Food and the Ministry of Education. So there is co-operation, perhaps for the first time on a major scale, between the Ministry of Agriculture and Food and the Ministry of Education.

The report will recommend priorities for the agriculture in the classroom program. I am sure the ideas discussed by my colleague the member for Middlesex will play an important role in that report.

As I say, it is the commitment of the Liberal government of Ontario to establish the importance of the agriculture and food industry in the education of young Ontarians.

I would also like to take a moment to pay tribute to our marketing boards. Each year, many of them elect queens to represent them. I can think of the Dairy Princess, the Tobacco Queen and the Plowing Queen, who go from school to school representing various marketing boards and rural communities in our education system. They play a tremendous role in making those young people aware of what is really produced in rural Ontario and the good things we grow on our farms.

I would also like to inform the Legislature, in the last few seconds, how important agriculture and food are. When we look at the Third World countries where young people are starving because they cannot get access to the food because their government system does not permit that, it sure makes us feel satisfied that Canada and Ontario are good providers of that food, and we want to continue to do that.

Mr. Hampton: I want to speak in favour of this resolution. I think it is a very timely resolution and I want to address some of the reasons I think it is a most worthwhile resolution.

I just got off the phone from speaking with a former president of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture in my constituency. He is also a former farmer, because he came through the latest recession without his farm. In the midst of the last recession he had to file for bankruptcy. One of the things we talked about, momentarily, was the fact that farm organizations in the province have been pressing for the kind of action that is indicated in this bill for at least the past 10 years.

I can say to the member for Middlesex that it is a most important resolution. I am only sad to say that the government has not yet acted in this area, because it is a most important area.

There are all kinds of reasons education about agriculture ought to be integrated into the school program more than it is. Some of them are bound up, I would say, with our very survival. One need only look at the figures which illustrate the continuing loss of agricultural land, not just in Ontario but across Canada. In Ontario, we lose most of our agricultural land, unfortunately, to parking lots and industrial development. That still continues despite the fact that the issue was highlighted more than 10 years ago and that some members of the government were here at that time and spoke eloquently on the need for some controls on that.

My family has some experience with the loss of agricultural land. Our experience dates back to the Depression when my grandfather had to leave Saskatchewan because his farm literally blew away. One of the things we have seen in northwestern Ontario in the last two years is a recurrence of the kinds of dirty clouds that occurred in the 1930s, as land in southern Saskatchewan and southern Manitoba indeed has suffered from wind erosion again. We are losing agricultural land not just to the developers but also to some poor farming practices.

I think one of the other things that would need to be emphasized in this kind of program is the whole issue of agriculture and the environment. Across the northwest of this province, many farmers have in fact spoken to the Ministry of Agriculture and Food and pointed out to the Ministry of Agriculture and Food the extent to which the greenhouse effect is already illustrating its presence across the northern part of the province. Our summers are warmer, our winters are shorter and we are not getting as much precipitation. It is an issue, I would say, we are all bound up with.

One of the other issues that I think needs to be addressed in any program that is envisioned by this resolution is the whole issue of agriculture and nutrition. In my constituency and in that of the member for Lake Nipigon (Mr. Pouliot), a number of farmers have struggled for some time to get a chicken quota, the need for a chicken quota in northern Ontario.

I remember not too long ago attending a federation of agriculture meeting. A couple of farmers pointed out that they thought they could produce chickens as cheaply as some farms in the United States. I produced an article for them that appeared in the Globe and Mail where it was pointed out that in fact a lot of the poultry that is produced in the United States is raised on a consistent diet of antibiotics because of the differing health regulations for poultry farming in the United States and Canada.

I wonder how many of us want to eat poultry that is stuffed or loaded with antibiotics. Perhaps the problem is we do not know it is loaded with antibiotics. Recently in British Columbia, for example, a dairy contracted with some dairy farmers to feed their dairy cattle a special type of feed that was loaded with a steroid type of hormone. The hormone increased the milk production a great deal, but not surprisingly, when people found out they were drinking milk that was loaded with a steroid-type hormone, dairy sales fell off incredibly.

I think it is very fair to say that these kinds of things need to be integrated into the education system in our province. I think many consumers and many people would appreciate knowing more about the impact of agriculture on their lives and the likely impact of agriculture on their lives in the future if agriculture is not practised well.

Similarly, I think a lot of people would certainly be enlightened to know the degree to which people who live in the farm community in this day and age have to work very hard for wages and income which is not at all commensurate with the amount of work they put in.

I commend the member for bringing forward this private member’s resolution. My only observation is that the government has been here for four years now; I would have thought it would have acted on this already, in view of the fact that the federations of agriculture have been pressing for it for the last 10 years.

Mr. Speaker: I believe the member for Middlesex reserved approximately one minute.

Mr. Reycraft: I want to thank the member for Algoma, the member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry, the parliamentary assistant to the minister and member for Norfolk (Mr. Miller) and also the member for Rainy River (Mr. Hampton) for their contributions to the debate.

I also want to acknowledge the fact that I have received a number of phone calls from individuals and organizations over the last couple of days expressing their support for the resolution. Those messages have been appreciated.

I have also been advised that we have three representatives of the Perth County Women for the Survival of Agriculture in the Speaker’s gallery who are here today especially for this debate, and I certainly want to welcome them.

I heard the criticisms. I want to say that I reject the accusations that the Minister of Agriculture and Food has not supported the Agriculture in the Classroom program. It seems to me that an increase in the staff from one to five and the appointment of a new committee address this in a very tangible way.

Mr. Speaker: That completes the allotted time for debate on the two private members’ ballot items.

ACCESS TO BANKING SERVICES / ACCÈS AUX SERVICES BANCAIRES

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Morin has moved resolution 54.

All those in favour will say “aye.”

All those opposed will say “nay.”

In my opinion the “ayes” have it.

Motion agreed to.

La motion est adoptée.

AGRICULTURE IN THE CLASSROOM PROGRAM

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Reycraft has moved resolution 56.

Motion agreed to.

The House recessed at 12:02 p.m.

AFTERNOON SITTING

The House resumed at 1:30 p.m.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

DEVELOPMENTALLY HANDICAPPED

Mr. Farnan: Integration into the community means a more dignified and altogether richer life for developmentally handicapped adults, and this is made possible by the qualified people who act as counsellors.

The Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Sweeney) acknowledged this when he wrote to Pamela MacGregor in June 1988, stating, “I appreciate that you and your colleagues are committed to providing high-quality, effective programs to the people in your care.” The minister also admitted, “Current turnover rates and morale problems make this a difficult challenge ... and the current salary levels are too low to ensure a program of suitable quality.”

We would all agree that the success of these community-based programs necessitates having dedicated and qualified staff. Yet in another letter to a community worker, David Wilde, in September 1988, the minister dismissed the problems faced by agencies which serve the developmentally handicapped by claiming, “A number of other sectors are in need of more urgent attention.”

It appears that the integrated developmentally handicapped program holds a low priority for the Minister of Community and Social Services. How else can we explain why community counsellors receive significantly lower incomes than their institutional counterparts?

The government is delivering these community services on the backs of a very dedicated, overstressed and poorly paid group of professionals. This is a shame, and the Minister of Community and Social Services should move to address this issue.

EASTERN ONTARIO

Mr. Villeneuve: The Liberal Party’s eastern caucus will be gathering in Cornwall this weekend. Instead of the self-serving and undeserved praise --

Interjections.

Mr. Villeneuve: -- as one can hear -- the members of that caucus have heaped upon themselves for supposedly assisting Cornwall and eastern Ontario, I want to point out that this government is indeed ignoring eastern Ontario.

A month ago, a survey revealed that Cornwall ranked 99th out of 100 cities across Canada in terms of average income. Only Sherbrooke, Quebec, was lower. I can also tell members that the situation in rural areas outside of Cornwall is even worse.

It is a shameful fact that the government of the richest province has failed to realize. The fact just has not sunk in. Whether the Liberals’ eastern caucus or cabinet is to blame really does not matter. It is this government’s responsibility to act, not to congratulate itself for something which has not even happened.

This government has failed eastern Ontario in more ways than I can outline in 90 seconds. Liberal failures in the Cornwall area include: not supporting the Mutual Aid Firemen’s Association of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry; endangering homemaker services; inadequate school funding; lack of rural development; not increasing needed road and unconditional grants; Ontario family farm interest rate reduction program cutbacks; abandoning seniors’ nonprofit housing; Sunday shopping; conservation authorities, etc.

If the Liberals want to congratulate themselves, they are doing it from either ignorance or arrogance.

ST. CATHARINES CITY COUNCIL

Mr. Dietsch: Now for something more pleasant. I would like to take this opportunity to introduce to the honourable members of this House a few distinguished guests from the great city of St. Catharines, as well as constituents and friends of mine who are seated in the members’ gallery to the west.

It has been my pleasure to have his worship Mayor Joseph McCaffery, Alderman Brian MacMullan and John Washuta, past-president of the St. Catharine’s Grape and Wine Festival, visiting Queen’s Park as members of the newly elected council for the city of St. Catharines.

We have spent the time today touring Queen’s Park and meeting with the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Eakins) in order that we might discuss our mutual goals and concerns in a positive and constructive manner. Our meetings were productive and we look forward to continuing to work together over the next few years.

I ask all the honourable members of this House to greet his worship Mayor McCaffery, the people’s mayor, Alderman Brian MacMullan and Alderman John Washuta with a warm Queen’s Park welcome.

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

Mr. Laughren: A week ago in this chamber the Minister of Labour (Mr. Sorbara) accused me of distorting the facts in a matter of an injured worker from Gogama, Mr. André Petitclerc. The facts are that the Workers’ Compensation Board denied Mr. Petitclerc benefits for chronic pain; that was appealed through my office to the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Tribunal; using WCB criteria for chronic pain, they awarded benefits in October 1988, and on January 5 of this year the local Sudbury office denied benefits and suggested that Mr. Petitclerc could appeal the decision.

I raised the matter with the minister in question period and we had a special debate last week. The minister said, or at least implied, that the local office decision was inappropriate. Then, to my surprise, on Saturday, January 14, the district manager of the WCB office in Sudbury was quoted as saying that the Sudbury claim had not been denied, despite a letter that went to the injured worker, Mr. Petitclerc, on January 5, saying, “Therefore, consideration for entitlement to chronic pain disorder cannot be granted.”

The minister does not know what the Sudbury office is doing and the Sudbury office does not know what the Minister of Labour is saying. This is a travesty on an injured worker and the Minister of Labour does not seem to take it at all seriously. Both I and Mr. Petitclerc are owed an apology by the Minister of Labour.

DISTRICT OF PARRY SOUND

Mr. Eves: It is with some regret that I rise in the Legislature this afternoon to talk about an issue that I thought the Premier (Mr. Peterson) had put to rest on June 9, 1988; that is, the matter of the district of Parry Sound being included in northern Ontario effective April I of this year.

I have in my hand a letter from the Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan). I wrote on November 30, 1988, confirming that indeed the northern health travel grant program would be including all of the district of Parry Sound effective April 1, 1989. I have here a letter from the minister dated January 10, 1989, saying that will not be the case. I would like to know where the government’s credibility is on this issue. This issue goes back to December 5, 1985, with the Minister of Health’s predecessor, the member for Bruce (Mr. Elston), at that time announcing the northern health travel grant program.

On December 13 I talked about that to the member for Bruce, the Minister of Health of the day, and he told me it would be reviewed at the end of that year. On February 12, 1987, I raised this issue in estimates with the Premier, as he was then doubling as the Minister of Northern Development. He indicated that he would review it at the end of the year.

On June 26, 1987, my first private member’s resolution to have Parry Sound included in northern Ontario was passed unanimously by this House. I wrote again to the then minister on August 18, 1987. I had another private member’s resolution approved by this Legislature, by this group of parliamentarians, again unanimously, on April 28, 1988. We had the announcement by the Premier and by the Minister of Northern Development (Mr. Fontaine) on June 9, and now we have a contradiction.

GENERAL TIRE CANADA LTD.

Mr. Owen: Yesterday the Premier (Mr. Peterson) announced a $159-million modernization and expansion of General Tire Canada Ltd. in Barrie. It means the conversion to radial passenger and light-truck tire technology. It means Barrie’s largest manufacturer will increase from 900 employees to 1,100 employees. It means a further move by Ontario into a solid position in the international automotive industry. It means bringing General Tire’s Barrie plant in line with competitive tire plans worldwide. Barrie is grateful. Barrie acknowledges the co-operation and efforts of municipal officials in accommodating land and services.

Barrie acknowledges the initiative and enthusiasm of local General Tire management in persuading its Ohio and German executives. Barrie acknowledges the atmosphere of positive employer-employee relations which encouraged this investment. Barrie acknowledges the hands-on approach of the Premier, who personally met with local management as well as with officials of Continental in Europe and who, with the honourable Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr. Kwinter), brought these negotiations to a successful conclusion. The future of the tire industry in Barrie and in Ontario indeed looks bright.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Etobicoke-Rexdale, for about a minute.

1340

ARCHITECTURAL TECHNOLOGISTS

Mr. Philip: The Architects Act makes provision for making regulations to govern what acts can be done by persons other than registered architects. However, regulations have not been drafted in the area of practice for architectural technologists.

The architectural technologists have been in correspondence with the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) over the past several years in an attempt to get such regulations made, without success. More recently, they took it on themselves to draft proposed guidelines for themselves, including suggested amendments to the Ontario Building Code.

They have attempted to submit this policy document to the Attorney General, but his office suggested that the proposals are too technical for his consideration and has referred them to the council of the Ontario Association of Architects. This body has looked at the proposals and rejected them.

I propose that the Attorney General immediately meet with the technologists. Not to meet with the technologists on the grounds that the submission is too technical is to deny them an opportunity to an impartial adjudication under the act. The minister has the responsibility to ensure that the act is administered fairly to all interested parties. I urge the Attorney General to do so.

TIME ALLOCATION

Mr. B. Rae: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: There is in the Orders and Notices today a government notice of motion 20, which stands in the name of the government House leader. I will have a rather extensive argument to make that not only is this motion out of order but it is without precedent in our proceedings in this House; it has never been done before in this way.

I want to simply give you notice, Mr. Speaker, that I do not want to take away from question period but I do at the earliest possible opportunity after question period want to put some arguments before you as to why this motion should not even be allowed on the order paper let alone be moved.

Mr. Speaker: I understand that the Leader of the Opposition says he wishes to ask permission of the House to discuss a matter following question period. I suppose we will wait until the time when he makes that request.

Mr. Ruprecht: I rise to ask for unanimous consent of the House to make a special statement on the subject of Ukrainian Independence Day.

Agreed to.

UKRAINIAN INDEPENDENCE DAY

Mr. Ruprecht: On behalf of the Premier (Mr. Peterson), the Minister of Citizenship (Mr. Phillips) and my colleagues in government, I rise for the purpose of recognizing January 22 as an important date in the history of freedom-loving people and with special significance to our Canadian citizens of Ukrainian heritage.

Permit me to introduce to the House a delegation of prominent members of the Ukrainian-Canadian community. Among them are Dr. Peter Hlibowych, president of the Ukrainian Canadian Committee, Ontario council; the Very Reverend Petro Bublyck, a representative of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of Canada, and His Grace Bishop Borecky of the Ukrainian Catholic Church.

Today is the commemoration of the 71st anniversary of January 22, 1918, the proclamation of Ukraine as a sovereign democratic nation and of the unification of the eastern and western provinces of Ukraine into a single, independent state exactly one year later on January 22, 1919.

We who live in a democratic society do not always appreciate our good fortune. We take for granted our freedom of speech, of the press, religion, travel and, most important, the right not only to criticize but also to openly vote for the party of our choice.

The courageous determination of the Ukrainian people to regain this kind of freedom is a source of inspiration to all mankind and, having tasted liberty, neither the weapons of starvation nor prison walls could extinguish the torch of freedom and hope that has been resolutely passed on from one heroic generation to the next. I am convinced the rich heritage and proud tradition of Ukrainians will endure for ever.

Those who have come to Canada from Ukraine in search of freedom and opportunity since 1891 have made important contributions to the development of our province and country and to the enrichment of our culture. With their ethic of hard work and study, they have taken their rightful role as leaders in the professions, business, education, sport and government.

We admire the unbreakable spirit of optimism and hope of our Ukrainian friends. In spite of past tragic events, they have become a symbol to all freedom-loving peoples as torch bearers of democracy, torch bearers of people who justly want only to determine their own future and structure their own destiny.

It gives us great pleasure to extend our heartiest congratulations and best wishes to the thriving Canadian-Ukrainian community as we recognize January 22, 1989, as Ukrainian Independence Day and commend its observance to all the people of Ontario.

Finally, as Ukrainians follow the Julian calendar, they celebrate New Year’s Day on January 14.

[Remarks in Ukrainian]

Mr. Philip: I have a statement on the same subject. Almost 50 years ago, on March 14, 1939, Carpatho-Ukraine was proclaimed an independent state. Although its independence was short-lived, it was the first country to mount an armed resistance to Nazi Germany and its allies. After the Second World War, all ethnically Ukrainian lands became part of the Soviet Union.

Ukraine is one of the founding members of the United Nations, and it and Belorussia, Ukraine’s neighbour to the north, are the only two UN members that are not fully sovereign nations.

As our party’s critic for Citizenship, I am proud to recognize the contributions of Ukrainians of Ukrainian origin.

The first major wave of Ukrainian immigration to Canada occurred between 1890 and 1914. Most of those leaving Ukraine settled primarily in rural areas.

The second major immigration occurred during the two world wars and resulted in settlements throughout the prairie provinces. Then, between 1947 and 1954, approximately 34,000 Ukrainians who were displaced by the Second World War arrived in Canada and many of them made their homes in Ontario. By 1981, 25 per cent of Ukrainians lived in this province.

Today, Ukrainians form a mature ethnocultural group. My colleagues and I in the New Democratic Party wish to join other members in indicating our deep appreciation for the contribution they have made to our national life, and we wish them well on this day.

Mr. Cousens: The Ontario Progressive Conservative caucus would like to join all members of the House today in recognizing this very special day. I am just sorry that the member for Burlington South (Mr. Jackson) could not be here, because his grandparents on his mother’s side are Ukrainian. As the other honourable member did, he would have put a few extra touches to our remarks today.

In his absence and on behalf of our party, we too would like to share in marking Sunday, January 22, 1989, as a very special anniversary for the Ukrainian-Canadian community and indeed for all Ukrainians, both in their homeland and throughout the world.

This day recalls the singular events over 70 years ago when the Ukrainian people experienced the long-awaited realization, however short-lived, of their dream of an independent state. This anniversary is therefore of substantial significance to all nations, especially here in Canada, where freedom is a cornerstone value and where tyrannical rule is opposed wherever it exists.

Ukraine held on to its vision of independence through many years of national repression at the hands of its enemy neighbours. This vision was continually kept alive in the hearts of the Ukrainian people by great military victories over the years.

The vision of Ukraine independence crystallized in the decided opposition to Russian autocratic rule. It was injected with new and vibrant life by the prophetic poetry of Taras Shevchenko in the 19th century, who reminded his fellow countrymen of the glories of ages past and of, as he wrote, “who (the Ukrainians) were, of whose parents children they were.”

1350

The vision took on a new dimension in the early part of this century as the Ukrainian people saw in the ashes of crumbled empires their opportunity to assert their rights for independent statehood and then moved quickly and decisively to grasp it.

On January 22, 1918, the Central Rada Administration of Kiev issued its Fourth Universal, in which it declared the independence of the Ukrainian republic and its right to autonomous self-government. It declared that Ukrainians everywhere now had a homeland of their own and that they were no longer second-class citizens in their own country.

It was not long, however, before the Russian state moved to crush this young state. Ukrainian history since that time is a record of heroic sacrifice and determination in the face of staggering odds in defence of that vision of independent statehood and freedom, a vision which has neither died nor been wrested from the minds and hearts of Ukrainian people everywhere.

Ukraine will endure and Ukraine will be free again. January 22 will one day be greeted not only by statements in the governing houses of free nations around the world, but also by the ringing of bells from the churches of Kiev, of Lwiw and of Kharkiv.

The fundamental question before the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics is that of the right to national self-determination for Ukraine and all republics and satellites of the Soviet communist empire. That question has yet to be answered. The enslaved peoples of the Soviet Union eagerly await an answer, perestroika and glasnost notwithstanding.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

PUBLIC SECTOR PENSION PLANS

Hon. R. F. Nixon: I want to report to the Legislature today on the completion of recent talks with representatives of the public service and teachers concerning their pension plans, as well as the government’s future intentions regarding the plans’ financing.

Members will recall that the government received three reports last year indicating serious financial problems with the automatic inflation protection benefits of the plans. During the fall, these matters, together with other possible reforms to the pension plans, were discussed in detail with representatives of teachers, public servants and other involved plan members.

The Chairman of Management Board (Mr. Elston), the Minister of Education (Mr. Ward) and I met with these individuals and appointed our own representatives to work with the key interest groups. I would like to give members some additional background on these talks.

Prior to 1976, the teachers’ and public service funds were designed to be fully funded by contributions made in equal amounts by the employees and the government. In reality, however, full funding was not always achieved and the government, as plan sponsor, contributed additional amounts when deficits occurred.

The high inflation rates of the mid-1970s made life particularly difficult for retired persons. As a result, in 1975, the Ontario Legislature enacted a bill that gave 100 per cent inflation protection to teachers and public servants, for both those who were already retired and those still working.

Although inflation protection was applied retroactively in 1976, it was determined that no contributions would be sought from employees to pay for the inflation protection extended to benefits already earned. In other words, those were a charge against the consolidated revenue fund and they remain so today.

The legislation created separate superannuation adjustment funds for teachers and for public servants. The funds were based on matching contributions by the government and the employee of one per cent of pay. It was intended that the money going into these two funds, plus the interest earned, would cover the benefits for retired plan members as they become due. It was understood at that time that the matched contribution rates would eventually have to rise.

As long as the contributions to the superannuation adjustment funds from people working, taken together with the investment income, are larger than the indexation benefits paid to retired plan members receiving benefits, the funds are essentially solvent. However, our situation today is much different than in 1975. The number of retirees has significantly increased relative to the number of current contributors. The growth in the number of retirees will continue to outpace the growth in the number of contributors.

Looking ahead to the turn of the century, future taxpayers and contributors will face a rapidly deteriorating financial situation. Only two options will then exist: diminishing benefits or significantly higher contribution rates.

The question we face is whether to wait or act now. Financial experts believe that if a benefit is earned now, it should be funded now. Deferring the pursuit of full funding at this time would, in my view, be a serious mistake.

When I became Treasurer, I was made aware that the existing funding arrangements were inadequate and could not support continued 100 per cent inflation protection since the adjustment fund would run out of money within 20 years.

Both the Rowan and Coward pension reports of last year found that the cost of paying for inflation protection was being unfairly left for future generations of plan members and taxpayers. Both reports also recommended that the adjustment funds be merged with the basic pension fund since a pension is, in reality, one benefit. In addition, they proposed that the pension money be placed in diversified market investments rather than only government of Ontario securities and deposits, in order to earn a higher rate of return.

Given the potential impact of the Rowan and Coward recommendations, Dr. David Slater was asked to gather public comment and reactions. He concluded that current contributions and the resulting investment income are insufficient to secure full indexation of benefits. One of his key proposals was to make teachers and public servants full partners and joint trustees with the government both in administering the plans and in the sharing of future risks and rewards. I agree that this would be a preferable arrangement and this offer has been made to union representatives.

I also strongly believe that fiscal responsibility requires that our pension plans be placed on a sound financial footing, and soon.

The challenge now facing the government is to find a resolution to the pension issue that is both fair and fiscally prudent. To wait until the adjustment funds are exhausted would be unfair to the public servants and teachers involved. It would also be unfair to Ontario taxpayers.

The government has a serious commitment to these public sector pensions, both from a financial and moral standpoint. Even before any necessary adjustments are made, the government is contributing $750 million to these pension funds and directly to pensioners in this fiscal year alone.

We are also aware of the very human aspects of the pension issue. We know the practical concerns people have regarding pensions, most particularly when they have worked and contributed to these plans with the expectation of full inflation protection.

Throughout the process of research, opinion gathering and discussion, our aim has been to secure the benefits for a group of people who have made their contributions in good faith. Hand in hand with this was our goal of not imposing any undue additional burden upon Ontario taxpayers.

The government’s representatives on the working group have prepared a package of proposals that I believe would significantly reform the operations of public sector pensions. Unfortunately, those representing the largest number of employees and teachers did not find our proposals acceptable.

On the financial side, these representatives could not accept the increase in the matching contribution rates which, in our judgement and the judgement of recent pension studies, were necessary. At the same time, they also sought significant benefit improvements. Because of the financial commitment necessary to secure the existing benefit package, further improvements cannot be considered at this time.

The unions also wanted all pension-related decisions to be subject to binding arbitration. Billions of dollars are at stake in the management of these funds. As a matter of fact, this year it approaches $20 billion. We were willing to decide these matters as partners or even to discuss turning the funds over to plan member management, subject to the normal regulatory controls. What we could not agree to do was to abdicate our responsibility to both taxpayers and plan members by allowing such decisions to be made by a third party. We therefore could not agree to binding arbitration.

As a result, full partnership in the conduct of our pension arrangements is not possible at this time. However, I invite employee and teacher representatives to continue their involvement in this important area in the form of a more limited partnership for now. The legislation we hope to introduce this spring will keep the options of full partnership and member management open for the future.

I believe the legislation we plan to introduce will provide a solution to the financial problems without imposing an onerous burden on either plan members or the government. The pension benefits of our teachers and public servants are among the best in North America. These same benefits will be more secure when we take the steps necessary to fund these plans properly. The major principles on which the legislation will be written include:

1400

1. The government will continue to act as sole sponsor and guarantor of the funds for now, on the understanding that future contribution rates will fully fund future benefits.

2. The plans will be fully funded and merged, so that there will be a single fund for Ontario’s teachers and a single fund for the public service.

3. The pension funds will be permitted to invest in marketable securities.

4. Full, 100 per cent inflation protection for all teacher and public service plan members will continue, as will the existing level of benefits.

5. To sustain the funding of future benefits, public servants and teachers will be asked to contribute about an additional one per cent of their pay. This increase is based on the future investment of the funds in the capital markets.

6. The government will match these contributions and fund the current deficits in the two merged funds.

7. The legislation will contain the improvements brought about by Ontario’s pension reforms.

I emphasize today, as I did to the Legislature last year, that pensions for people who have already retired would not be affected; nor would retirement benefits that have already been earned. We can now say that the security of those benefits will be enhanced.

I have no doubt that resolving these issues now is far preferable to waiting until the problem becomes even more acute. Fiscal responsibility demands that we do not leave a massive burden to be paid by future generations of employees and taxpayers.

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION / INDEMNISATION DES ACCIDENTS DU TRAVAIL

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: Last June I introduced in this House a bill to amend the Workers’ Compensation Act.

That bill, Bill 162 as members know it, proposes a number of significant changes to the workers’ compensation system in Ontario, notably the means of compensation for workers who in the future suffer a permanent partial disability as the result of a workplace injury. Those workers will be entitled to a dual award: compensation for any wage loss associated with the impairment and compensation for the impact of the impairment on everyday life. Bill 162 also, for the first time in this province, places a clear obligation upon employers to continue the employment of injured workers.

As well, the bill will require the provision of needed vocational rehabilitation services on a timely basis.

Bill 162, as I said last June, will result in a much fairer and more effective compensation system.

Dans les six mois qui ont suivi la présentation du projet de loi, des travailleurs blessés, des groupes de travailleurs, des employeurs ainsi que les membres de cette Assemblée ont eu l’occasion de prendre en considération et de faire part de leurs commentaires quant au contenu de ce projet de loi. J’ai également eu l’occasion de rencontrer de nombreux groupes partout dans la province afin de discuter de leurs soucis.

Those discussions which I mentioned have been most helpful. They have confirmed my view that the reform principles contained in Bill 162 are correct and will result in better workers’ compensation in the province. I have listened carefully to what has been said and, as a result of those discussions, I believe certain amendments to the bill are necessary to ensure that our original objectives are achieved.

The government will bring forward amendments to the bill during clause-by-clause consideration. However, today I would like to announce some particular changes that we will be proposing so that members of this assembly and Ontario workers and employers are aware of them before the commencement of the standing committee on resources development’s consideration of the bill.

We propose to amend the bill to give injured workers, for the purposes of determining the degree of impairment resulting from an injury, an opportunity to choose between utilizing a Workers’ Compensation Board-appointed physician or one selected by the worker from a government-appointed roster. This change responds to concerns which have been expressed regarding the importance of an impartial determination of this important matter.

We also propose to enable either an injured worker or an employer to appeal the WCB decisions with respect to noneconomic loss to the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Tribunal. Ce changement permettra au tribunal d’appel de prendre en considération tous les éléments d’une demande d’indemnisation, incluant le degré d’incapacité résultant d’un accident survenu au travail.

Also, we will bring forward amendments to enable either an injured worker or an employer to appeal WCB re-employment decisions to WCAT. This change will ensure that all the provisions contained in Bill 162 may be referred to WCAT.

These modifications to the bill, I believe, will reinforce the central principles and thrust of Bill 162. They will help us achieve our desired result: a more effective, efficient and fair compensation system for injured workers and for their employers.

I look forward to the resources development committee’s consideration of the bill and, in particular, to the presentations of interested parties across this province. Of course, I look forward to third and final reading of the bill later this year and its subsequent implementation.

RESPONSES

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

Miss Martel: I want to respond to the statement made by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Sorbara) today. It is obvious to me that the heat is on and that the government is starting to recognize how badly flawed Bill 162 really is. What we see in the House today is the minister responding defensively to much of the opposition and the campaign that has been mounted across the province against this bill.

The changes that he proposes today really involve minor tinkering with a bill which is so badly flawed it should be thrown out so we can start again. In terms of the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Tribunal, everyone on this side recognizes that it had to come. He could not have an independent appeals tribunal and then determine which issues could or could not be sent to it. It would have been thrown out in the courts at some point in time.

Second, there is no role for the family physician in terms of pensions. All that is stated here is that injured workers may either choose from a government roster, which is a Workers’ Compensation Board roster, or choose a doctor suggested from the compensation board as well. There is no impartiality there at all. There is no role for the family physician. Workers have been demanding that for months now.

In terms of the process of consultation, let me go back to what the minister said, that after the consultation, these discussions “have confirmed my view that the reform principles contained in Bill 162 are correct and will result in a better workers’ compensation system. I have listened carefully to what has been said....”

If the minister were listening at all to what has been said on this bill, he would know that the New Democratic party, the trade union movement and injured workers’ groups and clinics have said this bill is so bad it should be thrown out. It has to be stopped. It cannot be accepted at any cost and certainly not accepted with the amendments proposed here today. That is because the most obscene parts of this bill still remain and have not been revised by the minister today.

In terms of pensions, we absolutely do not want to have the dual system that the minister has proposed. It allows for deeming of injured workers. It is completely unfair. It results in a reduction in their benefits and their rights. In terms of reinstatement, there has been no statement on how the construction industry will be protected; 373,000 workers in this province have no rights. For twenty per cent of the population in private industry where the establishment has fewer than 20 employees, there are still no rights. We have 25 per cent of the population unprotected under this bill.

If I go to rehabilitation, the main concern we raised on this side was that there was no statutory obligation on the part of the board to provide rehab services. The minister has said nothing about this today. That was a crucial point raised by Majesky-Minna and he has not responded at all. I will say to the minister here today that if he thinks this changes our minds, he is far wrong. We will continue to fight this bill and have this bill stopped.

Mr. B. Rae: The ground is quickly collapsing under the minister’s feet.

I do want to respond --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Would the member for London North (Mrs. Cunningham) allow the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. B. Rae) to speak.

PUBLIC SECTOR PENSION PLANS

Mr. B. Rae: I want to respond to the announcement of the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) today. I do not think he has been entirely fair. In fact, I do not think he has been fair at all to the position that has been taken by those on whose behalf pension money is being invested.

Let’s examine what the Treasurer is really saying. What he is saying is that after the reports that he has described, he went to the teachers and he went to the union of public employees and said, “Look, we want to engage in an equal partnership with you because you put your money in and we put our money into this fund, which is very substantial in terms of the moneys involved, and we want to establish an equal partnership.”

1410

What is the Treasurer saying today? He is saying that the government will unilaterally determine how much money is going to be contributed by members of the plan. He is saying that if there is a disagreement, even on actuarial grounds, as to what is necessary or fair to put into that plan, that is to be determined by him and by the government of Ontario. He is saying that if there is any disagreement as to how much money in fact is really in the plan and how much money is surplus, that is going to be determined by the government of Ontario. He is saying this is his definition of some kind of partnership.

If there were going to be a partnership between people acting as trustees of a plan, he would have a very simple contractual understanding that if there is to be a disagreement between the people who are contributing their money -- let’s not forget that teachers and public servants are putting their money in just as much as the government is putting its money in--surely to goodness, the people who are putting that money in -- that is to say, the government and the teachers -- are entitled to some kind of third-party resolution of those differences when it comes to asking, “What is the state of play with respect to the plan?”

This is no substantive change from the old Tory plan, in which the government took from public employees --

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

Mr. B. Rae: -- and took from teachers and decided unilaterally on its own how much money it was going to hand out.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

Mr. Sterling: I would like to respond briefly to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Sorbara).

We find it somewhat bemusing that the Minister of Labour would introduce proposed amendments to Bill 162 at this point in time. By the very fact he has taken this step today, he has shown this Legislature and the people of Ontario that this bill is seriously and badly flawed.

Even this minor step would not have occurred had the opposition parties not insisted that this Bill 162 have public hearings. It was the intention of this minister and this government for some period of time to keep Bill 162 away from the members of the public. Over the next two or three months, members of this Legislature, through the committee hearings, will have an opportunity to have public input.

I do not know if this is part of the Minister of Labour’s strategy to cut off debate on this legislation, as has been done on Bill 113 and Bill 114 regarding Sunday shopping. We only hope the minister dealing with these very important bills we have been talking about in the last few days, Bill 113 and Bill 114, and the government, will finally come to their senses, listen to the opposition, listen to the public hearings they have had over the past 39, 40 or 50 days and make some serious amendments to those pieces of legislation as well.

PUBLIC SECTOR PENSION PLANS

Mr. Runciman: I want to respond to the statement by the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) and indicate that at first blush in any event, it appears that for a change the government is exercising some fiscal responsibility in the way it is addressing the situation. It is regrettable it would not show the same degree of responsibility in other areas of government.

At the same time, we regret very much the breakdown in talks between the government and the employees and teachers. We think the comment in the Treasurer’s statement with respect to keeping options open, that legislation will be introduced this spring to keep options of full partnership and member management open for the future, will not suffice. We want to urge the government and the Treasurer to do whatever is necessary to immediately reopen the discussions and negotiations with teachers and with its employees.

The Treasurer has indicated the government’s relationship with employees and teachers is extremely important. He has to indicate that through much more than rhetoric. We have to see some action on his behalf to reopen those discussions.

I have some high degree of comfort with the fact that the arrangement does indeed guarantee the existing benefit levels will continue. It also guarantees the 100 per cent inflation protection. I think when they talk to most Ontarians with respect to the pension benefit levels of the public service and teachers, representatives of the government will indeed recognize that this is perhaps a step in the right direction.

I think one of the things the government, and we as legislators have to address in the coming years is the large number of Ontarians who do not have any inflation protection whatsoever. They are the people who perhaps this Legislature and this government should be looking towards in terms of providing some form of protection for them in the future.

Mr. Brandt: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the House for unanimous consent to pay tribute to a member of this House on the occasion of his 27th anniversary.

Mr. Speaker: Just before I do that, I will say that completes the allotted time for ministers’ statements and responses.

There is a request for unanimous consent by the member for Sarnia. Is it agreed?

Agreed to.

MEMBER FOR BRANT-HALDIMAND / LE DÉPUTÉ DE BRANT-HALDIMAND

Mr. Brandt: There are some who would perhaps like me to identify the member in question and there are others who perhaps know who it might be. It is the member for Brant-Haldimand (Mr. R. F. Nixon).

Not only is it the 27th anniversary of the member for Brant-Haldimand, but when one looks at the historical record of this province and adds the time served very faithfully and well not only by the current member but also by his father, the sum total of years spent on behalf of the people of Ontario by way of representation from that riding, under its various names over the years, is some 70 years. I think that is outstanding.

I might add, as an aside to the Treasurer, that I recall the remarks of one of the candidates, representing the Liberal Party, who ran against me in the last election, indicating that since I had been in this House since 1981, I should not intend to make a long-term career out of it and that perhaps I should move aside and let others represent my riding. Quite obviously, I am very much a neophyte compared to the Treasurer in terms of service to this House. I do want to pay tribute to him on behalf of our party for his long and distinguished service.

I think it is fair to say there are few Ontarians who know this province as well as the Treasurer does and who have worked as hard in their own way to bring this province to a higher quality of life and a better standard of living. The Treasurer does go back a long number of years, as I have indicated by the anniversary we are celebrating. As I understand it -- some of the newer members of the House may be interested in knowing this -- the Treasurer actually goes back to the day when those holes in the members’ desks actually contained inkwells. That will give them some indication of the rather substantive time frame we are talking about.

Mr. Sterling: Did they have feather pens?

Mr. Brandt: Yes, they did have feather pens in those days and I think the Treasurer indicated in previous speeches that he used those pens.

I want to say, again on behalf of my colleagues, that we have listened over the years with great interest to the Treasurer and the sage advice he has offered to us, not only as the Treasurer and the Deputy Premier of this province but more particularly going back through the years to the time when he was in opposition, when this House used to be filled with those of us who listened to the speeches that used to ring the very walls of this hallowed place as he suggested to us various ways and means of improving on this province. I have just a few snippets from those speeches, if I might.

I say this by way of acknowledgement of some of his fine comments. I remember a speech that went on at some length about -- let me see -- the regressive and inflationary natures of sales tax increases. That was one that stuck with me. That was a good speech. I remember that one. That particular speech stuck with me to such an extent and had such an impact on my colleagues that we immediately join with the Treasurer of today and say that we too feel that kind of move would have been inflationary and regressive. That is why we say to the Treasurer that we listened very carefully to his comments.

1420

On a very serious note, though, I want to add the personal thanks of our party to the Treasurer for having served in opposition for so long. It was the Treasurer himself who used in the old days to cry for -- as I recall, one of his campaign platforms in the very old days was, “A time for a change.” It has a certain ring to it that I might in fact use at some future point in dialogue with the people of Ontario.

But I do say to him that after 20 years of very solid and very substantive service to the people of this province, we acknowledge his contribution and the contribution of his father in making this a better place for all Ontarians to enjoy.

Mr. B. Rae: I welcome the opportunity to participate in this filibuster, because I have a lot of things I want to say about my good friend the member for Brant-Haldimand. I think it is entirely appropriate we take a few hours from the middle of a busy debate to focus on this midway point in the career of my good friend the Treasurer.

I just want to say quite simply on this occasion that we all have some very profound differences of opinion on issues. We all come from our little platoons, and some platoons are littler than others when it comes to representing our constituents and our point of view.

I can recall when I first came into this place and was sitting somewhat farther down in the aisle. The Treasurer had been in opposition for many, many years and he, I think it would be fair to say, approached my arrival with a degree of scorn and derision that has never entirely left me.

Over time, I have had occasion to chat with the Treasurer about life and politics in this province. I know I am speaking for all my colleagues -- I am certainly speaking for myself -- when I say that I do not think there is any parliamentarian I have encountered, either here or in another place, for whom I have more affection and respect than the member for Brant-Haldimand. He is a model of straightforwardness in response to questions in the House. He even admits when he does not know what the answer is.

Mr. Breaugh: All the time.

Mr. B. Rae: I was going to say which is more often than not. I think all of us have a lot of time for the kind of dedication and approach he takes to the public business of the province.

We have our differences and I think we have a chance today to see just what those differences are. But again, if I might say so, a relatively straightforward approach from the Treasurer is when he sits down with the teachers and the unions and tries to get an agreement, and if the talks completely collapse, he goes off, as we all did, to the reception that was given by the teachers last week and listens to all the arguments about pensions, blithely ignores them, brings in the legislation and then is prepared to have a discussion and a debate without once losing his temper or showing even the slightest sign of being ever out of sorts or even moderately grumpy, as my daughter would say.

J’aimerais, en cette occasion du 27^e anniversaire -- et à la mi-temps dans la carrière du trésorier, dire combien, dans notre parti, nous apprécions ses efforts et sa contribution.

J’ai rencontré beaucoup d’hommes et de femmes de tous les partis au cours de ma vie politique, mais il n’y en a pas un pour qui j’ai l’affection et le respect que je lui porte. Je suis heureux de prendre le temps de l’exprimer aujourd’hui en Chambre de la part de mes collègues et de notre parti.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: We are engaging in a little sanity for the first time in the last few days in this House. I thought maybe I should rise on behalf of my colleagues --

Mr. D. S. Cooke: How would you know? You haven’t been here.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I want to say that I understand the Leader of the Opposition standing in this House and expressing his great affection and respect for the Treasurer. After all, when you look at his colleagues, he does not have much to choose from over there and I can understand him looking to a Liberal as being the object of both his affection and respect.

I understand when the member stands in this House and says there are great differences between the Leader of the Opposition and the Treasurer, and the differences are that the Treasurer is always right. I will not get into those differences today except to share in this testimonial to the Treasurer on his 27th anniversary.

There is probably no person I know in the world for whom I have participated at more testimonial dinners and speeches than the honourable member to my right. When he has had such a varied, full and checkered career as he has in so many different capacities, there are always those who want to stand and admire him and express their affection, gratitude and respect for him. I have done that on many occasions and I look forward to doing it for another 27 years in this House as he completes his full mandate.

When the leader of the Conservative Party talks about 70 years of this dynasty of the Nixon family, it sounds almost undemocratic, but I want members to know that he has four children and several grandchildren, so if members are smart, they would not even bother the family. This seat is passed on like the Queen’s mace right down the family in perpetuity and so it shall be.

I just want to say --

Mr. Wildman: Do you mean we’re going to have more Nixons to kick around?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: My guess is that the question is, are the Nixons going to have the member to kick around? I would think that is the real question that has to be asked.

I could speak at great length about the Treasurer and how important he is to this government. I will not do that today. Let me say that I think what is more important is how important he is to this parliament. It has consistently been his major role. There has been no member in or out of government who has consistently shown more respect for this parliament, who has ennobled its traditions, who has maintained this as the centre of democracy, who shows his incredible respect for this House by the time he has spent here, both in government and in opposition and by the enormous contribution he makes on all subjects.

This is not a one-dimensional man by any respect. This is a man who understands the --

Mr. Breaugh: He is very well-rounded.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, you understand those guys just cannot be gracious for very long. As much as their higher instincts came out, they are incapable of being nice for more than 30 seconds. We on this side of the House could go on for ever. My guess is this is a far more productive discussion than one we may have later on this afternoon, and far more enjoyable.

I just want to say to my dear friend Bob Nixon that he has ennobled this sometimes despoiled profession we all practise. He has maintained great integrity and respect from all throughout his career, and for that we have all benefited. Every member has benefited personally and this system has benefited enormously. We all owe him a great thanks for that.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: One of the lessons I should have learned by now is not to speak when I do not have anything to say, but I do want to thank my friend the Premier (Mr. Peterson) and my friends and colleagues in the opposition parties for their kind remarks.

1430

I owe more to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. B. Rae) than probably anybody else in the advancement of my career. In that connection, I will be eternally in his debt. That is why I can listen to his diatribes without being too upset, because it was due to his decision, essentially, that I am here and he is there.

One of the lessons I am sure all of us have learned is that the time goes very quickly. I would almost add “when you are having fun,” but I think that is not quite the appropriate phrase. Certainly one thing I am convinced of is that service in this Legislature is worth while, for many obvious reasons, but the one that is most important is the friendship and the exchange of views that mean so much to us as individuals, which is what life often boils down to.

I thank all members for their best wishes, and I look forward to receiving them on many occasions in the future.

ORAL QUESTIONS

HOSPITAL SERVICES

Mr. B. Rae: I would like to address a question to the Minister of Health. I wonder if the minister can tell us whether she knows how many beds are now closed in hospitals in Metropolitan Toronto which were also closed during the summer. Can she tell us how many beds are still closed now in Toronto?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: Specific numbers and details are available through questions in Orders and Notices. On the spur of the moment, at this time, I do not have a specific number available.

Mr. B. Rae: I have contacted the Hospital Council of Metropolitan Toronto, which has just finished a survey of Toronto area hospitals. The Ontario Hospital Association is also conducting a survey of all the hospitals across the province, but those numbers are not yet available.

I would like to tell the minister that there are now 1,100 beds which are expected to be closed between now and the end of March. Most of these are beds which were closed for the summer, have never reopened and are not planned to be reopened. They may not even be reopened as we head into a new fiscal year starting in April.

Does the minister not realize the human cost in terms of delays, closed emergency departments, delays in getting treatment, delays in getting care, surgery that is cancelled, surgery that cannot be provided? Does she not realize this is now not just an issue affecting heart patients or people requiring hip replacements or people who need cancer treatment and who are not getting it in as timely a way as they might otherwise because of these kinds of problems? Does she not realize this is a systemic problem right across this part of Ontario and indeed all of Ontario?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I would say to the Leader of the Opposition that the practice of medicine has changed dramatically in the past decade. We know that many services which previously required inpatient care can now be provided on an outpatient basis.

I have been told by medical planners, physicians and health policy analysis people that beds are no longer the benchmark for services provided. For example, in cataract surgery now, some 70 per cent of those operations are provided on an outpatient basis. We used to have one person in one bed for five days. Now we can have five people treated in one day on an outpatient basis.

The allocation of resources to improve services and enhance them on an outpatient basis in the community, an expansion of community-based services, will free up the hospitals to do what they do best, which is what requires inpatient services.

I want to make sure that everybody always has access to the care he needs as soon as possible, but I want him to have access to that service in a variety of locations and places as close to home as possible as well.

Mr. B. Rae: The minister is going to have a hard time explaining that answer to all those patients and all those people. The reason for the closure of 1,100 beds in hospitals since last summer is not because cataract surgery has suddenly been revolutionized. That has nothing to do with it. It is because there is a nursing shortage, because they do not have the staff and they do not have the money to pay the staff.

As the minister is saying that this is all part of some grand plan she has, can she tell us if it is part of the ministry’s grand plan that ambulance drivers should be driving around the city trying to find an emergency ward that is open? Is it part of the grand plan of this government that on Monday night of this week there would be emergency wards closed right across this city? Is that part of the ministry’s grand plan for the protection of life and the advancement of health in Ontario?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: The Leader of the Opposition does not fairly categorize this situation. I have been assured that all patients requiring emergency care are receiving that care. The Hospital Council of Metropolitan Toronto service, which identifies where services are available, directs patients to them as quickly as possible. We know there are times when the system is under stress, but I agree with the comments made by Dr. Bruce Rowat, chairman of emergency medicine at the University of Toronto, when he says that the problem of emergency departments in this province is not an emergency room problem but an institutional problem. Existing resources have to be better managed, because under the current system precious health care dollars are being wasted. I agree with Dr. Rowat that what we need is structural change. That is what the registry system is all about and we are working together to make it work.

BREWERY MERGER

Mr. B. Rae: I have a question for the Premier. I wonder if the Premier can tell us how much advance notice he had of the announcement yesterday affecting the amalgamation of Carling O’Keefe Breweries and the Molson group into the formation of this new single company brewing in this province as well as across the country.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I read it in the paper yesterday morning. I was not aware of it prior to that. The players came in to see me after the announcement was made, because I could not arrange a meeting earlier in the day. I think perhaps the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr. Kwinter) met with them beforehand.

Mr. B. Rae: Is the Premier in a position to tell us or tell any of the workers who may be involved, because there are three large plants in this province which operate and which, according to the information available, may well be affected by this announcement: Has the government received any advance notice from the companies in terms of the plans they now have for these breweries and for the hundreds, indeed thousands, of workers who depend for their jobs on the existence of these breweries?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I have no specific plans or forewarning of how the rationalization will occur. They have announced a rationalization, as my honourable friend knows. I believe there are 17 breweries involved in the two companies. They will be merged and rationalized somehow or other. The details of that I do not know, nor do I know over what course of time that will take place.

Mr. B. Rae: This is really a rather shocking state of affairs. I hope the Premier would recognize that when decisions of this kind are made in corporate headquarters through the decisions of various corporation presidents and moguls and their financial backers, surely the workers on the line and the government whose job it is to protect the interests of those workers have to receive advance notice, have to be informed, and have to be told and protected against the costs of these changes.

Why do we not yet have a set of laws in this province which will require the kind of notice and the kind of the justification and give the kind of protection to workers in this province which is surely a critical feature of a civilized society that is now facing tremendous industrial change?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: One of the things that was said, and I do not know the rationalization plans of the breweries, is that if and when they do make these decisions they want to inform the workers first, in the various places around Canada, wherever that takes place.

Obviously the member can criticize the legislation, but I think the Minister of Labour (Mr. Sorbara) has said to him that we have in this regard, notice and severance, the most advanced legislation in North America; that reasons have to be filed, they have to work with the labour force. Those kinds of things are in place. So I tell my honourable friend to look at the legislation and compare it to other places. It is some of the most progressive legislation in the country.

1440

TIME ALLOCATION

Mr. Brandt: My question is to the Premier and it is with respect to Bills 113 and 114. As the Premier is aware, there has been some discussion in committee on Bill 113 and very little discussion on Bill 114, which in effect is before the House at the moment and has caused some disagreement among the various parties in connection with how we are to proceed.

I want to ask the Premier if he would perhaps consider, in order to give members, including members of his own party, an opportunity to express their views and to put their positions on the floor of this House in connection with that bill, referring the matter relating to the time allocation motion that was presented by his House leader to the House leaders’ panel to see if in fact we can break the current impasse between all of the parties by having the House leaders take another run at resolving this issue, if it is at all possible.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, may I refer this to the House leader?

Mr. Speaker: It has been referred to the House leader.

Hon. Mr. Conway: As the honourable leader of the third party knows, the House leaders meet on a regular basis to discuss this and other matters of legislative business. We have discussed the progress of these two bills, Bills 113 and 114, on a number of occasions over the last number of months.

As the leader of the third party will know, these two bills have now enjoyed something like 60 days of legislative debate. I cannot think of too many other matters of public business that have attracted that kind of debate.

The standing committee on administration of justice spent weeks travelling around the province listening to a number of submissions. My colleague the Solicitor General (Mrs. Smith) has accepted many amendments to respond to the constructive criticism put forward by the committee and by the public.

Certainly this morning at the House leaders’ meeting, I indicated the government’s desire -- after 60 days of debate, after months of public consultation -- to now move these two bills on to the next stage of debate so that we can continue a good dialogue and bring all of this to an orderly conclusion.

Mr. Brandt: The House leader talks about 60 days of debate. Even he, I think, would concede that with respect to the 60 days of debate, the very large percentage of that was made up of people from across this province making submissions to the committee, not debate in the truest sense of the word as we would have it here in this House. It was entirely different.

I would like to remind the House leader -- and I am glad the Premier referred the question to the House leader, because it was back in 1982 when the House leader stated with respect to a proposed time allocation motion:

“We are locked in a deep and difficult deadlock, out of which there must be some escape. Let me say...I would like very much to see the resolution of this deadlock by means of the framework we have evolved here...namely, the House leaders’ panel.”

I ask the House leader again: Will he take the very words that he spoke in 1982 and will he take the very advice that he offered all of his colleagues in this House and will he, as a member of the House leaders’ panel, go back and see if he can negotiate a resolution of the current deadlock?

Hon. Mr. Conway: Two things to my friend from Sarnia: First, I do not know where he has been, but I can tell the member for Sarnia that I have listened. I have listened to the submissions to the justice committee made, for example, by members like his distinguished colleague the recently elected member for London North (Mrs. Cunningham) and the senior member for Durham East (Mr. Cureatz), to name but two members of the third party who have talked and talked and talked, as not even I could imagine myself talking in a committee.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Conway: I say, furthermore, if he had not heard those submissions, he ought to have heard what the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale (Mr. Philip) and the member for Cambridge (Mr. Farnan), for example, have had to say over the hours of their sometimes remarkable testimony and contribution to the standing committee on administration of justice. Members have had an enormous amount of time and sway in which to make their case.

Secondly, I make the point to the member for Sarnia (Mr. Brandt), the leader of the third party, that I have made a specific offer to my colleague House leaders. To be fair, the House leader for the third party was prepared to entertain it, but the New Democratic Party, to be fair, consistent with its publicly advertised position of, “Let’s obstruct and delay these bills in every way and at every turn,” said, “No deal.”

So I have tried. I have made an offer but the obstructionists have done what they said they would do.

Mr. Brandt: Let me say again that I am pleased that the question was referred to the House leader because it does give us all an opportunity to hear the rhetoric of the House leader as it pours forth so easily and, of course, makes such little sense.

I want to ask the House leader, when he talks about the contribution made by various members of this House in connection with this debate, is the House leader aware of the fact that there are fully 58 members of his own party who have not yet spoken one word in committee or in this House on either Bill 113 or Bill 114? Fully two thirds of the entire Liberal caucus are not on the record with respect to this particular matter. Is the House leader prepared to allow his own colleagues to state their position in connection with these two bills? Does he not think that is fair?

Hon. Mr. Conway: I like the leader of the third party; and one of the reasons I like and respect the leader of the third party is that after the debate ends, the leader of the third party is quite a reasonable fellow. To be fair to the leader of the third party, he came to me the other day and he said, “Government House leader, listen, you know our position on this bill, but the bells are ringing and we are ready to take the vote and to get on with this.”

Really, I want to congratulate in a public way the leader of the third party, because, like the leader of the third party, we are not afraid to debate this. We recognize that there is not unanimity out in the community, but the government has put a comprehensive new policy for the more efficient and the more enforceable regulation of retail store hours before the assembly and before the province.

There has been great debate. Of course, there is some opposition. There has been significant amendment and a great deal of debate, but what the government wants now is to move on to the next stage of debate. It wants to move to that in an orderly way. Let those members who wish to debate the bills in committee of the whole and in third reading have the kind of opportunity that has been mentioned. Let’s get on with it in a way that focuses on the debate.

Mr. Brandt: I would like to have the deputy House leader of 1982 back again. I do not know where he went.

MUNICIPAL FUNDING

Mr. Brandt: My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. It relates to comments recently made by the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) with respect to municipal financing and certain financial commitments and obligations that have been shifted from the province to the various levels of local government.

I would remind the minister that programs such as pay equity, the municipal-industrial strategy for abatement program, Sunday shopping, Bills 113 and 114, Bill 187 and the infamous courtroom security bill that is being proposed by the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) have all, in fact, placed or will place an additional financial burden on municipalities.

The minister has, through the Treasurer, frozen unconditional grants leaving the municipalities effectively with two options: one is to raise taxes or the other is to go further into debt and to borrow more money. Which of the two options is he suggesting that his municipal colleagues follow in order to fund these programs?

1450

Hon. Mr. Eakins: I think what we are talking about here, which the Treasurer has made available to municipalities, is more money, but with more flexibility.

Let’s remember that this year the transfer payments to municipalities are up 5.4 per cent -- this is above the inflation rate; $4.4 billion in transfers from the province this year; an 11.3 per cent increase in sewer and water projects. If the leader of the third party wants to assist the municipalities, he should speak to his federal colleagues and get them to assist in the infrastructure funding, as I did last year in Bromont, Quebec. Has he spoken to them?

Mr. Brandt: I suppose the minister feels blaming the federal government gets him off the hook. Let me remind him of a statement made by his Treasurer, in which the Treasurer said, “Where I borrowed $1.6 billion last year many of these cities are almost debt-free and they might consider increasing their borrowing.”

Can the minister tell the House if he agrees with the Treasurer’s stand in which the municipalities should go further into debt, and does he believe that municipalities should bear, literally, the full cost and the full burden of these programs that he is transferring on to their backs at the local level?

Hon. Mr. Eakins: Mr. Speaker, you have to look at the broad picture. The member is focusing in on a couple of programs. Let’s remember that the various ministries of this government provide very well in many ways to many of the municipalities.

If the member wants to focus in on his own city of Sarnia, one which, as he knows, I have great fondness for and visit quite often, I might tell him that in 1987 the conditional grants increased there by 12.8 per cent, which is three times greater in 1987 and 1988. The unconditional grant increase also exceeded the mill rate. This year, the city of Sarnia will receive something over $4 million in unconditional grants.

Also, when we are talking about how we contribute to the municipalities, the member should remember that in his city of Sarnia an extra $1 million for the chronic care project at St. Joseph’s Hospital was made available by the Ministry of Health. The program for renewal, improvement, development and economic revitalization grants from my ministry over the past two years totalled some $450,000. I think that is very important to remember.

The Ontario neighbourhood improvement program funding in 1985 --

Mr. Speaker: Thank you.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Brandt: The effective representation of an opposition member, I know, was able to get those grants to flow to his municipality. I do not know who the member was in that particular case.

I would like to remind the minister that the MISA program alone, in the city of London, is estimated to cost between $2.5 million and $4 million. That is for the capital cost of that program, and then an annual operating cost of $1 million to $1.5 million. The Bill 187 exercise on the part of the Attorney General will cost the city of Barrie some $300,000; it will cost the city of Sarnia some $500,000; it will cost the city of North Bay some $500,000.

The minister mentions a number of programs that have historically been in place, on behalf of Ontario, to assist municipalities. The conditional/unconditional grant structure is essentially no different. It has not been changed, other than the minister did exactly the wrong thing this year by freezing the unconditional grants and providing some modest increase on the conditional side.

Mr. Speaker: The question?

Mr. Brandt: Is the minister aware of the fact that municipalities across this province are upset by what is happening in connection with transfer funding? They held a press conference here in this building to indicate their concern --

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member did ask a question.

Mr. Brandt: Well, I want to make it more specific to the minister.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: He heard it, Andy.

Mr. Brandt: Well, choose from any of the above with respect to the question.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Are you aware the municipalities are upset?

Mr. Brandt: That isn’t the one I would have asked.

Hon. Mr. Eakins: I am very much aware of the concerns of the municipalities and the concerns of the member, but we meet annually with the Association of Municipalities of Ontario to review the programs, and we should very well review them. If the honourable member has read the Provincial Auditor’s report, as I have, he will realize that the auditor is saying to this government that we should have greater flexibility. Let me quote to the honourable member from the auditor’s report:

“We questioned whether certain basic grant formulae, which were established in 1973, have provided the ministry with sufficient flexibility to address the changing economic conditions of municipalities since that time.”

He goes on to say, “The method used to calculate resource equalization grants for resource-poor municipalities should be re-examined.”

He also goes on to say, “The northern support grant rate of 18 per cent of a northern municipality’s tax revenue warrants reassessment.”

I have responded to the auditor. Has the leader of the third party responded to the auditor?

Mr. Pouliot: Keep reading after page 105. Keep reading.

Hon. Mr. Eakins: I am just reading what the auditor said.

Mr. Pouliot: Keep quoting the auditor; there’s more.

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps the member for Lake Nipigon would allow his colleague to ask the question. Would that be all right? Fine. I will recognize the member for Cambridge.

LAND RECORDS

Mr. Farnan: I have a question to the Premier. “We have a very specific plan to reduce auto insurance premiums,” said the Premier. “We favour a common pause day,” said the Premier. These promises and many other Liberal promises are contained in this box. This is what the Liberal promises have come to; the Liberal promises are in shreds.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Some time ago I recognized the member for Cambridge for a question. Please place your question.

Mr. Farnan: Granted that Liberal promises are of much less value than original land use documents --

Mr. Speaker: Order. Do you have a question?

Mr. Farnan: -- destroyed by the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations, will the Premier investigate upon whose authority these documents were destroyed and will the Premier report back any disciplinary action resulting from his investigation?

Interjections.

Mr. Farnan: I did not hear the answer, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I had difficulty hearing the question.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I would ask all members to remember standing order 24(b). When I recognize a member, that member has the right to speak, and I wish all members would allow that member to speak.

Mr. Farnan: I understand that the Premier has said yes, he will investigate and report what disciplinary action he will take.

The Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations promised not to shred the documents, these primary source materials, without consultation with user groups. The promise was not kept. It is one of a long string of Liberal promises. Will the Premier investigate who is responsible for the destruction of these documents without consultation with the user groups and, if this barbarous act was carried out by officials without the minister’s knowledge, what disciplinary actions will the Premier take?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I referred it to the minister.

1500

COMMUNITY SAFETY

Mrs. Cunningham: My question is for the Minister of Health. On March 31, 1988, a young girl was brutally attacked in London and the public waited eight months for this government to finally release its report on the assessment of risk management systems for patients on Lieutenant Governor’s warrants. My question to the minister is this: Can she advise us whether these recommendations are implemented?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: As the member for London North knows, my first priority is always the safety of the public and having the very best risk management systems in place. I can tell the member that we immediately began implementing the last six recommendations in that report right after it was received and that we set up a co-ordinating body among a number of ministries to address the first five recommendations, because our goal in this government is to ensure the very best possible mechanisms for protection of the public in the psychiatric hospitals and in the system of Lieutenant Governor’s warrants.

Mrs. Cunningham: If any of these recommendations in fact are implemented, we should be very, very concerned. We are all aware of an attack that took place last Friday evening in Brockville.

It is our information that none of the guidelines have been implemented and we are looking at some kind of guidelines for implementation which will not be released unti1 August or September of 1989. This is clearly a year and a half after a young girl was brutally attacked in London. It is just not good enough. The public is now demanding a public inquiry into this risk management system. This report has not worked. Guidelines are not good enough. We cannot wait unti1 September.

My question to the minister is this: Will she advise her Liberal colleagues on the standing committee on public accounts to support a request for a public inquiry so that the public can be assured of a safe and fair risk management system?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: For the information of the member for London North as well as the members of this House, it is important for everyone to realize that the LGW system is entirely within federal jurisdiction and is mandated by the federal Criminal Code. We are in the process now of implementing this risk management system within the psychiatric hospital system to improve upon that which we already have in place.

I would say to the member opposite that in fact the work that is being done within our system responds positively to the recommendations of the independent LGW board, which makes recommendations as mandated by the federal Criminal Code. It is my goal to ensure that we have in place the very best possible risk management system.

LAND RECORDS

Mr. Kanter: A question to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations: Yesterday a group of 12 historical societies, including the Architectural Conservancy of Ontario, held a press conference to raise its concerns about the destruction of deeds and other land use documents from the years 1868 to 1945 and their replacement with microfilm.

While the minister did assure the House that the destruction of the documents had been temporarily halted, he indicated that discussions were taking place with the Archives of Ontario. Can he let us know whether those discussions have begun and whether they might lead to alternative proposals to preserve Ontario heritage documents and to make them more accessible for historical and genealogical research?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I can say to the honourable member that the discussions between the provincial archivist and the historical and heritage societies have been going on for some time, and there has been a temporary halt in the destruction of these documents.

Also for a period of time, the officials in my real property registration branch have been liaising with various people in the historical research community looking at some of the documents that should be preserved. It has resulted in a commitment to preserve all abstract indexes, record books and copy books, as well as original paper documents that are recommended for preservation by the provincial archivist.

I am aware that my colleague has proposed that a number of these historical groups get together with both the archivist and officials of my ministry. A meeting will take place, I believe next week. I congratulate my colleague on making those arrangements, and we will see what alternative arrangements can be produced at what I hope will be a very productive meeting.

Mr. Kanter: I certainly appreciate the efforts of the minister in having his staff meet with representatives of my constituency and with other interested parties. Hopefully, we will be able to resolve this matter through those meetings. But should we not be able to resolve those matters at the staff level, would the minister be willing to meet personally with representatives of the historical community to deal with at least those documents in his jurisdiction?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I know my friend, who has spoken to me on this issue on a number of occasions privately, has been working very closely with the historical groups in his riding. I can say that I am for ever an optimist about these things and I hope, as we go into the meetings next week, if we go into them with a view towards seeking positive solutions to some problems which have proved to be difficult, that we may be able to move towards the kind of positive solutions we want.

I want to assure my friend that if the meetings cannot produce the kind of solution he and the groups he represents want, and if my officials so report, I would look very favourably at a meeting. I am quite prepared to meet with members of the historical societies within his riding who are so concerned about this issue.

CONSTRUCTION SAFETY

Mr. Mackenzie: I have a question for the Minister of Labour. The minister will be aware that two events this week -- the testimony at the inquest into the death of Dominic Testani at the Scarborough construction site and the downing of tools by the 930 workers at the SkyDome -- have clearly underlined the inadequacy of safety and health protection for Ontario workers.

The minister will be aware that the workers at the SkyDome were driven by unsafe conditions and completely unacceptable toilet facilities to down tools. It appears that a settlement of the immediate problem has been reached.

Can the minister assure this House that the workers will not be docked yesterday’s pay for exercising the right to refuse, and can he tell us what steps he plans to take to ensure that workers do not have to go to this extreme action of shutting down a construction site to get action?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I am glad the member for Hamilton East has raised the question of temporary work stoppage at the SkyDome in respect of health and safety concerns by the workers there. Many people around the province probably read reports of that and his question gives me an opportunity to provide this House and the province with some more information.

Subsequent to concerns being raised, a meeting was held on the site. Indeed, an agreement was reached between representatives of the workers on the joint health and safety committee and representatives of management. All the concerns the workers had on that site have now been addressed.

I think what it points out is that the structure for joint health and safety committees can and should be available to construction workers around the province. The member for Hamilton East and I have had discussions both in committee and in other places on this matter, and he knows my views on that.

The workers are obviously now working again on the SkyDome and their concerns have been addressed. More important is the fact that he knows I, as minister, several months ago through ministerial order required that a joint health and safety committee be established on that site. I think the good news is that that committee process is working and it sets a precedent for other construction sites in the province.

Mr. Mackenzie: The minister has always treated the SkyDome as a model, yet we see the problem the workers have here. What about the thousands of other construction sites in Ontario? What about the case of 24-year-old Dominic Testani, who was killed when he fell 10 floors after the scaffold he was working on collapsed on August 3, 1988?

This week, the minister will know that the ministry inspector told the inquest into Testani’s death that he would have shut down the Scarborough site for multiple reasons, not the least of which was the fact that the scaffold in question was spliced. The inspector testified that he had never seen a spliced scaffold in 16 years in the construction industry. The company, Martinway Contracting Ltd., did not file the required notice of project with the Ministry of Labour until after Mr. Testani’s death.

Will the minister require a joint health and safety committee on all construction sites and not just high-profile sites like the SkyDome, where his party’s chief fundraiser is the contractor, and will the minister ensure that workers have the right to shut down an unsafe or unhealthy work area or situation?

1510

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: The comment about the contractor at the SkyDome is inappropriate and not worthy of comment.

The member knows that ministerial orders requiring joint health and safety committees have been issued in respect of other sites as well. He comments on the inquest. I take the view that it would be inappropriate for me to comment on that inquest, given that investigations are continuing.

The member knows perfectly well that the issue of joint health and safety committees on construction sites is one that we are contemplating aggressively as we move towards bringing forward amendments to the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

Those amendments, of course, will not ensure just by virtue of their introduction and passage in this House that all construction sites will, by virtue of those amendments, become sites that are consistent, complying with every single regulation that governs construction sites, but they will put authority and power in the hands of working people to ensure that on those sites workers are involved in the ongoing process of ensuring healthy and safe construction sites in this province.

LAND STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM

Mr. Villeneuve: To the Minister of Agriculture and Food: The minister has, quite rightly, in the ministry’s land stewardship program assigned a prominent role to the Ontario Soil and Crop Improvement Association and the county association. I know that the minister will be meeting imminently with the executive of the soil and crop improvement association.

Can he tell us why he has told his officials to cut back or cancel the funding to the provincial association?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: Later on this afternoon I will be meeting with the soil and crop improvement association, but I do not know where the member gets the idea that I told my officials to cut back on funding. I am certainly not aware of that, but we did earmark so much funding for each year of the program. What we cannot fund this year, if indeed there have been far more applications for the program than we dreamed of, then we will carry on with that part of the program next year.

The fact of the matter is that the program has been very well accepted. It has gone over in a much more popular way than we ever dreamed when we initiated the program. We will be reviewing the program from time to time, we will be reviewing our funding and, if need be, we will certainly endeavour to allocate more funding to keep this most worthwhile program on the road.

Mr. Villeneuve: Quite obviously, there is a lack of communication either with the minister and his staff or with the staff and the crop improvement association. There is a breakdown in communications, because the message they have is that their funding is being cut back. They are responsible for the land stewardship program. It is a most important program. We have a very positive response to this particular government initiative. Why would the minister even consider cutting back whenever a program is working well?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: The soil and crop improvement association was aware of the funding that was available for the program. They are the ones who are really administering the program. They are the ones who are looking at the applications. They are the ones who are establishing the priorities. In other words, the program is largely being left to them to administer. They know what funding is available and they are doing a pretty good job of working with those funds.

HOMEMAKERS’ PENSIONS

Ms. Poole: My question is for the Treasurer. In August 1984, during a nationally televised debate on women’s issues, Conservative leader Brian Mulroney stated that a homemaker’s pension could be implemented “in an evolutionary way without the cost being unbearable.” He also correctly pointed out that many elderly women live in poverty and said for that reason the issue of the homemaker’s pension should be addressed “in the very highest priority at the next session of Parliament.”

It has been four and a half long years since that promise was made. My question for the Treasurer is, can he tell me if the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance or any other senior member of the Mulroney government has approached him to discuss the implementation of the homemaker pension policy?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: I regret to inform the honourable member that I have not been approached at any time by any of those people to discuss that promise made four years ago.

Ms. Poole: I thank the Treasurer for that very frank answer.

I would think that after four and a half years we should now expect to see some action in that regard. I wonder if the Treasurer might comment on his personal feelings about the homemaker pension, and also -- the best is yet to come -- would he personally pledge to talk to a senior member of the Mulroney government, whether it be the Prime Minister or the Minister of Finance, about this promise and urge him to implement it?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: I am delighted to tell the honourable member that at one of the early meetings of the panel of treasurers convened by the Minister of Finance for Canada, I believe in December 1985, I raised the matter with the other treasurers, indicating that I thought since we were discussing changes in the Canada pension plan, this was an improvement that should receive serious consideration.

Not all the treasurers responded in a positive way, but it was agreed that a working group of federal officials would examine the cost implications of the homemaker pension as an adjunct to the Canada pension plan. That working group is still hard at it, but because of a number of, I suppose political implications -- the recent federal election campaign -- the treasurers have not met for many months. There is some expectation that the panel of treasurers will be meeting again and I certainly hope there will be some report from the working group about the important matter the member has raised.

NATIVE HUNTING AND FISHING RIGHTS

Mr. Pouliot: My question is to the Attorney General, both in that capacity and also as minister responsible for native affairs.

The minister might be aware that last November in the city of Thunder Bay, District Court Judge John Wright ruled that Thomas Chevrier, who is a nonstatus native of Metis blood, had the right to hunt moose out of season. The judgement was based on the fact that Mr. Chevrier’s father’s mother had been a status member of a band that signed the Robinson-Superior treaty dating back to 1850.

What does the minister intend to do in terms of the application of the Game and Fish Act in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Scott: I would like to thank the honourable member for the important question.

I think this was the first case in Canada in which the judge of a court had held that these rights, which normally accrue only to status Indians, could be extended to others of mixed blood who did not and were not entitled to have status recognition under the Indian Act. It is therefore a very important decision.

In the circumstances, because it was a decision of the district court, it is not binding on anyone but Mr. Chevrier; but although the decision was unsupported by reference to any authority, I would be wrong to say that we are not seriously considering its implications and the extent to which it should be applied.

Mr. Pouliot: I would like to inform the House that since judgement day, Thomas Chevrier has passed away.

Notwithstanding that historic judgement, the minister had a chance to appeal but he passed or exceeded the deadline. In the meantime, the conservation officers in the Ministry of Natural Resources really do not know what to do. The judgement is the law of the land until proven differently, yet they do not know, in terms of monitoring compliance, whether they should or should not enforce it for people who are nonstatus natives -- Metis people, people of mixed blood. Are they or are they not allowed at the present time to hunt and fish out of season?

Hon. Mr. Scott: The honourable member has confirmed what we knew, that Mr. Chevrier had died, and it thus follows that no appeal could have been taken from the decision unless he was alive at the date of the appeal. So in that sense there was no possibility of reviewing this important decision.

1520

It is not entirely correct to say, in the sense which the honourable member says it, that this is the law of the land. It is the determination given by the judge in the case that arose between the crown and Mr. Chevrier. As I say, the judgement is one of very great novelty; it is unsupported, as the judge I think himself conceded, by any judicial authority; and we are looking at the extent to which we should review the matter. But to say that any other judge of the superior or district court will be bound by the decision is simply not correct.

SERVICES FOR HEARING-IMPAIRED

Mr. J. M. Johnson: My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services. A constituent, George Edward Banks, a senior citizen living in Wellington Terrace home for the aged, requested my assistance in obtaining a hearing device. After consulting with this ministry and other ministries, I had to advise Mr. Banks that no assistance was available. Mr. Banks then forwarded me a copy of the minister’s news release, and I would like to quote one paragraph: “The Waterloo region branch of the Canadian Hearing Society received $50,694 in provincial funds to provide support services for hearing-impaired seniors living in Kitchener, Waterloo and Cambridge. The announcement was made by Kitchener MPP David Cooke on behalf of Community and Social Services Minister John Sweeney.”

My question is: Having read this news release, Mr. Banks wants to know why he, too, should not also be entitled to some assistance for his hearing disability.

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: The honourable member asks a very good question. I would like to find out myself. I will certainly check and find out what the answer is. I do not have the answer right now.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: I appreciate the minister’s consideration and I would like to point one thing out: When we received the news release, it bothered me that the people in Wellington were not receiving the same services as the people in Waterloo and some other regions. I would encourage him to see if we cannot extend the same service to all the people in all parts of this province.

COURT FACILITIES

Mr. McGuigan: I have a friendly question to the Attorney General.

An hon. member: It is always a friendly question.

Mr. McGuigan: I wanted a change of pace. It is of interest to the member for Chatham-Kent (Mr. Bossy), to myself, and to the citizens of Kent county. In early December the Kent county courthouse building was evacuated because of serious structural problems. Could the Attorney General tell me what action has been taken to save this heritage building?

Just before he gives us the answer, I thought all members might be interested to know that as a matter of fact one of the stonemasons who worked on the building, completed in 1898, was Alexander Mackenzie. That worthy gentleman occupied the seat of the gentleman whom we honoured a few minutes ago in this chamber.

Mr. Speaker: Do you have a question?

Mr. McGuigan: And then he went on to be the second Prime Minister of Canada. When the Attorney General was in Chatham two years ago, as I recall, Judge Perkins gave him a mounted stone chip.

Mr. Speaker: Do you have a question?

Mr. McGuigan: Just to remind him of that fact, and just to be even-handed in this --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I would remind the member that this is question period. If the member has a question, place it. If not, I will recognize another member.

Mr. McGuigan: Because there is going to be a very short answer, I would simply like to add that the contractor was the Baxter Construction Co. All right, Mr. Speaker, I am finished.

Hon. Mr. Scott: I will be at least five minutes, Mr. Speaker. I would like to thank the honourable member for his question. As he knows, this historic courthouse in Chatham, to which the jail is attached, is one of the older buildings in the province that is still in use. Attached to it, of course, is a brand-new building which represents the modern courthouse, but in the old portion there is one courtroom.

The portico to the building was being repaired and, having made entry under the roof, the engineers and repairmen found, I believe, that the south wall was at considerable risk. Notwithstanding Alexander Mackenzie’s excellent masonry work, I gather that some fairly immediate repairs were required. His services could not be obtained; we had Government Services look at it.

We vacated the building -- the single courtroom in the building that was being used -- and the jail and made arrangements with the municipality for alternative accommodation. We expect that these fairly fundamental repairs undertaken by Government Services will permit re-entry to this historical building on May 1.

Mr. McGuigan: Can the minister tell us when court will be able to be held in this building again?

Hon. Mr. Scott: As I pointed out in introducing my answer to the honourable member, all the courtrooms in Chatham are being used. There is simply one courtroom in this portion of the building. It is a jury courtroom and, indeed, I believe would not presently be used until next April, when a jury trial has been slated to be held in Chatham.

That trial will take place in the municipal building, and any time there is requirement for a jury trial in Chatham after May I we will be able to provide it.

ASSISTANCE FOR THE DISABLED

Mr. Philip: I have a question for the minister responsible for programs for the disabled.

There is a guidebook which he has turned out called Guide To the Ontario Government Programs and Services for Disabled Persons. Under a heading of “Municipal Parking Programs and the Disabled Symbol Licence Plate,” it states: “The provincial ‘disabled symbol’ licence plate is equivalent to a municipal permit and confers the same benefits to the holder under the local bylaw. The Ministry of Transportation issues the plate free of charge. These allow physically disabled drivers and/or persons driving disabled persons to park in designated parking spots throughout the province.” Is that a factual statement?

Hon. Mr. Mancini: I believe that the information given in the guide was as factual as possible at the time. I want to tell the honourable member that I did, in fact, read through the entire guide after it was reprinted. I do not believe I came across any particular areas of error.

The member may know that this past summer I was a guest speaker at the Association of Municipalities of Ontario convention and also met with the AMO executive with my colleague the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Eakins) to discuss the very important matter of parking for persons with disabilities.

If the honourable member has a specific problem he would like to bring to my attention, I would be most pleased to hear it.

Mr. Philip: For years, organizations such as Care-Ring for Rexdale, and indeed the city of Etobicoke, have asked that permits be issued to organizations like Care-Ring for Rexdale for volunteers who are driving disabled persons.

Is the minister aware that the Minister of Transportation (Mr. Fulton) has now finally brought forth a policy, but that policy is that permits will be issued only to companies and organizations that are primarily in the business of transportation and providing for disabled persons, and thus it excludes many, many organizations and volunteers who fear getting ticketed or having their cars towed away in their humanitarian act of helping the disabled meet various appointments that they cannot reach through other means?

Hon. Mr. Mancini: What the honourable member has forgotten to bring to the attention of the House is that the new policy for parking permits is one which allows the disabled person to have a portable permit. Therefore, the person who wishes to go from point A to point B does not necessarily have to travel in a vehicle that is licensed. The person can use the portable permit and as long as it is shown, either on the front windshield or on the back, there will be no tickets given.

One of the principal reasons we have gone with the portable permit is for exactly the problem that the member has pointed out. Disabled persons do not always necessarily travel in the same vehicle. A portable permit is, I believe, a great benefit and a great help to the organizations that the honourable member is so concerned about.

1530

SMALL FOOD PROCESSORS’ ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

Mr. Pollock: I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture and Food. The ministry made an announcement of a small food processors’ assistance grant more than two years ago. This grant was to assist small processors to remodel and update their facilities. There was no question that cheese factories fell under the criteria, but somebody in his ministry made a decision that they did not. Would the minister tell the House who made that decision?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: No, I cannot. I will have to find out what it is the member is talking about. I am not aware that any small food processing industry that met the criteria was discriminated against in any way. In my estimation, if a small cheese factory met the criteria for this assistance then it would likely get the assistance. I really do not know what the member is alluding to.

Mr. Pollock: There were more than six cheese factories that applied for this grant and got turned down. Now they are cheesed off. They want to know why they did not get that grant.

Mr. Villeneuve: The big cheese is mad.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Pollock: I think it is up to the minister to tell them why they did not get that grant.

Hon. Mr. Riddell: I really think the member has an obligation to tell me which six cheese factories did not get the grant and I will be more than happy to look into it to find out why it is they did not receive the grant.

Mr. Speaker: That completes the allotted time for oral questions and responses.

TIME ALLOCATION

Mr. B. Rae: Mr. Speaker, I indicated to you before question period that I did not want to take up the time of the House before question period but that at the very earliest opportunity I did want to discuss with you, sir, and put some views to you about the appropriateness of allowing a completely improper notice to appear on the Orders and Notices paper without the unanimous consent of House leaders and without the unanimous consent of the House.

I have some arguments to make to you, and I wonder if you would allow me a few minutes. It will not take an extraordinary amount of time but it will take me some time to make some arguments to you, sir, which are of quite fundamental importance to the way we do business in this House and to the lack of precedent for this kind of procedure, for this kind of measure, as is proposed by the government House leader. In light of our very strong feelings in opposition to this appropriateness of this motion, Mr. Speaker, I wonder if you would allow me to make those submissions to you now.

Mr. Speaker: I have listened carefully to the Leader of the Opposition. I of course, as Speaker, can listen to any point of order or point of privilege. I am just not --

Hon. Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, on the same point that was raised by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. B. Rae): I listened very carefully to what he said, and I think he said that he really sought unanimous consent to address a concern that he had, a point which I think he said would not be of unusual or extraordinary duration. If that is what I heard him say, and if he wants our consent to do that, I would certainly be prepared to hear the point, assuming that, as the leader said -- if I heard him correctly -- it was not of extraordinary or unusual duration.

Mr. Brandt: Mr. Speaker, on the same point: Our party would be in agreement with the Leader of the Opposition being able to make his arguments appropriately. He has indicated that he will be responsible in terms of time allocation with respect to this particular matter, and our party is very interested in the views of the Leader of the Opposition as it relates to a matter of precedent in this House and as it relates to these particular bills. So we would be in an agreement and we give our concurrence in having the Leader of the Opposition proceed.

Mr. Speaker: I have listened carefully to the three members. I hope that was not putting words in the Leader of the Opposition’s mouth. Was he asking for unanimous consent?

Mr. B. Rae: I get it so rarely that I am delighted to have it. What I really want, Mr. Speaker, is simply to advise you that I would like the opportunity to make an argument to you on some fundamental questions about setting this motion before the House in print without the unanimous consent of the House. I have a very simple case to make to you. It is not one which I intend to make for a couple of hours. It is one which can readily be made. I think it is one you should consider before the House further proceeds with respect to other business. I would like a chance to put it to you. I would have put it before question period, but I did not want to infringe on the time of members in terms of asking questions.

Mr. Speaker: It appears that the Leader of the Opposition has asked permission of the House to put some of his points of view on the record regarding an order of business, and there seems to be agreement. Is that the case?

Agreed to.

Mr. B. Rae: My submission to you is simply this, Mr. Speaker: If you would look at your authority under the standing orders of the Legislative Assembly, and in particular at sections 1(a) and 1(b) as well as standing order 39, that is, if you like, the statutory framework for my argument.

I then ask you to consider, quite simply, the precedents of this House with respect to previous time allocation motions which were put. They have been put on a number of other occasions.

They were put in 1982, for the first time in the history of Ontario. A decision by Mr. Speaker Turner was made on December 8, 1982. A decision of Mr. Speaker Turner was made on February 15, 1983, on time allocation. A decision of Mr. Speaker Turner was made on June 25, 1984, dealing with Bill 142. Of course, you yourself made a decision with respect to arguments made to you on June 19, 1986, which you will no doubt recall was the issue of the bill on extra-billing.

I have a very simple and direct argument to make to you, which is this: When the House considered the question of time allocation -- I am not going to reargue the old law, because we have been through it all -- my colleague Mr. Renwick, the late member for Riverdale, made a very eloquent description of how closure was introduced into the House of Commons during the Irish crisis in the 1880s. I did my bit in talking about the introduction of closure in the House of Commons in Ottawa during the great naval estimates debate between the Liberals and the Conservatives and Sir Arthur Meighen and Sir Wilfrid Laurier in those days. I do not want to go back and argue all those points.

I think you have ruled on this matter and the question of the allocation of time as a motion that is in order when it is put with respect to a single bill. What I want to say to you is that that debate is one which I could make if I were interested in simply delaying proceedings or prolonging the time of the House. I have the entire debate here, going back to 1982 when dealing with this question.

I thought we made a very good case. I think we were right at that time. I think we were right in saying that there is no procedure in our rules that would allow for an allocation of debate, apart from standing order 39. I thought we were right when we said there is no common law, if you like, no unwritten rule allowing the government to shut off debate unless it is specifically provided for in the rules. Section 39 is the area in the rules which deals directly with this question of closure.

1540

What I want to suggest, Mr. Speaker, is that you must have a look at the argument which was made to you back in that very first debate by the then leader of the government, Mr. Wells, who is now, of course, Ontario’s agent general in London. Mr. Wells said in response to our arguments that this amounted to a change in the rules, and that you cannot make a change in the rules that is unilateral; any change in the rules has to be made with the consent of all partners and parties in the House.

Mr. Wells made a very simple statement at page 5946 of Hansard in December 1982. He said:

“It may be that we should change the rules in this area, but the fact remains, this substantive motion deals with only one bill. It does not deal with two or three bills. It does not change the standing orders. It deals with one particular bill.”

The argument I am making to you, Mr. Speaker, is that there is a clear distinction between what each and every government has done and what this government has done with respect to the moving of a time allocation measure. There is a distinction between that and moving a time allocation motion that touches on one particular bill as an exception to the rules of the House. Though I do not agree with it, I accept the reality that precedent, some four cases, has now been accepted by Speakers who have argued that these motions are in order.

I want to suggest that when you have in one motion put before you, Mr. Speaker, an effort to allocate time on two bills which deal in fact with separate subject matters, separate issues of principle and of policy -- that what was suggested by Mr. Wells in his initial argument on behalf of what was in 1982 an unprecedented move -- what we have is a different situation from those previous motions and previous propositions.

I go back to the very basic arguments I have made to various Speakers. I hope I do not need to remind you, Mr. Speaker, that among those casting their nays against the original Speaker’s judgement with respect to whether the motion was in order was the member for Perth (Mr. Edighoffer). But I only refer to that in passing.

My position on our rules and the way we do business around here has been, I think, very clear and very direct. We are bound by our rules, our precedents and any other relevant precedents that clearly relate to our situation. I go back to what Mr. Wells said:

What I am suggesting is that the government cannot proceed in this way. It is not appropriate for the government to proceed in this way. It is not appropriate for it even to be in Orders and Notices without the unanimous consent of the House, for this simple reason: It amounts to a change in the standing orders and the way in which we do business in this House.

It amounts to a change that is substantive enough that I say to you, sir, if you cannot protect us in this regard, it will now be possible for there to be not one precedent in terms of the principle that the government can move time allocation with respect to a bill; it will now be possible for the government to argue that if it can plan time for two, it can plan time for three; and if it can plan time for three, it can plan time for five.

It would be a perfectly logical extension of the government’s position that it could have a speech from the throne and attached to the speech from the throne would be an omnibus motion which would say, “This is how much time we are going to allocate for debate for the entire spring.”

That, Mr. Speaker, I say to you with great respect --

Hon. Mr. Conway: You are beginning to sound like me.

Mr. B. Rae: The government House leader is raising his eyebrows and saying, “Well, now you’re beginning to sound like me.” I heard the government House leader say it and I accept that criticism.

What I am suggesting is that you do not have to go back to 1982, 1983 or 1984 or any of the other times. What I am suggesting, Mr. Speaker, is that you now have to consider it before any discussion on this matter proceeds. I suggest you have to reflect on it very carefully, because you are going to be setting a precedent. Your ruling had better be a precedent which all members of the House can live with and which in fact provides the crucial protection for minorities and opposition parties, which it is your obligation to protect as much as it is to protect and to sustain the standing orders of the House.

When Mr. Speaker Turner made the precedent-setting decision back in 1982, he made that decision on the basis that it was a one-shot deal, a one-time, one-bill allocation. He did not make it on the basis of saying that it is open to the government to change the rules whenever it wants, and he did not make it on the basis that the government can allocate time not just for one rule, not just for one bill, but for several.

Mr. Haggerty: It says it all in the Sun.

Mr. B. Rae: I hope the member for Erie --

Mr. Haggerty: Niagara South.

Mr. B. Rae: Niagara South; I apologize.

Mr. Haggerty: The Sun says it all.

Mr. B. Rae: I read all the papers. The riding has changed but the member is still here. I would ask him to reflect on the words of his leader who, when he was Leader of the Opposition, had this to say back in 1982:

“The longer I am here the more I believe very strongly that the opposition is the only thing that stands between government and the sheer, naked use of power.”

He was right when he said that, and he would be right if he said it today; he would even be more right if he said it today.

Mr. Brandt: Did he say that?

Mr. B. Rae: Yes, he did, on page 5949 of Hansard, back in 1982.

Mr. Speaker, I have one other argument that I want to put to you, and it also relates to how out of order this measure is. I want to suggest that if the government intends to move a notice of motion with respect to time allocation, it has to move a notice of motion with respect to one bill and that has to be considered. Then it has to consider another motion, if that is the way it intends to proceed. It cannot do it by means of an omnibus motion that includes all.

Hon. Mr. Conway: Your authority for this observation?

Mr. B. Rae: The government House leader asked my authority for this. I will say what it is. The simple fact is that if this measure is to be allowed, the logical implication of accepting that argument would be that the standing orders would come to mean nothing when it comes to protecting the rights of minorities and regulating the way in which we do business here.

I hope I do not have to tell the government House leader that the standing orders of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario are entirely silent on the question of time allocation. There is not a single word in our standing orders on the question of time allocation. All there is, is a mention of the word “closure” under part IX, in standing order 39, pages 14 and 15.

What I want to suggest is that in considering the appropriateness of this motion as it now stands, Mr. Speaker, you should consider the power the House did give to you when it put forward its closure rule, and I want to read that to you. It says:

“A motion for closure, which may be moved without notice, until it is decided shall preclude all amendment of the main question, and shall be in the following words: ‘That this question be now put.’ Unless it appears to the chair that such motion is an abuse of the standing orders of the House or an infringement of the rights of the minority, the question shall be put forthwith and decided without amendment or debate.”

I want to go back to the words “Unless it appears to the chair that such motion is an abuse of the standing orders of the House or an infringement of the rights of the minority ....” What I want to say to you, Mr. Speaker, is that you have to consider the meaning of that phrase when you consider whether this motion for time allocation is in fact in order.

1550

There will be many people who will look to Ottawa for a precedent. Let me say very directly to you, Mr. Speaker, that it is quite inappropriate for you to do that, because the Parliament in Ottawa has specifically turned its mind to the question of time allocation and has created a series of rules with respect to time allocation. But there is an interesting point to be made that I do want to make to you with regard to the situation in Ottawa.

They have accepted in Ottawa the fact that there would be time allocation. When Mr. Trudeau became the Prime Minister, one of the things he insisted on was that there be a change in the closure rule to make it even more comprehensive, to talk about a time allocation rule that was being put in place.

I want to remind you, sir, that the time allocation rule that exists in Ottawa relates specifically to the question of one bill, and that in fact when the government and the opposition -- I remember this well because it was right after I left that great place -- were having an argument about a series of acts and amendments dealing with the question of energy and the energy bill, which you will recall was the dispute that gave rise to the first ringing of bells for a very substantive period of time, in fact for several weeks, the government and opposition finally agreed on explicitly changing all the standing orders with regard to each individual act.

I refer you, sir, to House of Commons Journals, Monday, March 22, 1982, page 4626, where Mr. Pinard, who was the government House leader, seconded by Mr. Nielsen, ordered a change in the standing orders.

I believe that strengthens our argument for this simple reason: The change in the standing orders that was made there was a change that was required, I think on the face of it required because if they had not changed the standing orders to allow in this case for an agreement on time with respect to several different bills, it would have been out of order.

I think the government House leader at that point in time realized that, realized that under the standing orders that were in place in Ottawa you could only deal with the allocation of time with respect to a single measure before you, and not with respect to a variety of bills that might be before the House.

Mr. Speaker, I have another argument to make that I will put very briefly to you, but I must confess I am principally relying in my comments to you on the very first argument.

The other argument I want to make to you, sir, is that it is out of order for the government to be moving closure on a stage of the bill to which we have yet to arrive. In other words, I would say to you that it certainly is in order for the government to allocate time, or it might be in order for the government to decide to allocate time with respect to a single bill, if it was dealing with a stage of the bill at which we were at, but that it is out of order for the government to do so with respect to prospective stages of the bill we have yet to reach. That is my second argument.

But I say to you, sir, that the first argument is the fundamental one, and I say to you that if we end up with a situation where this motion is now in order, it will be open to any government, notwithstanding the standing orders, to come down in April or May and say, “We want to have three days for this bill and two days for that bill, and if we can’t get agreement from the House leaders” -- the argument from the government will be -- “we are going to do it by way of standing order.”

If you allow that to happen for more than one bill, the clear implication will then be that literally anything goes in terms of how governments allocate time. The only protection we have in this regard, Mr. Speaker, in terms of the appropriateness of that notice of motion, is your ruling on what governments are entitled to do in this House, following what I regard as an unfortunate precedent but one which we nevertheless, looking at all the precedents that exist, have to recognize; but it applies to a single measure and it does not apply to more than one measure in one motion.

Mr. Sterling: I must echo many of the arguments and sentiments put forward by the Leader of the Opposition.

It is unfortunate our parliamentary process has come to this particular stage where we have a time allocation, or as it is referred to in Erskine May, a guillotine motion that is going to limit debate on and participation in two very important pieces of legislation.

However, I guess in some ways it is not surprising this government has come to this procedure in trying to end what has been, from the very start, a backing-in to a piece of legislation that appears to be hastily drawn and that has very little popular support in Ontario. So it is not, in some ways, surprising that the government is ending it as clumsily as it began it.

We have had some time allocation motions that have been ruled in order in this Legislature. Those took place in 1982 and 1983, as referred to by the previous speaker. However, as has been pointed out, those particular time allocation motions dealt with a single piece of legislation, and I believe with a single part of the procedure.

Today, Mr. Speaker, if you rule that this particular motion is in order, you are expanding the latitude of a time allocation motion or guillotine order. That is what we are deciding here today, not only for this particular set of circumstances where we have two bills and another procedure all grouped in one time allocation motion, but we are also deciding today that the government of the day can wipe its hands clean of the existing standing orders, in effect and say:

“We want a legislative timetable to our liking and this is the way we’re going to do it. We’re going to allow a certain amount of debate on stage 1. We’re going to allow a certain amount of debate on stage 2. We’re going to allow a certain amount of debate on stage 3. Then that’s it, members of the Legislature. It’s going to become law because we’re the majority. We’re 94 strong and we’re going to show our arrogance and carry all these steps ahead, notwithstanding that the members of the opposition have a legislative right to stand up and oppose members taking rules, laws and proposals put forward by the government.”

If we extend the argument they are putting forward today, if we extend the argument that is put forward by the government that you can group into a time allocation motion or process a number of bills, a number of steps, all within a legislative time frame, in effect what we are saying today is, “Throw out standing orders altogether and let’s get on with what the majority wants.” The majority government then takes over all of the role of this Legislature and members of the opposition might as well go home.

I was elected to represent a constituency and the standing orders and the Legislative Assembly Act protect my constituents from an arrogant, overpowering majority government. In this case we feel, quite frankly, that the government is being premature in bringing forward this motion.

Erskine May says on page 456, in relation to guillotine bills or guillotine orders, “An allocation of time order is not usually moved until after the second reading of a bill, and usually not until the rate of progress in committee has provided an argument for its necessity.”

1600

In this case, we may have a situation where there is significant evidence that there has been a long debate on Bill 113 and that there has been significant debate in the standing committee that dealt with Bill 113. However, I believe Bill 114 was dealt with in either one or two days by the standing committee.

Second, we have the introduction of a guillotine motion before we have entered into the debate. I could perhaps understand it and I think the public would understand it if we got into the third reading debate and the debate dragged on day after day with no sign of letting up, and members were filibustering, speaking for three and a half or four hours each and repeating their arguments over and over again. Then I think the government might have an argument to move in on closure and cut it off on Bill 113. Maybe they would want to do it on Bill 113, or if Bill 113 passed, maybe they would want to move to Bill 114.

I think the essence of the point of order on which you, Mr. Speaker, must decide today is that what the government has done by bringing forward this kind of guillotine motion is to expand what was unfortunately necessary in 1982 and 1983. They are now expanding the strength of a majority government not only on parliament today, but on parliaments of the future.

Therefore, I ask you to consider very seriously, Mr. Speaker, when does your ruling whether this is just a substantive motion that can be considered by this Legislative Assembly cross over the point from a substantive motion to really scrapping the standing orders under which we have to live from day to day? I suggest to you that this is not the time for going over that hump into the situation where you can allow a government to put together a whole timetable, where it can consider not only one piece of legislation through one process, but can consider two pieces of legislation through a number of processes. I suggest you not let us go over that hump today because the proof is not there that they need to do it.

I think there is a serious challenge today to the standing orders and the rights of the minority parties in this Legislature. I ask you to rule this particular motion out of order.

Hon. Mr. Conway: I have listened with care to my colleagues the member for York South (Mr. B. Rae) and the member for Carleton (Mr. Sterling) and I want to make some observations that will not be of any great length.

Let me say at the outset that I clearly believe this motion to be in order. In my view, there is absolutely nothing that has been said that has made me believe that the order standing in my name, the government notice of motion, is anything but in order. I just want to address that for my friend the leader of the third party.

The Leader of the Opposition has said it is out of order for two reasons. It is out of order, he said, because it is not within the competence of the House, really, or certainly not within the competence of the government, which is what I think he really suggested, to treat these bills together in this kind of motion. I do not agree.

I think a couple of things have to be said. First, from the very beginning of this particular process, we have, as the House and as the standing committee on administration of justice, dealt with these two bills, Bill 113 and Bill 114, together. They have been seen, they have been treated and they have been considered as companion bills. I think honourable members, whatever they think about the substance of the policy that informs these two bills, would certainly agree with that.

When I listened to the debate, both in the House and in committee, one thing was very clear to me, that honourable members on all sides saw these two bills as companion pieces of a government initiative to more efficiently and enforceably regulate the retail store hours in Ontario. That, I think, is absolutely clear. There is no question about the way in which the committee and the House has dealt with this.

I want to say as well, dealing with the second point of the leader of the official opposition, simply this: The House is master of its own destiny. It is true, as the Leader of the Opposition has said, that the House can do a number of things. In fact, the Leader of the Opposition has stood up this afternoon and has sought an opportunity that under our rules is not easily provided, with one exception, and that is the exception that has been given to him to initiate this debate.

At any time, any member can seek unanimous consent to proceed with a matter of particular concern to that member, one that might then be shared more generally with his or her colleagues in the assembly; but the point I want to make is that the point we are now debating is an indication of how it is the House can be master of its own destiny.

Mr. B. Rae: You are.

Hon. Mr. Conway: The Leader of the Opposition parenthetically observes that I am somehow the House. I am not. I want to make clear that as we have seen on a number of occasions previously, time allocation has been used in this assembly.

It is very interesting, as the leader of the official opposition observed and the member for Carleton (Mr. Sterling) observed as well, that most of us were here that time, six years ago, when the very courtly and very fine leader of the government in the House, Mr. Wells, moved what I believe was the first time allocation motion. It was interesting the extent to which the honourable leader of the official opposition focused on that situation, as though nothing had changed.

In fact, some things have changed. It is true, as has been indicated in question period this afternoon and as undoubtedly will be mentioned on a number of occasions over the next little while, that I, in another place at that time, had a lot to say about certain of these matters. I expect I will hear some of that. But I want to make the point that when one reflects back to the situation in 1982, I can remember sitting with my colleagues in the then Liberal opposition, talking on occasion with my friends in the New Democratic opposition, about how we were going to frustrate the will of the government at that time.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: Oh, no. You guys favoured Bill 179.

Hon. Mr. Conway: I am not talking just about that particular initiative. My point is simply this: The Leader of the Opposition went on at some length to talk about the situation with respect to the way in which our rules are written and the way in which our practices have developed. I say to my friend the member for Sarnia (Mr. Brandt) that until very recently we treated our routine proceedings as just that, routine proceedings. It was rare that this assembly, in terms of the kind of culture that had been developed here, ever debated at any length a report from a committee, as we have seen in this particular matter.

It is true that because the rules were essentially silent on that, it did not preclude that, but I think, and I have to be fair, my memory serves me well when I say that the former member, the very distinguished member for Port Arthur, Mr. Foulds, began a practice of limited debate on the report stage on the odd occasion. I might be correct and the table might correct me at a later point.

1610

It was rare indeed that we ever treated our routine proceedings as anything but that, routine. When a chairman of a committee reported progress from a standing committee with respect to a bill, it was taken on the nod.

The idea, for example, that we would use petitions as anything but routine proceedings was, again, unheard of in 1982. The member for York South looks somewhat askance, but I can tell my friend, from the 13 and a half years experience I have in this place, although I do not, like him, share an experience in another place, it is very recent in our culture here that we would have treated that petition portion of our routine proceedings as anything but routine.

Thy point I want to make is simply this, that we have standing orders that set out certain rules. I want to make the point that we have a number of practices to which attention has already been drawn. In my view, the order, that is the government notice of motion to set out specific time allocation for the consideration of these two bills, 113 and 114, into the next stage of debate and then on to an orderly conclusion, is entirely in order. It is very much within our practice, and I cannot believe that the Leader of the Opposition really believes that just because our rules are silent on something, one cannot do it.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: We believed what you said on Bill 127.

Hon. Mr. Conway: Seriously, because if he believed that, I have to think that some of what we have seen on the routine proceedings would not be matters in which he would wish to engage.

I make the point simply that I have looked very carefully at our rules. I make the point again that I made last evening: This motion is not closure. The Leader of the Opposition quite rightly pointed out this afternoon what the closure motion is in the standing orders of the Ontario Legislature.

It is a somewhat different closure motion than you would find in other jurisdictions. I appreciate what the Leader of the Opposition has said in that connection. In our rules, as the Leader of the Opposition pointed out, closure is something very specific: It is that one moves that the previous question be now put.

This particular government notice of motion is not that. After months of debate, some 60 days of debate, having regard to both of these bills, the government is now saying, “We feel that it is appropriate, in face of what has been a very clearly articulated obstruction on behalf of the official opposition, to move these bills forward to the next stage of debate.”

As I indicated here this afternoon in question period, I have to say that we are not intending to do anything but continue the debate, and the motion allows members of all parties to take time to debate Bill 113 at the report stage. It allows two full days of debate of both bills in committee of the whole.

I point out that with Bill 114, the second of the two bills, when members were under no constraint whatsoever, if my memory serves me correctly, I believe the debate on Bill 114 at second reading was something like an hour and something like an hour at committee stage.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: With no amendment.

Hon. Mr. Conway: And, as the Minister of Labour observes, with no amendment.

I want to make the point finally, Mr. Speaker, that the motion before you is a motion to provide more debate. It is a motion that has been given notice of; in that respect our standing orders have certainly been complied with. It is a motion, as I say, that treats these two important bills as companion bills. In my view, that is exactly what we have done in practice with these two bills. As I say for a final time, the House is master of its own destiny.

Of course, the Speaker has to protect the minority view and that is entirely appropriate, but I cannot believe, Mr. Speaker, that you or anyone else watching this debate would imagine that after nearly nine or 10 months, scores of days of legislative debate, some 60 days of debate -- we have had something like 500 submissions and something like 200 people and/or groups have come before the committee. We have listened with great care. I agree that we have not accepted all of the advice tendered by the opposition, but that is understandable in the kind of democratic dialogue that we expect in this Legislature.

But because time allocation is clearly within the established practices of this assembly; furthermore, because this House is master of its own destiny; because we have spent such a great amount of time, both in the House and in committee, deliberating upon these two matters relating to that same public policy, which is the one I mentioned earlier -- the more efficient and enforceable regulation of retail store hours in Ontario -- and because notice of a substantive motion has been given, I believe this particular motion is entirely in order and I would quite frankly imagine that is the ruling that would have to flow from both our practices and our standing orders and would so submit.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have listened carefully to the comments made by the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Carleton and the government House leader. The Leader of the Opposition asked permission of the House to raise this matter and receive unanimous consent. I listened very carefully to the comments, suggestions and arguments that he made. I also listened very attentively to and I made some notes regarding the comments of the other members.

It appears to me that the Leader of the Opposition is raising a point of order and requesting the Speaker to review the precedents of this House and to come back with a response on whether the motion on the order paper is in or out of order. Also, I felt there was something in there on whether the content of the motion was in order.

I would like to suggest to the members of the House, because to my knowledge this is the first time that such a request has been made of a Speaker, that they would give me time to reserve my comments on this request. I ask the indulgence of the House to continue with its business and any other items on the order paper and give me a few hours to review and respond. Would there be agreement to that?

1620

Hon. Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to put you in a difficult position. I understand our friends in the third party have some matters that they were intending to proceed with. Certainly, if that is your request, we are quite prepared to agree.

Mr. Speaker: I appreciate that. As soon as we get into the next order of business, I will certainly remove myself from this chair and prepare a response for the House.

PETITIONS

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. J. M. Johnson: “To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

“Whereas the Premier and other members of the Liberal government have stated the government’s intention to repeal the Retail Business Holidays Act and to dump this responsibility in the laps of the municipal governments who have already indicated they don’t want it; and

“Whereas the Legislature’s select committee on retail store hours, representing all three political parties in the Legislature, reported unanimously to the Legislature in May 1987 as follows: ‘The committee supports the principle of a common pause day in Ontario’; and

“Whereas the report also said, ‘The committee unanimously rejects the notion of wide-open Sunday shopping for Ontario’; and

“Whereas the report commented as follows on the impact of wide-open Sunday retailing on working people and working families: ‘The committee strongly believes that wide-open Sunday shopping in Ontario would represent an added pressure in our fast-paced society and a strain upon the family structure’; and

“Whereas it continued: ‘This strain would be imposed particularly on the families of retail employees, many of whom are women, who might then be required to work on Sunday. The committee also believes that wide-open Sunday shopping would have an adverse impact upon common time together for primarily female-led, single-parent families’; and

“Whereas the report continued as follows: ‘Similarly, it is recognized that on Sunday, child care facilities are not generally available, public transit operates on reduced schedules, and open Sundays could lead to the need for more publicly sponsored family support services. All of these factors would impose unwarranted and unnecessary strain upon the family which is regarded as a key pillar of Ontario society’; and

“Whereas the Ontario government submitted a report prepared by its own women’s directorate to the 1987 annual conference of ministers responsible for the status of women, and that report noted the need for greater government sensitivity to changes in hours of work and hours of business in terms of ‘recognizing the need for time to be set aside when all families can be together’ and the need to ‘ensure that common time off is set aside when all families can be together’; and

“Whereas the government’s stated intentions can only increase existing pressures on working people and working families and result in less fairness to them;

“We urge the Liberal government not to proceed according to its recent statements of intent, but instead urge it to maintain and strengthen the Retail Business Holidays Act, to retain under provincial jurisdiction legislation regulating Sunday work hours, to not pass the buck to municipal governments on this issue and to give effect to a common pause day for working people and working families in Ontario.”

I have signed this petition, which has been signed by other people.

Mr. Speaker: This might be the appropriate time to remind all members that petitions are most welcome in the House. However, our standing orders do say that the petitioner’s material allegations may be put forth. I have tried to put it as simply as possible on some occasions, saying that quite often there are a lot of “whereases” that are unnecessary. They state the argument for it, whereas the material allegations are stated in the “therefore.” That might be helpful to some of the members in the future.

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION

Mr. Haggerty: I have a petition to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It says:

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

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

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

I have added my name to the other 263 petitioners.

HOME CARE

Mr. D. R. Cooke: I have a petition, signed by 511 people, which indicates that they are taxpayers of the region of Waterloo and support the efforts of the Red Cross homemakers in the area and the Red Cross Society, Ontario division, homemaker service as part of the government’s home care program providing service to the elderly, handicapped, ill or convalescent in order that they may remain in their own homes.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. D. R. Cooke: I have a second petition, signed by 287 people, adherents of the First Christian Reformed Church of Kitchener, who believe that Sunday should be kept as a common day of pause for religious and family services.

MOTION

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

Hon. Mr. Conway moved that Ms. Poole and Mr. Campbell and Mr. Furlong and Mr. Neumann exchange places respectively in the order of precedence for private members’ public business and that, notwithstanding standing order 71(h), the requirement for notice be waived with respect to ballot items 59 and 60.

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

HEALTH PROTECTION AND PROMOTION AMENDMENT ACT

Mrs. Grier moved first reading of Bill 202, An Act to amend the Health Protection and Promotion Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mrs. Grier: The purpose of this bill is to prohibit the sale of irradiated food and food which contains ingredients that have been irradiated.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

POLICE AND SHERIFFS STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT (CONTINUED)

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 187, An Act to amend certain Acts as they relate to Police and Sheriffs.

Mr. Sterling: As all members of the Legislature will remember, Bill 187 is a bill which deals with the security of the courtrooms across our province. Under our Constitution, our provincial government is given the responsibility for the administration of justice. Therefore, it is the provincial taxpayer who must bear the responsibility of running our court system and also, I believe, of providing adequate security for the whole process that surrounds the courtroom.

We in this party recognize that there has been a problem with regard to the clarity as to who is really responsible for providing security in the courtroom. Generally speaking, what happens at this time is the local police in an area provide the service, but the province compensates them in some way. I believe that, for instance, the Metropolitan Toronto Police Force was reimbursed in an out-of-court settlement not too long ago to the tune of some $4 million for providing courtroom security.

1630

The concern that municipal police authorities and municipalities in general have with regard to this whole matter is that they see this bill, Bill 187, as an abrogation of the province of Ontario’s duties under the Constitution to administer the court process. In effect, what is happening here is what we have seen happen in a number of other areas with regard to dividing up where the province should pay the shot and where the municipality should pay the shot for providing the service. We have seen that dramatically illustrated with regard to educational services.

Most recently we saw that illustrated in a proposal of the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) with regard to lot levy fees, whereby he is now saying that he is not going to provide 75 per cent of the cost of building a new school; he is going to provide 60 per cent.

The arguments have been put forward by the provincial government and by the parliamentary assistant to the Attorney General, the member for Mississauga North (Mr. Offer), that in 1985 there was a per household increase of $3 for each household in each municipality to cover the transfer of this expense from the province over to the municipalities. We have heard from a number of police forces with regard to this. The cost of providing these services is much greater than $3 per household. That is the argument that is put forward by police forces.

I want to read from the Honourable Justice Howland’s remarks on the opening of the courts last year, in 1988. That is one year ago. Each year in January of the year, the Chief Justice of Ontario, who is Chief Justice William Howland, makes a statement with regard to our justice system. Only a year ago, Chief Justice Howland made some remarks on this very subject of court security. I want to quote from that particular report. This is from his report, and he said it publicly but I do not think it has been talked about in this debate:

“During the year, General W. A. B. Anderson was retained to make a survey of security problems throughout the province. It is understood that he submitted a report early in the fall recommending possible alternative courses of action.”

One alternative was the creation of a provincial force to provide security. When he was referring to the fall, he was referring to the fall of 1987. I think it is interesting that this government has not released the report of General Anderson and that our police authorities, who have been attempting to get hold of this report from the Attorney General, have been refused access to that report. That is a report that is over a year and a half old.

You would think that a report with regard to the security in our courtrooms which is over a year old, which has something to do very dramatically and very importantly with Bill 187, would have been released by the Attorney General so that when we enter into this debate we can have a reasonable debate on a report which obviously suggests the very opposite of what they are doing in Bill 187.

Evidently, according to Chief Justice Howland, one of the recommendations of General Anderson, who was dealing with this and has provided the government with service, was at the very least the creation of a provincial force to provide security in the courtrooms of our province.

What has happened is that, in spite of the fact that this government has a recommendation that the province assume the responsibility, which I think the municipal police forces would only be too happy to give up and take those forces and utilize them in the particular municipalities where they are located for normal municipal police matters -- what we have here is a situation where the government has said: “Forget that, because we have to pay for that alternative. What we’re going to do is stick it to the municipalities. We’re not only going to require them to provide the municipal police for purposes of what we should be doing; we’re going to require them to pay for it as well.”

Mr. Speaker, I guess it is of no surprise to you that our party is requiring that this bill be sent out to committee. We want to hear from each and every police force, every municipal authority across this province, to decide whether we should go ahead with this legislation. I believe, quite frankly, that when push comes to shove, we are not going to go ahead with this legislation in the final analysis.

I know my friend the member for Wellington (Mr. J. M. Johnson) received a letter from the town of Fergus -- I am sure he is going to refer to it in his remarks -- about the increase in cost there.

I want to refer also to another problem with this particular matter. It is a problem we have in Carleton. All of the courtrooms are located within the municipality or the city of Ottawa. Notwithstanding the courtrooms being there, we do not only hear about police problems and criminal problems, crimes committed in the city of Ottawa; we also hear cases that consider crimes committed in the city of Nepean, which has its own police force; we hear about crimes committed in the city of Gloucester, which has its own police force; we have situations where we have crimes in the city of Kanata, which I represent, which has Ontario Provincial Police under contract to the city of Kanata; and we have crimes which are committed or alleged to be committed in the township of Cumberland, the township of Rideau, the village of Rockcliffe, the township of Osgoode, the township of Goulbourn and the township of West Carleton, all of which receive their municipal police forcing from the OPP.

It would appear from this particular legislation that the city of Ottawa -- and while I do not represent it, I think it is unfair to it -- is going to be stuck with the bill for providing the court security in the beautiful courthouse which the former Conservative government bestowed on that city. Also, the city is going to have to provide court security in the family court on Bronson Avenue, which hears cases from right across Ottawa-Carleton. Also, the other municipalities evidently are not going to have to contribute to providing this court security.

1640

While I represent those other municipalities and I guess it would be somewhat imprudent of me to point out that they are getting off the hook, I still do not believe that even the city of Ottawa should be picking up this tab, because it is clearly a provincial responsibility to pay for these particular services.

I would also like the province to clarify the whole problem with regard to the transportation of prisoners, because again this is an area where very much a mixed bag exists at this time. I would like to see the province, in a piece of legislation, not only clarify its responsibility to take care of court security and perhaps consider the suggestion of Chief Justice Howland but also provide transportation of prisoners to and from jail, back and forth to the courtroom.

There are many municipalities that are extremely upset about this matter. We have received letters from a number of the municipalities. I would like to read the cover letter which I received from the Municipal Police Authorities.

“The Municipal Police Authorities, representing Ontario’s 122 municipal police commissions and police committees, in concert with the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police, has major concerns with respect to Bill 187, the Police and Sheriffs Statute Law Amendment Act, that we understand will receive second reading on Tuesday, January 9, 1989. As you are aware, it is the intent of this bill to transfer the responsibility for court security from the province to municipal police forces that have a courthouse within their jurisdiction.

“In presenting the bill, the Attorney General spoke of the past increase in unconditional household grants for policing from $47 to $50 so that the rising costs could be met. Without exception, the change from the $17 per capita grant to the now $50 per household grant, although equally applied to all municipalities, was and remains detrimental to the municipalities.”

While the government at that time said municipalities were getting a good deal by getting $50 per household rather than $17 per capita, that in fact was a detriment to the municipalities in terms of the total dollars they got to run their municipal police forces.

“It is also of great concern to us that in order to comply with this legislation, many police forces in Ontario will be forced to remove officers from the street and place them in the courts. This fact alone should be of concern to the public we serve.” I think this criticism deals with trying to replace people who in the past have been known as court attendants with fully trained police officers.

“Both the Municipal Police Authorities and the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police have requested from Premier Peterson the opportunity to appear before a standing committee of the House so that we might comprehensively address the issues surrounding Bill 187 and its impact upon both the police community and the public we serve.

“As Premier Peterson has not acknowledged or responded to our request, we are hoping your office may assist us in ensuring that we have the opportunity to address a standing committee of the House on the concerns of the police community with respect to Bill 187.”

I have of course assured the Municipal Police Authorities that our party will make certain that it does have an opportunity to appear before a committee to express its concerns.

I might add that most recently -- and I am looking for that particular matter in my file here -- we have received a letter, I believe from the city of Kitchener, which has asked the Association of Municipalities of Ontario to call an emergency meeting to deal with this whole matter. Evidently, this particular bill has snuck up on the municipalities. They did not realize the financial implications of this particular piece of legislation and are only now reacting and asking that they have a province-wide meeting to deal with this particular piece of legislation.

I have received copies of letters from various police forces which outline the impact of what this piece of legislation means to each and every municipality in a certain area of our province. It is interesting when you look at the list of the financial impact of this particular court security legislation. The figures I am writing down here are done on the basis of the police forces having their people look at the bill and seeing what kind of services they are going to have to provide after this legislation goes into effect.

I am looking at what they call zone 3 within the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police, and this does not include all of the province, but it is interesting when you look at the fact that some municipalities get off scot-free and some do not, even though they have a municipal police force.

For instance, Alliston, which has a police force, has zero impact. They do not have to pay anything for court security. Obviously, Alliston does not have a courthouse. Innisfil, Lakefield, Midland and Penetanguishene are all not impacted by this legislation. They have zero costs.

But when we look at some of the neighbouring communities, for instance Barrie, the Barrie taxpayers are going to have to cough up $306,000 more in property taxes next year as a result of this legislation. Cobourg -- and I see the member who represents Cobourg here -- is going to have to cough up $250,000 from its property taxpayers in order to pay for this piece of legislation.

Mrs. Fawcett: Not so.

Mr. Sterling: The member who represents that area says, “Not so.” She differs with chief of police, Chief McDougall. I will read this letter to her because she is here today. This is to the chief of police, director, zone 3:

Financial impact: “Should this implementation be approved and require sworn officers, it would mean that five additional officers would be required. The professional cost of each officer would be $50,000, therefore projecting an overall cost of $250,000. Cobourg has a district court and a provincial court, which would account for the requirement of five officers.”

1650

Impact on policing: “I do not feel that the municipalities should be responsible for the required costing. Should the move be approved and the money is not available, I would have no alternative but to cut services from the community; i.e., removal of the school safety officer, criminal investigation and personnel, and possibly the identification officer. The Cobourg police force enjoys a professional reputation in the community which we serve and protect. We are not willing to lower our standards by cutting service because someone in the justice ministry feels another burden should be transferred to the police.”

That is what the corporation of the town of Cobourg’s police say, and I only say to the member from that area that I hope she will see fit to vote against this legislation when it comes to that situation.

The town of Collingwood is going to have to pay $133,000 more in property taxes to cover what has been heretofore a provincial expense.

The member for Durham East (Mr. Cureatz) is not here this afternoon. Oh, there he is. He will no doubt be talking about this later. The property taxpayers in Durham region are going to have to come up with $2 million in order to pay for this legislation.

The town of Lindsay, where the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Eakins) comes from, is going to have to pay $40,000 more.

I know there are a few members here from Metropolitan Toronto. Actually, there are not too many members here. There is one from the New Democratic Party, the member for Beaches-Woodbine (Ms. Bryden). They are going to have to pay $16.8 million more because of Bill 187. At least that is what the police force recommends there.

In Orillia, $70,000 more; in Peel region, $572,000 more; in Peterborough, $204,000 more; in Port Hope, $12,000 more; in York region, $1.1 million more.

It is not hard to see that the police forces are concerned about this. They are not only concerned that the property taxpayer is going to have another burden, they can see that the squeeze will be put on the municipal police forces in terms of their budgets and they will not be able to maintain the existing level of municipal police services which we have heretofore enjoyed in this province.

There have been many studies with regard to court security. Even if we placed the financial question aside and said, “How are we going to approach court security?” and having had the opportunity some time back now of practising law in various courtrooms across our province, I would have thought that in order to avert problems courtroom security would be better provided by a special group of people who had been trained to deal with the various situations which arise in a courtroom situation. Therefore, I would have thought there might have been an argument for a province-wide force that dealt specifically with that problem. It could be better trained. There could be a range of kind of security officer who could be trained to deal with different parts of the court process and provide an answer to the whole situation.

We have dealt with a number of reports in the past dealing with court security. We had an unfortunate situation here in Toronto some 10 years ago I believe, where there was a murder in a Toronto courtroom. At that time, the whole question of security in the courtroom was raised.

I must admit I have received calls from some of my colleagues who practice, particularly in the family court area, about the court security not only outside the courtroom but within the courtroom when emotions are very high and where rational, logical, cool heads do not always prevail.

I think it would be a very logical and reasonable step for this province to reconsider Bill 187, to read over some of the recommendations it has received in the past from Mr. Anderson. Also to read over, I believe, some remarks in the Zuber report on this. I realize there are some with regard to Mr. Pukacz -- I am not sure I am pronouncing that correctly -- with regard to security in the court system.

I believe the province has probably acted in the absolute reverse of where all these reports were going, because of its problem with regard to finances and the fact that it has been unable to manage our taxpayers’ money and wants to again pass the buck down the line to these particular individuals.

Therefore, we have no problem in saying that we oppose this bill, but as our party always does, we will go into the hearings with regard to the committee. We will listen to the submissions, and we will, of course, be willing to make reasonable amendments if they can be made to this particular bill to provide better security, better policing, and not dump this responsibility on the property taxpayers of our province.

Mr. Breaugh: I want to make some remarks on this Bill 187 today because, like many members, a number of groups in our community have begun now to add up the total package of this government’s approach to financing services such as the courts and the relationship between this bill, for example, and other matters which somehow seem a little distant until you sit down in the cool light of day, as most municipal governments, for example, are doing right now in the preparation of their own budget.

A large measure of that local budgeting function is to assess as carefully as you can the financial relationships between Ontario and the local property tax, and changes that are made which somehow initially do not appear to have much of an impact, but when you analyse it a little further do.

One of the things that has been said to me, for example, on this bill is that it seems many were not quite aware of the financial implications of this bill on their municipality. It seems a bit strange because this is not a new concept. This is one which has been discussed on previous occasions, has been the subject of some study and some conversation, but for whatever reason the exact implications of it have not been completely understood. To be a little more fair, perhaps in a slightly different context this bill would be somewhat more acceptable in a financial sense to a local municipality than it is now.

1700

I want to begin with a couple of things. First, I would accept, as I think all members would, that there has been an ongoing debate about security in the courts, about who should provide that security and what should be the nature of the security. It is mentioned rather regularly as the members of the bench gather each year to assess with the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) the problems they have, what they might do and what are the possible solutions.

I notice that once again this year Mr. Justice Howland mentioned: “During the year, General
W. A. B. Anderson was retained to make a survey of the security problems throughout the province. It is understood that he submitted a report early in the fall recommending possible alternative courses of action. One alternative was the creation of a provincial force to provide security. The other involved the use of existing police forces.” This is from his annual report tabled for 1988.

The problem of security in the courthouses is not new. It is one which has been studied. This particular security report, and I quoted briefly from Justice Howland’s report in 1988, is not available to the public. So we as opposition members and the public in general, police forces and others who are activists in the courts, have no knowledge at this time of what the report says. Perhaps that report is the basis for this legislation, but we do not know that. It would certainly be helpful if a report of that nature were to be made public. Perhaps during the course of committee hearings we might be able to do a little work which would either make that report in total or pertinent recommendations stemming from that report available to us so that we could have that sensible discussion about it.

That is one aspect. I think it is undeniable that in all public buildings, this Legislature included, the question of security is now a little more in the forefront of discussions. People are aware that different types of institutions almost have to develop their own techniques for security. What is appropriate here in the Legislature of Ontario may not be appropriate in some other public institution. One of our problems with this bill is precisely that: If we are to deal with this calmly and rationally, part of what we know must be done is very simply a good deal of consultation; you must develop consensus about what to do.

One of the first comments that was made to me about this bill had nothing to do with financing. It had to do with whether it was an appropriate allocation of what is now known in some quarters as the concept of community policing. In other words, I think we are coming to the realization that to ask police officers to do all kinds of different things is often very difficult. It often works against the concept that many forces are working on now.

They are very acutely aware that there are difficulties in their community which their force must address. They must assign resources, for example, to do community relations work. They must play a role in all kinds of safety programs. In and around the school system there is an increasing role for police officers and police departments to play in the school community and in the development of its life and what it does.

It then becomes very difficult for a police force to allocate its resources appropriately when it is given additional responsibilities such as those provided for under this bill. In my early conversations with a couple of police officers, they were not primarily concerned with the financial aspects or ramifications of this bill, but they were concerned that it would make their job more difficult; that they were not particularly designed as security officers, nor were personnel trained to do that type of work in the courthouse.

As a matter of fact, most members here will be able to attest that police officers do not like the idea that they have to sit around the courthouses a lot. They are there for a variety of reasons: to gather evidence in ongoing investigations, to provide evidence before trials -- there is a great deal of that work which simply has to be done by the police officers. There is also a good deal of down time. There are a lot of police cruisers sitting around every day outside courthouses in Ontario, and it is not a particularly productive use of equipment. There are also a lot of officers who are waiting to testify, waiting to participate in some proceeding before the court, and that is clearly not very productive time either. So they, in some way, are mindful that is not always the best allocation of their physical or financial resources.

When this bill was brought forward, it is my understanding that the Attorney General dealt with it as rather a housekeeping matter that would not be controversial. It has turned out to be quite a little controversy. It is getting more so day by day as municipalities around Ontario add this financial obligation on to other increasing financial obligations that have been presented, for example, by the Treasurer in his statements about grants that will go not only for policing but for other matters, and the changes that are there and what happens when you flat-line a grant system over a couple of years. What looks like a small percentage increase actually turns out to be less actual cash for the municipality to spend.

All municipalities are now in the process of striking their mill rate. They are in the middle of their budget preparations. They are particularly sensitive at this time of year to any changes which would be either changes in terms of grants given by the province, participation by the province in ongoing programs, or changes in responsibility such as have been suggested by this particular bill which is before us now.

I do not want to speak at great length, but I did want to get on the record this afternoon the concerns that I have about it. It does seem to me that this particular bill, by itself, needs further study. It will be our request that it does go to committee and that all of those who have phoned us and written to us to express their concerns and those municipalities which have provided individual members with information be given the opportunity to appear in front of a legislative committee so that we can begin, if we can, to sort this out.

I think, to conclude, it goes back to the original question. It is worthy of our consideration here today, and further in committee, that we address ourselves to that security matter of whether it really is appropriate to have police officers providing security in a courthouse situation, what the alternatives are and how one might go about that. I think that is not a simple problem but is a matter which must be discussed at some length in committee. I think there are a number of levels of government now that will suffer an impact that is unfair, in my view.

There is nothing that I have ever seen which indicates to me that the region of Durham, for example, my own regional municipality, should rightfully be expected to pay another $2 million in police costs simply because the courthouses in that area are physically located in the region of Durham. I anticipate that the Attorney General will say, “Well, there are ongoing negotiations about the cost ramifications of these changes.” Let me warn him in advance that this is going to be a difficult battle with municipalities which have gone through this time and time again, where someone from Queen’s Park suggests, “Here is a little change that we will make for you and we will sort out the financial ramifications of it later.”

A lot of that has happened in the last decade or so, and most municipal governments know better than to accept that as being a reasonable premise on which to proceed. At this point in time they want to know exactly what the financial arrangements are and for how long they will last. They want to know exactly whether their cost estimates -- in Durham, for example, of $2 million a year going on to the local property tax base -- are accurate, precisely how long that will last and what the long-term cost projections are.

Most municipal people, when they strike a budget, ask two pretty basic questions. The first one is, “How much does it cost in the first year, so that we can say yes or no to whether it is a good idea?” But the more pertinent financial question is not, “How much it does it cost to put up a rink?” The more pertinent financial question is, “How much does it cost to operate that same rink over the next 20 or 30 years?” So they look at the long-term financial implications as being a major portion of their decision-making process.

It may be that the Attorney General, in his own inimitable manner, has stumbled in the field here and presented something on which he really did not understand what he was bringing forward. Perhaps he does not have very much in the way of a long-standing, ongoing relationship with local municipalities. Perhaps he thought he was just clearing up a little paperwork here. But I think it is evident to all members now that there is a major problem here, and the problem is in the allocation and use of our personnel and the financial implications of all that.

1710

I know the government may be a little bit uncomfortable in moving this bill to committee, but I think it must be done. The government will do it one way or the other: Either organize it and send it off to committee, in which case we will have a common rational argument -- I am sure about it; or it is going to be facing kind of day-by-day sniper fire from various groups out there that are getting more and more angry over what this government is doing on a day-to-day basis.

They are keeping their little calculators at the ready and adding up the implications of what the Treasurer says today and the Attorney General says tomorrow and what all this will mean when we strike a local mill rate some time near the latter part of March or on into April 1989.

I think those are substantive matters. I think our reservations to the principle of this particular bill are sincere. I think they deserve the efforts and the hearings and the process that is followed when a bill is referred out to committee. I understand we will be able to do that.

I think the time is now to kind of sit down and carefully and calmly assess all the ramifications of this bill, to see whether there are other alternatives that really ought to be explored and to make a little more concrete all of the financial ramifications that are very much a part of this legislative move.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: I would like to express to the government my strong opposition to sections of Bill 187. I strongly encourage the government to have it sent to the standing committee on administration of justice so that the municipalities and police forces that have expressed concern will have an opportunity to make presentations on their cases.

I would like to point out a couple of areas I disagree with. One pertains to the $3 grant -- $47 to $50; it was established, I think, in 1985 -- the unconditional household grant to help pay for the increasing cost of courtroom security and policing.

An example I can use is that in the riding of Wellington, the town of Fergus’s population is about 7,000 people. It will receive a grant based on that 7,000 population. Its court facility serves an area of 25,000 to 30,000 people, yet it is only the 7,000 on whom we will receive the benefit of the police grant. It certainly is not fair that the town of Fergus should pick up the cost of maintaining a courtroom and security for the whole area.

The town of Palmerston is a smaller community of around 2,000 people and it, in turn, has four or five municipalities that share its courtroom facilities but do not share in the cost.

The Attorney General has stated that this bill imposes no change to the current situation for the vast majority of municipalities. I would concur with that because I have 21 municipalities in my riding and 19 of them will not be affected, but two will be affected.

I think that since the courts are there for the use of all the people, the province should pay the cost, that it be shared equally across the whole province and not make a municipality that happens to have a courtroom in its jurisdiction responsible for this increased cost.

The police forces make a compelling argument that the province is responsible for court security and that under common law the security of a building is the responsibility of the owner, and that therefore, because the province owns the courthouses or leases them, it should pay for their security. That certainly makes sense to most people.

I have a question to the parliamentary assistant to the Attorney General. If the province, rather than the municipalities, pays for court security, what will be the total cost to the taxpayers? Will it be less than if the municipalities pay the cost? I submit that it will not.

I will not belabour the point because my colleague the member for Carleton (Mr. Sterling) expressed many of the same comments I could make at this time. I will say that the town of Palmerston, the city of Guelph, the town of Walkerton, the city of Owen Sound and the town of Fergus have all expressed very deep concerns about this legislation.

In closing, I would like to read into the record a letter I received from Fergus. I might mention, as my colleague the member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry (Mr. Villeneuve) is here, that the town of Fergus is the home of the highland games. The letter is addressed to me:

“Re Bill 1987, Police and Sheriffs Statute Law Amendment Act, 1988.

“Dear Mr. Johnson:

“As you are aware, the Honourable Ian Scott, Attorney General for the province of Ontario, introduced Bill 187 in the House on November 17, 1988, for first reading. In short, the bill transfers the responsibility for the security of judges, courts and prisoners upon municipalities who have any type of court within their jurisdiction.

“With past provincial governments, the attorneys general have recognized they had a responsibility for this function, yet the present government is attempting to absolve its responsibility by putting Bill 187 before the House with no input from municipalities, police forces or their governing bodies or the taxpaying citizens of the province.”

That is despicable, to think that would happen in this society.

“A conservative estimate” -- that is good; instead of a Liberal estimate -- “of the added cost of providing the services as outlined by the Attorney General to the taxpayers of Ontario is $40 million to $50 million. This added burden to the taxpayer as well as the added pressures on resources of police forces in Ontario is of grave concern to police managers, municipal council and boards of commissioners of police.”

I will skip a couple of paragraphs and move on.

“It is estimated that an additional 400 police officers will be required to fulfill this obligation placed on municipalities should this law be proclaimed. Needless to say, other proactive police programs will suffer. Decisions by police managers will be made to eliminate community-based policing, RIDE programs, school safety programs as well as multicultural programs.”

I say to the parliamentary assistant, that is the feeling of the municipal police forces.

“Bill 187 affects each and every municipality in Ontario as it not only applies to all criminal courts but civil courts and would cause police managers to supply trained officers for provincial offences court, small claims court and landlord and tenant courts, etc.

“I urge you, sir,” -- he is addressing this to me -- “to rally the opposition parties” -- that is the birds over there and us -- “for enough members to stand against this horrendous legislation and its added burden to municipalities when it is reintroduced for second reading, to cause public hearings on the matter by the justice committee so that input from those burdened may be made.”

That, to me, is a reasonable request.

“The municipal police authorities and the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police will make all their expertise and resources available to you so that the true impact of this legislation to municipalities and police resources will be realized.

“Your continued support in matters of this nature is appreciated.

“Yours truly,

“W. G. Beirnes, mayor.”

I will close by simply saying that I support Mayor Beirnes’s very intelligent and reasonable letter and his request, and hope that this government will give consideration to the same request.

The Deputy Speaker: Are there any questions and comments on the member’s statement?

Mr. McLean: I would like to comment briefly on the member’s remarks. They are certainly well put and to the point, but I want to make an observation on some of the comments he made with regard to the cost to the municipality which has to provide that protection. There is one thing that concerns me that I did not catch in his remarks; that is, with regard to the court system we have in Ontario and with regard to the jails.

I have often wondered why the Attorney General’s office, the Solicitor General (Mrs. Smith) and the Minister of Correctional Services (Mr. Ramsay) could not get together and have the policing from the jails whereby you could have a van that would take the prisoners to the court. You would have one trip. Today, you have to supply two police officers in a car to take the prisoners to court. I would think that if you had a system whereby they were run from the jails, that would save an awful lot of money on all these municipalities that have to pay the cost for the police. It would also have the police doing what they should be doing; that is, the work within their own community.

1720

I see, many times, two police officers driving up and down the road to pick up prisoners and take them to court. After court is over, they take them back and drive back home again. They make two trips, costing the taxpayers an awful lot of money. I would think that if this government were interested in saving any taxpayer dollars, it would institute a scheme whereby it would have the prisoners taken from the jail to the court by special constables. There are lots of police who are near retirement who would be pleased to have the opportunity to have a job for a short period of time.

So I think Bill 187 needs a lot of amendments.

Mr Hampton: I want to just highlight the fact the member has pointed out, as I think several members tried to point out in earlier statements, that in fact this bill is like a statement about a program without any money being there to institute the program. Unlike a lot of the other Attorney General bills that may deal with a change in the substantive law, a change, let us say, in the Family Law Act or the trust legislation that really does not have a lot of financial implications, what this bill does is really say to municipalities, “You now have the responsibility for providing a policing and security program for the courts,” but it does not provide any money at all for that program.

I would suggest, and I thank the member for highlighting this again, that if the government is really serious about this, it had better talk to the municipalities soon, and it had better be saying to the municipalities, “Look, this is how much we estimate it is going to cost and this is how much money we are prepared to offer to ensure this does take place.” I say that so the parliamentary assistant to the Attorney General will indeed take notice, as he has.

Mrs. Cunningham: Certainly, as the representative for London North, I have very specific reasons for being very concerned about two things; first of all, the lack of consultation around this legislation. It is very discouraging for municipalities at this particular point in their fiscal year, while they are planning and voting on budgets, to all of a sudden find out, as in the case of London, that they are looking at over $1 million, $1.23 million, they had not planned on in order to provide security in the courts.

The real concern is that police persons will be taken away from their regular responsibilities and will be asked to do things that are really of less importance to the constituents in their municipalities. It is really too bad that we should even be standing here today having to speak to this surprise piece of legislation.

The London courts, by the way, do not hear only London cases; they take in other municipalities. Why should they have to spend their money on security for all those cases? The smaller municipalities are not able to adequately fund such a program. What happens when the money runs out in some of the municipalities? Will the judges refuse to sit? Will cities have to cut back on local programs such as Reduce Impaired Driving Everywhere to supplement the funding for police protection?

We are really very unhappy with this kind of legislation. We think it is unfair. It relates to the same kind of a process this government has taken around the Sunday shopping legislation. It has not taken into consideration the costs to the municipalities for such things as daycare, transportation, security costs and administrative costs, and now we have an additional security cost that they will have to take into their budgets because of the lack of communication and the lack of understanding about the only system that works right now, and that is the municipal one.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: I would like to briefly comment to the member for Simcoe East (Mr. McLean). Being a former warden, he has certainly put forth some excellent proposals in his very reasonable and intelligent manner. Rather than answer them, since I do not have any idea about them, I would refer them to the parliamentary assistant to the Attorney General, the member for Mississauga North, and hope that he would at least respond to the comments of the member for Simcoe East.

I would like to say that I appreciate the comments of my colleagues the member for London North and the member for Rainy River (Mr. Hampton) and their concern for the lack of consultation with the municipalities and police forces in this province. I would have thought that this fair and Liberal open government --

Mr. Pollock: Used to be in years gone by; the old days.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: Used to be -- would have no problem in consulting with the municipalities. It seems it has a one-track mind and that the only consultation it is going to make is on the Sunday shopping issue. It is going to give the local municipalities all the autonomy they want on that one issue and that alone. There is no consideration given to this type of legislation. Really, the pieces of legislation it should be referring to the municipalities for their input are not coming forward. It is simply going on its very stubborn way on the one piece of legislation and the rest really does not matter.

Mr. Speaker, I encourage you to encourage members on that side to pay a little attention to the very valid comments that have just been made in this last hour or so.

Ms. Bryden: I think this kind of legislation is something that should not be happening in this Legislature and that is one of the main reasons we are opposing it. It is a typical response of an arbitrary government when it sees a problem: to bring in a half-baked bill that attempts to solve the problem without providing any funding for implementing a bill including a change in responsibilities.

It is shifting the provincial responsibility for the security of its court facilities to the municipalities, but it is not offering them any financial assistance and it is using up very valuable police forces and their time in the municipalities. This shift of responsibility is working to the disadvantage of the citizens of the province who rely on their police forces for other things than just protecting the people sitting in court facilities.

This kind of delegation of responsibility should not be done through this kind of legislation. It should be worked out in a new grants system if we do need the help of police constables or police security in protecting courthouses.

The second thing that is typical of it is that it shifts the financial burden and the deployment of the police forces to the municipalities. It takes away their opportunity to deploy their police forces in the best possible way. I am speaking as a representative from Metropolitan Toronto. I understand the estimate of the cost of this bill to the people in Toronto will be over $16 million because they have a tremendous amount of the courtroom space and facilities in the province and the security risks are somewhat greater the larger the centre in which these are located.

1730

Why should the citizens of Metropolitan Toronto have to pay over $16 million to see that the province’s responsibility to maintain security in courtrooms is looked after? Why should the citizens of Metropolitan Toronto have to do without the services of many constables who will now be required to sit in courtrooms instead of being out on the streets dealing with the problems there? Why is the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto going to have to do less work with its police force in training officers in community relations, in how to deal with racism and in how to deal with drug trafficking? How is it going to fulfill those major responsibilities when the Attorney General is taking first-class constables off the streets and into the courtrooms and is abdicating his responsibility in that respect?

Also, I think it is a very unfair law because it has a different impact on different municipalities according to how many courtroom facilities they have. It has a different effect also according to the state of the courtroom facilities. If they are in old buildings where security is difficult to enforce, it will cost them that much more to fulfill this responsibility that the Attorney General is attempting to shove on to them.

The province must not be allowed to get away with shirking its responsibilities for security in its own institutions, and this is why we must oppose this bill and say that the Attorney General must try another route to ensure that our courts and our court facilities are secure.

Mr Villeneuve: It is a pleasure to participate for a few moments in this debate. However, it is a debate that is creating a lot of havoc throughout some of the smaller municipalities in rural Ontario and I will discuss a few of the problems it is bringing to some of the counties that I very proudly represent.

I had occasion to be in Alexandria, in Glengarry county, which is the county seat. The courtroom is located there. I had occasion to discuss it at some length with his worship Jean-Paul Touchette, the mayor of Alexandria, and he flatly told me that he would not listen, he would not provide an officer and security at the courtroom that serves all of Glengarry county.

We are talking about a population of 3,300 people, about 1,400 households. The limited amount of funding that will be brought in from those 1,400 households does not even begin to cover the costs of security in the courtroom. This small, rural municipality will have to service quite a large number of other municipalities within the county of Glengarry, and it is just not fair.

The city of Cornwall will be bound with the responsibility of security in the courthouse. I say to his worship Mayor Phil Poirier: “You are going to be hosting some Liberal MPPs this weekend. Make sure that you speak to them and say: ‘Well, you know, what about this? Do you really think it is fair that the police force in the city of Cornwall will be taxed with the entire burden of security in the courtroom?’”

I say to his worship Mayor Poirier -- and he may be a relative of yours, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you both have the same name; and I am sure you will be one of the dozen or so MPPs in Cornwall tomorrow and Saturday -- and I say to the municipal officials and all of those in and around the city of Cornwall, “We are dealing with a town that is 99th on a list of 100 regarding per capita income.” Only the city of Sherbrooke is lower on that scale that was done across Canada, and they are asking that municipality, in an economically depressed area of this province, to assume the costs of security in the courthouse. That is not fair at all.

Along with this particular copping out on municipalities, whenever Bill 113 and Bill 114 come to pass -- and it looks like sooner or later, in spite of what the opposition is trying to do, these two bills will come to pass -- municipalities will be faced with considerable expenditures when hearings have to occur, when the public has to be listened to.

Who do the members think will bear those costs? That is the responsibility of the municipality -- once again, the local option. The government of Ontario has opted out.

The town of Kemptville, a lovely little town, home of the Kemptville College of Agricultural Technology and a number of other great little operations and institutions, has a population of 2,500, approximately 1,000 households, a three-man police force, and is going to be asked, indeed forced, to provide security in the courtroom that is located in that town to serve the county of Grenville. That is not in any way, shape or form a fair responsibility.

This government has done a lot of opting out of its very basic responsibilities at a time when the Ontario economy is booming. Since this government has taken over, provincial coffers have swelled by some $12 billion annually, and yet it is copping out of its financial responsibilities. It happens to fall on the shoulders of those who can least afford to pay, those small rural municipalities with a limited number of households, and the per capita or the per household remuneration in those instances is nowhere close to covering the actual cost.

I could go on at some length and outline some of the real deficiencies that this government has had toward that part of Ontario which has been totally overlooked, the eastern section of Ontario. There is a Minister of Northern Development (Mr. Fontaine). There is even a deputy minister for this city, Metropolitan Toronto, one of the must economically affluent areas in North America. Yet eastern Ontario is an area that is economically depressed. If we were to take out the city of Ottawa in the statistics that we have for eastern Ontario, I think you would find that in many instances, particularly on per capita income, eastern Ontario is below any other area in Ontario. Yet this government is forcing responsibility on to those small rural municipalities that can least afford it in an area of the province that is economically deprived.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to put on the record the concerns that have been expressed to me. I say again to the people of Cornwall who will be welcoming -- or otherwise -- the MPPs from the Liberal caucus this weekend, make sure that they know and that government members know exactly what this government is doing to them.

Mr. Hampton: I only want to comment that I note this afternoon that representatives from both the New Democratic Party and the Conservative Party, representing various municipalities and regions throughout the province, have all spoken on this legislation.

I also want to note that last week the police chief for Thunder Bay felt this bill was important enough that he flew down here to lobby us personally. Yet I have not seen the government member for Port Arthur (Mr. Kozyra) speak on this at all.

Further, we have received telegrams from the police chief in Sudbury about his concerns about this bill, and I have not seen the member for Sudbury (Mr. Campbell) speak on this. We received word from the police chief in Kenora and have not heard from the member for Kenora (Mr. Miclash). We received telegrams from Peterborough and Barrie and we have not seen any of these members representing the interests their municipalities and their municipal police forces have in this.

It is very clear from the amount of mail we have received -- as the member just indicated, he has received a lot of mail from his part of Ontario -- that municipalities were very upset about this and yet I do not see any of the government members expressing this concern at all. I think they ought to represent their municipalities once in a while, at least some of the time, rather than simply follow the government line.

Mr. Pollock: I just want to comment along the same lines as the member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry. I know for a fact that the city of Peterborough and the county of Peterborough enjoy excellent working relationships. When that city of Peterborough is going to have to pay out $500,000 for courtroom security, that is just going to cause a whole lot of friction in that county-city relationship. I want to put it on the record that I do not think it is right and I think this Liberal government should be held responsible for that.

We have the same situation in the county of Hastings and the city of Belleville. The city of Belleville is going to have to pick up that tab for extra costs of policing the courtroom, and, as I say, it is going to be concerned about that. They will certainly not think it is fair that they have to pick up that extra cost and the county goes more or less scot-free. As I say, the responsibility lies with that Liberal government.

1740

Mr. Villeneuve: To the member for Rainy River, certainly he represents an area very similar to the one I speak for. To the member for Hastings-Peterborough (Mr. Pollock), a man who has been involved in municipal politics certainly understands.

I know for many of the Liberal members across the way, the stepping stone to Queen’s Park has been municipal office. All they have to do is put themselves back into that setting and scenario. That is what this type of legislation does when it is forced on them. Indeed, they attempted to put it through without even going to committee.

It is very, very interesting that the member for Rainy River and I touched on it as well. The Liberals are bleeding in the background. However, they are not getting up and putting on record whether they will or will not support this type of legislation. That is the question.

Mr. Fleet: Watch us vote for it.

Mr. Villeneuve: Oh, they are going to vote for it. That is good. That is telling the municipalities they represent: “We don’t want the hot potato of anything to do with Sunday shopping. Financial management, financial support and security in the courts are someone else’s problems. We can opt out of that very easily and we’re going to do it because we have a large majority.”

I defy them to get on the record and tell the people they represent why they are going to support it. Why do they want the municipalities --

Mr. Fleet: That’s what they get the money for. They’re supposed to look after it. That’s their job.

Mr. Villeneuve: Get on the record. Never mind screeching in the background. Get them on the record so that then we can send to their people, in case they do not do it themselves, exactly why they are supporting this legislation, because the Premier (Mr. Peterson) brought it forth and there is maybe a bit of a carrot on the end of a stick for some members.

I think some of them have aspirations to cabinet. Is that not something? That is the way to go to cabinet: to do exactly as the Premier tells them.

Mr. Philip: The parliamentary assistant to the minister was honest enough to say that the purpose of Bill 187, of course, is to transfer the security costs of the courts to the municipalities; what he might have said is to the property taxpayer.

We know that property taxes are already extremely high and, indeed, any one of us can talk to any of our constituents and see exactly how they are bleeding in terms of the property taxes.

We know that in opposition the Liberals argued over and over again in this House that property taxes and sales taxes were the most regressive forms of taxation. They pleaded for a fairer form of taxation. That is what they said in opposition.

Now what they are doing is transferring directly to the municipalities additional costs -- first, additional costs, even indirect costs, then through increasing sales tax. We saw that bill, the same bill for which they let the bells ring for three days when the Conservatives introduced it. Now it is in terms of increased costs for policing.

Once again, we see an example of where, even though the municipalities have asked for different kinds of increased local authority, the Liberals have failed to give it. But yet, in areas where the local municipalities have not asked for any kind of authority, the Liberals are intent on forcing it down their throats. We saw that with the retail store hours legislation which we are still debating in this House, and now we see it with the policing of courtroom facilities. In real costs, Metropolitan Toronto says it means an extra $16 million in policing costs that will come directly out of the taxpayers’ pockets as a result of this bill.

In our area, in the riding of Etobicoke-Rexdale, we have a very large provincial courthouse. Indeed, in Etobicoke you will often see it on the news because often some of the more dramatic cases are held there. We are having cases that affect people who are picked up out of --

Mr. Reycraft: No respect for the clock.

Mr. Philip: I beg the member’s pardon. If the member wants me to adjourn the debate, then we can vote on this later.

Clerk Assistant: Sorry, my mistake.

The Deputy Speaker: You may proceed. There was no time limit on your speech.

Mr. Philip: That is correct.

In Etobicoke, we have a very large courtroom facility, in case the member missed it in his interruptions of my speech, which I will have to repeat, or perhaps I will have to repeat the whole speech.

It is often that in cases involving the parliamentary assistant’s own area, unfortunate events that have taken place in his area, the accused parties are being tried in the municipality of Etobicoke. Of course, the Metropolitan Toronto taxpayers are going to pay for those. If one goes to the courthouse in Etobicoke, it is very frequent that one will see the TV cameras outside as some very large and important cases involving a certain amount of security are being tried there.

In my area, as indeed in all of Metropolitan Toronto, when I talk to my constituents, they are concerned about the need for additional community police officers who will work with young people. They are talking also about the need for additional police officers to deal with the tragic problem of drugs.

More recently then, we have had a series of unfortunate break-ins in my riding and the people are calling me and saying, “We need additional policing and supervision until such time as we can come up with the offending parties and make sure that they are dealt with appropriately.” Here we are, introducing a bill, as the government has done, that will put additional taxes, additional responsibilities on those police forces, which are already overextending themselves.

Let me conclude by saying that once again this Liberal government is abrogating its responsibility as a government, passing to municipalities authority which they have not asked for and indeed passing on to the municipalities costs which they certainly have not asked for. It may be a very short bill, but it has a very long impact and the impact will be felt in the pocketbook of every home owner and ratepayer in Metropolitan Toronto, as well as other municipalities. It will also be felt in the kind of police service that we receive as a result of extra pressures being put on the already exhausted and overextended police force in Metropolitan Toronto.

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

Mr. Cureatz: As a matter of fact, as unaccustomed as I am to participating in debates in these learned chambers, listening to the most enthusiastic comments coming from the opposition members -- none from the Liberal backbenchers, I might add -- it behooves me to make one or two comments about --

Mr. Fleet: Because we understand the legislation.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. One member at a time. The member for Durham East will address his remarks through the Speaker.

Mr. Cureatz: I know the fine people at home will be listening very closely to some of my comments, as mundane as this piece of legislation is, which I want to bring to everybody’s attention and, more particularly, to the Liberal backbenchers’ attention, who find it in themselves to interject continuously as the Liberal House leader scurries about like a little mouse trying to put this chaos that has transpired this afternoon in the assembly in order, as I look on with great glee, smiling like a Cheshire cat, watching him squirm away now that he is in control of the tools of power and he is attempting, albeit futilely, to try to come to grips with the situation that has now confronted him -- we are watching it all unfold. He will have a happy three or four days to mull it over as he drives toward his wonderful riding of Renfrew North, to anticipate Monday’s events so that he can, once again, resolve the Sunday shopping issue.

I bring that to the House leader’s attention because this bill -- Goodness me, I only have 10 minutes. It is of great frustration. I say to the people at home, if you are cooking up dinner and some of the children are tired of watching the Flintstones and they happened upon me, this legislation is not of great magnitude for the press out there -- the Toronto Star, or the Toronto Sun or the Globe and Mail. Yet it is of great importance and it affects a lot of us all across Ontario.

1750

It started with that particular institution that we are all supportive of, which is the police force, and from there the municipalities. I think it is important that we review one or two aspects of the legislation of Bill -- and what is the number, Mr. Speaker, to refresh your memory if you are tapping your toes? -- 187. What is it all about? It is a bill that transfers the responsibility of courtroom security, including security of judges and prisoners, from the province to the municipality.

Strangely enough, I happen to be of the learned cut of cloth barrister and solicitor. I am looking and casting my eyes about the chamber wondering if there are any Liberal backbenchers who might be of that same learned profession and hoping, with great enthusiasm, that they may make some comments about this legislation because, no doubt, from time to time, either in previous incarnations -- not necessarily present -- but certainly, in future incarnations because, as we all know, when the election unfolds, I say to the yappy member for High Park-Swansea (Mr. Fleet), he better kiss his seat goodbye because he is going to be one of the 30 or 40 Liberals who are gone.

I can only remind him more people talked themselves out of this place than into it. Strangely enough, I have had the opportunity of speaking for four terms, so maybe I am the exception to the rule. But then, on the other hand, I happen to be in opposition. That is that important role that I have to play, but not the member for High Park-Swansea. When I get to the interesting notes about what Metro Toronto has to say, I would like to see what he has to say in terms of the --

Mr. Fleet: It’s a good bill. What else do you want to know?

Mr. Cureatz: Okay. The member for High Park-Swansea will have his opportunity. He did say it is a good bill. Let me just see, and review with great interest, what is taking place in Metro Toronto, since he is so enthusiastic about this legislation. Since the early 1980s, the provincial government has had a unique cost-sharing arrangement with the Metropolitan Police Force in which the province has provided funding for at least 50 of Metro’s court security officers.

These court security officers are usually civilians who receive training from the Metropolitan Police Force. That sets the groundwork in terms of the honourable member’s support of the bill. This cost-sharing arrangement was initiated by none other than the then-Honourable Roy McMurtry, with whom I certainly had the pleasure of dining at the Sir John A. Macdonald dinner last week at the Albany Club. He brought to my attention aspects of this bill when he was Attorney General. We discussed the seriousness and the flaws of this present legislation and discussed the proposition that if he was Attorney General, and he knew quite well that if we were the government of Ontario, we would not be bringing in such bunk.

Do the members know what is happening now? Let me remind them. Under Bill 187, however, I say to the honourable member for High Park-Swansea, this cost-sharing arrangement will be void and Metro will have to provide its own financing for court security officers beyond the household provincial grants.

Mr. Fleet: It’s a bill in the provincial interest. You’re so parochial, Sam.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Cureatz: The most vocal opposition to this bill comes from police forces. Let me bring something to the honourable member’s attention. He will really like this and I can hardly wait until he puts in his newsletter about his support for Bill 187. Does he know what the Metro Toronto police force has to say? Would anybody like to know what Metro has to say? I know the member for High Park-Swansea would like to know and the honourable member for Hastings-Peterborough would like to know. To the member for High Park-Swansea, representing that portion of Metro Toronto, the Metro Toronto police are outraged -- that is o-u-t-r-a-g-e-d -- at the extra cost for policing provincial, district and supreme courts. Outraged, and here the member for High Park-Swansea is supportive of this legislation.

They claim that they will now have to pay for all 150 of their court security officers by themselves and that the overall cost of security of the provincial courts alone will cost Metro police some $7 million to $8 million a year. I say to the member for Hastings-Peterborough, $7 million to $8 million a year. That is what it is going to cost the member for High Park-Swansea’s constituency, part of Metro Toronto. His police force is outraged and he is blatantly being led like all the other backbench seagulls of the Liberal Party to believe that this is a wonderful piece of legislation.

I can hardly wait, if I have an opportunity, to speak to the Sunday shopping legislation, because there was the first sign, as the new polls indicated --

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. It is not hard for the Speaker to notice that it is late Thursday afternoon. Will the members respect the standing orders? I would invite the member for Durham East to continue and at the same time to be more careful with his parliamentary language.

Mr. Cureatz: What did I say? I said “bunk.” I said “outraged.” If we look in Erskine May, I say to the Speaker -- there was a time when I had the opportunity of memorizing every and each of its 1,236 pages -- I think you will see under parliamentary language that I was well within the scope of those kinds of verbal usages. I do not mean particularly to reprimand you, Mr. Speaker, because of course there will be another time at which I will be looking to you for judicious favour in terms of other debate. I will just bring to your attention that your review of Erskine May will no doubt point to the fact that I was well within my parliamentary parameters. That is two Ps, I say to whomever is recording these things.

How about taking a look at other municipal jurisdictions? There used to be a fellow by the name of Bud Germa, the member for Sudbury from around 1975 to 1981. He was defeated by Jim Gordon, another great Conservative member who unfortunately went down to defeat. I keep reminding the member for Sudbury that he should stay in his riding, because he is so far in the back bench that he has more influence remaining in his constituency in Sudbury than he does sitting around here at Queen’s Park. I am sure he is taking my advice, because that is the only way he is going to get re-elected. I am going into my backbench speech and, if members can believe it, straying away from the legislation. I will do my best to return to Bill 187.

As Bud Germa used to say, “Let’s take a tour of Ontario,” if I can use that phrase from my former colleague and NDP member. He used to be a federal member, by the way. We had a lot of interesting discussions on the one or two trips we had across the country.

Here is what Barrie has to say about the increase in police cost to its municipality. Do members know how much it is going to cost Barrie? It is $306,000. It is not quite as much as the $7 million or $8 million, which the member for High Park-Swansea is so supportive of, which Metro police forces are going to have to come up with, but it is still a lot of money for a small community.

Mr. Fleet: You haven’t got your facts right again, Sam. Sam, you have the wrong numbers for the wrong places.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Cureatz: What about Cobourg, my favourite town, where my wife and family spent a lot of happy vacation hours, and Colborne, I say to my friend and colleague, for whom I have the highest respect, the member for Northumberland (Mrs. Fawcett)? I can hardly wait until she stands up and she makes her --

And wait till I start talking about garbage again. Members should have seen the Campbellford Herald, front page: “Joan Fawcett demands something be done about landfill site.” I will be darned. I am having some influence, I can see. I have the press clipping and I am going to be holding it up so all the honourable members can see what my friend and colleague the member for Northumberland has to say about the landfill site. Interestingly enough, I have not seen her come into the chambers with a seagull and complain to the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley) about the lack of leadership over the garbage issue in the Golden Horseshoe. That is a speech for another day.

Mr. Callahan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: The member is not addressing the bill. I think that contravenes the order.

The Deputy Speaker: Will the member for Durham East resume his speech and address himself to Bill 187?

Mr. Cureatz: I will strain, Mr. Speaker, ever so slightly. I have nothing but the humblest apology for your most judicious decision. I was only sidetracked by my concern over what Cobourg will have to pay for the introduction of this legislation, $250,000.

Collingwood: On the Sunday shopping committee, I say to the chairman of the standing committee on administration of justice, we had that wonderful trip together up to Collingwood. We discussed the facts of life on our automobile trip up through Highway 6 and areas beyond. Do members know what Collingwood has to pay? It is $133,000 --

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Cureatz: -- and while I have a minute left, my own community of Durham --

The Deputy Speaker: Will the member please adjourn the debate?

Mr. Cureatz: I would be more than honoured to.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

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

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Conway: It is always a pleasure to follow my friend and colleague the member for Durham East (Mr. Cureatz) in the debates of the Legislature. Pursuant to standing order 13, I would like to indicate the business of the House for the coming week.

I want to indicate that, pursuant to our discussion at the meeting of House leaders and whips this morning, I want to repeat what I said at that time: It is the intention of the government to proceed over the next while with the business that attaches to the government notice of motion 20. Of course, we will await the ruling of the Speaker on the point of order raised this afternoon by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. B. Rae), although, I repeat, the government certainly expects that that ruling will be a positive one.

On Monday, it is our intention, subject to the decision of the Speaker with respect to the point of order raised by the Leader of the Opposition, to proceed with government notice of motion 20.

I want to observe as well that by a previous order of the House, on Tuesday of next week we will complete in committee of supply the estimates of the Office of the Premier and the Cabinet Office with, I believe, some two hours and 17 minutes remaining. I repeat that by previous order of this House, on Tuesday of next week we will complete the estimates of those two offices.

I want as well to indicate that I am going to leave on the business sheet those items that are contained on our sheet today. I will not bore everyone with those numbers. It is the listing the members have in front of them, including such items as the adjourned debate on this bill, Bill 187, An Act to amend certain Acts as to Police and Sheriffs, and then the second readings of Bill 149, An Act to amend the Trespass to Property Act; Bill 169, An Act to amend the District Municipality of Muskoka Act; Bill 192, An Act to amend the Municipal Act and certain other Acts related to Municipalities; Bill 197, An Act to amend the Regional Municipality of Sudbury Act; Bill 134, An Act to repeal certain Private Acts related to Municipalities; Bill 135, An Act to amend the Road Access Act; Bill 194, An Act to restrict Smoking in Workplaces; Bill 170, An Act to revise several Acts related to Aggregate Resources, and the adjourned debate on Bill 147, An Act respecting Independent Health Facilities.

On Thursday morning, January 26, in the morning, we will consider private members’ business standing in the names of the member for Mississauga West (Mr. Mahoney) and the member for Ottawa West (Mr. Chiarelli).

The House adjourned at 6:03 p.m.

19 janvier 1989