Journal des débats 1989-déc-14 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

That, in the opinion of this House, the Ministry of Health should pay for prosthetic hair replacements for persons under 18, or those enrolled as full-time students in any school, college or university that have hair loss due to accidents, conditions such as alopecia areata and treatments such as chemotherapy.

Mr Pollock: I could have enlarged on my resolution to mention other forms of hair loss and many other concerns I have. However, it is my understanding that a resolution is to get the general consensus one way or another. A bill is a necessary way to make all the rules and guidelines.

We all know that prosthetic devices are funded by the Ministry of Health. These prosthetic devices are funded at the rate of 75 per cent by the Ministry of Health and 25 per cent by individuals. When we are talking about children, the fact is that if they have to get an artificial leg or arm replaced on a regular basis because of their growing bodies, this still could be very expensive. The same would be true in regard to prosthetic hair replacement. As the child develops, the hairpiece would have to be changed.

Expense plays a major role in the choosing of a hairpiece and subsequently the happiness of the child. Many parents have had to choose a department store type which is generally made for adults and, because it is geared to adults, does not suit the child and is therefore a great cause of distress to the wearer.

There are reputable companies whose business is to make prosthetic hair replacements especially for their clients, whether for adults or children. They are expensive, because much care and time is needed to make them personal. Specific fittings are taken to ensure the base is well formed and then the hairpiece is completed with a colour similar to the child’s. It is then cut and styled so it is complimentary to the child.

These prosthetics also are fastened on with special tape so that children will have no fear of losing them. They can swim, play ball and run in the wind with everyone else and they can be confident when going out in public, that they will be accepted by their peers.

But how many parents can afford the $1,200 to $3,500 for a prosthetic hair replacement along with the many other expenses that are often involved with raising a family? It may be that the child will need a new one every year, with constant wear.

I have had parents come into my office who are heartbroken because of the problem facing their child and their not being able to afford a proper hairpiece. It makes them feel that they are letting their child down. Many of these people do not know where to turn. Would it not be of great assistance to be able to tell them that our health care and our government are ready to help them?

This is a health problem. Let us address it and in doing so, we will help these young people who cannot help themselves.

I would like to tell the House about a mother and son coming into my office. The son had alopecia areata. We discussed their concerns and the mother expressed her hope that OHIP or the Ministry of Health would pay for a prosthetic hair replacement. Most of the time we were talking the son sat silently, but I could tell he was listening to every word.

He then started to express himself, talking along the lines of being able to fight the world and cope with his problem. But all the time that he sat in my office, never once did he offer to remove his hat. If it was not easy for him to remove his hat in my office when only his mother and I were present, I can just imagine how much pressure there would be on him in the classroom or in the playground, or how self-conscious he would feel if his hat or cap were blown off by the wind or flipped off by another child.

Every member here knows that alopecia areata is not discussed on a regular basis. The information that we receive on alopecia areata is sometimes contradictory; in some cases it refers to it as a condition and in other articles it refers to it as a disease. I have an article on alopecia areata that comes from the United States, and it refers to it as a disease.

Whether it is a disease or a condition, I believe that the Ministry of Health should offer some assistance. I would like to read an article on it and also a letter requesting support from the National Alopecia Areata Foundation which I feel is self-explanatory.

“Alopecia areata is a common condition that results in the loss of hair on the scalp. It usually starts with one or more small, round, smooth patches. It occurs in both males and females of all ages, but young persons are affected most often.

“Normally, the hair follicles on the scalp are producing 35 metres of hair each day. In alopecia areata, the affected hair follicles slow down production drastically and become very small, and grow no hair that is visible above the surface for months or years. While they are in this hibernation-like state, the hair follicles remain alive below the surface and are ready to resume normal hair production whenever they receive the appropriate signal.

“Some people develop only a few bare patches and regrow them within a year.... In some persons, the condition spreads until all hair on the scalp is lost; this is called alopecia totalis. No matter how widespread the hair loss is, the hair follicles remain alive below the skin surface and the possibility of hair regrowth remains.”

1010

This is a letter from the National Alopecia Areata Foundation in the United States:

“Dear Friend,

“The board, staff and volunteers of the National Alopecia Areata Foundation thank you for your tremendous support in our most successful year to date. The foundation has awarded $170,000 in research grants in the last four years, but we still have a great deal to do to educate a largely misinformed public about the disease and provide needed nationwide support.

“We helped many people through a rough year of their lives. There were the frustrated parents who called when their child was placed in special education or denied access to school because of alopecia areata -- we were able to educate them as to their rights and refer them to appropriate agencies for additional help. We connected many lonely teenagers with others their age. We were able to calm distressed individuals by directing them to self-help facilities in their own communities.

“We sponsored a national public awareness week and an international conference. We improved and expanded the bimonthly newsletter, strengthened support groups around the world and disseminated accurate, up-to-date information to the public and to government agencies.

“Unfortunately, alopecia areata does not command headlines or great public awareness. While the NAAF will double and redouble public awareness efforts, the front-line supporters for alopecia areata sufferers are others who have the condition or those who love them. We must help ourselves. We have to build our foundation to foster research and continue support....

“On behalf of everyone with alopecia areata, we thank you in advance for your generous continued support. You do make a difference in many people’s lives.”

Those people who lose their hair because of chemotherapy also undergo a traumatic experience. They not only lose their hair because of the treatment but they have the added worry in regard to whether the treatment was successful. Hair lost due to chemotherapy treatments usually grows back, and it is my understanding that the Canadian Cancer Society offers some assistance. I am sure the cancer society’s budget is stretched to the limit and any assistance the Ministry of Health can give children suffering from cancer and the effects of chemotherapy would be appreciated.

When a person needs a prosthetic hair replacement because of an accident, hair loss due to a fire, alopecia areata or chemotherapy, it is a very emotional experience. I am sure that any assistance from the Ministry of Health would be appreciated.

I hope that I have explained to this assembly just some of the problems facing children with hair loss. This resolution was designed to provide help for children, students and young adults who do not have any financial support of their own.

I would ask all members of this assembly to support the resolution and I would like to repeat the last line of the letter from the National Alopecia Areata Foundation: “You do make a difference in many people’s lives.”

Mr Grandmaître: The resolution proposes a further expansion of the ministry’s assistive devices program, which already is straining to meet demands of a more urgent nature. I realize how important it is to the member this morning, but I would like briefly to tell the House what the Ministry of Health has done and is still doing in providing financial assistance to not only what the member is referring to this moaning, but also other programs.

That program has been expanding at a tremendous rate. Spending on the devices alone has increased more than tenfold since the government came to power. The figure was $8.4 million in fiscal year 1985-86; last year the amount spent was $49.3 million. The printed estimates for this fiscal year are $90.6 million and still the demand keeps on rising, due largely to an ageing population.

It all began in 1982. It was limited at the time to providing assistance to Ontario residents 18 years or younger. The program was not conceived as a universal and comprehensive benefit program under the Canada Health Act; rather it was designed as a cost-shared program of selective benefits. It meant that the ministry would pay and continues to pay, as pointed out by the honourable member, 75 per cent of the cost of selected assistive devices.

The devices eligible for the funding originally included hearing aids, prosthetic and orthotic devices, wheelchairs, custom seating and ostomy supplies. In January 1983, coverage was added for respiratory equipment and supplies, and shortly after for oxygen. The following year, 1984, coverage was added for communications and visual aids. On 1 January 1986, the eligible age limit was increased to 21. Each 1 July since then, the qualifying age level has been raised by one year until this year it has reached 25.

While the age limit for the full range of assistive devices was being raised, the program began abolishing the age restriction for certain devices. In July 1986, coverage for prostheses was extended to include people of all ages. These included artificial limbs and breast prostheses for women. In September 1986, respiratory devices and ostomy supplies became eligible for coverage for all ages. Two months later, wheelchairs, custom seating systems and mobility aids such as specialized crutches and walkers were added for everyone. In December 1988, the program provided for assistance for hearing aids for all ages.

The priorities for the program lie with extending the qualifications for obtaining vital equipment at all ages. I am sure honourable members will agree that we must seek to provide for the growing proportion of the elderly. After all, old age is you and me and everybody some day.

Consider, for example, those devices and supplies where the limitation still applies to those aged 25 or under. These include orthotics, that is, braces and splints for arms, legs and back, visual aids such as Braille printers, magnifiers and special glasses, and communications aids for deaf people. In addition, provision of oxygen is still limited to those under the age of 25.

Extending is considered more urgent, at least at this time in the evolution of the program, than providing artificial hairpieces. In general, hairpieces do not meet the criteria of the assistive devices program because they could be considered a cosmetic device. Cosmetic treatments, as members are aware, are not eligible for health care coverage.

Further, hairpieces do not fit the definition of a prosthesis on two grounds: First, if the hair loss is permanent, it does not substitute for a missing body function; second, in cases where the missing hair is a temporary condition, the hairpiece does not replace a permanently missing body part. The overall criterion is permanent loss. Thus, temporary hair loss conditions such as those caused by chemotherapy or infectious rash are not considered eligible.

While artificial hairpieces in themselves are not covered now under the assistive devices program, there is provision for some assistance under the health insurance program, OHIP. If the hair loss is nonhereditary, such as having been caused by an accident, medical reparation could be covered regardless of age. These include surgical procedures such as a skin graft or skin flap and/or implanting hair plugs.

1020

I think the government, in the last four or five years, has done a tremendous job in increasing the financial assistance to people needing such services, and we will continue to do so. I know that the member will be disappointed to hear that the Ministry of Health is not prepared at this time to improve this assistance or have these people qualify under our program. But I would like to tell the members that the Ministry of Health will continue to look at the possibility of expanding this program and we will continue to provide more financial assistance.

Mr Pollock: The member for Scarborough Centre (Miss Nicholas) wanted to speak on this and also the member for Markham (Mr Cousens). but he felt that he would not be called on until 10:30. He had to go to a committee. That is why he is not here at the present time. He just assumed that he would have another half hour before he would be called on to speak.

Anyway, I appreciate what the Ministry of Health has done for people in providing prosthetic devices, but I still believe in what I mentioned in my resolution, that prosthetic hairpieces should be funded by the Ministry of Health. I have no quarrel with it being funded at the same rate that other prosthetic devices are funded at, the 75 per cent-25 per cent level. I have no problems with that at all.

The Deputy Speaker: We have just been told that the member for Markham would like to address the House on this topic.

Mr Cousens: I very much would like to and I would like to thank my very good friend the member for Hastings-Peterborough (Mr Pollock) for giving me a chance to participate in his resolution. I think it touches upon the sensitivity that our honourable friend the member for Hastings-Peterborough has for people and for the problems that people go through.

If there is anything we can do as legislators to make their lives better, then we should do it. If there is something that can be done here that touches upon one group that may not be as large a group that is represented by others that are more identified within society, then let’s try to do it.

When the member for Hastings-Peterborough asked me to participate, I think he was going back to my earlier days when I wore my collar the other way around, when I was a clergyman and was chaplain at a mental health institution and a place for the criminally insane in Penetanguishene. I worked there for three years and was a counsellor and, as chaplain, had a chance to get very close to some of the problems that people have later on in life.

It was through those early days of my work in the church that I began to realize that many of the problems -- I knew it, having studied psychology at university, but it was a practical experience, when I started working with adults who now, in later life, were encountering problems that stemmed from the very early beginnings when they were young. I will never forget one of the people with whom we were dealing, who had his face disfigured in an accident as a child with terrible scars across his face. The surgery that had been done had never fully correctively removed the facial disfigurement.

This person ended up coming out of himself, fighting against the world, fighting against society, in order to make a statement of his unhappiness with life. This very person was at that point in a mental institution and unable to cope with his neighbours, his friends, with society at large. What really happened in the early part of his life as a young child when this accident had taken place, the fact that it had never been fully and properly corrected, was one of the ingredients at least for a person who was susceptible to a problem later on, emotionally and otherwise. The fact that it had not been stemmed and corrected earlier meant that later on in life it became an even bigger obstacle. A person may stand out from the rest of the crowd in any way, for example, his size. He is short or he is tall.

If, as we now see it, the person is a dwarf, there are ways in which you can lengthen his legs and cause him to stand taller. If there is a problem with their hair or if there is a problem with themselves, their physical being, then medical science is in a position today to do something about it in many cases. We understand that the human being is a very complex person and in understanding the human being, there are physiological and physical and emotional contributing factors that make us up to what we are. If one of those factors is out of balance with themselves and the rest of society we, as we look on, might understand better the personal dilemma that it creates for them.

So my experience, as it goes back to those early days, is one that ties in to the resolution that is before us now. If we as a society can do something to help a person stand up by himself, go out into the street, deal with his fellows, the boys, the girls, his friends, his neighbours, his family and whoever, with a sense of self-confidence, then we have done the right thing. I do not think it is ever easy to help people help themselves, but if we can help them through the kind of assistive devices we are talking about in this resolution, then we will have gone a long way for those very people.

I do not have any evidence that children who have this problem of hair loss are going to end up with the kind of problems in the mental institution that this child had as an adult. I do not begin to say that. I do not want that to be the kind of direction that I am taking here. I am saying that I know from many, many people that if they even go to the barber or hairdresser who does a terrible job, gets the tint wrong, takes too much hair off in one direction and something happens, they want to go and hide. They do not want to come out of the house. I know of people who have not come to a meeting for various reasons, because of the way they looked that day, because of what happened at the hairdresser or the barber shop.

I know that I have a more permanent problem and I know that my good friend the member for Hastings-Peterborough, in asking me to do it, knew that I had a sensitivity about the subject that goes deeper than that of maybe many others in this House. There might be only one or two who would compare with my situation in hair loss and would have a sensitivity to it. I think I handle it fairly well. As a child I did not have to handle it because mine is a heredity problem. Yet even as adults there are many who will have hairpieces and toupees and ways of combing their hair to present themselves in a most positive way.

It is in the spirit of being sensitive to the needs of human beings that we come today in this House to consider what we can do about particular people who are under 18 years of age and have hair loss. What can we do to help them? What can we do to help them establish themselves in society and make fruitful, full lives for themselves and to understand the balance that takes place in their need for self-confidence and recognition, their need for being able to look in the mirror and feel good about themselves?

I think that is really where our honourable friend the member for Hastings-Peterborough is coming forward. He is saying that those who are young people particularly need to be given every advantage they can possibly have.

1030

I think the resolution before us would apply to many other circumstances. What the member for Hastings-Peterborough is really doing is identifying one group, and I think if we can say of that one group that its need is legitimate and valid, then there will be others as well who would be able to be given that support from our government where it could.

I happen to believe that we can do something for those who have alopecia areata; it is not a widespread disease, but if we can understand its impact on them we might understand that it is very serious.

I am referring to an article on the psychological significance of hair. In the conclusion of a very long article on the whole situation of baldness in young people, it says:

“From primitive times to the present there has been a tremendous human concern about the general condition of one’s hair. The psychological significance of hair should not be belittled. Throughout history, hair has played an important role in practically every aspect of human behaviour.”

It goes on to explain how it has done that throughout history and it concludes by saying:

“Today we know that baldness is a natural phenomenon and not a disease, but yet to most men and women it is a traumatic condition to be corrected at any cost. There are millions of men and women who are so concerned about their hair loss that they seek medical and surgical help.”

For these young people, we know now it is a medical problem and we know that we can give them help. That is what this resolution is calling for. It is saying, “Can we in the province of Ontario pay for prosthetic hair replacements for children and people under 18 years of age?”

We are considering not only the ones that we are dealing with who have alopecia areata; we could be talking about those young people who have chemotherapy. I have seen pictures of the way in which we are now working towards bringing them into society, back into school where the teachers and all the community are working to help those young people who have had the disease and now are going through another kind of withdrawal symptom because of their physical experience. Society, the school and teachers -- the whole community -- are trying to make those very young people come out of themselves and be part of the community again. It is to that end that this resolution makes a great deal of sense.

There are little areas in which many of our own government programs do an excellent job to help people. We have the assistive devices program, which is assisting people with hearing impairments so they can hear. We have the ability to have canes, walkers and wheelchairs. We have the ability to provide for breathing equipment for them. We do a great deal in this province. In fact, look around the world and there are few places that do as much as we do in Ontario. Now what we could say is that here is an example of one group that has a specific kind of problem that has not been addressed as fully as it could have been.

I thank the honourable member for Hastings-Peterborough for giving us a chance to consider this resolution. I thank him for the concern he is showing to other people. As politicians, so much of what we do is service to our community where we, in our riding office and through legislation, try to make this a better place to live. In supporting this resolution, I know we will have gone at least a little bit further to help those who are in a position to need that help. I thank the member for his resolution and I will be supporting it.

Miss Nicholas: I want to say at the outset that I will be supporting the resolution of the member for Hastings-Peterborough. I welcome the opportunity today to speak in favour of it, to speak on the issue and perhaps express two concerns I have about the resolution. Perhaps in his last two minutes the member will reply to my concerns.

I think the assistive devices program that we have in Ontario is a great initiative. It is one that has served many in the community. It has been expanded a great deal in recent years, and I agree that there are many demands on it. I think just mentioning the amount that it has cost in the last few years shows how it has been received by the community, how receptive they have been and how needed it has been: from $8.4 million in 1985-86 to $49.3 million last year. It is expected that we will be spending over $90 million this year on the program. This is due to many factors. One, of course, is the ageing population. There are mobility aids, hearing aids and wheelchairs that have helped seniors to continue to live in our community and to carry on as they did before, and I welcome this program that allows them to do it.

There are other things that are offered, as has been said, including artificial limbs and breast prostheses. I know that many of my constituents have benefited from this program; one in particular needed a wheelchair. Wheelchairs have greatly improved over the last few years. I remember when they had chairs which you had to operate manually. Now they are motorized, they are somewhat comfortable and they allow the individuals who are in them to get pretty well anywhere they want to that is accessible by wheelchair.

The cost of this wheelchair was $6,000. Even at the 75 per cent coverage, there was $1,500 that she had to pay. I know she found that money through our help, through other sources and community efforts that are out there to help people like herself who, even at the 75 per cent funding level, are unable to purchase chairs. Having said that, I think it is valid that we cover 75 per cent because then some people, knowing that some cost will come out of their own pocket, when choosing the device they want may not always choose the Rolls Royce but will choose the aid which best suits their needs.

The assistive devices program has a definition of “long term,” and it suggested that it be six months. I think it has been said that with hair loss it is an undetermined length of time. Initially, when hair loss occurs, you are not sure whether it will be three months, six months, a year or a lifetime; it is very difficult to determine. Therefore, I think we should say that when hair loss does occur due to a disease, cancer treatment or other ailments, if we do not know how long it will be, we should err on the side that says the person does need some kind of hair replacement in the meantime and it does fall within this program.

I know that on the standing committee on the Ombudsman we dealt with someone who requested an electric breast pump, and that to be under ADP. The problem was that when you have a premature child, quite often it remains in hospital for six or eight weeks after the birth and at that time the mother has to use a breast pump to be able to provide her child with milk. The cost of this may be in excess of $200. I know the committee had some concerns that maybe six or eight weeks did not fall under this program and we discussed that. I think that can be distinguished in this instance where in most cases the hair loss is for a fairly long period of time and, more importantly, an indeterminate length of time, which forces the individual to purchase some kind of hair replacement, not knowing.

I know that chemotherapy treatment is ongoing. Hair loss occurs maybe several times during a person’s treatment for cancer. Their dignity is lost. It is very obvious they have undergone some kind of treatment because of the sudden hair loss. I think that many of us have been touched by someone who has been affected by chemotherapy treatment.

It is unfortunate that we do not have a cure for cancer, but is it not nice that we do have a treatment that allows someone to continue to live his life. Quite often we say, “Oh, this person is only going to live six months.” How often has someone been given six months to live and then he has lived three, four, five years or many more years than that. I think our medical knowledge is too uncertain to know how long they are going to be living, and therefore we should allow them to live their final months or years in the best way possible. If we are helping by providing them with some kind of hair replacement, then I think we are going a long way.

I did not know about alopecia before today. I know the member for Etobicoke West (Mrs LeBourdais) has a friend who has experienced it, and I know it touches all ages. I think we provide psychological treatment for these people. I think that for the amount it hurts people in terms of morale, we should also provide hair replacement in addition to the psychological treatment.

1040

Is it cosmetic? No, I do not think it is. There is a distinction between a cosmetic hair replacement and one that is required because of some kind of medical ailment. I think we distinguish between where a woman needs a breast prosthesis just to have larger breasts and when she has undergone a mastectomy and needs some kind of replacement to continue for the rest of her life; her life has been saved and we can make it a more fruitful life.

There are two concerns I do have about this resolution. One is the specific age limit of 18. The member was on the committee when the Ombudsman discussed whether we can make a distinction between under 18 and over 18 in the northern health travel grant program. I do not think it is appropriate that we just make the distinction of 18. I would like to see it even broader than that. I know the Minister of Health (Mrs Caplan) will probably have a bit of a fit for that, but I think that is something we should consider in addition to the replacement.

The other suggestion I have is that there are extensive hair replacement alternatives. I believe we should put some kind of limit on what hair replacements will be permitted in terms of maybe a dollar value or a number value. I do not think anyone should be entitled to more than one at a time, and I think we can specify that type of thing. They may need more than one over a period of their ailment, but I think we should make some restriction on that. I do not know who should do that or how we should do that, but that is the second concern I have about it.

I think this is a great initiative. It is one that is going to allow us to give people back a quality of life, to go out into the world and not only deal with the problem that they have of cancer or a disease like alopecia but also allow them to go out and feel good about themselves and to meet the challenge of dealing with the disorder that they have at that particular time.

In that way, I commend the resolution of the member for Hastings-Peterborough. I will be supporting it, and I am glad that members are so concerned about their constituents.

Mrs Grier: We had some discussions with the third party and are prepared to seek unanimous consent to allow the member for Hastings-Peterborough to continue the debate.

The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?

Agreed to.

Mr Pollock: I will lend some time to my colleague the member for Wellington.

The Deputy Speaker: Let me consult because this is a rather unique situation here.

Mrs Grier: I am prepared to change my motion. It was my error. I thought it was the member for Hastings-Peterborough who sought the additional time.

The Deputy Speaker: For the third party, in that case, the member for Wellington.

Mr J. M. Johnson: I would first of all like to compliment my colleague the member for Hastings-Peterborough for bringing this resolution forward. The parliamentary assistant for the Minister of Health, the member for Ottawa East (Mr Grandmaître), has made many compelling reasons why we cannot afford to go into a new area of endeavour to help our people.

Indeed, health is a very broad field, and they are doing many things to help people, but I constantly think we have to review what has happened in the past, and possibly we have reached a time when we should be looking at the type of proposal that has been presented today. Maybe it is not as urgent as some of the pressing problems we face in the health field, but to the young people who are the victims of this disease and who do require this type of support service it is extremely important to them.

It is not only important to the fact of their appearance, but the peer pressure in our society today is such that young people may have their whole lives affected by what happens during this period of time that they are in school and how the other students react to their appearance. For that reason alone, I think we should have some compassion to understand that it is something possibly beyond just the cosmetic appearance; it is something that strikes at the very future of their being.

We will spend some extra money out of the provincial budget to do this job. The proposed resolution would request spending certain amounts of money. But if these young people develop into better citizens because of that expense then what we are really doing is just investing in the future. So it is not an expense per se, but it will be an investment that will be returned many times over.

I encourage the minister to give very serious consideration to looking at the merits of the proposal, at least to cost it out and determine the dollars required in order to do the job that is necessary. I would even be very supportive of the comments of the member for Scarborough Centre (Miss Nicholas) that possibly we should not just be looking at those 18 years old. People who are 19, 20 and 21 may have the same problem.

We have to look at the need of the individual. In much of society today support services are based on the principle of need. I hope the Ministry of Health will look at the proposal, determine the cost, consider the benefits that would flow from the proposal and determine if it could not give some consideration to the merit of the proposed resolution.

The member for Markham (Mr Cousens), who is a former minister involved in many of these health-related activities, does have a problem. I sit behind him, and he certainly has a hair loss, but I would not be supportive of providing him with any financial support. I think he can afford to buy his own hair replacement.

In conclusion, I would like to ask the members of the Legislature to give very serious consideration to the impact that this resolution would have, how it would benefit even just a few young people. If we as legislators can in some way help some of these unfortunate people to have a better life, then it is worth the effort.

As an opposition member who is critical of government spending, I can assure the members that I will not criticize this. I will be very supportive of it.

The Deputy Speaker: I know the unanimous decision was to give it to the third party, but some other people have indicated they would also like to speak. Would there be a unanimous decision to allow members from other parties to speak on this?

Agreed to.

Mr Elliot: I would like to speak for a couple of minutes in support of this resolution. The member for Hastings-Peterborough is to be complimented for putting a motion like this in front of the House in private members’ hour, because he has highlighted in his usual way -- this particular member has a lot of common sense -- a very pressing problem to part of our society. I would like to address the motion from two points of view.

On a number of occasions in private members’ hour, I have stood and supported motions that I find to be complete liberal philosophy. In this particular case, what we are talking about is a motion associated with medicine. I think the compelling arguments from other members that I have heard here this morning having to do with the preventive nature of this particular motion are very appealing to me as a liberal person.

If we could enhance the self-image of individuals, particularly those persons under 18 years of age -- and this highlights the other compelling part of the motion to me, the fact that there is an age specification here -- what we ought to do in the Ministry of Health is take a look at each individual and, from a preventive point of view, assist them to become economically viable in our community. The payoff down the road obviously makes all of that effort very worth while.

I think these things are incorporated in the motion. The other thing that I would like to comment on with respect to motions such as this is whether the motion will be addressed in some way by the Ministry of Health. I realize from discussing this particular motion with individuals prior to today that they are prioritizing all the time. Whether or not this motion brings these particular individuals to the top of the priority list immediately is a moot point. There are a lot of demands in the Ministry of Health for the money that it must expend. There are a lot of compelling arguments put every day for that money.

I hope the ministry will view this as a clear indication by a significant number of people in the Legislative Assembly that, for the reasons that have been stated, we feel this to be a viable idea that should be considered seriously. In that context, I will be supporting the motion made by the member for Hastings-Peterborough.

Mr Mahoney: I do not want to take up too much of the time that is left to the mover of the motion. While this is certainly not anything that could be construed in any way to be humorous, I want to share a little story to indicate to the member opposite that even reasons beyond health problems can sometimes lead to the necessity to deal with this situation.

I recall when I was about eight or nine years old that I was sitting watching television with a pair of scissors in my hand, snipping away at this somewhat substantial mop that I have been blessed with. After an hour or two of watching the television I went upstairs to hear my mother scream, “Steven, what have you done?” I looked in the mirror and I was virtually bald, except for a little tuft on the top of my head. I spent the next several weeks wearing a toque to school, feeling like a fool and being awfully embarrassed.

The point is that I experienced the embarrassment from peers who put a lot of pressure on because of some kind of silly act that I have never been able to understand why I did. My career in the industry of cutting hair ceased right at that moment; I did not get an opportunity to follow that up.

On a serious note, I am prepared to support the member’s resolution. I believe it is a resolution that deals primarily, as the member for Markham said, with human dignity. I am sure we all have experienced either friends, acquaintances or even in many tragic cases loved ones who have had to go through chemotherapy, who have had an automobile accident or who have experienced some difficulties of this nature. We should support something that would allow a human being, whether a young person or not, to go back into the world with some dignity.

I can understand the ministry’s concerns about priorities. I am sure the member knows that the Ministry of Health is under tremendous pressure from very many different avenues to establish priorities to resolve people’s concerns, and I can understand that. I cannot see this as being a burden that would strain the ministry’s budget to the point that it would cause serious problems. Anything we can do within a reasonable way financially that would allow someone to go back into society, whether it is to school, sports, recreation, cultural activities, or whatever it might be, is something we should support.

We have to examine the priorities. As I said, I understand the ministry’s concerns about priorities, but this is one that we should be able to fit into the overall prioritization of the concerns of our citizens. We should try to understand peer pressure. It is particularly strong with young people because, while we recognize the value of young people as a resource, we also know they can be brutally frank and honest in their assessments and their reactions to someone.

Something that happens to young persons at that particular age -- witness my own experience from eight years old that I have never forgotten: I have never cut my hair since -- can stay with them for their entire lives. I think it is important that we attempt to give them an opportunity to regain their dignity and to continue on with their activities.

I am delighted to have had an opportunity to speak in support of the member’s resolution. I congratulate him as being someone I know who is very dedicated and committed to this cause. I am delighted to support him.

Mr Allen: I am likewise delighted to rise and support the motion that the member has put before us. In the course of being a critic for the disabled and in some other capacities in this House, I have had concerns about the whole assistive devices program and the prosthetic needs of people with a variety of needs, some quite extreme, others quite modest.

I am sensitive that the government has had some difficulty over the years, whether the past government or this one, in meeting all the budgetary requirements that the assistive devices demands place upon it. Including all age groups, all those who need those supports, has obviously been a difficult task. Otherwise, I presume they would have all been financed long ago.

I have continued to press for coverages that do not now exist; for example, those who still must pay the 25 per cent cost with respect to securing the assistive devices program support for a wheelchair. That is a big cost. It is an item that most people who need wheelchairs can obviously ill afford. By the same token, there are other realms of disability that touch into the psychological, the question of human dignity that all members have touched upon.

I have two sons who have good heads of hair. They have just come out of their teens, and I have been quite interested in the things they try to do with their hair. Anybody who looks at young people has to realize that hair is a tremendously significant aspect of their lives. They even came home once, when they were away at university, and got themselves all dolled up like punks and walked in downtown Hamilton. I just about ran away and hid in the garage somewhere, waiting for the responses. But it was obviously important to them to experiment in that way and to put themselves forward in a new fashion.

One can only imagine, when one cannot do that, when one is restricted in one’s capacity to respond to the demands to be oneself with one’s peers, what that can mean to a young person. The member for Hastings-Peterborough has brought before us a very important resolution, one that we very easily overlook as being somehow small, trivial, when it is critically important.

I likewise have had adult friends who have undergone chemotherapy and for whom the whole question of hair loss was a very traumatic experience. If they had not had the capacity to afford hairpieces easily that put them out into the world again with a sense of themselves and some confidence, that whole experience of chemotherapy would have been a much more severe experience than was the case.

I rise with respect to the member and to those who have risen to support this motion and hope that all those in the House will give it their support. It merits the attention we have given it. I am delighted that the member has seen fit to bring it forward.

Mr Pollock: I want to thank all members who spoke on this particular resolution. I can appreciate the member for Ottawa East and his concerns in keeping a handle on the public purse and also the concerns of the member for Halton North (Mr Elliot) and the member for Scarborough West (Mr R. F. Johnston).

I have sat on committee with the member for Scarborough Centre (Miss Nicholas). I know her concerns about people. She is an individual who wants to help her constituents. Special thanks go to my colleagues the member for Wellington (Mr J. M. Johnson) and also the member for Markham (Mr Cousens), who has far more experience in dealing with people than I have. I appreciated his remarks. I have known the member for Markham for quite some time and he is a very caring individual.

1100

I just want to make a few comments on the fact that they claim there are two million people in the United States who suffer from this condition, and you can usually divide that figure by 10. That means there are 200,000 people in Canada who suffer from varying conditions of alopecia areata, so it is a major concern.

One level that we have not even reached that they have reached in the United States is the fact that we do not even allow a charitable donation receipt for making a donation to alopecia areata. That to me is a little ridiculous in a way, because they are not doing it for the fun of it; they are concerned when they make a donation to one of these associations. I think that should be cleared up right quickly. I guess that might not be only the responsibility of the Minister of Health. Both the federal and provincial ministries would have to be involved in that particular case.

The age of 18 was continually mentioned. It is in there, but then I referred to students too, so it could go on beyond students. It was trying to take in people who did not have an income of their own. That is why I put that in there and those are my concerns.

INTER VENOR FUNDING PROJECT AMENDMENT ACT, 1989 / LOI DE 1989 SUR LE PROJET D’AIDE FINANCIERE AUX INTERVENANTS

Mr Chiarelli moved second reading of Bill 85, An Act to amend the Intervenor Funding Project Act, 1988.

M. Chiarelli propose la deuxième lecture du projet de loi 85, Loi portant modification de la Loi de 1988 sur le projet d’aide financière aux intervenants.

The Deputy Speaker: The honourable member has up to 10 minutes to make his presentation.

Mr Chiarelli: Last year at this time this House passed the Intervenor Funding Project Act, 1988, which provides that certain broadly based public interest groups could apply to become interveners and receive intervener funding in important matters before the Ontario Energy Board and the Environmental Assessment Board.

The substance of my amendment is to extend coverage of this particular act to include the Ontario Municipal Board and to refine a particular definition in the act to make it clear that municipalities will be included as funding proponents so that funding orders might be made against particular municipalities.

When this particular act, the Intervenor Funding Project Act, was debated at third reading last year, it received all-party support. All parties spoke in favour of it and in fact voted for it. I think it is important that we look at the rationale of this all-party support and I think it can best be summed up in a quote from a speech of the Attorney General (Mr Scott) when he introduced this particular legislation.

In the words of the Attorney General: “Public access to government generally, and participation in judicial proceedings specifically, has been a major policy objective. Those with legitimate issues to articulate in the public interest before certain tribunals should be able to do so regardless of income.”

The Intervenor Funding Project Act is a progressive piece of legislation. As I said, it received all-party support. It acknowledges that public interest groups have a role to play and should receive public funding in appropriate cases. But this particular act does not go far enough. If we look at the Ontario Municipal Board, we will see that it regularly deals with very important issues that affect the quality of life of the citizens of Ontario and with very important environmental issues as well.

The Ontario Municipal Board is a quasi-judicial body that makes its decisions based on very technical expert evidence and witnesses, usually introduced and adduced by expert legal counsel. Typically, we have three players in Ontario Municipal Board hearings on a major issue. We will have a municipality or several municipalities; we will have a private interest such as a corporation or developer, and the third component will be an umbrella group representing citizens, the public or the taxpayers.

At the present time we see municipalities with adequate budgets, technical in-house expertise and expert planners. They have the facilities to go out and hire consultants. We have the private interest that has an income stream; even if it loses in its application to the Ontario Municipal Board, its expenses are tax-deductible.

On the other hand, when we look at the citizens’ groups and the public participation, there is no income stream and no tax deductibility. They are not on a level playing field. Due to the fact that we acknowledge in this Legislature that the public advocacy role is an important role, I think it is important that we put that particular segment in major hearings before the Ontario Municipal Board on a level playing field. We can do this with my amendment.

While we all agree in this House that there is new respect for citizen advocacy, particularly in areas of quality of life and environmental concerns, there are still those who fear citizen participation as being frivolous, vexatious or not-in-my-backyard-related. While that may or may not exist today, that particular dynamic cannot exist under the lntervenor Funding Project Act and cannot exist with my amendment if it is approved before the Ontario Municipal Board.

I would like to refer to section 7 of the existing act which indicates: “lntervenor funding may be awarded only in relation to issues which, in the opinion of the funding panel, affect a significant segment of the public and which, in the opinion of the funding panel, affect the public interest and not just private interests.” So we are not going to see local neighbourhood issues, severance issues and minor variances being eligible for intervener funding under this proposed amendment.

Furthermore: “In deciding whether to award intervenor funding to an intervenor, the funding panel shall consider whether: the intervenor represents a clearly ascertainable interest that should be represented at the hearing; separate and adequate representation of the interest would assist the board and contribute substantially to the hearing; the intervenor does not have sufficient financial resources to enable it to adequately represent the interest; the intervenor has made reasonable efforts to raise funding from other sources; the intervenor has an established record of concern for and commitment to the interest; the intervenor has attempted to bring related interests of which it was aware into an umbrella group to represent the related interests at the hearing.” So we see that the act itself provides that we are not going to see frivolous, vexatious or NIMBY-related hearings receive funding for hearings before the Ontario Municipal Board.

Now I would like to refer to an example in the Ottawa-Carleton area. I am sure that if we look at across the province, we will find municipalities example after example, but the Ottawa-Carleton Regional Transport Commission at the present time is proposing a $500-million to $1-billion bus tunnel through the downtown core of Ottawa. There is a broad sector of community groups that are very interested in this proposal, that have some concerns and that want to be involved in a very meaningful way.

This is the type of issue that should be referred to the Ontario Municipal Board and for which an umbrella group should be able to receive intervener funding, so that when it comes time to make representations before the Ontario Municipal Board, the group will have access to expert legal counsel and analysis of the facts and will be able to be put on a level playing field. It would show respect for the public and respect for the taxpayer in these very important matters.

In conclusion, I would like to say that if we accept the important role that citizens play in the quality of life and environmental issues today, the Ontario Municipal Board must be included in the Intervenor Funding Project Act. I feel that this House could do no less in acknowledging the role of public advocacy today in Ontario.

1110

Mr Charlton: It is a great privilege to rise and say right at the outset that I will be supporting Bill 85, and my sincerest congratulations to the member for Ottawa West for bringing this matter forward. I do not want any of the comments that I make during this debate to be construed as reflecting on the member for Ottawa West, because most of my comments will be directed at the government, as opposed to those of the private member who has chosen to bring this matter forward. Again, I congratulate him for having done so.

The amendment is an extremely important one for two reasons, one which I did not even hear the member for Ottawa West mention in his opening remarks. The first important reason is that, as we move through a growing era of public concern and public participation in our regulatory processes, we have to begin to understand that, as government and as representatives of the people, we have a responsibility to fund the mechanisms that allow us to ascertain, to the best of our ability, what the real public desire and need is in any circumstance.

For example, not only do I support this amendment to include the Ontario Energy Board in this piece of legislation, but the reality is that ultimately, under the conditions that are set out in section 7 of this act, any public regulatory hearing process should be subject to intervener funding when the intervention is an appropriate one in the public interest. That should include hearings under the Liquor Licence Act or any other piece of legislation that may impose on a community something that that community may not want to have in its proposed form or at all.

The second important aspect of this amendment that has been moved by the member for Ottawa West is the change he has made to the definition of “proponent.” I think it is also a very major and significant change. As the act now reads, the section defining “proponent” refers to “a major financial beneficiary of the decision of the board.”

The member for Ottawa West has removed that word “financial” and “a major beneficiary of the decision of the board,” which in fact makes that definition of “proponent” a much broader one and covers a lot of things that “financial” certainly does not touch, things that can be extremely important to the larger general public and to specific parts of the communities that may be affected by proposals from a proponent that may not have a major financial gain to make as a result of a proposal. For example, the existence of some kind of waste storage facility by a proponent may not represent a huge financial gain, but it certainly may represent a serious concern to a community.

Again, I applaud the member for Ottawa West for coming forward with this amendment, but I have some serious concern about the fact that we need to be here at all debating this amendment today, and that is where my comments will focus on the government. We passed this piece of legislation in Bill 174, creating this intervener funding pilot project legislation, last December. During the course of the debate on Bill 174 and in committee of the whole House on 14 December last year, exactly a year ago today, my colleague the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore (Mrs Grier) moved precisely the amendment that we have before us here today.

“Mrs Grier moves that section 1 be amended as follows: That the definition of ‘board’ be amended by striking out the words, ‘or the Environmental Assessment Board,’ and by inserting in lieu thereof the words, ‘the Environmental Assessment Board, the Ontario Automobile Insurance Board or the Ontario Municipal Board.’”

Members will notice that my colleague the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore had included another board in that amendment as well. That second part of the amendment which she moved would not be necessary today because of the government’s need to have withdrawn its legislation around the insurance board. However, the amendment was moved.

My colleague in the debate went through very many of the same comments that were made here today by the member for Ottawa West in dealing with some of the expressed concerns about including the Ontario Municipal Board in this legislation, the concerns around frivolous interventions. I quote from her comments last year:

“There is, I am sure, the fear on the part of the government that if you include the Ontario Municipal Board, everybody who has an objection to his neighbour’s garage or a committee of adjustment decision is going to be seeking Intervener funding to appear before the Ontario Municipal Board. Obviously, if you look at the process included in this bill, the funding panel has the right to determine whether or not intervener funding is justified. I think it is highly unlikely that a citizen with a very direct private interest in an issue, such as an objection to a neighbour’s expansion or a committee of adjustment decision, is going to qualify for intervener funding under the criteria that are set out so explicitly under section 7 of the bill that is before us today.”

All of the things that we are talking about here today were talked about in precisely the same form one year ago today. It is the government’s response at that time that I would like to take just a few minutes to deal with, because it is the government’s response at that time that concerns me about having to deal with this here today and to wonder where the member for Ottawa West’s bill will end up, assuming that it is going to pass today.

The parliamentary assistant to the Attorney General essentially handled this bill in the House last December -- that is, the member for Mississauga North, now the Solicitor General (Mr Offer) -- and what we heard from him as the government’s rationale for not supporting this amendment last fall is what I would like to focus on:

“We cannot support this amendment, but we would like to indicate that the use of legal aid rates under this legislation is a minimum...” -- I am sorry. This is not the correct quote. Here we are. The parliamentary assistant had a habit of using those words frequently on that afternoon, hence my confusion. “First, let me indicate that we cannot support the amendment put forward by the honourable member.... However, I would like to indicate that I think one of the concerns the member has issued is: ‘You have this one person making a decision. What recourse is there in the event that the decision is, in terms of the intervener funding, somewhat negative?’”

1120

The kinds of arguments that were used against the amendments last year were technical arguments that again, if you look at section 7 and the criteria under which intervener funding would be allowed, were irrelevant to that debate. The member for Ottawa West has made that point clearly today. The kind of technical and to some extent emotional concerns about frivolous interventions getting funded with public dollars do not exist.

Another point that was made by the parliamentary assistant at the time had to deal with: “Very briefly, the current legislation might cause some technical problem since it states that ‘a board shall not commence a hearing....’ Depending on the nature of proceeding, a hearing may have already been technically commenced when a determination of intervener status has been made.”

The parliamentary assistant goes on to talk about this question of intervener funding and the fears, again, of what may happen in the course of that. He said: “To begin, ‘The principal purpose of the bill,’ as very clearly indicated in the explanatory note, ‘is to establish a three-year pilot project to provide intervener funding, bona fide public interest interveners at hearings before joint boards under the Consolidated Hearings Act, 1981, the Environmental Assessment Act and the Ontario Energy Board Act.”’

As the last rationale which the government used against the amendment of the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore -- the rationale that this was a pilot project which was intended to focus on intervener funding in three specific areas, areas which also overlap with the Ontario Municipal Board in the hearing process and even in consolidated hearings, as we are all well aware -- if it was really a pilot project to identify how this kind of intervener funding operation under this legislation would operate, then the pilot project should have been as broad, within the definitions of what was acceptable or what was a real public interest, as is possible. If we want to know at the end of a pilot project how intervener funding works in a number of circumstances and how it should be applied in a number of circumstances, we have to attempt all the ways that we can of applying that principle.

As I have said, the three pieces of legislation at the parliamentary assistant referred to, the Consolidated Hearings Act, 1981, the Environmental Assessment Act and the Ontario Energy Board Act, are all three of the acts that get lumped under the Consolidated Hearings Act. So too is the Ontario Municipal Board Act, and to exclude it in a pilot project to see how intervener funding in that sector is going to work makes absolutely no sense and avoids the very points that have been raised by the member for Ottawa West.

I am going to wrap up my comments by saying that I support Bill 85. I know my colleague from Etobicoke-Lakeshore will support it as well. I again applaud the member for Ottawa West for bringing this forward, and I have a sneaking suspicion that although the government lined its members up to defeat this amendment just a year ago today, this private member’s bill will pass here today.

Again, I am not making cynical comment about the member for Ottawa West but about the government process here. I have serious concern about where Bill 85 will get lost after today, because I am almost sure that it will not be allowed to become part of the legislation that it is intended to amend, legislation that we passed last December setting out intervener funding pilot projects over a three-year period.

I would urge all members to support the bill and I would urge members of the government party to bring to bear some pressure on their colleagues in the cabinet to allow this bill to proceed.

Mr Cousens: It is interesting that when the House comes to private members’ hour, we have a chance to do what we want without too much control by the whips and by caucus and can then act according to our own conscience.

I guess that is what really happened to the member for Ottawa West. What I see here is an example of a Liberal who is thinking for himself and who really did not realize that his own Liberal caucus had voted down a number of amendments that would have accommodated the very bill he has tabled for us today.

It could be a number of things that have caused this to happen. First, when last year the Liberal caucus voted down amendments that would have made this happen, he was not around or realized it was going on. It could have been that the whip came along and said: “Member for Ottawa West, you have to toe the line. We have to put on a solid form of appearance that we’re all working together.” It could have been that he listened to him that day.

It is also a fact that, since that time, maybe this member has had a chance to rethink what it is he should be doing that is the right thing to do for the province of Ontario and, therefore, in his own good conscience, has come forward and said: “I don’t care what the caucus whip says to do. I’m going to do what I believe in myself.”

What he has done is go back and relook at it and come forward with a number of recommendations which I am going to support. I think it is also an indication that we are in a position here in this House to do what we believe to be right.

I would like to temper my remarks with a number of controlling statements that qualify my support. It is unfortunate that we are not coming forward with significant changes to the Planning Act or significant changes to how people can get before the Ontario Municipal Board. Tremendous power resides under the Planning Act and within the hands of those members who are on the municipal board. I would like to say that I have respected very highly the people who have been placed on the municipal board in my experience during the eight and a half years that I have been a member of the Legislature.

It is quite amazing that a group of people have to interpret all the different cases that come before them with the support of developers and town councils and all kinds of groups, yet they are able to sift it through, listen to all sides and then come forward with a decision. I do not always agree with their decision but I have a sense in myself that the Ontario Municipal Board works in Ontario.

I guess I worry, though, that many cases end up going to the Ontario Municipal Board that are frivolous, take an awful lot of time and cause a tremendous amount of investment by developers of varying sizes to be tied up. It could be the developer of a small plaza on a corner or it could be someone who is just putting up three or four houses or it could be a 600-acre subdivision. It is unfortunate that there is no way of sifting and sorting those through so that some of the eases that come before the board that really are not important are set aside.

Unfortunately now, everything goes through and there can be an awful lot of time tied up. Time is money and the time that is tied up within the Ontario Municipal Board on some of these cases can be a very extravagant cost and pushes up the price of property and development.

I think that we in our province have to make sure there is always a balance between those people who have a genuine case of concern and out of conviction want to fight it and also a case for those who want to do development. It is striking that balance that we have trouble doing within the province.

We will see a development, such as the Langstaff jail farm site, over 600 acres in Richmond Hill, property that was sold by Metropolitan Toronto to the town of Richmond Hill, and members know the kind of time it takes to process the official plan amendments and the situations around that, and appeals to the Ontario Municipal Board take almost as long as some very, very small parcels of land that have to be considered. So we are out of whack on what is getting all the attention. On the other hand, one will have another 600-acre subdivision that gets very speedy approval and the public really did not know that it was going on.

1130

To me, there is a responsibility in a number of areas. I would like to see the Municipal Act, the Planning Act and the guidelines of the Ontario Municipal Board changed to somehow make it easier to have the big cases get more attention and the little cases, if there are concerns that people have, take less attention and speed up the process. I say that out of a sense that we are all losing if we spend too long having things just go through the system. The red tape now is horrendous for people who want to develop land and make things happen in the province.

Another thing I would like to see changed under the Planning Act would be that when the province owns land, the province should be forced to go through the whole planning process as does any other developer. As it stands right now, the province is exempted from that and I think that is wrong. I am really quite worried about what will happen in my riding in the town of Markham when the province may come along and have plans for its thousands of acres in the east end of town and could do what it wants with that land and we, as a community, will have very little power to do anything about it.

It goes back to what rights an individual has to fight for what he or she believes in. The fact that the small person -- I call it a small person; it could be any height, any size and any shape -- does not have a lot of money makes that person smaller in his or her own mind compared to the power that exists for those that are the developing firms that have lawyers and professional staff to assist them with their cases. So if there is a group of people concerned about a project, how do they represent those views before the Ontario Municipal Board?

First of all, I think there is an intimidated sense that they might feel that they cannot stand up with the big guys and make their case. That is unfortunate. What this amendment to the intervener funding would do for them is that when they get together and they have a consortium and they have a case that is legitimate in their own minds and it is presented for funding, they might have their case paid for as it is presented before the Ontario Municipal Board. That will help strike a balance for all of us in our society. We have to always be willing to listen to whoever it is who has something to say.

Last night I felt that my rights in this Legislature were violated when, in fact, the First Deputy Chair would not acknowledge that I wanted to speak. I felt that my rights had been very seriously taken away by virtue of the fact that I wanted to stand up and speak and he would not even look this way. I have asked the Speaker of the House to look into this and I know the Speaker will be reporting back.

I have to tell the members there are small people around in Ontario who feel they are not heard. They have no recourse to have someone give them an audience. There is no way in which their view can be represented. There is no way that they can feel their sense has been considered among all the other views that have been considered.

So what we have before us today is an amendment -- not a big amendment; in fact it does not take an awful lot of words to make a significant change. What we are going to do now is provide equal resources to intervener groups that would greatly enhance the quality of the hearings by giving these interveners the opportunity to raise and canvass important issues that otherwise might not have emerged.

In the past, this Liberal government has given intervener assistance on an ad hoc basis. Recent examples include the liquefied natural gas inquiry before the Ontario Energy Board, the Royal Commission on Electric Power Planning in Ontario, the environment assessment hearings of the Ontario Waste Management Corp, the timber management plans, the waste management master plan of Halton region. There are examples where intervener funding has been made available and where in fact it gave people a chance to make their case known.

What we are saying now is that whoever is able to come together with a group of people and have a case they want to present -- not just frivolous cases that are going to have delaying tactics, but instances where they have a sense of the community; where there is a ratepayers group; here someone who does not have the presence and the financial stability and the financial backing will be able to do that.

I believe the amendment that is being presented by this motion by my friend the member for Ottawa West will now give to nonrepresentative groups the ability to be able to speak up and make their statement before the Ontario Municipal Board.

I really become concerned at spending money. I do not spend it that much at home and I feel the same way when we are in the province of Ontario. We have to be frugal, we have to run a tight ship. It is to the credit of the member for Ottawa West that he is not asking for money out of the public purse. That is quite unusual for a Liberal, because all that most of those guys can ever do is spend the public’s money. They are doing it all over the place. They just throw it away.

None the less, here is one good Liberal coming forward with a way in which the funding for intervener status, if it is approved in this amendment, would be paid by the proponent; that is, by a group, a developer or a municipality or otherwise that would be a major beneficiary of a decision by the Ontario Municipal Board. Thus, the proposed legislation does not call for expenditure of public funds.

I recently had to make a decision on the standing committee on the Ombudsman not to support the extension and expansion of the Ombudsman because it was going to cost more money. I think we have to somehow put the lid on spending in the province of Ontario. Every one of us has to look for ways to cut costs. If we want improvements and we want changes, and we do, we have to do it within our means. We are spending ourselves out of business. We are going to lose our competitive status in the whole world if we do not somehow keep our costs under control here in the province. The member for Ottawa West has done that within his motion. He has said the costs of this will be paid for by the beneficiaries who would be involved in any kind of intervenership.

There are a number of things I could say in addition to this. I know that one other honourable member wants to speak to this motion. In that case I will just make a few other points, because as we wind down this debate there is not an awful lot of time for the other member. I understood that one of the members has now indicated that he would rather I just closed it off.

What I have to do is just go back to the whole sense of what an intervener is. An intervener is a person who wants to make a statement, a statement that represents another view from that which is being presented. All I would like to do is make sure that everybody who knows that we live in a democratic state here in the province of Ontario takes advantage of that right, takes advantage of standing up and going before an Ontario Municipal Board and letting that case be heard.

Several years ago I took the position of an intervener before the Ontario Energy Board hearings. Tremendous power resides in those people who are willing to stand up and make their views known. These boards are pleased when the public participates; I am pleased. We have that right in this country. They do not have it yet in eastern Europe. They might be getting it shortly as they open up and democratize. We might see it in East Germany and Czechoslovakia. We have those rights now, so let’s take advantage of them. Let’s value them, let’s covet them and let’s support the people who want to make those statements that they should be making.

Let’s make sure that if it requires professional assistance in the form of professional lawyers, legal expertise and accounting expertise in order to make that case that they are able to put it together. That will happen with this kind of recommendation by the member from Ottawa West. We have a responsibility to fight for democratic rights. We have a responsibility to give those rights to the people of our province and to make sure that they are fulfilled. This small amendment will help that happen on cases that are heard before the Ontario Municipal Board.

I do not know how every other member is going to vote in this House. I personally will be supporting the motion in the sense that now it is another small step further. I only wish that the member had come back and looked at some of the other broader issues, because if you want to intervene right now there is not enough being done in this province on environmental matters. We do not have a case to be proud about.

One can cut down any tree one wants in the province. We do not have any protection for trees in this province. They do in Britain, they do in other countries, but we have to have a sense of protecting the environment all around. Some people laugh when I say that, but I happen to be one who has really become far more committed to environmental concerns and there is nothing of the environment in the Ontario Municipal Board or under the Planning Act that is giving importance to environmental matters.

1140

Maybe -- maybe -- by supporting this bill, those people who have a genuine commitment to the environment will have a protector to stand up with them to make their case before the Ontario Municipal Board. If that goes one small step further to protect the Rouge Valley system or to protect our trees and our natural environment, then we will have made another step forward.

I will support this amendment and thank the member for Ottawa West who gave us a chance to participate in this debate.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Cureatz): I would like to thank the honourable member for Markham for participating in the private member’s resolution by the member for Ottawa West, Bill 85, An Act to amend the Intervenor Funding Project Act, 1988. Continuing on in the debate.

Mr J. B. Nixon: I rise to speak in favour of Bill 85, An Act to amend the lntervenor Funding Project Act, 1988, as it is brought by the member for Ottawa West.

Prior to getting into a discussion about the specific proposals made in the bill, I want to suggest to the members that this bill is about something that we all care very much about; it is about democracy and, more specifically. the right of the citizenry to be heard on public interest matters which affect a significant segment of the public. That wording did not come to me loosely; it comes directly from the original act. It is about the right of the citizenry to be heard on public interest matters which affect a significant segment of the public.

The debate of that issue and the debate of democracy within the context of cities, I suggest, is an old debate. It is a continuing debate, but it started over 2,000 years ago when Plato was writing about the nature of cities and about cities being created when humans came together in a group to fulfil the needs they had because they could not do them on their own; they could not do them because they were not self-sufficient.

He wrote a book called The Republic and he spent many, many pages and long chapters debating the types of cities and leaders in those cities; which were best and which were worst for mankind. He talked about aristocracies, oligarchies, tyrannies and democracies. He came to the conclusion, none the less, that whenever one group takes over in a city, whenever one element takes over in a city -- and I use city in the broadest context, that of a community -- evil has entered the city and the goodness in the leaders and the goodness in the population is pushed out. He suggested as a counterbalance that the ally of the citizenry is the law. What we are dealing with here today is the law and how the citizenry, the community and the city can use it to ensure that they have a good city and a good community.

Plato went on for, as I said, many, many books and hundreds of pages discussing these issues. By 1840, there was a gentleman named Alexis de Tocqueville from France, who travelled the growing democracies in the United States. He believed that these truths were self-evident; they did not need debate. He stated quite clearly, “A nation may establish a system of free government, but without the spirit of municipal institutions, it cannot have the spirit of liberty.” This bill speaks to the spirit of liberty in municipal institutions which radiates outward through to the entire community.

None the less, today the cities and communities we deal with are much more complex and much more sophisticated than they were either in Plato’s time or in de Tocqueville’s time. They are bigger, they are more complex and some indeed may say that some of our cities are world-class. I abide by that, but world-class cities often have serious problems. The serious problems that the members know of and which we all know of are debated in this Legislature. They include traffic congestion, lack of affordable housing, adequate infrastructure, increased pollution, crime and stress, loss of agricultural land and loss of open space, destruction of established neighbourhoods, inadequate access to social services and strained municipal budgets. We debate those issues. We know those issues exist today. The citizenry knows those issues exist today. The media know those issues exist today.

None the less, I would suggest that not all of the citizenry has an opportunity to express its views on these issues. Those problems I alluded to, the traffic congestion, lack of affordable housing and so on, are symptoms of a larger problem. In today’s cities, there is a new citizenry. In de Tocqueville’s time and Plato’s time the citizenry was the people. Today, we have a legal system which grants personal status to inhuman bodies -- corporations. We have corporations today which participate in public planning decisions. They are not elected. They cannot elect people. None the less, and rightly so, we rely on them to produce goods and services for us and their representatives participate in the planning process.

My question is: Who else should participate in the planning process? Others do: elected representatives at the municipal level. On some occasions individuals participate. On some occasions interest groups participate. On some occasions community representatives participate and on some occasions the representatives of the corporations participate.

I can look only at my own riding and ask how many of those people would like to participate in planning decisions. I can tell members about the Muirhead family, which farmed in the Don Valley region for 150 years, still resides in the community and has views on that community and its growth. I can tell members about the North York Concerned Citizens for Civic Affairs, which has strong views on the development of the Don Mills community, the North York neighbourhood centre. I can tell members about the Federation of Ontario Naturalists, which has strong views on the use of our wetlands, our ravines and how suburban development should or should not encroach upon those provincial treasures. All of those people, individuals and groups and communities, have views on how their community should be developed.

On the other hand, posed against that proposition that their views should be heard, we say, “We are all elected representatives. We are all elected to municipal or provincial or federal legislatures to express the views of our constituents.” Yet we all know we cannot make all decisions for all people, and we do not. We cannot represent all views of all of our communities at all times on all matters, and we do not. I suggest that there have to be other forums for expression of those views, for a hearing of those interests.

None the less, with respect to this bill, I hope I can speak for many members, if not all members, of this Legislature. The bill, as members know, is to specifically include the Ontario Municipal Board as one of the designated boards for which intervener funding would be available to individuals or groups on certain conditions.

With respect to the member for Ottawa West, it is not a new view. It has been debated in the Legislature. I understand the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore moved an amendment to a previous piece of legislation requiring that the Ontario Municipal Board be added to the definition of the board of intervener funding projects. It was supported by the member for Mississauga South (Mrs Marland) who talked about the need for the Ontario Municipal Board to qualify equally with the Environmental Assessment Board as a designated board for the purpose of intervener funding.

I would like to touch briefly upon the mandate and scope of the Ontario Municipal Board and what it does. It has a broad mandate. There are 80 public acts which give it jurisdiction. There are 100 private municipal acts which give it jurisdiction. Currently, it has the authority to award costs, but the cost awards power of the municipal board is very restricted. Cost awards are in the discretion of the board. The board may order; it does not promise to order. It may order that costs be paid and on certain scales. In other words, all the costs do not get paid. Certain costs get paid at the discretion of the board.

Keep in mind that of all of these matters that appear before the Ontario Municipal Board, a small minority -- less than one quarter of the matters that appear before the municipal board -- deals with zoning bylaws, with official plans or official plan amendments, or with plans of subdivision. I believe that is what this bill focuses upon: those significant planning matters which affect a broad community interest on which the citizenry has a right to be heard as it is a matter of public interest, a matter that affects a significant segment of our political reality of our community.

1150

There are lots of people, members should know, who have suggested that this amendment to the original intervener funding bill proceed. The Canadian Environmental Law Association spoke out strongly in favour of this amendment. It proposed. among other things, that it will bring a balance to the discourse before the Ontario Municipal Board. Do not forget -- at present, community groups or interest groups that appear before the municipal board fund themselves on the basis of after-tax dollars. Corporations that appear fund themselves with pre-tax dollars. Municipalities that appear fund themselves with the taxpayers’ dollars. Every ratepayer contributes to the municipality’s appearance before the municipal board. So already, anyone who wants to appear before the board who is not a corporation or a municipality has not only a financial disadvantage, but a tax disadvantage.

The member for Ottawa West is proposing not that this funding come from the public purse but that this funding come from the proponents so that there is a full discussion on public interest matters before the board. The Preservation of Agricultural Lands Society, which has fought so long and so hard in our community for the preservation of the fruit lands and the vineyards in the Niagara region, supports the member’s amendment. The Christian Farmers Federation of Ontario supports the member’s bill. They believe, and I think rightly so, that community groups are not equal on financial grounds to major land owners, developers or municipalities when they appear before the OMB.

The Ontario Waste Management Corp has had some experience with intervener funding. It says that one of the advantages of intervener funding is that it brings a better focus on key issues. It fosters a consultative process, rather than an adversarial one. Indeed, the American experience with intervener funding is that it actually reduces the time before the joint boards or the specific boards because people are constrained to make their best case, rather than to try to delay the process.

I suggest there is a lot of experience with intervener funding in other jurisdictions from which we can learn and perhaps use to modify this bill in committee. Many people have concerns about the bill. AMO, the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, as I understand it, has not taken a position. It has concerns about who would be entitled to appear or who would be entitled to have funds. The member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore pointed out that any type of intervener funding made available to proponents or opponents before the municipal board should not be for committee of adjustment variances or minor bylaw adjustments. That is not the purpose.

The Canadian Environmental Law Association made its views quite known. It says:

“It may be argued that adding the OMB may prove to be too unwieldy in light of the numerous minor cases brought before the board. However, it should be pointed out that under section 7 of the act, a funding panel has discretion to refuse the award of intervener funding where issues to be raised do not affect a significant segment of the public and do not affect the public interest as opposed to private interests.”

Section 7 of the existing legislation may need to be expanded in committee discussions. However, it sets out under subsection 7(2) clear restrictions on the entitlement to intervener funding. The interveners must have a clearly ascertainable interest. They must need separate and adequate representation that would assist the board. They must prove they do not have sufficient financial resources. They must make reasonable efforts to raise funding from other places. They must have an established record of concern before they ask for intervener funding. They must prove they have attempted to bring all related interest groups together in an umbrella group, so that we are not funding every little group that comes along. They must have a clear proposal as to how they will use these moneys.

Those restrictions, I submit, are sufficient to assuage the concerns of those who might be concerned that this could run amok. It will not run amok. This bill is simply about the right of the citizenry to be heard on public interest matters, not private interest matters, which affect a significant segment of our population, of our political reality, of our cities, of our communities.

These are issues about which we are all concerned. Because of the nature of an elected representative democracy, we cannot all usurp on to ourselves the exclusive right to speak on issues on which there are legitimate views to be heard, to be spoken, before the appropriate tribunal which is making decisions of a very long term nature.

The Speaker: Thank you. The member’s time has expired. I believe the member for Ottawa West has up to two minutes to respond.

Mr Chiarelli: First, I want to thank my colleague the member for York Mills (Mr J. B. Nixon) on the government side, the member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr Charlton) for the official opposition, and the member for Markham for the third party for supporting my amendment to this particular legislation.

I want to refer very briefly to a couple of comments that were made in debate here today. First, the member for Hamilton Mountain emphasized -- I think it is important to emphasize, because a number of my colleagues have raised this point -- that my proposed amendment could be used in a frivolous or vexatious manner.

The act itself, the Intervenor Funding Project Act, has provisions which will prevent any intervener group from being frivolous because under section 7 it defines the issues as those which, in the opinion of the funding panel, affect a significant segment of the public and which, in the opinion of the panel, affect the public interest and not just private interest. Subsection 7(2) has very strict qualification requirements for intervener funding groups.

The member for Markham mentioned the fact that frequently there are matters before the Ontario Municipal Board which delay progress and the time costs various groups or individuals a lot of money. The member for York Mills has mentioned that, in cases where there are properly funded intervener groups, the time period before boards is in fact expedited, because what you then have are participants in the process with access to proper expert advice and legal counsel. They participate in creating solutions rather than being part of the not-in-my-backyard phenomenon which some people think public advocacy is.

It is not part of the NIMBY phenomenon; they are, in fact, part of creating a solution. So I would say to the members, let us have confidence in the people, the public, who elected us.

PROSTHETIC HAIR REPLACEMENTS

The Speaker: Mr Pollock has moved resolution 36.

Motion agreed to.

INTERVENOR FUNDING PROJECT AMENDMENT ACT, 1989

The Speaker: Mr Chiarelli has moved second reading of Bill 85.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for committee of the whole House.

Mr Charlton: Are we not going to have this bill referred to the standing committee on administration of justice?

The Speaker: As the members know, the standing order states very clearly that when a private member’s bill is passed it automatically goes to committee of the whole House, unless a majority of the House wishes otherwise. However, I believe the tradition of this House is that the request usually comes from the presenter of the motion.

Mr Chiarelli: I would so move, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: Mr Chiarelli moves that Bill 85 be referred to the standing committee on administration of justice.

The House divided on Mr Chiarelli’s motion, which was negatived on the following vote:

Ayes 14; nays 19.

The House recessed at 1203.

AFTERNOON SITTING

The House resumed at 1330.

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES

Hon Mr Elston: I have a message from the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor signed by his own hand.

The Speaker: The Lieutenant Governor transmits supplementary estimates of certain additional sums required for the services of the province for the year ending 31 March 1990 and recommends them to the Legislative Assembly. Signed by His Honour Lincoln Alexander.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

TRANSFER PAYMENTS TO MUNICIPALITIES

Mr Laughren: A couple of weeks ago the Treasurer, Maximum Bob Tax-to-the-Max Nixon, made his announcement on transfer payments which stated that among other things the unconditional grants to municipalities would be increased by 4.8 per cent in 1990, to $914 million. This below-inflation increase follows an absolute freeze on unconditional grants in 1989 and is forcing many municipalities to either cut services or levy double-digit property tax increases.

This amount of increase in unconditional grants is actually a reduction in payments to municipalities, given the level of inflation and the rate of population growth in the province. According to Treasury figures, Ontario’s population will have increased 3.4 per cent from 1988 to 1990. In this two-year period unconditional grants to municipalities increased by a total of 4.8 per cent. This means the effective rate of increase, not including inflation, will be only 1.4 per cent, but given an increase in Ontario’s inflation rate of 11.5 per cent in the two years 1988 and 1989, the unconditional grants to municipalities have been falling behind by 10 per cent in real dollars in these past couple of years. This inadequate level of unconditional grants to municipalities has simply got to stop.

TORONTO AREA TRANSPORTATION

Mr Cousens: I met with the Honourable Benoît Bouchard, the federal Minister of Transport, and had the opportunity to advise the minister of the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party’s growing fears for the future of commuter transportation services in the greater Toronto area. We are concerned that the Ontario government is failing to address a looming crisis in transportation and that a constructive dialogue must be established between all levels of government if we are to face the challenges of the 1990s and beyond.

The greater Toronto area is one of the fastest-growing urban centres in North America. Proposals for hosting the 1996 summer Olympic games, and now Expo 2000, require immediate action by all levels of government if we are to successfully accommodate these events. However, what is even more important is that we are losing sight of the need for basic transportation systems for everyday residents of the greater Toronto area, regardless of whether or not we host these international events.

In my capacity as chairman of the Progressive Conservative Task Force on Transportation in the GTA, I presented to the Minister of Transport our views on the principles for the current state of transportation in the GTA. I noted that Ontario must make commuter services a much higher priority and that doing so will require assistance and co-operation on the part of the federal government.

We discussed proposed changes to passenger service under Via Rail and I am encouraged that the federal government is prepared to work with the province in devising alternative commuter services that use rail. This province has an excellent opportunity to take advantage of these changes and, with the federal government involved, to develop commuter transportation services.

FEDERATED WOMEN’S INSTITUTES OF ONTARIO

Mr McGuigan: It is my pleasure to stand in the House today to recognize the Federated Women’s Institutes of Ontario. The institutes number more than 20,000 members and they have taken for themselves the task of being leaders in the efforts to reduce, reuse and recycle waste.

The Women’s Institutes have adopted the theme “A Decade of Women and the Environment.” The decade ends in 1997, which is also the 100th anniversary of the Federated Women’s Institutes.

A few weeks ago the southwestern area women’s institutes hosted a workshop focusing on recycling and waste management. The agenda dealt with recycling, composting and reuse of household items that have been consigned to the landfill.

The members of the Women’s Institutes have taken the environmental issue seriously and to heart.

As well, the Kent area group has been actively putting pressure on the county and municipal politicians to accelerate their introduction of a county-wide recycling program, with some success I am pleased to say. I am certain also that the Minister of the Environment (Mr Bradley) has heard, and will hear, from this group.

The women of the institute have also been involved in assisting in the education of our young people in the values of reducing the waste we produce. It is volunteers such as the women of the institutes, working with our government, who will bring the greatest success in waste reduction, not the force of government alone.

I congratulate the members of the Federated Women’s Institutes of Ontario and I am glad they are there to help us and to push us.

ONTARIO CENTRE FOR RESOURCE MACHINERY TECHNOLOGY

Miss Martel: Several weeks ago the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology announced the closure of the Ontario Centre for Resource Machinery Technology in Sudbury. As a result, some $6 million will be freed up to be used elsewhere by this government. The question is, where will this money now go?

My colleague the member for Nickel Belt (Mr Laughren) suggested the funds be redirected into the northern Ontario heritage fund. This was, and is, a legitimate request. However, given that only $5.3 million out of a possible $30 million was drawn out of that fund this year, perhaps the technology money would get a better bang being placed elsewhere.

Specifically, the Sudbury Board of Education has proposed that a substantial portion of this money be directed into the board’s technology programs. These include the science and technology program and the technological studies program.

With the first, moneys would be used to expand the present program and upgrade the equipment in the technical shops. In the second case, the funds would help develop this new project which attempts to foster interfacing between science and the computer. This would supplement the moneys and equipment which have already been provided Inco, the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines and Laurentian University.

The board’s proposal is sound and would ensure that its technological programs are comparable to those provided by larger southern Ontario school boards. Rather than sloughing this $6 million back into the consolidated revenue fund, this government should commit funds to the Sudbury board’s proposal.

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

Mr Villeneuve: The federal Department of Agriculture’s outlook is forecasting an eight per cent decline in farm income this year and no better performance next year. In fact, net farm income in 1990 is projected to drop by almost 40 per cent across Canada, a reduction of gigantic proportions.

One program that Ontario farmers have had up until now is one which provides some relief from high interest rates. The Ontario family farm interest rate reduction program was not available this year even though real interest rates were higher than when the program was first initiated.

The only explanation is that 1989 was not an election year. As speculation starts to build about the 1990s we hear that the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr Ramsay) and one of his parliamentary assistants are again talking about interest rate relief.

Yesterday, in response to my question, the minister stated that farmers would have to wait until spring. They cannot wait until next spring. This government has already set the precedent by announcing transfer payments in the late fall so that municipalities and school boards can plan their budgets. Surely farmers must be as important, and they do need the same planning time for next season.

Let’s bring agriculture away from the back burner and put it back on the front stage where it really belongs. It is the major industry of our province. This spring’s budget will be too late. Ontario needs action; Ontario farmers need action now.

HAZARDOUS WASTE DAY

Mr Adams: The Kinsmen Club and the city of Peterborough recently organized a highly successful Hazardous Waste Day. Hundreds of people waited patiently while Kinsmen volunteers in protective clothing processed paint, oil and other household wastes which had been sitting in basements for years.

This Hazardous Waste Day was part of the city of Peterborough’s determined drive to dispose appropriately of waste which is not easy to handle. This day was one of more than 60 household hazardous waste days held by communities across Ontario.

Our society produces many products which are simply too dangerous to be left at curbside for pickup within reach of children. We need special methods and facilities for handling such waste. I was interested to see that Metro has a toxic taxi service to pick up its hazardous waste.

My sincere thanks to the Kinsmen of Peter-borough and other volunteers who are helping communities to come to grips with the serious problems of disposing of household hazardous waste.

1340

PROPOSED HOSPITAL MERGER

Mr Reville: On several occasions in the Legislature recently, I have raised the question of the merger of Women’s College Hospital with the Toronto Hospital corporation and particularly my concerns about the undue haste with which the merger is being prosecuted and the secrecy surrounding the details of the merger.

Last night, the local board of health for the city of Toronto created an opportunity for public discussion of the merger and people came forward and shared their views with the local board of health. At the conclusion of a significant public discussion last night the local board of health for Toronto voted to oppose such a merger and further voted to request the Minister of Health (Mrs Caplan) to refer the entire matter to a standing committee of the Legislature for public discussion and recommendations back to the Legislature.

It may not be known to all, but the standing committee on social development does not have a whole lot to do during the recess. I cannot think of a better job for it than to allow the people of Ontario to come in and share their views about the future of Women’s College Hospital. How about it?

GASOLINE PRICES

Mr McLean: My statement is for the Treasurer (Mr R. F. Nixon) and it is about the way gasoline prices fluctuate widely around Ontario, even at Earl’s Shell Service.

I recently determined that the average price for one litre of regular unleaded gasoline in Ontario is 51.7 cents. Of that amount the dealer margin is 3.5 cents and this government collects a tax of 10.3 cents. As well, this government’s gasoline tax is scheduled to increase to 11.3 cents as of 1 January. The Treasurer’s gasoline tax increases will pump approximately $297 million into his government’s coffers over a period of one year.

The Treasurer claims he monitors gasoline prices closely, and yet he recently quoted one-year-old gasoline prices when he was questioned about this matter by one of his own backbenchers. Apparently he is not monitoring this situation as closely as he claims. As I mentioned earlier, the increased provincial gasoline tax will generate $297 million.

Just what is he using this windfall for? I think that anyone who drives on Ontario roads and highways can see quite clearly that revenue generated by gasoline tax is certainly not used to improve the quality of our road system in this province. The state of our roads affects commercial traffic, as well as the tourism and hospitality industry, which is the second-largest employer in Ontario. Our roads are the lifeline linking communities, families, businesses and services. Our roads are deteriorating at an alarming rate. Our roads are going downhill just as quickly as the Treasurer’s government.

PASSENGER RAIL SERVICES

Mr Tatham: Admiral Sir Hyde Parker, who could see little of what was happening, hoisted the signal to discontinue the action. Nelson gave a shrug and, addressing himself to Foley, said:

“You know, Foley, I have only one eye. I have a right to be blind sometimes.” He raised his spyglass to his right eye and announced, “I really do not see the signal.”

The Nelson eye: Last Tuesday, together with over 100 other people, I watched representatives of TGV France and ICE West Germany as they showed videos and described what they are doing and what they propose to do in their respective countries regarding high-speed trains, with running speeds up to 300 kilometres an hour and improvements in comfort for the rail passengers.

When you buy merchandise, buy in cold blood; when you sell, sell with enthusiasm. What about our population numbers? What about our snow conditions? What about our freezing rain? What about frozen ground? There are many questions to be answered, but in the meantime we do need to look after our present passenger rail service.

Let me say Nelson was successful in his decision, but he was there, he was in action, he could see what should be done. Nelson’s one good eye and sound judgement kept the railway running.

MEMBERS’ ANNIVERSARIES

Mr McCague: On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: It is my privilege to remind you of the election five years ago yesterday of the member for Ottawa East (Mr Grandmaître) and the member for Prescott and Russell (Mr Poirier) and also to remind you of the sixth anniversary of the election of the member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry (Mr Villeneuve) tomorrow. They all join Cash for Life.

The Speaker: I think all members appreciated the reminder notice.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

SELF-GOVERNMENT FOR NATIVE PEOPLE

Hon Mr Scott: The government of Ontario today formally enters what we hope will be a historic era in our relationship with the native people of the province. We are all aware that the native people of the province, like their counterparts across the country, want to derive economic benefit for themselves from the lands on which they live. They seek these economic benefits in order to improve their living conditions and reduce their dependency on government, and while so doing they properly insist that their heritage, their culture and their society be protected and strengthened.

The government of Ontario, as I have said on a number of occasions in this House, understands and is supportive of the position of aboriginal peoples that they can increase their stature, esteem and economic independence through self-government. Our government and the aboriginal peoples are continuing to struggle with constitutional issues of treaty and aboriginal rights and the constitutional entrenchment of the right of self-government.

The people of Ontario are, I believe, proud that our government supported the constitutional entrenchment of this right at the 1987 first ministers’ conference on aboriginal constitutional tights. But we know that in a federal system these constitutional issues will take a long time to resolve, perhaps too long to suit either Ontario or the aboriginal peoples.

I remind the House that when the aboriginal constitutional process failed in 1987, the Premier (Mr Peterson) promised our aboriginal fellow citizens that every effort would be made to achieve progress towards aboriginal self-government at home.

Ontario has, I believe, consistently shown since then that it is ready and willing to move forward on self-government issues, including lands, natural resources, justice, policing, education and social services.

I am pleased then to tell this House today that the Ontario government is continuing and formalizing that commitment with the adoption of a policy that will guide it in negotiating self-government with aboriginal communities all across the province. The policy is set out in the Guidelines for the Negotiation of Self-Government with Aboriginal Communities, which will be tabled today.

The guidelines reflect the emerging philosophy that has guided Ontario over the last few years in the development of a number of self-government discussions and negotiations which are already under way and they will guide us in dealing with new requests from aboriginal peoples for self-government negotiations.

I invite each member to carefully read and consider these guidelines. I strongly believe that in a decade they will be seen as a historic turning point in our relationship as a province with our aboriginal fellow citizens.

The guidelines will of course be subject to review over the next year and a half and may be changed, I promise, in consultation with aboriginal peoples in order to better reflect their assessment of their needs.

We will not limit the consultation process for self-government to the aboriginal peoples. We will invite non-native people to have a role in these undertakings in order to consider the views of all who live in Ontario.

I stress that the scope of the guidelines and the framework for the negotiations they establish is very wide. I know that we will eventually be conducting self-government negotiations from the far reaches of northern Ontario to downtown Toronto. We will negotiate with native peoples on reserves, in communities on crown land and in our urban centres.

We will also work co-operatively with the government of Canada in this process. Under our constitution, the government of Canada has a pre-eminent responsibility for aboriginal self-government and in fact the federal government is so far involved in all of our current discussions with aboriginal people.

I will not, and it would not be useful to, speculate at this time on the forms of self-government which will result from these negotiations. Many agreements will focus on land and natural resources, while the emphasis in urban centres will more likely be on native-controlled institutions to provide services to aboriginal peoples.

1350

Many members of this Legislature will know that, under the leadership of our Premier (Mr Peterson), a number of discussions have already started: with the Indian first nations on education matters under the declaration of political intent; with the Nishnawbe-Aski Nation on lands and natural resources and legal services, and with the Ontario Metis and Aboriginal Association on off-reserve self-government.

We have also received proposals from many other aboriginal communities. These include the Whitefish Bay First Nation, the United Indian Councils of the Chippewas and Mississaugas, the Onegaming First Nation, the Kawartha Nishnawbe, the Kasabonika Lake First Nation, the First Nations of the Rainy Lake Tribal Area, the Mohawks at Akwesasne and the Ontario Federation of Indian Friendship Centres.

We must, however, limit the number of self-government negotiations we can initially undertake because we all must proceed cautiously in these first negotiations to ensure that we are effective and realistic in our expectations and that we can meet the commitments we make.

Those commitments, I emphasize, are to non-natives as well as native peoples. We are committed by our guidelines to public involvement. Our agreements, as aboriginal peoples agree, must be guided by principles such as environmental protection, conservation of natural resources and by our existing commitments to those who now occupy or otherwise use crown land or natural resources.

As a government, these agreements will also allow Ontario to adequately plan for the provision of services to aboriginal peoples. Additionally, they will assist Ontario in meeting its commitments under treaties and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Much hard work remains to be done, many difficult negotiations lie ahead and much remains to be resolved among Canada, Ontario, the aboriginal peoples and their organizations and communities before we sign the first self-government agreements. But I believe the course is set, the framework is now established, and the will is present to work together with our aboriginal fellow citizens to make a better and fairer Ontario for all of us, native people and non-native people alike.

In the east gallery today are some of our partners in this new venture, the grand chiefs, chiefs presidents and executive directors of the following aboriginal organizations: the Indian Commission of Ontario, of course, the Akwesasne First Nation, the Association of Iroquois and Allied Indians, Grand Council Treaty 3, the Nishnawbe-Aski Nation, the Ontario Federation of Indian Friendship Centres, the Ontario Metis and Aboriginal Association, the Ontario Native Council on Justice, the Union of Ontario Indians, the Fort Frances Tribal Council, the Six Nations, the Chippewas of Sarnia and the Ojibway of Onegaming.

I would ask them to stand so the House could welcome them here today.

RESPONSES

SELF-GOVERNMENT FOR NATIVE PEOPLE

Mr B. Rae: First of all, let me welcome many of the chiefs presidents of band councils here today and say how much we are looking forward to negotiating with them in the 1990s.

I say to the Attorney General (Mr Scott) that his government is long on statements of principle, long on expressions of general declaration and very short on meeting the needs of native people in particular.

I want to spend some time in the short few minutes that we have to simply document the extent of the neglect by this government of its responsibility. To say that this is a historic day is true. But one has to also recognize that the good intentions which are expressed today do not match the fact that the Attorney General of this province has fought every step of the way the Bear Island band with respect to its particular claim, and that claim is now being fought in the Supreme Court of Canada.

The fact of the matter is that Ontario, with 22.4 per cent of the native population, spends some $4.88 million through its native affairs directorate. I would point out that British Columbia and Saskatchewan, with a smaller native population than Ontario’s, which is not widely known, spend roughly the same amount of money. Ontario’s tax base -- with a population of some 9.2 million people, we are spending a little less than $5 million out of the total provincial budget with respect to the activity of the Ontario native affairs directorate.

I want to say to the government --

Hon Mr Elston: You’re stretching it, Robert.

Mr B. Rae: If the member is telling me the native affairs directorate spends more than $4.88 million, that is news to me.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr B. Rae: I would invite the Attorney General to recognize that in his own guidelines for example, in the guidelines that he has established --

Hon Mr Scott: That’s deceitful.

Mr Jackson: What are you saying? You are a lawyer. You know better than to say that in this House.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr B. Rae: I do not mind taking abuse from the Attorney General. I want him to know, if he thinks that today is going to be a clear ride, he has another thought coming. He says that, with respect to the native people on reserves, Ontario is prepared to negotiate certain things, but it is also interesting that it is not prepared to negotiate other things. It is an interesting distinction.

Hon Mr Scott: Like what?

Mr B. Rae: Okay, we will go through the minister’s document. His document says with respect to crown land communities that Ontario is prepared to negotiate water and sewage, fire protection, garbage collection and housing. With respect to natives on reserves, he is not apparently prepared to negotiate water and sewage, fire protection, garbage collection and housing.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr B. Rae: If the Attorney General will look at the guidelines which have been presented -- I have only had a chance to read them now -- but the on-reserve items on which they are prepared to negotiate are fewer and less than those areas which they are prepared to negotiate with respect to crown land communities.

Just this morning, my colleagues and I presented a report on native health care in which we pointed out that you cannot talk about health care on a reserve north of 50 unless you are prepared to improve the basic quality of water treatment, unless you are prepared to deal with the question of sewage treatment, unless you are prepared to get involved in making sure that the native people have the means at their command to improve the basic quality of life in those communities. That is essential if we are going to deal with the question of social services; it is essential if we are going to deal with the question of health care.

What I am saying is that talk is cheap, that this government is prepared to talk, and I would suggest it has already been prepared to talk and it has talked and it has talked and it has talked. What we have not seen on the part of this government is a commitment to transfer dollars, hard resources, to our native people to allow them to build communities in which they can take pride, in which all of Canada and all of Ontario can take pride.

That is where the government’s record has been lacking. It is all very well to present these fine guidelines, but we all know and the Attorney General well knows, these discussions could go on for 5, 10, 15, 20, 25 years. Until this government and the government in Ottawa are prepared to transfer resources, power and money, it simply will not happen. That is what is at stake. That is what this struggle is all about and that is what needs to be done.

The relationship between the government of this province and the first nations, the first people of this province and the first people of Canada, is the most basic question of human rights facing Ontario today. We need to resolve it, we need to face up to it. I just do not think the government has demonstrated so far the commitment to do so.

Mr Eves: It is my pleasure to rise in the House today and speak on behalf of my party with respect to the announcement made by the minister responsible for native affairs (Mr Scott).

First, speaking of a co-operative approach, I also would like to extend our welcome to the leaders and representatives of the native and aboriginal peoples here today. They are Canada’s first people, and I do not think we should ever forget that in this province.

The very meaning of the term “self-government” means many things to many different people. I am sure that the Attorney General would agree with me in that regard. These are not easy discussions or negotiations that our province has undertaken over the years.

There has been some progress made. I do not think there is any doubt about that. In my own constituency, I can point to numerous examples of progress that has been made with respect to self-government of our native peoples. But there are some real shortcomings, one of which is health care, as the member for Lake Nipigon (Mr Pouliot) so appropriately pointed out in his private member’s resolution in this House about a week ago.

1400

I am proud to say that the province of Ontario is recognizing and paying particular attention to nonreserve native people, particularly those in urban communities, because they represent a very significant number of native peoples across this province.

I am also proud to say that for a brief period of time I was the minister responsible for native affairs and had the privilege and the honour of attending a first ministers’ meeting in 1985 at which the principle of constitutional entrenchment was discussed and put forward by the province of Ontario, and I understand that my predecessor did so in 1983 before that.

I think the point I am trying to make here is that the province of Ontario has always been regarded as one of the leading provinces in Canada, if not the leading province, with respect to its approach to native affairs and I would certainly hope that we continue to be so in the future.

ORAL QUESTIONS

SELF-GOVERNMENT FOR NATIVE PEOPLE

Mr B. Rae: My question is a very particular one to the Attorney General, and one that relates to my statement. I want to ask the Attorney General why the items which Ontario says it is willing to consider negotiating are different with respect to native people on reserves as opposed to native people living in crown land communities. There is a significant discrepancy between those areas, and I wonder if the Attorney General can explain that to us.

Hon Mr Scott: As the honourable member knows, the significant native population in Ontario exists either on reserve, where there is a land base, in communities on crown land, often communities that are substantially native in background, or in urban centres. My riding in the heart of Toronto has one of the largest native populations of any riding in Ontario.

It is obvious, I think, that when we come to discuss self-government, the parameters of self-government discussion will be different from place to place, simply by virtue of the existence of a land base. For example, the province of Ontario, as the Solicitor General (Mr Offer) will tell the member, has entered into policing agreements which provide some capacity to have native policing on reserve. It seems to me it becomes a much more difficult question to contemplate self-government with respect to policing in the city of Toronto.

Therefore, judgements have had to be made about the parameters that are possible to negotiate. As I said in my statement, we are, I think, the first government in Canada to lay out the parameters that we think are appropriate. I have emphasized to the leadership of the native community that this document is a basis for our discussions and we will be delighted to hear their views about it and will attempt to modify it to meet their appropriate expectations.

Mr B. Rae: Our report today talks about the fact that some basic conditions of life which are assumed to be there for the vast majority of citizens of the province are not available, are not present in many native communities, whether they are on reserve or on crown land. Lansdowne House is not a reserve. Lansdowne House is on crown land. Attawapiskat is on reserve. Some of the communities are partly on reserve and partly on crown land.

Water and sewage, fire protection, garbage collection and housing are four items which the Attorney General states very clearly that he is prepared to negotiate with respect to crown land communities. Those four items are specifically omitted, they are left out, when it comes to what he is prepared to discuss with native people who are living on reserves.

I am asking a simple question of the Attorney General: Why those omissions? Does he not think running water and sewage treatment are as basic to life on a reserve as they are to life on crown land?

Hon Mr Scott: As the honourable member is very careful not to acknowledge so he can get maximum bang for every rhetorical buck, the reality is that on reserve there are special parameters that have to be considered.

The honourable member’s own report, released today, is much more candid than he himself is. For example, speaking of federal hospitals on reserve, the report highlights a point that I was making the other day and that the honourable member just rejected as silly. It says, speaking of the people in Moose Factory and Sioux Lookout, for example, where there are federally run hospitals, that those people worry that by giving jurisdiction to the provinces, the federal government will wash its hands of responsibility to first nations people.

When I made that very same point in so many words the other day, the honourable member, as usual, said I did not know what I was talking about and it was nonsense. I do not know, though I have got a good idea, who prepared this excellent report that the New Democratic Party has. It is too bad the Leader of the Opposition did not have time to read it.

Mr B. Rae: The Attorney General is someone for whom on occasion I have respect. I regret that I cannot say that in any way, shape or form today, in terms of what he has said to me and what he has said to members of the House.

He says he is prepared to negotiate education, health and social services when it comes to on-reserve. I am asking him a simple, factual, decent question. He has laid out here what he is prepared to negotiate on reserve and he has laid out on the next page what he is prepared to negotiate on crown land communities. I am asking him why these areas, water and sewage, fire protection, garbage collection and housing, are not there.

It cannot be jurisdiction, because he has already said he is prepared to negotiate education, health, social services and other areas. He cannot tell me that water and sewage is any more or less a matter of provincial or federal jurisdiction than education. Come clean.

The Speaker: Thank you.

Mr B. Rae: Why are those items not in there? Because they are expensive? Why is it?

The Speaker: Order. The question has been asked.

Hon Mr Scott: The honourable member does not understand the nature of self-government negotiations. I am sorry that I do not get his respect, but I guess I will have to live with that.

What we are talking about here is self-government, that is the capacity of native people, when they are appropriately resourced, to make decisions in areas for themselves. That is what they very much want to do; that is what the government of Ontario wants to do with them.

Moving towards that process, we have had to make judgements about which subject matters are high priorities for them -- we have listened to them, and land, for example, and resources are high priorities -- and which subjects are perhaps not suited at this stage to self-government negotiations on crown lands or in urban communities. We have made the choice. The NDP members will never have the responsibility of governing so they do not understand, but we have made the choice and we have asked the native people to read this document and to read the very helpful document which the NDP produced today and which I know the leader will have a chance to read shortly --

The Speaker: Thank you.

Hon Mr Scott: -- because that will allow them to make submissions to us about the ambit of these very important negotiations.

The Speaker: Thank you. I remind the members this is question period, not debating period.

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION

Mr B. Rae: I have a question to the Minister of Education, and it has to do with democracy as well. I want to ask the minister why he is rejecting the essential principle, I would have thought, of pension plans, which is that each party that puts money into the plan has an equal right to control of that plan, an equal right to management of that plan and an equal right to say what happens to the money that is put into that plan. Why is the minister showing such contempt for the democratic process in his rejection of the very reasonable request by the teachers that they have equal access to control and participation in what is, after all, their own money?

Hon Mr Conway: I have indicated, as have other members of the government, the desire of this government to proceed with the reform of the teachers’ pension plan in a way that will ensure that this very excellent plan, a plan that few other people in the community could imagine having, will be able to meet the expectations of it into the future.

We have said, for example, that in the issue of the governance of the plan, the government is quite prepared to consider a partnership, but from our point of view, it must be an equal partnership. It is not a collective bargaining partnership, but rather a partnership of equals where both parties would accept equal share of the risks and the rewards.

We do not believe, as government, since on behalf of the taxpayers of Ontario this year the Treasurer (Mr R. F. Nixon) will appropriate something in excess of $575 million of the taxpayers’ money, we will put more money into the teachers’ pension fund this year than we will give to the Minister of the Environment (Mr Bradley) to run the Ministry of the Environment.

So the people, the taxpayers of Ontario, have an enormous stake in this and we are quite prepared to consider a partnership but we are not prepared to accept, as part of the partnership model, a dispute-resolution mechanism that would be binding arbitration and that would transfer the responsibility for important decisions in this multibillion-dollar account to some outside third party.

1410

Mr B. Rae: The minister is putting money into the plan; the teachers are also putting money into the plan. It is the teachers’ money which is at stake and at risk, just as much as his own. They are putting money into the plan as well. I find it hard to believe that he would say to teachers the government has more rights to that plan and more rights to that money than the teachers have, in terms of its management. I do not think that is democratic or fair.

Can the minister tell me how his approach to what happens to the surplus, to his right to not contribute to the plan if he determines that there is a surplus in the plan, is any different from the approach that was taken by Conrad Black or any of the other employers that led to the changes we have had to make to pension law?

Hon Mr Conway: Let us be clear: there is no surplus in this plan. This very excellent plan that provides 100 per cent inflation protection is seriously in deficit because that inflation protection was not properly secured in terms of financial support 15 years ago, so the taxpayers are now going to pick up about a $4-billion unfunded liability. Let us be clear about that.

In so far as governance is concerned, I have said to the teachers that one of the other opportunities available -- one that we would encourage -- is to let the teachers take the plan. We are prepared to surrender to the teachers the right to run this plan. If they want partnership, we are prepared to consider partnership. But to obviate the concern of my friends opposite, a better alternative, one provided for in the government bill, is a member-run plan so they would then have the entire responsibility. They could have all of the rewards and all of the risks that go with a member-run plan.

We will not, however, accept an argument where the government gets to accept all of the risks and the members get all of the rewards. That is simply not on.

Mr B. Rae: I do not see why anybody would take the minister’s suggestion seriously. He is saying, “We will let you run the plan.” When he talks about partnership, he makes the rules --

Hon R. F. Nixon: All they have to do is opt for it and they have got it.

Mr B. Rae: No, wait a minute. This is the minister’s definition of a partnership. He makes the rules, he decides how much the contributions are going to be, he decides the terms of the plan, he says that if at any time in the future there is a surplus, he does not have to contribute to the plan. He makes all those rules -- that is what he has set out in his legislation and his amendments -- and then he turns around to the teachers and says. “Won’t you be partners with us?” What kind of a partnership is that?

If the minister is interested in a partnership, why will he not agree that when two partners disagree with respect to what is going to happen to the money that each of those partners puts into the plan, we will let somebody else decide? Why not do that?

Hon Mr Conway: I have to say to my friend, where does that leave the taxpayers? Bound by some third party for consequences that could have enormous impact on the consolidated revenue fund. I want to say to my friend the Leader of the Opposition that under the plan that we have had, it is a defined-benefit plan where the government, the taxpayers of Ontario, all of Ed Broadbent’s ordinary Canadians, get to guarantee the benefits.

I repeat, under the current arrangement, Ed Broadbent’s ordinary Canadians are going to get to pick up a $4-billion unfunded liability while all of the benefits that have flowed from that unfunded liability have accrued to the members. I say, finally, we as a government are seriously prepared to entertain a real and genuine partnership with an equal sharing of risk and rewards and, yes, we are also prepared to give to the teachers a member-run plan where they run the plan, they accept all of the risks and, yes, they get all of the surplus and all of the rewards.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. The member for Sarnia is waiting patiently for your attention.

[Applause]

Mr Brandt: Thank you, Mr Speaker. That applause was most appreciated.

EMPLOYER HEALTH LEVY

Mr Brandt: My question is to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. Back in 1986, his ministry undertook a study with respect to the impact of the employer health levy, and at that time the findings of that particular report indicated that the introduction of such a tax in Ontario would be harmful to business, more particularly to small business, and would ultimately cost jobs and cause a slowdown in activities in some firms.

As a result of this tax now having been introduced by the Treasurer (Mr R. F. Nixon) and by the Minister of Revenue (Mr Mancini), could the minister indicate whether any studies and/or surveys have been undertaken by his ministry as an update to the findings he was able to discover back in 1986?

Hon Mr Kwinter: We have not undertaken any studies, but I will say this to the member. When the member takes a look at what has been going on with the funding of the health plan, I think he will find that fully almost 70 per cent of those people who are working have had their premiums paid by their employers. We have a situation where there is one sector that is really being disadvantaged by that. The Treasurer, in consultation with his colleagues, has decided that we will fulfil our promise and that we will make the providing of health care totally across the board and without direct cost to those participants.

There is no question that the costs are coming out of the consolidated revenue fund and we think there has to be some equity. We are now, as a result of that legislation, picking up the slack for those people in the industrial sector. Those employers who have not been making any contributions will be doing it in all fairness and in equity so that the burden will be spread across the total industrial sector.

Mr Brandt: I am surprised that the minister would not follow up on a study which he undertook back in 1986, which indicated some very real concerns about the introduction of such a tax and the impact that would have on job creation in our province.

I want the minister to know that my party did in fact undertake a survey in which we made contact with some 3,000 business operations in this province. Fully two thirds of them indicated that the tax would have a very substantive negative effect on job creation and would slow down growth. I want the minister to further be aware that some 80 per cent of those two thirds that we contacted are companies which export.

It is interesting to note that just this month, for the first time in a long time, the exports out of Ontario and Canada have gone down very substantially and that in fact our balance of payments is in a negative position. I suggest to the minister that it is partially as a result of this kind of move.

I ask the minister, how can he as the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology support such a move, recognizing that his own studies and further surveys that we have taken indicate it is wrong and particularly wrong at this time?

Hon Mr Kwinter: I point out to the leader of the third party that this tax has not even gone into effect.

Mr Brandt: I know that.

Hon Mr Kwinter: Then all the dire consequences that he has attributed to it have not happened as yet. I should tell the member that in all the discussions we have had with businessmen, not only in the United States but in all jurisdictions, the one strong factor that we have in our favour is the relatively low cost of providing health protection to our citizens. It is the envy of the United States. All one has to do is take a look at people like Lee Iacocca --

Mr Brandt: That has nothing to do with your plan. It had to do with the previous plan.

Hon Mr Kwinter: Yes, it does; it has plenty to do with it. Rather than saying it is a negative impact, I can tell the member it is one of the strongest selling points that we have in trying to attract industry to this jurisdiction.

[Applause]

Mr Brandt: I again appreciate the applause. The minister may be interested to know that it is not me saying that this tax is going to be negative; it is the minister’s own report, written by his ministry officials back in 1986. I quote, “A new payroll tax would deter small firms from hiring and impair job creation.”

That was confirmed by the survey that we took. That, in fact, is what is going to happen. I predict this well in advance of the impact of this tax being felt by the Ontario economy. I ask the minister again, how can he, as the minister representing business in the affairs of the cabinet of the government of Ontario, support this particular tax?

1420

Hon Mr Kwinter: I can support it very easily because I think it is fair and it is equitable. What the member has not really commented on is the result of the infusion into the economy of the savings that are going to result to the taxpayers and what that will generate.

Again I say to the member that we have a health plan in Ontario that has one of the lowest rates in all of Canada as far as the contributions that are being made by industry, and it is something that has stood us in a good position and that we use as a very effective tool in attracting industry to this jurisdiction.

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION

Mr Jackson: I have a question for the Premier. His government notified over 150,000 teachers in September 1988 of the following in a letter. It stated that Dr Slater’s concept of a new partnership with joint trusteeship appeared attractive to his government, and underlying this, his proposal is the principle that teachers and the government should be full and equal partners in the amount they contribute to the plan, in the way they share its risks and rewards and in the role they play in the management of the pension funds in the future.

Why would the Premier announce over a year ago that he was going to build this new relationship with the teachers of Ontario on something as fundamental as their shareholder rights in their pensions and yet last night at eight o’clock his government tabled legislation which not only took away the option that he was discussing, it removed rights that teachers currently enjoy today under existing legislation?

Hon Mr Peterson: The Treasurer can tell the honourable member about the extensive discussions that have gone on with the teachers.

Hon R. F. Nixon: Actually, the difficulty arose in 1975 when the then Progressive Conservative government did not establish a plan that paid for the very generous benefits that were given to the teachers in that election year. It was the inadequacies of the payments that were made from the consolidated revenue fund and from the teachers that have led to the actuarial deficit that necessitated the new plan that is being put forward. It is our aim to see that these benefits are properly paid for and that they are available when the teachers retire, as they should be.

Mr Jackson: It should be noted that the world-class fiscal conservative who just answered that question supported fully that legislation in 1975, as the then leader of the Liberal Party.

The fact is that the Premier should be aware that as of this morning, charges of bad-faith bargaining --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. We will just wait until everything tones down. Do you have a supplementary?

Mr Jackson: Yes.

The Speaker: Please place it.

Mr Jackson: I would like the Premier to know that as of this morning, his government has been charged with bad-faith bargaining by the members of this plan because of the conduct of certain members of his government. Not only has his government contradicted the letter which was sent, the teachers believe in good faith, back on 26 September 1988, his own Minister of Education (Mr Conway) has refused to meet with the teachers on more than one occasion to deal with the options which this government has tabled for their consideration.

The Minister without Portfolio responsible for women’s issues (Mrs Wilson) has refused on three occasions to meet with the women teachers of this province to discuss substantive matters regarding pregnancy leave and benefits that they believe they have a right to.

Can the Premier explain why members of his cabinet and members of the Privy Council refused to meet with teachers yesterday when it was his government’s intention to table a bill that stripped away the rights that they have historically enjoyed in this province?

Hon R. F. Nixon: Although the honourable member continues to direct his questions to the Premier, it is my privilege to respond.

I think he should be aware that ministers of the crown have been meeting with the elected representatives of the teachers’ profession now for 18 months; that I, myself, have met with them regularly and as a matter of fact their request to the Premier resulted in a meeting in the cabinet chamber with myself and other members of the cabinet directly responsible for this important matter.

The Minister of Education (Mr Conway) has introduced legislation which has been debated already and approved in principle. As a matter of fact he has met with the Ontario Teachers’ Federation on two formal occasions. The bill is now before the House. It is not the time for backroom negotiations because we have put forward three alternatives.

One is, if the teachers insist, the government will continue to operate it. Second, which we favour, is a fair and equitable distribution of responsibility and risk which would not involve compulsory arbitration. This fund would have at its disposal, including the employees of the province, close to $20 billion in assets.

Surely, it is irresponsible of the member, no matter how much he would like to lead the Progressive Conservative Party, to suggest that the decisions on that fund should be handed to some third party rather than the representatives of the taxpayer, the government of the day.

I want to conclude by --

The Speaker: Thank you. Perhaps a short supplementary might bring about a short answer. Would you try, please?

Mr Jackson: As legislators, we create laws in this House to protect employees from their employers who are bad-faith bargaining. There is absolutely no opportunity for the citizens of this province when a government is guilty of bad-faith bargaining with any of its citizens.

The fact of the matter is, this Premier should be aware that last night a plan was tabled that has never been discussed with the teachers of this province, and his Minister of Education confirmed that in committee last night. The fact of the matter is that this government all along has decided to offer not a joint model, but in fact a government-run model.

The Speaker: Question.

Mr Jackson: Why has his strategy for the last year been to invite confrontation with the teachers of this province? How can he call his actions consultative when --

The Speaker: Order.

Hon R. F. Nixon: What the honourable member says is totally incorrect. The bill, as he knows, has three options. We have met with the teachers for over 18 months. The minister himself in the last two weeks has met formally with them twice and they have refused the partnership option.

They have also indicated that they are not ready to take over the pension fund entirely themselves, as the bill provides directly in its sections. That leaves only one alternative, and that is for the changes to occur under the aegis of the government direction. That is really the choice of the teachers.

I want to say something about bad-faith bargaining because the member has only recently arrived at this discussion and is not even wise enough to listen while the discussion takes place but continues to interject.

Mr Jackson: You weren’t there last night when the bill was tabled. It’s an Education bill and you know it.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon R. F. Nixon: But I would say that for the Ontario Teachers’ Federation to indicate, after the work that has gone on with them over 18 months in trying to construct a suitable and modern method of looking after these important matters pertaining to pension, for them to call for the resignation of the Minister of Education, in my view, is irresponsible.

We have never had a better Minister of Education than the one we have now. He should certainly command the respect of all of the teachers as he certainly commands the respect of the taxpayers and as he commands the respect of every sensible member of this House.

Mr B. Rae: I thought I might give the Treasurer a chance to explain why he has it in for the member for Wentworth North, but I will not do that.

1430

GOODS AND SERVICES TAX

Mr B. Rae: I would like to ask the Premier a question about the goods and services tax. He will be aware, I am sure, of the many reports that the federal government is contemplating, changing the original proposal from nine per cent to seven per cent. The Treasurer (Mr R. F. Nixon) has apparently made some proposals to the federal government with respect to other possible changes to the plan.

I wonder if the Premier can tell us, does the fact that the rate will be going down from nine to seven change the stance that the government of Ontario is taking with respect to the GST?

Hon Mr Peterson: No.

Mr B. Rae: If the answer to that is no, I wonder if the Premier can explain why it is that his party voted against a very clearly worded motion standing in the name of my colleague the member for Nickel Belt (Mr Laughren) which stated very clearly that the government of Ontario would have no truck or trade with the GST. Do I take it then that the Premier is continuing negotiations with respect to the GST?

Hon Mr Peterson: In this House we have free votes. I respect every single member and if the majority of the members think that what the member put forward does not make sense, frankly I agree with them.

GOVERNMENT ANNOUNCEMENT

Mr Brandt: My question is for the Minister of Revenue. The minister will be familiar with Bill 64, which is the education assessment bill that has been brought forward by his government. I would like to ask him, in view of the information that has come to my attention that some 45,000 information notices have in fact been circulated with respect to this bill, how he and his ministry could be so arrogant as to do that prior to the time when the bill was brought before this House. How can he submit a bill and the information contained therein for circulation to the Ontario public prior to this House dealing with that legislation? What kind of nonsense is that?

Hon Mr Mancini: I am not sure if the honourable member has his facts quite straight, but I will take the matter under advisement and I will report back to the House.

Mr Brandt: I want to advise the minister that I do have my facts correct, that in fact there was information printed, some 45,000 copies of which were circulated, and those copies are not even worth while. They contain errors, since the bill was in fact amended after the printing of that particular circularized item.

I say to the minister that when the same thing happened in respect to the GST at the federal level, when that was introduced by the government before passage and when advertisements were circulated --

The Speaker: Did you have a supplementary?

Mr Brandt: -- the Speaker of the House reprimanded the government for taking that action. Will the minister stand up and apologize on behalf of his ministry for doing something that is dumb and stupid, which is what he did?

Hon Mr Mancini: I believe if the member is talking about the ad --

Mr Brandt: I have it all right here.

Hon Mr Mancini: If the honourable member would just relax for a second, if I recall the ad, it says that the bill is before the Legislature. If there are some matters in the announcement that may be incorrect, I told the honourable member in my first answer that I would take his concerns under advisement and get back to the House. I doubt if anything we do over at the Ministry of Revenue is in fact as exaggerated as the honourable member tried to make the case today.

CAPITAL FUNDING FOR SCHOOLS

Mr Adams: My question is for the Minister of Education. Some time ago, the Minister of Education allocated considerable funds to the separate school board in Peterborough for a new high school. The school is required because the present building is very old and decrepit and enrolment is increasing. There appear to have been delays in the allocation of these funds, and my question to the minister is, could he give us a status report on the new high school for Peterborough?

Hon Mr Conway: I am pleased to have the question from my friend the member for Peter-borough. It is true that some time ago a submission was made by the area separate school board for a replacement of the St Peter’s Secondary School in Peterborough. An outstanding Minister of Education, the member for Wentworth North (Mr Ward), responded very completely and immediately to that request by announcing an allocation of $17 million to provide for a 1,400-place secondary school as a replacement for St Peter’s Secondary School in Peterborough.

It is my understanding that this project is proceeding and if there is any difficulty, I would be interested to know about it because certainly it is our expectation that the allocation that has been made will be proceeded with.

Mr Adams: Can the minister assure the House that if and when the board submits acceptable plans for the new school, there will be no delays in the flow of funds?

Hon Mr Conway: I would want my friend and the good people of the Peterborough area to know that my predecessor was very anxious to accommodate the very legitimate secondary accommodation concerns of that community. He very wisely addressed the need by indicating a very substantial allocation.

I would only encourage my friend the member for Peterborough that if there is difficulty at the board level, it should make immediate contact with the regional office because the government is very anxious to move forward as quickly as possible and to replace St Peter’s Secondary School with a modern and up-to-date facility.

ASSISTED HOUSING

Mr D. S. Cooke: I have a question for the Minister of Housing, and it concerns a developer in London by the name of Zaifman Holdings Ltd. This particular developer over the last number of years has received $2.4 million in loans from the provincial government under the Ontario rental construction loan program, the Canada-Ontario rental supply program and the Renterprise program to build apartments in the London area.

I would like to ask the minister, why would the government of Ontario lend a developer like this money when this person has had a long history of being charged with collecting illegal rents and been convicted of charging illegal rents?

Hon Mr Sweeney: To the best of my knowledge, at least two of the programs which the honourable member mentioned were those that were in place several years ago. I cannot say why in fact they were done. The Renterprise program, however, was introduced in 1986, I believe, and I would certainly want to check to find out what the criterion was when that money was given.

Mr D. S. Cooke: While the minister is looking into these particular programs and this landlord, could he also look into the fact that this landlord is now being charged again with collecting illegal rents in 200 units of other buildings that he owns? Would the minister use the influence that he should have -- since the loans are still interest-free for 15 years -- to secure a settlement and get the tenants the money that has been illegally charged by this sleazy landlord?

Hon Mr Sweeney: I will certainly attend to the matter that the honourable member has drawn to my attention, and if in fact we have the legal or fiscal capacity to lever the kind of result that he has suggested, I will certainly see whether or not that is possible.

ASSISTANCE FOR THE DISABLED

Mrs Marland: My question is to the Minister without Portfolio responsible for disabled persons. The minister knows that the report Independent Living -- The Time is Now, which was submitted to her predecessor in March 1988, is still being reviewed by the Ministry of Community and Social Services. The minister also knows how crucial independent living assistance is for disabled persons to live a full and productive life.

My question to the minister is simple. Given that it has been 21 months since the Independent Living report was released and that the John Lord report found that the number of people who require attendant care exceeds the level of current service by three to 10 times, why has her government taken no concrete action to improve and increase the provision of attendant care?

Hon Ms Collins: As I mentioned once before in this House, myself, the Minister of Health (Mrs Caplan), the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr Beer) and the Minister without Portfolio responsible for senior citizens’ affairs (Mr Morin) have been working on the long-term care initiatives. In fact, the Minister of Community and Social Services made an announcement last week in this House. The report that the member referred to, attendant care, is part of the whole long-term care initiative and it is being looked at in that context.

1440

Mrs Marland: The disabled persons in this province are fed up with being asked to wait and wait for action. We have lists of reports whose current status is “under review, currently reviewing,” etc. They are still waiting for this Liberal government to implement the recommendations of The Freedom to Move is Life Itself report, two and a half years after the government received the report.

My supplementary question is this: Given that the Toronto Transit Commission was recently criticized as being one of the four least accessible transit systems in North America, when will the minister and her cabinet colleagues take steps to fully implement the recommendations contained in the Freedom to Move report, which they have had two years?

Hon Ms Collins: There is the Freedom to Move report and the Lord report, as already mentioned. I think I have already given the member an answer as to how those reports are being addressed at this time and within what context.

I just want to remind the member that in 1985 this government was spending approximately $7 million on attendant care. As of 1989 we are spending over $14 million, and I think that is a substantial increase, though we all are aware of the fact that much more has to be done.

The TTC report is out. They are having public hearings, and it is up to the Metropolitan Toronto council to decide how to move on that report.

ACCESS TO PROFESSIONS AND TRADES

Mr Fleet: My question is for the Minister of Citizenship. Mr Speaker, you have recently received a 493-page report from the Task Force on Access to Professions and Trades, chaired by Peter Cumming. The report provides an extensive review of the barriers faced by Canadians trained outside Canada. When seeking a job, they rightfully want a fair opportunity to compete on a level playing field with other Canadians.

As the reports demonstrates, many Canadians have specialized knowledge or skills which Ontario needs but which are not used because of the lack of formal recognition of credentials and, as a result, both those individuals and our whole society lose out. I was concerned about a recent media report which suggested that the minister planned to wait a full year before considering what kinds of changes are warranted. Could the minister advise the House what his expected timetable is?

Hon Mr Wong: I would like to thank the honourable member for his specific interest in this issue. First of all, let me make it very clear that out of the 85,000 or so immigrants who are coming into the province of Ontario every year, there are thousands of foreign-trained people who would be qualified to work in Ontario but who have met artificial or other inappropriate barriers that have prevented them from seeking proper and full employment in their respective trades and professions.

As a result of this, two years ago the government initiated the task force report. I think it would be good for all of us to help tear down those barriers so that we can enable these people who are very skilled and talented to seek and be employed in these positions.

The task force report came up with 104 recommendations, most of which would pertain to seven ministries of this government. It is our intention to move as quickly as possible, not to take the length of time that the newspaper article inappropriately indicated. But as soon as these recommendations have been properly evaluated and analysed, the government will certainly indicate its course of direction.

Mr Fleet: The Cumming report raises a number of complex and fundamental matters. It proposes a new approach to evaluating the skills of people, a new approach to testing these skills, a new approach to language testing, and much more.

The report also acknowledges that no legitimate standard of excellence should or needs to be sacrificed in this process, and, as the minister has indicated, there are over 100 recommendations aimed at furthering these objectives.

Can the minister confirm, in formulating the principles of reform and later the means of implementing those reforms, that the government will continue to take into account alternative proposals that may be provided by other interested parties?

Hon Mr Wong: Before the government implements any course of action, I wish to assure all honourable members that the government would certainly be in touch with the professions and trade organizations which are, of course, involved, many of the community and other individual groups who would be affected by any changes and also other stakeholders in the system.

I might mention that we must be cognizant of the fact that in the European Community, by the year 1992, all of the countries which are a part of the EC are moving toward complete mobility of skilled personnel among its member nations. We must also recognize that other jurisdictions, other provinces of Canada like Quebec, British Columbia and Alberta, have already implemented some systems for recognizing foreign credentials. Again, they have done so in a way that benefits their particular provinces in a cost-effective way. From Ontario’s standpoint, we must make sure that we do this so that we can harness these skills for the benefit of Ontario.

Mr Laughren: Time.

The Speaker: Order. I certainly appreciate the assistance from the member for Nickel Belt, but we have been managing all right.

ORTECH INTERNATIONAL

Mr Kormos: I have a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. Ortech International, formerly the Ontario Research Foundation, received significant funding from the provincial government and has its governors appointed by the provincial government. I am sure it was after some significant study that it located in the Niagara Peninsula, in the Brock industrial park, around a year ago.

That study undoubtedly would have indicated to it and to the government that there is need for its services because of the dense industry located in the Niagara region and certainly in the southern part of the Golden Horseshoe. After about one year, Ortech indicates that it is going to leave Brock industrial park and abandon the Niagara region. My question to the minister is, why is the government permitting that to happen?

Hon Mr Kwinter: I thank the member for the question and I am sure he is aware that I have a copy of the resolution passed by the Thorold city council. He should know that Ortech, notwithstanding that it reports through my ministry, is an arm’s-length agency and I do not really have day-to-day, hands-on responsibility for it.

I have heard the representations from the city council of Thorold. I certainly will communicate that to them, but that is really their decision and it is their decision to make.

Mr Kormos: I know the minister has the Thorold city council resolution because I sent it over to him at the beginning of question period today. I know that Thorold city council wrote to him and that he replied.

I should let him know that this is of grave concern not only to the city of Thorold, but to the regional municipality. They sincerely believe that the decision of Ortech is ill founded and not based on reality. The fact remains that the government contributes significant financial resources to Ortech and is far more intimately involved with its operation than the minister would appear to have us believe.

In view of the fact that is of such great concern to the regional municipality of Niagara, to the city of Thorold, and of such importance to the whole Niagara region, would the minister agree to facilitate a meeting between himself, Ortech and representatives of those two communities, the city of Thorold and the regional municipality of Niagara, as soon as possible, so that this matter can be discussed?

Hon Mr Kwinter: Again, I want to point out that, contrary to what the member has said, we do not have a very, very intimate relationship in the way that Ortech is run. It has its own board of directors, its own chairman and it runs as an arm’s-length agency. Certainly, I am cognizant of his concern. I will convey it to the people at Ortech and if we can arrange a meeting, I will be happy to try to facilitate it.

CORONER’S INQUEST

Mr Sterling: My question is to the Solicitor General. Will he call an inquest with regard to all matters surrounding the death of Christopher Stephenson and the handling of Joseph Fredericks, the man who has been convicted of murdering this young boy in Brampton?

Hon Mr Offer: As the member will be aware, the calling of an inquest is within the responsibility of the coroner of this province. The coroner, I understand from reports, is currently taking a look at the matter and is expected to make a decision in the next while.

1450

Mr Sterling: Under section 22 of the Coroners Act, if the minister has not already referred to that act and, I believe, inadvertently misled the House, he has the power to call a coroner’s inquest. There seems to be ample evidence with regard to the matter that there is a significant problem that could be addressed with regard to the release of Joseph Fredericks from the Penetanguishene Mental Health Centre and the handling of this man over a period of years leading to the death of Christopher Stephenson.

Why does the minister not take that step at this time, because there is public concern not only outside this Legislature but within the Legislature to get to the bottom of this so that this can never happen again in our province?

Hon Mr Offer: Without dealing with the subject matter of the member’s question at this point, but I will in a moment, I find the first comments of the member in his supplementary to be somewhat offensive.

I would like to indicate that the coroner is charged with the responsibility of making a determination in certain instances where death has resulted, taking a look at the subject matter, taking a look at public interest and public safety. The coroner is charged with that responsibility. I am advised, through a report, that the coroner is currently taking a look as to whether there will be an inquest called in that matter, and I believe that it is in the best interest of all of the members that we do await the coroner’s decision in this matter.

Mr Sterling: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I was not intending to be offensive. I was trying to point out to him what his rights were under section 22.

The Speaker: Thank you. Order.

Other people might want to ask questions. I distinctly heard what the member said and he came very close to the line.

ALCOHOL AND DRUG ABUSE

Mr Ruprecht: I have a question for the Minister of Health. Recently, the minister responsible for the provincial anti-drug strategy (Mr Black) announced a number of initiatives aimed at coming to grips with drug abuse in our area. Included in his announcement were funds for a prevention program which would involve the district health councils.

Can the minister tell me, and in fact all of those persons who are interested in a strong anti-drug strategy, what kinds of initiatives we can expect from the district health councils?

Hon Mrs Caplan: I would like to acknowledge the efforts and the leadership of my colleague the minister responsible for the provincial anti-drug strategy, as I answer the question and also acknowledge the interest of the member for Parkdale.

The Ministry of Health has contributed $1.2 million through until March 1992 to fund the activities of community action groups. The district health councils will be making recommendations on proposals to support prevention activities that were announced and will, in fact, be seeking to participate in the development of community action groups, fostering them in their communities.

The district health councils of this province are also going to be developing three-year plans for drug and alcohol services. At the present time, they are very active in planning for the enhancement, appropriately, of the kind of initiatives which have been included in the provincial anti-drug strategy.

Mr Ruprecht: I thank the minister very much for that announcement. I am specifically interested in treatment centres.

Last week, I received a letter from the Metro Toronto Police stating that “in the west end of Toronto, there are no facilities for the rehabilitation of drug addicts.” Can the minister indicate what direction her ministry plans to take in terms of increasing funds specifically for treatment and rehabilitation centres?

Hon Mrs Caplan: I am very proud of the initiatives that the Ministry of Health has undertaken and of our commitment to addiction programs generally. This year, addiction programs will total some $43.3 million. I should note that is an increase of some $17 million over the funding that was available in 1987-88.

Because of my desire to always try to improve the effectiveness and to improve, in fact, the quality of everything that we do, we are also developing a database at the ministry to allow us to better evaluate the effectiveness of all of our programs. This is because of our commitment to develop quality assurance programs so that we can assure the taxpayers of this province that in fact we are providing effective and appropriate care to all of the residents of the province. The approach that we are taking, the addictions program, is just one example where we are trying to evaluate and monitor and then demonstrate that effectiveness as we further enhance our funding initiatives.

WORKER’S COMPENSATION

Miss Martel: I have a question to the Minister of Labour. I would like to raise with him another case under section 86n of the Workers’ Compensation Act.

Mrs Boderka was injured on 16 January 1981 while hauling bags of fibreglass. Full Workers’ Compensation Board benefits were paid on and off in 1981-82, but in April 1983 these were reduced to 50 per cent of their original value. The reduced benefits continued until September 1983, when Mrs Boderka was pensioned off by the board. Her representative appealed to the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Tribunal for full benefits between April and September 1983. The case was won in December 1987. The WCB stayed the decision and the payout in February 1988, and no money has been paid to her to date.

I would like to ask the Minister of Labour why he is continuing to allow the board to do this.

Hon Mr Phillips: I think we must go back and remind ourselves that in 1985 we made some substantial changes to Workers’ Compensation Board procedures. We established the appeals tribunal and we put in place several mechanisms to allow a full and comprehensive look at all of these claims.

In this particular case we are dealing with a matter that I have mentioned several times in the House before. That is the issue of who has the final authority at the Workers’ Compensation Board.

I have said in the House before, and I will say it again today, that is a matter that is still in some dispute. It is a matter that I have undertaken in the House that will be part of our review of the Workers’ Compensation Board. A green paper, as I said before, will be issued in 1990, and that particular matter will be reviewed. But I go back to the changes that were made in 1985, where we established the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Tribunal, substantially enhanced the appeal mechanisms, and in that particular case, we are looking at what is called section 86n.

Miss Martel: I am glad the minister mentioned the green paper, because I would like to say a little about that process. The green paper committee, made up of labour and employer representatives, was set to look at this particular question and also many other issues under workers’ compensation. First, that committee has not met in ages. It is not meeting now. It is not scheduled to meet in the near future.

The second problem is that both groups, labour and the employers, already presented to the Minister of Labour their final submissions about section 86n and those other issues.

The fact of the matter is that the employers believe section 86n should continue; labour believes that section 86n should be repealed so the independence of the tribunal is guaranteed and the tribunal will have the final say. The minister will have to choose whose side he is on, and I would like to ask him here today, which is it? Is he with the employers or is he going to be with labour and working people for an independent tribunal?

Hon Mr Phillips: It reminds me of the challenge we all face, and I believe strongly in consultation. I believe in giving individuals and organizations a chance to comment on and participate in the background and in the decision-making in matters such as this, so we cannot have it both ways. We cannot say that the minister has received advice and now it is up to him, without consultation, and have consultation.

My approach is to prepare and issue the green paper and to give the individuals and organizations a full and ample opportunity to comment on that and have input in it. As I say, we cannot have it both ways. We cannot say we want consultation and input and then not allow consultation and input. I cannot think of a better mechanism than the proposed green paper to ensure that we have broad and comprehensive input into this very important decision.

Miss Martel: They are not even meeting any more. The meetings are over.

The Speaker: Is the member for Sudbury East finished? The member for Sudbury East had her supplementary.

New question, the member for Mississauga South.

1500

ANNUAL REPORT

Mrs Marland: My question is for the Minister of the Environment. The minister has one of the most important portfolios in this government. His mandate is to protect human health and the ecosystem by ensuring that acceptable standards of air, water and land are maintained, yet his ministry is one of the most difficult ministries to obtain information from.

Will the minister tell us why he has not tabled an annual report in four and a half years?

Hon Mr Bradley: I certainly can. I consider an annual report a waste of money. The reason I consider it a waste of money is that all an annual report used to be in the Ministry of the Environment was about 15 pictures of the Minister of the Environment saying, “What a great job we are doing.” It essentially used to be government propaganda. Also, keeping in mind that an annual report is just what the ministry thinks it is doing well and the services that it is providing.

I can say that in speeches across the province. I can say that by providing direct information to people. I consider it a waste to put money into an annual report which, when I have looked at them over the years, I must say, have been very good for photographers and very good for ministers of the environment.

Mr Sterling: Thank you, thank you, thank you.

Hon Mr Bradley: But I cannot say that in fact they have been particularly useful, other than that.

Mr Sterling: He is repeating himself. Thank you, thank you.

Hon Mr Bradley: We do have a number of documents that we provide.

Mr Sterling: Come on, Mr Speaker, cut him off.

Hon Mr Bradley: We have a number of publications that we put out through our library and in other ways, and we are prepared to continue to do that.

Mr Villeneuve: Time.

The Speaker: Order. I hope the member for Carleton will respect the rules of the House.

Mrs Marland: The minister’s staff is unco-operative and rarely returns phone calls. There is a rumour that he has closed down his ministry’s full-service library at 135 St Clair, and the fact that he has not tabled the report is a concern for everybody. By law, we realize he does not have to, but the previous ministers of the environment all published annual reports as part of their duty to keep the public informed. This government, obviously, feels it does not have to tell anyone what is going on.

The minister should know that I will be tabling an amendment to the Ministry of the Environment Act today to require him to report each year to this assembly. In the meantime, my supplementary question is, can the minister tell us when we will see a report of his activities over the last four and a half years?

Hon Mr Bradley: The member will get that kind of report through the estimates of the Ministry of the Environment, through questions in the House, through speeches which are made and through the various publications that we have. But if she is asking me, am I going to put out a propaganda piece on behalf of the government of Ontario, a show document, the answer is no, I am not going to do that, for a very good reason.

I happened to believe when I was in opposition that they were a waste of money, that all they did was promote the government, that all they did was make the minister look good. For that reason, I am not going to waste the money of the taxpayers.

lnterjections.

The Speaker: It appears that many members are not interested in what is taking place.

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mr R. F. Johnston: Mr Speaker, I would like to raise something which may or not be a matter of privilege in the House and would like you to look at it, if you might, and report back to us if you think it is. I gather it was referred to in question period, but I think it is more properly a matter for you to consider than a question of a minister.

It has to do with the pooling legislation which has still not passed this House. I have learned that a notice will be sent by the Ministry of Revenue -- about 1.5 million have been printed up -- to go to corporations around the province to let them know about the new rules.

There are two matters here of privilege that concern me; one, that this might be sent out before the bill has actually been passed by this House. It strikes me as a dangerous kind of thing for us to get involved in and there has been a recent federal case, which we may recall, which was raised before the Speaker of the federal House of Commons. But the second point is perhaps even more important, and that is, within the actual wording of this piece of information that is going out, there is some misleading information.

The notice states as follows, “Under the new rules, business partnerships will have the right to direct school tax support to a separate school board and to the French-language school board in Ottawa-Carleton in the same proportion that the partnership is held by Roman Catholics or francophones.”

At the committee stage, the committee changed the provisions in the legislation which had said this before and made it clear that in fact it was talking about Catholic ratepayers, people who supported the Catholic system. As members know, under our system a Catholic has the right to direct his funds to support the public school or the separate school system. It strikes me that if this information goes out, number one, in advance of our having passed the legislation and, number two, with information which is contrary to the government’s own amendments of its own legislation, it would be a major, major mistake and an offence to this House. I ask the minister to investigate this.

Hon Mr Conway: If I might, Mr Speaker, since the pooling legislation is legislation for which I have responsibility, I will respond. I think my friend the member for Scarborough West raises a very valid point and I give him and the House an undertaking that I will immediately investigate it and report back, hopefully within a very, very short time.

The Speaker: The member rose and said that he might or might not have a point of privilege and now, with the undertaking by the minister, I wonder if the member would want to delay his request until the minister responds to him.

Mr R. F. Johnston: I am delighted by the response.

MOTIONS

COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTION

Mr Ward moved that on the standing committee on resources development Mr Mackenzie be substituted for Mr Pouliot.

Motion agreed to.

COMMITTEE SITTINGS

Mr Ward moved that the select committee on education be authorized to meet from 12 noon to 1 pm on Monday 18 December 1989.

Motion agreed to.

Mr Ward moves that the order of the House of Tuesday 10 October 1989 establishing the schedule for committee meetings be amended by striking out “the standing committee on resources development may meet on Monday, Wednesday and Thursday afternoons following routine proceedings” and substituting therefor “the standing committee on resources development may meet on Monday and Wednesday afternoons following routine proceedings.”

Motion agreed to.

PETITIONS

FRENCH-LANGUAGE SERVICES

Mrs E. J. Smith: I wish to present two petitions, both of which are in disagreement with the French Language Services Act and both of which I have signed but neither of which I agree with.

Mr Velshi: I have a petition signed by 18 members from the riding of Don Mills, properly addressed and requesting the repeal of the French Language Services Act. I have signed it. I do not agree with it.

Mr Sterling: This is a petition to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

“Whereas the French ethnic population of Ontario at the time of confederation was less than 1.85 per cent; and

“Whereas all ethnic groups residing in Ontario at the time of confederation can claim to be founding people;

‘Whereas the French Language Services Act of the province of Ontario creates a special status for 4.5 per cent of the provincial population; and

“Whereas the creation of a special status for one ethnic group discriminates against all other ethnic groups, comprising 95.5 per cent of the population and is a source of disunity within the province,

“Therefore, we, the undersigned, humbly pray and call upon the Legislature of the Province of Ontario to pass legislation repealing the French Language Services Act, being statutes of Ontario 1986, Chapter 45.”

The Speaker: Just before I ask if there are any other petitions, this might be an opportunity to remind all members they might want to reread the standing order on the presentation of petitions.

1510

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

MINISTRY OF THE ENVIRONMENT AMENDMENT ACT, 1989

Mrs Marland moved first reading of Bill 98, An Act to amend the Ministry of the Environment Act.

Motion agreed to.

The Speaker: Does the member have a brief explanation?

Mrs Marland: Yes, Mr Speaker, I do. The purpose of the bill is to require the minister to publish an annual report on the affairs of the ministry. Obviously we in the Progressive Conservative caucus feel very strongly that while there are annual reports from other ministries, we do not have one from this one.

The Speaker: I asked for an explanation. You are not supposed to debate the bill at this time.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

FORT ERIE LIONS SENIOR CITIZENS COMPLEX INC ACT, 1989

Mr Haggerty moved second reading of Bill Pr37, An Act respecting Fort Erie Lions Senior Citizens Complex Inc.

Motion agreed to.