The House met at 1000.

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

DEAF PERSONS' RIGHTS ACT, 1990

Mr Abel moved second reading of Bill 22, An Act to provide for Certain Rights for Deaf Persons.

Mr Abel: It is my pleasure to speak today on private member's Bill 22. This particular type of bill is not new to this House. In fact, it was not long ago that the former member for Durham West proposed a similar bill, and I wish to commend her for her hard work and efforts put towards that bill. Unfortunately, the bill did not make it through, and myself being hearing-impaired, it was with great pleasure that I was given the opportunity to introduce Bill 22 for first reading on Monday last.

This legislation would prevent discrimination against deaf people accompanied by hearing-ear dogs. This legislation will give deaf people with hearing-aid dogs the same rights of access as those that are now enjoyed by blind people under the Blind Persons' Rights Act. My bill is patterned after that act.

The purpose of this bill is to ensure that deaf people are not discriminated against because they are accompanied by hearing-ear dogs. These dogs are guide-dogs and should be treated the same as seeing-eye dogs. If this bill is passed, it will be against the law to deny any person accommodation, services or facilities available in any public place because he or she is a deaf person accompanied by a guide-dog. In addition, no one would be able to deny a deaf person with a hearing-ear dog occupancy of any self-contained dwelling unit.

Under this legislation the Attorney General or a designated officer can, upon request, issue to a deaf person an identification card. This card would identify a deaf person and his or her guide-dog. This card would be proof that the deaf person and his or her dog are qualified for the purposes of this legislation.

This bill also contains a clause that the Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations prescribing the qualification for guide-dogs. I would anticipate that those would be along the same lines as the Blind Persons' Rights Act, which recognizes the dogs that are trained at particular facilities as seeing-eye dogs.

Contravention of this act would carry a fine of $2,000.

In approving this bill, the Legislature will continue a relatively new trend for recognizing the rights of deaf people in this country. With the exception of British Columbia, there is no other province in this country that protects the rights of deaf people to be accompanied by guide-dogs. This is the case even though there are at least three training programs for hearing-ear dogs.

As I have mentioned, British Columbia is the only province in Canada that has this legislation. In contrast to that situation, those rights are almost universal in the United States.

I cannot emphasize enough the importance of the work being done by Hearing Ear Dogs of Canada in training dogs to alert hearing-impaired people to sounds such as a baby crying, an alarm clock, a smoke detector, a malfunctioning car, and a telephone. As hearing people, including myself with only partial hearing, we take all these sounds for granted, but that is not the case for a deaf person.

To date, Hearing Ear Dogs of Canada, which is based in Ancaster, has placed over 60 dogs throughout Canada, with the majority going to hearing-impaired people in this province. The organization has approximately 20 people on its waiting list and 24 dogs that are currently being trained. Hearing Ear Dogs of Canada is a non-profit, charitable organization which has been training dogs to assist the deaf since 1979. It costs about $4,000 to train a hearing-ear dog, which takes approximately six months to train.

All the dogs are donated to the program, but not just any dog is cut out to be a hearing-aid dog. There are certain criteria that must be followed. The dog has to meet the requirements, such as having a friendly and outgoing personality, being of small to medium size and being healthy. The dog must also be under one year old. In fact, we have a dog in the House today accompanying the visitors in the gallery.

1010

These dogs are donated to the program and many of them come from humane societies. Training begins with basic obedience and all commands are taught in both sign language and verbally. Each of the hearing-ear dogs is trained to match the specific lifestyle of the deaf person with whom the dog will be placed. For example, if a deaf person is a woman with a young baby, the dog would be trained to alert her to the sound of that crying baby, or if a hearing-impaired person lives in an apartment, the dog is trained to respond to the apartment intercom.

When a young dog begins training, it is placed in a foster home for several months. This way the dog can learn how to interact in a family situation. Once the dog is ready for placement, the trainer accompanies him or her to the new home. During this placement period, which lasts about a week, the trainer helps to get the dog acquainted with the new home. It also gives the dog and the owner a chance to learn to work together and get to know each other.

It is interesting to note that the deaf person does not have to pay for the hearing-ear dog. As a non-profit organization, Hearing Ear Dogs of Canada relies on donations to support its program.

Hearing-ear dogs can be identified by their special orange collar and orange lead. Deafness is often referred to as the invisible handicap. You cannot see hearing impairment, but you can see that orange collar and orange lead. It is hoped that soon that signal will be as readily recognized as the harness on the seeing-eye dog.

The hearing-ear dogs program has the support of agencies such as Lions clubs, the Canadian Hearing Society and others, which also includes certain transportation organizations.

The deaf are probably the most socially isolated of all of our handicapped groups in this country. Hearing-ear dogs have opened up a whole new world for many deaf people. I feel this legislation is a logical step in recognizing these dogs and their tremendous importance. No deaf person should be denied access to any public place or accommodation when accompanied by a hearing-ear dog. I want to make sure that there is absolutely no question about rights of access for deaf people with their dogs. It is absolutely essential, in my view, that these rights should be recognized in legislation. At no time should a hearing-impaired person be discriminated against because he is accompanied by his dog. I want to make sure that deaf people with hearing-ear dogs have unrestricted access to public transportation, that they can get accommodation even though they have a dog, go out for a meal in a restaurant accompanied by their dog and have no fear of being turned away from any door.

These dogs are not pets. They are working dogs. They are an extension of the deaf person who relies on that dog. I urge all members to support this bill and I thank you for the opportunity to speak on this very important issue.

Mr Ruprecht: I am delighted to participate in this debate and would like to congratulate the member for Wentworth North on introducing, or should I rather say reintroducing, this specific piece of legislation, which had been introduced one time, as he kindly mentioned earlier, by Mrs Stoner, who in fact had someone who was hearing-impaired working in an office. Her name was Jill Johnson and she did bring her working dog in to the office.

I would like to address myself first to this specific bill before I indicate a few more details later.

This legislation before us I hope will be supported by everyone unanimously, first because we have in place already legislation of a similar kind in terms of seeing-eye dogs, and that of course is essential for people who would like to participate in the good life of Ontario.

In terms of Bill 22 there are some sections, I think, that are important to notice; first, that the hearing-ear dogs should be permitted in public places anywhere a person can go, whether it is on the subway, whether it is to rent a room or an apartment or a house, whether it is a public library, whether it is a theatre, any place where the public gets access.

Second, if a person who is hearing-impaired would like to rent accommodation, that sometimes of course may be prejudicial because of an animal being brought into that accommodation and I think it is only fair and right that this should be part of the legislation, that there should not be and must not be discrimination in terms of a hearing-ear dog or a seeing-eye dog, that that might be or should be a problem for anyone who would like to rent accommodation. It is important that this is in this bill.

In terms of identification cards, yes, there may be a minor problem inasmuch as the bill may not be specific enough. On page 2, subsection 3(1), it says:

"The Attorney General or an officer of the ministry designated by the Attorney General in writing may, upon application therefor, issue to a deaf person an identification card identifying the deaf person and his or her dog guide."

I would only hope that that will be specifically worked on and that would not cause any problem to anyone. Consequently, there should be one specific person identified in the office who has got the authority to issue these identification cards and that person obviously should be trained and understand the problems that might arise.

I think that in terms of section 3, it may be clear enough that there will be no delays in how to get an identification card. Should this bill pass, is the person who is hearing-impaired almost immediately issued a card, how long will that process take, who will be responsible and how can it be checked? I assume that may only be a minor problem and it certainly should not hinder the passage of this particular bill.

And yes, there should be a penalty. If there is discrimination in whatever area, whether it is public transportation or access to any situation where everyone else has access, should there be discrimination in terms of renting a place because of a seeing-eye dog or a hearing-ear dog, yes, there should be a penalty.

I think the $2,000 fine that the member has increased from, I think, the previous bill, a $1,000 fine, is a good thing. I would only hope that we may never ever resort to a penalty, but nevertheless it is essential that it be part of this legislation.

In short, I think I, as the former minister for disabled persons, will certainly have no problem whatsoever supporting this legislation and I would only hope that this government and this particular member, who I think has a lot of influence with cabinet people -- because the member for Wentworth North is a very able person in terms of pushing through this legislation. He has seen a need. That need is great, and in terms of discrimination, there should be none and I would expect that the government will not subject or relegate this specific legislation to the back burner or to some sideline or that there should necessarily be a great deal of cabinet discussion, or that in the end, Mr Speaker, you might have to resort to your final authority to make sure that this is pushed through. I know that may put you on the spot, but in any case, I would hope that we will move on this as quickly as possible.

I would like to read for the record a letter that was written by Jill Johnson which will identify quite specifically why a hearing-ear dog is really essential to the functioning and to the enjoyment of life of a person with a hearing disability. She writes a very interesting story.

"My family was at home, somewhere around the house, and I was in the kitchen, preparing for supper. Toby, as usual, was in the room with me, despite the fact the family was at home. I was cooking something in the oven at a very high heat, and when I opened the door of the oven, Toby came to me, bumped his head on my knee (his way of alerting me) and walked away. My concentration was on the supper, so I thought he was being silly and patted him on the head: but he was persistent, and I had no choice other than to follow him...right to the smoke alarm. Our back door is about four or five paces away from the smoke alarm, so he was pushing me to the door, which I opened, and went outside. I finally became aware my family was not with me, and tried to go back to the house, but was prevented very firmly from doing so by Toby. To cut the story short, I finally got in the house to find my children downstairs with the TV apparently blaring, so the children told me, and my husband reading the newspaper in the living room. He heard the smoke alarm but did not put much importance to it. This literally made me finally realize that no matter whether a life or death situation, Toby works for me, and for me only. Needless to say, we now have a fire escape plan!"

1020

But it took a guide dog to prevent a possible accident that could cost someone his or her life. It therefore becomes essential that this bill is being passed and that hearing-ear dogs are being permitted in public places.

This really is special legislation because it has support from a number of institutions. When we look across the landscape of those organizations and institutions that are supporting this bill, we find a lot of them that are quite enthusiastic about this. There may even be some organizations or associations which might have some concern, but nevertheless they can see the essential significance of this bill. For instance, the Canadian Restaurant and Food Services Association is supporting the bill. GO Transit, FunTrek Coach Lines, the Motion Picture Theatres Association of Ontario and the hotel and motel associations have no difficulty with this specific piece of legislation. Therefore, we should support this quite heartily.

Now just a word on the whole community of deaf persons. The significant actions that the community had taken not too long ago, in 1988, really put the whole deaf community on the map. Members will remember Gallaudet University. Suddenly, we had literally heard from the deaf community as a whole. Suddenly, the whole picture changed when deaf persons decided to demonstrate to ensure that they would have a say in running the university, which was totally for deaf persons in the United States. They wanted people on the board of governors. They wanted to be part of the decision-making process of that university. Previously, who had ever heard of the deaf community and deaf people taking such an active role? I think that previously they were probably relegated to a different kind of association, a different kind of role in public life. For the first time, all of us, especially public decision-makers, became aware of their significance and that they wanted above all else to participate in life. And they demonstrated.

I give the member for York East a great deal of credit that just before the cabinet was chosen -- I think it was the weekend before -- he actually showed up in front of the Legislature steps and participated in a demonstration. I think that we as legislators should never be afraid to stand up for the principles which we believe in. He decided to do this. He decided that it did not matter what anyone thought in this Legislature, whether it was the Premier or any one of us. He decided he had to go and show his support. That to me is an act of courage, because it could mean various significant things for his future in his life in this Legislature. He decided to do it. So we have a great example from university life and a great example from our own member of this Legislature that there is now a different attitude within the whole community of disabled persons.

That to me is of great significance, because if we do anything here in this House that is of significance we must open the doors. Our previous government tried to do that, and to a great degree we succeeded. We tried as much as we possibly could to open the doors to anyone, anywhere. Most likely the proudest moment of my being here, and certainly the proudest moment in my former capacity as minister responsible for disabled persons, was to declare the Decade for Disabled Persons in Ontario, which had not been declared previously. We in this party could never figure out specifically why it had not been done, but we felt it was important enough and the former Premier felt it was an important enough step to give a signal and a symbol to all of the issues that have to do with disabled persons, and that is to set aside that special department and to set aside a person to highlight the needs of disabled persons and to establish a minister to overlook and to try to encourage enthusiastically, so that all ministries across this government would have a greater sensitivity and would be sensitized to the needs of disabled communities.

We see a great change of attitude within our own consciousness in this Legislature, within the members of the public, certainly within the community itself. Our job consequently -- this is one of the indications -- would be to open up and permit people to participate as fully as possible in the life of Ontario, and that means in every significant aspect. It should not be that we would say it cost too much. I remember when we had long discussions about changing the Ontario Building Code. It should not be a question of financial pride itself that we would say it is too expensive to do it. It should simply be an act of principle that we open the doors and encourage full participation so that all members of society, including every Ontario person, will feel that they are part of the community, that they can fully contribute. I support this bill and I thank the member for Wentworth North very much.

Mr Jackson: I am delighted to be able to rise, I believe for the fourth time in my short career here at Queen's Park, to address important legislation which deals with a matter of concern to those citizens in Ontario who are severely challenged.

I tend to look at legislation, on the face of it, as worthy of support if it improves the quality of life for the citizens of this province or if it advances their legitimate goals and needs and their agenda, because of their right to the same quality of life that is enjoyed by society here in Ontario; in fact, legislation which is sensitive and fair. For that reason, I believe this legislation clearly fits that test and is worthy of support by all members of the House.

My support for legislation for profoundly deaf people comes from my own personal background, as I have indicated on previous occasions. My uncle Taeodeor Marcyniuk was deaf from birth and went through his life suffering from very cruel prejudices growing up in the 1930s and 1940s in western Canada. He taught all of my brothers and sisters very much about the need for society to change its handicap in terms of its understanding of what the legitimate needs of the deaf community really are.

1030

So I wish to commend not only the member for Wentworth North for his very first private member's bill in the House, which I am quite sure will be unanimously approved, but also the members who have gone before him: the member for Durham West, Mrs Stoner, who has been mentioned, who first introduced the whole program for hearing-ear dogs to the standing committee on social development, and I will come back to that in a moment; my close friend and colleague the former member for Scarborough West, whom I worked with on the social development committee and worked with closely to advance the issues of education for the profoundly deaf in this province, as well as for other rights that they legitimately deserve to have; and of course I recognize the current member for York East, who brings an important opportunity for us to learn and grow by his presence among us.

I would like to share a small story with the House in the time that I have allotted, because this bill has just not been presented to the House for the first time. It is a product of public hearings conducted by the social development committee in which I had the privilege of participating in May of this year. We had the opportunity to listen at first hand to those profoundly deaf persons who benefited from the hearing-ear dog program. As such, we were introduced to a whole world of understanding about the importance of not just the program but the program's relationship to the rest of society.

The bill, quite frankly, was introduced with that in mind -- it deals with access and accommodation, it talks about identification cards -- to ensure that the process of normalization, which is what all persons who are severely challenged expect and would hope, will allow us to accept them without seeing them as handicapped.

The social development committee decided, as we do on these occasions, on the spur of the moment that we thought that since we were in the Amethyst Room in this building -- and for people who are watching this morning's Hansard, the importance of the Amethyst Room to this building for public hearings is that it has electronic Hansard; in fact, it can be televised all across Ontario to the citizens of this province -- the Liberal chairman at the time thought it would be a good idea if we did a split screen and had the signing as we now have occurring in our House, that that same signing would occur for the members of the deaf community who had presented themselves at the time of the social development hearings.

Apparently at that time someone in the building complained about this process and an end was put to it. I feel it was indeed unfortunate that the ruling from a previous Speaker -- it was certainly not this Speaker, he has enough problems handling prayer in the Legislature at the moment; I am not going to hang this one on him -- felt that there was no assurance that the persons doing the signing were in fact saying what was being said by the deputants before us. I thought, how sad, how prejudicial and how poor, because the hearings could have been an opportunity for the entire deaf community to have witnessed at first hand what was such an important presentation to us as legislators. We were being educated but we had an opportunity to share that with the rest of the province, and that was denied.

I am pleased that is no longer going to happen and our committee, all three political parties, was unanimous in support for electronic Hansard recognizing the profoundly deaf and their needs.

I would like to indicate that we are indeed fortunate that today in the Legislature we have a citizen of this province who uses the services of a hearing-ear dog. She has brought her close friend and companion of two and a half years, Heidi, who is in the Speaker's gallery. I certainly would like all members to know that we are very fortunate that this important companion is in the House with us today.

I would like to briefly talk to a couple of issues in the bill, because once this bill is approved today it will either go to committee of the whole House or go to committee. It certainly will not become law today, so that one of the functions of our debate is to offer suggestions for potential amendment should the bill proceed to, say, the social development committee so that it can become law as quickly as possible.

I had a couple of concerns which I wanted the member from the governing party to consider. He may wish to respond to them in his summary statement or he may wish to pass them on to the minister responsible for disabled persons.

I had a concern with respect to access. I believe that it might be interesting to note that when the original bill was drafted there were certain restrictions in Ontario for pets to co-habit in rental accommodations. I think the Attorney General of the day was unfairly branded with his Fluffy bill, but that became the moniker to describe legislation to allow tenants in Ontario to keep their pets. I am not so sure that since the Liberals brought in that legislation and had it approved that it does not offer a blanket safeguard for all pets and that the deaf community could not be discriminated against on that basis because no citizen can be discriminated against in Ontario on that basis.

On section 3 of the bill, which talks to identification cards, I would specifically ask the Attorney General or his ministry to provide identification cards. I hoped that the member would have addressed that issue to indicate that he had talked to the Attorney General and that he had received some assurances or feedback that in fact these cards will be forthcoming. I currently am having some difficulty with certain matters from the Office for Disabled Persons with respect to the Meals on Wheels program and licensing and identifications. There has been some recent tightening up in that ministry and I have concerns that when we offer identification, that in fact we have been given some signals from another ministry that it will be forthcoming.

I have a concern with respect to clause 2(1)(b), which talks about discriminating "against any person with respect to the accommodation, services or facilities available in any place to which the public is customarily admitted, or the charges for the use thereof." There have been recent reports in the media of a very offensive practice, both in public transit and in licensed transportation such as cab driving, there have been incidents reported of the disabled community being bypassed. I take this matter very seriously and I question whether or not the current fine system is sufficient or, more important, that that section of the bill I referred to clearly covers that public transit or private transportation for fee cannot discriminate by driving past a person who presents himself to be picked up. I would not raise this if it had not been the subject of an investigation in this country, at least in one city, and it has been widely reported as a practice in one or two American cities. I think that section of the bill should be strengthened to clearly state that, for the protection of these people with their companions, their hearing-ear dogs.

1040

I have a couple of other items I wanted to raise, but because of the rotation in this morning's debate, one of the members in the official opposition has not been able to get on a few comments, and with the unanimous consent of the House, I would yield my last three minutes in favour of the member for Scarborough North. I thank the members for listening to my concerns with respect to this bill, but predominantly, my absolute support.

The Speaker: Do we have unanimous consent for the member for Scarborough North when, in rotation, he can use the remaining time? Agreed? I heard a "no"?

An hon member: Nobody said "no."

The Speaker: Okay. Further debate.

Mr Malkowski: First of all, I want to congratulate Norah Stoner, a former Liberal member of this House for Durham West, for initiating this bill and bringing to the attention of the House the issue of hearing-ear dogs. I also want to extend thanks to my friend the honourable member for Wentworth North for establishing this bill and for bringing it to the House, looking at the issue of hearing-ear dogs.

Having heard from various members here, the information has obviously shown a real sensitivity and people really do care about this issue. I have certainly heard stories from other deaf people. We heard about the story of Jill Johnson who lives in Oshawa, who raised her concerns and actually was instrumental in getting this whole thing started. I think it is very important that we do recognize the needs of people who use hearing-ear dogs and become very sensitive to those needs. I would also like again to thank the members from the third party as well as the Liberal Party for bringing support to this bill.

I would like to just share a little bit of my own personal experience, having met with various deaf people in the community. I think it is extremely important that we do have hearing-ear dogs available to make people feel that they are safe, that they are in a position to feel very secure in the community.

Hearing people tend to depend on sound in this world and this is a world that is based on sound, and hearing people take that for granted as part of their lives for safety reasons as well as for feelings of security and comfort. But those experiences are not common to deaf people. That is something that is not a common experience in our lives. For example, a deaf person within his or her own home or apartment or in a place such as a hotel or motel is often deprived of a lot of information.

We live in a world of vision and yet there are not visual alarm systems for fires, for example. If somebody comes to the door, often there is no system available, so the deaf person is not aware that somebody is there and that is a real lack, in many ways, in our own community. If somebody in the house were to fall, for example, or were to hurt himself, a deaf person would not be alerted to this occurrence, and that is an issue of safety.

On the issue of security, if there is a possible break-in or if a child is sick during the night, the deaf person is not aware of this, is not alerted to it, because he is not able to hear that this is going on. On security issues, we have heard of people who basically have almost spent their day in the kitchen because they do not know what is going on around them, they do not feel very secure in getting out into the world.

What is going to change that is having a hearing-ear dog. That helps in a variety of ways. It helps to identify sounds, such as somebody knocking at the door. The dog is able to alert the deaf person to this or to the phone ringing. Again, that is a system that is set up for the dog to alert the deaf person and as has been mentioned, something such as the water boiling in the kitchen. All of these things the dog is trained to alert its master to.

It is not an uncommon experience to have a sink run over because a person has forgotten to turn the tap off and has not heard the water running. In fact, it is an experience that is very common within the deaf community.

Often somebody comes to the door. For example, it was very common during the election that deaf people were not enumerated because they did not hear somebody come to the door to take their names for enumeration.

There have been incidents where the police have come to the door, not had a response and basically broken into the house, practically, only to find out that the individual was deaf. These are very common experiences within the community.

On the issue of security, deaf people alone in a home or in an apartment building, for example, often are very concerned about break-ins, and that is something that they are constantly on guard about. With something like a hearing-ear dog around, that is a form of protection for these people. I feel that this certainly impacts me, and obviously I personally am involved in such an issue.

I knew an individual who had a hearing-ear dog and seemed to be very excited about it. The two of us went to get on a bus and the bus driver refused to allow me and the other individual to get on. Even though he had a licence for his dog, we were not permitted on the bus. We had quite a way to walk. We thought we would signal a cab and take a cab over to our destination, but again we were not allowed in the cab because there was no legislation that would allow the two of us to have access to this form of transportation. So the two of us ended up walking quite a distance.

This is open discrimination against both of us. I feel it is important that legislation be established. The two of us then went to seek legal advice and found that there was nothing in place that would prevent discrimination of this nature from occurring. This is a horrendous experience.

In summary, I have met various people, and met one woman named Diane Holt, who in fact is sitting up in the visitors' gallery at this time with her dog. This morning she was talking to me and related a bit about her own experience. In fact, she mentioned that she felt she could not live without her dog and that if she did not have the dog with her, she basically would spend her days in the kitchen, not feeling comfortable getting out, feeling that she was not in a secure position and that the dog instead has actually provided her with the confidence to get out into the world and be more active. In fact, she feels very safe and secure with her hearing-ear dog and this has increased her own self-confidence.

I think the message that this shows all of us is that this is very important legislation. This is very important to her life. Having this dog has allowed her to function in a very free and secure fashion in society. Therefore, I am certainly very pleased to say that I support Bill 22. I think this is a way to provide complete access for all people to be able to participate on an equal level in society so that deaf people are equal to hearing people. This is a world, an environment that is based on sound, and this allows us access to that world. I feel that deaf people should have the same rights as all hearing people.

Again, I want to congratulate my friend the member for Wentworth North for initiating this bill. I am very supportive of it and I am sure all of the members will be too.

Mr Curling: I want to thank the member for Burlington South for generously giving up his time for me to say a few words on this Bill 22. As you know, Mr Speaker, my party supports this very strongly. Bill 143, as it was previously, in its first life, was presented here by Norah Stoner, a very able, capable and well-respected member of this party and this House.

Monday 10 December was International Human Rights Day. When we do celebrate days like this, the thing is to bring awareness to people about some of the discrimination and the violation of people's rights as human beings. We as legislators have a responsibility, a very, very strong responsibility, to make sure that all persons in the province enjoy the rights delegated by law. But we have a further obligation and a further responsibility, and that is to identify individuals or groups who need protection or assistance to further enhance their ability to enjoy, and to serve in, this community. I myself was privileged to talk with the member for York East, who himself brings a new dimension to this Legislature, and I say that we have many such people who can contribute to this society.

1050

While, of course, in principle and while, of course, in force we support this bill, I just want to target on one area of the bill. It talks about the fine that should be increased from $1,000 to $2,000 or fines that are to be increased from $100 to $200. I do not think that even if we increased them from $1,000 to $10,000, it would make a vast difference. I think where the difference is in bills like these or laws like these is in educating people to change their attitudes towards people. We have to sensitize people to this. So while laws are being made, we have a responsibility as ambassadors here and as legislators to get out to sensitize people in that issue.

We are in very strong support of this bill, but to say and to continue to be more sensitive and to be more human and to bring more people into the fold, as we recognize people's rights are being violated.

Mr Drainville: It is my very great honour and privilege today to speak in support of this bill that has been put forth by the honourable member for Wentworth North. I would also like to say that it is a privilege to be in this House and experience the opportunity of speaking to a bill that was put forth first of all by a member of the Liberal Party, Mrs Norah Stoner. It is a wonderful experience to know that we in this House can speak about these rights and these freedoms, which all our citizens in Ontario should enjoy, and to have the opportunity to bring these things forth as a means of helping people in society.

There is no question -- and I am not going to speak very long on this bill because it is a bill which has obvious merits -- that to support this bill means to help prevent discrimination against deaf people accompanied by hearing-ear dogs. We have heard moving testimony by the honourable member for York East about the difficulties experienced by deaf people, we know that discrimination is still a reality in our society and we need to fight this and combat in as many ways as possible.

We also know that hearing-ear dogs play a valuable, perhaps even a crucial role in the lives of deaf people. We need to affirm that by passing this bill and by giving those people an opportunity to gain access which they need, an opportunity which will help them to function in society on an equal basis. This bill is a bill that speaks to the concepts of equity, of accessibility and of fairness. There is no question that when we speak about such things, they are things that we on this side of the House, and I know throughout this House, support.

It is said that justice may be long in coming but that its coming is inevitable. We are attempting, through this bill that has been put forth by the honourable member for Wentworth North, to ensure that justice is done for those persons who are deaf in our community, and it is my very great honour to support this bill in the House today.

Mr Christopherson: I also rise to support Bill 22, presented by my colleague from Hamilton-Wentworth, the member for Wentworth North. Hamilton-Wentworth has played an important role in fighting for the rights of the hearing-impaired, and I am pleased that the hearing-ear dogs training centre is indeed in our region and also the regional base of the Canadian Society for the Hearing-Impaired is in our region. It is something that we feel very strongly about and we take great pride in.

I also would like to just reflect on something that happened within the last 60 minutes that I think encapsulates the feeling of the public about these kinds of issues. I had the honour, a little while ago, of stepping out on a staircase, which many of the veterans here have done on many occasions, to go out with one of the school groups and have a picture taken. It was with the Cathedral Girls' High School in my riding. In my introductory remarks I mentioned to them that if they come into the House and we are having a debate, this is the issue and we are talking about the rights of the hearing-impaired to have a hearing-ear dog present similar to the rights that we have for the blind in our province. The response was spontaneous. They felt so strongly and immediately that that was something that clearly should happen, without a doubt. Actually, I think they would probably find it rather surprising that in this day and age that right is still not entrenched in legislation.

I think that it is incumbent on us, particularly in light of the historic seating of the member for York East, that we ensure this kind of legislation passes through this Parliament as quickly as possible. In the realm of social justice, nothing is more important right now than the area of human rights, and that is basically what we are talking about.

I heard my colleague the member for Burlington South and also the member for Wentworth North talk about this being the hidden handicap, and the member for Burlington South said "without seeing them as handicapped." That is what this is all about. For those of us who came into this Parliament, being in this House with the translators for the member for York East is as natural to us as seeing you in the Speaker's chair, Mr Speaker, as having the clerks here and indeed our own desks. It is that normal for us. We do not see anything unusual, and I think that is exactly what we are trying to establish with this type of legislation -- to ensure that we are not seeing anything out of the ordinary other than, "There is the member for York East," and on with the debate and on with the issue.

I would feel very, very proud, as a member of this Parliament, if indeed I were here when we were able to pass this legislation and others like it, and I hope that it will have the unanimous support of this House. I say that without having a clue where the cabinet is on this one. But this is one of those issues of conscience that is extremely important to all of us. I would close by again complimenting my colleague the member for Wentworth North not only in presenting his first bill, but as I understand it, it is also, I think, the first private member's bill to be debated in this Parliament. I congratulate him for the historic, to us who are new, opportunity that has given him, but I also express my congratulations to him in the manner in which he has presented this and also the issue. I think it is most appropriate for our government that this is the first private member's bill and it is an issue of this nature that we would deal with.

Mr Sutherland: I just want to add my words of support for this bill. I think it is very significant that we are able to deal with this as the first private member's bill. I also want to mention that in one of my first responsibilities as the member for Oxford, I was at an engagement where the guest speaker was Ed Kincaid from the Canadian National Institute of the Blind, and he was there talking about funding for the school that trains the dogs not only for the blind but also for the deaf, just to let everyone know that there is a serious problem in there not being enough trained dogs in the province. So, I hope all of us will keep that in mind and support this bill.

Mr Abel: I want to thank everybody who participated in the debate. I thank members for their support and also for their constructive criticism. I think it is very important that we not discriminate against the hearing-impaired and that there never be a situation where the hearing-impaired with their guide dogs are denied their right to rent an apartment or to take a cab or to take a bus or even enter restaurants or theatres. I hope that Ontario would follow suit and follow the pattern or the trend that was set by British Columbia and support this Bill 22. I want to thank members very much and I look forward to their support on this bill.

The Speaker: Time allotted for consideration of this ballot item has expired. The matter will be voted upon at 12 of the clock.

1100

PACKAGING WASTE REDUCTION

Ms Poole moved resolution 4:

That, in the opinion of this House, since the National Packaging Protocol (NAPP) was endorsed by the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment on 20 March 1990, and included a target for the reduction of packaging waste by 50% by the year 2000; and since the environment protection industry offers unique opportunities to create new employment in Ontario; and since legislation had been drafted for presentation to this Legislature in the fall of 1990, after extensive consultation with special interest groups, affected parties and the waste reduction advisory committee; therefore the Minister of the Environment should, during the 1991 spring sitting of this Legislature:

1. introduce legislation or regulations to meet the targets of the National Packaging Protocol in Ontario;

2. require the reduction, reuse and recycling of packaging materials to divert a minimum of 20% of packaging waste from landfill or incineration by 1992, and 35% by 1996;

3. provide funding and other incentives for research and development in packaging reduction, reuse and recycling;

4. provide programs and incentives for market development for reuse and recycling of packaging products;

5. ensure that provincial government procurement policies reflect stringent packaging reduction guidelines.

Ms Poole: In the last few years, every member of this House has become aware of the fact that we are a very wasteful society in the consumer products that we use. In fact, we as Canadians lead very wasteful lives. Each Canadian every day of the year creates and sends to the garbage heaps 1.7 kilograms of garbage. This is one of the largest amounts of garbage per capita of any industrialized nation in the world.

Over the course of a year, the average family produces one ton of packaging waste through normal consumption of products. Of all this packaging waste, 80% is disposed of through incineration and landfill. In Ontario, packaging represents more than 30% of this province's municipal waste. These are indeed alarming figures and it is time to act and act now.

In this House I have listened to member after member talk about the garbage crisis we face and as we speak our new government is struggling to come to terms with this major problem. The Minister of the Environment has even advocated what I would call desperate measures, saying that if necessary she would use her emergency powers to extend the life of existing landfill sites even though there is no environmental assessment. We have to address this garbage crisis, this garbage nightmare, and we have to do it soon.

We realize that this is not a simple problem and there are no easy answers. We also realize that the answers are going to take time. But after taking a hard look at our society's consumptive nature, I believe that we as legislators have to stop waste at its source. Products do not have to be harmful to the environment. Packaging can be reduced. Packaging can also be substituted with materials that are biodegradable. Packaging can be made of materials which can be reused and, the best of all possible solutions, some packaging can be eliminated.

Excessive packaging has been a topic for much discussion over the last few years. The National Packaging Protocol is a policy paper on packaging management. It is a document that was born out of the investigations of the national task force on packaging which met extensively through 1989. The task force studied the management of packaging in relation to the famous 3Rs and looked at packaging from many different viewpoints, from the environmental life-cycle of packaging to the economic considerations, in developing a comprehensive packing strategy.

I am going to read the six recommended packaging policies of the protocol. First, all packaging shall have minimal effects on the environment. Second, priority will be given to the management of packaging through source reduction, reuse and recycling. Third, a continuing campaign of information and education will be undertaken to make all Canadians aware of the function and the environmental impacts of packaging. Fourth, these policies will apply to all packaging used in Canada including imports. Fifth, regulations will be implemented as necessary to achieve compliance with these policies. Finally, all government policies and practices affecting packaging will be consistent with these national policies.

Included with those six policies were targets for reduction and deadlines for them. The first deadline is about to pass. The Canadian Council of Resource and Environment Ministers had hoped to have nationally co-ordinated data collection programs in place to monitor the targets by 31 December 1990. Now, with less than three weeks to go before that date, I fear that it is extremely unlikely that the first of the targets will be met.

The second target was the 20% reduction of the 1988 level of disposed packaging waste. That target is to be met by 31 December 1992. The third target was a further reduction of 15% by 1996. Last, a full 50% reduction by the year 2000. These are indeed ambitious targets, but I think they are realizable and they are certainly laudable.

The above policies and targets have a national thrust, but they do require provincial legislation to make them effective and responsive to each province's own particular needs. The protocol is a worthy start in the battle against unnecessary and excessive packaging.

The National Packaging Protocol has even been endorsed by our Premier. In a 14 August 1990 letter to various environmental supporters, the Premier gave his support to the philosophy behind the National Packaging Protocol, but had certain misgivings regarding the proposal. I will quote him directly:

"We support the intent of the National Packaging Protocol signed earlier this year but believe its time lines are too generous and its goals too modest."

When our current Minister of the Environment was in opposition, she proposed resolutions with strong packaging clauses to cut down on waste and to curb the use of excessive packaging.

Just a little over a year ago, the minister pushed the former government for a commitment to "phase out containers and packaging products that cannot be diverted from the waste stream."

I know that both the Premier and the Minister of the Environment want to cut down on waste that is diverted to landfills every day and that they are in complete agreement with the need to cut down on the use of necessary packaging. But what this House is looking for today is a commitment by this government to help reduce the amount of packaging used in the province. I believe that the goals I have outlined are both reasonable and attainable. I want to stress that these percentage targets are minimum. That means that if the Premier and the minister are concerned that these minimums are too weak, they can make requirements to have them more stringent.

I have absolutely no problem with that and I hope that means that any member of this House, including the Premier's and the minister's colleagues, would not stop them from saying "aye" to this motion, because any other vote than "yes" to this resolution would show the people of this province that all the fancy rhetoric is simply that, rhetoric. It would leave the impression that the politics of the issue are of more importance that the substance. We cannot afford to leave the public with that impression.

I also believe that the public can be trusted to make their commitment and do their part to conserve and to recycle, but they have to be given a helping hand and this is where we come in.

1110

I should add that our former government had plans to introduce new packaging legislation this fall to reduce waste in landfills and incinerators and improve the use of materials. The legislation had specific targets. It had set 1995 as the year to eliminate disposable packaging. The new laws would have required all containers and packaging materials to be reusable or recyclable and be made with a regulated amount of recycled material by the target date. All packaging, both domestic and imported, would fall under the guidelines. Manufacturers would have to comply or face provincial-wide bans of their packaging.

The waste reduction advisory committee was in a position to recommend to the government packaging reduction regulations. These draft regulations were to be subject to public input before they were to become law. Our former government had plans that we feel would have addressed the packaging issue. The whole problem has been given a great deal of thought and I am sure that the Minister of the Environment has taken the opportunity to review the draft legislation and to formulate some ideas of her own on what could be done.

Up to this point I have not touched on those who would be most affected by government action on the issue, but I would like to point out to the Speaker and to the Legislative Assembly that business has already started to look for ways in which it can help solve the problem of its own wasteful habits.

Companies are changing their products, and in fact changing and improving the use of packaging. For example, Procter and Gamble Inc has made its powdered detergents more powerful. This means that less detergent has to be sold. Consequently, that means there is less packaging.

Business people have also become innovative in their search for better packaging methods and some unusual solutions have been developed to combat waste. Cork Foster, a small business person from St Thomas Ontario, has been using popcorn to pack his farm supplies instead of the non-biodegradable foam chips which he used to use. The solution saved him money. He is paying $19 for 45 kilograms of popcorn, while he used to pay $80 for the foam for the same amount of packing. But it has also been an environmentally friendly solution. Now when customers receive their purchases, they do not have to throw the foam chips into the garbage, they can take the popcorn outside and feed the birds.

Other companies are taking Mr Foster's lead and looking into alterative packaging methods. He has been contacted by IBM, Xerox and a number of companies from Europe.

Solutions to this problem do not have to be as complex as changing the chemical structures of products, and many will not be as innovative as Mr Foster's idea of the packing popcorn. But one thing we need is a solid commitment from all parties. I think a good start to that would be a commitment from all members of this Legislature.

Mr Cousens: Mr Speaker, I would first of all like to thank you for the excellent support you showed last evening to the whole Jewish community in allowing the menorah to be lit and participating in that ceremony. It was a credit to the Legislature, the job you, the Premier, the member for Wilson Heights and all members of all parties, did. I think there is something good that happens in this Legislature once in a while.

I would like to compliment the member for Eglinton for her resolution. I have never questioned the member for Eglinton's sincerity, because certainly anyone who works as hard and as conscientiously as she does has to be recognized as some solid worker. She got elected 6 September when the rest of Metro went NDP, and that had an awful lot to do with her own work.

Yet I have great questions about her timing on this motion. Notice that I am being very careful, because the member for Eglinton and I are on the same committee and we have been agreeing. This member has had four or five years -- I forget how long; it seems like a long time that the member for Eglinton has been in this Legislature -- a good chance to influence the Minister of the Environment when she was on the government side, and all kinds of opportunities to see this kind of change brought in.

Her timing is out. She should have done it before 6 September, not after, because now it is just as if she suddenly read the book and she is coming to life. I am glad she is alive. I am glad she is around. It does not take much to look at what happened on the Liberal benches when she was sitting there on the government side when the House debated a very similar motion that was presented by the present Minister of the Environment. She was calling for something of the same kind of thing to be implemented in a waste reduction strategy by March 1990. It was a good resolution then, but she is going through another problem now and I will come to that one in a moment.

The Minister of the Environment, when she was the prophet, the spokesperson for the New Democratic Party, has become -- and she said yesterday, "Don't call me toothless." She will never be toothless. That lady has so much power in the Ministry of the Environment, everybody in the province of Ontario should be sitting up and listening to her. Unfortunately, she is not saying anything. When she does come along and say something, I am worried about what it is going to be, because by then there will be so much pent-up demand.

In the meantime, we are dealing with this honourable member for Eglinton. You know, the Liberals had a great chance to implement the strategy that was then proposed by the present Minister of the Environment and did not. So when you look at the minister's motion, which called on the provincial government to "phase out containers and packaging products that cannot be diverted from the waste stream" and to "introduce the needed legislation and establish the required policies at the opening of the March 1990 session of the Legislature," it was a good motion then. It is a good motion now.

I am going to support the member's motion, even though I just wish she had been awake and alert on this subject a few years ago when she could have influenced the member for St Catharines, maybe. No one else did, but she might have been able to, with her marvellous charm. So now we look at the Minister of the Environment. Let's not forget this is the most powerful person second to the Premier and the Speaker in the province of Ontario. When you start realizing that she has already gone out and said to the bottling companies, "Here is what you are going to do. You are a symbol of what I am going to do to you," and she is doing it. If they do not implement a strategy by reducing the amount of cans, etc by 30% in a short period of time, heavy fines will be levied.

I think the industry in the province of Ontario is worried when the minister suddenly wakes up and realizes that her strategy of the 3Rs is not working and she is going to have to come along and force people to start following these new guidelines. So it worries me that this minister who has had plenty of opportunity to come forward with her agenda has not done so.

Anyway, we have an interesting motion before us. One of the things that slipped out in this motion, and if you read it carefully, one of the things that the member for Eglinton has said is, "and since legislation had been drafted for presentation to this Legislature in the fall of 1990." I want to just repeat that: "legislation had been drafted." That would have been drafted by the Liberals prior to the election call for 6 September. That means when the Liberals had that legislation drafted, when they came out with this discussion paper, Towards a Sustainable Waste Management System, asking for all kinds of ideas up to 31 October, they already had the legislation written. Then they come along and say, "We want to have some dialogue with everybody, so we put out a discussion paper," and the discussion paper involves this whole business of packaging as well, to some extent, and they had the legislation written.

How inconsistent, how inconsiderate. Is it any wonder that politicians have a bad name in the province of Ontario, when on the one hand they are saying, "We want to have dialogue, we want to participate," and then they have legislation drafted and at the same time they have a draft report for discussion.

It is not pleasant, and this new government, unless it wakes up, is going to fall into the same trap of speaking out of both sides of their mouths rather than dealing concretely, objectively and honestly with the issue and coming forward with some resolution to the problems that are really bothering the people of the province of Ontario.

We do have a crisis. The minister has finally acknowledged it. We have a bigger crisis that the minister is not coming forward with any of the guidelines or any of the ways in which we are going to implement the 3R strategy. It is really going to be a problem for us, because we have no sense of how much landfill space is going to be saved by the 3R process that the minister has brought in.

I will tell the members that by 1993, three years from now, we are going to be in the middle of it, unless we begin to put some tightness around the issue. I support the protocols here of reducing the amount of waste by 20%, 35% and up to 50% by the year 2000. All these are worth while, but we have got to have leadership, not only from all of us in the Legislature through a fine motion like this, but through the minister who is going to say, "Here is how we are going to do it," and a minister who is going to give the kind of leadership that the province is looking for.

She had it when she was in opposition. I venture to say that there is not a person who does not begin to believe now that she is a different person now that she is minister. She is not grabbing hold of these issues. She is not coming forward with the strong initiatives that she is capable of doing to help us achieve success in handling the environmental crisis of this world of ours.

It is a world problem. It starts with each one of us who can come along and say: "Hey, that packaging that I've got" -- something is wrapped in it; don't buy the product or leave the packaging at the Canadian Tire, or some other store. Do not get caught in the thing where you are buying those products. Let's see that those who are selling those products that are over-packaged -- we are paying for it -- let's not buy some of those things, and look for the bulk items where you do not have it.

1120

I would love to go into it. We are short of time. I want to let the honourable member behind me make some points. The popcorn idea is good, but the people who are wrapping the things in popcorn now have to cover everything with plastic so that the oils and so on do not get into it. So you solve one problem but you create another problem. That is the delicate balance we have with environmental issues. There is not one easy answer to it all. We should get a composite picture, where the government, where business, where members of the Legislature, every one of us, buy into it and help with it, help the Packaging Association of Canada. Let everybody sort of do his thing. Sing from the same hymn book. Let's get on with it.

These words today are fine. They are a little late from the member for Eglinton. I am going to support them. I think she is sincere in what she is trying to do, but I just wish she had been about three or four years earlier when she could have done something about it. She did not then. It is good to see her join the club now.

Ms Churley: I am very excited and absolutely elated that this motion for first reading is before us this morning. I am very pleased that it came so quickly in our sittings because, of course, this fits in perfectly with what we are doing at the Ministry of the Environment right now. I am really glad to see that the members of the Liberal and Conservative caucuses are finally putting reduction before recycling in the scheme of the 3Rs. May I add that we are going to do what they refused to do, and that is regulate? That is what I call the fourth R. We are going to do that.

The members from the past Liberal government had ample opportunity to go ahead and regulate packaging. I am really pleased to see, now that the New Democrats are in government, that both other parties are on side and are finally willing to put reduction ahead of recycling and get on with it.

It is also an important piece of legislation for me. I would like to move on it quickly. It is something that I was very concerned with at the city of Toronto. As I mentioned in a previous speech, I moved the motion, which got support at city council, that we ask for enabling legislation to allow the city of Toronto to go ahead with certain anti-packaging bylaws. I realized, when I had made that motion, that it is a piecemeal approach to do it municipality by municipality. But we were frustrated at the time with the Liberal government for not moving on it, while we were, at the same time, feeling the pressure of trying to figure out how we were going to deal with this awful waste management crisis. I am very pleased that now that I am here in government the motion I made in city council should become redundant because the province will be moving on this.

It fits in very well our plan for the waste reduction office that we will be setting up. We will be focusing very, very much on the 3Rs. While on one hand we are looking for a landfill, we are taking away the whole focus on landfill as the way out of the crisis. I would just like to say that in the past -- this is a nice change to see -- the whole focus was on landfill and disposal as opposed to a different way of looking at our garbage. This is going in the right direction. What was done in the past was to say, "We have a crisis and we need landfill, and you the community over here are going to have to put up with dealing with this crisis or taking the crisis on your back by not going through a full environmental assessment process, whether a dump is in your community or not," but not saying at the same time to industry that, "You are also going to have to be part of this crisis in helping solve the problem; you are going to have to be regulated in terms of the packaging you're producing."

What was said and, in fact, was said at the national protocol as well, is that, "We're going to give you all the time in the world to consult and talk about this and then we're going to allow you to take your time and volunteer to try to meet those targets, and maybe then, if you haven't met them, we'll talk about regulating." That is the wrong approach to this.

I am very pleased to see that two members from the opposition have, as individuals, stated that when we come forward with -- I believe, in fact, that that is what they are saying -- our tough stand on packaging regulations we are going to all work together to reduce the amount of packaging in this province. I am very pleased to see that that is the attitude that we all have in this House right now on reducing packaging: a co-operative effort.

One of the things that I did shortly after my election was talk to the member for Beaches-Woodbine about the greening of the Legislature in terms of packaging, and I received in my office -- and I am sure other people do at times too, just in terms of the stock for their offices -- Scotch tape wrapped up in Saran Wrap or plastic of some sort. I asked why we here at the government are receiving things like Scotch tape wrapped up in plastic, and it appears as though the problem is that factories that are producing things like plastic and other items get orders from all kinds of different places.

If we, as the government, were to say to them, "We don't want our Scotch tape wrapped up in plastic any more; we would like ours to just come without wrapping," that would cost the plant more money to produce. They would then have to produce the Scotch tape for everybody else in plastic and for us out of the plastic, so they would have to set up essentially a whole different process. It seems to me very simple that we get together with hospitals, with other levels of government, with all kinds of other people who are ordering from this particular factory and say, all of us, "We don't need our Scotch tape wrapped up in plastic."

I was very pleased also to see that all three parties are interested in proceeding with the so-called greening of the Legislature. I think this is a very good place to begin. We can start looking at what kinds of items we are getting here that are unnecessarily packaged and just start the procedure, making it very clear that we, as a government, do not want to receive these kinds of items all wrapped up.

One of the most interesting situations that I was in in terms of excessive packaging was that one day I went into a bank downtown and handed in my deposit slip and asked for $100, and the cashier handed me that $100 all wrapped up in plastic. It is true; I was just astounded. I immediately, of course, took the plastic off and put the money in my wallet because obviously I am not going to walk around with my money wrapped up in plastic.

I asked her why the money was wrapped up in plastic, and she said it was because it was decided that it was faster for them to be able to give out money that is all wrapped up, all packaged nicely, and she can just reach in and know that there is $100 in there so she did not have to count it in front of me. Of course, I ripped off the plastic to count it in front of her to make sure I had the right amount of money. So it does not really work.

1130

I think that is an extreme example of excessive packaging. It is in the same vein as going into the grocery store and picking up a coconut, of all things, and I am sure everybody in here has experienced this: a coconut wrapped up in plastic. So clearly it is a very complicated issue in that the packaging industry is forever finding new ways to create packaging and ultimately we have these ridiculous situations.

Industry is aware of the fact that this government is moving and will be regulating. I can say categorically that that is the direction in which this government is moving. We are very pleased to see this motion before us today. I think it is a very good motion to examine and see how it does fit in with the kinds of targets in regulations that we will be making in the very near future. I am very pleased to see the co-operation and the support of the members opposite in moving forward in this very important step in solving the garbage crisis.

Mrs Sullivan: I want to begin by congratulating the member for Eglinton for bringing forward what I think is a very useful resolution to the House and one that I think can provide a base for action by the Minister of the Environment in terms of an action plan. I think it is quite clear that the majority of people in Ontario are very concerned about the state of our environment. One area that has assumed a great deal of prominence, of course, is garbage and waste management. Generally across the country Canadians are sensitized to waste management issues. It is something that they are familiar with; it is something they deal with every day.

In Ontario, we have seen very much an indication of the concern through the participation in the voluntary blue box program and demands for an enhancement of recycling. Certainly people have indicated that they can play a part and they are willing to play a part in those recycling efforts. Some two million households now are involved in 50% of Ontario communities. Our feeling on this side of the House is that mandatory recycling should be a matter of course in the province and we are looking forward to the Minister of the Environment moving in that area. That was certainly promised in the New Democratic Party green plan and we have not seen any action on that to date.

I think Canadians and Ontarians understand that not only are we running out of room for disposal of waste but they must also as a society confront the dangers and the risks associated with the waste. They understand as well that there are both social and economic costs associated with the production of waste. Nowhere is that more evident than in excess packaging. Any excessive packaging represents a loss of natural resources, it increases our expenditures in manufacturing and it increases our societal expenditures as well when materials are not fully utilized.

The Recycling Council of Ontario estimates that packaging makes up about 50% of municipal garbage by volume and about 30% by weight. The trend in the recent past has in fact been not to a decrease in the production of packaging waste but to an increase, and indeed what is more frightening is an increase in the rate of the increase. We know that packaging is necessary for health, for safe transportation of goods, for security and indeed that there will always necessarily be an element of packaging included in the goods and products that we buy.

Lévesque, Beaubien, which is a Canadian investment firm, did a report in 1985 which was one of the first analyses on a national basis of packaging that is produced in Canada, indicating that the food and beverage industries are responsible for about 60% of all packaging, followed by the chemical industry at about 13%, the paper industry at 6% and the tobacco industry at 3%. The breakdown of total Canadian packaging use gives an 18.5% share to corrugated boxes, 16% to metal cans, 14% to folding and setup boxes, 9% to glass, 7% to plastics and the remainder to a variety of other package types. Plastics, which of course are creating a different kind of disposal problem, are becoming an increasing part of the cycle as well.

The member for Eglinton has put forward a resolution which supports stronger provincial action and proposes that Ontario put into place, at minimum, the protocols which were developed through the national packaging protocol, which was initiated by the Canadian Council of Resource and Environment Ministers. I think that in doing that, the member has recognized that a strong base of national standards is very important in dealing with the packaging issues, not only in Ontario but across the country.

A patchwork of different and inconsistent regulations does in fact create impediments to international and interprovincial trade, and I think that that is something that we should recognize. They also deny manufacturers efficiencies of scale, and therefore increase their costs and hence decrease their competitiveness.

Additionally, changes and alterations in packaging requirements from province to province create confusion for both the manufacturing and distribution sector, and indeed for importers of goods. As well, I should add, if you have tough regulations in one area and an absence in another area, what we may see is an encouragement of operations which move to the less onerous jurisdictions to get around the national requirements.

I think we have to also recall that federal law now enables the national government to implement consumer and health protection requirements that are very much a matter of importance to every one of us. I say those things because I believe that it is important to use the national packaging protocol as a base for anything that we do in Ontario -- perhaps expand from there, but it is very clear that we cannot work outside of a national system.

That is not to say, however, that Ontario cannot continue to take the lead. Certainly we have seen the example of local jurisdictions taking the lead in areas like California, and we could well emulate those models.

I think that there are many things that can be done here. The member for Eglinton has mentioned some; other members have spoken of others. The minister has talked about the phase-out of containers and packaging for which there are waste reduction alternatives and there are other alternatives, as well -- product bans from landfill, taxation and deposits on materials which do not meet minimum standards, and a surcharge vis-à-vis performance in the marketplace. Reuse requirements can be altered, whether it is beverage containers or corrugated containers, crates, or wooden pallets. I should say that crates and wooden pallets now occupy about 13% of the packaging waste that is going to landfill.

I do not believe recycling efforts ought to be out of the waste management alternatives and I believe that the recycling efforts that have taken place over the past five years have indeed helped and encouraged the work that we have been doing in environmental issues throughout Canada.

I would like to stress to members that I believe that we need more research and development work in this entire area. So much of the information that we have about the characteristics and quantities of our solid waste are in fact extrapolations from United States experience, rather than based on our own technical database. I think that some of those strategies that we are developing over both the short and the longer term must indeed be based on an experience of our situation here and based on the particular composition of our own waste stream.

As well, we need additional research into areas of the use and application of packaging materials which have been produced and of technological and technical options for the management of that packaging.

I am going to conclude now. I applaud the member for Eglinton for bringing forward this resolution. I urge all members in the House to support it.

1140

Mr Turnbull: I would like to compliment the member for Eglinton on this piece of legislation, which we certainly are very happy to support.

I was going to open my comments with saying I think we should depoliticize the whole process of the environment. I do indeed believe that and in fact I was quoted on the night of the election as saying that. I would just particularly say to the member for Riverdale that her remarks suggested that somehow we have found a faith. We have not just found a faith. It was in fact the Conservative Party in Ontario that established, as far as I know, the first ministry of the environment of any province in Canada, including an NDP province. We are extremely concerned about this issue and we must address it urgently.

The need for legislation is overpowering. We know that Canadians are producing the most waste per capita in the world. This is a situation we cannot allow ourselves any further. Perhaps we have been lulled into the sense of security that we have such a huge land and ultimately there were always the schemes, "Well, we'll tow it up north and shove it down a mine shaft."

We must reduce the amount of packaging. There are so many concerns. It affects global warming and all other aspects of our life. Instead of our simply tagging along with the rest of the world, let us lead the world. There is a real need for this, and probably the best way of achieving this is by all parties joining hands, as we are doing today in supporting this motion, and saying, "Yes, we agree with this, it's a good first step." But let's hurry with the next step and the next step. It is something where I truly believe the electorate is further ahead than most politicians in its view as to what should happen.

With a little bit of a political bias, I have to say I was very disappointed with the previous Liberal government when it abandoned the 30% quota on refillable 750-millilitre bottles. But I am sure they have found the light now and we will certainly help them to keep the light.

Interjections.

Mr Turnbull: I am told that I should be consistent. I am simply pointing out the fact that when parties get elected to government, then suddenly it is very easy to forget the promises we have made. We must make sure that nobody forgets the promises that they have made, because I think every party made promises in the last election with respect to the environment. Let's make sure that we completely depoliticize that.

We made certain recommendations in the last election and I would just like to read some of them. We wanted to bring in a strategy which would introduce legislation to limit packaging-to-product ratios, and this is a good first step; prohibit environmentally irresponsible materials where alternatives exist; establish a consumer hotline; establish an education campaign and set reduction targets for solid waste entering municipal disposal systems.

Let's do this urgently. This bill is very good as a first step. Let's make sure that we move to the next step as expeditiously as possible.

Mr Sutherland: Cheese slices are a perfect example of the problem that is being highlighted by this bill. Here you have a very good natural product, cheese, that everyone enjoys. I, coming from what, as I have stated before, is supposed to be the dairy capital of Canada, know very well about cheese and dairy products. But it is a prime example of the problems we face with excess packaging. Not only are all the slices individually wrapped, but the advertising promotes that as part of the way of selling it, that you can get your cheese slices individually wrapped.

The honourable member for Riverdale talked about grocery stores and the problems associated with them. I worked in a grocery store for seven years and know very well some of the problems of excess packaging.

What about drinking boxes? Here is another prime example. Everyone has to have his or her juice in these convenient little boxes and they come to you in threes, and not only is each individual box wrapped with extra plastic, but all three of them combined are also wrapped in plastic, clearly another prime example of how a good natural product such as juice is being in some ways perverted by excess packaging and causing harmful environmental effects.

I think there are lots of other areas. I know sometimes when you go into deli departments of grocery stores or other things and they are cutting your meat, each individual slice gets a separate little piece of wax paper put in between it. Do we really need that? Is our society that fast? Do we have such a strong demand for convenience and making life that easy that we have to have drinking boxes, that we have to have individually wrapped cheese slices, that we have to have these other things, that we have to have our coconuts wrapped in plastic? Clearly we do not need that, and if we are going to come to terms with the realities that we are all facing in trying to deal with the garbage issues, in trying to deal with what is helping our environment, then we must all become very smart consumers.

I am not here to lecture people, to say that I am some saint on this issue, because I as much as anyone else have been a victim of this. I bought cheese slices for many, many years. I no longer buy cheese slices because they are individually wrapped and there is too much waste product with it. I buy my cheese in bulk and I want to encourage all members to keep buying cheese, and particularly to buy Ingersoll cheese, because it is very good and it is produced right in my riding and the people who work there would be greatly appreciative if members did that.

I want to talk about another example. The member for Riverdale talked about issues within the Legislature. I cannot tell members how pleased I am to see that in the legislative dining room we no longer get our butter in a packaged form. We get it now on a plate and it is not excess packaging to go in the garbage. That may not seem like a significant step, but I do think it is an important one. Also, my fellow member for Dovercourt has pointed out that we do not have individual packages of sugar any more. They put it in a nice china dish and do it there.

These are all little things, but each of us in our everyday lives must make a constant effort to deal with these issues, to make sure that we are being smart consumers, that we are not supporting products that have excess packaging.

In conclusion, I want to remind everybody: cheese slices, drinking boxes, butter, sugar. Remember when you shop to shop effectively and shop for the environment so we do not have a problem with excess packaging.

Mr McClelland: It is a pleasure to participate in this part of the resolution put forward by the member for Eglinton. The member for Markham is busy in the lobby at the present time, and I do wish he were here, because I would like to comment very briefly on some of the things he drew to the attention of the members of the House.

He indicated that the member for Eglinton had suddenly, at a recent date, been inspired to bring this forward. I want to put on the record that the member for Eglinton had drafted this resolution, and members opposite would certainly know that in terms of the lottery process where we work down depending on the time frame available, quite frankly she just did not have the opportunity to get it on. I think it is important that we know that.

With respect to some references made by the member for Riverdale of what the government refused to do, I just want to put a little bit of chronology on to this whole issue in terms of packaging and what happened.

To the member for Riverdale I will say I had the opportunity of serving in the capacity that she does, as parliamentary assistant to the former Minister of the Environment, and I recall in the spring of 1989 being asked by the then minister to make an announcement contained in a speech with respect to packaging and waste management.

Bear in mind that it has been so ably said by other people speaking here that we live in a very, very wasteful society. I am a pretty simple person, and concepts of tons and so on do not really help me a great deal; I cannot fathom that. Talking to high school students I try and put it in perspective and say that in Ontario we as a society produce enough garbage from our households that we could put bumper-to-bumper garbage trucks from Windsor to Whitehorse and back again. It gives you an idea of the magnitude of the amount of waste that we are producing. In fact, each of us produces approximately 16 times our own weight in waste in this province.

But waste management is also an opportunity for innovation and involvement in the business and industrial sector in a way that I believe is unprecedented. I believe Ontario has an opportunity to be a leading jurisdiction internationally in terms of what we could do with good waste management, and packaging is certainly an essential part of that.

1150

But getting back to the chronology, when I served as his parliamentary assistant, the member for St Catharines, the former minister, undertook a series of consultations. We talk about the way that these things take place. The reality is, I say to the member for Markham, that what you do in consultation is at some point in time you produce draft legislation. The operative word is "draft." You ask people to comment on it; you ask them to refine it; you ask them to work with you.

The former government met separately with a variety of groups in terms of a packaging protocol, met with grocery distributors, retailers and the packaging industry, with a view to having their partnership and involvement in this together and opportunity to work effectively with them to create something perhaps comparable to Ontario Multi-Material Recycling Inc, which has been very, very successful in the soft drink industry working with a packaging protocol.

It was also very clearly stated by the former Minister of the Environment that we, as the former government, were prepared to impose regulations that would ensure the participation of all relevant industries and to make sure that they took the responsibility of the environmental fate of their products.

I wanted to get that on the record because I think it is important in light of some of the comments that were made by the member for Markham and the member for Riverdale. This is not something that has a time frame that is restricted to governments. It has a life of its own, it is a process that is ongoing, and regardless of what takes place, I would suggest to the members of this House, whatever legislation is forthcoming pursuant to this resolution that is apparently going to be supported by all three parties, the job will not have been done. It is a type of situation that we will continue to move towards improving and do a better job with.

I also want to say in terms of that chronology that shortly after the former minister made his announcements in the spring of 1989, he then met with the Minister of the Environment in Quebec one week later. A week after that he met all environmental ministers from every jurisdiction in Canada, and the product of that was the packaging protocol.

So a tremendous amount of work has been done. Sectors of industry and the packaging industry -- as I mentioned, grocery, food distributors, retailers -- have been involved in a significant way.

Ontario and Quebec were prepared to commit to that goal, but we looked for a national standard. It has not come, apparently, and I think it is time to move ahead.

We have stated very clearly a time frame of the fall of 1990. Its time has come. Consistency, uniformity, objective policies and standards on a national level would be preferable. That was being worked towards. It has not come to fruition. A tremendous amount of work has been done. The groundwork has been laid, as evidenced by the resolution put forward by the member for Eglinton. It is time to move forward and deal with this appropriately with regulations that are ready to go. I am enthused and pleased to hear that we will be getting support from all parties and I congratulate again the member for Eglinton for the fine work and leadership which she has shown in this important matter.

Mr O'Connor: It is indeed an honour to speak on such a special motion. It does have a lot of meaning to all of us here today as members of this society that we live in, and it is a problem that can be related back to any riding in this province. It probably would be hard to avoid an environmental group being found and coming to speak if you were not to support this, because there are environmental groups in every riding and they are very concerned and they realize that as consumers we are the main offenders in this problem, which has created this crisis that the greater Toronto area has to face right now of landfill.

If we can start working towards reduction as part of the key to the 3Rs, then we could start looking at something different. We have got a lot of groups out there that have a lot of good ideas and we need their input, groups such as STORM, SAGA and TNT; they are all over the place. But the real key is reduction. We have to go back to being the conserver society that we used to be.

Ballpoint pens are something that is new to this era of our waste. There were fountain pens for years, and they were sloppy and they were messy. They improved them, but now we have got ballpoint pens. There are so many different things that we could look at that are a matter of convenience and now we have to start thinking about being conservers instead of being consumers of this wasteful society.

I applaud the member for Eglinton on this motion and I am sure the minister will take this into very serious consideration.

Ms Poole: I would first like to thank all the members of the House for their support for this resolution today. I do not think we should doubt anybody's commitment to the environment, but it is time that we put some of those deeply held beliefs into action.

I very much agreed with the member for Riverdale when she was talking about the fact that all of us have to work together and it has to be a co-operative approach. It is very difficult, because this is a very partisan place, but I do not think it serves anybody's purpose if I as a Liberal criticize the Tories who went before us or if those who go after us criticize us for not going far enough. We will never go far enough. I am the first to admit that there were times when we as Liberals did not go far enough. The day that we do is probably the day we can all retire as legislators because our job will have been done. There is a lot more to do.

I do not see it as a very useful exercise to say that the new government is not committed to the environment. First of all, I do believe it is committed. Certainly our new Minister of the Environment will continue the excellent work of her predecessor, the member for St Catharines, on many issues.

I would like to clarify one point, about the timing of my resolution. I was fortunate enough in the last three years to finally get my private member's hour in on the last day of the session. I waited three years. I tabled my resolution on the environment, and lo and behold they cancelled private members' hour that day to get through the government business. So I am trying one more time, and hopefully this time we can get this resolution through.

I would say that the previous minister, the member for St Catharines, was very concerned. I talked to him many times about this issue, but he thought it had to be a national solution. He was taking the lead at the table for Ontario and he was saying, "We have to have it across this country." Now I am glad that we as members of the Legislative Assembly have a chance to work together to make these words on paper a reality. I thank the members for their support.

The Speaker: The time allotted for consideration of private members' public business has expired. We will deal first with ballot item 1.

DEAF PERSONS' RIGHTS ACT, 1990

The Speaker: Mr Abel has moved second reading of Bill 22.

Motion agreed to.

The Speaker: Under the standing orders, the bill is automatically referred to the committee of the whole House. Is that agreed to?

Mr Jackson: I respectfully request that the bill be referred to the standing committee on social development so that we can continue work on this bill.

The Speaker: We require a majority. Those in favour of the bill being referred to the standing committee on social development must rise and remain standing until counted.

An hon member: Standing in your places.

The Speaker: In your place.

It is unanimous. You may be seated.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Some of us, including the Speaker, are a little slow to respond this morning.

So ordered to the social development committee.

Bill ordered for the standing committee on social development.

1206

PACKAGING WASTE REDUCTION

The House divided on Ms Poole's resolution, which was agreed to on the following vote:

Ayes -- 63

Abel, Arnott, Bisson, Bradley, Callahan, Caplan, Carr, Christopherson, Churley, Conway, Cooper, Coppen, Cousens, Cunningham, Curling, Drainville, Duignan, Grier, Harnick, Haslam, Hope, Jackson, Jordan, Kwinter, Lessard, Malkowski, Mammoliti, Marchese, Martin, Mathyssen, McClelland, McLean, Mills, Morin, Morrow, Murdoch, B., O'Connor, Offer, O'Neil, H., Owens, Perruzza, Philip, E., Poole, Rizzo, Ruprecht, Scott, Silipo, Sterling, Stockwell, Sullivan, Sutherland, Tilson, Turnbull, Ward, M., Waters, White, Wilson, G., Wilson, J., Winninger, Wiseman, Witmer, Wood, Ziemba.

Nays -- 0

The House recessed at 1209.

AFTERNOON SITTING

The House resumed at 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

RÉFORME CONSTITUTIONNELLE / CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM

M. Grandmaître : Les francophones de l'Ontario ont bien des raisons de s'inquiéter de leur avenir et il a fallu qu'ils se rendent dans une autre province pour le dire.

Hier, les Franco-Ontariens et les Franco-Ontariennes, encore sous le choc des coupures massives à Radio-Canada, sont allés dire devant la commission Bélanger-Campeau qu'ils s'inquiétaient des conséquences qu'aurait une éventuelle séparation du Québec sur leur vie.

En passant, la Coalition pour la télévision française en Ontario s'est présentée ce midi pour nous livrer un message très clair.

Les francophones de l'Ontario ont grandement à coeur l'avenir de leur pays. Ils ont aussi, comme on a pu encore une fois le constater hier, des solutions à proposer, des éléments de la stratégie constitutionnelle de l'Ontario à suggérer. Quand les francophones de l'Ontario auront-ils la chance de faire part aux francophones de leurs vues sur l'avenir de leur pays chez eux ? Quand le gouvernement créera-t-il sa propre commission sur l'avenir du Canada ?

Ed Broadbent, the former leader of the federal wing of the New Democratic Party, has been quoted as saying that time is running out for English Canada to recognize Quebec's rights to unique constitutional powers. Mr Broadbent recognizes the urgency of the problem.

When is the Premier of Ontario going to recognize the urgency of the problem and outline his constitutional plans in the Legislature? When is the Premier of Ontario going to consult with the people of Ontario? It is unacceptable for members of this House to have to read about the Premier's views in the news media when he refuses to discuss the matter in this House.

DEER POPULATION

Mr McLean: My statement is for the Minister of Natural Resources. It is my understanding that Environment Canada plans to have six staff members shoot 120 deer in Point Pelee National Park because the deer are supposedly destroying rare plants in the park.

I believe that the use of six tax-paid staff to eliminate 120 deer is ridiculous when members of the public would enjoy an opportunity to hunt in a part of the province where they currently cannot. As well, the park staff have no plans to deal with the thousands of pounds of meat which would be created by the hunt. The minister is no doubt aware that park staff cannot distribute or sell the meat under Ontario regulations.

This planned hunt will serve no one. Instead of providing an opportunity for hunters, thereby creating local economic benefits, Environment Canada promises to create a no-win situation. The park will have to devote tax-paid staff to kill the deer and bring in outside help. It is my understanding that much the same situation exists in Lanark county.

The minister should urge Environment Canada to expel and cancel the plans for six park staff to shoot the 120 deer, and instead he should press for a controlled hunt by the public to effectively reduce the herd and save the fragile environment and leave the job to skilled hunters who will put the meat to good use.

PORT COLBORNE HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS

Mr Wiseman: I am rising on behalf of the party whip today to welcome the Port Colborne High School students who are here. I am the MPP for the riding of Durham West, and it is my pleasure to welcome you here today to this sitting of the first session of the 35th Parliament of the province of Ontario.

I would suspect that for most of you this visit marks your first time at Queen's Park and I am certain that you will find your time here both interesting and informative.

The member for Niagara South has informed me that a good many of you are participants in the Leadership Project, a program conducted by the John Howard Society of Niagara, which strives to help teens to choose a responsible lifestyle free of drug and alcohol abuse.

As participants in the Leadership Project, you should be commended for your efforts to improve the quality of life in your community, and this House would like to congratulate you. In many ways, your efforts and those of the elected members of government who sit each day in the Legislative Assembly are quite similar. Although different in method, we are both attempting to bring about change and address society's ills.

As many of you may already know, the member for Niagara South was elected for the New Democratic Party and she sits as the party whip. She would like to welcome you here today and wishes that you all have a wonderful afternoon and hopes that she can help you in the future.

INTERNATIONAL TRADE

Mr Kwinter: I rise in this House today to speak about an issue that is crucial to Ontario's supply management system, and specifically our dairy industry. Last week, the Minister of Agriculture and Food and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology flew to Brussels with their cronies, stayed in the finest hotels and enjoyed the finest of European cuisine. They were there under the pretence of representing Ontario's interests at the current GATT talks. They returned to this House so well fed and so well rested that they were numb to the concerns of our threatened dairy industry.

This set of talks was crucial to the future of Ontario's dairy industry. Just over one year ago, a GATT council, the body that governs world trade, accepted an American complaint and ruled that Canada, and specifically Ontario, was unfairly blocking imports of American and European yoghurt. Implementation of this ruling could mean the dismantling of our supply management system for milk products, as the doors will be thrown open to a flood of cheap, subsidized American and European dairy products. This could be the end of the competitiveness of Ontario's dairy industry.

On 11 December in this House, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology betrayed his lack of understanding of this issue. The minister said, and I quote Hansard, "Ontario was well satisfied with the circumstances that related to article XI at the recent GATT talks." He also said, "We were successful in having article XI maintained."

Reports in the financial media of today indicate that not only were they not successful, but they were not even discussed. The federal --

The Speaker: Member for Wilson Heights, would you take your seat, please? The member for Wilson Heights may wish to consult with some of his colleagues and he will no doubt be informed that allowance was provided beyond the minute and a half. I would ask the member in future to really carefully consider the time allocation.

TVONTARIO

Mrs Marland: I recently received from TVOntario's chairman and chief executive officer a glossy, multi-coloured and expensive-looking book called Stay Tuned for the Future, which celebrates TVOntario's 20th anniversary.

Along with several other members in this Legislature, I recently took part in TVOntario's public membership campaign. We are proud of the outstanding work done by Ontario's public educational TV network and we are grateful to the people of this province who have pledged their support for TVOntario. On behalf of my colleagues, our sincere congratulations to TVOntario on its 20th anniversary. May the next 20 years build upon the successes of its first two decades.

However, when individuals, businesses and governments everywhere are struggling to make fewer dollars go farther, one has to wonder if the money spent on the Stay Tuned for the Future publication would have been better used to develop or acquire more of the excellent programs for which TVOntario is known. I hope this book's reference to a contribution from Telesat Canada and its list of corporate funders means the amount of money spent by TVOntario to produce this book was minimal. I am placing a question in Orders and Notices to clarify that matter.

Despite being impressed by this book's beautiful artwork and the eloquent text, I am concerned that it does not appear to have been printed on recycled paper. Again, an order paper question should provide the answer. It is a lot of money, and I really would rather have seen it in TV programming.

1340

SENIOR CITIZENS' FACILITY

Mr B. Ward: I rise to bring to the attention of this House a ceremony I recently attended with the honourable Leader of the Opposition, that being the rededication of one of our seniors' homes in the city of Brantford that is jointly owned by the county and the city.

This renovation project cost approximately $14 million and a number of innovations were brought into the concept which I think can be used as an example for other communities to follow, one of which is a controlled climate in each individual room rather than a central control area.

What is also unique about this project is that it involved MPPs from all three parties. It originally started with Phil Gillies under the Progressive Conservative government, it continued under Dave Neumann under the Liberal regime and finally myself under the new NDP government.

I am pleased to rise to announce that it was through this commitment from all three parties that are dedicated to improving the quality of our seniors that this project managed to be completed to fruition. I look forward to having the seniors of Brantford-Brant county enjoying these fine premises.

RAIL SERVICES

Mr Mancini: Last night I was invited to attend a public meeting in the community of Ashburn. The meeting was called by the Toronto-Peterborough/Havelock Line Rail Passenger Association.

The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the NDP promise made during the last election campaign. The Premier stated in writing, and I quote, "I am pleased to make a commitment to extend GO Transit service to Peterborough and Brantford." As we all know now, this is another broken NDP promise.

All seven MPPs from the affected region were also invited to last night's meeting. All seven ridings are represented by NDP members. The following is a list of the members who did not attend the meeting, and I repeat, did not attend the meeting: the member for Durham East, the member for Durham Centre, the member for Durham West, the member for Durham-York, the member for Peterborough, the member for Hastings-Peterborough and the member for Victoria-Haliburton.

Seven out of seven of the NDP members who represent the region did not go to the public meeting. The people who were at the meeting told me to bring the following message to the Legislature, and on their behalf I quote. They said they will have a long memory of last night's meeting.

Hon Mrs Coppen: On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: As the chief government whip, the members who were just listed were all in attendance at this House last night because one of their first priorities is to this government of Ontario. They sent condolences.

The Speaker: I am sure we all appreciate the point of information.

HIGHWAY SAFETY

Mr Cousens: The problems around the greater Toronto area do not just seem to be with attendance of the government members. The people in the province, especially around the greater Toronto area, are suffering post-commuting shock. Post-commuting shock is when you get on a highway and have to go from point A to point B and by the time you get there it has taken you two to three times longer than it should have and you are just exhausted from all the strain and stress of traffic, because of all the problems that we are beginning to see happening.

We get a few little dribbles of white flakes of snow and it seems that everything grinds to a halt, at least around the greater Toronto area and the other great cities of our province. We have to begin to take very seriously the needs of the drivers on our roads. We need to have Highway 407, for example, built as quickly as possible to get around Highway 401 so that people have a way of getting around the stressful problems of Toronto.

I think we also need to see a comprehensive program from the Minister of Transportation. It has not yet come. We want to see something more than what he has begun to do for commuters. We have to see something on the road with better supervision of the roads, not just the Reduce Impaired Driving Everywhere program, but to get rid of the bad drivers, to get rid of the poorer cars. Let's start making the roads safe so that people can get to where they want to go on time.

GOOD NEIGHBOURS AWARDS

Mr Duignan: It gives me great pleasure today to rise in this House and offer praise to the thousands of volunteers across Ontario who have participated in the Good Neighbours program. In particular I would like to congratulate the hundreds of volunteers in the Halton region and in my riding of Halton North who have made the Good Neighbours program such a success. I am also proud of the fact that the Halton region was one of the first to launch the Good Neighbours program.

As members know, the Good Neighbours program is an initiative of the Office for Senior Citizens' Affairs and is designed to encourage individuals and communities to offer special kinds of services to meet the needs of the frail and disabled in their communities. For example, one of the towns in my riding, Georgetown, has set up a transportation service for individuals to meet important appointments.

I know it makes me feel good knowing that senior citizens and the disabled in my neighbourhood can call on a group of volunteers and be able to get assistance with yard work or shovelling show in the winter, or just have a person to drop in for a chat.

On behalf of my constituents, I would like to say congratulations and thank you to all those volunteers who work together to make the Halton region and Halton North a friendly, welcoming and caring place to live.

VISITORS

The Speaker: Before continuing with our routine proceedings, all members of the House may wish to welcome today two former members, one of whom is seated in the members' gallery, the former member for Scarborough East, the Honourable Ed Fulton, and seated in the Speaker's gallery, a former Speaker of the House, the former member for Perth, retired Speaker Hugh Edighoffer.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

ENVIRONMENTAL BILL OF RIGHTS

Hon Mrs Grier: The people of Ontario have made it clear many times and in many places that they want positive steps taken to preserve and protect the environment. This government responded to this call for action with a promise in the throne speech to bring in an environmental bill of rights which will provide people with an important tool to help them exercise greater control over the quality of the environment in their communities.

Members will recall that I and other members while in opposition brought various models for an environmental bill of rights to this House for debate as private members' bills on several occasions. The most recent was a bill I introduced at the last session. Each time, the basic principles expressed in these models enjoyed support from all parties during second reading, but never made further progress through the Legislature.

Today I am pleased and proud to inform the House about important first steps my ministry is taking to prepare an environmental bill of rights. The government's objective is to introduce an environmental bill of rights in this session. We believe it is important to gather the views of a variety of interest groups -- environmental groups, municipal, industrial, health, business and labour organizations, first nations and legal advisers -- before we sit down to craft the final bill.

I have established an advisory committee, the members of which represent that variety of interests. They have been asked to give us their best thinking on the basic principles an environmental bill of rights should contain and the options they see for turning those principles into workable realities for all the people of Ontario.

The principles the advisory committee and the public will be asked to comment on include: the public's right to a healthy environment; the enforcement of this right through improved access to the courts and/or tribunals, including the right to sue polluters; increased public participation in environmental decision-making; increased government responsibility and accountability for the environment, and finally, greater protection for employees who blow the whistle on polluting employers.

In developing this legislation, the advisory committee will also review legislation in other jurisdictions, such as the United States. But I have advised them not to be unduly influenced by what has gone before. What works in the US will not necessarily work in the context of Ontario's traditions and legal system. Instead, I have urged them to focus on basic principles in the context of Ontario's jurisprudence and environmental concerns. In this way we hope to receive the advice needed to write a made-in-Ontario bill that tackles our environmental problems and works for our people.

1350

An environmental bill of rights will have profound implications for the way we live, work and govern in Ontario. Its application involves several ministries and many separate provincial statutes. The Ministry of the Attorney General, in particular, will play an important role. My colleague the Attorney General is working on questions, such as legal standing and class action suits, which will complement our proposed bill of rights.

There is no doubt that it will be a tough bill. An ailing planet and the health and continued prosperity of the people demand toughness. But the bill's true aim will be to encourage enlightened consensus rather than confrontation. It will be tough only for those who fail to appreciate the new imperatives of the age of ecological renewal and who persist in old polluting ways and attitudes. For others, it will support a new environmental ethic and inspire the mechanisms needed to develop creative partnerships between workers and employers, ratepayers and local politicians, citizens and their government.

The advisory committee will be chaired by Bonnie Wein, director of legal services for the Ministry of the Environment. I have assured the committee members that they will receive the full co-operation of the government and its ministries in their deliberations. We look forward to the astute advice it will surely provide to my ministry as we craft practical and forward-looking legislation. It will be legislation made in Ontario that will serve the people of Ontario, their communities and their shared natural environment now and in the future.

CONFIDENTIALITY OF MEDICAL RECORDS / CONFIDENTIALITÉ DES DOSSIERS MÉDICAUX

Hon Mrs Gigantes: Later today I will table a bill to provide protection for the confidentiality of individual health card numbers.

Comme bon nombre de députés le savent, la nouvelle carte Santé, qui remplacera le numéro d'assurance-santé, entrera en vigueur le 1^er janvier 1991. Le gouvernement a l'intention de faire en sorte que la carte Santé ne soit utilisée que pour la prestation des soins de santé.

Permettez-moi de préciser, Monsieur le Président, que seuls les fournisseurs de soins de santé et le ministère de la Santé peuvent exiger qu'une personne présente sa carte et eux seuls peuvent l'utiliser à des fins administratives, de planification ou à toute autre fin touchant le domaine de la santé.

We also intend to protect the confidentiality of the information associated with the provision of health services. The abuse of the federal social insurance number since its inception is well known.

The legislation I will introduce today will prohibit individuals, businesses and organizations from requiring people to show their personal health card as a condition of providing goods or services. It will also prohibit the collection or use of a person's health number to obtain information for data banks, credit checking, mass mailing or the like.

The right to individual privacy and the confidentiality of health information is far more important than the convenience to business and other organizations of having yet another way to establish the identity of individuals.

Senior citizens' privilege cards have been used in Ontario for many years by people to qualify for the benefits of the Ontario drug benefit plan. This has also proven a convenient way for Ontario's senior citizens to establish their eligibility for various discounts and special offers. Because the new individual health card is potentially a very powerful tool for collecting and using personal information about individuals, our government does not wish to support a pattern of use of the health card for purposes other than for its intended purpose, the delivery of health-related services.

Senior citizens will use their new Health 65 cards for all their health needs, including the Ontario drug benefit plan. We would also like to help senior citizens establish a method for conveniently identifying their eligibility for discounts and special offers without meeting requests for disclosure of their unique health identification number. To this end, we will be providing senior citizens with a special method to keep their names and numbers private.

The protection of the privacy rights of citizens demands the constant attention and care of government in an age of computers and information systems. This government will maintain vigilance on this issue on behalf of all Ontarians.

We have designed this legislation with the advice and guidance of a number of people, but I would like to single out two for special mention: the assistant commissioner of information and privacy, Ann Cavoukian, and professor David Flaherty of the University of Western Ontario. Both are advocates of privacy rights and provided valuable insights to my ministry as we framed the new legislation.

The Ministry of Health is committed to maintaining the confidentiality of health records. That is why we will also be introducing a wide-ranging health information privacy bill in the future.

AGRICULTURAL LAND

Hon Mr Cooke: Later today, I intend to introduce an amendment to the Planning Act, 1983. This amendment will prevent the division and conveyance of land by last will and testament.

The existing Planning Act does not mention the division and conveyance of land through wills, but the courts have ruled that lands may be subdivided under the provisions of a will without obtaining the usual planning approvals. Over the years, this has resulted in many cases where lots have been created by wills which would not have been approved if they had gone through the usual planning approval process. If this practice is not stopped, the resulting unplanned development will place a severe burden on municipal services and might result in residential developments eroding our valuable agricultural lands.

In some particularly troubling cases, third-party investors have approached elderly or terminally ill people with attractive offers. The investors sell land to these people with the agreement that they subdivide the land into a number of smaller lots through their wills. This land is then bequeathed back to the investors. The intent, of course, is to circumvent the Planning Act and to allow the development of such land without municipal or provincial approval.

Most recently, the regional municipality of Niagara has requested that the government take action to stop this practice. In May of this year, the Premier, then Leader of the Opposition, raised this matter in the House and requested that this practice be prohibited. On 26 July of this year, my predecessor, the Honourable John Sweeney, announced his intention to amend the Planning Act to stop this practice. It was to be retroactive to 26 July 1990.

This afternoon, I shall introduce our amendment to the Planning Act so that this abuse of the planning process will be halted. It will be retroactive to 26 July 1990 so that the land use planning will again be applied fairly across Ontario.

RESPONSES

ENVIRONMENTAL BILL OF RIGHTS

Mrs Sullivan: I am responding to the statement of the Minister of the Environment. I believe that with her statement today she has lost any credibility she had left as an environmental advocate. What was good for her in opposition is clearly not good enough for her now that she is in government.

I want to backtrack for a second: Stuart Smith first introduced an environmental bill of rights in June 1981; the member for Bruce reintroduced a bill in April 1982; the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore, Bill 13, November 1987; the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore, Bill 12, 15 May 1989.

The Minister of the Environment constantly complained that the previous government had blocked her bill. Now she is in the seat and she has not introduced it.

I also want to say that in the Agenda for People, the pledge was made to pass the environmental bill of rights immediately. In the throne speech it was stated that the NDP will introduce the environmental bill of rights in this session. In a letter to environmental organizations signed by the Premier, the government pledges to enact an environmental bill of rights immediately. We have no bill. We have a consultative committee, consultation that could have taken place after a bill had been introduced in the House, in a standing committee, in public where people from the community and experts could have participated.

There is no bill. There is no action. It is a continuing example of freeze, moratorium, pause. As I said before, it is no damned plan.

1400

CONFIDENTIALITY OF MEDICAL RECORDS

Mr Phillips: In response to the statement by the Minister of Health, we were a little surprised in that I think what we had expected was what is in the last paragraph of the minister's statement, that is, a more comprehensive privacy bill. Certainly that was what the previous government had intended to introduce this fall, dealing with not only the health card but also with individuals' access to their medical files, to hospital files.

The minister has indicated that she will be introducing this shortly. My hope was that we would have seen the health card bill within that overall bill. Members will appreciate that we are going to be unable to deal with this bill before the House rises, so, as I say, I had hoped we could have had that more comprehensive bill.

My broader concern is that things are beginning to pile up in the ministry. We had hoped we could have the health professions legislation -- it is not here; the northern health care plan -- not here; the grants to the hospitals -- not here; the community-based care -- not here. Things are backing up. I would suspect that before we finish with this, we will be looking at the more comprehensive bill that would include the other important things the previous government had planned to implement this fall.

AGRICULTURAL LAND

Mrs Caplan: In response to the statement by the Minister of Municipal Affairs, this is a very important issue. He is quite correct that this was raised in the House last spring. I am very surprised that today, Thursday 13 December, we are seeing this legislation, which, as he knows, was ready to go and could have been introduced in this House on 22 November and could have been law by the end of this fall session. Certainly that was the intention of Mr Sweeney, whose bill it is.

My colleague the member for St Catharines has told me how important this is not only in the Niagara area where this is happening but also as a signal throughout this province that this practice is unacceptable. I am very disappointed that it took until 13 December to see this good piece of Liberal legislation tabled in this House. What has the minister been doing? Why have we not seen it before now?

Mr Bradley: In response to the Municipal Affairs minister's announcement today, it is indeed an important announcement to be made, and I was pleased that he has followed through on the commitment of Mr Sweeney, the previous minister, to do so. Those of us who have watched developments in the Niagara region over the last while have seen how people have attempted to utilize various legal mechanisms to overcome the regional official plan and other planning tools that are in place. Carol Alaimo and John Nicol of the St Catharines Standard did some extensive articles in the local newspaper on this issue, exposing the problems that exist.

The Legislature will be acting, I believe, expeditiously. The minister has indicated he wishes to see a quick passage of this bill. I would anticipate, looking carefully at it, that we would want to see this bill passed. I am pleased that he is going to retain the retroactive provision, making it retroactive to 26 July, so that those who have engaged in this activity -- at least those who have been in the manipulation end of it -- will not be able to benefit from it, and that the agricultural land in the Niagara region will be enhanced by this.

CONFIDENTIALITY OF MEDICAL RECORDS

Mr Harnick: I am pleased to hear that the government is going to introduce privacy legislation with regard to the health card. I know that the privacy commissioner, back in April, was urging the government of the day to introduce this legislation and to introduce it before the last session finished in June. They did not do that. I would like to commend the government on this initiative. I would also like to say that I hope the legislation which we see will be very specific legislation prohibiting the use of the card for anything but very specified health services, and I trust we will be seeing that shortly.

AGRICULTURAL LAND

Mr B. Murdoch: I would like to respond to the Minister of Municipal Affairs on his amendment to the Planning Act with respect to wills. I think it is a good thing he has brought in. We, too, are concerned about saving good farm land, and municipalities have had problems with this in the past. The only thing I am concerned about is the retroactive clause in there. I do have some concerns about that, and I will be looking forward to hearing his amendment this afternoon.

ENVIRONMENTAL BILL OF RIGHTS

Mr Cousens: I am concerned that the principles which were so strongly enunciated and clearly spoken by the Minister of the Environment before election have changed so significantly now that she is in office. It would almost appear that their principles are bankrupt, especially if they are going to begin to forget the promises they have made.

They did make the promise that one of the very first things on their agenda, immediately upon moving into office, would be to bring forward an environmental bill of rights. Now we see that they are planning to do something through this session. How long will this session go on? I know it is going to go on too long for some of us. The fact is, it will go on and on. We have no time frame as to when they are going to be doing this.

I would like to challenge the minister to think of what the Premier said yesterday. The Premier was talking about the new openness of committees and appointments to positions in this Legislature. I would like to challenge the minister to include a nominee to her advisory committee from someone from the opposition parties. We would be pleased to nominate someone. I am sure the Liberals could find some friend left over from the election campaign. We would be in a position then to balance the minister's committee so that it is not just the groups she is used to listening to that are going to be advising her.

Let the minister stop and think. She has only announced who the chairman of this committee is. Why not look at others from other parts of this Legislature and give us an opportunity to have some impact on the leadership of this committee? It is an important committee. The minister is obviously going to take some time. She has not indicated how long, but I am sure we will be able to find someone who will commit a great deal of time and energy to help her do the kind of job she should be doing.

I am concerned as well that the minister has not really indicated the guidelines of the committee. She has enunciated a few principles, but I would like to see her come forward with some of the thinking that my friend the member for Mississauga South has expounded in the past about a compensation fund, where moneys that are gained through the environmental task force, the environmental spending that is involved, will go into an environmental fund so she is not just going back to the general revenue fund. There should be some way in which these moneys are separate from the rest of the government moneys.

I really hope the minister, when she starts saying she is going to have an environmental bill of rights, will involve industry. She has mistakenly left industry out of her agenda along the way so far. I think it is very important that she has not just some token representatives from industry on this advisory committee. She should make sure she has a balanced committee that includes a good cross-section of the views that are involved.

When question period comes, we are going to give the minister another opportunity to think about what she has not said. This is not a toothless minister. She gave us the chance yesterday to go after her. This is one of the most powerful people in the government of the Premier. We have to respect the fact that her powers have people terrified at what she is going to do. She has to have balance in what she does. She has to make sure that when she comes in with her legislation it reflects the kind of balance our province has enjoyed in the past. If she comes along with some of those very left-wing philosophies she is prone to, I think we could be into some very serious problems. That is why I think, to start with, she should get her committee so that it has some balance on it. We would be glad to nominate some people to sit on it.

ORAL QUESTIONS

LANDFILL SITES

Mrs Sullivan: We on this side of the House do not want to argue about semantics. The minister continues to say that she does not have a dump list. She is now suggesting that there may be more than one list. There may be, indeed, several lists.

We believe, however, that communities have a right to know whether they are being considered for garbage dumps. That is not simply an environmental issue; it speaks to the openness and integrity of this government. Will the minister table in this House any and all lists that have been developed for potential sites for Metropolitan Toronto's garbage?

Hon Mrs Grier: As I explained to the member yesterday, I have asked the regional municipalities that compose the greater Toronto area to make available to the public authority that is going to be established all relevant information they have so far collected in their search for garbage disposal sites. I trust that when that authority is in place I will receive that information, and I will be happy at that time to share it with the member.

1410

Mrs Sullivan: That is not good enough. The minister is aware that her own officials have been a part of the process in developing these lists. She has four officials who sit on Metro Toronto's solid waste environmental assessment plan, SWEAP, steering committee. The greater Toronto area deputy minister sits on the GTA's Solid Waste Interim Steering Committee's exercise and the Deputy Minister of the Environment is an official observer on SWISC.

The minister is not being forthcoming and I would like to help her out. I have a phone number here for the official in her ministry: 323-5189. He sits on the Metro Toronto solid waste environmental assessment plan. I want her to call him and I am asking the page to take this to the Minister of the Environment. I want her to get the list from him and table it in the House.

Hon Mrs Grier: I thank the honourable member for the phone number and I assure her I will use it when I get back to my office.

Mrs Sullivan: Over the last number of weeks the minister has tried to comfort the communities across the province by assuring them that her 3Rs measures would eliminate any need for concern. But just like her environmental bill of rights, her garbage authority and her amendments to the Environmental Assessment Act, her 3Rs plans do not exist.

Metro Toronto is providing very specific actions to reduce waste and has done so in a public way, which we applaud. They are exhibiting the kind of leadership that we have really been expecting from this minister. I am wondering if the minister would outline today her specific measures to achieve the former government's waste reduction targets and when they will be in place.

Hon Mrs Grier: I am just delighted by the actions taken by Metro council. I think it is that kind of forward-looking and aggressive movement towards waste reduction and waste reuse that every municipality, not just in the greater Toronto area, is going to have to take if we are to meet those targets of more than 25% diversion from disposal by 1992.

I am delighted to be able to tell the member that I welcome those initiatives. I look forward to other municipalities taking the same initiatives. I have informed Metropolitan Toronto and the other regions that we will be establishing within my ministry a new waste reduction office that will be there to help them achieve those objectives.

NURSING

Mr Nixon: I have a question of the Minister of Health regarding nurses' salaries. The honourable member always agrees with the Premier, and for the first time he has said something that I agree with when he was quoted as saying: "If we want to retain nurses, we're going to have to design pay structures that are attractive enough to keep them. That's just basic common sense."

Since their demands over two years would cost the taxpayers approximately $1.5 billion, in addition to that already allocated and whatever increase the Treasurer has in his mind when he gets around to announcing that, can the minister indicate that she has discussed with her colleagues, and particularly the Treasurer, some procedure whereby the hospitals will have some reasonable freedom of action when they come to negotiating with the nurses in a situation which has been very much obscured by the pay equity requirements and the fact that in the past -- I would be the first, maybe the last, but among the first, to say that the nurses have really not received the consideration that they merit.

Hon Mrs Gigantes: The member knows that this party has been very concerned about the status of nurses within the health professions over the last number of years. He also knows that the package which the Ontario Nurses' Association will be putting on the bargaining table with the Ontario Hospital Association contains many elements. What will come of those negotiations, neither he nor I can predict.

The Treasurer, I am sure, will be taking all factors that we know of into account when it comes to the question of providing allocations for hospitals. I am sure he knows that we can count on the hospitals to make it clear what their financial needs will be. Further than that, it is very difficult to predict.

Mr Nixon: I think the honourable member will recall that my colleagues the former ministers of health took steps to, I would say, establish, if not reinforce, the roles of nurses in the provision of health services, such as requiring their election to hospital boards and other areas. But since there is a good deal of confusion here, frankly, I for one would not like the hospitals to go into a deficit position on the basis that they have had to undertake negotiations and finalize negotiations that would throw their approved budgets simply off the rails.

Surely -- particularly when the Treasurer is taking extra time to reach his decisions on these transfer amounts -- this is the time for us to establish some sort of a policy that will allow the hospitals to bargain as they have in the past in good faith, but come up with a result that is going to see that we are going to have the nurses not only continuing in their important duties but being satisfied that they are recognized in the community as important and properly remunerated.

Hon Mrs Gigantes: I think the member is identifying quite correctly the sense that I believe probably all members of this Legislature and most of the public have about what has been the problem with nursing over the last few years.

We are into a new era as far as women who are at work are concerned. They are not willing any more to be treated like they are nobodies; they want to be treated like they are somebodies. Nurses, as we have learned in other provinces, are providing an outstanding example of the need of women at work to be recognized for the value of their work.

Given all that, it is still a very complex matter to discuss what will be happening in this particular round of negotiations because we are talking about a combination of factors. We are obviously talking about the nurses' desire to be treated as if they are somebodies and also to be paid in recognition of the value of the work they do.

He knows this is related also to the question of pay equity as it affects nurses in this province, which again is being complicated by the kind of process we are going through. This is a difficult time to sort out those issues. The Treasurer will be meeting tomorrow with representatives of the Ontario Hospital Association, and I am sure he will be expressing our government's position and hearing from them their feelings about what their needs will be.

Mr Conway: Accepting, as we all do, the critical role that nurses play in our health care delivery system, accepting, as I am sure we all do, that nursing salaries make up something like 35% to 40% of the average hospital budget, what can the Minister of Health tell me to tell hospitals in communities like Pembroke and Cornwall and Brockville and Perth, where in this fiscal year those hospitals and many like them in her region of the province and elsewhere are running very, very substantial deficits?

In the case of the Pembroke Civic Hospital, there is an in-year deficit that is now expected to be half a million dollars, and in the case of the Brockville General, a deficit that is expected to be three quarters of a million dollars. What can we tell those hospitals as to how in this kind of a deficit situation they are going to be able to do the things for their nurses that we all want them to do?

Hon Mrs Gigantes: I know the member will be aware that at this stage in the fiscal year the hospital accounts are by no means complete. Deficits which are forecast may turn out to be deficits which in fact, in balance, given the kinds of adjustments that go on through the Ministry of Health accounting and funding process, may well disappear by the end of the fiscal year. That was the pattern last year, as the former Minister of Health will indicate to the members.

Given that, I think the member should feel assured that when this government deals with the hospitals, it will say quite openly that we recognize the difficulties they have had, that our funding will try to accommodate what look to be current deficits, which we expect will diminish as the realities of the fiscal accounting go on this year, and that we will support them in their efforts to work out good relations with the nurses.

Mr Harris: I also have a question for the Minister of Health. Her Premier stated on 25 September that his government would be willing to get involved somehow in the next round of talks, in reference to the salary negotiations with the nurses and the Ontario Hospital Association.

In view of the fact that the talks are commencing and the contract expires in about three and a half months, is the minister involved? She may want to refer this to the Premier since he is the one who made the commitment, if she does not agree with it. Is the minister involved now in these discussions with the OHA and the nurses?

1420

Hon Mrs Gigantes: I am not a party to the negotiations, as the leader of the Conservative Party knows.

Mr Harris: Her Premier said on 25 September that the taxpayers are the ones who fund the hospital system. If it is found that there needs to be an increase for whoever it is in the system, that is where the money comes from. The rationale that he had at the time was that it was important that he or the Treasurer or the Minister of Health, the government, be involved in these discussions.

I would ask the minister if she feels that there is a need for an increase for nurses and, if she does, why she is not involved or the Treasurer or the Premier is not involved as the Premier said on 25 September that the government would have to be.

Hon Mrs Gigantes: The leader of the Conservative Party might be reassured to know that I have met with the Ontario Hospital Association and the Treasurer meets tomorrow with the Ontario Hospital Association. The Premier has met with the Ontario Nurses' Association and I have met with the Ontario Nurses' Association. Obviously, we have had discussions with the parties, but when it comes to negotiating an agreement between the Ontario Hospital Association and the Ontario Nurses' Association, that bargaining goes on between two parties.

Mr Harris: We have the same answer that nurses have been given, as the Premier says, by former governments. I assume that he meant former Conservative governments and former Liberal governments. They were giving the same answer that the minister is giving. That may be the way that she wishes to proceed, but obviously former governments, whoever they were at whatever point in time, have not solved the problem.

The Premier said that there is a problem, acknowledged it and said that he would fight for it. In the campaign he said that he would fight for it. This is not a promise that he did not realize that he was going to have to live up to. On 25 September, after the election, he said that he would involve himself and that the government would have to get involved.

How can the minister now tell us that they are not going to be involved, that this is just simply a matter of negotiations? Would the minister not agree with me that if they are not involved with a substantial amount of money, these negotiations will be the same as they have been for the last 50 years and nurses will be no further ahead?

Hon Mrs Gigantes: I find it hard to believe that the leader of the Conservative Party really expects to have this government interfere with the collective bargaining going on between the Ontario Nurses' Association and the Ontario Hospital Association. Does he think that we should have free collective bargaining for nurses or not?

How in the name of heaven would we be able to get proper funding for hospitals if in fact we were there negotiating for one of the major groups operating the hospitals? Either we treat the hospitals as the employer or else we have to become the people who run the hospitals. I am sure that that is not what he wants.

LANDFILL SITES

Mrs Marland: My question is to the minister responsible for the greater Toronto area. I know that she is well aware of what her deputy minister, Gardner Church, is doing. I know that she sees that as her responsibility. I am sure that she intends that her waste authority will take over the waste management work of all the municipalities in the greater Toronto area and I am sure that Mr Church knows where those potential sites are, especially those of Metro.

In fact, we understand that as of today the minister personally has received that list. That list was sent to her by Bob Ferguson. If she has that list today from Bob Ferguson, as was confirmed apparently by the Toronto Star, my question is very straightforward. I know that perhaps she found the Liberal question a little convoluted. Will the minister today please tell us the 15 names that are on Metro's list for potential landfill sites, and if she does not have it now, will she please send for it?

Hon Mrs Grier: I am glad the member for Mississauga South at least recognizes that this list of sites belongs to Metropolitan Toronto. I am not aware of whether or not a copy of that list has been sent to my office. If in fact it has been, I will be more than happy to share it with the member.

Mrs Marland: I am quite sure that the minister's staff are sitting at the side. Perhaps she would give them --

Interjections.

Mrs Marland: I am sorry that the minister cannot hear the question. I am quite sure, if the minister's staff are sitting out at the side and she has just promised to share the list with me, she will find that her office does in fact have the list.

I think it is very important when we look at some of the information that the minister has not been willing to share with us yesterday, and up to now today, that she clarify some very important aspects of this whole subject for us. One is that we understand her new greater Toronto area waste authority, which she referred to yesterday as the son of SWISC, will get a landfill site in operation by mid-1994.

The minister also has informed us that perhaps some six communities are involved, and we feel they should know the rules of the game. I mention Kirkland Lake, Orillia, Plympton, Marmora, Whitevale and Newcastle as some of the communities that are the most seriously affected. We believe the people in these communities have the right to know if they are going to be living next to a dump, quite frankly.

Is it true that the minister's legislation, which is to set up this new GTA waste authority, will stop all searches for future sites, will restrict the pre-submission period for the consultation by the public to a mere six weeks, will uphold the happy host provision -- and it has to be the happy host in the perspective of the council and not the residents -- and will allow the construction of a site to continue even while court challenges are being heard?

Hon Mrs Grier: The kinds of details that the member is laying out I am not able to confirm. This is far too early in the process for me to be able to say that that is how that authority is going to proceed.

I am glad of the opportunity, though, to expand on the explanation the member made, which is that subsequent to SWISC there will be a public authority. That authority will be charged with the responsibility of finding a long-term waste disposal site for the greater Toronto area and that authority will establish criteria and the terms under which sites will be selected. As I said yesterday, how many sites they will examine and what those criteria are have not yet been determined.

Mr Cousens: It is very obvious to us that there is going to be tremendous statutory power on the part of the ministry to do what it wants to do, giving it carte blanche to go into any community and enforce a dump upon it. What I and the member for Mississauga South see happening now is a total collapse of the search process to find a site that is going to meet the needs of the greater Toronto area, because what has happened is that the minister has given her emphasis towards Kirkland Lake. That is where she is trying to go.

1430

What is going on is very, very inconsistent. On the one hand, this minister is saying she wants to be very open through an environmental bill of rights, and in her own bill it says the bill permits an action to be brought to the Supreme Court of Ontario by any person for the protection of the environment. On the other hand, she will be bringing forward a bill that is going to force a dump on Kirkland Lake. That is where the minister is going.

Can I ask the minister a very simple question? Will she allow the people in Kirkland Lake the benefit of the environmental bill of rights that she prepared when she was in opposition to question what she is going to do to their community? Because that is where she is going to put the dump. Will she give them the chance to protect themselves from the new legislation coming in?

Hon Mrs Grier: The residents of any community where a landfill site is being considered for the long-term use of the greater Toronto area will have available to them whatever legislation is on the books of this province, including a new environmental assessment process under which any site will be considered.

HOSPITAL SERVICES

Mr McClelland: My question is to the Minister of Health. She and her government have recognized and clearly stated that greater emphasis need be placed on community-health-care-based delivery systems. The people in Brampton North, my constituents, and indeed in the entire community, are concerned that the already overburdened existing health care facility we have, Peel Memorial Hospital, will not at all be able to cope and deliver adequate health care, particularly in light of the rapid projected growth, some 18% per year over the next few years.

Ministry officials have worked very closely with the Chinguacousy Health Services Board over the past number of years. They have a 46-acre site, a site that affords the opportunity to present a model for Ontario and perhaps all of North America. This is an extremely important project based on a health care delivery model, a community health organization model, that could be precedent-setting, a beacon, if you will, in terms of what can be done.

Will the minister today reaffirm her ministry's commitment to this very important project, the Chinguacousy Health Services Board project, and her commitment to see it through to its completion in an expeditious manner?

Hon Mrs Gigantes: I am glad to give that commitment. The member is quite right in saying that this government is committed to good community planning of the health resources in communities, and planning for the future in a style that is suitable for the 1990s and beyond.

What he tells me of the work that has been done pleases me. I will try to also investigate and find out what state negotiations are at between the ministry and the local planning group.

Mr Callahan: With respect, it sounds like the minister is not aware of this project. This is one of the most important projects -- it has been on the books for a long time. I fought for it since 1977, and the Chinguacousy Health Services Board has done significant work in terms of trying to bring it on stream. I certainly hope she will look at that and give it great emphasis.

I would like to deal with the situation at Peel Memorial Hospital. We have a population fast approaching 200,000 people. We are the fastest-growing community probably in North America. Peel Memorial Hospital has been a well-run hospital. For the last five years it has managed to arrive at a balanced budget. Obviously, in this time of economic downturn there are going to be problems with Peel Memorial as well as many other hospitals.

In order to ensure -- as well as the Chinguacousy project my colleague referred to -- that the people of Brampton, approaching 200,000, will have proper and adequate health care, will the minister stand in the House today and commit to provide funds to allow Peel Memorial Hospital to balance its budget for this year and any continuing year where we have a downturn in the economy?

Hon Mrs Gigantes: I cannot make such a commitment, as the member well knows. The final figures for hospital accounts are not in. He knows that the deficits which are now being projected are deficits which may well, given the kinds of balancing funding that comes through various aspects of our hospital funding program, balance out a projected deficit.

What I can give him is an assurance that his hospital, like each and every hospital across Ontario, will be given all the assistance it can be given under our current funding program. I hope, as I am sure he does, that that will provide the hospital with the funds it needs to carry out those very important programs within the Brampton community.

LANDFILL SITE

Mr J. Wilson: My question is to the Minister of the Environment. I have listened attentively over the last few weeks as she has discussed the garbage problem in the GTA, but she has not addressed problems outside of Metropolitan Toronto, the garbage crisis we are having, for instance, in my riding of Simcoe West.

On 1 November the minister signed an emergency certificate enabling six North Simcoe municipalities to dump their garbage at the Wasaga Beach dump site. Even before the minister signed the certificate, she was aware of a recent geological study which clearly states that a trail of contaminated leachate has moved almost one half a kilometre from the site. The dump is situated alongside the world's largest fresh-water beach, and the minister knows this leachate poses a threat to that beach and to the tourism industry of Wasaga Beach.

Why did the minister sign an emergency certificate to allow a sixfold increase in the waste stream going to the Wasaga Beach dump when she knows it had problems with contaminated leachate?

Hon Mrs Grier: As I am sure the member is aware, under Bill 201, which had been adopted by this Parliament under the previous government, responsibility for the management of those waste disposal sites lay with the county of Simcoe. The town of Wasaga Beach had challenged that authority in the courts. The courts ruled that the county did in fact have the power to direct the waste to the Wasaga Beach dump, and I followed that order.

Mr J. Wilson: That is totally unacceptable. The minister is responsible for issuing the emergency certificate. She should have been aware, and she was aware, because I personally made her aware. The mayor of Wasaga Beach has written six letters to her to date; she has not responded. I have made statements in this House, I have written several letters to her, I have personally delivered them to her, I have mentioned this issue to her time and time again. The whole discouraging thing about this is that when she was in opposition, this is exactly the type of thing she would have opposed.

When she issued that certificate she expanded that dump by 30% with no environmental assessment whatsoever, and she would not even give us the courtesy of taking a week to review it.

The Speaker: Is there a question?

Mr J. Wilson: Second, she knew there was contaminated leachate. She knew that the water flow studies in that area show it goes towards the beach. She knew that Wasaga Beach is dependent upon tourism, and she knows they are extremely concerned that we are going to have another Midland situation on our hands, which we had years ago, of a contaminated area that will wipe out the economic base of that community. She also knows that her Premier --

The Speaker: I appreciate the enthusiasm which the member is generating. I would appreciate it even more if he could place a question.

Mr J. Wilson: As she signed and issued the emergency certificate, and the Premier said in the last election that he would not allow expansion of dump sites without full environmental assessments, will she correct her mistake and live up to the Premier's promise and revoke the emergency certificate she signed on 1 November?

Hon Mrs Grier: I share the member's concern, and I agree with him that in opposition I shared those concerns. Let me assure him that had I been the Minister of the Environment for the last five years I would not have had to sign an emergency certificate and put waste from North Simcoe into Wasaga Beach.

RELIGIOUS EDUCATION

Mr Mills: My question is for the Minister of Education. With regard to her announcements on education about religion, has she considered funding of independent or alterative religious schools?

Hon Mrs Boyd: We deliberately, as a government, severed the issue of education about religion in the public schools from the issue of funding independent or alterative schools. We are still meeting with the groups that are interested, and we have undertaken with most groups to meet with them to consult about their concerns.

Mr Mills: Can the minister say when she will be meeting with these groups and can she state when we can expect an announcement on these issues?

Hon Mrs Boyd: I met with one group two weeks ago, another group this morning, another group tomorrow morning, and we have planned a joint meeting for the end of February.

1440

PETROLEUM ADDITIVES

Mr Elston: My question is to the Minister of the Environment. It concerns Ethyl Canada Inc in Sarnia, which produces additives for petroleum products. We understand there is a proposal now by this company to expand production of this product in Ontario which is being viewed very favourably by the Ministry of the Environment. There is, in fact. a certificate of approval pending now on that very item.

While domestic markets for that product have all but disappeared, we understand they are increasing shipments to the Far East. Would the minister advise us that she, like us, is very concerned about the health effects of these petroleum additives and that she will investigate this particular product and ensure that the permits are not approved for increasing the shipments of this product to the Far East?

Hon Mrs Grier: I am not aware of the situation the honourable member has described. I would be more than happy to look into it and give him an answer as soon as I have the information. If there is anything further of which the member is aware and that he wants to share with me, I would be happy to have as much information as possible.

Mr Elston: I will make available everything I have and certainly share it with her. I understand that her local officials are viewing the certificate very favourably.

I would ask her, at the same time she is investigating this particular item -- and on the understanding we all have, that many jurisdictions of the world have less restrictive environmental regulations than those put in place by the former minister, the member for St Catharines -- to investigate all and every application for certificates of approval to expand production of items which are dangerous to human health and to be shipped to the Third World countries which do not have protective regulations such as we have.

Hon Mrs Grier: I thank the member for bringing this issue to my attention and I assure him that I intend to exercise my authority within the limits of the law.

TRUCKING INDUSTRY

Mr Arnott: My question is for the Minister of Transportation. Two days ago, in a quiet announcement, the minister indicated that the Ministry of Transportation would be issuing 400 new permits to allow 53-foot semitrailers on the highways of this province. These permits are in addition to the 2,000 permits which have already been issued by the former government. I want to ask the minister on what basis this decision was reached.

Hon Mr Philip: As the member will be aware, the previous government had introduced by administration a provision to allow for 53-foot trailers, some 2,000 issuances of those. The government in so doing did not in any way allow for longer trucks. That is an issue which my Liberal critic cannot seem to get clear in his mind: the difference between the length of the trucks and the length of the trailers.

What happened was that the previous Liberal government, in installing this system, made no provision about who these would go to. It was on a first-come, first-served basis. On 15 November, one person came in and was able to obtain some 650 permits, which dried up all the remaining permits. This put a considerable problem in the hands of certain trucking companies in Ontario which had signed agreements and had been told by the ministry that there were plenty of permits left.

In light of being fair to the trucking industry and saving an industry from having to lay off some 150 people, I decided that those extra 400 would be issued, up to 400 for those people who could prove they had signed agreements as of 16 November. That is why I proceeded on that.

Mr Arnott: Barely two weeks ago, the minister announced that he would not introduce legislation allowing for longer trucks on Ontario's highways because of public safety concerns. Is he now admitting that he is willing to compromise public safety on the highways for economic gain?

Hon Mr Philip: No, I am not. As I pointed out to the member earlier, the legislation which the Liberals introduced, which the Conservatives supported but which we voted against, does lengthen the trucks. We are not prepared to proceed with the lengthening of trucks in this province.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr Drainville: I have a question for the Minister of Financial Institutions. As the minister knows, British Columbia has had a driver-owned auto insurance plan for some time. This successful plan was implemented by the former New Democratic Party government in British Columbia. It is still in existence. It has been basically left alone by the Social Credit government. I want to know from the minister if they are considering that program in this province and whether parts of that program are going to be implemented here in Ontario.

Hon Mr Kormos: Look at it? We have been admiring. We have been admiring what British Columbia has been doing with car insurance for the almost 20 years now since Dave Barrett and the NDP government put the Insurance Corp of British Columbia into effect. Incredible but true, they have been able to consistently provide fair insurance coverage, including the right to compensation for innocent victims for their pain and suffering, along with reasonable rates, rates that have consistently been lower than here in Ontario. As a matter of fact, notwithstanding all that, they also produce one heck of a calendar, I got mine just today. If we can come even close, by God, we have done the drivers and the victims and the taxpayers of this province proud. We are going to; just watch.

Mr Drainville: One of the concerns of the insurance brokers and the insurance agents and the policyholders in Victoria-Haliburton is the concern, basically, of consultation. How is the government going to go about that? How much consultation will there be? I would like to ask the minister whether he could give us some indication of what direction that consultation will take in the next few months.

Hon Mr Kormos: Perhaps I was remiss in not mentioning this when I answered the first question, because among the most fervent supporters of the Insurance Corp of British Columbia, of the public system there, are the brokers of British Columbia. They remain strong supporters.

The member asks a valid question, and my answer is this: We have been talking with brokers and agents from across Ontario since within literally days of 1 October. We are going to keep on talking to them. We are interested, among other things, in what BC has done, because in British Columbia that driver-owned system is sold through independent brokers. I am interested in seeing whether the independent brokers of Ontario can participate with us in delivering good-quality, affordable, fair auto insurance coverage.

Tomorrow morning at 11:15 I am going to be at the Holiday Inn in Sault Ste Marie meeting with the brokers of Sault Ste Marie. I would like to see the brokers and other interested people come up and see us, tomorrow morning at 11:15, Holiday Inn, Sault Ste Marie.

1450

ALCOHOL AND DRUG TREATMENT

Mr Phillips: My question is to the Minister of Health, on a matter that is of some urgency and one I think she can act on quickly. She would understand that we have seen a dramatic increase in OHIP payments to US drug and alcohol treatment centres. If we look back just three years ago, I think the payments might have been $3 million to $4 million; this year, my understanding is that it could be $35 million to $40 million. As a matter of fact, I think many of these treatment centres now have individuals in Ontario who actually are recruiting addicts to head to those facilities.

Quite clearly, I think it is a matter where jobs are going to the US, a substantial amount of Ontario money is going to the US, and perhaps as important, resources that could be developed here in Ontario and used over time really are heading to the US. The previous government, before the abrupt change, did have a program that we had put together, including the development of a couple of centres and some other programs. We did have a program ready to go and in place.

Recognizing the urgency of it, will the minister give us a commitment that she has a plan to end this practice? Perhaps as important, will she outline for us the timetable for that plan?

Hon Mrs Gigantes: The member raises a problem that has been the subject of a lot of public discussion. I think he comes to the same conclusion about the problem as I and most of the public of Ontario have come to, which is that we have got a problem. Now what do we do about it?

The fact is that we do not have enough services of the appropriate kind here in Ontario so that a Minister of Health can simply say, "We're going to ask every Ontarian to seek service only here in Ontario while we develop those resources." It is going to take some time, because the gap in some kinds of services is very large, unfortunately. We are going to have to try to build up our services here so that Ontarians can get service here before we start coming down hard on Ontarians who are seeking services outside the country.

We are trying to monitor the payments that OHIP makes to various facilities in the United States to make sure that at least the charges which OHIP is paying are charges which OHIP should be paying. In that sense, we have tightened up the system a bit, but there is still a lot of work to be done.

Mr Ruprecht: That answer is simply not acceptable. The minister obviously realizes that planning and thinking and more planning are no longer an acceptable strategy. The minister has it in her hands not only to save the taxpayer of Ontario millions of dollars but also to help hundreds of residents who want effective treatment in Ontario.

I want the minister to be specific and tell not only the House but the people of Ontario this: (1) If a resident of Parkdale, even of the minister's riding, wants to turn himself or herself in, where does he or she go for treatment? (2) Is there a waiting list until that person can get treatment?

Hon Mrs Gigantes: That is not a simple question. Various kinds of people need various kinds of programs. We do not have an adequate system of substance-abuse programming in Ontario. That is a fact. We have to plan what kind of programs we need. We do not want, for example, to put all the drug programs into the Parkdale riding or into the Ottawa Centre riding. We have to plan where the need is. We have to find out where the need is and we have to plan to meet it in an adequate way. Before that, we cannot say to Ontarians, "You can't go to the States to get help when you need it."

COURT SYSTEM

Mr Harnick: My question is for the Attorney General. About 10 days ago, I asked the Premier a question that was to be referred to the Attorney General. I still do not have an answer. What I pointed out on that day was that at that time the figures were that 3,000 out of about 3,400 of the case dismissals in provincial courts had come out of the provincial court. There were opinions from two justices, Justice Callaghan and Justice Trainor, that in fact the Askov case might not even apply to provincial courts.

Nevertheless, victims have continued to see their cases dismissed. Victims of the people who have been driving while impaired and involved in fatal accidents have seen the accused go free. I would like to know from the Attorney General how he can justify doing nothing for the victims when two courts have said there is a glimmer of hope here.

Hon Mr Hampton: I want to point out to the member that he refers to two opinions. In effect, there has been only one decision. Chief Justice Callaghan's statements were simply statements of opinion. They were expressed by him to the press. In effect, they carry virtually no weight in terms of the value of precedents.

Mr Justice Trainor's decision, while a very interesting decision and one which some provincial division judges are following, is not being followed far and wide. There are all kinds of reasons why that may be the case. In effect, Mr Justice Trainor is the senior justice for the Toronto area and outside of the Toronto area his decision does not necessarily have to be followed.

So I do not have -- and I want to emphasize this for the member and for the public -- the capacity or the authority to tell judges what decisions they must follow. In effect, there has been a Supreme Court of Canada decision. Most judges believe that they must follow that decision. I have no authority to interfere with that.

Mr Harnick: Just for a second here, I never knew as a basis of law that because a judge was in Toronto, another judge of a lower court in another jurisdiction outside of Toronto did not have to follow his decisions. But the minister is the chief law officer in this province and he could easily ask the Court of Appeal to expedite an appeal, because if two judges -- and with respect, Justice Callaghan's remarks have to give him some hope.

With respect, if the minister picked up the phone and called the Chief Justice and said, "Let's get an appeal on here," we might be able to save 50,000 or 60,000 cases. There is a glimmer of hope here. Why is the minister not expediting an appeal to try to help these victims? It is better than sending the victims a letter of apology.

Hon Mr Hampton: I would ask the member to take a little time and read Mr Justice Trainor's decision very carefully. In effect, it is not a decision which could be easily referred to the Court of Appeal, since, for the most part, it is a decision --

Mr Sorbara: That is in the first briefing book that you read a month and a half ago.

Mr Arnott: It gives you grounds for appeal.

Hon Mr Hampton: There seem to be a lot of experts on the justice system from the Liberal bench. It is very interesting that the Liberal Party got us into this mess in the first place.

Interjections.

Hon Mr Hampton: To attempt to answer the member's question above the clamour, we have looked at Mr Justice Trainor's decision. There are better decisions, other cases which will soon be going to the Ontario Court of Appeal, which will give the Ontario Court of Appeal the opportunity to state clearly what it considers to be the appropriate level of guidance for the provincial division of the Ontario court. I expect we will have a decision on that some time after Christmas.

POLICE SERVICES

Mr Frankford: I have a question for the Solicitor General. As the minister knows, the Metropolitan Toronto Police Commission voted last month to reopen a much-needed police station in my riding. Given the current economic pressures, among other factors, the commission took the advice of Metro Toronto Police Chief Bill McCormack and decided to make the new 43 Division a substation, rather than a full-fledged police station.

Prior to its closing in March 1989 the station represented a workplace for some 160 police officers, plus dozens of support staff. The building which once housed the police station is now used by a number of employees of both Metro Community and Social Services and West Hill Community Services.

Negotiations are under way to ensure an arrangement equitable to all concerned. That re-established police presence will go a great distance towards cutting down on complaints of crime in southeast Scarborough. I think we would all agree that we must answer the need for both police and social services in our respective communities. What is this government's position on the question of community-based policing?

Hon Mr Farnan: This government is very much committed to community-based policing. We recognize the crucial role of community policing in defining the policing needs of the community and we believe that policing should be a reflection of those needs. We believe that the ultimate goal of policing is to build a partnership and a trust between policing services and the communities that they serve. As a result of that partnership and trust, we believe that there will be enhanced provisions of security and protection for individuals and for neighbourhoods.

The reopening of 43 Division in the member's riding is seen by both the Metro police and by its board of commissioners, and indeed by this government, as a move in the right direction. It will enhance foot patrols, community service officer programs and race relations activities. We encourage it.

1500

Mr Frankford: Can the minister tell us the status of the implementation of community policing in Ontario?

Hon Mr Farnan: We are encouraged at this time that several forces in the province of Ontario are moving in the direction of community-based policing: Metro, Halton, OPP, Windsor and indeed smaller forces such as Kirkland Lake. There is some pilot testing in community-based policing, but it is our desire to encourage a force-wide approach to this issue. I do really appreciate the support of our opposition members in this initiative.

Interjections.

The Speaker: It certainly is pleasing to know that the extended hours have not dampened the enthusiasm of members. Has the Solicitor General completed his response?

Hon Mr Farnan: I just want to emphasize that the Solicitor General's office will promote community policing as the contemporary approach to policing in the 1990s. We will support its implementation and this support will result in enhanced programmings for victims, sexual assault, cross-cultural policing and crime prevention. My ministry is working with police forces to enhance this and we will continue to do so.

TOURISM INDUSTRY

Mr H. O'Neil: I hardly need to emphasize the importance of the tourism industry in Ontario. In 1989 tourism generated approximately $11.7 billion and employed hundreds of thousands of people. It was Ontario's third-largest industry. This year it has fallen to fourth place, with further decline on the way.

According to statistics compiled by the Metropolitan Toronto Convention and Visitors Association, two-year advance bookings are down 42% in 1990 compared to 1988. For each 5% drop in occupancy rates there is an indirect loss of 3,000 jobs.

Therefore, my question is to the Minister of Tourism and Recreation. I understand that his ministry has projections about the seriousness of the decline in the province. Will he share these figures with the House today?

Hon Mr North: I can tell the honourable member that at this point there are a number of different factors that have been contributing to the decline in Ontario. There are factors such as the economic conditions: the high dollar, the high interest rates. There is a change in preference in the tourist patterns in Ontario. We are well aware of all these factors and we are working very hard to see what we can do to change this problem.

Mr H. O'Neil: I appreciate the answer that the Minister of Tourism and Recreation gave me, but what do we have right across the province? We have declining numbers of tourists travelling within the province itself, fewer tourists coming in from other provinces in Canada, and of course our numbers of travellers coming from the United States are down greatly.

We need some action now. I would like to know whether the minister has approached the Premier and the cabinet for additional funds for promotional programs, for other types of programs that will give some of our hotels, motels, resorts and restaurants a chance of surviving the winter. What are some of his specific programs?

Hon Mr North: I appreciate the question and I understand the member's concern. We have talked to a number of different people in the province. I have talked to the Premier and I have talked to the cabinet. They understand my concerns. They believe my concerns are genuine. We will be working very hard to see what we can do for tourism in Ontario. We consider it more than a hobby.

WASTE MANAGEMENT

Mr McLean: My question was for the Premier, but seeing that he has left, I will ask it of the Minister of the Environment.

When the Premier was in Orillia last August, he made the statement that there would be no garbage hauled out of Metropolitan Toronto unless there was a host municipality. There has been great discussion with regard to the Uthoff quarry as being one of the sites that Metropolitan Toronto has been looking at. Does the commitment the Premier made that, unless there is a host municipality they will not have to accept it, still stand?

Hon Mrs Grier: I certainly share the concern that is there in a number of communities and municipalities. I hate this business of one municipality fighting against another municipality, but I think we have to recognize that there is an enormous problem in the greater Toronto area. We are moving to reduce as much waste as possible. We are looking upon waste as a resource that can be reduced, recycled and can generate secondary industry.

We will at some point need to have a landfill site. The selection process for that site will be determined by the authority that we are going to have in place, and its definitions and its criteria will be the ones that will be followed, so any criteria that have been used in the past may no longer be relevant.

Mr McLean: The township of Orillia is the location of this quarry. The Premier had made the statement that no municipality would have to take Metropolitan Toronto's garbage unless it was a willing host. Will the minister tell this House and the people of that community today that unless they are a willing host, they will not have to take the garbage?

Hon Mrs Grier: The context in which the Premier was responding was the program that had been set in place by the previous government. One of the very many difficulties with that program was a semantic one because there are differing interpretations everywhere of what a happy host is. One of the first things that the new authority is going to have to determine is what a "happy host" means and what criteria will determine where a site should be located.

ONTARIO FOOD TERMINAL

Mr Mahoney: My question is to the Minister of Agriculture and Food, representing that great agricultural community of Mississauga. Seriously, I want to bring to the attention of the ministry a question of very grave concern to a number of people, and it has to do with the Ontario Food Terminal. I have written the minister a letter and sent a copy to the Minister of the Environment outlining the concerns around the food terminal. As the minister knows, that is a project built on government land.

Before the minister answers the question, I would like to suggest that the age-old, tired answer we are getting that it was the previous government's fault or we did not solve the problem is not good enough. It is a problem that I am prepared to admit that government did not solve; it was not solved, in fact it was created by the former regime. The people I am speaking on behalf of would like to know if the minister can solve the problem.

There are leases granted in perpetuity. The holders of those leases turn around and sublease the units out to people in the produce business. They are actually coupon clippers. I have a case of a constituent and a friend of the Minister of the Environment, Greg Vetere. After 26 years of operating B and G Vetere Wholesale in the Ontario Food Terminal, the man has been put out of business by the Ontario Food Terminal Board. It has accepted a $60,000 deposit to build what it refers to as a C unit, another unit. It is not building the unit. It has kept the deposit. It has forced, after 26 years, the Vetere family to close their heretofore very successful business, and there are 15 members of the family and employees who are out of work.

1510

It is a tragedy. What has to happen is that this government has to take charge and tell the food terminal board to give Mr Vetere his deposit back, along with anyone else they have accepted this money from, or to build the units and allow these people to continue to do business. Will the minister instruct the food terminal board in that manner?

Hon Mr Buchanan: I am pleased to answer that question to a point. First, my understanding is that the gentleman mentioned has decided to go through the courts and in fact has made a statement of claim in court requesting the $58,000 fee that was put forward, so it may be inappropriate for me at this time to send a directive about what to do to a board which runs the day-to-day operations of the food terminal. We set the policy. The food terminal board handles the day-to-day operations of the food terminal.

I might add that the member mentioned a number of other problems associated with the food terminal. I would agree with him that there are a number of issues that need to be addressed down there, and I am very pleased to say that we are going to talk to the board and see if we can address some of the concerns that have been around since 1954.

LANDFILL SITES

Hon Mrs Grier: On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: During oral questions, the member for Halton Centre sent me the name of somebody in my ministry and a phone number and alleged that if I called that number I could get a list Metropolitan Toronto had compiled of possible waste disposal sites.

I would just like to tell the House that the person referred to is not a member of the solid waste environmental assessment plan committee of Metropolitan Toronto. He is on their mailing list, as are many of us. My deputy minister does not have and has never seen such a list, and my office has not received a list. I would like to refer her question to Metropolitan Toronto.

Mr Elston: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: When somebody makes a reply about a question previously asked, there is obviously the need for a supplementary. I would ask that you, Mr Speaker, allow a supplementary to the member for Halton Centre. That is the way things are done. When a person stands in this place and replies to a question previously answered, there is a supplementary allowed. I am asking that a supplementary be allowed for the member for Halton Centre.

The Speaker: What the member for Bruce has referred to is a practice which normally follows when the minister who has been asked a question comes back to the House on another occasion, usually the subsequent question day, to respond to a question asked earlier. The minister, I think, would normally be expected to come back to the House on another occasion to respond, as she did today. What I would like members to understand is that in allowing the supplementary, it is because of the fact that the minister chose to come back into the House today rather than waiting for the next question period, which of course is the following Monday.

Supplementary, the member for Halton Centre.

Mrs Sullivan: Certainly officials from her ministry, including her --

Mr Harris: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: We are breaking a fair bit of new ground here, and I appreciate the Speaker's ruling. I am not objecting to your ruling at all; I think it is entirely in order and I think it was an occasion for new ground to be broken.

However, I think one would have great difficulty in determining whether the response the minister came back to the House with was in response to a question from the official opposition or in response to a question from the member for Markham. I would suggest we could handle that easily by having one each.

The Speaker: To the leader of the third party: First of all, we are not really breaking new ground. What we are doing is allowing a practice which would normally have followed on Monday to occur today. The minister, in her supposed point of privilege, mentioned the member for Halton Centre as having raised the question. Therefore, the supplementary belongs to the member for Halton Centre.

Mrs Marland: On a point of order, Mr Speaker --

The Speaker: Is this on the same item that has already been raised by the member for Nipissing?

Mrs Marland: It is on the item you have just addressed, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: I am sorry, we have dealt with this matter. The leader of the third party raised some interesting concerns, to which I have responded. If this is a point of order to deal with what I have already ruled on, then I will not entertain it.

Mrs Marland: It is a point of order on an earlier matter, Mr Speaker. I stood in this House this afternoon and I was the person who addressed the fact that we understood the minister had this list in her office today. That was the response to which the minister just made her announcement, I understand. The member for Halton Centre did not say the minister had the list in her office.

The Speaker: The member for Mississauga South clearly knows that that is not a point of order. The member for Halton Centre has a supplementary.

Mrs Sullivan: I have been given a list from Metro Toronto relating to the people who are involved on the SWEAP committee. It includes four officials from the Ministry of the Environment, not simply the one whose name I gave to her. Additionally, her deputy minister is an observer on the SWEAP committee and a part of the process. As well, the deputy minister of the greater Toronto area is a part of the solid waste interim steering committee. I ask her once again to get the list from her officials and table it in the House.

Hon Mrs Grier: We have within the greater Toronto area five regional municipalities, one of which is Metropolitan Toronto. Metropolitan Toronto has a committee known as SWEAP. It has developed under its own processes a list of sites. Then we have a committee put in place by the previous minister called SWISC, on which representatives of the greater Toronto area assist. I am afraid the member is going to have to get a little clearer on who is doing what and recognize that there is no relevant list until the public authority develops one.

PETITION

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mrs Mathyssen: I am presenting a petition today signed by seven session members of Burns Presbyterian Church in Mosa petitioning the government of Ontario to legislate a common pause day each week when all commerce will cease except for duties of necessity and mercy. I have signed my name to this petition.

1520

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

ONTARIO ENVIRONMENTAL RIGHTS ACT, 1990

Mrs Sullivan moved first reading of Bill 23, An Act respecting Environmental Rights in Ontario.

Motion agreed to.

Mrs Sullivan: The purpose of this act is to ensure the health and sustainability of the environment in Ontario, and in particular to facilitate the participation of the people of Ontario in decisions affecting the environment and their ability to protect their common interest in a healthy and sustainable environment; second, to recognize the right of the people of Ontario to an environment that is adequate for their health and wellbeing and sustainable into the future; and, third, to recognize the obligations of the province of Ontario to conserve and maintain the resources of the province for present and future generations.

HEALTH CARDS AND NUMBERS CONTROL ACT, 1990 / LOI DE 1990 SUR LE CONTRÔLE DES CARTES SANTÉ ET DES NUMÉROS DE CARTES SANTÉ

Mrs Gigantes moved first reading of Bill 24, An Act to control the Private Use of Cards Issued and Numbers Assigned to Insured Persons under the Health Insurance Act.

M^me Gigantes propose la première lecture du projet de loi 24, Loi contrôlant l'usage dans le secteur privé des cartes et des numéros attribués aux assurés en vertu de la Loi sur l'assurance-santé.

Motion agreed to.

La motion est adoptée.

Hon Mrs Gigantes: The purpose of this bill is to control the use of health cards and health numbers by the private sector.

PLANNING STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1990

Mr Cooke moved first reading of Bill 25, An Act to amend the Planning Act, 1983, and the Land Titles Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon Mr Cooke: My statement explained the bill earlier today.

LEAD ACID BATTERIES RECYCLING ACT, 1990

Mrs Sullivan moved first reading of Bill 26, An Act to require the recycling of Lead Acid Batteries.

Motion agreed to.

Mrs Sullivan: The purpose of this bill is to require the recycling of lead acid batteries. Consumers and retailers would be prohibited from the disposing of batteries except by delivery to a manufacturer, a wholesaler, a secondary lead smelter or a designated recycling facility or, in the case of consumers, to a retailer.

Disposal by a manufacturer, wholesaler, secondary lead smelter or a recycling facility would be prohibited if the disposal was done in such a manner that chemicals from the battery might be emitted into water or air.

Retailers would be required to accept from consumers who purchased batteries the equivalent used batteries, and a similar requirement would apply in a case of wholesalers who sold to retailers.

Retailers would be required to post notices indicating their obligation to accept used batteries from purchasers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Hon Mr Cooke: Mr Speaker, we are going to be calling, with unanimous consent of the two opposition parties, the sixth and seventh order combined, as they are both related matters and both opposition House leaders have been consulted and agreed.

The Speaker: Do we have unanimous consent?

Agreed to.

EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT (MISCELLANEOUS), 1990

Mrs Boyd moved second reading of Bill 12, An Act to amend the Education Act.

OTTAWA-CARLETON FRENCH-LANGUAGE SCHOOL BOARD AMENDMENT ACT, 1990 / LOI DE 1990 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LE CONSEIL SCOLAIRE DE LANGUE FRANÇAISE D'OTTAWA-CARLETON

Mrs Boyd moved second reading of Bill 13, An act to amend the Ottawa-Carleton French-Language School Board Act.

M^me Boyd propose la deuxième lecture du projet de loi 13, Loi portant modification de la Loi de 1988 sur le Conseil scolaire de langue française d'Ottawa-Carleton.

Hon Mrs Boyd: It is the intent of Bills 12 and 13 to address a number of issues which have implications for the election of school trustees. It is before the House at this time because a commitment was made in 1988 by the previous government that any changes in legislation that would affect elections would be in place in the year before an election so that the necessary preparations for the election could be completed in a timely way, candidates could plan adequately for a campaign and the election process itself could proceed in an orderly fashion. The next election for school board and municipal offices will take place in November 1991.

The first issue the bills deal with is the establishment of French-language school boards in Ontario. These bills will enable the minister to ensure that French-language governance in Ontario is in line with the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Mahé. Mahé established that charter section 23 rights to minority-language instruction include a sliding scale of institutional and governance requirements based on the number of students.

In November, the minister announced the formation of a French-language education governance advisory group which would establish criteria for the creation of French-language school boards. At the same time, I announced that negotiations and consultations would begin immediately in Prescott, Russell and Simcoe counties, where the French-language communities feel that conditions entitle them to the immediate establishment of boards. Bill 12 gives me the power to establish new French-language boards by regulation in order to allow this to happen expeditiously and in a year that is not an election year in case the conditions do not coincide with the years in which regular school board elections are held.

The next issue addressed by the bills is how the number of French-language trustees on a school board is to be determined. Currently the Education Act requires that the proportion of French-language trustees be determined based on the proportion of French-language population to the total population in a board's jurisdiction. The Mahé decision stated, however, that the number of minority-language representatives on the board should be. at a minimum, proportional to the number of minority-language students in the school district. It is the intent of this bill, therefore, to bring the method of determining the composition of a board into compliance with the Mahé decision by providing for the proportion to be based on student enrolment.

The amendments provide for a school board to make the calculation of enrolment of both its majority- and minority-language resident pupils registered, on registers prescribed by the minister. The enrolment calculations must be confirmed by a majority of the trustees governing each language group. If the calculations have not been made or are not confirmed. the amendments provide for the matter to be referred to the Languages of Instruction Commission to resolve the dispute and make the determination.

Bill 12 also proposed the following amendment to address concerns raised by trustees during consultations since the 1988 election year:

A board resolution to increase or decrease its size by one or two members shall be valid only for the term of the members elected at the next election instead of for the next two elections;

The designation of low-population areas for trustee distribution shall be a decision of each language section of the board and not the board as a whole;

The population data for trustee distribution shall be determined as of 1 January and the results reported not later than 15 February in an election year;

In addition to the current provision that minority-language trustees be elected at large. the amendments also provide the option of using the method of trustee distribution that is provided for majority-language trustees;

The provisions for filling vacancies are made consistent for all trustees, and

The period of time in which trustee vacancies must be filled is extended to 60 days.

1530

Bill 12 also provides for full funding immediately rather than at the rate of one grade per year if a Roman Catholic school board provides instruction in all secondary grades and the instruction is provided only in a school or schools operated by school boards by means of an agreement. Currently the Education Act provides funding for staged extension, one year at a time, for school boards which provide their own secondary programs. Bill 12 also provides that a separate school board which elects to extend under the purchase-only provisions must obtain a new approval if it wishes to provide secondary education in its own schools at some future date.

Finally, the amendments in these bills recognize that residents of a Canadian Forces base within the boundaries of a school board are eligible to vote in school board elections unless a school board has been established on the base.

In each case Bill 13 makes amendments regarding trustee vacancies applicable to the Ottawa-Carleton French Language School Board by amending the Ottawa-Carleton French-Language School Board Act.

Mr Callahan: I only want to deal with one issue in Bill 12 and that is the issue under the proposed amendment, clauses 198(1)(a) and (b), which provide for the replacement of trustees where a vacancy occurs.

Over the last little while, I guess we have all read about the tremendous cost that is involved in replacing not just trustees but also people who were members of municipal council when they move up to a senior level of government, be it here at Queen's Park or be it in the Parliament of Canada, or perhaps they become deceased or incapable of holding office.

It seems to me it is about time, considering the present economic climate we are in and the tremendous cost to government and the deficit that is projected, that we should be approaching this in two new ways. First of all, we should be looking at it in terms of ensuring that the democratic will of the electorate is carried out and I would suggest that could be done, not just in the Education Act but also in the Municipal Act, by putting into the bill the fact that if there is a vacancy through death or whatever purpose, and there had been an election in that previous year and there had been other people who ran in the election and that they are still around, still alive and not incapable of holding office because of mental incapacity, the person who should take the seat should be the person who polled the next highest votes in that election.

The question of appointment of a person to a school board or to a municipal council by the people who were in fact sitting on the council or the school board, I would submit to the minister, certainly does not create an image of justice among those people who have cast their ballots in the previous election. What it smacks of perhaps -- and I am not suggesting that this is the case but it could be perceived by them, depending on who the person was who received the seat -- is that it is the old boys' club or old girls' club. I would submit that surely in this day and age, when we have reached the degree of rights that we have under the Charter of Rights and the recognition that people have some problems with politicians who were perhaps not the most honourable people -- and I think that that is not true, serving in this House, but certainly a perception can be created by that. People who take part in elections and cast their ballots can very often believe that an action on the part of a council either in setting its own salary or, in this case, appointing someone to fill a vacancy can be perceived as an effort to simply favour one or another person.

In the past little while in Metropolitan Toronto, my own riding of Brampton South and several other ridings, we have seen municipal councillors replaced by the process of an applicant filling the position. I have to say right off that in my own community, from a municipal standpoint, the person who was appointed was in fact the person who polled the next highest number of votes in the previous election, but I have to tell members about the process.

The process, as perceived by the constituents in my riding, had to be absolutely horrendous. They put an advertisement in the newspaper. Forty-two people applied for the job, and sat there through a rather lengthy council meeting, and then they went through some process that was in fact challenged by one of the councillors.

I am not criticizing the council. I am not criticizing the way it was done, but I do feel some empathy for those 43 people or whatever the number was who sat there all night and anticipated that they might have a shot at that seat, and in fact they did not. They all spoke. It was a very lengthy council meeting. It ate up an awful lot of tape, but the council followed the process that was in place now.

What I am suggesting is that if we are to ensure the image of politicians, the image of the whole system of government and the image of justice, and that justice should not only be done but appear to be done, we should be approaching this process in a far different way, as I have suggested.

It is interesting that the minister has brought these amendments forward. I in fact have two amendments that are in the works with legislative counsel that would deal with the Education Act as well as with the Municipal Act and they would provide those safeguards, as I see them, safeguards not only to democracy but to the financial viability of our province, saving all that money that is spent in a direct election.

If there was no previous election, it was an acclamation, or if the person next in line in terms of number of votes cast is not capable of taking the seat for whatever reason, then in fact you can resort to an election. I do not think, with respect, that in this day and age the appointment of a person either to fill the role of a trustee or to fill the role of a municipal councillor will be viewed with any degree of respect or integrity if it is done in this process. This may have been fine in the old days -- and perhaps it should have been abolished in the old days, because I suspect there was a great deal more clubby atmosphere in the old days as to who got the nod for the seat.

It is also important to consider the amount of honorariums that are available in most school boards and municipal councils. They are significant. The taxpayers are up in arms over local taxes, and they demonstrated that in the last election. They in fact want to be satisfied beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are receiving true value for the tax dollar they find so difficult to contribute to maintaining public democracy.

I speak against the amendment. I will speak against the same amendment if it is brought forward in terms of the Municipal Act because, with the greatest respect, I think we do ourselves a disservice and we do the public a disservice by continuing this practice, which, as I say, may be totally honourable. I would not want to comment on the integrity of the process as it has occurred anywhere in this province, but certainly to the people who view it, they are suspect, and particularly when they see someone who perhaps knew most of the people on the council or the school board getting the nod.

Finally, the important fact as well is that the person who polled the second-highest number of votes is a person who, I am sure, in order to do that must have been aware of the issues that were important to the electorate during that election and, that being the case, will have an interest in school board or municipal government. I suggest that you get the benefit of a person who is capable of moving into the seat, either the school board seat or the municipal seat, and being able to pick up the line of what is going on in the municipality and being able to be an effective member. This becomes particularly significant if the vacancy takes place late in the term where this person may just come in and fill the role and he or she may not understand what is going on at the council. What you are really carrying, with all due respect, is a piece of deadwood that is being paid an honorarium just like every other effective member of the council or school board and is not carrying his or her weight.

1540

I would urge the minister that she might reconsider either changing that section or, as has never happened in the history of this province -- with the exception, I think, of a bill brought in by the member for Riverdale. I think it was to change daylight saving from one point to the other. There has never been a private member's bill in this House, with the exception of that one, that has ever been accepted by the government of the day. And that was our government; the Tory government and the NDP government, I suspect, would be of the same.

Being New Democrats, one would think the government would be totally democratic about it and would give the opportunity to a private member, pour moi -- how is that? My French is coming along well, eh? -- to at least put that bill forward, and perhaps it would have the public hearings on that private bill when it is introduced and withhold passing this one.

Finally, I would say to the government that we do not see this type of approach in our senior levels of Parliament. The government does not have us standing here in this House and appointing someone outside to fill a seat here. We hold an election. If democracy in that vein is good enough for the senior levels of government, then it should be good enough for the levels of government at the school board and the municipal levels.

I urge the minister to consider that. Perhaps this matter will go out for public hearings. Perhaps what I have said will be reiterated by other citizens of this province who consider that is an appropriate way to deal with it. Perhaps when the final order of the day is made, either the suggestion I have made or the suggestion that comes about as a result of the public hearings -- because the people out there in Ontario who are not in politics probably have a more realistic approach in many ways to what we are trying to do in this Legislature.

If the minister would keep an open mind, I would indicate that if there are no amendments made to this section I will be voting against it when it comes before the House for final reading, because I totally disagree with it. I think in a modem way, even though we are not saying it, the people out in Ontario, who are really considering that politicians are something close to the second oldest profession in the world, are hearing from us the words of Marie Antoinette: "Let them eat cake."

Mrs Cunningham: I rise this afternoon to speak on behalf of our caucus, along with some of my colleagues, to the bill called An Act to amend the Education Act that has been introduced this afternoon.

On the very last page of this bill, page 17, the short title of this act is Education Amendment Act (Miscellaneous), 1990. I would like to start by speaking to that term "miscellaneous." This is far from a miscellaneous bill. It contains a number of substantial changes to the Education Act.

May I describe to the members an experience that I had this morning in speaking with l'Association canadienne-française de l'Ontario. They were very disturbed that members of this House may in fact speak this afternoon against the creation of further French school boards. That is not the intent of my discussion this afternoon, and I speak, I would say, especially on behalf of all of my colleagues on that point in that we understand, that across the province of Ontario there will be and there should be more French-language school boards. There is no doubt in my mind.

I speak especially today to the member for Lake Nipigon, who is always very concerned about how I present myself in this House. So to the member for Lake Nipigon, I will tell him right now that I am going to speak in a very positive way about changes that I think should happen to make this legislation better for everybody.

I started by saying this is far from a miscellaneous bill. Although it substantially deals with French-language education, section S covers a change in how separate school boards extend under the terms of Bill 30. My objection is this: If indeed the New Democratic Party in its election promises -- and I think from its performance during my tenure in this House, it believes in public consultation and believes in input, believes in the right for people to have a better understanding through communication -- and if its members meant it when in fact, on numbers of occasions, they stated that they did not believe in government by regulation, I would suggest strongly that they reconsider not what they are doing here, but how they are doing it.

And I will say it again to the member for Lake Nipigon, because I want him to understand my position. I am in favour, as are many of my colleagues, of more French-language school boards where numbers warrant, and not just because there has been a Supreme Court decision. I wish that had not been necessary.

We have enjoyed a very positive attitude, certainly, in our committees over a period of time in promoting French-language education in Ontario. Certainly in this Legislative Assembly, I would say all three parties, when given the opportunity -- and now we have it -- have wanted to speak positively about that. But this bill sets up roadblocks for trust and confidence because there has not been the public consultation.

The ministry -- and I will get back to section 5 on how separate school boards extend under the terms of Bill 30 -- has reached an agreement with the Haldimand-Norfolk board to extend in a single year through purchase-of-service agreements. That was a consultative process. It was something that the ministry agreed to. It was something that was probably very much appropriate for that board. I am not arguing with that.

Yet instead of amending the act to deal with this specific case, the government will now impose this model on the other 16 regions that have not as yet extended. I am not sure that is a good idea. Certainly it was not the understanding when many of us were involved in the public discussions around Bill 30, which was very controversial. There came to be some degree of trust and understanding that if the ball game should change, or the rules should change, the public boards, the separate boards, the public, parents and students could clearly understand the changes because there would be a bill put forward for change, or an amendment, which they could be consulted about.

We do not have the opportunity to go out to our boards in the next couple of days in a meaningful way to talk about that and whether or not that in fact should be the model for boards across the province over the next years or decades, or whatever. I am sure the government is not confident that everybody agrees with it, but that kind of discussion could take place in a committee of this Legislative Assembly very quickly. I am not trying to drag it out. I am saying that if there are boards and they were warned and advised very quickly, if this was of some concern to them, we should be asking for their input. And that is a separate issue from the extension and the support for further French-language school boards, and I underline it as being separate.

It may be a miscellaneous bill to the government, but it certainly is not to school boards, which are now wondering about governments, about the cost of education, about good management and, above all, about communicating with parents and families and having trust in politicians and governments, and that means all of us.

1550

It is a significant change that the Minister of Education is imposing without consultation with the affected school boards and I would urge that this consultation take place. I urge that it be deleted from the bill so that it can take place. That would be an alterative. Perhaps we can carry it off in a committee meeting next week, I do not know, but I am open for that and I hope the government will be as well.

On the point of openness, this bill will allow the creation of additional school boards in this province by regulation. I hate to use the word, but it is one that is often presented to myself as a politician, I do not like it very much, but they say, "Oh, you people make deals behind closed doors."

If we do not want to make deals behind closed doors, why not have a bill such as we did in the case of the Ottawa-Carleton French-Language School Board and the Metro school board, and have the bill open for public consultation so that we are not accused of making these kinds of deals behind closed doors.

Having said that, I understand that in a press conference this year the minister said she was going to encourage open discussions around the Prescott-Russell school board and Simcoe, and I would say that she is most welcome to bring legislation in for both those boards. I think they are fairly far along in their discussions.

I know that a commission has been set up and we certainly agreed with it, although we took some opportunities to say that we thought she should have set up the commission first. I am now talking about the French Language Education Governance Advisory Group. That group could be most useful in bringing forth fruitful and conclusive discussions for both those two boards, not unlike a different commission did for the Ottawa-Carleton situation, but there were public hearings.

We do not want to be part of a Legislative Assembly, and I am sure members of the government do not want to be part, where deals are made behind closed doors. In fact, that is what happens when we find that there is not full public consultation with the local community and existing school boards. The Premier, when he was the Leader of the Opposition, not only in his campaign during the summer months but certainly in his performance here in this Legislative Assembly, was one person who I think was trusted because he always encouraged openness and more consultation. He often spoke against, and I will underline these three words, government by regulation.

Also, with due respect to my friend the member for Lake Nipigon, from time to time I have heard him voice those words. I do not really think he wants me to go find the Hansards -- I think he will trust me -- but he talked a lot about government by regulation when in opposition.

Hon Mr Pouliot: Oh, you have better things to do with your precious time. Be sure the quote is accurate.

Mrs Cunningham: He and I could have a conversation about this later if he is denying it at this point in time. Of course, I would not say this if I had not already seen it in print.

Having said that, I would like now to move on to the Supreme Court decision because I think this is one the minister is most concerned about. We share her concerns as to compliance and the legality of allowing French school boards to operate where numbers warrant. We recognize that the March 1990 Supreme Court decision means that Ontario must proceed with the creation of additional French-language education where numbers warrant. I would venture to say from in my time in this House that the members of this Legislative Assembly, and certainly individual members from all three parties and certainly in my work on the social development committee, would be most supportive of this decision and would want to assist.

Rural school boards have gone through the open consultative process, and where the minister's advisory committee has advised her and where she could assure this House that this was what the community thought was important and what was necessary -- right now the feeling is that this opportunity will not be there for the school boards as they look at the legislation that is presented today.

We do not agree, as I said before, with the process that is being promoted in this bill. We do not want extension by cabinet decision, something that the New Democratic Party spoke very strongly about on a number of occasions over the years, I would say. We want a full consultation with the local communities.

No one would argue that Prescott-Russell should not have a French-language school board. However, everyone in that community must be involved in the discussion. Why not bring forward legislation, if in fact that has already happened, that will allow this full consultation and ultimately the school board, as has been done in the past.

If members of this Legislative Assembly have come to this assembly as former members of any school board, if they have been attuned to the concerns of the public in Ontario during the last election, if they are in tune with the real concerns of school boards and municipalities and people who are wondering what they are getting for their tax dollar, they will not be surprised that one of the great implications of additional school boards is the financial responsibility and the cost.

I am going to say this very carefully for both the minister and the member for Lake Nipigon. I believe that the principle and the extension is very necessary.

Hon Mr Pouliot: Don't slip.

Mrs Cunningham: I also think, and I will not slip, that it is a responsibility of elected people to consult fully and understand whose responsibility the cost is. I think we get people angry because they do not understand decisions and have not been part of the consultative process. If French-language school boards want the full support of their community, I think this bill does them a tremendous disservice by not allowing full consultation after the bill has been presented in each and every community, so that everyone clearly understands who is going to pay for what, what the geographical area will be and who will be teaching in those schools.

This is exactly what we had to do around the implications of Bill 30, in each and every school board across the province of Ontario, around each and every school that was transferred and around each and every program that was paid for either by the individual boards or through purchase of service agreements.

There was not always agreement, but in the end everybody was able to say that they had a voice. It did not make things better some days, but it certainly made it better for those of us who represent the public in this Legislative Assembly. I at times have had to come here with the confidence of knowing that boards had to agree to disagree, certainly around costs, certainly around program availability, certainly around busing, certainly around the accommodation of students. But at least there was public consultation and people understood what they were getting into. Then what we had was the true local autonomy of school boards, because they had the opportunity to discuss.

During the election, the NDP promised to increase funding to 60%. Now the minister has indicated that education finance will be studied by the Fair Tax Commission. We are not here to criticize. We are hoping they can make this kind of goal happen through whatever way they can. If it means education becomes a greater priority, I am on the minister's side; she has tremendous support over here. I will say again that this will be discussed in the Fair Tax Commission. Yet at this point in time, everyone is nervous about talking about who pays.

This bill, at least, does not give individual boards that are created by an act of this government and sent out for public consultation the opportunity to have that open discussion. Therefore, people then become angry -- the minister may not like me saying this -- at the wrong people, the people who are having to create these boards for the best education and the rights of their own children. If we do not have the open process, the only ones who lose are the francophone children. I think that is wrong.

Before we institute needed fundamental change in how we finance education, we are now introducing another expensive initiative. I think that for a matter of months it should be the priority of this government to take a look at the finance of education, which was one of its promises. We should be doing that as quickly as possible, not waiting two years, but doing it now. This can all be part of it. There has been no indication how expensive these boards will be or who will have to pay for them, and I think it is everybody's responsibility in these tough times to talk about this cost.

1600

During the election, the Progressive Conservative Party committed to not introducing a single new initiative without providing provincial funding to cover the cost. We wanted to protect property-tax payers, particularly seniors, who have struggled under double-digit mill rate increases. We need to discuss the costs of all new initiatives in an open forum, however painful that may be. I think that after we have talked about the opportunity to extend these boards, and we have the full support of all three parties to do so, what we need to do now is to provide a model so that this open process can be supported by all boards in this province, no matter which boards are being affected. This government, I believe, will indeed gain in trust and confidence if it takes a look at the changes that some of us are suggesting this afternoon.

I support my colleague the member for Brampton South when he raised some concerns about the replacement of school board trustees and offered the minister some amendments to be of assistance. I think that can be discussed in committee as well.

The public school boards have been critical, as the minister knows, because the legislation was tabled, in their view, without warning. I think if we were able to refer this to committee, which is certainly the intent of our party, to the standing committee on social development to meet next Monday and Tuesday, some of these concerns could be aired and the minister would have an opportunity to take a look at some solutions that are presented. I think this government has a wonderful opportunity to operate in a very different way than the past government.

No one is asking them to hold this whole thing up. We are asking them to take a look at some suggestions in those committee hearings on Monday and Tuesday. The government, of course, has the prerogative to deal with it in whichever way it wants to, and we are trying to be very helpful in our remarks this afternoon.

We are in favour of the principle of the legislation with regard to the extension for the French-language boards. We are not in favour of the extension with regard to the Bill 30 funding, which makes it very difficult for us to vote this afternoon. We are not in favour of the changes with the trustee replacement, which makes it very difficult for us to vote this afternoon. I would beg the indulgence of the government as we take our positions today, because we have been presented in one piece of legislation with three different issues and my caucus colleagues are having difficulty agreeing on the full bill.

Hon Mr Pouliot: You can take a walk.

Mrs Cunningham: No, we will not be taking any walks. We will be here to do what we were elected to do, and that is to advise the government wherever possible on how our constituents feel. I have spoken in good faith this afternoon. I have appreciated the opportunity. We do not believe that this Education Amendment Act (Miscellaneous) is miscellaneous. We think there are far-reaching implications for school boards. We will be referring this to committee later on this afternoon. I thank you for the opportunity to speak.

The Deputy Speaker: Are there any questions or comments?

Hon Mrs Boyd: I would like to make a comment on both the statements that have been made. First of all, with respect to the election issues, certainly at some point there is no question that this government wants to look at the election of municipal officials and school boards, but we did feel that was an appropriate thing that needed to have further discussion, with those groups, largely because of the issues that arose from the most recent election.

We did feel that as a meantime effort we wanted to have some way to provide for the election of school board trustees in an election year. We are not going to be able to do full electoral reform prior to the 1991 municipal elections and therefore that was a consideration, that we wanted in some way to regularize the situation for school boards since we were putting forward this act.

With respect to section 5, I have a concern that the critic does not understand. Both subsections 4 and 5, as those are changed, do provide for a full Planning and Implementation Commission. There is a consultation process there. I cannot extend, unless that has happened. It has happened in Haldimand-Norfolk, and the consultation process is not being subverted.

There was a great deal of discussion on the other point that is raised. I would suggest to the member that because of the timing that is involved, we are suggesting regulation for those two school boards until the French-language advisory committee reports, at which point we would be bringing forward a full legislative package.

Mr Martin: This afternoon as I rise to speak to this question, I have to say that it is, for me, a question of great importance to this province and indeed this country.

Contrary perhaps to the previous speaker, I certainly see this bill as one of the extension of rights to the French population of our province. I think we have to look at this bill and its intent, which is to further the position of the francophone population of Ontario in a way that is meaningful and will in actual fact do something to improve its situation and allow the adult population to share with their children a culture and a way of living that they have been having a difficult time trying to protect in this province and this country for a long time.

In looking at this bill, I think it is important for us to put it in some context. The context I would like to place it in is certainly a historical one that speaks to where we come from as a nation. I think we also have to look at this bill in terms of the situation we find ourselves in now, as a province and as a country. I think also we have to look at this bill and the new legislation in the light of the people who are actually putting it in place -- our party, the minister and the educational community out there in Ontario today.

I think once we have looked at that, we will have less fear as we move forward with this, I say, as quickly as we possibly can because we have kept the French community of our province and our country waiting too long.

Historically, our Constitution speaks to some very definite rights for the francophone population of our country and our province, rights that have not always been readily recognized or paid attention to or concretely presented in any meaningful way. We, as a country, have developed differently in experience from our American neighbours in that we choose to recognize and celebrate differences among us and to enshrine some of those differences in legislation. They are not just something that we speak about. They are something we actually live and spend money on, so that people can further them in ways that speak to an evolution of a country that initially was made up of three founding cultures.

Personally, as I look at that historical development or evolution, I think of myself, an immigrant to this country in 1960 from Ireland, arriving in a community called Wawa where there was a mixture of every nationality that one could actually think of at that time. There were Italian people. There certainly were natives. There was a fairly large French population. We lived in relative harmony one with another and appreciated each one's celebrations because we were a small community and participated fully in those. For me, it was a very important part of who I am today. I was challenged in that small community to respect, tolerate, understand and live side by side with my neighbours of different cultures, backgrounds and faiths.

1610

I went from Wawa to Laurentian University in Sudbury where I came in full contact with a very large, highly motivated, well-organized francophone population. Initially I was jarred and stood back, somewhat afraid and intimidated by it all, but after having studied it from afar for a bit, I decided that the best way to deal with it was to step in, become part of it and learn from it. I actually took a couple of French conversation courses so that I could participate more fully with the members of that community at that level.

Because of that experience, I grew as a person and I was able to take the person I became back to the communities I then went on to work in. I firmly believe that the communities I worked in grew because I brought with me an understanding of the French experience, the French culture and language, that was refreshing, open and, as I have said before, tolerant. I think that is the kind of thing we want to promote in our country.

I do not see, to be honest with members, a better opportunity and a more optimistic place to do that kind of thing than in our education system, where we are actually working with children and offering them opportunities to come to understand their culture more completely, so that they then might share it with the rest of us and we might become a country that can be proud of its diversity.

It is in that context as well that I look at some of the negative things that have happened in our country over the last couple of years, which speak to a need for us to do some things differently at this point in time. I think we have to be less fearful. We certainly have to move cautiously and with some intelligence, but also not be so careful that we become paralysed and are afraid to take the steps necessary to ensure that our French neighbours, brothers and sisters have the opportunity to further their culture.

I just have to look at the way we have dealt with the French population over the last couple of years. Meech Lake is a perfect example of how we dealt very poorly with an opportunity and actually blew it. Because we blew it, we find ourselves today in a situation where our country could literally fall apart. That is very sad for me and causes me great pain, and I am afraid.

I look at the way we dealt with our native brothers and sisters at Oka this past summer. That was a mistake as well because governments were not willing to take stands that made some sense quickly and earlier. We ended up in a situation where we actually were taking up arms against one another. I sometimes sat and watched television, read the papers and talked with friends during that whole scene at Oka, and wondered if this really was my country and if this really was an example of the way we wanted to deal with differences among us. We were so afraid to take action that spoke to providing for the rights people have according to their history and our Constitution, and so we ended up actually taking arms against each other. It is difficult to understand, but that is the way it is.

From that we move into the present situation we are in now and we have to look at that. We are in a situation now in our country where our French brothers and sisters feel that they have not been listened to. They feel that we are for ever reneging on promises and that we do not have the will to really move their agenda forward, to really give them what they need to do the job they require in order to make their culture alive and well.

I see some parallel to Meech and Oka when I look at the fact that just in the last few months, as I have been part of the education process here, we are in a position of possibly being taken to court. To me, that is not the way to have our country evolve, being forced to do things because of court decisions.

I think there is a more intelligent way of doing things and certainly the legislation we are speaking to here speaks to us of taking some action, but within that action there actually is opportunity for some very significant consultation. The difference in the consultation we are talking about is that it will be effective, will encompass a wide group of people, but will not go on for ever. It will have a beginning and an end and then we will decide and things will happen.

The announcement of a French-language advisory group speaks to consultation on a province-wide basis on how we will introduce the implementation of new French-language school boards. After they have consulted widely and come up with a set of procedures that we will use to introduce French-language school boards, then communities will actually be involved in what that will actually look like in their own particular community. There will be options available as to how they might want to do it.

I think that is a positive step and certainly different from what actually took place regarding the introduction of Bill 30 and some of the kerfuffle that happened over the last year in our province where we actually saw communities at each other's throat over French-language issues.

It is interesting to note that certainly the French community is behind this initiative and is willing and ready to participate in the discussions and in the opportunities that are going to be set up for discussion around these questions.

At this time we have our hands tied to a degree on this question. Certainly the Mahé court decision leaves us little option in terms of what we might do. As I said a few minutes ago, we are threatened with court action. We certainly do not want to end up in a situation where we are forced by court action to do things that may not make as much sense as things we might do if we actually enter into some consultative process and then move it ahead.

Our hands are tied to some degree by the fact that we are very quickly moving into an election year, and we want to relieve the pressure and the pain that is being felt at the moment by the folks in Prescott-Russell and those places who want to get going with their own school boards.

The present situation has it that we are in somewhat of a hurry because of the 1991 election year regarding school boards and because of the Mahé decision and the potential for court challenges and being forced to do things that maybe we do not want to do.

The exercise here is one really of tidying up initiatives that were started by the previous government that actually were very good, and were a step forward -- the recognition of the rights of the francophone population and trying to actually provide some concrete action in that respect. However, we now need to take further steps to move that along. I say that we cannot wait for ever. We have to move.

The third piece of the context that I would like to present to folks here today is the fact that we as a government have promised we will be consultative. In the couple of months we have been operating up to now, we have been talking to as many people as we possibly can about the things we might do. The processes that are in place through this new legislation certainly speak to a very significant consultative process being part of that.

Personally, my involvement with the minister over the last couple of months has shown me a person who truly believes in consultation, listens well, is not afraid to meet with any group at any time regardless of the situation or the circumstance, asks very incisive, intelligent questions, sums up a situation very quickly and her summations make a lot of sense, and then after listening to people she decides. The decisions she has made so far, in my experience, have impressed me as ones that take in all of what she has heard.

1620

I have no fear, as parliamentary assistant to the present Minister of Education, that the decisions we will make after we have consulted with the folks we said we would and the people of this province as we move this legislation forward will not be the best solutions possible, particularly for the francophones of our province. I think as well it will be the best solution possible for those of us in this province who are not of francophone heritage who want to show tolerance in the best way we can, who want to celebrate differences and diversity of peoples and who want to see Canada evolve in a way that will allow us to stand with our heads held high in the international community as people of peace, of a place where everybody is respected, and not only respected but willing to put our money where our mouth is. Certainly there is a cost to things like culture and language, a price, but the price is well worth it.

I end my comments here by saying that everything I see -- before and now and as I look into the future re this legislation -- speaks to me of some very positive, optimistic movement forward re how we as a people in Ontario will live together, French and English, and respect each other's culture and wants and desires. So I would recommend to the assembly that it vote in favour of this and not wait too long, move it along quickly so that our French brothers and sisters do not have to wait another year or two to see their most ardent desires at least begin to be answered, and so their children, who are growing quickly and moving through a system, can be given the best that we can offer so that they might reach their potential.

The Deputy Speaker: Are there questions or comments?

Mrs Cunningham: I appreciate the message that the member for Sault Ste Marie is presenting to the House this afternoon, and I would not want him to think for one moment that we are not concerned about the points he is making. That is not what we were talking about. We agree with what he said.

I am going to be very specific. When a school board is established by an act of this House, we will see in the act, according to this bill, the area of jurisdiction of a French-language school board, the structure of that board, the assessment and payment of rates, and the dissolution of another board or a section of another board. My point is that any one of those agreements, in a regulation, can be changed at the discretion of the minister. In both the Ottawa-Carleton and the Metropolitan Toronto situation, they can only be changed by a resolution of this House. There is a very clear understanding of how those boards operate and what consensus they came to together in determining how they wanted their French school boards to operate. It cannot be changed without those boards being involved.

I would suggest that this is our problem with this bill this afternoon. We are not trying to hold up, as the minister said. She wants to go ahead with Prescott-Russell. I think she may, depending on what the commission recommends. I should say that about Prescott-Russell, but certainly with Simcoe, to go ahead there, then bring the bills to us. Let us see what in fact the minister has gathered from her consultative process. In both instances before, there was never an argument in this House. All we are saying is that is what we want for school boards. We respect their local autonomy. We also respect the fact that when we are involved, rules can only be changed when they are debated publicly and when every member of this Legislative Assembly has an opportunity. That is all we are saying.

Mr Beer: It is a pleasure for me to rise and participate in this debate. I would like, during the course of my remarks, to deal first of all with the principles of the two bills before us and then also talk a bit about the question of process and consultation, because I think that is an element we must deal with in the House. I think some of the discussion around that has been particularly useful.

I would like at the outset to commend our colleague the member for Sault Ste Marie for his comments, his sort of personal approach to some of these issues, in a sense beyond the legislation but really talking about the spirit of it. Perhaps I might publicly commend his predecessor, Karl Morin-Strom. In my former role as minister responsible for francophone affairs, Karl was always very supportive of the basic recognition of minority language rights in this province. I think that he served his constituents well in trying to put forward those views. I would like to state publicly at this time my appreciation for the work he did.

J'aimerais aussi souligner le vrai principe du projet de loi 112 sur la question des conseils scolaires de langue française. On sait fort bien que dans cette Assemblée législative nous avons discuté de cette question.

Ça fait presque 25 ans maintenant qu'il y a un droit légal, un droit de l'Assemblée législative de l'Ontario qui assure l'enseignement en langue française dans cette province. Vraiment, il y avait des représentants de tous les partis, durant cette période, qui ont travaillé pour élaborer le système d'écoles de langue française et pour appuyer les droits linguistiques dans cette province.

Donc, quand ma collègue la députée de London North dit que ce n'est pas le principe qui est le sujet de discussion, je pense que c'est vrai. La majorité des députés dans cette Chambre durant ces années en effet ont appuyé le principe.

Ça prend parfois du temps pour finalement arriver à une solution que la communauté veut bien voir. Mais je pense que durant ce voyage, nous avons essayé de développer un système pour aider les francophones dans cette province.

Donc, le principe de créer les conseils scolaires de langue française est un principe que l'ancien gouvernement a appuyé. Le ministre de l'Éducation, au printemps, a dit qu'on allait nommer une commission pour élaborer la façon de mettre en vigueur ces conseils. Et, avec le projet de loi que vient de déposer le nouveau gouvernement, on arrive à un principe qui est d'accepter la création de conseils scolaires, pas simplement à Ottawa-Carleton et ici dans le grand Toronto, mais dans d'autres régions de la province.

Ça, c'est très important et je suis sûr que nous tous partageons avec nos frères et nos soeurs francophones dans cette province leur joie de voir que l'on va maintenant élaborer un système de conseils scolaires. J'aimerais souligner ce principe.

In underlining that principle, I think one of the things we sometimes forget when we are discussing the question of minority language rights, because in this province it is the francophone community which is the minority linguistic community, is that in the legislation in the Education Act and in other legislation that we have on language, these are reciprocal rights, that we are not giving special protection to francophones, but in fact -- it is clear in the legislation -- we are protecting both the rights of French-speaking and English-speaking residents of this province.

It is very important to underline that, because I think some people forget that there are parts of this province where in certain counties and districts the majority of the population is French-speaking, and therefore the same rights and privileges that we seek to provide to the French-speaking minority in most parts of the province we want to ensure is also there for the English-speaking population in those areas where they are in a minority. As we go about this discussion, and certainly over the last several years as we discussed Bill 8, I think it is very important to continue to note that what we are doing here in the area of the protection of minority language rights is something that stems from our vision of Canada, of what this country is all about.

1630

People may have disagreement about that vision and about those principles, but I think this Legislative Assembly has been very clear on each and every occasion when it has been called upon to pronounce its view to say that in principle we see the protection of English-speaking and French language rights not only in this province but in this country as being fundamental and critically important. With this principle that we are coming forward with today in the education area, I think we can all see that as something that is part of the vision that we have and that it is reciprocal, that we mean to protect the rights and privileges for the French-speaking community and the English-speaking community here in Ontario.

The minister earlier this year announced the creation, as was mentioned before, of a French-language education governance advisory group, and this particular body, which is made up of both English- and French-speaking representatives with experience in the educational area will be, and indeed has begun its work, looking at the factors that we want to ensure are in place before creating a French-language school board.

A year and a half ago, I had the pleasure of spending a good deal of time in Prescott-Russell and talking with people there, those who were French-speaking, English-speaking, public and separate school supporters, about the whole concept of French-language school boards there, and one of the things we clearly recognized is that what we were talking about was changing the school board structure in that county, and it was going to affect both English and French-speaking persons, obviously.

I think that as this commission goes about its work, it will be looking clearly and will need to look at the implications in the two specific areas the minister noted in her press release at that time, both Prescott-Russell and Simcoe, in creating French-language school boards in terms of the other citizens of that area, because there will be impacts on the English-language boards, or in some cases we will also be creating, in effect, an English-language school board. Again, that element of equity, of equality, of ensuring that what we are doing here will be to create, in some cases, new boards, and the implications of those boards will be far-reaching.

Turning to what is set out in the act in terms of the regulatory power, I think it is critical that certainly those elements be included in that review, and it is terribly important that when this particular governance advisory group makes it report, we have a full discussion of that report either in this chamber or perhaps in committee, because if there is one lesson from my experience as minister responsible for francophone affairs that I would want to share with my successor and with the government, it is that when they believe they have explained as clearly as they possibly can the nature of language legislation or the approach on language in a number of different areas, they will find out that they need to explain it yet one more time.

It is so critical that we share with all the people of this province, that we work with them in ensuring that there is a basic and fundamental understanding of what it is that we are trying to do with respect to providing to francophones control over their own schools, flowing from not only the Supreme Court decision but, I think, from a desire on the part of all of us that there be this equality, this balance of English- and French-speaking rights.

The advisory group's work is very, very important. I know some of the people who are on it. I believe it is an excellent group and would simply say that at the conclusion of their work I would urge very strongly that we in the Legislature have an opportunity to look closely at what they recommend.

I think that in terms of regulatory power my friend the member for London North has raised an issue which, apart from this particular bill, as a principle is one that we have always wrestled with, because clearly regulatory power, in effect cabinet power, is one that, no matter how fine the intentions of a particular government or individual ministers, is none the less one in which any government perhaps at times may find it may be easier to do some things -- or there is the appearance that perhaps something is being done in a secret way or in a hidden way.

When we were discussing issues around the creation of other school boards informally, I know one of the things I was interested in was the possibility of developing a sort of model bill that one might apply, using the Ottawa-Carleton and Metropolitan Toronto experience. I can understand why the government at this point in time, in wanting to deal in particular with Prescott-Russell and Simcoe, would see that perhaps the way to go is by regulation, and I think if we could perhaps come to some understanding, have an agreement that we might want to sunset this particular approach, find a time frame that would be acceptable, that ultimately we would be able to deal with this by legislation.

I am not for a moment suggesting that what the government is trying to do here is to go off and come to a whole series of secret or hidden agreements. I think, in fact, the creation of the advisory group is going to mean that we have a very clear sense of the factors required to create those boards. But I would urge, as we look more specifically at this part, that we might want to consider, indeed think we ought to, some means of sun-setting, of bringing back to the Legislature that regulatory power and looking instead at proceeding later by way of a bill.

With the advisory group, with the specific elements that are set out here, I do believe, and would want to be very clear, that I think we can ensure that with proper consultation people will be very much aware of what is being proposed in Prescott-Russell and Simcoe, and in any other area.

There are several other areas of the province I know that are very interested in developing a French-language board. I am sure a number of them have probably made known their views to the minister. I think it is good to proceed in a slow and certain way in terms of the two boards that we set up, how they are working, moving on to two others and looking carefully before simply establishing a board, because we know there are many elements related to that and we want to make sure that as we go forward, everybody is able to move with us. But the principle is a good one. I think we will be able to proceed with this, and as I say, I would urge the government to look at that possibility of limiting the regulatory power to a certain time frame so that we can then address these issues through the presentation of specific bills.

The question of the extension of the separate school responsibility is one, I think, which flows again from our discussions in this House around Bill 30. It is clear that there was a specific problem around Haldimand-Norfolk and that we were going to have to resolve that no matter what. That was clear to the previous government. I think, and this is perhaps a place to say it, that we need to recognize that, as I understand it, what the government is proposing is that the Planning and Implementation Commission, as it has in the past, would play a very full role.

As I have viewed the work of that commission, I think it is appropriate during this debate to say that the men and women who have served on that particular body since its creation have done, in my view, an outstanding job. When you think that there are two issues which historically within this province have caused tremendous disharmony at different times, language and religion, in some ways the task that the Planning and Implementation Commission was given originally when Bill 30 was passed seemed almost insurmountable. But I think a historian looking back on how in fact Bill 30 has been implemented -- not without problems, not without concerns, but on balance, through the good work of the commission and, I think, the members of this Legislature -- will see we have been able to deal with some of the most difficult issues and problems around the implementation of full funding for the separate school boards.

1640

In my view, the approach that would be taken here in terms of the other 16 separate school boards which are not extended, the approach that the Planning and Implementation Commission always takes and indeed must take by its mandate is that there is full participation, that the membership of the commission itself includes representatives from the different groups within the educational system and that there would therefore be a very full debate or discussion within the community before any kind of extension would be carried out. So I think it is important to underline that role of the Planning and Implementation Commission.

At the same time, there is, as my friend the member for London North has mentioned, underneath and underlying all of these proposed changes, the question of financing. All of us who have been through the recent provincial election know that is an issue of great concern to everyone in this province.

What we are doing here is marrying the principle of recognizing certain rights and privileges which have been brought to bear through the Constitution and through legislative acts by this assembly and ensuring that we do that in a way that is financially responsible. Clearly what is important here is to work carefully with the school boards so that there is a balance. If things are being shifted, if a certain taxation base is being changed, it is imperative that the government work closely with the boards affected to make sure there is equality and equity as we go forward.

I think there is none the less a principle that is inherent in the legislation proposed by the minister, which is that we have started -- far more than started -- down the road from 1984 with the proposal for full funding of separate school boards, and we have to keep faith with that process and ensure that ultimately that option is there and available to those separate school boards that have not yet decided to take full advantage of that act.

If they choose not to do so, that is fine. In my view, what this bill does is set out a process and a way of approaching it which, in utilizing the Planning and Implementation Commission, will ensure that it is done fairly and equitably.

In terms of the determination of trustees, I think all of us who were here back in 1987 and 1988 certainly recall some of the difficulties we got into around the whole question of who is eligible and how the system will proceed, and I think it is important that we deal with that so that there is as long a period of time as possible, in this case from January on, to be able to ensure that we have that assessment system, that we have the determination of trustees set out in a way that nobody later on can come back and say it is unfair.

Clearly, there is going to be a need for very close work with local government officials, but I think that can be done and I believe that the court decision makes it imperative that we deal with that this fall.

All of those things then are very positive elements in trying to grapple with a number of real and long-lasting issues we have had before us. I think we need to come back again to remind the government around the issue of consultation. It is not a question of good intentions. Where so often we run afoul is, as we proceed in trying to develop the legislation and to discuss it, at times people get left out or they perceive that they have been left out.

One of the difficulties we have, as was mentioned earlier, is that a number of organizations, French- and English-speaking, separate and public, have been talking with various members in terms of trying to understand the legislation that is being proposed today and having a certain sense that they have not been consulted in as full a way as they would have liked.

If I hear clearly from my friend the member for London North, it is her view that this should be dealt with in this session. I think that is important and we believe that it should be dealt with in this session. If there is a way through the suggestion that she has made that would allow us to do that, I think we would be very supportive, and I think we can see some ways then of allowing people to set out their views but not affect the integrity of the principles that we are dealing with.

Whenever we are dealing with issues of language and religion it is very important that we almost bend over backwards, I believe, to make sure that people have had a say, because I think the points that have been raised by some of the associations, and again I want to reiterate, are not ones that deal with the fundamental principle, for example, of supporting French-language rights but are some legitimate issues that arise in any piece of legislation around how things are done, whether we are discussing the issue of regulation or exactly the formulae for determining trustees and the like. I think we want to keep that always in the forefront of our minds so that we can have that genuine acceptance by people that what we are doing is right and good and proper.

I would like, in concluding my remarks, to note that we believe the principles in this bill are sound and important. With some changes, we believe they could be even better. But it is important that we proceed during this particular session, and if we can find a way to look at some of the components of the bill, I think it would be important to do that next week along the lines that have been suggested by our colleague the member for London North.

So if we can move on in that way, I think we can make sure that francophones and anglophones will then see that, through this legislation, their rights and privileges have been provided with greater support and foundation and we will be able to move to bring to a close, or almost to a close, this whole half-decade or more of discussion around funding on an equitable basis of the two public systems, if you like, that we have, the public and separate. That is, I think, to all of our advantage and will take us a further step down the road of recognizing the basic rights and privileges that we have as Canadians and Ontarians in this province.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Haslam): Questions and comments?

Mrs Cunningham: I am just taking a couple of moments here to reflect on what my colleague the member for York North has offered the House this afternoon. I believe he is a person of significant experience, as is the Minister of Education, in dealing with people and communities and establishing trust and confidence. I would say that he has brought a point to this debate that I did not underline. That was these reciprocal rights, both the English-language school boards and the French-language school boards and the importance of open communication.

I will add that there have been numbers of amendments to the Ottawa-Carleton French-Language School Board Act, it being, I believe, flagship legislation. I believe that on every occasion, those of us who represent the public across Ontario and our constituencies were able to discuss those amendments. I think that was why we did not have the kind of anxiety that is happening across this country right now, as the member for Sault Ste Marie reminded us, around both the Meech and Oka issues.

I will say that I did travel this province, for reasons known to many, and one of the issues was Bill 8. My colleagues from the NDP caucus, at that point in time, were very concerned about process. They were very concerned about our taking every opportunity we can to get the support in the beginning, before a crisis arises. I see the potential here for that kind of crisis if in fact we are not very careful in our process.

With respect to the minister, I understand what she is trying to tell us about the two school boards she mentioned in Prescott and Russell and in Simcoe, and if in fact we are allowed to go to committee, which I believe we will be able to do, we will be speaking with the same kind of openness and concern that she has.

1650

Mr Martin: I just want to very briefly say that certainly we are all sensitive to the need for process and to do it properly. The concern I have is in our process, that it does not last for ever and there will be a beginning and an end, and that we choose at some point to decide on something and then we move with it.

I sense from my contacts, certainly with the French population of the provinces, that they decided they had waited long enough and they do not want to wait any more. In light of the historical moment right now -- I think members understand what I am saying -- it behooves us to move. However, I think the proposition put forth by the ministry at this point considers all of that and has come down with the position that will answer our needs and our fears.

The Acting Speaker: Does the member wish to reply?

Mr Beer: I think they were by way really of comment and there is no need to reply specifically. The point I think is simply that all of us want to deal with the issue and that we will have a way of doing that and ensuring that we can do it before the end of the present sitting.

Mr J. Wilson: I am pleased to be able to join the debate today on Bill 12 in particular, which allows for the creation of French-language school boards in Ontario by cabinet regulation and cancels the long-held practice of establishing school boards by legislation with open and extensive consultation.

Let me say from the outset that I am opposed to this bill both on procedural grounds and as to some of its contents. One of the problems with opposing a bill of this type is the label that can come with it. But let me assure this House that I am in favour of the extension of French-language education in Ontario where numbers warrant. But more important, I am in favour of sensible legislation that responds to a real need.

At the outset, I must commend the new government for showing remarkable consistency during its first kick at the legislative can. Bill 12 is following along the same flawed path as several other bills that this government has endeavoured to ram through this Legislature before we recess for Christmas. As a new member of this Legislature, I am appalled that this government has introduced so many significant bills in such a short period of time. We are sitting till midnight every night to try to have some discussion on these bills. We have absolutely no time to go back to our ridings and consult with our constituents, the very people who voted for all of us to be here. We are sitting very late. There are a number of interest groups we would like the opportunity to meet with and I think, with those remarks, it adds to the importance that this bill should go to committee.

I know there are a number of people in my riding -- my phone has been ringing off the wall in the last couple of weeks since the minister made her announcement that she was going to create two new school boards, one in Prescott and Russell and one in my area of Simcoe county. I very much believe that this bill should go to committee and that, contrary to what the member for Sault Ste Marie may have said, we need a great deal more time to discuss this.

This bill facilitates the creation of French-language school boards in Prescott and Russell and Simcoe county without any semblance of consultation with the people who are directly affected. Why form these two school boards now, when the bill creates a French-language education governance advisory group to set out the criteria for establishing these types of boards? The NDP government is creating new school boards now and then getting advice on how and where to create these boards later.

This is the most blatant abuse of the principle of common sense that I have ever known. I wonder what would happen if the government's own advisory group reported back to the minister next May with a set of conditions for establishing French-language school boards that runs contrary to the circumstances that led to the creation of a French-language school board in Simcoe county.

This is not an issue about preserving the French language or providing students with the opportunity to be educated in French. This is strictly an issue that pertains to an approach that has been conspicuously absent from this Legislature for the last five years. That approach is the application of common sense to legislation. If early signals are a true indicator, and I suspect they are, then this commonsense approach will once again be sacrificed on this government's agenda of political expediency.

When the minister announced the legislation on 14 November, she said in a news release, "The ministry will begin discussions immediately with interested parties in two counties of Ontario in which French-language governance is of pressing concern -- Prescott-Russell and Simcoe counties."

At what point have we established the extent of the pressing concern in Simcoe county? I would venture to say that this concern cannot be based on numbers because only 2,000 of 50,000 students are French-language students, that is, 4% of the student population. This argument has merit in Ottawa-Carleton, where French-language students number 17,663. The minister's criteria cry out for definition.

The government must institute conditions and criteria for assessing the viability of establishing autonomous minority-language school boards. The costs to implement these autonomous boards and the viability of the education system and the impact on the existing system are vital factors that must be considered. I wonder if the minister has taken the time to meet with or read the mountains of correspondence that Fred Graham of Orillia has written to her ministry pleading for a commonsense approach to educational funding. I wonder if she is aware that 29 municipalities in Simcoe county have petitioned her ministry to conduct a comprehensive audit of the Simcoe County Board of Education.

Municipalities are not agitators, nor are they political terrorists. They are simply concerned that the educational portion of their taxes is escalating dramatically without any tangible returns. No one disputes that education is crucial for the maintenance and prosperity of a society, but the average person in Simcoe county is not finding a fair return on his or her investment. What they are finding is an endless stream of administrative waste. The creation of an additional layer of bureaucracy in Simcoe county to accommodate only 4% of the student population only guarantees that this trail of administrative waste will expand.

I wonder if the minister bothered to consult with the city of Orillia, the towns of Alliston, Bradford, Collingwood, Midland and Wasaga Beach, the villages of Beeton, Coldwater, Cookstown, Elmvale, Port McNicoll, Tottenham and Victoria Harbour and the townships of Adjala, Essa, Flos, Mara, Matchedash, Medonte, Nottawasaga, Orillia, Oro, Rama, Sunnidale, Tay, Tiny, Tosorontio and Vespra.

Did the minister ask any of them if they wanted another layer of bureaucracy lifted on to their shoulders? Obviously she did not, because they would have told her what they told me, that relief for overburdened taxpayers has to be the government's main priority. This is an issue which cannot be disputed.

How is the minister responding to the anguished cries of beleaguered taxpayers and overburdened municipalities? In much the same manner as her spendthrift cousins in the Liberal Party, this minister ignores the pleas of the average person on the street and says: "I will not keep my hands out of your pocket. I would rather do what is comfortable and expedient and dig a little deeper into your pockets in the name of pleasing yet another interest group."

The priority for this government must be tax relief, not further spending. This message must be sent out from the top to both ease and rein in the spending of local school boards. Taxpayers in Simcoe county have no quarrels with paying for education. However, they have a great deal of trouble subsidizing administrative excesses.

Is the minister aware that the Simcoe board spent $13 million to construct an administrative centre which local taxpayers commonly refer to as the Taj Mahal? I recall during the campaign that the local NDP candidate made a great deal of hay of running around and reminding people that the Liberal government had allowed the local school board to build the Taj Mahal.

1700

Is the Minister of Education aware that taxpayers were forced to shell out an outrageous sum of $17,000 to pay for the ceremony to officially open this Taj Mahal? Does the minister realize that in a time of deepening recession the Simcoe County Board of Education trustees voted to give their director and deputy director of education raises of over 10% in the next two years? This raise comes shortly after board administration staff were given 8% raises.

Last year at budget time the board demanded that taxpayers across Simcoe county pay about 13% more in property taxes. This year's tax bite promises to be significantly higher. Is there any doubt why all these municipalities who are simply voicing the concerns of their ratepayers are pleading for a halt to this limitless tax bite?

But instead of agreeing to have the board undergo what is clearly a badly needed comprehensive audit, the minister says to these troubled municipalities, with her introduction of this bill, that they should be prepared to pay even more, because one way or another they, the local taxpayers, will have to foot the bill for the creation of a French-language school board in Simcoe county. They will have to pay to have an administrative structure oversee the operation of a school board with only 2,000 students.

When will this government send out the message that it wants to listen to people? I cannot support this bill because it has been put forward with absolutely no regard for the citizens of Simcoe county and in particular my riding of Simcoe West.

Let me read from a letter that was addressed to the Minister of Education, written by Mr Graham of Orillia on 2 October 1990, in plenty of time for the minister to have digested its contents, but I will refresh the memory of the minister and the members of the government.

"My involvement here is as a disenchanted, retired taxpayer who was requested to assist in this matter on a voluntary basis. What has triggered this action is that since 1988, which might be called the 'normal' spending year at the Simcoe County Board of Education, spending has soared at a breathtaking rate and in 1990 spending on operational functions is $52 million, or 28% more than it was just two years ago.

"Since provincial grants increased by just a little more than $5 million, the result has been horrendous increases in the education tax paid by property owners, with the total increase over 1988 being 29.7%. Since the wages of taxpayers have not increased by anywhere near these amounts, people are, of course, poorer and have less to spend. This reduction in spending ability is naturally felt by local businessmen and the ripple effect travels on."

What the NDP government is today telling Mr Graham and the hundreds of angry taxpayers who have called my office is that they can brace themselves for an even bigger tax hike because now they must fund an incomprehensible expansion of administration and more bureaucracy.

With only 4% of the student population listing the French language as their mother tongue, there is absolutely no legitimate ground for creating a French-language school board in Simcoe county based on the "where numbers warrant" argument.

Not only is the creation of an additional school board in Simcoe county difficult to understand, but the procedure through which boards will be created is undemocratic and an abuse of parliamentary tradition. Under this bill, new French-language school boards will be created through decisions by cabinet and will bypass the Legislature entirely. What this government is doing is suggesting that it knows best and that the will of the people does not matter.

But I guess this too is consistent with the fact that the government's Agenda for People -- that is, its widely touted agenda that was brought out during the election campaign -- is not worth the paper it is printed on because that document stressed consultation and promised that the NDP would listen to the people.

Where is the consultation on this piece of legislation? If the government gets its way, only 16 days will have passed since the first reading of this bill to the time it becomes law. In the meantime, there have been no public hearings and there have been no government briefings in advance of its introduction.

In fact, I was shocked to come in after sitting in the Legislature one afternoon to find the press release on my desk indicating that the minister was immediately moving ahead to enter into consultations to establish a French-language school board in my part of the province. Where was the consultation? She did not even have the courtesy to give me a call and let me know it was coming down the tube. I am just astonished.

I immediately notified our local media, who knew nothing about it, and our school boards, who knew nothing about it. Since that time I have done my very best to cover the bases here and to get out to talk to those constituents who are extremely angry about this.

Let me say that not only do I disagree with the creation of a French-language school board in Simcoe county because the numbers simply do not warrant it, but I am fundamentally opposed to the neglect of the democratic process which has occurred in the wake of Bill 12.

The voters did not vote for insensitivity and the dangerous concentration of power in the hands of cabinet ministers. They voted for openness and freshness. As a result, I will not be supporting Bill 12 and I must say that I am not at all optimistic about the future direction of this province in the hands of this NDP government.

Finally, in summary, I understand as a result of the Supreme Court decision that there will be French-language boards established in communities where numbers warrant, but I do not believe that a 4% threshold, a 4% francophone student population, warrants the establishment of a new French-language school board in the county of Simcoe.

The interests of French-language students in Simcoe county would be better served through the French-language representation on the existing school boards. We do not need more administration, more bureaucracy, higher taxes and a new Taj Mahal.

Hon Mrs Boyd: The previous speaker clearly has not understood either the legislation or the announcement that was made. The announcement that was made was made on 14 November so I am surprised he found it on his desk in the Legislature since we were not sitting.

What it said was that the ministry was empowering members of the French-language education governance advisory group to negotiate with the people in Simcoe county and in Prescott-Russell to see whether the needs of those communities could be met through the foundation of a French-language school board. Those negotiations are ongoing.

This bill does not create a school board in Simcoe. What this legislation allows is that if that community comes to a negotiated agreement that is in keeping with the Mahé decision, the ministry is empowered to enable that school board to be formed by regulation at this time.

Mrs Cunningham: On a point of appreciation, Madam Speaker: Can two of us go up from this party?

The Acting Speaker: On questions and comments?

Mrs Cunningham: Yes.

The Acting Speaker: Yes.

Mrs Cunningham: All right, two of us will and I am going to go first.

I would just like to make the point after my colleague's presentation this afternoon that I think he is an example of a member of this House who represents a community that has some very real concerns.

Whether or not the minister's comments are valid -- and I am sure the member will speak for himself as he does so well -- it does raise the question that people just do not understand what this announcement by the ministry and what this bill this afternoon really mean. What they really mean, and the minister has just given us her interpretation, is that after the commission has gathered its facts, it can then bring the facts back and the school boards will be created by the minister.

1710

I think that is why we are all concerned today, because in previous actions, although they took too long -- we would all agree, as the member for Sault Ste Marie has pointed out over and over again, that it took too long; we are ready -- I can tell members that if we proceed in this manner, this is just the beginning of the kind of anger that will take place if municipalities and school boards across this province think that the minister can just go ahead and create new school boards, whether they be English school boards for English-speaking students or French school boards for French-speaking students.

What we really need is to see the legislation in our hands and to take a look at it in communities, as we have done in the past. That is why this afternoon we heard a member of this House speak on behalf of the citizens in the way he did; it is because they are concerned about this legislation.

Mr Bisson: I understand what the member is saying, and I sympathize to a certain extent, but the thing is that I think we need to be careful when we talk about this issue. There are feelings, I understand, on both sides of the issue in regard to how people feel in relationship to their heritage either in the French community or the English community. But we need to be careful how we express and how we deal with it because it is a situation, as we have seen in the past, last winter, that could be very divisive. The danger that we face and are faced with today is in times of hard economic times, such as we are in right now, it does not take much for people to detract from the issue and to get upset and to try to blame somebody else for their problems.

The member should keep that in mind in regard to what she is saying. I understand what she is saying and I am sympathetic to the point that she makes, but she should keep in mind that it is something that as politicians -- and I understand what the member for London North is saying. I listened with great attention to her and what she said in opening up the debate. I take the points she made as being very constructive. The one thing that impressed me, and I just want to get on to that, is that during this whole debate she has sat there and she has listened to what has been said, and I have to commend her on that. But let's be careful when we talk on this issue.

There are two communities that are distinct within Ontario in regard to the official languages. We have rights within this community, both as anglophones and francophones, when it comes to education, and all that this bill does is basically bring forward those rights from what was in the Constitution and what was challenged and bring forward that not only are we able to get the educational language of our choice but we are also to have the governance of our own school boards. I see that as a very good thing and I applaud the government for that fact.

Mr J. Wilson: I too appreciate the comments from across the floor and I understand the sensitivity of the issue. I may be a new member of this Legislature but I was a political assistant for some seven years and dealt with minority-language groups extensively in my work, so I understand the sensitivities.

But I also understand that when the minister does simply issue a press release and when my local papers print it as not necessarily consultations leading to something else, print it as going to be the establishment of a French-language school board when only 4% of the student population has French as a mother tongue, that becomes a very powerful and direct message to the ratepayers of Simcoe county, who are already overburdened.

I think the key word is "communications," and that is why I do support sending the bill to committee. I do not want to see it rammed through before Christmas. I am sure even the Supreme Court would understand that with the sensitivities of this issue, it must be dealt with in a very consultative manner. There are other problems that the minister may want to address in Simcoe county and other school boards before even giving the impression of adding another layer of administration when there is no perceived need.

I think the minister may want to take a step back and address the issues that are there that we all heard in the campaign. We got it at every door, especially in Simcoe county because it had just built its Taj Mahal. The NDP candidate made one very large issue out of this in Simcoe county, because they had spent so much money on administration over the last few years. The new director of the public board in Simcoe county is now making upwards to $114,000 a year. He makes more than the Premier, and that is including the car allowance and everything.

So there are all these issues. It is not your fault, Madam Speaker, but there are all these issues mixed into this very sensitive school board funding issue. I would ask the minister to take a very careful look at it.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate? The member for Cochrane South.

Hon Mr Pouliot: No more comments, Madam Speaker?

The Acting Speaker: No, I am sorry. The member for Simcoe West was within his time limit to finish the debate and now we are on to further debate and the member for Cochrane South is standing.

Hon Mr Pouliot: I want to commend you on your nomination. Very graceful indeed, Madam Speaker.

The Acting Speaker: Is that a point of information or a point of order?

Hon Mr Pouliot: I accept gracefully what I cannot change.

Mr Bisson: I must say this is an education every day sitting in this House.

Je suis ici, moi, en tant que francophone, en tant que député de Cochrane-Sud et en tant que représentant de toutes les communautés de ma circonscription.

Notre collègue de l'autre côté de la Chambre a dit justement dernièrement que nous, en tant que députés dans cette salle et dans cette Assemblée, on est dans une situation où on fait la représentation de toutes les personnes de notre communauté.

Mais je veux donner un petit exemple, comme francophone en Ontario -- moi, je suis un Ontarien, je viens de la petite ville de Timmins, petit Ontarien qui suis éperdu à Toronto en ce moment -- et puis parler un peu de ce que ça veut dire cette affaire dont on parle et qui est le sujet du débat ici aujourd'hui. C'est une question personnelle pour un francophone.

L'affaire est que ça fait des années, ça fait depuis le temps que je peux me rappeler et le temps de mes arrière-grand-pères qu'on parle, en Ontario, de la question de l'éducation en français pour nos jeunes francophones de la province. C'est quelque chose qui a été étudié, dont on a parlé dans les coins de chambres, on en a parlé par-dessus les poêles à bois dans les années passées, on en a parlé dans les cuisines, on en a parlé en Chambre, ici à la l'Assemblée législative. On en a parlé à toutes les reprises possibles pour être capable d'en venir à une solution, quand ça vient, la question de l'éducation en français, mais pas seulement l'éducation, mais aussi la question, quand ça vient: «Qui va faire la gérance de nos écoles françaises ici en Ontario ?»

Cette gérance, va-t-elle se faire faire par les membres de la communauté qui sont touchés par l'éducation elle-même ? Ou est-ce que ce sera fait par d'autres membres de la communauté qui ne sont pas des représentants de la communauté francophone ici en Ontario ? C'est ça le point qu'on débat ici aujourd'hui. Il faut que les députés gardent ça en perspective.

Que les députés s'imaginent être dans une situation comme en éducation, où on va dire aux jeunes : «Vous n'avez pas le contrôle d'être capable de donner les directives pour les critères, d'être capable de déterminer ce qui est important pour l'éducation de vos enfants.» Qui peut mieux faire ça que les francophones eux-mêmes ?

C'est cette question dont on parle ici à l'Assemblée aujourd'hui. Moi, je suis fier d'être capable de me présenter ici, pas seulement en tant que député de cette Assemblée, mais comme membre du gouvernement et fier d'appuyer l'initiative que le gouvernement a mis sur pied avec cette question-là.

Comme je l'ai dit, ça fait longtemps qu'on en a parlé. On en a parlé de l'autre côté de la Chambre à quelques reprises. Quoi qu'il arrive, on a besoin de faire plus de consultations. Oui, je suis d'accord avec les députés : c'est toujours bon d'avoir des consultations, c'est toujours bon de parler en communauté pour essayer de comprendre les deux côtés de la question. Souvent, il y a beaucoup plus que les deux côtés de la question. C'est bon de pouvoir s'asseoir, comme adultes, comme personnes de cette province, de ce pays pour regarder nos différences et essayer de trouver une manière de s'avancer comme une communauté unie ici en Ontario.

Il faut dire que je suis d'accord sur ce point-là. Mais quand on en vient à cette question-ci, je souhaite et je crois que ce que les députés disent est sincère et que ce n'est pas la question de seulement reprendre cette législation-là entre le projet de loi 12 et le projet de loi 13 et les ramener en comité pour ne pas revenir encore. Je suis sûr que ce n'est pas ça l'intention. Mais l'affaire est, comme les membres des communautés francophones qui viennent me voir en tant que député ici à l'Assemblée législative veulent s'assurer, ils veulent avoir l'assurance que cette question-là va avancer.

Finalement, si les communautés elles-mêmes, si les personnes dans ces communautés-là décident que c'est avantageux d'avoir l'éducation en français par leurs propres commissions scolaires, qu'à la fin de la journée ça va être leur décision à eux, pas ma décision à moi en tant que député représentant ma circonscription, pas seulement la décision de la ministre de l'Éducation, mais de la communauté elle-même, que dans une région comme Hearst, Timmins, Prescott et Russell ou n'importe quel endroit dans la province où il y a une assemblée des francophones de la communauté ils décident qu'ils sont capables d'avoir la gérance de leur propre commission scolaire. C'est une entente à laquelle eux-mêmes, comme membres de cette communauté, vont être capables d'arriver. C'est ce que le projet de loi me dit.

1720

Sur la question de la consultation, il faut regarder une affaire dont on a parlé il y a quelques minutes. Il faut que je donne des commentaires au député de York North. Il a montré un point qui est très important et il faut que j'appuie ce qu'il a dit : oui, c'est que ce projet de loi-ci n'est pas seulement la question d'un francophone quelque part en Ontario qui veut avoir accès à l'éducation en français et en même temps avoir la gérance de sa propre école, mais c'est aussi parallèle pour la communauté anglophone. Il y certaines communautés ici dans la province qui se trouvent dans une minorité dans des villes comme Sturgeon Falls, Cochrane, Hearst ou d'autres communautés. Dans la circonscription de mon ami le député de Lac-Nipigon, c'est la même situation où la majorité est francophone, dans les 80 % ou 90 %.

Une autre affaire que cette législation veut faire, c'est répondre à cette question pour les enfants anglophones et les parents eux-mêmes, parce qu'elle est aussi important pour les anglophones, cette question-là, qu'elle l'est pour les francophones. C'est important que les jeunes dans notre société aient l'occasion non seulement de faire leur éducation dans la langue de leur choix, mais aussi que la gestion de ces institutions-là soit faite par leur propre communauté. C'est ça la question.

L'affaire est qu'il y a le danger, comme je l'ai dit il y a une minute, qu'on peut prendre une situation, qu'on peut prendre cette question-là et on peut se retourner et se mettre en consultation pour encore une autre centaine d'années. Ce n'est pas pour dire que ce n'est pas bon d'en parler aujourd'hui et d'en parler dans l'avenir, mais la question est qu'il faut commencer à faire des démarches. Il faut donner la présence à la communauté, le vouloir de la communauté et enfin lui donner le pouvoir d'être capable d'établir ses commissions scolaires eux-mêmes dans la langue de leur choix et avoir leur propre gestion.

L'affaire est que ce n'est pas la question que si ça se fait, si la législation est mise en place, il y a un groupe qui restera en arrière. Moi, je ne regarde pas cette législation-là dans une situation où ça met les anglophones dans les parties de la province où ils sont en minorité, ou les francophones dans les parties de la province où eux sont en minorité et qui vont perdre leurs droits. Non, ce n'est pas ce que cette affaire-là dit. Ça dit très clairement que la raison pour laquelle cette affaire-ci est mise en place aujourd'hui et qu'on fait le débat, c'est pour donner la chance à ces personnes-là dans leur propre communauté d'être capables de prendre les décisions quand il s'agit d'éducation dans leur communauté. Il faut également que je dise ça au gouvernement et qui a eu la perspicacité et d'être capable de mettre en place cette législation-là.

L'affaire est qu'il y a un autre point qu'il faut faire : qu'il y a le groupe consultatif sur l'éducation en langue française qui est mis en place suite à l'annonce qui a été faite. La question est de continuer la consultation mise en place et amener des recommandations au ministère pour être capable de déterminer exactement comment ça va se faire à ce point-là.

La législation dont on parle aujourd'hui, le projet de loi dont on parle, ce n'est pas la fin de la question, ce n'est pas la fin de la discussion. La discussion va continuer une fois cette partie-là passée.

Il y a un point qui a été soulevé et qui est intéressant. C'est intéressant parce que je pense qu'il n'y a pas seulement de ce côté-ci de la Chambre qu'on se le demande, je pense comme toutes personnes dans la province, toutes personnes de tous les partis qui se le demandent, que le monde -- il faut regarder sur la feuille qui est enterrée ici -- le député de Simcoe West a émis un point et a dit comment cela peut être dangereux si les gens ne comprennent pas exactement ce qui est en train de se passer, que ça peut être un danger parce que les gens ne comprennent pas tout ce que le gouvernement essaie de faire. C'est un point qui est très approprié. Il faut que je donne mon appui au député sur ce point-là.

Un des problèmes qui arrive, et je sais que le député le remarque lui-même en tant que politicien, c'est que plusieurs fois il y a des représentations qui sont faites, des fois des médias, des fois par d'autres groupes avec l'intention de donner un peu de confusion dans la situation. Je pense que la réponse que le ministère a donnée était exactement ça. Beaucoup de fois, et on le sait comme politiciens, l'histoire n'est pas rapportée de la manière prévue et ça sème la confusion. Là, comme politicien, que je sois de n'importe quel côté de la Chambre, on est dans une position pour dire : «Une minute, là, la vérité c'est ça.»

Moi, je pense que ce qu'on essaie de faire ici, on le fait d'une manière assez progressive. Ce n'est pas la question qu'aujourd'hui ce sera la loi et personne n'aura rien à y redire. On donne la chance de pouvoir amener des recommandations aux ministres eux-mêmes. Après cette question-là, que les communautés elles-mêmes prennent la décision. C'est ça le processus de gouvernement. Le gouvernement, ce n'est pas un processus où ici il y a un gouvernement et c'est seulement lui qui va prendre les décisions, et les gens, dans le fond, de toutes les classes de la société n'ont rien à redire dans l'affaire.

Je pense que cette législation donne un bon modèle dans la situation où on dit qu'on prend ces pouvoirs et on donne aux communautés elles-mêmes la possibilité d'être capables de déterminer comment cette question-là sera réglée.

Avec cette affaire-là, je félicite le gouvernement. C'est une question où oui, il y a eu de bons points qui ont été faits de chaque côté de la Chambre ; l'affaire est que ce sont des points qui sont très bons et qui sont les bienvenus de la part des députés de l'autre côté. C'est quelque chose qu'on a besoin de faire pour pouvoir s'asseoir ensemble, comme députés de chaque côté de la Chambre, comme les personnes dans la communauté, s'asseoir pour essayer d'avancer pour finalement reconnaître qu'il y a un fait francophone dans la province. On donne la possibilité aux francophones et aux anglophones minoritaires dans leur communauté de pouvoir faire la distinction à savoir dans quelle langue ils veulent recevoir leur instruction et qui sera responsable de la gestion de leurs écoles.

L'hon M. Pouliot : Monsieur le Président --

The Deputy Speaker: The member for London North.

Mrs Cunningham: With due respect to the member for Lake Nipigon, who is trying so hard this afternoon to get his two cents' worth in, we can hardly wait, and he is not even smiling. He used to be so pleasant when he was on this side of the House.

Having said that, in seriousness, I will compliment the House this afternoon and the members here. I think all of us realize the importance of this legislation and all of us are honestly expressing our concerns.

I would say to the member for Cochrane South, whom I listened to intently, that one of his comments was that the community wants to decide. They want this to be their responsibility. I think that is what he said. He can correct me later when he gets his two minutes.

The point is he wants to be assured that we can go forward, and so do we. What I am saying is that to go forward with a clear understanding of what is happening is to put into print all of the concerns, all of the areas of government that must go with such a complicated -- and it is complicated and if it is going to work, people have to clearly understand.

What are we talking about here? We are talking about the jurisdiction of the full board and sectors of the board. We are talking about the attendance of students. We are talking about the French-language school support. We are talking about the duties and the powers. We are talking about the qualifications of the members. We are talking about finance, the resolution of disputes. We are talking about the transfer of employees from the public board to the French-language board.

The speaker then went on to say he did not think the anglophones would be disadvantaged. That is the problem. We do not know. But if we go ahead and write it into law and then take it out for consultation, after of course the recommendations for this have been put forth, then everybody clearly understands what the rules are. That is the problem with the present process, which by the way is a break in tradition.

1730

L'hon M. Pouliot : Moi aussi j'ai écouté avec attention mon ami et collègue le député de Timmins qui, lui, a su dresser un bilan concernant le projet de loi 12 et le projet loi 13. Il a su rappeler aux députés de l'Assemblée législative de l'Ontario que cette communauté francophone, souvent esseulée, quelquefois démunie, qu'on leur devait, qu'on nous devait collectivement de légiférer pour donner à cette communauté la chance d'être comme les autres, cette chance sous le soleil, ce lieu chez nous, ce lieu chez vous pour qu'un jour bientôt, à la grandeur de la province, la francophonie puisse dire, fièrement debout : «Chez vous, eh bien oui, on se sent chez nous.»

La Cour suprême, elle, a su le reconnaître à l'unanimité. Eux, ils ont compris ; eux nous ont dit : «Oui, notre place sous le soleil, ça devait se faire.»

Donc, qu'on arrête de nuancer, avec tout le respect qu'on doit à nos amis du Parti conservateur, nos amis du troisième parti. On sait trop bien quand on nuance que c'est une invitation souvent à revivre certains éléments qui ont été souvent néfastes et qui nous font mal, qui nous ont fait mal au point où on a commencé à perdre l'espoir qu'un jour nous aussi ce serait à notre tour.

Mr Speaker, the low priority that the opposition chooses to give the very important and vibrant portfolio of mining puts me in the very awkward position of being among the last people to congratulate you on your nomination. I have done so privately on many occasions, but I too want to echo and want to voice my congratulations.

The Deputy Speaker: Unfortunately, your time has expired.

Hon Mr Pouliot: We will do it together, Mr Speaker. As I conclude my remarks, join my congratulations to the many you are receiving on a well-deserved posting. May you enjoy a very long and fruitful tenure.

The Deputy Speaker: I must remind the House that I did not do that purposely in order to hear what he had to say.

M. Beer : Il faut vraiment, je pense, remercier nos deux députés qui viennent de parler. Je pense d'abord à mon collègue le ministre. Imaginez, Monsieur le Président, dire aujourd'hui «le ministre». La seule chose que je n'ai pas vue durant son discours ce sont ses mains. On se rappelle, à l'autre session, ses mains qui étaient toujours en train de plonger dans l'eau. Peut-être que plus tard, on va voir --

Interjection.

M. Beer : C'est ça.

Mais je pense que la chose qui est importante et que notre collègue le député de Cochrane-Sud et notre collègue le député de Lac Nipigon ont soulignée c'est que les francophones de cette province sont des francophones de l'Ontario et du Canada, bien sûr, mais ils veulent être chez eux ici en Ontario. C'est leur droit.

Je pense qu'après tout, c'est ça que l'on essaie de faire. Nous avons dit qu'il y a ces deux groupes linguistiques et nous voulons voir, dans notre province, le respect pour ces deux langues et voir des francophones vivre en Ontario parce qu'ils veulent être des Ontariens et des Canadiens.

Donc, en assurant qu'ils peuvent avoir une instruction dans leur langue, on va en effet appuyer ce principe. Donc, c'est pourquoi on dit : «Vive les francophones de l'Ontario !»

Mr J. Wilson: I just want to say to the member for Cochrane South that I very much enjoyed his address. I know he is very sincere in representing his constituents and the francophone community in Cochrane. But I think where his colleague made a comment, where we fail to come from is perhaps on two points.

In spite of the Supreme Court's decision, I think common sense on this would say, and I say this to the minister, that we must address some of the real financial problems that currently exist in our school board system, both public and separate. Certainly in my riding, as the member must have in Cochrane South, we have facilities that are badly in need of repair and we have over 300 portables in Simcoe county.

I guess it begs the question of who pays for it. That is certainly one of the top questions that my constituents are asking me, "Is the Ontario government going to take money away from other programs or funding that otherwise might have gone to the current system and use that money to fund an additional administrative centre, transportation and a number of other things?"

I think, second, the important thing is that we of this party ask that the government does not bypass the Legislature in creating such important instruments as school boards for our children and for our families and for our society. I would just stress that point.

As I say, I respect, as the member for Cochrane South said, that francophones want to feel fully part of Ontario society and they want to feel at home in Ontario. From the bottom of my heart, we wish that for everyone, but we want to stress that a commonsense approach would say that we have to consult, we have to cost these things out. We should address current problems that exist.

1740

Le Vice-Président : Au député de Cochrane-Sud, il reste deux minutes à votre disposition.

M. Bisson : Merci.

M. Poirier : Monsieur le Président --

Le Vice-Président : Vous avez un rappel au Règlement ?

M. Poirier : Non, j'avais --

Le Vice-Président : Non, voici, c'est que nous avons déjà eu quatre orateurs qui ont répondu à la question du débat. Alors, le député de Cochrane-Sud est le dernier.

M. Bisson : Il y a un dicton anglais qui est très approprié à ce moment-ci : «La façon dont on traite une minorité veut tout dire de la manière dans laquelle on réagit dans une province ou dans un peuple vis-à-vis des autres personnes de la province.»

Les points qui ont été faits par le député de York North étaient quelque chose qui est très émouvant pour moi, soit pour un député de l'autre côté de la Chambre, comme toutes les personnes de la province, de pouvoir dire les choses qu'il a dites avec conviction. Ça me donne de l'espoir et de l'esprit, en tant que francophone de la province, qu'il y a encore de la volonté et qu'il y a encore des possibilités. C'est quelque chose qui est très apprécié et je remercie le député.

Il y a quelque chose qu'il faut garder en perspective, quelque chose dont nous n'avons pas beaucoup parlé : on est dans une situation comme celle-là dans le pays où on regarde où le pays s'en va dans l'avenir.

La question de l'accord du Lac Meech qui est arrivé l'année d'après, la situation qu'on a concernant le Québec et le restant du Canada, je pense que c'est la situation où l'Ontario peut faire preuve de leadership sur cette question-là et montrer l'exemple que oui, dans une société, ce n'est pas seulement de la parlotte si on dit : «Oui, les francophones, on est les bienvenus dans la province et les anglophones sont les bienvenus dans la province de Québec ou n'importe où dans le Canada», mais pour montrer la manière dont on fait nos affaires dans cette province-ci. Ce n'est pas seulement qu'on en parle, mais qu'on fasse bouger les choses. C'est un message qu'on a besoin d'envoyer qui est très clair.

L'autre affaire est, quand vient le temps d'obtenir les sommes nécessaires pour être capable de mettre en place ces programmes-là, que ce soit possible. Ça va coûter un peu plus cher, mais c'est de l'argent qui est bien dépensé, parce qu'on ne peut pas mettre un prix sur l'instruction d'un enfant ici en Ontario ou n'importe où dans la province parce que ça, c'est un droit.

M. Poirier : J'ai trouvé ça intéressant cet après-midi, écouter certains des arguments pour ou contre le projet de loi. Certains des arguments que j'ai entendus m'ont rappelé des débats antérieurs. Il semblerait que, à travers le temps, peu importe le numéro de projet de loi, certains des mêmes arguments pour et contre arrivent.

Je voudrais m'attarder quelques minutes, pas trop longtemps, sur certains des arguments contre, ou du moins les questions que l'on soulève chaque fois que la communauté franco-ontarienne désire mettre en place son propre conseil scolaire.

Je veux faire un parallèle un peu, parce que j'ai siégé, il y a quelques années, au comité qui étudiait le projet de loi 75 ayant trait à la gestion pour les Franco-Ontariens de leurs institutions scolaires.

Je me rappelle que certains de mes collègues du troisième parti qui siégeaient à ce comité avec moi -- des bons amis à moi -- soulevaient la question : «Quand le Québec va donner à sa communauté anglophone, peut-être que nous en Ontario serons prêts à donner la même chose à la minorité franco-ontarienne.»

Cet argument-là, on l'a souvent entendu, le député de Cochrane-Sud ne croit-il pas ? On l'a souvent entendu dans le passé et même malheureusement on l'entend toujours encore aujourd'hui.

J'ai offert à mes collègues du troisième parti à ce moment-là d'aller faire une virée au Québec et d'aller poser des questions, toutes les questions que l'on voulait poser, pendant tout le temps qu'on voulait bien, à la communauté anglophone du Québec, autant du secteur public que du secteur séparé.

Ils m'ont regardé un peu drôlement, connaissant le mouvement duquel je venais avant d'être député. Je leur ai lancé l'invitation : «Allons-nous-en au Québec où nous n'allons interviewer que des gens de la communauté anglophone. Vous pourrez leur poser toutes les questions directes que vous voulez bien. S'il vous manque des questions, ça me fera un plaisir de vous en fournir.»

À ce moment-là, on a commencé à rencontrer, une journée à Montréal, une journée à Québec, des représentants de la communauté anglophone, des gens qui, heureusement pour eux, jouissent de leur pleine gestion scolaire depuis 1867, une chose que nous essayons toujours d'établir pour les francophones de l'Ontario. Ça s'en vient, je suis certain, avec la pleine collaboration du gouvernement de madame la ministre. Ça s'en vient, ça a été bien entamé par nous et ça va sûrement avancer encore plus avec le NPD au pouvoir.

Je me rappelerai des questions, mais aussi des attitudes de mes collègues anglophones de l'Ontario lorsque les résponses des élus scolaires anglophones du Québec sont arrivées. On avait créé pour cinq anglophones, pour cinq qui préféraient avoir leurs propres institutions, leur propre système de gestion scolaire pour ne pas être avec les francophones ou avec les autochtones, par exemple à Shefferville, pour cinq on a créé ça sans problème, sans question, sans question de coûts, sans question à savoir : «Ont-ils le droit, oui ou non ? Est-ce que c'est économique, oui ou non ? Est-ce que c'est faisable, oui ou non ?» Pas de questions posées. Cinq anglophones là, 10 là, 15 là, 20, 40, 60 en dépit d'avoir eu, dans ces années-là, un gouvernement péquiste qui avait le mandat de séparer le Québec du Canada. Jamais n'a-t-il été question de côuts, jamais n'a-t-il été question de savoir s'ils étaient 2 %, 2 %, 3 %, 4 %. Pas de questions posées.

Je n'oublierai jamais les regards que mes collègues du troisième parti m'ont lancés quand les réponses sont arrivées à leurs questions au Québec. Je n'oublierai jamais la surprise sur leur visage. «Mon Dieu, Seigneur, ce n'est pas ce qu'on pensait. Mon Dieu, Poirier, tu semblais savoir ce qui se passerait, ce qu'on répondrait au Québec, ici.»

J'ai eu la satisfaction d'entendre mes collègues du troisième parti me dire en plein hall de l'hôtel où on demeurait à Québec à la fin de nos séances : «Merci de nous avoir suggéré de prendre le temps de venir au Québec pour poser les questions à la communauté anglophone, parce qu'on s'aperçoit que ce n'est pas le cas en Ontario.»

Nos gouvernements respectifs n'ont pas traité les Franco-Ontariens de la même façon que les gouvernements successifs du Québec ont traité la minorité anglophone, que je salue et que j'admire.

Au moment où on se parle, est-ce qu'il devrait y avoir des conseils scolaires dans des endroits comme Simcoe, que je connais très bien, mes bons amis de Penetang et Lafontaine, que je connais très bien ? Est-ce qu'il devrait y avoir, oui ou non, un conseil scolaire géré par et pour les francophones de l'Ontario ? En ce qui me concerne, la question ne se pose même plus quand on peut comparer ce que les Anglo-Québécois ont.

Statistique Canada démontre, lors du recensement de 1986, que malgré la bonne volonté, malgré les projets de loi autant du fédéral que du provincial, le fait demeure que la communauté franco-ontarienne fait face à un taux d'assimilation de 30 % par génération.

Ce que j'aimerais entendre de mes collègues anglophones au Parlement aujourd'hui et à l'avenir, surtout en 1991 quand le Canada va faire face à son année définitive à savoir quel sera son avenir, s'il y aura un avenir dans ce pays tel que nous le connaissons, c'est de démontrer au reste du Canada, de démontrer aux francophones du Canada, du Québec mais surtout à ceux et celles de l'Ontario, que l'on est prêt à ne plus questionner leur droit de s'autogérer. Avec un taux d'assimilation de 30 %, il faut donner à la communauté franco-ontarienne les moyens de survivre, de vivre et de s'épanouir ici en Ontario, parce qu'on n'est pas des pseudo-ontariens. Je suis un Franco-Ontarien de quatrième génération.

On a célébré I'année passée, en Ontario, le 350^e anniversaire de l'arrivée des communautés franco-ontariennes en Ontario. Quand l'ancien gouvernement nous disait qu'en Ontario on a célébré un soit-disant bicentenaire en 1984, je trouve ça intéressant que la communauté franco-ontarienne en 1989 célébrait son 350^e anniversaire.

Ça fait 350 ans qu'on est établis ici ; on est Franco-Ontariens à part entière. Si le gouvernement veut ajouter à notre possibilité de nous autogérer pour prendre notre place encore plus pleinement et de réduire le taux d'assimilation de 30 % qui existe dans les communautés francophones -- parce que dans le passé, les gouvernements n'ont pas voulu comprendre et donner à la communauté franco-ontarienne les outils dont elle avait besoin pour survivre. Bien, bon Dieu je pense qu'en 1990, s'il y a quelqu'un qui est prêt à comprendre ceci, je le salue et je le remercie.

J'espère que mon bon ami le député de Simcoe-Ouest a pu écouter et comprendre que les communautés de Simcoe, Prescott et Russell et ailleurs -- ce n'est pas un luxe qui est proposé mais c'est une nécessité globale dans le Nord, dans le Sud et dans l'Est -- que tous les anglophones, mes amis anglophones de l'Ontario pourront comprendre ceci et nous appuyer dans cette démarche-là, et j'enlèverai mon chapeau et je les saluerai.

Mrs Marland: The member for Cochrane South said that it is hard to put a price on the education of children in Ontario. That is exactly what we are talking about in this discussion today. We are talking about the education of all children in Ontario. The thing that concems me is that in the region of Peel, over half the children in the DufferinPeel separate school board are in portables.

What we have to say is, let's deal with an issue that is fair to all the communities and be sure that all the communities are always involved. When we look at dealing with process, our concern with this bill is simply that everybody knows -- there have been a lot of references this afternoon to Meech and Bill 8. The thing that happened with Meech and Bill 8 is that the process went off the rails. Everybody who complained in this House about what went on in Ottawa was complaining about process. That is simply what we are saying here today.

We are saying, do not give any single government, regardless of what party that government is, the right to do something by regulation that involves entire communities and certainly involves the total budget for education in this province. We are not saying that we disagree with the intent of the bill. We are simply saying that if we are going to create French-language school boards in this province, it must be through legislation that the entire Legislature is involved with, not by regulation where any single government can arbitrarily ignore the process of involving the whole community and that whole process can be changed by individual governments, not entire legislatures.

M. Bisson: Je pense que ce qu'il faut comprendre, quand on parle de la question de coûts, j'aimerais faire remarquer au député de Mississauga-Sud que, premièrement, pour l'éducation d'un enfant ici en Ontario ou n'importe où, si l'enfant est dans le système scolaire séparé ou dans le système scolaire francophone ou dans le système scolaire public, ce sont les mêmes dollars. On va garder ça en perspective.

La deuxième question c'est que possiblement, en certaines situations, ça va donner qu'on va avoir besoin d'une gérance séparée. C'est possible. Par exemple, s'il y a deux commissions scolaires dans une communauté qui sont requises parce que le vouloir de la population veut mettre en place une commission scolaire francophone gérée par les francophones, c'est possible qu'il y a ait un coût un peu plus élevé accordé à cette commission.

Mais la question qu'il faut regarder c'est que ce n'est pas de l'argent qui est jeté à l'eau. C'est l'investissement de nos jeunes pour l'avenir de cette province-ci. Ce n'est pas comme prendre de l'argent et de le jeter à l'eau: c'est de l'argent qui est très bien dépensé.

Le député de Prescott et Russell a fait un point qui est très important. Ça fait des centaines d'années au Québec que les anglophones minoritaires dans cette province ont des droits que nous, ici en Ontario, en tant que francophones, on demande depuis 150 années. Ce n'est pas quelque chose qu'on demande qui est exorbitant. C'est la question, c'est quelque chose qui est donné pour les anglophones minoritaires au Québec, alors pourquoi pas ici en Ontario ?

Je pense que c'est ça une partie du problème. On dit qu'on a besoin d'avoir la compréhension des deux bords. Je pense qu'au Québec, ils ont compris cette question-là. Ici en Ontario, il faut regarder que le fait francophone dans la province est une réalité. Ça fait des centaines d'années qu'on est ici et on ne va pas partir; on est ici pour tout le temps. C'est aussi simple que ça.

1750

Mr Sterling: I think we should be fair in terms of dealing with this piece of legislation. One of the problems of some of the French-language boards which have been created in this province is that they cannot deliver education at the same price as public school boards. I understand that in the city of Toronto, for instance, it costs over $10,000 per French-language student whereas it costs somewhere in the neighbourhood of $6,000 for an English-language student or a student of the public board or the Catholic board. That is the truth. Why then should we create more expensive mechanisms if in fact the mechanisms that are there are taking care of the needs of the students, be they English, French or otherwise?

What we are concemed about in this party is that there should be justification on the part of the government when it wants to create a francophone board that it can do it in an economical way, that the taxpayers of this province are going to have to pick up the tab and that each student, be he English or French, be treated equally.

What we have seen in the Toronto area is that francophone students are privileged students. Their education system is spending $10,000-plus per student whereas the anglophone student is only having some $6,000 spent. Therefore, we have an unequal system, which is not proper and fair to the people of the province and their children.

All we are asking is that the government, when it wants to create a board, come back to the Legislature and have a discussion about whether there is a need, and then we will give it that sanction if in fact the need is proven. That is what we are here as elected politicians to do.

Mr Curling: I think this is one of the most important bills presented in this House since it has opened. I am extremely concerned when I hear members, especially from the third party, talk about costs to educate individuals in this province.

Mrs Marland: You tell that to your taxpayers.

Mr Curling: The reason the cost is high today is the neglect in the past. If we continue to neglect most of the past, the cost will go up. Regardless, as soon as we present this, then we start measuring if it is $10,000 or $15,000 or so. I am appalled that members who are looking at this bill today are saying, "Oh, I think they are privileged people." I think each individual in this country, each individual in this province is privileged. They are special people to be dealt with in a special way.

Mr Sterling: Give us a break. What hogwash.

Mr Curling: Of course they are very upset. Of course they have had a head start in this situation. For a long time some of the privileged people have had their opportunities in this world. It is almost like developing some of the Third World countries. There is more to be put into this. People who have been neglected have got to be addressed and looked at very carefully.

I say to the French-speaking school board too that there are other areas to look at. There are individuals who are French who still feel outside of being Franco-Ontarians, and as we develop the school board, we must make sure that they are also included.

M. Poirier : Bien, ça confirme un peu ce que je disais dans mon discours : ça revient souvent à une question de coûts.

Évidemment, desservir un groupe qui est minoritaire, qui est plus restreint en nombre, ce n'est pas le même coût mais la question se pose encore. Je n'ai jamais entendu une fois, dans toutes mes discussions avec mes amis parlementaires du Québec et de Hull d'ailleurs également que je rencontre régulièrement...

Pourtant, au Québec, ce n'est pas une question de coûts de desservir la communauté minoritaire de langue anglaise. Même les Péquistes disaient : «Jamais de problèmes. Tu as des besoins à exprimer. Tu nous envoies la note et on va s'occuper d'avoir un système complet pour les cinq anglophones-là, les 10, les 15, les 20, les 40.»

C'est évident que desservir cinq, 10 ou 15 anglophones dans un édifice séparé, distinct avec tous les services, ce n'est pas le même coût que de desservir 500 francophones.

C'est évident que le coût pour desservir les francophones de Toronto et d'ailleurs dans une situation minoritaire, par personne, n'est pas le même pour le nombre de la majorité anglophone de Toronto.

Si on regarde le Canada, nos deux langues officielles, nos deux groupes de cultures distinctes, si on commence à parler de coûts parce que les Anglo-Québécois coûtent trop cher et que les Franco-Ontariens coûtent trop cher, on est aussi bien de laisser de côté le principe de ce qu'est le Canada.

Si certaines choses coûtent plus cher au Canada comparativement aux États-Unis, c'est parce qu'on offre beaucoup plus, au Canada, de qualité et de quantité de vie que chez nos amis voisins, que je respecte beaucoup. Si on commence à s'attarder aux coûts des minorités anglophones du Québec et francophones de l'Ontario, on ne finira jamais. Si on commence à questionner le coût de faire un pays appelé le Canada avec le respect de ses deux groupes linguistiques, anglophones et francophones, bien, selon moi ça ne vaut pas la peine de continuer d'en parler. On est aussi bien de fermer les livres. Ce n'est pas une question de coûts, c'est une question de qualité et de quantité de services et de respect d'autrui.

Mrs Witmer: I rise today to express my objections to the government's introduction of Bill 12 and Bill 13 on 4 December. These bills do contain very substantial changes to the Education Act. I recognize that these bills introduce changes in French-language education in Ontario to reflect the Supreme Court's ruling of March 1990. Also, I recognize that all three parties agree that Ontario must proceed with the creation of additional French-language boards of education where numbers warrant. However, this must be done in a manner which is sensitive and recognizes the concems of all people in this province.

However, these bills would greatly increase the power of cabinet. They would greatly increase the power of government bureaucracy to control the future direction of school board expansion in this province, and they would establish government by regulation and not legislation. I find it interesting that while the Premier was in opposition he repeatedly voiced his opposition to government by regulation.

These bills would decrease the autonomy of local school boards, and thus the local taxpayer, since there would not be full consultation with the local community. We must remember it is the local taxpayer in this province who pays the largest share of educational cost.

Today, boards of education are created by statute, after bills have been brought forward before the House and referred to committees for public consultation. This process of consultation has always been extremely important for the local educational community. What is being suggested in these bills is a new way to create school boards that totally eliminates, disregards and bypasses the process of consultation with the public. I find this shocking. This Premier stated repeatedly, both during and after the provincial election, that his government would herald the beginning of a new consultation process. The Premier stated that he would not introduce initiatives without as broad a system of consultation with the public as possible. Now we learn that there will be no public consultation on these bills to create new school boards. There will be no consultation with the local communities; it will be done by cabinet decree.

I am concemed by the government's intent to rush these bills through the legislative process to become law within a period of only 16 days. I am also appalled that this legislation was tabled without warning or discussion with those in the educational community, those people who will be impacted by this legislation. To me, it demonstrates a lack of sensitivity to their concems.

I would like to remind the minister that we need to be sensitive to the concems of everyone in this province, whether English or French. Why did the Minister of Education introduce these bills without issuing a ministerial statement, without any briefing and without any advance notice? This is what has contributed to the misunderstandings. Why was there not careful scrutiny and a preliminary opportunity for input before these bills were introduced?

1800

I have heard from boards of education and organizations and individuals who are very concemed about the impact of this legislation. They are aware of the time constraints that the minister is under and they are prepared to participate in the process that would allow the francophone community its school boards. However, they are only asking for the opportunity to consult and be involved in the decision-making. Why has that not happened? If these advance briefings, discussions and notice had taken place, the concems of all individuals and school boards and organizations in this province could have been addressed before the bills were introduced in this House. Why, I ask, did this not take place?

Furthermore, it has been brought up several times this afternoon that the creation of these new school boards does have financial implications for all taxpayers in this province. In the past five years, the cost of education in this province has skyrocketed as the previous government mandated one initiative after the other and heaped the tax burden on the local taxpayer. Indeed, taxpayers throughout this province are expressing their outrage at the increase in education taxes in recent years.

I ask, has the minister undertaken financial impact studies? Has the minister had discussions with school boards regarding their concems? Has the minister asked the French-language community if it is in favour of the boards which she is proposing? These are some of the questions which must be answered if this government is truly committed to treating all people in this province with fairness.

I support and our party supports the creation of French-language school boards in this province. However, what I object to and, I would like to emphasize, I object to very strongly, is the process that was used to introduce these bills. I am appalled and I am very disappointed that there was no prior notice, there was no public consultation and there was no study of the financial impact. I urge the Minister of Education to refer these bills to committee, where public consultation can take place, the public consultation that the Premier of this province promised not only before but also after the election.

Mrs Marland: I think we have to be very clear about what it is we are talking about here. These bills give this NDP government extraordinary powers to create new school boards in this province. They can create new francophone or French-language school boards in this province without any consultation whatsoever. It may well be that there are communities in this province where numbers warrant and that those communities may in fact want French-language school boards, but these bills give the NDP government the power to create them without any consultation.

The Deputy Speaker: I want to clarify. Are you debating or is it a question or comment? The clock was not working.

Mrs Marland: It is comment, Mr Speaker, and I am losing some of my time.

The Deputy Speaker: I will be just and I will give you a minute and a half.

Mrs Marland: Thank you. If the NDP government believes in even half of its campaign platform, then surely it wants to practise equity, and what we are looking at here is a totally inequitable process. That is our concern.

Since when can governments on their own by regulation make that kind of commitment of creating a totally new school board? Since when is that going to be in the best interests of any community in this province, without coming back through the realistic process of consultation with the communities, the existing school boards in the communities whose mandate it is to provide equal opportunity for education to the students who live in those communities, and more than that, coming back to the Legislature and letting everyone in the Legislature approve that kind of funding and that kind of priority? Since when can we give a government the power through regulation within its ministry to create a new school board?

I simply say that in this day and age when we have had a demonstration of this decision being made, these bills being introduced with no prior consultation, no public --

The Deputy Speaker: Your time has expired.

Mr Martin: Bill 12 gives the minister the power to establish new French-language school boards by regulation in order to allow this to happen expeditiously and, in a year that is not an election year, in case the conditions do not coincide with the years in which regular school board elections are held.

This is an interim measure only, designed to allow the minister to meet the commitment made on 14 November 1990. After the French Language Education Governance Advisory Group has made its report to the minister and appropriate statutory amendments based on the recommendations of FLAG are developed, the regulatory provisions will be repealed.

Within that piece is the offer of rather extensive consultation with the province and the communities that will be impacted directly. I ask as well that the members of the House develop a sense of trust that we will make that process really happen and that any input that is given is listened to sincerely. That will be reflected in decisions that are made.

Mrs Cunningham: Just to add to the comments this afternoon of the member for Sault Ste Marie, I appreciate what he just said, but the real problem with the statement is that he is responding to just one part of this bill. When I stood here earlier today in this House, I talked about the other two parts, one to do with the replacement of trustees that was mentioned by the member from Brampton and the other one, which I think is rather significant, the precedent set up by the minister and the discussions around the Haldimand-Norfolk situation.

In fact, I would say to the minister that maybe the process in Haldimand-Norfolk was a very successful one. Maybe the extension of Bill 30 under the circumstances with negotiations with that board was a good one. Maybe it worked there, but I would say that contained in this same bill is a process or a change to the Bill 30 promise. I am just saying that the school boards have not been consulted. We have had four calls in the last hour saying that they have not been consulted, and there are some 16 other boards that may be affected, and by this bill alone they have not had the opportunity for consultation.

Just in closing, I would say that we have already had the experience in this province of two French-language school boards that took much too long. Yes, they should have happened much more quickly, but as I listened to my colleagues talk this afternoon about wanting to be at home here in this province, I would say that the comments from this side of the House very much share that view. We want to be at home here in this province.

To the Franco-Ontarian communities, I can only say that I believe that one of the problems as we went across this province through the discussions of Meech Lake -- and I sat on the committee around that; I also sat on the committee on Bill 8 -- was a process problem. People did not know the rules ahead of time, and I think each and every board ought to know for their board what the rules are.

1810

Mr Sterling: It is amazing. We went through a process last June dealing with the Meech Lake accord, and the people of Canada and the people of Ontario felt that they had not been consulted with regard to that whole process. We heard in the election and in the past two years how many people in Ontario were grieved at the fact that they were not consulted about Bill 8. It amazes me that the former government -- the Liberal Party, the opposition -- and the new government of the New Democratic Party have not learned their lesson. People in this province and in this country do not want new boards created without proper consultation.

This Bill 12 in particular is nothing but a repeat of the experience of Bill 8. The people of Ontario do not want it, and I believe that when the time comes for us to be consulted again, many of the members in this Legislature will be asked, as we were in the last election, whether or not we supported Bill 8. We are going to be asked the next time whether or not we supported Bill 12.

When these school boards are created without consultation, their creation is going to cause more friction, more hostility than if the NDP, as government, came back to this Legislature, fully consulted with the elected representatives of those areas and brought forward legislation in a proper form to set up school boards, as we have in the past.

That is why we are opposing this legislation. We believe the new government has not learned anything from past mistakes and is making a terrible mistake in bringing this bill forward.

The Deputy Speaker: Does the member for Waterloo North wish to use the two minutes she has?

Mrs Witmer: No.

Hon Mrs Boyd: We have heard a lot about there being no consultation on this issue. Frankly, that really angers me, because there has been discussion and discussion and discussion about the issue of French language rights in this province. It has been a most difficult one, and it has been held in many different areas.

The promise that was made to the francophone community in 1988, that before the 1991 school board elections this province would comply with the Supreme Court decision which assured francophone parents the right to govern the education of their own children, was not met by the last government. We took office on 1 October and had very little time in which to comply with that promise and with that obligation under our Constitution.

There seem to be those in this chamber who still want to fight out whether constitutional rights are guaranteed in this province. I think we need to be very clear that the Constitution is there to protect us all. The same rights that apply to francophones apply to anglophones. and in this very delicate issue of deciding on school board formation we are concemed to make sure that both language groups are guaranteed their minority rights. In one of the school boards we are discussing, Simcoe, the minority group happens to be francophone; in the other school board district, Prescott-Russell, the minority group happens to be anglophone. This ministry is equally concemed that the minority rights of both language groups be protected. We are equally concerned that those who are either the minority or the majority in those communities are given the opportunity to express their views and to see whether those communities can co-operate with each other with having a minority-language section to their school board.

We have decided upon a process for those two boards which, yes, is outside of the process we set up of consultation under the French Language Education Governance Advisory Group. That is quite true, but we did it so that those communities which have been waiting for a very long time would not be in the position of having to wait another three years until the 1994 election; and that is the effect of delaying this bill. We need to be extremely clear that these are communities that have waited a long time. They have been frustrated in their attempts to provide for their children the kind of education they choose and have a right to choose under our Constitution, and they have been frustrated in their attempts to have the government give them the kind of consideration that all of us deserve under the Constitution and the Charter of Rights.

So one of the issues we are facing is the whole problem of trying to bring in a bill which would cover all eventualities around French-language governance. We anticipate doing that as soon as the French Language Education Governance Advisory Group, under which public consultation was begun on 14 November, reports, and I have asked it to report by 15 May. At that point we can bring in a bill which would stop the piecemeal creation of education bills in this province.

The opposition seems to think it would be perfectly fine for this province to have an education bill that would cover every school board. We do not think that is practicable, and we believe it is possible for us, following the report of the French Language Education Governance Advisory Group, to come up with a bill which would cover all circumstances under which any further boards would be formed and would indeed meet the criteria which the opposition and the third party are suggesting. That is certainly our intention. But if we wait until that consultation goes forward, we will be denying to these two communities which are ready, which have signalled they are ready, the right to go ahead. It would prevent them, given the timetable of the election, which the third party is very well aware exists.

The communities have not yet reached a negotiated settlement, and until they do we are not prepared to foist on them a bill creating this. We have two negotiators from the French Language Education Governance Advisory Group working with both those communities to determine whether those communities can come up with an agreement under which a French-language board would be formed. We are simply saying that we require this enablement at this time. It is certainly our intention that once the French Language Education Governance Advisory Group reports -- and once, of course, we get this legislation through this chamber, which certainly in the past has not been empathetic to groups that have been looking for this kind of right -- then we will be able to repeal the regulatory powers that are included in this act and to indeed go forward with an omnibus bill that would cover any French-language board that is formed after that point.

The issue for us as a government is to keep the promises made by the previous government and to keep our own promises in terms of the formation of these boards so that they can participate in the elections in 1991. That, in terms of that part of the bill, is all that is intended. We have already made a commitment which is very clear and strong and are already working on a consultative process across the province to take place in a number of cities. The timetable is being arranged now to have consultation in communities. It is not our position that we would want to create a school board. We have this process whereby communities themselves will decide whether they wish to have a school board created, and they will give us a proposal. That proposal will have been hammered out in the local community by the folks there, it will outline what the arrangements are financially and in numbers. That, we think, is enough protection for those communities to feel that we are not overstepping our bounds but that we are according them with what they want within the timetable of the 1991 election.

With respect to the other issue raised by the critic for the third party, again I would say that she has not read the section of Bill 12 carefully. In that bill, we are strictly saying that we would allow the extension of all years of Roman Catholic secondary education only where it is by means of purchase of an agreement with another board, and this that would be done only when the Planning and Implementation Commission that was set up under Bill 30 has done its work of consultation within the community and the agreement has been reached by the two boards.

1820

There is no lack of consultation here. There is no change. The only change we are asking for is to enable a board that has managed to hammer out an agreement with its co-terminous board to offer all years of education. It is to change the fact that this was a phased-in process under the act, and that is all it is. Where a community has agreed that it ought to be able to do that and there is agreement by both boards, we are listening to those communities. We are listening to the consultation we have done there and we are enabling them to come to that agreement if they so choose.

With respect to the Haldimand-Norfolk situation, that is exactly what occurred. The PIC has already done its work. The communities have made an arrangement and, frankly, this bill simply gives us the legislative authority to do what that community has come to us and asked us to do.

The other issue we are listening to from the third party is the question of cost. Believe me, no one in this chamber is more concemed about the cost and the distribution of the cost of education than the Minister of Education. It is a very onerous responsibility I have assumed an a time when -- there is no question, and I make no excuse for saying in this House -- the funding of education is a major concern of all of us in this province and certainly none more than our party.

What the members of the third party do not seem to understand is that although minority rights do cost us money, we as a country, by enshrining minority rights in our Constitution, have all taken on the responsibility of ensuring that those rights are real. That does cost us money; there is no question.

This party is saying very clearly that where parents and children, by virtue of being francophone or anglophone, are in a minority and desire governance over their own school system, this party will respect those rights and this party is prepared to pay the cost of that. We believe the citizens of Ontario understand that is one of the obligations we have all taken on as citizens of this country.

Of course, it in to our interests to try to minimize those costs as much as possible, to try to ensure that communities have made an agreement that is going to be as cost-effective as it can be.

I would remind the member for Simcoe West that francophones in this country pay school taxes too, and that in areas where francophones are the majority they carry the minority English-rights students. It will cost us a lot to provide minority English rights in Prescott-Russell, but it is our commitment, as it has been since Bill 30 was put in, that minority rights will be protected and that we will not see the minority-language groups lose the quality of education, whether those minorities are anglophone or francophone.

When we start talking about cost, it is very important for us to recognize that in some parts of this province the minority is anglophone and in some parts of the province the minority is francophone, and the policy must apply equally to whichever they are. Certainly I as a taxpayer and, I am sure, other members of this chamber are quite prepared to pay our share to protect minority rights in this province.

It will not be attractive to many communities where there is a substantial number of either anglophone or francophone parents to choose to form a minority language rights board. We do not expect that many communities will find that something they want, because it does duplicate the efforts; it is something that does not appear to be an economy of scale. But where French-language sections of boards have found that they are constantly being denied their rights by the majority section of the board, we cannot expect those minority sections to continue to deal with the situation when they know they have legal recourse to change it. One of the things we as a government are trying to do is to set social policy very clearly outside the courts rather than have the courts make our decisions for us. That is happening far too much in this country. We do not want to see that happen, where boards are ready to proceed and know they have the right to. We as a government want to enable those boards to be able to do it.

I would urge the passage of this bill on second reading, and I would ask my colleagues in this chamber to signify by their vote their support for minority language rights in this province.

The Deputy Speaker: If members recall, it was agreed at the beginning that both Bill 12 and Bill 13 would be debated at the same time. Is it the pleasure of the House that we move to second reading of Bill 12 and Bill 13 at the same time?

Agreed to.

1833

The House divided on Mrs Boyd's motion for second reading of Bill 12 and Bill 13, which was agreed to on the following vote:

La motion de M^me Boyd pour la deuxième lecture des projets de loi 12 et 13, mise au voix, est adoptée :

Ayes/Pour -- 61

Abel, Allen, Beer, Bisson, Boyd, Buchanan, Callahan, Carter, Christopherson, Churley, Cooke, Cooper, Coppen, Curling, Dadamo, Drainville, Duignan, Elston, Ferguson, Fletcher, Hansen, Haslam, Hope, Huget, Jamison, Johnson, Klopp, Kwinter, Lankin, Lessard, Mahoney, Malkowski, Mammoliti, Marchese, Martin, Mathyssen, Mills, Morrow, Murdock, S., North, O'Connor, O'Neill, Y., Owens, Perruzza, Philip, Phillips, Pilkey, Poirier, Poole, Rizzo, Silipo, Sutherland, Swarbrick, Ward, B., Ward, M., Wark-Martyn, White, Wilson, G., Winninger, Wiseman, Ziemba.

Nays/Contre -- 15

Arnott, Carr, Cunningham, Eves, Harnick, Jackson, Marland, McLean, Murdoch, B., Sterling, Stockwell, Tilson, Turnbull, Wilson, J., Witmer.

Bills ordered for standing committee on social development.

Les projets de loi sont déférés au comité permanent des affaires sociales.

Hon Mrs Boyd: Mr Speaker, pursuant to section 72 of the standing orders, I would like to ask that the five-day waiting period be waived in this case.

The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent? Agreed to.

1840

CORPORATIONS TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1990

Ms Wark-Martyn moved second reading of Bill 10, An Act to amend the Corporations Tax Act.

Hon Ms Wark-Martyn: This bill, entitled An Act to amend the Corporations Tax Act, is a very long and complicated piece of legislation. I am sure members who have read the bill would agree. I understand this bill was ordered for debate on relatively short notice and I sympathize with members who had wanted a little more time to digest it. I also note that the opposition critics have not been briefed on this bill. A briefing is available at their convenience. I do not expect many complaints from the opposition, as these are tax policy changes that were announced in the budget proposals of the past three years.

It is only fair to corporations and taxpayers which have been complying with these policies since 1988 that we wrap up these loose ends. I want to address the most important changes from past budgets.

The R and D superallowance was announced in 1988 to encourage scientific research in Ontario. This deduction is available to all corporations for expenditures for research and development in Ontario.

The Ontario current cost adjustment deduction for the purchase of new manufacturing and processing equipment used in Ontario was announced in the 1988 budget. The deduction was extended to new pollution control equipment purchased after 17 May 1989. The 1990 budget increased the rate for the deduction from 15% to 30% of asset cost. This applies to equipment that was acquired after 1990; after 1991, only pollution control equipment will qualify for this deduction.

The other amendments include: a capital tax rate increase for loan and trust corporations; decreased flat rates of capital tax for many smaller corporations; the phase-out of the tax holiday for newly incorporated companies, and the introduction of a resource allowance for mining companies. All items were announced in the 1988 budget and are effective after 20 April 1988.

This bill also includes a general anti-avoidance rule to protect the tax base by preventing tax abuse and contains provisions to prevent avoidance of Ontario capital and premium taxes. The general anti-avoidance rule allows any tax benefit to be denied where the transaction arose solely to avoid paying taxes.

This is a complex and important document. We need to be fair to those corporation-tax payers who have been complying with some of these changes since 1988.

Mrs Y. O'Neill: I am pleased to be able to participate in this debate on the second reading of Bill 10. I thank the minister for her promise to arrange a briefing at my convenience, because this is indeed a complex bill.

The taxation policies of this government, of the NDP, are no secret to the people of Ontario. The oft-quoted Agenda for People has, as its first major heading shouting out at us, "Minimum Corporate Tax." Bill 10 is indeed not minimum corporate tax.

As recently as 8 May 1990, the now Treasurer asked in this very chamber a question of the member for Brant-Haldimand, our present interim leader and the former Treasurer. He asked on that occasion: "How does the Treasurer justify not bringing in a minimum corporate tax this year?" Bill 10 does not even breathe one word about the oft-touted minimum corporate tax.

I would like to bring to the attention of the House a number of quotes from Hansard from the present Treasurer, the Treasurer of this government, referring to Ontario's tax policy, a tax policy we are now being presented with as this government's tax policy. The then member for Nickel Belt described that government's policy -- the policy, I repeat, that is being presented today -- as "an amazing tax system," a "truly awful tax system," an "incredible tax regime," to mention but a few of the superlatives of that day. On another occasion, the present Treasurer accused the previous Treasurer of "perverse" tax policies.

However, Bill 10, the Corporation Tax Amendment Act, is another bill introduced by this government which is a direct pass-through, a direct procession from the previous Liberal government, and indeed that makes me satisfied and contented. I want to remind members that this is the second tax bill in as many days that has no new major incentives, even though this government was most critical of the previous government in all of its tax policies.

May I remind the House that we are now in different economic times? The spring of 1990 was indeed very different from winter 1990, yet this government is adopting, word for word, tax policies of the previous government, which it criticized over and over again with such strong protests such a very short time ago. I said yesterday in the debate on Bill 11 that we are into a recession, possibly even a deep recession, yet we are presented here in Bill 10 with initiatives taken by the previous government during a time when Ontario's economic health was much brighter.

I would, however, like to point out some specific aspects of this legislation which I think will be of interest to the business sector in Ontario, especially to the small-business sector.

First, this bill eliminates the necessity of filing a tax return for 200,000 small corporations that will meet certain exemption criteria. That will indeed save many taxpayers time and money. For that I commend the present minister. That is good.

The new section 12a in section 5 of the bill implements the 1988 budget proposal for a research and development super-allowance. This is a direct deduction from income based upon current and capital expenditures. This deduction, available to all corporations no matter what their size, is equal to 25% of qualifying research and development expenditures incurred in Ontario. Canadian-controlled private corporations may claim a deduction of 35%. Certainly that is a popular move. It is a move by Ontario's government from which I think other governments could take example.

Companies whose expenditures in research and development exceed their three-year average expenditure in this area can increase the deduction by a further 50%, a very courageous and certainly needed initiative. These provisions encourage companies to spend money on new technologies, and we all know that is one way to enliven the economy. These companies can invest in the future of Ontario and they can reap the benefits and put their stimulus into the economy.

The provisions of the bill that deny benefit for any transaction undertaken that is primarily to avoid tax, or discourage other tax abuses, I also feel deserve comment.

In contrast to those good initiatives, I do find some things that are certainly confusing and I think backward. The proposals I refer to now are those that have to do with implementing Ontario current cost adjustment, known as OCCA. This is a direct deduction from income otherwise subject to tax in Ontario, and is calculated as a percentage of the tax depreciable cost of new manufacturing and processing machinery and equipment used in Ontario. This move was made to improve our competitiveness, encourage capital investment in Ontario, strengthen the Ontario economy and create jobs for Ontarians. In 1989, the Ontario budget presented by the previous government included this. The previous government extended the OCCA to include pollution control equipment in 1989. Also at that time, the rate was increased to 30% from 15% for the reasons I have just stated: incentive, jobs and economic stability.

A policy decision was announced most recently that has confused me. This new government is changing the position of the OCCA grants. They are being phased out so that after 1991 only pollution control equipment will be covered, the greening of Ontario. In his statement to the Legislature on 4 December of this year, the Treasurer said, and I presume he was thinking of all parts of the economy when he said this, "Providing a stable climate for business planning and investment is also an important objective in good times or bad." Yet the same man, our Treasurer, the Treasurer of the NDP government with this statement as his backdrop went on to say, "While I believe that the OCCA has a useful role to play in stimulating investment during the recession, it is not clear that it provides the most cost-effective or strategic incentives necessary for our long-term economic wellbeing."

1850

As far as I know, there were no impact studies, no usage or review on which the Treasurer based these statements. That is why I am confused and worried that something that has been put out for only three years now is withdrawn with very little notice or study and, I think, very little concern.

I would urge the Minister of Revenue, the member for Port Arthur, to continue to try to convince the Treasurer and help him understand what I have just brought to the attention of this House: that by taking away deductions for the purchasing of new equipment, we are really taking money out of the pockets of small business people right across this province. It is certainly my opinion that it is not a very effective way to stimulate the economy or the economic wellbeing of this province. It is not good planning. It is not good policy-making. It is certainly even more needed that we make these decision with good planning and good policy-making at a time we are often labelling a tough time.

This decision to change the stimulus to small business, the incentives that were presented but three short years ago, sends a very negative message to the business community, especially the small business community. In this bill, in this initiative, the Minister of Revenue is taking money out of pockets, money that could be turned to purchase equipment from manufacturers here in Ontario that supply the business community. This initiative can only have a negative effect on job creation and on our economic development. By the Treasurer's own admission the OCCA has provided or will provide an estimated $160 million in tax-based support for business investment in manufacturing and pollution control equipment in Ontario, $160 million in tax-based support, a creative initiative, and yet it is being discontinued when everyone in Ontario is looking for policies that will stimulate the economy.

The policies that this government has announced today are sorely lacking in their efforts to assist the small business community in this province. They are another thorn. They are now being discouraged at this moment, at this time of winter 1990, from purchasing new equipment by this bill, Bill 10.

As some of my colleagues in this House said during last night's long session, small businesses are owned by real people, and the people who own and operate small business in this province of Ontario are the engine of the economy of this country. But these same people, the people who are the supporters and owners of small businesses, are being given no reason to be optimistic about how well this government, the government that says it is the government of the people, will be representing them. There is very little optimism about how they will be assisted, how they will be encouraged and how they will be supported. Bill 10 certainly gives them no more reason for confidence or sense of security.

The Premier said over and over again, right across this entire province, that he was going to make a real difference on taxes, that he was going to create a fairer tax plan, a fairer tax policy. A minimum corporate tax is indeed the very first item in the Agenda for People.

Bill 10, like the two bills I have already spoken on, Bill 1 and Bill 11 which have already been completed in this process, is but a small step. Bill 1, Bill 10 and Bill 11 are all very hesitant to make very much in the way of a dent in what could be a very creative and stimulating tax policy.

This government has been given the broad opportunity to serve the electorate of this province. Indeed, in the words of the Premier yesterday or the day before, they have been granted the stewardship of this government and this province. In that stewardship they certainly could be making giant steps on behalf of the people of this province, giant steps to stimulate the economy at a time of need.

Now more than ever before, we need creative tax policies that do seem to stimulate, encourage and support those who are in the business community, and thence the labourers of this province. We are on the brink of entering the 21st century. Surely each member of this House, including the Premier, the Minister of Revenue and all in the cabinet of the NDP government, as with other members in this House, want to do that and want to leave a legacy for our children of a healthy employment picture and a strong economy for this great province.

For that reason, I have to feel very disappointed and somewhat discouraged that in three tax bills presented in the last three or four days in this House we have seen so little in the way of imagination. It comforts me that the tax policies of the Liberal government have been received by this government with such gusto, but I think times have changed and government has changed, and I really do feel we could be a little more creative. We certainly could be a little more sensitive about the way in which we could stimulate the economy and encourage the workers and business people of this province.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Haslam): Questions and comments?

Hon Ms Wark-Martyn: The member for Ottawa-Rideau commented on Bill 10 not being what she was expecting from our government. I think the member for Ottawa-Rideau understands that this bill has to be passed. These are 1988, 1989 and 1990 budget proposals that our corporations community has been living with, and they have to be passed. I do not know of anyone in this House who would stand up and say not to pass them, who wants to go back and tell the corporations that we were not going to put through these pieces of legislation when they are already living by them.

The minimum corporate tax was in our Agenda for People and it is something we will be looking at. It is something we have talked to the business community about already. They are informed of that. Some of them have agreed to work with us on that and it will be something we will work on in our Fair Tax Commission.

The previous government had many tax policies, too many tax policies, that it was not able to get through in its lifetime as a government. I am sure I will pass on to the Treasurer, the member for Nickel Belt, the member's concerns about the Ontario current cost adjustment, but we also must keep in mind that this program was for larger corporations and that many small businesses would not qualify for that program anyhow.

The member said she worried about the legacy for our children. I had to question that as I watched the tax bills that the former government tried to get through the Legislature while it was in government and questioned what it was worried about at that time.

1900

Mr Stockwell: I think the first thing we should realize is that this is exactly what was stated, a harmonizing bill to simplify the tax process in some instances. It is nothing to do with the party position of the New Democrats. They found themselves in the position of having to adopt this because it needs to be in place. In fact, some of the items within this piece of legislation are older, I think, than the length of time some of the members have sat in this House on the government side. I think we can go back to some of these documents and take it to 1988 -- in fact as far back as 1987 -- when these were first introduced. If I could find my notes, it would make it a lot easier.

The measures proposed in the bill are already in force so they are in fact being lived within by the present corporations. I do not think the government is doing anything that is going to be considered outrageous, extravagant, anything that is new. It certainly is not what we would suggest is a change of course in the Agenda for People. Nothing they have done has been a change of course for the Agenda for People. It is simply establishing in law what already exists in fact. I think that is the basic here.

What actually would be kind of interesting is that it will probably be the last piece of legislation brought forward by the NDP that gives corporations a break, so I think it will be a historic piece of legislation that this House is debating now, because frankly, from the Agenda for People, that document that some of those people do not read, there are some points included about minimum tax and so on that appear to me to be a little tougher on corporations. This one in fact is doing just the opposite, so I think there will be a smattering of applause out there from the corporations in Ontario. They will be extremely pleased that the NDP read what the Liberals were doing and incorporated it. Again, it is nothing that our party is going to find much difficulty in adopting.

As I said, the harmonizing part of the bill simplifies it, which is very good today, particularly for small business. Simplifying any of the tax acts would go a long way to resolving a lot of issues they have with respect to accountants and audits and so on. In small business, it is an expenditure that is a lot larger than a lot of people think. I know at first hand that the expenses for legal advice and accounting advice are very expensive and anything that can go about reducing that cost is money in their pockets; it is found money. There is no need to buy a product. It is just money that would have been profit that you are paying out to professionals for expert advice.

One of the changes that is included is depreciation with respect to machinery. That is another good portion of the bill. As far as I am concerned, when this was brought forward, although we did not have an opportunity to be briefed by the ministry staff, it has been around for such a long period of time that our research people almost quoted it verbatim without ever reading the piece of legislation. So it seems to me to be something that is overdue.

I think the Liberals have mentioned minimum corporate tax and so on and so forth. This really is not one of the government's planks. I hope it is not one of its planks. It is not one of the positions it ran on. It is simply doing some housekeeping -- "housekeeping" being the word, because as I said before all, these positions in here are pretty much lived by now. That is the way their taxes are filed and the government is just legalizing something that needs to be legalized.

We can support it. We will still be interested to see the government's Fair Tax Commission's report back to us. It will be interesting to read exactly what it thinks will need to be done in the future. I think it is good for corporations. I think we can applaud this piece of legislation and we will in fact support it.

Hon Ms Wark-Martyn: I would like to thank my critic over there from the third party for supporting this. I am sure he will be interested in the Fair Tax Commission. I am sure everybody over there and over here will be interested in the 1991 budget proposal that our friend the Treasurer will introduce in March 1991. I thank him and I encourage support from the other side of the House for this bill.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for third reading.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon Mr Cooke: On behalf of the government House leader, I would like to indicate the business schedule for next week.

On Monday 17 December we will do second reading of a bill concerning the city of London. We will then go into committee of the whole for consideration of Bill 1, An Act to amend the Retail Sales Tax Act. Then we will go in committee of the whole for Bill 14, An Act to amend the Employment Standards Act with respect to Pregnancy and Parental Leave. We will continue in committee of the whole House on Bill 15, An Act respecting Land on Manitoulin Island, Barrie Island and Cockburn Island. We will continue in committee of the whole with Bill 16, An Act to amend the Municipal Elections Act and certain other Acts related to Municipal Elections. We will then go to second reading of Bill 4, the Residential Rent Regulation Amendment Act.

We expect we will complete debate on second reading of that act late on Monday night and defer the vote until Tuesday, after which we will debate second reading of Bill 17, An Act to amend the Law related to the Enforcement of Support and Custody Orders.

On Wednesday 19 December we will debate the motion for interim supply and do third reading of Bills 9, 10, 11, and perhaps the London bill.

On Thursday we will do third reading of Bills 1, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16, second and third reading of private bills approved by the standing committee on regulations and private bills, and other matters to be discussed and announced by the House leaders.

The House adjourned at 1907.