Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

The House met at 1004.

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT (ELECTORAL QUOTIENTS), 1991 / LOI DE 1991 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR L'ÉDUCATION (QUOTIENTS ÉLECTORAUX)

Mr Tilson moved second reading of Bill 72, An Act to amend the Education Act with respect to Electoral Quotients.

M. Tilson propose la deuxième lecture du projet de loi 72, Loi portant modification de la Loi sur l'éducation en ce qui a trait aux quotients électoraux.

Mr Tilson: I rise this morning to debate my first private member's bill in this House, which is Bill 72, An Act to amend the Education Act with respect to Electoral Quotients.

Before I make my remarks, I would like to welcome to this House a number of constituents and trustees from the Peel Board of Education who are sitting in the gallery. There is Beryl Ford from Brampton East; Elaine Moore from Brampton East; Karen Carstensen of Ward 4, Mississauga; Janet McDougald of Ward 1, Mississauga; the chair of the board, who is from Ward 2 of Mississauga, William Kent; Marolyn Morrison of Wards 1 and 2 of Caledon; and Carolyne Wedgbury of Wards 3, 4 and 5 of Caledon.

On the surface, this bill appears to be quite complex. In fact, I submit that it is not. The principle embodied in this bill is one which I hope every member of the Legislature will support.

This bill came about as the result of an incident in my riding involving the Peel Board of Education and the town of Caledon. I understand the situation is occurring elsewhere, specifically, I believe, in Victoria-Haliburton. Mr Speaker, I would like you to allow me to explain this situation.

The Peel Board of Education is comprised of trustees from the town of Caledon and the cities of Brampton and Mississauga. By applying the formula currently found in the Education Act, Caledon would normally get only one trustee on a 20-member school board. The Education Act, however, recognizes the need to redress just such inequitable situations and permits a board to add by a three-quarters vote held no later than 31 March of the election year up to two trustees. It can also cut two trustees through the same process.

Since 1975, the Peel Board of Education, to its credit, has recognized the difficulty only one Caledon trustee would face trying to provide adequate representation for an area of relatively low population covering some 274 square miles.

This year, however, the necessary motion to add the second trustee failed by just one vote; 14 trustees favoured the second trustee while six were opposed. The matter was reconsidered at a subsequent meeting of the Peel board and the results were exactly the same. The six trustees from Mississauga and Brampton who opposed a second trustee from Caledon have variously suggested that axing a trustee would save money and would bring back a true and pure model of representation by population.

But true rep by pop does not even exist between Mississauga wards, and the cost-saving argument has been abandoned by the six trustees. After all, cutting representation saves dimes, whereas one good trustee can save a school board hundreds of thousands of dollars.

But the point of this bill is not to change the section of the Education Act that caused the situation in Peel and elsewhere in the province. The purpose, in fact, is far simpler than that. It is to give the people the right of appeal to such decisions. Without the right of appeal, I would suggest that we have the potential for tyranny of the minority, and I am afraid we have already seen at least one example of that in the Peel case.

1010

Allow me to tell the House about the mood of Caledon residents regarding their education taxes and the Peel board. They are angry, as they are elsewhere in Peel and all over Ontario, and if they were angry before being stripped of 50% of their representation without appeal, they are livid now.

Consider for a moment that when municipal, commercial and industrial assessment is factored out, Caledon ratepayers already pay $452.67 more per household than Brampton ratepayers and $288.39 more than Mississauga ratepayers. On the basis of the number of public school supporters, again factoring out non-residential assessment, Caledon ratepayers contribute more per public school supporter than Brampton ratepayers and almost as much as Mississauga ratepayers. The exact same is true on the basis of the number of students from each area, yet Caledon must now make do with one trustee on a board of 20, and there is no right of appeal to this decision.

This is exactly the type of situation, taxation without representation, that gave rise to the most famous of all tax revolts, the Boston tea party, although in this case it might more aptly be dubbed the Bolton tea party.

Allow me to draw an analogy regarding representation which all members, especially those from northern Ontario, will appreciate. Back in 1983, this assembly directed by way of resolution that redistribution maintain not fewer than 15 seats in northern Ontario. For practical purposes, this meant that, based on the 1981 census figures, northern ridings average 51,627 persons, while southern ridings average 68,267. In other words, notwithstanding population differences between north and south, the special circumstances posed by a large area with low population are recognized here as they are in federal riding distribution. Can members imagine the outcry if anyone suggested otherwise?

Now I know there will be some who will think that giving 50 electors the right to appeal such decisions to the Minister of Education further erodes local autonomy. I would suggest that there are local prerogatives which must be protected and maintained, and then there are those which by their very nature must be appealable to a higher authority. This is one of those cases, and if school boards can cut or add representation without sufficient cause, I would suggest it is only reasonable to allow the public the right of appeal with cause.

I would draw the members' attention to the fact that I have narrowed the grounds of appeal to the Minister of Education to just one point, and that is whether the number of trustees is adequate given the size of the municipality and the number of board committees. That is all. This bill erodes local autonomy only to the extent that it grants to the people who elect boards the right of appeal from decisions by a small minority of trustees.

The right of appeal in this instance is a check against possible abuse and should be welcomed by trustees and ratepayers alike. Indeed, after unsuccessfully reconsidering the Caledon trustee matter, the Peel board voted by a considerable majority to support Bill 72.

I would also draw to members' attention nearly 3,000 signatures, which I have before me, on petitions and letters which I presented to the House yesterday, and the petitions are still coming in, a substantial number of signatures from people all over the riding and even outside the riding, of people opposing the Peel board's actions on this and supporting the bill. I know the Premier and the Minister of Education have received numerous other letters as well because constituents in my riding have advised me of that.

Short of the government introducing its own legislation to deal with this problem, Bill 72 remains the best chance to redress the harm done to Caledon and other similarly affected municipalities. It is imperative that this problem be solved now, before the municipal elections in the fall, because otherwise over half the geographic area of the region of Peel will only have one representative for the next three years.

I realize we can debate the details of the Peel mechanism set forth in this bill and I am open to any amendments at a later stage which maintain the right of appeal and ensure that all those who have been affected this year can appeal.

In conclusion, I would ask for the support of this assembly for this legislation so that fairness and equity may be restored to the people of Caledon and elsewhere in Ontario where this has also happened, and so it may not happen again without the right of appeal.

Mr Martin: This morning I rise to speak to this bill which indeed is an important issue, even though, as the member who introduced it stated, it is not a complicated or a sophisticated piece of business. However, the buildup and the actual case that he presents is complicated and has a lot of ramifications and is not easily answered.

Even though I believe in my heart, because I believe in the democratic process, that there is a way of resolving these kinds of issues and we need to be looking at them perhaps more seriously -- in view of how things are unfolding in many areas, not just Caledon, with regard to this question, it is not this bill that is going to answer it. This bill is certainly, as the member stated, a simple response to a complex question. It is not going to do it.

The gist of this bill, the underlying philosophical understanding of it, flies in the face of the way I think many of us would like to see, and in actual fact the government has dealt with issues of education and autonomy over educational issues over the last few years.

It is the Minister of Education's understanding and feeling that the local school board, imperfect as that may be, should still have as much say, and in most cases the last say, with regard to how it is represented by the people it serves and how it acts on behalf of those people.

As a matter of fact, the whole question of representation by population in democracies across the world is one that has been under scrutiny for many years and still needs some tremendous work done on it, particularly when we narrow it down to constituencies as small as school board areas or municipal areas and we get into specific situations where people feel that their rights are not being addressed or that they somehow are being unfairly dealt with becomes more apparent.

It is in this light that I stand today to speak against this motion. I think that certainly there is a problem, and others will speak to that as we move forward here this morning. The answer is not in this bill, as the previous member stated, in some sense of tyranny to give the Minister of Education the right to come in where a board has made a decision, overturn that decision and effect change in that unilateral way.

1020

I stand here today to tell members that the minister is indeed listening to the cries of the people of Caledon and other places in this province who feel in front of this situation, who feel they are not having their voices heard. The ministry, because of the resolution brought forth by the member and certainly the letters written by the folks of Caledon and others, is going to be moving with great haste, I believe, to come to an understanding of just what the problem is and to present perhaps some other answers that might be more in the spirit of allowing school boards the autonomy they need in order to do the job they have been mandated to do by the government of this province.

There has to be an answer where people feel their voices are not being heard. In a democracy there always has to be an answer, and when you bring it to the attention of the government in the way the member has this morning, and the folks from Caledon and other places are bringing it to the attention of the government, it needs to be addressed. I assure the Speaker and my colleague across the floor that the minister and the ministry are listening intently to the challenge that is being put in front of them today and that they will in due time come forth with, hopefully, some resolution to this particular issue.

The whole question actually of how we do education in the province has been and continues to be under review, the financing of it and indeed the governance of it. We look at the rights and responsibilities and needs of the French population in our province and the native people in our province. I believe that thrown into the mix of all of that certainly needs to be the rights and needs of people who live in rural areas, who live in small, isolated board areas, who oftentimes do not feel that they are being given the resources they need to provide the quality of education they see being offered in larger centres where there is indeed a more lucrative tax source.

I say again, even though I stand here sympathetic to the arguments being presented and sympathetic to the situation that has so obviously come to a head in that particular board and, as we will hear this morning, other boards, this bill is, as the member said, certainly not a complicated situation or answer. However, it is not the right answer in light of the philosophic stance taken by this government to education and the issue of school boards having autonomy over those questions which are so important: representation by population and the deliverance of educational services.

Mrs Y. O'Neill: I rise this morning to address Bill 72, An Act to amend the Education Act with respect to Electoral Quotients introduced by the member for Dufferin-Peel. At the outset, may I say that this is a very complex issue.

I realize that there are difficulties and concerns in this community and within the Peel Board of Education. Some of these seem to be based on personalities and personal perspectives. I can assure the members of this Legislature that indeed a great amount of consultation went into Bill 175, An Act to amend the Education Act and Certain Other Acts related to Education, which was given royal assent 1 June 1988. Indeed, this consultation took place over a period exceeding three years, and I was personally involved in many of those discussions.

Having been a trustee for 14 years, I have a deep and long-standing conviction and respect for the right and responsibility of trustees to make decisions on behalf of the communities they represent. As those in this province who know me will understand and appreciate, the protection of local decision-making, local resolution, local discretion has always been a major personal priority. I continue to believe that any shift in representation should be made by decisions at the local level, where real knowledge of local needs and issues are appreciated and, may I add, I believe that to examine the motives of votes at local levels should never be presumed. The examination of motives of voting patterns is a dangerous practice and is more dangerous when one level of government is looking at another.

There are certain fundamental principles we should all bear in mind when examining trustee representation, as determined by Bill 125, within the broad context of representation by population. Bill 125 provides for consistency across all school boards in this province, whether they be public, separate, urban or rural, and is based on the fundamental principle of proportional representation. May I add that this bill finally brought the election of school board trustees within the same democratic process as the federal, provincial and municipal elections that have taken place over a series of years.

The number of trustees on each board is now determined by population. This is done prior to each municipal election. Population data is determined through the enumeration process under way at this moment in this province as we prepare for the fall 1991 election. Trustees now represent people, not square miles or geographic areas or levels of assessment or wealth, as was the past practice.

The total size of a board is based on the sum of the populations of electoral groups -- electoral supporters and their dependents -- to be represented on the board. This total population is the determinant of the number of trustees who will comprise the board. This number is arrived at by the application of a uniform formula contained within the legislation itself. The number of members who will comprise the board is distributed among the electoral groups of the board, based on the proportion that each group's population is of the total population of all electoral groups of the board. I said this is a complex issue.

The decision taken by the Peel Board of Education regarding the number of trustees chosen to represent Caledon has, I believe, been taken with full knowledge of the trustees and full knowledge of the community's needs. Indeed, even if the result of the board's vote is maintained, Caledon will be represented by its entitlement according to the Education Act.

The problems that have arisen since that decision seem to involve many personalities, several accusations, the presentation of some facts, the examination of some motives, all of this sometimes out of context, and have left the community in a state of confusion as we enter another period of serious decision-making in the choice of trustees, the municipal elections of 1991.

The joint committee on trustee representation stated, "We...believe that in the development of procedures for trustee apportionment, flexibility should be provided in order to address specific needs and local conditions," and thus, section 206b(6) of the Education Act reads:

"Where a board approves, by a resolution passed by an affirmative vote of three quarters of the members of the board in the year immediately preceding the year of a regular election under the Municipal Elections Act or before the 10th day of August, 1988, an increase or decrease of either one or two in the number of members of the board, the number of members of the board shall be deemed to be so increased or decreased for the next two subsequent regular elections."

I understand the present Minister of Education changed the above date for such decisions to 31 March immediately preceding any regular municipal election year. Section 206b of the Education Act already contains an appeal process, a fact that the member for Dufferin-Peel and Bill 72 completely ignore. I have it before me in my hand this morning.

1030

Mrs Cunningham: What page?

Mrs Y. O'Neill: Page 454 of the Education Act. This may be exercised by a municipality, and I understand that the Caledon council is already engaged in exercising that right.

The member for Dufferin-Peel seems to feel that the existing process is insufficient, even though appeals and time lines provided for in this legislation have not yet been fulfilled.

I believe deeply that Bill 72 is a very dangerous precedent. In my mind it is dangerous politics, and thus in my opinion Bill 72 is presumptuous, premature and, I believe, perhaps even out of order.

Mrs Witmer: It is a pleasure to have this opportunity to speak to Bill 72, An Act to amend the Education Act with respect to Electoral Quotients.

This act states that boards of education can add or subtract up to two trustees in a departure from straight representation by population. This usually is done in instances of low population in clearly defined areas and it does allow inequitable situations to be addressed.

The act also specifies that three quarters of all trustees must pass a motion to this end no later than 31 March of each election year. Therefore, this action has just been taken by boards of education across this province.

I would agree with previous speakers that this is a complex bill. However, as a former school trustee with the Waterloo County Board of Education, I have been faced with the decision regarding the number of representatives on several occasions and I know just recently the trustees on my board were asked to make that decision again. Each time the Waterloo board decided, after serious consideration, input from the community and hearing all points of view, to increase its size from 18 to 20 trustees, even though in two of the municipalities there was an extremely low population factor.

Indeed, in the areas of Cambridge, Kitchener and Waterloo each trustee represents about 15,000 residents. In the rural municipalities -- there are four -- each trustee represents 6,500 residents. So, by right, the rural area should only be represented by two trustees as opposed to four. However, the trustees in the region of Waterloo recognize that it is extremely important that the residents in the outlying agricultural areas have access to a trustee in their own geographical area. It is important that they be represented by a local trustee who understands the needs of his or her community and is actively involved in it, and those needs are sometimes very different from those trustees who represent the urban areas.

Yes, it is important at all times that all of the taxpayers' points of view are represented at the board table in order to ensure that the needs of all students within the jurisdiction of the board are met. Therefore, it is indeed unfortunate that the Peel board failed by one vote to pass the necessary motion to have a second Caledon trustee after the municipal elections this fall. It is unfortunate because since 1975 they have been represented by two trustees and now that representation has been reduced to one.

At a time when taxpayers want access more than ever to their trustees and to their schools and they want more involvement in the school system, at a time when committee work for trustees is increasing, this is indeed an unfortunate step. I believe that the voters in Caledon have indeed been unfairly treated.

I would hope that serious consideration be given to changing the Education Act. I believe that the three quarters is unnecessary and I would like to see a simple majority making this type of decision. We need to ensure that all taxpayers have access into the educational system and that they are adequately represented in the decision-making. It is extremely important that special consideration be given to representation in low-population areas that are geographically removed from the bulk of the population.

I am concerned about what has happened and it is my sincere hope that those people throughout the province who have lost representation will be treated in a fair and equitable manner and that very special consideration will be given to them in order that the problem that has arisen this year may be addressed.

Mr Mills: I say it every Thursday, and I say it again this Thursday, that it is always a great pleasure for me to rise in this House and debate bills introduced by members of all parties. I think it best explains the system of democracy that we have here. I have said before that it is a pity that some of these ideas are not carried forward into more extreme levels of government. I think it is a wonderful idea.

Having said that, I came here this morning with some apprehension. I see that the member for Dufferin-Peel is missing from his seat. I saw that great big pile of papers in front of him and I thought for one terrible moment that we were going to get back on Bill 4. I am glad to see that -- he is not here at the moment, but here he comes -- he is not a one-dimensional member, that he brings forward this Bill 72 with some degree of fervour on behalf of his constituents.

My life has been rather regimented, to say the least. As a result of that, I am a fervent believer in the chain of command. I think that what this bill is trying to do is circumvent the chain of command and I do not know if that is a very good idea. I understand the problems of Caledon and what is happening here. I understand what the member is trying to correct here. I have read the bill.

The bill is good but it is not perfect, and I suppose it is fair to say that most of the bills that we introduce here on Thursdays are far from perfect. I thought about this matter and I discussed with some of the Ministry of Education officials as to why this situation was allowed and what had happened in the past. I am given to understand that the minister or her staff are actively going to look at this matter with a view to correcting it.

I must say that I support the principle of representation by population and I am very worried that if we take away the authority of the trustees, the minister will be under tremendous pressure from school boards all across Ontario to intervene into decisions made by trustees. I do not think that is the minister's role and I think she is far too busy and has lots of things on her plate rather than get involved in that.

I cannot support the member's bill for three reasons. The first reason is that I believe that trustees are much better able to assess and balance the local needs and preferences as elected. I also believe that the intrusion of ministerial discretion into the school board election process works against local accountability. Finally, one of the problems with this bill, as I see it, is that within the jurisdiction of each board, if electors of one municipality gain representation through the distribution rules, electors in another must lose and electors from each losing municipality might then apply to the minister to undo the decision taken by the trustees they elected.

1040

Mr Tilson: Who's going to lose? No one's going to lose. You don't know what you're talking about. It's full of baloney.

Mr Mills: This will become administratively unwieldy and might render superfluous the board's decision as to distribution.

Based upon my remarks, and despite the interjections of the member -- I have the floor, Mr Speaker, and I believe that I have a right to speak uninterrupted -- I will rest my case.

Mr Beer: It is a pleasure to participate in this debate because I think our colleague has raised an important and fundamental issue with respect to, in effect, the workings of what was Bill 125. I think sometimes what is particularly helpful in these debates is the raising of the issues. Whereas one may not always agree with the approach, and I have some concerns about what our colleague has put forward this morning, I think it is none the less terribly important that we recognize that in a number of areas of the province the way in which trustee distribution has gone about has not reflected the kinds of concerns and needs that I think particularly those in the more spread-out or rural parts of different board jurisdictions are really entitled to. Perhaps one of the messages the minister can take from our debate today is that this does need to be looked at again.

I would like to just comment on two elements of our colleague's bill which give me concern.

One is that I think it is terribly important, as hard as it is at times, to recognize the principle of local autonomy and try to respect that principle and have the board make the decision. Of course, what is always difficult with that is that there are times when a school board or a municipality, indeed, a provincial government, will make a decision that we believe is unfair and that we would like to see changed. But here, I think, we need to look at the principle and not just at a particular situation. However it may merit changes, as in the case of Caledon.

What would concern me is that we would be affecting that principle of local autonomy. I think we have to try to make sure that school boards are responsible for the actions that they take. If there is a right of appeal to a minister, I think one of the things that inevitably leads to is that representatives on a board may say: "We can take a certain position because in the end it can be appealed to the minister and we'll let the minister make the tough decision. In a sense, it lifts it off our backs."

Having spent a short time as a minister, it seems to me that when you do develop structures that are to deal with local governance, you really have to say then that that is where those issues should be debated, should be discussed and that this would not be an appropriate area in which to have a right of appeal to a minister.

I feel that very strongly and feel that it is a weakness in this bill, because I see that inevitably there would then be a weakening of that sense of responsibility. Clearly what we are trying to say, whether it is to the Peel board members or to any other school board, is that whether you are representing what is essentially very much an urban part of that jurisdiction or the rural area, in addition to your responsibility to those who elect you, you have a broader responsibility to the whole board and to its jurisdiction. That means that you have to listen to and understand the concerns that may come from particularly those areas of that board's jurisdiction that are spread out where historically there is a concern about the kind of representation that they can have.

I think what this leads to, in my mind, is that if we look at the points that have been raised by the member with respect to Caledon, and I know others of us have some examples in other parts of the province where there have been real concerns around the way in which the trustee distribution has gone forward, I would suggest strongly to the minister that she might want, in working with school boards and others engaged in the educational community, to look again at how that section is worded. Our colleague the member for Waterloo North has suggested that one of the things that might be done is to change the percentage required to make that change. That is certainly one element that could be looked at.

Another element would be to look at some of the definitions that we have in the legislation and try to see if there is a better way of expressing in a more specific sense, in a more directing sense, how many representatives you would need to have in those areas that are deemed to be rural.

That being said, it is still my view that we need to be very clear that we do not want to interfere with the principle of local autonomy and I believe it would be a very grave mistake to write into the legislation some kind of right of appeal to the minister of the day, because I think that would weaken not only the local autonomy but the sense of local responsibility that we want to ensure exists at the school board level.

Mrs Cunningham: It is with a great deal of pride and honour that I rise in the House this morning to speak to this bill as presented by my colleague the member for Dufferin-Peel.

I think what we are talking about today is probably an opportunity to do things differently in government, and I think all members of this House, if they have not already found out, will find out that over the years we are all stuck with legislation that we would all agree needs some amendments. The Education Act is not alone.

Certainly as we take a look at the opportunities that we had in the last three years to look at distribution of trustees and the makeup of school boards across the province of Ontario, it is I think with some degree of pride that the member for Ottawa-Rideau spoke today, because she in fact was a very real part of that, as was the former minister.

The frustration we feel this morning is that we in no way would come to this House and ask to change what we think is a part of the bill that just simply does not work. In what other resolutions would we ask of school boards that 75% of them have to vote in favour of change? I sat on a school board for some 16 years. Basically, a simple majority of the board changed decisions, and that would have been one part of the bill that I did not like and I do not think it is fair.

But we are in a dilemma today. It would be silly for us to come with that amendment to the bill. If we are not successful today, we will put that forth, but that will not help boards in time for the next election. That is a timely process; it takes a lot of public input, and we did not have the opportunity.

I think what the House is seeing today is democracy at its best. A local member has been presented with a problem. All of us get one kick at the can per year, and he has chosen an issue in his own municipality to bring forth a solution to. There are not very many solutions presented in this House. We have the opportunity to speak to one today, and I would underline that it is just what he stated, a short-term solution.

I would also remind the members that those of us who have spoken from the Progressive Conservative Party this morning can only say that we too very much support local autonomy. It is not with a great deal of pleasure that one has to bring these kinds of motions before the House, but I do believe we are looking for solutions to a problem, and this is the one way to do it.

My colleague from Dufferin-Peel will also be responding to the point that was made by the member for Ottawa-Rideau with regard to the appeal within the distribution that is allowed for in the act, and I asked the parliamentary assistant to the minister to look into that, because I think we are here to solve problems this morning. Within this Education Act it is not our understanding that this would be possible. What the member for Dufferin-Peel is asking for is an appeal by resolution of the board with regard to whether it goes up one or two trustees, and it is a technicality, but it is different, and that is the reason we had to bring this bill. We have honestly looked for all angles.

Members on the opposite side have nothing to lose by voting for this legislation this morning. It is not going to pass because they vote for it this morning. They can ask to have it brought back to the House for another reading. They can ask for it to go to committee. I think, in fairness to an excellent member who is serving his public and to a government that should be looking for solutions to problems, that this is a short-term solution and that it is something that should be considered, rather than just throwing it out with disregard, based on perhaps party line. So I will be looking this morning to those members in this House who have thoughtfully listened and are looking for solutions. There is nothing to be lost in voting for first reading today.

1050

Mr Drainville: I rise today to support the bill as set forth by the member opposite. I want to say that the reason is that we have just in the last while been through a difficult situation in my own area, in Victoria-Haliburton riding.

In Victoria county there was a situation in which the people from the north end of the riding were having difficulties in maintaining their local schools, and so what they began to do was to fight that process. They fought it so hard that they took it into the legal realm. Afterwards, the board decided that it was going to ask those people, 15 people in fact, mostly working class people, some of them on low incomes, to pay for the costs of that legal battle. On top of that, in the last month they have taken away the one extra representative from the north of the riding, which is sparsely populated. So I think it is obvious that there are situations where trustees are not always able to care for the needs, the rights and the aspirations of those in other less populous parts of the area that they are representing. My concern is a very real one and I join with the member for Dufferin-Peel in his concern that there be adequate representation for areas.

In supporting the bill, I also have to say that there are flaws, of course. There are in every bill that we bring forward. I am concerned about the minister being engaged in these kinds of discussions and debates. Obviously the minister is going to be put into many situations throughout the province where if this was enacted the minister would be forced to be involved in a lot of different kinds of negotiations which would not be helpful to the minister or the ministry at times because of the difficult nature of such decisions.

However, on the whole I believe that something needs to be done, I would like to see something done about it as soon as possible, and I would be remiss to my own constituency of Victoria-Haliburton if I did not support the bill as set forth by the member for Dufferin-Peel.

Mr Callahan: Mr Speaker, I understand I have a very short time, and as you know, I chair the standing committee on public accounts. That is why I have not been here for the full discussion. But I rise in favour of the idea, because in the new board structure that was brought in 10 or 15 years ago in a situation such as in my community, Peel, where Mississauga has a certain number of representatives and the combination of Brampton and Caledon has a certain number of representatives, if you lower that number, it makes it very much more difficult for people in Brampton, and I would think the same thing holds true in Caledon, to achieve the move up of capital structures in their community. It requires a significant amount of lobbying, and if there is not -- and I am not suggesting there is not -- goodwill, you can wind up with a good deal of the capital going into one area.

This did happen in a sense, I suppose. There was a school board trustee in my riding, or I suppose in my colleague's riding of Brampton North, who was attempting to achieve a school, I think it was in the C section of Bramalea. He had that on the burner for a long time. There was no question in my mind, although I do not like to interfere or get involved in the bailiwick of the trustees, in going around my riding and looking at the problems that were existing in that area, that the school was very much needed. He fought for it, lobbied for it, and finally got it.

That is the difficulty I see in an imbalance, and perhaps it arises from the introduction of mass boards and the introduction even of regional government. If the representatives are not equivalent, then you have some difficulties in terms of trying to lobby constantly, and if you do not have the numbers to lobby with, then in essence you have difficulty in terms of representing your constituents.

In that respect I support the idea. I have some difficulty with the question of it being directed to the minister. Local trustees are elected by the people in their community and have responsibility to the people of that community, and accordingly it should be their bailiwick to deal with the issue. But as I say, I did want to speak briefly to it and I have now had my opportunity to speak briefly.

Mr Tilson: The whole issue of rep by pop has been raised by members of the House, and certainly that is a consideration that needs to be looked at, but so does the whole issue of the geographic area need to be looked at. If this bill fails and if the government does not come up with an amendment, as it is suggesting, to the act, as it has promised that it will, before the end of this sitting, then over one half the geographic area of the region of Peel will have one trustee. All the other trustees will be in the other half. In other words, 19 trustees will cover the 214 square miles that make up Brampton and Mississauga, but the poor Caledon trustee, the one Caledon trustee, will have more, 276 square miles, and that is not fair.

We are talking about a municipal election that is coming up in the fall of this year, and if the government is indicating that it is going to be voting against this bill -- and of course they have the votes. They can do as they like on that. I hope they do not. Clearly that is an unfair situation and should be rectified immediately. So if the government is going to vote against the bill, I only hope that it can resolve this before this House rises for this session.

The provision for varying pure rep by population on school boards exists for the very same reason that pure representation by population does not exist at federal or other provincial levels of government. It does not even exist between wards in Mississauga, which makes me marvel at the six trustees who cause this problem. I believe there were five trustees from Mississauga who, by their actions, demanded the rigid application of rep by pop to the citizens of Caledon, and it does not even exist in their own riding. That is the whole reason for this bill. When you get a small number of trustees running the show, that is what local autonomy is.

I believe that if there is not sufficient cause to change something, then there should be a right of appeal. Yes, there is the issue of local autonomy, but it has to be with cause, it has to be fair, it has to be just. The people of Caledon, the geographic area which covers half the area of the region of Peel, do not have that right of appeal.

With respect to the legal issue that was raised by the member for Ottawa-Rideau, certainly I respect her experience in the education field in her past, but I think, with respect, that she should read it again. Section 206b deals with an appeal based on distribution, which is the number of trustees based on the count population with the calculation of subsection 206a(6). In other words, this is a technical appeal to a judge.

What this bill is doing is an amendment which would add a subsection to this, because this appeal would be based on determination, in other words, the decision to go up by one or two trustees, and that would be an appeal to the minister, which enhances the need for the bill. Essentially what I am suggesting is the addition of the further subsection.

With respect to the comments of the member for Sault Ste Marie, he said he is going to do something. When is he going to do something? If he does not act quickly, Caledon will only have one trustee.

What is wrong with giving the people in an area a right to say how they want to be represented? What is wrong with that? The government is saying and the people who have spoken against this bill are saying the people of Caledon do not have that right, because the decision has been made from another area. It has not even been made by the people of the town of Caledon; it was made by the people from the south part of the region of Peel.

I was a trustee. What a wonderful way to get rid of your opposition. You remove the position. You simply vote them out by a minority decision. You vote the decision out. You do not vote out the people whom the people have voted in. You vote to remove the decision. What a wonderful way. Imagine how the government would love to get rid of the opposition on this side of the House. You remove the position. I would like the members of the House to think of that.

When a board makes a decision, there must be a decision for cause, and that is what the people of Caledon want. They have not heard a sound reason why this decision has been made and why they are losing representation. Percentage-wise they are taxed more than people throughout that riding, and yet they are losing one member. They are losing 50% of their riding.

The member for Durham East talks about this bill as not being perfect. When he is around a little bit, I think he will realize that a lot of bills are not perfect. A lot of pieces of legislation are not perfect. Again, I am looking for his alternative. In my opening remarks, I have challenged members of the government or members who are opposing this bill to suggest amendments.

The Deputy Speaker: There is one minute left for the government's side, if somebody wants to use it.

Mr G. Wilson: In the short time I have I would just like to commend the member for Dufferin-Peel for his hard work and obviously well-supported arguments, which I think will have some bearing on the municipal elections this fall. Certainly he has suggested there is wide support throughout the riding for the position of the Caledon trustee, and I think that might have some bearing on the election.

The second thing is that the member for York North said the trustees are elected to represent the area as a whole. With the strong support that the Caledon residents had to get another trustee, it seems to me there is strong support for their position on the board now. I think the system is working and can work in the fall election to get enough support to find another trustee for the Caledon area.

The Deputy Speaker: There is no more time left for the Liberals.

An hon member: There are 50 seconds.

The Deputy Speaker: No, no, for the opposition.

The member for Dufferin-Peel, you have two minutes to wrap up.

Mr Tilson: If I listen to the parliamentary assistant and the remarks that have been made with respect to why the government is opposing this bill, it appears to be the same reason being made for the member for Ottawa-Rideau. I only ask them to read the bill again or read the current law again, because the provision that exists that we are asking for does not exist in the act. It does not allow what we are asking for. The appeal that exists in the current act allows an appeal based on distribution. We are asking for an appeal based on determination, in other words, the decision to go up by one or two trustees.

The last speaker indicated this will have a bearing on the election. If this bill is not passed or if the government does not come up with a similar bill, they will be voting for only one trustee. They are going to be voting for half the trustees they have now. They will not be around, so the people will have only half the right they have now to vote on. That is why it is imperative that this bill be voted on now. If the government is not going to vote on this bill now, I assume it will have new legislation before this House rises that will be passed and that will allow another trustee to be added to the town of Caledon to give it the representation it has had.

With respect to some of the other comments, again I emphasize that when a decision is made by a board -- and it just happens that it has happened in the region of Peel. It could happen anywhere. It could happen in Victoria-Haliburton. I must confess, I congratulate the member for Victoria-Haliburton for breaking ranks with his party on a very --

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you. Time for the first ballot has expired.

MINISTRY OF COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES AMENDMENT ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LE MINISTÈRE DES COLLÈGES ET UNIVERSITÉS

Mr Perruzza moved second reading of Bill 78, An Act to amend the Ministry of Colleges and Universities Act to require approval of the Lieutenant Governor in Council for transactions respecting university lands.

M. Perruzza propose la deuxième lecture du projet de loi 78, Loi portant modification de la Loi sur le ministère des Collèges et Universités en vue d'exiger l'approbation du lieutenant-gouverneur en conseil pour les opérations relatives à des biens-fonds des universités.

Mr Perruzza: As the title of the act suggests, it is an act to amend the Ministry of Colleges and Universities Act to require the approval of the Lieutenant Governor in Council for transactions respecting university lands.

Before I proceed to speak on the merits of the bill, I would like to preamble my comments by saying to the opposition and to my colleagues on this side of the House that this is not a piece of legislation intended to be controversial in any way. It is not intended to limit the abilities of universities to be creative with their resources in generating capital funds for university purposes, for university expansion and so on. It is just a measure of public accountability, a measure that would enable public input into what are otherwise public lands and publicly funded institutions and lands acquired through public funds.

I will start by reading the bill essentially. It is not a very long bill and would amend the Ministry of Colleges and Universities Act. It reads, "A university shall not dispose of an interest in real property without the approval of the Lieutenant Governor in Council." This applies to all conveyances, encumbrances, including charges and mortgages, and leases for periods of 20 years or more.

This particular act does not cover colleges and there is a specific reason for that. Colleges are covered by the current legislation and are required to seek permission of the Minister of Colleges and Universities before they are permitted to engage in private enterprise, that is, entering into agreements whereby they seek to dispose of publicly acquired assets such as lands, buildings and so on. That is a requirement of the act. Colleges are currently covered by that requirement and that public process and essentially a decision by a public official of the crown and of the government.

However, universities are autonomous in this regard in that they are able to enter into agreements and private dealings without either seeking permission of the minister or of the government of the day, that is, the Lieutenant Governor in Council. As I have said, they are autonomous and they are able to engage in these types of enterprises. My bill would simply require them to come through what is otherwise a public process where the public has some input.

I would like to start off by reading two quotes which have appeared in one of our daily papers, one in the Toronto Star of 19 March, a column written by Susan Pigg. I will just quote briefly from the column entitled "Universities Caught Up in a Land Game." It reads:

"It all seems pretty harmless on the surface. Institutions like the University of Toronto and York University are so broke because of inadequate government funding that they are being forced to sell or lease some of their lands for lucrative development. But most of these lands are being done in private. Ontario taxpayers, who in many cases donated or paid for those valuable lands in the first place, don't have any say in whether they will be left as parks or turned into high-rises." This is one of our columnists in the daily newspaper.

1110

Again in the Toronto Star, 6 March, a column written by David Lewis Stein entitled "College Land Deals Sell Out the Public Interest" reads:

"Public institutions are not just raising money by peddling bits of land; they are selling off part of our common inheritance, public space, most of it green public space, that some day we are going to need."

My particular views on the subject are not as extreme as Mr Stein's or Ms Pigg's, for that matter. However, I am concerned because in my own particular riding it was not long ago that York University approached municipal council and decided to sever off 22 acres of itself essentially and entered into a private deal with a developer to build six condominium towers, a total of 1,500 condominium apartment units. They generated from this deal roughly $33 million which they in turn reinvested into the university for university expansion.

My concern is not directed at that particular deal. My concern is that there was no public process. There was no public input before the university engaged in its private dealings with a private developer to sever lands and proceed with the development of the campus.

I think this is fundamentally wrong. People from your own local communities come up to you as representative of a university or as a representative in government, and universities are generally seen as being umbrella institutions of government, and say: "What's happening here? How come we didn't have an opportunity to voice our opinions and our concerns with respect to this deal? We would have no problem in supporting the university in this enterprise. However, we would like to have seen these particular changes, etc." As the member, one is only able to look these taxpayers in the face and say: "Well, I'm sorry. Universities are autonomous. They can engage in dealings in a private matter just as any other private individual in this province would be able to."

Of course, the response from community members is immediate. Their response is: "Don't I pay taxes? Aren't universities publicly funded by my tax dollars? Shouldn't I have some say in what the university will and won't do? Aren't there any community representatives on the university board of governors? Isn't there anyone I can speak to to express some concerns with respect to this deal?"

Of course the answer has to be no, because as members are well aware, in some cases there are no public appointments to university boards of governors. They are self-perpetuating, and I hope that at some point our government takes the initiative and embarks in a direction where that particular deficiency is redressed, but that is another matter for another debate on another day.

I think we should stick to the issue at hand in this particular case and that is just what this bill does. Basically, this brings universities through a public process where taxpayers, community members and people who live near or within universities are able to come to a publicly elected official and say, "I have some serious reservations about this deal," or: "I'd like to support this deal. I'd like to support the university in this particular endeavour." That is what this particular piece of legislation is intended to do. It is intended simply to integrate the public taxpayers into a public process where there is a public interest in publicly funded institutions.

I would hope the members in this House this morning support this initiative.

Mr Daigeler: It is the custom in this House to say it is a pleasure to stand up and speak to whatever is before the House. However, on this particular bill we are addressing today, I cannot honestly say I take great pleasure in doing this. While on the face of it it seems a rather innocuous bill, in its implications, when we carry it through to its logical conclusion, I think it is very scary indeed. I will explain what I mean by that in just a few minutes.

More and more we seem to have a tendency in private members' hour to address what I think are purely local grievances which have their role and their place in local politics. We are all aware of that. Many of us have a municipal background. But when we bring up matters here at Queen's Park, I think we should be very careful about trying to correct local problems with provincial solutions, because they have repercussions all across Ontario. What may be appropriate in the member's riding or even in the member's general area may not be appropriate at all for my area of Ottawa-Carleton or for anywhere else in this province. Quite frankly, even on the previous bill I felt the same way, that here were very local issues being raised perhaps to score some political points at home, but if they were really accepted by this House, they would have a very tremendous and in my opinion negative impact on the whole province.

What is the member trying to solve? He has explained that there are situations in Toronto where some of the universities are trying to use some of their assets to create revenue. He is saying there is no public involvement in whatever the university decides, and I do not think that is true. There has been extensive debate in the Toronto area on some of these decisions. In fact, any zoning changes have to be approved by city council. In this case, I understand city council first approved it, then withdrew the approval, and there was ample opportunity for the public, as there should be, to make presentations to elected officials. I understand that then the university went to the Ontario Municipal Board and the Ontario Municipal Board, as the arbiter in those cases, gave reason and right to the university against the decision of the local council.

That is the appeal process we have in this province. I do not think that should in any way, shape or form be overridden by the heavy hand of the government and of the cabinet, interfering and saying from the top down, "This is the way it is supposed to be." In fact, if you do not like an OMB decision, there is still the appeal possibility to the cabinet. It is there. It is hardly ever used and it has to be a very severe case indeed, but it is there. So why say that every decision that will be made on land disposal or any kind of real estate action by a university ought to be approved by cabinet?

Quite frankly, I think that from a practical point of view this is a rather ludicrous idea. What else? Is the member going to grind down the work of the cabinet with every land decision that a university makes? Not that the cabinet right now is moving very fast, but to burden it with every kind of day-to-day decision by universities, just from a practical point of view, never mind the philosophical one, I think is not serious.

I think more important, though -- and this is the scary part to which I referred a little bit earlier -- is the idea that the cabinet or Big Brother here at Queen's Park should override, if it does not like a decision, all the things that have been done at the local level. In my opinion, that is the scary part. That is the mindset that seems to be behind the member for Downsview. Of course, it is a socialist idea: central government. You centralize all the decisions. You eliminate local decisions. That, of course, inspires the member on other decisions as well, and I must say I respect that. He got elected. He is an NDP member. He is a socialist and he wants central government, and he feels whatever he thinks is the right thing ought to be imposed on everyone else.

1120

Well, I am a Liberal and I do not agree with that. I think there is tremendous room for debate, for local decisions, for appeal options. But in the end, it is not up to the highest level of government to say, "This is the way it should be and we're going to force our opinion through, no matter what." In my opinion that is the scary part about what appears to be a rather innocent initiative in the first place. I hope that through the perhaps four years -- should it be five years? I hope not -- of this government, we will not see more and more of this centralizing, socializing tendency and increasing emphasis on government.

I think we have a very important role for the universities to govern themselves. I do agree to some extent with the member that we want our universities to be open and accountable, and perhaps there are improvements to be made. I think the universities themselves recognize that. We had the universities appear before the public accounts committee, and I think the member was even there for part of that. The universities clearly recognize that they want to further improve their public accountability, their public responsibility.

Most of the universities already have public representatives on the boards. They hold their meetings in public; at least they try more and more to do that, and improvements can be made in that. I will certainly push for it, and I think the universities are open towards that, so I do not think there is any need at all to come in with a heavy hand and require cabinet approval each and every time a university wants to take out a debenture or make a real estate decision and sell some land or buy some land in order to improve its situation.

Finally, if the member really wanted to do something for the universities, I think there is something very easy and very obvious that he could have done, rather than limit their options for revenue-raising; that is, talking to the Treasurer and at least telling him, "Mention the universities in your budget." Did the Treasurer even mention the words "universities" and "higher education" in his budget? There was no reference at all. There was some remark on the community colleges, but nothing at all about the university sector. If the member really is concerned about the viability of our universities, why did he not pressure his colleagues on his side of the House to improve the funding situation for the universities? Why is he just trying to take away a revenue source for some of the universities?

The member has mentioned that some areas will be losing valuable park space. That may be so. However, if a city or a municipality wants to create park space, there are other options. You have to ask yourself, why should the whole province pay for the park space of a particular municipality? I do not think there is any rhyme or reason to that. If they want to have a park, sure, why not? I think we are all in favour of green space. But I do not think the burden should fall on the university to provide what is the responsibility of a municipality. If the municipality wants to preserve that space, let the municipality and the local taxpayer pay for that recreation space they want. That is an option that is there for any taxpayer and for any local councillor throughout the province. I think that is where that responsibility should lie.

I want to leave a few moments for my colleague a little bit farther down the road who will be speaking on the same motion, but I did want to indicate that I am very opposed to this particular motion. The main reason is that I see the big socialist brother behind this particular bill, imposing his will on everybody else across the province and especially on people at the local level.

Mrs Cunningham: It is an interesting bill that we have before us. I am wondering if the Minister of Colleges and Universities or his parliamentary assistant will be speaking to this later. I would be most interested in knowing what he has to say about guidelines that are presently in place. However, again I think that the member for Downsview has received some pressure. He certainly reads the newspapers, as the rest of us do. There are probably a couple of issues that he is very concerned about in bringing this legislation before us today.

I think on the surface most individuals, citizens across the province of Ontario, feel very badly about the fact that the universities have been put into a position where in fact they are having to sell their property. The process by which they sell this property, however, is not unlike the process by which school boards sell their property.

In fact, I should tell members that school boards right now do not have to go to the Lieutenant Governor to get permission to sell their land. But because it is, I think, an extremely serious decision on their behalf, and since their land was in fact acquired through the public purse -- most school board properties have been purchased by the boards through taxpayers' dollars -- therefore they have restrictions and guidelines for selling them. The first item they must deal with is to sell any public property that is owned by school boards to other boards first. Then there is a certain series of public bodies that they have to relate to municipalities, colleges and universities -- to make certain that the public is not interested in first acquiring public property.

It is interesting to note that if anybody wanted to change how we sell off public property, the last place one would go to set a precedent would be universities. Most universities in this province were not given one penny from the public purse for their own land. The University of Western Ontario was never given any public property. So if this bill were passed, why should they have to ask the Lieutenant Governor to sell property that in fact does not belong to the public? It is a private institution. All of the land was donated to them, it is still being donated to them, and for the first time they are having to face selling off their property for very different reasons. Right now they need the money, and that is why they are having to do it.

Before I get into that, I think that the member should understand, and this House should clearly understand, what these guidelines are. The ministry, because of this kind of public pressure, did in fact send out some guidelines on 19 August 1988 that the universities have to follow. I cannot stand debating if we do not have the facts, so this bill was very important to me as the critic for the Progressive Conservative Party.

Right now, the specific guidelines are:

"The universities and related institutions should notify the minister of their intention to sell or lease any of their lands. The ministry will then bring this information to the attention of other ministries that may wish to acquire the land at market value to implement such initiatives as the Housing First policy." That is a specific requirement now.

What really bothers me about newspaper articles that say, "College Land Deals Sell Out The Public Interest," "Colleges Find Land Can Work Wonders," "Hotel To Be Allowed on Campus" -- I do not know if that was good or bad; I did not read it -- "Cash-Starved University of Toronto Looks to Far East For Donations," "City Blocks Hotel on Campus Lands," "Centennial Seeks to Sell Land to Developer" -- it is a problem, there is no doubt, but the problem is not that the ministry is not aware of what the universities are doing.

They must, with today's guidelines, come to the minister and say: "This is what we'd like to do. Are there any public institutions that need this land first? What do you want us to do about it?" When in fact the minister says, "Proceed," they proceed. On the other hand, I suppose if the minister said, "You can't proceed," then they would say: "All right. You give us the money so that university students today will be given the opportunity for an excellent education."

1130

There is a shortage of permanent, full-time faculty, and buildings are rapidly deteriorating. Students are finding themselves in overcrowded classrooms with outdated facilities and equipment. It is becoming more difficult for students to learn in the environment they are being subjected to. Without the resources to produce a highly skilled workforce and advanced research facilities, Ontario will be unable to compete in today's global markets.

We are currently experiencing job losses due to these times of economic recession. It is even more important that we support free activity, competitiveness and commitment to a well-educated workforce. Ontario must remain in the forefront of scientific and technological development and educational achievement if it is to maintain its competitive position in today's global economy.

Ontario universities make a major contribution to this province's competitiveness and they play a vital role in the development of highly skilled human resources. They play a key role in creating and sustaining vibrant research and development infrastructure in this province, contributing and drawing from the global expansion of knowledge. It is because universities are so inadequately funded that they are forced to generate income from land sales and leases.

The Council of Ontario Universities in response to this bill today believes that universities have been following the ministry guidelines. If they are not, they would like to be informed. The guidelines do not apply to lands acquired by private donations. Otherwise, the University of Western Ontario would not have to even follow those guidelines because not one penny from the public purse bought those lands. So right now those guidelines do not apply to Western.

This bill would be a disincentive for donors, and I underline that. Right now donors are giving property, whether it be for capital property or whether they are giving equipment. They want to know that the university has control over that property and equipment; that is why they give it. When we give our own private money and we donate, we like to know that, for whatever reason we give that money, to whatever charity, it is being well distributed to the people first and not in administration. People who bequeath property to universities give it to the university to be used for educational reasons. Therefore, it is very difficult now for the universities to turn around and have to sell it at all.

When Western sells its property it does so -- and I will read a letter very quickly from the University of Western Ontario:

"On behalf of the board of governors of the University of Western Ontario, I wish to express my strong opposition to the proposed Bill 78, which requires the approval of the Lieutenant Governor in Council for sales, mortgages and long-term leases of university lands. There are many reasons for this position, the most important being the following:

"The University of Western Ontario is an autonomous institution created by an act of the Ontario Legislature. This act fully and specifically empowers the board of governors of the university to buy, sell, mortgage or lease land.

"With very minor exceptions, none of the land owned by the University of Western Ontario was purchased with funds provided by the provincial government. These lands were purchased with private funds or were received by the university through bequests.

"It is absolutely essential that the university be able to manage its land holdings. This includes the acquisitions of property to safeguard the long-range future of the institution, the disposal of property which will not meet a short- or long-term need and the development of property, either to meet academic and research requirements or to generate badly needed revenue for the institution. All of these matters are essential parts of an institution's long-range planning strategy. Indeed, the University of Western Ontario has just completed the preparation of campus planning guidelines which speak to these very issues.

"For these and other reasons, the proposal to require the universities to obtain the approval of the Lieutenant Governor in Council before proceeding with land transactions is both inappropriate and highly dysfunctional and should be strongly resisted.

"Yours very truly,

"John Brant

"Chairman, Board of Governors"

What did York University say? I contacted Mr Biggs, the President of York University Development Corp. This corporation was established in 1985 when the university realized provincial grants were no longer sufficient to meet expansion needs, the method of generating cash flow.

The only asset the university has is its land base. It is a new university. It is not like Western, it is not like the University of Toronto. York has a lot of land and can never utilize all of it for academic purposes. They need the dollars for infrastructure.

In 1990, York received approval from the Ontario Municipal Board to sell 22 acres of land at its main campus to a developer, Bramalea Ltd. York put the money towards -- and I underline this for people who are writing articles in newspapers. Was there a story written about this? -- a fine arts centre, three new academic buildings, a 383-unit student housing development and a student centre.

York University is very opposed to this bill. They had to sell property they did not need to build buildings that normally the public purse would be building, if we thought universities were important.

My colleague will be speaking to the University of Toronto, I have already spoken to the University of Western Ontario. I will just close by saying that the one thing we have to do in this Legislative Assembly is to get up and give the best information we can give today, and I am happy to have the opportunity to speak to this bill because it gave us an opportunity to say other things.

The best thing that can happen as a result of this debate today is that members in this House should go to the Minister of Colleges and Universities. They should tell him about the problems that they heard today during the debate from my friend the member for Nepean and others. They should say, "We really do need to talk about why the universities are having to sell off their buildings and their properties."

Mr White: It is a pleasure to rise today to address my colleague's bill. I have very fond memories of universities and university life. In fact, my memories were so fond that I repeated them at several different institutions, at the University of Toronto, at York University, the area that my friend represents, and at Wilfred Laurier University.

Universities are special places and a very difficult balance must be maintained between their needs to remain independent and their being an integral part of the economic, educational and public life of our province.

Ontario has made massive investments in our universities, including especially capital funds for lands and buildings. As an alumnus of the University of Toronto, the proposed development of Victoria College lands by Huang and Danczkay Properties for a large hotel that my colleague the member for London North referred to, and of St Michael's College lands by Tridel Corp, causes profound concern not only to me, because I see the university life and the community changing dramatically, but also to the students as a whole and to many other alumni, to the local community and, I believe, to the public as a whole.

Tridel is a corporation rumoured to have had generous, one might even say liberal, access to the previous government. Public openness and public accountability are keystones for our new government. Our government has no secret dealings with such developers. The public, we believe, should have an eye on such developments involving key public institutions. As they do, such developments should be open to public scrutiny and beyond reproach.

The issue of accountability for public funds was brought out not only in March, but I read in today's lead editorial in the Toronto Star questions about that very university. The arguments for these developments were that those funds were necessary, yet I read here that there is some $100 million in pension fund surplus that the University of Toronto holds on to. How that can be when they need money from these developments?

1140

The editorial says:

"Alumni and others have a nagging feeling that something is wrong at the University of Toronto.... Eyebrows were raised last year when the Provincial Auditor couldn't find $127 million worth of furniture and equipment at the university...the university refused to show the auditor what it received in private endowments and from private sources... Yet between 1986 and last year, it built a $100-million pension fund surplus."

These come at a time when universities seem bereft of funds. This creates a very curious feeling for the public and for the alumni. As an associate, when I have taught at the University of Toronto at the faculty of social work and when I have worked as a field instructor there, I have been struck with how antiquated the materials are. I look at some of the technology; it is the same technology that was introduced when I was a student there more than 20 years ago, yet there are all these moneys supposedly available.

I think accountability for public funds is essential. The public needs to know. This bill is only a very minimal eye on developments of what are essentially public lands, and a small part of these institutions' financial dealings. There is no major infringement on the independence of universities. There is no major infringement at all, no infringement whatsoever in terms of academic freedom. There is only a very small window so that the public will have an idea, a sense and a confidence in these public institutions and in the way in which their lands are being used.

I want to conclude that I am in full support of my colleague's bill. I think it offers just a very small window, a very small first step towards allowing the public the kind of eye on a large institution which they should have and they will have with this progressive and open government here at Queen's Park.

Mr Beer: In rising to speak on this ballot item, I think again we have an issue where it is important that we look at some of the specific principles that are inherent in the proposal the honourable member has made. With this one, as with the previous bill, I have real concerns around the principle that a university would have to seek approval in terms of what it is doing with lands.

When we look at the situation that universities are in, when we look at their governance structures, clearly we have tried to devolve authority for the running, the administration of the university to the board, senate or whatever the governing body may be in that particular case and said, "That is your responsibility, and as you look at what your needs will be for the university, some of those needs may relate to ways in which you are going to make use of the lands that you have and ways in which you can ensure that there is indeed more funding for the various things you are trying to do."

One of the elements that concerns me about this approach is that far too often the reflex action is to say that no matter what kind of local authority we have constituted to make decisions, we want a kind of a Big Brother, a Big Sister, who is ultimately going to make the decision. Clearly, what we are trying to do is to ensure that those local bodies, those authorities that have been duly constituted, have the responsibility to sit down to examine the facts, to look at what the needs of the university are and then to make decisions after proper discussion and consultation.

All of that being said, I think when we are looking at specific decisions, whether it is York University, the University of Toronto or any other university in the province, we have to respect the authority that we as a Legislature have granted to those bodies, and respect that they are going to have to look at how they can find the wherewithal to run that university effectively and efficiently for the whole community within that university, and also in terms of how it relates to the community around them.

It seems to me that if what we are saying is that every time a university or any other local authority needs to make a difficult decision somehow that has to come back to Queen's Park, what that does is to rob and sap the responsibility of that local authority, of that local body.

What we should be trying to do is to ensure that the principles that are in place in guiding, in this case, universities, will make very clear that these are serious decisions, but that those who are on the board are part of the governance structure and are there to make those decisions after looking very carefully at all of the factors involved.

It seems to me that if we add yet another level to that decision-making, if I were sitting as a member of the board I do not know why, then, I would bother to really sit down and deal with that issue in as serious a way if I knew, "Well, look, the final authority for this is going to go down to Queen's Park, so let all those people who want to centralize everything do it."

The principle of the bill that is being proposed here today to amend the Ministry of Colleges and Universities Act I think is one we do not want to lightly pass, because that robs the authority of that local body. For that reason, whatever the issues or problems some members may feel exist because of what universities may or may not do with the lands they own, I think this way is not the right and proper way to proceed.

Mr J. Wilson: It is a pleasure to rise today and speak on Bill 78, a bill that would take away the right of universities in Ontario to control their own lands. In many cases those lands, as my colleague the member for London North has already said, are private lands. They were acquired through private money or through bequests or donations to the university, and this socialist government does not have the right to take control of those lands.

Also, shame on the member for Durham West who put down my alma mater, the University of Toronto. The University of Toronto has been most cooperative in helping this socialist government improve the audit process for the universities. I would ask the member for Durham West to do his homework. I would also ask the member for Downsview, who has put forward this bill today, to do his homework.

I want to bring forward the example of the University of Toronto and, in particular, the University of St Michael's College, which is one of the five or so private universities that make up the University of Toronto. It is the university I attended. His bill today is both injurious and insulting to the University of St Michael's College and also to Victoria College. Both those universities have land development proposals in the works. Victoria's has already been approved by the Ontario Municipal Board. St Mike's is before Toronto city council; it is expected to pass and then it will go to the OMB.

Universities do not easily sell off lands. They do it because governments fail to fund them fully. In the case of St Michael's College, it is a double whammy. It is an insult to that university, because the priests and nuns who founded that university and continue to work there donate two thirds of their salaries, each and every year, to the operation of the University of St Michael's College. That means it is a good deal for students to go to that university, and it is a good deal for the public, because it gets the government off the hook for several million dollars a year. The government does give money to the University of Toronto, which in turn gives some money and block operating grants to St Michael's College. The rest of the money comes through private donations and the blood, sweat and tears of the religious who serve that community.

1150

For some 30 years now, St Michael's College has been fully accessible, because our government brought in requirements for accessibility and St Mike's voluntarily bought into those requirements. There is no religious test for any student who qualifies academically; anyone can attend that university. I say it is a good deal for the public, and the government does not have the right to take away St Mike's right to control its own lands.

The member for Downsview should know that universities in Ontario for the most part have boards of governors. I served on the University of Toronto board of governors for a number of years. He should know that on those boards are government appointees, some 16 at the University of Toronto. They are there precisely to protect the public interest, and if his constituents have problems with York University or with the University of Toronto selling off lands, then he should inform them of their right to talk to those government appointees; in fact, he should talk to those appointees himself.

That is the process. They are there, they help make these decisions and they do not take them lightly. They do them because they have to provide a quality education to the students who attend those institutions. The only way they can do that is to get some money out of the lands they own, and the government does not have the right to control that.

Mr Mammoliti: I initially did not really want to speak on this issue. I thought my colleague the member for Downsview dealt with it pretty clearly. I did, however, hear some distracting comments and I felt compelled to stand up and respond, more specifically to the comment from the member for London North, who said we do have a problem. Yes, I agree with her. We do have a problem when it comes to this. She said we should not take the control away from the boards.

I feel somewhat distressed by that comment. I am going to speak personally. I am going to speak representing Yorkview today. Recently there have been some problems with the university that exists in our neighbourhood, York University. She brought that up during her speech. Recently there have been some meetings in our area that have been pretty clear when it comes to the standpoint of the community and what it wants.

Frankly, the community does not want any more highrises in our particular area. It has made that quite clear. There are a lot of people in our intersection at the Jane and Finch area. They have made it clear that any more building would only prove to be a problem when it comes to existing services. For example, the sewer system in our area is at full capacity. We cannot hold any more buildings in our area.

What has happened since then is that they have gone ahead and done what they felt they had to do anyway. So who is controlling whom, I ask? Are we trying to control the board or, in this particular case, is the board trying to control the community? I have a problem with that. The community said no, it does not want it. The board went ahead anyway and tendered out and has picked out its own building company. It is going to be building a few buildings in that particular area. There were a lot of suggestions made by the community, one of them a dormitory for the students, another a community centre; we are in desperate need of a community centre. They ignored every one of those suggestions and went ahead and did what they wanted.

I say we do not need the board controlling the community. This bill puts restrictions on the decisions, and I do agree with that. Revenue source: We are not taking away any revenue source. We do not want to do that. We are saying, give the taxpayer a say. The taxpayers in my community certainly had their say, and wanted their say, but nobody was heard. They went ahead and did what they wanted anyway.

I disagree with the member for Nepean, who said that the member for Downsview wanted to score some political points. I have had the pleasure of knowing the member for Downsview for a few years, and I assure members that his concern is not for political reasons. His concern is for the province and for the community, and this government's concern is for the taxpayer. We have been pretty consistent in saying that the taxpayer should have a say and has not in the past. That is why I agree with this bill and that is why my community agrees with this bill, because it feels it should have been heard and it was not.

Mr Perruzza: It is wonderful to have another opportunity to look at some of the arguments that have been put forward by the opposition. Either I have been completely misunderstood this morning or I was not clear, so I will try to address some of the comments that were made by the member for Nepean with respect to planning process. I will try to simplify it in some ways.

Every private individual in this province has certain rights under the Planning Act and the planning process. Any member can take any rezoning matter through any municipal council and to the OMB, and there are a number of public hearings.

That is not at all the part of the process my legislation is intended to address. My legislation is intended to address the point at which the universities enter into deals with private developers. Once the university has entered into a deal and that deal is done, then of course there is a planning process, but the debate at that point becomes: How much density? How high do we want to go? How much do we leave for parking space? Where do we build the roads? Where do we not build the roads?

Obviously, there is a misunderstanding with the principles of the planning process. Of course that decision can go through to the OMB. Any developer or any member of the community can take that decision to the OMB, but only after the university has discharged its lands to a private developer for private enterprise and private purposes.

Obviously, the member for Nepean does not quite understand the planning process or what my particular legislation is intended to do. He talked about "socialist" and this is Big Brother moving into a particular area of education, that we are going to take over and control the whole process. That is not what is intended by this at all.

If being a socialist, being an NDPer, means to allow the public, the taxpayers in Ontario an opportunity to voice their opinions and concerns before publicly acquired, publicly funded lands are disposed of by a particular entity, by a university, then so be it. I will always fight for that public. I will always fight for the right of that public to have an opportunity, to have a say in what is done by institutions disposing of publicly acquired assets.

The member for London North talked about school boards, and whether we would do this with school boards, because are school boards not doing essentially the same thing? She could not be more wrong. I believe she was involved with school boards or was a trustee in her other life. As she well knows, trustees are publicly elected representatives of ratepayers, either public or separate. They are publicly accountable to their electorate, just as we are. At election time, if they do something that is inappropriate they are held publicly accountable. They are booted out of office, they are voted out of office, and no trustees would enter or engage in dealings where they know they are going to get booted out of office. That is politically not very smart.

1200

She also talked about lands that are essentially donated, as in the case of the University of Western Ontario, which has acquired its lands not from government in the form of a grant or deeded to it. I think there is a fine line, and Western, I suspect, would have a good case if it appealed a particular decision to sever lands and so on. But there is a fine line. Western is funded by government. It delivers programs funded by this government, funded by the taxpayers of Ontario. I think there is a fine line between at what point the public interest in those properties begins and ends. In the case of Western, that may be an exception.

Also, the member talked about guidelines. As she will know, in 1988 the Supreme Court of Canada made a ruling with respect to universities and basically ruled that they are autonomous bodies. If she checked the legislation, she would find that. Also in the universities act, they are completely empowered to do with their lands what they will without a public process.

The Deputy Speaker: You have two minutes to wrap up.

Mr Perruzza: If the member checks the universities act, she will find that every university is empowered to dispose of its properties as it will.

My intent this morning has been completely misconstrued and misunderstood by the opposition. My intent is not to impede universities from being creative with their resources, from being able to engage in private enterprise, to raise funds for university purposes and for university expansion, and I will say that again. Obviously, the opposition has misunderstood it. My intention is to provide a mechanism that will allow for public input before the done deal.

Before the university engages in a deal with a private developer, it has to come to a publicly elected body such as this, such as government, and say: "Hey, we want to engage in this. What do you guys think of it? Do you think it's a good way for us to go? We are going to raise $40 million or $60 million and expand a fine arts building, expand a particular university centre." Then we, as the elected representatives of the people of the province, who are entrusted with public funds and public lands and the governance of those funds and those lands, will be able to say: "Yes, Mr University, this is a good deal for you. You may proceed with the planning process, sever your lands, sell your lands and engage in a process whereby you are granted the zoning and able to raise the funds you require."

I ask my colleagues for their support this morning.

1210

EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT (ELECTORAL QUOTIENTS), 1991 / LOI DE 1991 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR L'ÉDUCATION (QUOTIENTS ÉLECTORAUX)

The House divided on Mr Tilson's motion for second reading of Bill 72, which was negatived on the following vote:

La motion de M. Tilson pour la deuxième lecture du projet de loi 72, mise aux voix, est rejetée :

Ayes/Pour-16

Arnott, Callahan, Caplan, Cousens, Cunningham, Drainville, Harnick, Jackson, McLean, Runciman, Sterling, Stockwell, Tilson, Villeneuve, Wilson, J., Witmer.

Nays/Contre-40

Abel, Beer, Boyd, Bradley, Brown, Cooper, Coppen, Cordiano, Dadamo, Daigeler, Duignan, Frankford, Gigantes, Haeck, Hansen, Harrington, Haslam, Hope, Jamison, Johnson, Klopp, Lessard, MacKinnon, Mammoliti, Martin, McLeod, Mills, Morrow, Murdock, S., O'Connor, O'Neill, Y., Owens, Perruzza, Silipo, Sullivan, Ward, M., Waters, Wessenger, Wiseman, Wood.

MINISTRY OF COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES AMENDMENT ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LE MINISTRE DES COLLÈGES ET UNIVERSITÉS

The House divided on Mr Perruzza's motion for second reading of Bill 78, which was tied on the following vote:

Il y a eu partage des voix pour la motion, proposée par M. Perruzza, pour la deuxième lecture du projet de loi 78 :

Ayes/Pour-27

Abel, Boyd, Cooper, Coppen, Dadamo, Duignan, Frankford, Gigantes, Haeck, Hansen, Harrington, Jamison, Johnson, Mammoliti, MacKinnon, Mills, O'Connor, Owens, Perruzza, Silipo, Ward, M., Waters, Wessenger, White, Wilson, G., Wiseman, Wood.

Nays/Contre-27

Arnott, Beer, Bradley, Brown, Callahan, Caplan, Cordiano, Cousens, Cunningham, Daigeler, Drainville, Harnick, Haslam, Hope, Jackson, Martin, McLean, McLeod, O'Neill, Y., Runciman, Sterling, Stockwell, Sullivan, Tilson, Villeneuve, Wilson, J., Witmer.

The Deputy Speaker: This makes the role of the Speaker very interesting, I think. It is the first occasion I have to do so in the time I have sat in the chair.

My responsibility is to vote in favour of the vote. Let me explain. It is not my responsibility as a Speaker to kill a bill. It is the government's responsibility at a later date to bring it back and debate it again. Hence the reason for my support of the bill.

Motion agreed to.

The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to standing order 94(k), the bill is referred to the committee of the whole House.

Mrs Cunningham: Mr Speaker, we would ask that it be referred to the standing committee on social development for public debate. This is too important to put in the committee of the whole House.

The Deputy Speaker: Is the majority in favour that it should go to the standing committee on social development?

All those in favour will please rise.

All those opposed will please rise.

A majority of the House not being in agreement with the request of the member, this bill is referred to the committee of the whole House.

Mr Sterling: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I know the vote has been taken, but I think it is important to note that all of the majority came from the New Democratic Party. The Liberals and the Conservatives wanted this out to committee, and because the record does not show that, it is important that be on the record.

The House recessed at 1222.

AFTERNOON SITTING

The House resumed at 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

MONTFORT HOSPITAL / L'HÔPITAL MONTFORT

Mr Morin: Today is a very special day for the residents of Carleton East. The Montfort Hospital is the best hospital in Ontario. Today marks the launch of its community outreach campaign, entitled Cordialement vôtre/Sincerely Yours, working towards its goal of $3.5 million. This is the first fund-raising campaign in the hospital's history.

À date, Montfort a déjà accumulé au-delà de deux millions de dollars sous forme de dons gracieusement offerts par le personnel, les malades et les bénévoles de l'hôpital et aussi par des entreprises financières, ainsi que d'autres organismes.

Established in 1953, Montfort is a community hospital with 252 beds. It is recognized as a leader in the provision of bilingual health care services. Mont fort serves the communities of Gloucester, Ottawa East and Vanier as well as the surrounding rural areas. L'Hôpital Montfort serves the largest concentration of francophones in Ontario. The funds raised by the Sincerely Yours campaign will go towards phase 2 of a major redevelopment project.

I would like to recognize the co-chairs of this fund- raising campaign, Raymond Gélinas and Agathe Bélisle, and also the efforts of Roger Légaré, foundation board chairman, as well as the other members of his committee. Last but not least, I wish to acknowledge the efforts of Gisèle Richer, the director of development at Montfort and also campaign co-ordinator.

I wish Montfort great success in this fund-raising drive.

PLANT CLOSURE

Mr Arnott: I want to inform the assembly, and specifically the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology and the Minister of the Environment, of an extremely urgent and serious matter affecting 130 workers in my riding of Wellington.

Recently, Canada Packers Inc announced its intention to close its Stillmeadow Farm processing plant located in Pilkington township near Elora. The effective closure date is 14 June 1991. In a written statement, the company's management indicated the reasons for closing the plant were as follows:

"The Elora facility is an older plant with an inefficient layout and no land base for expansion. A further difficulty is a recent concern of the Ontario Ministry of the Environment over the plant's handling of waste water. The combination of these factors, along with the company's intention to expand its value added poultry processing, resulted in a decision to relocate the product lines and integrate them into our Brantford plant."

If the provincial government does nothing and this plant is allowed to close in six weeks' time, it will be a devastating economic blow to Wellington. Many of these workers will be unable to find work in the short term. Very few will be offered jobs at the company's Brantford facilities.

Personally, I want to express my sincere disappointment at the company's decision to close Stillmeadow Farm. I call upon the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology to immediately review the decision by Canada Packers and take whatever measures are within their power to ensure that these 130 workers do not face a bleak summer of unemployment.

ONTARIO SECONDARY SCHOOL STUDENTS' ASSOCIATION

Mr Sutherland: I rise today to give recognition to an outstanding organization in this province. The Ontario Secondary School Students' Association, better known as the OSSSA, has been providing leadership training to high school students for 15 years.

The OSSSA, which is made up entirely of students, is organized on the basis of 12 regional presidents and a premier, who make up the cabinet. Each regional president is responsible for organizing a leadership conference for the student council leaders in that region.

Around 1,500 students will attend the 12 conferences in this school calendar year to improve their communication skills, consensus-building skills, and develop a greater sense of the responsibilities associated with being an effective leader.

Many of the OSSSA cabinet leaders have gone on to be leaders in other areas. They are now entrepreneurs, managers, school board trustees, and there are even a couple working here at Queen's Park.

I chose today to speak about the OSSSA because it marks the seventh anniversary of one of the OSSSA's most significant accomplishments. On 2 May 1984 the OSSSA hosted a student Parliament right here at Queen's Park as part of Education Week celebrations in the bicentennial year. Some 125 students, each from the riding he or she represented, came to Toronto for four days to gain an understanding of how parliamentary democracy operated in Ontario.

With next week being Education Week, I think it is extremely important to recognize the OSSSA for its ongoing commitment to developing leadership skills and repeatedly demonstrating that our education system is full of excellence.

CROSS-BORDER SHOPPING

Mrs Caplan: I have an important quote to share with the House: "The Ontario budget has added a further nail in the coffin of border communities." That is how John Millson, chairman of the Ontario Border Communities Mayors' Task Force on Cross-Border and Sunday Shopping sums up the effect of this government's increases in gasoline, alcohol and cigarette taxes on border communities.

I am shocked by the fact that this government has totally ignored the repeated calls by municipalities for solutions to this border shopping crisis, solutions such as a graduated gasoline tax and reduction in provincial sales tax, reasonable solutions which the mayors of Windsor, Sault Ste Marie, Sarnia, Fort Frances and Prescott told the standing committee on finance and economic affairs would reduce the devastating impact of cross-border shopping and help stimulate our provincial economy.

Through its gasoline tax hike of 1.7 cents a litre, the government expects to raise revenues. In fact, the Treasurer is doing the reverse. He is encouraging and luring Ontario residents to the United States to do their shopping. According to the mayor of Sault Ste Marie, Joe Fratesi, this government has done nothing but "amplify the problems of cross-border communities." But it is not just a few that are in jeopardy; all communities will soon be feeling the damage.

This government must take leadership and be a full working partner in taking immediate action.

ONTARIO BRANDY

Mr Runciman: The Ontario government has a very specific policy for aiding our wine-growing region through the purchase of surplus grapes produced by Ontario vineyards. This helps to keep Ontario farmers in business so that they do not sell their precious farm land to developers.

The Liquor Control Board of Ontario also has very specific policies. One of these policies is that it bottles and sells its own liquor products. One of these products is brandy. Rieder Distillery of Grimsby purchases surplus grapes from the provincial government. This helps to keep the cost of this assistance program down. Rieder then produces brandy from these grapes.

I know that members are probably thinking what a wonderful thing this is, that the province helps farmers by buying grapes, the distillery helps the province by buying the grapes from the province and the LCBO helps the distillery by buying and bottling the brandy produced.

I hate to burst the bubble, but this is not the way it works. True, the province buys the grapes. True, the distillery buys the grapes. True, the LCBO bottles and sells brandy. False, the LCBO buys this brandy from the distillery. Nope, that would be too simple. The LCBO goes to France for its no-name hooch and ignores the thousands of gallons of quality Ontario brandy available right outside its own back door.

I suspect most Ontario residents assume that if a bottle of liquor at the LCBO has the LCBO label, it is an Ontario product. If the LCBO is going to put an Ontario crest label on a bottle, then why does the minister not ensure that it really is an Ontario product?

MIDWIFERY

Ms Gigantes: This coming Sunday 5 May is the first time that the work of midwives will be recognized on an international level. In Ontario, International Midwifery Day will be marked by celebrations in Toronto, Ottawa, Thunder Bay, Sudbury, London and Stratford.

When this Legislature approves Bill 56, An Act respecting the regulation of the Profession of Midwifery, it will be the first Legislature in Canada to acknowledge the role of midwifery in childbirth. It will be an advance in health service that many thousands of women have worked to see, and over many a year.

We prize the wonders of modern medical technology, modern pharmaceutical and modern clinical methods, but we have also come to understand that it is possible for the medical model to become too much of a good thing.

In the case of childbirth, this fact has been more than obvious to women for many unhappy decades of child delivery. In fact, the predecessor to this Legislature in Upper Canada was the scene of several early battles about who owned childbirth -- women and their preferred attendants, midwives, or the medical profession. The payment and even the practice of midwifery by non-physicians was effectively outlawed in the late 1800s, and it has taken over a century for the profession to be honoured.

I am proud to invite members of this Legislature to join in recognizing the work of midwives around the world on Sunday 5 May.

1340

LABOUR DISPUTE

Mr Sola: As all members of the House will be aware, there were produce trucks lined up on the Queensway as far as the eye can see today and yesterday because their entrance to the Ontario Food Terminal is being blocked by picketers.

There are several producers, dealers and buyers whose entrance to the food terminal is shared with Oshawa Foods staff, and their path is being blocked despite the fact that they, as employers, have nothing to do with the picketers.

One employer in my riding, Van Fliet Brothers Florists, is being shut out of the terminal, and its produce, with a life of a day, is in danger of becoming useless. They have not done anything which would cause a picket against them, yet they are being hurt none the less and their access to earning a living is being blocked.

Shortly after noon today, frustrated produce buyers and sellers began staging a protest drive around Queen's Park. They are angry that they have become innocent victims in the labour dispute. In a time when people are losing jobs and companies are going bankrupt, it is unbelievable that this government would allow this dispute to threaten more jobs in viable companies.

The government must act today to ensure that Van Fliet Brothers and others buying and selling at the food terminal have access so they do not lose tens of thousands of dollars in income and so hundreds of thousands of dollars of produce does not go to waste today and every day this picket continues.

SKILLS TRAINING

Mrs Cunningham: I was disappointed that the Treasurer's budget did not include anything meaningful with regard to skills training in the province. The three recommendations from Vision 2000 that were included are just the tip of the iceberg. We need a fundamental overhaul of our community college system to meet our labour market needs and to sustain the province's industrial competitiveness.

We have heard nothing from the Minister of Colleges and Universities and of Skills Development on this issue.

He has not announced curriculum reform to provide a common set of generic skills so that a worker can adapt to a variety of career paths, even though we have been told that today's workers will have to be trained for three or four careers during their working lives.

He has not announced any initiatives to deal with declining enrolment in technology programs, despite the fact that there is increasing demand for these graduates. He has not dealt with the issue of apprenticeship journeyman ratios. He has not announced a program to promote the role of colleges in the provision of customized contract training services for companies. Humber College's successful Business and Industry Service Centre could serve as a model, yet still we have heard nothing.

He has not commented on the ideas of centres of specialization as a cost-effective way to get state-of-the-art equipment into our colleges. He has not announced measures to speed up the process for the development of articulation agreements or new high school guidance measures to attract students into the technology fields.

There is so much more that could be done to meet our skills training needs; we need the determination and political will to do so.

BUDGET

Mr Mills: Last night I was in Ashburn, a small community in my riding, to attend the ratepayers' meeting. This ratepayers' association boasts 200 members, and they are committed to saving the environment. They applaud the attempts of the Treasurer in the budget to address our environmental concerns. I am bringing this up in the House this afternoon to advise the leader of the third party, who is not here, and the members of the third party that they do not have a God-given right to oppose the budget on behalf of everyone in the province of Ontario.

Further, I would say that on 6 September the people of Ontario showed their distaste for the third party and its policies by their non-support through the polls. The buses Taxfighter 1 and Taxfighter 2 came back to Queen's Park empty of the elected people they thought were going to come here.

Given these circumstances, I am finding the behaviour of the third party in its tactics to hold up the debate of this budget, lacking any mandate from the people of Ontario, diabolical.

In closing, I wish to convey to the Treasurer the support of the constituents in my riding who are public servants and applaud the fact that the recession is not being carried on their backs.

Interjections.

The Speaker: A lively beginning to the afternoon.

REPORT OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST COMMISSIONER

The Speaker: I beg to inform the House that I have today laid upon the table a report from the Honourable Gregory T. Evans, commissioner on conflict of interest, regarding the Honourable Frances Lankin, Minister of Health and Chairperson of the Management Board of Cabinet.

Hon Ms Ziemba: I request all-party consent to commemorate the 200th anniversary of the Polish Constitution. Do I have approval?

Agreed to.

ANNIVERSARY OF POLISH CONSTITUTION

Hon Ms Ziemba: As a Polish Canadian, I stand today to rise on the commemoration of the 200th anniversary of the Polish Constitution. Tomorrow, 3 May 1991, Poland and all people of Polish descent around the world, including myself, will be celebrating the 200th anniversary of a historic day for Poland and everyone in the free world, the signing of Poland's first official Constitution, the first written Constitution in Europe.

In 1791 a group of reform-oriented members of Parliament, joined by the King, designed a plan for the collection of political rights, the declaration of freedom and human rights and the renewed structure of state authorities. On 3 May, these supporters of the reform gathered in full force and the Constitution was quickly, unanimously and enthusiastically adopted, sworn by the King and members of Parliament.

The Constitution introduced the division of parliamentary powers into executive, legislative and judicial branches. A mechanism for amending the Constitution was created and religious tolerance was reaffirmed. Peasants were assured of protection under the law and the national government.

The 3 May Constitution was remarkable for its time in several ways. It was proof of the Polish nation's drive towards individual and national freedom which had manifested itself throughout history, and it was adopted without violence, unlike its counterparts in the United States, in 1787, and in France, in 1791.

Tomorrow, Poland, with its newly regained republic, celebrates the memory of its first legal Constitution and the sound spirit of the nation. The people celebrate the recent democratic election where they chose the man who led them in the overthrow.

Polish immigrants have continuously struggled for democracy on this continent. In 1609, Polish immigrants first made their home in North America, in Jamestown, and in 1625, when Polish immigrants were refused the right to vote, the first strike in North America was held. As a result, they got the vote.

In 1857 Ontario became the home of many Polish immigrants fleeing from the German oppression and landing in Renfrew county. They brought with them the tradition of democracy and are proud to live in a country that has been guided by the principles of democracy.

Today, as a Polish Canadian I am reminded of those struggles and I am reminded of the fact that many countries around the world are still striving for democracy and their own Constitution, and we hope for their success.

I would also like to mention the fact that we have our consul general from Poland sitting in the audience.

1350

Mr Ruprecht: May 3 is of special significance to citizens of Polish ancestry who are today and tomorrow, and indeed on the weekend, celebrating the 200th anniversary of the Polish Constitution.

The Constitution of Poland, already 200 years ago, guaranteed a great deal of personal freedom and, for the first time in Europe, divided the authorities into the legislative and controlling body, the Parliament; the executive body, the ministers; and the independent judiciary, the courts. For the first time it really diminished a great deal the royal power and the power of the oligarchy.

Today, I am delighted to introduce to the House some Canadians who were ready to lay down their lives for a democratic Poland. The acting consul general, Mr Smyk, was already introduced to the House. With him is Stan Sadowski, president of the Canadian Polish Congress, Toronto District, and Mr Szczyglowski, president of the Polish Combatants Association.

This year the anniversary is of special significance, not only because Polish Canadians celebrate the 200th anniversary, but also because it is a symbol of great significance to the recent events in Poland, where a simple electrician belonging to the first independent trade union of eastern Europe can become the president of Poland and where a Canadian from Mississauga could actually run and do well in a country called Poland. That, to me, speaks a great deal about the democratic tradition of the Polish nation.

As the House knows, in 1981, just a few short days before martial law was declared on 13 December, I had the pleasure of meeting Mr Walesa who today, of course, is president of Poland. At that time, the Russian army was poised to take over Poland and there was a great sense of belief in a free and democratic Poland by Mr Walesa and the independent trade union and, indeed, millions of Poles.

I can remember what Mr Walesa said to me just a few days, in fact, before he was incarcerated by the former Communist regime. He said: "I will be going to jail but I will not leave Poland, as the regime wants me to go into exile. I will stay in Poland and fight for a democratic Poland even if it means death."

Our meeting was interrupted by two men when they came into the office. They brought with them a fairly large cross and, while our meeting went on, they nailed the cross over Mr Walesa's chair. When the people left, I asked him what the significance was. He said to me: "This is our faith. This is our nation. This is what we believe in. This really is our Constitution."

I remind the House that today, as the community will celebrate Polish Constitution Day, all of us should somewhat remind ourselves to remember the kinds of events that are going on in Poland and, indeed, all of eastern Europe today.

What will the scribes of history say to this Canadian nation, or indeed to this assembly? Will they say, "Here was a nation which participated in the reconstruction of a country that has again rewon its democratic tradition"? Or will they say, "Here is a lucky people, unable or unwilling to put their shoulder to the wheel and try to help reconstruct a country, which will be necessary for the rest of eastern Europe to do well"?

So I remind all my friends today, let's do our part as we think about our own Constitution today. The choice is ours and I would hope we will try to help and not sit idly by.

Finally, 3 May will be celebrated by Polish Canadians and all those who would like to participate on Sunday at 11 o'clock with a mass at St Casimir's Church on Roncesvalles Avenue. Then there will be a prayer service at the Katyn monument at the foot of Roncesvalles and King Street and there will be other events.

Let me simply turn to our Polish Canadian friends and say to all Canadians, let's all celebrate the Constitution of 200 years ago that started a democratic Poland. Let's all help the Polish nation.

Mr Cousens: On behalf of the Ontario Progressive Conservative caucus, a very special welcome to the consul general and guests who are here today in the Legislature.

There is a popular Polish saying that a cat which wears gloves will not catch a mouse. Throughout their long history Poles have not shown any timidity in baring their claws to struggle for Polish democracy. Few nations can rival Poland's history for the oppression and horror it has met and the democratic victories it has won from these struggles. It is perhaps important that as a fellow democracy, we should honour the Polish Constitution's bicentennial as a reminder to us, a country which has not suffered such difficulties -- yet.

Poland has much to teach us. Poles began to democratize their state while most of the world remained in rigid tyranny. As early as 1605 a Polish parliamentarian, Jan Zamoiyeski, could declare that the king reigns but does not govern. The early Polish Parliament, the Sejm, was unique in demanding unanimous consent to pass all its legislation. Though our government backbenchers and opposition MPPs might envy such power, the Poles were still not happy with it and chose, as we must, to draft a better Constitution in 1791. To do this they wanted the best, and having no fear of the free trade of ideas, they chose the great French philosopher Rousseau to write it. Typically for Poland, this Constitution was achieved without bloodshed or threat of secession but from a passionate desire to make Poland better.

This democratic spirit has endured to this day, a remarkable achievement given the horrors visited upon Poland. In this century alone, Poland has endured three wars, the hideous evil of Nazi Germany and 46 years of Stalinist socialism. The centuries-old traditions of Poland's democracy have remained resilient to all adversity.

The Poles were the first to resist Nazi Germany in 1939. They were among the first to resist communism and the first to rid themselves of that oppression. In the last year they were able to revive their democracy and restore cherished democratic traditions. Once more the royal Polish eagle graces the flag of a free Poland. As Poles say, "Poland has not yet fallen while we still live." We should all remember this as we have seen the symbols and the traditions of our nation treated in such a cavalier fashion of late.

The Speaker: I wish to thank all honourable members who made their very thoughtful comments on this very special occasion and to mention to Mr Smyk, the acting consul general for the Republic of Poland, that we would be most pleased to send these remarks in print along to you in short order. You are most welcome to our gallery today.

1400

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Hon Ms Akande: Yesterday I informed the House of some initiatives undertaken by my ministry to get the process of social assistance reform back on track. I provided the House with details of a $48.8-million package of back-to-work initiatives and a $30.5-million job creation fund which will help social assistance recipients find employment and reduce their reliance on social services. I announced that we will be establishing opportunity planning pilot projects to help social assistance recipients develop personal plans to help them find employment.

Today I would like to provide further details on the balance of the $215 million earmarked for social assistance reform announced by the Treasurer earlier this week.

Members will recall that the Treasurer described the $215-million reform package as having four objectives: to provide benefits to those in greatest need; to help people get into the labour force; to increase fairness and accessibility, and to assist municipalities with their funding responsibilities.

Yesterday I described those initiatives designed to help people get into the labour force. Today I shall outline how we will address the other three objectives. Of the $215 million announced in the budget for social assistance reform, we will be allocating about $166 million to meet these ends. About one half of the total funds for reform, or $111.5 million, will be allocated to initiatives to provide more assistance to those in greatest need. For example:

A list of special necessities such as wheelchairs or respiratory supplies will be identified and their provision made mandatory under the General Welfare Assistance Act and the Family Benefits Act.

Access to general welfare assistance will be offered to battered women in need who are forced to leave the family home because of abuse. Assistance will be provided for three months. Extensions will be possible in exceptional circumstances.

Sole-support parents, who typically spend a few months on general welfare assistance before being transferred to the province's family benefits program, will receive the higher family benefits allowance from their first day on social assistance, rather than the lower general welfare rate. This will not only provide greater benefits to single parents, but it will also provide a benefit to municipalities, as the allowance will be paid 100% by the province.

Our next major initiative will increase the fairness and accessibility of the social assistance system, which is a vital support to the stability and security of people. It is important that people who need assistance not only feel that they can get it when they need it but that they are treated fairly, and $39.2 million has been allocated to this end.

In recognition of the fact that many people speak a language other than English or French, services and materials offered through the social assistance program will be made available in a number of other languages.

All boarders, regardless of whether they are living with family or in a boarding home, will receive the same higher rate of assistance.

The government will also be acting on two very important recommendations from the 1988 SARC report that were repeated in Back on Track.

These recommendations call for the establishment of a council of consumers made up of social assistance recipients who will monitor the system and provide advice to the government. We will also examine various market basket approaches that are designed to compare the adequacy of social assistance rates to a market basket of common products and services. We are committed to determining which market basket approach is most useful.

As part of the $215-million social assistance reform initiatives, we are allocating $16 million to improve and promote first nations' control of social assistance. This is in direct response to the report of the first nations communities project team which accompanied the Back on Track report.

The action plan for the first nations will develop rules for social assistance that are more appropriate and sensitive to the first nations and better reflect the cost of living in the remote communities. The plan will also address the need for improved training and support for administrators and will encourage native persons to get involved in the delivery system.

All of the initiatives address the needs of the recipients of social assistance and of the communities in which they live. This government is also sensitive to the cost pressures which the municipalities have experienced during this recession.

Thus, for this fiscal year, this government will be making it easier for some municipalities to qualify for additional provincial funding. Municipalities will receive 90% funding instead of the traditional 80% from the province when their welfare case load exceeds 3.5% of their general population for a period of four consecutive months. This 90% funding will apply only to that portion of the case load above 3.5% of the population. This will mean $12.4 million in extra funding to municipalities this year, which is separate from the $215 million of ongoing reform initiatives.

Furthermore, the sum of all of the Back on Track action items that are being adopted by the government will result in a saving to municipalities of $12.6 million this year, for a total of $25 million in additional assistance to municipalities.

What I have outlined over the past two days are the first steps towards an improved and updated social assistance system. This government acknowledges that more needs to be done. The Back on Track report identifies other problems within the system, and this government fully intends to address all of them, but making this task more difficult is an unco-operative partner in Ottawa. Ontario is being severely hurt by the federal government's cap on the Canada assistance plan. Indeed, Ontario stands to lose more than $1 billion in federal transfer payments this fiscal year alone.

Yet despite this federal withdrawal of support for persons in need and the strain of growing case loads, this government is renewing its commitment to people and is moving ahead with social assistance reforms. As the Treasurer indicated in his budget of last Monday, the social assistance system is an essential part of Ontario's social safety net. It is a vital support to the stability and the security of our economy. Approximately 40% of the people who rely on social assistance are children. There should be no question that these initiatives are an investment in Ontario's future.

Furthermore, social assistance reform is one of many measures we are taking to address poverty. Our recent measures include: lowering taxes for low-income earners with dependent children; introducing an employee wage protection program; providing another 10,000 non-profit homes, and improving the support and custody and enforcement system.

The progress on social assistance reforms as described in the announcement today would not have been possible without the hard work and dedication of my Advisory Group on New Social Assistance Legislation and its March report, Back on Track. I look forward to the group's next report on the development of new social assistance legislation.

I said it yesterday and it bears repeating today: The important process of social assistance reform is back on track.

1410

HEALTH INSURANCE

Hon Ms Lankin: Today I would like to elaborate on the changes that are being made to Ontario's out-of-country payment policy for hospital services, and I want to pay tribute at this time to the former Minister of Health, my colleague the member for Ottawa Centre, for her work on this matter.

As the Treasurer outlined on Monday, we are committed to effectively managing the cost of the health care system and ensuring access for the people of Ontario to the quality services that they need.

Current out-of-country payments far exceed our provincial rates. For emergency cases, currently Ontario pays 100% of the amount billed for hospital services. For services unavailable in Ontario, Ontario pays 100% of the amount billed for hospital services. For other elective cases, Ontario pays 75% of the amount billed for hospital services.

The ministry is amending the rates paid by our Ontario health insurance plan for hospital treatment outside of Canada. The new policy will bring Ontario in line with most other provinces and will adhere to the standards set in federal health legislation. The new rates will reflect the rates being paid in this province.

For emergency cases, we will now pay only Ontario per diem rates for hospital services. Private insurance pays the rest.

For services unavailable or unavailable in a timely fashion in Ontario we will provide, with prior approval, coverage at 100% of preferred provider rates. These rates will be negotiated with selected facilities in the United States.

For elective cases, we will pay only Ontario per diem rates for hospital services. These rates will only cover part of the cost for Ontario residents who go to the United States strictly for elective treatment. These people will have to pay the remainder of the costs themselves, since private insurance would not likely be available to them.

I would like to make it clear that the changes being implemented will not cut off access to out-of-country services for those seeking services which are not available in Ontario or are not available in sufficient time. The ministry will cover the full costs that are negotiated for these people after the need has been approved by the ministry.

The ministry will be conducting an extensive public information campaign to advise travellers to purchase supplementary health insurance so that they are fully covered in case of any needed emergency treatment.

Of course, cost control is not our only concern. We also wish to improve the quality of health care services in Ontario. For this reason, the ministry will expand and enhance programs and support systems which will assist those patients currently needing to use out-of-country treatments.

These will include expansions of existing addiction services: residential programs, youth services, case management, detoxification services and day treatment, as well as an enhancement of assessment and referral services. A new treatment registry is planned as well. Expanded hospital and community services for acquired brain injury patients in a variety of areas, such as rehabilitation, home care and supportive community living, are also included. Further measures will be taken to improve health care services as savings are realized.

Our government believes the health care system in this province should be accountable to its consumers and to the taxpayers who support it. The amount of money currently being spent on out-of-country hospital services does not ensure that the health of Ontario residents is improved.

I will soon be announcing more details on the implementation of this policy, and we expect the program to be in place this fall.

By making these necessary changes to our out-of-country payment policy, we believe we are responsive to the needs of consumers while acting as prudent administrators of the public's money.

RESPONSES

HEALTH INSURANCE

Mr Phillips: The statement of the minister today I think is indicative of a concern I have expressed in the House; that is, that this issue was raised months ago and now finally we are getting a response that will not be implemented fully until the fall. There will be at least $200 million worth of Ontario taxpayers' dollars that will flow to the US because we have not moved to implement this.

I am very discouraged. I sent the Premier a letter outlining our concern that the Minister of Health is now a part-time Minister of Health, and that there are about eight or nine major issues in the Ministry of Health that require the full-time services of a Minister of Health, whether it be on long-term care reform or community-based care reform or northern health care reform, on the Lowy report, the hospital act or health professions legislation.

I would hope the Premier would reconsider his decision to have a part-time Minister of Health because, as I say, $200 million of Ontario taxpayers' dollars will flow to the US as a result of the delay in action on what is an obvious problem -- and the solution, it seems to me, is rather obvious.

In terms of the specifics of the recommendations, I would raise a few issues with the Minister of Health. Perhaps she can clarify them when we see the details.

The first concern is that as Ontario residents who heretofore have been insured find they are not insured, I would hope, as she says in her statement, that there would be indeed a very comprehensive communications program.

The second thing is that we would appreciate knowing the prior approval process she will be following. I realize it is a broad-brush statement, but who will be responsible for the prior approval?

Also, there is a concern, I think by all of us, about a two-tiered health care system. In her third recommendation, elective surgery will be available outside Ontario for those who can afford it. All of us, the minister particularly, must be diligent that we do not end up in Ontario with a two-tiered health care system where those who have money will go elsewhere for it and those who do not will stay here. Particularly in the elective surgery area, I would hope we monitor that carefully.

Finally, the details of her programs to expand head injury treatment and for alcohol and drug treatment are not in here. We will be looking forward to those shortly.

My major concern, particularly to the Premier, is that I would hope he would reconsider his decision to have a part-time Minister of Health. I think the former Minister of Health could confirm that it is a full-time job requiring the full efforts of a minister.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mr Beer: I rise to respond to the statement by the Minister of Community and Social Services. What is of most concern to us on this side of the House is what is not here and what is not stated. Remember, this is a government that was advised by its advisory committee to add $450 million for social assistance reform. Less than half of that was in the budget, and the minister would want us to know that in this fiscal year, when the recession is at its worst, only $158 million is being spent.

The second point that is critical to point out here is that we know that there are two --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Stop the clock, please. There seems to be a little misunderstanding about the standing orders. This is response time. It means response by one person at a time.

Mr Beer: The other thing the minister would know is that improving the benefits to social assistance recipients is one of the most immediate and direct ways of providing help and ensuring they have funds in their pockets. There was nothing yesterday, nothing today, nothing in the budget about improving benefits. There was nothing today or yesterday or in the budget about improving the minimum wage. What we need is action in those areas, action that was called for by the advisory committee.

Clearly, the biggest disappointment in what has been announced today and yesterday by the minister is the section on municipalities. We know municipalities have been saying for months now that they need real help. What is here is really quite laughable, $12.5 million, when we look at what the budgets are for municipalities around the province: Hamilton $75 million; Windsor $34 million; Ottawa $140 million.

What the government is supposed to be doing is answering the Provincial-Municipal Social Services Review Committee report, answering the Hopcroft report. Those reports are there. Is the government going to accept taking over the municipal share of welfare? We know nothing from today's statement in terms of what direction they are going to go in, and the kind of help municipalities are told they are going to get will be of very little use.

Finally, the minister said children and child poverty are among the biggest issues, but nothing has been brought forward today or yesterday to deal with child care, to deal with the questions of the children's benefit. All she has done is attack the federal government. We need to see some action. What the minister has to do is to find the track, let alone get back on it.

1420

HEALTH INSURANCE

Mr Harris: I want to respond to the statement by the part-time --

Mr Sorbara: Surely the critics should be doing the responses.

Mr Harris: There seems to be great consternation that our Health critic unfortunately cannot be in the House today. I think I can respond on his behalf.

I want to respond to the statement by the part-time Minister of Health in the House today and I want to respond directly. I concur with the comments of the member for Scarborough-Agincourt on all of the things that need to be addressed in the health care system that are not being addressed and that are not being dealt with. Unfortunately for the member for Scarborough-Agincourt, a lot of the problems were built up by his party when it was in office. However, I think he is sincere and I think he brings forward good points that this minister and this government should be looking at.

I want to talk specifically about a few concerns I have with the statement today. It is very late in coming. This matter has been raised by our Health critic, the member for Parry Sound, for well over a year now, particularly with regard to drug rehabilitation in the United States. I see nothing today in the minister's statement that says services in the United States can only be accessed on a direct referral by a physician here in Ontario. There is nothing on that.

This question was asked by our critic in the past. The former minister said she assumed that was the case.

However, when we checked with officials in the Ministry of Health that was not case. We have seen example after example where people can go off to the States and access services without any referral from a doctor here in Ontario. In Ontario, you cannot get a blood test, you cannot get any lab work done, you cannot get a prescription and you cannot get anything to access the system in Ontario without being referred by a physician or somebody qualified to bill the system.

Why, then, is that control not in place for people accessing similar services in the United States? I would suggest to the minister that I am most disappointed she has not addressed that in her statement today.

Second, I guess the minister is saying that in a number of these cases, for emergency cases we will now pay only the Ontario per diem rates for hospital services; private insurance pays the rest. So if you do not have private insurance, then presumably what she is saying is that she is going to rely on user fees either to purchase the insurance or user fees for people to pay the difference when this is the only course that is available for emergencies.

We in this party have consistently called for an appropriate discussion on user fees. We are opposed to those who are least able to afford them having to pay them. However, she continues to bring in universal user fees for ambulance services, and now universal user fees to access emergency services, and only the poor will be hurt by this.

I also share the concern of the Liberal Party that we are heading into a two-tiered health care system. She says that for elective cases she will pay only Ontario per diem rates for hospital services. Given the backlog for elective procedures in this province -- the waiting lists are getting longer and longer -- what in essence she is saying is: "The rich can go get it anywhere in the world they want. We will pay the OHIP rate for that." But the poor, unless they can pay the user fee, will simply languish, wait, potentially die on waiting lists here in Ontario. Again, we are heading down the track for a two-tiered health care system.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mr Harris: I have taken longer than I wanted to because we want to comment on the other statement. Let me just express as well my disappointment in the statement of the Minister of Community and Social Services. There is nothing in her statement about helping those unemployed employable people on welfare or on other assistance to get a job and to get back to work. There is nothing in anything here about getting back to work.

ORAL QUESTIONS

BUDGET

Mr Conway: My question is to the Treasurer. It concerns the revenue projections and the budgetary data which flow from the revenue projections of his budget.

I would like the Treasurer to help me understand in the first instance the revenue projections for fiscal 1991-92. In the Fiscal Outlook and Review paper he states he anticipates and plans for, on page 51, personal income tax revenues in fiscal 1991-92 of $15,975 million. Can the Treasurer confirm that to get that PIT revenue he has built into the PIT base the $930-million windfall that was received by Ontario in fiscal 1990-91?

Hon Mr Laughren: No. To the best of my knowledge the extra PIT that was received in 1990-91 was attributed to the 1990-91 revenues.

Mr Conway: Treasury officials have confirmed that the government has built into its revenue base the $930 million in windfall revenue that was happily received in 1990-91. Will the Treasurer confirm that in this House, and would he then also comment on how he could possibly do that in light of the recessionary wreckage that is everywhere about the Ontario economy and much commented upon in his Fiscal Outlook and Review.

Hon Mr Laughren: I misunderstood the member in the first part of his question. The money that flowed to Ontario that was above what was anticipated is not what I would call a windfall.

Mr Scott: You used to call it a windfall.

Hon Mr Laughren: That is simply not true. What happened was that the federal government underestimated what the revenues would be to Ontario based on the income tax collection agreement. The income tax from the previous year -- do not forget, this was based on the 1989 tax year -- was higher than was anticipated, but that does not mean by any stretch of the imagination that it should be termed a windfall. It was what was due to the province of Ontario because of our tax-sharing agreement. Finally, of course, yes, that amount of money is built into the base revenue for the province.

Mr Conway: My point in raising the question is obviously to get to the bottom line, which is the projected deficit of $9.7 billion for fiscal 1991-92. 1 would respectfully submit to my honourable friends opposite that the only way they can keep the deficit to below $10 billion is to assume altogether overly optimistic revenue projections which, I would state respectfully, they have done.

Would the Treasurer not agree that it is optimistic to a fault to imagine that in 1991-92 personal income tax revenues are going to be anywhere near $15,975 million, and that a much more realistic estimate would be to put those revenues at somewhere around $15 billion which will, I would bet, produce a real in-year deficit of not $9.7 billion, but much closer to $10.6 billion, and perhaps close to $11 billion?

Hon Mr Laughren: I hope not, because I know the member who asked the question is as aware as I am of how embarrassing it is when you are overly optimistic on what your revenues will be. All I can say to the member is that these are the best forecast numbers we can come up with. We do not come up with the numbers out of the air. These are done in consultation with the federal government. We would be very foolish to put out a set of bogus numbers, because we are going to be judged on how well we meet the forecast and how well we are able to contain the deficit to that number. So no, there was no attempt to inflate that number for any reason whatsoever.

1430

JOB CREATION

Mr Offer: My question is to the Treasurer. In his budget, he claimed he is running a $10-billion deficit in order to create 70,000 jobs. On page 39 of the budget document, there is a table which claims that the manufacturing recovery program will have an employment impact of 3,000 jobs. Yesterday the minister responsible announced this rehashed loan program, which is aimed at preserving jobs at ailing manufacturing companies. Why did the Treasurer include these 3,000 jobs in his job creation statement when they are not new jobs at all?

Hon Mr Laughren: I guess we could have a debate about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but I want to tell the member I am talking about jobs too. I hope the member would agree that we need to have the manufacturing recovery program in the budget as a program that we intend to carry out in this next year, partly because of the severity of the recession and partly because we believe we are still the manufacturing heartland of this country and we want to make sure we are well placed as the recovery occurs.

Very often these are manufacturing companies that are going to be strategically crucial as we move into a new era of high value added employment and high value added manufacturing. It is our view that if we did not have this $57-million program, those jobs simply would not be there. This is a program that is going to make sure those 3,000 jobs are here in Ontario this year.

Mr Offer: I listened closely to the response of the Treasurer and I hope he would agree that when one states that there are going to be 70,000 jobs created in a budget, one would be able to find in the budget the creation of 70,000 jobs.

On page 39 of the budget document there is an item called additional fiscal support, which claims that the NDP is spending over $6 billion to create 47,000 jobs. According to the Treasurer's own officials, this $6 billion will include funds for the 6% wage hike for civil servants, a wage hike for doctors, new furniture for government offices and even includes payments to those hundreds of thousands of people on social assistance rolls. This is information given by the Treasurer's officials. Given these facts, can he now point out one job that this $6-billion fiscal deficit will create?

Hon Mr Laughren: I hope the member would agree that if we had not run a substantial deficit this year, there would have been an enormous amount of unemployment in this province, a lot more than there is now. I will give an example.

Mr Elston: You're not helping at all.

Hon Mr Laughren: Let me give an example. In other jurisdictions --

Mr Sorbara: Why does only your spending create jobs?

Hon Mr Laughren: If the members opposite would stop yapping for two minutes, we might have a serious debate in this assembly.

Mr Speaker, the --

Interjections.

Hon Mr Laughren: It is all yours.

The Speaker: While certain vocabulary does not strike my ears very well, at the same time I had observed that a very serious question was posed by the member and a very serious response was in the process of being presented. It would be very helpful if the Treasurer could be allowed to continue his remarks.

Hon Mr Laughren: In other jurisdictions, when a decision was made not to run up a deficit but rather to cut back, it meant sacrificing thousands of jobs. My government and I believe that in the middle of a severe recession our obligation is to protect and create jobs, not simply to sit on the sidelines and watch the recession go by. That was our intention and that is what we will accomplish this year.

Mr Offer: The Treasurer stated in this House, in his budget on page 4, the three last words of the fourth paragraph, "creating 70,000 jobs." We all understand what he is trying to do. He is trying to deflect the criticism of this crippling deficit by claiming that he is using it to fight the recession. But it is clear, even through his previous responses, that he is not creating new jobs in this budget at all. There is no new job creation program.

Aside from the anti-recession fund, can the Treasurer point to one job that will be created in this $10-billion deficit, and if he cannot, why did he state that he was creating 70,000 jobs when in this budget, in this document and all attached documents, there is not one single job that has been created?

Hon Mr Laughren: The member opposite can discount the importance of the $700-million anti-recession package if he wants. Most of that will be spent in 1991-92. The member can devalue the entire housing program, l0,000 units as stated by the Minister of Housing. The member opposite can stand in his place if he likes and say if we had not had a substantial deficit -- would he tell me there would not be 70,000 fewer jobs in this province if we had not done that? I think he is wrong.

VISITORS

The Speaker: Before moving to the third party for questions, I have stopped the clock and members might wish to welcome to our midst this afternoon two former members of the Assembly: Lorne Henderson, the former member for Lambton; and Frank Faubert, the former member for Scarborough-Ellesmere.

JOB CREATION

Mr Harris: I have a question for the Treasurer. On Monday and in response to questions in the House this week he has told us that this outrageous $10-billion deficit -- admittedly, "outrageous" is my word; he does not think it is outrageous -- was to create 70,000 new jobs. Could the Treasurer tell us the breakdown in the industrial or commercial sectors where these new jobs will be created?

Hon Mr Laughren: I am sorry. I really did not catch the question.

Mr Harris: The Treasurer said the reason for the $10-billion deficit was to create 70,000 new jobs. Can he tell us the breakdown in the industrial or commercial sectors where these temporary jobs will be created?

Hon Mr Laughren: First, I think the leader of the third party should understand that in this party we do not believe we can spend our way out of the recession. Second, unlike many of his counterparts, we believe that the government's role is to have an economic climate in which business and competition can thrive and that, as we come out of this recession, we are well placed for a different kind of economy as we head through the 1990s. We believe we are going to be headed for a high value added, high-wage economy and we are making sure we do not destroy the infrastructure as we head for that. I can tell the leader of the third party as well that if the leader --

Mr Sorbara: You haven't done anything for steel.You haven't done anything for aviation. You haven't done anything.

1440

The Speaker: A question was posed by the leader of the third party, not the member for York Centre. Had the Treasurer finished his response?

Mr Harris: I think this is an important matter for us. This $10 billion in deferred taxation has been clearly stated by the Treasurer and by the Premier yesterday in response to questions. The reason for it was to fight the recession by creating 70,000 jobs. I am trying to find out where these jobs are and what they are. On Tuesday I pointed out to the Treasurer that these 70,000 jobs, according to his estimates of $10 billion, were costing taxpayers close to $140,000 per job. Since the Treasurer cannot tell us where they will be created, could he tell us what the average wage for these 70,000 temporary jobs will actually be, and how long he anticipates that these jobs will last?

Hon Mr Laughren: First of all, I do not know why the member insists on calling them temporary jobs. Second, if he looks at the chart on page 39 of the budget he should be able to understand that of the $700-million anti-recession package -- does the member really think that a lot of those 18,000 jobs that were created were not private sector jobs? Those capital works projects were a major stimulant to the private sector. I know the member opposite would rather not see that happen. He would rather see that the private sector not be given that kind of stimulus through our capital spending program.

We are not prepared to walk away from our obligation to maintain the capital infrastructure in this province. We believe that those schools need to be rebuilt, the hospitals need to be expanded and the roads need to be improved. Almost that entire commitment involves private sector jobs. Surely to goodness the leader of the third party understands that.

Mr Harris: Let me try again with the Treasurer. I want to get this straight. All estimates are that the private sector is losing 200,000 permanent jobs this year. What I want to know is, what is he replacing them with? He says the $10 billion is creating 70,000 jobs. Is he saying they are not temporary? But they are conditional on a $10-billion deficit. Is the Treasurer telling me then that if they are not temporary, but they are conditional on a $10-billion deficit, he plans to continue this $10-billion deficit for these 70,000 jobs ad infinitum? I suggest to him they exist as long as he has a $10-billion debt. That is what he told us. This is his budget, not mine.

I ask the Treasurer again, can he tell us whether these jobs are in the commercial sector? Can he tell us whether they will be in the industrial sector? Can he tell us the average wage for these jobs that were costing $140,000 per job to provide?

Hon Mr Laughren: I will try once again. I thought it was very clear in the document on page 39: anti-recession spending, 18,200 jobs. I do not know precisely how many, but an enormous proportion of those jobs will be in the private sector because that is who does the construction jobs. It is not the public sector that does the construction jobs; almost invariably the private sector does those jobs.

If the member looks at the manufacturing recovery program -- that is 3,000 jobs -- we estimate that most of those, virtually all of them, would be in the private sector because it is in the manufacturing sector. If he looks at social housing -- new initiatives, that calls for 600 new jobs. Presumably those jobs would be in the private sector as well.

If he looks at tax relief -- no retail sales tax on the GST or on the Ontario current cost allowance -- for heaven's sake, we are told all the time by the private sector that if we provide those kinds of relief, they create the jobs as a result of that relief. The member cannot have it both ways. That is exactly what they tell us all the time.

Mr Harris: There is one person and one person alone in this province who thinks that the government is providing relief for the private sector to be able to compete in this province, and that is the minister.

I give up on the Treasurer. My second question is to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology.

Yesterday Ken Harrigan, the chairman of Ford Motor Co, confirmed that jobs will be lost in St Thomas and Windsor as a direct result of this budget. Since the Treasurer was unable to give me a firm indication, will the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology tell me if he knows how many of these 70,000 temporary jobs will be created in the automobile sector?

Hon Mr Pilkey: I do not agree that jobs will be lost by the increase in the gas-guzzler tax, which I believe, if I am correct, was initiated in 1989 by the Liberal government. This is simply an expansion to that.

We have, through my ministry, met with the Ford Motor Co and with General Motors. We have been very supportive to both of those companies. We encourage increased employment --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Minister, we are back into the part where there are certain questions we do not like and certain answers we do not like. We may take a break.

If members are a little more relaxed now, including the member for Etobicoke West, whose leader is waiting to hear the response, we can continue with the response.

Hon Mr Pilkey: Just to conclude, the tax will affect less than 1% of the vehicles made in Ontario. I suppose the extent to which that might impact on employment levels is open to speculation. It would be my hope that it would not, and it would also be my hope that the very proactive agreements and involvement that we have with automotive companies in this province will allow them to continue to proceed and prosper.

Mr Harris: First of all, I am disappointed, but I understand that the whole budgetary philosophy, the whole job creation strategy, is this Tinkerbell: "I hope. I just wish it would happen." Unfortunately, that is not how things happen in this province. One cannot wish them to happen.

The minister is telling me that he thinks, somehow or other, that dramatically increasing the price of Marquis and Cougars and Thunderbirds will not affect the sales and the jobs for those products. I disagree, the company disagrees and every economist disagrees.

Surely the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology must know how this budget impacts on the industrial sector. Surely he asked the Treasurer how it would help stop the massive layoffs that are occurring. Now let me ask him this: How many of the 70,000 temporary jobs will be available to laid-off workers in the wool, yarn and cloth industry or in the wood industry or in the textile industry or in the rubber products industry or in the beverage industry? Will any of the 70,000 temporary jobs benefit some of these 200,000 that will be laid off in these industries?

1450

Hon Mr Pilkey: As the leader of the third party well knows, this Ontario budget will have a broad impact, and it will impact on a variety of sectors. If he is asking me -- or, I suspect, any member of the House, including the Treasurer -- specifically how many jobs in each individual company or sector it will impact, I think that is not likely to be forthcoming. What will be forthcoming is a positive impact generated by this budget that is going to attack this recession in a very positive way and help bring companies to a more preferred situation than they are now in.

Just by way of example, this very morning I made announcements in Oakville to three companies that are expanding through their research and development, creating employment in this province and helping to lead us in this new technological age. This budget will help us continue to do that.

Mr Harris: Yesterday, in response to a question about the $57-million assistance package to help "fundamentally sound," the minister said, small and medium businesses -- leaving aside the argument that was proven yesterday that this is not a new program, not new money, that in fact he is cutting back on this kind of money because he has flatlined his budget, as we saw in the estimates, the minister said that expenditure of $57 million will save 25,000 jobs. Could I ask the minister -- and I am just trying to establish the credibility of his budget -- does it make sense to him that this $57 million of existing money will save 25,000 jobs, so that leaves us 45,000 jobs for the other $9.65 billion of deficit financing this year? Does that make sense to the minister, that he and his program can save 25,000 with $57 million, but the Treasurer needs another $9.65 billion to save 45,000 other jobs?

Hon Mr Pilkey: What would make a great deal of sense to me is if the leader of the third party here would start to get his facts straight. That is what would make a lot more sense to me.

Had he been listening to the minister's statement that I made in this House -- and I will read it to him again because he obviously was not listening the first time -- I said that it is estimated that these targeted companies employ some 25,000 people. Quite frankly, I am quite willing and able to the best of my ability to respond to these questions. But these sort of "half circumstance" -- and those are the best words I can use in the House -- are somewhat annoying, and I wish the leader of the third party would quit using those kinds of comments that are not accurate and not what I said.

BUDGET

Mr Conway: I would like to go back to the Treasurer, and I would refer him to the chart on page 15 of his budget entitled "Medium-Term Fiscal Outlook."

For the Treasurer to contain his debt over that four-year period, fiscal 1991 to fiscal 1994, to $34.8 billion, he by his own estimates will have to move provincial revenues from $43 billion to $57 billion. That assumes an annual growth in revenues of 9.8%. That, as the Treasurer will know, is a very generous annual growth in revenue at a time when his own officials and his own budget are predicting average annual gross domestic product growth at 7%.

In light of the historical patterns in the Ontario economy and in light of the rather effective historical assumptions of many of his very good people in Treasury, how can the Treasurer at one and the same time predict an annual growth in provincial gross domestic product at 7%, and anticipate annual revenue growth of 9.8%?

Hon Mr Laughren: These numbers he is using are absolutely correct, which does not surprise me, I might add. But I think the member should understand that in order to achieve those revenue numbers, which in turn will allow us to achieve the deficit that we want to achieve, or do even better than is in the documents, it is going to mean a combination of growth in the economy, at the rates referred to by the member opposite, and new taxes that will be raised during those periods.

A couple of things should be said: One is that I believe revenues were growing at almost a 10% rate during the last number of years; and I do not know of any government anywhere, if it does any medium-term fiscal planning, that does not build into it revenue increases in order to achieve its objectives.

Mr Conway: One of the things that has impressed me about the Treasurer's budget document is, as I say, what the recession is doing to a lot of the tax sources, particularly the corporate tax and the retail sales tax. That is why I have to assume that there are good people in Treasury who are saying privately, if not publicly, that in fiscal 1991-92 personal income tax revenues are going to be well below the nearly $16-billion assumption.

My question to the Treasurer is this: If the Treasurer were to take, over that four-year period, the normal assumption by which his officials operate, that revenue growth will be 90% of projected gross domestic product -- and by 1994-95, instead of $57 billion worth of revenue we would be at $52 billion of revenue -- would he not agree that a reasonable assumption is that he is anticipating minimally a $5-billion tax increase to maintain, at the very best of all other assumptions, the integrity of his $34.8-billion deficit projection over that four-year period?

Hon Mr Laughren: The table that is in the budget document is a scenario that the member has interpreted accurately. However, a word of caution would be that there could be any number of models put out there based on growth assumptions, based on revenue moves that will be made over that period of time. It is very difficult to project with any kind of accuracy, when you are that far down the road, what the growth of the economy is going to be like, and what particular tax moves we will be making.

As well, I do not know to what extent the expenditures that are in here are going to be as high as we indicated. If the expenditures in here are less than what is in the budget document, then of course that will allow us to have lower revenues or pay down the deficit or whatever. But I would just caution members to regard the table on page 15 as one of any number of models that one could use in trying to arrive at a medium-term fiscal plan, and that is exactly what we have done.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mr Jackson: My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services. The minister will be aware that immigration officials are currently investigating a situation where there is an allegation that there are up to 100 Nigerian refugee claimants who have been accused of abusing our social assistance system. It was reported in the Toronto Sun this morning that some of the claimants are receiving up to 13 separate payments from welfare offices each month. One case is even reported in this article in which apparently one individual has only been in the country for six months and has purchased a $15,000 car with cash.

These abuses are obviously costing taxpayers thousands of dollars. There are legitimate concerns at this point as to just how much abuse there is in our welfare system. Could the minister be more specific with respect to the number of taxpayer dollars involved or the number of recipients who are abusing the system? Can she share that kind of information with this House?

1500

Hon Ms Akande: I thank the member for the question. I want to begin this question with a very definite statement. I would not want us in any way to convey information that many people or the majority of people defrauded the system. The reality of the picture is that when the Transitions report came out, the research around that said there was only about 3% of fraud by recipients and much of it was not deliberate, and there were as many people being underpaid as there were being overpaid. That is first, because I know we really would not want to assume that about many people on social assistance. The other thing is that the general welfare assistance benefits are administered by the municipalities, not by the province. However, we do cost-share and therefore we are concerned. It is also interesting to note that this level of fraud was picked up by the workers, the staff who are involved in GWA, and because we have increased staff and because they are doing monitoring and counselling, they have been able to identify this.

[Applause]

Mr Jackson: I find it passing strange that on the eve of a budget with a $10-billion deficit the NDP caucus is applauding non-intentional fraud.

The point I raise is, just what is the nature of the minister's monitoring? To suggest that the SARC report, which is now three and a half years old, somehow has an accurate handle on this situation -- I would remind the minister that the SARC report specifically identified deficiencies in which this government of this province determines the exact extent of fraud. It goes further to recommend that her ministry should be responsible for implementing accountability and monitoring systems.

It is clear that the minister has been attracted to certain of the recommendations that would allow for no longer having a home visit, for example, which is what the very workers she referred to used to determine some cases of fraud. She has removed the right to have a permanent address in this province which those very workers used as a means of ensuring that taxpayers' dollars were protected.

The Speaker: And the question?

Mr Jackson: My question is, do not confuse the issue of increased payments. We want the minister to put in place an accountability system. When will she have --

The Speaker: Will the member take his seat, please?

Hon Ms Akande: Was there a question? Let me say to the member, do not confuse the answer. The answer is clear. The accountability system is there. It is monitored by the increased number of workers. We have workers now working -- he does not want to hear the answer.

Mr Jackson: That line worked with Judge Evans. It does not work in this House. What do you say, fraud is okay if you are ignorant of the law?

The Speaker: I had difficulty hearing the response and the cause of the volume was the very member who was waiting to hear the response.

Mr Jackson: On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: I did not even know you were on your feet because of the members opposite yelling at you.

EDUCATION POLICY

Mr Malkowski: My question is to the Minister of Education. I was interested today in noticing an article in the Toronto Star. I have the article here with me. The headline said that Ontario is set to skip out of national school tests and the article discussed the issue that we will not be participating in the national school tests sponsored by the Council of Ministers of Education, Canada. I would like the minister to address that issue and explain why we are not interested in participating in that.

Hon Mrs Boyd: I too was interested that this was considered news, since the meeting at which this decision was conveyed to the Council of Ministers of Education, Canada took place in February. We decided not to become involved in the national indicators project as a participant, but only as an observer, because we object to the way in which the project is being carried out.

We believe that in order to give us the kind of information that will help us to improve our curriculum and our methodology with respect to the effectiveness of learning, such testing needs to be based on curriculum. Despite my pleas to the contrary, my fellow ministers would not agree to design the tests in such a way that they took account of the curriculum that is being offered in the provinces.

The other issue for us was that we believe, from the kind of research that we have done, that the kind of standardized testing they are proposing is very prejudicial to groups that have demographic areas. So we are not prepared to take part in it, since they would not guarantee a sample that followed the demographic curve of Ontario.

Mr Malkowski: I would like then to ask the minister what she does plan to do to ensure accountability and quality of education in the province of Ontario.

Hon Mrs Boyd: We have already embarked on a project called the benchmarks project, which is a four-year project begun by the previous government. We are carrying it on. That will be a project that will examine what children are supposed to have learned at each level. Initially it will be developed for grades 3, 6 and 9. We have hired on secondment Burl Summers, who is currently the director of education in Hastings county; and as a field development co-ordinator, a woman named Gail Rappolt, who is going to be on secondment from the Hamilton Board of Education. That work will begin on 1 September 1991.

SCHOOL TRANSFER

Mr Mancini: My question is for the Premier. He will be aware that the former government worked for 24 months to find an acceptable accommodation agreement for the public and separate school boards in Essex county. For the Premier's benefit, I want to remind him of the agreement that was announced to the community of Essex and budgeted for by the previous government. That agreement provided two new schools, one for the west end and one for the east end of the county.

In January the current Minister of Education, in a remarkable display of managerial incompetence, swept aside 24 months of work and cancelled the agreement. This is how we arrived at the present and unfortunate situation in Essex county today. The Premier's government's decision means that Amherstburg is about to lose its only community school, contrary to the spirit of Bill 30.

Why has the Premier taken away legally budgeted funds from the school boards of Essex county? Why has he done this?

Hon Mr Rae: In light of the question, I am going to direct it to the Minister of Education.

Mr Mancini: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: This matter is so sensitive and has created so much social turmoil in Essex county, we need and are expecting leadership from the Premier of Ontario. The question is for the Premier.

The Speaker: The member knows quite well that under the standing orders any minister to whom a question is directed has the opportunity to redirect the question. That is precisely what has been done. The question is for the Minister of Education.

Hon Mrs Boyd: I am distressed that I continue to be misrepresented in terms of my position and our government's position with respect to the school accommodation issue. We have not withdrawn the funding allocation made by the previous government at all. The issue was that the Villanova school could not be built in Essex county because of exactly the same kind of pressure that is occurring now. Citizens who want to block the provision of extended Catholic education in that part of the province have taken the province to the Ontario Municipal Board to prevent the building of the school on the ground that was bought for that purpose.

It was when the courts upheld that finding of the OMB that the school boards in the area were faced with an issue of what to do. They cancelled the sharing agreement at General Amherst District High School, which had pertained for some four years, and it was our responsibility as a government and my responsibility as a minister to go and encourage them to find a local solution to this problem, so that all the children in Essex county would have access to the education they are mandated to have.

Mr Mancini: It is against the rules to call the minister a liar, but her nose is growing.

Interjections.

1510

The Speaker: I do not think I am the only one who has read the story of Pinocchio. I think the member might want to rephrase.

Mr Mancini: Mr Speaker, are you asking me to withdraw that?

Mr Jackson: On a point of order, Mr Speaker --

The Speaker: The Chair can only entertain one point of order at a time. I am dealing with the member for Essex South. I think the member knows full well the implication of the remark which he made and I would ask that the member consider a rephrasing of his remark.

Mr Mancini: The minister is out to lunch completely.

Interjections.

The Speaker: The government House leader.

Hon Miss Martel: I think you made it very clear that the remark should be withdrawn and I did not hear him withdraw that remark.

The Speaker: I did not hear that magic word either.

Mr Mancini: Mr Speaker, I will withdraw anything that is offensive to you.

During the Bill 30 debates, all three parties made a solemn promise to single-school communities. The Premier in a press release dated 20 February 1986 vowed that the NDP would continue to press, "To ensure protections for public schools in single-school communities." Those were the Premier's words.

His Minister of Housing, the member for Windsor-Riverside, was equally impassioned at the time. This is what the member said in the Legislature on 9 July 1985: "Anyone who understands rural communities in southwestern Ontario will know that in Essex county, for example, there are several small urban areas, each of which has its own public school, each of which is proud of its school, which is the focus of the community, and each of which wants its school to be maintained."

Somehow we have to come to grips with that issue, whether it means sharing facilities or, as the member for Windsor-Riverside said, some new facilities.

The Speaker: The interrogative part?

Mr Mancini: Yes, Mr Speaker. Whatever the end solution, we have to respect the needs and desires of the small communities throughout the province.

Through the minister's direct interference in January, she has contravened the Education Act and I want to know why she broke the solemn promise that was made by the NDP and her caucus colleagues at that time. The second part of the question is, since she has refused so far, will she be prepared to meet with a delegation of local officials from the community, since her Premier has said he runs an open government?

Hon Mrs Boyd: The member is quite right that it is very difficult for single-school communities when they are faced with the kind of situation that Essex county is faced with. The public board in Essex county has only 6,950 students enrolled and they have over 10,000 spaces. The taxpayers of Essex county are telling us that they are not prepared to try to support that kind of a situation.

I have not in any way made a decision. We have used the processes that were set up by the previous government in terms of the Planning and Implementation Commission, and the negotiated settlement that was done was done with the agreement of the two boards. I have not yet had the recommendation from the PIC. When I do, a decision will be made, given the recommendation that the commission makes.

This is the process that was set up by the previous government, and I find it disgraceful that the member is criticizing a process that his own government set up in order to try to resolve these kinds of issues without the kind of conflict that he has continually tried to build on in his own area.

Mr Stockwell: The disgraceful part is that the government kept making those promises and it did not want to fulfil them.

TAX INCREASES

Mr Stockwell: A question of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology: Why did he not request the Treasurer, during budget deliberations, rather than increasing the gas-guzzler tax on large cars, to do something with some incentive to help boost that sagging industry, to help boost the car manufacturers and the car sales, and help boost an industry in great need? Why did he not request the Treasurer, rather than slapping an increased tax on top of cars, to remove the tax on small cars, thereby creating an incentive for people to buy and also accomplishing his environmental concerns that he suggests were part of making this decision? Why did he not put that to the Treasurer?

Hon Mr Pilkey: The Treasurer and myself, through my ministry, do meet with the automotive industry. We are very supportive of the automotive industry. They are in fact key to the wealth and health of this particular province. We have, as well, involved ourselves in financial programs to do just that.

In terms of what the Treasurer had on one particular program in his budget, if the question is, did I discuss that with presidents of motor companies? I did not. I am prohibited from doing so and could not divulge the contents of that budget to them or anyone else.

Mr Stockwell: First, that was not the question; the question was very clear. I cannot believe the minister cannot talk to presidents of major car companies in this province, asking for their input into a budget that is devastating an already very fragile industry in this province. He knows he can talk to them.

The question was, why did the minister not go to the Treasurer and ask him to remove the tax on small cars? He knows full well it would have been far better for the consumer, for the car industry, for the employees who are going to get laid off due to this particular announcement, and it would have solved the government's environmental concerns.

My feeling is that he is simply gouging the taxpayers again for tax dollars to run up the government's $1-billion tax increases and its $10-billion deficit. The minister should come clean with the public. Why did he not make that move? It would accomplish exactly the same thing and would not put this fragile industry at even greater risk. Why? That is the question. He should try to answer it.

Hon Mr Pilkey: This government has been and continues to be and will be well into the future very supportive of the automotive business in this province. In terms of any -- if I understand the question -- specific consultations they may have had with the Treasurer relative to his specific budget, the member will have to ask him.

1520

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

Mr Ferguson: I have a question for the Minister of Labour. I know all members of the House will be concerned about the answer.

Between 1964 and 1975, a number of injured workers in this province received pensions as a result of permanent disabilities. However, due to an insensitive Liberal government and an uncaring Conservative government those pensions were not indexed. The problem today is that we have a situation where we have individuals who have been permanently disabled for a number of years receiving only $200 a month in pension. What does the Minister of Labour plan to do to help these individuals?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I can tell my colleague that this issue has been put in front of me by a number of injured workers' groups across the province. I can also tell him that, on checking, I have been absolutely appalled at the extent of this particular problem. I have talked to the new chairperson of the board. We have asked him to report to us on this matter and tell us specifically what measures he is prepared to take to deal with the pensions of older workers from the Workers' Compensation Board.

TOURISM INDUSTRY

Mr H. O'Neil: My question is of the Minister of Tourism and Recreation. The tourism sector is describing this budget as a bitter blow to its industry. They say it will chase away tourists and, at the same time, destroy thousands of jobs. Tourist operators say they are getting no assistance from this budget, with not one mention of tourism in the entire budget speech. They feel they are in no position to swallow more tax hikes; rather they need assistance from this government. Instead of assistance, the budget of the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation as the percentage of total government expenditure has actually declined. Can the minister tell us why this government has decided to abandon the tourism industry in this province during these tough economic times?

Hon Mr North: I appreciate the question. I can tell the member that the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation, on behalf of this government, is doing a number of different things for the tourism industry. Actually, I spoke to the members of Tourism Ontario as recently as two days ago, the day after the budget.

We spoke at some length about all the different problems that they were having with the recession and problems that they felt should have been addressed in the budget. I can tell the member that they were disappointed and they made that perfectly clear to me. I spoke to them on a number of different incentives and they were very pleased with that. They told me that for the first time an attack was made on the budget but not on the minister.

Mr H. O'Neil: I can tell the minister that we do not agree with what he has just said and I do not really believe the tourism industry does either. The government has upped the tax on gasoline and it upped the tax on liquor -- two of the things that are very important in the meal component and everything else. The tourism industry, made up of many small industry people, is very concerned and the minister has not done a thing to address the problem it has. Instead of telling us what he has talked about, will he tell us what he is going to do to help these people keep in business.

Hon Mr North: I will take the opportunity to tell the member some of the things we have done. The lunch I had the other day was a very good opportunity for me to announce a couple of different things we had planned on doing.

One of the first things I announced the other day, as a matter of fact, was a program called OTEC, which is Ontario Tourism Education Council. They were very pleased to hear that we are putting in the moneys as a startup cost for this program. A second thing that I announced the other day is the fact that we are putting in three brand-new ad agencies instead of just one. We will be doing that so that we can cover the market better with better quality information. One of the other things we talked about was that we will be looking at having a competitiveness forum, which I believe is the first in the province or in the country. I think these are good incentives.

I can tell the member across the floor that they were very pleased that there was no increase in workers' compensation, that there was no tax as a result of the wage protection fund and that there was no increase in the employer health tax.

Mr J. Wilson: My supplementary is to the Treasurer. To underline the effect the budget has had on tourism operators, I will read from the head of the union, Jean-Guy Bélanger, president of the local of the hotel-restaurant employees union, where he says: "We are putting our prices up and chasing the Americans away. Why would Americans come here when they pay double for their drinks and hotel rooms?"

How could the Treasurer possibly, after meeting with Tourism Ontario some three weeks before the budget, totally ignore its pleas for lower taxes? His deficit will drive up the Canadian dollar, will drive up interest rates. Why did he not respond to the needs of Tourism Ontario and the thousands of tourism operators across this province? I want a direct answer for that since the minister fails to give us one in this House time after time when we ask him.

Hon Mr Laughren: I will try to respond to the very serious question from the member opposite. I appreciate the fact that there are parts of the tourism industry that are suffering, just as there are aspects of every sector out there. We should not forget that we are in the middle of a very serious recession. I would say to the members of the third party, though, that if they are looking for solutions, at least partly, to the problems in the tourism industry, they had better take a look at what their friends in Ottawa have done in the last few years. The members opposite --

Mr J. Wilson: You don't care about the second-largest employer. Shame on you.

Hon Mr Laughren: I understand what the member is saying, but what he has to understand as well is that he and his colleagues cannot, day after day, come into this place and call for more expenditures of one kind or another at the same time as they are calling for lower taxes, at the same time as they are calling for a lower deficit. I do not know how anybody, unless he was a magician, could do something like that. I really do not understand it, but perhaps some day the members of the third party will explain to me how they would weave that kind of magic in Ontario.

VISITOR

The Speaker: The members may wish to welcome to our midst another former member of the House, the former member for Ottawa Centre, Michael Cassidy.

Mr Conway: I do not know why people continue to do this, but our friend is not just the former member for Ottawa Centre. Lest it be forgotten, he is a very colourful star in the pantheon of social democracy, a former leader of the Ontario New Democratic Party.

The Speaker: I thank the member.

SPEAKER'S RULINGS

Mr Jackson: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: You were called upon to give a ruling during an exchange between the member for Essex South and the member for London Centre. I, like all members of the House, heard that exchange and was witness to the reference by the member for London Centre, who said she was quite distressed at the member's misrepresentation of the fact. You then ruled solely on the fact that the member for Essex South said that the member for London Centre's nose was growing.

Mr Speaker, I would ask you to review Hansard and to examine why today you have one ruling for the governing party, of which you are a member, and another ruling for members of the opposition. I would ask, sir, given that that phrase has been ruled upon in this House on several occasions, that you would be fair in your interpretation and, more to the point, if you would review Hansard and either call for the removal of the statement of the member for London Centre or offer up an apology to the member for Essex South. But, Speaker, please be consistent.

The Speaker: To the member for Burlington South, I am always pleased to review Hansard. I will do so and I will report back to the member later.

1530

PETITION

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEE BENEFITS

Mr Runciman: I have a petition, prepared by the United Pentecostal Church in Brockville, petitioning the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly. This really addresses the congregation's concerns in respect to the decision by the socialist government to extend benefits to same-sex couples.

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS ECONOMIC PROTECTION ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 POUR PROTECTION ÉCONOMIQUE DE CITÉ DE NIAGARA FALLS

Mr Harris moved first reading of Bill 94, An Act to protect the economy of the Border Community of the City of Niagara Falls.

M. Harris propose la première lecture du projet de loi 94, Loi pour protection économique de la communauté frontière de Cité de Niagara Falls.

1537

The House divided on Mr Harris's motion, which was agreed to on the following vote:

La motion de M. Harris, mise aux voix, est adoptée :

Ayes/Pour-79

Abel, Akande, Allen, Arnott, Boyd, Bradley, Buchanan, Callahan, Caplan, Carter, Charlton, Christopher son, Conway, Cooke, Cooper, Cousens, Drainville, Duignan, Elston, Farnan, Ferguson, Fletcher, Frankford, Gigantes, Grier, Hansen, Harnick, Harrington, Harris, Haslam, Hayes, Henderson, Hope, Jackson, Jamison, Johnson, Jordan, Klopp, Lessard, MacKinnon, Mackenzie, Malkowski, Mammoliti, Mancini, Marchese, Marland, Martin, Mathyssen, Mills, Morrow, Murdoch, B., Murdock, S., North, O'Connor, Offer, O'Neill, Y., Owens, Philip, E., Phillips, G., Ruprecht, Silipo, Sola, Sorbara, Sterling, Stockwell, Sullivan, Sutherland, Turnbull, Villeneuve, Ward, B., Ward, M., Waters, White, Wilson, F., Wilson, G., Wilson, J., Winninger, Wiseman, Witmer.

Nays/Contre-3

Bisson, Haeck, Wessenger.

Mr Speaker: The Minister of Housing.

Hon Mr Cooke: Mr Speaker, I move that the House do now pass to orders of --

Mr Speaker: Sorry. The table is required to make the reading. My apologies.

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Journals: This is a bill entitled An Act to protect the economy of the Border Community of the City of Niagara Falls / Loi pour protection économique de la communauté frontière de Cité de Niagara Falls.

The Speaker: Mr Harris.

Hon Mr Cooke: On a point of order, Mr Speaker --

The Speaker: It is an introduction of a bill and it is normal practice to allow the person who introduced the bill to make a brief opening remark at first reading. The leader of the third party.

Mr Harris: In the absence of the House leader, who might know the rules better than the acting House leader -- although given his experience I would be surprised -- I would like to point out to members of the House, particularly to those who voted against the bill, that the purpose of this bill is to protect the economy of the border community of the city of Niagara Falls, by ensuring that government-imposed costs do not undermine the competitiveness of firms in said community.

The Speaker: The Minister of Housing.

ORDER OF BUSINESS

Hon Mr Cooke: I move that the House do now pass to orders of the day.

Mr Cousens: Point of order.

The Speaker: Yes, point of order.

Mr Cousens: I take strong exception to the acting House leader of the New Democratic socialist party for standing up now in the middle of proceedings to try to move out of where we are.

Under section 29 of the standing orders of the Legislature, the routine proceedings before the orders of the day are as follows, and we are in normal routine proceedings: We have had members' statements. We have had the statements by the ministry and responses. Today we at least had a chance to talk about a democratic government in Poland, which we are not about to see in this province. We also had oral questions, motions, petitions and reports by committees.

Now we are into introduction of bills, and before the leader of our party can complete further presentations, we find the acting House leader Standing up, in his own inimitable way, forgetting the fact that when he was House leader for the NDP, not so long ago, there were a few moments in the history of this House -- a "that was then, this is now" situation. The member, who I presume is now playing the role of the House leader for the New Democratic Party in making this motion, has failed to remember his position when he was in opposition and when he was deliberately trying to make a point to the government of the day and when he was opposed to the government of the day trying to change the proceedings of the House to take away that opportunity which the New Democrats were using to make a statement about their position on things.

Mr Drainville: What's your point of order?

Mr Cousens: My point of order has to do with the standing orders of this House. The standing orders of this House, as clearly stated by the Minister of Housing when he was House leader for the New Democrats are: "My understanding is that we have rules that set out the process whereby we get to orders of the day. That is set out in the standing orders, and it would be my suggestion to you, Mr Speaker, that this motion is completely out of order since it is a changing of the standing orders of the Legislature by motion."

The fact of the matter is that this same person has taken a little trip from this side of the House over here and is now on a bigger trip in suggesting that they are going to run this House and this province without there being a fair opportunity for ourselves, the voice of opposition, to make our statement. We are in the middle of making our presentation of bills. We have missed the opportunity for this person to stand up when it was motions. He had that chance, and now he is coming along and using the House opportunity to do it.

There are a number of other points I would like to table for the Speaker's consideration with regard to the motion by this member. It has to do with things he said in the House on 11 April 1990. That is just over a year ago, so his memory should not be so totally obscured with the power-hungry trip he has had since 6 September that he will have forgotten the lovely things he said in this House when a previous Speaker was given the opportunity to rule on this same kind of motion.

The member for Windsor-Riverside said, "I would also like to express my extreme disappointment at the decision yesterday of the government House leader at moving this motion in the Legislature." It is the same kind of motion the member for Windsor-Riverside is bringing in today, so when he said last year that he was very disappointed, extremely disappointed, may I say to him and to the whole socialist government how extremely disappointed I am that they are about to use their power in this way.

He went on to say on 11 April 1990: "In making your decision on whether this motion to move to orders of the day is in order, I think you must be mindful, of course, of the government's right to govern, but you must also be mindful of our right in the opposition to oppose. You must protect both those rights and balance them." Further to that --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Just a minute. I am always pleased to listen to a member's alleged point of order. The members, of course, are always encouraged to be as brief as they can in stating their point of order. If the member does have a few more items to bring to my attention that are germane to the point he is attempting to make, by all means, and perhaps he would move along.

Mr Cousens: I want to thank the Speaker. There is really something going wrong in the Legislature of the province of Ontario. I appreciate the Speaker allowing me to continue.

The Speaker: Your point of order?

Mr Cousens: In making my response to this motion made by the acting government House leader, in his statement last year there are several pages of his comments when he was giving his point of order to the Chair.

Interjections.

Mr Cousens: Do not try to take away our democratic rights the way they did in Poland during another regime. I am not about to stand in this House and have them come along and take away my rights as a member of the Legislature.

1550

The Speaker: Whoa. Before we get into discussing parliaments around the world, could we kind of focus on today's events? If the member for Markham has information which would assist the Chair, I would appreciate hearing it. I can inform the member, first of all, that it really is not necessary to re-read anyone else's speech. I am quite familiar with the contents to which he refers from 11 April 1990.

Mr Cousens: I have made the point and I will move to other issues that I have to table before this House, but I want it to be very clear in the minds of those who are new to this House, and there are many people -- not including yourself, Mr Speaker, because you have served here for other terms -- who are not aware of the fact that it was just over a year ago that the same person who stood up then to defend the rights of the opposition has now stood up as government House leader to take away the rights of this party.

I would also like to point out that the former Speaker, when he ruled on this issue, took into consideration the fact that our standing orders are not especially clear on this issue and, in trying to draw a clear, fair ruling, referred to federal House of Commons rules on the matter. The fact that our own standing orders have no statement on this means you might well be inclined to look at standing order 1(b) that states, "In all contingencies not provided for in the standing orders the question shall be decided by the Speaker or Chair."

But that does not apply in this case. It explicitly spells out what the order of routine proceedings is in our standing orders. There is no ambiguity or contingencies that are not provided for in the standing orders involved in this matter. The Speaker does not have any latitude to change this. It is spelled out in the standing orders that routine proceedings, with all its components, be followed before we move to orders of the day.

I believe strongly, in speaking on behalf of our caucus, that the orders of the day under section 29 are very clear. We are in the middle of section 29 of the standing orders. We are in the middle of the introduction of bills, and the acting House leader, in trying to move away from that, is in the process of trying to assign a responsibility to you, Mr Speaker, that you would want to take very seriously.

The former Speaker ruled that as the motion to pass through orders of the day is provided for in the standing orders of the House of Commons, then it is in order for the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. I disagree on that as well. At one time, Ottawa and Ontario may have shared standing orders, which in fact were the standing orders of the British House of Commons, but now we do not. We have developed our own unique set of standing orders which have evolved to suit the needs of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, not the Canadian or British House of Commons.

These are a number of points germane to your considerations, not the least of which is the fairness of the opposition to have an opportunity to make a statement in the assembly of Ontario. Should you rule in favour of the motion by the acting House leader, I believe strongly that you will be taking away the rights of the opposition to be served by the rules of the House and also to serve the needs of the province of Ontario.

The Speaker: First, I wish to thank the member for Markham for his contribution, and I appreciate the fact that he has researched this matter. There are a couple of items which I wish to draw to his attention.

As he has alluded to, on 17 April 1990 Speaker Edighoffer, while faced with a similar situation, gave a ruling in which he found the motion to be in order and gave his full reasons for doing so. Those reasons occupied several pages of Hansard. One portion of it, which may be of interest at this particular point with respect to the last matter raised by the member for Markham, was in reference to the rule he referred to in the standing orders in Ottawa and that the rule had been removed from the standing orders of Ontario in 1978:

"In researching why it had been abandoned, I have satisfied myself that it was mainly because it had never been used. I must conclude, therefore, that this legitimate procedural motion did and can fit into the context of the Legislative Assembly's procedures. In conclusion, therefore, I must find that the motion put by the honourable House leader the other day was in order but, because it has never been used before in this place, I would like to set out for honourable members an exact description of what this motion is, who can move it and at what time."

Those were the words of Speaker Edighoffer at the time. He then goes on to state that:

"The motion that this House proceed to the orders of the day is a tactical motion. It is a procedural motion. It is a dilatory motion. It is not a routine motion. It falls into the same category as motions to adjourn the House and to adjourn the debate. These dilatory motions have characteristics. They can be moved at any time by any member who legitimately has the floor. As an example of how this works, members will have noticed that the other day the member for Simcoe West moved the adjournment of the House after being recognized in the period reserved for the introduction of bills. That was perfectly in order. The same is true for the motion to proceed to orders of the day. Furthermore, because our standing orders already put a restriction on a dilatory motion, the one to adjourn the debate and the other to adjourn the House, in saying that they cannot be moved until after the end of question period, the same rule should apply to the motion 'to proceed to the orders of the day.' This motion therefore is in order when moved after question period but before reaching orders of the day. The question is put immediately by the Speaker. The bells, if necessary, will ring for a maximum of 30 minutes, and a head count of members present will then take place. It should also be noted that the vote on this type of motion cannot be deferred."

I feel I am in no position other than to abide by the ruling made in similar circumstances by my predecessor, Speaker Edighoffer.

Mr Elston: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: While I appreciate that it is your duty and obligation to be well informed about the rules and previous rulings, I must indicate some surprise that you are in possession of such an extensive and lengthy exposition on this particular matter at a time when it has been newly dropped upon the desk at this early hour during introduction of bills.

I must ask if you have been requested to make this ruling or have been tipped off with respect to the movements of the acting House leader of this particular building. If that is the case, that is certainly a violation of the neutrality with which you have been vested. I understand that it is your obligation to know this, but I find it extremely interesting that you would be armed, possessed fully, with this particular extract. I think it is at least interesting that if you had been advised that this motion was coming, your duty and obligation as a neutral party would be that you inform the rest of us as well, that we might equally be armed and prepared for the motion to be dropped.

It is a very interesting piece of work that has been done today, and while we wish to get on with the business of the House, I must indicate that I had requested information about what the processes were for the day and I expected to be advised so that I could advise my members whether they had to be here for votes, especially votes along these lines, which are unusual, if necessary when people find there are obstructions to the carrying on of government business. I myself was the person, the minister at the time, for whom I think the motion on 17 April 1990's resolution was being processed. I understand that after several days and several hours of dealing with introduction of petitions and all other manner of things, you have to get on with business.

Yesterday we suffered through, and I do say we had to suffer through, a ringing of bells, and it is in fact a very big dislocation of time for members and for the staff. There is no question about that, and I understand the need to move, but it is a bit of a surprise to me, Mr Speaker, that you were fully anticipating that this should be dropped on the table today after merely one bill being processed in a manner which accorded with that which was carried out yesterday.

1600

My concern is fully, obviously, that we have to do business here -- I cannot at all argue about that -- and they will do what their numbers allow them to do. But I am a little bit surprised that you would find this in order after but one bill being introduced today, and second, that you would come fully armed with this material when none of the rest of us would have anticipated after one bill being introduced --

The Speaker: To the member for Bruce, whose contributions are always appreciated, there are two points that I wish to bring to his attention. One, it is the responsibility of the Chair to be fully informed at all times as to the activities of this chamber and within this building. The Chair is ably assisted by the table officers, and of course, on a somewhat regular basis, the three House leaders have been most co-operative in informing me of things which they feel should be brought to my attention, for which I am most grateful.

Second, the member for Bruce will know that it is the responsibility of the Chair during either petitions or introduction of bills to exercise the rotation by party around the House. What the Speaker is supposed to do is to start here and look towards the opposition, the third party, the government, back to the opposition, and the Chair does that routinely for the presentation of petitions and introduction of bills. If you would like that procedure changed, then by all means visit the Legislative Assembly committee.

Hon Mr Cooke: On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: I think it is very unfortunate that the House leader for the official opposition would try to insinuate that there has been interference with the independent office of the Speaker by the government. The fact of the matter is --

Mr Jackson: That isn't your privilege. Point of order, Mr Speaker.

Hon Mr Cooke: I am on a point of privilege.

The Speaker: I am in the middle of the point of privilege, and if the member for Burlington South has a point of order --

Mr Jackson: It's not his point of privilege. It's your privilege, not his.

The Speaker: I will determine whether it is a point of privilege or not after I have heard it.

Hon Mr Cooke: I would simply like to point out to you, Mr Speaker, and to the members of the House that that type of communication did not occur. Obviously anyone with half a brain would have understood after what happened yesterday in the House that we would be looking at the precedents of this Legislature. The Conservative Party anticipated it. Just because the official opposition party did not anticipate it does not mean that there was some conspiracy. So don't be so bloody silly.

The Speaker: Whoa, whoa. The Speaker would very much appreciate it if the Minister of Housing would rephrase his last remark.

Hon Mr Cooke: What did I say that was unparliamentary? Maybe you can tell me what I said. If the word "bloody" is unparliamentary, then "bloody" is added to the list today as well, and I withdraw the word "bloody."

Mr Sterling: Mr Speaker, before you rule on this matter, I have read over the decision that the former Speaker put on this kind of a motion. There was a distinction between that situation and this situation.

In the situation which arose leading to the 17 April ruling, the motion that was placed by the then government House leader came during that part of the routine proceedings dealing with motions. I do not know whether or not that puts a different hue on the matter, but I have read over the ruling of Speaker Edighoffer and, quite frankly, I think Speaker Edighoffer was wrong in his order made on 17 April 1990.

I want to tell you why. April 17, 1990, was about five months after the new standing orders were put into place, which came into place in October 1989. As you were not a member of the Legislature at that time, Mr Speaker, I think it is important for me to tell you and perhaps other members of this Legislature the process that we went through to reach those standing orders. I am not going to be lengthy in this argument, but I want it understood that I think Speaker Edighoffer missed the point when he called this kind of motion a dilatory motion.

When we negotiated these standing orders, which took a period of approximately four years, in which I represented my party, Mr Breaugh, the former member for Oshawa, represented the New Democratic Party and Mr Reycraft, the former member for Middlesex, represented the Liberal Party -- in fact, the member for Windsor-Riverside was what I would call a secondary participant in the negotiations from time to time -- when we were negotiating those changes, the clear understanding by the opposition parties, then the NDP and the Conservatives, and the Liberals was that the opposition were giving up significant stalling techniques and tactics during those negotiations.

The principal one that we gave up in opposition was the ringing of the bells and the challenging of the Speaker. If in fact those rules were here today, Mr Speaker, we could have at any time during the proceedings stood in our places and challenged a ruling which you had made, caused the bells to ring and not come back in this place until 6 o'clock or a few minutes thereafter. So the opposition parties gave up a tremendous asset in their arsenal of techniques in order to express their displeasure with government policy on any matter.

I want to tell you, Mr Speaker, just as a small diversion from the point of order, that there is no matter on which this party feels stronger than our distaste for the budget which was brought forward by this Treasurer this Monday. Therefore, we are using every tactic that we can to get this Treasurer to put this budget out to a committee so that the people of Ontario can come in and talk about their distaste for this budget.

Back to the point of order. The purpose of giving up the bells and giving up the right to challenge the Speaker was to try to bring more order to this place. When we sat down and put in place the routine proceedings, when the ministers' statements would come, when the parties' responses would come, etc, there was a clear understanding on my part, on behalf of my party, that the government House leader, whoever he or she may be, would not be able to hijack the right of the opposition parties to rely on the procedures of the day, as they were and when they were, in order to use whatever techniques were left, and they were much, much less than they were before the standing orders of October 1989 were brought into place.

I fully understood that the government would have to go through the routine proceedings step by step, and if it could not strike a deal with the opposition parties to mediate whatever the dispute was over the issue, to find another technique to allow opposition parties to voice their opposition over government policy, then the government party had to deal with that matter and had to put up with the opposition that in fact was coming from the other side.

1610

Hon Mr Farnan: The Speaker has already made his decision.

Hon Mr Allen: Mr Speaker, on a point of order --

Mrs Sullivan: He is on a point of order. You can't interrupt a point of order.

Hon Mr Farnan: He hasn't made one.

The Speaker: Is the member for Carleton almost finished?

Hon Mr Farnan: We can't put up with this crap.

Mrs Marland: That is nice language.

Mr Sterling: The Solicitor General says this is crap. These rules, quite frankly, have taken a lot of my time as a member of this Legislature. I have had experience for four years of putting significant amounts of time into these standing orders. I do not consider the standing orders here crap, I do not consider points of order crap, and I think that is despicable language for the Solicitor General of this province to be using in this place.

The Speaker: Do you have anything else to add?

Mr Sterling: Yes, I do. I believe that there are other routes and techniques which the government House leader could put in place, if he or she so desires to do, at other times during the legislative proceedings to get on with the business. If they choose to use them, that would be perfectly in order, in my view. However, I do not view Mr Edighoffer's ruling in this matter correct and I would ask you to reconsider the matter before you make your final ruling.

Mr Callahan: On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: I feel that as a private member my rights have been infringed upon under section 21(a) and (b) of the standing orders. If I had a motion to present today on behalf of one of my constituents, my motion would in fact be cut off at the pass by your ruling that this action by the House leader of the government is appropriate. It may be that the third party is using this in a dilatory fashion. But if I had a motion that I had to present for my constituents, your ruling with reference to the attempt by the government House leader to cut us off at the pass would in fact be breaching my privileges. I submit that my privileges have been breached and I would like your ruling on that.

Mrs Marland: On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: I have sat here for the last few minutes, hearing a level of language that I have not heard in this House in the six years that I have been here. If anybody who disagrees me would like to research Hansard, they will find that my statement is correct.

Hon Mr Cooke: Margaret, we used to wear a halo, but yours is getting bigger and better.

Mrs Marland: My privileges as a member -- if the Minister of Housing, who is now interrupting me, is so hyped as he represents the people of Windsor-Riverside, if he can stand in this House on a point of privilege on behalf of you, Mr Speaker, which is what he said he was doing, then I can stand on a point of privilege on my own behalf.

I would like to say that for a member of the crown, a member of the cabinet of this province --

Mr Stockwell: Representing the Queen.

Mrs Marland: -- a member who represents the Queen and a large number of people in this province, to use language such as "bloody stupid" and suggest that another member has half a mind, and then further, for the Solicitor General to stand in this House as the Solicitor General while he represents the residents of Cambridge and say that something -- and I quote again -- is a lot of crap, frankly I think this government is showing a kind of leadership of which --

[Laughter]

Mrs Marland: I mention at this point, the member who is now laughing the loudest, Mr Speaker, is a --

The Speaker: Is there more to your point of privilege?

Mrs Marland: I am on the point of privilege. The member for Ottawa Centre, who is now laughing louder than anyone in this House -- a deposed, former Minister of Health, I might add -- who thinks that this is funny, only is a reflection of herself.

Mr Speaker, as a privilege, I would ask that you rule that this kind of language, this kind of behaviour from cabinet ministers or anyone else is simply not to be tolerated in this Legislature.

The Speaker: To the member for Mississauga South, all members will know that the Speaker in fact has a considerable sensitivity to the language which is used in this chamber and that I quite frequently remind members of that. It is very difficult in the sense that we do not have a parliamentary language guide, but my ears are indeed quite sensitive to a lot of words.

I wish to return to the member for Carleton and remind him, first of all, that if there are legitimate points of privilege or order, I am quite happy to hear them. On the other hand, I have made a ruling. I will remind the member for Carleton that it was indeed just yesterday when, during the introduction of bills, there was a motion to adjourn the House. I take it that is completely in line with the ruling made by Mr Edighoffer on 17 April 1990 and so I have no alternative but to put the question now before the House.

Mr Harris: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: The leader of the third party with a point of order and then the Minister of Housing.

Mr Harris: I would try and be very brief on this if I might, Mr Speaker.

Mr Callahan: Point of privilege.

The Speaker: Would the member for Brampton South please take his seat. I am listening to a point of order. I can only listen to one at a time. The member for Nipissing has the floor.

Mr Callahan: Mr Speaker, a point of privilege, with all due respect, takes precedence over any point of order.

The Speaker: I yield the floor to the member for Brampton South.

Mr Callahan: I draw to your attention, Mr Speaker, sections 21(a) and (b) of the standing orders.

The Speaker: Would the member take his seat. You made that point earlier.

Mr Callahan: I have not finished, Mr Speaker. I refer you with all due respect --

The Speaker: Would the member take his seat,please.

Mr Callahan: I refer you to section 21(b). You must deal with it immediately.

The Speaker: Will the member take his seat, please. The leader of the third party.

Mr Harris: I want to add a few words to this to convince you, Mr Speaker, that this is a matter perhaps worth taking under advisement and hearing from those who were involved in the drafting of these new standing orders. I will tell you why.

Mr Speaker, you are quite correct. Yesterday, you made a ruling on a dilatory motion, that being a motion to adjourn. There was ample precedent for that to be considered a dilatory motion, both before and after the standing orders were revised, but I would ask you if you would consider this: There has been one ruling made by Speaker Edighoffer on this type of motion. It was made at a time when it was introduced under motions, which is a little different than today. However, Mr Edighoffer's ruling extended to include this time of the proceedings. There has only been one ruling that has been made on this motion, calling it, classifying it or accepting it as a dilatory motion. We think that ruling was wrong. We would ask you as a new Speaker, in a new session of the Legislative Assembly, before this gets entrenched -- after a period of time of two, three or four rulings and precedents that are there, it will then be entrenched as a ruling that will stand for ever and a day.

We think it is a serious matter. We think -- and I can recall at the time, because I was in the House when the former ruling was made -- that it was not the intent of the House leaders of the day or of the three members of the day of each party who negotiated that this type of motion be considered dilatory.

1620

Mr Speaker, we think as well that the matter is serious enough that, before automatically picking up and treating one ruling as a precedent, you take this under advisement, invite submissions from the three House leaders who were involved in the negotiations and the three members who were involved in the negotiations and reinvestigate this matter.

I ask you, Mr Speaker, to do that because if we just accept Mr Edighoffer's ruling, which we think is wrong today, without having you examine it yourself, without having heard the arguments, it will then be entrenched as a precedent for ever and a day and we think that would be wrong.

The Speaker: Just before the Minister of Housing, to the member for Brampton South, I do owe you an apology. Under standing order 21(b), I needed to respond immediately, which I did not do.

You will be happy to know you have not lost any privileges today, based on the fact that the motion is in order. Had it not been in order, then obviously you would have lost some privileges. I do appreciate the point that you raised and I again apologize for having not responded immediately to your concern.

Mr Callahan: With due respect, I would like to address that particular item.

Hon Mr Cooke: Come on, Mr Speaker.

Mr Callahan: It is still a point of privilege. I am not debating at all. It is a point of privilege.

If in fact your ruling stands as you have made it, Mr Speaker -- and I am not challenging it because there is no right of appeal under the standing orders, obviously -- it means that any time the Minister of Housing rises in rotation on a routine motion to get right into the business of the House, that means that in fact he could cut me off as a private member from introducing a bill that is important to my constituents.

I am not going to debate what the third party is doing. They are delaying, they are dilatory, and certainly your ruling in that respect would probably make a lot of sense, but I am suggesting that my privileges have in fact been breached, as have all the privileges of the members of this House.

The Speaker: I understand what the member for Brampton South is saying. Indeed, the practice of our House has been, during petitions and introduction of bills, to exercise a rotation around the chamber. Because of that practice, then it allows the opportunity which occurred today and, of course, was referred to in the ruling by Speaker Edighoffer.

Obviously, if members feel that the rules themselves are in need of some repair, then by all means the committee responsible for that is going to have to take a look at it. I think that is along much the same lines as raised by the leader of the third party, who raises a very legitimate concern with respect to how we proceed.

The Speaker is left in a position of using both the standing orders, the practices of this chamber and, where wanting, of other parliaments. The research was done on it previously by Speaker Edighoffer and I am carrying forward that. I am not unmindful of the most recent point made by the leader of the third party. I can assure him, as I believe I can assure all members of this House, that I take this job seriously and I intend, to the best of my ability, to be totally impartial.

Hon Mr Cooke: Mr Speaker, I would just ask you --

Mr Callahan: Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

Hon Mr Cooke: I have already asked to speak on a point of order.

Mr Speaker: The Minister of Housing has the floor on a point of order.

Hon Mr Cooke: Mr Speaker, you said a few moments ago that you supported the decision that had been made by the previous Speaker. Part of that decision was: "The question is put immediately by the Speaker. The bells, if necessary, will ring for a maximum of 30 minutes." Mr Speaker, if you have said that this is in order, then I am wondering when you are going to call the question.

The Speaker: The Minister of Housing is absolutely correct. The standing order is there. I am aware of it and I am at fault.

Hon Mr Cooke: I am not referring to the standing order; I am talking about the ruling.

The Speaker: I am at fault for not having called the question immediately. Quite frankly, I did not do so in order to give some members an opportunity to say what obviously was troubling them.

Mr Callahan: On a point of order, Mr Speaker --

The Speaker: This will be the last point of order entertained, because I have made a ruling and we will launch into a vote. I trust that this is on a different matter.

Mr Callahan: Mr Speaker, I challenge your decision on the point of privilege. I appeal that. There is nothing under the standing orders that prevents me from appealing a decision you make on a point of privilege; there is on a point of order. I move appeal of your decision on the point of privilege.

The Speaker: The member may wish to consult the book again.

1658

The House divided on Mr Cooke's motion, which was agreed to on the following vote:

Ayes 60; nays 24.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

CONCURRENCE IN SUPPLY, MINISTRY OF THE ENVIRONMENT

Resuming consideration of Mrs Grier's motion for concurrence in supply for the Ministry of the Environment.

Mr Harris: I move adjournment of the debate.

1729

The House divided on Mr Harris's motion, which was negatived on the following vote:

Ayes 15; nays 72.

Hon Mr Cooke: Mr Speaker, I would call the 50th order.

The Speaker: And Mr Harris has the floor.

Mr Harris: I think I had the floor, but I really believe the Premier and the Treasurer need some time to consider having the public have their say on this budget and therefore I would move the adjournment of the House.

Hon Mr Cooke: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would just like to point out that after seven months of this party being elected democratically, the Conservative Party refuses to allow the people of this province to have their right --

Interjections.

The Speaker: The motion to adjourn is non-debatable.

1800

The House divided on Mr Harris's motion, which was negatived on the following vote:

Ayes 14; nays 64.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon Mr Cooke: I will indicate the business for the House next week.

On Monday 6 May, we will have budget debate.

On Tuesday 7 May, we will have second reading of Bill 40, An Act to amend the Mortgages Act, and committee of the whole House on Bill 17, An Act to amend the Law related to the Enforcement of Support and Custody Orders.

On Wednesday 8 May, we will have second reading of Bill 30, An Act to amend the Education Act.

On Thursday 9 May, in the morning, we will have private members' public business ballot item 17 in the name of Mr Scott and ballot item 18 in the name of Mrs Witmer, and in the afternoon, second reading of Bill 25, An Act to amend the Planning Act, and committee of the whole House on the same bill.

The House adjourned at 1802.