Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

The House met at 1003.

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

ACCESS TO COURTS ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 SUR L'ACCÈS AUX TRIBUNAUX

Mr Scott moved second reading of Bill 77, An Act respecting Access to the Courts.

M. Scott propose la deuxième lecture du projet de loi 77, Loi concernant l'accès aux tribunaux.

The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to standing order 94(c)(i), the honourable member has 10 minutes for his presentation.

Mr Scott: It is a pleasure to move second reading of this bill, which provides for access to justice in the courts.

The bill is designed to reform what is called the law of standing in the province of Ontario, and I hope it will attract the support of the House so that the technical requirements of the bill can be considered at committee stage. The bill, as I say, affects the law of standing and is designed to determine who is allowed to sue for various matters in the province and what kind of claims they can advance.

The present law historically has only permitted people to sue if they can illustrate that they have a precise, unique claim or injury that they have sustained. The result of that, under the present law of standing, is that if you can demonstrate, for example, that a manufacturer has loaded toxic materials on your land, you are entitled to sue for injury occasioned by that because you have uniquely suffered damage. If on the other hand the same manufacturer were to expose toxic fumes to the air, you would not be able to sue, not because you had failed to suffer damage, but because you would be suffering damage in common with many other people. You would not have the right, under the present law of standing, to sue in that case.

Every legal and political commentator recognizes that our law of standing is seriously out of date and should be amended so that the discretion to permit lawsuits of the type I have described, particularly in environmental and consumer matters, can be left to the courts according to a series of rules that are set out in the bill.

I should point out to the Legislature and to you, Mr Speaker, as you undoubtedly know, that beginning in 1975 the courts of Canada began to soften the effect of the law of standing and gradually began, in a very tentative way, to permit lawsuits which the old law might not have permitted. The Thorson case, in which a citizen sought to attack the Official Languages Act even though it did not uniquely apply to him, was an example. It was followed by the McNeil case from Nova Scotia where a citizen sought to attack the board of censors in that province, even though he was not uniquely affected by the censorship of the film involved.

The courts have gradually begun to expand the law in this area. The problem is that they seem to have come to the end of the exercise and much remains to be done.

The other problem associated with the court decisions in this regard is that they have not made clear the criteria which should be extended to permit these lawsuits to occur and the criteria which should be applied to terminate the myth that they are improper.

As a result of that, the Ontario Law Reform Commission, without doubt the most distinguished law reform commission in Canada, prepared a two-volume report on the law of standing, which was submitted to the Attorney General, I believe, last year. It proposed essentially the bill that is before members.

The bulk of the work on the law of standing was organized by Larry Fox, a member of the staff of the law reform commission who is entitled to very great credit for the work that was done. He took into account the state of the old law and the consequences of the recent court decisions.

In the two volumes there is an extensive analysis of a scheme incorporated in this bill which will permit ordinary citizens to commence this litigation and will permit the court a defined discretion to terminate it if the court judges that it is frivolous or improper or advanced on account of inappropriate motive. There is also a provision in the bill that reforms, with respect to actions that are contemplated by the bill, the law of costs, so that cost implications do not become an impediment to the airing of this kind of litigation. The law reform commission report is regarded everywhere in Canada as a model. It is a principled response to a major legal, political and social problem.

I think it is important in the moment or two I have left to emphasize the things that the bill does not do.

It does not restrict the role of the Attorney General, who always could bring litigation of this type and who will continue to be able to do so. It simply extends the capacity that he has representing the public interest to other individuals or groups.

Second, it does not create a flood of litigation. Those who say the floodgates will be opened should only read what Chief Justice Laskin had to say in denouncing that theory in the Thorson case.

It does not increase the level of risk for defendants. The level of risk for defendants remains exactly the same. The substance of law of these cases has not changed. All the change will do is extend the group who can advance the claim.

Most important, in my view, it does not increase the scope of judicial review. It does not give to courts powers they do not have to declare legislation inappropriate or unconstitutional. It simply extends beyond the Attorney General the group of applicants in such cases.

1010

In five years as Attorney General, I concluded that access to justice was a pressing need in our community. I believe there are four pillars to a modern justice system:

The first is a legal aid system, and in Ontario on a fee-for-service and clinic basis we have one of the most progressive legal aid systems in the world.

The second is intervenor funding so that ordinary citizens can appear before tribunals and courts to advance their claims. The intervenor funding pilot project is now in place.

Third is class action legislation, which I had the honour to introduce in the last House and which my colleague the new Attorney General has reintroduced. That will be before you.

The fourth is reform of the law of standing so that these important kinds of litigation, in a charter age when access to the courts is fundamental, can be advanced by ordinary citizens of the province.

I look forward to the debate on this important issue.

Mr Harnick: I am pleased to have the opportunity to respond to Bill 77. The first thing I would like to say about this bill is that I believe the reform of the law of standing is important, I believe it is necessary, but I do not believe that Bill 77 is the best model to reform the law of standing.

Let me just at the outset talk about class actions for a moment. The former Attorney General set up a consultative process to develop a law that would be probably the model of class action statute law anywhere.

It is interesting that on 6 May in the Ottawa Citizen they talked about the consultative process that the former Attorney General set up. I would like to quote the article of Claire Bernstein. She stated, "In Canada, however, a brilliant politician and provincial Attorney General has shown the world it is possible for the public to participate in making the laws that are going to affect them and they could do it within the existing system."

She goes on to say:

"When the idea for having a class action law with teeth was put on Scott's plate, he saw the opportunity to put a new legislative process into motion. Class action was saleable from many points of view. In one fell swoop it would give thousands of people access to the legal system. It would cost the government hardly anything, and it would allow lawyers to be creative for their clients.

"It would even be good for the defendants.

"And then, Scott made legislative history. He called in representatives of all the groups that were going to be affected by class action legislation -- manufacturers, environmentalists, lawyers, big business, small business and consumers -- and he made them a promise:

"'You will be an advisory committee that will actually make the law. We will give you general parameters. If you come in with unanimous recommendations for class action legislation, we will push it through the political process to become law.'

"The results were pure magic."

What ultimately transpired was the bill that now has received first reading in this Legislature.

In addition to the consultative process being set up with regard to class actions, that same consultative process, as I understand it, has been set up with respect to the law of standing. I anticipate that we will see the results of that consultative process in a bill that I would anticipate the Attorney General will present to this Legislature. It will not be a bill that will be a regurgitation of what the Ontario Law Reform Commission has provided and which is reproduced in Bill 77.

I am somewhat surprised that this bill is before us at this time, only because the consultative process which was set up by the former Attorney General has also been set up to deal with the law of standing.

Just to get into the actual bill, the law of standing at the present time in this jurisdiction is based on judge-made law. Judges develop standing as a way of controlling the judicial workload and to encourage greater judicial economy. Standing rules are designed to prevent busybodies who would litigate matters of no direct interest or concern to them and it is a way of protecting the court from frivolous and vexatious actions brought by those people. It is also an attempt to ensure that only the best arguers, those with the most direct interest, are available and prepared and able to present cases to the court.

Standing judgements frequently confuse the issue of standing, which is the screening of a plaintiff's case, with the issue of justiciability, the screening of the case itself. I think what we have before us now is quite simply a set of rules that will not only go to screening plaintiffs, but beyond that. The Ontario Law Reform Commission's bill goes beyond that. In fact it looks at new causes of action, and I think that is beyond the scope of reforming the law of standing itself.

The law of standing has one function and that is to screen potential plaintiffs and to exclude those who are, for some policy reason, to be refused an opportunity to litigate the cases they seek to bring. Standing is the preliminary barrier which is directed at the plaintiff and not at the merits of the case.

The bill that is before us, Bill 77, as I stated, is a bill that was essentially prepared and studied by the Ontario Law Reform Commission. The bill sets out what I would describe as a factors approach to the law of standing. What the bill does is it sets out in section 2 a number of factors, and those factors have to be achieved before a person gets standing.

The difficulty I have with the factors approach is that it provides a very open-ended list of things that must be proved to obtain standing. Quite frankly, it is confusing. There are too many factors. It is too open-ended. It is too uncertain. A lawyer will have great difficulty in advising a client whether a person can obtain standing in a given situation.

One need only look at the factors that are set out. Section 2 sets out the factors:

"(2) In making a determination under subsection (1), the court shall consider,

"(a) whether allowing the person to commence and maintain the proceeding would be unfair to the persons affected" -- that is pretty open-ended; there is nothing concrete about that -- "(b) whether there is another reasonable and effective way to raise the issues that the person who commenced the proceeding is seeking to litigate" -- again, that opens up a broad investigation of what other alternatives there might be -- "(c) if the issues in the proceeding arise in another proceeding against the same defendant or respondent, whether the interests of the person who commenced the proceeding can be met by intervening in the other proceeding and whether it is reasonable to expect that person to do so."

Again, a great many considerations have to be examined before we decide whether there can be standing in a given case.

1020

The next subsection is 2(3), "For purposes of clause (2)(a), the fact that the result of the proceeding may affect a person whose interest is personal, proprietary or pecuniary is not necessarily unfair." Again, we get into the issue of defining unfairness.

The next subsection is 2(4), "In addition to the factors mentioned in subsection (2), if the interest of the plaintiff is not personal, proprietary or pecuniary, the court shall consider whether the issues raised in the proceeding are trivial, the number of persons affected by the proceeding in any way, whether personally or otherwise, and any other factor the court considers relevant."

That open-ended approach does not make the determination of standing a simple process. It makes it a very complicated process and does not provide, as the former Attorney General said, a pillar that I think is a strong pillar among the four pillars that he pointed out, which- I think are important and valid but this is not the best method to approach this subject.

I also believe, when we look at the area of costs, that there is a very complicated section in this bill dealing with costs. I think we have good general rules dealing with the issue of costs. We should stick to the general rules we now have. We should not depart from those ordinary rules unless there are special, defined circumstances in a bill to do so.

I believe the current law of standing is vague, uncertain and contradictory. I believe that this bill, although a step in the right direction, is a bill that will be very difficult to institute and very difficult for lawyers in order to advise clients as to whether they have standing in a particular matter.

I also believe this bill will in fact try to create causes of action that may not have existed before, and I think that if we are looking to reform the area dealing with causes of action we should not be doing that in a bill that is looking at reforming the area of standing. I think the factors approach leads to judges looking for new causes of action and reforms in that area. I disagree with the former Attorney General when he says this does not give the courts more power. I believe this will lead to many new causes of action within the area of standing alone.

It has been a pleasure to have the opportunity to make some brief comments about the law of standing. I believe it is in the interest of this Legislature to vote against this bill because the consultative process that the former Attorney General set up with respect to class actions is also in the course of investigating the law of standing. I think it would be a better law, just as the class action law is going to be a better law, if the consultative process is the process that determines what that law should be. If the interest of the manufacturer and the interest of the labour union and the interest of big business can all get together and create a law of standing that everyone can live with, it will be a better piece of legislation than the piece of legislation proposed by the Ontario Law Reform Commission.

Accordingly, I will be voting against this bill. I do not believe that a bill dealing with a factors approach to standing is in the best interests of the public. I look forward to the consultative process continuing regarding the law of standing and regarding a bill that I anticipate the Attorney General will be providing to this Legislature.

Mr Wessenger: I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this bill and I enjoyed the articulate presentation by the member for St George-St David and also the contribution of the critic for the third party. I think many of the issues he raised are very relevant with respect to this bill. The bill was a recommendation of the Ontario Law Reform Commission, but I believe it has some serious difficulties, some of which were referred to by the member for Willowdale.

At the present time the Ministry of the Attorney General is in a consultative process with respect to the matter of the law of standing. An advisory committee to the Attorney General has been set up and is in the process of making recommendations to the Attorney General, and I think at this time it would be very premature to pass this bill without the benefit of those recommendations and without the benefit of further consultation.

For that reason I would oppose the bill, although I must say that I support the principle of reform of the law of standing. I do not have quite the same concerns with respect to the matter of new causes of action, but I think we have to be very clear as to what new causes of action are going to be created and what factors will be taken into consideration. I think the bill does not have sufficient particularity with respect to the whole question of the law of standing. I look forward to our ministry bringing forward new legislation which will parallel the legislation with respect to class actions and which will also take account of the fact that we are going to be introducing legislation with respect to an environmental bill of rights, which I think is also a very relevant consideration.

In these circumstances I would ask members to vote against the bill. We look forward to debating a bill that will be developed after the full consultative process.

Mr McGuinty: It is my pleasure to rise and speak to the House today in support of this particular bill. To my mind, the member for St George-St David has, in his former role as Attorney General, proven to be on the leading edge of reform of our legal system, particularly in matters relating to ensuring accessibility to our courts. I can think of the Intervenor Funding Project Act and his initial introduction of the reform of class action legislation as two particular examples.

This bill is entitled An Act respecting Access to the Courts, but it could just as well be named the Access to Justice Act. This bill seeks to remedy a situation, an inequity in our law of standing. That is the law which in our civil courts determines who essentially can advance and maintain an action; that is, who can sue.

The existing law of standing, as indicated by other members, is complex. There has been an evolutionary process ongoing in some areas, particularly in matters relating to constitutional challenges, and some areas of administrative law. But with respect to harm being caused by a community, particularly in matters of the environment, for instance if a factory was causing pollution in a community, as it stands right now it would be impossible for a member of that community to advance a cause on behalf of the community against the factory owner without first obtaining the consent of the Attorney General. So we have the Attorney General interposed between the member of the community and our system of courts. He is essentially acting as a gatekeeper and that places him or her in an uncomfortable position of conflict. I will talk about that a bit further in a minute.

But essentially, this law of standing that we have is a holdover from days when it was felt that there should be a strict separation between public interests and private interests. The thinking was that an individual could sue if his private rights were infringed, but it would be up to the state to protect us if our public rights were being infringed. As I indicated, that law has been evolving in some areas but it has not caught up with other areas and particularly matters relating to environmental law.

1030

There have been problems advanced historically relating to the Attorney General's position and the fact that he has to provide his consent if these kinds of actions of which I have been speaking are to be advanced in the courts. Those present obvious problems of conflict. For instance, if the government was at fault in harming a community, the Attorney General is found to be in a position of conflict where he or she will have the unenviable role of being both a guardian of the public interest and a member of cabinet. At the very least, the perception of conflict of interest is present.

Another thing to keep in mind with respect to the Attorney General is that as a member of cabinet in a parliamentary system of government, the job has political dimensions and the Attorney General may be influenced politically not to consent to a request by an individual to sue for breach of a so-called public right.

We could think, for example, of a one-industry town. If the industry was causing harm, the Attorney General would have to consider the potential political consequences of a court possibly shutting down a factory and the resulting loss of jobs. Again, the Attorney General is placed, through no fault of his or her own, in the unfortunate position of a conflict of interest.

The third difficulty that lies with respect to the role the Attorney General plays in this is that no appeal lies from the decision of the Attorney General, so even if we could establish that the Attorney General allowed his conflicting interests to dictate his refusal to an individual to proceed with a court action, no court would hear our appeal from that decision.

What this bill does is remove that burden from the Attorney General and places it in the hands of our courts, our impartial tribunals, so that the Attorney General is no longer a gatekeeper to the courts. The plaintiffs can proceed directly to court and their access to justice becomes, in matters of this nature, unimpeded.

With respect to this floodgates argument that has been advanced since time immemorial in matters of this nature -- that is, if this bill or similar legislation were to pass, the courts would be overrun with litigation; every Tom, Dick and Mary would be bringing an action -- I would submit that this bill has a number of checks in place to ensure that this does not happen.

I would like to address particularly the factors, earlier referred to by another member, which are listed in section 2 of the draft bill. This section outlines specific factors for the court to consider in determining whether a person can sue for breach of a public right. The factor in subsection 2(a) says that the court shall consider whether allowing the person to sue would be unfair. If I was to act for a defendant, I would love to have that on my hands, love to have that criteria available to me because it would provide me with ample scope for making an argument that a particular action was unfair. That acts counter to the other member's position that this will open up the floodgates.

With respect to subsection (b), it specifically addresses the possibility that there may be another way, outside the courts, to deal with this kind of problem that has arisen. So the court is specifically required to address that. If there is such another way, then obviously that is going to be a factor that weighs against granting standing.

In subsection (c), the court is specifically required to address the possibility or the fact that the issues may have arisen or be arising in another proceeding and it must consider whether the interests of the plaintiff could be met by a simple intervention in the other proceeding in order not to double up the actions.

In subsection 4, the court is required to determine whether the issues raised are trivial in nature. It must also consider the number of persons affected by the proceeding. What the subsection is saying is that if a defendant -- that is, the person being sued -- can show that the reasons for not allowing the action outweigh the reasons for allowing it, then the court will dismiss or stay the action; it will not grant standing. In other words, the defendant is not an open target for all would-be litigants.

Now, a second deterrent is found in this bill, a deterrent against the floodgates argument, and that is related to costs. With respect to costs, the plaintiff must qualify in order to be immune from costs. In other words, the plaintiff may, if he or she loses, have to pay the other side's costs unless the court is satisfied of five distinct things, and clause 5(1)(a) provides, "No costs shall be awarded against a person who commences a proceeding if (a) the proceeding involves issues whose importance extends beyond the immediate interests of the parties."

In this section relating to the costs, there is a recognition of the social value placed upon these kinds of actions and a recognition that if costs are to follow the action, as they traditionally have, that may act as a significant deterrent to the courts, hearing these kinds of matters.

With respect to subsection (b), the court is considering whether "the issues...have not previously been determined by a court in another proceeding against the same defendant," whether the matter has in fact been dealt with in the past, this very kind of issue. Subsection (c) requires the court to determine whether the person who has commenced the proceeding is being vexatious, frivolous or abusive. If they are, then they are going to have to face the possibility of paying the other side's costs. I would submit that is a significant deterrent to a person advancing a case in the courts without just cause.

With respect to subsection (d), the courts are specifically required to consider, in determining whether a plaintiff is to be immune from costs, whether that person is proceeding on the basis of an attempt to obtain economic reward, and the bill essentially says that the legislation does not set out to permit that kind of advancement of a case.

Finally, in subsection (e), the court is required to consider whether "the defendant is clearly more able to bear the costs of the proceeding." If the defendant is clearly more able, then the possibility exists for the plaintiff to be made immune in the event that he or she succeeds with his or her action. If the defendant is not able to bear the costs, then it is unlikely, or it is certainly a factor that the court must consider in determining whether the plaintiff would be immune from costs.

Then there is the matter of settlement. That is also significant. It provides that if a party is granted immunity -- that is, he has passed the tests set out in subsection 5(1)(a) in the event that an offer of settlement has been presented, that party may not be entitled to his costs beyond the date on which the offer was submitted if the judgement was not as large, if the outcome was not as successful as the offer of settlement. Again, that acts as a deterrent to proceeding recklessly in the courts. Again, I would submit that it is a significant deterrent in terms of combating this floodgates argument that has been advanced today and has been advanced historically.

I would submit that the bill is thorough in that it not only removes the Attorney General as a gatekeeper to the courts but it also removes the matter of costs in a most reasonable way as an impediment to persons who would not otherwise be able to bring an action essentially, not technically, on behalf of a community which is suffering a collective harm. Plaintiffs, if they meet special criteria, are made immune as to costs even if they lose, but they are only immune if the five special criteria set out in section 5 are met.

Again, these criteria recognize the social value that we place on having an individual member of society bring a concern to court which is a concern to an entire community and not just to the individual plaintiff, himself or herself.

1040

I would submit that the bill is another step in improving our accessibility to justice in Ontario. It is based on recommendations made by the Ontario Law Reform Commission, as noted by the member for St George-St David. That law reform commission is recognized widely as a thoughtful body dedicated to improving our laws. Its recommendations have formed the basis for a number of significant improvements to our laws in the past. I would submit that the bill strikes a fine balance between allowing greater access to our courts and at the same time ensuring that such access does not become the subject of abuse. I lend my wholehearted support to this bill.

Mr Carr: I am pleased to rise and add a couple of quick points on this bill. It was kind of ironic that last night, at my annual meeting, I was speaking with a couple of lawyers who obviously were Conservatives, and the name of the member for St George-St David actually came up in conversation. The comments, even from the good Tory lawyers, were that he had a great legal mind and was well respected. So it is interesting that this morning we are dealing with the bill, when in fact we were talking about him just last night.

Unfortunately, the problem I have in looking at this bill is that even in the very title, An Act respecting Access to the Courts, as we sit here today, the access to the courts and our criminal justice system in fact is completely broken and it does not work. Even the courts themselves have said that, as a result of the famous Askov decision. They have said it is not working. Justice is not happening quickly enough and the whole system is broken and not working properly.

I sit on the standing committee on administration of justice and we heard some of the debates over Bill 17 on support and custody, how if you have to go before our courts, it could literally take up to a year to wait to get any orders changed. There were actually some individuals who came before us who talked about spending $35,000 during the course of some of the proceedings through the courts. So we talk about making An Act respecting Access to the Courts and yet in fact the criminal justice system is broken. I submit to you that when we have one year and a cost of $35,000, that is not access for the average individual.

What I would like to see us do is take a complete review, a comprehensive review, of the entire court system and begin there. Rather than trying to deal with small, individual bills, we need to take a look at how we are going to operate in the court system and get working effectively and quickly, because right now unfortunately, that is not working. I think if we are going to do that, we need a long-term plan, not short-term, quick fixes, because they have not worked. That is what I would be encouraging us to do and I would submit to the Attorney General that that is what we need to do. He would have the support of myself and our critic for the Ministry of the Attorney General if we would proceed in that manner.

Mr Winninger: I have enormous respect for the former Attorney General, whose forays before all levels of the justice system, including boards and tribunals, is the stuff of legend certainly and fills the law reports to the point of bursting, much to the chagrin of the law students who have to read them.

I also find it refreshing that the former Attorney General, who shortly after his ordination as Attorney General back in 1985, when addressing a joint symposium sponsored by the Canadian Bar Association and the Law Society of Upper Canada, talked about ways in which we could restrict access to the courts through arbitration and other models, which perhaps thankfully he did not pursue during the course of his tenure as Attorney General, now seeks to expand access to the courts.

I certainly can applaud his initiative in that respect. I believe it is essential that we look at reform of access to the courts, as the Ontario Law Reform Commission dnd. It presented its report in 1989, and we see that in substance the former Attorney General's bill is strikingly similar to the recommendations made by the law reform commission in 1989. Certainly, as the former Attorney General has said, the members of that commission were a very august lot indeed.

As was described by the member for St George-St David, public nuisance is a somewhat antiquated rule, and it was criticized by the commission. It limited relief to the Attorney General or his surrogate, also known as a relator, and a person other than the Attorney General or his relator had to show a special or unique harm if he was seeking a private action for public nuisance, unless of course that plaintiff had the consent of the Attorney General to do so.

Over time, the same doctrine was extended to public right and also to public interest. Fortunately, as the member has referred to, a trilogy of Supreme Court cases -- Thorson, McNeil and Borowski -- expanded that rule and abolished the public nuisance rule and, I should say, expanded access to the courts for individuals other than the Attorney General.

With regard to constitutional challenges, it was more flexible, and it became unnecessary for the plaintiff to show or prove special damage or interference with his or her personal pecuniary or proprietary rights. The test enunciated in Borowski was to establish status as a plaintiff in a suit seeking a declaration that legislation is invalid. If there is a serious issue as to its invalidity, a person only need show that he or she is affected by it directly or that he or she has a genuine interest as a citizen in the validity of the legislation and that there is no other reasonable and effective manner in which the issue might be brought before the court. This rule that was set out in Borowski in turn was extended to constitutional challenges involving administrative actions in a subsequent Supreme Court of Canada decision in Finlay.

I acknowledge that there are still problems, that the public nuisance rule continues to apply in such situations as environmental law and that there are reservations with regard to the somewhat ambiguous test that the Supreme Court of Canada has set down for access of this kind. As has been mentioned by the member for Simcoe Centre, the Attorney General is currently awaiting a report of his advisory committee representing a broad range of interests affected by the standing legislation.

The mandate of that committee is to make recommendations regarding standing and intervention, to expand the basis on which individuals have access to the courts and to raise important matters of public interest. I do not believe that we can deal with the issue of standing unless we also deal with the related issue of intervention. Certainly we have had an opportunity to see how rule 13 of the rules of civil procedure has been interpreted by the courts with regard to intervention applications.

We still have to look at a number of variables, and I believe that is what the advisory committee is addressing at this time: the issue of the relationship of standing and intervention, the criteria which the member of the third party has referred to for refusing applications for access and also, quite importantly, the issue of costs.

No one would argue, I believe, that actions that are frivolous or vexatious have to be discouraged, and traditionally cost consequences have been one avenue towards restricting these kinds of trivial applications. Once you remove that restriction with regard to the imposition of costs, you may have to find some other avenue to limit the multiplicity of proceedings before the courts.

In conclusion, while I certainly applaud the initiative taken by the former Attorney General, I would not be able to support his bill at this time, simply because the full consultation -- and I believe that kind of consultation would have been sought by the former Attorney General during his tenure -- the advisory committee, which was only set up in December 1990, has not had full opportunity to report back to the Attorney General and give the Attorney General the benefits of its broadly based views based on public input.

1050

Mr Lessard: I just want to make a few short comments with respect to the private member's bill introduced today by the member for St George-St David.

First of all, I want to say that there are a couple of things I really like about this bill. One of them that I find a bit seductive is the title, An Act respecting Access to the Courts, and section 1, "The purpose of this act is to increase access to the courts." This is something that on its face really appears to be a desirable purpose. Of course, we all know that being able to increase access to the courts provides some opportunities for people who are involved in the legal profession as well.

However, as mentioned by the member for Oakville South, I believe it was, there are some problems that are occurring in the criminal justice system at the present time and problems that are a result of the decision in the Askov case. Of course, we are not dealing with the criminal justice system in this bill; however, I think that taking the member for Oakville South's arguments further, he is stating that perhaps the problems in the justice system go beyond the criminal justice system and may affect other court systems as well. That is quite possible.

I think that instead of trying to increase access to the courts, perhaps what we should be doing is trying to increase access to justice. That may not involve increasing access to the courts at all. That may be a recommendation that does come from the advisory committee to the Attorney General which has been referred to earlier. One of the reasons I am not supporting this bill today is because I would like to see the recommendations from that committee as well.

I just want to reiterate some of the concerns that were mentioned by the member for Willowdale as well when he talks about the factors that a court would have to consider in determining whether a person would be permitted standing. One of the comments he made was that these factors are confusing. They are open-ended, and a lawyer would have difficulty in advising his client with respect to whether he may be able to obtain standing or not.

He also indicated that the other factors that may be considered are open-ended. They are very complicated. Certainly that is something that could be said about this entire bill. It is somewhat complicated and difficult to explain, not only to members of this caucus but to the public in general. That is another reason I cannot support it.

Mr Scott: I would like to thank all members who have participated in this debate. Obviously a number of them have gone to very considerable trouble to prepare themselves, and they have made useful contributions.

I want to thank particularly my colleague the member for Ottawa South, who gave better examples for the necessity of this reform than I was able to engender myself, and to say to my good friend the member for Willowdale that his observations were useful. He is an extremely able lawyer and a profoundly conservative figure. When he tells me that he is sympathetic to the principle but he is nervous about its application, I get a real sense that I am on the right reform track in advancing the bill.

Both the member for Willowdale and the member for Simcoe Centre, the parliamentary assistant, referred to the advisory committee that is in place. I know something about advisory committees and I do not hesitate to tell the parliamentary assistant that advisory committees only produce a unified response when the minister has leverage over them. You do not get a company or manufacturers' association that produces toxic chemicals and the environmental law foundation to agree on the terms of a law unless you have leverage, and advisory committees do not have leverage.

I had leverage with respect to class actions, which I will tell members about some other time -- I do not want to go public with the leverage I had -- but the problem around standing is that the leverage is not there. That is why this bill should be passed of course, because if this bill is passed, then the Attorney General will be able to say, "We have the member for St George-St David's bill," which is theoretically going to committee, and that will provide the Attorney General with the leverage he needs to bring the two sides together in support of a different or more modified principle.

What I am really trying to do here is give the Attorney General the kind of leverage I had in class actions with respect to standing. I know what his caucus said and all the rest of it, but if he wants to get a report from the committee that is unanimous, he will want to support this bill at second stage, because it will provide the leverage against which the Attorney General will be able to argue for a unified response.

I just want to end by saying that a bill of this type is inevitable. This bill should be passed now because it will give the government, which has the major responsibility in introducing reform, the essential leverage without which these changes cannot on a basis of unanimity be advanced. I hope it will attract the support not only of real reformers but of those who support the principle and are simply nervous about the fringes, which can be taken care of in committee.

KITCHENER-WATERLOO

Mrs Witmer moved resolution 11:

That, in the opinion of this House, recognizing that the communities of Kitchener and Waterloo are inextricably linked and a spirit of cooperation exists between the two communities; and since the two cities make up the largest twin city community in Canada; and since the Kitchener and Waterloo city councils have passed resolutions endorsing changes to the Highway 401 directional signs to refer to the cities of Kitchener and Waterloo; and since the Twin City Task Force agrees that the cities of Waterloo and Kitchener will be better served and recognized if the signs along the 401 refer to Kitchener-Waterloo, the government of Ontario should change the Highway 401 directional signs, which currently only name Kitchener, to refer to the cities of Kitchener-Waterloo.

Mrs Witmer: I rise this morning with a great deal of pleasure to debate my first private member's resolution in this House. This issue of signage to recognize the city of Waterloo along Highway 401 has been and is a very important issue for the residents in my community. The negotiations for more adequate signing for the city of Waterloo have been going on for several years. They have been long and they have been protracted.

My predecessor, Herb Epp, was successful in having some of the changes in signing made at the Highway 401 interchange in 1989. This involved the installation of three overhead signs on Highway 401 westbound, two ground-mounted signs on Highway 401 eastbound and one overhead sign and one ground-mounted sign at the new Highway 8 and King Street interchange.

1100

The change in signage at these interchanges from Kitchener to Kitchener-Waterloo was very much appreciated by all of the residents in my community. However, more recently the cities of Kitchener and Waterloo, as well as the Twin City Task Force, representing both city councils, have again requested that all of the Highway 401 directional signs that presently refer to the city of Kitchener be changed to Kitchener-Waterloo.

The Twin City committee passed this resolution on 7 March 1991, the city of Waterloo passed the resolution on 18 March 1991 and the city of Kitchener passed it on 25 March 1991.

Since no action has been taken until this time, although there has been ongoing dialogue with the Ministry of Transportation, I have brought this resolution forward to this House for action.

I would like to share with you at this time some information regarding the city of Waterloo.

Waterloo is located in the heart of southern Ontario. I believe it has the best of both worlds. While it is surrounded by green farm land, the city is a modern, vigorous business and industrial community. The city of Waterloo is located within the regional municipality of Waterloo and has a population of just over 79,000 people.

Within the city there are firms such as NCR, Raytheon, Hewlett-Packard, Mitsubishi Electronics, Electronic Data Systems and many more smaller firms with high- and advanced-technology capabilities.

The business base for the city of Waterloo is made up of some 2,200 businesses of all kinds: manufacturing, retail, professional, service and educational. It is the educational area that I would like to focus on at this time.

Waterloo's history as an educational centre goes back to the first log house, which is on display in our park today. Today, that humble building would fit comfortably in one of the many classrooms, labs and lecture halls of our two universities. Both universities, the University of Waterloo and Wilfrid Laurier University, contribute greatly to our city's economic development and enrich its cultural, athletic and recreational life.

The smaller university, Wilfrid Laurier, has approximately 4,200 students. It is well known for its business administration program, which has gained wide acceptance in the Canadian business community. It is also known for its social work and its music programs. It was founded in 1911.

The University of Waterloo introduced co-operative education to Canada. Co-op alternates work and study terms. That university was founded in 1957. It is now the largest co-op institution in the world with more than half of its 16,500 full-time students in co-op studies. The university has a full and part-time enrolment of over 25,000 students.

The University of Waterloo has become Canada's major source of high-technology graduates and it is a leading research centre, both for government-funded and private industry collaborative projects.

The University of Waterloo's computer software developments are world-renowned. The university also pioneered audiotape correspondence education, and most of its 9,000 part-time students utilize this mode. It has had 20 years of experience in the field of distance education.

Two theatres, four museums and an art gallery on the campus make it a strong cultural contribution to the city of Waterloo.

I also want to mention the school of accountancy and the school of optometry at the University of Waterloo.

The city of Waterloo can also boast a broad industrial base -- this includes electronics and other high-technology industries -- as well as having a very solid commercial community. As well, Waterloo has long been known as the home of Canada's insurance industry. Six companies make their head office in Waterloo, and obviously they are most anxious to know of the government's plans for auto insurance.

Besides the University of Waterloo and the theatres and the cultural activities that are offered, we also have Laurel Creek Conservation Area. We have the Seagram Museum, which was opened in the spring of 1984. It is a world-class museum. Just recently, the provincial government and the federal government have provided funding for a new museum, the Gallery of Clay and Glass.

Yes, Waterloo offers many opportunities to enhance the lifestyle of its residents, not only to its own residents but to visitors from Ontario and throughout the world. This is one of the reasons that it is important to the community that appropriate recognition be provided in the form of signage.

Many people have asked me: "Why would both city councils endorse this resolution? Why would the city of Kitchener support this as well as the city of Waterloo?"

As I have mentioned, the two communities are inextricably linked and a spirit of co-operation does exist between them. The two cities are the largest twin city community in Canada. The cities focus as one tourist destination. The two cities work co-operatively together on all fund-raising projects and economic development and each year, in October, they jointly host the annual Kitchener-Waterloo Oktoberfest festival. They also share recreational and educational facilities, as well as their hospitals. The list of cooperative and mutually beneficial initiatives that they share goes on and on.

As well, Kitchener and Waterloo are integral components of Canada's technology triangle and are setting the standards for the country's future economic development. However, both cities have realized and are to be complimented for their determination not to sacrifice the charm and the friendliness of their communities for the sake of widespread development.

I would like to quote at this time, from the Twin City Task Force, some of the reasons for the change in the signage. I quote from a letter from Susan Forwell, the co-chairperson of the Twin City Task Force when she says:

"The communities of Kitchener and Waterloo are inextricably linked and this type of signage will reflect the spirit of co operation that our councils wish to pursue. The twin cities make up the largest twin city community in Canada and the task force and the councils would like the signs on the 401 to reflect this reality.

"Tourism is a major and increasing source of revenue and economic development in the two cities. Both chambers of commerce see the cities as one tourist destination and both chambers also support this resolution.

"The members of the Twin City Task Force are confident that the province will agree that the cities of Kitchener and Waterloo will be better served and recognized if the signs along the 401 refer to Kitchener-Waterloo."

I strongly support the resolutions that have been passed by Waterloo and Kitchener councils and the Twin City Task Force and I would urge this House that the Highway 401 directional signs, which currently only refer to Kitchener, be changed to refer to the cities of Kitchener-Waterloo.

Mr Dadamo: As parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Transportation, I would like to respond to ballot number 18 this morning.

I thank the member for Waterloo North for her interest in the matter of signage identifying the cities of Kitchener-Waterloo. I am also pleased to inform the honourable member that in fact there are directional signs on Highway 401 that clearly identify the cities of Kitchener-Waterloo. I saw the sign on Friday night as I was driving down the 401 back to Windsor.

A couple of years ago, the Ministry of Transportation responded quickly to resolutions put forward by the twin cities of Kitchener-Waterloo by providing new directional signs on Highway 401 at Highway 8 indicating access to both those municipalities.

This is a resolution put forward by the member for Waterloo North which I fully support today.

1110

My honourable colleague the member for Waterloo North may be aware that prior to 1989 the signing on Highway 401 at the Highway 8 interchange identified Kitchener and Cambridge as the municipalities directly accessed by that exit. I would like to say that the city of Waterloo was added to the Highway 401 signs after its local council endorsed a proposal to change the signage. That took place in June 1989. Further, there is one sign in the area that indicates Highway 8 as the route to take for downtown Kitchener, but the sign cannot include Waterloo because Highway 8 does not lead directly to downtown Waterloo. Signs directing travellers to downtown Waterloo are appropriately located along Highway 86.

As members know, directional signs are an integral part of the transportation network of the province of Ontario. By virtue of their positive impact on the efficiency of the intercity movement of people and goods, directional signs play a very important role in enhancing business and tourism opportunities throughout this province.

As well, the Ministry of Transportation understands that the location and content of highway signage can sometimes be an issue of major interest to Ontario communities. So in this regard we encourage local groups to provide input on these matters, and we are extremely pleased to look into any request from the public.

I would like to assure this Legislature this morning that the Ministry of Transportation is committed to ongoing consultation with municipalities right across this province and we will respond to such proposals as that of Kitchener-Waterloo council.

Mr Mancini: I am pleased to join the Legislature in this debate this morning concerning the private resolution of the member for Waterloo North. I have already informed the member that I intend to support and speak in favour of the resolution.

I think she has this morning, in a very eloquent and factual way, explained to the Legislature why the signage on Highway 401 should read "Kitchener-Waterloo." The member has explained fully the business and tourism benefits that the twin cities would receive. She has already explained to the House that the local communities are in fact working together and have asked the government to do this.

It appears that the case she has made this morning is gaining favour on all sides of the House and it appears that her resolution will pass unless we hear something different later on this morning.

If that is the case, I would then request of the government, on behalf of the member who introduced the resolution and on behalf of Kitchener and Waterloo, that we get on with changing the signs and that we get on with the re-signing of the existing signs so that the communities' needs and wishes can be met.

This is one thing the government can do without having to spend a lot of money. I see all the New Democrats smiling except one. I do not know why. Now they are all smiling. On a Thursday morning, I want to give advice to some of the government members. Life in the Legislature and life in a government is in fact very tough.

Mr Bisson: We don't need any lectures from you. Why don't you speak to the issue?

Mr Mancini: I am not lecturing; I am just giving the member a little bit of advice. A very intelligent member like himself would take this advice. Life is tough in government, but the New Democrats should reserve Thursday mornings for their weekly smiles. It will help their dispositions. It will help their outlook on all the difficult decisions they have to make as a government, That is one of the reasons I like the member for Windsor-Sandwich, because he is ready and able to smile even though he faces many difficult decisions as a member of the government. Mr Speaker, you have been here a number of years yourself and you know how important it is to have a reasonable outlook on many of the issues the government faces.

I say to the government that the member has brought forward a reasonable resolution. She has the support of her community. She has the support of people who are elected in her community. She has the support of the Legislature. It is not an expensive proposition. The government cannot plead poverty on this one. The government cannot say the community is divided and therefore it cannot take action, as it likes to do in a number of things. The government likes to do that. We know those people. We know they like to do that. So now all of those problems --

Interjections.

Mr Mancini: I do not know why I am being heckled.

The government has all of these things at its disposal now: a unified community, an item that does not cost much, the Legislature in support. What we need to know from the government this morning is, if the resolution passes, as we think it will, when will it undertake this initiative?

The parliamentary assistant is here. It appears that the parliamentary assistant is in support of it. The member who introduced the resolution is waiting for an answer. The people of Kitchener and Waterloo are waiting for an answer. The government has the opportunity to move quickly and be decisive for a change, and do something positive for a change. We are all here waiting anxiously to see if the government can in fact do something that does not cost a lot of money and is beneficial to a community.

I do not know what more we can say to the government members. It has been outlined very clearly. I do not want to be repetitive. The member has outlined the advantages that this will have to her community. As a matter of fact, I believe that for the Minister of Transportation -- who has fumbled his way along over the last seven months as minister and who has broken a lot of promises, as we know he has over the last seven months, flip-flopping on every issue -- this is going to be an opportunity.

I know for a fact that if the member for Windsor-Sandwich were the minister, I would not be as concerned as I am now. He is a neighbour. I understand him. I know him a little better. But I know the record of the Minister of Transportation, so I am concerned. I hope he will be able to move quickly and alleviate the concerns of all the members of the opposition on this matter.

I also want to give the government some advice on how it should announce this change. I think it would be very gracious of the government to have the member who introduced the resolution announce the change. I think it would be very gracious of the government if it would allow the member who brought these concerns to the Legislature, who used her ballot item to speak on behalf of Kitchener and Waterloo, to be intimately involved in any type of official ceremony that will take place and in fact to make the announcement on behalf of the Legislature.

We are going to see in the next few weeks whether or not this government will move forward with something as important but also simple to accomplish as this change of signs, and we are also going to see how gracious it can be.

With those few words, I want to again reiterate my support for the member who has introduced this resolution and say that we will all be looking forward to her accomplishment. We certainly want to do everything we can to enhance the business and tourism opportunities that exist in the Kitchener-Waterloo area.

1120

Mr Arnott: I am very pleased to rise in support of my colleague's private member's notice of motion 11. I think that the member for Waterloo North is one of the most sincere, capable, conscientious members of this Legislature and that she has very ably this morning advocated on behalf of her municipality.

I listened with interest to the comments I heard from the member for Windsor-Sandwich, who was speaking in his capacity as parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Transportation. I took note of what he said.

I think part of the issue is the discretionary power that the regional directors of the Ministry of Transportation have in this area. They have a good deal of power. They have an opportunity to put forward initiatives that are directed to the local area, and that is a positive thing, I think, but this particular issue indicates that more common sense could be brought to bear, to ensure that issues like this would not have to come to the floor of the Legislature.

I also listened to the member for Essex South and his able contribution to this debate, and I enjoyed his advice as well.

I think that probably the main issue that is reflected with this member's resolution is recognition: recognition of the city of Waterloo and of Waterloo North, the member's riding. Anyone who knows the area will know that Kitchener and Waterloo are very much linked, inextricably. They have grown over the last number of years until you really do not know if you are in Kitchener or Waterloo unless you notice the sign when you drive through down King Street. I was a student at Wilfrid Laurier University for five years. Five days a week I spent in Waterloo and I think I know the area reasonably well, and I think that Waterloo, being the size of city it is, as well as the number of advantages and the things that Waterloo has to offer, certainly merits recognition on the signage issue.

With respect to the member for Windsor-Sandwich, he talked about the numbers of signs that have already been put up on the highways, indicating that Waterloo was associated with Kitchener. I think what the member for Waterloo North is trying to say is that on Highway 401, some distance away from Kitchener-Waterloo, it should indicate Kitchener-Waterloo. I think the member for Windsor Sandwich perhaps overlooked that aspect of it.

I think one of the biggest strengths of this resolution is its simplicity. I think that all members can appreciate this and understand this and can understand the member's motive for putting it forward in terms of enhancing the recognition of her riding.

The other compelling issue, I think, is the indication of support from the city of Kitchener. Certainly they are very supportive of it, and I do not think enhanced recognition of Waterloo would reflect detrimentally in any way on the city of Kitchener.

In closing, I would just like to congratulate once again the member for Waterloo North for her excellent presentation this morning and I would encourage all members of the House to vote in favour of this resolution.

Mr Cooper: I rise today in support of the resolution put forward by the member for Waterloo North. The cities of Kitchener and Waterloo make up the largest twin city community in Canada and are locally referred to as the twin cities. Our government has stated its commitment to boost tourism in Ontario. Tourism is a major and increasing source of revenue for economic development in the twin cities, and the two cities are regarded as one tourist destination. For this reason, I believe the cities of Kitchener and Waterloo will be better served and recognized if the signs along Highway 401, which now refer only to Kitchener, are changed to Kitchener-Waterloo.

The cities of Kitchener and Waterloo are the proud hosts of the largest Bavarian festival outside of Germany. The Kitchener-Waterloo Oktoberfest festival hosts thousands of visitors, not only from Ontario but from countries all over the world. Kitchener-Waterloo signage along the 401 would facilitate foreign and out-of-town visitors in finding their way to our great cultural festival.

As well, the cities of Kitchener-Waterloo have a very active multicultural society which hosts an annual multicultural festival which is well attended.

On a regular basis visitors to the twin cities cannot leave without experiencing a visit to any number of interesting sites in the cities of Kitchener and Waterloo. The Kitchener Farmers' Market, the Waterloo Farmers' Market, Woodside National Historic Park, the Waterloo stockyards, Doon Heritage Crossroads, the Seagram Museum, Joseph Schneider Haus or the Doon pioneer tower are but a few that come to mind.

While not in the cities of Kitchener or Waterloo, a visit to Waterloo region would be incomplete without a visit to the town of New Hamburg. The board of trade and the residents of New Hamburg are proud to have completed their heritage waterwheel, which is the largest operating waterwheel in North America, and I encourage each and every member to visit this worthwhile attraction.

To help all visitors in finding their way to the cities of Kitchener and Waterloo, everyone would be better served if the signs along Highway 401 which now refer only to Kitchener were changed to Kitchener-Waterloo.

Mr Elston: It is my pleasure to join in the discussion of the resolution by the member for Waterloo North. I just have a question for the member for Wellington. Anybody who saw a more sincere speaker in the House would really wonder whether or not you would buy a suit at Sussman's in Arthur from that young fellow. But anyway, he is adding to his credentials here in the floor of the House and aiding a new member from Waterloo North.

I really think that if things are not going to change very quickly under the auspices of the New Democratic Party of Ontario, they will only need two words on the sign that they will newly erect in front of the turnoffs from 401. Those will be the words "ghost towns."

I was just looking over some of the statistics about the layoffs that are occurring in the Waterloo and Kitchener area, and I find it extremely difficult to understand how an area so well represented by New Democrats, like the member for Kitchener and the member for Kitchener-Wilmot, could not take some action to alleviate the layoffs of jobs.

Mr Villeneuve: You couldn't say that before 1985, Murray. Remember before 1985 it was going well?

Mr Elston: Actually, up until about 6 September 1990 -- the member for S-D-G & East Grenville, because he took away the name Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry, avoiding the tradition, has wanted to interrupt me just a little bit to take me off the mark -- everything was going very well.

I just really wanted to take a look at some of the jobs that have been lost in the Kitchener and Waterloo area: Lear Siegler Industries, Domtar Packaging, Greb Inc, John Forsyth Co, Budd Canada, Pannill Veneer Ltd -- Greb and Budd have had an extra couple of layoffs after that -- Deilcraft Furniture, J. M. Schneider, B. F. Goodrich, Joseph E. Seagram and Sons. Then, if you happen to stray all the way to Cambridge: Rockwell International, Butler Metal Products, WCI Canada, ICM.

In small-town manufacturing Ontario, the programs and policies which have been put in place that have just recently been outlined in the budget, which moves our deficit all the way up to $9.7 billion, speculated to go to a further $9 billion the following year, $8.5 billion the year after and another $7.9 billion as deficit the year after that, compromise places like Kitchener and Waterloo, whose histories are proud and long in the development of a province for which we have a lot of respect and affection.

The member has spoken well of her constituents, but I can tell the members that it stretches all the way from Kitchener-Waterloo into the ridings of Bruce, Wellington, into Huron, into Perth, where strong and able people have come together to invest capital and labour resources to make things just a little bit better. And it has been a little bit better. In fact, for those of us who were born and raised through the 1950s and 1960s, it has been extremely good indeed and we have benefited from an economy that our forefathers have built on the basis of some traditional sense of hard work and investment of both capital and labour in our province. In an economic sense they have prospered, not without some hardship, because I would not want to suggest to anybody in the province that our people have not had difficult times. For the people who live in Waterloo and in Kitchener and the areas that I have mentioned, there has been a sense that if they invested properly and worked hard, both from a capital point of view and a labour point of view, they could earn a return on those investments and that they could make the growth occur like that which has occurred in Waterloo and which, just to be sure that I remind everybody where I am going, is the reason why I support the inclusion of Waterloo on the sign.

There has to be a recognition that there is a reason for putting that name on a sign. It is not only to mark a tradition of growth and development and a return in a good economic and social sense to the wellbeing of the people who live there, but it is, with respect, an attempt to acknowledge that there is a future for the people of Waterloo and Kitchener and other places.

1130

I have some difficulty with respect to the economic forecast and plan that has been laid out by the Treasurer in front of the people of the province. The deficit levels which have been quoted by me ensure that there will be continuing pressure on those people who have invested capital, time and labour in Waterloo. They may not have the ability to keep the level of production and economic activity in that area at a level to which we have all been accustomed to seeing it turn out.

I am very concerned that we will not need a signpost very soon for the province of Ontario as a whole. If these people do not turn away from their wasteful economic activities, the change of direction which obscures the necessity of highlighting the good parts of our economic plan --

Interjections.

Mr Elston: There is a whole group of people whose low blood pressure has just been moved to new levels. I can hear it from across the way. Let me say that if there is not a recognition that the whole of the economic activity in Ontario is to be thrown away, if there is not some move to guard the good parts of our economic system to ensure the type of stability we have all been accustomed to in this province, then we will not need signposts. Perhaps we will need signposts with only one arrow, an arrow moving out.

Would the Treasurer please make some changes in what he has forecast for the economic activity of the province of Ontario. We can highlight what is good. We can highlight those things that have caused problems not only for you and me and for my family and forebears, but even for the people who are children who will be moving into the economic activities of this province as we go further down the way.

Interjections.

Mr Elston: They talk about not being able to afford it. We cannot afford to throw away a whole economic system which by and large has treated the people of the province very well indeed. Are there difficulties? There are difficulties. That is what budgetary policy is about, to eliminate difficulties, not to throw away the good with the bad.

We need to sense that there is a recognition that there is good in an economic system like the one we have enjoyed in Ontario, that there is a reason for preserving that good and that there is a reason for attacking the parts of the economic system that cause us problems that aggravate the social and cultural difficulties we find our people burdened with.

People talk about what we did or did not do in the last five years. There is no question that when we sit five years from now we will say, "You should have done something different." I can tell members now, this government should be doing something different from what it has done at this point.

Mr Villeneuve: First, let me congratulate my colleague the member for Waterloo North on her very first private member's bill here in this Legislature as a newly elected member in recognizing and making sure that part of that great area of Ontario that she represents, the area formerly known as Waterloo now known as Kitchener-Waterloo, is recognized on the major artery coming across the province of Ontario. I think it is a very good private member's motion and it looks like it is going to carry throughout.

I was very much interested in listening to the member for Bruce telling the people without any hesitation whatever how well the province was run during 42 years of Tory government. He said it. He mentioned a whole bunch of industries that came to the Waterloo area in those 42 years of excellent government under the Progressive Conservatives from the mid-1940s to the mid-1980s. He is attempting to lay the entire blame of difficult economic times on the government of the day.

I will get back to the subject very shortly. I must tell members that from 1985-90, the former government set the path for what we are now facing. This government has inherited a rather difficult economic position. We will try to help it through the next four years, but it must of course listen to the public of Ontario saying that the budget it has just brought in is a major catastrophe.

Signs on Highway 401 are most important. I come from an area that is quite remote from the Kitchener-Waterloo area. It is an area along the eastern limit of the province where we join with the province of Quebec. I quite often have an opportunity to travel either on Highway 417 or Highway 401 and on Highways 20 and 40 into the province of Quebec because my riding goes right to the border. I must tell the member for Windsor Sandwich, the parliamentary assistant to the Ministry of Transportation, that I am proud to be on Ontario roads because they are in much better condition than those adjoining us in the province of Quebec.

However, I must tell members that we must look at the signage in the province of Quebec. They identify their small rural communities much better than we do. We do not have all that commonsense an approach; if your town is not directly on the road leading off Highways 401 or 417, it is not identified. I say to the parliamentary assistant and to the Minister of Transportation that we must recognize these smaller rural communities. Waterloo is a much larger community because of its diversification and what have you.

However, I think we must deviate a bit and recognize the small communities that may not be right on that access road to some of our major four-lane highways. The province of Quebec recognizes that and maybe we should look at that. I know my own community, where I have my constituency office -- and I am going to get a plug in for back home to the honourable member for Waterloo North, a little community called Moose Creek. It is not on the highway sign leading from Highway 417. The small community of Monkland is because it happens to be right on Highway 138, but Moose Creek happens to be a kilometre off Highway 138 so it is not on and I think it should be, as many smaller communities should be recognized on our major thoroughfares such as Highways 401, 417, the upcoming 416 and many others.

I think it is something the Ministry of Transportation must take note of. Again, I emphasize the fact that the quality of our four-lane highways, indeed, the quality of our road system in Ontario is much superior to what they have in the province of Quebec. The signposts of history are most important.

Mr Elston: Like Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry.

Mr Villeneuve: That is right, like S-D-G & East Grenville. I say again to the member for Bruce, as he is the one who likes to talk about the signposts of history, I ensured that the signposts of history in the riding I very proudly represent remain in place in spite of the bureaucrats and in spite of the previous government.

The twin cities of Kitchener-Waterloo traditionally have been known that way and I know we have many very proud graduates from the University of Waterloo and from

Wilfred Laurier University, formerly known as Waterloo Lutheran University, two of the best post-secondary institutions anywhere. Having the community of Waterloo known as Kitchener-Waterloo on the highway is a reminder for those people who attended those learning institutions and who have gone across Ontario and indeed across Canada and North America. When they return they have recognition of the post-secondary learning institutions they attended in the Waterloo area.

I must touch on another subject that has a lot to do with the subject at hand and again, it reflects the signposts of history. We had 14 registry offices which will be closing shortly, as was announced by the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. That is not the way to maintain the traditions we have come to expect and live with in the province of Ontario. Three of the registry offices will be closing in the riding I represent. In some instances, the reason the towns are there is because of the registry offices. Ontario started in eastern Ontario, and the registry offices were the main reason why there was a notary and later a lawyer or a group of lawyers who moved into those communities. I have now been told that some of these legal people and their staffs will be moving to wherever the registry offices happen to be. That is not the way to maintain tradition and history.

1140

By putting these together, I understand there is supposedly some economy of scale. I say to the members that if we were to look into the entire gamut of costs, which probably will mean additional staff and additional room at the main registry office, then we are running into additional costs again.

Getting back to the signage on our main arteries, I say to members that the community of Kitchener-Waterloo must be recognized along the major arteries when you have all of the councils. It is taking away absolutely nothing from anyone. It is simply recognizing what has been there traditionally for many years.

I say to the parliamentary assistant, to the minister and to the government that this must not only happen to recognize Waterloo, but it must happen in a number of other areas where we have small communities. When tourists drive through, if the names are not along that highway, chances are that the communities will not be visited even if they are identified or recognized as areas within the province of Ontario. We have to live within limits, but certainly a little common sense and a little bit of flexibility within the signage on our major highways must be changed and adhered to.

Finally, the Waterloo and Kitchener areas are fortunate to have an economy that is a good blend and a good mix. I think it was touched on by some of the previous speakers that we have a mix of ethnic cultures that bring together some of the best gatherings and, again as was referred to, in the fall in the Kitchener and Waterloo areas.

I think people should make it a point to visit and see how well these communities can get along with one another. The diversification, which includes agriculture, industry, education, manufacturing and of course the service industries, is all a blend to make the Kitchener-Waterloo area an excellent place in which to live. I certainly know that whenever I visit that area I enjoy it tremendously.

Mr Speaker, thank you very much for the opportunity; I will be supporting my colleague the member for Waterloo North in her first private member's resolution.

Mr Ferguson: I am pleased to rise in support of this resolution this morning and to assist my good friend the member for Waterloo North.

First of all, I want to thank very much the member for Bruce, who reminded everybody in the House of the signpost of history that occurred on 6 September of last year, and because not only did he remind us that something historical took place in this province, but he reminded us why.

He talked about the Deilcraft plant that closed in my riding, my home town of Kitchener, and I want to just remind the members of the House that that plant closed while the Liberal government was in office, not us. I want to remind the members that the Greb plant closed in the Kitchener area shortly thereafter. That was as a result of the federal Conservative government letting the company take the military contract for the manufacture of military boots and move that to the province of Quebec without consulting the community or the province of Ontario at all. I thank him very much for that.

I want to remind him that the president of the Seagram plant said it was going to reorganize and close the plant in Waterloo because of the massive tax increases experienced under the Liberal government. That is exactly what they said. They said they were going to consolidate their operations as a result of that.

I want to thank him for reminding us that that signpost of history that occurred on 6 September said, among a number of things, "Stop the haemorrhaging," and that is exactly what this government is committed to do. In fact, we are already starting to do that. I want to inform the member for Bruce that Pannill Veneer, which he quoted as laying off workers, is in fact rehiring workers as of this week. The haemorrhaging is stopping.

I want to remind him that J. M. Schneider is on the road to recovery. They have bottomed out. The company officials feel they have bottomed out in terms of their slowdown in production. They are picking up speed. I want to remind him that the workers from the Budd automotive company are back to work this week. They are starting to move.

When the member talks about the signposts in history, I want to thank him for the historical perspective of what it means to have a Liberal government run the province for only five short years and indicate what kind of damage can be done. We have put the bandages on, we have administered first aid, and it is at this point in time that we are moving the patient, the province of Ontario, into major surgery. That, I think, is what needs to be done.

Mr Scott: I'd rather have a doctor do it if you don't mind. Would you have major surgery done by this guy?

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr Ferguson: This signpost, I think, is more symbolic than anything else. It says that Waterloo has come of age. I am proud to be from a municipality that has had a very good working relationship with the city of Waterloo. It is not well known that the twin cities, for example, share the same transit services. It is not well known that while people may live in Waterloo, they choose to work in Kitchener or while they may live in Kitchener, they choose to work in Waterloo. It is well known that whatever happens in Kitchener has an effect in Waterloo and whatever happens in Waterloo has a counter effect in Kitchener. That is well known.

I think what we are really saying here is that Waterloo has come of age, approaching a population near 100,000. It is no longer small-town Ontario, and in fact it is viewed within our region as the high-tech area of the Waterloo region. In supporting this resolution, I think we also have to recognize that Kitchener-Waterloo is perhaps one of the most progressive communities in all of Ontario and perhaps one of the most forward-thinking communities.

I will give but one small example of that. Both municipalities at this point in time are undertaking discussions to construct a joint fire training facility, which is a major undertaking in terms of capital cost for any municipality. But this facility, like the transit system, will be shared by both municipalities at great savings, I think, to the local rate payers.

That is just one of the many options that is currently being explored by both municipalities, so let us acknowledge today that the city of Waterloo has indeed come of age.

Interjection.

Mr Ferguson: My good friend behind me suggests that perhaps the sign should also say, "Kitchener-Waterloo and the Road to Zurich," and that might be taken under consideration.

Although, let's face it, this is not going to be the most important resolution debated in this Legislature in this session, it is important, I think, that the residents of Waterloo get the recognition they so richly deserve. In conclusion, I want to add that one must go through the city of Kitchener in order to arrive at the city of Waterloo.

Mrs Haslam: Unfortunately the member for Essex South is not here to see me smile, because I am very pleased to stand and take part in this debate.

I use the same roads to go home to Stratford as the gentleman and the lady use to go into their ridings and I counted the signs the last time I went home. There are five that say Waterloo on them. There is one that introduces the county of Waterloo and then the four signs that the member had mentioned going into Kitchener-Waterloo. At the same time, I counted the signs for Stratford, and there was one sign for Stratford with a little swan on it.

Mr Villeneuve: You need a bill, Karen. Bring in a bill.

1150

Mrs Haslam: That is exactly what I am going to talk to, the process that we are going through to get a sign on a road. I question the process that we are going through, because I agree with the member for S-D-G & East Grenville for all those little places that do not have signs.

I have smaller towns in my riding than Stratford and I do not agree with some people who told me that the only reason I had one Stratford sign was because it was little and insignificant. Stratford is not little and insignificant. It has a major tourist industry. When you talk of tourism, we only go through Kitchener-Waterloo to get to Stratford. That is where the tourists from Toronto are really going, into Stratford for the festival. I find it not too good that we only have one sign in Stratford and we have four for Kitchener-Waterloo.

But I do agree with the member for S-D-G & East Grenville about all those little places, because it just so happens that one of the little places in my riding, my secondary town -- it would be called a little place when you consider towns like Toronto and Kitchener-Waterloo, but it is not a little place; it is an important place in my riding -- is St Marys. St Marys has been trying to get some signage along its roads. They have written to Mr Brown, the traffic analysis supervisor, the traffic section, southwestern region, asking that signs be put up.

That is why I am talking about the process. I just want to say that if this works for Kitchener-Waterloo, perhaps that is what I need to do for places like Milverton and St Marys and Mitchell and Motherwell, which has five buildings. There are five buildings in Motherwell, two of which are garages and one is an antique store.

I am just talking about the process and what is going on. I do want to say that I am very pleased to hear the parliamentary assistant talking about the information that he has brought forward. I take this to heart, because perhaps I can have a remedy for my dilemma by having people write to the ministry and get some of the information involved to the ministry. Perhaps we are going to be getting some signs too.

So in that process I do say thank you, because it has certainly aroused a lot of people here. It certainly has brought forth a lot of discussion here. For those reasons I will be supporting the member for Waterloo North's private member's bill. I do wish her well, but I am going to be watching to see if an extra sign for Stratford goes up.

Mr Mills: With 40 seconds left, I do not know what I can say, except that the member for Bruce filled me with terminal depression. I am sure that he has gone for medical attention, because he is so downbeat.

I was in Waterloo on Monday, making a presentation on behalf of the Solicitor General for Drive and Survive. As we approached the highway the driver said, "Gord, we're going to Kitchener." I said, "Have faith." We went on, and we came to the Waterloo Regional Police department. So I support the member for Waterloo North. We have to know where we are going, we have to get there and we have to drive safely.

Mrs Witmer: It has been a privilege to have this opportunity to debate my first private member's bill this morning. I would like to express my sincere appreciation for the support that I have received from all comers of this House. I certainly look forward to their support on this bill.

ACCESS TO COURTS ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 SUR L'ACCÈS AUX TRIBUNAUX

The Deputy Speaker: We will deal first with ballot item 17 standing in the name of Mr Scott. If any members are opposed to a ballot vote on this item, will they please rise. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the nays have it.

Vote deferred.

Le vote est reporté.

KITCHENER-WATERLOO

The Deputy Speaker: We will now deal with ballot item 18 standing in the name of Mrs Witmer.

Motion agreed to.

1200

ACCESS TO COURTS ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 SUR L'ACCÈS AUX TRIBUNAUX

The House divided on Mr Scott's motion for second reading of Bill 77, which was negatived on the following vote:

La motion de M. Scott pour la deuxième lecture du projet de loi 77, mise aux voix, est rejetée:

Ayes/Pour-9

Bradley, Callahan, Curling, Elston, Fawcett, McClelland, Offer, Ruprecht, Scott.

Nays/Contra-46

Abel, Arnott, Bisson, Carr, Cooper, Cunningham, Dadamo, Drainville, Ferguson, Fletcher, Frankford, Haeck, Hansen, Harnick, Harrington, Haslam, Hayes, Hope, Huget, Jackson, Jamison, Johnson, Jordan, Klopp, Kormos, Lessard, MacKinnon, Mammoliti, Mills, O'Connor, Owens, Perruzza, Runciman, Stockwell, Sutherland, Turnbull, Villeneuve, Ward, B., Ward, M., Waters, Wessenger, White, Wilson, G., Wilson, J., Wiseman, Witmer.

The House recessed at 1203.

AFTERNOON SITTING

The House resumed at 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

DUPORT PROJECT

Mr Miclash: Right now, in my constituency of Kenora, the Consolidated Professor mining company is working on a gold mining proposal called the Duport project. The Duport project will have enormous economic impact on the area, particularly on Shoal Lake native bands 39 and 40, as well as on the trimunicipal areas of Kenora, Keewatin and Jaffray-Melick.

This project will create 175 permanent new jobs, pump $53 million into the local economy during the mine's preproduction period, and a further $14.3 million into the local economy on an annual basis. As well, it will help to diversify our local economy.

This project is a godsend for the people in an area that is facing over 70% unemployment. Recently, however, the process has come under pressure from governments in Ottawa and Manitoba. The people of my constituency cannot afford to let the Shoal Lake environmental assessment process be delayed or sidetracked in any way.

I am challenging the minister responsible for native affairs, the Minister of Northern Development and especially the Minister of Mines to stand up and be counted on this vital issue. On behalf of my constituents I beg the ministers not to give in to the political pressures of other jurisdictions and to the woeful southern bias of their own cabinet.

I would ask the ministers to shepherd this project through to completion and show the people of northern Ontario that they have the guts and the bearing to represent them in this House.

LAND REGISTRATION

Mr Jordan: The municipal officials in Almonte, Carleton Place, Lanark, Ramsay and Pakenham are in complete shock. In June 1990, a new land registry office was opened in the town of Almonte. The cost of the project was close to $1 million. Now, less than one year later, this Almonte office is included in the 14 to be closed across this province. Six of the offices -- Almonte, Alexandria, Prescott, Russell, Morrisburg and Ottawa -- are in eastern Ontario. It is unbelievable that no consultation took place with municipalities regarding these closures. Were new studies done? If so, why were municipal officials not consulted?

This is a blatant example of dictatorial government. The need for a land registry office in Almonte was studied for three years prior to building the new building. Now, with the flick of a pen, this government closes its doors.

Major capital improvements will have to be made in these other facilities to accommodate the files, records and staff from the 14 closed offices. The Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations must reconsider this action and sit down with the municipalities involved relative to service to the people and economic conditions in eastern Ontario.

PARLIAMENTARY PROCESS

Mr Silipo: This being Education Week, I wanted to focus my comments on acknowledging the many excellent things that are taking place within our school system and reflecting on some of the things that, of course, we would all agree need improvement.

However, in thinking a little bit more about my statement today, I feel compelled, given the antics of the Conservative Party in the last few days, to make a few comments about that. I, for one, do not question their right to use any kind of procedural tactics to delay the budget process as well as any others, but I do certainly question their wisdom in doing so.

I think other speakers have talked about, and other speakers will no doubt comment on, the effect that is having in terms of stalling legislation that would ensure the automatic collection of support payments, such as Bill 17, such as the stalling of the employment wage protection program and other legislation.

I also want to mention that in stalling, what the Conservative caucus is also doing and what the leader of the Conservative caucus is doing is preventing a committee like the select committee on Ontario in Confederation from meeting. I think in that particular area, there is also a concern I have as the Chair of that committee.

I ask the leader of the third party to reconsider his position with respect to the stalling tactics, because it seems to me that if he does not do that, the only thing he will ensure is that he remains the third party for a long time to come.

TORONTO REGION ISLAMIC CENTRE

Mr Ruprecht: Ontario is truly blessed by its many people who have come from all over the world to call Ontario home, and to not only make an economic contribution, but what is just as important, to maintain their spiritual values, traditions and history.

Today, I would like to inform the members of the Ontario Legislature that the Toronto and Region Islamic Congregation will be celebrating the official opening of the Toronto Region Islamic Centre on Saturday 11 May 1991 at the northeast quadrant of Highway 400 and Highway 401.

During the first few years after being formed, the organization concentrated on developing programs that would truly meet the needs of the community. It will make a special effort to attract the youth of the Islamic centre, where they will be exposed to Islamic ideas of peace, morality, justice and human dignity.

These are the kinds of values which we as Canadians share and that is why I would like all members of this Legislature to extend heartiest congratulations to the Toronto Region Islamic Centre.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr Runciman: I rise to bring to the attention of the House that another 700 Ontario residents have taken the time to mail coupons stating their support for the right to sue for auto accident victims. I will send these coupons to the desk of the Premier. This will bring the total number of coupons to almost 2,000, and that is in response to a one-day newspaper ad.

It appears that the government may be experiencing a change of heart concerning the right to sue, given this week's visit of Ralph Nader to the NDP caucus. Last year, Mr Nader appeared before this Legislature's standing committee on general government to explain why the right to sue is so important. Mr Nader stated:

"The right to sue works. It generates deterrence, it generates disclosure into the public arena of a great deal of information often covered up by corporations relating to the damage that their products have done to innocent people, and it elevates the ethical responsibility between perpetrator and victim. The tort system recognizes that human beings incur pain and suffering and have a right to proper compensation, and that is what humanizes the law."

It is our hope that these words from Mr Nader were not only reiterated during his discussion with the government caucus this week, but also that his comments will be reflected in the government's upcoming auto insurance legislation.

The right to sue is a fundamental right, and the Premier has an obligation to keep his promise to voters that he would restore the right to sue if he became Premier. He is and he can.

TAXATION

Mr Morrow: During the last provincial election, the leader of the third party had two buses named Taxfighter 1 and Taxfighter 2. I find it ironic that this self-styled tax fighter has been wasting taxpayers' money with his recent antics during the debate on the budget.

It is especially ironic coming from a member of the Progressive Conservative Party whose federal cohorts introduced the regressive goods and services tax. I would also remind him that his federal party is directly responsible for a major portion of the province's deficit by cutting back transfer payments to the provinces under the Canada assistance plan.

The federal government's policy of high interest rates, Mulroney's trade deal and --

Mr Jackson: Hey, how is Red Hill Creek coming?

The Speaker: To the member for Oakville South --

Mr Jackson: Not Oakville South, Burlington South.

The Speaker: To the member for Burlington South, his co-operation would be greatly appreciated by the Chair. And to the member for Etobicoke West, yes, we all realize that while interjections are out of order, when they are out of order, they must be from your natural place.

Mr Morrow: The federal government's policy of high interest rates, Mulroney's trade deal and Wilson's policy of taking from the poor and giving to the rich have had a direct effect in the recession that we are faced with today. Perhaps this self-styled taxfighter should run federally and take his campaign against his own party. If he waits until the next federal election it will be too late, as he will see a New Democratic Party rescind the goods and services tax and the Canada-US free trade deal.

1340

ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION

Mrs Fawcett: It is with a great deal of indignation and regret that I rise today.

On Tuesday of this week, in one foul swoop, without any notice, without any consultation, without any thought of the ramifications this would have, the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations stood on her soapbox and so righteously announced the closure of two registry offices in my riding of Northumberland.

This is after repeated assurances from the previous governments to maintain the offices, and indeed as late as 4 March 1991 from the director of the real property registration branch of her ministry, and I quote: "I hope that you will bear with us and accept my assurance that as soon as we have something to discuss, the staff, the clients and the community will be involved." Instead of discussing, she arbitrarily closed the Colborne and Port Hope registry offices.

Well, we do have something to discuss. I would suggest that this discussion will revolve around the loss of service to the community, the inability of an individual to work effectively in rural Ontario and the adverse effects that this will have on the consumer.

I would suggest that the minister would want to discuss this. In fact, I demand that she do so with all those affected in my riding and either justify this unwarranted decision or reverse it.

I am sure you will be aware, Mr Speaker, of something that you said as a candidate that this party would do. It is called "consult," remember?

TOURISM INDUSTRY

Mr J. Wilson: My statement today is directed to the Minister of Tourism and Recreation. On 2 May, in response to a question from the member for Quinte, the minister, referring to comments made by Tourism Ontario Inc, said, "They told me that for the first time an attack was made on the budget but not on the minister." Tourism Ontario assures me it made no such remark and that it has never made a public attack on any Ontario tourism minister.

Again, quoting from the 2 May response from the minister, the minister outlined the efforts made by his government to assist the tourism industry within the tabled budget. He said, "I can tell the member across the floor that they" -- tourist operators -- "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."

In order to set the record straight, Workers' Compensation Board assessments are carried out in July, and there may be an increase which will occur in January. The minister should know that workers' compensation assessments are not normally budgetary issues. Second, in its pre-budget submission, Tourism Ontario Inc called for a lowering of the employer health tax rate for tourism operators. It did not want the status quo maintained.

The bottom line is that the government's budget does nothing but further injury to Ontario's embattled tourism industry. The minister should get his facts straight and start finding ways to assist the tourism industry. It is time that he began to reconcile his words with action if indeed tourism is more than just a hobby for his government.

ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION

Mr Wiseman: I rise today to congratulate the Durham Region Roman Catholic Separate School Board and Helen Murray's class at St Monica Catholic School in Pickering.

Recently, I was invited to her class to receive a mural painted by the children. The theme of this mural was conservation and the protection of the environment; in particular, the environment close to their school. They depicted the trees of the Rouge River Valley, the Altona forest and the shores of Frenchman's Bay and other areas endangered by man's urban sprawl.

Some would think that this knowledge of what has happened in the past would have made these young people in grade 2 pessimistic. On the contrary, the fine work of Helen Murray and the other fine teachers at St Monica's has been able to teach these young people how to take ownership of the problems facing the environment in their own small way. When questioned about what they could do, they had many creative answers and solutions they are already doing -- composting, water conservation, planting trees, bringing garbageless lunches to school, to name only a few. Their enthusiasm was created by their teachers.

In closing, I would like to thank the students and staff of St Monica's for inviting me. I would like to add that Helen Murray has done an outstanding job creating enthusiasm and interest in her students for the environment. Our education system is enriched by her presence and that of others like her.

I congratulate her and the Durham Region Roman Catholic Separate School Board in their efforts to promote environmental awareness.

FINANCIAL PROCEDURES

The Speaker: On Monday 29 April the member for Etobicoke West introduced a bill entitled An Act respecting Government Expenditures.

It has been brought to my attention that section 1 of this bill specifically directs the allocation of public funds. I must therefore rule that the bill is in contravention of section 54 of our standing orders and can only be proposed by a minister of the crown supported by a message from His Honour the Lieutenant Governor. The bill is therefore out of order and must be omitted from Orders and Notices.

I would also like to advise members that on Wednesday 1 May the honourable leader of the third party introduced the following bills: An Act to amend the Development Charges Act for the Airy & Sabine District School Area Board; An Act to amend the Development Charges Act for the Asquith-Garvey District School Area Board; An Act to amend the Development Charges Act for the Atikokan Board of Education; and An Act to amend the Development Charges Act for the Atikokan Roman Catholic Separate School Board.

I must advise all honourable members that section 1 of these bills appears to be incomplete and so they contravene section 37(d) of our standing orders in that they are in improper form. I must therefore rule that these bills are also out of order and must be omitted from the order paper.

VISITORS

Hon Mr Wildman: As minister responsible for native affairs I would like the members of the House today to join with me in recognizing our guests in the members' gallery. We have representatives of native organizations. The chiefs of Ontario are deeply interested in our government's policies and initiatives.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

NATIVE PROGRAMS

Hon Mr Wildman: When the Treasurer delivered the Ontario budget on 29 April he told the Legislature, "In this budget, we are putting in place the foundation of a new economic strategy, a strategy which has sustainable prosperity as its central goal and fairness as its guiding principle."

It is with great pleasure that I rise today to tell this Legislature how our native affairs commitments will be part of that strategy.

Members will be aware that the budget contained more than $48 million to move towards greater equity for aboriginal people in Ontario. Today I want to give the House some details of that allocation.

This government has committed itself to a number of objectives over the past months, including the settlement of land claims, the negotiation of aboriginal self-government agreements and the improvement of the quality of life in aboriginal communities.

These commitments flow from the underlying principle of Ontario's native affairs policy, that aboriginal people have an inherent right to be self-governing. That right is based on their occupation of the land in self-governing societies for many centuries before non-aboriginal settlers arrived on this continent.

This government believes that all our citizens must share in the benefits of economic growth and social progress. As I have said on many other occasions, every minister of the cabinet in the government of Ontario is a minister of native affairs.

To that end, my colleagues the Minister of Colleges and Universities, the Minister of Citizenship and the Minister of Education will be following me with statements on native affairs aspects of their budget allocations.

As members will know, the budget specifically referred to $20 million to improve conditions in those aboriginal communities. The parameters of the aboriginal community infrastructure capital fund are still being developed, but our first priority this year will be the six Nishnawbe-Aski nation bands in northern Ontario that have been promised reserve status by the Government of Canada.

The assistance to those communities, of course, flows from Ontario's commitment to contribute to the costs of establishing the reserve communities and to provide a land base for the communities of McDowell Lake, Aroland, the New Saugeen nation, Wawakapewin, Kee-Way-Win and New Slate Falls. We are prepared to meet that obligation from the fund and then to rapidly move on to address pressing needs of other aboriginal communities.

As part of the package for the six NAN communities, we expect there will be a speedy conclusion to negotiations on the size of the land bases required by each of the six communities.

1350

The budget also allocates $15 million to establish a fund for land claims and self-government negotiations, consultations and settlements. This fund provides for greater fairness as aboriginal negotiators prepare to meet the government representatives at the negotiating table, and it will allow us to begin to settle land claims in Ontario. There will be consultation with first nations and aboriginal organizations on exactly how this money will be spent.

The budget also contains a $1.5-million allocation by the Ministry of Natural Resources for forest fire protection for aboriginal communities in the remote north. Human lives are the first priority of this province in its forest firefighting. Often when we are dealing with remote northern native communities there is no recourse but to evacuate the communities when major fires or smoke pose a risk to life and health.

The Ministry of Natural Resources, however, is prepared to make a commitment to improve safety for aboriginal communities through measures such as training local residents in forest firefighting techniques. This program is being developed with the Nishnawbe-Aski nation and a working group is also being formed to report on long-term requirements for forest fire management. The province is prepared to commit $1.5 million to this program, as I said.

Currently, MNR provides forest fire protection on reserves and recovers its costs through an agreement with the federal government. Therefore, our program, to be fully effective, requires a matching commitment from the federal government.

More will be heard about the native affairs commitments of this government from my colleagues. Their programs will address vital issues in improving the quality of life for aboriginal people in Ontario. I believe that all members of the Legislature will agree that we are at the beginning of the most significant era in native affairs in the history of the province of Ontario.

NATIVE POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

Hon Mr Allen: All of us realize how difficult it is for people to fulfil their potential in today's society without an education. Yet for many groups in Ontario there exist subtle and not-so-subtle barriers that prohibit access to all the benefits that education has to offer. This statement especially holds true when we consider Ontario's native peoples.

In this government's first throne speech and its first budget we made a commitment to improving the quality of life of aboriginal peoples in Ontario. Our government believes that there is a real connection between our social infrastructure and our economy. Our social programs help give people the confidence to meet the challenge of economic change and to participate fully in the economy.

Today I am very pleased to announce the details of a strategy that will help fulfil this promise. It is a strategy that is aimed at removing the barriers built into post-secondary education that tend to limit the education and training achievements of native people.

The strategy and initiatives I am announcing are the result of discussions and collaboration between officials of the Ministry of Colleges and Universities, representatives of provincial native organizations, and representatives of our colleges and universities.

The development, implementation and evaluation of this strategy are based on a partnership relationship between my ministry, native organizations and our post-secondary institutions. Through the native post-secondary education and training strategy we will attempt to achieve the following goals:

First, to increase the participation and completion rates of native people in college and university programs;

Second, to work in collaboration with our post-secondary institutions to increase the sensitivity of those institutions to native culture and issues; and

Third, to increase the extent and participation of native people in decisions affecting native post-secondary education.

In addition, we will be looking at ways to reduce barriers that restrict native access to post-secondary institutions, including activities relating to admissions and access programs.

We also will be encouraging our post-secondary institutions to work in partnership with native communities to increase their role in decision-making, program development and developing admissions criteria. We will provide native organizations with funding to cover the costs associated with their involvement in implementation of this strategy.

This year the province will provide $3.1 million to fund these initiatives. This funding will be used to establish the following: a native support services core fund to increase the number of native counsellors employed by post-secondary institutions; a special projects fund to support the development of native college and university curricula which reflect the cultural, social and economic needs of native people, and funding from this program will also be used to facilitate joint college and university initiatives in the area of native programming; a supplementary grant fund to provide colleges and universities with additional funding for each full-time student enrolled in a designated native program, and this grant will help offset the incremental costs associated with developing and delivering native programs and is in addition to the regular operating grant.

To assist the ministry in reviewing and recommending programs and proposals for funding under the new strategy, a proposal selection committee will be established. That committee will include representatives of my ministry, Ontario native organizations, the Council of Regents, the Ontario Council on University Affairs as well as Ontario's colleges and universities.

In order to ensure that there is ongoing native community involvement with regard to post-secondary matters, we will establish, by order in council, a Native Education Council.

This council will advise me on all aspects of native post-secondary education, including native programs, services and policies. The council will also work with the ministry on the implementation and evaluation of this native post-secondary education and training strategy. The council will be able to provide specific advice on the issue of native control of native education.

The council will be comprised of representatives from native organizations involved in the development of this strategy. Further details relating to the membership of both the council and the committee will be announced in upcoming weeks.

If we are to enhance and expand the opportunities to achieve sustainable prosperity in the years to come, then our job quite simply is to ensure that all the people of Ontario have the same chance to succeed.

Today's announcement is an example of how partnerships between this government, native organizations and our post-secondary institutions can work to remove both real and perceived barriers to educational opportunity for native peoples in Ontario.

NATIVE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

Hon Ms Ziemba: As my colleague the Treasurer put forward in his budget, there are a number of initiatives for the development of programs to advance social and economic equity for aboriginal peoples.

In keeping with this government's commitment to negotiate aboriginal self-government, the Ministry of Citizenship will work together with the native communities to develop two programs: a native internship program, which will receive $700,000, and a program for small businesses, which will receive $1.5 million -- a total of $2.3 million in funding.

My colleague the Minister of Colleges and Universities has just outlined for members the consultative process they have used in developing their programs in the Ministry of Colleges and Universities. We are engaged in that same process, one which arises from the native community's own definition of its needs, as we develop these two initiatives. The guidelines and criteria for the two initiatives will be developed in full participation with native organizations.

My ministry's two economic initiatives will be designed to ensure access and greater economic and social equity in business opportunities, jobs and in training with a particular focus on identifying opportunities for native women and young people.

The guiding purpose of these two programs is to expand the potential for individuals to explore economic opportunities. We intend to achieve this by backing small business efforts and by enhancing the skills, training and career opportunities for native communities and with native communities. We will begin to lay the groundwork for these initiatives, together with native organizations, within the month.

I am pleased that the ministry is undertaking these economic development programs, which will have both short-term and long-term benefits. They will provide needed support for the key objective of aboriginal peoples, which is to progress steadily towards self-government. That is an objective which this government fully supports.

1400

NATIVE EDUCATION

Hon Mrs Boyd: I am pleased to announce new funding of $1.15 million this fiscal year for demonstration projects in aboriginal education. Not only will these projects lead to a healthier society and a stronger economy but they also will increase the participation of aboriginal people in the education of their children.

The projects have two key objectives. First, they will improve the quality of education for aboriginal children. Second, they will strengthen aboriginal participation in self-government. The demonstration projects will address the needs of both on-reserve and off-reserve aboriginal people.

Through the ongoing tripartite negotiations between first nations, Canada and Ontario, funds will also be available to participating first nations organizations for the development of organizational models. These models may prove useful to other aboriginal communities.

My ministry is currently drafting criteria for the funding of these demonstration projects. These criteria, the priorities for funding and the management of these projects will be the subject of consultation with aboriginal people.

Projects might examine such issues as increasing student retention rates, addressing the unique needs of northern students, developing partnerships between aboriginal communities and school boards and developing culturally appropriate programs.

It is my hope that these projects will help pave the way for more meaningful and more successful educational experiences in aboriginal communities.

RESPONSES

NATIVE PROGRAMS

Mr Scott: When the aboriginal constitutional renewal round collapsed in 1986 because of essentially the failure of the government of Quebec to participate in those negotiations for aboriginal self-government and the resistance of three provinces to support aboriginal self-government, the government of Ontario -- like, by the way, the NDP government of Manitoba -- came back to our home base and decided that in the event of constitutional renewal failure, we would begin the process of trying to develop a series of experiments on a local basis in education, health care, the justice system and so on which would give aboriginal people and the rest of us an experience in self-government on a local basis from which we could build to provincial or national models.

I had, as the present minister knows, some experience in designing that program and was delighted to see a number of projects initiated. For our party, I want to say that I am very pleased that the present government has continued that thrust and has expanded it by the allocation of the money described today. It is, I believe, at the end of the day in the constitutional impasse in which we find ourselves, the one principal way in which self-government advances can be made for aboriginal people, a matter that we all share.

But we tend to make these announcements in the House, and the responses, in a kind of bell-jar, as if we do not have contact with the world beyond this chamber. I know the present member, who is seriously tuned into these issues, as I believe I was, will understand that there are at least two other issues that require to be addressed and without which these announcements today will not be worth the paper they are written on by either him or me.

The first issue is the progress in land claim negotiations. Without progress in land claim negotiations, some of which has been made under the previous government and some under the new government, all this will be empty rhetoric because the economic levers that native people need for self-determination will be lacking. The second area, allied to the first, is the area of resource negotiation. If the government of Ontario is not able to proceed on a concrete basis in respect of resource self-government negotiations for native people, this again today will be a series of empty rhetorical announcements.

God knows I know the difficulties, but I encourage the minister to begin, for example, the fishing negotiations in northwestern Ontario, to proceed expeditiously with the Temagami resource management negotiations which were launched by the previous government, and to undertake a series of negotiations which lie at the very heart of the aboriginal self-government issue. These negotiations will be very difficult because many people in Ontario do not understand their complexity or their reach for the rest of us, and it will be a challenging exercise for the minister to undertake them.

We in this party support the announcements today, mindful only, as we seek for a moment to get away from our bell jar atmosphere, of the realities that will require significant progress to be made in land claim negotiations and in resource management negotiations over the next four or five years.

Mr Harnick: I note that at the conclusion of the statement of the minister responsible for native affairs he says that we are beginning "the most significant era in native affairs issues in the history of the province of Ontario," and I merely state to him that I thought that era began eight months ago when we saw the native land claim of the Manitoulin reserves completed, the work of the previous government.

Hon Mr Wildman: I paid tribute to them at that time.

Mr Harnick: Absolutely. The minister says he paid tribute, and I agree, but we have not seen any concrete action since that time. We have not seen anything dealing with any further advances that have been made public to this House. We have extension of hunting and fishing rights at the expense of the environment, but we have not seen any concrete proposals. It is time the minister started to keep the myriad of promises he has been making as he travels across this province, and I hope that he does keep those promises.

It is notable that this is the first time this government has funded post-secondary education, and I hope that there will be success in increasing participation and completion rates in post-secondary education.

I note that the Minister of Education did not mention anything about the need for more native teachers or any programs dealing with more native teachers being qualified in our schools at all levels. I also note that there was nothing in the Minister of Education's statement dealing with dropout rates, and I think those are issues that surely have to be addressed.

I am supportive of the initiatives that the government has announced today and I hope that good success is made in proceeding with them.

Mr Cousens: There but for the grace of God goes Ontario. Last year Quebec had Oka, and Ontario could have its own Oka if we do not take very serious action to do our best for native land claims and negotiations, for resource negotiations.

What we are seeing here are examples of where a government is trying to be exclusive. I see deep, serious problems, as does our party, for our native peoples, and what the government is trying to do is break down history into small areas that it thinks it can handle, when in fact all the native communities need help. It is not just young people and women; the whole native community needs to be addressed in a serious way. I am just keeping my fingers crossed that this government is not screwing up as badly as I think it is.

NATIVE EDUCATION

Mr Jackson: I would like to respond to the statements by the Minister of Colleges and Universities and the Minister of Education. I have had occasion to work closely with the Minister of Colleges and Universities on the select committee on education and the standing committee on social development, and with his former colleague, Richard Johnston, and we have attended and been presided over by various native groups and their presentations.

What concerns me is that these announcements fall very far from the most appropriate mark that those native leaders were telling us, that in this province the largest identified group of children involved with substance and alcohol abuse, victims of child abuse and highest suicide rates are native children, and in fact we have heard that children's services for natives are truly not native children's services in this province. Why? Because we refuse to accept the responsibility that they have language rights in this province, that there are at least three indigenous native languages that are at risk of disappearing off the face of this earth. The Minister of Education has 10-fold the number of dollars she announced today for third language instruction in this province, but we would allow their native language to disappear.

How can we expect those children to preserve their culture, to understand how they are to interact in society, if they are not provided with teachers who speak their language? That is why the government of Manitoba, when it conducted its commission of inquiry, came to the conclusions that native children should not start their day with a two-and-a-half-hour bus ride to get an education, should not be removed from their families, off-reserve education, and they should have native, indigenous children's mental health services. Let's get some announcements from --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Now that we are relaxed and we have focused our attention on question period, we may start with oral questions.

1410

ORAL QUESTIONS

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr Nixon: I have a question of the Treasurer. Since his party has promised a state-run automobile insurance scheme and there have been further commitments that legislation would be introduced in the next few weeks, can the Treasurer indicate how this program is going to be financed as it receives approval, as it may very well in this House? How is it going to be financed during the time when it is going to be developed and offering its service during this particular fiscal year, since it does not occur in his budget nor in the estimates that have been presented?

Hon Mr Laughren: There has been no date set at which point the legislation, first of all, will be introduced. When the legislation is introduced there will be more details forthcoming, but I have nothing I can add to that at this time.

Mr Nixon: I think, however, it is incumbent on the Treasurer to indicate that since he must provide the funds for the development of the structure of this, which has been promised and which he indicates is going to be before the House in the near future, the taxpayers certainly, if not the people who are driving automobiles, should be provided with the information as to whether basically they can look for increased rates, which I would doubt, since that commitment was made otherwise, or perhaps increased administrative costs that would be put on tax increases or, God forbid, on increases in the deficit. What alternatives are there?

Hon Mr Laughren: There is no question that when the public auto insurance program is introduced there will be startup costs. There is absolutely no question about that. But as I stand in my place today, I cannot provide the Leader of the Opposition with any further details. We have not made any determinations in that regard.

Mr Nixon: I regret that the Treasurer cannot provide any information, because the startup costs will be incurred during this fiscal year. If, as Ralph Nader has urged the NDP caucus, it goes for a British Columbia program, the startup costs will be clearly $1 billion. If, on the other hand, they go for something that would be completely in contradiction to their promise -- that is, a pure no-fault similar to that which is presently in place in Quebec -- the startup costs would be much lower, only $300 million, but that will have to be paid during this fiscal year, assuming that the logjam in the Legislature is disposed of and we get down to business again.

Since the minimum additional costs will be $300 million and very possibly far more than that, can the Treasurer indicate whether he would recommend doing this by raising premiums? Surely not. Raising taxes? Surely not. Increasing the deficit? Surely not. So how is he going to do it?

Hon Mr Laughren: All I can say to the Leader of the Opposition is that the very points he makes in his question are some of the considerations that will go into determining exactly what we bring before this Legislature. I know the leader of the official opposition would want to wait till that time to see exactly how the plan unfolds.

Mr Nixon: I have a feeling the Treasurer does not know the answer. It is not a case of not wanting to give it.

SCHOOL CURRICULUM

Mr Nixon: I want to direct a question to the Minister of Education. As I listened to the voice of Keith Spicer, the national unity commissioner, being interviewed on radio about his meetings in Toronto yesterday, there were two things that struck me. He said, "Ignorance is killing the country" -- that is his direct quote -- and, "The teaching of history is appalling."

Mr Speaker, though I direct the question to the minister through you, as a former history teacher you would agree with me that it is not so much the teaching of history that is so appalling, but the direction of the curriculum in the provision of history instruction that is appalling.

The minister may very well remember the few brief years ago when she was taking formal history -- let's say, in elementary and secondary school -- when the emphasis was on the five different trips of Champlain as he crisscrossed central Ontario. We missed the point entirely, in the development of our nation before and since Confederation, of the examples of co-operation among cultures, and particularly among religions and languages, that we need today in these times when there is such a dramatic lack of that understanding.

Will the minister give some indication to the House that she will ask her curriculum consultants to provide a program, not necessarily to provide revisionist history as to where socialism came from and where it is going, although I have the answer to that, but rather to use the lessons of history in a factual and appropriate way so that the lessons, particularly for our young people, can contribute to national unity rather than otherwise.

Hon Mrs Boyd: The Leader of the Opposition's speech today, followed finally by a question, reminded me of his speech in response to the constitutional debate. He loves history and so do I. I also studied it at university, so it is a very particular favourite of mine.

I agree with him that indeed we need to make some changes in the curriculum around history and social studies and the whole way in which our country developed, including civic responsibility. It is exactly this that is going on during the curriculum review that is happening right now. The responses we have had from teachers, trustees and parents indicate that many people in the province agree with the Leader of the Opposition and that we will see some changes resulting from that curriculum review which will strengthen our curriculum in this area.

Mr Nixon: I thank the minister for most of her response, but rather than just wait for the views that may come from the community, would the minister not consider taking a special overt initiative in this regard, bearing in mind that neither the Ontario Teachers' Federation nor any of the concomitant organizations prepared a brief, as far as I know, nor did they appear before the standing committee of the Legislature. So the profession itself does not appear to have any particular interest -- and I do not want to downgrade that, but as an organization -- sufficient to provide its views.

Would the minister not agree that she must take the leadership in this regard and move towards a special project: the improvement of the curriculum, as well as the teaching of history, to achieve the goals that I have tried to put before her?

Hon Mrs Boyd: Our commitment to carrying on the consultative process around curriculum review, which was begun by the previous government, has been made quite clear in the past. It would not be appropriate for me to use my position to put forward my view. This is an education system that needs to win the consensus of all Ontarians, and that is exactly what the process is designed to do. I do not think it would be appropriate for me as an individual to intervene in any curricular matter until all the evidence is in.

The Leader of the Opposition is quite wrong when he suggests that teachers are not interested in this area. I personally, in terms of my correspondence, have had many representations from teachers who are very concerned about this area, and so has the Learning Programs Advisory Council.

1420

Mr Nixon: It would certainly worry me personally if I were to lose any teacher friends -- I understand that -- but on the other hand I do not want the minister, in her condescending excellence, to give anyone who might watch her or read her any misapprehension. I said their professional organizations did not appear before the committee, and if she knows that to be wrong, perhaps she could tell the House that is so.

I would like to say that we have perhaps an additional responsibility on an ongoing basis to assist our young people in becoming familiar not just with the geography but with the people in Canada. While I am very strongly in favour of providing assistance for individuals and classes and sports teams to travel, perhaps to Europe or other places, it seems to me that this Legislature ought to fund and, if necessary, direct the Ministry of Education to provide a structure whereby young people will be travelling not just to Quebec but to other provinces on a planned and plannable basis. A good deal of this is happening, but not as much as happened in the past. I believe -- and I would ask the minister if she would undertake a study of this -- that this sort of approach would provide tremendous benefits in our search for national unity and national strength.

Hon Mrs Boyd: I find it interesting that the Leader of the Opposition feels this would be an appropriate priority at a time when our taxpayers in Ontario are crying out about the cost of education and we are in a time of recession. I certainly believe that travel broadens the mind and assists people to learn more about their world, but we are in a situation right now where we have many calls upon our purse in the Education ministry.

It was with great difficulty that we managed to protect the northern travel plan against the cuts in the budget. I think the Leader of the Opposition, as the former Treasurer of this province, understands exactly how difficult it is to plan and to fund this kind of program so that it is equitable across the province.

TAXATION

Mr Harris: I have a question for the Treasurer. Yesterday was Tax Freedom Day in the United States. That is the day calculated when Americans have finished paying their portion of income in all taxes and can keep the rest of the money to reinvest or to buy things.

Yesterday was Tax Freedom Day in the United States. Last year, Ontario taxpayers did not reach Tax Freedom Day until 5 July. That is almost two months later than the border communities in the United States; far later than any other province in Canada, I might add. In fact, including government debts, Ontario's Tax Freedom Day last year was actually 28 July.

We can blame all of this on the Liberals. I understand that. However, in view of the Treasurer's new tax increases this year, in view of his massive $10-billion debt this year, could he tell the businesses in our border communities and the taxpayers all across Ontario how much later Tax Freedom Day will be in Ontario as a result of his budget?

Hon Mr Laughren: I am not surprised that the leader of the third party is using south of the border as his benchmark.

Interjections.

Hon Mr Laughren: Joseph McCarthy has always bored me.

The Speaker: Are we all relaxed now? We are not going to get so excited as to interrupt the member who is trying to respond.

Hon Mr Laughren: If the leader of the third party thinks that this government is going to hitch its wagon to the star of a nation which has 37 million of its people without any medicare coverage whatsoever, he is sadly mistaken.

I know what is bothering the leader of the third party. I know as well that he does not like the budget that was brought down here a couple of weeks ago. He does not like it at all. What I do not understand is why he is afraid to stand in his place in the order of business around here. He is the next speaker in the budget debate and he will not get up and debate the budget. What is he afraid of?

Mr Harris: The mayors of the border communities will be pleased to know that the Treasurer is not concerned at all about the difference in tax levels between Ontario and the United States.

On 26 April, in the Sudbury Star, the Treasurer said that he had listened to over 100 interest groups outline their priorities with regard to the budget. I would like to quote a few of those who participated in his so-called prebudget consultation. The Canadian Federation of Independent Business said to the Treasurer, "No new taxes or tax increases." The Ontario Real Estate Association said, "The Treasurer should announce no new corporate or new personal income tax increases." The Canadian Manufacturers' Association said, "No introduction of new taxes or tax increases." In fact, I cannot find a submission from any group that called for a $53-billion budget, a 13.5% increase in spending or a $10-billion deficit bill for the taxpayer. I wonder if the Treasurer could tell us why he ignored the groups that came before him for the prebudget consultation.

Hon Mr Laughren: I appreciate the leader of the third party's selective list of people who appeared before me in the prebudget consultation process because I can tell him that for every group that said, "We don't want any more taxes," or, "We don't want an increase in the deficit," there were probably 10 that said they wanted an increase in programs or an increase in subsidies.

The leader of the third party does not seem to understand a very fundamental fact. There was an increase in the deficit, from $3 billion to $9.7 billion. That is a very substantial increase in the deficit. It was a very difficult decision to make to do that, but we decided that in the depths of the worst recession in this province in 50 years we would rather increase the deficit than gut programs in health care, in education and in social services because, believe me, that was the alternative.

Mr Harris: All these groups that made presentations did so to give the Treasurer advice on how we could possibly survive in business and save Ontario jobs. The Ontario Home Builders' Association said, "The province should maintain a strong commitment to deficit control to save Ontario jobs." The Ontario Trucking Association said that, to save its Ontario jobs, a carbon fuels tax on commercial diesel fuel should not be adopted. The Ontario Natural Gas Association said, "Ontario simply cannot afford the budget expenditure path that it is on, if you want to save Ontario jobs."

The Treasurer did not listen to one of those groups that came before him to tell him how to save Ontario jobs. He said in the Sudbury Star, "As a government, we are committed to consultation." These are his lines. "During our first term in office, we hope to open lines of communications with all Ontarians so that consultation is not something that happens only once a year in the Treasurer's office."

Would the Treasurer not agree with me that to live up to that commitment he made in the Sudbury Star, when he brings in a budget setting out a fiscal plan 180 degrees in the opposite direction that all these groups told him he needed to save Ontario jobs, when he brings out a fiscal plan for four years of massive spending in each one of those years, he ought to consult with the people and allow them to come before the standing committee on finance and economic affairs with full hearings on this budget direction?

Hon Mr Laughren: I am not sure whether the leader of the third party is talking about the budget that has already been tabled or next year's budget. I am not sure what he is talking about.

In the budget document itself I indicated -- and I have already written a letter to the Chair of the standing committee on finance and economic affairs to advise me on ways in which we could open up the budget process so that more people could be involved in it. I do believe that there is a better way to do it.

I would also remind members that not only did I have a large number of contingents, interest groups, in to see me, but also the standing committee had a large number of presentations made to it. If the member opposite thinks I did not listen to them, then he has not read the budget, because I indicated in the budget exactly where I did listen to the standing committee and take its advice.

Finally, I would conclude by simply saying that when the leader of the third party talks about the need to protect jobs in this province, it wears a bit thin on this side, given the fact that his federal counterpart cut $100 million out of the Canadian Jobs Strategy.

1430

TVONTARIO

Mrs Marland: What wears a bit thin on this side of the House is that all we hear is the dumping on the federal Conservatives.

My question is to the Minister of Culture and Communications. The minister will remember that earlier this week I raised two examples with him of the questionable use of taxpayers' dollars by TVOntario. I questioned the $2 million that was being spent on renovating a building which it is going to vacate by 1994, with such luxuries as nine televisions in a row in the chairman's office. Also, I mentioned the $125,000 that was spent on a publication that cost $25 a copy that was given away to 5,000 people free of charge.

Since then, another disturbing matter has come to my attention. A historical analysis of TVOntario's expenditures shows that over the two fiscal years 1988-89 and 1990-91, the operating budget in the chairman's office increased by 58%, from $597,000 to $944,000. Imagine spending almost $1 million of TVOntario's operating funds just on the chairman's office.

The Speaker: And the interrogative part?

Mrs Marland: My question to the minister is, does he think this is a reasonable use of taxpayers' money?

Hon Mr Marchese: Speaking to the operating part of the budget of TVO, it gets $63 million, which is a 4% increase over last year. They get other funds in from different sources.

In relation to what is happening in the chairman's office, it is difficult for me to comment on the specifics of that. I am quite willing to get the information that she is asking for and I will get back to her.

Mrs Marland: The decision-making starts at the top, and it is two days since I mentioned those two examples to this minister.

During the 1989-90 fiscal year, operating expenditures by the chairman's office rose by 30.8%. When we look at the whole executive category of TVOntario's budget, the year-over-year increase was even greater, 44.4%, for just one year. In that same year, expenditures for programming rose by 9.6%. That is quite a comparison, a 44% increase for TVOntario's executives versus 9.6% for programming. Yet the chairman of TVOntario had the gall to say last night during a TVOntario pledge break, "We are the most vigilant operators in the existence of our city."

TVOntario's mandate is to provide educational broadcasting services.

The Speaker: And the question, please?

Mrs Marland: This is my question. It is not to provide luxury accommodation, sky-high salaries and executive benefits to its executive. I ask this minister, in light of the information that he has for this important public service to the people of Ontario, which we support, will this minister admit to this House that there has been serious mismanagement at TVOntario and outline what steps he will take to ensure that it does not happen again?

Hon Mr Marchese: I take seriously all the issues concerning this agency, as indeed all the 13 agencies that are connected to me, which include financial management, taxes and representation. But in relation to the budget, TVOntario is now receiving from us $63 million, which includes a 4% increase. Last year they got a 3% increase. They also get special capital dollars, including special project dollars from different ministries as they relate to AIDS education, as they relate to drugs education, which may reflect some of the increase that the member is speaking to.

In relation to issues of management, I would like to ask the member to remember that it takes some time to be able to get information that people need. I am taking the appropriate steps, reasonable steps, to make sure that when issues are raised about certain allegations, they are dealt with properly. I have done that and am doing that. As soon as we have the information, I will provide that to the member

Mrs Marland: The minister is missing the entire point. It is not how much money we give them or how much money they solicit from the public in their fund-raising, it is how it is spent. I am telling the minister that the increase in the executive offices was 44.5%.

The Speaker: And your supplementary?

Mrs Marland: My supplementary is this: The increase in the executive offices is 44% and the increase in programming is 9.6%. I want to say that we are disappointed that this minister is hesitant to agree with the concerns we have, and I would like to bring to his attention some other comments that the chairman for TVOntario made last night during the pledge break. The chairman said: "We are constantly examining and re-examining our expenses. We look more carefully at our budget than, I would suggest, any other agency or piece of government anywhere."

The Speaker: A question, please.

Mrs Marland: Considering what has already come to light about TVOntario, that is a pretty scary thought.

The Speaker: Place a question, please.

Mrs Marland: But the most ridiculous statement of all was this, and I quote --

The Speaker: No. Will the member take her seat, please. Could we stop the clock for a moment? I need a little bit of help here. The members asked me quite rightfully earlier on that we find a speedier way to handle all of the questions and responses so that we could accommodate more members in question period. In order to do that, it is very helpful if members will succinctly place their questions and, of course, succinctly have their responses. I think as we move through question period, if members would attempt to do that, it will make it much easier for all concerned, including the Chair.

New question, the member for St Catharines.

Mrs Marland: Mr Speaker, I am on a leader's question and I am entitled to two supplementaries.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Just a moment. It is the member for Mississauga South. I have not heard her point of order. I assumed that you had completed because you appeared unable to place a question. If you can place a question within 10 seconds, then go ahead.

Mrs Marland: I can. I would like the minister to answer this question --

Some hon members: Nine, eight, seven, six, five, four, three, two, one.

The Speaker: Stop. That is grossly unfair. The member for Mississauga South has been given an opportunity to place a question within a short time frame. She will be allowed that opportunity.

1440

Mrs Marland: For the benefit of the minister, he has to hear this one sentence in order to answer the question. The chairman said, "We have always received less than inflation for our budget and we've had to eat it and that's a great discipline to ensure that you get the most out of our dollar." When we look at the TVOntario budget again and we look at a total increase of 26%, roughly five times the inflation rate, will this minister tell this House how he will ensure that TVOntario is accountable for the appropriate use of taxpayers, dollars allotted to it?

Hon Mr Marchese: I have answered the question with respect to the increase that TVO has gotten. It was not 26%, it was 3% last year and 4% this year.

The member has raised a number of questions, and allegations have been made in the past. I have said we are looking into that and I think the member will appreciate that it takes time to do a review, which is what we are doing. As soon as we have the information, we will provide it to her.

OPP CUTBACKS

Mr Bradley: I have a question for the Solicitor General. It is a question about the removal of yet another important tradition in the province of Ontario and it arises from an announcement which appears to have not been made. It comes from one of my constituents, who I think put it succinctly. She said:

"As a mother of two Ontario Provincial Police officers, both my husband and I have enjoyed the music of the band" -- she is referring of course to the OPP Pipes and Drums -- "at the graduation ceremonies at Brampton and Aylmer. It never fails to bring a lump to my throat when the band plays Amazing Grace with such tremendous dignity, skill and emotion.

"In everyone's life, one particular incident will stand out as especially memorable: a hot August day in Gogama, Ontario, when the OPP pipe and drum band came to town. The stands outside the community hall were crammed with residents from rural areas and the town. It really did not matter what language one spoke, everyone understood the language of music. What a day it was for community relations."

Would the Solicitor General inform us why he is putting the OPP Golden Helmets and the pipe and drum band on the chopping block?

Interjections.

The Speaker: While I am certainly not encouraging somnolence, I would appreciate perhaps some curbing of enthusiasm so that people who are attempting to respond will have the opportunity to do so.

Hon Mr Farnan: When it comes to a budget, there are some tough decisions to be made. We met with the OPP commissioner, and the OPP commissioner, faced with some choices, decided that a very tough choice had to be made. The reality of the matter is that our fine officers who do such an outstanding job right across this province have to stretch resources. The opposition would want us to spend, spend, spend, but there is a limit. Some tough choices have to be made and, with much reluctance, it was the decision of the OPP, its recommendation to me, that rather than have cuts in programs and service, it very reluctantly cut this service that the member refers to.

Mr Bradley: We are talking about a budget of some $52 billion This minister is talking about removing a certain portion. At a time when police officers in this province feel somewhat under siege, and at a time when police morale in the province of Ontario is probably at an all-time low, and at a time when people are concerned about the removal of important and vital traditions --

Mr Scott: Symbols.

Mr Bradley: -- and symbols which are very significant to so many, why would the Solicitor General allow both these institutions to be removed? Will he give an assurance to the House that these will be restored and that he will overrule his civil servants and make a decision on behalf of the people of this province?

Hon Mr Farnan: As Solicitor General, my first responsibility is the safety and security of the people of this province. I disagree with the member. I have confidence in the men and women who wear the blue. I have confidence in the fine job they do for the people of this province. I have every confidence they will provide the best possible security for the people of this province and I am not prepared to cut programs or services.

I also want to add that this band has committed to me on all its obligations for this year. It has also offered to put in some volunteer time and is looking at other funding opportunities to keep going.

ONTARIO HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

Mr Cousens: This question is for the Minister of Citizenship. In response to an Orders and Notices question I placed with the minister, I was informed that as of 30 November 1990 a total of 2,950 complaints were pending before the Ontario Human Rights Commission. The cases that were closed between April and November of last year took an average of 13 months to resolve.

The minister will also be aware that $3 million was allocated by her ministry in May 1989 to address the backlog of cases before the commission. Upon making the announcement, the then Minister of Citizenship stated that 75% of the increase would go directly to investigation and complaint resolution. Will the minister give this House an accounting of how this $3 million is being used and why the average time to close a case is still 13 months?

Hon Ms Ziemba: Since coming to this place on 1 October and prior to being here, we have been very concerned about the backlog of cases. Obviously we want to make sure there is a resolution. People's rights have to be enshrined and the resolution of a case has to be ensured.

The funding that came through was to be used for staff and to do a new case management program. When I came on board on 1 October, I asked how we were going to address the backlog in the Ontario Human Rights Commission and I was assured there was a new case management program that had just started. They had just set this in place in September. Obviously they needed a few months to see how they could address the backlog and whether it would work.

I have been meeting with the chief commissioner on a very frequent basis, sometimes every two weeks, to see if this particular way of addressing the backlog has actually taken effect and has worked. We have now gone into a few months of trying that process and have seen that the process has not worked well. We are trying to come up with a new process. Obviously I had to give it some time. It was set in place before I had come into this place, before we had started and we had --

The Chair: Would the minister conclude her remarks,please.

Hon Ms Ziemba: -- to see that this would work.

We also set in place some other new ideas and I will explain those in a supplementary if you like.

1450

Mr Cousens: It is obvious that the Ontario Human Rights Commission is not working. There are the few months that were given and then add another few months, because it is more than just a couple of months since the minister took power. We have a situation described in the papers today where an officer was told to go and seek help elsewhere when that officer went to the human rights commission for assistance. Both the minister and the human rights commissioner have been quoted on CBC radio as indicating that they feel additional staff are needed to handle the backlog. Clearly the original $3 million was invested for that and still is not working.

In May 1989, the former commissioner, Raj Anand, indicated that the average time to resolve a case was 11 months. At that time, there were some 2,228 cases backlogged in the system. Just about everyone in the province is incensed at the number of cases pending and that the time it takes to resolve these cases has increased, when the taxpayers have already spent some $3 million to solve the problem.

Would the minister tell me where the $3 million has gone. If she does not know, will she commit to an examination of how the $3 million was spent by the standing committee on public accounts so that we can have a full reporting of where the $3 million really went?

Hon Ms Ziemba: I am pleased that the member is concerned about the backlog. I think everybody in this House is, as is the other opposition party. As I stated earlier, human rights is very important in this province and we want to address those issues.

The backlog was there. I gave them a chance to try the new case management program they had initiated and started. Obviously it has not worked well. We are looking at some other initiatives to make sure the backlog is cleared up. We have just appointed five new commissioners to go in who have a very extensive background in human rights and civil liberties. They have good background in management as well. They are going in with an idea to try to see if they can give it some fresh incentive.

The $3 million that the member is questioning me about has been spent in hiring some new staff. It has also been spent in some various new methods and programs to see how to use different initiatives to address human rights. I am concerned. We are certainly going to make sure the money is duly allocated in the proper process. But the most important thing is not the dollars spent; it is to make sure that human rights are enshrined, that people have their day in court, that they are not being discriminated against and that they are not having any violation of their human rights.

Mr Stockwell: Don't worry about the money.

Hon Ms Ziemba: I would like to take exception to that remark by the member for Etobicoke West. Human rights is more important than dollars.

FOREST MANAGEMENT

Ms Haeck: My question today is for the Minister of Natural Resources. On Tuesday of this week the minister made a statement in this House unveiling the ministry's sustainable forestry package. First of all I would like to congratulate the minister for his exciting new program and the direction of forest management in Ontario.

Specifically, I would like to address the part of this announcement which pertains to the private woodland strategy. Representing St Catharines-Brock, I believe this will be important to a number of my constituents. Could the minister please elaborate on the strategies he announced that are for the protection of wildlife heritage and habitat improvement.

Hon Mr Wildman: I appreciate the member's interest in the sustainable forestry announcement. This is important for southern Ontario as well as northern Ontario. We all recognize there are unique features of forest such as the Carolinian forest in the southern part of the province, and as part of natural heritage it must be protected.

In the agricultural areas of the province, it is important that we improve woodlots. We have a co-operative research and technology program with the Ministry of Agriculture and Food which focuses on small woodlot ecology as well as urban forestry and small-scale silviculture. This will assist in protecting the fragile farm lands that we have in southern Ontario against erosion. I appreciate the interest of the member.

Ms Haeck: The minister outlines a challenging new direction that I think will go far in meeting the expectations of land owners and society. One thing that will ensure the participation of people in this program is the commitment to setting up local advisory committees. Would the minister please explain what he envisions these committees will look like and who will be involved at that time.

Hon Mr Wildman: We will be setting up advisory committees to keep our commitment to full public participation. We do not want to look at projects on a first-come, first-served basis. We have to evaluate them in developing policy and delivering the program for private woodlands, so we will have these advisory committees that will provide us with practical and balanced planning.

I cannot tell the member exactly how the committees will operate right now, except that I suspect they will meet three or four times a year and will be based on broad community membership. This is a grass-roots approach and will be a way of improving our partnerships in resource management across southern Ontario as well as in the north.

BUDGET

Mr Phillips: My question is to the Treasurer. I think the Treasurer has tried to alleviate some of the concern about the $1-billion deficit and future deficits by suggesting we should worry a little less about it because a significant part of it is a capital deficit. In fact, if I quote the Treasurer properly here, he is saying: "We're trying to make sure that people understand that there's a difference between capital investment and paying for operating expenditures. If we have a deficit in our capital account, that's not as serious as having an ongoing deficit in the operating account." I think that is an accurate quote.

As the Treasurer said earlier, he may appreciate that we think we had some expert testimony at the standing committee on finance and economic affairs. We heard testimony that frankly was almost the opposite of that quote I just gave the Treasurer. In fact, one expert's testimony said: "I think it would be counterproductive to pretend that the capital part of your budget was not as big a part of the deficit as the operating. I think it would be seen to be so transparent to try and do that either through a separate agency or through a separate capital account."

I wonder if the Treasurer could indicate to us which is right here, his opinion or the expert testimony that we heard.

Hon Mr Laughren: First of all, I agree with the assessment that if one were to try to establish two accounts for the purpose of disguising the consolidated deficit, that would be so transparent as to be downright stupid. I tried to make it very clear that showing the capital account and an operating account would still require, at least as we see it, having a consolidated number, a consolidated deficit or surplus perhaps, but anyway, a consolidated deficit.

I think setting it up for that purpose would be foolish indeed. What we intend to do is to set it up in two separate accounts. I think there is a qualitative difference in establishing what goes into capital and what goes into operating, because what goes into capital is an investment for perhaps decades and decades, whereas the operating account is to pay for the ongoing programs of the government. I think there is a difference there. I am not sure there is a difference in view between what the testimony was and what I feel about it as well.

Mr Phillips: I am glad there is not too much of a difference, because the quote I gave the Treasurer from the committee actually was his own quote. That was in February of this year. He said it would be counterproductive to pretend the capital part of his budget was not as big a part of the deficit as his operating part. The Treasurer's other quote later on, though, is that there is a difference and that people appreciate the difference.

I tend to agree with how the Treasurer felt in February as opposed to how he felt in the budget, perhaps, that it is just as big a part of the deficit. For that reason I ask the Treasurer this question: He is running a $9.7-billion deficit now. I think over the next three years he is estimating an $8-billion to $9-billion deficit. Then, even as we head into 1997-98, he is assuming he may have a balanced operating budget, but I think he will see a deficit in the capital count of at least $5 billion a year into the next century.

If the Treasurer had continued to use the accounting practices of the past, that would show up as a continuing at least $5-billion deficit --

The Speaker: And the supplementary?

Mr Phillips: -- in spite of the fact that revenues are increasing around 10%. The Treasurer is planning on running record deficits in the province well into the next recession, if we ever get out of this recession, through good times. He is predicting some very good times and in spite of that is running at least a $5-billion deficit for the foreseeable future.

My question is this: Will he at least look at that decision now and make some assurances to the people of this province that as we head into the good times, he will set a date when he will have a balanced budget? I would suggest that he set that date no later than 1997-98 and not look at continuing to run an at least $5-billion deficit for the foreseeable future.

Hon Mr Laughren: I think this is my lucky day, that I did not disagree with myself on the member's first question.

In the medium-term fiscal outlook which is in the budget, we indicated -- the member is quite right -- that we would be down, on the operating deficit, to $3 billion by 1994-95, and eliminating that part of the deficit, the operating part, three years after that. But I think it would be a bit much for me to stand in my place in 1991 and say what the capital deficit is going to be in 1997. I could make all sorts of promises and statements that would sound good today, but I am not sure it would be appropriate, because I really would have difficulty predicting what that would be.

I would make one commitment, though. When the member talks about continuing high deficits, record deficits, I would remind him that in terms of all sorts of measurements, with the deficit dropping and revenues going up, it no longer becomes record deficits in all sorts of measurements -- certainly not as high as the deficit that the Tories in Saskatchewan incurred in 1987.

1500

SEVERANCE AND TERMINATION AGREEMENTS

Mr Tilson: My question is to the Chairman of Management Board. The Management Board approved $701,400 for severance and termination payments in the Premier's office for the fiscal 1990-91 period. This is an amount which equals 38.5% of the total wage and salary bill for the Premier's office in the last fiscal year. Would the minister provide us, and the Ontario taxpayer, with the information on the number, the structure, the terms and costs of the individual termination and severance packages paid by the Premier's office in the last fiscal year?

Hon Ms Lankin: I certainly do not have that kind of information with me. The severance packages that were paid were in fact severing employees from the Premier's office of the previous government. They were worked out in the context of the previous government's Premier's office. What is available in terms of a breakdown of that information, I have to say to the member, I am not sure myself. I will take a look into that, and if I can get that information to him, I will make it available. If I cannot, I will let him know the reasons why.

Mr Tilson: I am not sure, of course, whether the minister is saying she will give it or she will not give it. The question is being asked --

Interjections.

Mr Tilson: Well, it is a very vague answer. The response is unacceptable, particularly since last week her colleague in Financial Institutions was busily endorsing the interest of the fairness and the accountability of a proposal to require senior executives in publicly traded companies to disclose their take-home pay to shareholders. So I take the position that she is not giving it to me. If she gives it to me, wonderful, but I do not think she is going to.

In light of this refusal to provide this information, can she explain how we, as members of the assembly and the public, are to ensure that the Ontario taxpayers are not being asked for golden handshakes, platinum parachutes and sweetheart deals, either in the Premier's office or elsewhere in the public service? We want to know the details of these deals. Why should the taxpayers, the shareholders of this province, not have the same right to information on the compensation packages as a shareholder in a publicly traded company? I asked by way of Orders and Notices some time ago with respect to specific details on all of this information, and all I get are magic numbers. I want the details.

Hon Ms Lankin: I do not think the member should at all take from my response that I am not going to give it to him. Quite frankly, I do not know what breakdown is available. That was worked out in the Premier's office of the previous government. In fact, I agree in general with the comments the member makes in terms of openness about those sorts of figures, but I am not aware of whether or not the agreements that were reached in terms of severance for those people contain clauses in which people on both sides were unable to talk about them. I do not know those things until I look into it for him. I am prepared to look into it for him and I will let him know the response as soon as I can.

TOBACCO GROWERS

Mr Jamison: My question is to the Minister of Agriculture and Food. As some members of the House are aware, the Minister of Agriculture and Food recently met with the tobacco board to discuss the recent tax increases on tobacco products and the impact of such increases on tobacco growers in this province.

My question to the minister of agriculture is this: What plans does he have to work out a solution to safeguard the wellbeing of tobacco growers in light of this level of taxation?

Hon Mr Buchanan: The member is quite right; we met with the marketing board yesterday morning to discuss the issue, and we had a very frank discussion, I might add. We have agreed to sit down and discuss with the board basically three topics: We will look at what we can do for the export enhancement side of it and look to the export market as a possible solution. We are going to look at various adjustment programs. Some adjustment programs have been in place in the past; we will look at them and see what we can do with our federal counterparts to address the longer-term proposal. We do believe it probably needs to be a long-term program put in place which will help the individuals and the communities where the tobacco growers live.

Mr Jamison: I am encouraged to hear that the minister has met with the board and discussed the ongoing problem that affects a significant part of southern Ontario, in particular the counties of Oxford, Elgin and Norfolk and the agricultural community in those particular areas. I believe it is time that we took this type of initiative.

How soon does the minister expect to begin these discussions to consider the assistance programs for tobacco growers in light of the fact that the areas of taxation are twofold, one federal and the second provincial, and hoping that there would be joint co-operation in any drive in that area?

Hon Mr Buchanan: Yes, there is a meeting scheduled for officials. Provincial and federal agricultural officials are meeting with the marketing board this Friday to begin discussions to look at longer-term programs. There is a lot of concern from the growers' and the producers' side. There are contracts signed for this particular growing crop, but we need to address the 1992 crop and we hope to have some kind of a program in place for announcement in the fall of 1991.

POLLUTION CONTROL

Mrs Sullivan: My question is for the Minister of the Environment. Tile minister will know that there was a chemical spill yesterday into the St Clair River. The minister will also know that the company involved had committed to convert to a closed-loop technology by the end of the decade. The incentive to move in that direction was largely a result of the Liberal MISA program, the municipal-industrial strategy for abatement, which was aimed at achieving a virtual elimination of toxic discharge into our waterways.

In opposition, the minister was very critical of the MISA program, saying it was not moving quickly enough. She and the now Premier promised that a New Democratic Party government would eliminate toxic discharge into Ontario waterways. Since making the promise to achieve zero discharge, the minister has been silent on how and when she plans to achieve this goal. I am asking that the minister inform the House today when we can expect to see her timetable for her abatement regulations.

Hon Mrs Grier: Let me respond to the premise of the member's question, which was the spill by Dow Chemical into the St Clair River, because I know that other members are interested in yet another event in that area. Members will recall that I had issued a control order to Dow Chemical asking it to expedite the closed-loop system that would remove its discharges from the river. Unfortunately, Dow chose to appeal that order, and so a lengthy hearing has been under way and no decision has been rendered.

1510

With respect to the MISA program, I am pleased to be able to tell the member that I have asked my ministry to review that program. In my opinion, as an opposition member and as minister, that program was too far into the future, was not going to in fact move us towards zero discharge, and had been moving far too slowly under the auspices of the previous government. So I have asked for a review, and when that is completed I will be glad to bring it before the House.

Mrs Sullivan: This is a puzzling announcement from the minister. The minister said in estimates committee "Once we have resolved some of our waste management priorities, we will move on to MISA." It seems to me that not only did the people of Ontario not elect a new government that was only dealing with one environmental issue at a time, but surely the matters of clean water are of great importance. To date in this House we have not heard anything from the minister, including this announcement relating to MISA, on any issue other than garbage.

Does this statement today from the minister mean that she has abandoned MISA altogether? Does it mean that she is going to come forward with the eight other MISA abatement regulations? How does she define "zero discharge"? We need to know about those issues.

Hon Mrs Grier: I wish that as Minister of the Environment I had the luxury of dealing with one issue at a time. Unfortunately, that has not been the condition in which I have found myself since 1 October.

Let me assure the member that MISA is a program that has provided us with a very sound base of data. As members will recall, MISA is a two-phase program: the gathering of vast amounts of data about the various industrial sectors, which is not yet finally completed, and then the implementation of control regulations. The collection of the data is almost completed and has been reviewed in the case of some of the sectors. I am looking at how quickly we can move towards the control regulations and how we can strengthen those control regulations from the program that was contemplated by my predecessors.

APOLOGY

Mr Morin: On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: I wish to rise to apologize to the member for Welland-Thorold. It has come to my attention that an article appeared in a publication and that has caused me great concern. My concern is that the material for the article appears to have originated from my constituency office in Gloucester.

Once this matter was drawn to my attention, I investigated and discovered that a member of my staff had sent the document in question by facsimile, entirely on his own initiative. I dismissed the employee and wholeheartedly apologize to the member for Welland-Thorold for any embarrassment this may have caused.

I have already apologized today, personally, to the member for Welland-Thorold.

The Speaker: I appreciate the member's point of privilege, and no doubt the member for Welland-Thorold does as well.

WRITTEN QUESTIONS

Mr Cousens: Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order under standing order 95(d). On 22 November I tabled Orders and Notices paper question 56, which reads as follows:

"Would the Minister of Citizenship list the cost of all ministry publications, with details on how each was published and how contracts were awarded, including the cost of translation?"

Standing order 95(d) states:

"The minister shall answer such written questions within 14 calendar days unless he or she indicates that more time is required because the answer will be costly or time-consuming or that he or she declines to answer, in which case a notation shall be made on the Orders and Notices paper following the question indicating that the minister has made an interim answer, the approximate date that the information will be available, or that the minister has declined to answer, as the case may be."

Order paper questions are supposed to be answered within 14 days, yet it has been almost five months since I tabled this question. An interim answer was tabled on 18 December 1990, but that answer predicted the information would be available on 15 April 1991. It has now been almost a month since the date that information was to be made available.

The failure to answer order paper questions is also a breach of privilege under the Legislative Assembly Act, paragraph 45(1)6, which states that a breach of privilege occurs when there is a refusal "to produce papers before the assembly or a committee thereof."

As a member of this assembly I feel I have a right to the access to information that is essential for me to do my job as a representative of the people of Ontario and for the riding of Markham. Mr Speaker, it is your responsibility to ensure that the standing orders of this assembly are complied with. The government has shown blatant disrespect for our standing orders by not answering this question. I ask you to take the necessary steps to enforce the standing orders of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

The Speaker: The member for Markham indeed has a valid point of order.

Hon Mr Charlton: On the point of order, Mr Speaker: I would like to inform the Speaker that the answer to question 56 has been tabled today.

Mr Cousens: Today? Why did he not give it to me before I went through this?

On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I cannot stand this. Here we are in the House trying to get things going and they do not tell us what is going on. He comes along and says, "Well, we just tabled it." He is just making himself look ridiculous. He is going to give politicians a bad name.

Mr Speaker, I would hope that in your own good way you will find some decorous method of making these guys be more responsive to all the questions on the order paper, so that we do not have to come back and haunt this House day in and day out trying to remind them to do their job. I find this just a contemptible approach to the House and to members opposite who are trying to serve the people of the province of Ontario.

I would like to ask, on the point of order, why it is that the honourable minister did not come along and indicate to me that he was going to table an answer today when in fact they said they were going to table the answer on 15 April? Mr Speaker, could you give me some explanation on that, through this minister.

The Speaker: I think the member knows full well that the Speaker is not in a position to be able to resolve differences of opinion among members. However, I am also sure that all honourable members have a great respect for the standing orders and will do their utmost to maintain the integrity of our institution here.

1520

Mr Carr: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I hope I am as lucky to get the answer back today as well, so I will rise on a point of order under standing order 95(d).

On 22 November I tabled an order paper question numbered 108, which reads as follows:

"Would the Minister of Corrections state the ministry's policy regarding the incarceration of mentally ill inmates in provincial correctional facilities, and the provision of psychiatric services in provincial correctional facilities?"

Standing order 95(d) states:

"The minister shall answer such written questions within 14 calendar days unless he or she indicates that more time is required because the answer will be costly or time-consuming or that he or she declines to answer, in which case a notation shall be made on the Orders and Notices paper following the question indicating that the minister has made an interim answer, the approximate date that the information will be available, or that the minister has declined to answer, as the case may be."

It has now been close to six months and the failure to answer this order paper question is a breach of privilege under the Legislative Assembly Act, section 45, which states that a breach of privilege occurs when there is a refusal "to produce papers before the assembly or a committee thereof."

As a member of the assembly I feel that I have the right to the access to the information that is essential for me to do my job as a representative of the people of Ontario.

Mr Speaker, it is your responsibility to ensure that the standing orders of this assembly are complied with. The government has shown a blatant disrespect for the standing orders by not answering this question. I ask that you take the necessary steps to enforce the standing orders of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

The Speaker: The member for Oakville South indeed has a valid point of order. No doubt the minister to whom his concerns are directed is aware of his concerns and he should expect a response.

Mr Runciman: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I, as well, am rising on a point of order under standing order 95(d).

On 22 November 1990 I tabled order paper question 94, which reads as follows:

"Inquiry of the ministry -- Would the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations provide the following information for the fiscal years 1987-88, 1988-89, 1989-90 and the year-to-date: (1) the number of speechwriters employed full-time and on contract each year; (2) for each speaking engagement attended by the minister or deputy minister, the topic of the speech or remarks, the name of the individual speech writer, the page length of the address, and the contract fee paid or anticipated to be paid?"

Standing order 95(d) states:

"The minister shall answer such written questions within 14 calendar days unless he or she indicates that more time is required because the answer will be costly or time-consuming or that he or she declines to answer, in which case a notation shall be made on the Orders and Notices paper following the question indicating that the minister has made an interim answer, the approximate date that the information will be available, or that the minister has declined to answer, as the case may be."

Order paper questions are supposed to be answered within 14 days, yet it has been almost six months since I tabled this question. An interim answer was provided on 13 December. That answer predicted that the information would be available on 15 January 1991. It has now been approximately four months since the date the information was to be made available.

The failure to answer order paper questions is also a breach of privilege under the Legislative Assembly Act, paragraph 45(1)6, which states that a breach of privilege occurs when there is a refusal "to produce papers before the assembly or a committee thereof."

As a member of this assembly I feel that I have the right to the access to information that is essential for me to do my job as a representative of the people of Ontario.

Mr Speaker, it is your responsibility to ensure the standing orders of this assembly are complied with. The government has shown blatant disrespect for our standing orders by not answering this question. I ask you to take the necessary steps to enforce the standing orders of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

Hon Mr Charlton: On the same point of order, Mr Speaker: The answer to question 94 to which the member has referred was tabled this afternoon. Mr Speaker, for the help of yourself and other members who may be raising concerns, there were 39 order paper questions in total outstanding. Twenty-four were tabled earlier this afternoon; 13 more will be tabled before the afternoon has concluded. The last remaining two will be ready tomorrow for tabling on Monday.

The Speaker: As the member for Markham noted earlier, there is a little communication difficulty here in that, if I understand the procedure properly, having tabled them does not guarantee automatically that information will flow that day to those who had inquired in the first place. If it is of assistance to the members, perhaps those who placed questions and who are in the chamber, if they are so inclined, could check with the table to determine whether or not in fact the answers have been provided this afternoon. That would save them having to raise it as a point of order.

Mr Cousens: Mr Speaker, on a point of order: When the minister stands in the House and makes a statement such as he did, we might be faced with the same kind of problem that we are addressing, the very thing the member for Leeds-Grenville has just raised, in that we are getting interim answers. The problem we have is that on dates going back to November, questions have been tabled, we had interim answers on 18 December and then they said that the information would be available on 15 April, far in excess of the 30-day time frame.

Now we come along and the minister is supposedly leading this House to believe that these answers will be complete and thorough. I have a sense that we would not be seeing these answers at all if it were not for the leadership of the member for Nipissing, who has said that this House will stand still for a while until we have a debate outside this Legislature to discuss the budget, which is an anathema to Conservatives, an anathema to business people and something that we in this House are going to do everything to make sure that --

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

Of course, the Chair has no way of knowing the content of the answers which have been supplied. I have simply made what I think is a reasonable suggestion to all members who may have an interest in whether or not the responses have indeed been tabled. That would perhaps assist all of us in trying to expedite the business.

Mrs Witmer: Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I rise on a point of order under standing order 95(d).

On 22 November 1990 I tabled order paper question 248, which reads as follows:

"Would the Minister of Labour provide the names of each of the consultants commissioned by the ministry in fiscal years 1987-88, 1988-89 and 1989-90, the total expenditure on each report and the details of the tendering process for each report or, if applicable, the reason why the contract was not put up for tender?"

Standing order 95(d) states:

"The minister shall answer such written questions within 14 calendar days unless he or she indicates that more time is required because the answer will be costly or time-consuming or that he or she declines to answer, in which case a notation shall be made on the Orders and Notices paper following the question indicating that the minister has made an interim answer, the approximate date that the information will be available, or that the minister has declined to answer, as the case may be."

Order paper questions are supposed to be answered within 14 days, yet it has been almost six months since I tabled this question. An interim answer was provided on 13 December, but that answer predicted that the information would be available on 18 April.

The failure to answer order paper questions is also a breach of privilege under the Legislative Assembly Act, paragraph 45(1)6, which states that a breach of privilege occurs when there is a refusal "to produce papers before the assembly or a committee thereof"

As a member of this assembly I have a right to such information that is essential for me to do my job as a representative of the people of Ontario. Mr Speaker, it is your responsibility to ensure that the standing orders of this assembly are complied with. The government has shown disrespect for our standing orders by not answering this question. I would ask you to take the necessary steps to enforce the standing orders of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

The Speaker: To the member for Waterloo North, you have raised a valid point of order and no doubt the minister to whom your concerns are directed is aware of those concerns and you should anticipate a response.

1530

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

Mrs Coppen moved that notwithstanding standing order 94(h), the requirement for notice be waived with respect to ballot item 20.

Mr Cousens: I want to speak to this for a moment if I could. If I understand correctly, the acting House leader, the government whip, has really moved that it is notwithstanding standing order 94(h), which reads, "At least 14 calendar days, notice must be given for any item to be considered in the private members' time and all bills to be debated must be introduced or notices of resolutions tabled not later than the Tuesday of the second week prior to the week in which the item is to be debated."

That is a standard statement in the Legislature. We have had precedent in the past and when this happens, it is a matter for the House to either agree unanimously or to proceed with it, or if the House does not fully agree, we have had a chance to give it further thought.

I wonder why it is that the government is trying to change things around all the time. I have a sense that the government is not totally sure of how it wants to run things. They say one thing when they are in opposition. Now that they are in government, they are trying to shift it around and there is a certain uncertainty that prevails. That uncertainty is also prevalent in the business climate of this province, as people are looking at the budget this government has brought forward, a budget that is upsetting people. It causes me to have great concern about what it is trying to do right now.

1604

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

Ayes-70

Abel, Allen, Arnott, Bisson, Buchanan, Carr, Charlton, Churley, Cooke, Cooper, Coppen, Cordiano, Cousens, Curling, Dadamo, Drainville, Duignan, Elston, Ferguson, Fletcher, Frankford, Gigantes, Grier, Hansen, Harnick, Harrington, Hayes, Henderson, Huget, Jamison, Johnson, Jordan, Klopp, Kormos, Lankin, Lessard, Malkowski, MacKinnon, Mammoliti, Marchese, Mathyssen, McClelland, Miclash, Mills, Morrow, Murdock, S., O'Connor, Offer, O'Neill, Y., Owens, Perruzza, Philip, E., Phillips, G., Pilkey, Rizzo, Runciman, Ruprecht, Silipo, Sola, Sutherland, Turnbull, Ward, B., Ward, M., Waters, Wessenger, White, Wilson, G., Winninger, Wiseman, Witmer.

Nays-0

Mr Cousens: I move to adjourn the House, Mr Speaker.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Villeneuve): The honourable member is out of order. We are still at the introduction of motions.

Mrs Coppen moved that the House proceed to the orders of the day.

Mr Cousens: I think it is taking away an opportunity for this House to deal with business that is part of our standing orders.

The Acting Speaker: This is a non-debatable motion. 1639

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

Ayes 51; nays 20.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT (EMPLOYEE WAGE PROTECTION PROGRAM), 1991 / LOI DE 1991 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LES NORMES D'EMPLOI (PROGRAMME DE PROTECTION DES SALAIRES DES EMPLOYÉS)

Mr Mackenzie moved second reading of Bill 70, An Act to amend the Employment Standards Act to provide for an Employee Wage Protection Program and to make certain other amendments.

M. Mackenzie propose la deuxième lecture du projet de loi 70, Loi portant modification de la Loi sur les normes d'emploi par création d'un Programme de protection des salaires des employés et par adoption de certaines autres modifications.

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I am pleased to introduce for second reading Bill 70 amending the Employment Standards Act to create the employee wage protection program. This marks a significant step in protecting the workers of this province during these difficult economic times. It is a promise we made in the throne speech and it remains a priority of this government.

I am confident that all members in the House will recognize the importance of this legislation. We are all aware that every region of this province, every town and every city, has suffered job losses through plant closures, bankruptcies or insolvencies. The other members no doubt are familiar with many of the stories of their constituents and the problems they have experienced.

There is much talk about jobs, the economy and the recession as if these were abstract or distant events. What this government wants to talk about is people and how they and their families will cope with the loss of their livelihood. The employee wage protection program helps us to do just that. It is an important part of this government's comprehensive program to help laid-off workers and it represents a significant achievement in strengthening the rights of workers in the province.

It is a sad fact that when workers lose their jobs, they often lose some of their earned wages, vacation pay, severance pay or termination pay. This is money they have earned. This is money that legally belongs to them. Not only do some workers find themselves suddenly without a job, they are also without the wages they have earned at a time when they need it most.

The statistics we see are distressing. It is estimated that in the 1982 recession, on average over 20 workers lost their jobs in each business bankruptcy. Using these figures, we can estimate that some 60,000 workers were victims of bankruptcies in Ontario in 1990.

According to the federal laws that govern bankruptcies, workers are considered unsecured creditors. This means they are among the last in line to receive their earned wages. Practically speaking, under that system they have little or no chance whatsoever of obtaining the money owed them by their employers. Not only are these employees unable to collect money they are owed, they are also without a job. I am sure the honourable members are aware of the personal anguish this can cause.

However, it is not just bankruptcy that causes these kinds of situations. There are times when an employer does not comply for other reasons with an order to pay issued by the employment standards branch of my ministry. Under current laws, the only recourse to a refusal to pay is through the courts. This is a time-consuming exercise dragging on for months if not years, and in the majority of cases the worker never gets the money owing. This is money that belongs to the workers, yet in cases of bankruptcy and in many cases of failure to pay the worker is unable to collect.

This is unacceptable. Why should a worker be denied money that has been earned because a company goes bankrupt? Why should a worker be denied money that is owing because an employer does not comply with a legal and binding order to pay? This program will help to remedy that situation.

Bill 70 provides for the establishment of the employee wage protection program to ensure that workers receive the wages and vacation pay along with severance and termination pay they are owed when a company becomes insolvent or fails to pay. Employees qualified for compensation will be able to receive a maximum of $5,000 from the program. In some cases the $5,000 will not cover the total owing, but we believe this amount will provide a substantial measure of protection. This is especially true of lower-paid workers who are of course the most vulnerable. In addition, employment standards officers will continue efforts to recover from the employer the full amount that is owing.

The employee wage protection program will be retroactive to 1 October 1990, the day this government assumed office.

Since the Premier made his announcement of the establishment of the program, approximately 13,000 workers have submitted claims for unpaid wages to the employment standards branch of my ministry. My ministry estimates that some 56,000 workers will apply for assistance in the first 18 months of the program. It is estimated that the costs for this initial one-and-a-half-year period will be approximately $175 million. The program will be financed out of the government's general revenue. This amount reflects both the 18-month period and the current economic situation. When the economy gets back on track, the yearly expenditure of the employee wage protection program will be much lower. As fewer companies are put in financial difficulty, the pressure on the program will ease, resulting in a much more manageable cost for the Treasury.

It would be wonderful to predict that one day we might not need a program such as this, but today the grim reality shows that it is a very dear necessity. I would like to stress that this coverage is neither a gift nor a grant; it is the payment of money that workers have earned and that is owed to them. The wage protection program is designed to provide administrative recourse for workers to obtain the money that is rightfully theirs.

Strong efforts will be made by my ministry to recover the money paid out by the program. The amendments to the Employment Standards Act outlined in Bill 70 incorporate the liability provision for directors and officers of a company. Director liability for wage debts already exists under the province's Business Corporations Act and under the Corporations Act for non-profitable and charitable organizations.

We are extending this liability to officers of a company and making the money recoverable under the Employment Standards Act. Directors and officers will now be liable for the equivalent of six months of regular wages and 12 months of vacation pay per employee. This is the same maximum that currently exists for directors under the Business Corporations Act and the Corporations Act. We have decided to extend the liability to officers since they participate in decisions that may lead to non-payment of wages.

Concerns have been expressed about the effect this liability might have on non-profit and charitable organizations. While I believe that these concerns are not necessarily justified, I am prepared to listen to and consider any arguments put before me in the process of going through the House with this particular bill.

1650

In order for companies to obtain liability insurance for their directors and officers, this part of the legislation will come into effect three months after the proclamation of these amendments. To ensure that workers receive payment for the program in a timely manner, an expedited appeals procedure will be put in place. Employer-initiated appeals will now start within 45 days of the application. Workers will get a speedy resolution to their claims if their employer should decide to appeal. If employees wish to appeal an employment standards branch ruling, they will have access to an improved adjudication process.

The government recognizes that the great majority of employers in Ontario live up to their financial obligations. Through the introduction of the legislation, we are demonstrating that we are interested in helping people, not punishing them. We are focusing on the need for employees to be able to receive their unpaid wages. We will continue to press the federal government for changes to the federal Bankruptcy Act. If the federal government lives up to its promise and amends the Bankruptcy Act to cover workers and to create a wage protection fund, our government pledges to work closely with our counterparts in Ottawa to ensure that both programs work in concert.

I would like once again to stress that the need for the employee wage protection program is urgent. As members no doubt can appreciate, workers need their unpaid wages now and workers need to know that they can recover that money through a dignified and fair process. I urge all members of this House to co-operate to ensure swift passage of this legislation.

Mr Cordiano: I just want to comment and to ask a couple of questions of the minister with respect to his initiative today on second reading. Obviously under the wage protection fund, as I thought I heard the minister state, the intention of this legislation would be to deal with, more appropriately, recessionary times; that is, when times are bad, as they are now. I thought I heard the minister say it is crucial that this legislation be brought forward as quickly as possible in these bad economic times, when people are losing their jobs.

On the other hand, the question I have of the minister is, on principle here, what happens when economic times get better and he has a situation where a bankruptcy occurs, an employee loses these wages, there are back wages owing to the employee, and that employee then goes out and gets another job and is still entitled to those back wages? Is the legislation therefore somewhat different in its treatment of that person at that time with respect to the change in economic conditions? I would think not; I would think the principle of the bill would be --

Hon Mr Cooke: Of course not.

Mr Cordiano: I am not suggesting it is. I am asking the minister to clarify what he said. I would read back, if I had instant Hansard, what he said, but it seems to me that there was a bit of confusion, or not a clear message with respect to the change in economic conditions. I think the minister needs to clarify that a little bit further with respect to that section of his statement.

I would hope that once the bill is implemented, there would be a fundamental principle there that wages are owing to these employees whether times are good or times are bad, because those wages were earned by those employees. I would expect this legislation to cover those periods of time, and obviously the legislation should continue when economic times get better.

There are other questions, and I will allow my colleague from my party to ask those.

Mr Harnick: This is a very important bill, but I believe we still have to consider our position on the budget. It is also very important, and accordingly I move adjournment of the debate.

1725

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

Ayes 10; nays 61.

Mr Nixon: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This afternoon in question period, when I put a question to the Minister of Education, I indicated that none of the teachers' professional organizations had put a brief to the select committee on Ontario in Confederation. I now find that this is not correct. On 28 February 1991 the Ontario Teachers' Federation did deliver such a brief, and in looking at the index, I understand the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation also delivered a brief.

I apologize for that misinformation. I appreciate the fact that Ruth Baumann, the legislative observer for the OTF, brought that to my attention in rather a rapid and definite way.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs Haslam): The member for Willowdale has one minute and forty-two seconds left.

Mr Harnick: I still believe that we have to reflect on this budget and this very high deficit. Accordingly, I move adjournment of the House.

1759

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

Ayes 10; nays 58.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon Mrs Coppen: I wish to indicate the business for the week of 13 May 1991.

Monday 13 May: the committee of the whole, Bill 17, An Act to amend the Law related to the Enforcement of Support and Custody Orders. It will also be the business of the day on Tuesday 14 May.

Wednesday 15 May: second reading of Bill 70, An Act to amend the Employment Standards Act to provide for an Employee Wage Protection Program and to make certain other amendments.

Thursday 16 May: government business, second reading of Bill 70, An Act to amend the Employment Standards Act to provide for an Employee Wage Protection Program and to make certain other amendments; private members' public business, ballot item 19, a resolution concerning sign language interpreters, standing in the name of Mr Malkowski, and ballot item 20, second reading of Bill 87, An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act with respect to Volunteer Fire Fighters, standing in the name of Mrs Fawcett.

The House adjourned at 1803.