Journal des débats 1993-avril-29 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr Tilson moved second reading of Bill 3, An Act to provide for Access to Information relating to the affairs of Teranet Land Information Services Inc / Loi prévoyant l'accès aux renseignements concernant les activités des Services d'information foncière Teranet Inc.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): The honourable member for Dufferin-Peel has 10 minutes.

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): Mr Speaker, this is a subject that has come up in this House when I was critic for the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations, it has come up in the standing committee on estimates and it has come up in the standing committee on public accounts. It has been discussed for some time over the last year and probably came to light when the television program The 5th Estate featured a story on this subject.

Although it deals with the computerization of our land registry system, the philosophy of my intent in making this bill is also to deal with situations where our government, the provincial government, enters into a partnership relationship with a private corporation and the fact that all of the affairs of that partnership are kept in confidence because of our privacy legislation.

I will briefly give the history of how Teranet Land Information Services Inc arose in the land registry system. The purpose of it is, as I have indicated, for the computerization of our land registry system in the province of Ontario.

The registry system was started, as I understand it, in 1795 and the land titles system was started in 1895. For over 150 years in Ontario, these systems have protected our rights in property. Of course, the volumes of real estate transactions have increased over that period of time and consist of manually searching old, dusty, abstract books in the registry offices around this province.

I believe it was in the 1970s that the Ontario government recommended major reforms to improve the recording service and access to land records and the distribution of land records. Finally, it was proposed by the then Conservative government that there be a program called Polaris, which is the province of Ontario land registration information system, which had the following objectives:

To convert all properties to a land title system to eliminate the extensive 40-year search requirement; to create a province-wide map index to locate each known property in Ontario; and to automate the land records system to allow searching by computers and to increase the use of microfilm to reduce document storage requirements.

The computerization of this system, I think, was favoured by all. All three parties, the people who use the system, the lawyers, the public, the surveyors, they all supported it. Where the difficulty occurred, it was decided by the subsequent Liberal government to enter into a private partnership arrangement and this occurred, as I believe, in 1988.

I have spent some time on my allegations of improper tendering practices by the government in creating that concept, but that's not the purpose of this bill, because at that time there was a strategic alliance concept which was developed and approved and announced in a request for a corporation that would form a partnership with the province. The corporation that won the tender was a company called Real/Data and it formed a partnership with the province of Ontario. It is that company, Real/Data, known as RDO, which I submit used the privacy legislation to block the province from releasing the information in the whole computerization of our land registry system.

This concept, I fear, can spread into other things. I believe that it can spread into such things as the plans for the casino gambling project in the city of Windsor, that partnerships can be entered into and we won't know who these people are. We won't know who the shareholders are, we won't know anything of the financial relationship. We won't know who the province of Ontario is doing business with. We won't know what that business is.

Of course, this is a very complicated subject because of the privacy legislation, the whole subject of the registry system. Most people don't even know what that is and in that respect it has created a major problem, I submit, in knowing what the province is doing.

RDO entered into a lucrative partnership agreement with the Ontario Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations, and this was the big money project. This is the only ministry, other than perhaps Treasury, that makes a profit, and it's essentially given it away to a private corporation called Teranet, which is partially owned by RDO and by the province of Ontario.

But we can't find out what they're doing. After political pressure from this side of the House, from the press, that information came forward very reluctantly, involuntarily, and there's still all kinds of information that needs to come out.

That is the intent of introducing this bill, and I will refer members to a wonderful article that was written by Peter Moon of the Globe and Mail several days ago in which he summarized the most recent problem where part of the partnership arrangement was to keep the terms of the partnership secret for ever, so that the dealings of the provincial government with our land registry system are going to be kept secret in this province for ever, and a most difficult position.

One of the terms we were finally made aware of was that RDO was to put up a certain amount of money to honour that contract, and it has been discovered that it hasn't been able to do that, it hasn't been able to get the funding. To quote from Mr Moon's article:

"RDO put up an initial $5 million but failed to meet a scheduled payment of $4 million last October and another one of $10 million in January. The contract gives RDO a grace period of 120 days if it fails to meet a scheduled payment."

1010

Mr Daniels, who's a well-known assistant deputy minister and who has assisted the members of the committee in this House on this topic throughout, has said they're technically in default on the October payment and they have until next month to meet the second payment. Then he made a rather astounding statement:

"Teranet's full-time workforce will not be reduced, Mr Daniels said, but on May 8 'a major gearing down' in the work schedule will be implemented. It will include layoffs for much of Teranet's contract staff, he said.

"Mr Daniels said he could not identify the two Canadian firms interested in investing in RDO beyond saying they are major companies with the ability to make up RDO's $14-million deficiency."

Well, I'm sorry, Mr Daniels, but the people of Ontario want to know who you're doing business with, and that's been the problem with this corporation from the very outset. We don't know who we're doing business with. We don't know really what in the world -- how much the province has spent. Yes, we can look at estimates, we can watch the estimates process. We now know there's $14 million or $15 million that RDO is shy in making up its terms of the contract.

So the purpose of this bill -- and I look forward to hearing members of all parties, because this process was thought up by the Liberals and implemented by the New Democratic Party. I must say, for a party, the New Democratic Party, that normally opposes this sort of thing, opposes the whole issue of secrecy -- they want to know what in the world the province of Ontario is doing and where they're spending their tax dollars, particularly in a time when we're trying to cut back on our expenses.

I look forward to hearing the comments from the members of the New Democratic Party in government and the members of the Liberal Party, the creators of this corporation and this problem, but I also hope they will comment on the overall principle, because it's going to surface again whether it be in gambling casinos or whatever. It has nothing to do with whether you like or don't like gambling casinos. The question is, should the taxpayers know what the province of Ontario is doing with their tax dollars and should they know who they're doing business with? That is the real intent of this bill.

RDO has resisted efforts to know who owned the company until August of last year, as I said, when it released a list of shareholders to the Globe and Mail. But you notice who the list is? A lot of them are lawyers holding shares in trust for individuals, so we don't know who they are. We don't know whether they're the Liberals or perhaps members of the government. We're entitled to know these people because of our whole issue of conflicts of interest.

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, for allowing me to speak on this introduction.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. The honourable member will have two minutes to reply when all parties have participated. The standing orders allow each recognized party in the House a period of 15 minutes to debate the item of business. Debate will proceed in the normal routine with the honourable member for Halton North.

Mr Noel Duignan (Halton North): I'm pleased to rise to speak to Bill 3 here today and I know the member for Dufferin-Peel is a very thoughtful member. However, since the legislation proposed by the member requests access to compatibility, sensitive and personal information about Teranet Land Information Services, let me begin by outlining the history of this corporation.

As members are aware, Teranet was incorporated in 1991 as a public and private sector partnership between the province of Ontario, as represented by the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations, and Real/Data Ontario, more commonly known as RDO. RDO is a consortium of Ontario firms specializing in surveying and mapping, computer mapping and management consulting. The member firms include Landata International Services Inc, a group of Ontario surveying mapping firms, Peat Marwick, Intergraph Canada, EDS of Canada Ltd and Systemhouse Inc.

Teranet was created after an extensive government selection process spanning some three years. The corporation was formed to accelerate the implementation of the province of Ontario land registration and information system, commonly known as Polaris, and in turn to use this automated land registration system as a basis for an Ontario-based, land-related information system industry.

The partnership was rigorously reviewed both internally and externally to ensure business, legal and financial safeguards. The agreement provides for 100% government control and ownership of both Polaris and all land registration systems information. The government also controls the use, access to and fee structure of all land registration data. Bill 3 calls for disclosure of all records related to Teranet for the 1991 agreement with RDO, despite anything in the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

As the former Chair of that standing committee on the Legislative Assembly, I oversaw the review of that act, the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, and indeed I have some serious concerns about the legislation proposed by the member for Dufferin-Peel. I believe Bill 3, quite frankly, advocates a dangerous precedent. Forcing disclosure of competitive, sensitive and personal information from Teranet, I believe, erodes the basic principles of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and sets up a discriminatory situation just for one company.

The freedom of information act sets the rules for disclosure of third-party information which the government has in its custody. It requires competitive, sensitive information to be kept confidential if disclosure would cause harm.

The procedure identified for making recommendations about amendments to the act, including disclosure rules for commercial information, is a comprehensive review process set out in section 68 of the act. This is the process in which I participated while Chair of the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly. What I found out through my involvement with that review process is that the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act is working extremely well. While there may be some glitches in the act, it is still in fact working well. It strikes a balance, I believe, between the right of access to information and the protection of personal privacy.

In the case of Teranet, the joint venture agreements have been released to the requesters, with severances for third-party information, which must be kept confidential by the ministry according to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. As members are aware, the act allows a requester to appeal a decision of any institution defined in the act. An appeal is presently under way with respect to the decision of the Teranet documents. The parties to the agreement have agreed to significant other disclosures, and the matter is currently under review by the freedom of information commissioner, in keeping with the procedures of that act. Bill 3, in my opinion, would put a different disclosure standard on Teranet. It will require all information about Teranet to be disclosed.

As I stated earlier, the legislation proposed by the member for Dufferin-Peel advocates, and I believe sets, a dangerous precedent. It would erode the basic and extremely important principles of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, which establishes that personal and commercial sensitive information should be protected. Weakening this right for one individual and one company would undermine the basic premises of the act and endanger all who look to the act for the protection of their privacy.

Bill 3 would also create serious inequities because the standard of disclosure it proposes would not apply to other companies the government has ownership in, but it is the overall issue of fairness which I must address. Individuals and companies must be treated equally and equitably under the act. We cannot make rules for one entity and not expect serious repercussions. We cannot allow the important principles of the act, including the principle of the protection of privacy, to be undermined by the attempt to apply a different rule to one individual company. You have probably heard the adage "the exception makes the rule." I fear the proposed exception to Teranet would destroy the act itself.

In summary, I believe Bill 3, by mandating disclosure of competitive, sensitive and personal information from Teranet only, would erode again the basic principle in the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and set up a situation with one company. The FOI act sets the rules for disclosure of third-party information which the government has in its custody. The act requires competitive, sensitive, commercial information to be kept confidential, and I believe disclosure of this information would cause harm.

I urge my fellow members of this Legislature to vote against Bill 3.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

1020

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): I must admit I start this debate with a great sense of humour of the fact that what I'm hearing from the government benches -- is this really the New Democratic Party? Is this the party which has always spoken about the need for openness in government?

The concept of computerization of the database of land registry is indeed very sound, and we should lead the world in this. I applaud that concept. Indeed, it was the Conservative government that originated this idea with the Polaris scheme. However, there's no doubt about it that there is a great deal of cynicism, and people are disgusted at the fact that this government is not prepared to release details. They have gotten involved with a company which apparently is not properly financed.

In fact, the other bidder on this proposal to computerize was a consortium which included the Royal Bank. The Royal Bank commented and the other group commented from the very outset that in fact the group that was awarded this contract was not properly financed and warned from the very outset that this was a danger. The government absolutely ignored that possibility and proceeded in this deal with people that we were not made aware of as to who the players were. We didn't know what the financial interests were, and yet government, in other words taxpayers', money was expended.

This deal has been investigated by both The 5th Estate and the Globe and Mail and commented on many times by my colleague the member for Dufferin-Peel. There have been articles in the Financial Post and that stalwart which tracks this government, Frank Magazine. I would have to say that where there's this much smoke, almost inevitably there must be some fire.

The computerization of the land registry is the information equivalent of Ontario Hydro; that is how significant this deal is. Indeed, before the people of Ontario are forced to get into bed with the private sector on casinos, I think we have an entitlement to know who we're doing business with. If indeed we're going to be in joint ventures with Don Corleone, I think we should know about it before the people of Ontario wake up with a dead horse's head beside them, and that is the seriousness of this venture.

I would suggest that my colleague hasn't gone far enough. I would suggest that any joint venture that taxpayers' money is put into should be subject to the scrutiny of the public to see if the deal is in order.

As I started out by saying, it is indeed extraordinary that the NDP consistently in opposition, and to its credit, pushed for more freedom of information, but in government that has become just an illusion, because indeed when we apply for anything under the freedom of information, we get back documents where there is more black ink blacking out the real information than there is useful information. It is absolutely worthless.

So this government, which suggested in opposition that it had a higher standard and that it believed in full disclosure, is worse than the other two parties in government because indeed it has no intention of letting the taxpayer know what is happening. There has been every subterfuge to make sure that the taxpayers, and indeed the general public beyond taxpayers, the media, are not aware as to what the ownership of this consortium is.

The private part of the consortium, Real/Data or RDO, has missed the first payment that it was committed to and is very close to missing the second payment. The consortium has suggested that it is going to lay off significant numbers of staff and it's going to gear back, and indeed the government is now looking for other members to join the consortium. Private members, once again, were being given no details as to who these people are or what their financial contribution is. There is something smelly about this. As I said before, where there's this much smoke, undoubtedly there must be at least a little fire.

So why would the government not come clean and say yes, it is important that the taxpayers know where their money is going, make full disclosure and commit to bringing forward a bill which would ensure that all joint ventures that the government is involved in will be subject to full and open disclosure? It is appropriate.

I have heard in the past, when other governments have been in power here, all kinds of nonsense about the need for privacy. It is nonsense. There are times that the government legitimately wants to keep information to itself, but where it's entering into a joint venture with taxpayers' money and the private sector, it is appropriate that the public knows who they are dealing with, how much money is being invested and what the exposure is and the details of what competitive bids are.

We want to know, is it a bunch of government hacks and supporters who are in fact behind this, who are going to pocket money out of this deal? There is very, very serious credibility at stake here, and unless the government wakes up, smells the coffee and agrees to full disclosure, you will constantly be under suspicion, and you're under enough suspicion already.

With this I would say that I support the bill of my colleague the member for Dufferin-Peel, who indeed brought this issue before the House some two years ago and has not let go and will not let go until this government comes clean with what the taxpayers' money is being spent on.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Ms Christel Haeck (St Catharines-Brock): Mr Speaker, as you overheard me say a few minutes ago, hyperbole is one thing and bombast is really quite another. I find it very hard to deal quietly with some of the statements from the gentleman from York Mills because it bears no relation to reality and I think that I'd -- well, I could say a lot, but it would be wise to be politic, as they say, and polite.

The history of the land registry does in fact go back to the very beginnings of the province and provides a very good record of not only the settlement of the province but for historians and genealogists also provides a lot of family information. As someone who worked in that field for a few years, I do recognize the importance of the land registry beyond just the real estate issues that have been mentioned here today. So there are a lot of people who are interested in what is happening in this area, but it is used primarily by lawyers, surveyors, other professionals in the real estate industry.

Obviously the volume of those records that have accumulated over 200 years is quite substantial, and there are requirements. I think, as many people know if they've bought a home, there is a search required. The lawyers frequently don't do this themselves; they hire people to do the land searches, and that obviously adds to the cost of anyone's home, and there has been some pressure to simplify the process so that everyone has easier access and really and truly all of us better understand the system and can make better use of it. So by simplifying the process, we're really in fact achieving a number of cost savings.

I'm not sure if most of the audience here today or anyone viewing this particular session this morning would understand the term "retrospective conversion," but when you're in the process of taking paper records that have existed for many, many years, you do have to go through a complicated process of taking them from the paper record to some sort of machine record, and yes, that takes people, that takes time and it is complicated. People do have to understand the process.

So when the member for Dufferin-Peel talks about the fact that there is a number of companies which had come forward to raise an interest in doing this job, yes, it's something that possibly government doesn't want to do. There were a couple of bidders in the process and over time governments did in fact assess the business proposals that were put forward and made some decisions, but the product that was to come out of this was to the service of the greater good of the province of Ontario, all of the people living in the province of Ontario, who could conceivably make use of the products at some time.

I would like to let the audience know the kind of things that were going to be produced. The first one is a title index database. It is a computerized version of the abstract index and parcel register organized on a property ownership basis. It is immediately updated by an on-line registration function. It would be available for searching through computer terminals and printouts, not necessarily in the land registry office but in other locations. It would be accessible by property identification number, the address, the owner's name and instrument number. If we take that particular product that would be developed, I think what all of us as citizens would have would be a very easy access point to the history of our particular land holdings, but also in the whole real estate transaction. This would simplify the matter and actually reduce the cost of the search that would be required.

1030

The other product that was going to be developed was the property mapping database. It is a computerized property map file which displays survey fabric, property lines and unique property identification numbers, and would also enable paper copies of computer-generated maps to be available to the public.

I'm not sure what kinds of constituents would come to you, but I have a number of constituents who are very interested in what is happening in the community, neighbourhood groups interested in land development who really and truly make use of this kind of information and go out to citizen meetings and really ask very pointed questions about what is happening in their area. So I would see this as a boon to us all.

The member for Halton North raised a number of issues around the freedom of information act and I think he made his point very, very well. But I also wanted to raise the issue we heard in the standing committee on the Ombudsman during our investigation of that office, the review of that office over the last summer, as well as writing the report during the fall and winter. I think anyone interested in seeing some of those comments should look at the report of that standing committee and look at the concerns expressed by business people, that the freedom of information commissioner allows greater access to information than they feel is necessary. What it means to them, as companies, is that their concerns are not treated in the same way as for an individual. But as a lawyer, I know the member for Dufferin-Peel recognizes that through the incorporation process of a business, what you do is create an entity which, in law, has to be treated the same way as you and I. So under the freedom of information act, we do have to give all elements of society -- business and individuals -- the same protection.

A lot of information around this project has in fact been made available to the member for Dufferin-Peel. I believe he fully understands the ramifications of the freedom of information act, and I find it rather passing strange that, as a lawyer, he would be asking to change an act in a way that would deal with individuals differently than companies. That's not something I personally can support. It would make it difficult for this government or any government to deal with legislation in that way.

So, like the member for Halton North, I will be voting against this particular piece of proposed legislation, and I encourage my colleagues to do the same.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): I'm pleased to participate in this debate on Bill 3. I want, first of all, to thank the member for Dufferin-Peel for bringing it forward. It has been a labour of responsibility that he has carried forward from the very beginning when he became involved in this issue.

I don't think a member would bring forward such a responsible bill had it not been for the frustration caused by the failure of this government to table information about a private deal. There wouldn't be any need for this bill at all if the government were as forthright and open in its dealings on this one as it has been in some other areas. But the government has not come forward and stated the terms of the deal that exists between the government, under the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations, and a private company.

I commend him for his initiative and I commend him for the way in which during the past at least two years he has stayed with the issue. I mean, it has not been easy. He has written letters to the minister. He has attended estimates in the Ontario Legislature trying to get information on a private deal between the government and a private company. To his credit, he has succeeded in at least obtaining the names of the shareholders and part of the contract. We would not even have that information today had it not been for the perseverance of this member.

The government has stonewalled the Legislature. The government has covered up this whole issue and refused to give an open, honest, clear statement to the Legislature on this issue. To that extent, it is wrong. For this government, which, with the Liberals back in 1985, came forward with its accord and said, "We are now going to bring forward the freedom of information act so that the public has access to information and dealings going on within the government," and this House approved the freedom of information act -- and now the government is using that same act as a shield protecting it from coming forward with all the facts.

I find it so reprehensible that here the pontificating NDP and the Liberals would have great support for the FOI and then, on the other hand, when we start looking for the background information, there is just no way in which the opposition can get this information. It's wrong, and we're at a point now where it will continue to be an issue unless the government begins to open up on it.

Therefore, we have Bill 3 before the House. Bill 3 really doesn't amount to anything more than a few lines. It just says it "overrides the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to provide for access to information relating to the affairs of Teranet Land Information Services Inc, a corporation owned jointly by the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations and Real Data Ontario Inc."

If there is ever a deal with the government of Ontario or the government of Canada -- but we're dealing specifically with Ontario -- when there is a private deal with the government, there is a point at which that deal should become public and open information. We have young people in the gallery today, and I think one of the things they want to know is that in a democracy things will not remain secret for an extended period of time when they pertain to the public good. It's almost as if it's going to be like the war crimes: You'll wait for 20 years after Nuremberg, or 30 years or 50 years, to find out what really went on. We want to know now what went on between the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations and Teranet. It might all be just fine, but the fact that there is the cloak of secrecy is the issue we want to get behind. Let us know. We have the right to know as legislators, but we are not being told what we need to know in order to ask the questions that the public deserves to have answered.

All we're doing now is asking for the information to be tabled, and yet stonewalling is just continuing and we do not know anything more than we knew since we got just the names of some of the directors and some of the contract. It's fundamentally wrong in a democracy that the public doesn't have access to that information and we as their representatives are being prevented from doing our job because the government is saying, "Hey, it's private and secret." There is nothing like this that should be secret. It's a deal in which a company is going to make money -- once it gets past the $14 million it hasn't paid. It is a profitable venture. It should be profitable. I'm supportive of the fact that the government wants to work with private enterprise.

This was signed by Peter Kormos when he was Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations that week, and in that process it was important for him to at least do it. What he did then was confirm the actions that had been previously put forward by Mr Sorbara.

I'm saying, what is the deal? How much money is in it by the government? What are the terms of the agreement? What are the specifics? What are the schedules? What is the full contract? Tell us the truth. The NDP came into this House after September 6, 1990, saying, "It will be an open government." All we're saying is, New Democrats, wake up to your promises. Understand that what you stood for then was to have open, honest government. All we're asking is to open the books. Show us the background of Teranet. Let us then together understand whether the deal is a good one or a bad one for Ontario. The police are investigating it. Let us have our chance to do our investigation as well.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Joseph Cordiano (Lawrence): I think it's fundamentally important for me to stand up and to speak on this matter, and I'm glad of the opportunity to do that this morning because I think there need to be a couple of points clarified with respect to the issue at hand, Bill 3, the act that is being proposed by my good friend Mr Tilson.

Let me start off by saying that in principle, this act is supportable, or the initiative that is being undertaken by my colleague Mr Tilson is supportable in principle, that what's being asked for in this matter is the release of information relating to a contract, a partnership agreement between the government and a private enterprise firm, that being Teranet Land Information Services Inc, which is a company controlled by Real/Data Ontario Inc.

The matter is really: Should the public have full disclosure of the information that is being put together, the information regarding the actual contract, the contents of the contract, the details of the financial arrangements relating to this agreement? I think there is a case to be made with respect to the fact that when a public entity, the government of Ontario, our governing institution, enters into a contract with a private sector firm to deal with what amounts to public information in a commercialized way, then there is merit -- in fact, good reason -- in having disclosure on the part of the government of Ontario to assure the public that in fact things have been dealt with in a proper fashion, that there is nothing untoward about the contracts that have been put in place.

Let's go back a little with respect to the process that was used in getting to the point where Real/Data was selected as the successful bidder. There's a chronology of events which led to the selection of Real/Data, and I think it's important to understand that the procedures that were followed were entirely appropriate. They've been outlined in this note I have, and I won't go through it step by step because there's very little time, but I want to make the point that various processes were used to ensure that this was a fair and accountable bidding process. The public service was very involved in making the final selection. In fact, as the Liberal administration initiated this project, there were a number of decisions leading up to the final selection in the fall of 1990 and the early part of 1991.

If you recall, the election of 1990 saw the new government being sworn in on October 1. Following their swearing in, there was a cabinet review and strategic review of the selection process of the two final proponents that were involved in the bidding. Independent reviews were also -- and this is an important point -- conducted by legal advisers, financial advisers and chartered accountants. In February 1991, this new NDP government reaffirmed its position regarding the bidding process and reaffirmed that Teranet, or rather Real/Data was the successful bidder.

This process was not only sanctioned by a Liberal administration that saw this put in place, initiated it and undertook to request proposals to 20 firms at the time, back in 1988; there was an evaluation process conducted entirely by an interministry team; an arm's-length consulting firm was also part of this process; Management Board of Cabinet asked for a review of the terms of the negotiation, and so on and so forth.

There was an entire process that was followed that was systematic and very accountable, and the final selections were made on the basis of criteria that had been set out previous to the request for proposals.

I say to you, Mr Speaker, it is important to note that the final selection was made on a clearly established set of procedures that were followed to the very end and that in fact this process could be scrutinized and would stand up to the test of that scrutiny, so there's nothing really to hide here, there's nothing that could not be accounted for.

I would say, in speaking to Bill 3, the act that is being proposed, to get at the facts, to get at what have been described as sensitive pieces of information, sensitive because of the private nature of the workings of this firm that has been created in a joint partnership with the government, that this is a model for undertaking this kind of enterprise which should be held up, which should be supported, because I can say that in the future we need more of this.

We need private-public cooperation. We need a marriage between public institutions and private enterprise. We need to do that to accomplish the greater efficiencies in the future that we need in order to sustain our public efforts to make possible the kind of modern data access that we need. That's just but one example of the many kinds of cooperative efforts that we can see in the future.

I would hate -- for a moment, Mr Speaker -- I would very much dislike that this process continue to be questioned in the way it has, and to leave this cloud of doubt about what has taken place here.

Today, I want to stand in my place and say to you, Mr Speaker, and say to the government that this process should be held wide open for everyone to see because we need this marriage between public and private enterprise. We need more efforts like this, more initiatives like this, and we have to ensure that this selection process, that the entire methodology of this, can be held up to public scrutiny and that there be no doubt at the end of the day that things have been done properly and that people can be accountable for their actions.

I would support the efforts of my colleague Mr Tilson in this regard, simply because I want to ensure and reaffirm that processes, that efforts like this, can be, in the future, successful.

1050

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): This morning in private members' hour we're faced with what I think is an important issue. It's an issue of cynicism and an issue of rights, both the public right to know as well as individual and corporate rights to protection of personal privacy. I think the remarks of my colleague the member for Lawrence were very important to have on the record. He was absolutely factually correct in his historic chronology.

The events surrounding what became the Teranet land information system began back in 1988, and I must say to the members of this House and those who are watching that I was aware of and a party to those ideas that were then brought forward of a new concept of private and public sector partnership and participation in the development of a concept that could be marketed worldwide. It was an idea that hadn't been tried before in Ontario -- and remember, those were times when the economy was doing very well, when there was a lot of confidence in Ontario.

However, even at that time, the level of public cynicism was something that concerned me and my colleagues at the cabinet table. We were concerned about public cynicism, because as government attempted new approaches, those new approaches had to be open, in our view, to the highest level of public scrutiny if you were going to address those issues of public cynicism and concern about how government does its business. I've spoken in this House on the issue of cynicism on numerous occasions. The point I want to make is that the antidote to that cynicism, in my view, is accountability and openness.

I believe that the case that is before us and the request from Mr Tilson has a lot to do about that level of public cynicism. Mr Tilson in this House has asked numerous questions. They've always been tinged with a sense that something was wrong with the deal the NDP government actually entered into. That was the tone of his question, and it concerned me.

I'm aware of the chronology, as my colleague the member for Lawrence has put it forward. I know that when the government changed in the fall of 1990, the new NDP government, the leaders of that government, were also cynical and concerned about the integrity of the process of the contract letting. I know they commissioned outside experts to review that process to ensure its fairness, and I know it was after a review of that process, when they were confident that there was nothing untoward, nothing that anyone should be concerned about, that they were satisfied, the NDP, that the process that had been set in place by the Liberals was fair and open, and that they then let those contracts.

With that historical perspective in mind, they proceeded with what was conceived of as a new and an interesting idea for public sector partnership. Mr Tilson's questions, which were answered by the NDP government -- and as I say, his questions suggested cynicism. They defended those on the basis of the confidence they had that the process had been fair and that the process had been non-partisan.

Mr Tilson remains unsatisfied. The losing bidder -- and as you heard from my colleague, it came down to two people bidding on this contract -- has raised questions around the process and the integrity of that process.

It seems to me that in an era when we want to foster and support public sector partnerships, it is important that people have answers to those questions, that it appear and be so, that there is not only nothing to hide but that there is full accountability on these important matters of confidence, so that there will be a lowering of the terrible level of cynicism, and greater confidence in the integrity of those who are making important decisions.

I happen to be sympathetic to the right of Teranet to keep that information that they see as private and important to safeguard, and that's why the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act allows the freedom of information commissioner, where there is an overriding public interest, to release information to the public that it should have. I know that Mr Tilson and others have attempted, through that process, to get the information unsuccessfully.

While I express today my concerns about the precedent of overriding the protections of the freedom of information and protection of personal privacy legislation, my own view is that when government is involved we must tilt and err, if we are going to, on the side of greater openness and greater accountability.

It is of concern to me that the people of this province are cynical about the way government works. Anything we can do to enhance their confidence and lower the cynicism I believe is in the public interest.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate? Seeing none, the honourable member for Dufferin-Peel has two minutes to sum up.

Mr Tilson: I must say I find it ironic that two members of the New Democratic Party are opposing this legislation, and there may be more -- I hope not -- as I find it ironic that I'm about to read selections from the Ontario Public Service Employees Union, the Tory reading this newspaper which in the past has supported the New Democratic Party, where the union which has supported you in the past opposes this philosophy.

I of all people, and the Progressive Conservative Party of all people, are not opposed to private enterprise entering into a contractual relationship with the government. Of course; we encourage that. However, we must be accountable to the taxpayer.

Millions and millions of dollars are being spent in Teranet and I, as a member of this Legislature, am unable to find out who is in this corporation. I'm unable to find out what money is being spent. I'm unable to find out where it's being spent or how it's being spent. I'm unable to ask questions about this latest development that RDO is short by $14 million. They're essentially in arrears. I'm unable to ask those questions. How preposterous that we, as legislators, can't even ask the directors or the officers of that corporation or the people who are running this corporation, spending public taxpayers' money, what in the world you're doing. We can't do that.

Don't get the impression that I'm opposed to private enterprise doing business with the government, entering into a partnership. As the member for Oriole has indicated, I think we support that. What we're opposed to is the secrecy. We are in favour of open government.

I think I have an extra two minutes, Mr Speaker, from our caucus's share of the time. I am going to refer to the March edition of the OPSEU News. They're concerned. They are concerned as to the secrecy and they talk about, "On March 2, OPSEU members working for Teranet Land Information Services Inc learned that private sector investors might default on $14 million in payments due."

Of course, Mr Daniels, the assistant deputy minister -- and again I emphasize we respect him; he's simply taking instructions from the can't even tell us who are the people who are interested in investing in this corporation. He can't even tell us the names of those people because of this legislation. Unbelievable.

"With Teranet, data on every property and land owner in Ontario is for sale.

"Large companies with computer expertise get preferential rates to search data. But real estate lawyers complain registry data will cost them more."

Now, that really is irrelevant to this bill, but it's a relevant question to ask in this House, and I can't get it because of the privacy legislation. I can't get answers to it. I have asked questions on that.

"Teranet's government perks include free office space and free title searching. Before Teranet or its subcontractors move in, separate offices are set up to create the database. Then the offices go on line and all new transactions are done on the computer." I can't ask questions on that. I can't get into that.

1100

That's the reason for this legislation. We, as legislators in this province, are entitled, as the members of the New Democratic Party said over and over and over to the Liberal government and the Conservative government when they were in opposition: "We want accountable government. We want to be accountable to the people of Ontario." Well, you're not being accountable, and that's the purpose of this legislation.

And yes, it does open the door to other things, and I give you the example of gambling casinos. I'll bet you a loony that when the gambling casino legislation comes forth, you're going to have a private deal with Donald Trump or Jimmy Connors or whoever those people are and we won't know what it's all about.

The Acting Speaker: The time for ballot item number 3 has now expired. We will deal further with this ballot item at 12 noon.

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF DURHAM AMENDMENT ACT (NEWCASTLE-CLARINGTON), 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LA MUNICIPALITÉ RÉGIONALE DE DURHAM (NEWCASTLE-CLARINGTON)

Mr Mills moved second reading of Bill 6, An Act to amend the Regional Municipality of Durham Act / Loi modifiant la Loi sur la municipalité régionale de Durham.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Mr Mills, the honourable member for Durham East, has 10 minutes.

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): First of all, I would like to welcome to the chambers today the mayor of Newcastle, Her Worship Mayor Diane Hamre. Sitting next to her is Dennis Hefferon, who is a special solicitor to the town of Newcastle who has assisted in the drafting of this bill with Legislative Assembly help, and I'd like to welcome Mr Hefferon.

At first blush of this bill, you'd say to yourself, "Why are we changing the name of Newcastle to Clarington?"

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Yes. why are we?

Mr Mills: If the member for Etobicoke West admits that he still remembers Bud Abbott and Lou Costello, if he's old enough, and "Who's on First Base?" this is really something about what this change is about, because if I can just enlighten the members, we have the town of Newcastle, we have the village of Newcastle, we have the town of Bowmanville, and people come into the fine municipality that I'm privileged and honoured to represent and they say they're looking for Newcastle, the town of Newcastle, and people say: "No, you've got it wrong. You mean the village of Newcastle." So they go down to the village of Newcastle and they say, "I'm looking for the town of Newcastle," and they say: "No, you've got it wrong. You mean Bowmanville. That's what you're looking at." So it really goes back to Bud Abbott and Lou Costello, like "Who's on First Base?"

Anyway, having arrived at this difficulty over a number of years, it was finally put at the last municipal election on November 12, 1991, and the question was put on the ballot in the form of a referendum, "Are you in favour of retaining the name of the town of Newcastle?" The majority of ballots answered that question in the negative, that is, 7,806 of the good people of the region said, "No, we want a change."

The yes vote was 5,492 who didn't want it changed, and that's for obvious reasons. You know, parochially, people, their grandfathers and before them lived in Newcastle, they like Newcastle on their birth certificate and they like Newcastle on their grandchildren's birth certificate, or Bowmanville, whatever it may be, and they're a little bit reluctant to have the name changed. However, the people spoke, and her worship took it on as the first order of business in that inaugural meeting to deal with this very problem, as she promised to do.

So the general purpose and administration committee met and they placed an advertisement in the local newspapers, calling to receive nominations for individuals to sit on that committee. If we talk about open government -- I've heard the other people over there on about it this morning -- this was the most open process that any municipality could ever do to come about it fairly with this name change.

Let me just get to the proper note here about the committee makeup. They selected individuals to appear on this committee from ward 4, ward 2, ward 3 and a representative from the Northumberland and Newcastle Board of Education, the Peterborough Victoria Northumberland and Newcastle Roman Catholic Separate School Board.

These fine people -- Malcolm Hamon, Cathy McKeever, Don Gilhooly, David Wing, who acted as chair, Geri Bailey, Ron Hope, Shirley Robson and Caroline Burke -- went about the process of listening to the people about the new name.

The committee went around the municipality. They went to every corner: Bowmanville, Mitchells Corners, Enniskillen, Wilmot Creek, Hampton; public schools -- Orono public school, Kirby, Newtonville, Newcastle and in Bowmanville, and these meetings were the process to select the name.

They came up with a few names that they thought would be appropriate, and the gist of this exercise was not to retain any connection with the name of Newcastle, because we've gone through that before. So the names that were selected for preference were Applewood, Clarington, Darlington, Darlington Mills -- which I like very much -- Orchard Mills -- which is my second choice -- and Pineridge. They went around to all these communities and talked about all of this, and finally the name change committee made the final selection, not Darlington Mills but Clarington, and this was announced on October 6, 1992, to the council.

This struggle hasn't been without effort, and of course the region of Durham became involved in this because it had to give its approval. The region of Durham advised the Honourable David Cooke, the former Minister of Municipal Affairs, that it approved of the changes as requested in regard to the name of the municipality being changed to Clarington, and that the description of the corporation and its name be changed from "town" to "municipality" and that the municipality have the same rights, powers and duties as a town municipality under the law.

So it went to council and it was unanimous, the name change selection of Clarington. It went on to the next tier of government, the regional government of Durham, and it was unanimously approved there. It's gone through to the Newcastle -- well, presently, until it's changed -- hydro commission, and it made a motion to adopt the word Clarington. So you can see, Mr Speaker, that this bill, this name change, has gone through many, many hoops and hurdles to get where we are today.

I want to talk a little bit about the cost of this, because I know that perhaps some people are very interested in what this is going to cost. I must say that the costs of this, the entire name change process, that is, the committee, was carried out at a cost of $4,657, which came in well under budget. There was a budget of $7,450, and obviously they are a very astute group of people to spend the taxpayers' money so frugally and to achieve what they set out to be, so cost-conscious.

Isn't that awful? I had all my papers in order and now I'm stumbling.

Mr Ron Eddy (Brant-Haldimand): Do you want some of mine?

Mr Mills: I gave them to the opposition and I can't find them myself.

The region of Durham has said that the cost -- and I'm going from my memory -- for this name change, as far as it could see, would be minimal, and as far as the town of Newcastle, the cost of the entire operation is estimated to be at about $90,000.

I've got about a minute or so, Mr Speaker. I would be remiss if I didn't thank all the people who helped in this process. In particular I would like to single out the efforts of Linda Bruce from the town of Newcastle clerk's department and what she gave to this process: her organizational skills and hard work. The task was run smoothly, and in all my time that I've spent on municipal council before coming here I've never seen a process that ran so smoothly as what happened out there. It just seemed to tick right along in a wonderful way.

1110

I look forward to third reading of this bill so that we can finally put the stamp of Clarington on our community. I see it as a new era for the region, something to go forward with. We have all kinds of serviced industrial land in, now, the town of Newcastle that's very appropriately located close to Highway 401, and I would suggest that if there are any companies or businesses that are looking in, they should consider the move to the new Clarington in the region of Durham East because they have fine access to Highway 401 and all those big buildings they build there will draw attention to their business.

I thank you for the time and I look forward to the support of my colleagues, not only from my own party but from my colleagues and friends from the opposition parties. Thank you.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. The honourable member for Durham East will have two minutes to sum up. All recognized parties now in the Legislature do have 15 minutes to participate in the debate. Further debate?

Mr Eddy: Thank you, Mr Speaker. It's a pleasure for me to rise in support of Bill 6, An Act to amend the Regional Municipality of Durham Act, whereby the town of Newcastle's name will be changed. I support it wholeheartedly because I see it as a local matter being decided in a local forum by local people, and that's very important.

My only concern and regret is that this bill is not being sponsored by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, because I see it as a wonderful opportunity for the ministry to be an advocate on behalf of local government rather than imposing rules and regulations and changes on local government, as so often is the case.

I think it was an opportunity missed by the ministry and, although I realize there may be other municipalities that might come forward with proposed changes, I see nothing wrong with that and so I'm disappointed that the ministry is not furthering this matter and indeed promoting and presenting the bill. However, I hope the minister and the other members who are attached to that ministry would indeed approve of this bill.

The matter goes back, of course, to the formation of regional government in the region of Durham. It's some 20 years since the county of Ontario, the united counties of Northumberland and Durham were dismantled and municipalities were given and dispersed among other municipalities. I recall that two townships were sent to Simcoe county. I don't know that either party was happy with that. A municipality was given to the county of Peterborough, I believe, one to the county of Victoria, and out of the remains, the regional municipality of Durham was erected and the present county of Northumberland.

I must hasten to add that I was disappointed with the imposition of centralization of government in local areas by previous Tory governments without enough local input, because if that had happened, if there had been more local input and liaison and discussion, I don't think we would be discussing this bill today. Indeed, the opportunity would have been given to municipal officials, municipal leaders and indeed community leaders, to deal with the matter at the time, but I'm very pleased to see what is happening today.

We experienced the centralization of local government and indeed the centralization of the education system without very much or any local input by previous Tory governments. The other matter that rises to mind, of course, is the government of those days not promoting the decentralization of provincial services and indeed the relocation program whereby services would be in other communities.

I think that's very important, and indeed the government of the day is not proceeding with those programs. Many promises are being broken to many local municipalities today, including to a city in my area, the city of Brantford. Demoralization and great resentment have happened in many areas that were dictatorially, in some cases, reorganized and centralized.

I well remember the day when an outstanding municipal official, Mayor Victor K. Copps, chained himself to a pillar over here in an attempt to get the Tory government of the day to be reasonable about the imposition of regional government in Hamilton-Wentworth. As a locally appointed official in those days at that particular time, I well know the alienation, the resentment that was caused and demoralization.

I think this is making great progress. It's long overdue, the proposal that the people of the area and of the communities and the elected council are proposing. I must compliment the mayor, who is present, her worship Diane Hamre, and the council and indeed the community leaders for handling this matter and indeed coming forth with a very excellent proposal.

Living in a local community with so many local names, as I do, I well realize the importance of being able to determine where you are at any given time. I shouldn't get lost in parts of my riding, but I will tell you how confusing it is where you have a number of townships and a number of urban municipalities thrown together into a new municipality, and sometimes with a new name, as is happening here, which is an advantage, or sometimes with one of the old names of a particular area. You travel about and you see signs for this concession and that concession, but it is most confusing because you need to know, along with the concession, what former municipality it was in. It's a great problem in rural areas, and perhaps you've experienced it yourself, Mr Speaker, if you've travelled in some of the areas in regional government.

The only question I had about this bill was using the name "the municipality of Newcastle" rather than the term of a municipality, such as a town, village, township, city or indeed borough. I guess there is one borough left in Ontario. I had understood that all municipalities of course use the name "municipality of," but there was a designated term. It does not really affect my thinking in supporting the bill, but it is a point that I think may have been considered, and I would ask the honourable member for Durham East maybe to just speak to that if it has been examined and looked at, because it is important.

The forced centralization of local government has caused great alienation across the province in many areas, as I've said. I happen to live in a county, a local municipality in the old county system, and I always felt that system of government was kept outdated and antiquated because the province of Ontario, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs in particular, would not update the legislation to permit counties to do those things that the county council and indeed the elected councils of the local municipalities might decide to do and would want to do and did want to do on a cooperative basis. The answer always was, "We will not update the county system because the entire province is going to be regionalized."

The entire province was going to be regionalized, and those were the plans of the former Tory governments.

1120

What happened, of course, is they started to lose seats across the province of Ontario, and they came to the conclusion that if they proceeded with the forced centralization of local government in forming regions and restructured local municipalities, putting so many of them together in many areas without, in my opinion, enough local input to be accepted by the local people -- it had to stop, and it did stop. There are some municipalities that, I'm pleased to see, have survived with the old system.

The problem is, the legislation should be updated. Counties, indeed all municipalities, including the new municipality, should be given the right to do those things that they wish to do, decide to do, the elected representatives decide to do, unless they're specifically prohibited from doing it by law. The legitimacy of the right of local governments to make local decisions for local people, I think, should be clearly stated and indeed should be agreed to by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, which could and should take leadership on this important matter.

People in local communities feel abandoned by governments. They are alienated. There must be ways that we can bring the feeling that government is on the side of the people back to the people. It's particularly noticeable these days with what is happening in our province. Of course, I have to mention, when you talk about demoralization, the constant realization by local people of what they individually owe because of provincial and federal debt, and indeed many people have personal debt, so it is a great concern.

So I would like to see, and I'd certainly lend my support to the ministry to proceed with, rather than having such restrictive legislation for municipalities, opening it up to let counties or any municipality do those things that the elected councillors would like to do, including a change of name for whatever reason, and there are certainly very good reasons to let them decide those things.

County governments in the past begged the ministry to change legislation to allow them to have water and sewer services on a county-wide basis. It wasn't permitted. It was only permitted, of course, when the county system was replaced in certain areas by the regional system of government, which made so many changes all at once.

Personally, I think progressing slowly over a number of years is much better than passing a bill that establishes a restructured form of government, puts a number of municipalities -- in some cases many municipalities -- in together, sometimes with no community of interest, imposes the form of local government, and then takes most of the services to the upper tier, which of course is indirectly elected, and that's fine if local people feel that indirect election is preferable. I think those things must be looked at and must be changed.

So it is with pleasure that I support the town and advise all those in this House that we certainly support the bill wholeheartedly.

The Acting Speaker: I wish to thank the honourable member for his participation. Further debate?

Mr Dave Johnson (Don Mills): Mr Speaker, perhaps just a couple of housecleaning items to start with. I'm delighted to be the first to welcome the honourable member for Victoria-Haliburton to this side of the House. You can see he's sitting beside me. The only question I had in my mind was, I didn't realize I had the option to sit there myself when I was newly elected to this House just a couple of weeks ago. I think you get quite a good view.

Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): You've still got that option.

Mr Dave Johnson: I still have that option, do I? Actually, I like it right here, though. The other question was that we're not sure if we have enough room over here to accommodate all the potential requests that we see coming up in the near future.

Secondly, I really didn't have much critical to say. I guess this is a golden opportunity to be critical, but I really didn't have anything critical at all to say of this particular bill. Perhaps the member for Brant-Haldimand has made a couple of comments that I might just make a few observations on right at the outset with regard to local municipalities having a say over local decisions.

I certainly, coming from a local municipality, agree with that. In very strong terms, I agree with that direction and I would hope that the honourable member and his party and the party on the other side, the government, would agree with that as we deal with Bill 7, which will be coming before us next week apparently, because in terms of Bill 7, a waste management bill, there are certain issues, certain responsibilities, that municipalities will be dealing with, where the authority has essentially been taken away from local municipalities and delegated to regional municipalities.

Regional municipalities certainly need powers as well; there's no question about that. But I think we need to make sure that the balance of power is appropriate, and I think the honourable member for Brant-Haldimand would agree with me that Bill 7, as it's phrased in its present form, doesn't give the local municipalities the say that they should have. So I'll be interested in his remarks when that issue comes forward.

In terms of centralization, the member again has outlined a problem in his region. I can only say that in this region of Metropolitan Toronto, the centralization has worked well over the past number of years. Metropolitan Toronto, being formed in 1954, was put in a position to provide services for the people of all the municipalities in Metropolitan Toronto, some 13 municipalities at that point in time.

Reorganization occurred in 1967, which affected my own municipality in East York being created from the township of East York and the town of Leaside. Although there was certainly some resistance at that point and while some people still fondly look back on the situation before 1967, I think from the vantage point of where we are now, most people would agree that centralization did work in Metropolitan Toronto. It did give a proper balance of power between the region, between the local municipalities, and created local municipalities of an efficient size that they could deal with the issues that we've had to deal with over the past number of years. So I think there's a counterexample in terms of what the member for Brant-Haldimand was speaking of.

Getting directly to the bill that the honourable member for Durham East is introducing, I am pleased to support him in this endeavour. The member has raised the problems that have been encountered through the years with Newcastle being formed from the town of Bowmanville, the village of Newcastle, the township of Clarke and the township of Darlington. There has been confusion with regard to who lives where or where people are to be directed or that sort of thing, and this is something that's come to the point that it certainly has to be dealt with.

Again, from my background, I understand that sort of confusion. I mentioned previously that East York was formed from the township of East York and the town of Leaside, and there are still people today who think in terms of the township and the town, as opposed to the borough of East York. I can well understand, when people give directions to the town, that they may be thinking of Bowmanville or they may be thinking of Newcastle, and there could well be confusion.

So this is something that was raised and had to be dealt with. I was pleased, as the member for Durham East has pointed out, that there was a very open and honest, aboveboard and proactive municipal involvement, leadership, in this whole issue, that it involved all the people from the town of Newcastle. They decided upon a referendum. This was, I believe, in 1991, during the municipal election, and the question at that point was, "Are you in favour of retaining the name of 'town of Newcastle'?" The returns that came back were 7,876 no, 5,492 yes. Obviously, that reflects a couple of things. That reflects that the majority of the people were definitely in favour of a change.

1130

It also reflects the fact that this was not an easy decision. I know, having spoken with the mayor just previously today, that she had some concerns herself, and a great number of people obviously did have concerns. There's an emotional attachment to a name that people have identified with for many years.

I might say in that connection that the honourable member to my right-hand side was born in Newcastle, Newcastle upon Tyne, a few years ago, and I'm sure that in his mind there's that sort of attachment as well, as there would be an emotional attachment in the minds of the people from Newcastle. But notwithstanding that, there was a clear message, and the clear message was, "We need to have change."

I was very impressed with the process that the municipal council followed from that point in time. They did establish a name change committee to facilitate the public consultation. The council organized advertisements in the newspapers in April of last year. They advertised for nominations to sit on this committee. They finally decided upon a committee of eight people: six people, two from each ward within the city, and one person from the separate school board and one from the public school board, a total of eight people.

Those eight people, as I understand it, set up a committee, mailed a household notification to the residents within the town of Newcastle, sought suggestions, proposals, for the name change, a very open process, inviting all the people to participate. As I understand it, they did receive some 1,300 different suggestions. It must have been quite a chore to go through those and to decide upon the right direction.

In August of last year, the committee decided that it would put forward several names and again seek guidance. The names were Applewood, Clarington, Darlington, Darlington Mills, Orchard Mills and Pine Ridge. Those were the names that were put forward for the public again to comment on. Advertisements were placed in the papers. Residents of the town who attended the meetings were given an opportunity to cast a ballot for their favourite name, and the name that we're about to approve here today, Clarington, was selected in October of last year.

There has been some suggestion about the use of "municipality" as opposed to "town." I haven't researched this fully, but as I understand it, the way the act is recommended to be changed by the honourable member, the use of the word "municipality" would allow the former town, as it will be, to retain all its legal and financial status. That's fairly important. Out of this process, the town of Newcastle of course is not interested in losing any financial support in grants or other financial structures. That's obviously most important to all municipalities in this day and age, and the way this is being set up, to call Clarington a municipality and the way the act is being amended, will account for that and will allow the municipality of Clarington to retain its financial position. Again, I'm in support of that.

The cost has been alluded to by the member for Durham East. They've apparently stayed within their budgets all along the way. The total cost is, I believe, fairly nominal considering the process they've gone through and the involvement of all the people. There again, I don't believe the financial issue is an issue whatsoever.

So in summing up, Clarington is a combination of the townships of Clarke and Darlington, and these were townships that I understand were created back in the early 1800s. Bowmanville was named in 1823. The townships, I think, were created about the same time. Actually, Darlington township was created in 1794, I believe it was, and Clarke township I believe was created just shortly after that, so there's a lot of history there between the two of them.

"Clarington" is a combination of the townships of Clarke and Darlington; it's an excellent choice. It's a choice that's supported by the council of the town of Newcastle. It's a choice that has involved all of the people of Newcastle in the selection process. I would simply offer my congratulations to the mayor, to the members of the town of Newcastle and to the people of Newcastle for going through a very civilized process and for making, apparently, a very wise decision.

The Acting Speaker: I thank the honourable member for his participation. Further debate on second reading of Bill 6, the honourable member for DurhamYork.

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): It's a real pleasure to be here speaking on this bill today, because my colleague from Durham and I of course share part of Durham region, and there's my personal history: My family roots go right back into what has of late been called the town of Newcastle.

When my parents were young teenagers and moved to Courtice, of course it wasn't the town of Newcastle; they moved to Courtice. As you drove out of Oshawa, the first thing you came into was Courtice. Name changes must be a difficult thing. I've got nine brothers and sisters, so when my mom and dad tried to think of names -- they know it's a difficult process to pick names. When they were living in Courtice, about the middle of October in 1954 there was the terrible storm that struck all of southern Ontario. As my father was driving my mother to the hospital to have a baby -- they had twins, as a matter of fact, girls -- I'm sure the name of the hurricane, Hazel, must have crossed their minds as a name for a girl, but Marilyn and Marie are the names that were picked for my sisters.

But they lived in Courtice at the time, not in the town of Newcastle. And then later on a few more of us came along and they had to leave the town of Courtice. I'm sorry, Madam Mayor, but they moved to Oshawa because they felt they needed to be somewhere on running water, because it was very difficult to pump a lot of water for all those diapers, so they moved to Oshawa.

But I remember going back to Bowmanville, the Bowmanville zoo. I'll tell you, when you've got nine brothers and sisters, a field trip like the Bowmanville zoo is a big thing. I'm sure the members of this House know about the Bowmanville Zoo, because Mr Tilley, with his famous hats, has done some advertising around the subject of the Bowmanville zoo. For those of you who don't know, one of the zoo-keepers there has lost his hat four times to the elephant but always recovered it, and it's still in fine shape, from what I hear. Returning to Bowmanville once in a while, as you left the city of Oshawa and went into Newcastle, it was rather strange, because all of a sudden you drove into Newcastle, but you were going to Bowmanville and Newcastle is on the far side. It's really kind of confusing.

I remember growing up in the south end of Oshawa. For my very first date I took my wife over to the bowling lanes at the east end of Oshawa. Of course the bowling lanes are gone, burned down, and where those bowling lanes were was in Newcastle, which is really perplexing.

I've still got a lot of good friends who -- my best man lives in Courtice, and I've got a brother who lives in Bowmanville, not to be confused with Newcastle, because they are two different places. Anybody who knows Bowmanville would remember driving through, and on the south side of the road there's this bus that sells the best french fries you could ever ask for. I've gone to Hanc's many a time, taken my wife when I was dating, and maybe the odd time, when my mother worked in a nursing home around the corner, slipped in and grabbed some french fries to munch on while I was waiting for her to come out of work. Hanc's is quite famous.

1140

Later on my mother did move to the village of Newcastle -- not Bowmanville, not the town of Newcastle, but the village of Newcastle -- to work in a nursing home. I recall one time going over there to get her keys, which she had locked in her car by mistake. I drove over there, and as soon as I left Oshawa I was in Newcastle. Then I drove through Bowmanville. Then I kept driving until I got to Newcastle -- quite confusing. The mayor has to be congratulated in changing this name and helping take some of this confusion out of the whole thing.

It's really got to be quite difficult for people when you tell them, "I live in Newcastle, and as soon as you leave Oshawa you're in Newcastle, but really you're not in Newcastle, you're in Courtice." When I was little and I returned to Courtice a few times, it was very small. Of course, there are a lot of people living in Courtice now; it's just incredible.

The whole thing is incredibly confusing, because what has happened now is that the town has decided, the municipality has decided, "Let's bring it together, let's give it a name, a name that people are going to be able to grow up with and remember." The people who live in places like Newcastle or Bowmanville today will still be able to remember where they live. They live in the municipality of Clarington but the village of Bowmanville.

It makes sense to me. I know my brother who lives in Bowmanville will like that, and I'm sure when his son or daughter is born this August, he's going to be able to take him or her to the Bowmanville zoo, which isn't in Newcastle any more but back in Bowmanville but never moved, in Clarington.

I just want to say to the mayor and to my colleague here that I think the name change is really a terrific, positive sort of thing. Every once in a while a little bit of common sense overcomes politicians and they start thinking, "Hey, this is maybe a little bit too confusing for folks and we're going to try to bring a little bit of common sense to this." So I want to thank my colleague here for allowing me to speak on this because, by golly, it's good to have a little bit of common sense in here once in a while.

The Acting Speaker: I want to thank the honourable member for his participation. Further debate?

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I'm pleased to rise today to speak just briefly on Bill 6, An Act to amend the Regional Municipality of Durham Act. When we look at some of the changes that have taken place across the province with regard to boundary changes, negotiations going on with regard to changes of municipalities and name changes, in Simcoe county at the present time all the county boundaries are changing and each one of these municipalities has to pick another name.

There is some confusion with regard to when you make name changes. I know you yourself, Mr Speaker, had a change made in the riding that you represent, I believe, by adding another name to it or something to that effect. When we look at these, there's no easy solution to the problem, because whatever you want to do, there are always a lot of people who object to it. I understand that in this case there were a lot of people who objected, although the vote was decisive that they did want the name changed from Newcastle. When I've talked to some of the people in that area, they agree with this bill. They want the change made because it's been an ongoing problem for many years.

Our party agrees with this bill. My friend Mr Mills has brought it forward. We're pleased that it's happened. But there's one thing they don't want to forget, and that is some of the heritage and history that's gone on in those small towns, because it's important that we keep that. Some 200 years ago -- we're celebrating this year -- John Graves Simcoe first came and developed the first Parliament, so we've got to look at the history of this province and of those small municipalities. We should not forget them.

I have a bill before the Legislature which I hope to bring forward this fall. It's a heritage bill. I'm looking to the third Monday of February as a holiday where we will stop and reflect on the past, think of the future and reflect back on the heritage we have. This is all part of it. I know there'll be a history done in the town of Newcastle. They will want to make sure that Darlington and Clarke and all those municipalities that were established there at one time by those names will continue.

When we look at the county of Simcoe, this year it's celebrating 150 years. In the 150th year, there are going to be approximately 16 municipalities that will be changing their names. When we look at the name changes, we also want to remember the heritage and the history of all these municipalities that were established many, many years ago, and make sure that it's documented and kept in a form that our ancestors and our grandchildren will see back in the history of this province when it was first established. I want to thank Gordie for bringing this bill forward.

The Acting Speaker: I thank the honourable member. Further debate, the honourable member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay.

Mr Daniel Waters (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): I rise today to speak on the private member's bill by my colleague the member for Durham East, Mr Mills. The bill is An Act to amend the Regional Municipality of Durham Act. The purpose of the act is to change the name of the town of Newcastle -- we've heard this -- to the municipality of Clarington.

As you may recall, the member for Durham East introduced a private member's bill last spring on the subject of British pensions for former British residents. This was a bill that was of great interest to the people it affected. In fact, it was the first time ever that I have seen all of these galleries around here full in private members' hour. It was such a good bill that Mr Mills's office received inquiries from the government members in British Columbia and indeed in the federal government.

This new bill is also very important to the people it touches. It touches the very identity of their community. The member for Durham East is a member who always strives to lend a hand to as many people as he can. These two bills are an indication of this.

In 1973, through the Regional Municipality of Durham Act, the town of the municipality of Newcastle was created, comprising the former towns of Bowmanville, the village of Newcastle, the township of Clarke and the township of Darlington. On November 12 in the year 1991, the people of the town of Newcastle voted in a referendum on the question, "Are you in favour of retaining the name, 'the town of Newcastle?'" A majority of the voters responded that they did not want to keep that name.

It was at that point that the council established the procedures to change the name and the public process started. Believe me, it was, as the member from Durham stated earlier on, a very democratic system, one that the town council and the regional council should be very proud of, of how they dealt with this. Over 1,300 responses were received by the committee and the committee picked six finalists. From that it went on, and at the October 26 council meeting, the name change to the town of Clarington was put forward, as chosen by the local residents.

In addition to this, throughout the consultation process, the name-change committee became aware of a great deal of confusion regarding the municipality's status, since Newcastle was referred to as a town. The name-change committee saw this as an opportunity not only to choose a new name, but also to clarify the status of this community. They went back to council, council worked on it with them and hence we now have a bill put forward to change it all to the municipality of Clarington, which is what the people of the area want.

Therefore, I wish not only to congratulate her worship the mayor and the council, but also Mr Mills for bringing this forward, because truly it is an act of democracy and that is something we should all applaud.

1150

The Acting Speaker: I wish to thank the honourable member for his participation. Further debate, the honourable member for Kingston and The Islands.

Mr Gary Wilson (Kingston and The Islands): I too am pleased to be able to support my colleague the member for Durham East on this bill. I think that he and other members have outlined very thoroughly the elements that have gone into consideration of this name change, that already it has been said that there has been debate within the community itself and then a mechanism set up to look at the replacements. I think that we'd all agree that this is a very democratic and reasonable approach to the name change.

However, I do want to speak to the issue of what it means to change a name. We speak of a personality of people, of course, which is what the term comes from, but we also refer to areas or cities having a personality. Apparently, my colleague the member for Scarborough East tells me, in England there is no problem referring to Newcastle upon Tyne and Newcastle under Lyme, and these two have enjoyed the same name or a similar name without that kind of confusion we have heard this morning has emerged in the member for Durham East's community.

They've arrived at this way of substituting the name, but of course, as has been raised, there is the issue of personality or the character and what that means to change a name, much as we can think of changing our own name. This was borne in upon me at a very young age when the school I was attending, called Moneta, was changed to Flora MacDonald, which was quite a change, and at that young age I didn't understand why the change was made. All I knew was that it was something much different from what I'd been attending. But after I attended Flora MacDonald for a few years, the identity of that name sank in and I was proud to be a member of that school.

I want to assure the member for Durham East that he can look to our area for guidance in this matter of how to cope with the change in name. After all, we've been in existence over 300 years and have gone through a couple of changes ourselves, When the area was first settled it was called Fort Frontenac, the area of habitation. A few years later it became Cataraqui, the name to designate that area, which I'm told by the members of the Cataraqui Friendship Centre is a native term referring to limestone. So again that's a physical feature that figures into the name.

The year 1788 was the first official designation of Kingston, and that is the name we know today, but if you look at Kingston it certainly has encompassed a variable history and a very rich history.

I was reminded of this yesterday when I attended the official opening of the Kingston literacy centre, where the people who were there to learn English as a second language came from all over the world. It's just marvellous to see that the richness of that is added to a community by this kind of experience. We heard songs from China and Russia in those languages, we saw t'ai chi from China, and Mexican singing. This was all in a very short space of time, but it just reminded us of the richness that we have in this world, and with the changes that are occurring globally, how we can take advantage of these changes.

Kingston at one time symbolized, I would say, a very particular way of looking at the world -- a staid, say, conservative, militaristic background -- but now it's developing within that name. It's coming to signify a different outlook on the world, one that I think will be very beneficial, not only to our own area but to the province and wider boundaries as well.

I'm pleased to speak in support of the motion, and I wish the new municipality of Clarington the best of luck.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate? The honourable member for Yorkview.

Mr Perruzza: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. It's Downsview that I have the honour of representing.

The Acting Speaker: I apologize -- for Downsview.

Interjection.

Mr Perruzza: Absolutely. However, I know that the riding of Yorkview is a very nice riding and it's well represented by my colleague Mr Mammoliti.

It's a privilege for me to rise today in support of Mr Mills's bill to change the name of Newcastle to Clarington. In the minute I have left to participate in this debate, I can't help but recall another debate in this Legislature where we were talking about renaming a particular riding. I remember the member for Bruce standing up that morning and delivering a very eloquent speech that talked about the signposts of history. Well, today I'm proud to be part of that movement in time where we make history.

I can't help but think that consolidating the towns called Newcastle under a new name is forthright and brilliant, and I can't help but think how Mr Mills is so forward in his thinking: a name that is totally and typically Canadian. I'm proud to speak of the new town of Clarington.

The Acting Speaker: The honourable member for Durham East has two minutes to sum up.

Mr Mills: The congeniality that's in the House this morning for my bill: The only thing I may suggest is I hope the Premier's watching, or someone important's watching, and maybe they will let me introduce every bill in the House and then we could get some business done here.

Anyway, that jovial talk aside, I'd like to thank the member for Brant-Haldimand, the member for York Mills, the member for Durham-York, the member for Kingston and The Islands, the member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay, and last but not least, the member for Downsview for their kind comments in the support of this name change.

I'd just like to bring to your attention a comment that the member for Brant-Haldimand brought up with respect to the term "municipality." I can just read from a letter from the Minister of Municipal Affairs. It says: "With respect to the possibility of not including the term 'town' in the new name in favour of perhaps a more generic term such as 'the municipality,' I've discussed this suggestion with a number of people in the ministry. There does not appear to be any significant concern, provided the choice does not come into conflict with any current legally defined term such as 'district municipality.'" So I hope that answers the member's query there.

I think the mayor and the council should be commended for this positive thing they've done. It's not easy to do things, to change traditions, in face of lots of people who don't want it. You know, we're all faced, myself too, with people saying, "Well, you go through with this and we won't vote for you any more," but that is what politics is all about. Politicians have to make decisions for the best of their community. The mayor and the council have taken that decision upon themselves. I'm pleased also to be in the House today, this further step to the next tier of government, to do that on behalf of everyone whom I represent in Durham East.

The Acting Speaker: The honourable member for Simcoe East on a point of --

Mr McLean: A point of personal privilege, Mr Speaker: Mr Mills mentioned everybody's name but mine and I thought he should remember that I was for it.

The Acting Speaker: It's not really a point of anything.

Mr Mills: Mr Speaker, I have a long-term friendship with the member for Simcoe East and I'd be very upset to not mention him, but it's a fact that he was not on my list when I wrote it. He jumped up unexpectedly, but I recognize him.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. We will now proceed with the two ballot items that were dealt with this morning.

TERANET INFORMATION DISCLOSURE ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR LA DIVULGATION DE RENSEIGNEMENTS CONCERNANT TERANET

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Firstly, we will deal with ballot item number 3, the second reading of Bill 3, An Act to provide for Access to Information relating to the affairs of Teranet Land Information Services Inc, by Mr Tilson, the member for Dufferin-Peel.

Do we have any members opposed to having a vote on this ballot item? If so, please stand. Seeing none, we will now deal with ballot item number 3.

All those in favour of Mr Tilson's motion, please say "aye."

All those opposed, please say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it.

Call in the members: a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1159 to 1204.

The Acting Speaker: Would all members please resume their assigned seats. I want to remind all members that we are dealing with ballot item number 3 by Mr Tilson, the member for Dufferin-Peel, Bill 3, An Act to provide for Access to Information relating to the affairs of Teranet Land Information Services Inc.

All those in favour of Mr Tilson's bill, please rise and remain standing until identified by the Clerk.

Ayes

Arnott, Bradley, Brown, Caplan, Cleary, Cordiano, Cousens, Cunningham, Curling, Daigeler, Drainville, Eddy, Eves, Jackson, Johnson (Don Mills), Mammoliti, Marland, McLean, Perruzza, Poole, Rizzo, Runciman, Ruprecht, Sterling, Stockwell, Tilson, Turnbull.

The Acting Speaker: All those opposed to Mr Tilson's motion, please rise and remain standing until identified by the Clerk.

Nays

Abel, Bisson, Cooper, Duignan, Farnan, Frankford, Haeck, Harrington, Hope, Huget, Johnson (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings), Klopp, Lessard, Malkowski, Martin, Mills, Morrow, O'Connor, Waters, White, Wilson (Kingston and The Islands), Wood.

The Acting Speaker: The ayes are 27, the nays are 22. I therefore declare the motion carried. The honourable member for Dufferin-Peel.

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I move that this matter be referred to the standing committee on administration of justice.

The Acting Speaker: Do we have agreement that this matter -- No. We now have to establish if there is a majority of members wishing to send this bill to the committee of justice. Those in favour of sending this bill to the committee of justice, please rise and we will have the Clerk conduct a count.

All those opposed to sending this bill to the committee of justice, please rise and remain standing for a head count.

I've been told by the Clerk that we have a majority in favour of the bill going to the committee of justice. It is therefore so ordered.

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF DURHAM AMENDMENT ACT (NEWCASTLE-CLARINGTON), 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LA MUNICIPALITÉ RÉGIONALE DE DURHAM (NEWCASTLE-CLARINGTON)

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): We will now deal with ballot item number 4, a motion by Mr Mills for second reading of Bill 6, An Act to amend the Regional Municipality of Durham Act.

All those in favour of Mr Mills's motion, please say "aye."

All those opposed, please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'd like to, for the purposes of the record of Hansard, state that this bill was unopposed.

The Acting Speaker: The motion is carried.

This bill is ordered for committee of the whole House.

It being past 12 of the clock, this House stands adjourned until 1:30 of the clock this afternoon.

The House recessed at 1211.

AFTERNOON SITTING

The House resumed at 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

CONSEIL SCOLAIRE DE LANGUE FRANÇAISE D'OTTAWA-CARLETON

M. Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa-Est) : Monsieur le Président, j'aimerais encore aujourd'hui vous donner, et au gouvernement, en particulier au ministre de l'Éducation et de la Formation, des nouvelles de la population francophone de l'Ontario.

Depuis plus de deux ans maintenant, la section publique du Conseil scolaire de langue française d'Ottawa-Carleton est en tutelle. Je crois que nous pourrions discuter pendant longtemps des raisons qui ont amené le gouvernement à imposer la tutelle. Il m'apparaît, par contre, très clair que cette tutelle ne règle aucun problème. La meilleure preuve de cela est que la section publique continue de s'enliser dans des problèmes financiers.

Je me permets de vous rappeler que la tutelle doit être vue comme une mise en veilleuse, pendant une courte période de temps, des droits démocratiques des parents en vue de régler une situation de crise financière ou autre. Dans le cas qui nous préoccupe, rien n'a été réglé. Les parents se demandent à quoi les conseillers scolaires qu'ils viennent d'élire peuvent bien servir. Ils se demandent quelle doit être leur relation avec le tuteur.

Monsieur le ministre de l'Éducation, nous faisons face exactement au même problème qu'il y a deux ans. Ne serait-il pas temps d'accorder un peu de temps à la section publique du Conseil scolaire de langue française d'Ottawa-Carleton et d'essayer de trouver une vraie solution à ses problèmes ?

LIVING ARTS WEEK

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): In anticipation of Mississauga's new Living Arts Centre, the Mississauga Arts Council, together with Square One Shopping Centre, Eaton Sheridan Place and Erin Mills Town Centre, has dedicated April 23 to May 1, 1993, to be Living Arts Week.

This celebration of Mississauga's cultural vitality is an example of how the arts can thrive when arts organizations, businesses and government work together. Funding for Living Arts Week comes from the three malls, the Ministry of Culture, Tourism and Recreation and the city of Mississauga.

Living Arts Week special events include a concert by the Mississauga Symphony Orchestra, dance demonstrations, musical performances by several ethnic groups, a demonstration by celebrity painters, a seniors day featuring the talents of our seniors and the presentation of four arts films at the Dollar Cinemas.

I would like to express our community's deep appreciation for the tremendous efforts and vision of Bruce Heyland, chair of the Living Arts Centre. Under Mr Heyland's leadership, the Living Arts Centre has acquired talented administrative staff and is coming closer to reality through successful operational planning and fund-raising.

I encourage the members of the Legislature and everyone who shops in Mississauga to visit Square One, Eaton Sheridan Place and Erin Mills Town Centre this week. Come enjoy the marvellous displays, demonstrations and performances which showcase the artistic talents of Mississauga's diverse population.

PLANT CLOSURE

Mr Stephen Owens (Scarborough Centre): On May 1 the General Motors van plant will be closing after over 40 years of service in Scarborough. When the plant opened in 1951, it manufactured Frigidaire appliances. It later produced parts for the GM auto industry under the Delco name. It was then retooled as the GM van plant to begin production in 1972.

Almost 3,000 jobs will disappear with this closing. This number does not include the thousands of other spinoff jobs that will be affected, like truck drivers, like parts manufacturers, like retail workers. The economic impact will be catastrophic to Scarborough and indeed all of the greater Toronto area.

The personal impact has an even greater effect. Many workers have worked their entire work lives there. Families are torn apart as workers must search other communities for job opportunities and as the stress of unemployment takes its toll.

The responsibility for this devastating closing rests on the shoulders of the federal Tories and their ill-conceived free trade agreement. Already in Ontario tens of thousands of manufacturing jobs have been lost under the free trade agreement, and if NAFTA, the North American free trade agreement, goes through, thousands more will be gone.

This Saturday a rally in support of the Scarborough van plant workers will be held in front of the plant at 1901 Eglinton Avenue East, just east of Pharmacy Avenue, at 1 o'clock in the afternoon. I know that many of you will want to show your support. This plant is located in the provincial riding of Scarborough West, and I know that Anne Swarbrick has been working tirelessly, as the member for Scarborough West, to help bring this to a more positive resolution. Unfortunately, the federal Tory trade policies have made that an impossibility.

I know that you'll want to --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The member's time has expired.

LONG-TERM CARE

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): On a number of occasions I have stood in the House to bring to the attention of this government the need for an extended care facility in Dryden.

I've pointed out the implications of having a facility some two hours away, the separation that this brings to families and the hardships and heartache that follow. Residents of Dryden see the rules of long-term care changing on a daily basis and actually have come to the conclusion that this government is out to make the whole issue complicated enough that the people of Dryden will eventually give up their fight for a home to keep their elderly in the community.

Mr Speaker, I can certainly tell you and tell both the Minister of Community and Social Services and the new Minister of Health that this is not the case. Ministers, the administration of Patricia Gardens has just received news that changes are being considered in regard to the services that it offers. They have been told that their designation may become a supportive living facility. Common sense only dictates that such a move will only increase the need for an extended care facility, and I urge both ministers to become involved in this planning to ensure that the needs of Dryden's seniors are met. The citizens of Dryden deserve no less.

I have developed a package for both the Minister of Community and Social Services and the Minister of Health relating some of the issues that have been involved up until today on this issue.

WASTE MANAGEMENT

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): My statement's for the Minister of Municipal Affairs. It concerns Bill 7, An Act to amend certain Acts related to Municipalities concerning Waste Management.

Minister, your NDP government and the former Liberal government appear to delight in playing games of give and take with municipalities across Ontario when it comes to the issue of waste management. In 1989, the Liberal government passed an act to amend the Municipal Act, which gave municipalities power over waste management and directed them to establish waste management plans. Just two years later, this government gave the Environment minister power to unilaterally dictate waste management procedures that had traditionally and legally been overseen by municipal governments.

Now the same government is tossing a bone back to the municipalities in the form of Bill 7, which gives them a semblance of legislative authority to implement programs and strategies geared towards waste reduction. Unfortunately, Bill 7 is just one more example of the NDP government's practice of downloading new programs without providing any necessary funding.

Your government's unacceptable practice of increasing the number of mandatory programs while reducing financial contributions is backing municipalities into a pretty tight corner where they will be forced to cut existing services and raise taxes.

On the same note, the cuts in the conservation authorities -- $138,000 in the Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority -- are a matter that you're not taking full responsibility for.

CULTURAL EVENTS

Ms Jenny Carter (Peterborough): On Friday, April 16, I attended in Peterborough the world première of Ernest, a musical adapted from the play The Importance of Being Earnest by Oscar Wilde.

I want to heartily congratulate the Peterborough Theatre Guild on this production. The music by Bryan Jackson and the lyrics by Janet Fridman were excellent. Director Gillian Wilson and all her production staff did a wonderful job. The cast was superb. The choreography, lighting and set design were all well done. The fine piano accompaniment by Susan Taylor provided the finishing touch.

The Peterborough Theatre Guild is hosting the Theatre Ontario Drama Festival this year, from May 19 to 23. There are five entries from the Theatre Ontario Drama Festival. Companies will be coming from Ottawa, Thunder Bay, North Bay, Port Perry and Elmira.

A highlight of this event will be a visit of the Yokohama Theatre Institute from Japan, which will stage a performance. This is a return visit, as the theatre guild took Bea Quarrie's production of Hedges, written by Peterborough's Dave Carley, to Japan in 1990.

The theatre guild sets a high standard of dedication and achievement. Thanks and congratulations to all those involved.

1340

TRUCKING INDUSTRY

Mr Hans Daigeler (Nepean): On Tuesday the Minister of Transportation said in this House that he wanted to weigh carefully all aspects before reintroducing the Liberal bill to allow longer trucks in this province. He said he didn't want to make a hasty decision.

Well, the minister has had two and a half years to make up his mind, and while he has been dithering for years on end, 200 trucking firms went bankrupt in 1991. Last year 188 freight companies closed in this province, with a significant job loss for Ontarians. It's obvious the trucking industry in this province is hurting; it's hurting badly.

My concern and the concern of the Liberal Party is for jobs. How can we help Ontario business people compete internationally and thereby protect and increase jobs? Longer trucks are used almost everywhere in North America. They will save Ontario shippers $100 million a year, making them that much more competitive with US firms and other firms in this country.

Minister "and it's unfortunate he's not here --

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The member for Algoma.

Mr Daigeler: "you have a golden opportunity to save jobs. You have a golden opportunity to help an important sector of the economy without cost to the taxpayer. Introduce legislation now that will put Ontario trucking companies on a level playing field with other provinces and states.

BUSINESS IN ONTARIO

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): On Monday of this week, the Premier responded to a question from my colleague the member for Markham by quoting out of context the words of Ron Foxcroft, the president of Fortron International Inc, the creator of the Fox 40 whistle and one of Ontario's most outstanding business success stories of the last five years. The Premier said that Ron Foxcroft was returning one of his companies to Ontario after a year's absence because of the better business environment in this province and the Premier suggested that this was the result of his labour bill, Bill 40.

On behalf of Mr Foxcroft, I should like to set the record straight. A year ago, Ron Foxcroft established a new company in Tonawanda, New York, where he was warmly welcomed. This he did precisely because of the NDP's labour legislation and at a time when public support for the NDP was still holding. He did not move any of his other highly successful companies from Ontario.

Ron is moving back to Ontario now because he believes: "The NDP government in Ontario is finished and Bill 40 will be repealed by 1995 as promised by Mike Harris, leader of the PC Party of Ontario. Bill 40 has discouraged investment and created a bigger wedge between business and labour."

This is hardly a glowing endorsement of Bob Rae's labour legislation or his record of management of Ontario's economy by one of the leaders of Ontario's business community. According to Mr Foxcroft, why should companies doing good for Ontario be run out by Bob Rae? Companies should remain here to drive out Bob Rae.

TENANTS

Ms Margaret H. Harrington (Niagara Falls): I wish to tell the people of Ontario about a very exciting and much-needed process that is happening right now across Ontario. This process is called Planning Together. It is the bringing together of tenants of Ontario Housing Corp with the local housing authority and community agencies for the purpose of involving tenants in decision-making and management of their homes. This is a process of changing attitudes, and that is never quick or easy.

Since September many, many meetings have been taking place across Ontario to answer a set of questions given to each housing authority by our Ministry of Housing. Mr Speaker, I want to tell you about a meeting in Niagara Falls last week. About 60 people were involved, all having their say on the issues, such as safety and security; eliminating discrimination, racism and harassment; tenant placement and selection. I was very proud of what was accomplished, the very realistic solutions that were presented.

I want to publicly thank all of those who were involved in the subcommittees, as well as coordinator Jenny Rossi, authority chair Ron Gibson, manager Ed Fortier and all of those people.

I thank these people because I know this is an extremely difficult process, taking patience, listening, trust and caring. It is especially difficult in this economic climate, but we can't say it can't be done because of money. With determination and a clear goal in mind, we can work together to give people more say in their lives.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Statements by ministers. The Minister of Environment and Energy.

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy): Last week, I announced in this House that Ontario has passed its --

Hon Shirley Coppen (Minister without Portfolio in Culture, Tourism and Recreation): Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I wonder if I could have unanimous consent to make a statement about the passing of a former member of this Legislature.

The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent? Agreed.

ARTHUR C. JOLLEY

Hon Shirley Coppen (Minister without Portfolio in Culture, Tourism and Recreation): I rise in this House today to mark the passing on Saturday, April 24, 1993, of Mr Arthur C. Jolley, Progressive Conservative member of the Ontario Legislature from 1953 to 1959. Mr Jolley, MPP for Niagara Falls riding, was first elected to the provincial Legislature in a by-election on October 26, 1953. He went on to retain his seat during the 1955 general election and served until his defeat in 1959.

A building contractor and partner in Jolley Construction Co with his brother Leonard, Art served four years in the Canadian Armed Forces and served four years on Niagara Falls city council.

Art's involvement in Niagara Falls community life included membership with the local Kiwanis, the Masonic Order and Clif-Lodge.

Arthur Jolley's interest in his community went on long after he ended his political career. I remember with fondness the kindness and encouragement he extended me as a first-time member of this Legislature and in the years since my election as Niagara South MPP in 1990.

His friendship and good humour were matched only by his willingness to share his experience and his knowledge. For that, I will always be grateful.

I will miss Arthur C. Jolley. Whenever you spoke to Art, he always made you feel you were in the right place. I think that's a wonderful comment on a wonderful man who served his province very well.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): It's my pleasure, on behalf of the Liberal Party, to rise in the House to pay tribute to the late Art Jolley. He's listed in the book of course as Arthur Jolley and is listed, I guess, in the plaque outside that mentions the names of the legislators as Arthur Jolley, but anybody who knew him always knew him as Art.

Some of the legislators who sit today may have noticed a jovial, friendly individual who once in a while stopped in to the legislative dining room and made a point of chatting with members of all the different parties. That was Art Jolley.

He was able to attract support from people not only of his own party, the Progressive Conservative Party, but, I'm sure, many Liberals and New Democrats, and in his day it would be CCFers. Those without a political affiliation were attracted to Art Jolley because of his personality, because of his desire to serve his community, first of all on the city council in Niagara Falls and, subsequent to that, in the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

Art also had another special place for people in southern Ontario, and that place was on a radio station, CKTB, in St Catharines, where he was part of the Super Seniors Network along with Meagan and Don Hildebrandt. They hosted a program on Sunday mornings, right up until his recent illness, of music from the 1930s and the 1940s and the 1950s and sometimes even from the 1920s. There was a lot of, again, jovial talk about those days, and Art was the person who supplied much of the humour and much of the, I guess you would say, loving on that program.

He was enjoyed by all, and when we gathered, a number of us, a couple of years ago for his 80th birthday, there was an excellent cross-section of people in the community who remembered his service. He was awarded, by the way, the Canada 125 medal for his volunteer work, because beyond the Legislative Assembly where he served in an official capacity, Art Jolley was a person who was prepared to be part of his community in a volunteer way. Anyone who sought his assistance in dealing with government, or indeed with anything in our society, found that Art was most willing to be helpful.

To his family and to his many friends, I offer my condolences. Those of us in this assembly who have met him remember Art well. He has served the people of this province and the people in the Niagara Peninsula appropriately. We will all miss him.

1350

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I'm pleased to rise on behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party in respect to the family of Mr Jolley. The information that I have about Mr Jolley is the fact that he was a member much like myself, from what I've been told, who represents the people in the ridings, and that is what I have been told, that Mr Jolley was very forceful in that aspect when he was a member here from 1953 to 1959.

Mr Jolley's highlight of his life, I've been told, was the fun that he had with the super seniors on the radio program, the volunteer work that he did for the community and the many involvements he had with regard to the Fort Erie Municipal Housing Corp, the Kiwanis club and the Masonic Lodge that he was involved in.

In this Legislature Mr Jolley served on the committee of public accounts, the committee of municipal law, the committee of education and the committee on private bills. That's an indication to me that he fulfilled his duties also as a member of this Legislature.

On behalf of the PC party of Ontario, I would like to send condolences to Mr Jolley's wife, two children and his four grandchildren on behalf the people here.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The kind and thoughtful remarks by the honourable members for Niagara South and St Catharines and Simcoe East will be sent to the family of Mr Jolley.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

WASTE REDUCTION

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy): Last week I announced in this House that Ontario has passed its first waste reduction milestone: We met our 25% reduction objective in 1992, largely due to the commitment and efforts of literally millions of Ontarians.

Today I address our next challenge, reaching the target of 50% reduction or more by the year 2000.

As part of the waste reduction action plan, I am introducing regulations under the Waste Management Act which will simplify approvals for recycling facilities and save money on waste disposal. By the year 2000, we will divert up to an additional two million tonnes a year from landfill in this province. That's approximately 200,000 fewer truckloads of garbage every year. These regulations will make Ontario a world leader in waste reduction.

The new 3Rs regulations become law in August. This will allow everyone time to study the regulations and requirements and prepare to comply with them. Regulatory measures include: blue box recycling, leaf and yard waste composting and home composting programs for municipalities of more than 5,000 in population; annual waste audits, reduction work plans and recycling for large industrial, commercial and institutional waste generators; packaging audits, updated every two years, and packaging reduction work plans as well.

We have listened to the extensive input received on the Initiatives Paper No 1, which laid out our regulatory proposals 18 months ago. We consulted widely, with 434 organizations, industries and individuals. We've taken into account the ideas submitted during the Legislature's deliberations on the Waste Management Act. Our original proposals have been refined accordingly to provide built-in flexibility in the regulations.

For example, while all designated municipalities will be required to collect traditional blue box materials like newspapers, steel, aluminum, PET plastic containers and glass, they have options to choose other materials to recycle.

We are also giving longer phase-in periods to the regulations to accommodate northern Ontario communities which face much greater challenges in establishing cost-effective programs due to the long distances from markets for recyclables.

There are many in the public and private sectors who are already meeting the requirements of regulations voluntarily and successfully. We need to build on this voluntary action.

In the coming months we will be working towards a new and fair partnership in waste reduction which the province, municipalities, industry and commerce, and institutions, groups and individuals can build on. We will be pursuing mechanisms for ensuring that those who create products and packaging destined for recycling pay their fair share of the costs.

Many companies and institutions have embraced the 3Rs out of concern for the environment, but they also see that waste reduction pays dividends. Their operations become more efficient, their costs are reduced, their products and services are welcomed by a public that appreciates environmental concern by business and industry, and during this recession, many companies have cut their costs and become more efficient, and that has contributed to the success of the 3Rs program so far. Others have found new opportunities for products and services in the 3Rs that have produced economic opportunities and jobs.

Ontario's waste reduction initiatives are consistent with the government's 10-point plan to put Ontario back to work. They are investments in jobs, in people and in structuring a more sustainable economy. We will make our year-2000 target of at least 50% waste diversion in ways that benefit both our environment and our economic recovery. These regulations demonstrate that we are changing from a wasteful, throw-away society to one that conserves resources for future generations.

EDUCATION PROGRAM EVALUATION

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Education and Training): I'm pleased to advise members of details of five measures my ministry is taking to improve our education system's accountability and the way it reports on results to students, their parents and the general public.

The people of Ontario are demanding accountability in education. As the Commission on Learning will be looking at wider reforms to promote accountability, the initiatives will certainly be relevant to the commission's work. We will keep the commission informed about these measures and the results.

The measures are the grade 9 reading and writing test; the development of test materials and activities for grades 3, 6 and 9 mathematics; draft provincial standards, which are sometimes called "benchmarks," for language and math; guidelines for student achievement profiles for students in grades 7 to 9; and a statement describing current provincial policies and programs dealing with evaluation of both students and the elementary and secondary education system.

The grade 9 reading and writing test is a curriculum-based test of reading and writing achievement in which all grade 9 students in both English and French-language schools will participate in the 1993-94 school year. This test has been developed through 18 months of consultation with educators. It includes two weeks of activity in which all grade 9 English and français classes will work on a set of test materials supplied by the ministry.

My ministry will set provincial standards for these tests. These will include standards for judging how well students can express ideas in writing, as well as use of grammar, spelling and punctuation. When the results are in, we will have an in-depth view of student achievement in important areas of reading and writing: where students are doing well, where they need help. From this, we will be able to judge what measures are needed to improve what we teach and how we teach it.

My ministry will return the tests to students and their parents, showing the students' ratings in terms of the provincial standards. We will also report the overall results for the province. Each school board will receive a report about its schools. We will work with parents to find the best way to give them information about the results and get them involved. As a first step, we will soon be sending a brochure about the test home with all grade 8 students, who will be writing the test in the next school year.

My ministry will work with school boards to make additional testing and assessment materials available for grades 3, 6 and 9 mathematics. We will continue to develop provincial standards, often called benchmarks, in math and language for grades 3, 6 and 9. Revised mathematics and draft language standards will be available in the fall of 1993. We will work with school boards to provide guidelines for comprehensive achievement profiles for students in grades 7 to 9 by the spring of 1994. An achievement profile will be a detailed record of the student's work. It will provide students, parents and teachers with more information than the traditional report card. Parents and students will be encouraged to contribute material to the portfolio.

Grades 7 to 9 have been chosen as the starting point for this measure because of their importance as the transition years, the time when a student moves from elementary school into high school.

1400

Individual teachers, schools, boards and associations are constantly developing new and effective evaluation and reporting practices. The ministry will ensure that information about these best practices is made available to school boards and teachers throughout the province. The ministry will also produce a statement to describe what the province is already doing to monitor the education system and student achievement. The statement will also list current provincial policies on evaluation.

The announcement of these five measures is timely, as this week 5,000 Ontario students are participating in the national School Achievement Indicators Program test in mathematics. As part of Ontario's strategy to determine how effective our schools are, we will support regular national testing. I will be pursuing an evaluation strategy with all provinces and territories in my role as chair of the Council of Ministers of Education, Canada.

Ontario has a diverse student population. In the design of these five initiatives, every effort has been made to ensure that this diversity has been recognized and taken into account. Letting students, parents and taxpayers know how our schools are doing is a key step to rebuilding public confidence in elementary and secondary education. As well, ensuring students master more than the basics in preparation for their future is a key part of this government's plan for economic recovery in our province.

The grade 9 reading and writing test and the four other initiatives I have described all contribute to the achievement of these goals. I thank all the people and organizations who have contributed to the development of these initiatives over the past 18 months.

Emphasizing education and training is one of the 10 points in our government's plan to put Ontario back to work. Another part of the plan, controlling the provincial debt, is receiving considerable attention these days. I think it's important to remember that those measures to control the debt are what allow us to continue our strategic investment in the future. Those measures allow us to continue to sustain essential services such as education, and to take the steps we need to improve them.

I ask all members to give their support to these measures.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Statements by ministers? Responses, the official opposition.

Mr Charles Beer (York North): The events of this week concerning members of this assembly are not ones which, frankly, make any of us feel very good about who we are as legislators and what we do in this place.

I begin my response to the Minister of Education's statement in this way because I believe so strongly that we must revitalize our Legislature and its committees to make them relevant to the issues that are of real concern to the people of this province.

In this place, it is surely our duty and our responsibility to debate the issues of the day, to debate vigorously, to debate intelligently, to debate rationally and, yes, to debate with passion, but we must ensure that public issues are clearly and truly joined.

The issue of the future of our education system is one of the most critical issues we face. The question of testing must be a key component of any sound educational policy. It is for this reason that we welcome -- albeit cautiously, because many questions remain -- the minister's statement today. He has taken a step in the right direction. We encourage him to be emboldened by this step and to take others, many others.

Testing is not an end in itself. It is part of a much broader system of student evaluation. That evaluation process must be meaningful to the student, to the parent and to the teacher.

I commend to all members an article in the latest edition of the Federation of Women Teachers' Associations of Ontario Newsletter by Ms Jean Hewitt, superintendent of schools for the London Board of Education. Ms Hewitt sets out four critical areas that need to be addressed in looking at educational reform. I submit that they are fundamental in reforming our methods of testing, of evaluating students.

She asks: What kind of student are we hoping to graduate from our schools? What is the image of the learner? What knowledge, skills and attitudes should be fostered in order to produce this type of graduate? What should the curriculum be? How should students be taught? What should the learning environment be like? And how will we know if we have been successful in meeting these expectations? What measures of quality assurance are to be used?

As we answer these questions, I believe we will design the most effective evaluation process for the future. Simply put, we need content standards, performance standards and school delivery standards. The minister's statement indicates that we may be starting this vital journey, but questions remain.

What will be done to help students reach new standards? What will be done to strengthen initial teacher training programs? What will be done to provide a level playing field for Ontario children who come from broken homes, who come to school hungry, who have been physically or sexually abused? And finally, Minister, how do you rationalize these questions with the actions of your government this past week which put more kids in every classroom and reduce the resources for learning?

It is very important that the minister involve parents in this debate. This week we have had a number of groups of parents at Queen's Park with strong concerns about the quality, the excellence, of our system. Their voices must be heard.

In addition, educators, trustees, teachers, those on the front line, must be heard. Professional competence in the teaching profession must be brought into this debate -- they are allies, not enemies -- and we must not forget the students themselves. Too often, we forget to ask them what they think. We dare not forget this time.

The minister's statement today will, I suspect, be greeted in the broader community with guarded optimism but also with nagging cynicism. His actions will speak. We will work with him and with the parents, teachers and students of this province to ensure that our system is one of the best in the world.

WASTE REDUCTION

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): I rise to respond to the statement made by the part-time Minister of Environment. The minister today announces mandatory blue box recycling, leaf and yard waste composting and home composting programs for municipalities of more than 5,000 people. The minister indicates that these programs will be mandatory for all municipalities in this province within one year and in northern Ontario in two years.

The minister must understand that a blue box program is not just a blue box in front of a home, that there is the requirement for specialized trucks, that source separation facilities must be constructed, that a myriad of other costs are incurred by municipalities. The question today is, who pays for that announcement?

Last week, Mr Minister, you said that your government doesn't have any more money, and in fact you took away grant money from municipalities. The municipalities say they do not have any more money. They have been stretched to the bone.

Today you announced that the municipalities must obey your directions. While we support the blue box program, support reduction of waste to landfill sites, we ask, where is the rest of the minister's statement about where the municipalities are going to get the funds in order to implement your directions? You have an obligation to respond to those municipalities. You should have done so today.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The member's time has expired. Responses, third party.

EDUCATION PROGRAM EVALUATION

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): It's with a great deal of pleasure that I respond today. I think in this place called democracy it's encouraging to see a minister listen carefully and respond to some of the good advice that's given to him from time to time by members of the opposition. So I'm going to take some credit today and tell him I'm glad he's read this Blueprint for Learning. I'm thrilled that within the first 10 sentences in this release today, he's used two words that are so important to the public of Ontario, to schools, to students and parents: "testing" and "accountability." Congratulations. I know this is just the beginning for this minister. He's got lots more work to do.

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Education and Training): It's irrelevant.

Mrs Cunningham: First of all I'd like to say that the fact that he is choosing to test in grade 9 next year -- there is a bit of criticism. He knows about that. Why did he use nutrition? Perhaps he should have been looking at Canadian history, geography, perhaps literature. He says it's irrelevant.

It's just a little statement I'm making on behalf of the public that asked the question. I think if we're going to test we could be using something that is extremely relevant to the students.

What I want to talk about are the benchmarks. If indeed the minister is saying that he is not going to look at The Common Curriculum and he's not going to change that document, then we will have made no progress. We need a core curriculum, as he well knows, in every single subject, especially mathematics and science first -- I agree with him -- with regular testing on the basic criteria that we expect from our young people: What we are teaching them? Did they learn it? Were they successful, and what are we doing about the ones who weren't? Are we providing the remedial attention that is necessary?

We know that one of the real reasons we're not competitive in Ontario is because we'd rather focus here on activity and process rather than educational outcomes, curriculum development and implementation, which are fragmented and differ from board to board and school to school, and accountability mechanisms right now are virtually non-existent.

1410

This minister is saying he understands that, but in order to be competitive we have to have a common curriculum right across the province of Ontario and we need leadership from this ministry. In 1983, in the second international mathematics studies, Ontario grade 8 students knew less math than similar students in British Columbia. In 1985, in the second international science study, Ontario students knew less science than students in the western provinces. In 1988, in the international assessment of educational programs, with British Columbia, Quebec and New Brunswick, Ontario 13-year-olds knew less mathematics than students in Quebec, BC and English-speaking New Brunswick. In 1991-92, Ontario participated for a second time, and this time Ontario 13-year-olds came in dead last in math knowledge, behind all other provinces.

The other provinces do have a common core curriculum. We should be associating with them and discussing with them. I've just found out that the minister is going to be the chairperson of the ministers of education across Canada. That's wonderful. I wish him the best of luck. We're on his side.

WASTE REDUCTION

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I'd like to respond to the comments made by the Minister of Environment and Energy. I think we all agree on the whole principle of what you're trying to do to encourage recycling, all the problems that are associated with that throughout the province of Ontario. The difficulty is that you've been rather vague on how we're going to pay for all this. I know that's been said. And of course you got us into the Interim Waste Authority, and the minister responsible for municipal affairs didn't even know that was his responsibility, let alone how much it's going to cost.

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy): It's mine.

Mr Tilson: Well, whoever it is. The difficulty is, you have no idea what this is going to cost --

Hon Mr Wildman: It's mine.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Would the minister take his seat, please.

Mr Tilson: "you have no idea as to who's going to be responsible for comparing the many reports. You have no idea as to who's going to enforce the regulations. Well, I have an idea. Yes, of course you know who it's going to be. It's going to be the municipalities and ultimately the taxpayers who own property in this province. Your Treasurer has bankrupted the province, and now you're going to bankrupt the municipalities. If you get us into these things, you should be able to have some vague idea as to how we're going to pay for it. You promised to us, or the former minister promised to us, a discussion paper on financing the whole issue of waste management prior to Bill 143.

Hon Mr Wildman: It's coming.

Mr Tilson: Well, you say it's coming, and then you keep introducing and passing bills. Bill 7's been introduced. I don't know how you're going to implement Bill 7. You have no idea how you're going to pay for any of these things.

Hon Mr Wildman: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: To clear up any confusion, the responsibility for the IWA rests with my ministry.

MEMBER'S COMMENTS

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Point of privilege, the member for Guelph.

Mr Derek Fletcher (Guelph): Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege. Yesterday in the House I rose to make --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Would the member for Guelph take his seat, please. A point of privilege is being raised. I need to hear it. The member for Guelph.

Mr Fletcher: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Yesterday I rose in the House to make a statement about comments that were made by the member for Mississauga East. I feel that my integrity and the integrity of many of the members has been compromised by a statement that was made by the leader of the Liberal opposition when she said that these comments were divisive and inflammatory remarks about the Serbs. If they were divisive and inflammatory on April 28, they were divisive and inflammatory in 1991; they were divisive and inflammatory on March 11. For the Leader of the Opposition to say that she did not make a deal at the Liberal convention --

The Speaker: What's the member's point of privilege?

Mr Fletcher: "she's lying to the people of Ontario when she's saying that she did not make a deal with this member to make sure that he would not be disciplined, unless it was raised in the House. That's what's happened. She has only disciplined this member because --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. I don't believe that the member has a point of privilege. It is time for oral questions.

ORAL QUESTIONS

WILL FERGUSON

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Premier. Premier, the charges that were laid this morning against Will Ferguson are the latest developments in a scandal that has just kept building. Your own credibility, Premier, has been shaken by this Piper-Ferguson affair, which involved both a member of your caucus and members of your own staff. Premier, since this matter first came to light, we have been asking you to deal with the issue, to deal with Mr Ferguson, to deal with the Grandview survivors. My caucus has asked you no less than 23 questions, made a number of statements and brought one resolution, to no avail. Your response, Premier, has been to refuse to order an inquiry into the matter, to suppress release of a report into the abuse at Grandview school and to close your eyes to the events taking place in your own office. Premier, you refused to act even when Will Ferguson admitted that he had orchestrated the smear campaign against Judi Harris, one of the victims of Grandview, who was also the individual who brought forward the allegations against Mr Ferguson.

Premier, my question is to you, and I ask you, why was a breach of trust, this breach of integrity which Will Ferguson admitted to, not sufficient reason for you to act? Did it take charges being laid for anything at all to be done?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): On reflection, I'm going to refer this matter to the Attorney General.

Hon Marion Boyd (Attorney General): It is very unfair for the Leader of the Opposition to suggest that nothing has been done. This is the government that initiated the police investigation of the situation at Grandview. This is the government that has protected the integrity of that investigation and of its prosecutions. We will continue to do so.

What has amazed us throughout this process is that our colleagues in both opposition parties have refused to understand that discussion in this place could jeopardize the integrity of the legal process and that it is absolutely necessary for us to take very seriously the fact that there is a criminal process that is under way. That process is going along with the full cooperation and support of this government, and it will continue to do so only so long as there is no interference with that process.

Mrs McLeod: My question was for the Premier, and my question was not about the issue of law, which I appreciate the Attorney General can respond to. My question was about the issue of ethics and integrity, which is quite separate from the issue of law and which only the Premier could respond to.

Since the Premier has seen fit to refer a question to the Attorney General, I will attempt to direct my supplementary into an area which perhaps the Attorney General can respond to on behalf of her government.

The Attorney General will be well aware that the charges against Mr Ferguson relate very directly to the allegations of sexual abuse at the Grandview school, to the experiences which have permanently marked the lives of the survivors. Those survivors, Minister, as you know well, have asked that the government release the 1976 report into the sexual abuse at the Grandview school. You are also aware that the privacy commissioner has said that the release will not jeopardize police investigations. You are also aware that last week the Ontario Divisional Court upheld the commissioner's decision and ruled that the report be released.

The survivors have asked for the release of this report. The survivors need some sign that your government cares about them. Yet you have done nothing but stand in the way of their request and suppress release of the report. Time and time again, we have asked you to release it, and now today, again, I ask, will you not reconsider your decision to throw roadblocks in the way of the Grandview survivors? Will you simply now release the report?

Hon Mrs Boyd: The Leader of the Opposition is quite right that the privacy commissioner, at a time before any charges had been laid in this particular case, did make a ruling that the severed report could be released. We have consistently objected to that on the grounds that the release of that report might jeopardize the criminal investigation and the prosecution of those who have been charged. It is extremely important for us to understand that the privacy commissioner does not have the information about the investigation, what is being looked at, how it is being looked at, what the issues are, and did not have that information at the time that decision was made.

A decision has not yet been made whether to seek leave to appeal. We are awaiting the oral reasons for the decision. When that decision is made, we will certainly be prepared to let the opposition know that we have taken action one way or the other.

The other thing that the Leader of the Opposition needs to be aware of is that there is a mechanism under the Criminal Code, under section 490, which enables the victims to access their records that have been seized in the police investigation, records which they have been seeking for some time. We have almost completed a protocol with counsel for the victims which will enable them to do so. We are not attempting to block their access. We have been working on the protocol since December.

It is in the interests of everyone that we follow those processes that are allowed under the Criminal Code and ensure that we are very, very aware at all times of maintaining the integrity of the criminal process.

1420

Mrs McLeod: Let me again attempt to put back on the table the issue, which we believe is not the issue of law but the issue of ethics and integrity. Because this question, again, has been referred to the minister rather than being dealt with by the Premier, I will have to ask the minister to respond not as Attorney General but as minister responsible for women's issues, because, Minister, at the same time that your government has been fighting to suppress release of the Grandview report, you will know well that there has been an orchestrated smear campaign against Judi Harris, one of those survivors, one of those victims, and that that smear campaign was orchestrated through Will Ferguson, with the complicity of John Piper, the Premier's own friend and adviser, and involving we don't know who else in the Premier's office.

There is no doubt about that question, Minister. There is no cushion of law;, there is no question of investigation here. The member himself has admitted it.

Over and over again we have asked your Premier and your government to order an inquiry into this aspect of this situation, into the Piper-Ferguson affair and who all was involved in it. So I can only ask you today, as minister responsible for women's issues, as the minister who surely is concerned about the Grandview victims and therefore concerned about the way in which this whole affair has been managed, will you not urge your Premier today to order that all-party investigative inquiry into the Ferguson-Piper scandal and let this matter be dealt with finally?

Hon Marion Boyd: I would not be doing my duty as the Attorney General of this province if I were to give that kind of advice to the Premier of this province. It would not be appropriate for this matter to be referred to a public inquiry in the middle of a criminal investigation, which now involves one of the parties. The Leader of the Opposition must be well aware of that.

I certainly am delighted to have an acknowledgement from the Leader of the Opposition of the concern that we have for the victims, and I would just say to the member that this concern is kind of latter day in the sense of both opposition parties. After all, who was the government in 1976 when this investigation first happened? Who was the government from 1985 to 1990 and what did it do about this situation? We are the only government that has had the courage and the strength to go through with this process, and we intend to do it properly so that the victims of Grandview are treated and have their day in court.

LABOUR RELATIONS

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): Mr Speaker, my second question will be to the Premier on a different issue, and I can appreciate the discomfort he must be feeling with the response he's just heard. He knows what the issues are in that last question.

Premier, I will turn to another issue, and that's the issue of the social contract talks which began today. You know that organizations representing municipalities and school boards and social service agencies have said that they don't have the authority to negotiate on behalf of their members in these talks. You know that the leaders of Ontario's public sector unions, who represent 900,000 workers, are boycotting the talks. School boards, municipalities, social service agencies say they can't negotiate the government's proposals. The unions say they won't negotiate the government's proposals. The question is simple, Premier: Exactly who is Michael Decter negotiating with today?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): There are a range and a variety of people who are at the tables today, a range of groups of people who are actively involved. There are a number of interests that are represented directly and there are a number of observers who are attending to see the progress of the talks.

I was encouraged yesterday -- I don't expect the honourable member to raise this to public attention, but in fact one of the union leaders, who has previously been quoted as saying some very negative things towards the general approach, is quoted in today's Toronto Star, a well-known journal of record, as saying that there is real work going on in terms of an alternative package and in terms of proposals which are being put forward. I think this is a realistic approach that's being taken by a great many people.

I've been struck by the number of ordinary people who have responded and say that they do see the logic of what we're proposing: that people give up a bit of time without pay, that there be an agreement to a three-year extended period in which there will be a real pay pause, that we will have some understanding of the need for restraint within the public sector, and that with that and the government's commitment to continue the reform, there will in fact be real grounds for optimism about the prospects for recovery in the whole of the economy and the prospects for --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Could the Premier conclude his response, please.

Hon Mr Rae: "an even more efficient and effective public sector.

I remain much more optimistic than the Leader of the Opposition. I would say to her very directly that I think this enterprise is worth undertaking, that's it a worthy effort, that it's worthy of the best efforts of the people in the province of Ontario, and that it's worthy of the best efforts of this government, and that's precisely the approach we're taking into these discussions.

Mrs McLeod: To refer, in answer to my question, to a number of people at the table discussing a number of issues is hardly the most specific response in describing what is happening in this enterprise, which in fact is the most unprecedented redirection of the collective bargaining process that we have ever contemplated. Premier, it is for that reason that I am attempting to understand exactly what it is, again, that you believe is happening or is supposed to be happening at those tables today.

Premier, the public sector unions will be drafting their own deficit reduction counterproposals, and according to press reports, you've said that you welcome this development. You call this the process of negotiation. But I can tell you that out there, there is mass confusion, Premier, inside government and among schools and hospitals and municipalities, about exactly what is to come, when it might be finalized, when it might take effect.

So, Premier, if you cannot help us understand just who Michael Decter is negotiating with, perhaps you can tell us more specifically exactly what it is that he is negotiating. What does Michael Decter have on the table for today's talks?

Hon Mr Rae: Mr Decter has on the table for the talks -- as do the various teams that are looking at the different sectors, that are discussing with the parties who are involved in those sectors in education and universities and colleges, in the public sector, in the government itself -- a range of options and alternatives which have been set forward very clearly and set out very clearly in the social contract proposals which were released by the government on Friday, the social contract proposals which are very much based on openness and accountability, on restructuring work, reskilling workers and establishing partnerships for capital investment, reforming the framework for collective bargaining, and the kinds of financial proposals that I've put forward and tried to explain to the leader in the answer to her first question.

This government has been, I think, very straightforward, very creative in dealing with an unprecedentedly difficult financial situation. I think the people of the province of Ontario have a whole lot more respect for that than the kind of negative gobbledegook they're hearing from the Leader of the Opposition day in and day out on this issue.

Mrs McLeod: Well, Premier, perhaps I can be even more specific in my question so you can continue to help me understand exactly what is happening.

Premier, I think you would at least agree that when these discussions are concluded, in what you hope will be about two weeks' time so the Treasurer has some direction for his budget, it's very likely that the unions' ideas on how to shape this social contract are going to be considerably different than the government's proposals.

You have indicated, Premier, as the talks begin, that you are prepared to consider the counterproposals, but the unions have said they will not negotiate at all unless the $4 billion in cuts already announced by the government is put back on the table. Let me ask you very specifically, Premier, very directly: Is the government's expenditure control package that was announced last Friday on the table, and if it is, Premier, are you giving the unions the power to negotiate the government's expenditure control plan?

Hon Mr Rae: I would love someone to perhaps ask the Leader of the Opposition whether she supports the idea of negotiating or whether she'd prefer to act unilaterally. If that's what she's talking about, let her say. Is she in support of the idea of negotiating or does she support the leader of the third party in his proposal that we simply impose legislation, bang, bang, bang, as he said? "Bang, bang, bang," was what the leader of the third party said. I have no idea what the position of the Liberal Party is. It changes day to day, it depends on who's asking the question and it has nothing to do with the alternatives that are in fact in front of us today.

1430

I would say to the honourable member that the government has set forward its expenditure reduction plan, we've put forward our social contract proposals and we are prepared to listen to whatever counterproposals are made. The decisions on the expenditure reduction have been taken, but I can say to her very directly, as I've said outside to people who have asked me the same question, of course if somebody has another suggestion or another proposition, it would be a very foolish government that refused to listen to concrete, practical suggestions, from whatever quarter. The only trouble is that we haven't had any concrete, practical suggestions from one quarter, and that's the Liberal Party that's now in opposition.

ONTARIO ECONOMY

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My question is to the Premier. Yesterday, Premier, the Minister of Finance told us that he is open to suggestions from the public sector partners, from the unions. I believe he's been quoted, and you have, as saying you're open to suggestions from anybody, anywhere in the province as to how you can help reduce the deficit, get spending under control, as to how you can help downsize the cost of government.

Premier, to me, your deficit target, you and the Treasurer have a goal of $4 billion in program cuts and revenue enhancements. I believe there's been a category there of $2 billion cuts in cost in salaries, but there has been $4 billion roughly either revenue enhancements -- and the Treasurer's nodding, Premier -- or in program cuts.

Now, you've broken that $4 billion down about $2 billion and $2 billion: program cuts, tax hikes or sale of assets. Let me ask you this, Premier, since you're open to advice, if we, or the public or the public sector partners or the social contract partners, can find more than $2 billion in spending cuts, would you not then agree that to meet your deficit targets there would be no need for revenue enhancements or no need to hike taxes by that same amount of cuts beyond the $2 billion that would be necessary? We could meet your targets that you've set that are essential for Ontario, and the more cuts that could be identified and found --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Would the leader conclude his question, please.

Mr Harris: -- the less the need is for that same amount of taxes. Would you agree with that, Premier?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): I think the answer to that clearly would be we'd be prepared to entertain any practical proposal from the Conservative opposition. I do, however, think that it's important for him to realize that when he looks, for example, at his federal colleague -- and we all look to our federal colleagues for advice from time to time -- I would say to the leader of the third party that it's important for him to know that I think if he looks at what Mr Mazankowski did in Ottawa, and I think if you look at the experiences in the United States and if you look at the experiences in the other provinces, Mr Mazankowski's is in a sense the counterfactual. He said, as a matter of almost religious philosophy, a matter of almost theological conviction, that he doesn't think that anything can be done on the revenue side at all or should be done.

As a result, I think we see that basically the federal government has had to give up in terms of where it is at on the deficit situation. They basically wrestled it to the ceiling and have had to abandon the struggle. We're not prepared to do that. We're not prepared to do that.

So I would say to him we believe that increased taxes, to use the very direct phrase, we believe at this point certainly that increased taxes are a necessary part of the overall strategy that is in fact going to really deal with this problem and set us on a path, a much clearer path, to recovery and keep the momentum for recovery going, because we do believe that the size and growth of the deficit is acting against the interests of long-term recovery in the province, because we believe, if I can quote Mr Mazankowski --

The Speaker: Would the Premier conclude his response, please.

Hon Mr Rae: -- that extended deficits are not taxes avoided, they are simply taxes postponed. I don't believe that this is a time for postponement; I think this is a time for reckoning and a time for us to get on with the job, which is what we intend to do.

Mr Harris: I appreciate the Premier and the Treasurer read our booklet put out three years ago that today's deficits are tomorrow's taxes, and so we agree and we're quite delighted to hear you saying the same thing now. It shows us too that these education programs we put out are being understood by Ontarians, including you. We're thankful for that.

The advice you get for your federal counterparts, since you brought it up, that would just confirm to me that you're on the right track if the federal NDP are opposed. However, you have said, and I appreciate, you're quite willing to accept help from all areas as to where spending can and should be cut. For example, I would like now to give you some help.

I have a memo here dated March 19 from the Ontario Housing Corp. Premier, just over one month ago, the Ontario Housing Corp board, which you've now stacked up with your appointees, passed a resolution to approve up to a 5% increase in wages for 1993 for all management and excluded staff earning up to $63,000 a year.

Premier, can you explain to me, why would an agency of your government, at a time of restraint, at a time when you have said -- non-negotiable, by the way, you said -- we must find $2 billion of cuts in the costs of wages to the civil service, be allowed to provide for increases of up to 5% just one month ago?

Hon Mr Rae: I've just been prompted by all sides here, and they reached their very quick consensus that that number is completely out of line. If I can use a phrase, it is quite simply not the policy of the government and would not have the support of the government. That's the kind of increase which is completely out of line with the direction and with what's going on in the real world.

If we have to keep on, through the social contract discussions and other ways of getting people to recognize and wake up and smell the coffee in terms of what's happening, we will do that. Obviously an increase of that kind in the current economic climate would be quite absurd.

Mr Harris: It has already been approved and was, in the minutes that I am releasing today of the March 19 meeting, 2% across the board, up to 3% in merit pay.

At the same meeting, the Ontario Housing Corp also approved a directive ensuring that any unspent money across the categories, any unspent contingency money that it has should be spent before the year-end so that it wouldn't lose that money, exactly the kind of thing I have been trying to put a stop to that has been happening, as you would say, in this government through 42 years of my party, the Liberals, and two years of your party, exactly the kind of thing that you are trying to put a stop to.

As well, they approved to take the contingency funds, to try to exhaust them, $204,000 for workshops, trading sessions for board members -- that's conferences for the political appointees -- $270,000 out of contingency funds for staff education programs, trying to, it looks like, get all the contingency funds spent towards the year-end, 5% pay hikes.

Premier, this is one of 510 agencies, boards and commissions in this province. Clearly they haven't got your message of restraint. What are you prepared to do to roll back these outrageous increases that are going on in at least one of the 510? What are you prepared to do to make sure that in all of them, in areas such as these that we can downsize more, we can cut some of this expenditure so there will be no necessity --

The Speaker: Could the leader conclude his question, please.

Mr Harris: -- to have to hike taxes?

Hon Mr Rae: I think the honourable member has done a public service by raising this issue. I'll say to him very directly that I think --

Interjections.

Hon Mr Rae: I say that without hesitation. I think in fact that kind of attitude on the part of public bodies is quite inappropriate. I think it's out to lunch. I think it reflects an old attitude that has got nothing to do with the way the things are and the way things ought to operate.

I can simply share my concern with the honourable member, say to him that obviously we will deal that issue, we will deal with that board and we will deal with that attitude. I think that attitude is wrong; I think it needs to change. I want to express my appreciation to the honourable member for bringing it to our attention.

The Speaker: New question.

Mr Harris: Thank you very much, Mr Premier. I commit to try to find up to $2 billion so there won't be any necessity for revenue enhancers, and we're committed to finding that before the budget. So we'll just keep doing this right up till budget day.

1440

LABOUR RELATIONS

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My second question is to the Premier as well and this is regarding the delays, if you like, or the lack of progress at the Royal York this morning. The Premier should know better than anyone the way the bargaining process works. He likes to describe my call to level the playing field as not negotiating. I like to call it levelling the playing field so meaningful negotiations can take place.

He should know that it is in the best interests of the unions to delay; that's a well-thought-out tactic. The longer they delay, the longer they put off taking a pay cut. So as long as possible -- we know that's part of the tactic. Every day it takes to settle the social contract, we're running up the public sector wage bill even further.

Premier, I think you would agree with me, we're now in fiscal 1993-94. Every day that goes by then is one day less to get the $2 billion in cuts the Treasurer says are essential. That means the cuts will have to be even deeper if we're going to meet the target that you say is essential for Ontario to prosper.

So I would ask you this, Premier: As the fiscal year slips away, as every day goes by, how much time are you willing to give the process? What is the deadline beyond which you're going to fritter the whole year away and we'll be into another year to try and recoup some of these costs?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): The member was going on very strongly, I thought, till his last sentence, and then, I must confess, he fell into the rhetorical trap which leaders of third parties often fall into.

I would say to him, the general issue which he's describing is one of which we're well aware. The general issue that he is describing is one which is in fact described in the proposal that Mr Decter put to the various teams last Friday. Let's realize that this whole proposal, in concrete terms, was put to people simply last Friday. It states very clearly, point 5 -- again, this document is released publicly; nothing new here -- "May 5, the Minister of Finance is updated on progress towards a social contract."

I want to say to the member, we are following this very clearly. That's why we started the discussions today. The discussions are under way. They were not postponed because of what some people were saying needed to happen. We said, "No, we're proceeding," and that's why we've indicated very clearly that's the case.

The member then goes on to this thing, "Are you going to fritter the whole year away?" I would say to the honourable member, obviously not. There are time realities and time constraints which we're all working within; we all understand that. I don't think it helps for me to draw that line here, except to say that the Treasurer needs to be informed continually with respect to the progress of the negotiations.

Mr Harris: I'm pleased to know there is a line, but you just don't want to tell us when it is. I don't know why that is, because the unions want to drag it out as long as they can. Clearly it won't be all year, so it falls somewhere between December 31 and today, and you know what it is but you won't tell us.

Let me move on to the next tactic that unions use. In order to try to get their way in negotiations, unions often use something called, "If we don't get our way, we'll strike," and the unions have threatened a general strike. They've said, "We'll walk out, we'll strike." That's a tactic; we all know that. They also know, though, that you have something to level the playing field. It's called "If it goes on indefinitely, we will legislate." So you've countered their threat of strike by saying, "Okay, we'll meet whenever you want."

Premier, to show the kind of leadership that we need, you have to let them know that you are just as tough as they are, just as strong as they are, just as determined as they are. You need to do that. To do that, you must set a timetable, you must set out a date. You've done that now. You must tell them what it is. Then, Premier, you must show them you're prepared to legislate. Then you can get meaningful negotiations on a level playing field.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Would the leader place a question, please.

Mr Harris: Are you willing to do that, Premier?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): Where were you during the accord negotiations? I don't remember your playing a role then.

I would say to the honourable member that I guess where I differ with him -- and I do differ with him, and to this extent. The suggestion, for example, that's it's useful or constructive for governments to get into the language of "You do this and we'll do that and you do this and we'll do that" -- we don't have to do that. It seems to me that governments have a job to do to get a settlement, to get this thing under way and to do it in a constructive and positive way. I'm not going to react to every rhetorical statement that's made by people who are negotiating on the other side. We don't need to do that. We have far more confidence and far more serenity about the direction that we're taking than to have to respond in the kind of way that the leader of the third party is suggesting.

Mr Harris: Let's be clear: The Premier acknowledged there has to be a deadline, and he has one; he's just not going to tell us or the unions what it is.

Premier, you know you have the support of the public. You know you have the support of at least my party in the Legislature in making these tough decisions that have to be made. Taxpayers know that we need to re-evaluate what government does, how it does it, what it can deliver and what it cannot. They also know we can't wait any longer before we downsize. Every day that goes by makes the problem worse, the deficit higher; it makes the cuts that we have to make deeper.

So, Premier, I'm calling on you to speak on behalf of Ontarians, to take a strong stand in these negotiations. You've said this: You've said that the cuts are not negotiable. There will be $2 billion less in the cost of the civil service. Your Treasurer has said that is not negotiable.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): And we are with you.

Mr Harris: And we are with you; that's right. Will you now also say that it is not an indefinite time frame, that there must be a settlement of this through negotiations by a certain time --

The Speaker: Would the leader place a question, please.

Mr Harris: "and, if not, you will legislate? Will you do that?

Hon Mr Rae: I can understand. I wasn't here yesterday -- I was in Hamilton -- and I read with interest the comments and questions he was raising --

Interjections.

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): You missed a good day, Bob.

Hon Mr Rae: Every day is a good day. When you're Premier, every day is a good day.

I would say to the honourable member this. I would say to him, the disagreement that I have with him -- I mean, I can understand that, having said that he now supports the general direction of some of what we're trying to do, he now has to kind of clear out some turf for himself, so the only area of turf that he can clear out for himself is to say: "I'm going to posture in an even more macho way. I'm going to inflate the rhetoric to another point and I'm going to draw all kinds of lines in the sand and I'm going to show that I can be even tougher than the alternative."

I would say to him: We don't need threats and counterthreats. We don't need inflated rhetoric. What we need is a process of genuine negotiation. That's what we're entering into. I think the people of Ontario understand and appreciate the resolve that this Minister of Finance has shown facing the most difficult economic situation and fiscal situation that's being faced. I think they've shown he's got resolve. I think the courage and the resolve of the Minister of Finance is a far more eloquent statement than the kind of inflated rhetoric that we're now hearing from the leader of the third party.

1450

COMMERCIAL CONCENTRATION TAX

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): My question is to the Premier. Premier, on Monday, in this House, you indicated in response to a question put by the member for Markham that an Ontario businessman by the name of Mr Foxcroft, who had left the province apparently because of his concern over the impact of Bill 40 and taken his business to Buffalo, had returned to Ontario and, according to your version of events, he'd done so because he'd come to realize that it made more sense, Ontario is a better place to do business, it had a better workforce, and he was prepared to put his political rhetoric aside, just to quote some of your version of Mr Foxcroft's reasoning.

Today, Mr Premier, we have Mr Foxcroft's version of events. He is quoted as saying that he came back, all right, but he's back, to quote him directly, "because I now feel the Ontario New Democratic government is cooked. I feel they're done, they're out, and that I can tough it for two more years."

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order. Would the member place a question, please.

Mr Conway: Mr Speaker, I would ask the Premier to take this opportunity of -- let me put it properly. Premier, do you feel that you owe Mr Foxcroft, if not an apology, at least a clarification?

Hon Mr Rae: It's nice to be able to respond to the honourable member. I wasn't suggesting that Mr Foxcroft was about to take out a New Democratic Party membership. What I was quoting from, and I will quote directly from the Hamilton Spectator, another journal of record, March 23, 1993, and I'm quoting from the Hamilton Spectator precisely:

"'When I got control of my emotions'" -- he's referring to his emotions, which I don't deny at all, his opposition to Bill 40 -- "'what I said was, "That's not me." It's not my personality to complain.'"

"Since the move, Mr Foxcroft has also learned that it's cheaper to produce in Canada, even though real estate taxes are $200,000 more and hydro is $100,000 more, Mr Foxcroft said."

I'm quoting from Mr Foxcroft's quotation in the Hamilton Spectator: "'What we found is real estate taxes and hydro are cheaper, but all other costs are in American dollars. In Hamilton, you have a more reliable workforce, there's more of a team effort, and all costs are in Canadian funds. You have a 28 per cent advantage on the exchange."

"'If you do 80 per cent export in the US, one finds a big advantage to do business in Canada.'"

That's what Mr Foxcroft said. I feel that in responding to his question and in responding to comments, I was quoting directly, certainly in terms of what Mr Foxcroft was saying in the Hamilton Spectator, and what he was saying now.

Mr Foxcroft may regret that a New Democratic Party Premier would refer to the fact that a hardheaded economic approach leads one to the decision to invest in Ontario. I can only say to him that I was not saying -- I wouldn't dream of saying -- that I think Mr Foxcroft is a supporter of mine. All I'm saying is that his actions speak very clearly to the underlying economic advantages of doing business in Ontario, and I would hope the honourable member would agree with that.

The Speaker: Would the Premier conclude his response.

Hon Mr Rae: I would hope he would agree with that.

The Speaker: Supplementary.

Mr Conway: Mr Speaker, my supplementary --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Conway: Well, I always think the worth of the word of the Premier of Ontario is important, particularly as we head into the very sensitive issues around the social contract. I think the people of Ontario want to believe their Premier, want to believe that he talks --

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation): You're skating, Sean.

Mr Conway: Well, I want to be very, very clear about this.

My supplementary, since we have all heard what Mr Foxcroft has said today, and he has said very clearly that he came back to this province in spite of, not because of, the Rae government. It is also clear that the Premier has not spoken to Mr Foxcroft, who had said that the Premier has twisted -- Mr Foxcroft has said, he has said; not that the Hamilton Spectator has said that he has said, but Mr Foxcroft has said himself that the Premier has twisted what he said.

My supplementary is a very simple matter: Since the Premier is an honourable man --

Interjection.

The Speaker: Order, the member for Cochrane South.

Mr Conway: -- will want to do the honourable thing, will he undertake to, this day, call Mr Foxcroft to explain to him what the misunderstanding was and to give Mr Foxcroft the benefit of the Premier's rationale for his comments on Monday?

Hon Mr Rae: If you look at page 264 of Hansard -- and I challenge the honourable member, since he now turns in every area -- when you look at that, when you look at what I've said, when you look at what Mr Foxcroft has said, I think what's taken place is truly a tempest in a mouth guard. It is not in fact an issue that is going to be responded to except to say: "'What we found is real estate taxes and hydro are cheaper, but all other costs are in American dollars. In Hamilton, you have a more reliable workforce, there's more of a team effort, and all costs are in Canadian funds.'" That's exactly the tenor and the import of what I said a couple of days ago. I think in fact the record speaks for itself.

GAMBLING

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): I have a question of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Since it's the first question I'm asking her in this new capacity of mine, I'd like to make it as simple as possible. I want to read the minister a quote:

"Gaming doesn't come cheap and I have to agree with a lot of critics on that. It brings crime, it brings prostitution, it brings a whole lot of things that maybe areas didn't have before. There's a big cost to pay."

Madam Minister, making this question as simple as possible, who said that: (a) Dennis Drainville, (b) Steven Langdon, (c) Donald Trump, (d) Bob Rae before he became Premier?

Hon Marilyn Churley (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): I'd like to congratulate my new critic for turning the House into a fun place to be today. As everybody knows, I am a bit of a party animal, so I appreciate the question today. I think, though, he's going to have to be just a little bit clearer. I'm not quite sure if I got the question properly.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Supplementary.

Mr Dennis Drainville (Victoria-Haliburton): I thank the honourable House leader of the Tories. I'd like to address my supplementary to the same minister and say, we heard on April 4 in the broadcast between Robert Scully of the CBC and Donald Trump that Mr Trump was saying basically the things that I have said in this House before, and that is that there will be significant social problems, there will be increased crime and that the people of Windsor will not benefit from this project.

Minister, how can you ignore the statement of Mr Trump, who is an experienced casino operator, someone to whom you are looking to bid on managing the casino in Windsor? If you wouldn't take my advice, why not take the advice of your friend Mr Trump, who says the casino will be a disaster for the city of Windsor?

Hon Ms Churley: The short answer is that we are listening to a lot of people's advice, including the law enforcement community here in Ontario and, in fact, the international police community, who give us a somewhat different version. So we are taking into account the advice that has been given to us by the law enforcement community, and as the member knows, if the regulatory and enforcement aspects are taken care of up front, in fact a casino can be crime-free.

1500

HIGHWAY LITTER

Ms Christel Haeck (St Catharines-Brock): My question is to the Minister of Transportation. I've recently had a letter from a constituent with regard to the condition, the state of litter, along the Queen Elizabeth Highway. This is not the first time, but there is definitely a very clear concern in my riding about the state of the highway, even Highway 406, which I know the member for St Catharines also knows.

I'm wondering, in light of the fact that this is a situation that we have to deal with, if we can take the advice of other jurisdictions and possibly some of the citizens in looking at an adopt-a-highway plan, I guess it is, which is in place in some other jurisdictions. What transpires is that signs are along the road indicating that, say, a municipality or a community group has adopted this section of highway. In light of the fact that this is civic beautification week in St Catharines, I'm wondering if the Minister of Transportation can give some hope to my constituents in the peninsula indicating that he would consider this type of program.

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation): During this particularly difficult time of restraint where no one escapes, at Transportation we had to make very difficult choices, one being a bit of a choice between winter maintenance -- and in no way would we wish to jeopardize winter maintenance, for it is directly related to safety. Consequently, because of fewer dollars, we're not cutting the grass as often as we did yesteryear.

We made another difficult choice: We're fixing potholes for the safety of motorists. We're not picking up the litter as often as we had in the past years. So there's less money in the pot. Winter maintenance is not compromised. We're cognizant of the need to be more judicious.

In terms of the adopt-a-highway program, I'm pleased to report that this successful endeavour is now completing its second year. It's working well. We have to ensure the safety of motorists, of the public endeavour vis-à-vis the safety of motorists and also --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Could the minister conclude his response, please.

Hon Mr Pouliot: Donnez-moi un moment pour que je puisse répondre à la question, Monsieur le Président. Elle vient me demander une fois par mois.

This kind of question cannot be answered by a simple yes or no. It's not that easy.

The Speaker: I ask the minister to please take his seat. The minister should know that if he has a detailed response, he may wish to avail himself of tabling a detailed response. I would ask the minister to be succinct in his reply, and if further details are forthcoming, perhaps he would table them.

Supplementary?

Ms Haeck: I still need to know, will the minister give me the adopt-a-highway plan? Please, Mr Minister.

Hon Mr Pouliot: With the highest of respect, I never thought that my original response would necessitate, would require a supplementary. I want to thank you for your timely intervention, Mr Speaker.

We will ensure the safety of volunteers. We're working at implementing a program province-wide, and the sooner the better. The point is very well taken. Our apologies for the restraints, but we're right on top of this very important subject, and things should improve with the participation of more and more volunteers.

EDUCATION PROGRAM EVALUATION

Mr Charles Beer (York North): My question is to the Minister of Education and Training. Minister, I'd like to explore, if I might, some of the issues you raised in your statement which, as we have all indicated, is a step in the right direction.

But I wonder if you could help us.

In a couple of the documents which you released today, in one there's this question set out: How will the standards for student performance be developed? -- I assume the provincial standards. It says: "The standards will be based on the outcomes described in Ontario's new curriculum guide, The Common Curriculum: Grades 1 to 9.

In addition, in a backgrounder called Accountability in Education put out by your ministry, it states: "The Common Curriculum outlines the general results expected. Provincial standards state the range of acceptable performance for that result. There are many ways of finding out whether a child knows or can do something. Teachers and parents can use many different methods to measure students' success against the same standard."

My question, Minister: The critical issue here is how we go about defining the provincial standards. How, exactly, are you defining provincial standards? What now is the status of The Common Curriculum, which both you and the Premier have indicated you have some concerns about? And how do we know that the standards that are being established and against which we're going to judge the tests are indeed standards that measure with other jurisdictions, whether in this province or in other countries?

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Education and Training): The status of the curriculum documents at this point is that the beginning of implementation is this fall. What I tried to indicate, because there has been concern expressed by members here and by people throughout the province, is that the outcomes, as defined in the curriculum documents, were not precise enough.

I'm not an expert in the field, but when I went through them, I had to agree that there were some difficulties. But we had to go ahead with the fact that the existing curriculum documents had been there for many years. I think you would agree that even with some of the difficulties with the curriculum documents, they're better and they're moving in a direction that most people have supported and that it was better to proceed than not to proceed.

So what I've indicated is that the documents, as distributed, will be implemented, but I want to work with parents and teachers and the experts in the field to make sure that the outcomes are more precisely defined.

So we've called it a working document. I, quite frankly, think that every curriculum document that comes out from the ministry should be a working document. You can't write a curriculum document and then leave it for 18 or 19 years and not change it, as was the case with the previous documents.

Mr Beer: Thank you, minister. I understand what you're saying, but I think you need also to understand that that response still is going to lead to a great deal of confusion in the broader public, in terms of documents it has seen, around exactly what is the status of The Common Curriculum and how parents can look at that document and relate it to the actual standards we're going to apply. I think that's something you're going to have to move on very quickly to ensure that the accountability you seek is there.

My second question then applies to those students who, during the testing that will go on beginning next year, don't reach the standards that we expect. There is nothing that I have seen in the documents released today, and in view of a variety of other things that have happened, the concern is, how are we --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Would the member place his question, please.

Mr Beer: How are we going to ensure that those students will be able to achieve those standards? What resources are you going to put into the classroom? What are you going to do in terms of teacher training to make sure that happens?

Hon Mr Cooke: The first step, at least on the grade 9 test, is to see exactly where the system stands and what the level of difficulty or the level of strength of the system is. I agree with you that as we go through this process, there's going to have to be, to the best of our ability and school boards' abilities, resources in order to assist students who are not at the standard that has been set or what the expectation is. So there are going to have to be the attempts to provide additional assistance to students.

I would remind you that already in Ontario we spend more money per student at the elementary and secondary levels than in any other jurisdiction in Canada, so perhaps some of these questions need to be answered in terms of reallocating resources and putting our dollars and our resources where they're needed in the system instead of spending them in the way that they are now.

1510

PUBLIC SAFETY

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): I have a question for the Minister of Health. Minister, I'm sure you would agree that protection of women and children against dangerous sexual offenders must be a top priority of any government and that your ministry should be working with police to make sure this occurs.

On April 22, a dangerous sexual offender who was incarcerated in Kingston Psychiatric Hospital for buggery and indecent assault was released into the public at large.

Can I get a page here, please? I'm going to send over an uncensored letter from the Ministry of Health -- take it to the Minister of Health, please -- which explains this release, although I will not disclose the patient's name to the public.

Minister, could you explain whether you think that your ministry is acting in the public interest when the letter states that the Ontario Provincial Police and the Kingston police are not to be informed of this patient's release into the Kingston community?

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): Mr Speaker, I can't today respond to the question the member has raised. I'm not familiar with the matter he discusses nor any of the background. I will undertake to get more information and take the question as notice.

Mr Runciman: Well, we've expressed these concerns in the past, and we're talking about a policy matter here within the ministry, specifically the mental health branch of the Ministry of Health. What we have here is a notation on this report in terms of this individual's release into the community indicating quite clearly that the police are not to be informed.

I'm asking the minister about her own view on this matter and the approach of her ministry in respect to the release of these kinds of individuals into communities across this province. This is a public safety issue, and I'm asking you, Minister, do you agree with that policy as it apparently exists within your ministry? If not, can we depend on your doing something, and when?

Hon Mrs Grier: The member has sent over to me a piece of paper which appears to come from the Ministry of Health. I'm not familiar with the background or the details on it or their accuracy, and I'm not able to give him an answer to his question today. I will undertake to do that at the earliest possible time.

DECENTRALIZATION OF GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS

Mr Pat Hayes (Essex-Kent): My question is to the Minister of Economic Development and Trade. The decision to cancel some of the ministry relocations, and particularly AgriCorp in the city of Chatham, has certainly caused some uncertainty in those communities due to the fact that you're talking about the 180 jobs that may not be going there now; that was an estimate.

Also, the leader of the Liberal Party -- I got this headline from the local paper: "AgriCorp Carrot Held Out to Chatham by Ontario Liberals." While the leader of the Liberal Party was down in Chatham trying to buy votes, of course she said, "Why not give the communities what they're asking for?" I guess she means at any cost. I think that's really what she means, as long as she can get her votes.

She said that she believed in this program and that it wouldn't cost very much to do this. What I'd like to ask the minister --

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: The allegation that was put in that particular manner should be withdrawn. It is unparliamentary.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The member is really straying over the line. Could he rephrase the remark he made earlier and then also quickly place his question?

Mr Hayes: What it said in the paper was: Vote Liberal in the next provincial election and you'll get AgriCorp. That's in the paper, Mr Speaker, okay?

What I'd like to know from the minister is this: Some of these comments were made, and I'd like to know really what the economics would be --

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): Mr Speaker, I want it noted for the record as a point of privilege that the question about AgriCorp and our concerns as a caucus about the decision that this government made was a question that I asked first in this Legislature. I did not go to Chatham and raise it as a new issue. I asked --

The Speaker: The member will know it's not a point of privilege. It is, however, added information. Would the member please place his question.

Mr Hayes: I would like to ask the question. The question is that maybe the minister could tell me what the economic benefits of this would be to the province and also what the communities that are affected would have to do, the criteria that they would have to meet to be able to take advantage of the $100-million economic development plan that this government has put together to help those communities that are affected by the recession.

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Economic Development and Trade): I'm pleased to answer the question. I too read that article with respect to the Leader of the Opposition's comments in Chatham around AgriCorp. I found them amazing. First of all, vote Liberal and you'll get these jobs; secondly, there's no cost saving to government because it's spending $100 million on economic development anyway. The Leader of the Opposition is just wrong.

I say, first of all, that there were operating costs associated with relocating in terms of actually taking civil servants, their families, moving them down there, all the relocation costs, spousal counselling for jobs etc, and those costs are about $50 million. Those are operating costs that will be saved. As well, with respect to the capital investments, there are significant capital costs for those buildings that will be saved. Out of that pool of money, we're taking a portion of that $100 million.

The member asked the question with respect to what we're doing with the communities. We are going to be using that to invest in economic development initiatives in those communities that have been affected by the cancellation of the relocation.

My office has been in touch with the MPPs who represent those communities, from all sides of the House by the way, and additionally, the deputy and myself will be travelling to those communities, meeting with mayors and representatives of economic development commissions to try and initiate the kind of planning necessary to use that money wisely and to try and attract permanent private sector jobs to those communities.

In conclusion, let me just say that for the Leader of the Opposition to say that there are no cost savings, to say that it's good economic planning in these tough times to pay to take one job from Toronto and locate it in Chatham or anywhere else, as opposed to keeping those jobs here and using the money to create new employment there, I just don't understand her economic analysis at all.

MEMBER'S COMMENTS

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I just, by way of earlier private conversation, had asked if you would review the Hansard of the remarks of the member for Guelph. I make a formal request that you review those remarks for inappropriate language.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): To the honourable member for Bruce, I appreciate his bringing it to my attention. I must confess that there were a considerable number of other sounds in the chamber, such that I was not able to hear every word that was spoken. Obviously, if the member had said something which was unparliamentary, I would have immediately asked him to withdraw it had I heard it, but I will undertake to read Hansard and report back to you later.

PETITIONS

SHELTERED WORKSHOPS

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): I have a petition signed by hundreds of people from the riding of Algoma-Manitoulin.

"To the Parliament of Ontario:

"Whereas in June of 1992, the Minister of Community and Social Services announced a cutback to the funding of sheltered workshops of $5 million, with $2 million to be flowed to supported employment services in Ontario;

"Whereas the Manitoulin District Association for Community Living had its work-in-training budget cut in 1992-93 and is scheduled for an additional cut in 1993-94,

"We, the undersigned, petition the Parliament of Ontario as follows:

"That whereas no consultation between ministry and agencies took place, we strongly recommend that the ministry end any further cutbacks until such time as real community consultation with the stakeholders has taken place, allowing agencies an opportunity to analyse the impact of current and future cutbacks."

As I said, Mr Speaker, this is the second petition of this number of signatures and I gladly affix my name.

1520

ROLPHTON OPP DETACHMENT

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): I am pleased to present today a petition signed by hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people in the Deep River-Rolphton part of my constituency and gathered by Mrs Mona Waito of Rural Route 1, Deep River, which petition is concerned about the negative impacts the closure of the Rolphton OPP detachment office would have on all of the people and the services in the northeastern corridor of the county of Renfrew.

HYDRO PROJECT

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): I have a petition here from, oh, approximately 800 people from the towns of Cochrane, Kapuskasing, Timmins, Iroquois Falls, all over northeastern Ontario. The petition is in support of the Northland project that is proposed for the community of Iroquois Falls. The Northland proposal would see the construction of a 150-megawatt cogeneration station for the community that would be economic development that is much needed as well as an increase in the tax base of that community, but more important, this particular project would help to sustain the long-term life of the Abitibi mill in Iroquois Falls that employs some 800 people. I support that petition and will sign my name to it.

POST-POLIO SYNDROME

Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to establish a post-polio clinic in the rehabilitation centre of Ottawa for the diagnosis, treatment and follow-up of patients and to disseminate information so that the estimated 1,000 known survivors in the centre's catchment area can receive adequate treatment and the medical profession be educated regarding this post-polio syndrome."

It's signed by 55 constituents of the Cornwall riding and I also have signed the petition.

GAMBLING

Mr Wayne Lessard (Windsor-Walkerville): I have a petition signed by many individuals from the city of Windsor opposed to casino gambling.

BRUCE GENERATING STATION

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"When discussing the future of Bruce A, to consider that the undersigned are in full support of the continued operation of all of the units at Bruce A. Furthermore, we support the expenditure of the required money to rehabilitate the Bruce A units for the following reasons:

"In comparison to other forms of generation, nuclear energy is environmentally safe and cost-effective. Rehabilitating Bruce A units is expected to achieve $2 billion in savings to the corporation over the station's lifetime. This power is needed for the province's future prosperity.

"A partial or complete closure of Bruce A will have severe negative impacts on the affected workers and will seriously undermine the economy of the surrounding communities and the province."

I will just indicate, Mr Speaker, in addition to all of the signatories, this petition is supported by, among others, the Bruce Provincial Liberal Association, the Bruce provincial Progressive Conservatives and the Bruce NDP, as well as school boards and other organizations. The signatories to this petition come from the area of Garson, Sudbury, route 3, Sudbury, Wanapitei and other locations removed by some distance from the affected populations but understanding fully that the decision is of interest to the full province.

HYDRO PROJECT

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): I have another petition, again from northeastern Ontario, in support of the Northland cogeneration project for Iroquois Falls. This petition is signed by, I would say, about 600 people from the towns of Cochrane, Moonbeam, Iroquois Falls, Porquis Junction, Kapuskasing, Cochrane again, all over northeastern Ontario.

These people are signing this petition in support of the Northland proposal that is being proposed for the town of Iroquois Falls that would bring much-needed economic stimulus to that community and as well assist in the long-term survival of the plant at Abitibi-Price in order to help it reduce its bottom line by being able to purchase steam at a bit of a lesser cost and I sign my name to that petition.

BRUCE GENERATING STATION

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): I have another petition to the Legislative Assembly.

"Whereas there is a concern in Bruce county and neighbouring communities that the Rae government will refuse to do rehabilitation and general maintenance work required to keep Bruce A functioning efficiently; and

"Whereas a detailed technical report prepared by informed and objective people has already shown that the maintenance and rehabilitation work is not only cost-effective but profit-generating; and

"Whereas there is concern in Bruce county and neighbouring areas that Bob Rae will circumvent that study by using non-objective people to restudy the cost-effectiveness of the rehabilitation and maintenance expenditures;

"Therefore, we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to accept the list of signatures on the attached document addressed to Bob Rae and require the Premier to guarantee a fair assessment of Bruce A maintenance and rehabilitation plans."

I assist in having this tabled with the House by signing the petition as well.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): I am busy today, sir. I have another petition and it is in relation to the proposal to amend the Retail Business Holidays Act. These particular signatures come from my area from a petition that was placed in the Sauble Pharmacy, and it is basically suggesting that Sunday shopping restrictions be preserved as under the former legislation rather than adopting the position of the proposed legislation, which is, we think, somewhere on the order paper some time, some day, somewhere.

BRUCE GENERATING STATION

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): I'm just barely finished signing this last one, but I wish to read another. As you know, we have some 15,564 signatures to a petition to the following effect, and I shall read one of those petitions right now.

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"A partial or complete closure of Bruce A will have severe negative impacts on the affected workers and will seriously undermine the economy of the surrounding communities and the province."

In addition to the people who have signed this, as I've indicated before, the councils in Bruce township, Huron township, Kincardine town, Kincardine township, Owen Sound city, Port Elgin, Ripley, Saugeen, Tiverton and other areas fully endorse this with the provincial Liberal association, the provincial Progressive Conservative association and the provincial New Democratic Party, which seems to be also separating itself from the current administration, I attach my signature to allow this petition to be deposited with the Clerk as a petition.

HYDRO PROJECT

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): I have quite a few more of these. I have a petition from about 100 people from around the Iroquois Falls area, again, who write to support the Northland proposal in regard to a cogeneration project for that community.

As was said in the Legislature yesterday and today, this particular project would see the construction of a plant with some $200 million of investment into the community that would create some much-needed construction jobs in the community of Iroquois Falls. Once that particular plant gets going, the plant would employ some 30 or 35 people on a full-time basis in that community with some very high skills that would be quite well suited to that community.

As well, that particular Northland plant would find itself in Iroquois Falls very well situated between the plant it already has in Cochrane and another plant it has in Kapuskasing and would fit nicely as a northern Ontario project.

I would affix my name in support of that petition.

GAMBLING

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the New Democratic Party has traditionally had a commitment to family life and quality of life for all the citizens of Ontario; and

"Whereas families are made more emotionally and economically vulnerable by the operation of various gaming and gambling ventures; and

"Whereas the New Democratic Party government has had a historical concern for the poor in society who are particularly at risk each time the practice of gambling is expanded; and

"Whereas the New Democratic Party has in the past vociferously opposed the raising of moneys for the state through gambling;" -- that's changed, mind you -- "and

"Whereas the citizens of Ontario have not been consulted regarding the introduction of legalized gambling casinos despite the fact that such a decision is a significant change of government policy and was never part of the mandate given to the government by the people of Ontario;

"Therefore, we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"That the government immediately cease all moves to establish gambling casinos by regulation and that appropriate legislation be introduced into the assembly along with a process which includes significant opportunities for public consultation and full public hearings as a means of allowing the citizens of Ontario to express themselves on this new and questionable initiative."

I likewise put my name hereon to allow it to be tabled so that the New Democrats can reconsider their position on gambling.

1530

HYDRO PROJECT

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): I have a petition here from the people of Porquis Junction and Connaught who are in support of the Northland project in Iroquois Falls. As said, that particular project would be a much-needed benefit to that community.

One of the things this project does is that it would allow the purchase of steam on the part of Abitibi-Price. That would mean to say they would have lower costs of purchasing that steam and overall reduce the cost of operation of that mill to make it more competitive on the paper market.

I affix my signature to that petition.

GAMBLING

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): There are a number of people who are concerned about casino gambling, and I have another petition. This happens to have been a petition that was separately sent. There's only one signature on it, but it comes with fully the same interest in having the New Democrats review their policy on casino gambling.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the New Democratic Party government has traditionally had a commitment to family life and quality of life for all of the citizens of Ontario; and

"Whereas families are made more emotionally and economically vulnerable by the operation of various gaming and gambling ventures; and

"Whereas the New Democratic Party government has had a historical concern for the poor in society, who are particularly at risk each time the practice of gambling is expanded; and

"Whereas the New Democratic Party has, in the past, vociferously opposed the raising of moneys for the state through gambling; and

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"That the government immediately cease all moves to establish gambling casinos by regulation, and that appropriate legislation be introduced into the assembly along with a process which includes significant opportunities for public consultations and full public hearings as a means of allowing the citizens of Ontario to express themselves on this new and questionable initiative."

I affix my name hereto.

HYDRO PROJECT

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): I have a petition here from people from the community of Iroquois Falls, fine community that it is, in support of the Northland project proposal for the town of Iroquois Falls.

I must add that this community, along with Northland, has been working in good partnership with this government in order to try to bring this project to fruition for the benefit of both the community and the province of Ontario and Northland Power.

I affix my signature to that petition.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The member for Bruce.

BRUCE GENERATING STATION

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): Thank you. You anticipated my need to introduce one more petition. As you know, 15,564 people have signed this particular petition, and I am advising that:

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"When discussing the future of Bruce A, to consider that the undersigned are in full support of the continued operation of all the units at Bruce A. Furthermore, we support the expenditure of the required money to rehabilitate the Bruce A units for the following reasons:

"A partial or complete closure of Bruce A will have severe negative impacts on the affected workers and will seriously undermine the economy of the surrounding communities and the province."

In addition to the people who have signed this, I again advise that this is fully supported by the Bruce Provincial Liberal Association, among other organizations and community activists in the Bruce county area, and I affix my name to allow this to be filed with the Clerk.

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Pursuant to standing order 34(a), the member for Eglinton has given notice of her dissatisfaction with the answer to her question given by the Minister of Education and Training concerning the cost of promotional items for the Jobs Ontario Training program. This matter will be debated today at 6 pm.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

EDUCATION STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE L'ÉDUCATION

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 4, An Act to amend certain Acts relating to Education / Loi modifiant certaines lois en ce qui concerne l'éducation.

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): Just before we start the proceedings, I believe we have an agreement among the parties around the following arrangement for this afternoon: that the time between now and 5:40 pm be split evenly between the two opposition parties, and then at 5:40 the member for York East will have 10 minutes to wrap up and close off the debate on second reading; that at 5:50 all questions associated with second reading will be put, Mr Speaker, and it's my understanding that although you may not see five members for a division, we have agreed that there will be a division and that the vote on that division will be taken on Monday afternoon immediately following routine proceedings.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Do we have unanimous agreement? Agreed? Agreed. I recognize the honourable member for Simcoe East.

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I welcome this opportunity to provide a few comments on Bill 4, An Act to amend certain Acts relating to Education. This piece of legislation is an unwieldy, anomalous bill that deals with 28 separate and unrelated changes to the Education Act. Sections of this bill were previously introduced as Bill 125, which received first reading on June 13, 1991; Bill 20, which received first reading on May 26, 1992; Bill 88, which received first reading on October 22, 1992; Bill 114, which received first reading on May 30, 1991; and Bill 37, which received first reading on June 2, 1992.

All these bills pertaining to education have been introduced. These bills were never called for second reading; it is a clear indication of the public opposition that they received. It should also give everyone a pretty good idea about this government's approach to and lack of commitment to the education of our children in the province of Ontario.

The amendments contained in Bill 4 can be divided into three sections: amendments to correspond with recently enacted municipal affairs legislation, amendments related to special education programs and services and amendments that support new and ongoing ministry innovations such as junior kindergarten. Those were new initiatives.

The NDP government has adopted a new special education policy that requires all school boards to integrate exceptional pupils wherever possible into community classrooms at the request of parents. There are a number of amendments related to special education contained in Bill 4.

But I would like to take a moment to bring to your attention a very interesting letter that I received from Lisa Day of Orillia. Lisa wrote me about a group of people who provide educational services to individuals that she suggests are neglected by the government and the education system. Part of the letter is:

"The matter that I want to bring to your attention is concerning a group of employees that I feel nobody wants to be responsible for. These employees provide educational services to individuals that were neglected by the educational system. The employees that I am referring to are adult basic numeracy/literacy instructors, heritage language instructors and English-as-a-second-language teachers.

1540

"At the current time we are funded by the Ministry of Education. The Simcoe County Board of Education receives the funding and administers the grant. Although we are very grateful to the Ministry of Education and Simcoe county for their help, we find that we have been left in a precarious position. Most of us work full-time hours but we do not get sick days, paid vacation and any other benefits that are related to having a full-time position. Simcoe County Board of Education considers us as secondary, meaning if they do not receive the amount of grant money needed to run these programs they will shut them down. Thus we will never receive any sick days, paid vacation and other benefits because we will never be perceived as full-time employees.

"Since no ministry assumes responsibility for providing education for individuals that have special needs, our programs will always be considered secondary. We provide educational help to new immigrants, mentally handicapped, dual-diagnosed, mentally ill persons and individuals involved in the justice system. Because of this we seem to cover a broad basis of ministries which are as follows: Ministry of Education, Ministry of Correctional Services, Ministry of Skills Development, Ministry of Community and Social Services, Ministry of Employment and Immigration, Ministry of Health and Ministry of Colleges and Universities. We provide service to people involved in all of these jurisdictions and so no one ministry will assume ownership of our programs. Since the numbers of recipients have increased and the numbers on our waiting list have increased, our programs have had continual growth. It amazes us that no ministry values us enough to accept us as an important service being available. We help build self-esteem and proficiency skills, thus promoting independence that will allow these individuals to be contributing citizens to their communities. The system has failed them and us. We are the last opportunity for them to have independent and successful lives.

"We value our careers and find them very rewarding but we would like the government to realize the importance of the programs. As it stands now, we are floating with no ministry valuing us enough to take the initiative towards responsibility for providing these programs."

Lisa Day teaches at an occupational centre in Edgar. She has friends who teach in Huronia Regional Centre in Orillia and other centres across the province. These people seem to be forgotten in the education system.

I have a great deal of difficulty with amendments that would require school boards to operate junior kindergartens by August 31, 1994, with the Lieutenant Governor in Council having the power to allow a board to phase in the junior kindergarten requirement over a three-year period; that's by September 1, 1997.

I recently had the honour to present a number of petitions that were signed by hundreds of constituents in Simcoe East. These petitions were in response to junior kindergarten, the issue as proposed by the NDP government under the old Bill 88. I believe it's important for me to share the main content of these petitions with you again today:

"Whereas we, as citizens of the province of Ontario and residents of the county of Simcoe, object to the imposition of junior kindergarten by the year 1994;

"We would ask the Minister of Education to consider a moratorium of a duration of at least two years or until there is some obvious improvement in the economic climate of this country.

"Funding arrangements, as proposed in Bill 88, while of some value to taxpayers initially, will leave the ultimate responsibility for all future funding with the municipalities, and many of these municipalities are already hard pressed to collect taxes as levied to date.

"We understand the proposed program may be of value to some. However, the majority cannot, at this time, afford any further tax increases."

As I said earlier, I had an opportunity to present a number of these petitions that contain the signatures of hundreds of people who are extremely angry at this government's ongoing policy of downloading costly programs. The people of Simcoe county are fed up, because they are taxed to the limit.

I do not believe the three-year phase-in period is really of any use to our beleaguered school boards in Ontario. I hope I'm wrong. But I do not believe that they will see an end to overcrowding and financial distress within the next three years.

These people are angry that Bill 4 downloads the costs on to school boards for junior kindergarten, enhanced special education programs and services, and the beginning of a universal child care scheme for three to five years. I find it distressing that we had the government introduce Bill 4, which downloads costs on school boards, and at the same time as this was happening, the Treasurer was announcing that $635.6 million would be cut from the Ministry of Education and Training's budget: $636 million cut from the Ministry of Education and Training budget. This includes a $130-million deferment of operating grants and the cancellation of $69.6 million in transition funding for school boards.

I believe the Premier and his Minister of Education should have paid attention, very much attention, when Mike Harris, MPP for Nipissing, the leader of the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario, released the document New Directions Volume Two: A Blueprint for Learning in Ontario. The minister's announcement today even had a few words from this Blueprint for Learning in Ontario, and I think all educators and people across this province should have a copy. You can get that through our leader's office.

But if they had paid attention and if they had read the document before introducing Bill 4, they would have discovered the PC caucus's view on the issue of downloading on page 16, which reads:

"Above all, the provincial practice of mandating new programs without providing the necessary funding to school boards must end. By increasing the number of mandatory programs while reducing its financial contributions, the province has been forcing boards to either cut services or raise local taxes."

Are we not at the stage where we don't need any new programs, we don't need any new spending? Can we not say "Halt" to a lot of those extra costs that are being put on to the taxpayer?

If the Premier and his Minister of Education had read this document, they would have discovered my party's views on junior kindergarten on page 19:

"It is not clear whether junior kindergarten should be part of the elementary school system, or the child care system. This is a question that the Liberal government should have studied before introducing mandatory junior kindergarten and that the NDP should have reviewed before mandating it in all schools by 1994. A thorough evaluation and public discussion is needed to determine what is best for the child, parents and the community. Until then, junior kindergarten should remain a local option for school boards."

If they had read this document, they would have discovered that the PC caucus is recommending an overhaul and rejuvenation of Ontario's education system to increase opportunities for all Ontarians through excellence and accountability in our educational and training systems.

The government's aimless approach to education that is clearly shown with Bill 4 fails to recognize that our world is undergoing fundamental structural changes. New technologies and services are creating new challenges and increased opportunities. The future of Ontario's young people depends on their ability to take advantage of these new challenges and the opportunities that exist. Our education system must be prepared to assist our young people by equipping them with the skills and knowledge that they will need to meet the challenges of today and the ability to learn new skills and acquire more knowledge throughout their lives. Those are, to me, the challenges of tomorrow.

Mr Speaker, the Premier and his Minister of Education would have gotten a failed grade for introducing Bill 4, the Education Statute Law Amendment Act, and I would suggest that you keep them after school tonight and have them study New Directions Volume Two: A Blueprint for Learning in Ontario.

In wrapping up, I want to make it very clear what this bill is all about. They wanted to make the following amendments:

"For the purpose of determining school board rates under the County of Oxford Act, the District Municipality of Muskoka Act, the Municipal Act and the Regional Municipality Act, the definitions of 'commercial assessment' and 'residential and farm assessment' in the Education Act will apply....

"The provisions related to the apportionment of the telephone and telegraph levies in regional municipalities and in the county of Oxford and the district municipality of Muskoka will be consistent with the provisions that apply to counties under section 379 of the Municipal Act....

"The assessment update in the district municipality of Muskoka will be delayed for one year....

"References to 'trainable retarded children' and 'trainable retarded pupils' are removed from the Education Act and the Ottawa-Carleton French-Language School Board Act. These pupils will be governed by the same provisions that apply to other exceptional pupils (subject to the amendments made by sections 44 to 47 of the bill relating to the Metropolitan Toronto School Board)...."

1550

That is the essence of this bill and that's why many people have problems accepting the amendments that are placed here in Bill 4.

I'm pleased to have had the opportunity to have said a few words with regard to this bill. As I said before, I would suggest that they be kept here tonight after school so that they'll have a chance to read the book New Directions.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Further debate?

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): I'm pleased to rise and participate in today's debate, which is on Bill 4, an omnibus bill, An Act to amend certain Acts relating to Education. It addresses numerous issues. What I'd like to do as I speak in principle to the issues that are related in this act, many of which I think could be considered as housekeeping and language -- I believe there are also some very substantive issues, and since this is a debate in principle, Mr Speaker, I'm hoping that you will allow some latitude since this is an opportunity for all of us in this House to speak on the record about our concerns and our hopes and in fact the priority and imperative that we prepare today so that we can educate not only for today but for the future.

There are numerous issues affecting education in Ontario. To me, it's really our number one priority after we create an economy that will create jobs. My constituents in the riding of Oriole know that education is the key to preparing for the future. The students who are in our care in our education system here in the province are depending upon us to reform the education system so that it will be able to educate for the future and not simply try to hold the status quo, which is not an option in this rapidly changing world.

Before I begin, I would like to address one issue that I've already discussed with the Minister of Education and that I'm hoping he will consider as a part of this omnibus education bill, as a government amendment, at committee. It's on the issue of accessibility and my feeling very strongly that it's in the interest of our society, the public interest of our society, to ensure that all children in Ontario have access to an education that will open the doors for them and give them an opportunity for the future.

That's what my private member's bill, Bill 24, is all about. As members know, it was passed unanimously during private members' hour in the House and has been referred to committee. It's been referred to the same committee that Bill 4, the omnibus bill on education, will be referred to. It's my hope that the government will consider a government amendment that will incorporate the principle in Bill 24 and achieve the goal as expeditiously as possible. It's not often that the government has the opportunity to do that, and I would encourage it to do that. I'd like to place on the record today a suggestion of how they can achieve that without having to incorporate all of Bill 24 as it exists today.

I want to tell the government and the Minister of Education and members of this House that after I tabled private member's Bill 24 I had an opportunity to speak with numerous educators, not only trustees but also directors of education and solicitors, lawyers who are experts on the Education Act. I asked for advice on how the concerns of the Ministry of Education, the concerns that it had around visa student fees, fees for students who choose to cross their educational boundary, many of the issues that Bill 24 raised that were, I think, legitimate concerns of the ministry.

At the time that I tabled that legislation I said that I was looking for the best advice that I could find. Once we had unanimous approval of the legislation we would find amendments that would solve the problems which were technical. But I said in that debate that we couldn't allow those technicalities to stand in the way of children being educated, with a society whose concern it is to make sure that we put those interests first.

I want to thank Mr Brian Kelsey. He is a lawyer who does a lot of work for the Metropolitan Toronto School Board. He offered me his advice and I'm going to place it on the record, and I will be, today, sending it over to the staff of the Ministry of Education in the hopes that these amendments could be incorporated into Bill 4.

I know that will require unanimous consent, because not all of these sections are mentioned in Bill 4, but I believe that if this was supported by the government, it would have unanimous consent and these amendments could be placed at committee. It's my understanding that that is possible, given the rules of the House, and it's my hope that it will be done.

The changes to Bill 24 which I'd like to see incorporated into Bill 4 would be to add subsection (3) to section 32, the following:

"(3) A person is deemed to be qualified to be a resident pupil for the purposes of subsection (1) and subsections 33(1) and (2) and section 40, and to be a resident pupil for the purposes of subsections 33(4) and 40(2), if the person's parent has his or her dwelling-place in a school section, notwithstanding that the person's parent is not a citizen of Canada or a permanent resident in Canada.

"(4) Subsection (3) does not apply to a visitor to Canada within the meaning of the Immigration Act (Canada)."

There would be a second amendment which would be added to subsection 49(7): clause (h) would add "a person within the meaning of subsection 32(3)."

I believe that those two amendments to this omnibus bill would achieve the goal of private member's Bill 24. It would ensure that all children who have a dwelling-place in the province of Ontario in a specific school district would be eligible to attend that school without fear.

I believe that the amendments that I'm proposing today and I'm asking to be considered at committee when it's discussing Bill 4 will achieve the goals which were responded to in a way which I believe was both non-partisan and, I think, forward-looking. Because we are all concerned about having the most- and best-educated population in the future. If we have children who are attempting to attend school in fear or we have children who are denied access to our school system because of the status of their parents, then we are visiting the sins of the parents upon those children, and the members of this Legislature unanimously said that it's not in society's interest to do that. We must protect those children.

Whether ultimately they end up leaving the country, they will leave better educated because of their time in Ontario schools. And if at some point in time their parents become Canadian citizens or their parents become legal landed immigrants, then in fact those children will not have been handicapped and disadvantaged because of their fear during those years when their status had not legally permitted them to attend our schools.

1600

The other point I want to make, and what I've heard from educators as I've discussed Bill 24, is that those children are presently in the school system today, by and large, so there's no additional costs that these amendments would bring. The difference is that these children today are in the school system and are fearful.

They are in some schools where the administrators take a "wink, wink, nod, nod" attitude, and sometimes those children are pulled out of one school and placed in another school out of fear and their education is interrupted in a way which is detrimental to them, detrimental to Canadian society and to Ontarians in general, because we end up with a child who has been hurt and disadvantaged. When we see our functional illiteracy rates and we see the problems that so many of our children are having and facing, surely, if we have a way of correcting that for those who are potentially disadvantaged, then I think it would be a positive step to see this enshrined in Bill 4.

I spoke to the minister about this and he said he's willing to consider it, and I believe that the amendments I'm suggesting will achieve that goal. I don't believe there'll be any cost, and I believe as well that it will ensure access to the Ontario system in an appropriate way and achieve the objectives that all members of this House agreed to when we debated Bill 24.

Access to education has always been a goal, but it's not just access to education: I think it's access to the best quality education that we can provide. One of the reasons I decided to enter public life was to do what I could, and my own belief is that an individual can make a difference in this House.

I was saddened yesterday when I heard another member stand in his place, a relatively new member, the member for Victoria-Haliburton, and express his frustration because he didn't believe he was able to effectively make a difference in a positive way as a member of the government caucus. That saddened me, because I've been a member of a government, I've been a cabinet minister, I've been a member of the back bench, served on numerous committees as a government backbencher, I've been a member of the official opposition now for the past two and a half years, and before that I had the opportunity to serve on municipal council in the city of North York for almost seven years, and my experience in public life has been that an individual really can make a difference in influencing public policy.

Certainly at the municipal level, it was without the partisan trappings. It was also without the caucus responsibilities that we have here at Queen's Park, but my experience at Queen's Park has been that I have tremendous satisfaction on a personal basis, because I believe that whether I've been a member of the government as a cabinet minister, a member of the governing party as a backbencher, a member of the official opposition, or just an ordinary member of this House, an MPP, I have been able to positively influence events; I have positively been able to influence government policy from both sides of the House.

The reason I make that statement as it relates to education is that I think it's important for us during this debate and discussion on education to remember that one of our goals is to encourage the participation of young people, those people who are presently, today, in our schools. One of the opportunities that I've undertaken over my years in public life has been to offer to go into the schools in my own riding, in a non-partisan way, to help to deliver the message not only that an individual can make a difference in public life and that public life is about public service, but also to share the knowledge that I have about how government works, whether it's at the municipal level, the provincial level or the federal level.

What I've found is that the administration in the schools, the teachers in the schools and the parents have always been very happy about having that kind of discussion go on in their classroom in a non-partisan way, because those of us who have had the experience of public life, if we can share that in our schools, can, I think, enrich the education system very directly.

So I make the commitment again here today in this House that whenever a school in Oriole riding wishes to have me come in, in a non-partisan way, and help to share with the students my experiences and my knowledge both about how government works and how our political system works, I make that offer openly and sincerely. I've been doing that over the last number of years, and I believe that other members could make that kind of contribution in their own ridings, because it's very important. I know many of my colleagues go into the schools; the member for Scarborough North tells me that's something he does on a fairly regular basis as well.

I think it is important, because often people get quite cynical about what happens. They tune in to question period and they think that's what it's all about. It's important for us to share our experiences in a non-partisan way with the students and the teachers, so that they get to know us and get to better understand the environment in which democracy takes place.

I want to thank you for your patience, Mr Speaker. As I refer to Bill 4, I mention the concerns that I have, not just about accessibility, but accessibility to the highest-quality education we can provide in the province of Ontario. We know the world is changing very rapidly. I'd like to share with you, Mr Speaker, some of the beliefs I have about the things we can do here in this Legislature, through Bill 4 and, hopefully, other pieces of legislation that will come forward from this government.

I recently watched an old movie called Educating Rita. What I've watched in the last two and a half years from the official opposition bench has really been educating the NDP. They've come a long way. They began with their very first Minister of Education, who was opposed to any kind of accountability in the school system. The first minister was opposed to any kind of participation in national testing. Here today, in this House, we've seen the Education minister of the NDP admit how important accountability is to the students, to the teachers, to the parents, to the administrators and to the trustees. I want to say how much I support the need for that kind of accountability, but it's important how it's done.

We know that one of the reasons for the high priority being given educational reform in this province is that our times are changing, and they're changing very rapidly, both our social and certainly our economic realities. We have left the industrial age behind us. There are those who would say we are in the information age. The reports from economists and those who are looking into the future would say that it's not only going to be a knowledge-based society, but it's also going to be a society that values ideas. So we have to respond within the education system. Even though we may not understand what kind of technology is going to be available a decade from now, we have to prepare our institutions and our school systems to embrace the kinds of changes through a positive form of accountability.

I notice that the term "quality assurance" has been used in relation to the education system. As one who advocated the beginnings of quality assurance programs -- now called total quality management and continuous quality improvement -- in the health system, I want to echo those words and say how important that kind of quality assurance is within our education system.

1610

We know that the future will require a different kind of schooling from what we see today, and I'd like to quote from that same article written by Jean Hewitt that our Education critic mentioned during question period, because I think it says it all, or a good part of it. I'm going to use it to sum up my remarks today. It says:

"While it is not possible to see what the final form of the new age will be, it is already apparent that it will require a different kind of schooling: a schooling which is responsive to the effects of technology, where there is an emphasis on life-long learning and where teachers provide all students with access to higher levels of literacy and numeracy. Education systems in this age, which has been called the information age, must not only ensure a quality of access but also be accountable for the quality of learning achieved by its students by providing an outcome-based curriculum for students. Nations which hope to stay economically viable in the information age must have creative, knowledgeable, self-directed citizens."

I would point out as well that the article states the importance when it says, "Specific attention is paid to the development of self-esteem, particularly for young women and students from visible minorities."

I would commend the article to those who have not read it. I believe these are many of the values which must be embodied in educational reform. I think the issues and the debate and the discussion that Bill 4 begins is just the beginning. These will be referred to committee. I hope to have the opportunity to say more about this.

It's my hope that my own amendment on access to education will be incorporated, but on behalf of my constituents in the riding of Oriole, I want to say that while I'm here in this Legislature, I will be a vigilant voice for the kind of reforms that will lead to students who are prepared to meet the challenges of an idea- and knowledged-based society in the future. We must find a way to do that cooperatively to include our teachers, such a valuable resource; our parents, who have such an important stake; our school trustees and administrators, who often, I believe, are left out of the debate and discussion here at the province. Together we must dedicate ourselves to see that our students are the best-prepared that they can be, because we will be relying upon all of them to look after all of us in the future.

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): We're on to Bill 4, An Act to amend certain Acts relating to Education. It's an omnibus bill. It's a very, very important bill, and it's something I've looked forward to speaking to. I find it almost impossible, in order to address the areas that concern me and my community, to do to so in the time that's allotted. I just hope and trust that this House will refer the bill to committee and allow for enough debate that all groups and people who have concerns about it will have an opportunity to table those views, and that the Minister of Education will be open-minded enough to allow amendments to be made in those areas where it needs to be done.

It really is a tragedy that, as we are rushing through the 1990s into the next century, no one has stopped and said: Are we satisfied with what we've got? How can we truly improve the system of education so that the children, as they come out of school into university, into apprenticeship programs, community colleges or into the world -- how good a job have we done, and is there a better job we could do? Are we in a position, as a group of legislators, to come together and develop an approach that's going to begin to give us some efficiency, to give us some excellence, to give us a return on our investment?

There isn't any doubt that the people of Ontario want the very best for their young people. If we're in a position to do more and do better for them, then we should be doing that. Unfortunately, the dread that I suffer is that we're scratching the surface: We tinker a little here and we touch something there, but we haven't put our hands around the massive problem known as education. I commend our own critic, the member for London North, for the marvellous work that she's done, with the member from Waterloo, in developing A Blueprint for Learning in Ontario. Our caucus has put on the record a number of the concerns we have. By far, it's only, again, a stake in the ground that begins to say, "At least here the Ontario Progressive Conservative caucus has something they can put their thinking on," and we've done that. We've gone back to a number of thoughts; we've brought out a number of new ones. We're saying, "There are things we can do," and I commend the leadership that's come out of our caucus that we've been able to at least put this document together.

We are missing the boat if we don't look at what's going on in the world of industry and business today and realize that it's a time for leadership. When a leader is in control, that leader knows how to involve the people who are within that great army known as the people who are part of education, and you involve them in a way that they are able to contribute to the solution we're talking about. It's not just a talk-down, tell, tell, tell, type of situation; there is a way in which every school, every class, every teacher and even the students are taking part in this participatory process where we all have a sense of urgency to make education absolutely the very best in the province of Ontario.

I have to see an approach that says it's a team-building exercise. It's an opportunity for the very best to be tabled. It means staff all over the place are going to be working towards the resolution of this marvellous challenge to get value for our money, excellence in the classrooms, students who are prepared and equipped to go into the world to make something of themselves. That is our challenge, and somehow we're missing it.

We're missing it when we saw the announcements last week where the government came through with its proposed cutbacks in expenditures, and in those announcements it really puts the onus on the boards to say: "Hey, here's the money. You have to cut, cut, cut." I understand we have to do an awful lot of that, but what I would love to see is an approach in which the teachers and the boards are working with us on that and have a chance to really show us what can be done.

I have a number of concerns on this bill. The first one is the downloading of costs to boards of education. I served on the York County Board of Education when it was called a county system. Now it's a regional board but it's much the same, only bigger and more students and more money. That board now takes about 73 cents of every tax dollar that's collected in York region to pay for educational costs, and the separate school board is maybe 74 cents or 75 cents, so close to three quarters of all the tax dollars are spent on education.

When the province comes through with its recommendations in Bill 4, this again is going to add to the cost to the local ratepayers. Somehow or other, you, the government, have lost sight of who it is who pays. There is only one taxpayer in the province of Ontario, and that taxpayer is paying provincial, federal, municipal, regional, all those taxes -- one person.

Why can't we somehow draw together all the challenges we have to do, understand what the cost is going to be, what the priorities are going to be and how it is we're going to fund it, because this bill, Bill 4, is going to force on the local boards additional taxes, and the people in the province of Ontario are sick and tired of the Liberal government before the present socialist government, which brought down increasing costs to the local ratepayers.

There has to be an accountability, and that accountability is absent from this bill. Not to comment and do something to address the concern that the public has is to fail the people of Ontario. They're mad already. They know they're going to be taxed more heavily when the budget comes down from the Treasurer in a few weeks' time. This bill should be down as a tax bill, because it ranks just as another penalty to the people of Ontario without some kind of rationalization of the cost to produce a quality education system.

Don't tell me that junior kindergarten isn't going to cost more money. Some 19 boards in the province of Ontario do not have junior kindergarten. I wish we could have it, but we can't afford it. York Region Board of Education, from which I come, doesn't have the space. Right now we've got a third of our students in portables. Maybe it's more than that. It just keeps going up all the time because we can't afford to build additions on the schools, but we can add the portables because we have to have space.

We can't afford junior kindergarten. If we start the junior kindergarten program that you mandated beginning in September 1994, we just don't have the classrooms. The cost of that to the local ratepayers is prohibitive, and there are some 18 other boards that have the same problem.

1620

We look at the cost of special education. I am enthused about what can be done to help young people to be integrated into the community. I know that it's come a long, long way since any of us were in school, and how good that is, but have we considered where the dollars are going to come from for this and how we can move towards these high ideals and excellent goals and objectives, how we can phase them in in a financial way that we can afford?

The taxpayers across Ontario are ready for a revolt. You're seeing it in some communities. The seniors who are on fixed incomes cannot continue to pay the increase in local taxes. I know that in my own community we are stretched to the limit. What this bill does is stretch us further, and for some, it'll stretch them to the breaking point that they can no longer afford to live in their own homes because the tax bill will be so prohibitively high. That is a problem.

It's one thing to have the wonderful social agenda that this government has, but it's another to pay for it, and that is the issue that has to be addressed. Do what you want to do, but make sure you pay for it when you're doing it. We cannot continue down this road. It's the road to destruction. It's the road that leads Ontario into more troubles for ever and ever.

There has to be an honest facing up to the costs of everything we do, and none of that is addressed in Bill 4. The government has not addressed the cost, because the costs don't come out of the pockets of the provincial taxpayer; they come out of the pockets of the municipal taxpayer -- who happens to be the same person.

If I'm excited and upset, I apologize. My tie's getting ruffled and I'm getting ruffled and no one's listening in this place.

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I'm listening.

Mr Cousens: My friend the member for Dufferin-Peel is always listening. But the fact is that I haven't succeeded in having any amendment or any point carried with this government since September 6, 1990. We just have to survive till 1995, when we get rid of these socialists. I'm prepared to survive that long, and hopefully the people of Ontario will understand that they have done such a deplorable job in running Ontario that it's time to get rid of them.

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): It's hyperbolic.

Mr Cousens: I shouldn't get political, should I? Not in the Ontario Legislature. You don't want to hear that.

This bill, as an omnibus bill, contains some 25 or 26 different issues in which the government is trying to make changes with education. What they've done is that they have taken what was known previously as a series of bills, some five other bills and amalgamated them into this one, so that we're all going to be restricted in our time to discuss them. There won't be time to deal with all of the issues that surround the multifacets that make up Bill 4. It is just so much to be dealt with.

First of all, let me just touch on some of them. The first issue, which I want to encompass everything I'm saying, is, watch the costs. There are dollars to every decision we make. There should be a full, detailed cost analysis of what it's going to do to the boards across Ontario. Certainly, we would hope that the Minister of Education would do something to explain and respond to how much each of these details is going to cost the taxpayers.

Junior kindergarten: If we look at that as an issue, when it was first begun it was for children who needed junior kindergarten. They were disadvantaged and it was seen as a way of helping them out to get them started in life. Then other boards saw it and people said, "Hey, we want it too, we want it," and suddenly you've got junior kindergartens springing up all over the place.

I know that it has helped many, many children. The educational value of junior kindergarten is still being questioned by some. Those who have it seem to like it. It's not mandatory, except the government has made it mandatory.

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): You heard what the Premier's Council said last Monday.

Mr Cousens: Larry, if you're going to talk in the House, stand up and make a speech rather than just carp away in the back benches.

Mr O'Connor: There you go. You just talk down.

Mr Cousens: The problem, Mr Speaker, is that if the honourable members are going to cut into the time we have, would you extend the time that the Tories are allowed to speak on this?

I'm making a point and I've lost it because of your interruptions. That's the problem I have. I want to listen to the member for Durham York, but I can't do that and present at the same time. There are other ways in which he can make his presentation.

Junior kindergarten has benefits, but it hasn't been truly proven that it is something that should be mandatory right across the province, and to me, we have many arguments on it. For this board to say that it has to be fully implemented by September 1997 and has to begin to happen in all these other 19 boards that don't have it at all by the fall of 1994 is a tremendous burden and cost that I would really hope this government would consider before passing this bill.

I'm concerned that here in an education bill, we start to become child care providers. Should child care fall under the Education Act? I ask that question rhetorically, having an answer in my own mind, but I'm really concerned that we now have within the province of Ontario this whole issue where child care, as it has been defined by Bill 4, is going to be an integral part of the Education Act. Shouldn't it fall under Community and Social Services or another ministry? Why should it fall within the Education Act instead of going someplace else? It confuses the role that educators have got now and will have in the future.

I don't see teachers as child care providers. Child care providers are important as well, but so too is the role of a teacher, and when parents send their children to school for an education under the Education Act, it's not to provide the sitting and services that are given under the Day Nurseries Act. Let's separate them. Let's understand there is a different role that we have as a society for those parents who have a need for day care, and that those services really shouldn't fall into the Education Act. I question it and I'm not satisfied that the government has answered that question, and I will keep searching for an answer from them.

I'm concerned as well that we're moving towards universal day care. What's the cost of the social agenda of this communist government? I'm sorry; this socialist government. It's something that the public has no understanding of, because once we start providing day care, it is just an ongoing cost that doesn't end. I suggest again that the whole child care issue as it pertains to Bill 4 should be quantified, qualified and, if the costs are understood, the public can then appreciate just what it is they're buying for their dollars.

The third issue that concerns me with Bill 4 has to do with the whole issue of integration into the school system, a whole series of questions as we've been discussing it in our caucus that I would like to table and I would like to see considered when this does go to committee.

How should "integration" be defined? I'd like to know what integration is.

First of all, when this bill came forward -- and one of the things that I do support is that the bill is removing references to "trainable retarded" pupils. We're talking now about "exceptional" pupils. I think we've got to clean up our language when we're dealing with these things; that is true. But as we talk about these special students who have special needs, and you see that they're being brought into a classroom and being part of a regular class, there is a cost associated with that, there's an identification problem associated with it, and so I have a series of questions that I'd like to ask.

First of all, how is "integration" going to be defined? I'd like to see a true definition of what this government means by integration.

What is meant by local community school or classroom? Is it anticipated that all schools will be equipped to offer the integration option, or only certain schools within the jurisdiction of a school board?

Are there conditions placed on both the school board and the pupil with regard to the integration option, or is this option going to be available to any exceptional student where the parents request it? If a parent who has a child with a special need says, "I want them into a regular classroom," does it happen, then? Or would we be well advised to look and see if there's any benefit to having some kind of provincial advisory body to which parents could appeal in case they're not satisfied that the local board is doing the right thing, so that there becomes a mechanism so there is someone outside of the home or the school, an independent third party who can somehow help differentiate those students who should or should not be into a regular classroom?

1630

Whose needs ought to be given primacy when you're looking at this integration question, the needs of the pupil, the needs of the parent or the needs of the community? Also I ask the question that there indeed must be recognition on the part of both school boards and the government that these costs associated with providing this integration program should be considered very, very seriously.

There is an awful lot to be said and thought about the issue of integration. As we proceed down this road we should know exactly what's going to happen, at least have a better sense of it, than to be going down this road with the best of intentions and then along the way, because there is no money, we can't continue to provide it. We have to be able to afford what we do. We have to be able to assure those who, once they start those programs, will be able to complete them.

We also have to be sure that those young people who get into these integration programs are truly going to benefit from them. You also have to be sure that the other students in the classroom are also not going to be disadvantaged because of what's going on.

I support our Education critic's position in which we as a caucus support the whole intention of integration. I do not like the way in which the cost of this program is going to be passed on to the local ratepayers. We, as legislators, should assess those costs and consider them very, very carefully.

I'm running out of time; there is only a limited time allocated on this bill. I can assure you, Mr Speaker, I have many more things I would like to say. The bill contains such things as, "English-speaking supervisory officers shall be appointed for schools and classes where English is the language of instruction and French-speaking supervisory officers shall be appointed for schools and classes where French is the language of instruction." It makes a lot of common sense.

I wish we'd get to some of the more commonsense things that say: How are we going to pay for our education? How are we going to build it into the best system possible? Why not begin to reform education in a way that makes it truly accountable to the taxpayers, to the students and to the people of Ontario? We have problems with the educational system; we're not beginning to deal with them under this bill as it is now. We have to take it more seriously instead of just tinkering with it the way the government is doing with Bill 4.

It's a huge bill, lots of good things, some dangerous things; the costs aren't understood. What are we going to do? Is this government just going to ram it through and not give us a chance for a full understanding? I ask for more time to consider the ramifications of Bill 4. I hope we're given that time instead of having it railroaded through as other issues have been. Thank you.

The Acting Speaker: I thank the honourable member for his participation. Further debate? The honourable member for Mississauga West.

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I am particularly pleased to have an opportunity to talk about Bill 4 and about education in general. It's rather fitting because this evening in my riding I'll be one of the people participating in the official opening of Edenrose School. It's not too many communities around the province that actually experience the opening of new schools these days. We have, of course, tremendous problems with portables and overcrowding, but the parents, the teachers, the board officials and the children I know will enjoy a great deal this evening's festivities in opening that particular school.

I think it's appropriate that I have an opportunity to put on the record some of the concerns I have about what this government's doing in this bill and in general and about what we're constantly doing to the education system.

While it's not directly in this bill, the establishment of a royal commission on education, I must say, causes me some trepidation and concern. I can recall, in the previous administration under the Liberal government, we set up a select committee on education. It was an all-party select committee and our role was to examine the education system, both the issues such as the curriculum and various special programs, the financing of education, the ongoing governance of education, how the system is working, and we did a tremendous amount of work in that committee. In my experience here in the last six and a half years, I found that was the one committee I served on where the partisanship was quite minimal. In fact everybody seemed quite interested in dealing with the issues at hand.

I always referred to the former member Richard Johnston as the best Education minister the NDP government never had. He was a member on that particular committee and was a very constructive member. Maybe he'll surface in some way in this so-called royal commission.

But the purpose of the select committee was to look at issues, if possible, in a non-partisan way, with all parties participating. It was chaired by the member for Eglinton, Dianne Poole, I had the privilege of being the Vice-Chair, and we heard from stakeholders in every aspect of education and delivering education.

But the very first thing we were told by the people who came before us in the early days of that committee was that every government, when it gets into office, seemed to want to grab the tree of education and rip it up to examine the roots. It's almost a political game, it seems, and now this government is establishing a royal commission.

You know that the Sewell commission -- Mr Speaker, I'm sure you know it cost over $3 million -- has put out recommendations that have got everybody in the municipal sector upset and doesn't appear to be resolving any of the problems it was designed to resolve, except in the eyes and the mentality perhaps of the minister responsible for that sitting in the House, Mr Philip.

Maybe there are some things that are going to come out of the Sewell commission that they haven't told us, but I can tell you, sir, that the municipal people are extremely upset about it. I think what's going to happen is you're going to see if it's $3 million on the Sewell commission to provide John Sewell with a nice little job and a little expense account to travel around the province, if it's $3 million to do that, I just get scared when I think about how much money this government's going to spend in a royal commission to study the education system.

I just think that the red tape, the bureaucracy, the problems that are going to be created -- and why are they doing it? They're doing it, purportedly, so that they can find out what's wrong with education. I mean, haven't you been listening? Haven't you paid attention to the last five, six, eight, ten years when the Tories did it, the Liberals did it and now you're putting it into --

Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): That's right. You guys listened, right, and you paid attention.

Mr Mahoney: Oh, there's no question. We went out with all parties -- I'm not afraid to take a look, critically, at things that occurred during our administration, but let me tell you what we did.

All three parties got together in a select committee and we went out and we examined education. We pulled up that tree and we examined the roots of education and then we put it firmly back in the ground. If there was one recommendation we made, and you people agreed with it at the time, it was that we should let the tree stay in the ground, we should water it, we should nurture it, but we should stop yanking it out of the ground so that we can examine it and create cushy jobs and royal commissions for NDP hacks and buddies who are going to come in and somehow solve some of these problems.

There were recommendations in there. Let me just share some of them with you in areas in special education. If anybody has ever been through an identification and placement review committee, where you go in as a parent -- you've got a child with a learning disability, you go in as a parent. I mean, it's really quite amazing. Picture this: Here's mom and dad and they're worried about their son or daughter and they sit there and they bring in about 10 people on the other side, all supposedly professionals and experts and they tell you, first of all, what's wrong with your kid and then how they're going to correct it. They intimidate the people who really need to be consulted more.

This is not a condemnation of this government or any particular government. This is a statement of fact. I personally have been through that process, I find it absolutely frustrating and it does not deal with the basic solutions, when you're trying to deal with kids who have learning disabilities or kids who are exceptionally bright, anywhere in special education.

This bill is supposed to be doing something about special ed, and it's not, and this government's not doing it. They're not going to the basic foundation and sitting down with the stakeholders and saying, "We want to understand what your concerns are around special education."

1640

Our select committee made recommendations in that area, and they're being totally ignored by this government. You don't need a royal commission; you don't even need this bill. Take the select committee recommendations and wipe the dust off them and try to understand them, and you'll find many suggestions agreed to by your party, by Richard Johnston, agreed to by your caucus; they're there. Implement them and work with the education community to implement the changes that are necessary to improve the quality of education in this province.

We recommended in-service training, a very specific recommendation by the select committee that said that if you want to improve education, you've got to teach the teachers how to teach. The teachers would agree with that. They have said, and they came before our committee and they said, "We need more in-service training."

It's fine to put in standardized tests and standardized rules, but if you don't have standardized training for the people that are going to deliver those tests and deliver the quality of the education right in the classroom, then you're really not getting at the root of the problem in education. That's not a knock against the teachers; that's their recommendation to our select committee, and we agreed with it and the members in the NDP caucus agreed with it, so more in-service training.

Another little suggestion we made is one of the problems, and you come around the whole issue of destreaming, and picture a kid who is 12 or 13 years old in grade 8 going into this new world of high school. In many of the large cities, this is a transition where you will go from a school of 200 or 300 children to a school of as many as 2,000 kids. Some of you have villages in your ridings that are not as large as some of the schools in my riding. That's a fact. So you've got a kid coming into this new atmosphere.

There are problems in our high schools today. We've got to face them. There's violence, there's intimidation, there is a certain amount of racism in some of the schools and there are drug problems in some of the schools. We've got to face that. So you've got a young 12- or 13-year-old making that transition.

Well, we recommended something that this government has just forgotten about. We recommended that the guidance counsellors who work with our young people in the elementary panel should have some form of portability. They should be transferred through, go with the kids, actually have a guidance counsellor follow the kids into the secondary panel.

These may not seem revolutionary, but they clearly would say to the education system that we recognize there's a transition problem. This could work tremendously well with the minister's statement on streaming or destreaming. This could work tremendously well. It would give the kids some confidence, and it's not only the kids. Imagine the parents of a first child or an only child making that transition. Just like in the case of the special-ed situation that I referred to, the parents can be intimidated by the system. It's a very large, complex, difficult system.

I don't see this government addressing those fundamental issues, and that's what concerns me the greatest. Let's go back. Look at all the studies. George Radwanski did a study, examined the roots. We had our select committee examine the roots again, and now this government's solution, because it thinks that it's going to, I guess, pander to some of its colleagues in the NDP left wing of the party, it's going to set up a royal commission to go out and do the whole work all over again. I mean, it really is unfortunate in the time and the cost and the bureaucracy. I guarantee you that if the commission is effective, it will come out with many of the same recommendations that are already gathering dust in the report of the select committee under the Liberal government.

One of the other things that concerns me a great deal is that this government, beginning today as a matter of fact, is talking with what it refers to as its partners in the delivery of certain services, and clearly education is part of that. I'd say what they refer to -- I'm talking about the social contract negotiations or socialist contract, whatever you guys call them. You're trying to get the unions to -- what did the Premier call it today? A pay pause. We're going to have a common pay pause in the province of Ontario to go along with the -- what's the other one -- a common --

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): Pause day.

Mr Mahoney: A common pause day, I'm sorry. We've got a common pause day; now we're going to have a common pay pause.

It's fascinating to me that a socialist government would come out and announce $4 billion in cuts, just slash and hack. Of course, you see, it's popular to just say, "We're cutting the civil servants." What you haven't told them --

Hon Ed Philip (Minister of Municipal Affairs): What are you going to do?

Mr Mahoney: I've got some good ideas for solutions. What you haven't told them is -- and wait till the people of this province wake up one day and find out what your pay pause means, what your social contract means -- it could mean 35 to 40 kids in a classroom. That's what it's going to mean.

When they realize that, they're going to be upset. They're going to say: "You never told us that. We thought you were cutting out all those bureaucrats in the towers at Queen's Park. We didn't know that you were affecting ambulance drivers and day care workers and teachers. We didn't know that you were affecting the people who deliver the service to our children and our mothers and our fathers and our grandparents." Because that is what you're doing.

It's such a fraud, because what the government is doing is coming out and purporting to be Tories. Okay? You've already seen the leader of the third party climbing into bed, snuggling up with Bob Rae. It's quite an unholy marriage, but God bless them. So here they are; they're over there. These guys in this Legislature, instead of sitting down and trying to come up with some creative ways, instead of taking a look at some of the recommendations, are just all jamming into bed together. It must be the most uncomfortable sleep that you could ever possibly imagine. I said the other day, "Make sure you leave the lights on," I said to the leader of the third party, "so you can see the true colour of the socialists one of these days." Just make sure you do that.

Interjections.

Mr Mahoney: I know it upsets you when I point out to the people how hypocritical things can be around here, and I understand that particular problem happening.

But the reality is, here's what they're doing with their social contract. They are cutting the transfer money. Think of this as a pipe that goes from Queen's Park out to the communities. It goes to the school boards; it goes to the municipalities. Last night I attended the annual general meeting of the CNIB. The people at CNIB are saying, "How is this going to affect us?" They're sitting down at this table, right as we speak today. The CNIB is sitting there and it's saying, "We think we're going to get hurt on this." I've got news for them: They are going to get hurt on this; absolutely, no question. It's going to hurt the volunteers in the community, it's going to have a devastating effect, and they're not explaining it. They're putting it out as if they're slashing the big bad civil service.

Let me tell you, it's going to have a major effect on the quality of education. So they're trying to cover that by coming out with some puffery in the form of either their royal commission or this bill that supposedly is going to keep all of the educators busy, so that they're running around trying to figure out what's in the legislation, so that they don't have time to worry about the social contract negotiations. Two hundred and ninety million dollars cut in the first round, boom, gone, right off of Education: Tell me that that does not have a devastating effect on any board of education trying to deliver reasonable service to their children and trying to keep their budgets in line.

You talk about junior kindergarten and about it being mandatory. I can't believe this. When the Honourable Tony Silipo was the Minister of Education, he came along and he slashed cutbacks so drastically that the Peel Board of Education had to cancel junior kindergarten. Now they're bringing in a bill that's going to mandate it. We're tried to tell them that at the time. If you're going to cut a program, for goodness' sake, don't force it back on to the board in one or two years. Okay, so you're saying you're going to put it off for another few years.

We should be all agreeing on one thing in a non-partisan atmosphere around here, and that is that we should not be passing on requirements to lower levels of governments, the municipalities or the school boards, for them to do things without money. Every government that has sat on that side of the House -- the Conservative government, our government, this government -- has done it. I openly admit that. But if you really want a new social contract, if you really want these people to remain your partners, then stop telling them how to run the shop and at the same time slashing their budget to the point where they're incapable of running.

1650

Just to give you an example, salary and benefits at the Peel board are 81% of its total budget. Everybody thinks the solution to financial problems in a board like Peel is to cut administration: "Slash all the top-heavy administration." The administration is 1.5% of their budget.

I mean, they're not magicians. The government comes along, takes away $290 million, and the forecast is to slash another $520 million. They make all these pronouncements and then they say, "Oh, by the way, we're going to have a meeting and we'd like you to come to the meeting so that we can talk to you about the next $2 billion in cuts we're going to make at your expense." It says right in the document that the further $2 billion will come from the reduction of transfer payments, and you people have the nerve to stand up in public and refer to the municipalities and the boards of education and the trustees as your partners. What kind of partnership is that?

So I would ask this minister to take a real serious look at the programs he's talking about mandating and then find out if he's got the ability to send a cheque along with it. Every government -- the next government, which will be led by our leader -- had better adopt that, because we seriously need change in the way we do business. And if you haven't been listening over there to the people, well, you're going to hear it real quick, as soon as your Premier's got the nerve to drop the writ and call an election.

How many people in this province would like an early election? You know what I'd like them all to do? Any of them that are watching, at 8 o'clock tomorrow morning, if you want an early election, honk your horn. Just honk your horn at 8 o'clock tomorrow morning on your way to work. That will send a message that says: "I want an early election. I want a shot at Bob Rae. I want to boot him out of there so we can get back to some sanity in this province."

The former speaker here said he regretted that there was not enough time to go on in detail. I too would like to go on in detail about some of these costs and some of the problems and the priorities and the mistakes that are being made by the Minister of Education and Training and by this entire government. I'm unable to do that because some of my colleagues wish to have time in this debate as well. But I just ask this government, take a look at the select committee reports. There's a lot of good stuff in there and you could pull it out and implement some of it very, very easily.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Tilson: I'm pleased to participate in the debate of Bill 4. In Bill 4, as many of us have said in the House before my speaking on it, it's been confirmed that there's 28 separate changes, and unrelated separate changes, to the Education Act. Of course, they've been previously introduced in, I don't know, about a half-dozen different bills going back to 1991, and these bills were never called for second reading.

I agree with my friend the member for Markham, who says that these provisions, these amendments to the Education Act, are of such a complex nature that surely the government will allow more time for debate on each individual item. In the time allowed, I intend to speak on only two issues, and that really is a difficulty when I would like to speak on a large number of them.

Some of the issues that have been raised, of course, deal with requiring school boards to operate junior kindergartens by August 31, 1994, and the Lieutenant Governor in Council will have the power to allow a board to phase in the junior kindergarten requirement over a three-year period by September 1, 1997. I do wish to speak on the junior kindergarten issue.

Also, there will be the issue of authorizing school boards to establish and operate and maintain child care centres.

All of these matters are going to result in local school boards being required to spend substantial amounts of money, and since this government has taken power, there have been cuts, more and more cuts, to our educational system; in other words, cuts of grant pass-ons to the local school boards. It's getting to the stage that I don't know how they're going to operate.

There have been complaints, certainly in the business community: Are we properly educating our children? Now, they may say they are, but all I'm telling you is that certainly people within my riding are very concerned.

I admire the trustees and the school boards for working with the limited amount of funds they have, but I'm afraid the onus rests on the provincial government, which has made commitments to school boards in the past and keeps adding on requirements for them to do. Because of the tax bases that exist in our system, there's only one thing to do: When you implement these programs, when you force these programs on, you either have to raise taxes -- and we've reached the stage where we simply can't add more to property taxes, so therefore programs are going to have to be cut, teachers are going to be laid off, and that gives us all a great deal of concern.

I will be speaking very briefly on the subject of junior kindergarten and kindergarten, as well as sections 15 and 16 of the bill, which deal with hard-to-serve pupils.

Perhaps I could speak initially on that issue which deals with sections 15 and 16. This, in my submission, is further downloading that I think the government should take a long hard look at, as to whether small school boards can afford this provision. This is a problem that has occurred in my own riding of Dufferin-Peel, and specifically the county of Dufferin.

A hard-to-serve pupil is "one who is unable to profit from instruction offered by a school board because of a mental handicap or a mental and other handicaps." The current provisions of the Education Act outline the procedure for having pupils declared hard to serve and authorize the placement of these pupils within or outside Ontario at government expense.

The hard-to-serve section was included in the 1980 special education amendments to the Education Act in order to accommodate school boards that did not initially have the capacity to address the needs of severely disabled students. The Ministry of Education believes at this time that appropriate special education programs are available through schools in Ontario or the provincial schools.

This action by this government is going to create a problem, particularly in the small school boards. I cite my own, one of the three school boards in my riding; as I indicated, the county of Dufferin. These sections result in the repealing of the provisions dealing with hardto-serve pupils from the Education Act. If you take those sections out, that will mean that the same procedures for the identification and placement of exceptional pupils will apply to all exceptional students without distinction. That action is going to cause problems. I would hope that the government now, or when it goes to committee -- and I assume this bill will go to committee, particularly with the many, many complicated sections it has -- will reconsider its position.

1700

The amendment is opposed by some parent groups that want their children to be educated in private schools within or outside Ontario at government expense. I'd like to relate to this House an incident that was reported in the press, in the Toronto Star, about a year ago, a situation that occurred in my riding of Dufferin-Peel and specifically the county of Dufferin. As I indicated, there was a controversy by two boys. Although their names were in the media, I don't think I'll quote their names, but at that time their ages were 11 and 16.

The hard-to-serve committee determined that the two students were not hard to serve, and I'm using those words, "hard to serve," as those are the words that were spelled out in the act. The committee determined that they were not hard to serve. It then went to the Dufferin County Board of Education and it reviewed the matter and overturned the decision. By overturning that decision, that meant the ministry of Education would be responsible for covering the cost of their education.

At the initiative of the Ministry of Education, the matter now is under judicial review and it's gone to the courts, and these two children are now being placed in a training school in the United States with the ministry reluctantly -- and I use that word "reluctantly" because that has certainly come forward by the ministry of Education -- paying the cost for the interim.

You have the legislation, it's set up and the ministry has simply abandoned these two people, and now of course they're going to pass, notwithstanding what may happen in the courts, because that decision I don't believe has been settled yet. So notwithstanding what has happened in the courts, they're going to simply take these provisions out of the Education Act.

In order to deal with the pupils identified as hard to serve before the section is appealed, as I've indicated, the province of Ontario will pay the cost of a placement for a school year in which the legislation comes in force for a pupil who, by June 2, 1992, was found to be hard to serve.

I'm going to read a quote that was made by the Learning Disabilities Association of Ontario, where it commented on this essentially eliminating section 35 of the Education Act, because that's what these sections do. They indicated that they were opposed to eliminating section 35 of the Education Act, which is the hard to serve, "without first putting in place a mechanism to protect learning-disabled pupils for whom school boards are unable to provide, or to purchase from other boards appropriate special education services."

I'm quoting from what the Learning Disability Association of Ontario has said: "The reality of special education in Ontario these days is that boards across the province have drastically reduced or even eliminated special-education classes and support services for those students with learning disabilities that need them."

In effect, this action by this government under this bill means that these young students are going to be abandoned. I would hope that this matter will come forward in committee or other members of the House will debate this at the appropriate time, and this issue should be studied further and reconsidered.

I'm just going to quote in the brief time I have the section that came out of the Toronto Star. It's a year old; it was made in March 1992: "Ontario Education ministry has refused to pay for private special education for two severely learning-disabled Orangeville youths whose regular board of education has declared that it can't educate them."

Then they give the names of the young boys and they say, "They were officially declared hard to serve by the Dufferin separate school board in November, and the Education Act, section 34, states that Ontario shall pay for private appropriate education for a student declared hard to serve. However, the families have received letters from the ministry saying the government doesn't have enough information to support the school board's ruling." Of course, then it's gone off to the courts and these young boys are off to the United States.

Just an interesting quote; the lawyer who acted for these young boys during the hearings said, "They're forcing the parents to go to court to get the province to do what it legally has to do. So it's been an interesting dilemma that these young children have been put through, and I say to you that they are being abandoned.

The second and last issue, because of the time allowed, that I would like to speak to is a topic that is perhaps the most controversial of all in this omnibus bill, and that is the provision dealing with junior kindergarten. I guess we ask ourselves, is junior kindergarten a form of education or is it a form of day care? I must confess -- I'm sorry?

Mr Marchese: It's education.

Mr Tilson: Well, I don't know. You say it's education, but is it education? Is it a form of day care? I can tell you that many parents who have spoken to me feel that it's a type of day care. I'm not going to, and I don't think anyone in this House is going to, speak against day care. I think we all support day care. But if that submission is right, is day care something that should be paid for by the property taxpayers of this province, or should it come from the general revenue of this province?

Again, it's a further form of downloading on to the school boards, and the member for Markham and others in this House have said that school boards can't afford it, particularly the smaller ones. They don't have the buildings. They're going to have to construct buildings. They're going to have to construct facilities. It's creating a general problem.

School boards, by this legislation, as I've indicated in my opening remarks, will be required to operate junior kindergartens after August 31, 1994, and the Lieutenant Governor in Council will have the power to allow a board to phase in the junior kindergarten requirement by September 1, 1997.

When we make these comments, we keep in mind what the Treasurer of this province and others in your government are saying, that we're into a recession, that we're in deep financial difficulties federally, provincially, municipally. And yet, whether you think it's a good thing or whether you don't think it's a good thing, is this the appropriate time to bring this sort of thing forward?

Quite frankly, I have been leaning towards the philosophy that says that it's a form of day care. I think, having said that, that if it is, day care should be completed in another way and not on the backs of the property taxpayers, who are simply dying. People are dying out there trying to pay their property taxes. So this is another issue, and it's perhaps one of the most controversial of the bill. I'm sure much has been said and much will be said before this bill reaches final reading.

There's no question, however, that all boards will be required to start offering some junior kindergarten programming by August 31, 1994. This directive was actually first introduced in the Liberal throne speech in April 1989. At that time, the Liberal Treasurer allocated $194 million over five years for operating grants and $100 million for related capital projects, but there's no question that this amount won't cover the cost of implementation for the 19 boards without the program.

You start listing off -- this may have been done by some members of the House, but I'm going to repeat it because it's a concern of boards in this province as to what it's going to do to their property taxes. The costs for some boards have been estimated.

After spending $30 million to implement junior kindergarten, Peel has decided to cancel the program in April 1992 to save $3.9 million. Peel is in dire straits. I represent the geographic north end of Peel, which is the town of Caledon, and they are in dire straits. They don't know where their next dollar is going to come from.

Of course, remarks were made by the former Minister of Education that said: "If you don't do this, well, we may have a little trouble with the grants down the line. We may have trouble assisting you down the line, so you better do as your told." It's a form of blackmail, in other words: "Do as you're told. Implement this program or you're in deep trouble." Well, the school boards are in deep trouble. They don't know where their next dollar's coming from.

1710

Brant county has estimated that implementing junior kindergarten will cost $5.8 million in capital and $5 million in annual operating grants, and the province has offered $4.15 million in capital grants, so they're not even close; they're not even close. So who's going to have to pay for that? Well, all you people up in Brant county better start opening up your wallets because your property taxes are going to go up because of this bill. I don't know who represents Brant in this House, but I'd suggest that you call him or her.

Durham estimates that junior kindergarten will cost $12.2 million in capital and $7.2 million in annual operating grants; 3,000 students would be added to the system. The board already has 13,000 students in portable classrooms.

That opens up another problem: the issue of portables. It's been a problem that goes back for decades. I'm aware of that. Conservative and Liberal governments have all had the same problem with portables, but the fact of the matter is this problem is going to make it worse; this issue of junior kindergarten is going to make it worse.

Waterloo estimates a cost of $7.4 million over five years. Wellington estimates that the annual operating costs will be $3 million, with an additional $5 million for capital if the province does not have capital funding.

There are other issues of course: the issues of busing, the busing policies that all boards have to deal with. Particularly, if you come from a rural area or a semi-rural area that I come from, you're going to have to bus these young children to school. I don't know what the cost of that's going to be; that's another issue that has to be looked at.

I can assure you that the staffing of that is going to have to be the same quality and the same grid as the other teachers. So I don't know. Someone asked the question whether any feasibility studies have been prepared to study the effect of this on boards as a whole or individual boards. I'm sure Peel and some of the larger regional school boards have put forward feasibility studies, but it's no question, just looking at these figures, it's got to shock the property taxpayer as to why, whether you're in favour of junior kindergarten or whether you're not, we are doing it at this particular time.

I think I will close, other than to say that I have commented on the issue of busing and I'm going to refer to another section of Durham. My friend over there from Durham is sitting there listening to me. There was a trustee from the Durham county board of education, Patty Bowman, who made some comments in the fall of last year on this whole subject of junior kindergarten and the effect that it's going to have to have on her particular board, although she represents the Durham Board of Education on the board of Ontario Public School Boards' Association.

I might add, that group recommended that: "In recognition of both space and resource limitations of many boards, the government acknowledged the need for flexibility in both implementation dates and strategies for kindergarten programs. Regardless, until the government is in a position to reinstate the funds allocated for these programs, the deadline for mandatory kindergarten in all school boards should be extended."

If you're determined to put this program forward, and you appear to be -- and again, I could be persuaded on the issue of the debate as to whether it is day care, the member for Fort York indicated that it is a form of education; he may be right. That may be a time for debate at another time, particularly when I only have seven minutes left.

However, I will say on that subject that they're quite right. Hearing the dire states of the various boards of education and the unbelievable costs it's going to put them through, why can't the dates be extended? Why can't those dates be extended just to keep these school boards and the quality education alive, because you're going to have to cut something.

Mr O'Connor: It's 1997.

Mr Tilson: You say 1997, but they say it's not enough. I don't know whether you've been on a school board. I sat on a school board for two terms and I know how these people live. It's hard to manage. The costs are unbelievable.

I'm quoting from Ms Bowman and this article that came actually from the Oshawa Times: "The province says junior kindergarten is fundamental. We at the Durham Board of Education say we can't afford it, but it doesn't seem to matter to the province. But if junior kindergarten is a high priority," it was stated for the board, "then something else would have to go to make room for funding junior kindergarten." She simply said in conclusion that "It's a commonsense approach for paying the bills in education while maintaining provincial standards in curriculum."

The question I leave with you in my concluding remarks is, are the standards going to be reduced as a result of this unbelievable financial burden that's going to be placed on the various school boards? Do you honestly believe -- because there's no more money out there. Money has to come from somewhere. There's no more money in taxes, so programs are going to have to be cut. So because of your determination, your blinders to put this program forward, is the quality of education going to be decreased?

She says, "As the system presently operates, the province initiates programs and standards, while the local school boards must fund from the existing tax base." That says it all in a nutshell. I say, as do others, the people I've referred to and others in opposition, we simply cannot afford junior kindergarten at this time.

The Speaker: I thank the honourable member for Dufferin-Peel for his contribution to the debate and recognize the member for York Centre.

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): Just for those in the House who had maybe nodded off during the remarks of my friend the member for Dufferin-Peel or those are joining this debate by way of modern telecommunications, I guess someone -- you're not going to do it, Mr Speaker -- should remind us all that we're debating the government's, I guess, first major omnibus -- it has a strange ring to it, doesn't it, sir? -- omnibus bill in education. It gives the impression that we are dealing with the whole thing, we are touching every aspect of education.

So as not to leave any misimpression on the people who are listening to this debate and following the progress of this bill, let's just be perfectly clear: Although it is called an omnibus bill, it deals with just a few discrete parts of the Education Act and the education system in Ontario, including, as my friend the member for Dufferin-Peel and other members of the House have said, the establishment or the deferral of junior kindergarten, or whatever.

But suffice it to say that education in the province of Ontario ain't going to change all that much as a result of the fact that in a few short parliamentary days we will be giving third reading and royal assent to this bill.

To tell you the truth, I'm not sure if that's a good or a bad thing. I'm of two minds on this, and you, sir, as a former teacher, might understand why I am of two minds on this thing. To me, education is really about that magic thing that happens particularly to our kids, that magic thing that happens to them through their encounter with a teacher.

You have been a teacher, sir. I hear you were a good teacher; you're becoming a great Speaker. I expect that after the next election, you're going to return to the classroom and become even a great teacher, but we'll leave the politics of this for another time.

The real kernel, the real heart of education is what happens magically particularly to children, primarily through their encounters with the teachers that they meet every day through eight years of primary school and four or five years of high school. But somehow for us in this Parliament and for those of us who are required to debate omnibus education bills, somehow we have lost touch with that essential element.

1720

I'm reminded of this regularly when I talk to my wife about education and her own educational experience as a child. She's about my age, mid-40s, and, like many Canadians who had their education here in Ontario 35 years ago or so, she, like so many others, went to a one-room schoolhouse, literally a one-room schoolhouse, not hundreds and hundreds of miles away from the great metropolis of Toronto as it then was and as it is now, but in the small farming community of Aurora which, for all intents and purposes now, is part of this megalopolis that we call the greater Toronto area and where all the schools now are fancy with gymnasia, when there's more than one of them, and the cafeteria and the food service and 17 guidance counsellors and all of that.

In that farming community of Aurora, on the Bloomington Side Road and Leslie, which was at that time called the CFRB Side Road and the Third Line, was a one-room schoolhouse. She was there for eight years. All the grade 1 kids, and 2 and 3 and 4 and 5 and 6 and 7 and 8, were in the same room and there was one teacher. Somehow that one teacher was able to administer to that yearning of every single kid in the world to learn. As she tells me, sometimes the teacher would have to go -- sometimes it was a he, sometimes it was a she, depending on the year -- and help the youngest ones with their spellers and with their readers and sometimes would have to go to the older ones and help them with their addition and subtraction and the intermediate ones with the next steps in reading and the next adventure in, goodness knows, biology, or science as they called it then.

Virtually every one of those kids had a sound basis. Their yearning to learn was responded to, and statistically" because I've never done a survey dealing with the particular kids that my wife went to school with -- I think it's safe to say that many of them today are computer scientists and biologists and family members and parents and perhaps even grandparents now, given the way time flies. There was some magic, in short, about the magic that happened in that one-room schoolhouse. I guess I recall the same magic that happened with me in not a one-room schoolhouse but a very small separate school in north Toronto where many of the teachers were Sisters of the Blessed Virgin Mary, nuns, who were there not because they were getting paid but because they were devoted to a religious order and devoted to their profession of teaching.

To me, that is what education is really all about, and I somehow get the sense that this magnificent Bill 4, which is an omnibus bill on education, doesn't have anything at all to do with that magic. As I look over and over again at the history of government's intervention in education, I see that more and more it's our issues, it's our need to respond to those concerns out there among our electorate that there is some problem in education that drives us to do the things that we do, including doing things like introducing an omnibus bill on education and, what the government has recently done, as recently as the throne speech, creating a learning commission.

Wonderful words. I mean, what message does that send out? The government has a commission -- everyone knows what that is -- and it's a learning commission. Had we said education commission, it might have smacked of perhaps the late 1970s or early 1980s. Now we're going to have a learning commission. This is great news for two people only in the entire province of Ontario -- one is Gerry Caplan and the other is Monique Bégin -- because they get to be the commissioners, and the problems of education can be vested in them.

I just think it's sad and I wish -- at least, there is a part of me that wishes -- that Bill 4 said one thing and one thing only, and that is that governments will stop meddling in the unique magic that really is at the very heart of education.

If we just stopped meddling in the classroom, if we just stopped having royal commissions and learning commissions and special committees, if we would just somehow give the classroom back to the teacher and back to the students and back to the parents and just say, "Here, we're giving it back to you to allow that magic to happen," we pray and expect that the teachers who are there will once again become excited about the sheer joy of seeing young people grow in intelligence and imagination and in skill. We hope that parents will somehow oversee that process and ensure that the values of the community and the values of the province and the values of the nation and the values of the world will find a way into that magic experience. We hope that those politicians who make a career of meddling in the business will simply go to the wings of the stage and allow the process to work itself out.

I guess the reason I wanted to speak on this bill is I just wish somehow that we had the courage to do that, that we had the courage to admit that we don't know a damned thing about education in this Legislature, that, frankly, other than that it's a political issue, there is a part of us that has no ability to figure out the real problems, and somehow we would inspire our teachers and our students once again to seize the day and to take hold of the thing that is, in terms of jurisdiction, uniquely theirs. I'd love to give it back to them.

There are a number of other things that I would love to do if we had a real omnibus bill on education, because I think there are other things that are entirely archaic about the way in which we go about this business. After all, part of it is our business. We have to raise money because we have to build schools. I'm not sure that we have to build them as luxurious as we are building them today, but we do have to create a place where teachers and students can meet and we have to provide them with equipment. But I wish that we could one day stand up and approve a bill in this Legislature that would take the costs of this business off the property taxpayer. That is such an archaic way of paying for this magic. It is so much a throwback to the old days. If you want to know where it comes from -- I think you do, but perhaps not everyone does, so maybe I'll just say a word about it.

How did we ever get to the point where we tax property in order to pay for education, which is, after all, a provincial responsibility, not a local, municipal responsibility? It's quite simple. Way back, even before the Confederation of Canada, the way in which we ran our schools is that five or six local farmers in the community and perhaps one or two of the local business people in the community got together and said: "We'll be the trustees. The property of the school will be entrusted to us and we'll take $50 from Farmer Smith and $50 from Farmer Jones and $50 from Mrs Spicer and we'll collect all of that money and we'll be the trustees of it and we'll make sure the bills are getting paid." We levied a small tax on each of the people who owned property and, as trustees, we would decide how much that would be and what the salaries would be.

That's the genesis of this property tax system for education that we have now, and that is so anachronistic, so archaic when you look at the way in which we could be doing things. I want to tell you, I would stand up and vote enthusiastically and with all of my heart if this omnibus NDP bill on education had in it a clause that said, "The provincial government will now take on the responsibility for funding education, and we will no longer lay this on the burdened shoulders of the property taxpayer." I would vote for that bill with much more enthusiasm than I am considering this omnibus bill.

1730

Finally, in terms of the changes that we have responsibility for, in terms of the good we could do, in terms of that good, we could also include in the bill a section that brought to an end this anachronism of school boards, of school trustees. I know that is somewhat more controversial, and I offer no disrespect to any school trustee currently in office, any incumbent trustee, any member of this Legislature or any citizen who has been a trustee. I know they serve with all of the best intentions, but frankly, I ask the question: Do we really need school boards in Ontario? Is that the best way to govern over the business of education? Is that in the best interests of that magic thing that happens between student and teacher?

My own view, and I'm not an educational theorist, nor am I an expert on educational governance -- most people don't know why we call it "educational governance," and that includes me, but that's what we call it. When I look into the future and I see what could be in education, I just don't see any room in that picture to have this superstructure of school boards all over the province. I just happen to think there's a better way, and I'm not even sure, exactly, what that better way is.

I know it involves parents in a way that school boards now do not involve parents. In fact, if I had my druthers, every school in the province would have a parents' council that was required to be created under the laws of this province, because it's consistent with my notion that we need to give the schools back to the teachers. Ninety-five per cent of those teachers, by the way, are very well qualified and have the very best of intentions and really dedicate their professional and personal lives to their work, but somehow we've got in their way.

As I was saying, I want to give the schools back to the teachers and the students and the parents. When I think about that, I think, "I haven't said school boards," and I think to myself and I think out loud in this Legislature: Maybe one day we will have an omnibus bill on education that expresses the most sincere gratitude to all of those who have served and are serving as school trustees and thanks them very much, and then puts an end to this superstructure of school boards that we have all around the province.

I think in particular of -- again, with no disrespect -- the school board of the city of Toronto. Somehow, in the city of Toronto, being a school trustee means that you have a full-time job and you make a salary of about $60,000 a year.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): That's more than an MPP, for God's sake.

Mr Sorbara: My friend from the north says it's more than an MPP, for goodness' sake. He's close; it's not quite. I'm not suggesting that we earn our salary particularly, but I just can't justify why it is that if you have responsibility for the education of city of Toronto kids, it's a full-time job and you make $60,000 a year, and yet if you have responsibility for the education of school kids in Timmins, you get maybe $600 or $700 a year, maybe $1,000 or $2,000, and it's among the many ways in which you serve your community.

I use that example simply to say that, in my view, the system is all out of whack. The government's learning commission is not going to be helpful -- except for Gerry Caplan, who has yet another job from the good offices of the Premier: Yet another job does Gerry Caplan have. So the learning commission isn't going to help, another select committee is not going to help, the omnibus bill that we are debating now is not going to help, figuring out the niceties of junior kindergarten is not going to help.

In my view, with the greatest respect to the minister who is the author of the bill, with the greatest respect to the parliamentary assistant, who is about to speak, what is going to help is a massive retreat on the part of all of us who think we have the ability to meddle in the classroom and a new sense of confidence that if somehow we would get off the backs of the teachers and stop trying to manipulate students and give them back their classrooms, properly equipped, and wish them the best, I think somehow, just like with my wife in a one-room classroom, the kids who emerge from those schools are going to be bright young fellows and bright young men and women and they will be a tribute to what happened while they were there.

The Speaker: I thank the honourable member for York Centre for his contribution to the debate. Are there any other members who wish to participate? I recognize the member for Wellington.

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): I'm very pleased to participate very briefly in this debate on Bill 4, the Education Statute Law Amendment Act, 1993. As we've heard during the course of this debate, we find that this is an omnibus bill dealing with a great number of changes to our education system in Ontario, parts of which have been presented in the past in past bills, I guess Bill 125, Bill 20, Bill 88, Bill 114 and Bill 37, all of which were not passed into legislation, ultimately, but have been resurrected in some form, resulting in this bill we're dealing with today.

This bill received first reading about eight days ago, and I must say I'm quite concerned about the time line the government's following. We really don't have a great deal of time to gauge reaction in the community to these fairly substantial changes the government is introducing to our education system. So I would start off by expressing that concern.

I'd like to indicate as the member for Wellington that I'm most concerned about the education system in our area. I think the key concerns that most parents in my county have, and anyone who's interested in education, centre on quality of children's education, including standards, accountability and cost. These continue to be the key issues.

But another important issue in our area, since the Liberals first introduced the idea of mandatory junior kindergarten -- in Wellington county, people do not support mandatory junior kindergarten.

This bill, Bill 4, made reference to junior kindergarten and changed the government's policy with respect to it, because of course, prior to Bill 4 and in previous omnibus education bills which have not been passed, the government indicated its intent to attempt to force mandatory junior kindergarten down the throats of all the school boards across the province, and many school boards had very serious concerns about it.

What the government had suggested in the past was that all school boards would have to offer mandatory junior kindergarten programs by August 31, 1994, and in this bill we've seen some additional flexibility. It may only be a technicality, but the Lieutenant Governor in Council has been given the power to allow a board to phase in the junior kindergarten requirement by September 1, 1997.

Very few people, and I would submit very few people even in this chamber, believe the New Democrats will be in power in 1997, so I doubt very much that this commitment which has been made by the government in this bill is really going to hold any water over time.

I must say once again, state very strongly, that I don't believe that mandatory junior kindergarten is the way to go across the province. If school boards want to offer junior kindergarten where there's a local need for junior kindergarten, a local demand for it, that's fine, but in areas of the province that don't see it as a priority, I can't see the government forcing it down their throats, especially when we find so many other areas of our education system which are not being properly funded.

We see in Wellington county literally dozens and dozens of portables. We're relying on portables to a great extent, portables within the system where there's no money for permanent structures.

I would leave you with that point, but I also want to talk about the government's promise to the people of Ontario in the 1990 election. They indicated at that time, as part of their education platform, that the government of Ontario would in the future fund 60% of the cost of education if the New Democrats were elected. Well, of course the government has failed miserably with respect to that specific promise. They have not come close.

In Wellington county, in fact, the trend of provincial percentage of the total cost of education has actually declined since they came to power. So we have to put that on the agenda as well. No one expects you to meet that commitment, but at least it's time for the government to be more honest with people about the level of funding that it can put forward and not continue to download brand-new, expensive programs when the government has not met its commitments from 1990.

Our party has taken a great interest in the educational issues, and we have put forward our views on education in a document, A Blueprint for Learning in Ontario: New Directions. It's a whole volume of constructive advice that we put forward for the government's consideration, and I'm quite proud of it. I think we put a lot of thought and a lot of effort into it, trying to put forward an alternative course of action for the government to consider, as part of our important role in opposition, something that we've taken very seriously and that we're very, very proud of.

I would just leave the government with those thoughts, since I see my time winding up. But I appreciate the opportunity to contribute very briefly to this debate and would ask the government to give consideration to my comments.

1740

The Speaker: I thank the honourable member for Wellington for his participation in the debate and recognize the honourable member for York East.

Mr Gary Malkowski (York East): I have paid careful attention to the remarks of the honourable members opposite, and I wish to assure them that the concerns they have raised will be considered by the government. I would like to respond to just a few of the comments and clarify some key issues.

I would first of all very much like to thank Richard Johnston, the former member for Scarborough West, for his previous work on a private member's bill to provide for the use of American sign language and the langue des signes québécois as languages of instructions.

I'd also like to thank my colleagues the members for Cochrane South and Sault Ste Marie for all their diligent, hard work on both the francophone and anglophone committees on deaf education and to all the members of that committee.

The World Federation of the Deaf, an organization which has standing under UNESCO, has called for the recognition of sign languages and the right to use sign languages, and I am delighted that we may soon be in a position to report to the World Federation of the Deaf that Ontario is taking this important step.

The issue of the repeal of the "hard to serve" section of the Education Act was raised. I would like to respond to the comments made by the member for York North and other members opposite. I would like to clarify the "hard to serve" section, which was intended to protect those children who could not initially be accommodated by their school boards during the phase-in of Bill 82. The section ensured that these children would have access to an education program even if it was not one that could be provided by their school boards.

Today, special education is an integral part of our education system, and this government believes that the "hard to serve" section is no longer necessary because school boards can provide special education programs in a number of ways: They can offer the programs themselves, they can purchase the services from another board, they can provide an education program in a care and treatment facility run by the Ministry of Community and Social Services, or they can refer children for admission to the provincial and demonstration schools run by the Ministry of Education and Training.

The honourable members are aware that this bill does not deal with the issue of integration of exceptional pupils into regular classrooms. The ministry has completed an extensive consultation process and is presently developing its policy in this area, and I am sure that the honourable members will have ample opportunity in the future to make their opinions known to the government.

We do agree that boards need more assistance in dealing appropriately with violence in the schools, and the amendments regarding the suspension of pupils will support that direction. In this connection, I would like to clarify that the bill does not require boards to establish committees to deal with expulsions and suspensions, but it gives them the option to do so. This provision will enable some boards to deal more quickly with these cases, including hearing appeals of suspensions.

As I said yesterday, while there are a number of housekeeping amendments in this bill, there are some important amendments that focus on important initiatives in the care and the education of children of various ages and with various needs.

The amendment regarding child care will allow for better coordination of services for younger children, while the provision for junior kindergarten will ensure that all children can benefit from early learning experiences.

Finally, various measures proposed in this bill will assist children to maximize their learning potential by removing some real and perceived barriers to equitable treatment of these students.

I would like to thank all those committees that have worked very hard in the Ministry of Education to develop the various components of this omnibus legislation and I would like to sum up and say thank you, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: By agreement, the member for York East would be the final speaker.

Mr Malkowski moved second reading of Bill 4. I remind the House that by a unanimous agreement, we deem that a division has occurred and that there will be a vote following routine proceedings on Monday next.

It being nearly 6 of the clock, and pursuant to standing order -- I'm sorry; business order first. My mistake.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): Mr Speaker, pursuant to standing order 55, I would like to indicate the business of the House for the coming week.

On Monday, May 3, we'll, as you've just suggested, have the deferred vote on Bill 4, the Education Act, immediately following routine proceedings, and then we will proceed with the resumption of third reading consideration of long-term care Bill 101.

On Tuesday, May 4, we will give second reading consideration to the municipal waste management legislation, Bill 7.

On Wednesday, May 5, we will consider an opposition day motion standing in the name of Mr Harris.

In the morning of Thursday, April 29, during the time reserved for private members' public business, we will consider ballot item 5, a resolution standing in the name of Mr Cleary, and ballot item 6, a resolution standing in the name of Mr Sterling.

On Thursday afternoon, we will resume second reading consideration of the municipal waste management legislation, Bill 7.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): It being nearly 6 of the clock and pursuant to standing order 34, the question that this House do now adjourn is deemed to have been made.

JOBS ONTARIO

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The member for Eglinton, pursuant to standing order 34(a), has given notice of her dissatisfaction with the answer to her question, given by the Minister of Education and Training, concerning the cost of promotional items for the Jobs Ontario Training program. The member for Eglinton has up to five minutes to make her presentation and the Minister of Education and Training has up to five minutes for his response.

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): Mr Speaker, just before beginning, I wonder if I can have an acknowledgement whether the minister will be in the House today. I don't see him at this time.

Mr Mike Farnan (Cambridge): As the parliamentary assistant to the minister, I will be responding to the member.

Ms Poole: I am very disappointed that the minister chose not to attend today, because what we're debating, I think, is a matter of public importance, and that's the spending of the taxpayers' money.

On Tuesday and again on Wednesday, I raised in this Legislature the issue of almost $700,000 that was spent by this government on promotional items in the Jobs Ontario Training package. I would like to clarify that this almost $700,000 is not talking about advertising, it's not talking about communication, it's not talking about mailings; it's talking about strictly promotional items. When I looked at this list, I couldn't believe what I saw.

1750

The first thing that I saw were these little buttons: $21,000 on little buttons. Can you tell me how this is creating jobs for the people who have applied for Jobs Ontario Training? Twenty-one thousand dollars, and what does this do? It does nothing except promote the NDP government, and I consider that to be a waste of our taxpayers' money.

One of the other promotional items that was contained in the kit is bumper stickers. Surely there is no need for bumper stickers to promote Jobs Ontario.

I have no problem with legitimate advertising. I have no problem with brochures staking out the programs. But this? Thousands and thousands of dollars on this? Give me a break, particularly in a time when this government has said that we must restrain ourselves in spending, that we must cut, that we must slash because the deficit has gone out of control.

Yet almost $700,000 on promotional items, things like design, graphics; communication services, for instance: $29,000. Here's one for design and graphic services for $49,000 plus change; another one for design and graphic services for $49,000 plus change. There are postcards, pamphlets, presentation folders, display units, portable easels, underarm portfolio zipper bags, vinyl page protectors, square promotion pins, round promotion pins, and page after page -- 45 items on this page, these three pages -- totalling almost $700,000 for promotional materials. Now tell me that's a good use of the taxpayers' dollars.

When the minister yesterday read out a letter by the owner of Instant Promotions saying that the government in fact had not made these buttons in Taiwan, which was one of the things I brought to the House's attention, this was very surprising to us because it runs completely contrary to the information we were given by one of the sales people at Instant Promotions, Mr Larry Silverman, on the morning of April 20 when he advised us that, no, all their buttons were made in Taiwan.

Normally I would say, well, there's just been a mistake, but with this minister I don't believe in simple mistakes because I've dealt with him before on Housing, I dealt with him when I was the deputy House leader for the opposition and, quite frankly, I believe there was some manipulation in past experiences.

I notice that, for instance, the owner of this company admitted that he was a strong supporter of this government and that he was a strong supporter of the Jobs Ontario program. I'm wondering because, of 45 items on those three pages, 38 of them were under $20,000, which meant that those contracts did not have to be tendered. It was really astonishing because I looked and there were five and six companies providing the same thing, but because they are under $20,000, there's no tender, no public record as to whether they were competitive bids. I'm wondering if this wasn't just a little payoff for our NDP faithful.

Mr Speaker, $700,000 is an enormous amount to be spending on promotion for a program that is in trouble. The minister's figures themselves show that only 8,300 jobs have been created over the last year, and I think the taxpayers deserve better value for our dollar than this.

The Speaker: I recognize the honourable member for Cambridge, the parliamentary assistant, and he has five minutes.

Mr Farnan: My minister is attending a previous commitment out of town with educational stakeholders and regrets very much that he cannot be here. I am happy and honoured to represent him.

Like my minister, I am proud of the Jobs Ontario program that we have designed and marketed. It is a successful program. It helps get people off social assistance. It invests in Ontario's future. It cooperates with the private sector and it gives small business that dollar support and incentive needed to get Ontario back to work.

Let me say, this is not a make-work project. It's not a wage subsidy. It requires employers to make a commitment to hire for the long term and to make a meaningful contribution to training. It is an employer-led program, and because it is such, we as a government have had to promote and foster awareness, support and participation by the business sector.

Clearly this requires promotion and marketing. Does the member for Eglinton think that promotion and marketing takes place by osmosis? Of course it costs dollars, but what we have to ask ourselves is, are we getting a blast for our dollar?

First, let me add that the member for Eglinton has a very poor track record of accurate research. Just this week in the House, she claimed that the JOT buttons were made in Taiwan. In fact they were made here in Canada -- no apology from the member.

She uses a figure of $700,000, and let me tell you, while I question her figures -- and I do question her figures -- I'm going to suggest to you that even if we took her figures as accurate, let's analyse the blast for our dollars. To date, as of April 23, we have placed people who would be on social assistance, 8,843 people, in training positions, good-paying positions. We have another 13,229 positions that have been identified. The matches are taking place on an average, if we use the last two months, of over 1,000 placements per week. This is indeed a successful program.

Ms Poole: You did all your placements in the last two months then? Is that what you're telling us?

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Farnan: A significant proportion of the individuals on the Jobs Ontario program were on social assistance, and in just one year -- listen to this -- by factoring in the savings from the people who have been hired to date, the projected annual savings, I say to the member for Eglinton, will be in the approximation of $32 million. This increases significantly as more and more individuals join the program.

New positions are being created week by week and the savings to the government go from $32 million" literally millions and millions of dollars are being added each month in savings to this government. Why should we not, I ask the member for Eglinton, invest in promotion and marketing if we can have this kind of successful result?

We do not have the Liberal vision of criticism. We don't have the Liberal record of simply promoting wage subsidy, creating low-skilled, low-paying jobs for the length of the subsidy. We don't have the Liberal negativism, which is criticize, criticize, criticize.

This NDP government has a different vision, a vision to be constructive. We are determined to provide a partnership with the private sector for long-term skilled positions. We have a different record. I've already pointed out that employers are working in partnership with our government. They're training applicants for longer-term employment. All employees are benefiting from the training. Indeed, the average wage for these positions filled to date is $22,000 per year. This is indeed a successful program.

I would say to the member for Eglinton: Talk to the people of Cambridge. Ask them if there are jobs being created. At John Forsyth, for example, 112 jobs created by March 1995. To date, 96 jobs have been filled. Right across the province you've the same story of success. When will the member recognize this is indeed a successful program?

The Speaker: There being no further matter to be debated, the motion to adjourn is deemed to be carried. This House stands adjourned until 1:30 of the clock Monday next.

The House adjourned at 1800.

29 avril 1993