Journal des débats 1993-nov-30 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): Last week, I stood in this House and introduced my private member's bill, Bill 126, which deals with water extraction agreements. A great number of constituents in my riding, Bruce riding, were concerned about the fact that no local agreements were required at all when people had permits to take water in excess of 50,000 litres per day.

It is in regard to this that my private member's bill makes some inroads. While successive governments have not dealt very much with the issue of water, it's my belief and the belief I think of a lot of people now that water is going to become ever increasingly a much more important resource for the province of Ontario.

Indeed, the discussions around free trade and NAFTA have made it clear that there are designs on our water resources, at least in my view, by those people in the United States of America and other places. While my bill does not purport to deal precisely with that issue, it does give local control over what goes into an agreement to extract water at local sites by people who are shipping water, either in bulk tanks or even purporting to do it by way of pipeline activities.

This will not protect the resource clearly enough for me, but it is a step to make sure that all the local people in an area where individuals desire to take water in large volumes and ship it to other places, for whatever reasons, will have a say in making sure that their resource is maintained in high quality and in high quantity, and it will require certain undertakings to be given by the people who want to transport that water. It's a step; I do not suggest that it is the solution to all our problems with respect to the water resource.

MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): Last Saturday morning, I drove to Guelph to meet with eight of my constituents, a delegation representing about 300 property owners whose lands were recently annexed from Puslinch and Guelph townships into the city of Guelph, the annexation taking place April 1 of this year.

The issue of their concern was simple: property tax increases that they're facing of up to 63%, or $3,100 in increases. These increases are to be phased in over several years. These annexation discussions go back a number of years and it's important to remember that the annexation proposal was initiated by the city of Guelph; the city asked for this.

These affected residents tell me that prior to the effective date of the annexation they were consistently and repeatedly told by representatives of the city of Guelph that if their properties were annexed, their tax increases would be minimal, if any tax increases were to take place at all.

Based on this assurance by the city, virtually no one opposed the annexation and no one appealed it. After April 1, though, the situation changed and it became clear that a serious error had been made by the city. The error was this: Puslinch township property assessment is based on a 1975 market value assessment, while the city of Guelph property assessments are based on 1984 market values.

Now, for example, based on the best projection we have, Charlie Bird faces an increase of $3,100, or 53%, and there are others of that magnitude. These constituents now reside in the city of Guelph but the boundaries of the provincial riding of Wellington have not changed and I continue to represent these people.

I call upon the Minister of Municipal Affairs to review this matter and immediately convene a meeting with a delegation of these affected residents as well as representatives of the city and the interested townships to discuss this matter and seek a fair resolution to their concerns and problems. The minister must assure that fairness will prevail in this area.

PARLIAMENTARY REFORM

Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): I rise today to add my voice and support to all those who seek to reform our parliamentary system to give more say to individual members.

Many people across the province are frustrated by our parliamentary system. They see a system that seeks to centralize power and is not responsive to their concerns. Far too often, the responsibilities and the decisions of government are vested in one individual, either the Premier or the Prime Minister. Similarly, the successes and failures of governments are also vested in one individual, either the Premier or the Prime Minister. This is wrong.

People want to participate more in the parliamentary process. People want their elected members, whether they be of any political party or any political stripe, to represent more closely the views of their constituents. In this regard, I add my voice to all those voices and my support to all those people who seek to reform our parliamentary system to give more say to individual members.

LABOUR DISPUTE

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): Mr Speaker, there's currently some labour strife going on in the community that has a direct impact right at the community level and I just want to bring it to your attention. It's the strike between the United Food and Commercial Workers and the Miracle Food Mart stores, owned by A&P, which has bought up all those stores.

There's a lot of discomfort in the community: senior citizens who rely on these stores to be open -- there are 63 of them that have been closed -- single mothers, people who don't have vehicles and require public transit. It's causing a lot of unhappiness in the community. The dispute apparently is over job security.

Interjection.

Mr Mahoney: I understand it's not over wages, it's primarily over job security, but whatever it's over, I wish they would come to a resolution because it's having an impact that goes beyond just a simple strike and a simple lockout. In fact, they're not allowed to open the stores as a result of Bill 40, so the 63 stores are closed and the people apparently are not even talking.

I would think that on behalf of all of the people in our community who are being inconvenienced, we should be calling on both parties to get together and sit down and find a way to resolve this, particularly heading into Christmas. There are many communities in Mississauga and all around the province that rely on that one grocery store that's close to home and they're not able to get out. I hope they can resolve this in the very near future.

1340

COURT FACILITY

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): I'm glad the Premier is in the House at this moment because I wish to speak about the Peel courthouse.

When the Ontario government considered court expansion needs after the Supreme Court of Canada ruled on Askov in 1990, the region of Peel was regarded as the most urgent priority. The Attorney General promised that Peel would have a new courthouse by the end of 1992. Now it is the end of 1993, and the ground for a new courthouse has not even been broken yet. Peel was passed over in recent announcements of capital funding, while Hamilton and Windsor, both lower priorities, did receive funds for new courthouses.

Premier Rae said the Windsor and Hamilton courthouses were funded first because the deals for their construction were put together sooner. But we have to wonder if the real reason is that Hamilton and Windsor are NDP strongholds represented by cabinet ministers, whereas Peel is represented by the opposition parties. If politics have dictated the order of funding, something is rotten in the province of Ontario.

Since the Askov decision put time limits on waits for cases to come to trial, 10,000 criminal charges and 8,000 charges under the Provincial Offences Act have been dropped in Peel. So much for justice.

DURHAM EAST NEWSPAPERS

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): It's a great opportunity to say nice things about people during this members' time, and today I want to stand in my place and say some nice things about the newspapers in my riding of Durham East. I want to mention the Canadian Statesman, the Orono Times, the Courtice News, the Port Perry Star and the Scugog Citizen among other fine newspapers in the riding of Durham East that have all chosen since my election to print my weekly Queen's Park Report. Through the kindness and the generosity of those newspapers, I am able to communicate with all my constituents each week in a meaningful way.

Sometimes I write something that's controversial. Sometimes I get letters about it. But it's out there. I can tell you in complete honesty that I do not go anywhere these days without some people coming up to me and saying: "We read your column. You're keeping in touch."

I am not going to be backward in coming forward, but I can tell you that since my election as the member for Durham East, the people in my riding have never been kept so up-to-date about things in this thing -- ever. They are more informed than ever they've been. They know all about me. I'm not ashamed to tell them, the people who say bad things about me, and about the only thing that perhaps they don't know about me is the size of shoes I take. But that's what I want. I'm here to represent them, and I thank the newspapers for that.

ROBIN SEARS

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): I understand that a distress call has come out from Bob Rae's government. As the NDP fortunes continue to fall, the party of the people is saying, "Robin Sears, come home." Yes, even some in the Premier's office have been overheard calling for their own Boy Stalin to return. Ever since NDP campaign manager David Agnew joined the civil service and John Piper was banished from Bob Rae's court, the Premier has been lacking in political advice. "Come home, Robin Sears," they are calling.

Bob Rae could have used his wonderful bargaining skills to convince the Ontario Federation of Labour not to leave the NDP. This past weekend at the NDP provincial council, the Premier could have used his help in getting the troops out to dispel rumours of a leadership review. Yes, they're calling, "Come home, Robin Sears."

Julie Davis has resigned. The New Democratic Party needs a new president. And what do I hear them saying? I hear them saying, "Come home, Robin Sears."

We know how much you enjoy Japan, Robin, living off the Ontario taxpayers, but have pity on those taxpayers; we have a huge deficit. But most of all, Bob Rae needs your help. He needs you at home.

Every other foreign office has closed and all agent generals have returned. I understand that the Premier and the party are calling for Robin Sears to return. I bet Premier Rae would prefer to pay his salary here in Ontario. Won't you come home, Robin Sears?

ONTARIO HOME OWNERSHIP SAVINGS PLAN

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): My statement's for the Minister of Finance on behalf of hundreds of new home buyers and real estate agents in Simcoe East.

Minister, your self-imposed December 31 deadline for pulling the plug on the extremely successful Ontario home ownership savings plan is fast approaching. Your threat to end the OHOSP is making potential new home buyers very nervous, because this program means the difference between buying or not buying that first home for many people in Simcoe East and across Ontario.

Local members of the Ontario Real Estate Association, David Mishaw, Dennis Bloom, Lloyd Raymond, Scott Leclair, Gloria Chamberlain and Jim and Ellie Noble, suggest that more than 248,000 OHOSPs have been opened since the program was established in 1988. Of that number, 204,000 have been closed to purchase a new home. Approximately 48% of all home sales in the first nine months of 1993 were to first-time home buyers. OHOSP makes good economic sense and provides an initiative for first-time home buyers to set aside money to buy their first residence.

Minister, I personally know of people, individuals and families, who would still be living in non-profit housing if OHOSP did not exist. OHOSP makes economic sense when you consider it costs about $50 million annually, compared to the $2.6 billion your government spends on non-profit housing subsidies each year.

Having said that, I would suggest that in the name of fiscal responsibility, you have an obligation to renew the OHOSP program beyond the December 31 deadline.

JOHN VAN DORP

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): I rise today to honour John Van Dorp, an innovative farmer in my riding of Oxford. Mr Van Dorp was recently nominated for the W.R. Motherwell Award as Canada's Outstanding Young Farmer. This award is named after William Richard Motherwell, who served as Saskatchewan's Agriculture minister from 1905 to 1918 and federal Agriculture minister from 1921 to 1930.

This year's theme was the environment in agriculture. Mr Van Dorp, who won the Great Lakes regional award, has long been involved in environmental farming techniques. He has farmed in Oxford for 20 years and is well known for his excellent crop results using alternative farming methods. He's also planted about 5,000 trees on his property in the last three years.

As if that has not kept him busy enough, Mr Van Dorp has also served with several organizations, including as president of Resource Efficient Agriculture Production Canada, second vice-president of the Oxford County Federation of Agriculture and chairperson of the federation's environment committee.

As chairperson of the environment committee, Mr Van Dorp urged volunteers to collect 151 tonnes of old batteries for recycling. The funds they received sponsored a waste management course at Fanshawe College and various 4-H Club activities.

Although Mr Van Dorp did not receive the national title of Outstanding Young Farmer, I believe his commitment to the environment and his contribution to the community are well deserving of our congratulations.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

TEACHERS' DISPUTE

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Education and Training): Negotiations between the East Parry Sound Board of Education and the branch affiliates of the Federation of Women Teachers' Associations of Ontario and the Ontario Public School Teachers' Federation have been under way for more than 22 months.

On October 6, teachers went on strike in support of their demands. Although teachers have returned to their classrooms today, no settlement has been reached and the strike is now in its 37th day.

Last Friday, I met with members of the Education Relations Commission. They reported to me on the ERC's attempt to help the board and the teachers resolve this dispute.

Yesterday, I received the Education Relations Commission's report on the dispute between the East Parry Sound Board of Education and its public school teachers. After extensive discussion with the parties by field staff, a fact-finder and numerous mediated sessions, officials of the commission have told me that they see little prospect for a negotiated settlement of this dispute in the near future. The commission has indicated that for the good of the students, a resolution of the strike must be achieved.

Yesterday, I met with the representatives of the board and the teachers as well as the Education Relations Commission. Despite these final attempts at mediation, the parties were still unable to reach an agreement.

To help resolve this dispute and to ensure that 2,600 children in the east Parry Sound public school system are able to finish their year, I will be introducing legislation later this afternoon to enable classes to resume. The legislation I am introducing will refer this dispute to binding arbitration. The arbitration process will examine all issues remaining in dispute, including any outstanding local issues relating to the social contract as it pertains to these negotiations. In the meantime, terms and conditions of the 1990-92 collective agreement will be reinstated until replaced by a new agreement.

1350

This legislation will ensure that public school teachers return to their work immediately. Teachers and the board will be asked to develop and submit a joint plan outlining how they will make up lost instruction time for students.

Under the legislation, the board and teacher groups will file with the Education Relations Commission and with each other the names of nominees to a board of arbitration. They will also be asked to name an arbitrator who is mutually acceptable to both groups to chair the board of arbitration.

The board of arbitration will render a decision by March 1, 1994. The board's decision will be effective from September 1, 1992, with a duration of at least three years.

The board and teachers will also have to file a report, due May 1, 1994, on the steps being taken by both groups to improve their relationship.

In addition, the legislation will direct the Education Relations Commission to determine whether either or both parties in the dispute were negotiating in good faith and making every reasonable effort to make or renew a collective agreement.

We have always taken the stand that it's in the best interest of the parties involved in a collective agreement to reach their own solutions. It is essential that the collective bargaining process continue to be a fair and balanced one.

Regrettably, given the findings of the Education Relations Commission and the actions of both the board and the teachers, it is necessary for us to intervene in this labour dispute so that the public school students in east Parry Sound do not lose their school years.

Mr Charles Beer (York North): In response to the Minister of Education's statement today, I want first of all to say that clearly all of us are happy that the teachers are teaching and that the young people are back in the classroom. But let's be very clear that this is not a happy day.

This is the second piece of back-to-work legislation that this House has had to consider within some five weeks, and we know that in east Parry Sound at the secondary level and in Windsor at the elementary level we still have two ongoing strikes. If one looks at the most recent document from the Education Relations Commission, we are aware that there are still a number of very serious disputes that could also end up in a strike situation.

I think, as I listened to the minister's statement, that there is one very significant point that is missing, and that is that the minister and the government have got to accept that they made a fundamental change to the collective bargaining process in this province, in terms of the educational system, when they brought in the Social Contract Act. The collective bargaining process as we knew it, and in which we had faith, has been fundamentally altered. While the minister will say, as he has said previously, that the Social Contract Act is not part of these labour disputes we see in the province right now, clearly the Social Contract Act is, and the government has got to accept a great deal of the responsibility for the problems we have had.

This government has in effect put undue pressure on both the Education Relations Commission and on school boards to in effect do its dirty work. That is clear from a reading of the act that is being brought before us today.

We have to go beyond the back-to-work legislation, we have to look at what is happening to communities, and we have to ask the minister and the government, where is the leadership that they intend to show so that this kind of situation doesn't happen again and again?

I want to draw the members' attention to an article by Steve Coad, the London Free Press education reporter, who wrote on Saturday what is a very full review of the feelings in the county of Lambton, which was of course the bill that we dealt with at the end of October. All you have to do is to look at the headlines and the subheadlines to really get a sense of how a community can be torn apart by a strike.

The headline is "When Teachers and Trustees Fight," and the subheads are "Hateful Relations," "Six Weeks Lost," "Power," "Hatred," "Irresponsibility," "Frustration." The entire article catalogues all the things that have happened that brought about that strike, and one could do precisely the same thing in east Parry Sound and, I dare say, in any of the other communities that are facing the potential of a strike.

Why is that happening? What is it that has happened particularly this year that has brought about these strikes? The minister notes -- it happened in the Lambton situation; he's proposing it in terms of east Parry Sound -- that he wants to see a report by May 2, 1994, in which the board and the teachers will show a plan, will develop a plan whereby they will work together.

What the minister fails to add is that we need this minister to come forward and say how the province is going to come back in, demonstrate leadership, work with the boards and with the teachers and help them through the Social Contract Act and what it has done to the process of free collective bargaining in this province.

The minister said in his statement: "We have always taken the stand that it's best for parties involved in a collective agreement to reach their own solutions. It is essential that the collective bargaining process continue to be a fair and balanced one." Yet this government, by the way in which it imposed its social contract legislation and by the way in which it has failed repeatedly to give leadership to boards and teachers as to how we can work through this, is very much complicit in the kinds of problems we faced in Lambton and that we faced in east Parry Sound and continue to face.

Minister, we need some real leadership from you to make sure this situation doesn't continue.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): What will be interesting for members of the House and members of the teaching profession is that the New Democratic Party that voted against all of these bills in the past and let the people of Ontario and particularly the teachers know, through their teachers' federations, that it would never support strikebreaking, is in fact engaging in back-to-work legislation. That is the difference between the NDP of principle and the NDP of power.

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): I'd like to respond briefly to the minister's statement here today. I think the important aspect of this entire matter is that there are some 2,600 students who are back in the classroom today, where they should have been for the last close to 40 instructional days now. The important aspect of this, as I've said on numerous occasions, is the students' education. It's very unfortunate that students had to miss close to 40 instructional days before we could come to the same conclusion that, quite frankly, we could have come to a month ago with respect to this dispute, in any event.

The minister shakes his head, but if he reads -- and I'm sure he has -- the report given to him today by the Education Relations Commission, I think it will substantiate the fact that basically the issues outstanding between these parties are the same issues that were outstanding over a month ago. Over a month ago, everybody except the Ministry of Education and Training, apparently, concluded that the only reasonable thing to do to save the students' education was to have binding arbitration with respect to those few issues that the parties just could not agree on and in fact, in the end result, agreed to disagree on. Those are the issues that are now being sent to binding arbitration, as indeed should be the case.

I would also say to the minister that it is somewhat unusual that we have all these disputes between boards and teachers during this year. The fact is that the legislation in subsection 5(7) specifically refers to the Social Contract Act and specifically deals with benefits, whether they can or cannot be taken away out of the previous collective agreement under the social contract legislation, and there's provision in there for the arbitration board to decide those issues. Surely that is proof in itself that indeed the Social Contract Act is at the root of these numerous disputes between boards and teachers all across the province, not just in east Parry Sound. I think the government has finally admitted it here today in its legislation.

1400

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): Today renders us yet another example of the government coming forward with legislation to end a dispute -- and we're all happy that the students are back in school -- but legislation that opens the door to a number of issues and sets a precedent, I think, in school board collective bargaining in the province of Ontario.

The ERC has taken on a new role, has expanded responsibilities. My colleague from Parry Sound has referred to subsection 5(7) and has stated, with regard to certainly both the teachers and school boards, the impact on the social contract with regard to collective bargaining.

Actually, when you talk about including any outstanding issues related to any local agreement under the Social Contract Act, we're really talking about all outstanding matters now and we're into areas and expanded areas that can be open for dispute by any board in the future. I suppose the answer to this is, how do we keep teachers in school, how do we keep students in school and what is the real problem?

I can tell you that the memo that was sent out on November 22 to the school boards by the deputy minister to the director of education that states that effective December 1, 1993, the ministry will not approve expenses incurred employing staff to replace striking employees or expenses incurred to employ individuals to provide student programming will only add to the discourse and will only add to the concern of school boards.

This government, not only by nature of the two return-to-work pieces of legislation we've witnessed in the last couple of weeks in this province but also by this memo, has interfered in the collective bargaining process in school boards -- unheard-of yet in the province of Ontario. Now by this memo they've told school boards, "If in fact teachers are on strike, you no longer can hire anyone to come into the schools and take care of the safety and the health of students and property."

I think during the debate later on this afternoon on this bill we will have --

Hon Mr Cooke: We just won't pay for it.

Mrs Cunningham: He won't pay. The point is the minister will not pay, which to me is setting precedent unheard-of in the province of Ontario for supervisors in our schools.

ORAL QUESTIONS

POLICE STAFFING

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My first question is to the Premier. For the last few months we have been raising examples of the very real impact your social contract is having on the services that people need. We now have evidence that one of the most important services is going to be cut back in spite of your promises that essential services would be protected under the social contract.

Premier, according to the Metropolitan Toronto Police Association, there are 345 fewer uniformed police positions in Metropolitan Toronto due to the social contract. These positions are vacancies that are going unfilled as Metro starts to meet the social contract cuts.

I know you and members of your government have said that we tend to blame everything on the social contract, but there is a bottom-line reality to these numbers, and the bottom-line reality is that there are at least 345 fewer police officers in Metropolitan Toronto patrolling the streets every day. Premier, is this what you meant by a social contract, 345 fewer police officers patrolling our streets?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): I understand the Solicitor General is due to be in the House today, and I would just as soon stand it down and let him answer that question.

Mrs McLeod: I'd like to continue with the question, if I may wait until the Solicitor General arrives, if you would stop the clock, Mr Speaker, while we wait for him to take his place.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): If the minister would quickly assume his seat. Premier?

Hon Mr Rae: I see that the Solicitor General is here and I would refer the question to him.

Hon David Christopherson (Solicitor General): Mr Speaker, if I could just hear the question again, please.

Mrs McLeod: Mr Speaker, I anticipated that the Solicitor General would ask me to repeat the question. I'm not sure it's precedented for the Premier to stand down a question. I thought that was usually the opposition party's prerogative. But given the fact that he's asked for it to be stood down, could we start the question period again so we have the full hour for our questions?

The Speaker: It really wouldn't be appropriate, but the leader could perhaps succinctly place the question to the minister. I'm observant of the time.

Mrs McLeod: I'll re-place the question. Minister, my question to the Premier was one of concern about the fact that one of our most essential services is clearly being cut back as a result of the social contract. We have information that, according to the Metropolitan Toronto Police Association, there will be 345 fewer uniformed officers patrolling the streets of Toronto as a result of social contract cuts. I have asked the Premier whether or not this is the way in which your government keeps its commitments to ensure that essential services are protected.

Hon Mr Christopherson: I apologize to members for being late coming to my spot.

Let me say that as far as I know, there have been no final decisions that have been taken yet. Everything right now is being discussed and is up in the air, if you will, in terms of where things will finally be.

Let me say very clearly that this government has been very, very concerned about particular essential services, particularly those related to my ministry. I think we can show in our relationship with the OPP and other parts of my ministry that we have done everything we can to ensure that the resources necessary to provide those essential services are in place.

I have great faith in the ability of the senior officers, chief and members of the police services board to ensure that their services are provided in a professional manner that indeed does meet the needs of the people in the city of Metro and others across Ontario.

Mrs McLeod: I simply fail to understand how that responds to the reality that as of today there are 427 vacancies in the Metropolitan Toronto Police Force, 345 of which are uniformed officers and they are not being replaced.

That is not the end of the problem nor of the impact of these cuts on police services in Metropolitan Toronto. I would tell the minister that in addition to the staffing reductions, the police staff will have to take three Rae days between January and March of next year. According to the Metropolitan Toronto Police Association, this translates into 379 fewer officers walking the streets on any given day.

Minister, how can you possibly say that you are protecting services, with the social contract not affecting the essential services people need, when there will be 379 fewer officers patrolling the streets of Metro next year? They will be sitting at home every day instead of being on the job.

Hon Mr Christopherson: Again, I come back to the first point, that I do not believe final decisions have been made around these issues. Therefore, it would be a little premature to start talking about what the realities are or are going to be vis-à-vis the final outcomes of these discussions.

Let me say that the whole issue of constraints, of meeting expenditure targets and of keeping expenditures under control is a goal shared by all in this House. Obviously, particular and special attention needs to be paid to the area of public safety, and I believe that it has been.

Let me also point out that it wasn't that long ago, in fact it was only a few short months ago, that the RCMP were notified by the former federal government of a $70-million cutback in the RCMP. That again is not, I don't think, an indication that they didn't care about public safety, but the fact that all aspects of government must find new ways of doing the same services and indeed, in the case of policing, better services. We do have to find other ways of doing it with limited and in some cases less resources.

Mrs McLeod: The minister is right in one respect. This is an issue of public safety. I say to the minister, and to the Premier through him, that your government ran up the $17-billion deficit. You were the ones who created the problem. You were the ones who said you could deal with this problem through the social contract without jeopardizing essential services, and that is not what is happening. Policing is one example of where the social contract cuts mean less service.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Order. The member for Beaches.

Mrs McLeod: The social contract has not protected jobs and essential services. It has ended jobs and it has left service providers sitting at home.

The problem with policing is not unique to Metropolitan Toronto. We've been told that in Hamilton the local police force is short 30 officers because of vacancies going unfilled. We've been told that in Niagara region there's been a reduction of 24 positions because of the social contract.

Minister, how can you stand in this House and say to the people of this province that you are protecting public safety, that you are sure public safety will not be jeopardized, when we see these kinds of reductions in our police staff? Do you really feel that this is the right time to be taking police off the streets?

1410

Hon Mr Christopherson: By way of answer, I would ask, how does the honourable member suggest that by proclaiming in August that we shouldn't just find $4 billion in expenditure cuts, that we should find $6 billion, how does she expect to reconcile those sorts of positions with the kinds of questions that she's now asking?

The reality is that every part of government, Health, Education, all aspects of government services are being asked, out of necessity, to find new ways of doing their job of providing service to the people of Ontario.

Unlike the honourable member across the way, I have great faith, I truly do have great faith in the professionalism and the ability of the police officers in this province, working with police service boards and municipalities, to ensure that we always have a safe limit on the amount of money and the number of people who are involved in public safety.

I would leave the last message that public safety is not measured by the number of officers alone. There are a lot of other factors.

The Speaker: New question.

Mrs McLeod: It's difficult to ask questions of a government that just keeps putting its head in the sand and refuses to see the impact of the completely unplanned cuts that it has put in place.

PRESCRIPTION DRUGS

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My second question is to the Minister of Health. Yesterday the final hearing of the Liberal task force on cancer care was held in Ottawa. One of the concerns that was raised in that meeting of our task force was the lengthy approval process that is required to get permission to prescribe certain drugs that are used in the treatment of cancer. These are drugs which are not on the drug formulary and which are not covered by the special drugs program.

Minister, can you tell me how long it usually takes for approval to be given by your ministry when a doctor applies for permission to prescribe a drug that is needed by his patient?

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): I don't think I can give a simple answer to that kind of question. If the member is talking about the approval of drugs for the formulary, it's very dependent upon the time in which it takes the federal government and then the review by the Drug Quality and Theraputics Committee.

It depends to a certain degree on the nature of the submission and the information provided by the company, and in the review, which is a very scientific and technical review, the issues that may be raised, and then sometimes there is a second level of information required.

If in fact she's talking about the special program and the individual drugs which a physician may think an individual patient needs, then again I have to say to her I don't have an exact figure or days. It varies.

Mrs McLeod: Let me make it absolutely clear to the minister that I'm talking about drugs which have been approved for use in Ontario, which are not on the special drugs program, which are not on the drug formulary and therefore require special approval on request from a physician.

Yesterday in Ottawa Dr Verma, who's a cancer specialist at the Ottawa General Hospital, told us that it takes an average of nine weeks to get approval from your ministry to prescribe drugs that his cancer patients need.

Let me give you an example of what this can mean for a cancer patient. There's a drug known as GCSF which is used to stimulate the production of white cells in patients who have had chemotherapy. Patients who need this drug obviously need it right away, but because doctors can't get approval in a timely way, they have to hospitalize these patients to make sure that they don't succumb to infections and other complications while they're waiting for the drug to be prescribed.

Obviously this results in higher costs for the health care system. Minister, I ask how you can justify a bureaucratic process that actually adds costs to the system, but even more importantly, how can you allow patients to wait for nine weeks to get the treatment they need?

Hon Mrs Grier: I am aware that was one of the issues raised when the Leader of the Opposition was in Ottawa yesterday. I was concerned, as she is, that there should be that kind of a wait and I have certainly asked for and will continue to seek information as to why that occurs, whether it is commonplace or one particular situation and what can be done to make sure that kind of a wait does not occur.

Mrs McLeod: I would think that an issue of this magnitude is one which the minister has heard frequently, as indeed we have heard frequently. I say to you quite simply today that we believe that the health care program is supposed to ensure that people in Ontario can get the treatment they need when they need it. It is not supposed to be about bureaucratic systems that waste both time and money and keep patients waiting for the treatment that they need.

Minister, nine weeks, which is an average, can be an absolute eternity for a cancer patient. I ask you if you will make a commitment today, not only to find out why, but to streamline the process so that there can be speedy approval given for the drugs that patients need, so that patients and doctors will not be kept waiting.

Hon Mrs Grier: The health care system, I would agree with the Leader of the Opposition, is about providing care to people when they need it as quickly as possible. By and large, it does that extremely well. I would caution the Leader of the Opposition that if a doctor, in a political hearing, said that it took nine weeks, I wouldn't extrapolate from that that it is an average. I know that there have been as short as 24-hour turnarounds in cases of real need. If it is urgent, we know that it can be done very, very quickly.

I want to follow up on the statement that was made. I want to make sure that is not the norm. Yes, of course what this system is all about is providing the right care to the right patient in the right way and the right time. That's what we spend $17 billion of taxpayers' money doing and that's why we're so proud of the system that we have.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE REFORM

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services. Last week was the deadline for introducing legislation if you planned to proceed with full public hearings during the winter recess or deal with the legislation on welfare. We saw nothing from you last week past on the issue of welfare reform. Quite frankly, that is not acceptable.

Our welfare rolls are ballooning. We read stories of fraud every day in the newspaper, including today about a recipient driving a BMW while collecting welfare. Every day that you stall costs taxpayers and therefore takes away from those who truly need a hand up. Why did you not introduce welfare reform legislation so Ontarians could have an informed debate on their welfare system?

Hon Tony Silipo (Minister of Community and Social Services): Let me just clarify for the member that the welfare reform, the social assistance reform of the government is very much on track. It is our intention to begin the new system in 1995, as we announced back last July, and that remains very much our target. Everything that we are doing is working towards that goal.

What we have done is decide not to introduce legislation before Christmas but to introduce legislation instead in the spring sitting. That will still allow us the time to be able to have the legislation go through the normal process of hearings and debate in the Parliament and in the committees and allow us to be on track with the reform. In the meantime, we are continuing our efforts to improve the system.

Certainly, the work that is going on, which I've had the chance to talk about in this Legislature, around fraud and controlling of that will continue, as will our efforts in conjunction with our colleagues in Education and Training through Jobs Ontario Training. That has seen very real results in terms of getting people off the welfare rolls --

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

Hon Mr Silipo: -- and into training that will lead them to jobs.

Mr Harris: We're talking about implementing reports that have been on the shelf now for three, four, five, six years. There's no excuse for delaying until 1995, when you may not even be in office. Despite the fact that you have refused to move on the issue, there are many interim measures that you could take that you are not taking until taxpayers could have a full and an open debate on the future of Ontario's social safety network.

For example, in Metro Toronto a computerized positive identification system has already saved $2 million by monitoring double-dipping of federal and Ontario benefits. Why is that not being applied across the province? Los Angeles county has established a computerized fingerprint system which they say saved 56% of its costs in the first six months. Have you explored similar systems for Ontario, and if not, why not?

1420

Hon Mr Silipo: I'm delighted that the member referred to the computerized system in Metropolitan Toronto, because in fact we are providing part of the funds for that system. It's our intention, as part of the reform which is on track and which has always been intended to begin in earnest in 1995, to ensure that we have, among other things, one computerized system across the province so that people in any part of the province who are working in the system will be able to access information and transmit information from one part of the province to another. That, among other things, will be able to ensure that we are able to deal with the issue of fraud and abuse and overpayment in the system in a much better way than we can under the present system.

We know the ramifications and the implications that are involved in trying to change a very passive system that we have in place now, have had in place for as long as anyone can remember, to the kind of system that, in addition to providing benefits to people, will provide the real benefits to people in terms of supporting them to get out of the welfare rut and to be able to break out of that cycle of dependency. That's what we are doing, that's what we are on track on and that's what our intention is to do.

Mr Harris: You're moving on this about as fast as you're moving on nutrition programs in the schools, which you've sat on for over three years. All you're doing is rhetoric. All you're doing is talking about it. Several other jurisdictions have introduced innovative cost-saving plans.

Manitoba has instituted mandatory cheque pickup for high-risk groups; why not Ontario? Quebec has enhanced the authority of its welfare review officers; why not Ontario? The city of Brockville has hired an eligibility review officer who has more than paid for her salary already in recovered payments in fraudulent claims; why not the province of Ontario?

There are many sound ideas and proposals out there. Can you explain to me why it is that everybody else in Canada --

Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): Come on. Cut through the guff. Say it.

The Speaker: Order. The member for Downsview.

Mr Harris: -- and everybody else around the province is implementing ways to reform the welfare system except you? Why is that?

Hon Mr Silipo: Again that would be a useful question only if it happened to be the truth. But the reality is that we are continuing to implement a number of measures, starting with some measures that have been in the system now for over a year, which have resulted in additional staff being put into the system to do the kind of verification that the member asks about. I've indicated on more than one occasion in this House how that has already resulted in some real savings, $16 million identified in savings in a period of about six months alone, and we believe more of that will happen through those measures.

Those and other measures that we are putting in the system are beginning to have their results in terms of being able to reduce fraud and overpayment in the system, and we don't see that we have to wait until 1995 to continue our efforts on that front. We are intent on continuing to do those things because we believe it is important to protect the integrity of the system and to ensure that the benefits are going to those who need them, and that is something that we are going to continue to work on.

RECYCLING

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): In the absence of the Minister of Environment and Energy, I have a question for the Premier. Normally, my questions are referred to someone else from the Premier so, to assist him, this question deals specifically with the government's plan to reduce waste by 50% by the year 2000.

This question arose yesterday from one of the Liberal questions to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and it has to do specifically with funding. The Minister of Environment has made it quite clear that the funding for the blue box program is going to end in April and yet the Minister of Municipal Affairs said yesterday -- I was reading Hansard -- that the funding is still there. Then he went on to say that he's going to be negotiating actively with the private sector and he said the negotiations will be successful.

My question to the Premier is that because of these many, many statements with respect to what the government intends to do with respect to the whole recycling issue, who is going to pay for this plan? Who is going to pay for the whole recycling program when we know that the Ontario government's going to get out of it in April, 1994, when we know that the municipalities can't pay for it and we know that the private sector's having a great deal of difficulty as well, at the same time honouring your commitment to reduce waste by 50%?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): Mr Speaker, since the member's question refers to an answer given by a very capable minister, I'll refer the question to that minister.

Hon Ed Philip (Minister of Municipal Affairs): The Ministry of Environment will ensure, as the minister has said over and over again in this House, the financial sustainability of the blue box program. The government's sensitive to the concerns of municipalities regarding the funding of the blue box program. There's no free lunch. It costs a lot to look for dump sites and to process garbage and therefore, the more that we recycle, the more that the municipalities and everyone save.

I can say that there are a number of options being considered. Industry is recognizing that it has some responsibility for paying for the garbage that it produces. Industry has come forward with Canadian industry product stewardship initiatives and we're working with industry to come up with plans for their sharing some of the costs of this program.

Mr Tilson: The difficulty is, the question was, who's going to pay for it? You say the province of Ontario isn't going to pay for it; you're going to get out of the business in April. The municipalities have made it quite clear they're going to have a great deal of difficulty paying for it and now you're simply saying that you're negotiating with the private sector. That's the problem. We in the province of Ontario simply don't know who's going to pay for a very difficult problem that exists in this province.

However, you've chosen not to answer that question. I'd like to move to another area in this problem. The region of Durham, in a recent television program by the Durham regional chair, Mr Herrema, has indicated that it has literally given up trying to find markets for its blue box collectibles. According to Mr Herrema, there's only one buyer in all of Ontario accepting glass collected in the blue box program. Then today, in this morning's media, it was raised that Metro is mixing recyclables with regular trash and disposing of them in dumps. In fact, the representative from CUPE, the local president, indicated that this has been going on for some time, that we've been mixing recyclables with the regular trash. The people of Ontario of course have been using their blue boxes properly and deserve better from your government. Municipalities will either give up storing these products and landfill them or they'll make their collection depots into unregulated above ground dumps for blue boxes.

My question is, how do you intend to ensure that this won't happen, given what has been going on in the province of Ontario for the last two years?

Hon Mr Philip: I wish the honourable member wouldn't have the Toronto Sun do his research for him, because the article is completely misleading. The article in the Toronto Sun stated that the city of Toronto was mixing blue box materials with waste and not recycling materials. That in fact is not the case. The city of Toronto has certainly advised us that the issue does not deal with blue box collections at all. What they're talking about is the servicing of the multicompartmental street bins that are provided by the city for depositing both litter and recyclables. Occasionally some of the recyclables are contaminated with what amounts to garbage. The people who use the bins don't always deposit litter in the litter compartment, but they sometimes deposit it in the recyclable compartment. The city is investigating the factors contributing to that situation.

1430

Let me add, in response to the preamble to this second question: There's only 3% of all blue box materials that is finding its way into landfill. All the rest is being recycled. I consider that a tremendous success story on the part of the Minister of Environment and on the part of this government.

Mr Tilson: The problem is that your government has indicated that there's going to be a 50% waste reduction by the year 2000. That's the issue. All right, you can discount what the CUPE president indicated in the media this morning; I don't. I happen to believe what the CUPE representative is saying is correct. I also happen to not discount what the chairman of Durham is saying, that there's only one group, that there's only one individual who's taking this stuff with respect to recyclables. They can't get rid of it.

People in Ontario want this system to work, they want the blue box program to work, and yet you're having a great deal of difficulty with it. The people, as I said, want it to work. Municipalities of Ontario have given up trying to find markets for their blue box items. Mr Herrema is a prime example. They're literally storing their blue box collectibles in aboveground dumps all over the province. As well, don't forget what the mayor of North York continues to say. He's been saying for some time that the blue box program is too expensive for municipalities to operate and continue.

What do you intend to do to ensure that the people of Ontario, who have been doing their part to ensure that the blue box is a success, will have markets for their products? Will you ensure that there will be markets for these products?

Hon Mr Philip: The member likes to have it both ways. Only one of his colleagues got up in the House supporting the position of the Coalition of Environmental Groups the other day, saying that in fact we should be able to reach 70% or 80% in recycling.

I'd like to know what the position of the Conservative Party in this province is. They say that there's no market for it. In fact, in the case of newspapers, there's such a market that we are accepting newspapers from the United States for recycling, and we've created a whole new industry in the recycling of newspapers.

Don't tell us that there aren't markets for certain products. We're finding them, we're recycling newspapers, we're recycling --

Mr Tilson: Where are the markets?

Hon Mr Philip: Well, I'm sorry. The member likes to outshout me, but in fact only 3% of all materials collected in the blue box are finding their way into dump sites, and those for the most part are because they are contaminated materials.

MINISTRY OF COMMUNITY AND SOCIAL SERVICES EMPLOYEE

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services. In September 1991, when you were the Chair of Management Board, you produced a discussion paper called Whistle-Blowing, and in it you said: "Accountability in government is promoted when public employees understand they are free to disclose matters of serious wrongdoing and that they will not suffer any adverse consequences for having done so."

In light of that statement, in light of Bill 117 and in light of your government's 1990 throne speech promise to protect whistle-blowers, can you explain why your employee, Samantha Kemp-Jackson, a welfare worker and a single parent, was fired for blowing a whistle and reporting an illegal immigrant? Why was she fired? Samantha is here in the gallery today. What else would you have wanted her to do?

Hon Tony Silipo (Minister of Community and Social Services): I appreciate the question. I would just say that first of all I think there are two issues that are involved here. I know the member wants to put them all together under the umbrella of whistle-blowing, but there really are two separate issues.

One is the whole issue involving the particular employee, and I hope that the member will appreciate that I'm not going to get, on the floor of the House, into a discussion about the issues related to the individual employee. There is a grievance process, grievances have been filed and the issues related to the particular employee will be resolved and dealt with through the grievance process.

Suffice it to say that it is the position of the ministry, I think already expressed publicly, that this individual was not fired as a result of those events, but in fact was a contract employee whose contract was not renewed and who was not hired for the permanent position she applied for, for which position someone else was chosen.

But let me just also hasten to say that in expressing that view and that position, I appreciate that those are all issues that are in contention and will obviously be addressed and resolved through the grievance process.

With respect to the issue of whistle-blowing, and I guess the issue of reporting that comes out of that, really, again I want to say to the member that we have procedures in place in the ministry for these kinds of things to be addressed through the supervisors in the offices and for them to be dealt with and to be reported. I think that again I want to detach very much my comments --

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

Hon Mr Silipo: -- about the behaviour of the individual employee from the issue around the process, which are two separate issues.

Mrs Caplan: The minister's response is unacceptable. So much for whistle-blowing and your commitment. Not only is this a direct violation of your own stated intention to protect civil servants who report serious wrongdoing; it also flies in the face of your commitment to deal with and handle welfare fraud. This is an example. This employee was fired for anonymously reporting an illegal immigrant who was avoiding deportation.

The facts are clear. At the same time as you are hiring welfare workers you have dismissed --

Interjection.

Mrs Caplan: Yes, "fired" is the right word, an employee of four years who has an excellent performance record. What kind of a message do you think that sends to other workers who potentially could blow the whistle on welfare fraud? Minister, will you stand by your promise to protect whistle-blowers and will you reinstate Ms Kemp-Jackson to her position immediately?

Hon Mr Silipo: Again, let's try to get to the heart of the matter here. Yes, we believe very strongly in the whistle-blowing legislation and in the process that presents, which is to provide employees in the government with a process whereby if they believe there is serious wrongdoing that has taken place in any level of government, they can have those issues addressed.

Nowhere under that process or any other process do we condone individual employees -- and again, I want to be sure that my comments are not understood to in any way make any implications on either this individual employee's actions or any other individual employee. But in general let me say that nowhere do any of those procedures that are now in place or ones that will be in place once the whistle-blowing legislation is passed mean that individual employees simply have the right to assume and to determine on their own that something wrong has happened.

There is a process to be followed, and that process is there to protect the employee as much as it is to protect the integrity of the system. I think that any employee would do well to follow those processes that are in place where they exist.

The Speaker: Could the minister conclude his response, please.

Hon Mr Silipo: In this case, there is a process that does exist that calls upon employees to discuss issues of this nature with their supervisor, and for a course of action to therefore be determined as a result of that which would result, in instances such as this, in that information being passed on to the appropriate officials, in this case federal authorities.

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My question is to the Minister of Health. This morning, Minister, you released your proposals and process for adding the next round of user fees to the health care system. According to the release put out by the joint management committee, all written submissions around these user fees must be made by January 10, which leaves little time during the busy Christmas season. Then there will be only one day for oral presentations and it will be held exclusively in Toronto.

Can you tell me why this is the sum total of public consultation on the issue of user fees in the health care system?

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): I first of all take issue with the member's characterization of the procedure that's occurring as "user fees." Secondly, let me say to him that the discussion around what in fact is a wise use of the public health dollars and what is medically necessary and should be part of our insurance system or should not has been going on for many years, and has been going on behind closed doors.

As the member will know, earlier this year, as part of our budget exercise, we established a working group that put out a number of procedures that we believed were not medically necessary and to which the members and others took very strong exception. As a result of our discussions with the Ontario Medical Association, which believes that a number of procedures that are currently paid for by OHIP are not medically necessary, a panel has been appointed to examine the public submissions on these.

I can assure him that the submissions I've received since the budget have been referred to that panel. There will be, for the first time, an opportunity for the public to make a verbal presentation if they wish. It is a very unique and very open process. I would expect the member of the third party to applaud us for bringing these discussions out into the open.

1440

Mr Harris: I don't know why you're critical of a process we had. Our process was to list everything. You are delisting many things. Every day that turns around.

Minister, you would know that ever since I became leader of this party, I've been calling for a full and an open discussion on the issue of user fees. Let's be fair. A copayment is a user fee. Rationing leads to user fees. Parental contribution is a user fee. Delisting is a 100% user fee. They are in the system now. They were there when the Liberals were in power and they added to the user fees, and now you continue to add to the user fees.

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Education and Training): What was extra-billing?

Interjections.

Mr Harris: What I want to know is, as you embark down this slippery slope of more and more user fees, 100% user fees, why do you refuse to allow the taxpayers, the people who pay for it and the people who use our health care system, to participate in a debate over what should be and what should not be paid for by the public purse? Why do you continue to deny that access?

Hon Mrs Grier: As my colleagues have been reminding the leader of the third party, I guess, when that party was in government, we had extra-billing, so whatever extra was paid for went to the doctors in the service. Now we have the doctors, as part of their negotiations with us, saying there are a number of things that ought no longer to be covered by the insurance system.

Instead of allowing the doctors to make that decision or instead of making it unilaterally, we have had for the last year --

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): You have a whole new industry growing up.

The Speaker: The member for Simcoe West, come to order.

Hon Mrs Grier: -- a public debate about these issues, and now an independent panel, with public members on that panel, is going to be reviewing that debate and coming to some conclusions which it will recommend to the OMA and to the ministry. That is progress.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

WATER QUALITY

Mr George Mammoliti (Yorkview): My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

Interjections.

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

The member for Yorkview.

Mr Mammoliti: My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Mr Minister, I'm asking for your help today on behalf of a number of constituents in my riding, constituents who are pretty vocal to their municipality, the city of North York, in terms of the drinking water and the fact that the pipes around that particular area they live in have not been replaced for years, 25 to 30 years, and they're full of rust.

Frank Crispo, a resident of Laskay Crescent in my riding -- who, by the way, is on a fixed income and spent $1,700 on a water filter system -- has brought something to my attention that I think you might find to be a very serious matter. This is a clean water filter that costs about $10 to $15. Mr Crispo replaces it twice a year, every six months. This is brand-new, and this that I'm going to send over with a page in a second is a filter that was white, pure white as I've shown you, and is six months old. This is North York rust, Mr Minister.

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

Mr Mammoliti: I'm asking you, because Mr Crispo and some of the residents in his area have not been able to get through to the municipality in the city of North York, to help Mr Crispo in this. But before that, I'm going to send this over to you, and I want you to tell me whether you agree whether this is disgusting or whether it isn't.

Hon Ed Philip (Minister of Municipal Affairs): I think the question was, is this disgusting? I would find this pretty disgusting. I think it's pretty disgusting that the member sent this to me.

Mel Lastman, being the mayor of the city with a heart, should be concerned about this. I'll be happy to discuss this issue with him on behalf of -- who was it? Mr Crispo? Not John Crispo, I hope. I'd hate to think I was dealing with John Crispo's filter, although sometimes I think it might have been helpful.

But I'll be happy to discuss it with Mayor Lastman. Indeed, there may be some assistance that might be provided under the new federal infrastructure program or under some of our infrastructure programs that we can work on with him.

Now that I've seen this disgusting item, may I ask the page to take it back to the member for Yorkview. I'm sure he'll want to hold on to it.

Mr Mammoliti: While some members in this Legislature might find this amusing, I can assure every member in this place that my constituents are concerned about their drinking water, concerned about the rust in the pipes. Quite frankly, the ones who can't afford the $1,700 to filter their water are wondering now what they are drinking and whose responsibility this is.

The city of North York obviously doesn't want to answer Mr Crispo's question. The councillor certainly hasn't responded to his concerns over the last couple of years. I'm hoping you'll be able to help the constituents who are concerned about this. I don't want to drink rust, and I don't want to drink anything else that might be in this pipe and the pipes in the city of North York.

The Speaker: Would the member place his question.

Mr Mammoliti: Not only is it an issue for Mr Crispo and the Laskay residents, but it is an issue all across North York.

The Speaker: Would the member please place his question.

Mr Mammoliti: Not only can you ask the mayor and the city of North York to deal with this particular problem, but to deal with other problems --

The Speaker: Would the member take his seat. If the minister can detect a question out of that, he has the opportunity to respond.

Hon Mr Philip: It reminds me of when I took a course from John Crispo, and it was a credit course.

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): Did you pass?

Hon Mr Philip: I passed it, yes. I got an A.

I recognize that the question is a serious question. It is of concern to his constituents, and I will discuss it with the mayor and council of North York.

TEACHERS' PENSION LEGISLATION

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): My question is to the Minister of Education and Training. It has to do with your plans on the teachers' pension, the bill that was introduced last week in the House.

I gather the purpose of the bill is to give yourself a three-year holiday from making any payments against the $8-billion unfunded liability. I gather that what it means is that you will essentially let the unfunded liability rise by perhaps another $1 billion.

Part of the plan, I gather, is that you will withdraw $300 million from the teachers' pension fund. Normally, to do this an employer is required to follow certain notification provisions in the Pension Benefits Act, but I gather your bill is designed to permit you to be excluded from that provision of the Pension Benefits Act; in other words, not to notify people that you're doing this. My question is, why are you exempting yourself from that notification provision in the Pension Benefits Act?

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Education and Training): I think the member knows that a process was gone through with the members of the plan, the teachers, through the social contract discussions. An evaluation of the pension plan was completed earlier this year. There's not a withdrawal of funds nor an increase in the unfunded liability. In fact, there's a surplus in the one fund, and that surplus is being used to fund the other fund that funds the indexation of the plan.

I think the member understands that there's nobody to notify. The teachers have been integrally involved in the whole determination of this provision through the social contract discussions.

1450

Mr Phillips: The reason I'm pursuing this is that in the written information I've seen from the teachers, there is something that says, "Money will not be removed from the fund." The whole purpose of excluding yourself from the provisions of the Pension Benefits Act -- and everyone should know that this is what I call the Conrad Black provision of the Pension Benefits Act, that you have to notify people if you plan to withdraw surpluses.

The reason I ask the question is that I think we have two interpretations of this. Within the act, within the bill you introduced, you are excluding yourself from those provisions. Provision 78 has to do with surplus and notification.

There obviously is a difference of opinion here. Will the minister undertake that a legislative committee will have a chance to look at this bill?

I realize that the government wants to proceed quickly with it, but there seems to be some difference of opinion on the interpretation of it. Will a legislative committee have an opportunity to review the bill before you pass it for third reading?

Hon Mr Cooke: I certainly know that all of those items on how legislation is handled are always appropriately dealt with by the House leaders.

ONTARIO FILM REVIEW BOARD

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): My question is for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Recently, the Ontario Film Review Board has approved some extremely disturbing films.

One is Boxing Helena, which is currently showing at a Toronto repertory theatre. In this controversial film, a young woman is enslaved by a psychotic doctor who amputates her arms and legs in order to keep her hostage.

Another film, Urotsukidoji: Legend of the Overfiend, was shown in September at two repertory theatres in Toronto. According to a review in Eye magazine, this film featured, and I quote: "Rapes aplenty, with pre-adolescent-looking girls getting their every orifice torn apart, in every repulsive manner imaginable or even not imaginable."

For a theatre to show a film that depicts sexual violence and children involved in any type of sexual activity would violate the Criminal Code's obscenity provisions and the new child pornography law.

Minister, what on earth is going on at the Ontario Film Review Board if films depicting gross sexual violence are being approved for movie theatres to show, contrary to the Criminal code of Canada?

Hon Marilyn Churley (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): I'll say once again that I'm on the record as being very concerned about any kind of film that's promoting violence against women.

I know about the Boxing Helena film, because it was of concern to me when I heard about some of the depictions in that movie. I understand that the board gave a restricted classification, with information pieces that indicated it may be offensive and includes sexual content. I really share the concerns about some of the promotional material that came out around that movie.

Once again, I'll say to the member that the film review board, as she well knows, is in the midst of a reorganization and has been looking at ways of changing the classification of films so that there's more information going out to people.

Getting back to the slasher film item that she talked about, we do have to go back to talking about the Criminal Code again. What we would like to see is an amendment. I've already explained why we need that amendment so that kind of brutal violence is included in the Criminal Code as obscene.

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

Hon Ms Churley: At this point, it isn't.

Mrs Marland: It really concerns us that this minister only talks. There is no action to resolve this kind of material being available in this province today.

The Ontario Film Review Board clearly fails to reflect our society's standard of tolerance. The two films I just mentioned are one example of this failure. Another is the number of extremely violent films that the Ontario Film Review Board has approved for viewing by children, yet the minister is allowing the board to shield itself from public scrutiny by not appointing vice-chairs, who have traditionally led the board's viewing panels. Instead, some OFRB members who lack experience and knowledge on the relevant legislation are acting as panel leaders. I have been told by an OFRB member that as a result, films have been approved which violate the board's guidelines.

It is obvious after the controversy after the Wendy Priesnitz nomination that you are now trying to avoid having the OFRB's vice-chair appointment scrutinized by the government agencies committee. You're trying to shift the accountability for the positions from you to the OFRB and its chair. Will you reverse your irresponsible position on these vice-chair appointments and, for once, show some leadership and some direction --

The Speaker: Would the member conclude her question, please.

Mrs Marland: -- on behalf of the people of this province?

Hon Ms Churley: It's very clear to me that there needs to be a reorganization within the film review board, and in fact it's going on right now. The issues that have been raised by the member she has raised on several occasions with me.

What we need within the film review board is the leadership of the people who are chosen who deal directly on a day-to-day basis within the film review board. The people who are appointed by me, the minister, the chair can see on a day-to-day basis how well these people are working and what they know about the films they're seeing. It makes sense to me that those people be chosen by the chair, because she has a better working knowledge of how well they know the business they're conducting. I think it was a move forward that I am not now appointing these vice-chairs, but that the chair, who has the knowledge --

The Speaker: Could the minister conclude her response, please.

Hon Ms Churley: -- and experience, is doing it.

ACCESSORY APARTMENTS

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): My question is to the honourable Minister of Housing. I'm very interested in Bill 120, and naturally I'm very interested in granny flats, as is a number of more elderly residents in my riding. I ask this question on their behalf and on my own behalf. We introduced the residents' bill of rights. Does that mean the municipalities are going to have to introduce this legislation, or where do they stand in this? I want to know.

Hon Evelyn Gigantes (Minister of Housing): The Bill 120 provisions will mean that municipalities are not required to accept the placement of granny flats, or garden suites, as they're called in technical terms, on individual properties, but it does permit them to enter into long-term agreements with the owners of the property, and that makes it easier for the municipality to administer. Previously, they could only have agreements with a property owner that lasted for three years. Now they can make agreements up to 10 years and they can set up their own site agreements.

Mr Mills: I want the members of the third party to listen to this part. I'm working in my riding with a small business man very closely in the manufacture of granny flats. I'm working with this gentleman -- and I want them to know that, because I'm not anti-small-business -- to bring about granny flats in the riding, and he tells me that without some sort of legislation, the municipalities will never get to square one with these granny flats. He said, "They're not going to bother with it. They're going to say: 'We haven't got the time. We haven't got the resources. We're not bothering with yours.'" So my constituent, who's got an awful lot of money invested in this enterprise, feels he's wasting his time.

Can you tell me how we can help that constituent of mine, this very enterprising small business man?

Hon Ms Gigantes: I think the member's constituent is looking in a good market, because it's going to be a growing market and this legislation will certainly encourage it. I think he probably identifies a lack in the sense that there are small municipalities for whom working out the details of agreements with property owners may in fact prove to be an onerous burden if they don't have the personnel resources.

Perhaps what we could look at in this case would be to have the Ministry of Housing do some work with the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and see if we can come up with a standard contract that would be available for use by the municipalities that don't have their own resources to develop their own contracts. That might help.

1500

JUNIOR HOCKEY

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a question for the Minister of Culture, Tourism and Recreation. This revolves around an issue which I have raised in the House previously and which other members have raised, and that is the issue of the dispute between the Ontario Minor Hockey Association and the Ontario Hockey Federation, representing the Canadian Amateur Hockey Association.

As a result of this dispute, many youngsters in this province have been unable to compete in the kind of tournaments that they wanted to and many communities have been unable to sponsor the kind of tournaments they would like, and thereby those communities have not benefited financially.

The minister has now appointed a mediator and suggested to the two sides that they come together to meet with that mediator to resolve this dispute so young people can play hockey the way they want to. My question to the minister is, if the two sides do not come to meet with the mediator, and I believe they should, could the minister outline what possibilities might result from a refusal to come to the table to meet with the mediator?

Hon Anne Swarbrick (Minister of Culture, Tourism and Recreation): I'd prefer to stay positive at this point in hopes that the two parties will come tomorrow to engage in mediation efforts which I have facilitated. As the member for St Catharines knows -- and I appreciate the concern for this issue that he's continued to convey to me, as have many other members of this House -- over the past number of weeks I've attempted to engage the two parties in wanting to participate in a mediated process of resolution of their disputes.

Unfortunately, that had not to date been an offer that they felt comfortable taking up. They continued to indicate that they felt they could resolve their problems themselves. I'm becoming, as I know all members of this House are becoming, and many parents that I'm hearing from across this province, quite concerned that with the holiday season tournaments upon us, we need to know that this dispute is going to be resolved and to be resolved now.

It's on that note that I have recently conveyed to them -- actually in one letter about 10 days ago -- a deadline for them to resolve this between themselves. Since that has not resulted in success, today, through both phone calls and in writing, I've invited them specifically to a meeting tomorrow night, with the assistance of a provincial mediator, to come together in good faith to try to resolve those differences with the help of that mediator.

I believe that all members of this House, in fact all members of the public, will join me in appealing to those two parties, the OMHA and the OHF to come together tomorrow night in good faith to attempt to resolve those outstanding problems and allow our children to engage in their holiday season hockey tournaments.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The time for oral questions has expired.

USE OF QUESTION PERIOD

Mr Monte Kwinter (Wilson Heights): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I apologize for raising the point of order at this time, but if I had raised it at the time when it was appropriate, it would have just compounded the problem that I would like to discuss.

At the start of question period today we had a situation that I think requires some attention by the Speaker. Under part VIII, subsection 33(a), the standing orders say, "The oral question period shall be limited to 60 minutes...." As a result of that directive, question period becomes not only a political exercise but it really is an exercise in time management. We, in the opposition, if it was a perfect situation, would get two thirds of the allotted time, which is a very short period of time.

When we have the situation that occurred today when the Leader of the Opposition asked a question of the Premier and he first asked that it be stood down but then referred it to the appropriate minister, that took three minutes. It would seem to me, given the shortage of time available, that to have three minutes taken out of the opposition's opportunity to utilize question period puts us at a disadvantage that we have no control over. It is one thing if there is control by the parties and you say, "You are the victims of your own doing, and you're going to have to learn to be more efficient."

It would seem to me, particularly because it was the start of question period and the fact that there was nothing we could do about it -- we could only sit and watch the time tick away -- that it would have been appropriate for question period to have been restarted so that members of both opposition parties would have the same fair and equitable access to the time available to them. I would ask that you take that under advisement.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): To the member for Wilson Heights, indeed I very much appreciate the point which he has brought to my attention. I understand the difficulties that are connected with the opposition's approach to question period. It's my understanding that members are given an indication of which ministers will or will not be present, and on that basis they determine to whom they will address their questions. If ministers who the opposition understand will be in attendance are not in attendance at the time when the question is to be placed, then it creates an awkward situation.

In terms of the operation of question period, I'm quite reluctant to stop the clock unless there's something terribly unusual or indeed to start over again, once having started. However, having said that, it's always my intention to try to provide the very best question period that is possible for both sides of the House. If there is some way in which we can accommodate the reasonable request that has been put forward by the member, I'm more than pleased to consider it.

It may take some discussion among the three House leaders to try to determine how they can guarantee the unofficial lists which are provided to all three caucuses. That would assist the Chair in being able to start question period on time and to continue it without having to interrupt the proceedings.

I am aware that today there was some time lost off the clock, primarily because the Leader of the Opposition had to re-place the question that she had placed, because the minister wasn't in the chamber at the time. In order to ensure that the minister understood what the subject-matter was, the Leader of the Opposition had to ask the question again, and that utilized some time which otherwise would not have been taken.

As I say, I'm more than happy to consider if there's some way in which we can better guarantee that when we start a question period the members who are supposed to be here are in fact here. I think that would solve the member's problem, but I'm more than happy to take a look at it and see if there's some way we can adjust it so that people have the maximum opportunity to ask questions.

Mr Kwinter: On that same point of order, Mr Speaker, if I may: I certainly appreciate your attempt to reconcile this particular problem. But I think it's important that you understand that there's a subtle difference between your particular explanation and what actually happened.

We in the opposition get a list of which ministers are going to be here, and we accommodate that, we make the adjustments. If there is a minister who's supposed to be here, we either ask that a question be stood down or we adjust among ourselves.

But in this particular situation it wasn't a matter of the minister not being available. The question was directed at the Premier. That was the intent of the person who was asking the question, that the Premier should answer the question. He doesn't have to and he decided to shift it to the responsible minister, which is his prerogative. The point was that the person he directed it to was not there.

So it wasn't our problem to say, "You should have directed it to the minster who was here." We directed it to the Premier, from whom we wanted to get the reply. He chose to direct it to a minister who was not here, and as a result we were penalized. That is the whole point of my point of order, that absolutely, if we see that there has to be an adjustment, we'll make it. But when we have no control, why are we being penalized?

The Speaker: I understand the member's point, and it's certainly well taken. I will have to reflect on how I handled the situation. The member will understand that the Premier had an option of taking the question as notice or to refer it, and he chose to refer it. Unfortunately, the minister was not present in the chamber at the time, and that utilized some extra time and caused an undue penalty to the opposition.

The member for Durham West, on the same point of order.

1510

Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): I won't prolong this debate very long, but I would like to point out to you that oftentimes the people who make the sacrifice in terms of a shortened amount of time in question period are not in the opposition party but the backbenchers of the government side, who more frequently do not get the third round of questioning. Today in fact the second party, the Progressive Conservatives, did not get as many questions as the opposition party did.

If we're going to evaluate the amount of time that is being spent, it may well be that you might want to look at the number of times that the backbenchers of the government side have missed out on the opportunity to ask their questions in this place. That would probably put it to rest, that the position the member has made is in fact incorrect and that they have the advantage in question period and not the disadvantage.

The Speaker: I don't know if it bears repeating or not, but this is your question period, and if members are anxious to have as many members participate as possible, then it's important for both questions and responses to be as brief as possible.

Yesterday we had 14 questions, which is above the norm, and that allowed a number of members to ask their questions, including three backbenchers from the government. Today we were not quite as successful. But who knows? Tomorrow is another day.

PETITIONS

ST LAWRENCE PARKS COMMISSION

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

"Whereas the St Lawrence Parks Commission has closed a number of parks;

"Whereas if these parks would remain open it would boost the local economy;

"Whereas the Minister of Tourism and Recreation does not support single-source leasing at this time,

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

"To permit private sector leasing of the above parks for the revitalization of the eastern Ontario economy."

That's signed by Reeve Charles Sangster, Reeve Floyd Dingwall, Reeve Lynden Hough, Reeve Gordon Ross, Reeve Ron MacDonell, Reeve Carson Payne, Reeve John Moss, Reeve James MacEwen, Reeve Gordon McGregor and many others of eastern Ontario. That's a very important petition.

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): I have a petition signed by a number of people from Thornhill in my riding:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas traditional family values that recognize marriage as a sacred union between a man and a woman are under attack by Liberal MPP Tim Murphy and his private member's Bill 45;

"Whereas this bill would recognize same sex couples and extend to them all the same rights as heterosexual couples;

"Whereas the bill was carried with the support of an NDP and Liberal majority but with no PC support in the second reading debate on June 24, 1993; and

"Whereas this bill is currently within the legislative committee on administration of justice and is being readied for quick passage in the Legislature;

"Whereas this bill has not been fully examined for financial and societal implications,

"We, the undersigned, petition the Ontario Legislature to stop this bill and to consider its impact on families in Ontario."

I have affixed my signature to this petition.

PICKERING AIRPORT LAND

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): I've got a petition here:

"To the Legislature of Ontario:

"Whereas the federal government intends to dispose of surplus lands on the Pickering airport site that are agriculturally rich and environmentally sensitive; and

"Whereas the residents have not been informed of the immediacy of the federal government sale plan,

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

"That the provincial government of Ontario request the federal government of Canada to initiate a public review panel by their federal Minister of the Environment to ensure an organized disposal protecting these rural resources and the community of residents there."

It has been signed by residents from the Glasgow and Altona area, and they want to sit down with the government and work with it.

HUMAN RIGHTS

Mr John Sola (Mississauga East): I have a petition signed by over 100 Ontario residents, including some from the riding of Mississauga East, plus a resident of Long Island, New York, making this an international petition on an international concern of human rights. It states as follows:

"Dear parliamentarian:

"We have learned that Chinese pro-democracy activist Fu Chang-Ye was recently detained and sentenced by police to re-education through labour, a form of arbitrary detention without trial. This is the third time since 1981 that Fu has been imprisoned or arbitrarily detained. We ask you to urge the Chinese government to immediately release Fu Chang-Ye and to abolish re-education through labour.

"We believe that Fu Chang-Ye has not broken any law and that all Chinese have the inalienable right to a fair trial."

This was accompanied by a report from Amnesty International and by a letter from the Chinese human rights group asking Ontario MPPs to take up this cause. I add my signature to it.

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

Mr Hugh O'Neil (Quinte): I have a petition that I've received from some of the residents of the Quinte area from the Bethel Chapel in Belleville, Ontario. It's expressing their concern regarding Bill 45 and I submit it to the Legislature.

ASSISTED HOUSING

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the government of Ontario has imposed a 1% per year increase over the next five years on subsidized housing; and

"Whereas the rent-geared-to-income ratio in five years will have increased from 25% to 30% of income;

"We the undersigned senior citizens of Legion Village 96 petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to reconsider this additional financial burden on seniors and find the revenues necessary through other cost-effective measures."

I've affixed my signature.

PICKERING AIRPORT LAND

Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): "To the Legislature of Ontario:

"Whereas the federal government intends to dispose of surplus lands on the Pickering airport site that are agriculturally rich and environmentally sensitive; and

"Whereas the residents have not been informed of the immediacy of the federal government sale plan;

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

"Therefore, that the provincial government of Ontario request of the federal government of Canada to initiate a public review by panel of the federal Minister of the Environment to ensure an organized disposal protecting these rural resources and the community of residents therein."

This is signed, again, two pages of signatures from Sedgemount Drive. Once residents find out what's going on, they become outraged. I hope the federal government will act soon. And I affix my signature.

TUITION FEES

Mr Bob Huget (Sarnia): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. The petition states:

"Whereas those wishing to go to colleges and universities in Ontario must pay tuition fees;

"Whereas tuition fees have increased by 96.7% since 1981;

"Whereas education is a right and should not only be limited to those who can pay;

"Whereas increases to tuition fees would further restrict the ability of low-income youth from attending colleges and universities;

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

"We ask that the Ontario government ensure post-secondary tuition levels not exceed the current levels, and that when feasible the province look at enacting measures which make post-secondary education more accessible to those with low incomes."

This petition has been signed by 779 constituents in my riding of Sarnia and surrounding area, and I submit the petition.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

On motion by Mr Cooke, the following bill was given first reading:

Bill 128, An Act to settle the East Parry Sound Board of Education and Teachers Dispute / Projet de loi 128, Loi visant à régler le conflit entre le conseil de l'éducation appelé The East Parry Sound Board of Education et ses enseignants.

TOWNSHIP OF DYSART ACT, 1993

On motion by Mr Waters, the following bill was given first reading:

Bill Pr39, An Act respecting the United Townships of Dysart, Bruton, Clyde, Dudley, Harcourt, Eyre, Guilford, Harburn and Havelock.

GROUPE CONCORDE INC ACT, 1993

On motion by Mr Harris, the following bill was given first reading:

Bill Pr68, An Act to revive Le Groupe Concorde Inc.

1520

INTERVENTION OF ATTORNEY GENERAL

Mr Tim Murphy (St George-St David): On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: I apologize for not giving prior written notice in the way I normally do, but I will provide, if I can, some written information. It relates to two circumstances involving the Attorney General arguing before courts of this province and in one case of this country that laws passed by this Legislature are unconstitutional.

My concern is that by so doing that is a breach of my privileges as a member and the privileges of all members in this House by going beyond the authority vested in the executive.

Let me outline the two circumstances. In April of this year the Attorney General intervened in a case of two people of the same sex, one of whom was trying to declare that the Family Law Act was unconstitutional. The Attorney General intervened in that case to agree and to argue before that court that the law as it stood on the books was unconstitutional.

In addition, before the Supreme Court of Canada the Attorney General is arguing that a law relating to insurance is also in breach of the charter and is therefore unconstitutional. In that case, Chief Justice Antonio Lamer adjourned the proceedings because he had found the fact that the Attorney General was arguing against a duly passed law to be unprecedented.

He went on to say this: "If we agree that section 15 has been restricted, we are finding that the Legislature of Ontario violated the fundamental law of Canada. Before branding a whole Legislature or at least those who voted for the law in question in violation of the fundamental law of Canada, I for one think that these people are entitled to their day in court."

He goes on: "I for one question whether it is possible for an Attorney General to make a concession that the House violated the charter. I would not want to be a member of that House and see my lawyer make that concession."

The point goes really to what is the appropriate scope of executive action as related to legislative action. It's a principle really of responsible government.

I refer to the Ministry of the Attorney General Act, where the Attorney General is provided with responsibility to see that the administration of public affairs is in accordance with the law. In the Constitution Act the authority over exclusive powers is provided to the provincial Legislature and not to the executive.

That principle is I believe an important one, stretching back as far as Lord Durham's report.

I'm quoting from Creighton, Dominion of the North, in which it says, "But the crown must on the other hand submit to the necessary consequences of representative institutions, and if it has to carry on the government in unison with the representative body, it must consent to carry it on by means of those in whom that representative body has confidence."

In like fashion, in a similar quote from A.V. Dicey on the constitutional law of Canada, he says, "There does not exist in any part of the British Empire any person or body of persons, executive, legislative or judicial, which can pronounce void any enactment passed by the" -- in this case -- "British Parliament, on the ground of such enactment being opposed to the Constitution on any ground whatever, except, of course, its being repealed by Parliament."

This has been obviously modified by the charter to the extent that it provides the judiciary with authority to rule that certain laws are unconstitutional, but it does not transfer any power to the executive as opposed to the Legislature.

I'm not asking for a ruling from you, Mr Speaker, as to its legality or as to the policy involved in the decision made by the Attorney General. It may very well be that there are people in this assembly who support the very provisions that are being asked to be found unconstitutional, or alternatively, think they are inappropriate and should be changed, but the appropriate form to do that in terms of the executive's responsibility is in the Legislature.

My privileges as a member, Mr Speaker, are twofold, as you well know: One of them is the freedom of expression and also the freedom to vote. I think those are being impinged upon by the fact that the Attorney General is going beyond the scope of authority to try to change laws without giving me the opportunity to vote and speak on those issue, and that's the key.

It's not an attempt to do what I could do otherwise, for example, in a court of law. I couldn't intervene in those proceedings to say, "This is beyond the scope of the Attorney General," because the court would ask, "What's your view on the issue?" That's not why I'm raising it. I'm raising it because it is an issue of the Attorney General going beyond the appropriate scope of executive authority, and that is the reason I raise it.

It's not a partisan thing. It's not to say that the Attorney General is taking positions that I believe to be unconstitutional or inappropriate in a policy sense. In fact, I could argue that I support them. My concern is really as a member.

What I would like to do, Mr Speaker, is to have you find that this is a sufficient case under the privileges law or rules and precedent -- I don't know where that's found, in either the contempt provisions or general privileges -- so that you can put the question before the House of whether my privileges have been violated. I would move for that debate to happen subject to your finding on a prima facie basis that those privileges have been violated.

1530

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): I want to thank the member for St George-St David for bringing this matter to my attention. I will reserve judgement and will advise you accordingly in the near future.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): I believe we have an agreement, and I seek consent, to deal with the bill which the Minister of Education and Training has just introduced on the education situation in east Parry Sound at second and third reading this afternoon.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Is there unanimous consent? Agreed. I understand that copies of the bill were not distributed. We'll take the time to do so immediately.

Mr Cooke moved second reading of the following bill:

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Education and Training): I'm going to be very brief, and I appreciate the cooperation of all members of the House and in particular the member for Parry Sound and the Liberal Education critic.

I just would like to start off by making one point: I wouldn't want anybody in this province to interpret the fact that this legislation will go through the House fairly quickly this afternoon as an indication that this government or, I would argue, anybody in the Legislature takes this move and this piece of legislation in a light way. This is a very significant move when a government or a Legislature passes legislation to end a dispute between management and labour, and I don't believe that any of us do this with any great deal of delight at all. So I just don't want anyone to interpret the speed with which this bill will be dealt with in the wrong way.

I will just spend a couple of minutes running through a little bit of the history in east Parry Sound and some of the provisions in this legislation which are unique and I think helpful in resolving this dispute and perhaps in sending a message to other school boards and teachers' organizations elsewhere in the province.

First of all, this dispute and negotiations have been going on now for 22 months. The previous collective agreement expired on August 31, 1992. Of course, this is an elementary school teachers' dispute. There have been several attempts at negotiations and at mediation. The Education Relations Commission has been very much involved in this situation to try to find a solution, but this particular dispute is now the second-longest strike at the elementary level. It obviously becomes necessary, when the Education Relations Commission determines that there is a case of jeopardy, that in particular the Minister of Education recommend to the Legislature that action be taken to end the dispute. That recommendation formally came to me yesterday by the Education Relations Commission. I was advised on Friday by the ERC that it was not particularly optimistic that anything could be done to find a solution.

On Friday, from my office, we contacted the board and contacted the teachers and asked that they come to Toronto, whereby I could meet with the parties along with the Education Relations Commission and have one more attempt at finding a solution. We did that yesterday. The parties came in, I believe, at 10 in the morning. I met with them for an hour or better and got the parties to agree to continue with mediation, and that collapsed at about 4 o'clock yesterday afternoon.

It was at that point that I raised with the teachers and the board the possibility of opening up the schools today even in the absence of passing the legislation. I appreciate the fact that both of the federations and the board -- but both of the federations -- agreed to do that. It's only one day, but one day when you've had a strike going on this long is significant. It's my understanding that this is the first time the teachers have agreed to actually go into the classrooms before the legislation is passed, and I appreciate that agreement from the teachers.

I'll say one more thing before I get into the details of the legislation. It was absolutely clear to me before yesterday, but even clearer when sitting in with the parties yesterday, that there is no reason why this legislation should have to come forward. A settlement was achievable in this particular case. The distance between the board and the teachers on the issue of benefits was not significant. The teachers indicated very clearly that they were prepared to find savings in the benefits package for the board. It was not in exactly the same way that the board wanted to do it, but as the teachers said, "If it's the dollars you're looking at saving, why not let us find the dollars and the mechanism to save them by streamlining the way benefits are delivered and other changes that could take place that unions and federations have had some examples of getting involved in in other jurisdictions?"

So it was possible. The board had a different view. The board had a view that they wanted a particular cap on the benefits and that they were not willing to move off that position at all.

I think the sad thing in this case is that the settlement was achievable, and all of us in this place know that it's much better if a settlement can be achieved at the bargaining table for the long-term relationship between the board and the teachers. I very much regret the fact that a settlement was not achieved yesterday.

One other point. I think that in the province, where boards have made deliberate decisions to unilaterally change the collective agreement, and in this particular case the board -- it depends on whose numbers you want to use and how many times you count an amendment to the collective agreement, but it's clear that in this particular case there were dozens of unilateral changes to the collective agreement. That of course is going to result in a response from the teachers' federations.

I believe it would be in the best interests of students right across this province if the boards refrained from using that section of Bill 100. As Mr Wells said when it was introduced, it was to be used in the rarest of all occasions, and it's now being used to the extent where it is causing disruption in the system.

I'm going to run through some of the significant clauses of this legislation. Obviously, the purpose of the legislation and the beginning of it deals with the termination of the dispute between the board and the teachers. The teachers returned to the classrooms today.

As I guess in most cases, the parties can continue if they wish to negotiate right up to the time the arbitrator sends or delivers his decision and makes the award. I still encourage the parties to do that. That process is normal, that that's available to the parties, but none the less that will not hold up the arbitration, either the decision or the hearing.

If no agreement is made by December 7, 1993, just a few days away, the parties will be deemed to have gone to arbitration under the School Boards and Teachers Collective Negotiations Act. Leading up to that are a whole series of dates as we get to the point where hearings take place, and identification of the outstanding issues to go to arbitration.

This legislation also -- and the member for Parry Sound or the Liberal critic made the point today of a connection between the social contract. I'd ask members to specifically look at the section of the act that refers to the social contract. The items that can go through arbitration that are also subject to local agreements with the social contract legislation are the items that must be solved, because they have a direct impact on the overall collective agreement. In this particular case, there's a question dealing with benefits that we've heard about that we assume will probably have to be dealt with. But I think the member is stretching it if he draws the close connection between social contract and these particular contract negotiations. There is a link on one particular item, but even that link is not central to either this piece of legislation or the ability to have found a local agreement.

As I indicated earlier, we've put a time line on the time by which the arbitration panel must report. I should indicate that this is a three-person panel. The board will appoint a person, the teachers will appoint a person, and hopefully they can agree on a chair. If they can't agree on the chair, then we will appoint the chair. If nobody gives us any names, we'll appoint everybody, but I assume this will go in the direction that it normally does. So it's a three-person panel. The decision must be made by March 1, 1994, and that's the latest date. If the arbitration panel can, I certainly would hope that it would report earlier.

1540

The parties must file a joint plan concerning the makeup of loss of instructional time. The difference in this piece of legislation from others in the past, and in particular the Lambton one, is that this piece of legislation says, "Yes, the two parties should file a plan to make up lost time," and that's normally all that's in the legislation, but we have added an additional section this time because we found it difficult in Lambton to get the parties to actually come to an agreement on the joint plan. In fact, originally they filed two separate plans.

This piece of legislation gives the minister the power -- if the parties don't agree on a plan, then we can do it. This legislation also gives the power to the minister to extend the school year if necessary, all powers which are not provided in the Education Act generally at each board level. So this guarantees that we can act in the interests of the students.

I would say, however, that I don't want to use those sections of the act. The best way of developing the joint plan is the way it has always been done in the province and the way it was ultimately done in Lambton, and that is for the parties to work on that together and file a joint plan.

We've also put a section in this bill asking the Education Relations Commission to determine whether the parties were negotiating in good faith. I don't believe that's ever been in a piece of legislation like this before, but it certainly is my concern and I think it's a concern of others that there should have been a settlement in this area and that we need to determine whether that motivation was there on either party's side.

Parties are to file a plan as to how they will improve their relationship. That is a normal section of the legislation. Certainly I hope the parties will do that, although we all know that if the teachers and the board are not willing to repair that relationship -- and there hasn't been a great one up that way even in the past -- if the parties are not willing to do that, then there's nothing we can put into the legislation to force them to improve their working relationship. But I can tell you that for the kids in the Parry Sound community, I hope the board and the teachers will take this section of the legislation seriously. It's absolutely essential so that those relationships can be repaired and this type of situation doesn't happen again.

I'll just finish by saying that these are difficult decisions to make, but in the end, the responsibility of this Legislature and the responsibility of a government and a Minister of Education is to make sure that the interests of the students are protected. That of course has to be balanced with the right that everybody in this place has agreed on: Teachers have a right to withdraw their services. That's a right that workers across the province have.

That balance is provided for under Bill 100, that the Education Relations Commission continues to offer services and review the length of labour disputes. They make a determination under the legislation of when the school year is in jeopardy. I know it's easy for members to say, "You could have done this 10 days ago; you could have done this 15 days ago," but the reality of that would be one that would encourage other labour disputes and that would not encourage responsibility at the local level. The reality is that while there have been over 70 strikes in the schools in this province since Bill 100 came into effect in the mid-1970s, the vast majority of those -- all but eight, now -- have been settled, even though a strike occurred, by negotiations at the local level. That's still the best way to go.

So it's a balance that we have to try to achieve between the protection of students, the recommendations from the Education Relations Commission and making sure that we don't intervene so as to encourage labour disputes across the province and therefore more strikes and more lost time for students. By and large, Bill 100 has worked extremely well in this province since it was brought in during the 1970s.

I'll conclude by saying that I particularly want to thank the local member, Mr Eves, in this case. Teachers' strikes are always difficult and are quite often easy opportunities to play politics with at the local level and in this Legislature. I want to say that that has not happened with this member. Behind the scenes, the member has attempted to be helpful and encourage a settlement and I congratulate him on that. He's been very helpful, and I just wish it had worked out in a different way.

The Deputy Speaker: Questions or comments?

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I simply want to note in my comments on the minister's speech that there was not a discussion of the role the NDP has played in the past on these matters of these strikes. I want to say, so that the people can see, particularly members of the teaching profession, that the NDP in principle is somewhat different from the NDP in power.

I understand it; I'm not critical of the minister in terms of what he feels he has to do today. But for years I sat in this House and watched the NDP vote against every piece of back-to-work legislation and denounce that as being strikebreaking.

Now I see an NDP government, for the second time, I believe, in terms of the teaching profession, ordering teachers back to work; in other words, breaking a strike. That's what happens, I guess, when one assumes the responsibilities of office. One could be more sympathetic to the minister and to members of the government if one did not recall the many fights in the past, whether it was the transit workers in Metropolitan Toronto or whether it was teachers across the province. The NDP stood in the House, collectively and together, to vote against such legislation.

I remember this well, because I know that many members of the top echelons of the various affiliates of the teachers' federation in Ontario suggested that perhaps the NDP would be the best choice for teachers in terms of making their selection at election time. One of the reasons they thought that was true was because they thought the NDP would never be breaking any strikes, never ordering people back to work and never, of course, imposing the kind of restraint that is contemplated in the provision known as the so-called social contract.

I hope that those people who counselled the teachers to vote in that way will well remember their counsel and that those teachers who listened to that counsel will remember that that promise was not fulfilled by the government and by the party they adhered to with such enthusiasm in years gone by.

The Deputy Speaker: Any further questions or comments? If not, Minister, you have two minutes to reply.

Hon Mr Cooke: I should point out a couple of things to the member for St Catharines. First, in the Lambton case, the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation actually publicly asked and supported back -- well, legislation to end the dispute between the board and the teachers. I don't like to use some of the language the member for St Catharines uses. In Lambton that was the case.

And yesterday in east Parry Sound, both the president of the Federation of Women Teachers' Associations of Ontario and the president of the Ontario Public School Teachers' Federation were at the meeting, so local people as well as provincial people were there. I can tell the member that both the federations and the board said there was no solution to this dispute, that it would not be solved at the bargaining table. That was absolutely clear, and therefore the only alternative was to bring in this legislation here today.

The member can say, "You did this when you were in opposition." I could go back to 1977 -- the member for St Catharines and I first got elected together in 1977 -- and I could review all of his positions when he was in opposition from 1977 to 1985. There was nobody more inconsistent than the member for St Catharines when he was in opposition from when he went to government. I remember all of the questions about advertising and all of the junk that he then came over here and did the exact opposite. I guess there always is, in Parliament, a tradition between being in opposition and -- the inconsistencies when you're in opposition as opposed to government.

I personally feel that Bill 100 is a good piece of legislation, but that legislation is clear. There comes a point when a labour dispute has to be ended in order to protect the right to public education. That's a position we supported when were in opposition when we supported Bill 100. I think it's incumbent upon us as a responsible government to act and act with conviction, and I do that.

1550

The Deputy Speaker: Any further debate?

Mr Charles Beer (York North): Let me first of all say that we will be supporting the legislation. But in saying that, I do want to make some comments both on the bill and also a very deep concern about where we are headed in the educational sector with this whole question of the strikes we've had and also the potential for further strikes. I want to first of all deal with the bill and then make a few more general comments.

The major difference between the bill we're dealing with today and the one we dealt with with respect to Lambton some five weeks ago, as the minister has noted, is that in the Lambton bill, where there was not going to be an agreement between the parties, then the minister would have the authority and the power to come in and impose a settlement, and if I recall correctly, I think they have until December 6 to do that. But with this particular bill, it's stated that if the parties have not entered into a new collective agreement on or before December 7, 1993, then the arbitration process begins.

When we look at this bill or we look at Lambton -- and I think everyone would agree that any time we have to deal with this sort of legislation, what it marks is failure. There are no two ways about that, and we shouldn't try to gloss that over. The minister has indicated that there was agreement from the parties that one had to go forward and do this. In fairness to the parties involved, I think they would say as well that this was not a happy solution. We're all grateful that the teachers in east Parry Sound indicated yesterday that they would go back into the classroom this morning and begin teaching on the assumption that this bill would be passed, and it will be, later today.

But what is really worrisome is just, where are we going? We know the secondary teachers in east Parry Sound are still out and the Windsor elementary teachers are out. As has been noted, if one looks at the Education Relations Commission material, there are a number of other strikes that could occur between now and the next several weeks and months as we go into 1994. I think the minister and the government would agree that what we really don't want to do and indeed can't do on a regular basis is have to deal with back-to-work legislation on a monthly basis. This is not an acceptable way to deal with the issues at hand.

While, as I understand, the Education Relations Commission has indicated that in this case it wanted arbitration, in the case of Lambton it preferred to put it into the hands of the minister. Legislation does send out messages. While the minister may be saying that he doesn't want interpretations placed upon it, one has to be concerned that, whether it's the teachers or the boards, in other jurisdictions they're going to look at this and say, "We'll just leave it, and at some point the minister will come in and settle it for us." That's a disturbing element of what's here today.

Also, just in principle, one doesn't like to see arbitration; what one wants is the parties to deal with it. That's why I said in my comments earlier today, and I repeat, that I think the one thing that is new and different since the summer has been the imposition of the social contract. For the minister to pretend that it has not influenced, shaded, nuanced the discussions and the negotiations simply doesn't meet the facts.

There is a real problem when you talk with the school board associations, with the teachers' federations, in terms of how they are trying to deal with the reality of the social contract, the reality of the expenditure reductions and what they have done to collective bargaining. I think the minister would be advised to recognize that those have had an impact.

One of the issues that has been raised with us and that I want to raise in my remarks is this question of the 60-day period after a fact-finder's report where, under Bill 100, under the original bill that deals with teachers' collective bargaining, a board then, at the end of the fact-finder's report, may do a variety of things to existing collective agreements.

In terms of what we have heard from the federations, this is the part that is most difficult for them to deal with and the concerns that they have around what the government is considering to deal with that. On the other side, when one talks with the board, it says with some legitimacy, "The government has taken away our ability to manoeuvre through the expenditure controls and through the social contract, and so we need something in order to gain" -- from their perspective, what in their view is a more equal playing field.

I think the point at issue is that this particular point in other areas could also become a very significant factor in terms of whether we're going to have further strikes, and that the minister is going to have to get together with the boards and the federations to talk about how we get through this period from now until the end of the social contract. While I recognize the dilemma where you have a process set up with the Education Relations Commission and you have a process of collective bargaining, we are not, as a society, going to be able to have, every couple of months, strikes of this duration without there being a profound reaction in the population out there saying, "Look, this must end."

I say that because again we supported what we call Bill 100, which brought about the collective bargaining system that we have. We agree that on balance it has worked well. There have been instances, under the Conservatives, under the Liberals as well, where legislation had to be brought in, but basically that has worked well. But the faith in that system and the confidence in that system are not going to be able to withstand too many more situations where back-to-work legislation has to be brought in and where then the cries for changes in the collective bargaining system are going to be much greater.

I would say to the minister that I hope, prior to the break at Christmas, that he will have some very serious discussions with the leadership of the public and separate school boards and the teachers' federations to look at ways that we can deal with these sorts of situations and come to some kind of understanding that is going to permit us to avoid strikes during the duration of the social contract.

I think as part of that, and we talked about this in the standing committee on estimates a few weeks ago with the minister, we need to start looking at how we're going to make some of the changes from the Knopf report, which was prepared on changes to Bill 100. I know the minister has said that this is perhaps not the best time to launch a full-scale review, and I appreciate the point that he's making, but again, there are some areas where I think there is agreement between the boards and the federations that would improve the system. We need to find those and try to put those into place so that we can avoid the long period of negotiation of, I think it was noted in the case of East Parry Sound, the one we're dealing with, some 22 months.

I know that in talking to other members, both on this side and on the government side, who've been involved with private sector unions in the negotiations that go on there, they have brought in a number of methods of various process issues to try to shorten the period of time in which you are determining what the key issues are and then really getting to the issue at hand and trying to resolve it.

I think that was at the root of a number of the Knopf report recommendations, that to a certain extent some of the mechanisms that were in Bill 100 for collective bargaining really served to exacerbate and to worsen the situation, because the discussions would go on and on and on. I think for both parties, school board and teachers, we need to try to shorten that period so that it can be dealt with much more effectively.

1600

The other point that is in both this legislation and the legislation that we had on Lambton concerned setting out a point -- I think it's on or before May 2, 1994, and this date is the same in the Lambton legislation as it is in this -- where the parties, the teachers' federations and the school board, "shall jointly submit to the Minister of Education and Training and to the Education Relations Commission a plan outlining the steps the parties will take to improve their relationship."

I say to the minister that I really do believe that he and the ministry have got to be party to that and to appreciate that part of the problem at the root of a number of these disputes is precisely what has been happening in terms of everything from transfer payments through to the social contract and that this does form part of the environment within which these negotiations are ongoing.

While he might not think so, what we hear from school boards and teachers' federations is the feeling that the ministry has sort of said, "We've passed these different acts, we've made these regulations in terms of the funds that are going to be transferred, and now it's simply up to you." They keep saying that they don't see any real direction that is coming from the ministry in terms of how they should handle this and how this should be part of their negotiating process.

I would hope that as the ministry tries to encourage and work with these boards and with the teachers' federations, the ministry itself will be very much involved and really looking with the boards and with the teachers at ways in which the kinds of cuts that have to be taken can be done in a way that is going to be more acceptable to everyone involved and where there isn't that sense that in effect the ministry has left the two on their own and they're going to have to go to battle.

I referred earlier today to the article in the London Free Press of last weekend. I don't have time to read this whole article, but it makes for very disturbing reading in terms of what a conflict like this does in a community. This is precisely, I think, what should guide all of us -- teachers, trustees, members in the House -- to try to make sure that we don't keep going through this sort of situation.

I'm going to conclude my remarks by again saying that while we will be supporting the bill that has been brought in, we have some very grave worries and concerns about the future and other possible strikes that may occur and how we are going to deal with the two that are still outstanding and to really urge to the minister that we can't leave all of this to the Education Relations Commission and to some hope that it's going to be resolved.

I think the teachers and the boards need some better direction from the minister and from the government on how we're going to deal with this difficult period of financial restraint during the social contract and to get in with them to try to find the solutions.

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): I'm going to be quite brief this afternoon. I'm sure honourable members will be happy to hear that. I just wanted to touch on a few items, primarily with respect to the report of the ERC and several of the statements it makes with respect to what has ultimately resulted in this legislation before us today.

As I said in response very briefly to the minister's statement earlier this afternoon, I believe the important aspect of this matter is that the students are back in the classroom. I think that should be everybody's first and principal concern.

I would also like to thank the elementary panel for agreeing to return to the classroom today, before the legislation was passed. That is a somewhat unique, if not only, time that has ever happened, as the minister I believe has alluded to in his remarks. That is appreciated because, after all, the students have lost close to 40 instructional days out of their school year.

I want to touch briefly on a couple of things talked about in the report -- "the advisement" I guess is the proper terminology -- from the Education Relations Commission. On page 2, and going on for a few pages, they talk about the local situation, and I think it's important to touch on a few aspects of the local situation.

As I believe the minister has also indicated, the negotiation between these parties has gone on for some 22 months, which is almost two years. The collective agreement that was in place expired some 15 months ago. During the last 15 months, the parties have been through a fact-finding process, on October 23, 1992. They've been through three successive mediators: Dr Tom Bastedo, on December 11, 1992; Dr David Whitehead, on September 9, 1993; and Dr Bill Marcotte, on October 21, 1993. There have been several attempts at mediation.

I was somewhat hopeful, as I'm sure all the parties were, with the mediation sessions that were gone into during January 1993, and a tentative settlement was reached during that process. Unfortunately, and I understand in a very narrow vote, that was turned down by the local members on February 2, 1993.

Then, in the intervening period of time -- and the ERC goes out of its way to point this out -- we had the introduction of the Social Contract Act, and one thing led to another. I'm not saying the entire dispute is because of the Social Contract Act, but I certainly think there has been a contributing factor with respect to that piece of legislation.

Ultimately, of course, we know that on October 6, 187 teachers in the elementary panel of the east Parry Sound board withdrew their services entirely and there were approximately 600 students left without an education for a considerable period of time.

I did organize a public meeting, which was held in the riding on November 18, a couple of Thursdays ago. Quite frankly, I did so in an attempt to, first, bring the parties together, but also to allow the public, especially the parents and the students, to have an opportunity to pose very direct questions to both sides in this dispute.

I thought the meeting was very successful from a couple of points of view. First, I think it gave the public an opportunity to hear what both parties had to say, because they had read media reports, they had seen media reports, they had heard media reports. There had been various meetings set up by one side or the other, but they weren't exactly the most objective meetings in some aspects, because of course each side was trying to put forward its position why it was right and the other side was wrong, so to speak. From that point of view, the meeting on the 18th of the month was very good.

It was also good in that, if nothing else, it led to a renewed round of mediation, which proved to be unsuccessful unfortunately, a couple of days later, but that in turn led to the two parties meeting the ERC, and again, as the minister has already stated, ultimately a meeting with the minister himself in one last attempt to try and bring about a local resolution to these problems.

I've been somewhat frustrated throughout this dispute because I believe that the parties were not that far apart. There were a few outstanding issues, mainly revolving around benefits, that the parties either should have been able to resolve themselves or, failing that, should have at least been able to say, "We agree to disagree," and request a procedure somewhat similar to what is taking place here today.

I really believe -- the minister may disagree with me -- that we could have come to this conclusion about a month ago. Hindsight's always great, but unfortunately we've cost some of these students four weeks' education -- "we" meaning everybody in the collective process -- and I'm somewhat disappointed that the two parties couldn't have come to that conclusion on their own some time ago.

1610

I would like to do something somewhat unusual. I have been through other teacher disputes in my riding, one shortly after I was elected, in the secondary panel in west Parry Sound, which was a very bitter dispute that went on for some 51 instructional days. I would like to compliment Dr Ed Aim of the Education Relations Commission. I didn't think he would attend the public meeting on November 18. He not only attended, he took his place on the stage and answered in a very forthright and direct manner some very, very difficult questions from some very emotional parents and ratepayers.

I also think the meeting on the 18th was useful in that it allowed both sides, both parties to this dispute to see the emotional and the social effect that was being felt in the community by students and upon families. In fact, the Education Relations Commission in its advisement also refers to that in its documentation as to one of the reasons why it found or ultimately came to the conclusion that the students' educational year was indeed in jeopardy.

It talks about the fact that: "Stresses develop within families, social problems materialize and younger children do not understand the issues behind and the reasons for a strike. Many conclude that their teachers 'do not like them.'" Of course, I think we all know that is not the case.

It goes on to talk about the "social aspects of a dispute create a form of jeopardy," particularly in a board such as east Parry Sound -- I'm not quoting now -- where you have geographically distant and small communities, many of which go to comprise a rather large board in terms of geographical area.

Ultimately on page 6 of their advisement, the Education Relations Commission goes on to say, "These not inconsequential matters" -- they were talking about inconsequential matters, they were talking about rounds of negotiations "marked by allegations of bad-faith bargaining, charges of an improper lockout, grievances, wholesale changes to terms and conditions contained in the expired collective agreement, a full withdrawal of services, the hiring of lay assistants, a death threat to the chair of the school board and considerable innuendo as to improper operations within the system."

"These not inconsequential matters," the ERC says, "have been further complicated by the introduction of the social contract process. Differences between the parties as to the impact of the sectoral framework document on their local negotiations have had a significant and negative effect upon the possibility of their concluding a settlement."

I understand that the minister may disagree with this. However, there it is in black and white. It isn't me or another honourable member stating this. It's the Education Relations Commission, and its advisement document itself is recognizing the fact that the social contract legislation indeed has had, to quote them, "a significant and negative effect upon the possibility of the parties concluding a settlement." I think that speaks for itself.

I think another important aspect of this matter is that in the legislation itself that the minister has introduced here today he provides for the arbitration board to deal with these issues related to the local agreement under the Social Contract Act, "that relate to the negotiations for the collective agreement shall deal with those issues in accordance with that act."

Obviously there is a problem and a significant problem with respect to that legislation and what the two parties perceive their rights may be under that legislation, and that I think ultimately was the final stumbling block or the crux of the issue, when they came down, that's basically what the dispute ended up being about at the end of the day after other things had been agreed upon.

I'm not going to go through the mechanics of the arbitration process; I believe the minister has done that fairly adequately.

On pages 7 and 8, again the ERC outlines in a very succinct form that this award, the board of arbitration, if it ends up setting the terms of the new agreement, shall be for a minimum duration of three years, that the board of arbitration will have the jurisdiction to deal with any outstanding issues relating to the social contract as it applies to this set of negotiations, and it goes on to talk about each party paying the fees and expenses of its nominee and equally sharing in the expenses of the chair of the board of arbitration.

The only other aspect of this that is somewhat unusual, I might say, is the ERC inquiry into determination of whether or not either or both of the parties to the dispute was negotiating in good faith and making every reasonable effort to come up with a new collective agreement. I guess I understand why it's in there. I note that it is somewhat unusual, to say the least.

There's only one other aspect of this matter I'd like to deal with, that in the East Parry Sound Board of Education area, because of the way the Ministry of Education has changed its grant process and its formula, especially having to do with not only east Parry Sound but west Parry Sound and other rural northern Ontario school boards as well -- because of, to name a couple, transportation, goods and services, weighting factor, these boards in rural northern Ontario have been dramatically affected by the change at the Ministry of Education in determining the formula to determine how provincial moneys will be advanced to these types of boards. They do not have a large tax base. They have virtually no commercial or industrial tax base to draw from. It is all basically residential and, in some cases, not all too affluent either.

Between 1991 and 1992, the East Parry Sound board, for example, saw its total grant base drop approximately $632,000; 1993 brought a further erosion on top of that $632,000 of the provincial grant base of approximately $725,000, and it is estimated that in 1994 this board will see a further revenue loss of some $950,000, or almost $1 million, to a very small board that does not have the ability to raise a lot of money on its own.

This net revenue loss will have an approximate 9.5% increase on local combined elementary and secondary rates if they are to absorb this reduction in provincial funding. Again, I don't say this is the only reason for part of the problems in this dispute, but it's certainly a contributing reason for why we find ourselves where we find ourselves today.

I would also like to comment now on the situation, very briefly, with respect to the secondary panel. It is my understanding, from talking to the minister in the House earlier this afternoon, that he has had discussions with both the board and the OSSTF. It would be my hope, as I am sure it is his, that those two parties will not see it necessary to come to the same sort of result, ie, legislation. Surely they can follow the parameters that are set out in this legislation: They can either sit down and agree to resolve their differences or they can resolve their differences by arbitration, if need be by agreement. I do not see any need to penalize secondary students in the east Parry Sound system. I think this legislation sets out a fair format for both sides and I would urge both sides in that dispute to follow it as well.

The Deputy Speaker: Any questions or comments? If not, are there any other members who wish to participate in this debate?

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): Very briefly, I think my colleague from Parry Sound has stated his position very well and very professionally. I was interested to hear the minister compliment him on his role in trying to present some kind of a forum and participate in a forum where all parties, public and parents, could get their questions answered.

1620

I too would like to thank at this point in time Dr Ed Aim of the ERC. We have found him in the past, and certainly more recently, to be most communicable and helpful with our questions. I think in this process that we're all involved in, looking for solutions to challenges in our school system and elsewhere, in his position at the ERC he's to be commended for his openness in assisting all of us and advising the minister from time to time. I think that's our role, when we have some ideas for him, drawing to his attention some of the problems in the system when we feel he either has not been made aware of them or there are a number of varying points of view.

On the issue of strikes in Ontario in the last few months, after the passage and the implications of the social contract legislation, I think the last two bills we've had to deal with as a result of teachers' strikes both in Lambton and Parry Sound ought to be a lesson to all school boards and teachers and to this ministry.

It's our view, because of some of the conflicting clauses within the social contract legislation -- I don't say the clauses are conflicting on purpose. I think the intent of the clauses is sometimes misunderstood, and the different points of view with regard to what they really mean are causing a lot of difficulties in the collective bargaining process across the province.

I can be very specific in that regard. When we asked the minister a question on October 21 with regard to Bill 48, subsection 24(5), we were talking there about compensation being fixed as a result of the social contract for any boards that did not have a collective agreement in force before June 14, 1993. The minister answered the question and I think his answer in fact confused boards. They now think that isn't one of the terms of the social contract.

Hon Mr Cooke: That's not what the act says.

Mrs Cunningham: Further on, as the minister points out to me now, when you read the act, there's another clause that in fact conflicts with that one. So there are many implications of the social contract that are not well understood, and some of the principles, many boards feel now, as a result of these two pieces of back-to-work legislation, have been simply thrown away. Therefore, I think what we probably have are further conflicts and further concerns.

I think the minister's going to have to do a couple of things. First of all, he's going to have to seriously look at the strikes that are pending. He's going to also have to take a look at any work to rule, which in many boards' and parents' views are strikes, and he's going to have to take a look at last offers.

The east Parry Sound secondary school teachers of course have been on strike since November 10. I think the member has commended the process of this legislation that we're speaking to today and advised the secondary teachers that they ought to take a look at that as a format for solving their problems locally.

Certainly, Windsor elementary has been out since November 8. Windsor secondary, November 18, voted to work to rule.

Hon Mr Cooke: Windsor secondary is not out. Windsor secondary did not go out.

Mrs Cunningham: They voted to work to rule on November 18. The minister advises me that's not a strike. My view is that for many of the students and their families, they would look at that as a form of strike.

Hon Mr Cooke: They are not on strike.

Mrs Cunningham: The minister seems to be very worried about that. I'm just making the observation that it is in his own backyard. He now does have some examples of the kinds of things that can happen to students when they're not in school, the kinds of feelings that erode across communities on behalf of parents and teachers, misinterpretation of the issues -- I'm not here to interpret issues today. That's his concern in Windsor. I suppose if I had the problem in London I'd have to get tremendously involved, but that is not my purpose today.

My purpose is to say that there's nothing gained in teachers' strikes for anybody. There have never been significant gains; there are tremendous losses on behalf of all parties. If in fact the teachers are correct in stating, as they did last week when they met with both critics, that the social contract legislation is behind many of the issues, then I think the minister had better take a look very closely at what those issues are, where the misunderstandings are, enter into some open discussions with all school boards and teachers during the break and try to deter any ideas or actions of either work to rule or strikes that may be in the minds of teachers and/or school boards across the province.

We know that the Leeds-Grenville elementary was holding its last-offer vote on November 22. We know that York elementary has asked for a strike vote in December. We know that Brant county secondary on November 23 voted to work to rule. Personally, I think most parents consider the whole attitude of that kind of action is contradictory to setting an element of role-modelling for students within their own community. I think the fact that Lambton county had to be legislated back is an example of the problems that we have in the province today as a result of social contract legislation.

Our track record is that we have this fall two boards that have had to be legislated back, we have two boards that continue to be on strike, we have two other boards that are working to rule and we have two boards that are holding strike votes. I think quite frankly the minister's plate is very full. I think that detracts from some of the real issues in education and those are issues that have to do with curriculum, that have to do with accountability not only of the students but of the teachers, the concerns of the public around standards in our schools that the minister should be dealing with, the concerns of the public with regard to meaningful curriculum, of a long-standing hope, I think, of not only the minister -- because he was in opposition for a number of years; he now has a wonderful opportunity to take a look at apprenticeship training and cooperative education programs. My understanding is that his ministry is doing that, but surely this kind of upheaval in our school system, with more pending --

Hon Mr Cooke: Don't exaggerate.

Mrs Cunningham: -- takes a lot of his time. He's accusing me of exaggerating, but I have to tell you, Mr Speaker, we know in our offices, all of us in this House, what the issues of the day are because our phones ring a lot around strikes and students being out --

Hon Mr Cooke: Dianne, you're not the only one who gets phone calls. Don't exaggerate.

Mrs Cunningham: -- and not in the classrooms. The minister's concerned that I'm the only person getting phone calls. I would expect that I'm getting very few phone calls in comparison to the minister. But students have a right to be in school and that's why we're here talking today and pleased that the minister has taken the action that he has because we all know that it's necessary.

Just three comments on the legislation, all of which I think may have been referred to by speakers before me: With regard to section 5, if no agreement is made by December 7 etc the parties are deemed to go to arbitration under the collective school boards act, and then further subsection (7), this is the issue of good faith-bad faith -- very unusual to ask the ERC to take a look at whether or not bad-faith bargaining did take place. There was a claim, my understanding is, by the teachers, but now we're asking the Education Relations Commission to go on some kind of a witchhunt as opposed to the normal process.

Hon Mr Cooke: Both sides have supported it, Dianne.

Mrs Cunningham: Again, the minister is saying "both sides." Fine. What difference does it make at this point? It's something that happened in the past. I thought we were supposed to be looking to the future and solving problems. So why bother, my point is, putting that into the legislation and giving people more work, especially -- in fact, the minister has brought it to my attention -- when both sides in fact have alleged this? What difference does it make.

1630

With regard to subsection 5(7), we now have a piece of legislation where we agree to refer outstanding issues, all matters, to arbitration, and of course we've got an example of an open designation on behalf of a piece of legislation that will certainly keep any arbitration board busy for a long period of time.

With regard to section 3, the collective agreement continuing on, we know there was an effort on behalf of the board. I wouldn't agree with it myself. I don't agree with stripping agreements. But I think we have an example here of the frustration of school boards in the province of Ontario. According to Bill 100, of course, the boards have that opportunity, haven't used it in the past, but I think this is an example of the frustration especially with regard to the implications of the social contract.

Quite frankly, in my view a principle has been eroded, and that is the rights of school boards under Bill 100. Now we have a clause that says, "Forget what the school board did in this legislation; let's go back to the former agreement," even though under Bill 100 they had that opportunity.

I'll just close by saying that --

Interjection.

Mrs Cunningham: I think if the minister had been listening to me, I would have said I don't think boards should do that. However, according to the bill, which the minister doesn't agree with, Bill 100 -- he doesn't agree with it. Yet I find it most interesting. In the five years that I've been here, we have raised a number of times every year with the government of the day, including this government, that Bill 100 ought to have been reviewed. This would have been a perfect example of a clause that could have been discussed.

Hon Mr Cooke: Nonsense.

Mrs Cunningham: The minister says "nonsense" when it's to his advantage to say that, of course. But I have to say that there are many reasons for reviewing that legislation. Teachers have raised issues; school board trustees have raised issues. The minister preferred, in fact, rather than looking at the whole collective bargaining process, its successes and its failures, to muck it all up with the social contract legislation, which does more to interfere in the collective bargaining process than any other government in the history of this province when it comes to teacher-school board negotiations.

Hon Mr Cooke: Nonsense. You supported it on second reading.

Mrs Cunningham: He said I voted for it on second reading. Well, we tried to amend it but we were given so little time in the House. He can refer back to our statements that we made, in fact, in the House on July 7. Imagine having to talk about this on July 7 when teachers should have been spending time with their families and parents should have been away on vacation. But no; this House had to work on into and be, actually, blackmailed into working through the summer on the social contract legislation, Bill 48.

Later on this evening -- and it's about 4:35 right now -- we'll be blackmailed again on Bill 100, which is a piece of health legislation, where tonight until 10 o'clock, we've got some 15 people sitting before that committee, speaking to us on behalf of their professional organizations. They get 15 minutes to give their point of view, a closure motion, and that's the way this government operates.

Back to the issue of the day, Mr Speaker. In closing, I'd just like to compliment my colleague for the effort that he made on behalf of his constituents, and I'd like to compliment him again on behalf of the minister, who has already done that this afternoon, and say that this kind of disruption in our community really does take away our opportunity to move forward in this province with the real education issues.

I would hope that we can spend more time on curriculum matters, on parent involvement in schools, on the challenges of discipline, on the challenge of meaningful education in our schools today, and move away from teacher strikes, which are, I think, not appropriate in these times, especially when people are so grateful when they themselves have jobs.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Any questions or comments? Are there any other members who wish to participate in this debate? If not, Minister.

Hon Mr Cooke: Mr Speaker, I'd prefer to just move third reading of Bill 128.

The Deputy Speaker: Mr Cooke has moved second reading of Bill 128. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Shall the bill be ordered for third reading? Agreed.

Hon Mr Cooke: With the unanimous consent of the House, I would seek to move third reading of Bill 128.

The Deputy Speaker: Mr Cooke moves third reading of Bill 128. Are there any members who wish to participate in this debate? If not, Minister, do you have any remarks?

Hon Mr Cooke: Just to move third reading of Bill 128.

The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Resolved that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.

COMMUNITY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR LE DÉVELOPPEMENT ÉCONOMIQUE COMMUNAUTAIRE

Mr White, on behalf of Mr Philip, moved third reading of Bill 40, An Act to stimulate Economic Development through the Creation of Community Economic Development Corporations and through certain amendments to the Education Act, the Municipal Act, the Planning Act and the Parkway Belt Planning and Development Act / Projet de loi 40, Loi visant à stimuler le développement économique grâce à la création de sociétés de développement économique communautaire et à certaines modifications apportées à la Loi sur l'éducation, à la Loi sur les municipalités, à la Loi sur l'aménagement du territoire et à la Loi sur la planification et l'aménagement d'une ceinture de promenade.

Mr Drummond White (Durham Centre): We have before us the amended version of Bill 40, which was debated at length over the summer months. I want to thank my colleagues in the committee for their active participation. As will be noted by many, there are amendments that will help the bill substantively.

The Community Economic Development Act is an important part of our government's three-year, $300-million Jobs Ontario Community Action program. As members know, Jobs Ontario Community Action has three main thrusts: community development, to help communities build their capacity to organize and plan for the future; community financing, to help communities invest in themselves; and community capital, to provide capital for capital infrastructure projects identified as priorities through the planning process.

The Community Economic Development Act addresses the secondary community financing. It gives communities tools to help themselves invest in themselves and it gives municipalities added flexibility to support economic development within their communities. This legislation responds to a serious obstacle to the economic recovery of our communities: The small business people and entrepreneurs who could be giving local economies a much-needed boost often can't do that because they can't get access to traditional sources of capital.

The legislation gives communities a way to raise their own investment capital, forge new economic partnerships and work with both traditional and non-traditional sources of expertise to provide capital for entrepreneurial opportunities. It permits the creation of two new community financing tools: community loan funds and community investment share organizations.

The community loan fund will give local investors a chance to support small businesses in their community. The fund would provide access to loans in the range of $500 to $15,000 for all types of microbusinesses, and local investors who put money into these funds will have the principal of those moneys guaranteed by the province.

Community investment share corporations, which will be set up by local groups, will provide a source of equity financing for enterprises and they will benefit the community as a whole. Again, the provincial government will guarantee the principal. We intend to allocate $10 million for community loan fund guarantees and $20 million for community investment share guarantees.

1640

Over the next five years that should support the creation of some 40 community investment share corporations and 35 community loan funds across our province. This will help communities create nearly 4,000 jobs.

The legislation also enables municipalities to participate in the establishment of community development corporations and to support the operation of those community development corporations. The government will provide some financial assistance from Jobs Ontario Community Action to help communities set up these non-profit organizations.

The legislation also amends the Municipal Act to allow municipalities to work with the private sector to finance facilities that benefit the entire community such as community centre complexes, water and sewage facilities, roads and transit facilities. Municipalities will also be able to make better use of pooled investment and borrowing arrangements among certain public sector institutions.

The Community Economic Development Act also includes amendments to the Planning Act to make the planning and development review process smoother, more efficient and more effective.

The bill was discussed at length over the summer by the standing committee on general government. The committee heard from a number of community-based organizations, including the Ontario Worker Co-op Federation, the Ontario Social Development Council, Social Investment Organization, the Calmeadow foundation, the Community Business Centre, Community Opportunities Development Association and many, many others.

They told us that this bill is important, that it is the right thing to do, an important thing to do, and to do it as soon as is possible. Some had concerns with some of the details, but virtually all supported the idea, the philosophy behind the bill, the philosophy of empowerment of our communities.

The members will notice that a number of amendments have been made since second reading. Many of these were in response to comments that we heard in committee. I would also like to thank my colleagues for their contributions and to state very clearly that there were several amendments that came forth from my colleagues on the opposite side of the House.

We made changes, for example, to protect community loan funds from guaranteeing loans to bankrupt organizations. We strengthened administrative controls to protect the public's investment, the taxpayers' investment, and we made amendments to make the programs more accessible to co-ops.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): On a point of order, Madam Speaker: Considering Mr White has gone to such great trouble to read this speech somebody wrote for him, I think we should have a quorum in here to hear it.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Margaret H. Harrington): Would the clerk please determine if there is a quorum present?

Senior Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Journals (Mr Alex McFedries): A quorum is not present.

The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.

Senior Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Journals: A quorum is now present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. The member for Durham Centre.

Mr White: I appreciate the interest of the members opposite. I wish, however, that they took these matters which people in our communities find important -- the creation of new jobs, the opportunity of people to invest in themselves -- a little more seriously. These are essential issues and these are important tools.

We listened, as I was saying, to what was said to the committee. As a result, I am placing before the Legislature today a better bill. This legislation supports the strong, self-reliant local economies that are so vitally important to the financial wellbeing of the province of Ontario as a whole. This bill will help communities lead the way to jobs, growth and economic prosperity.

The Acting Speaker: Are there any questions and/or comments to the member for Durham Centre?

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Madam Speaker, one of the observations I would make of many of the initiatives that are brought forward by the government is that they're really not very new at all. I compare this a bit to Jobs Ontario, where you have all of the grants that were given out before now called Jobs Ontario grants.

For instance, you would know that if there were an expansion to the sewage treatment plant in Niagara Falls, that used to be called an expansion to the sewage treatment plant. Normally there would be a press release go out and the grant would be given to the municipality and it would move along with the sewage treatment plant. Now that is called a Jobs Ontario sewage treatment plant.

Similar to this legislation we see here, you'll find that there's often not new money. There's not an expanded amount of money. The money is simply given a new name and a few new qualifications and then it has its virtues extolled through an advertising program and through the constituency newsletters of members of the government when, in reality, there isn't much new to it.

It's better than a kick in the shins; we know that. I think that's important. The member for Chatham-Kent holds up a photograph of hockey players, including himself. Since his government has skated over the rights of labourers in this province, I can understand that he would want to show that photograph.

But seriously, I just hope -- and I don't want to be negative about this -- that this program is indeed a different program, that indeed it has new initiatives in it that will really help communities and that there is some new money, some additional money, not simply the old money recycled with a new name on it.

Mr Stockwell: I would just like to say I wish I could get a chance to meet with the person who wrote that speech, because I would tell them directly that I think this is a typical response by this government to a lot of issues that we're facing today.

This kind of stuff happened as a matter of course in previous governments. You went out and you did the things that you did as a government to maintain the roads and sewers, and so on and so forth, of this great province. There was no great fanfare. We didn't give them names. You just went ahead and dealt with the municipalities and so on and did them.

But now, with this government so starving for good media attention, so starving to give its representatives something to tell people back home that is not a charge against the government about being incompetent, it repackages these programs and reannounces these announcements and has members stand up in the House extolling the virtues of programs that are run-of-the-mill stuff.

It happens all the time. When we were in government, this just took place. We probably didn't even come to the House to announce this stuff because it was just what governments did with your money. It's called services.

Now they want to talk about crown corporations and program initiatives and partnerships and stakeholders and parental contributions and all these other glorious words to say what we used to do every day of the week. We simply helped build this province.

1650

If you want a big round of applause for doing what you're mandated to do, which was maintain a level of service in this government, you're not going to get it from here, because this is what you were elected to do and you're not going to get any pats on the back for doing what you're supposed to do when you were first elected. It's the plans you've got to create new jobs, and you know, Madam Speaker, as well as the member for St Catharines and his caucus, there are no new jobs here.

Mr Hans Daigeler (Nepean): I would like to make a few comments on Bill 40 on what was just said. I actually happened to be a member of the committee when we had hearings on Bill 40, community economic development, and frankly, I was left with the very distinct impression that many of the intervenors who came before us didn't really know what the government meant by community economic development. I tried to explain that the way the government was defining community economic development was something very, very different from what they had in mind and from what we on this side of the House support quite strongly.

I think nobody can be against economic development by communities and people themselves taking charge of their future, and when you hear the words "community economic development," at least on this side of the House, that's what we think, that we give private enterprise, we give private groups the opportunity and the means to use the chances that are there, the economic chances, and give them a bit of assistance. We have, for example, the new ventures program, which is still in existence, and I'm glad the government continues with it, because a lot of community groups and community people, certainly in my area, take advantage of it and it's good for them.

But when the government is talking about community economic development, it really refers mostly to a particular type of group that is, I would say, mostly affiliated with the New Democratic Party, and that these groups should be permitted -- again, frankly, I think that's a possibility as well, that disadvantaged groups should have a chance --

The Acting Speaker: The member's time has expired.

Mr Daigeler: -- to build economic development.

The Acting Speaker: We have time for one more member with questions and/or comments.

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): It's interesting that we're talking here about a bill that's going to build roads, that's going to build sewers, maybe build the subway or something of that nature, and this government talks as though it's reinvented the wheel. What they've gone ahead and done is create all these devious little corporations to siphon a whole bunch of money into, to do what governments have been doing in this province since the day Upper Canada became a reality -- probably even before that.

I can't for the life of me figure out what is so mystical about this plan. The plan is that the government is going to spend a lot of money it doesn't have in the name of creating jobs, which is a good thing, but governments have been doing these things for generations. This government just found a way to really siphon money out of the books, and it's really a method that's got it in nothing but trouble so far. The auditor wouldn't sign the books of the province because things like this are going on, and as a result, the credit rating of the province is slipping away. It's not a funny thing when ultimately you're setting up a plan to create jobs and it ends up costing the province another $100 million a year because of credit rating.

This government has created nothing new. There's nothing innovative about this. Furthermore, they've been sitting on their duffs for three and a half years and they haven't created a job yet doing this. We keep hearing about it and hearing about it and hearing about it. We keep hearing about the 407 and the Sheppard subway and the Eglinton subway and all these great public works projects. So far, not a shovel has gone into the ground, the credit rating keeps falling and the province keeps laying out more and more money, and not a single, solitary job has yet been created by this government reinventing the wheel. Madam Speaker, I will bet you that there will not be one bit of effect from this piece of legislation for the rest of the lifetime of this government.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Durham Centre has two minutes to respond.

Mr White: My friends opposite offered us some very interesting comments. Unfortunately they forgot to either read the bill or to listen to my speech earlier on, because this is not a bill about sewers or roads. That's another program entirely. The community loan fund is about micro-business and is an entirely new program.

Mr Harnick: What do those little corporations do?

The Acting Speaker: The member for Willowdale, come to order.

Mr White: The distinction between this and the Jobs Ontario Community Action program is quite large. This is a part of it, this is an enabling part of it; an ability is offered here for communities to invest in themselves at the micro-level, at the small business level.

I would suggest that when my colleagues get up and start talking about the 407, they should instead be thinking about the opportunity for small businesses, for individuals with ambition and drive to gain access and employment through these innovative processes, something that has never existed in this province before --

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Etobicoke West, come to order.

Mr White: -- and certainly never been sponsored publicly before. As a result, this bill has been very strongly and very widely supported in the social investment community, throughout the business community as a whole. It also facilitates participation by municipalities in the vital economic life of their areas, enabling them to fully participate, to make ingenious contributions and direction of the kind of economic and strategic plan that they need for their communities.

These are important issues, but they are not the megaprojects that my friends opposite would like to have us establish.

The Acting Speaker: Further Debate?

Mr Ron Eddy (Brant-Haldimand): I'm very pleased --

Interjection.

Mr Eddy: Do you want quality or do you want quantity?

It's a pleasure for me to rise to speak briefly on Bill 40, An Act to stimulate Economic Development through the Creation of Community Economic Development Corporations and through certain amendments to the Education Act, the Municipal Act, the Planning Act and the Parkway Belt Planning and Development Act. That's quite a title, isn't it?

I must say, there are some items in here that I approve of and that I'm sure municipalities across this province will be very pleased, when they are passed, to accept. I must say that from reviewing them.

We have amendments to the Planning Act. They're certainly going to save money and save time for development proposals. I'm awfully pleased to see that they've come forth at this time in this bill, although it certainly is an omnibus bill, including so many different items.

I would hope that by including these amendments to the Planning Act at this time, it would mean that a new Planning Act based on the Sewell commission report is several years away so that we'll have the opportunity to indeed adjust the present Planning Act rather than go through a complete new act.

Amendments to the Planning Act are welcome, although I must say I feel that when the minister will have the authority, through this act, "to give planning approvals to upper-tier municipalities and separated cities without a request being made. The minister may now prescribe fees for processing applications for planning approvals," there's an element of downloading in that, but I feel that municipalities will welcome the change because they'll be able to proceed more expeditiously.

"The Ontario Municipal Board," I note, "will be permitted to issue orders partially approving zoning bylaws while considering other portions of the bylaws which are the subject of an appeal."

1700

This is an excellent move on the part of the government to include this, simply because we've had municipalities come before the standing committee on regulations and private bills asking for this permission. Indeed, it was granted to the city of London just some time ago, and there are many other municipalities that have been involved in like problems.

For any member who has ever sat on a municipal council where you have two official plans under the Planning Act and two zoning bylaws simply because one zoning bylaw and one official plan is awaiting approval by the ministry, you'll know the problems that are faced. I certainly have been in that position, so this, in my opinion, will help that.

The requirement for provincial approval of validation of title and power of sale to be removed and replaced with municipal approval is also welcome. It's long past time that this happened, but it certainly will be beneficial to municipalities.

"If an appeal of a zoning bylaw has been withdrawn from the Ontario Municipal Board, the bylaw would be deemed to have come into force without an order of the board." Now, this is awfully important, and it's more important when you realize that some objections are indeed frivolous, but the OMB will not declare them frivolous unless it's requested to declare them frivolous by the municipal council, and I'm not sure that always happens.

So thanks for the amendments to the Planning Act and let's just live with the Planning Act, as amended by this bill, for a number of years and leave the Sewell commission report on planning to be reviewed and possibly some minor amendments to come forward at some future time.

The provision under new section 210.1 permitting municipalities to enter into agreements with persons for the provision of certain municipal capital projects that would otherwise be provided by the municipalities themselves is also welcomed by municipalities. I think it is really the way of the future for financing many municipal projects. It will provide for partnerships between the private sector and municipal corporations.

One of the perhaps most welcome sections is section 167.4 of the act, to permit municipalities to enter into agreements for the joint investment of money with school boards, colleges, universities and public hospitals, as well as with other municipalities.

This system was initiated many years ago by the city of Chatham and the county of Kent, which included their school boards and their hospital boards, and it was a joint pooling of their finances. It needs the legislation. It's again past time that this was brought forward, but it permits a very unique and indeed efficient method of handling finances of public organizations, including municipalities and hospital boards. That's important, and I'm awfully pleased to see that it's been included in that bill. We certainly do support it.

The other important part of this bill, of course, and the main part of it, is the provision for the establishment of community economic development corporations. The legislation is beneficial to those who wish to proceed, but I really think we could have accomplished the same aims in another, more efficient manner, and it should still be done, to provide municipalities with permissive authority to establish an economic development corporation within the municipal framework without going to a special-purpose body.

As you know, over the years special-purpose bodies, a number of them at least, have been eliminated and municipalities, through the municipal associations, have been pushing for the elimination of special-purpose bodies. Indeed, the government has been doing it itself. As we know, in the Simcoe county bill which will come forward for debate later today, the Orillia suburban roads commission and the Barrie suburban roads commission will be eliminated and some other special-purpose bodies will be eliminated as well: police villages, for instance.

The big advantage of working within the municipal framework is because municipalities are legal corporations, with powers set out for the most part in the Municipal Act and many other provincial acts, and the change could easily be made.

Because municipalities are legal entities in Ontario, they of course have in-depth checks and balances and legislated accountability:

-- Municipal staff and officials have expertise and experience needed to deliver any and all programs.

-- Municipal financial reporting is very concise and is regulated by the province through legislation.

-- Municipalities are stringently audited by licensed auditors on an ongoing basis, and of course those audited reports are available to the public. Indeed, municipalities are required to advertise them on an ongoing basis.

-- Municipal staff are bonded, and of course have errors and omissions insurance.

-- Municipalities know the community economic development needs of the communities and work with economic development. Many municipalities indeed have economic development officers who have worked towards this goal and are able to identify projects locally for funding.

-- Municipal offices can provide the coordination that is necessary to provide the necessary support for sustainable community economic development through their planning department, economic development and infrastructure.

-- Municipalities are able to accommodate the delivery of community economic development. With expanded computer systems in municipal offices, combined with the professionalization of staff, they are most capable to implement the needs of the community.

-- Municipal expenses are controlled by established rules and systems; similarly, purchases are controlled through a strict procedure.

-- They are also able to administer programs cost-effectively. Municipal offices, as we all know here, have become increasingly efficient as the demand for services has increased while both the funding and revenues they receive have decreased substantially in most cases.

As I said, special-purpose bodies can be problematic for the province. Indeed, as you know, when we ask questions in this House about certain bodies termed as crown agencies, we are told by various ministers, "We do not run that agency. The agency reports to the House through us but we don't have control," and that's right. In some cases we should have control. In many cases we must have more control than we do at the present time, because the public expects it. Municipalities at the very least should have the choice of whether a community economic development board is indeed a self-standing, separated board or could be established within the framework of the municipality.

I would at this time, however, compliment the council of the city of Burlington and the staff, who indeed have proceeded in the anticipation that this legislation would be passed and, through a press release of November 23, 1993, indicated the establishment by the council of the city of Burlington of the Burlington Community Development Corp.

1710

As we know, the council of the city of Burlington has been very active in developing and providing for commercial and industrial development and has decided to become the pilot project, and I think that's good. In my opinion, it would perhaps have been as well to allow that to happen, review what goes on and then perhaps tailor the proposed legislation to that operation.

Certainly the council of that municipality, I am sure, will make an outstanding success of this endeavour, and it's simply because it has been very active over the years in business promotion and will have a business promotion division and a finance division. It would also include the existing Burlington downtown partnership, so they are building on what they have in place and in use at the present time, and that's excellent.

I notice it is assisted by a $100,000 contribution from the Minister of Municipal Affairs towards the establishment of the Burlington Community Development Corp, and I would hope that similar funding would be available to other municipalities that would be prepared to proceed and use this legislation to advantage once it's in place. I expect that it will be very soon. I repeat my congratulations to the city council of the city of Burlington for proceeding in this matter and hope that other municipalities will look at it as well.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak to this bill.

The Acting Speaker: Questions and/or comments?

Mr Daigeler: I would just like to say that, as the member for Brant-Haldimand said, there's support for the amendments to the Planning Act and there's support as well from my city of Nepean to streamline the approvals process. In fact there's a motion that my council passed on October 26 that supports this.

While they support these amendments, they also are on record, and I would like to mention this here in the House, because I think this is very important for the people in Ottawa-Carleton, that while they do appreciate these amendments to the Planning Act, the council of my city also says:

"The province speaks of empowering municipalities in supporting local job creation by encouraging economic development activities by the local communities who best understand what is needed, which contradicts the proposed Bill 77 which would restrict local municipalities in Ottawa-Carleton from developing municipal business parks by transferring this right to the upper-tier regional government."

Madam Speaker, I think you very clearly hear from my municipal council in a formal motion which was sent on to the minister that they certainly appreciate anything that will improve and speed up the planning process, but at the same time they say very clearly: "We want community economic development. We want our community to be able to dictate and say, 'This is the economic development that we want to see happening.'"

Certainly for my city of Nepean and I'm sure for other cities, the development of business parks is an extremely important economic development tool, and that's why my city was so upset and so opposed to the provision in Bill 77 which takes that power away from my city. I'm sure that would be a precedent that would happen all across the province: takes that power away from local municipal government and passes it on to the higher tier of government, which is the regional government in Ottawa-Carleton.

Mr David Johnson (Don Mills): The member for Brant-Haldimand has brought up the topic of the Planning Act and the fact that there are many positive changes to the Planning Act.

Mr Eddy: That's all we need.

Mr David Johnson: He says, "That's all we need." He goes like this and he says: "That's all we need. We don't need the Sewell commission." I agree with the member in that regard.

There is one change, though, that was brought to the attention of the committee that perhaps didn't get unanimous support. There is a section that allows for the delegation of planning authority to the region by the provincial government. Formerly what was required was for the region to request this authority from the provincial government. Under Bill 40 what's happened now is that the province can delegate subdivision, condominium and consent authority, for example, to the regions without the request of the regions themselves.

I have a letter that we in the committee received from the regional planning commissioners of Ontario. They say, "We question the wisdom of the ministry assigning delegated powers to a municipality without the formal consent of its council." They say you shouldn't delegate without the council asking for that authority.

They say: "The number, qualifications and integrity of the planning staff seem to be important factors in the decision to delegate. Without formal council support for delegation, how can the minister and all other agencies involved in these approval processes be assured that these resources will be maintained by the municipality if the delegation is assigned against the council's will?"

What they are saying to the minister over there, who is very interested, is that you shouldn't be delegating and forcing municipalities to take an authority that they haven't requested. That's what this bill does.

Mr George Mammoliti (Yorkview): I can't understand why individuals just can't stand up in this place and talk about the wonderful thing that this bill does. I can't understand why people just can't say how wonderful the process was, that the committee had worked well together, that the people who came out in front of the committee from all over the province had talked highly about this bill, about the good things that the government is doing with this bill and how communities are waiting for this.

While I understand some of the negative comments that are given out from time to time in this place, we need to realize that when a good thing happens, let's praise it. When a good thing happens, especially for communities, let's praise it. Let's not always be on this negative wagon train that has nowhere to go.

This is my point, because I'm frustrated at some of the comments in this place. While I respect the individual from the Liberal Party who made his comments, the member for Brant-Haldimand, and I know he talked about some of the good things that this bill does, others in this place have stood up with their comments and talked negatively about it, and talked about the committee process.

When you talk about the committee process, make sure that you remember the types of comments that were being made in committee on this particular bill. I think if people were to remember what happened in committee, they wouldn't actually stand up here and speak negatively about it.

I do want to thank the member for Brant-Haldimand for his comments.

The Acting Speaker: The member's time has expired. We have time for one more question and/or comment.

Mr White: I want to thank my colleague the member for Brant-Haldimand for his comments and acknowledge along with him the importance of municipalities. Municipalities can -- this is, after all, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs sponsoring the bill -- sponsor community economic development corporations. As my friend mentioned, the city of Burlington was assisted in doing so with a grant of some hundred thousand dollars.

We wish, as soon as this bill is passed, to ensure similar funding for other municipalities. But municipalities will not alone be able; other groups within those municipalities will also be able to sponsor those community development corporations.

1720

As my friend noted, in the past when there was an attempt to secure innovative financing for community facilities, we had to have a special act of provincial Parliament to allow for private and public co-ventures, a special act to allow for ventures between the school boards and the municipalities. With this bill, those special acts will no longer be necessary and there will be increased amounts of innovative financing, as my friend noted.

I think it's important that my friend took note of the Planning Act amendments, the OMB issues. These are all small amendments, but they are the kind of thing which will hopefully speed along development applications that are essentially good applications, that are not being appealed to the OMB in their entirety. These are efforts to make the planning system in the province of Ontario more comprehensible. They are not the comprehensive response that Mr Sewell requests, but they are consonant with Mr Sewell's recommendations.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Brant-Haldimand has two minutes to reply.

Mr Eddy: I respond to those speakers on the bill. The member for Nepean brings up an excellent point; that is, the matter of economic development being at the local level. I would hope that would be possible wherever a local municipality wishes to become involved, particularly the area municipalities and regional municipalities across this province. I think it's very important because they're on the scene locally. They know local conditions and they're able to respond to local problems. So I think that's awfully important.

The member for Don Mills spoke in response as well. I think he made an awfully good point about the minister being able to delegate authority to give planning approvals to upper-tier municipalities in separated cities, and he made the point "without their permission." I agree that it could be on request, but I also would go a bit further and say "on request" or "with their agreement" or "with their approval," the approval or agreement of the local municipalities, so that it could be initiated by the minister and an approach made, because it is a downloading of authority, which I agree is important to do, but it's also a downloading of costs. There's been a considerable amount of that over the last few years, so it's important to face up to that.

The member for Durham Centre has spoken as well on the matter of updating the legislation. I see that most of the items in this bill are outdated, archaic legislation, and that is good.

The Acting Speaker: The member's time has expired. Further debate.

Mr David Johnson: Perhaps I could just start by saying that it's a bit unfortunate that some members characterize comments as being "a negative wagon train." The comments I'm going to make today are generally based on comments I heard at the committee. These were various deputants that came before us and made presentations. These were people who sent letters and made deputations, and in some regard they have concerns. If the member for Yorkview expects that I'm going to stand up here today and just say all the positive things and ignore all of the concerns that people expressed to me at the committee and to other members of the committee, then I think that's a very short-sighted view. I think the role I have to play and perhaps the role the critic for the Liberal Party has to play is to introduce some of the concerns that were expressed.

We know this bill is going to go forward, but people have concerns with various parts of it. It's interesting that on the day we are debating this bill, which primarily is set up to put funds in place for loans to small businesses, micro-businesses, to put in place a mechanism to have share investment in small companies, that there's an article in the Globe and Mail this morning indicating that the provincial government is in fact making loans and has made loans to many businesses in the province of Ontario. The most recent loan is to the Ontario Bus Industries Inc, which is one of North America's largest manufacturers of transit buses. How much money was invested in that company? There was a $19-million loan from the taxpayers of the province of Ontario put in by the Ministry of Economic Development and Trade. I hope that money's put to good use. It's a loan to this company to preserve about 2,000 jobs, and that turns out to be a subsidy of about $10,000 per job. I sure hope it saves those jobs and that buses are created as a result, because that's an expensive proposition by the province of Ontario.

But other firms are mentioned. There was a loan to Inglis Ltd, $5 million; a loan to DuPont, an interest-free loan, I might say, of $20 million; Toyota is getting money for training and new equipment, $1 million; General Motors of course needs money from the province of Ontario to keep operating, $5 million; Chrysler Canada, another $30 million; Ford of Canada about $43 million from the province of Ontario for worker training and infrastructure grants. So you can see that the money involved is very considerable, but today we're looking at smaller businesses, smaller firms.

Rather than a negative wagon train, let's call it constructive criticism. The Canadian Federation of Independent Business has commented on Bill 40, on the bill that we're talking about today. I'm just going to read a short paragraph from the letter of the CFIB. They say, "In general, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business supports efforts to expand the availability of financing to new and growing enterprises." That's what we're talking about here today: financing for new enterprises and growing enterprises. "The best such programs are those which reduce the tax burden on entrepreneurs, allowing them to expand retained earnings for job and investment growth."

That's the key. I think that's pretty important. What they're saying is that the best way to help small businesses to grow and be successful is to reduce the tax burden. That's number one. They say if you're not going to do that, if you're not going to help businesses in the best way possible, then a second-best way would be through loan or equity guarantee schemes, but these require an administrative structure, and when they say "administrative structure," what they really mean is there's a cost. There's a bureaucracy and there's a cost to the taxpayer. They also tend to touch relatively few businesses. So they help a few, but the vast majority of the businesses they don't help.

By comparison, if you cut the tax burden, which is their number one way of helping businesses, you help all businesses. It's not just a few selected businesses; you help them all. That's what the CFIB says.

I might say that this morning I also met with the Ontario Chamber of Commerce, and its message is just about the same. They say that they are much more interested in this government tackling the issues of reducing taxes, of reducing paperwork, of reducing regulations, of reducing rules and restrictions on small business. The Ontario Chamber of Commerce says, "If you really want to help us, that's the way you can help us: reduce taxes, reduce the paperwork, reduce the regulations." They say they're much more interested in that than in loans and grants and subsidies and that kind of approach.

So we're seeing a common theme. The member for Yorkview may think that's a negative theme, but that theme is coming from the business community itself: The way to help them is to reduce the burden on them.

1730

I might say that the Canadian Federation of Independent Business expressed a few other concerns, if I'm allowed to express them, Madam Speaker. They say, "It is questionable whether preferred shares in a community investment share corporation will be attractive to investors."

What they're talking about there is that one part of this bill is to set up a community investment share corporation. That share corporation will sell preferred shares to the community. If I'm the member, for example, for Durham Centre and there's a share corporation in my community, I could invest in the share corporation: $5,000, let's say.

Mr White: Don't look at me.

Mr David Johnson: Don't look at you. Okay. They would sell a preferred share. That money is used in turn to invest in purchasing shares in businesses within the community, businesses that need an injection of capital to help them to survive.

Now, the original investors in the share corporation are guaranteed to get their capital back after a period of time, and the period of time is up to seven years. After that period of time, they're guaranteed to get their capital back but they're not guaranteed to get any other sort of return. Any other sort of return is not guaranteed. If the share corporation is successful, then they may get more back. If it's not, they're only guaranteed by the province of Ontario, by the taxpayers of Ontario -- the taxpayers of Ontario will ensure that the investors get their money back.

What the Canadian Federation of Independent Business is saying is that this is not very attractive to the investors. Investors want to have some reasonable security that not only are they going to get their capital back, but they're going to get back a return on their capital, and you may find that it will be very difficult to get investors.

I think that's sort of the bottom-line theme of this whole scheme from some of the people who I think offer good advice. That bottom line is that there will be great difficulty to find investors in the share corporation, there will be great difficulty to find investors in the loan fund, and consequently there won't be much action through either one of these vehicles and the whole thing will peter out.

If it doesn't, then what's likely to happen is that there is a risk in terms of investing in businesses. That's what these things are set up for in the first place, I guess. The small businesses are having a difficult time raising the money because the risk is high, and the risk is high because, for example, on average almost one quarter of new businesses will fail within the first year. These are statistics that are well recognized: One quarter of new firms will fail in the first year. It's a sad fact. We would hope they'd all be successful, but many people go in, get involved in a business where they haven't worked out a proper business plan, and many firms will fail.

Almost half of new ventures will go under in the first three years. By the time three years has expired, about half of the businesses have gone bankrupt. After 10 years, only one quarter of new business are still operating.

With those kinds of statistics, the traditional lending institutions -- for example, banks or trust companies -- are naturally somewhat cautious about lending money. I'm certainly not going to defend the banks. I think there's ample evidence that --

Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): I should hope not.

Mr David Johnson: To the member for Durham West, where the new landfill site is going to be located, I agree with him: I'm not going to defend banks, although I must say, since the member's got me into that, that I think over the past half a year or year the banks have been a whole lot more responsive than they were back in the depths of the recession. Maybe that's somewhat understandable --

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr David Johnson: The member for Durham West has some comments, but perhaps he'll speak in rebuttal.

Since he's got me on to this, for example, if you were to take the number of loans through April, May, June and July of 1992 -- I admit this is across Canada -- from banks to small businesses, we are talking about 3,500 loans in 1992 for a four-month period. For that same four-month period this year, the number of loans is 8,500. It's more than doubled to small businesses in the same period.

We are seeing banks being much more responsive. They do understand that most of the new growth in business in Canada is going to be through the small business sector, the kind of sector we're trying to help with Bill 40. Perhaps what these numbers are saying is that events have overtaken Bill 40, and indeed the real concern that the government may have had back a year ago is not at the same level as we're seeing today.

The total lending, I might add, to small businesses in Canada in that four-month period, April to July 1992, was $125 million. This year for the same period it was $439 million. There again we've seen about a tripling, over a tripling, of the loans to small businesses.

How did I get involved in that? There has been concern from the banks that their money is at risk. Many small businesses have had trouble getting loans. So now the government has come forward, saying, "Okay, we'll loan money, but the taxpayers of the province of Ontario will foot the risk." If these small businesses go bankrupt -- and many of them will; within the first year one quarter will fail -- then the taxpayers who stand behind this will have to pay the freight.

What we're looking at here is a cost of $10 million with the loan fund and $20 million with the share corporation, a total risk to the taxpayers of Ontario of $30 million, a $30-million risk. The intent I think is good, to help small businesses, but the taxpayers should realize that this is the risk they're taking.

It's interesting that one of the criteria for the loan fund is that a business must have been rejected by traditional loan institutions. So it must have been rejected by a bank or must have been rejected by a trust company, for example. Only then, only after having been rejected by the private sector, can that small business come to the loan fund set up and guaranteed by the province of Ontario and seek funds for business purposes. That's the kind of risk we're dealing with.

In terms of the need, I've already mentioned that the Canadian Federation of Independent Business says that the real need is to reduce taxes and paperwork. We also had a deputation from Sharwood and Co.

Mr Wiseman: He used to advise Mulroney.

Mr David Johnson: Some of the members on the other side will remember they got into a bit of row with this gentleman because he didn't say exactly what they wanted to hear. He was one of the negative people who brought forward a message that wasn't palatable to some of your colleagues, Mr Minister. His message was, and I quote -- well, first of all I should tell you that Mr Sharwood has 17 years of experience, many of them with the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce: 17 years of experience raising debt and equity for small and medium-sized, rapidly growing entrepreneurial companies. His firm has been involved in the financing of over 100 companies. This is not somebody without experience. This is a person who has been involved in the financing of over 100 small companies.

His message -- I hope this isn't too negative for the member on the other side -- was: "I do not accept the idea that there is a shortage of sources of debt in Ontario. There is not a shortage of sources of debt in Ontario, and I suggest that there is no need for the corporate loan fund corporation." He's not talking about the share corporation, he's talking about the loan fund corporation. He says there's no need for it.

1740

He says if you as an entrepreneur have an idea in the province of Ontario, there are lots of places to go and get money. In particular, what he says is that most people within their own communities will get their dentist, will get a relative -- we're not talking about large amounts of money here, remember. We're not talking about hundreds of thousands of dollars. We're talking about generally less than $15,000.

He says that kind of money is available within communities through business associates, through relatives, within your own neighbourhood, and that's where the money should come from. He also says that we don't really do small business people a favour by loaning them money when they have no stake, they have no investment themselves. If they don't have a proper business plan and they can't maintain the company, then you're not really doing them a favour.

Somebody, I think one of the members, said there are already other programs in place. I'm going to quote from another person who has a negative view and that's the mayor of the city of Thunder Bay. The mayor of the city of Thunder Bay says:

"The existing new ventures program should be reviewed and amended with some of the overall goals in mind, rather than creating yet another new program vehicle. It is possible that the present banking participants in the new ventures program might consider their commitments of administrative time if asked to participate in a similar program."

The mayor of Thunder Bay, I might say, has been extremely involved in economic development. They've been very successful in that particular area.

I think I'm being waved to reduce my time, I suspect.

Interjections.

Mr David Johnson: Is that what it is? All right.

Interjection: You're getting the hook.

Mr David Johnson: I'm getting the hook.

I'll just point out that the mayor of Thunder Bay came before us, another one of these negative people the government is referring to. They have done wondrous things in Thunder Bay with economic development. They've done it through the new ventures program, a program, I might add, that according to its own description, is a program for the province of Ontario.

It says that it's a loan approval, and the person must make a cash investment in the business at least equal to the loan. For example, if you're to receive a $10,000 loan, you must invest $10,000 yourself. But here's a program already in place. It's been used well in Thunder Bay and the mayor of Thunder Bay says, "Why not make good use of a program like that?" That's the kind of thinking we've had.

I know we're cooperating with the government today and I hope it recognizes that. As a result, I've restricted my time. I have many other items from other deputants who came before us that I could comment on, but I'm just perhaps going to mention one more.

This was from a firm called Prince Arthur Consulting Group. They provide financial consulting services to small and midmarket companies. Their view was that the relationship with the bank or loan funds will not work. They say: "No bank will use the services of an experienced, independent business account manager to manage the portfolio of a $500-to-$15,000 business loan. The economics simply do not justify such an approach."

What they're saying will happen is the bank will simply collect, using the guarantee of the province of Ontario. They will not go after the business; they will use taxpayers' dollars. That $10 million that's being put into the loan fund will vanish because the banks will find that much easier to use. Those are some of the comments we've had.

We had a foundation, the Calmeadow Foundation, which has a great deal of experience. This foundation said that the fund would not be sustainable -- in their view, it simply wasn't large enough -- that the collateral system through banks is simply too complicated, and as a consequence they're essentially agreeing with other deputants who have said that this program is far too complicated, there are other programs that could be tailored to accomplish perhaps the same purpose, and they have concerns. They have concerns with the loan fund set up under Bill 40.

I'll restrict my comments to those for the time being and perhaps use the two-minute session at the end to add a few more.

The Acting Speaker: Are there any questions or comments?

Mr Eddy: I just want to comment briefly on some of the remarks made by the member for Don Mills. Certainly we must agree, and do agree, on the concerns about business in the province of Ontario. Businessmen continually ask that taxes be reduced, that paperwork be reduced, that regulations be reduced, that rules be reduced and that restrictions be lifted, because there are far too many.

We in this caucus agree that what must happen in the province of Ontario is to create an atmosphere conducive to doing business and we feel that isn't at the present time. Taxes must reduce. That's an absolute must for businesses to get started and to continue and to grow and develop, because we certainly need business back in Ontario.

I share the member's concern also about just how receptive people are going to be to the fund to invest in it. It's pointed out that certainly the investment is guaranteed, but there's certainly no guaranteed rate of return. That's why I think it's so important to have the pilot project by the city of Burlington, see how it operates and then get their views and suggestions and comments about changes that perhaps should be made.

I'd rather see the pilot project go ahead on some basis without the legislation being passed for all the municipalities, but on the other hand, they need the legislation. So let's see how it works, knowing that there will be, I expect, some requested changes.

The Acting Speaker: Any further questions and/or comments? Seeing none, the member for Don Mills has two minutes to reply.

Mr David Johnson: I thank the member for Brant-Haldimand for his comments and I think his comments are most appropriate. The Progressive Conservative Party has set up a task force that has a rather cumbersome name. It's called Cutting Red Tape and Growing Small Business.

Interjection.

Mr David Johnson: Thank you for your contribution.

This committee is touring through Ontario. I personally am a member of this committee and have gone to a number of meetings. What we're doing is meeting with the particular small businesses across the province of Ontario and saying, "What it is that we need to do through the provincial government to remove the encumbrances from business, to remove all the impediments from business, and how can we help so that you'll be successful, so that you'll grow, so that you'll create jobs, so that you'll contribute?"

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation): Send money.

Mr David Johnson: The Minister of Transportation says, "Send money." You see, there's the difference in philosophy between the government and this party, the Progressive Conservative Party, and the business community. The business community is saying no. The business community says: "No, do not send money. Cut the taxes. Cut the red tape. Cut the regulations."

1750

It's interesting that this bill is called Bill 40. When everybody thinks of Bill 40, what do they think of? They don't think of the economic community fund; they think of the labour bill, Bill 40, which adds more regulations and more support for unions.

That's the kind of thing that the business community says to cut: "Throw that out if you want to help us. Don't send us money. Don't send money to anybody. Just make sure we have a decent playing field free of government red tape and regulations. Then we will be successful. Then you will see us grow and create jobs and contribute to the economy."

The Acting Speaker: Further dabate?

Mr White: I want to thank my colleagues for their comments and for their thoughts in this debate. I'd like to comment briefly that of course this bill is not the be-all and end-all but is simply an opportunity for communities to invest within themselves, a complement to investment and private industry, such as my friend noticed. Of course, we are not going to be guaranteeing profits and returns from programs like the CISCs. The loans themselves are guaranteed, but we are not shoving money on to people. Rather, they are responsible for the repayment of those loans. We are only facilitating, with the creation of those community development corporations, the setting up of the loan funds.

I want particularly to thank my colleagues on the committee and the number of staff people whom I will mention briefly: Tania Melnyk, Larry Clay, Tim Burns, Dale Taylor, Diana Dewar and James Loken of the council. It's been a pleasure working on this particular bill and I hope that communities will be able to make full use of it and be able to invest in themselves.

The Acting Speaker: Mr White has moved third reading of Bill 40. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Be it resolved that the bill be now passed and entitled as in the motion.

REVISED STATUTES CONFIRMATION AND CORRECTIONS ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 CONFIRMANT ET CORRIGEANT LES LOIS REFONDUES

On motion by Mr Huget, on behalf of Ms Boyd, the following bill was given second reading:

Bill 115, An Act to confirm and correct the Statutes of Ontario as revised by the Statute Revision Commissioners / Projet de loi 115, Loi confirmant et corrigeant les Lois de l'Ontario refondues par les commissaires à la refonte des lois.

The bill was also given third reading on motion.

ROYAL ASSENT / SANCTION ROYALE

The Acting Chair (Ms Margaret H. Harrington): I beg to inform the House that in the name of Her Majesty the Queen, His Honour the Lieutenant Governor has been pleased to assent to certain bills in his chambers.

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees (Ms Deborah Deller): The following are the titles of the bills to which His Honour has assented:

Bill 128, An Act to settle The East Parry Sound Board of Education and Teachers Dispute / Loi visant à régler le conflit entre le conseil de l'éducation appelé The East Parry Sound Board of Education et ses enseignants

Bill Pr35, An Act to revive Owen Sound Little Theatre

Bill Pr45, An Act respecting the City of Toronto

Bill Pr47, An Act to revive Cambroco Ventures Inc

Bill Pr48, An Act respecting the City of Toronto

Bill Pr50, An Act respecting the Institute of Municipal Assessors of Ontario

Bill Pr52, An Act respecting the County of Hastings

Bill Pr56, An Act to revive Ottawa Jewish Home for the Aged

Bill Pr57, An Act respecting Children's Oncology Care of Ontario Inc

Bill Pr58, An Act respecting the County of Grey

Bill Pr59, An Act respecting the City of Kingston

Bill Pr61, An Act respecting the City of Toronto

Bill Pr64, An Act respecting York-Durham Heritage Railway Association

Bill Pr65, An Act to revive Region 2, IWA Building Society.

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT (DIMENSIONS AND WEIGHT), 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LE CODE DE LA ROUTE (DIMENSIONS ET POIDS)

Mr Pouliot moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 74, An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act / Projet de loi 74, Loi modifiant le Code de la route.

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation): Bill 74 amends the Highway Traffic Act to bring maximum allowable dimensions of vehicles into line with most other North American jurisdictions. This legislation will allow Ontario's trucking industry to use 16.2-metre semitrailers and 25-metre double trailer combinations.

Today the trucking industry moves more than 70% of Ontario's manufactured goods but it has been handicapped by the province's restriction on vehicle size. To be competitive in our North American market, our manufacturers, shippers and truckers must be able to use the same-size vehicles as their competition. This legislation simply levels the playing field.

I have some very pertinent remarks. What this bill is all about, simply put, is $100 million in terms of competition. It gives us a chance to better control the marketplace, to find our niche.

I could go on and on, and I want to stop at this time by very sincerely thanking the members of the opposition, both the Liberals and the Conservatives, for the opportunity to achieve unanimity. We have, of course, three very small housekeeping amendments, but we will not do this today; we will wait until the opportunity presents itself, for it shall, under the committee.

In view of unanimity, I will move adjournment of the debate.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Margaret H. Harrington): Mr Pouliot has moved adjournment of the debate. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

It being very close to 6 of the clock, I declare this House adjourned until tomorrow at 1:30.

The House adjourned at 1759.

30 novembre 1993