Hansard Transcript 1989-Jan-11 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Mr. Wildman: Now that the provincial Liberal government has thrown in the towel and dropped out of the fight to protect Ontario grape growers and the wine industry from the effects of the agreement negotiated by Canada under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, it must make a commitment to increase the financial compensation package for the province’s grape growers.

Initially, the Premier (Mr. Peterson) said Ontario would not comply with the seven-year schedule for the changes in markups agreed to by the federal Canadian negotiators. He said Ontario would stick to the 12-year phase-in he had promised earlier. Last week, the Premier said Ontario was going to enter into negotiations with the federal government to comply with both GATT and the free trade agreement.

Once again, the Liberals have proved that the rhetoric about opposition to the federal Conservative trade agreement is nothing more than words. The compensation package for the Ontario grape growers was inadequate; it was less than was received by grape growers in British Columbia. Now that the Ontario Liberal government has said it is going to comply with the federal agreement, it must increase the package to be commensurate with what was proposed and received by the British Columbia growers. Otherwise this government has completely abandoned the grape growers and the wine industry.

WASTE MANAGEMENT

Mr. McLean: My statement is for the Premier and the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley). The Premier recently suggested that plans are in the works to set up a garbage authority in conjunction with the greater Metro Toronto area. I understand that this proposal is aimed at creating a co-operative approach to solving the waste disposal crisis in and around Metro Toronto. He has made no formal announcement about this proposed garbage authority. His actions leave everyone with the impression that once again he is trying to bury our garbage problem rather than rolling up his sleeves and finding a solution to this extremely serious problem.

I wish he could have joined me on Monday when I met with pupils of Couchiching Heights public school in Orillia. Their teachers had invited me to discuss waste management and the benefits of recycling. The Premier and his Minister of the Environment would have been amazed at the knowledge these pupils have about recycling and would have been touched by their concern over the garbage crisis we have in Ontario.

I say to the Premier, these pupils could have taught him a great deal about an issue that his government refuses to address. He is showing no leadership. He may not realize that we have a garbage crisis on our hands, but the pupils at Couchiching Heights school certainly do. Please do not leave these pupils with the legacy of garbage. Rather than setting up one more group to study the garbage issue, we need action and we need it now.

NATIONAL NONSMOKING WEEK

Mr. Dietsch: Tomorrow, January 12, starts National Nonsmoking Week. This year’s theme is children and smoking. In my riding of St. Catharines-Brock, the Ministry of Health provided $17,200 to the regional Niagara health services department which is using the funds to reduce smoking in the workplace and promote healthier lifestyles among children.

The Niagara Interagency Council on Smoking and Health, which comprises the Addiction Research Foundation, the Canadian Cancer Society, the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Ontario, the Niagara region and regional Niagara health services department, has co-ordinated kits, exercises, videotapes, buttons and posters for kindergarten to grade 12. These items deal with such things as the medical risks of smoking, resisting peer pressure and the effects of secondhand smoke.

Grade 1 students now are the symbolic ambassadors to the smoke-free society when they graduate in the year 2000. With the great amount of medical evidence that exists against smoking, such as addiction, lung cancer and foetal complications, I would like to give my wholehearted support to the ambassadors of the smoke-free class of 2000 and encourage all members of this House to assist in the public campaign against smoking, especially with children. After all, if we can stop it before it starts, we will all enjoy the benefits of a healthy and smoke-free environment.

ACCESS TO SCHOOLS FOR CHILDREN OF REFUGEES

Mr. R. F. Johnston: In the news this morning, there were headlines indicating that the York Region Board of Education was refusing education to 100 refugee children. It is an incredible situation in this province that a board would flout the law which requires the public board to give education to those who require it who are under the age of majority.

While it is true that the government does not as yet recognize the extra costs of providing education to refugee children and boards feel as if they are being stiffed, there is nothing new in this. The boards have been stiffed by this government and the past government for a long time on a number of issues around education funding.

My own board in Scarborough met this crisis several times this year as refugee families came into the community and new teachers had to be found from an ever-dwindling stock of ready teachers. They did find the money, even though they rightfully feel it is not fair for them to be carrying the entire burden of the cost, as they are.

I therefore call upon the government to initiate some spending in this area to recognize the real costs to these families who are going through enough travails as it is without having to have to worry about being kept out of school at this point, coming from very unpeaceful situations to wondering why they cannot send their kids to our schools in peace now.

Mr. Cousens: I would like to comment on the recent action by the York Region Board of Education to exclude immigrant children from classes. This is an unfortunate situation, but what is truly regrettable is that it was almost inevitable.

School boards in Metro and greater Metropolitan Toronto are desperately trying to cope with a huge influx of new children. New provisions to Bill 69, An Act to amend the Education Act, will include children of refugee claimants to be freely admitted into our school system. This is a welcome move. But realistically, how can we expect our school boards to manage their overwhelming student populations without adequate funding from the province? These children require special classes to teach them English. They require special attention to help them adapt. This takes more teachers, more textbooks, more services. This takes more money.

Even with our existing student population, the classrooms of York region and surrounding areas are overflowing. Our children sit in portables. They have rotating lunch hours. They wait for the completion of new schools. I do not doubt that the Minister of Education (Mr. Ward) shares these concerns. I also do not doubt that during such prosperous times he can manage to assist York region in this time of need.

Our children are our future and I, for one, am greatly concerned for the children of York region and across Metro Toronto who are in need of the board’s assistance. I say to this government, we have an obligation to the children of Ontario, to the children here now in our jurisdiction.

1340

RAIL SERVICES

Mr. Tatham: The Toronto Star, December 3, 1988: “Land Prices for Housing Triple in Three Years.”

“Harriet Stanley, finance expert for the High-Speed Rail Association, says, “I’ve worked on or been exposed to every high-speed rail system proposed in this country, and the expense for each one is not land or construction, but financing.”

The 100th United States Congress recently passed legislation permitting tax-free bonds to be sold to finance high-speed rail projects.

Florida’s Legislature created a high-speed rail commission in 1984. Rail proponents want to link Tampa, Orlando and Miami. The Legislature wants to award a franchise in September 1991, with the hope that trains will be running by 1995. The state has added real estate development rights around each station. With about 800 people moving to Florida every day, rail proponents contend that real estate development along a rail line could produce profits high enough to offset the losses of building the train.

Again, according to a December 3, 1988, story in the Toronto Star: “Land Prices for Housing Triple in Three Years.” You know, Florida might have a good idea.

TRANSIT SERVICES

Mr Breaugh: I just want to invite the entire cabinet to come out with me some morning next week to the GO rail station in Whitby. I want to remind them to bring the cars and the limousines because there is not any place to park. I want them to see what it is like about 7:30 in the morning when the herds roll in and try to get on that system.

I want them to see -- those of them who are interested -- accessing of buildings for the handicapped. I want them to come and see what the handicapped would have to go through to get on a GO train.

I invite the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) to come out. Even though he does not have a visible handicap, I would like to see him waddle up and down the stairs at that train station in Whitby and see what kind of shape he is in when I push him on the GO train.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

ACCESS TO SCHOOLS FOR CHILDREN OF REFUGEES

Hon. Mr. Ward: Recent developments within the York Region Board of Education have raised serious and fundamental questions concerning the rights of access to the elementary and secondary schools of Ontario for the children of refugees.

It has been widely reported that the board has indicated its intention to refuse to permit the children of some refugees or refugee claimants residing within its jurisdiction to attend school.

I have obtained a legal interpretation of the Education Act as it deals with this matter, and I wish to state clearly and unequivocally the policy of the government of Ontario.

The children of any refugee or refugee claimants who reside in Ontario are entitled to attend school in the jurisdiction where they live. This morning officials of my ministry contacted the York Region Board of Education to explain to the board its obligations under the laws of this province. Today my ministry will remind all boards in the province of this responsibility.

I am confident that this matter will be resolved, that the board will conform to the provincial policy as I have stated it and that the children in question will be provided with the access to our schools to which they are legally entitled.

This issue, as raised, is one of accessibility rather than of fees related to the education of refugees. I wish to point out, however, that during the debate on Bill 69 I will be introducing an amendment, which I believe has already been circulated, which further clarifies our existing policy that the children of refugees or refugee claimants may attend school without payment of fees.

RECREATIONAL FACILITIES

Hon. Mr. O’Neil: I am delighted to stand in the House today to announce phase I of the new recreation facilities and capital conservation programs for the 1989-90 fiscal year.

As all members are aware, these lottery-funded programs of the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation help to build and upgrade recreation facilities in municipalities throughout Ontario. As a result, more citizens across the province are encouraged to adopt healthy lifestyles through fitness, sports and recreation activities.

The first phase of this program, for 1989-90, totals nearly $21 million and will be announced over the next few weeks. The timing of these announcements, in advance of our new fiscal year, will assist municipalities and client groups to move ahead with their budgeting plans. It will also allow them to take full advantage of what are often limited building seasons.

Recreation facilities are the focal point of activity in many communities across the province. By helping to improve them, we are broadening recreational opportunities for all. This government is committed to the continued development of Ontario’s excellent recreation system, a system which helps to build strong, healthy bodies and strong and healthy communities.

RESPONSES

ACCESS TO SCHOOLS FOR CHILDREN OF REFUGEES

Mr. R. F. Johnston: If I can place my tongue in my cheek for a second, I would say that is the quickest response to a member’s statement I have ever seen, but I realize that the minister has in fact already made comment on the issue of the refugee children being refused access to the schools in the York system already.

I am pleased with his statement and his tough response. I think all of us understood, without going for a legal opinion, that the Education Act is fairly specific about the obligations of public boards. It is unfortunate that a board would, at this stage, make these refugee children the pawns in a dispute with the ministry, which is what I essentially see this as being.

The minister and members of this House will know that while the select committee on education was sitting this summer, boards from Metropolitan Toronto came before us to show us the staggering figures of thousands and thousands of unexpected children in their systems, refugee children they were having to accommodate at incredible extra expense.

We are not just talking about an additional teacher for 20 or 30 students. We are also talking about ancillary costs: English-as-a-second-language assistance, various kinds of socialization assistance for people coming from various other countries and a lot of other kinds of support to kids who come from very psychologically damaging backgrounds because of the dangerous situations which they have been fleeing.

At this point, the government has not recognized, either in its amendments to Bill 69, which the minister is touting, or in other actions, that there are these kinds of costs and that the boards of education of this province should not be expected to carry the full cost of educating these children and giving them the ancillary services they need. That is what the boards of Ontario need to hear from this ministry, that there is in fact a program from this government to give them the kind of assistance they need, to make sure that these children will get the kind of education they warrant, as any other child in this province does.

I would hope that in the next little while the minister will respond, not just with the tough-minded approach he has today in terms of saying it is their responsibility, which it is, but in some way to deal with this issue which is going to be ours for the next number of years, even with this new immigration law that has been brought in. We, as a province, have a special responsibility to carry those kinds of costs and not to throw them on to the local taxpayer.

Mr. Cousens: In responding to the comments made by the Minister of Education (Mr. Ward), I think there are several things that have to be made very clear about what is happening, first of all in York region and then throughout the province.

The York Region Board of Education presently has a strike on its hands, with the janitorial and caretaker staff out. Although the board is anxious to respond to the needs of refugee claimants’ children who are within the area, the surge of new people who have come into the riding during the Christmas season has certainly posed certain pressures on that board which I think go beyond the general norm that we have.

When the minister comes along and says he is bringing in a new bill, Bill 69, that will solve the problem, it does not face up to the fact that there is an existing problem there right now, a problem in fact that these are claimants’ children. They are in the province, they are in the country and they really have no status beyond that which is coming before the courts. Yet we have people coming into our area, living in portables, not having schools and sorting them out without the kind of funding and support from the province to really provide for an educational system that they need, want, demand and can expect.

1350

I have to tell the honourable minister that we all share a concern about the needs of children coming into our province. I think there should also be some backing up of the funds required by the board to provide these services. I know that the York Region Board of Education is anxious to fulfil that responsibility. I just wish that the honourable minister would fulfil his responsibility to help them provide the services that they need. This is a very serious consideration. We have to start with the needs that exist within growing communities, and the needs of our immigrants and new Canadians who are coming into this country.

It is obvious that everybody keeps trying to pass the buck. I think we want to do the very best for all people in this province when they are here. It is obvious that the province is in part responsible for this problem by not having clearer guidelines. The fact that the minister has to go out and start directing boards to do certain things which he says are clear -- he would not have to do that if everything were as clear-cut as he says it was. He would not have to be as sincere in his statement if in fact the ministry was funding the kind of education that we have come to expect in this province. It is a serious problem and I just hope that we are not going to be faced with this one again as we have in several other areas in this government.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

RECREATIONAL FACILITIES

Mr. McLean: I just wanted to respond briefly on the statement made by the Minister of Tourism and Recreation (Mr. O’Neil). While I welcome the statement, I know that there are many municipalities that would be interested to know what his second phase allotment will be, and his third phase. I presume there are four phases to this program. They would be pleased to know that there will be probably $21 million allotted for each phase.

I would be interested, as would be the municipalities across this province, in the minister’s reaction with regards to Bill 119 and how he is going to fight to retain the funds for these communities. The $21 million in this announcement are welcome and I just anticipate that the minister will continue on another three announcements of the same amount.

INNOVATION CENTRE

Mr. Sterling: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: Last Wednesday I asked the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr. Kwinter) a question in relation to the McPherson report. This is a report dealing with the closing of innovation centres in Ontario. I followed that up with a request from my office to his office for a copy of that report. It is my understanding from the standing orders that a minister has the right to refuse to answer your question. Under the letter which I received from his legislative assistant today, he is agreeing to give me the information if I pay to him $40.60.

Mr. Speaker, is it to be my understanding that a minister now has the option to charge me for an answer?

Mr. Speaker: I appreciate the member’s point of order. The only thing I can take out of that point of order is whether the minister really has to respond to the question. The Speaker has no authority to make a minister respond. However, I believe the member has made his point very clear to the minister.

ORAL QUESTIONS

NURSING SERVICES

Mr. B. Rae: The Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan) is not here today. Presumably the Premier (Mr. Peterson) is going to refer the question to her parliamentary assistant, the member for Kingston and The Islands (Mr. Keyes), but perhaps he will answer the question today.

He will know, because of his own constituency, that the problem the minister has referred to as a “Toronto problem” is not really a Toronto problem. I am sure he realizes that in fact the average waiting time for open-heart surgery at Victoria Hospital in London is six months, and can be as long as 15 months. The waiting list in October was 205. As of December, the waiting list at that hospital was nearly 230. So we have seen an increase in the waiting list in the last three months.

This is a crisis affecting citizens across the province. It is not simply a Toronto problem, it is an Ontario problem and it is one which the Premier, as the leader of this province, has to address.

Mr. Speaker: Do you have a question?

Mr. B. Rae: I want to ask the Premier very directly, is it still the official position of his government that he will not, and his government will not encourage the Ontario Hospital Association to reopen the collective agreement with nurses and reach an agreement which will ensure that we will, in fact, have enough cardiac care nurses?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: With respect to the question, my honourable friend opposite understands the sanctity of collective agreements. I have heard him on many, many occasions argue that is the paramount social priority for this province, yet he has a different view on this matter today. I understand that, but I thought the discrepancy should be pointed out.

I should say that the ministry officials met yesterday with the OHA. I understand they are meeting next week with the Ontario Nurses’ Association. There are a number of issues involved, as my honourable friend knows. The pay issue is not the key issue, but there are a number of other issues involved, as well.

The minister announced prior to Christmas -- indeed there is a meeting tomorrow with the deputy and the OHA with respect to regulations concerning the role of nurses in the hospitals. So there are a number of issues that are being addressed. I think my honourable friend, and I recognize there is a problem, knows that the minister is persuading the groups to get together to examine all the issues involved herein.

Mr. B. Rae: I do not know how the Premier can say that the problem of money is not critical when we know there are literally hundreds of nurses who have voted with their feet in the critical care field and have gone to work for agencies.

The hospitals are saying, “We are not going to pay the agencies the $25 to $30 or more that they are asking to get cardiac care nurses to work.” I do not know how the Premier can stand up and say that the problem of wages and money is not one of the critical issues. It is obviously a critical issue. It is critical to the ONA, which has asked that the collective agreement be reopened.

I wonder if the Premier would not agree that human life is what is involved here, that protecting and saving lives is what is involved here and that that indeed is the most important issue. That is what the issue is about and that is why it is important that the collective agreement be reopened by the employer in order that we can inject more money where it is needed in order to save lives. That is what is at stake right now.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I agree with m honourable friend’s interpretation about the fundamental issue. I think what I said is, and he can check the record, that money is not the critical issue. The critical issue, obviously, is people’s lives and proper health care. We have to address those. There are a number of other things -- working conditions, professional relationships and other things, as well. The minister is sitting down, through the ministry officials, with the OHA and ONA to try to persuade them to come to an agreement on these matters.

Mr. B. Rae: Just so the Premier will know, we have waiting lists of as long as five or six months in Hamilton at the Hamilton Civic Hospitals. We have waiting lists of over 200 at the Ottawa Civic Hospital, the Heart Institute in Ottawa. We have the waiting lists that I have described at the Victoria Hospital. At University Hospital we have a waiting list of nearly 100 and a waiting time of four months, but it can be as much as seven or eight months.

This is not an issue or a problem that is going to go away, nor is it a problem confined to Metropolitan Toronto, nor is it an issue which one should be looking at from a technical perspective. The minister has not even met with the OHA or ONA. She is leaving it all to her staff. The Premier has not met with these people on this critical question.

I want to ask the Premier, is the government of Ontario prepared to announce today that he will meet directly with ONA and with the OHA and that he is prepared to play a role in seeing that enough money is provided for nurses that they will stay on staff at our hospitals, they will be paid, they will be treated and they will be seen as the critical foundation of our health care system when it comes to our institutions? Is the Premier prepared to do that now -- yes or no?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I believe I already have a meeting in my diary with the ONA. I am happy to sit down and discuss these matters with them. That was some time ago.

But my honourable friend talks about Ottawa Civic, and in anticipation of these problems, my honourable friend is right. There are far more pressures on the system than there were in the past with respect to cardiac surgery. We know the reasons why. In an ageing population, the average age of people getting bypasses is becoming older.

There are, as the member knows, other issues involved here, not just cardiac surgery but other alternatives to that as well. The utilization and the effective use of the existing facilities; all of those are issues here. We are searching for solutions in conjunction with the other partners who are delivering these very important services.

In anticipation of this, the minister some time ago announced an expansion of Ottawa Civic. New beds are being added there. The member mentioned Hamilton Civic. As part of the redevelopment, there is a doubling of the critical care beds to increase the case load there, which will be in operation in mid-February. There is action in these areas.

Mr. B. Rae: One cannot perform operations without nurses. One day this government will wake up to that fact.

1400

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Mr. B. Rae: My new question is to the Minister of Housing. Last June, when the Premier (Mr. Peterson) and I had an exchange on escalating housing prices, he said that the heat had gone out of the market. He said that the facts on house prices said there was “a downward trend.” More than a year before that, the Premier’s colleague the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) said on May 1, again in answer to questions from me, “There is every indication that the soaring price of houses has reached its peak and the pressures are subsiding somewhat.”

These are great predictors that the minister has as colleagues. We now know that the average price for a resale home in Metropolitan Toronto -- including, I might add, Mississauga, Pickering and the southern portion of York region -- was more than $250,000, which is a 30 per cent increase from the December 1987 price, and a nearly 60 per cent increase from the December 1986 average price. You would need to have a family income of over $92,000 to be able to afford a house in Metropolitan Toronto.

I want to ask the minister this simple question: She said people can get an affordable house at around $150,000 but they have to go rather further afield than they are going right now. Is she in fact not admitting that one cannot find an affordable house for sale in Metropolitan Toronto? Is that not what she is admitting?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: It is because of the increase in prices of housing in this province, in particular in this area, that a large number of people who used to be able to afford to buy their own homes are finding it very difficult. That is something that all of us understand.

[Applause]

Hon. Ms. Hošek: I am glad the members of the opposition agree with me.

That is the reason this government has put forward measures to increase the supply of housing which people of moderate income can afford. We have made it very clear that we expect all municipalities in the areas of high growth and high pressure to take their role and their responsibility in this matter. We have said through our policy statement that we expect every municipality in this area to make sure that at least one quarter of the new housing that gets built in this province is targeted to people of low and moderate income.

The significant issue here is to increase the supply of housing that is available to people of moderate income. The only way it will be done is when all of us work together and when the rules for building, the options for the kinds of building, the use of land and intensification are expanded to make it possible --

Mr. Speaker: Thank you.

Mr. B. Rae: I was interested in her homily. I always feel like a student in one of the minister’s classes, sitting far at the back, I might add, and not doing terribly well, as she tries to explain patiently. I am sure the entire population feels the same way as it listens to the minister’s explanations. If she is so committed and her government is so committed to the supply of affordable housing, I would like her to answer this simple question.

When the ministry itself underspent its approved budget in 1986-87 and 1987-88 -- in other words, the two previous years to this one -- by nearly $100 million, why would the government think it has any particular credibility with the federal government or municipal governments or people who are waiting for housing or anybody else when it has not spent that money and has not added that money to the current budget to make sure that the government of Ontario spends the money that has been allocated to housing by two different budgets? They had underspent it by nearly $100 million.

Hon. Ms. Hošek: The spending of this government on social housing since it has come into power has doubled, from $180 million to $360 million a year. That is an unprecedented growth. There are a number of things that we are doing to increase people’s options in housing in this province, and I challenge the member opposite to find any government in Canada that has done more, ever, than this government has done on housing. I challenge him to do that.

This government has made it very clear that we expect people to have choices in housing through building affordable housing, through intensification, through our Ontario home ownership savings plan, through working with the office for the greater Toronto area to make sure that there are greater choices for people; we have done a variety of things and we are doing more. We are using our government land to make sure that there is affordable housing for people in this province.

I think that this government has shown very clearly, through its actions and its words, its commitment to these things, and I must say that perhaps the Leader of the Opposition always did sit in the back row of the classrooms which he graced.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. B. Rae: In response to a question from one of her own colleagues yesterday, the minister said her magic solution to the problem that this government is having with the federal government on the question of its $90-million contribution to the affordable housing-nonprofit housing crunch is to suggest to the federal government that it should take money and units out of its 1989 allocation and put them into 1988.

Again I apologize if I do not have this right, but they have underspent by $100 million and they are doing better than anybody else ever did, ever in the world ever, according to the minister. I would like to ask the minister, and it is what she said: To save 1,300 units in 1988, can she explain why she is in effect prepared to sacrifice 3,800 units in 1989? That is what she suggested in response to questions from one of her colleagues. She is going to actually reduce the amount of the federal --

Mr. Speaker: The question has been asked.

Hon. Ms. Hošek: I am not prepared to sacrifice any units. The one thing that I was saying to the federal minister yesterday was that the only way we could get the units that are ready to go right now built as quickly as possible was for him to change his rules and allow that money to be spent out of the 1989 allocation.

I also said that the loss of units that would represent, unless the federal government did what I have asked it to do repeatedly, which is to keep up with the pressure in this province and to make its commitment firm -- it has said in the past that it will build about 6,900 units in this province, together with us. I am asking them to hold to that commitment at the very least, which seems to me to be very modest indeed, given the pressures in this province.

Our commitment is very firm both to work with the federal government and to use all our resources in balance with the federal government and to go beyond it with our unilateral programs in this province to increase the supply of affordable housing and to increase nonprofit housing.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. New question, the member for Nipissing.

1410

Mr. Harris: I still do not know how the minister cries at the feds when, two years in a row, she has turned money back in to the richest Treasurer in the history of the country.

Notwithstanding the fact that the minister’s definition yesterday of affordable housing at $150,000 was substantially different from her government’s definition of affordable housing, which sets the limit at $133,000, yesterday the minister indicated to the media that affordable housing was available in Metropolitan Toronto, using her wrong definition presumably.

On the radio this morning, Robert Holiday indicated that he has searched the city long, far and wide, and the only house that he found that met the minister’s wrong definition was 13 feet wide and had four rooms, including the bathroom.

If the minister knows where to find affordable housing in Toronto, I suggest it is truly one of the best-kept secrets in all of Metropolitan Toronto. My question simply is this: Can the minister identify this mysterious one house, even one house, that meets the definition in Metro Toronto?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: The issue is the increasing of supply of affordable housing in this province, and I want to give a very full answer to that question. We have said very clearly that we define a house as affordable when it is available to people up to the 60th percentile, spending no more than 30 per cent of their gross income on housing cost. That would mean a $133,000 house for people with about $47,500 in gross income.

There are houses of that sort available in the outlying regions. What I have said very clearly is that our task is to make sure there is more choice. Of course, there are not enough houses for people who have modest incomes. That is the problem we have clearly identified together. I am surprised that anyone is surprised at that. We know that. That is the reason we are doing the work we are doing, to make sure that municipalities work with us and with the private sector to develop options for housing for people of moderate income.

That is the reason we have done what I think is really unusual. We have made a commitment about a land use policy based on social needs. We have said that we expect municipalities to work with us to make it possible for housing --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Harris: The issue really is whether the minister is so out of touch with what is happening, even in her home municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, that she does not even know what is affordable housing any more. Yesterday, the minister said $150,000. Holiday went on that figure. He found one at $150,000. He was not able to find anything under her own ministry definition of $133,000.

I am not the only one to receive calls today on this. I suggest to the minister that there are probably a lot of people tuned in today waiting right here and now in question period to hear the minister reveal where this mystery house is. The minister cannot identify one.

Let’s say that we disagree, if the minister likes. She disagrees with everybody else in the province.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Would you place your supplementary?

Mr. Harris: Let’s say for the moment that we disagree on that. Will the minister today agree on one simple fact: that is, that as scarce as it is, whether there is one, none or two, increasing the lot levies will indeed make affordable housing more scarce, more difficult to find, a bigger problem in this province?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: Mr. Speaker, I hope you will indulge me because I want to give a full and complete answer to this question.

This government has indicated very clearly its commitment to increasing affordable housing in this province for people of moderate income. One of the clear goals of the paper that was released about the infrastructure costs associated with high-growth areas indicated that that was one of our major commitments and that we are trying to balance the need for affordable housing with the need for services for those houses.

I am not prepared to have the housing in this province which is affordable have to deal with services of the sort that the supermailboxes are in this country. I know the member opposite feels perfectly comfortable with supermailboxes because it is his party that introduced them into Canada, but I am not prepared to have that level of service available to the people who live in this province.

Let me just ask the member opposite for a comment on this whole topic. The previous critic on this topic said in the standing committee on general government on December 8, 1988:

“Lot levies are a subject I could spend an awful lot of time on.... On the one hand, you have the school boards craving, starving; they are just dying for more money. As a trustee when I was chairman of our school board in York region, I supported that. We came down and tried to get it from some of your predecessors and we did not win it then. What are your plans now?”

This government is committed to balancing the needs of people for housing and also for other services. I would like to know --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I would like to remind all members that I would like as many members as possible to have the opportunity to ask questions. You will note the time on the clock.

Mr. Harris: You won’t let me answer.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you very much. For the information of the member for Nipissing, his first question took 90 seconds; the response was 90 seconds. The second question took 100 seconds; the response took 110 seconds. So I hope we can keep it a little shorter.

Mr. Harris: In response to the minister’s question, there will come a time in two, three or perhaps four years when I will be in a position to answer questions and I will be glad to do so in this House.

The minister quoted from other documents today. I would like to quote from a document as well. The Premier may want to listen to this as he contemplates his cabinet shuffle. This document is from the resident Ontario Fisheries Advisory Council. They made a request to the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio) to allow and have the ministry allow the imposition of a lot levy to allow for intervention on environmental impacts of new subdivisions.

The minister said, “I am reluctant to suggest my government will impose a levy on developers which will serve to escalate even further the price of housing in this province.” That is in his report that I got. He cares. He has shown some concern for housing. Is the Minister of Natural Resources wrong too? Can the minister explain to this House why even the Minister of Natural Resources, for a small amount --

Mr Speaker: Order

Mr Harris: -- for environmental purposes, is fighting for affordable housing in this province while she is not?

Mr. Speaker: Would the member for Nipissing show a little more respect?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: I reject categorically the suggestion of the member opposite that I am not fighting for affordable housing. Let me ask him the question. it seems to me he has been too busy with his leadership plans to answer a question on lot levies.

It is perfectly clear to me and I think to a lot of people in this province the work that this government has been doing to increase people’s options in housing. Let me remind the member of that since he seems to lose track of it as we go along.

1420

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Do you wish to answer? I would remind all members the tradition is to present their comments through the chair.

Hon. Ms. Hošek: The commitment that this government and I and this ministry have made to increasing people’s choices in housing is very clear. A little bit earlier, the member opposite indicated that he thought I was out of touch with what was happening to people in this province. Let me point out to the member that I have visited the places where people who have no homes at all have to live and I have visited the buildings on Huron Street and Shuter Street where we have made a difference. I have worked with the people who work as community activists to give people more choices than they currently have.

I am proud of what we have been able to do, though I know it is not yet enough. I think the work we are doing is extremely significant. It is the most responsive that we can possibly be to the work people in the community are also doing to increase options for people who are homeless and to people who have very few housing choices in this province. The work that we are doing is there to be seen in all the projects that we are working on and all the ones that have been opened. I would be delighted to take the member with me --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Thank you.

NURSING SERVICES

Mr. Brandt: My question is for the Premier in the absence of the Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan). The question relates to the nursing shortage in our province. I am sure the Premier is aware that as a result of limitations placed on hospital budgets, certain cutbacks have occurred with hospitals, not only bed closings but certain staff reductions. As a result of those cutbacks, what has happened is that many nurses who work in those hospitals are required to take on jobs that are normally filled by orderlies, secretaries and receptionists.

In fact, the Goldfarb report, which was released last year, indicated very clearly that 30 per cent of a nurse’s job is taken up doing the nonessential or essential services related to nursing but not directly related to a nurse’s professional training. Will the Premier endorse the findings of the Goldfarb report which indicate that to stop the outflow of nurses who are now leaving the system, one of the ways to keep those nurses in the system is to have them do the jobs they were professionally trained to do?

Mr. Speaker: Thank you.

Mr. Brandt: Will the Premier endorse the findings of the Goldfarb report? It is a simple question.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I think my honourable friend puts his finger on one of the problems involved in the nursing shortage, and that is the professional role they play, the role inside the hospital and other matters. I disagreed with my friend opposite when he perhaps gave the impression that it was just a matter of money. There are many issues involved here.

That is a question for the Ontario Hospital Association and the Ontario Nurses’ Association to work out. As I told the House a little earlier, there are meetings going on with the support of the ministry to try to bring those groups together and solve those kinds of problems. Yes indeed, we are encouraging them to be addressed.

Mr. Brandt: Well, simply to ask the OHA and the ONA to get together is not going to solve the problem. There are some 1,400 nursing shortages in the Metro area alone. Fully seven per cent of the entire required complement of nurses in the Metro area has gone unfulfilled as a result of nurses leaving the profession at a rate which is quite frightening.

As a matter of fact, over the next 10 years it is anticipated, according to the projections of the nursing association, that some 6,000 nurses will leave the profession -- that is, double the number who would graduate in any one year from nursing schools -- at a cost of about $28,000 per nurse to train and prepare someone to fill those positions.

Can the Premier not sit down with the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) and take a look at some realistic projections on what we are losing on the one hand, namely, a projected $168 million --

Mr. Speaker: The question?

Interjection.

Mr. Brandt: I have to tell the member I am not talking about spending money; I am talking about saving money, about projections in terms of saving money and injecting some of that money into the hospital system so that we will not continually demand that nurses do non-nursing jobs.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I recognize that there are, shall we say, administrative irregularities. I think one could argue that perhaps all professionals, as nurses are, end up doing some things that are not directly related to their professional training. I am sure that a party leader would find the same situation, and doctors and others do administrative work.

I do not diminish the point of my friend opposite, but let me say that the allocation to the Ministry of Health as announced by the Treasurer this year was an 8.1 per cent increase, a very large increase, the largest in the budget, a $440-million increase. Over the last three years, health care has been funded at far beyond the rate of inflation and has been the largest expenditure, I believe, in our provincial budgets the last two or three years.

One cannot stand in this House and suggest there are any cutbacks. There are no cutbacks. This is a massive amount of funding. It is now $13 billion or so. It is a third of the provincial budget. What we are doing is working with the providers to make sure that we are providing the best medical care possible in a way that the people of this province are comfortable with and can afford. We stand four-square for an accessible, quality system and we are working with the providers to provide that.

Mr. Brandt: I do not want to suggest to the Premier that there have been cutbacks in funding. I do want to suggest that there have been very significant and critical cutbacks in service and the quality of health service in this province. I will mention one area where there have not been any cutbacks, and I say this for the informed information of the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley) who continually talks about where we want to spend money. I will say where we in this party would cut money out of the budget.

Over the last three years, 1986 to 1988, there has been a growth of 577 new people in the Ministry of Health, in the bureaucracy, not in hospitals: not nurses, not people on the front lines of delivering health care in this province but people who are in the bureaucracy. Does the Premier find that is the priority of the government, to put almost 600 people in that category as opposed to putting those people in an area where they could deliver a better quality of health care to the people of Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: As I understand it, we have undertaken a large number of new programs in the Ministry of Health which respond to some of the new problems and priorities, acquired immune deficiency syndrome and other things, as well as in our psychiatric hospitals, where we had some major problems.

We do not hire a bureaucracy for the sake of having a bureaucracy, but in some areas -- and I say this without any apologies to my honourable friend opposite -- we have increased the staffing; in the Ministry of the Environment, for example, which is very important for this government and I know was not important to the member when he was the minister. We have done so with young offenders and to deal with some of our new responsibilities and we will continue to do so.

I say to my honourable friend that we have continued to fill those responsibilities. We need good people to do so and we have those good people.

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

Mr. Laughren: I have a question for the Minister of Labour on Ontario’s incredible Workers’ Compensation Board. The minister should know that a constituent of mine, André Petitclerc, in October 1988, was awarded benefits for chronic pain and a permanent partial disability pension by the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Tribunal, using the board’s criteria for chronic pain.

He won the award but, in January 1989, the Sudbury office of the Workers’ Compensation Board overruled WCAT, despite the fact that WCAT had used the board’s criteria for chronic pain. How does the minister justify that ridiculous policy of the board of continuing to stick it to injured workers when they have won an award through WCAT?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I will tell the member for Nickel Belt that I am not familiar with the details of that case, but a regional office or the head office of the Workers’ Compensation Board does not have the authority to overrule a decision of the WCAT. A decision of the WCAT under the act can be reconsidered only under section 86n of the act. There has been some controversy over section 86n, and it is one of the things that we are going to examine as we proceed with the green paper exercise.

If the member wants to send me more details of the case, I can put the matter before the board and give him a more complete answer.

1430

Mr. Laughren: The minister knows full well that this is a policy question. It is a problem caused by section 86n. The problem would have been resolved if he would have listened to my leader on his private bill, Bill 195, which would simply have repealed section 86n of the act.

What I am asking the minister is, will he intervene to make sure that there is an end once and for all to the WCB and its regional offices overruling WCAT when WCAT uses all of the criteria established by the board itself? Does he take the same perverse delight as the board does in sticking it to injured workers?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I just want to reiterate to my friend the member for Nickel Belt that when he suggests that a regional office in Sudbury overturned a decision of WCAT, he is not setting the facts of the case squarely before this House. That is not the case; there is no authority in the act to do that. The only circumstances under which a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Tribunal can be reviewed or reconsidered or sent back is through the exercise of the authority of the corporate board, operating under section 86n.

I am very familiar with the terms of the bill the member’s leader presented to this House. I want to tell my friend the member for Nickel Belt simply that this is an issue. But when the leader of the opposition party at one time says to this House we must have full and thorough hearings on a bill reforming part of the Workers’ Compensation Act, and then on another day, with another breath, says we should pass a bill in one day without any hearings or any consideration, I simply tell him he cannot have it both ways.

Mr. Laughren: Go ahead; keep sticking it to the workers.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Laughren: Keep sticking it to the most vulnerable people out there, the injured workers.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member for Nickel Belt has asked his question.

SKILLS TRAINING

Mrs. Cunningham: My question is for the Minister of Skills Development. Can he tell the House how many people have participated during the fiscal year in training or retraining programs administered by his ministry?

Hon. Mr. Curling: Thousands and thousands and thousands of people participated in my programs. The Futures program, a highly successful program, had about 37,000 people pass through it. The Transitions program, again, had an active role of participants there. There are also Ontario Basic Skills and the literacy program. I could say there are thousands of people who participated in the programs administered by the Ministry of Skills Development.

Mrs. Cunningham: We are trying to be more specific in this party as we try to respond to the public with these kinds of questions.

We are looking at a budget of some $232 million that will be spent on skills retraining programs by this government this year. We are looking at 45,000 apprenticeship spots, some 1,700 in Transitions and another 4,000 in Trades Updating -- we have excluded the literacy programs from that number -- for over 50,000 training spots.

If we take a look at those numbers and consider that, really, these are administrative costs, we are spending some $4,000 per training spot in Ontario for skills retraining within this province. My question to the minister is this: With a budget of $232 million and an administrative cost of some $4,000 per person, which we think is exorbitantly high, why is he not providing for more training places, apprenticeship programs to be specific, within his existing budget?

Hon. Mr. Curling: The honourable member identifies the problem we have in Ontario, that there is a need for more trained people -- more journeymen, more apprentices. We do not expect, if the honourable member expects, that the government alone will address all those problems. That is not the approach we take in this government.

This government and this minister use those funds in order to access and to facilitate the private sector to participate in training. We use our funds also in the literacy program for the community literacy groups, and through the private sector to assist us in combating the high rate of functional illiteracy that we have in the adult population here.

I, for one, would not stand up to say that the money we have would solve the entire problem of training all the trained people we need in this province. Neither would I feel that the amount of money spent on literacy would arrest the high rate of functional illiteracy. But I am confident that with the co-operation of the labour unions, the private sector and the members of the opposition, we can see our province move forward with a trained workforce and a literate society.

REGULATORY PROCESS

Mr. Fleet: My question is for the Chairman of the Management Board of Cabinet. The minister is responsible for the administration of one of this government’s hallmarks of reform in open government, namely the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

That act is very similar in philosophy to views outlined in the regulatory reform report. As he is aware, the report urges a reform of Ontario’s regulatory system, with 44 recommendations based on three fundamental principles: improved public accessibility to regulations, fair public participation in making regulations and more effective legislative scrutiny. Does the minister perceive any conflict between the principles of the regulatory reform report and the principles of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act?

Hon. Mr. Elston: I thank the honourable member for the question. Without presuming to have enough time to do a thorough analysis of both the report and the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, let me just say off the top that I do not perceive a conflict between the principles of the two reports.

Our government has stood quite clearly for increased accessibility to the process of government, which means increased accessibility to information, and as a result, increased awareness of how the process of government takes place, how decision-making takes place. It really invites those people to be participants in that process.

As I understand the report and the thrust of the report from the committee, it really encompasses the expansion or at least the logical extension of the access to the use of that information in making a valuable contribution to regulatory reform and to the regulation process itself. So from my point of view, I cannot see at this stage a conflict between the principles of an act that we have used as one of the paramount pieces of legislation in our first term of office.

Mr. Fleet: I think the minister has accurately described one of the intentions of the report, and in fact, the regulatory reform report goes further because it provides a detailed review of the existing regulatory system, its efficiencies, alternative practices that work well in other jurisdictions and even a cost analysis of most of the recommendations.

In keeping in mind the detail the act goes into -- time does not permit us to cover all of it on this occasion -- are there any provisions in the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act that would expressly prevent the application of the regulatory reform report recommendations?

Hon. Mr. Elston: Again, I thank the honourable gentleman for the question. It is my view here that I cannot think of anything offhand that would prevent that package of reforms from being considered as complementary in many ways to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The involvement of the public, it seems to me, is of paramount importance at all stages, and since both the legislation and the suggested reform have that at the base of their proposals, I think they seem complementary.

I would like to say that in the course of discussions in consideration of the report by government, obviously my view will be to analyse line by line the very question the member raises, but again, my thought is that there is a complementarity between the two.

1440

FISHING LICENCE REVENUES

Mr. Wildman: I have a question of the Minister of Natural Resources. I have before me a copy of the first annual report of the Ontario Fisheries Advisory Council, which was established by the Minister of Natural Resources to provide advice on the expenditure of the revenue from the sale of the new sports fishing licence.

Does the minister agree with the statement on page 1 of that report, “Public support for the fishing licence” -- that is, the resident sports fishing licence, effective January 1987 – “was given on the basis of statements made by the Minister of Natural Resources that the revenue raised from the sale of the licence would be used solely to expand the provincial fisheries program”?

If he agrees with that statement, can the minister confirm that he has indeed fulfilled that commitment?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: Certainly, the commitment was made. I think it is generally accepted that there were opportunities to be had in Ontario if we put in a fishing licence, which I would rather describe as a user fee. We had a feeling we could do much more to provide opportunities that were being stressed more and more. Because of the opportunities people had, because of more time off, because of more equipment and because of the ability to get out and enjoy that wonderful recreational activity, there was a great need for a user fee, and we should put all of that money into what we could do for the resource.

In the person of Dr. Ed Crossman as chairman, we have one of the fine gentlemen in the province who headed up a committee that would be able to take people from right across the province and report to me how the money should be spent, so they could not say we were doing it in a way that was not acceptable to the people who were purchasing the licences. I feel we have met all those obligations and indeed have gone beyond that, because of the effort that was put forward by the people in the community fisheries involvement program in the cleaning up of our habitat and doing all the good things that have improved the recreational opportunities.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I am pleased to say the opportunities are increasing more and more all the time.

Mr. Wildman: On page 2 of the report, it points out that the revenue was approximately $9.3 million from the sale of the licences. “Of that, a total of approximately $3 million was allotted to the hiring of staff,” particularly 19 conservation officers who not only are responsible for enforcing fishing regulations, but also are responsible for enforcing hunting regulations, parks regulations,” etc.

On page 4 of the report, the council states: “The council was concerned that enforcement expenditures should be evaluated and that regulatory changes and/or changes in enforcement priorities are warranted. The council was also concerned that the fisheries program should not shoulder all of the associated costs of enforcement since benefits are also to be realized in other program areas, such as wildlife and parks.”

That is the same position as the one I took, and indeed the member for Cochrane South (Mr. Pope) took in June 1987.

Mr. Speaker: Do you have a question for the minister?

Mr. Wildman: Is the minister prepared at this time to make a commitment that he will not shift money that is collected from the fisheries licence to the hiring of staff who are responsible for not only fishing regulations but also other regulations in other parts of the ministry program?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: This bit of discussion went on for quite a while while we were putting this whole process into place. The honourable member was one of those who made the grave mistake of suggesting this would not be acceptable to the people across this province. That was not the case. He was absolutely wrong. I was right and the people have accepted it.

Now what I would like to tell the member is this: He gets so ridiculous in some of the comments he makes that if a conservation officer were going down through an area and he was supposed to be enforcing just the fishing regulations and he caught someone else doing something that was breaking another regulation, he is supposed to go back to headquarters and send a different officer out there. He has got the wrong tack and he does even know what he is talking about.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you.

Mr. Wildman: You should apologize to the House.

Mr. Speaker: Order. New question.

Mr. Wildman: You are ripping off the fishermen.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Algoma has asked the question and also has asked a supplementary.

Mr. Pouliot: He has been provoked, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: And the member for Lake Nipigon? New question, the member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry.

BEEF MARKETING

Mr. Villeneuve: My question is to the Minister of Agriculture and Food. Does the minister favour the establishment of a marketing board for Ontario beef if the majority of producers vote for one in accordance with recommendation 55 of the Beef Marketing Task Force?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: As the honourable member knows, we have had a beef task force look into the entire meat industry, right from the producers through to the processing plants. They made a number of recommendations. One was that a beef agency be established and another was that there be a vote on whether the beef producers wanted a change in the present marketing system.

I put together a vote committee made up of members from the Ontario Cattlemen’s Association, the Beef Producers for Change and members from my ministry. They have been working on a vote that will be going out to the beef producers of this province, we hope fairly soon. I want to make sure the producers know exactly what it is they are voting for and the ballots will be accompanied by an educational package outlining in detail exactly what this vote means.

Mr. Villeneuve: The minister appears to be prepared to put a vote to the beef producers of this province. I do not know whether the minister is quite sure yet what he is talking about. Is he talking about a marketing board? Is he talking about closing down the provincial boundaries? Just what sort of a plan is he talking about when he mentions putting forth a vote to our producers?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: That question is premature at this time because the vote committee has not yet got back to me with the kind of vote they want the producers to vote on. If the member wants to ask me the question after the vote committee has put together the vote, I will be more than pleased to answer it.

COLLEGES OF APPLIED ARTS AND TECHNOLOGY

Mr. Adams: My question is for the Minister of Colleges and Universities. Tomorrow, I will be presenting a resolution before this House calling for an overall strategy for growth in the province. In preparing that proposal, I learned her ministry is presently conducting a review of the province’s community colleges called Vision 2000. What is the status of the Vision 2000 project?

Hon. Mrs. McLeod: I very much appreciate the honourable member’s interest in the college review. The review, as I think members of the House may be aware, is being carried out by the Council of Regents. I believe that since the time of the announcement, they have moved very expeditiously on what is really a very complex project.

We have a steering committee established that is made up of leaders in the educational field as well as leaders from the community at large. They have already been meeting. A number of study committees have been struck and their chairmen have been selected. It will be the task of those study committees now to deal with a number of the key questions in the review. I think they are important questions and they deal with such issues as the relationship of the colleges with the private sector and the workplace, the flexibility between colleges and universities, as well as the question of program concentration.

Mr. Adams: I thank the minister for that response. By way of supplementary, I might say that the people at Sir Sandford Fleming College, my local college, are very interested in this review, indeed as are many other people in Peterborough. What plans does the ministry have for involving such people in the review?

Hon. Mrs. McLeod: I suggested in my first response that this was a complex project. It is complex in the very nature and scope of the questions the review is to address. It is also complex because there has been a very strong commitment on the part of the Council of Regents to carry out this review with as much input from the college community and the community at large as possible.

The plans are to have the study committees visit all 22 colleges. I know they will want to hear the views not only of people within the college community but also within the communities at large. I know as well they will want to hear the views of anyone who wishes to come forward and discuss specific issues with the study committees.

I must say too that I have been tremendously impressed with the interest that has been shown in the review and with the number of people who have come forward spontaneously and asked to be involved in the project. I believe that that kind of interest is a real measure of support for the college system in Ontario.

1450

POLICE SHOOTING

Mr. Kormos: My question is to the Solicitor General. Lester Donaldson was shot to death by a Metro Toronto police officer August 9 of last year. The Ontario Provincial Police indicated at that time that their investigation would take six weeks. They indicated that its findings would be given to a senior crown attorney and that this senior crown attorney would determine whether or not charges would be laid. The Attorney General’s office says it has reviewed the findings and has made recommendations and the Ontario Provincial Police say they are now considering the matter. Who is making the decision as to whether or not charges are going to be laid and when is the decision going to be made?

Hon. Mrs. Smith: I would remind the member that there is a certain process. First, a crime is investigated by the police, as it should be in any case of this nature. In this case the OPP was called in by the Metro police to do that investigation. The investigation is then taken to the crown attorney to advise the police -- not to lay the charges -- as to whether the evidence that has been collected would substantiate a court case of a certain nature.

Having taken under consideration all the evidence gathered by the police, the crown attorney then makes such advice available to the police. In many cases this is quite a complicated report, which is then turned back to the police, who look at both their own investigation and the remarks of the crown attorney and decide precisely whether and what charges should be laid.

Mr. Kormos: It is remarkable that one is hard pressed to think of any other situation wherein there is a homicide and it takes so long to make this decision. A six-week investigation has turned into a five-month investigation. It is not fair to the Donaldson family. It is not fair to the community. It is not fair to the police officers who were involved in the incident. Surely the Solicitor General has monitored this carefully. Why has there been no decision before now? Where is the foulup? Who is minding the store?

Hon. Mrs. Smith: It would be most improper for me to rush the police. I have kept in touch with them and know that they have worked diligently on this and that indeed it was a complicated case that required the certain length of time. However, I am assured that the results will be available very shortly.

FORENSIC AUTOPSIES

Mr. Runciman: I will try to do this in one question; it is to the Solicitor General. She knows I raised some concerns about forensic autopsies in Ottawa. The Toronto Sun this week had an article on the mysterious death of a Toronto disc jockey, Nick Charles, and had mentioned a two-month queue for tests at the forensic lab.

I have a situation in Sarnia where Morag Davies, a 45-year-old woman, was brutally murdered in August of last year. Five months later they are still waiting for results from the lab in Toronto. Does the minister have any idea how significant this problem is? Does she have any idea how many murder investigations are being placed in jeopardy because of this situation?

Hon. Mrs. Smith: The answer to this is that the forensic work is done in such a way as not to create any jeopardy. In fact, the member inquired a very short time ago about a particular case which ordinarily would have taken six weeks and was put forward very quickly to three weeks because of the importance. The three-week case at that time was because of the nature of the testing. The police were constantly kept informed as to what the results were. When the final results were available, they were given to them immediately.

As in cases of health, it is up to the professionals to make the necessary tests as they see fit and to prioritize in a way that ensures that the police get the material they need when they need it.

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

Mr. Laughren: I rise under clause 30(a) of the standing orders. To no one’s surprise, I assume, I am not satisfied with the answer given to my question by the incredible Minister of Labour (Mr. Sorbara) and I would like to pursue it further at 6 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: The member has given notice, and I am certain that he will follow up in a written form.

FISHING LICENCE REVENUES

Mr. Wildman: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: You will recall that on June 16, 1987, as a result of exchanges between the member for Cochrane South (Mr. Pope) and the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio), and myself and the Minister of Natural Resources, both the member for Cochrane South and I were expelled from this assembly.

The reason that happened was that the minister in his comments made some assertions which neither the member for Cochrane South nor I could accept as factual, and we made that statement in the House. The minister indicated that he did not make a commitment to the anglers of this province, at the time the fishing licence was established, that the revenue from the sale of those licences would be used solely for improvements to habitat and fish stocking in this province to enhance fishing in Ontario.

Subsequent to the establishment of that licence, the minister established, as he indicated today in the House, the Ontario Fisheries Advisory Council under the chairmanship of Dr. Ed Crossman, a distinguished scientist in this province, to advise him on the expenditure of the funds raised from the fishing licence.

In the first annual report, which I referred to a moment ago, Dr. Crossman and the council indicated that the minister had used a significant portion of the funds for the hiring of staff; staff which are needed by the ministry but which are not only related to the fishing program in this province. On page 4 of that report the council said it was concerned that the fisheries program should not shoulder all of the associated costs of enforcement since the benefits were also to be realized in other program areas, such as wildlife or parks.

That comment confirms the assertions made on June 16, 1987, by the member for Cochrane South and myself and contradicts the position taken by the minister in the House on that day and today. As a result of that, I suggest we should have an apology from the minister to this House and to the anglers, and the minister should correct the statements which were not correct and were not truthful at the time, today or last June.

Mr. Speaker: Order. With respect to the member and to the rules of this House, the honourable member rose on a point of privilege. I was waiting for the member to present to me what privilege had been breached.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not see any point of privilege. I will just leave it there.

PETITION

NATUROPATHY

Mr. Faubert: I have a petition addressed to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the parliament of Ontario as follows:

“Whereas it is our constitutional right to have available and to choose the health care system of our preference;

“And whereas naturopathy has had self-governing status in Ontario for more than 42 years;

“We petition the Ontario Legislature to call on the government to introduce legislation that would guarantee naturopaths the right to practise their art and science to the fullest without prejudice or harassment.”

This petition is signed by some 54 residents of Ontario. I have appended my signature as I am required to do by the standing orders and for no other reason.

1500

REPORT BY COMMITTEE

STANDING COMMITITEE ON THE OMBUDSMAN

Miss Nicholas from the standing committee on the Ombudsman reported the following resolution:

That supply in the following amount and to defray the expenses of the Office of the Ombudsman be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1989:

Office of the Ombudsman program, $7,122,700.

FISHING LICENCE REVENUES

Mr. Pope: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: What is the recourse of myself and the member for Algoma (Mr. Wildman) when we were expelled from this Legislative Assembly in 1987 for asserting the truth and the minister sits today and laughs at the fact that he did not tell the truth in June 1987?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I wish all members would control their thoughts and words.

I am sure the member for Cochrane South is aware of the standing orders. If a member is asked to remove himself or herself from this House, that member must leave the House for the balance of the sitting day. On the odd occasion that member will apologize and on many occasions that member will not.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

MOTIONS

ESTIMATES

Hon. Mr. Conway moved that in the committee of supply the estimates of the Ministry of Housing be considered following the estimates of the Management Board of Cabinet and that, notwithstanding any previous order of the House, the estimates of the Office of the Premier and Cabinet Office be considered on Tuesday, January 24, 1989.

Motion agreed to.

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

Hon. Mr. Conway moved that Mr. MacDonald and Mr. Mahoney exchange places in the order of precedence for private members’ public business and that, notwithstanding standing order 71(h), the requirement for notice be waived with respect to ballot item 57.

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

WINDSOR LIGHT OPERA
ASSOCIATION ACT

Mr. D, S. Cooke moved first reading of Bill Pr81, An Act respecting the Windsor Light Opera Association.

Motion agreed to.

ASSOCATION OF TRANSLATORS AND INTERPRETERS OF ONTARIO ACT / LOI SUR L’ASSOCIATION DES TRADUCTEURS ET INTERPRÈTES DE L’ONTARIO

Mr. Poirier moved first reading of Bill Pr36, An Act respecting the Association of Translators and Interpreters of Ontario.

L’hon. M. Poirier propose la première lecture du projet de loi Pr36, Loi sur l’Association des traducteurs et interprètes de l’Ontario.

Mr. Poirier: I have the honour of presenting for the first time in the history of Ontario a private member’s bill in both languages.

Motion agreed to.

La motion est adoptée.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Ward moved second reading of Bill 70, An Act to amend the Education Act.

Hon. Mr. Ward: On December 15, 1987, Bill 70, An Act to amend the Education Act, received first reading. I am now pleased to introduce this bill for second reading.

Bill 70 is a response to a court ruling that continuing education teachers are teachers as defined under the School Boards and Teachers Collective Negotiations Act, commonly known as Bill 100, and the Education Act, and are therefore to be employed by school boards on a form of contract, as prescribed by Ontario regulation 277.

It has been general practice for school boards not to employ continuing education teachers, such as teachers of night school or summer school, on the two standard forms of teachers’ contracts -- form 1, the permanent teacher’s contract, and form 2, the probationary teacher’s contract -- as the contracts were neither intended nor designed to accommodate the organizational structure of subjects and programs being taught outside the regular schoolday and at times other than during the traditional school year.

Bill 70 will add a new form, form 3, that being the continuing education teacher’s contract, to the list of teachers’ contracts that can be prescribed by regulation. Only a continuing education teacher, as defined in the Education Act, will be employed by a school board for his or her continuing education teaching duties on a form 3. A teacher will continue to be employed as a permanent or probationary teacher for those teaching duties that are not related to the teacher’s employment in continuing education. In this regard, I will move in committee that section 4 of the bill be withdrawn and that a new section be substituted that will state this fact more clearly.

Bill 70 provides definitions of a continuing education teacher and a continuing education instructor. A continuing education teacher will be a person employed to teach a continuing education course or class established in accordance with the regulations for which a valid certificate of qualification or letter of standing as a teacher is required by the regulations. An instructor will be a person employed to teach a continuing education course or class established in accordance with the regulation, other than those courses or classes for which a valid certificate of qualification or letter of standing as a teacher is required by the regulations.

The power to make regulations defining continuing education courses and classes and prescribing those continuing education classes and courses, as defined, that must be taught by a qualified teacher will be added to the Education Act.

I will also move in committee amendments to section 5 of the bill to accommodate the concept of an integrated contract whereby, upon agreement of a teacher and a board, a full-time or part-time teacher employed by a board, both as a probationary or permanent teacher and as a continuing education teacher, may be employed in both capacities on his or her probationary or permanent teacher’s contract.

As well, where a teacher and a board agree, a teacher employed by a board as a probationary or permanent teacher, with duties only as a continuing education teacher, may be employed with respect to those duties on his or her probationary or permanent teacher’s contract.

I want to state in closing that much time has passed since this bill was introduced. I have appreciated the input of those with a very specific interest in this particular issue, representatives of the teachers’ federations and the boards, and also the input of my critics. Before sitting down, though, I would want to point out at this time, as I have advised my opposition critic -- I have been unable to reach the third party critic -- that for a short period this afternoon, approximately 20 minutes, I will have to vacate the chamber. Therefore, I would ask at this time, under the standing orders, for unanimous consent for my parliamentary assistant to be given permission to take his seat in the front benches so that we do not disrupt the discussion at the time during debate. Thank you.

1510

The Acting Speaker (Mr. M. C. Ray): Do we have consent that the parliamentary assistant will respond for the minister in his absence?

Agreed to.

The Acting Speaker: Are there any comments or questions with respect to the opening statement by the minister? The member for Simcoe West, on a comment or question?

Mr. McCague: Both. I understand they have asked for permission for the parliamentary assistant to carry the debate, is that right? I just would have thought that the minister might have done the courtesy of letting him make the statement too, so he could defend it.

The Acting Speaker: Is that it? The minister indicated that in his absence, the parliamentary assistant would respond. Are there any other comments or questions? The next speaker, the member for Scarborough West.

Miss Martel: Go get him.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: No, this is not one I am attacking him on, so it is tough to be vicious at this point, as is my nature since the loss of my moustache; yes, I know.

Mr. Reycraft: Keep your shots down low.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: And I keep my shots low, yes. Enough of this jocular repartee and to the bill itself.

This is a problematic bill which we will be supporting but which is reflecting, I think, a number of concerns in the education community around the role of continuing education and the importance it is given in the education system, the status that it has or does not have within the education system at the moment.

The court case that was taken, as members will probably remember, was one in which the point was made that you could not distinguish between teachers and instructors under the presently existing legislation and that therefore, if that ruling had just stayed without some legislation being brought in, all the people who were instructing, whether it was English-as-a-second-language courses or adult basic learning courses or whether it was people who were teaching night courses, even, perhaps on various kinds of hobbies that people might have, would all have to be considered to be teachers and therefore have large increases in their pay.

This, of course, was of great concern to the ministry, as well as to the boards of Ontario, which do not get as much money from the ministry to run their continuing-ed programs, and certainly not for the recreational programs, as they do for their regular courses. As a result, some action had to be taken.

What has happened is that Bill 70 has evolved, and it is a good thing that the legislation did not proceed at the time it was first introduced, because there have been some considerable changes and negotiation which have taken place and the amendments which are forthcoming from the ministry are welcome amendments which will assist in the clarification of some of the matters to do with permanent employees and part-time employees and their rights within this overall mix that is out there.

We presently have the situation where in one school you can have a person who is teaching adults during the day in a school and is receiving a salary as a board-employed teacher at the same level as the teacher who is teaching the regular grade 9 class next to him. That evening, somebody can come in and teach another group of adults the same course with the same content and be receiving much less money for doing so and is considered to be just an instructor.

We have that situation taking place in at least several schools in the metropolitan area of Toronto that I know of. I spent some time last spring talking with people in North York who are in this kind of situation and really felt that they were being discriminated against according to the whims of the board and with no protection under the act.

I am not clear that this act necessarily gives them a great deal more protection. The area of power that is crucial in this whole piece of legislation is in the area of regulation. The teachers’ federations which, in discussions over this past year, have moved the ministry slightly in terms of recognizing some of their concerns, are now of the opinion that as far as the legislative content goes, what we have here is now acceptable. Their big concern is what the regulation allows or does not permit, and their big push in the future will be to try to get the minister to change the regulation.

If I were in a more perverse state of mind than I am at the moment and less in the continuing sort of hangover of the holiday spirit which I have been showing so much in this House, I would probably want to get this out to committee so we might spend more time talking about what is wrong with the regulations. Maybe we could drag things out a little bit so that the ministry might give us a promise in that committee during public hearings to change those regulations in a more permissive fashion.

At this stage, we will say that progress has been made. We do not entirely have the framework we want and neither do the teachers’ federations involved, and certainly, neither do those people in the boards, nor most especially those people who are now instructors and will continue to be instructors by this legislation, even though they may be teaching the same kind of courses that another person is teaching a few hours earlier on a given day.

As long as we have this second-class status for continuing education, as long as we say that the Education Act’s primary responsibility is to educate people up to the age of 16 and that we really are not that interested in people who are returning to the education system in terms of an obligation of the education system to be able to assist them, and we are not willing to recognize that the costs of providing these kinds of courses can be as substantial and as important as are the courses for the regular day student who happens to be a minor, we will not deal with this problem appropriately.

I know the select committee on education will be looking at this kind of issue in the months and in years to come. We have already taken some steps in that direction, suggesting that the definition of what is the responsibility of the education system needs to be looked at in terms of when children enter and the responsibility at that end, as well as how people re-enter the education system.

As we see these things in evolution, one hopes -- and not just in some sort of flux -- we can look at this piece of legislation with some hope; that, in fact, we are moving in the right direction.

I do not want to prolong the debate. I never like to prolong the debate when I am in agreement, only when I am obstreperous, which is most of the time, and so for this change of pace today, on a whole series of bills that are being brought forward which I will be so complimentary about and so accommodating in general, I will try to keep my speeches as short as I can.

I look forward to moving to committee of the whole House to deal with the amendments today, getting those out of the way, and having this legislation passed with all due haste.

The Acting Speaker: Any comments or questions on the address by the member for Scarborough West? There are none. The next speaker, the member for London North.

Mrs. Cunningham: Bill 70 is a bill which has been long awaited, and while we support in principle this bill, which in our opinion adequately deals with the contracts of teachers of continuing education, I must support the comments from the member for Scarborough West.

I would further like to draw to the attention of the Liberal government the concerns from the federations and school boards with regard to the mismanagement of this government in finally bringing forth this piece of legislation. Bill 70 addresses a very important issue with respect to continuing education. We all know how important it is for our citizens to have both quality education and accessibility to continuing education programs.

Without Bill 70, which we need in order to encourage teachers to accept summer and night school positions, of course, we would have the continuing arguments and problems of the past.

1520

We know that one of those challenges that we are facing today is the shortage of teachers in this province and I would like to take this opportunity to remind the minister that this is a very serious problem. We are looking at a shortage of some hundreds of teachers a year in our regular day schools.

I would also like to take the opportunity to underline the real, serious concern we have with regard to technical education. We were looking at some 180 teachers of technical education in training in the teachers’ colleges across this province in 1980. We are down to some 120 teachers of technical education training in the teachers’ colleges now, and that is a real concern.

Although we are talking now about continuing education, which of course could be done in the technical areas in the evenings, the minister should know that we are very much concerned about this shortage of teachers, and we hope the minister is looking at this problem and dealing with it as quickly as possible. No short-term solution will help us at all.

Bill 70, of course, is progressive in that it does provide for a third form contract to deal with a problem that has been with us for a long time, and our party supports the bill.

The educators of this province whom we have talked to in the past few weeks and days advise us that they are agreeable to this legislation. They also advise us of the tremendous history behind this bill; that is, in their words, the Liberals have mismanaged this whole issue, costing all of us valuable time.

First, apparently, they introduced a badly worded bill, and when it was finally amended to satisfy the people it will affect -- I am now talking about the teachers -- the Liberals introduced two new but disturbing amendments. The original amendments were corrected again, but new and unnecessary problems were further introduced.

Today, we finally do have, after a very long period of time and very tough negotiations, an acceptable bill. Although we underline the example of this government’s mismanagement of an issue that should have been carefully thought through and presented in a format that was acceptable in the beginning, we are prepared today to support Bill 70, this amendment to the Education Act.

The Acting Speaker: Are there any comments or questions arising out of the speech of the member for London North? Are there any other participants in the debate? No other participants? I shall put the question.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for committee of the whole House.

EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Beer moved, on behalf of Hon. Mr. Ward, second reading of Bill 69, An Act to amend the Education Act.

Mr. Beer: From time to time, the Ministry of Education finds it necessary to clean up some housekeeping items and to address a variety of issues that have been brought to the ministry’s attention by our partners in the educational system. Bill 69, which we have before us for second reading today, consists of many disparate items. Nevertheless, I will attempt to provide members with a more cohesive overview of the contents of the omnibus bill.

There are essentially six parts to this bill, and I would like to give a brief description of each one. The first part of Bill 69 deals specifically with the Metropolitan Toronto School Board. Under this bill, the board will be able to offer continuing education programs for graduates of its programs for exceptional students, a power other boards already have. In addition, the Metro Toronto board will be permitted to increase the maximum included in its estimates for current expenditures for permanent improvements. This will allow the board far greater ability to provide for capital improvements in its jurisdiction.

A second part of Bill 69 involves school finance. The primary feature here is the establishment of authority with respect to certain of the provisions in the general legislative grants regulation. This is necessary in order that the registrar of regulations may seal the regulation.

A third section deals with attendance at school without payment of maximum fees. Under this legislation, certain classes of students will now be able to attend school without being required to pay maximum fees. These are children of North Atlantic Treaty Organization personnel in Ontario under the Visiting Forces Act, children of foreign university students who are themselves on student visas, children of visiting lecturers at Ontario universities and -- this will be clarified by amendment -- children of convention refugees under the terms of the Immigration Act. In addition, the ministry would be permitted to pay fees for pupils who attend appropriate programs in neighbouring provinces because the distance to an Ontario school is too far or there is no road connection to an Ontario school that is entirely within Ontario.

I would also like to outline some of the positive effects this bill will have on school boards. First, as requested by our trustee associations, the proposed legislation will give boards powers similar to those of municipal councils regarding insured benefits for their members, spouses and children. Bill 69 will also enable boards to determine their own allowances, as opposed to the allowance of the next board, and additional allowances payable to its members.

Another provision of this bill will allow boards to enter into agreements with community groups for the provision of adult education. In addition, the bill would allow two or more boards, each having enrolments of fewer than 2,000 pupils, to share a director of education.

I would like to highlight one other provision which I believe to be particularly significant. Under Bill 69, regulation-making power will be expanded to allow the Minister of Education to require that all boards establish and maintain a policy of affirmative action in employing and promoting women. I would like to assure this House that I will indeed pursue this provision with haste and determination.

Many boards have, in fact, already established affirmative action policies, but in my travels across this province I have not been satisfied that the practice is universal or universally satisfactory. This is an area which I do intend to pursue further in the months to come. The ability to require affirmative action policies in all boards is an important step.

A fifth section of the bill concerns instances of the transfer of a French-language secondary school from a board of education to a Roman Catholic school board. The bill will, in cases of en bloc transfers, also allow for the dissolution of the French-language section of an exporting board when it has ceased to operate a French-language instructional unit. As well, this bill will enable boards to adopt French or bilingual names, a change which I believe to be important and overdue.

The final part of Bill 69 will allow school boards to transport exceptional pupils to certain government-funded programs in addition to those for which such transportation is already provided.

In summing up, I would also mention that I intend to introduce amendments in the committee of the whole House. These amendments are purely for the purpose of clarification or housekeeping in the light of other legislative amendments to the Education Act that have overtaken this bill.

While Bill 69 appears to be a hodgepodge of items, I want to stress that each of its sections is important to groups within the educational community. I believe this bill will do much to enhance the quality of education we are providing.

1530

The Acting Speaker: Are there are any comments or questions? Other participants in the debate? The member for Scarborough West.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and welcome to the parliamentary assistant, who divulged his innermost thoughts with conviction to us on this matter. It was appropriate behaviour, I thought. The member for Norfolk (Mr. Miller) agrees with me.

These omnibus bills are a regular feature of updating the Education Act. Just to give an idea of how far behind we are at the moment, I have been getting a lot of correspondence lately from boards and teachers’ federations and others about their problems with the white paper that has been out for the proposed omnibus bill for 1988, which will be introduced at some point or other. We are actually dealing with things that have been around for many, many months at this point.

Unlike Bill 70 which one would have hoped would have been better drafted from the beginning, it is expected that from time to time there will be additional amendments in this kind of omnibus package and we have a number of them being offered this afternoon. They all make some sense in cleaning up these matters.

It is always a mystery to me how the particular content of a specific omnibus bill comes to be, and why certain matters are brought in and certain others left out but find their way in in the subsequent year or two years later or whenever. It is just one of those very strange processes I am not sure anybody truly understands.

There are some things in this particular act that are important to be brought in. Some of them would seem to be small matters that have little significance to people here in Metropolitan Toronto, but if you were living in northwestern Ontario and the closest school facility was actually in Manitoba, and you would have to go hundreds of kilometres in Ontario to get to a similar facility, then the provision here to allow you to be able to go across the border to get your education is a useful thing that has been put in.

If I look at some of the larger matters, even though they are dealt with in a very short space in the bill, I would look at the matter of affirmative action plans for the various boards around the province. It is something that is long overdue and many boards have already moved on their own initiative, but it is something that should be in the overall legislation. That is a very welcome thing to see. In all my conversations with boards across the province, I have heard no complaint on this particular provision coming forward at this time.

There are as well some changes in updating as a result of Bill 30’s amendments to the Education Act around the extension of funding to Catholic schools, which are also useful guidelines that can now be used by boards when they are transferring various kinds of functions to the other system. That is a useful thing as well.

As with so many of these matters, we are not going to be opposing this bill. It is one which we would give straightforward assent to. There is one amendment I would like to bring forward, however, and I would like to advise the parliamentary assistant of it at this time.

In the act, as he has framed it, he has brought forward an amendment to a section that deals with the various kinds of services and programs that can be made available to employees. I am thinking explicitly here of the comments in the bill regarding clause 155(1)(a) of the Education Act to deal with the provisions for insurance for employees. What we have added this time, which is a good thing, is the recognition that these programs should be available to the families of the employees.

This is a good thing and I will be supporting it, but I believe there has been an oversight here that really needs to be looked at, and that is that no mention is made of retirees receiving the same kind of access to the same kind of service. Some boards do this of their own volition regarding specific negotiated settlements they have with their employees, so their retirees are included, but it is not a standard provision.

Many municipalities interpret their much broader power under the Municipal Act to do so. That is under section 249 of the Municipal Act, which is referred to in the compendium for this bill. It says, “The council of every municipality may pass bylaws for providing for any or all of the members of council any benefits that may be provided for the employees of a municipality under paragraphs 48 and 49.”

Those powers allow them, if they choose, to extend these provisions to the retirees as well. I will be moving an amendment to section 20 of Bill 69 that it be further amended to add retired employees, as well as family members, in terms of gaining the benefits at this stage. This may not be acceptable to the ministry at this time. If that is the case, then the lobbying of the Canadian Union of Public Employees and other groups, which I know have been pushing for this sort of thing, has not been effective.

Then I would want to have today a commitment from the minister or the parliamentary assistant that in the next omnibus bill, that oversight will be dealt with and retirees will finally gain some of the benefits we get automatically, for instance, if we retire from this place. It should be available to people on the various boards of education as well.

That would be the only amendment I would move, on the basis that I think it needs to be included. It is a subsection that is being amended and it is therefore appropriate to bring forward that amendment at this time. I just give notice of that. Other than that, we support the bill and look forward to next year’s, which seems to be much more controversial if I read correctly my letters from the various groups around the province. We look forward to committee of the whole to deal with the amendments that are being proposed.

Mrs. Cunningham: It is my pleasure this afternoon to participate in this debate with regard to Bill 69 in the absence of our Education critic, the member for Burlington South (Mr. Jackson), who is at home with his wife who is expecting their second child. We will extend our congratulations to him, I am sure, and wish him the very best.

With regard to Bill 69, we would like to note that it would have been, I think, very much better for the educators in this province if we had seen a more appropriate and complete first draft of this piece of legislation. I am continually amazed at the amendments and changes that have to be made around language with the kind of support systems this government has in place. I will just put that down for the record.

Bill 69, of course, is a very large piece of legislation dealing with a number of diverse technical issues. We have had an opportunity to review the bill and would like to take the opportunity to make some comments.

With regard to the sections of the bill that transfer the power to establish government funding directly to the minister from the regulations, where they have been dealt with traditionally, there are some concerns, of course, that have been expressed to all of us as we have looked at this piece of legislation; that is, that the minister can now tie general legislative grants to the school boards to the programs offered.

There has been concern expressed that the net result of this kind of power, for want of a better word, will be change by ministerial decree rather than as a result of consultation, which has been the practice in the past, with the many interest groups affected. We certainly hope that is not the intent of the minister in this particular amendment.

Section 3 of the bill allows children of North Atlantic Treaty Organization personnel in Ontario under the federal Visiting Forces Act, children of foreign students who are themselves on student visas and children of visiting lecturers at Ontario universities to attend school without the payment of a fee. The amendment has been revised more recently to also include the children of refugee claimants in this nonpayment category.

1540

Mr. Speaker, you are aware, I am sure, as are the other members of the House, with the previous business of this House today, of the York region schools being accused of barring children of refugees. I hope citizens would look into that matter and understand both sides of a very demanding situation.

These students require special classes. Many of them are involved in English-as-a-second-language classes and most boards across the province are most interested in providing the quality of education these children deserve. However, we do want to make note of a comment by the Toronto Board of Education trustee, Irene Atkinson, and this is the bottom line for local boards. She is talking about it costing $10 million a year in extra teachers and support services for these special children.

Of course, Toronto and other boards across the province are having to prepare for these kinds of demands on their existing program and are also having to prepare for the cost involved within their existing budgets. I would hope the minister would take into consideration the concerns of the school boards and perhaps take a look at the costs and see if he can help them in some way.

One of the things that has been happening in the last few days in this Legislative Assembly is that we have been witnessing bills that have direct costs to municipalities and school boards being put forward in this House. We know now that school boards have pretty well prepared their budgets and are in budget deliberations. If we are now passing an additional cost on to them, there ought to be some responsibility for the planning for these additional costs and they should not always be at the local taxpayers’ expense.

There has also been concern expressed with regard to the amendments enabling a board to determine the allowances payable to its members. Some boards have suggested this particular clause is too restrictive. A less restrictive amendment would have been to allow a school board to provide remuneration to members of its standing committees as well as to the chairman and vice-chairman of the board. Perhaps that would be allowed with the legislation as it is written. It is a concern that will be brought to the attention of the minister, perhaps for some further direction from the minister on that point.

We feel also that we would like to remark on the act with regard to the school boards’ responsibility to implement the affirmative action programs supported by the minister. He certainly made that a priority and I think most boards have entered into those kinds of programs. I hope the local autonomy would be respected in that regard as the programs across this province differ. I hope the minister will take into consideration the fact that the bottom line is to get more women in positions of responsibility across the boards. Most boards are supportive of that, although they have different ways of achieving that objective.

Giving the Metropolitan Toronto School Board permission to offer continuing-education programs for the graduates of its programs for exceptional pupils is an aspect of this legislation that we would commend. Previously, the rights of a trainable retarded person to attend such classes were limited to when he achieved the age of 21. We are very much in favour of that amendment. We think it is fair and the government should be commended on that piece of this legislation.

One aspect of this bill has two school boards sharing one director of education where appropriate. We are now taking a look at small northern boards that are very much concerned about administrative costs and are showing, I think, some progress and enlightenment as they share the administrative responsibilities. They should be commended if they were to take advantage of this piece of legislation.

In reality, we are looking at people who are working across this province who perhaps now will be more attracted to working for a joint commitment by two school boards in other parts of the province. We are finding administrative help, especially in Ontario’s government offices, to be extremely expensive.

I hope all the amendments put forth, and certainly the amendment by the member for Burlington South, would be enacted as soon as possible. I thank the House for the opportunity to speak to Bill 69 and hope our concerns will be noted by the minister in its implementation.

Mr. Beer: I just want to briefly make reference to three points. First of all, I know the minister appreciates the support that has been stated by the two critics, in particular the support in the area of affirmative action, which is one that is important to all of us. I certainly recognize, as have both of the previous speakers, that many boards have been active in this area, but as I say, this is one that is important to all of us and we want to see considerable progress made.

Just briefly to the member for Scarborough West, we will certainly consider the amendment he wishes to bring forward and will be bringing forward in committee of the whole House. As he noted with various omnibus bills, given the discussion we have had on this issue, I think it is likely that is one we may prefer to deal with in the next omnibus round, but we would certainly appreciate his ideas and thoughts on that.

My final comment relates to the question raised by the member for London North (Mrs. Cunningham) concerning refugees and York region. I want simply to underline, as a member from that area, that I know the residents there certainly do not want to cause inordinate difficulties for refugees or for refugee claimants. Obviously, those people are experiencing difficult times. Working together with the board, we will be able to ensure all children in the region will be able to receive the education that is their due.

In some of these areas, there may be some confusion with respect to some of the federal legislation. We want to clear that up and make it very clear, as the minister did in his statement earlier today, that those children will receive a proper education.

The Acting Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for committee of the whole House.

1550

MUNICIPAL AND SCHOOL BOARD PAYMENTS ADJUSTMENT ACT

Mr. Beer moved, on behalf of Hon. Mr. Ward, second reading of Bill 186, An Act to provide for the Allocation of certain Payments or Grants in lieu of Taxes made by Canada to Municipalities in respect of Lands that are Exempt from Taxation.

Mr. Beer: I am pleased today to move second reading of Bill 186, the Municipal and School Board Payments Adjustment Act. This bill ensures that school boards which provide education to children from Canadian Forces bases are adequately compensated by the Department of National Defence to recover the cost of education of these pupils. At the present time, there are approximately 1,050 elementary and secondary students living on Canadian Forces bases who attend off-base schools. The DND has been paying nonresident tuition fees for these students and the federal government has been paying grants in lieu of taxes to the municipalities based on the mill rates, including the education mill rate.

In 1985-86, the federal government stated that it would no longer pay both tuition fees for the pupils attending off-base schools and grants in lieu of taxes. Therefore, a solution had to be arrived at that would ensure the education of the pupils and ensure that school boards would recover the cost of education for these pupils, that the revenue of the municipalities would not be affected and that the federal government would continue to pay its fair share of taxes. We believe this bill successfully addresses all these concerns.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Although this may not be the kind of bill that will hang on electors’ minds going into the next election, wanting to hold the government accountable for it, it is an important issue to the families of service men and women living on bases in Ontario whose children are being educated off base. I always liked that expression “off base.” I think most of my education was off base, but that is another matter.

Interjection.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: The comment from the government House leader is noted. Although I am not sure Hansard got it, it should have. I can only accept this because we are both from the Ottawa Valley. I want the Speaker to know that.

The bill is a necessary accommodation to the federal government’s requirement of an adjustment of the way the financing has been handled, as the parliamentary assistant has said. It is difficult indeed for a member of the opposition to find something to quarrel with here, so I will not.

Mrs. Cunningham: I would like to speak briefly to Bill 186, the Municipal and School Board Payments Adjustment Act, just to note that I think this is a rather straightforward bill as presented by the government. We all know that the federal government has been paying twice for the education of children on Canadian Forces bases. It has been brought to the school boards’ attention for some period of time that the Department of Public Works and the Department of National Defence have both been paying the bill.

I am pleased to see that this act will adjust the payment discrepancy and will place the responsibility for Canadian Forces education costs solely with Public Works. Thus, we think the bill will ensure that these pupils are treated in the same way as all other students in Ontario’s publicly funded education system. I think it is important to maintain this principle as far as we have in the past and well into the future. This just clarifies and fixes up a discrepancy.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for committee of the whole House.

Hon. Mr. Conway: I understand that the Minister of Colleges and Universities (Mrs. McLeod) is in the precinct and, if we can just wait 10 seconds, she will be here. The intention is that we will go through the 33rd order and try to complete the second reading of Bill 199 in the absence of the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore (Mrs. Grier), and then proceed back to the committee stage, the committee of the whole House, for the three education bills so that, once in committee, we can stay there, he says expectantly.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I would be very happy to deliver the opening statement myself on this private member’s bill, known as the Terry Grier memorial bill -- or whatever the title was; I have lost it at the moment -- but since the minister is here perhaps she would like to rename the legislation and proceed.

RYERSON POLYTECHNICAL INSTITUTE ACT

Hon. Mrs. McLeod moved second reading of Bill 199, An Act to amend the Ryerson Polytechnical Institute Act, 1977.

Hon. Mrs. McLeod: Before making my opening statement, I would like to indicate that Dr. Grier, the president of Ryerson, is present in the gallery.

I have introduced for second reading An Act to amend the Ryerson Polytechnical Institute Act, 1977. We are proposing two amendments to the act.

Clause 10(h) of the act currently specifies that the power of Ryerson’s academic council is limited to granting three degrees: bachelor of applied arts, bachelor of technology and bachelor of business management. The proposed amendment to this section specifies that Ryerson’s academic council will also be empowered to grant such other baccalaureate degrees as may be prescribed by the regulations made under the act.

While the current degree designations allowed under the Ryerson act are well suited for most Ryerson programs, for certain others, such as social work, they are inconsistent with the degrees awarded for comparable studies at other Canadian institutions. Those degree designations, such as the bachelor of applied arts (social work), instead of bachelor of social work, are unfamiliar to employers and do not accurately convey the educational background of the graduates. The proposed addition of section 17a to the act would enable the Lieutenant Governor in Council to make the necessary regulations enabling Ryerson to grant degrees currently not specified in the act.

The method of establishing or changing degree designations which is incorporated in the proposed amendment to the Ryerson act is very different from that of the universities, although the degree designations may in certain cases be similar. The acts of incorporation of the provincially assisted universities typically give the senate of the university wide discretion to confer any degree it considers appropriate. In the case of Ryerson, however, the proposed amendment provides for a government regulatory power which will limit the new degrees to be granted by the institute to those which have been approved by cabinet. This restriction on the degree-granting powers of Ryerson is designed to ensure that the institute confers only such degrees as are consistent with its differentiated role within the post-secondary education sector.

The proposed amendments will reinforce the policy of maintaining Ryerson’s unique and differentiated role within Ontario’s post-secondary education system. At the same time, it may afford Ryerson degree holders enhanced employment and mobility opportunities by placing them on an equal footing with graduates possessing similar qualifications from other institutions.

1600

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I always like these long bills. They do not take too much studying and the compendium is not too onerous. It is also, although it is short, perhaps more important than some of the longer bills we might see in this House from time to time.

Ryerson has held a very important place in the educational institutional framework of this province over the years, but it has been a sort of a strange position in some ways, midway between the colleges and the old-line universities. This government and past governments have never really come to grips with what they want from a polytechnic at the end of this century and the kinds of powers a council should have in terms of determining the appropriate courses and giving the kinds of credit for those courses that will give their graduates appropriate status in the province.

It is appropriate that after a long time of lobbying and acceptance by the university community, Ryerson now should have extended powers given to it under Bill 199 for more baccalaureate degrees. I think any of us who have dealt with Ryerson graduates in some of the areas where they do not have the authority, and the minister mentioned one of those as being social work, will understand that the four-year program at Ryerson is comparable to most BSW programs that I am aware of in Ontario. In fact, some of the practical training, which has been part of their procedure over the last number of years, has, in my view, been better in terms of the kinds of placements that were given and the emphasis on placement that was used. Yet the recognition has not been there.

I have had the opportunity in my office in the riding of Scarborough West to have many of the graduates or participants at that time in that social work program work in my riding and they have been wonderful assets, both in terms of case work and community development work. I have always been delighted with them. As a past Community and Social Services critic for our party, I have had many BSW and MSW placements of one sort or another from the various institutions of the province, and I must say I have been very pleased with the calibre of participant I have had from Ryerson, even though some of those students were only in their second year and were much younger than a lot of the MSW students I have had from, for example, Wilfred Laurier University.

I think it is very important, in terms of those graduates coming in the next years, that they will have the right to greater status for the work they have done. No doubt this will help them professionally and monetarily as well but, more important, this is perhaps -- and I hope it is -- an opening of the doors to look at Ryerson and the whole question of where the polytechnic fits in our educational system these days in a more progressive fashion and to understand the incredible importance that this institution in particular has in this province.

I am very pleased to see that the legislation has been brought forward. There will be no amendments from this party or any concerns with the way the legislation has been brought forward.

I am delighted that President Grier is able to be here today, and other members of the Grier family who may be seated in the House. It is an important day for them, but most important for this institution which has done so much in Ontario and which now will have an even greater status than it has had in the past.

Mrs. Cunningham: It gives us a great deal of pleasure in the Progressive Conservative Party to speak to Bill 199, An Act to amend the Ryerson Polytechnical Institute Act, 1977. We would like to begin our comments by telling the minister that we agree totally with her statements as she introduced the bill and commend her for doing so.

We all know that the Ryerson Polytechnical Institute is recognized worldwide for its applied art and technology programs. Many of us who have lived in this city and have friends and family who attended this particular educational institution are very proud to have been able to be part of it, across Ontario and within the city of Toronto. It has produced thousands of skilled graduates who have made rather significant contributions to this province. We are very proud of Ryerson.

The bill is a result, I am told, of an October 1987 request by Ryerson. I am also told that the Ontario Council on University Affairs reviewed the request and recommended that Ryerson be given this authority to grant baccalaureate degrees for university equivalent programs, provided it continue to offer its applied arts, business, community services and technology programs. I am sure that is correct.

I would like to say that the Progressive Conservative Party supports the substance of this bill which empowers the institute to confer baccalaureate degrees similar in designation to those granted by universities. We wish them continuing good success in the work they do in education and commend them for what they have been able to do in the past and for the wonderful contribution they have made to this province.

The Deputy Speaker: Do other members wish to participate in the debate? If not, would the minister like to wind up?

Hon. Mrs. McLeod: Yes. I would just like to express support to the members of the House, not only for their support of the amendments but also for the very ringing statements of endorsement of Ryerson and of the quality of its programs and, therefore, of the very real achievements of graduates of what is truly a fine institution.

It seems quite evident that there is unanimous agreement that Ryerson is fulfilling and will continue to fulfil a unique mandate in a truly commendable way and that these amendments will further assist it in carrying forward its goals. I know that the president of Ryerson will carry forward the support of this House to others interested in the institution.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for third reading.

Mr. Reycraft: Mr. Speaker, I think there has been agreement that the Legislature should adjourn at this point to committee of the whole House. Am I able to make that motion or does it require the House leader?

Hon. Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, there is so much going on here today and we are making such progress. The member for Scarborough West (Mr. R. F. Johnston) always has a very salutary effect on the orderly progress of the public’s business.

The member for Scarborough West and I remember another time when together we were able to effect very significant change in Ontario and we want to continue in that tradition.

I move that we proceed to committee of the whole.

House in committee of the whole,

EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT

Consideration of Bill 70, An Act to amend the Education Act.

The Deputy Chairman: Are there any members who wish to propose any amendments to Bill 70 and, if so, to what sections?

Mr. Beer: I will be moving amendments to sections 1, 4, 5 and 7.

1610

The Deputy Chairman: Are there any others?

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I forgot to bring mine with me.

The Deputy Chairman: The third party? It would appear that there are no amendments from the third party.

Dealing first with the first amendment by the government, Mr. Beer.

Mr. Beer: With respect to section 1, I move that paragraph 6a of subsection 1(1) of the act, as enacted by section 1 of the bill, be amended by striking out “teach” in the second line and inserting in lieu thereof “provide instruction in.”

This amendment clarifies that instructors provide instruction. Instruction is meant to be distinguishable from teaching, which is done by teachers.

The Deputy Chairman: Mr. Beer did not give me an opportunity to read the amendment.

Mr. Beer moves that paragraph 6a of subsection 1(1) of the act, as enacted by section 1 of the bill, be amended by striking out “teach” in the second line and inserting in lieu thereof “provide instruction in.”

Now, Mr. Beer, any comment you may have.

Mr. Beer: This is a good learning experience for the parliamentary assistant.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Charles, the key is to try to be consistent.

Mr. Beer: That is right. It is good for former teachers to go back to school and to realize what it is like to be at the opening.

The reason for this amendment is that it clarifies that instructors provide instruction. Instruction is meant to be distinguishable from teaching, which is done by teachers.

The Deputy Chairman: Are there any other comments?

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Many facetious comments spring to mind in terms of the definitional writing here, but I will hold myself back.

Motion agreed to.

Section 1, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 2 and 3 agreed to.

The Deputy Chairman: The next amendment, Mr. Beer.

Section 4:

The Deputy Chairman: Mr. Beer moves that subsection 230(1) of the act, as enacted by section 4 of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

“(1) A full-time or part-time teacher who is employed by a board shall be employed as a permanent or a probationary teacher with respect to those teaching duties with the board that are not related to the teacher’s employment as an occasional teacher, a continuing education teacher or a continuing education instructor.”

Mr. Beer: I think I have it right this time, Mr. Chairman.

The reason for this amendment is that subsection 230(1) of the Education Act is being rewritten to clarify that a person who is employed for continuing education purposes by a board as only part of his or her employment must be employed on a form 1 or form 2 contract with respect to his or her regular day school teaching duties.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: This is one of the important clarifications which were needed after the first drafting of Bill 70. It would have caused some very serious problems if this were not put in, so we are pleased with the amendment.

Motion agreed to.

Section 4, as amended, agreed to.

Section 5:

The Deputy Chairman: Mr. Beer moves that section 230a of the act, as enacted by section 5 of the bill, be amended by adding thereto the following subsections:

“(4) A teacher who is employed by a board as a continuing education teacher may be employed by another board as a full-time or part-time teacher.

“(5) Notwithstanding subsection (1), where a teacher and a board agree, a full-time or part-time teacher who is employed by the board as a permanent teacher and as a continuing education teacher or as a probationary teacher and a continuing education teacher, may be employed under a teacher’s contract as a permanent teacher or as a probationary teacher, as the case requires.

“(6) Notwithstanding subsection (1), where a teacher and a board agree, a teacher employed by the board as a permanent teacher or as a probationary teacher with duties only as a continuing education teacher, may be employed with respect to those duties under the teacher’s contract as a permanent teacher or as a probationary teacher, as the case requires.”

Mr. Beer: Briefly, the reason for the amendment with respect to subsection 4 is that this amendment clarifies that a regular day school teacher employed by a board may teach continuing education for another board.

The reasons for subsections 5 and 6 are that the concept of an integrated teaching assignment is accommodated whereby, upon agreement of a teacher and a board, a full-time or part-time teacher employed by a board, both as a permanent or probationary teacher and as a continuing education teacher, may be employed in regular day school and in continuing education capacities on his or her permanent teacher’s contract or probationary teacher’s contract.

As well, where a teacher and a board agree, a teacher employed by a board as a permanent or probationary teacher, in other words, on a form 1 or form 2 contract, with duties only as a continuing education teacher, may be employed with respect to those duties under the teacher’s contract as a permanent or probationary teacher, in other words, on a form 1 or form 2 contract.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I wonder if we could just get some clarification from the parliamentary assistant as to the situation here. Clearly, somebody who is a teacher can now be paid to do continuing education as well at another board or in the same board. A mix of jobs for somebody is possible in both of those contexts. There seems to be the right here for a board to agree to hire a teacher as a continuing education teacher. What are the rates of salary, as instructors or as teachers, in those cases?

Mr. Beer: The continuing education teachers, those who were so identified, would be paid at teachers’ rates. The continuing education instructors would be paid at the rates which individual boards would have set for that position. My understanding would be that where the individual was in fact certified as a teacher, then that person would be paid under the terms of the collective agreement for the teacher’s salary.

1620

Mr. R. F. Johnston: So as I understand it, in point of fact, a person who is a teacher and does some continuing ed instruction will be paid for that session the teacher’s salary, as a teacher, as part of the contract, whereas somebody in the next class from that person who may be teaching a similar course of continuing ed as an instructor would be paid at the instructor’s level?

Mr. Beer: The key difference here is that if you are an instructor, you are paid as an instructor, and if you are a teacher, you are paid as a teacher.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I guess the point I am trying to make is that if you are a teacher -- let’s just give the example that during the day you are teaching to some degree or another with a board and in the evening you take on an English as a second language course someplace and you are an instructor at that stage, you are paid in both positions as a teacher rather than as an instructor. Is that correct or incorrect?

Mr. Beer: Where the teacher is employed to teach -- if you are talking about where this individual might be doing the instruction for another board as an instructor, then for that individual, as I understand it, subject to clarification, the board can determine to pay the teacher at those regular rates.

If I can continue to talk to this, I can ensure that my clarification is clear as well, and I am happy to say that the answer to your question is yes.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Sorry, the answer was? I prefer to be clear about that.

Mr. Beer: Could I just clarify? As long as it is for a credit. Remember that the courses here that are teaching are credit courses, if that was your point.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: The reason I am raising this is that this is why the regulation side of things, in my view, is so important. In point of fact, we can still have very bizarre discrimination taking place, seemingly. If you are just a student and you are taking a course from somebody who is being paid $19,000 or $20,000 a year to instruct you in one course and then the next semester that you may take that credit course at night and you have a person who is teaching during the day, that person will be paid the regular teacher’s salary for so doing, if it is in the same board, and possibly even if it is in a joint board, as I understand it, depending on whether he or she is part of a collective agreement. That is why, I think for me and for many others, the whole question of the regulatory powers is going to be so important in all of this. That is why I wanted to raise the issue.

Mr. Beer: To be clear here, because it is a technical point, the answer would be yes, you are paid at the teacher rate where you are teaching a course that is a credit course.

Motion agreed to.

Section 5, as amended, agreed to.

Section 6 agreed to.

Section 7:

The Deputy Chairman: Mr. Beer moves that section 7 of the bill be amended by striking out “day it receives royal assent” in the first and second lines and inserting in lieu thereof “first day of May 1989.”

Mr. Beer: Just briefly, the reason for having the royal assent come on May 1 is to provide time for school boards to make the necessary arrangements for the new form, but also to ensure that that is done before the summer programs begin so that those continuing education teachers who are required for the summer would be able to use the new forms.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: One brief comment: It is always better to have a date in an act rather than the fact that it may be assented to at some point. There are any number of pieces of legislation and parts of legislation which have never been assented to even though they were passed by this House, so it is helpful.

Motion agreed to.

Section 7, as amended, agreed to.

Section 8 agreed to.

Bill, as amended, ordered to be reported.

EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT

Consideration of Bill 69, An Act to amend the Education Act.

Mr. Chairman: At this moment, I would like to list all amendments that all parties would like to bring to Bill 69. Would the parliamentary assistant have any amendments that he would like to bring forward?

Mr. Beer: Yes, I would.

Mr. Chairman: To which sections?

Mr. Beer: Subsection 1(1), subsection 2(7), subsection 2(10), section 3, section 13, section 15, section 18, section 24, section 24 --

Mr. Chairman: You have two amendments to section 24?

Mr. Beer: Yes, two amendments.

Mr. Chairman: Or three?

Mr. Beer: Three.

Mr. Chairman: Do I hear four?

Mr. Beer: No, you do not.

Then section 28, section 29, section 31. Sorry, did I miss one?

The honourable member for Elgin is trying to cause some trouble here. Did I say section 32?

Mr. Chairman: No.

Mr. Beer: Then let me say that now: section 32, section 34, section 35 and section 36, and that would seem to cover our amendments.

Mr. Chairman: Does anybody else have any suggestions for amendments?

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I have an amendment to section 20. I do not expect it to carry but if it did, then I would have subsequent other amendments to make between sections 20 and 21. I presume I will be moving only one.

Mr. Chairman: Would anybody else have any suggestions for amendments?

Therefore, may we proceed to section 1.

Section 1:

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Beer moves that clause 8(1)(zb) of the act, as enacted by subsection 1(1) of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

“(zb) approve awards for the purpose of subclause 48(7)(f)(iv).”

1630

Mr. Beer: This amendment is a housekeeping amendment. The amendment is necessary since subsection 48(6), as amended by section 3 of Bill 69, has been further amended. A motion regarding this further amendment to section 3 of Bill 69 will be made.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I have nothing on the substance, but any law that gets to the degree where it has a clause (za) and a clause (zb) is in danger of running out of letters of the alphabet. I would just suggest that maybe further amendment might be required later on.

Mr. Chairman: We have just heard from the scrabble expert.

Motion agreed to.

Section 1, as amended, agreed to.

Mr. Beer: Perhaps I might just note that the reason for most of these amendments we are discussing is to make adjustments to account for changes to the Education Act made by Bill 125 and Bill 100, which have overtaken this bill.

Section 2:

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Beer moves that subsection 2(7) of the bill be struck out.

Mr. Beer: Because of Bill 100 and the change in the equalization factors, this subsection is simply no longer necessary. It now appears that it will be necessary to have two different assessment equalization factors for use under the act. The more commonly used factor is that for apportionment purposes and the intent is to publish that group of factors by regulation. Clause 10(3)(d) of the act, to be repealed by subsection 2(7) of the bill, authorizes the regulation. It should be retained; hence the amendment to withdraw subsection 2(7).

Mr. Chairman: Is it the pleasure of the committee that the motion carry?

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Shall section 2, as amended, carry?

Miss Roberts: Carried.

Mr. Chairman: I am sorry. There is another amendment, to subsection 2(10).

Mr. Beer: I would just like to note the keen action by the member for Elgin to speed things along.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Beer moves that subsection 10(10) of the act, as enacted by subsection 2(10) of the bill, be renumbered as subsection 10(12).

Mr. Beer: Just to see if we are up on our numeracy here today, Bill 125 added subsection 10(10) and subsection 10(11) to the act. This amendment merely alters the subsection number of the subsection being added by the bill.

Motion agreed to.

Section 2, as amended, agreed to.

Section 3:

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Beer moves that section 3 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

“15. Subsection 48(6) of the said act, as enacted by the Statutes of Ontario, 1982, chapter 32, section 12, is repealed and the following substituted therefor:

“(6) Despite any other provision of this part, if a board admits a person who is not a Canadian citizen or a permanent resident to a school that the board operates, the board shall charge the person the maximum fee calculated in accordance with the regulations.

“(7) Subsection 6 does not apply to,

“(a) a person who is a participant in an educational exchange program under which a pupil of the board attends a school outside Canada without a fee;

“(b) a person who enrolled in an elementary school or a secondary school prior to the first day of July 1982;

“(c) a person who is a dependant within the meaning of the Visiting Forces Act (Canada);

“(d) a person who is in Canada under a diplomatic, consular or official acceptance issued by the Department of External Affairs;

“(e) a person who claims to be or is found to be a convention refugee under the Immigration Act, 1976 (Canada);

“(f) a person who is in Canada while the person’s parent or other person who has lawful custody of the person is in Canada,

“(i) pursuant to employment authorization or ministerial permit issued by the Department of Employment and Immigration,

“(ii) under a diplomatic, consular or official acceptance issued by the Department of External Affairs,

“(iii) awaiting determination of a claim to be found a convention refugee under the Immigration Act, 1976 (Canada),

“(iv) as a graduate student who is the recipient of an award approved by the minister for the purposes of this clause and who is in attendance at a university or institution in Ontario, including its affiliated or federated institutions, that receives operating grants from the Ministry of Colleges and Universities, or

“(v) in accordance with an agreement with a university outside Canada to teach at an institution in Ontario, including its affiliated or federated institutions, that receives operating grants from the Ministry of Colleges and Universities; or

“(g) a person who is in Canada while the person’s parent or other person who has lawful custody of the person is in Canada as a convention refugee under the Immigration Act, 1976 (Canada).”

Mr. Beer: The reason for the amendment is that section 3 of the bill amends subsection 48(6) of the act to broaden the categories of persons temporarily or newly in Canada who are exempt from paying maximum tuition fees for attending schools. This amendment restructures the subsection so that it is clearer and conforms to modern drafting standards. It also makes clear the intention that refugees and refugee claimants are exempt from the maximum fee.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: This is an important section. One wonders why it was not written according to those standards the first time. However, I will not belabour that point with the parliamentary assistant. Instead, I would like to just focus a little bit on a couple of the changes that are involved, one specifically, and that is to do with the refugee status.

We have seen in recent times a large influx of refugees, in part because of an impending change, at that time, in the federal law, but also because of the reputation of this country as a place that welcomes refugees and of the dire situation many people are living in in great fear around the world.

One of the offshoots of that has been the question of how a provincial government adjusts to this federal position, whether it is a policy, an absence of policy or a change of policy and what kind of services we provide. There has been much change in the last number of years around social assistance and some other kinds of services. Recently, we have seen that boards of education have been responding to this particular phenomenon in different ways.

Today in the House, concerns were raised by myself, the member for London North (Mrs. Cunningham) and the minister around the York Region Board of Education’s approach to this matter, in which it denied access to the public school system to 100 children from refugee families.

The present Education Act makes it clear there is an obligation upon the boards of education to educate any child who is living here, but this kind of amendment is crucial in terms of guaranteeing both that there is access and that there will not be a required payment of fees by refugee families, who are obviously in no position at all to pay those kinds of fees. This is an important initiative, which is much needed these days, and I commend the government for adjusting the legislation.

1640

I hope as well, and this is not something that is done under the act but rather under the regulations and under the distribution of grants to the various municipalities, that there will be changes forthcoming in terms of how we fund programming for refugee children, as I said earlier in the House.

This is one of those motions that may look like something that touches very few people -- diplomats and a few other kinds of groups as the list goes on -- but this particular category, which has never been in the Education Act as specifically as this before, is one that is a large group of many thousands of children in the Metropolitan Toronto area these days who have needed this kind of coverage and protection. I am glad the minister has seen fit to bring it forward.

Hon. Mr. Ward: I have a few brief comments. I very much appreciate the remarks from the member for Scarborough West. I believe in yesterday’s press there was quite an extensive article about the influx of people into this province. We are now at 9.5 million with some 160,000 new residents. A very significant number of those are refugees and there is no question it creates a particular pressure on our system of education, a pressure we have endeavoured to respond to, not just in terms of the issues of tolerance and human rights but in terms of services and the quality of the services they receive.

There was some speculation as to the motive of the action that was taken by a particular board in this province. That is difficult to judge, because my understanding is it may have just been an interpretation by the administration, one the board may not have been aware of.

Getting back to the issue of the kinds of pressures and how we respond to those pressures, it should be noted that over the course of the past three years we have increased significantly the funding for those special services: a 271 per cent increases in English-as-a-second-language funding for continuing education students and some 95 per cent increase for day school students.

It should be noted that each student enrolled in the school drives up the grants that board receives, so in my view, in no way can any action of that sort be justified on financial grounds. I believe the amendments we are putting forward, as they relate to refugee claimants, clear unequivocally any notion that may be held by any responsible people out there. Each and every resident in this province, each and every child has guaranteed access to a public education.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I guess the only point I wanted to make was that an influx of immigrants and an influx of refugees are two separate kinds of things in terms of requirements and in terms of the impact on boards. My own Scarborough board this fall was advised by a legal clinic in my riding of 20 new people who had arrived one day. Within a week, it had to somehow find a teacher and accommodation in one of the local schools, some of which are overcrowded. That kind of problem exists.

I am wondering -- this is obviously not something to be dealt with in an act -- whether we need to think about how quickly we can assist boards to adjust to refugee claimants rather than straight immigration influxes we might see from time to time.

Mr. Beer: As one of the members from York region, if I can speak from this side at this point, just with respect to this particular issue of refugees and refugee claimants, having talked to members of the board today, I would like to stress that I believe it is very much their intention to do what I think we all would agree is the right thing. We admit children of refugees, of refugee claimants into our schools. There is certainly no intention, nor would we wish to see any, that young children be somehow caught in the middle in some of these problems that are ongoing in terms of how we deal with claims for refugee status.

I think one of the elements that is important here, and as it happens arises in terms of amendments to this bill, is making it clear by all of us that we want to ensure the children involved are treated fairly and receive the kind of education that is one of the reasons they have come to this country.

Motion agreed to.

Section 3, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 4 to 12, inclusive, agreed to.

Section 13:

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Ward moves that subsection 130(5d) of the act, as enacted by section 13 of the bill, be amended by striking out “arbitration” in the first line and inserting in lieu thereof “review.”

Hon. Mr. Ward: The reason for the amendment is that Bill 100 substituted “reviews of apportionment” for “arbitration of apportionment” as a means of appeal of apportionments made under the regulations. The amendment, therefore, corrects the terminology now in use.

Motion agreed to.

Section 13, as amended, agreed to.

Section 14 agreed to.

Section 15:

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Ward moves that section 15 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

“15. Section 136i of the said act, as enacted by the Statutes of Ontario, 1986, chapter 21, section 2, is amended by adding thereto the following subsections:

“(1a) Subsection (1) does not apply where a public board has part of the same area of jurisdiction as a Roman Catholic school board as a result of the fact that a separate school zone that comprises part of the county or district combined Roman Catholic separate school zone for which the Roman Catholic school board was established has a centre that is situate within 4.8 kilometres of the boundary of the public board and is not situate within the area of jurisdiction of the public board.

“(1b) Part VII-A applies with respect to the election of members elected by separate school electors to a public board to which subsection (1a) applies as if the coterminous board Roman Catholic separate school board as defined in subsection 206a(1) was not a Roman Catholic school board.”

Hon. Mr. Ward: The reason for this amendment is to clarify the matter. Bill 30 cast off and prevented election of members elected by separate school electors to public boards where a coterminous Roman Catholic separate board shared common geographical jurisdiction. Section 15 of the bill rectifies the situation where the shared jurisdiction was nominal only, caused by zones within three miles of the board’s area.

Bill 125 results in a deeming of the Roman Catholic electoral group to be zero, notwithstanding section 15 of the bill. Consequently, an override of Bill 125 is now necessary and is provided by this amendment. As I stated, this definitely gives more clarification.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: It is hard to believe Bill 30 would have let any detail escape it, but I want to point out that in fact the problem is mostly with Bill 125, not Bill 30. That is why we have had to adjust this.

Motion agreed to.

Section 15, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 16 and 17 agreed to.

Section 18:

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Ward moves that section 150a of the act, as enacted by section 18 of the bill, be amended by inserting after “board” in the first line, “other than a board that by an act is given a name in the French language.”

Hon. Mr. Ward: Briefly, without the amendment, a possibility exists that any statutory name for a school board in the French language would be adjusted by this section. This amendment removes that possibility.

Motion agreed to.

Section 18, as amended, agreed to.

Section 19 agreed to.

1650

Section 20:

Mr. Chairman: Mr. R. F. Johnston moves that subclause 155(1)(a)(i) of the act, as set out in section 20 of the bill, be deleted and the following substituted therefor:

“(i) group life insurance for its employees and retired employees or any class thereof and their spouses and children.”

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I spoke to this in my opening remarks and chatted briefly with the minister before we moved to orders of the day. I wanted to bring to his attention through this motion that I had been approached by Canadian Union of Public Employees representatives, primarily from the various school boards, saying that they were concerned that, in all these matters of life insurance and other kinds of services that are provided, retirees as a class of employee are never included and it would be appropriate for the government to recognize the fact that such things as group life insurance for those retirees would be something that boards should be paying.

They are not unlike provisions that we have as members of the Legislature when we retire, to be able to maintain certain kinds of benefits for the rest of our lives, that are not given at this moment, as a right, to those employees.

I understand that this may not be acceptable at this point due to the whole process that is involved and that there will be need for more canvassing of the various players in the system. I just want some assurance today that, as this is voted down, that kind of canvassing will take place and if it is possible, if there is some sort of a consensus out there, that perhaps it might be added to the next omnibus bill, which I know is already in process and going the rounds of consultation at this point.

Hon. Mr. Ward: Just briefly in my comments, I will indicate that the government is not prepared to support this amendment at this time. The amendment relates to extending additional benefits to retirees: retirees who have been members, no doubt, of the fine benefit pension plans which have had their contributions based on what those benefits are, contributions which are shared both by the employee and the employer.

I did not have prior notice of this amendment until just a few hours ago. As I have indicated to the member, I would be happy to look at it and to consider its implications for consideration in a future omnibus bill.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: It is not a new matter. This is in fact a matter which has surfaced many times over the years and most recently was brought forward by the member for Hamilton East (Mr. Mackenzie) as Bill 33, An Act to amend the Education Act, in which he dealt with this particular service to employees and retirees, as well as a number of others. It is a matter which has been raised before and on which, I think, it is almost time that we had some action.

Mr. Pouliot: I do not wish to take it with a grain of salt, but I wish I had the opportunity to take more seriously the commitment from the minister that he will indeed recommend very strongly what seems to be sort of the style. For instance, as a comparison, for what it is worth -- and the minister should listen rather carefully because it affects people more like himself than ourselves on the other side of the House -- when we are talking about that most lucrative tree, about public money and public disclosure, the minister, like everyone else, by virtue and reason of his tenure is entitled to a lucrative pension.

Granted he pays 10 per cent of his salary into the pension. He has provisions in that pension stating that once he is the recipient or beneficiary of payments, he shall take as part of the benefits some fringe benefits that are consequential. That is from the public purse, and we acquiesce to this universally and say: “That is the way it should be. The public purse can somewhat afford it.”

On the other hand, we see the civil servants, the teachers who are under the Teachers’ Superannuation Act -- and there are other provisions -- recipients of a pension that has taken somewhat longer to accumulate, to be vested. We recognize this and say: “You pay 5.9 per cent, 6.9 per cent. We will grant you an indexing provision. We won’t call it at the discretion of the Speaker, but you will pay a supplementary one per cent or maybe 2.34 per cent, or whatever it takes.”

Yet we recognize the need for some incentives and pass some legislation to encourage people to make room and give other people a chance to enter the profession. It costs less to the taxpayers because it costs less to the school boards, but I will not get into this.

If we say, “Yes, we agree that we will enhance your pension to make it possible for you to retire,” is it not a normal component, just a normal reaction to ask: “Not only do I take the pension, but what is going to happen to me in terms of the Ontario health insurance plan? What about coverage? What about life insurance?”

The people are saying they do not want to be like the minister. There is no jealousy involved here, no false parallel or analogy, but a little bit of envy in saying, “Well, look at the minister.” I wonder in conscience -- and the minister is a just person -- whether he does not wish to do to others, who happen in this case to be what one could call his employees -- he is the main man there. He is the Minister of Education, and people are saying: “You can make our lives better. Show us your power.”

The minister can do this, and they are saying they want him to stand today and say, “I, the Minister of Education” -- repeat after me -- “will recommend in the strongest terms that the retirees, people who are getting their pension, take the following list of benefits as a normal and natural part.” This is what the person with a social conscience -- well, there are others, but we recognize that is what the member for Scarborough West in a committee here is saying. What he is saying is possible. It is not all that costly and it is reasonable.

I am waiting for the minister’s answer. I do not want to monopolize the conversation, but I too am waiting for the minister’s commitment now that he will now recommend in the strongest terms a list of benefits to go with the retirement benefits that we are already aware of.

Hon. Mr. Ward: I do not mean to prolong the debate. I indicated to the member for Scarborough West that this is an item that would be looked at. But the suggestion that with a stroke of the pen we can sit here and make adjustments with very, very substantial financial implications, potentially tens of millions of dollars, and not have any due regard as to what those implications are -- the member makes reference to his very lucrative retirement allowances that are provided to him and to others in this chamber --

Mr. Pouliot: I don’t think I’m going to lose.

1700

Hon. Mr. Ward: Wait a minute. Under the Legislative Assembly Retirement Allowances Act, the member has to know, and I am sure he does, that the benefits derived from a pension plan are paid for through the funds that are accumulated by the contributions made by the individual employee matched by his or her employer.

If he wants to extend those benefits in an ad hoc fashion without having made any provision for the funds to pay for those benefits, then what he is doing is placing the burden of those costs on the current employees or on future employees in future generations. I do not think those sorts of decisions should be taken lightly or without due regard to the financial consequences. I merely make the point that I am prepared to look at that, but I would like the member to repeat after me, “Money does not grow on trees.”

Mr. R. F. Johnston: It is always amazing how an argument in one case surfaces that will come back to haunt someone elsewhere. I know there is not a board or a teachers’ group out there in the province that feels that any Minister of Education, let alone this one, has ever laid anything on it without real consideration for the consequences or has demanded extra costs to the local taxpayer or local employee for certain kinds of actions and without justification. Justification is now the rationale.

I would just say to the minister that I understand he is not going to support this today and I want the canvassing to take place. I also want to remind him that, in fact, it was representatives of the union representing these workers, the present workers, who have said that they would like this kind of package and would like to accept that.

I hope that, using that information, we may also be able to get the boards to look positively on this suggestion for all the reasons that the member for Lake Nipigon (Mr. Pouliot) has so articulately put this afternoon.

Mr. Chairman: All those in favour of Mr. Johnston’s motion will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the nays have it.

Motion negatived.

Section 20 agreed to.

Sections 21 to 23, inclusive, agreed to.

Section 24:

Mr. Chairman: Hon. Mr. Ward moves that subsection 167(2) of the act, as enacted by section 24 of the bill, be amended by inserting at the end thereof “and to the chairmen of committees of the board.”

Hon. Mr. Ward: The amendment adds to the list of people whom boards may at their discretion choose to give extra allowances to, such as chairmen of committees who have additional responsibility within the board’s operation.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I just got up to avoid the heckling from the government whip. I really did not have anything to say. No, I think this is an important addendum. We were informed that this amendment might be forthcoming, and it is a good addition. We are pleased to see it happen.

Mr. Chairman: Is the pleasure of the committee that the motion carry?

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Ward: I move that subsection 167(2b) of the act, as enacted by section 24 of the bill, be amended by striking out “under part IX-A or XI-B” in the second and third lines and inserting in lieu thereof “for the purposes of part XI-A.”

Mr. Chairman: I have “under part XI-A or XI-B.” Which is it?

Hon Mr. Ward: It is XI.

Mr. Chairman: In that case, the minister will allow me to read it back in full, if he does not mind.

Mr. Ward moves that subsection 167(2b) of the act, as enacted by section 24 of the bill, be amended by striking out “under part XI-A or XI-B” in the second and third lines and inserting in lieu thereof “for the purposes of part XI-A.”

Hon. Mr. Ward: Under Bill 75, part XI-B of the act stands repealed as of December 1, 1988. Part XI-B created French-language councils and English-language councils, which will be superseded by sections as enunciated under Bill 125. The amendment deletes reference to part XI-B. Since part VII-A enacted by Bill 125 now governs trustee elections, rather than in the case of election of members of sections, part XI-A modification in reference has also been made by the amendments.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I notice that the minister had difficulty with the Latin numerals. It is my understanding that he did study Latin in our system back when it was of more use than it is today. I just think he spent far too much time on Catullus and not enough time on the Peloponnesian wars.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Ward moves that subsection 167(2c) of the act, as enacted by section 24 of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

“(2c) A trustee of a separate school board elected for the purposes of part XI-A or appointed to the board is entitled to an allowance on the same basis as a trustee who is elected, other than for the purposes of part XI-A, by separate school electors.”

Motion agreed to.

Section 24, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 25 to 27, inclusive, agreed to.

Section 28:

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Ward moves that,

(a) subsection 252(2) of the act, as enacted by section 28 of the bill, be amended by inserting after “2,000” in the third line, “two or more district school area boards or a board of education and a district school area board”; and

(b) subsection 252(3) of the act, as enacted by section 28 of the bill, be amended by inserting after “2,000” in the third line, “two or more rural or combined separate school boards or a rural or combined separate school board and a district combined separate school board.”

Hon. Mr. Ward: The objective is to enable all boards that are not required to have a director of education to share with another board the services of a director.

Motion agreed to.

Section 28, as amended, agreed to.

1710

Section 29:

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Ward moves that section 29 of the bill be struck out.

Hon. Mr. Ward: This item is covered off in Bill 125.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I am always happy when things are struck out.

Motion agreed to.

Section 30 agreed to.

Section 31:

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Ward moves that section 31 of the bill be struck out.

Hon. Mr. Ward: The section is inconsistent with the Education Act, as amended by Bill 125.

Motion agreed to.

Section 32:

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Ward moves that section 32 of the bill be struck out.

Hon. Mr. Ward: That is no longer necessary as a result of Bill 125.

Motion agreed to.

Section 33 agreed to.

Section 34:

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Ward moves that section 34 of the bill be amended by striking out “1988” in the fifth line and inserting in lieu thereof “1989.”

Mr. R. F. Johnston: You are just changing time and you do not want a comment from the minister, Mr. Chairman?

Motion agreed to.

Section 34, as amended, agreed to.

Section 35:

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Ward moves that section 35 of the bill be struck out.

Hon. Mr. Ward: The purpose of section 35 was to regularize the situation in Kent county, where no member for a French-language education council could be found. FLECs cease to exist as of December 1, 1988, so the proposed section is no longer required.

Motion agreed to.

Section 36:

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Ward moves that section 36 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

“(1) This act, except section 13, comes into force on the day it receives royal assent.

“(2) Section 13 comes into force on 1st day of January, 1988.”

Hon. Mr. Ward: The change made by section 13 is to allow separate school boards to legitimately use the apportionment regulation to the same extent as public boards and results in part from Bill 100.

Motion agreed to.

Section 36, as amended, agreed to.

Section 37 agreed to.

Bill, as amended, ordered to be reported.

MUNICIPAL AND SCHOOL BOARD PAYMENTS ADJUSTMENT ACT

Consideration of Bill 186, An Act to provide for the Allocation of certain Payments or Grants in lieu of Taxes made by Canada to Municipalities in respect of Lands that are Exempt from Taxation.

Mr. Chairman: At this moment I would like to list all amendments that people would like to bring forward for Bill 186.

Hon. Mr. Ward: I have one amendment to section 4.

Sections 1 to 3, inclusive, agreed to.

Section 4:

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Ward moves that section 4 of the bill be amended by striking out “31st day of December, 1988” in the third and fourth lines and inserting in lieu thereof “1st day of June, 1989.”

Hon. Mr. Ward: I do not think an explanation is necessary.

Motion agreed to.

Section 4, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 5 to 7, inclusive, agreed to.

Bill, as amended, ordered to be reported.

On motion by Hon. Mr. Conway, the committee reported three bills with certain amendments.

Hon. Mr. Conway: Before calling the next order, I have to say that I feel I owe a debt of gratitude to the minister, the parliamentary assistant and the very esteemed critics for the expeditious and constructive way they went about their business this afternoon.

METROPOLITAN TORONTO POLICE FORCE COMPLAINTS AMENDMENT ACT

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 4, An Act to amend the Metropolitan Toronto Police Force Complaints Act.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. M. C. Ray): Are there any members who wish to participate in the debate?

Mr. Hampton: As I understand it, the member for Brampton North (Mr. McClelland) had the floor when this debate was adjourned last week.

An hon. member: He didn’t speak; he just adjourned.

Mr. Breaugh: He tried to speak; it was not possible.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: They cut him off again. Is there some reason why he has been cut off and is not being allowed to speak? I think we need to know.

The Acting Speaker: May I ask again, are there any members who wish to participate in this debate?

Mr. Breaugh: Many of the members here have noted in the course of their speeches on second reading of the bill that they have seen various attempts now by two different governments to deal with this matter. It is, I think we should all say, a difficult question. It involves not just those who might feel they have been somehow caused a grievance by a police force and not just the police force that is involved and the individuals who have been accused in that instance, but it also involves the rest of us in a strange way.

Part of what this society is about is a relationship with police officers that is different from what one might experience in other parts of the world. It is not to say that everybody thinks of the police officer as his friend, but it is true to say that you do not see them as your enemy. I think that everybody who has ever been stopped for a traffic violation loses the feeling that the police officer is a friend. A police officer is an imposing figure. He or she represents the authority of one’s society and the laws that are there. That is a difficult moment, even when the officer tries to be as friendly as he or she can be.

1720

When someone believes that the officer has acted incorrectly, whether that is a minor violation about attitude, the words that the officer used to the public or whether that is something more substantive in nature by virtue of some alleged criminal act on the part of the police officer, this society has always had a difficult time dealing with that.

I recall when I first became a member here, one of my first tasks was to be critic for the Solicitor General. At that time we were discussing this matter prior to there being any kind of legislation in place. The government of the day moved with great trepidation on the matter. I think because they understood that there was no clear option, there was no way to proceed without alienating someone. Everyone who was involved in the situation expressed great dissatisfaction with the current process. Let me try to give my personal principles that I have kind of evolved over the years.

The first thing is, I think there is a difficulty with police forces in Ontario. They have not quite come to grips with whether they are a quasi-military organization or not. From a practising police officer’s point of view, this poses some problems. If a police officer is a citizen of this country, surely he or she does not lose all of his rights simply because somebody does not like his or her haircut, the fact that he might wear a moustache, that the moustache might he too long or there might be something else about his behaviour, his dress or his appearance that a superior officer does not like.

It is true that from a police officer’s point of view, the internal grievance system takes away some of his rights. Some have argued, “You should deal with them as you would anybody else who, it is alleged, has done something wrong.” Whether that is a serious violation of the Criminal Code of Canada or whether that is something that might be of a lesser nature about their attitude toward the public, about their deportment or whatever it might be, it becomes very sticky.

I for one would not want to be a police officer who is treated in that way. I think there is a problem with that.

There are some things that I think we have discovered over the years about this process. The bill that is currently before us takes a Metropolitan Toronto model and attempts to say, “This would be suitable across Ontario, kind of on a local-option basis.” There are two serious problems I have with that. First of all, it does not really recognize that the rest of Ontario is not like Metropolitan Toronto. That, I think, is a substantive problem that one has to deal with: that a police complaints system, which is appropriate for a large urban setting, is not going to fit very smoothly into rural Ontario.

This proposal under this bill, for example, excludes the Ontario Provincial Police. That cannot be. The OPP in many municipalities in Ontario is the police force. There is no local municipal police force at work. It is the Ontario Provincial Police who does that. It will make no sense to someone who feels he has a proper grievance against the police force if the argument is trotted out at that time: “But they are Ontario Provincial Police officers. They are not a local force and therefore you have no grievance rights.” That is a major problem that one has to deal with.

It will make no sense, for example, if someone is driving along Highway 401 and crosses the Metropolitan Toronto boundary into the region of Durham and Durham says, “We are not opting into this bill.” You will have a difficult time explaining to the individual, “If that had happened on one side of the Metropolitan Toronto border with Metropolitan Toronto police, you would have had a grievance procedure; but if it happens half a mile away with a different regional police force, you do not.”

One of the reasons I dislike this approach is that this kind of law does us all damage. When the law looks silly to the public -- and it will -- it does not serve the public well. That is part of the problem.

There are a couple of other things that I think have to be dealt with. As one who has had a number of conversations with police officers about this, I know that the differences of opinion are going to be marked: I do not believe it is appropriate any more for police officers to investigate complaints against other police officers. I know we have struggled with this for a while; I would like to give a couple of perspectives on it.

From the police officers’ point of view, they feel they are dealt with almost unfairly by internal reviews. If you talk to a police officer who has gone through some kind of internal investigation of his or her actions, he or she often will quote you chapter and verse that this is unfair to them, that they do not get the same rights that an ordinary criminal gets in the court system, because it is done internally. It is almost a military-like review of someone’s performance or behaviour and it tends not to be very fair in their eyes. So they do not like that one.

They also do not like the idea that it be done by someone else. I think on that part of the issue there is not much of a choice that you can make except to say that we recognize this cannot be done by a police force. It will have to be done by qualified investigators who are not attached to any of the existing police forces that are now in Ontario.

It may well mean something not too different from what is currently being practised through the auspices, I believe, of the Ontario Police Commission, that it attempts to draw up a group of police officers who will go and do these investigations in other forces.

It is quite a common practice now, when a force has a problem, that it will ask some other neighbouring force to come in to do the investigation. That is perhaps a step in the right direction, but I think you have to make this distinction and you have to understand it: In the public’s mind, you cannot have police officers conducting this kind of an investigation. It challenges their credibility and that is crucial to them. It challenges their credibility to the public. Many officers do not understand this at all -- perhaps do not want to -- but I think we all have to come to grips with this, that the time has come when our society has changed enough that we have to find a system that is fair to both sides and is seen to be fair to both sides.

I know many members here have addressed this question of the changing society. It is true, regretfully, that many of us come from small towns in Ontario where the police officer was the guy who stopped in at the softball game. He was your hockey coach; he was somebody you knew on the street. You knew the police officer in a different way than you do now.

I think many of the forces around Ontario, with budgetary difficulties and with problems of policing a larger population sometimes spread out over a larger area, have gone into the cruisers and off the streets. There is now a movement afoot in many places in Ontario to get them back on the street where they can meet the community face to face, where people will see a police officer in a different light.

I do not think you can ever get away from the fact that in certain situations a police officer is not going to be seen as your friend. I do not think there is anything we can do about that. Probably there is not anything we should do about that, but I think we can do some things that will assist officers to be better known in their community.

I support the idea, for example, that is used in many communities now around Ontario of not going to a full-fledged police station but using some kind of a mini-station concept. In my Durham region, for example, at Cannington, they have a smaller station which is used. They have another one at Port Perry. These are just places so that people in the local community can have some contact with the police force in the course of their normal, daily affairs; so that they can see the officers.

I know that in many forces around Ontario a lot of time and effort is spent to try to get members of the police force into the community on a regular basis -- into the schools, into sports, into all kinds of athletic activities, into cultural activities. I know that police officers are aware there is a kind of problem of establishing their relationship and re-establishing that relationship.

I know there is a difficulty among many people who come here from different countries in relating to police officers who do not look anything like them, who have no understanding of their culture or their language or their traditions. A police officer is put in a very difficult position in that situation. There is no way that a police officer on the beat here in Metropolitan Toronto can know all of the cultures that are out there that he is going to have to deal with; I think that that is a given.

I think we can do some things that will assist him to be a little more empathetic towards that point of view, to try to make him aware that there is a cultural problem here that he has to try to deal with and that there may be a linguistic problem that he has to deal with. It makes a police officer’s job so much more difficult when there is a language problem, when there is a cultural problem, when there is a problem of background, of society’s differences.

I think it is a shame, frankly, that this bill is being brought forward now because right now in the area in and around Metropolitan Toronto there are several controversial matters that have been on the front pages of the newspapers for days. This is hardly the most appropriate time, in my view, to have a quiet chat about how society will deal with this problem. I think that is going to be very difficult to do. Perhaps it must be done. Perhaps it is an inevitable thing. Perhaps there never will be a time that would be more appropriate. But I often think that governments do things when they have to, not when they should, and that is the great shame of things.

1730

It would have been great if, in a time period when there was no raging controversy immediately upon us, we had been able to go out and hold a series of public hearings and invite people in and say, “Well, now, here is the police officers’ perspective on this matter and here is the legislators’ perspective on the matter, and we now seek the community’s perspective on it,” and see how much of a consensus we can build.

I want to say again, I do not believe that you can build consensus on this. I know there are perspectives that are going to militate against that. You cannot ask a police officer to forfeit some of his rights in order to go through this process, and that is going to be awkward.

As one who was once a critic in this portfolio, I know that police officers are very sensitive to this. None of us has to make the kind of judgement calls that a police officer does. A lot of people -- and I think this should be said too -- work in high-risk occupations; but there are very few who work in an occupation that is similar to the work done by a police officer. There are very few of us who will have to go out on to a suburban, residential street this evening and decide whether we will or we will not use our service revolver.

There are many things about the rules and regulations, for example, governing that which seem to me to be unfair. For example, there is a basic problem that I think has to be addressed. I know the Solicitor General (Mrs. Smith) is here and she has probably spent some time on this. Police officers do not have a bad argument when they say: “Listen, we’re the only people on the street who have our weapons governed by regulations. There is no crook out there who has to check in with some regulatory agency to determine what kind of weapon he will use, what kind of ammunition he will use. He will not be subjected to a report if he discharges a firearm. I am the only person on the street who’s regulated in that way.”

For some members, I think it is a bit of a shock sometimes to think that out on the streets of this community tonight are people who are not very happy folks, who are disturbed, who have a tendency to create criminal acts, and who have access to weapons of any kind. We very often think, “Well, they’re not in my community.”

I would ask you to go and take a look at the stores in your community and see what they are selling these days. It will surprise you how many weapons are available, freely and openly and legally, in Canada, a country that takes some pride in the assumption that we have gun control laws in this country that are markedly different from the United States.

The problem with all of our laws in Canada, of course, is that they apply to and work fairly well for people who obey the law. They do not apply very well to people who do not obey the law. You can make a good argument that we have good gun control laws in Canada, but I think most members here who have had any chance to talk to their local police force will know that all it takes is a short car trip to Buffalo tonight to get you almost any weapon you want, and that those weapons are on the streets of our communities now, and their problem is to try to combat that sensibly and rationally.

We do that. We try as best we can to see that our police officers are well equipped, to see that our police officers are trained to handle emergencies; but I watched, I think it was the chief instructor for the Metropolitan Toronto special weapons and tactical team, and he was saying that his best weapon is the person who negotiates; that is the most effective weapon he has.

It is unusual in police circles to see police officers talk like that. Many of you may have had a chance to talk to police officers from the United States, for example, and you see a very different attitude come forward there. If you talk to police officers in the United States and see their attitude and the equipment that they have, they really are advocates of firepower.

Many of them whom I have had conversations with say that what disturbs them most is that when they arrive at the scene of a crime, they have no idea who are the good guys and who are the bad guys, because there can be all kinds of people on the scene of a crime in the United States firing or discharging weapons, and their first task is to try to sort out who committed the crime and who was around afterwards but just happened to have a handgun with them. We do not have to face that; our society is a little different.

I think we have to recognize two or three things. First of all, there is a need now to establish a complaint system that the public sees is fair. We have not done that. We certainly have not done that across Ontario. If we do not, the problem is going to get worse; it is not going to get better. This may not be the most opportune moment in the history of Ontario to do this, but it has to be done.

Part of the solution will be to see that there is as much justice in Mississauga as there is in Metropolitan Toronto. If there is not, the government will have failed a very basic criterion. This is not the kind of thing that can have a local option attached to it. That is a little harsh, because I think one of the main tenets of this bill is to have a local option. The government cannot do that. It may take the courts some time to sort that out, but it will not stand up.

Second, we must find a way to conduct the investigation so that it is not seen to be the police investigating the police. I would like it very much if we could do that on the advice of police officers around Ontario. I would like it very much if they would agree that the investigative process is a fair and reasonable one, but even if they do not, it must be done. That is a challenge, and I do not see much in this bill which meets that challenge at all.

Finally, I think the government has to find a process which provides a reasonable addressing of those principles in every municipality in Ontario. It cannot have a bill which excludes the Ontario Provincial Police. It cannot have a bill which excluded the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. It cannot have a bill which excludes any other police force. In other words, it cannot have a catch-22 that just because the officer belongs to a municipal force, he comes into play under this complaints procedure but if he belongs to any other police force in Canada, he does not. The public does not make those distinctions, nor should it. If a police officer acts incorrectly, he or she should not be able to avoid this complaints procedure by virtue of the fact that he belongs to another police force.

Those are pretty fundamental things that have to be addressed, and in my view, this bill does not do that. I do not want to be overly critical of the bill itself, because it is in a sense a response by the government to do something. If there is anything that is crystal clear at the moment, it is that the government has to do something. The current situation is intolerable.

The situation in Mississauga brought about one of the most fundamental and blatantly wrong situations that we have seen in sometime. Part of that goes back to what I talked about initially, that police forces have not quite decided what they are. Are they military institutions, in which case they kind of discipline their own and silence is the order of the day?

One of the things I have learned over the years about policing in particular is from the retiring chief of the Durham regional force, John Jenkins. John was perhaps not as sophisticated a man as some would have in police work these days, but he knew the basics extremely well. He had a broad base of experience over a number of years and he knew these things to be paramount to him.

While it was important that his force be computerized, well equipped and well trained, he also knew that it was incredibly important for the chief of police to get out from behind his desk and know what was going on in his community, and it was equally important that his officers do so as well.

If he does not have some understanding of how his community is relating to his police force, he cannot police it effectively. If he does not know what is going on in his community, he cannot deploy his officers effectively. If he does not have some understanding of that basic relationship between a community and its police force on a daily, on-the-ground basis, not reading from a report from another officer but from his own personal knowledge, he cannot do that effectively.

He also taught me that one of the fundamental things is that a police force must communicate with the society around it. It cannot retreat internally. I must say, as most members will, from time to time I had problems that were brought to me by constituents about police officers. One of the things I always found refreshing about John was that I never felt he was trying to keep information from me.

If his officers had a problem, he told me what the problem was. If there was a difficulty in policing a given situation, he told me there was a problem. He did not try to pretend that they had everything conquered. He told me what the problem was and he told me what they were trying to do to correct that problem. It seems to me that is about as good as it gets.

In many cases, a major part of the problem is that police forces have not quite worked out their relationship with the media. They have not quite learned how to talk to people yet. Part of this is difficult for them because there is all this attitude about: “Well, it’s before the courts. There are certain things we can say and certain things we can’t say, and the lawyers advise, ‘You can say this, but you can’t say that.’”

1740

How wonderful it would have been, though, if somebody had been able to explain to a mother in Mississauga why her son died, and no one did that. That is a pretty basic human need. It is one thing to kind of do your job as you see fit, but it is another to understand that sometimes it is just basic human elements that are required here. Sometimes all that is really necessary is for one person to talk to another person and to establish a relationship; if you never do that, no complaint system you ever set up will resolve the issue at all.

If you do not have that kind of relationship, if you do not know how to talk to the people you serve, you cannot do much of a job in serving them. That is pretty basic, whether that is politics, medicine or policing. If you cannot listen to what your community is saying at any given moment, you cannot serve it. If you cannot communicate with them, you cannot serve them. If they think that you are doing something wrong, and you have not figured out a way to put your side of the story on the table, there is not much chance of resolving it.

There are some -- and I am sure there are some in my own caucus -- who would say, “We need a civilian complaints procedure.” I kind of regret the name that is used for this. I am not quite sure how we deal with all the things that happen in the course of a police officer’s working day as complaints. Sometimes they are not complaints. Police officers, like everyone else in our society, are not perfect; sometimes they do wrong things.

I do not know of police officers who set out to do that on a daily basis, but I do know that there are police officers working today in Ontario who beat people up. I know some of them. It does not mean they are bad people.

But I do know that there is a fine little judgement line that has to be made there when an officer works a picket line and his sergeant tells him he has to clear a way through that picket line. There is a very fine distinction that is drawn some mornings at 6 o’clock and the officer is feeling a little groggy, he is not happy about being out there in the first place and he is a little bigger than the person who is opposite him or her on the picket line. The shove can be professional or unprofessional, and it is pretty hard to tell the difference.

Some of us, I think, enjoy the privilege in our society of never seeing that side of it. Most of us, as members who are elected, have had at one time or another somebody who has sat in our office and told us that the cops beat him up. I remember the first time that happened to me; I thought, “Isn’t that atrocious.” But then in the back of my head, the little instinctive ring began and said, “There must be another side to the story and I think I would like to hear that before I decide who is right and who is wrong.”

It is kind of political survival in a sense, an instinct that a politician develops after a while, that maybe the first people to tell you the story did not tell you the whole story and it would be a good idea to hear the other side of the story before you make your judgement call on that. I always try to do that.

I am not pretending for a moment that there is an easy solution to this process, but I am trying to point out to the minister that there is an urgency to do it. I am trying to point out to him that there are some basic principles he has to follow and that they are sadly lacking in this proposal. It is not that this is a wrong proposal, just that it is not exactly the right proposal.

It is conceivable, it is possible that in the process of going through a committee process here -- which is not likely to be a very pleasant one, because I am aware, as many members are, that there are people around us right now who have a lot to say about police forces, not very nice things either. There will be police associations, I hope, that come before the committee and give it the other side of the story. It is not going to be easy to sort it out.

At the very best, what the government will come out with is probably something that both sides equally dislike but begrudgingly admit is fair. If it can do that, that will be something. I do not believe this bill does that. I think the government is looking for something that can be applied universally across Ontario. If it cannot do that, it should forget it. If it cannot find some means of doing this that applies across Ontario without some kind of local option kicking in, I frankly think the government would be better off to do nothing, because I think that would aggravate it. If it cannot find a way to avoid the perception that the police are investigating the police, it will fail. That is not going to be an easy task for anybody.

I think it is important for us to do this now simply because we have gone through a series of events in different parts of Ontario that have pointed out that you have to have a mechanism to hear these allegations. Some will argue -- I have heard the argument made -- that you simply charge the officers and send them off to court. I would be reluctant to accept that as being the right process. I agree that that provides the means of sorting out the facts of a case, as any criminal process would. I agree that that provides the means for both parties to be properly represented, to get proper legal advice, to present their facts and all of that. What is missing in that equation is the rest of us.

Are we prepared to accept a society in which our police officers are charged as criminals? Are we prepared to send them off through the court system with everybody else? I am reluctant to do that. I would like the opportunity to search for a better way to do that. I do not know what the better way is but I think the search must begin.

I think that many of us have lived with the illusion that Ontario, all of it, is much different from, say, the United States, and that there is a vast difference between Niagara Falls and Buffalo. There is not and we should know that. I regret somewhat that this society in which we live, this city in which we live now, is a little bit different from what it was 20 years ago, but over some matters, I think it is a good thing. On the other side of the coin, in some respects, it is a bad thing. For the most part, many of us live in neighbourhoods that we would think are very peaceful neighbourhoods. If you think that, you should go to your local police station and talk to some officers about how many reports they have had for burglary in that neighbourhood.

Some of that looks a little alarming because it is a little bit deceptive in Ontario to look around and say, “There is no crime here.” In part, it is probably media reports. The style of reporting in the United States is a little bit different. If you read the Toronto Sun, you will find out how many crimes happened in Philadelphia last night. They have to kind of reach out a little bit to embellish what is going on in Toronto. But it is here and we should know that.

We have a problem with our police forces, which many of us would like to think, and probably do think honestly, are doing the best they can under difficult circumstances. The trick of it here is that this is not just simply a matter of evaluating an officer’s performance. This is not just simply a matter of hearing a grievance from members of the community who think that the police force did them wrong in some way. This is in larger measure a question of the relationship between the police force, which tries to enforce the laws we have, and everybody else. I think the effort must be made.

I think the bill currently before us falls far short of that. I do not think the task will be easy, but I think it must be done. I think that we can take whatever time we might pick to address this particular question. Since I have been a member here, a little over 13 years, the government has always been reluctant to do that. I am not pretending for a moment that it will be an easy task, but I do think it is one that must be done.

I wish that the bill before us at the moment gave us a better framework to do that, but it does not. I think there are better ways to begin the process, but however we proceed from this point, what is absolutely crucial to us is that we establish that our police forces are an effective means of enforcing the laws of Canada and of Ontario and that we find the ways to address the grievances of individuals and groups in our society that think something is wrong.

I would caution members, as a final note, that I do not remember a time, in all the conflicts I have been involved in and in the time that I have been a member of the Legislature, when I have seen a group of people in our society storm a police station. I saw that recently. I was immensely grateful that when they did, I did not see police officers out in front of the station with guard dogs and shotguns. I saw plainclothes officers and I think some of their administrative people in Mississauga walk out, talk to them, walk back into the station and close the door.

So I should not be afraid, I guess I am saying here, to attempt to find the solutions now. I should have some confidence that our police officers, the men and women who do that line of work, are able to provide us with some insights, some information on how the process might be better, and that our community activists are not just concerned about their members of our community, but the whole community as a total. I think they are right. I think that without question those, for example, who represent the black community in Toronto have a right to say, “Listen, we would like to see some police officers who are like us, who can talk to us, who understand our culture and whom we can relate to.”

That fear of the police officer is something which a lot of people have tried to overcome over the years, but it is not easy. Almost all members of this assembly -- who are working with police officers on a regular occasion, who see them regularly in and around the chambers here, who go to public events and sit beside the local chief of police, who are comfortable in that surrounding -- should tell me if they are comfortable tonight when a police officer pulls them over. They are not; no one is. It is not possible to be that. Even if it is the nicest police officer one ever met in one’s life, the first thing one wants to know is, “Why have I been stopped by an officer of the law?” That is an uncomfortable moment for anybody. If one does not understand the officer’s language, that creates a problem. If one thinks the officer does not understand one’s culture, that is a problem.

Hon. Mr. Conway: Speak for yourself.

1750

Mr. Breaugh: I know that the member for Renfrew North regularly has been stopped by the Ontario Provincial Police as he tours rather quickly through eastern Ontario. I know how uncomfortable he is when he sees that little notice from the Ministry of Transportation and Communication about pretty soon having to give up his licence again.

So I think that all of us have some understanding that this one is not easy. If it were easy, the previous government would have taken a shot at it and it was very reluctant. This government would have been off a little faster with it but it is reluctant.

The first admission we should make to the public as a whole is that this is going to be one of the most difficult exercises we ever embarked on, and we would really rather not do it. But the truth is that it has to be done, and the process has to begin now. Whether it will be a quick process or not, I rather doubt it. Whether it will be a successful one or not, I hope it can be. I hope that there are enough community leaders around Ontario who will work with the assembly in trying to resolve this problem. I hope that there are enough police officers around Ontario who will provide us with their perspective on the matter that will make it work.

I know it is awkward. Whenever a police officer is put in a different situation he has some difficulty with it, as all of us would. When police officers take a work action -- for example, on a pay dispute -- they are very uncomfortable with that situation. I have met them; I have been with them; I know it. It is simply because it is unfamiliar surroundings for them. They do not quite know what the expectations of the public are of them. They do not quite know how to get their point across.

What I am really saying is, that the reason it makes it such a difficult thing to do here, is that this is pretty basic human relationship stuff. This is not a simple matter of, “Put it off to the criminal courts and we can handle that.” This is the matter about the people who -- and there are not very many in our society -- provide them with the equipment that they use. I help to pay for the 12-gauge shotguns there on the front seat of the Durham regional police forces.

I do not have any real hesitation about that. I am a little uncomfortable with seeing the shotgun there; but I know a lot of them, that they are a reasonably well-trained group of people and that they have all the problems that we have. When one gets to work with police officers for awhile, one begins to appreciate some of the stress and strain that they are under. One begins to have some understanding why the divorce rate is pretty high, and why they have substance abuse problems that are a little higher than the rest of the population’s. It is not easy. The public’s expectations of them are really a lot different from what they are of members of the assembly. We all have stressful situations in our lives, but there are not many of us who are regularly going into a hockey arena and breaking up a fight. There are not many of us who are expected to run a Reduce Impaired Driving Everywhere program in the cold Canadian winter, stand outside and have a whole lot of people in our community look us in the eye and say: “Why are you stopping me? I didn’t do anything.”

So it is a difficult task that is before us.

I hope that the assembly is up to it. I regret somewhat that this bill does not give us a better foundation to begin the process, but the process must begin.

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you. First, are there any comments or questions? The Solicitor General.

Hon. Mrs. Smith: I wish to commend the member for his very excellent speech, which I listened to with great care. I hope his caucus also takes note of it, because I foresee the time in the very close future when we will be asking him to consider, with us, a new Police Act that will take into account all of the concerns he has just expressed, that will be look at methods of complaint, methods of dealing, and that will indeed apply equally to all police forces across the province.

We recognize the need for this. We have been working over the last few weeks and months very closely, not only with the police associations but with all those involved in policing in order to address the very well documented concerns the member has just spoken to.

I wish to assure the member his thoughts are well received here. We look forward to meaningful discussion with members of the opposition, and I hope that, together, we will put together a new Police Act that provides these very needs he has so clearly outlined.

Mr. Sterling: It being so close to six o’clock, I think it hardly worth while that I launch into my remarks on Bill 4. I do not expect to be extraordinarily long, but I do expect to be more than three or four minutes.

On motion by Mr. Sterling, the debate was adjourned.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Conway: Just to indicate to the House the business for tomorrow, following routine proceedings, we will proceed with this, the adjourned debate on Bill 4, and as time permits, second reading of Bill 187, An Act to amend Certain Acts as they relate to Police and Sheriffs, and again as time permits, following upon that, second reading of Bill 149, An Act to amend the Trespass to Property Act.

I thought perhaps the member for Carleton was going to adjourn early just to invite us all to his office to celebrate this, the birthday of the great, late Sir John A. Macdonald.

Mr. Sterling: In response to that, I invite the government House leader to celebrate not only the birthday of John A. Macdonald but the birthday of the first woman Prime Minister in Canada, my daughter Sarah.

The House adjourned at 5:58 p.m.

January 11, 1989

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

WINE INDUSTRY

WASTE MANAGEMENT

NATIONAL NONSMOKING WEEK

ACCESS TO SCHOOLS FOR CHILDREN OF REFUGEES

RAIL SERVICES

TRANSIT SERVICES

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

ACCESS TO SCHOOLS FOR CHILDREN OF REFUGEES

RECREATIONAL FACILITIES

RESPONSES

ACCESS TO SCHOOLS FOR CHILDREN OF REFUGEES

RECREATIONAL FACILITIES

INNOVATION CENTRE

ORAL QUESTIONS

NURSING SERVICES

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

NURSING SERVICES

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

SKILLS TRAINING

REGULATORY PROCESS

FISHING LICENCE REVENUES

BEEF MARKETING

COLLEGES OF APPLIED ARTS AND TECHNOLOGY

POLICE SHOOTING

FORENSIC AUTOPSIES

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

FISHING LICENCE REVENUES

PETITION

NATUROPATHY

REPORT BY COMMITTEE

STANDING COMMITITEE ON THE OMBUDSMAN

FISHING LICENCE REVENUES

MOTIONS

ESTIMATES

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

ASSOCATION OF TRANSLATORS AND INTERPRETERS OF ONTARIO ACT / LOI SUR L’ASSOCIATION DES TRADUCTEURS ET INTERPRÈTES DE L’ONTARIO

ORDERS OF THE DAY

EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT

EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT

MUNICIPAL AND SCHOOL BOARD PAYMENTS ADJUSTMENT ACT

RYERSON POLYTECHNICAL INSTITUTE ACT

EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT

EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT

MUNICIPAL AND SCHOOL BOARD PAYMENTS ADJUSTMENT ACT

METROPOLITAN TORONTO POLICE FORCE COMPLAINTS AMENDMENT ACT

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE