Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

MEMBER'S CONDUCT

Mr Phillips: I really appreciated the Premier's comments the other day when he compared himself to a coach. I particularly appreciate it because I have been coaching minor hockey for the last 18 years and I recognize some of the challenges a coach faces.

No doubt right now he feels like the coach in the dressing room before a championship game. Suddenly one of his offensive stars gets a little lippy -- and this happens to a lot of coaches -- and the coach, perhaps a little excited by the thought of the big game, says to him: "Well, I don't care, Peter, how many goals you've scored. You're out of the lineup." But then the real calamity hits the coach because Assistant Coach Floyd is looking into the equipment bag -- by the way, on the side of the equipment bag it has "Agenda for People" -- and suddenly Assistant Coach Floyd says to Coach Bob: "We brought the wrong equipment. None of this fits." Just then, there is a knock on the door. It is time to start the contest. What to do? There is panic in the dressing room. The previously very supportive crowd begins to boo, albeit quite gently, I might say.

From one coach to another, I might give Coach Bob some advice. First, never put your starting lineup in ink, but more important, you have got to get Assistant Coach Floyd out right away to get some new equipment, certainly in time for the budget. In the meantime, Coach Bob, you are going to have to go into the arena, take the mike, tell the crowd you are sorry, you brought the wrong equipment for the game, you are changing the starting lineup, you are not sure what to do. Floyd will be back in early April; in the meantime, everybody just stay patient.

HIGHWAY SAFETY

Mrs Cunningham: Highway 401 between Woodstock and London has become a death-trap. In the last six years over 600 people have been injured and more than 25 people have died as a result of car accidents that have occurred on this stretch of highway; six people have died this year alone. These statistics are horrendous. We are all saddened to have to mention them here today in the House.

The former government, in the summer of 1989, announced funding for the construction of median barriers with a completion date of 1996. In January of this year the new minister announced that the construction will be completed by 1995, at least a year ahead of schedule. But this is not good enough. The completion date is still four years away. The statistics warn us in four more years, if trends stay the same, we are here to witness 400 injuries and as many as 17 deaths. We are witnessing these events to happen before our very eyes.

In 1989 a coroner's inquest recommended that "road widening and median barriers be constructed immediately with a projected completion date of 1991." A coroner's inquest, 1991 -- that is now, and we need action now. On behalf of citizens who travel that highway, I am urging the government to accelerate the construction so more lives are not lost.

CURLING CHAMPIONSHIP

Mr Christopherson: It is with much pride that I rise today to advise the House of the success of the 1991 Brier, held in the city of Hamilton at our famous Copps Coliseum, which is situated in my riding of Hamilton Centre. From all accounts, the Brier was an overwhelming success for our city as well as the 1,200 volunteers who participated from across Ontario. Many of these volunteers took a week's vacation to work 14-hour days, and on behalf of the people of Hamilton I would like to thank them for their tremendous contribution to the success of this Brier.

This Canadian curling championship event brought millions of dollars into the city of Hamilton as well as the surrounding communities. The Copps Coliseum was also the first in the history of Canada to accommodate six sheets of ice simultaneously.

In addition to the tens of thousands of people who attended the event and the hundreds of thousands of people who watched it on Canadian television, I am advised that the event will also be shown on the Suncoast cable network in the United States. All of this, as Gabe MacAlouso, managing director of the Hamilton Entertainment and Convention Facility Inc, says, "makes Ontario shine with the help of Hamilton."

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr Chiarelli: The NDP government was elected on the basis of its vocal criticisms of the Liberal no-fault insurance scheme and its repeated promises to scrap no-fault and to restore full tort. The restoration of tort has been a focal point of the NDP agenda since 1987. Even in the agenda for power the NDP repeated its criticisms of the Liberal no-fault scheme.

However, the recently dismissed Minister of Financial Institutions said today in the Hamilton Spectator, "I'm as concerned as you are that we might be drifting away from what were long-held commitments to a public auto insurance system that guaranteed access to courtrooms for victims along with no-fault benefits for all injured persons."

Indeed, the Premier stated in this House on Monday that his government is currently reviewing its options and that no decisions have been made.

Now that the NDP has taken power, we have seen nothing but policy delays and failure to act on the part of the government. The Premier himself has admitted that no decisions have been made yet. When will the Premier admit to this House and to the people of Ontario that his government has abandoned its commitment to the restoration of full tort and that the NDP's much-touted opposition to the concept of no-fault was nothing but an agenda calculated to win votes and gain power?

1340

FISH AND WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT

Mr McLean: My statement is for the Minister of Natural Resources. It concerns his recent decision to transfer approximately $1.4 million from the ministry's fish and wildlife budget to clean up Great Lakes pollution hot spots. The minister's move to slash the policing of poaching and the closure of three fish hatcheries is unjustifiable and jeopardizes the future of this province's natural environment.

The minister's plans to close the hatcheries, to cut the restocking of coho salmon and muskie in Ontario and slash 10% of enforcement duties from conservation officers clearly goes against his government's stated commitment to the environment. I have no doubt that the cleaning of the Great Lakes should be a priority of this government, but it cannot trade off the value of Ontario's fish and wildlife to achieve it.

The minister claims that the fish and wildlife cutbacks are needed because of recessionary pressures, but I would like to inform him that hundreds of anglers already provide plenty of funding to conserve fish and wildlife through the purchase of licences and sales tax. He knows the hatcheries at Deer Lake, Skeleton Lake and Codrington should have been updated, not closed. The closures will seriously affect the future of Ontario's fish resources.

I urge the minister to reverse his policy and stop playing shell games with the environment and our natural resources.

By the way, why does the minister not announce today his parliamentary assistant's findings on the moose lottery in the province of Ontario?

CITY OF SAULT STE MARIE

Mr Martin: As members are well aware, Sault Ste Marie is confronting a great economic challenge. Recent media attention presents my constituency as a city on the verge of total collapse, a near economic wasteland. Today I want to tell members that Sault Ste Marie is in fact very much alive and well and, with the assistance of this government, working hard at recovery.

We as a province must remain optimistic and hopeful that the future of our province and places like Sault Ste Marie will once again be filled with vision and promise. We in the Sault have many wonderful attributes and skills that are not always recognized by government and financial institutions. As a city, we recognize the reality of our present predicament and we are responding positively with the many resources at our disposal.

There is potential both culturally and economically. We have a well-respected industrial sector; we are the centre for forestry research in Ontario; we have the Ontario Lottery Corp; we have a college and university that have both proven themselves visionaries and to be very much of and for the community.

Our tourism industry potential is unlimited, especially given our close proximity to larger centres in both Ontario and the United States and, most important, the magnificent natural habitat that surrounds my community.

We must now take the practical steps to work co-operatively for a strong community. Evidence of this comes from a newly appointed task force examining the future of Algoma Steel. Also, our local politicians and community leaders have dropped their traditional differences to come together in a roundtable co-operative venture.

I want to take this time to thank the government of Ontario for supplying us with the resources to carry on this very hopeful and creative answer to this challenge.

WATERFOWL MIGRATION

Mrs Fawcett: With the long-awaited arrival of spring at 10:02 tonight, an old rhyme comes to mind: "Spring has sprung, the grass has riz, I wonder where the birdies is." Well, I am going to tell members where the birdies is: Presqu'ile Provincial Park in Brighton.

For the last 16 years, and again this year, a very special event takes place in Northumberland at Presqu'ile Provincial Park, the welcoming back of the migrating waterfowl. Presqu'ile is world renowned for the birdwatching opportunities it offers, and many people take advantage of the number of days set aside for the viewing of this natural phenomenon.

During this coming weekend, and also Easter weekend, there will be telescopes set up from 10 am to 4 pm, with skilled observers to assist you with the identification of the birds, the purchase of books, and free coffee.

Last year, over 6,000 visitors had the chance to see over 20 species of waterfowl. It is not unusual to see flocks in excess of 11,000 scaups as well as many types of ducks, geese and mute swans. If you are lucky, you might catch a glimpse of the tundra swans as they migrate through.

This is a natural wonder which I would encourage everyone here and right across this province to witness. Please come to Brighton, visit the park, see Northumberland and enjoy the spring sights.

CONCENTRATION OF LAND OWNERSHIP

Mr Tilson: My statement is on the planning fiasco in York region. As opposition leader, the member for York South persistently called upon the former Liberal government to launch an immediate commission of inquiry into concentration of land ownership in York region, but now, as the flip-flop Premier, he was quoted in the Globe and Mail on 27 February 1991 as stating: "I don't have anything to announce on it. When I do, I'll let you know." That was then, this is now.

When it comes to an inquiry into the development of industry in York region, it seems that the flip-flop mentality has also been adopted by his faithful ministers. On 23 November 1989 in the Globe, the then opposition leader stated: "This is not a question of criminality. The question is whether there is adequate protection for the public." Now, on 28 February 1991, the Attorney General was quoted in the Star as stating: "Drafting terms of reference for the inquiry is a very difficult task. We want to be careful that we do not interfere with the police investigation that is going on." That was then, this is now.

On 23 November 1989, the then opposition leader asked Premier Peterson, "What is it going to take for this government to understand that it is sitting on a problem, that it has a responsibility to do something about it?" On 28 February 1991 in the Star, the Minister of Municipal Affairs said, "I certainly hope that we'll be able to get things rolling before the end of the year." That was then, this is now.

I leave members with a final thought from the former opposition leader. Why is his government afraid of an inquiry into the concentration of land ownership in York region?

SHEPPARD SUBWAY

Mr Perruzza: Two days ago, the member for Oriole made a statement in the House in which she spoke about the Let's Move transportation proposal as it relates to the construction of the Sheppard subway line.

As many members here will know, the Sheppard subway line will cost in the neighbourhood of $2 billion. Approximately $1.5 billion of this cost will be picked up by the taxpayers. North York city council and a consortium of private development interests have spent and are spending enormous amounts of money to rationalize the construction of this otherwise not-so-pressing Sheppard subway line.

Traffic in the east end of the city of North York is nowhere near being at its peak. A Sheppard subway line at this time only serves private conglomerate development interests that have land banked along the Yonge-Sheppard corridor. They are now spending millions of dollars which they will later regain 10-fold in density boosts at local residents' expense. This consortium is now using the public vehicle of North York city council to serve its objectives. This is not a healthy relationship for the residents we are elected to serve.

The Sheppard subway line proposal was the last item, even on the Liberals' Let's Move announcement proposal, and we all know the close ties that the Liberals had and continue to have with the big developers of this province.

In my and the experts' view, the most important transportation initiative of the Let's Move announcement is the York University-Spadina-Yonge subway loop. Traffic in the west end of the city of North York is at its peak. In fact, in many areas we are at gridlock.

In closing, York region is ever-expanding in --

The Speaker: Wonderful.

VISITORS

The Speaker: Before continuing, members may wish to welcome in our midst today two former members, both of whom served for a long time in this House. Seated in the members' gallery are Jack Riddell, former member for Huron and Ray Haggerty, former member for Niagara South.

In addition, I notice that the former member for Downsview, Mr Di Santo, is seated on the other side of the other gallery.

MINISTRY OF REVENUE

The Speaker: Yesterday the honourable government House leader rose on a point of order regarding the use of the word "deceived" that had been used by Mrs O'Neill a few minutes earlier. I have had a chance to check Hansard and have satisfied myself that the use of that word yesterday did not constitute a breach of our standing orders.

1350

Mr Turnbull: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would seek unanimous consent from the House for a statement on the return of the troops from the Gulf.

Agreed to.

CANADIAN FORCES OVERSEAS FORCES / CANADIENNES OUTRE-MER

Mr Turnbull: It gives me great pleasure to arise on behalf of the PC Party of Ontario in the House today and to offer tribute to our armed forces personnel who are returning from their duty in the Gulf. These young men and women deserve our heartfelt praise and congratulations for a job well done. They were sent into a volatile situation, and no one, not even their commanders, or indeed the politicians and generals, knew what was going to happen.

Our troops were in the Gulf to carry out the mandate of the United Nations against flagrant aggression. They performed their duties with true professionalism, a professionalism which was admired by all members of the coalition forces. We fully support our troops in their endeavours. They were given a job to do, and as a nation we are extremely proud of the way they conducted themselves.

The fighting in the Persian Gulf has ended and the leaders of the coalition must turn their attention to bringing peace in the area. It is an awesome task that lies ahead. However, today we want to take the time to rejoice with the families and friends who have their loved ones back home again, and again, to our returning troops we say, "Thank you for a job well done."

Hon Mr Rae: I want to express on behalf of my party and the government our sense of joy and relief that the troops are back. One can only imagine the combination of a sense of pride and service and also an enormous sense of anxiety which must have brought, and I am sure we know did bring, hundreds of families together across Canada.

My views with respect to the war are a matter of record, but I have also said on every occasion that, regardless of that, we feel a sense of solidarity and a sense of real concern and relationship with those people who were there and who worked so hard on behalf of the United Nations' forces and on behalf of the country. I can certainly say it is good to have them back.

Mr Morin: On 20 December 1990, I asked the members of this Legislature to pause and pay silent tribute to our Canadian troops serving in the Persian Gulf, far from their loved ones. As a Canadian and a veteran of the Korean conflict, I am proud of our armed forces. These young people serve their country well.

The war is now over, and each and every Canadian soldier will come back home. Of course, we all know that other countries were not as fortunate as Canada. I feel a great sadness for those whose families have been devastated by the loss of their loved ones.

We do not seem to learn from our past experiences. We have the strength and the capacity to destroy the whole world. We need to use this power, these talents, to create a better world, working towards positive rather than self-defeating ends.

Although combat may have ceased, it will take years to clean up the aftermath. The environment has been permanently scarred, cities left in rubble. Mankind has not yet learned to live in peace. A commitment for peace must be universal, for war and destruction and damage to the environment have no geographical boundaries. Let us work together towards improvement. It is our collective responsibility.

Monsieur le Président, nous sommes heureux que nos troupes militaires nous soient revenues saines et sauves. À tous nos camarades militaires, nous vous sommes très reconnaissants de votre engagement, de votre dévouement et de votre loyauté vis-à-vis votre pays. Merci.

Mr Poirier: I would like to seek unanimous consent to say a few words about the passing of Vic Newman.

Agreed to.

VICTOR NEWMAN

Mr Poirier: I bring to the attention of the House the sudden death of a member of our television crew and of a good friend. Victor Newman passed away on Monday.

Vic was one of the first cameramen hired when television was installed in the Legislature in 1986. Here at Queen's Park, our television system is unique. All cameras are remotely controlled and each cameraman is responsible for at least two and often three cameras. For Vic, this new challenge presented no problem. In fact, he proposed some changes and alterations to the camera control system that were adopted by the manufacturer.

Vic's career in television spanned over 30 years and had many similar experiences. In the 1970s he helped to develop a gyroscopic camera mount for use in helicopters. In the 1960s he was part of the team that built Canada's first portable television camera. As a freelance cameraman, Vic worked for all of the TV networks and most production companies. As chief cameraman producing a musical or variety program, Vic had no equal. There are numerous stories of directors who would not work with any other cameraman and would postpone their production until Vic was available, and often he was not available.

Vic had two other occupations that kept him very busy. He was a professional musician and a yacht designer and builder.

Like many young Englishmen living in Britain during the war, Vic joined the Royal Navy as soon as he was old enough and so began his love affair with the sea and sailing. Vic built three sailboats and was in the process of completing his fourth, a 42-foot trimaran.

As a musician, he was inspirational on jazz guitar. As with his choice of camera work, Vic would only work with musicians he respected and whose company he enjoyed. His music will be sadly missed.

The Vic I knew also was the outgoing Englishman standing at the door of the Legislature with a group of friends, enjoying a bit of fresh air and some other habits -- and we all know what that one was; that is why he was outside with us. Vic would chat to everyone, not as a group, but individually. He would tell a story or joke, usually very well, and of course, like me, he was an avid fan of Monty Python, which made him a great person. He would comment on how the debates were going in the House. In a few minutes, he would stub out his cigarette and he would say to us: "Got to get back to work. Someone has got to keep an eye on you politicians."

I would like to extend condolences and sympathy to all of Vic's family and friends from his colleagues and the members of this Legislative Assembly.

Mr Eves: On behalf of our party, I would like to rise and extend our sincere sympathy and condolences to Vic's family and friends.

Victor Newman was certainly an integral part of the camera and television system here at Queen's Park, which I think is among the best, if not the best, anywhere in the world. Making us look good is a difficult task indeed, and a challenge for even Vic in the years gone by.

Mr Elston: Speak for yourself.

Mr Eves: "Speak for yourself," the honourable House leader for the official opposition says. Well, I am speaking for myself, as well as, I think, a great many other members.

I think sometimes we forget about the human element of the people who make this place operate and help us in our day-to-day duties as members, and I think that we forget about the more human aspects of the individuals who work here, such as the fact -- and it has already been mentioned -- that Vic was a great musician, a professional musician at that, and a great yacht designer, boat builder and sailor. He indeed will be sincerely missed around these premises, but he will never be forgotten.

Hon Mr Rae: I rise to join in the tributes to Vic Newman, who is a fellow member of the same union, the Toronto Musicians Association. I say this out of affection, because that was one of our connections. We used to joke about the music world and our relative associations with it, and mine remains much more relative than Vic's.

1400

We have a marvellous TV service. Without wanting to take away from any other, I think it is the best in the country. The professionalism, the talent, the dedication, the enormous interest and humour of all those who take our pictures and strive to make it as comprehensive as possible have been a marvellous experience for me in opposition and now in government, and it is the talent of someone like Vic and the other people who are working with Bill Somerville in the TV service and the broadcast service that I think we need to remember, particularly when we think of Vic's very sudden death on Monday.

He was a marvellous raconteur. He was a very, very friendly man. He had friends on all sides of the House and in all walks of life. He knew the people who worked in the restaurant. He knew the people who worked in the caretaker's department. He knew the people who worked in all the aspects of this place that make it work. I want to join with others in paying tribute to Vic, in saying to his family that their loss is ours as well and that we are all going to miss him.

The Speaker: Your very kind and thoughtful comments will be sent along, along with our deepest sympathies, to the family. I might add that Mr Newman was indeed a very talented and dedicated professional whose abilities, as well as his personality, will be deeply missed. We will extend our deepest sympathies to his family.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Hon Mr Farnan: I rise to inform this House that the Ontario Court of Appeal has upheld the constitutionality of the Retail Business Holidays Act. This of course is the provincial legislation dealing with the days of operation of retail stores in Ontario.

The Retail Business Holidays Act requires most retail stores to close on Sundays and other enumerated holidays. There are exemptions, including those for certain types of stores, essential services and a Sabbatarian exemption for those who observe a day of worship other than Sunday.

I wish to inform the members of this House that the Ontario police are being instructed to enforce the law immediately. This timely decision restores the Retail Business Holidays Act as the law of Ontario.

The retail establishments that have announced their intention to open for business on Good Friday should understand that it is our intention and responsibility to ensure that this law, like any other, is respected and observed. This applies of course to the other statutory holidays as defined in the act, including all Sundays. We expect retailers to comply with the law.

In addition, the court decision provides our government with a basis to improve the legislation so we can further promote the common pause day. The people of Ontario deserve legislation that can be clearly interpreted and fairly applied. In this regard, my ministry is preparing proposed amendments to the Retail Business Holidays Act for the consideration of cabinet.

We are also engaged in a thorough analysis of the Court of Appeal decision and we are concluding consultations with affected groups from across the province. These discussions have involved representatives of the ministries of Labour and Tourism and Recreation.

Public input continues to be vital. Our government is committed to an open, consultative process which gives Ontarians a strong voice in shaping the policy of their provincial government.

MOOSE TAG LOTTERY

Hon Mr Wildman: Partially in response to my friend the member for Simcoe East, I would like to inform the House that the Ministry of Natural Resources will not introduce a group application system for hunters applying to Ontario's moose tag draw until 1992.

A public review of Ontario's moose tag allocation system was conducted this winter by my parliamentary assistant, the member for Cochrane North. This review showed that a group application system will address many of the concerns that hunters have in resolving the current system of allocating moose tags. But the meetings across the province also demonstrated that to ensure a group application system works effectively, the ministry needs to do more to educate, and learn from, moose hunters about the moose draw system. Introducing a group application system for the 1992 hunting season will provide enough time for the ministry staff to fully discuss the system with hunters.

As members may know, Ontario introduced a selective harvest system for moose in 1983. Through this program, the provincial moose population has increased significantly over the past eight years.

More than 4,000 persons attended the review meetings. Hunters made several hundred oral and written submissions, including a number of valuable suggestions about the current tag draw and the group application system. I expect many of these comments will be addressed in the final report and recommendations of the member for Cochrane North, which he will submit to me in early May.

Some hunters feel that the system and the random computer draw used to allocate moose tags does not distribute the tags fairly. The public review sought feedback from hunters about a proposed group application system and how it will help to lessen the frustration of hunters who have been disappointed in the past. A group application system will improve the overall distribution of tags by eliminating the chance that several members of the same group might receive tags in the draw while other groups received none.

I made a commitment when this review was announced in the House in December that we would make an announcement in March, that we would indeed announce in March the results of the system, and we are now fulfilling that commitment, thanks to the parliamentary assistant's efforts. The review indicated there are a number of questions about how the system would work that must be answered before it can be implemented.

I would like to thank my parliamentary assistant for his efforts in conducting this review. On his behalf, I would like to thank everyone who participated in the review and extend thanks to the 14 communities where the meetings were held. I believe the review was a positive process that will lead to an equally positive result and I hope that members will recognize that in the hunting community across Ontario, and particularly in the north, this is indeed an important issue that the members of this House should consider seriously.

RESPONSES

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr Curling: How I am delighted today to see that the Solicitor General is supporting our legislation. We do think it is incumbent upon him, though, to outline his future intention regarding the legislation.

The Premier, before the election and during the election and after the election, in the throne speech, outlined his intention to introduce amendments which would ensure a province-wide common pause day, but I notice the minister is slipping out of that easily. Yet the Solicitor General, as he said, is circulating a policy paper which he talks about, which outlines three proposals. None of these proposals comes close to the establishment of a province-wide pause day, none of these proposals takes the responsibility away from the municipal government for making the fundamental decision about Sunday shopping in the community and none of these proposals fulfils the government's election promise of "that was then and this is now."

While we do not support the government's election promise and the throne speech promise, we do feel that the government should come clean on whether or not it is going to keep its promise to the people of Ontario. If this policy paper is a clear outline of the government's direction, the government is once again going to break another election promise. Only this time they cannot hide behind the recession; this time they must take full responsibility of the policy reversal. More than any time, the minister needs his rubber duck, or his rubber chicken, or would he know the difference?

1410

Mr Sorbara: I remember it was three years ago when the now Premier of the province of Ontario went around to virtually every community and said that our legislation providing for a municipal option for Sunday shopping would threaten family life and destroy communities. He campaigned against that legislation like he campaigned against no other legislation. And today the Solicitor General stands up and expresses delight that the legislation has been upheld. But what we did not hear from the Solicitor General is what the government is going to be doing about the hundreds and hundreds of retail workers who as of this coming Sunday will no longer have the opportunity to work. What is the government going to be doing about the communities like Windsor and Niagara Falls where a good number of shoppers are now going to be crossing the borders on Sunday?

He suggests that there is going to be a consultation process. There are men and women who have come to rely on the situation that has arisen and the government has said absolutely nothing about those workers. They have said nothing about border communities and they have said nothing about what it is that they propose to do. They have had months to prepare legislation and the Solicitor General comes into this House and says that he is going to consult. They promised a common pause day. Apparently we are not going to have that, nor help for retail workers, nor anything else.

MOOSE TAG LOTTERY

Mr Ramsay: I am very disappointed today that the Minister of Natural Resources failed to introduce a group application system to reform the whole moose hunting system, disappointed because we had started that consultation about 18 months previously.

To be fair to the new minister, it is his prerogative and right, as a member of a new government, to examine all policy initiatives that he inherits, and so on 12 December he said he would consult with the people of Ontario. In fact in that consultation, carried out by his parliamentary assistant, the hunters of Ontario who hunt this particular commodity have agreed with this system, that it is a good system. But in fact in the minister's announcement about this consultation on 12 December, the minister then said in the House, "Should the ministry decide to introduce a group application system, it will be put in place in time for the 1991 season."

It is apparent that the paralysis of this government is continuing, that the time frames are shortening of the action of this particular government, and in fact the time frame of "that was then and this is now" is becoming terribly short indeed.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr Carr: I was hoping that as a result of the action today with the court ruling it might have spurred the government to some action -- nothing else seems to have, on a couple of issues -- but I guess not. The status quo seems to be acceptable to the Solicitor General. As we get into this and some of the new amendments come out, we are going to be anxious to find out exactly what is going to happen in the area of tourism. We are going to be anxious to know what is going to happen to those border towns that right now are already reeling under the situation with people going to the United States.

Now the courts have given the right to uphold the Liberal legislation. We are going to look forward to what those amendments will exactly be, now that the court has upheld that ruling. I will make a quote that the Premier made. This is a campaign release back in 6 July 1990. "How Scott could ever have thought that he would get a stay of the earlier judgement is beyond comprehension, and if he thinks his appeal has any chance of success, he is hiding from the facts." I think we know why the Premier is no longer a lawyer. He also said, "The ones who are going to have to pay for this government's cowardly arrogance are the families in Ontario." But that is from an NDP communiqué, and in this House we do not need them anyway.

There is another one here that says, "It was an embarrassing moment for the Liberals a week earlier when Solicitor General Joan Smith, the minister responsible, said the municipal option was the chicken way out of dealing with the issue." She was right. Now what they are doing is consulting, but this was from 18 August NDP election propaganda, so I guess that is out.

We do not need it anyway. I am not going to keep them. They are filling up my cabinet. We do not need them. I am going to clean it all out because it does not matter any more.

As we sit here today, we have more consulting. We have got a situation now in a recent press release coming out where we are going to prosecute the people for opening on Sunday. We have a store owner who already has a sign up saying he is going to be open. Here is a man who is doing it based on, I guess, some type of conscience. Maybe the Premier will think that if somebody opens on Sunday and does that as a result of conscience, it is okay. As we talked about in conflict of interest, if you do something on conscience it is okay, but if you do something and break the law, there is going to be no penalty and in fact you can stay a member of the caucus here.

As we sit here today we are no clearer. In the throne speech we heard very clearly they were going to bring in legislation. Now we are back to consulting, and this statement here is similar to what the NDP's election promises are.

Quite frankly, I do not want to litter this House, but we do not need to keep them. We do not need to keep them any longer because they are totally useless.

The one issue that was not going to cost any money to do now we are back to consulting on. Terry O'Connor, my predecessor, went around this province continually talking about it. We consulted. The Solicitor General should just stand up and do it. I believe my leader would like to add a few remarks to this as well.

Mr Harris: We have heard this commitment from the Premier and this commitment from the NDP: (1) We will have a common pause day for workers in this province. (2) Any law we bring in will respect the problems faced by border communities.

Since 90% of the population of Ontario live within an hour and a half of border communities, we look forward to this law for 10% of Ontarians and to seeing whether this government can live up to those two commitments.

MOOSE TAG LOTTERY

Mr McLean: I would like to comment briefly on the statement made by the Minister of Natural Resources. I had occasion to attend the conference in Thunder Bay, and there were many people there who dealt with the very issue that the minister discussed today. Some 4,000 people have been looked at, there have been reviews, there have been submissions. I think there are an awful lot of members of the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters out there who are very unhappy that it was not proceeded with this year.

We understand that Rick Morgan agrees with the minister's position, and I believe the only reason he agrees with it is because of the mess that was made of the whole process up to and leading into the results that have come out of it. The announcement today really does nothing. What the minister is announcing is that he is doing nothing, and the anglers and hunters I am sure are going to be very disappointed with this announcement.

1420

ORAL QUESTIONS

AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRY

Mr Nixon: I have a question to the Premier dealing with agricultural policy, and particularly his commitment before the election to support this particular part of our economy. The Premier will be aware that Statistics Canada predicts a 15% drop this year in the revenue for agriculture and while the Premier is talking to the Minister of Agriculture and Food two rows back, this deals with the keeping of the promise -- nothing the Minister of Agriculture and Food could do -- in fact perhaps the question might be directed to the Treasurer if the Premier felt it was appropriate.

Last Friday, in one of my other responsibilities, I visited a neighbour in Onondaga township and purchased soybean seed for 80 acres. I went to another neighbour in South Dumfries township and arranged for corn seed for 60 acres. I am glad to say, because of off-farm income for myself, however inadequate that is, I was able to write the cheque. But with the prospects economically facing the farmers of the province this year, they are clearly wondering what has happened to the NDP commitment for the kind of credit support that was a part of An Agenda for People and was a firm promise made by the Premier on behalf of the NDP.

Can he indicate what the status of that promise is and when the farmers might expect the implementation of the commitment for credit assistance?

Hon Mr Rae: I want to answer the question directly. The Minister of Agriculture and Food has been doing a tremendous job on behalf of this government. He has worked enormously effectively to bring these issues to the attention of the whole government and to the whole cabinet. These issues, the issue of support on the credit side and support on the income side and income security programs that have been negotiated with the federal government, are under constant consideration by this government. I should tell the Leader of the Opposition that my view is that the most likely situation is that these will be announced at the time of the budget.

Mr Nixon: I think the federal government deserves some considerable credit for taking the initiative in programs that are going to assist farmers across Canada, but the payment from those particular programs will not come into the pockets of the farmers until at least the end of this growing season. While the Treasurer of the province contemplates his decisions for the budget which may come down in April or perhaps May, the decisions made by the farmers are being made now, in fact I would say this weekend. I think it is an indication perhaps of the insensitivity of the Premier and the members of his government that they are not aware of that.

Mr Speaker, you would be aware, having run on this platform, that there was a clear commitment to $100 million of credit. The government has been in office more than six months. There has been no indication in the speech from the throne, and if it comes in the budget it will be too late for this growing season, of any sort of a rational implementation for that unless the Premier were to announce action today or this week. I would suggest that the Premier respond to the realities of the situation rather than to the perceived politics of the situation.

Hon Mr Rae: That is exactly what I want to do. I would say to the Leader of the Opposition that whatever regard he has for me, I have considerable regard for him, and that will continue to be the case for many years to come. This is not an issue about which I am either personally or, as a government, insensitive. We are enormously sensitive.

Three of our members, the member for Essex-Kent, the member for Lambton and the member for Frontenac-Addington, were out across the province almost as soon as the government was elected, discussing with farmers from one end of the province to another problems of --

Mr Sterling: It is what you do. Everybody discusses.

Hon Mr Rae: Well, I think it is important. I hear some criticism of that, but it seems to me that it is important for that kind of consultation to take place.

I say to the Leader of the Opposition quite sincerely that in view of what he is saying and in view of the views that have been expressed to us by our own committee that went across the province, we will move as soon as it is possible for us to do so. It is not an issue to which we have been or are insensitive, I can assure him.

Mr Nixon: I have a copy of the Hayes report, the Agricultural Finance Review, which the Premier has been referring to, and there does not seem to be a commitment to the $100 million which was the basis upon which many rural electors voted NDP.

When I look at the policy of the minister, I quote from a comment he made to the eastern Ontario farm writers on 5 February 1991 as follows: "We are hoping to find ways in which rural people themselves can play an important role in providing long-term affordable credit for farmers. We want to encourage local communities to take responsibility for the financing of their own farms."

It is a long way from a firm commitment of $100 million in credit that was put forward by the leader of the NDP when he was in opposition to what he is saying in government. There is no joke about this. They have been in office for six months, they have reviewed this and the government is totally moribund in this matter. When the decision may be forthcoming some weeks from now, it will be useless to the farmers who are presently making this year's decisions. They are already expecting a reduction in their net revenue of 15%. If that were true of any other part of the economy, this chamber would be electrified, but right now the government seems to have nothing but a passing interest in it.

Will the Premier give an indication that there will be an announcement within a week dealing with this matter upon which the lives of the rural community depend?

Hon Mr Rae: The fact of the matter is that no minister has done more to present policy and to influence the course of the government than the Minister of Agriculture and Food. The programs which the member has described as federal programs are in fact federal-provincial programs. I would say to the Leader of the Opposition that, surely to goodness, he will understand, in light of the situation we are facing today in terms of the overall economic picture, the importance for the government to consider all the new initiatives together as we consider what we can do in the next fiscal year. That is exactly what we are doing; that is what the member would have done and that is what he did; and that is exactly what we plan to do.

Mr Nixon: Support of the farm economy is not a matter of weighing priorities. It is a matter that is essential and the Premier should be aware of that.

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

Mr Nixon: I have a question for the Minister of Transportation, and it deals with a decision to cancel the Red Hill Creek Expressway. I quote from a letter the minister wrote to the regional chairman on 7 February. In part he says: "We understand that our decision" -- that is, the decision to cancel -- "will have a substantial impact on the community and we are prepared to sit down with regional officials to work out transportation alternatives."

Is the minister aware that investigations by the Hamilton Spectator and its representative in our press gallery have indicated quite clearly that the minister was informed by his officials that any alternatives to the cancelled route were, in the words of the advice the minister received, "not only impractical to build but environmentally unsound"?

Hon Mr Philip: When I became minister, I obtained information from a variety of sources, including technical information from my regional staff. That technical information also pointed out that there were environmental downsides to proceeding with the expressway through the valley.

Our government, our cabinet, used parameters that were different from what the Liberal cabinet used in looking at this project. They were parameters that placed a high emphasis on the environment, and, considering all of those parameters, the cabinet made a decision not to proceed with that particular portion of the expressway.

Mr Nixon: Mr Speaker, I would simply ask the minister to balance the two pieces of information that I have put before you, sir: the one in which the minister said on 7 February that he was going to talk about the transportation alternatives and the other in which the freedom-of-information material published in the Spectator states clearly that the information provided by the impartial experts in his ministry indicated that all alternative routes to the Red Hill parkway are "not only impractical to build but environmentally unsound."

The honourable minister would recall that when he announced the cancellation he said that it was a moral decision. What is the morality in saying to the officials in Hamilton-Wentworth that he is going to discuss route alternatives when he was told three months before by the officials that there were none?

1430

Hon Mr Philip: At this very time my staff have been meeting and have had several meetings and are continuing to meet with the staff of Hamilton-Wentworth and are looking at the transportation needs of that area. When we cancelled the funding of that portion of the expressway for what we considered as a cabinet to be sound, environmental concerns which the previous government did not consider; when we made that decision we assured Hamilton-Wentworth that the money was there to develop other alternative proposals for transportation needs in that area and we are proceeding to do that.

Mr Nixon: Since this decision has been marked by some of the worst earmarks of political cronyism: the transmission of cabinet secrets to NDP supporters in the community; the fact that the honourable minister, according to published reports, knew full well there were no alternatives and yet said to the local officials that he was considering them; would he not think that his actions are seriously inappropriate and would he not think that the judge of all judges might turn his laser gaze on this minister and snuff him out of office because of the inadequacies of the performance of his duties?

Hon Mr Philip: I have checked my pulse and the answer is no.

Mr Harris: I have a question for the Premier concerning the Red Hill Creek Expressway decision. This was a decision that his Minister of Transportation previously said was a cabinet decision. Today he has repeated that, that cabinet took a decision based on the information that it had before it.

I would like to ask the Premier if, in fact, when he, as leader of his cabinet, made this decision, he had the information before him that has now come to light through the freedom of information from the ministry, that studies showed that the least environmentally problematic solution was in fact the Red Hill Creek Expressway, and that the alternatives his minister said that he was prepared to explore were not only considerably more expensive -- one of them that he proposed is of no benefit at all as an expressway -- but in fact would cause more environmental disruption than the Red Hill Creek proposal? Was that information available to him in cabinet?

Hon Mr Rae: I am going to refer that question to the Minister of Transportation.

Hon Mr Philip: There was no doubt in the minds of the cabinet that the cheapest transportation route was through the valley. But other considerations, considerations provided not just by my regional staff but by others, were that to take that route would have other costs, grave environmental costs, and we decided not to take that route. It was a cabinet decision. I am proud of that cabinet decision.

Mr Harris: What I think it is important to know -- since the people in Hamilton were not given the information, they had to use the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to get access to it -- is whether the information was before the cabinet that in cancelling the Red Hill Creek Expressway option and saying that there were alternatives such as Highway 20 and the Fruitland Road, were they aware of the fact that he had information, his ministry had information, that those alternatives, never mind the cost, were environmentally more unacceptable than that which he cancelled?

Hon Mr Philip: That certainly would not be the position of environmentalists; that certainly was not the position of the chairman of the consolidated hearings board, which wrote a dissenting report. Indeed, the cabinet looked at a variety of information and decided that the decision it was taking was the right decision in the light of environmental considerations. We stand by that.

Mr Harris: I would like to ask the minister this, and he may want to refer it back to the Premier, where I started. If he wishes to do that, of course he can do that. If he does not wish to do that --

Hon Mr Wildman: You cannot do that. It is the rule.

Mr Harris: Oh, is that a no-no? Is that morally unacceptable? I am sorry.

Aside from the fact that we now find out that the alternatives are either not alternatives at all or they are environmentally unacceptable; aside from the fact of the costs involved, the minister has continually claimed that he has stopped this project for environmental reasons.

I would like to ask the minister why it is, then, that he has told the region, "You can go ahead and build this expressway through the Red Hill Creek area," that in fact there is no environmental reason that he has said they cannot build it, that all he has done is remove a firm commitment for funding that they had and cancelled that retroactively. If it was environmental consideration, can the minister tell us why the region can go ahead and build this if it wants?

Hon Mr Philip: In response to the first question, the House rules do not allow me to refer it back to the Premier. In response to the second question, to the leader of the Conservative Party, I can tell him that I have no legal right to stop the expressway. It is a Hamilton-Wentworth expressway. It is their project. What I do have the right to do as the Minister of Transportation, and what we have a right to do as a provincial cabinet, is to fund or not fund a project. This particular project we are not prepared to fund because we think that it would be environmentally damaging and we think that would be hypocrisy compared to the program that we got elected to office on.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr Runciman: My question is for the Premier as well and it deals with auto insurance. There is a rumour that, following the firing of the member for Welland-Thorold, insurance executives across this province were saying, "Bob Rae, you've made our day." I want to review some of the Premier's commitments made in respect to this issue.

Last November the Premier told the Toronto Star, "There will be fair access to the courts." He told the Globe and Mail, "The new legislation was to ensure that people get the right to compensation for pain and suffering." Will the Premier confirm that those are still his views and that they will be reflected in the auto insurance policy the government introduces?

Hon Mr Rae: I want to answer the member for Leeds-Grenville as directly as I can. At the same time I hope he will appreciate, having been a member of a government, and he will know that it is difficult for me, in fact it is impossible for me, to discuss legislation that is being reviewed in the governmental process and that will be presented to the House in the spring session. That is just a rule of the House.

So I want to say to the member for Leeds-Grenville that we are committed to driver-owned insurance, we are committed to a plan that does justice for people who have been injured and we are committed to a plan which provides the best possible safety on the highway for all the people of the province. That is the kind of plan we are committed to and that is the kind of legislation that we will be presenting to the House in the spring.

Mr Runciman: I suggest that in opposition the Premier would have described that kind of response as weasel words. We have had considerable quotes in the media today and the previous day indicating that some significant players in the cabinet are opposed to the return of the right to sue in this province.

Last December, both the Minister of Housing and the Minister of Health voted against my bill to restore the right to sue for innocent accident victims. We also know that the Treasurer likes pure no-fault, which will completely eliminate the right to sue. Will the Premier indicate whether this no-tort troika not only sealed Mr Kormos's fate but also is pressuring him to back away from his promise to restore the right to sue?

Hon Mr Rae: In a word, not at all.

1440

Mr Runciman: That adds up to three. I hope we do not have the same problem with the budget.

The bulk of the Premier's caucus supported my bill to restore the right to sue. It appears he is capitulating to these three ideologues, this no-tort trio on his front bench; he is turning his back on innocent accident victims in this province and he is trashing the promises he made to the people of Ontario. The Kormos affair was only a symptom of a much deeper problem. The Premier cannot tolerate criticism from his colleagues, and he is unable or unwilling to give real leadership to this government.

Last year the Premier did not hesitate to see the business of this House held up for weeks by Mr Kormos's filibuster. He did not hesitate to try to share the limelight with him. But now, when he has the power to act, he is hesitating. Was that just a phoney grab for votes? Was that just a ploy? If not, when is he going to keep the promise to Ontarians, exercise real leadership and restore the right to sue?

Hon Mr Rae: If I had any difficulty tolerating criticism, I would not have presented myself again as leader of the New Democratic Party just a couple of weeks ago at our convention. It is the bread and butter of political life. The member for Leeds-Grenville and I both know it, and I will say to all members of the House that I expect and indeed -- I do not welcome, I do not revel in it but I certainly realize that that is what is going to happen. Let me just say to the members that we are as committed to a reform which will genuinely respond to the needs of people who have been injured in accidents on the road, which will reduce the number of accidents on the road and which will, if I may say so, give to the public the kind of control and accountability in the system which they have never had. They never had it under the Conservative Party when they were in government for so long. They never had it under the Liberals when they were in government. They are going to get it under the New Democratic Party; that is what they are going to get.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr Curling: It is never like the socialists to give all the lovely rhetoric. Sounds good.

My question is to the Solicitor General. Earlier today the Solicitor General in response to the media said he was extremely pleased with the decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal. He also noted that the government would begin immediately to enforce Ontario's Sunday shopping legislation -- immediately.

It seems the Solicitor General's memory is extremely short. He does not have one. Approximately two years ago he and his colleagues held as you recall, Mr Speaker -- while you were watching at home at the time quite possibly -- this Legislature hostage in an all-out effort to stop introduction of the legislation he now intends to enforce. That was then and this is now. During the election the Premier reiterated his concerns with the legislation that the Solicitor General is so delighted with today. The Premier promised he would implement a province-wide common pause day to regulate shopping on Sundays, and yet we now find that the Solicitor General is circulating a policy proposal which, as members know, falls short of this commitment and does nothing to create a common pause day in Ontario. That was then, as it is now.

This is the question: Will the Solicitor General tell the members of the Legislature if this is now the government's policy and if he has abandoned his Premier's election commitment to provide a province-wide common pause day?

Hon Mr Farnan: The member is right. I was pleased we got this decision from the Court of Appeal; in that sense he is right. However, the member is wrong in this sense: I will not only enforce the legislation, I intend to improve it.

Mr Curling: I am delighted to hear that. In the minister's policy proposal, he suggests that the province revert to the old Tories' exemption policy and a system of special exemption for border communities. These exemptions ensure that certain communities will be open for business on Sundays and that certain workers will have to work on Sundays. Even the Solicitor General will have to recognize this means that the government cannot fulfil its promise of a province-wide common pause day.

Will the Solicitor General come clean? Will he either scrap this policy proposal or tell the people of Ontario the Premier is not going to keep his election promise on Sunday shopping?

Hon Mr Farnan: I thank my honourable friend for the question and members should let me say this: It is our intention to consult. It is our commitment to have the most effective common pause legislation, and I am prepared to offer to sit down with the critic for the opposition party and listen to his suggestions as to how he can help me make the most effective common pause legislation possible. I have put that invitation to him. I welcome the support of the member from the third party in working together to get the most effective legislation.

ECONOMIC POLICY

Mr Harris: Seven out of 11 jurisdictions across this country have recognized that their economies are in difficulty, that in fact the private sector is suffering, that as I have said on a number of occasions the brothers and sisters in the private sector unions are hungry, are out of work and need help through this recession. Seven out of 11 jurisdictions have brought in wage restraint programs for those in the public sector, us, the civil servants, the recession-proof jobs that the Premier and the Liberals refer to. Just recently, Quebec has frozen the wages of Quebec public sector employees for some 450,000 Quebeckers so they could have in their case about $800 million to help those workers in the private sector who are out of work and laid off.

With 200,000 jobs lost in this province in the last four months, can the Premier tell me why in the public sector under Bob Rae it is business as usual? "Carry on inflation plus inflation and don't worry about it. You are in recession-proof jobs. None of this applies to you." And why are we the only jurisdiction carrying on this way in this country?

Hon Mr Rae: The Treasurer can answer that.

1450

Hon Mr Laughren: To the leader of the third party, I recognize the reasons that the other provinces have taken the move they have. However, when it comes to controlling our expenditures, I would prefer that we do so in consultation with those people who help us make this province work. I would much rather sit down with the Chairman of Management Board and the public sector leadership and work out an arrangement in which we regard them as partners in this problem and partners in arriving at a solution than impose the kind of legislation that other jurisdictions have.

Mr Harris: Other jurisdictions are coming up with recession policies whereby they are saying those who have these recession-proof, guaranteed jobs will take a little less so that they can help those who are unemployed and hungry. The Treasurer has taken the approach that he will try to help them by increasing taxes or increasing the deficit with his $700-million recession package.

I laid out last week a basis whereby everybody could get an increase. The Treasurer could still proceed with correcting inequities, and yet he could have $700 million to fight the recession without increasing taxes and without increasing the deficit by limiting public sector salaries to 2%, not zero, as in Quebec.

Mr Perruzza: Come on. You guys created it.

Mr Harris: The member is right. The Liberals did create it. I agree with him. They are all the same. I know he cannot get on the agenda to speak, but he is right. It was big spending, high taxing that created it. Now the same problem that got us into the mess is the Treasurer's solution.

I would ask the Treasurer again, does it make sense that those workers who are laid off and have no income are losing their homes -- many of these jobs never to return -- and should have to continue to pay taxes for a public sector that is getting increases in excess of the rate of inflation and it is business as usual? Does that make sense to the Treasurer?

Hon Mr Laughren: I guess I come at the problem from a different premise than the leader of the third party does. First of all, I do not believe there is any such thing as a recession-proof job in the province of Ontario.

Mr Harris: I don't but you do.

Hon Mr Laughren: No, I do not believe that is the case. I do not think that is the solution. If I thought that was the solution, it would be a different debate we would be having.

All I would say to the member of the third party is that unlike the federal government, unlike some other governments I think that laying off large numbers of employees -- which some of those jurisdictions are doing, which he referred to -- is hardly an appropriate response to a recession. I know that the leader of the third party does not like our $700-million antirecession package, but I think we had an obligation to respond to the recession at least to that amount.

I would reinforce what I said before, that when it comes to dealing with the public sector in the province of Ontario, we would much rather sit down and talk to them as partners in this problem than laying some kind of legislation on them.

TIRE TAX

Mr Huget: This question is to the Minister of Revenue and concerns the provincial tire tax. Many tire retailers and consumers in my riding are concerned about paying the province's tire tax and at the same time having to pay a used tire disposal fee. Could the minister tell me why the $5 tax is being collected on new tires, and why there is also a $5 disposal fee?

Ms Wark-Martyn: I thank the member for the question. The purpose of the tax, as we all know, hopefully, is to help deal with environmental problems caused by large volumes of used tires discarded in Ontario. The disposal fee he refers to is not a provincial tax, but I assume it is charged either by the municipality or a dealer.

Mr Huget: The supplementary is to the same minister. Is the money collected by the provincial tire tax in fact going into the disposal of used tires?

Ms Wark-Martyn: There is no separate accounting for the tax collected. It is all entered into the consolidated revenue fund. From these funds, the funding is directed to the Ministry of the Environment.

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

Mr Daigeler: My question is to the Minister of Colleges and Universities. We are now into the third week of the strike at Trent University, and so far we have heard very little, only very vague expressions of hope from the minister that the strike will soon be over. I may add we have heard nothing either from the member for Peterborough, which is rather disappointing.

I was at Trent this morning meeting with students to hear how the strike is affecting them personally. They have told me that about half of the students at Trent University are receiving OSAP assistance. If the school year is in fact extended because of the strike, but OSAP ends with the regular eight months, many students at Trent are either going to be out of money or will have to further increase their debt load. I ask the minister, will he provide the extra OSAP grants for the students who are forced to delay their summer jobs and spend extra unbudgeted time in their classes, or is he going to let the students down again, as he did when he broke the NDP promise not to raise tuition fees?

Hon Mr Allen: The member for Nepean managed to get two questions in one. That is a very economical way of doing things, but it is not economical of my time in response.

If I could only refer to the latter, in the first instance I would like to comment that our basic promise to this province was to maintain a university system in as good health as we possibly could and we assumed the students would want to help in that process. We plowed as much government money as we could into a major increase in the funding this year. As far as we could push it, we still could not quite get to the point of a steady state increment for the university system so we asked the students to pay the formula fee in order to meet that objective. I do not think the member would want to see this system drift from 9th place to 10th place out of 10 provinces, as would have been the case if I had followed the kind of advice that is implied in his question.

The Speaker: Supplementary.

Hon Mr Allen: Mr Speaker, with respect to the first part of the question, if you will permit me to answer the first question he asked me, the first part of the question had to do with what I will do if certain circumstances happen at Trent University in terms of an extended strike in that institution. I am concerned, as he is, with the fate of students and others in that institution and I will only say to him at this point in time that the question is highly hypothetical. My ministry is monitoring the situation. We know what is happening. The mediator is there and the discussions continue and that is as far as I can carry the issue with him at this point in time.

Mr Daigeler: This situation and the fear by the students at Trent certainly is not hypothetical. What does it take for the minister to make a commitment today as we did when we were in a similar situation during the 1989 college strike, when we committed ourselves to providing the extra funding towards the students who are caught in the middle, innocent victims of a labour negotiation conflict? What does it take, I ask the minister, to provide the extra OSAP to the students, to make that commitment today to put the students, who are very fearful about losing their academic year already, at ease? Will the minister commit himself today to say, "Yes, if the strike continues, if the school year is extended, we will provide that support for the students because we care for the students"?

Hon Mr Allen: I am astonished at the self-righteousness of the question. I recall, at the same stage in the very strike the member referred to in the college system, the Minister of Colleges and Universities at that time standing up and saying exactly what I said, that as a responsible minister he could make no further response in light of the circumstances of the day.

1500

HUNTING IN ALGONQUIN PARK

Mr McLean: My question is for the Minister of Natural Resources. The Minister of Natural Resources and minister responsible for native affairs has compromised the separate ministries with his recent announcement that he will allow native hunting in Algonquin Provincial Park. The minister's decision to allow hunting and the use of motor vehicles is contrary to the designated use of the park and seriously jeopardizes its environmental integrity, and it also involves the tourism industry in this province. Why did the minister renege on his promise to the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters to include all interested parties in his government's native resource agreement negotiations before making this arbitrary decision about Algonquin Park?

Hon Mr Wildman: I thank the member for Simcoe East for raising a very important issue before the House. All of us in this House recognize that Algonquin Park is the jewel of the provincial park system and we all want to protect the park's values in that system while at the same time ensuring that we meet the responsibility of ensuring that aboriginal people in this province can happily exercise their aboriginal rights.

I want to assure the members of this House that this is an ongoing process, that discussions are continuing. We are committed to negotiating arrangements which will protect park values in the park, will protect conservation, will protect public safety and will respect the aboriginal rights.

This is a very difficult and complex series of negotiations and a very important one. I want to ensure that the members understand that we have in no way broken any commitments to other groups. As a matter of fact, we are currently involved in consultations with a large number of groups, including the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters, the Federation of Ontario Naturalists, the Friends of Algonquin Park, the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society and the Algonquin Wildlands League. All of these groups have indicated considerable interest and a great deal to offer in helping us, along with Chief Meness and Councillor Doug Benoit, in these very difficult negotiations. We are continuing to consult as we should and hope to have an agreement within the next 10 to 15 days.

Mr McLean: The new Algonquin Park management plan was supposed to be released in the fall of 1990. We have not seen that report yet. Why did the minister not table that report before he arbitrarily made this decision? He has indicated to the House today that he has consulted and consulted and consulted. I have not seen any report or any indication of any input from these groups into the decisions that he makes, so where did the minister get his information to make the arbitrary decision before all the public had input into this great master plan?

Hon Mr Wildman: The member uses the term "arbitrary," and of course it is his option to use such a word. No final decision has been made.

Mr Bradley: Here comes the retreat.

Hon Mr Wildman: There is nothing to retreat from. As a matter of fact, this has been an ongoing process of negotiation, one that continues. As a matter of fact, yesterday afternoon my deputy minister and I met with Rick Morgan of the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters.

The members of the Ministry of Natural Resources staff, both at the regional level, the parks level, and at head office level, as well as members of the Ontario native affairs secretariat have been deeply involved in the negotiations, and we are looking forward to a situation where we will be able to respond to a very difficult situation.

I will just conclude by indicating one point: This is a unique situation. There is a unique park to be protected. There is also an aboriginal claim, an aboriginal group of people. The Algonquins of Golden Lake have never signed a treaty. They have a claim which should be negotiated. We are working to ensure that their rights are protected while the rights of all other park users are also protected. It is very difficult and complex. We are consulting but we do not intend to do this in the glare of the public eye.

Mr Owens: I think with the bellowing and wailing that is going on in the House today, it is probably quite appropriate that our minister made a statement on moose tags. It reminds one of Algonquin Park in spring.

PROTECTION OF IN-CARE RESIDENTS

Mr Owens: My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services. Yesterday she made an announcement in the House with respect to safeguards for youth. In reviewing the statement, the changes tend to be systemic in nature. The youth who would be affected by these changes tend not to access the system simply because they do not trust the system. I am wondering what her ministry is doing to ensure first of all that these children are aware of the safeguards and are able to access these safeguards.

Hon Mrs Akande: Actually, the document does in fact state that we are working to ensure that children are approached and are made aware of their rights, know about their rights, and that it is done in a way that is appropriate to their age and their level of ability, that those standards are reviewed every year and that we constantly move to ensure that the children are aware of where they can turn and how they can seek assistance for protection, or if in fact abuse has occurred. We are also working with the Ontario Association for Children with Learning Disabilities to implement standards for children with disability, so that in fact they too can have that protection.

PLANT CLOSURE

Mr Kwinter: I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. The minister will know that Darwin Smith, the president of Kimberly-Clark in the United States, informed the workers up at the Spruce Falls Power and Paper Co that unless they make a deal with Ontario Hydro by 30 April they will have to shut it down. The minister will also know, I hope, that there have been overtures to buy this plant, there have been representations made to the governments to have them participate, and to date nothing has happened.

Could he tell me what plans he has and what specifically has he done -- not what he is going to do -- about this situation to help solve a problem that could devastate Kapuskasing, that could put at least 1,200 people out of work and could be a catastrophe on the magnitude of what is possibly happening in Algoma?

Hon Mr Pilkey: I appreciate the question. The question was: What has the government done? The government has created an interministerial committee. That committee has already met with the employee group that wishes to buy the plant. We have also met with the company, as well as Ontario Hydro.

I am very pleased to advise the member that tomorrow, if that is soon enough for him, we will be receiving a business plan from the employee purchase group, which will be going to our interministerial committee as well as the company and Ontario Hydro, so that we might see how we could directly and promptly assist in creating a circumstance there that will limit any potential unemployment or problem that is possible.

1510

Mr Kwinter: It pains me to say that we have a minister here who has done absolutely nothing to help alleviate the problem that is facing industry in Ontario. I know for a fact that the minister spends most of his time locked in his office taking naps in the afternoon and does not have the time to meet with the potential buyer for the operation. They tried to meet with him; he did not have the time. Now what he is talking about is an interministerial committee to try a pie-in-the-sky operation. When is he going to start doing the things that he is paid to do and when is he going to start acting like the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology?

Hon Mr Pilkey: I am pleased to respond, as I have previously, that our ministry, along with many other ministries within this government, has been extremely active. We will be receiving the business plan tomorrow and we will continue to act in a very prompt and very aggressive way to try to solve the problem.

PURCHASE OF URANIUM

Mr Jordan: My question is for the Minister of Energy. Can the minister tell the House if it remains the policy of her party to have Ontario Hydro increase its purchases of uranium from Denison Mines at Elliot Lake, and if so, has she advised Ontario Hydro of that policy?

Hon Mrs Carter: I am at a loss to understand what the honourable member opposite means by plans to increase purchases of uranium from Elliot Lake. This whole question is at present under review. It is something that we are extremely concerned about. We are very concerned about the people of Elliot Lake and this government has several ideas under way to make sure, whatever happens as far as uranium purchases go and jobs in the mines are concerned, that the people of Elliot Lake will suffer the absolute minimum possible.

Mr Jordan: Ontario Hydro is presently negotiating with Denison Mines. On one hand we have the Premier telling the province that his government will increase the purchase of uranium from Elliot Lake; on the other hand we have the minister stating that the prospect of continuing the mines is not brilliant, they do not have much of a future. Who are the people of Elliot Lake to believe? The Premier, who promised to increase purchases, or the minister, saying they do not have much of a future?

Hon Mrs Carter: I think we all know that Denison Mines is in trouble. This is nothing to do with the actions of the Ontario government. This is a question of purchases from overseas having more or less ceased, so that there are business difficulties there.

The contract with Ontario Hydro is good until 1992. There is no immediate prospect of purchases ceasing. The contract with Rio Algoma also continues for some time into the future, but we do have to be realistic and consider what the future of the town of Elliot Lake is going to be.

ECONOMIC POLICY

Mr Duignan: My question is to the Treasurer. Given the fact that this province is in the middle of a recession due largely to the Tories' friends in Ottawa, to the monetary and budgetary policies which have caused extensive high interest rates and an overvalued dollar, in the Treasurer's statement to this House on 18 March he indicated that the current recession is somewhat different from the early 1980s. I wonder if he could please expand on this.

Mr Offer: Expand, Floyd, expand.

Mr Bradley: He's already expanded.

Hon Mr Laughren: The member for Halton North asked an important question, and I would have thought that the opposition would be concerned about the depth of this recession compared to the 1982 one as well.

I could tell the member for Halton North that this recession is indeed different from the one back in 1981-82. There have been more jobs lost in this recession than there were in the one in 1981-82, but even more disturbing than the absolute job losses are the kinds of jobs that are being lost. Last time, as I recall, approximately 25% of all of the job losses were as a result of permanent closures. This time, in this recession, in 1990, about two thirds of all the job losses were as a result of permanent closures. That is why we talk about there being a restructuring going on in the economy and that is what basically makes it a different kind of recession than we had back in 1981-82.

Mr Duignan: It appears that the Tories' only answer to this recession, which was caused by their friends in Ottawa, is to shift the deficit on to the backs of the people who can least afford to pay it in this province. Why then does the federal government not put a stop to this economic madness and give priority to some strong antirecessionary measures?

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

The Speaker: Would you repeat it briefly?

Mr Duignan: Why then does the federal government not put a stop to its economic madness and give some priority to some strong --

Interjections.

The Speaker: I thought we might try a more inventive format, of asking a question and then listening for the answer. That applies all the way around. The member for Halton North had a brief supplementary but the Treasurer, like myself and others, was unable to hear it. Would he place it quickly and then we could have the response.

Mr Duignan: My supplementary is to the Treasurer. Why does the federal government not put a stop to its economic madness and give priority to some strong antirecessionary measures?

Hon Mr Laughren: The member for Halton North asked a good question. I am sure that his intention was not to tease the bears on the other side. I must say to the member for Halton North that I am at a loss to explain why the federal government is so totally preoccupied with the spectre of inflation as opposed to dealing with the problems of the recession. Their restrictions on transfer payments will cost the province of Ontario over $1 billion in 1991-92. We are very concerned about their failure to join us in our battle against the recession. We invited the federal government to join with us in our antirecession package. For some reason I do not understand, they refused to do so. As well, I was dismayed, shocked and appalled when, in the federal budget, they announced a reduction of $100 million in the Canadian Jobs Strategy Package. To me, that is aiding and abetting the recession rather than trying to do something about it.

In conclusion, if I might, we are continuing to do battle with the recession. We still believe the end is in sight and that Ontario is still the best place to work, to live and to invest.

Interjection.

The Speaker: The member will indeed get a question. Could we go back to 30 seconds and --

Mr Offer: And supplementary.

The Speaker: Just hold on, just relax. I know everyone is really intensely interested, which is terrific. Quite frankly, folks, I have never seen a chamber where comments were provocative when they were compliments, compliments across the floor and they turn out to be provocative. I think that since you folks are also interested, we will have a question and a brief supplementary.

1520

REORGANIZATION OF REGIONAL OFFICES

Mr Miclash: My question is to the Minister of Natural Resources. On 5 March the people of Ontario were told that the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources' reorganization would both streamline the ministry and increase its efficiency. This reorganization eliminated the Kenora regional office. We are talking about a regional office that served a vast northern area, one which is dependent on natural resources for its survival. As a result of this closure, we are going to lose a good number of jobs from our community during this, a time of recession.

The communities of Timmins and Cochrane, which are only 90 kilometres apart, have retained both regional office responsibilities and the district office status. Knowing this, I want to know if the minister can explain why the Kenora regional office has been eliminated, with its responsibilities and jobs moving to a community some 480 kilometres to the east.

Hon Mr Wildman: I appreciate the question from the member for Kenora. The purpose, as he knows, of the reorganization of the Ministry of Natural Resources is to get as many resource managers into the field as possible, close to the resources they are responsible for managing and to the people who use them. In that process, we have tried to eliminate as much middle management as possible by lowering the number of regions in the province from eight to four. In that process, he is correct, we did have to eliminate some regional offices, but we are moving the staff, the managers of the resources, from those offices into the field offices. No community that has an office now will lose a presence of the ministry.

With regard specifically to the Kenora office as compared to the regional office in Timmins-Cochrane, I should point out that the Kenora region is being eliminated and amalgamated with the Thunder Bay region whereas Timmins-Cochrane is one regional office. It has some of the staff in Timmins and some in Cochrane. That regional office is remaining and is not changing. It is a historic situation that has been in that region for some time.

Other regions in the northeast, however, are being eliminated, such as Sudbury, where they will lose some staff as well, because those services will be provided out of Huntsville.

I want to emphasize, though, that the staff who were in regional offices before who were responsible for managing resources will be moving into the field offices, into offices, such as Kenora, in the districts and area offices to serve the people in those communities.

Mr Miclash: I am disappointed in the answer. The minister talks about two regional offices that I spoke of being within 90 kilometres of each other. I indicated that my regional office has moved away from the Kenora area, an area that was very important, 480 kilometres to the east.

The minister has combined the two regional offices into one. Why could that not be the situation for the Kenora area as well? I am talking of a distance that you suggest is very close, 90 kilometres. I am talking of a distance in the Kenora region where we have gone 480 kilometres to the east.

I suggest that the minister is not taking jobs out to the people. He is taking them away from the area that I serve, the community of Kenora, and moving them into a central region.

Hon Mr Wildman: I understand the member's concern for the community of Kenora and to ensure that community is properly served, and I appreciate him bringing the matter before the House. He is incorrect, however. There are not two regional offices within 90 kilometres in Timmins and Cochrane. That is one regional office with some staff located in Timmins and some in Cochrane. It is one region, just as the Thunder Bay region is now one region serving the area from there.

PETITIONS

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

Mr Conway: I would like to lay before the House a petition signed by hundreds of my constituents in Renfrew county concerning the planning process intended for the Opeongo River Parkway.

RELIGIOUS EDUCATION

Mr Harris: I have a petition signed by 16 residents of North Bay and area which reads as follows:

"To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

"We respectfully request that the government of Ontario provide publicly funded religious education programs and alternative schooling on an opt-in basis to all parents in Ontario, thus enabling them to choose the type of education which they believe to be most beneficial to their children."

I too have affixed my signature, as is appropriate.

ALCOHOL AND DRUG TREATMENT

Mr Harris: I have a petition signed by approximately 415 residents of North Bay and area which reads as follows:

"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:

"We, the undersigned, support the Vita Way Farm Inc treatment centre as a long-term treatment facility for our youth. We feel with the closure of this facility that the chemically dependent youth will be forgotten. We also feel that sending the chemically dependent to the United States for treatment at a cost of over $60,000 per client is unjust to such a facility when our budget from the Ministry of Community and Social Services is only $240,000, which will treat 50 clients per year."

NIAGARA DETENTION CENTRE

Mr Cooper: I am presenting a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario on behalf of David Rabinovitch, and it is signed by himself.

HOME CARE

Mr Johnson: I am pleased to table a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It is a petition that is signed by approximately 1,400 concerned citizens. They are concerned, by the nature of their petition, that the Belleville General Hospital board of governors has placed the Victorian Order of Nurses, Quinte branch, in competition for home care services with two for-profit nursing agencies. I will affix my signature to this petition.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

HEALTH CARDS AND NUMBERS CONTROL ACT, 1990 / LOI DE 1990 SUR LE CONTRÔLE DES CARTES SANTÉ ET DES NUMÉROS DE CARTES SANTÉ

Mrs Gigantes moved second reading of Bill 24, An Act to control the private use of Cards issued and Numbers assigned to Insured Persons under the Health Insurance Act.

M^me Gigantes propose la deuxième lecture du projet de loi 24, Loi contrôlant l'usage dans le secteur privé des cartes et des numéros attribués aux assurés en vertu de la Loi sur l'assurance-santé.

Hon Mrs Gigantes: As members are aware, on 13 December 1990 I introduced the Health Cards and Numbers Control Act to provide Ontarians with the protection they need in order to maintain the confidentiality of their individual health card numbers. This legislation will prohibit individuals, businesses and organizations from requiring people to show their personal health card as a condition of providing goods or services. It will also prohibit the collection or use of a person's health number to obtain information for data banks, credit checks, mass mailings and the like. Only providers of health services, the Ministry of Health or persons prescribed by regulation can use the health numbers for administrative planning or other health-related purposes.

I intend to protect the confidentiality of the information associated with the provision of health services by introducing a wider-ranging health information privacy bill at a later date. I hope it will not be too much later.

As I announced on 13 December, my ministry has moved to make a plastic holder available to senior citizens for their Health 65 cards. In April the card holders will be mailed free of charge to seniors across Ontario. It will allow senior citizens to use their Health 65 cards to prove their eligibility for seniors' discounts and special offers without revealing their health numbers.

The right to privacy is a priority for the Ministry of Health, and as minister I seek to protect the privacy of the health number by establishing legislative protection against the use of the ministry's health number in ways that can endanger the privacy of Ontario residents.

1530

Mr Phillips: I speak in favour of the bill. I guess the only comment I would make is that we very much are looking forward to some of the bigger issues being dealt with and I think it may be mildly embarrassing to the government that the very first piece of business that the House deals with after being away for three months is this bill, in that every day there are 1,500 fewer people working in this province. It is a very shocking statistic and one that all of us I think are appalled by. Certainly we support this bill. In fact, I cannot find anyone who is against the bill. There is no health group against it.

As I said when the bill was introduced, it was our hope that we would be dealing with the more comprehensive privacy legislation that would be dealing with a person's rights to his hospital records and his medical records, that we would have dealt with that, I think, broadly important topic.

I might also, as I said, ask the Minister of Health to begin to move on some of the very substantive issues, the long-term care issue, the community-based care issue, the northern health care issue, the whole issue of how we are dealing with what I think is a growing trend towards health services being provided for Ontario citizens in the US -- indeed, I think we are seeing an increase in the number of commissioned agents here recruiting Ontario residents to go to the US for their health care services -- and the health professions legislation, all these major issues that are sitting waiting for the minister to move on them.

We will be in support of this bill. I will repeat what I said earlier, that it was our hope we would be dealing with a much more comprehensive piece of privacy legislation that would have a much broader impact on the residents, the people of Ontario, but in the absence of any of that, we certainly will support this bill going forward for second reading and then ultimately for third reading.

Mr Eves: I wish to rise and speak in support of the legislation as well. I think it is important to bear in mind some of the history behind this piece of legislation. I believe that the whole issue around health cards really became a big issue in the province of Ontario after the 1987 Provincial Auditor's report in which he pointed out that there were some huge abuses in the OHIP system, or at least potential for abuses in the OHIP system would be a better way for me to put it, in that there were in excess of 25 million people on the OHIP computer system and there are only some nine million people in the province of Ontario. It became quite evident that we in this province had a very real problem.

I believe that Ontario is the last provincial jurisdiction in the country to go to the use of a personal health insurance number for each and every resident. Although I do commend the previous minister for introducing the system, there was a problem here with respect to privacy with respect to the introduction of health cards, and the privacy commissioner and others stated very publicly that they believed that introducing the card without this companion legislation would be a threat, or could be a threat, to individual privacy and they urged the previous government to introduce legislation to control the use of the health card number.

The privacy act itself states that medical information recorded by the provincial government can only be used for that purpose for which it was intended, but the act does not apply to the private sector and there was the need for what is now known as Bill 24.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner sent a letter, which he released to the public, to the Minister of Health on 26 June 1990 urging the government to prohibit the private sector from asking people for their new health numbers for anything other than health purposes. The privacy commissioner went on to state, "It is not sufficient for the Ministry of Health to generally accept the concept of privacy protection without making a firm commitment to control the use of the health number through legislation."

This legislation is intended to prohibit individuals, businesses and organizations from requiring people to show their health card number as a condition of providing goods or services.

I would like to commend the current minister in government on introducing the legislation, which is something that the previous government and minister did not at least get around to doing, although she had hinted that she might be interested in doing it.

Our party has advocated that legislative controls be put in place on the use of the number and that legislation be introduced to ensure that individuals are not denied nonmedical services if they do not provide their health card number.

I would also make a request of the minister that she make some attempt to ensure that the possibility of fraud is eliminated through the system, and I believe there was previously a suggestion by the previous government to conduct a post-issue audit.

I would also ask that the government ensure that homeless people, street alcoholics and transients have a health card number and that all individuals from the province have access to our health card services. We should include refugee claimants in that group as well.

I think it is worth mentioning also that the Ministry of Health should use the information collected under the new system to plan effectively for the future. I think this could lead to more effective management of our health care resources. I have advocated, and I believe others in our party have as well, and I am sure other members of the Legislature as well, that it indeed would help if individual residents received a statement from time to time. I do not know whether the most appropriate method would be quarterly, half yearly or yearly, but I think it would really be very appropriate if Ontario taxpayers and residents knew exactly how much the health care system does cost and their use of the health care system costs.

Having said that, I congratulate the minister for introducing this legislation and will be very supportive of it.

Mr Sutherland: It is a pleasure to be back here in the House and have the House sitting and to be able to speak this afternoon on Bill 24 to control the private use of cards. I think it is very important that this piece of legislation be brought forward to protect people's individual privacy. Certainly everyone is in need of health care, as we know they use it on a regular basis, and I think the citizens of Ontario would be very concerned that somehow people could get access to their files or access to other personal information about them through the use of the health card.

I want to commend the minister as well for introducing this legislation. I also want to commend the minister for some of the people she consulted with, including Professor Flaherty, who was actually one of my professors when I was at the University of Western Ontario and who is clearly recognized not only in the province or the country but I certainly think throughout North America as one of the foremost experts on protection of individual privacy. I think that was a very good selection in terms of consulting with that individual.

It is also important to know that there is protection here for senior citizens and those people who are maybe more vulnerable, in that if people got access to some of the information senior citizens have they could be taken advantage of, and we certainly would not want that.

I think the other thing -- and if I may, I want to cite a personal experience here -- it is also good that what information is on the card is not going to be put out publicly, because I find it rather annoying when you decide to do something such as take out a subscription to a magazine. I happened to do that once and I took it out and I figured I was just giving them my information, just to that particular publication.

1540

Then it is interesting to note, when you do that, you start receiving all these application forms for other publications, and then you receive it for china collections, and then you receive it for Book-of-the-Month Club and all these other things. Actually it is quite interesting, because somehow in the publication I got a subscription to, they got my name mixed up and they had it down as Ms rather than Mr Sutherland. What I was able to do, though, was to track all the different other groups that happened to get my address from that publication, because they all came addressed as Ms. Actually, it was quite interesting. I have to tell members how surprised I was when I received a letter from the PC Canada fund addressed to Ms Kimble Sutherland.

I know actually that it is not necessarily illegal for these mailing lists to be sold, but I do think, from an ethical standpoint and from a moral standpoint, it is very inappropriate. So I am glad to know that the minister and this government are introducing legislation so that nothing like that can happen with the health card information. I think it is a good step in this day and age, when so much of our information about our private lives seems to be very public and so many people seem to have access to it, that any time we can find ways to lessen the amount of information about private individuals getting into the hands of people it does not belong to is a very good step, and I am very glad to see that many members of the different parties support this piece of legislation.

In conclusion, I congratulate the minister and I certainly hope that this piece of legislation will work as it is intended and that the proper safeguards are there. Should there be any problems, I am quite confident that the minister and this government will take the necessary steps to amend the legislation or put the proper policies in place to ensure that people's private files and information are protected.

The Deputy Speaker: Are there questions or comments? Is there any other member who wishes to participate in the debate?

Interjection.

Mr Sterling: The member for Mississauga West obviously knows that I will not be a delegate at the next Liberal leadership convention.

I find it passing strange that the Minister of Health would bring forward a piece of legislation like this as her first bill as the Minister of Health, because I remember back to the debate on the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act some three or four years ago when this member, the member for Ottawa Centre now, was the critic for the Attorney General, and I can remember entering into a debate with her over a privacy issue.

Under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, all personal information is not allowed to be given out to the public. In other words, if I asked for information about another citizen in Ontario and the government owns that information, that is not given out. However, if there is a public interest in giving that information out, it can be given out, and that is under section 23, where it says, "An exemption from disclosure of a record under sections...21 does not apply where" there is "a compelling public interest and the disclosure of the record clearly outweighs the purpose of the exemption."

I can remember during that debate I did not want personal information to ever be disclosed to the public and have the Information and Privacy Commissioner, who is a very powerful individual in this province, have the right to make the decision that the public interest was more important than a person's health records, his private information which he has supplied to the government.

Now, the Minister of Health, who was then the critic for the Attorney General, insisted that the public interest override be inserted for private information. So I find it ironic that the first piece of legislation that she would bring forward would in effect be an almost complete 180-degree turn on her concern which she expressed in this Legislature some four years ago on privacy matters dealing with information.

I can only draw the conclusion that she is concerned that the private sector be limited in terms of dealing with personal information, but she wants in some ways the control over private information held by the government dealt with in another way. Therefore I, like my colleague, am very much in favour of this bill. It would be consistent with my stand which I took some four years back with regard to limiting the Information and Privacy Commissioner in disclosing personal information. I did not want a public override test with regard to any private information that this government or our government holds about an individual in our society.

When this concept was introduced by the former Minister of Health, the minister made the announcement, the New Democratic Party responded to the announcement and then we responded. It was only our party at that point in time which raised the issue of privacy and the concern for privacy. I want it put on the record that of all the political parties which are represented in this Legislature, there is one party which is primarily concerned with the privacy of individuals and that is the Progressive Conservative Party. We have been on record time and time again and concerned with that issue.

I was most concerned that in the last Legislature the former Liberal government did not have any intention of bringing forward a bill of this kind. It was only after the intervention of our Information and Privacy Commissioner that some action started to take place. I want to congratulate the Information and Privacy Commissioner on taking that action by producing an open and a public letter which was drafted, and the former Minister of Health saying that the former government should take action like that which is included in Bill 24.

Fortunately, we now have legislation which enhances the power of the Information and Privacy Commissioner to bring forward issues like this to the public's attention. I believe that the use of the health card number should be controlled as outlined in this legislation and therefore support it. We have to be continually aware of the prospect and the potential for the use of various identification numbers to identify individuals whereby computer matching can take place and a profile of an individual can in fact take place.

We do support this legislation. We encourage the Information and Privacy Commissioner in the future to continue to take an interest in particularly this government with regard to its former philosophical base in terms of being more concerned with the collective whole than the individual's rights. Therefore we are most concerned that the Information and Privacy Commissioner continue to be an advocate for privacy rights in this province. Our party will continue to keep a watch as best it can with regard to anything this government does to ensure that the proper safeguards are there to protect the privacy of individuals in our province.

1550

Mr Mills: I am delighted to be back here in this arena after our short vacation and to see so many fresh and exciting faces in front of me. It gives me great pleasure.

I have an English accent, so I do not have to tell members that originally I come from England. Over there the folks tend to naturally seem to get very agitated immediately when people want to ask and find out where they have come from and what they do. It seems to switch on a nerve that agitates people where I come from more actively than most other nationalities, and I am no exception. When people try to ask me information that they have no right to, I get very agitated, and that is why I stand here today pleased to support this piece of legislation about the care and the control of the new health care cards.

I will give a little of the experience about the abuse of the social insurance number. The other day in my constituency office in Bowmanville I had reason to order a fax machine, because we are getting so many messages that we cannot keep track any other way. I signed some form of lease to get this machine and the people whom I got this machine from had the audacity -- and I mean that -- to call me and ask for my social insurance number. Leasing a fax machine -- what difference it makes to the whole system is beyond me. But this is how the social insurance numbers have got. It is a total abuse of a card that was issued that was never meant to be used in this fashion, and this is why I stand here today and support wholeheartedly the controls that are going to be put into effect on this health card.

I would also commend the minister for the sensitivity that she has exercised in the ages of people 65 and over when they present this card for drugs and other benefits under the health scheme and that their date of birth will be obscured and will not be readily seen. I appreciate that because I am rapidly approaching that age when I should get one of these cards and I too am sensitive of that. I do not want anybody to really know that I am that age, because I get quite upset now when I go into Grand & Toy and --

Mr Stockwell: How old are you?

Mr Mills: How old am I? I am older than you.

I get quite upset these days when I go into Grand & Toy and I buy something and I say, "This item costs $1.99," and they say, "Well, we took the 10% off because you are a senior." I hate it, and that is why I am so pleased to see my colleague and my friend the minister, who is --

Mr Mahoney: It beats the alternative.

Mr Mills: Yes. But she is so sensitive to the senior citizen and I commend her for that.

Mr Ruprecht: Don't you get a discount?

Mr Mills: Pardon?

Mr Mahoney: Just ignore that.

Mr Mills: I am going to ignore that. I am not going to continue at length, but I just felt that I had to stand here as the member for Durham East and as a person who represents a number of senior citizens to say how pleased we are at this piece of legislation. I commend the minister and thank her for it.

Mr J. Wilson: I am grateful for the opportunity today to join the debate on Bill 24 and to make some remarks on the need for respect for privacy in the governing structures of our society. I am pleased to see that the new government -- and I want to say this from the outset -- is bringing forward this new legislation.

While the new health card system provides the potential to streamline the inefficiencies of the OHIP system -- indeed it was a headache trying to analyse a system, the OHIP system, fraught by millions of duplicate numbers and one that had family members sharing the same numbers -- the new health cards come complete with an implied threat, a threat that calls into question an individual's fundamental right to privacy.

Ironically, this somewhat hidden threat is there simply because of the potential for efficiency created by the new health card system. Often with progress come new challenges, and the new health card system has forced us to reconcile the need for efficiency with the privacy interests of our constituents.

The previous Liberal government chose to do nothing about it, even though it was made aware of this threat on numerous occasions by members of this side of the House and by the assistant commissioner of information and privacy. That said, I am pleased that the new government has chosen to recognize what the PC Party has long fought for; that is, the need to protect individual rights of privacy, and while none of the members present in the Legislature here today would dispute the need for a health card system that facilitates delivery of health care services, equally important is guaranteeing the right to privacy under that system.

Sensitivity to the individual and assuring individual freedoms are necessary to sustain a free and democratic society. Towards that end, an important first step has been undertaken by this government. On 13 December, the government introduced this bill designed to control the use of cards issued and numbers assigned to insured persons under the Health Insurance Act. This legislation hits a socially responsive chord. It does so by attaching significant costs to any attempts made by individuals, businesses and organizations to set conditions whereby people must show their personal health card in order to acquire certain goods or services.

In instituting conditions where companies and institutions face fines of up to $25,000 and six-month jail terms for violations of this act, the government has demonstrated a true commitment to protecting the individual's privacy rights. It is showing that it will on occasion heed the wisdom of interest groups and opposition members.

I also hope that the government will make note of other problem areas that may arise from the implementation of the new health card system. The movement from a family-based system to an individualized system creates difficulties perhaps for refugee claimants who have not previously had OHIP numbers. What happens with refugee claimants who need medical attention who have not been issued health cards because they do not have work permits? I am uncertain as to what the government has done to ensure that refugee claimants are not barred from our health care system.

What will become of the relatives of refugee claimants who have been mired in the immigration department backlog but have been working in the province for a substantial period of time? Are we in effect forcing these people to quit their jobs and go on welfare so that they can automatically qualify for OHIP, and consequently an Ontario health card?

As well, what is being done to guarantee that homeless people, street alcoholics and transients have a new health number? Understandably, many of these individuals may have let their OHIP coverage lapse during the last three months of 1989. Let us not forget that the overriding premise of the Ontario health system is to provide health care services to all Ontarians.

The government must guard against falling into the Liberal Party trap. Yes, the new health card is an improvement, but recognizing problems and failing to act on them only serves to undermine the spoils of the victory. I hope that the current government will not only recognize the shortcomings of the new system but will move to remedy them. Although the government is moving in the right direction, several problems still exist, as I have just outlined.

While Bill 24 legislates control over the use of health cards and health numbers by the private sector, we must be diligent to fend off abuses to the new health card system. When social insurance numbers were established in 1964, no one foresaw the extent of abuses to the legitimate use of that personal identification number. Today, the social insurance number is used for a myriad of purposes outside the limited purpose that it was originally intended for. Through the benefit of hindsight, we must do more than acknowledge the concept of privacy and, instead, fight to include privacy as an unalienable right.

Last Christmas I sent a newsletter to my constituents in Simcoe West and in it I enclosed a survey in order to identify what issues were most important in my riding. I found out that residents of Simcoe West listed health care as the most critical issue facing the Ontario government, with the lone exception being the issue of taxation.

A whopping 65% of respondents in my riding were opposed to any government increase in health care spending. A large number of people in my riding indicated that they want the abuses to the health care system cleaned up. The best way to ensure this is to be vigilant and avoid situations where the Health ministry is issuing health cards to dogs and cats as we saw with the former system of OHIP numbers. The situation I want to avoid is soaring health costs to offset abuses to the new health card system. If we are sincere in our efforts to create the best possible health care system, we must make a thorough and complete examination of it.

1600

In summation, I praise the government for introducing this legislation. It represents a critical first step towards preventing the private sector from using what has been described as a perfect tracking device. The new health card must be about maximizing our capability for delivering health care services, not about providing individuals, businesses and organizations with a superior means of tracking, for example, debtors. It clearly would be an abuse of the new health card system if this were allowed to happen.

I would be remiss if I did not take this opportunity to speak on Bill 24 as a call to arms for the government to operate its health care system with an emphasis upon cutting out waste and abuse. Our ability to provide the optimum health care services is directly related to our collective will to mitigate abuses to that system. I hope that the adoption of this bill signifies the opening salvo in our war to balance effective social programs with the taxpayers' ability to shoulder the costs. This balance is of fundamental importance to the taxpayers in my riding of Simcoe West, as I hope it is to all members on the government side of this Legislature.

Mr Tilson: As has been indicated by the fellow members of my party, we are supporting this legislation. Of course, as has been indicated earlier, it was prompted by the Information and Privacy Commissioner some time ago, and for some unearthly reason the former Minister of Health in the Liberal Party simply ignored this problem, even though it was drawn to her attention. It is a serious problem, and I think that our party has looked at it and has certainly been concerned with the overall cost of health in this province and how it has grown completely out of sight, particularly during the Liberal government's reign. The cost of health has certainly become most unmanageable.

Members of my caucus in the past not only supported this type of legislation, but in fact advocated providing all individuals with a regular statement of the cost of health services that they have received. I think that might draw to people's attention exactly what their annual health expenses are.

Certainly in the past, there have been more OHIP cards than there have been people. It is amazing how these cards were released, and as my friend just recently spoke of, it has been known for almost anyone to get a card, whether it be a dog, a cat, a canary, so obviously this legislation is long overdue and we certainly support it.

I took the liberty of consulting with some of the medical profession in my riding to get their view on this legislation, and there is general support, at least from the doctors in my riding. I would like to read just a few comments where they expressed their support.

One of the doctors felt that there really had not been proper consultation by the Ministry of Health. I think he feels that there should be more explanations going out to the medical profession as to the use of the card. He stated that there appears to be a general lack of consultations with members of the profession with respect to future billing and data recording by the ministry.

I can think of no particular good reason why physicians should not be informed about future plans in the ministry in this regard. Although we support the legislation, I think that there needs to be more education, more information sent out to the medical profession as to what the card will be used for.

Another doctor simply expressed that he felt that the cards would be easier for the members of the public to use. He felt that the trend with the patients that this doctor had would be that the patients would be accepting it.

Another doctor was concerned with the improper use of the OHIP cards under the previous system. With respect to the new cards being used, he stated that it may be somewhat easier to detect the improper use of health cards by imposters who present false OHIP cards to hospital administrators and doctors, etc. This was a concern that this doctor held in our riding, and I assume this is province-wide, that there was a great abuse of the system. Hopefully this will probably be, to some minor degree at least, an effort to deal with the whole question of cost in the health system.

The final letter that I would like to refer to in support of this legislation is from a doctor who talked about how he felt the numbering system had been improved. He felt it identified the abusers and he felt that it would reduce the increasing fraudulent consumers. I would just like to read a few short paragraphs from this letter, which is perhaps the most lengthy of the ones that I received from the medical profession in my riding:

"I believe that this new numbering system will be a vast improvement over the older OHIP numbering system. I also believe but do not know for sure that this one new number will serve many different purposes, ie, replace the old drug card. Since each individual has a number which will not change through his/her lifetime, the potential for misuse and abuse also exists alongside the potential for improved and superior delivery of health care benefits to every citizen and the population of the province as a whole.

"As the data accumulate through the months and years of usage, the database of information will now grow and expand and can be used in the same way the information from Statistics Canada surveys are used for the benefit of all.

"I would hope that this information would be able to identify those individuals and groups of individuals who inappropriately abuse and overuse the health system as consumers, as well as identify those individual practitioners that inappropriately provide services. These people unfortunately exist at each end of the spectrum." I think that is probably one of the major pros of the proposed legislation.

The next paragraph states: "I strongly suspect there will also be a third category of potential fraudulent consumers. This group will include out-of-province Canadians and aliens from the US and abroad, most likely the Caribbean and South America, who travel to Ontario solely for the purpose of consuming the more expensive health services and procedures at essentially no charge whatsoever. It will take some time, of course, for this pattern to clandestinely evolve and develop. We live in an imperfect world." I am sure it will take some time for the legislation to reach its impact.

Without reading the full text of the letter, this doctor is also concerned with the overall cost of health in the province, but in supporting this piece of legislation, he also generally talks about our overall health care system, acknowledging that the cost is getting out of hand.

"Our health care system has some shining, very impressive features. For example, computerized hospital facilities, air ambulance, transplant databases, cardiac pacemakers, advanced chemotherapy, radiotherapy and life-support systems, as well as all the impressive surgical, technical advances associated with transplanting organs, as well as the advances foreseeable in the near future with the manipulation of genetic information.

"These shining features stand in stark contrast to the pervasive Third World example of frank starvation in the absence of any health service or death by a communicable disease such as rubella, red measles, in the absence of any form of low-cost immunization program."

I think that our system is obviously imperfect and most expensive, but we must protect it, and I believe that this health card is a step in the right direction.

1610

Hon Mrs Gigantes: I would like to start out by thanking the critics for the other two parties, members of the other parties and also members of the government party for supporting this bill.

It is a pretty modest bill. It simply says that we are setting out a legislative framework in which the use by private organizations of people's health card numbers, the collection, the requirement of those numbers and their use for anything besides the provision of health services will not be allowed in Ontario, a very modest step in the protection of privacy.

I think in fairness to the former Minister of Health, the member for Oriole, it was probably her intention to bring forward legislation in which this element of protection of privacy associated with the health card would have been included, a major piece of legislation which I hope to be able to bring before this House in fairly short order concerning the access that individuals can have to their own medical records and their own medical information and the protection of privacy of health information.

We do not have a good enough system yet in this province, and I am looking forward to being able to bring that legislation before this House. We need it. This is only one part of the legislation we need and we have gone ahead with it as a single measure because the health card is coming into play and, as several members have pointed out, the health card in and of itself poses some danger if it is used in improper ways.

I would like to note that the discussion of even such a modest bill summons forth the energies and imaginations of members to speak on a wide range of health matters. I am going to try and refrain from responding to the many items which have been raised, except to try and assure members who have raised questions, such as whether the dependants of refugee claimants might be left without medical services because of the new card, that we are working on that and that will not be a problem.

I would also very much like to thank the member who spoke about the real concern that people of British origin have always been known to have for their personal privacy. I am sure he will not mind my saying this, but he has confessed to me that he has managed to lose his health card and I have told him that this legislation is not going to help him.

I thank members very much for their support. It is much appreciated and I hope that we will have good use of the health card.

Motion agreed to.

La motion est adoptée.

Bill ordered for third reading.

Le projet de loi devra passer à l'étape de troisième lecture.

EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT (MISCELLANEOUS), 1990

Mrs Boyd moved second reading of Bill 30, An Act to amend the Education Act.

Hon Mrs Boyd: This act is intended to update the Education Act to conform to the freedom of information and protection of privacy legislation in the province and to give legislative support for other ministry initiatives.

The bill contains the following six proposed statutory amendments:

1. To provide for the release of names, addresses and telephone numbers of pupils and parents or guardians and the pupils' dates of birth to the local medical officer of health.

2. To authorize the collection of personal information for inclusion in the Ontario student record.

3. To provide a legislative base for the minister to provide capital grants to school boards for the provision of child care facilities in new and replacement schools and to permit boards to expend capital funds for the construction and renovation of child care facilities in any school building.

4. To permit public schools and Roman Catholic school boards to make agreements in a ratio other than the sharing ratio currently provided in the act for the amount of sick leave gratuity paid to a designated teacher upon the termination of employment.

5. To permit demonstration schools to provide programs for exceptional pupils with learning disabilities or with hearing and/or visual impairments.

6. To give the minister the authority to negotiate and sign copyright licence agreements with copyright-holder collectives.

This is a piece of legislation that is largely housekeeping in nature. It permits the ministry to carry on with its business and in fact gives legislative support for initiatives that are already under way.

Mr Beer: We welcome the introduction of this particular bill. As the minister has set out, this has been the subject of some discussion over a period of time and really deals with a variety of issues where there has been the expectation of these changes. I think, in broad terms, they are welcomed by the educational community.

There are a number of issues that I think relate to some of these and this is the appropriate place to discuss them as we go through the debate. I would like to make some comments about some of the specific areas and perhaps leave some questions about which, at the end of the debate, the minister can perhaps share some information with us.

With respect to the copyright licence agreement, as we know, this has been a problem for some time, and what we are doing falls in step to a certain extent with what the federal government has been doing in changes to its copyright legislation. I know that the minister would be aware that there was a letter sent by the chairman of the Council of Ministers of Education, Canada, of which, of course, she is a member, to Marcel Masse, the Minister of Communications, at the end of February. If I understand the letter, the federal minister was supposed to meet with the provincial ministers on this issue specifically to talk about when phase 2 of the federal legislation would be brought forward. That has implications at the provincial level.

The minister did not attend the meeting, and it would be, I think, interesting for the House to know if there has been any response to this letter and if the Minister of Education has any sense of when the federal legislation or that second phase would be going forward. I would appreciate, if there is anything further on that, that she might share that with us.

With respect to the particular issues that are raised in the legislation that we have before us, my understanding is, broadly speaking, that the school boards are supportive of this initiative, but there are a couple of questions and I would like the minister to perhaps deal with those.

One was that, as I understand the way this will work, the ministry is dealing on behalf of all of the boards with an organization, the Canadian Reprograph Collective, more commonly known as Cancopy. Now when that negotiation is completed, there was an issue around who will pay for that, and I think it was a source of some discussion. If the minister could tell us, are the boards going to pay? Is it being shared by the ministry and the boards? What is the situation with respect to that? The other point that I think would be useful for us to be clear on is just precisely what is being negotiated and what will be covered by the present agreement.

1620

If my understanding is correct, the taping of radio and television programs will not be covered, at least at this point. That means that audio-visual material, print music, computer software, would not be covered in the agreement. How does the minister envision that we will, at some point, address these gaps and make sure they are covered? Because I think, as is clear to anybody teaching in a high school or elementary school, those areas are certainly ones that are used a great deal by teachers. There is some concern around what protection they have and would have under this legislation. The other point that has been raised is the question of how school boards, and indeed the ministry, will deal with authors and publishers who are not part of the collective. I gather they are trying to bring as many together as possible. None the less, there will be some who are outside and I think it will be important to ensure that there is protection there.

As I say, I think the consultation that has gone on with respect to the copyright licence part of this bill has been quite extensive. I think there is broad support, and those questions I raise in terms of how we will proceed with future action, and recognize that we also have to make sure that the federal government continues. Indeed, I think they were supposed to have introduced phase 2 some time ago. With respect to the issue of child care, again this is the product, in a sense, of discussions that were ongoing, and many boards were saying that they wanted to be able to develop child care facilities; not necessarily with new schools, but that as new schools came on line, they could use those facilities in other parts of their jurisdiction. That is what they would like to do.

One of the things that is a bit troubling at this point in dealing with this part of the bill is exactly where, in broader terms, the responsibility for child care is going to be located. As the minister is aware, in the fall a report was tabled by her colleague the Minister of Community and Social Services entitled Children First. In that document a number of recommendations were made and there was quite an extensive discussion of how the Ministry of Education, the Ministry of Community and Social Services and the Ministry of Health would co-operate on a variety of issues. I know that within the educational community and among teachers, there is a lot of discussion as to whether, in broader terms, the present government's direction is to, perhaps, see child care coming under the purview of the Ministry of Education. In particular, what kinds of steps is the minister going to be taking in dealing with the Maloney report and a variety of recommendations that are centred on children?

The particular amendment that is proposed is not one that I find troublesome. But I think that it is terribly important that the government recognize that there is, out in the broad field of child care, a fair bit of uncertainty in terms of where the ultimate authority for this whole area is going to rest, and what kind of consultative process will be set up to deal with, in particular, the issue of child care. The minister would be aware that the London board of education had recommended to the former minister that the Education Act be amended in a way that would permit it to provide child care facilities on a more flexible basis. I know that previously we were dealing with that and this has come up as well in Metropolitan Toronto and in other areas.

In terms of providing the most extensive child care possible, I think that it is imperative that we look at how we are providing those dollars and what kind of flexibility boards then have to ensure that they can focus the funds in those areas that they cover where the child care is needed. I know I have seen in some places where a new school does in fact have a new child care facility, but where probably if one had been planning in a broader sense one might have wanted to place that facility in some other location. It seems to me there has got to be some way that we can sort that out so that we really have those child care spaces which we need in places that will be most helpful, and that is something that we are going to have to keep working with.

I think the overall issue that this particular amendment raises is the need that the government will have to set out a process with respect to the Maloney report and, in particular, focusing on child care and determining very clearly if indeed there will still be shared jurisdiction or if it is the long-term direction that the Ministry of Education would in effect take over this particular area of responsibility.

Another area that is covered by the act relates to special education and the question of maintaining, establishing and operating demonstration schools, and again I think this is important. It is a good amendment and something that is necessary. It also raises the broader question of when we are going to see the special education legislation which we had been working on in the previous government and which I know was in a fairly developed sense when we left office. A number of organizations within the special education community have, I am sure, been talking with the minister, with the Ministry of Education, with those of us in the opposition about the need to get that legislation before the House and to get changes because we recognize that there is a great deal to do in that area.

While this is certainly a positive step and something that we support, we would urge the minister to bring to the House the broader amendments to the special education area. Some of those, she will know, deal, for example, with the way that the review process works; what rights parents have in terms of any appeals as to how their child is placed; what kind of program is being set up, and that has been the source of a great deal of concern for many parents. I think there was an agreement among many in the educational community as to how we might deal with that, and if we have that agreement I think it is important that we bring that bill to the House so that we can deal with it.

I note as well that the minister had received a letter on 12 March from the Metropolitan Toronto Association for Community Living, which again deals with the area of special education, asking that amendment be brought to the Education Act so that it would be able to implement the results of a special task force that it had set up to examine the role of the Metropolitan Toronto school board in the delivery of programs and services for students identified as "trainable retarded." Again, this is something which they have identified as being particularly important to them in making sure that they can provide the kind of education they feel is important and to do it in a way that will be most useful for the people who need that program. There are just a number of issues and initiatives in that broad special education area where it is important that we see some of the changes both to the act and in some cases to special acts so that the various communities can get on with the programs that need to be provided.

With respect to the issue of sick leave gratuities, again, that was one where there was agreement and I have no specific comments to make on that. So, in general terms, we see this as going forward to complete the work that we had begun, not unlike Bills 12 and 13 which we discussed in the fall session, and that, if anything, they will now come before us and we hope be approved. But they raise the more fundamental issue of how we are going to deal, first of all, with child care and that there is a need, I believe, for a very extensive public consultation using the Children First document, and then coming back to the House with proposed changes for that whole area and the equally important need of bringing to this House the changes to the special education legislation, so that we can make some real progress in providing better services and better programs for people in the province.

1630

Mrs Cunningham: I would like to begin by telling the minister that we are pleased with most parts of this legislation today, but there are some parts of Bill 30 that we would like to draw to her attention as areas of concern on behalf of many parents, certainly school board trustees and members of the Progressive Conservative caucus.

This kind of omnibus bill is usually a wonderful vehicle for tying up loose ends and, as the minister stated, from her point of view that is exactly what she is trying to do with this particular piece of legislation. She described it as largely housekeeping and providing legislative support for initiatives that are already under way. But I think I should say that more often than not, in attempting to slide an item through the House that would perhaps need closer consideration, there are often parts of these omnibus bills that we miss as elected representatives, and perhaps the minister has as well, with regard to the intent. That is what I would like to draw to her attention today.

First of all, I will talk about tying up loose ends. Bill 30 is, of course, a classic example of this. It brings the Education Act in line with the freedom-of-information legislation and it permits public and separate boards to negotiate agreements for cost-sharing sick leave gratuities under the other Bill 30. It also permits demonstration schools to provide programs for exceptional pupils and it authorizes the minister to negotiate and sign copyright licence agreements. I would like to speak for just a moment with regard to the copyright.

I would like to begin by saying that I congratulate the minister on her resolution of the copyright issue. The former Liberal government, as was its trademark, attempted to offload the cost of the ministry-negotiated copyright licence agreement on to the local tax base when it introduced Bill 221, and Bill 30 does not contain the clause that both boards and teachers opposed and I applaud the effort that she has made to work on a consultative basis with the education community. I would also continue to encourage the minister to continue the consultation process as she negotiates a licence agreement with Cancopy. We wish her the very best in that endeavour.

I would also like to say that as Bill 30 is also a classic example of tying up loose ends, although it does bring the Education Act in line with what I have just mentioned and it permits the demonstration schools and it permits her to work on her copyright licence legislation, these are the necessary changes that should be supported.

I think, unfortunately, Bill 30 also entrenches an inequity into the Education Act with regard to child care facilities in our schools. Under this bill the minister is authorized to provide capital grants for the construction of child care facilities in all new and replacement schools. This provision simply entrenches a policy introduced by the former Liberal government in its New Directions for Child Care, which many of us know about. We understand what she is saying, that it provides legislative support for initiatives that are already under way.

The problem lies in the fact that if you do not happen to need a new or replacement school you will not receive any funding from the province, and therefore in parts of a school board's jurisdiction, if she feels that the child care facilities are more appropriately placed in existing schools, they are more appropriately placed on other parts of school property. We really like the idea of the children having the child care facilities either close to or in existing school space for a couple of reasons.

First of all, it is much more convenient in these times of rushing about; it is much more convenient for families and they like it. It cuts down the travel time for young children and we think that is a good idea. We also think, believe it or not, in these times, there may in fact be schools that have space for child care facilities and we think we should be using schools that have already been paid for by the public. We should have been doing this for many years.

But the problem is this: With this bill, if in fact you want to construct a new child care facility and it does not happen to be in a new school, if it does not happen to be in a replacement school, then with this bill you pay for it all out of the local tax dollar. We think the minister should be aware that in fact that ought to be a subject of consultation for the minister with the communities and with the opposition party representatives, because we think we have got some good ideas with regard to funding of child care facilities. We really think we can be helpful and we think this bill -- although we approved of the New Directions for Child Care, certainly as a beginning, we also were grateful that it was not entrenched in legislation, because I think it gave more flexibility to the government and we like that.

Although we appreciate the minister's intent here, we think that there is a loophole that she should be made very much aware of. To cover this problem, the bill, in going on to state that the boards can spend local tax dollars to cover the costs of building or renovating child care facilities in existing schools -- we have to be very careful that in fact the school board trustees and the public understand the difference, because of course it does raise the expectations as to the public purse providing child care facilities with public money spent by the province right across the province of Ontario. So although it does not clearly delineate in the bill the difference in the funding, it certainly does in the information that came along with the bill, the intent, and we are pleased at that.

The government has created a demand for child care facilities in schools throughout the province by having an explicit policy to put child care in all new schools. Certainly the previous government did that. We personally thought it was a good idea. We were very much concerned about who paid for it and in the interim, until we had had the opportunity to discuss this -- certainly since I have been here I have not been given the privilege of explaining or expressing my views except during estimates, perhaps, and I feel in appropriate arenas. I think if we are going to be discussing those kinds of policies, that is exactly what we should be discussing and I think it is a very important policy for this government to come to grips with and we are prepared to help.

Parents in existing schools also want school-based child care. The school boards have mentioned that many times in the last three or four years and if a board is going to meet this demand the local taxpayer, as I have stated before, right now, has to foot the whole bill and that is the inequity. I can understand why the Liberals would be happy to download education services on to the local tax base, because they had a reputation for doing that. I hope they have learned their lesson and that they will work with us to stop that trend. But I do have a problem with the NDP government entrenching this practice into the Education Act and I think the minister is very much aware of that concern because I have discussed it with her before.

It is my understanding that it has been a long-standing NDP policy to remove education costs from the local property tax base and this policy clearly adds to the local tax burden. We all know property taxes are not based on the ability of a person to pay and hit those on fixed incomes, seniors, the hardest.

1640

I think one of the true inequities will be in the case of a board like the Toronto Board of Education, where in fact they are not looking to building new schools. I am not even sure if they are looking at replacement schools. So their hope for child care centres will be something where they will once again have no support from the province, either for their existing programs in education and now not even for capital for child care. Other boards across the province know and recognize that that is an inequity for the city of Toronto. We recognize it. We had hoped this government would do something about it, but here we are at the same time now asking it to do even more, with this bill, on the local tax base.

I think it is interesting to note, and my colleague the member for Waterloo North will probably be speaking more explicitly to this, that not too long ago in Kitchener there was some public discussion around the numbers of spaces for child care in schools as opposed to the numbers of spaces for child care in other parts of the community. Really, if we are looking at the provision of child care, we have to take a look at the realities of where the services are needed, who is going to be paying for it down the road and just who will be responsible for teaching and providing the early childhood education for young children.

My view is that right now there is no clear indication from the ministry about where it is going with early childhood education and child care. There has been no indication, I believe, with regard to the kindergarten initiative, the early childhood education, the three-year-old programs, the four-year-old programs that were begun by the Liberals and expanded by the Liberals. Even then there was no opportunity for discussion with regard to policy decisions for early childhood education.

We have not heard from the government its response to the fourth report of the select committee on education. It was in the dissenting opinion of the NDP, submitted by Richard Johnston and the now honourable minister the member for Windsor-Riverside. It clearly stated that the NDP wants to place existing child care facilities in schools under the direction of the Ministry of Education. I would speak very strongly against that particular policy, and certainly against it without extensive public discussion. There are many early child care and early childhood educators out there who would really welcome the opportunity to speak to just who has the responsibility for delivering child care and early childhood education in this province. It is something we have not had the opportunity to discuss in full.

I would say right now, certainly from my own experience and from the concerns on behalf of my own caucus colleagues who will be speaking for themselves and for their constituents this afternoon, that that is a great concern across the province of Ontario. If in fact this government is going to say that Education will have the sole responsibility, then this is the beginning in this bill.

I do not believe that is true. I think all of us have been made aware of the more recent report called Children First, where in fact we saw an indication there would be sharing on behalf of the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Community and Social Services and the Ministry of Education. This could be an exciting public discussion for parents across this province. I do not believe we have had one for over a decade, and I believe that this minister and the interest she has shown in education and child care and in her work with families would be the kind of person who would encourage that kind of public discussion for all of us to be part of.

I feel very strongly that early childhood educators, child care givers are probably the best people to provide care for children, that the education curriculum should be much less structured, that in fact the persons supervising the day-to-day care of children when they are away from parents are probably not teachers, as qualified under the Education Act, but child care providers.

I also feel we have to think about what is efficient for families, what they can afford to pay, what we can afford to pay on their behalf in the way of subsidies. I feel we are long overdue for this kind of public discussion and unfortunately, and I will try to conclude my remarks, with this bill I think the wrong message could be sent out, and that is that perhaps there ought to be another ministry or a joint ministry that provides both capital and operating funding for early childhood programs, child care programs and programs that deal with the needs of young children.

We have also raised in this House, on many occasions, the need for a change in the child care act. Many changes must be made and many of them cannot be made without consultation with the Minister of Education and with the Minister of Community and Social Services and perhaps the Minister of Health. These changes are long overdue and this discussion is long overdue.

In concluding, I would say today that we certainly applaud the minister in her efforts around housekeeping responsibilities. We feel badly that in fact the child care portion has been included in two different parts of Bill 30. We certainly feel that her advisers have told her this is necessary for the continuation of what is already happening in schools. We do not believe that is so. We think the replacement schools could simply have been part of government policy and we hope this is not an indication that Education will be responsible. As an educator and later as an early childhood educator, I truly do not believe the existing programs for four- and five-year olds in our school system are the appropriate kinds of programs, nor are those teachers the ones with the best kind of training to deal with the care of children.

On that note, in being positive, I appreciate the kind of work that is going on by teachers in our school system and certainly by child care providers across this province. I think they have one of the most responsible jobs, if not the most responsible job. As a mother I know I have had to rely on those services myself and there are many more families relying on them in the future.

With this new government we have a wonderful opportunity to provide the kinds of services that are not only appropriate for all children, but that are also cost-effective. In this caucus we have lots to say about that. I thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to speak to this legislation this afternoon.

Ms Haslam: I will be very brief on this bill. I understand that what the honourable minister has brought forward is housekeeping. Some amendments deal with the necessity to comply with the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, in particular numbers one and two. Some reflect previous government policies, but they institute legal powers to help make this policy happen, as in number three, and some address the protection of teachers, as in number four and particularly number six.

When we look at capital funding for child care facilities, I think this is a very important issue. Everyone agrees that child care centres are important and should be near or in schools and that they are necessary and appreciated. Everybody has said that. What this does, though, is to allow for local decisions. We have not mandated another program to a school board without giving it some financial backing. We have financially backed them for what we feel is necessary but we have also allowed them the opportunity to make some local decisions. This is very important for local boards out there.

Many issues have been raised that are inherent in the child care issue, but this bill is not here to deal with those issues. It is a comprehensive housekeeping bill. It is basic in its presentation. As everyone has agreed, we applaud the minister in coming forward with it and we appreciate the opportunity to speak in favour of it. I would like to add my voice to those who have spoken before me and say that I feel this is a necessary bill and should be passed without any problems whatsoever. I also appreciate the opportunity to talk on this particular thing in education and I will be supporting this bill.

1650

Mrs Witmer: Although omnibus bills such as this Bill 30 are excellent vehicles for tying up loose ends, unfortunately they also do provide opportunities to slide in items through the House that do need our closer consideration. Certainly Bill 30 today is a classic example of this.

Although I am in agreement with most of the changes that have been proposed, I do have some concerns. The concern I have is around the child care issue. Unfortunately, and this has certainly been mentioned by my colleague, it appears to move child care under the jurisdiction of the Education Act and I have some very serious concerns about this move.

Under Bill 30, the minister is authorized to provide capital grants for the construction of child care facilities in all new and replacement schools. The problem lies in the fact that if you do not happen to be a growth board and you do not receive funding for new or replacement schools, you are not going to receive any funding for new child care spaces. However, this bill tries to look after that as well, and it goes on to state that boards can spend local tax dollars to cover the cost of building or renovating child care facilities in existing schools.

Unfortunately, this creates the expectation that throughout the province of Ontario these child care facilities will immediately be made available. It also exacerbates the problems for assessment-poor school boards who do not have the ability to raise taxes locally. Furthermore, problems in equality will rise in areas where a coterminous board may be able to raise the funds for child care facilities and the other board simply does not have the ability to do so.

Another concern I have relates to capital grants being given only to boards for child care facilities in new or replacement schools. This is creating problems of inequality. In cities where there is a lot of growth on one side and maybe not on another, there are three or four child care facilities being constructed, whereas in a downtown area where there is a tremendous need for child care, one is not allowed. Is this fair? Is this responding to need? Why are boards of education throughout this province not allowed to decide where they spend the money? Why are they not allowed to determine the need? Why does the money at the present time not follow the need as opposed to the building?

I would like to refer to an article from the paper in my riding. The headline is "Wasteful Day Care Grants Irk Trustees." This is from yesterday's newspaper: "'An inflexible provincial policy means day care centres are being built where they are not needed while other neighbourhoods are doing without,' say trustees of the Waterloo County Board of Education."

In 1987 the Ontario government made it mandatory for school boards to put day care centres in every new school. However, the board is now building a school and it has not been able to find an agency to operate the day care centre at the new school. They have spent $1,000 advertising for tenders. The reason is that the agencies do not want to operate the day care centre in this area because that subdivision does not need a child care centre. There is already an overabundance of day care spaces in that part of the city. The board would like to use the provincial funds to build a centre at an older school in a neighbourhood where there are not any centres. However, the province does not allow for that to happen. The province, the government, is not recognizing grants based on need, just when there is new construction.

I believe very strongly that day care should not be part of the local tax dollar, and unfortunately these child care amendments are not responding adequately to the needs across this province. They are going to contribute to further confusion. They are going to contribute to further inequality. I would suggest to the Minister of Education that she hold discussions with people throughout this province, with school boards, trustees, parents, child care workers, to determine how the needs of young children in this province can best be served. I would suggest that a long-range plan for the implementation of child care in this province be developed rather than the piecemeal fashion in which it is presently being approached.

However, I have a greater concern about what is being suggested here. I am very concerned about the downloading that is going to take place to the local taxpayer who is now going to be forced to pay for child care. Capital grant support was already lowered several years ago to 60% from 75%, so there is an increased cost to the local taxpayer. It is my understanding that it has been a long-standing NDP policy to remove education costs from the local property tax base. Well, this policy today clearly adds to the local tax burden, and we all know that property taxes are not based on the ability of a person to pay. Unfortunately, they hit those who can least afford them, those on fixed incomes, our seniors.

I hope as well, when the Minister of Education engages in discussions with people throughout this province concerning the development of a long-term child care policy, that she will take into consideration the additional costs school boards are also incurring at the present time that are not recognized. As school boards build more and more child care facilities, they also need to hire co-ordinators, and that cost at the present time is not being recognized.

The other concern I have about the child care initiative is that at the same time we are moving towards full-time junior and senior kindergarten. They are also very costly initiatives, and I would strongly recommend in the longterm planning that junior and senior kindergarten be co-ordinated with the child care policy.

In looking at the freedom of information, I would like to remind the minister that the collection, storage and retrieval of information are increasing administrative costs and the workload for school boards, and I hope that these additional costs will also be recognized.

Yes, although I agree with most of Bill 30, I feel it does address some of the problems, I am concerned about the child care amendments. I believe they will contribute to inequity and they will lead to increased local taxes. I believe very strongly there is a need for further consultation with all those throughout this province and they should be brought forward only at a later time as part of a long-term child care strategy that adequately reflects the real needs of the people in this province.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Haslam): Questions or comments?

Mr Cousens: A question. I was really impressed by the remarks that were made by my colleague the member for Waterloo North. Inasmuch as the Minister of Education is not even here to listen to her remarks, it is really a tragedy because we are here to have debate on an important issue and she has obviously brought a great deal of experience and personal background to the issue. But I am just wondering, is there any easy way around this other than all the dialogue she is suggesting? When the New Democrats talk about dialogue, it has to do with whether or not they talk to New Democrats, and if they are just talking to New Democrats --

1700

Mr Perruzza: On a point of order, Madam Speaker: I think there is something in the standing orders that pertains or talks about members referring to other member's absences in the House. I think the member opposite would be well advised to take that advice, because none of his caucus is there except for four other members. Oh, I see another one drifting into the House. He should pay attention to them.

The Acting Speaker: I am sorry, there is no point of order.

Mr Cousens: I guess the point is, maybe the honourable member for Waterloo North could give us some idea of what she means by consultation. She is almost encouraging the government to go on and on and on and not come and deal with anything. When they talk about consultation, they just sort of -- the Minister of the Environment, when she has had a consultation session, she just gives orders. Would the member please give us some idea of what she means by consultation?

Mrs Witmer: When I talk about consultation, my concern is that during the last three years, whether it has been the Liberal government or now the NDP government, what I am seeing is a piecemeal approach to child care. I see a slow, slow move and a trend towards putting child care responsibility into the hands of the educational authorities and school boards.

However, what I am most concerned about is the fact that it is also going to be another burden for the local taxpayer. It is further downloading, and if that is what the taxpayers in this province want, I feel they need to be able to speak to that, but I am not convinced.

Mr Martin: I really feel privileged to be here today to speak to this and also to respond to the member opposite, to let him know that one of the principles of the New Democratic Party is that we share the load and that we do actually consult and co-operate with each other. As the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Education, I am here today to listen intently and to take notes so that I might share with her later some of the concerns, real concerns, raised by the members opposite in this debate, because we truly are interested in hearing what they have to say and to incorporate it into any legislation that we might be wanting to bring down.

I was impressed with the comments of the critics of the parties opposite. I thought they were very positive and constructive and will but add to our ability as a government to put in place legislation that really responds to challenges in communities, that has some substance.

This legislation comes to the House after much consultation by the previous government and by our government, and is an attempt to respond creatively and positively to suggestions made by people out there as to changes that should be made that would make it easier for them to do their job.

Overriding all of the pieces of legislation that we are introducing today are two principles that we as a government, as a party, wish to have as a foundation for anything that we might do in our tenure. It reflects our serious attempt to make sure that pieces of legislation across ministerial boundaries are in sync with each other, so that they are not in opposition or somehow out of sync with each other.

The second principle underlying the legislation that we are presenting here today -- if members pay attention, I am sure they will see -- is the thread that runs through all of the legislation that we will introduce into this House: Our wanting to share responsibility for the delivery of services, particularly education services, with the folks out there in the front row, in the trenches, in the community actually doing the job. So a number of the pieces of legislation that are here reflect our attempt to make sure that authority is given to the proper people in front of some of the questions that they have presented to us as ones of some real concern.

Having said that, I would like just to take a few minutes with members this afternoon to deal to some degree fairly technically with regard to each one of these pieces of legislation.

The first one is the conformity with freedom of information and protection of privacy legislation. The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, 1987, requires that the collection of personal information by an institution, as defined in the act, be authorized by statute. Similarly, one of the conditions for the release of personal information is that the release be authorized by statute. As of 1 January 1991, the same requirements apply to school boards under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, 1989.

The Education Act has to be amended to specify conditions for the collection and release of personal information contained in the OSR, Ontario student record. The Education Act, section 237, prohibits the release of information contained in the OSR to anyone other than the pupil, his or her parents or guardians, supervisory officers of the board and the principal and teachers of the school that the pupil attends. This amendment would permit the principal to release the names, addresses and telephone numbers of pupils and parents and the pupils' dates of birth to the medical officer of health. The medical officer of health requires this information to maintain up-to-date immunization records of pupils. Section 237 of the Education Act governs the establishment of and access to the OSR. An amendment to this section would authorize the continued collection of personal information for the purpose of the OSR. The freedom-of-information legislation prohibits collection of personal information.

The second piece of legislation here that I would want to respond to in perhaps a little more detail, because there certainly were some very, I think, legitimate concerns raised by the members who have spoken already, is the capital funding for child care facilities in new and replacement school buildings and board capital expenditures for child care facilities. This bill is in no way intended to address all of the child care issues in the province. Since April 1987, the government has been providing capital funding for child care centres in new and replacement schools. There has been no legislative authority to do this. This amendment is necessary to authorize this capital funding.

The amendment will also permit school boards to spend capital funds for the provision of child care facilities in any school building and levy taxpayers for the construction of child care facilities in existing schools. This bill does not put child care in the jurisdiction of Education. Education makes facilities available. The operation continues to remain under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Community and Social Services. The Ministry of Education is looking at ways of providing more flexibility regarding where the child care facilities may be located. This bill does not introduce anything new regarding boards' ability to levy; it simply legitimizes what some boards are already doing. If space is available, boards can provide child care space. The Ministry of Community and Social Services provides grants to child care operations to renovate space for child care facilities in existing schools. Some boards do spend their own money, and this bill provides the authorization if that is the wish of the board and the community.

1710

Further consultation on child care issues will be taking place through the Ministry of Community and Social Services. The operation of child care facilities is not the responsibility of the Ministry of Education, as I have said before, and ongoing collaboration between the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Community and Social Services will continue. Early childhood education programs for the three-and-a-half to six-year-old are being examined as part of the restructuring of education initiatives, and these initiatives will certainly be open to broad and wide consultation.

I personally was very interested in the comments by the critic from the Tory party in that she says they have some creative responses and ways of doing some fundraising and raising some revenue for the provision of child care. I certainly would be most interested in hearing what those ideas are, and I am sure I speak for the minister when I say that, and this government, because it has been our stated intention since we got here to listen to and be partners with anybody who has the general wellbeing of the people of this province in mind.

Sharing by a public school board and a separate school board of sick leave gratuities of designated teachers, teachers transferred from public to separate boards, I think is a perfect example of our government trying to put into the hands of local authorities more ability to manoeuvre and to negotiate.

Subsection 136-1(20) of the Education Act provides for the sharing between public and separate school boards of the sick leave gratuities of designated teachers, teachers who were transferred to the separate system at the time of extension of full funding to separate secondary schools and who have subsequently terminated their employment with the separate school board. The sharing ratio is based on the teacher's length of service with each board and the method of calculation is specified in the Education Act.

In some cases, this ratio has not proven to be satisfactory to one or both boards. In the course of property and staff transfer dispute resolutions, some school boards have wanted to work out an arrangement different from the one stipulated in the act. This amendment would authorize the conclusion of such agreements where both boards agree to the terms.

The legislation which permits demonstration schools to offer programs for exceptional pupils with learning disabilities or with hearing or visual impairment is also an attempt by our government to expand some good work that was introduced by the previous government and make it more valuable to the people of Ontario.

Subsection 12(4) of the Education Act gives the minister the power to establish, maintain and operate demonstration schools for exceptional pupils with learning disabilities. Le Centre Jules Léger in Ottawa, which is the only demonstration school for French-speaking exceptional students, has expanded its program to include pupils who are hearing and/or visually impaired. The amendment would permit demonstration schools to offer programs of this nature and would improve the quality of education services to francophone students.

On the issue of copyright licence agreements, this amendment will provide the minister with the power to negotiate and to enter into licence agreements with copyright owners or their representatives. The purpose of the licence is to allow school boards easy legal access to the photocopying of copyright materials. In order for the licence to be implemented, it is vital that the minister have legislative authority to sign and enforce the agreement. The federal government's copyright legislation is to be amended this year to allow for limited exemptions for education. These exemptions will not go far enough to allow us the use of copyright materials for educational purposes.

That covers the spectrum of legislation that we introduced today. As an ex-trustee on a separate school board, I certainly see it as a step forward, a cleaning up of some issues that we had some concern about. As a parent of four children going to school in this province, I certainly see it reflecting a lot of the concerns that I have as a parent. And as a person who worked with young people outside of and as part of community school operations, it certainly answers a lot of concerns I had, particularly when we talk about the copyright licence agreement, where we often ran into trouble trying to show materials to students and not knowing whether we had permission or not. So I present this to members for their consideration and encourage them to support this legislation.

Mr Cousens: A question of the honourable member for Sault Ste Marie. When he is talking about being a parent and a former school trustee, he is probably then very aware of the new system that has already gone into effect in January where parents of 16- and 17-year-old young people in school are receiving a form that they can sign that would then give them permission, if they sign it, to see the OSR of that particular student.

Does the member have a child over 16 or 17 in that age group? No, he does not. Is he aware of the process that is now being followed on this and that in fact an awful lot of parents are not that thrilled at the power that is being given to a 16-year-old to determine what it is or what it is not that the parents can then see in his OSR?

When you talk about consultation, which is certainly one of the points that the member for Waterloo North has raised, it has to do with going back and talking to your friends and neighbours who have 16- and 17-year-olds, who are now being treated as children of majority. What they bring home the parents can sign, or the parents might never see the behavioural problems or the other things that are going on with those children.

When the member talks about this process, has he seen the forms that are coming home for parents to sign? Is he aware of the regulations and guidelines that exist within the ministry that have to do with that kind of signing process, the signing away of certain rights that parents up until now thought they had over 16- and 17-year-olds?

I would appreciate any background information he would have on the regulations that pertain to that. It has to be a factor, because in clause 236(d) it says, "in accordance with this act, the regulations and the guidelines issued by the minister." Could the member give us some feedback on those particular details?

Hon Mr Wildman: I just wanted to congratulate the member for Sault Ste Marie on his masterful presentation, and to also point out that I hope the Speaker might have had an opportunity in the last few moments to reconsider the ruling that my other colleague did not have a point of order when, in my view, in fact he did.

Mr Tilson: A question to the member for Sault Ste Marie. If members recall, in the last election one of the major issues was the problem that local property taxpayers are finding with respect to increasing taxes and the burden that is being downloaded from the province to the property owner. That is still going on. I am sure members are finding that is going on, and one of the issues that I am sure this member raised when he was running for office -- if it was not raised by him, someone else raised it in his riding -- was the issue of day care being run by the school system.

Now I think that all of us here, or I would hope most of us here, would support the principle of day care, but that hopefully the principle of day care would be paid for not by the property owner but the overall taxpayers of this province. I do not know whether the member realizes that there is a tax revolt going on in this province, but I would like him to tell me whether he does and what he intends to do with it when he is adding this principle of day care by having the property taxpayer pay for day care in the province of Ontario.

Mr Martin: I certainly appreciate the comments of the members opposite. I think they raise some good points and perhaps at another time we could even discuss this further.

I am certainly interested and concerned about the issue re the 16- and 17-year-olds in high schools, because I worked with them directly as a professional over the last 15 years and certainly understand why some of the concerns are being raised now re that whole question of who has and does not have permission to look at what.

However, it is important to note that students' consent is not required for parents to see the OSR up to age 18. The Education Act authorizes the ability of parents to see the OSRs of any student under 18 years of age.

To respond to the question of downloading and shifting of responsibility re the funding of day care, this legislation in no way talks to that. It simply legitimizes something that is already going on and it allows local communities to make decisions about whether they want to provide day care for the parents and children of the people who live in their community and it does not in any way shift responsibility for day care from any other ministry into the Ministry of Education. I think it is important that the members see that clearly and understand that in the face of this legislation.

1720

The Acting Speaker: On second consultation with the table officers, it has come to our attention that the member for Downsview did have a point of order, and I am sure the member for Markham will refrain from making those statements in the future.

Mr Ruprecht: On a point of order, Madam Speaker: If you do not mind my asking, the question to you, since you made the decision in co-operation with the table officers, is what was specifically the charge that this honourable member made that was offensive? I always find it incredible, even though he may be of the opposite party, but occasionally we have to stick together.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: I have not recognized you. I am sorry. We will now continue with further debate. Anyone else continuing? The member for Mississauga West.

Mr Mahoney: Is he still looking for an answer? He is going to consult.

Interjection.

Mr Mahoney: Just take it easy. I do not want him to have a stroke or get too excited. I understand we are going to stick together. That makes me nervous.

Mr Stockwell: It makes you nervous? Have you looked around your caucus?

Mr Mahoney: Well, I am stuck with them. I am sorry. I do not have a choice in that one. If you think I am walking over there, you are nuts.

Madam Speaker, it is nice to see you.

Mr Stockwell: Read your button.

Mr Mahoney: My button says, "Kormos for Premier." I understand they are being printed by the thousands, and with regard to the legislation that is before us, I am sure the member for Welland-Thorold would support this legislation.

Mr Ruprecht: How much do they cost?

Mr Mahoney: Actually, I got mine for free.

I am sure that if the member for Welland-Thorold were the Premier, he would support this legislation. He is not the Premier and yet the legislation that is here before us --

Mr Bisson: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

The Acting Speaker: Point of order from the member for Cochrane South.

Mr Bisson: I really appreciate hearing the comments of the honourable member across on Bill 30 and not on other issues.

Mr Mahoney: As I was saying, I believe that Bill 30 would be supported by the member for Welland-Thorold if he were the Premier, and that is all I was saying. However, he is not, so I want the members to know that I am supporting it.

Hon Mr Wildman: That is good logic.

Mr Mahoney: Well, I think that is fine. I agree with just about everything the member for Welland-Thorold has said this week, so I do not know why I cannot draw from that a conclusion that if he indeed supported this if he were the Premier, that I indeed support it whether I am or not. Do the members follow that?

Mr Stockwell: Yes.

Mr Mahoney: I do not.

Mr O'Connor: We have a spot for you up here.

Mr Mahoney: I have been up there. Are you kidding? I know what it is like to get a nosebleed up that high in the back benches. I am having a lot better time down here where the real work gets done.

Hi, George, how are you?

Mr Mammoliti: Liberal pap.

Mr Mahoney: I am trying to talk; I am being interrupted. The member can see that.

Madam Speaker, with regard to Bill 30 you will be aware that in the last government the Premier created a committee called the select committee on education. That committee did, I believe, three reports.

An hon member: Four.

Mr Mahoney: Four. The fourth one I was not on because I moved over to finance.

An hon member: But you would have supported it then.

Mr Mahoney: I would have supported it then, sure, whether the member for Welland-Thorold was Premier or not.

But on the select committee on education we dealt with a number of issues and some of them are touched on in here. In particular, I want to talk about section 4 in the explanatory notes, which talks about demonstration schools, particularly for kids with learning disabilities or other handicaps who are challenged in various ways.

The learning disability system in our provincial education system -- and this is not a partisan issue in any way whatsoever, because frankly I was not happy with the system under the Liberal government and I was not happy with the system under the Conservative government and I would hope that any members who would look into it would realize that it is not a good system operating to the benefit of kids with learning disabilities in many areas.

There are a lot of fine teachers, a lot of fine professionals trying to help kids with learning disabilities. The problem is that it is a system of intimidation. I am talking about this because I think it relates here to what I am disturbed about with this bill, the fact that this is all there is.

It seems to me that there are very, very pressing issues. In the minister's opening remarks she admitted that this was clearly nothing more than housekeeping. I appreciate the fact that housekeeping has to be done from time to time in various ministries, but there are so many critical issues in education that need to be addressed and it is disappointing to sit here when we sat over there for so long and listened to all of the criticism from these benches, all of the criticism -- that was then -- about 60% of the cost of education. This government was going to fix that. I know that was then, but I am talking about reports from the select committee -- I will get into the financing end of it in a minute -- which recommended that the IPRC review process, for example -- let me share with the members.

One of my sons was identified a number of years ago as having a learning disability. Now, we have been through all of the interview processes that take place, my wife and I. What they do is invite you into a room with about 30 professionals, all of whom tell you they know exactly what they are talking about and they know exactly what is best for your son, and you do not know anything because you are just a parent and you are biased and you do not understand the system. They intimidate you with that stuff.

My wife is not easily intimidated, unlike me of course, so fortunately she was not prepared to take that nonsense and she fought and fought to the point where the only solution was to put him in another school.

It was very, very upsetting to see a publicly supported school system allowing that kind of intimidation to take place. I have had the arguments with the people in the board, and many of them are friends, and I have said it openly to them that I am very discouraged at that process. I hope that they took it to heart and I hope that they do not treat other parents in a similar way that my wife and I were treated.

But I do not see this minister addressing that issue, certainly not in this bill. I frankly am not sure this minister understands that there is a problem there. I do not know if the members of the NDP caucus understand that there is a serious problem there. You have to really have experienced it to appreciate how frustrating it can be, because learning disabilities by no means mean that child cannot enjoy all of the fruits and the benefits of our educational system. I know of many young people who have been diagnosed quite early with a learning disability and graduated from university. It is not unheard of. It is quite common these days, as a matter of fact, because there is such excellent education available to these young people.

But the bureaucracy within the system and the system under the review process and the whole thing really should be addressed clearly to allow for more input by parents, more education of parents, more understanding of the needs of the young people involved and a little less concern perhaps about the needs of the people conducting the interviews. But I do not see anything being addressed in this bill or in any other way in education.

I was not involved in the hearings during the break when committees met, and I understood people were coming upstairs aghast. They were saying, "We just heard the honourable Minister of Education saying that 60% of funding for education includes the funding for teachers' pensions." I could not believe it. It seems to me I heard that somewhere before. A little bird somewhere told me that before. Did she say "approved costs"? Did she use that phrase? I do not know.

1730

Mr Stockwell: They are confused.

Mr Mahoney: I guess they are. I have certainly been willing to allow for the new Minister of Education to have a break-in period, but six months. Gimme a break. I think you --

Mrs Sullivan: She also said capital, ceilings.

Mr Mahoney: That is right. The member points out that she also included capital dollars in the 60% cost of education.

This bill, which I am going to get back to, authorizes the minister to provide funds to boards for the construction of child care facilities on school sites. There is a difference between authorizing the provision of funds and actually providing the funds. I have not seen any moves by this government. I am hopeful that our Treasurer, when he comes about with his budget, is going to announce some additional capital dollars for education. I would like to take him to some of the areas in my riding.

Mr Stockwell: It's your fault.

Mr J. Wilson: It's your fault, Steve. That's really stretching it, Steve.

Mr Mahoney: It is interesting to hear catcalls from my friends to the left, politically substantially to the right, because they indeed have the moniker of being known as the fathers and mothers of underfunding. It is not their fault. In fact it was our government that came in and increased the capital contribution by four times over what the last Tory government had given to capital dollars in education. They ignored it. Bill Davis ignored it and they know it. It took a Liberal government to get it on the right track and to correct the problem, but obviously we were not able to correct it overnight.

Mr Tilson: Look what happened to you.

Mr Mahoney: I am glad they get excited. I enjoy it. It just sort of goes right through. It does not bother me. It is fun.

But let me tell them that they should look back over the years. They should realize that for the entire province -- let me give them a little statistic on capital funding. For the entire province of Ontario in the final year of the former Conservative administration, they allocated I believe it was around $72 million for capital in the province. My riding alone in the final year of the Liberal administration received close to $100 million, my riding alone. We actually quadrupled it.

Interjection.

Mr Mahoney: My colleague is saying we tripled it. We increased it by four times what they had done.

We put in place a system that allowed for annual contributions to be made, $300 million a year to be made. We gave a five-year commitment of $1.5 billion. We went to the school boards and we said, "We understand your problems," but even with all of that generosity, even with all of that recognition of how serious there was a problem in underfunding created by our right-wingers over here, we could not solve it in the short time that we were in government.

This government has got to do something. Coming in with a bill that simply authorizes the minister to spend some money is really unfortunate. Do not get me wrong, I am going to support it. It is a little bit like apple pie. How can you go against something like this? They are going to have demonstration schools authorized for kids with learning disabilities. Wonderful, important, but it does not solve the problems that the education system is facing in this province.

It is particularly frustrating to have a new minister from a government that -- I am sure it was in the agenda for power that they were going to take it to 60%, right? Are the members opposite not embarrassed? They must have gone around the province to their all-candidates meetings and stood up there and said, "I have this Agenda for People and it says we're going to go to 60% for education costs." Did it not say that? I think it did.

It said that, and the member for Cochrane South must have stood there and said, one hand on the Bible, "We are going to increase funding for education" -- not capital, not teachers' pensions -- "to 60% of the cost." The member made statements like: "Property taxation is regressive. You should not have to fund education taxes on the property tax rate." Did the member say something like that? Close, right?

Mr Bisson: Give us a chance.

Mr Mahoney: Give us a chance. The member's own minister comes into a committee meeting and says it includes capital and it includes teachers' pensions and it includes -- it is unbelievable. Does that mean that when the Premier stood up and called the former Premier of this province a liar, we should do the same thing now? It is unparliamentary; I would not do it in here.

I can only assume, though, one of two things: Either the members have all collectively changed their minds about 60% of the costs of education. The Minister of Natural Resources is nodding, the honourable member is agreeing with me. Now he is not agreeing with me. Would he make up his mind? I just want an answer out of this. Either they have changed their minds and decided that they were wrong and it should not be 60% or they lied. No, they did not lie.

Mr Perruzza: Mahoney, your tie is blue today.

Mr Mahoney: Tony, go and order some more business cards. Get out the literature with NDP all over it. Jeez. Who is this guy?

Anyway, I have some trouble understanding. Did the member for Yorkview stand with one hand on the Bible and swear to the voters that he was in support of the cost going to 60%? I do not know if he did or not.

Mr Stockwell: I do not think he understood it.

Mr Mahoney: No, you are probably right.

I guess that is probably the point. Half of the members opposite did not read the agenda for power until after they got elected and they thought, "Holy smokes, I better find out what I did here." I hope they put the agenda out with some crayons.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

Mr Perruzza: It's about time.

The Deputy Speaker: Please.

Mr Mahoney: Anyway, you can understand, Mr Speaker, why I have such difficulty with this. They are simply saying they are going to provide funds, give the minister the authorization to provide the funds, but nobody is saying she is actually going to do it. That is what we would like to see in this party: Come out with something substantive for a change. The minister can consult and she can dialogue. The select committee on education did some excellent reports. I would recommend them to the minister for some late-night reading.

I think she will find, if she has not had an opportunity to read them, that there are some very, very good suggestions made by the former member, the man I always refer to as the best Education minister the NDP never had, Richard Johnston, recommendations made by Mr Johnston that were supported by the Liberals on the committee, that were even supported by the Tories on the committee. It was a very productive committee that went around the province, that listened to people, that was really very nonpartisan, because we all recognize that the education of our kids is not something that should be dealt with from a policy perspective on a partisan basis.

The minister needs to get serious about attacking the underfunding that I referred to that was caused by the former Tory government and follow the lead and pick up the torch and carry it to solve the problems.

Hon Mr Wildman: I thought there was a Liberal government in between.

Mr Mahoney: There was one and we helped it a lot. I told members that already. Jeez.

1740

Mrs Y. O'Neill: They want you to say it all over again, Steve.

Mr Mahoney: You want me to say it all over? I have to start again? Anyway, Kormos for Premier. We are going to hand these buttons out all around the place.

I really will be, and I think my colleagues will be, supporting this legislation but I would ask, in all seriousness, that this minister come up with some legislation that has some teeth in it; that I hope he is successful when he sits around a cabinet table and he talks to the Treasurer. I hope he is successful in getting his attention, because our education system is in serious jeopardy.

I am not sure if the minister is aware of it: when he was not here I talked about the problems with learning disabled kids and the lack of attention that has been paid. Not a partisan issue, not happy with what our government did, not happy with the Tories, and so far I see nothing to make me happy with the minister, but I would be delighted to stand up in this House and commend him for bringing in reforms to the IPRC review process and to other areas of learning disabilities to make it a more understandable, accessible program for parents and for kids.

I would be delighted to see him attack the select committee recommendation on the streaming issue, that the government at least delay past grade 9 and perhaps even, at the option of the local board, into grade 10 the decision on streaming. He may want to go further with that, but I would like to see at least those kinds of things implemented because when a child, especially an only child -- when that parent has to make a decision -- usually at the age of 13 in grade 8, facing the intimidating transfer of going from elementary school to high school, going from a school of 300 or 400 kids to a school of 2,000 kids with 22 portables on the site, very intimidating to these youngsters, very intimidating to the parents who do not understand exactly what is taking place.

I hope he is going to come in with some substantive reforms in those areas and I hope he is going to address the financial underfunding in the area of capital that I have referred to. Much of it has been helped by the former government, under the Liberals, to resolve the problems created by the Tories, but we need more for our educational system.

Mrs Cunningham: I find the remarks of the member somewhat contradictory and also, although I find them somewhat interesting, I would like to put on the record, as he draws reference to the track record of our government over some 42 years, that, in fact, we were the government that did build the schools and the colleges and the universities. Things have changed in the last decade and I do not think that any government is going to have an easy job of responding to the needs of society today, and I think the best way to solve problems is to move to the future and work together.

I would also like to make a comment on the speech by the member, the Liberal member, when he talked about downloading. When this child care paper was introduced, we seriously supported the directions. We understood that it had to get started somehow but the costs of building the child care facilities were downloaded at that time. We think that the government of today has an opportunity to look at a different way of funding and we want to be part of the discussion. In fact, I did not see him voting against the New Directions for Child Care, I saw him supporting them.

On a serious note, I think that this piece of legislation today begs further discussion. We would hope that the minister would even consider withdrawing the two parts of the bill that relate to child care.

I have another question at the appropriate time for the parliamentary assistant. I think he was somewhat helpful in answering one of our questions but we have further clarification that is necessary at the appropriate time.

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you. It is close to 5:45. I have to allow the member for Mississauga West to answer immediately because I have the order to proceed with the vote at 5:45.

Mr Mahoney: May I make some brief comments and allow my colleague to finish up within the two minutes?

The Deputy Speaker: I just said I would allow you personally to respond to the comments, and that is it. Two minutes.

Mr Mahoney: I will do it now, it is okay. I appreciate your assistance, sir.

The Deputy Speaker: If you would prefer to do it tomorrow, I would allow you to do it.

Mr Mahoney: The member for Mississauga South says I will have forgotten it by then, but I could always start all over again at the beginning and that would help me. I find it interesting how, at times, my dear friends in the Conservative caucus get so sensitive. They get so sensitive when we tell the truth. The Treasurer will recall the days, as I said, in the last year of the Conservative government, when the total allocation for capital dollars in the entire province was $72 million. When we took over, we increased it to four times the amount. The Treasurer is agreeing.

Interjections.

Mr Mahoney: You see how excited they get. We gave a five-year agreement. Now, the message is not to fight these guys. The message is to talk to members over there.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. The member for Mississauga West.

Mr Mahoney: No, no. The fact is I am glad the Treasurer is here, because I was talking to the Minister of Education in the hope that he is extremely friendly with the Minister of Education. I would hope that the Treasurer would take the minister out to dinner and listen to the needs, listen to the requirements, especially in the growing communities. We have a very serious problem in our high-growth communities and we need his attention. It is fine for the Minister of Education to feel passionately and strongly, which I hope she does, about education and the costs of education. I would hope that is true. I am getting this coaching here. But it is important that the Treasurer listens to that lady when she sits at the cabinet table and says, "We need more money."

An hon member: Give her the money.

The Deputy Speaker: Obviously, spring is here. Order, please.

Yesterday, pursuant to standing order 27(g) the division on the motion for the adoption of the report of the standing committee on general government on Bill 4, An Act to amend the Residential Rent Regulation Act, 1986, was deferred until 5:45 this afternoon.

1754

REPORT, STANDING COMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT

The House divided on the motion for adoption of the report of the standing committee on general government on Bill 4, which was agreed to on the following vote:

Ayes -- 66

Abel, Akande, Allen, Bisson, Boyd, Buchanan, Carter, Christopherson, Churley, Cooke, Cooper, Coppen, Dadamo, Drainville, Duignan, Farnan, Ferguson, Fletcher, Gigantes, Haeck, Hansen, Harrington, Haslam, Hayes, Hope, Huget, Jamison, Johnson, Klopp, Lankin, Laughren, Lessard, Mackenzie, MacKinnon, Malkowski, Mammoliti, Marchese, Martel, Martin, Mathyssen, Mills, Morrow, Murdock, S., North, O'Connor, Owens, Perruzza, Philip, E., Pouliot, Rae, Rizzo, Silipo, Sutherland, Ward, B., Ward, M., Wark-Martyn, Waters, Wessenger, White, Wildman, Wilson, F., Wilson, G., Winninger, Wiseman, Wood, Ziemba.

Nays -- 37

Arnott, Beer, Brown, Carr, Conway, Cousens, Cunningham, Daigeler, Eves, Grandmaître, Harnick, Harris, Henderson, Jackson, Jordan, Mahoney, Marland, McClelland, McGuinty, McLean, McLeod, Miclash, O'Neil, H., O'Neill, Y., Poirier, Poole, Runciman, Ruprecht, Sola, Sorbara, Stockwell, Sullivan, Tilson, Turnbull, Villeneuve, Wilson, J., Witmer.

Bill ordered for committee of the whole House.

The House adjourned at 1759.