role="main" class="main-container container js-quickedit-main-content" id="main-content">

May 9, 1996

36th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

L072 - Thu 9 May 1996 / Jeu 9 Mai 1996

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1995 / LOI DE 1995 MODIFIANT DES LOIS SUR LA PROTECTION DE L'ENVIRONNEMENT

SPIRITUAL EXPRESSION IN SCHOOLS

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1995 / LOI DE 1995 MODIFIANT DES LOIS SUR LA PROTECTION DE L'ENVIRONNEMENT

SPIRITUAL EXPRESSION IN SCHOOLS

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

NATIONAL MENTAL HEALTH WEEK

TRANSITIONS PROGRAM

CELEBRATE YOUR WATERSHED WEEK

ONTARIO FRIENDS OF SCHIZOPHRENICS

EDUCATION FINANCING

CHILDREN'S SERVICES

ROAD MAINTENANCE

ONTARIO LOTTERY CORP

BUDGET

VISITORS

INTEGRITY COMMISSIONER

ORAL QUESTIONS

FAMILY SUPPORT OFFICES

ROAD MAINTENANCE

JOB CREATION

MUNICIPAL FINANCES

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

TRANSFER PAYMENTS TO MUNICIPALITIES

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

OVERTIME PAYMENTS

VIDEO LOTTERY TERMINALS

HORSE RACING INDUSTRY

VIDEO LOTTERY TERMINALS

GASOLINE PRICES

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

PETITIONS

NORTH YORK BRANSON HOSPITAL

BEAR HUNTING

CONDOMINIUM LEGISLATION

ST THOMAS PSYCHIATRIC HOSPITAL

LIQUOR CONTROL BOARD OF ONTARIO

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

ALZHEIMER RESPITE CARE

ST JOSEPH'S HOSPITAL

LIQUOR CONTROL BOARD OF ONTARIO

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

ALZHEIMER RESPITE CARE

ORDERS OF THE DAY

1996 ONTARIO BUDGET

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

1996 ONTARIO BUDGET (CONTINUED)

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

NORTHERN ONTARIO

The House met at 1002.

Prayers.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1995 / LOI DE 1995 MODIFIANT DES LOIS SUR LA PROTECTION DE L'ENVIRONNEMENT

Mr Wildman moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 24,

An Act to amend the Environmental Protection Act, the Ontario Water Resources Act and the Pesticides Act / Projet de loi 24, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur la protection de l'environnement, la

Loi sur les ressources en eau de l'Ontario et la

Loi sur les pesticides.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Pursuant to standing order 96(c)(i), the honourable member has 10 minutes for his presentation.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I hope members of the assembly will allow me to use whatever time is left from the total time at the end. Thank you.

I'm hoping we can have a good discussion this morning and that members of the assembly will consider very carefully Bill 24,

An Act to amend the Environmental Protection Act, the Ontario Water Resources Act and the Pesticides Act, and will consider supporting this piece of legislation.

The legislation is designed to enable the Ministry of Environment and Energy to crack down on offenders who continue to ignore Ontario's environmental protection laws, especially those who dump waste illegally across the province. The bill would strengthen the provisions of these three acts.

The reason for this is that the Ministry of Environment and Energy officials have seen in the greater Toronto area the need for additional enforcement powers to protect the environment against illegal waste dumping, and to ensure that those who flout provincial laws are stopped.

Between 1993 and 1995, the Ministry of Environment and Energy cracked down on illegal waste operators. They set up a special task force which launched a series of investigations of every waste management company in the GTA. They set up a RIDE-like program which inspected trucks carrying waste on the highways in the region.

By the end of 1994, the ministry had laid 500 charges and issued over 15 orders to close down and clean up illegal dump sites. I think this is an indication of how serious the problem is, and was at that time in the greater Toronto area. The unfortunate thing is, though, that even with all these charges and orders, some illegal operators continue to defy provincial laws and regulations.

I want to emphasize that this is a particular problem for property owners. Particularly in rural areas, farmers find that someone comes along and dumps waste illegally on their property and they're stuck with the problem. Even if they know who it is, it's very difficult to get anything done. In most cases, they don't know who did it and they're stuck with the problem of having to clean it up.

It's also a problem for those legitimate operators -- waste management companies -- that are being undercut by these fast-buck operators who will use any method to be able to cut the price and avoid regulations.

This private member's bill gives the Ministry of Environment tools to combat illegal practices and to deal with these fast-buck operators who continue to dump on other people's properties and who treat current fines simply as a cost of doing business.

Illegal waste haulers and dump operators are costing Ontario residents and property owners a great deal of money and they're hurting legitimate waste management companies. These costs are in the millions of dollars for cleanup and loss of business.

Also, these illegal activities undermine Ontario's 3Rs program. This bill would reinforce Ontario's commitment to the 3Rs and to reducing waste that is being put into landfills across the province. It would make it possible for the Ministry of Environment and Energy's enforcement branch to shut down illegal operators immediately, to seize licence plates, vehicle permits and equipment, and to issue stop-work orders and cleanup orders that would have to be complied with. By being able to seize the equipment, these people would not be able to continue operating and simply pay fines. They would be risking a serious loss if they continued to operate against the law.

Under the current law, the Ministry of Environment and Energy can't do these things. It can only require the owner to clean up a site. This is a very serious problem, as I indicated before, for farmers particularly, but for residents of rural areas in general. If the property owner has had nothing to do with the illegal dumping, it is most unfair that the property owner should be left with the cost of cleaning it up, but right now there are no provisions in the law that would require illegal operators, even if they're caught, to make restitution to owners who've had to clean up an illegal dump. This bill would rectify this situation.

Also, the bill would significantly increase penalties upon conviction for illegal operations, it would increase fines up to four times what the current fines are, it would increase the number of offences that could be subject to jail terms on conviction and it would also allow judges to use more imaginative approaches to sentencing for community service. In other words, the judge might require the illegal operator not only to clean up sites but also to get involved with education and 3Rs programs that would help the environment.

Also, with regard to liquid industrial waste and hazardous waste, the bill would double the maximum jail terms that are now allowable for such offences. These are serious penalties, and I recognize that they're very serious, but I continue to believe that these are very, very serious offences. By bringing in much tougher penalties we would be demonstrating Ontario's determination to protect the environment.

I believe this bill that is being put forward would give the Ministry of Environment and Energy the tools that they need to ensure that there is tough environmental law enforcement in Ontario. The experience we had between 1993 and 1995 demonstrated there was a significant problem in the greater Toronto area. But all of us in this House know that it isn't just a problem in the immediate region of Toronto; it is a problem throughout the province. Too many operators are hurting the overall industry of waste management by being prepared to cut corners and in some cases outright flout the law.

I believe that many, many legitimate operators in the industry would support this legislation. As a matter of fact, I've had such opinions expressed to me by a number of large operators in the waste management industry who would like to see what they call a level playing field. They believe the ministry has to have the power to put the illegal operators out of business, and that's what this bill attempts to do.

It also would be a very clear statement if members of the assembly were to support this legislation in saying that members of this assembly, all of us, all three parties, take very seriously the protection of the environment, we take very seriously the 3Rs program in Ontario and we are opposed, collectively, to illegal dump operations and illegal haulers across Ontario.

I've had too many farmers in my own area, where I suspect the problem isn't as serious as it is in many parts of southern Ontario, get stuck with having to clean up illegal dumps of tires, construction materials and sometimes just domestic waste. It's unfair to those property owners. They should be able to get restitution if they have to make these kinds of cleanups when an illegal operator is caught. The legislation now doesn't allow for that. I hope the members will look very seriously at Bill 24 and consider supporting the amendments I propose.

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): The indiscriminate and illegal dumping of waste is of great concern to our ministry as well and I compliment the member for bringing in this bill. It is really a significant impact in the form of cleanup and remediation costs. This is true whether the victims are property owners or municipalities. In addition, we are aware that these illegal activities undermine legitimate businesses operating in the waste management and recycling sectors.

The resulting uneven playing field deters potential investment in new recycling and waste management initiatives. These investments are crucial to our work with municipalities in improving the effectiveness and efficiency of the 3Rs programs. Effective, fair and uniform enforcement against those who choose to flout environmental protection laws helps to restore and maintain an even playing field, thus benefiting legitimate businesses and the province as a whole.

We therefore support legislative changes that would increase the effectiveness of our efforts to protect the environment.

Our ministry has analysed Bill 24 and we support in principle and agree with many of its proposals. Reforms such as seizures of licences, permits and equipment are all supported by our ministry and are consistent with our "polluter pays" approach to environmental crimes.

We do believe, however, that Bill 24 could and should do more. It sends out the message that we are prepared to get tough on illegal dumping but needs to address other serious offences which may also be adversely affecting the natural environment. Such an approach would be more consistent with the ministry's statement of environmental values under the Environmental Bill of Rights.

It is our view that the public would be better served if legislative amendments were brought forward in one cohesive amendment package addressing issues in a more comprehensive manner; that is what we are also preparing to do this fall.

As members are aware, the Ministry of Environment and Energy is currently conducting a review of all regulations for which it has statutory responsibility. Concurrent reform initiatives are also being carried out for the approvals process, the environmental assessment process and for the waste approvals process.

Our actions in disbanding the Interim Waste Authority and lifting the ban on municipal solid waste incineration are consistent with the new approach. At the same time, these actions demonstrate our government's commitment to provide local governments with the tools they require to find solutions to their waste disposal problems.

In the course of our regulatory review, it has become clear to us that the current legislation contains limitations that compromise the effectiveness of some enforcement efforts. We are aware of the shortcomings, and the amendments proposed in Bill 24 come as no surprise to us. Many of those amendments, with some modifications and fine-tuning, would dovetail with the objectives of our regulatory reform project, but they would have to be broadened to apply to other enforcement initiatives that protect and conserve the natural environment. They should not be limited to waste handling only.

Our amended regulations will be brought forward this fall in conjunction with our regulatory reform. Besides streamlining administrative areas that are cumbersome and inefficient, the changes will result in leaner and more effective enforcement provisions. We will be providing our field staff with improved tools that allow them to effectively stop repeat and continuous offenders.

As we move towards more efficient regulation and the elimination of unnecessary restrictions on legitimate businesses, it will be imperative that there be appropriate laws to deal with those individuals who have no regard for the environment or for the public interest.

At the same time, of course, any proposed broadening of powers must ensure their fair application by incorporating all necessary safeguards, such as appeal routes and notice provisions. By developing laws that are both fair to those who comply with them and appropriately punish those who break them, we can develop a level playing field for businesses in Ontario. It is important that the environmental agenda ensure continued protection for the environment and reflect the government's desire to create a better business climate in the province. With such a level playing field, industry can once again feel confident that Ontario is indeed a good place to do business.

We will continue to focus our compliance and enforcement activities on issues that produce real environmental benefits, for example, by doing more spot checks of significant activities and spending less time on nuisance-type occurrences that are best handled at the municipal level. In short, we are strictly enforcing existing regulations even as we press ahead with the job of developing more effective ones.

In approaching the task in this way, our goal is to create a new environmental management and regulatory regime that meets four distinct objectives. To begin with, the new regime must be effective; it must provide better ways to protect the environment and ensure that problems are identified and resolved as quickly as possible.

The regime must also be efficient. By that I mean that the benefits of regulations would have to exceed the costs.

Greater emphasis must be placed on results, and less on the process by which they are achieved. The ministry must identify where the command-and-control approach to regulation and enforcement can be complemented with other methods of environmental management, such as market-based instruments and voluntary agreements. This will mean injecting more rigorous efficiency tests into our policy development process. Our new regulatory regime will also have to be flexible. Solutions to environmental problems must be designed in consultation with those affected, and we must look beyond the immediate answer of a regulation for every issue. We must have a system that can adapt to circumstances.

Finally, our new regime must be fair in terms of establishing a level playing field between companies within sectors and between municipalities. It must also be fair in terms of harmonizing our standards with those of other jurisdictions.

In meeting these four reform objectives, we will continue to protect the environment in a way that is more responsive to the needs of people and the regulated community. We will be making a significant contribution to the need to reduce barriers to economic renewal and competitiveness.

But regulatory reform is not something government can do all by itself. It has to be a consultative process, and that is the way we have been proceeding. Right from the start, we have been accepting written submissions as well as meeting with business and environmental clients and our municipal colleagues. We are obtaining their input on what works and what doesn't work, where the costs are and how we might improve the regulatory regime.

This is indeed a sound approach. Working together as partners, government and private sector have a wonderful opportunity to both improve and streamline our regulations and sweep away obstacles to investment and job creation.

To sum up, we are committed to environmental protection, we are committed to regulatory reform and equally committed to making sure that polluters are held accountable for their actions.

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): I'm pleased to stand in my place today and speak to this private member's bill, and I was just going to ask the same question I heard asked rhetorically from the initiator of this bill, the member for Algoma. I wasn't quite sure from the previous speaker, the member for Northumberland, if he is supporting this bill. I would certainly hope that all members in this House could support this bill.

Mr Garry J. Guzzo (Ottawa-Rideau): He's waiting for the Liberals.

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean): He's waiting to hear your speech.

Mr Ramsay: I'm going to support it. I just hope you do, and I hope I can convince you. I guess that's what this is all about.

Interjections.

Mr Ramsay: They're wavering over there. I can see some of the members saying they're not quite sure.

I think what this bill speaks to -- and it really applies to any sort of law or regulation -- is that if you have law and regulation on the books in the Statutes of Ontario, then they should be enforced, and I think we all would agree with that here. What the member is saying is that the enforcement tools and vehicles, if you will, that our environmental enforcement officers have are not sufficient to do the job, are not sufficient to enforce the laws that are there today.

So really the member isn't pushing for greater regulatory reform, though I know that we are quite anxious as to what this government is going to do in regard to regulations, but what the member is really talking about is to make sure that the environmental enforcement officers have the tools to do the job properly.

I'll give you an example of what we've done in the Ontario government -- and all governments support this -- in giving our enforcement officers the tools to do the job, and that is the conservation officers who work for the Ministry of Natural Resources, I guess the few that remain -- I look back to our natural resource critic -- and what's very important is that over the years we have understood that poaching, which obviously is the stealing of our natural wildlife, out of season and against the law that we regulate, is wrong and that it's so wrong that it's extremely important that we arm our conservation officers to the equal or better of the people they come up against.

This is exactly what this member is saying in regard to environmental regulation and enforcement, that we give those officers out there, the women and the men we ask to enforce our environmental regulations, the tools with which to properly fulfil their responsibilities.

In regard to enforcement of conservation officers by those people, they are armed, for one thing, and the only reason they are armed, of course, is that the people they come against are also armed. They have the powers and the rights to seize all the equipment used in committing that crime.

That's a very important aspect to this particular bill also, so that if an environmental enforcement officer sees, comes across, witnesses a transgression of our environmental regulation -- for instance, somebody dumping on a farm some sort of waste, whether it be industrial or household waste, on private property somewhere -- that enforcement officer has the power and has the right to seize that equipment that the perpetrator had used in committing that act.

Only if we get serious about the enforcement of environmental regulation are we going to be able to stop these sort of transgressions that happen, as the initiating member, the member for Algoma, has said, right across rural Ontario. I am somebody who lives in rural Ontario. I live on a farm. We see certain people from day to day take advantage of the great spaces that we live in and create havoc and hazard by unlawfully dumping waste on private or public lands. We need to give the tools to our enforcement officers to make sure this doesn't happen.

I support this and I think the majority of the members in my caucus also support this. I would hope the government members especially would support this, because you have the power to nix this or to support it and let it move through to the next stage. I see this as a friendly piece of legislation that you could incorporate in your legislation.

This is an opportunity, I think, for all members of the House to work together to really, truly become legislators and come together on a piece of legislation in a tripartisan way, to work together, maybe looking for some improvements at committee stage, at second reading, and bringing it back here and really saying: "The public sees us quibble back and forth during question period and other times during the House, but maybe there are some things we can come together on. We can work together as legislators for the betterment of all the people of Ontario."

I really don't see the politics in this and I don't see the partisanship in this. I think basically it's motherhood. We obviously believe in our environment in Ontario. I know every member of this House believes in the sanctity of our environment and protecting it, and especially in having the ability to enforce the laws that we have today. We all agree with those laws. You are the government and you obviously agree with those laws. Previous governments of all three parties have built over the years I think a body of environmental law that we can all be proud of here.

We are one of the jurisdictions that really is on the forefront of environmental legislation in North America and around the world, but especially in North America. I think we should all be very proud of that because all three parties represented in this House have taken

part in the building of that body of law.

I think what today the member is saying is that we should make sure that we have the tools to enforce that law, that the law is not just there as a sham or a face but actually has meaning, and that we give the men and women we hire to enforce those regulations the proper tools to do the job so that those operators who do not play by the rules understand that if they do try to break these rules and regulations they will be caught, they will be punished and dealt with appropriately.

As the member for Algoma says, this is only fair to those majority of people who do play by the rules, who respect the environment, who are in the business, as we all as a jurisdiction have to be. We have to have people who handle our waste. We obviously want the very best people to handle our waste. It's not a type of activity that we all like to think about every day, but obviously it's a necessary activity of the human endeavour. We have to handle it well; we have to handle it in an environmentally sustainable way.

What the member is saying in this piece of legislation is, let's make sure that we give teeth to the rules that we have on the books today. That's what the member is asking for. I certainly support that and I would hope all members of the House support that too.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): I take pleasure today in having the opportunity to stand here and support my colleague from Algoma on his Bill 24 and to also thank and congratulate the member for Algoma for carrying on with this work now that he is no longer the Minister of Environment for Ontario. I know, however, that the member for Algoma, and our very popular interim leader, I might add, has a strong interest in protecting the environment and continues today in that trend.

I see that the member for Bruce is here today. I think it was two weeks ago I learned a lesson in this House, and that is not to get too fiercely partisan in private members' debates. I'm happy to say that despite my partisanship in the last debate we had in private members' hour on an environmental resolution, which was mine, on cancer prevention and phasing out carcinogens over time, I did, I'm happy to say, get support from enough members of the House from all parties to go ahead and set up that task force to find ways to phase out and ban the most serious persistent toxins in our environment, which proves to me that we can all try to work together.

So today on this bill I'm not going to get overly partisan. It might be a little difficult because obviously we have disagreements on environmental protection and that becomes very, very clear on a daily basis. I would say, however, that after listening to the speech by the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Environment and Energy, it seems to me, and perhaps this will be clarified, that he was saying although he generally supports the direction of this bill, because of the red tape review which is ongoing, this is not a good time to be passing such a bill.

If that is what he's saying -- and again I'd like him to clarify that -- perhaps what I can do is convince him and his members today to allow this second reading to go ahead so that we can have more discussion on the bill.

When Mr Wildman was the Minister of Environment he began the process of cracking down on illegal dumpers by setting up a special task force, and in just 18 months task force members laid more than 470 charges. There were 14 ministry orders to close and clean up illegal waste sites. But as the member for Algoma pointed out, there are loopholes in the existing legislation which must be closed, and I think all members will agree with that.

When I was first elected, between 1990 and the few years after 1990, I heard from several of my constituents. One in particular comes to mind, a constituent who lives in Riverdale but had some property and I believe a warehouse on the site that he used for business purposes. Somebody came along, I suppose late at night, and dumped an enormous amount of waste on his property, including old tires and God knows what else. It was an enormous amount, something he couldn't possibly just clear out himself. He was ordered by the ministry to clean up that site and to pay for it. This man did not have a lot of money.

He was a small businessman and was just getting by and he couldn't possibly afford to clean it up. I believe at the end of the day he had to borrow money to clean up somebody's waste. I'm sure many of us in this House have similar stories.

Just on that front alone, to protect the people who have private property that is being used to dump illegal waste, certainly I think we would all agree that we have to close the loopholes that make it possible for these private land owners to have to clean up themselves.

On the other issue around the dangers, particularly around hazardous waste being dumped illegally, there's no question that there has to be very severe punishment for that kind of illegal activity. It is an enormous threat to our health when we don't know what is in the waste that's being dumped and it could end up in some way in our food chain or water, or workers could be damaged and their health threatened just in the process of cleaning it up.

I would like to say that I have some real trouble with the concept of voluntary agreements. I just don't agree with that approach. I believe it's been proven over time that people need very clear, straightforward, transparent rules and regulations which apply equally to everybody. I believe that is the only way we're going to have the ability to make sure as a society that our waste is handled in a safe way for all residents of Ontario. I know the red-tape review is going on. I sincerely hope that government is very, very careful in terms of its approach to voluntary agreements to make sure the rules apply to everybody in a fair and consistent way.

I'd like to end on the issue of enforcement. It's absolutely necessary, and I know that the parliamentary assistant agrees with this, and I believe he's said it himself in his speech, even in the process of the cutbacks that are happening, and staff reductions, if we have rules and regulations and the people aren't there to enforce them, it hardly means anything. I'm glad to hear the parliamentary assistant today talk about the importance of enforcements and glad to hear him confirm -- I believe I heard, anyway -- that enforcing regulations around the management of waste would be a priority for the ministry.

I hope today that all members in the House -- I know we all agree with the concept of this bill before us today -- will agree to support the member on second reading of this bill so it can go forward and we can have more discussion together, all three parties, about the best way to proceed. It is very clear that we all agree that the rules and regulations and enforcement around the illegal dumping of waste has to be attended to. I believe the member for Algoma, with his experience on this issue while serving as Minister of Environment, is very aware of what needs to be done.

After all, he headed up the task force, he looked at the issue very clearly and I believe the bill embodies and takes care of most, if not all, of the loopholes in the present legislation.

So again, I would urge all members to support the second reading of this bill today.

Mr Peter L. Preston (Brant-Haldimand): I stand today to speak in support of the initiative put forward by the honourable member for Algoma. My notes say to pause here to give Mr Wildman time to recover. You see, I seldom agree with Mr Wildman's political views, but that's the way it is.

Mr Baird: Always interesting, though.

Mr Preston: Yes, always interesting. I understand that he's in opposition and he feels he must undermine everything we do, but that's not going to be my position today. I understand the sense of frustration that the members opposite must be feeling in the last few days in trying to find something to complain about, anything to complain about, in our latest legislation, but I guess when facts don't suit they fall back on fairy tales and they bring the bogeyman out of the closet. The bogeyman is out of the closet. This government has seen him, we've met him, taken steps to defeat him.

This latest budget is full and ample evidence that he's on the run. Those are the facts, not fairy tales. But I digress.

This is my maiden speech. I spoke about three months ago. Unfortunately, I started at five minutes to 6. Time constraints shut me down. This I understand; my mother did not understand. So a word of caution, more to me than you: I don't want to get cut off today and have you have to deal with a 95-year-old firebrand, because if she thinks her son is badly treated, the protesters we've seen down here will look like the welcome wagon.

While I have in the past fundamentally disagreed with Mr Wildman's politics, I feel the environment should be apolitical, as members opposite have said. There is no room in the environment for politics. I have six children; I have 12 grandchildren. I want this world to be the best possible world for them, their children and their children's children.

The opposition would have you believe that as Tories we put business ahead of the environment. This is fundamentally untrue. A strong, vibrant environment is just as important as a strong, vibrant economy. I strongly support Mr Wildman's initiative in strengthening sanctions against offenders of our pollution laws, written and unwritten, for I feel there are some laws that still need to be written regarding pollution.

We want to assure the people of Ontario that our government is prepared to enforce strict pollution control measures and that we will prosecute to the full extent of the law anyone who violates our guidelines. As the honourable member Dr Galt pointed out, our government is pursuing a comprehensive set of principles, guidelines and laws to deal with those who consistently break the law and endanger us and, more importantly, our future generations.

I will be voting in support of this bill. It enables the ministry to act in an expedient manner, utilizing the threat of plant closures and equipment seizures as opposed to simple fines, because fines are considered the cost of doing business. As Mr Palladini has said in respect of the trucking industry, this is fundamental as it does not interfere or unnecessarily hinder those companies which comply with ministry guidelines. Frank Sheehan and the Red-Tape -- pardon me, Frank Sheehan and the Red-Tape Review Commission --

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): That's hard to say; I know what you mean.

Mr Preston: It is terrible to say, yes -- will be working to streamline and clarify those regulatory burdens.

I know personally of some businesses that would rather pay fines than clean up their act. When asked why these repeat offenders are not stopped, the ministry responds with a sigh and says it must follow the letter of the law. They must prove that violations occur and get injunctions to stop them. This bill now gives them the authority needed to enforce such laws in a timely manner. As the honourable member for Northumberland stated, the Ministry of Environment will bring forth legislation this fall which will enhance the steps taken here today.

By working with the members opposite, it is my hope that we can find common ground to ensure that future generations are left a clean, healthy environment because, because although we are undoing the financial damage -- it's taking us five years -- it can take a lifetime or more to undo damage to our environment.

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): I'm proud to participate in this debate in support of the bill from the member for Algoma. I think he described himself as Bud "Mr Compromise" Wildman in a recent committee meeting.

As I listen to the speeches being made by all members, I would like to point out that this is an important bill. It is to rectify the situation that occurs with local land owners who inherit liabilities over which they have absolutely no control, illegal activities, and it needs to be addressed. It also protects the legitimate private sector waste haulers and waste disposers in this province that are undercut and damaged by the actions of an unscrupulous few.

I have, as I suspect most members have, and probably even the member for Algoma, some reservations about some of the mechanisms. I don't think that should stop us in any way from moving forward with this legislation.

One of the things I fear in here today, one of the things I really fear, is that this bill will receive unanimous approval in the House today and then it will be sent off to the Never-Never Land of committee of the whole. That would be disastrous, I would say to the government members. It needs to be sent to the resources development committee or another such standing committee of the Legislature for public hearings, so that we can remedy the faults that may be in the bill. That's the way the process works. No member comes here with a bill that they believe is absolutely perfect and can't be improved. That's what this place is about and that's what the standing committee process is about.

I say to the government, if you are in support -- and I'm glad you are; it sounds as if there is broad support in this House for this legislation -- don't let this bill die. Make sure that it goes to public hearings, make sure that the people of Ontario can comment upon this and make sure that we can come out of this with a bill that accomplishes the objectives the member for Algoma is putting forward today. It would be a travesty for this bill not to have public hearings, and I want to tell you why.

I want to tell you about the red-tape review and the environmental regulations in general. One of the things that's happening here is that they're being updated, so to speak. There's nothing wrong with that. They've needed to be updated. They should be updated. In some cases, they don't attain the objectives they were designed to attain. The world changes. People find ways around them. Some of them become outdated and outmoded and don't need to be there any longer, at least in the form they are there.

But the problem with this is that there is no public input into the review. I think all members would like to see, on environmental acts and on environmental regulations, a real public process around a reform of those very important provisions in the regulations.

I am suspicious, as many members are, given the attack on the Ministry of Environment's budget and given the attack on the Ministry of Natural Resources's budget, that these regulations are really not about reform. They are not about reform at all. They are not about improving the environment. They are about a systematic destruction of Ontario's environmental leadership over decades, under all three political parties.

In a non-partisan way, I would ask the government to come clean on this regulation reform. Put it out for public discussion; show us your options; tell us why they're better or why they're worse; tell us why you're making particular adjustments to those regulations; tell us how you're improving efficiency; tell us how they are sustainable over the long term.

Make sure that you're not giving Ontario an environmental deficit that will be carried on the shoulders of our children and grandchildren and their grandchildren, make sure that this is not about short-term political gain in the province and make sure that we are really looking after the environment and sustainable development in this province.

The objects and the mechanisms in this bill are not unusual. They do occur in the Ministry of Natural Resources, where we are protecting our natural resources through the fine work of our conservation officers, with many of the same penalties. The government itself is proposing to us to deal with drunk driving and other such problems through administrative policy that would do much the same thing.

The objection on the basis of, "You haven't had your day in court," and all that kind of stuff is a reasonable one. But there are occasions in this province where a reasonable administrative review will solve many of the problems that I think the government might object to, and I personally would object to, and still attain justice and protection of the environment.

The member has identified a real problem that I really wish he'd come forward with addressing when he was the Minister of Environment, but in the fullness of time he is proceeding with this motion.

He would have had much more chance to pass it when he was the Minister of Environment, but nevertheless, I'm calling on all reasonable members on all sides of the House to support Mr Wildman's resolution in the hope that we can take it to committee, we can have public input and we can really protect those land owners in my riding and other rural ridings across the province from what's happening with these waste disposers, the illegitimate, unscrupulous ones.

They hurt the vast majority of people in this industry who behave in a responsible manner, lower, unintentionally, our environmental standards and cause a huge burden to land owners in this province who inherit liabilities they had absolutely no responsibility for.

I think all reasonable members will not only support Mr Wildman's bill, they will also support its going to committee and having full public hearings across this province and they will tell the government that it's unacceptable for the ministry to revise, reform, whatever you call it, environmental regulation and natural resource regulation without the input of the people of Ontario.

Mr Wildman: I want to thank my colleagues from all sides of the Legislature.

The Acting Speaker: There are still 54 seconds left for this side. If you want to use them or give them away, I'm in your hands.

Mr Frank Klees (York-Mackenzie): I'm pleased to rise in the House to say that I intend to support the member's bill.

I have one concern, and perhaps the member can address this, in

section 19.1: "A provincial officer may, without a warrant or a court order, seize a vehicle or other thing if he or she reasonably believes...." I wonder if the member had anything in mind specifically when he referred to the "other thing," if he could clarify that for us, please.

Interjection.

Mr Wildman: I'm not sure how I should respond to that.

I thank the members from all sides of the House who supported the legislation for second reading. I hope they will agree, as the member for Algoma-Manitoulin has said, to have the bill go to the resources development committee. I don't necessarily believe, as the member who just spoke has pointed out, that the bill is drafted as tightly and as clearly as it might be. I'm aware that it could be improved in clause-by-clause in committee. I'm not here attempting to bring in new regulations for protection of the environment but rather to give to enforcement officers the tools to enforce current regulations under these three pieces of legislation.

That is why this legislation wasn't brought forward under the previous government. Frankly, we believed at the time that the task force, with concerted effort involving the enforcement branch, the police, the municipal authorities, the fire departments and so on, all of whom were involved in the task force, would be able to make really significant progress in bringing an end to illegal dumping in the GTA.

They did lay a lot of charges but it became apparent, going into 1995, that some operators -- not many -- treated the fine simply as a cost of doing business and that there needed to be changes in the enforcement powers, in the tools given to enforcement officers. The period of time ran out for the government and that's why the legislation didn't come forward.

I hope this government will consider very carefully ensuring that enforcement officers have the tools they require. The MPP for Northumberland mentioned the government's changes to reform the environmental regulations. We're looking forward to what the government brings to the House in that regard, and I hope this bill can go forward in the meantime and that we can give enforcement officers the tools they require.

What I'm talking about here, to make it clear for everyone in deciding whether or not to vote for the legislation on second reading, is to allow provincial officers to make enforcement orders and seize vehicles and other things used in the commission of offences; to allow the courts to order forfeiture of vehicles and other things in the commission of the offences -- those other things might be backhoes, buildings, gates, fences, I'm not sure, but we can certainly look at those in committee; to facilitate the service of summonses against corporations under the three acts; to prohibit the keeping of false records and the refusal to furnish required information to enforcement officers; and to increase penalties for certain offences under the three acts.

As many members have said, the purpose of this is to protect the environment, but also to make it fair for legitimate business operators who are in the waste management industry. It is most unfair that legitimate waste operators sometimes have to use very expensive methods to manage waste properly and that other operators who compete with them and do not use those same methods are willing to cut corners and dump illegally, and are therefore hurting the business for legitimate operators and in some cases putting them out of business.

We've got to make it so expensive for these illegal operators that it is not profitable for them to use illegal approaches so that there is a level playing field in the industry. In a sense, and I mean this sincerely, this is intended to protect legitimate operators in the waste management business.

It's also particularly important that we protect innocent land owners who may own a few hundred hectares of property in rural Ontario who suddenly will find, one day when they're out on the back 40, that somebody has come along and dumped a whole lot of tires, for instance, on their property without permission and without permit. The problem is that the land owner, under the current legislation, is stuck with having to clean it up, and there is no provision under the current law for the illegal operator, even if he's caught, to make restitution to the property owner.

That's most unfair, and I think we should do everything we can to ensure that property owners are protected as well as protecting the environment.

I appreciate the support the MPPs for Northumberland, Timiskaming, Riverdale, Brant-Haldimand and others have given the legislation this morning. I hope members will support it on second reading and that we can refer it to the resources development committee for refinement, amendment and improvement so that we can all work together to ensure that we protect the environment, legitimate operators and property owners in this province from illegal dumping.

In that regard, I would like to talk a little about what led me to move the bill as I did. Between 1993 and 1995 the task force that was brought together discovered, not just in rural Ontario but in some parts of urban GTA, warehouses that were supposed to be transfer stations where an operator had a permit for a transfer station, they came along and completely filled up the warehouse with waste, right up to the roof, and then just abandoned the warehouse. We then had this building, a firetrap in most cases, sitting there.

The operator in some cases went out of business, no longer was operating the same business or may have been operating another waste management business, and the municipality was stuck with having to clean up this fire hazard and deal with the waste.

In other cases hazardous wastes were being dumped into the municipal sewer systems and that caused serious environmental problems and again the municipalities were stuck with the problem.

In addition to what I was saying before, this is an attempt to strengthen the powers that municipalities have to protect themselves against additional costs that are incurred because of illegal operations and illegal dumping.

I hope all members will support the legislation and agree to have it go to the resources development committee for further amendment after second reading.

SPIRITUAL EXPRESSION IN SCHOOLS

Mr Stewart moved private member's notice of motion number 17:

That in the opinion of this House, since the expression of spirituality in public schools is currently limited only to the reading of prayers and other spiritual texts, and that the multifaith character of Canadian society has never implied that particular expressions of, as well as education about, diverse spiritual traditions are to be suppressed, but openly celebrated and respected by students and all Canadians as part of the intrinsic fabric of our country, and

Since spiritual expression and reflection is an important part of the overall development of values and the communication of the varied role of spirituality in our lives, and that open spiritual expression is practised within the publicly funded separate school system,

Therefore, the Ministry of Education and Training should recognize the important role of spirituality and spiritual expression among students of multifaith traditions in Ontario's public school system by allowing local public boards across Ontario the right to determine for themselves how such spiritual expression should be included in the daily activities of their schools.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Pursuant to standing order 96(c)(i), the member has 10 minutes for his presentation.

Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough): Thank you, Mr Speaker and members of the House, for the privilege of participating in today's debate on my resolution which would provide individual public school boards in Ontario the right to determine, along with parents and trustees, how best they can enhance their students' right and ability to express their spirituality. Participation in spirituality rather than non-participation is the goal of this resolution.

My aim in bringing this resolution before the House today is not to impose a particular philosophy or creed on students in our public schools who are of varied religions and cultural backgrounds. My resolution would give our students in public and secondary schools the right to go beyond the study of religions that make up the multifaith society of Ontario and Canada and allow them to express and celebrate their own sense of spirituality, whatever that may be, through external as well as internal ways.

My resolution is about enhancing greater spiritual freedom, not imposing any particular religious doctrine, but it's about providing an opportunity for Ontario students to gain important wisdom from spiritual reflection and experience that will indeed assist them in consciously building a society that is founded on respect for individuals and communities and their cultural and spiritual heritage.

Today's debate is about a continuation of a heated religious issue that began after the September 23, 1988, decision by the Ontario Court of Appeal. The court decision denounced a regulation under the Education Act requiring public schools to use the Our Father prayer along with the readings from the Christian scriptures during opening and closing exercises. In the case of Zylberberg versus the Sudbury Board of Education, the judges ruled that the regulation violated

section 2(

a) of the Charter of Rights of non-Christians.

Following that ruling, the Minister of Education under then-minister Chris Ward established an interim policy that made opening and closing exercises optional. On January 12, 1989, the education minister announced changes to

section 28 of regulation 262 where any content in opening and closing exercises other than the singing of O Canada was to be optional for each public board. Those boards that wished to do so could include one or more readings that impart spiritual values and that are representative of our multicultural society. Readings could be chosen from spiritual writings, including prayers and secular writings and/or a period of silence. Again, no participation by the students.

In January 1990, however, the Ontario Court of Appeal released a second decision on religion in the public school system. In what became known as the Elgin county decision, the Court of Appeal upheld that subsection 28(4) of regulation 262, which required two periods of religious education in public schools each week, violated 2(

a) of the charter. The court ruled that subsection 28(4) violated the guarantee of freedom of religion because it had the effect of imposing the religious beliefs of a majority on minorities. The court also upheld that the charter does not prohibit the teaching of religion as a means of fostering moral values as long as students are not taught exclusively from the view of one religion.

In brief, the court maintained that public schools may raise the awareness of students about all religions but could not impose any one religious view on students. Under then-Minister of Education Marion Boyd, a new policy on religious education in public schools was announced to ensure that what the government understood by the court's decision was upheld. Again, no participation by the students was allowed.

It was assumed by the government of the day that these court decisions excluded the expression of spirituality among public school students of any kind. The decision made clear that a specific religion could not be imposed on students, and I wish to publicly reiterate my concurrence with this fundamental point. But what I take exception to is the view that if I show respectful sensitivity for different religions, I could be accused of supporting one religion over another.

Moreover, I would argue that on the basis of the 1994 Ontario Ministry of Education and Training resource guide entitled Education About Religion in Ontario Public Elementary Schools, religious education and spiritual expression have never been viewed by the public as a value-neutral subject compared to subjects such as math or science in which, no matter how they are taught or by whom, the principle of the subject remains the same. It is clearly stated in the guide that "students need to acquire information about and develop respect for religions that are practised in Ontario and throughout the world.

By providing the means for them to do so, schools can enhance students' understanding of themselves and others and of the world in which we live." This concept tends to bring diverse communities closer together.

Also under The Common Curriculum Grades 1-9 policies and outcomes, 1995, the

section on "Self and Society" outlines the topic of "Understanding Diversity and Valuing Equity." Religious education is designed, according to this section, to help students develop the knowledge, skills and values they will need to help build and preserve an equitable society. In the 1985 education ministry announcement on opening and closing exercises, it is explicitly noted that the spiritual readings are to be chosen on the basis of their being able to promote social, moral and spiritual values in a multicultural society.

Spiritual reflection in our public school system is intended to offer some sense of values, responsibility and compassion to the students who study it. I believe that the current religious education programs in the public school system should strive to teach our young people about spiritual reflection and the importance of and respect for life. I believe that participation and spiritual reflection represent what we are trying to achieve. In many cases, a moment of silence serves no purpose other than to reflect on many things not related to the particular subject.

By participating, it allows most people to step outside of their own experiences just for a moment and at least think about the common issues we all face.

I would argue that if we already believe that the study of different spiritual traditions has a beneficial impact on students' values, how are we contradicting this by allowing students the right to express and share expressions of their own spirituality? It is participation. Could not education about values, respect, ethics and understanding for others be even more supportive of our students, again by participating rather than only by instruction? As the great Greek philosophers would argue, separation of theory from practice lies in the root of ignorance. Their unity is the basis of sound education and wisdom.

I'm simply putting forward the view that spiritual expression in the public school board is an important complement to the study of spiritual traditions wherein students gain insight about ultimate meanings. Without the ability to participate in spiritual expression, students are without the right to share what they feel about their spiritual insights and development. What are we telling students about spirituality when we allow them to read the prayers of others, yet students cannot participate in their own prayers or directly celebrate with their multiculturally diverse colleagues? The aims of spiritual tolerance cannot be furthered by suppression.

I do not, however, wish to have the Ontario government impose more guidelines on school boards in this respect. I believe that local school boards, in conjunction with parents, teachers and students themselves, must decide for themselves how best to allow public school students the right to express their spirituality. We already have a publicly funded separate school board that teaches its own spiritual tradition to students. We also have non-Catholic parents who take their students and their children to Catholic schools or privately funded religious schools because they feel that spirituality is too important an issue in their children's life development to leave unaddressed.

The Acting Speaker: Your time has expired. Further debate?

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): I want to speak on this issue. It's a very challenging and difficult resolution, and it's a very sensitive resolution, as my colleague stated.

As I listened to my colleague's resolution, I had some other thoughts. At one point, I was hearing that this resolution was going to bring about one's own individual expression of one's religion. Then I heard in some other part, "allowing others to participate in my religion so they can have more insight." When I hear words like that, I start to consider whether one is trying to influence one over the other. Religion is such a personal expression, and as soon as we bring it within the realm of education, some convincing argument will come about that it is enforcing one's belief on the other.

When I first saw the resolution, I readily said, "I would like to support a resolution like that, where religious expressions of people can be done." But when I looked at the Human Rights Commission regulations, they even have difficulty defining what is "religion" and what is "creed." Although they said one's religion is protected under the Human Rights Code, one has not really come up with a proper definition of what is creed.

I'd like to introduce just the area I represent, Scarborough North, and the diversity of religion and language within it. In 1991 they said there were about 121,000 people there, and I think there are almost 200,000 now. In that area, Canadian-born are just less than 50% -- that doesn't mean they are all one religion -- and people who are foreign-born are about 54%. Normally, with foreign-born people, there is more diversity of religion. There are over 15 listed languages spoken in Scarborough, but there are really about 30 spoken in total. You can see that religion and language are both quite diverse.

That is trying to just define who we are as Canadians, who we are as Ontarians, who we are as Scarborough North. That tells us the complexity of it.

The reason I decided to speak on this resolution is that I visit schools every Friday morning and speak about Parliament and the role of Parliament and what we do, and then entertain questions from the students. One student asked me about the fact that they're not given the right to express their religion inside school, and I don't think I handled the question very well. I think my response was that I'd have to take a closer look at it to find how best it could be done and how best it could be debated.

I know the previous government had also wrestled with this, whether the Lord's Prayer should be said or maybe there should be silence, and many compromises came about in dealing with that kind of issue.

It's a very complex issue. Canada is noted for its sensitive approach to religion, to languages. People call it the experiment of multiculturalism. We're looking for answers to how we can live in a better society, in a much more harmonious way, whether it's culture, language or religion.

But as the member read his resolution, as I said, I got extremely concerned. It sounded somehow like we start talking about public schools, that the Catholic schools are funded and they preach their religion, and why should they be given that right over anyone else? We know it's an historic thing and comes with a background of how they came to that level of funding, how they were deprived of that funding, as a matter of fact, how much discrimination happened with Catholics in the past just to be educated. It is extremely difficult.

Religion or spiritual being is a part of human life, a part of human expression, a part of human vision, and if we in any way suppress that, it is going to erupt in other areas where we'd have to pay a higher price.

I strongly believe that if religion is being taught in the school, one has to be extremely careful that we're not talking about enforcing one value over the other but, just like any other thing taught in the school, that students are given the facts and then decisions can be made, more than trying to influence them one way or the other.

But to suppress the religious way of life is quite harmful for the individual's upbringing and the intrinsic value of life itself. As I see it, religion is not that we kneel down to pray at 8 o'clock in the morning as we get up or at 12 o'clock at night when we go to bed, to thank whatever God we have for the wonderful day and the elements of it all. It's a complete way of life, though some of us have narrowed it down. Christians, like myself, narrow it down to Christmas, others to Passover, and go to church and say we have done our bit.

But if we are real practising Christians, we behave in a Christian way through the way we live and the way we conduct ourselves from hour to hour. So do Muslims, so do Jews. It's a way of life. Therefore, to just restrict someone to a certain hour, just a quiet time to express their views, I don't think is sufficient. It's also telling them, "We don't want you to chant, we don't want you to do any of the things that normally you would do, but just to keep quiet for a moment of silence and to pay respect to your God."

Of course one tries to resolve the problem, but I think this resolution, which I welcome because it gives us the opportunity to discuss about it, has to do more. I think it could be very dangerous if we start somehow to make a decision to say, "Yes, this is what should be done," without proper consultation.

I, even as a parliamentarian, and the 129 other members here as parliamentarians, should never feel that they have the answer to say, "That's the direction to go." That's why we have consultation, and that consultation method has got to be extremely sensitive and very wide and involve all religion, and sometimes no religion at all. If one's religion is not to have a religion, it's also a religion. The fact is that one has to be extremely sensitive to that.

As I wrestle with this resolution to say whether I support it or not, I just want to be very clear -- and sometimes we become rather partisan and political about this. I started off by saying that I would support this, but somehow I don't think I will support this resolution. The problem I have too, and of some concern to my colleagues, is whether or not legislation is the way to go. Do we legislate this kind of stuff? Then maybe this resolution, the resolution itself will open its road to legislation.

I think we should legislate the right not to discriminate in regard to these things and giving people equal rights, and then we define what equality is all about. That is so important for us, not to move in the direction of legislation on morality or where one should go and when they should do it and why they should do it.

However, we must also consider the fact that we have a legislated body called the schools, and which we run in a manner of taxpayers' money and how it should be done. The format has to be there to be respected, but in the meantime we must not infringe on people's rights of how to express their own spiritual belief, as long as their spiritual belief does not infringe on others.

That is where the complexity comes in, whether or not chanting, for instance, in the schools would interrupt someone who wanted to have a quiet moment to communicate with their God, or whether or not only silence alone should be a part of it. It is a very complex issue, an issue that we must move with in a manner of, I would say, total respect for others and their beliefs.

The resolution I would say has gone a bit far in asking us to say yes or no in this regard, but it is welcome because it then generated that discussion and the discussion should not end here. So the paradox I find myself in is whether I want to make a decision or not. I feel if we are not ready for this kind of a decision, what we should do is then say no to it, but make sure that this kind of debate and discussion comes about at the time.

To give it to boards -- and we said of course, and the member here stated, that the teachers and the students and the parents should be involved in that. More than that, the religious groups have got to be involved with that, whether it's a synagogue, whether it's a mosque, whether it's the pastor of a Christian church who has got to be involved, because somehow the person is taught in the right manner in their own religion how to demonstrate and how to express their religious belief.

I will be voting against this because I think that somehow in voting for it, we would start opening up in a manner where we're telling people that we are moving towards legislation in the expression of one religious belief; a very complex issue, an issue that I really would have loved to have voted for, but I feel at this moment I could not.

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): I welcome this resolution; it's one that, if I were writing it, I would have written slightly differently, but I say that with all due respect to the member for Peterborough, Mr Stewart, who has brought us this resolution.

I think it's a topic that, I would argue, we don't talk enough about, because I think that often when we get into the situation of talking about the role of religion within our society, and in this case within the school system, we tend, more often than I would argue is necessary, to categorize ourselves on either extreme of that argument.

Those of us who believe strongly in the separation of church and state all too often take that position to the point of saying there can be and there should be no discussion at all about religion in our school system. I don't say that's what everyone who believes in that says, but I hear that all too often, as I say.

Whereas on the other side there seems to be sometimes too much of a push for saying, no, it should all just be completely open and with total discretion.

I think the notion of spirituality and spiritual expression as part of reflecting the reality of the diverse society in which we live today is something that we should be not only discussing more, as I say, but also within our school system should be the topic of broader discussion.

The only hesitation I have in the way in which the resolution is written is that one could read it in a way that seems to just leave complete discretion at the local school board level on what to do around this very important topic.

But I want to read it also in the context and, if you'll excuse the expression, the spirit -- no pun intended -- within which I think it's presented -- and I've listened carefully to what the member for Peterborough had to say in presenting this resolution -- in that it does call upon the Ministry of Education and Training, in recognizing the important role of spirituality and spiritual expression, to allow school boards the right to determine how -- and I think that's important -- such spiritual expression should be included.

I presume that the only way in which it could be done, knowing a little bit about the rules that govern education, is in fact for the minister to clarify at least some of the guidelines, if not indeed some of the regulations, around this issue.

So it's for that reason that I want to say very clearly that I support this resolution. I support this resolution because I think there is some merit in going beyond the very good things that are happening now.

I spent some time as a school trustee at the Toronto Board of Education where, among other things, we developed a book of readings and prayers to be used in the opening exercises, long before the question was settled through the variety of directives from the ministry that the member for Peterborough referred to earlier, the point of that book of prayers and readings being to reflect the diversity that exists, certainly within a school system like the Toronto school system, the diversity of cultures and certainly the diversity of religions.

I take very much the intent of this resolution as being that we should not be afraid to build upon that type of approach and to say that in fact the way to respect the different religious and the different spiritual beliefs that our citizens and hence our young people have, including, I would say, the fact that there are many among our population who consider themselves to be either agnostic or atheist, that there is in fact an ability within our system to reflect that diversity, as opposed to saying that the way we're going to respect that diversity is by ignoring that reality which many of our young people bring with themselves to school.

I've always been one, whether it's been on the questions of culture, on the questions of race and indeed on the questions of religion, to say the way that you most effectively respect the diversity that exists is by talking about it, by giving people the opportunity to understand each other better. It's in that spirit that I want to support this resolution, because I think that out of it might come some interesting discussions and, I hope, some more useful guidelines that could go from the ministry to the school boards in terms of how these issues can be looked at.

I certainly recall in some of my own education, back in Australia, in a public school, where once a week there was the opportunity for a variety of religious classes to be offered. I see that as merely being one possibility. I don't know that it would work or that it's something I would necessarily say ought to be part of our public school system, but I think it's one way to reflect that diversity.

Another would be simply to ensure that in the appropriate way in classrooms, with teachers obviously having the ability and the background to be able to do this, there was some ability for young people to understand the different religions and to be able to express to their fellow students what it is about their particular religious beliefs that they feel strongly about, not as a way to try to impress upon others that one religion is more important than another or purer than another, because that's a debate that I think would be inappropriate, but as a way to simply say, "This is part of who I am." If part of who a young person is also comes from a frame of mind that says, "I don't have a religious belief, but here is my set of morals and here is my set of beliefs," that is also something that ought to be just as equally recognized and reflected.

I'm assuming that's also part of the spirit of this resolution.

I think this is the kind of thing that might engender some broader discussion, and for that reason it's useful. I think it's better to reflect the diversity we have by talking about the differences and the different approaches that we have, rather than trying to bury those and say, "We're not going to deal with those." In that sense, I support this resolution before us today.

Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): It's a pleasure today to stand to support the private member's bill, ballot item 28.

I recognize the importance of faith and morals in a tolerant society. Our children need to participate and to fully understand themselves, and in that, to understand each other.

Thank you to my fellow peers for allowing me to speak.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): I want to take a short opportunity to comment on this particular resolution. I will not be voting in favour of this resolution, but for the record, I would like to make sure people understand why.

I think it is a well-worded resolution. To give credit to the member, I think what he's trying to do here is in itself not a bad thing, and looking at the wording, it is very well put together. But the difficulty I have is that what we're saying here -- and I just want to read it. It says, "The Ministry of Education and Training should recognize the important role of spirituality and spiritual expression among students of multi-faith traditions in Ontario's public school system by allowing local public boards across Ontario the right to determine for themselves...."

The difficulty I have is that I really don't believe we should go to the local boards with that particular issue. It should be a power left within the Ministry of Education to determine what the policy should be when it comes to the question of religious education within the public school system.

As my colleague from Dovercourt said, there are people out there who believe quite strongly that there needs to be a separation between church and state.

Really, the question here is twofold: Do we want to teach particular religions within our public schools; in other words, do we want religious classes in our public schools that teach Anglicanism, the Pentecostal religion or the Jehovah and Hinduism religions, or do we want to teach children about different religions in order to build tolerance? When I look at this particular resolution, I think it would be left fairly open to the

interpretation of the school boards, and I quite think we'd be in a situation of a charter challenge if they were to interpret it along the first line.

I'm not going to take a lot of time. I just want to say I will vote against it on that basis. I believe, like the member who brought this resolution forward, that we should be trying to find ways to teach religious tolerance within our school system.

Maybe what we need to do is go to the second, which is to try to incorporate within our public school system a system of education that tries to teach tolerance so that children are able to come to school, are able to share with other students the beauty of their religion with other students and at the same time learn a little bit about the other children's religions so that we can build tolerance. But I would have difficulty in going to a system where we purely are teaching different religions in different classes, and I will vote against this motion.

Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener): I am very pleased to have the opportunity to speak to my colleague from Peterborough's resolution. In many ways I know that it directly challenges the very fabric of the educational system in the province. It raises the basic question, what exactly is the purpose of our educational system? In general terms, it raises the question, what are we striving to accomplish as a society by even having an educational system?

Year after year, the taxpayers pour multibillions of dollars into education, and yet today there is growing criticism from many parents that the system is failing their children, both in the technical skills such as reading, writing and mathematics, but perhaps even more importantly they believe the schools are failing in the social areas.

I think that few in this House would argue that a top priority of our educational system must be the development of socially responsible, caring children who will grow up to become socially responsible, caring adults. Children are this province's greatest asset. On this I think we all agree.

In my riding of Kitchener, we have a major park called Victoria Park. This summer the city of Kitchener is celebrating the 100th anniversary of the park. Every weekend in the summer the playground in the park is alive with the sounds of hundreds of children laughing and playing. For me, the children playing in Victoria Park have come to represent all that is good in my riding and in the province.

I can watch the children play catch with their parents. I can watch as they timidly climb the stairs to the top of the slides and slide down with shrieks of laughter. I can hear the shouts of "higher" as they encourage their parents to push them harder on the swings so they can try to touch the sky with their feet. I am forced to smile watching the children run in and out of the water spray-pole, trying not to get wet while being thrilled when they end up being soaked because their little legs won't carry them away from the water fast enough.

This wonderful summer life of Victoria Park is very much the same today as it has been every summer for 100 years. But despite the obvious wonderful similarities of the summer life in Victoria Park, there is one significant difference. That difference is in the makeup of the families who take their children to the park. Today, the summer life in Victoria Park represents a microcosm of the social fabric of our great province. Today, the children who play in the park represent the cultural mosaic that is the strength of our communities.

As hard as it is to imagine, it is a fact that less than three decades ago there were 1,446 school boards in the province of Ontario. The school system was based upon what was then perceived to be in the best interests of the region it served. Today, the challenges of the educational system are significantly different. The educational needs of our children now must be viewed from a global perspective.

Today, the educational system faces the challenge of preparing our children to be able to think in terms of and to be able to socially interact with an international perspective. Today, the children in Victoria Park represent families with backgrounds from every corner of the world. The truly wonderful aspect of these obvious cultural and racial differences of the children is the tremendous strength of the cultural similarities that also exist between the families who take their children to the park and the children who play together in the park.

I am of the belief that every child playing in Victoria Park has a gift to offer us. I am of the belief that these children can teach us how to better get along with each other, how to play together, how to work together and how to appreciate each other, not in spite of our obvious racial and cultural differences, but because of the obvious similarities we share with all peoples from all parts of the world. The time has come to learn how to celebrate the positive aspects of all cultural backgrounds of the children in our school system.

The time has come for us to also accept the fact that the social backbone of every successful culture is its spirituality as defined by its major religions. Sceptics want us to ignore this basic historic fact, but ignoring this fact is to do a great injustice to the great cultures throughout the world. We gain nothing from ignoring this reality, but we may gain from recognizing it and our children may gain a small insight into the differing heritage of some of their schoolmates. I have long believed that only through increased education might we eliminate the ignorance of other beliefs that is the root cause of racism.

We have had a generation of increasing emphasis on legislation but less emphasis on education. To force bilingualism and biculturalism, then multiculturalism, on Canadians when they should have been embraced by all of us, what we have fostered is resentment and increasing racism. If we are to eradicate this disease, we must do so through the education system.

I recently had the opportunity to attend a number of citizenship courts in Waterloo region. It amazed me to find that the people receiving their Canadian citizenship were from more than 30 different countries. Think about that, Mr Speaker. People from 30 different countries, all with varying cultures and many religions from around the globe, chose Waterloo region as their home. I think it is worth the time and energy to learn just a little bit about the spiritual aspects of the cultures that bind them together.

Our school boards should be given the opportunity to take time each day to identify a positive spiritual thought representative of the cultural background of their student bodies. I believe that a moment of spiritual expression and reflection is itself a small step, but it is an important step because it helps send out the message to our young people that we once were all from a different heritage and that each of us has something positive to learn from those from differing racial, cultural and spiritual backgrounds.

The time has come to start the process of celebrating the strengths of all the cultures which make up our new social fabric. I believe this resolution is a small step along that road and I will be supporting it.

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this subject this morning since it's a subject that is very close to my heart and in some very significant instances some of the motivation for my actually being here in this House.

It is because of the spiritual upbringing and understanding that existed in my home as I grew up and in the community in which I lived and the interaction that I had with people over the years both on an informal and formal basis that I'm able to stand here today with some confidence that I reflect in some way hopefully a balanced approach to the way we set the rules that govern us and guide us in this wonderful province of Ontario.

Certainly the resolution that's in front of us today speaks to something that I think is innate to the very beautiful nature of the country we call Canada. The fact that we have so many people among us because of our, I think, very progressive immigration policies -- I myself came to this country in 1960 with five sisters and a brother and my parents to a community, Wawa, north of the community that I represent today, Sault Ste Marie.

In arriving, I discovered the variety of nationalities and people who were there who professed their belief and nurtured themselves spiritually in ways that were, yes, different from perhaps the very formal way in some instances that I did my spiritual exercises, but nevertheless were very supportive and helpful and positive in their life.

As Canadians, we pride ourselves on the fact that we see diversity as something that enriches us and makes us better as a country, that actually sets us out on the world stage as an example of the way people with diverging views on things from culture, politics and, yes, religion, can live together in harmony and enhance the fabric and the very nature and future hopes and opportunities not only for us but for our children and our children's children.

This resolution today, in my mind, gives us an opportunity to reflect on that for a moment and to speak to it in a very specific way re how we in fact foster, encourage and nourish the spirituality that is at the root of the lives of so many of us and so many of the different groupings that we find in the communities that make up Ontario today.

I personally feel that all of us, in very direct and helpful ways, need to focus on parts of who we are in order to be balanced and productive and contributing individuals. Certainly we all need to be very social beings, and I think we need to nourish that by having friends and spending time with friends and family. We all need to be people who concern ourselves about how we are physically, so we put in place as a country a health care system that will help us with that, plus we encourage through the programs that we set in place, both provincially and municipally, opportunities to recreate.

We all need to be concerned as well about the way that we develop and support ourselves emotionally. But more particularly today I think it's important that we also pay attention to the spiritual side of ourselves and that we nourish that, that we not in any way deny it and that we not in any way put our head in the sand about it.

Schools are used in our society today to educate and to help us come to terms with a whole lot of what sometimes can be difficult and problematic. So I think it's only correct that we should allow for some expression, for some participation, for some understanding and enjoyment of that particular reality and that in our schools and in our local areas we should get together and decide how it is we should do that.

Mrs Julia Munro (Durham-York): I welcome the opportunity to speak to this resolution this morning. I want to first of all comment on the ideas that have been presented so far this morning.

People have tended to concentrate on the very important opportunity that this resolution presents to create the atmosphere of tolerance and understanding that all of us appreciate and recognize as paramount to our democratic system. However, what I would like to do is take a couple of minutes to talk about another aspect that I think deserves attention.

It's really important to understand that students, particularly adolescents, are very curious and naturally interested in the development of value systems and understanding where these come from and the foundations upon which our own society is based and the foundations upon which other societies are based. I think it's really an important opportunity then for people to see this development in this context. It's one that I think has been overlooked, as the previous speaker mentioned, that we have not addressed the issue of spirituality in our education system.

We have tended to shy away from it for the kinds of reasons other speakers have mentioned, but I think the fact that there is a tremendous sensitivity here and there is a need to develop this carefully doesn't mean we shouldn't accept the challenge that is suggested by this resolution.

I would also add that not only is this a natural time to address the students' curiosity and need to learn about the various ideas of spirituality, but I'd also suggest that it is at the base of so much that has been developed in music, in literature, in the arts and in history itself. To deny that this is in fact what has in so many cases been the raison d'être for the world's best music, art and literature is to leave out a part of the puzzle.

For that reason, I think we need to support this resolution and move forward in looking at where we should go to provide students with that opportunity.

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): This is a very difficult issue for someone like me who, like most of my colleagues, I think, in this House, has a great respect for the need for us in our communities to come to grips with the issue of spirituality. But I can assure you, having gone through the difficulties of the Elgin case that the member mentioned in his introduction, leaving this issue up to school boards is not the appropriate thing to do. It simply opens the door for a majority religion position in local school boards to deny right to all of those other groups.

If you read the materials on both sides of the question in Elgin county, you will understand that there is no ground out there around what could be considered to be multicultural spiritualism. People on both sides of the question, from all different religions, object to the issue of another person's religion being used as an expression, and all that will happen is this issue will be up for debate in every school board in the province. The divisions among us which we are trying to heal will in fact become worse. That really concerns me. I'll be voting against the resolution.

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I will be in support of the resolution. I appreciate the experience the member for London Centre has had in her former capacity as Attorney General, but this whole issue is about choice, whether it be religious exercises, whether it be courses in religion.

The whole issue developed in the 1988 Court of Appeal decision. At that time it was made quite clear that religious exercises, particularly with respect to public elementary schools, would apply as long as one religion did not receive primacy.

All of us in this place represent many different areas, many different cultures, many different religions. Whether we like it or not -- I quite like it, as a matter of fact -- religion is part of our culture and we should have the ability to allow religious exercises if it's chosen. I've spoken to members on one of my school boards in Dufferin county, and there are some members who oppose it, there are some members who are in favour of it. If in their wisdom they decide that the people of that area wish that type of religious exercise or religious education, they have the ability to do that. They are in a better position to decide whether that should take place.

In this Legislature we start our days off each day when the Speaker has the Lord's Prayer and one other prayer. That is our choice. That could be changed by the rules of this place. The rules could be voted on to decide that that practice not take place, and I'm quite thankful that it hasn't. To date, that process does take place and for a few moments we reflect on our spirituality, and I quite frankly personally have no problem on that issue.

I commend the member for bringing this issue forward. I believe there is some confusion with respect to policies that have come forward from the Court of Appeal decision, notwithstanding the fact that there was a 1988 policy that said school boards did have the option, although some school boards, as I understand it -- I think Brant county allows a noonhour Bible club to meet with respect to accommodating its rural community. In 1992, parents in Sault Ste Marie rejected the ban of religious instruction in public schools by sending their children to separate schools.

There is some uncertainty as to the policy of the provincial government. The provincial government has guidelines which ban religious education during the instructional day, which could be interpreted as including the noonhour.

I believe if anything, as the member for Dovercourt has raised, there is nothing wrong with discussing this topic and coming to some sort of consensus as to where we should be going. I happen to believe, with the member who introduced the resolution, that school boards are in a better position to make these types of decisions.

If the school boards in their wisdom see that there should be religious exercises -- at the commencement of the day, at the end of the day, at noonhour -- or if the school boards in their wisdom see fit that there should be religious courses at any time during the day, they should have that option. I believe the intent of the resolution is to clarify that, because there's no question, as I indicated, that religion is part of our culture, part of the Canadian culture. Therefore, I would support that resolution.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Peterborough, you have two minutes to reply.

Mr Stewart: First of all, I'd like to thank the members from both sides of the House who are going to support this resolution.

This resolution is a bill about -- I could mention a number of words. It's a bill about understanding. It's a bill about tolerance. It's a bill about multifaith expression. It's a bill about freedom of speech in our democratic society. It's a bill about freedom of expression. It's a bill about the lifting of suppression in schools as far as spiritual reflection or expression is concerned.

There is nothing mandatory about this bill. There is nothing forcing anybody to do anything. What it does do is allow our students to participate in some type of spiritual reflection, if they so wish. I believe it is a resolution that is long overdue. Recently in Peterborough we had a phone-in show and probably better than 50% of the people who phoned in were students who want to be part of this type of spiritual reflection.

I believe this bill enhances the rights of students. It brings our students in public schools greater spiritual freedom to learn, understand, appreciate and participate for themselves, their colleagues and ultimately society, to prepare themselves for the future and be part of the future of this province.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1995 / LOI DE 1995 MODIFIANT DES LOIS SUR LA PROTECTION DE L'ENVIRONNEMENT

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): We will deal first with ballot item number 27, standing in the name of Mr Wildman. If any members are opposed to a vote on this ballot item, will they please rise?

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Pursuant to standing order 96(k), the bill is referred to the committee of the whole House.

Interjections: Resources development.

The Acting Speaker: Shall this bill be referred to the standing on resources development? All those in favour of the motion will please rise and remain standing. A majority of the House being in agreement with the request of the member, this bill stands referred to the standing committee on resources development.

SPIRITUAL EXPRESSION IN SCHOOLS

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): We will now deal with ballot item number 28, standing in the name of the member for Peterborough. If any members are opposed to a vote on this ballot item, will they please rise?

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Call in the members; this will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1200 to 1205.

The Acting Speaker: Mr Stewart has moved private member's notice of motion number 17.

All those in favour of the motion will please rise and remain standing.

Ayes

Agostino, Dominic

Ecker, Janet

Preston, Peter

Arnott, Ted

Fisher, Barbara

Rollins, E.J. Douglas

Baird, John R.

Fox, Gary

Ross, Lillian

Barrett, Toby

Galt, Doug

Shea, Derwyn

Boushy, Dave

Guzzo, Garry J.

Silipo, Tony

Brown, Jim

Klees, Frank

Stewart, R. Gary

Carroll, Jack

Martin, Tony

Tilson, David

Chudleigh, Ted

Munro, Julia

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Danford, Harry

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Wood, Bob

Doyle, Ed

Pettit, Trevor

The Acting Speaker: All those opposed to the motion will please rise and remain standing.

Nays

Bisson, Gilles

Cooke, David S.

Laughren, Floyd

Boyd, Marion

Curling, Alvin

Martel, Shelley

Christopherson, David

Grandmaître, Bernard

Churley, Marilyn

Lankin, Frances

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 29; the nays are 10.

The Acting Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

All matters relating to private members' business having been completed, I will now leave the chair. The House will resume at 1:30 this afternoon.

The House recessed from 1207 to 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

NATIONAL MENTAL HEALTH WEEK

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): This is National Mental Health Week. A number of events are planned throughout the week to raise awareness of mental health.

Over two million Ontarians suffer with mental illness. The impact of mental illness affects not only the one third of Ontarians directly touched by the problem but our society as a whole. It is estimated that over 1.8 million workdays are lost every month by people who suffer from a mental illness. This loss of productivity affects Ontario's competitiveness.

Ontario is fortunate to have a strong network of 354 local community mental health programs to offer services to people suffering from a mental illness and support to their families. Our community agencies serve over 34,000 people every day. Unfortunately, a 5% funding cut announced by the Mike Harris government will have a detrimental effect on the ability of our community agencies to provide care many so desperately need.

In a recent Environics poll, nine out of 10 people believe Ontario should increase or maintain spending on mental health programs. When reminded that taxes or the deficit could rise as a result, people still supported maintaining or increasing spending on community mental health.

The people of Ontario are aware of the seriousness of mental health, and I urge the government to listen to 90% of Ontarians that our mental health support services are important and we do not want to see them cut any further. Mental illness does not leave a segment of Ontario society untouched.

TRANSITIONS PROGRAM

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): Because there have been so many different cuts made because of the Tory business plan, many individual programs that have offered a great deal of support and help to Ontarians who want to get back to work to become self-sufficient have just been lost in the flurry of different closures.

I want to talk about one today, and that is the Transitions program, which was an Ontario Training and Adjustment Board program geared to helping those over 45 who lost their jobs either during a transition or a downsizing. That program assisted 14,000 laid-off older workers, 50% of whom were able to find permanent employment within three months.

The decision to wind down that program seems to have happened very quietly. Even the participants did not know. The decision was made on April 11 and the rules went into effect on May 1. Those rules mean that no new applications will be accepted after May 1, that the course training credit has been slashed to $3,000 from $4,500, and that all training has to be completed by December 31.

This is a very serious issue for older workers. The government says it is looking at other programs to replace this. They need to look quickly, because older workers are losing their jobs every day.

CELEBRATE YOUR WATERSHED WEEK

Mr John L. Parker (York East): I draw the attention of this House to Celebrate Your Watershed Week in Metro Toronto region. Many events are being held throughout this week to help promote an appreciation of the vast stretches of natural land that exist within our urban area inside and around Metro Toronto.

Accompanied by Margaret Casey of Friends of the Don East York, I was among the more than 160 canoeists who came to "Paddle the Don" last Sunday as part of the kickoff to the week's events. Our trip began at Serena Gundy Park in the riding of Don Mills. From there we paddled the length of the lower Don through the great riding of York East and down through the fine ridings of Riverdale and St George-St David to the mouth of the river. We then crossed the Toronto waterfront to York Quay, emerging a full four hours after our start.

I have paddled many lakes and rivers of this province and explored much of Ontario's wilderness. Although last Sunday's trip took place entirely within an urbanized area, there were stretches that seemed just as remote as any northern route I have ever known. This is a credit to the dedicated efforts of the hundreds of volunteers and professionals who have served the cause of conservation in the Metro region over the years.

I am pleased to note that in this, the third year of the Paddle the Don event, participation more than doubled last year's turnout of 75 canoes. Let's hope that next year we can increase participation further. In the meantime, I urge residents throughout the Metro region to take this occasion to get out and explore and take an interest in helping to preserve the natural environment within our community.

ONTARIO FRIENDS OF SCHIZOPHRENICS

Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): I would like to tell this House about a truly dedicated group in my riding. The Thunder Bay arm of the Ontario Friends of Schizophrenics is a volunteer, non-profit, self-help group comprised primarily of families who are striving to increase public awareness of schizophrenia, provide support for families and raise money for research.

Given its prevalence and the needs it creates, schizophrenia is one of the most devastating of mental illnesses. The risk for developing schizophrenia at some time during one's life is one in 100. At any particular point in time, approximately one out of every 225 people has the disorder. That means that approximately 48,000 people in Ontario had schizophrenia in 1994.

The majority of those who develop the disease do so in their late teens or early twenties and are afflicted by it for the rest of their lives. A shocking one in 10 commits suicide. The Friends of Schizophrenics estimate that hospitalization, outpatient treatment, medication, community services, family benefits and productivity losses amount to over $2.5 billion a year.

Despite the breadth, severity and cost of this disorder, research in this area is vastly underfunded and the province's current mental health system is unable to meet the needs of people with schizophrenia. Further, Friends of Schizophrenics are concerned that changes in the Ministry of Health will result in a further erosion of already inadequate services.

I would like to applaud the Friends of Schizophrenics, and especially the Thunder Bay

chapter and president Helen Schumacher, for their sensitive and dedicated service.

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mr Gilles Pouliot (Lake Nipigon): Because of drastic cuts in education funding, students in my riding of Lake Nipigon and in other northern Ontario communities are being hit harder than anywhere else in the province of Ontario.

Because of these cuts, one of my constituents, a 13-year-old Franco-Ontarian student with a learning disability who currently attends the Centre Jules-Léger in Ottawa, a centre of excellence indeed -- this 13-year-old challenged person will no longer be able to live in residence on the weekend because it has been decreed, it's been decided by the Minister of Education, that starting in September the residence will close on weekends. So every weekend this 13-year-old young adult will have to commute 17 hours, return, from Ottawa to the township of Geraldton in the riding of Lake Nipigon.

The Centre Jules-Léger is the only school in Ontario that serves Franco-Ontarian children with severe learning disabilities: deafness, blindness or deafness and blindness combined. Students who live in Ottawa return home -- it's quite natural -- over the weekend. But students like my constituent who live farther stay in school residence. They go home maybe once or twice a month.

CHILDREN'S SERVICES

Mrs Lillian Ross (Hamilton West): As Ontarians, we all have an interest in ensuring that young children start life in a healthy and secure environment. We all have a stake in their wellbeing. The Ontario budget reflects this government's commitment to children, as the following initiatives demonstrate.

Five million dollars has been earmarked this year in startup funding for the formation of a partnership with the Canadian Living Foundation for Families in order to help parents and communities set up and expand local nutrition programs for elementary school children. This fulfils another promise from the Common Sense Revolution. It is also the realization of initiatives begun by the Premier himself on behalf of Ontario's children while he was still a member of the opposition.

Services to meet the needs of preschool children with speech and language disorders will receive 10 million new dollars this year, together with another $10 million to be added later.

Child care funding is being enhanced with an additional $200 million above current levels. Overall expansion of the province's support for child care will rise to $600 million.

I am proud to say that this level of support for child care by this government is the highest ever in the history of Ontario. A sole-support parent with one child on an employment income of $30,000 and with $5,000 in child care expenses will save 35.1% or --

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): The member's time has expired.

ROAD MAINTENANCE

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): News reports yesterday indicated that the Ontario transportation minister will be out personally filling potholes around Ontario if the public doesn't find that road maintenance is up to snuff. Well, guess what? Ontario road maintenance is not up to snuff.

Can you imagine Minister Palladini donning his Gucci shoes, shovel in hand, patting down hot tar? A very funny sight that would be indeed. It's also very inefficient. Here's a minister who is making about $100,000 a year, who should have some important decisions to make in managing some very difficult issues ahead, and he wants to get out in the sunshine and fill potholes with hot tar.

We've heard from people across Ontario. The Hawkeswood family from Windsor, the Baverstock family from Timmins, everyone wants proper road maintenance.

Minister, we don't think you're building a better tomorrow or spending taxpayers' money wisely.

ONTARIO LOTTERY CORP

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): As troubling as the government's budget announcement about the development of a regime of video lottery terminals, slot machines, across this province was the bothersomeness of the fact that the Ontario Lottery Corp is going to oversee, regulate and control the placement of these VLTs.

The Ontario Lottery Corp has become a corrupt institution in this province. I'm not speaking about cash register integrity, there's no question about it, but this is the third successive government to fail to take in hand an Ontario Lottery Corp that has built a fiefdom around gambling in Ontario at the expense of, among others, small business.

Witness the case of Christopher Bahnuk, who worked for AT&T as a technician and was fired at the insistence of the Ontario Lottery Corp when he discovered faults in the integrity of the lottery distribution system through lottery outlets here in Ontario.

Witness the case of Brant Warner, a small business person whose lottery ticket licence was pulled by the Ontario Lottery Corp so that big chain stores adjacent to him could have lottery terminals at the expense of a true small business person who is trying to support himself, provide a little bit of employment and engage in free enterprise.

The Ontario Lottery Corp requires a thorough investigation, and it's the last body that we want to see supervising this government's organized gambling.

BUDGET

Mr Douglas B. Ford (Etobicoke-Humber): Two days ago today the Honourable Ernie Eves, Minister of Finance, delivered this government's first budget, a good-news budget that meets this government's commitment to provide strong incentives for private sector investment and job creation in Ontario.

This budget will help achieve our goal of an Ontario with more jobs, a healthy economy, lower taxes and a balanced budget. It is a jobs, hope, growth and opportunity budget for the people of Ontario, and of course the tax cut that was promised by this government is now a reality and will help to spur our economy by consumer savings, personal debt reduction and consumer spending.

Two of my constituents, who were very pleased that they will receive a tax cut as promised by this government, have already informed me that they will use the money they receive from their tax payment for a new roof and repairs to the exterior of their home.

I would also like to recognize the tremendous contribution to our province by the same two constituents. These two individuals have decided to take advantage of the new Ontario opportunities fund announced by the Minister of Finance. They were so impressed with this government's responsible financial initiatives to get this great province back on track that they decided to show great leadership and belief in the future by being among the first Ontarians to contribute to the fund.

I am pleased, on behalf of my two constituents, Diane Malott and Chris Zielinski of Etobicoke-Humber, to present a cheque for $100 to the Minister of Finance to help pay down our province's deficit.

VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): I would like to inform the members of the Legislative Assembly that we have in the Speaker's gallery today Mr Lévis Brien and Mr Russell Copeman, members of the National Assembly of the province of Quebec. Please join me in welcoming our guests.

INTEGRITY COMMISSIONER

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): I beg to inform the House that I've laid upon the table a response from the Honourable Gregory Evans, the Integrity Commissioner, to the request by the member for Windsor-Riverside and the member for Fort William on whether the member for Nipissing had contravened the Members' Integrity Act or Ontario parliamentary convention.

ORAL QUESTIONS

FAMILY SUPPORT OFFICES

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Chairman of Management Board. Minister, as you will know, we have for some time now been raising concerns about the potential closure of all the regional family support plan offices. Your colleague the Attorney General, when we've raised this issue in the past, has said there has been no decision made yet.

I have minutes of a meeting that was held on April 25 between the Deputy Attorney General and the staff of the regional offices of the family support plan. The minutes make it very clear that the business plan relating to the family support offices was referred to your ministry, to the Management Board, for review and further consideration. We also understand from these minutes that a decision on whether to close the regional offices would be made following the presentation of the May budget. We have learned that regional managers have been called to Toronto for a meeting with the assistant deputy minister tomorrow.

Minister, I would ask you, because clearly you're aware of this with the issue having been referred to Management Board, what is the status of the decision? Is it your intention to shut down all the regional offices of the family support plan?

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): I have no announcement to make in that regard today. We did indicate during the process whereby I announced reductions to the spending of the province of Ontario that the business plans would be coming forward after the budget had been tabled. I expect that the estimates will be tabled, the business plans will come forward. There are meetings taking place, as the Leader of the Opposition has pointed out, and as a result of various meetings, decisions will be made and they will be announced at the appropriate time.

Mrs McLeod: I say to the minister that the minutes of this meeting of the Deputy Attorney General with regional staff make it pretty clear that the decision has indeed been made and what the decision is. According to these minutes, the deputy told the staff that he is looking at having one point of contact for clients. That's about as clear a statement as can be made that you are planning to centralize all these services.

The deputy told the staff at this meeting that their proposals, the proposals of regional staff, had been given consideration. In fact, he said the only way in which the staff proposals differed from the management proposal was that the staff had found a way to keep the regional offices open but management recommended the regional offices be closed. I don't think it gets much clearer than that, Minister, and the rumours are already rampant throughout the regional offices that the pink slips are ready to go.

Will you just confirm today what is going to happen? Will you confirm that the regional offices, those offices that are closest to the families and to the children who need support, are about to be closed down?

Hon David Johnson: I will support that the government wants to make a better system than the one that's in place today, and the current system in our view is not working as well as it should for the children of Ontario, so we intend to implement changes to improve the system. But I will confirm as well today that no decision on the closing of the regional offices has been made. Obviously there is a consultative process that's taking place. We do want to and need to improve the system, but no decision has been made to close the regional offices as of this point today.

Mrs McLeod: Minister, where does it say, in the briefing note you just read about finding technical new ways of getting more efficient, about the importance of the regional offices in the enforcement of the family support plan? Where does it say how important these regional offices are to the families and to the children who depend on getting that kind of support? Where does it say in that briefing note that the regional offices can demonstrate the effectiveness in ensuring that there is compliance?

Let me give you one example: Windsor. The compliance rate in September 1995, the Windsor office, was 64%, and that is up 20% since February 1992. That's effectiveness. That means that by working with parents the Windsor office has been able to make sure that support payments get to children and that fewer deadbeat dads get away with ignoring the needs of their children.

If I give you the example of the Thunder Bay office, our goal here surely is effectiveness. The staff in this office serve over 3,000 clients, and their clients go from the Manitoba border halfway to Sault Ste Marie, a huge distance. I'd like you to tell me how that can possibly be done effectively working out of a phone line in Toronto. Sometimes this involves personal meetings. Sometimes it involves being on the site to work with employers in the workplaces. It is proving to be effective.

It's clear from these meetings that effective service to families and children was not the goal. It's clear that the goal was to get the province some cash now. This is all about the tax cut. It is all about the budget. It is all about finding dollars. You don't care what happens to the service to families and children as a result.

Why are you ignoring the obvious fact that the regional offices are a critical and an effective part of the family support plan? Why do you insist on closing these offices down, despite the fact that families and children will be worse off as a result?

Hon David Johnson: I will reiterate that as of this point no decision has been made to close the regional offices. But I'm glad to see that the Leader of the Opposition shares the concern of this government for the children. Indeed, she shares the concern this government has for the compliance rate. We feel the compliance rate should be made better, and that's why this government is working with mothers against fathers in arrears, for example, why this government is working with families against deadbeats. This government thinks that the compliance rate, the payment rate, should be increased.

That's what this issue is all about, and this government will continue to work to increase the compliance rate, to make sure the money gets into the hands of those who need it. I'm glad to see that in that fight we will have the support of the official opposition.

ROAD MAINTENANCE

Mr Mike Colle (Oakwood): I have a question for the Minister of Transportation. In the last couple of days you've been bragging about the fact you're spending more than ever before on roads, but your budget documents don't substantiate that. In your budget documents, your ministry is cutting $542 million from capital over the last two years, you're cutting $156 million from operating, so if you're cutting about $700 million, how could you be saying you're spending more?

Hon Al Palladini (Minister of Transportation): I certainly would like to correct the member's allegations that we are cutting funds and yet we're going to be spending more. We are going to be spending more on the infrastructure. There are ways, and this government has chosen to take those ways, in cutting expenses off administration and other things that are a major part of the expenditure and putting the money where it's needed the most. Yes, we are going to be spending more money this year to repair our infrastructure than we have in the last six, and the numbers will prove that.

Mr Colle: The potholes prove it. I think the condition of the roads right across this province proves that you're not giving us the full figures. If you drive on Highway 401, if you drive on Highway 69, if you drive anywhere in Ontario, you know that your cutbacks can't be hidden any more.

You have even offered to fix the potholes yourself. Are you going to now give us a 1-800 pothole number? Are you going to give out your cell phone number so people can call you? How can these thousands of people across Ontario get in touch with you? What's the number?

Hon Mr Palladini: I am just amazed at how the member is addressing the problem, as if this government is completely responsible for the condition of our highways. The lack of funding and the lack of attention was clear. The last two governments did not put money back into the infrastructure when they should have. If they had done that, we would not have the conditions we've got today or have to spend the money we have to spend today.

It's been a severe winter. We've gone through a strike. The roads are still frozen; there's still thaw in the ground. It's not a position where we could address some of those potholes the member's referring to. But I want to assure the member that yes, we are going to address the problem and we are going to rectify the problem. I'm going to say it in this House: If our staff doesn't fix a pothole, I will personally go out there and fix it myself.

Mr Colle: The minister should give us his personal phone number so people can phone him. We'd like to get that number for the public so they can call you.

How can you keep blaming the weather? How can you blame previous governments when in the budget document you cut $542 million in capital the last two years? You're spending even less this year in operating than you spent last year. If you're cutting, it's your fault, because you still are putting more potholes in our roads by cutting. Why are you blaming others when you've cut one third of the budget?

Hon Mr Palladini: It is very clear. In the past six years the government of Ontario has put on the ground, into our highway infrastructure, an average of $245 million. This government is going to be putting in excess of $350 million this year. Like I said to the member previously, we are looking for cuts in areas that are not going to affect our infrastructure. We are going to invest money in our infrastructure because we know how important it is for Ontario's economic vitality, and it will be done.

JOB CREATION

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): I have a question to the Minister of Finance. As we pointed out yesterday, your budget has abandoned the Common Sense Revolution's job creation promise. You have been quick to take credit for jobs that have been created in this province, so presumably you will also be prepared to take responsibility for the jobs that aren't being created. I want to share with you some real numbers, numbers that tell the story about the level of unemployment in this province.

First of all, your own numbers are projecting a higher unemployment rate in 1996 than in 1995 and, even more significantly, you're projecting 515,000 people unemployed in 1998. That's a 2.8% higher figure than when you took office last year. With those real numbers in mind, how can you tell the people who are looking for jobs in Ontario that this kind of performance is good enough?

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance and Government House Leader): The honourable member will know, if he's done his homework with respect to these numbers, that the number of people seeking employment during the years he talks about is going to go up by approximately 84,000 people during that period. I'm sure he's incorporated th