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

January 16, 1986

33rd Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Hansard Transcripts

L089 - Thu 16 Jan 1986 / Jeu 16 jan 1986

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

ONTARIO STUDENT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

URBAN TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT CORP.

DRUG SUBSTITUTES

ORAL QUESTIONS

ONTARIO INSTITUTE FOR STUDIES IN EDUCATION

INSURANCE RATES

OVERTIME WORKERS

URBAN TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT CORP.

FUTURES PROGRAM

ENVIRONMENT FINES

CANCER TREATMENT CENTRE

HOMES FOR THE AGED

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

ONTARIO LOTTERY CORP.

PETITIONS

A AND P FOOD STORES

HUMAN RIGHTS

ONTARIO INSTITUTE FOR STUDIES IN EDUCATION

FINANCEMENT DES ÉCOLES CATHOLIQUES

REPORTS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON PROCEDURAL AFFAIRS AND AGENCIES, BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS

MOTION

COMMITTEE SITTING

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS IN ORDERS AND NOTICES

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

SCHOOL BOARDS AND TEACHERS COLLECTIVE NEGOTIATIONS ACT

NURSING HOMES AMENDMENT ACT

SCHOOL BOARDS AND TEACHERS COLLECTIVE NEGOTIATIONS ACT

NURSING HOMES AMENDMENT ACT

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

ONTARIO STUDENT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I am delighted to see that almost seven members of Her Majesty's official opposition have taken time out of their busy schedules to hear the statement.

Mr. Turner: Do not be so self-righteous. The minister should count his own members.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: It is growing and growing. That is great. It is growing with each minute.

Mr. Speaker: Statement, please.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: The Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) announced on October 24, 1985, that funding for the Ontario student assistance program had been increased by eight per cent for 1986-87. This means that the budget for the program will increase from $135 million to $145.8 million. I want to give the House some details of the allocation of the increase in funding and certain improvements being made to the plan for the coming academic year.

Mr. Warner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I would appreciate a copy of the statement.

Mr. Speaker: Do any other members have copies?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: My understanding is that the member for Beaches-Woodbine (Ms. Bryden) is the critic, so it may be on her desk.

Mr. Speaker: Please continue.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: This will be the government's first step towards the revitalization of OSAP. The House will be aware that my ministry is currently undertaking a major and more comprehensive review of the program. Once completed, that review will give rise to further and more fundamental changes.

OSAP is composed of six plans, four provincial and two federal. The largest component in terms of government expenditure is the Ontario student grant plan. A total of $129.6 million has been assigned to this plan. It is to this plan that most of the additional funds will be directed. Over the past seven years, inflation has increased by 74.4 per cent and the increase in applications to OSAP has been 46 per cent. During the same period, funding for OSAP has increased by only 73.8 per cent. This allowed the program to deal with the growth of applications but was inadequate to deal with inflation.

Consequently, our first priority will be to lessen the amount that parents from low-income families will have to contribute. This will translate into greater grant awards and correspondingly lower loans for most students from low-income families. A student attending university, from a family of three children with a total income of $20,000, will receive $4,520 in grant assistance, an increase of $600, or 15.3 per cent, compared to the previous year.

If parents of low-income students are unable to make the expected parental contribution in the grant criteria, the student can usually obtain this amount through the negotiation of student loans. The net effect of the enriched grant plan, therefore, will be a reduction in the amount of loan that students must assume in obtaining a post-secondary education.

The issue most frequently raised with me is debt load. Students have been forced to assume increasingly large loans in order to attend and complete their post-secondary education. These changes will address that issue.

The second priority is directed to married students and involves the method of calculating their entitlement to grant assistance. The present program does not adequately recognize the level of living costs faced by the married student. This applies particularly to those married students whose spouses are employed in low-income positions and/or who have children in their families. In addition, the spouses of married students are currently required to make contributions that are unrealistic in the light of today's living costs. Both of these inadequacies in the program will be addressed this coming year.

The present approach is to expect that all discretionary funds of the spouse be directed to the student's education. The new method of calculating the student's entitlement will provide a far more realistic level of discretionary income at which a contribution begins. In addition, it will require that only a portion of that discretionary income be directed to spousal support. With the proposed changes, married students will receive more in grant assistance.

Further enrichments to the program include a four per cent increase to most costs and allowances in the program, including an increase in the personal and living allowance.

De plus, les étudiants inscrits à temps partiel aux universités, aux collèges et aux écoles privées de formation professionnelle feront l'objet d'une attention particulière. Il en sera de même pour les étudiants qui suivent des cours de perfectionnement dans les collèges d'arts appliqués et de technologie.

The Ontario special bursary program, which provides support in these areas, has been increased by 33 per cent from $1.35 million to $1.8 million. The Ontario work study program, which is a cost-shared program with the college or university or other nonprofit agency, is being expanded as well. Its budget is increased by 60 per cent from $500,000 to $800,000.

The work study program provides some relief to students who have financial need over that met by the Ontario student assistance program or who do not wish to assume additional student loan debt. Instead, it may be possible for them to obtain employment on campus through this program and to perform work that would otherwise not be accomplished. Some examples of work being done through this program are students who are employed to help a professor update research files and students who are employed as editorial assistants.

Details regarding the Ontario student loan plan are not final, as they usually correspond to the federal Canada student loan program for fulltime students and the federal loan criteria have not been provided to us as of this date.

Comme je l'ai mentionné plus tôt, il s'agit de la première phase de la révision complète dont le régime d'aide financière aux étudiants de l'Ontario fera l'objet. Je mène présentement une enquête interne sur toutes les politiques de ce régime.

We have already received helpful comments and advice in that regard from various groups and individuals on several aspects of the program. The modifications I have announced today make OSAP the best student assistance program in Canada and should improve access to our post-secondary institutions for all Ontario students.

2:10 p.m.

URBAN TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT CORP.

Hon. Mr. Fulton: I would like to bring the honourable members up to date with respect to matters relating to the Urban Transportation Development Corp. , or UTDC.

As members will know, Ontario has held extensive discussions with a number of parties. After these discussions, it was determined that three Canadian companies prequalified for the process of gaining access to appropriate data to enable them to prepare firm bids.

Of the three, one has withdrawn and two others, Bombardier Inc. and Lavalin Inc., have posted $1-million deposits with the agents of the province of Ontario, Wood Gundy Inc.

Both parties have done so after agreeing to a formal process respecting access to confidential information relating to the UTDC. The process binds interested parties to respect the confidentiality of the documents they may see. No party may copy or remove any documents from a strictly secured area.

The formal process of examining information began on Wednesday, January 15, 1986, and will conclude on Tuesday, February 11, 1986, at which time it is expected that both parties will be making formal, unconditional bids.

During this period, we have already spoken with an employee group from Thunder Bay and are expecting an approach from a similar group in Kingston. Provided these groups meet the same prequalification conditions as were imposed on Bombardier and Lavalin, they will be provided equal access to the appropriate information.

DRUG SUBSTITUTES

Hon. Mr. Elston: In the past few days, certain charges have been made in this House, notably by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Grossman), regarding the interchangeability of drugs listed in the Ontario Drug Benefit Formulary.

The opposition leader has expressed his concern that certain drugs listed in the formulary as interchangeable may not, in fact, be equivalent, and that as a result some prescription drug users in Ontario might be being exposed to harmful side-effects. It would also appear that the Leader of the Opposition has received a copy or copies of correspondence sent to me by the Ontario Medical Association, in which the OMA has raised a similar concern.

In addition, the member for WindsorRiverside (Mr. D. S. Cooke) has questioned the procedure as to how drugs are designated as interchangeable in this province. He has claimed that there now is "no mechanism for making that decision other than the ministry itself."

Before responding to these statements specifically, I point out that product selection of interchangeable drugs has been permitted in this province since 1972. During that 14-year period, there has been no record of any major difficulty, and the program has received wide acceptance among the province's physicians. Evidence of this professional acceptance is witnessed by the fact that less than one half of one per cent of Ontario drug benefit prescriptions are marked "no substitution" by prescribing physicians.

Let me now respond to the statements that have been made by the members.

Regarding the opposition leader's concern about the interchangeability of certain drugs, a concern he says he shares with the OMA, I have in my hand the Ontario Drug Benefit Formulary published in January 1985, the last ODB formulary to be published in this province. I am certain the Leader of the Opposition must be aware, along with every other member of this House, that this formulary and its listing of interchangeable products was published during the time of the previous Conservative government.

Because of a court challenge brought on by one drug manufacturer, our government has been delayed in producing a new formulary despite our intentions to do so. All interchangeable drugs that have been sold in Ontario since our government took office have been those designated by the January 1985 ODB formulary.

I therefore find it highly unusual that the opposition leader's concern about a supposed threat from the interchangeable drugs available in this province should arise from a formulary produced by the administration in which he himself was a cabinet minister. I also find it unusual that he should assume such a partisan role in this matter on the side of certain drug manufacturers, the multinationals, and some members of the Ontario Pharmacists' Association.

The advertising campaign that these two groups have waged in recent weeks about our government's proposed pharmacy legislation has done a great deal to create uncertainty and confusion in the public mind, especially among Ontario senior citizens who would appear to be the special target of this advertising effort.

I do not believe it becomes the Leader of the Opposition to join in this campaign or to be associated with a public persuasion tactic that has circulated misinformation, inaccuracy and exaggeration about the new drug legislation. This advertising campaign has led to unnecessary fear and anxiety among many sick and elderly people in this province. It is not a venture in which I believe anyone could be proud to have played a part.

Let me say once more that senior citizens' groups and consumer organizations have given me their personal assurance that they support the legislation.

Regarding the concerns of the Ontario Medical Association, upon receiving the OMA letter I referred it immediately to the ministry's drug quality and therapeutics committee, requesting it to advise me as to what actions, if any, should be taken. The committee will consider the matter at its next meeting, to be held early in February. I then expect to be able to report to this House its recommendations regarding specific drugs mentioned in the correspondence.

Over the years, the ministry's drug quality and therapeutics committee has maintained a close liaison with the Ontario Medical Association. Any OMA advice and concerns on drug-related matters have been taken seriously and treated promptly by that committee, as will the issues raised in the letter I recently received.

Regarding the process by which drugs are designated to be interchangeable in this province, I wish to make the following comments.

In 1969, the federal Patent Act was amended to permit the increased availability of generic drugs throughout Canada. This federal action was taken to create a more competitive market for drug manufacturers and to ensure that quality, low-cost drug products were available to Canadians.

Before any drug receives approval for sale, its manufacturer must prove to the health protection branch of the federal Department of National Health and Welfare that the product is safe and effective for a particular therapeutic need. Every generic drug is examined against these criteria with the similar brand-name product. When test results are proved satisfactory, the drug is then issued a notice of compliance and is permitted to be sold in this country.

Both the Eastman report and the Gordon commission report have verified that because generic drugs are available in this country, millions of dollars have been saved by Canadian consumers. Here in Ontario, the Gordon commission report has estimated those savings to be in the area of some $23 million annually.

In 1972, when the product selection of interchangeable drugs was legislated in Ontario, the drug quality and therapeutics committee was established to advise and make recommendations to the minister on the drugs that are to be designated interchangeable.

The DQTC is made up of experts in the fields of medicine, pharmacy and pharmacology. This external committee continues to review and evaluate all drug products, their composition and manufacture, as well as the current data on their therapeutic effects.

When a drug manufacturer wishes to have a product designated as interchangeable in Ontario, detailed reports on study and testing must be submitted. The ministry's drug quality and therapeutics committee examines each submission, carries out testing to verify the accuracy and makes a recommendation to the minister. This advice is then taken to cabinet for final approval.

Over the past number of years, the amount of information that drug manufacturers must provide to the drug quality and therapeutics committee has been increased substantially. As a result, the protection offered to consumers with respect to interchangeable drugs today in Ontario is greater than it has ever been. Ontario's decisions on many drug matters are used as a guideline by other provinces to determine their interchangeable products.

Our proposed legislation on Ontario drug benefit pricing and our new consumer protection bill will make no changes in this drug approval process that has served us well. I have every confidence that the expert work of the drug quality and therapeutics committee will continue to protect the interests of the people of this province.

The objective of our new drug legislation is to see that high-quality, low-cost drugs are available to the people of Ontario whether they are covered under a drug benefit plan or make their purchases in the cash market.

Our proposed legislation will ensure that objective and it will provide every needed protection to prescription drug consumers in Ontario.

ORAL QUESTIONS

ONTARIO INSTITUTE FOR STUDIES IN EDUCATION

Mr. McFadden: I have a question for the Treasurer. The president of the University of Toronto stated yesterday at the standing committee on social development that the programs offered by the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education are unique and are not duplicated by the University of Toronto. Dr. Connell went on to say that the only possible area of duplication might be in the area of administration, which represents only five per cent of OISE's budget, but that he was not sure if any savings could be made even in that area.

Since the stated basis for the proposal in the budget for the transfer of OISE was the elimination of duplication, will the Treasurer now agree to withdraw this budget proposal?

2:20 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: No, but I point out to the honourable member that five per cent of $27 million is not an insignificant amount of money.

I was interested in the report of the hearings yesterday that indicated the University of Toronto was seen by some as being somewhat inadequate in education research, the teaching of pedagogy and providing assistance to the community in that regard. It goes back to the comment I made when this matter was raised by the member and others some weeks ago.

The uniting of these two impressive organizations, in my view, would be for the benefit of both. Obviously, the University of Toronto would have the benefit of an improved educational faculty with widely accepted research capabilities and community involvement. The Ontario Institute for Studies in Education would have the justification of a degree-granting privilege on a permanent basis, rather than one it must negotiate on a regular basis, for reasons that are more obscure now than perhaps they were some years ago.

In a situation that was dealt with quite fully by the committee yesterday, the concept was for the benefit of both. The idea of allowing OISE to come under the jurisdiction of the University of Toronto on an administrative basis was surely not with any thought of removing the vaunted post-secondary autonomy; it was with the commitment that the transference of funds from the government for the purpose would be in no way reduced.

Mr. McFadden: It would appear there is a difference of opinion as to the value of this transfer from the point of view of education. I would like to go to one area with regard to duplication.

One of the things that has been important for OISE has been the involvement of the education community generally in both the management operation and the focus of that institution. The only area of duplication the Treasurer focused on several weeks ago, when asked about duplication that could be eliminated by the transfer, was the board of governors, which would not be needed any longer.

Yesterday in the committee, OISE stated the total cost of operating the board was $70,000, most of which was used in transportation costs for bringing board members to Toronto to participate in the board meetings.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. McFadden: In his previous response and what he is now saying, is the Treasurer stating it is undesirable to have the participation of board members from northern, eastern and southwestern Ontario in an institute that establishes policy which provides services throughout the province?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I prefer the justification put forward by the member in the first part of his question, when he spoke about a saving of five per cent of the all-in cost. Five per cent of $27 million is a little more impressive than the amount I had in mind; so I am with him on that. I thought I would mention that.

An hon. member: That is not what he said.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I am sure the member and the interjecting former minister, who is not in her seat, would be aware that the Ontario College of Education, now the faculty of education -- that sacred institution which I and a number of others here attended in years gone by and where we got all we ever learned about pedagogy on a formal basis, which is an indication of its excellence operates under the jurisdiction of the University of Toronto. However, graduate and research work is in an institution separated from that.

I hesitate to use the word "rationalization" because it has pejorative overtones in the minds of some unreconstructed educationists, but it is the only word that can be used when one sees these two closely allied responsibilities separated by Bloor Street; separated by boards and concepts of finance which we, or at least I, feel could be amalgamated in a way that would benefit both. I hope and trust in the future this can be accomplished.

Mr. Rae: Is the Treasurer aware that as a result of his impetuous and churlish announcement in his budget, an impetuosity that has not been either reconstructed or reformed in the two months since then, it is the announcement of that unilateral fiat, that ukase from the Treasurer's office, that has resulted in a complete halt to negotiations between the University of Toronto and OISE?

If the Treasurer were seriously interested in having negotiations resume between those two institutions he is so interested in bringing together, surely he would realize it and do the decent thing: withdraw his announcement and let the parties sit down and resume negotiations.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: If my ukase results in the complete separation of these organizations for all time, I think it is OISE that must be most concerned, because it will not be able to grant degrees unless they come together in association somewhere.

If the honourable member has read the letter I sent to the chairman of OISE, he will know my strong feeling is that the university ought to provide a continuing degree-granting privilege while these matters are under discussion.

The member is also aware that in the most diplomatic terms I could possibly muster, including some words even the member has not used recently, I indicated that this change in budgetary reform might have to be postponed for a time and that I had hoped the two organizations would continue their discussions so the change could take place in the allocation of funds for post-secondary education for the coming fiscal year.

In a letter the member has seen, since he seems to be one of the guiding forces in all this -- in a positive way, of course -- I indicated clearly that there is no deadline, but that it is my expectation this goal will be achieved.

Mr. McFadden: We now have gone all around the point. One thing I would not say is that the Treasurer intended in any way to mislead the House, but I would like to clarify one thing I said earlier. The president of the University of Toronto said he did not think there could be virtually any savings in the five per cent for administration, so that even the administration budget could not be reduced; he did not say that five per cent could be.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Then the member was misleading.

Mr. McFadden: I am not misleading anyone. I said that was the only area that could have been reduced, and he said he could not get substantial savings. However, the important point is --

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the member please place his supplementary question?

Mr. McFadden: The Treasurer now has stated that one of his reasons is not elimination of duplication; it is in some way for quality of education. The fact is that the current area of uncertainty is creating tremendous ill will between OISE and the University of Toronto. It is creating a level of hostility that is going to make any future working relationship very difficult.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Does the Treasurer agree?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I would certainly --

Mr. McFadden: I was about to finish my question.

Mr. Speaker: Order. With respect to the member, I asked him previously to place his question. He went on making other points. Will he place his question quickly?

Mr. McFadden: I will. In view of the air of uncertainty and hostility created, will the Treasurer withdraw the budget proposal in the best interests of OISE, the faculty of education and education generally in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: No. If there is any uncertainty, it is because of the unwillingness of the board of OISE to follow the lead established in the budget. If they have refused to do that, then I expect the discussions will continue and I hope they will do so. These are men and women of goodwill, all committed to carrying on educational procedures of quality almost entirely funded by the allocations of money from this Legislature and from the taxpayers.

I hope not only that we can save money but also that we can increase the effectiveness of both organizations. I feel that in the long run this can be achieved without goodwill -- I should say with goodwill, but without --

Mr. Gordon: Without?

Interjections.

2:30 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I mean that; I am sorry -- without the decrease in goodwill the member is predicting, because these people are sensible, well educated and share a common goal to provide good educational research and facilities in this province.

INSURANCE RATES

Mr. Davis: I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. The minister should be aware that the Moose Factory Island District School Area Board is operating with absolutely no liability insurance in a building that is just more than a year old with a state-of-the-art fire and property protection system built by the board, which has not made a claim for as much as a broken window since its inception in 1965. Officials of the Ministry of Education have told the board, in essence, that it will have to find its own insurance.

What will the minister tell the parents of more than 330 students should a tragic accident occur on board property and no compensation is provided?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: The Moose Factory school situation is unique. From my conversations with people in the insurance industry, I believe they are trying to resolve the problem. Contrary to the statement the honourable member has made that there have been no claims, it seems to me it is a very high-risk area and they have had some very serious problems.

We are looking at that problem. We are using our market assist program to help them and we are referring other insurance companies there. I am confident we will resolve it.

Mr. Runciman: That is the standard answer: "We are looking at it."

Almost all reinsurance companies are internationally operated, with specialized risk being placed in reinsurance exchanges. The international reinsurers view North America as a single market; so Ontario, where judgements have been reasonable, is lumped together with markets like California.

If the minister has not made the distinction between Ontario and other North American markets clear to the European reinsurers, will he do so now? Has he endeavoured or will he endeavour to ensure that Ontario's agent general in London or the Canadian High Commissioner to Britain represent our interest to Lloyd's of London and other companies?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I find that comment very interesting. When I mentioned last week that we are considered that way in the reinsurance market, I had nothing but derision from members on the other side, who said: "Why are you talking about these other places? Talk about Ontario." Now the honourable member is telling me to go back and tell them Ontario is different.

I am meeting tomorrow with my counterpart in Ottawa, Barbara McDougall. We are going to address that issue because the federal government has the responsibility, not only for Ontario but also for all Canada, of letting the international market know we are not part of the United States.

Mr. Swart: Will the minister not recognize that there are going to be many more economic consequences, such as the one raised and the one that was in the paper about A. McGillivray Chemicals, which folded after 41 years because of its inability to get insurance?

Will the minister call in the insurance companies and issue a directive that they shall renew policies, and at a reasonable rate, during the three months the task force is sitting, and that he will hold them to retroactive legislation, if necessary, for justification of the rates they are charging during the next three months?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I cannot bring in the free enterprise sector of the market and compel insurers to write business they do not want to write. Our task force is looking at this and we will make recommendations. I am meeting with the Association of Municipalities of Ontario this afternoon and we will come up with a resolution.

Mr. Davis: With all due respect to the minister, I would like him to answer a question that I think is very important. It is all right to sit over there and dance around saying he is going to consult with people. The minister has known the situation has existed for more than six months and he has done absolutely nothing about it. What is he going to tell the parents in Moose Factory tomorrow morning about liability coverage for their children?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I repeat that Moose Factory is a very special situation, and we are doing what we can to help the people there. When we get a resolution, we will pass it on to it. There is nothing else I can do now.

OVERTIME WORKERS

Mr. Rae: I have a question for the Minister of Labour. He may be interested to know that December 1985 was a watershed month in the history of the province. For the first time in our history, more than one million Ontario workers put in overtime hours. For the first time, 528,000 workers worked more than 50 hours a week, and 507,000 worked between 41 and 49 hours in the week of the survey.

Is the minister aware that these 7,815,000 additional hours represent 195,375 weeks of work at 40 hours, or enough work for nearly 200,000 workers in Ontario? When is he going to do something to ensure that 200,000 people are not prevented from working by virtue of the fact that he is not doing anything about the hours of work in this province?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I thank the honourable member for his question. It gives me the opportunity, which he would not want me to miss, to congratulate my colleague the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) on producing the kind of budget that has so many people in our province working and has the economy as buoyant as it is.

I would not want my friend to leave the impression that this amount of overtime could create 200,000 jobs. He understands as well as I that in some places there is no way two or three hours of overtime could produce a job.

Clearly, the government is concerned about the matter. New directives have been given. I have indicated, not only to my officials but also to a number of employers, that the rules in place are going to be enforced more rigorously. I expect to say something quite definitive on that in this House in a short while.

Clearly, the government has a degree of concern about the amount of overtime being worked. My friend would want to acknowledge that this is a very complex problem for which both union and management have not provided any fully adequate solutions.

Mr. Rae: The minister's answers are even more pathetic and weaker than they were last fall, when he said he was going to be issuing the directives. Since we asked him the first question, the month of December has come and gone. He talked with officials in November, yet we found that in December there were more people working overtime and longer hours.

Why is the minister refusing to take action to ensure more people have access to employment, jobs and leisure in the province so that people are not forced to work extra hours against their will? When is he going to see it is done in a way that is fair to this province rather than sitting on his hands and doing nothing about this real problem for the working people?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I understand what the member is saying, but I must reject it because he has offered absolutely no proof that some workers do not wish to work this overtime. Hours of work are voluntary after 48 hours --

Mr. Martel: Oh, come off it. Both locals have written to you from --

Hon. Mr. Wrye: If my friend the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) does not understand that, I will share with him the views and concerns raised with me by a union president who said there were workers in a plant in Windsor working large amounts of overtime voluntarily, which we are investigating, in spite of requests he made to the workers that the overtime be cut back. The workers rejected that.

There is not an easy answer. Before we come up with some facile solutions to this problem that hurt the economy of this province, the member will want to think this issue out a little more carefully.

2:40 p.m.

Mr. Gillies: All members of the House know that many people work overtime not because they have to but because they want to. That is not the issue.

The minister has known of the concern of many members of this House over this issue since the day he was appointed. With 125,000 young people unemployed in this province, how can he sit by and give the kind of answer he has given to the member for York South (Mr. Rae)? He has known about it for months. When is he going to move on overtime permits and put some of these jobs back into the unemployment sector where they belong?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I continue to have problems listening to members in that party. Those members give us lectures. When I took office as Minister of Labour, I found we had an Employment Standards Act with some degree of protection that will alleviate unnecessarily large amounts of overtime. The only problem is that the previous government, the Conservative Party, now the official opposition, never worried about ensuring that it was enforced.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I will tell my friend the member for Don Mills (Mr. Timbrell), we are making sure for the first time in a long time that the act is being enforced and that is something the previous government never did.

Mr. Mackenzie: I am glad to hear the last remark from the minister. On November 29 he told the member for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan) that his was a new government and he was going to be tough with respect to the issuing of permits. On December 3 he told me he hoped to move on the issue of permits "at least in an interim way in the next few days." Here it is January 16. Is the minister all talk and no action? When are we going to see him move at least in an interim way to trim the use of the permits?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I am not sure what my friend wishes me to do about permits. The permits have been reissued. I think my friend would understand that, as we are in the very first part of this year, there is no need as yet to be concerned about special permits. That concern will come up in the next short while. I can tell my friend the matter is going to be addressed very shortly.

Mr. Rae: A great comfort that is to people who have been laid off for years and are never going to have access to the work place because those who are working are being forced to work 54 and 50 hours week. The minister knows it and he is not doing anything about it.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have been keeping track of the time. We have 36 minutes left and there have been only three questions asked.

URBAN TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT CORP.

Mr. Rae: My question is to the Minister of Transportation and Communications about his announcement today on the Urban Transportation Development Corp.

Why is the minister setting down as a precondition for employee groups, either from Thunder Bay or from Kingston, that they put down a $1-million deposit in order to see the books of the company for which they are working? Surely the minister will recognize that they are in a completely different situation with respect to their prospects than competitors who are trying to have a look at the books -- in the case of Lavalin, which is not a competitor but a prospective buyer, and in the case of Bombardier, a competitor.

Does the minister not realize that he is creating an enormous barrier for any alternative group that might want to make an application from within the companies themselves?

Hon. Mr. Fulton: I thank the leader of the third party for his question. I am sure the member realizes this is a very serious business. There is a great deal of money involved here; even more than the Tory leadership candidates spent. At each step of the way we are attempting to determine the serious bidders. By imposing certain of these prequalifications we think we have effectively done that.

The Premier (Mr. Peterson) met with representatives from Thunder Bay United Auto Workers this morning and I understand members from Kingston. Mr. White, who had indicated a desire to meet, was unable to be here this morning. We realize that if they are serious and are within the time frame in which they can be considered a serious bidder, we will work with them and we will consider any proposition they may come forward with within that time frame.

Mr. Rae: The minister says in his statement that three Canadian companies prequalified for the process of gaining access and there are now two who posted $1-million deposits. We have no information as to what that prequalification is, although today I have received a copy of some information with respect to the letter that went out to Bombardier asking all sorts of questions. Obviously, we do not have the answers from Bombardier.

What, precisely, is the minister's definition of prequalification and why is he saying in his statement that he is going to require the workers to put up $1 million -- the minister knows the implications of that; he knows how outrageous a suggestion that is to the employees of the plants -- before they are going to be allowed to see the books of their company? Does he not realize their jobs are on the line and they are in a completely different situation from competitors? Why is he insisting on the same preconditions for them as he is insisting on for potential buyers who are competitors?

Hon. Mr. Fulton: We are very aware of the position of the employees. We are attempting to protect and enhance those jobs. That is even supported by the survey done by the Belleville newspaper, responding to a previous question in the House this week, in that some of the people mentioned there suspect jobs will be increased as a result of this transaction.

The leader of the third party has received from us today a package of information which outlines for him some of those prequalifications. We are looking at Canadian ownership. We are giving them the information package, as we indicated. We have given them one of the annual reports. We want to make sure they are interested in the entire company, that it be Canadian-owned and that the assurance of jobs be enhanced.

Mr. Hennessy: I will direct my question to the Minister of Transportation and Communications. If the NDP is so sincere about labour, why not break the accord now and threaten the Liberal Party with an election if it sells UTDC?

Mr. Speaker: Minister, do you want to answer?

Interjections.

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

Mr. Hennessy: The government should call an election if it is so good; call it.

If the Liberal government plans to create more jobs, why are the government and Senator Peterson so anxious to get rid of Can-Car Rail when it is making a profit?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: Today is laugh day.

Mr. Hennessy: That member should know; look in the mirror.

There is also the threat that many people at UTDC will lose their jobs if it is sold to outside interests. There is no guarantee that these jobs are going to be protected in any way. Why does he not leave it as it is instead of trying to sell it? Let the government keep UTDC and, I repeat, if the NDP is so sincere, break the accord and let's call an election.

Hon. Mr. Fulton: I am not that familiar with the rules of the House, but I am not sure I can accommodate the member now and say we are going to call an election. I do not think that is within my prerogative.

I would remind the member that it was his colleague and my predecessor, Mr. Snow, and the president, who indicated strongly that the company should be sold. The private sector is suggesting that jobs will be enhanced. I will send the member copies of Hansard to verify that.

The member from Thunder Bay is well aware of the --

Mr. Morin: Fort William.

Hon. Mr. Fulton: Fort William? I thought it was renamed Thunder Bay some time ago. Wherever he is from, the member is very much aware of this government's efforts every step of the way to protect and enhance the jobs of UTDC employees, both in Thunder Bay at Can-Car and in Kingston.

2:50 p.m.

Mr. Rae: The record is very clear. If UTDC is on the auction block today; it is there because the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick (Mr. Grossman) put crown corporations up for sale when he was the Treasurer. He launched that process in 1984 and that is the history of this process.

Interjections.

Mr. Rae: The truth always hurts and we are seeing them twitch now.

I want to ask the minister about the material he gave me today, the copies of total projected net-income statements that were put forward by UTDC management. The figures show that in 1986 they are anticipating a projected net income -- and this is net -- of nearly $13 million, next year of $11 million and in 1988 of $15.5 million, for a total by that time of $39 million.

If the corporation ain't broke, why is he so determined to fix this thing? What is it about the selling of crown corporations that has such a horrendous fascination for him and his government?

Hon. Mr. Fulton: With respect, there are some figures that might be updated in a downward trend from those currently before us. I would be happy to provide the member with those figures. I do not think there is any question, even with those figures, that the net balance over the --

Mr. Rae: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: Is the minister saying he gave me incorrect information?

Hon. Mr. Fulton: No, I have the same information here. The net balance over the 10 years of operation still shows a tremendous loss to the people of Ontario. If there are no orders, there are no jobs and there is no business. That company will require infusions of capital and we believe it should be coming from the private sector.

Mr. Gregory: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Could a point of privilege wait until later?

Mr. Gregory: At this point it is very apropos to the question, sir.

I understood the minister to say he had supplied a package of material to the leader of the third party, including prequalification information. I wonder if he would be so kind as to treat us in the same fashion, or is this part of the accord?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sure that is not a point of privilege. I suppose it is a point of order. I expect the minister will see that the information is there.

Mr. Rae: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I can clear this up. What I have is a copy of a letter from John Kruger to the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick.

Mr. Gillies: I must start reading my mail more carefully.

FUTURES PROGRAM

Mr. Gillies: My question is for the Minister of Skills Development in regard to his "no futures" program. In view of the fact that he stood in this House on January 6 and said, "The Futures program, in our estimation, has been a marvellous success," I wonder if he would comment on the comments that were made to him about Futures when he was in Thunder Bay.

Mr. Reg Wilson, who runs a program for native youth in that community, said to him that the Futures program is meaningless to many of youth he had to work with. The 16-week training period is inadequate and the program is inaccessible in parts of northern and rural Ontario. He left the minister saying he might have to tinker with the program.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Is your question, "Does the minister agree"?

Mr. Gillies: My question is, what form is this tinkering going to take and will it leave us with a meaningful program?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I rarely say I want to thank the honourable member for the question, but this time I want to thank him for the question. I will tell him why.

As I travel around this province from community to community, people involved in the general business of trying to deal with the desperate problem of unemployed young people come up to me voluntarily and say, "Thank you for the Futures program." It happens in Thunder Bay, in Ottawa, in my own riding, in Windsor and in the city of Toronto.

To deal with the specific issue raised by my friend the member for Brantford (Mr. Gillies), yesterday I was in Thunder Bay and we heard submissions from about 50 people, 15 or 20 of whom were making submissions in the area of education and skills training. One of the submissions was from Reg Wilson, who said: "In some instances, certain of our clients have such a degree of illiteracy and such a degree of lack of ability to deal with simple numbers that your Futures program is not sufficient. The pre-employment preparation period is not enough."

I say to the member, that is right. I agree that in certain instances we have situations in which 16 weeks of pre-employment preparation is not enough. If we have to make some adjustments to deal with those individual cases, we will have to look at that.

That does not mean the Futures program is not a success. On the contrary, it is a marvellous success, but it does not deal with every specific instance. Before the Speaker stands up and sits me down, let me say one of our greatest desires is to make the Futures program relevant to the native community. In that regard, I said to Reg, "My ministry officials will contact you to deal with that problem."

Mr. Speaker: Order. When we get into the detail of what he said and she said, I think they should be written questions.

Mr. Gillies: If billboards were jobs, the minister would have a runaway success on his hands. What he has is passing the buck.

Mr. Speaker: Order. You have already asked two questions.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I cannot tell my friend how many people are working today. The latest figures were for the new program. Since November 4, when the program started, 55 new participants have become involved in the program. That is up to December 31, the latest date for which we have figures. I am very confident the Futures program will fulfil that promise. We are right on target.

Mr. Wildman: I had hoped the minister's comments as quoted in the newspaper, that he was "stunned" about what he learned in Thunder Bay, were an indication this southern Ontario minister had learned a bit about the north and about native people on his trip to the north. His statement today, playing politics with this program, hardly indicates that.

Can the minister indicate not only what efforts he is going to make and what steps he is going to take to ensure that this program more appropriately deals with the problems of illiteracy for youth who have been out of work and out of school for so long that they do not have the skills needed even to qualify or to benefit from his program, but also what attempt he is going to make to ensure there is adequate input from the native communities to ensure this has some relevance to their culture and wellbeing?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I simply say to the member for Algoma (Mr. Wildman) that what I was "stunned" about in Thunder Bay yesterday was the magnitude of a problem with a particular, fairly small constituency of people; that is, some native people who have such a degree of illiteracy and inability to deal with simple numbers that pre-employment preparation is not sufficient for them.

I do not pretend in this House, on the street or in public that Futures will respond to absolutely every situation we have in the province. It was never intended for that. However, we are taking steps through a continual monitoring program to ensure that the Futures program is not only relevant in the city of Toronto but in the reserves of the north, in Thunder Bay, in Timmins, in Timiskaming and in every community of this province.

ENVIRONMENT FINES

Mrs. Grier: I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. We understand the ministry staff has been having problems in its pursuit of Dow Chemical because of the absurdly low levels of maximum fines under the Ontario Water Resources Act.

Does the minister not agree that, had he acted on the repeated demands of my party that fines be increased, he would not now be forced to argue about whether perchloroethylene is or is not a waste product? When will the minister act to change this glaring deficiency in our environmental laws?

3 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: First of all, the member is aware that a prosecution is going on at this time. The individual who is in charge of the prosecution will be recognized as one of the best people we could have in the courtroom dealing with matters of this kind from the Ministry of the Environment. Of course, the member will also recognize that about $1 million has been spent in the cleanup of the spill that has occurred and of other material that was discovered.

To get to the actual question the member asked in regard to the increased fine, I know she will understand that the Ministry of the Environment has indicated it has in the development stage at the present time, and will be bringing forth in the not-too-distant future, penalties that will be increased for those who violate the environmental laws of this province.

She will also know that if one follows carefully the procedures that have taken place in this House, the legislative window for attempting to get anything through this House is extremely narrow because of the amount of time that opposition parties feel is necessary for the legislation that is placed before the House. It is not for me to judge how long the opposition should take with the legislation that comes through.

However, I can recognize the need for it. I have indicated clearly that we will have it. The member can rest assured that we will see it in the not-too-distant future.

Mrs. Grier: I do not think it is good enough for the minister to blame this House for the fact that the legislation has not been put before it. I would remind him that when his party was in opposition, its Environment critic charged that the previous government's refusal to increase the maximum level of fines was sending the wrong signals to the people of Ontario. By not accelerating the introduction of this legislation, he too is guilty of sending the wrong signals to the people of Ontario.

Can the minister give me some assurance that this very simple piece of legislation, which will have support from both sides of this House, will be introduced in the very near future or, to quote the Attorney General (Mr. Scott), "before the next full moon"?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: First of all, I am exceedingly pleased that the member for Lakeshore is in support of the initiatives that I have indicated this government will be bringing forth.

She would also want to know that the specific legislative initiative that is introduced is the most effective piece of legislation we can bring forward for the consideration of the House, and that any of the mechanisms we might employ within this legislation, some of them quite innovative, would be so effective that jurisdictions all over the world would follow the lead of Ontario.

CANCER TREATMENT CENTRE

Mr. Gordon: I have a question for the Minister of Northern Development and Mines. Two role studies have been done in northeastern Ontario that indicate there is a very real need for a cancer treatment centre in the northeast. The latest study said that in the year 2000 there will be 1,300 new cancer patients a year in northeastern Ontario. Next year we will have reached that number in Sudbury, yet the provincial role study that was recently released treated the problems of cancer treatment, and those patients in the northeast, as merely a footnote, as problematic.

Can the minister give this House a commitment that he will become an advocate for the cancer patients in northeastern Ontario?

L'hon. M. Fontaine: Cela me fait très plaisir de dire à mon ami le député de Sudbury que je vais travailler de tout mon coeur à mes affaires afro que les patients qui sont traités pour le cancer soient traités à Sudbury. Je vais faire mon possible dans ce sens.

Mr. Gordon: With my rudimentary knowledge of the French language, I felt the minister was saying, certainly from the heart, that he would do this.

However, the Ontario Cancer Treatment and Research Foundation says it lacks the money to provide its one third of the capital cost of the new cancer treatment centre for northeastern Ontario. Since he is the minister for the north and can delve into all the various ministries -- he has been given quite a mandate by the Premier (Mr. Peterson) -- will he give this House another commitment, that in the event the Minister of Health (Mr. Elston) is unable to keep his end of the bargain in seeing that there is a cancer treatment centre for the northeast in Sudbury, his ministry will provide the funds to ensure that centre is built in northeastern Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: Over the past few months, the Minister of Health and I have been working together on issues of health. We will try to do the same in regard to cancer and Sudbury. Mr. Gordon: What are you going to do?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Martel: Perhaps we can get the minister to calm down. He is suffering from apoplexy. I ask either the minister or his colleague whether they are going to make money available to proceed with construction this spring.

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: May I, the Minister of Health

Mr. Breaugh: Just say "Health."

Mr. Martel: They should take their pick. I

said either of them.

Mr. Gordon: Is that question too tough for those guys? They do not want the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) to announce it; they want to announce it.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Does the Minister of Northern Development and Mines have an answer?

L'hon. M. Fontaine: Je ne peux pas comprendre ce qu'il m'a demandé, mais je pense qu'il m'a posé deux questions. Alors, je lui réponds que je vais prendre ça en considération.

Mr. Martel: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: The minister is suggesting I asked two questions. I asked one simple question and he did not answer it: Will the money be made available this building-year to proceed with the construction of the cancer unit during this construction season?

Mr. Speaker: Order. A question was asked and a response was given.

Mr. Gordon: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: The point is that these people want to make a formal announcement. They do not want it to be made in the House.

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is a point of view.

Mr. Gordon: You keep the people on tenterhooks. They are not going to forget the way you play with cancer in Ontario. What about this letter from a steelworker?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the honourable member take his seat?

Mr. Gordon: You got it. What are you going to do about it? You are playing with cancer patients.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the member take his seat?

Mr. Gordon: You ought to be ashamed. Read this letter from Ron MacDonald. He tells you about cancer patients.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have no other choice but to name the member. Sergeant at Arms, will you remove the member for the balance of the sitting day?

Mr. Gordon left the chamber.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the members that there have been seven questions asked in 40 minutes.

HOMES FOR THE AGED

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I am sure the Minister of Community and Social Services has had the opportunity to review a study done in Lambton county, conducted by municipal governments and funded 80 per cent by his ministry, with regard to the future of the three homes for the aged. Has the minister read the study? What is the ministry's position with respect to privatization of those homes for the aged? Is he aware of comments in the study that state the quality of care has been good, and that because of those homes for the aged, the nursing homes have been kept in line because of competition?

Mr. Speaker: The minister.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: Is this not a place for his policy for a proposed --

Mr. Speaker: Order; the minister.

3:10 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: I am not sure I heard all the question, but I will answer what I heard. The member will be aware the requirement of the ministry is that every municipality must have at least one nursing home under its jurisdiction. I understand that municipality is looking at whether it wants to retain all three.

There is also a second part to that report, of which the member will be aware. Because of the high cost of operating them, there is some discussion about whether a single director over two homes would be suitable. My understanding of the report is that the homes are operating satisfactorily.

My staff in the Lambton area in the Windsor office have been in contact with the officials of Lambton county to try to find out exactly what they want to do. From a strictly legal point of view, should they choose to make that move, we cannot prevent it. It is not something we desire and we are quite prepared to sit down with them to find other ways of resolving their financial difficulties.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Incredulity arises when I hear the minister cannot stop them from selling homes for which he primarily pays with our funds. I want to find out if things have changed in the minister's mind since last June and July when he was saying there would be a moratorium on this kind of privatization.

His leader and the present Premier (Mr. Peterson) said then this kind of privatization would not be the order of the day with this government. Does that moratorium still hold? Does the minister oppose this notion of privatizing these two homes? Will he maintain that policy until the select committee which was promised us can come up with a proposal to put before this Legislature?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: I said very clearly then and I repeat that I oppose privatization. My response to the previous question also clearly indicated we want to sit down to work with the officials to find other ways of resolving their problems.

I could point out to the member that, although there have been several threats of privatization, not only with homes for the aged but also with day care centres, in the life of this government not a single one has been carried out.

Mr. Brandt: I would like to advise the minister that not just one municipality is involved; there are two. The county and the city of Sarnia are involved in the discussions that are under way. I would like the minister, if he would, to commit to this House an undertaking that before any changes are made after the study has been thoroughly reviewed by the local municipalities, he will co-operate with both the city and the county to make sure that services, in whatever form they take in the future, will be enhanced rather than in any way deteriorated as a result of any changes, whether it be sale or otherwise. I share some of the concerns of the third party with respect to privatization.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Minister.

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: With respect to talking to the officials from both Sarnia and Lambton county, my understanding is that is exactly what they want as well. They do not want any deterioration of services; neither do we. That is why I have no doubt whatsoever that we can successfully conclude a settlement with both municipalities that will be in the best interests of the residents of those homes today, as well as future residents. I appreciate there is a financial difficulty there. We are prepared to work with them to resolve that.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Mr. Rowe: I have a question for the Minister of Housing. There are 345 people on the waiting list for subsidized housing in Barrie. There are 67 units scheduled for construction, only 27 of which are rent-geared-to-income units.

Is the minister suggesting a dozen families share a unit? Is this how the minister intends to address the crisis of affordable housing?

Hon. Mr. Curling: The member raises a problem that has been with us for a long time. As I stated in the House before, we cannot resolve the problems that were created over this long period by the previous government. Our program sincerely tries to move in the right direction by addressing that problem.

The point raised by the member does not in any way indicate that is the way we are going. We are trying to address the problem as best we can. We cannot solve this problem in three months. We will ensure that everyone in this province has a decent and affordable home in due time.

Mr. Rowe: The figures I have from the Ministry of Housing advise that 96,000 new rental units are needed over the next five years just to maintain the current low vacancy rate. The minister is proposing 55,000 units. How is he addressing the crisis of availability when that leaves us with a shortfall of 40,000 units over the next five years?

Hon. Mr. Curling: The honourable member is describing the legacy we have inherited. He is asking our government's assured housing program to correct a 41-year legacy in three or four months. There is no way we can correct it in that time.

We will do our best, but there is no way we can correct the 41-year legacy we have inherited in that time.

Ms. Fish: Call Bill 78. When is the minister going to proceed on rent review?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I thank honourable members for allowing me to get my exercise. However, it is time for a question from the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart).

ONTARIO LOTTERY CORP.

Mr. Swart: The Minister of Tourism and Recreation will recall that, just over a year ago, I raised with the then minister the dangers associated with bootlegging Ontario Lottery Corp. tickets into the United States. That minister expressed dismay, but all he did was withdraw the sale rights of 15 agents and retailers. However, one of those included was Winshare of Canada.

Will the minister now tell the House why he did not do the necessary policing or make the necessary policy changes which would have prevented Winshare from totally discrediting the Ontario Lottery Corp. in the $10.2-million, Chubby Gallagher Lotto 6/49 fiasco?

Hon. Mr. Eakins: Members will be aware that I have been reviewing a number of aspects of the operations of the Ontario Lottery Corp. , and they are well aware that I have made some changes in several areas.

This is another area I have been concerned with and have been reviewing. In fact, earlier this month, the Ontario Lottery Corp. and the Ministry of the Attorney General met to discuss this very issue. I did not wait to hear about it today. We have been discussing it.

I am continuing to review this in consultation with my colleagues the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Kwinter) and the Attorney General (Mr. Scott). Part of that review will be to consider the possibility of future changes to legislation through amendments to either the Criminal Code or the Ontario Lottery Corporation Act. We have been acting on it -- we are well aware of it -- and we will continue to do so.

Mr. Swart: Is it not possible at present, through the procedures being used by the bootleg companies whereby the purchaser never gets a ticket, that someone inside the business could hold the ticket for himself and obtain the payout?

There is a simple way to deal with this. Will this minister, unlike the previous minister, make a commitment to stop the bootlegging by quickly introducing legislation to make it illegal to resell or to offer to resell Ontario Lottery Corp. tickets at a price higher than the face value of those tickets?

Hon. Mr. Eakins: I assure the member we will take appropriate action as soon as possible. I am very much aware that the business practices division of the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations recommended to the previous government several years ago that legislative changes be made that would deal with this problem but, sadly, nothing was done.

3:20 p.m.

PETITIONS

A AND P FOOD STORES

Mr. Morin-Strom: I have a petition signed by 4,500 residents of Sault Ste. Marie expressing concern about the lack of grocery-store competition in the city. It is addressed to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the parliament of Ontario as follows: "Whereas the Atlantic and Pacific Tea Co. (A and

P) has recently purchased stores from the Dominion Stores Ltd.;

"Whereas the A and P has announced its intention to close the Dominion store at 40 Second Line West in Sault Ste. Marie;

"Whereas 45 full-time employees have been served with layoff notices;

"Whereas the citizens in the west end of Sault Ste. Marie will only be served by one major grocery store;

"Whereas the A and P has indicated that the sale of the Dominion at 40 Second Line West will be restricted to prohibit its use as a retail grocery outlet, hence limiting competition for A and P; and

"Whereas the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, in response to a question on this issue, has indicated: `That issue is not really something I can address. It is an issue out of the purview of this ministry';

"We request that the government of Ontario ensure that there is fair and adequate competition in the grocery retail business and that consumers in the west end of Sault Ste. Marie have the right to use a grocery store of their choice by providing that any grocery store which is closed be put on the open market and available for sale to any competitor which is in a position to continue operation of the store."

I support this petition very strongly and hope the government will do something about this situation.

HUMAN RIGHTS

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

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

"As female hockey players in the province of Ontario, we are very concerned by the government's intention to remove subsection 19(2) from the Ontario Human Rights Code. We support girls playing with and against girls, and boys playing with and against boys. As participants in the Central Ontario Women's Hockey League, we feel strongly that integration will be a tragic step in the wrong direction for hockey in this province.

"We believe that years of hard work building the league will be destroyed by this move and would therefore urge the government not to remove subsection 19(2) from the Ontario Human Rights Code."

ONTARIO INSTITUTE FOR STUDIES IN EDUCATION

Mr. Callahan: I have another petition to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

"As students and educators of Sheridan College of Applied Arts and Technology, we agree that the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education currently provides multiple services to educators, administrators and scholars throughout Ontario and has become a significant resource centre both nationally and internationally. It offers programs in professional development both on and off campus, has pioneered curriculum development of importance across Canada and has hosted educational conferences attended by thousands of participants. Its internal resources and service centres contribute to its unique status as a leader in Canadian education.

"We believe that much would be lost in a precipitous merger with the University of Toronto and would therefore urge the government to reconsider this decision."

FINANCEMENT DES ÉCOLES CATHOLIQUES

M. Guindon: J'ai une pétition adressée à l'honorable lieutenant-gouverneur et à l'Assemblée législative de l'Ontario, qui vient des Chevaliers de Colomb, conseil 8459, la paroisse Ste-Thérèse-de-Lisieux, à Cornwall. Elle lit comme suit:

"Nous demandons à la Législature de l'Ontario de mettre en application, et ceci sans délai, la politique de financement de tous les niveaux de notre système d'écoles séparées, afin qu'elle soit effective dès le premier septembre 1985.

"Nous demandons, de plus, que la Législature protège les droits historiques des catholiques de rite romain à maintenir leurs écoles séparées."

C'est signé par Dan Besner, chancelier, et Bruno Boudreau, grand chevalier.

REPORTS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

Mr. Callahan from the standing committee on regulations and private bills presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bill with certain amendments:

Bill Pr4,

An Act respecting the City of Hamilton.

Your committee begs to report the following bill without amendment:

Bill Pr26,

An Act respecting the City of Mississauga.

Motion agreed to.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON PROCEDURAL AFFAIRS AND AGENCIES, BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS

Mr. Breaugh from the standing committee on procedural affairs and agencies, boards and commissions presented a report on the premature disclosure of the interim report of the select committee on economic affairs and on the matter of privilege relating to the premature release of the confidential draft material of the select committee on energy and moved its adoption.

Mr. Breaugh: On the first matter we reviewed, the report from the select committee on energy, the committee ran into some difficulty. We reviewed the evidence as it was presented to the committee and found that no breach of privilege had occurred; however, the committee wants to urge all members that staff involved in confidential committee discussions or documents be more prudent when discussing such confidential matters with the media or with other persons.

On the second matter, we found there was a breach of privilege. A document that had been considered confidential was in some manner transmitted to media people who then printed it. The difficulty we had was that the committee was unable to identify whoever might have released such confidential information.

The committee made some recommendations that might assist other committees in how they might proceed with the matter of using techniques similar to the one that is used during the budget discussion, for example, when there is a lockup, or some techniques that have been developed at Westminster. The difficulty is that members may not be aware

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Does the committee have up-to-date information about what they are doing at Westminster?

Mr. Breaugh: No, we do not, as a matter a fact. We are hampered by the fact that we have been unable to travel to Westminster to get a clear concept established in the minds of the committee. Were we able to do that, we might be able to handle this job a bit more efficiently.

Interjections.

Mr. Breaugh: We have been very busy. The committee wants to point out to members and others that the matter of privilege, if we go strictly by the book, is considered to be a very serious matter and that newspapers and media people who utilize material of this nature are in contempt of the Legislature. If the Legislature chose to, it could get very nasty.

In the instance of the economic affairs report, it is pretty clear there was a breach of privilege. Unless the House is prepared to provide us with Dick Tracy or several other prominent investigators, it is tough for us to find out who did what in room 228.

Although we were aware that a breach of privilege did occur, we were not prepared to take any action against any of the newspapers involved because we were unable to determine the person who might have breached that privilege.

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

MOTION

COMMITTEE SITTING

Hon. Mr. Nixon moved that the standing committee on social development be authorized to meet on Wednesday morning during the committee's consideration of Bills 54 and 55.

Motion agreed to.

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS IN ORDERS AND NOTICES

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I am tabling the answers to questions 102, 103 and 104 and the interim answers to questions 145, 146, 147 and 148 in Orders and Notices [see Hansard for Friday, January 17].

3:30 p.m.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

Hon. Mr. Nixon moved, seconded by Mr.

McGuigan, resolution 13.

[See Votes and Proceedings]

Mr. Speaker: Does the Treasurer have any comments?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: No.

Mr. Breaugh: I wonder whether we might have a short explanation from the Treasurer as to why this process is being utilized today. I admit we are somewhat at a disadvantage since our House leader, who may well have the information, is unable to be with us this afternoon because of a death in his family.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I will be delighted to provide some additional information. It was discussed at the House leaders' meeting.

This has to do with certain changes in the organization of the cabinet following the change in administration. The member may recall that in the cabinet of the predecessor government, there were 32 ministries, variously distributed. We now have 22 ministers reporting to the House.

On the distribution of specific responsibilities, for example, the allocation of funds for women's issues programs and for the various areas that were covered by policy development secretaries but now are shared by specific ministers, such as the native affairs programs, these now are allocated specifically so the House may consider the estimates in an orderly and effective way.

Mr. Breaugh: I know this is a little unorthodox, but I am asking for --

Mr. Speaker: I will consider these the opening remarks. Is that all right? It is not estimates and we cannot ask questions. People can speak once on it, though. However, I believe this was just a request for some opening remarks.

Mr. Breaugh: I was not privy to the discussions at the House leaders' meeting. I think we are on reasonable grounds in saying we are preparing what might be called mini-estimates. I have a bit of a problem if dealing with the motion this afternoon means there will not be further discussion of these matters.

In particular, the matters before us now in this motion are matters of considerable importance. I am aware of members of my caucus who will want to speak on these matters. I need a little assurance that the passage of the motion this afternoon will not preclude their participation in that great event.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The honourable member will know that the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) has attended on a regular and continuing basis at the standing committee on administration of justice during the consideration of estimates and a wide variety of bills. In the case of women's affairs and native affairs, these additional estimates are to be considered along with the estimates of the Ministry of the Attorney General.

I am not sure whether they are finished downstairs, but if they are, and I expect they are -- I should know and I am not sure. They are not finished downstairs at the committee. Therefore, they will be directed there for additional discussion. The member knows that even if specific time is not allocated for this discussion, and it can be, when these estimates come back to the House for concurrence there is an additional two hours that can be utilized for that purpose, if the member and his colleagues so choose.

Mr. Martel: The Attorney General has seven hours and 31 minutes.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Remaining?

Mr. Martel: Yes.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Good. I think it will be all right.

Motion agreed to.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

SCHOOL BOARDS AND TEACHERS COLLECTIVE NEGOTIATIONS ACT

Mr. Davis moved, seconded by Mr. J. M. Johnson, resolution 26:

That in the opinion of this House, recognizing the changes in delivery of education programs on a semestered basis across the province, the experience of the students in Wellington county, the concern of various sectors of the education community over certain technical difficulties, a select committee be established to review the School Boards and Teachers Collective Negotiations Act to ensure that in the future the bargaining process will be carried out in a manner that most effectively guarantees the least possible disruption to the education of our children.

Mr. Speaker: I remind the honourable member that he has up to 20 minutes, and if he wishes to reserve any of that time, he may do so by notifying the Speaker.

Mr. Davis: I will attempt to reserve some time for the end.

At the outset, I wish to convey to this House what my motion is not. It is not about the abolition of the right of teachers in this province to exercise strike action to bring about a resolution in collective bargaining with school boards. It is an expression of a deep concern in the light of 10 years of history of the collective bargaining process in the education sector in this province.

It is a time to reflect upon our experiences, applaud the strength of the School Boards and Teachers Collective Negotiations Act, 1975, commonly referred to as Bill 100, and eradicate the apparent weaknesses that are inherent in this process, which tends to negate the effective and efficient progress of collective bargaining between the parties.

There is no doubt that Bill 100 in its present form has served the teachers and boards of this province well in concluding collective agreements, notwithstanding the communities of this province that have gone through the tremendous upheaval of a teachers' strike. As was stated at the time of the introduction of this legislation, the overriding objectives of this bill are to lay down fair and workable ground rules for orderly collective bargaining between teachers and school boards and to lay the foundations for successful negotiations by reasonable people bargaining in good faith.

This private members' bill, which seeks the support of all the members of this House, has this intent at its heart.

I believe the act needs review for a variety of reasons. An external rationale that was not evident before is the dramatic, continuing changes in the delivery of education programs. Great emphasis is now placed upon co-operative education models of work experience coupled with classroom environment and the move to semestered schedules.

I want to share briefly with my colleagues what a semestered program is about. In a semestered program, a student takes four subjects in an intensified manner, covering a year's work from September to approximately the end of January. He then engages in four different avenues of study from February to June. This is unlike the experience of the majority of members of this House, whose education model was carried out in seven or eight different subject areas spread over the academic year.

Thus, it becomes quite apparent that a major disruption in a semestered timetable caused by a strike can adversely affect a young person's academic year and his future in education, as was seen in a recent strike in Wellington county.

The present act fails in a specific, concrete manner to address those indicators that would summon the Education Relations Commission to review the situation in the light of what we term jeopardy hearings -- "jeopardy hearings" meaning simply investigations of whether the students' year academically is in the process of being lost.

Even the ERC has no specific criteria that it applies in making this decision.

This was borne out in the Wellington county strike when on the 47th day, in response to a question raised in this House on jeopardy hearings, it was indicated that there was no cause for a jeopardy hearing; but three days later, on Friday afternoon, we were informed that cause for a jeopardy hearing was found.

It seems to me there must be some evident, concrete criteria that would activate jeopardy hearings other than someone's "by guess or by golly." However, that is only one part of the rationale for a review of Bill 100.

This bill had its genesis on July 18, 1975. In 1979, the Matthews commission was established to review Bill 100. On that occasion, the then Minister of Education, the member for York Mills (Miss Stephenson), stated:

"In our society there are basic rights to collective bargaining, and there is no question of compromising those rights in the case of teachers. However, like all policies of government, the act and the process it engenders should be periodically reviewed."

3:40 p.m.

Let me outline briefly the present process for negotiations as prescribed in Bill 100. All collective agreements under Bill 100 begin on September 1 and terminate on August 31 and must be at least one year in duration. The scope of bargaining is open, and any item can then be put forth.

Bill 100 is unique in that it structures the timing of negotiating processes. Either party may give written notice to the other, which must be prescribed within the month of January, of the wish to negotiate a new agreement. The parties must meet within the next 30 days, negotiate in good faith and make every reasonable effort to reach an agreement some time before August 31.

If there is no settlement by August 31, the Education Relations Commission must appoint a fact-finder. The fact-finder's report may or may not contain nonbinding recommendations, but it must be submitted within 30 days of the appointment. Copies are given to the parties, and if there is no agreement in 15 days, the report is made public. Look at that kind of time frame. After the fact-finder's report, the negotiations commence again on October 15 at the earliest; in reality, it is later in October or November.

Fifteen days after the fact-finder's report is filed and made public, teachers can request the ERC to supervise a strike vote. If a vote is in favour, the teachers must give written notice to the board five days before the strike date stating it will commence, or after the fact-finding report they could ask the ERC to appoint a mediator, and a mediator could be appointed at any time to continue negotiations or begin a work-to-rule program.

It is important to understand that in mediation the parties meet separately with the mediator. There is no opportunity within that framework for either of them to counter the arguments or the positions put forth, and it is the mediator's role to effect a settlement without regard to reasonable terms or equity.

The Matthews report states on page 69: "Because of the highly confidential nature of the information being exchanged in the mediated process, there is considerable risk that the effectiveness of a mediator could be jeopardized if the parties knew that a public report with recommendations might ultimately be required from the mediator."

Because of the Wellington settlement, that is a reality. The mediator's report was used as a basis of settlement rather than following the prescribed options laid out in Bill 100.

One of the processes that we find is arbitrated -- the member for York Mills and the Matthews report stated it again -- is that there are certain technical problems with the present act. In addition, there are broad considerations relating to the basic rationale of the collective negotiating process which, if extended to the parties, prevent them from doing the negotiating process. They are concerns both of those who negotiate and of the public.

It is sad to state that these areas, so aptly identified in the Matthews report, are still prevalent today. I will comment on but a few to illustrate why I believe this bill should have not only the support but also the immediate action of the members of this Legislature and of the government.

The time frame and the dynamics are such that there is little pressure placed on either party to resolve the delicate outstanding issues. Without placing any blame on the parties who negotiate in a very relaxed manner, the first crisis occurs on October 31 with the fact-finder. Yet, as the Matthews report states, traditionally little progress is made during July and August because they do not meet and thus, in September, the pawn enters the scene in the person of the students.

Neither is the board under pressure to settle, because if there is a strike, it can point to the saving it has made in tax dollars. Today it is the same. The commission stated that the hiatus of July and August is unacceptable because of the potential penalties that would be paid by teachers, students, parents and the community.

It seems to me there is concern from the teachers and boards to examine and attempt to clarify more effective time frames in which to conclude negotiations. Again, representatives of both groups in this matter, as the Matthews report indicates, questioned the value and timing of the fact-finder: "Some view this process as a protraction of negotiations, especially if there is mediation before and after the fact-finding report." It is ironic that five years later, areas addressed in the Matthews report on collective negotiations between teachers and boards of education are still present and still await resolution.

For these reasons, I believe a review of Bill 100 is required immediately by a legislative committee so, in a partnership of consultation and co-operation, the educational family may fulfil one of the major objectives of Bill 100, as articulated by Tom Wells, the then Minister of Education, on May 30, 1975:

"The legislation...is based on a second set of `three Rs' for the 1970s -- rights, reason and responsibility. In assuring certain rights to teachers and to school boards, we expect that the bargaining process will be carried out in a reasonable and responsible fashion by persons of goodwill and with constant reference to the heavy responsibility that each group bears for the education of our young people."

He also said the legislation would work to promote "harmonious relationships between teachers and school boards in this province."

I ask the support of my colleagues in all parties of this House for my private member's resolution on this important matter, this resolution asking the minister to establish a committee to review Bill 100 as expediently as is possible.

Mr. Allen: I rise to address the resolution that stands in the name of the member for Scarborough Centre. I do so, recognizing both what he is not trying to do and what he is trying to do through this resolution.

I will state my position from the outset. I find myself taking the advice of a former instructor at teachers' college who said, "Please, when you answer my exam, spend the first two paragraphs writing for me and spend the rest of your answer writing for yourself." That was his way of getting through his marking fairly expeditiously, but it is good advice. I always think one should lay one's position out at the beginning.

I reject the resolution, not because there are not the occasional problems in the act in question and not because there is nothing in it worth addressing, but because the proposal of a select committee to undertake a review of

an act that does not require review in any fundamental or substantial way, in my mind, is not the appropriate vehicle to use.

In point of fact, it would open up a critique of the act and an attack on the act by the very people whom the sponsor of this resolution appears not to want to see there, namely, those who would be gunning to get the act substantially changed so as to fundamentally weaken, if not eliminate, the right to strike of teachers in this province.

This resolution has five parts to it, as I see it. First, it suggests we do something to secure "the least possible disruption," as the language of the resolution puts it, of the education of children in teacher and board conflicts. Second, it proposes that the act be reviewed in the light of that desire. Third, it suggests a select committee of the House be the device that is used.

A fourth reason that appears to be substantial, but was not substantially addressed in the honourable member's introduction, I thought, is the semestering of the delivery of education, which has been a significant change in the format of delivery in recent years. Fifth, there are certain technical difficulties, only a couple of which the member alluded to.

3:50 p.m.

I am left as much in the dark as I was when I read the resolution as to the nature of this whole range of technical issues. Is it the 80-some recommendations the Matthews commission laid before us? Is it the six to eight that are listed in a recent memorandum from the Association of Large School Boards in Ontario?

What are the specific technicalities? Until one can grapple with the specific technicalities, one can hardly respond in debate other than to assume that they are technicalities in the usual sense of that word.

The act of 1975, now called the School Boards and Teachers Collective Negotiations Act, was formulated to accomplish the objectives the member has in mind, namely, to secure the least possible disruption of education for the children in teacher-board conflicts and to do something about the very confusing situation in the mid-1970s, in which teacher-board relations were in a very difficult state.

At that time, teachers and boards alike had problems with orderly process and in knowing where they stood one with respect to another. From the point of view of the whole educational community, some substantial rationalizations were needed.

I re-read the act this morning to see whether I could ferret out for myself what I felt were difficulties. I found very little of substance that provided me with any great unease about the act.

Five years after the act in question, the Matthews commission commented that the legislation had improved the collective bargaining process and had reduced conflict. It warned that long strikes might well provoke calls from the public for drastic and, perhaps, unwise government action. It warned that quick fixes, such as compulsory arbitration, highlighted the crucial importance of the local resolution of conflict.

If there has been a problem in recent years, it has simply been that the Education Relations Commission has followed the advice of the Matthews commission and has wisely left those decisions on the resolution of disputes in local hands.

The recommendations of the commission were of varying degrees of technicality, and having read this document, the government did not act on it. Apparently, it presumed that, everything taken together, there was no great benefit to be had in following through with the recommendations made.

What has been the record? In the three years prior to the act, there were 28 disputes, or an average of slightly more than nine per year. In the subsequent six years, there were 29, or slightly more than four per year. In the 10 years since the act, there have been 39 disputes, or fewer than four per year. If one traces that progression, one will see that, under the jurisdiction of the act, the number of disputes has gone down.

In the past year, the Ontario Public School Trustees' Association has observed that there have been more third-party interventions and more strike votes. That surely is a result of an aberration in the system that came with the ill-advised Bills 179 and 111, the so-called restraint legislation that caused so much unhappiness in the educational community.

I emphasize that while there are more than 200 jurisdictions in which negotiations of this kind can take place every year, an average of only four per year -- as things stand at this time, taking the whole past decade -- end up in any sanction situation. Ninety-eight per cent of the settlements are arrived at without sanction by either party.

Despite a widespread impression that something is very fundamentally wrong with this act, that it has serious difficulties or problems that somehow cause the sanction situations that do occur, the history of the act tells us quite another story.

Since the history and reviews of the act give a generally clean bill of health, it is hardly necessary for us to go to the length of striking a select committee, even if we had the manpower at this time to man such a committee.

If the member has some specific objections to the act, it might be better for him to frame them specifically in a private member's bill and lay them before us for discussion at another time in this House. We can then address the points in question rather than open up the whole act unnecessarily in the context of select committee hearings and what have you, which I do not think is necessary.

This party has no objection to select committees, especially in education. We have long called for one, as has the party opposite, unlike the party to my right, certainly in the education field.

The Association of Large School Boards in Ontario recently requested such a committee. We have responded sympathetically, stating only that the manpower requirements at this time make it rather difficult for us to launch it right now. None the less, there are a number of major issues in education that could well be addressed at this time under the aegis of a select committee, with profit by all of us. We would be happy to see that happen. However, from our point of view, this is not one of them.

When I approached the boards and trustee groups, they indicated they had some interest in seeing it opened up. When I looked at the reasons, they were about technical matters, ones that I think can be handled in another fashion. I am not convinced of the need for us to move in the direction of a select committee review and therefore I stand opposed to this resolution.

Mr. Reycraft: I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on the resolution brought forward by my friend the member for Scarborough Centre.

The issue raised by his resolution is one I am familiar with. It is an issue that seems to have been a recurrent concern for most of the almost 23 years I was a teacher in this province. It is an issue that is going to be looked at with considerable interest by members of the educational community and certainly by teachers and school trustees. It is also going to be of interest to the parents of students in the schools in this province as well as to the students themselves.

Judging by the letters and telephone calls I received last fall, it would be of considerable interest also to a number of municipal councils and many other people who have a sincere interest in education in this province.

However, the letters and telephone calls to which I referred suggest it is not of general ongoing concern to many of those people. It is not a concern about the collective bargaining process between teachers and school boards as laid out in the act of 1975. Rather, it appears it is of concern because of the most recent examples of situations where the procedures laid down in the act did not allow for a collective agreement without some disruption.

I refer, of course, to the examples of Wellington and Grey counties. The communications I have received along those lines come from groups and individuals who are very angry that teachers' strikes occurred in those two communities. Most of them expressed a sentiment similar to one I received from a constituent in Strathroy. I want to quote a sentence from that communication: "I think it is criminal that thousands of students are the victims of greed of those teachers who make lots of money."

4 p.m.

That sentiment was prevalent in many of the communications and in many of the editorials I have read since last fall. It implied that the collective bargaining process was responsible for two things to which those people objected. One of them, obviously, is the disruption in the education system that results from a strike, and the other is what they believe to be excessive salaries for teachers.

The implication in those letters, phone calls and editorials is that if we change the collective bargaining system, particularly if we remove the right to strike, then the two ills they address will be eliminated. We will eliminate disruptions to the education system and will have the effect of reducing the amounts of settlements between teachers and school boards.

Like my friend the member for Hamilton West (Mr. Allen), I was concerned when I first read the resolution of the member for Scarborough Centre. I was concerned about the object of the resolution, because if its object had been to do away with the right to strike, I would have had some difficulty in supporting it. I was certainly happy to hear him say right at the outset that this is not what his resolution is about.

I would have had difficulty supporting it because I was a teacher in the public system in this province for some 13 years before Bill 100 became legislation. I have some very clear recollections of the controversies and the bitterness that existed in many communities in the province as a result of the inability of school boards and their teachers to resolve disagreements before Bill 100 became legislation.

Knowing the experience of the member for Scarborough Centre as a member of a school board and as a chairman of a school board in this province, I am sure he knows too well the kinds of difficulties that existed before 1975. I am also sure he has considerable insight into the intricacies of the collective bargaining process and knows just how sensitive that process is.

I am also sure he is very much aware of the history of the process. That history is very much an evolutionary one, although it is an evolution that has not always been smooth and gradual. It seems to me that a couple of points in it need to be addressed. Certainly there was a dramatic change in that evolution back in 1969, when there was a consolidation. The government of the day chose to consolidate the 1,400 school boards that existed at the time into some 77 public boards and 49 separate boards.

The bargaining situation that existed before 1969 is typified by Peter Hennessy in his book entitled Schools in Jeopardy: Collective Bargaining in Education. There is a quotation from that book in the Matthews report, to which the member for Scarborough Centre has made reference. I would like to read it into the record. It says:

"The principals and teachers knew the trustees in their private capacities as store operators, insurance agents, farmers or lawyers. A lot of trustee-teacher talk took place over the store counter, at the curling rink or after church on Sundays. Those personal relationships greatly influenced the educational life of the community.

"The teachers generally trusted the board because they knew each other as persons. Each side wanted to do the right thing for the other, allowing, of course, for occasional stress associated with salary increases, the firing of an incompetent teacher or the fixing-up of a school building. There was a sense of common trustee-teacher interest in education and a recognition by each that the other was pulling in the same direction."

Certainly that relationship changed after 1969. I am not suggesting that the action of the government of the day was all bad; indeed, it certainly was not. However, it did change the relationship.

The relationship was also changed by something that happened at about the same time and in the few years thereafter, and that was a dramatic increase in the cost of education in this province, part of which was due to inflation and part of which was due to increases in remuneration for teachers.

That was a result of a number of things, one of which was the change in many boards to a system of salary grids which provided better remuneration to teachers who upgraded their qualifications. That too had a great deal of merit. As a result of those costs, though, the negotiations between teachers and their boards intensified and the number of disputes increased. That led to a number of difficulties in negotiations and eventually led to Bill 100 in 1975.

The resolution calls for a review. That is the principle of the resolution and it is one I support. The Minister of Education of the day, the Honourable Thomas Wells, indicated in his remarks during the final debate on the bill that it was the right legislation at the right time. We are now some 10 years past that point, and a number of issues have been raised in the introductory remarks of the member for Scarborough Centre, some of which have been mentioned by the member for Hamilton West; issues that call for a review of the legislation and action following the review.

Whether the process suggested by the member for Scarborough Centre is appropriate is something of which I am not convinced. I question whether it would be appropriate for a select committee of this Legislature to do a review that would have some political implications. The review would certainly be affected by the political structure in the province. It does not seem to be the most appropriate vehicle to address the needed review.

In general, our position is that we support the principle of the resolution. There is a need for a review of Bill 100. We suggest that some type of commission similar to the one utilized by the government of the day in 1979 and 1980 would be more appropriate.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: I am very pleased to have the opportunity to participate in this debate today and to speak in support of this resolution brought forward by my colleague the member for Scarborough Centre. The resolution requests the review of Bill 100 by a committee of this Legislature.

Many members will be aware that during the recent teachers' strike in Wellington county, which is part of my riding, I requested the Minister of Education and the Premier (Mr. Peterson) on several occasions to give consideration to a review of Bill 100 and the report of the Matthews commission. I would like to quote from Hansard, October 17, 1985:

"Mr. J. M. Johnson: I have a question for the Minister of Education relating to the teachers' strike in Wellington and Grey.

"We have legislation under Bill 82 that guarantees every child in this province a right to an education to meet the expectations of his or her parents. We have legislation that compels children to attend school until they are 16 years of age. We have the Charter of Rights and Freedoms that surely applies to students as well as other citizens of this country. Then we have Bill 100 which seems to override these acts.

"Would the minister give consideration to setting up an all-party committee to review Bill 100 and also the Matthews report of 1980, in the hope of making amendments that would give more protection to the rights of students affected by teachers' strikes?"

The strike in Wellington went into its 11th week. There were 51 lost school days. It was the second-longest strike in the history of this province. No one would deny this strike had a tremendous impact on the students in Wellington county, especially those enrolled in the semester system.

I do not have time today to go into details on the number of students in Wellington who will not return to school because of the strike, the impact on the future academic performances of other students, the social damage to the spirit of the community, nor the hostility and negative impact on the public perception of our education system as it relates to the collective bargaining process. These are matters that should be taken into consideration by the proposed committee of this Legislature when it reviews Bill 100.

4:10 p.m.

My main thrust in pushing for a review of Bill 100 is not to propose drastic changes in the bill, but to request all concerned parties -- teachers, trustees, parents, students, taxpayers and, of course, members of this Legislature -- to review Bill 100 and to determine whether a mechanism can be found and drafted into the legislation to protect better the rights of students during a teachers' strike, while at the same time protecting the rights of teachers and school boards as enshrined in the current act. Surely people with good intentions and goodwill, working together, can achieve some beneficial and positive results from such a review.

I fully appreciate the special need for a unique piece of legislation such as Bill 100. As all members should know, before this bill was passed in June 1975, there was utter chaos in the education system in relation to the teachers' and school boards' collective bargaining process. It is not necessary to go into the details of the mass resignations of teachers, and the confusion and turmoil that existed prior to June 1975, but the members of the Legislature should be knowledgeable about the events leading up to the need to draw up special legislation to solve many of these complex problems.

This bill, the School Boards and Teachers Collective Negotiations Act, 1975, known as Bill 100, came into force on July 18, 1975, with the full support of all three parties of this Legislature. In the opinion of the many knowledgeable people, it has served the province well.

The Minister of Education of the day, the Honourable Thomas Wells, while emphasizing the special needs and his complete support of this legislation, also expressed some concerns. I would like to quote from Hansard, May 30, 1975. Mr. Wells said, "In assuring certain rights to teachers and to school boards, we expect that the bargaining process will be carried out in a reasoned and responsible fashion by persons of goodwill and with constant reference to the heavy responsibility each bears for the education of our young people."

This is a heavy responsibility for us as members of this Legislature. It is the major concern expressed by hundreds of my constituents during the recent teachers' strike. I have received numerous resolutions from municipal councils, and letters and phone calls from concerned citizens demanding that the rights of our young people to education be protected. This public concern was also recognized by the Matthews commission.

Since Bill 100 is a unique piece of legislation designed by this Legislature for a specific segment of our society, I think it is incumbent upon us as members of this House to empower one of our committees to hold public hearings and review the act. All legislation should be periodically reviewed. The Matthews commission was set up to do that on October 30, 1979, by the then Minister of Education, the member for York Mills.

The Matthews commission submitted its report on June 18, 1980. While it was of the opinion that Bill 100 had worked fairly well, it thought some changes were needed. The commission made 49 recommendations, many pertinent to our debate today. I will make reference only to the first two recommendations: "

(1) The commission recommends that teachers and boards should continue to negotiate under an amended version of Bill 100.

(2) The commission recommends that the right to strike continue to be provided in an amended Bill 100."

It is important to note that both teachers and boards supported this position. However, the commission also pointed out that strikes in the school system cause hardship and inconvenience, affect the education of children and that members of the public, particularly those with children of school age, become intolerant of strikes.

Many of the other recommendations are also very important in any consideration of changes to Bill 100. It has now been over 10 years since Bill 100 was passed and over five years since the Matthews report was tabled. Surely a review of both at this time would be beneficial to all of us.

I have a few personal observations to make, based on my experience with the Wellington county teachers' strike, and I would like to put them on the record now.

1. Strikes last too long. There is too much wasted time and the cooling-off periods often end up creating frozen positions.

2. There should be more face-to-face negotiations between teachers and trustees. Quite often, the negotiators take away from that personal relationship.

3. The government should strengthen the Education Relations Commission's powers. Numbers 11, 26 and 34 of the recommendations of the Matthews commission are examples.

4. Every third year, municipal elections are held and if they conflict with a teachers' strike, which happened in Wellington, it quite often creates special problems such as lame duck boards.

In closing, I would like to state that in my opinion, if we approach the issue with goodwill and good intentions, we can modify and amend Bill 100 and create better protection of the rights of students, while at the same time fully protecting the rights of teachers and school boards as already enshrined in the present legislation. I hope all members will support this resolution so we may work toward achieving these goals.

Mr. Grande: I am happy to be participating in this debate, although I am not happy about the intent of the private member's resolution that is before us today, brought forward by the member for Scarborough Centre. While the member was very careful to say what this resolution is not about, his colleague from the same party spent his 10 minutes talking about strikes. It seems to me that what one member did not say, the other did. Why he wants this select committee was very clear.

I am not opposed to a select committee on education in this province. This party has been on record since 1978 as wanting a select committee on education because of all the concerns regarding the proper delivery of education services in this province. The former government, from 1978 to 1985, continuously refused to allow a select committee of this Legislature to deal with educational concerns.

We wanted the select committee to hold hearings across this province on such issues as the governance of our schools and the funding issue. Since 1975, there has been a deterioration in funding to the public school system, the likes of which we have not seen before. We have gone below the 50 per cent mark of supporting our public schools with provincial dollars.

4:20

In 1975, we were supporting our schools to about 65 per cent and, as far as we were concerned, this deterioration of provincial support certainly merited that a select committee of this Legislature should take a look at it and come up with the reasons education in this province was not a priority with the previous government. I urge the present government to strike a select committee of this Legislature to deal with such important, fundamental issues.

We are talking about declining enrolment at that time, and the boards had considerable problems in coming to grips with and in organizing around declining enrolment, the closure of schools, the firing of teachers as a result of declining enrolment, the program implications of declining enrolment and the curriculum. The government refused to allow us to have that select committee. Members of the present government, such as the Minister of Education (Mr. Conway) and the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley), were calling for and supporting this party in calling for a select committee on education.

Had the member who presented this resolution called for a select committee on education to discuss fundamental issues in education, then I would be with him, because I am concerned about the educational services and the quality of education being delivered to children in our elementary, secondary and post-secondary schools. However, that is not why this member called for the select committee. He called for the select committee for a very specific situation: to take a look at Bill 100 and to see whether strikes can be prevented.

Obviously, the ultimate way to prevent strikes between boards and teachers is to get rid of the right to strike for teachers altogether; then we would not have any strikes. However, the fact remains -- and other members have talked about it -- that prior to 1975, there was no stability whatsoever in the collective bargaining between school boards and teachers in this province. We had chaos, which is how the Education Relations Commission describes the era prior to 1975. In later reports, the ERC talked about Bill 100 bringing stability in the educational sector.

I point out to the member -- and my colleague the member for Hamilton West mentioned this point as well -- that since his intention is to amend a bill, the normal procedure in this House is to bring in a private member's bill with those amendments. If he were to do that, what the member wanted to do would be very clear, and one could get up and debate that private member's bill and decide whether to support it.

The problem is that the member is bringing in a resolution to amend a bill. To my knowledge, at least, the only time one brings in a resolution is when one cannot very readily draft it into a private member's bill or when it deals with money, because one obviously cannot force a government to make an expenditure of funds.

The intentions of this resolution are not clear to me. While the member tried his best to make it clear that he is not interested in getting rid of the right to strike in Bill 100 and sending collective bargaining in the educational sector into chaos, as it was prior to 1975, the member for Wellington-Dufferin-Peel (Mr. J. M. Johnson) was much clearer, and therefore I do understand the intent.

I want to say to the member that we have the Matthews commission report. The member could have said to the government, "Strike a group of people from the school boards, the teachers' associations and the Ministry of Education, and bring them together to change some of these very minor aspects of Bill 100 that may be irritants in the collective bargaining process." We would understand that. Some of the teachers and their organizations would support that.

As a matter of fact, when the Matthews commission reported back in 1980, some of the reports the teachers' federations made to the previous minister, who is sitting in the front row right now, the member for Don Mills, said some changes were necessary

Miss Stephenson: I am not the member for Don Mills. I would have thought that after 10 years, the member would have known I am the member for York Mills.

Mr. Grande: York Mills; my apologies. I mentioned the wrong mill. I know the Old Mill quite well.

The previous Minister of Education left the Matthews commission report to lie dormant. No changes were made. However, the Matthews commission report stated very clearly in its recommendations that the right to strike should remain in Bill 100.

Finally, I say to the member that if he is truly interested in education and the delivery of educational services, and if he is truly interested in having a select committee on education, let him talk about fundamental issues that affect the education of children in this province and not disguise what he intends to do in a private member's resolution in this House.

I will not vote for this resolution.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Morin): The member for Kent-Elgin (Mr. McGuigan).

Mr. Stevenson: There are only three Liberals in the House.

Mr. McGuigan: My friend has to admit that the high-quality ones are here --

Mr. Stevenson: The only three high-quality ones are here.

Mr. McGuigan: Our members are diligently earning their pay in committee.

Mr. Stevenson: Is that where all the cabinet ministers are -- in committees?

Mr. McGuigan: They are running the affairs of this province and catching up on all the inadequacies of the past 42 years. However, I did not rise to debate those questions. I rise simply to get a word in on my view of the collective bargaining system.

I want to say at the beginning that we believe in the collective bargaining system. It is perhaps not the perfect way of handling disputes between collective groups; on the one hand, taxpayers or capitalists, people who have money to pool together, and on the other hand, the people who are required to work, provide their labour and make that system work.

We believe that if it is fair to have laws whereby depositors can put their money in a bank or in a pool and put it under collective management, or if capitalists can put their money into shares in a company and thereby put that money under a single head, then it is also fair that workers can pool their collective abilities and resources, which are the sale of their time. It is a fair and reasonable system to have those two offsetting forces.

4:30 p.m.

To bring them together we have a marketplace, just as much as we have a person who stands in an open-air market and offers a product -- whether it is a cattle beast, a bushel of rutabagas or whatever -- at a price, and a buyer on the other side who negotiates to decide whether he wishes to purchase it at that price. That is a time-honoured system we have had since the beginning of the money system, whereby we changed from the barter system to a unit system. The Liberal Party believes in that system, as do our friends across the aisle in both parties.

When we come to an education strike, there are certain complications. Members on the other side of the House have mentioned that. I know, from members on our side of the House who have been caught as members representing an area where there has been a teachers' strike, it is a most grievous situation.

On the one hand, we have the parents who want to see their children proceed with their education. We have every sympathy with what happens in those circumstances when they may lose several weeks of their education.

Mr. Davis: Or their year; or never go back, as happened to 1,000 students in Wellington county.

Mr. McGuigan: Unfortunately, that sometimes happens. We realize the turmoil a member is put through. The member for Wellington-Dufferin-Peel is one of the most sensitive and kindest members in this House. I have know him the eight years I have been here. I do not know anybody who is more sensitive than that member to the plight of his constituents or that of any person in Ontario. It puts him under terrible pressure.

When we start looking at alternatives to the collective bargaining system, we run into other very difficult problems. If we are going to deny a group of people the right to use that system, we put under threat a whole range of operations we have in our society. It is not just a matter of teachers, pupils and their difficulties; it becomes a matter of how we regulate ourselves in this great society.

It is also a long-standing Liberal position, and we believe in the theory, that local people should look after the deals, and the pressure should be put on the school boards. They ha