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

November 30, 1993

35th Parliament, 3rd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

WATER EXTRACTION AGREEMENTS

MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES

PARLIAMENTARY REFORM

LABOUR DISPUTE

COURT FACILITY

DURHAM EAST NEWSPAPERS

ROBIN SEARS

ONTARIO HOME OWNERSHIP SAVINGS PLAN

JOHN VAN DORP

TEACHERS' DISPUTE

POLICE STAFFING

PRESCRIPTION DRUGS

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE REFORM

RECYCLING

MINISTRY OF COMMUNITY AND SOCIAL SERVICES EMPLOYEE

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

WATER QUALITY

TEACHERS' PENSION LEGISLATION

ONTARIO FILM REVIEW BOARD

ACCESSORY APARTMENTS

JUNIOR HOCKEY

USE OF QUESTION PERIOD

ST LAWRENCE PARKS COMMISSION

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

PICKERING AIRPORT LAND

HUMAN RIGHTS

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

ASSISTED HOUSING

PICKERING AIRPORT LAND

TUITION FEES

EAST PARRY SOUND BOARD OF EDUCATION AND TEACHERS DISPUTE SETTLEMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR LE RÈGLEMENT DU CONFLIT ENTRE LE CONSEIL DE L'ÉDUCATION APPELÉ THE EAST PARRY SOUND BOARD OF EDUCATION ET SES ENSEIGNANTS

TOWNSHIP OF DYSART ACT, 1993

GROUPE CONCORDE INC ACT, 1993

INTERVENTION OF ATTORNEY GENERAL

EAST PARRY SOUND BOARD OF EDUCATION AND TEACHERS DISPUTE SETTLEMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR LE RÈGLEMENT DU CONFLIT ENTRE LE CONSEIL DE L'ÉDUCATION APPELÉ THE EAST PARRY SOUND BOARD OF EDUCATION ET SES ENSEIGNANTS

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

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

ROYAL ASSENT / SANCTION ROYALE

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

The House met at 1332.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

WATER EXTRACTION AGREEMENTS

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

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

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

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

MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES

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

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

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

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

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

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

PARLIAMENTARY REFORM

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

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

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

LABOUR DISPUTE

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

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

Interjection.

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

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

COURT FACILITY

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

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

Premier Rae said the Windsor and Hamilton courthouses were funded first because the deals for their construction were put together sooner. But we have to wonder if the real reason is that Hamilton and Windsor are NDP strongholds represented by cabinet ministers,

whereas Peel is represented by the opposition parties. If politics have dictated the order of funding, something is rotten in the province of Ontario.

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

DURHAM EAST NEWSPAPERS

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

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

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

ROBIN SEARS

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

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

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

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

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

ONTARIO HOME OWNERSHIP SAVINGS PLAN

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

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

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

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

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

JOHN VAN DORP

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

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

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

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

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

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

TEACHERS' DISPUTE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think, as I listened to the minister's statement, that there is one very significant point that is missing, and that is that the minister and the government have got to accept that they made a fundamental change to the collective bargaining process in this province, in terms of the educational system, when they brought in the Social Contract Act. The collective bargaining process as we knew it, and in which we had faith, has been fundamentally altered.

While the minister will say, as he has said previously, that the Social Contract Act is not part of these labour disputes we see in the province right now, clearly the Social Contract Act is, and the government has got to accept a great deal of the responsibility for the problems we have had.

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

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

I want to draw the members' attention to an

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

The headline is "When Teachers and Trustees Fight," and the subheads are "Hateful Relations," "Six Weeks Lost," "Power," "Hatred," "Irresponsibility," "Frustration." The entire

article catalogues all the things that have happened that brought about that strike, and one could do precisely the same thing in east Parry Sound and, I dare say, in any of the other communities that are facing the potential of a strike.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The minister shakes his head, but if he reads -- and I'm sure he has -- the report given to him today by the Education Relations Commission, I think it will substantiate the fact that basically the issues outstanding between these parties are the same issues that were outstanding over a month ago.

Over a month ago, everybody except the Ministry of Education and Training, apparently, concluded that the only reasonable thing to do to save the students' education was to have binding arbitration with respect to those few issues that the parties just could not agree on and in fact, in the end result, agreed to disagree on. Those are the issues that are now being sent to binding arbitration, as indeed should be the case.

I would also say to the minister that it is somewhat unusual that we have all these disputes between boards and teachers during this year. The fact is that the legislation in subsection 5(7) specifically refers to the Social Contract Act and specifically deals with benefits, whether they can or cannot be taken away out of the previous collective agreement under the social contract legislation, and there's provision in there for the arbitration board to decide those issues.

Surely that is proof in itself that indeed the Social Contract Act is at the root of these numerous disputes between boards and teachers all across the province, not just in east Parry Sound. I think the government has finally admitted it here today in its legislation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ORAL QUESTIONS

POLICE STAFFING

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Interjection.

The Speaker: Order. The member for Beaches.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Speaker: New question.

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

PRESCRIPTION DRUGS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE REFORM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That, among other things, will be able to ensure that we are able to deal with the issue of fraud and abuse and overpayment in the system in a much better way than we can under the present system.

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

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

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

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

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

The Speaker: Order. The member for Downsview.

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

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

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

RECYCLING

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

However, you've chosen not to answer that question. I'd like to move to another area in this problem. The region of Durham, in a recent television program by the Durham regional chair, Mr Herrema, has indicated that it has literally given up trying to find markets for its blue box collectibles. According to Mr Herrema, there's only one buyer in all of Ontario accepting glass collected in the blue box program. Then today, in this morning's media, it was raised that Metro is mixing recyclables with regular trash and disposing of them in dumps.

In fact, the representative from CUPE, the local president, indicated that this has been going on for some time, that we've been mixing recyclables with the regular trash. The people of Ontario of course have been using their blue boxes properly and deserve better from your government. Municipalities will either give up storing these products and landfill them or they'll make their collection depots into unregulated above ground dumps for blue boxes.

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

Hon Mr Philip: I wish the honourable member wouldn't have the Toronto Sun do his research for him, because the

article is completely misleading. The

article in the Toronto Sun stated that the city of Toronto was mixing blue box materials with waste and not recycling materials. That in fact is not the case. The city of Toronto has certainly advised us that the issue does not deal with blue box collections at all. What they're talking about is the servicing of the multicompartmental street bins that are provided by the city for depositing both litter and recyclables. Occasionally some of the recyclables are contaminated with what amounts to garbage.

The people who use the bins don't always deposit litter in the litter compartment, but they sometimes deposit it in the recyclable compartment. The city is investigating the factors contributing to that situation.

Let me add, in response to the

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr Tilson: Where are the markets?

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

MINISTRY OF COMMUNITY AND SOCIAL SERVICES EMPLOYEE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Interjection.

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

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

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

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

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

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

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Interjections.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

WATER QUALITY

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

Interjections.

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

The member for Yorkview.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Speaker: Would the member place his question.

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

The Speaker: Would the member please place his question.

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

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

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

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): Did you pass?

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

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

TEACHERS' PENSION LEGISLATION

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

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

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

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

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

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

The reason I ask the question is that I think we have two

interpretations of this. Within the act, within the bill you introduced, you are excluding yourself from those provisions. Provision 78 has to do with surplus and notification.

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

I realize that the government wants to proceed quickly with it, but there seems to be some difference of opinion on the

interpretation of it. Will a legislative committee have an opportunity to review the bill before you pass it for third reading?

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

ONTARIO FILM REVIEW BOARD

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ACCESSORY APARTMENTS

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

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

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

We're not bothering with yours.'" So my constituent, who's got an awful lot of money invested in this enterprise, feels he's wasting his time.

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

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

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

JUNIOR HOCKEY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

USE OF QUESTION PERIOD

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

At the start of question period today we had a situation that I think requires some attention by the Speaker. Under

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PETITIONS

ST LAWRENCE PARKS COMMISSION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

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

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have affixed my signature to this petition.

PICKERING AIRPORT LAND

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

"To the Legislature of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

HUMAN RIGHTS

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

"Dear parliamentarian:

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

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

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

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

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

ASSISTED HOUSING

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

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

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

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

I've affixed my signature.

PICKERING AIRPORT LAND

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

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

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

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

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

TUITION FEES

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

EAST PARRY SOUND BOARD OF EDUCATION AND TEACHERS DISPUTE SETTLEMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR LE RÈGLEMENT DU CONFLIT ENTRE LE CONSEIL DE L'ÉDUCATION APPELÉ THE EAST PARRY SOUND BOARD OF EDUCATION ET SES ENSEIGNANTS

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

Bill 128,

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

TOWNSHIP OF DYSART ACT, 1993

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

Bill Pr39,

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

GROUPE CONCORDE INC ACT, 1993

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

Bill Pr68,

An Act to revive Le Groupe Concorde Inc.

INTERVENTION OF ATTORNEY GENERAL

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

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

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

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

He went on to say this: "If we agree that

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ORDERS OF THE DAY

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

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

EAST PARRY SOUND BOARD OF EDUCATION AND TEACHERS DISPUTE SETTLEMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR LE RÈGLEMENT DU CONFLIT ENTRE LE CONSEIL DE L'ÉDUCATION APPELÉ THE EAST PARRY SOUND BOARD OF EDUCATION ET SES ENSEIGNANTS

Mr Cooke moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 128,

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

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

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

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

First of all, this dispute and negotiations have been going on now for 22 months. The previous collective agreement expired on August 31, 1992. Of course, this is an elementary school teachers' dispute. There have been several attempts at negotiations and at mediation. The Education Relations Commission has been very much involved in this situation to try to find a solution, but this particular dispute is now the second-longest strike at the elementary level.

It obviously becomes necessary, when the Education Relations Commission determines that there is a case of jeopardy, that in particular the Minister of Education recommend to the Legislature that action be taken to end the dispute. That recommendation formally came to me yesterday by the Education Relations Commission. I was advised on Friday by the ERC that it was not particularly optimistic that anything could be done to find a solution.

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

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

I'll say one more thing before I get into the details of the legislation. It was absolutely clear to me before yesterday, but even clearer when sitting in with the parties yesterday, that there is no reason why this legislation should have to come forward. A settlement was achievable in this particular case. The distance between the board and the teachers on the issue of benefits was not significant. The teachers indicated very clearly that they were prepared to find savings in the benefits package for the board.

It was not in exactly the same way that the board wanted to do it, but as the teachers said, "If it's the dollars you're looking at saving, why not let us find the dollars and the mechanism to save them by streamlining the way benefits are delivered and other changes that could take place that unions and federations have had some examples of getting involved in in other jurisdictions?"

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

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

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

I believe it would be in the best interests of students right across this province if the boards refrained from using that

section of Bill 100. As Mr Wells said when it was introduced, it was to be used in the rarest of all occasions, and it's now being used to the extent where it is causing disruption in the system.

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

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

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

This legislation also -- and the member for Parry Sound or the Liberal critic made the point today of a connection between the social contract. I'd ask members to specifically look at the

section of the act that refers to the social contract. The items that can go through arbitration that are also subject to local agreements with the social contract legislation are the items that must be solved, because they have a direct impact on the overall collective agreement. In this particular case, there's a question dealing with benefits that we've heard about that we assume will probably have to be dealt with. But I think the member is stretching it if he draws the close connection between social contract and these particular contract negotiations.

There is a link on one particular item, but even that link is not central to either this piece of legislation or the ability to have found a local agreement.

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

The parties must file a joint plan concerning the makeup of loss of instructional time. The difference in this piece of legislation from others in the past, and in particular the Lambton one, is that this piece of legislation says, "Yes, the two parties should file a plan to make up lost time," and that's normally all that's in the legislation, but we have added an additional

section this time because we found it difficult in Lambton to get the parties to actually come to an agreement on the joint plan. In fact, originally they filed two separate plans.

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

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

We've also put a

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

Parties are to file a plan as to how they will improve their relationship. That is a normal

section of the legislation. Certainly I hope the parties will do that, although we all know that if the teachers and the board are not willing to repair that relationship -- and there hasn't been a great one up that way even in the past -- if the parties are not willing to do that, then there's nothing we can put into the legislation to force them to improve their working relationship. But I can tell you that for the kids in the Parry Sound community, I hope the board and the teachers will take this

section of the legislation seriously. It's absolutely essential so that those relationships can be repaired and this type of situation doesn't happen again.

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

That balance is provided for under Bill 100, that the Education Relations Commission continues to offer services and review the length of labour disputes. They make a determination under the legislation of when the school year is in jeopardy. I know it's easy for members to say, "You could have done this 10 days ago; you could have done this 15 days ago," but the reality of that would be one that would encourage other labour disputes and that would not encourage responsibility at the local level.

The reality is that while there have been over 70 strikes in the schools in this province since Bill 100 came into effect in the mid-1970s, the vast majority of those -- all but eight, now -- have been settled, even though a strike occurred, by negotiations at the local level. That's still the best way to go.

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

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

The Deputy Speaker: Questions or comments?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Deputy Speaker: Any further debate?

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

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