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

May 15, 1990

34th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

KINDERGARTEN

POLICE SERVICES

VISIONS 2020

TEACHERS

WAYNE OLMSTED

AUTOMOBILE DRIVERS

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD

ONTARIO TRAINING CORP

MANITOULIN ISLAND

MEMBER FOR NIPISSING

PATRICIA STARR INQUIRY

ORAL QUESTIONS

POLICE USE OF FIREARMS

POLICE COMMISSION NOMINATION

TAXATION

WASTE REDUCTION

EDUCATION FUNDING

TORONTO WATERFRONT

TEACHERS’ LABOUR DISPUTE

TAXATION

TRANSPORTATION FOR THE DISABLED

TRUCK IDENTIFICATION

RENT REVIEW

CHICKEN INDUSTRY

TEXTILE INDUSTRY

LIQUOR LICENCE REVENUES

TEACHERS’ LABOUR DISPUTE

REPORT BY COMMITTEE

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

HUMAN RESOURCES PROFESSIONALS ASSOCIATION OF ONTARIO ACT, 1990

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT, 1990

ONTARIO FOOD TERMINAL AMENDMENT ACT, 1990

ORDERS OF THE DAY

OPPOSITION DAY / JOUR RESERVÉ À L’OPPOSITION

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

KINDERGARTEN

Mr R. F. Johnston: I would like to bring to the attention of the House and of the Minister of Education, in case he does not know about it, a large problem which is arising now in York region where parents who wish to have their children in junior kindergarten in that area are being told by their local board of education that it will not be possible, through lack of consultation between the government, which now plans to make junior kindergarten mandatory across the province, and a board which feels that its resources are being too stretched by underfunding and by the enormous growth in that area and is therefore reluctant to provide junior kindergarten.

What this means is that parents in that region are now going to be sending their children -- in fact, many have already decided to -- to North York in Metropolitan Toronto where there is junior kindergarten available. It is outrageous to me that children should have to be driven 40 to 50 minutes perhaps each morning to attend junior kindergarten because that is the desire of their parents, a policy of this government, and yet a board in the province of Ontario would restrict them from doing so.

Some of these parents are now going to try to switch their support, to transfer their fees to the North York board as an option to try to put pressure on the board of education in York region, but I would suggest that the pressure should be coming from the Minister of Education and from this government. If it believed that JK should be available, it should be telling that board of education to implement it and to provide the resources that are necessary from the province to make it happen.

POLICE SERVICES

Mr Pollock: As all the members know, this is Police Week and I would like to pay tribute to all the police across the province but in particular the police in the riding of Hastings-Peterborough. We have three Ontario Provincial Police detachments in the riding -- Apsley, Bancroft, and Madoc -- along with two local forces at Lakefield and Stirling. Part of the riding is covered by the OPP detachments from Peterborough, Campbellford and Belleville. They endeavour to apply law enforcement in these areas with success, because I am sure we have one of the lowest crime rates in the province.

The police officers who visit the schools and explain the VIP program -- value, influence and peers -- deserve a vote of thanks for their efforts. Value means not being involved in shoplifting and vandalism. Influence means being neat in appearance so as to demand respect. Peers means peer pressure -- not letting anyone influence one to take drugs or be involved in any other crime-related incidents.

Again this year the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police is sponsoring an Adopt-a-Cop program to raise money to send mentally handicapped people from communities to the Special Olympics. This is the fourth year that this torch run has been held and the first year when it is possible that every police force in Ontario will be involved. Eight separate relays will start from every corner of Ontario and finish in Toronto at the SkyDome on Thursday 7 June. It is easy to adopt a cop by just calling one’s force and saying, “Adopt-a-Cop.”

VISIONS 2020

Mr Fleet: Visions 2020, Ontario’s Youth -- Ontario’s Future. This book was recently presented to me by active and concerned students of Humberside Collegiate Institute in my riding of High Park-Swansea. In Visions 2020, Ontario students use their own words to describe their vision for Ontario in the year 2020. They also state how they intend to participate in achieving specific environmental goals. I salute the thoughtful and thought-provoking ideas of students from all over Ontario. The fact that the students feel committed to solving problems and taking necessary actions to improve our environment is particularly encouraging.

Let me highlight an excerpt from the Humberside Collegiate contribution:

“Industries and consumers must pay for a cleanup of these sites and the government of Ontario must ensure, through legislation and enforcement, that toxic dumps are never again situated within range of polluting North American water sources. No serious vision of sustainable water reserves can discount the goal of removing, destroying or recycling the contents of every toxic waste dump site within range of polluting Ontario water supplies and the Great Lakes themselves, holders of 80 per cent of North American and 20 per cent of global freshwater reserves.”

I completely support the goal of cleaning up our waterways, including the Humber River system, Grenadier Pond and Lake Ontario. I look forward to working with students and others in achieving this end.

TEACHERS

Mr Farnan: The Liberal government must be concerned that the board of governors of the Ontario Teachers’ Federation has decided to launch an all-affiliate, co-ordinated political action program for the next provincial election.

Teachers are no longer going to be taken for granted. Teachers -- and the government should remember that there are over 120,000 teachers in Ontario -- will cast their ballots in the upcoming election after careful reflection on this government’s record and, believe me, the votes of teachers will make a difference. They will remember the high-handed manner in which this Liberal government totally ignored the pension concerns of teachers. They will recognize that education was given short shrift -- five sentences in a 68-page budget document.

Little wonder, for if inflation is taken into account, this Liberal government will be offering less money in 1993 for capital needs than it did in 1988. Far too many students spend too many years of their educational lives in portable classrooms. The government has offered no funding to back up its destreaming of full-time kindergarten programs.

In addition, this government has broken its promises to increase the provincial percentage of education funding and continues to place an unacceptably heavy burden on the backs of local taxpayers. In a nutshell, the government’s record in education has been great on words but, regrettably, weak on delivery. However, rest assured teachers will not be fooled. They see through the rhetoric and they will vote on this government s record. That is a reality that should cause some sleepless nights for Liberal members.

WAYNE OLMSTED

Mr Jackson: It is indeed true that one never needs to look too far to find real heros. The qualities of courage, bravery and self-sacrifice can be readily found in members of one’s own community. Constable Wayne Olmsted was just such a hero. As a Halton police officer who served most of his 22 years of service in Burlington, Wayne was decorated with the Ontario Medal for Bravery in 1979. He risked his life to subdue a gunman who had shot a fellow officer and had then begun to shoot at innocent passersby on a Burlington street.

In the words used by Halton Police Chief James Harding, Wayne ignored acute danger in the service of his fellow man. Constable Wayne Olmsted bravely overcame the many challenges he has faced within his own life as a police officer. However, Wayne was finally himself overcome by cancer on Friday at Hamilton’s St Joseph’s Hospital.

He leaves his wife, Jeanette, and his two children, Katrina and Troy, to whom I extend my sincere and deepest sympathies and condolences and those of each and every member of this Legislature. We are to be reminded of Wayne’s bravery, dedication and constant readiness to make the ultimate sacrifice in the line of duty on behalf of the people he was sworn to protect.

On behalf of his colleagues in the Halton Regional Police and the citizens he served, I would like to dedicate the observance of Police Week in Halton to the memory of a real hero, Constable Wayne Olmsted.

AUTOMOBILE DRIVERS

Mr Tatham: Respect, consideration, wisdom, intelligence, comprehension, prudence, rational, sensible, fair, thoughtful, judicious, good judgement, long-headed, horse sense, clear thinking, clear-headed, understanding, awake, bright, responsible -- all these qualities are requirements for motor vehicle drivers. I believe that the vast majority of our fellow citizens who drive have these qualities.

As you drive through Toronto in the 401 express lanes, you have the choice of three lanes. Usually the posted speed limit is 100 kilometres per hour. If you are in the centre lane and proceeding at 100 kilometres an hour and a large vehicle pulls in behind you so close that unless you notice the manufacturer’s name on the grill as the vehicle pulls in behind you, the name has disappeared and all you can see in the rear view mirror is the vehicle’s grill. If the driver of that vehicle has not encouraged you to go faster, that driver will often pull out to the fast lane to pass. Three large vehicles did this to me on the 401 last Tuesday, 8 May.

We want to share the road with all licensed drivers, but we require certain qualities of these drivers. How can we encourage consideration?

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD

Mr Laughren: I rise to bring to the attention of members yet again another problem with the Workers’ Compensation Board.

For years, pharmacies have billed the WCB directly when injured workers presented their prescriptions to be filled for their compensable injuries. As of 1 May 1990, pharmacies in the Sudbury region will no longer bill the compensation board but will bill the injured worker instead. When contacting some pharmacies, we found the reason was that it could take up to a year for reimbursement on a claim if there is any kind of hitch. It can still take up to four or five months if there are no problems at all. Therefore, the pharmacies are now asking injured workers to pay for the medication up front and then they must submit their bills to the WCB.

Many injured workers simply cannot afford the cost of this expensive medication out of their own pockets, nor should they have to. I have a friend, as a matter of fact, one of my best friends, who pays up to $100 a month in prescriptions and he is on a disability pension.

When the injured worker submits a bill for a prescription, he is reimbursed the cost of the medication plus the $9.50 dispensing fee to the pharmacist. There is a pharmacist where my constituency office is located in Chelmsford who has an outstanding balance of $5,000 or $6,000 this year alone, and a total of $10,000.

In the long haul, it is the injured worker who suffers yet again.

ONTARIO TRAINING CORP

Mrs Cunningham: The Ontario Training Corp was established by this government on 27 April 1988 as a self-supporting enterprise with a mandate to create an environment in which employers and individuals understand the importance of lifelong learning and training.

The Ontario Training Corp appeared recently before the standing committee on government agencies and gave some very interesting testimony. Since 1988, the OTC has received some $10.2 million in government grants; it has generated just $50,000 in revenue during that time, for a tidy rate of return of just under 0.5%. The OTC claims that it is fulfilling “broader public policy goals.” It would never measure success by a targeted return on investment. In fact, OTC brochures can say, “We take our share of revenues where we can.”

Incredibly enough, the OTC is now threatening to close up shop if its grants from government are not increased above the $6.8 million it receives annually. The Ontario Training Corp is a textbook example of government waste, with no set rate of return on investment, no desire to recover capital costs and a long-term strategic plan that had to be revised just one year into its mandate. It is little wonder that the private sector questions the efforts of the OTC and the waste of taxpayers’ money.

MANITOULIN ISLAND

Mr Brown: I rise in this House today to ask all honourable members to circle the week of 21 May to 27 May on their calendars. During this week, Manitoulin Island will be hosting a display at Ontario North Now, a fascinating pavilion at Ontario Place that depicts life in northern Ontario.

In this showcase, you will be able to experience a little of the magic and mystique behind Manitoulin Island. Discover some of the island’s heritage and culture, our unique lifestyle and our excellent recreational facilities.

Many organizations from across the island have come together to recreate this little bit of Manitoulin. Come and sample a small taste of the island. This exhibition could lead to the start of a beautiful friendship. Your first trip to Manitoulin will definitely not be your last.

Several of our local artists and craftspeople will be on hand displaying their works. Watch a landscape being painted, wool being spun or a wood carver at work. On 26 May, Manitoulin Day, there will be live performances by the Burns Wharf Theatre and my favourite, the Debajehmujig, the local native theatre group.

Please be sure to take advantage of this wonderful exhibit and discover the magic that is Manitoulin.

The Speaker: That completes the allotted time for members’ statements.

Hon Mr Conway: I would like to seek the unanimous consent of the House so that we might welcome our colleague the member for Nipissing in his new role.

Agreed to.

MEMBER FOR NIPISSING

Hon Mr Conway: I thank my colleagues in the House for providing us with the opportunity, as custom and courtesy would dictate, to observe that the member for Nipissing has, as recent events have unfolded, taken on new responsibilities that I think should be formally observed here today, his first day in the chamber since the weekend event, which I know, speaking for myself, I watched with some real interest. I know other members of the assembly did as well.

On behalf of the Liberal caucus, I want to say most sincerely that we congratulate the member for Nipissing for a very successful campaign that reached its conclusion at, I think, about 5:15 last Saturday afternoon. I watched with some real interest as not just the member for Nipissing spoke, but the member for London North, whose contribution I tried to congratulate yesterday, and of course our friend the member for Sarnia, who in his inimitable way made quite a lively intervention as well.

I want to say, on my own behalf and on behalf of the Liberal caucus, that we congratulate the member for Nipissing. I have known the member for Nipissing for almost 10 years. We are neighbours out in that northeastern part of Ontario. I even represent a small portion of the district of Nipissing that is in the main represented by the new leader of the Progressive Conservative Party.

Like my friend the member for Scarborough West, I well remember the day in 1981 when the member for Nipissing arrived, along with the members for Parry Sound and Sarnia, as part of that very lively group of Conservative members elected in the campaign of 1981.

What I most remember about my friend the member for Nipissing in those early days was what a wonderful chairman he made of the standing committee on resources development, because that committee was given some very difficult and controversial legislation. As I recall, the then government’s wage restraint bills were referred to the committee for which the honourable member had responsibility.

I know my friend the member for Nickel Belt would agree that while we certainly did not agree with the policy, the member for Nipissing was an exemplary chairman. One could see that he had served as a school board chair, and he handled that delicate and difficult responsibility, I thought, in a very, very exemplary way. I remember thinking that the then member for Oxford, who was having some more difficulty next door with the standing committee on administration of justice, might have done well to have followed the good example of the member for Nipissing.

Then, of course, we all remember -- perhaps it was just those of us out in my part of the province -- that in 1985 as the leadership campaign to succeed Mr Davis began to take shape, I will tell members that I was very, very impressed by the depth of commitment that the member for Nipissing had to Frank Miller and he delivered to Frank Miller at a critical point and in a significant way. I well remember being invited by one of the networks to comment on the 1985 Tory leadership -- that was the first edition --

Interjections.

Hon Mr Conway: I am, Mr Speaker. I will tell you, if you have been through those leadership races, you know how lively they can be. I will tell you, the member for Nipissing delivered and supported Frank Miller in a very real and significant way. Of course, shortly thereafter he joined the cabinet and he became a senior minister in the Miller government. Some of the rest of that is history and I am not going to rehash all of that story, except to say that some time later in my responsibility as House leader I came to deal with the member for Nipissing as part of the House leaders’ panel.

It was there that in a way I began to deal with him on a daily basis and found him to be a man who I thought was quite effective, very much the straight shooter, serious, direct, and quite a good conciliator. He often rescued the member for Windsor-Riverside and myself from perhaps some of our lively discussions. In that context I found the member for Nipissing to be a very competent and serious member of the Legislature who I thought represented his colleagues in an admirable fashion.

Now, of course, we have him in a new role. He has joined the very distinguished tradition of Progressive Conservative Party leaders in this province; a long tradition. I simply want to say to him that we on this side look very much forward to debating with him. I was struck by how anxious he was on Saturday night to engage the debate and I have engaged my friend from Nipissing in the debate.

Over the course of the past few weeks my colleagues and I have observed his positions on such things as the universality principle and social policies. We have observed his position in respect of tenants’ rights. We have observed his position in respect of equity issues in terms of modern, multicultural Ontario. I can assure my friend the member for Nipissing that we will be very anxious to debate with him and his version of the Conservative Party of Ontario. That is a very important part of the democratic process.

I want to wish him well in his new responsibilities. I gather he had a very busy day yesterday. Looking across the aisle today it is obvious that the new order is taking shape, as it should, consequent upon a leadership convention.

I repeat again, the member for London North has shown herself to be a spirited, lively member of that caucus with a very definite point of view. Watching the news last night I had to share a private thought that the leader of the third party probably had as well, that the leadership campaign has encouraged her to a new participation in the public debate, not just within the party but within the Legislature and the province beyond.

So I want to say in a final note that those of us in public life know the tremendous commitment that party leaders make. I know how very difficult it is to wage one of these campaigns. I know the long hours of toil and of commitment. On many an occasion over the last few months I have seen the member for Nipissing and his colleague the member for London North heading out after a busy day in the assembly to meet the good people, whether they were in Sarnia, Manotick, Pembroke or Lake Nipigon. It was, I think, a great credit to their commitment to cause. I think they waged a very good campaign.

I want to congratulate my friend the member for Nipissing, and on behalf of the Liberal Party of Ontario, the Liberal caucus in the chamber, we wish him all the best in his new and important responsibilities.

Mr B. Rae: I want to just say a few words to the new leader of the Conservative Party. First of all, I am sure the leader has already discovered some of the joys of his responsibilities, having had his couple of caucus meetings already.

I just would also say that I am sure the leader has already found what I found instantaneously upon my election over eight years ago -- is it that long? How time flies when you are having such fun -- that the only job to which it can be fairly compared is that of the manager of a baseball team because, like the manager of a baseball team, literally everyone else around you knows that he can do a better job. He will find that same joy in his decision-making and in the exercise of his authority.

I could not help observing, as one does, the fact that in the time I have been in this position the member for Nipissing is the fifth Tory leader with whom I have had good personal relations. I say to him publicly as I will say to him privately, and I hope we will have an opportunity soon for a session, that regardless of partisan differences and regardless of our philosophical differences and our differences in debate, I have always found that one of the keys to one’s sanity in this place is to establish decent and good relationships with members and leaders of other parties. I have been able to do that with each one of his predecessors.

I say to the member for Nipissing, we have had some difficult moments from time to time. I can assure him that the last conversation I had with the member for Muskoka, as he then was, was difficult. Nevertheless I hope we maintained our mutual respect.

So I say to the member for Nipissing, whatever the future may hold, and as I wish him luck -- I of course do not wish him too much luck, but nevertheless a good quantity and portion -- I look forward to working with him, and all of us on this side who know a little bit about the travails of public life and about the effort and energy that was required to get him where he is today, wish him well. May all his shots be on the fairway, may he make it to the green in no more than two, and may he single-putt every time.

Mr Harris: I thank the House for the opportunity to allow people to say nice things about me. This, I am sure, will not happen every day in this Legislature or around Ontario.

Mr D. S. Cooke: Not until you retire from politics; so enjoy it.

Mr Harris: As my former colleague the House leader for the New Democratic Party -- I say “former” in the sense that we used to work as House leaders -- said, “Until you retire, this is it.” I appreciate that. I appreciate the opportunity to say a few words to my 129 friends and colleagues here in the Legislature and, indeed, those who work so hard under your auspices, Mr Speaker, to make this chamber and this Legislature work. I do not plan to take all afternoon; we have an important resolution to debate and a few questions that I want to ask as well, but I hope you will permit me to take the opportunity to say a few words and to thank a few people.

Certainly to the Minister of Education I want to say that he has been a friend. He has been a colleague. We were House leaders together. We, I think, disagreed many times. He indicated in his remarks that he had an opportunity to debate with me; that is true. We kind of sparred from time to time here in this place, in many forums. I recall, I believe, in the last election in Sudbury, where we had the opportunity to go head to head or toe to toe on a number of educational issues at that time. I thought I won that debate handily.

The people of this province may have felt that way, but that was not the reason how and why they were going to vote at that particular time. The people, as I have said, are always right.

I want to say, as well, that I have used comments that the member has made in the past in this House in my election material. I am not sure today whether there was anything there that I can use in the future, but I will screen through it carefully.

I know there were a few things I cannot use. I want to tell him we are that close that I am not ashamed at all to use his endorsement and recommendation in that great riding of Nipissing, where there are quite a few Liberals. So I thank him for that.

An hon member: A lot of former Liberals.

Mr Harris: Fewer than there used to be. The member is quite right; a lot of former Liberals.

The leader of the New Democratic Party and of the official opposition is right: we, on a lot of issues, have not agreed since he came here eight years ago and I came here nine years ago. However, I have the utmost respect for his integrity, honesty and straightforwardness on behalf of his party, on behalf of his beliefs. I even agree on many issues and on many concerns. I share, I think, in common with him -- we disagree perhaps in some areas as to how we should achieve it -- why we are here and who we represent: average Ontarians, all 9.5 million of them.

I too look forward as my predecessors have passed on to me a friendship and a relationship built on trust and on those things that unite us. If I can have that trusting relationship, as my predecessors have had, I will consider myself fortunate and I will strive for that.

Let me, as well, say to the member for Sarnia -- because, as was pointed out by some of the media, I was not in the House on that day when members paid tribute to the former leader; I was on tour and, as events on Saturday would have it, it was a good thing I was still out there on tour as well -- to the member for Sarnia, let me add my words of congratulation, as were expressed by members from all sides of the House, on his humour and humanness, on his integrity, on how hard he fought for his beliefs, for his party, for this chamber.

Surely all members would agree with me that whatever the future holds for our party, and I think obviously it is very bright, the member for Sarnia will be remembered for leading our party through a very, very difficult time. Certainly his role will never be minimized when the history of this Legislature and of my party are finally written long after we are gone.

I hope I will be permitted to say a couple of words as well about my friend, who indeed proved herself to be not only a fresh new face on the Ontario scene as she came to us two years ago as a fresh new face and captured our imagination, but in that freshness and newness demonstrated a depth of experience, talent, showed herself as a caring and compassionate person and tough, very tough, a worthy opponent but more than that, a close friend and now a confidant, now somebody who will go forward with me and will have an important role with our party, someone whose advice I personally and my caucus unanimously wish to take and rely on that experience as our party faces up to the challenges facing 9.5 million Ontarians.

So I thank the member for London North for the opportunity that she provided to our party and the choice and to me.

Mr Speaker, I know you have always been very patient on these days, and I do want to say just a few thoughts of how I feel. I am humbled. I said that on Saturday night. I am even more humbled today. Very few are given the opportunity to lead their party, and I reflected on this Saturday, Sunday and yesterday, and today as I came into this chamber. I remember back nine years ago when I first came into this chamber with such trepidation, with some fear, with some concern.

It is a long way from Callander, from Lake Nipissing, to Queen’s Park and to this chair, and I appreciate and am cognizant of the trust that has been placed in me. I do not diminish the challenge. I do not diminish the importance of that trust and I cherish it.

There were many new people who participated, my friends, on Saturday in a new and open democratic vote for the leader of our party. Somewhere in the gallery today the president of our party, Kay Wetherall, who with her team of men and women made work what many people -- some in this room, some in these chairs, some observing us -- said would not and could not work, and it worked and it worked very well and it was democratic, and I congratulate those who really did bring democracy closer to the people in a very important process, the selection of the leader of a party.

There are others in this building for the very first time who are with the president. They are indeed symbolic of that process, that so many average Ontarians participated in this true democracy for the very first time.

I want to say to the Premier, who I know is delayed and will be here very shortly, and to the leader of the New Democratic Party and to my 129 friends that I have been fortunate enough to have been given the opportunity and experiences in this Legislature to work in a number of capacities, one of those as House leader. I believe I understand this Legislature and how it works as well as any member. I want to say that members will find me very, very co-operative on the process here at Queen’s Park. Members will find me a staunch defender of parliamentary democracy and I will fight fiercely to protect it and to make it work.

My colleague the member for London North and I found as we travelled this province and over 500 communities in the past year and a half that there are many, many Ontarians -- I suggest to members, the majority -- who for one reason or another are fed up with the whole lot of us.

So I will strive in a totally non-partisan way with the members, my 129 honourable colleagues, to try to bring parliamentary democracy back closer to the people and to try to bring the people back closer to us, to bring integrity back into the system, to have our profession -- I know all the members as individuals and I know why all of them ran. They all ran for the most noble of reasons and we are here for the most noble of reasons, but they would agree with me that our profession today is not perceived that way, and I will strive for that change.

When I leave politics, whenever that is -- hopefully voluntarily -- if it can be said that I played a small role in bringing parliamentary democracy back closer to the people, I will have felt that everything that I have done is worth while.

[Applause]

Mr Harris: Members can applaud that. I think that was worth while.

There is more happening around this province than just this chamber. My tour director is at this moment completing a

schedule of community debates that I will send over to the Premier to see if he can fit into his

schedule later this week, for I believe that we must get back to talk to the people. My colleague and I have been most fortunate to have the opportunity to do that. We were astounded at how much people are thirsting for all of us to be closer to them, not just at election time, but in a consultative fashion in how we govern.

On the issues of concern to people, the members will find me quite combative. On partisan issues, I will be partisan. I believe we are elected here at the pleasure of the electorate. We are here to serve nine million Ontarians, and I do not believe it is government’s role to be all things to all people. I do not believe that and I will fight to minimize government’s intrusion into the personal lives of individual Ontarians. We must strive to provide a competitive tax climate, fair rules for all, so that all Ontarians will have an opportunity to fulfil their dreams and, if they work hard, to succeed.

We are also elected to protect and assist the minorities, the poor, the defenceless, those who need help, those less fortunate, the elderly, the sick. Why they need help, my friends, does not matter, but government is indeed elected by all to be most generous to those who need our help. I will fight for policies and programs that indeed will provide that help in a most generous fashion.

Finally, let me say this. We politicians should take our roles very seriously; however, we ought not to take ourselves nearly so seriously. My colleague and I found that out as well when we were on the road this past period of time. Under my leadership, we will fight for all Ontarians.

Friends, today my mother cannot be here. It is her 75th birthday. I want to say, “Happy birthday, mom; your pension is secure."

PATRICIA STARR INQUIRY

Mr D. S. Cooke: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: On 23 April you gave a ruling with regard to a matter that had been raised by the House leader for the third party and the implications of the Supreme Court decision coming out of the Patti Starr inquiry and the decision by the Supreme Court. In that decision you indicated that basically it was not your job to determine what the implications would be for the House or for the standing committees. It is my understanding that the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly is now looking at the matter, as you recommended in your decision.

My concern is first of all that right after your decision, the clerks of the standing committees met to determine the implications of your decision on the standing committees and their procedures for this Legislature. Then the standing committee on general government met last week to look at a referral under our new rules of the 12 hours that is a portion for opposition parties. The referral was from the member for Leeds-Grenville.

It is my understanding that in the steering committee, while the matter was being considered, advice was offered by the clerk of the committee that the Supreme Court decision should be taken into consideration and what implications it might have. Now I think that while that is not a direct intervention by the clerk in terms of the implications of the Supreme Court decision, it certainly has a substantial effect on decisions that will be made by committees and how they proceed.

I would ask you, Mr Speaker, to look into this matter and I think instruction should be given to the clerks of the committees that until the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly has reported on this matter, interventions as a result of the Supreme Court decision should not be made in our standing committees, since they and we cannot determine what the implications are. That is the purpose, as your decision indicates, of the matter being studied by the Legislative Assembly committee.

The Speaker: I do appreciate the point raised by the honourable member and, as always, I certainly will review the matter and discuss it further with him.

ORAL QUESTIONS

POLICE USE OF FIREARMS

Mr B. Rae: Mr Speaker, I should tell you from the outset that I have a question for the Premier, but I will stand it down expecting him to return before the conclusion of question period. In the absence of the Premier, I have a question to the Solicitor General.

It is now over a year and a half, indeed nearly two years, since the tragic shooting of Lester Donaldson. We have heard today of yet another tragic shooting by the police of a young man who is black. I want to ask the Solicitor General why it is that really nothing has changed with respect to the kind of investigation that is taking place, the regulations with respect to the use of force by police officers, the question of police chases and the whole field of race relations.

In terms of the detailed training of police officers, I would like to ask the Solicitor General why it would be, nearly two years after the tragic shooting of Lester Donaldson, over a year since the shooting of Wade Lawson, now with this shooting of young Mr Neal, that in terms of the obligations of the police and the obligations of this government to bring in reforms that will make a difference, they have not happened.

Hon Mr Offer: Let me first say that when there is an incident such as occurred yesterday, it is both troubling and very concerning to me and, I note, to not only all members of this Legislature but everyone in the province. I would like to inform you, Mr Speaker, and all members that in this matter, charges have been laid against the officer in question dealing with criminal negligence causing bodily harm.

Dealing with the Leader of the Opposition’s specific question, I would like to indicate that I think it is improper or certainly factually incorrect to say that this government has done nothing in this regard. I think that you, Mr Speaker, and all members of this Legislature will be the first to know that currently on the books of this Legislature is a new Police Services Act, Bill 107, the first change in the Police Act since 1949, changes which address investigating police through a special investigative unit, dealing with employment equity, dealing with a province-wide police complaint system where now there such a system is only available in Toronto.

I think that the Leader of the Opposition will also be aware that there is a great deal of work which is --

The Speaker: Thank you. Order.

Mr B. Rae: Obviously we cannot comment on the incident in detail now because charges have been laid. I understand that. But I am talking about the responsibilities of the government and the responsibilities of the Ministry of the Solicitor General.

The hard fact of the matter is that we have had commission reports and we have had task force recommendations, which do not require changes to the Police Act. The minister could move ahead with respect to the question of the use of force and send out a very clear message as to what the policy of the government of Ontario is. He could have sent that out over a year ago, after he had the very clear recommendation from the Clare Lewis task force that the rules with respect to the use of force should be changed. He could have acted several months ago. That message could have been sent very clearly from his government. Why has that not been done?

Hon Mr Offer: I think the Leader of the Opposition again is, with respect, factually incorrect. There was a very important report which was commissioned by the Lewis task force. The Race Relations and Policing Task Force came forward with 47 very important recommendations, recommendations which the Leader of the Opposition will know we have responded to and agreed to, not only in terms of the wording of those recommendations but in dealing with the direction that those recommendations went forward in.

We are moving in all of those areas. We recognize the need that many of those recommendations do require legislative framework. That legislation is currently introduced in this Legislature. We are ready to move on that. We are ready to move on the new Police Services Act, which deals with a special investigative unit, which talks to employment equity, which talks to a province-wide police complaint system. We are ready to deal with that bill. We have addressed that and we want to continue.

Mr B. Rae: I want to say to the minister that this bill can be called any time. Enough of the bamboozle. He knows perfectly well who is responsible for calling and not calling legislation; the government is. He knows perfectly well that he could have moved on many of these recommendations without having to change the law. He knows that as well. They are matters of administration. That could change now.

Specifically on the question of the use of force, the task force recommended very clearly that no member of a police force shall draw his revolver except when he believes it may be necessary for the protection of his or her life or the life of another. That recommendation has been made very clearly. What is stopping the minister from sending out a message with respect to the use of force? This cannot be allowed to continue and it is the government, by failing to state very clearly where it is going, that has led to a widespread impression that there has been much talk but it has not been followed by enough action.

Hon Mr Offer: With respect to the question from the Leader of the Opposition, we have been ready to deal with this particular piece of legislation since I made a commitment to introduce the legislation before the new year. That is what we did in fact. I said we would introduce a new Police Services Act before the new year. We did it, and when all was said and done it was the opposition that was talking on another piece of legislation that in many ways stopped us from dealing with this particular piece of legislation.

On the member’s specific question on use of force, I think he will recognize that what we are talking about is in very large part a change to the Canadian Criminal Code, subsection 25(4). He will also know that in our response to the Lewis task force report on race relations and policing, one of our responses was to petition the federal government to call upon the Attorney General of this province to call upon the federal government to make that change. We have already done that. We are waiting for the federal government to respond so that there can be a consistent approach with respect to the use of force in this province.

POLICE COMMISSION NOMINATION

Mr B. Rae: I have a question for the Premier. Last June the Premier and I had several exchanges in this House with regard to the proposed appointment of Elvio DelZotto to the Ontario Police Commission. At that time, the Premier assured me that he had looked at the files and all he had found was a letter from Mrs Starr; that apart from the letter from Mrs Starr, as far as he was concerned, there was no other correspondence or material relating to it, and that this was all there was to this particular question as to whether or not Mr DelZotto had been recommended.

It would now appear from an

article which appeared this weekend in the Globe and Mail that in fact the Attorney General of the province sent a letter to the then Solicitor General, in which he stated, “I trust that you will give this nomination every consideration when a position becomes vacant.” Those are the words of the Attorney General. Can the Premier explain why he did not tell us about this letter or why he did not know about this letter when he stated to the House that all there was was a letter from Mrs Starr?

Hon Mr Peterson: Because I did not have the letter. Presumably if there is a letter, it is in the files of the Solicitor General. That is why.

Mr B. Rae: I asked the Premier very specifically about whether he had asked the Solicitor General. We had the assurances from the Premier that were very clear that, as far as he was concerned, there were no other recommendations.

The Attorney General, if I may say so, was sitting in his seat all that time. He could, it seems to me, perhaps have searched his memory as to whether this recommendation had not crossed his desk. He did not say, “Let’s have lunch some day.” He did not say, “I am sending you this letter but it doesn’t mean anything.” He said, “I trust that you will give this nomination every consideration when a position becomes vacant.”

That is a very specific recommendation from the Attorney General of the province to the Solicitor General with respect to the appointment of Mr DelZotto to the Ontario Police Commission.

I want to ask the Premier, first of all, why was he not able to find out that the Attorney General in fact had recommended DelZotto to the police commission? Why would the Premier be telling us last year that this recommendation came from nobody inside the government, that it simply came from Mrs Starr? We now have the paper trail that tells us it came from the Attorney General himself.

Hon Mr Peterson: In fact, my honourable friend misrepresents the facts. That was a form letter, as I read it, and it was not a recommendation at all.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Final supplementary.

Mr B. Rae: Let’s have this out. First of all, the Premier says that I am misrepresenting the facts. I appreciate that comment from the Premier since it is clearly unparliamentary.

But I will say to the Premier, if he is standing in his place and saying that his Attorney General, as a matter of fact, stamps every letter that comes to him from some lobbyist outside saying that so-and-so should be on the police commission, which is a position of enormous public responsibility, and that the Attorney General thinks so little of the value of his signature that no matter who that person is, despite the fact that he was named in front of a royal commission with respect to organized crime in relation to the construction industry 12 or 13 years ago --

Interjections.

Mr B. Rae: That is a fact.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. I recognized the member for the final supplementary question. Will you place it?

Mr B. Rae: I want to ask how it is that the Premier can seriously say, when he has a letter from the Attorney General that says, “I trust that you will give this nomination every consideration when a position becomes vacant,” that this is just a form comment. That is a comment recommending Mr DelZotto for this position.

Hon Mr Peterson: With the greatest respect, the member is factually incorrect and he is getting all exercised about an appointment that was not made. It just shows how desperate he is.

Interjections.

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

Mr Harris: I thank the Premier for standing to acknowledge me and I accept that as acceptance of my challenge to tour this province and debate. I know he will say at some point in time we will be doing that.

The Speaker: The question is to whom?

TAXATION

Mr Harris: I have a question for the Premier. I read with disbelief the comments of the Treasurer in a speech yesterday to the Empire Club, I believe it was. The Treasurer acknowledged, first of all, that inflation was a major problem. He acknowledged, I believe, in that speech that he supported Mr Crow’s initiatives to control inflation. He suggested perhaps a little different timetable today, but I think that was the gist of the speech.

What the Treasurer said that really stretched the limits of my credibility, or credulity in his case, was that he actually blamed federal tax increases for the jump in inflation. I would ask the Premier if he agrees with the Treasurer that tax increases are causing this pressure on inflation that is causing the difficulty with the bank rate and interest rates and all the rest of the problems we are having. If he does, how can he possibly criticize the federal government, which has increased its taxes one half as much as the Premier and the Treasurer have right here in this province?

Hon Mr Peterson: Mr Speaker, I apologize that I missed Thursday last when the former interim leader stepped down and may I just beg your indulgence for a moment to take --

Mr Brandt: Take as much time as you want.

Hon Mr Peterson: He has a lot of time on his hands now and we are prepared to reciprocate.

May I just say to my friend the member for Sarnia that I have some understanding of the difficulties of leading a political party. I think we could share that. There are certainly three or four of us in the House who know those difficulties now, and there is another new one who is going to know it very soon, if he does not know already.

But I say to my honourable friend, I think when the history of the Conservative Party is written, it is going to owe him a great debt for the great skills he brought. I know the difficulties, as I have said. He has managed to do that by remaining a popular and trusted member of this House with colleagues on all sides. Indeed, that is a rare gift that few have.

Interjection.

Hon Mr Peterson: Certainly my friend the member for Nickel Belt does not have that and we can see the envy coming forward from his little face at the present time.

The Speaker: Now the response.

Hon Mr Peterson: The member for Sarnia really is our favourite version of the Adult Mutant Ninja Tory and I want him to know that.

To the new leader, I cannot really say I wish him well, but I can offer him my best wishes on this occasion. He has assumed great responsibilities. He has great experience in this House, and he has many friends who like and trust him, although there are many who are not going to make his job nearly as easy now as it was before. I, like others, am looking forward to engaging in that debate starting right now, after I say something nice about the member for London North.

As I regarded that leadership, being from London, members can understand there is sort of a natural affection for anyone from London, and particularly this member, whom I have known for a very long time. I watched that campaign. I know a little bit about them. I have won one and I lost one. I know of the great commitment of heart and energy. I know the great rush of adrenalin and I know also the pain of defeat as adrenalin leaves the body as well. In my view, the member has served the process and her party very well and I congratulate my friend the member for London North.

For the first day, that was really quite a ridiculous question, let me tell my friend. My friend, who is in favour of taxing food -- this man wants to have the goods and services tax -- standing his first day in the House and defending Michael Wilson and John Crow is absolutely beyond me. The member has to learn in this business. I have a little more experience. He should cut bait when he has a chance. He is going to have to defend Mr Wilson, as he is doing right now. I want him to compare this Treasurer to Mr Wilson. This man has balanced the budget twice in the last two years. We can compare them.

Mr Wilson drives up the interest rates, drives up the deficit. His excise taxes contributed almost 1% to inflation last year.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Harris: Mr Speaker, could I go back to the original question? Does the Premier agree with the Treasurer, who (

a) says tax increases are the main cause for the inflationary pressures in this country and that he supports Mr Crow’s initiatives to suppress inflation and (

b) blames the federal government, which has increased its taxes half as much as the Treasurer has?

Hon Mr Peterson: Sure. The excise taxes from the federal government have had a profound influence on this. Look at this government in Ottawa. They came in with a manufacturers’ sales tax at 8%. Members can help me out if I am wrong. They increased that by 50% to 13.5%. They called it the silent killer of jobs. There is not a lot of credibility in that. Then they are moving us on to a consumer tax which is going to be highly inflationary at a very fragile time.

I say to my friend, this government has balanced the budget two years in a row and has not contributed to inflation. It is the excise taxes of Mr Wilson that are doing so. I am sure my honourable friend or his finance critic, whoever that is, understands that. Certainly the member for Nickel Belt does.

Mr Harris: I assume the Premier does agree with the Treasurer that tax increases by a government are the main cause of the inflationary pressures. I assume, since he refuses to answer, the Premier agrees with his Treasurer’s defence of Mr Crow’s policy to try to combat this, that he has no choice if governments are going to increase taxes the way they have.

Since the Premier wants to talk federal issues, I have a little chart here. What we have here is the tax revenue in 1984-85. This is the rate of inflation if we increased our tax revenue at the rate of inflation, and this is how much the Premier and the Treasurer have increased taxation in Ontario -- twice as fast as the federal government has. I want him to realize that this, cumulatively, is $46 billion new tax revenue in excess of the rate of inflation.

The Speaker: And the question?

Mr Harris: Where does he get off talking about the federal government? We are elected by the people of Ontario. Does he agree --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Peterson: Far be it from me to give the honourable member advice, even though he is new and I think maybe I have the right. Does the member know one of the things I first learned when I became leader of Her Majesty’s loyal opposition? That was, never rely on federal research. He should build his own research department. Then he will not come into the House and embarrass himself.

What he is holding up is the graph of prosperity in this province. We lead the industrialized world. What he is holding up is two balanced budgets. Mr Wilson raises the interest rates, raises the deficit. I ask the member the member any time -- and I am happy to debate with him -- to compare the books of this province and of this Treasurer with any other government resident in this province and he will see somebody who knows what he is doing here.

The Speaker: New question, the member for Nipissing.

Mr Harris: It is $46 billion of prosperity for the Premier and his friends and the friends of the Liberal Party.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. The question is to which minister?

WASTE REDUCTION

Mr Harris: I have a new question for the Premier. The average family rips its way through about a ton of packaging a year. About 80% of it ends up in dumps or incinerators. Yesterday, the Minister of the Environment said he would be spending close to $55 million on the 3R program. So far, the minister’s plans have focused on recycling. He has effectively compromised the regulation on refillable soft drink containers to allow more waste to fuel the blue boxes.

We have seen very little from the minister and the government in the way of promoting reduction and reuse, the first two, and in my view the most important of the 3Rs. How much of the $55 million will be devoted to the reduction of excess packaging?

Hon Mr Peterson: I think the honourable Minister of the Environment can tell the member about his very ambitious programs. I know the member has missed them during the campaign.

The Speaker: It has been referred to the Minister of the Environment.

Hon Mr Bradley: I, as well, congratulate the member for Nipissing on his ascension to the position of leader of the Progressive Conservative Party and wish him well personally in his leadership of that party.

In regard to the question that he asked, the member may know that there have been considerable discussions that have taken place for a period of months over the issue of packaging and how best, on a national level, with all provinces making a contribution to it, we can in fact reduce that.

As a result, at the meeting which took place in Vancouver, after many months of discussions and a task force, which included people from the environmental community, people from the industry, people from various governments, including the provincial government of Ontario, we were in a position on that occasion to effect a national protocol which is supported by all of the provinces, which in fact calls for those kinds of reductions in such things as the packaging field.

That was, I think, hailed quite widely and objectively across the country. We expect, as a result of the team effort that we have put forward, along with the other provinces, which have adopted our goals of 25% and 50%, that we will achieve those kinds of results with which even the member will be impressed.

Mr Harris: I assume not one cent. The question was how much of the $55 million; I assume not one cent.

The minister talked about the national protocol on packaging that was signed in March in Vancouver. That, I understand, is voluntary for the first two years and it counts on industry to set the pace. It has been two months since the protocol was signed and the federal-provincial implementation committee was established. The first two years of this policy will deal only in a voluntary way with primary packaging; that is, from the manufacturer to the retailer.

It calls for the reduction, as the minister said, of 20% by 1992, while the minister is demanding municipalities reduce the same amount of garbage to landfills by 25% in the very same period. Does the minister really believe that this stick-and-carrot approach will work when everything is voluntary, when he is leaving industries on their own and when he is falling substantially behind other provinces and other jurisdictions on this continent?

Hon Mr Bradley: I think any objective observer who has looked at this would indicate that the statement of the leader of the third party is simply not correct, because virtually every other jurisdiction is looking to what we are doing in Ontario. When we won the United Nations environment program award, for instance, there were many others who hailed what the people of Ontario, not just the government of Ontario, have been doing to work on that.

The member would also recognize, through the industrial 3Rs program that we have in the province -- and the man who now leads the party is, I think, a believer in the private sector, for instance, the initiatives in the private sector -- that this government has provided funding to those who have innovative ideas, who in fact are recycling some of the material that they produce, are reducing some of the material that they produce, are reusing some of the material that they produce in terms of the industrial sector. In the industrial sector, there have been some rather substantial volumes that have been created in years gone by.

With this program that we have dedicated to this and which I think others are now observing to adopt in many other jurisdictions, we are finding the kinds of reductions that others simply are not achieving. I would expect we will certainly meet our goals.

The Speaker: The member for Nipissing may have a supplementary and want some further information.

Mr Harris: The minister says other jurisdictions are watching Ontario. They are; they are watching and they are laughing. British Columbia, Alberta and Quebec have mandatory deposit systems for non-refillable soft drink containers. In Alberta the legislation also applies to liquor and wine bottles and fruit and vegetable drink cans. In some states, sales of non-refillable glass containers are prohibited outright. They are all now ahead of Ontario and have caught up and passed this government in the last six years.

Many initiatives have been considered in state legislatures to reduce the waste from packaging. Italy is now very close to a decree on requiring all packaging and wrapping to be made of recycled fibre. Even the city of Toronto, in the absence of the government, is now planning to bring forward legislation on its own to deal with the retailers’ shelves and the percentage of non-refillable soft drink containers.

When are we going to catch up to these other jurisdictions? And how much of the $55 million is being spent on reducing the amount of garbage going into the blue boxes?

Hon Mr Bradley: The member mentions other jurisdictions. I wonder, when our ministry officials are constantly meeting with people from other jurisdictions, why they are extolling the virtues of our particular programs. For instance, we offer people in this province a choice and people are exercising that choice in great numbers in the number of products they are purchasing, which would result in reduction and reuse as well as recycling.

Our diversion goals in household waste, for instance, are unmatched in terms of the 14% diversion we are achieving at the present time and will continue to achieve and build upon. The government of Ontario itself, through the Minister of Government Services -- and I was with him when he made the announcement -- indicated that, unlike when the member’s government was in power, it is embarking upon a program through its procurement policies and through its policing of utilizing products, machines and so on which would enhance the opportunity to reduce the amount of paper we would use, for instance.

We are moving decidedly in that direction, and I would expect that many other jurisdictions are going to do the same.

But I say to the member that we constantly have people coming from abroad, even from the European Community --

The Speaker: Order.

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr R. F. Johnston: My question is of the Minister of Colleges and Universities. On 28 October, his predecessor established Vision 2000, a major review of the college system in Ontario 25 years after its establishment. The final report has been in the minister’s hands probably for as long as it has been in mine. I was impressed by some of the recommendations: to increase the general education content of the colleges; a massive change in employment equity, which puts the minister’s government to shame in terms of what it has been doing; advanced training proposals for a provincial institute; annual access and success analyses; a human resource development plan which is quite exceptional.

I was wondering how long it is going to be before the minister shares these wonderful recommendations with the general public and how long he is going to keep them all to himself.

Hon Mr Conway: Not very long at all.

Mr R. F. Johnston: I am pleased and also delighted by the short answer. There are 60 quite remarkable recommendations in this report and some of them require funding from the minister, funding for preparatory courses, for the co-ordination of adult basic education, for establishing a floor below which funding must not go and an Ontario learning for life fund, as well as the establishment of an implementation committee.

Is it the minister’s intention to support those recommendations and to establish that implementation committee as soon as possible?

Hon Mr Conway: I am very pleased to have the opportunity to spend a moment talking about the report of the Vision 2000 group that has been at work over the last number of months, quite a good collaborative group that has obviously been in touch with my friend the member for Scarborough West. I can tell him that the government is very anxious not just to look to, but to act upon, a number of recommendations coming forward, by the way, not just from this group. As he knows, the Premier’s Council on technology has been busily at work as well on human resource strategy for the 1990s and beyond.

I have to say in conclusion that the Treasurer’s commitment to our college sector over the last few years, both on operating and capital, has been exemplary. That, above and beyond all else, should encourage my friend from Scarborough West about the hope for future implementation of a number of recommendations.

TORONTO WATERFRONT

Mr Cousens: I have a question for the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Last week, I asked the minister to explain his support for the province’s proposal on Harbourfront. There is no doubt that there is a great deal that has to be done with the developers to work out a deal, and there is no doubt that our party is very supportive of opening up the waterfront so that people of the greater Toronto area and of the province can enjoy those lands.

Specifically, I asked him about concessions made to developers in order to free the south side of Queen’s Quay of the development. At that time he told us that the arrangement was simply a site-by-site exchange. Yet his own report states that in addition to a free replacement site for each of the developer’s projects, the developers would each receive free title to other parcels of land that they currently lease. In effect, they are making no payments whatsoever to Harbourfront for this public land.

Since last week we asked for the details of the agreement with those developers and have not received them, I would like to ask the minister to please tell this House the exact terms of this agreement with Huang and Danczkay, the Hawley group and Ramparts.

Hon Mr Sweeney: At the present time the agreements, as the honourable member refers to them, are in the hands of the former Treasurer of Ontario, Darcy McKeough. As the member knows, he is representing the government and meeting, either personally or through others, with the various developers who were involved in this process.

Let me reiterate that the exchange of land from the water’s edge to immediately north of Queen’s Quay was that: site-for-site exchange. Another part of the arrangement, totally another part of the arrangement, was a strong recommendation from this government to the federal government that where there were long-time lease arrangements it would be preferable if those long-time lease arrangements were bought out and a cash transfer made to Harbourfront. My understanding was that that would net Harbourfront somewhere in the neighbourhood of about $15 million, but I could be a little off on that one.

But that was not in any way a giveaway. It would be cashing it out; in other words, looking over the next 60-year period, putting a value on those leases, cashing it out and giving that cash to Harbourfront as a programming entity.

Mr Cousens: Without the deals being made public and shared with us as we hoped, and dealing with the information that the minister has given and we have read in the report, it would really appear that there is a sweetheart deal here and that the government has given the store away to try to get a deal.

Let’s turn to the costs involved in carrying out this proposal with the developers. The minister stated last week that the deal was done free of charge to any level of government, even though some were saying it could not be done for less than $100 million. How can the minister make such a claim, that the deal is free of charge, when according to Harbourfront officials the cost is actually $86 million in public lands and resources, not including the revenue that is lost from leasing fees and parking? How can the minister make these claims when the developers seem to be making out so well in this arrangement?

Hon Mr Sweeney: I think the honourable member is misunderstanding Harbourfront’s claim. What it is clearly saying is that there are now three sites on the water’s edge that would have been developed that will now not be developed. The value of those three sites, had they been developed and had that money accrued to Harbourfront, would have been in the neighbourhood of what he is speaking of. It is not money that went to anyone else. It is money that in fact is not going to be accrued. That land will remain as park land, under the jurisdiction of the city of Toronto, for all of the people of the province.

It is quite true that there are a number of other sites at Harbourfront that will not be developed that could have been developed and would have an accrued value were they developed. So it is not a case of anyone getting that money; it is a case of its not being transferred because the land is not going to be sold. That is where there is, as far as Harbourfront is concerned, a net loss to it. If members understand what that loss means, again, for the people of Ontario --

The Speaker: Order.

TEACHERS’ LABOUR DISPUTE

Mr Chiarelli: My question is directed to the Minister of Education concerning the unfortunate elementary school teachers’ strike at the Ottawa Board of Education, which has now dragged on for some 19 schooldays. I am concerned about an apparent lack of good faith on the part of some of the trustees at the OBE. Almost since the first day of this strike, my Ottawa office has received numerous telephone calls from anxious parents stating that they have been told by trustees that if they want a solution they should call their MPP or the minister. This is irresponsible buck-passing. Can the minister indicate where the real responsibility currently rests for a solution to this problem?

Hon Mr Conway: I appreciate the honourable member’s concern and, quite frankly, that of all Ottawa-Carleton area members of the Legislature. As we all know, these kinds of difficulties, particularly as they affect students, are never easy. It is my view that both parties to this dispute have it within their power to resolve this at the table. The Education Relations Commission is monitoring the situation on a daily basis.

I would like to take this opportunity to once again strongly encourage both parties to this dispute to accept their responsibilities under the collective bargaining process and under Bill 100 and to resolve this in the best interests of these students at the earliest opportunity.

Mr Chiarelli: Some of these trustees are now privately urging MPPs to prevail upon the Education Relations Commission not to deal with the question of jeopardy before the summer. This position is surprising, coming at a time when parents are feeling helpless and frustrated about the welfare of their children. Can the minister indicate for these parents the role of the Education Relations Commission on this very important matter?

Hon Mr Conway: I can tell my honourable friend that the Education Relations Commission has very clear authority and jurisdiction under Bill 100 to monitor and to assist in these kinds of disputes. Under the act, it is the exclusive responsibility of the Education Relations Commission to make a finding of jeopardy. That they have not yet done in this particular dispute at the Ottawa Board of Education. But the commission has independent authority and exclusive responsibility.

Once again, I repeat that I expect that everyone involved in this dispute would want to see this resolved in the best interests of the students concerned. It is my view that the collective bargaining process is the best process we have. I know it is not easy, I know it is sometimes difficult, but I must insist that both parties accept their responsibilities and get this resolved in the interest of those students at the earliest opportunity.

TAXATION

Mr Laughren: I have a question for the Treasurer about his amazing tax system in this province. Last week, we raised with him the example of a couple of corporations, both wealthy. In 1988, Tridel earned operating income of $66 million, distributed dividends to shareholders and paid no taxes. In 1989, Bramalea had operating income of $123 million, distributed dividends to shareholders and paid no taxes whatsoever.

At the same time that these companies were getting off so lightly, individuals in the province of Ontario were treated as follows: A single mother with two children, earning $22,000 a year, will be paying $850 in Ontario income tax, and a married couple with two children and one earner, making $22,400 a year, will be paying $850 a year in Ontario income tax.

Could the Treasurer tell us, is it possible that he is not having second thoughts about a tax system that lets off easily those people with the ability to pay while clobbering those people with the least ability to pay?

Mr Pouliot: Don’t tell us about incentives, please.

Hon R. F. Nixon: I was just going to talk to the honourable member about incentives. He is aware, of course, that our Corporations Tax Act parallels almost precisely the federal act; as a matter of fact, it automatically parallels it unless we take action in this House to do otherwise. He is suggesting an independent role of action there, and his leader has indicated on a number of occasions that we should be independent in our personal income tax policy as well. Those are things that are under consideration at all times, but my own view is that we have to understand that corporations must be encouraged to make capital commitments in this jurisdiction.

When it comes to the real estate area, there is a matter of special concern, particularly with the profits that the honourable member refers to, which are well known. They have had very profitable times and they continue investing in land, which is the basis of further development and expansion.

Mr Laughren: That does not explain at all why the Treasurer does not put in place, for example, a minimum corporate tax. It does not explain that at all.

I also want to know if the Treasurer would be having second thoughts about his own budget, in which he gave $140 million new money from the taxpayers to the corporate sector in the form of the current cost allowance. He makes the argument that that is to encourage investment, but at the same time he does that, instead of $140 million to those least able to pay, he offers them $38 million in the form of his tax reduction program. Does the Treasurer really think it is appropriate to give those who already have more ability to pay a $140-million windfall, while giving those with the least ability to pay only a $38-million windfall?

Hon R. F. Nixon: The honourable member is correct in his numbers but, I believe, incorrect in his conclusion, because the $38 million is added to a wide variety of other payments that are designed to help low-income people, including seniors, with the reduction of personal income tax payable. As a matter of fact, the cost of those tax concessions is about $1 billion, not $38 million.

At the same time, the honourable member, being a good socialist, wants to see that jobs are provided for people in all parts of this community, not just in Sudbury. I respect his view in that regard, which I strongly support. In this connection, we feel that improving -- in fact, doubling -- the current cost allowance improves our competitive position here so that capital that might otherwise be invested in other jurisdictions will be invested here for the strength of our own economy and developing jobs in Ontario.

TRANSPORTATION FOR THE DISABLED

Mrs Marland: My question is to the Minister without Portfolio responsible for disabled persons. The Ministry of Transportation recently released its fourth annual fact book on Transportation for Disabled Persons in Ontario. This book outlines basic data on special transit services offered in 70 municipalities across the province for the 1988 calendar year. Among the data is the number of unaccommodated trip requests, and that is the annual number of trip requests that cannot be accommodated at the time requested or at a reasonable alternative time on the same day due to insufficient service.

The fact book indicates that disabled persons living in Toronto were refused rides on 88,942 separate occasions. I would like to know whether the minister finds this acceptable.

Hon Ms Collins: I can tell the member that improving transportation for disabled people in this province is a top priority for this government, and I think that has been shown on a number of occasions, especially in past budgets. In fact, in 1988-89 the province provided $24 million in subsidies for specialized transit systems across the province. There has also been an expansion in the eligibility criteria for use of specialized transit, which will cost the province $5.2 million by year 5 of implementation and will benefit over 22,000 new riders in the province.

Mrs Marland: l am sure this minister must be aware of the difficulties encountered by a disabled person when it comes to public transit. Rides have to be booked days in advance. Disabled persons are forced to plan their activities around the available rides, rather than having services provided to meet their needs. Now we find out that these persons have their requests for rides refused on a regular basis -- 88,942 times in Toronto for the year 1988. The final question is, what is the minister going to do to ensure that disabled persons in Ontario get the transportation services they need when and where they need them?

TRUCK IDENTIFICATION

Mr Tatham: My question is for the Minister of Transportation. My question is on trucks and trailers on Ontario highways and the identification thereof. What type of identification do they need, signing on trucks and trailers?

Hon Mr Wrye: The honourable member would know that all vehicles, whether they are trucks or others, must have as their primary form of identification a licence plate which must be plainly visible and in sight. I understand the honourable member’s concern is that this has not always been the case, but that is certainly the primary method of identification. In addition, though, higher vehicles and vehicles over a certain weight, about 8,200 kilograms, must have the name and address of the owner printed on each side of the vehicle; again that should be plainly visible.

As well, there is additional identification needed for those vehicles which are transporting goods under the Dangerous Goods Transportation Act. So all are in place, depending on the kind of vehicle, but the main identification is plate identification.

Mr Tatham: If they are not identified, what action should be taken?

Hon Mr Wrye: If they are not identified, if there is no plate identification or indeed other identification as required under a series of acts, charges can be laid. Indeed, the police are on the highway more rigorously enforcing the law than ever before. The honourable member will know that our colleague the Solicitor General has recently hired more than 100 additional Ontario Provincial Police officers to control our roads, particularly the 400 series of highways.

As these matters are brought to their attention, either on the highway or at the various inspection stations, which the honourable member would know are open at various times on the 400 series of highways, charges under the Highway Traffic Act can follow.

RENT REVIEW

Mr D. S. Cooke: I have a question to the Minister of Housing. Tenants at 96 and 166 Jameson here in Toronto faced a rent increase in 1989 of 35% and in 1990 of another 50%, for a total, when compounded, of 103% on their rent. Most of the rent increase is due to renovations, renovations the tenants do not agree with. They have been given the notice that is now required under the minister’s regulations, but the fact of the matter is it has had absolutely no impact as to what the landlord intends to do. Their rents will still be going up by 103%.

An example of a rent increase is from $437.60 per month to $886.50 per month for a two-bedroom. When is the minister going to come to the realization that unless he takes real action to change the Liberal rent review law, we are going to be losing the little affordable rental housing we now have in Ontario?

Hon Mr Sweeney: As the honourable member knows, the changes in the regulations have been in effect for a relatively short period of time. We are beginning to get feedback that they are making a difference. No one indicated that it was going to be the sole answer. As a matter of fact, I indicated clearly that I would be monitoring them for at least 12 months to see what the impact would be.

I would point out to my honourable friend, as I am sure he well knows, that what in fact landlords ask for is not necessarily what they get. As a matter of fact, in the last three or four months something like about 2,000 landlords who have made applications got either 50% less than what they asked for or 25% less than what they asked for. I do not know what the situation is going to be in this particular case, but I expect that the new regulations will have an impact.

Mr D. S. Cooke: We have also raised cases in the House where a certain amount of increase has been asked by a landlord and the minister’s rent review commission comes down and gives him 75% and 80% more than he has asked for. That is how his rent review system works.

The tenants in these buildings today have gone to court because they have given up on any hope that the minister might come in and try to protect tenants of this province. Is that his solution for protection of our affordable rental housing in this province, that tenants like the people at 221 Balliol Street are going to have to spend tens of thousands of dollars on legal fees in order to protect their rent and affordable housing because the minister has just sold out to the landlords and the developers of this province? Is that what the tenants are going to have to do in this province?

Hon Mr Sweeney: I would suggest to the honourable member that this is not exactly the way the situation is out there. In fact, as I have indicated to him before, something like 83% of the tenants in this province get rent increases that are at the guideline; the roughly 17% who in fact go to rent review get increases on average that are about 10.5%. I have a list of requests here indicating what in fact was asked for: 46%, received 9%; 21%, received 4%; 25%, received 4%; 14%, received 7%; 195%, received 11%. The list goes on and on and on.

I think there are just as many cases where in fact in the final analysis the tenants get a much lower increase than what their landlords asked for, and I think the new regulation is going to make a significant impact on that whole process.

CHICKEN INDUSTRY

Mr Villeneuve: I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture and Food. Earlier this month he assured this House that the consumers and restaurateurs of this province would have an adequate supply of chicken over the summer. The record now shows that he did not say where this chicken would be coming from. Will the minister today tell this House what he has done in recent weeks to ensure that Ontario producers will indeed be supplying the chicken required by Ontario consumers?

Hon Mr Ramsay: I am glad to be asked by the honourable member where the chickens will be coming from. Not only do I have to promise that we will have chickens, but now I have to identify the place of origin of these chickens. At this particular moment I cannot do that, but I would like to tell the member and the other members of the House that we are working diligently, day by day, on this issue. Since I last spoke to the member, I have met twice with the board and the processors. We have a meeting planned in Ottawa on 28 May with our counterparts in Quebec to talk about this situation.

Believe me, we take this as the most urgent situation and challenge to supply management and we are on top of it.

Mr Villeneuve: I am glad to know that the minister is concerned, because we do have producers with lots of room and lots of capacity in their operation, we have very cheap grain here in Ontario that we cannot get rid of, and yet we do not have enough chicken to supply the market and the demand. Quebec processors right now are laughing all the way to the bank by supplying us with Quebec chicken.

Does the minister still stand by his promise to boost Ontario’s production and, if he does, how will he do it? He has had the negotiations. How is he going to proceed?

Hon Mr Ramsay: I think I should make it clear for the House that what the honourable member is speaking of, of course, is the Canadian Chicken Marketing Agency in Ottawa that allocates quota and it has allocated quota in a historical allocation that gives Ontario approximately 34.5% of that quota and Quebec 31.5% of that quota. We in Ontario feel that Ontario should have more production here because this is where the consumers are and this is where the processors are.

But we are quite willing, as good Canadians, to work with our confreres in the other provinces -- I am meeting with them on Monday -- and on Friday of this week I will be bringing this matter personally to Mr Mazankowski as he comes to Toronto for an agricultural ministers’ meeting.

TEXTILE INDUSTRY

Mr Owen: I have a question for the Treasurer. The apparel industry in this province is an important one and employs approximately 35,000 people. Bane, in my riding, is the site of one of these industries, Caulfeild.

Two years ago, the federal government stated that the tariffs on textiles were too high in this country, that they were undermining the competitiveness of the apparel industry in forcing the consumer to pay more for the final product. It has introduced a plan to spread the tariff reduction over 10 years, but that seems to be having the effect of negating any possibility of reducing the consumer price and at the same time is leading to serious problems of maintaining these plants in our province. Is the Treasurer aware of this problem and is there anything that can be done to possibly negate the effect this is having on this important sector of our economy?

Hon R. F. Nixon: I certainly am aware of the problem and I congratulate the honourable member on bringing this important matter to the attention of the House. To tell the truth, the same situation prevails in my constituency, where the apparel manufacturing business has actually largely disappeared as a result of the inadequacies of the federal policy.

Mr Owen: The apparel industry here in Ontario finds itself faced with the free trade agreement and its consequences and the changes by way of the rules of GATT and the multi-fibre arrangement. It is one of the few manufacturing industries that will feel the full impact of the pending goods and services tax, since clothing was previously exempt from federal sales tax. In other words, this particular industry is getting the full crush of all sorts of negative programs and policies from the federal government.

Can the provincial government try to get across to the federal government the effect that its policies are going to have on this particular industry and the potential loss of jobs in this particular plant in the city of Barrie?

Hon R. F. Nixon: The industry, of course, has the benefit of the rather progressive, enlightened and in some respects generous policies of the government of Ontario. The honourable member is in a position to bring those to the attention of his constituents.

But I would think that the honourable member’s question would lead a number of members of the House to contact people at the federal level, particularly the members of the third party in the Legislature, to see if for once the federal initiative might be directed towards protecting our industries instead of allowing their high interest rate policy and the relatively high value of the Canadian dollar to drive them further and further into an economic difficulty which they may find it almost impossible to survive.

LIQUOR LICENCE REVENUES

Mr Farnan: My question is to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. As a minister interested and knowledgeable about the affairs of his ministry, could he please give this House an approximation of the amount of additional revenue that his ministry --

An hon member: He is not there.

Mr Farnan: My apologies, Mr Speaker. I note that the minister is not present at this time. I would refer it to the Treasurer.

Could the Treasurer give this House an estimate of the approximate revenues from increased liquor licence fees during this budget year?

Hon R. F. Nixon: I would be glad to get that information for the honourable member.

Mr Farnan: As a result of regulation 376/89, Peter Tsiokos, the proprietor of Scallion restaurant in Cambridge, has had his liquor licence fee increased 550%, from $80 for a two-year period to $450. We must question these types of extraordinary increases imposed not in the budget but by regulation. How can the Treasurer justify such increases, which invariably must be passed on to the consumer? It is an underhanded tax increase and puts the lie to the Treasurer’s claim of no tax increases except for tobacco.

Hon R. F. Nixon: The honourable member, as I understand it, is referring to a licence increase which is related to the ability to make a profit. I have not attended the Scallion restaurant, but I can understand that under some circumstances, the restaurant industry and the hospitality industry are suffering from substantial pressure. I am aware of that. I will certainly get the information that the honourable member has requested and see that it is sent to him directly.

Interjections.

The Speaker: I have already added three and a half minutes to the question period.

Interjections.

The Speaker: If the honourable member can place his question in one second, that is fine.

TEACHERS’ LABOUR DISPUTE

Mr Sterling: Would the Minister of Education tell me what he is doing to get the kids back to school in Ottawa?

Hon Mr Conway: I would refer my honourable friend from Manotick to the answer previously provided to my colleague the member for Ottawa West.

REPORT BY COMMITTEE

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

Mr Sterling from the standing committee on government agencies presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Report on the Ontario Food Terminal Board.

The Speaker: Does the member wish to make a brief statement?

Mr Sterling: Yes, Mr Speaker. It is slightly longer than my question.

This is a report from the standing committee on government agencies dealing with the Ontario Food Terminal Board. The report comprises two parts: the recommendations of the committee plus an attached piece of legislation. I believe this is an important step in the evolution of the powers of the committees of this Legislature.

As members may recall, back in 1988 the member for Waterloo introduced

An Act to amend the Legislative Assembly Act which dealt with the serving of papers on members of this Legislature. In spite of that being a private member’s bill, it was called by the government for third and final reading. This is the second piece of legislation that has been introduced by the chairman of the committee, me, on behalf of a committee. It is hoped that the government will treat this kind of legislation in a different manner than it normally treats private members’ legislation.

The report recommends the abolition of the monopoly given to the Ontario Food Terminal Board to determine if any competitors should be allowed to operate in York and Peel counties and therefore that sections 12 and 13 of that act be repealed. This recommendation was made in a report by the standing committee on procedural affairs in 1979 and also by the standing committee on government agencies in 1988. This committee feels it is high time that this action now be taken in the form of legislation. Therefore, later today I will be introducing a bill which will follow the instructions given to me by the committee in this report.

On motion by Mr Sterling, the debate was adjourned.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

HUMAN RESOURCES PROFESSIONALS ASSOCIATION OF ONTARIO ACT, 1990

Mrs Cunningham moved first reading of Bill Pr70,

An Act respecting the Human Resources Professionals Association of Ontario.

Motion agreed to.

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT, 1990

Mrs Cunningham moved first reading of Bill 166,

An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mrs Cunningham: The purpose of the bill is to amend the Highway Traffic Act to require helmets to be worn by bicyclists and by children being carried as passengers on bicycles. The bill would also require that a child being carried on a bicycle be carried in an approved child carrier device. I will be speaking to this important issue at the appropriate time.

ONTARIO FOOD TERMINAL AMENDMENT ACT, 1990

Mr Sterling moved first reading of Bill 167.

An Act to amend the Ontario Food Terminal Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr Sterling: As I said formerly, in the standing orders today, when we were talking a bout reports of the committee, I am introducing this bill on behalf of the standing committee on government agencies, which gave unanimous consent to the contents of the bill.

The bill takes out sections 12 and 13 of the Ontario Food Terminal Act. It thereby takes away the monopoly that one group of individuals -- that board -- has in controlling all the wholesale food terminals in York and Peel counties.

I would hope that the government would give this third and final reading and give me the opportunity also to debate it on second reading.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

OPPOSITION DAY / JOUR RESERVÉ À L’OPPOSITION

Mr Allen: May I have consent, in the absence of Mr Rae, to move the motion that stands in his name on behalf of our party?

The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?

Agreed to.

Mr Allen, on behalf of Mr Rae, moved opposition day motion 3:

That, in the opinion of this House, the Legislative Assembly of Ontario recognizes and affirms that:

this House supports the French Language Services Act;

in the context of our shared belief that linguistic duality is a fundamental characteristic of our country, takes pride in the fact that access for the French-speaking minority in Ontario to the courts, education, public broadcasting, proceedings of the Legislature and provincial services in designated areas has been a shared commitment of different political parties and governments over many years;

M. Allen, au nom de M. Rae, propose la motion n o 3 relative au jour de l’opposition.

Que, de l’avis de cette Chambre, l’Assemblée législative reconnaît et affirme que:

lors de ses audiences publiques qu’il tiendra après la session parlementaire du printemps, le comité spécial sur la constitution devrait inviter les Ontariennes et les Ontariens ainsi que les autres intéressés à venir exprimer leurs opinions sur les questions touchant les relations entre anglophones et francophones en Ontario, y compris dans le domaine des services et de l’éducation.

The Speaker: In the absence of Mr Rae, Mr Allen has moved the motion which you have just heard. I would remind all members that debate will take place for the balance of this sitting. The time will be divided equally among all three parties, and at 5:55 I will ask the House to make a decision on this matter.

Mr Allen: I rise with considerable pride in the place of my leader to introduce the debate in the House this afternoon on this resolution. I will be making a few remarks of introduction and a number of other members of our party who want to take part will be participating in the debate as the afternoon proceeds.

So, as a party, we have wanted to do a few things in this debate this afternoon. We wanted, in the first place, to give the House an opportunity to affirm the legislation which has recently provided a compendium and a set of regulations and guidelines for the provision of French-language services in Ontario.

We have, second, wanted to affirm, and to give this Legislature an opportunity to affirm, the linguistic dualism that rests at the base of our country’s existence, and to express our pride as a party in the role that we have played and the role this Legislature has played, through all three parties in this House, in the creation of a growing network of services for the French community in this province.

We have wanted also to provide the House with an opportunity to say, once more, to those who have misunderstood, to those municipalities who have passed resolutions under mistaken impressions or perhaps under other motives, that not only has it not been the intention of this Legislature, not only has it not been the intention of the legislation, but it has not been the content of anything said or done in this House or the content of legislation to require French-language services by municipalities on any basis other than that they make their own decision to provide those services in that way.

It is important for us always to emphasize that with all the diversity and the multiculturalism that has come to characterize our country and in spite of the fact, which we recognize, that this continent was inhabited first by aboriginal peoples to whom we have not yet done justice, it is important to recognize that the structures of this nation which provide for the diversity and opportunity of expression from so many groups rests fundamentally upon the first agreements made in the 1770s in this country that this would be a country that recognized two cultures, recognizeD two languages as the basis of the rest and what we have had in the future constitutionally in this nation has grown out of that recognition.

So this province has taken its own affairs in hand in the course of these last few years, these last 22 years since Mr Robarts in the Confederation of Tomorrow conference proposed a task force which then brought forward certain recommendations for the beginnings of a major network of French-language services.

One could spend some time reviewing each of the steps along the way from 1968 forward in which in one area after another, whether in the courts, whether in the domain of education, whether in the provision of social services, whether in the operation of government departments and whether in the arts, this province has developed slowly but surely under a succession of administrations a network of services which begin to look respectable for the francophone community.

We are beginning to approximate and that is the important thing to note. But we want also to insist that just as the federal government, when it established a bilingual regime in the federal civil service and for the country, did not force the hands of the provinces but opened up opportunities for them to provide services, and I repeat, did not force the hand of provinces to provide a bilingual regime in their provinces. in the same way, this provincial Legislature did not intend and has not the intention to force the hands of municipalities.

That is another level of government which has its own proper dictates and its own proper authority and its own proper base in democratic election and in democratic procedure. Therefore, it is only proper that they come to their own decisions. This Legislature stands ready to help them in terms of whatever those decisions would be.

The New Democratic Party at every step along the way has been very proud to play a leading role in the proposals it has put forward in this Legislature in order to provide that network of services and to give a status of appropriate respect and standing to the French community in Ontario.

Our objective, in closing, is quite simply that we desire that all communities that make up this province live with a proper sense of self-respect and with the power to develop and expand their cultural life. For us, as I said at the beginning, all that diversity of intention and generosity rests upon the principle of dualism, which was the foundation stone of this country as it began building itself in the late years of the 18th century.

Again, I move this motion and I look forward to the rest of the debate in the House this afternoon.

Mr Villeneuve: Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity of participating in this very important debate this afternoon.

It is a bit déjà vu, as far as I am concerned, because on 2 April there was a very similar motion that came to the floor of this Legislature. For whatever reason, the official opposition and the government did not see fit to support that particular legislation. It was brought forward by our party, and I want to put it on the record just so that everyone realizes that we may have some repetition this afternoon, but I am told that we will have a change of opinion on behalf of both the official opposition and the government.

The former debate and the former motion came from the then leader of the Progressive Conservative Party, the interim leader, my friend and colleague the member for Sarnia. It read as follows:

“That, in the opinion of this House, while reaffirming its support for the provision of French-language services where numbers warrant, while confirming that the French Language Services Act, 1986, was not intended to apply to municipalities, recognizes the elevated tensions and misunderstandings which have developed over language issues throughout this province, and therefore calls upon the government of Ontario to establish, as soon as possible, an all-party committee of the Legislature to travel across the province to receive public input on the administrative guidelines, regulations and implementation of the French Language Services Act, 1986.”

That was debated on 2 April. What we have today is a motion to bring a number of things together, including the mixing of the language problem here in the province of Ontario with some constitutional reforms. This constitutional committee was originally set up in 1987. The constitutional committee has been in place ever since then, was mandated to look into the Meech Lake accord and is presently looking into Senate reform. There is nothing wrong with that.

However, the bringing in of this particular motion and broadening, I guess, the mandate of the constitutional committee tends to bring in all sorts of mixed signals. I will give you some examples, Mr Speaker, because it concerns me very much. I am afraid there are some political games being played.

Mr Kerrio: Yes, but are there?

Mr Villeneuve: I am afraid there are. The member for Niagara Falls says, “Are there?” I am here to tell him that there are. I would not think he is so naïve as to think that our initial resolution did not bring forth this resolution, and I believe we have a government that is now saying: “Boy, we told the people we are open and, all of a sudden, we voted against democracy. We voted against having input into the situation.”

I believe their cousins over here in the official opposition saw the same thing, so they said, “Well, you know, the Tories brought in a good resolution here and, all of a sudden, I believe maybe we should. We have some remorse. Our conscience is now bothering us, so how do we get out of this? How do we get the monkey off the Premier’s back on this one? We’ll get someone to bring it forth and bring it to an existing committee of the Legislature, the select committee on constitutional and intergovernmental affairs.”

When you talk of the constitutional committee it brings forth thoughts of what is happening in our sister province in Quebec. I am not any happier than most of the people in this Legislature about Bill 101 and about Bill 78, but do you know what it is going to do, Mr Speaker? It is all going to precipitate this into this very debate. I do not like the sign language law in Quebec any more than most people here in Ontario. I do not like it at all. Bill 101 has some very severe limitations, but bringing this to a constitutional committee says, “Boy, we involve all of this.”

I represent a riding along the Ontario-Quebec border. We have individuals who are very unhappy with the way the laws apply to residents of Ontario attempting to work in the province of Quebec, and vice versa, where the residents of the province of Quebec come into Ontario and they are able to work. I have, on a number of occasions, brought this to the attention of the legislative assembly of the province of Quebec. They tell me it has to do with unions and they have 17 regions in the province of Quebec where one union cannot cross those artificial boundaries. Of course, Ontario becomes the 18th so-called region where the people who work, the workers, cannot cross. Try to explain that.

But bringing this particular matter to a constitutional committee brings all of those things into play and it is rather sad. Presently, the constitutional committee studying Senate reform has a lot of items it must address in that particular area. I will bring forth a few examples that I had right in my riding. I also wrote a letter to the Premier, away back in October 1987, requesting that a specific committee, in 1987, be set up to look into the implementation of Bill 8 because at that time there was a lot of misunderstanding. The government had not done a good job in setting forth exactly what was going to be happening as the implementation of Bill 8 unfolded.

That particular position has just been allocated to a gentleman who I think is very worthy, but under the old system he may not have qualified. Glen Slater is now the new agricultural representative in Glengarry county. I believe it is very important that this requirement was changed because Glen Slater may not have qualified under the former requirements for bilinguals.

It is interesting that we have only eight Liberal members, eight government members, sitting in the Legislature today in a very important debate, a debate that I believe will be historic, because they may well be setting up a mandated committee, a constitutional committee that will indeed look into what I was asking for more than three years ago. The problem is they are doing it after having turned down our request and having some feelings of remorse. It is somewhat deceiving to the public when these things occur. It leaves one wondering just where the government is.

If I would have brought to this committee, which existed back in January and February 1990 when we had the problem with advertising for a bilingual agricultural representative -- that committee was in place but it was not mandated to do this, so I had to look for someone who had some authority. I had to look for someone who was going to be able to tell the Premier, “This is not right and this is not fair.” I was fortunate to be able to find someone.

Je me fais un plaisir de participer aux débats, mais je trouve la situation très compliquée en autant que nous avons une résolution ici du Nouveau Parti démocratique qui est pratiquement identique à celle que nous avons proposée à l'Assemblée législative le 2 avril et qui a été refusée, non seulement par le gouvernement mais aussi par les néo-démocrates.

Le comité en question, le Comité spécial sur la constitution, existait à ce moment-là. Le Comité aurait pu avoir un mandat il y a déjà longtemps pour jeter un coup d’oeil sur la mise en oeuvre du projet de loi 8, aurait pu corriger nombre de choses qui ont créé des situations où les municipalités se sont déclarées unilingues anglaises. C’est dommage. Le dommage est pratiquement déjà fait, mais par contre un comité pourrait le corriger.

Le problème avec le Comité est que c’est un comité sur la constitution, un comité constitutionnel qui va mélanger l’accord du Lac Meech, la réforme du sénat et les problèmes qui se passent au Québec. ça va emmener la chose complètement à une situation de polarisation entre francophones et anglophones, et je vous assure, Monsieur le Président, que c’est la dernière chose dont nous avons besoin.

Alors, pour résumer, ça me fait plaisir de participer mais, par contre, je vois avec difficulté pouvoir appuyer telle résolution quand la même résolution aurait pu être débattue par les députés de l’Assemblée législative il y a déjà trois ans.

Alors, pour terminer, nous avions déjà le comité en place, comité qui n’avait pas le mandat de faire autre chose que d’étudier la réforme constitutionnelle.

In closing, I appreciate the fact that someone has had some remorse here. Someone has decided that, “Yes, we had better, before we go to the electorate, correct the fact that there was no public input into this very important factor of providing minority language services which we support.” It is always nice to see some people having some remorse. However, I believe the confusion that will follow will be more negative than positive.

It is interesting to look at those two minority groups and compare them, for example, socially. The anglophones in Quebec, in terms of income, are typically above the average for the province. In terms of unemployment, they are typically below the average in the province. In terms of education, just to give one example, they are 30% more likely to go to college or university than the French-speaking citizens of the province of Quebec.

What are the equivalent measures here in Ontario? Typically, the income of our francophone population, the 500,000 French-speaking citizens we have, is below the average for the province. Typically, they have above-average unemployment. I saw a figure recently that suggested they had double the illiteracy of the general population of the province of Ontario and, generally speaking, there are more of our Franco-Ontarians supported by the social assistance programs than the average for the province as a whole.

Here we are in the richest province of Confederation, in the province which takes pride in its role in Confederation, and I wonder if we can be proud of the difference between our 500,000 francophones and the 700,000 anglophones in the province of Quebec. When I saw these differences, I wondered what sort of support the two minorities were receiving, the anglophones in Quebec and the francophones here in Ontario.

That brings me to Bill 8 which is one of the topics addressed by the resolution today. Bill 8, as you know, Mr Speaker, provides access to services in French to Franco-Ontarians. What does this bill, which has caused a certain amount of controversy in various parts of the province, really provide? As I said, it is access to services in French for our French-speaking fellow Ontarians.

These services are available not everywhere, but where at least 10 per cent -- that is 10 out of every 100 -- of the people in the region have French as their first language. So in these areas where numbers warrant, citizens can obtain services in their own language, one of the two national languages of Canada, from the government of Ontario. This is also available in localities where there is a minimum concentration of at least 5,000 French-speaking citizens.

It seems to me that for the greatest province in Canada, with the largest minority of francophone citizens, this is a modest gesture that we are making towards our fellow Ontarians, 83% of whom, by the way, live in such regions, that is to say, regions with more than 10% francophones or a concentration of more than 5,000.

Here we have a bill which apparently costs in the order of $15 million or $20 million a year. As you know, Mr Speaker, in this province $10 million a year is roughly $1 per head per year. So for this bill which provides services to our French-speaking compatriots here in Ontario and allows us to give a signal to the rest of Canada that Ontario is prepared to play a lead in Confederation, the cost of this bill is literally a few dollars per person per year.

For that we address the needs of 500,000 people in Ontario who are generally below average by many of the measures that we use, and we show that the province of Ontario believes in Confederation and believes in the dual-language nature of Canada.

There are some who say that one of the concerns with Bill 8 is loss of jobs by the anglophone community. In Ontario, as a result of this bill, we are looking at 7% of the positions in the provincial service which will be bilingual -- bilingual, not francophone. We have at this point in time, preparing to take such jobs with the children of our francophone Ontarian friends, over 100,000 anglophone children in French immersion schools in the province of Ontario today to take the 7%. Is 7% of the jobs in our public service for 5% of the population which is francophone too much?

I feel that Ontario, which has the largest French-speaking population outside the province of Quebec, has a duty to protect the language rights of its French-speaking minority community. I believe that by providing provincial government services in French we are doing the right thing in the spirit of generosity, fairness and accommodation that has always characterized this province and its role in Confederation.

Monsieur le Président, en tant que député de la circonscription de Peterborough, c’était un plaisir de vous parler aujourd’hui. Je suis fier de dire que je suis pour la Loi 8 et pour cette résolution.

I will be voting in favour of the resolution.

Mr Laughren: I am very pleased to take pan in this debate this afternoon. I consider it to be one of those debates that will be regarded as a milestone in this Parliament and perhaps in other parliaments as well.

I do not like starting off the debate on somewhat of a sour note, but I am appalled at the fact that the Premier is not here this afternoon. We named the Premier as the minister to whom this resolution was directed, and it was another example, if I could be blunt about it, of his appalling lack of leadership on this issue. I think that the least he could have done was to have been here this afternoon.

I am also surprised at the member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry in his comment that he is going to be voting against this resolution. He used as one of his arguments that it is almost the same as the one that his party had a month or so ago. If it is almost the same as the one they had a month or so ago, I fail to understand why he and his colleagues would not now be supporting this resolution. The difference between that resolution and this one is that this one is somewhat broader in its application.

There has been much to-do about the provision of government services in the French language in Ontario. We know that the francophone community constitutes about 5% of the population, but of course in communities such as the one I represent, north and west of Sudbury, it is much higher than that. My own constituency must have about 30% to 35% francophones in the population.

Bill 8, which has caused a lot of the furore, was passed in November 1986 and was given a three-year phase-in period so people could get used to it and to allow the provincial institutions to adapt to its requirements. It was passed unanimously back in 1986 so one does wonder why this resolution is necessary this afternoon, but I feel very strongly that indeed it is absolutely necessary.

The opening sentence in our resolution states that “this House supports the French Language Services Act,” and since the House supported the bill unanimously in 1986, I was hoping that we would get unanimous support for this resolution this afternoon. It appears now that will not be the case, and I regret that very much.

It seems to me that we need to remind ourselves and others from time to time that we are consistent and firm in our defence of certain basic principles, and that is how I view Bill 8. One of those principles is the recognition that linguistic duality is a fundamental characteristic of this country and of this province. Ontario has a proud history of this recognition and, quite frankly, all three political parties have played a major and a positive role in reaching out to our francophone citizens, and that surely is as it should be.

On a personal note, I was born in Quebec. I was raised and educated in Ontario, and I have worked in Saskatchewan, British Columbia, Manitoba and now, of course, here in Ontario. I have always felt that there were a couple of characteristics about this country that set us apart and gave us a unique identity in the North American context. Those two characteristics, for me at least, are our linguistic duality and our generosity as a people. Our linguistic duality cannot be denied. Quebec is primarily a French-speaking province, in contrast to all the other provinces.

Our generosity, I believe, can be questioned but surely not categorically denied. We have pioneered, in North America, medicare. We have both the non-contributory old age pension and the contributory Canada pension plan. We believe in a social safety net to protect not only ourselves as individuals but our fellow citizens who may not be as fortunate as we. I believe that Ontario, as Canada’s most affluent province, must show the way both in protecting the rights of our linguistic minority and in our generosity to all citizens.

As legislators, all we can do is provide the leadership, and we simply must lead in the demand for both more tolerance and understanding. We must lead our lives as public people so that we become not lightning-rods but beacons of hope for those who desperately want to simply retain and promote their heritage.

In conclusion, the last part of the resolution calls for the establishment of a select committee on the Constitution. Contrary to what the member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry said, I believe that aspect is a terribly important part of this resolution. One of the complaints I get from my constituents -- and, quite frankly, where I live is, from time to time, a hotbed of the French-language dispute on the provision of services to the French-language community -- is the appearance that this bill was put in place in the dead of night. It is not true, of course.

It was passed in 1986 and had a three-year phase-in period, but I will say this: There has been a lack of leadership on the part of the government to get information out to the municipalities and to the public at large. I think that low-bridging strategy was a mistake and I hope that has sunk in to the minister and to the Premier, although the absence of the Premier does not speak well to my concerns this afternoon.

I think it is terribly important that we have an all-party committee, that the all-party committee will travel the province, that the all-party committee will invite people so that there will be a balanced presentation to the committee and both sides of the issue will be heard. If people do not want this committee to travel and hold public hearings, I would ask them why. Why do we not want this committee to travel and hear representation from the people of the different parts of Ontario who are concerned about not just Bill 8 but the provision of education services as well?

I would ask my friends in the Conservative caucus to reconsider, because I think it is ill-advised on their part to vote against a resolution that simply reaffirms what we have already affirmed back three years ago, almost four years ago, and not only affirmed it but then said, “We feel so good about it we want to take this across the province” -- not just Bill 8, because I think that is too narrow, but also the provision of social services and education to our French-speaking citizens in the province.

I feel very strongly that this is the proper route to go, and I look forward to as many -- I really was hoping that all members of this assembly, in the spirit of the way in which the resolution was intended, would demonstrate to all of Ontario that we are concerned about the divisiveness that has occurred in some of our communities and that our job as legislators is to heal those rifts and get on with building and improving upon what I think has been a generous province.

Mrs Cunningham: I would like to bring to this debate this afternoon some of the experiences of citizens across Ontario as I have heard them in the last few weeks and months. We do, in fact, have an issue in our province, one that we are not all proud of. That is the confusion around what French-language services in the province of Ontario really mean.

I would like to have this opportunity to tell members what they mean for myself and for the Conservative Party of Ontario. We believe very strongly in the extension of French-language services in this province where numbers warrant; we believe in an implementation that is fair, that is handled carefully, and we believe in programs that are not only needed but are warranted because the public