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

May 7, 1992

35th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

The House met at 1005.

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

SCHOOL BOARDS AND TEACHERS COLLECTIVE NEGOTIATIONS AMENDMENT ACT, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LA NÉGOCIATION COLLECTIVE ENTRE CONSEILS SCOLAIRES ET ENSEIGNANTS

Mr McGuinty moved second reading of Bill 14,

An Act to amend the School Boards and Teachers Collective Negotiations Act / Loi modifiant la

Loi sur la négociation collective entre conseils scolaires et enseignants.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Pursuant to standing order 94(c), the honourable member has 10 minutes for his presentation.

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Ottawa South): I look forward to the debate I hope will begin this morning and take place over perhaps the coming years so that we can address a problem I feel is very real. I will consider it an accomplishment if I can convey to the members the seriousness and extent of the problem which faces our students and hence all of Ontario.

Let me first say that I intend to spend a significant amount of time this morning describing the problem and less time describing my proposed solution. In 1975 this Legislature passed the School Boards and Teachers Collective Negotiations Act. The situation at the time was that there was no legislation governing negotiations between teachers and trustees, so that bargaining then was taking place in something of a vacuum, and the relationship between the trustees and the teachers was in a very bad way. The purpose of the legislation was to bring some order to this confusion and lay down some ground rules for collective bargaining.

Essentially, the legislation took great pains to address the concerns of trustees and teachers. Hence it gave them some very powerful bargaining tools, the traditional tools available in the collective negotiations sanctions; that is, the right to strike was given to the teachers and the right to lock teachers out was given to the boards. But effectively the right that was given was the right to bring classes to a halt in order to exert pressure on the other party.

It's my feeling that although the legislation may have addressed the rights of teachers and boards, it really failed to adequately address the rights of students, particularly their right to attend school. I believe the act is deficient in three ways.

First, there is no limit at present on the length of time the parties can negotiate. Hence we have today's situations where we have settlements today that are retroactive to September 1991. So we have negotiations that have been going on for 16 months. I have spoken to a number of people who are more expert in these matters than I am, and they tell me that in these kinds of negotiations more time is not better negotiating time. There's perhaps something to be said for the United Auto Workers approach, which says, "If we don't have a contract, we will not work." It's effectively a "high noon" provision. I'm not advocating that specifically, but I think there's something to be said for it.

The second thing the act does not do is place restrictions as to when a strike may occur. As a result, most of the strikes or lockouts take place in the spring; that is, February, March and April. The reason, of course, we do that is the same reason the National Hockey League went out on strike just before the playoffs: because you exert more pressure. In the case of students, obviously they're more sensitive to lost school time. That is a natural and realistic outcropping of the existing legislation.

Also, in terms of another limitation in the existing legislation, there's no fixed maximum duration for strikes or lockouts. The Education Relations Commission, a body created under the existing legislation, makes a determination as to when a school year is in jeopardy, and as a result there is some authority available to determine when a strike or a lockout has gone on for too long. But I want to recount to you some statistics, which I think you'll find interesting, that were supplied to me by the Education Relations Commission. I'm thankful to Mr Doug Saunders for his assistance in this regard.

Although the raw data have been there, I'm not sure many people were aware that anybody had compiled it and put it all together.

Since the academic year 1975-76 to 1991, but not including this year, there have been some 56 strikes. During those 56 strikes we have held out of class 789,675 students and we have held them out for a total of 1,331 days, which is about seven school years. On average, we evict our students out of class for 24 days every year, the longest strike being about 56 days. In terms of an important statistic, we evict 50,000 -- in fact, it's 49,354 -- students every year for a strike and we evict them for one calendar month; in fact, a little more than one calendar month.

The Education Relations Commission, of course, plays a role in all this, but what it has done is that it has made the determination that a student's year is in jeopardy only eight times. It has made this determination, on average, when they've been out of school for some 40 days, which works out to two calendar months. That's 40 school days. I think the important point is that under the existing legislation in Ontario, 50,000 students are evicted from class for over one month every year.

There have been lots of changes since 1975 -- that's the date the legislation came into place -- and I'm sure I don't have to recount all of them. The Berlin Wall has come down, the Russian republic is no more, the European Community has formed an economic union, Japan has displaced the US as the world's economic leader, we have an NDP government; significant changes have taken place. But I think most importantly we have come under the ever-increasing influence of the outside world.

Our economy has got to be viewed as part of a larger global economy. Our competitors are now the world over, no longer in other provinces or merely in the US. We recognize that we've had a significant devaluation of our natural resources. We are no longer hewers of wood and drawers of water. We can't make it that way any more, and we truly understand that our greatest natural resource, as I say, is not under out feet: It's between our ears. Hence, we understand that our education system now has to be measured in terms of international standards and not merely by Canadian standards.

I want to quote something the Economic Council of Canada recently said about our education, in its report just released, I think, within the last month. In the matter of literacy and numeracy they tell us that "28% of those between 16 and 24 are below the everyday reading level and 44% failed to meet the requirements for functional numeracy." What they are saying is that 28% can't understand a comparatively simple newspaper

article and 44% can't perform the calculations needed to add up a restaurant bill or a mail order form.

It goes on to say that in science and mathematics, in an international test of 14 industrialized countries, Canada placed significantly below average, and Ontario, out of all the provinces, in terms of science and math came last. It goes on to say that we are now covering only half of the math curriculum that we tested for in the early 1980s. I think it's fair to say we've got a problem.

Of course, in 1975 we didn't really address the issue of how we were competing against the Japanese and how we were competing against the Germans. That wasn't a major factor. As I say, times have changed, and now I think we have a responsibility to ensure that we reflect society's strengthened conviction of the importance of education, and I think this demands that we place limits on the amount of time our students can be forced out of school.

My bill does not extend the school year; it merely places limits on the number of days our students can be, as I say, evicted from the classroom, and I say they cannot be held out of school for longer than 20 school days. That's about the equivalent of a calendar month.

It also goes on to say that it places restrictions on what part of the school year we can hold them outside the class. My bill says that no strike or lockout can begin after October 31, again reflecting the fact that students are more sensitive to lost class time in the latter part of a year.

I also make the process governing the negotiations at the present time more settlement-directed, and I require that the fact-finder's recommendation, an impartial third party's recommendation, be voted upon by the union members -- there's now no obligation that they do so -- and I impose the same obligation on the trustees: There's now no obligation on them to vote on this, so I require them to vote.

To reflect the importance that society gives to educating our students, I say you only have to pass it by 40%. If 40% adopt the recommendation, then that will be deemed to be that party's position. I didn't come up with that number out of thin air. I got that from Ohio, and I understand that is a provision that's in other American states.

I look forward to hearing from my colleagues on this matter and responding to some of them.

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): We in this party would like to thank the member for Ottawa South for bringing this issue to the floor of the Legislature. It's an issue that is of great concern to parents and students, and I'm sure teachers and school boards across Ontario.

There have been many who have looked for solutions to the problems of teachers' strikes and work to rule. In the big picture, one should understand that Bill 100 is long overdue for review.

I should point out to the members of this assembly this morning that some of us did sit on a committee of this Legislature recently. The standing committee on public accounts did make its report within the last year, and one of the recommendations was taken very seriously and was under considerable debate. One understands that the majority of the members of this committee are government members. I'll read the recommendation:

"The current localized bargaining system for teachers shall be the subject of a Ministry of Education review. This process has raised concerns among trustees, administrators and the Ministry of Education."

This was a recommendation of the committee within the last year. I think it's the duty of this government to seriously consider that, given the environment we have been working under, especially in the last few months.

I believe my colleague Norm Sterling did bring some legislation before the House. It wasn't considered seriously by the government, but it would have stopped the strikes and the work to rule in Ottawa-Carleton. So there was an opportunity to move forward with that legislation within the last few weeks.

I would like to say that we've talked, as have I in my position as critic for our party, to the school boards and to the Board of Education for the City of London, and we have had some good advice on this particular piece of legislation, Bill 4.

With regard to the areas the member is trying to address, first of all, as we take a look at the student advocate, there are questions in our minds. Who will it be? How much will it cost? What background would this person have to have? With regard to the minimum contract term, where it is stated in the bill that the term cannot be less than two years, the boards are advising us they do need the flexibility to negotiate one-, two- or three-year contracts. So that is something we would have to consider.

The chairman of the Board of Education for the City of London believes teachers should be legislated back to work, and now the minister is saying he almost had to legislate the Ottawa teachers back to work, which is a very weak statement, I feel, on behalf of this government, given that the students are ending their school year right now and ought to be in class.

We witness here the Metropolitan Separate School Board, which has been out on strike, in my opinion -- work to rule is a form of strike -- since some time in February or March. Those young people have missed some of the most important opportunities in education, that is, their extracurricular activities, which are all part of the responsibilities of teachers and school boards in order to provide them with the kind of training and opportunities that were available to their parents and ought to be available in these times to them, probably more than ever.

The fact-finder recommendation: the report to be voted on on that issue. The explanatory notes state -- and I speak to my colleague -- that if at least two fifths of them vote in support of the terms of settlement recommended in the fact-finder's report, the report becomes binding on the teachers for the purpose of making or renewing a collective agreement.

On both sides, whether we're talking about the interests of the teachers or the school boards -- which of course should be common but aren't always during these processes -- I would have to say that one would be looking for a majority of the vote, especially with regard to the trustees who have been elected to represent the tax-paying public in that regard.

The students' right to minimal class disruption: The bill states that teachers may not begin a strike and boards may not lock out teachers after October 31. Within the existing legislation, final offer selection is mandatory after 20 school days are lost. Personally, I would take a look at that one. I think that's far too long.

Again, if one is still prepared in this province to give the teachers the right to strike, one has to understand what goes with that. You can't tell them when and for how long they can strike unless, in my view, the students are in jeopardy of losing their school year. I feel, then, that we are looking to the government for some leadership. It should be stepping in, especially right now in the Carleton Board of Education.

With regard to the students themselves, I don't think there's a member in this House who doesn't recognize that students have a right to an education. That's why I'm so keen to have Bill 100 revisited. Since 1975 we have had an opportunity to take a look at the success of that piece of legislation. I think there have been many successes, but we also have the responsibility to take a look at how that legislation can be improved. It's something I personally have been involved in and asked for since I've been here in the last four years.

I'm somewhat encouraged that the majority of the members on that particular standing committee on public accounts agreed with us that this ought to be something the government takes a look at, certainly within this term of office. I encourage them to get that high on their agenda.

With regard to the precedent-setting of strikes in the province of Ontario, there are those who would argue that we haven't had a lot of strikes in this jurisdiction compared to other jurisdictions, either in Canada or the United States. I don't feel we should be afraid to take a look at improvements, but I think the bottom line for all of us is affording students the opportunity to be educated. At this point, I don't think very many of us are particularly proud of the strikes going on in Ontario right now.

We look to the leadership of both the teachers and the school board trustees to solve those, but because we are now in the middle of the month of May we ought to be looking to the government to step in.

There's no doubt in my mind that young people are in jeopardy not only of losing their school year but of losing confidence in the system. We're setting up a model that we shouldn't be setting up as adults and certainly not as elected representatives.

At this point I would like to refer to an

article written in a magazine called Education Today. Those of us interested in education and who have been for a long time will know that one of the true experts with regard to this legislation -- I have to date myself and say I was part of the negotiations around Bill 100 from the school board trustees' point of view in London, Ontario. At that time, we had the pleasure and certainly the honour of working with Bruce Stewart, who has continued to be an expert. He's from the law firm Hicks, Morley, Hamilton, Stewart and Storie. He wrote a very interesting

article that I would refer to all of you for information. He states:

"The November 1990 Provincial Auditor's report states that the ministry has not yet dealt with the recommendations of the 1984 Macdonald commission and observes that trustees and board administrators 'have expressed concerns with the present localized collective bargaining system.'"

So we know, with his expertise, that there are concerns. We've had the recommendation since 1984 and I urge this government to get on with it.

Under the heading "Does the Negotiation System Work Efficiently?" he states in this article: "Certainly the perception of many participants in the process is that it does not. I have never experienced a labour relations environment where negotiations were so time-consuming, protracted and ultimately exhausting."

We have to take these observations coming from the Ontario expert seriously. For the sake of our young people, our students and certainly in the interest of my colleague the member for Ottawa South, who had the courage to bring forth an opportunity for this debate, we've got to move on with this.

He goes on to say, "One can fairly conclude that the system is not working efficiently when 70% to 80% of contracts are not resolved by contract expiry." There's no other field of collective bargaining where we would have 70% to 80% of contracts not concluded by the expiration date. We're talking here about children and education.

"Behind the cold statistic of unresolved disputes there are the dynamics of acrimony: teachers without a contract, the partisan rhetoric of media releases, the barrage of righteousness at fact-finding hearings; and gossip and discord in staff rooms and boardrooms. Invariably, the effects seep into the classroom, disrupting the educational environment.

"In my view, improvements in the present system must be centred on certain structural flaws in the legislation," and with respect to the bill today that's exactly what the member for Ottawa South has attempted to do.

I could go on and talk about pressures for settlement. I could talk about the teacher unions with regard to the aspect that compulsory fact-finding may obstruct the settlement. I could go on within this

article and talk about work to rule and specific structural changes required. In fact, I end by saying this:

"Perhaps Bill 100 should be revised to require teacher joint bargaining by elementary and secondary branch affiliates at a board. It may be possible to devise a form of two-tier bargaining whereby at one level the two branch affiliates could pursue common benefit and salary interests, and at a separate level each branch affiliate could pursue other issues singular to it.

"In any event, I suspect this problem will become more visible in the next round of bargaining." This was a year ago. "Boards should now start assessing how significant the problem is and what mechanism should be constructed to deal with it."

On that note, I've raised even more issues that must be dealt with. I conclude that although the member in fact has brought this to the floor of the House and has made an effort, his bill should be considered along with a total review of the old Bill 100 and we should get on with making the collective bargaining process more efficient in Ontario.

Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): I always appreciate the measured comments of the member for London North, because she has a vast knowledge of education and the educational field.

I think, however, the salient question about the bill we're looking at this morning is whether or not this bill contributes to the solution to the problem. I would indicate that very clearly it does not. In fact, this bill would aggravate the collective bargaining process by tipping the balance of power in a draconian, undemocratic way into the hands of the trustees.

When we talk about this bill, I think we need to take a look at what it actually does. There seems to be a lot of skating around the issue of this bill by the member for Ottawa South by injecting a lot of information which -- while important and which as legislators we should be cognizant of; that is, the problems that exist in the education system -- is not relevant to whether there are strikes or not.

What is wrong in the system -- and I am a firsthand participant in that process -- is that there are built-in problems in the collective bargaining process, as the member for London North has indicated. Saying that 60% of the teachers are irresponsible or that 60% of the teachers don't know what they're doing or that 60% of the teachers who vote on these contracts are incompetent or that 60% of the teachers do not care about what is happening and that a small élite is the only group of people within the teaching profession who care is indeed an insult.

I take it personally as an insult, as I have spent 15 years in the education system, participated in the collective bargaining process and been on strike, albeit only for one day.

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): Why didn't you stay there and teach?

Mr Wiseman: In keeping with the totally undemocratic nature of this is the heckling that is coming from the member from the Tory party, who is not in his chair.

What is interesting about this bill and why I do not support it is that under the fundamental principles of democratic choice it has always been maintained that on a clear question of yes or no, the majority rules. In this House, 40% of these members do not pass a bill; it is 50% plus one. What this bill says is that only the élite, only a small group of people in our society are able to make decisions in a competent, responsible way.

I would like to talk a little bit about that, because 15 years in the teaching profession has really brought to me how much teachers agonize and take care when it comes to their students. They wouldn't be there if they didn't have great care and concern for their students. This is demonstrated by the long hours teachers voluntarily put into coaching teams, intramural sports, clubs, recreational activities, environmental clubs, astronomy clubs, field trips and all the activities they do after school and on weekends with their students.

To come along today and say, by this bill, that 60% of those people are incompetent, irresponsible and not concerned about their students is an insult to every teacher in this province. It harks back to a day when the élite ruled, when it was okay, for example, in Britain in the 19th century that only a small part of the population was even allowed to vote. It harks back to the day when it was said that women were not persons and therefore should not participate in the democratic process, and that's within this century.

It harks back to the day when they said democracy was only for that small group of people who are part of the aristocracy of wealth or the aristocracy of whatever methods they wanted to use to determine who should rule.

If you're saying now that 40% of the population is good enough to make the decisions, then in what other areas do you start bringing in that rule? Do you bring it in here to this legislative body? Do you bring it in to all the other negotiating processes? Do you attribute it to all the other unions and all the other votes? Do you put it to the board of directors at corporations that minority rules? Where do you end when you start to erode the democratic principles of equity and fairness.

I say to the member that what you're doing with this bill is telling the teachers and educators of this province that they are not worthy, and I reject that categorically.

He also indicates that he doesn't understand the process, and indeed he does not. There are things that can be done to make the process much better in terms of collective bargaining. For example, why does it always take so long to get a contract on the table from the trustees? In the 17 years that I followed negotiations in Durham region, it was only on maybe two or three occasions that we had a contract on the table before the expiration of the contract currently in force, and it took 12, 14 or 16 months to get a contract that both parties could sit down and take a look at.

Therefore, it's important we look at what can happen. Changes need to be made. The books of the boards of education should be open to all parties, including the taxpayers who happen to pay all the bills. There should be early tabling of contracts and statements of interest earned on money. This is the biggest bone of contention. One of the reasons contracts take so long is because interest earned on the money that is retroactive is not paid to the teachers; it stays in the coffers of the boards and becomes part of their capital. There is therefore no incentive for them to settle in a reasonable amount of time.

I'm going to wrap up. When you talk about the 20 days, some boards will say that and build it into the negotiations process. They'll say, "We'll take the $20 million or so that we can save on negotiations and use that as a ploy against bargaining in fairness." It is because contracts are open and teachers enter into it in good faith and do not take going on strike easily that they will negotiate and negotiate fairly. But if you take away those rights and tilt it in favour of the boards, then you will have greater chaos, greater problems and greater dysfunctioning of the system than you have today.

Mr John Sola (Mississauga East): I'd like to begin by congratulating the member for Ottawa South for a bill that is both timely and puts the focus where it belongs, on the students. I think the two strikes in Ottawa and the work-to-rule campaign in Toronto have focused attention on these matters at this time.

First, let's look at the present system. How does it work and what does it do? It gives rights to teachers' unions and it gives rights to boards of education, but what about the students? Who protects their rights? Who expresses their concerns? Under the present system, nobody. I do believe that at the beginning of negotiations both sides keep the interests of students in mind. However, as a strike is protracted and as the negotiations lengthen, animosities develop. The struggle becomes institutional, union versus board, and after becoming institutional it becomes personal. At this stage the student gets forgotten.

I want to refer to an

article from the Ottawa Citizen which quotes a teacher in the recent strike as saying the following: "The teachers are the unimportant people at the board. I'm just a number in the school system, and that's the way I'm going to behave in future." I think that says a lot about what the present system does. What about the students? They've just missed 23 days of school. Don't they need extra help? If he's to be taken at his word, no. He's just a number. He's going to act like a number and not like a teacher.

In another article, the Ottawa Citizen goes on to say, "Months from now, the Education Relations Commission will quietly arrange an intensive workshop session to help OBE teachers and trustees work through the acrimony caused by the strike."

Let me repeat that. Teachers and trustees will work through the acrimony caused by the strike. Once again an important word is missing: students. What about the students? How many will have dropped out? How many will have failed their year? Who will soothe the disruption in their lives and the threat to the future? Do you still think the present system works?

Let's look at it another way. According to research done by my colleague the member for Ottawa South, as of August 31, 1991, strikes and lockouts have affected over 789,000 students. That's 1,331 days of instruction lost. This works out in my calculations to over one billion student-days lost due to strikes and lockouts since 1975 -- one billion student days lost, and that's not including this year. This is mind-boggling. Do you still think this system works? Perhaps that is why Ontario students don't measure up to university entrance standards.

How many Japanese students could afford to lose six weeks of school and perform? Aren't their superior results due to longer school days and longer school years, which means more instruction, not less, as well as more stringent curricula? Let's give our students a chance and support this bill.

This bill would establish students' interest advocates to represent students at negotiations during a strike or a lockout. It would limit the duration of strikes to 20 days. It would limit strikes to early in the school year, when students have the greatest chance of making up for lost time. It would up the minimum term of agreements from one to two years. Most important, it would give each teacher the right to vote on the terms of the settlement rather than merely ratifying terms signed by the union.

This would enable them to use their personal judgement, which I think would, in the main, place the interests of the students first, ahead of even their own. Isn't this why they chose this profession?

Recalling my own days at school, I remember my teachers in the separate system working for 20% less than their counterparts in the public system because of their dedication and deep commitment to their students and their calling. I believe the same ethic prevailed in the public system. I believe that many, if not most, of the present-day teachers are just as dedicated. The present system prevents them from demonstrating this. As Jim Coyle of the Ottawa Citizen so aptly puts it, "This bill gives students the right to attend classes." Let's all support it.

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): I'm pleased to rise and speak for just a couple of moments on the member for Ottawa South's Bill 14 today. I want to say from the outset that although I very much appreciate what the member for Ottawa South is trying to do, I find that the bill is riddled with a number of flaws and therefore in the final analysis I won't be supporting it.

I would say as a quasi-positive comment that I do understand the provision of the bill which would in effect prohibit strikes when students are most vulnerable. Particularly, we've seen a real trend of strikes in February, March and April by teachers, at a critical time in the school year where certainly the situation arises where the students' school year and obtaining of credits could be jeopardized. We've seen, I think, a disturbing trend.

I know the bill tries to deal with that issue, and while half of me is supportive of that thrust, the other half says that you really can't have it both ways. You either believe in the right to strike and the collective bargaining process or you don't. Really, I don't think a bill that attempts to have it both ways, although it is trying, I suppose, to strike a balance, would really be acceptable to the teachers. On the other hand, I don't think it would be really acceptable to the school boards.

Second, I just want to talk about fact-finders in the bill and our experience with them. The bill says that if negotiations break down, a fact-finder is appointed whose recommendations for settlement are binding.

Section 5 of Bill 14 states that a fact-finder's report is to be voted on by school teachers and trustees. If approval is received by two fifths of each membership, then the report is binding.

I contacted my local public school board, the Simcoe county public school board, and the chairman there, Richard Boswell, says that the fact-finders will not prove to be helpful to school boards. I just wanted to put that on the record. He points out that two-fifths approval does not even represent a majority.

Fact-finder reports often lose sight of fiscal reality and recommend outrageous settlements. A recent Toronto Star

article of March 30 documents exactly this, and I'll just quote it. It says:

"In one report this January, the fact-finder highlighted the rationale for restraint, referred to Premier Bob Rae's television address advocating restraint and noted that a wage increase of 6.1% or anything close to it was completely out of the question.

"The fact-finder, by adjusting the timing of increases, then recommended an increase which would raise the teachers' salaries by 4% by the end of the school year."

This report came out in January, when it was clear that inflation was coming in at 1.6% and that the government's transfer payments to school boards would be 1%.

I think I also want to point out here that arbitrators have proved to be rather costly too. We've seen recommendations between 4% and 7% over one year and 12% over two years.

At approximately the same time as this fact-finder's report in January, I just want to point out that Leeds-Grenville and Lanark also had a fiscally irresponsible increase come in at 6.1%.

I don't think the bill really tackles these issues, and there are a number of other issues for the time I don't have, but I would just point out that I appreciate the thrust but will not be supporting it.

Mr Drummond White (Durham Centre): I wish to commend the member for Ottawa South for his bill, and I'm sure the situation in his area, in the Ottawa-Carleton region, deserves the concerted attention of all the involved parties and a great deal of goodwill. I can well understand the concern the member has for the quick resolution of those difficulties. Students, parents, trustees, administrators and teachers are all crying out for a resolution of an impasse that none could have wished.

When I worked as a family therapist, virtually all the families who consulted with me had reached an impasse in their family lives. They were blocked and needed assistance in going beyond their traditional ways of handling problems. They wanted me to provide them with solutions that would help them transcend those difficulties, those impasses. Often their pain and the threats to their previously healthy and joyous lives would tempt me to offer them simplistic solutions, a magic potion that would return them to health.

Sometimes, when these situations occur, it's easy to reduce the dynamics to a quick win-lose solution. It's tempting to find a simple solution wherein the answer descends from heaven like a deus ex machina. The rendering of divine justice from a towering height would indeed seem a welcome prospect.

Teachers, students and trustees are all involved in a system where they hold some common values as a group. They all want to preserve the values of education and the development of schools to become the best they can be.

At the same time there's always some tension, as in any family and any social system. When they reach an impasse, the system seems to threaten to burst apart at the seams. The parties start to blame each other. Some students become angry with the administration. They feel betrayed by their teachers. Teachers can feel they are misunderstood by the community and that they are dealing with intractable administrators. Trustees and administrators can feel they are dealing with competing and irreconcilable interests. The conflicts and differences between them become the defining characteristics as far as the other groups are concerned.

These healthy and vital groups come to see each other as antagonists. How can they return to a spirit of cooperation and partnership? Does it happen easily after a solution has been imposed upon them from above by a mechanism that all parties are not in agreement with? No. Most emphatically no.

We've seen the results of back-to-work legislation. After such legislation, the bitter feelings engendered by the impasse continue and even worsen. When the next negotiations occur there's been no healing and the same level of conflict recurs, and again like the deus ex machina the provincial government is called upon to enact back-to-work legislation.

The history of collective negotiation exemplifies this. Bill 100 was enacted some 17 years ago by the Progressive Conservative government at the time. One would say they were progressive when they brought in the act, but they soon resorted to conservative back-to-work legislation to resolve the impasses that emerged. This only produced another form of impasse. Boards didn't have to settle, as they could rely on Big Brother to help out. Later, when back-to-work legislation wasn't regularly and automatically used, teachers' strikes became shorter and less frequent. The parties were able to gather to resolve their difficulties.

This is not back-to-work legislation -- I certainly acknowledge that -- and yet in some very clear ways it is very much like it. It is a heavy-handed and, I would suggest, lastingly ineffective solution. I am sure my friend does not want to have the earlier Tory errors repeated in his community. It would create more problems by far than it would solve.

I might offer a temporary solution -- anyone could; those problems in my friend's regions are, I'm sure, very vexing -- but, like back-to-work legislation, it will only be a temporary solution whose shortcomings will cripple its effectiveness. As long as this mechanism is not owned by the parties involved, its results will be despised and disowned by them.

As a family therapist, I understood that families need to develop their own tools, their own mechanisms for the resolution of their difficulties. If those disadvantaged families could learn how to solve the problems they consulted me about, if they learned how to resolve other difficulties, other impasses in their lives, they left the therapeutic process with much.

Teachers and school boards are sophisticated and caring groups. Their problems with process should very seldom be resolved from on high. They need that help from on high much less than most of the families I worked with. How demeaning that would be for these sophisticated, caring, resourceful people.

I've worked with some of the least-skilled families in my community, families that traditionally resort to violence and power to resolve problems. With that backup of violence, solutions inevitably came with stultifying simplicity. Children growing up with violence learn to be violent and in turn pass on their violence to their children and their community. Imposing a process without the consent of the parties involved is surely as poor a solution to the vicissitudes of conflict resolution as imposing a solution itself.

I'm wearing a button that says, "Without consent it's sexual assault." Equally here, without consent to a mechanism it's an assault, an assault upon the dignity and the goodwill there on all parts.

As a family therapist I learned that I had to resist the temptation to provide from on high instant and obvious solutions to family problems, both to the problems and to the process. Anything so simple was well within the grasp of the families I worked with. What they needed was to find the tools to resolve their own problems, to overcome their own impasses. Similarly, we must resist the temptations here.

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): I rise in support of my colleague Dalton McGuinty, the member for Ottawa South, and also in support of his bill, which seeks to amend the School Boards and Teachers Collective Negotiations Act and provide reasonable grounds for protecting the students when there is a strike or lockout.

What exactly will this legislation do? Equally as important, what will it not do? First, let me dispel any suggestion that this legislation is an exercise in teacher-bashing. Teachers perform one of the most valuable services and functions in our society: the education of our children. This legislation seeks not to limit teachers' rights but rather to ensure that their rights are in tandem with the rights of the children, the students. I believe an awful lot of teachers out there would believe this is a laudable goal.

Let me also repudiate the notion that this bill is meant to impinge on the authority of school boards. Just as we recognize the rights of teachers, we also recognize the difficult task our school boards face when they're trying to meet the competing demands and impossible combination of taxpayer fiscal demands, teachers' negotiations and concern for the student.

This bill seeks neither to destroy teachers' powers nor to severely limit the mandate of the boards. In both cases nothing could be further from the truth.

Now that we've talked about what this bill is not, let's talk about what this bill is. This bill provides a vehicle to ensure that the student is the first priority of both the negotiating parties in the collective bargaining process. The legislation proposed by the member for Ottawa South will help ensure that the student does not end up as a pawn caught between two powerful players as they negotiate with what appears to be the most expendable item on the chess board -- that's right, the student.

So much for the theory. What does this bill actually do? First, it limits the time the parties have to negotiate, so that contracts can no longer drag on and on. I think all members of this Legislature would agree that we should try to avoid the situation which now exists, where teachers can be two years without a contract.

Second, it will impose some restrictions on when a strike or lockout can occur. As the member for Ottawa South has mentioned, the spring is a popular time to strike because it creates a very real pressure to end the strike quickly so that students can complete their year. Unfortunately, this is the time of year when students are most vulnerable, because unless the strike does settle quickly there will not be sufficient time for the students to recover and save their year. Also, according to Bill 14, any strike or lockout must commence no later than October 31. This would give the students sufficient time to recover from any strike and complete their year.

Third, the duration of the strike would be limited to 20 days. This too is an added protection to ensure that the students' academic progress is not in jeopardy. That's a weakness in the current act that Bill 14 seeks to remedy. At present we don't have much in the way of criteria or definition of what actually constitutes jeopardy. It is left to the sole discretion of the Education Relations Commission to determine when the student is in jeopardy. After having survived the 1987 Toronto strike, I can tell you that there is not unanimous agreement among parents, students, teachers and the Education Relations Commission as to when jeopardy occurs.

The fourth thing Bill 14 will do is compel the education relations commissioner to appoint an impartial third-party fact-finder, who must recommend terms of settlement. Then the teachers must vote on the recommendations and the board must vote. In each case, if 40% vote in favour, the report is binding on that party. I believe the member for Durham West said he could not vote for this legislation because that was not a majority. I say to him, do not let that keep you from supporting this bill. We can hash out in committee what is a reasonable time, and many of us probably feel that a majority is a reasonable figure to work with.

There's one final important provision I'd like to touch on: the appointment of a students' interest advocate. The students' interest advocate would be present at each negotiation so that he or she could represent to the parties the impact the strike will have on the students. It is true that the students' interest advocate cannot vote. It is also true that the advocate cannot interfere or comment on the matters in dispute. What the students' interest advocate can be is a constant reminder to the parties that the stakes are much higher than money, higher than benefits or higher than saving face. The real stake is the future of our young people.

Mr Speaker, I say to you and to the honourable members of this House: Let us have the courage to face this controversial issue and once and for all act in the best interests of our children.

This bill will not solve all the problems facing the educational community. We must also deal with curriculum changes and look at innovative solutions such as year-round education. The bill isn't perfect, but at least it starts the discussion. Let us have the courage to open up the debate. I think we, as members, cannot do less.

I commend the member for Ottawa South for his initiative, and also for his courage and for his caring of the children of this province.

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I too commend the member for Ottawa South, but I would like to say to the House that I will not be supporting the bill. I think there are many creative suggestions in here. Particularly the focus on the students is commendable. I also agree with the previous speaker that the member has opened a necessary debate.

The reason I won't be supporting the bill is that I have had a fair bit of experience with this. I was the chairman of a fairly major school board before the right to strike was available to teachers and the only recourse they had then was something called work to rule. I found that a very limiting sanction that I think everyone in the education system found wanting. I very much have supported the right to strike for teachers.

My problem with the bill is really that I don't think it will be effective in resolving the conflict between boards and their teachers, for a couple of reasons. First, my problem is that once you set a deadline on how long a strike can run, one side or the other, I'm afraid, determines it may be in its best interests to let that time run out and then the strike is over. Similarly, my concern with a date at which time the contract must be resolved, that is, October 31: The challenge there is that one side or the other determines it's in its best interests to let the clock run until that date arrives and then the dispute is over.

So as supportive as I am of many of the intentions in my colleague's bill, and as much as I appreciate the new approach he has taken, my concern is that this will not be helpful in the resolution of disputes between boards and teachers and may in fact exacerbate the problem. We need not stop on finding a better solution, but I cannot support this particular solution as outlined in the proposed bill.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): The honourable member for Ottawa South may want to complete the debate.

Mr McGuinty: I want to extend a special thanks to all members on all sides of the House who made a contribution to this debate. It's my sincere hope that we will come to some kind of grasp of the extent of the problem that faces us. I've counted 58 students facing me in the viewers' gallery today. What we are doing under the present system is taking 50,000 of our students every year and closing the school doors on them. It is my distinct impression that it is not in the public interest for this province to hold 50,000 of our students outside class as a result of a dispute between other parties.

In case people confuse the perspective from which I speak, I want to make it perfectly clear that I don't speak today on behalf of the students, I don't speak today on behalf of teachers and neither do I speak on behalf of trustees or parents. I hope I am speaking on behalf of the public interest. It is my feeling that the public interest demands that we address this problem, that we address this system which has, on average, 50,000 of our students held outside their classrooms every year for over a month.

It is my impression that while those kinds of casualties may have been acceptable before, they are no longer acceptable. As a member of the opposition, there are severe limitations of course in terms of how I can advance this cause, but it is my hope that the members of the government, those who have the privilege and honour of bringing forth legislation which stands a much greater chance of making it through and becoming law, will take up the challenge and come forward with their own creative solutions to a very significant problem.

Some of the things I did not touch on were other problems associated with students who are kept out of school. Today there are fewer and fewer families where one of the parents is at home. Both are out working. What we have is a situation where many of the students are at home on their own. I haven't been able to gather the statistics in this regard, but it's my impression -- I think it's a safe assumption -- to say that more of those students are going to get into trouble.

I have also learned from speaking with teachers and board trustees that not every student who is affected by a strike or lockout returns to school when the school is reopened. That is an issue we have to address.

I don't think there's anybody in this House who would not argue that our future, the future of this province, lies in our youth. Surely we have every responsibility to address a problem whereby we are keeping our students out of school.

The Acting Speaker: This motion will be dealt with at the end of the second private members' hour, which is beginning now.

ACID GAS EMISSION CONTROL

Mr Cousens moved resolution 4:

That, in the opinion of this House, since each of the four major sulphur dioxide sources in Ontario reported in November 1989 to the standing committee on general government that they would meet or surpass the emission reductions required for 1994 by the Countdown Acid Rain program, and since the committee subsequently recommended that the Ministry of the Environment should "vigorously" plan for the post-1994 stage of acid gas emission control with respect to the four major polluters, and since the four major polluters only account for 80% of Ontario's sulphur dioxide emissions, therefore the Ontario government's Countdown Acid Rain program should be extended beyond 1994 and expanded to include the other 20% of emitters, and this government should introduce new regulations under the Environmental Protection Act that will:

1. Establish specific emission limits and schedules for each of the four major acid gas emission sources (Ontario Hydro, Inco Ltd, Falconbridge and Algoma Steel) for the period 1995-2005, and

2. Establish specific emission limits and schedules for all other emitters of sulphur dioxide and nitric oxide.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Mr Cousens moves private member's resolution 4. The honourable member for Markham has 10 minutes in which to open up debate, at which time all recognized parties will have 15 minutes to participate. The honourable member for Markham will then have two minutes to sum up.

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): This is an important issue that we have an opportunity to review for at least the next hour. When one looks at the environmental concerns that make up the whole issue the Minister of the Environment and all of us are concerned about, there are really four subjects. We're dealing with land and the resolution of landfill problems and contaminated soils. We're dealing with water and what we can do to make sure our waterways are clean and pure.

We're dealing with air and what we can do to make sure the air we breathe and the air we have is as clean as possible, and fourth, all the regulatory and legal establishment around the Ministry of the Environment to make sure the Planning Act, the Municipal Act and those other acts that are part of the development of this province have an environmental emphasis. So primarily we're dealing with air, water and land.

My resolution this morning allows us to look at what we can do to deal with what is still an existing problem: acid rain. Far from having gone away, it's been something we have addressed for the last number of years, in which there has been significant progress made, and I'll certainly touch on that during my presentation. But let us not forget that acid rain is still a problem. It is a problem where sulphur dioxide, nitric oxide and their reaction to sunlight creates a very damaging substance. It pollutes the air; it pollutes the water; it destroys our lakes and forests.

I know the number of maple trees that continue to die, and you somehow see it. They start dying at the top, and then before you know it the whole tree is dead. This acid rain is certainly something that slowly and continuously, unless we stop that source of acidity, will destroy more and more of our trees.

Indeed, acid rain contributes to the greenhouse effect and global warming. We're all more and more concerned as we have seen the changes in the climatic structure of our country and the world over recent years. If there's anything we can do to preserve and protect earth from ourselves, then we must do it. I'm told acid rain also contributes to ozone depletion.

So as you start looking at all the contributing factors, not only to our own local natural environment and the destruction of trees and lakes and our waters, but also when you look at the long-term implications throughout the globe and the atmosphere, we too must be very genuinely concerned about the long-term impact of acid rain.

Over a number of years, our Legislature, starting back in 1985 and earlier, was able to sit down with the four major contributors to the problem of acid rain and give them targets and involve them in finding a solution to it. Since then, those four major polluters and causes of acid rain, who are Inco, Falconbridge, Algoma and Ontario Hydro, have done an incredibly excellent job in trying to reduce their acid rain levels.

Whereas in 1985 Inco had levels of 728,000 tonnes per year, by 1994 it will have brought that down to almost a third: 265,000 tonnes per year. In 1985 Falconbridge had 154,000 tonnes, and will by 1994 have brought it down to 100,000 tonnes per year; Algoma Steel, from 285,000 tonnes down to 125,000; Ontario Hydro, almost in half, from 390,000 to 175,000.

So often in the Legislature we, in our legislative freedom to say what we want when we want, are quick to reject the efforts made by industries and accuse them of having failed society in different ways. Far from that, I would like to at least take this moment to commend them.

Although there was some arm-twisting and pressure was brought to bear from ourselves in the Legislature, not to coerce but at least encourage them to meet these targets -- and there would have been serious penalties had they not -- none the less, they've done it and will have accomplished what would once have seemed impossible in having reduced significantly the amount of emissions of acid rain from their plants.

We continue to see a problem, however. I have so many statistics around this. A committee of the Legislature spent extensive time on it. Our standing committee on general government, which met back in 1989, reviewed this and came up with a series of recommendations. These recommendations continue to stand. Among the recommendations they made was that the Ministry of the Environment should continue to plan beyond 1994 and they stated a series of projects that the government, in cooperation with industry, could develop for a long-term strategy.

I believe that long-term strategy and working with the four major polluters, which I include in my resolution, can be done through sitting around a table where there can be discussion and dialogue, knowing that they've come an awful long way and knowing that to go the next yard or mile, however far it might be, could be a very expensive step. But there may be methods in which we can look at a continuing strategy between the province and those four major causes of acid rain and continue to develop a solution over the long term.

Let's not just leave 1994 to come and go without there being some peace of mind that there's an ongoing strategy for the future to continue to reduce our own emissions of acid rain in Ontario. That is the first part of my resolution.

The second part deals with another aspect to the whole problem, and that is those 20% of the people or companies that continue to provide far more acid rain. They don't have the regulations or controls the four major polluters had. I think it's terrible that I continue to call them polluters; they're corporations, responsible companies and they've done a great deal to address this problem.

We, as a government and as legislators, must look at the other sources of this problem. As you look at it you realize that petroleum refineries, primary metal refineries -- it's not just the great big nickel refineries that are causing the problem; pulp and paper mills contribute 2.4% of sulphur oxide, chemical manufacturing some 0.9%, different forms of manufacturing end up generating additional sources of acid rain and nitric oxide.

Our concern then is, what can we do about it? The first thing you had better understand is that certain parts of our province are more affected than others. The worst-affected areas happen to be in southwestern Ontario. The five worst-affected communities are Colchester, Merlin, Port Stanley, Wilkesport, Alvinston and Huron Park.

In the map provided here by the Ministry of the Environment, there isn't any doubt that they have a problem. I also have to believe that a large part of their problem isn't from Ontario and that we have a problem in the United States where, rather sadly, the Clean Air Act has been put on hold by the US government during an election year when they are trying to win other points with their electorate, causing our constituents and the people in our province to suffer unduly.

What we have is a system where you've got communities continuing to receive in excess of what is seen to be an acceptable rate of acid rain per year. The guidelines the Ontario government has say that 20 kilograms per hectare is an acceptable rate. In Minnesota there is another rate, 11 kilograms per hectare. What I would like to see through the continuing dialogue and discussion on this whole subject of acid rain is what an acceptable level is and to what degree we have a problem.

I am not a scientist, but I would like to have a sense of understanding that the government is doing everything within its power to reduce those levels and to make sure that whatever level we have we can continue to live with in comfort and with some sense of security.

Something has been done in an acceptable way for the four major causes of acid rain. As to those other 20% that are producing such a great amount of it, can we not begin now, before the end of 1994, as a provincial Legislature to develop a strategy to deal with them?

The Acting Speaker: Further debate on Mr Cousens's private member's motion?

Mrs Irene Mathyssen (Middlesex): I welcome this chance to speak for the environment this morning. As members of this House are well aware, this government and the Minister of the Environment, the Honourable Ruth Grier, have a profound commitment to the environment, a commitment to bring about the kinds of measures that will renew and help sustain a healthful environment.

As has been indicated in the resolution of the member opposite, there are concerns about the kinds of industrial emissions that go into the air. In the past few years environmentalists, citizens and governments have become more and more aware of the health problems and environmental damage created by such emissions. As we become better informed and gather more scientific data, we can make better-informed decisions about the steps we must take to safeguard our future.

A good example of that action, based on scientific data and better information, is the decision taken by the Minister of the Environment in April 1991 to ban all future incinerators of municipal solid waste.

Last winter, the standing committee on social development heard once again from a number of people, including Dr Paul Connett, Dr Helen Henrickson and Dr J. Walter Ewing. They told us clearly that the incineration of municipal solid waste was irresponsible and unsafe. Dr Ewing told us that airborne emissions from incinerators contain heavy metals such as lead, solvents such as benzene, and complex hydrocarbons such as dioxins and furans. Dr Henrickson provided tables and data to illustrate the folly of incineration, while Dr Connett spoke eloquently of the absolute lunacy of burning the resources that we will need in the future.

This was the kind of information that supports the minister's decision to ban all future incinerators of municipal solid waste, a decision, I must say, that was soundly criticized in this House and in the standing committee on social development by the opposition and, ironically, by the very member of the third party who has brought this resolution to establish emission limits and schedules for the four major acid gas emission sources. I can only assume that the member for Markham has had a change of heart when it comes to what is going into the air.

I'm pleased that the minister has effected this marvellous change in attitude. I might add that controlling emissions also supports our principle to prevent pollution in the first place.

I would like to turn my attention to the specific resolution introduced by the member opposite to establish emission limits beyond 1994 for sulphur dioxide and nitric oxide, two of the gases associated with acid rain. As with all decisions taken by this government, and as was the case with the decision to ban future municipal solid waste incinerators, any action will be based on reliable information. Let me be clear: We agree with the principle of the resolution. There is a need to move beyond the 1994 targets.

The Ministry of the Environment is currently assessing various technologies to reduce sulphur dioxide emissions. When this study is complete and we have the data we need, the ministry will be in a position to decide on the appropriate action. The study is expected to be complete later this year, but we need reliable information to make good decisions, not premature decisions.

I would like to tell the House about some of the current activity to reduce other emissions. Nitric oxide from mobile and stationary sources is addressed under the federalprovincial nitric oxide volatile organic compounds management plan of November 1990. Under this federal-provincial arrangement, nitric oxide emissions from light-duty vehicles and trucks will be limited to 0.4 grams per vehicle-mile travelled as of 1996. This will provide a 60% reduction in these emissions.

The Ministry of the Environment is currently evaluating regional initiatives to reduce nitric oxide emissions from stationary sources, with plans to develop a reduction program for Ontario. New source performance guidelines for a number of industrial sectors are being developed jointly by multistakeholder working groups. This would limit nitric oxide emissions from gas turbines and industrial boilers and would control emissions from future sources. These will be adopted by Ontario.

At this point in time industry involved in the Countdown Acid Rain program is on target. As of 1994 the emission limits for the four major acid gas emitters are capped. There will be no increase from those limits. In fact, Falconbridge, as has been mentioned, has announced that it will further reduce the 1994 limit, by another 25 kilotonnes by 1998. So you see, when it comes to sulphur dioxide and nitric acid emissions, industry realizes the environmentalists, the citizens and the government are concerned with acid rain and is moving to address those concerns through positive action.

I will conclude my remarks because I know my colleague the member for Peterborough would like to speak. I would, however, like to thank the member for Markham for his interest in the quality of air Ontarians breathe and assure him that once we have the data we need our minister will be in a position to make the informed decisions to safeguard our future and protect our environment, just as she did in April 1991.

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): I am pleased to rise in support of the resolution of the member for Markham and congratulate him for bringing forward this important issue at this time.

There are so many threats to our environment today that we as individuals feel very helpless to do anything to really change them. Just last week I was reading in the Sunday New York Times the sad story of the plight of our oceans and the degradation. Things like that, and the weakening of the ozone layers, we really can't individually do much to change, but as the member for Markham has aptly pointed out, acid rain is an issue we as legislators can change, so I think it's really timely that he's brought forward the opportunity to set new targets for the reduction of sulphur dioxide emissions in Ontario.

We can't do it alone. Half of Ontario's acid rain comes from the United States, mostly coal-fired power plants, so we need cuts on both sides of the border to solve the problem. But as far as we still have to go in Ontario, there's no doubt we have come a long way in the past seven years.

The cooperation from Ontario's four major emitters -- Ontario Hydro, Inco, Falconbridge and Algoma Steel -- has been exceptional, to such an extent that not only are they meeting the target set by the Countdown Acid Rain program, but it even appears that some of them are surpassing the targets. They are certainly to be commended for their efforts and their commitment to finding new technological ways to solve the problem.

The Ministry of the Environment recently sent out a news release, dated March 25, 1992, where it reported that Ontario's Countdown Acid Rain program was on schedule, and some of the things the ministry reported were very heartening.

They stated that there were increased budgets for the sulphur dioxide abatement projects at both Inco and Falconbridge's copper- and nickel-smelting operations in Sudbury. They reported that Ontario Hydro plans to install limestone slurry scrubbers, which will reduce sulphur dioxide emissions at the Lambton generating station, by 1994. They reported the possibility that Falconbridge may be able to cut its sulphur dioxide emissions by one quarter of its 1994 target, to 75 kilotonnes by 1998.

They reported that Ontario Hydro had a 77% cut in imported electricity for the six months ending July 1991 over the same period from the previous year. All those things signify that we are going in the right direction.

I also have to commend the former Minister of the Environment, Jim Bradley, who did so much, not only in initiating the Countdown Acid Rain program in December 1985, but in fostering the development of the program. I'm sure all members in this House will agree that his efforts and contributions to the success of the Countdown Acid Rain program should not go unnoted.

By the way, the member for Middlesex mentioned and gave credit to the current Minister of the Environment for the ban of municipal solid waste incineration. I would like to bring to her attention that here too, Jim Bradley was way ahead of his time. In May 1989, Jim Bradley, as Minister of the Environment, had already banned the operation of 1,200 apartment building incinerators.

As positive as all these initiatives have been and as the program has been, the magnitude of the problem is still very serious. I would like to give you two examples of the impact of acid rain.

Did you know that between 2,000 and 4,500 lakes in Ontario may be acidified to the point where they can no longer support fish species? Scientists estimate that by the year 2000, another 48,000 lakes in Ontario could be dead. Pretty frightening, isn't it?

The maple syrup industry in Parry Sound has been affected to the point where the dieback rate of maple trees has more than doubled, from 2% to 5%. Trees that have not died have become weakened and more susceptible to disease and insect infestations. This has implications for Ontario's $22-billion forest industry as well as our tourist and sports fishing industries.

I think these few facts illustrate that the problem has not gone away. I think it is very encouraging to find what the four major emitters have been doing, but another 20% of emitters in Ontario have not been touched. So, as the member for Markham has stated, now is the time to take the next step. Now is the time to plan the new targets. Now is the time to include those other 20% of acid rain emitters. Right now we do not have to meet targets, so I urge all members of this House to rise in support of the resolution that I am glad the member brought forward today.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate on Mr Cousens's private member's resolution?

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): It's really a pleasure and an honour to rise today and support my colleague the member for Markham and his resolution. I think it is a very commonsense resolution that really recognizes the work that's been done in the past to stop acid rain emissions, to cut down on those emissions, and asks the government to be a bit visionary and to look beyond the 1994 planning framework that's in place now and to set emission reduction targets for those emitters, those many companies that are not included in the Big Four: Ontario Hydro, Inco, Falconbridge and Algoma Steel.

I think it's appalling that the NDP member who spoke earlier is not supporting this resolution today. I think it sends a terrible message to the 19 communities, some of which were alluded to in the member for Markham's remarks, communities like Alvinston, Campbellford, Cloyne and Gloucester, Coldwater, Dalhousie Mills, Dorset, Huron Park, Mattawa, Merlin, Port Stanley, Shallow Lake, Turkey Lakes, Uxbridge, Waterloo, Wilberforce and Wilkesport. I think it's a terrible message that the government has just sent out.

Really, it doesn't care about those communities and it doesn't care about the fact that currently, under the Countdown Acid Rain program, there's an unacceptably high amount of acid rain today being dumped on those 19 communities. It's information that's public from the Ministry of the Environment. We believe the information to be true. It's totally unacceptable for the government to pretend that the status quo is fine and that everything's going along hunky-dory. It isn't true at all.

I do want to talk for a moment about the Countdown Acid Rain program. I note that it has capped total sulphur dioxide emissions at 665 kilotonnes by 1994 for the four major producers of acid rain gases: Ontario Hydro, Inco, Falconbridge and Algoma Steel.

In Ontario, the government's strategy over the years was to regulate each of the four major acid rain emission sources. The program and the regulations under the Environmental Protection Act were passed in December 1985 and established specific emission limits and schedules for the Inco and Falconbridge smelters in Sudbury, the Algoma Ore Division's iron ore sintering plant at Wawa and Ontario Hydro's fossil-fuelled electricity generating stations across the province.

I just want to point out that according to a March 25, 1992, MOE news release, "The four companies which produce more than 80% of Ontario's sulphur dioxide continue to meet the targets set by the six-year-old Countdown Acid Rain program."

I point out, as the member for Markham has pointed out, that these four companies have invested millions of dollars to rein in their sulphur dioxide emissions. The record at Inco, Falconbridge, Ontario Hydro and Algoma Steel is quite commendable. They've done a tremendous job of bringing down their emissions and spending really huge amounts of money. I note that Inco has increased its sulphur abatement projects budget from $494 million to $600 million and from 1986 to 1990 it has reduced its emissions from 685 kilotonnes to 525 kilotonnes.

Our own standing committee on general government in November 1989 noted that Inco "does not look at the 1994 targets as being the end of the road and is committed to supporting research and development to further limit emissions of acid gases."

That's really what today's resolution calls upon the government to do, to think beyond the program that's in place now and to deal with those 20% of polluters. As the member for Markham says, you hate to call companies polluters, but there are a significant number of companies out there that continue to emit harmful gases into our environment and they're not being dealt with under the current regulations or programs.

Again, it's appalling that the government would not at least signal today, in support of a private member's bill, its intent to be helpful in this area, its intent to support what the Ontario PC Party really began in 1984. I think it was alluded to by the member for Markham. Some very tough decisions were taken by my party back in 1984 to begin the process of dealing with acid rain gas emissions in a significant way. I think we have a proud record there.

It's appalling for the socialist government, which certainly has campaigned over the years on being holier than thou on environmental issues and always better than Tories could ever be on environmental issues, to say today that it's not supporting this resolution. It is frankly mind-boggling.

I note the support of members of the Liberal caucus. I think that's very good because what the member for Markham is again trying to do is to bring us further into the future and to bring in some reasonable and fair reductions in those emissions harmful to our environment. I'm very supportive of it.

I would note that there's even more work to be done in the Big Four companies. They certainly understand that. While Ontario Hydro has been able to cut down its emissions at home, it has increasingly imported electricity from other jurisdictions, including the United States. Although in early 1991 it began to cut back its reliance on foreign power, it still remains too high and we have very little control or influence over what the emission targets are in the United States, where we're buying a significant amount of our power.

It's incumbent upon this government to work with its neighbours across the border to try to bring our standards into line and to get agreement, because when we import electricity, we're also really importing the problem back. The prevailing winds in North America bring a lot of the acid rain from the US, and to simply slough off our problem by having them generate the electricity there and us import it is not acceptable.

I think the resolution today is very worthwhile. It's unbelievable that all parties would not get together to support it.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you very much. Further debate on Mr Cousens's private member's resolution.

Ms Jenny Carter (Peterborough): I'd like to congratulate the member for Markham on raising the important matter of acid rain. There really is no quarrel here, I think. I would like to believe that his motives for doing this are non-political, because this, like other environmental questions, is truly a matter that concerns us all, and particularly those who look more than a year or two into the future or even, like our aboriginal friends, are concerned with seven generations ahead.

The only reason I shall not be voting for the resolution being put forward by the member for Markham is that I believe the matters which quite rightly concern the member are receiving attention. Specific limits on emission levels for 1995 to 2005 will be considered, I understand, if and when they become necessary. But, as has been pointed out, the four companies that are participating in the Countdown Acid Rain program -- Inco, Falconbridge, Algoma Steel and Ontario Hydro -- have submitted their 11th progress report. Their emissions are being cut 67% by 1994 from the base case 1980 levels.

Target reductions are being met or exceeded, and planned technological improvements will yield further reductions.

I also understand that the ministry is currently assessing various technologies available to reduce sulphur dioxide emissions and related control costs from other uncontrolled stationary sources. When this study is complete, the ministry will review the results and decide on future actions.

I do agree that at no point, whether it be in 1994 or beyond, should we relax our efforts to cut down on acid gas emissions. As population, economic activity and energy use increase, so do the pressures which lead to pollution.

The term "acid rain" is relatively recent, but as a child in Britain I used to wonder why many varieties of plant that flourished in rural areas simply would not grow in cities. Of course everybody then heated their homes with open coal fires. I remember the choking yellow fog that hit London in the early 1950s, causing many deaths.

However, much of Britain's acid rain emissions are blown eastward to Europe. This unwelcome gift has devastated lakes and forests in Scandinavia. Germany's Black Forest is suffering massive dieback. The collapse of eastern Europe and the USSR is probably as much due to unbridled environmental destruction, which undermines both the health and wealth of people there, as to any other cause.

We only need to look at the moonscape the Sudbury area became as once-productive farms were forced to close, or at dying maple trees and the reduced productivity of the sugar bush in many areas, and at those lakes where the water looks clean and pure but nothing lives and onetime salmon streams from which the salmon have disappeared, to realize that we must take acid gas emissions very seriously indeed.

It has been said that half the acid gas pollution we experience here in Ontario originates in the United States. This also means, of course, that half of it originates right here. We have to fix our own half of the problem if we're to have any credibility when we complain about what is coming in from outside.

At least we are making good progress, and the situation is already a great deal better than it would have been if no action had been taken. Inco is switching to new technology which will lead to the production of marketable sulphuric acid, an indication of the positive economic effects that can accrue from pollution control. Ontario Hydro is fitting scrubbers to its coal-fired generating stations at Lambton and Nanticoke and is buying low-sulphur coal.

Nitric oxide, largely generated by vehicles but also by stationary sources, is the major cause of lung-damaging, ground-level ozone and the photochemical smog which this can generate. Toronto is particularly badly affected by this, as a recent survey of North American cities has shown. I believe that federal programs are addressing this problem.

It's difficult to separate the acid rain problem from the related problems of global warming and the depletion of the ozone layer. To address these, we need to look also at the emission of carbon dioxide and of methane and chlorofluorocarbons. We need to all work together on these problems because we all have our health and our world to lose. Recent experiments have shown that in my own area, Peterborough, climatic stress rather than acid rain is causing tree dieback.

We are playing a grizzly game of roulette with the ozone layer, arguably the most threatening problem at this time. There was an

article in the Globe and Mail, I think just last week, that described the situation in Patagonia, southern Chile, where the ozone layer is down to something like half of normal levels. Wildlife such as rabbits and fish are going blind. There was a market gardener who was increasingly finding that his crops would not grow out of doors. They were being shrivelled up by the ultraviolet radiation and he was having to put more and more of his plants into greenhouses. Unless we want to keep our children indoors during the day and grow all our food in greenhouses, give up our sunbathing habits, we're going to have halt the release of CFCs and halons into the atmosphere.

It is in the best interests of business, large and small, to be in the vanguard of progress rather than clinging to out-of-date methods of production and even out-of-date products. By using products such as gypsum and coal ash for construction and producing sulphuric acid, we can substitute valuable byproducts for what used to be hazardous waste.

I commend the Ministry of the Environment for what it has done and is doing. I hope and believe that they will maintain and increase their efforts.

Mr Carman McClelland (Brampton North): I thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to rise and speak to the resolution of the member for Markham that is before us this morning.

I want to comment very briefly on the comments made by the member for Peterborough and tell her that I appreciate very much her overview and the very sincere concern the member has. She has been noted for her concern and involvement in environmental issues, even prior to her election to this place. You are to be commended for that, I say to the member for Peterborough, and I thank her as well for the overview in terms of looking at this not only from our point of view in Ontario but also on an international basis and recognizing that, when all is said and done, we are all one people on this earth. What we do here affects people elsewhere in the world and what people do elsewhere affects us.

Pollution knows no boundaries. It knows no international or provincial boundaries. The air that we breathe, the water that sustains our life and sustains our planet is part and parcel of the world that we live in and travels literally around the world. In that lies one of the great concerns that the member for Markham seeks to address in his resolution today.

I also want to thank my colleague the member for Eglinton for her thoughtful presentation on the resolution this morning, in laying out some of the factual concerns in terms of acid rain and its impact in our jurisdiction of the province of Ontario.

I don't think coincidental -- perhaps it is coincidental -- the fact that before I came in here this morning I was walking down the hall and ran into a group of young people together with their teacher, as it turns out, from just outside the city of Guelph, and they asked who I was and what I was doing. I mentioned my role as Environment critic and I chatted for a while with the students.

The teacher said, "What's happening about air emissions with automobiles?" "Very little," was the response, although we have seen some initiatives taken by the government in terms of tax initiatives, looking at a tax incentive to buy automobiles that would not use as much fossil fuel that would ultimately contribute to acid rain.

I think that points out the thing the member for Peterborough was touching on, that for young people, and people of all ages, this is not a political issue. It's an issue that touches on all of us and indeed will touch on generations to come.

Again, I say to the member for Markham, thank you very much for what you're doing here today. As the member for Simcoe West said, I hope the government members will consider the spirit in which it is put forward. It is not a challenge to the government. It is a challenge to each and every one of us to move beyond the point we will be at in 1994, when the regulations set by the Countdown Acid Rain program expire, and say by way of resolution, not binding on the government but directive, that we will move together to go beyond 1994, recognizing that was a significant step in dealing with the four major polluters in the province but that there is much more that needs to be done.

I think it interesting as well to read into the record some statements made in 1989 by the now Minister of Environment with respect to this very issue which would lead me to believe that if the minister were here today she would be in full support of the resolution put forward by the member for Markham.

For example, in October 1989, when we were considering the Countdown Acid Rain program before committee, she had some concerns about CAP, the clean air program, and was concerned that it was bogged down. "This is serious, because in a number of other contexts, when you ask about air pollution and air regulations, a lot of credence is put on CAP...we were told that the control of small sources, of course, would rely on CAP." If I can digress from the quote, the small sources are the other 20% not covered by Countdown Acid Rain.

"If CAP is long overdue and not proceeding apace, when do we get to control the small sources?" We are going to have to be controlled under Countdown Acid Rain through until 1994. "What about all the others? What about post-1994?"

Is that not the very question the member for Markham puts in his resolution? What about post-1994? What are we going to do beyond that? The minister went on to say, again in October 1989: "Is there planning beyond Countdown Acid Rain? What preparation has been made to bring the major polluters below the limits that they are going to be reaching in 1994?" I might add parenthetically that some of them will reach them before 1994 and will exceed the limits. But surely that is the essence of the resolution put forward by the member for Markham today. Those were the words of the now Minister of the Environment, the leader of the government today in terms of environmental issues.

Not only that. As Minister of the Environment, she has the role in terms of leadership for this entire province. I hope that in her absence her colleagues will recognize that and will in effect speak on behalf of the Minister of the Environment in support of the resolution by the member for Markham, because I cannot for the life of me see any distinction, quite frankly, between the questions that were put and the concerns that are implicit in those questions raised by the minister in 1989. They seem to me to be fully supportive of the resolution by the member for Markham.

I also might add that in the last Parliament the now Minister of the Environment was very supportive -- as you know, Mr Speaker, much of what happens in this place that seems to get all the attention is when there is some difference of opinion and issues of contention. But the now Minister of the Environment, Mrs Grier, was very supportive, over and over again, in giving recognition to the work by the member for St Catharines in initiating the Countdown Acid Rain program and the tremendous accomplishments that achieved.

I hope you will accept, I say to my friends of all three parties and my colleagues in this caucus, in the spirit that I hope will prevail with respect to the resolution by the member for Markham this morning, a series of comments made by the Honourable Ruth Grier, Minister of the Environment, on April 30, 1992, just a week ago. A week ago today in the morning Mrs Grier said, "But industry is not the only key factor in preventing pollution. It's a challenge that transcends...economics," among other things. She said it "transcends engineering, technology and economics. Preventing pollution is a social challenge.

It calls for education, adjusting habits and attitudes and inducing positive changes in the way we think, work, do business and live." She also went on to say -- I hope I can find the quote -- that we needed to change the way we conduct ourselves in government, because the environment is too important to allow it to get caught up in partisan issues.

I would urge my colleagues opposite, particularly, to look at the substance of what Mr Cousens is saying. He's not being critical in any respect. He recognizes that advances have been made in terms of the Countdown Acid Rain Program, but in the words of the Minister of the Environment today, "That's good, but there's more to be done." Mr Cousens recognizes that and says, "Let's move ahead and move forward." So I would urge my colleagues to support Mr Cousens's resolution this morning.

I would hope that the government members, in fact all members of this House, would support the resolution because of the spirit it embodies. Nobody pretends they have all the answers, but we have a series of many solutions that can be brought to bear on a massive problem.

I commend the member for Markham. I thank him for his initiative and I thank my colleagues on this side of the House and opposite who have risen in support of that resolution and I hope we would accept it, I say to my friend Mr Cousens, the member for Markham, as a challenge. As well, each and every one of us can contribute and be vigilant and do what we can in our own communities as well as on the level we serve for the province of Ontario.

As the member for Peterborough so very well brought to our attention, what we do here affects women, men and children, literally, around the world. We share this planet together. Certainly this is the kind of thing where we can work together in bringing some solutions that will move us ahead, and not just rely on the past but look forward. Again, I commend the member for Markham.

Mr Dennis Drainville (Victoria-Haliburton): In the very brief time that's allowed me, I also want to commend the member for Markham for bringing forth this resolution and indicate to him that I have every intention of voting with him on this matter.

There's no question that in Victoria-Haliburton, the area I come from, there's a significant problem with our maple forest. It has been affected significantly by acid rain. There's no question that the kinds of measures Mr Cousens puts forward would be helpful in trying to ensure that this matter is grappled with.

We have had many accords with various jurisdictions in terms of the northern United States and in terms of the United States as a nation, and I've found this has not been enough to ensure that acid rain is diminished. I think the kinds of things that are suggested in this resolution are not only timely but essential if we're going to be able to combat this particular problem. As I said, as I represent an area where there is a significant maple forest, I would like to assure the honourable member of my support for this resolution.

Mr Cousens: I thank all members of the House for their participation in the debate on this important issue. I particularly appreciate the support I've received from one member opposite, the member for Victoria-Haliburton, and I also very much appreciate the comments from the member for Eglinton and the member for Brampton North and from my colleague in our own caucus, the member for Simcoe West.

The fact of the matter is that I see this as very much a non-partisan issue and certainly a non-threatening resolution to the present Ministry of the Environment. You just have to go back to when the standing committee on general government met in 1989. The member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore, Ruth Grier, was on that committee as a substitute. She was part of the group that made recommendations from that committee. There were a series of nine recommendations. One of those, the first one, is that "the Ministry of the Environment should vigorously plan for the post-1994 stage of acid gas control." She was part of that recommendation.

I now hear the member for Peterborough and the member for Middlesex almost indicating that the minister is backing off from a committee report that she was part of, and that is what I really have concern with, because I also concur with the member for Brampton North, Carman McClelland, who said that if the minister were here, she would probably support it. Certainly she did then, unless it's an example of where she's had a change of heart.

Nine recommendations were made by that committee to have an ongoing monitoring of air emissions, a series of recommendations that we just don't want to take for granted, that we just don't want to leave to chance. We as legislators have a responsibility to fulfil, and we can fulfil that responsibility in such a way that we work in consultation now with the four major problem generators of acid rain and nitric oxide. We can work with them. They have proven goodwill and they have gone beyond the guidelines, and there may be ways in which they, in cooperation with the government and with technology, and we can together move further into the future to have even better successes.

The concerns that are raised by the member for Simcoe West about the number of Ontario municipalities and communities that are suffering inordinate amounts of acid rain is a matter of concern. Don't take it for granted. We can do all we can, and we must. To just let it happen in post-1994 is to take a chance,

whereas if we sit down and plan it together, we can come up with some remedies and some long-term strategies.

The United States government has proven how bad it can get on this issue, and I don't have any excuses for that group. You come along and have President Bush say, "Every American expects and deserves to breathe clean air. These principles will guide us as we turn the promise of the act into a legacy of clean air" -- that's when he was talking about the Clean Air Act of 1990 -- and yet they're sitting on them. The United States government is sitting on this as a possible issue on which it could be working, and I have a good feeling it is doing it because it's election year.

This is not an election issue. This is one of the fundamental issues that have to do with the whole society, the wellbeing of our hemisphere, the wellbeing of this globe. Sure, it's manifested in the destruction of trees, lakes, river systems and soil, and yes, it goes beyond that to the destruction of the ozone layer and the greenhouse effect. All of these are still rampant within our society, and unless we as a society, men and women in responsible positions, can develop a plan for the future, then what legacy do we leave for our children -- our children deserve more than what we are giving them -- if one of the gifts we bestow on the future is acid rain?

I read some of the same articles that the member for Eglinton referred to on what happened with the Soviet Union and the way it got rid of its leftover products in the generation of atomic energy, and there are a number of things there. Eastern Europe has a major problem with acid rain. It doesn't have the scrubbers and it doesn't seem to be able to afford them now. It's not part of the restoration program for Eastern Europe.

You just have to go to the Black Forest in Germany and you realize how bad it can be. There are degrees of badness. We are in a position where we can have degrees of goodness. You notch upward step by step, and over a period of time when we've developed a model for excellence, a model for environment survival, then we in our society and our children and their children's children into the next and the following centuries will have a legacy to fall back on.

When you look at this motion, it's purely a way of giving the government a chance to move ahead. The government came forward with a news release on March 25, 1992, prior to my resubmitting this resolution to the House for debate. When they put forward this news release, they were able to give an update which indeed corroborates much of the information we've all shared this morning. But the one thing the government has failed to do, and what I see the member for Peterborough and the member for Middlesex also failing to do, is have long-term goals.

There is a certain joy in the successes that have been achieved with some of the major problems, but they have not developed a long-term strategy to deal with other, smaller, operators who are causing the problem. Two of the operators are you and me when we drive our cars, so we have to do more to reduce the amount of emissions coming from there.

There isn't anyone in our society today who doesn't expect the best of his or her legislators. If we are to do what we can to protect the environment for the long term, not just concentrate on the garbage problem alone -- which has probably consumed Minister Grier for the last year and a half -- but expand it into some of the other issues that have to deal with our air and our water, then we will begin to deal with all those issues.

This is a government that has an opportunity now to get rid of the partisan dividing walls that separate us and make us gang up into groups and instead work together for the betterment of all society. We can do something significant about this whole problem of acid rain.

As we move into the next century we have a chance to do something about it. It's not a matter of having confrontation. We've been able to do a great deal with Inco, Falconbridge, Algoma Steel and Ontario Hydro, and the next stage can be one where we work with all those other organizations and companies that are part of the problem today. We know who they are, who is talking to them, who is working with them, who is developing that strategy. That is the intent of my motion.

I do not want to go after the four major polluters. I think they have done a great deal and gone beyond it. Let's keep the dialogue going. Let's not break down the discussion levels. Let us continue to work it through and develop those strategies.

One of the recommendations that came out of the standing committee on general government, which looked at this issue back in 1979, is also worthy of continuing interest. That was that the standing committee on resources development should be given the continuing mandate to review compliance with the Ministry of the Environment's acid gas emission regulations. In our Legislature we have not had a committee looking at this for the last couple of years. It's time we did it. It's time the minister did something. Together we'll come up with further recommendations that do something.

I take pleasure in the reaction I have had from a large number of people in the House this morning. I thank them for the support they have shown and the commitment they continue to display for environmental matters. I sincerely hope that as we proceed into the vote there will be enough people in this House who will cause the minister to move ahead in a positive way.

SCHOOL BOARDS AND TEACHERS COLLECTIVE NEGOTIATIONS AMENDMENT ACT, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LA NÉGOCIATION COLLECTIVE ENTRE CONSEILS SCOLAIRES ET ENSEIGNANTS

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): We will deal first with ballot item 5 standing in the name of Mr McGuinty. If any members are opposed to a vote on this ballot item, will they please rise.

Mr McGuinty has moved second reading of Bill 14,

An Act to amend the School Boards and Teachers Collective Negotiations Act.

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

All those in favour of the motion will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the nays have it.

Motion negatived.

ACID GAS EMISSION CONTROL

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): We will now deal with ballot item 6 standing in the name of Mr Cousens.

If any members are opposed to a vote on this ballot item, will they please rise.

Mr Cousens has moved private member's notice of motion 4. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

Motion agreed to.

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

The House recessed at 1205.

AFTERNOON SITTING

The House resumed at 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

BUDGET

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): Over the last few days our caucus has been bringing the public's concerns about the NDP budget to this House, but the NDP refuses to pay attention. Why doesn't the government listen to the housing industry analyst who told us: "Creative accounting belies the NDP's inability to face facts and make tough decisions. The income tax and surtax increases undermine federal efforts to give consumers some spending power"?

The government is also disregarding municipal problems, according to the eastern Ontario mayor who says, "The transfer of funds from the provincial government to municipal government have been cut tremendously, therefore creating even more financial hardship for the municipal level."

The people of the province are trying to send the NDP a message about how to solve the government's financial crisis, but this government just doesn't seem to care. Why is the government ignoring the concerns of a Toronto resident who says, "Once again the single-wage-earning family is being treated unfairly." Does the government not realize the impact that its budget is having on the people of this province? Why is it not listening to the analysts who have called this budget flim-flam?

ORANGEVILLE FARMERS MARKET

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I'd like to bring to the attention of the Legislature today a very special event that takes place every Saturday in my riding of Dufferin-Peel from now until the middle of October. The Orangeville farmers market will open for business this Saturday. Local and regional merchants will present their produce in an open-air market that takes us back to the days of our founding fathers. Farmers, merchants and service clubs working together will make a farmers market which is well worth the drive to Orangeville.

I welcome the members of this House to see a great example of free enterprise at work. The Orangeville farmers market was started last year by an enthusiastic group of individuals who worked long and hard to see their dream of having a market in Orangeville succeed. Every Saturday from now until the middle of October the Orangeville farmers market will be open for business. I would like to wish them much success in their second year and look forward to seeing you all at the market.

RECYCLING

Mr Mark Morrow (Wentworth East): Environmental issues seem to be never-ending, but Wentworth East has witnessed the solving of a major concern. The Ministry of the Environment, the township of Glanbrook and a community group called FASE, also known as For A Safer Environment, worked together with a private company to begin the dismantling of the largest tire dump in the province of Ontario.

Almost a million tires were being stored unsafely at P and L Tire Dump in my riding. Residents and politicians were worried that another potential fire situation existed. Other ministries have tried to defuse the problem, but a solution had to be found that included the removal and recycling of these tires in an environmentally correct fashion.

What happened? The Ministry of the Environment found a Canadian firm, Animat, that will ship the tires to its plant in Quebec and turn them into rubber mats. Besides this bid meeting the technical requirements, it was also the lowest of 10 submitted. Therefore, the taxpayers of Ontario received the best value possible. Yes, the Treasurer is very happy, the Ministry of the Environment is happy, the residents are happy and a potentially dangerous situation no longer exists.

It is very simple to sit on the other side of the House and criticize this government for what they consider a lack of action, but I know at first hand that we are working hard to clean up the environment, especially in sensitive sites.

TVONTARIO

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): As the member for Eglinton, I am proud to count TVOntario as one of my constituents. As one of the founding members of Friends of TVOntario, I am particularly proud to salute TVOntario today during Education Week.

The network has continued to evolve in response to changing circumstances and needs. In 1991, TVOntario launched the Teachers' Awards, which honour achievement and innovation in the use of education technology in the classroom. The list of achievements is long, so I believe that during this week, when we are recognizing and celebrating the role of education in this province, it is very fitting that we pay tribute to the unique treasure we have in TVOntario.

VIOLENCE IN PUBLICATIONS

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): I bring to the attention of the House a serious and alarming situation which has angered and upset my community of Burlington. A California-based company called Eclipse Comics is currently marketing throughout North America a series of trading cards which are similar to the popular baseball and hockey variety which children swap and collect, with the difference that these cards feature serial killers and mass murderers.

In addition to illustrations of psychopathic killers, the cards also describe the unique details of their perverse violence. Among other features, there is the story of a charity clown who raped and murdered teenage boys, and then there is the 11-year-old girl who strangled babies. Jeffrey Dahmer and his tale of human dismemberment and cannibalism, together with Charles Ng and many others, are also considered hot items by the manufacturer in this children's card series.

The NDP track record against violent pornography is a poor one. Last year Bob Rae and his Attorney General silently ignored appeals by the people of Burlington to support the police in their crackdown on hard-core pornography, including child pornography, distributed by the Triple-X video stores in their community. At a time when police are currently investigating a series of teenage murders that may be linked to a serial killer in the Niagara Peninsula, it is unthinkable that such cards are being marketed as a desired collectible for impressionable children.

My community is angry and concerned about these cards. I call on the Premier and his government to do everything within their power to block the entry of these perverse trading cards into Ontario and to ensure that they do not find their way into the children's playgrounds of our province.

TVONTARIO

Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): This is Education Week and I would like to join my friends from the other two parties in praising the work of TVOntario. As a former educator, I've had the benefit of the fine programming TVOntario creates. On many occasions, I have used all or parts of shows to make a class more interesting or relevant to the students. Students use all their senses to learn, and TVOntario provides thought-provoking programming that draws the viewer's interest, whether it is in history, science, languages or philosophy. Students of all ages can learn from the programs on TVOntario.

Just the other day I was watching a program on physics. It was about surface tension. The instructor said that a paper clip could float on water. My children were interested in this, so we took a glass of water and they floated paper clips. Some eventually sank, but their interest was definitely stimulated.

The programming is suitable for all viewers. Who hasn't watched Elwy Yost on Saturday night interview actors and actresses about their roles in films and the history of films? What child hasn't watched Polka Dot Door and been fascinated by Polkaroo? Their history show, Origins, not only was educational but helped bind the country together by showing viewers that all parts of Canada share a common history.

In closing, I'd ask that all Ontarians continue to support TVOntario and its fine programs.

TEACHERS' DISPUTE / CONFLIT DES ENSEIGNANTS

Mr Gilles E. Morin (Carleton East): For 24 days, high school students in Ottawa-Carleton have been out of school as a result of the Carleton Board of Education teachers' strike. Nearly 15,000 students in total have been affected by this strike, which began on April 2, when 12,000 teachers first walked out.

The ensuing negotiations between the school board and the teachers collapsed late yesterday afternoon. Now that things have reached an impasse, what does the Minister of Education plan to do to help solve this problem? If the strike continues, there is the possibility that students will lose their year. Many irate parents in my constituency of Carleton East are concerned that their children will not be able to make up the lost curriculum. The longer we wait, the further we jeopardize the future of our youth.

Cette génération va souffrir de notre incapacité de résoudre la grève des enseignants. Il est déraisonnable que nos enfants paient de leur éducation ces négociations infructueuses et cette grève prolongée. Nous devons chercher une meilleure solution.

To ensure that members are kept abreast of this issue, I would ask the Minister of Education to make daily announcements in this House.

Je fais confiance à l'honorable ministre de l'Éducation. Je m'attends à ce qu'il prenne toutes le mesures nécessaires en vue d'encourager les intéressés à reprendre les pourparlers afin que sous peu les élèves retournent en classe.

CANADIAN CANCER SOCIETY

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I'd like to speak today about the cancer society of Ontario. Last weekend, on Sunday, I had the opportunity to bicycle some 15 kilometres to raise money for cancer.

Interjection: Was there a motor on it?

Mr McLean: There was no motor. It was an interesting exercise, so to speak.

I was very pleased to be part of that great ride for cancer, because there are so many volunteers who put their time into raising funds for that very worthwhile cause. I felt it a real privilege and an honour to be part of it.

I remember when Terry Fox crossed this great province. From the east he got as far as Thunder Bay. I was in Thunder Bay the day they unveiled the monument in honour of Terry Fox and I thought that was a pretty exciting day. When Terry was going through Orillia, I had the opportunity to invite him and welcome him to the city as he was passing by. As a matter of fact, the Sanderson Monument Co in Orillia is the one that dedicated and put most of the granite in that monument on the Trans-Canada Highway in honour of Terry Fox.

I compliment the volunteers in this province. I know many have had friends who have died of cancer. I hope everyone here will take

part in it and have more influence, because cancer can be beaten.

ELIZABETH FRY SOCIETY

Mr Gary Wilson (Kingston and The Islands): I stand in this House today to call attention to Elizabeth Fry Week being celebrated this week until Sunday. The Elizabeth Fry societies in Ontario are joining together to celebrate over 40 years of providing services for women in conflict with the law.

A particularly important inspiration to the establishment of these agencies was a passionate speech on the plight of women in the criminal justice system given by Agnes Macphail, one of the first female members of Parliament.

Today in Ontario there are six autonomous agencies, plus two in development. There are 19 others across the country. The Ontario agencies are represented collectively by the Council of Elizabeth Fry Societies of Ontario.

Events this week are being held in Hamilton, Kingston, Ottawa, Brampton, Sudbury and Toronto. Included in these events is the screening of the documentary Locked In-Locked Out, which describes the situation of incarcerated women.

I would like to acknowledge the important work that Elizabeth Fry societies do in Ontario. They work with women in conflict with the law who are often women who are poor, unemployed, undereducated and single mothers. Many of the women they work with are also abused as children. Elizabeth Fry societies also work to increase our awareness of issues concerning women and the law.

I encourage all members to participate in activities this week.

VISITOR

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Before continuing with routine proceedings, I would invite all members to welcome to our midst this afternoon, seated in the Speaker's gallery, Mr Fatu Vaili Afamasaga, who is the Speaker of the Parliament of Western Samoa. Welcome.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

JOBS ONTARIO TRAINING FUND

Hon Richard Allen (Minister of Skills Development): One week ago today the Treasurer stood up in this House and delivered a budget with three clear directions for Ontario: jobs, preserving services and controlling the deficit.

He told us that services are not maintained by uncontrolled spending. A service that is not cost-effective is a service at risk, precisely because it is not cost-effective. In other words, the social wellbeing of this province and the wise use of tax dollars go hand in hand.

The Jobs Ontario training fund I am announcing today reflects expressly this principle and launches a direct attack on the recession. It also reflects this government's belief that business talent plus the tremendous human potential of Ontario's workforce is the combination that will bring this province out of the recession and into prosperity.

The principles of employment equity are integral to the Jobs Ontario training fund. We shall be working with various organizations representing the racial minority community, aboriginal peoples, people with disabilities, francophones and women to ensure that the Jobs Ontario training fund will truly provide employment and training opportunities for the participating long-term unemployed, from a wide range of communities.

All of Ontario will benefit from this strategy, especially our young people, many of whom feel that right now they have no real alternative to unemployment.

The Jobs Ontario training fund is a three-year, $1.1-billion initiative to get the long-term unemployed trained and back to work.

After the 1981-82 recession, people forced out of work and on to welfare stayed right there. Right now, we have over one million people in Ontario, families, neighbours and friends, reliant on social assistance. Not only is the hardship this involves unacceptable, but we literally can no longer afford this tragic waste of human potential.

The Jobs Ontario training fund will also make it easier for parents of young children, especially single parents, to get back to work by creating up to 20,000 subsidized child care spaces. Initially the government of Ontario will pay 100% of the approved costs of this expansion, both capital costs and fee subsidies. This action will be very important for municipalities and other funding partners, who are usually responsible for meeting 20% of the costs, as you know. This will relieve them of a heavy financial pressure.

For employers, a key element of this program will be the training credit. The costs of hiring and training new employees are significant, and especially so for small businesses. Now employers will be eligible for a training credit of up to $10,000 for each newly hired program participant over one year. At least half of that will be used to train the new worker coming into the workplace thanks to this program. The rest, however, may be used to train existing employees.

I want to stress that we are not talking about wage subsidies here. The Jobs Ontario training fund will not be paying the wages of participants in the program. We shall instead be investing in their training and in the training of current employees.

The Jobs Ontario training fund will go even farther. If an employer is ready to hire a person under the program but that person lacks some generic or specific skills, she or he will be eligible for pre-employment training before actually moving into the workplace. Pre-employment training will itself be tailored to specific employee and employer needs. It can include communication and computer skills and upgrading of the basic literacy, math and second-language skills needed for jobs in a complex and changing economy. Pre-employment training will be tailored to specific employee and employer needs.

This morning at George Brown College I announced that as of today, under this program, the province is making available over 1,100 training spaces in seven centres across Ontario, in Thunder Bay, Sudbury, Windsor, Hamilton, London, Ottawa and Toronto. You can imagine how pleased I was, as minister of both Skills Development and Colleges and Universities, to make this announcement at a site where my two portfolios intersect. Thousands more such places will be available throughout the entire province by midsummer, and the training base will be expanded to include other community training agencies.

To streamline the administration of this training and of the program itself, we will be supporting a network of community "brokers" across the province. These brokers will be local and community-based: municipalities, chambers of commerce, local labour councils, community colleges, other information and referral centres and so on. They will select and then connect employers, training services and applicants, determine child care and other support needs and monitor program development. There will also be an economic renewal initiative to this program and that will be aimed at supporting specific projects which promote recovery and boost employment.

Focusing on large employers and industry-wide activities, we will work with private companies, unions and community groups to encourage large-scale hiring and skills upgrading. We will also assist small local ventures, support feasibility studies for community business projects, and through co-ops, non-profit groups, entrepreneurs and native business development plans, we will encourage jobs in areas with vulnerable private sector economies.

I think it is clear that the Jobs Ontario training fund is a new departure from the make-work projects of the past. Employers will be buying into this program because, again, it makes good economic sense, because it helps them develop the highly skilled workforce they will need to have that competitive edge. UI exhaustees and social assistance recipients will also want the program because, more than anything, they want and need to get back to work.

As the Treasurer announced last week, the Jobs Ontario training fund is only the first of a three-part strategy to create tens of thousands of new jobs and to support tens of thousands of existing jobs this year and in the future. The two other parts of this program of course are the Jobs Ontario capital fund and the Jobs Ontario homes fund.

All told, this government will be training employed and unemployed workers to the tune of $930 million this year, an increase of 24% over last year. This is the most Ontario has ever invested in training workers, the largest proportion of the overall provincial budget ever used for training in Ontario. On top of that, we've also undertaken to reform, as you know, our training system. That will in all likelihood become a model for other provinces and other countries.

This government knows where Ontario's strengths lie: in its people, in its business people and the people they employ. The Jobs Ontario training fund is a commitment to them all.

Mr Speaker, if you'll permit me, as a final word I'd like to recognize the deputy minister of the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board project and the person who is chiefly in charge of this particular project, Joan Andrew, and their staffs, who are sitting in the members' gallery and who have spent a great amount of work developing a most imaginative program which will benefit all of us in Ontario in the future.

JUSTICE SYSTEM

Hon Howard Hampton (Attorney General): I join with others in this House in expressing my concern about events in the city of Toronto. I acknowledge that many