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

June 11, 1992

35th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

The House met at 1001.

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

ROLE OF INDEPENDENT MEMBERS

Mr Drainville moved resolution 10:

That in the opinion of this House, the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly should be authorized to review and report to the House on recommended changes to the standing orders to allow independent members of the assembly the right to more fully participate in the work of the assembly.

In particular, the committee should review:

-- Clause 30(

b) of the standing orders to give independent members the collective right to make one statement every two weeks during the period for members' statements.

-- Clauses 32(

b) and (

d) of the standing orders to give independent members the collective right to ask one question and one supplementary question every two weeks during the oral question period.

Section 69 to continue to give a member who is not of a recognized party in the Legislative Assembly the right to make one speech at second and third readings of every government bill.

-- Clause 108(

a) of the standing orders to give an independent member the right to sit as a member of the standing committee of his or her choice.

-- Clause 108(

a) of the standing orders to give the government of a majority Parliament the right to appoint an extra member to a standing committee that has an independent member sitting as a member of the committee.

Section 124 of the standing orders to give an independent member the right to take

part in public proceedings of any standing or select committee of which he or she is not a member, with the right to ask questions of witnesses and the right to receive all documents and exhibits, but with no right to vote on the committee.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Mr Drainville moves private member's notice of motion 10. Pursuant to standing order 94(c)(i), the honourable member has 10 minutes for his presentation.

Mr Dennis Drainville (Victoria-Haliburton): As I begin to discuss in this short period of time that I have the resolution we have before us, I want to give the context in which it was prepared.

I remember sitting in this House in the late 1960s and the early 1970s, the years of Nixon and Lewis and Davis, the years when there was much debate in the House, and in those days, I was very interested in the standing orders. I was a teenager and Parliament interested me.

It interested me because in a sense I felt a great affinity always with the theory that here in this place we had opportunities to bring forth the best that we could bring for the people of this province, that we could discuss at length the things that were important for the people and that we would have an opportunity to serve the people of Ontario and to give voice, if you will, to the needs and aspirations of all people in our society. So it was that I got those first glimmers of interest of being in this place and of participating with these standing orders.

I've got to say that at its best this Parliament is a place where the people's needs and aspirations are expressed, and at its best there are people, members, who come to this House from whatever political persuasion and they are people who are deeply committed to a vision of what this society might be. But at its worst, this House becomes a place where there is discord and at times even animosity and distrust, a place where sometimes the standing orders do not readily facilitate adequate debate, and it seems at times that the will and the needs of the people are lost in that difficulty.

So it is that I come here to speak about this resolution within the context of parliamentary reform. I cannot do that without saying two things.

First of all, in terms of those who think there is not interest in this province in parliamentary reform, they are wrong. They think that these rule changes that we make in this House are rule changes that are ignored. Well, they are not ignored. There are people in my riding who have written to me about the need to change the way we do public business.

I can't give up this opportunity without making a couple of comments about parliamentary reform and the changes that have been brought forward by the government in the last few days. I must say there is no question in my mind that there is some need for change in the way we do our business, that some of the government's initiatives to change the standing orders are very much needed.

Yet I've got to say -- and I speak from great disappointment in my own government when I say this -- that it seems to me the broader needs of parliamentary reform go far beyond the needs of a government to have its legislation passed through the House. Rather, fundamentally, parliamentary reform has to do with the relationships we build within this place for the betterment of our society so that we can do the best that we can do for the people of this province.

I'm afraid that as I look at these changes that have been brought forward by the government, they will be helpful in the passage of government business, but they will not necessarily be helpful in building this as a better institution for the people of this province.

Let me say also that issues such as party discipline -- I've spoken with members of my own side on this issue, and I've got to say that in the corridors of power around this place, there's not a great deal of interest in looking at party discipline and that doctrine, and how we have such an extreme form of that doctrine here in this country and in this province. There's no interest in trying to change that kind of thing, and I ask why.

It is because every party, regardless of what side of the House it is on, when it gets into the position of government, is unwilling to change the status quo. They are unwilling to change the status quo because, as we all know, power is something which, when you have it, you don't give away. And so it is that my government, I lament to say, in that respect is no different from the Conservatives or the Liberals, and I can't say that with any pleasure.

When I wrote my paper on parliamentary reform and did all the research for that, I saw in Aristotle a quote which was in the document which I'm going to quote into the record today. It captures some of the spirit that is important to me in putting forth this resolution today. Aristotle wrote in his Politics:

"If liberty and equality, as is thought by some, are chiefly to be found in democracy, they will be best attained when all persons alike share in the government to the utmost."

We find ourselves at a time and a place in which the people do not feel that they have access to government; at a time and a place when the parliamentary reform of democracy has changed substantially from the theory of Parliament into a situation in which a few people control in every province -- this is not just true of Ontario, but true of every province in the federal system -- a very few people control what is done and what is said and how things go and the direction that it goes, and in fact the legislatures and the parliaments of Canada have very little real say in the future of this province and of this country.

I want to say that not only is this wrong, but it defeats and destroys the whole theory of Parliament when we, as members, don't have the opportunity to be able at times to dissent and to argue vociferously on issues that may not be to the best advantage, in our own opinion, of our ridings or of our people.

So it is that we come to this point where I put forth this resolution. Let me say at the outset that one would think that in such a resolution, which has to do with the rights of individuals who are elected by their people to sit in this House and to give voice to their concerns and their questions and to give forth their vision of what this province might be, there would be nothing but agreement that independent members, if there are any in the House, should have the same rights as members who are aligned with the party.

You would think that it would be given assent, and yet there those, not the least of whom are members of the government, who say: "No, we don't need to change the rules. We don't need to do anything more. We don't want to give independent members any more power."

There is a principle at stake here, and the principle is that if the people of whatever riding choose a member, that member deserves the honour, the respect and the dignity of having the right to stand in his place and to give voice to the needs and aspirations of his people. If we do not change these standing orders and reflect that, if we're not willing to be courageous enough to help independent members to be full members of this assembly, then we are perpetuating a fraud in the understanding that the people of Ontario deserve to have their voices heard here.

I believe we have an opportunity to say clearly to the province, to the government of Ontario, that every member in this House deserves to have the right to speak, to stand up, to be heard.

Now, if we pass this resolution, who knows if anything will be done? Perhaps nothing. But I must say the principle is worth fighting for. The principle is worth enunciating in this House and throughout the province that independent members are equal members and that those whom the people elect are the representatives of the people and deserve their rights.

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): In the brief seven and a half minutes that I have, since I'm reserving time for my colleague the member for St Catharines, it's very difficult to speak on an issue of this magnitude.

Let me say I commend the member for bringing forward his resolution. I was a bit troubled by the fact that it dealt only with independent members. Without being political, I suspect that when he brought it to his caucus, they perhaps did not want him to address the real issue, and the real issue he has addressed quite well, I think.

The people of Ontario have to understand one thing. They go out and vote, and perhaps work for a candidate, get him or her elected, and anticipate that person will come to this chamber or to the Parliament of Canada and do great things, particularly things that are central to their riding and their concerns. I think the thing people have to understand is that the present parliamentary system, without reform, in fact blocks that.

Particularly when you are on the government side, as the member for Victoria-Haliburton has so wisely put it, you have all these threats of perks being taken away, such as committee chairmanships and parliamentary assistant jobs, which carry extra money. You have the possibility of not getting into cabinet; that's always a threat.

In view of that, the members of the government, particularly in a majority Parliament, tend to vote as though they're affixed at the hip. I'm sure the people out there who elected them and worked for them have to recognize that they don't support every piece of legislation that's put forward in this House.

In the brief time I have, the people of Ontario should understand as well that this place, and the policies and decisions here, really are made on the basis of what is politically sexy, not what is important for the people of Ontario but what is politically sexy.

That decision is made -- and it's not one party that necessarily carries that ball -- on the basis of the Premier, or in Ottawa the Prime Minister, maybe three or four inner circle cabinet ministers and about six to 10 unelected people who come up with these ideas and bring them to the Legislature. Of course everyone over there, despite the debate that takes place in this House -- the people watching it on television must sometimes wonder to themselves when they see the government voting, again, as if they're joined to the hip. They have to say to themselves, "I elected that person to represent me and he is not in fact representing me."

I suggest to you, Mr Speaker, that unless that is changed, unless that fundamental principle is changed, you're going to see people get more apathetic about this entire process in the Legislature of Ontario and the Parliament of Canada. I think in the last election much of what the people told us was that they were fed up with taxes, but more important, what they were fed up with was the fact that having to pay these taxes, they weren't seeing any great return for them because the legislation that was being proposed was not necessarily what they thought was important.

For instance, right now we're discussing changes to the rules of the House when we should be discussing the questions of youth unemployment and adult unemployment. We should be discussing things such as one in 50 kids on the streets in Toronto being afflicted with AIDS. We should be talking about a whole host of very important issues, rather than the issues that are raised in this House.

Our leader, Lyn McLeod, was elected, and it was in the campaign of all the people aspiring to leadership, on the basis that should we form the government, there would be effective changes in this House, effective changes in the participation by all members of the Legislature. Each and every one of us has something to share. Each and every one of us comes to this Legislature with grey matter that is untapped if you sit there and vote at the hip, if the situation continues as it is.

Each and every one of us has a specific type of understanding of our own specific riding and its needs, and we have a duty and a responsibility. The opening prayer says, "Let us aspire to decisions that are just." But we're not doing that. You're not doing that.

The question of an independent member having the powers that were suggested by the member -- as I said, I think the reason he brought that forward in the way he did was because he was somewhat muzzled. I say that with respect. In fact I'll be surprised when the vote comes if his government colleagues don't let him down and vote against him. One of the things Bob Nixon in our caucus said, and Lyn McLeod as well has said, has been that this is private members' hour and you vote the way you want to vote; you don't vote the party line.

I suggest that's a very healthy approach and one that should be continued and perhaps expanded upon in this Legislature. There's no question in my mind that if we do that, if we bring those forward, we could eliminate the necessity of having to limit debate, as is the proposal by the present government.

The government wants to limit debate for members. I suggest that's not necessary. The acrimony in the House is a direct result, I suggest, of the frustrations, particularly of the government members, sitting over there on the benches and having to go home and tell the members of their ridings that they just voted for something that's totally against the interests of their ridings and having to explain why they did it.

I was in Barrie discussing the Ontario labour relations amendments and was told that the NDP government member there told the business leaders: "Forget about it. We're not going to discuss the question of this legislation. It's a done deal." Well, I think that's absolutely outrageous. That means the member is saying there's no possibility of any changes being made as a result of debate.

If that's democracy, then I can sell you some swamp land in Florida. It's not democracy and I think people expect us to be democratic here. They expect us to represent our ridings. There is no problem in terms of being able to vote your conscience or vote what the people in your riding expect you to vote, because in the House of Commons there were 82 resolutions upon which the government of the day was defeated and the government didn't come tumbling down and result in an election.

If you go to Westminster, which is really the seat of our Parliament, the questions asked by the government members are sometimes more stinging and significant than those asked by the opposition. Yet here we see questions being asked during question period that really are nothing more than asking the minister to tell us about a particular policy. I suggest that's not effective questioning.

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): Two weeks' notice.

Mr Callahan: Well, you raise that issue, but I suggest to you -- and I don't have much more time left -- that you can say what you like about that but in fact, when you leave this place, if you're satisfied that you have effectively represented the constituents of your riding under a reformed Parliament and you're not afraid of losing a perk here or there, then you can walk away with your head held high. If you can't do that, then I suggest all you've done is occupy a seat with a join at the hip.

It's interesting, finally, that in the United States there are, I believe, 70 congressmen who are not running for re-election, so the situation is not just unique to us; it's in the United States as well. People who came to the Legislature or the Congress and believed they could set the world on fire found that under the present systems, we really don't have the opportunity to do that.

It has been a pleasure to participate and I'd like to reserve the balance of our time for my friend from St Catharines.

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): I'm very pleased to rise and speak on this today. I specifically asked in my caucus that I get this opportunity to speak to it. I'm pleased to support the member for Victoria-Haliburton in his motion today. It is indeed appropriate that we look at the way we conduct Parliament. I suspect that perhaps he is considering bolting the NDP caucus and I wouldn't blame him.

Let me speak specifically to some of the changes he is proposing. I suggest that the right of an independent member to make a statement every two weeks -- and we're not allowed to amend these motions, of course, so I will vote for it -- is too much, because it can give an independent a disproportionate amount of statements. The same would hold true for oral questions. There are many members of both the government benches and the opposition benches who can't get on every two weeks.

But it is appropriate that we give these members the right to clearly have their voice heard because ultimately, whether they are elected as an independent or subsequently become an independent, it's appropriate that they be able to reflect their constituent's concerns, which this motion would certainly help.

Quite clearly, it is appropriate that we continue to allow those independents to make a speech at second and third reading of any bills and the idea of them being able to sit on a standing committee of their choice is appropriate.

These are good measures, but we must look at them also in the context of what the government House leader has brought in this week: changes to the House rules. I am deeply offended by the manner in which these House rule changes have been brought in. It is true that House rules have been brought in by both the Conservatives and the Liberals over the years. However, the method by which these were brought in is absolutely unprecedented. They were brought in as an edict. We were told we were going to have to sit on these until we pass the House rules and they know that they have enough votes to barge this through.

When the Liberals brought in the last House rules, they were tabled by the government House leader at that time, Sean Conway, the member for Renfrew North. But he tabled them and then left them open to a discussion panel of all parties. The method in which the NDP is going ahead is: "There is no debate.

We're simply going to have our way." It is inappropriate, and I would suggest that in all probability the reason the House rules are at the top of the agenda for the government at the moment is because it wants to muzzle one of its own dissenting members, namely, Peter Kormos, the member for Welland-Thorold, who famously spoke for 17 hours in this House and was applauded by the now Premier for his effort in fighting what he considered to be wrongheaded legislation. Whether it was or not is beside the point; he was expressing something which he deeply felt.

Before we're allowed to debate Sunday shopping, which he also has strong views on, the House is going to have him muzzled so that he will only be able to speak for half an hour. This is one of the most undemocratic governments that we have ever seen, a government which is determined to muzzle its own members.

I'd like to put on the record that before I agreed to run for the Conservative Party in the last election I came and spoke to my leader, Mike Harris. I had never met him before and I asked him about this question of party discipline. He assured me he was convinced that in Canada generally, and in Ontario too, there was entirely too much whipping of members. He said he does not believe in it and indeed he committed at that time, and has been consistent ever since I've been here, to our not being obliged to vote the way of our party.

It happens that we have a very unified party.

Mr Mills: It's easy when you're the third party.

Mr Turnbull: It seems that one of the NDP members, the member for Durham East, would like to muzzle this comment. But indeed, our leader has never told us we must vote in a certain way. To my knowledge, we are the only party that is allowed, on every single vote, to vote the way of our conscience. That is something we can be proud of. I know that my leader has mentioned it in this House on many occasions, and we gets hoots and hollers from the NDP over this. But the truth is there. We have never been whipped, since I have been in this House, to vote in a certain way.

It is depressing to speak to the members of the NDP and see what their personal views are. They don't like things that the government is pushing through and then they vote like sheep. Indeed we need to have rule changes, but we also need to have a change in the philosophy of all parties.

Our party has led the way and has said it is important that members express the views of their constituents. As we move towards debate of Sunday shopping, you will see that within our party we hold different views and that they will be expressed and voted on according to the conscience of the people who populate our party.

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): Same thing over here. It's no different on this side.

Mr Turnbull: I'm pleased that the member for Welland-Thorold says it's no different on their side. Well, we have seen no consistency between the rhetoric we hear officially and the way they vote as compared with the private conversations we have with them, where they are deeply troubled by what they're doing.

I think this legislation that we're seeing with respect to House rules is directly aimed at the member for Welland-Thorold, and I suspect at the member for Victoria-Haliburton.

I am indeed pleased to vote in favour of this motion today, but it really isn't going far enough. We need to revolutionize the way this House works because we must ensure that our constituents are heard, not some old boys' club that comes here and then gets very cosy over a glass of Scotch and decides how it is going to vote. It's got to be the way the people who elect us want us to vote, and where we disagree with the people who elect us and we vote our conscience, then that's fine because we take the ultimate sanction. If the people do not like what we've done, they can vote against us at the next election. That is the way it should be.

I am very pleased to support this motion. I suspect we are going to see the changes in House rules shoved down our throat. We're going to go back to night sittings with all they meant. We know that much-vaunted old NDP warhorse Elie Martel indeed fell down drunk in this chamber and had to be assisted up by the Premier in night sittings. That is well known and was one the reasons they moved away from night sittings. It is indeed disgusting that this party should be suggesting that we should be going back to night sittings, particularly night sittings which can be called at --

The Deputy Speaker: Please take your seat. Point of order, the member for Durham Centre.

Mr Drummond White (Durham Centre): Mr Speaker, I realize that the member to whom he was referring to is no longer in this chamber, but surely his privileges and rights are being infringed upon by these kinds of derogatory and unnecessary insults.

Mr Kormos: It was untrue.

Mr White: Not only untrue, but not even original. The member for Renfrew North has already made the same slanderous allegations.

The Deputy Speaker: The member who was referred to is not a member of this House, but --

Mr White: He was.

The Deputy Speaker: Let me finish, please. I agree that if we were moderate in our debates, we would prevent this type of animosity. So I ask you to be careful, please.

Mr Turnbull: I will remind you that the member for Renfrew North mentioned this event in his lengthy debate of the House rule changes on Monday of this week. Indeed we didn't see any of the NDP members jumping up on foolish points of order at that time, because he was here and observed it with his own eyes. It is a story which has gone around this Legislature many times. I have heard it many times.

It is inappropriate that we should be moving in the wrong direction. We've got to make sure that we're expressing the will of our people, not in some drunken stupor. We should indeed be able to plan our lives so that we can spend time with our constituents and not have night sittings possibly pulled at the whim of this government on two weeks' notice.

I know this doesn't sit very well with the government, but it is the truth. You know very well it is the truth. Check with your members who were here and they will tell you this is the truth.

I do wish to leave some time on the clock for my colleague the member for Simcoe West.

Mr Tony Rizzo (Oakwood): I would like to begin by saying that I agree fully in principle with the submission of parliamentary reforms in Ontario as put forth by the member for Victoria-Haliburton.

As already pointed out, significant discrepancies exist in the present standing orders between independent and recognized party members. Despite the fact that all members are equally elected, independent members are denied the full extent of rights and privileges granted to caucus members simply because they do not hold enough seats in the Legislature to constitute a recognized party. This is a reality that independent members must continually confront. As the member for Victoria-Haliburton stated, it is ultimately the people of Ontario who suffer from not having effective representation.

In light of the fact that new parties may be entering the political arena and citizens' anger against traditional party politics is increasing, the prospect of more independent members in this House is real and probably not too distant in the future. Subsequently, the status of independent members must be amended in order to avoid any further problems on a larger scale.

Rest assured that I do not advocate a greater freedom away from party rules for caucus MPPs, for I do acknowledge the importance of party discipline in providing coherence to the work being done in the House. But as committed as I am to the value of party discipline, I do not believe it is fair that standing orders should be used to uphold party discipline.

Why does an MPP have to be part of a recognized party to be able to fulfil her or his duties? A line must be drawn between the rules of the House, which should place all members on equal ground, and party discipline, which should be distinct from parliamentary rules. A more equitable distribution of rights is needed if independent members are to be able to effectively represent their constituents, and it will be up to the Clerk's office to find the best way to realize this objective. Once this has been determined, the Clerk's office should be called before the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly to discuss these proposed changes.

Changing the status of independents in the Legislature must remain an issue of priority and the proposed amendments brought forth today are a step in the right direction. If not for my recent predicament, I probably would have never realized how unjust the present situation is, but having experienced this situation at first hand, I understand the great difficulties and frustrations an independent member of this Legislature encounters.

In conclusion, I would like to emphasize that the present situation only serves to silence the voices of thousands of citizens who choose to exercise their right to vote. If we do not make the necessary changes, these voices will remain silent. The bottom line is that the people of Ontario have the right to be effectively represented and if they choose to be represented by someone who does not belong to a recognized party, there is no reason to deny them a full and equal voice.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I had hoped to have the opportunity this morning to speak favourably of this particular resolution because I think a lot of time, effort and energy have gone into it and some good thought has gone into some potential changes to the way the Legislature operates, in other words, to our procedures. I want to commend the member for Victoria-Haliburton for initiating this particular activity.

What is most unfortunate, of course, is that it's in the midst of the atmosphere of the government of which he is part wanting to change the rules unilaterally in this House and make rather substantial changes that would limit not only the powers of members of the opposition, and that's important in a democracy, but also the influence of members who are not part of the cabinet and the government.

I find it passing strange that the New Democratic Party, which has always, at least in terms of its rhetoric and I think for most members, sincerely stood for democracy and the rights of the opposition, the NDP and its predecessor the CCF having been in opposition in Ontario until the 1990 election, and in opposition in many other forums across Canada -- I would have expected, and that's why I commend the member for Victoria-Haliburton, that the kind of changes that might have been forthcoming from the government would have been those initiated by him, as opposed to those which have been announced by the member for Windsor-Riverside, the House leader of the government.

I think a number of the members were intrigued by some of the suggestions made by the member for Victoria-Haliburton and probably supportive of many of the suggestions. What has poisoned the atmosphere, however, has been not only the content of the government resolution to change the rules of the Ontario Legislature but also the manner in which that resolution was introduced to this House.

As I've looked over the years at the NDP caucus when it sat in opposition, there have been some people who have been, I think, highly respected in this Legislature. I think of Jim Renwick -- he used to sit for Riverdale -- who always commanded the attention of members of this House. I think of Patrick Lawlor, who sat in this Legislature and was a person who could wax eloquent and of course defend the rights of the opposition and of democracy in this province.

I think of Stephen Lewis, who sat in this Legislature, made many a compelling speech, shared his views with the members and always defended the underdog, always defended the rights of those in opposition, who do not have all of the forces, who do not have all of the money, who do not have all of the levers of power that exist with members of the government.

So it's disappointing that when the member for Victoria-Haliburton has taken the time to think carefully about the rules of this Legislature, to think carefully about the role that individual members can play in this Legislature, that the government House leader would turn around and bring in a motion of the kind which has poisoned the atmosphere in here, and it has probably damaged the chance of the kind of ecumenical support I think the member for Victoria-Haliburton would have had, had this not happened.

I am concerned that in the package which exists -- and I'm sure the member for Victoria-Haliburton would not have contemplated this -- the government in fact wants to sit fewer days. There's a very good reason for that: they don't like question period. Nobody who sits in government as a minister likes question period, because you are accountable, because you must be prepared to answer questions not only from those who are in opposition but good questions from time to time from your own members who are concerned about matters in their own constituencies.

The limiting of the amount of time the House sits in terms of question period, I think, diminishes the rights of the opposition and the backbench members of the government.

In addition to this, I'm extremely concerned at the limitation to be placed on speeches. I happen to consider that some of the manoeuvres that are used by oppositions over the years, the bell-ringing and other manoeuvres which are simply time-wasters, are not justified, but I do believe lengthy speeches to draw to the attention of the public the concerns about bills are.

The member offers a number of, I think, good suggestions on what can be done to assist in this Legislature. Wanting to enhance the rights of individual members is important. He has identified what I believe many people are seeing today, and that is that the general public views legislators as not being particularly important in the scheme of things.

It's not a matter of ego, but it's a matter of the fact that they elect someone to represent them in a Legislature such as this or in the House of Commons in Ottawa and then find that he must adhere to party policy on all occasions, that he is simply called upon to vote when the government needs his vote and then when opposition parties need his vote, but his powers to influence government policy are extremely limited.

The suggestions which have been made by the member for Victoria-Haliburton offer an opportunity for members to play a more meaningful role. There are people who come from various backgrounds in this Legislature. Some have been here a short period of time, some a lengthy period of time. If you look at the economic backgrounds, the social backgrounds, the ethnic backgrounds, whatever you want, we have a pretty good cross-section of Ontario here.

Unfortunately, the government benches where the ministers sit really is where the power resides, and of course with the civil service and the advisers to the Premier's office, the Premier's office has been all-powerful in virtually every government there has been in the province of Ontario.

I hope the member is not discouraged by the fact that there isn't the kind of enthusiasm expressed openly for his resolution that there might have been on this day. I think it merits a lot of support, but the government House leader has torpedoed his efforts to be ecumenical today.

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): I want to begin by commending the member for Victoria-Haliburton for bringing forward this resolution this morning. I think it's quite timely, given that the government House leader, Mr Dave Cooke, has tabled rule changes in this Legislature.

I want to take the three minutes I have to first of all tell the member for Victoria-Haliburton that I was unaware that independent members did not enjoy many of the same privileges that I and my colleagues in all other parties enjoy in this Legislature. I thank him for bringing forward his resolution, which has, I think, caused all members to think of this chamber and its rules. Perhaps I would agree with the government to some extent that the rules do need to be changed, that reform is warranted.

I had the opportunity to be in my riding yesterday and I spoke with a number of constituents who are very concerned with what appear to be the very raucous events that occur in this chamber day after day. I remind all members of the Legislature that Parliament is a substitute for war, and that in countries where they do not have the opportunity and freedom of speech to battle it out in a controlled chamber such as the one we have here they simply take arms and have guerrilla warfare.

It's important that members remind their constituents of that, as I do when school groups come and tell me, "Jeez, it's awfully noisy in there and people appear to be ill-mannered." I simply remind them that it's an excellent forum in which to voice very serious concerns on their behalf.

Because the government is contemplating rule changes, I want to put on the record some quotes from an

article that appeared yesterday in the Examiner, one of the Barrie newspapers, by Gil Hardy, a member of our press gallery. It was sent to me by Mr Peter Sticklee, one of my very well informed constituents. In reference to the upcoming rule changes, I just want to quote from Mr Hardy, who says:

"But the NDP's antics from their time in opposition are coming back to haunt them. It's difficult to take Cooke's complaint seriously when he and his party wrote the book on delays and filibusters."

The important part here is the following:

"Cooke may well succeed in speeding up the process. But the short-term gains may have harmful lasting consequences. That's because the more substantial reforms needed to enhance the role of MPPs could be placed in peril. The reform process is barely under way and could easily dissolve because of bitterness over imposed rule changes. Without a balanced reform package agreed to by all sides, the Legislature will continue to stumble from crisis to crisis. It's a prospect MPPs should dwell on once the summer recess does begin."

I hope this morning's resolution brought forward by the member for Victoria-Haliburton, a member of the governing side of this Legislature, is a sign that the government is willing to discuss rule changes in a democratic and open way and that the government House leader will not simply dictate to this House what the reforms will be. My party and, I believe, the official opposition, the Liberal Party, are willing, as in the past, to sit down in a non-partisan fashion to try to hammer out reform to this Legislature, which I agree is needed. I thank the member for Victoria-Haliburton for beginning that process today.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate? The member for Welland-Thorold.

Mr Kormos: Yes, further debate, Mr Speaker. What we're going to do of course is distribute the time equally among people in this caucus who are debating it, so I want somebody to let me know when I've reached five minutes.

I tell you, Speaker, I'm really pleased to be able to join in this. I'm especially pleased to follow really as eminent a pair of colleagues as one could ever have: Mr Drainville, the member for Victoria-Haliburton, who has my respect and admiration, and Tony Rizzo, the member for Oakwood, who, I'm ashamed to say, probably wasn't treated particularly fairly over the last almost two years. None the less, he is now and always has been a vocal spokesperson for his riding and his constituents, articulating their concerns effectively to members of the NDP caucus and, more important, to members of cabinet.

I tell you, Tony Rizzo is a person of integrity and fairness and I'm especially pleased to be able to follow him in this debate and especially pleased that he is, as a New Democrat and an elected member, a colleague of mine. He has my respect, admiration and, I tell you, affection.

The member for Victoria-Haliburton -- I know we're not supposed to refer to people by names, but holy zonkers, the fact is that there're folks watching there who don't have the little scorecards with them, or don't have the programs. His wife calls him Mr Drainville; I know that. So it's Mr Drainville, as Mrs Drainville would have him known by, but Dennis Drainville to bring this resolution and we all know it's a companion to the proposals that he has prepared and made to the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly, basically discussing an overall package of reform.

I've got to tell you something. Mr Drainville -- I'm sorry, the member for Victoria-Haliburton, whom his folks down there know -- I was with a couple of them yesterday when the people from the Ontario Real Estate Association were up here lobbying. Two of them were in from Haliburton and spoke well of him. Notwithstanding that they didn't agree with him politically or philosophically on every issue, they spoke highly of him, as I expected they would, knowing him much better than most of us do.

He's prepared a package of reform proposals which I've read with great interest. I know that Gil Hardy from Thomson News Service, who's a darned good journalist, has written at length about them and complimented the member for Victoria-Haliburton. Gil Hardy, who refers to him as "Dennis Drainville" in those columns, has complimented Dennis Drainville for the hard work and the insights into really what's needed around here if we're going to make the whole process more meaningful.

I'm just a backbencher from Welland-Thorold down in the heart of the Niagara Peninsula -- just a backbencher. The reform proposals here, as they apply to independents, impress me all that much more, not because I necessarily ever anticipate being an independent -- I will always be a New Democrat. I believe very strongly in the things New Democrats have always believed in and I'm as proud as anybody could ever be about being a member not only of the party but this NDP government. My concern is that what goes on around here -- I was here for a little while before 1990.

I remember when there were only 19 of us and that was in the official opposition. The third party had even fewer members. The government majority was so great, so numerous, that the government members didn't just occupy this side of the Legislature; they occupied where half of the Tories are sitting now in what was called the rump, for I'm sure a number of relevant reasons, no reflection on the people who were forced to sit there by their House leader.

The problem is that even when you have the phenomenon of, let's say, free votes -- and the Premier recently on the issue of Sunday shopping indicated that there would be a free vote -- you see, it's not really a free vote because if you're a member of cabinet and you happen to feel strongly about the issue, if you're a member of cabinet who wants to keep the promise you made to your constituents, then you're not really free.

When is a free vote not really free? I suppose it reminds me of some of the final chapters of -- what was the book? -- Animal Farm, or Here in 1992, because "free vote" means free vote for caucus members but not free vote for cabinet ministers. Surely if there's going to be a free vote it ought to be a free vote for all participants.

When is a free vote not really a free vote? When there are motives, when ambitious caucus members may want to impress the Premier with the fact that they're on his side in this most unattractive, unseemly issue. That bothers me a great deal too.

I don't support all the reforms proposed by Dennis Drainville in his grand proposition, in his paper, but I believe very strongly that they warrant discussion. Every one of the propositions here is admirable, not only because they should apply to independent members but because they should apply to government members as well. I tell you that government members should be entitled to make members' statements as a matter of course and in a way where they're distributed fairly and equitably among members of the caucus, not just because people happen to attract the whim or the affection of the whip's office.

I tell you, that's a ding-dong way of doing things that isn't acceptable to me and I don't believe is acceptable to fairminded people.

I'm going to sit down now. I'm going to speak at length on the motion amending the rules, because I have some things to say about that. At this point at least, until those rule changes take place, I have the freedom and the right to speak to those.

But until then, let me tell you something: This coming Sunday -- not this week but next week -- June 21 at 1 pm in Welland, in the heart of the Niagara Peninsula is the Rose Festival Parade, one of the finest, greatest parades in all of Ontario. Come on down.

Mr David Winninger (London South): I am pleased to join in this debate today. Earlier my colleague and friend the member for Victoria-Haliburton set a lofty tone for this debate. I know he has had a long and enduring interest in parliamentary reform. I call him my friend, and I know his wife may refer to him as Mr Drainville but I usually call him Dennis. When Dennis quoted Aristotle, I was reminded of the birthplace of democracy in the city-states of Greece, where people would attend and make their popular will known to the government of the day in a very direct fashion.

But city-states multiplied, populations grew and society became increasingly complex. I think the representative democracy was a fine and honourable compromise that evolved over the years. When members are elected and bring with them all those rights and privileges to this august assembly, they have to remain accessible, they have to remain accountable and sometimes they have to put forward in this House the unique perspectives of their own constituents.

Sometimes those unique views and perspectives may not accord absolutely with the view of government; one hopes that they do. But in those instances, sometimes, as a result of conscience and principle, members have to withdraw from their own caucuses. It is at that point, I suggest to you, Mr Speaker, that the constituents in that member's riding become unduly penalized, because they have effectively, under our current standing orders, lost their voice in this House.

I applaud the member for Victoria-Haliburton for coming here today and reminding me and the House of this loss because, although the voters may be enfranchised in a particular riding, if their member sitting as an independent has no opportunity to participate in the statements, the questions in the House and the debate or to sit on committees, those voters in that person's riding have effectively lost their voice in this House. So we need to restore to a significant degree the right of independent members to adequately and honourably reflect the interests of their constituents.

I welcome the resolution of the member for Victoria-Haliburton and I'll certainly be providing my strong support for it today.

Mr Drainville: First of all, I want to thank very much the members for Brampton South, York Mills, Oakwood, St Catharines, Simcoe West, Welland-Thorold and London South for their words and their support for this resolution.

I would like to say, though, that even though in these times when we discuss private members' public business we generally have a handful of people who are interested in an issue and come here and give of their advice and their knowledge and their wisdom, yet we must be careful that we do not see this experience as representing the full impact of what the people of Ontario are saying to us.

They are saying that we must change, that Parliament does not adequately represent the needs of the people any more, that the way we do public business needs to be altered so people have more access to government and so their representatives have more access to the decision-making processes which run government.

One time a poet named Robert Priest said these words, "Leaders are dangerous, but the most dangerous people are the followers." Indeed that's true, for the people of this province now have to decide on leadership. They do not believe in the leadership, they do not believe in many of the things we do and say, so they are considering what their actions will be.

In the sight of those people, it is our obligation to ensure that they know that we are committed to such reforms as will bring democracy into a new spirit in this province, that we will continue to further and further the ends of democracy so there will come a time when the people of Ontario will know that those whom they have elected will be truly their representatives and that their voice will be heard.

The Deputy Speaker: The time for the first ballot item has expired.

EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR L'ÉDUCATION

Mrs Caplan moved second reading of Bill 24,

An Act to amend the Education Act / Loi modifiant la

Loi sur l'éducation.

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

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): This is the first time I have moved a private member's bill in this Legislature, and I'm pleased to do so on an issue which I think is of great importance to us in the province. The opportunity at this time is to discuss the issue in principle, and I hope to be able to convince members that it is worthy of support and further debate and discussion at committee. I believe that as members start to investigate and understand what my bill is proposing, they will realize that there is tremendous confusion and a great deal of what I would suggest is almost a chaotic situation in the province.

When we look at the principles of the right to education for children in Ontario, I think there's a general agreement in this debate in principle that all children should have the right to an education and that it is in Ontario's best interests to educate our children. We know as well that we tend to agree with the principle that says we should not be penalizing our children for the sins or the wrongdoings of their parents.

We further have goals in this province. We want the very best educated population we can have in the future so we can create wealth, create jobs, develop that human potential which I believe will make Ontario as attractive in the future as it has been in the past and enhance our competitiveness in this global world.

We have further goals in our society, to reduce illiteracy, reduce poverty, break the welfare cycle of dependency, and we know that education is the key to achieving those goals. There are some barriers in place today which I believe we just haven't thought about. This is the time, during private members' hour, when I would like to raise those issues and suggest that we can begin to correct some of those barriers within our society by giving the boards flexibility and discretion in the area of the establishment of fees.

Technically in the province of Ontario children do not automatically have the right to an education if they are the children of, for example, illegal immigrants. Similarly, the Education Act mandatorily sets a fee for the children of visitors or for those who would like to come and choose Ontario and who can well afford to pay for the education of the child.

I believe it is important that the boards be able to differentiate between these groups and, in order to ensure that all children have appropriate access to education, we must give the boards the flexibility to set policies which reflect the reality in their communities. In my community in North York, in the riding of Oriole, there are some children in the schools whose parents are fearful for one reason or another, and whenever there is a question of the child's eligibility for registration or a question of whether a fee should be assessed, that child will be pulled from the school and denied an education.

Today you have a situation where the school boards themselves often do not -- and I stress, they often do not -- register a child when they find out that they would then have to pursue the parents. Other school boards do register the child and then, as they would say and as they've told me, "go after the parents." The result of going after the parents will often result in the child being denied an education, being denied access to that education.

Unfortunately, the Education Act does not give the school boards the flexibility to set appropriate policies which will ensure that our children have access to education: those who are here today, those who often live in poverty, those who will be denied the right to be literate in the future unless they do have access to education.

There's nothing new in what I'm proposing. As I said, some school boards do it in spite of the law and others are looking for some clarification as to what their powers are. I don't believe this will ultimately mean a great cost or any cost to the school boards themselves. I do believe that unless we correct this, it will continue to have great economic impact on the province of Ontario because what will happen is that these children, denied access to education, will be more of a burden on our society in the future than they would have to be or would be at all if we gave them the key to successful living, the key which is education.

I was interested this morning to see an

article in the Globe and Mail which says that education now seems to be a better way to stem fertility rates. I mean, everyone is suggesting that it is education which seems to be a more effective pill.

When we talk about poverty, when we talk about race relations, tolerance, illiteracy, anti-racism strategies, we know that education is the key. As a strong supporter of the public education system, I believe we can respond to the needs of the children in our society who today are being denied access to education.

This amendment of the Education Act is proposed to allow the children of non-residents who are not legally eligible to attend our schools without payment. It's that simple. It would allow the boards the discretion and the flexibility to waive these fees on an individual case-by-case basis.

This amendment, I believe, will help clarify for school boards the situation of who is in fact eligible, under what circumstances, and allow the boards to respond appropriately to the needs and to the right of the child. I think it's timely for us, as Canada engages in the debate on the rights of the child which the United Nations in the recent Convention on the Rights of the Child has also addressed. I would draw members' attention to

Article 28, item (e), which says: "We should take measures to encourage regular attendance in schools and the reduction of dropout rates."

The reason we have children in jeopardy is often because they are pulled out of one school, registered in another, and they don't have the consistency. This encourages, in my view, the kind of dropout rate that regular attendance would help if the child was not living in fear. I believe that's just one example of how we could begin to commit ourselves to the best interests of the child, which I believe is also in the best interests of Ontario.

This amendment, if passed and accepted in principle by the government today, could go to the standing committee on social development, which will be my request, or a standing committee of the Legislature if the social development committee is too busy, so that school boards could come in and make us all aware of the situation that exists today in Ontario. It's my hope that this amendment would then enable the boards of education to educate the children in our community without the fear that they are breaking the law.

I've spoken with a number of educators around the province. I know that the situation in North York is perhaps different from the situation in other parts of the province, and I think it is important for us as legislators to look at our laws and see that they are responsive and flexible and that they are updated.

I would remind you that this province, under the Family Law Reform Act, removed the banner of illegitimacy. Children in Ontario are no longer illegitimate. By this amendment to the Education Act, we can say to children, "You are not illegal in Ontario." It is the kind of humane response that I believe is appropriate not only in 1992 but for the future as well.

I point out that this amendment does not interfere with the boards' ability to set fees for visitors. This amendment does not interfere with the boards' ability to set fees for out-of-district students. I believe all of that is appropriate and that the boards should have the ability to do that. What this amendment will do is ensure that all children living in Ontario will be entitled to an education while they are living in Ontario, and allow the school boards in Ontario to expand their mandate and to look at their policies to ensure that the principles and the goals that I've espoused today are part of their policies and considerations.

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): I'll be speaking of course to Bill 24, the bill put forward by the member for Oriole on behalf of the Progressive Conservative caucus.

I would like, first of all, to commend the member for bringing to our attention the concern with regard to the application of fees and the mandatory fee that in fact exists in Ontario today for non-Canadian citizens, it says in the explanatory note here, who were admitted to a school by a school board. I think I will start by saying whether we mean "non-Canadian" or "non-resident," or whatever we do mean, the beginning of my speech is going to say that there's some confusion in this legislation, and I think the best result would be if we agree with the principle to have this bill referred to a committee, perhaps the social development committee, so we can have some clarification.

I would like to start by talking about the intent and the principle. It's my understanding that this amendment is proposed to allow the children of non-residents, who are not legally eligible, to attend school without payment. Right now, it is incumbent upon the boards to follow the law, and that is to impose a mandatory fee on the non-resident students. Some school boards, as the member for Oriole has already stated, have in fact waived this responsibility, and I think she's concerned, as we are, that if that's what they want to do, they ought to be able to do that without breaking the existing law of Ontario.

By giving school boards the flexibility and the discretion to waive school fees, children will be able to be educated in Ontario, which is our great goal. Every student, every young person in this province has a right to an education, and a right to that before all.

Certainly, with regard to people who intend to be citizens of this country and this province, we want to put our best foot forward and at least give the opportunity of an education to them. Many of them come from countries where they haven't been able to go to school. One the great hopes for any family is to come to this land, still, of opportunity, and opportunity begins in our schools.

It's nothing new apparently, this piece of legislation, except that the confusion the member for Oriole described is discriminatory against so many young children. This amendment will help clarify for school boards who is eligible to attend Ontario schools and may give us opportunity for some debate around our responsibilities as elected officials representing our constituents.

The amendment will inform school boards that it is okay to enrol children who are unable to pay the fees, and if this goes to committee, will allow those school boards to come before the committee to make their presentations. All children in Ontario, as I said, are entitled to a wonderful opportunity, to an education. This does not interfere with the boards' ability to set fees, if they choose to do that, I should say, and I'll underline this, for visitors or out-of-district students. I think that should still be part of the legislation and should not be changed. We don't want school boards to break the law.

I'd like to put on the record some of the concerns from the work we have done preparing ourselves for this morning, so that the member for Oriole will be prepared to deal with these as they may be raised at committee in the future; that is, if the government is going to give us that opportunity, which I think it ought to be able to do. These are the concerns expressed by school boards as we phoned out to them and as they contacted us.

They told us, and I think this is true, that illegal immigrants are not out for publicity. They are not the kind of people who are going to go around and talk about their status. They're afraid and concerned and they obviously eventually want some assistance in becoming Canadians. We're talking about their children. But they will not register with school boards for fear of being, in their words, tracked down at this terrible time in their lives. Don't get me wrong. I don't think any of us are here to support that kind of action. We're here to say it's a reality, that it exists and let's deal with it.

London right now is currently facing a high population of Salvadorans and Vietnamese, and it's been brought to our attention that some of them are of this status. The taxpayer will absorb the cost of this if we allow illegal immigrants into our school system without paying. That was the concern of all school boards. I think we have to have an opportunity to have some discussion around what that statement really means, because in the case of the greater Toronto area this number was given to us. Because immigrants tend to settle in the greater Toronto area, the Toronto board estimates this initiative could cost it approximately $11 million.

Knowing the background of the member for Oriole, she is not interested in socking $11 million to the Toronto Board of Education. Certainly, knowing the background of many in this House who have sat on school boards, that's not what this is all about. But we are interested in hearing from them. This process today doesn't allow for that and so we have to get this into committee.

The Toronto board goes further, to say that it doesn't receive provincial dollars, so of course this would all be local taxpayers' money. I think it's up to them to debate that in one way or another, perhaps individual by individual or perhaps as a board policy, whatever they prefer to do as a result of this legislation.

We would love to have the opportunity for clarification of non-residents and non-Canadian citizens. The member for Oriole used the terminology "non-residents"; the explanatory note to the bill uses the word "non-Canadian."

We're in favour, in principle, of this legislation and we hope the government and the members of this House see fit to refer this to committee, probably the standing committee on social development, for further discussion and clarification and certainly to invite the school boards to be part of that.

Mr Drummond White (Durham Centre): Upon first reading I found Bill 24,

An Act to amend the Education Act, to be a very attractive piece of legislation. Who could deny equal access to all children? How can the government deny equal access? How can our government, a social democratic government whose history and traditions have sponsored immigrants -- we have had members here in our community, such as Dan Heap, who have fought vigorously and hard at the federal scene to help immigrant families here in Toronto.

Yes, there are many in our community who might deny such children, the children of illegal immigrants, access to schools here in Canada, but I suggest these people are mean-spirited and certainly do not represent the majority of our community who are fair and decent people.

As a family therapist, I would like to pick up on one of the comments our colleague the member for Oriole mentioned, the quote from the Bible of the sins of the father being passed unto the sons, unto the fourth generation. That is all too true here in Ontario -- still too true.

I would go further and suggest that it's often the sins done unto the children, particularly the daughters, that are passed on from generation to generation. Here we are talking of adults who make decisions, who should be responsible for their decisions, but whose children should not be so responsible. In so many other areas we see that happening. How can we condone it? I have seen, as a social worker and a family therapist, so often how lives can be damaged for ever by actions that occur when youth are still at home, damage done to them that then passes on to their children.

How do we change that? We change it only through education and information, through an enlightened, informed, educated community. I think that here we have a community, an educational system, which is in the forefront of dealing with many difficult social problems.

Just this Monday we had Mr Silipo, the Minister of Education, speak about how the curriculum can be changed to deal with racism, an affront to those values we hold dear, those racist concepts that are still in our community. They can be approached; they can be dealt with through the educational system. We know how well the educational system has dealt with issues like sexism, enhanced the role of women and young girls through an informed and enlightened perspective and moved our community ahead. We know how keenly aware students are of environmental issues.

Yes, I would suggest that the best way to invest in our community, in our youth, is through that system. I thank the member for using those quotes. We are in fact in a community blessed with an excellent educational system that is the marvel of many throughout the world.

In my community we have people from across the world who come to a private school, a visa school. I believe there are some 5,000 or 6,000 students who attend such schools in the greater Toronto area. These people pay an enormous amount of money, far more than the cost through our public educational system, so that these young girls at the Trafalgar Castle girls' school, formerly the Ontario Ladies College, can enjoy an Ontario education, something that is acceptable to our universities and to our community.

They have an excellent system; almost, I would say, the equivalent of our public educational system. I've had the opportunity of being there on many occasions; twice this very month. This Saturday I'll be at their graduation ceremonies and I look forward to that.

If this bill were passed, it would mean that schools like this would be in severe jeopardy. They are excellent schools, but the reasons these visa students come is because they want to have an education in Ontario. Were this bill to be passed, these visa students would be forced into the public system, and that private school, that excellent school, would probably go the way of many of its fellows in bygone days. So I would suggest a caution in that regard, as the previous speaker mentioned.

While I support many aspects of this bill and its application, there is still concern in some areas, such as these private schools, such as Trafalgar Castle school, which I think would be imperilled by this act.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I will allow my colleagues to speak about other of these issues.

Mr Charles Beer (York North): It's a pleasure to rise and join in the debate in support of my colleague's proposal. I welcome the comments that have been made by her, by our colleague the member for London North and our colleague the member for Durham Centre. I say at the outset, because I know well the school my colleague has just mentioned, Trafalgar Castle, that I appreciate the issue that has been brought forward. It seems to me this is one that could be dealt with and that there are some ways of handling it. Obviously, as the member for Oriole has said, in committee we would have an opportunity, I think, to address that. It is a real issue but one that I think can be addressed.

I'd like in my time to focus on two areas of the bill. The first thing I want to do is to say that I really think our focus -- and I believe it's been the focus members have taken in addressing the issue -- has been on children. I want to remind members of a debate we had in this House approximately two or more years ago. The document I'm holding in front of me is Children Have Rights Too: A Primer on the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Members who were here in the last Parliament will recall that the former member for Riverdale, David Reville, had brought in, actually, an opposition day motion urging that Ontario sign the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. This document, which I strongly recommend to members, is an excellent document prepared here in Canada by a group of activists working with children. One of the things that makes it interesting -- and I know it's hard to see on television -- is that it is full of drawings by children and looks at some of the specific issues that children around the world face.

I think that all too often we, here in Canada, sometimes feel that we're better than all other countries and that we don't have any problems. I think, as all members know, we do have problems, and we need to focus particularly on children at risk and the factors that put children at risk.

I'd like, in this debate, just to read that part of the convention that speaks to education. This is what the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child says about education:

"The child has a right to free and compulsory primary education, equal access to secondary and higher education and school discipline which reflects the child's human dignity.

"The state shall ensure that education is directed at developing the child's personality and talents; preparing the child for responsible life in a free society; and developing respect for the child's parents, basic human rights, the natural environment and the child's own cultural and national values and those of others."

That represents articles 18 and 19 of the United Nations convention. I think that in dealing with the issue before us, it's important to go back to some first principles, because whatever legal and technical difficulties there are in coping with this issue, none the less our focus is on children and making sure they all have an equal right and an equal access to education.

I would also want to draw to members' attention, in support of my colleague's amendment, several other studies that have been done in Ontario over the last several years which talk about children at risk and the importance of ensuring they all have an education. Members may be aware of the Ontario Child Health Study: Children at Risk, which looked very specifically at the kinds of problems children can have that are going to mean they simply don't lead a normal life and don't have what most of us take for granted in terms of being able to lead full lives.

Clearly one of those areas where kids can be at risk is if they do not have access to education. Obviously that is what the principle of this bill speaks towards. The Children First document -- the former Minister of Community and Social Services, the member for St Andrew-St Patrick, was a member of this particular committee -- again looked at how do we make sure all children will have access to education. Finally, the document Better Beginnings, Better Futures again set out a number of models by which we wanted to help children have an equal playing field and not have to face a whole variety of problems.

So if we use that focus, whatever reservations we may have on, as I say, the technical-legal side, I think what we want to do with this bill, what's important, is to get this into committee where we can deal with it. I'm sure my colleague from Oriole would say that if indeed through that process we find a better way to ensure that, fine. The issue is just in making sure those young children, whose parents are perhaps frightened of the system and what might happen, will have that right to education made very clear.

The second point I would like to mention is one we faced when we were a government. I think it speaks to the federal government but it needs to be placed on the table today. This was the issue around refugee children. A few years ago members may recall there was a tremendous surge of refugees and a number of school boards in the Ottawa area and the greater Metropolitan Toronto area were suddenly finding large numbers of children showing up on their doorsteps and they had no knowledge they were there.

The boards were frustrated, and it was understandable why they were frustrated: There was no funding that came with those children. At that time we had talks with the federal government around the whole question of refugees and how we make sure these young people can be in the school system and that there must be a responsibility on the federal government, given that it is responsible for the refugee system, to help the province, to help the school boards.

As we look at this specific issue, it is interesting that during the constitutional discussions that have been going on, the issue of immigration and how the provinces and the federal government come together in that area, which is of course right now a joint area, is an important one. In moving forward with this bill, Ontario may want to explore the idea of an agreement with the federal government around the question, among others, of children: children of refugees, children of illegal immigrants.

It's difficult because one wants to say, "They're not there; we won't acknowledge that they're there," but we know they're there. I think it is a responsibility, in addition to the one we have here in this chamber, of the federal government in terms of a number of the funding issues that flow from that. We should not be hesitant in reminding them of that.

Indeed, in my view, perhaps once the constitutional discussions are completed, we should look at whether Ontario, as do six other provinces, needs to have an immigration-refugee agreement with the federal government around the funding of a number of programs because, as has been stated earlier, Ontario and in particular Metropolitan Toronto will find the largest number of those children in this area.

I want to underline again that I think the member for Oriole has raised an issue the principle of which I think is fundamental and one we want to respond to. Whatever problems there are of a technical and legal nature, I think those we can address in committee. It would be very useful and helpful, not only to the children, to be able to bring to the committee representatives from school boards and others who work with children so that we can make sure every child living in this province is not going to be deterred from having an education, participating in school, because of the legal status of his or her mother or father. I would urge all of us to support the member's bill.

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): I'm very pleased to join in the discussion today dealing with private member's Bill 24,

An Act to amend the Education Act, which has been put forward by the member for Oriole. I agree with the principle. However, I would agree also with the member that this needs to be sent out to committee for further clarification. I think just today there have been many points that have been raised -- for example, the definition. Are we dealing with non-resident or non-Canadian? I guess to me, "non-Canadian" means that anyone who's not yet a citizen would be denied access, so certainly we need to discuss that.

I would certainly agree that all children in this province need to have the right of access to education. Unfortunately, because of the situation that has been created throughout the province because we do have refugees who have not been granted landed immigrant status, because of people who are here illegally, there are children at the present time in this province who do not have access to education and who are sitting at home and certainly are not being served very well in preparation for their lives in the future. We need to take a look at how we best meet the needs of those children.

There's tremendous confusion throughout the province on this particular issue. We see some boards accepting children of refugees and we see others that do not, but certainly there are many, such as the ones in my own community, that on compassionate grounds do accept these children.

We have some other cases now in my community as well, and I know throughout the province, where we have children who come from countries where there is civil war and they come to stay with relatives in Ontario. They are now seeking access to our public and separate school system. Again, we need to determine, how do you deal with those children who have been sent away from the country because of war and possible death and a very uncertain future?

I think we need to take a look at this issue, because there is tremendous confusion and each board seems to be dealing with the issue quite separately. This amendment would certainly help to clarify for school boards who is or is not eligible to attend Ontario schools, because there always is the possibility for abuse. There are many people who admire the Ontario school system and obviously would send their children here to stay with family, and we have to make sure that the reasons are appropriate.

I think, as I mentioned, we need to clarify that definition. Who is it that we're talking about? Are we talking about a non-resident in that school community, a non- Canadian or who? That certainly needs clarification.

I've had an opportunity to talk to a few people in school boards, and although they do agree with this bill in principle, they have some concerns. It appears innocuous. It appears to be housekeeping. But because of the lack of clarification today, they've raised a couple of concerns I would just like to share with you today that could be potentially serious and that we need to give some very serious consideration to. Really it's the confusion over the definition: Is it non-resident, non-Canadian, or what are we dealing with?

I'm pleased that these school boards did take advantage of the opportunity to provide me with some feedback, and I guess that's the reason why this bill needs to go out to committee for discussion. We need to hear not only from school boards but from groups and individuals who have been directly impacted by the confusion existing in the province today. As I say, we all approve of the principle and we recognize that children should have access to the system. However, there are some serious implications.

For example, if we're talking about non-residents in a school district and if there is a strike at that board, because the bill indicates that every child in Ontario is entitled to an education, neighbouring boards -- in my case, if Waterloo went on strike, Wellington, Wentworth etc -- would be mandated to provide spaces to those children who applied and paid the associated fees, and the boards could not refuse them. We need to clarify that situation and make sure we know exactly whether this would be a reality. We do have strikes at school boards, so that could certainly happen.

We've had them in the past and students then seek to cross the line and enrol in neighbouring boards. And of course it provides hardship for that board; they simply don't have the space or the teachers to deal with the additional students who are coming from boards that are undergoing a strike.

Second, if foreign students apply for admission to the system and pay the fee, it's possible, because of the lack of clarification we have here today, that boards throughout the province would lose the power to refuse to take them. We need to take a look at that because it could have very serious implications for school boards. Again, it could raise the cost of local education within an area and put an additional tax burden on those residents.

Finally, there is a concern that if you have a board in this province that is respected and well known for undertaking a high-risk, expensive special education program, we all know that people throughout the province would probably like to have access to that board, especially those people from neighbouring jurisdictions who could easily be transported back and forth by their guardians or parents. Boards then could lose the right to refuse admission to the special education programs they offer. Again, it's a lack of clarification.

And, of course, since the amount of the fee that boards can levy is presently capped, they would not be able to recover the full cost of these very expensive special education programs, and the difference would have to be paid by the taxpayer in the jurisdiction providing the program.

So we need to clarify. Are we talking about non-residents in the board's district? Are we talking about children whose parents are refugees or illegal immigrants? Obviously we're not talking about children who are here and are landed immigrants, but again, the bill does not make it clear. Certainly I wholeheartedly support in principle the bill that's being put before us today. I hope we will send this out to committee and that we can very quickly resolve this situation, because there are many children throughout this province who today, for whatever reasons, are not attending school and are being denied that very basic right. I would support this and my caucus will support it.

Mr David Winninger (London South): I, too, am pleased to lend my support to Bill 24. I compliment the member for Oriole on her bold initiative, which I think deserves our support in enabling people who are not Canadian citizens or permanent residents of Canada to attend schools in Ontario without the payment of maximum fees. As you know, Mr Speaker, people enter Canada for a variety of reasons: for education, for work, to visit sometimes and often as refugees. Many of the newcomers to my riding of London South came to London as refugees from Central America, Poland or other places where they have experienced considerable political turmoil.

I think we have to be mindful that there is indeed a lot of consultation that has to be done on this. I think the member for York North and also the member for Waterloo North underscored this point today. We need to look at what the cost implications are. What are the cost implications for our school boards? As you all know, education is financed not only through provincial grants but also through municipal assessment, so we need to consult with our local school boards. Perhaps the work of the Fair Tax Commission will be relevant here. Perhaps we'll also look at amendments to the education finance reform act. These are important considerations that interact with this particular bill.

As you know, currently the Education Act provides that a person who is not a Canadian citizen or a permanent resident can be charged a fee calculated in accordance with the regulations. It's unfortunate that many of the people who come here to Canada as refugees are the least able to afford payment of these fees, and I think this amendment would go a long way towards obviating their particular plight.

There are indeed, as the act stands right now, exceptions provided for in subsection 49(7), I believe, from the requirement to pay maximum fees on behalf of several classes of non-citizens or non-permanent residents to Canada, including refugees and members of the diplomatic corps, but I certainly feel we would do no injustice in expanding these categories of exception to the payment of fees.

There are also concerns, I know, under

section 15 of the Charter of Rights as to whether we can justify differential treatment of people who are non-residents. I know recent jurisprudence flowing from the Supreme Court of Canada would seem to support the view that we can't support this kind of discrimination. I think the amendment the member for Oriole promotes in the House today would certainly bring our legislation under the Education Act more into conformity with

section 15 of the Charter of Rights.

At the same time, if we remove the requirement of payment of fees, we definitely have to consult with the federal government, as the member for York North observed, because certainly if we relax the requirement for payment of maximum fees, it may increase the demand for easier access to student visas under the Immigration Act, and I think we have to be prepared for that.

We need to consult with the federal government. We need to consult with the boards of education and municipalities. I think we need to consult with the private schools that are currently targeting people in this category to ensure what effect this legislation would have on the future of those schools and other private schools where visa students are currently enrolled. There's a great deal of consultation that has to be done in connection with the costs and consequences of the amendment put forward by the member for Oriole, but in principle I'm certainly prepared to lend my own support to second reading of Bill 24 today.

The Deputy Speaker: Would you like to take the remaining five minutes?

Mr Gary Wilson (Kingston and The Islands): Yes, I would.

The Deputy Speaker: We'll finish first with the member for Kingston and The Islands.

Mr Gary Wilson: I'm pleased to join my colleagues in this debate, because I think, as has been well said already and is shown by the interest in this bill, we do have a great interest in educational matters. I'm very pleased to see so many school children in the gallery today watching these proceedings, because, as they can hear from the debate, this affects their future as well as their kids' future.

I think the member for London South has outlined very well some of the areas of concern we have with this bill. He supports it in principle. I join him in saying that. Several speakers have outlined where problems lie in this that have to looked at very carefully. One of course is consultation with the federal government to make sure this fits in with its legislation and where it would like to see this area move.

I think, though, that the member for York North, in outlining the reports that have come forth on matters dealing with children, including education -- that is, Better Beginnings, Better Futures; Children First, and Children at Risk -- shows that this is an issue that goes to the heart of our policies dealing with children.

Regardless of the issue the member for Oriole raises of people who are left out of the system, even the kids who are in our school system now need the best school system possible. I think the problems that have to be addressed in this bill relate to the money available. Certainly we want to make sure the money is there, but we don't want to cause changes to it that will create dislocations that will cause downgrading of the educational system. I think it is understood that we will look at this very carefully.

The final thing, though, is to have the best school system possible for all our children, to make sure it is accessible to whoever that child is in our community, partly because that is a thing we can use that goes beyond our community into the world at large, that the resources we have as a group will be devoted to the best interests of everybody.

The member for Downsview has shown some interest in this matter as well, so I would like to give him some time.

The Deputy Speaker: There is one minute and 19 seconds left.

Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, for giving me an opportunity to speak to this bill as well. I would like to applaud the efforts of the member for Oriole. I don't normally agree with many of her positions, but I do agree with her position on this particular bill. As a former trustee, I can tell you that this is something school boards often have problems grappling with when there are children on their doorstep who are otherwise not receiving the education that, in my view, they would normally be entitled to if they are to have any hope of being able to become productive citizens in this country or any other country.

I do have some reservation about some of the technical aspects of the bill, because I attended a high school where we had many very well-to-do students who came from the Orient in most cases. My reservations would be that if this were to happen as is before us, those students would be able to get a free education here when they could technically afford to pay.

Mrs Caplan: I would like to thank all those members who spoke in support in principle.

I would like to point out that the member for London North, the member for Durham Centre, the member for York North, the member for Waterloo North, the member for London South, the member for Downsview, the member for Kingston and The Islands, members from all parts of the province understand and share the principle that's been put forward today for the debate and, further, that private members' hour is an opportunity for every member of this House to raise issues of concern, to debate them in a non-partisan way and then to, hopefully with the support of the House, continue that debate at committee, where we can address the issues that have been raised in a very thoughtful way by many of my colleagues on both sides of the House in today's debate.

I would like to mention and be very clear that I do not condone the behaviour of illegal immigrants. I do not condone the actions of adults who come to this country in an illegal way. I do not condone lawbreaking in any manner whatever. My intention with this legislation is to say that while I do not condone illegal behaviour or lawbreaking in any way, I also believe that it is in Ontario's interests, our interests today and in the future, to ensure that all children living in Ontario, whether the status of their parents is legal or not, to see that those children are educated.

If the parents are subsequently deported, the child will return a little better educated to the country of origin. If the parents are granted amnesty or find a way to apply for legal status in the future, then that child will be a more productive citizen of Ontario in the future.

I'm the first one to agree that there is great confusion among educators and school boards in this province today as to how to resolve this issue. I've heard members of the Legislature this morning talk about the intergovernmental and interinstitutional and interjurisdictional difficulties with this issue.

I hope with this bill in committee we could begin to address how to do that, but I don't believe the barrier of intergovernmental dispute, bureaucratic wrangling, should stand in the way of legislators solving a problem which will lead to greater prosperity, greater economic activity and greater wealth creation as well as a better place for all our children and grandchildren, because we've taken steps today to ensure equality of access to education for children living in Ontario.

My colleague the member for York North in particular, and others, referred to very important documents, one which contains the signature of Mr Beer, the member for York North: Better Beginnings, Better Futures. I don't think there's a statement which says it better than, "If you give children a better beginning, you will have a better future." If we in Ontario dedicate ourselves to ensuring that all children have access to education, ensuring that when they arrive in this province and however they come here they have a better beginning, we will all in Ontario have a better future because of that.

The Children at Risk study, the Children First documentation and Children Have Rights Too, all before us in this House at one time or another for debate, suggest that we share this common goal, and the debate this morning, I think, has just highlighted how much we in this House all have in common. I would ask that this piece of legislation be allowed to proceed to committee so that we can find the solutions together.

I do not intend, through this legislation, to have an impact on visa students, to have an impact on those students who should quite properly be able to be charged for the education they receive in Ontario. That is not the intent of this bill. I would point out to one member -- I believe it was the member for London South -- who said that under today's existing law students can be charged, that without the definitional clarity, students must be charged.

The boards have no discretion; the boards have no flexibility in the cases of those children who, as the member for Downsview quite rightly pointed out, are often on their doorstep identified as in need, identified as at risk of being uneducated, facing a future illiterate and facing a future without opportunity because legally today the boards in Ontario must charge. They cannot have any discretion to waive the fees.

I was interested also in the comments of my colleagues the member for London North and the member for Waterloo North regarding the potential costs. I believe there are many school boards today that in fact do not obey the law and educate these children. I applaud them for doing that, but I don't think they should have to break the law to do it.

I am also very surprised at the estimate from the city of Toronto and I hope we could explore that further, because it is my understanding that the policy of the city of Toronto school board is to admit these children and not ask any questions.

If in fact there are those kinds of potential costs, I think we should explore that and determine how we would resolve that. There is only one taxpayer in this country. That taxpayer pays federal taxes, provincial taxes and municipal taxes, and we all have to be sensitive to that taxpayer, because nobody wants to pay more taxes. At the same time, I would point out that the cost to that very same taxpayer of having illiterate, uneducated, unproductive, wasted resources in this province is a much greater cost that we cannot bear when there is a solution.

I would again like to thank all of those who participated. I'd also like to thank the administrator of the North York school board who pointed out to me that this was an issue that should be addressed. I want to thank him for bringing that to my attention and to thank those school boards which offered advice and assistance as we did some research into this issue. I'm hopeful we will have the opportunity at committee to find a solution so that we can ensure that children in Ontario have access to the education we all want them to have.

The Deputy Speaker: The time for private member's public business has expired.

ROLE OF INDEPENDENT MEMBERS

The Deputy Speaker: We will deal first with ballot item 13, standing in the name of Mr Drainville. If any members are opposed to a vote on this ballot item, will they please rise.

Mr Drainville has moved private member's resolution 10. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

Motion agreed to.

EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR L'ÉDUCATION

The Deputy Speaker: We will now deal with ballot item 14 standing in the name of Mrs Caplan. If any members are opposed to a vote on this ballot item, will they please rise.

The House divided on Mrs Caplan's motion, which was agreed to on the following vote:

Ayes -- 43

Beer, Bradley, Callahan, Caplan, Christopherson, Cooper, Cunningham, Curling, Dadamo, Drainville, Duignan, Frankford, Haeck, Hansen, Hayes, Johnson, Klopp, Lessard, Mammoliti, Marchese, Mathyssen, Mills, Morrow, Murdock (Sudbury), O'Connor, Owens, Perruzza, Poole, Rizzo, Runciman, Ruprecht, Sullivan, Sutherland, Turnbull, Villeneuve, Wessenger, White, Wilson (Kingston and The Islands), Wilson (Simcoe West), Winninger, Wiseman, Witmer, Wood.

Nays -- 0

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: We will wait for the member to take his seat. Pursuant to standing order 94(k), this bill is referred to the committee of the whole.

Mrs Caplan: I request that it be referred to the standing committee on social development.

The Deputy Speaker: This bill will be referred to the standing committee on social development. Agreed? All those in favour of the question will please rise and remain standing.

Please take your seats. The majority of the House being in agreement, this bill stands referred to the standing committee on social development.

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

The House recessed at 1212.

AFTERNOON SITTING

The House resumed at 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

AIR QUALITY

Mr Carman McClelland (Brampton North): I'd like to make some comments to the members of this House and the people of Ontario with respect to the clean air program, otherwise known as CAP. This is a bit of history I'd like to share with some of my colleagues and the people of Ontario.

Regulation 308 of the Environmental Protection Act was actually first brought into being and promulgated in 1968. At that time there were obviously different technologies and methodologies in terms of measuring air pollution.

In August 1990, after, I might say, a considerable amount of work done by the previous government under the leadership of Mr Bradley, the member for St Catharines, regulations were put in place that were in draft form.

Let me give a bit of history of what happened there. The Liberal government responded to the outdated regulations by setting up a working paper and said, "How can we arrive at regulations that will deal with clean air initiatives in this province?" Out of that came draft regulations. They were tabled or submitted to the public at large in August 1990 with a view to having a six-month consultation period to refine those regulations and bring them into place. That public process would have resulted in those regulations being on line in February 1991.

To date we have heard nothing at all from the current Minister of the Environment. We have no idea what her plans are for continuing the clean air program or for a new program.

Changes in regulations are important. The direction of this government is important. People want to know, industry wants to know, environmental groups want to know. In the absence of any consultation there is no degree of certainty as to what is happening with the clean air program. The people of Ontario are looking for leadership in this area and deserve to have this government pick up the good work that was begun and to do something with it.

AMBULANCE SERVICES

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): The Minister of Health is currently reviewing the Swimmer report, which recommends that the province take over all ambulance services in Ontario. Private ambulance operators have grave concerns about this recommendation and how it will affect their business. The Ontario Ambulance Operators' Association believes that the minister should not adopt this recommendation because it will be too expensive and will not improve the quality of services in the province.

The Ontario Hospital Association has also expressed concerns about the province taking over ambulance services. They also believe it would be too expensive and would reduce local autonomy and accountability.

My PC colleagues and I agree. Buying out private operators would cost the province millions of dollars at a time when health care costs are spiralling out of control and hospital beds are being closed and staff laid off. The cost of implementing this recommendation would be yet another unwelcome burden on the taxpayers of Ontario.

Unfortunately, private ambulance operators have good reason to worry about their future. They have seen the NDP's attempts to run private day care centres out of business and they fear the same will happen to them. Private operators also have legitimate concerns about whether they would be adequately compensated if the province decided to run them out of business. The NDP has not given private day care centres adequate compensation, and there is good reason to believe private ambulance operators would fare no better.

I urge the minister, who has endorsed the principles of the Swimmer report, to do the right thing and allow private ambulance services to continue to operate in Ontario.

LABOUR DISPUTE

Mr Mike Farnan (Cambridge): For 14 months now 27 employees of the Cambridge Reporter have attempted to negotiate a first contract with their employer, a division of the Thomson newspaper chain. After months of stalling tactics by the company, the Reporter employees were forced to take strike action. The company responded by recruiting replacement workers.

Following three months of strike, the Ontario Labour Relations Board decided in favour of the employee guild's request for first-contract arbitration. Unfortunately, the management of the Reporter continues to operate in its customary heavy-handed, autocratic manner. The Reporter has now fired four of its full-time employees. You won't be surprised to learn, Mr Speaker, that all these individuals were individuals who exercised their democratic right to strike, and they had from two to nine years of seniority.

This action by the Reporter's management might be justified if they were downsizing, but this is not the case. Replacement workers hired during the strike have been kept on. Replacement workers with just a few months' experience stay on while experienced staff are let go. To add insult to injury, during negotiations prior to the strike the company and union had agreed to bumping privileges for senior employees. This article, however, is not binding until the first contract is arbitrated.

I ask you, Mr Speaker, why do we need the proposed Ontario Labour Relations Act? Precisely because we have employers such as Thomson's Cambridge Reporter. Unfortunately this legislation was not in place to protect these workers at the Cambridge Reporter. Hopefully it will help others in the future.

DENTAL CARE

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): I'd like to bring the attention of the House and the Minister of Health to the very real problem of inadequate dental care faced by thousands of Ontario seniors and long-term care clients.

The plight of our senior citizens with dental problems has been well documented. In addition to a recent study conducted by the Ontario Society of Public Health Dentists, an investigation conducted by the Dental Committee on Dental Care for Seniors in Need showed that approximately 75% of seniors were found in need of preventive dental care and 25% were in need of dental treatment requiring the services of a dentist or denturist. Moreover, many seniors are not eligible for dental insurance plans and simply cannot afford adequate dental care on their meagre incomes.

All of this amounts to indicating that the time has come for the minister to move on this very important issue. While I understand the issues that have come to bear on the Health budget in general, this is a step, taken in time, that can save millions of our taxpayers' dollars.

I only point to the fact that the dental program for children in Ontario, which was put in place by the Liberal government, showed positive results to the extent that now there is less need than ever before for dental invasive procedures with respect to our young children.

I believe if the current government follows the lead of the two previous Liberal ministers of Health, myself and the member for Oriole, and brings this program to operational activity, it could save the province lots of money and bring better health to our seniors.

COLLEGE STANDARDS AND ACCREDITATION

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): My statement today is directed to the Minister of Colleges and Universities and of Skills Development.

One of the recommendations in Vision 2000, the report on quality and opportunity, was to develop a College Standards and Accreditation Council called CSAC. In September 1991 the minister announced the creation of a CSAC establishment board to seek the views of interested parties and citizens on the major issues facing this body.

The discussion paper of the CSAC establishment board proposes that CSAC ensure that general education constitutes 30% of program hours for all college program within 10 years following the establishment of CSAC. This recommendation does not add extra hours to the curriculum to compensate for this. It will be at the expense of vocational education.

We know that technical, vocational and generic skills are all important, but given the economic challenges that business and industry are experiencing, it is important that students are receiving the technical skills they need to compete in our competitive global economy. Many college programs are set up to be intensely geared towards a specific field of study. If these programs have to be watered down in order to meet general education quotas, the students and the industries that hire them will be the losers. Quality is very important, but so is opportunity -- opportunity for our young people to be trained in colleges across this province with job-training skills.

CARROUSEL OF THE NATIONS

Mr Wayne Lessard (Windsor-Walkerville): The 17th annual Carrousel of the Nations, Windsor's multicultural celebration presented by the Multicultural Council of Windsor and Essex County, will be held Friday, June 12, Saturday, June 13, Sunday, June 14, Friday, June 19, Saturday, June 20 and Sunday, June 21. In recognition of our 100th anniversary as a city, Carrousel of the Nations will salute this special occasion under the theme "Carrousel Celebrates Windsor's Centennial."

Carrousel this year will feature 28 ethnocultural villages, including Afro-Canadian, British, Caribbean, Chinese, Croatian, Filipino, German, Greek, two Hungarian villages, Indian, Irish, Italian, Japanese, Lebanese, Macedonian, Polish, Scottish, two Serbian villages, Slovenian and three Ukrainian villages. I want to personally welcome three new villages this year: Trinidad and Tobago, Slovak Nativity Lutheran Church and Maltese.

I'm proud to say that all but five of these villages are located in my riding of Windsor-Walkerville and all will be presenting the best in traditional cuisine, entertainment, crafts and displays. And the best part of all: Admission is free. Opening ceremonies take place tomorrow afternoon at Lanspeary Park on Ottawa Street, and I want to recognize and express my thanks to the sponsors of this year's Carrousel, Tony Azar and Raymax Construction, CBC and Molson.

PHILIPPINES INDEPENDENCE DAY

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): I rise today for the purpose of recognizing a special event that occurred 92 years ago, June 12, 1898: the establishment of a free, independent, democratic republic of the Philippines. This day is not only an important date in history, but it has great significance to our Canadian citizens of Filipino heritage.

Though many of us take our democratic system of government for granted, the celebration of the 92nd anniversary of the establishment of democracy in their beloved homeland serves us as well as a useful reminder to all that in order for the tradition of freedom to be preserved it must be valued and guarded with great vigilance.

In recognition of the important contributions that Canadians of Filipino heritage have made to economic development and indeed the cultural enrichment of our province and country, the blue, red and white flag of an independent Philippines will be raised tomorrow morning at city hall.

These Philippine colours have become an international symbol of the indomitable spirit of democracy and serve as an inspiration to us all to strengthen the bonds of friendship, respect and affection that we have for the Filipino Canadian community. Therefore, in recognition of this special day, we say to all our friends who trace their roots to the Philippines, "Mabuhay ang Pilipinas."

GREY SAUBLE CONSERVATION AUTHORITY

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey): I'm very concerned with the latest unwelcome development in the relationship between the Ministry of Natural Resources and the conservation authorities of Ontario. Under a memorandum of agreement signed April 16, 1986, with the Ministry of Natural Resources, the Grey Sauble Conservation Authority has on two occasions, in September 1987 and May 1989, asked for and received a withdrawal of surplus funds in respect of revenues received by the minister in management of the forest area.

On March 31 of this year, knowing the balance of the program account was over $40,000, Grey Sauble asked for further money. Instead of a cheque, it received a letter announcing that the ministry was reneging on the agreement and had unilaterally decided to review the process and would be withholding funds in the interim. The conservation authority signed and has honoured this agreement in good faith. It relies on revenue from the sale of trees to carry out its program and now, especially when funding is being slashed, it seems most unfair to withhold money which has traditionally belonged to the authority.

It seems to me that if the ministry can, with no consultation, go back on the agreement it signed, a conservation authority may do likewise. If the minister wishes to have the agreement stand, perhaps he could investigate the situation and advise me and the Grey Sauble Conservation Authority as quickly as possible.

SISTER CHRISTINE LEYSER

Mr Derek Fletcher (Guelph): People in Guelph were happy to learn that Sister Christine Leyser of the Sisters of Loretto is one of 12 recipients of the 1992 Ontario Medal for Good Citizenship. Sister Christine is a familiar downtown figure, providing meals, shelter, advice and encouragement. She is also a well-known activist for Guelph's poor and homeless.

Sister Christine left a long teaching career in 1979 to work with inmates at the Ontario Correctional Rehabilitation Farm in Guelph and the Ontario Correctional Centre. She soon realized that these people needed help after they were released. In 1983 Sister Christine organized the Welcome In Drop In Centre Corp. The board included representatives from churches, the trades, social work and a doctor.

In 1984 the Welcome In Drop In Centre opened, serving coffee and doughnuts. Now it is open seven days a week and serves a noontime lunch and evening meal. It is a place where people can get nutritious, affordable and good food, friendship and support. On any given day, there are about 40 clients at the centre. Some 90 volunteers staff the centre and Sister Christine is usually on hand all day.

In 1984 Sister Christine opened the Dwelling Place to provide longer-term supportive housing for about eight adults. In 1986 she opened the Stepping Stone to provide emergency shelter for about 10 individuals. Sister Christine has also been putting up the homeless at various motels. In the late 1980s, she spearheaded a move by the Guelph Non-Profit Housing Corp to build 38 affordable homes for families and individuals. This project is called Yorkhaven.

Sister Christine is a credit to our community and she makes our community a lot richer.

LEGISLATIVE

SCHEDULE

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: As you know, Thursday is a very important day around this building. We have House leaders' meetings to deal with the business of the day, and from time to time there is disagreement with respect to what we can and cannot do in this Legislative Assembly.

Mr Speaker, you will be aware of the fact that under the standing orders, if this were a regular sitting of the House, after today's date no further bills could be introduced that allow for second reading to follow by the end of the sitting of the House unless something is reached consensually to allow otherwise.

In fairness to the House leader for the government, he has agreed that he won't force this issue on us, but I wish to bring to your attention the fact that the government House leader has advised us today that under standing order 66 he is not under any prohibition at all from introducing bills after the end of June, if we are still sitting here in July, that will preclude their passage into second reading and beyond if he so chooses.

This presents to us in the opposition some pretty difficult questions. If he decides he will introduce a bill as of Monday's date or next Tuesday's date or next Thursday's date, we could sit here and look at it for a little while and it would then wait for debate in the fall, unless, as he tells us he has been advised by some experts -- and we haven't seen the opinion because he said it was given orally -- he extends the sitting into July, in which case any bill he chooses to introduce from now until the rising of the House in July he says he can force to second reading and in fact pass it.

It is my contention, on behalf of the opposition Liberals at least, and probably on behalf of the opposition Conservatives, that the spirit of putting into play standing order 66, which is a new rule, was to prevent the government of the day -- our's in that situation, but also dealing with the Tory administration before -- bringing bills to the House on the last few days of a sitting and stuffing them into the debate channel and requiring their second reading passage and ordering them for debate or whatever in committee in the summer months.

That would seem to be unfair to the opposition since we would not be prepared then to give it a successful debate and go out to the public and get our own materials in order so we could provide the appropriate interjections that are required for debating the bill.

I was, unhappily, very upset by the suggestion of the House leader that if he is unable to introduce his London annexation bill today, with an introduction of that bill on a date later than today but with the House extended into July, it could be forced to second reading without a consensual agreement among all of us. He alleged that he had advice that this was in fact correct. I have countered that with the very strongest suggestion that it would be a nasty departure from the real reason the rule was brought in.

While I wish to tell you now that there is every probability we can come to some kind of agreement with respect to that piece of legislation, I was totally taken off guard that the government House leader would actually suggest that merely by extending the sitting of the House, he could take out the operation of standing order 66 and thereby really negate the safeguard against the end of public debate -- or at least the unfair nature of opposition being prevented against the bill.

I'm sorry for going on, Mr Speaker, but I wanted to give you the full facts, and I don't want to say that the government House leader hasn't now agreed to come and talk to us about the bill, but I want you now to deliberate upon that very point of standing order 66 and advise the House formally whether it is your position that in fact that rule can be negatived by merely extending the sittings of this place a day or two, at the discretion of the government. I would see a positive declaration on your part to that assertion as really ending the reason for having that rule in the books at all. I thank you for your timely consideration of this matter.

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): On the same point, Mr Speaker, I think this is a fairly significant point of order in that I suspect it has not been ruled upon since the rules were changed in 1989. I would reiterate some of the points my colleague has made with respect to standing order 66 and the whole intent and rationale behind standing order 66 in the first place.

The rule changes started some time probably in about 1986 or 1987 and in effect weren't agreed upon by all three parties consensually, as of course we always do in this province, until 1989. The whole point of inserting that rule in there was so that governments of the day, regardless of what political stripe they were, could not put a whole pile of legislation on the order paper at the last minute and expect it to be passed without proper notice and debate and giving the public and the opposition parties an opportunity to respond to whatever legislation it was that the government of the day chose to introduce. That is the whole point for having standing order 66.

I realize that if you read that standing order in an extremely technical fashion, it talks about "the last eight sessional days in June" and it talks about "the last eight sessional days in December."

I can't use the expression, because I can't use the word "liar" in this Legislature, but I guess there's a way around anything. It is not the intent and wasn't the intent of the individual who negotiated these rule changes for the New Democratic Party at the time, I might add -- in fact they were very concerned that this standing order be put in here to prevent any government in the future -- presumably they never thought they'd ever be elected government, but lo and behold they have been.

The whole intent of that rule is that the government cannot dump a whole pile of legislation on to the order paper, and in this case now use the argument that it is trying to circumvent the rule by extending the sitting time or the sessional days during which a particular sitting of the House happens to occur.

I don't think any reasonable person would come to the conclusion, "If I can just get past June 25 and have the House come back on June 29, then I can introduce 1,027 pieces of legislation and I'm entitled to get them passed next week because I've found a technical way to breach the rules." I know that would be the technical argument the government House leader might use, but I would strongly urge you to consider, Mr Speaker, the thinking and the rationale that went into and the intent behind rule 66 in the first place.

Surely if the government has ordered its agenda in a proper fashion, it will have no problem at least having first reading of any bill it intends to pass. I can see it, as it finds itself now, not being able to get its legislation passed and therefore extending the sitting of the House, but I don't think that should allow it to abrogate the spirit and the intent of rule 66.

Hon David S. Cooke (Government House Leader): I appreciate the fact that the opposition House leaders have raised this matter, and even though it's a hypothetical question, I think it would be appropriate for you to rule. If I were an opposition House leader, I wouldn't necessarily want this matter ruled on in the House.

This morning when we had the House leaders' meeting, I raised the matter with the House leaders. The House leader for the official opposition raised a concern and expressed the concern. I thought we had resolved it in that I said we would share the draft legislation, see if we could work it out and see if it could be sorted out, because I understood the concern. I thought that was the purpose of House leaders' meetings, to try to sort it out.

But, Mr Speaker, I agree; I think it would be useful for all of us to have this matter ruled on so that the opposition and the government understand that if the House does sit into July, that

section of the rules doesn't apply.

There's one piece of legi