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

November 8, 1989

34th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

WETLANDS MANAGEMENT

HYDRO BILLS

REMEMBRANCE DAY

INTERNATIONAL TRADE

FAMILY VIOLENCE

PASSENGER RAIL SERVICES

ROYAL WINTER FAIR

TRANSPORTATION SAFETY

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

CORPS D’ÉLITE ONTARIO

RESPONSES

CORPS D’ELITE ONTARIO

VISITOR

ORAL QUESTIONS

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

COMMUNITY COLLEGE TEACHERS’ LABOUR DISPUTE

ONTARIO HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

RENOVATIONS TO APARTMENT BUILDINGS

DRUG ABUSE

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

HAZARDOUS WASTE

LANDLORDS’ RESTRICTIONS ON PETS

RETAIL STORE HOURS

ELGIN-WINTER GARDEN

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

ACADEMIC STREAMING

REGIONAL GOVERNMENT OFFICE

ELECTRICITY DEMAND AND SUPPLY

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

MOTION

HOUSE SITTING

PETITIONS

FRENCH-LANGUAGE SERVICES

REMEMBRANCE DAY

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

REPORT BY COMMITTEE

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT, 1989

PUBLIC SERVICE PENSION ACT, 1989 (CONTINUED)

ORDERS OF THE DAY

EDUCATION STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1989 (CONTINUED)

COURTS OF JUSTICE AMENDMENT ACT, 1989

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

Mr Wildman: The Ontario Federation of Agriculture, in its annual presentation to the government entitled Planting a Healthy Future, stated the following: “Financial health underpins it all. The prime interest rate is stubbornly steady at 13.5 per cent. Anticipating the inflationary impact of the goods and services tax, we project interest rates will trend higher in the medium term.”

The most damaging condition of the 1980s for Ontario farmers has been the disastrous effect of high interest rates. With the end of the Ontario family farm interest rate reduction program, Ontario farmers are left with virtually no interest rate assistance at a time when realized net farm incomes are forecast to fall below last year’s levels and interest rates are probably going to rise.

With outstanding short-term debt at close to $900 million for Ontario farmers, each one per cent increase in interest rates results in an additional $9 million in debt carrying costs. The situation is just about as serious as the disastrous conditions of the early 1980s.

Unlike Ontario, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Quebec all have provincial farm credit agencies to provide assistance to farmers. This province must develop short- and long-term programs to help farmers deal with interest rates. Otherwise the Liberal government will be demonstrating that it has no real commitment to agriculture in this province.

WETLANDS MANAGEMENT

Mr Pollock: The Liberal draft policy statement on wetlands planning will only protect class 1 and class 2 wetlands which are of provincial significance. This policy does not take into account regionally and locally significant wetlands which are a vital habitat for rare plant and animal species. This leaves 60 per cent of Ontario’s wetlands unprotected.

Wetlands are lands that are seasonally or permanently covered with shallow water, as well as lands where the water table is close to or at the surface. The presence of abundant water has caused the formation of water-clogged soil and has resulted in the development of water-tolerant vegetation. The four major categories of wetlands are swamps, marshes, bogs and fens.

Under

section 3 of the Planning Act, municipalities must merely “have regard” to policy statements. The wetlands policy will be one of 10 such statements made under the Planning Act and none is given priority.

Of interest to the minister, the policy states that northern Ontario wetlands will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis as there is no formal evaluation system in place yet. This could lead to arbitrary decision-making, further jeopardizing northern wetlands. The government has been asked to revise the wetlands policy statement to correct these flaws.

HYDRO BILLS

Mr Chiarelli: In today’s era of increased consumer awareness, governments and consumer advocates have expressed their concerns about credit and collection practices.

Using current Ontario Hydro guidelines, Ontario’s hydroelectric commissions charge a late payment fee of five per cent of the current portion of the bill. This is not an interest rate. If inadvertently or otherwise a hydro consumer is not able to pay his or her bill on time, this five per cent late payment fee effectively creates a 92.5 per cent annual rate of interest for a bill paid 31 days after the date of the bill, a 60 per cent annual rate of interest for a bill paid 46 days after the date of the bill and a 30 per cent annual rate of interest for a bill paid 76 days after the date of the bill.

By today’s standards, these rates are unacceptable and unconscionable. Consumers of hydro must be told the effective rate of interest and the rate must be reasonable. I strongly feel that our government should call Hydro to task on this issue.

I therefore urge the Minister of Energy (Mrs McLeod) and the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr Sorbara) to investigate the possibility of imposing more acceptable collection practices on Ontario hydro commissions. The consumers of Ontario deserve no less.

REMEMBRANCE DAY

Mr Hampton: For the first time in this province’s history, Ontario liquor stores will open their doors on Remembrance Day. Since 11 November this year falls on a Saturday, the government has decided it is not in the interest of its pocketbook to close local liquor stores.

The message this decision sends is clear. The government is showing callous disrespect for the sacrifice and sufferings that thousands of Canadians endured in two world wars. From 1914 to 1918, 60,000 of our forefathers died in a battle for freedom. During the Second World War, over one million Canadians served and almost 42,000 of them gave their lives.

These were not wars of glory. They were wars where thousands of ordinary people made the ultimate sacrifice. For 44 years now, two generations have lived in peace and freedom because of them. We have remembered them until now, in that on 11 November we pause and liquor stores have remained closed.

Symbolic as it may be that liquor stores have historically remained closed on Remembrance Day as a sign of respect, it is important. I urge the government to look carefully at the statement it is making by allowing liquor stores to remain open this Remembrance Day.

INTERNATIONAL TRADE

Mr Sterling: We have been watching with intense fascination the series of events unfolding in eastern Europe in recent months. Hungary, Poland, East Germany and other east European countries have been and are continuing to experience upheaval with respect to their political philosophies. In Hungary, we have witnessed the most dramatic changes. They have abolished the Communist Party and created an open, democratic process of government.

As Canadians, and particularly as Ontarians, we have a strong appreciation for our many multicultural groups. In Canada, we have over 100,000 people of Hungarian origin. We should continue our commitment to multiculturalism by extending beyond our borders and helping this newly created democracy integrate into the free market system.

In doing so, Ontario would be opening a whole new avenue of trade in eastern Europe. Ontario has always been on the cutting edge of new global developments and now is the time to help their transition by enhancing trade opportunities for ourselves as well as for the Hungarians.

Hungary is now open for business and Ontario should be the first off the mark to establish a trade office in Budapest and build on the entrepreneurial spirit, which is bound to flourish in this newly created democracy. Ontario would be wise to undertake this effort instead of focusing on promotional activities in demonstrating its intent to initiate and intensify trade opportunities.

FAMILY VIOLENCE

Ms Poole: Wife assault is not a pleasant subject. It is something we would quite often prefer to ignore and deny, but it does exist and with frightening frequency. One in eight women in this province is assaulted by her husband or live-in partner. Equally horrifying is the recent report that 62 per cent of all women murdered in Canada die as a result of domestic violence.

Being a woman and being part of a relationship or family should not take away from anyone’s right to safety. In addition to the emotional and physical damage it causes, wife assault violates a fundamental human right. Wife assault does not just hurt women; it hurts children, it hurts the abusers themselves and it inevitably damages the whole fabric of our society.

Our government is committed to stopping this cycle. Once again, November has been declared Wife Assault Prevention Month. Wife assault has to be acknowledged. It has to be talked about. It has to be stopped. Each one of us has a responsibility to do what we can to stop this vicious cycle. I urge my colleagues to spread the word: Wife assault is a crime.

PASSENGER RAIL SERVICES

Mr Philip: The people of Etobicoke were quite pleased when in 1985 the Mimico rail maintenance centre was opened. This cost the taxpayers about $100 million but it created just under 700 positions.

In the aftermath of the 4 October announcement of Via Rail cuts, concern has heightened regarding the employment impacts on the Mimico maintenance facility, which is the most labour-intensive Via installation in Ontario. Since Via Rail passenger service in Ontario is planned to be curtailed by 50 per cent, one might assume that one half of the employment of the Mimico maintenance centre might be affected. This would mean an estimated annual payroll loss of between $13.5 million and $15.1 million, and a loss of 340 jobs, which would be quite a blow to our community.

The regional municipality of Peel planning department has estimated that if Via service in southern Ontario were terminated, 60 to 70 additional flights would be required daily at our already overly congested Pearson International Airport, and long-distance traffic on Highway 401 would be increased by five to 10 per cent. With the possibility of Via services being cut by half, one can safely assume the impact on our airport and highways would be at least half of what the Peel planning department suggested.

There has been some speculation that Via cuts could spur the further expansion and extension of GO Transit’s commuter rail services. A matter for consideration might be to examine the partial use or purchase of the Via Rail maintenance centre by GO Transit for the maintenance of its expanding fleet of locomotives and coaches.

Initiatives of this nature should be acted on by the Minister of Transportation (Mr Wrye).

ROYAL WINTER FAIR

Mr Wiseman: It gives me great pleasure to rise in the House today to comment on the opening of the 61st Royal Winter Fair. The Royal Winter Fair has long been a Canadian tradition, a time when the country comes to the city and shows off the depth and diversity of a rich farming heritage.

Over the years, the fair has grown from an agricultural display to a cultural festival celebrating rural Ontario. While state-of-the-art farm machinery and livestock are still exhibited, square dancing, country music and step dancing have become part of the fair. Fall fairs have been popular in Ontario since 1792 and it is my hope that they will continue to educate the people of Ontario for years to come.

I fear, however, that if the Ministry of Agriculture and Food continues to forget its obligations to provide programs and direction to the entire agrifood sector, our great tradition may be in jeopardy.

TRANSPORTATION SAFETY

Mr Mahoney: I would like to bring to the attention of this Legislature a transportation safety exhibition that will be held on 10, 11 and 12 November at the Mississauga Civic Centre. It is interesting to note that 10 November also marks the 10th anniversary of the great Mississauga train derailment and the evacuation of our city.

The title of this exhibition is Transportation Safety: A Shared Responsibility and will include representatives from the city of Mississauga, CP Rail, CN, the Railway Association of Canada, the Canadian Chemical Producers’ Association, Transport Canada, Operation Lifesaver and the Ontario Trucking Association. The goal is to increase public awareness of the importance of transportation safety in the transport of dangerous goods as well as educating our young people in the area of safety.

There will be many demonstrations, including emergency response vehicles and equipment, a computer program that displays more than 3,000 dangerous chemicals, a train dynamics analyser from CP Rail and Operation Lifesaver videos, as well as many other safety-oriented videos.

It is vitally important when we are competing in a global economy that both residents and industries work together to ensure the safest methods of transportation for all materials is being fully utilized. It is only through a shared responsibility that our communities will continue to safely grow and prosper.

Mr Pollock: Mr Speaker, perhaps it would be in order to wish the member for Oxford (Mr Tatham) happy birthday?

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

CORPS D’ÉLITE ONTARIO

Hon Mr Black: It is with distinct pleasure that I announce today the six recipients of the 1989 Corps d’élite awards.

These people are being honoured today for their outstanding contribution as recreation volunteers in Ontario. Recreation is gaining importance in our changing society. More and more Ontarians recognize that meaningful leisure activities foster healthy, productive lifestyles. They also realize that the quality of our lives has been enriched by the contributions of volunteers.

Since its inception, the Corps d’élite program has honoured 21 people at the provincial level, including those here today, for enhancing recreational opportunities across Ontario. Furthermore, we have recognized about 100 people for contributions to various regions of the province.

The six new members of the provincial Corps d’élite Ontario are in the member’s gallery today and I would like to introduce them. They are Charles 0. Bick of Willowdale, Virginia A. Bidwell of Markham, Laurie G. Branch of Burlington, Harold Coulson of New Market, J. Thomas Riley of Etobicoke and Edward (Ted) Wood of Clearwater.

The Ministry of Tourism and Recreation is committed to developing Ontario’s vital base of recreation volunteers. Every year thousands of Ontarians donate countless hours of their time and energy to recreation in this province. Many recreation organizations would cease to exist without the help of volunteers who give without any expectation of recognition.

The volunteers we are honouring today have given so much because they are deeply dedicated to improving the quality of life in Ontario. I am sure I speak for every member of this assembly in extending our sincere congratulations and thanks to the recipients of the 1989 Corps d’élite Ontario awards as well as to the thousands of other recreation volunteers in this province.

RESPONSES

CORPS D’ELITE ONTARIO

Mrs Grier: On behalf of the official opposition, I too would like to join in congratulating the winners of the awards today. It is a very significant event that we should have this many winners and have them announced on this occasion, and I do congratulate them one and all. I know how much we depend in this province on volunteers in all sectors of life, in all corners of the province and in all walks of life.

As a municipal politician, I had the honour of working for many years with J. Thomas Riley, one of the winners who is with us today. I know that through his leadership in our municipality, volunteers play not only a very meaningful role, but also a role that has been recognized and incorporated into the fabric of the governing bodies of that municipality as well.

I am sure the same is true of all of the other winners and I wish them well in the years ahead.

Mr Jackson: I too wish to indicate our appreciation for the minister’s announcement in the House today, for his recognition of these outstanding individuals and for the commitment that the volunteer sector, the municipal sector and the private sector have made to enhancing recreational opportunities for our province and its citizens.

I would also like to state, on a more personal note, that one of the worthy recipients is a constituent of mine. I guess it is fair to say that he has had a dramatic effect on the life of the citizens of the city of Burlington, and in particular on a young family such as ours. We have benefited immensely from the vision and dedication of Laurie Branch. I do not wish to speak at length about his résumé, but I do wish to indicate that his commitment as the president of the Canadian Parks/Recreation Association has brought much distinction to Ontario.

He is the founding president of the Ontario Recreation Society, and he has assisted thousands of young people to develop life skills which have put them in good stead throughout this province.

It was through recreational programs that were inspired by Laurie Branch that football players like Tony Gabriel emerged. He is just one example. We have world-class swimmers who have come from our community, all because of the commitment and dedication of people like Laurie Branch. And, of course, I should mention the Burlington Teen Tour Band, which is internationally famous, was part of the vision and commitment of this individual.

As Mr Branch receives his award today, with deep appreciation, I know he expresses on behalf of our community the ongoing support for, and the need for, assistance with their budget in order to make their Pacific tour a reality. We wish him continued success with his fund-raising goal of $670,000 in order to make that a reality for the children of Burlington who will represent this province and this country on the global theatre.

Mr Cousens: We can all celebrate the success of the volunteers who have been recognized so highly today. I was at the function, and I would like to compliment, not only them for the grace they showed and the leadership they have given but also the government and the Lieutenant Governor for the marvellous way in which they have recognized them.

Quite frankly, we need more people like those who have been so recognized by the province today. I know we could use more Virginia Bidwells in Markham. That fact is, she has just been an outstanding Girl Guides of Canada leader. I just hope that you train many more, Virginia, who come along and follow in your footsteps, because our young people need leaders like you. May you continue to be inspired to give as freely of yourself and may your family continue to be as supportive and good. How proud you must be. How proud we are of you.

Mr Brandt: On behalf of my party, I want to express to all of the recipients of the Corps d’élite Ontario award that we are extremely proud of your accomplishments. We are extremely proud of your contribution to the province of Ontario, and we are delighted that you could be with us today to receive the award officially from the Minister of Tourism and Recreation (Mr Black), as well as the awards that were presented by the Lieutenant Governor of the province of Ontario.

You join, in all, 21 recipients of this award since its inception four years ago. The award was quite properly introduced by the province of Ontario, and I compliment the government on so doing, because there is no stronger force in our society and no more vital or critical effort that can be put forward by any group than by our volunteers, who are so vitally needed right across this province and in every community that is represented.

I would be remiss if I did not say, on a personal note, my congratulations to a personal friend and someone whom I have worked with for more years than I want to recall on this auspicious occasion. Ted Wood, who not only continues to be an employee of the city of Sarnia but is someone who not only has contributed to our own community and to the county outside of Sarnia but as well has contributed on a province-wide basis through his work with the recreation association.

Without the vital contribution of all of the recipients today, our province would not be the kind of wonderful place it is for the citizens of Ontario. I know that on this occasion, and there are few occasions when I have this opportunity, I speak for all 130 members of the Legislative Assembly when I say to each and every one of you a very sincere, heartfelt “Thank you.”

VISITOR

Hon R. F. Nixon: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I thought perhaps you and the members would like to have it recalled that among our honoured guests this afternoon, identified as Charles 0. Bick, is C. 0. Bick, as we used to know him, who was a long-time magistrate and for 21 years was chairman of the police commission of the province. So, long before he became a volunteer, he was also working.

ORAL QUESTIONS

Mrs Grier: My question is for the Minister of the Environment (Mr Bradley). I understand he is expected and I would like to have permission to stand down my question until he comes.

The Speaker: Would there be unanimous consent?

Agreed to.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr Kormos: My question is for the Minister of Financial Institutions. I want to draw his attention to matters that were indeed drawn to his attention back on 18 July 1989 by the member for Nickel Belt (Mr Laughren) right here in this Legislature.

The minister was told about how Canadian Commerce Insurance Co. an automobile insurer, would cancel the policy of one of its customers and then immediately reinsure that customer through Cornhill Insurance Co Ltd at rates that were some 30 per cent higher, thus avoiding and evading the so-called cap that the government says it put on insurance premiums. That was put to the minister back in July -- a 30 per cent increase, an effective circumvention of the government’s so-called cap.

I wonder what the minister has done about that since then.

Hon Mr Elston: The honourable gentleman will know that the cap which he has indicated applies in most cases where the business is carrying on, obviously, under the company’s auspices. In this case, the company has ceased to carry on business in writing insurance in the province, but in fact a substitute carrier has been found.

We are not in the business of forcing people to write business or to carry on business in any particular manner. The honourable gentleman will know that once somebody makes a decision to withdraw from the marketplace, we cannot force him to carry on.

The interesting concern expressed is in fact one of how much the premiums were. We have tried in the best way possible to ensure that people have not been left without coverage, but in cases where people withdraw from the market, we have no alternative but to seek the best possible price left in the marketplace.

Mr Kormos: Back in July, the minister was made aware that the new company, Cornhill, interestingly had the same address, the same signing officers as the old company, Canadian Commerce Insurance. He left the distinct impression with the member for Nickel Belt that he was going to look into it.

Why this is of some interest today is that a lady called Anna Cerullo from Mimico was insured, she tells us, for a good chunk of time by Scottish and York Insurance Co Ltd. She was told that after 29 October her insurance, for which she had been paying premiums of $269 every six months -- she was told that as of 26 October Scottish and York would not be renewing her insurance. But her insurance service obligingly, with the assistance of Scottish and York, found her coverage with Victoria Insurance Co for $625 for six months -- same secretary, same president, same address.

The same happened to Wayne Hartling --

The Speaker: Order. Would you place your supplementary.

Mr Kormos: Thousands of Scottish and York customers --

The Speaker: Order. Will you place your supplementary.

Mr Kormos: What is the minister going to do about the thousands of Scottish and York customers who are being forced to pay premium increases well in excess of 7.6 per cent, more like 30, 40, 50, 60 and 90 per cent? There are thousands of them in the province. What is he going to do about that?

Hon Mr Elston: The honourable gentleman, as is his way, forcefully delivers a grand theatrical presentation here in the House. I can tell the honourable gentleman that while we take this very seriously indeed, in spite --

Mr Pouliot: What about the people who are paying?

Mr Laughren: You don’t even answer your letters.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Elston: We take this very seriously, and as I told the gentleman before, if he would make the information available, we will look into what is happening, what are the circumstances behind each case and otherwise.

I can tell the honourable gentleman that I am not particularly happy with the way those sorts of decisions are made, and under the auspices of the new bill, if members would allow us to move quickly forward to implement it, the new insurance commissioner will be able to take action with respect to that type of activity and invoke very tough measures against companies that unfairly make those sorts of decisions internally.

Mr D. S. Cooke: This is your third time. Three strikes and you’re out.

Hon Mr Elston: I can tell the honourable gentlemen that although they do not want to listen, the new legislation will deliver to us, as a government, an ability to intervene to assist people who are unfairly treated with respect to rates. That is clear. The bill is in the House and I want to deal with it quickly so that those sorts of problems can be eliminated.

Mr Kormos: The minister and the government once again are seriously misinformed. A careful reading of that new bill reveals that there is no protection for drivers like the ones I just spoke of. Indeed, the only thing that new bill guarantees are incredible profits for insurance companies because it denies benefits to over 95 per cent of all innocent injured accident victims here in the province.

The real question is, why will this minister not tell us today that indeed there are going to be committee hearings in Toronto and across the province so that people across Ontario who have never had an opportunity to address this new legislation can tell the minister what they think of his bill in polite, and probably some not-so-polite, terms.

Hon Mr Elston: Let me tell the honourable gentleman that when he says we are not telling the people the full story, he is wrong. We are telling the full story. This bill, as it is in front of the House now, will provide better coverage for the people of the province, increase no-fault benefits, increase accident rehabilitation benefits, increase long-term care and provide quicker delivery of those services.

In addition to that, while these people make those silly accusations, the people will be able to go to the commissioner and he or she will be able to intervene with tough new regulatory abilities to make sure that people are not unfairly treated by their insurance companies. That is quite clear by the way the legislation is structured. That is quite the way it is going to occur.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Elston: There is one other thing. This Legislative Assembly has a committee structure that will review the legislation, and I will be pleased to take a look at the input that is given to us in front of the legislative committee. I will listen to the people who come before it and I can tell the member there will be legislative committee hearings on this particular bill, as I have said from the beginning.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Perhaps some of the members would care to read the new standing orders and look at standing order 20(b).

COMMUNITY COLLEGE TEACHERS’ LABOUR DISPUTE

Mr Brandt: My question is for the Minister of Colleges and Universities. I want to remind the minister that on two other occasions I have raised with him my concerns about the college strike and the impact that strike is having on the students of Ontario. I would like to ask the minister, in view of the fact that this strike is now three weeks old and the students are, of course, vitally concerned, critically concerned, about the impact this is having on their school year, how much longer is the minister prepared to wait before he becomes personally involved in settling this particular issue?

Hon Mr Conway: Let me say at the outset that I do appreciate the concern of my friend the member for Sarnia and the concern of all members of the assembly, which concern has been conveyed to me on many occasions throughout the course of this particular dispute. As the honourable member for Sarnia knows, there is a free collective bargaining process that is in place to resolve these kinds of disputes. I am a strong believer in the collective bargaining process. I do not wish to distract attention from that process, which has resolved much more than it has left unresolved.

I certainly appreciate the frustration of the students. Like them, I want this strike settled. I want it settled soon and I am confident that the mediation talks which are ongoing will bring about the kind of settlement that is going to be in the interests of these students in both the short and long terms.

Mr Brandt: Let me say that my party supports the collective bargaining process as well. What we do not support is the threat of the students losing their school year. I am receiving calls daily from students, teachers and parents who are asking one simple question. Recognizing that the Ministry of Education, through the Ministry of Colleges and Universities, is in fact the third party at the table, whether the minister wants to be there, physically present, or not, the reality is that it is part of the negotiating process. The minister is part of the solution if he wants to be.

Why does the minister not stand up and tell the people of this province that he is prepared to take an active role and get the students back in the classroom where they deserve to be?

Hon Mr Conway: The honourable member for Sarnia raises the issue of the students’ jeopardy. As my honourable friend the member for Sarnia will know, under the Colleges Collective Bargaining Act there is an organization called the College Relations Commission which has the statutory obligation to monitor these disputes. It is their responsibility under the act to ascertain whether or not students are in jeopardy as a result of a withdrawal of services which is contemplated under the free collective bargaining process. At this point, the College Relations Commission has not advised me of a finding of jeopardy.

Mr Brandt: I would advise the College Relations Commission, through the minister, that George Brown College is receiving an average of 100 calls per day from students who are indicating that they are very close to quitting as a direct result of not being able to get back into the classrooms. I urge the minister on behalf of the people of this province, and more particularly, over 100,000 college students whose school year is in jeopardy, to please sit down with the two sides, try to get these negotiations back on track again and end the dispute.

Hon Mr Conway: To my friend the member for Sarnia, I can indicate that I intend momentarily to address, with other members of this assembly, a group of instructors. I will at that time urge upon them what I have urged upon the other party to this dispute, and that is that it is their responsibility as the parties to the dispute under the free collective bargaining process, and in the interests of these students, to take advantage of the mediator and the talks that are currently under way to resolve this.

I am not a party to the dispute nor do I intend to become a party to the dispute. I want to say that it is important to keep the pressure where the pressure belongs, and it belongs on the two parties, the Ontario Public Service Employees Union and the Council of Regents. They have it within their power and in the interests of the students of the college system to do what ought to be done, to negotiate a settlement and to negotiate it soon.

ONTARIO HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

Mrs Marland: My question is to the Minister of Citizenship. This morning the standing committee on government agencies met. The Liberal members of that committee voted down a motion to hear from a former employee of the Ontario Human Rights Commission, although that employee had made that request. Can the minister tell us if he agrees with the Liberal members’ refusing to hear from any of the former staff of the Ontario Human Rights Commission, and what it is that his government is afraid of?

Hon Mr Wong: What I do believe is that there was an internal review done. There was also an external one done by Coopers and Lybrand. Both of these reports were tabled in front of the standing committee, and the participants who were involved in creating and writing these reports also appeared before the committee. I believe that all members of the committee, regardless of what party they came from, made the judgements. That is an independent committee that has a responsibility of making the appropriate decision.

Mrs Marland: Every committee is independent and every committee has all party members on it to make decisions. My question continues to this minister. Yes, there has been an internal review. The authors of the internal review report were before the committee. We now have evidence that some of the answers of the authors of that report may not be totally factual. I am asking the minister, what is it that he is afraid of by having the other side of this issue heard?

Hon Mr Wong: Quite to the contrary, it is not a matter of being afraid; it is a matter of having courage in the democratic system.

Also, the honourable member is suggesting that some of the information may have been incorrect. At the same time, I understand that the same committee reviewed information, as many of these committees do, that shows contradictory or opposing pieces of information. Again, I must say, for the responsibility of those members who were working diligently and responsibly to arrive at the appropriate decision on what to do, I believe they did make the appropriate decision, analysing all the facts that were before them.

Mrs Marland: This is a dark day for human rights in Ontario. I want to tell this minister that if he truly believes in the democratic system, he will support a former employee of the Ontario Human Rights Commission at least being heard. Will it not be ironical if that former staff person at the human rights commission goes back to that very commission to plead his own human rights and being able to represent his own issue in front of an all-party public hearing?

Hon Mr Wong: Let me say that the commission is designed by the government to protect the human rights of Ontarians. It is designed to be strong and independent. The employee has the usual right, as a public servant, to go to the human rights commission or through the court process. We have many mechanisms in our society so that the individual’s rights are protected.

Once again, I do believe that the committee was asked to look at the situation but also at the future: how the human rights commission could be made stronger, how it could begin to address the issues of systemic discrimination and reducing that and how it could look into the issues of public education. That is what the committee should have been doing.

RENOVATIONS TO APARTMENT BUILDINGS

Mr D. S. Cooke: I have a question for the Minister of Housing. Over the last few weeks, we have raised many cases with the minister about rent increases as a result of unnecessary renovations. Today I would like to bring to his attention another example, 1065 Eglinton Avenue West and Joyce Hall, a former tenant of that building who had to leave because she could not afford the new rent. Those tenants are facing increases of 111 per cent to 195 per cent in their rents.

The tenants of that building and other tenants across this province want to know from the minister not what he cannot do to resolve this problem but what he can do to resolve this problem and when he is going to do it so that landlords can no longer undertake unnecessary renovations simply to raise base rents.

Hon Mr Sweeney: I do not believe I had indicated to my honourable colleague earlier that we are looking only at what we cannot do. What I clearly remember indicating to him was some of the difficulties we are facing in finding a solution. We are quite prepared to attempt to find a solution to this.

What we are concerned about, though -- and let’s be sure we do understand it -- is the distinction between necessary and unnecessary. In this particular case, the judge ruled that those particular renovations, in his judgement, were unnecessary. However, similar renovations in other places have been defined as necessary even by the tenants themselves.

The second question we are looking at is, what mechanism should we use to make that? Should it be under the Landlord and Tenant Act? Should it be under rent review? Should we use the standards board? We are looking at that right now.

The staff in my ministry are clearly looking for a way to deal with the situation. We want to be sure, however, that we do not go too far the other way and buildings do not receive, or do not have carried out, necessary renovations.

Mr D. S. Cooke: An additional twist in this particular building is that the landlord was charged in August and September 1989 by the Ministry of Housing under the Rental Housing Protection Act for carrying out renovations that should have required the building to be vacant and therefore approval by the local council.

What is going to result in this building is that the court hearing will not be heard until some time next year; yet even though he could be convicted under the minister’s own legislation, the tenants are still going to be stuck with this rent increase because the renovations are almost complete.

If the minister is not prepared to deal with the big picture of capital renovations in all of the units, is he at least prepared to make amendments now so that if a landlord is charged under his Rental Housing Protection Act, those renovation costs cannot be passed through and the tenants held responsible for them financially?

Hon Mr Sweeney: What my honourable colleague is proposing certainly has some merit to it, and I would be quite prepared to discuss that with my staff and our rent review officers. As I understand the position he has taken, if a landlord has acted illegally -- I guess that is the only way to put it -- can he still get the rent increase. It would seem to me that we should be able to do something about it, and I will certainly take a look at what he is proposing.

DRUG ABUSE

Mr Runciman: My question is to the Minister of Housing as well. Earlier this week, in a CITY-TV broadcast, it was revealed that there are 35 crack houses in 23 of the 25 Ontario Housing Corp complexes run by the provincial government. Apparently, when the Minister of Housing was presented with this information, he said, “It’s not that big in total numbers.” In other words, it was not a big deal in his mind.

I am just wondering if the minister, now that he has had time to reflect upon that, is still supportive of the comments he made in that interview or is he prepared to offer an apology?

Hon Mr Sweeney: Let me put the comment that the honourable member referred to in context. When I was asked, I pointed out to the reporter that I had visited both the south Regent Park area and the Jane-Finch area and had an opportunity to speak to the police who were working on these, to our various maintenance officials who are responsible for trying to identify these places and to some of the tenants.

In all three cases, it was brought to my attention that we first must have some reasonable evidence that what is alleged is taking place. I am sure my honourable friend would agree that is the way the law normally works. We have been told that is not the easiest thing to get, but when we do get it, the police have to be asked to charge the people in particular question. Then we have to go through the legal process to evict such a person. All of those things are being done on a regular basis. People are being evicted. People are being charged. People are being discovered. That is the first point I made.

The second point I made was to remind the --

The Speaker: Order. Supplementary.

Mr Runciman: The tenants obviously were somewhat perturbed by the minister’s comments, and I have a copy of a letter that was sent to the minister just yesterday from the 437 Jarvis Street Tenants Association. They were absolutely appalled at the minister’s attitude.

It is this sort of apathy among elected officials that betrays the members of the public who put them in power and could very well degrade Toronto and put it on par with cities like New York and Chicago.

I would ask the minister to reconsider the position he has taken on this, to address the concerns of tenants and to consider working with the Toronto city council to make an effort to resolve this problem, which is wasting so many people in society, especially young people.

Hon Mr Sweeney: Let me ask my honourable colleague if he is not aware of the fact that a 10-minute interview can be encapsulated on television into 10 seconds. In fact, that is almost what happened here. I am trying to share with him what the nature of the whole discussion was. I do not think my honourable friend is disagreeing with the context in which I put my remarks. I am sorry, but I am not able to determine which 10 seconds out of 10 minutes is going to be shown and the way in which that is going to be perceived by the public. I have no control over that.

What I am saying to my honourable friend is that we are co-operating with the police, and we are co-operating with the tenants, but we are also acting in the way in which the law dictates we must act. I do not think my honourable friend would suggest to us that we should act outside of the law. That would make us just as bad as some of the people we are trying to catch.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Mr Adams: My question is also for the Minister of Housing. The province signed an affordable housing agreement with the city of Peterborough. Under the agreement, the community was promised various advantages if 25 per cent of its housing was affordable. Can the minister report on the current status of this important housing agreement?

Hon Mr Sweeney: Let me ask my honourable colleague to please convey back to his community, the city of Peterborough, how appreciative this ministry is of its co-operative attitude and the co-ordinating way in which it is working with us.

As a matter of fact, quite a number of things have happened since that agreement was signed. We have allocated, I believe, about 66 nonprofit units. We have allocated, I believe, about 18 convert-to-rent units. We have funded roughly a $250,000 grant for redevelopment under PRIDE, the program for renewal, improvement, development and economic revitalization. We have provided funds to do an intensification study in the member’s area, and we have funded an access-to-permanent-housing committee in his area. All these have flowed from that agreement.

I want to point out to my friend that one of the good parts about all of this is that we are generating a mix of housing, for students, seniors, single parents, some of which is affordable rental and some affordable ownership. That is the best possible package we could look forward to. Peterborough, because of its co-operative attitude, has made all of this possible.

Mr Adams: I think the minister is right; a variety of community organizations have already co-operated with the city and the province to develop housing projects. But I am frequently asked why the province does not use the land it owns to help such projects. My supplementary is, does the minister have plans for the release of provincial lands in Peterborough?

Mr Breaugh: Oh yes, I’m sure.

Hon Mr Sweeney: Yes. My honourable friend the member for Oshawa is completely correct, and I have no idea how he possibly knew that.

Let me remind my colleague the member for Peterborough that the Scott’s Plains nonprofit housing project is built on government land. That is one that is already there. Second, he will perhaps be aware of the fact that we are currently negotiating for the use of a piece of provincial land; I think it is on Tower Hill Road. There is another piece of provincial land that we, internally in the Ministry of Housing and with my colleague the Minister of Government Services (Mr Ward), are looking at as a third project. So in fact we have already done some, one is just about to be announced and the third one is under consideration within the ministry.

The Speaker: I will now recognize the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore for the deferred question.

HAZARDOUS WASTE

Mrs Grier: My question is to the Minister of the Environment and concerns the report I raised with him yesterday about the Smithville bedrock remediation panel. Since this report became public, we have all heard the minister’s reassuring statements. The citizens of Smithville have heard those statements now for four years. But this report is highly critical of the Ministry of the Environment. It is obvious that the ministry has been wrong about the size and extent of the contamination; it has been wrong about the depth to which the bedrock has been contaminated.

His officials did not know there was a hydraulic connection between the shallow and the deep aquifers, and they have been wrong about the time this would take to clean up and the cost of the cleanup.

Can the minister possibly explain how, after four years of being seized with the urgency of this problem, he and his officials can be so very wrong about so many things?

Hon Mr Bradley: I would first disagree with the member. Of course, she has attempted to put the worst possible light on this, as is the job of the opposition critic; I accept that. I sat on the other side of the House for eight years, and I know that is a responsibility.

The fact is that the reason we commissioned this report, the reason we got these people from the University of Waterloo and others to look at the situation, was to evaluate the contamination that exists in the area, which everybody knows exists, to evaluate its extent and to recommend possible solutions to it.

I guess I was hopeful that there would be some specific solutions that would be apparent immediately. They have stated in the report that this is not the case. But if we have to break new ground, which in essence we probably will, if we have to be world leaders in this regard, we are determined to put in the necessary research and development, along with people from universities and other experts, to determine a technology to solve the problems that are there.

The member would know that we have already solved a number of the problems. We have already cleaned up a lot of the PCBs. We have secured the storage of those PCBs. A contract has been let for the destruction of the PCBs which have been secured; that is going through the environmental evaluation process at the present time. We have spent millions of dollars in good faith and worked hard on this project. This report points to more --

The Speaker: Thank you.

Mrs Grier: This report certainly points to the need for the minister to be world-class. One of the things the report says is that one reason why the Ministry of the Environment should pursue the recommendations vigorously “pertains to the criticism directed by Ontario towards the United States regarding control and cleanup of the chemical waste sites in Niagara Falls, New York.

The Smithville project is an excellent opportunity for the Ministry of the Environment to provide to the United States an example of technically rational and relatively fast action to prevent hazardous industrial chemicals in the bedrock from impairing water resources that are used by humans for drinking water supply.” How fast can the minister move to set this example?

Hon Mr Bradley: I can assure the member that we are moving at this very moment to do so and have been for some months. First of all, I want to indicate that I happen to agree with that report which we commissioned. I happen to agree that we should move expeditiously, even though the report suggests it would require two years of research and development, and these are outside experts who have said that. They said, further to that, perhaps another three years would be needed for a demonstration project. I want to do that.

Here is a classic example of how we can demonstrate, not only to our American friends but to people around the world, how to address a particular problem, just as in south Riverdale for instance, and in the Niagara neighbourhood, we undertook activities which others have come to view and will be using our technology.

We are prepared to do that in this case. We are prepared to use money from the technology fund, which is related to environment. We are prepared to use it from the security fund. I think it is a good suggestion. We are prepared to move on it.

Mrs Grier: The panel’s report is dated 26 June 1989. The panel acknowledges that the technologies required are not yet known. The panel says the challenge must be faced and asks that the minister appoint a committee of the best possible research and development people in Ontario to get on with the work. It says, “The panel recommends that the minister establish this committee in 1989.” He has had the report for five months; he obviously has not appointed the panel yet. Does he consider that fast action’? When is he going to appoint the committee, and when is he going to expect this report?

Hon Mr Bradley: I would not like to characterize it as no activity having taken place, because the fact is that millions of dollars have been spent in Smithville. For instance, we have a ring of 15 monitoring wells surrounding the site to determine whether there is any movement of contaminants away. We have six purge wells which are pumping out and cleansing the water, and that has been going on since May 1988.

I am prepared to indicate, as I have all along, that whatever action is necessary to solve the problem in Smithville, this government is determined to fix up and clean up the mess that was left by the previous government.

The Speaker: Just so we do not get out of sync, because there was one deferred question, I will recognize the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale.

LANDLORDS’ RESTRICTIONS ON PETS

Mr Philip: I have a question of the Attorney General. In case he is not aware, I would like to draw the Attorney General’s attention to the situation facing the Fernandez family. The Fernandezes have lived in their rented apartment for 18 years. For eight years their poodle has lived with them.

lnterjections.

The Speaker: Order. Interjections are out of order, particularly if members are not in their own seats.

Mr Philip: To the Attorney General. As I was saying, the Fernandez family have lived in their rented apartment for 18 years. For eight years their poodle has lived with them. Superintendents in the past have always said that the poodle was no problem to other tenants in the building. Last Friday, their landlord gave them 15 days to get rid of the poodle because their lease contains a no-pet clause. They are now facing this cruel problem because the government has failed to amend the Landlord and Tenant Act.

Is the Attorney General now prepared to amend the Landlord and Tenant Act to protect tenants from this kind of capricious action by landlords?

Hon Mr Scott: I would like to thank the honourable member for his question. The initial view was that the Ryll case, or the Fluffy case as it is called, had changed the law of the province, which previously had permitted an eviction of a tenant for breach of a covenant only if disturbance to other tenants or the landlord was demonstrated in court. Many people thought the Ryll case had permanently changed the law.

A review of the cases since the Ryll case has indicated in fact that that is not so and that the old law, which requires the demonstration of disturbance, is reasserting itself in Ontario. In that context, of course, an amendment is not necessary because the purpose of the amendment would be to restore the old law, which is now happening.

My advice to the constituents I have who are in the same situation as the family to whom my friend refers, is just to go to their neighbourhood legal aid clinic immediately, to not get rid of their pets and to not take an eviction. That is what the process is for and legal aid is willing to serve them.

Mr Philip: I am sure the Attorney General would understand that legal aid does not apply to a large number of tenants in this province, including people who actually fall under the legal aid ceiling. There are more than 100 buildings in Metropolitan Toronto alone where eviction notices have been issued. The various legal clinics, the Federation of Metro Tenants’ Associations, as well as the humane societies, have asked for a simple amendment to the Landlord and Tenant Act to make it perfectly clear.

Why does the Attorney General not make that simple amendment, which could be agreed to and passed fairly quickly and remove all of this kind of legal action that is occupying the courts unnecessarily?

Hon Mr Scott: We are watching the situation very carefully. If the Ryll case is followed, we will keep in touch and keep the honourable member advised as to what action can be taken.

What I think it is worth recognizing is that a simple amendment, though desirable, is probably not possible for the following reason. What we are dealing with here is covenants in leases which are directed not only to the keeping of pets but also to a variety of lifestyle considerations: bicycles in the hallways, smoking in the apartment and so on. The simple amendment that my honourable friend seems to think would solve the problem would in fact perhaps solve this particular aspect of it, but would pose major threats for other aspects of the problem that happily have not been addressed.

The best solution from the interest --

Mr D. S. Cooke: So leave it all open.

Mr B. Rae: Mortgage your cat and go to a lawyer. That’s the answer.

Mr Laughren: Bring on the lawyers.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Scott: No. The best solution for the public and for the tenants involved is to watch the cases very seriously and to resist these eviction orders because on balance, the Ryll case appears to be an aberration which may not be repeated.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mrs Cunningham: My question today is for the Solicitor General. The Liberal government promised that the legislation with regard to Sunday shopping provides a province-wide law that requires most retailers to close on Sundays. They underline that it makes this new law stricter, fairer and more enforceable than the old law. We believed them. We thought that would happen. We know that there are numbers of stores open across this province on Sundays. What are they going to do about the enforceability’?

The Speaker: Did the minister hear the question? Order.

Hon Mr Offer: I had some difficulty in hearing the question, but I think it is centred around the whole question of the responsibility of enforcement for the Retail Business Holidays Act. Let me say categorically that it is obviously the local police who are responsible for the enforcement of the provisions of this legislation. They are the ones who determine when charges are warranted. They are the ones who investigate matters of complaint and allegations. That is their duty. That is what they are sworn to do, and that is what, in fact, they do.

Mrs Cunningham: I sat in a committee that went across this province, and I listened to the government representatives speak for literally hours on the enforceability clause, which states, “Upon the application of counsel for the Attorney General….” That is counsel for the Attorney General. The minister has the power. He promised it. What is he going to do about it?

Hon Mr Offer: I listened carefully to that supplementary, which I thought might be directed to the Attorney General. However, again, the question of enforcement of the legislation and all of the provisions under this legislation is that of the local police forces. That is what they do. They are the ones who are responsible. They are the ones that investigate allegations of any breach of the provision. They do this, not only with this act, but with many other acts and laws across the province. They are the professionals in this matter, and they are the ones who carry out that job.

ELGIN-WINTER GARDEN

Mr Owen: I have a question for the Minister of Culture and Communications (Ms Hart). The Elgin-Winter Garden theatre is nearing completion. Of course, we realize it is probably the last example of a stacked theatre left in the world. It was funded partly by the province; it was funded partly by the federal government, but we all know the minister has had to look to the private sector for assistance in funding this project.

Recently, the Toronto media have been saying that the minister is experiencing difficulties in getting this funding from the private sector for this particular project. Could the minister please update us. Where are we with regards to funding of this project and how viable will it be to pay for it?

Hon Ms Hart: I would like to thank the member from Simcoe Centre for giving me an opportunity to make some comment in answering the question about the funding partnership of this spectacular restoration of the Elgin-Winter Garden theatre. Yes, indeed, the property was purchased by the province -- at least by the Ontario Heritage Foundation on behalf of the province -- initially for $4.5 million. The total budgeted cost for the restoration is $29,350,000. The largest part has, indeed, been paid by the province. It is an amount of $15 million.

The federal government, through its economic regional development agreement that it shares with the province, has kicked in $5.5 million. The private sector has committed to raise $7 million as part of --

Mr Cousens: Okay. Time, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: Thank you. I would appreciate if the member for Markham just -- I know he tried to be helpful. Supplementary.

Mr Owen: I do not feel I have quite got the complete answers to where we are, whether we are going to make it or not from the private sector funds. But in addition to that, I am concerned about rumours which have prevailed about the authenticity of the restoration work. People who went in to see Cats came away saying that the work was very well done, but now we are hearing rumours, just before we are about to open for performances, about the quality or the authenticity of the work which is being done. So could I have an answer to that? Also I do not feel I got an answer with regards to whether the private sector people are on hand. Are they supportive or not’?

Hon Ms Hart: If I could deal with the question of authenticity first. The heritage community has come together to assist in very many ways in this project. It is a restoration of incredible sensitivity and it is heralded across North America for its quality.

I can tell the member that the budget is on target. The project will be brought in under budget; I inquired just this morning about that. And also that on 15 December, which is the scheduled opening date for the Elgin-Winter Garden theatre, it will be ready in all its splendour.

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

Mr Wildman: In the absence of the Premier (Mr Peterson) and the minister responsible, I would like to direct a question to the Treasurer.

In view of the presentation to the cabinet yesterday by the Ontario Federation of Agriculture in which the federation pointed out that in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Quebec all farmers in those provinces have assistance for interest rate reduction, and that with the end of the family farm interest rate reduction program in Ontario, our farmers have virtually no interest rate assistance at a time when close to $900 million is owed by Ontario farmers in short-term debt, and that one per cent increase in interest rates adds another $9 million to debt carrying charges; in view of those facts, can the minister indicate when the provincial government intends to bring in a program similar to the Ontario family farm interest rate reduction program which would assist Ontario farmers --

The Speaker: Thank you.

Mr Wildman: -- and put them in a competitive position --

The Speaker: Thank you.

Mr Wildman: -- to compete with the farmers of other provinces?

The Speaker: Thank you.

Hon R. F. Nixon: No, I cannot. But I can acknowledge that we had an excellent meeting with the executive of the federation yesterday, the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr Ramsay) and all members of the cabinet. Most of the cabinet were present and had a chance to hear the views put forward by the federation. We thought their presentation was effective. The honourable member is correct that with the end of the OFFIRR program, the dependence of Ontario farmers is with the Farm Credit Corp, which is a federal responsibility.

Mr Wildman: In view of the minister’s statement that there was an excellent meeting and exchange of views, he will know that the federation of agriculture indicated to him and his colleagues that, in their view, the federal Farm Credit Corp is faltering and that the federal government intends to get out of agrifinancing. In view of that, will the government accept the federation’s recommendation that the Ontario government develop a long-term strategy for farm credit assistance and assume a leadership role in light of the diminishing commitment of the federal government to providing effective interest rate reduction assistance?

Hon R. F. Nixon: Unfortunately, we find in this province that the federal government is moving out of a number of programs that traditionally and effectively it has occupied. As they do that, of course, it gives us additional financial responsibilities.

In my view, the continuation of the growth of the budget of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food is important and certainly it will continue to grow, and I am hoping that we can have an array of programs that are going to meet the needs of our farmers without, in fact, allowing the federal government to remove itself from this extremely important and traditional responsibility.

ACADEMIC STREAMING

Mr Sterling: I would like to ask the Minister of Education a question. Is he in the building or is he still on the front steps?

The Speaker: I do not see the minister. Oh, here he is.

Mr Sterling: The Carleton Board of Education in my riding has expressed a concern over the minister’s decision to destream grade 9 students without further research into its impact. They are also particularly interested in or concerned about one school, that is, Sir Guy Carleton Secondary School which is a school which may be closed as a result of destreaming students. Sir Guy Carleton deals with basic learning level children who cannot normally exist or survive in an environment which a normal school provides.

Can the minister tell me why these decisions are being made that will lead to the closing of Sir Guy Carleton, a basic level school, when he must know that this will create an impossible situation for these very special students?

Hon Mr Conway: I want to thank my friend from Manotick, the member for Carleton, for his interest in this matter. He will know that what a local school board does with the allocation of space within its jurisdiction is entirely a matter of local autonomy. I had the pleasure, the other week, of meeting with representatives of the Carleton Board of Education and I heard their concerns about this government’s very significant reforms of our education curriculum and structure, one of which is, of course, destreaming through grade nine.

I told them what I will tell the House and my friend from Manotick now, that one of the supporting documents for that initiative was one of the recent reports of the select committee on education, I think a unanimous report, concurred in by the member for Burlington South (Mr Jackson), as I recall, that destreaming would be an appropriate course of action.

Mr Sterling: Without saying the minister would ever mislead this House, I might point out that if he reads the report of the select committee on education, he will find that it has said there is inconclusive research on this matter and that destreaming should be studied, not put into action. I would ask him to clarify that with this assembly in terms of his answer.

Second, if in fact destreaming takes place --

The Speaker: Let’s try number one first.

Hon Mr Conway: I say to my friend from Manotick that he will want me to say very publicly that the report of the select committee on education that dealt with this subject, a unanimous report concurred in, I believe, by the honourable members for Burlington South and Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry (Mr Villeneuve), recommended destreaming through grade nine, talked about studying other aspects, but certainly that select committee report, with three party support, including the support of his colleagues from Burlington and Glengarry, specifically addressed destreaming through grade nine, which is what this government is in the process of doing.

REGIONAL GOVERNMENT OFFICE

Mr M. C. Ray: I have a question for the Minister of Culture and Communications. It concerns the future of the Windsor office of the Ministry. The minister will know from her recent visit to our city, the strong dissatisfaction felt in the community about the deficiency of Ontario government jobs in our city, compared to other cities in Ontario.

The minister will know about the deep concern of the cultural community regarding press reports and rumours of the closure of the Windsor office of her ministry. What can the minister tell the residents of Windsor, the Windsor Arts Council and the various cultural groups and organizations in our city about the future of the ministry office in Windsor?

Hon Ms Hart: I can appreciate the strong interest of the member for Windsor-Walkerville in this matter. I too have heard the rumours and read the rumours about the supposed closing of the ministry’s regional office in Windsor. I would suspect that the basis of those rumours was a report that dealt with the rationalization of services in the various regional offices.

I would like to stress to the member that it is a report like any other report. It does not represent ministry policy and I would say to the member that I have no intention of closing our regional office in Windsor. In fact, in my recent visit to Windsor and to a number of regional offices, I have been reinforced in my view of the strong role that regional offices can play.

Mr M. C. Ray: I have a supplementary which deals with the number of jobs. What assurances can the minister give the employees of the Windsor office, both the administrative management employees and the unionized workers in that office, of their own job security? Are their jobs secure? Are there any plans for the reduction of jobs in that office?

Hon Ms Hart: As I have indicated, I am strongly committed to retaining the regional office in Windsor and to retaining the high level of service in that office, and that cannot be done if jobs are to be cut. I give the member my assurance that no jobs will be cut, that the level of employment will remain the same.

ELECTRICITY DEMAND AND SUPPLY

Mr Charlton: I have a question for the Minister of Energy. My question is concerning the minister’s statement on Monday regarding Ontario Hydro’s preferred plan, when it is ready, and her announcement that the review of that plan would be done under the Environmental Assessment Act by the Environmental Assessment Board.

Most people that we have talked to since Monday are happy that the Environmental Assessment Act will be used to govern this review process, because the act provides a very broad approach to the questions that will be included in the plan. However, there are some concerns. We have an Ontario Energy Board in this province which was set up to deal with energy matters and which has developed considerable amounts of expertise around Hydro operations, Hydro matters and particularly matters of funding and dollars and cents.

Can the minister tell me why she did not consider a joint board hearing under the Environmental Assessment Act and the Ontario Energy Board legislation in order to review the Hydro plan?

Hon Mrs McLeod: I quite agree with the honourable member that the Ontario Energy Board has been playing an important role in one very specific aspect of reviewing wholesale rates proposed by Ontario Hydro in an advisory capacity to the minister. I think that our belief was, as we looked at the magnitude of this study, that we will be asking the Environmental Assessment Board to look at Hydro’s projections of need as well as all the options that might be possible for meeting future indicated need and that this was a project which required the full environmental assessment approval processes to be gone through.

I think there is no question that my colleague the Minister of the Environment (Mr Bradley), in looking at the appointment of an Environmental Assessment Board, will be concerned with a membership which can fully reflect the expertise necessary.

Mr Charlton: The minister should be aware that, although I understand what she is saying, the questions around projections and need become very tricky questions. Her colleague just behind her could tell her that from having spent some time dealing with Hydro projections.

Would the minister consider doing what has been done in the past, at least in reverse, which is to second a member from the Ontario Energy Board to sit on this environmental assessment panel? This was done the other way in a case of secondment of an Environmental Assessment Board member to an energy board hearing on a Consumers’ Gas proposal in eastern Ontario. Would the minister at least consider that so we can ensure that the expertise which has been developed at the Ontario Energy Board is not lost to this hearing?

Hon Mrs McLeod: I think the honourable member will know that the appointments to the Environmental Assessment Board would be made through my colleague the Minister of the Environment. I am sure my colleague will take the concerns the honourable member has raised to heart. I know that there will obviously be a concern to have an Environmental Assessment Board with the full expertise to deal with this very complex matter.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Mr Cousens: I have a question for the Minister of Housing. It has to do with the matter of affordable housing in York region. Two nonprofit housing sponsors, the Hope Cooperative and the United Church Developments for York Presbytery, have been working on projects with ministry officials for some time on the assumption that there would be financial allocations forthcoming for this. There is a genuine commitment on the part of the community and on the part of the housing committee to do something more in the region. They have been working hard at this.

It now would appear that the land that had been set aside for these projects will not be available because funding has not been available from the ministry. I guess it boils down to one basic question. Will the ministry commit to ensure that these sponsor groups receive the necessary funding so that they will not lose the land scheduled for these nonprofit housing opportunities?

Hon Mr Sweeney: The difficulty that my ministry is facing right now is that we have approximately three applicants for every approval we are able to give. My honourable friend is perhaps welt aware of the fact that we share with the federal government approximately 5,000 units a year and, as a provincial government on our own unilaterally, we are putting out pretty close to another 10,000 units per year.

This is an effective program, but it is also an extremely costly program. Our provincial program alone requires capital funding from the Canada pension plan of about $3 billion, and the total amount of subsidy that we are putting out this year is in excess of $300 million. All I can say to the member is that we are looking at every application. Because we have to make choices, we are providing it to those areas where we think the need is the absolute greatest. I cannot say yes or no to his particular request, but I will certainly have my officials look at it.

MOTION

HOUSE SITTING

Mr Ward moved that notwithstanding any standing order, the House shall not meet on Thursday 30 November 1989.

Motion agreed to.

PETITIONS

FRENCH-LANGUAGE SERVICES

Mr Brandt: I have two petitions addressed to the Lieutenant Governor in Council. The first is signed by 27 individuals, indicating their concern about the costs associated with the implementation of Bill 8.

REMEMBRANCE DAY

Mr Brandt: The second petition is signed by 1,200 residents of the Sarnia-Lambton area, again addressed to the Lieutenant Governor in Council. This petition condemns the government of Ontario for its refusal to close liquor stores on Remembrance Day, 11 November 1989.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr Kormos: I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of the province of Ontario.

It reads:

“We, the undersigned, hereby register our deep concern and outrage over the provisions of the Ontario motorist protection plan.

“We respectfully request that the Legislature consider substantial amendment of or complete rejection of the Ontario motorist protection plan as presently proposed. We further respectfully request that a plan be devised more nearly in accordance with the results of the independent studies undertaken at the request of the government.”

It is signed by Claire Mandel of Hamilton, 12 others and myself.

Mr Charlton: I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of the province of Ontario.

“We, the undersigned, hereby register our deep concern and outrage over the provisions of the Ontario motorist protection plan.

“We respectfully request that the Legislature consider substantial amendment of or complete rejection of the Ontario motorist protection plan.”

It is signed by 13 residents of the city of Hamilton, and I will add my name thereto.

REPORT BY COMMITTEE

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

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

Your committee begs to report the following bills without amendment:

Bill Pr38,

An Act to dissolve the Board of Trustees of the Ottawa Charitable Foundation;

Bill Pr50,

An Act respecting the city of Etobicoke.

Your committee begs to report the following bill, as amended:

Bill Pr31,

An Act respecting the Town of Iroquois Falls.

Your committee further recommends that the fees, less t he actual cost of printing, be remitted on Bill Pr38,

An Act to dissolve the Board of Trustees of the Ottawa Charitable Foundation.

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT, 1989

Mr Wildman moved first reading of Bill 78,

An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr Wildman: The purpose of the bill is to amend the Highway Traffic Act to add vehicles transporting livestock to the list of the types of vehicles that are exempt from the basic weight restriction for reduced load periods. Subsection 104a(1) of the act sets out a general requirement that no commercial motor vehicle being operated on any designated highway during a reduced load period shall carry a load in excess of 5,000 kilograms per axle.

Subsection 104a(2) sets out a list of the types of vehicles that are exempt from the basic restriction of subsection 104a(1) and that are instead subject to a requirement that the maximum load per axle shall not exceed 7,500 kilograms.

Under clause 104a(2)(c), vehicles transporting poultry are included in the list. The bill amends clause 104a(2)(

c) to add vehicles transporting livestock to the list as well.

The Speaker: I am sure all members read their Votes and Proceedings from yesterday and they will therefore know that, under standing order 27(g), the vote on the motion for second reading of Bill 36,

An Act to revise the Public Service Superannuation Act, has been deferred until after routine proceedings. The time has arrived. There will be a five-minute bell. Call in the members.

PUBLIC SERVICE PENSION ACT, 1989 (CONTINUED)

The House divided on Mr Elston’s motion for second reading of Bill 36, which was agreed to on the following vote:

Ayes

Adams, Ballinger, Beer, Black, Bradley, Brown, Callahan, Campbell, Carrothers, Chiarelli, Cleary, Collins, Conway, Cooke, D. R., Cordiano, Daigeler, Elliot, Elston, Epp, Ferraro, Fleet, Fulton, Furlong, Grandmaître, Haggerty, Hart, Kerrio, LeBourdais, MacDonald, Mahoney, Mancini, McClelland, McGuinty, Miclash, Morin, Neumann, Nicholas, Nixon, R. F., Oddie Munro, Offer, O’Neil, H., O’Neill, Y., Owen, Patten, Phillips. G., Polsinelli, Poole, Ray, M. C., Reycraft, Roberts, Smith, D. W., Smith, E.J., Sola, Sorbara, South, Stoner, Sullivan, Sweeney, Tatham, Ward, Wilson, Wong.

Nays

Allen, Bryden, Charlton, Cooke, D. S., Cousens, Grier, Hampton, Jackson, Johnson, J.M., Johnston, R. F., Kormos, Laughren, Mackenzie, Marland, Martel, McCague, Morin-Strom, Philip, E., Pollock, Pouliot, Rae, B., Reville, Sterling, Wildman, Wiseman.

Pairs

Breaugh, Cureatz.

Ayes 62; nays 25.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

EDUCATION STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1989 (CONTINUED)

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 64,

An Act to amend the Education Act and certain other Acts relating to Education Assessment.

Mr Jackson: I am not in the least bit deterred as this assembly empties itself. I do not take that as any indication of the comments I will make about public education, but perhaps it is as much about the interest in matters with respect to the financing of education. I can only hope the remaining government members will listen, because the message I have today has a lot to do with the future health and welfare of public education.

As the Education advocate for the caucus of the Progressive Conservative Party, I am pleased to participate in this significant debate on the pooling of industrial and commercial assessment for education purposes or, as we know it, Bill 64 and Bill 65. This legislation has to do with the central question --

Mrs E. J. Smith: On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: I would like to point out the extreme interest of this government in comparison with the interest of the member’s own party in his speech. We have many members here to hear him.

The Deputy Speaker: Will the member resume, please.

Mr Jackson: Is that in order?

The Deputy Speaker: No.

Mr Jackson: I appreciate the member’s interest in attendance and an indication of her lack of interest in the issues of financing.

Mr Laughren: She can call a quorum.

Mr Jackson: Yes, she is more than welcome to call a quorum at any time.

This piece of legislation has more to do with the financing of education. As such, it figures very importantly in the central consideration of the development of our publicly financed educational systems and the significant role that education is increasingly playing in our complex society.

The existence of two publicly financed systems of education, the public and the separate, is now a fact of life in Ontario. The roots of the bipartite development of our educational system are historical, and as some observers have noted, it has to do not only with the question of the presence or absence of religious teachings in schools but also with the ongoing debate about education as an arm of government and education as an expression of the control of family and our familial values.

At this point, I would like to correct for the record a statement which was made in yesterday’s opening debate by the Minister of Education (Mr Conway) when he indicated, and I will quote from Hansard, “We now have, as a result of Bill 30, two fully funded public school systems in the province of Ontario.” I suspect that the minister offered us a minor slip of the tongue because, as has been noted earlier, we have two publicly financed systems, but by their nature one is public and the other is separate, and the members of the public board accept students in this province without exception.

In addition, I was rather surprised that during yesterday’s debate the Minister of Education referred to Bill 64 as legislation that involved a shifting of resources. Again, I have the exact statement. The minister said, and I quote from Hansard: “I would describe the result as a matter of shifting. We are not going to know the full measure of the shift until we have a chance to look at the assessment rolls for 1990.”

I suspect that if the minister examines carefully the implications of this legislation, he should be less focused on shifting and more focused on equity and responsibility. It would be sad indeed if, after public hearings on this bill, there are not the necessary and appropriate amendments and that the legacy of the Minister of Education would go down in history under the locution of “Shifting Sean.”

It is really not what this bill should do. Rather, this Minister of Education and his government should be measured by their actions in amending this legislation. I suspect that he will be measured by his effectiveness and measured over the next weeks and months before implementation of this bill, that he might more fairly enjoy the label of “Credible Conway.”

The verdict is not in yet, since the debate has just begun on this issue of pooling, but I for one believe he has it within his capacity to amend the bill to ensure that the points that my colleague from the New Democratic Party and I are both raising will be addressed fairly and equitably.

We need to ensure, of course, that our public school system is protected from the impacts of certain elements of this bill. Neither the actions of the minister nor his words -- nor, I might add, does the specific language contained in this bill -- speak to the issue of protection. In fact, there is room to consider that it does the opposite.

Now, during the debate surrounding Bill 30, my party, and I as its critic, fought long and hard in this Legislature to ensure that the public education system as we knew it then was protected from any shortfalls in terms of education financing which came as a result of the extension in full funding under Bill 30. I regret to say, after careful examination of this bill, that the language of this bill invites me to rise in this House to promote that cause once again.

What is also a fact of life in Ontario is that the commitment of the provincial Liberal government to education financing and the significance of the provincial role in maintaining the viability of our education system by ensuring fairness in funding allocations be upheld, whether their sources be found in provincial coffers or elsewhere, and by maintaining a funding level which reflects the real fiscal needs of schools.

These needs, I might add, are increasingly being defined by provincial mandate, in most cases without consultation, with fiscal responsibility and accountability ultimately falling on local school boards and, of course, local school board ratepayers, all under the guise of local autonomy. That is the disturbing trend in education over the last five years specifically and over the last 10 years generally. We must note that general legislative grants as a percentage of school board expenditures, have consistently declined. In 1975, 61 per cent of the costs were provided by the provincial government.

In 1980 it had dropped to 52 per cent. In 1985, with this new government under the member for London Centre (Mr Peterson), it slipped to 46 per cent, and today, under that same government, it has dropped to as low as 42 per cent. At the same time, almost every single school board in this province has increased its spending so that it is spending at a level in excess of the grant levels, or what we refer to as the ceilings, so that any expenditure in excess of that ceiling is borne 100 per cent by local taxpayers.

Since the ability to raise funds, the ability to raise taxes through this mechanism of picking up the shortfall from local taxpayers varies from community to community and from board to board, the basic equity of our grant system has been eroded in recent years, a fact which the Ministry of Education acknowledges, a fact which the Macdonald commission dealt with in some detail and reported on to this House in 1985 and a fact on which the select committee has just undertaken a full summer of review and hopefully will be able to report to this House within the next two or three weeks.

Hon Mr Conway: Some of its earlier reports were of course discussed in question period.

Mr Jackson: It is therefore imperative, now that the minister has returned, to recognize at the outset that the proposed mechanism for pooling and sharing of industrial-commercial assessment by our two publicly financed systems is not, and cannot be, in a way which the provincial government may somehow hope to maintain its present course of action of continuing to reduce its funding commitment to education.

If anything, this legislation currently before us is a clear indicator of the need for a heightened, more intensified provincial role in education financing. It is one thing to want to include our education system more and more within the market orientation of the laws and values of business which, it is readily acknowledged, do have a major impact on deciding society’s values, but it is quite another thing to do nothing about the vulnerabilities of that educational system whose proper functioning requires a flexible and secure funding base both now and especially in our future.

With respect to the question of pooling, fairness is what we expect for both our publicly financed school systems. Fairness is not what we have always observed in the past. However, as when we witnessed, for example, the school transfers, which the minister had a major hand in orchestrating in the wake of Bill 30, the real fiscal needs of school boards are just that, and they must be addressed in that same spirit of fairness.

I will make the argument that fairness as a principle includes, and must include, the idea of protecting our education system where it is vulnerable and especially where it is vulnerable with respect to the pooling of industrial-commercial assessment. To do otherwise would be to reduce fairness to a matter of equality of degree.

When a school board experiences fiscal vulnerability, its equality with other boards which do not experience such vulnerability is therefore eroded. Without addressing that vulnerability first, there can be no question of ensuring fairness. In short, fairness should not mean a general weakening of public education.

It is to this question of protecting our public school system before we can even ever question the issue of ensuring fairness that we must turn our full attention today in this debate. Following the recommendations of the Macdonald commission, which reported in December 1985, this Liberal government has indicated that it would adequately compensate those boards which would suffer real assessment loss once pooling came into effect, yet many boards have expressed well-grounded fears about this government’s intention and questioned its determination to make good on its commitments and its promises.

This government’s track record on education financing speaks for itself. More and more responsibility for education costs have been downloaded on to local municipalities and local taxpayers. More often than not, the ceiling levels. or recognized ordinary expenditures, do not reflect the real economic situation in which school boards find themselves. I might add that nowhere in the proposed legislation which we are now debating does it state that compensation to boards that will be impacted negatively by pooling will somehow be guaranteed, nowhere in the legislation.

We are asked to trust the Liberal cabinet to examine this data at some future date. That is the same cabinet which is now planning to remove the elementary and secondary distinctions in our system for funding purposes, it is the same cabinet which has arbitrarily lowered the capital grant rate from 75 per cent down to 60 per cent, it is the same cabinet that talked about reducing class sizes in the primary division and had one funding formula before the election and an entirely different funding formula after the election.

But this Minister of Education asks us, on faith and trust alone, to deal with one of the most significant financing decisions that will face public education of the decade. That, the minister will find during public debate, is unacceptable. And it is not just unacceptable on faith; it is unacceptable because of his own government’s track record.

Consequently, there is real concern from school boards that any planned compensation to our boards after pooling comes into effect would not adequately reflect what they believe are the real assessment losses. Many boards therefore doubt that the province can guarantee that no board will suffer revenue loss as a result of pooling. Even though the current minister and his predecessor both promised to protect the fiscal security and the autonomy of our public boards, we know that they failed to deliver on their promise, and that failure has contributed in no small measure to many boards’ fears that they will have to take a back seat to others with respect to funds garnered from pooling.

While the Education ministry’s total estimate of the pricetag needed to ensure what it calls revenue neutrality of pooling is $200 million, yet, as has been noted in this debate, there is already a $20-million differential of opinion which exists between the figures of the Treasurer (Mr R. F. Nixon) and those figures supplied by the Minister of Education. If this government hopes to achieve true revenue neutrality, which it says it does, it is going to have a hard time guaranteeing it if it cannot reach agreement and consensus at the cabinet table as to what that figure will be.

On completing its study of the impact of pooling on local taxpayers, the Minister of Education determined that $165 million would have to be added to the general legislative grants to offset this shift in assessment. However, this still would leave 13 boards in this province with a net revenue-loss position. For purposes of the record, I would like to indicate which ones they are: Cochrane Iroquois Falls, Hamilton, Kapuskasing, Metropolitan Toronto, Nipigon-Red Rock, North Shore, Ottawa, Prescott & Russell County, Sault Ste Marie, Stormont Dundas and Glengarry, Sudbury, Timmins and Windsor.

An additional $35 million in special compensation will therefore be required to ensure that these boards are not adversely affected, as well.

It is clear, therefore, that the amount of money needed to enrich the general legislative grants will have to be increased. The ministry and the estimates of the Treasurer are based on an impact study which uses 1987 assessment rolls for 1988 taxation purposes. The exact amount of compensation required will therefore not be known until the assessment rolls for 1990 taxation are available.

And while the ministry will not be conducting another impact study, based on the 1990 assessment data, it is a comment on the times to note that the public boards have determined to proceed with an impact study of their own. According to some estimates, the public school system will lose an additional $270 million because of the shortcomings of this government’s impact analysis. We must also note that no inflation factor has been built into the six-year phase-in model, while the assessment shifts resulting from the proposed changes to the separate school zones have not been included in the compensation package for public boards.

Nor is compensation included to cover the impact on public boards which the amendments governing unincorporated partnerships will have. We would like to recommend to this government that any provincial guarantees that no board will suffer revenue loss because of pooling should be backed up with legislation designed to protect the assessment base from further encroachment and include, by way of compensation, the equivalent of an increase in over-ceiling expenditures in 1990, or later years, that would have been raised had the assessment base not been lost through pooling.

At the same time as this government has proposed pooling as one answer to education financing, it has also promoted Bill 20, the Development Charges Act, which enables school boards to impose lot levies for 100 per cent of new school construction costs. It is important to note that provincial support for approved capital projects has fallen from 75 per cent to 60 per cent and that lot levies do not address the problem faced by the current situation which we find in Ontario schools, that of 200,000 students studying in portables.

It is clear that other initiatives in the government’s throne speech and its recent budget with the increased access for junior and all-day senior kindergarten will further exacerbate the situation of students being educated in portables in this province. And yet, the government wishes to distance its responsibilities in a fiscal way by embracing the pooling notions without dealing with compensation in the light of those new initiatives. Lot levies are really just one more instance of the province shifting, increasingly, its responsibility for educational financing on to local taxpayers, and yes, now even to local homebuyers.

When Ontario school boards approached this government for the several billions of dollars over five years which they felt they needed to build the new schools necessary, this government promised them $1.2 billion over four, almost five, years, with the added open suggestion by the former Minister of Education that the boards should begin incurring deficit financing by borrowing against the Canada pension plan and other pension funds that are available in this province.

It is interesting that this kind of direction and recommendation to school boards comes without any legitimate guidelines, which our municipalities must follow under the Ontario Municipal Board. But there does not seem to be any for school boards.

I think this government is setting in motion a dangerous trend if it wishes to promote the same kind of long-term Liberal deficit financing which typified our federal government, that now in Ontario this is the same kind of encouragement which a Liberal government is giving to school boards. It is not a pleasant picture for the future of education in this province, and it certainly speaks poorly of our ability to afford costs of government in the future if deficit financing of this magnitude is being encouraged by the government.

We must also note that there are, at present, two constitutional challenges to the distribution of property assessment that are pending before our courts. Two francophone separate school supporters from Ottawa-Carleton and Cornwall, respectively, are seeking a judicial order to have property tax assessment for school purposes redistributed on the basis of school enrolment and not on farm and property assessment. If this action is successful, it will mean a greater shift of assessment to the separate and francophone school systems and will therefore constitute a further funding problem which must be addressed by this province.

The province will also have to address the problems of vulnerability and fairness raised by the regulations to be introduced to govern separate school boundary shifts under provisions of the Scott act, 1863. Separate school boards can be extended by drawing a three-mile radius around the heads of five families to create a separate school zone. This method of expansion, of course, leads to gaps between the various zones, which can overlap board boundaries and municipal boundaries. There are several problems associated with that.

The government has served notice of its desire to change this, and the anticipated changes would extend boundaries of the separate school boards so that they cover the same jurisdiction as public boards. Zones will be extended by a municipality or township depending upon the circumstance.

Again, this government’s claims that assessment shifts will be minimal are greeted with apprehension by boards, once again, which feel that these kinds of shifts could indeed be significant for a number of boards. They could be significant in terms of their financial implications. Again, the compensation package should deal with the issue of this change, and the compensation package should account for any adverse implications to the public systems.

In addition, boards have expressed the concern that pooling, in its present form, will have an adverse effect in northern boards and locally controlled Indian schools. We are not arguing, therefore, against pooling as such, rather only against the manner in which it is being instituted under proposals of Bill 64 and Bill 65.

These bills have indeed brought to the fore a number of issues which run the risk of not being addressed adequately, and because of that, can seriously undermine our education system’s ability to fulfil its mandate. Our education system’s ability, therefore, to fulfil its mandate is what we really should be addressing here in the House.

The government’s unwillingness to play the central role, which the province has formerly played with respect to educational financing, is also at issue. That distress which extends to the promises made by this government respecting the protection of the financial viability of boards as well as their autonomy is at issue here.

Accountability is the first and greatest lesson of most historical democracies. This government appears to need to take a refresher course on the implications of this bill. It cannot afford to play games with our educational system nor can it afford not to protect it where it is vulnerable under funding schemes such as pooling. To do so would be an exercise in unfairness to all boards and all students in this province.

To do so would be to expose our educational system, and therefore the future of this province, to the fiscal uncertainty of the whims of a funding mechanism perceived as inflexible and irresponsible to the particular needs and requirements of individual school boards, whether they are located in northern Ontario, urban centres, Metropolitan Toronto or southwestern Ontario.

To do so would also hurt the traditional character of excellence which has also been the hallmark of Ontario’s educational system. It is a system, after all, for all of our citizens, irrespective of where they live and what station they hold in life. I therefore call on this government to take the necessary steps to alleviate the concerns of many of our boards with respect to this proposed legislation by instituting the flexible and fiscally realistic mechanisms where actual needs of school boards in varying circumstances can readily be met.

In order to best achieve this, this government would do well to consider the referral of this legislation to committee for public hearings rather than to take the path of quick passage through this House, so that those boards which are affected most may be afforded an opportunity to present their concerns in an open forum and to hold this government more accountable with respect to its promises of guarantees and to ensure that those promises are put in legislative language.

Quality education is indeed a priceless treasure in this day and age for the future of our students. In our attempts aimed at meeting the proverbial bottom line in this provincial budget, let us not do it the injustice of devaluing its significance for our citizens and for the future of our province’s educational system.

Mr Allen: I rise, like my colleague the member for Scarborough West (Mr R. F. Johnston) last year, to speak in support of this piece of legislation. I must say it takes me back to a previous incarnation as an Education critic and to a previous issue in which I was very deeply involved, namely the debates around Bill 30.

The issue before us today is whether certain steps that naturally and properly arise out of the undertaking to provide equal funding for the Roman Catholic separate school system in this province as a publicly supported, and historically publicly supported, school system will in fact be taken; whether that equality will be fully addressed or whether we will leave the job half done.

We address the question, none the less, in the context of a much larger issue which the government fails to address, namely the whole question of equity in education taxation and the whole question of who should be paying for education and from what tax base. In that respect, boards situate themselves in very different positions at this point in time, and they will continue to be much differently situated after the passage of this particular piece of legislation.

In other words, while I am rising to support this proposal of limited coterminous pooling of commercial-industrial taxation for purposes of education revenue in the boards of this province, I do so with the recognition that what is being accomplished is a relatively small thing.

Obviously, it is important, most of all for the boards which exist in high-population areas with large commercial-industrial assessments, where there has historically over the years grown a major disparity between public and separate boards in particular, those boards having had by law different kinds of access to commercial-industrial assessment, the public board being able to take advantage of the lion’s share of that assessment and the separate boards only a minimal part, and sometimes none at all.

In those situations there will be an increased equity. But as my colleague pointed out yesterday, there are some major problems when one casts one’s eye a little bit further afield and looks at some still further adjacent or coterminous boards. I should not say “coterminous boards,” but boards that lie adjacent to a coterminous board area where the gap between what is possible in the new coterminous pooling situation and what remains possible for them with a different degree of commercial-industrial assessment will indeed be striking and large and to the deficit of the children in those school board situations.

It is interesting when one looks back at articles written in the past on this subject by commentators who have been at this place, like Rosemary Speirs looking at an upcoming election in 1987 and asking herself whether the government would really be prepared as it approached a budget that year in advance of an election to grasp the nettle of justice in educational finance and provide real equity for all boards, and for all school children, in fact, across the province. She doubted very much whether the government would grasp that nettle, and indeed she was correct.

The members of the government in opposition, having been very outspoken on the question of reaching a 60 per cent provincial contribution to education, clearly were very much afraid of moving on their own agenda. As a result, what we have had subsequently in this province is a continual decline of provincial contributions to the share of education costs that the province ought to have been bearing. Where the figures were once 60 per cent, or just slightly over 60 per cent in 1975, they are down now to 42 per cent of provincial contribution of the recognized ordinary expenditures of school boards.

The minister, when he addresses this question, keeps making the comment: “Well, why don’t you address the spending question? I never hear my New Democratic Party friends talk about spending.” The spending side of it is fairly simple and fairly direct. Of course, one cannot have an open-skies system of educational finance. One cannot, as a provincial government -- New Democrats, I am sure, would be no different -- approach provincial contributions to totally open-ended budgets in transfer agencies. I think that goes as a matter of course.

The problem, however, is not that question; the problem is whether the provincial government has established ceilings for recognized expenditures in the school system that are realistic or not. In our time what has happened is that 95 per cent of the boards in this province are in fact spending over the ceilings established by the provincial government, which at this point stand at $33,225 per elementary pupil or $4,122 per secondary pupil.

Some boards spend heavily in advance of that. There are boards in this province that reach up to $1,200, $1,400 and $1,500 over the ceiling, and there are other boards that can barely creep above it at all. But the story is that most boards, 95 per cent of them, find that in the discharge of their educational responsibilities they have to spend more than the ceiling. So the question is not whether anyone is in favour of blue-skies, open-skies funding; the question is whether the government is prepared to establish realistic ceilings and meet realistic contributions to the cost of education in this province, and that, of course, they have not been prepared to do.

What we have in this instance is an attempt to address one corner of a horrendous problem of access to commercial-industrial assessment. In the past there has been very extensive discussion.

For years, we have addressed and asked questions about the province-wide pooling of commercial and industrial assessment. We have never been able to get satisfactory answers from provincial governments that propose that solution as to whether or not all of the moneys of the pool would in fact be spent in the field of education or whether they would be siphoned off in some other field of expenditure. There were never any promises with respect to those questions.

We were not able to get satisfactory answers with respect to what the impact would be on the local autonomy of school boards in this province.

So understandably, every time that subject would come up, boards would go into reaction and the issue would be dropped like a hot potato, to be revived in some other form, never satisfactorily addressed, and the inequity, the injustice, has remained.

The injustice, of course, is not simply an injustice between Catholic boards, which historically have not had access to commercial and industrial assessment, and public boards, which historically have taken by far the lion’s share of that assessment.

It is also between commercial-industrial-rich boards like my own city of Hamilton or the city of Ottawa or the city of Sault Ste Marie or the city of Toronto, where there are immense amounts of commercial-industrial assessment -- yet you have not far away, in most of those instances, school boards that have only a fraction of the capacity to tax commercial and industrial enterprises and therefore cannot spend equivalent amounts of money on children who should be having precisely the same access, through quality education, to their life chances.

So what we have in this bill is an attempt to address a small corner of the commercial-industrial assessment inequity. The bill proposes to do this by arranging boards on a coterminous basis; that is, if boards are situated within the same boundaries, then they will share the commercial-industrial assessment within those boundaries.

The first thing to observe about this proposal, as my colleague did yesterday, is that certainly, if I can use an example, in the case of the Windsor boards, the public board, which now is able to deliver education at a cost per pupil of $5,213, is significantly, at this point in time, in advance of the Windsor Roman Catholic board, at $4,548 per pupil. With this reform, those figures will be balanced out. The Roman Catholic board will clearly make an appreciable gain, and the students in that board situation will be able to experience a greater and more enriched education as a result.

But if we look next door to the Windsor boards at the Essex county situation, where there is very little commercial-industrial assessment, the two boards are comparable in any case, just slightly over $4,000 per student in their capacity to spend on their educational enterprises. In that case, the pooling of commercial-industrial assessment will, I suppose, split something like $40 difference between the two boards.

The impact clearly is going to be absolutely negligible in some coterminous board situations, and in others it will be quite dramatic. The overall impact of this in terms of the large question of financial equity in this province is really going to be very slight indeed.

If one takes again, for example, a case in Ottawa, where the comparisons have been made, you will find a situation where the Ottawa Board of Education is able to access 43 per cent of the commercial-industrial assessment while it only has 29.98 per cent of the pupils,

whereas the Ottawa separate school board has an almost directly proportionate share, with some nine per cent of the assessment and almost nine per cent of the pupils. Obviously, the Ottawa public board is going to be able to deliver a per-pupil educational experience which is twice as rich in terms of its capacity to spend over ceiling than is the case with the Ottawa separate board.

That difference will be wiped out after the application of this legislation. There will be equity within the city, but then look at the neighbouring county. Carleton Roman Catholic Separate School Board, where it can access seven per cent of the commercial-industrial assessment, but it has twice that percentage of the students to pay for. It is not only going to be worse off, relatively speaking, than the Ottawa board in current measures but it will be also substantially worse off than its Catholic counterpart within the city. The problem we are left with is a very, very large problem of inequity in the field of educational finance in Ontario.

None the less, as I say, this does address a small corner of the issue, and in addressing a small corner of the issue, it does pose some problems that I think we have to be very wary of. For example, the legislation and the proposals that the minister has put forward, as I understand them, will peg the calculations that will apply over the subsequent six years in the redistribution of commercial-industrial assessment under this plan in the year 1990.

I want to impress on the minister that it is critically important, if he is going to use this as an instrument of achieving some justice even within the limited boundaries of this particular proposal, that he has to develop a rolling-year calculation on the commercial-industrial assessment growth in any given board situation, because that is the figure upon which will be calculated the amount that will be shifted between boards.

If, for example, a public board, such as the York board, anticipates a very substantial growth in commercial-industrial assessment by the year 1995, to the effective point where the commercial-industrial assessment will have doubled, then it is going to face a very difficult situation come 1995 if the calculations are made on a 1990 base. They will be the losers by substantial millions of dollars as a result.

So I plead with the minister that he is going to have to take account of other factors in calculating -- I should say he should take account of the variable factors that will change as the years go by over this adjustment period, just as he should be taking account of the alteration in inflation rates. The projected change that will come with inflation over this same period of time will be quite significant, and as a result, calculations on the basis of 1990 dollars will be inappropriate. Public boards in some situations will be significant losers if, in point of fact, there is a static formula rather than a dynamic formula that changes with the years.

I want to address another aspect of the problem simply by referring to my own board situation in Hamilton, where three boards find themselves within the boundaries of a coterminous board situation, the Hamilton Board of Education, the Wentworth County Board of Education and the Hamilton-Wentworth Roman Catholic Separate School Board.

When one examines the commercial-industrial assessment in Hamilton, one notes that it is accessed by these three boards to very, very different degrees. In this threesome of boards, one has a county-wide Roman Catholic separate school board, one has a predominantly rural public board and one has a heavily urbanized public board. So you have three different kinds of boards in this calculation.

If you look at the assessment that is available per pupil as of 1988, you will discover that the Hamilton Board of Education receives almost exactly $200,000 to work with on an elementary basis and $356,000 on the secondary panel, while the Wentworth county board has $92,000 to work with on the elementary panel and $157,000 on the secondary panel. Obviously there is a dramatic difference for people who live in essentially the same sort of sociocultural area.

Many of the people who send their children to the Wentworth county board and live in Wentworth county none the less work in Hamilton and in the very industries that are producing the commercial-industrial assessment, and yet their board can access only less than half of the value for their youngsters as the Hamilton board can.

Turning to the Hamilton-Wentworth Roman Catholic Separate School Board, you have an absolutely cataclysmic and precipitous drop in the figures, because you find that on the elementary panel,

whereas the Hamilton Board of Education accesses almost $200,000 per pupil, the separate board is able to access only approximately 10 per cent of that, namely, $24,000 per pupil, and on the secondary panel,

whereas the Hamilton Board of Education has at its disposal $356,000 per pupil, the separate board has $54,000 per pupil.

When you take those figures and weigh them into the larger assessment picture, which includes the residential assessment picture, you find that the separate boards on the residential base, the county boards and the Hamilton board are roughly equivalent, but the overall impact of the commercial-industrial deficiencies for the Wentworth county board drops them almost $100,000 lower in their secondary panel, and for the separate school board it reduces them to less than 50 per cent of the secondary assessment that is available to the public board.

Obviously there have been some very dramatic differences and some dramatic inabilities to finance education on a roughly equitable basis within the Hamilton-Wentworth region. In those terms, this proposal makes a great deal of sense and will benefit quite significantly the Wentworth county board and the Hamilton-Wentworth Roman Catholic Separate School Board and the pupils who attend school within them. Certainly it will create a degree of equity within that small region.

However, it is critically important that the ministry be totally upfront and totally fair and generous in its response to public boards that are going to lose significant degrees of access to the commercial-industrial assessments. The Hamilton public board has been on official record as opposing pooling in the broad sense for reasons that I suggested earlier, and it has declared its extreme uneasiness with what is proposed under this piece of legislation. If I might try to detail why, I think members will understand their concern.

The Hamilton board of education spends $221 million on education every year; $64 million of that comes from the province. In other words, it receives a percentage of its ceiling expenditures of 29 percent from the provincial government. It is very interesting to note that if one goes back to the critical year of 1975, the Hamilton board at that time received a 55 per cent contribution from the provincial government. The province today contributes only 29 per cent of the education expenditures in that board.

That being the case, when one turns to the proposal that was announced in the context of the 1989 budget, and which Bill 64 details for us, in the first instance, the Hamilton board of education would lose $14 million in access to assessment. At the same time, it would pick up $8 million in additional moneys just by virtue of the way in which the formula works. As a somewhat poorer board, having $14 million taken out of its taxing capacity, it would be eligible for $8 million more of income from the provincial government as a matter of course.

But that leaves it still with a deficit of $6 million, which interestingly is roughly equivalent to the amount that the separate school board in our region would get in return: $6,494,496.

If the government allocates roughly the amount of money it has been talking about in the course of discussing this proposal and putting it forward, namely, somewhere of the order of $165 million or $180 million -- the two figures appear in various bits of literature -- as a contribution to the public boards to make up for their losses under Bill 64, then the public board would receive $3.7 million from the provincial government to address its real loss. But where does that leave that board? That leaves the board with a $2.3-million loss at the end of the day. Surely that is not intended.

There are, however, 13 boards across this province which equally are real losers, as distinct from other boards which come off equitably or, in fact, are better off slightly at the end of the day as a result of the Bill 64 adjustments. But there are 13 boards like the Hamilton Board of Education which end up as losers.

I want to appeal to the minister. If he is going to implement this piece of legislation, not just with equity but with a degree of harmony in the education system and with a sense that it has been done fairly to all concerned, it is critically important that he address the needs of those boards which under the present calculations come out losers. Whether that means raising the figures from $180 million to $190 million or $200 million, the extra money will be well repaid in terms of educational peace and in terms of a sense that everyone has been dealt with fairly and justly.

I come back to my main point; surely even so small an effort to achieve a greater degree of educational equity in the province should not leave behind it a small tra