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

March 20, 1990

34th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

MEMBER’S PRIVILEGES

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

NORTHERN HEALTH SERVICES

FIREFIGHTING

REFORESTATION AWARENESS PROGRAM

FRENCH-LANGUAGE SERVICES

CHILDREN’S MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

FEDERAL BUDGET

GOVERNMENT’S RECORD

FIRE ALARMS

RENTAL HOUSING PROTECTION

DALTON McGUINTY

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

TIRE FIRE

VISITOR

RESPONSES

TIRE FIRE

TABLING OF INFORMATION

ORAL QUESTIONS

TIRE FIRE

WATER QUALITY

TIRE FIRE

ST BRUNO CATHOLIC SCHOOL

CAREER OPTIONS FOR WOMEN

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

HOSPITAL SERVICES

AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRY

CARDIOVASCULAR CARE

TORONTO AREA TRANSPORTATION

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

COMMITTEE SITTINGS

COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTIONS

COMMITTEE BUSINESS

PETITIONS

TRUCK TRAFFIC

RELIGIOUS EDUCATION

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

SELECT COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

LANDLORD AND TENANT AMENDMENT ACT, 1990

RESIDENTIAL RENT REGULATION AMENDMENT ACT, 1990

EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT, 1990

CITY OF NORTH BAY ACT, 1990

ASSOCIATION OF STONEY LAKE COTTAGERS INC ACT, 1990

VICTIMS’ BILL OF RIGHTS ACT, 1990

The House met at 1400.

Prayers.

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

The Speaker: I would like to ask all members to join me in welcoming the first group of legislative pages to serve in the spring session of this, the 34th Parliament, 1990. The names of the pages and the respective ridings are as follows:

Charlotte Allen, Brampton North; Sarah Armstrong, Timiskaming; Gregory Bray, Dufferin-Peel; Kerry Clark, Grey; Chris DeMaria, St Andrew-St Patrick; Jeffrey Feiner, Oakwood; David Ferris, Sarnia; Stuart Ginn, Cochrane South; Justin Hannah, St Catharines; Stephanie Hodge, Hastings-Peterborough; Michelle Jobin, Durham Centre; Michelle Kanojia, Brampton South; Camellia Koo, Mississauga West; Scott Mackowski, Bruce; Eric McDonald, Etobicoke-Lakeshore; Nancy Macdonald, Victoria Haliburton; Krista Morris, Norfolk; Scott Murray, Mississauga South; Chris Peters, Simcoe East; Pawel Ratajczak, Etobicoke-Rexdale; Sara Reynolds, Quinte; Adrienne Sauder, St Catharines-Brock; Melanie Walker, London Centre; Dylan Wood, Niagara Falls.

Please join me in welcoming our new group of pages.

MEMBER’S PRIVILEGES

The Speaker: This may be the appropriate time. In our last sitting, on 18 December 1989, the member for Markham raised a question of privilege dealing with matters that had arisen in a committee of the whole House on 13 December last.

As I listened to the honourable member for Markham present his question of privilege, I had some initial difficulty with its appropriateness, but he did impress upon me the seriousness of his concerns. I undertook to study the matter and I am now ready to report back to the House.

I will state right off that I cannot find a prima facie case of privilege in this matter. However, I feel it is important that I put on record certain comments regarding the general process and procedure that should be followed in cases similar to that raised by the honourable member. The standing order in question, 98(

a) and 98(b), is new to our procedure and it is therefore important to explain its meaning clearly to the members.

The member alleged that the Chair of the committee of the whole had acted improperly on that date in that he had not recognized him while he was seeking the floor and had ignored the member’s pleas to be heard on the question. I must make it quite clear that I have made no attempt to look into the record of what exactly happened in the committee and therefore I am not rendering any judgement upon the conduct of the Chair of the committee.

What I will attempt to do is put to the House the procedure which should be followed by a committee Chair in those circumstances as well as the procedure that should be followed by a member of the committee who is dissatisfied with the decision of the Chair in the committee of the whole.

To start with, it is the duty of the Chair of the committee of the whole to ensure that every member who wants to express his or her opinion on a question then before the committee should be given every chance to do so. On the other hand, it is the duty of every member participating in the work of the committee to try not to be repetitive in his or her arguments so as to hinder the normal work of the committee.

It is also the duty of the Chair, when putting a question, to do so in a manner which ensures that the voicing of the various opinions from the floor can be easily distinguished and that every member has a chance to express his or her opinion, aye or nay, to the question being put. In no circumstances must haste dictate the conduct of the committee or the Chair.

It is a well-accepted rule of British parliamentary tradition, not only exercised in Ontario but in most other countries in the Commonwealth, that members who want to question the appropriateness of a proceeding before a committee of the House should do so directly with the Chair of the committee and not to the Speaker of the House. The reason for this is that the committee is master of its own proceedings and is equipped to deal with any controversy that might arise from those proceedings.

While it is true that our standing orders permit an appeal of a Chair’s decision to the Speaker of the House, whose decision is then final, the only way in which a Speaker would accept such an appeal for consideration would be if it were couched in the context of a report to the House by the Chair stating that his ruling was being appealed.

I must therefore at this time attempt to clear up the application of our standing order 98. In order for the Speaker to be seized of an appeal flowing from standing order 98(

a) and (b), the following should have taken place previously. First, there has to have been a question raised officially by the member with the Chair. Second, there has to have been a ruling made by the Chair. Third, there has to have been a request to the Chair by the member that his or her ruling be appealed to the Speaker, and in presenting this request the member should be precise in his or her reasons for the appeal. Fourth, the Chair will automatically adjourn the committee and report the matter to the Speaker who will either decide immediately or take the matter under advisement. Finally, the Chair will resume his duties and the committee of the whole will continue its work.

This, in my opinion, has to be the correct

interpretation put upon standing order 98, in that it is extremely important to preserve the principle that what happens in a committee must be decided by the committee, and only through the Chair of the committee is the House to be apprised of the committee’s proceedings and decisions. It is not therefore permissible for a member to appeal a Chair’s decision directly to the Speaker. A member wishing to appeal must do it by way of the Chair reporting the matter to the Speaker immediately.

I thank the honourable member for Markham for bringing this matter to the Chair’s attention, because it has provided me with the opportunity to study this new standing order and clear up any misunderstandings that might have existed as to its proper applications.

I have also attempted to describe generally the appropriate conduct of the Chair of the committee in the application of its duties. I repeat that I cannot find a prima facie case or question of privilege here, as this is a matter that might better have been raised under the terms of a point of order.

Finally, as to the member’s complaint about the conduct of the Chair of the committee of the whole on that day, I can only refer him to Beauchesne’s sixth edition at page 251 where Sir John Bourinot is quoted as follows, “If a member wishes at any time to call in question the conduct of the Chairman...his course is to give notice of a motion to that effect.” Thank you for your attention.

Mr Cousens: Mr Speaker, can I ask on a point of personal privilege that this statement you have just made be referred to the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly so that it could be considered by a committee of the Legislature as well.

The Speaker: You can certainly ask. However, I think if the member takes time to read the ruling, he might find what course of action he may take therein.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

NORTHERN HEALTH SERVICES

Miss Martel: In February 1989 northern New Democrats met in Sudbury with northern representatives from the Canadian Diabetes Association. The association operates 20 branches and chapters in the north and serves 48,000 people with diabetes.

The chronic problems of diabetes health care in northern Ontario were clearly outlined during that meeting. They include lack of treating specialists, lack of access to specialized care, lack of education programs, lack of early diagnosis and care in native communities and lack of funding for companions for seniors having to travel south for health care.

It was concluded by our presenters that services for diabetics in the north were inferior to those provided in the south. This government could change all that. The Minister of Health could agree to fund regional diabetes centres as proposed by the Ontario Council on Diabetes. Sudbury is an ideal location for such a centre. The centre should be staffed with health care professionals to treat diabetes and other resulting ailments. It should co-ordinate information on diabetes research and make the knowledge available to the community. It should produce and promote educational programs for patients, for high-risk groups and for the general public.

A diabetes resource centre in Sudbury would be the first step towards providing adequate diabetes services in the north. Given that the Premier is the patron for the Ontario Council on Diabetes, he should immediately fund this proposal.

FIREFIGHTING

Mr Runciman: Hopefully, the Solicitor General will have a comment on this subject later today.

On behalf of my party, I would like to congratulate those men who risked life and limb to fight the recent tire fire in Hagersville. For 17 days local volunteer firefighters as well as firefighting specialists from the Ministry of Natural Resources worked long hours under some of the worst conditions imaginable to do a job which many said could not be done. It took eight months and 300 men to put out a similar fire in Virginia. It only took 17 days to put out the worst environmental disaster ever created by a government’s ineptitude.

Perhaps now this government will appreciate the special role of the volunteer firefighter in this province. Perhaps now the Ministry of the Solicitor General and the Ministry of Skills Development will reassess their support for volunteer firefighters throughout this province. In dealing with the many toxic substances produced by this fire, it is readily apparent that special training is required. Volunteer firefighters are the first line of defence in most of the province against fire, chemical and Liberal hazards of all types.

The member for Lanark-Renfrew introduced a resolution in this House calling for the government to provide funds for equipment and training to volunteer fire departments throughout Ontario. Fortunately, the department in Hagersville was able to deal bravely with the situation despite the neglect of volunteer departments throughout the province. Without the efforts and skills of specially trained firefighters from the Ministry of Natural Resources with their water bombers, it would be unrealistic to expect the quick end we saw.

REFORESTATION AWARENESS PROGRAM

Mr Reycraft: As we start this spring sitting of the Legislature, I want to tell the assembly about an exciting beginning in my riding of Middlesex.

The Upper Thames River Conservation Authority is known for its impressive record in developing public awareness of the need for environmental care. The authority has done this in many ways, particularly with reforestation. Now, with the help of McDonald’s restaurants and TV London, the authority is launching a public awareness campaign for its annual reforestation program, but this year there is a twist.

The goal of this campaign is to sell 20,000 lapel pins at $3 each. Every time a pin is sold, a tree will be planted. The Three for a Tree program will be emphasizing the planting of hardwood trees in the London and Stratford areas. Each pin has a picture of a type of hardwood tree to be planted under the program. The series of four pins is being sold at all area locations of McDonald’s restaurants.

The work done by the Upper Thames, TV London and McDonald’s should also be congratulated. I hope this type of united effort between a public authority and a private interest is something we will see again.

I am confident the people of Middlesex and London will support the Three for a Tree with great enthusiasm. It goes to show the great distance we have all travelled in realizing that environmental issues are not just the concerns of a few special interests, but in fact are everyone’s concerns.

I ask all members of the House to join me in recognizing and congratulating all the participants in this exciting project.

FRENCH-LANGUAGE SERVICES

Regardless of what the actual intentions may have been, the perception of the unilingual resolution is one of intolerance. I very much regret this controversy that has unfairly tarnished the image of my home town, a community that has always prided itself for its friendly, caring and generous nature.

To other communities across Ontario I say, learn from our experience. It has been a profoundly divisive experience that I would not wish on any other community.

In the next few days, this Legislature must come together to affirm Ontario’s support for linguistic duality as a fundamental characteristic of our country. Efforts must be made on all sides to ensure French-speaking Ontarians will be guaranteed education and other services in their own language.

At the same time, we must reassure municipalities that the province will not impose further cost burdens on them. Political leadership across Canada must now work towards a consensus on relations between the two official language groups and towards a resolution of the differences over the constitution of our country. Only then can Canada move forward as a unified nation.

CHILDREN’S MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

Mrs Cunningham: Currently in our province there is a list of over 10,000 children waiting for services in children’s mental health centres. The waiting list for treatment is between six months and over a year and many of those waiting suffer from physical and sexual abuse and suicidal tendencies. Because of long waiting lists children do not have a right to mental health care services in Ontario. If a child is a victim of sexual abuse, violence, emotional disturbance or mental illness, he desperately needs help.

The Liberal record is extremely poor. There is no question that they do not see children’s mental health as an area of priority, in spite of the fact that it was asserted in their last throne speech that children are our future and that we have to invest in the future generation of Ontarians.

The Ontario Association of Children’s Mental Health Centres is concerned that programs that involve the health, social services, justice and educational systems are poorly co-ordinated. Which ministry has jurisdiction over universal access? Which ministry has the lead responsibility for interministerial co-ordination?

What is needed is an independent third-party review of mental health services for children. I say to the minister, let’s get on with it.

FEDERAL BUDGET

Mr Miclash: The recent federal budget has turned into a nightmare for Canada’s northern native communities. The federal cutbacks represent a further example of the Mulroney government passing the burden of its debt on to the backs of those least able to afford it.

On 20 February the Mulroney government cut $10 million in funding for native programs from the budget of the Secretary of State of Canada. These cuts can only be described as offensive and they will have a disastrous effect in my riding of Kenora. Native individuals already face higher levels of unemployment, illiteracy and suicide than other Canadians. The federal government is going to make this situation even worse through the neglect shown by the elimination of the friendship centre program.

The development of native communications will also be seriously damaged. Northern native communities have no access to the rest of Ontario and the world around them due to their remoteness. The Wawatay Native Communications Society of Sioux Lookout has helped to eliminate that isolation through the development of its radio and television programming. But with these cuts, Wawatay will experience a $600,000 cut in its $1.9-million operating budget. This will result in layoffs and reduce services.

I call upon the federal government to reverse these cuts and return funding to those native programs.

GOVERNMENT’S RECORD

Mr Farnan: On 28 February the New Democratic Party caucus hosted a forum in Cambridge entitled Communities in Rapid Growth -- Challenges and Solutions. Many leaders in the Waterloo region presented thoughtful and provocative briefs.

This forum provides an indication of the difference between the New Democratic Party and this Liberal government. New Democrats believe in a participatory form of government in which we would involve all our major partners: regions, municipalities, school boards, commissions and councils, etc.

Significant community concerns were expressed, many of which I will be addressing in this session: issues relating to the environment and water supply, the lack of a provincial master plan for development, problems related to housing, public transit, schools and health.

A theme emerged indicating a general dissatisfaction with the manner in which this government is operating. Unilaterally and without prior consultation, this Liberal government imposes additional and expensive responsibilities on our partners in local government who must deliver these costly services that the provincial government so grandiosely announces.

There is dissatisfaction with the reduction or elimination of grants and traditional subsidies, dissatisfaction at the failure of this government to provide adequate funding to meet the costs of these additional services and, finally, dissatisfaction at the level of support to meet the demands for new and expanded services created by rapid growth.

It is time that this Liberal government listened to our partners in local government.

FIRE ALARMS

Mr McLean: My statement is directed to the Solicitor General and concerns my private member’s bill, Bill 88,

An Act to Regulate Alarm Systems, which received first reading on 5 December 1989. As members no doubt recall, this bill regulates fire alarm systems installed on real property by establishing a licensing system for persons engaged in the business of providing alarm services and those employed as alarm installers. As well, the bill provides for investigations regarding the suitability of persons applying for licences and investigations of complaints against persons providing alarm services.

Since this private member’s bill was introduced last December, I have received a considerable amount of interest in and support for this type of legislation from the police, fire and municipal officials throughout Ontario. Like me, these officials have expressed concern about the high number of false alarms and the disabling effects they have on police and fire department morale. It should be noted that last year alone 98 per cent of the alarm calls that the Orillia city police responded to were false. It cost taxpayers $500 for each false alarm responded to by the Orillia Fire Department in 1989.

I am certain the statistics will be the same for other municipalities in Ontario and I think the minister will agree there is a pressing need for us to act on Bill 88 as soon as possible. Failing that, why does he not bring in some legislation now to solve this problem?

RENTAL HOUSING PROTECTION

Mr Fleet: Today I will introduce two new laws to improve protection for residential tenants in Ontario.

A proposed amendment to the Landlord and Tenant Act will protect tenants from eviction due to minor breaches of a residential lease. This would include situations involving pets which are not a nuisance to other tenants or the landlord. It would also apply to the tenant use of air-conditioners, as the cost of such use can be recovered by the landlord under rent review.

The second proposal is an amendment to the Residential Rent Regulation Act to protect tenants from landlords flipping apartment buildings. The present law allows a landlord to apply for a pass-through of financing costs after buying a new building. Typically, each application increases rents by an extra five per cent per year for two or three years. If the building is sold every three years, the tenants face an extra five per cent annual rent increase indefinitely. This new proposal limits such applications to once every 10 years.

I am very concerned that tenants in Ontario, and particularly in High Park-Swansea, should be able to enjoy their homes at affordable rents and with the emotional comfort of pets which are not a nuisance to others. Together, these two proposals make existing protection for tenants more effective.

Hon R. F. Nixon: I ask for unanimous consent that members of the House may make comments on the passing of our colleague.

Agreed to.

DALTON McGUINTY

Hon R. F. Nixon: It is with great sorrow that I rise on behalf of the government to express our regret at the news of the passage of Dalton McGuinty. As you know, he was buried this morning. A number of our colleagues, including the leader of the government, are still in Ottawa. His death was sudden and unexpected, which naturally contributed to the shock of the news.

Dalton was well known in this House and highly respected. I suppose we think first of his great sense of humour, but more than anything else he was a special kind of teacher in that in this House and among his personal connections he was able always to express his principles and, in some respects, occasionally a lesson based on his life experience and his good humour.

He spoke frequently here and on all political occasions, and in that regard fulfilled his responsibility as an elected member as well as or perhaps better than most of us, because we always knew what his principles were and he expressed them in a way that made an impact on the whole community.

He was a great example as a man, a great family man. There will be some more references to that. He and his wife Elizabeth had 10 children. I do not believe I have met them all, but I met four of them who happen to be learned in the law and had some very great and interesting discussions with them. Around their breakfast table there must have been lots of controversy and, of course, much good humour.

Dalton himself was an accomplished academic. He went on from a business career to an estimable career at university and in teaching. The confidence from that self-realization was very much a part of what was about him as he spoke to us as his good friends.

His ability to teach I have already referred to and his good humour I have already referred to. The fact that he was respected on all sides is something important. When I think about Dalton, we could say that he was loved in this community and his own community in a way that means his life was an estimable one. We shall certainly miss him in our caucus and in this House, certainly in his own community and certainly in his own family.

Mr Reville: The New Democratic Party caucus here at the Legislature would like to indicate its respect for the memory of Dalton McGuinty, the member for Ottawa South. We would like to celebrate the kind of life that he had because it was a life that was chock-a-block with intellectual, emotional and spiritual wealth and richness.

He had a long and distinguished academic career and, in a way that should inspire all of us, was not at all afraid to take academia on when it was necessary, as in the astoundingly frank and tough

article he wrote at the time of the Phillippe Rushton matter, when he challenged the academic community not to hide behind academic rigmarole as he attacked the conclusions that Phillippe Rushton arrived at. He wrote as well in a way that was both poignant and intelligent about a student he had had who regrettably took her own life; a gifted student, a troubled student. At the conclusion of his

article he said, “If there is guilt, I share it. If there is shame, I know it.”

That is the kind of man that Dalton McGuinty has been. Clearly, the kind of enthusiasm he created among the members of his family for his life and his work is a tribute to that and one which all of us would be glad to have and do not always.

In a personal sense, I did not know Dalton very well, but I did, for my sins and he for his sins, sit on the committee that listened to the folk about Sunday shopping. During interstices when people were not beating on us about that matter, Dalton and I were able to chat about this and that. It was quite a wide this and that, as you might expect, and he was clearly a man with a lively and independent intelligence and cast of mind.

To his family, clearly they have celebrated Dalton for many years and our thoughts and sympathy go to them at this time.

Mr Sterling: This morning I joined with my leader, the Leader of the Opposition and the Premier, the Lieutenant Governor of this province, the family of Dalton McGuinty, 40 or 50 of my colleagues from this Legislature and I believe probably 2,000 people from the city of Ottawa to pay tribute to a very great member of this Legislature, Dalton McGuinty.

I did not know Dalton very well before he came here to the Legislature. I had heard of him, I had read of him back in Ottawa newspapers about his days as a school trustee, but I and my colleagues certainly became aware of this warm, courteous and kind man from Ottawa South soon after he arrived here in this Legislature.

Dalton was unique. Dalton was one of the far too few characters we have in our Legislature, and he was with us for far too short a time. He was not hesitant to express his views clearly about an issue, and he usually did it in a different manner than most of the rest of us, where MPPs might choose a letter to the editor or a letter to all of the rest of the MPPs in the Legislature, an appeal to a committee of the Legislature to appear as a witness or a speech or a petition with a different kind a twist and often spiked with humour, never a mean streak or an unkind word.

Last night, in speaking to his son Dalton Jr, he expressed how Dalton viewed the Legislature of Ontario. He said it was interesting, exciting and frustrating. He was usually able to make his point while offending no one. He once described himself as a loose cannon, but I do not think that description was right, for a loose cannon often does damage. Dalton made his point, he provoked thought, but he never did much damage.

Dalton often talked about his wife and children, of whom he was immensely proud. He was a strong supporter of his church, his university and law and order. He had a tremendous respect for our police forces and was a very close ally and friend of the Ottawa police force. Dalton came from humble beginnings, and when addressing a problem he would often relate back to the memories of his childhood days. There can be no doubt that he gave a great deal more to his family, more to his community and more to life itself than he ever took back.

Last summer, while sitting on the standing committee on administration of justice of this Legislature, Dalton supported a motion which I proposed, much to the chagrin of the other Liberal members of the committee. The motion lost, but on returning to the House last October, I stopped by his seat, which is draped in black today in his honour, to thank him for his support. His response was: “My boys” -- and the Treasurer has referred to the four lawyer boys in the family -- “told me that the government was travelling too fast with this legislation. Your motion made good sense, so I supported it. You see, Norm, I’m not confined by ambition.”

Dalton was the same when he was a trustee on the Ottawa Board of Education: true to his beliefs, true to the institutions he supported, and if your argument was good, you might convince him to vote with you. There are far too few MPPs in this House with that same quality and sense of freedom which allows them to follow their own conscience. Dalton was a wonderful example that many of us should follow.

We will miss his intellect and his humour, but most of all we will miss Dalton as our friend. Despite his being of a different political persuasion, the MPPs in my party, the Progressive Conservative Party, had great affection for him. On behalf of my caucus, I want to express our heartfelt sympathies to Elizabeth, Dalton’s wife, and his 10 children, his family and friends and to the electors of Ottawa South and to close by saying that I feel deeply honoured to give our farewell tribute to Dalton McGuinty. It is not easy to say goodbye to a friend, but I know he will be remembered fondly by all members of this Legislature.

The Speaker: On your behalf, when the official Hansard is printed, I will make certain that Elizabeth McGuinty receives a copy officially, but I think now, out of respect for and in memory of our late colleague the member for Ottawa South, I would ask all members and all visitors to rise for one minute of silence.

The House observed one minute’s silence.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

TIRE FIRE

Hon Mr Offer: I rise to report to members of this House on the recent tire fire in Hagersville. As they are aware, on 12 February of this year, at about one o’clock in the morning, an OPP officer discovered a fire in the midst of almost 14 million tires spread over 13.7 acres. The office of the fire marshal has determined that this fire was caused by

an act of arson.

By Thursday 1 March, a mere 17 days after it began, the tire fire was formally declared to be out. This remarkable achievement defied widespread predictions that the fire would burn for months.

The successful response to this situation was a result of the highest possible level of co-operation between the municipal, regional and provincial governments. This co-operation was fostered by the early creation of a joint response team which provided direction regarding public safety, environmental and health concerns and enhanced the management of onsite firefighting. It was composed of representatives of several ministries and the regional government.

I am certain that all members of this House will share with me in recognizing the heroic efforts of those responsible for putting out this fire so quickly.

The volunteer crews deserve our congratulations and gratitude. They made remarkable progress in the early stages in spite of some of the worst weather conditions this winter. They continued their diligent efforts, in collaboration with firefighters from the Ministry of Natural Resources, until the fire was completely extinguished.

We commend the MNR firefighters, who displayed the highest standards of professionalism, courage and sheer physical stamina, as well as the people who operated the heavy equipment which was such a vital component of the firefighting team.

The part played by the people of Hagersville and area has also been truly remarkable. This difficult time called forth the best from all of the residents.

The joint response team is continuing to co-ordinate the process of rehabilitation and of directing our efforts towards cleaning up, restoring the site and administering compensation. The government is currently reviewing recommendations of the financial and legal subcommittee regarding long-term compensation. An announcement is expected shortly.

This government is taking action to create stronger and more comprehensive regulatory and legislative tools which can address situations of this type. Towards this end, my ministry is making changes to the fire code and is providing legislative amendments to the Fire Marshals Act. These changes will enable the Ontario government to intervene immediately when fire hazards present a serious threat to the environment while the judicial process is under way. This government stands firm in its resolve to put measures in place to prevent another fire of this type in Ontario. Thank you.

Hon Mr Bradley: Further to the report of my colleague the Solicitor General, I will be bringing forward this sitting of the Legislature amendments to the Environmental Protection Act which will empower my ministry to carry out disputed cleanup orders even while they are being appealed. In addition, we have announced a $16-million program to secure used-tire sites and stimulate tire recycling.

I would like now to apprise members of the House of the latest information on the situation at the Tyre King site near Hagersville following the extinguishing of the tire fire on 28 February. As a first principle, this government is committed to cleaning up any contaminants resulting from the fire.

Here are the parameters of the environmental consequences of the fire, as they have been measured.

With regard to air quality, the Ministry of the Environment brought in its TAGA mobile air-monitoring unit to the site immediately. The TAGA provided continuous readout results which were used by the medical officer of health to establish the appropriate evacuation advisory area. During the fire, we were able to measure pollution in the smoke plume and were also able to determine that measurements outside the evacuation advisory area showed no contaminants exceeding air quality guidelines.

The ministry is still measuring air quality adjacent to the fire site. Current results of tests for toluene, benzene, dioxins, polyaromatic hydrocarbons and a variety of other potential contaminants show no exceedances of any air quality guidelines. The air quality being measured is now regarded by ministry experts as typical for a rural area.

My ministry has offered to clean up the soot left downwind of the fire from the nine nearby houses. A contract is now being let to clean the houses, inside and out, of those home owners who have indicated they wish to have it done.

Air tested inside these homes for benzene, toluene, xylene and 100 other potential contaminants has been found to meet all ambient air standards.

As part of our ongoing analysis of any environmental effects of the fire, my ministry will be testing soil and foliage for any air pollution effects.

Here is the situation with regard to water.

My ministry moved quickly to contain the firefighting runoff water which was polluting Sandusk Creek in the first days of the fire, while residents were advised not to allow livestock to drink from the creek.

We built a system of ditches to direct surface runoff into two containment ponds where we stored the captured water. Tests of that captured water showed high levels of dioxins, phenols, zinc, benzene, toluene and xylene. We have since constructed an onsite water treatment plant. The plant provides oil separation, settling ponds, air-stripping and carbon filtration. The plant can treat 300 gallons of water a minute and has completed treatment of the 1,032,500 gallons of captured runoff water that were stored on site.

This treated water has been tested for a variety of potential contaminants and contains no detectable benzene, toluene, xylene, phenols or dioxins and meets all water quality guidelines.

Once containment ponds began capturing the runoff for treatment, and while the firefighting proceeded, the contamination in Sandusk Creek abated. The most recent results from testing of Sandusk Creek for more than 100 potential contaminants show none are detectable.

With regard to ground water quality, we have tested 172 domestic wells in the area surrounding the fire site for more than 100 potential contaminants each. The 13 wells nearest the site are tested three times a week. Sixteen other nearby wells are tested weekly -- a monitoring program developed by the medical officer of health, my ministry and others. The results from this ring of early-warning indicators do not show any evidence that ground water contamination has moved offsite. It is our intention to pump up and treat any contaminated ground water which may be detected, to remediate the aquifer.

As you know, the intense heat of the fire caused oil to be pyrolysed from tires. Using a system of trenches and oil separators, 170,000 gallons of oil and oily water were collected and trucked to the Esso refinery at Nanticoke. We hope to recycle this oil.

Oily soil has been scraped from the surface of the site to minimize contaminated runoff and leachate during spring rains. This soil will be taken to licensed waste facilities.

Security on site is being provided by the Ontario Provincial Police.

A consulting firm has been selected to sample soil and ground water and to plan the complete cleanup of the site, including any remedial action required for the aquifer and any other environmental programs which may be encountered.

In order to keep nearby residents fully informed of all test results and to obtain their thoughts on cleanup procedures, a citizens’ liaison committee has been established, has toured the site and has held three meetings. In addition, we are committed to holding public meetings as the cleanup proceeds.

Our information to date suggests that the remarkable efforts of local volunteers and professional forest firefighters from the Ministry of Natural Resources, who snuffed the fire in record time, minimized environmental damage and gave us an opportunity to effect a complete environmental cleanup. A complete cleanup is certainly my ministry’s commitment to the people of the Hagersville area.

VISITOR

The Speaker: Just before I call for responses, I would like to advise all members of the assembly of a visitor in the Speaker’s gallery from the province of Quebec, the Minister of Cultural Affairs, the Honourable Lucienne Robillard. Please welcome the minister.

RESPONSES

TIRE FIRE

Mrs Grier: The final sentence in the Minister of the Environment’s statement that a complete cleanup is his commitment to the people of the Hagersville area is, of course, welcomed on this side of the House. What else could he do? What we would much rather have welcomed is a commitment to prevention of the problem that led to the cleanup in Hagersville. If ever there was a case of locking the stable door after the horse has bolted, of management by disaster, of any other cliché you could think of, it is the actions of this government in making these kinds of statements in the House today.

It is ironic that today is the anniversary of the spills from the Exxon Valdez. Here in Ontario we have had our own oil spill, an oil spill that could have been prevented. That is the tragedy of this event and that is what this government has to be held accountable for.

Of course the volunteers did a fine job, and we endorse the statements that acknowledge the role that they did. The ministries, in fact, cut through red tape after the disaster had happened and managed an effective cleanup. But why was that red tape not cut through before the disaster happened?

They knew it was a disaster waiting to happen. No less a member than the member for Brant-Haldimand, as early as May 1989 said, “A fire at Straza’s dump would be a worse pollution threat than the PCB fires in Quebec.” And nothing was done.

The minister says he is going to bring in amendments to the legislation so that it could not happen again. He did not need amendments to the legislation to prevent this from happening. The actions that he announced last week that he and the Solicitor General were going to take could have been taken in March 1989, in March 1988, in March 1987 or in March 1986, and they were not taken.

The environmental consequences of this disaster we do not know. How often have we heard this minister preach to us about the fact that pollution cannot be contained within boundaries, that it spreads where we know not and therefore we have to take strong action? And now he has the gall to stand up and tell us: “Oh, it’s all within the site. Don’t worry. It’s within the parameters. The air quality is within our air quality guidelines.” Those are the same air quality guidelines we had in this province when he took office five years ago. He has not done anything to update them.

If ever there was an example of a government that has been negligent, of a government that has put at risk the people of an area, it has been this government with respect to the Hagersville fire, and it stands accountable for it today.

Mr Kormos: The Solicitor General talks about the volunteer crews deserving congratulations because of their remarkable progress, and he is quite right. He talks about it being in spite of some of the worst weather conditions this winter.

The success and progress of the volunteer firefighters was also in spite of a government that had no plan, that had no state of preparedness, that quite frankly showed an incredibly lax attitude, that turned down offers of assistance from the federal government, that had no idea how long it was going to take for this fire to be put out. Indeed, it is only as a result of the innovativeness, the ingenuity and the plain hard work of those very same volunteer firefighters that this fire was put out in 17 days. There is no way that the Solicitor General or the Minister of the Environment or anybody in this government can accept any responsibility for having put that fire out.

There is responsibility to be had and it is the incredible impact that this fire has had on the lives of families, children, adults, business people and farmers who live in the Hagersville area. It is little solace to them to be told there is going to be environmental testing, when they know that people across Ontario will not be buying their produce because people across Ontario are fearful it has been tainted by the chemicals the Minister of the Environment speaks of.

It is no solace to them to be told that guards and security forces are going to be placed around tire dumps across Ontario, when in fact the tragedy has already occurred. This government had been forewarned; the minister had been forewarned, the Solicitor General had been forewarned. Hagersville is not alone. There are tire dumps, not quite as large but similar and as dangerous as Hagersville, within miles, within a 20-minute drive of the Minister of the Environment’s very own riding.

Ontario Tire Recycling in Dain City is sitting there with piles of tires, an accident waiting to happen, the same sort of tragedy, the same sort of crisis, and there is nothing in the announcement today that is going to alleviate that concern.

Mrs Marland: Frankly, I would be embarrassed today if I were a member of the Liberal government applauding this statement from this Minister of the Environment. It is really kind of interesting. We had an example in the region of Peel about four years ago when this minister decided to use his prerogative of a ministerial order to put the selection of a landfill site in the region back four years, at a cost of $3.5 million to the taxpayers in Peel.

How is it, when he knew of this pending disaster, that he did not choose at that time, two years ago, to use a ministerial order to correct a problem that resulted in this terrible disaster? It is rather interesting when this minister is so selective about when he chooses to step in. It is also pretty significant that the first week of this Hagersville disaster he was nowhere to be seen. We did not even know we had a Minister of the Environment.

Quite frankly, when he says, “The air quality being measured is now regarded by ministry experts as typical for a rural area,” that is rather significant, when he also says that the air quality tests do not show any contaminants, especially when we do not have any current guidelines. We have been waiting for regulation-308 amendments for several years now, so I do not know against which benchmark his staff measure anything to do with air quality in this province. Frankly, this extensive cleanup would not have been necessary if this Minister of the Environment -- if, in fact, we have a Minister of the Environment -- had been doing his job in the first place. It is really shameful.

And is it not interesting that he is offering to clean the houses inside and out? I ask him about the people, the wildlife. He says that nobody has been harmed. Where did that plume go to? How extensive has his research been about the impact of the Hagersville fire? I would suggest it has been as extensive as the prevention work that he could have taken in the last two years to prevent it, and that is pretty sickening.

Also, is it not amazing that he is so active as a reaction, and not proactive? I like the fact that he refers in his statement to the fact that his ministry moved quickly to contain the firefighting runoff water that was polluting the Sandusk Creek. Could he not have figured out that there would be runoff water if one is firing hoses on to a fire? But he did not think about that. His staff were not even planning to deal with that fire in the most simple-minded way.

The fact of the matter is that he also makes another statement in here that has a great deal of concern, I may add, for the people in Mississauga South, who now have some of that water. When I say “some of that water,” in my riding we have 90 truckloads -- in excess of 600,000 gallons -- of this water, and this water he describes as showing high levels of dioxins, phenols, zinc, benzene, toluene and xylene; we know that. That water has not been treated. That water is sitting in a lagoon in Mississauga South today waiting for a decision of his ministry.

Most important, we were told there were not high concentrations. The ministry staff have told us that there are not high concentrations in that water that is being stored, waiting for treatment in Mississauga South. I ask the minister to confirm for us why his statement today is saying that there are high levels. This is a tremendous concern for the people in my riding who are now faced with what happens to that runoff water that he so cleverly, after the fact, decided had to be treated onsite. He has not answered the question about where that water is going to go.

Is it going to be treated through the regular sewage treatment plant in Clarkson? If not, we want to know when and where it is going to be treated.

The minister seems to think it is quite simple now because there is an onsite treatment for what is being gathered today, but I ask him about the 600,000 gallons that have already been shipped out of the Hagersville area. I think it is shameful that the Minister of the Environment has again not taken action until after the fact. I remind him that I stood in this House and asked for the money from that tire tax to be directed for tire recycling programs, and the members of this Liberal government voted, each and every one of them, against that amendment.

TABLING OF INFORMATION

Mr Runciman: Mr Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege, of which I have given you notice. I wish to deal with a matter that constitutes not only a breach of privilege but a contempt of Parliament and a disrespect to this Legislature.

I refer to “privilege” as defined in Beauchesne’s Parliamentary Rules and Forms as follows: “Parliamentary privilege is the sum of the peculiar rights enjoyed by each House collectively...and by members of each House individually, without which they could not discharge their functions and which exceed those possessed by other bodies or individuals.”

I feel that my job and responsibility as a member of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and as a legislator is to represent and to serve the best interests of the people of Ontario. Yet, circumstances arose that made it impossible for me, as Beauchesne puts it, to discharge my function as a member of this House.

On several occasions during the deliberations on Bill 68,

An Act to amend certain Acts respecting Insurance, crucial information was deliberately withheld from members of the standing committee on general government. This information was absolutely necessary for the committee to be able to fulfil its mandate.

The Legislative Assembly Act, paragraph 45(1)6, defines a breach of privilege as, “Giving false evidence or prevaricating or misbehaving in giving evidence or refusing to give evidence....” The standing committee on general government was empowered to look at Bill 68, hold public hearings and amend the bill as the committee saw fit. As I mentioned, as a legislator, I feel I have a duty to serve the best interests of the people I have been chosen to represent. Any member who does not share this obligation should not be in this assembly. In fulfilling that duty, I must make my decisions based on the facts.

I must know the true facts, the true impact a piece of legislation will have on those it will affect.

The government had in its possession during the committee hearings submissions from the insurance industry of what its projected rates would be under Bill 68. I made a request for that information because I felt it was critical for our deliberations in committee, not only for myself but for all of the committee members. In my view, we could not have carried on with the hearings in a meaningful way if we did not know what the actual costs were going to be. We had been told one thing about rates during the committee hearings and then we were finding that the Minister of Financial Institutions was publicly saying something quite different.

Once again, I will quote as to what constitutes a breach of privilege from the Legislative Assembly Act: “Presenting to the assembly or to a committee thereof a forged or false document with intent to deceive the assembly or committee.”

I am not accusing anyone of deceiving the committee per se. I am simply trying to establish a prima facie case of privilege. However, when the government refused to disclose the industry-proposed rate filings and the minister was quoted elsewhere as saying the rates would be different from what the committee was told, it becomes even more important that this information be released in order to dispel any misconceptions and confusion that arise from this contradiction.

How can I, as a member, and the committee, as a whole, judge what is best for the people of Ontario when the government withholds important information that would allow us to gauge whether people would be adversely or positively affected by this piece of legislation?

The withholding of information is a flagrant circumvention of a fundamental parliamentary principle: that it is we, as mandated by the people of Ontario, we as the fiduciary of the people and we on behalf of the people of Ontario, who are here to serve the best interests of Ontario citizens. The withholding of this information constitutes a breach of the rights and privileges of all members and a contempt of Parliament.

I point out to you, Mr Speaker, the definition of contempt contained in the 21st edition of Erskine May’s Parliamentary Practice,

chapter 9, page 115, as follows:

“Any act or omission which obstructs or impedes either House of Parliament in the performance of its functions or which obstructs or impedes any member or officer of such House in the discharge of his duty or which has a tendency, directly or indirectly, to produce such results may be treated as a contempt even though there is no precedence for the contempt.”

The government has obstructed and impeded the committee in its deliberations on a major piece of legislation. Withholding essential information not only misrepresents the substance of the bill, but also the procedure to which it is subject under parliamentary rules. It has prejudiced the proceedings of a committee of the House, the standing committee on general government.

Mr Speaker, I put before you and submit to you that this is a significant question of privilege covering the issue of contempt. If you find a prima facie case, I am prepared to move the appropriate motion.

The Speaker: On the same point? The member for Welland-Thorold.

Mr Kormos: Yes. With respect to the member for Leeds-Grenville’s point of privilege, I tell you, Mr Speaker, having served on that committee during the same consideration of Bill 68 as he did, I can understand his concern and I can understand his reasons for raising this today. I tell you that if it were only or merely the one isolated instance of the rate filings, perhaps his point could not be well made, but I can tell you that it was not an isolated instance.

Not only did the government refuse to provide those rate filings, having acknowledged indeed that they were there and knowing how valuable they would be to the committee in reaching its conclusions, but prior to that, the government had to have forced out of it the results of a secret, a clandestine study that the government was conducting through the year 1989, simultaneous with the Ontario Automobile Insurance Board’s inquiry, one which demonstrated that the government had no intention of ever living with the results of the OAIB’s conclusions.

The government, only as a result of strong pressure and public pressure, finally acknowledged and released on 6 February a number of reports, in excess of 30 reports, which were the $250,000 study that it conducted in secret, with its own agenda, with total disregard for what the general government committee was doing with respect to Bill 68, or indeed with total disregard to what John Kruger and the Ontario Automobile Insurance Board were doing with respect to the three issues put before it, the issues of no-fault threshold insurance.

The fact of that clandestine, secret agenda being performed by the government simultaneous with the conduct of the OAIB strengthens the argument about there having been here a real contempt of parliamentary process. There was a purposive and purposeful withholding of information.

In fact, the contempt goes further than the mere release of information. The contempt goes to the government’s intention to totally disregard witnesses who appeared before the committee, hundreds of them, who spoke out against the legislation, who suggested a number of revisions and amendments, all of whom have been disregarded.

The government’s agenda was to ram through legislation without letting the committee perform its function, was to ram through legislation without giving any credence to the legislative process or the parliamentary process. It indeed was contemptuous of its own committee, of its own members; it was contemptuous of those people who appeared before that committee to give learned, valuable comment on what was bad legislation -- not just lay people, not just lawyers, but people like Rod Barr, retired justice of the Supreme Court of Ontario, and Edson Haines, retired judge of the Supreme Court of Ontario. It disregarded those people. If that is not contemptuous, nothing is.

The Speaker: I am just wondering whether the member is debating the bill or whether he is -- I presume you are supporting --

Mr Kormos: Yes.

The Speaker: Fine, thank you. Does any other member wish to make any comments on the member for Leeds-Grenville’s alleged point of privilege?

I listened very carefully and I agree that the member did give me notice. However, I was not given notice of what would be contained in the point of privilege, so it is very difficult for me to make an immediate decision. I would have to say that from the ruling I gave earlier today it would appear that most of this matter brought before me took place before a committee. However, because of the length of his presentation, I will be glad to take a closer look at it and report back to the House, because it may be necessary to repeat something I said earlier today.

Mr D. S. Cooke: Does that mean we have to adjourn for another three months?

The Speaker: A page a month.

ORAL QUESTIONS

TIRE FIRE

Mr B. Rae: I have a question for the Premier about the fire at Hagersville and the incredible gap between the government’s rhetoric, its ability to tax and its response to this very serious situation.

Back in May 1989, no less a source than the Treasurer -- and I think we would all agree that this indeed is a source that is impeccable, unimpeachable and indeed untouchable -- and no less a program than Focus Ontario said -- he is talking about the tires and this is the Treasurer’s language. It is not language to which I would necessarily subscribe, but nevertheless this is how the Treasurer expressed himself:

“These damned tires are piled up by the millions, and I am not exaggerating. They can’t be burned, they can’t be buried. They are usually dumped. It’s got to be cleaned up. If there was a fire at the Straza dump it would be a worse pollution threat than the PCB fires in Quebec.”

The Speaker: And the question would be?

Mr B. Rae: That was the Treasurer justifying raising over $100,000 a day from his tire tax.

The Speaker: The question?

Mr B. Rae: How can the Premier justify raising over $100,000 a day from a tire tax and still letting Ed Straza run his dump the entire time the Liberals have been in government, doing nothing to stop that and doing nothing to deal with the other tire sites?

Hon Mr Peterson: The Minister of the Environment can tell the honourable member about the programs that the government is embarked upon.

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

Hon Mr Bradley: I am very pleased, first of all, to say that the Treasurer, as the allocations go through for this year, has been generous in allocating a good deal of money for all recycling efforts in the province. In fact, an additional $18 million was announced recently as a result of more money that is coming in for the general purpose of recycling. In addition to this, in tire management, some $16 million was announced, and the Treasurer has been generous in that particular allocation, knowing his strong concern for the environment in the province of Ontario and for these matters.

The process we go through, of course, is that each of the ministries puts forward its programs for the upcoming year and those funds are allocated. That brings the total now for all recycling efforts in the province of Ontario, including tire management, to some $54.5 million from the pittance that was there previously.

So I say to my friend the Leader of the Opposition that the Treasurer has been more than generous in his allocation in this particular year and I expect he will continue to be as years go on.

Mr B. Rae: The fact remains that this government announced there was a crisis. It has been sitting on top of Mr Straza since 1985. Indeed, we can show that governments in general have been aware of the problem at the Hagersville dump for over 13 years. Nothing effectively was done until the fire. It seems that it takes a fire to get this government to move on anything.

I want to ask the minister again, how does he justify this to those citizens who in good faith were prepared to pay a tire tax because they were told by the Treasurer that the purpose of the tire tax was to deal with what he described as a potentially serious problem, one that he said was substantial? Indeed, he was not exaggerating when he said how bad it was; he said that it could be even worse, if there was a fire, than St-Basile-le-Grand.

The Speaker: Thank you.

Mr B. Rae: My question to the minister, Mr Speaker --

The Speaker: I thought you had repeated the original question. Please put your question.

Mr B. Rae: Mr Speaker --

Interjection.

The Speaker: Order. Would you place your question in one sentence?

Mr B. Rae: I would like to ask the minister, given how much money he has managed to raise, why it would be that he did not even begin or complete the fire inspections on all the sites that he mentioned in his press release that week until after the fire at Hagersville had started. Can he explain that?

Hon Mr Bradley: First, I find it rather interesting that in all the years that I can remember the Leader of the Opposition being in this House, as the Leader of the New Democratic Party when it was the third party and as the Leader of the Opposition now, not once did I receive a question from the Leader of the Opposition about Tyre King or about the safety related to tires.

Now here he is with his 1990 crystal ball for 1987; he comes in with his routine of should have, could have, would have. Yet we went through the estimates of the Ministry of the Environment. That was the choice of his party, that the Ministry of the Environment be selected first and that 15 hours of estimates be devoted. There are a lot of important environmental issues in the province of Ontario, and I want to tell the member that.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. I appreciate the help from all the members; however, I think probably if we all listened we might get along a little better.

Mr B. Rae: I very much appreciate what the minister is saying, that it is not enough for the Treasurer to point to there being a potential provincial disaster, that it is not enough for the Treasurer to raise over $100,000 a day starting back last June, that apparently it is not enough for the ministry itself to be caught in legal action and stuck for five years over a problem at Hagersville for this government to recognize that there is a problem.

I would like to ask the minister a simple question: How does he justify raising to this point nearly $30 million in the tire tax? Having his Treasurer say last year that the reason the money is being raised is because these tires are being dumped all over the province and there is a potential hazard all over the province, how does he justify that and not having taken any action at all until after the Hagersville fire started on 9 March?

Hon Mr Bradley: First, the Leader of the Opposition as usual is wrong and has put the facts forward to make his case, of course, as well as he can. I expect that. He is the Leader of the Opposition. I sat in that position on the other side of the House some time ago. I know the routine he must go through.

Interjection.

Hon Mr Bradley: The member for Oshawa is still here. I am glad to see that because he is one of my favourite members.

The Leader of the Opposition says that no action was taken. In fact, he knows that a control order was placed on this particular site in 1987, the components of which could have avoided this particular fire if the person had decided to simply comply with the control order instead of spending money on an expensive court case. Now the member often characterizes himself as a defender of due process and civil rights, when it suits him. This individual had the right to appeal, and he went through an appeal process, unfortunately, that exists. In a western democracy that --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. New question, the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore.

Mrs Grier: I can understand how embarrassed the Minister of the Environment must be about the fact that this occurrence happened, but for him to try to say that the reason he did nothing was because the opposition had not raised it is absolutely unacceptable and he ought to be ashamed of himself.

The Speaker: Order. I was just wondering, your question is to which minister?

Mrs Grier: The question is to the Minister of the Environment.

The minister may think it is amusing, but I do not know whether all the members of this House are aware that the fire that occurred at Hagersville last month is not the first fire at Ed Straza’s dump. There was a fire in 1977 that took seven hours to put out. Shortly after this minister took office, the regional chairman wrote to him and asked him to do something about the Tyre King dump. Why does this minister persist in saying that he did not know about it or that he was not able to do anything about it? Can he tell the House, was he aware of the fact that there had been a previous serious fire at the dump? If so, when did he become aware of that?

Hon Mr Bradley: The point I was making with the members of the opposition was, of course, not that action was not taken as a result of their not intervening; in fact, the action was taken in the form of this control order that was put on by the district officer. Of course the party which likes to defend the individual rights of people, the civil rights of people, does not like it in this particular instance, because it worked against the environment and we recognize it is not convenient today to do it. So that is fine.

Interjection.

Hon Mr Bradley: If the member would -- I do not know whether to answer his question or the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore’s question, but I will answer her question.

The fact is that in January 1987, the Ministry of the Environment put this control order on. The control order was essentially substantiated by the Environmental Appeal Board of the province of Ontario, and he decided to go to court further. When he went to court further --

Interjection.

Hon Mr Bradley: The Leader of the Opposition says, “Well, why didn’t you simply move in to get this thrown out of court or use some technical wrangle?” I am going to tell him something. The people who have experience in dealing with these matters in the courts, the legal officials of the Ministry of the Environment who, I remind the member, have a conviction rate on the conviction side of some 92 per cent in pursuing these matters, these people who have the experience --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mrs Grier: Mr Speaker, he did not answer my question, but the answer he gave to the question I did not ask is getting weaker and weaker and thinner and thinner. If the minister is trying to tell the House that the reason he did not ask the courts to lift the stay on the control order was because he did not think the courts would support him, that is completely unacceptable.

Section 122b of the Environmental Protection Act is very clear. It says:

“A court or other appellate tribunal may make an order under this

section where the court...is satisfied that the order is necessary or advisable to prevent or to reduce a hazard to the health or safety of any person or to prevent or reduce impairment of the natural environment for any use that can be made of it.”

Is the minister trying to tell this House that he did not know enough in 1989 to go to the courts and ask for an order under that section?

Hon Mr Bradley: First of all, to the member on

section 122b, as she states it, she knows that this applies only if there is a clear, immediate threat to health or property from an ongoing discharge.

In the matter of her wanting the legal officials of the Ministry of the Environment to go to court on a technicality, to have a case of substance decided on a technicality, the people who deal with this on a daily basis, the people who have chosen to be part of the enforcement, the investigation and the legal team of the Ministry of the Environment, who have made this commitment, who have that experience, have indicated that this would not have been successful and that the result instead would have been that the court would have dismissed it and it would have gone to the bottom of the pile, thereby further delaying it.

Mrs Grier: If the minister is trying to tell us that his legislation is not strong enough, we on this side have been imploring this minister for five years to bring in amendments to legislation that is not strong enough and we will support it. So if he did not think he had the powers to do something, which I think he did have, all he had to do was ask.

Can the minister explain his complete inaction when the appeal order was appealed to the Divisional Court. I want to make the dates very clear. The Environmental Appeal Board upheld the control order imposed by the ministry, and exercising his legitimate rights Mr Straza appealed to the Divisional Court. He had 30 days to file documentation supporting that appeal. No documentation was filed. The ministry at that point, which was the same time the budget was brought down, had the right to go to ask that the court dismiss the appeal.

The Speaker: I appreciate it, but would you come to the question mark.

Mrs Grier: Why did the minister not do that?

Hon Mr Bradley: That is precisely what I have described to the member. Once again, these people who deal with these tribunals, with these courts, who know how they operate, who know how they proceed, knew that they would not be successful if, moving on a technicality, and that is what you are doing, the technicality of the 30-day filing --

Interjections.

Hon Mr Bradley: Oh, the QC now has a different opinion; okay. But the people who actually deal with this on a daily basis stated that they were not going to be able to win a situation such as that, the substantive case, based on a legal technicality. The crown does not have success doing that, and I would have thought that members of the opposition would have been aware of that. That is why they did not move in that direction, because in their judgement it would have been thrown out of court and it would have gone to the bottom of the pile and the delay would have been for ever.

Mr Brandt: My question as well is for the Minister of the Environment. If I might, I want to ask the minister to be helpful in the case of the Hagersville situation. Perhaps I know how helpful he wants to be and how he wants to clarify the inaction of this minister and this ministry with respect to this particular case, but we have, first of all, a series of ministry officials who made statements to the effect that this was a potentially hazardous situation, and when you have 15 to 16 million tires which are inventoried on one site, I would suggest that they were absolutely correct in that assessment.

Second, you have the Treasurer of Ontario, who himself will tell you is virtually infallible and never wrong, who said very clearly that it was a situation that was intolerable. The minister himself was well aware of that fact, being advised by both his ministry officials and the Treasurer.

Then we have the Treasurer, who comes along and assesses the people of this province a $5 tire tax, which amounts to multimillions of dollars every single year to specifically deal --

Mr Speaker: Do you have a question?

Mr Brandt: Mr Speaker, I am getting to my question -- with situations like Hagersville. Can the minister share with us why he sat there and did absolutely nothing, nothing whatsoever, until a fire took place.

Hon Mr Bradley: First of all, I find it passing interesting that the former Minister of the Environment was a member of the government of Ontario for a number of years, and his government did the square root of nothing to solve the problem of tires in this province. What was done was that a control order was placed on this particular site by the regional director of the Ministry of the Environment. That control order was substantially upheld by the appeal board of Ontario.

The owner of the site decided, through due process, to appeal this particular case, a right he is entitled to in a democratic society; whether people who are interested, such as I, in pursuing environmental matters like it or not, he has the right to do so.

Our ministry -- the member was the former minister and he knows this has people who deal with these tribunals, people who deal with these courts, not just with the letter of the law but with the general procedures of these courts, and exercised a judgement which said that they would not have been successful in moving on technicalities in an attempt to have this stay removed. I do not like that situation. That situation will not be allowed to happen in the future when amendments are put forward to both the fire code, which is under the auspices of the --

The Speaker: Supplementary.

Mr Brandt: Let me advise the minister that in 1983 in King township, in a situation not dissimilar to the one he did not deal with in Hagersville, there was a company in that particular location, which refused a control order much like Tyre King did in Hagersville. As a result of that control order being refused, the minister of the day, an individual well known to him since it was the minister in 1983, spent $2 million cleaning up that site and worrying about the courts after the site was cleaned up. Why would the minister not move first and worry about the legal ramifications after?

Hon Mr Bradley: The member brings up, of course, a different instance, where he may have been in the position to do whatever he did on that occasion. Under the amendments we are proposing, the government would have the right in this particular situation, whether it is under the auspices of the fire code or whether it is under the auspices of the Environmental Protection Act, to undertake whatever activities are necessary.

I think the case the member is referring to was a toxic waste site that was leaking at King township. There is a little bit of difference between a toxic waste site -- an ongoing discharge, in other words, a toxic waste site that was leaking at King township -- and the situation at Hagersville, where in fact there was no ongoing discharge happening at that particular time.

Mr Brandt: If the minister is attempting to tell this House that there was no potential risk associated with the Hagersville property, then I think he had better take another look at the situation.

Again, I would remind him that his own Treasurer called the King facility an environmental menace. The appeal board in 1988 reviewed the original control order and stated: “Tyre King represents a major environmental hazard. There is potential for a very serious disaster.” The ministry and the minister were well aware of the fact that they were dealing with a potentially hazardous situation. There is ample opportunity for the minister to act now without the amendments he is now proposing after the fact.

I ask the minister again, how can he explain his government’s total inaction with respect to this kind of calamity that occurred in Hagersville, when he in fact could have prevented it from happening in the first place?

Hon Mr Bradley: I guess, since the questions are becoming repetitive, it bears repeating to the member that in fact the district officer, who is the regional director in this case, placed the control order on this particular site, did take action in 1987 and that action was very strong action, which would have had the effect of preventing this fire even though it was a fire that the office of the fire marshal says was caused by arson. It would likely have had the effect of being able to overcome or avoid or reduce the risk of any of the problems that existed at the site.

It is not as though all the tires at that site were accumulated since 1987. Those tires had been accumulating for a number of years at that site when the member had an opportunity to do something about it, and I recognize that he did not. I think it is important, when the question comes from the former Minister of the Environment and from my friend the leader of the third party, a party that was in power for a number of years to be able to solve problems of this kind, that the square root of nothing was done about that particular site.

WATER QUALITY

Mrs Marland: My question is for the Minister of the Environment. I expect many members shared my horror upon viewing, last evening, the first part of this week’s CBC at Six television series on water quality. This show focused on well water contamination by faecal bacteria. Imagine being in the position of a young mother, Patti Renders of Spencerville, who must bathe her baby in water that is disinfected with Javex, which carries a label warning to avoid exposure to skin and eyes. This is the 1990s in Ontario; it is not the 1950s in the Third World.

To make matters worse, Mrs Renders cannot even get advice from either his ministry or the Ministry of Health as to how much chlorine she should bathe her baby in. My question is, does the minister condone the statements of his official, Mr McIntyre, that Spencerville residents’ fears are exaggerated, that information on disinfecting water is readily available and that there is nothing to worry about if drinking water is only bacteriologically contaminated?

Hon Mr Bradley: The Ministry of Health is very pleased, I think, to provide the kind of information that the member is looking for and that the people would be looking for in terms of the decontamination of any wells that might exist anywhere in the province of Ontario and the amount of material that is used as a disinfectant, just as you have disinfectants that are used in municipal water supplies and disinfectants that can be used in individual wells across the province of Ontario. I am sure that this information can be provided by the health authorities in the area, and indeed that it will be provided by those people.

Mrs Marland: Spencerville has been trying for seven years to obtain Ministry of the Environment assistance to build a sewage treatment system and to install new wells. Within the last year, the area has seen a doubling of cases of gastro-intestinal disease, which is linked to the drinking water, contaminated with coliform bacteria. This is a disease common in the Third World. As usual, it takes a crisis to bring any action by this now you see him, now you don’t Minister of the Environment. It is the same story as the contamination of the drinking water in Elmira.

In spite of the fact that he says the information is available, does the minister accept that his staff person’s, Mr McIntyre’s, statement is that it is standard for a community to have to wait seven years to obtain the money needed to correct well-water contamination and that the residents are none the worse off having to wait? He said, “Why is it suddenly a problem, because they know about it?” I suppose if they do not know about it, it is not a problem.

Hon Mr Bradley: The water problems at Spencerville came to light, as the member may be aware, in 1982-83, as long ago as then. Spencerville’s water problem was declared eligible for provincial assistance, for provincial funding in 1983. As the member may be aware, because of local ground conditions the consultant recommended that a community sewage system be installed before drilling new, deeper wells, because the blasting for the sewage treatment plant, for instance, would have the effect of wrecking those wells. The project went through the environmental assessment process.

My ministry has, at every step of the way, had money available to pay 85 per cent of the cost of the Spencerville project. My ministry had money available for Spencerville in the year just ending, but the community did not have its engineering plans ready. That is normal. They have to go through the engineering plans, do the engineering work first, before they can implement the project. Indeed, the local council, at a meeting with my staff, agreed that construction could not proceed until this year. The community now has plans and is ready to proceed. My ministry has allocated 85 per cent of the portion of that cost and has already done so.

Mrs Marland: I guess we can assume by the answer that he agrees with his staff person that it is not a problem if water is contaminated; that is no problem. Anyway, drinking water is not a problem in eastern Ontario only. We all know about the ministry’s terrible botching of the contamination of water in Elmira and communities downstream with N-nitroso dimethylamine.

The people in the affected communities have been given bottled water to drink while they wait for the construction of a new water pipeline, yet this minister knows there is insufficient testing of bottled water, since his Liberal government supported, at second reading, my private member’s bill, Bill 61, which would make bottled water subject to the same testing as municipal water supplies.

My question is this: Will the minister promise to take action to ensure that my bill becomes law as soon as possible and that incidents such as the recall of the Perrier water due to benzene contamination are a thing of the past? If people cannot drink their well water or their municipal water, what can --

The Speaker: Minister.

Hon Mr Bradley: The member must be blushing to ask a question like that. Clearly what we should be ensuring in the province of Ontario, and what our goal is, is to provide communal water that is acceptable and safe for the people of this province. To suggest that we should be involved in testing bottled water in this province, which is clearly within the mandate of the federal Department of National Health and Welfare, is unbelievable and I cannot believe that she is actually asking this particular question.

In regard to the Elmira situation, I must say that she, from her party, should not be asking questions about that because it was this government which in its drinking water surveillance program detected DNA and shut down those processes at Elmira which were producing that particular substance, over the objection of a lot of people including many of the employees there. Since then, in the river, there have been nondetectables found in the water.

TIRE FIRE

Mr B. Rae: Again to the Minister of the Environment: The minister has admitted, or at least the facts admit that it took two years for the Environmental Appeal Board to deal with the appeal from Mr Straza and that since 1989 Mr Straza has filed absolutely no documents in the court, and his government has not responded to that at all.

to ask the minister this simple question: Is he prepared to accept any responsibility at all for the fact that this government was prepared to raise millions of dollars in taxation for the citizens of this province to deal with a problem, but was not in fact prepared to enforce the law? Is he prepared to take any responsibility for that or indeed for what happened at Hagersville?

Hon Mr Bradley: I have indicated already to the member what action was taken by the Ministry of the Environment at Hagersville previous to this fire. The member makes reference to blaming the opposition. I just want to put it in context for members of the House who perhaps just could not remember the questions that were asked or this matter being raised.

There are occasions when he can get up in this House and say, “I told you so,” because he raises a number of issues, and there are a wide variety of issues that exist in the province of Ontario and any other jurisdiction. I am simply pointing out that here he is, he comes back from Europe, he shows up here with all the answers now in 1990, and I did not hear any of the questions about this. I did not hear any of the proposals previous to that, yet he touts himself -- I think he has the sensibilities -- as being up to date on all environmental issues, interested in them and pursuing them.

Indeed, he does in many cases, but he did not in this specific case and frankly not many other jurisdictions were.

This government had already committed over $1 million to projects which were involved in recycling --

The Speaker: Thank you; supplementary.

Mr B. Rae: The minister has raised $30 million and he is prepared to commit himself to $1 million. That is a 30-to-1 ratio. He should not tell me he is doing anything.

My question to the minister is this: Is he prepared to table any and all legal opinions and memoranda given to him by various officials with respect to the Hagersville matter from the time he assumed responsibility as Minister of the Environment in 1985 until today? If he is so great, he should tell us about it.

Hon Mr Bradley: I have stated for the member the circumstances that existed at the time, the action that was taken by the ministry through the control order and the reasons why it proceeded in the direction it did. We also have now amendments that are being proposed, for the Legislative Assembly to deal with, and I am sure the member will be pleased to support those amendments which are designed to allow the Ministry of the Environment, even where there is a stay in effect, to go in when it believes --

Mrs Grier: There is no guarantee you will. You had the power to act and you did not.

Hon Mr Bradley: No, that is not true -- to go in when the Ministry of the Environment believes there is a problem that justifies it, to do the work and to undertake the action, taking a chance that it can cost the government money but knowing that there will be an opportunity to try to recover those funds.

ST BRUNO CATHOLIC SCHOOL

Mr Jackson: I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. The minister would be aware, I am sure, of the recent case that has been reported with respect to the situation at St Bruno elementary school here in Toronto.

The health problems that the children are experiencing have been well documented, with bleeding noses, dizziness, sore eyes and nausea. Even more serious are the cases of one third of the female teachers on staff who have cancer and tumours; seven have had miscarriages.

The minister would also know that the ministry tested this site in 1988 and gave it a clean bill of health. It raises some questions because it now would be apparent that either there is a problem with the credibility of the ministry’s testing ability on this site or else the regulations that are guiding the testing are wholly inadequate to ensure the safety of the children and the staff at that site.

What specifically will the minister be doing with respect to the contaminated site at St Bruno school?

Hon Mr Bradley: The member asks a fair question. We will be assisting the Ministry of Labour and the Ministry of Health. Particularly, the Ministry of Health works through the local medical officer of health in Toronto and the board of education. Any requests that have come to us -- and the member may know there was a recent meeting held -- for any specific kind of testing to assist the Ministry of Labour, to assist the medical officer of health and to assist the local board of education, we are prepared to undertake any of those activities that they ask for.

Mr Jackson: What I am hearing is the minister suggesting that he is waiting for people to contact him. I must say there is about as much confidence in his response as there is confidence in the ability of his ministry to do testing at this site to date.

There are four ministries involved or which should have legitimate concerns. The Ministry of the Environment, the Ministry of Labour, the Ministry of Education, these ministries are all involved and concerned, as is Health, with this site problem. My question to the minister is, how come there is such little contact that there is no lead ministry emerging on this site? Everybody is offing the problem to somebody else.

The minister’s assistant, David Oved, said to the Toronto Star, and I quote directly: “‘It’s my understanding that this case falls within the Labour ministry’s jurisdiction,’ he said. ‘Taxpayers don’t tend to like to pay for two different organizations to do the same thing.”’ That was from the minister’s staff.

The Speaker: And the question?

Mr Jackson: The question is simply this: The public is not concerned about paying twice to have this done. They are waiting for at least one lead ministry of the government to take control of this serious health risk and to make a single --

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Bradley: In terms of occupational health and safety, as the member would know, the Ministry of Labour in fact does have the lead in that regard. In meetings that have taken place, what we have already indicated as a ministry is that we are prepared to assist in any way possible that our ministry can be helpful.

I know that David Guscott, our director, central region, attended a public meeting yesterday, for instance, to discuss a study to find the source of health problems in the school. That study, which will be as a result of the actions of the local board of health, the Ministry of the Environment and the Ministry of Labour, is also being submitted to the people who are there in the school for their approval and their comment so that they feel that we have in fact covered all of the bases.

We have offered this service to people and will continue to offer this service to people and to undertake whatever activities are necessary.

CAREER OPTIONS FOR WOMEN

Mr Neumann: My question is for the Minister without Portfolio responsible for women’s issues. Now that pay equity is being implemented across Ontario, the long-standing problem of low wages paid to female workers is being corrected. However, pay equity addresses only part of the problem. A high percentage of women are clustered in a few job categories. These job categories tend to be low-paying and are mostly in the service sector.

I would like to ask the minister to indicate what the government is doing to improve career options for women.

Hon Mrs Wilson: Today we find that women are entering the workforce at a very high percentage, and in fact in the next decade, the 1990s, women will make up 50 per cent of Ontario’s workforce. We have in Ontario a vital need for skilled workers. The entry of women into nontraditional careers is vital to the economy of Ontario as well as to the economic equality of women.

Sex role stereotyping limits career opportunities and education decisions that women are currently making. My ministry, the Ontario women’s directorate, has been working to provide awareness about sexual stereotyping around the province. We are doing it by a number of means. First, we have videos, brochures and training manuals which are available to trainers and educators. Second, we are working on new program development at the local level, which is supported by the consultative services branch of the Ontario women’s directorate.

Third, we have a grants program which is used at the local level to development awareness about career opportunities and nontraditional roles for women. We have nine projects throughout the province and this year, 13 projects throughout the province, which are role-modelling programs.

Mr Neumann: In our community, the University Women’s Club has produced a membership directory to provide role models for young women looking at various career options. This has proven to be quite successful in the schools.

However, there is still a hesitation on the part of many young women to consider a career in areas which have historically been male dominated. Societal attitudes will have to change before this problem can be eliminated. What is the government doing to start this process with young girls within the educational system?

Hon Mrs Wilson: In January of this year we released a new video. It is entitled More Than Just A Job. We want to use that video to encourage young women and young men to make their education and career choices not just on stereotypical attitudes about what is women’s work or men’s work, but indeed on what are their talents and their special abilities and interests.

We have to change attitudes. Today’s young men and women are still making career choices based on outmoded attitudes about men’s work and women’s work. Today’s women can expect to be in the paid labour force on an average of 30 years, and many women will be responsible for supporting themselves and their families. We want women to make vocational decisions that take those realities into consideration.

The new video is designed for use in classrooms in grades 7 to 10, an age when teenagers are making those decisions. We are providing posters to schools around the province.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr Kormos: I have a question for the Premier about Bill 68, his auto insurance scheme. He knows that what this does is forgive the payment of the three per cent premium tax by the auto insurance industry; he knows that it forgives the auto insurance industry’s payment to OHIP of that debt obligation -- premium tax, $95 million out of the taxpayers’ pocket; OHIP, $46 million. It also reduces accident benefits by some $823 million. He should know that the Insurance Bureau of Canada says that for the third quarter of 1989 the property and casualty insurance industry in Canada made record profits, the highest profits in eight years, profits for the third quarter alone of $317 million.

On top of that, the minister tells us and the Premier knows this as well --

Mr Speaker: You started a question here.

Mr Kormos: -- that drivers are going to face premium increases by as much as 50 per cent. How can the Premier justify this kind of payout to the insurance industry when it is making the highest profits in eight years, $317 million for the third quarter alone? All this is doing is making it a very profitable industry.

Hon Mr Peterson: My honourable friend puts forward a number of facts and my understanding is, based on the committee and his contributions thereto, that his facts are probably erroneous. So I could not stand in this House and substantiate them.

Mr Kormos: That was a real big one. The profit figures came from the insurance industry’s own magazine, the Canadian Underwriter. Let me tell the Premier this: interestingly -- and he would know far more about these things than I do -- there are these little subscription services for stock market players. They are tout sheets for various forms of stocks. Here is one called the Investment Reporter, published out of Toronto. It talks about Lonvest Corp, which happens to own Wellington Insurance Co.

This is what it says: “Lonvest’s insurance divisions are pressing the Ontario government for a no-fault insurance program in Ontario. The company feels such a program will provide more stable premiums and lower payouts.”

This company recommends Lonvest as a good investment. As a matter of fact, it rates it about as good as you could possibly get. It says that the profit picture has never looked better. That is entirely due to what the Premier is doing as a result of his insurance scheme. How can he justify the payout to the insurance industry on the backs of injured victims when it is a profitable industry to begin with and it is going to injure more victims, more drivers and more taxpayers?

Hon Mr Peterson: The member knows there have been extensive discussions in committee and indeed in this House; there will continue to be in this House and he will have an opportunity to put forward his views. I gather he has done that already in very colourful and not always constructive ways. He certainly achieved a lot of attention for himself, whether that is the kind of attention he wants or not.

HOSPITAL SERVICES

Mr Eves: I have a question of the Minister of Health. She will be aware, of course, of the case of Stella Lacroix, who died on 10 October 1989 after Dr Nesdoly and his staff tried frantically for 10 hours to save her life. She is also aware that in this Legislature on 12 October, some two days later, the Premier stood in his place and said there was a critical care hotline system in place in Ontario and he could not understand for the life of him why it was not used in that particular instance.

We all know now, of course, that there was no such critical care hotline system. Is it in place throughout the province today?

Hon Mrs Caplan: As the member opposite knows, the question he has asked is filled with inaccuracies and inaccurate facts. He knows as well that we announced in June 1989 that we would be establishing funding for a new series of regional critical care hotlines across the province and at that time, when this $18-million program was announced, he stood in his place and said it was not necessary to do it, that everybody knew whom to call.

I would say to him today that in fact we are making progress, that we have the system in place in central-west region -- it is operated by Chedoke-McMaster Hospitals; it is called REACH -- and all of the other areas are under implementation. We have seconded a staff person from the Working Group on Critical Care Committee, Vickie Kaminski, and it is moving ahead.

Mr Eves: Perhaps I should refresh the minister’s mind about some facts. The facts are, the minister announced in June 1989 that a critical care hotline system would be in place in the city of Metropolitan Toronto by 1 July 1989. The facts are, in Stella Lacroix’s case, the minister and the Premier repeatedly, under questioning in this House, denied that a critical care hotline did not exist. Even her own Working Group on Critical Care told the minister it did not exist. The coroner’s jury told her it did not exist, and later, on 11 December 1989, she reannounced the critical care hotline she announced in June 1989 and said that she would now establish seven regional hotlines.

The answer to the question I asked is that one out of the seven is now in place, and in Thunder Bay, Sudbury, London, Kingston, Ottawa and Toronto, where it was supposed to be operational last 1 July, over 80 per cent of the people in this province still do not have the hotline. The minister calls that progress. Why is it not in place for these Ontarians right now?

Hon Mrs Caplan: I know that the member opposite knows the facts and I am concerned that he is not portraying them correctly. We announced that as of 1 July 1989 there would be an integrated trauma program available in Toronto that was in place, and it has been in place since July 1989. I can even give the phone number. It is area code 416, 480-4444. That is what we said would be in place 1 July. That was in place.

What I tabled here in the House was a letter from the Toronto General Hospital. It has an emergency number in its emergency room. It has been in place for a decade. He knows that and he knows as well that while it is not perfect, it is in place and it has been in place for some time.

There is a central Toronto resource registry. It began being phased in in June 1988; 21 Metro emergency departments are computer-linked to this registry. It is sponsored by the Hospital Council of Metropolitan Toronto. Bed registries are being put in place in many of the other centres across the province. They have been --

The Speaker: I thank the minister for --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Scott: How much do we have to pay to call your number on 12 May?

The Speaker: I did not recognize the Attorney General for a question.

AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRY

Mr D. W. Smith: I have a question of the Minister of Agriculture and Food. Lately I have been speaking with a pork producer in the riding of Lambton and he is concerned about the breeding technology that is available to the pork producers and swine breeders in Ontario. I am sure that everyone will know of the advancements that have been made in artificial insemination technology in the cattle industry and how much it has helped the cattle industry. I wonder what his ministry is doing or is able to do to enhance the quality of Ontario swine. I wonder if he could answer that question for me.

Hon Mr Ramsay: I am very happy that the member brought up this question, because I, like him, share the concern for Ontario pork production in this province and the tremendous record of breeding that our Ontario producers have had in the past. As you know, some of the finest animals in the world in pork are produced in Ontario.

However, we can always do more. This is why the ministry recently announced a four-stage developmental program, the Ontario artificial insemination for pork program. My ministry is going to contribute $100,000 this year to the association, but besides that we are giving a special grant of $175,000 to take care of an ongoing deficit to put the organization on a firm footing. As a condition of this, we are asking the association to develop a four-year business plan within the next six months and also asking the association to develop a marketing strategy in order to increase the usage and volume of product.

I am confident that this assistance is going to put pork AI in the forefront of the world technology.

Mr D. W. Smith: I want to thank the minister for helping in some way with the swine industry. Having worked in the AI industry in cattle about 25 years ago -- it does not seem that long -- I know what it has done to the cattle industry and I am sure it will help the pork industry.

Since we are discussing countervail with the United States over a lot of different issues, could the minister enlighten us a little bit more on whether this may have any effect on the trade agreement? Also, could he bring us up to date on any movement on this countervail issue with the United States?

Hon Mr Ramsay: The member brings up just one of the challenges that the US is mounting against Canadian agriculture. Our traditional marketing board system is being challenged, our income stabilization program and our crop insurance programs are all being challenged.

We do not have to be defensive about our domestic programs, because our programs in this country do not interfere with international trade regulations, they do not cause trade distortions, nor do they create an unfair trading advantage to our country. But it is very ironic that the US, while challenging our domestic programs that do not interfere with international trade, is at the same time increasing its export subsidies through its export enhancement program, which truly does distort international trade.

Specifically, the member talked about the countervail action against Canadian pork exportation into the US. I was happy Ontario was able to participate in December, along with Alberta, Quebec and the federal government, in challenging that countervail decision that was made against our country. We anticipate that by July we will have a decision rendered in Washington.

CARDIOVASCULAR CARE

Mr D. S. Cooke : I have a question for the Minister of Health. I am quite surprised that in the time since she returned from India, the minister has not seen fit to make any kind of a report to the people of my community on the case of Joel Bondy, the 23-month-old baby who died because of the incompetence of this ministry to come to grips with the problems of people accessing cardiac care in this province.

I am surprised that from the time the minister returned from India she has not seen fit to make any kind of report to the people of my community, who are still wondering and demanding to know what were the contributing factors to why a 23-month-old boy who needed to have surgery had to wait six months. Is it not true that the major contributing factor was the shortage of nurses at the Hospital for Sick Children, which the minister has been aware of and studying to death and not done a bloody thing about since she has been minister?

Hon Mrs Caplan: As a mother and parent, I would say to the member opposite that I do not think anyone could contemplate the loss of a child. Certainly nothing anyone could say could comfort a family in that loss.

I would say to him that the coroner -- and I have a lot of confidence in the judgement of the coroner -- determined that everything that could have been done, was done in that particular case and determined not to call an inquest.

I would say to him, however, that we have taken great strides in ensuring that children have access to the services they need when they need them. In fact, we have established a new paediatric cardiac registry system to take some of the pressures off downtown Toronto and allow the Sick Children’s Hospital to focus on what it does best, which are often the most difficult and unique cases. We know that some 50 per cent of the cases referred to Sick Children’s Hospital come from outside Metropolitan Toronto.

I am pleased to tell the member that the leadership being shown by Sick Children’s in working with the Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario and the children’s hospital in western Ontario, I believe, will ensure that children have access to services in the most appropriate location when they need them.

Mr D. S. Cooke: I hope some day that will be the case, but it was not the case for Joel Bondy. The minister has not explained to this Legislature or to the people of my community, who are extremely upset, concerned and have absolutely no confidence in her or her health care system because so many people in my community have died while they were waiting to get access to health care in this province. There have been five people so far this year from my community who have died on waiting lists.

I would like to ask the minister, when is she going to give a full explanation as to why Joel was labelled as being elective for so long, why he had to wait six months and why the surgery was cancelled again at the last minute?

The Speaker: Minister.

Mr D. S. Cooke: It is fine for her and the coroner to say that everything that could be done was done, but the fact of the matter is he did not get surgery, so everything that could be done was not done.

The Speaker: Order. Those are three questions.

Hon Mrs Caplan: I would say to the member opposite that we are seeking the very best advice we can in the province to ensure that people have access to the services they need when they need them and that we are getting the very best of medical judgements as well. I want to tell him that the leading cardiac surgeons in this province, Dr Tyrone David, Dr Wilbert Keon, who was chairman of that committee, Dr Neil MacKenzie, Dr Tom Salerno and Dr William Shragon, an expert panel, came together and advised us on how we could develop the kind of network which we have put in place.

Mr D. S. Cooke: You mean the one that was promised two years ago.

Hon Mrs Caplan: No; in fact, this builds on the very good advice we received when we looked at St Michael’s Hospital so that we can ensure that people have access.

I can tell the member that we have seen real progress. That does not mean everything is perfect yet. This is a very human system, humans caring for humans, because we want to make sure they have the services they need, but we are making progress and he should be able to tell the people right across this province that --

The Speaker: Thank you.

TORONTO AREA TRANSPORTATION

Mr Cousens: A question to the Minister of Transportation: Will the Minister of Transportation advise this House of plans under way in his ministry regarding the purchase of Union Station? Second, would he advise the House of any arrangements that have been made with the Canadian Pacific Railway company to provide commuter rail services on its cross-Metro freight line?

Hon Mr Wrye: In terms of Union Station, I can confirm to the honourable member only that, as he knows, because I am sure he read it in the press, there have been and are discussions under way in terms of that matter. There is, of course, at this point nothing to report on that matter.

In terms of the rail lines, we in the ministry are currently examining the whole issue of the rail lines that we now have within the greater Toronto area, within Metro. Those discussions and that analysis are ongoing not only within my ministry but under the leadership as well of the deputy minister for the greater Toronto area, Gardner Church.

Mr Cousens: The air is thick with talk of forthcoming transit announcements from his ministry and I want to remind the minister how urgent and imperative and how absolutely essential it is that the government take a lead role in Metro transportation strategies. What are the government’s transportation plans for the greater Toronto area? Are we going to get the separate subway, the Finch loop, the CP line? What are his plans?

Hon Mr Wrye: Our plans will be announced in the not-too-distant future. I think we have a very exciting series of initiatives, which I know my good friend opposite and the members of his party will be very supportive of. I think within our ministry and within the government we have worked very hard to develop some initiatives which will ensure that Toronto will retain its lead in terms of being one of the most dynamic public transportation systems anywhere in North America.

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

Mr Ward moved that, notwithstanding standing order 94(h), the requirement for notice be waived with respect to ballot item numbers 35, 36, 37 and 38; and that the order of precedence for private members’ public business be amended as follows: ballot item number 40, Mr MacDonald; ballot item number 62, Mr Velshi; ballot item number 96, Miss Roberts.

Motion agreed to.

COMMITTEE SITTINGS

Mr Ward moved that the standing committee on the Ombudsman be authorized to meet on the afternoon of Wednesday 21 March 1990 and on the morning of Thursday 22 March 1990.

Motion agreed to.

COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTIONS

Mr Ward moved that the following substitutions be made: on the standing committee on general government, Mr McGuigan for Mr Sola; on the standing committee on resources development, Mr Sola for Mr McGuigan.

Motion agreed to.

COMMITTEE BUSINESS

Mr Ward moved that the orders of the House of 20 December 1989 appointing the select committee on constitutional and intergovernmental affairs and the select committee on energy be amended by inserting “subject to the agreement of the House leader and the chief whip of each recognized party” after “concurrently with the House.”

Motion agreed to.

Mr Ward moved that the order of the House of 20 December 1989 appointing a select committee on energy be amended by striking out “March 19, 1990” in the 24th line and substituting “April 2, 1990” therefor, and that the select committee be authorized to meet during the weeks of 18 March and 25 March 1990 to consider its interim report to the House.

Motion agreed to.

PETITIONS

TRUCK TRAFFIC

Mr D. W. Smith: This petition is to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. This is concerning constituents in the riding of Lambton who are concerned about county road 33. They are petitioning to stop truck traffic along that road. It is signed by approximately 25 people, and I have affixed my name to the bottom.

RELIGIOUS EDUCATION

Mr Reycraft: I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It reads as follows:

“To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the Parliament of Ontario as follows:

“The Ministry of Education has made evolutionism a compulsory core unit in senior OAC, previously grade 13, history and science. Since evolutionism and creationism are completed acts in the past, neither can be proven nor disproven. In fairness to all parents and students, equal time should be given in presenting the underlying assumptions of each. Through the two-model approach, the skills of critical thinking such as recognition of bias, awareness of society’s influence on one’s bias and the awareness of assumptions can allow students to examine their own belief system and better appreciate an opposing view.”

The petition is signed by 148 people in Mount Brydges and area, and I have affixed my signature.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

Mr Callahan from the standing committee on regulations and private bills presented the committee’s second report.

The Speaker: I think the standing orders allow you to make a brief statement.

Mr Callahan: I just want to thank the members of the committee and the staff in carrying out a very excellent task. We look forward to working with them in the future.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

Mr Philip from the standing committee on public accounts presented a special report of the Ministry of Housing contract with Dino Chiesa and moved the adoption of its recommendations.

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

Mr Philip: This is just one of several excellent reports that I will be tabling as a result of the work of the committee during the recess. In this particular report, our committee has made several recommendations in an effort to ensure that all applicants to the Ontario civil service receive fair and equal treatment, that the Management Board of Cabinet guidelines and directives are adhered to at all times and that the records of hiring process are prepared to document decisions under all circumstances. Hopefully, this report will be carefully studied by public servants in all ministries, not just the Ministry of Housing, from which this particular report stems.

On motion by Mr Philip, the debate was adjourned.

SELECT COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION

Mr Campbell from the select committee on education presented the committee’s third report and moved the adoption of its recommendations.

The Speaker: Does the member have a brief statement?

Mr Campbell: I would like to commend the members of the committee for their very excellent work in preparing this report and the staff, who spent a lot of time in trying to keep up with the members making the recommendations. I also would like to give special thanks to the member for Eglinton, who preceded me as chair and who did some very fine spadework in starting this report out.

On motion by Mr Campbell, the debate was adjourned.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

Mr Sterling from the standing committee on government agencies presented the committee’s report on agencies, boards and commissions and moved the adoption of its recommendations.

The Speaker: The member may wish to make a brief statement.

Mr Sterling: Under this report the committee completed reviews of the following agencies, boards and commissions: the Ontario Environmental Assessment Advisory Committee, the Review Board for Psychiatric Facilities, the Royal Ontario Museum board of trustees, the Stadium Corp of Ontario Ltd. Ontario French Language Services Commission and the Rent Review Hearings Board.

The committee offered a variety of recommendations with a view to improving the function of the above-mentioned ABCs, save for the Ontario French Language Services Commission, which ended its three-year mandate in November 1989. A minority opinion was submitted on behalf of the Progressive Conservative members of the committee with regard to the French language services commission.

On motion by Mr Sterling, the debate was adjourned.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT

Mr Pelissero from the standing committee on general government presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bill as amended:

Bill 68,

An Act to amend certain Acts respecting Insurance.

The Speaker: I am just wondering. There has been a motion put in the House so I will just say, shall the report be received and adopted? Then I will recognize the government House leader.

Hon Mr Ward: I expect there will be considerable debate on the adoption of the report and I would like to seek unanimous consent to divide equally the time remaining in the afternoon for the debate on this report up until 1750 and that there be a five-minute bell at 1750 and that the vote take place at 1755.

The Speaker: There is, I understand, unanimous consent to divide the time equally among the three parties and to vote at 1755. We have a motion. Does anybody wish to make any comments on the motion?

Mr Kormos: I sure do. Let me follow through. first, with some of the questioning that took place during question period, because there was a little bit of an area canvassed there that warrants some expansion.

Let’s take a look at what has been happening since this government has presented this bill and rammed it through the committee and now seeks to ram it through this Legislature. One of the things that we have learned -- and we learned it from, among other things, the insurance industry itself, through its own in-house journal, the Canadian Underwriter -- was that in 1989 the insurance industry in Canada was very healthy and, quite frankly, wealthy, profitable indeed.

As we heard, the Premier, during question period, preferred not to believe these facts and figures because he would like for the world to be different from what it really is. He would like for the world to be the result of the machinations of him and his colleagues in the Liberal Party.

The fact remains that the insurance industry’s own report, as revealed by the Insurance Bureau of Canada, shows that for the third quarter of 1989 it was very profitable indeed, showing profits of $317 million, so profitable that these little stock market tout sheets tout the insurance industry as being a very wise investment. Maybe the reason the Premier left here was to get a call in to his broker before the market shut down for the afternoon.

I am sure, with his inside track, he did not have to wait for me to tell him about Lonvest and the fact that as a result of no-fault insurance being rammed through by the Liberal government, insurance companies are going to enjoy profits that they have never dared dream of. They are going to enjoy those profits by dipping into the pockets of taxpayers across Ontario, by dipping into the pockets and picking the pockets of drivers across Ontario, and on the backs of innocent, injured victims.

Let’s take a look at what this legislation does. This legislation forgives the payment of a whole bunch of taxes by the auto insurance industry. The government knows that. What it does is it eliminates the three per cent premium tax that the auto insurance industry in Ontario has been paying. In the first year alone that is going to amount to a taxpayer gift to the insurance industry of $95 million. That is $95 million plucked, picked, robbed from the pockets of each and every taxpayer in the province, a $95-million gift to the auto insurance industry, an industry that is --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please.

Mr Kormos: -- making profits, quite handy, quite healthy profits. Let’s add to that the $46-million taxpayers’ gift to the insurance industry by way of forgiving it its debt to OHIP, another $46 million from taxpayers’ pockets.

That first gift, that first windfall -- because this is not the big one; this is just the beginning; this just paves the way -- amounts to $141 million in the first year alone, a $141-million gift to the auto insurance industry, an industry which proved itself in the past to have been profitable and proves itself in the current times to be profitable.

That is not the end of it, because there is more: this scheme is not going to reduce auto insurance premiums. We know that. The minister knows that because the minister has told the drivers of Ontario that once this legislation is passed, pr