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

July 12, 1989

34th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

TEMAGAMI DISTRICT RESOURCES

BURLINGTON TEEN TOUR BAND

CENTENARY OF FARM

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE

TRUANCY

HALTON REGION TRANSPORTATION

TRAVEL PUBLICATION

MEMBER FOR MISSISSAUGA WEST

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

HEALTH RESEARCH

WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT

CHARITABLE GAMING

RESPONSES

WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT

CHARITABLE GAMING

HEALTH RESEARCH

ORAL QUESTIONS

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

WASTE MANAGEMENT

PREMIER’S OFFICE

PATRICIA STARR

ABORTION

NEONATAL CARE

FUNERAL SERVICES

NIAGARA ESCARPMENT COMMISSION

SEWAGE TREATMENT

HALTON REGION TRANSPORTATION

FOREST MANAGEMENT

HOME CARE

SPEED LIMITS

CHAIRMAN OF ONTARIO SECURITIES COMMISSION

PETITIONS

BRIDGE CLEARANCE

ADOPTION

FRENCH-LANGUAGE SERVICES

NATUROPATHY

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

REPORT BY COMMITTEE

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

MOTION

STANDING COMMITREE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT

ORDERS OF THE DAY

SARNIA-LAMBTON ACT, 1989

SARNIA-LAMBTON ACT, 1989

LAND TRANSFER TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1989 (CONTINUED)

GASOLINE TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1989

ONTARIO MINERAL EXPLORATION PROGRAM ACT, 1989

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

TEMAGAMI DISTRICT RESOURCES

Mr Wildman: The Ministry of Natural Resources let a contract for construction of the Red Squirrel Road extension late last month. There were five bidders and the contract went to Carmen Construction of Sudbury. The total cost of the contract was $3,464,614. This is a 15-kilometre road. That works out to $230,974 per kilometre.

The original estimate of the Ministry of Natural Resources environmental assessment document was $1,267,800 plus $660,000 estimated for 11 crossings, for a total of $1,927,800. Some rights of way had already been cleared, as members are aware. They cost $317,000, which should be subtracted.

The highest cost I am aware of for a primary access road in a forest management agreement is $660,000 per kilometre. At the EA hearings in Thunder Bay, it has been argued that some companies should get more than that, but even when that is taken into account, it appears that the ministry is determined to have road building and forestry in the Temagami area at any cost: two and a half times the original estimate.

How can the ministry justify the expenditure of $231,000 per kilometre for the construction of the Red Squirrel Road extension? Is the ministry prepared to proceed with logging in the area at any cost?

BURLINGTON TEEN TOUR BAND

Mr Jackson: I am pleased to advise members of the House that Canada’s outstanding marching band, the Burlington Teen Tour Band, will be representing our country, our province and the city of Burlington at a series of international events this January.

The band, with its 225 members between the ages of 13 and 18, will first travel to Tokyo where it will lead the Disneyland parade. Then on to the city of Itabashi, a suburb of Tokyo, for a series of performances marking the twinning ceremony of this city with Burlington, Ontario. In addition to several more performances for the citizens of Itabashi, the band will also perform during a traditional Japanese tea ceremony, a very high honour in and of itself as well as an outstanding event of cultural appreciation and exchange. These events will be viewed by millions of people on the opposite side of the globe.

The band will travel to Hawaii to perform at the solemn flag-raising ceremony commemorating the USS Arizona in Pearl Harbor, a privilege afforded few American bands and rarely ever a foreign band.

The teen tour band will be featured on the half-time and post-game shows of the annual Hula Bowl where the pride of Ontario’s youth will be featured for over 30 million North American TV viewers. Canada, Ontario and the city of Burlington are justifiably proud of this international display of young Canadian talent. The members of the Burlington Teen Tour Band go forth as true ambassadors on behalf of all of us to remind peoples everywhere of Ontario’s unique presence in today’s world. They are indeed most deserving of our admiration and our earnest support.

CENTENARY OF FARM

Mr D. W. Smith: It is with pleasure that I stand today to inform my colleagues of a celebration I attended in my riding of Lambton. On 8 July 1989, the Thompson family, which has owned and operated a farm on lot 33, concession 5 of Dawn township, celebrated 100 years of operation.

In 1889, George Henry and William Thompson began working the land in their efforts to establish a viable farming operation. With the passing of George Henry Thompson in 1925, William and George’s wile, Lenora, continued operating the farm until 1933 when Andy, the son of Lenora Thompson and the late George Henry, joined the family business. Andy and his wife Ella-Marie Thompson have assumed responsibility for this family tradition since that time. Andy told me his ancestors came from northern England near the Scottish border.

Approximately 100 people joined with the family of Andy and Ella-Marie Thompson to celebrate the occasion last Saturday. In attendance were Andy Thompson’s three sisters, the Thompsons’ daughter Georgene Versattle, four nephews raised by this couple, as well as numerous grandchildren and great-grandchildren.

I was pleased to deliver a plaque from the Premier and certificates from the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr Riddell) and myself.

I want to extend congratulations to the Thompson family for its contribution to farming life in Lambton county.

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE

Mrs Crier: Yesterday I asked the Minister of the Environment (Mr Bradley) about his lack of support for the Environmental Assessment Advisory Committee and his attitude to the Environmental Assessment Act in general.

In response, I got several minutes of self-congratulatory bafflegab and not much reassurance. I would therefore like to put on the record concerns about Ontario’s environmental assessment process that have been expressed, not just by me but by the Environmental Assessment Advisory Committee itself.

Six areas of concern were identified in the committee’s 1987 annual report. In their 1988 report, they point out that these concerns have still not been addressed and that the ministry needs to develop policies and procedures in three specific areas.

The areas are, first, private sector designations and the fact that environmental problems do not distinguish between private and public projects; second, the timing of decisions and the continuing problems caused by the ministry’s glacial pace of decision-making; third, the need for the ministry to develop policies to deal with the special problems of environmental assessment in northern Ontario.

These are crucial issues that must be resolved if the Environmental Assessment Act is to mean more than the paper it is written on. Why does the minister continue to avoid dealing with them? His lack of action is undermining the very legislation he is supposed to uphold.

TRUANCY

Mrs Cunningham: It has been almost five years since the Juvenile Delinquents Act was replaced by the Young Offenders Act, leaving Ontario without a meaningful truancy law. As a result, truancy levels have increased substantially and today an average of 20,000 students are declared truant every year. Studies have shown that students are very likely to be suffering from emotional difficulties and that if they continue to skip school, stand a higher risk of getting into more serious trouble with the law.

Without an amended Young Offenders Act or the Ministry of Education making a decision about compulsory attendance, this problem is expected to escalate. When it comes to dealing with truants there is absolute confusion. Some jurisdictions will not hear truancy cases at all. They say the legislation is not valid any more. Some boards feel the law is now so difficult to deal with that the outcome of every court case depends entirely on the attitude and mood of the judge.

A major research project on habitual attendance, commissioned by the Ministry of Education, has been completed for over a year but has yet to be acted upon by the ministry. Principals, teachers, parents and students are frustrated. The Minister of Education (Mr Ward) has promised some action. We have seen none to date. What is important? Our children ought to be number one.

HALTON REGION TRANSPORTATION

Mr Elliot: Last Tuesday, 4 July, the Minister of Transportation (Mr Fulton) visited Halton region to announce the five-year projection of road and transit construction for the Halton region.

The announcement for an additional $165 million over and above plans already under way will greatly assist the Halton region and its municipalities meet the challenges of the ever-expanding traffic and passenger flow.

Two additional interchanges along the Queen Elizabeth Way, expanded GO train service along the Lakeshore, into Milton and into Georgetown, a connecting link in Milton on Highway 25 and the beginning of six-laning Highway 401 from Milton to Cambridge are parts of this important package of announcements.

For the past two years, the region of Halton and the councils of Burlington, Oakville, Milton and Halton Hills have been conducting meetings with officials from the Ministry of Transportation to identify needs in our area. According to our regional chairman, “This is the most significant road announcement in our region” since he entered politics some year ago.

The ministry personnel and the Minister of Transportation are to be commended for their long-range planning that so accurately reflects the perceived needs in the Halton region.

The Speaker: The member for Cambridge for about one minute.

TRAVEL PUBLICATION

Mr Farnan: I want to draw the attention of the House, particularly the Minister of Tourism and Recreation (Mr O’Neil), to a matter brought up by a resident of Cambridge, W. R. Rickard. He notes that in the Leisure Ontario magazine, which is distributed free to all Canadian Automobile Association members, there is an advertisement that states, “Celebrating Canada’s Capital, Ottawa-Hull.”

Mr Rickard questions: “Who has the authority to change our capital, Ottawa, Ontario? A blatant misrepresentation.” He suggests this planner be withdrawn from all outlets over which the government has control. Basically, the ad suggests it is a co-operative program of the private sector tourism industry and governments in Canada’s capital. He sincerely hopes that the government of Ontario is not involved and that it will make its concerns known to the federal government.

MEMBER FOR MISSISSAUGA WEST

Mr Mahoney: I rise on a point of personal privilege, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: Do I understand this to be a point of privilege?

Mr Mahoney: That is correct, with regard to allegations that were made regarding myself and my family yesterday in the Legislature by the member for York South (Mr B. Rae), the honourable Leader of the Opposition.

In my short time in this House, I have come to respect the traditions of the House and regard the members of this Legislature as being honourable men and women. I understand that there must be scope for legitimate debate and vigorous but responsible opposition. I realize and respect the fact that differences of opinion on issues or procedures are bound to occur.

It would appear, however, that the honourable member for York South has stepped outside the bounds of legitimate opposition by making insinuations, allegations and inferences that are totally at odds with the facts. These statements mislead the media, the public and the members of this Legislature into thinking that I have received some benefit with respect --

The Speaker: Order. With respect, under standing order 19(d)10, I believe, the member cannot charge another member with uttering a deliberate falsehood. Would you withdraw that?

Mr Mahoney: I will withdraw the deliberate falsehood charge.

What is particularly irresponsible and unacceptable, however, about the allegations is that the facts are a matter of public record and are readily available and any good faith investigation would have revealed these allegations to be false.

The honourable Leader of the Opposition has made these allegations both in this Legislature, in a question to the Premier (Mr Peterson), and in a written press release issued on New Democratic Party letterhead, dated 11 July 1989, under the name of Bob Rae, Leader of the Opposition.

The member’s press release states that the purchase of my home was financed by two mortgages given to my wife by Elyrin Holdings Ltd in the amounts of $80,000 and $35,000 in September 1984.

This statement is false.

In point of fact, the first mortgage was with the Toronto-Dominion Bank, not Elyrin Holdings. The second mortgage of $35,000 was the standard vendor take-back mortgage generally available, and at least 25 other purchasers in the same subdivision received similar mortgages from the builder.

The member’s press release also states that the first mortgage of $80,000 was discharged in November 1984, only two months after the home was purchased.

This statement is also false.

In point of fact, the first mortgage was not discharged in November 1984. The mortgage ran the full term of three years and was discharged from a refinancing with the Toronto-Dominion Bank in 1987, three years later.

No mortgage of any kind was discharged in November 1984. Indeed, this fact is confirmed by the supporting documents which the member has issued.

It seems the member has confused the discharge of a mortgage with the discharge of a standard vendor’s lien when the builder was paid by the bank in November 1984.

The member’s press release also states that the second mortgage was discharged on 15 February 1988, the day before I wrote to the Premier’s office requesting a meeting regarding the Envacc group.

This statement is misleading.

There is no particular significance to the date the discharge of the second mortgage was formally registered. The second mortgage was actually discharged in January 1988 from a new mortgage for $220,000 with the Royal Bank. The registration was not formally received until February 1988, and in the result, I had a larger mortgage on the property following the discharge than previously.

The Speaker: Order. I have listened very carefully and I wonder if, before the member would continue, he would advise me what the breach of privilege is.

Mr Mahoney: I am coming to it very quickly. Mr Speaker.

The allegations that the honourable Leader of the Opposition has made are not only false and scurrilous; they have damaged my reputation and that of my family; they have potentially damaged my career in this Legislature and they have falsely impugned my integrity.

Further, in question period yesterday, without even doing me the courtesy of informing me of an impending question so that I might be here to respond to the allegations and correct the record, the member for York South asked the Premier a question with regard to the discharge of the second mortgage. I quote from Instant Hansard:

“Mr B. Rae: My final question to the Premier is this: I wonder how the Premier feels about the fact that it was only the day before the member for Mississauga West wrote a letter to Hershell Ezrin, dated 16 February 1988, that he discharged the second mortgage on his home, which in fact he owed to a company owned by Mr Muzzo. He discharges the mortgage on 15 February 1988 and he writes the Premier on 16 February 1988 asking for a meeting with regard to Envacc Resources.”

The Speaker: Order. With respect, I would like to ask the member once again what the breach of privilege is.

Mr Mahoney: I am very close to the end. The point of personal privilege will be clear and I will be asking you for a ruling on it, Mr Speaker.

While the member for York South knows that he lives with the privilege and protection of this Legislature, he should also know that he does not enjoy that protection outside this House.

In the press release dated 11 July 1989, the member has reiterated the statement that he asked the Premier with regard to the discharge of my second mortgage. This is a clear attempt at personal character assassination. This is a clear attempt to impugn my integrity and reputation. Not only does the member have his facts wrong; he has, in my view, embarrassed the Legislature by stooping so low that he does damage to all of us in this House.

I have been in this Legislature since September 1987, but I never thought that I would see the day when an honourable member opposite spoke about another member in such a false, misleading and irresponsible fashion.

We all appreciate that the role of the Leader of the Opposition is to responsibly criticize and challenge government activity, but the member goes too far and does a great disservice to himself, to his constituents and to all members of this Legislature when in his zeal to score political points he loses touch with the facts, fairness and common decency.

Finally, I have met with my lawyers and I have instructed them to issue a libel and slander action against the member for York South for the statements he has made outside this Legislature in his press release and in press interviews.

I deeply regret being placed in a position where I have no alternative but to commence legal action against another member of this House. The damage to my reputation is such that my ability to carry out the responsibilities I have as a member of this House has been seriously impaired, and this represents a breach of my privileges as a member of this assembly.

I would ask, Mr Speaker, that you rule that there is a prima facie case that my privileges have been breached, In the event that you so rule, I intend to ask that this matter be referred to the appropriate standing committee of this Legislature.

The Speaker: I have listened very carefully to the honourable member. Are there any other members wishing to make any comments?

Mr B. Rae: I do have some things to say with respect to what the honourable member has said, and I will say them as carefully and as clearly as I possibly can.

First, with respect to the text of the press release, I stated that the discharge of the other mortgage was registered 15 February 1988. That is correct; it is a fact. I referred to the fact that it was officially registered on that day, and as far as I can tell from the comments made by the member for Mississauga West, that fact is not in dispute.

On the question of the $80,000 interest held by Elyrin Holdings, the member has asserted that I am incorrect with respect to its being a mortgage as opposed to a vendor’s lien. I am prepared to accept the member’s assertion that there was no first mortgage held by Elyrin Holdings, but I am not prepared to accept the premise that there was no interest held by Elyrin Holdings. I would refer to –

Interjections.

Mr B. Rae: If I may, I allowed the member to speak, and I would hope I get a chance to respond.

I simply refer the member to the documents, which show that with respect to this particular interest, it was discharged on 1 November 1984, according to the documents we have.

I want to make one other point. There is no difference between us with respect to the most basic material facts. The most basic material fact, I would assert to the member -- and I would say it here as I have said it outside -- is that it was inappropriate for him, having had a financial relationship with Elyrin Holdings, to be pressing the case as he has been, for several months after his election as a member, on behalf of a company, Envacc Resources, a particular company which, as he well knows, is partially owned by Mr Muzzo, who also is involved with Elyrin Holdings. That is the difference of standards between the member and myself.

No, I am sorry. I allowed the member to make his point and I wish he would allow me to make mine. Mr Speaker, I hope you will let me respond, in all fairness. I will let the member come back if he wants to come back.

The Speaker: Order. We are not into a debate. You are rising on what?

Mr Mahoney: I am rising on a point of order, but if the member opposite is prepared to allow me to respond to his statements when he is finished, I am prepared to agree to that.

The Speaker: Your point of order is what?

Mr Mahoney: My point of order is that the honourable member has implied that I had a financial relationship with the company, when in fact I simply bought a house in a normal process and I paid for the house in a normal process. He is impugning --

The Speaker: Order. I listened very carefully to the member for Mississauga West. I asked the Leader of the Opposition to respond, because the member for Mississauga West said he had risen on a point of privilege. Therefore, I have to allow other members to respond to give me information to make a decision. I just hope we do not get into too many points of order during this discussion. That would be helpful to the Speaker.

I ask the Leader of the Opposition to continue.

Mr B. Rae: The member has said that I have by innuendo and implication and inference said or implied a number of things. Let me be very clear for the member’s benefit. What I have said in this House I have also said outside this House, as the member is well aware. I stand by what I have said outside this House with respect to my judgement as to the appropriateness of his conduct.

We may differ as to that. These are tough questions; they are not easy. But I have implied nothing by innuendo. What I have said, I have said on the record and I will say it again. It is inappropriate, in my judgement, for a politician who has had a financial relationship, a debt, which is a matter of public record, to be turning around as soon as that debt is discharged and that discharge is registered, and then proceed to make the case on behalf of that company while he is a member of the Liberal Party caucus.

That is a difference between me and the member with respect to standards. I accept the fact that we have this difference of opinion with respect to standards. I would suggest to the member that --

The Speaker: Order. I allowed members to speak to the member’s supposed point of privilege to help me decide whether it was or was not a point of privilege. Do any other members wish to make any comments?

On matters of privilege, it is common practice that the member allow the Speaker to have a copy of the comments before the point of privilege is made. I have not received that. I would appreciate very much if the member would send me a copy. I would be very glad to look at it and report back to the House.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

HEALTH RESEARCH

Hon Mrs Caplan: I am pleased to announce today the awarding of grants totalling $10 million to live Ontario research teams. The grants of $2 million each over five years will bring researchers and the people involved in the delivery of health care closer together in the common goal of providing effective quality health care services to the people of Ontario.

This is a new Ministry of Health initiative which steers researchers in the health field towards relevant problems and then puts applicable findings into practice even as the research proceeds.

Quite simply, the goal of this new funding program is to promote health services research in Ontario. It is a goal that is shared by the Premier’s Council on Health Strategy. In its recent report entitled From Vision to Action, the council called for increased provincial funding for just such research.

The program is designed to make the most effective use of our research dollars by ensuring that the findings are applied as soon as possible to the challenges facing health care providers.

An innovative feature of this program is the requirement that the research teams of each unit be linked to a partner agency in the health care system. The partner may be a clinical or community health service agency, Ministry of Health program, or a voluntary organization representing providers or consumers of health services.

The live grants awarded resulted from a competition last December which attracted 19 proposals. The grants will go to:

A multidisciplinary team from the University of Toronto’s department of health administration in partnership with the Sunnybrook Medical Centre. They will evaluate the increased role of nurses and other management innovations at the hospital;

A neurological developmental clinical research team which will enable McMaster University investigators to link with the Association of Treatment Centres of Ontario to study the care being given to disabled children and their families;

A hearing health-care services delivery research team which will study the treatment and diagnosis of hearing loss and the effective use of hearing aids. This unit pairs the University of Western Ontario’s department of communicative disorders with the otologic function unit of Mount Sinai Hospital and Toronto General Hospital;

The community health research team and a partnership of investigators from the University of Ottawa and the Ottawa-Carleton Regional Health Unit, which will evaluate the region’s public health services;

The Thames Valley family practice research team, which will examine ways for family doctors to improve health care to single parent families and the elderly. This unit is a partnership between the University of Western Ontario and the London

chapter of the College of Family Physicians of Canada.

We in the Ministry of Health are enthusiastic about this new program and we are confident that this research will lead to improvements in the health care services and the enhancement of health for our many citizens.

Finally, and this is extremely important, the submission deadline for the next competition under the health system’s linked research program is 1 December 1989.

WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT

Hon Mr Kerrio: Today my ministry begins an innovative process of developing a comprehensive wildlife strategy for Ontario.

In recent years, we have made progress in wildlife habitat protection, wetlands conservation, rabies research, public education and in enhancing the health and numbers of our wildlife populations.

The strategy will build upon that firm foundation and will lead our provincial wildlife program into the 21st century.

To assist in developing a wildlife strategy, I have appointed a Wildlife Working Group which will report to me on wildlife management issues and strategic options. Through the Wildlife Working Group, the public will be able to be involved in discussions on wildlife management policy and planning in Ontario.

The working group represents a broad cross-section of expertise, opinion and interest in our wildlife resources throughout this province. The group will be chaired by Dr David Fowle, professor emeritus of biology and environmental studies at York University.

I anticipate that the working group will address several key issues, including the increased pressure on wildlife populations from habitat loss and the growing and, at times, conflicting demands of our wildlife resources.

In formulating its recommended strategy, the group is expected to convene a series of workshops. These will make it possible for a wide range of wildlife interests from around the province to participate.

The working group’s role in developing strategic management options is unique for wildlife management in Ontario and reflects my ministry’s commitment to public involvement.

I urge all members of the House and all Ontario residents to support the Wildlife Working Group in these efforts. I am pleased to recognize Dr Fowle, who is with us in the east members’ gallery today. We are convening our very first meeting right after question period, and I am looking forward to getting on with this very important initiative.

CHARITABLE GAMING

Hon Mr Wrye: I want to inform the House that the government has decided to take action to control the establishment of new commercial places where bingo is played. Effective 1 August 1989, a moratorium will be placed on the licensing of bingo at new commercial facilities or halls which have not been used for this purpose in the past.

The moratorium will remain in force until such time as the legislation regulating the commercial sector is in place. In this connection, the interim measure we are taking now will be eventually superseded by gaming services legislation that I will be introducing later this year.

We are taking this immediate step in response to the unprecedented growth of commercial bingo halls in Ontario. In the last year alone the growth rate has exceeded 50 per cent. In March 1987, there were 118 bingo halls in Ontario. Currently, we estimate this has grown to approximately 240 bingo halls, more than the combined number of bingo halls in the rest of Canada.

Charitable gaming has significantly evolved from the basic church basement entertainment of the past to today’s multimillion-dollar business. As an example, gross wagering for bingo was estimated at about $80 million in 1975. This has grown to approximately $500 million annually today.

With this explosive growth has come concern by the government over a number of emerging problems, such as increasing owner concentration, potential threats to the integrity of the charitable gaming market and pressure being placed on charities to transgress the requirements of their licences. Of particular concern are recent indications that charities are no longer receiving the 20 per cent profit which has been so long established as the appropriate level of return to the charities for these types of activities.

It is for these reasons that we are putting a moratorium in place which will allow us sufficient time to develop comprehensive safeguards governing this new commercial sector in the charitable gaming industry.

These actions which I have announced today show this government’s clear commitment to an honest and equitable marketplace for all participants in charitable gaming.

RESPONSES

WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT

Mr Wildman: On behalf of my caucus, I wish Dr Fowle and the working group well, particularly in dealing with the Ministry of Natural Resources and a provincial government that is not really committed to wetlands policies implementation.

We recognize that consultation is a good thing, but I should be forgiven if I were to suspect that this is one more example of the ministry and the Liberal government failing to deal with difficult resource management issues and trying to deflect pressure from competing resource groups away to another consultative committee.

Why does the minister not finally implement proper protection for Ontario’s quickly disappearing wetlands and ANSI, areas of natural and scientific interest? When is the Ministry of Natural Resources going to review the northern wetlands so we have a better picture of what the exact situation is in the north? Finally, when is the minister going to provide the needed staff and resources to properly manage the nongame wildlife species and resources of this province? For too long we have concentrated on wild game species to the detriment of other species in Ontario.

We have threatened species that are not properly being managed, and I am afraid the working group may be playing catch-up to try to deal with this, particularly with a minister who does not want to act.

CHARITABLE GAMING

Mr Farnan: In response to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr Wrye) and his announcement with regard to gambling and the control of licensing of bingos at new commercial facilities. I agree with the minister that there is an extraordinary and unprecedented growth in gambling in Ontario. The minister makes mention of some 50 per cent growth last year in this particular area, and in bingo, gross wagering of $500 million annually.

This is not just a matter of administration and control. I would suggest to the minister and to the government that gambling is not simply wagering and having a flutter. Gambling in Ontario, for a significant number of people, is a disease. I would suggest further to the minister that there is no mention in this statement that the government has any real concern about the spread of this disease, especially as it affects the poor in our society, who spend a higher percentage of their earnings on gambling or wagering than does the average family.

There are conflicting messages coming from this government. On the one hand, we have one arm of the government trying to promote gambling. We have situations where, in the area of lottery tickets, the government is investing huge amounts of money to get people to spend more, to gamble more and, indeed, causing untold damage to many families who are stricken by this particular disease.

We have the Minister of the Environment (Mr Bradley) and, in the recent budget, we have an announcement, for example, that there will be an additional attempt, Cleantario, which will be a fund to use in terms of keeping the environment clean. There used to be a policy in Ontario of let the user pay and let the abuser pay; in terms of those who abuse the environment, let them pay. Why should we be going to those people, many of whom, as I have suggested, suffer from a disease that does cause untold damage to family members?

I would suggest that the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations get together with the Minister of Tourism and Recreation (Mr O’Neil) and the Minister of the Environment and sit down with the Minister of Health (Mrs Caplan). Gambling is a disease. It is time that the government seriously looked at it.

It is time that this government took a percentage of all funds generated from gambling, from lottery tickets, from bingos, whether it is three per cent or five per cent, and directed that fund to gambling rehabilitation centres within Ontario, to alleviate the damage that is being done to innumerable families within our province.

It is time for action on this. We are not just simply a gambling province. We care about our people. We should be doing something to protect, particularly the weakest and most vulnerable.

Mr Brandt: I want to respond briefly to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations in respect to the proposed study that he is going to be undertaking on the bingo legislation. Let me compliment the minister, which I do not do all that frequently, on the moratorium, because I believe it is well in order.

I say that because I have personally gone to the minister on a number of occasions with problems, which he has been kind enough to assist with, which I appreciate. At the same time, I recognize that it is a very complicated industry, one that is growing very rapidly, as has been mentioned in this House, to some $550 million annually.

The number of outlets where bingos are being allowed has doubled over the past few years and the problem is one of control, but it is also one, I want to suggest to the minister, of arriving at a fair and equitable balance between those charitable organizations which require the funding generated by bingos in order to survive and, on the other side, those operators who are in the business, who are providing facilities which are also needed.

That, in fact, is the challenge before the minister, as he is well aware, to determine how the industry can remain healthy so that it can provide those additional dollars that are so vitally needed by the groups and organizations that are now totally dependent on that source of funding to maintain their charitable work in a broad spectrum of community activities.

I would be happy to provide the minister with any advice that I might have in this matter and to work along with him and the government in the hope that we can bring forward legislation that will serve the people of this province well.

I would also like to mention that this is a very major industry which employs a great number of people, particularly in those border communities where our American friends are kind enough to participate in this kind of activity and leave part of their premium capital in our province, to be shared by the people of this province. I think that is also a very attractive undertaking that we should encourage, as long as it is kept under control with proper legislation and in balance.

HEALTH RESEARCH

Mr Eves: I just want to respond briefly to the statement made by the Minister of Health (Mrs Caplan) in the House this afternoon. I guess it does not surprise me that here we are spending another $10 million of the taxpayers’ money to research particular situations that have been researched to death, quite frankly, by the ministry. What we really need is some political will and some action. She would be far better off to spend her $10 million and try to solve one or two of these problems.

I presume the district health council in the Ottawa-Carleton region must know what the problems are with respect to health care in the region. The minister knows full well what the hearing aid needs are in the province. What she does not have is the money from the Treasurer (Mr R. F. Nixon) to implement a policy that they campaigned on many, many months ago. She still has not implemented that. She should spend the $10 million, buy some hearing aids for people who need them and she will be doing something for the people of Ontario.

On the increased role of nurses, this is almost unbelievable. We are having another study. We have four studies that come to 15 conclusions which are almost all identical. The minister has implemented one out of 15 that did not cost her a dime out of her ministry pocket and now she is going to have another study and spend $2 million more of taxpayers’ money to find out what the increased role of nurses should be in the Ontario hospital system, or in this case, at Sunnybrook Medical Centre.

I find this almost unbelievable. Why does she not do something? She should make a decision, spend the $10 million, buy $10 million worth of hearing aids for the people of the province and she will have done something.

Mr Jackson: With respect to the comments of the Minister of Health, if the minister is going to talk about research dollars, it is important that she look at past research. In the area of the clinical research team at McMaster University and neonatal services for those children, the minister will be aware of a report that was submitted to her which clearly demonstrates that there is a 50 per cent reduction in the number of newborn, low-weight children in the Hamilton area. They are spared neurological damage and physical impairment so that they do not need to receive services from the Ministry of Community and Social Services when they become five-, six-and 10-year-olds.

Clearly, it has been demonstrated that we can save those children. That is where the money should now be spent and that is what we have been trying to raise in this House for the last two weeks. I know that the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr Sweeney) has demonstrated eloquently within cabinet the concern for those premature babies, that they be given the best life chances to avoid the neurological damage and the physical impairment which comes from those dramatic, low-weight births.

Quite frankly, the minister has stood on her feet in this House and talked about prevention. This is a repair approach for those children. Please do something about prevention and fund those neonatal clinics.

ORAL QUESTIONS

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

Mr B. Rae: I have a question for the Premier. While I address the question to him, I would like to present him with a number of letters, in fact, 70,000 letters written by the workers of this province in opposition to Bill 162 on workers’ compensation.

The first question that I have for the Premier is simply this. I wonder if he can explain how it is possible that when he was asked specifically by Mr Wilson, who is the president of the Ontario Federation of Labour, for a meeting at which the federation wanted to present its case against Bill 162 to the Premier personally, no meeting could be arranged by the Premier until the end of August, which as the Premier well knows is well after the government intends to put this legislation through, and --

Mr Speaker: Thank you. I think the question has been well asked.

Hon Mr Peterson: Mr Wilson is sitting in the gallery today. I want to welcome the esteemed president of the Ontario Federation of Labour, someone for whom I have a great deal of respect and someone who shares in building a strong province. I meet with him on regular occasions, as my honourable friend knows. I have great respect for him. There are many occasions when he disagrees with me and there are, in fairness, a number of occasions when I disagree with him. That is the nature of democracy. I think he understands that. It is not like the Leader of the Opposition (Mr B. Rae), who does whatever he is told to by him, and he understands that as well.

I say to my friend that I welcome him here in the House. We have had a public debate for what, a year now? It is a wonderful debate. It is salutary. I think all the views have been expressed. Ultimately, people have to make judgements. We have made a judgement as a government and we are prepared to stand behind that. I say again to my good friend the president of the Ontario Federation of Labour, welcome to Queen’s Park and keep an eye on these guys. They need it.

Mr B. Rae: If one has to choose between developers and the Ontario Federation of Labour, I will take the Ontario Federation of Labour.

The Premier will know that in 1915, when this legislation was brought forward, workers gave up some basic civil rights in this province. The Premier will remember that the basic civil right the workers gave up was their right to sue their employers for negligence, for having put their lives at risk or for having caused them injury. In exchange for giving up that civil right, the workers achieved something else. It was a social contract, workers compensation, which was agreed by all the partners in the social contract in this province.

The Speaker: And the question?

Mr B. Rae: My question to the Premier is this: Can he explain why, for the first time since 1915, legislation on workers’ compensation has been passed and is being passed and imposed on the labour movement and on working people in this province against their will -- the first time in our history that this social contract has been broken?

Hon Mr Peterson: I want to say that I understand my honourable friend’s point. It is quite right that the Ontario Federation of Labour disagrees with this government on a number of its decisions, as do many other groups. A government has to serve all the people of the province. Obviously, it does not go out of its way just to alienate people for the fun of it, but it has to look at all the interests now and in the future and make the best judgements it possibly can, in consultation with as many groups as possible. Government cannot be all things to all people, nor should it try.

We have debated this question of workers’ compensation since I came into this House in 1975. I can tell you, Mr Speaker, I have listened to endless debates about this matter from you and other people, from us when we were in opposition and from the government of the day. We inherited what? -- l will ask the Treasurer (Mr R. F. Nixon) -- a $6-billion unfunded liability from our former friends, the great managers of the province. We are persuaded that we must put a system in place that is fair to the workers and is going to be long-term, and this government is not afraid to make some of the tough decisions that have to be made.

The Leader of the Opposition can criticize me because a particular group that he is responsible to does not agree with us, and I understand that. I understand a difference of opinion in a fair democracy. We have had a thorough debate, we have had it in this House, we have had it in committee, we have had it across the province and I think it has been subjected to the finest test of democracy. I think my honourable friend is wrong to stand up in this House and advocate that we have to agree with one particular interest group just because it happens to be his friend.

Mr B. Rae: I cannot think of any issue which has troubled me more. In fact, the issue that got me into politics 15 years ago was workers’ compensation.

I simply say to the Premier that he must surely understand that the people who are affected by workers’ compensation, the people whose pensions depend on workers’ compensation, whose livelihoods depend on workers’ compensation, are the working people of this province. The president of Stelco does not have to go down to the board and ask for a pension. It is the working people of that company who go down and need a pension if they get injured.

Again I want to ask the Premier: Why is he the first Premier since 1915 to impose changes in workers’ compensation unacceptable to one of the critical partners in our social partnership in this province when it comes to compensation? It is the first time since 1915 that such a reactionary step has been taken by the government of Ontario.

Hon Mr Peterson: I understand my honour-able friend’s point of view, but I can tell him I do not share his analysis at all.

I can tell the member that I have perhaps spent as much time working with people on workers’ compensation over my years in politics as he has and I understand some feeling about the human problems that are involved therein. I see it in my own constituency of London Centre, and I think every member of this House understands that as well.

It is our intention to strengthen the system and to assist people, not just now but in the long term as well. I think, frankly, that the characterizations of my friend opposite of this bill, and I have watched it for the last year, have been misleading -- I cannot use that word -- have been unfair and do not represent what we would call --

Mr B. Rae: On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Hon Mr Peterson: I just withdrew that, Mr Speaker.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. I understand your point of order. Will the Premier withdraw?

Hon Mr Peterson: I already did.

I certainly do not want to say anything that you find offensive, Mr Speaker, but I have listened to this debate for over a year in this House. Everybody has participated and given their best views. It has been thoroughly heard, I can tell my friend I have heard from my friends opposite many, many predictions of gloom in this province.

I remember some of the great debates. I remember my friend opposite only yesterday saying it takes a long time to bring down a government. What he has proven is it takes one day to take down a Leader of the Opposition.

Mr B. Rae: It is possible to disagree with the Premier and not be called a liar. I want to remind him of that and remind everyone of that. It should be possible to do that. Every day, the Premier is at it.

WASTE MANAGEMENT

Mr B. Rae: I have a question for the Premier in relation to a meeting that was held between Gardner Church, who is the deputy minister for the greater Toronto area, and R. J. Ritchie of CP Rail. I referred last week to this particular memorandum, the minute that Mr Ritchie made of the conversation that he had with Mr Church, in questions that I put to the Deputy Premier (Mr R. F. Nixon). I would like to follow upon those questions to the Premier.

Mr Church, who is the deputy minister of the GTA and, I gather from my conversations with the various chairmen, in fact the point man with respect to garbage disposal, stated, “This consortium” -- he is referring to the Envacc consortium – “was the most advanced in the recycling technology.” He felt that “the meeting with the Premier on January 7, 1989, will be very positive and the capability of the consortium to develop an alternative to the present dump sites will be enhanced if properly carried out.”

Does the Premier think it appropriate that his deputy for the greater Toronto area would be giving that kind of signal to one of the bidders in this process?

Hon Mr Peterson: From what the member has read me, I do not see anything untoward at this particular moment. Mr Church is meeting with all of the groups. I read in the newspaper that a lot of the groups that are involved in this whole thing and looking at the situation have had regular meetings with the government.

Yes, the member is right. Mr Church is leading the entire matter from the provincial government’s point of view and, at some point or other, will give recommendations in consultation with the regions. I can tell my honourable friend that the rest of the people involved are not concerned. He is the only one who is getting all exercised about this.

Mr B. Rae: If the Premier does not find that inappropriate, perhaps he would comment on this statement by Mr Church and tell us whether this is in fact the official position of his government. Mr Church is quoted in this document as saying, “The best way to accomplish alternative solutions to present landfills is for the consortium to allow the public pressure to build. Landfills and dump sites are determined by the public.” He indicated that the public will be willing to pay more for recycling alternatives if pressure is allowed to build.

I want to ask the Premier if this kind of cynical manipulation of the public is in fact the official policy of the Liberal government.

Hon Mr Peterson: What does the member mean, official manipulation of the public? My honourable friend gets up there so sensitive when he is challenged and is the first one to sling things around this House. I have never seen a situation like this. He gets so pious.

I remember Bill Davis used to say from this side of the House, “If you can’t take it, don’t start throwing it out.” Well, I will tell my friend, he cannot take it. He can give it to my colleague in the House any day, but I can tell my friend, his charges are completely and thoroughly unfair. Mr Church is talking to everybody. There are no secrets about the situation. Nobody else feels that there is some kind of unfair advantage. At the appropriate time, when decisions are made by the government and the regions, we will share them all with this House.

Mr B. Rae: I do not think I heard an answer to my question, but perhaps I could ask another question.

I have had conversations with various regional chairmen, including Frank Bean, with whom my staff and I spoke today. Mr Bean has expressed real frustration with the current process. He said that the leadership from the provincial government was simply not there in terms of giving a direction as to where to go, making one important point where he said that in fact the GTA has no legal authority. Therefore, if there is a potential bidder who is unhappy with the fairness of the bidding process or expressing unhappiness with any process along the way, there is no legal authority that bidder can sue or no legal authority that bidder can in fact contract with.

Can the Premier tell us why we have had this legal vacuum for over a year with respect to the GTA and its handling of the garbage crisis?

Hon Mr Peterson: I have not spoken with Mr Bean this morning, but I can tell the member that when I met with Mr Bean, to the best of my knowledge he was happy to see the regions get together, discuss all these matters together and recognize it was their responsibility.

The member is quite right; the GTA does not have any, shall we say, legal authority. It is a group of civil servants created by this government to bring the regions together to work co-operatively on certain projects, be they transit, waste disposal or a variety of others.

They have not been empowered with any new powers because they do not exist, as the member says, as a legal unit. If and when contracts are signed with anybody, they will be signed with the regions, which do have the power to sign these things. It may require new and special legislation in this House. We do not know the answer to that question yet.

Mr B. Rae: Oh, I see; this is after the contract is signed.

Hon Mr Peterson: What does the member mean, “after the contract is signed”? It is very, very difficult to deal with my friend opposite, who keeps saying things that do not conform with the facts yet gets so sensitive when he is challenged.

I can tell you, Mr Speaker, I am trying to explain the situation. Either he does not understand or he does not want to understand, but if my friend would like a briefing on the entire matter of the GTA, I will ask Mr Church and all of his officials to sit down and tell him everything they are doing, who they are talking to and the regions’ role, and they will bring him up to speed on this new way of organizing some of the problems the government faces. I think my honourable friend will be very impressed by their leadership.

PREMIER’S OFFICE

Mr Brandt: My question is for the Premier. Since he is in such a co-operative mood today, could he perhaps provide the House with some information as to what one Tony lanno does with the government of Ontario, what his pay level is and his job description?

Hon Mr Peterson: He works with the caucus office. I cannot tell you for sure what his pay level is. He works in community liaison with a variety of the members.

Mr Brandt: Even Mr Ianno has difficulty answering that question. He advised a news reporter who contacted him with respect to the responsibilities that he carried out on behalf of your government that he was in fact a special assistant to the Premier, which is considerably different from being connected with the Liberal caucus in some kind of a role of a functionary.

Can the Premier perhaps help us in advising why this individual did not even have an office in this building up until a week ago, when the reporter made some contacts in connection with this issue?

I might also add, while the House leader is advising the Premier as to his specific responsibilities, I wonder if he might be able to help us by indicating why for a period of two days Mr lanno was unable to respond to any telephone calls. He was not known in your office. The reporter was not advised that he worked for the caucus office. Finally, after two days he was able to locate this $60,000-a-year man, who was at home, and his answering service indicated he was not available at the moment. That was the phone number the reporter was given.

The Speaker: Thank you. There are several questions there.

Hon Mr Peterson: He was out doing his job, presumably liasing with the community. I cannot account for him day by day, but I can provide whatever information the member wants. Maybe he was out working with some of the leader of the third party’s staff. I have no idea.

Hon R. F. Nixon: You’ve got a crowd when you get to his staff. It’s bigger than the caucus.

Hon Mr Peterson: Maybe he did not have room for an office because all the room has gone over to the third party to accommodate its housing needs. Who knows? We try to be accommodating in that regard.

I say to the member that, as I understand it, he is financed out of the caucus budget. The leader of the third party has a caucus budget to spend as he sees fit.

Hon R. F. Nixon: Boy, does he have a caucus budget.

Hon Mr Peterson: As I recall, it was very substantially increased to give them the research capacity that they have. Frankly, they do not even need it. All they need is a quarter to buy the Globe and Mail and they could do just as well. But I say to my friend that we do not mind funding that research or that caucus staff for his party, because that makes his party the very effective and thoughtful opposition it is today in this House.

Mr Brandt: The people of Ontario may not smile when they know that in four years the Premier’s office has gone up 43 per cent, an increase of some $2.4 million, in expenditures. I do not think that is a laughing matter. I think that is a considerable sum of money.

Now we have an individual who is making a very substantial sum of money and who we now find, as a result of some media contacts to an office that did not exist up until a week or two weeks ago, was unavailable. Phone calls could not be redirected to the caucus office because he was not there and the reporter was not advised that he even worked in this building. How can the Premier justify this?

I do not want to hear about my caucus expenditures.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. I would like to hear the supplementary now.

Mr Brandt: If the Premier wants me to answer questions with respect to my caucus budget, I will be very happy to do so and I will be very happy to change places with him when I do that.

My question to the Premier is simply this: How can he justify paying $60,000 for an individual who cannot be found?

Hon Mr Peterson: Because the member cannot find him, he should put his detective on him and then maybe he could find him. I remember a time when the member or his predecessor hired a detective on his caucus budget, a gumshoe who was following everybody around and trying to find people. Now here is a real job for his detective: He can go out and find Mr lanno somewhere.

But he is doing what he should be doing. He is liaising and working with the people of this province so we can better serve all of the people of this province. That is what he is doing.

PATRICIA STARR

Mr Eves: I have a question for the Premier. Earlier this week, in responding to my colleague the member for Carleton (Mr Sterling) with regard to the public trustee’s finding that the $5,000 payment to the mother of the Minister of Culture and Communications (Ms Oddie Munro) was “an inappropriate disbursement,” the Premier indicated that he would be dealing with the minister. Does the Premier intend to remove the minister from cabinet?

Hon Mr Peterson: If there are any changes made, he will be the first to know. We will phone him in Parry Sound.

Mr Eves: I will bear that in mind. I am sure the Minister of Culture and Communications will be happy to know that I will be the first to know. The Premier has apparently lost confidence in the minister. He said he would deal with her, yet he continues to allow her to sit in cabinet. Why will the Premier not stop promising some sort of future action and tell the House today whether he plans on having the Minister of Culture and Communications as part of the Peterson team, yes or no?

Hon Mr Peterson: The member does not really expect me to answer that question, so I will not.

Hon Mr Grandmaître: Strike two.

Mr Eves: These guys are really humorous. Wait until the next cabinet shuffle. Some of them will be laughing all the way to the unemployment lines in Ontario.

The Premier has said he is going to deal with the Minister of Culture and Communications. We cannot have a set of standards last week, another set today and another set after the House adjourns and the Premier wants to make a cabinet shuffle when it is convenient to him. What we are talking about here are the standards of conduct that the Premier sets for his cabinet ministers. What are his standards when dealing with the Minister of Culture and Communications and what are his standards when dealing with cabinet ministers, period, in his government?

Hon Mr Peterson: My honourable friend is rethreshing old straw. He is talking about things we have talked about in this House for several weeks now and I have shared my views with him.

Mr Eves: We have no answers.

Hon Mr Peterson: Of course the member has had an answer. He may not like the answer and he may still be bitter about being over there, but I cannot help my honourable friend with that. I can tell him that we will be very happy to share all those things when decisions are made.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

ABORTION

Mr Hampton: My question is for the Minister of Labour, who is also the minister responsible for women’s issues, and it concerns the Barbara Dodd case.

The minister will be aware that in the last 10 days a great deal of controversy has been created by the decision of Mr Justice O’Driscoll, because what Mr Justice O’Driscoll’s decision in effect said was that while women have the freedom under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to choose with respect to whether they will undergo an abortion or not, if they try to exercise that freedom they can be hauled before a court and have to justify their private decision in a very public way, justify their private decision in a very public way in the press and be subjected to what can be a very intimidating process.

The Speaker: Your question?

Mr Hampton: In view of the confusion that has been created, what is he, as the minister responsible for women’ s issues, prepared to do to clarify the law and to clarify the rights and the freedoms of women in this province in view of this decision?

Hon Mr Sorbara: The member for Rainy River raises a very, very serious issue. I want to tell him, in as clear a way as I can, that I was terribly, terribly troubled by that decision and I do not think I want to expand on that very much during this question period.

What I do want to say to him is simply to remind him that the whole issue of whether an abortion will or will not be a criminal offence in any way whatsoever in this country is a matter that is obviously, as he knows, not within the jurisdiction of this Legislature or this province. The federal government is grappling with that question at this point.

As far as what I should or ought to do in light of the O’Driscoll decision is concerned, I can simply say to him what the Attorney General (Mr Scott) said publicly when questioned on the matter several days ago. I think he expressed some concern, but neither he as Attorney General nor any member of the Legislature, nor the Premier (Mr Peterson), ought to interfere with a judicial decision. There was judicial recourse. That has happened. I think the stance the Attorney General took at that time was the appropriate one and I want to tell the member I support it wholeheartedly.

Mr Hampton: The decision of Mr Justice O’Driscoll has nothing to do with the criminal law, nothing whatsoever to do with the criminal law, and is not in that sense federal jurisdiction. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the law of the land in Canada now say that a woman has the freedom to choose whether or not she wants an abortion. What has happened in Ontario is that if a woman chooses to exercise that freedom she can be subjected to all kinds of intimidation which effectively remove that freedom or make that freedom very difficult to exercise.

Will the minister responsible for women’s issues undertake to meet with the federal government and clarify what the private rights of women are in this province?

The Speaker: Minister.

Mr Hampton: Will he undertake to discuss this with the federal government to clarify it?

The Speaker: That is the second time you have asked the question. Minister.

Hon Mr Sorbara: I want to tell my friend the member for Rainy River that he has no monopoly of concern on this issue.

Mr Wildman: He didn’t say he did.

Mr Hampton: No one said anything about a monopoly.

Hon Mr Sorbara: I think I am responding more to the tone in his voice than the words in his question.

I think it should be made perfectly clear that the O’Driscoll decision has not changed the law in this province and a court determined that rather conclusively within a few days of the decision. So let him not use this Parliament or this question period to suggest otherwise.

If he is suggesting that I meet with my federal counterparts on matters relating to this and other matters of very significant concern to the women not only of this province, but right across Canada, I want to tell him that has already happened on a number of occasions and will continue to happen in the future.

NEONATAL CARE

Mr Jackson: I have a question to the Minister of Health with respect to neonatal care services in this province. Yesterday the minister stated in Hansard that the only difference between the 13 hospitals providing perinatal care is the fact that some of them are considered modified units, and that is because they are not affiliated with health science centres and do not have research and educational components.

I cite the case of Karen Nielson to the minister. She lives three miles away from the General Hospital of Port Arthur, one of the 13 hospitals the minister mentioned yesterday. Yet she was flown to Chedoke McMaster Hospitals prior to giving birth on 2 May to quintuplets.

Does the minister still say there is no difference between the General Hospital of Port Arthur and McMaster Medical Centre when the mother had to be sent to Hamilton to receive a differential and higher level of care?

Hon Mrs Caplan: I think it is important for the member and all members of this House to have some appreciation and understanding of the network of services for perinatal and neonatal care.

It was not so many years ago that, in fact, only women who lived very near to university teaching centres in this province had immediate access to the highest level of care when they were in a situation of high-risk pregnancy.

We decided that all women of this province should have access, no matter where they live in the province and, therefore, we established a network of services linked by land and air ambulance.

The modified level 3 units provide the third level, the highest level, of perinatal services. They do not have the research and the educational component of the health science centre. It is a question of medical judgement as to where patients are referred in this province, but we have a network of 13 hospitals providing the highest level of perinatal care in this province.

Mr Jackson: The minister is putting a very brave face on a very critical issue here. She knows of the inconsistencies between the level 3 and level 4 care. This morning I spent some time at Chedoke McMaster Hospitals and met with Karen Nielson. I also met her son Mitchell and her daughter Regan, who have been on life-support systems in the neonatal intensive care unit.

I was unable to see the three other remaining quintuplets because they are back in Thunder Bay. Mrs Nielson is commuting at her own expense regularly to be with her family, which is divided. Yesterday, Chedoke McMaster was responding to the fact that for a greater period of time this month its beds will be closed and not open to access. They needed those beds.

They called Port Arthur and asked the doctors. “Will you take Mitchell and Regan?” In fact, what the doctor in Thunder Bay said was that the babies are not stable enough to be looked after in the Thunder Bay unit.

Will the minister now retract the notion that the level of care in these 13 hospitals is not similar -- it is not similar by the method it is funded in and it is not similar by the level of risk that it can deal with? Please assure Mrs Nielson, who requested that I ask you that question.

The Speaker: Thank you. The question has been asked.

Hon Mrs Caplan: What is apparent to me, and to anyone who really understands the system, is that the member opposite simply does not know what he is talking about or else -- and I would hasten to say that I do not believe he is in any way attempting to mislead -- he is simply either uninformed or does not really understand.

He referred to the fourth level of care. I have been very specific in saying that the 13 hospitals all provide level 3 perinatal care. There is yet a fourth level, referred to now as quaternary care, particularly in some multiple-birth situations based on medical judgement, in some of the health science centres. That is a different level of care.

The member should know that the 13 hospitals all provide level 3 perinatal care. He is, in fact, not only not giving the facts, he truly does not understand the system, even though I have tried to give him that information. He is not interested in the facts. He is not interested in the truth.

He does a disservice to the physicians who use their best medical judgement and to the nurses who work with those families, to suggest that they should not have confidence in a system which is considered one of the finest in North America.

Mr Jackson: There wasn’t one respirator at St Joseph’s.

Hon Mrs Caplan: You do not know what you are talking about.

The Speaker: Order. Perhaps the Minister of Health --

Mr Jackson: I spent time in the clinic. Have you ever visited the clinic?

Hon Mrs Caplan: You haven’t got the faintest desire to make sure the truth gets out. You should be ashamed of yourself.

The Speaker: Would the Minister of Health --

Hon Mrs Caplan: You deliberately don’t want people to have the facts.

Mr Jackson: The facts are on your desk.

The Speaker: Order. I think it is time -- has the Minister of Health calmed down? Have you calmed down?

Hon Mrs Caplan: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am very angry when people do not want to get the facts out.

The Speaker: Could she sit down? Sit down.

FUNERAL SERVICES

Mr Cleary: My question is to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. It is with respect to proposed bereavement legislation. A number of local monument builders have stated their displeasure with the Cemeteries Act, 1989. I believe the act will be of importance to the consumers in terms of protecting the public from telephone and door-to-door solicitation of cemetery lots, services and supplies. However, I am worried about cemetery owners unreasonably prohibiting and discouraging a consumer from obtaining a monument from an outside source, including monument builders. Can the minister comment on what his ministry is doing to protect this from happening?

Hon Mr Wrye: This is an issue that the monument dealers have raised with all members of the Legislature over a long period of time. Very specifically, we have written provisions into the bill that will prohibit discriminatory practices involving cemeteries and monument dealers.

I can tell the honourable member that a number of sections make it quite specific that cemeteries must develop and must have bylaws pertaining to the running of those cemeteries and that those bylaws must receive the approval of the registrar of the Cemeteries Act. Within that, we have gone even further. We have specifically given the registrar not only authority, but have required the registrar to refuse any bylaw that allows the cemetery to take any unfair, unreasonable advantage of any monument dealer. So it is a matter we have been greatly concerned with and we believe that in bringing forward the legislation we have addressed it appropriately.

Mr Cleary: My supplementary relates to my previous question. Can the minister tell me if his ministry is concerned that cemetery owners will use attractive package deals to compete unfairly with monument dealers?

Hon Mr Wrye: There is a concern that cemetery owners could put together packages, and there certainly are provisions in both the Cemeteries Act and its companion piece, the Funeral Establishments Act, which prohibit any unfair charges, such as handling charges, from being put in place to give cemetery owners or funeral establishments unfair advantages.

But beyond prohibiting those kinds of charges, obviously, in terms of protecting consumers, the legislation allows those funeral establishments, cemeteries and monument dealers to put together the most competitive packages possible, which is entirely right and proper in terms of affording the greatest consumer choice and indeed the greatest price competition in the market.

NIAGARA ESCARPMENT COMMISSION

Mrs Grier: My question is for the Premier. The Coalition on the Niagara Escarpment has been monitoring the meetings of the Niagara Escarpment Commission and has today released a voting record of the members of the commission which shows that eight of the 15 citizens on that commission consistently vote in opposition to preservation of the Niagara Escarpment.

These are all members appointed by the Premier’s government, without any public scrutiny or examination of their support for the escarpment or their positions on this issue. Will the Premier agree to release the names of the people who recommended his appointees for appointment to the commission and the curricula vitae of these people?

Hon Mr Peterson: I have no problem at all releasing the curricula vitae. I would not want to embarrass people with respect to some of these other things. But let me respond to this. As I understand it, it is the CONE group that has put that press release out today and I was told about that. I understand their point of view, and they have some very strong views. As the member will be aware, they have many representatives, many like-minded people, who are on the Niagara Escarpment Commission.

What we strive to do as a government is to build as balanced and fairminded a system as we possibly can in a situation like that. They are not all of one, shall we say, ideological, philosophical bent. We are trying to be as representative as we can.

Let me say something else. They are government appointments and the minister could help the member out more specifically than I can, but to the best of my knowledge, we canvass extremely widely from the north end to the south end. We talk to the New Democratic members, if they are involved. I remember that the former member for Welland-Thorold, who was very highly respected in this House, was regularly talked to about the kinds of people who should be on it to get the kind of balance and to get names coming forward.

I am happy to give the member their CVs and she can draw her own judgement, as she can on any other board, about the quality of their decisions. Most people think the chairman is a fairminded individual who looks at the situations as best he can.

Mrs Grier: The chairman doesn’t vote.

Hon Mr Peterson: Well, the person who brings this group together. I just say that to my friend and I am happy to provide some of this information.

Mrs Grier: The purpose of the Niagara Escarpment Commission is to protect and preserve the escarpment. I am not quite sure what range of balance the Premier feels is necessary on that kind of body.

There has been a vacancy on the commission for four months now. Both CONE and the Federation of Ontario Naturalists have recommended two names to the Premier’s office, John Cooper of Welland and Susan Gibson of Meaford. Will the Premier undertake to examine the CVs of those individuals to acknowledge that they support preservation of the escarpment and to appoint one of them to this vacancy in order to redress the balance of these people he has appointed, for whatever reason, in the past?

Hon Mr Peterson: I have just been told by the minister that nine, I believe, of those appointments the member is referring to are municipal appointments.

Interjection.

Hon Mr Peterson: Was it seven? Let’s be fairminded about this. The member would give the impression that we appointed them all. They are municipal appointments and they come through order in council, so they are not our appointments. We try to be as fairminded as we possibly can. As I said, there were people like Lyn MacMillan who have brought real intellectual leadership to the group.

Let me say that there are lots of people who are widely consulted. We would love to have the views of the group the member is referring to and the member’s views as well. I am sure my honourable friend would say that on this board or any other board, we are not looking for ideologues, shall we say. We are looking for thoughtful people who care about our province, who want to build it now and in the future and who can make practical decisions, because they have an enormous amount of power over ordinary people’s lives. That is surely what we want.

The member has some strong views. I am delighted to hear them. I will take them very seriously. What I will do -- I do not know the names she has mentioned, those people -- is that we will consult very widely with all the people involved. If the member has any other views, as many of her colleagues do on appointments from time to time, please share them with us and we will give them every serious consideration.

If the member looks at that board -- I cannot recall off the top of my head any particular names there except Ms MacMillan and the chairman -- I think she will find that there is not a political component in that by any stretch of the imagination. People are not there because they are Liberals, New Democrats or Conservatives, but hopefully because they can make a contribution to their province. If the member has any evidence to the contrary of that, we would be delighted to hear it. I welcome the member’s views on this appointment or any other one she has along the way.

Mrs Grier: I look forward to receiving the CVs.

Hon Mr Elston: Oh, you have a mandate to review, do you? You’ll take it upon yourself?

Mrs Grier: In the absence of anybody else taking it upon themselves.

SEWAGE TREATMENT

Mr Runciman: My question is for the Minister of the Environment. He is having difficulty hearing me because of his seatmate’s interjections.

This is an issue of significant concern to the residents of eastern Ontario. A 1988 report by the Ministry of the Environment concluded that some sewage plants in eastern Ontario were the most ineffective in the province and ordered the municipalities to bring those plants up to standard, as I am sure the minister will recall.

Many municipalities, in response to that, have initiated plans for development and were expecting ministry funding to assist with those projects. However, it now appears that the ministry has changed its priorities. Upon applying for ministry funding, municipalities such as Smiths Falls, Brockville and Kemptville have been turned down. Can the minister explain why the priorities of his ministry have changed and how he expects these areas to develop and improve their projects without any ministry funding?

Hon Mr Bradley: The member may be aware that in this particular year the Ministry of the Environment is spending close to $200 million of transfer payments on such things as waterworks and sewage works in Ontario. I think the member’s colleagues would know that there is a fair system that is used. There may be an argument over how much money. I guess there has always got to be more money, even though many of his colleagues from time to time tell us we should not spend as much money. There is always the argument over how much.

What we have is a committee of the Ministry of the Environment called the PPEC, the project priority evaluation committee. They assess each of these. I remember the member for Lake Nipigon (Mr Pouliot) was standing in the House asking a question and other members have raised similar questions. The committee tries to look at the priorities based on what are the greatest environmental problems that might exist. Then they allocate funding for a specific year.

One of the things we run into is that some of the projects are extremely expensive. An example in eastern Ontario, for instance, is the sewage treatment plant for Ottawa. I think it probably takes in more than Ottawa as well. The upgrading of that from primary to secondary is a $400-million project, for instance.

What we have done is enhance the funding for municipalities by providing the larger municipalities, for instance, with up to 33 per cent instead of the old 15 --

The Speaker: Thank you. Perhaps the minister would want to save some of that information to respond to the supplementary.

Mr Runciman: I think our concerns centre more on allocation than the total dollars. It appears, anyway to many communities in eastern Ontario, that the minister simply does not care about smaller municipalities. The ministry spokesman, a fellow by the name of Charles Letman, said, “The municipalities will have to delay development or find some other way of paying.” Meanwhile, half of the ministry funding is being gobbled up by megaprojects in larger urban areas of the province.

Can the minister explain why he is shutting out eastern Ontario? I do not include Ottawa. I think he has to take a look at the other, smaller urban areas in eastern Ontario. Why is he shutting out those smaller municipalities in favour of larger urban areas?

Hon Mr Bradley: Sometimes we have these materials and this is where I wish I had in front of me a list of the letters I have just signed, gee, in the last two or three weeks to various people --

Mr Wiseman: Was St Catharines on the list?

Hon Mr Bradley: No, as a matter of fact, my own area is quite unhappy with the allocation that has come to the Niagara Peninsula and so are many other areas because they would all like more.

If the member were to examine that, I think he would find that a heck of a lot of money goes into eastern Ontario. All I know is from the signing of the letters, and actually, interestingly enough, many of them are in opposition ridings and I do not think anybody has ever suggested that.

Through the priorities committee of the ministry, and these are engineers and other people who look at it strictly from an environmental point of view, we try as well as we can to determine where the greatest needs are and then we put the funds there. We have had members from individual communities make suggestions and I think they should. The member for Parry Sound (Mr Eves) gave me one the other day. The member for Renfrew North (Mr Conway) and the member for Lanark-Renfrew (Mr Wiseman), for instance, have suggested some to me. I think everybody has these projects and I welcome their putting them forward.

On a political basis, they have to support their community and I appreciate that, but really, we have to do it based on the greatest environmental priorities.

I will keep working on the Treasurer --

The Speaker: Thank you.

HALTON REGION TRANSPORTATION

Mr Elliot: I have a question for the Minister of Transportation. As I indicated in a statement made a little earlier today, his comprehensive announcement made in Halton region last Tuesday was greatly appreciated. A sound transportation system is most important if we are to maintain the strong economy in our region, which is now considered to be part of the greater Toronto area. The additional $165 million announced will assist greatly in putting needed highways and GO train service in place more quickly.

My question is, is it the minister’s intention to accelerate the level of funding for the missing link of Highway 403 in the Halton region as money becomes available?

Hon Mr Fulton: First of all, I appreciate the member’s statement and his comments earlier here today and I particularly appreciate his role and the role of his colleagues in bringing about the events of last Tuesday in Oakville. We announced the start in 1990 of the first link between the Queen Elizabeth Way and Highway 5. I stated then and I state here again that we certainly consider that missing link a very high priority in finishing off to Trafalgar Road, I think it is, and as funds become available, the member has my assurance that it will be considered on a very high priority basis.

Mr Elliot: Part of the announcement referred to in my original question was a $43-million allotment to begin six-laning Highway 401 from Milton to Cambridge. As the minister knows, Highway 401 passes through the beautiful Niagara Escarpment in my riding of Halton North. Is this the time for the town of Milton and the region of Halton to make representation to have additional exits from Highway 401 to serve what is a first-rate recreational area? It includes the Kelso Conservation Area, Rattlesnake Point, Crawford Lake, Hilton Falls, the Halton Region museum, and most important, the Ontario Agricultural Museum.

Hon Mr Fulton: The member would be aware that we very much consider the economic development and tourism component of any road or highway that we either build or expand in this province. Certainly we will, as we normally would do, invite public participation. As the member has indicated some very specific requests or needs along the way to promote economic development and tourism, we would welcome his input, along with that of the interested parties as we proceed in the design work of the expanded Highway 401.

FOREST MANAGEMENT

Mr Wildman: I have a question to the Minister of Natural Resources related to the scandalous destruction of three- and four-year-old tree seedlings by the Ministry of Natural Resources in the northwest over the past two years, which was brought to the attention of the House yesterday by my colleague the member for Rainy River (Mr Hampton). How does the minister justify the freezing of spending on replanting and the capping of its seedling replanting program for two years, which has led to the ministry’s destruction of between five million and eight million healthy trees?

Hon Mr Kerrio: It is very surprising for a member to come from northern Ontario and know so little about the forests. The fact of the matter is that if we have to have 163 million trees to plant, we must have a four percent or five per cent cushion. The fact of the matter is that we have deformed trees and we have trees that do not meet the requirements. They have to have that much of a cushion. It costs considerably more to plant the tree, tend it and see it through to maturity than it does to grow that seedling.

The member really is way off the mark because he really does not understand the issue. When we had some problems growing seedlings, this government saw fit to help those people who were growing seedlings in those bad years. Now, if they provide surplus seedlings, they cannot expect us to take just what they choose to grow. We planted 163 million --

Mr Wildman: These are your seedlings we’re talking about.

Hon Mr Kerrio: Just be quiet, will you?

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Kerrio: I listened to your question.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Kerrio: Just be quiet for a minute and I will prove you do not know what you are talking about. The fact of the matter is --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Really, I think the minister would be best just to sit quietly for a moment.

Mr Wildman: For the minister’s benefit, it is not the private sector nurseries I am talking about; it is the ministry’s own seedlings. It was not because they were deformed. In fact, the ministry decided to keep the deformed trees and plant them rather than the healthy ones.

Why is it that during this two-year period, the area regenerated by the ministry is down while the harvest area is up, at the very time when companies such as Canadian Pacific and Abitibi-Price have stated that they need an additional 20 million trees or they are going to face wood shortages in the northwest?

Hon Mr Kerrio: I do not know where the member gets his numbers, but the fact of the matter is, when he talks about harvesting and planting, we have done more in the last four years than had been done in considerably more years in the past.

We lost more trees to fire than we did to harvesting last year. We lost some 391,000 hectares of trees that were burned. We are doing a job in replanting also, where our total renewal activities in 1987 were 312,000 hectares of trees that were planted and tended as opposed to some 225,000 hectares in 1984. We are doing more than has ever been done before, and I am sure the member is fully aware of that but makes every attempt to make it appear as though that is not the case. I want to share with the members of this House that the forests have never been better tended than they are this very day.

HOME CARE

Mr Eves: I have a question of the Minister of Health. As I am sure the minister is aware, the Red Cross homemaker program has a projected deficit this year of some $3.8 million. The director of Red Cross homemaker services, Barbra Trahand, has indicated that the Ministry of Health, which funds approximately two thirds of this program, is not acknowledging that it has a role to play in helping the Red Cross solve its deficit problem. Why is the Ministry of Health refusing to help this program with its deficit when she constantly tells us about the need for improved community-based health care?

Hon Mrs Caplan: I would refer the member opposite to discuss this matter with his own colleague, who quite rightly placed a question to my colleague the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr Sweeney) on the basis of the homemaker program, which is different from delivering the professional services of the home care program. The distinction between the two programs is that the homemaker program to which he refers is the ultimate responsibility of the Minister of Community and Social Services, although the Ministry of Health, on a purchase of service, participates in some of the funding of that program.

Mr Eves: “Some of the funding” is probably an understatement. I have asked the minister a very simple question. Does her ministry have a role to play in the funding of these necessary services or not? If they do, what is she doing about this deficit? She will recall that we were talking about this in December 1988 in the Legislature, and in January of this year she did take steps --

The Speaker: Thank you. Actually, you asked a supplementary. Order.

Hon Mrs Caplan: I refer the member opposite to the very excellent question asked of my colleague the Minister of Community and Social Services, which he answered in very full detail, about how this and other structural challenges facing us are being addressed by co-operation between the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Community and Social Services as they look at long-term care in a comprehensive manner. In the short term, while the two ministries are co-operating to look at the medium and longer term, the Minister of Community and Social Services has frequent contact and discussions with a number of the agencies that are providing those kinds of services in the community.

SPEED LIMITS

Mr Miclash: My question is to the Minister of Transportation. In a response to the question from the member for Oxford (Mr Tatham) on Monday, the minister mentioned that the speed limit on secondary highways in the north, which is presently 80 kilometres per hour, is being reviewed. Might I request that the minister expand on this?

Hon Mr Fulton: On Monday the member for Oxford raised the question, which I think really flowed from some time ago, when the member for Kenora (Mr Miclash) had a private member’s bill here before the House.

I can tell him that my staff, along with the enforcement agencies and other interested parties and groups, which will involve some of the municipal people along the way, are indeed looking at a number of opportunities in various areas of northern Ontario -- northwestern Ontario as well as northeast -- to see whether, from a safety point of view and an economic point of view, we can raise some of the limits in selected areas from the current 80 kilometres to a proposed 90 kilometres per hour.

Mr Miclash: The minister did mention the resolution I presented to the House over a year ago. I wonder if the minister would be willing to meet with some of these groups during his upcoming visit to Kenora with regard to this subject.

Hon Mr Fulton: We are planning a trip to Kenora very soon to deal with the matter of the Kenora bypass, but we are more than anxious to get local input from elected officials and others, chambers of commerce and so on. We would be more than happy to arrange our

schedule to accommodate the wishes of the member for Kenora to meet with a variety of groups at his disposal when we are up there.

CHAIRMAN OF ONTARIO SECURITIES COMMISSION

Mr Hampton: In the absence of the Attorney General (Mr Scott), my question is for the Deputy Premier. Last week, a detailed investigation and report by the Law Society of Upper Canada recommended that complaints of professional misconduct be brought against a Toronto lawyer whom the government has recently appointed as chairman of the Ontario Securities Commission.

In view of the important work and the expanding financial regulatory work that is done by the Ontario Securities Commission and in view of the confidence the province must have in whomever is the chairman, is the Treasurer not concerned by the recommendations of the law society’s disciplinary panel and the law society’s special counsel in this matter that charges of professional misconduct should be brought against the person the government has appointed as the chairman of the Ontario Securities Commission?

Hon R. F. Nixon: I read the news reports to which the honourable member refers quite carefully. As I understand it, the law society specifically decided not to pursue that investigation. I think that decision was criticized by one of the newspapers, but the law society is completely independent and it makes those decisions with the powers given it under

an act of the Legislature.

Mr Hampton: It is a fact that the staff who work at the disciplinary panel of the law society recommended that charges of professional misconduct be brought. The law society brought in a special counsel, one David Scott of Ottawa, who looked at the matter, prepared a special report and also recommended that a complaint of professional misconduct be brought. The chairman of the disciplinary committee unilaterally and by himself overruled those recommendations.

My question is again to the Deputy Premier. Is he not concerned that two bodies, in effect -- the special counsel and the disciplinary panel itself -- have both recommended that charges of professional misconduct be brought and the only thing that has stopped them is a unilateral decision --

The Speaker: Thank you.

Hon R. F. Nixon: The procedures of the law society are established by its own bylaws. They give powers to their executives to, I suppose, get legal opinions whenever they choose and pay for them. Then it is up to the law society to act on those opinions as it sees fit. In this instance, I simply say again that the law society is an independent and highly respected organization. They have not made any indication that they are proceeding in the way that the honourable member presumably thinks they should.

The Speaker: That completes the allotted time for oral questions and responses.

Mr Harris: Let’s extend it. We’ve got some good questions here.

The Speaker: There will be another day.

PETITIONS

BRIDGE CLEARANCE

Mr Kormos: I have a petition that is intended for the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It is addressed in addition to the Minister of Transportation (Mr Fulton). It reads:

“Welland’s attempt to diversify its economy with a tourism industry will be seriously hampered by the lack of navigational clearance of the proposed Highway 406 bridge at Kottmeir Road, crossing the recreational canal in Welland, Ontario. Minimal clearance must be 5.5 metres.

“The potential for new businesses, job creation and a revitalized downtown have been realized by this community and we are struggling to implement new and exciting programs. A free-flowing, accessible waterway is absolutely necessary.

“We, the undersigned, urge you to consider the full consequences of your refusal to raise the bridge.”

It is signed by Belva Palmer of Welland and over 2,000 other signators, most of them from the Welland-Port Colborne-Niagara region area.

The Speaker: Did the member say that was addressed to the Minister of Transportation?

Mr Kormos: It was intended for the Lieutenant Governor, but addressed to the honourable minister.

ADOPTION

Mr Beer: I have a petition 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:

“Why do adoptive parents have to carry the burden of the costs involved in any adoptions?

“Why are all the fees involved based solely on the adoptive parents’ income, which we believe is totally discriminatory?

“Whereas we believe that adoptions are revolving into nothing but the ‘black market,’

“Therefore, we totally disagree with the format of the Ministry of Community and Social Services regarding adoption.”

This is signed by some 20 persons from the Peterborough-Ennismore area.

FRENCH-LANGUAGE SERVICES

Miss Martel: I have a petition addressed to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, and the petitioners request that the Legislative Assembly or this government in fact refrain from further implementation of the French Language Services Act.

While I disagree with the intent of the petitioners and the petition, I have, at their request, presented this as is their right to petition this House.

Mr Speaker: And you have signed it as well?

Miss Martel: Yes, I have.

NATUROPATHY

Mr Epp: I have a petition here addressed to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, and it says:

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

“Whereas it is my constitutional right to have available and to choose the health care system of my preference; and

“Whereas naturopathy has had self-governing status in Ontario for more than 42 years;

“We petition the Ontario Legislature to call on the government to introduce legislation that would guarantee naturopaths the right to practise their art and science to the fullest without prejudice or harassment.”

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

Mr Mackenzie: I have a petition to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Each year in Ontario hundreds of workers are killed on the job and about half a million injured. The Workers’ Compensation Board decides if these workers are entitled to any compensation and what these deaths and disabilities are worth.

“There is a crisis in workers’ compensation in Ontario that is not going to be resolved by the proposed new legislation. The Workers’ Compensation Board has always operated in an arbitrary and inhumane manner and it will not change now.

“We, the injured workers and concerned citizens of Ontario, petition you for respect, dignity and justice. We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the Parliament of Ontario to pass laws without hidden clauses that:

“1. Guarantee the rights of injured workers and are easily understood by workers, employers and decision-makers;

“2. Remove arbitrary decision-making and ensure that decisions, particularly regarding entitlement, are quickly made;

“3. Provide effective and humane vocational, social and medical rehabilitation programs to compensate injured workers for their pain and disabilities and assist them in returning to meaningful work;

“4. Provide jobs to injured workers or full compensation to those who cannot return to work;

“5. Ensure that the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Tribunal, rather than the Workers’ Compensation Board, is the final and binding decision-maker;

“6. Provide existing injured workers with the choice to opt into new legislation.”

There are six pages. I have signed them and it covers 59 people from the city of Hamilton.

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION

Mr Leone: I have a petition to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas the government of Ontario in its discussions with the Ontario Teachers’ Federation on amendments to the Teachers’ Superannuation Act has continually refused to permit an equal partnership between teachers and government in management of the pension fund, establishment of an acceptable contribution increase, benefit adjustments, an equitable treatment of future surpluses and a binding arbitration process,

“We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly to insist that the Treasurer of Ontario enter into negotiations with the Ontario Teachers’ Federation which will lead to a settlement equitable to teachers.”

It is signed by 35 people and I have also signed my signature.

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

Mr Reycraft: I have two petitions. Both are addressed to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. The first is signed by 13 constituents of the riding of Hamilton Centre and it calls on the government to scrap Bill 162.

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION

Mr Reycraft: The second is signed by five constituents of the riding of Quinte and it calls on the Treasurer (Mr R. F. Nixon) to enter into negotiations with the Ontario Teachers’ Federation relative to the Teachers’ Superannuation Act.

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

Mr Kormos: I have a petition addressed to the Lieutenant Governor and Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It reads:

“We care about injured workers. We protest the Minister of Labour’s proposal to change the law that would take away injured workers’ rights to permanent disability pensions when they are permanently disabled; that would do almost nothing about the miserable compensation of existing injured workers and their widows, and that would leave the injured workers of the future worse off. Workers who are killed or injured in their work deserve much better treatment than this.”

It is signed by Marcel Dumont of Welland and 19 others, as well as by myself.

The Speaker: The usual custom is just to list the number.

REPORT BY COMMITTEE

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

Mr Furlong from the standing committee on regulations and private bills presented the committee’s report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bills without amendment:

Bill Pr20,

An Act to revive Bolsward Investments Limited;

Bill Pr21,

An Act respecting South Simcoe Railway Heritage Corporation.

Your committee begs to report the following bill as amended:

Bill Pr6,

An Act respecting the Centre culturel d’Orléans/Projet de loi concernant le Centre culturel d’Orléans.

Your committee further recommends that the fees and the actual cost of printing at all stages and in the annual statutes be remitted on Bill Pr6,

An Act respecting the Centre culturel d’Orléans/Projet de loi Pr6, Loi concernant le Centre culturel d’Orléans.

Motion agreed to.

MOTION

STANDING COMMITREE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT

Mr Conway moved that the standing committee on general government be authorized to report to the House on its review of the final progress reports to the Minister of the Environment (Mr Bradley) of Inco, Falconbridge, Algoma Steel and Ontario Hydro on acid rain abatement programs.

Motion agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

SARNIA-LAMBTON ACT, 1989

Mr Eakins moved second reading of Bill 35,

An Act respecting the amalgamation of the City of Sarnia and the Town of Clearwater and the addition of the amalgamated City to the County of Lambton.

Hon Mr Eakins: Members will recall that this bill implements a local solution to a longstanding and contentious dispute. It is the result of an extensive negotiation process involving the city of Sarnia, the town of Clearwater and the county of Lambton.

Immediately after this bill received first reading on 20 June, I presented copies of it to the local representatives in Sarnia-Lambton. They have reviewed the legislation and have requested amendments to the act which will clarify certain sections. I am therefore introducing today a number of minor technical amendments to this bill. While I apologize for the number of amendments, I am sure the members will appreciate my desire to ensure that this bill continues to reflect the consensus we have achieved. Therefore, I would ask for their co-operation and understanding when we go into committee of the whole House today.

While the government assisted the local representatives in achieving the agreement to end this long-standing dispute, it will be the local representatives who will have to use this act to make their agreement work. The minor changes they have requested will make them feel more comfortable about proceeding to the next steps. I am therefore happy to amend the legislation accordingly. Because these amendments have the support of all who were party to the original agreement, I believe they should not stand in the way of passage of this bill.

Passage in this session is important because the work will not end when this bill is passed. A local implementation committee will then have to deal with administrative, operational and staffing issues which will arise as a result of this local solution. I have asked them to submit a final report to me on or before 1 May 1990 so that all necessary changes can be in place in time for the next municipal elections in November 1991.

As I told my colleagues on 20 June when this legislation received first reading, this bill implements a historic agreement. I applaud the success of the local negotiators and I look forward to the passage of this legislation, which does nothing more than put into law the agreement they reached among themselves.

Mr D. S. Cooke: I will be extremely brief. I appreciate the comments that the minister has made this afternoon, and I certainly appreciate the difficulty that municipalities have in dealing with this type of issue and the fact that more than a year of work has gone into negotiating a compromise, a settlement and then the request to this Legislature to approve the legislation.

I certainly do not think we can stand in the way of its being passed. Eventually there will be local accountability, and hopefully the ratepayers and the vast majority of local politicians will be satisfied with the process and with the proposed legislation.

We certainly also appreciate the fact that this afternoon, when we expressed some concerns to the minister about one of the proposed amendments dealing with the firefighters in the area, the intervention of the member for Sarnia (Mr Brandt) and the ministry was able to resolve that; so we will have no problems with proceeding this afternoon and granting the wish of the Minister of Municipal Affairs and, I assume, the member for Lambton (Mr D. W. Smith) as well.

The Acting Speaker (Mr M. C. Ray): The next speaker, the member for Sarnia.

[Applause]

Mr Brandt: It is all too infrequently that I get applause from the government benches, but I am pleased to participate in saying a few words in regard to Bill 35.

Hon Mr Conway: Some of us remember former Liberals with great affection.

Mr Eves: Former mayors.

Mr Brandt: Let me say without any equivocation whatever that I support Bill 35 and I appreciate the co-operation of the minister in the difficulties that he has been able to navigate in bringing the bill to this point, where a historical moment has been reached in this House in that the last boundary settlement in the Sarnia-Lambton area was back in 1951, some 38 years ago, and there have been periodic problems that have arisen.

Many complicated and difficult negotiations have taken place between the county and the city to try to arrive at some kind of amicable compromise that would satisfy the interests of all of the various municipalities in that particular area.

I think it is fair to say at this particular time that the minister should be complimented, along with his very capable staff; but in addition to that, let me say that the local committee that worked so long and hard at putting this particular document together should be applauded as well. They came to a local settlement after many years, frankly, of long and complicated discussions in connection with the bill.

The bill has not only achieved the support of the county of Lambton and the town of Clearwater as well as the city of Sarnia; the village of Point Edward supports this bill as well because it is excluded from it. They are pleased that they will continue as a progressively independent municipality of 2,500 happy individuals who will continue to be a part of the county but not part of the complex of the new urban municipality that is now being created as a result of this bill.

I do not want to go on at length, even though some of the members of this House are encouraging me so to do, but I do want to say that there is some degree of urgency in the fast passage of this bill, as the minister is well aware. There are areas of this bill which must be triggered before the end of this year, there are very substantive measures that have to be in place before 1 January 1991, and those particular changes require us to work with some degree of expediency in this House.

I would only ask any other participating members who may wish to join in this debate that we work together co-operatively to try to find a solution to a long-standing problem that looks like it is at the point of finally being solved.

Mr D. W. Smith: It is a pleasure for me today to stand and make comments on Bill 35, which will amalgamate the city of Sarnia into the county of Lambton and, of course, take Clearwater into the city in the first place. This is something that I have not had the opportunity to do before in the House. Certainly it is likely going to be a challenge for me, but I am looking forward to that.

I want to say that all my life I have lived in the county of Lambton. I am very proud of the county of Lambton. I think they have done a commendable job over the years in governing themselves as an umbrella group as well as each and every individual municipality within the county of Lambton, but I guess as time rolls on change has to occur or it does occur. I do not say that a lot of people are against this change, but they seem to want to know more of the answers before this change takes place.

We have already heard the minister say today that he would like a report back from this committee by 1 May 1990, I think, but in the meantime some of this bill is going to be put into place before that even happens.

In the comments I am going to make, I am going to try to question the legislation as it may pertain to what the committee felt it had drafted up. I know they spent many hours on this bill. I have talked to the warden and the county group many times. In fact, I would say the warden has likely had the busiest year of possibly any warden of the county of Lambton. I can speak with some experience there because I was the warden in 1983. I know it is a very busy job; you are expected to go to everything, and that is entirely impossible.

The people who have spoken with me want to know, or feel they should know or have the right to know, what some of the financial impact is going to be. I think they have that right. This is a major bill. This is going to be a major impact on the Sarnia-Lambton area. In fact, I will go so far as to say that this bill may be a precedent-setting bill for some of the other counties in Lambton riding. If members wanted to pick up on some of those appropriate names, they could well be Chatham-Kent, St Thomas-Elgin and Owen Sound-Grey. Who knows, it could even be Pembroke-Renfrew.

We just do not know where this bill may lead to. That is why I think that if we are going to do it in this House here today, we should do it well and make sure that things are in order to work well for the people of Sarnia-Lambton in the future.

I think, as one who grew up in the farming community, I am about as well aware of change as possibly any one of any of the professions. We have seen farming change so dramatically and so quickly in the last few years that yes, we are pretty near prepared for anything. But I think the people of Lambton in these small communities are saying:

“We feel our taxes are pretty high now. We seem to be sharing a goodly amount of the load in a lot of areas. Is this bill going to mean that our taxes are going to go higher, whether it be on the roads portion or on welfare, since the county of Lambton will take over the combined welfare services?”

These are the questions that are being asked of me. I do not have those answers. I have not seen these numbers come into place yet and so this is why I want to make a few comments. I will start and go through a few of them here. I do not want to take all afternoon or anything like that. I do not think I can stand on my feet that long, because I was up all night, but we will try to make a few comments and see if the minister is satisfied.

For instance, if we go to

part I, subsection 2(3), “The city shall not apply for the annexation or amalgamation of any land before 1 January 2016, unless” -- and “unless” is very important -- “the county council and the council of every local municipality the lands of which are part of the proposed annexation or amalgamation agree, by resolution.”

As the member for Sarnia said, Point Edward was quite happy. I guess he was likely also referring to Moore being quite happy.

The way I would interpret that piece of legislation is that there could be a proposal rather quickly. They do not have to wait until the year 2016. In fact, if we go over to

section 7, it seems to make it all the clearer that they could change portions of this legislation by 1 December 1994, which I presume would be a new council. That is a question I feel is deserving of an answer.

section 3, they are going to put a vote to the people in the 1991 regular election. The question will be, “Do you want the new city to be named Sarnia?” I guess I am asking the question, what happens if the electors say, “No, we don’t want Sarnia”? What is the alternative? As I read further into the bill, I wonder if the minister is going to be the one who makes that decision or is he going to make it in consultation with the new city, as I will refer to it?

Those are three areas where I wonder if the committee members who drafted the interim report are satisfied in their minds that they have achieved everything they were asking for, and in fact that they may be able to change these boundaries again much before 2016.

It goes on, in subsection 7(4), “Where the minister is inquiring into the structure, organization and methods of operation of a local municipality or the county.” Does this mean that the county can change drastically as well? I believe, following on that subsection, the Ontario Municipal Board could make a decision along those lines. That is another question we wanted to ask.

There are a number of places throughout this bill that say “without compensation.” I know I heard from some of the committee members that this amalgamation would not take place if there was no compensation. The compensation they were referring to, I felt, was from the province of Ontario. When I see that in there I wonder if these costs are going to increase because of this bill, are they going to be picked up by the county as it exists today, or is the share that has been decided upon fair in everyone’s mind? That is another question that sticks out at us throughout this bill now and again.

When we read

section 13, it almost conflicts with

section 8 in some ways. Not being a legislative counsel, I hope that is clear to everyone in that area.

Another part of this bill that will change the riding of Lambton is that the police villages of Inwood and Florence will be dissolved as of 1 January 1991. Being a member of the county government committee, when we were travelling around the 26 counties a year ago, that was one of the questions that was brought up often enough. That would make me believe it is time to dissolve the police villages.

I think the people likely will accept that quite easily because most of the police villages now only have trustees and they really have no function regarding money; they are just more or less advisers to the municipality that surrounds them. I think that is likely an area that is quite acceptable to the people of Lambton.

As we move through the bill, it talks about the different voting structure. I believe it will change somewhat in the year 1990. Then once in 1991 it will change again and the county council will be smaller. I presume the committee has arrived at that decision and it is quite happy with it.

I come back again to when the minister made the comment that the joint committee would submit its recommendations to the minister on or before 1 May 1990. I am really asking what all those recommendations could be. If some of the bill has been in place already, I wonder if it is a total must that everything has to be in place by 1 December 1990. Or can it wait until after I May when the minister will hear more recommendations from this joint committee that will be set up?

As we move on to

part IV which talks about Sarnia Hydro, the people there are asking, “Because Ontario Hydro looked after and maintained the town of Clearwater, what costs are going to be involved when the total municipality becomes part of the new city of Sarnia or whatever the name may be in the future?” I think that is likely quite a large answer, but I am sure that it can be arrived at because when it does actually go in place, the taxes will say very emphatically what the rise or increase was because of this action. Also, it possibly could affect us out in the riding of Lambton.

From what I am being told by some of the Ontario Hydro workers, if Clearwater goes with Sarnia Hydro, the Wyoming regional office of Ontario Hydro will possibly no longer exist. I am sure whether that will have some effect on the community of Wyoming and surroundings. So there is an area that I certainly want to ask a question on.

The two police forces will be joined as of 1 January 1990. I am sure there will be costs associated with that move. I am sure the people would be asking, “Well, what may that cost us in our taxes?” In talking with some of these people who are behind this amalgamation, I get the feeling that they do not want their taxes to rise, but because of this bill, I ask myself how it possibly cannot rise, unless somebody else is picking up the increase.

Section 36 says, “The committee shall establish guidelines for considering boundary applications in consultation with the Ministry of Municipal Affairs.” Because of the county government report, I guess I will just ask the minister whether this means the municipalities in Lambton that do not have 4,000 in population may have to join or if there is going to be an exception to that county government report within this bill. I would leave that question there, as well.

I move over to

section 44. The county council is going to assume new duties. There will be more roads come under the county jurisdiction, a city home will come in under county jurisdiction and the welfare will be taken over by the county.

The other big issue is waste management. It is going to be a big concern to the county of Lambton. We certainly have got discussions going on there now out in the township of Warwick. I understand that there are a number of municipalities that do not have a waste site now that will last very much longer; in fact, it may be full right at this moment.

I wonder if the county, in assuming some of those duties, is going to be, shall we say, the banker. What debt would this put on to the county? Right at this time the county has been very success