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

December 19, 1989

34th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

COMMUNITY INFORMATION CENTRES

KAWARTHA SKILLS DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

EDUCATION FINANCING

FUELS SAFETY

CHAMPIONS OF HALTON NORTH

EDUCATION FINANCING

ACADEMIC STREAMING

ALLAN FISHER

EVENTS IN ROMANIA

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

ELECTRICITY DEMAND AND SUPPLY

ACCESS FUND

PARENTAL LEAVE

RESPONSES

ELECTRICITY DEMAND AND SUPPLY

ACCESS FUND

ELECTRICITY DEMAND AND SUPPLY

ACCESS FUND

ORAL QUESTIONS

ELECTRICITY DEMAND AND SUPPLY

CHILD POVERTY

ELECTRICITY DEMAND AND SUPPLY

LAND USE PERMIT

EMPLOYER HEALTH LEVY

DOWNSVIEW REHABILITATION CENTRE

PAY EQUITY

NONTRADITIONAL OCCUPATIONS

RED MEAT II

SALE OF LIQUOR

PLASTICS RECYCLING

PROVINCE OF ONTARIO LAND REGISTRATION AND INFORMATION SYSTEM

CONTAMINATED SOIL

MOTION

HOUSE SITTING

PETITIONS

NATUROPATHY

FRENCH-LANGUAGE SERVICES

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

FRENCH-LANGUAGE SERVICES

REPORT BY COMMITTEE

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

BUILDING CODE ACT, 1989

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THIRD READING

COMMERCIAL CONCENTRATION TAX ACT, 1989

EMPLOYER HEALTH TAX ACT, 1989

LAND TRANSFER TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1989 / LOI DE 1989 SUR LES DROITS DE CESSION IMMOBILIÈRE

THIRD READINGS

NOTARIES AMENDMENT ACT, 1989

STATUTES REVISION ACT, 1989 / LOI DE 1989 SUR LA REFONTE DES LOIS

THIRD READINGS / TROISIÈME LECTURE

ONTARIO LOTTERY CORPORATION AMENDMENT ACT, 1989

CONCURRENCE IN SUPPLY, MINISTRY OF THE ENVIRONMENT

THIRD READING

EXECUTIVE COUNCIL AMENDMENT ACT, 1989

COMMERCIAL CONCENTRATION TAX ACT, 1989

EMPLOYER HEALTH TAX ACT, 1989

ONTARIO LOTTERY CORPORATION AMENDMENT ACT, 1989

ROYAL ASSENT / SANCTION ROYALE

EVENING SITTING

CONCURRENCE IN SUPPLY

CONCURRENCE IN SUPPLY, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION

CONCURRENCE IN SUPPLY, OFFICE FOR DISABLED PERSONS

CONCURRENCE IN SUPPLY, OFFICE FOR SENIOR CITIZENS’ AFFAIRS

INCOME TAX AMENDMENT ACT

REPORT BY COMMITTEE

STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

ORDERS OF THE DAY

INCOME TAX AMENDMENT ACT (CONTINUED)

DISCHARGE OF BILL 66

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

Mr Kormos: I do not have to tell you, Mr Speaker, how we in this House are inevitably and consistently impressed by the young men and women who come to this House from across Ontario to serve as pages. This particular group of pages is serving probably its second to last day here at the Legislature. They are from across Ontario, and rightly so, and I can tell the House that we are looking forward to the chance to have young men and women from Welland-Thorold right here in this Legislature performing as these young people have for the last several weeks.

I have told Mayor Longo of Thorold and Mayor Hardy of Welland how impressive these young people are and those mayors from those two communities that I represent have insisted that I not let this group of people leave without giving each of them some souvenirs of their attendance here, some pins from the city of Thorold and from the city of Welland, of course some reading material about those respective cities and road maps as to how to get there -- it is not difficult -- hoping that they will share those with their parents.

We are proud of our communities of Welland and Thorold. They are great places to live and, quite frankly, great places to visit. While they are visiting there, it is only a hop, step and a jump to Niagara Falls or to Niagara-on-the-Lake and the theatre there.

I am going to leave these behind on behalf of the mayors of those two cities with their best wishes and with our thanks for the fine performance that these young people have made and the contribution they have made to this Legislature.

COMMUNITY INFORMATION CENTRES

Mr McCague: Community information centres are a valuable resource for communities throughout the province. They provide a single access point to government programs and services. As community-based services expand to support our ageing population, information services will be in increasing demand to ensure Ontarians get the help they need.

Community information centres are in a financial crisis throughout the province. The 1989-90 budgetary allocation was 0.4 per cent above the 1988-89 funding.

It is shortsighted for the Treasurer (Mr R. F. Nixon) to refuse additional funding for such a valuable community resource. If we did not have community information centres, each ministry would have to establish local information services and the budgetary implications of that would be explosive.

A single information source is the most cost-effective way to provide access to provincial programs. The individuals who work tirelessly on our behalf at the community level deserve more recognition. The $100,000 that the Minister of Skills Development (Mr Conway) spent on the recent Pathways report, which was simply a rehash of the earlier version, Out of School Youth in Ontario, and the $78,000 the Minister of Revenue (Mr Mancini) wasted yesterday on his inaccurate assessment notices would do nicely. The member for Simcoe East (Mr McLean) and I would certainly like some assistance.

KAWARTHA SKILLS DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

Mr Adams: The Kawartha Skills Development Committee in Peterborough has two new projects aimed at improving input from teachers and principals in the development of skilled tradespeople. The committee is putting together a directory of tradespeople willing to speak directly to students. It is also funding trophies for local schools to present to grade 7 and 8 students for aptitude in technical subjects. The committee hopes to receive enough replies to publish an occupational speakers directory this month, when many students are looking at their options.

The technical arts proficiency award is the second initiative of the committee. It is designed to recognize achievements of students in technical courses. The 24 elementary schools that offer technical training will each be able to present a trophy to one grade 7 and one grade 8 student and engrave the names on a school plaque. The committee is also looking for business sponsors whose names will be printed on the scrolls that go with the awards.

The Kawartha Skills Development Committee is one of 57 such committees across Ontario involved in the Skills OK campaign, a drive to address the issue of a lack of skilled workers through projects of various kinds. The OK stands for two things: occupational knowledge and “It’s okay to want to be an electrician or a welder or whatever.”

I wish the Kawartha Skills Development Committee luck in its important work.

EDUCATION FINANCING

Miss Martel: School boards were recently asked by the Ministry of Education to comment upon proposed changes to the 1990 general legislative grant. The Sudbury Board of Education responded in this way:

Specifically, option 1 represents the status quo and would result in a grant to the board of some $3.3 million. Option 2 would reduce this goods and service grant by some $1 million. This is the same grant that supposedly recognizes the great difficulties of northern boards and provides some additional moneys to offset the higher costs. Now the ministry is proposing to cut this funding by $1 million.

The Sudbury board has argued for some time that special consideration be given to its board because of the cost of operating in a jurisdiction of 2,400 square miles in northern Ontario weather conditions.

The board has a demographic density of approximately eight students per square mile, versus the 1,100 students per square mile of Metropolitan Toronto boards. This affects the board’s level of plant operations and maintenance costs and has resulted in higher per-pupil costs in both panels.

Second, because of the large geographic area, the average enrolment per school building is much lower within the Sudbury board than in southern boards. This again affects costs. Therefore, higher taxes have resulted from this need to provide services for schools in sparsely populated areas. According to a Royal LePage survey of April 1989, the ratio of municipal taxes to the market value of homes in Sudbury is the third highest in Ontario.

The ministry options will maintain the status quo or reduce grant moneys. Neither option is acceptable if Sudbury taxpayers are going to be hit yet again because of inadequate provincial funding of education.

FUELS SAFETY

Mr Pollock: In the village of Madoc on 16 November, gas fumes were detected at a local high school. The source was traced back to a local service station. The fuels safety branch inspectors immediately shut down the operation.

This leak occurred because of two things: the overflowing of an unleaded gas tank and a leakage because of poor workmanship in one of the suction lines.

The occurrence of the spill and the leak, as described, have led to the discovery by investigators, and in particular the fuels safety branch, of extensive contaminated soil below the level involved in the spill. This contamination existed as a result of events many years ago, none of which had anything to do with the local owner.

I understand that the problem occurred when Esso owned the tanks. It seems that there is now contaminated soil on the property under the station. As a result of this, the fuels safety inspector has ordered the removal of the tanks, which were installed only 18 months ago and under the direction of Esso’s engineer. Also, representatives from the Ministry of the Environment and the fuels safety inspection branch were present during that time. The contaminated soil was clearly visible for those involved to see when this work was being done.

Who is going to clean this up? This service station operator’s business is now shut down, through no fault of his own. The Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr Sorbara) and the Minister of the Environment (Mr Bradley) should make some fair decisions now.

CHAMPIONS OF HALTON NORTH

Mr Elliot: In Halton North, 1989 has been an exceptionally fine year. Constituents of Halton North have won five national championships. I would like to congratulate the champions as we come to the close of 1989.

Tammy Wilson of Milton began this fine effort by becoming Miss Majorette of Canada at a competition held in Kitchener in June.

Jennifer Guzman of Milton brought home a gold medal by winning the 3,000-metre race at the Canadian Legion national junior track and field championships held in Victoria, British Columbia in August.

Julie Lawrence of Milton won a gold medal at the national junior table tennis championships held in St John’s, Newfoundland in July.

Kelly Stewart of Hornby was crowned Miss CNE, Queen of the Fair, at the Canadian National Exhibition. She has had an exciting fall travelling throughout the province and beyond and has represented the CNE in extremely fine fashion. Leanne Caputo of Milton, whom I was pleased to introduce to this Legislative Assembly on 7 December as Miss World, Canada and runner-up to Miss World, completes this impressive list. Leanne has already begun her year of work on behalf of special kids in Canada. This list of champions is impressive. Collectively, they are a combination of talent of extremely high calibre.

Each one, in her own area of expertise, spent years in training. I am delighted to congratulate each of them on their achievements and wish them continued success.

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mr R. F. Johnston: I have in my hands a newspaper report that a bounty of $20 is being put on Catholics who send their kids to the public school system at the moment. In the city of Windsor the Roman Catholic separate school board is giving $20 a head to any of its employees who bring in a Catholic who is now sending his kids to the public school system. Can members believe that? It is incredible. They are going to call them assessment revisers and they are going to send them out and get them to actually go out -- I do not know if it is going to be on board time or volunteer time -- and pay them $20.

What is going to happen? Are they going to slip $5 to the person they are bringing in and only keep $15 for themselves?

What we are having here is a major problem in the province. We have direct mail campaigns going on in terms of competition between the two boards at the moment in Ontario. Are we going to see fire sales around the setting of mill rates? Are we going to see a whole new meaning to door prizes for kids who come into the school system? It is time this government looked at this matter very seriously, because anybody who says this is ethically correct is, in my view, very misguided indeed.

It is time the Minister of Education (Mr Conway) laid down some ethical guidelines about what is fair competition between the two board systems in Ontario. We cannot have this kind of thing going on in our province. It is the last thing we need.

ACADEMIC STREAMING

Mr Jackson: I would like to comment on the statement by the Minister of Education in response to a question on destreaming asked on 8 November.

Contrary to what the minister may think, the Progressive Conservative Party has never endorsed province-wide destreaming. The all-party select committee on education recommended an investigation of the potential of destreaming because there was a lack of Ontario-based data.

It specifically recommended that “the ministry sponsor research on the practice and impact of streaming and ability grouping in Ontario.”

In response, the Liberals will establish 10 pilot projects by September 1990. Since the government has declared mandatory destreaming of all grade 9 students in Ontario by September 1992, there will be no thorough evaluation and analysis of these pilot projects.

The committee also recommended that any plans to reduce streaming must be accompanied by other measures, such as smaller class sizes, in-service programs for teaching destreamed classes, mentoring, individualized instruction and remedial programs. The minister has ignored these key recommendations and has never discussed who will pay the increased costs of the government’s mandatory destreaming plan.

Dr Jeannie Oakes, a destreaming advocate, warns: “Simply mixing students is no answer. Revolutionary changes are needed in organization, curriculum and instructional practice.... Teachers and administrators must collaboratively develop ideas and experiment with different strategies. If not, little will change, and what is changed probably won’t work.”

Before rushing ahead, the Liberals should listen carefully to her advice. The potential for damage is too great.

ALLAN FISHER

Mr Owen: Recently, I lost a friend. Allan Fisher was a musician, a teacher, an historian and a poet. Nearly 30 years ago, mutual love of history and music led to a friendship which survived until he died earlier this month.

Allan Fisher started the music and band program at Barrie Central Collegiate in 1937 and led it for 35 years. His instrumental music was studied and copied across Ontario. Through the years his band was a consistent medal winner in the Toronto Kiwanis and in competitions across the United States and Europe. Many students went through his band and music program to become outstanding musicians today. However, many more developed an appreciation and love of music, which will remain with them all their lives.

As a history teacher in the classroom, he continued to challenge his students, often in a provocative manner. They learned, sometimes in spite of themselves.

Allan Fisher was a keen Canadian. He loved this country and its history.

Allan Fisher was a writer and researcher of our past. He published a number of books and prided himself on the accuracy of his research.

Allan Fisher has left a legacy of an acoustically fine auditorium which has been named after him. Fisher Auditorium is a 1,000 seat theatre which enables Barrie to bring in some of the finest of musicians.

Allan Fisher received two honorary doctorates, including one from his alma mater, Queen’s University, and was honoured by Canada with the award of the Order of Canada.

His wife, Eva, and their children developed the same love and fascination for music and history, as did everyone who came into contact with the man.

The Speaker: The member’s time has now expired.

Mr Owen: Allan Fisher leaves many friends behind him and all of us are the richer for having known him.

The Speaker: Thank you. That completes the allotted time for members’ statements.

Mr Kormos: I understand that we need unanimous consent to address the recent events in Romania.

The Speaker: There has been a request for unanimous consent. Is it agreed?

Agreed to.

EVENTS IN ROMANIA

Mr Kormos: Some time ago, on 1 May 1989, I addressed this House briefly about the plight of, among others, Hungarians in Transylvania, that part of Romania where there have been some 2.5 million Hungarians settled for generations. It is their homeland and only by virtue of the artificialities of man-made borders have they become, as it is, residents of the country of Romania rather than the country of Hungary, their native and their home land. These Hungarians in Transylvania, the 2.5 million people, have been the victims of persecution by a brutal Romanian regime for some time now.

Sadly, the press reports of last evening and this morning reveal an oppressiveness and a brutality that has spread beyond those victims in the Hungarian ethnic community of Transylvania. Indeed, reports indicate that there have been murders, assassinations, of not just a few but many people throughout Romania, young and old alike, with some special brutality directed at the Hungarians living in the country of Romania.

The federal government appears to have taken initial, but modest, steps to express concern. I would ask that this Legislature go well beyond that.

Red Fascists are what this government is and nothing less. It is the most brutal and oppressive type of government. It is a people who have suffered the chains of this oppression for a long, long time, and as I say, the Hungarians especially.

We in this House must condemn that brutality, must condemn that Red Fascism. We must call upon the Romanian government and its bosses like Ceausescu to cease immediately the brutality and assassination of their own countrypeople. This is an intolerable situation. We can but protest in the strongest of terms and utilize all the economic coercion that is available to us to ensure that it is terminated immediately so that freedom is finally granted to the Romanian people and those Hungarians living in Transylvania, that province or part of Romania that was once Hungary.

We condemn the conduct of that government. It is unacceptable in the 20th century, in a world that should recognize and favour and respect individuals and human liberties. It is a government that has long outlived its day. Its brutality is condemned and we should extend our prayers for those people who have had to endure it for so long and who now resist so bravely.

Mrs Marland: It is with great horror and sadness that Ontarians have learned of the massacre of dozens, possibly hundreds of Romanians by their own armed forces. We offer our heartfelt condolences to the Romanian people and any of their relatives here in Ontario. We also hope that this violent repression of peaceful demonstrations is an isolated incident in what has otherwise been a peaceful campaign for reform in eastern Europe.

This fall we have admired the courage of the eastern Europeans who have asserted their belief in full and equal participation in the political process, open expression without reprisal, free enterprise and, most important of all, religious choice. We have rejoiced in the result of their courage, which has been nothing short of peaceful revolution, that is, until the Romanian massacre.

We have, of course, worried that the governments of these Warsaw Pact nations would feel threatened by the demonstrations and the rapid changes. We are all too familiar with the violent use of force to maintain the status quo. Many of us remember the invasion that marked the tragic conclusion to the Prague spring in 1968. In more recent memory, we recall last June’s massacre of the Chinese students who protested in Tiananmen Square. We shared their hope and jubilation. Then we mourned for them. Now we feel that horror and grief again.

We hope that the violent events in Romania will not sway the governments of eastern European countries to abandon their process of reform. Democratic nations such as Canada must make it clear that we have great admiration for the eastern bloc’s recognition of the will for reform and for the peaceful management of the dramatic changes occurring in these countries. We must also offer our assistance in the rebuilding of their economies. Let us pray for the Romanian victims and for the success of reform throughout eastern Europe.

May the spirit of perestroika rise above the tragic events that we mark today and may we also be mindful as we celebrate this special season in this special province in the next few days of the suffering of other people throughout the world.

Mr Velshi: I too wish to express my party’s outrage at the horrible violation of human rights which is taking place, as we speak, in Romania. I spoke at a rally sponsored by the Romanian World Congress on this past weekend here in Queen’s Park, and myself and other speakers called for the same freedoms being granted to other eastern European citizens. Little did we know that as we spoke we would hear of reports of flagrant violations of human rights.

If these disturbing reports are confirmed, it means that the winds of change that we are witnessing across eastern Europe are being stifled in a most undemocratic, authoritarian manner. The Romanian government is placing itself in a disgraceful position of repressing freedom, democratic reform and respect for human rights. If the tides of change in eastern Europe have confirmed anything, it is that what cannot be denied cannot be suppressed. As many as 51,000 Canadians trace their roots to Romania, of which 18,000 live here in Toronto, in Ontario, and our thoughts go out to them and their relatives.

I am sure that all Ontarians will agree to strongly condemn any form of violence conducted by the Romanian authorities against their own people.

If those reports that are filtering through to us are true, it means Romanians in their struggle for freedom have died and are still dying. We pray for those who have died that their souls rest in eternal peace, for they will not have died in vain. They are the martyrs who have died for a just cause, a cause that many of us here are all too familiar with. The question we ask is, why is it necessary for anyone to die in that quest for freedom? This is not acceptable to us and it never will be.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

ELECTRICITY DEMAND AND SUPPLY

Hon Mrs McLeod: I would like to inform the House that Ontario Hydro has today submitted its demand/supply plan to the Minister of the Environment (Mr Bradley) for review under the Environmental Assessment Act. The plan contains Hydro’s forecast of electricity demand and supply over the next 25 years and its proposed options for meeting the needs indicated.

In view of the importance of this document, I have asked that detailed information on its contents be provided to all members and that the plan itself be made available on request.

As I announced here earlier, the plan will be subjected to a thorough environmental assessment and the public will be given the opportunity to review and comment on the proposals made by Hydro.

In making this announcement, I want to assure the House that the government is committed to a thorough and timely review of Ontario’s demand/supply plan so that Ontario will continue to have a supply of electricity that is both reliable and reasonably priced.

ACCESS FUND

Hon Ms Collins: It is my great pleasure to announce, on behalf of my colleague the Minister without Portfolio responsible for senior citizens’ affairs (Mr Morin) and myself as the Minister without Portfolio responsible for disabled persons, that the access fund will be extended for another three years, to 31 March 1993.

The program was created in June 1987 to help promote the independence and integration of disabled persons and senior citizens in this province. Funding for the next three-year period will be $15 million, bringing our government’s commitment to this program to $30 million.

As a direct result of the access fund, 353 renovation projects have already been carried out by community-based nonprofit organizations throughout our province, making their facilities barrier-free and accessible to everyone, including disabled and senior citizens.

During a recent program evaluation, we found that projects carried out under the access fund created for many Ontario communities their first truly accessible public facilities.

I am also pleased to announce that we are expanding the eligibility requirements of the access fund to include a broader range of organizations that might qualify for a matching grant; specifically: community-based nonprofit organizations which provide important services to seniors and persons with disabilities.

Services such as consumer advocacy, training and employment, volunteer services and volunteer co-ordination and shelter for victims of family violence will now be eligible to apply for access fund grants; the eligibility requirements of the access fund will also be expanded to allow organizations to equip their facilities with portable aids for people who are hard of hearing or deaf, equipment such as FM amplification systems and TDDs, telecommunication devices for the deaf, and for certain organizations which have the primary mandate of serving disabled persons and senior citizens such as consumer organizations and elderly/disabled persons’ centres, the access fund may provide up to 75 per cent of the total funding required.

The maximum grant for any individual project will continue to be $50,000.

The extension of the access fund for an additional three years and the broadening of the eligibility requirements for qualifying projects are a clear demonstration that this government is honouring its commitment to the disabled community of Ontario and to Ontario senior citizens.

PARENTAL LEAVE

Hon Mr Phillips: I would like to inform the members of this House about the progress that we are making on amendments to our Employment Standards Act to expand unpaid family leave. In October, as the members recall, I announced that my ministry would be undertaking public consultation on family leave legislation. That consultation process has been wide-ranging. We have heard from groups representing labour and business, as well as organizations that have the particular interests of women and family at heart.

These groups have been generally supportive of the government’s proposed direction, and their feedback has been very helpful. We will now review their comments and their concerns.

Our family leave legislation is partially linked to the upcoming federal legislation regarding unemployment insurance benefits. Currently, as the members know, the federal government pays unemployment insurance benefits to employees taking leave relating to birth or adoption. However, it is the province, through its labour legislation, that provides job protection to employees while they receive these benefits. Provincial law ensures that employees have jobs to return to when their leaves are completed.

A new federal policy on unemployment insurance benefits would increase the maximum benefits entitlement for natural mothers to 30 weeks from the current 15 weeks. And for the first time, natural fathers would be entitled to parental benefits.

It was anticipated that the federal bill bringing in these changes -- it is called Bill C-21 -- would be proclaimed on 1 January 1990, and that new unemployment insurance benefits for parents would be available from that date.

Mr Speaker, as I think you are now aware, it is uncertain whether the federal government will proclaim that bill at that time. Nevertheless, it is my intention to introduce family leave amendments to the Employment Standards Act in the new year. Part of our legislation will include a provision which will harmonize provincial law regarding job protection for workers with the federal government’s new parental benefits offered through the unemployment insurance system.

Our amendments will provide employees with job protection which, at a minimum, will parallel the additional parental unemployment insurance benefits that will be offered on the new federal policy. Should the federal benefits come into effect first, before our expanded job protection, we would expect employers to grant employees periods of parental leave that would be comparable with the federal benefits.

The consultation process that we have been engaged in has demonstrated already that there is co-operation among the workplace parties in the matter of family leave. I am confident that employers and employees will continue to resolve these matters co-operatively. I look forward to introducing family leave legislation extending the job protection offered to new parents at the earliest opportunity in the new year.

RESPONSES

ELECTRICITY DEMAND AND SUPPLY

Mr Charlton: I would like to take a few minutes to respond to the almost nonstatement by the Minister of Energy here this afternoon. I can understand why the minister would want to distance herself from the document which Hydro tabled with the Minister of the Environment today and submitted for environmental assessment. Having spent the morning reviewing this document, this document lays out in very clear terms all of those things that this government has failed to come to terms with over the course of the last four years.

This document reminds me of 1974 revisited. We had Ontario Hydro proposing to this Legislature the need for seven Darlington-sized nuclear plants, of which, as the members are well aware, we built one. Today we have Ontario Hydro back here proposing to build, in a very confusing fashion, somewhere between two and four more Darlington-sized nuclear plants, none of which we need but all of which Hydro feels it needs because of the failures of this government to come to terms with the major energy issues in this province.

For example, this document sets out Hydro’s beliefs that between now and the year 2014, it will only be able to find some 2,000 megawatts of new, independent generation in the province of Ontario. At the same time, the independent power producers of this province said, and said clearly, yesterday that if Ontario Hydro was prepared to pay them precisely the same energy rate that it is prepared to pay to the province of Manitoba to import power, those energy producers in this province, Ontario producers, could provide 8,000 megawatts of electricity, or 6,000 in addition to Hydro’s projections.

This government has failed to come to terms with the avoided-cost question and the buyback rate, and as a result, we have a plan that does not reflect anything near the reality or the potential for our energy future in the province of Ontario.

The Ministry of Energy has spent several hundred thousand dollars on energy efficiency studies, studies which have identified tens of thousands of megawatts of potential energy savings in Ontario at costs that are lower than the nuclear option in the province of Ontario. But because this government has failed to provide the direction to Ontario Hydro in terms of new initiatives for energy efficiency, we have Ontario Hydro proposing in this 25-year plan to capture far less than half of the potential which is identified in the ministry’s own studies.

The Minister of Energy can stand in this House and make a statement like this statement she made today attempting to absolve herself of all responsibility for its content and ensuring that it will get a thorough review, but this report that was tabled today, this proposal, this plan, is a reflection of this government and its lack of understanding of Ontario Hydro and the energy issues in Ontario.

ACCESS FUND

Mr Allen: I want to compliment the Minister without Portfolio responsible for disabled persons and the Minister without Portfolio responsible for senior citizens’ affairs in deciding to extend the access program for the disabled and seniors in this province.

My real unhappiness is that the fund was not doubled rather than simply continued, because we all know there is a very large unmet need out there. It is rather striking to note that while we are physically opening up buildings and facilities, we are not moving forward very fast with the opening of access to mainstream transportation, for instance, in this province and that the overall need we will need to meet with regard to physical access around this province will really only be known when we tackle the question of employment equity for the disabled in Ontario.

Only when, in fact, the disabled have access to work or have a need to move around this province for employment purposes as well as for personal and other social reasons will we know what the real need is, and at that point, the access funds will have to be much greater than they are.

ELECTRICITY DEMAND AND SUPPLY

Mr Cureatz: Mr Speaker, I know this being the Christmas season, you will allow some of the old Sam to come forward. I want to say to the Minister of Energy, this is unbelievable. One page, not even two sides; a major report concerning electrical production in the province of Ontario, and all the minister gives us is something without substance whatsoever.

It is enough to give a wolverine a heart attack. There is absolutely nothing here. It is the craziest thing I have ever seen in my life. This report was supposed to come out back in October, but someone from Europe was visiting with the Premier, so it had to be postponed until November and, finally, now.

It just so happens we are close to brownouts and blackouts in the province of Ontario, so at last the report can come forward so that this administration will not have to take the well due criticism it deserves.

The government has not planned for electrical production in Ontario since 1985, none whatsoever. Even when the illustrious Conservative Party of Ontario lost office, through the accord, I might add, Darlington at least was still being built, much to the chagrin of this present administration.

Now, what do we get from the report? I will tell members, typical Ontario Hydro. With all due respect, God bless it, it turned off the sign, at least in my riding, that says “Season’s Greetings” after we were complaining about the usage of electricity. I will say to my colleague the member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr Charlton) -- and I give him credit; he brought this forward many times to all those various select committees and to the critics of Hydro -- it is overkill. Look at this stuff. Holy smokes, you need a tandem dump truck to lug this stuff around, and what do we get? For the few minutes that I have got, let us look at the

summary of the report.

“Why Ontario Needs an Electrical Plan”: In one sentence, because people need electricity. But no, they have got to put out a huge report. I will have to speak to the deputy minister about this again.

Now this is really great,

chapter 2, “People Using Electricity.” What can you say about that? People go turn on the switch, they turn on the television, they push the buttons on the microwave. They come out with a huge report: people use electricity. A real insight. I cannot believe it.

Finally, “Finding a Balanced Solution”: If you turn to the appropriate page -- and this is great -- they talk about computer plans and makeups. Our illustrious Premier (Mr Peterson) went to Manitoba, and I know there is no other place he would rather be in the middle of winter than in Winnipeg signing a $15-billion contract -- with a Tory government, I might add -- when the money should have been spent in Ontario so that we would have our own plant and our own jobs.

So what do we come up with? We come up with what we have been saying for a long time. Probably case 15 is what this government is going to have to decide. But we know what they are up to. Yes, we do. They are going to wait until after the election and then they are going to announce probably another nuclear station. Shame on them.

ACCESS FUND

Mrs Marland: I wish to respond very briefly to the statement by the Minister without Portfolio responsible for disabled persons (Ms Collins). I want to ensure just one thing, and that is that although this is a joint announcement from this minister and the Minister without Portfolio responsible for senior citizens’ affairs (Mr Morin), when this fund was originally announced by the former minister, the member for Essex South (Mr Mancini), it was announced as $15 million for three years. During estimates I discovered that $15 million had not been spent, and when that money was not allocated it did not automatically flow through to the next year.

I want to be sure that, as exciting as this $30-million announcement is -- $15 million plus $15 million -- it will be $30 million spent for the disabled community in Ontario, because this community is very deserving. They absolutely need it, but we do not want announcements that are reannouncements and then find, because the money is not flowed through to those groups, that it flows back into the consolidated revenue fund. Please ensure that this happens.

ORAL QUESTIONS

ELECTRICITY DEMAND AND SUPPLY

Mr B. Rae: I have a question to the Premier, who at one time was a critic of Hydro and now has become an apologist for Hydro. It is my understanding from a source within Hydro that the cost for the design, the typesetting, the printing and the publication of these reports, plus the third volume overview, was some $1.84 million. Interestingly enough, the environmental analysis is printed on recycled paper but of course the demand-supply plan report is not printed on recycled paper. That shows the degree of the commitment to environmental analysis. That is the true definition of Liberalism.

My question to the minister is this, and it is a serious question: Given the fact that Hydro has this kind of power and these kinds of resources in putting forward its institutional point of view, its stake in more nuclear power, its stake in more growth --

The Speaker: Question.

Mr B. Rae: -- and in complete expansion of the system, what is going to happen to ensure that citizens and other people who are concerned about this future have an equal stake and an equal power in achieving a fair result in terms of Ontario’s energy future?

The Speaker: Premier?

Hon Mr Peterson: I am sorry. At one point the member said “Premier” and at one point he said “minister.”

I want to thank my honourable friend for that very substantial question that he raises. Let me respond to my friend and say I do not know if the figures he uses in this House are correct or not, but it is obvious that a plan of this type is going to be scrutinized in every single detail. The member is quite right: I was a critic of Ontario Hydro, and I think he will notice that enormous changes have gone on in Ontario Hydro in the last little while, a direct result of some of the very knowledgeable and thoughtful criticism that we levelled when we were in opposition. We have rectified all the problems.

The member is still using the same old criticisms. He has not taken into account yet the enormous changes that have gone on in Hydro. Hydro has put forward its plan in the House today, and as my honourable friend will be aware, there will be a full environmental assessment of this matter. There is no question about that. It will all be subjected to public scrutiny. There will be, I expect, a very active, lively debate on all aspects of the report, as there has been in the past. I had many criticisms of Ontario Hydro, as my friend is aware.

He is aware of the changes under the Power Corporation Act, the memorandum of understanding, the dramatic changes that have gone on, the buys outside the province, the conservation programs. My honourable friend, knowledgeable as he is, is aware that we have affected major change at Ontario Hydro.

Mr B. Rae: There has been far more change in the position of the Liberal Party and in the position of the leader of the Liberal Party than there ever has been in Ontario Hydro, I can tell members that right now. That is the change that is significant.

It is ironic that the day before Ontario Hydro is presenting its view as to the very best that it can do in terms of buying from alternative producers of power within Ontario, the day before it says this is the very best it can do, the Independent Power Producers’ Society of Ontario told us that, “If you give us the same deal as you gave Manitoba, we can increase fourfold the amount that is produced in Ontario.” That is the statement from the independent power producers of Ontario.

Just what is the Premier going to do within his own government to make sure that there is an alternative view to Hydro? Where is the conservationist alternative perspective going to come from within his own government to take on the forces of uncontrolled growth as represented by Ontario Hydro?

Hon Mr Peterson: My friend has this conspiracy theory of life, that everybody is conspiring together to get him and his own theories. I ask my honourable friend to scrutinize the report. I think he would not want to jump to any superficial conclusions. He would want to look at all aspects of it. He would want to look at the conservation, he would want to look at the cogeneration, he would want to look at the changes that have already gone on with respect to cogeneration and how that fits into the plans, and then he would want to come up with a thoughtful, balanced, reflective view as opposed to just a quick jump at a report that he has obviously not had time to reflect on.

Mr B. Rae: I asked the Premier a very specific question. I asked him three times. I want to ask him again: What is he doing within his own government to ensure that the taxpayers of this province have an alternative point of view that is funded, that is ready, that is there and that is going to present an alternative to the institutional power that is represented by Ontario Hydro? What is he going to do ensure that view is represented?

Hon Mr Peterson: There is no conspiracy by Ontario Hydro to beat the member into oblivion. That is not the case. Their responsibility is to provide power at cost in this province. They have a variety of options on how to do that, and they are going to be presented for public scrutiny. The member just may have a lot better, more thoughtful ideas himself about how to run Ontario Hydro. There will be intervener funding, there will be a full public scrutiny and review and many groups will have views and want to express those. We welcome those, and I think everyone would want to be engaged in this debate, now and for the future.

As my honourable friend knows, it is a multipronged strategy, both on the demand side and on the supply side. Alternatives have been put forward and will be thoroughly scrutinized. If the member has better ideas on how to run Ontario Hydro, he should stand up and tell us. If he has better ideas on how to provide hydro 10, 20, 30 years from now, then we will want to hear those and we will want to scrutinize those as well. But I can tell my honourable friend it is all there. He will have many opportunities to present his views, as will other interested people. We believe that it is a sensible, democratic way to make the kinds of decisions that are going to have to be made.

CHILD POVERTY

Mr B. Rae: My question is to the Minister of Health. One of the disturbing facts about life in Ontario today is that poverty has a direct impact on the health of everyone, but it has a particularly dramatic effect on the health of kids.

It has recently been discovered that the two-year survival rate for children with acute lymphoblastic leukaemia was only 28 per cent for kids in a low socioeconomic group and 51 per cent for those in a higher socioeconomic group. That is just one example, but I think it is a particularly dramatic one.

The experts say that the outcome for poor children may be due to such factors as more advanced disease at the time of diagnosis, inadequate access to health care, poor compliance with therapy or poor nutrition. All of these things are having an impact on whether or not kids who get leukaemia survive.

My question for the minister is this: The studies from the public health experts are growing. They are overwhelmingly clear that the biggest factor in determining health among kids is how much money they have, what kind of food they can get and what their status in life is. I want to ask the minister why her ministry is not tackling the problem of poverty head on and seeing it as a major public health issue in the province?

Hon Mrs Caplan: I want to thank the Leader of the Opposition for raising what I think is a very important issue. We all know that the goal of our health care system is to improve the health of our population. It is the reason that we are conducting health status surveys and that we are acknowledging that health is far more than just the treatment of illness.

When we talk about the need to shift resources on the basis of outcomes -- and he used the word, I think, most appropriately -- and we talk about health promotion and disease prevention, we rely on those very kinds of research studies to help us make sure that our health programs, as they are developed within the Ministry of Health, respond to the need for appropriate care for the people of this province.

Mr B. Rae: I did not hear an answer to my question. I asked the minister why she is not transferring resources within her own ministry to ensure that poor kids who get cancer have as much a chance at life and survival as rich kids who get cancer. That is a very specific question. I want to ask the minister why she is not transferring resources within her own ministry to deal with this crisis. The fact of the matter is that poverty is the key determinant of public health in the province today. It is the key determinant factor in what happens to survival rates among young kids with cancer, something as basic as that.

I am asking the minister what she is doing within her own ministry to transfer resources to deal with poverty as a health issue, because it is a health issue.

Hon Mrs Caplan: When we talk about the provision of appropriate services, when we talk about the need to ensure that our resources are used most effectively to respond to what people really need, we must look at what the determinants of health are. We know that the creation of wealth is the single most important determinant of our health. We know that health, as I said, is not simply the treatment of illness but a resource for living.

I would say to the member that the very foundation and the principles of our medicare system, which are universal access, reasonable access, comprehensiveness of our approach to programs and portability in public administration, allow us to establish the kinds of priorities that would let us focus on health promotion and disease prevention opportunities.

I would say to him that our commitment under Bill 94 to eliminate user fees and to eliminate extra billing was a significant step forward to meeting those objectives. I would say as well that this is a very important debate --

The Speaker: Order.

Mr B. Rae: The Toronto Board of Health is now beginning to do studies which I think are going to have a major impact on public health, not only in this city but across the province and indeed across North America. All the initial studies of the medical officer of health in Toronto establish that one in three kids is going to school hungry, and that hunger among kids is the most pressing public health issue facing our young people today in this community. I am asking the minister specifically what she is going to do to transfer resources so that young kids get some food.

Hon Mrs Caplan: As the Leader of the Opposition knows, this year we will spend some $13.9 billion in the Ministry of Health. We know that the system that we have in place is a good one and that some 80 per cent of the resources being used are appropriate and leading to appropriate care. That does mean that we can, through quality assurance and effectiveness evaluation of everything that we are doing, look at how we can make sure that resources are made available for programs which will lead to better health outcomes and improve the health status of the people of this province.

Not only are we concerned about the treatment of illness; I am particularly concerned about improving health and having a healthier life for our children. I would say to the member that if he will work with us to look at how we can evaluate and monitor the effectiveness of our programs to ensure appropriate care, we can look at the appropriate reallocation and the shift from inappropriate --

The Speaker: Thank you.

ELECTRICITY DEMAND AND SUPPLY

Mr Brandt: My question is for the Minister of Energy. I want to relate to the power supply study that was released today and that has been discussed earlier in this House.

Ontario Hydro indicates that there are going to be serious shortages, as the minister is aware, in the Hydro power supply that will be available by the mid-1990s. We are already, as she is also well aware, suffering from shortages now that are causing plants to be shut down as a result of the inadequate supply of power.

Given the length of time that would be involved in the proposed approval process with the environmental review, the specific site review, public review, government review, all of those necessary steps that have to be taken, and recognizing when this power is needed, which is virtually immediately, what is the estimate of her ministry with respect to the time required for Ontario Hydro to get through the approval process for either a fossil fuel or a nuclear plant, if that is the final decision that is made?

Hon Mrs McLeod: Before I address the specific question in terms of the anticipated time lines, I would like to acknowledge, as I have in the past in this House, that the decision about the environmental approval process was one which was worked out jointly with the Ministry of the Environment and in full consultation with Ontario Hydro, recognizing that we were absolutely committed to having a full public review, going through the environmental approvals process, but at the same time wanted to do that in as timely a fashion as possible, recognizing the concerns for reliability of electricity supply.

So all of the planning that has gone into the approvals process relates to the kinds of concerns the honourable member is raising.

In terms of the specific time frame, We are in a position, because of having determined the process, to begin a government review immediately. That is a six-month process. The first phase of the hearings on the basic nature of the plans would take approximately 18 months to two years. That would be followed by site-specific hearings dealing with whatever options are approved at the end of the first phase of the hearings.

Mr Brandt: The minister well knows that even if all the approvals were in place today, it would take at the very least a decade before a new plant could be up and operating, with all of the best intentions, and probably longer given an extensive review process as approved, which I understand is necessary. What I am concerned about is the kind of procrastination, the kind of dithering that has gone on and the wasted years in getting on with the job that is absolutely essential and that has to be done.

This government, under her ministry, has not moved quickly enough to bring this matter forward to the point where it can serve the power needs of this province. We are going through an extremely difficult period --

The Speaker: And the question might be.

Mr Brandt: -- as she is well aware and what is happening is that these shortages are going to become more and more critical. Is her government committed to any kind of a specific program with respect to approvals so that she can get on with the job that has to be done, because I tell her she is putting the economic growth of this province in jeopardy --

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mrs McLeod: I would remind the honourable member that in fact it is Ontario Hydro’s mandate to carry out the planning necessary to ensure that there is reliable electricity delivered to the consumers of this province. What we have done in dealing with our response to Ontario Hydro’s planning process is not at all to procrastinate but in fact to have in place a process before the plan was tabled with government to be able to carry out the approvals process for that plan as quickly as possible. The government review process will begin first thing in the new year.

We anticipate that it will be completed at the conclusion of the six-month period and public hearings can begin immediately after that.

Mr Cureatz: In the most humble, quiet manner that I can, and now that the minister will have the opportunity to respond, as she did not on my opening dialogue, in terms of her insignificant statement, the truth of the matter is that she is waiting until after the next provincial election, when the then former Treasurer of Ontario becomes chairman of Ontario Hydro, to finally make the decision that they are going to have to build another nuclear plant. Yes or no, they are waiting until after the next election?

Hon Mrs McLeod: No, that is not the basis for determining the approvals process that would be brought to bear on Ontario Hydro’s plans. I would again stress the fact -- and this is not an attempt to distance myself in any way from the issues but to recognize the reality that the responsibility for planning is Hydro’s -- Hydro has brought forward a plan today and tabled that with us. We are absolutely committed to a full public review of the issues that are involved in the planning for our electricity choices of the future. We have that process in place. That is a commitment which we would make at any time or any stage of the planning process for provision of electricity in Ontario.

Just to reassure the honourable member, if we look very carefully at the plans that have been tabled, Ontario Hydro does have plans to meet the more immediate needs of the electricity system and has fully anticipated the length of time which it will take to carry out this approvals process.

Mr Brandt: To the same minister, she indicates that the process is in the hands of and in the control of Ontario Hydro as it relates to the supply of the additional power requirements of the province. That being the case, could I ask then the minister to explain the comments made by her Premier (Mr Peterson) relative to the construction of and the need for Darlington over the course of the past couple of years?

Hon Mrs McLeod: I would want the honour-able member to be much more specific in referencing particular comments that he would like me to address. I can certainly address the issue of this government’s position and our goals in terms of working with Ontario Hydro to meet the electricity needs of this province. We would share the goal of ensuring that there is reliable electricity provided at reasonable cost, and we bring that additional commitment of ensuring that any supply of electricity and any decisions about options are sensitive and responsive to environmental concerns.

That has been very much a consistent position of the Premier and of this government and it is a position which we carry into the review of Ontario Hydro’s plans.

Mr Brandt: I appreciate the minister asking me to be more specific and so I will be. The comments that I have some concerns about, as they relate to the administration and the management of Ontario Hydro by Ontario Hydro, were statements to the effect that there was some real concern on the part of the Premier about whether or not Darlington was in fact even needed, whether nuclear power was the option that should be considered by Ontario.

I wonder if the minister has taken into account the direction that has already been established by her government as it relates to the various alternatives that might be available to Ontario Hydro. Is she now saying that the nuclear option is back on the table as a viable alternative for future power generation in this province --

The Speaker: Minister.

Mr Brandt: -- because that would run contrary to the specific statements made by --

The Speaker : The question was asked.

Hon Mrs McLeod: The honourable member raises, I think, two very separate issues, one being the whole question of the accountability of Ontario Hydro and the relationship between the government and the Ministry of Energy and Ontario Hydro. I think there have been a number of ways in which those concerns have been addressed, including amendments to the Power Corporation Act which were introduced and recently passed by this Legislature.

In terms specifically of the nuclear option, which is a part of the plans which Ontario Hydro has presented, and concerns that have been raised, certainly by members of this government in opposition and which continue to be raised by members of this party while in government, there are concerns about issues of the safety of nuclear plants, about waste disposal; the same kinds of concerns that members will hear reflected in the public in general. Those kinds of concerns have to be addressed.

We have undertaken studies to address them; the Atomic Energy Control Board has undertaken studies to address them; we are in fact committed to addressing those concerns, because there is nuclear power generation in Ontario and there will continue to be, whatever decisions are made about future choices.

Mr Cureatz: In fear of having to oblige the member for Niagara Falls (Mr Kerrio), who has just sent me a note, “Turn in your uniform,” might I say to the minister, would she please advise us then, in terms of the concerns that she and this administration have for the planning process of ensuring Ontario residents and industry have an adequate supply of electricity, what will the select committee of energy be doing in January and February? Will the minister please share that with the members of the House so that people across Ontario will feel confident that there is some kind of planning process taking place?

Hon Mrs McLeod: I am not sure whether or not, in a supplementary question, the member still wants me to address the issue of the long-term planning of Ontario Hydro and the process that we have decided upon for review of those plans, because quite clearly we have made a decision to refer that to the Environmental Assessment Board, which has a quasi-judicial role to play and which we feel is the most appropriate and effective forum for having a full public review of those very essential long-term questions.

Asking me about the select committee on energy is, I feel, a somewhat different question, although I recognize that the select committee has been very much involved over the years in the kinds of issues that are going to be addressed through the planning process review.

There are a great many issues related to our energy choices in the future and I think the select committee will be involved in at least one or more of those issues over the next few months. It will have a very important role to play and we are discussing that with the chairman of the committee.

LAND USE PERMIT

Mr Wildman: I have a question to the same minister in her capacity of being responsible for the stewardship of Ontario’s natural resources regarding the Kinoje project. Can the minister explain why her ministry issued a land use permit on the traditional lands of the Kashechewan first nation with little or no proper consultation with the people of the first nation?

Hon Mrs McLeod: I would have to ask the honourable member to provide me with more specifics of that particular land use permit for me to able to comment on it or to pursue it in greater depth.

Mr Wildman: I would be glad to provide further information to the minister. The minister should be aware that the Muskegowuk first nation’s declaration of rights includes the statement, “We have the right to be guardians of the land and its resources.

In light of that and the commitment made by the Attorney General (Mr Scott) last week to negotiate Indian self-government, does the minister think it appropriate for her ministry to issue a land use permit on lands that are part of a trapline and thus interfere with the rights of the citizens of the first nation without first discussing the whole issue with the chief in council, and if she does think it inappropriate, would she revoke the land use permit until proper consultation takes place and the first nation has given its approval for the project?

Hon Mrs McLeod: I would really have to ask for an opportunity to review both the land use permit specifically and its intent before I could respond in detail to the member’s question, but I would certainly want to indicate that I am completely in support of the initiatives that were announced by the minister responsible for native affairs (Mr Scott) last week. My ministry and I share a commitment to working with the peoples of the first nations in order to work with the partnerships which they have proposed in terms of their access to the resources of our lands.

As well, I know the minister responsible for native affairs has a commitment to carrying forward discussion on specific land claim issues. We are prepared to do that with each of the first nation groups that comes forward and wishes to have those discussions with us.

EMPLOYER HEALTH LEVY

Mr Pope: My question is for the Premier with respect to Bill 47, the employer health tax. In the last couple of weeks, we have received a number of letters and many calls from small business particularly, and also those who are labour-intensive, and specifically I have received a couple of calls from firms who claim that their salary costs are 60 to 70 per cent of total income and their gross profit margin is the equivalent of five per cent of total wages paid. They claim that because of the employer health tax, 40 per cent of that profit margin is now going to be taken by an ad valorem payroll tax.

They also claim that because of this they have to reassess whether or not they are going to continue in business at all and, second, whether or not they are going to continue to employ the number of people they now employ or any employees at all.

What I want to ask is, did the Premier really contemplate, in this time of recession and layoffs announced in the media, this kind of economic effect from his employer health tax when he introduced it?

Hon Mr Peterson: The Treasurer has thought out all of these matters and he will explain his thinking to the member, since the member has not been here very often lately.

Hon R. F. Nixon: I am very glad that the Premier continues to have confidence in my ability to think through these difficult matters, and as usual, he is entirely correct. I can tell the honourable member that we reviewed the situation very carefully. We are not the first jurisdiction that has applied a payroll tax, and this one is directly associated with the provision of our medicare program.

I think he would be aware from his own days in government that the program involving premiums, which we have, until the end of this month, has been funding, or did fund in those days, just under 20 per cent of the cost of OHIP. We froze these costs when we took office, and as the costs of medicare expanded, these sank in their efficiency in funding medicare until they are presently about 13 per cent of the costs of medicare.

It became apparent that we had to have a better and more appropriate method for funding medicare and that gave rise to the payroll tax that the Legislature has been good enough to approve in all but its third reading component. We look forward to that some time in the next few hours.

We are aware, and the honourable member would be aware, that essentially the same amount of money that was collected from industry and employers by way of premiums will now be collected through the payroll tax, except for one thing. We have deliberately raised the share of the revenue from 13 per cent to 16 per cent, which we think is fair and equitable. We know that in some instances businesses are going to find this difficult to levy, but we feel that it is fair and essential if we are going to continue to fund medicare.

Mr Pope: The Treasurer was so concerned about it he never bothered doing an economic impact analysis of Bill 47 before he introduced it. The Premier, while he is here, does not deem it necessary to reply to job losses, does not find it necessary to lower himself to deal with the economic impact of his inflationary tax policies; it is beneath him to worry about --

The Speaker: Order. With respect, I recognized the member to place a supplementary to the Treasurer.

Mr Pope: My question to the Treasurer is: While he obviously, from his answer, did not consider the job impact of Bill 47, could he tell me why there is no contemplation of the following effects of Bill 47? For a worker over the age of 65 who is employed and the company was paying OHIP premiums for its employees; prior to Bill 47 it did not have to pay OHIP premiums for an employee over the age of 65 but now will have to pay the payroll tax.

A small business that employed a husband and wife in the business, formerly could pay the OHIP premium on a family rate. Now they will have to pay a two per cent payroll tax on the basis of both salaries.

Why were these detrimental impacts on small business employing people over the age of 65, or employing couples, never contemplated when the Treasurer introduced this legislation?

Hon R. F. Nixon: Mr Speaker, I am sure you would know that those matters were carefully considered and we think that in fact we have increased the equity for small business, because we have applied a rate that is simply half the standard rate that is applied to business in general. Instead of 1.95 it is less than one per cent and we feel that this is a bargain indeed to small business.

As a matter of fact, to some of the businesses in the province that are actually employing people at the minimum wage, the cost is less than an extra five cents an hour. For that, we have a program which is generally considered, and all sensible people, including the Minister of Health (Mrs Caplan), would agree among the best in the world.

DOWNSVIEW REHABILITATION CENTRE

Mr Polsinelli: My question is to the Minister of Labour. As the minister knows, the Downsview Rehabilitation Centre is located in my riding of Yorkview but the Workers’ Compensation Board has decided to decentralize medical rehabilitation services across the province to offer injured workers treatment closer to their homes. While we know that the Downsview site will be undergoing changes, no specific date or time frame has been given, and according to the board, it will be some time before a final decision will be made with respect to the site. Can the minister shed some light on this situation and inform us as to what process has been established to determine the future use of the lands?

Hon Mr Phillips: The timing of the closing of that site, and I know the member has a good deal of interest in it, as do his constituents, is timed very much to the ability of the board to implement its decentralized strategy, as the member has mentioned. What the board has been doing is to designate, I think, about 100 community clinics, which it has now done. It has designated 11 or 12 regional assessment centres, which now has been done.

Actually, coincidentally, as we speak. the board is announcing this afternoon the final phase of that decentralization, which is its medical rehabilitation institute. They will announce that this afternoon. Having those things in place, it is my understanding that the Workers Compensation Board plans to close that facility some time in 1991.

Mr Polsinelli: As the minister knows, this is an issue of concern to many of my constituents who live in the area and are afraid that the board will give them a final decision with no input. Can the minister assure me and the members of the community that the local citizens will be involved in any decision made with respect to the use of those lands?

Hon Mr Phillips: I hope I can provide at least partial reassurance to the member. Now that the project in terms of decentralization and the closing of that facility is well under way, I understand the board is beginning to turn its attention to what use it will make of that asset. That is a site of 65 acres, I think, and is obviously of considerable value to the Workers’ Compensation Board.

Having said all of that, I would urge the member and his constituents to become involved with the board at this stage, in terms of thoughts they might have for that facility. I must emphasize that, frankly, the final decision will be the board’s, but it is one where I think it would welcome input from the local community. Because it is now beginning to turn its attention to the matter, I think now is the time that the member and his constituents might want to begin to let their views be known.

PAY EQUITY

Mr Mackenzie: I have a question of the Minister of Labour. The Libbey Owens Ford plant in Lindsay has become notorious for its contempt for the labour and safety and health laws in Ontario. Its recent handling of the strike was followed by a refusal to deal with grievances and by time limits arbitrarily set on grievances.

But my concern is the pay equity legislation, which is the latest law in Ontario under attack.

Subsections 9(2) and 14(1) and (2) say it is incumbent upon companies to negotiate, set up a committee and talk about the pay equity problems in that particular plant.

Libbey Owens Ford called the chairperson of that committee into the office and insisted that she sign a document stating they did not need to set up a committee and that everything was A-okay, they did not need to hold any discussions in terms of the pay equity legislation.

What is the minister going to do to see that these kinds of actions do not make a mockery out of the pay equity issue in Ontario?

Hon Mr Phillips: The member did raise this, I think, in a statement in the House recently. I did inquire of the Pay Equity Commission of Ontario whether it had any complaints from that particular union. At least at that time, they informed me they had not.

I would say two things. One is that I would urge that if the union is having difficulty, it take advantage of the services of the Pay Equity Commission. It is their role to help to ensure that this legislation goes smoothly, and certainly as we are now, I guess, less than two weeks away from the time when companies with 500 or more employees and the public sector must post their plans. I hope that organizations would take advantage of the services of the Pay Equity Commission to resolve matters such as this. I have been led to believe that the commission has not heard from the union in this matter, so I urge it to take advantage of those services.

Mr Mackenzie: If we are going to seriously redress the issue of gender discrimination, these kinds of actions cannot be allowed. As the minister knows, this union has had to go to to the Ministry of Labour and the health and safety people on an almost monthly basis in this particular plant. This is but the latest example of their disregard for the law. What is the minister doing generally to monitor it? Does it require in every case a request from the workers involved? What about those workers who do not have an active or powerful union such as this one? What is the minister doing to monitor the implementation of this legislation when these kinds of actions are going on in Ontario?

Hon Mr Phillips: We have established the commission with considerable resources. It has a fine staff who are trained and available for just these sorts of matters, to help ensure that the pay equity legislation is smoothly implemented. It is, as I think all members know, without question the most progressive piece of pay equity legislation in North America. No one disputes that. Everyone who is involved in pay equity would acknowledge that, and I take my cap off to the Attorney General (Mr Scott), who spearheaded this legislation two years ago.

The Pay Equity Commission is responsible for implementing that. They are available to assist in just these sorts of matters, and I would urge the unions and companies and employees to take advantage of the very fine services that they offer. It is in the interest of all of us to make certain that this progressive legislation is implemented so we do redress some of these matters of equity unfairness.

NONTRADITIONAL OCCUPATIONS

Mr Jackson: I have a question for the Minister of Skills Development. With his recent announcement, last Friday, of the destructuring of the Ministry of Skills Development, I am concerned about the status of one of the minister’s recent promises. In September 1989, in an issue of his document Skills Letter, he stated that: “The skills ministry will increase the number of women being trained in nontraditional occupations by 3,000 more women by the year 1992.

That is 1,000 more women each year.” During estimates it was revealed that the number of women actually entering nontraditional occupations through his apprenticeship program actually decreased in relative terms last year, from 4.59 per cent down to 4.41 per cent. Finally, according to his government’s own projections, an economic recession is on the horizon. How can he, as Minister of Skills Development, ensure that 3,000 more women will enrol in nontraditional occupations with the economy and his government’s own apprenticeship statistics in relative decline?

Hon Mr Conway: The government has undertaken a realignment of a number of the programs that have traditionally been housed within the Ministry of Skills Development because we are particularly concerned at meeting the future needs that have been identified in the community and in the economy. Unlike a predecessor government, we have set very real and, we think, achievable targets to improve the participation of women in the nontraditional areas in so far as the economy is concerned. We have got a number of projects up and running at the present time.

The Ontario women’s directorate has been closely involved with the Ministry of Skills Development. I am certainly very confident that we are going to be able to meet the targets that were set some time ago in terms of increasing female participation in these key areas.

Mr Jackson: The problem, and this government’s inability to deal with this, is not as new as the minister would have us believe. The Ministry of Skills Development identified a serious lack of women in nontraditional occupations as early as 1987, almost three years ago. The then minister responsible for women’s issues, the member for St George-St David (Mr Scott), tabled a document in Halifax entitled Training Women in the Workplace. It spoke at length to his government’s commitment to women’s equality. Yet the number of women entering nontraditional occupations has increased by a mere 103 in the last year and, according to projections, will only increase by about 60 more women this year.

In short, the minister’s government’s commitment to women’s workplace equality is increasing at a decreasing rate. In light of his failure with this program, will the minister explain why he is dismantling the Ministry of Skills Development and why he --

The Speaker: That sounds like a supplementary.

Mr Jackson: -- has dismantled it into six other ministries, and yet nowhere is the Minister without Portfolio responsible for women’s issues (Mrs Wilson) being indicated --

The Speaker: Order. I asked the member for “a” supplementary.

Hon Mr Conway: I do not deny that there is a very real challenge out there for all of us in the community to meet. It would be very foolhardy to imagine that government is going to be able to do this alone, because clearly we are going to have to change attitudes. We must all recognize that as we face a situation where the workforce is going to be 50 per cent female by the end of the 1990s, we have simply got to change the way we do business.

We are going to be effecting major change in counselling at the elementary and secondary levels in education because we want to ensure that girls in elementary and secondary education understand the opportunities that will be available to them in the skilled trades area.

There have been very progressive steps taken by, for example, Local 27 of the carpenters’ union. They have undertaken a program to increase the female participation in that trade. There is a program in Ottawa to do the same in another area of the skilled sector. As far as the redeployment of the programs under Skills Development --

Mr Jackson: Come on, Sean. Women don’t scare you that much, do they?

The Speaker: Order. The member for Burlington South does not seem to appear too interested. I would also remind the member that on many occasions I have asked all members to address their comments through the chair. Not the minister; I am informing the member for Burlington South who seemed to have a very bold interjection.

RED MEAT II

Miss Roberts: My question is to the Minister of Agriculture and Food. I recently was contacted by two of my constituents, Robert and John Brown of Fingal, who indicated to me that they were experiencing some difficulty with the health management component of the Red Meat II program. Under that component, producers are encouraged to consult with veterinarians in order to identify means of improving productivity in their herds. This requires two consultative visits by the veterinarian at least 30 days apart.

The difficulty for my constituents, and no doubt for many other producers, is that the details of the health management component were not announced in a sufficient time to fulfil the program requirement to meet the deadline of 31 December 1989. Could the minister indicate if he is prepared to rectify this?

Hon Mr Ramsay: I would like to thank the member for Elgin not only for asking the question but for bringing this matter to my attention. I have reviewed this situation with my officials and have decided to extend the deadline three months for the consultative health studies to take place, so instead of ending --

[Applause]

Hon Mr Ramsay: I am also pleased to have the support of my fellow members on this decision and to know the team is behind me on this decision.

This will allow time for the producer and the veterinarian to plan to carry out the consultative health study and to plan that out at their convenience, so that we have a good farm management program developed on each of the applicants’ operations.

I will also be informing our county offices to inform the applicants and we will be directing this information through the media also.

Miss Roberts: I am very pleased to hear that the minister is addressing that problem with the Red Meat II program, but now that I have a chance, could he also tell me if there are any other problems with the Red Meat II program or at least update us on how it is going along?

Hon Mr Ramsay: There are no other problems on the Red Meat II program. As members know -- now that we have that one fixed up -- the Red Meat II plan was announced in June or July of last year as a follow-up to the very successful original red meat plan that helped producers in Ontario with herd management. It would be of interest to members that goat meat has now been added to the plan, so it is now sheep, beef and goat meat. This is going to offer increased efficiency, competitiveness and productivity and quality assurance for all our livestock producers in Ontario.

SALE OF LIQUOR

Mr Hampton: My question is for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. His ministry has established and is establishing a number of agency stores to sell liquor and beer around the province. Can he tell me, does he as minister approve of liquor being sold in stores where someone can also purchase a rifle and ammunition at the same time or does he approve of liquor and beer being sold in stores where someone can fill up his tank with gas and buy a six-pack of beer for the road? Does he approve of those kinds of retailing techniques?

Hon Mr Sorbara: Let me tell my friend that I approve of having a distribution system for beverage alcohol in the province that combines two matters and two policy issues.

The first is to make sure that one is responding appropriately to consumer demands. That is why members have seen, over the past few years under this government, a series of initiatives that respond to changing consumer tastes.

The second thing that is fundamental to the principle of the distribution of alcohol in this province is the socially responsible use of alcohol.

Those are the principles that drive all our decisions on how and where and at what times of the day and at what locations we sell beverage alcohol in this province, and I think we have done a darned good job at it.

Mr Hampton: I noticed which principle came first in the minister’s statement: consumer demand. His government claims that it is committed and opposed to drinking and driving. His government says that it is opposed to violence in our society. He must acknowledge that there is a high correlation in terms of the relationship between alcohol consumption and violence.

He must acknowledge that when he sells alcohol and beer out of a gas station, he is sending a very clear message to people. How does he justify those kinds of sales techniques’? Is it again, as he said in his first principle, simply --

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Sorbara: My friend the member for Rainy River is really expressing absolute and patent nonsense to the other members of this House. If you followed his logic, you would bring in regulations that would require everyone to walk to a Liquor Control Board of Ontario store to ensure that they are not carrying beverage alcohol in their car as they drive home. It is absolute silliness, and that kind of silliness does not help one iota in working out the combination of these two principles.

I have no problem at all with an individual going to a store and buying alcohol and putting it in his car and then going to a gas station and filling up his car because in order to get home the car has to be filled with gas. I cannot tell him any more on this subject.

PLASTICS RECYCLING

Mr Sterling: I have a question of the Minister of the Environment. Last week, the member for Nepean (Mr Daigeler) praised a report on the pilot project to recycle plastics in Nepean. He said the Barrhaven experience showed that plastics recovery for recycling is feasible for communities where the blue box program exists. What he failed to say was that the city of Nepean has decided to cancel the program because it is uneconomic.

The city spent $1,750 per tonne to collect and ship plastic recyclable containers for a return of a mere $145 a tonne. The minister has been quoted as saying the Barrhaven experiment has proven that plastics recycling works. How does the minister draw that conclusion?

Hon Mr Bradley: What the opponents of recycling will continue to say unfortunately -- and when I hear others chiming in, “What do you think of that?” I have to say that this has long been the argument against recycling. l can tell the member there are people today, even in 1989, I say to the member, who are strongly opposed to recycling. The reason is they fail to look at the cost of landfilling.

When you are looking at the cost of landfilling, you must first of all look at the cost of siting a landfill; that is, going through an environmental process to site a landfill. Second, you must look at the cost of the operation under more stringent rules today than ever before, the operation of a landfill. Third, there is the perpetual care of that landfill in terms of a leachate catchment system and a methane gas catchment system. With all of those things taken into consideration, they will find that the cost of actually operating and establishing a landfill is far greater than we are going to see in terms of recycling in this province.

Mr Sterling: We are talking about a loss of $1,605 for each tonne of plastic that is collected. I do not know of one political person in this province who is against recycling of all of our waste, but let’s be practical. Is the minister going to subsidize the municipality to the tune of $1,605 or, in the case of Nepean, some $200,000 in order to take on this project? Is he willing to put his money where his mouth is on this matter?

Hon Mr Bradley: I have to say to the member again that one must always consider what the alternatives are to recycling. I know it is much easier to go out and dig a hole and pour the garbage into the ground. It has always been that way. The member is making out a situation where he has a product that is made from oil, the plastic is made from oil, and surely we would want to recycle that instead of simply having it thrown away, if the member really measures it against disposal. I ask for his support in this, as other members in this House have supported it.

I think the member is an environmentally sensitive person. I certainly accept that fact. I ask his support in the crusade to make recycling work in Ontario. With his help, with his strong support in this province, together we can make it work.

PROVINCE OF ONTARIO LAND REGISTRATION AND INFORMATION SYSTEM

Mr Campbell: My question is to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. As the minister is aware, over the past five years Ontario has experienced a 60 per cent growth in real property transactions. The sheer volume of property deals has caused processing delays which have left real estate closings in doubt. In response to this situation, the previous minister announced the implementation of an automated property title indexing and mapping information system called Polaris, province of Ontario land registration and information system, which would expedite land registration and transfers in Ontario.

In April 1987, the county of Oxford land registry office introduced the first practical application of Polaris and the benefits were immediately apparent. Three other pilot projects, of which Sudbury is one, were to be subsequently initiated. Can the minister update the House on the status of these pilot projects?

Hon Mr Sorbara: I want to begin by congratulating my colleague on his interest in the Polaris system and land registration in general. There really are two parts to his question. The first is that dramatic expansion in land transfers which has put some significant pressure on our land registry offices right around the province. I think we have done a rather good job in coping with those pressures as we move towards Polaris.

Polaris is not a program that is on the tip of the tongue of every single resident of the province, but residents of the province should know that it is one of the most exciting initiatives in implementing appropriate technologies to massive workloads of the government of this province. Once it is fully implemented, our land registry offices in this province will be the beneficiaries of the most modern and technologically appropriate way of registering land and communicating information about the ownership of land anywhere in the world.

In 1987, as my friend said, we implemented a 15-year plan to transfer all of the data that we have in written form into computer technologies and computer-based information technologies. We have a specific five-year plan, as my friend said, for five centres and we are proceeding apace.

Mr Campbell: I want to thank the minister for his response. I am pleased to see that progress has been made in Polaris, but any delays in its introduction could prove costly for Ontario. Polaris represents an opportunity for Ontario to be a national and international leader in this vital information industry, as the minister has pointed out.

The previous minister announced the implementation of Polaris could be accelerated if it was linked to the private sector. The idea of a joint venture was received with enthusiasm by the private sector in the fall of 1988. The final deadline for applications under the ministry’s request for proposal was 28 February 1989 and a choice was to be made by the ministry in April. The interested private sector firms are still waiting for a decision and this delay is not only causing problems for the companies, but it is threatening Ontario’s ability to provide a uniform land and resource information system that is world class.

Can the minister inform the House how soon a decision in this matter will be reached and how it will affect the timetable of Polaris’s implementation across the province?

Hon Mr Sorbara: A decision on a private sector partner is imminent. I hope to be in a position to make an announcement very early in 1990. Just to provide members with some of the background on this private sector partnership, I want to tell my colleagues in the House that this partnership with the private sector entity will allow us not only to develop and implement Polaris province-wide on a much more accelerated timetable, but I think and our government believes it will give us the capacity to market that technology not only in North America but also, realistically, around the world.

We have to be very careful when we make our decisions about the partnerships we are going to achieve. We have to negotiate a relationship that secures the interests, first, of the people of the province, but also gives us the capacity to be world players in this high-tech area.

CONTAMINATED SOIL

Mrs Grier: My question is for the Minister of Housing and concerns homes on McClure Crescent in Scarborough, homes that have been the subject of many questions and many statements in this House, homes that were purchased by one of this minister’s predecessors because the original purchasers of the homes were concerned about the radioactivity of the soil on which they were built, homes that were then rented out to families that were desperate for accommodation, homes where we now find the Minister of Government Services (Mr Ward) is undertaking remedial measures to remove radon gas from the basements because the level of radon gas that has been found is 75 per cent above acceptable levels.

Can the Minister of Housing explain to this House how he can possibly justify continuing occupancy of those homes and the activities of his ministry in continuing to rent them out?

Hon Mr Sweeney: There are two elements to it. The first is that while it is true the original owners of McClure Crescent decided to leave because of the soil conditions, there has always been some question whether those soil conditions were sufficiently hazardous that people should not be there at all, and it was on that basis that the Ministry of Government Services decided to rent the homes.

I would say to my honourable friend that if there was clear evidence that it was definitely hazardous to people’s health, the ministry simply would not have taken that action, but there is much in dispute in that. I am not trying to come down on one side or the other. I am just putting the facts, as I understand them, on the table.

Second, with respect to radon gas, it is now known that radon gas can exist in the basements of many homes in different parts of the province, but that there is a technical solution to it. There is a piece of equipment that can be put in the basements that can expel the radon gas and allow the home to be quite safe to live in.

On the basis of those two, I would have to say that unless we have further evidence to the contrary, it is not unsafe and is not unduly hazardous for people still to be in those homes.

Mrs Grier: Surely the minister would agree, and I think he did agree in his last sentence, that there is a great deal of debate as to what level constitutes a hazard and whether people ought to be exposed or whether they ought not to be exposed. I think it is significant that when this government came to office it was talking about removing the soil. The first Minister of Housing for this government attempted to remove the people, to purchase the houses and move the people out. Now what we find is this minister saying he is going to remove the radon gas.

Surely this minister ought to be explaining to us how that progression has occurred and why in the face, first, of trying to remove the soil and then removing the people, they have failed utterly in both of those endeavours and are now accepting the fact that all they can do is attempt to remove the gas. Surely that --

The Speaker: Minister.

Hon Mr Sweeney: I have to share with my honourable friend that the chief medical officer of health has made a scientific health determination that in fact the situation, that environment, is not hazardous with respect to the soil. That decision has been made. Now my honourable friend can challenge that, and by all means she should please do so. With respect to the removal of the soil, she is correct. That was the original intention. My honourable friend, though, is well aware of the fact that there has been -- what shall I say? -- considerable resistance as to where the removed soil would then be put. That has not been determined yet.

With respect to the radon gas, again I have to share with her that my scientific information, based on more expert authority than I, is that radon gas can be safely removed from the basements of houses. With the proper equipment that will expel the air containing the gas from the houses, they are quite safe.

If there is some point in time when we are told by health authorities, who have the expertise in this area that this is not so, then we would have to take different action, but at this point in time I believe the Minister of Government Services is acting appropriately given the scientific evidence and information that is available.

MOTION

HOUSE SITTING

Mr Ward moved that, notwithstanding any standing order, the House meet in the chamber from 10 am to 12 noon on Wednesday 20 December 1989.

Motion agreed to.

PETITIONS

NATUROPATHY

Ms Bryden: I have the honour to present a petition to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario that I believe is in accord with the spirit of the new rules about petitions.

The petition says 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.”

The petition is signed by 38 people, mainly from the riding of Beaches-Woodbine. I support the petition and have signed it. I am very pleased to present it through you, Mr Speaker, to the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislature.

FRENCH-LANGUAGE SERVICES

Mr Matrundola: I have a petition here that is signed by some 31 residents of the riding of Willowdale and it is my duty to present it. The petition calls upon the Legislative Assembly to repeal the French Language Services Act. As required by the standing rules, I have affixed my signature to the front of this petition.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr Adams: I have a petition from people in the Peterborough area concerning auto insurance:

“With regard to the pending legislation containing the new insurance proposals, we, the following listed licensed drivers, wish to express our deep concern against said legislation. Once more the record-free driver will line the pockets of insurance companies and will be put at the mercy of careless or impaired drivers. The injustice of this is overwhelmingly apparent.”

FRENCH-LANGUAGE SERVICES

Mr MacDonald: I have two petitions that I am presenting today. One contains 36 signatures and there is one with 136 signatures. Bath of these petitions, addressed to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, were signed by citizens who oppose the French Language Services Act. I have affixed my signature to these petitions.

REPORT BY COMMITTEE

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

Mr Chiarelli from the standing committee on administration of justice presented the following report and moved its adoption.

Your committee begs to report the following bill as amended:

Bill 145,

An Act to prohibit the Sale of Gun Replicas.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for third reading.

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

BUILDING CODE ACT, 1989

Mr Sweeney moved first reading of Bill 103,

An Act to revise the Building Code Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon Mr Sweeney: I am pleased to present for first reading the government’s proposed amendments to the Building Code Act. The changes my ministry is presenting today will provide greater flexibility, efficiency and effectiveness in the enforcement of building regulations, while maintaining Ontario’s commitment to public safety. My ministry has carefully reviewed the existing legislation and sought the advice of experts, building industry associations and other ministries.

As a result we are proposing the following: to allow municipal chief building officials to permit the substitution of equivalent materials, techniques or systems to those permitted in the building code, providing that the level of safety and performance is not reduced; to develop a code for existing buildings which would consolidate and simplify current regulations; to allow for the issuance in special circumstances of a conditional permit in order to facilitate construction on some projects which are awaiting approvals not related to land use matters; to develop regulations allowing for the review of plans and the inspection of buildings by designated experts such as architects and professional engineers; to streamline the process for approving innovative building products and permit the minister to authorize the use of innovative materials, products, systems or services approved by the Canadian Construction Materials Centre.

Finally, we propose to incorporate the plumbing code into the building code.

These amendments will streamline many aspects of the regulatory system and assist municipalities to carry out their important task of ensuring that buildings in the province are safe and sound. These changes should foster a more efficient and innovative building industry and help contain construction costs.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THIRD READING

The following bill was given third reading on motion:

Bill 34,

An Act to amend the District Municipality of Muskoka Act and the Education Act.

COMMERCIAL CONCENTRATION TAX ACT, 1989

Mr Mancini moved third reading of Bill 46,

An Act to establish a Commercial Concentration Tax.

Ms Bryden: I cannot let third reading of this bill go by without raising my concerns about what I consider the worst piece of tax legislation ever introduced by the present government. It is a brand-new tax. It is discriminatory in that it applies only to the so-called greater Toronto area, which is a rather vague area stretching from Burlington to Newcastle. It is a very unequal, unfair and undefined tax. For that reason, it should have been withdrawn and other alternative sources of revenue considered for the purposes for which the Treasurer (Mr R. F. Nixon) says he is imposing this tax.

The objectives, he says, are to increase funds for the transportation needs and the infrastructure needs of the greater Toronto area. His argument is that businesses and parking lots in that area should pay extra taxes. It marks part of the government’s tax grabs from the past budget. On top of tax grabs of $1 billion in each of the previous two years, there is the commercial concentration tax and the employers tax levy, which are further tax increases.

They are based on criteria that show they are not progressive taxes. We had hoped this government would keep its election promise to reform our tax system and bring in a progressive tax system. Instead, it is letting businesses off most of its new tax increases, except the employers tax levy, and it is not increasing the corporation income tax or taxing the various areas where there is ability to pay, which the province has power to tax and which are more suitable for the province to use.

The commercial concentration tax is an invasion of the municipal tax field and challenges the municipalities’ occupancy of this field. We all know that they are very short of sources of revenue and that this creates a new tax authority in the greater Toronto area. There is no indication that tax authority is accountable to anybody but the provincial government and there is no indication that the collections and the decisions on the tax will be administered by anything else but the province.

It is a tax that hits those who have parking lots and those who use parking lots. It will create great chaos in the municipalities that rely on public parking. The estimates of the increase in parking lot fees on municipally operated lots range from 50 per cent to 150 per cent.

It will simply slow down economic development in the centre core of municipalities. It will affect people who rent space in centres and malls because of the relationship to the landlords and their share of the tax.

It is a most unfair tax and should have been withdrawn so that there could be more study of a proper source of additional revenue, if it was needed for these objectives the Treasurer mentioned.

One thing that is very bad about it is that there is no guarantee one cent of the revenue will go to any of the purposes for which the Treasurer said he was imposing this tax, namely, further infrastructure, further transportation. We know he has not spent a penny on the Sheppard subway, which is the greatest need in this city, and there is no guarantee he will spend a penny of this new tax on that.

He is talking about using it for transportation improvements in the greater Toronto area, but these have been heralded for the past two years and we still do not have very much evidence of them being carried out. so it is not really new money he is promising. He says he is going to keep his previous commitments that are two years old and we are still waiting to see when they will be implemented.

It is an example of a tax grab and very poor tax policy. I think we should not give it third reading.

Mr Cousens: We had a chance to make a few comments on this as it was passing through the House on second reading. and on it now before it is given the strong approval and endorsation of the Liberal majority in this House. We have a few moments at the third reading stage to at least put on record once again our contempt for this billl, our contempt for the government for finding another way to tax, an unprecedented move by this government to move into a tax arena that heretofore was that of the municipalities and regional governments.

During the hearings that were held in this Legislature on this subject, there was no one who came forward in support of the bill. I was present and heard the presentation that was made by the chairman of Metropolitan Toronto. I have never before seen Mr Tonks as upset and genuinely concerned with the invasion the province is making on the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto taxation base.

In making his presentation, he was supported as well by the Parking Authority of Toronto. The parking authority is barely able to handle the cost of parking. They are going to have to increase the cost for those who are using parking lots. It is going to drive people away from parking lots on to the roads, therefore adding to the gridlock that we are beginning to experience in the greater Toronto area. There is absolutely no doubt that the parking authority now will not be able to expand certain parking services because it is not going to have the money to do so.

We received presentations, as well, from business and industry and commerce, which are going to be impacted most negatively by this bill. I am in support of their concerns that in fact it is going to be a hardship on the hotel industry in the greater Toronto area. We are trying to attract tourism to this area. We are instead going to scare it away. We will cease to be an attractive place for large conventions and groups of people to come and celebrate our beautiful city because we are pricing ourselves out of the market. There is no way the hotel industry can withstand the kind of hardship this is going to have without passing it on to the people it is trying to serve.

May I suggest as well, when we saw the impact that it will have on other businesses, they will have to pass on this increased cost of doing business to the people they are selling their services to, so retailers, distributors and others will be increasing the cost of their products and services accordingly, adding to and fuelling inflation in this province.

Can we take it lightly? We cannot. If there is anything that is a hardship to Ontario, it is the high cost of government, the high cost of doing business, making it unattractive for people to want to come and establish their business in the greater Toronto area.

There is no doubt in my mind this government is spending the money incorrectly, but it is now collecting the money incorrectly and wrongly.

I stand on the record and so does our caucus in opposition to this bill. We see it as contemptuous of business. Unfortunately, in the greater Toronto area, especially in Metropolitan Toronto, there is the property tax reassessment. Commercial areas are going to be hit doubly, not only by the commercial concentration levy but also by having to help carry the cost of the whole reassessment that is being considered for Metropolitan Toronto that has not yet been approved by this government. The legislation has not come forward.

But all we are doing is just adding to the load of what it is to run a business in this area. We are going to turn off the tap. We are going to turn off business. We are going to turn people away. We are making this into a community and a place where people are not going to want to establish their business. I just hope that some of the Liberals are listening and may join our caucus in voting against this bill.

Mr Daigeler: Very quickly, last week, on 14 December, the member for Markham stood up and said in a statement in this House that the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party has “growing fears for the future of commuter transportation services in the greater Toronto area. We are concerned that the Ontario government is failing to address a looming crisis in transportation... ” Bill 46 provides the revenue to address the concerns that the member has expressed. Bill 46 will provide the resources that will continue to keep Toronto a world-class city.

Mr Cousens: I ask the honourable member for Nepean if he can guarantee that all the moneys that are being collected from the commercial concentration levy are going to be assigned to roads and transportation services. A yes or no answer would be all I would like to hear from this member.

Mrs Marland: Obviously, the member for Nepean, who gets up in a very shallow way and quotes my colleague the member for Markham and then does not have the intestinal fortitude to get up and answer his question, says it all.

The fact of the matter is we know that all of us who are involved in the greater Toronto area -- and I suppose in our caucus currently that is the member for Markham and myself -- know quite well that the commercial concentration tax revenue will not in any way be guaranteed to go back into services and infrastructure in the greater Toronto area.

It is just the same way we knew that when I tried to amend another act, another piece of legislation of this government very recently that was announced in the throne speech -- and I refer to the $5 tire tax. There was an example where the $5 tire tax was for environmental programs, and yet, four times, I placed an amendment worded differently on each of those four occasions when that bill was going through this House to have a guarantee that the money that was raised from the $5 tire tax would indeed be allocated directly to environmental programs, but it did not happen.

The whole thing is one big money pot for the Liberal government to collect, with all kinds of promises but nothing backing up those promises.

The very fact is, when we actually try to nail it down here in this chamber by asking a direct question which requires a very simple and direct answer, there are no answers, just like last night when I asked the Minister of Revenue (Mr Mancini) about one of his bills. His answer was, “That question has been asked many times already in this House.” He does not need to answer for himself, I suppose. I think that this is a disgusting display.

Mr Jackson: I am quite amazed at the statement by the member for Nepean. Obviously he is not sensitized to what this bill does. For him to stand in his place and make these statements, how is he prepared to even vote for this bill if he does not understand one of the fatal flaws in this bill? It pits community against community, region against region.

The member represents the riding of Nepean, which is already experiencing some of the growth pangs from the greater Ottawa area. How would he like it if his government stepped in and created a taxation structure that divided his community in half and said that people living on one side of the street will have to pay taxes and on the other side of the street they will not have to pay taxes? That is what the Liberal government has decided to do with this commercial concentration levy, and the member fails to even understand that fundamental flaw in this unusual and abusive form of taxation.

He should travel throughout this province where there are transportation problems and realize that the solution is not blaming communities like Burlington, Oshawa and Oakville for the growth that has occurred in this province.

The member should know that previous policies of federal and provincial governments have not been interconnected to work with dealing with the issues of growth, planning and immigration. Why would we tell senior citizens, who have lived all their lives in these communities, “Now you are going to pay a penalty because your community is growing”? The member knows that does not speak of fairness.

The member knows that talks more about a grab for taxation, and he should know better than to rise up in the House and suggest that the Progressive Conservative Party in Ontario does not know what it speaks of when it talks of its opposition to this bill. It speaks to its opposition to this bill because it has listened to the citizens of Ontario who live in the greater Toronto area and who are sick and tired of being referred to as the greater taxation area for the citizens of Ontario.

The Deputy Speaker: Other questions and comments? If not, Monsieur le député de Nepean, vous-voulez réagir ? No? Do other members wish to participate in this debate? The member for Leeds-Grenville?

Mr Runciman: No.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Burlington South.

Mr Jackson: I would like to thank my colleague the member for Leeds-Grenville. I am due at another committee hearing and I want to briefly make a few statements about this atrocious bill.

I will be voting against Bill 46, as will the Progressive Conservative caucus. We do so because we have examined the details of this abusive form of taxation. We have listened to the community of Mississauga. I am pleased that the member for Mississauga West (Mr Mahoney) --

Mr Mahoney: Likes it.

Mr Jackson: -- who has already expressed concerns, as has city council in Burlington, about the impact on municipal parking lots, as we try to strengthen and improve consumerism and the development of our downtown core. This has been seriously hindered by this tax. Nowhere did the government consider its implications to the business improvement organizations which fit within the greater Toronto area.

As I indicated to the member for Nepean, what is also offensive about this form of taxation is that it creates a regionally targeted increase. That is unfair. There is a tradition in this province to look at the reverse of this equation, which is to look at areas based on need and provide them additional support, but it is rather an offensive notion to go in and punish areas of this province with increased taxes.

In the community of Burlington there is considerable outrage at the fact that the citizens of Hamilton do not fall within this taxation structure, and yet, quite clearly, the government has enunciated that the moneys that will be raised in the greater Toronto area will go to benefit Hamilton-area transportation needs. That is fine, that is well and good and that is appropriate, but if we have a targeted regional tax, it is unfair, because clearly now the government has indicated that a lot of those moneys will be spent outside that region. So the government is responsible for creating this tension, this dynamic.

I would like to also make a reference to what the senior citizens are saying to me. “Why is this government using as its defence that those areas that experience and benefit from growth are going to have to pay for growth?” As I indicated earlier, the senior citizens who have lived in the city of Burlington for 40, 50 or 60 years of their lives find it hard to believe that they should now be punished and have to pay for the effects of growth which they are not responsible for and they did not create.

In fact, if we were honest, we would realize that as a province we are responsible for the long-term planning of our communities and also that our immigration policies have to be more clearly defined and better suited for accommodation and growth within our province.

Yet this government would respond to those major pressures on growth by taxing and punishing people who live in a specific geographic area. For that reason, we will be voting against this bill. We strongly urge all members of the House to vote against this bill. It is clear that the money which is being taxed is going into the general coffers of this government and will not necessarily be dedicated to the specific needs which the government has indicated it would be spent on, primarily on garbage and on transportation improvements for the greater Toronto area.

In fact, nowhere in this configuration is this government willing to look at the over $20 million which has been spent by taxpayers in Halton region as we seek out our landfill site. In fact, we are being punished for having shown the leadership a decade ago in terms of developing that site. We have paid the price. The taxpayers have paid the price and we still are not ultimately finished with our landfill site.

Now the government has created a superfund, a supertaxation level, in order to assist in locating future landfill sites, but in no way will Burlington residents and Halton residents ever be compensated for the multimillions of dollars they have spent in their quest for a landfill site.

In transportation, the Highway 403 bypass that goes through Oakville, which will relieve pressure on the Queen Elizabeth Highway, is no closer to completion as a result of this taxation announcement and the government’s capital commitments in transportation. Not one day sooner will that project be completed, and yet as I drive home to Burlington South on a daily basis from this chamber, I can tell members that it is easier to get from University Avenue to the Ford plant in Oakville than it is to get from the Ford plant in Oakville to Burlington. That is how bad the traffic has become on the QEW, and there is no relief for the next 15 years, according to the government’s own schedule.

It can clearly enunciate its taxation plans for the citizens of Burlington, but it cannot enunciate and give relief for the transportation problems that region will experience. For that reason, the tax must not be imposed.

Mr Runciman: Just a few brief comments in respect to this legislation. I sat on the committee dealing with it and I want to say at the outset that in respect to other matters dealing with the Ministry of Revenue in respect of my own riding, it has been most helpful. I want to put that on record and compliment the minister especially, and his parliamentary assistant, in respect to some matters dealing with assessment changes in my own riding. So I am not always critical of the government. When I believe it is doing a good job and making an effort, I will be the first one there to say so.

But in respect to Bill 46, I have to share the views of my colleagues who spoke before me. It is indeed bad legislation. I am not one who is boosting the greater Toronto area on a regular basis. In fact, I have been rather critical, as an eastern Ontario member, Mr Speaker, as I think you have been, at least quietly or within the confines of your own caucus, in respect to some of the expenditure commitments made by this government and past governments in respect to the greater Toronto area, the Metropolitan Toronto area, which I think have been inappropriate.

When you look at the needs of other parts of the province, especially northern and eastern Ontario -- and I, of course, am most familiar with eastern Ontario and I want to touch a bit on that as we proceed -- I think one of the major problems in respect to what is happening in the greater Toronto area in terms of the infrastructure, the efforts to try to deal with the waste, etc, and the unbelievable traffic congestion that we now witness with the gridlock really occurring from seven in the morning till seven at night on most of the major arteries in the GTA -- l think that is really the result of very poor planning.

We have talked about immigration policy. We have talked about a host of things, but I think if we look at the government’s initiatives in this regard in the past number of years, they have been really totally lacking in terms of having any meaningful impact on growth patterns in this area. I think that innovative things could have been done, and the province perhaps has to take that kind of initiative. I am thinking of density changes, for example, in the core area to ensure that less and less prime land is being chewed up. It not only increases densities in the core but also, I believe,