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

December 18, 1989

34th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

COURT FACILITIES

TIME-SHARING

HUMAN RIGHTS

WATER RESOURCES

PROPERTY ASSESSMENT

ST NICHOLAS DAY

APPLIANCE INDUSTRY

EMPLOYMENT EQUITY

MAY COURT CLUB

MEMBER’S PRIVILEGES

STANLEY RANDALL

ARTHUR EVANS

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

PROVINCIAL COURT JUDGES

RESPONSES

PROVINCIAL COURT JUDGES

RESPONSE TO LETTER

EDUCATION FINANCING

VISITOR

ORAL QUESTIONS

FOOD BANKS

RENT REGULATION

ELECTRICITY DEMAND AND SUPPLY

RETAIL STORE HOURS

PEOPLE WITH BRAIN INJURIES

SKILLS TRAINING

CHILDREN’S MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

EDUCATION FINANCING

REPRODUCTIVE CARE

NATIVE JUSTICE

CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES

NIAGARA RIVER WATER QUALITY

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

COURTS OF JUSTICE AMENDMENT ACT, 1989

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THIRD READING

PUBLIC SERVICE PENSION ACT, 1989

ROYAL ASSENT

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

REGULATIONS REVISION ACT, 1989 / LOI DE 1989 SUR LA REFONTE DES REGLEMENTS

NOTARIES AMENDMENT ACT, 1989

COURTS OF JUSTICE AMENDMENT ACT, 1989 / LOI DE 1989 MODIFIANT LA LOI DE 1984 SUR LES TRIBUNAUX JUDICIAIRES

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT, 1989

EXECUTIVE COUNCIL AMENDMENT ACT, 1989

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY AMENDMENT ACT, 1989

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY AMENDMENT ACT, 1989

UNCLAIMED INTANGIBLE PROPERTY ACT, 1989

COURTS OF JUSTICE AMENDMENT ACT, 1989

EMPLOYER HEALTH TAX ACT, 1989 (CONTINUED)

EMPLOYER HEALTH TAX ACT, 1989 (CONTINUED)

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

COURT FACILITIES

Mr Kormos: The inadequacy of Welland’s and Thorold’s courtroom facilities has been the subject of more than a few exchanges both inside and outside of this Legislature. Now it is the chief of the Niagara Regional Police Force, John Shoveller, who calls the conditions in the holding cells at the Welland district courthouse “unsafe, unhealthy and totally inadequate,” so much so that Chief Shoveller will not let his officers work in those facilities. I tell you, Mr Speaker, the chief is 100 per cent right.

There is no good reason to expose the members of the Niagara Regional Police Force to the high risk of injury that these courthouse conditions create. Not only will Chief Shoveller not allow his officers to work in the holding cells areas, but also he vows to ignore the Liberals’ new legislation forcing courtroom security on to the municipality and its police force. Once again, to do so would expose good police officers to unnecessary risk of injury because of the inadequacy of those facilities.

Chief Shoveller’s observations are but another facet of the gross inadequacy of the Welland district courthouse and provincial courtrooms in Niagara South. The conditions are unsafe, unhealthy and totally inadequate not just for police officers whom we call upon to protect us in these conditions, but also for the public who are called upon to participate in the justice system.

The matter of Welland’s courtroom facilities really has now become a crisis. It is imperative -- oh, so imperative -- that the Attorney General (Mr Scott) respond quickly and appropriately.

TIME-SHARING

Mr Sterling: In March 1988, the Ontario Law Reform Commission reported to the Attorney General (Mr Scott) its conclusions following an examination of the time-share industry in Ontario. That report was 197 pages long and examined virtually every aspect of the industry from the point of view of both consumers and the industry itself. It contained 92 specific recommendations regarding regulation and concluded that “time-sharing warrants substantial legislative intervention if its growth is to be fostered in this province.”

Recommendations suggested by the commission include: a 10-day cooling-off period between buyers and sellers; the licensing of time-share salespeople; full disclosure of hidden costs and liens; registration of all time-share projects, and financial protection for purchasers.

Metropolitan Toronto residents alone are currently receiving some 40,000 invitations a week offering impressive-sounding prizes by time-share companies if they will only attend a sales pitch. Tactics employed by some representatives of this industry are downright despicable and play on people’s weaknesses in order to make a sale.

The government has had the extensive recommendations of the Ontario Law Reform Commission for well over a year and a half, yet has done nothing. The government’s failure to act in this regard is unfair. It is unfair to the consumers who are being coerced and it is unfair to the legitimate participants in this industry who recognize that regulation would help them to keep their good name.

HUMAN RIGHTS

Mr Velshi: Over the last few weeks we have been hearing in this House praises about events taking place in eastern Europe. It seems that the dark period of human rights abuses is at last being addressed in that part of the world.

Last week we witnessed the expulsion of 51 refugees from Hong Kong to Vietnam by soldiers in the dead of the night on instruction from Great Britain. Many people and countries have condemned Great Britain’s new refugee policy on the occasion of Human Rights Week, and rightly so.

What is not known, however, is that Great Britain’s new refugee policy is not that new. In 1967, 22 years ago when I was living in Kenya, the newly independent nation of Kenya decided to expel all noncitizens of Kenya. At that time Great Britain allowed all British passport holders who were white to re-enter Britain; however, all British passport holders who were nonwhite were prevented from entering Britain, leaving all nonwhite Britons to remain in no man’s land at the Kenya airport, sleeping on the floors and being fed by local citizens until some other country accepted these British subjects. These included young and old alike.

It pains me to say that Great Britain has lost the moral right to call itself great. When we speak about human rights abuses in Russia, South Africa, Sudan, Ethiopia, Palestine, Chile, etc, Britain must take its rightful place among these countries as not only an abuser of human rights, but as a party guilty of deliberately supporting other countries to continue human rights abuses.

If ever parents can learn from their children, then Britain can learn from Canada what it is to protect the weak and the needy.

WATER RESOURCES

Mr Wildman: I rise to bring to the attention of the House the serious drought condition that has been plaguing the area of Algoma for about a year. Households and farmers in the rural part of Algoma district are experiencing serious lack of water. This is a particular problem in the township of Thompson, where people are having to haul water because their wells have gone dry, but it is true throughout the southern part of Algoma, in the rural area, in the farming area.

There is even one case of an elderly woman who is looking after her aged mother, a Mrs Grasely, who is famous in our area for her great age and her good health, who is having to haul water through this winter. Yet the Ministry of the Environment, for some unknown reason, has a criterion for its private water systems program which requires that there be a minimum of 25 households in a community that need to improve their water systems, or 2.5 people per hectare as a minimum, before the municipality is eligible for assistance under the private systems assistance plan. This does not make any sense.

It would make sense to have minimum numbers if we were talking about a communal system, but not when we are talking about rural households and farms in a rural area.

I call upon the government to change the criterion and help the people who need water.

PROPERTY ASSESSMENT

Mr Cousens: On two separate occasions over the last two months, I have asked the Minister of Revenue (Mr Mancini) to state his views on the proposal by Metropolitan Toronto for market value reassessment. The minister has refused to give a definitive answer. He has stated that the matter is under serious review. The commercial sector in Metro has been left in the dark, and with each passing day there is beginning to be a growing perception that Metro’s MVR proposal has been given an implicit go-ahead.

Metro’s proposal would reassess all properties on 1984 market values, starting in 1991, until 1996 when they will be reassessed on an as-yet-unknown base year. Any decrease due to the commercial sector will be severely limited to compensate for frozen residential increases,

Some very serious questions that have arisen as a result of this proposal have not been answered. How many home owners will be affected who have renovated or improved their properties since 1981? How will the commercial and industrial sectors be affected by these tax changes?

In order for these changes to be implemented, the province must give its approval by introducing enabling legislation and must also conduct an assessment study before 1991 that could cost approximately $11 million. I call on the Minister of Revenue to report to this House whether that study has been given the go-ahead. The taxpayers of Metropolitan Toronto deserve some indication from this Minister of Revenue.

ST NICHOLAS DAY

Mr Fleet: How much does the House know about the father of our Christmas tradition of giving gifts? Tomorrow, 19 December, is celebrated as St Nicholas Day by people of Russian and Serbian heritage. It is an important day of celebration to honour St Nicholas.

St Nicholas is believed to have been born in Lycia, Asia Minor, in the latter part of the third century, the son of wealthy parents. A devout Christian, when his parents died, St Nicholas distributed his wealth to the poor, especially children. As the Bishop for Myra, he was renowned for his gift-giving, his kindness and his charitable deeds. The annual celebration of gift-giving to children is in remembrance of him.

St Nicholas is celebrated on 6 December by people of German and Dutch ancestry, and it is the Dutch name Sinterklaas which became our Santa Claus. Undoubtedly, St Nicholas would not mind which name is used or which date is celebrated. He would, however, want us all to remember and to emulate the spirit of kindness and charity towards others which marks the true spirit of the Christmas season.

APPLIANCE INDUSTRY

Mr Charlton: We have an opportunity here in Ontario not only to move in a new direction in terms of electrical energy, a new direction which is a direction that points directly at significantly increased energy efficiency, but also to move to provide significant assistance to an industry that is seriously threatened in Ontario by the signing last year of the free trade agreement.

This opportunity was released this morning by myself and my colleagues in the form of a proposal for a joint venture between Ontario Hydro and the major household appliance industry in Ontario. The proposal for a joint venture, which would not only provide protection for the existing jobs in the appliance industry and allow that industry a recovery which could eventually build the appliance industry in Ontario into one of the best in the world, but would also provide Ontario, and specifically Ontario Hydro, with the ability to move into significant new areas of energy efficiency as has been set out in a number of studies over the course of the last year or year and a half.

I sincerely hope that the Premier (Mr Peterson), the Minister of Energy (Mrs McLeod) and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr Kwinter) will take heed of the proposal. It is a proposal which received significant support from the industry itself and from those who are employed in the industry.

EMPLOYMENT EQUITY

Mrs Cunningham: A news release was issued by the Management Board of Cabinet on 9 November concerning government efforts to institute employment equity in the Ontario public service. The press release stated, and I quote, “Mr Elston told the Legislature that the Ontario public service does well in hiring aboriginal peoples, francophones, racial minorities and women in proportions reflecting their numbers in society as a whole.”

Someone should advise the Chairman of the Management Board of Cabinet (Mr Elston) about the recent workforce profile survey results published in a pull-out

section of the last Topical publication. Compared to the 1986 “I Count” survey, the presence of the following designated groups has decreased in percentage terms: aboriginal peoples, persons with disabilities, racial minorities and women. Accompanying the survey results is an

article which states, “There is a disappointment in comparison of the results,” and that is for certain. That could be the biggest understatement of 1989.

Perhaps the Chairman of Management Board could find the time to review the results of his latest survey. It might cause him to carefully review them in a meaningful and resourceful manner so that in this important issue there would he meaning to his important press release.

MAY COURT CLUB

Mr Dietsch: I would like to share with the members of this House the activities of an important organization within St Catharines-Brock. This organization, the May Court Club of St Catharines, indeed promotes the spirit of the holiday season 365 days of the year.

The May Court Club’s efforts have been traditionally divided between service projects and fund-raising projects allowing them to give financial assistance and support to a varied number of local organizations. Over the year, these projects include the organization of the annual antique show and sale, the publishing of an annual cookbook, a trash and treasures sale, a charity ball and many other things. Through their efforts they have donated $30,000 to the purchase of a paratransit vehicle last year.

During the holiday season, the club holds its annual raffle to help finance some of its work throughout the year. Numerous Christmas trees are decorated with their own individual theme and given away as prizes. Another equally as important an activity is working in conjunction with associated services in St Catharines. The club purchases, sorts and distributes toys to children of less fortunate families.

I would like to ask the members of this House to join with me in congratulating the May Court Club’s president, Bonnie Day, and the countless volunteers who make this very special work possible and make St Catharines-Brock a special place in which to live.

MEMBER’S PRIVILEGES

Mr Cousens: On a point of privilege. Mr Speaker: I draw to your attention an incident that took place at 11:57 pm on Wednesday 13 December. I hereby request that the Speaker look into the circumstances that led to my being denied one of my most basic rights as a member of the Legislature, that of being heard, and the right to speak in the House on matters that are legally and properly before the House. On that night, I maintain that! was denied that most basic of rights and I would ask you to look into this matter.

This issue becomes all the more important under the new rules of the House, which have given extended powers to the Chair. If you find that I have a prima facie case of privilege, I will then move that this matter be referred to the standing committee of the Legislative Assembly for further consideration.

The Speaker: Any other members wishing to make any -- no? I have listened carefully to the member. I noted that you have something written. I would be glad to receive a copy of what you have written.

As I recall, I believe we were in committee quite a bit of the time that evening, and that took place in committee. Therefore, I would have to take a look at written Hansard and electronic Hansard, which I will do. Instant replay.

STANLEY RANDALL

Mr Sterling: I would like to ask for unanimous consent to pay respects to the late Stanley Randall, a member of the Legislature.

The Speaker: Unanimous consent?

Agreed to.

Mr Sterling: I would like to pay tribute today to a former member of our Legislature, Stan Randall, who died on Wednesday and whose funeral is being held this afternoon.

Stanley Randall represented the riding of Don Mills from the time it was created in 1963 until he retired from politics in 1971. As the Minister of Trade and Development, he sent a message to the world that Ontario was the place to be and greatly increased exports of Ontario products. He developed the concept of Ontario Place, the Ontario Development Corp and the Ontario Housing Corp.

His life is a success story of talent, determination and hard work. He started as a clerk and worked his way up to be president of a company, getting his bachelor of arts degree at night school along the way. He believed in getting things done and lived a rich and fulfilling life until his death at 81 years.

I extend sympathy to his wife Peggy and his family on behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario.

Mr J. B. Nixon: I rise today on behalf of the government to pay tribute to Stanley John Randall. Stan Randall, as members are aware, was member of provincial Parliament for the riding of Don Mills from 1963 until he retired in 1971. Back in those days, the riding of Don Mills contained much of the present-day York Mills, and I remember as a youth that he was the man who represented my family and my community at Queen’s Park.

Stan Randall led an interesting and some might say diverse life. His career began by selling washing machines and eventually he became president of the company that he sold for. Ultimately, he became Ontario’s Minister of Trade and Development, selling and promoting the province of Ontario. Mr Randall felt very strongly about promoting Ontario, being responsible for the slogan, “Is there any place you’d rather be?” I am sure it is a slogan all Ontarians will remember.

He was a colourful politician. He made more speeches than any three cabinet ministers and spun out his dream of Ontario with a mixture of gut wisdom, one-liners, puns and raw energy. Favourite quips included, “Progress is like a wheelbarrow; you have to give it a push,” and, “A foot in the door is worth two on the desk.”

I think what impressed me most about Mr Randall was his vision of Ontario and his positive thinking. He once said, “People have got to maintain their confidence -- there’s no quicker way to start a depression than for people to lose confidence and stop spending,” something we might think about in these days.

Stan Randall was a good politician, party politics aside. At a time when Ontario’s economy was booming and growth was the byword of the day, Mr Randall was an eminent spokesman for Ontario both at home and abroad. He was an Ontario-first promoter, being responsible for the development of Ontario Place, the Ontario Development Corp and the Ontario Housing Corp. He represented his constituents well, he represented his ministry well and I believe I can say in all sincerity that he represented Ontario well.

On behalf of my caucus and our government, Mr Speaker, please convey our deepest sympathies to the Randall family.

Mr B. Rae: I am sure Stanley Randall would appreciate hearing from those he described in my presence as economic socialist weirdos. I must say that I certainly want to support what has been said about Stan Randall by my colleagues the member for Carleton (Mr Sterling) and the member for York Mills (Mr J. B. Nixon).

Stanley Randall served long before I got here, but after I was elected I had an opportunity to meet him on a number of occasions. I knew him by reputation when he was the minister of industry and trade for Ontario. He was a man of enormous energy, of great common sense and of great good humour. He represented a very different point of view and perspective on life from my own, but he was someone for whom I know many members on all sides had a great deal of affection. I know he was very well regarded by his constituents, obviously, they having returned him to this place in three elections.

I hope the Randall family will share with me the thought that given his long life and contribution to this community and to his family, we might also think of today as a day when we celebrate his life as well as mourn his passing.

The Speaker: I thank the members for their comments. When Hansard is officially printed I will make certain your words of sympathy will be sent to the Randall family.

ARTHUR EVANS

Mr J. M. Johnson: Mr Speaker, could I also request unanimous consent of the House to pay tribute to our former colleague, Arthur Evans.

Agreed to.

Mr J. M. Johnson: I am honoured to have been selected by our caucus to pay tribute to an old friend, Art Evans. Arthur Evans, who died last Thursday, is survived by his wife Eileen and children John, Don, Robin and Cathy. To all of them may I just simply say that we have all lost a friend.

Art was elected as the town of Bradford’s first mayor in 1960, but stepped down later that year to win a provincial by-election. Arthur Evans served his constituents of Simcoe Centre and the province of Ontario extremely well for 17 years, until stepping down before the 1977 provincial election. As well, Art served as the director of the Georgian Bay Hydro System, vice-chairman of Ontario Hydro and later a director of Ontario Hydro.

Art was a very energetic, hard-working, dedicated individual who served his people to the best of his ability and also had the time to make friends.

Art was a very successful businessman and politician. He was a member of the Bradford municipal council for several years, reeve of Bradford and a member of Simcoe county council for six years, 1953 to 1959. During this period on county council, he served as warden of Simcoe county for 1958.

When I was first elected in 1975, one of the first members to welcome me to the new world of Queen’s Park was Arthur Evans. Art and I only served together for 18 months, from 1975 to 1977, but in that time he gave me a lifetime of advice, guidance and kindness.

I will always remember Art as a true and dedicated friend, and on behalf of my caucus colleagues, and I am sure all the members who knew Art Evans, I convey to his wife Eileen and his children our sincere sympathy on the loss of this good man.

Hon Mr Ward: On behalf of the government and the Liberal caucus I would like to extend sincere sympathies to the family of Arthur Evans. As members know, he was a loyal servant of this Legislature for some 17 years, having been elected four times between 1960 and 1977. Prior to that he served his community as reeve of Bradford from 1953 to 1959. During that period members will know that his community suffered severe devastation as a result of Hurricane Hazel. I understand Mr Evans was very active in the relief work that was undertaken at that time.

Over the course of his life Mr Evans was clearly a servant of his community and his province. We all join in extending our sincere sympathies to his wife Eileen and their four children.

Mr Wildman: On behalf of our caucus I would like to extend our sympathy to the Evans family on the passing of Art Evans. I was first elected in 1975. At that time Mr Evans was reaching the end of his career here at Queen’s Park. He served until the election in 1977. It was a long career of dedicated public service in Ontario, not only for the 17 years here in the Legislature but also as a municipal politician prior to that for a total of 31 years of public service, one that all members of this House and the members of his constituency certainly appreciate.

It is interesting to note that Mr Evans had a particular interest in public utilities, having served on the Bradford Public Utilities Commission for 14 years and Georgian Bay Hydro as a director, and after his election to this House he was appointed vice-chairman of Ontario Hydro in 1971, an interesting appointment considering some of the attitudes today about members serving on those kinds of boards. Obviously Mr Evans had a sincere and ongoing interest in the matters of electric utilities in this province and the need to serve the rural areas of Ontario.

All of us in this House can appreciate the hard work of the member, who served here 17 years after many years of public service in his own community, and we appreciate the fact that he could serve his constituents that well and for so long. Along with other members of the House we extend our sincere sympathy and condolences to Art Evans’s family.

The Speaker: When Hansard is printed. I will make certain your words of sympathy are sent to the Evans family.

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

PROVINCIAL COURT JUDGES

Hon Mr Elston: I am pleased to be tabling for first reading a bill dealing with compensation for Ontario provincial judges.

This bill is the result of a consultative process starting with a review and report by the Ontario Provincial Courts Committee, more commonly referred to as the Henderson committee. The bill adopts the majority of recommendations arising from that report. It also takes into account the advice of the standing committee on administration of justice resulting from that committee’s review of the Henderson report.

In an agreement with the judges prior to the establishment of the committee, the government made a commitment that all recommendations of the provincial courts committee would be given the fullest consideration and very great weight. In developing and tabling this legislation, the government has honoured that commitment.

The government initially responded to the Henderson report last spring by implementing salary increases for provincial judges. This bill introduces automatic annual salary adjustments for provincial court judges based on the increased salary levels. The provision reinforces the independence of the judiciary by ensuring annual adjustment of salaries in line with an index of average industrial wages, to a cap of seven per cent. This salary indexing provision parallels a similar provision for the federal judges.

Further, the bill provides for provincial judges’ compensation to become statutory payments from the consolidated revenue fund. This provision satisfies a major recommendation in the Henderson report.

The bill also establishes the Provincial Court Commission as a body to review and make recommendations every three years regarding judges’ compensation. This triennial review will assess the adequacy of the annual salary adjustments resulting from the legislated formula.

The provincial courts committee made a number of pension, benefit and allowance recommendations in its report and we support the majority of them.

Improvements in benefits and allowances will for the most part be reflected in a consolidated regulation to be available for review before the bill receives legislative approval. Most notably, the survivor benefit will be increased and this increase will be extended retroactively. This will ensure that present and future survivors are treated equally.

I am pleased to be able to introduce the bill later this afternoon, which with its salary and benefit changes more fully recognizes the valuable work of our provincial judges throughout the province of Ontario.

RESPONSES

PROVINCIAL COURT JUDGES

Mr Kormos: There is a strange and rather forced self-congratulatory tone to the minister’s announcement. It is similar to the pride a used car salesman would take in his ability to roll back odometers. The government tells us it engaged in a consultative process. That may well be, but the provincial judges are not aware of it, their counsel are not aware of it and their association is not aware of it. Indeed, if there was any consultation, people listened but they did not hear.

The fact is that with more than a little bit of sleight of hand, what the minister and the government do not tell the judges or the people of Ontario is that they did not give weight or effect to the most important part of the Henderson committee’s recommendation, and that was as to what provincial judges’ salaries ought to be.

Indeed, this government circumvented the Henderson report by imposing salaries that were in significant contrast with the recommendations made by Henderson. They went through the rather futile charade of sliding the Henderson report through the standing committee on administration of justice, where with their majority of members on the justice committee, there was no listening to reason and certainly no response to the logic inherent in the Henderson report.

Judges’ salaries are but one of the serious grievances of the provincial bench in this province, grievances that are so severe that they have begun -- the government knows this full well -- to impact on the effectiveness of judging in Ontario. The government is delinquent in its response to the Henderson committee and the Henderson report. It has left Mr Henderson, I am sure, with the attitude: “Why did I go through this exercise? What an exercise in futility. Quite frankly, I’ll be damned if I’ll go through it again for these particular actors.”

This government has managed to alienate the provincial court bench. Not only has it alienated the existing bench, but it has not even begun to address some of the very basic problems inherent in the provincial bench across the province. They have not responded to the genuine and legitimate criticism that our provincial bench, those persons who administer justice on the front lines, in the first instance in most cases, are sadly lacking in terms of being representative of the communities they judge.

It is not inappropriate to ask this government, where is there adequate representation of women on this government’s provincial bench? Where is there adequate representation of native people, aboriginal people, on this provincial bench? Where is there adequate representation of people who reflect the communities they are serving?

Those representations are not there. I appreciate there is some lipservice being paid to that, but nowhere near the level of sincerity that would leave even the subtlest impression on any of us, not only in this Legislature but in communities across Ontario.

This government at the same time is hammering away at judges through its having chosen to ignore the recommendations of Henderson. It carries on and continues to ignore the plea of provincial judges for safe working conditions, not only for themselves but for those people who participate in the criminal justice system.

This government persists in its inability to provide adequate, safe courtrooms. This government persists in its refusal to accept its responsibility for policing and security in courtrooms. Rather, it shifts that responsibility on to municipalities at the same time as it reduces its funding to municipalities, so that cities and regions across Ontario that can ill afford the increased burden are being told: “Here, it’s you and your police forces that have to cope with inadequate courtroom facilities and inadequate funding on the part of the province.

You have to do your very best to safeguard not just the judges, not just the crown attorneys and defence counsel but the people from communities who in good faith appear in those courts on a daily basis to assist or participate in the administration of justice in this province.”

This announcement does little, indeed it does nothing, to enhance the credibility this government has lost over the last year or year and a half. It talks about consultation. That is a bald-faced inaccuracy. There was no consultation in this instance, just as there was no consultation when it came to Bill 162 and workers’ compensation, just as there was no consultation when it came to the Sunday shopping legislation that this government botched, just as there is not going to be meaningful consultation when it comes to Bill 68 and the horrid auto insurance scheme that this government is going to impose on drivers across Ontario. Consult, my foot.

Mr Sterling: I notice, by way of just a casual observation, that the minister’s statement took approximately two and a half minutes and the response took five. I am not going to be quite as long in my response this afternoon.

I will, however, say that the process by which we determine provincial court judges’ salary, benefits and working conditions was greatly shaken in this past year and a half.

Under legislation there is a committee, the Ontario Provincial Courts Committee, which is set up to look at the various matters and its report is referred to a committee of the Legislature. It was only after the urging of our party and the New Democratic Party that the justice committee got down to its work of reviewing that particular report.

Unfortunately, the government took precipitous action prior to the legislative committee even coming out with the report. Therefore, the provincial court judges, the bench, now feel there is very little credibility left with the existing process. I only hope that this legislation will restore some of that credibility because it is not good for the government, it is not good for the opposition and it is not good for Ontario if our provincial court judges do not trust the government. That was clearly the message we were getting when the last salary revisions took place.

I only hope that by accepting some of the recommendations of the Henderson report in this legislation, we will proceed to a quieter time with our judiciary. I cannot comment on the specifics with regard to the bill. I do note in the statement by the Chairman of Management Board (Mr Elston) that he has accepted some of the recommendations of the Henderson report. I only wonder which ones he has left out.

The Speaker: That completes the allotted time for ministerial statements and responses.

RESPONSE TO LETTER

Hon Mr Scott: On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: On 7 December, in the debate on the motion of the honourable member for Nipigon (Mr Pouliot), the honourable member for Parry Sound (Mr Eves) read into the record a press release which asserted that I had not replied to a letter from the chief of the Mushkegowuk council. The letter to me was dated 26 January 1989 and I replied to him on 29 March 1989.

The Speaker: I will have to rule that it is not a point of privilege. I believe you have corrected someone else’s record, which is not the usual practice in the House.

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mr R. F. Johnston: Mr Speaker, I would like to try a point of privilege, if I might. On Thursday past, I rose to ask your advice on how we could protect the integrity of this House when the government was knowingly sending out incorrect information about a bill that had not yet passed the House.

In spite of the protestations of concern of the Minister of Education (Mr Conway) that day, I have now learned that a property assessment notice about school tax changes will be sent out with all the assessment notices with incorrect information on it. It ignores the right of Catholics to send their assessment to the public school system and presumes that all Catholics in business will wish to send their taxes to the separate school system. The legislation passed third reading on Thursday and was amended to distinguish between Catholics and Catholics who support the separate school system before it did.

I have been informed that the Minister of Revenue is planning on sending out the attached form, even though it is incorrect. In my view, this raises serious questions about the right of the government to knowingly circulate information which contradicts its own legislation. It is doing this because of the deadlines for circulating this information which did not match the legislative timetable established by the government House leader.

All the members of the standing committee on social development have been offended by this action, even if they do not take it personally, because it does not respect the rights of a committee to amend legislation, which in fact it did. All members of this House should be offended by the presumption that their work is being incorrectly portrayed by the dissemination of information by this government. I would ask them to investigate this matter thoroughly.

Hon Mr Conway: I just want to speak very briefly to the honourable member’s point because he quite rightly raised in this House, I believe it was on Thursday, two particular concerns. One dealt with a concern that there had been a wide circulation of some material from the Ministry of Revenue that contained some incorrect information. I indicated at that time that I would pursue that. I did.

I was able to inform my friend the member for Scarborough West that it was apparently the case that a sample of a brochure had been circulated to school boards and regional assessment offices at some point last week but that there had been no general circularization of the material prior to the passage of Bills 64 and 65.

There was a second point that really arose from the first, and that was, was it the intention of the Ministry of Revenue to circulate information that somehow did not accurately reflect what the committee had done in so far as amending Bills 64 and 65 was concerned? I will let my colleague the Minister of Revenue speak to that, but it certainly was my information, gathered later that day, Thursday -- I do not know that I had an opportunity to report this back to my friend the member for Scarborough West -- that it was not the intention of the Ministry of Revenue to circulate incorrect information.

I see my friend the Minister of Revenue (Mr Mancini) has joined us. He might like to speak to that point because it falls within his departmental purview.

Mr Brandt: I want to support the point of privilege raised by the member for Scarborough West. I too raised this particular issue last week -- I believe, as well, that it was on Thursday -- with respect to both the printing and the dissemination of information which was factually incorrect.

I made the point that the minister’s bureaucrats had in fact printed thousands of these particular notifications which contained some information which was subsequently altered by the committee and that this information did receive, as the Minister of Education had indicated, a limited circularization in terms of those who were in receipt of the information, but in fact thousands upon thousands of copies of this same information were printed and ready to go, I presume simply awaiting the approval of the Minister of Revenue.

It is wrong to circulate that information prior to its being approved in its final form after being reviewed and approved by this House. I take the position that either it is bad management on the part of the minister or some of his personnel or it is a flagrant disregard, in my view, for the responsibilities that this House has with respect to that kind of legislation which does in fact have tax implications.

Hon Mr Mancini: I have listened very carefully to the comments made by my friends opposite. We have informed a number of individuals who have been interested in this matter that the flyers that were prepared, which were to be sent out today in fact, are not going to be sent out. The costs of the flyers have been exaggerated. It is unfortunate that any cost has been incurred, but the $28,000 cost that has been incurred is something that the ministry is going to have to live with.

The flyers we spoke about last week will not be sent out. We try to be ready in advance for a number of reasons, one of them being that we knew that the legislation was not going to be passed until very late and the Ministry of Education, the school boards and all of these people needed this information in order to do the important work we require of them. That is where the matter of the flyers of last week lies.

Mr R. F. Johnston: Just to clarify --

The Speaker: I do not want to get into a debate. I want to give every member an opportunity to discuss it. You have something --

Mr R. F. Johnston: A short matter. It is just that I think we are talking about two different things. There was the flyer matter, which I raised last Thursday; it has been dealt with in the fashion that has already been stated by the government members.

What I am talking about is something that is about to be placed in with all the assessment forms that go out at the beginning of the year. My information as of this morning was that the government had decided not to pull out that information because many of those articles have already been stuffed; thousands and thousands -- perhaps as many as 75 per cent -- of all those forms going out across the province have already been stuffed, and it is now impossible to take that information back.

We are now sending out information that is basically misconstruing the constitutional rights of Catholics in this province to direct their funds to the public school system if they choose to, and it is making us all seem to have passed legislation which missed that fact as well, and I am offended by that as a member.

The Speaker: I have listened very carefully, and I appreciate the member for Scarborough West putting this in writing. We have had instances in the past on points of privilege where members have not taken the time to write out their points of privilege and we have run into difficulty in examining whether or not it is a prima facie case of privilege.

I have listened to all the members very carefully, and I certainly will take a close look at it. I realize that this matter was brought up a very few days ago, and we have now received a report from the minister -- I do not know whether you did before or not -- but I will certainly look at what the members have put on the record and come back with a response.

VISITOR

The Speaker: Just before I call for oral questions, I would like to inform the members of the assembly that we have a visitor in the Speaker’s gallery. I would like to introduce to all members the Premier of New South Wales, Australia, the Honourable Nick Greiner. Please join me in welcoming the Premier.

ORAL QUESTIONS

FOOD BANKS

Mr B. Rae: I have a question for the Premier. The medical officer of health in the city of Toronto reported on Thursday to the board of health that one in three kids going to school in Toronto today, Monday, is going to school hungry. We also know that one of seven families in Toronto uses food banks. I want to ask the Premier why it is not possible for the province to state categorically that 1990 will be the very last year in which food banks will be operating in Ontario?

Hon Mr Peterson: The Minister of Community and Social Services, I think, can tell the honourable member of the initiatives this government has undertaken.

Hon Mr Beer: Certainly I do not think any member in this House can take any satisfaction from seeing the existence of food banks and indeed of poverty. Clearly what we are trying to do as a government is to develop policies and programs that will ensure that these kinds of facilities are not required.

As the honourable member knows, last spring we introduced a broad range of reforms to the social assistance system and the focus of those reforms was to try to provide increased support to sole-support parents and to children. We recognize, as I am sure anyone must, that those reforms in and of themselves -- the addition of some $400 million, still do not resolve the whole issue, and I can certainly say to my colleague that as minister I see this issue of poverty and particularly of child poverty to be one that as a government we have to expand even more efforts to try and overcome.

Mr B. Rae: The evidence of the 1980s is that poverty has grown among children dramatically, that poverty among working families has grown dramatically and that were it not for the fact that more and more women were entering the job market in this last decade, family incomes would have declined in real and absolute terms throughout the economy.

I am asking for a specific target, and I am asking the minister a specific question. I want to know why he cannot set a target, why he cannot stand up in this House and say that, as far as the government of Ontario is concerned, there will be no food banks in operation after 1990, because the situation will have changed sufficiently that families will not have to go down and ask for cans of food for free because they do not have any other way of feeding their kids. Why cannot we do that?

Hon Mr Beer: I can certainly give the honourable member the commitment that I will do everything I can, and I believe this government will, to ensure that we lessen as quickly as possible the need for food banks. In the changes that we brought in, I think it is terribly important to focus on one of the critical elements of the Thomson report, on which so much of our program was based, which is to try to ensure that we can get money through changes in the amounts we provide for basic needs for basic shelter. As the honourable member knows, in January a substantial reform to shelter will be brought into place, as will a six per cent increase in terms of basic needs.

That is where I think we have to really focus our attention to get funding to those who are in need so that there will be more money in the pockets of parents for their children, for food, If we can look a year from now and see that we have made a significant impact in lessening the need for food banks, I do not think anyone in this House would be happier than myself --

The Speaker: Thank you. That seemed like a fairly full response.

Mr B. Rae: At the same time as we learn and discover the extent of the real poverty that is in our midst, the front page of the business

section of the Toronto Star last week tells us, for example, that Canadian chief executives’ pay averages $429,000. At the same time, the Treasurer (Mr R. F. Nixon) is taking $60 million out of the pockets of people who are making less than $10,000 a year. That is just how rotten this government is in terms of income distribution and in terms of what it is doing for fairness.

The minister has not been prepared to say there will be no food banks after 1990. I want him to tell me the answer to this simple question: How many people does he expect will be using food banks in December 1990? What is his target?

Hon Mr Beer: I think that the commitment the government made in terms of the changes last spring, and which we have been implementing, demonstrate the direction that we are moving. We have, I repeat, tried to put those funds in the hands of the people who need them, and we are going to keep addressing the agenda, if you like, that was set out in the Thomson report, the Transitions document. If we continue to do that, and I believe that we will, I am sure that it will have an impact on the need for food banks. That is the goal we have set for ourselves, and we are going to continue to work towards that.

The commitment of my predecessor to try to eradicate the causes of poverty, I think is clear, as is the change in terms of the dollars that we have been putting into this whole area, and we are going to continue to do that. Poverty is simply not something that any of us is willing to accept, and we are going to do our utmost to try to meet that goal and to end the reason for food banks.

RENT REGULATION

Mr B. Rae: My next question is to one of the ministers who is responsible for creating this mess, and that is the Minister of Housing. Shelter costs, and the fact that shelter costs have exploded, are one of the major reasons why so many people are suffering today. Just around the corner from this place, at 44 Walmer Road, tenants have been faced with a double whammy, thanks to Liberal rent review. First of all, they have been told that their rents will be going up in perpetuity by at least five per cent because of the so-called financial loss section, their building having been sold for the umpteenth time, in 1988, for over $5.3 million.

I wonder if the minister can tell us when he will finally recognize that the financial loss provisions of his rent review law are driving a truck through any protection the tenants might have when it comes to their own rents. When is he going to realize that?

Hon Mr Sweeney: The honourable member will be aware of the fact that in 1986 there was a change in the legislation, and part of the consultation process that preceded that change was to get a group of landlords and a group of tenants together to find ways in which they could agree as to what should be incorporated into the change. The five per cent financial loss was part of that advisory committee’s agreement to be built into the legislation.

Mr B. Rae: In addition to the one whammy, which is the financial loss provision, the second whammy is the fact that the tenants not only have been told by the Rent Review Hearings Board that they are going to have to pay for financial loss for the next five years, they have also just been served with notice of a 21 per cent increase for 1989 that is based on capital expenditures, including salmon-coloured marble imported from Italy for the lobby.

When is the minister going to give tenants the right to say to the landlord: “We don’t want your salmon-coloured marble. We’d rather have windows that close properly and rents we can afford than pink marble in the lobby”? When is he going to do that?

Hon Mr Sweeney: I concur with the honour-able member that the particular incident he referred to does not seem to be an appropriate one.

The member is aware of the fact that just in the last few weeks I have consulted with both the tenants’ association and the landlords’ association to come up with a process with respect to repairs and renovations. I would suggest that we are fairly close to coming to a decision on that. One of the distinctions we are quite prepared to make is that all repairs or renovations that have to do with the integrity of the building would go forward but others would be a matter of discussion between tenants and landlords.

Mr B. Rae: As of 30 November, 250,000 tenants have been awarded rent increases under rent review of nearly 11 per cent -- 1O.9 per cent. The reason for these increases, well over the rate of inflation and well over the so-called allowable amount, is financial loss and capital expenditure.

I want to ask the minister, is he prepared to introduce amendments to the law which will protect tenants when it comes to financial losses and when it comes to unnecessary changes to a building, which tenants are having to pay for and which they cannot afford?

Hon Mr Sweeney: I thought I had just indicated to the honourable member that we are working on a process right now to deal with the question of repairs which affect the integrity of the building and renovations which may not. One of the sections we are prepared to come forward with is individual unit reviews.

However, I would point out to my honourable friend that, for the last number of years, the average number of units that have gone to rent review has been between 10 and 11 per cent, which suggests that almost 90 per cent of all the units in the province have been able to settle their increases outside of the rent review process, and I think that is reasonably good.

ELECTRICITY DEMAND AND SUPPLY

Mr Brandt: My question is for the Premier and it relates to Ontario Hydro.

The situation with respect to power shortages in the province is really quite intolerable, as the Premier is aware. There are some industries in Ontario which are required to close on a rotating basis because of shortages of power. Citizens of Ontario are being advised now that they should have their Christmas lights on for only a very short period of time.

It appears that this is either extremely poor management or the beginning of a public relations ploy on the part of Hydro to have the report that they are supposed to be releasing tomorrow with respect to energy demands accepted by the people of Ontario, irrespective of what the alternatives may be that are in that report. I wonder if the Premier could tell me whether he is satisfied with this whole question as it relates to power shortages in the province.

Hon Mr Peterson: Perhaps the Minister of Energy can tell the honourable member why he is wrong.

The Speaker: The question has been referred to the Minister of Energy.

Hon Mrs McLeod: I have had opportunities earlier in this House to respond to the concern about the short-term stresses on the electricity supply in Ontario. I would like to address specifically the honourable member’s suggestion that the current stresses may in some way be a ploy on the part of Ontario Hydro. I would like to assure him that I am absolutely satisfied that Ontario Hydro takes very seriously its mandate to provide reliable electricity to the consumers in Ontario.

There are some short-term stresses on the system because of very high, record, peak demands and because of some unanticipated as well as some planned shortages, but in fact Ontario Hydro is doing its utmost to meet those short-term demands.

Mr Brandt: First, I do not think it should come as a surprise to the minister that in the month of December there are people who have traditionally, for a long period of time, since electricity was first invented, turned on Christmas lights. Second, the month of December in Ontario has historically been a relatively cold month. This all comes, it appears, as a surprise to Ontario Hydro. Interestingly enough, other jurisdictions have excess power which they are able to supply to Ontario during this time of shortage for our province.

Can the minister indicate why all of these things would come to a head so quickly, when for the last number of years her government has been aware of the demand line, which would suggest we are pretty well in the position we expected to be in in terms of demand for electricity at this point in time? How come it is such a surprise to the minister?

Hon Mrs McLeod: I think if we were to look at the record of Ontario Hydro in meeting its commitment to reliable supply of electricity, that record would compare favourably with any jurisdiction which the member might want to draw a comparison with.

I am not sure that the current peaks come as a surprise, although certainly the rate of growth in our electricity consumption has grown at levels that were perhaps not totally predicted earlier. It is a concomitant of our economic growth, which has also been very strong and very significant in recent years. There are also, of course, some delays in a major source of electricity generation through the Darlington plants coming on stream. I think members of this House are well aware that those delays are directly related to the absolute assurance that is required for the safety considerations in bringing that plant into operation.

Certainly, Hydro is planning to meet the demands. Part of the short-term interruptions are in order to assure that there will not be unplanned outages and interruptions to consumers.

Mr Brandt: It appears that the government is simply lunging from crisis to crisis as it relates to power supply. We now have the completely intolerable decision made by Ontario Hydro that as a result of the threshold levels established by the Minister of the Environment (Mr Bradley) on sulphur dioxide emissions in Ontario for Ontario Hydro, the government in fact is now going to be importing dirty electricity from the state of Ohio, with extremely high sulphur dioxide emissions.

I want to suggest that as a former minister, I am well aware that those particular emissions are going to land on Ontario soil and are going to aggravate the acid rain problem. This is simply another method of purchasing power, when the government should be supplying its own power to this province.

The Speaker: And the question?

Mr Brandt: How can the minister accept the fact that she is now forced -- and that is the only word I can use -- into a corner where she has no other option but to buy dirty electricity from Ohio?

Hon Mrs McLeod: I am sure the honourable member, because of his earlier responsibilities, will be well aware that the interconnection agreement to purchase hydro power from Michigan was established many years ago and was only, in fact, renewed some two years ago in order to meet short-term shortages in electricity supply.

In terms of planning and crisis reaction, I would submit to the members of this House that perhaps there has never been a more focused effort at long-term planning to meet electricity demands. Members are well aware that Ontario Hydro will be submitting its long-term plans tomorrow and that this government is absolutely committed to ensuring that all our electricity planning is done in a context of review of environmental concerns, which is why we have set up the environmental assessment review process to review all future electricity plans for the province.

Mr Brandt: I directed my question previously at the issue of Ohio electricity, not Michigan electricity.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr Brandt: My next question is to the Premier, hoping that the Premier may want to answer this question, although it does fall in another ministry and he can, of course, transfer the question over. We noticed on Sunday that page after page of advertisements have indicated that stores are going to be open on Sunday. They are advertising quite freely and rather flagrantly that they are breaking the law, To protect themselves, there are other stores which really have no other choice but to protect their market share by following the lead of other retail establishments and staying open as well.

An internal memo that was circulated by Bargain Harold’s, one of the retail establishments in Ontario, indicates that it has plans to open on Christmas eve, which is a Sunday I would remind the Premier, but it says, “All retailers are waiting to see if the government will take a stand.” They are not talking about the municipalities; they are talking about the government of Ontario. Is the Premier prepared to take a stand to clarify exactly what the government is prepared to do on illegal Sunday openings?

Hon Mr Peterson: I think the Attorney General can help out my honourable friend.

Hon Mr Scott: As the honourable member knows, at Christmastime, particularly, there is considerable interest by some retailers in opening their stores on Sunday so that they can sell goods, and there is some interest by citizens in shopping on Sunday. Indeed, it was only a year ago that the honourable member himself was shopping on Sunday at Port Huron just before Christmas. The point is the matter is that --

Mr Brandt: There is no law against it in Port Huron. What kind of nonsense is that?

Hon Mr Scott: The honourable member is getting enormously defensive, and the fact that he shops on Sunday does not make him unique. It makes the question a little difficult to deal with, but it does not make him unique.

What I want to emphasize is that we have said from the beginning that where local municipal police forces lay charges, our crown attorneys will vigorously prosecute those charges. I will also tell the honourable member that 10 days ago we notified those regional municipalities that had commenced proceedings for an injunction that we would support their applications when they cared to bring them.

Mr Brandt: The minister is well aware that the current situation is a total mess. The municipalities are upset with it, the retailers are upset with it. The government is absolutely paralysed into inaction on this whole matter. It has done nothing to assist either the municipalities or the retailers to try to bring some semblance of sanity to the kind of confusion that is out there at the moment. Is the minister satisfied that in this province of Ontario in 1989, stores will be open on Christmas eve, which is a Sunday?

Hon Mr Scott: I understand that many are dissatisfied with the situation. I dare say that as the stores are closed in Port Huron, I believe, I am sure the honourable member is dissatisfied that he will have to shop on Sunday somewhere else. But the point I want to make is that the law is clear. There has been nothing to attack the clarity of the law. We have indicated that when municipal authorities, who alone have the responsibility, lay appropriate charges, we will prosecute those charges as vigorously as possible.

We have also indicated to those municipalities that have expressed a desire to seek an injunction that we will support them when they are prepared to proceed. For example, on 7 December I phoned the regional chairman of Metropolitan Toronto, whose case had run into Mr Justice Potts, and I said, “If you want our name and our help, you can have it.” He is giving the matter consideration, as are the people in Halton and Peel, and when they are ready to proceed, as they are entitled to do under

section 8, we have pledged our support to them and they will get it.

Mr Brandt: I have to say, with respect, to the Attorney General that this is not clear. The determination to enforce the law, either on behalf of or in co-operation with the municipalities is also not clear. What he has is a real mess as a result of the kind of legislation that his government brought forward.

I want the Attorney General to be aware that both opposition parties, unlike the government, have very clearly gone on record indicating their opposition to Sunday openings. They have very clearly gone on record as asking the government -- in fact, demanding of the government -- that it bring in comprehensive legislation that will control store hours for Sunday openings. Is he prepared to stand in his place on behalf of the government and indicate very clearly to the people of Ontario that he and the government he represents are opposed to Sunday openings? Will he give that clear message, at the very least?

Hon Mr Scott: As the honourable member knows, the position of the government was made plain when the framework law was passed by the House in the last session. It permits a local option, which has not yet taken place under the new law. We are satisfied that that law is a responsible, flexible, fair response to the competing interests and needs of Ontarians all the way from Fort Frances in the west to Hawkesbury in the east.

I do not understand, and maybe the honourable member does, why the people who live in Sault Ste Marie, who are in desperate commercial competition with their friends and neighbours in Sault Ste Marie, Michigan, should submit to the same rules as, for example, the people of Ottawa.

But I want to tell the honourable member, at this season of the year -- because he could not count last year, when he went shopping on Sunday at Port Huron -- that under our law there are only six more shopping days.

Mr B. Rae: I have a question to the Attorney General. He will know that under

section 8 of the law, he has the authority, where he finds there is a pattern across the province, or for whatever reason, to himself make application to bring an injunction against stores that are breaking the law.

The reports are that four grocery chains were able to open 52 stores in several regions across the province and that many others are now thinking of getting into the game for their own commercial reasons. I want to ask the Attorney General, does he not think that the law, in fact, gives him not only the power but the responsibility to take those four chains to court, from a provincial standpoint, and say, “This is not simply a regional issue in Halton or in Peel or in Niagara or in Metropolitan Toronto or anywhere; it is a problem across southern Ontario.” In this instance, why not bring a comprehensive injunction against those companies?

Hon Mr Scott: There appear to be four regions to which the honourable member has referred. In three of those four regions, injunction proceedings have already been taken by the municipal council, and I gather injunction proceedings are being considered in the fourth. We have indicated to the three that have already moved that we will support their application and be present when it is argued to lend our support. It would be idle and wasteful to duplicate those proceedings which have already been undertaken.

Mr B. Rae: Let me ask this simple question. When those companies trumpeted to the entire world, not yesterday, not last week, but several weeks ago, why did he not stop them in their tracks? Why did he not bring the application several weeks ago so that we would not now be in the situation where not just a few stores but hundreds of stores were open yesterday -- not all of them were charged -- and where the Attorney General’s failure to uphold and to enforce the law and to carry out injunctions has, in fact, brought the law into disrepute? Why was he not there several weeks ago?

Hon Mr Scott: This is revisionist history. As the honourable member will know, the regional municipalities of Metropolitan Toronto, Peel and Halton commenced applications for injunctions on their own, without notice, reference or inquiry of us. One of them, the regional municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, had a preliminary ruling from Mr Justice Potts. We indicated by telephone and by letter on 7 December that if that municipality wished to renew its application for an injunction, we would lend our name to it and support it by our presence and by argument.

The municipality has been giving consideration to that request and apparently has now decided to act on it. We have made a similar offer to the other municipalities which have brought applications for injunction.

Mr Jackson: Mr Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Revenue (Mr Mancini), who, I believe, has just stepped out. Could you please invite him to the House?

The Speaker: It is difficult for me to invite anyone into the House. However, there might be someone with another question to another minister.

PEOPLE WITH BRAIN INJURIES

Mrs Cunningham: My question is for the Minister of Health. The Ontario head injury association sponsored public provincial hearings on the status of wellness opportunities for residents with traumatic brain injury in April of this year. This report was submitted to cabinet in the fall, and I am certain she has taken the time to review this report and the recommendations.

There are 33 recommendations in this particular report, and the key recommendation has to do with the consumer information support system. In fact, there is one now that is supported by the American government. The United States government supports the information system that we now have in Ontario.

I know that she is aware their funding is running out at the end of this month, and my question today is, when will the minister let the Ontario head injury association know of her commitment to this particular program, the only program, which will run out this month?

Hon Mrs Caplan: First, I would like to say to the member opposite that I am very well aware of her interest in this matter, from both a personal perspective as well as that of a member of this Legislature. I would say that I understand the difficulties that are faced by families in the situation of dealing particularly with family members and friends who have experienced head injuries.

The ministry recognized some time ago the need for additional services. In fact, we are working with our colleagues to improve services. I met recently with the association and representatives thereof and I see today Ray Rempel here in the gallery and want to welcome him here to the Legislature. I know as well that he is meeting with probably one of the strongest advocates in this government for the head-injured, and that is the Minister without Portfolio responsible for disabled persons (Ms Collins).

I want to say to the member opposite that we are making progress, that there is more that still needs to be done, but in fact we are working together to achieve our goal of appropriate care for those people with head injury in the province.

Mrs Cunningham: We are very pleased, of course, that she is aware of what is happening. She knows, as well as the rest of the members in this House, that there were extensive public hearings and there are some 33 recommendations, but the fact is that right now hardly any of these recommendations can be acted on. The basic building block is the information system that is in place. No one would have thought for a moment that the only system that is in place would be lost and right now that is funded by the American government.

We need to know if the basic information system for families and friends and community members and the head-injured population will be in place on 1 January. The only way it can be in place is if this government supports it. Will the minister be supporting it on 1 January?

Hon Mrs Caplan: Today, I cannot be specific about any aspects of programs for the future. I can say how proud I am of the initiatives that we have taken to date. In December 1987, for example, we designated Hamilton Chedoke McMaster Hospital as a provincial resource -- and let me stress provincial resource -- for those with acquired brain damage, and some $3.9 million was provided for this purpose.

I acknowledge that there is much to do and that we are working in co-operation with all of those who have an interest, with my colleague the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr Beer), as well as with the advocate within government, the Minister without Portfolio responsible for disabled persons, to ensure that we are sensitive to the needs of people and their families and their friends who require these services and that in due course, as appropriate, we will be as responsive as we can to ensuring appropriate and optimal care for the people in this province.

SKILLS TRAINING

Ms Hošek: My question is to the Minister of Skills Development. Since the free trade agreement has come into effect, many Ontario companies have either closed or cut jobs:

Dofasco in northern Ontario and Nortel in Brampton; Arnold Manufacturing in Windsor and Duomatic/Olsen in Tilbury; John Deere in Welland and Lear Siegler in Kitchener; Libbey St Clair in Wallaceburg and Trailmobile in Brantford. There are many, many others; there is a much longer list than that.

I would like to ask the minister the following question: In the light of the devastating economic effects on the working lives of men and women in Ontario, what is our government doing to assist them in developing new skills? What are we doing to make training programs available for people who work in industries that face this major change?

Hon Mr Conway: My friend the member for Oakwood raises a very good point in her excellent question. I can tell her that the government of Ontario has taken a number of steps over the last couple of years to deal with not just the free trade agreement but the very real changes in our global economy in the area of public policy in Ontario.

For example, my colleague the Minister of Labour (Mr Phillips) has negotiated a program for older worker adjustment. We in the Ministry of Skills Development have specific programs, like Transitions, to assist the incumbent workforce that is facing this kind of pressure to meet the challenge of the future.

Interjections.

Hon Mr Conway: My friends opposite point out that more needs to be done, and of course more will be done. In the area of new technologies, for example, the Premier’s Council has, over the last few years, invested very substantial new resources to effect a better synergy between our universities and the private sector, to ensure that we are going to be competent in those new technologies, because we do know that in those areas there are going to be very considerable opportunities.

In elementary and secondary education, we are undertaking specific new initiatives to ensure that the young people who are going to be the workforce of tomorrow are going to have the skills that they are going to require to meet that challenge as well.

Ms Hošek: My specific concern is the whole question of what happens to the real people out there who lose their jobs. A good number of those people, of course, are women. I would like to know what our government is going to do to make sure not only that all the people who need to have their skills revised for the new world of work, but in particular women, get their needs met so that they are allowed to learn in the style that suits them.

Hon Mr Conway: Through a variety of initiatives, everything from improvements to our student assistance initiatives to the acceptance of the so-called Social Assistance Review Committee report through to increasing the opportunities for women in the nontraditional areas like trades and technology, through to elementary and secondary educational efforts in terms of awakening women, and particularly educators, to the opportunities for women in many of the nontraditional areas, we have tried, and we will continue to endeavour, to effect not just educational initiatives, but also social policy, because in the case of women we know very well that good social policy is going to be required to buttress the efforts of ministries like the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Skills Development, to name but two.

CHILDREN’S MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

Mr Allen: To the Minister of Community and Social Services: Poor children run at least double the risk for about every life risk that one can imagine. It shows in their psychological and their behavioural disorders, in their rate thereof relative to other parts of the population of children.

At the same time, after years of poor funding, children’s mental health centres that exist to serve these children are themselves the poor children of health care. They cannot compete for staff, high turnover rates disrupt treatment, waiting lists grow and quality is dropping. If the government will not tackle child poverty head on, it has to pay the consequences. When is it going to provide the full resources necessary to help children’s mental health centres help poor kids deal with the mental and emotional consequences of being poor?

Hon Mr Beer: I can say to my honourable friend that I, as I am sure he and other members have in the last few weeks, have been meeting with representatives of children’s mental health centres, both in my riding and elsewhere, around some of the very real issues and problems that they are facing. A number of meetings have taken place between members of my staff and representatives of the Ontario Association of Children’s Mental Health Centres, and I will also be meeting with them early in the new year.

I think what we are doing is identifying clearly the major issues -- and they have asked that we do this -- that they are facing and then to work with them in trying to ensure that we can get on top of those particular problems. I think we recognize very clearly -- and that is reflected in our report Better Beginnings, Better Futures -- the impact that poverty has on children’s mental health. That has to be a priority area for this ministry.

Mr Allen: The issue is pretty clear and ought not to take a lot of consultation. It deals with the problem of community-based agencies and the funding levels they receive. That is the reason why these agencies are noncompetitive, the root of their staff turnover problems, the declining service, the long waiting list that kids have to suffer while they are waiting to be treated. The result is child/youth workers, for example, get 6.5 per cent to 47 per cent less than comparable staff in related agencies.

Professional staff -- social workers, psychometrists and psychologists -- are 5.5 to seven per cent behind social service agencies, they are 12 to 17 per cent behind health-funded positions and they are 28 per cent behind their counterparts in boards of education. It is no wonder they cannot get staff, it is no wonder they cannot keep up the service.

The Premier’s council has laid on the minister the responsibility of eliminating these gaps. When is he going to do it, so disturbed poor kids can secure good treatment when they need it?

Hon Mr Beer: I think it is important to note that over the last three to four years we have increased our funding for children’s mental health centres, from some $105 million to $160 million. Even with that, we recognize that there are still issues related to a number of the points which the honourable member has raised. But the way to resolve those is going to be looking at the whole area of services to children and working in concert not only with children’s mental health centres, but with children’s aid societies and others that are providing specific help to young people. This we are committed to do.

We look at all of these services as being integrated and that the solution we will come to will be one that is going to involve a number of ministries. But clearly, I think if the member looks at the funding over the last couple of years, if you look at the direction that is in the report Better Beginnings, Better Futures and the work of our own Advisory Committee on Children’s Services, there is a framework there whereby we will work out a number of these issues and be able to work co-operatively with the children’s mental health centres and have a real impact on the kids they serve.

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mr Jackson: My question is to the Minister of Revenue. Last Thursday it was brought to the minister’s attention -- apparently, according to Hansard, for the very first time -- that erroneous and misleading assessment notices were being sent out through his ministry. The minister will be aware that this is a matter of substance since it deals with the recent change in legislation under Bill 64, which divides commercial-industrial assessment between separate and public school boards. The error that was brought to his attention would in effect, if gone unchecked, represent a further loss of revenue to public school boards in this province.

Given that the minister assured this House four days ago in Hansard that he would stand in his place and report to this House, I would invite him to do that. Given that he has now discovered a second erroneous notice, I would ask him to clarify now for this House how many notices were published, how many, if any, were sent and what he is prepared to do about it.

Hon Mr Mancini: The honourable member is incorrect. We have not prepared assessment notices which are incorrect. I tried to make that clear to him last week. What the honourable member is talking about, so that the members of the House can understand, is a flyer, which the officials in the ministry had prepared, that we were going to send to the 400,000 or so clients advising them that a very important assessment notice was coming and that they should be watching for this particular notice.

I said earlier in the House today -- I was very clear about it -- that the flyers in fact had not gone out to the vast general public. As a courtesy they had gone out to the regional assessment offices and the school boards because they would be requested to, and indeed they would have to, answer questions. Those flyers have not gone out. I have held up their mailing and they will not be used, as I said earlier today.

Mr Jackson: I think it is the minister’s information which is quite incorrect. We have given him a copy of his notice. That was given to him on Thursday. What we brought into the House today to give him was an actual copy of the notice which is given to business and corporation assessment payers in this province. This form has room for a signature, to print its name, the designation of whether the company is a publicly traded company or not. That is what we have demonstrated with an actual copy of in this House. It is the minister’s lack of awareness of what is going on in his ministry which is at stake here.

Now, if the Minister of Education (Mr Conway) has wrongly advised him of what amendments were being made it could be understood, because the Minister of Revenue was not present for this committee’s deliberations on Bill 64. But that excuse aside, when will the minister resolve the central point as to whether or not all notices that contain this information will be withdrawn and that he will publicly state how many will be destroyed and how many will be --

The Speaker: Order. You are trying to get four supplementaries in there.

Hon Mr Mancini: As gently as I can, the honourable member is wrong again. The insert to the real assessment notices that the honourable member is pointing to basically allows for partnerships and businesses and corporations to make initial contact with the ministry. Then this initial contact is followed up -- by phone, by open houses and by a number of other ways -- to ensure that what the businesses want to do is what the Ministry of Revenue does as far as how they wish to direct their property taxes.

REPRODUCTIVE CARE

Mrs O’Neill: My question is to the Minister of Health. My question focuses on the provision of health services for women. She no doubt well remembers the 1988 report of the Advisory Committee on Reproductive Care. Can she update us on what initiatives her ministry has taken in this area?

Hon Mrs Caplan: I would like to thank the member for the question. In fact, the contribution of the Advisory Committee on Reproductive Care has been significant, as has been our response. As the member knows, the goal of the reproductive care committee was to improve the health status of mothers and their babies. We declared maternal and newborn health as a priority for the ministry. We have announced innovative programming, some $1.5 million for a health promotion pilot program which offers social and emotional support to low-income and teenage mothers.

The reproductive care report also, she should know, was responsive to both low-risk as well as --

Mr Jackson: You won’t bring up about the lady whose baby died in an airplane when she left St Catharines for London. The baby died in midair. You know it. You won’t bring that up.

The Speaker: Order. The member for Burlington South, do you think you can really control yourself?

Mr Jackson: I am working on it.

The Speaker: Thank you.

Hon Mrs Caplan: I would point out to the member and to all members of the House that 85 per cent of all of the births in Ontario are as a result of low-risk maternal care. The member knows that we are world leaders, and the recent perinatal statistics from that report indicate a decrease in mortality, as well as low birth-weight rates, for Ontario. The member should be aware as well that the report recommended that one high-risk centre was required in Ottawa, and we moved to implement that recommendation as well.

Mrs O’Neill: From time to time we hear of mothers who must travel for specialized care services. Will the minister please tell us what she is doing to ensure that women are getting the care they need as close to home as possible?

Mr Jackson: Bring up the St Catharines death.

Mrs O’Neill: I think this member to my right has suggested he is trying to get himself under control. I hope he is continuing.

Hon Mrs Caplan: One of the initiatives which I think is particularly significant is that we have offered alternative payment methods for physicians who work in paediatric subspecialities, because in fact they have been discriminated against by traditional Ontario Medical Association fee-scheduling practices. As well, we have established a computerized bed registry which links all of the high-risk centres across the province and we have appointed a maternal and child care co-ordinator, Nancy Shosenberg, with the mandate to organize an expert team of health professionals to assess the province’s perinatal system.

We have as well, I am quite proud to say, established a multidisciplinary team with the goal and the mandate to try to improve the health outcomes for women of child-bearing age at the same time as reducing the rate of caesarean

section across the province to a more acceptable level. The goal is 15 per cent over two years, but the other side of that goal is improved health outcomes for the women of this province. Maternal and child health is a priority.

NATIVE JUSTICE

Mr Wildman: I have a question for the Solicitor General. Could the Solicitor General explain why, despite the fact that the Race Relations and Policing Task Force recommended that a tripartite task force on native justice be created and be in operation by April 1990, and the Ontario Native Council on Justice in June 1989 voted in favour of the recommendation and expressed willingness to participate, native organizations, such as the Union of Ontario Indians, have yet to be contacted by anybody in the provincial government about participating?

Hon Mr Offer: The member will be aware that approximately four, five or six weeks ago, on behalf of the government, I made a response to the Lewis task force report, a very comprehensive report which dealt with a number of issues dealing with policing and race relations.

The member is quite right when he brings forward the whole question of first nations communities and the whole issue of policing. I think it is important for the member to realize that in March 1989 the previous Solicitor General, who is the member for London North (Mrs E. J. Smith), signed an agreement for first nations policing in Ontario. This document marked the beginning of a transition period during which first nations will be taking over aspects of policing.

As the member will be aware, there is a specific agreement at the Six Nations reserve, whereby policing is being taken over, in dealing with responsibility and obligation by the Six Nations people.

The Speaker: Thank you.

Hon Mr Offer: I believe that this particular agreement, together with the example that we are seeing through the Six Nations, is an example for many to follow and something which we are working to --

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Wildman: He does not want to quit.

It is, I suppose, understandable that the Solicitor General would specifically single out policing, but he would know that the task force was not talking about just policing in the setting up of the tripartite group to look into native justice. It is looking into the whole court system, the way of dealing with offences and penalties.

In light of the statement by the Attorney General (Mr Scott) last week about the government’s willingness to negotiate Indian self-government, can the Solicitor General explain when this tripartite commission will be set up and operating and when the native organizations will be consulted about its membership, so that we can move to really establish Indian self-government in regard to the justice system?

Hon Mr Offer: I can comment by specifically talking about the whole issue of first nations and policing and indicating that on that particular issue we have recently completed and executed renewals of those agreements of March 1989, which I believe provide an important example for many to follow in dealing with the specific issue of policing and first nations.

Certainly part of my response to the Lewis task force report was to establish a greater community liaison between the police community and the general community. I believe there is a great deal of work to do. It was just recently that I visited Thunder Bay and had some very important and very fruitful discussions with representatives in that area about how best we can make certain that the police community is sensitive to the needs and responsive to the wants of the general community and how the general community can provide an input as to --

The Speaker: Thank you. I wonder if the Minister of Energy (Mrs McLeod) could help unwind him.

CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES

Mr Cureatz: I have a question to the Minister of Correctional Services. As the minister is well aware, over the past little while we have been after the ministry, concerned about overcrowding, transportation, facilities. We had visited the Don Jail. We are very pleased about the minister’s announcement a couple of weeks ago to try to alleviate some of these problems.

More particularly, in my municipality, the region of Durham, and in the riding of Durham Centre, an inspection panel had investigated the Whitby Jail. The results of the inspection panel are as follows: that the jail should be condemned, that it is overcrowded, potentially dangerous and outlived its usefulness. A lot of people throughout the region of Durham who are associated with the facility or are working in the facility or are placed in the facility are concerned about the old facility.

Would the minister indicate to us in this Legislature and to the people in the region of Durham if he is going to be instituting any of the recommendations under the panel?

Hon Mr Patten: The member should know that our officials take these reports very seriously. In each instance where a panel visits an institution of ours and drafts a report, it is sent to our ministry. This one, as the member knows, is fairly recent. Our officials at the moment are studying the particular recommendations of the panel.

I might add for the member’s interest, because I believe it is in his riding, that this particular institution is part of a 15-year capital plan that we have in our ministry and it is high on the list. I cannot, at this particular point, identify a specific date for the expansion of the facility, except to tell him that we are aware of the importance of needing more space in that institution and we are doing our utmost to promote that cause.

Mr Cureatz: In conjunction with the overcrowding, it has also been learned that a number of inmates are being transferred in a school bus, being accompanied of course by the driver, a civilian driver, and one guard. In the minister’s review of the panel’s recommendations, would he be so kind as to indicate to this Legislature that the specific problems of transferring inmates, which have been brought to his attention before, will be examined?

Will the minister give us some assurance that at least that aspect can be alleviated slightly? Instead of looking at the whole jail problem immediately, will he at least alleviate the concerns people have about transferring inmates in school buses with only a civilian driver and one guard?

Hon Mr Patten: The member says there is a problem with transfers, but I do not know what the problem is. We transfer inmates from time to time for a variety of reasons. We transfer offenders who have different classifications in our institutions, meaning that some have more serious crimes than others. The member well knows that the offenders we have who are sentenced in our particular institutions are not the violent mass murderers or that kind of ilk. As a matter of fact, they go to the federal institutions.

When we talk about intermittent sentenced offenders, these are people who have perhaps not paid a fine; they are people who have perhaps driven a car under the influence for the third time after a warning; they are people who may be involved in shoplifting or offences of that nature. These are not people who are a violent threat of any kind. I think the member well knows that. They are transferred. It saves us money so that we can take some of that money and invest it in the staff that is needed because of some of the pressures of overcrowding.

NIAGARA RIVER WATER QUALITY

Mr Dietsch: My question is to the Minister of the Environment. The minister will be only too well aware of the ongoing concerns about the Niagara River by many individuals, especially those in the St Catharines-Brock riding. It has been three years since the signing of the four-party accord, which was designated to address the problem of industrial discharge into the Niagara River. I would like the minister to give this House an update on the activities Ontario is undertaking in this regard.

Hon Mr Bradley: The member has had an ongoing interest in this, both as a municipal representative and as a provincial representative. He will be pleased to know that in fact Ontario municipal industrial discharges have been reduced. According to a report that we put out earlier this month, the toxic discharges into the Niagara River have been reduced by 64 per cent in the last two years.

In addition to that, sampling conducted by the ministry in 1988-89 shows, if we take into consideration the loadings in the 1984 Niagara River report, that in fact the loadings have been reduced 85.5 per cent since that report was produced. An industry such as Atlas steels, the only Canadian source among the top 10 contributors to the river, has cut its discharges by 30 per cent since 1986-87, and the company has reduced its pollution by 87.6 per cent from the 1984 levels.

Other loadings that have been reduced are at Fleet manufacturing, Cyanamid of Canada in the Falls and Cyanamid in Welland. All substantial decreases in the Canadian --

The Speaker: Thank you.

Mr Dietsch: I certainly appreciate hearing the positive steps that are being contributed by Ontario industries but, as the minister well knows, the Niagara River is an international waterway and this is a multiparty agreement and it involves the United States. I would appreciate hearing your views on the action taken thus far by the United States.

Hon Mr Bradley: I should point out that United States representatives were there as we turned the shovel for the upgrading of the Anger Avenue sewage treatment plant, and I am pleased to report that in fact a 91.4 per cent decrease has been recorded in the contaminants from Fort Erie’s Anger Avenue plant from 1986-87 to 1988-89, which is a substantial decrease.

On the American side, they have had some significant decreases in the point source part of their problem, but of course the main problem lies with the toxic waste dumps which are located near the Niagara River. We will continue to pursue, as we do either through the court or through various other activities, each of the remedial action plans that are taking place on the American side. We will continue the pressure, of course, as we have in the past.

Members of the House will remember that it was Ontario that held out for the tough, specific agreement on the Niagara River. We are now beginning to see the results, but there is a lot more that still has to be done.

The Speaker: I see three conversations going on over here. I am just afraid to ask any other member to ask questions.

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION

Mr Morin-Strom: I have a question for the Minister of Education with respect to Bill 66, the Teachers’ Pension Act.

The Speaker: Order. Perhaps I might ask the member for Mississauga South to take her seat. There is a question being asked to the Minister of Education.

Mrs Marland: I am sorry.

Mr Morin-Strom: The Minister of Education has proclaimed for a number of months now that he is willing in this bill to negotiate the possibility of either joint control or member control over the teachers’ pension plan. However, as we have come to the end of the committee consideration of this bill, the minister has made it quite clear that in fact joint control means the government has the final say on all decisions having to do with the teachers’ pension plan in the province of Ontario.

Has the minister reconsidered his position that obstinate refusal to have a dispute settlement mechanism will be the stumbling block that prevents the achievement of a joint control plan for the teachers’ pensions in the province?

Hon Mr Conway: I thank my good friend the member for Sault Ste Marie for both his interest and his question. I would like to take this brief moment to summarize the government’s position with respect to this very important matter of pension policy.

The government of Ontario has said that as far as this very good pension plan is concerned, the government is prepared to seriously consider one of three alternatives for the management of the plan. The teachers of Ontario have said throughout the piece that they are, like the government, most interested in a partnership model. But the government has indicated that we cannot accept, as part of any partnership, a mechanism for dispute resolution that involves compulsory, binding arbitration, because as the Treasurer (Mr R. F.

Nixon) has said, it would be unfair to the taxpayers, who have an enormous interest and obligation in this multibillion-dollar account, to surrender the kind of responsibilities that would be involved to an outside third party.

The teachers have said they are not ready for a member-run plan at this point; the government has said that we are very interested in partnership, but not a partnership that involves final or compulsory binding arbitration as dispute resolution. Therefore, we are left at this moment with a decision to make and, on the basis of what the teachers have said and what the government has indicated, it must be a government-sponsored plan for the moment.

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

COURTS OF JUSTICE AMENDMENT ACT, 1989

Mr Elston moved first reading of Bill 100,

An Act to amend the Courts of Justice Act, 1984.

Motion agreed to.

The Speaker: The minister gave an explanation earlier.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THIRD READING

PUBLIC SERVICE PENSION ACT, 1989

Hon Mr Ward: Mr Speaker, I believe we have a deferred vote.

The Speaker: That is correct. There is a deferred vote on the motion for third reading of Bill 36,

An Act to revise the Public Service Superannuation Act. Therefore, I have no choice but to call in the members. I would remind the members that there is up to 30 minutes for this bell.

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

Ayes

Ballinger, Beer, Bradley, Brown, Callahan, Campbell, Caplan, Carrothers, Chiarelli, Collins. Conway, Curling, Daigeler, Dietsch, Elliot, Elston, Epp, Faubert, Fawcett, Ferraro, Fleet, Furlong, Grandmaître, Hošek, Kanter, Kerrio, Keyes, Leone, Lipsett, Lupusella, MacDonald, Mancini, McClelland, McGuigan, McGuinty, McLeod, Miclash, Miller, Morin; Nicholas, Nixon, J. B., Nixon, R. F., Offer, O’Neil, H., O’Neill, Y., Patten, Phillips, G., Polsinelli, Poole, Ramsay, Reycraft, Riddell, Ruprecht, Scott, Smith, D. W., Sola, Sorbara, Stoner, Sullivan, Velshi, Ward, Wilson, Wong.

Nays

Allen, Brandt, Bryden, Charlton, Cooke, D. S., Cousens, Cunningham, Eves, Farnan, Grier, Hampton, Harris, Johnson, J. M., Johnston. R. F., Kormos, Laughren, Mackenzie, Marland, Martel, Morn-Strom, Philip. E., Pollock, Pouliot, Rae, B., Reville, Runciman, Sterling, Wildman.

Ayes 63; nays 28.

His Honour the Administrator of Ontario entered the chamber of the Legislative Assembly and took his seat upon the throne.

ROYAL ASSENT

Hon Mr Howland: Pray be seated.

The Speaker: May it please Your Honour, the Legislative Assembly of the province has, at its present sittings thereof, passed a certain bill to which, in the name of and on behalf of the said Legislative Assembly, I respectfully request Your Honour’s assent.

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: The following is the title of the bill to which Your Honour’s assent is prayed:

Bill 36,

An Act to revise the Public Service Superannuation Act.

Clerk of the House: In Her Majesty’s name, His Honour the Administrator doth asset to this bill.

His Honour the Administrator was pleased to retire from the chamber.

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

Mr Polsinelli moved, on behalf of Mr Scott, second reading of Bill 74,

An Act to provide for the Consolidation and Revision of the Statutes of Ontario.

M. Polsinelli, au nom de M. Scott, propose Ia deuxi~me lecture du projet de loi 74, Loi prévoyant Ia codification et Ia refonte des lois de l’Ontario.

Mr Speaker: Any comments or questions?

Mr Philip: We are in support of the bill.

However, we do have one problem with Bill 74 and Bill 75. I mentioned it when the Attorney General (Mr Scott) announced this legislation. I want to demonstrate to the members that the revised statutes of 1980, which I have obtained from behind the Speaker’s chair, occupy quite a number of volumes of books, as one can see. As the members can see, there are a number of books for 1980, and with this government regulating us at an unprecedented level, many more statutes have been added in the last 10 years.

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you. The member’s time is up.

Mr Sterling: I am sorry, Mr Speaker. I did not think this was in response to the --

The Deputy Speaker: This was comments and questions, my friend.

Mr Sterling: No, I do not believe so.

The Deputy Speaker: I took over from the Speaker and this is what I have just been told, but you may continue your speech, in either of the two languages, of course.

I want to make it absolutely clear that we are in favour of printing the Revised Statutes of Ontario and the Revised Regulations of Ontario for 1990 in both languages. All we want to do is give the citizens of Ontario the option as to what they would like to purchase for their own offices.

I do not want to hear from the parliamentary assistant the response he has given to me informally, that all the government is going to do to meet this problem is make the pages bigger and the print smaller. I do not find that is a very satisfactory answer. As many of us who are practising at the bar have difficulty in reading, we think the print in the editions as they are now is sufficiently small. I know the member for Niagara Falls (Mr Kerrio) thinks it should be even bigger.

We think that an insensitive approach to the introduction of francophone services, as this bill illustrates, creates unnecessary bad feeling. Therefore, I would ask the parliamentary assistant to accept my suggestion and ensure in the bill and in practice in the administration that our citizens will be given an alternative choice to this creation of extra paper.

Mr Callahan: When it comes to the consolidated statutes each year -- I practise law -- it always struck me that all we do is continue to create volumes of statutes. It is always very difficult. Probably the most time-consuming item for a practising lawyer is attempting to take the statutes themselves, when they are done every 10 years, and interleave them with the amendments that take place every year.

Surely today, with the technology we have and the computer opportunities we have, there has to be a better way of doing it. If you go into any legal firm, you are going to find shelves and shelves of these things, dating as far back as the consolidated statutes go. I am wondering if there is some way through computer technology that these volumes of statutes could be kept current, either by making them loose-leaf as opposed to permanently bound or by having access to computer opportunities to be able to pull up on a screen the statute properly with all of its amendments.

Errors occur, perhaps in smaller firms, because of the research that may be done in trying to put all of these things together. I know there are things such as the Citator and other helpful hints that are put out by various legal publications. But I would hope that by the time we come to the consolidated statutes of the year 2000, or some time before that, we would have a more updated way of doing this.

This is not a criticism of how the government is doing it. I think it is to be applauded for having recognized the introduction of both official languages and having adopted that not only in fact but its spirit as well. I am in favour of that. I think that the technology of it and how it is dealt with is something that should be looked at and hopefully we can come up with a way of doing it that we can have them currently in force, so that if the average citizen particularly wants to look he can find it.

Mr Sterling: I would have hoped that the parliamentary assistant would have responded so that I would know whether or not it is going to be necessary to take further action in terms of this legislation, whether he sees fit that this bill can be amended in such a manner to ensure that the citizens of Ontario have an evenhanded choice as to what they are going to buy from the Queen’s printer when these very many volumes of books are produced, so that we can do our little bit in this Legislature in an environmental sense to not produce a lot of paper that is never going to be read by either francophone or anglophone in this province.

In fact, what the ministry has determined is that the most viable format for the production is as the member for Carleton has been advised; that is, the pages will be slightly larger and the print will be slightly smaller. In terms of volume, it is going to produce substantially less volume than if we had followed the member for Carleton’s suggestion. The House should know that the federal statutes of Canada are printed in this format, and the statutes of two other provinces, New Brunswick and Manitoba, are printed in this format.

I could expound on a number of other reasons as to why we feel this is the best approach to consolidating these laws, but I think it suffices to say that if we take care of the member for Carleton’s concern in terms of the volume -- and I assure him, as I have been assured by the ministry, that the volume will not be twice as much but in fact will be just a little bit more than the present RSO 1980 -- and the fact that we want to be as fair as possible to the francophone lawyers in Ontario, I think he should be happy with that response.

Motion agreed to.

La motion est adoptée.

Bill ordered for third reading.

Le projet de loi devra passer a l’étape de troisième lecture.

REGULATIONS REVISION ACT, 1989 / LOI DE 1989 SUR LA REFONTE DES REGLEMENTS

Mr Polsinelhi, on behalf of Mr Scott, moved second reading of Bill 75,

An Act to provide for the Consolidation and Revision of the Regulations of Ontario.

M. Polsinelli, au nom de M. Scott, propose Ia deuxième lecture du projet de loi 75, Loi prëvoyant Ia codification et ha refonte des reglements de l’Ontario.

Mr Polsinelli: This bill is a companion to Bill 74 and provides for the consolidation and revisions of the regulations of Ontario as they stand at the end of 1990. The same comments apply to this bill as apply to Bill 74.

Mr Philip: I would disagree with the parliamentary assistant. I do not see it as simply a companion bill. I think that if we look at the regulatory system, we do not have the kinds of checks and balances that we do have in a legislative system, where bills are debated and passed in Parliament.

Therefore, when it comes to regulations, we have to look at what has happened in all parliamentary jurisdictions. We are faced with what I can only describe as a crisis, namely, that public servants without adequate supervision of Parliament, are making more and more regulations that are affecting the lives of each and every individual.

If you were a small businessman and went into a parliamentary or business library and said, “I am in business X; where can I find all of the regulations that affect my business?” you would not be able to find them. The powerful corporations can subscribe to services that will advise them on a regular basis of regulatory changes; they can be kept up to date with what changes are being made.

For the small businessman or for the ordinary citizen, what we see is a whole system where you can be in violation of regulations and you can be punished for that and your only argument then is that you are in ignorance of that regulation; but in fact there has been no system in this province to deal with the terrible bureaucracy and anarchy that has been created by the regulatory system. This bill does nothing to really remedy that. You have some consolidation, but essentially what this bill does is what this government has done to date so far, which is to leave it to the bureaucratic system rather than to the parliamentary system.

To the credit of Ottawa, we see at least a movement there towards parliamentary committees reviewing all regulatory statutes over a 10-year period of time and recommending sunsetting action to the government where that seems appropriate to a parliamentary committee -- we have a cabinet committee that will ensure that -- and reviewing all regulations over a seven-year period and recommending sunsetting action to the cabinet, and we have all regulatory programs being evaluated for efficiency and effectiveness once every seven years by the office of the controller general in consultation, again, with the regulatory affairs secretariat.

What we have, at least in Ottawa, is a recognition that Parliament must come to grips with the increasing bureaucracy created by a regulatory system and that many of the regulations are not even adequately reviewed by cabinet ministers or indeed by the cabinet.

I am not going to suggest that a sunsetting system is the answer to everyone’s problems. We know that in some jurisdictions, such as the United States, sunsetting provisions are dealt with by introducing a sunsetting bill at 10 minutes to midnight on a particular evening and simply reviving every regulation that has been passed for a period of years.

To their credit, the Australians are at least trying to come to grips with the problem of the increasing bureaucracy caused by the regulatory system. One must compliment at least the people in the government of New South Wales and in other jurisdictions at the state level in Australia for trying to come to grips with the very costly procedures that we have in the regulatory system.

The standing committee on regulations and private bills issued a report that was a consensus report. There was no dissenting report even though some of us may have had some concerns about feeling that we needed to move more towards a sunsetting thrust. In the interests of at least having a consensus report, we agreed with the majority of the recommendations, and therefore all members of that nonpartisan committee signed the report. We have not seen any movement by this government to date in implementing that.

This bill does not implement the recommendations of that all-party committee. Indeed, if we look at some of the issues raised by that all-party committee, it is not just a matter of economy and efficiency; it is also a matter of human rights. For one thing, with the passage of the Charter of Rights, I think we have to come to grips with the need for constant vigilance to ensure that regulations are meeting with the Charter of Rights passed by the Parliament of Canada. Of course, in this bill, the government has not given any indication of what it is going to do to give us that assurance.

There is a need for an ongoing indexing system, and in consolidating, this bill does not go as far as what has been requested by the committee. It should be possible for any business person or citizen to go in and in a computer age find out exactly what regulations affect him and his business or those things that are of concern to him in his life or his business. That is not possible, and this government has not moved to deal with that.

The government should develop a citizens’ code of regulatory fairness. If the Attorney General would turn to page 63 of the excellent report turned out by the select committee, he would see some suggestions in six points that are needed if we are going to have a regulatory system. Of course, we have to have a regulatory system in a modern world and no one suggests that we could sunset all the regulations.

I think at the very least we need an adequate system of notice and comment. It should be possible that those people who are going to be directly affected by regulations should have an opportunity to express their concerns; that members of the Legislature, be it a committee or a subcommittee, would at least have an opportunity to study, to hear and to deal with that. Ottawa has at least moved to repatriate regulations into Parliament and to democratize the system, if you want, to open it up so that people whose lives are being affected by the regulatory system can at least have some input and some comment on it. We do not see any movement by this government.

We will be supporting the bill, but we must express grave concern and disappointment that as society becomes more and more complex, as more and more people are complaining about the red tape they are facing through big government, necessitated by the complexity of society, this government has not seen fit at least to move in a direction that would be more reasonable for business people and others to deal with, that would be more efficient and that would protect the rights of those whom they are regulating.

Maybe the parliamentary assistant would like to comment on some of the concerns I have about this legislation which, as I said, we will be supporting but which is grossly inadequate. Hopefully it will be here for just a short period of time and we will have some really important legislation based on the select committee report or perhaps based on the experiences of other governments that have seen that this is an important issue to deal with.

Ms Bryden: I would just like to congratulate the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale for his comments on the need for notice and comment on regulations when they come in and the need for more control over the regulations so that we do not just deal with problems after the regulations have been in effect and have no input prior to that stage, or very little input.

I sat on the standing committee on regulations and private bills for several years and I was certainly aware that there was a great need for more control and more regulation of the regulations process. I do think that the more the bills that are going through give regulation powers to the government, the more we are moving away from a democratic legislative process to a process of government fiat on many matters which the Legislature does not get an opportunity to deal with.

So I think the legislation should be more precise in what can and cannot be done by regulations, but I think the process which this bill addresses should also be better directed to providing for legislative input and people input on regulations.

Mr J. B. Nixon: I just could not resist making a comment on the member’s thoughtful speech. It is thoughtful indeed, but the problem I have, of course, is that it is nice to stand here during the course of dealing with bills and talk about the need for notice and comment on regulations and the proliferation of regulations and the need for citizenry involvement and discussion on regulations, but when it comes to question period, their leader and those members are standing up saying:

“Pass a law, pass a regulation. Deal with this matter quickly. You know what the answer is.” They demand immediate action.

Mr Kormos: Horse manure, that is what I say in response to that. I listened real careful to the comments made by my friend the member for Beaches-Woodbine, and a logical, intelligent person cannot help but agree with her. Every single person in every single community across Ontario understands what it means to be over-regulated.

Democracy, in this Legislature, with this kind of maturity and the government’s disdain for the role of an opposition? Let’s cut it out.

Who is not regulated? Who is getting a free ride? We know who they are. The A and Ps and the big supermarkets, they are getting a free ride. The big landlords, they are getting a free ride. The corporate interests of this particular government which the Liberals cater to time after time, the insurance industry in Ontario, they are getting a free ride. It all depends what side you are on.

There has been the occasional effort to criticize members of the New Democratic Party by saying, “You people accept money from trade unions and you consult with leadership from working people from trade unions.” I say, “Yes, and we are proud of that.”

The Liberals and their government take money from big corporations and the auto insurance industry and they take their marching orders from big corporations and from the auto insurance industry. The question to be asked is, are they proud of that? Of course not, because they try to conceal it. When it comes down to the crunch, when it comes down to big corporations giving them money, they will do it through the back door so as not to get caught doing it through the front door. That is what Patti Starr is all about, that is what fridges and paint jobs are all about. We are talking about as corrupt a government as we have ever seen.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

Mr Kormos: This is the pot calling the kettle black. This is somebody who is sucking and blowing at the same time. That was a shameful comment on the part of the member for York Mills, Mr Nixon.

The Deputy Speaker: Time for one more comment, if any.

Mr J. B. Nixon: Point of order, Mr Speaker, I would ask you to bring the member for Welland-Thorold to order. He is supposed to use riding names, not personal names.

The Deputy Speaker: Let’s get going. The member for Windsor-Riverside has two minutes.

Mr D. S. Cooke: I will not take the entire two minutes. I found the comments of the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale to be very thoughtful. I thought the response from the member for York Mills was very typical. I hope that the tenants in his riding were listening very carefully, because obviously what the member for York Mills was saying is that they cannot act quickly to protect tenants when it comes to changing the regulations to deal with unnecessary capital expenditures.

And, of course, the member for York Mills would not want the government to act very quickly on that, because I am sure that if one examines such things as donations to his riding and to his elections, they would reflect very carefully the kinds of interests that he would be prepared to protect in this place.

We in this party think that there should be regulations changed very quickly to protect tenants because the landlords are using the Liberal legislation to blow them out of the water with huge rent increases. But I think it is very appropriate that the member for York Mills has put it on the record very clearly. He wants to protect landlords here today. We would like to see regulation changes to protect tenants so that rent control will be effective in the province of Ontario.

The Deputy Speaker: Does the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale wish to respond?

Mr Philip: Yes. I want to thank the members for their comments. I would like to address myself to the comments of the member for York Mills. I am sorry that he does not understand or does not appreciate that it is important to democratize the regulatory process. He says that New Democrats get up in the House and ask for quick action.

In many of the instances, as my colleague the member for Windsor-Riverside has pointed out, in which we require some quick action, it is because the very regulatory system has been designed in such a way that there has not been proper input and proper examination of the regulations and so we end up with the terribly bureaucratic, inoperable rent review process that serves neither the tenants nor the landlords very well and in fact creates a huge bureaucracy that neither can understand