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

April 13, 1988

34th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

L045 - Wed 13 Apr 1988 / Mer 13 avr 1988

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

VAISAKHI

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

VAISAKHI

LABOUR DISPUTE

EDUCATION FUNDING

VISIT TO QUEBEC NATIONAL ASSEMBLY

VAISAKHI

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

RECREATIONAL FACILITIES

HOUSING ON GOVERNMENT LAND

DISASTER RELIEF

HOURS OF WORK

RESPONSES

HOUSING ON GOVERNMENT LAND

HOURS OF WORK

DISASTER RELIEF

RECREATIONAL FACILITIES

HOUSING ON GOVERNMENT LAND

DISASTER RELIEF

ORAL QUESTIONS

RETAIL STORE HOURS

PROPERTY SPECULATION

RETAIL STORE HOURS

RENT REGULATION

FORMER TIRE PLANT

AGENT GENERAL IN PARIS

BIRTH CERTIFICATES

EDUCATION OF HEARING-IMPAIRED

FISCAL MANAGEMENT

BAYVIEW VILLA

SULPHA IN HONEY

POST-DATED PAYMENTS

AXIAL FLOW TECHNOLOGY

CONGRATULATORY SCROLLS

TRESPASSING

HOME CARE

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

PETITIONS

ABORTION

RETAIL STORE HOURS

NATUROPATHY

BRAMPTON REGISTRY OFFICE

NATUROPATHY

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY AMENDMENT ACT

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY AMENDMENT ACT

ORDERS OF THE DAY

INTERIM SUPPLY (CONTINUED)

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

Prayers.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

VAISAKHI

Mr. Philip: Today we celebrate Vaisakhi. Vaisakhi celebrations go as far back as 1699. It is the New Year’s Day for the Sikh cultural calendar. Vaisakhi is, in a sense, the origin of the Sikh nation. Governments must recognize the right of Sikhs to their five Ks.

Sikhs have emigrated throughout the world more than any other visible minority. In each country, they are noted for their hard work, their peacefulness and their charity towards anyone less fortunate than themselves. These important personal attributes are found in their strong religious beliefs. As one of the great religions of the world, Sikhism stresses equality of man, the fatherhood of God, to live by earnest earning, to share with those less fortunate, tolerance of others and an ecumenical acceptance of universal values irrespective of their source.

We are fortunate as Canadians that 250,000 Sikhs have chosen Canada as their home. They have contributed to the growth of our country and their presence has greatly enriched our lives.

My colleagues and I in the New Democratic caucus and our families would like to say to our many friends in the Sikh community congratulations on the occasion of Vaisakhi and happy new year.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Mr. McCague: On Monday of this week, the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Eakins) stood in this House and announced Local Government Week. He said: “Local Government Week...provides local government bodies...with an opportunity to tell their constituents about the important role played by local governments in Ontario.”

There is an irony and also a strong message in the sequence of events this week as it relates to local government. On Monday, the minister spoke about the importance of local government. Tomorrow, according to the press reports, the provincial government intends to introduce legislation forcing municipalities to contend with the Sunday shopping issue, this in spite of the fact that the Association of Municipalities of Ontario has clearly stated they do not want that responsibility.

This government’s attitude towards local government and local councils was made even more obvious by the Premier (Mr. Peterson) in his remarks yesterday. When asked what his government intended to do about the need for increased day care services in London if Sunday shopping goes through, the Premier said: “...the city council in London has had one of the worst records in the province in providing child care....The member will want...to persuade city council of its responsibility in providing child care.”

The irony in all this is obvious. If it wants a scapegoat, the government puts it back on the municipalities.

VAISAKHI

Mr. Ruprecht: Every April 13 since 1699, Sikhs throughout the world celebrate Vaisakhi, the New Year’s Day in the Sikh cultural calendar. Vaisakhi is the origin and birthday of the Sikh faith as practised today.

To celebrate this historic event, the Premier (Mr. Peterson) and the Minister of Citizenship (Mr. Phillips) unveiled the symbolic Sikh marker in front of the Legislature yesterday.

Joining us in the House to mark this special occasion are distinguished members of the Sikh Canadian community: Dr. Gurcharan Jauhal, Jagtar Singh Mann, Manohar Singh Bal, president of the Metropolitan Sikh council, and Mohinder Singh Chahal.

A strong community of 250,000 Sikhs depicts a bright fabric in the multicultural mosaic in Canada. Sikhs came to Canada at the turn of the century and are found in every part of our country. They have contributed to the growth and development of Canada and continue to play a vital role in all walks of life.

That is why it gives me great pleasure to extend our heartiest congratulations and best wishes, on behalf of the Premier and my colleagues, as we recognize April 13 as Ontario Sikh Community Day. We commend its observance to the people of our province.

LABOUR DISPUTE

Mr. Morin-Strom: Concerns about health care services across the north continue to escalate, nowhere more so than in Sault Ste. Marie.

Home care services have deteriorated over the past three weeks since 15 home care coordinators were forced to go on strike at Home Health Care-Algoma. More than l,000 Algoma residents currently in care are affected, while acute medical beds in our hospitals are being held up because patients cannot be assessed and services arranged for their safe discharge back to their own homes.

The home care program is 100 per cent funded by the Ministry of Health, but the ministry appears to abdicate any responsibility for reaching a settlement in this dispute. Registered health care nurses in the Sault want to know, does the Minister of Health (Ms. Caplan) not have an obligation to provide funds to pay her employees fairly and to direct the board of the Algoma District Health Unit to settle this dispute without delay?

I am forwarding to the minister directly the written concerns of registered nurses in the Sault. For the sake of the sick, the infirm and the elderly throughout Algoma, I ask the minister to investigate this serious situation and to intervene to ensure a quick and fair settlement of this dispute.

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr. Jackson: On March 25, the Minister of Education (Mr. Ward) announced with much fanfare that he was increasing operational grants to our schools. What we saw was really a clever shell game. Most of the money is allocated on a per-pupil basis, so when enrolment rises in Ontario, so do the grants. The so-called increase of $50 million was the result not of government largess, but rather enrolment figures which exceeded projections.

It is appropriate, on a day when students from the United Nations Club of Aldershot High School in the riding of Burlington South are here in the gallery, to look at the general legislative grant just received by their board, the Halton Board of Education.

As a result of Liberal underfunding, local taxes in Halton region will rise by an average of $96, while the elementary panel receives a modest increase of $241,000 and the secondary panel will lose $1.8 million. This year in Halton region, the share of educational costs borne by the provincial government will be 32.4 per cent. That is a drop of nine per cent since the Liberals took office and is just over half of their election promise of 60 per cent.

While taxpayers will bear the cost of this shortfall, in the end it is the students like those in the gallery today who will pay the price of broken Liberal promises in education.

VISIT TO QUEBEC NATIONAL ASSEMBLY

Mr. Daigeler: Together with representatives from all three parties, I had the privilege from February 24 to 26 to visit the Quebec National Assembly. On behalf of the six MPPs who travelled to Quebec City, I wish to congratulate the Ministry responsible for Canadian Intergovernmental Affairs for having organized this trip.

I specifically wish to thank Don Stevenson, our Ontario representative in Quebec, for the extraordinary care he took to introduce us to the political climate of our neighbouring province. At a time when strong forces exist across Canada to focus on one language group at the expense of the other, it is imperative to develop personal contacts between political and other leaders from different provinces, especially from Ontario and Quebec.

I encourage the government and this House to repeat this initiative. Continued and enhanced exchanges between parliamentarians and other groups will help us build a stronger Canada, a country proud of its rich cultural heritage and willing to promote this treasure unique among nations.

VAISAKHI

Mr. Sterling: Mr. Speaker, as a way of courtesy, could I perhaps ask for a few moments extra to add my comments with regard to Vaisakhi day with regard to the Sikh community?

Mr. Speaker: There has been a request. Is there unanimous consent?

Agreed to.

Mr. Sterling: I would like to associate my comment with both the members of the Liberal government and the New Democratic Party in celebrating the occasion of Vaisakhi day, which is the commemorative of the founding of the Sikh faith. I speak with some personal knowledge of this, having had the very great opportunity of visiting the Golden Temple in Amritsar and meeting the first minister of the Punjab in 1979.

I understand the importance of the Sikh faith to their people. I understand the tremendous contribution the Sikh people have made to the Ontario multicultural community. My party wishes to wish them many more successes in our country. We wish the strengthening of their presence here in our province and we give them our good wishes for the future.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

RECREATIONAL FACILITIES

Hon. Mr. O’Neil: I am delighted to take this opportunity to announce the allocation of $28 million over this fiscal year to help build and upgrade recreation facilities across the province.

The Ministry of Tourism and Recreation will fund more than 500 projects for the promotion of sport, recreation and fitness opportunities for all Ontarians. Municipalities across the province will enjoy new recreation facilities, while our commitment to existing facilities is reinforced with these funds. In keeping with my ministry’s goal to encourage all Ontarians to take

part in recreation, the allocation of these funds takes into account the special needs of groups such as older adults and the physically challenged.

These funds are more than an investment in the bricks and mortar of our great Ontario recreation system. They are a sound investment in the continuing good health of our province. Recreation is at the heart of our community life. These grants will help keep that heart beating strong.

HOUSING ON GOVERNMENT LAND

Hon. Ms. Hošek: I am pleased to take this opportunity to inform members of the provincial framework for the development of government lands. This approach will apply to the Housing First sites to be developed throughout the province.

To assist in the creation of housing for low and moderate income earners, the province is prepared to lease or sell land as required, site by site, at below market value. This represents a significant departure from past practice.

Beyond shelter, we have a number of objectives related to our Housing First lands. We will work to satisfy social, economic and urban design objectives. Furthermore, we are committed to the creation of integrated housing communities sensitive to surrounding neighbourhoods.

To ensure that these objectives are met, project by project, the province will work closely with municipalities and the local communities. We will seek out supporters of affordable housing goals to work together with us as local advocates for these projects. We will move responsibly and with sensitivity but also expeditiously and with determination.

The Housing First policy has already produced sites for over 2,500 homes in the past fiscal year, including close to 1,200 for low and moderate income earners.

We all have a role to play in addressing housing needs, the people of Ontario, the private sector and all levels of government. I ask all members for their support in these enterprises. Thank you.

Hon. Mr. Patten: As my colleague, the Minister of Housing, has just said, the throne speech of last spring announced that a Housing First policy would be applied to all provincially owned lands surplus to government needs, to create more housing for low and moderate income earners.

Provincially owned surplus lands not appropriate for affordable housing are to be sold and the proceeds applied to a housing development fund. As a result of my ministry’s ongoing review of the provincially owned surplus lands, I am pleased to announce today a series of sites in Metropolitan Toronto to be made available for the Housing First policy.

The sites are as follows: in Etobicoke, a 10-acre site at Burnamthorpe Road and the East Mall; also in Etobicoke, in conjunction with Humber College, a 50-acre site, which includes 32 acres of the former Lakeshore Psychiatric Hospital grounds; in North York, a 24-acre site at Keele Street and Falstaff Avenue; in Scarborough, a nine-acre site at Ellesmere Road and McCowan Road; and in the city of Toronto, a half-acre site at 70 Lombard Street.

It is the government’s intention to proceed now with the negotiations and planning work, so that the development can begin on these identified sites. It is our expectation that, with the full co-operation of all parties, construction could begin within an 18-month period on some of these sites.

We believe these sites will permit the development of up to 2,000 housing units. For understandable reasons, details of provincial proposals for individual sites will be a matter of negotiations with the municipalities and others immediately involved.

I expect the government to be in a position shortly to state our plans for specific sites. Nevertheless, I am pleased to announce that requests for a proposal will be issued today for a project consultant to develop site plans for the former Lakeshore Psychiatric Hospital site in Etobicoke.

Last week I had a productive and congenial meeting with Metro Chairman Dennis Flynn, Etobicoke Mayor Bruce Sinclair and the chairman and president of Humber College. We agreed on this next step. The consultant will be asked to determine optimum land uses on some 50 acres, including lands on an adjacent lakeshore site owned by Humber College.

This will take several factors into account. Heritage buildings on the site will be preserved. Existing health services will be retained. We also want to examine the potential of this site for mixed housing development, in accordance with the province’s Housing First policy.

Developing surplus provincial lands is just one part of the solution to the current housing situation, but it is, I believe, an important demonstration of our recognition of the need and our political will to act.

We intend to make further announcements regarding other sites throughout the province, including additional sites within and around Metropolitan Toronto. My colleague the Minister of Housing and I will be approaching other government owners of land to see whether they as well can contribute more to the Housing First solutions. Thank you.

DISASTER RELIEF

Hon. Mr. Eakins: I am announcing today that our government has declared the flooded Goulais River valley a provincial disaster area and will provide financial help through the Ontario disaster relief assistance program.

Because of the location of this northern community, cabinet has approved an enriched funding formula to provide up to $4 for each $1 raised locally by the disaster relief committee.

Last Saturday I had the opportunity, along with my colleague the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio), to visit the Goulais River area north of Sault Ste. Marie. Ice jams in several locations along the river caused extensive flooding, the worst in many years. Fortunately, there was no loss of life or serious injury. The water has since receded and those evacuated have returned to their homes.

I know the minister would join me to commend the Goulais volunteer fire and emergency services for its excellent rescue work during the flood. The local staff of my ministry and that of the Ministry of Natural Resources, the Ontario Provincial Police and many local agencies such as the Red Cross are also to be commended for their excellent work during the emergency.

The Ontario disaster relief assistance program helps alleviate the hardships suffered in cases such as this when a natural calamity occurs. My ministry administers this program, but the real work is done by the people in the communities who have suffered. They set up a disaster relief committee and spearhead the local fund-raising. I am confident that all members of this House will support the efforts of the residents of Goulais River, as they recoup their regrettable losses.

HOURS OF WORK

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: In January 1986, the then Minister of Labour announced the appointment of the Task Force on Hours of Work and Overtime to study and make recommendations on all issues relating to permissible hours of work and overtime under the Employment Standards Act.

Phase I of the report contained the task force’s major recommendations and it was tabled in the Legislature last June. Since that time, extensive consultations have taken place between the Ministry of Labour and a wide range of interested groups in other government ministries.

Today I am pleased to table phase 2 of the report submitted to me by Dr. Arthur Donner, chairperson of that task force. His final report focuses on special treatment for construction workers, truckers, agricultural workers and domestics. It also examines exemptions and special treatment in the broader context. It is my understanding that, owing to an inadvertent error in my ministry, some copies have already been distributed and I regret that error.

Last June the government introduced legislation to enhance the basic working conditions of domestics. That legislation, which came into effect October I, 1987, entitled full-time domestics and nannies with special training in child care to standard overtime pay. It also required that they be paid the provincial minimum hourly rate, a benefit that was also extended to part-time domestics.

The minimum pay and overtime provisions and all other rights of live-in domestics are also provided by the legislation to full-time and live-in sitters. This was done to end situations in which ordinary domestics were being classified as sitters by some employers wishing to avoid paying overtime and benefits.

This final phase of the Donner report will enable us to more fully examine the issue of overtime as it affects domestics and the other special groups that were the subject of the study. Specifically, this report contains an analysis of the issues and offers 20 recommendations. Let me share some of the highlights with members.

First of all, the report suggests the establishment of a small group within the Ministry of Labour to review, with public consultations, the exemptions and special-treatment cases every five years with priority given to the review of the 26 industry permits.

It also calls for an updating of the definition of “emergency,” which may be excluded from excess hours worked. In such cases, the task force recommends that the information supporting the decision to exclude such hours be shared with unions and other affected workers upon request. Among the other recommendations are the following.

Donner recommends that agricultural workers be eligible for paid vacations and paid public holidays. It recommends full-time live-in and live-out domestics and full-time live-in sitters should have the right to refuse work after 50 hours per week.

It recommends that the provincial government should approach Ottawa to seek changes in the income tax provisions to make child care expenses fully deductible. It recommends that maximum hours for truckers should be set in the National Safety Code and enforced by the Ministry of Transportation.

It finally recommends that the overtime trigger for local cartage drivers and highway transport should be 50 hours, while for private fleets it should be 40 hours. It suggests that a driver should have the right to refuse work at the point the overtime trigger comes into effect. It recommends the establishment of a uniform 50-hour standard work week for overtime premium pay in the roadbuilding and sewer and watermain sectors, with a right to refuse after 50 hours; and finally, the right of other employees in the construction industry to refuse work after a standard 40-hour week.

This report will become a part of the ongoing consultations arising out of the first report and will contribute greatly to the review of the Employment Standards Act that is presently under way by the ministry.

Mr. B. Rae: You guys make snails look good.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: Before concluding, and if I can have the attention of the member for York South (Mr. B. Rae) for a moment, I would like to place on the record the government’s appreciation of the thorough job done by Dr. Donner and his task force colleagues, Fitz Allison, Judith Andrew, Sam Gindin and William Stetson. I feel confident that the consultations arising out of these reports will prove extremely meaningful in assisting the ministry to bring forward major revisions to the Employment Standards Act.

RESPONSES

HOUSING ON GOVERNMENT LAND

Mr. Breaugh: I cannot tell the members how happy I am to warmly endorse and agree with the statements made by the Minister of Housing (Ms. Hošek) and the Minister of Government Services (Mr. Patten) today, just as I endorsed it when we said it during the last election campaign and when they said it during the last election campaign and 10 years ago when a guy named Claude Bennett was Minister of Housing for this group over here.

We have all said that and we all agree with that, so I think it is useful to take a look at some of the specifics. There are those around who are cynical enough that they will actually do that. They will look at where the problem is most difficult in all of Ontario. They will say it is in the city of Toronto, and they will examine very carefully what the government has done today: half an acre of land on Lombard Street.

They will look at the fine print, where it says they will get leases or sell the property just under market value, and they will remember that yesterday this government set the record, $160,000 for a 40-foot lot in Malvern, and today it says it is going to turn to others in the private and public community and give them a break: $159,095.

HOURS OF WORK

Mr. Mackenzie: I cannot even be as kind as that to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Sorbara) with the report he has just filed in this House. Just as a little aside, I wonder why he will not consider agricultural workers under the Employment Standards Act, as we have asked for years. It would do more to protect them and give them the coverage they do not yet have than he has done in his recommendation or in anything he has done.

What has the minister done in terms of the Stelco workers or some of the other more obvious plant examples in terms of overtime? There is absolutely nothing here that deals with the problem that resulted in the committee he set up in the first place. Instead, he has now set up another small interim committee in the ministry to take a look at the industrial permits. It is a pile of crap.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

DISASTER RELIEF

Mr. Wildman: I want to congratulate the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Eakins) for his successful fight with the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) to persuade the Treasurer that we should provide $4 for every $1 to assist the community of Goulais River, rather than the normal $1 to $1. I welcome this statement and express my appreciation to him and to his colleague the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio).

I also join with the minister in congratulating the local community, in particular the fire team at Goulais River, as well as the ministry staff. The assistance provided by the ministry staff to the local services board has been most helpful, and I look forward to the local services board’s being able to use the money raised locally and from the province to assist the community and the people who have suffered flood damage.

I hope the government, though, will not just rest here but will look at some method of alleviating future floods and avoiding having to provide this kind of assistance to the flood victims every three or four years. We should be doing something to ensure that there is flood control on that river valley.

RECREATIONAL FACILITIES

Mr. McLean: Briefly, I just want to say I am pleased to see that the minister has followed the great example set by the previous administration in order that sports facilities and recreation facilities will exist and continue across Ontario. Not only that, but I am pleased to see the part with regard to the physically handicapped and older adults that is included in it. I think it is great, and I am pleased to see that the minister has followed the example set previously.

HOUSING ON GOVERNMENT LAND

Mr. Jackson: I am pleased to respond to the statements made by the Minister of Government Services (Mr. Patten) and the Minister of Housing (Ms. Hošek), Ontario’s newest tag team, as they wrestle the price of affordable housing to the ceiling in Ontario.

It is passing strange that over a year ago this government leaked to the media a plan that would involve many of the component parts which now, a year later, we are hearing about in this House. It is also passing strange that today they have seen fit to announce only five sites, yet 12 sites were mentioned in an

article in the Globe and Mail on March 15, and last year I believe there were even more sites mentioned in an

article in the Toronto Star.

If you analyse these sites more carefully, what is interesting is the size of the land which is integral to the amount of density and therefore the number of affordable units which can be built.

Whereas in Toronto right in the core of the community where this building stands, where the most acute shortages of housing exist in this province, the government has seen fit to release a half-acre site at 70 Lombard Street, it is silent about a 6.3-hectare property occupied by the Liquor Control Board of Ontario, a property which we understand a certain newspaper in this community has expressed some interest in acquiring.

Where is the real degree of commitment when the minister knows full well there are at least 18,000 people in this city who are in critical need of housing? Will the minister have the courage to stand in this House two and a half to three years from now to announce that she has handed over the keys to those tenants or to those purchasers? We know she will be there to cut a ribbon, but will she be able to stand in this House and state not the announcement but the completion and the delivery of those units?

As I say, it is passing strange that we have an interesting new tag team in Ontario politics for the housing problem, when we can have a statement such as this in the House, which saves the Minister of Housing from her three count just moments before the Premier (Mr. Peterson) throws in the towel.

If these are the solutions which this government thinks are going to remedy the affordable housing crisis, they do not. They do not produce the kind of assurances that persons without housing in this city and across this province badly need. It is important, as well, to note that at least our party has stated its concern with the fact that a back-bench member of the government has been making statements to constituents and elsewhere prior to the statement being released in this House.

We feel that is an unfortunate and inappropriate set of circumstances and we would hope that the minister would exercise a little more discretion and a little better judgement in future in the treatment of these announcements.

DISASTER RELIEF

Mr. McCague: In relation to the statement made today by the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Eakins), I am sure he is waiting for me to say something nice about him after the exchange we have had in the last few days. I intend to do that any time the minister does something that is good and right.

I know the people of Goulais River will appreciate the disaster relief assistance. I congratulate the minister for providing it to them. I can only relate that to the relief we received in our area from the tornado that went through, and to again congratulate him, which sort of balances the scale.

ORAL QUESTIONS

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. B. Rae: My question is to the Premier. The Premier has stated on a number of occasions that it is his view that if a store owner does not want to open on a Sunday, he or she does not have to open on a Sunday. That is the basic protection for small business which the Premier is providing.

Can the Premier confirm today that the only protection a small business in the province has from losing its market, from having to work on a Sunday, the only protection the Premier is providing, is simply to say to those employers and, indeed, to employees across the province, “If you do not want to work or you do not want to stay open, you do not have to”?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: If my honourable friend will be patient, he will see the legislation in the very near future and then he can make his comments thereon.

Mr. B. Rae: We have had very different information. The House leader gave us some information with respect to when the bill would be forthcoming. The Solicitor General (Mrs. Smith) gave some information to the House, and then she proceeded to give different information yesterday to the press about when the bill was forthcoming. We understand now that it is her intention to bring forward the bill on Thursday, which is not the information she was telling the House when she spoke in the House yesterday.

I am sure the Premier is aware of the very substantial debate that took place in the United Kingdom, in the House of Commons in 1985, with respect to the question of shop hours and the protection of Sunday workers.

I wonder if the Premier would care simply to take note of the fact that one major difference between the vote that took place in the United Kingdom in 1985 and the vote that we anticipate will take place some time within the next few years in Ontario with respect to Sunday shopping is that the vote in the House of Commons was a free vote and, in fact, members were allowed to vote their conscience because of the implications for questions about working on a Sunday and the changes to the law on Sunday.

Would the Premier not agree that a vote on conscience with respect to changing the legislation would be a good idea in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The member is quite right. This has been a matter of some considerable debate in a number of countries such as Britain and in other provinces in our own country. When I was recently in Germany it was the major issue there and I had an opportunity to discuss the matter with the Chancellor.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: Was that before or after you got there?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: That was while I was there. So, indeed, different countries have different approaches to these matters.

I think what one has to do before one becomes too alarmist about this situation is to look at other provinces where it is operating under local option. A lot of the alarms my honourable friend has had and a lot of the questions he has raised have been answered in very practical and real terms there. The dire social consequences that he predicts did not, in fact, happen. Some people open, some people do not open; some communities are open, some are not open. It is tailored very well to the community.

Look, I am not a dictator. I can tell him that we have had lots of votes in this House when some of my colleagues have not agreed with me, and presumably if they do not they will stand up and express themselves accordingly.

Mr. B. Rae: Does the Premier not see a contradiction between saying that shop owners have a conscience with respect to whether or not they stay open, that municipalities have a right to choose under the approach which he says he is going to be putting forward, and that, indeed, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Sorbara) is supposed to bring forward legislation which we understand, according to what we have been told by the Solicitor General, is going to say something about workers? Does he not think he ought to make a similar statement in this Legislature that clearly states to his own members that they have a right to choose, too, in terms of how they are going to vote?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I accept the challenge. If he lets the member for Windsor-Riverside (Mr. D. S. Cooke) vote the way he wants to and the way that he has expressed in the past, we will happily do the same here.

Mr. B. Rae: Done. All right, that is it. There we are. All it depends on is whether or not the Premier is prepared to exercise his freedom and do in public what he has been saying he wanted to do in private. That is what it all depends on.

PROPERTY SPECULATION

Mr. B. Rae: My next question is to the Premier. Again, I would like to ask him a question about the latest information with respect to the increase in house prices in Toronto.

The Premier will know that when Michael Wilson introduced his tax reform changes, the first $100,000 of a capital gain -- that is to say, the sale, for example in real estate, of a nonprincipal residence, a house which you do not live in, that sale would be tax-free for the first $100,000. The Premier, if he chooses to peruse any of the multiple listing directories with respect to real estate, will find literally dozens of properties across Metropolitan Toronto which trade hands after having been owned for a few short months.

Can the Premier tell us why he remains so opposed to a tax on speculation, which would simply ensure that people who are in the real estate market in order to make a quick buck on a quick flip are not able to do so, which would inevitably take some of the heat out of the real estate market which is now so clearly there.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I think we should just be very fair the way we characterize federal tax reform with something the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) and this government disagreed with. When Mr. Wilson -- was it two or three years ago? -- introduced a $500,000-tax-free, lifetime capital gains, we thought that was an unfair way to tax. It started with $100,000 in the first year. That applied not just to houses but to art and to a variety of other so-called capital transactions; it was not directed just to houses.

We all know your principal residence can be traded tax-free in any circumstances. But anybody who is engaged in the business of speculating or trading in houses or apartments, art, cars or anything else is taxed on the basis of capital gains which, as my honourable friend knows, is one half of the income rate. There is taxation on that, on people who carry on business that way.

In addition to that, my honourable friend will be aware that there is a land transfer tax applied every time there is an exchange of property. I think my honourable friend, understanding taxation as he does, realizes that people who speculate in houses are taxed on a capital gains basis.

Mr. B. Rae: If the Premier wants to play games, all right. You are taxed on a capital gains basis above the $100,000 level, which is tax-free, which he did not mention. So $100,000 is tax-free, half your capital gain is also tax-free and half your capital gain goes into your income, which then, if you have flow-through shares or whatever else you may have, may also be subject to reduction in tax.

Specifically on real estate, the Premier must know now that the average price of a home in Metropolitan Toronto has increased by 68.2 per cent in the last two years. There is substantial evidence with respect to speculation in property in this city, because of the way in which prices are going up.

I would like to ask the Premier why he rejects the very sensible suggestion which has been made by my colleague the member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren) on a number of occasions, and made again yesterday by Councillor Pantalone in Metropolitan Toronto, that we have a spec tax in Toronto, which will take the heat out of speculation, out of the flipping, out of the sales and the resales which are contributing to an overheated market and which are driving prices out of the range of ordinary working families in Toronto?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I understand my honourable friend’s philosophical commitment to that kind of taxation, but he has to understand that if someone only turns a few houses, that could very well be a capital gain, but anybody who speculates in houses would be taxed at income rates; it is a business of trading in houses. In fact, there is taxation in addition to, as l said, the land transfer tax.

My honourable friend thinks that would work. It was tried before in this province and repealed. The evidence, looking back, is that it did not accomplish a great deal. It is something the Treasurer has reviewed and presumably will continue to review. The Treasurer was good enough to hand me an

article just now, which says, “Toronto real estate market warm but not as hot as before.” There has been some cooling off in that particular regard.

It is a function of the high growth of the area, the enormous economic activity here, the people who are moving here, and my honourable friend is aware of that. At the same time, when one looks at the initiatives undertaken by the Minister of Housing (Ms. Hošek) and her ambitious plans, I think we are going to make some difference along the way.

Mr. Laughren: Surely the Premier admits there is a problem when, between February and March of this year, the average resale price in Metro went up by $6,000. Surely the Premier understands that those are not normal market forces at work; those are speculative forces at work.

What solution does the Premier have if he is not prepared to accept the opposition party’s very reasonable land speculation tax?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: First, the member draws the conclusion that it is speculation, as opposed to people moving into houses, as opposed to people moving into the Golden Horseshoe and wanting to buy houses. The member assumes they are speculators. As I said, if they are speculators, they are taxed through other ways.

The question is, on reasonable analysis, would the member’s kind of solution cool out that so-called speculation, if it is the problem, which he has not established? I do not think there is any evidence there, from past experiments in that regard.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. Brandt: My question is to the Premier as well and it is with respect to the issue of Sunday shopping. On this side of the House, we have had some question in our mind as to why so many of the Liberal members of this House object to Sunday shopping and have indicated quite publicly that they are opposed to seven days of commercial activity while at the same time they seem to be supporting the government’s plan. Perhaps we have an answer to that, which I would like to share with the Premier.

The member for Guelph (Mr. Ferraro), a small business advocate as well, has stated publicly that Sunday openings will harm small business, the very group he speaks for. He stated publicly that he opposes Sunday shopping, as do the majority of his constituents. His reason for supporting the government policy, according to the December 30, 1987, edition of his local newspaper, is, and I quote: “It’s a two-way street, he said. A member of the Liberal caucus who wants money for hospital redevelopment, for example, must also realize what the party will want on some issues.”

Will the Premier disabuse the House that he is using some form of coercion or threat to whip the Liberal back-benchers into line by perhaps refusing to fund some of the badly needed projects they need in their ridings?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Absolutely not. We believe in the sheer power of ideas and leadership, and I think people will respect that. The honourable member asked me why members would say they are not particularly in favour of Sunday shopping in their communities but would support the legislation. The answer is quite simple. They understand the legislation and the member does not. That is the reason.

This legislation is not about wide-open Sunday shopping. It is about a local option adapted to local situations. If the member for Guelph does not feel it is appropriate for Guelph, that is clearly his opinion, but he may well, when asked -- and the member is entitled to ask him -- think that if the people in Niagara Falls think it is a good idea, he would respect the rights of the people in Niagara Falls to make their own decision. That shows how sensitive the members of the Liberal Party are, that they do understand the distinction of something that has not yet registered on the honourable member opposite.

Mr. Brandt: Even the Premier could not say that with a straight face. He has great difficulty in repeating those lines.

The question then becomes, if so many Liberal back-benchers are in support of this legislation, it is interesting to note the numbers who have spoken out against it. We all know the municipal option is wide-open Sunday shopping through the back door. In spite of that, the member for Guelph, the member for Peterborough (Mr. Adams), the member for Cornwall (Mr. Cleary), the member for London South and Solicitor General (Mrs. Smith), the member for Perth and Speaker (Mr. Edighoffer), the member for Kingston and The Islands (Mr. Keyes) and the member for St. Catharines-Brock (Mr.

Dietsch), just to name a few, who all campaigned against wide-open Sunday shopping, are now being forced to vote against their beliefs.

Can the Premier tell us what he means when he says he has a wide-open and responsive government, when his very own members campaigned against the position he is now putting before the people of Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Again, my honourable friend, I think, draws conclusions that are not correct. I apologize for not being able to look at him with a straight face. That is a problem a lot of us have when we face the member.

The conclusions that my friend draws with respect to wide-open Sundays, I say factually are nonsense. Personally, I could take up a collection from the honourable members on this side of the House, the Liberal Party members, and we would have enough money for a bus ticket for the member to go to Calgary or Vancouver and examine the situation there. Frankly, he could take as much time as he would like, but if he examined the situation he would find that his fears are not warranted and that the construction he puts on the exercise is factually wrong.

I think the members on his side of the House, the members of this party, understand that. The member opposite, on reflection and study, should listen to members like the member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry (Mr. Villeneuve) and some of his colleagues who have shown the insight to understand what we are doing on this side of the House and do favour what we are doing. I am sure if he listens to the grass roots in his own party, he will come to the conclusion that we are doing the right thing and he will stand publicly in this House and recant.

Mr. Brandt: On occasion the Premier is quite witty; then there are other occasions when he is only half-right witty.

In response to the Premier, I would like to comment on the fact that the member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry will be able to vote freely according to his conscience on this issue. I join with the leader of the official opposition by saying to the Premier that, as of this point, the members of this party are free to vote on this issue as they wish. We will have a free vote in our party. Is the Premier prepared to do the same in his party?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I am not a dictator here. All the matters we discuss here are discussed with my colleagues. We have seen it before in this House where this government had a position but other members have stood up and disagreed with the government. That has happened and that is the nature of democracy. All these members speak for themselves.

If the member for Sarnia with his oratory can persuade these members to change their minds, thoughtful as they all are, sensitive to the needs of a progressive and dynamic Ontario, then I am sure they will, on their own, stand up and say, “I agree with the member opposite.” It will be interesting to see how it turns out.

Mr. Brandt: It certainly would be interesting to see how it turns out because, frankly, the Premier is not prepared to allow his members to vote according to --

Mr. Speaker: Order. New question and to whom?

RENT REGULATION

Mr. Brandt: My question is not to the Premier. It is to the Minister of Housing. I would like to ask the minister when the government intends to have

section 91 of the Residential Rent Regulations Act proclaimed. She quoted from

section 91 at the time she was addressing the Ontario Home Builders’ Association, I believe.

Hon. Ms. Hošek: We are looking at the implications of proclaiming

section 91 of the rent review legislation. When we have come to a decision, we will make it clear here.

Mr. Brandt: It is important to know so that we have a clearer idea of when the minister intends to proclaim that

section of the act.

I would like to quote, if I might. When the minister was addressing the Ontario Home Builders’ Association, she commented at that time: “That situation should change when we get another

section of the new legislation proclaimed,” meaning

section 91. “It allows for a much quicker increase over a number of years to try to bring those rents up to the market.”

So the minister’s statement to home builders is, “Just hang in there and give us an opportunity over a short period of time and we will be able to get those rents up in a real hurry.” That is not the message the minister is giving to the tenants of this province.

Mr. Speaker: The question would be?

Mr. Brandt: The question the minister is raising with the tenants of this province is that she is going to regulate rents. Which is it, the message she gave to the home builders or the message she is giving to the tenants?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: The member opposite knows very well that

section 91 of the legislation deals with a particular kind of building with particular problems. What I said to the home builders was that, in order to be able to regulate that section, we would need to do some more work. We are doing it, and when we are ready we will announce it.

Mr. Brandt: We hear the same story with respect to all phases of housing. Bill 51 is obviously not working. The former minister brought that bill in and indicated to the people of this province that it would clear up the difficulties as they relate to landlord and tenant problems. That has not happened.

When is the minister going to be prepared to take some action within her ministry to bring some kind of order out of the current chaos that relates to the very lengthy rent review hearings, the delays, which are getting worse all the time, and her budget, which is getting higher all the time? What action does the minister intend to bring about in order to clear up the mess we are in at the current moment?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: If the honourable member is saying the legislation has some problems, I could not disagree with that. It is a complex statute. I know that not every member in the House supported it. I am looking at the way in which it is working and monitoring its results in a variety of ways.

The work we are doing, I think, is most important because, as part of its package, this legislation has protected tenants all over the province. Just this week I announced the way we are going to protect tenants who are concerned about the conversion of parts of their buildings into suite hotels. In relation to the Rental Housing Protection Act, we are working to protect tenants as well.

I understand the legislation is not perfect. We are working to monitor it and to see how it works.

FORMER TIRE PLANT

Mr. Mackenzie: I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. Can the minister bring the House up to date on the recent purchase of the Firestone plant in Hamilton, particularly in relation to the future of the Firestone workers and whether they will have first priority in the event of any production possibilities?

At the same time, can he tell us if he is aware of the current rumours the union has picked up in the last two days that Firestone is about to remove from the plant the key equipment that would make that a possibility and can he assure us that will not be allowed to happen?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: The only thing I can tell the member is what I know. It is a private sector deal. I should tell him that the plant has been sold. An investor from Toronto has bought it. He has bought it primarily as a real estate investment. He is anxiously pursuing opportunities that could be in place to utilize the equipment that is there. I cannot tell the member how that is progressing. I can tell him that my understanding is that he has bought the plant with all of its equipment, and Firestone has no longer any lien, any interest or any proprietary right in that equipment. Firestone has sold the plant unconditionally with all of the equipment in it.

Mr. Mackenzie: I am pleased to hear that comment for the record. Will the minister give this House a commitment that there will not be $1 of taxpayers’ money going either to the Firestone operation or to the new Goodyear initiative in Napanee unless we have written in some hard guarantees that there is some right of work and protection to the workers who have paid the price in the closure of both of those particular operations in the past couple of years?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: In regard to the Firestone plant, there has been no request or no commitment from this government to get involved in any way. As far as the Goodyear plant is concerned, we will be making an announcement on that project in due course.

AGENT GENERAL IN PARIS

Mr. Sterling: I have a question for the Premier. The Premier must have read with interest recently of Ms. Adrienne Clarkson’s criticism of his government’s failure to appoint an agent general in Paris. Adrienne Clarkson has done in the past a tremendous job for Ontario and Canada in Paris. The Premier has left that post vacant for over two years. When is he going to take some action in this area?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: We have a very excellent person in charge there who is assuming all of the function and role of an agent general. In due course, we will be trying to make an official appointment. All the functions are being looked after. If my honourable friend is applying for the job, then we will happily look at his application.

Interjections.

Mr. Sterling: Unfortunately, it is a serious concern. One commentator has suggested that as a result of this government’s inaction, the French government has been given the impression that Ontario intends to decrease its business activity with that country. I want to ask the minister how he can justify that in view of Monday’s announcement with regard to his trying to look to wider world markets and yet taking no action when action is called for.

When is he going to do something to back up what he has been talking about to the press and the people of Ontario, that he wants to trade abroad? Let us fill the post.

Mr. Speaker: I believe the question has been asked.

Mr. Sterling: Let us do something in a concrete manner.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I appreciate the member’s advice on the matter. As I said, all the functions are being fulfilled at the present time. Things are going very well. The honourable minister was in Paris and France not too long ago. I am sorry the member was not able to join him on that trip, but I can tell him that business is proceeding apace and things are going very well in our relationships with France and many other European countries.

I am not sure whom my honourable friend is quoting. Criticism is often levelled in this business, but that is completely ill-founded and I know he will go to the source of that, whoever did it, and say that really is not correct and is not substantial in the circumstances.

BIRTH CERTIFICATES

Mr. Neumann: My question is for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Most Ontarians possess birth certificates which are wallet-sized and laminated in plastic. These certificates are durable and easy to carry around for day-to-day use. I am sure that most members of this House have possessed one of these certificates.

Citizens who have had to replace birth certificates in the past few years have been surprised to find that newly issued birth certificates are now printed on flimsy Canadian Bank Note paper and are voided if laminated. I have been informed that lamination is not allowed because it would eliminate some of the security features of the birth certificate.

What are the security features of these new birth certificates which can be voided if laminated?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: The honourable member is correct. The wallet-sized birth certificates were laminated until, I believe, the middle of 1982. Since then, and as a result of discussions with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the vital statistics office, in Ontario and, I understand, in all other jurisdictions of Canada, the lamination is no longer the way of producing these birth certificates for the use of our citizens.

The problem is a security problem. One of the things that was done to solve that problem was the use of Bank Note paper, which is now being used, but if we were to laminate the Bank Note paper, in checking it, in having to do a check, the various kinds of images, the various kinds of numbers that are actually on that Bank Note paper that is used to produce the birth certificate could not be seen in terms of that kind of a check, and that is why the laminating of those birth certificates would now void those birth certificates.

I state again, it is not just in Ontario, it is in all the provinces of the country.

Mr. Neumann: I understand that programmable microdots on these new birth certificates can be used to store personal information about the individual to whom the certificate has been issued. Will the minister indicate whether these microdots have been used for this purpose to date in Ontario, and furthermore, can the minister assure this House that such use is compatible with provisions of right-to-privacy legislation and the Charter of Rights?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I say to my friend that the Bank Note paper is shipped here to Toronto and the certificates are printed at random. I certainly understand the implications of the honourable member’s question in terms of right to privacy and the placing of information on microdots on one of these birth certificates, which would be quite improper.

I will make inquiries for the honourable member and get back to him, but I must suggest that, since people in our ministry are doing the ultimate printing of the birth certificates, I would be very surprised if there were any chance of that kind of misuse of the birth certificates occurring.

EDUCATION OF HEARING-IMPAIRED

Mr. R. F. Johnston: My question is for the Minister of Education and regards the 80,000 profoundly deaf individuals who live in Ontario. I guess I want to ask the minister about whether or not he thinks they have been receiving quality education or whether they have been grotesquely failed by our education system in Ontario.

Is he aware, for instance, that the Canadian Hearing Society believes it is highly unusual for a deaf child to receive an education which provides him with anything better than a grade 4 reading capacity and that an Alberta study shows that only five per cent of the deaf across this country test above the grade 10 level?

If he has concerns, could he tell me whether or not he has any studies of our schools for the deaf to check the quality of education or whether he accepts their premise that they are in fact producing good graduates?

Hon. Mr. Ward: In response to the member, I will indicate to him that indeed I do share his concern and will be looking into it further.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: As part of his investigation, I wonder if the Minister of Education could respond today, perhaps, or in the future, as to why it is that we have half as many deaf teachers teaching the deaf in Ontario today as we had in 1929. That is to say, we have only eight deaf teachers in the whole province.

Hon. Mr. Ward: I cannot respond to that supplementary today.

FISCAL MANAGEMENT

Mr. Harris: I have a question for the Treasurer. The Treasurer will know that federal income tax reform will result in lower taxes for 80 per cent of households in Ontario. A family of four earning $30,000 will enjoy a tax break of $500 this year, thanks to Michael Wilson.

Can the Treasurer give Ontario residents his assurance that, whatever he does in his budget next week, he will not introduce measures that will rob Ontario taxpayers of this $500 in tax relief provided by Ottawa?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: Aside from the use of the word “rob,” no.

Mr. Harris: I find it ironic that, after three years of spending double or triple the rate of inflation, health care is worse in this province, the housing situation is worse, the education shortfalls are worse. The government has had increases from Ottawa of 8.2 per cent, 7.1 per cent, 6.7 per cent in transfers. It has increased taxes. It has spent over 10 per cent a year increases for the last three years.

I guess what I want to know is, when will the Treasurer admit that throwing money at these problems perhaps is not the only solution, that it is not the quantity of money he throws at them -- because he has thrown quantities of money at them -- perhaps it is how the money is being spent?

I will ask the Treasurer, since he will not control expenditures, or cannot, why did he reject the minority report that our members provided to the committee to help him look at how he is spending all that money and help control expenditures here in the province?

To tell the truth, I certainly cannot find it in my heart to blame the Minister of Finance, because his problems are very great, except that he seems to be building up his resources to buy $8-billion worth of nuclear submarines, and we are trying to build a hospital, even one in North Bay.

BAYVIEW VILLA

Mr. Matrundola: My question is to the Minister of Health. Her ministry has just completed an inquiry into the high number of deaths at the Bayview Villa nursing home at Cummer and Bayview Avenue in my riding. I believe the investigation concluded that the deaths were due to natural causes and were not related or linked to poor care.

However, some complaints put forward by the group Concerned Friends of Ontario Citizens in Care Facilities were found to be justified. These problems included not properly recording food and beverage intake, rushing residents through meals and other poor feeding practices.

Therefore, could the minister please advise the House what steps are being taken to ensure that this type of problem will not occur again?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I want to acknowledge the member’s concern in this area. As he knows, inspectors did follow up with the problems that had been identified. In most cases, no evidence was concluded to confirm the complaints. However, some problems were identified and nursing home branch inspectors as well as dietary inspectors will be returning to the home to ensure that their recommendations will be complied with.

Mr. Matrundola: Can the minister assure the House that these concerns will be looked into across the province to make sure that this is an isolated problem and, hopefully, not a widespread one?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: As the member knows, and I hope all members in this House know, this government is committed to quality of life and quality of care for senior citizens in nursing homes and I think we have made considerable progress. We have increased resources for food and staffing in nursing homes. We have rewritten the Nursing Homes Act to give the Ministry of Health greater authority, and I can assure the member that a number of steps have been taken to ensure the high standards of care right across this province. I thank him for his question.

Mr. Reville: My question is to the Minister of Health and, strangely enough, it is on the same subject as that raised by the member for Willowdale. The minister has alluded to this flimsy report by her nursing homes branch. I think members of the House should be aware that there were 32 deaths at this establishment in four months, a rate of death far higher than at facilities of comparable size. Is it not the minister’s view that a much more serious investigation should be undertaken, including epidemiological studies, so that in fact some factors can be looked at that would account for a rate of death at Extendicare Bayview that is fully two or three times higher than at similar facilities?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I thank the member opposite, my critic, for the information. All deaths which take place in nursing homes are investigated by the coroner. In this case, the coroner investigated all of those deaths and determined that they were because of natural causes. Ministry officials have had preliminary discussions with the coroner. I understand an additional meeting will be taking place and an epidemiologist from the ministry will be in attendance.

Mr. Reville: It is quite correct that the ministry investigation did include extensive consultations with the coroner, as is quite proper. Twelve of the deaths were put down to pneumonia. In fact, the minister will know that one of the contributing factors that will lead to contracting pneumonia is inadequate fluid intake. Her inspector demonstrated poor feeding practices and poor liquid supply practices in this nursing home. There were 12 deaths from pneumonia out of the 32, and we have had another one just recently. Does the minister not think it is time to do a more serious study?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I do want to thank the member opposite for the question. Whenever we see an inordinately high number of deaths, there is always cause for concern. I understand that the coroner will be meeting April 21 at the home with members of the families involved. I invite the member opposite, as well as the concerned friends group, to attend that meeting to satisfy themselves of the coroner’s findings.

I can assure the member that the dietary branch, the inspectors from the Ministry of Health, will be ensuring that their recommendations on those issues concerned will be implemented in the home.

SULPHA IN HONEY

Mr. Wiseman: I have a question to the Minister of Agriculture and Food. I am sure the minister is aware that the honey producers ran into a problem in 1987 by following the ministry’s guidelines and the directive from the ministry in late 1986 suggesting to them that they be sure to feed sulpha along with the sugar and water to control American foul brood. They did not find there was a problem with doing that until well into the 1987 crop year, when another bulletin came out saying that they could not sell that product if it had more than one part per million.

The federal government, I understand, has said that it would allow blending, and many other provinces have allowed their honey producers to do just that. Will the Minister of Agriculture and Food say in the House today that he will allow our farmers to do that when, in fact, they were following his ministry’s direction in 1986 and did not know there was a problem until they got the report in 1987?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: This is the first this particular matter has been drawn to my attention. We will certainly have a look at it, but this province has certainly tried to discourage the use of sulpha in the bee colonies. I quite agree that we have been running into a problem. I have been contacting the federal Minister of Agriculture to try to take steps to see that we do control the use of sulpha in the bee colonies and that we do control the importation of honey from colonies that have had sulpha fed to them. I will see if I can go it alone in Ontario and what implications that will mean for Ontario.

Mr. Wiseman: I am really surprised the minister has said he was not aware, when he said he has already had discussions. I would have thought he would have known that streptomycin has been the drug they now are using instead of sulpha and that he would have known, from talks with his provincial counterparts across the country, that Manitoba already has a blending machine.

Because they were following the ministry’s guidelines and because the federal government will say there is no problem if it is below one part per million, all these farmers are asking is, will the minister allow them to do this, as they have in other provinces? If he will not, and he is using it in some sorts of feeds, will he say today that he will purchase that and save many of the farmers, who have up to $30,000 or $40,000 --

Mr. Speaker: Order. The question has been asked.

Hon. Mr. Riddell: When I responded to the honourable gentleman’s first question, what I said was that the matter of blending honey that has had some sulpha included has not been brought to my attention. The Ontario Beekeepers’ Association has not requested that I permit the blending of honey. That is the point I want to make. If the beekeepers’ association wants to come to me with a recommendation, I will certainly be prepared to consider its recommendation.

POST-DATED PAYMENTS

Mr. Callahan: I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. My question to the minister is, this morning I had a call --

lnterjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I would like to hear this question if possible.

Mr. Callahan: This morning I had a call from a constituent of mine who indicated to me that he had entered into a contract with a health club, a numbered company, that took from him, by way of consideration for the contract, a series of post-dated Visa slips, with an understanding under the contract that those Visa slips would not be negotiated until the dates on the particular slips came up. I understand from the constituent that, in fact, what happened was that these were presented to Visa and Visa honoured all of them, even though they were post-dated.

What can the minister do about this? Is this an appropriate action on the part of Visa in cashing these in advance of the dates that are on them?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: The use of post-dated Visa slips is not, in a sense, unlike the use of post-dated cheques. The kind of problem the honourable member refers to has come to the attention of the ministry in the past and has been investigated by the ministry. I would have to hear the specifics of the case and have a look at the specifics of the contract in order to advise the honourable member, and through him his constituent, whether the cashing of those Visa certificates before the dating on them was, in fact, proper or not.

Mr. Callahan: If I send the minister the particulars, I wonder if the minister’s department, in investigating that, would look into the activities of the company that cashed the slips; and would also look into the question of Visa’s response to my constituent, that because it was in a matter between them and the constituent that they deemed it appropriate for them to cash those slips without the dates actually having become current?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: The member raises actually an important point. I have been told by my ministry officials that this method of payment, particularly for health clubs, some of which are charging very expensive monthly fees, is very much on the upswing. The member raises an important point which goes beyond the individual concern of his constituent and into the whole practice of Visa payment and the treatment which not only Visa, but other credit card companies, are affording these post-dated payments.

We have in the past addressed the issue of post-dated cheques. I think the member raises a very important concern and I give him a commitment, if he will send me all of the pertinent information we will look at it and give him a response.

AXIAL FLOW TECHNOLOGY

Mr. Wildman: I have a question of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. Considering the fact that taxpayers’ funds from the federal level have been used to develop the axial flow technology for combines and considering that Massey Combines will likely be sold in sections, which means that the axial flow combines technology might be spun off separately by the receiver, will the minister indicate what he is doing and what this government is doing, what steps it is taking either by itself or in conjunction with the federal government, to keep this state-of-the-art technology in Ontario and Canada?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: We are in a situation, as the member knows, where they have closed down the combines operation and we do not know what is going to happen to that facility. It is in the hands of a receiver. We are hopeful something will come of it whereby we can not only maintain the technology but put that plant back into production. Unfortunately, I cannot give the member any assurance at the moment that any one of those things is going to happen.

Mr. Wildman: Surely the minister is aware that Peat, Marwick is advertising widely for possible buyers and that the technology in itself is probably the most valuable asset. Once the debt problems have been dealt with through receivership, it would be an attractive buy. Of the potential purchasers, whether it be John Deere, Ford, Kloecker-Humboldt, Case or Mr. Sinclair, only one is Canadian.

What is the government doing to try to ensure that the possibility of the purchase of that technology will not mean its transfer out of this province and out of this country?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I repeat again that we are very aware that the receiver is trying to sell some of the assets of the company. We are in close touch with him. We are monitoring the situation. Until we see a specific offer, and I have no indication that there will be an offer or what is happening, I cannot respond. I share the member’s concern. We will do whatever we can to try to keep that technology here, but until we see where the offer is from, whether or not we have any right to interfere with that offer, in light of the fact that the receiver has control of the assets, I cannot tell the member.

CONGRATULATORY SCROLLS

Mr. J. M. Johnson: My question is to the Minister of Government Services. As all members of this House should know, commencing May 1 Ontarians celebrating their 40th wedding anniversary or 80th birthday will be eligible to receive a congratulatory plaque from the province.

It is my understanding that the style and format of the plaque has been redesigned and that after April 30 the scroll will no longer bear the name of the MPP who is presenting it, but will continue to be signed by the Premier.

Will the member’s name be included at the bottom of the scroll or not?

Hon. Mr. Patten: It is times like this when I wish I knew this kind of detail. I will look into this and report back to the member.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: On March 22 I sent the minister a letter requesting information on this. I realize that is only 23 days. As the minister is in charge of the mail service as well, maybe I can ask, while he is checking on the other, can he determine why it takes 23 days to send a letter from my office to his office, or at least to get a response?

Hon. Mr. Patten: All right. I will be happy to respond.

TRESPASSING

Mr. Mahoney: My question is to the Attorney General. Across this province, there have been a number of complaints raised by young people and minority groups in public areas, most notably in shopping malls, who have been evicted and, in many cases, banned from coming back into those malls for reasons that have not been properly explained to them.

Can the Attorney General tell us what he is doing about this problem and if he is looking at amending the legislation?

Hon. Mr. Scott: I thank the member for his question, which I know is a matter of lively concern in the Mississauga area and elsewhere. As the member knows, the government appointed Raj Anand, who is now the chairman of the Ontario Human Rights Commission, to look into this problem. His report was recently made. It reveals that while most mall owners behave with perfect discretion in exercising the unrestricted rights they have under the Trespass to Property Act, there are a significant number of instances of discrimination.

Mr. Anand recommended a number of courses of action. We are considering the matter and we hope very shortly to be able to announce the approach of the government to this very sensitive but very important question.

Mr. Mahoney: This problem extends even beyond young people and minorities. I have had complaints in my community of senior citizens who have simply stopped to rest and who have been hustled along and not allowed to enjoy the atmosphere that is created in these wonderful new shopping plazas and, once again, not given proper reasons why.

I understand the shopkeepers’ and the mall owners’ concerns that the primary purpose of being in a mall is to shop, but on the other hand, they do invite the public in. I wonder what recourse the public might have under present legislation, where they could take their complaint to get some satisfaction?

Hon. Mr. Scott: The short answer to the honourable member’s question is that at the present time in the state of the law, the person who is aggrieved by being put out of the shopping centre has no rights at all, though there is a case called Regina v. Layton in which someone who wanted to picket inside the Eaton’s plaza but outside the stores asserted his charter rights. That is one of the cases that gave rise to the Anand report.

One of the things Mr. Anand recommended is that there should be a modest restriction on the plaza owner’s right, which would require him to give to the person about to be expelled a reason in conduct inconsistent with the nature of the space that the plaza owner controlled. That would be a protection for senior citizens of the type the honourable member refers to, and young people, members of minority groups who from time to time regrettably feel this problem. It would also provide full assurance to mall owners that they will be able effectively and properly to police their property in a reasonable way.

HOME CARE

Mr. Hampton: My question is for the Minister of Health. The Minister of Health was in the House the other day when we talked briefly about the integrated home care program and it was disclosed that this was not an ideal program by any means.

The Minister of Health will also know that her ministry signs decentralized contracts with local branches of the Canadian Red Cross Society and these decentralized contracts are, in effect, there to provide for homemaker services for many elderly and sick individuals, so that they may be cared for in their homes and not have to go into nursing homes or hospitals.

Mr. Speaker: A question would be in order.

Mr. Hampton: The minister will also know there is a severe problem in terms of the wages these people are paid. This has been studied and a promise has been made that the situation is going to be dealt with. Yet so far nothing has happened.

Mr. Speaker: The question.

Mr. Hampton: When are these people who work on these Red Cross homemaker programs going to receive a decent wage?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: The Ministry of Health’s home care program provides services which include homemaking, but also professional services such as physiotherapy, occupational therapy, social work, nutritional services and respiratory therapy. It is very successful in helping people stay in their homes. In fact, the home care program within the ministry has gone from a total cost five years ago of some $67 million to some $200 million presently, and we are finding the demands are ever-increasing.

We are always concerned, as the member knows, about having fair wages paid to people, but on the other hand, we have to look at the demands for expansion of programs. Those are two interests which we try to weigh when we determine how we target our resources.

Mr. Hampton: It seems to me that, on the one hand, the minister acknowledges that by having these people perform these services her ministry is saving a great deal of money, because it certainly costs a lot less for them to do the work than it costs to put somebody into a hospital or a nursing home.

What does she have to say to someone like Louise Shine, who says: “I am a homemaker. I have a valid registered nursing assistant certification. I have a licence to drive to my work, which costs me a certain amount of money every year. I have to pay insurance. I have worked under the homemaker program for 14 years and I am paid $6.08 an hour with no benefits, no pension plan, nothing.” What does the minister say to someone like that?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: The Ministry of Health representatives participated in an interministerial committee along with the Ministry of Community and Social Services on the whole issue of home care. There are a number of issues that have arisen from that. In 1986, we know the home care program served some 95,000 senior citizens in this province. I do not think there is any question but that it delivers a valuable service and the demands for expansion of that service are very great.

The Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Sweeney), my colleague, has also addressed some of those issues in response to questions. It is always a very difficult question to resolve, how to expand those services to meet the needs, at the same time ensuring that people are fairly compensated for their efforts.

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

Mr. Pope: I have a question for the Minister of Labour. Can the Minister of Labour indicate to me whether or not he, officials of his ministry or representatives of the Workers’ Compensation Board have met with the Quebec Minister of Labour, the Quebec Ministry of Labour representatives or the Quebec workers’ compensation board representatives with respect to lung cancer among gold miners?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: Speaking for myself, I can tell my friend the member for Cochrane South that I have not yet had an opportunity to meet with my Quebec counterpart Pierre Cadieux, the Minister of Labour in Quebec. I anticipate meeting him in the very near future to talk about a whole range of issues. As to whether or not representatives of the Workers’ Compensation Board or officials within the Ministry of Labour have had meetings with their counterparts from Quebec, there are no meetings that I know of. If my friend wants me to investigate that matter further, I would not have any trouble doing that.

Mr. Pope: The purpose of my question was that, as the minister may or may not be aware, widows and children of miners who have died from lung cancer are being denied benefits to which they would otherwise be entitled, because they, like so many others in northeastern Ontario in the 1930s, 1940s and 1950s, worked for Ontario companies that were contracting companies in Quebec and Ontario. Because they had the misfortune to spend some time in Quebec, one of our sister provinces and part of Canada, the minister’s officials in the Workers’ Compensation Board are denying them compensation they would otherwise be entitled to.

What I am asking the minister to do as Minister of Labour for all of us is to sort out this problem with the Quebec workers’ compensation board and make sure that where you work in this country is not a determining factor in whether or not you get compensation that you would otherwise be entitled to for a lung cancer death.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: Just to correct an inadvertent error, I said Pierre Cadieux was the Quebec Minister of Labour. Of course, it is Pierre Paradis.

To take up from where my friend the member for Cochrane South left off, let me tell him that the study the Workers’ Compensation Board did resulted in some 400 people becoming eligible for compensation as a result of work in gold mines in Ontario. The study into the relationship between working in gold mines and the development of lung and stomach cancer is the subject of ongoing study and obviously a very serious issue.

I will take the point my friend from Cochrane South makes and I will look into it, I can assure him of that. If it is necessary to report back to him on that particular issue, I undertake to do so.

PETITIONS

ABORTION

Mr. Callahan: I have four separate petitions. The first one contains approximately 162 signatories. It reads as follows:

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

“As concerned citizens of Ontario, we are gravely concerned about the rights of the unborn child. We believe that an unborn child must be accorded every right to protection as given to those who can speak in their own defence.

“We therefore urge the government to support the inclusion of the protection for the unborn in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.”

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. Callahan: I have a petition containing approximately 1,435 names, which reads as follows:

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

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

“We are opposed to open Sunday shopping and want to retain a common pause day in Ontario. We do not want to work on Sundays.”

NATUROPATHY

Mr. Callahan: The next petition contains approximately 110 signatures and reads as follows:

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

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

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

“And

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

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

BRAMPTON REGISTRY OFFICE

Mr. Callahan: I have a further petition with 600 signatories, which reads as follows:

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

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

“As members of the legal profession and professional title searchers, we understand that the government of Ontario plans to discontinue its operation of a paging system handling incoming telephone calls in the Brampton registry office. The Brampton office services one of the fastest growing metropolitan areas in Ontario.”

I will shorten it down. In essence, they are asking that the ministry reinstate this service to the registry office in Brampton.

NATUROPATHY

Mr. Offer: I have two petitions. They are both from the St. George-St. David riding, recognizing the custom of the House that ministers not present petitions.

The first is through the Frank Amodeo naturopathic clinic and reads as follows:

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

It is signed by 50 concerned citizens.

In the same vein and from the same riding through the Dale H. Okabe naturopathic clinic:

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

It too is signed by 50 concerned citizens.

Mr. M. C. Ray: I too have a petition regarding naturopathy, signed by 72 residents of Windsor, petitioning the Ontario Legislature to introduce legislation that would guarantee naturopaths the right to practise their art and science to the fullest extent without prejudice or harassment. It too is addressed to His Honour the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

Mr. Epp from the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly presented a report and moved the adoption of its recommendations.

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

Mr. Epp: I do. I will try to make it brief, but it is probably just a little more than brief.

In 1987, the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly issued a report concerning the service of process in the precincts of the Legislative Assembly. The report was not dealt with in the last parliament. The present committee is of the opinion that the current practice is ambiguous and recommends amendments to the Legislative Assembly Act for greater clarity.

The committee’s report proposes a new

section 38 to the act which would designate as a contempt of the House the service of a civil process upon any person in the Legislative Building, in any room in which a committee is meeting and in the legislative office of a member that is designated by the Speaker for the purposes of the bill.

To ensure awareness of these new provisions, the committee also recommends the circulation of an explanatory statement to members and their staff, staff of the Office of the Assembly, deputy ministers, process servers in Ontario, police forces and the Law Society of Upper Canada.

Later today, I will be presenting a bill for first reading that proposes amendments to the Legislative Assembly Act which embody the recommendations contained in the committee report.

Finally, pursuant to standing order 32(d), the committee requests that the government provide a comprehensive response to the committee’s report within 120 days.

On motion by Mr. Epp, the debate was adjourned.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

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

Your committee begs to report the following bills without amendment:

Bill Pr10,

An Act respecting the Oshawa Public Utilities Commission.

Bill Pr62,

An Act respecting The Windsor Utilities Commission.

Your committee begs to report the following bill as amended:

Bill Pr22,

An Act respecting the City of Mississauga.

Your committee would recommend that the fees, less the actual cost of printing, be remitted on Bill Pr70,

An Act to revive Community Youth Programs Inc.

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Swart moved first reading of Bill 111,

An Act to amend the Legislative Assembly Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Swart: The purpose of the proposed

section 1 in this bill is to provide that the Legislature sit part of every month during the year instead of the current policy whereby it may sit continuously for a four-month period in the spring and two months in the fall and be recessed or adjourned the rest of the year.

The proposed

section 2 declares that the designations “member of the Legislative Assembly” and “MLA” are the official designations of persons who are elected to the Legislative Assembly. The intent is to have the designation conform more closely to the designation used in other provinces and to eliminate confusion between the designations “MPP” and “MP.”

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Epp moved first reading of Bill 112,

An Act to amend the Legislative Assembly Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Epp: This bill arises out of the report of the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly which I presented to the House a short while ago. I believe this may be the first time a chairman of a committee has introduced a bill for first reading at the request of a committee.

The bill would prohibit the service of civil process in the Legislative Building, in a room or place in which a committee of the assembly is meeting or in an office of a member of the assembly, other than a constituency office, that is designated by the Speaker. Breach of the prohibition would be dealt with as a contempt of the assembly.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

INTERIM SUPPLY (CONTINUED)

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for interim supply for the period commencing April 16, 1988, and ending June 30, 1988.

Mr. Charlton: I will attempt to pick up where I left off my comments yesterday. Perhaps I could say at the outset that it is not my intention to go on too long this afternoon. But the Speaker may recall that some of the government members across the way were being rather rambunctious yesterday afternoon throughout a number of the speeches during the course of the afternoon, so perhaps I can tell them that I will tailor the length of my comments commensurate with their behaviour.

When I adjourned the debate yesterday afternoon, I was talking about Ontario Hydro and the problem which was announced some three weeks ago about the newly discovered need to retube reactors 3 and 4 at Pickering, the associated $800 million cost and the concern that has grown out of that, which is that ultimately Ontario Hydro is going to have to retube all of its currently existing reactors, as well as the new reactors just about to come on stream at Darlington, at a fairly substantial cost, a cost which is going to distort the whole picture of Hydro’s view and the government’s view of what the real cost of nuclear power is in Ontario.

The concern I was expressing when I adjourned the debate was that the government and the Minister of Energy (Mr. Wong) appeared not to understand the importance of this issue. At the time Hydro made its announcement, the minister stated clearly that he supported Hydro’s announcement to retube reactors 3 and 4, but he has taken no action to really look into the implications of the matter for the larger system.

I see the former Minister of Energy sitting across the way and he understands. He is one of those who understands the potential implications of that announcement and the potential cost of some $7 billion to $8 billion, which Hydro had not anticipated in its planning process. I am saying in this debate, and I am almost pleading if you like, that this government announce and take some action to have a very careful look at the real implications of that announcement of three weeks ago.

The potential consequences for Ontario and for Ontario’s economy are horrendous. I do not hear anything, at least to date, coming from government and I want to see some kind of full investigation with a report to this House on the implications and costs of that announcement some three weeks ago.

I think that pretty well wraps up my comments on Ontario Hydro. I would like to move now to some brief comments on a couple of other issues.

The first one deals with health, and I am happy to see the Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan) still in the House this afternoon. Members will recall that in June 1986, we passed the legislation in this House banning extra billing in Ontario. Throughout the fall of 1986 and throughout all of 1987, we raised in this House on repeated occasions a number of other new twists that some doctors in this province were taking to get at extra charges to their patients.

One of those new twists was the advent of doctors who were asking their patients either to subscribe to an annual fee that was to cover services not normally covered by the Ontario health insurance plan, services such as the writing of medical reports and so on, or in the absence of paying that annual fee to their doctors to be billed directly and personally for a service OHIP would not cover.

That issue has been raised dozens of times here in the House. To date, we have had no effective response from the Minister of Health on that issue. I guess the reason I am raising it here today is that I have just received in my constituency office a new round of letters from constituents in my riding who are patients of doctors who have very recently chosen to go that route. We have been raising this for the last 18 months.

I am making an assumption here: I assume that this new flurry of activity of doctors moving to this new charge against their patients all of a sudden is, in part, a result of the lack of response from the Minister of Health. In other words, in round one, 18 months ago and a year ago, the doctors who were most determined to find a way around the ban on extra billing were the first into this game. Those who thought, “Maybe, if this works, I will get in,” but were reluctant to be the first to jump in, are now jumping in because of the lack of response from the Minister of Health.

I would encourage her to please have a serious look at either covering the kinds of charges that are being billed directly to patients or being charged to patients through an annual fee, or to specifically name them as banned in the legislation we passed a year and a half ago.

I would like to move now just very briefly to the issue of auto insurance. I see that the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) is not here at the moment, but his parliamentary assistant is here and I am sure the honourable gentleman will pass my comments along to him. I just want to make a couple of brief comments on the auto insurance issue since the Treasurer is also the Minister for Financial Institutions.

I guess, basically, the reason I have chosen to make these comments this afternoon is a response the minister made to my colleague the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart) during question period yesterday or the day before. When the member for Welland-Thorold raised yet again the question of public auto insurance, the minister’s response was that he seemed to recall an election campaign last summer and in September, and that he seemed to remember this party advocating public auto insurance during that campaign. His statement went something like, “I took the other position and there are more of us over here than there are of you over there.”

I want to suggest that as I recall it, it was not the Treasurer and Minister of Financial Institutions who set Liberal Party policy on auto insurance during the campaign last year, it was the Premier (Mr. Peterson). If I recall correctly, there was some serious confusion in Ontario about what the Premier’s position on that issue was. In some speaking engagements in Ontario, he took the position that public auto insurance was not the answer. On the other hand, in a speech he made down in the Niagara Peninsula, he said to the people of this province: “I’m not convinced that public auto insurance is the answer. On the other hand, I’m not ruling it out either.”

I recall that constituents in my riding and in other ridings where I was present during the election campaign were honestly confused about the issue of public auto insurance, and not only honestly confused but also asking the question, just a few days before the election, “Do you really believe that if the Liberals win they will do something about public auto insurance?” They had very clearly been left with the impression that this was one of the options the Premier was considering.

I guess I am just trying to say that the response of the Treasurer to my colleague the member for Welland-Thorold the other day may have been a perfectly honest response in the mind of the Treasurer and Minister of Financial Institutions in terms of how he perceived the issue of public auto insurance during the election campaign, but it was not quite as clear, in terms of the Premier’s position and the Liberal Party’s position, in the minds of the public of this province during that election campaign.

As a result, the votes that were cast in that election were not as decisively as the Treasurer would lead us to believe a vote for or against issues like public auto insurance, which the Premier in my view very clearly and intentionally tried to confuse during the course of the campaign.

Having said that, there is just one last issue I would like to make very brief comment on, and that is the issue of housing. As members are aware, this has been a very heated issue on a daily basis here in the House for some months now, leading up to Christmas and since Christmas.

I am someone who came from a sector, prior to my election, where I was involved in the appraisal of property and got to watch the events of the late 1960s and early 1970s in terms of land speculation, which prompted the former Conservative government in this province, a government that at least the members of the Liberal Party and the ministers of the Liberal government would say was not as progressive as they are here today, to bring in a land speculation tax.

There have been questions raised a number of times here in this House about the reintroduction of a land speculation tax. In response to the question put today to the Premier by my leader and by the member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren), the Premier stated the obvious, which was that the land spec tax that was implemented in the 1970s by the Tories was later repealed and had not worked. I suggest the Premier is recalling the repealing of the act fairly well, but he has not taken the time to check Hansard in terms of both the government justification for repealing that bill and the reasons for which he and members of the Liberal caucus supported the repealing of that bill.

I was the Revenue critic for our caucus at that time and I was rather intimately involved in that debate. We opposed the repeal at the time. The government justification and the Liberal Party rationale for repealing that piece of legislation had nothing to do with its failures. In fact, the rationale was precisely the opposite.

The Bill Davis government stood in this House, and at that time Stuart Smith, Liberal, stood in this House and used as a justification for repealing that bill the fact that the land speculation tax had brought speculation in the real estate market to its knees. The real estate market had been dead flat as a result for four years at that point. There had been no more speculation going on in Ontario and there was no longer any need for that piece of legislation.

We, of course, argued the opposite. If the legislation had in fact brought land speculation to its knees and had been one of the major reasons for four years of fairly stable real estate prices in Ontario, to remove that safeguard was stupid and to leave it in place would prevent what we went through in 1985, 1986, 1987 and are going through in 1988 and on into 1989, 1990 and so on.

As a matter of fact, the rate of land speculation that evolved late in 1987 and early in 1988 is as high as the serious land speculation of the early 1970s, which prompted the introduction of that legislation in the first place. If we just look at recent weeks in isolation and they turn out to really point to the new trend as opposed to the average over the last year, the rate of land speculation resulting in the coming period will be about one third higher than the excessive land speculation of 1972, 1973 and 1974, which prompted the introduction of that land speculation legislation in the first place.

I suggest that it is time the Treasurer, the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Grandmaitre) and the Premier sit down and look a little more carefully at the record in terms of the debates that went on in 1978 and 1979 around the repeal of the land speculation tax and get a little clearer fix on whether they were saying in those days that the legislation had failed or that it had been a resounding success and therefore was no longer needed.

They need to think very carefully, if they have any real interest, as the reform government that they claim to be, in starting to get at and solving the problems in the housing sector in Ontario. It is no different in 1988 than it was in 1972 and 1973. Providing affordable land for housing in Ontario will be the key component to making any serious dent in the housing crisis and the housing shortage that we have in Ontario.

I think it is time that the Treasurer, the Minister of Revenue and the Premier sit down and very carefully think that through; and then go and have a talk with the Minister of Housing (Ms. Hošek) about what her officials are finding around the issue of being able to implement the very programs they have created in Metropolitan Toronto, in the Durham region, in the region of North York, in Hamilton-Wentworth and in many other urban municipalities across the province, where land speculation over the next year is going to outstrip all of the price guidelines in every single housing program they have.

It is a very serious issue, and l urge that they seriously reconsider the position they have taken, because it is one of the only effective ways of bringing the price of land under control. Having affordable land for housing is the major component of any housing program that is going to have any significant impact.

With that, I will wrap up my comments, although I will probably have some further comments to make on Ontario Hydro and energy matters during the course of the estimates discussions over the next few days.

Mr. Faubert: Some of my remarks to the member may seem naive in that I am not sure what some of the debate and some of the comments of members commenting on interim supply are actually about, because it seems that one has the privilege of rambling through the whole gamut of everything the government does when one is commenting on this. But there are two brief comments I would like to make.

I would like to ask the member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Charlton) what he is really suggesting when it comes to property tax reform in Metropolitan Toronto.

Mr. Lupusella: They do not know.

Mr. Faubert: That is exactly the point. The member states that local option only serves to guarantee inequities when it comes to that reform, and it is a reform long overdue and very much needed. I am not sure whether he is suggesting that it should be imposed by the Minister of Revenue or that, for some reason, it should simply be imposed by this government on the Metropolitan region as pure market value assessment, with all its basic negative impacts, with all its impacts on those on fixed incomes, homes of inequitable location or age of property.

It seems to me that the minister is doing the thing that everyone has asked him to do; that is to negotiate. The solution to taxation equity must and should be negotiated, however difficult in the light of the fact that Metropolitan Toronto with the member’s own New Democratic Party colleagues on the city council and on the Metropolitan council, is on the leading edge of opposition to taxation equity. I wish he would take that into consideration with his remarks when he puts it forward that somehow it is his party that is leading reform in taxation.

I have one other quick comment. I just wonder what the member is referring to when he talks about Sunday shopping. I think this is the third member who has got up on this debate and talked about Sunday shopping. I just point out that it is really the Retail Business Holidays Act he is referring to, not Sunday shopping. He falls into the press trap of it consistently.

Mr. Charlton: I would like to respond to the member. I will start with the last issue first and say that in the same way the Premier has responded here to questions on the Sunday shopping and Sunday working issue, we have not fallen into any trap at all. We just have a significantly different view of the issue than the member does.

On the property tax issue, the member was asking me what, in reality, I was saying. First of all, the member should be clear that the New Democratic Party has a distinct policy on property tax reform, which does not in any way resemble the present program which this government is afraid to implement but says it supports.

If the government is afraid to implement it, then it must be the wrong program. This game of throwing it to the local option is doing two things, and this is what I was trying to address yesterday. First, it ensures that there will be no property tax reform of any kind in Metropolitan Toronto. Second, in the rest of the province, it ensures that what property tax reform does go on will not be fully equitable among municipalities.

Those are the two things the government is accomplishing with a policy that it says it supports as a government and yet is afraid to implement. If it is the wrong policy, they should get off their behinds and develop the right one and implement it. If it is the right policy, then they should proceed to implement it instead of playing this silly local option game.

If the member would like to sit down with us and discuss the policy we would implement if we were the government, it is set out in our policy book and we are prepared to talk about it any time he likes.

Mr. Mackenzie: I am pleased to rise and participate in this debate. I do not feel under any pressure. I understand it is the first time I have been able to get into a debate on interim supply like this at 3:40, when I have the option of going right through until we adjourn if I so feel.

I want the House to know that I am a compassionate man and I want to apologize in advance that the Liberals have to keep close to 20 members in the House just so that we are not stuck with a series of quorum calls. Some of the members are going to have to put up with whatever comments I may have over the next period of time.

When we talk about interim supply, there are so many things -- and what is it? -- $9 billion or $10 billion now of money already spent. Eleven months ago really we should have approved some of the estimates. I forget what the debate was, but it is not too long ago that others in this House, myself included, were raising the question of the absolute insanity of the kind of a procedure we have here -- it is worse now than it used to be, since I was elected 12 and a half years ago -- where we have been debating the estimates and the expenditures of government money long after the money has been spent.

It does not make a heck of a lot of sense and it also, I think, opens up a couple of cans of worms that the government should think about. Why should anyone of us want to vote for interim supply, other than the old saw that, “Well, surely you want to see the civil servants get paid, or the government be able to pay its bills”?

But why should any of us want to approve interim supply and the kind of money we have already spent in this province without, as I say, approval of the estimates of the various ministries when there are so many things the government has not done and so many things it has backed off on and so many things that are certainly not the priorities that at least some other members in this House would have?

I see the member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay (Mr. Black) shaking his head. I wonder if he really knows what our priorities are and what his own priorities are. I know they have some difficulty with their own priorities when I look at the promises we had during the election and what has happened since. I recall the member for Brampton South (Mr. Callahan) getting up and feeling a little bit exercised in yesterday’s debate. I think my colleague the member for Algoma (Mr. Wildman) was the previous speaker who had raised some of the concerns about the lack of action in certain areas in northern Ontario.

He gave us one of those real rah-rah pitches and said: “Hey, just wait and see what a wonderful program we have coming up for northern Ontario. You will not have any chance to have any reasons to be dissatisfied with it.”

Well, I could start off with the comment that we have been waiting two or three years to see this wonderful program for northern Ontario, but I think even more to the point and more telling would be simply to say, what about the northern Ontario heritage fund and the commitment that was made to it? We have gone over a year where we have spent nothing and done nothing about it.

What I am simply saying --

An hon. member: Don’t worry. It is coming.

Mr. Mackenzie: The member is not in his seat.

An hon. member: Were you there last week in northern Ontario?

The Deputy Speaker: Order. The member is not in his seat.

Mr. Mackenzie: I would like to simply say that it would be great if we had any feeling and any confidence that the remarks of the member for Brampton South meant anything. Certainly the commitment to the heritage fund did not mean anything. Certainly most of what we have asked for in terms of the changes in the north, as my colleagues pointed out very well, have not meant very much. Certainly the Sunday shopping issue was a complete reversal. Certainly we did not get the kind of expenditures that were promised specifically in terms of education. I could go on and on and on.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: But don’t, Bob.

Mr. Mackenzie: Oh, I will. I have until six o’clock. I am going to do fine here today. It makes you really wonder why we should think that there might be any reason to accept a comment of a member, “Just wait and see what is coming.” I guess you learn a little bit from history. We look at what has happened in the past right up until now and we do not see any action.

I want to list just a few of the things I think are wrong with what we are doing and on which we have not seen any action in Ontario. I do not know about the rest of the members here, but one of the things that struck me in the last couple of months in my constituency office -- and I can honestly say that mine is a busy constituency office -- is the number of people who are coming in once again with funding problems in terms of the skin disease that Dr. Kozak’s clinic treats in Germany. I forget the name of the actual malady, but I have had three in my riding in the last six or seven weeks.

It is difficult and the work we are doing so far here in Canada is not resolving the problem. Yet some people are spending a small fortune to go over to Germany, or now to Spain where I believe Kozak has a clinic, and they are getting some relief from this particular problem. We have not dealt with that, and there were days in this House within the last five or six years when, because of the tremendous effect it has on individuals, that was a fairly major issue in this House.

Would one of the government members pray tell me what single initiative the Ministry of Health has taken in regard to this problem? I do not know of an initiative it has taken. We can go after them to see if they will allow up to $300 a day, as New Brunswick now does, to send somebody over for treatment in Germany. We may be able to win the odd case on it; I am not sure. As I say, I have two or three we are involved in right now and I have not seen that initiative.

I thought one of the Liberal promises was some action in terms of additional dental coverage. I think that needs to be broadened considerably in this province. I guess the answer on this, like so many other things, is going to be the lack of money; but I do not see any new or interesting or exciting initiatives in regard to additional dental coverage in a country as great and as wealthy as ours, in spite of some of the problems we may have. I do not see this happening at all. As I say once again, I think it was one of the initiatives I heard this government talking about before the last election.

The whole question of medical prosthesis is one that still comes up, over certain ages and under certain circumstances. It seems to me that for somebody who has had a pension established or is not able to work or is in a seriously handicapped situation, there should be some kind of automatic response in terms of the need for hearing aids, the need for a change, or a new leg or a socket or the number of different things which happen, where that person is one of the really disadvantaged people in our community. In the last couple of years, there have been some very small movements in that area, but not enough really to make a mark.

It seems to me that this is an area where we -- I am sorry the Minister of Labour (Mr. Sorbara) has to leave, because about an hour of my remarks are dealing with his ministry. Nevertheless, we will get at him another time, in the estimates, maybe; it seems to me we have not dealt with these areas.

Another issue is acute care. There is not one member in this House who does not recognize that we have a problem with extended care: the number of people in acute care beds who should not be, who should be in extended care or nursing home beds, the difficulty we have in trying to move them out; the difficulty we have if somebody is in a hospital bed and is a terminal case but has been moved into a nursing home. The situation is so bad: I had one case recently where the person wanted to go back into a hospital but the hospital would not take him, so he was stuck for his remaining days in the establishment he was in.

Maybe, if you want to really swing your weight around with the doctors, you can make some arrangements, but it is not easy. The case is really there and the situation is really there because we do not have the adequate facilities. Sure, other than education, there is nothing like health in terms of the cost to Ontario; but are we always going to measure everything we do in terms of the cost? I recognize that it is important.

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: We have to balance the books.

Mr. Mackenzie: We have not been willing to deal with some tax fairness issues, I remind my colleague, that might make it a little easier to deal with issues like this. It seems to me the mark of a really caring, civilized society is how it takes care of the least able, the most disabled or the older people in that country. We have not done the best job in that area.

We have been hearing in this House, over the last few weeks, a real developing concern over the issue of home care and homemakers and some of the arguments that have been made by my colleagues in terms of the wages. There are some who have been working for a number of years who earn even less than $6, but $6 to $6.50 seems to be about the average range if you really have some experience. Was it proper for the Minister of Health to simply say, “Money is the issue,” to make a comment like that when we were needling her about it a bit this afternoon, when we have people who do help keep our health care costs down?

That is one of the services, homemaker services, which probably, for the older people -- we have a growing older population, and the members are all aware of that -- does more to give people some dignity in their last years and to keep them out of institutions which are much more costly than home care. Yet in home care we have difficulty finding enough people to take care of the people who need it and we have, with the people who are doing it, one of the highest turnover rates of any job in this country.

I do not have them before me, but I saw some of the figures just recently on that and it is almost unbelievable. The only occupation I have seen where there was a higher turnover rate was, believe it or not, in Wheel-Trans, the handicapped drivers’ program. The turnover there is almost beyond belief if you get the figures over the last two or three years in Metro Toronto.

This is an area where we are providing a direct, needed service that cuts down on our costs in this province and this country of ours, and we are willing to carry it on the backs, usually, of people who are a little older too -- the majority of them in this field are older workers -- who are getting usually very few, if any, benefits and $6 or $6.50 an hour. Where are our priorities, when we say that this kind of a cost, this kind of a program, this kind of a necessity is one where the dollars to expand it are a heck of a lot more important than seeing that these people are paid even the beginnings of a decent wage?

I look at the need for wheelchair ramps. I was at a meeting of my local stamp club. I do find the odd hour to get out and do some of the things that I like to do as well, and in my community the other night I had a lady in a wheelchair come up to me and tell me about her frustrations in her building in using the wheelchair ramps. They had finally put one in, but they had it controlled so that it was only usable at certain hours and she had to make special arrangements with the caretakers and the owners of the apartment building if she wanted to get down at other than a certain two- or three- or four-hour period a day. They are some of the lucky ones whose building has the facilities.

What have we done in terms of making the services accessible to people who are in wheelchairs? Our record is not one of the very best in the world, let me tell you.

The other thing we have heard a lot about in this House in the last few weeks, and legitimately, is the housing issue. I think rather than go into some of the cases we have had here in the House that we have presented in the last few weeks, I want to go back for just a moment to something that I think Hansard will show I raised a fair amount of concern about. That was the flipping of land in my community. We had two or three cases we documented a number of years ago, and each single flip resulted in a fantastic increase in the price of land.

The real problem in housing, as I think most members will admit if they are serious and will stop and think about it for a moment, has more to do with land speculation than it does with any other costs. I think the figures are beginning to show that, and I think the cost per lot in Toronto that we were talking about in the past couple of days in this House, $160,000, tells us very clearly that we have a serious problem in terms of ever being able to provide affordable housing as long as we allow the kind of speculation and the kind of profiteering that goes on in land.

I want to ask all members of this House who will spend even a minute thinking about it to tell me seriously what their priorities are. Does any member really believe that a marketplace system that gives you the right to flip land and make that kind of profit, even if it is only one of the reasons why we cannot provide affordable housing for people, can any member tell me that is legitimate in our society? I do not think so, and maybe that sets me apart from some others and maybe it is one of the reasons I belong to the political party I do.

I sort of like what they now have in Stockholm. They have had a real problem there too.