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

December 11, 1989

34th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

FIREFIGHTING

UNITED NATIONS INTERNATIONAL CHILDREN’S EMERGENCY FUND

NATURAL GAS PIPELINE

DEFAULT JUDGEMENTS

HUMAN RIGHTS WEEK

GUN CONTROLS

PROPOSED HOSPITAL MERGER

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

ANDRE BIELER

INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS DAY

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

HOUSING ON GOVERNMENT LAND

RESPONSES

HOUSING ON GOVERNMENT LAND

ORAL QUESTIONS

ONTARIO PLACE

RETAIL STORE HOURS

ONTARIO PLACE

RETAIL STORE HOURS

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

HOSPITAL SERVICES

GOVERNMENT SUPPLIERS

WINDSOR AREA ECONOMY

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

TEACHERS SUPERANNUATION

FALSE ALARMS

RECREATION FACILITIES

TIMBER MANAGEMENT

MOTIONS

COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTIONS

NOTICE OF COMMITTEE HEARING

PETITIONS

COMMERCIAL CONCENTRATION LEVY

TOBACCO VENDING MACHINES

GREATER TORONTO AREA

REPORT BY COMMITTEE

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

393598 ONTARIO LIMITED ACT, 1989

ORDERS OF THE DAY

HOUSE SITTINGS

COURTS OF JUSTICE AMENDMENT ACT, 1989

EVIDENCE AMENDMENT ACT, 1989

EVIDENCE AMENDMENT ACT, 1989

ONTARIO LOTTERY CORPORATION AMENDMENT ACT, 1989

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

FIREFIGHTING

Mr Hampton: A few weeks ago the Ministry of Natural Resources acknowledged the existence of a study which showed that the frequency and the intensity of forest fires across northern Ontario have, on average, been increasing over the past 10 years. The Ministry of Natural Resources spokesperson refers to the global warming effect as one possible cause contributing to increases in the number of forest fires and the increase in their severity.

This past summer the ministry knew of the conclusions of this study and its implications for the protection and conservation of our northern forests and our northern environment. Yet, even as it knew of the study and its implications, this government cut $6 million from the forest firefighting budget and terminated the employment of 130 trained firefighters in northern Ontario.

Now, as we look ahead to the fire season of 1990, some alarming evidence is already beginning to appear. This fall, the rainfall in northern Ontario was sparse, and so far this winter the snowfall in northwestern Ontario has been extremely light. These factors point to the possibility of extreme fire conditions in the northwest in the spring of 1990. Now is the time for this government to restore the MNR’s firefighting budget that was taken away in 1989. Not to do so is to court potential disaster.

UNITED NATIONS INTERNATIONAL CHILDREN’S EMERGENCY FUND

Mr McCague: The United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund was established on this day in 1946, at the very first session of the United Nations General Assembly. It was set up to co-ordinate programs helping children in countries devastated by the Second World War. Four years later, it expanded to include Third World nations with their urgent problems of hunger and poverty.

We are all familiar with the orange boxes our children bring on their Hallowe’en rounds to collect money for UNICEF. Ninety per cent of that money goes directly to overseas projects -- projects such as a well-drilling rig in Cameroon, where 60 per cent of rural families do not have safe water.

This year marks the 30th anniversary of the declaration of rights of the child and the 10th anniversary of the International Year of the Child, yet each day more than 40,000 children die in the developing world and thousands more are disadvantaged for life because of undernourishment of body and mind.

UNICEF is fighting to help children get at least the basic necessities of life. All of us should support this worthy aim so that children, wherever they may be, have a chance to live and grow up strong and healthy.

NATURAL GAS PIPELINE

Mr Reycraft: I want to take this opportunity to express some serious concerns I have with respect to a proposed Union Gas pipeline expansion in my riding.

Union Gas proposes to expropriate large quantities of productive agricultural land in southwestern Ontario in order to meet the rising demands of energy-hungry Americans. America’s appetite for our natural gas is expected to climb by 22 per cent over the next two years, while the Canadian demand is expected to rise at a much slower rate. Many experts are predicting that Canadians will be competing with Americans for this important resource by the middle of the next decade, so one reason I would maintain that the loss of valuable agricultural land to a pipeline is not justified is because it does nothing to ensure security of supply for Canadians.

Security of supply, however, is not the main issue this time. There are many questions that exist with respect to the project itself. For example, this pipeline is the fourth being built in the area since 1959 and its diameter is the largest yet. The effects of this on agricultural land and the surrounding environment are ill-understood.

The expropriation of productive farm land is usually based on the principle that it is in the broad public interest. Given that the only probable interest that would be served in this instance is that of Union Gas, I strongly urge that all parties concerned proceed on this proposal with extreme caution. There are many reasons to believe that this project is not in the best interest of Canadians.

DEFAULT JUDGEMENTS

Mr Reville: The Law Society of Upper Canada, in conjunction with South Ottawa Community Legal Services and community legal services in Ottawa, did a study of default judgements in landlord and tenant

summary applications in the judicial district of Ottawa-Carleton.

They examined 266 default files and discovered that almost half of them contained at least one fatal defect. Many files contained more than one defect. In addition, a third of the files were awarded illegal amounts of rent. Ninety-eight per cent of all the awards for rent arrears were signed with no evidence of whether a rent deposit had been paid or not.

What this means is that had those cases proceeded to trial, the judge would have had no alternative but to find against the landlord. Yet, because of the failure of the Attorney General (Mr Scott) of Ontario to provide guidelines and checklists to the registrars of each of the districts of the province, tenants are being found against under a default judgement when in fact they should not be.

It strikes me it is high time the Attorney General got on the side of tenants instead of on the side of landlords.

HUMAN RIGHTS WEEK

Mrs Marland: This week, 10 to 16 December, is Human Rights Week, and yesterday marked the 41st anniversary of the United Nations universal declaration of human rights. This week is a time to recognize the ultimate sacrifice of the millions who gave their lives in past conflicts and who are dying in ongoing struggles to ensure that their fellow human beings can live in peace and dignity. It is also a time to celebrate the momentous changes that are occurring in eastern Europe where millions are asserting their rights of political, economic and religious choice.

At the same time, let us count our blessings that we live in Ontario, a society where individual rights are cherished and protected. The Ontario Human Rights Code, the first legislation of its kind in Canada, was established 27 years ago by the Progressive Conservative government of John Robarts. The code formally recognizes the moral, social and economic rights of individuals in our society.

This week is also a time to remind ourselves that although we can be proud of our human rights record, it is not perfect. We still need a vigilant Ontario Human Rights Commission to uphold our Human Rights Code. This New Year’s Eve, as we enter a new decade, let us resolve to do everything that is in our power to change personal and societal attitudes so that human rights abuse is eliminated to the extent that it is humanly possible. It is up to each one of us to make this world a better place for our children and grandchildren.

GUN CONTROLS

Mr McGuinty: In the context of the tragic event in Montreal last week, the Ottawa police made another plea for greater gun controls -- a recurring plea -- with some startling figures with regard to gun acquisitions in our area.

A firearm acquisition certificate may be submitted by anyone over the age of 16. Only two basic questions are asked: “Have you been charged and/or convicted of a criminal offence during the past five years?” and “Have you been treated for mental illness for the past five years?” The former may be easily confirmed. With medical files confidential, the latter is limited to the response by the applicant.

In my home town during the past five years 6,768 acquisition certificates were approved. Less than one per cent of applications were rejected. The Ottawa police receive from two to five gun calls per day; that is, weapons reported. Figures Ontario-wide are no less alarming and disconcerting. In three years, from 1986 to 1988, a total of 150,000 acquisition certificates were approved.

To the rejoinder, “Guns do not kill people, people kill people,” espoused by such as the American Rifle Association and some people in Ontario, there is the obvious reply: people kill people with guns. Our Ontario police are faced with an intolerable predicament brought on by too-lax gun controls. This is a serious question for which we must find an answer.

PROPOSED HOSPITAL MERGER

Mr Reville: There is a lot of anxiety and concern about the future of Women’s College Hospital. We know that in response to public pressure the Minister of Health (Mrs Caplan) has finally appointed an independent panel to review the merger process between Women’s College Hospital and the Toronto Hospital Corp. We also know that the city of Toronto’s medical officer of health is looking at the proposed merger from the perspective of access to health care.

What no one seems to know is what this merger means for the future of the specialized services now being offered by Women’s College Hospital. Nobody knows that because the vision statement promised for November by the two hospital boards has still not been released. Many people are concerned that the Toronto Hospital Corp is being issued a blank cheque. That, of course, would not surprise a whole lot of people who have watched what happens with the Toronto Hospital Corp.

The question for the government is, when is the minister going to share with interested parties her view of the future of Women’s College Hospital?

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

Mr Villeneuve: In Ottawa today the annual agricultural outlook conference begins. I understand that the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr Ramsay) is in attendance and indeed participating. I will quote from one of his very recent press releases. “The agrifood industry in Ontario and in Canada is at the crossroads. It is no time to be vague about which road to take. We must set decisive, informed directions which will contribute to the industry’s long-term viability,” says our Minister of Agriculture and Food.

This is the same minister who has had his budget cut by $55 million in the last year, has terminated the Ontario family farm interest rate reduction program, has cut back on the farm tax rebate program and has basically taken a back seat to every other ministry within this province. He speaks great words; however, they sound rather hollow when you look at the record of this government and this Minister of Agriculture and Food, along with his predecessor. As we come in to the 1990s, agriculture will be suffering a 38 per cent decrease in net income.

Mr Speaker, do you know of any other sector in this province or in this country that is faced with that kind of a negative situation? We need action here, now.

ANDRE BIELER

Mr Keyes: On Friday 1 December, Andre Bieler, one of Canada’s artistic pioneers, died at his home in Kingston. He was 93. Mr Bieler is widely known for his paintings, which depict traditional rural Quebec life along the shores of the St Lawrence. He was a co-founder of the Agnes Etherington Art Centre in Kingston, one of Canada’s most notable galleries.

Andre Bieler was born in Lausanne, Switzerland, studied painting in Paris and New York, and finally joined his family in Canada in the 1920s. Mr Bieler settled first in rural Quebec, then Montreal, and finally in Kingston in 1936, where he became artist in residence at Queen’s University. He remained in Kingston for the rest of his life.

One of Mr Bieler’s greatest accomplishments was in 1941 when he organized the first conference of Canadian artists. That Kingston conference sparked ideas which led to the establishment of the Canada Council many years later.

In 1988 Mr Bieler was awarded the Order of Canada. Because of inability to travel, the award came to him. On 13 October this year, in my presence, the Right Honourable Lincoln Alexander presented Andre Bieler with his award at Kingston’s Hotel Dieu Hospital. It was a fitting honour for a man who had served the Canadian artistic community as both artist and advocate.

Mr Speaker, would you please join me and all members of this House in paying tribute to Andre Bieler, a man who is fondly known as the people’s artist.

The Speaker: That completes the allotted time for members’ statements. The member for Markham is on his feet. For what reason?

Mr Cousens: I understand there is agreement in the House for a statement on Human Rights Day as it affects Soviet Jewry.

The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?

Agreed to.

INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS DAY

Mr Cousens: I rise today to join my colleagues and the other two co-chairmen of the Soviet Jewry committee, the member for Hamilton West (Mr Allen) and the member for Oakwood (Ms Hošek), in paying tribute to the 41st anniversary of International Human Rights Day.

Yesterday, 10 December, millions of people around the world celebrated the reaffirmation of basic human rights. However, yesterday thousands of Soviet Jews continued to face persecution. As co-chairman of the Ontario Legislature’s committee on Soviet Jewry, I would like to take this opportunity to call on the Soviet Union to practise what it has been preaching. In the wake of glasnost and perestroika, we in the west have been witness to a remarkable chain of events in eastern Europe.

From the dismantling of the Berlin Wall to the rise of democratic movements in Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, East Germany and hopefully in the Baltic states, our faith is renewed that freedom and independence are become a reality.

Our committee challenges the Soviet Union to abide by these principles in its dealings with Soviet Jews. If these events are to have any true meaning for citizens of eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, all citizens must be included.

Members of this Legislature should be aware that hundreds, perhaps thousands, of refusenik cases remain unresolved. Of even greater concern is the rising tide of anti-Semitism in the Soviet Union. The new freedom in the Soviet Union permitted by glasnost has ironically resulted in several anti-Semitic campaigns. One organization which has come to our attention, Pamyat, has launched a very visible public campaign of anti-Semitism.

If the celebration of International Human Rights Day is to hold true meaning for citizens of the world, it must pertain to and be honoured by all cultures. Momentous steps have been made this past year that reinforce the hope for freedom and peace for all people in this world. Unfortunately, for Jewish people in the Soviet Union there is still a long way to go.

The Ontario Legislature committee on Soviet Jewry is committed to fight for human rights. We cannot take freedom for granted; not our own, not in the Soviet Union, not anywhere.

Ms Hošek: Yesterday, 10 December, was Human Rights Day, the day we celebrate the creation of the United Nations declaration of human rights. It is also a time in which we reflect on all the many ways in which human rights are being violated around the world. Those of us who are particularly interested in central and eastern Europe have been watching events there with a great deal of hope. In the Soviet Union we see many changes in the structure of society and a lot of language about plans for a more open and free political system.

We must not let our hopes for the future blind us to the problems that still remain. Despite glasnost, despite perestroika, there are still in the Soviet Union today Jewish families who have been denied permission to emigrate. There are still families split apart by a regime which has allowed some members to emigrate and others not.

Just last week, Vladimir Rais, the longest-serving refusenik in the Soviet Union, was once again refused permission to leave. This man and his family have been waiting to leave the Soviet Union for 18 years.

Openness in a society with the history of the Soviet Union has its dangers as well as its opportunities. The new freedoms have been used as an opportunity for several strongly anti-Semitic groups to express the same old hatreds and the same old lies which Jews have heard for hundreds of years. It is up to the Soviet government to indicate its strong disapproval of these words and these acts and to strengthen the path of tolerance and human rights.

We call upon the Soviet authorities to make sure that the new freedoms for their people include freedoms for the Jewish people in the Soviet Union as well: freedom to emigrate and the freedom to live in a tolerant society.

Mr Allen: I am proud to join my colleagues the co-chairs of the Soviet Jewish committee of this Legislature in a statement on the conditions of Soviet Jews on the occasion of the United Nations International Human Rights Day. A remarkable spirit of goodwill and new hope, as my colleagues have noted, has developed in the relations between east and west as a result of the Gorbachev initiatives under the policies of glasnost and perestroika.

A new openness of political culture, of religious life and of human rights is hopefully in the making in Russia and eastern Europe. Soviet Jews have experienced glasnost in the form a major relaxation around emigration, the opening of cultural centres in several cities and the startup of previously forbidden Hebrew-language classes. However, much remains to be done before Soviet Jews have the benefit of full liberty of expression and freedom of movement. Several hundred refusenik cases remain, and only last week the longest-serving refusenik again was refused permission to leave. New applicants are by no means readily approved.

A disturbing aspect of the current scene is that the new freedom has apparently encouraged the formation of anti-Semitic groups whose crude public demonstration displays attitudes that go long and deep into the Russian past and which call for the most vigorous response from the Soviet state and Mr Gorbachev himself. There are some indications that such groups may yet have friends in high places.

At this time, as we mark International Human Rights Day, it is still appropriate, perhaps more appropriate than ever because hope has been unleashed, to call upon the Soviet Union to move speedily to extend all basic rights and protections to Soviet Jewry. The New Democratic Party caucus, whose members are all members of the Legislature committee on Soviet Jewry, join in asking Soviet authorities to honour commitments made this year to respect the human rights provisions of the Helsinki accord.

It is worth noting in this connection that our leader, the member for York South (Mr B. Rae), will be in the Soviet Union for the Lithuanian elections on 24 February and he will be seeking discussions with Soviet Jewry on the conditions of Soviet Jews at that time.

We make this call in the full recognition that our Canadian record on minority rights is by no means entirely clear, and indeed our country is at this moment the subject of a United Nations inquiry into the condition of our native people. But we rise on this day to declare again that human rights are indivisible, that one person’s restriction, abuse or imprisonment is never, in reality, another person’s freedom. The chains we forge for others, sooner or later, shackle ourselves. Once more therefore, in this assembly and in that spirit, we point to the continuing refusal to grant full rights to Soviet Jews and pray that it may be the last time we need feel compelled to do so.

The Speaker: There seem to be a lot of private conversations taking place. Maybe they are necessary, but they are a bit noisy.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

HOUSING ON GOVERNMENT LAND

Hon Mr Sweeney: Since assuming the Housing and Municipal Affairs portfolios, I have said many times that we must increase the housing choices for our families now and for our children in the future. This means increasing opportunities for families to buy an affordable home and creating decent places to live for those who rent. Selling government-owned lands for housing is a modest but important part of this effort. I would now like to update members on the progress this government is making under the province’s Housing First policy.

During the next year I expect construction will begin on approximately 2,200 homes on provincial government lands. This new housing will include affordable starter homes people can buy and nonprofit homes for rent. We are able to do this thanks to a new residential land sales initiative developed jointly by my ministry and the Ministry of Government Services. The key to this new residential land sales approach is that the government sells its land to a qualified builder who guarantees the lowest sales price of affordable starter homes to be built on those lands.

Construction will start during the next year on these 2,200 homes in Mississauga, Bowmanville, Windsor, Kitchener, Guelph and Stoney Creek. I also expect work to begin on an additional 250 homes on government land in Oakville in 1991. I am pleased to say that more than half of the new homes on these sites, about 500 homes for rent and about 800 starter homes for sale, will be affordable for low- and moderate-income households.

This morning, my two colleagues the Minister of Government Services (Mr Ward) and the Minister without Portfolio responsible for disabled persons (Ms Collins) and the member for Wentworth East made an announcement in Stoney Creek which is the first concrete example of what we will do on government-owned lands in the next few years. Eighty starter homes priced at $59,700 will be built on land currently owned by the province in the Heritage Green community of Stoney Creek.

As my colleague the Minister of Government Services said this morning: “These starter homes are the first achievement of our government’s new residential land sales initiative and it’s an achievement in which the community of Stoney Creek, and indeed the region of Hamilton-Wentworth, can take pride.”

The land will be sold to two local builders, Losani Homes Ltd of Stoney Creek and Tommar Construction Co Ltd of Hamilton, who will build and market these homes during the coming year.

These 80 starter homes will be available only to first-time buyers, and antispeculation measures will be used to ensure they remain affordable. Interested buyers will be able to obtain details by calling a hotline number to be set up and advertised by the builders in January.

As part of the agreement, the builders acquire land in Stoney Creek which can provide 140 lots for the construction of detached homes that they may sell according to market.

Today’s announcement is good news. But affordable home ownership is only part of our effort to increase housing choices. Another important aspect is nonprofit housing designed, built and managed by local nonprofit groups.

Last Friday, my ministry gave the go-ahead for nonprofit organizations to plan for more than 6,400 rental units through my ministry’s Homes Now program. Since it began just over a year ago, Homes Now has allocated about 28,000 nonprofit homes across the province.

I recognize the crucial role nonprofit groups play in creating affordable rental housing for low- and moderate-income households. That is why some 500 of the 2,400 homes that will be going up on provincial lands in these seven communities that we are talking about today will be affordable rental housing.

With this initiative, this government is increasing the ownership and rental housing choices for the people of this province. Homes built on these government lands will be a well-planned mix of low-rise apartments, townhouse-style condominiums, semidetached and detached homes. These new homes will fit in with existing neighbourhoods.

By working with the building industry, nonprofit groups and municipalities, we are able to create a significant amount of affordable homes that people can buy or rent.

This announcement marks a significant new direction in the use of surplus government land for housing. But to continue this momentum, we need the commitment and the creativity of the province’s builders, nonprofit groups, municipalities and the public.

As Minister of Housing and Minister of Municipal Affairs, I will continue devoting my energies to seek new ways to expand the housing choices for people today and for our children tomorrow.

RESPONSES

HOUSING ON GOVERNMENT LAND

Mr D. S. Cooke: I would like to take a couple of minutes to respond to the Minister of Housing and start off by indicating to the minister that we would be enthusiastically in support of this if it was truly a mechanism of providing housing for middle- and low-income families across this province, but at first look at the announcement, in Stoney Creek, for example, it looks like 220 building lots are going to be made available, of which 140 of those are going to go at market value and provide market value housing to people in that community, about a ratio of two to one, an absolutely huge government subsidy from the taxpayers of this province to provide that type of housing.

I think this first announcement is an indication of the minister’s and this government’s obsession with ownership housing rather than continuing the progress that has been made in the last few years of getting more co-op and nonprofit housing available on the market across this province.

The minister’s referred to making sure that the 80 units would remain affordable by saying that there is going to be some antispeculation measures but he does not tell us at all what those measures are. His government has totally resisted any kind of speculation tax to make sure that we try to protect people in urban areas across this province, and now he comes up with a statement today and says some undefined secret mechanism is going to be put in place to make sure that these units remain affordable. We just do not buy it.

That is not what has happened in the past, and I do not see that that is going to happen in the future. There have been other programs like this in place before, and we have seen what has happened to the prices of those housing units.

When members take a look at this announcement today and at the announcement the minister made on Friday of the over 6,000 units in the co-op and nonprofit areas -- that is basically the last allocation of the Homes Now program -- with no future program at all for nonprofit and co-op housing from the provincial level for next fiscal year or the year after, I think they will see that the crisis in housing that exists in this province now is simply going to get worse.

The minister has taken tours and has met with people. Dealing with the homeless in his province and in particular in this community, I say to him, it is not good enough to go out as he did on October 2 and talk about home ownership to homeless people in this community and expect that just because that is his view of the world, that is everybody’s view of the world.

There are people in this community and across Ontario who want decent, affordable rental housing. That is the most practical way of providing affordable housing in this province in communities like Metro Toronto, Hamilton and Ottawa. The minister has to get his act together and get back into that market next year by a massive housing program. He has abandoned proper protection of tenants in this province through the rent review legislation. That housing is skyrocketing because they do not have proper protection.

The minister is getting out of the co-op and nonprofit housing, so there is not going to be affordable rental housing coming on the market, and now he is providing a very small number of units with absolutely no protection to guarantee that those houses will remain affordable and at the same time providing an incredible subsidy to the private developers by giving them building lots at very low value.

This is a very disappointing announcement, and it indicates that the government’s policy on providing affordable housing in this province is absolutely bankrupt and that things are obviously going to be getting worse.

Mr B. Rae: Just to reinforce the comments by my colleague the Housing critic and our House leader, I want to say to the minister that I recall the assisted home ownership program -- I am sure the minister does -- going back some 15 years to the days of the Liberal regime, the Trudeau regime, in Ottawa. Those houses entered the market and became the eventual subject of speculation.

I do not understand how the minister thinks he can have it both ways. How can he say that he is somehow going to stop speculation for the first 80 homes in Stoney Creek that are so-called affordable while his Treasurer, when I have asked him the same question over and over again as we face speculation in the province, has been saying for the last several years that there is no role for the province in stopping speculation? I think there is an incoherence here which is going to end up causing the minister great problems.

Mr Harris: First of all, I want to say that I and my party are supportive of the move to home ownership. We are supportive of the stated objectives of the minister to move into the home ownership route, although we have some concerns with the announcement that was made today.

However, I want to put on the record my disagreement with my colleagues from the New Democratic Party. We believe that home ownership is the way that we should be moving, into providing far more efficient costs, into providing control, into providing people with the dream of home ownership and a vested interest in a property which we believe will significantly reduce the overall commitment that government will have to be making.

Having said that, of all the billions that the ministry is talking about, this announcement is only talking about 80 units. I guess my biggest concern is that the minister is spending billions and billions of dollars and allocating billions of dollars to subsidize housing when the real problem is that the government, led by the Premier (Mr Peterson) and the minister’s cabinet colleagues, has not in any co-ordinated way been able to tackle the basic infrastructure problems that this province has.

The government has not made infrastructure decisions on providing serviced land at affordable cost so that the private sector could build all of this housing far cheaper than the government is having to do by subsidizing.

On basic infrastructure decisions such as transit. roads, parks, schools, hospitals, sewers, water and garbage, the government has done nothing for the past five years. It has had unlimited opportunity. It has had gobs of money. But it has refused to make the difficult infrastructure decisions as a government and as a party and so now it has to spend billions of dollars subsidizing where it would not have had to spend a penny subsidizing had it made those basic infrastructure decisions.

Unfortunately, I guess for 42 years people took for granted that these decisions just happen, but we have seen in the past five years that they do not just happen. Somebody consciously has to make those basic, good, sound management infrastructure decisions, and they have been ignored by this administration for the past five years. It is ironic that the flagship of the announcement today, the Stoney Creek announcement on Lake Ontario, is so late in coming. It is actually a reannouncement from July 1988, and the government has done nothing, but now it is going to have to exempt it from the environmental assessment process.

I am surprised my colleagues from the New Democratic Party did not mention that. That again requires sound planning. You have to anticipate down the road, put the infrastructure into place and be cognizant of the environmental impacts. Now the minister is exempting this project from the EA process. He is saying: “We are so far behind, so desperate, we are going to fire this money in and we ourselves are not going to have to follow the Environmental Assessment Act.”

The second part of the minister’s announcement talks about another reannouncement of some of the specifics of the billions he is putting into the nonprofit sector. In North Bay, under the predecessor to Homes Now, Project 3000, they allocated 18 units to the nonprofit sector in North Bay. They are going to open next spring at a cost of $100,000 a unit. They average about 1.8 bedrooms. The private sector is building these things far better, far sounder for in the neighbourhood of $60,000 to $65,000 a unit.

When we see the government’s $3 billion -- $2 billion in the last budget and $1 billion now -- for 30,000 homes, it is averaging $100,000 a unit. .By the time the government fritters around -- it is so far behind in the infrastructure; the nonprofit groups have to hire consultant after consultant, architect after architect -- the cost is averaging $30,000 to $40,000 a unit more than the private sector is doing all on its own without any government help and it is wasting about $1 billion in the process.

We applaud the initiatives to move towards home ownership. But this government cannot manage its way out of a wet paper hat.

ORAL QUESTIONS

ONTARIO PLACE

Mr B. Rae: In the absence of the Premier (Mr Peterson), perhaps I might address my questions to the Chairman of the Management Board of Cabinet. The former Minister of Tourism and Recreation, who is now the Minister of Mines (Mr O’Neil), received a memorandum on 20 March from the chairman of the board of Ontario Place, Patricia Starr. This memorandum has been referred to in the House before.

In that memo she said, “Dear Hugh:” and then in large type, “Ontario Place has cut its deficit by just over $2 million for fiscal year ending March 31, 1989!!!” and closes by saying: “Thank you for your continued support. We’re looking forward to a dynamite season.”

Mr D. S. Cooke: Someone blew the Liberals out of the water.

Mr B. Rae: Something blew up; that is obvious.

My first question to the minister is, I wonder how he can explain how a senior public servant, such as Mrs Starr was at that time, could have been so completely wrong in her estimate of what the deficit for Ontario Place would be. She said that, “Ontario Place has cut its deficit by just over $2 million…!!!” In fact, the deficit was cut by $1.4 million. It is a $600,000 error.

The Speaker: Thank you.

Mr B. Rae: Has the minister any explanation for Mrs Starr’s $600,000 error?

Hon Mr Elston: I do not know how the calculation was arrived at, nor do I recall actually being asked to compute any of the deficit reduction or otherwise. I do know that overall there were a number of improvements made at Ontario Place and there was an expectation, I think, that there would be an increase in people attending. People at Ontario Place are quite well aware of the increased pressure on the entertainment dollar in a market which is quite actively occupied by several attractions, not only in this area but in areas which are quite close.

From my point of view, there are probably some explanations which would come from people who actually wrote the memo. I am not in a position to second-guess the person who wrote the memo, nor am I in a position to tell the member in detail about the reactions of people from the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation, but I will undertake to get back to the member after I have had a chance to discuss this with the people at Tourism and Recreation.

Mr B. Rae: Since the minister could not explain this $600,000 error by Mrs Starr in a memorandum which she wrote as the 1989 fiscal year was ending, which is a rather significant mistake, I wonder how he can respond to the following criticisms which were launched by the Provincial Auditor against the administration at Ontario Place under Mrs Starr’s management.

He describes “related planning and rationale being much less developed and supported than would normally be expected of a public

section institution.” He “found that the processes followed did not ensure that moneys were well spent or that fairness and equity were demonstrated.” He found, on concession letting, the practices were “so informal that we could not determine whether all potential operators were treated in a fair and equitable manner.” He found that so many people had left or were fired “that hiring procedures were less formal in order to meet operating season pressures.”

The Speaker : Your question.

Mr B. Rae: There were no advertisements and no fair hiring practices as is common in the public service.

I wonder if the minister can explain how it is that a deputy minister of the Liberal government who was on the board of Ontario Place apparently approved of all these practices --

The Speaker: Thank you.

Mr B. Rae: -- many of which are questioned by the auditor. How could the government have been asleep at the till all that time for those two years when all these practices were taking place?

Hon Mr Elston: The honourable gentleman is going through a number of items which I will look into, with respect to hiring practice and other things. He knows that we take the auditor’s report very seriously indeed and we look into the issues that are brought to our attention by honourable members such as himself. We know that he will be happy to receive my fuller report when I have had chance to speak to the people at Tourism and Recreation with whom the Ontario Place Corp has a definite and legal connection.

Mr B. Rae: The auditor finds all kinds of questionable practices with regard to the letting of contracts, with regard to what happened to staff turnover. One example, which I am sure members will relate to and all members of the public will relate to, is that baseball caps for the uniforms cost $2 in 1988 and they cost $11 in 1989. A woman’s sweater cost $10 in the previous year, 1988; it went up to $35 in 1989. He questions the whole way in which this particular contract for $150,000 was let.

Again, the government was there. The deputy minister is a member of the board. Here we have the minister himself posing in full tuxedo --

The Speaker: Question.

Mr B. Rae: -- regalia with the other corporate sponsors, along with Mrs Starr. I want to know why is it that the government is posing for pictures with Mrs Starr, the cabinet ministers are posing for pictures with Mrs Starr, the government has its deputy minister on the board and this kind of misbehaviour is going on.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Elston: The honourable gentleman has a series of questions about which I undertook to get back, but let me say a couple of things. The member is asking me to get back to him with respect to the turnover of a number of people of whom it was adjudged that there were difficulties in administration when the individual, Mrs Starr, took over. There was a lag in the amount of business that was generated for Ontario Place Corp.

There were decisions made with respect to changing, to upgrade and to become more vigorous in looking for people to attend the Ontario Place Corp grounds. It seems to me that there are things which, he would understand, having been done to try to increase the attendance at Ontario Place, required some very quick action indeed. But I say again that I will get back to him. He knows that I am not directly in charge of Ontario Place, but I will provide him with a report on what I determine to be the underlying causes of this.

With respect to other items about pictures being taken or otherwise, I will likewise request that he be included in the next series of official photographs at Ontario Place.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr B. Rae: I have a question for the Attorney General.

Hon Mr Bradley: Does this involve photographs?

Mr B. Rae: There are no photographs apparently involved in this one.

The Attorney General said in April 1988, when he introduced the Retail Business Holidays Amendment Act -- I just want to remind the Attorney General of what he said at that time because he may have forgotten -- that, “The existing legislation...has been flagrantly and systematically violated by numerous retailers and was particularly violated during the Christmas and post-Christmas shopping season.” He went on to say: “Each year... disrespect for the law has become widespread,” and, “The act was...a law whose application was becoming more and more impossible to enforce, particularly in many large urban centres.” I could read the entire speech, but I think I will spare the House that pleasure.

The Speaker: Question.

Mr B. Rae: This sounds very much to me like a description of this past weekend and indeed of the weekend prior to that. I want to ask the Attorney General why he has not done the one thing which will bring a stop to the number of illegal store openings across the province, bring an application in the name of the Attorney General, in the name of the government of Ontario, that will apply across the province and that will ensure the law is in fact enforced across Ontario?

Hon Mr Scott: I have been the Attorney General for four years and I can always tell when it is Christmas because we have this kind of question from the Leader of the Opposition. The reality is that there is better compliance with the law this year than there has been in any of the preceding four years.

Mr B. Rae: No.

Hon Mr Scott: No? The honourable member, and it is lucky for him, has a very short memory. If the honourable member goes back to the circumstances that obtained in the last four years he will find that we have a better compliance record this year than we have ever before had.

We have difficulties in four regions. In two of those regions the municipalities have acted to seek an injunction and we have indicated that we will support them. I wrote to the regional chairman in Metropolitan Toronto on Friday to that effect and we have indicated that more broadly. But we believe that the best way to initiate the process is for the municipalities to act first, because as the honourable member will know, you have to have the names and locations of the stores that you seek to have the injunction against.

I do not know what stores in Sault Ste Marie the municipality wants to have closed because it has a tourist area there.

The Speaker: Thank you.

Hon Mr Scott: The municipalities must act first. We have indicated that we will support them, and we will.

Mr B. Rae: I want the Attorney General to know that he has far more authority in this matter than he is prepared to give himself. I do not know why he is being such a shrinking violet and so modest in terms of what he can do. This modesty is completely out of character for the Attorney General.

Section 8 of the Retail Business Holidays Act sets this out. It says that, “Upon the application of counsel for the Attorney General or of a municipality to the Supreme Court, the court may order that a retail business establishment close on a holiday to ensure compliance with this act or a bylaw or regulation under this act.”

Mr Justice Potts has ruled that if we want to enforce compliance under the act, it is the Attorney General who has to bring the application. I want to say to the Attorney General, why not bring an application, why not gather the information across the province and bring the application in such a way that there will be no doubt as to where he stands? The public has the impression that the Attorney General is not prepared to enforce the law. What is he going to do to end that impression?

Hon Mr Scott: From the very beginning we have made plain that where charges are laid the crown law staff will vigorously enforce them. The member will have seen that something like 41 charges were laid over the last two days in the three regions with which we are primarily concerned, where most of the problems have arisen. We have also indicated, with respect to those municipalities that propose to act, that we will support them and go with them to court in order to seek an injunction.

My honourable friend seems to think that you can get some kind of injunction that is directed to everybody. You cannot. You have to list the stores and their locations in each community, which is information that can only be obtained by local police forces.

We have said to municipalities, and I say it again, “If you take those steps, we will be glad to support your application so that an injunction can be granted.” The regions are co-operating, providing a better understanding of what is at stake than the Leader of the Opposition, who just gets up on Monday morning, reads it in the paper and comes in and asks a question.

Mr B.

Rae: We are coming close to a season in which charity is the order of the day, but I want to say to the Attorney General that I find it difficult to believe, I find it hard to understand; when this government is faced with full-page newspaper advertisements in every major newspaper which set out clearly and categorically the plans of stores to break the law, when corporate presidents are on television and are holding press conferences announcing that they are going to break the law, that it is their intention to break the law because they do not like the law, this Attorney General is saying, “Well, I have to wait to see what a local municipal council does.” I do not understand that.

I have difficulty comprehending why the Attorney General is taking that position.

I repeat, the law says the Attorney General can bring an application.

Section 8 sets that out very clearly and specifically.

The Speaker: Question.

Mr B. Rae: Why is he not personally using

section 8, why is the government not using

section 8 in order to stop this nonsense right dead in its tracks? He can do it.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Scott: Let’s take a concrete example where the issue in fact arises. We have indicated to Metropolitan Toronto that if its police officers will lay charges we will prosecute those charges to the limit of the law, and that we are doing. They have sought to obtain injunctions against not 25, not 55, but two store owners and have run into a problem as a result of the decision of Mr Justice Potts.

We have indicated to them by letter that if they want our support with respect to the injunction application they have brought against two store owners, we will provide it. We have made the same offer to any other municipality in the province, and the public will want to know we are fully discharging our responsibilities under this law.

ONTARIO PLACE

Mr Brandt: My question is for the Chairman of the Management Board of Cabinet. I would like to question the Chairman of Management Board with respect to the Provincial Auditor’s report on the operations of Ontario Place.

The litany of irregularities is truly amazing as outlined in this report. I would like to ask the Chairman of Management Board if he in fact agrees with the position of the auditor in connection with the number of irregularities, which include inadequate tendering practices, as pointed out earlier, hiring without competition, unusually high staff turnover. Does he agree with the auditor in his statements as they relate to those areas and others he has pointed out or does he take the position that supports Mrs Starr, who indicated there were no irregularities as they relate to the operation of Ontario Place?

Hon Mr Elston: As I have informed the Leader of the Opposition (Mr B. Rae), I will inquire more fully of the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation and provide information for him plus the member representing the third party.

I can tell the honourable gentleman that I certainly agree with the fact that there was a high rate of turnover at Ontario Place and that, in my view, it coincided with a change in mandate to more aggressively market the great facilities at the Ontario Place Corp grounds. We will look more fully into the manner in which there was replacement of staff at that facility.

Mr Brandt: While aggressively marketing Ontario Place, it might be of interest to the minister to note that, when fees for the admission to Ontario Place were increased substantially, attendance went down.

With regard to the number of irregularities that I am speaking of, relating to staff turnover as an example, some 58 people in the senior management levels were either fired or quit out of a staff of some 80 at that particular level of the operation. That is not only highly unusual, it is almost unheard of in the civil service that this many people would leave that particular corporation. I would like the minister to look into that as well.

In particular, and my question is related to this one, will the minister investigate specifically the purchase of some $40,000 worth of equipment at Ontario Place, by Mrs Starr apparently, which one year later was auctioned off for $6,000, a loss to the taxpayers of some $34,000? I want to know why that equipment was purchased and why a year later it was actioned off, and of particular interest to me it; who purchased the equipment for $6,000.

Hon Mr Elston: I will inquire.

Mr Brandt: The government indicated, in statements that we had heard earlier about Ontario Place, that it was going to substantially improve the operations as a result of some of the changes that were taking place. The bottom line is that this facility, which has run well, admittedly with a deficit over the years but without particular controversy, is now in a state of upheaval the likes of which I have never seen before.

How is it possible that a deputy minister who would be there ostensibly as a watchdog for the government, to protect the interests of the taxpayer, would be in attendance at the meetings at which some of these things were carried out, meetings at which these decisions were in fact made? What has the minister or his government said to this particular deputy minister in connection with his responsibilities relative to looking after the interests of the taxpayer?

Hon Mr Elston: I know for instance that the former Minister of Tourism and Recreation, who is the member for Quinte (Mr O’Neil), spent a great deal of time in reviewing the activities at Ontario Place and had a series of concerns about the number of staff turnovers.

But in conjunction with what the member has already observed, and that is the number of years in which Ontario Place had been unable to meet a balanced budget situation and had actually declined in attractiveness to some of the people who would choose between it and another venue for their recreational activities, there was an understanding that there would he changes of personnel and that there were difficulties in marketing which had to be overcome to ensure that there was a more aggressive pursuit of increased attendance.

While there were changes being made with respect to firms that were providing services on the grounds and while there was put in place a capital plan which would reach into the future to provide some attractions on the grounds, there were debates within the organization about how best to manage in the short term. I can tell the honourable member that what we were trying to do was fully put in place a very active marketing strategy for Ontario Place Corp.

I do not know, for instance, about the particular equipment of which he speaks, but I will inquire about that and inquire about some of the other activities he has asked about and will provide a fuller report to both the member and the Leader of the Opposition at a future date.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr Brandt: As expected, I have a question for the Attorney General in connection with the Retail Business Holidays Act. I would like to ask the Attorney General, in view of the decision that Mt Justice Potts has brought down in connection with this matter, how long he anticipates it will take the municipalities to have their bylaws in order so that they can in fact act in order to protect their interests on a local level and also comply with the directive, as issued by Mr Justice Potts, relative to the requirement for such bylaws.

Hon Mr Scott: I think there is a misunderstanding about the nature of the decision. There is nothing in the decision that says the municipality must pass any bylaw nor is there anything in the decision that casts any doubt on the validity of the provincial law. What his lordship said, as I understand his reasons, was that the Attorney General alone could bring the application that is required to grant an injunction. That decision is not binding on any other judge in the province and there will be other judges who will make other decisions.

I have indicated that in so far as that decision presents a difficulty for the region of Metropolitan Toronto or indeed any other municipality in the province, we will be prepared to lend the name of the ministry to any application that the municipality is prepared to make to the court. Those applications can be brought at any time the municipality wants to bring them.

Mr Brandt: The Attorney General is saying that Mr Justice Potts did not in fact require of the municipalities that they have their bylaws in place in advance of taking action against the individual stores. If he is saying that and that the provincial government will have the ultimate responsibility to bring action in co-operation with the municipalities, why will he not take the advice that we offered him in a spirit of goodwill some weeks ago?

We attempted to get him to act under

section 8, whereby he could make sure, in co-operation with local police forces, that those laws were in fact being enforced properly at the local level when the municipalities did not want to have those stores open on a Sunday. Why would the Attorney General not act under

section 8 as he has the authority to do?

Hon Mr Scott: I guess the honourable member was preoccupied preparing his questions when the Leader of the Opposition (Mr B. Rae), well ahead of him, asked precisely this question. The reason, if I can just approach it again, is that in order to make an application for an injunction, the local police must essentially do two things.

They must, first of all, lay criminal charges or quasi-criminal charges, or be prepared to explain why they have not, not only against the persons against whom the injunction is sought, but against anybody else in the community as well. They must, second, conduct an investigation to determine that the store is open in breach of the bylaw. Only municipal police officers can do the work that is necessary to found an injunction. I have no power, nor has the government, to instruct local police officers on what they may or should do. That can only be done by the municipality itself in those places where there is a municipal police force.

We have said to the municipalities, we have said since Friday and before, although it did not appear to be necessary before, that if they wish to act, if they wish to instruct their police to give priority to this, if they wish to prepare the information necessary to obtain an injunction, we will support their application so that the technical requirement of Mr Justice Potts’s decision will be met as long as it remains the law of the province.

Mr Brandt: I want to thank the Attorney General for bringing to my attention the fact that he had answered the question previously. Neither my party nor, I believe, the official opposition or the people of Ontario are happy with the Attorney General’s answer. That is why I asked the question again.

I would like to ask the Attorney General, just so he could clarify for all to hear, what in the world the purpose of putting

section 8 in the act was if, for purposes of having the province take any initiative whatever in regard to enforcement, he has no intention of acting in a province-wide manner, as has been suggested by many, many individuals who feel that is the only way he can bring the present chaotic situation under some kind of control.

He knows full well that local police forces can lay charges which are, in fact, then pursued in the courts by the province of Ontario. He continues to play with words to indicate--

The Speaker: Order. The question was asked. Order.

Hon Mr Scott: The power of the Attorney General, which is the same as the power of the municipalities under

section 8, is simply designed to be applied in the event that some municipalities should, for example, say. ‘We are not going to enforce the act or our bylaws at all within the municipality.” Then it would be open to the Attorney General to act. That situation has not yet occurred --

Mr B. Rae: That is not what it says at all.

Hon Mr Scott: -- and, of course, when it does, we will have to address that situation.

Mr B. Rae: There is nothing in the act which implies that for a moment.

Hon Mr Scott: The other possibility -- and it is getting very difficult for anybody to hear because the Leader of the Opposition is yelling at the top of his lungs again, but I will try.

The second reason why the Attorney General might intervene to bring an application is if a single store or a single chain indicated that it proposed to open its doors on Sunday all across Ontario, in every municipality. But that situation as well has not occurred. We have the capacity, but so has the municipality. In so far as there is a technical difficulty, as a result of Mr Justice Potts’s decision, which was not anticipated, we have indicated to those municipalities that we will support their application if they bring it.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr Mackenzie: I have a serious question for the Minister of Labour. On 1 April 1986, Tarlok Cwahbra was seriously injured at the Brampton plant of Johnson Matthey Ltd when material he was preparing for melting exploded in his hand. Three years later, on 24 November, the Ministry of Labour has decided not to proceed with charges under the Occupational Health and Safety Act. Immediately after the ministry withdrew those charges, Mr Cwahbra was fired from his job.

Not only are workers in Ontario faced with the risk of losing life and limb, but they must suffer the further indignity of losing their jobs because of the government’s inactivity. Can the Minister of Labour tell this House why Mr Cwahbra’s case was dropped and the employer remains unpunished when there was clear evidence that the employer did not comply with the Occupational Health and Safety Act in Ontario?

Hon Mr Phillips: I am not familiar with the details of that case. I assumed, as with any case I have looked at, that the legal branch of the Ministry of Labour would have looked at that case and have concluded that there was insufficient evidence to proceed. I will look into the matter further, but I must say that as I have looked at the statistics for the ministry, our prosecutions actually have increased quite substantially, so that rather than leaving the impression that in fact we have proceeded with fewer prosecutions, I think actually the opposite has been the case.

But, in that specific case, I will look into the matter. I can only assume, as I said earlier, that our legal officials examined the evidence carefully and concluded that there was insufficient evidence to proceed.

Mr Mackenzie: This question was first raised in this House on 4 June 1986 when my colleague Elie Martel asked the then Minister of Labour why two months had passed without charges in this rather serious case. The then minister, the member for Windsor-Sandwich (Mr Wrye), responded by saying, and I quote, “I do not view a little over two months to be an extraordinarily long period of time.” What about three and a half years?

The company certainly does not want this disabled person working for it. The ministry deliberately stalled a well-investigated case, helping the company to achieve its goals. With the ministry and his colleagues so obviously in the company’s pocket, who is to initiate prosecutions and to provide the protection that Ontario workers are entitled to and require?

Hon Mr Phillips: I find the comments rather offensive. I just took a look at the statistics. Our prosecutions have more than doubled in the last three years and our convictions have virtually doubled. To suggest that the Ministry of Labour is doing anything other than enforcing, to the best of its ability and the maximum of its opportunities, the Occupational Health and Safety Act I find rather offensive frankly. Those are the overall statistics.

In that specific case, I can only conclude that our legal branch, as it does in each case, examined the evidence clearly. The member can see by the statistics, there have been double the number of prosecutions and virtually double the number of convictions. Those are the facts. In that particular case, I certainly will look into the matter, but I think we will find, as in all other cases, that our legal branch has done its work, as it does so well, and as these numbers suggest, is being successful at it.

HOSPITAL SERVICES

Mr Brandt: My question is for the Minister of Health.

In view of the findings of the Stella Lacroix inquest and the very clear statement that has been made in connection with the nonexistence of a so-called hotline, recognizing that the minister shared information with this House which was contrary to that which has now been proved at the inquest and recognizing as well that one of the recommendations of the inquest is that such a hotline be established, is the minister prepared to indicate that either she misinformed the House when she shared that information with us or, alternatively, that the information the minister was given was incorrect and certainly indicated a situation that was far different than what was in place at that time?

Hon Mrs Caplan: I would very much like to commend all of the care givers as well as the coroner’s jury for their fact-finding efforts. I would like to say to the leader of the third party that I have stated in this House on numerous occasions how important it is for all information given in this House to be accurate. The coroner’s inquest confirmed that the information that was given to me in the letter by the Toronto General Hospital -- the Toronto General Hospital stands by the information that it submitted. That information was shared in this House in good faith.

He would know as well that the inquest I think provided an important opportunity for all the facts to come out, and I think that our commitment to the establishment of regional hotlines across the province, which was announced last June, will go a long way to improve the quality and the effectiveness of care available to the residents of Ontario.

Mr Brandt: The minister did not answer the question. I guess I did not expect that the minister would answer the question.

At that particular time when this issue was relatively current in terms of the death of Stella Lacroix, the minister may recall that the Premier (Mr Peterson) said that Dr Nesdoly did not use the system that was in place. The system was not in place. The minister is referring now to steps that she supposedly was going to take back in June, preparing the province for some kind of a province-wide hotline, which is still not in place to this day.

Dr Nesdoly’s reputation was called into question in this House as a result of the statements that were made by both the minister and the Premier of this province. Subsequent to that, the inquest has now indicated that Dr Nesdoly should be receiving a commendation for the actions that he took in the attempts that he made to save a life. Is the minister prepared now to do the right and proper thing and simply apologize to Dr Nesdoly for the statements that she made?

Hon Mrs Caplan: I would say to the leader of the third party, as I have said before in this House, that neither I nor any member of this government ever blamed anyone. Just because he or members of his bench say that, does not make that true. He knows in fact that we shared with this House in good faith a letter from the Toronto General Hospital and that the Toronto General Hospital stood by the accuracy of that letter in the fact-finding efforts of the inquest.

I would say further to him that I in fact commend all of the health care providers who have provided very important emergency care to the people of this province. I will say again that I believe it is extremely important that information which is shared in this House should be accurate and I would refer him to Hansard.

The Speaker: There are other members waiting to ask a question.

GOVERNMENT SUPPLIERS

Ms Hošek: My question is for the Minister of Government Services. Every year the government of Ontario spends many billions of dollars on goods and services. In the past year, there were organized outreach programs to reach more than 2,000 potential suppliers who were small business people, to educate them about the opportunities for them to do business with the government. As the minister will know, business people within the many ethnocultural communities in Ontario are also seeking to expand their opportunities.

My question to the minister is, what specifically is his ministry doing to help entrepreneurs from this sector have an equal opportunity on government contracts?

Hon Mr Ward: As the member will know, purchasing from the Ontario government is very significant indeed, totalling some $2 billion annually. Over the course of the past year and a half we have undertaken a very extensive exercise to try to make entrepreneurs throughout this province more aware of the opportunities that exist in terms of selling to the Ontario government.

Recently we have undertaken seminars entitled, “How to Do Business with the Ontario Government.” These have been held in virtually every region of the province. We have had an overwhelming response. Some 2,500 business people have shown up, and we have placed ads not only in the local daily papers but in the ethnic press as well in an attempt to reach all corners of the business community throughout Ontario.

The Speaker: Perhaps before I ask for the supplementary, I see there are two conversations going on very close to the minister. It might be helpful if -- thank you.

Ms Hošek: Is there a way in which the businesses and the ethnocultural communities can have better and more frequent access to the plans of the Ontario government in this area?

Hon Mr Ward: Yes, there is. The ministry is currently in the process of compiling a centralized list of all government suppliers. In the coming year we will be contacting all media, including the ethnic media, to ensure that all businesses are aware of this list and to ensure that everyone has equal access to it.

WINDSOR AREA ECONOMY

Mr D. S. Cooke: I have a question to the Premier who is not here, so I will ask the question to the Deputy Premier, who is also in charge of Ontario’s economy. I am sure that the provincial Treasurer saw the unemployment statistics last week and will have noted that my home community, Windsor, has now an official unemployment rate of 9.6 per cent, nearly 10 per cent, nearly double the provincial unemployment rate, and we are a community in southern Ontario.

I would like to ask the Treasurer, what is this government’s response to the unemployment crisis that exists in Windsor, the plant closure crisis and the downturn of the auto industry? What is he prepared to do now to avoid the kind of depression that we had in that community in the early 1980s?

Hon R. F. Nixon: I think the honourable member would want to know on a broader basis that the same report that brought forward the statistic that he is referring to, which is a very serious level of unemployment indeed, indicated that on a net basis in Ontario in November we gained approximately 5,000 new jobs and that this is the seventh consecutive month when there has been a net gain in employment. The figure that was provided for me as Minister of Economics was that this year so far there are 87,000 new jobs in Ontario, compared with the same period last year.

That is not much comfort to the honourable member who is speaking for Windsor. I can simply say to him that we feel that the downturn in certain aspects of the automobile market is a matter of concern there and in other centres as well, as usual, Windsor being the automobile town traditionally and historically, it is bearing the brunt of the early circumstances.

If the member wants me to talk about the various programs of the government for training and retraining and for assisting in the strengthening of our competitive position vis-à-vis other states and other jurisdictions, I would be glad to do so.

Mr D. S. Cooke: I am sure the people of my community will not be interested in hearing about how large parts of Ontario are prospering, namely, Metropolitan Toronto and the Golden Horseshoe, and communities like Windsor are not sharing in that prosperity. We have not for the last number of years, and the ministers answer has just simply reinforced that.

Why does the minister not use the power of government to help a community that is not prospering during this time in Ontario and avoid the millions of dollars of cost and individual circumstance, health problems and all the rest that come about with the recession by moving in now and helping us to diversify our economy? Is the minister prepared to go down to Windsor and meet with community officials and look at some of the public sector jobs and see if some of those jobs can be increased in our community to help us diversify our community?

Hon R. F. Nixon: I think the suggestion put forward by the honourable member to make the basis of diversification giving a greater emphasis to the provision of public sector jobs is a good one. It is the sort of thing that we used, I feel, as a government quite effectively when many communities in the north were suffering from a very slow reaction to economic restrengthening. It is obviously one of the things that has to be given very careful and positive consideration.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr Sterling: I have a question of the Attorney General. Last November 17 he was at a legal conference in Mont Ste Marie, Quebec, with many of the members of the legal profession from the Ottawa-Carleton area. While I am a member of the bar of the Carleton area, I get quite enough of the Attorney General here and did not attend that conference. But I do wish that I had attended that conference because evidently he said about Bill 68, the no-fault insurance bill, that it provides, and his words were, “worse coverage than that which is available under the current automobile insurance system.”

My question to the Attorney General quite simply is, how can he support Bill 68, the no-fault insurance bill, when he himself has admitted to the bar in eastern Ontario that it does not serve the public interest in a beneficial manlier?

Hon Mr Scott: I am delighted to be here to answer that question and I am delighted that the honourable member has asked it of me because that is not, as I recall, an accurate account of the impression I intended to convey. The point I was making, which is a point that has been made frequently by the minister in this House, is that in order to deal with the insurance prices, the selection of a threshold system of insurance was the development of a new kind of policy. Many of the benefits under the threshold policy, under the governments plan, are in fact a significant advance on benefits that presently exist under policies of insurance in the province.

What I was trying to say was that the threshold scheme was a different kind of insurance scheme, as it clearly is. I am very grateful that the honourable member asked me the question so I can correct that. I should say to the honourable member that he does not only miss the meeting at Mont Ste Marie when I am there or he would have been there on previous occasions. I understand he hardly ever goes at all. I have been there for the past four or five years. I have never seen him.

Mr Sterling: I do not have the expense account, the limousine, the car and driver to take me up to Mont Ste Marie and spend a weekend at the taxpayers’ expense.

The Attorney General is telling us that with Bill 68 in place, no one in this province will be denied coverage or will be dealt with in a worse manner than he is at present under our automobile insurance system. He is saying that everybody is going to be as well off as he was under our existing system, whereby anybody who is hit in an automobile can utilize the courts in order to seek compensation. Is that what he is telling us?

Hon Mr Scott: While we are on the subject, I understand that the honourable member used to miss the Mont Ste Marie meetings even when he was a minister. I was anxious to go this year because I wanted to pay tribute to him before his peers in the Ottawa Valley for the important help he gave us in the courts of justice bill, for which we are very grateful. But as he was almost unknown in the community, not having been at the meetings for so long, when I spoke well of him, there was some question of who he might be. But I did make it plain, that he was a devoted servant of the public of eastern Ontario.

The Speaker: And the response to the question might be?

Hon Mr Scott: I did not make plain the answer that the honourable member would want to put in my mouth because it is not what I intended to say. What I intended to say, in a full and thoughtful discussion on all sides of the government’s plan, was that the threshold scheme which has been adopted in many American states and is something short of the scheme that the regie has in Quebec, is a new scheme which contemplates a new kind of insurance policy which we believe will serve the public well. That is the plan that the government proposed and to which I was speaking.

VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

Mrs O’Neill: My question is for the Minister without Portfolio responsible for women’s issues. Last Wednesday, 6 December, at the University of Montreal Ecole Polytechnique, 14 women were brutally murdered in an extreme act of violence. The women were targeted. Can the minister suggest ways in which we can ensure that such a senseless act of violence never takes place again?

Hon Mrs Wilson: Today, on this day of the funerals in Montreal, we must each be asking ourselves what we can do. We must work to change society’s attitudes towards women. Changing attitudes begins with understanding. We must understand the context in which this extreme act of violence targeted at women happened. Our society allows and even condones violence against women. Women suffer and die singly behind closed doors in this country every day.

Mrs O’Neill: What is the minister, the person responsible for women’s issues in our government. doing to eliminate violence against women?

Hon Mrs Wilson: As a society we need to work to change sexist attitudes. This government is committed to working to eliminate violence and harassment and other threats against women’s integrity and safety. It is clear from the speech from the throne that we are committed to eliminating violence against women and to providing safe and secure communities for the people of this province. We are in the fourth year of a five-year strategy to prevent wife assault. For the last number of months we have had an interministerial committee working to address the issue of sexual assaults on women. I will be taking recommendations from that committee to my colleagues very shortly.

Women should not have to live in fear of violence in the streets, in our institutions of higher learning, in the workplace or in our own homes. Together, as legislators and as people who represent the women and men of this province, I believe that we can work together to make a difference.

TEACHERS SUPERANNUATION

Mr Morin-Strom: I have a question for the Minister of Education about Bill 66,

An Act to revise the Teachers’ Superannuation Act, 1983, and to make related amendments to the Teaching Profession Act. The minister knows that an impasse has been reached with the various teachers’ federations in the attempt to achieve agreement on joint management of Ontario’s teachers pension plans.

With amendments under consideration in committee this week and the bill due to have final reading next week, why has the minister refused to meet with the Ontario Teachers’ Federation so that a mutually agreeable joint-control formula can in fact be achieved?

Hon Mr Conway: I want to thank my honourable friend from Sault Ste Marie for providing me with an opportunity to address this most timely issue of public policy, because it is not true to say that I or any of my colleagues in the government have been unwilling or unprepared to meet with the Ontario Teachers’ Federation. I, myself, in the last five or six weeks have met on two different occasions at length to hear from the Ontario Teachers’ Federation about its views on this matter and at that time I made it very plain to the teachers that it was the view of the government that we would proceed as follows.

We recognize the teachers’ pension plan in Ontario to be one of the best pension plans in the free world. It was a pension plan, however, that was in real trouble because the indexation that had been provided 15 years ago was very badly funded and there was now something in the range of a $4-billion to $5-billion unfunded liability that we as a government were prepared to accept but that we wanted to ensure that for the future this very good plan would maintain its health, would be able to meet the obligations expected of it.

I told the teachers we would offer to the committee three different plan managements and we would be very anxious to hear from them at the committee as to what their views were.

Mr Morin-Strom: This minister has refused to meet with the Ontario Teachers’ Federation since 15 November, during the period that the key questions dealing with the three options were being addressed. The joint management agreement is not a joint agreement if it does not have a dispute settlement mechanism in it. This government refuses to recognize that it has to give up some control in order to have a joint-control model.

When will the minister do something on behalf of the teachers of this province and give them a really negotiated joint-control model rather than being the pawn of the Treasurer (Mr R. F. Nixon) and insisting that the Ontario government continue to have absolute and total control over the teachers’ pension plans in Ontario’?

Hon Mr Conway: I am disappointed to have to observe that my friend, the learned doctor of philosophy from Sault Ste Marie, is strangely and completely confused on this matter because the government and I myself have in no way refused to meet the teachers. We have met countless times over the past 16 months. I repeat that just three weeks ago I met for several hours with the teachers and at that time I made plain to them that we would consider a number of options, not the least of the options being a member-run, teacher-run plan where the teachers could take complete responsibility for this multibillion-dollar fund.

I have said, on behalf of the taxpayers of Ontario, recognizing and representing the broad public interest, that if we are going to have a partnership model for governance we in government are not prepared to accept what the teachers want, which is a binding arbitration mechanism. We are prepared to consider partnership absolutely -- we are quite prepared to consider partnership -- but it has to be a partnership of equals where we both accept an equal share of risk and reward.

FALSE ALARMS

Mr McLean: My question is for the Solicitor General and it concerns the disturbing number of false alarms that Ontario police forces respond to. I am concerned at the high cost of false alarms and the disabling effects they have on police morale. His predecessor indicated that action would be taken to curb the rising number of false alarms and she vowed to help solve this costly problem.

Does the minister agree with his predecessor that action must be taken, and is he aware of any legislation that is on the books?

Hon Mr Offer: In response to the question, first let me indicate I am quite aware of the issues surrounding the whole question of false alarms and the cost those impose in dollar terms to a number of municipalities.

As the member will be aware, there is a report by the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police which specifically deals with this issue and I would like to inform you, Mr Speaker, and the member, in response to his question, that we are currently looking over those recommendations and we are currently assessing and analysing that particular issue.

Mr McLean: Since the Solicitor General agrees that there should be some action taken, I would like to know if he plans on supporting Bill 88, which was introduced in this House some time ago with regard to the legislation pertaining to alarms, if he will take the time to look at this legislation and see if it is acceptable to his government, and if it is, will he support it?

Hon Mr Offer: Dealing with the particular legislation, as the member will be aware, there are a number of issues surrounding the whole question of false alarms. Certainly those types of issues deserve a great deal of analysis and examination before any final determination is made. I would expect that the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police would expect no less, and I expect and see it as my responsibility to act on this very important issue.

RECREATION FACILITIES

Mr Miclash: My question is to the Minister of Tourism and Recreation. There is a great amount of importance and emphasis placed on recreation centres in northern Ontario communities. Communities such as Sachigo Lake and Sandy Lake, which are in my riding, incorporate recreation into their daily activities to promote a more healthy lifestyle.

These communities depend on lottery-assisted grants to build and maintain recreation centres. Would the minister like to expand on the programs and to advise the House on the process for applying for these grants?

Hon Mr Black: I am pleased to respond to the question. First of all, each year we do allocate lottery-funded grants for both capital recreation projects in the conservation area and for providing new recreation facilities. The grant applications are processed through the regional offices of my ministry. They are evaluated there very carefully and the results of those evaluations are brought to Toronto where they are looked at in terms of both the regional level and also the provincial level.

Mr Miclash: Two of my communities, the two I mentioned -- Sachigo Lake and Sandy Lake -- have made application to receive lottery-assisted grants for capital recreation programs. In light of this, could the minister please respond to the inquiry regarding the anticipated date for decision of these applications?

Hon Mr Black: The staff in the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation is in the process of reviewing the grant applications at the present time. We would anticipate that early in the new year, perhaps as early as the middle of January, we will be in a position to take a final look at those applications and, hopefully, make announcements towards the end of January.

TIMBER MANAGEMENT

Mr Wildman: I have a question for the Minister of Natural Resources regarding expenditures by her ministry, just dealing with her ministry, for the environmental assessment proceedings with regard to timber management.

Is the minister aware that the expenditure for salaries for the years 1986 to 1989 was almost $2 million for her staff, and for travel and accommodation was almost $5 million, and for the first six months of this year salaries are $500,000 and travel and accommodation is $1.2 million?

Can the minister explain what effect this very large expenditure is having on the forestry management program in her ministry, since so much staff, time and money is being spent on the EA rather than direct forestry management?

Hon Mrs McLeod: There is no question that the demands of the class environmental assessment on the Ministry of Natural Resources, particularly in the initial months of the assessment, have been fairly significant both in terms of demands on staff time, since the Ministry of Natural Resources has been the primary witnesses up until a very recent point in time in the environmental assessment hearings, and also in terms of the travel so that those hearings can be heard in Thunder Bay, which is an issue we have discussed in the House before.

In terms of the effect of the costs of the class environmental assessment hearing for our ministry and its relationship to our forestry management budget, quite clearly our forestry management budget last year was $230 million. That was a high point. That money continued to be expended on our forest management. The class environmental assessment hearing information is a fundamentally important part of our future forest management decisions, including our timber production policy, so I do not consider it in any way irrelevant to the management of our forests.

Mr Wildman: At no time did I suggest they were irrelevant. The minister surely knows that we are not just talking about figures for the first few months of an EA, but rather for the first three years and for the first six months of this year.

Can the minister confirm that it appears now that the environmental assessment process will continue perhaps until the end of 1993 and that, if that is the case, projections of the figures spent so far would mean the total cost for her own ministry’s budget for the EA would be over $20 million? If that is the case, can she assure us that the recommendations of the environmental assessment process for which so much has been spent will be incorporated in the 20-year plans now being approved and finalized for April 199O?

Hon Mrs McLeod: I cannot confirm the length of the hearings. The hearings will obviously continue until the point at which they feel they have heard all the evidence and made the recommendations that are necessary. I would not anticipate at this point that they would last until 1993.

I would certainly indicate that figure the honourable member has cited represents probably a peak in the expenditure for the Ministry of Natural Resources because it reflects the period of time at which the Ministry of Natural Resources was providing the primary evidence. The costs in the earlier years were quite significantly less and they are projected to be less in this year and in subsequent years of the hearing.

MOTIONS

COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTIONS

Mr Ward moved that the following substitutions be made to the membership of the standing committees:

Standing committee on estimates: Mr Henderson for Mr Neumann.

Standing committee on finance and economic affairs: Mr Faubert for Mr Carrothers.

Standing committee on general government:

Mr Carrothers for Ms Oddie Munro.

Standing committee on the Legislative Assembly: Mr M. C. Ray for Mr Faubert.

Standing committee on the Ombudsman: Mr Kanter for Mrs Smith.

Standing committee on regulations and private bills: Ms Oddie Munro for Mr M. C. Ray.

Standing committee on social development:

Mr Neumann for Mr Henderson.

The Speaker: I noticed a great number of members were paying very close attention to the motion by Mr Ward.

Motion agreed to.

NOTICE OF COMMITTEE HEARING

Hon Mr Ward moved that standing order 85 respecting notice of committee hearings be suspended for the consideration of Bill Pr56 by the standing committee on regulations and private bills on Wednesday 13 December 1989.

Motion agreed to.

PETITIONS

COMMERCIAL CONCENTRATION LEVY

Mr Philip: I have a petition signed by some 40 employees in the hotel industry in the riding of Etobicoke-Rexdale:

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

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

“We believe that the provincial Liberal government’s recently imposed commercial concentration levy tax will greatly hurt the ability of hotels in the greater Toronto area to compete with hotels in other areas. We believe that it will result in a postponement of capital investment in this area and mean a loss of jobs in the tourism industry. We call on members of the Legislature to express their disapproval of the government’s actions and we call on Premier David Peterson and Treasurer Robert Nixon to rescind the tax.”

I have signed the petition.

TOBACCO VENDING MACHINES

Mr Allen: I have a petition from 13 persons to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. These individuals state that the elimination of tobacco vending machines is a crucial component in a comprehensive government plan to control tobacco sales to minors and curb the onset of tobacco addiction among Ontario youth, and they ask the Minister of Health to introduce legislation to prohibit the sale of tobacco by means of a vending machine or, alternatively, require that vending machines be located only in areas legally inaccessible to minors.

I hereby submit this to the table. I have signed my name to it and agree with the propositions.

GREATER TORONTO AREA

Mr Philip: I have a petition which I understand was signed by people attending a meeting of the Elms Ratepayers’ Association in the riding I represent.

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas the Peterson Liberal government has decided to charge drivers in greater Metropolitan Toronto $90 per year for a car licence plate while at the same time only charging residents in other parts of Ontario $33 per year for identical licence plates;

“Whereas the same Peterson government has in this year’s budget imposed other taxes and levies on the people and businesses of the greater Metropolitan Toronto area which will not be imposed on those in other parts of Ontario;

“Whereas these taxes which are not based on income or profits hurt seniors and others on fixed incomes;

“We, the undersigned, petition the Legislature of Ontario to express to the Liberal government our great disapproval of its policies of tax discrimination against the people of greater Metropolitan Toronto.”

I have signed the petition, and as with the last petition, I agree with it.

The Speaker: I must remind all members that when they are presenting petitions they do not have to -- under the new standing orders, in fact, they are asked not to -- read the complete petition.

REPORT BY COMMITTEE

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT

Mrs LeBourdais from the standing committee on general government presented the following report and moved its adoption.

Your committee begs to report the following bill with amendment:

Bill 36,

An Act to revise the Public Service Superannuation Act.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for third reading.

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

393598 ONTARIO LIMITED ACT, 1989

Mrs O’Neill moved first reading of Bill Pr49,

An Act to revive 393598 Ontario Limited.

Motion agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

HOUSE SITTINGS

Mr Ward moved pursuant to standing order 6(b):

That, notwithstanding standing order 9, the House shall continue to meet from 8 pm to 12 midnight on 13, 18, 19 and 2O December 1989, at which time the Speaker shall adjourn the House without motion until the next sessional day.

The Speaker: I would remind all members under the new standing order that there is a two-hour time limit on discussion of this motion.

Does the minister have any opening comments?

Hon Mr Ward: As all members are aware, towards the end of the last session of Parliament, extensive discussions took place as to how we might improve the rules of operating around the Legislature. I know that certainly both opposition House leaders and the whips from all three parties put a great deal of effort into it.

During my four years here, I have noticed, as I am sure many other members have, that often when we recess at Christmas, the House has been recalled about two weeks later to work on unfinished business, much of it government business but some of it private members’ business as well.

In putting together the recommendations, it was felt that it would be appropriate to firmly establish at least the days of sitting for each sitting during a session of Parliament, which was in fact done. However, there was of course a transitional period and although this session was to have begun on 28 September and will carry through to 21 December, during the course of the transition, the House was not recalled until, I believe, 10 October. As a result, eight sessional days were lost.

In addition, because of the federal New Democratic Party convention, by unanimous consent, the government most willingly agreed that the House would not sit on one Thursday. So members will know there was something like nine lost days during the current session.

However, since there has been tremendous co-operation around here and since we have been moving quite quickly, we find that it is not necessary to use all of the additional time provided for in the standing orders, that being eight night sittings at the close of each session. We feel it is appropriate, though, that we do sit the four nights that are indicated so that we can complete the bills that are on the agenda before the Christmas recess.

I look forward to the comments of my colleagues from the opposition parties, but I am sure they will be the first to admit this is a most reasonable proposition that will ensure that the essential bills of the government be completed before the recess.

Mr D. S. Cooke: I am not going no speak for two hours, so I do not have to worry about the rules coming into effect and cutting me off, but I do have a few comments to make about this since this is the first time we have proceeded under this rule, the new rules having just been in effect for this session.

I think it is going to be important for the government to review the planning that has gone into this session, or in some cases the lack of lanning that has gone into this session, and why it has become necessary for us to use this rule, which I would hope would not become the normal course in the last two weeks of every session.

If we have a well-run and well-planned House, we should be able to avoid evening sittings, and I think we should do that to the best of our ability. Sitting up until midnight for two weeks straight before Christmas, at the same time as this is a very busy season back in our home ridings, is not a very healthy process to follow in this place. However, this was part of the give and take under the new rules. We are not going to oppose this violently, but I do think some review is necessary.

I saw a lot of legislation this session come in very late and very close to the two-week deadline, even though I know that ministers were very much aware that this legislation was going to b coming down the line. In particular, the highest offender is the Ministry of the Attorney General.

If I were a minister, I suppose I could look at the process under the new rules and plan to bring in legislation close to the deadline and try to avoid full debate on the legislation because the government can impose the rules and make us sit until midnight, saying, “Either you pass it quickly or you sit for the last two weeks every night until midnight.” I think there is evidence to indicate that some ministers have used this

section of the rules to avoid lull and democratic debate.

I think there was also an effort by the Minister of Financial Institutions (Mr Elston) to use these rules when he wanted to try to avoid public hearings on the insurance legislation. The government knew the opposition parties wanted full and complete public hearings, with some travel across the province, to get input from the voters in this province on this very important piece of legislation which will dramatically change the way insurance is provided to drivers across this province.

Its first plan was no public hearings, and the bill had to be passed by 21 December. It knew very well that it could enforce that with the rules that exist for the last two weeks. In that particular case the government House leader intervened, I think with good common sense, and achieved some plan to bring about public hearings, both a couple of weeks before Christmas and four or five weeks after Christmas, with some hearings across the province.

But I think that the government House leader is going to have to be very careful. He is going to have to make sure his cabinet ministers are not abusing this

section of the rules.

I was going to say we are prepared to sit evenings for the next couple of weeks. We have no alternative but to sit for evenings in the next couple of weeks. However, we will not debate this motion at length. We want to give this a try. We want to see that the integrity of the calendar is respected by all three political parties, and we are certainly very much interested in seeing the legislative calendar work.

I do look at reviewing the government must-have bills that were submitted to us only a few weeks ago, and I think a case could be made that many of these pieces of legislation have not been before the Legislature long enough; many of them were introduced late to try to avoid full public hearings.

I would hope that when we get to this same type of time period in June that the government House leader will be a little tougher with his cabinet colleagues and make sure they are not abusing the rules, because I can tell him that if the rules are abused, we also have some actions that we can take under the new rules.

If this becomes the norm rather than the exception, I think the opposition parties will certainly rebel because we are not going to see legislation go through this place without the proper scrutiny. Our job here is to hold the government accountable, to have full debates on legislation so that we know all the consequences of the legislation that is proposed and so that the public has an opportunity to understand the government proposals. We intend to carry out those responsibilities; we take them very seriously.

We will not be supporting this motion. We will be voting against it. However, we are not going to drag out this debate; we will carry on. I hope that come the spring session, we will get started on the appropriate date as spelled out by the calendar, not late as was the case this fall, and that we will have a better-planned session to avoid midnight sittings come June when the spring session will come to an end.

Mr Harris: I too want to take a few minutes to talk about this motion, which in essence is a motion from the government House leader expressing complete and total failure to manage the affairs of the House in an organized, logical and proper way throughout this particular session.

It is a motion that has been brought forward at the first available opportunity to say: “Look, we kind of blew it last spring. We should have done the tax bills, as we know should be done right after the budget.” I do not blame the current House leader for that; he was not in the position at that time. But since he has the job now, he has to take total responsibility on behalf of the government for all the floundering that has taken place over this past session and, indeed, over the past number of sessions. Clearly this government has very little sense of how to run the House or of what is fair and reasonable time for debate.

There is an expectation, I suggest, as the famous Greek proverb goes, that the fish smells from the head on down. I suspect that it starts with an attitude of the Premier (Mr Peterson) that is: “We have a majority. Let’s see how much stuff we can jam through. Let’s allow no time, or very little time, for debate unless they squeal real hard. And let’s not have hearings unless we are forced into it. We don’t want to hear from the public unless we are actually forced into it, and then at that point we’ll come out and say, ‘Yes, let’s have hearings,’ and pretend we were good guys all along and wanted them.”

We have seen this time after time after time with pieces of legislation over the last couple of years. But even the House leader’s comments today suggest this attitude has not changed, even though we have new rules now where we have all agreed to try to have this Legislature and this chamber operate in a more efficient manner, to try to set out the parameters for how we will conduct the business, as opposed to the actual business itself, and regularize it. I think it was the hope of some of us that we might improve the decorum of the Legislature as well.

Unfortunately we had not counted on the Attorney General not recognizing that improving the decorum was in fact a priority, so that has not been the case at this particular point in time.

The House leader for the government today said, “We’ve wasted nine days.” One of those days was for the New Democratic Party convention. I do not think that was a waste. We would never have heard Simon de Jong and the history that he wrote for us and for all politicians, one that I am very sensitive to. I can tell members, as my party heads into events this spring, that I appreciate having the opportunity to see how things should be done, as I thought the New Democratic Party nationally did some things very well, and how some things should not be done. So I do not consider that a wasted day.

I assume the other eight wasted days he is talking about are opposition days.

Hon Mr Ward: No.

Mr Harris: He said nine wasted days. I do not know where he gets the other eight wasted days, but the attitude of the government, starting with the Premier, is that anything the opposition wants to talk about is a wasted day, that any time the public wants to have some say that is a wasted day. That is how this administration has viewed public hearings. It is indeed that attitude that bothers us. It is an attitude, from the Premier and the cabinet on down, that says:

“What the opposition has to say, what it wants to put forward on behalf of the people of Ontario as priorities is wasted time. The only thing that in fact is meaningful is what we want to do, our 94-seat arrogant majority. Whatever we want to do is important. Whatever anybody else wants to do is wasted time.”

On the very first opportunity, at the very first chance, the government has had to move an extension of the time, and for the maximum time allowed, I might add, right through till midnight, although I guess it skipped a couple of days. Certainly, on behalf of my party, the deputy House leader was just chatting with me as we looked at the motion and he said: “Why not the 21 December? We’re willing to sit right through on 21 December as well.” But I do suggest to members that was the deputy House leader who said that. I wanted to reflect his views for the benefit of the House as well.

But to automatically expend all this time? When we look at the business, a lot of it is tax bills which any efficient government would have debated right after the budget. Normally you bring in a budget and then you debate the tax bills. When I say “normally,” that was just for 200 years. The last four years, that has not been the case. This government has brought in a budget and said: “Look, we’ve hiked taxes again, in another 15, 16, 18 areas. Let’s try to downplay this. We’ll go on to other things.”

I suspect they may even have brought in Sunday shopping in a very contentious way just to take attention away from the massive tax increases that were there. I am not convinced that was not a designed strategy to say, “Look, 99 per cent of the public really detests the way we’re handling this Sunday shopping. They all know we’re bad guys and we didn’t have enough guts to make a decision, so let’s have a strategy to have the opposition talk about that and then it will focus attention away from all these tax grabs and all these tax hikes.”

I do not know what the reason is, but it was, I guess, to try to get the public, shortly after the budget – “We won’t debate the budget bills while they’re mad. We’ll wait till we get close to Christmas and then we’ll see if we can sneak them all in and do them all towards the end.”

I suggest this, and I think it is important that I do put a couple of these things on the record, because the current House leader for the government just took over this fall. However, there will be a budget, we presume, next spring. No longer can he say, “It’s not my fault that the former House leader made mistakes.”

Hon Mr Ward: I never said that.

Mr Harris: In fairness, I do not want to give the impression he has said that; he has not said that. I have said that and I stand by it and I am pleased to stand by it. The former House leader was a disaster when it came to organizing the business.

But this House leader is going to have to learn from some of those mistakes that took place, so that next December we are not sitting here with a whole bunch of tax bills, so that we get on with the tax bills, with the estimates and with the important business of scrutinizing the public spending, which in my view is one of the most important things that we are elected to do. We are elected to look at the spending priorities, we are elected to make sure that the money is being spent efficiently, that the taxpayers are getting fair value for that money which we tax and take out of their pockets, supposedly on their behalf.

When we look at the legislation before us, I would suggest that none of it, or very little of it, has to do with some of the basic infrastructure decisions that have not been made by this administration. We are now five years, I suggest to members, behind on making decisions on sewer, water, garbage, schools and hospitals, which are all the reasons why land is sky high and there is a shortage of housing. They are the reasons why we are short of hospital beds and there are lineups in the health care system. It is the reason why we are having problems, double the number of portable classrooms.

This administration does not want to allow time to look at some meaningful discussions of some very serious problems that are facing us in the environment, in education and in the basic infrastructure that this province has.

Quite frankly, we think that this motion could have been avoided with proper planning. We of course will make ourselves available until midnight, if necessary, on the days requested by the government House leader should this motion carry, which I suggest may be in doubt after all members of this House have heard the concerns of the House leader of the New Democratic Party and myself. But if it carries, we will certainly mike ourselves available, as we do, to protect the taxpayer.

A lot of these are budget bills. A lot of them are leftovers of unilateral decisions that are being taken with regard to lottery funding and are affecting the recreation and culture groups. A lot of them are unilateral decisions that were made with respect to teachers’ pensions, unilateral decisions that were made with respect to Ontario Public Service Employees Union pension money. It is incumbent and in fact it is our duty for those of us in opposition to point out just how wrong this government is, not only in the direction that it is going in, in the big-spending direction that it is going in, but in fact in the mechanics of how it is going about it.

So my caucus will oppose this motion and suggest that it would not be necessary had there been planning and an attitudinal change. An important part of the legislative process is an examination by the opposition, and by the public, of what it is that the government wants to do.

I close with this, that the House leader for the government reflect on the disastrous number of bills that have been brought forward by his colleagues, some requiring hundreds of amendments, some requiring a total rewrite, that he reflect on the absolutely disastrous pieces of legislation that would have been passed had we not insisted on hearings on some of those, had we not insisted on taking the time. I ask the government House leader to reflect on that.

When he talks about his attitude at any time that is time for the public or for the opposition or for anybody who does not agree with what it is that some of these ministers want to do, let him just think of the disastrous pieces of legislation that would have been passed had we left it to the ministers to draft the bills. We may disagree with the intent of a bill, but even the minister very often, in trying to put forward his intent has been sometimes led, after public hearings and extensive review by the very talented group of critics on this side of the House, to 20, 30, 40 or 50 amendments on a single piece of legislation.

With those few short remarks, my party does not plan to support this motion which, as I said at the outset, is: “Hey, we couldn’t run the House very well. We need extra time at Christmas time.” That is what, in effect, the government House leader is saying by bringing forward this motion.

Mr Sterling: I felt moved to enter the debate because of the very excellent speech given by our member for Nipissing (Mr Harris).

I thought it was extremely interesting that one of the bills we have in Orders and Notices for today is Bill 69,

An Act to amend the Courts of Justice Act. Within that piece of legislation we have 10 sections. This bill was not introduced very long ago. We have been talking about no-fault insurance and tort reform for years and years, but just to exemplify the amount of time that this government wastes in this Legislature, I would like to point out that I received from the very able parliamentary assistant just a few minutes ago nine amendments to the 10 sections of Bill 69. Now, is that not a well-thought-out piece of legislation, a piece of legislation which has been in the making for, I believe, over two years, since the Osborne report was first produced, two or three years?

We now have a bill which this government is putting forward to be the law of Ontario. They are expecting the people to have confidence in the laws they make when in fact, before we even have second reading of the bill, they have got nine amendments to 10 sections. That was the case with Bills 2 and 3, which dealt with court reform; there were 71 government amendments to those bills before they became the law. At the very last, we had a bill to amend the previous bill, which had been passed only 10 days before.

What is happening in this Legislature is not a stall by the opposition parties to any good government legislation. What we become frustrated with is the lack of forethought as to what they are putting forward and quite frankly we have a fear that many of these laws which are being passed in this Parliament have not been thought through properly and will boomerang, as the Sunday closing laws have just so recently done.

I want to say that when we were negotiating the change to the standing orders never did I believe that in the very first year the government would have to exercise its option to utilize these extra hours at the end of the session.

I thought that with the very long session that we had in the spring, ending in the latter part of July, that with coming back earlier than we normally did, around 10 October, because all of the other time had been eaten up by committees, and that with the fact that we did not take off the constituency week when we were supposed to go back and work with our constituents in November, this government would have had its legislative business in order, but no, that is not the case.

So we will be sitting here later this week for a four-hour period from eight to 12 at night and we will be sitting three nights next week from eight to 12. For those of us who had the privilege of sitting here at night before the rules were changed in and around 1985, I do not look forward to great progress during those evening sittings. This is an admission of a lack of management on the part of the government in putting forward a thoughtful legislative program which we could have dealt with with in the normal hours given to this Legislature.

Many bills are being sent back to the committee of the whole House in this Legislature, having to be dealt with by the committee of the whole House because the ministers and the Liberal majority on all of the committees are acting in an arrogant manner. They do not want to listen to opposition amendments, they do not want to listen to the public and therefore we were spending endless hours in this Legislature unnecessarily.

Therefore, as the member for Nipissing, the House leader of my party, has indicated, we will oppose this strenuously. It is a sad tale about the new rules that they have to be used to this extent this first time through.

Mr Hampton: I did not intend to participate in this debate initially. However, I am moved to participate in it when I see what we are expected to do in this Legislature today. There are a couple of bills on the order paper, Bills 69 and 70. One would think that if we are dealing with legislation which refers to the Courts of Justice Act, which is going to amend the Courts of Justice Act, and one that is going to amend the Evidence Act, the government would have had its legislative direction well set out and that we would have come here and would be able to debate the bills in substance.

Instead, what do we find? Well, I get to my desk and I find 10 amendments. Here we are in second reading and the government is introducing 10 amendments to these bills. We are expected, having received the amendments on our desks today, to show up here and debate in some sort of positive manner, to have some positive input on this proposed legislation and to make it better legislation. That is simply not possible, it is simply not at all possible.

If the government wants to get legislation through this House, then the government should get its act together. The government should not show up here with last-minute efforts and say, “Give us this, give us that.” if this was only an isolated incident, we might not complain so much, but we went through this charade with the teachers’ pension bill as well. Was it 100 amendments? The legislation is introduced, then they introduce it again with 100 amendments and they expect this Legislature to simply rubberstamp it.

What is happening here, in my view, is an abuse of this Legislature, and in that sense it is abuse of the people of Ontario. This government is starting to behave as if it is some sort of oligarchy, as if the few who sit in cabinet will tell everybody else in the province what they can do, when they can do it and how quickly they will dance. If this government has any respect for democracy, it would have its legislative timetable planned and organized so we would not have to be dealing with amendments like this on what amounts to an emergency basis.

And then, because the government still cannot get its act together, we have to sit evenings so that the government has more time yet to get its act together.

This is quite simply a farce. The government has a responsibility to this Legislature and to the people of Ontario to sit down and plan its legislative agenda, to look at the details, to consult and to ask some difficult questions, so that every time we deal with a piece of legislation we are not faced with: “You have to accept all the amendments without having seen them, without having had a chance to confer on them, without having had a chance to ask any questions about them. You have to accept them on our faith. We should not have to do that and we should not have to rush stuff through either.

As I say, I think this is an abuse of this Legislature and I think it is an abuse of the people of Ontario. It is a very, very sad day. Just because this government has a majority, it now feels that it can do whatever it wants, whenever it wants and to whomever it wants. I say we will oppose the motion and we wish this government would get its internal act together so that it has some idea of what it is doing and the rest of us do not have to run around trying to compensate for it when it does not know what it is doing.

Hon Mr Ward: I listened very carefully to the comments of the members of the opposition and I can see that clearly a consensus is developing in support of the motion.

I just wanted to point out, though, in response to the comments made by the member for Rainy River (Mr Hampton), that he will be aware no doubt that this House does in fact operate under rules that are developed by consensus and not by imposition. The current standing orders do make provision for additional sitting time at the end of each sitting of each session.

He will recall that over the last several years now it has been necessary for the House to reconvene shortly after the Christmas break, usually the second week of January, for additional weeks of sitting in order to complete a very busy legislative agenda

Mr Hampton: It was the auto insurance bill we sat on last time. What happened to it?

Hon Mr Ward: It is true that we have a very busy legislative agenda because, after all, the member will know that this is indeed a very activist government.

Mr Hampton: We were recalled for three weeks to deal with the auto insurance bill. What happened to that bill?

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

Hon Mr Ward: I would suggest that the member take a look at the progress that has been made even during this sitting. Very substantial court reform legislation has moved ahead --

Mr Hampton: Tell me what happened to the auto insurance bill. Where did the last insurance bill go?

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

Hon Mr Ward: -- through two readings and royal assent. We have made very significant progress in finally abolishing OHIP premiums in this province. We have worked very diligently and aggressively to provide for better security for public pensions within this province, and the list goes on and on.

The member will know that even in terms of auto insurance, this Legislature has given approval in principle to a bill that will make very fundamental and substantial changes. As I say, much of this legislation has been around for a while. Members will know that the Hous