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

November 6, 1989

34th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

ADULT PROTECTIVE SERVICE WORKERS

LECH WALESA

AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRY

DEINSTITUTIONALIZATION

ROUGE VALLEY

HAZARDOUS WASTE

TICKET SCALPING

TORONTO AREA TRANSPORTATION

RENOVATIONS TO APARTMENT BUILDINGS

VISITOR

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

ELECTRICITY DEMAND AND SUPPLY

HOME CARE SERVICES / D’AIDES FAMILIALES

REVISED STATUTES AND REVISED REGULATIONS / REFONTE DES LOIS ET RÈGLEMENTS

RESPONSES

ELECTRICITY DEMAND AND SUPPLY

HOME CARE

ELECTRICITY DEMAND AND SUPPLY

HOME CARE

REVISED STATUTES AND REVISED REGULATIONS

ORAL QUESTIONS

RENOVATIONS TO APARTMENT BUILDINGS

PROTECTION OF VULNERABLE ADULTS

USE OF PUBLIC FUNDS

RENOVATIONS TO APARTMENT BUILDINGS

POLICE PURSUITS

PSYCHIATRIC NURSES

RENOVATIONS TO APARTMENT BUILDINGS

ABORTION SERVICES

CHILD CARE

REGISTRY OF BONE MARROW DONORS

EMPLOYMENT ADJUSTMENT

ROUGE VALLEY

CONSERVATION AUTHORITIES

LIQUOR STORES

FARMERS’ RETIREMENT LOTS / LOTISSEMENTS POUR FERMIERS À LA RETRAITE

PETITIONS

COMMUNITY COLLEGE TEACHERS’ LABOUR DISPUTE

MOOSE TAG LOTTERY

FRENCH-LANGUAGE SERVICES

REPORT BY COMMITTEE

STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

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

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

ELECTION AMENDMENT ACT, 1989

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT ACT, 1989

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PUBLIC SERVICE PENSION ACT, 1989 (CONTINUED)

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

ADULT PROTECTIVE SERVICE WORKERS

Mr Kormos: A little while ago I spoke to the Ontario Association of Adult Protective Service Workers, who are holding their annual meeting in Niagara Falls. Adult protective service workers assist mentally disabled adults to live in the community. They help these people find homes, find jobs, go to the bank, go shopping and get to the doctor. They help them live as fully as possible in a community and not in institutions. Some 154 of these workers in Ontario help about 8,000 people.

Notwithstanding that, several thousand more people are waiting for workers of their own so that they too can move into the community. Adult protective service workers fight for their clients when necessary -- with bosses, landlords, retailers -- to make sure that these clients are not exploited or abused by anyone.

Sometimes they have to fight the very hand that feeds them, the Ministry of Community and Social Services, when that ministry lets their clients down. Now, the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr Beer) wants to move adult protective service workers into agencies and take away their ability to advocate for their clients. Killing two birds with one stone, the ministry will save money and also silence these workers by making them case managers instead of advocates.

Members should read the brief that these workers have prepared and given to the ministry. It is dead on. Also, we should heed their call to set up Advocacy Ontario, which the Attorney General (Mr Scott) has delayed and delayed since his promises back in 1985, and which would give workers the freedom to criticize government agencies when disabled persons need protection from those very ministries and agencies.

LECH WALESA

Mr Jackson: As all members of the House will be aware, on Friday of this week Ontario will be extending a warm welcome to Lech Walesa, the leading figure in Poland’s, and indeed eastern Europe’s, drive for freedom.

As the leader of Poland’s Solidarity movement, he led a 1O-million-member organization along the road of social reform in a communist society where ideological rhetoric superseded economic reality. He saw his movement crushed in body, but he also witnessed its spirit rise a few years later amid the thronging masses of eastern Europeans demanding freedom and bread.

Today, his once-outlawed Solidarity movement forms a significant part of the government of Poland. The impact of this is truly far-reaching, both for Poland and for all of eastern Europe. Lech Walesa comes to all Canadians with an extended hand of friendship and love. He comes as one who would like to learn from our democratic heritage, which is what has made Canada the great nation it is.

On behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party, I should like to welcome the arrival of Lech Walesa to Ontario and Canada. May he experience to the fullest our internationally acclaimed Canadian hospitality. May he leave here in the knowledge that in Canada, Poland has a strong and supportive ally in the coming months of trial and difficulty.

To the members of our Polish-Canadian community here in Ontario I say: We share your exuberant anticipation of Lech Walesa’s arrival. It will indeed be a great day and a day that, until recently, it was thought would never come.

AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRY

Mr McGuigan: I wish to congratulate the Honourable Don Mazankowski, federal Minister of Agriculture and Deputy Prime Minister, on his sudden but reassuring decision to stand up for the Canadian farmer. His free-trading provincial Progressive Conservative counterparts could take lessons from the federal minister.

It is ironic that the United States, which claims to be the producer and consumer of the world’s best agricultural products, would complain about imports of Canadian durum wheat, which, as the minister says, is far superior to the American product.

Mazankowski points out that US producers have little reason to threaten countervail against Canadian durum wheat -- that is the wheat used for noodles and pasta -- when in fact US producers receive between $40 and $50 more in subsidies per tonne than their Canadian counterparts. We agree with the Deputy Prime Minister when he expresses outrage over the recent US imposition of a countervail duty on Canadian pork imports, which amount to three per cent of the American market. Canada is correctly and in fairness fighting the ruling under the free trade agreement and at the GATT.

The minister went on to say: “The US position on Canadian quotas on dairy products are wrong and patently unfair. It really defies belief that they can complain about our quotas while their whole market is closed to Canadian supply.”

Free trade is now a fact and we have to recognize its presence. At the same time, even if it is late in the game for the federal minister to defend the Canadian farmer in the international arena, we must congratulate him on the show of support.

DEINSTITUTIONALIZATION

Miss Martel: The Ministry of Community and Social Services’ multi-year plan has been and continues to be greeted with mixed reactions around the province. Parents with developmentally handicapped children institutionalized in recent years are pleased that they will be returning to the community. Many parents who placed their children in institutions years ago because of a lack of community services are fearful for themselves and for their relatives, who now consider the facility as home. Others who have kept their children at home are frustrated by the competition for scarce Ministry of Community and Social Services resources which will now result in their community.

These concerns are common to parents and relatives in the Sudbury region. The parents, however, have responded in a unique way. On Friday 2 November, they, in conjunction with the Ministry of Community and Social Services and supporting agencies, held their second conference to discuss the multi-year plan. The session aimed at updating parents on what had been accomplished since the conference last year and where the local ministry office is heading in terms of plans and services for 1990 and beyond.

Parents were asked for input on restructuring the children’s handicapped benefits program, what kind of respite care was required in the community and how the Ministry of Community and Social Services must do away with its annual forms confirming ongoing disability.

Most important, however, was the discussion on what the priorities had to be and how parents could get involved in the planning and decision-making process itself. The conference was an eye-opener for me and I encourage it to be open to the public next year. Congratulations to all those who took

part in it.

ROUGE VALLEY

Mr Cousens: The Rouge Valley system is the last wildlife area in Metropolitan Toronto. It has Metro’s largest forest, Metro’s cleanest river and Metro’s cleanest beach. Why does not this Rouge Valley system become a Canadian heritage park?

On Saturday, I went on a tour of the Rouge Valley, at least part of it, with the Speaker of the House of Commons, the Honourable John Fraser, and Pauline Browes, the MP for Scarborough. Mr Fraser said at that time that if the federal House were to have a vote on this, it would be unanimous that all parties would support the fact that this would become a heritage park. Scarborough council has supported that it become a heritage park, and so has Markham council.

I was there representing the province, and I felt very lonely because the other members for Scarborough have not stood up and had themselves counted. Where is the Honourable Gerry Phillips, member for Scarborough-Agincourt, on this issue? Where is Cindy Nicholas, the member for Scarborough Centre? Where is Ed Fulton, the member for Scarborough East? Where is Frank Faubert, the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere? Where is Scarborough North’s MPP, Alvin Curling?

They should stop sitting on their hands and stop just giving lipservice to this and get to work inside this Liberal caucus and do something to make this into the kind of park it should become. The fact is that they were not there on the tour supporting the Speaker on this, which is not a partisan issue. It is something that touches the hearts of all the people of Metro Toronto. It is time these Liberals stood up to be counted.

HAZARDOUS WASTE

Mr Reycraft: Last Friday morning, 3 November, a group of concerned citizens held a demonstration at the city of London’s landfill site in the town of Westminster in Middlesex county. These citizens were expressing their concern about fly ash from Victoria Hospital’s energy-from-waste incinerator. That fly ash is being buried at the Westminster landfill site.

Fly ash is the residue produced during the incineration process, and it can contain potentially toxic elements. The issue came to the surface several weeks ago when Environment Canada released a report that recommended that the city of London discontinue fly ash disposal in Westminster. This recommendation was made to prevent possible ground water contamination near the landfill site.

We have learned from Ministry of the Environment officials that the ministry is aware of this situation and has been actively working towards a solution. After learning of the Environment Canada report, the ministry asked that Victoria Hospital voluntarily consider the hazardous nature of the fly ash and dispose of it appropriately. To date, Victoria Hospital has refused to do that.

I would like to acknowledge the minister’s concern and action to date in this matter. I know that all parties concerned -- the city of London, the town of Westminster, Victoria Hospital, but especially the people who live in Westminster -- look forward to a speedy resolution that will protect the health of present and future Westminster residents.

TICKET SCALPING

Mr Farnan: The Attorney General (Mr Scott) and Ontario’s Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr Sorbara) have said they do not consider ticket scalping a major problem, and the current Ticket Speculation Act reflects this view. With a minimum fine of $5 and a maximum fine of $50, it is obvious to all that scalping of tickets is considered to be a minor offence by this Liberal government.

This weekend, York region police seized thousands of tickets from one individual. The tickets ranged from sports events to performances of the Phantom of the Opera, Les Misérables, concerts by the Rolling Stones, Paul McCartney and even tickets for a children’s concert by Sharon, Lois and Bram.

Not a major problem, the ministers say. It is a major problem when some scalping operators are earning between $200,000 and $400,000 yearly. In fact, federal officials at the Department of National Revenue admit they are concerned and are investigating suspected tax evasion by these barracudas of the black market economy. Surely these ministers must realize that the possibility of a family’s visiting Toronto to enjoy a major concert or event and having access to decent seats is diminished by this illegal trafficking that corners the market by initial purchase of the better seats and then exploits their artificially created demand for tickets.

The ministers, of course, never have to worry about getting decent seating at events. Talk to the young men and women who queue for hours only to be told that the better seats have already gone. The proliferation of scalping and the lax government response to the problem puts better seats at major events beyond the means of the average Ontarian. This amounts to condoning racketeering.

TORONTO AREA TRANSPORTATION

Mr Cousens: Many members in this House will be aware that the Progressive Conservative caucus has established a task force to study the transportation needs of the greater Toronto area. As chairman of our committee, I have had the opportunity to meet with regional councils across the greater Toronto area, and early in the new year we will be organizing meetings within communities across the greater Toronto area.

The fate of transportation in Ontario’s economic hub is a very serious matter. Local officials, transportation and urban planners, individual citizens have all echoed the same sentiment -- something must be done. Congestion is costing us in ways that effect each and every one of us. By the year 2011, the population of the GTA is expected to reach 5.5 million people, resulting in close to 550,000 people commuting into Metropolitan Toronto. Commuting time is expected to rise to two hours by the mid-1990s. It is estimated that traffic accounts for nearly $2 billion in lost time and shipment delays.

The time has come for this government to begin to move on a number of short- and long-term solutions. Let’s get moving. Our roads and highways are not adequate, public transit demands greater attention, while at the same time development runs rampant. It brings to mind the phrase, “I have miles to go before I sleep.” For hundreds of thousands of desperate commuters, nothing could be further from the truth.

RENOVATIONS TO APARTMENT BUILDINGS

Ms Poole: Today, I invite my colleagues in the House to join me in acknowledging a major victory for tenants. On Friday of last week, tenants from 221 Balliol Street scored an important precedent-setting victory in the Supreme Court of Ontario. They were granted a permanent injunction preventing their landlord from performing unnecessary renovations in the building.

This court decision establishes for the first time that tenants have a right to be consulted about capital expenditures in their building. Tenants have regained control over their homes. I will once again be addressing this issue of capital expenditures in a question to the Minister of Housing (Mr Sweeney) in the House today.

I would like to commend the president of the 221 Balliol Tenants’ Association, Belle Mayrand, and her executive, who against all odds never gave up till victory was in their grasp. They have demonstrated to one and all what hard work and dedication can achieve.

The Speaker: If I could have your attention, I would like to draw to the attention of the House that one of the members in a statement today referred to about five members by surname and given name. I would like to remind all members that they should refer to members only by their riding.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, order.

VISITOR

The Speaker: I would like to inform the members that we have a visitor in the lower west gallery, a former member from Brantford. I hardly know how to introduce this gentleman to you. I think I will just say I would like to introduce Captain Mac Makarchuk, the former member for Brantford.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

ELECTRICITY DEMAND AND SUPPLY

Hon Mrs McLeod: As members are aware, the Ontario government has asked Ontario Hydro to prepare its forecast of electricity demand and its plans to meet the identified demand over the next 20 to 25 years. Hydro is now in the final stages of preparing its demand/supply planning strategy, and we have made it clear that no approval of its proposals will be given until they have been subjected to thorough and extensive public review.

I would like to announce today that this promised review will be carried out under the Environmental Assessment Act. I have looked at several review options and am convinced that an environmental assessment is the best way to ensure that the public and all interested parties will have a chance to assess Hydro’s demand and supply estimates and its proposals for meeting our electricity needs. I am also confident that this review can be carried out in a timely manner. While public participation and thoughtful analysis are essential to the review, we will make every effort to ensure the process is carried out without undue delay.

I do not need to remind anyone in this House that the final decision on Hydro’s proposals will be of great importance to the people of Ontario. I believe it is absolutely vital that the public be given an opportunity to help make that decision. The environmental assessment will provide that opportunity.

All of Hydro’s projections and demand studies will be laid out for scrutiny. The assessment will also include a review of avoided costs; that is, the costs that are avoided by Hydro’s not generating the power itself. The review will also address the issue of the social and environmental costs of the different supply and demand options.

The main question is whether new generating facilities will be needed, and if so, what kind. This will be decided by the Environmental Assessment Board only after all views have been heard. In reaching its decision, the board will be reviewing the appropriate mix of demand management, conservation and new supplies. If the board concludes that we do, in fact, need new generating facilities, specific projects would have to undergo separate environmental assessments, and public hearings would be held.

The government recognizes that Ontario Hydro faces a complex and difficult set of choices in developing its plans, as all available demand and supply options have environmental, economic and social impacts.

The challenge is to ensure that the electrical power system develops to meet Ontario’s electricity needs in a manner compatible with Ontario’s environmental goals. Having said that, I would like to assure the House that, as Minister of Energy, I will continue to stand firmly by my mandate. That mandate is to do my utmost to ensure that Ontario continues to have a supply of electricity that is both reliable and reasonably priced. Without access to reliable energy supplies and without efficient energy use, we cannot hope to remain competitive in world markets. It is as simple as that.

At the same time, I am committed to carrying out this mandate with full regard for environmental concerns. In all conscience, we cannot attempt to meet our needs in ways that prevent our children from meeting theirs.

HOME CARE SERVICES / D’AIDES FAMILIALES

Hon Mr Beer: I would like to inform the House of an important step my ministry and the Ministry of Health are taking to improve the working conditions of visiting homemakers in Ontario.

Le rapport du Conseil du premier ministre sur la santé, rapport intitulé « Passons à l’action », insiste sur l’importance des services situés au sein des communautés pour l’avenir du système de soins de santé de l’Ontario. Les mesures dont je veux vous entretenir aujourd’hui sont en conformité avec ce principe. Elles auront pour effet de consolider grandement le réseau de distribution des soins au niveau de la communauté.

As members know, in May of this year, our government committed over $88 million to improve the salaries of front-line workers in Ontario’s community agencies. One such group of workers who provide care primarily to elderly people and people with physical disabilities is the visiting homemakers.

Homemakers provide an invaluable service to the citizens of this province.

Le but des services d’aides familiales, c’est de venir en aide á ceux qui désirent autant que possible demeurer dans leur communauté et dans leur domicile. Ce but, c’est également celui de notre gouvernement.

It is my pleasure to release today, on behalf of my ministry and the Ministry of Health, the details of almost one third of the $88 million previously announced: a $28.9-million compensation and training package for homemaker services in Ontario.

This additional funding will raise homemakers’ average hourly wage from $6 per hour to $7.85 per hour, an increase of over 30 per cent. Furthermore, this compensation package ensures that homemakers who provide publicly funded programs will be paid a minimum of $7.25 per hour. All of these changes are retroactive to 1 September 1989.

In addition, for the first time, homemaking agencies such as the Red Cross will receive funding specifically to pay homemakers for travel time between clients. This represents new income to homemakers, most of whom are not currently paid for their travel time.

Let me give members an example. Assume a homemaker works 30 hours a week and spends an additional five hours travelling to and from clients. Our new policy now means that he or she will be compensated for 35 hours instead of only 30, as has been the case until now. This means that a particular homemaker will see an increase in pay from the present $9,385 to $14,325 annually. That is an increase of 52 per cent.

This recognition of travel time will be especially beneficial to those homemakers in rural and northern Ontario where travel time can be extensive.

Notre gouvernement est convaincu que la formation professionnelle est une composante cruciale du programme des aides familiales. C’est d’ailleurs ce qu’a confirmé le rapport du Comité interministériel sur les services d’aides familiales, rapport que mon prédécesseur a publié l’an dernier.

Accordingly, we will be providing $2.2 million in funding to support training for homemakers.

The changes I have announced today will be implemented using a new simplified funding approach that streamlines the way funding for public homemaking agencies is determined.

The Ministry of Health and my ministry have taken these steps to ensure that the public homemaker services programs remain a viable and integral part of the health care and social services system in this province.

Later this fall, the Minister of Health (Mrs Caplan) and I will announce the next step in the development of reforms to our long-term care system.

The funding I am announcing today represents a significant improvement to homemaking, which is an essential element of the long-term care system Ontario is planning for the future.

Together with homemaking agencies, we can ensure that the frail elderly and people with disabilities can make a decision that many of us often take for granted, the decision to remain in their own communities and in their own homes.

REVISED STATUTES AND REVISED REGULATIONS / REFONTE DES LOIS ET RÈGLEMENTS

Hon Mr Scott: Later on today, I will be introducing bills entitled the Statutes Revision Act and the Regulations Revision Act. These two bills mark a significant decennial event in the work of this assembly. They provide the process whereby the public general statutes and the regulations of the past 10 years are brought together, revised and consolidated into the Revised Statutes of Ontario and the Revised Regulations of Ontario.

The periodic revision and consolidation of our statutes and regulations is a great service not only to the judiciary and the legal profession, but to all the people of Ontario for whom access to the law is made just a little easier.

For the most part, the bills set out the mechanisms used in preparing and adopting previous revisions. However, in one major respect, the 1990 statute revisions will take us far beyond any previous revision by recognizing French as an equal voice of the laws of Ontario. The 1990 revision will carry out the obligation established under the French Language Services Act, 1986, to translate into French all the public general statutes of the province.

À mon avis, nous pouvons être fiers d’avoir établi le fondement juridique des lois bilingues dans cette province.

I urge my colleagues to join with me in ensuring speedy passage of this legislation so that the revision commissioners may get on with their important work.

RESPONSES

ELECTRICITY DEMAND AND SUPPLY

Mrs Grier: I would like to respond to the statement by the Minister of Energy (Mrs McLeod) and say to her that I look forward to an extensive approval and review process under the Environmental Assessment Board.

We welcome her statement that, should the board conclude that we do in fact need new generating facilities, specific projects would have to undergo separate environmental assessments. I hope we can have reassurance from the minister, should Darlington B be the preferred option, which of course we hope it will not be, that the site, even though it has been exempted under the Environmental Assessment Act, would require a full environmental assessment.

I also want to draw attention to the fact that there is in the statement the phrase “the process is carried out without undue delay.” There have been occasions when that phrase has been used to restrict the amount of public participation in public hearings, and I hope that will not be the case in this very important instance. I hope also the expertise that the Ontario Energy Board has gained into energy matters and pricing matters will be at the disposal of the panel appointed to hear this hearing.

I would like to also express our regret that the review of avoided costs, which was promised some months ago, has not yet been begun. We regard that as an integral part of Ontario Hydro’s decision on what the preferred option is. I am not at all sure it is appropriate that that review be carried on by the body that is making the determination on the preferred option. I would much prefer to have seen that review begun some months ago and be before the board for an evaluation, rather than being part of the hearing.

Finally, I would just like to remind the minister that the intervener funding pilot project will, I trust, be in place for this particular hearing, because intervener funding is going to be required in large amounts. I look forward to that being approved.

HOME CARE

Mr Allen: I want to respond to the announcement by the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr Beer) of additional funding to homemakers’ services to provide for increase in wages, coverage of travel time and also the provision of training costs. In those three recommendations, the minister responds to some three of the 28 recommendations that the report on the interministerial committee on visiting homemakers’ services presented to the ministry a year and a half ago.

My first observation is that this is essentially a survival plan, rather than a generous response to the needs of visiting homemakers who provide such a critical service to the frail elderly, the disabled and those who are homebound. To put it in perspective, I think one first must observe that the wages for a single person who is a visiting homemaker now are at least, on the average, above the poverty line. I suppose that is a significant accomplishment, given where the wages were. But given where they are at this stage, that is not a particularly ambitious accomplishment.

Second, if one were to look at a neighbouring province, like the province of Quebec, where instead of receiving a minimum of $7.25 under the new plan that the minister has in place, the province provides the homemakers it directly funds $10.50 plus benefits, again, the measure is not a particularly happy one.

One has to observe with regard to the minister’s statement that there is no comment about the manner of distribution. For example, what is going to happen in my own city where members of the executive operating branch of the homemakers’ services have been paying themselves the same level as the visiting homemakers and they have been able to eke the salaries up over the $7 level? But now, of course, are they going to be compensated and moved substantially in any particular direction or are they going to be stuck, basically, where they presently are with an inadequate wage level that continues to foster a very heavy turnover of homemakers in the service?

With respect to the travel time addition, that is a welcome announcement but it does not say anything about covering the actual costs which many of the homemakers still have to bear themselves personally. It is a help to have their travel time covered now, which obviously was time on the job, but what about the costs that homemakers incur in their travels which are not compensated in many of the cases in the services around the province?

The minister may be fudging a little bit with respect to his 52 per cent increase when he adds some of those figures in. It strikes me that getting the travel time in there is indeed additional money but, given what it covers, there was a problem there that was a problem in and of itself and the homemakers of course are happy to have that much relief.

ELECTRICITY DEMAND AND SUPPLY

Mrs Marland: I want to respond to the statement by the Minister of Energy (Mrs McLeod). In fact, it is rather a nonstatement. The fact of the matter is that in the statement the minister is saying that Ontario Hydro’s plans will be reviewed under the Environmental Assessment Act. I say, with respect, it is required under the act in any case to be reviewed under the Environmental Assessment Act, so that is not anything new. That is a statement of what is today the law.

I think it is terribly important to note that we have been waiting for five years for these plans and I see now that they are preparing to submit them. We certainly hope they will be here before we have brownouts in the mid-1990s.

I think too that it is important to read very carefully what is said here because, when it says that all interested parties will have a chance to assess Hydro’s demand and supply estimates, I hope that its plans are not going to be based on importing from the United States because I also notice that it talks about it being cost-efficient.

If it is cheaper to import electricity from the United States than to generate our own, it is not an option that I or the members of our party necessarily would support if it meant importing electricity that is generated in coal-fired thermal units in the United States that do not have the emission controls or the sensitivity to the environment that we here in Ontario do.

I think it would be really significant if this minister could insist on Hydro introducing a very realistic conservation program and educating the public as a whole as to the problem and the responsibility of conservation. I hope also that when we look at the future plans for Hydro, they will include scrubbers on the coal-fired thermal units here in Ontario and not make the provision of electricity based on expediency rather than the protection of the environment.

The minister has said in her statement that the mandate is for her to do her utmost to ensure that Ontario continues to have a supply of electricity that is both reliable and reasonably priced. I say, with respect, I would like to see her add to that statement that it also be environmentally appropriate.

HOME CARE

Mrs Cunningham: I would like to respond to the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr Beer) with regard to his announcement to improve the working conditions of visiting homemakers in the province of Ontario.

This is certainly a welcome move on behalf of the government of the province of Ontario. All of us are supporting keeping our frail, our elderly and our disabled in their own homes as far as possible, and we all know that it has been a tremendous challenge to attract people into the homemaking profession, to keep them there and to encourage them in their work. So, of course, we applaud the government with response to wages, travel time and also the very small portion of $2.2 million towards training, which is so essential to the quality.

I would remind the minister, however, that in the spring we did look at a promise of some $88 million, most of which was to go to the salaries for front-line workers. We were looking at all workers in community agencies, especially group homes.

We look forward with confidence to the next announcement in the very near future, to the improvement of wages and the working conditions for those young people and committed workers in our group homes so that we can further support the disabled, the elderly and the developmentally handicapped as they strive in this very difficult world to retain their dignity, and give support to their parents, who are very much looking to us for good care for their relatives and young people.

REVISED STATUTES AND REVISED REGULATIONS

ORAL QUESTIONS

RENOVATIONS TO APARTMENT BUILDINGS

Mr B. Rae: I have a question today for the Minister of Housing. I am sure the minister is aware of the decision by Justice Hollingworth last week, dealing with the question of the liability of tenants for renovations which they feel are unnecessary. Can the minister tell us what he plans to do to make sure that other landlords do not do what this landlord at 221 Balliol Street tried to get away with?

Hon Mr Sweeney: My honourable colleague would be well aware of the fact that the challenge facing the judge came under the landlord and tenant legislation and dealt with the right of the landlord to enter upon the premises to do renovations. The judge’s ruling, as I understand it, was to uphold the injunction which in fact prevented the landlord from doing that very thing, and in making his judgement he referred to the renovations as being unnecessary.

I further understand that the lawyers representing the landlord in this particular case have indicated that they are going to appeal the decision. We have two difficulties. First, we do not know whether or not this is going to be upheld in the courts. Second, we are having some difficulty in determining the distinction between what is necessary and what is unnecessary and, in fact, who is going to make that decision, because it has been brought to our attention that repairing a sink in one unit might be necessary but repairing a sink in another unit might be unnecessary. We are looking at those ramifications, but we do not have a final answer yet.

Mr B. Rae: It is precisely because of the implications of the judge’s decision and the implications of the problem facing these tenants and indeed hundreds of other tenants across the province that I am raising this question. I would like to ask the minister this. Why would he not consider an amendment, not to the Landlord and Tenant Act, but to the legislation affecting rent review, which would require landlords to ask of tenants their permission before effecting major renovations either in the building as a whole or in their own apartment?

That would therefore make sure that the tenants had the right to say to landlords, “No, that is a repair and a renovation we don’t want and that is a repair and a renovation we are not going to get billed for because we don’t want it.” Why not put that right into the law the way it should be?

Hon Mr Sweeney: My colleague the member for Eglinton (Ms Poole) presented me with an amendment to the legislation that would in effect do what the Leader of the Opposition has suggested. Legal authorities within my own ministry have indicated that the current scope of the legislation would not allow that. In fact, it would be ruled ultra vires by the courts. We are still looking at whether it can be done in some other way, but a straight amendment such as the honourable leader has suggested would not be permissible under the existing rent review legislation.

Mr B. Rae: There are landlords now who are attending seminars which have the following titles: How to Get the Highest Rent Increase Possible and How to Sell more Apartment Buildings under Rent Controls. Some of the items on this delightful seminar are: “How to sell a building that has a pending application”; “How to market a building with Capital Expenditures”; “How and why the new legislation contributes to apartment flips.” That is what the landlords are doing to the minister’s legislation. They are driving a truck through the loopholes in the law.

Is the minister telling us that he is not prepared to close the loophole and finally give tenants the right to refuse unnecessary repairs they cannot afford?

Hon Mr Sweeney: What I am suggesting to the honourable leader is that we want to make whatever changes we make in a legal way and in a way that is going to be enforceable in the courts. The second thing I am telling the honourable member is that there has to be a way, a mechanism, of making a determination as to what is necessary and what is not and as to who is going to make that choice. That is what I am telling him.

PROTECTION OF VULNERABLE ADULTS

Mr Reville: My question is for the Minister of Health. Last week the operators of Cedar Glen, a boarding home near Orillia, were sentenced to prison terms for systematic abuse of the residents of that home. The residents were psychiatrically disabled or developmentally handicapped or both. Almost all the residents were placed there by the Queen Street Mental Health Centre. Here is what the crown said of the operator, “He had a free reign of terror over these persons and it was a very physical and abusive type of control.”

Will the minister now undertake to present to this House options for ensuring that vulnerable people can enjoy a decent quality of life?

Hon Mrs Caplan: As the member opposite knows, my priority is and always will be quality of care for people who are in any health facility. He should know that this was not a facility licensed by the Ministry of Health. He should also know that the ministry was and is always concerned by the placement of former psychiatric patients and about the homes they are referred to.

In the summer of 1985, for example, Queen Street Mental Health Centre removed Cedar Glen from the list of acceptable boarding homes to which they referred patients on discharge, and in January 1986 the Queen Street Mental Health Centre reassessed all its former patients living at the home and gave them the opportunity to relocate.

Mr Reville: The removal of a home from a list did not prevent the deaths of some of the residents therein. Cedar Glen is just one of the horror stories. In the Niagara region, the press is full of stories about Cross Wind Lodge rest home where it is alleged elderly residents were slapped, verbally abused, poorly fed and left unsupervised all night. Surely the minister is not going to continue to say: “It’s not my department. It’s not on my floor.” That is precisely what the minister said to me in February 1988.

Would the minister agree to refer the matter of housing for people with disabilities and for the elderly to the standing committee on social development for review and recommendation?

Hon Mrs Caplan: The member opposite knows that in any appropriate forum I am always prepared to have the kinds of discussions that will lead to reform of long-term care, as the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Community and Social Services are presently developing. But as we discuss these issues and what is the appropriate forum for discussion, he should know that the Ministry of Health did not operate any programs at Cedar Glen. nor did it have any financial involvement in these homes. In fact, patients who are discharged from provincial psychiatric hospitals are given referrals to a number of community facilities where they can choose to live.

I say to the member that this is a very unfortunate set of circumstances, but I also say to him that while we share the concern that people have the kinds of options and choices that are appropriate, we must, as he knows, consider as well what is appropriate action.

Mr Reville: The absurdity of the minister’s response passes understanding here. Her ministry referred these people to this place where they were beaten and where some of them died.

It is not a new problem. Ten years ago I raised this problem with the then Minister of Health, a man named Dennis Timbrell, and his response at that time was not much different from the minister’s. He said, “Do you want me to put a leash on these people?” The minister knows how little I like leashes, but surely she sees the need to protect and befriend the most vulnerable people in our society. Will she, either on her own or in conjunction with her colleagues in cabinet, bring forward a thoroughgoing response that will put a stop to the victimization and brutality?

Hon Mrs Caplan: I repeat again to the member that there are many challenging issues facing us as we give individuals options and choices when they leave provincial psychiatric facilities. I am very sensitive to and understand the difficulties of individuals having to make those kinds of choices.

The member should know that all homes that are operating boarding homes are under the responsibility of the local municipality as far as their public health standards are concerned. I say to him that we know that is in many cases a difficult situation. We know as well that there is a wide range of these kinds of facilities and that many of them offer the kinds of services that are very acceptable to the people who are living there.

He knows as well that as we discuss long-term care reform with the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Community and Social Services, we will have an opportunity to look at the policies, to determine that as we develop a long-term care system, we will be able to respond to many of these difficult, challenging and often very complex issues.

USE OF PUBLIC FUNDS

Mr Brandt: My question is for the Premier. I want to say by way of introduction to my question that I think all of us in this House recognize the need for promotion, advertising and publicity that has to be carried out on behalf of the province, but during the course of the tour and the trip the Premier took to Davos, Switzerland, it is my understanding that a book was produced that ran only 32 pages and that a limited distribution of that book took place, the cost of which was some $385,000 just for that book alone.

In view of the fact that we have shortages of hospital beds, shortages of classroom space and problems in terms of keeping up with road construction, how can the Premier justify the expenditure of very close to $500,000 for the production of this book?

Hon Mr Peterson: I am just going by memory now, but I am pretty sure the piece to which my honourable friend refers is Share the Vision. Is that the piece he refers to? That is being distributed widely around the world in all our trade offices and has been used a great deal. There is a very large edition of that and I commend a copy to my friend for his enlightenment.

Mr Brandt: The information does not get any better. There were about 10,000 copies of that book distributed. When we look at the net cost to the taxpayer, it is really very substantial for that kind of material.

Along with the book, there was distribution of a video. The normal cost to produce an industrial video is in the range of $1,000 to $2,000 per minute. This particular video was precisely eight and a half minutes long and I want to advise the Premier that it was not $10,000 or $100,000 or $200,000 or even $500,000, but that in fact his eight-and-a-half minute video cost the taxpayers of this province $750,000.

Again, I have to ask the Premier, in view of the shortages we have in meeting the financial demands of our schools, our hospitals, the municipalities and road construction, how can we justify well over $1 million for a book and a video when those costs are so out of line with other comparable activities?

Hon Mr Peterson: I cannot confirm my honourable friend’s view of the costs. I can check that out. Obviously I will do that, but I think my honourable friend has to understand that those materials are used worldwide through the Ontario trade offices. They are distributed widely in seminars or investment seminars all over the world. We are extolling the virtues of this province. The video has been used on many occasions around the world in places where I participated in investment seminars and other such things.

To the best of my knowledge, they were competitively produced and I think show off this province in its proper way. I do not think my honourable friend, and I can check, would be upset about the cost of these promotional materials compared to the costs of advertising when my honourable friend used to be a minister of the crown.

Mr Brandt: I want the Premier to know I am trying to be helpful here in pointing out an expenditure that I feel is unwarranted. Let me give the Premier some comparisons.

The film Jesus of Montreal, which was a winner at the Cannes film festival, cost $4.2 million or $42,000 a minute. Another Canadian film that is recognized throughout the world as one of the best produced Canadian films, one entitled I Heard the Mermaids Singing, cost $350,000 or about $3,500 a minute.

The video I have just referred to, produced under the Premier’s government, cost over $88,000 a minute to produce the eight and a half minutes and I doubt very much whether that film will win any awards such as the others I have referred to. Those items alone come to a total cost of $1.1 million. Will the Premier investigate this outrageous expenditure of over $1 million of taxpayers’ money?

Hon Mr Peterson: My honourable friend is the one who is always standing in this House telling me that we should promote Ontario more. He has told me in this House that we should travel more to sell the virtues of this great province. I can tell my honourable friend that we are taking his advice and are indeed putting a good face on Ontario. Yes, there was a full presentation in Davos and I can tell my honourable friend it is paying dividends for Ontario. I am surprised at my honourable friend. He must be running out of questions. I am sure that whatever was done was done competitively and appropriately.

The Speaker: New question, the member for Nipissing.

Mr Harris: I suggest to the Premier that if anybody wants to know the most expensive way to do anything, they need only look at him and his administration.

RENOVATIONS TO APARTMENT BUILDINGS

Mr Harris: I have a question for the Minister of Housing which relates to the court injunction and it has been brought up by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr B. Rae) with the building at 221 Balliol Street to prevent the use of so-called unnecessary repairs.

It has been estimated that the decision could affect in excess of 100 buildings in Metropolitan Toronto alone. I wrote to the minister some six weeks ago to ask him what he was going to do about the uncertainty for landlords and what he was going to do about the uncertainty for tenants. If I understood his answer today to the Leader of the Opposition, he indicated he is going to wait another year or two to see what the courts decide by way of an appeal.

That is not good enough for either the tenants or the landlords. I would ask the minister, given the notice that he has had, what is he doing to help resolve this situation so that both sides can understand a little better what they can do and not do?

Hon Mr Sweeney: I do not believe I suggested we were going to wait for two years until the courts decide. I was simply pointing out to the leader that we were advised that the landlord’s lawyer had indicated they were going to appeal. That was simply a fact.

The second point I have made, and I would repeat once again, is that as of several weeks ago, the staff in my ministry had been asked to review ways in which we might make some changes here. I come back again to the same difficulty. Who makes the decision between necessary and unnecessary? What about renovations that are necessary at one site but not necessary at another site? We are looking at that.

I also remind the honourable member that the judge’s decision in this case was under the landlord and tenant legislation, not under the rent review legislation, although there is an obvious impact.

Mr Harris: According to the minister’s act, Bill 51,

part II, subsection 11(d), it states that the minister must establish a committee this year to review and make recommendations on certain aspects of the rent review system. I ask the minister if as minister he has done that yet, given that 1989 is fast drawing to a close. If he has, do they have a mandate to look at this aspect of the rent review legislation?

Hon Mr Sweeney: There were two elements in that legislation, which are affectionately referred to as RCCI and BOCI, and they are the factors that are used to determine the benchmark increase from year to year. The decision was made in 1986 by both the landlords and tenants who made input into this legislation that nobody was really sure how this was going to work and that by 1989 it had to be reviewed. Yes, we have begun the internal process within the ministry to set up a review of those two elements within the legislation.

Mr Harris: Let me suggest to the minister that if there were any doubts early on when this piece of legislation that was brought forward, there appears now to be absolutely no doubt in the minds of virtually every landlord in the province, in the minds of virtually every tenant and tenant organization in the province, and I suggest in the minds of at least 129 members of this chamber. The legislation is not only costing the government $40 million a year; it is costing two, three or four times that in courts, lawyers and fees to try to interpret and understand it. The legislation in fact is not working.

Will the minister stand in his place today and acknowledge that the rent review legislation not only is wasting perhaps billions of dollars but in fact is not working? What is he going to do about it?

Hon Mr Sweeney: I would not be prepared to go quite as far as the honourable member.

First, I point out to him that on average only 10 per cent of landlords come to rent review annually and that 90 per cent resolve their rental issues without rent review. That is fairly significant.

Second, I point out that something like about 19 per cent of the first group goes to appeal. That is one out of five, which suggests the system is working reasonably well.

Third, I point out to him that while there was a backlog of approximately 27,000 a year ago, that is down now to about 10,000 or even a little fewer. Given that at any one point in time, with the best system, you would have about 3,000 in the works anyway, we are looking at a backlog of between 6,000 and 7,000. I suggest that the system is working reasonably well.

POLICE PURSUITS

Mr Kormos: I have a question of the Solicitor General. The Ontario government established a Special Committee on Police Pursuits back in 1984 and the report, with some very good recommendations, has been available since December 1985. Similar recommendations have been made by coroner’s juries. The government has been warned time and time again, yet the Solicitor General, like his predecessors the member for London South (Mrs E. J. Smith) and the member for Kingston and The Islands (Mr Keyes), does nothing.

There is pathetic promise after pathetic promise to produce guidelines for police pursuits, yet none of those promises is kept and more people are being killed and injured precisely because of that inaction.

My question to the Solicitor General is, just how ineffective does he plan on continuing to be?

Hon Mr Offer: I would like to indicate that I am currently in the final stages of decision on province-wide police pursuit guidelines. I think it is important to indicate that the fundamental purpose and issue within those guidelines will be public safety. It is important to indicate that when one talks about public safety as being the fundamental issue, it is not, in the balance, public safety on one hand against law enforcement on the other. For me, the issue of public safety is public safety in continuing or initiating a pursuit, against public safety against initiating or continuing the pursuit.

That is important for me. That is the fundamental aspect for the police pursuit guidelines which I expect to announce in the very near future.

Mr Kormos: It is the same old record being played over and over and over again. The promises have been made before. Just this weekend a 16-year-old has been added to the list of those killed. More and more innocent people are being maimed while the Solicitor General and his predecessors dither and do not deal with the issue. The cost of property damage is surely in the millions of dollars, the body count continues to grow, the minister continues to make hollow promises and people continue to die.

How many more people are going to be killed or maimed before he establishes those guidelines?

Hon Mr Offer: In dealing with guidelines, we have to be very clear that we should not limit ourselves just to guidelines, that there are aspects dealing with police pursuits which are very important, which I am addressing my mind to and which are in the final stages of decision.

I will give the member an example. We have to, and are, taking a look at the type of training that is given to recruits around the whole issue of police pursuits. We are also taking a look at the issue of retraining.

So guidelines, yes, are very important; yes, I am working on them and, yes, I am in the final stages prior to decision. But I want to make it very clear that police pursuit guidelines in and of themselves are one aspect which comprises how best we can serve the public, how best we can forward public safety. I am working towards that, not only with police pursuit guidelines but also in the broader range of training and retraining.

The Speaker: Before I recognize the next questioner, earlier today I reminded all members that they should refer to other members of the House by their riding, by their ministry, not their surname, not their given name. I hope all members will remember that.

PSYCHIATRIC NURSES

Mr Eves: I have a question of the Minister of Health. As I am sure the minister is aware, Ontario Public Service Employees Union, representing nurses who work in mental health institutions, released a report last week, on 1 November, which shows a very severe shortage of psychiatric nurses in the province of Ontario.

They gave a few examples, such as the Queen Street Mental Health Centre, which has had a vacancy of 37 psychiatric nurses since May; one third of the 95 registered nursing positions at Lakehead Psychiatric Hospital in Thunder Bay have been open and unfilled since March of this year. It also showed a very high incidence of violence against nurses by patients in these institutions; 220 cases so far this year in the Queen Street Mental Health Centre alone and over 350 last year.

What action is the minister taking to specifically address the concerns of psych nurses in the province?

Hon Mrs Caplan: I want to thank the member opposite for raising this issue. I think he knows that I understand not only what nurses are saying, but what nurses are feeling. Provincial psychiatric nurses serving admirably in often very stressful conditions in our provincial psychiatric hospitals are important partners in the delivery of health services in this province. To that end, the psychiatric hospitals branch has set up a committee to ensure that the spirit of the regulations which I recently brought forward under the Public Hospitals Act also apply to the provincial psychiatric hospitals and that those are being actively implemented at this present time.

As he knows, I recently announced a five-year, $15-million initiative in order to attract nurses to areas where there are high vacancy rates and also to improve attitudes and participation among nurses and towards nurses. I would say to him very clearly in this House that nurses working in the provincial psychiatric hospital system will be eligible for the initiatives which I announced last week.

Mr Eves: We appreciate, I suppose, that the regulation the minister made under the Public Hospitals Act was a step in the right direction, even if she did not see that it was fulfilled by her self-imposed deadline of 30 September. But these nurses have specific concerns. A joint ministry-union review of working conditions for psych nurses was released to her ministry in 1986-87 and that review, similar to the one that was just done, found that staff levels were inadequate, that they were reaching the breaking point with stress levels, exhaustion and burnout, and a high vacancy rate.

Why has her ministry done nothing before now to address those specific concerns of psych nurses. Here is one incident where, paid through OPSEU, she can directly affect the amount of money that these nurses receive. What specific steps is she taking?

Hon Mrs Caplan: As the member knows, OPSEU negotiates directly with the government through the Chairman of Management Board (Mr Elston) and through the government directly. However, he should know as well that the Ministry of Health psychiatric hospitals branch, through each of the provincial psychiatric hospitals, has an active employer-employee relations committee that deals with, among other things, issues such as health and safety issues. These committees are actively working and we are, as our initiatives move forward, seeing that we are having some successes.

I can say to the member that 10 registered nurses have been recruited, for example, since May for our provincial psychiatric hospitals. I want the member to be assured as well that the ministry will be reviewing the report that OPSEU has brought forward, and we are always trying to improve both working conditions and relations with employees in all of the province’s psychiatric hospitals.

RENOVATIONS TO APARTMENT BUILDINGS

Ms Poole: My question is for the Minister of Housing. Last Monday in the House I asked the minister to consider an amendment to rent review regulations to deal with unnecessary renovations and repairs. My proposed amendment stated that the only capital expenses allowed to a landlord would be those necessary to the proper maintenance of the premises in a good state of repair unless the tenants consented otherwise.

Could the minister please elaborate on his earlier comments to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr B. Rae) that my proposed amendment would be ultra vires under the law, so that we can either work to tighten it up or begin to work on another alternative?

Hon Mr Sweeney: I want to congratulate the honourable member for Eglinton for taking the initiative to bring the amendment before the House and before me. It is a lot more helpful when someone suggests a solution to a problem rather than just making an expression of the problem. I had indicated to my colleague when she did present the amendment that I would have my staff review it. That has been done for the past four or five days.

The legal opinion within my office at the present time is that the way in which the amendment was worded would, in fact, be ultra vires the legislation and would probably be struck down by the court. That, of course, is an opinion; that is not a fact. What I then asked my staff to do was to see whether or not it could be worded in a different way to achieve a similar result. They are looking at that, and as soon as something comes forward I will notify the member right away.

Ms Poole: I do appreciate the minister’s sensitivity to this issue, and I think the one thing we are all in consensus on is the fact that something needs to be done. I have come up with yet another idea. I wonder if it would be possible to consider listing the various repairs which would, under normal usage, be considered necessary, and giving the rent review administrator the discretion to decide whether, in each individual case, these were actually necessary repairs.

Hon Mr Sweeney: The difficulty that my staff and I are struggling with right at the moment is that such a decision would obviously have to be done prior to coming before rent review. It would be difficult, if not impossible, to make a decision as to whether something was necessary or not, in fact, after it is done. Someone would have to review the situation, would probably have to go right into the unit and look to see whether or not the replacement of a washroom sink was necessary. In some cases, I think the honourable member would agree, it might be, and in other cases it might not be; it might be just cosmetic.

That is the first issue. The second one is, if we cannot do it under the rent review legislation, what are the other possibilities. One of the things we are looking at is the existing Residential Rental Standards Board which assists municipalities to enforce their health and safety regulations with respect to necessary repairs in buildings. Is it possible that they could make some distinctions between necessary and unnecessary repairs? Whether that would be an appropriate body to make the distinction and --

The Speaker: Thank you. It seems like a fairly full answer. New question, the member for Riverdale (Mr Reville).

ABORTION SERVICES

Mr Reville: My question is to the Minister of Health. Would the minister tell the House what her view is of the federal abortion legislation?

Hon Mrs Caplan: I am pleased to say to the member opposite that Ontario will, of course, comply with any legislation which is duly passed in the federal Parliament.

Mr Reville: Perhaps I can afford a clue to the minister’s view.

Mr Ballinger: Why don’t you tell us your opinion, Dave?

Mr Reville: Mr Ballinger, when I am over there as Minister of Health, I would be glad to give you my opinion.

The clue that I would like to provide to the House is that the minister is promoting legislation as we speak -- Bill 47 -- which will in fact on the day of its passage close an abortion clinic in downtown Toronto which is currently performing 2,000 abortion procedures a year. Will the minister deny that, or is the minister prepared to take a look at her legislation to make sure that degree of access is not removed from the women of Ontario?

Hon Mrs Caplan: As the member opposite knows, this government and myself personally are committed to ensuring that the people of this province have access to the services that they need in a timely and sensitive manner and that we are moving forward always to improve access to all of the services in this province.

The Independent Health Facilities Act is but one of the vehicles which will allow us to respond to new technologies, which will allow us to ensure that we plan, appropriately fund and have access to services in communities right across this province as technologies evolve allowing us to provide more services outside of hospital and ensuring that they are in a quality-assured environment.

CHILD CARE

Mrs Cunningham: My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services. Private day care operators are facing a serious dilemma: how to keep the qualified staff they have been able to attract. Basically, due to the problem with the distribution of salaries and the fact that the salaries paid to the nonprofit sector are somewhat higher given the fact that they have achieved the total amount of the direct operating grants as forwarded by his ministry, does the minister plan to provide the private day care operators with direct operating grants which equal those to the nonprofit sector?

Hon Mr Beer: As my colleague knows, we provide 50 per cent grants because of the sharing that is done under the existing arrangements with the federal government. Our priority has been, with the funding that we have, to put emphasis on the nonprofit sector, but we have provided the equivalent of our share for the private operations because we recognize that we want to keep those spaces operating within Ontario.

At the recent federal-provincial meeting of ministers, I and my colleagues from the other provinces questioned the federal minister as to what initiatives the federal government would be taking in the broad area of child care. At the present time, the approach that we are taking will continue, and we would strongly encourage the federal minister to look at new initiatives the federal government could take which would help us in providing broader access to child care.

Mrs Cunningham: I think the intent of the flow of the provincial share of operating grants to commercial centres was made very clear over a year ago and to depend on the federal government at this point in time to support quality child care, which is a necessity and a real need in the province of Ontario, is absconding with the responsibility of the provincial government.

We all know that the real criticism is a lack of spaces, a lack of good-quality subsidized spaces, a lack of spaces on their own. We really need to know exactly when the province will be dealing with this issue, because one cannot expect the public sector to be training good people only to see them go to nonprofit centres. It is a very frustrating way to provide not even enough spaces in the province of Ontario. When will the minister deal with it?

Hon Mr Beer: I think, in terms of the commitment this government has made over the last number of years, increasing the funding for the broad child care sector from some $88 million to $342 million, we have more than doubled the subsidized spaces that are now in the system from somewhere around 20,000 to over 40,000 and we went ahead on our own, out of concern for those spaces, to provide our share of the dollars in terms of the private day care.

But our focus continues to be on the development of the nonprofit sector. We are in the process right now of developing our proposals for the second three-year cycle and I hope to be able, before too long, to enter into discussions with all honourable members about the direction and thrust of our next three-year cycle. I would underline again that there were many expectations created by the federal proposal of a year ago and we would encourage the federal government to return to the table and to discuss what its intentions are in the year ahead.

REGISTRY OF BONE MARROW DONORS

Mr Neumann: My question is for the Minister of Health. I know she is well aware of the stress experienced by individuals and their families when a bone marrow transplant is necessary. It is often difficult to find a donor for this procedure. This can be so important for patients facing a life-threatening disease.

I understand that a national registry for bone marrow donors is in the process of being established. Would the minister indicate Ontario’s participation in this project and describe how the registry will operate?

Hon Mrs Caplan: I want to acknowledge the interest of the member for Brantford. I am sensitive to and I acknowledge the anxiety and stress of patients and families when they are seeking a donor for a bone marrow transplant. The Ontario government is contributing more than one third of the costs, or about $890,000, for the development of an unrelated bone marrow registry. The remainder of the $2.5-million developmental costs will be shared by the other provinces. The registry will be national in scope and will be operated by the Canadian Red Cross Society.

Mr Neumann: It is obvious that such an undertaking will take some time to become fully operational. However, it is important that this information be available to people requiring bone marrow transplants as soon as possible. Time is of the essence.

When will Ontario residents be able to access the national registry for bone marrow donors?

Hon Mrs Caplan: I would say to the member, and I know of his concern and share his concern, that work is actively under way. We anticipate, however, that it could take up to three years to fully develop the registry, which will be coordinated through the Vancouver centre of the Red Cross. The registry will list available donors for bone marrow, treating life-threatening diseases such as leukaemia. I hope that the national registry will enable more successful matches of unrelated donors and that people will be brought together with the patients as quickly as possible.

EMPLOYMENT ADJUSTMENT

Mr Allen: I have a question for the Minister of Labour. The minister will remember that, after many months of hesitation in his ministry, the ministry concluded an agreement with the federal government to go in under the program for older worker adjustment in July. Plants continue to close in my community and across the province, older workers continue to be laid off in significant numbers and yet, four months later, there are no announcements and apparently no implementation plans. The public is not hearing a word about this particular program and what the minister plans to do with it.

How are Ontario’s older workers supposed to know whether they are eligible, if there is a program and what they should do to get in on it, if the minister does not take some action and publicize it?

Hon Mr Phillips: I think it is fair to say that in each case when a plant closes, our ministry is involved in it. We know any plant closure that involves 50 or more employees. In every one of those cases, our employment adjustment branch is involved in it. In each case where we are involved, we would let them know about what we call POWA. We now have approval to set up the necessary staffing of it, approval for the necessary funding. The federal government has appointed its appointees to that committee. We have appointed our appointees to that committee.

So I would be very surprised if any plant that has experienced a closure involving 50 or more employees was not aware of the program and of how to access the program.

Mr Allen: The minister raised the question of the employment adjustment service. It is a branch in his ministry. My information is that no more than one third of the plant closures under legislation in Ontario actually inform and access the services of the employment adjustment branch. And yet, if POWA means an increased level of activity in the field of adjustment, it is obvious that there should be much more going on than that.

For example, will the minister put it in legislation that employers who are involved in plant closure and major layoffs must work with the employment adjustment service, and will he provide the employment adjustment branch, which is a very minuscule operation none the less having a couple of talented employees, with the resources to do that job?

Hon Mr Phillips: In terms of the staffing required to do the job on POWA, the member may not be aware that we have four staff who will be involved specifically in POWA.

The second thing is that we want to work co-operatively with the employers and the employees. We do not want to impose our services if the employees and the employers do not want us involved. What we have said is that, in terms of employment adjustment, we seek the co-operation of the two groups involved in it.

First, we have four employees designated to work on POWA and, where the employees and the employers want us involved in a co-operative fashion, that of course is where we are most effective.

ROUGE VALLEY

Mrs Marland: My question is for the Minister of the Environment. On 17 October, my colleague the leader of the Progressive Conservative Party tried, as I have been trying for almost two years now, to obtain a firm promise from the Premier (Mr Peterson) concerning the preservation of the Rouge Valley against encroaching development for housing, transportation and waste disposal purposes. As usual, the Premier put off any responsible commitment with the excuse that his government is doing a study to define what the Rouge is.

I would like to ask the minister, given that other potential landfill sites have been identified, given that an alternative to the east Metro transportation corridor has been identified along regional road 23, given that expansion of the TTC and GO train services will accommodate much of the expected traffic flow increases and that many other sites are available for housing that do not contain century-old forests, significant wetlands and --

The Speaker: Order. Hopefully, there is a question there somewhere.

Hon Mr Bradley: I heard a question in there. I think I heard a question from the member and I heard the question before. She can tell me in the supplementary if I interpreted it wrongly.

I can assure the member that all members of this government are interested in preserving the area known as the Rouge and that all of the studies that have gone on over the past period of time and are ongoing are to define the specific areas and the specific future for the Rouge.

There is a good deal of interest in preserving the area because I, for instance, and I know other ministers, have walked through it with the Save the Rouge Valley System people. I think we recognize the importance of it. The former Minister of Natural Resources, through his ministry, acquired a good deal of the land and indicated an interest in purchasing more land in the area.

I think the member can rest assured that, as we have said all along, there will be a very strong preservationist streak in that area. We will be preserving as much of that area as possible. We want to see how far north, for instance, people believe it should be saved, and David Crombie was helpful in some of his suggestions. We are looking at all of that, and I think the member will be pleased when she sees the decision that is rendered by this government.

Mrs Marland: We are actually fed up with this government’s stalling tactics. The time for action is now. The federal government has offered the province $10 million of assistance towards turning the Rouge into a provincial park or an ecological preserve. It has been over a year since that offer was made by the federal government and still this Liberal government says it has to study the Rouge.

The government now owns 89 per cent of the Rouge lands. The government holds the key to the preservation of the Rouge. I ask the minister, when will this government accept its responsibility for the Rouge’s future and ensure that the Rouge cannot be used for a landfill site, housing or a transportation corridor? When will we get a straight commitment from the minister to preserve the Rouge Valley by turning it into a park --

The Speaker: Order. You have asked two supplementaries.

Hon Mr Bradley: I believe that the Premier has given that assurance on a number of occasions. Despite the fact that the member attempts on many occasions to suggest that this is not the case, the Premier has consistently said this. We recognize that the potential costs are great. Our government has incurred a lot of costs at the present time that we think are a good investment in the future. We also know that there will be further costs.

The $10 million to which the member makes reference, of course, is peanuts compared to what the full cost will be in there and is simply a way for the federal government to try to get some political credit. We all know what they were up to when they did that. But we have to talk about every possible aspect of that, not just preserving the area that people talk about as the Rouge Valley itself; for instance, what other areas should be preserved? What should be the future uses? Should it all be passive? Are there any recreational uses that are not quite passive that might be possible?

We have to look back at the policies developed by those people over there when they were in government. We have to look back and say that they pointed to a road going through this area. We have to look back and say that those people --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. I must remind members these are questions and responses; it is not debating time.

CONSERVATION AUTHORITIES

Miss Roberts: My question is to the Minister of Natural Resources. In my county there are four different conservation authorities. They have done excellent work on watershed conservation and dealing with resource management for a number of years. Since the release of the report A Review of the Conservation Authorities Program last year, there has been widespread consultation between the province, individual conservation authorities, municipalities and provincial organizations. The member for Durham-York (Mr Ballinger) went around the province for approximately nine months. Can the minister tell us just exactly the status of the report and what is happening?

Hon Mrs McLeod: I think the honourable member quite appropriately recognizes the very real value of the work that the conservation authorities across the province have done, and also chronicles what has been quite an extensive review of the conservation authorities’ mandate and structure, both through that interministerial committee and subsequently with the joint committee that was chaired by the former parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Natural Resources. That report has been made to the minister. I have it under very active review.

Miss Roberts: I appreciate the minister’s answer, but my authorities are now looking at budgeting and programs for next year. Can she inform the House when some decision will be made upon this review and will it be soon?

Hon Mrs McLeod: I felt it was important for me as a new Minister of Natural Resources to have an opportunity to meet with the people who had been so very directly involved in the consultation process and ensure that I understood their concerns and perspectives. I have had a meeting very recently with representatives of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario and with representatives of the Association of Conservation Authorities of Ontario. I feel as though we had a good discussion about the proposals. We are now finalizing our responses, and I expect to be able to bring recommendations through very shortly.

LIQUOR STORES

Miss Martel: I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. The minister will have received several resolutions from communities in my riding which are concerned that their D-type government liquor stores are going to be replaced by agency stores. These communities are extremely concerned because they fought long and hard to get the service in the first place. The agency stores are not going to provide any better service; in fact, if the D-type stores are replaced with agency stores, there is going to be a significant loss of employment in northern Ontario.

Since the chairman of the Liquor Control Board of Ontario could not give me a definite answer on his intentions in this regard, I would like to ask the minister what the government intentions are concerning this matter.

Hon Mr Sorbara: I am very glad to have a question from the member for Sudbury East. It has been a long time. I am very glad she is concerned about employment, not only in the Sudbury community but also right around the north. Let me just explain to her that a determination as to whether or not any particular community will be served by an agency store or what we call a D-category store, which is the smallest of the LCBO stores, is one which would be within the overall management mandate of the LCBO.

I want to tell her, though, that through my conversations with the chairman of the LCBO there is no particular program in place right now to replace what we call D stores with agency stores, which members know are stores that sell on behalf of the LCBO -- a grocery store, for example, that might also sell a variety of liquor or spirits, beer and wine.

I should also say that I have had the opportunity to meet with the president of the union of liquor employees and have had discussions with him. I assured him as I assure now the member for Sudbury East that within the board our sensitivity to the concerns of employees who might be changing jobs is paramount, at least from my perspective and I think from the board’s.

Miss Martel: I appreciate the minister’s concern in that he has had this discussion. However, I am a little bit more concerned about what has already happened in Field, for example. In that case the manager of the LCBO requested a transfer back to Peterborough where he had originally come from. He was, in fact, sent back to Peterborough. The LCBO did not go in and replace his position and in fact told town council quite specifically that it would have an agency store or no service at all. So, of course, the township took the service of the agency store because they wanted to have something at least in place in the community.

I would like to ask the minister again, is he giving a firm commitment in this House today to the liquor board union and to residents in northern Ontario that no government D-type stores will be replaced by agency stores?

Hon Mr Sorbara: If my friend the member for Sudbury East had cared to listen to my response to her first question she would have heard me say that a determination of that sort is made by the board and not by the minister, and I think that is appropriately so. But if she will listen, I will tell her that a determination in any particular case is based on a number of things including what is best for the community, what is the best way to service that community and also what is the most efficient way of serving that community.

Obviously, we do not maintain any particular type of store simply because that is the way we have done it in the past. The liquor board has an obligation to be efficient in its operation and to exercise on behalf of the people of this province a socially responsible manner of distributing and retailing beverage alcohol in the province. When you put those two mandates together and apply them in any particular community, sometimes the answer is an agency store and sometimes the answer is a much different form of marketing, and that is what we will do community by community right around the province.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Perhaps the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale (Mr Philip) would allow the member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry to ask a question.

FARMERS’ RETIREMENT LOTS / LOTISSEMENTS POUR FERMIERS À LA RETRAITE

Mr Villeneuve: My question is to the Minister without Portfolio responsible for senior citizens’ affairs. A farmer in my riding is selling his farm to his sons and in so doing has applied for a retirement lot. The Ministry of Agriculture and Food has advised him that if he were to work on or off the farm he would be breaching the food land guidelines. The minister is in charge of senior citizens’ affairs and is doing a good job. Does he agree with this recommendation?

Hon Mr Morin: I want to thank my honourable colleague the member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry. As I know he understands French very well and this is the first opportunity which is given to me to speak in French, perhaps he will permit me to answer him in French.

Le problème que le député a soulevé est évidemment un problème qui touche plusieurs personnes, plusieurs citoyens âgés. J’ai eu l’occasion tout récemment de discuter avec le ministre de l’Agriculture et de l’Alimentation (M. Ramsay) et de connaître son opinion à ce sujet. C’est un problème qui est tellement complexe, qui a une telle portée à long terme, que je désire sincèrement que le député lui repose cette même question. C’est un domaine qui m’intéresse évidemment, mais il n’y a pas encore de réponses affirmatives.

In the meantime, I would prefer that he direct this question to the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr Ramsay), and perhaps he will have a more positive answer than I am giving him at this time.

The Speaker: A fairly lengthy answer. I do not think that was a request to refer it. I will have to ask you to give the minister a supplementary.

M. Villeneuve : J’apprécie la situation qui tracasse le ministre dans le moment, mais par contre, on a une situation qui se contredit. Le ministère de l’Agriculture et de l’Alimentation dit à nos cultivateurs qui sont prêts à prendre leur retraite : « On vous défend de travailler sur la ferme, ou en dehors de la ferme, si on vous alloue la création d’un lot pour votre retraite. »

This is a terrible situation, because the minister is in charge of senior citizens’ affairs, their wellbeing and their keeping busy. Another ministry within this government is now saying, “We forbid you to work on the farm that you formerly owned or to work off the farm.” That is a terrible thing.

The Speaker: Question?

Mr Villeneuve: I have written to the Minister of Agriculture and Food. I am awaiting a reply. I would like the member’s comments on that.

Hon Mr Morin: I am glad the member recognizes there is a problem. I am telling him that I realize there is a problem, there is a concern, but again, it is a complex, complicated issue and -- comment dit-on ? -- les retombées will be quite serious. I would ask the honourable member to give me some time, again, to discuss the issue with my colleague the Minister of Agriculture and Food, and in due time he should have at least some form of answer.

PETITIONS

COMMUNITY COLLEGE TEACHERS’ LABOUR DISPUTE

Mrs Marland: I have a petition addressed to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the government of Ontario. I will read the petition very carefully, because the wording is very significant:

MOOSE TAG LOTTERY

Mr Kozyra: I present this petition on behalf of the member for Cochrane North (Mr Fontaine). It reads:

“We, the undersigned, request that the Minister of Natural Resources make the following changes to the 1990 moose selective harvest program to permit the establishment of a fairer system for all moose hunters:

“The lottery system should allow all moose hunters to enter their names for the draw without requiring them to purchase a licence first. Licences should only be purchased after the tags have been allocated by the draw.”

It is a petition with 231 names, and I have signed the petition.

FRENCH-LANGUAGE SERVICES

Mr Faubert: I have a petition addressed to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario requesting the Legislature to repeal the French Language Services Act, 1986.

This petition is signed by some 36 residents of Ontario and I am presenting this on behalf of these constituents of my riding. I have appended my signature thereto, as required to do so by the standing orders, in order to present this petition and for no other reason.

REPORT BY COMMITTEE

STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS

Mr Mahoney from the standing committee on finance and economic affairs presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bill without amendment:

Bill 18,

An Act to amend the Ontario Municipal Improvement Corporation Act.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for committee of the whole House.

Your committee begs to report the following bill with certain amendments:

Bill 20,

An Act to provide for the Payment of Development Charges.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for committee of the whole House.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

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

Mr Scott moved first reading of Bill 74,

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

M. Scott propose la première lecture du projet de loi 74, Loi prévoyant la codification et la refonte des lois de l’Ontario.

The Speaker: All those in favour will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Motion agreed to.

La motion est adoptée.

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

Hon Mr Scott moved first reading of Bill 75,

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

M. Scott propose la première lecture du projet de loi 75, Loi prévoyant la codification et la refonte des règlements de l’Ontario.

Motion agreed to.

La motion est adoptée.

ELECTION AMENDMENT ACT, 1989

Mr Cousens moved first reading of Bill 76,

An Act to amend the Election Act, 1984.

Motion agreed to.

The Speaker: The member may have a brief explanation.

Mr Cousens: I do, indeed. It is a bill that I have tabled before in this House that could make it possible for people in the armed forces to vote on election day in Ontario by having the six-month residency waived for people in the armed forces and their families who, in the line of duty for our country, may be out of the country and therefore, because of their residency status, are not allowed to vote in Ontario elections. Now that we are wearing our poppies at this time of year, it is a time to consider the role of our armed forces in the electoral process.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT ACT, 1989

Mr D. S. Cooke, on behalf of Mr R. F. Johnston, moved first reading of Bill 77,

An Act respecting International Development.

Motion agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PUBLIC SERVICE PENSION ACT, 1989 (CONTINUED)

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 36,

An Act to revise the Public Service Superannuation Act.

The Speaker: I understand the member for Sault Ste Marie had made some comments and may wish to continue.

Mr Morin-Strom: I appreciate the opportunity to add a few additional comments to the opening remarks that I made last Thursday afternoon on Bill 36.

This bill is an important initiative with respect to public service pension plans in the province of Ontario. Unfortunately, it is an initiative that does not address the major concern of public servants across the province and does not provide to them the opportunity to be able to have a say in their pension plan, whether through negotiating pension plans into the future or with respect to investment policy on the plans.

This is a subject which has been looked at by a number of interested parties, and in particular, the government has commissioned a number of private studies of the financing of the public service pension plan in the province of Ontario, and certainly very serious deficiencies with respect to those pension plans have been uncovered time after time. Unfortunately, the government has not had the will to act on those deficiencies and this act surely does not go as far as we would like to see.

If one looks at the explanatory notes introducing the bill, it says, “The bill will continue the existing pension plan established under the Public Service Superannuation Act (which contain the basic pension plan) and the Superannuation Adjustment Benefits Act (which requires inflation adjustments for benefits payable under the basic plan).

“Changes will be made respecting who is eligible to become a member of the plan, the level of contributions required under the plan and certain rules governing pension transfers and the purchase of credit under the plan. Certain provisions of the pension plan (concerning entitlement to benefits and administration of the plan) will be changed to meet the requirements of the Pension Benefits Act, 1987. Additional technical changes” will be made with respect to the administration of the plan.

This, in effect, is not a major initiative with respect to the overhauling of the operation of the public pension plans in the province of Ontario. In fact, many of the provisions of this are simply to bring this plan into line with actions which have already taken place in the Pension Benefits Act, 1987, which superseded certain provisions with respect to such factors as portability of the plan benefits if one changes jobs, either leaving the government for a position which would be covered by another pension plan or coming into the government.

As well, the vesting of the plans, of course, by the Pension Benefits Act, 1987 now occurs after two years rather than 10 years, which had been previously the case.

So those initiatives, which were important initiatives in the Pension Benefits Act, 1987 and did provide some assistance towards portability and vesting of pension plans, have already taken force and were the result of actions included in the accord agreement between the Liberals and the New Democratic Party during the previous minority government.

This act is getting into line, in certain respects, with that act, but in terms of positive adjustments and positive improvements, either to the pension benefits or the management of the plan, they are not addressed at all in this new act, Bill 36.

This acts does attempt to bring in line the public service superannuation fund with the Pension Benefits Act, which was passed over two years ago. Under this act, there are some additional employees of the government of Ontario who will have the opportunity to be eligible for pension plans for the first time. So there are some minor benefits to contract employees and unclassified part-timers, who will now have the option, at least, of joining the public service pension plan.

However, the terms of joining that plan are certainly not favourable in many cases, and when one looks at, particularly, part-timers, the option will not provide them with the opportunity for a pension plan which would be substantive in nature and enable them to actually be able to plan and provide for their families in the years to come.

The legislation allows for pension transfers into the plan for any past pensionable service, whether in the public or private sector. However, this, in fact, only formalizes what had already been legislated permissible under the Pension Benefits Act. The ringer in this move is the fact that the terms of the transfer of service credits and the cost to the employee to be able to obtain pension credit for that previous service is regressive in comparison with the previous provisions.

The employees will have to pay for services based on their wage levels today, not based on the amount that the pension service would have cost at the time the employees were either in their previous occupation nor what the cost would have been to current employees in the public service at the time those pension credits would have been earned in the past.

At the same time, the government is expecting employees to be able to exercise this option and amortize all the payments over a period of five years, while previously they had been given the option of amortizing those costs of buying back that additional service at a period of up to 10 years. That will create tremendous additional hardship for many government employees who will not have the funds available in terms of the wage levels they are earning and in terms of what they would have to take away from their families in order to be able to purchase those pension credits. That certainly is an action by this government which is not in the interests of the employees of this province.

The legislation, as it has been written, is going to require all pension plan members to pay an additional one per cent of their salary on top of the seven per cent that they are already contributing to their public service pension plan. There is no improvement in terms of the basic benefits or the terms of the pension plan which will result in better pensions for the public service employees. This is, pure and simple, a slash of one percent of the wages of all public servants of the province of Ontario, with no tangible benefits to them at all.

One has to question how a government can unilaterally and arbitrarily ask its employees to give up one per cent of their wages this year and for years to come until they reach pensionable age in order to get no improvement whatsoever to their pension plan. The pension plan does provide indexing and has provided indexing to the CPI, with an eight per cent cap. However, that eight per cent cap is a limit on the amount of indexing, and in times of higher inflation, such as we had in the late 1970s and early 1980s, the pension plans of these employees do not keep up worker adjustment in July.

Plants continue to close in my community and across the province, do not have any further assurances that their pensions will be able to be indexed fully to the CPI.

One area of concern is the limited movement in this bill towards permitting market investments rather than the old requirement, “All funds must be invested in nonmarketable government securities.” The government has been harshly attacked by a number of reports over the years with respect to its investments of public servant pension funds and teacher pension funds, and the results have shown that the rates of return that these pension funds have achieved have not nearly matched the kinds of returns that have been available to private sector pension funds.

I regret that this government has not taken the steps necessary to ensure that a full market value investment policy will be available to the managers of these pension funds in the future.

The government claims that a pension board will be created with an arm’s-length relationship. However, surely this cannot be the case when we see in the bill itself that appointments to the pension board are going to be made by the Lieutenant Governor in Council. The cabinet will have the complete and final say about who is on the pension board, and the government is only considering the option of joint control of these pension funds with the union employees, the unions and representatives of the workers who are affected by the pension funds.

The bill, as it is written, has those options written into it, but there is no assurance at all that the government is going to move away from a full and complete control of its pension plans.

The new act continues to be based on the government remaining as the sole sponsor of the plan, in particular maintaining its claimed right to all future surpluses in the plan. This certainly has to be bad news for pensioners, not only public service pensioners but pensioners affected by all types of private and public pension plans across Ontario.

One of the major issues in recent years has been the attempts by many funds, many in the corporate sector particularly, to skim surpluses off of pension plans. They went to the point of the most blatant case, I guess, being the classic one where Conrad Black shut down Dominion Stores in order to dissolve the pension funds of those employees and to be able to take back millions of dollars that had been accumulated on behalf of those employees, take it back into the hands of himself and others as owners of the Dominion Stores operation.

In this case, we certainly have a case where the government is dealing with a situation of conflict of interest, The government is presenting a bill, and at the same time, it is both the employer of the employees being affected by these pension funds as well as the recipient of all the investments of the funds.

We have a real conflict when the government is holding the funds in the pension plans of its employees and, at the same time, rather than investing those pensions funds in investment opportunities that would generate the best possible return on those investments, is putting those funds right back to itself and using that to run the government’s day-to-day business of the province of Ontario.

The government, in a sense, is loaning itself the money and has historically provided loans, borrowed the funds from the pension fund and paid less than market rates of interest on those loans. From one standpoint, one could look at it as financing the deficit and the debts of the province at a very favourable interest rate to the taxpayers but, on the other hand, these are funds that are rightfully in trust, being held for the employees of the public service of the province of Ontario.

Surely, as a province, we have historically been violating that trust in the control of those funds and the provision that all of those funds would be loaned back to the province rather than invested in marketable securities.

One of the major concerns is the total inability or unwillingness of this government to negotiate pension plan funds with its own employees. One recognizes, as a government, the need to negotiate wages and there is a collective bargaining process to negotiate wages with organized employees of the province of Ontario.

One negotiates in the same process most of the other benefits, including the working conditions of the province of Ontario. However, one has to question why this government continues to be unwilling to negotiate the pension plan of the employees of this province. Surely one has to recognize that the best possible result of any kind of conflict between an employer and employee is one that is negotiated up front and in which a settlement is reached that is agreeable to both sides.

It would be far preferable for the government to put in place a process whereby pension funds could be negotiated openly and honestly between the government and its public sector unions, so that their concerns could in fact be addressed by the government. Where their priorities are may be very different than from what the government places in terms of pension funds and pension benefits.

One of the alternatives to this bill surely could have been an opening of the collective bargaining process. All that might have been required would have been an amendment to the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act that would have allowed pensions to be part of the collective bargaining process.

Such an amendment had been introduced back earlier by the New Democratic Party as a private member’s bill during the last sitting of this Legislature but, to this point, the Liberal government of the province of Ontario has not recognized the benefits and the improvements to the relationship it could have with its employees that would result from open and honest bargaining through a collective bargaining process.

Surely we recognize that pensions have been a part of the bargaining process in the private sector for decades and, in many cases, the result has been pension plans which are very different from the public service pension plans, pension plans which in many cases provide benefits better than the public service pension plans, pension plans in the private sector which are often, as a result of the negotiations, fully funded by the employer, not on a cost-shared basis, 50-50, with the employees, as is currently the case with the public service employees.

Public service employees are going to have to contribute eight per cent of their wages, that is, eight per cent out of their take-home pay, for the pension plan that they are expecting to get in their later years. In many large organized workplaces, the cost of the pension funds are fully paid today by the employers and, even at that, benefits are at higher levels than the public service pension plan.

One of the reasons for that is that private pension plans have had the ability to operate in the marketplace and get reasonable returns of their investment. The public pension plans have had the serious disadvantage of having to loan the vast majority of their investments back to the government at unfavourable rates of interest.

I think we can take a look, in fact, at some of the studies that have been done with respect to the public sector pension plans in the province. There have been a number of them done just during the last three years. Unfortunately, this government has not acted on them to this point and this bill certainly is inadequate in the lengths to which it goes.

In August 1987 there was a major report, the Report to the Treasurer of Ontario on the Financing of Benefits under the Superannuation Adjustment Benefits Act and Associated Superannuation Plans. This was prepared by Laurence E. Coward, director, William M. Mercer Ltd. It is generally referred to as the Coward report and it came out more than two years ago and certainly addresses the issue of investment policy.

I will just take very briefly from the “Executive

Summary and Recommendations” to this report under the subject of “Investment Policy”:

“The PSSF and TSF,” that is, the public service superannuation fund and the teachers’ superannuation fund, “are invested in deposits or debentures with terms of 20 to 25 years. Historically the return on such investments has been poor if changes in capital values are allowed for. Investment of the cash flow in marketable securities would be expected to increase the rate of return of the fund. Such a policy would remove the criticism that the government obtains a subsidy through investing members’ contributions at less than competitive rates and would improve the employees’ understanding of investment realities.

Investment in market securities also accords with the principle that public sector funds should operate as far as possible in the same way as private sector funds.”

The fact is that the returns on the public sector funds have not matched those on the private sector. While in recent years, particularly where the returns have been very high, many private sector funds have generated very large surpluses as a result of favourable interest rates and favourable returns on more secure stock market investments, the public sector funds have not been able to generate those same kinds of surpluses despite the levels of the contributions, which in many cases are higher than the levels of contributions to the private sector fund.

This in a way has become a subsidy back to the province of Ontario in its borrowing policy that certainly has been a detriment with respect to the public servants and funds that are being held in trust for them by the province. One has to question why this government is now asking those public servants to pay an extra one per cent to pay for the inadequacy of the rates of return on those investments, a government that has never allowed its public servants to be able to negotiate pension benefits or to be able to have any say or any involvement in the investment policy of those funds.

Surely this is a situation that calls upon the government to come up with the shortfall that have resulted in those funds in recent years. To ask the employees to pay for the government’s mistake is hardly a fair treatment for the public servants of the province of Ontario.

Following up on the Coward report was another report issued in November 1987 by Malcolm Rowan, chairman of the Task Force on the Investment of Public Sector Pension Funds. This report was another report to the Treasurer of the province of Ontario and it was quite specific in its dealing with the concerns that I am raising today and related to concerns that we have with Bill 36.

The Rowan report is another major study undertaken by a task force commissioned by the Treasurer of the province of Ontario and it raises very serious concerns about the operation of the public sector pension plans in the province of Ontario.

I will just indicate some of the major conclusions and major recommendations from this report, conclusions and recommendations that have not been addressed by this government and are not being addressed in Bill 36,

An Act to revise the Public Service Superannuation Act.

Under “Major Conclusions,” it says: “1. $16.7 billion...of all public sector pension fund assets are invested in nonmarket government debt at rates of return below that which could be achieved if invested in a diversified portfolio of market investments.”

Among other conclusions directly related to this investment strategy is this conclusion: “Economic enhancement can best be achieved if public sector pension funds are invested in the capital market.”

Again, it puts the blame at the hands of the government in terms of the inadequacy of the returns on these public sector pension funds, a blame that rightfully should be absorbed completely by the government in terms of poor returns in recent years, and the government should be covering the additional costs, not asking the employees to pay an extra one per cent of their wages for years to come.

Under “Major Recommendations” in this study are, first, that the assets of the public service pension plan should be invested in market investments. It goes on and says:

“Public sector pension fund investment should not be further centralized.”

“Public sector funds should be governed by the same rules as private sector funds.”

“Plan members should participate in pension fund decision-making.”

I think it is most significant that we have Malcolm Rowan not only making recommendations with respect to where the fund should be invested but also asking that plan members should participate in pension fund decision-making.

This government’s unwillingness to ensure that those who are affected by the pension funds should have a say in the management of those pension funds surely is one that this government should have been addressing in a more forthright manner in the presentation of Bill 36.

This report is a very detailed one. It covers many concerns with respect to the investment strategy on the public sector funds, and I think it is most interesting that the title of this report on the investment of public sector pension funds is entitled “In Whose Interest?” That really is the issue when it comes to public sector funds. In whose interest are these funds being managed? In whose interest are they being invested?

They are being invested not in the interest of those to whom the fund belongs, that is, the employees of the province of Ontario. They are being invested in the interest of this government that wants to use those funds to help subsidize other operations of the government, take the funds from its own employees and subsidize via low-interest loans into this pension plan other operations which this government is unwilling to fund honestly and in a forthright manner.

It was not me who raised this title on to this document. This is a document from a task force commissioned by the province of Ontario to the Treasurer the province of Ontario, and it is entitled “In Whose Interest?” They obviously have raised very serious concerns with respect to the management of these pension funds, because this government has not been managing those pension funds in the interest of employees who are going to be affected and their families who are going to be affected for the rest of their lives by those pension fund investments.

The reports go on and on. In July 1988, a third major study was issued to this Treasurer of the province of Ontario, the third within one year: A Fresh Start: Report to the Treasurer of Ontario, the Chairman of Management Board of Cabinet and the Minister of Education on Teachers’ and Public Servants’ Pensions. This report by Dr David W. Slater on public service pensions consultations again confirmed the mismanagement of the pension funds of the employees of the province of Ontario, and in this case as well the teachers of the province of Ontario, and raised serious concerns with respect to the investment strategy of the province of Ontario.

Let’s just read some of the key recommendations from the executive

summary to this study, commonly called the Slater study on pension reform. The proposals include the following: To invest the pension funds in marketable assets; to place the pension program on an arm’s-length basis to the government; to increase the level of formal plan member involvement, and to have government pay the cost of the large unfunded liabilities for pension rights arising from past service.

Have these been addressed? No, none of these have been addressed in this legislation. This legislation does not open up the opportunity for the same kind of management of the pension funds into marketable assets, ensuring the opportunity for the kinds of returns on pension funds that have been available in the private sector.

This plan certainly does not achieve the objective of placing the pension program on an arm’s-length basis to the government. The government continues to control who is going to be on the board, running the pension plan. The government will have a majority on that board and will continue to have the appointments to that board made by the cabinet of the province of Ontario. They will be there at the whim of the government, on behalf of the government, managing the funds for the interests of the government, not for the members of the pension plan, the workers, the public servants of the province of Ontario.

In regard to the recommendation to increase the level of formal plan member involvement, in this respect this bill is extremely vague. The bill does not formalize any process of member involvement. It leaves an option with respect to member involvement, but no specifics are assured in it. In fact, I will read right from the explanatory notes to Bill 36: “Three alternative mechanisms for amending the plan will be provided. Initially, the Lieutenant Governor in Council will be able to amend the plan by order,” in other words, the cabinet. The cabinet is the only one that can change the public service pension plan in the province of Ontario.

It continues: “The bill will permit the government to enter into an agreement with the members to establish joint control or member control over the plan.” What does that mean? There is nothing in the details of the bill to define how such negotiations would occur or what “joint control or member control over the plan” would mean. In the interim, total and complete government control will remain in place.

It goes on, “Amendments to the plan will then be made according to the terms of the agreement.” What does that mean? Does that mean the government is then going to be come back with another bill in order to achieve sharing of the operation of the pension plan? There are no assurances here that this bill will provide for the negotiation of a jointly operated pension plan or even the potential for member control over the plan.

The explanatory notes then go on, “Ownership of surplus and responsibility for deficits that may arise under the plan will be concomitant with control over the plan.” There is the inadequacy of this bill in terms of dealing with the opportunity for the employees of the province of Ontario, through their unions, to be able to operate, control and have a say in the management of the investment of their own pension funds, and to be able to have some say over the direction in which pension benefits may see some changes in the future. There are no assurances we are going to see that under this bill.

The direction the government should have taken has been clearly indicated in the studies done by Laurence Coward, Malcolm Rowan and David Slater in the past. Their proposals for the better management of the pension funds of the province of Ontario, funds that surely are only being held in trust for the employees of the province of Ontario, are not being addressed in this bill.

I take a look at some of the government’s own language back during the minority government days when there were some important initiatives on pension funds included in the agreement reached between the Liberals and the New Democratic Party, when we gave the Liberals the opportunity to form a government back in 1985. There were assurances made at that time in the accord agreement that there would be some improvements to pension plans in Ontario.

During that period we had statements, for example, from the then Minister of Financial Institutions, the member for Wilson Heights (Mr Kwinter), 4 July 1986: “Policy Recommendations on Pension Fund Investment Regulations Released for Comment.” I quote from this release, “Mr Kwinter said under the proposals, ‘We are recommending strict rules governing conflict of interest and self-dealing, as well as disclosure of specific investment and financial information to members of pension plans with 50 or more members.’”

That is fine for the private sector and it sounds great, but why do they not not apply those kinds of policies to the public sector, to the pension plans that are to provide for the public servants of Ontario for their later years? Why is it that they wants strict rules governing conflict of interest and self-dealing for the private sector pension plans, but will not impose them on themselves for the public sector plans?

The release goes on and says: “‘At the same time, the recommended regulations would allow fund managers greater freedom and flexibility in making investment decisions while still protecting the interest of the beneficiaries,’ he said.”

Again, regulations were to come into place to apply greater freedom and flexibility in making the investment decisions. That is good for the private sector. The government wants to have these objectives for private sector pension plans. To some extent, certainly, there was a move towards that in the bill in 1987 with the Pension Benefits Act, which did put in some discipline with respect to private sector pension plans, but why will the government not apply its own rules to its own plans, to itself?

The government will not give us the assurance that conflict of interest and self-dealing will not occur. The management of the public sector pension plans has historically been the biggest example of self-dealing in pension funds anywhere in Ontario. The opportunity the government has taken in order to be able to get low-interest loans from its own employees has done a disservice to all the workers working for the government of Ontario.

Surely it is time we acted in order to provide some arm’s-length relationship between the pension plans of the employees of the province of Ontario and the management of those plans, which historically has been done unilaterally and arbitrarily by the provincial government through the cabinet.

As to the recommended regulations that the government has applied and is attempting to apply to the private sector, surely the same ones should be applicable to the public sector plans of Ontario. I ask that the government take a look at some of its own statements and act on them when looking at its public sector pension plans.

Another key regulation being recommended, quoting from this statement from the then Minister of Financial Institutions, the member for Wilson Heights, in 1986, was to “ensure diversification to prevent an entire pension fund being put at risk through concentration on, for example, one investment,” exactly what has been done in the public sector pension plans in Ontario. One investment, the only inve