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

May 18, 1988

34th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

L065 - Wed 18 May 1988 / Mer 18 mai 1988

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

EASTER SEAL RUN/WALKATHON

ONTARIO FAMILY FARM INTEREST RATE REDUCTION PROGRAM

LIBERAL BACK-BENCHERS

A. J. CASSON

SUPERMAILBOXES

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

A. J. CASSON

RESPONSES

A. J. CASSON

ORAL QUESTIONS

HOSPITAL FUNDING

RENT REGULATION

TRADE WITH UNITED STATES

RIVERSIDE HOSPITAL OF OTTAWA

ACCESS TO CHILDREN IN CUSTODY

LABOUR DISPUTE

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

FARM TAX REBATE

CORRECTIONAL SERVICES STAFF POSITIONS

HERITAGE LANGUAGES

HOSPITAL FUNDING

TIMBER CUTTING PRACTICES

RIVERSIDE HOSPITAL OF OTTAWA

PETITIONS

TAX INCREASES

RETAIL STORE HOURS

TAX INCREASES

RETAIL STORE HOURS

NATUROPATHY

RETAIL STORE HOURS

1987 CONSTITUTIONAL ACCORD

RETAIL STORE HOURS

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

MUNICIPAL PRIVATE ACTS REPEAL ACT

ROAD ACCESS AMENDMENT ACT

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BILLS ACT

ORDERS OF THE DAY

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT

NORTHERN ONTARIO HERITAGE FUND ACT (CONTINUED) /

LOI SUR LE FONDS PATRIMONIAL DU NORD L’ONTARIO (SUITE)

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

Prayers.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr. Swart: On Monday, the Ontario branch of the Consumers’ Association of Canada at a convention in London threw its support behind a public auto insurance system for Ontario. This, as a matter of course, it had been researching for some time.

The association is aware of the false and misleading nature of the insurance industry brochures and ads prior to and during the last election. It knows how this Liberal government parroted those industry figures and otherwise was beholden to the insurance companies.

As reported to our hearings in January, the Ontario sector of the association knew that its counterparts, the consumers in Saskatchewan, British Columbia and Manitoba, rated satisfaction with the public systems in those provinces at nine on a scale of one to 10. Because it looked at the issue objectively, it knew that the increases applied in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and British Columbia this year, put in perspective over a number of years, are only half as much as Ontario motorists have received. It knows the systems there are more efficient, more fair and cheaper.

This decision by the consumers’ association is just part of the growing support for public auto insurance in Ontario. After this Liberal government gives another large interim increase shortly and after the new rate control board jumps rates further, the tide of public opinion will overwhelm the Liberals into bringing in a public plan or wash them out of office.

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

Mrs. Marland: I rise on a matter of deep concern today. It seems that we do not have a minister for the environment. Yesterday’s announcement that there would be no public hearing on the environmental assessment of the Red Squirrel Road showed us once again that the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley) refuses to uphold the mandate of his ministry. The minister said a hearing would only cause undue delays in the construction of the road. What about the delays caused by his ministry?

If he had properly controlled the environmental assessment process of this project and called for a hearing when one was requested over a year ago, all parties would have had their rightful opportunity to express their position in the only environmental court available to them. If the minister had not procrastinated, yesterday’s announcement would have been one that was based on a fair and equitable process.

I am disappointed that the Minister of the Environment did not have the courage to make his announcement yesterday solo. This is not the first time the Minister of the Environment has tried to slip something by us. A month ago he announced a review of the environmental assessment program. This is a major review and should have been announced in the Legislature to all members of this House. It was not.

This Liberal government must give as many people as possible the opportunity to participate in this review. With yesterday’s announcement, the minister has shown us that a review of the environmental assessment process and the role of his ministry is essential.

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

Mrs. Marland: It is time to open the doors to environmental justice.

EASTER SEAL RUN/WALKATHON

Mr. Beer: I rise today to bring to the House’s attention an outstanding example of volunteerism in my riding. On Sunday, May 29, the 12th annual Persechini/Easter Seal 10 K Run/Walkathon will take place at Pickering College in Newmarket. The combined proceeds from the 12 years that this event has been run will this year hit the $500,000 mark.

The success of this event is due to the crack team of devoted and long-serving volunteers and sponsors that Joe Persechini and the staff of his fitness centre have put together. People like Dave Blackwell and Rogers Cable 10 have worked with the event since its inception. Jack Spillette and his Canadian Tire store are the run/walkathon’s longest and biggest contributors. People like Tony Van Bynen, Carol Laidlaw, Caroline Prieston, Terry and Louise Carter, Dave Wood, Dwight Slessor and Lentini’s and Hot Lips restaurants are but a few members of this devoted team.

This is a well-run and popular event which the citizens of Newmarket and York region look forward to each year. To offer proof of the widespread participation the run/walkathon brings about, I show members this picture of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Sorbara) and myself at the finish line last year. The fact that we are alone does not necessarily mean we were last. We just do not want to give out our time.

This year I will be running, walking and crawling the course again and I challenge all members to support me and Easter Seals on Sunday, May 29.

ONTARIO FAMILY FARM INTEREST RATE REDUCTION PROGRAM

Mr. Wildman: Today is the deadline for farmers to apply for the second year of the Ontario family farm interest rate reduction program. Members will recall that because of the serious debt crisis facing the farm community, last year the government agreed to establish in the second year OFFIRR Plus, the new Ontario family farm interest rate reduction program, which would pay 100 per cent rebates.

However, in this announcement of the deadline for the second-year applications, it was stated that the final year of the OFFIRR Plus program will provide coverage of only 40 per cent, as announced when the program was first introduced two years ago.

It seems that even though the farmers are facing serious debt problems, this government has backed off its commitment to assist the farmers to meet their interest payments in such a way that the farmers who are able to continue on the farm last year at 100 per cent rebate are now suddenly going to see a 60 per cent increase in their interest rate payments.

It is just unacceptable. It means fewer farmers are going to be able to remain on the land, and this government has not proposed any new programs to replace the OFFIRR plus at 100 per cent. It is just unacceptable. It shows that there really is no commitment on the part of this government to the farm community of Ontario --

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

Mr. Wildman: -- and it is very unfortunate for the future of agriculture.

LIBERAL BACK-BENCHERS

Mr. Villeneuve: Yesterday in Guelph, when speaking to and about a 22-year-old gelding named Guthrie, the Premier (Mr. Peterson) said to the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Riddell), and I quote: “You could get that horse elected, Jack.”

We on this side of the House believe that this already has occurred in a number of instances. Our mistake was to presume that the Liberal back-benchers were seals. Well, the secret is out. They are not seals at all; they are horses, geldings at that.

Let’s look at the similarities.

First, whenever we want to introduce a resolution or a motion that makes good sense, what do the Liberal back-benchers say? “Nay,” of course.

Second, what do horses produce in more quantity than anything else? What is their end product, you might say? It is barnyard fertilizer, exactly the same substance from which questions from the Liberal back-benchers are plucked, the mushroom gang.

Third, and in my opinion most convincing: The Premier, when talking about his potential new member, was referring to a gelding -- a neutered animal unable to produce; a rather fitting description of Liberal back-benchers.

The similarities are uncanny. In fact, I would caution the member for Guelph (Mr. Ferraro) and the member for Lincoln (Mr. Pelissero), Liberal back-benchers, to watch their step when the Premier is sending them a message and a warning: “If you step out of line, Guthrie is waiting to take your place.”

We got that from the horse’s mouth

A. J. CASSON

Mrs. Sullivan: I know members of the Legislature will join me in paying tribute to the distinguished Canadian artist A. J. Casson on his 90th birthday, which was celebrated yesterday.

In honour of Mr. Casson, the last surviving member of the Group of Seven, the North Channel Preservation Society proposed, with support from the community and industry, and the Ontario Geographic Names Board yesterday made its recommendation, that a special recognition be made of his contribution to our Canadian artistic tradition.

As a result, and with the concurrence of the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio), the highest prominent outlook of Frazer Bay Hill, at the north end of Georgian Bay between Little Current and Killarney, will be named Casson Peak.

The peak is part of the La Cloche mountain range and many of Mr. Casson’s best-known pictures, including watercolours painted from what will now be known as Casson Peak, are among his finest works.

This is an outstanding birthday present and a fitting tribute to a unique Canadian. Mr. Casson could not be here with us today. I know he is pleased with the honour bestowed upon him and that all members of the House will want to join me in congratulating him.

SUPERMAILBOXES

Mr. Philip: Residents of suburban municipalities have been discriminated against by the Mulroney government’s postal policies. I commend the city of Etobicoke council for its resolution 130, which states:

“1. Immediately abandon its supermailbox program;

“2. Halt all projected installation of super-boxes;

“3. Remove all supermailboxes at existing sites and landscape the area they occupy;

“4. Restore home delivery to all affected residents.”

The resolution was passed and sent to all members of this Legislature and to all MPs.

Several new residential developments are planned in the city of Etobicoke and will commence in the near future. The council has expressed opposition to these residents being subjected to the supermailbox program when the majority of citizens in Etobicoke are receiving door-to-door mail delivery.

Mr. Speaker: That completes the allotted time for members’ statements. Statements by the ministry? None?

Mr. B. Rae: I have my copy right here.

Mr. Speaker: Oral questions.

Mr. B. Rae: I am a little taken aback, because I do have a statement but it was not given. I can understand reasons.

Before starting I might add, if I could on a point of order Mr. Speaker: because it was our understanding that the minister was going to be making a statement with respect to the birthday of A. J. Casson, I am sure others in the House would like perhaps to take a very brief opportunity to say happy birthday to Mr. Casson and how much we would have appreciated the opportunity to participate in the expression of solidarity from this Legislature with respect to Mr. Casson.

Mr. Wildman: How about unanimous consent?

Mr. Speaker: I understand the member is asking unanimous consent? Is that the wish of the House?

Agreed to.

Interjections.

Hon. Ms. Oddie Munro: I must offer my apologies to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. B. Rae). I had been planning to make the statement. and I am very glad he stood up. I had felt that with the best wishes of an MPP, perhaps my statements would not have been received as well, but I am very pleased to make the statement.

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

A. J. CASSON

Hon. Ms. Oddie Munro: It is with great pride that I rise today to pay tribute to one of Canada’s outstanding artists, Alfred Joseph Casson, on the occasion of his 90th birthday. Last evening many of Mr. Casson’s friends gathered at the McMichael Gallery in Kleinburg to help celebrate with him.

As the last surviving member of the Group of Seven, a name which is synonymous with Canadian art, Mr. Casson is a link to this vibrant past, a time when he and his colleagues had the foresight and courage to shape a new and distinctively Canadian style of art.

Through Casson’s eyes we all have seen in a new way the glorious splendour of the Canadian landscape. His oils, watercolours and pencil sketches, especially of rural villages and houses, are indeed, as he himself has acknowledged, a record of a vanishing society and a disappearing world. They are reminders of an Ontario known to our ancestors and serve as a record of our province’s past for future generations.

But A. J. Casson’s art serves more than an historical purpose. He has captured the colour and light, the patterns and designs which nature itself created. Yet Mr. Casson’s contribution to all of us has been more than just art works. He has generously shared his time advancing Canadian art by serving on committees of such institutions as the Ontario College of Art and the Art Gallery of Ontario. He also has shared his knowledge with his colleagues in such groups as the Ontario Society of Artists and the Royal Canadian Academy of Arts.

On behalf of the government of Ontario, I would like to wish Mr. Casson, or Cass as he is affectionately known to all his friends, a very happy birthday and I would like to thank him for sharing with all of us, as he calls it, his Ontario quest. Because of Mr. Casson’s work and generosity, all of us are richer. May he have many, many more happy and healthy birthdays.

RESPONSES

A. J. CASSON

Miss Martel: As the critic for Culture and Communications for this party, I too wish to add our party’s and my very best wishes to Mr. Casson on the occasion of his 90th birthday.

We all recognize his distinguished career and his priceless contribution to our culture in capturing so vividly the beauty of this province, including his truly memorable works resulting from the 1925 sketching trip to the north shore of Lake Superior with other members from the Group of Seven.

His art form developed into a distinctive mastery of oil and watercolour media. Casson revived and championed the watercolour medium. The small towns of Ontario were also preferred subjects of his. His distinctive style, the ability to simplify and eliminate nonessentials, culminated in such works as County Store in 1945.

As Robert McMichael wrote of Mr. Casson, “old buildings on the backroads of Ontario” have always been favourite subjects for his paintings. It is somewhat ironic then that Mr. Casson had painted the village of Kleinburg before the McMichael Gallery was even a dream.

All Ontarians and indeed all Canadians express their appreciation today. Paul Duval, Mr. Casson’s biographer, probably said it best when he wrote: “Few persons have played as prominent a role in the development of recent Canadian art as Alfred Joseph Casson.... He can look back upon a career of achievement, which can be paralleled by few in the annals of this country’s culture.”

We congratulate him on reaching this milestone and wish him many happy returns.

Mrs. Marland: It is indeed an honour and a privilege to have this opportunity today on behalf of the Progressive Conservative caucus to share in the good wishes we are jointly sending from this Legislature to Mr. Casson.

Certainly, to be the sole surviving member of our famous Group of Seven is indeed a wonderful record in itself. To be such a talented artist, not only in one medium but in two, as Mr. Casson is with watercolour and oil, is itself a great gift.

With so many talented people, we are the rich recipients of their gift and their sharing of their talent with all of us. As we wish him happy birthday, I think each and every one of us in this province who has had the opportunity to see the work of such a great artist feels that in saying happy birthday, we would also like to say, very much, a large thank you.

What a beautiful and permanent record of our great province this man is giving us and continuing to give us. How many of us ever leave a legacy that is so rich, so selfless, so beautiful and forever? We thank you, Mr. Casson, and we wish you happy birthday.

ORAL QUESTIONS

HOSPITAL FUNDING

Mr. B. Rae: I have some questions again today for the Minister of Health. The minister will no doubt be aware that the Ontario Hospital Association has indicated that the total size of the deficit shared by all those hospitals which have a deficit, on an annualized basis over the space of a year, is in the area of $53 million. This is the deficit the minister has instructed the hospitals they have to eliminate.

I would like to ask the minister if she can confirm that the $53-million figure is the equivalent of 26,129 acute care patients’ worth of service realignment. If I can put it another way, each $1 million cut is the equivalent of cutting off 493 acute care patients. That is the level of the impact of the cuts which the minister is insisting the hospitals in this province will make.

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I think that the approach of the Leader of the Opposition is on the wrong track. What we have said, and we are working very closely with the Ontario Hospital Association, is that we have allocated resources to the hospital sector, some $5.5 billion. We will be funding approved budgets and approved programs and then expecting the hospitals to live within that ministry approval. If they want to start new programs, they must have approval before they do that.

The Minister of Health and the Ministry of Health do not run those hospitals. They are managed by hospital boards and hospital administrators. We allocate the resources and then expect them to provide essential services to their communities.

Mr. B. Rae: If I can just again speak very directly to the minister, what she is saying is, frankly, nonsense. She knows full well that the hospitals that are being placed in this position by her and by the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) have no choice but to cut services that they are now providing, to reduce the number of beds and to lay off staff.

Let her talk to every single hospital administrator in this province. If she picks up her telephone and talks to them, they will come back to her with that answer time after time. She cannot cut a budget by $53 million and not see a reduction in the number of beds, a reduction in the number of patients who will be receiving care and a reduction in staff. That is the clear-cut implication of what she is doing.

Can the minister confirm that, again, when we look at chronic care, the $53-million figure is the equivalent of 1,378 such people? To put it another way, each $1 million cut represents 26 fewer patients served in the chronic care system. Does the minister not understand that she cannot cut hospitals in this way without also cutting services?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I know that the Leader of the Opposition understands this, and I hesitate to use the word that he is even inadvertently attempting to suggest that we are doing something that we are clearly not doing.

What we have done in the past three years has been to give a massive infusion of money, over $1 billion, into hospital base budgets, some 39 per cent increases in base budgets. Clearly, what we are saying is that the ministry approves those budgets and then the hospitals manage within them. That is the way the system works.

The problem we have is that when hospitals act in isolation and begin new programs that they have not had approval for, it places in jeopardy how we plan. For those hospitals that are working with us through the district health councils, where we prioritize, we then cannot go forward with new and expanded programs. He is asking me to choose between funding those which we have not approved and funding those which have been prioritized and that we want to approve. Clearly, this is an issue of planning and management.

Mr. B. Rae: The last statement is one that we all agree with. This is an issue of planning and management, and I can say that the planning and management of this government with respect to our health care system is nothing short of a disaster for people who are sick in this province. It is an absolute disaster.

I just want to raise one particular example so the minister can understand. Let her pick up the phone and speak to Ken Pope, who is the president of the Ottawa Valley

chapter of the Kidney Foundation of Canada. Let her speak to him directly about the impact of her decision, the impact it is going to have on a projected renal dialysis unit, a renovation of the unit at the Ottawa Civic Hospital. Talk to him about how they feel and how patients feel about a unit that was set up to serve 20 people that is now serving 200 people, backups in the system which this government is doing nothing to address and which the minister’s cutbacks are only going to effect.

When is the minister going to wake up to the fact that for all her statements about planning and fiscal responsibility, the real impact of what she is doing is being felt by patients who are sick? That is the bottom line of what this government is not doing.

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: The Leader of the Opposition is clearly wrong. There are four components of hospital funding, and he knows what they are: they are an inflation increase, a workload increase, a life-support increase and a new and expanded program increase. That gives us the 6.9 per cent that we have announced this year for hospital base increases.

When the member is talking about renal dialysis, that is part of our overall review of what the needs are in life support. To equate that with a hospital program that may be as a result of an unapproved program is not only jeopardizing our future planning but is distracting. I do not want to use the word, and I know it is inadvertent, but the member is really being less than truthful in how he is portraying this situation.

Mr. B. Rae: Mr. Speaker, I have to ask you to intervene on that.

Mr. Speaker: I know the minister was being careful, but I am certain the minister would probably want to reconsider the words she used.

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I will take back the words “less than truthful” and say that I am very concerned that we accurately portray --

Mr. Speaker: That is really all that I was requesting.

RENT REGULATION

Mr. B. Rae: I have a question for the Minister of Housing. The minister, I know, will be aware of the statements she has made in the House and that her predecessor made about how determined she was, when assuming the ministry, to reduce the backlog with respect to rent review.

The most recent figures show that on February 1, 1988, the backlog was some 23,189 applications. On March 1, it was 23,392. On April 1, it was 24,117. On April 30, it was 24,785. Not only has the minister not managed to reduce the backlog, but in the month of April there were 1,200 applications received, and 600 were dealt with.

I would like to ask the minister how she can justify this kind of incredible delay, the increase in the backlog and the exact opposite of what she personally promised this House that she would see was done when she was named the minister back in the fall.

Hon. Ms. Hošek: The numbers that the Leader of the Opposition has quoted are in fact accurate, and what they reflect is a rollover. There are always new applications coming in. There are applications being dealt with. The increase is a result of new applications coming in. We are always working hard, and the numbers of applications being processed are increasing all the time. The member knows there are many more resources coming in, and he will see much more rapid movement in this area.

Mr. B. Rae: The only thing that needs to roll over with respect to action is this government. It has a problem here which the minister addressed when she became minister back in the fall. She said she was going to do something about it and then ended up not doing anything about it.

In addition to the incredible delay the tenants are facing -- which is getting worse, because there are more applications going in than coming out of the system, and that is a sign of a system that simply is not working -- the minister will no doubt be aware that the latest published increases show that for both pre-1975 and post-1975 buildings, the increase has been over 12 per cent as of April 30, 1988, which is two and a half times as high as the rate that she said would be the rate for tenants when she became the minister. In addition to the delay, tenants are getting shafted on the amount.

Mr. Speaker: Question?

Mr. B. Rae: Again, how can the minister justify that?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: One of the reasons there are so many applications in the system is that the system now covers all tenants in the province. Every single building in this province is covered. There are many tenants who are now offered the protection of rent review who under previous situations had no protection at all, had rent increases many more times than once a year and had rent increases that were not justified.

The increases we are facing deal with some of the realities of the costs of maintaining buildings. Tenants are now offered genuine protections which they did not have before. As a result of the work that we are doing in rent review, more than 500 landlords in this province have worked on the buildings that had outstanding work orders on them. In some cases those outstanding work orders were two years old. There are now tenants in the province whose homes have been fixed and brought up to quality as a result of the work of our rent review system.

Mr. Breaugh: How much of this colossal screwup is due to the ministry’s own instructions to people who are filling out forms? How much of the problem is caused by this kind of stuff:

“This information does not in any way constitute instructions by the Ministry of Housing for completion of a notice of rent increase in this situation. Neither does the ministry suggest this is the only approach which could be used.

“The Ministry of Housing cannot guarantee completion of a notice of rent increase in the foregoing manner will satisfy the requirements of

section 5 of the Residential Rent Regulation Act, 1986.

“A court of law might take the view a notice completed in this manner is vague or ambiguous, and on these grounds, declare it invalid. As a result, the tenant to whom the notice is issued would not be required to pay any amount of increase until a new notice without any vagueness or ambiguity is issued.”

It goes on for 18 more pages.

Mr. Speaker: Minister. The member asked a question right at the first of his comments.

Hon. Ms. Hošek: If the member opposite is asking me how much of what we are dealing with in rent review has to do with his style of reading prose, I really cannot answer that question. But I can tell him one of the issues we are dealing with is the fact we have legislation that was made in a unique way; it was made as a result of landlords and tenants getting together in order to come up with some answers of what they thought would work.

What is very important is that we are working actively with tenants to help them work through the process. One of the things tenants tell us when we work with them is that they very much appreciate the quality of the attention they are given by rent review officers, whose work I am very proud of. It is very important to say many more tenants are protected in this legislation than before. I recognize the difficulty for both tenants and landlords in dealing with complex legislation, and our ministry is committed to helping them do that effectively.

TRADE WITH UNITED STATES

Mr. Brandt: In the absence of the Premier (Mr. Peterson), I will direct my first question, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. It is with respect to the most recent discussions between his counterpart the federal Minister for International Trade and the Premier with regard to the free trade agreement.

It seems unusual to us on this side of the House that when the Premier is talking about the Meech Lake accord, he talks about the need for all of us looking at the accord in an open-minded way which will recognize the essence of the need for an accord that will in fact recognize the national interests, the interests right across this country and those particularly of the sensitive issue of Quebec.

The Premier knows that eight out of 10 provinces have already supported the free trade agreement. I would like to, if I might, just comment on a statement the Premier made --

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. Brandt: -- and I will get to the question very quickly. At the Liberal Party convention in Ottawa, the Premier was quoted as saying with respect to the federal government. “I see a government that wilfully brings in policies to pit region against region...for its own partisan political purposes.” I think this government stands accused of doing the selfsame thing as it relates to the free trade agreement. When eight out of 10 provinces in this country have agreed to that particular document, why does Ontario continue to stand alone with Prince Edward Island?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: The leader of the third party is trying to rationalize Meech Lake with the free trade agreement. They are two separate issues.

We have taken a look at the proposed bilateral trade agreement, and from Ontario’s perspective, we have found it wanting. We think it is a bad deal. We are not opposed to the concept of free trade. We are opposed to this deal. We think it is a bad deal, and that is why we have taken this stand.

Mr. Brandt: I might say that the same logic that applies to the Meech Lake accord certainly applies to the free trade agreement with respect to the need for a national consensus document that will reflect in fact what is best for this country as a whole. As the minister knows, there are many economists and academics who have taken the position that the free trade agreement will benefit Ontario very substantially.

In relation to the free trade agreement, there are many provincial governments that are concerned about the possibility of a provincial override and they see as the only reason an override may be necessary that Ontario has taken a position relative to the question of the wine pricing issue here in this province. Is Ontario prepared to give up that override, as it relates to the free trade agreement, in order to bring it into step with all the other provinces in this country?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: We are on the record. Our position is clear. We passed a resolution in this House on January 6, in which we stated, and we reiterate, that we will not introduce any legislation to implement any of the provisions in the free trade agreement.

Mr. Brandt: The government does not have to introduce legislation with respect to the override question. It has to give its consent to the federal government that it will not implement that portion of the jurisdictional distinction between the federal and the provincial governments. The Premier has said that history will judge those harshly who block the Meech Lake accord, and I tend to concur with that opinion. I tend to concur that there is a need for nation-building, a need for consensus-building in this country.

Mr. Speaker: The question?

Mr. Brandt: I say to the minister again, by way of question, why will his government not take the same position with respect to the free trade agreement as relates to the Meech Lake accord? Those two documents are the foundation upon which this nation will be built.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Minister.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I think the leader of the third party is stretching credulity in suggesting that Meech Lake and the free trade agreement are part and parcel of and are going to contribute to the nation-building of this country. We had a situation where we had 10 provinces and 10 premiers all in accord on Meech Lake --

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I am talking about at the time.

We have a situation where we had three provinces offside on free trade. We have many of the other premiers giving qualified consent, depending on what happens with the omnibus trade bill and depending on the very question that the honourable member raises as to whether or not provincial rights are going to be overridden.

Mr. Pope: My question is to the Premier. My leader has indicated his concern about the fact that the Premier appears to be pitting region against region in this country with respect to the free trade agreement, that Ontario is virtually standing alone in terms of active opposition to the free trade agreement and that for some reason he feels his sense of nationhood and nation-building does not include Ontario’s participation in this most serious economic and trade issue affecting all of Canada.

My question to the Premier is, what specifically -- and I think it is time for him to be specific, quite frankly; for a number of reasons, it is time for him to be specific -- is he doing to prevent or to assist in the implementation of the free trade agreement between now and January 1, 1989?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: To be very specific, we are not doing anything to assist in the implementation of the free trade agreement.

Mr. Pope: He very carefully avoided part of that question. I will repeat the question, since he obviously does not intend to clarify his position for the benefit of the economy or the working people of this province. What is the Premier doing to prevent or to assist in the implementation of the free trade agreement between now and January 1, 1989? What is he doing to prevent it or what is he doing to assist in its implementation?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I think my honourable friend the minister really answered his leader, who put the proposition perhaps a little more clearly than the member did. We do not think the federal government has made a good deal in the national interest. We are not alone in that view. The majority in Manitoba have that view, the Premier of Prince Edward Island has the same view, and there are many other Canadians across the country who have that view.

I recognize there are many Canadians across the country who have a different view than I do, and I respect their right to do so. That being said, we have the right in this province, as the government that has discussed this matter widely with people over a long period of time, to bring forward the policies that we believe in. We do not believe this deal is in the national interest. We do not believe we are under any obligation to bring in legislation that traditionally has lain in the provincial area. We do not believe that is a responsibility that we have under the trade agreement, and we will not do so.

Mr. Pope: The answer of the Premier is that he is doing nothing to prevent the implementation of the free trade agreement and nothing to assist in the implementation of the free trade agreement. In fact, other than hollow words during the election campaign, he is doing nothing at all on this issue. That is his sense of leadership on this important economic issue confronting Ontario and all of this country.

The Premier surely is aware that the governments of Quebec and other provinces are assisting farmers, the agricultural community and other economic interest groups in their provinces in implementation planning and processes leading up to January 1, 1989.

Ontario’s position is that it is going to leave the economic sectors of Ontario alone; they can go it alone. They will have no support from the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr. Kwinter). There will be no planning for the implementation of the marketing of Ontario products in the United States.

Mr. Speaker: Does the member have a question?

Mr. Pope: Why is the Premier leaving working men and women and industries and companies in this province alone, and at a competitive disadvantage to other working people across the country, by refusing to participate?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I want to say as kindly as I can to my honourable friend, that is nonsense of the worst order. This government is very sensitive to the competitive position of Ontario industry. Witness the last budget and the progressive measures brought forward by my colleague with respect to capital cost allowances, investment in science and technology and assisting to get engineering and technical people into small companies.

I say my honourable friend is completely wrong in his view, but if he is asking me to assist the captain of the Titanic in running into an iceberg, he could not honestly ask that of me. We will assist the captain of the Titanic to run around the iceberg, if he wants to take our advice in that regard.

I recognize the federal authority in this matter, but when we believe we are making a mistake of great proportions, then we have a responsibility to stand up as Canadians. I believe we have done that in the past and we will continue to do so.

When we see the implementation legislation in the next few days, then we will share our views on it; but I repeat, I do not believe we in Ontario are under any obligation to bring in legislation to implement a bad deal. If the federal government is going to wipe out industries with one stroke of the pen, I say to the member that is its responsibility, not ours.

Mr. B. Rae: I want to give the Premier an opportunity to do exactly what he says he wants to do, and that is to stand up for what he believes in. I have just sent over to the Premier a letter which he could sign, addressed to Senator Bentsen, which states categorically what the position of the Ontario government is; which not only states that Ontario is opposed to the agreement but also states, “We are also committed to passing legislation which clearly asserts provincial jurisdiction in the fields of energy, resource control, health and community services, and the sale and distribution of alcoholic beverages.”

If the Premier is really serious about what he is saying about his opposition to this deal, why not take the opportunity to signal clearly to all the world, and indeed to the American Senate, precisely just how far he and his government are prepared to go in order to defeat the free trade deal?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I do not want to ever claim to my honourable friend that we are ahead of him, but in fact we are. That has already been done. The resolution of this House, when we had a wide discussion, has already been conveyed to the ambassador through official sources.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: In the resolution of this House, it wasn’t clear.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The member may not take this House very seriously, but I do. I can tell my honourable friend that when you have so many, when you have a crushing majority of the members here, thoughtful members of the House like my friend opposite pronouncing on this issue, and we convey that officially through official channels to the ambassador, the administration and the Congress, I do not think you could send any clearer signals than we are sending at the moment.

Mr. B. Rae: I was here for that debate and the Liberal resolution was full of the worst kinds of sucker clauses and the worst kinds of weasel words. When we passed that resolution, its ambivalence was crucial. I would like to ask the Premier again --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. B. Rae: The letter which I am asking the Premier to send to Senator Bentsen is even clearer than the letter he wrote to Ambassador Niles because what it says, as opposed to what he said to Ambassador Niles, quite categorically, is that Ontario is going to do something: Ontario is going to pass legislation which asserts its provincial jurisdiction.

That would be different from what the Premier has said. It would be different from what he has said today, which is that he is not going to do anything. We are asking him to do something. If he is serious, why is he not prepared to do anything?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I just do not agree with my honourable colleague’s analysis, because I was here for that debate and I listened to a lot of thoughtful comments from a lot of our colleagues, as did others who are interested in this particular situation. The reality is the constitutional aspects of this, not a particular piece of legislation in this House. My honourable friend may take the view that we should introduce legislation just to be provocative and to promote some kind of a constitutional fight in that regard. That appears to be his view in that matter.

I think we have clearly conveyed that through a variety of sources, official and unofficial, through a great number of meetings. I have met with a large number of American officials in the last little while, the last being Governor Jim Thompson who was here particularly on that issue, and have conveyed messages back to the administration. We have done that very clearly and unequivocally. I suspect they understand our view, even if perhaps some members in this House do not.

RIVERSIDE HOSPITAL OF OTTAWA

Mr. Eves: I have a question of the Minister of Health. Riverside Hospital of Ottawa has been found by her own operational review to be a well-run and cost-efficient hospital. For reasons beyond its control, Touche Ross says that it had a deficit for the first time last year. The hospital is concerned that the only way it can eliminate its deficit is to close 40 beds and lay off 50 staff. Does she concur?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: The information that the member from the third party presents is inaccurate. In fact, the hospital had a deficit in 1982 and 1983 and was bailed out by some $220,000. In 1986 and 1987, it ran a $1.1-million deficit and in 1987-88 its projection is for a $2.95-million deficit. This is one of the hospitals under review. We are reviewing those and what we are determined to do is bring fairness into how we fund.

Where we find there are programs that we have approved that we have not adequately funded, we will be responding to those in discussions with the hospitals on an individual basis. However, where we find that there are unapproved programs which have been added without ministry approval, then we would be doing a disservice to the majority of the hospitals in this province that manage well with the resources that they are given.

Mr. Eves: I refer the minister to her own operational review done by consultants of her ministry’s choice, Touche Ross. I refer her to a letter from the chairperson of the hospital board which says, “We incurred our first ever operating deficit in 1987-88.” Somebody had better get their act together.

Does the minister agree? Is she in favour of closing beds and cutting staff at Riverside so it can eliminate its deficit? Yes or no? That is the question. That has been the question for three weeks. Can we have a straight answer?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I think it is very important that we are clear that the role of the minister is to ensure that we have a well-run, well-managed health care system in this province.

We do not run individual hospitals. We give them a budget and we expect them to live within those resources that they are given. They determine the mix of services. However, the ministry approves programs. If we find there are hospitals that have unapproved programs, I expect them to bring their programs in line with ministry approval. It is up to the hospital board and it is up to the administration to see that they do that.

The concept of a balanced budget is not a new or unusual concept

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. New question, the member for Mississauga West.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps the member for Sarnia (Mr. Brandt) and the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley) would --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We will just wait until they are finished.

ACCESS TO CHILDREN IN CUSTODY

Mr. Mahoney: My question is to the Attorney General. A constituent of mine has brought to my attention a very serious matter in relation to the custody and access issue. It seems that sole custody was awarded to the mother of two children, with access granted to the father on alternate weekends and one day a week. Subsequently, the father has been charged by police with child abuse against one of the children. There has been a preliminary hearing established to deal with the matter and, in the meantime, the access decision is being upheld. The mother is terrified of allowing the father to see either of the children. I do not think she is the only one in this position.

Can the Attorney General advise as to what a mother should do in this case, where there is an apparent threat to the children? Can she break the law and withhold access or is there some way that a special hearing can be established to determine whether the father should be allowed near the children prior to the hearing?

Hon. Mr. Scott: I would like to thank the honourable member for the question. I know he is concerned about this case and I am very grateful for the notice he has given to me so that I can respond to it.

This is, of course, a terrifying situation for a mother and I am certain all members of the House will share her anxiety and her concern facing these facts and the fact that a criminal charge has been taken in respect of an alleged assault by the father against the child.

In the circumstances, while I am not able to give legal advice, I am sure all honourable members understand that a mother would be most reluctant to grant further access in those circumstances. If she wants, as I believe she should have, legal advice and does not have a lawyer to confirm her own view about what is proper to do in the circumstances. I would be glad to put her in touch immediately with legal aid in her community.

Mr. Mahoney: She does have a lawyer. The problem seems to be that the access ruling cannot be challenged prior to the hearing date, and there is a substantial wait for that date. Given the fact that the rights of all the people -- the children, the mother and the father -- are protected in society. should there not be a way of expeditiously examining cases like this, particularly where the police have filed a charge, to determine if indeed there is fear of violence against the children so that we can deal with the issue before the fact rather than after some violence has been committed against these kids?

Hon. Mr. Scott: The answer to the second question the honourable member raises is that the law at present, as I understand it, does not require a mother to give access to a noncustodial parent if she has reasonable grounds for refusing to do so. I would have thought that the grounds the honourable member has referred to, if demonstrated, would be a reasonable excuse for the failure to provide access until the trial takes place. I believe a lawyer, her lawyer or a legal aid one, would confirm that is the position.

I cannot help drawing to the honourable member’s attention what he perhaps already knows, that we have introduced a bill in this House to deal with access, which will provide for an early remedy in the event that there is a dispute of this type as to the propriety of access.

Mr. Speaker: New question the member for Markham (Mr. Cousens) -- oh.

Mr. Cousens: I have a question for the Minister of Housing (Ms. Hošek).

Mr. Jackson: Come on, you recognized him.

Mr. Speaker: I appreciate that. However, the standing orders say we should rotate. The member for Hamilton West (Mr. Mackenzie).

LABOUR DISPUTE

Mr. Mackenzie: I have a question of the Minister of Labour. Can the Minister of Labour bring the House up to date on the lockout of the 740 members of Local 672, Energy and Chemical Workers Union at Dow Chemical in Sarnia?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I really do not have anything further to add on that dispute. If there is specific information that the member for Hamilton East wants, he could give me notice of it.

The parties, as I understand it, are not now meeting. There are no negotiations that I am aware of going on between the parties. He and I know that the strike has gone on a long time, but I certainly have not been given any indication that there is movement by either of the parties.

Mr. Mackenzie: Is the minister aware of the provocation by Midland Corp. USA, owners of Dow Chemical in Sarnia? Specifically, there are deliberate delays in the revamped grievance arbitration, which, as I have said before, probably would have resolved this issue; the use of scabs from Alberta and Quebec; the anti-union attitude of the plant manager from the United States, who is in on a soon-to-expire visa permit as it is; and the provocative use of surveillance cameras raised and lowered on construction booms whenever the busloads of scabs go in or whenever trucks go in or out, often empty, deliberately trying to provoke the workers in this situation.

They have had a very disciplined strike up until now, with all of these things going on. Does the minister support these tactics when the pickets are disciplined and restrained? What is he prepared to do about it?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I have had brought to my attention some of the allegations that the member for Hamilton East has raised and, indeed, others. The question that arises out of some of the allegations he makes in this House would really more appropriately be addressed at the Ontario Labour Relations Board, together with the question of whether the corporation in this case is or is not bargaining in good faith or is or is not conducting itself during the course of this strike with a view to doing injury to the union.

I have heard the same allegations he has heard. I am not one bit happy that this strike has gone on so long. I cannot identify any means within my own area of responsibility to assist the parties more than I have. We have provided, obviously, conciliation. We have provided extensive mediation. Our mediators took some unusual steps when we thought the parties were close to a resolution. That did not work. We are ready, willing and able to bring the parties together whenever we can.

As I said to him, I certainly am not happy about it and I am certainly concerned about some of the things I have been hearing, but I regret to say that I cannot see a solution within the purview of my responsibility. It may well be that the union wants to take the matter before the Ontario Labour Relations Board, but that would be a decision it would have to make itself.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Mr. Cousens: I have a question for the Minister of Housing. The minister has declared that it is her mandate to provide affordable housing in Ontario. That is going to be her hallmark. Home builders, home buyers would all like to know what an affordable house is. I am not talking about rental homes: an affordable purchased dwelling. What is the minister’s definition of an affordable house and what method does her ministry use to arrive at that definition?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: It is indeed the commitment of this ministry to help all the other people who can make a difference here, including doing the work ourselves, to make it possible for people of low and moderate incomes to afford housing in this province. We would define affordable housing as housing that is available to people of low and moderate incomes all over the province. There are different income levels that constitute low and moderate incomes in different parts of the province.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I certainly am fully informed on the bill that the member is talking about and I share the concern he has about that whole circumstance. Coincidentally, while that bill came forward, presented by the member, we had been studying the animals that are native to Ontario as an initiative by my ministry.

I accept the fact that the member added that other dimension. I have now asked the ministry to go a little further and talk about any wild animals in captivity, regardless of whether they are native to Ontario or come from other areas.

Yes, it is in the works. I suspect the member read that I accused him, just a little, of taking a page from my book. But I also read the comment he made that he was fully willing to share with my ministry and myself his bill if I was prepared to go forward with it. I certainly am examining it. I do not know to what degree I can treat the element as far as animals that are not native to Ontario are concerned.

Mr. Philip: This bill deals precisely with many animals that are not native to Ontario, and that is the issue.

Surely the minister will agree that there is overwhelming evidence that some of the present private zoos are a danger, a health threat to the population that visits them, a physical danger to some of the population that visits them, and that the animals are kept in a way that is completely inappropriate and inhumane to those animals.

When are we to expect some legislation that will deal with this problem in Ontario? We are facing the summer now when people are going to be entering those zoos. What is the minister going to do about it?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I reiterate that while I was examining the animals that were native and indigenous to Ontario, and the honourable member brought forward his concerns about the others, it really pointed up the fact that I could not very well make decisions about the keeping of animals here if in the same area there might be animals that were not native to the province being treated in a different way.

It has added a dimension I am looking at. I cannot give the member a feeling about when, but certainly we are working at it in the ministry. I will be able to share information with him as soon as we are ready to put something forward in legislation.

FARM TAX REBATE

Mr. Wiseman: I have a question for the Minister of Revenue. About a year ago, we heard of the changes to the farm tax rebate. I would like to share with the House and the minister where I think it is not working properly.

In the township of Admaston, there is a farmer who purchased a piece of land adjacent to his farm, because it is hard to get farm severances now, for his son to come back and help him farm in that area. It was a residence, and he just transferred it from a rural residence to a farm residence. The factor used as a rural residence was 6.66. When it was transferred to a farm residence, it went to 11.99. We all know that is doubling the tax.

Has the minister had similar cases brought to his attention, and if he has not, will he check into this and other cases that are going on throughout Lanark and Renfrew to make sure this injustice is not done to our farmers?

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: This is the first time I have heard about this and this particular case. If the honourable member would write to me, I will certainly look into it. I can assure the member that we are continually looking at improving these programs and I would certainly welcome his suggestions.

Mr. Wiseman: I thought too that this was just an isolated case until I checked with the assessment office in Lanark, Leeds and Grenville and with the Pembroke office, which I am sure the member for Renfrew North (Mr. Conway) would be interested in. I found that all of the farm residents are paying at a higher factor than the rural people living in a house out in the rural community. They range all the way from 50 per cent more to as high as 100 per cent more.

Again, I feel our farmers felt, when they went into this -- and the Ontario Federation of Agriculture supported it, I understand; and the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Riddell) will agree -- that they were going to be treated fairly in this matter.

Mr. Speaker: Does the member have a supplementary question?

Mr. Wiseman: I would like to see them treated the same as any other rural residents.

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: I would like to see everybody in Ontario treated fairly, and I am sure the Minister of Agriculture and Food and myself will look into this. But I find it very surprising: if the member says this is not an isolated ease, why did his constituents or others not appeal their assessment? I find it very strange, but if the member will write to me I will certainly look into it and I will share his concern with the Ministry of Agriculture and Food.

CORRECTIONAL SERVICES STAFF POSITIONS

Mr. Campbell: My question is for the Minister of Correctional Services. In light of the change of the Cecil Eacer facility from the Ministry of Community and Social Services to the Ministry of Correctional Services, could the minister comment on any proposed changes in manpower requirements in that facility?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I am aware of that transfer to our ministry and I am going to ensure that those jobs -- and some of the positions have to change in their status from correctional officer 2 to correctional officer 3 -- are in transition as equitably as possible. We will try to make sure that people’s lives and careers are disrupted to the very least.

HERITAGE LANGUAGES

Mr. R. F. Johnston: My question is for the Minister of Education. I thank him for staying. I thought I was going to hit two for two here and miss him in the same way as I missed the Premier (Mr. Peterson) last week.

I have a question for him stemming from the past Minister of Education’s Proposal for Action: Ontario’s Heritage Languages Program, which he introduced here on June 8, 1987, a proposal for action by the Liberal government. Can the minister explain to me why it has become a blueprint for inaction by him as minister?

Hon. Mr. Ward: The proposal for action was submitted to school boards throughout Ontario. Comment was invited from many interested parties. Over the course of the past several months, we have received numerous briefs and presentations. The cutoff date for those submissions was earlier this spring. We expect to be coming forward to the Legislature with a response to that input, hopefully in the near future.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: This is strange to hear. As far as I know, the cutoff for responses was September 1987 and this report to his ministry, an analysis of the public responses, was submitted by mid-December 1987. The minister has had it for six months now, and we have still heard nothing from him. When are we going to get his response to these responses or his positive assertion of the initiatives that the member for Renfrew North was suggesting, or his negation of them? Which is it going to be?

Hon. Mr. Ward: I just want to indicate to the member that the response to the document was indeed overwhelming. We did extend the time for submissions. The member is wrong if he thinks it was just a couple of petitions. We had numerous letters and presentations and we will be responding to that input, hopefully before the end of this session.

HOSPITAL FUNDING

Mr. McLean: My question is directed to the Minister of Health. It concerns the future development of the Orillia Soldiers’ Memorial Hospital.

The minister’s officials received a report last December from the hospital’s board of directors which recommended building a second campus for acute care while existing facilities should be used for long-term care. Ministry officials told the hospital board that the minister would have a decision on the hospital’s future development by the end of March at the very latest. Can the minister tell this Legislature whether she approves of building a second campus in Orillia?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: As the member is aware, we have announced an unprecedented capital program of some $850 million. We are proceeding with that program and plan as we continue to review the capital needs of many communities around the province. I will be pleased to look into the specific situation the member has brought to my attention.

Mr. McLean: I thought the minister would be aware of the situation. There is a very large fund-raising program going on at the present time. They have raised approximately $3 million. They have been in hopes of this announcement coming so they can put more emphasis on their fund raising. What we want to know is if the minister will approve of a new facility for Orillia?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: As I mentioned to the member and to others in the Legislature who have brought to my attention the many projects which are at varying stages of discussion within communities, it is my goal to make sure we have a capital plan which respects the need to ensure that we have fiscal responsibility and that we review the operating implications of those decisions. In due course we will be reviewing all of those which are taking place in communities at the time, and I would be pleased to look into the specific request of the member.

TIMBER CUTTING PRACTICES

Mr. Pouliot: My question is to the Minister of Natural Resources. The minister will be only too aware that some contractors and some cutting companies are cutting very near to roads in northern Ontario and are also bypassing the former philosophy of his ministry regarding cutting close to lakes. The minister might also be aware that to allow such practice detracts greatly from the natural scenic beauty, especially up north. Why did the minister change policy regarding cutting allowances?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I do not quite know how to address the question, except to say I was not aware that this was happening. I am very willing to suggest that if it is happening, I certainly do not concur with that kind of practice. We are, in fact, entering an age of real responsibility towards forestry practices and --

An hon. member: Not like before.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: Exactly as my member has said, “not like before.” We seriously are going to answer all those questions. I feel that when a member brings forward that kind of question, it is within the area of sharing with me his concerns and I am very willing to look into it. I certainly do not approve of that. I think the practices in and around Lady Evelyn-Smoothwater Provincial Park, for instance, outside the park, maintained the skyline to a degree I think was very acceptable. I would share my concern with the member and be very willing to look into it.

Mr. Pouliot: We are not suggesting the minister establish a park to monitor compliance. I have a good deal of difficulty believing him when he says he is not aware. Somewhere down the line, people in his ministry have to tell him of more and more cases almost on a daily basis, a lot of people pass this information along by word of mouth.

What I am asking the minister is if he is going to get specific so he can monitor compliance with the small jobbers, people somewhat larger and the cutting companies of northern Ontario, so we can keep attracting tourism in our special part of Ontario and look forward to what we had in yesteryear, which his inefficiency, I might add, has perhaps helped destroy.

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

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: What I would say to the honourable member is that if there is any good reason in a specific area it is one thing, but to digress from what is policy is something I am not prepared to accept. I am very anxious and willing to look into it and share any of the information with the honourable member.

RIVERSIDE HOSPITAL OF OTTAWA

Mr. Sterling: I have a question for the Minister of Health. Earlier today, she said the Riverside Hospital of Ottawa operated with deficits in several years. I refer her to exhibit 1 of the Touche Ross report, which shows 1981-82, a surplus of $252,000: 1982-83, a surplus of $979,000; 1983-84, a surplus of $1,065,000; 1984-85, a surplus of $1,087,000; a surplus in 1985-86 of $231,000: a surplus in 1986-87 of --

Mr. Speaker: Question?

Mr. Sterling: If the minister claims that these are not correct figures, will she tell us exactly which ones she takes in dispute and will she also tell us what programs that have not been approved by her ministry have been undertaken?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: There are a number of hospitals in the Ottawa area that have Quebec residents coming to use those facilities. That Quebec revenue is not considered when the ministry does its allocation. One of the things we look at which is very important is making sure the fluctuations in that revenue do not have an impact on the hospital. We have begun to address that. That hospital has had repeated deficits and was identified as one under review. Because of the nature of the process, we have had the review undertaken.

Mr. Harris: Well, what the hell. It says here there are no deficits. She said “deficits.” That was a bald-faced lie. She stood up there in her place and said they had deficits and now they don’t. The consultant says there wasn’t.

Interjection.

Mr. Harris: Oh, don’t be so silly. Tell her to tell the truth when she stands up there and answers a question.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Would the member for Nipissing withdraw? Yes?

Mr. Harris: Yes, I will do so, Mr. Speaker, if you have problems with anything I said.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you, I do.

That completes the time for oral questions.

PETITIONS

TAX INCREASES

Mrs. Marland: I have a petition signed by 3,020 irate taxpayers in Ontario which reads as follows:

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

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

“Bob Nixon, you’ve gone too far.”

I lend my signature to this petition.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. Campbell: I have two petitions, one from St. Stanislaus Church in Copper Cliff with 99 signatures and one from the Catholic Women’s League of Holy Redeemer Church with 55 signatures, regarding the Retail Business Holidays Act.

Mr. Villeneuve: I have a petition signed by 78 members from the First Christian Reformed Church in Kemptville. It reads as follows:

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

“We, the undersigned, urge the Ontario Legislature not to pass legislation that would pass responsibility for regulating Sunday and holiday retail hours to the municipalities in Ontario. Rather, the Ontario government should revise its current legislation in order to uphold more strongly a common day of pause across the province. We believe that a common day for family and worship activities is essential to the wellbeing of Ontario.”

I fully agree, and I have signed this petition.

Mr. Epp: I have a petition addressed to the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario. It says:

“We, the undersigned, urge the Ontario Legislature not to pass legislation that would pass responsibility for regulating Sunday and holiday retail hours to the municipalities in Ontario. Rather, the Ontario government should revise its current legislation in order to uphold more strongly a common pause day across the province. We believe that a common day for family and worship activities is essential to the wellbeing of Ontario.”

That has been signed by 28 citizens from my riding.

TAX INCREASES

Mr. Cousens: I have a petition signed by over 3,000 constituents and irate taxpayers in Ontario, which reads as follows:

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

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

“Bob Nixon, you’ve gone too far.”

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. Henderson: This is a petition to the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly:

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

“Whereas we strongly oppose Sunday openings and

whereas we are concerned about having to work on Sundays, we believe that the Ontario government must act to maintain Sunday as a common pause day.”

This is signed by 37 residents of Etobicoke and by me.

NATUROPATHY

Miss Martel: I have a petition signed by 50 residents of the region of Sudbury who request that the naturopaths of Ontario be guaranteed, through

an act in the Legislature of the province of Ontario, their right to practise their art and science to the fullest without prejudice or harassment. I have signed my name to this, and I agree with them.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. Cousens: I have a petition signed by 39 persons belonging to the Community Christian Reform Church of Richmond Hill. As a cabinet minister, the Minister of Labour and member for York Centre (Mr. Sorbara) is not able to present this, so I am pleased to do it on behalf of the people of Richmond Hill.

“To the Lieutenant Governor:

“We, the undersigned, urge the Ontario Legislature not to pass legislation that would pass responsibility for regulating Sunday and holiday retail hours to the municipalities in Ontario. Rather, the Ontario government should revise its current legislation in order to uphold more strongly a common pause day across the province. We believe that a common day for family and worship activities is essential to the wellbeing of Ontario.”

It is so signed.

1987 CONSTITUTIONAL ACCORD

Mr. Velshi: I have a petition signed by about 99 people, Voice of Women, against the Meech Lake accord.

“To the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly:

“We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the Legislative Assembly as follows:

“Canadians must ensure that women’s equality rights are clearly written and well protected in our Constitution.

“The risks we see in the proposed Meech Lake accord should and must be removed before ratification. For women, any risk is too much risk.

“We reject any proposal for companion resolutions to ‘fix it up later,’ because we cannot trust all provinces not to exercise veto.

“The accord must be revised to read that nothing in it will abrogate or derogate from any of the rights and freedoms guaranteed in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.”

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. Hampton: I have a petition from some 20 residents of the community of Ignace, who state:

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

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

“We are opposed to open Sunday shopping and want to retain a common pause day in Ontario.”

I have affixed my signature to this petition, and I must say I agree with the petition.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

Mrs. LeBourdais from the standing committee on social development presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bill as amended:

Bill 125,

An Act to amend the Education Act and certain other Acts related to Education.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for third reading.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

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

Your committee begs to report the following bills without amendment:

Bill Pr2,

An Act to revive Big Cedar Association;

Bill Pr11,

An Act to revive LFP Management Limited;

Bill Pr28,

An Act to revive Mid-Continent Bond Corporation, Limited;

Bill Pr48,

An Act respecting the Town of Oakville.

Your committee begs to report the following bills as amended:

Bill Pr19,

An Act respecting the City of Sudbury;

Bill Pr31,

An Act respecting the City of North York.

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

MUNICIPAL PRIVATE ACTS REPEAL ACT

Hon. Mr. Eakins moved first reading of Bill 134,

An Act to repeal certain Private Acts related to Municipalities.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Eakins: The purpose of this legislation is to repeal approximately 300 obsolete municipal private acts at the request of the affected municipal councils. The Legislature enacted a similar bill in 1983.

ROAD ACCESS AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Eakins moved first reading of Bill 135,

An Act to amend the Road Access Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Eakins: The purpose of this legislation is to resolve a difficulty created by a recent decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal. That decision has reduced the effectiveness of the act and it is essential that it be amended to address the issue.

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BILLS ACT

Mr. Henderson moved first reading of Bill 136,

An Act respecting Private Members’ Public Bills.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Henderson: The purpose of this bill is to provide democratic procedures for the introduction and consideration of private members’ public bills. The standing committee on private members’ public bills is established. Following the first reading of a private member’s public bill, the committee determines whether the bill merits debate using criteria stated in the act and determines the order in which bills are to be debated in the assembly.

Two weekly sessions of the Legislative Assembly are set aside for consideration of private members’ public bills. Time limits on debate and on the amount of time a member may speak on a bill are set out.

Private members’ public bills are referred to an appropriate standing committee of the Legislative Assembly following second reading. Guidelines are established for determining the order in which standing committees may consider matters referred to them and to encourage committees to deal promptly with private members’ public bills.

Third reading of a private member’s public bill and scheduling for royal assent to the bill occur within a specified period of time.

The

short title of this bill is the Private Members’ Public Bills Act, 1988.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Eakins moved third reading of Bill 130,

An Act to amend the Regional Municipality of Waterloo Act and the Education Act.

Mr. Epp: I just wanted to say that, unfortunately, I was not able to be here yesterday when the bill went through second reading, but I wholeheartedly endorse it. The member municipalities of Waterloo region are very keen on having this particular piece of legislation endorsed by the Legislature, and I am glad to see it go through third reading today.

Motion agreed to.

NORTHERN ONTARIO HERITAGE FUND ACT (CONTINUED) /

LOI SUR LE FONDS PATRIMONIAL DU NORD L’ONTARIO (SUITE)

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 116,

An Act respecting the Northern Ontario Heritage Fund.

Suite du débat ajourné sur la motion de deuxième lecture du projet de loi 116, Loi concernant le Fonds patrimonial du Nord de l’Ontario.

Mr. Speaker: I believe the member for Nipissing (Mr. Harris) adjourned the debate. Are there any other members who wish to participate in the debate?

Miss Martel: It is a pleasure for me to participate in this debate, and I follow two of my colleagues who have spoken very eloquently on this, yesterday in particular.

I must begin by saying that, in principle alone, I did have a thought that I would probably support this bill, because certainly everyone in this House should be aware that the idea of a heritage fund, in particular a heritage fund for the north, is not a new idea, nor is it a Liberal idea and, really, nor is it a Conservative idea. In fact, the idea of a heritage fund, a fund particularly for northern Ontario, for single-industry towns and resource towns, was first put forward by my predecessor as far back as 1977.

That was during the time of the debate on the creation of the Ministry of Northern Affairs. At that time my predecessor moved in committee,

“That the ministry establish a fund, the northern Ontario tomorrow fund, to consist of moneys derived from natural resources taxation or an assessment on the value of all nonrenewable resources extracted in northern Ontario which will be used to guarantee future economic activities.”

It was a good idea at that time, and it is too bad the Conservative Party or the Liberal Party at the time did not see fit to implement that recommendation, along with a number of other recommendations that the New Democratic members on that committee put forward to try to beef up that ministry and beef up some of its responsibilities.

But neither party saw fit to do that, and so we went on for several more years and we continued to advocate the need for such a fund. In November 1986, the former member for Port Arthur, Mr. Foulds, moved again the idea of this northern Ontario fund. He said, “The moneys to establish the fund would come from a consolidation of existing northern development funds and programs and, in addition, through an earmarked percentage of provincial revenue from resource-industry taxation.”

I must say it has been well documented in this House that it has been members on this side of the House, in particular in the New Democratic Party, who have always supported the principle of this bill in terms of the need for such a fund and have pushed for the creation of such a fund for many years now.

So I thought seriously of supporting the bill on that alone, on the principle that it was needed, on the principle that it was a good idea and that, in fact, it was our idea. But when we got into looking at the specifics of the bill -- and there is not very much to look at; I must say that with regret and I think the minister should say that with a great deal of shame -- we found there is not very much here.

There is not very much here that sets down in stone the commitment of this government to this fund in northern Ontario. Its commitment to ensure that the representation on that council will adequately represent all groups in northern Ontario -- women, native groups, small and large businesses, unions, etc. -- is not set in stone as to how the mechanism will be established and by what ways and means the committee that is established is going to earmark the funds for different projects across the north.

Our concern then is, if those kinds of things are not set in stone, how do we have any control over where that money goes and what project it goes into, to ensure that the money does not sit unspent year after year to collect interest? Our concern is that indeed there is some specific mechanism put in place whereby projects that are adequate will be funded and the money will be out in the hands of people in northern Ontario, which they desperately need for economic development.

We have a great deal of problems with this bill and the way it is presented. We are not sure whether this government is going to be willing to accept some of our amendments, but I certainly hope it will, because what our amendments will do is strengthen this bill; they will ensure for people in northern Ontario that they are represented by northerners on this council, and there is a specific mechanism that will be in place to ensure that the money is spent and spent wisely.

I will not be supporting this bill. It has several problems. In fact, I would say it is a sham, but I do not want to go that far yet. I will get to it, though; I assure the minister that I will.

Let me tell members about some of the problems I have with this bill, the problems that are not addressed in this bill, this flimsy piece of paper, that the minister should look seriously at resolving by accepting the amendments that my colleague the member for Lake Nipigon (Mr. Pouliot) will put forward in this House.

The first problem I have goes back to the composition of the board. In

section 3 of the act it states the affairs of the Northern Ontario Heritage Fund Corp. “shall be administered by a board of directors consisting of not fewer than 12 persons.” In subsection 3(2): “The minister shall be a director and shall chair the board of directors.”

I must say I am a little concerned about that. I am a little concerned that we have no sense of how many directors there will be. We know it is not less than 12; it could be 50, for all we know. I am concerned that there are no guarantees of where those people will come from, from what sectors, from what parts of industry. Where will they come from in northern Ontario? Will they represent all of those groups that have a stake in northern Ontario and that have been waiting for a long time for this type of fund?

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: Don’t worry.

Miss Martel: The minister says, “Don’t worry,” but I worry when there is no mechanism set out. I worry that it will become a slush fund for those guys and that is all we will see of it, and it will never go to projects that we need in the north.

I say to the minister that we are going to move an amendment that states that the people who sit on this board are going to come from women’s groups, from native groups, from small and large corporations, from trade unions and from small and large entrepreneurs. We want that set in this legislation to ensure that we are going to get the best people and the qualified people so that they are going to be responsible and accountable for the decisions they make and we in northern Ontario can be assured that money is going to be spent properly and wisely.

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: Read the statement. It’s all there.

The Acting Speaker (Miss Roberts): Order.

Miss Martel: I say to the Minister of Northern Development, if it is anything like the federal program, where there are Tories all over it except for one union person, we are going to have some problems. That is why we want to be sure that all sectors of northern Ontario are represented. This bill does not do that.

Mr. Pouliot: On a point of order, Madam Speaker: With the highest of respect, my distinguished colleague the member for Nickel Belt is conveying to the House matters of great wisdom. Under standing order 24(b), the minister seems to be out of control.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: Sudbury East, not Nickel Belt.

Mr. Harris: On the same point of order, Madam Speaker: I want to support what the honourable member said. I think the amount of interruptions, interjections and abuse is beyond what is normal. The odd interjection is fair game, but to be continually nattering away while the member is making her points, I think, shows disrespect for this chamber.

The Acting Speaker: I remind all members that under standing order 24(

b) they must allow the person who has the floor to continue. I remind the honourable minister that he will have a chance to engage the debate after the member for Sudbury East has completed. I also remind the members of the opposition and of the third party not to participate in that fray. They will have a chance to engage the debate as well.

Miss Martel: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I did not think it was going to get this interesting. I see we are going to have an interesting afternoon.

That is the first problem I see, that the bill in the sections presented does nothing to ensure that the kind of people who are best qualified and should be representing the north are indeed going to be represented. That is why my colleague the member for Lake Nipigon will move an amendment specifically to address this concern, and we hope the government members here are going to be able to support that.

Second, I have some very definite problems concerning the question of where the money is going to come from year after year to support this fund. The bill points out, in subsection 6(2), “The minister, out of moneys appropriated therefor by the Legislature, may make grants to the corporation for deposit in the fund.”

I am extremely concerned about that, that the money seems to be coming out of general funds to be put into a fund specifically for northern Ontario. We had hoped the government would take up our advice, which has been put forward by former members in this Legislature, that the money for such a fund should come from resource taxation, from taxation of those mining companies and those forestry companies that have operated for years in northern Ontario and have never put very much back into northern Ontario.

It has been our belief from the beginning that to ensure an adequate fund of money will be available for this year after year after year, money had to come from resource taxation and it had to be guaranteed to come from there, because it is our fear that if it comes from general revenue, we will see a diminishment of that fund; in poor economic times, we are not going to see the $30 million and in fact, that money will start to diminish year after year as the change in economic times in Ontario proceeds. So we say, and my colleague the member for Lake Nipigon will move this amendment, that a portion of the money to the fund has to come from resource taxation.

If you look at what has happened in Ontario already, the money that came from the tax on softwood lumber, some $34 million as of March 1988, none of which was earmarked to come back to northern Ontario, could have sufficed for a fund for 1987 into 1988. The money is there, and to ensure that the money which goes out of the north comes back in, we say that money has to come from resource taxation. I do not think it is unreasonable. We have advocated it for years, and I hope the members on the government side can see the sense of our logic.

We are concerned that if it comes from general funds, it will not be guaranteed and that indeed the sums can be diminished. If we draw from resource taxation -- and the money is there; we have seen evidence of that concerning the tax on softwood lumber -- we can be guaranteed in the north that the sum of money will be constant and will be there to he spent year after year.

Third, a major problem -- and probably the biggest problem I have with this -- is the amount of money the government has allocated: $30 million a year for 12 years, a sum of $360 million of “new” money, as the minister likes to say, and I will get back to the question of new money later on. We on this side of the House have never felt that $30 million one fiscal year after another will ever be adequate for economic development in the north.

Let me go back to just two projects this government has funded in the last two years in this province. One is a $30-million loan to one project in southern Ontario, the domed stadium -- $30 million granted by this government to one single project in the city of Toronto, and they expect us to believe that $30 million is adequate in one year for development across northern Ontario? It is just ridiculous. I cannot believe the government can come forward and talk about the great sums of money it is going to be investing when in one year the same amount of money was put into one project in southern Ontario.

I will give a second example. The same year, a sum of $50 million in loans and grants was put into one project in southern Ontario, a car plant -- $50 million to one single project. Yet this government comes forward and tells us that $30 million in one single year is going to promote economic development. That is if we spend it all; but the minister was in here talking yesterday about how we can save it and the savings can accrue and we can gain interest. I am saying to him that I hope to God we are spending all of the money.

It is not very much in the first place, so we had better be out there and spending it, because certainly it is needed and the projects are in place for it to be utilized.

I go back to what we said during the election campaign, which I agree with today, that to ensure adequate development in the short term -- because you cannot be dragging this out for 15 years; you cannot be dragging out projects and trying to assign to them paltry sums every year in order to gain completion of a particular project -- you have to have a substantial amount of money in the short term, immediately, to boost the kind of development that is required in the north and that can be promoted in the north because the projects are in place.

That is why we in this party said during the election campaign that a sum of $500 million over three years was what was required in order to give a boost to northern Ontario and to ensure that the type of projects that people have and municipalities have are going to have substantial amounts of money and enough money to put them in place; not to drag them out year after year and allocate a couple more million so they can get another portion of their project completed, so at the end of 12 years we might have had five or six projects done across the north.

In the first three years, to ensure it is when the government is still in power, a substantial amount of money, a sum that is needed, should be there and be guaranteed and be put into place so that northerners could draw from that pool and begin serious economic development, not little projects that are not going anywhere because they do not have enough funding in one year to be completed, but substantial projects that could be finished over the initial period of three or four years because they had enough money to be completed.

We have a great deal of difficulty in believing that this kind of money, $30 million one year, $30 million the next, is going to go very far in completing any substantial projects in northern Ontario. I say to the minister that he should recognize that, that he should look at some of the projects that have been offered and see that the amounts of money that are required are much more substantial and that the response of $30 million a year does not respond to that at all in any way, shape or form.

I say it is unfortunate that this government did not see fit to put in place a larger pool of money, a pool of money much along the lines we had suggested during the election campaign, to ensure that development could begin and be sustained, and that it could fund a large number of projects that are required and could be put into place across northern Ontario.

Fourth, there is the problem of this fund that it may or may not be used to top up other development projects in northern Ontario. I take it, although I was not here for the debate yesterday, there was some question of whether or not this fund is to be used to top up other projects. I take it there was a withdrawal of that, an initial agreement and a withdrawal.

In any event, the member for Algoma-Manitoulin (Mr. Brown) is right. When the minister stood up in this House on April 21, 1988, and made his statement to the Legislature concerning the introduction of the Northern Ontario Heritage Fund Act, he said:

“As some of my colleagues will be aware, the ministry’s highly regarded northern Ontario regional development program, which was slated to expire two years ago, was able to continue with a commitment from the northern development fund.

“The goals of the Nordev program closely reflect one of the major aims of the northern Ontario heritage fund: to provide incentive funding to create jobs and start or expand small businesses in the north. Therefore, a portion of the fund will be used to support continuing private sector initiatives under the Nordev program.

The member was absolutely right. That is exactly what it is going to do, at least in this fiscal year.

I am under the impression that it is $5 million, although I stand to be corrected, that will move from this year’s allocation of $30 million to the fund into the Nordev program to ensure that the Nordev program will continue, so that the Liberals will have that program to talk about as well.

It was my sense from the budget of 1986, when I looked back and read that budget, that the heritage fund was to be an independent fund, a separate fund from all the other projects that were going on in northern Ontario, and that the money would not be siphoned off to boost or uphold or maintain other projects in northern Ontario.

I go back to the budget of 1986 and to the statement made by the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) at that time. He said:

“For decades, many northerners have believed that a larger share of revenue derived from their resource heritage should flow back into the region.

“We are establishing a northern Ontario heritage fund to help ensure long-term economic growth and diversification in the region. The fund will have an initial allocation of $30 million.

“The heritage fund will operate under the guidance of the Minister of Northern Development and Mines. He will be assisted in his decisions by a heritage fund advisory council.”

Our sense of that was quite specific. The fund was not to be used to maintain other funds or programs in existence across northern Ontario. It was to be a new, independent fund, with guaranteed money over a set period of years -- in the case of this bill, 12 years.

So I was quite surprised -- and I must say I was more shocked than anything else -- to see that already in this fiscal year, once that money is allocated, $5 million of that money, or several million dollars of that money, will be siphoned off to maintain the northern Ontario regional development program.

I have to say that the member was absolutely right. We have already seen an example of it in this fiscal year. What is going to happen next year: $5 million or $10 million to Nordev, $6 million, $8 million? Who knows? Year after year, what other programs are the Liberals going to find in northern Ontario that they have to boost up? They can draw from the heritage fund of supposedly $30 million, which is already down to $25 million this year, and support every other project that is going on in the north.

I have to say that if they are going to do something, they should do it right and not lead the people of northern Ontario to believe that this is new money, which is what the minister said in this House. He said it was new money, a fund unto itself. It is not; it is going to be used to top up other programs.

The problem is that we on this side have no idea what that is going to mean in dollars and cents over the next 12 years. In all likelihood, we could have at the end of it a very small portion of the actual $30 million not being siphoned off for other projects. The problem that comes with this is that you have no guarantee then that the money is being used for economic development. It could be used for studies going on under the Nordev program or studies going on under other programs in northern Ontario to look at resource industries or where other projects can be developed.

That is not a bad thing, but the government should not lead the people of northern Ontario to believe that this $30 million is a new set of money, independent, that is not going to be tapped or stolen from for other projects in order to keep other projects going. The government should not do that to the people. It should be honest. Why do the Liberals not tell us all? We have no sense, and neither does the government, of how much money is going to be drawn away every year to fund everything else going on.

We have some real difficulties with that, because the original intent of the members on this side, when they proposed such an idea, was that the fund would be independent and would be directed solely to single-industry towns at that point. I am not saying we do not support that; we have broadened those ideas as well. But at that point the fund would be independent and it would not be used to fund every other project.

If you go back to Jim Foulds’s resolution, you will see that even what he proposed, the government has not done: to take all the projects in operation in northern Ontario, put them into one ministry and into one committee’s hands and ensure that the money was in a single pool and could be drawn from. But the government did not do that.

What the government has done is to set up something that is quasi-independent, that is funding everything else on earth, and we do not know what else it is going to fund, so we have no idea how much of that $30 million we are actually going to get year after year. Not to mention the fact that the $30 million, after 12 years, with a five per cent inflation rate, is going to be worth about $16.7 million. I just thought I would throw that in for the minister. It is too bad he is not here.

Finally, I want to say to the minister that I am extremely disturbed at the way this whole process has operated since the Liberal government announced in its 1987 budget that there would be a heritage fund in northern Ontario. What we saw was a dilly-dallying around by this government for almost a year before some implementing legislation was finally introduced in this House.

I am glad he is coming back.

I worry, though, that the government used this announcement again and again and again. It was announced over a year ago in the budget in May. All of us who went through the election heard it again and again, about the great Liberal commitment and the heritage fund. We all heard it again when we came back, when this House resumed, in the throne speech of November 1987.

A year later, we finally get a look at some type of legislation relevant to this fund we were promised over a year ago, which the Liberals have had a heyday about all over northern Ontario, repeating and repeating and reintroducing again and again.

As a consequence, I was extremely angry to read in the Timmins paper last weekend the minister addressing the Federation of Northern Ontario Municipalities. The minister said to those good people who were gathered there that this program is a lengthy process and certain procedures have to be followed. He said. “The opposition won’t agree, and people are talking about how long it is taking, but they should know how long government takes.”

Then he went on to say that the current delay is because of the stalling tactics of the opposition. “‘For the last three days, I have been waiting to put the fund in place,’ the minister said, ‘and the NDP have been ringing the bells in the House.’”

I want to say to the minister that he is a year too late. It is a little more than dishonest for him to get up and tell the good people of northern Ontario that we in the opposition for the last three days have been holding up this fund which his government has seen fit to hold up for over a year. I was absolutely amazed.

The Acting Speaker: Order. I would remind the member to be very careful with her language. I know this is a heated concern with respect to her, but --

Mr. Mackenzie: I have not heard anything she said that would be a challenge to the rules of the House.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Sudbury East, please continue.

Miss Martel: I repeat that I was sincerely amazed that the minister could get up and tell the people this, when he knows full well his government has been fooling around with this for over a year in an attempt to announce and reannounce and gain as much support as it could across the north for its Liberal candidates. Those guys are the ones at fault for the delay. Do not blame us for wanting to have a sincere debate on health care, which is also a major problem in the north. The government turns around and blames us that this fund is not in place.

I was absolutely amazed, and I think it was extremely improper, if I may say, Madam Speaker, for the minister even to suggest this type of thing to the good folks in northern Ontario.

Maybe the minister should remind them once again that it is also his Treasurer who announced $30 million for 1987. It is his Treasurer who did not see fit to announce $60 million in 1988, considering now we have lost the $30 million from last year. That is because that minister and his government did not get their act together to get this bill in place and the money out to the people in northern Ontario.

I think the minister should have told the people at that conference that we have already lost $30 million from last year because he did not get his act together, get this bill in place and get the legislation rolling. That is what he should have told the people at that conference. That is what I would like to tell him, that it certainly was not a proper thing to tell them. I resent that as a member on this side of the House who has waited over a year, after the grand announcements from the Liberals, for anything like this legislation to come to light. It is really too bad, and maybe the people of the north should be aware of that.

In conclusion, I want to say we support the principle of the bill. We support it because it was our idea in the first place. It is not a Liberal idea, it is not a Tory idea and it is not a new idea. It was not something the Liberals dreamed up last year in the budget of May 1987, the saviour that they thought. This whole idea was put forward, as I say, over 10 years ago by people on this side of the House, and people on this side of the House have spoken about it again and again and again. It has taken 10 years for a government in this province to see fit to at least accept the principle.

But we will not be supporting the bill unless the amendments my colleague the member for Lake Nipigon moves are accepted by the members of this House. We will not because, as I repeat, in our mind, the funding is absolutely inappropriate. Thirty million dollars, which is not new money, over 12 years at a five per cent inflation rate, is going to equal about $16.7 million in the last year. The government would have been much better to take our idea of $500 million over three years, which would have assured adequate and stable growth and completion of very important projects which are out there but require a much more substantial amount of funding than $30 million on a yearly basis.

It is a sham because the composition of this board has not been guaranteed in this legislation. I hope that members on the government side are going to accept our amendment to ensure that those groups I have already mentioned are represented, because they are best able to speak on behalf of northern Ontario. It is a sham, because this government did not see fit at least to put in $60 million in the first year to make up for the $30 million we have lost.

Finally, I am extremely disturbed that there is no guarantee that the money is going to come from resource taxation. That is the one stable source of revenue that can be guaranteed year after year and that can take the wealth that is taken out of northern Ontario and put it back in. I use the example, again, of the tax on softwood lumber to point out that money is there, that money is stable and it is that type of money that should be earmarked for this fund to ensure the moneys are in place year after year for this type of development.

It is with extreme regret that I must not support this bill because I agree with it in principle, but the mechanics of it, which are not set in stone, are very vague. Because of the whole principle of the money, which is not enough, and because of the principle that the funding is not coming from a secure source -- that is, resource taxation -- it means I cannot believe there will not be problems with it and it will be adequate for development in northern Ontario.

Mr. Harris: The member for Sudbury East talked about the comments that were made by the minister in Kirkland Lake on Friday, blaming the opposition for this bill being held up. I quite concur with the member that we have been waiting for this bill for well over a year now. It was first announced well over a year ago.

I have checked the Orders and Notices. The first time it ever appeared in the daily Orders and Notices was last week and the first time it appeared as the number one order -- in other words, the thing we want to get on with today in the business -- in fact, it never has been number one. It was up high enough yesterday that it would finally have got going after we finished the first order of business, and it is up high enough today.

Who comes out with these Orders and Notices? It is the government. The government tells us when it wants to do it and that indicates a little bit of the government’s priority.

I know the member has not been here for a long time, but I also know she is a very capable and competent member and she has been through a number of bills now. I wonder if she has any comments about how long it would take any dummy to draft a bill. The first page is

definitions, the second page talks about setting up the corporation and the third page has three little sections with the

short title of the act. In her experience, would she not think that she could draft a bill like this or have it drafted perhaps in five minutes or surely in no more than one day? Yet we have been waiting well over a year before the government has been able to come forward with anything as flimsy as this particular piece of legislation.

Mr. Pouliot: Words of wisdom indeed and also words of caution. There is nothing repetitious that was mentioned by my distinguished member, the member for Sudbury East. It is too little indeed and certainly too long a wait for the people of the north where 10 per cent of the people certainly did not expect 10 per cent of the provincial budget. Certainly not; that would have been in the order of $3.8 billion. We said we liked the principle. However, this is less than one tenth of one per cent. We also have higher expenses. We cover 90 per cent of the land base.

When all is said and done, they have built up expectations as a government. They have wrapped the bill with a great deal of trumpet fanfare. People are expecting a lot -- $30 million. When all is said and done, it will not have much of an influence, as the member for Sudbury East has so well indicated.

Not only will it not have much influence, but we were given the guarantee by the present government that the $34 million that was generated by virtue of the softwood lumber imposition has not been spent either. The commitment for the northern heritage fund was $30 million for 1987 and there was $34 million in

1987 from softwood lumber -- $64 million. Aside from the normal rate of interest, not one cent has been spent. There was $30 million of commitment and $34 million in revenue. The government has very little credibility with this kind of simple mathematics.

Mr. Kozyra: In reference to the comments made by the member for Nipissing (Mr. Harris) -- I believe the words were, “Any dummy could draft this bill within five minutes” -- I would like to point out that those are inappropriate comments. Those bills are drafted basically by civil servants, and I think it is inappropriate language to be used in that reference.

Mr. Pope: I do not know what the member for Port Arthur (Mr. Kozyra) was defending. However, I just want to comment on the speech by the member for Sudbury East. I thought it well put forward the perspective.

I wonder if the member can comment on any reaction she has had from her community of Sudbury and her riding of Sudbury East with respect to the fact that this government promised $30 million last year and did not deliver on that, not one cent for the people of northern Ontario. It now has taken an extra $64 million out of the north in the lumber tax and has actually spent nothing in return for that additional revenue, let alone addressed the economic grievances of northern Ontario and the people of Sudbury.

I wonder if the member can address that issue and also comment on the fact that when it comes to resource development issues that affect northern Ontario, and particularly the sensitive and wise use of the resources around Temagami, the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley) and the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio) did not even see fit to have the Minister of Northern Development on the platform with them yesterday when they made that major announcement, which indicates a new strategy or process involving resource allocation in this province which ignores the Minister of Northern Development.

The Acting Speaker: The honourable member for Sudbury East, two minutes in reply.

Miss Martel: I want to start by responding, first, to the member for Cochrane South (Mr. Pope). I say to him quite openly that most constituents who come into my office, after the resolution I did on the heritage fund, could not believe that it had been almost a year that the money in this fund had been promised and yet we in the north have not seen it. But I must say that they were not surprised, because they are getting used to that kind of promise and that kind of breaking of promises by this government.

There was, first, the increase in taxes, which was a major blow; but second, there was the whole changeabout on Sunday shopping and on auto insurance. This is just one more drop in the bucket of a whole bunch of promises that this government has already broken or is on the way to breaking, so they are not surprised in the least.

In terms of not having the minister at the press conference yesterday on the announcement of Temagami, I would say that if I had been the minister, I would have been a little bit more than embarrassed, considering that also in his statements on the weekend he stated, and I quote, “Northerners should be responsible for making their decisions in this regard in terms of development in the north.”

I noticed it was very surprising that of the 180-some submissions to the Minister of the Environment requesting an environmental study, over 60 per cent of those came from associations or groups in northern Ontario that requested a study, an environmental assessment, in the Temagami situation on the Red Squirrel Road. I would say that if I were the minister, I would be a little bit more than embarrassed about what his dear colleagues did to him yesterday during that press conference.

In response, I just want to wrap up by saying that we have waited long enough. I go back and say I resent the fact that the minister would get up and tell people last weekend that a three-day delay over here has caused a whole delay of this whole project. For the last year it has been those people who have not moved on this issue one jot. They have used it as a major publicity stunt across northern Ontario but they have not seen fit to put it into action. That is a complete disgrace, and northerners deserve better.

Mr. Harris: I am pleased to have the opportunity to be able to comment on Bill 116. First of all, the parliamentary assistant seemed to question my comments when I spoke earlier and used the words “any dummy could draft this bill.” I do not know why the minister, who ran over to him and said, “Please say something.” took offence at that. He is very sensitive. I am not inferring that he is a dummy or the parliamentary assistant or the drafters of the bill. That was not the implication at all.

What I was referring to, and it will allow me to proceed into my remarks, was the fact that the minister for over a year has been saying: “It is a very complex problem. We have to study it from this angle. We have to study it from that angle. It takes a long time to draft a bill like this piece of legislation.” We were expecting -- I do not know what we were expecting -- a year in the drafting, a year in the making. We know, or at least we presume, that the minister would have wanted to proceed at least before the end of the last fiscal year so that the $30 million allocated to northern Ontario could have stayed in northern Ontario.

I was expecting a very complex piece of legislation that took a year of expert draftsmen to draft. Probably drafts would come to cabinet, would be reviewed and would then go back. That was what we were led to believe was going on for the past year. Then we get a bill that obviously anybody could draft in five minutes. It did not take expert draftspeople to draft this piece of legislation. I know in the Legislative Assembly and in the ministries of this province we do have expert people who can draft bills. I have also seen how fast they can draft much more complex and more sophisticated bills than this.

What we have is a bill that does not make any decisions at all. It leaves all the decisions to be made down the road. There is so much flexibility in this piece of legislation that surely even the minister cannot expect us to believe that this took a year to draft and approve after the Lieutenant Governor, reading the Premier’s speech from the throne well over a year ago, indicated, “This is what we want to do.” Then the Treasurer came along last year and said, “I have budgeted $30 million for it.” Clearly, the minister must accept responsibility on behalf of his government.

I assume that he tried. Obviously, he was not able to convince the Premier (Mr. Peterson), the Treasurer and his cabinet colleagues, and only the public and time can judge whether it was because the minister was ineffective or whether the Premier really did not give a damn about the north.

These are the comments I was referring to and they lead me to this piece of legislation. It is a sham. For a year, it is obvious to us now, nothing was done. They said: “Look, we had the throne speech. The Treasurer has $30 million in the budget. The papers are picking it up across the north like wildfire. They think something is actually going to happen. Why do something? We are going into the election. We don’t have to do anything.”

The name of the game is not to help the north. The name of the game is to win the election. It is very obvious when we see this piece of legislation that is what the name of the game was with the northern Ontario heritage fund announcement.

I want to concur with some of the comments my colleagues from the New Democratic Party have made that it was not a Liberal idea. It was not the idea of the Premier; it was not the idea of the Minister of Northern Development. It was an idea that had been talked about in northern Ontario for a period of time. It was an idea that had been talked about by a number of people in northern Ontario for a period of time.

The New Democratic Party had talked about it. So had our party. I will talk about the differences between the two parties and where I disagree with the New Democratic Party and why we were not in favour of what it proposed then and really what it is proposing now, but that does not mean we cannot agree on what has happened with this particular piece of legislation and its history and where it has gone.

It obviously was an election idea. The Minister of Northern Development was responsible, between 1985 and 1987, to report back to the Premier, to the Treasurer, to cabinet, to the strategy people: “What will fly up there? What will all people buy up there? What will win us votes up there?”

It is very obvious that when it took a year and they came out with this, they still do not in fact have any understanding of what it really is that people want. They heard the term “heritage fund.” They said, “Whatever program we come up with, that’s the buzzword, because people in various parts of the north know what that means to them.”

The New Democratic Party knows. If somebody talked to them or one of their members talked about a heritage fund, they have a very clear idea of what it means to them; and the people in our party have a very clear idea what it means to us, as do people in Kirkland Lake; but those ideas are not necessarily the same. If you announce it and do not define it, everybody thinks: “It’s my vision of the heritage fund. Isn’t this great?”

That is what you do to try to win elections. It worked. They won the election. They got some support in northern Ontario. Obviously now we see it was misguided support, and the people in northern Ontario are starting to recognize that.

Then the great disgrace of it is, from September 10 until last week -- I guess two weeks ago it was finally introduced -- through all that period of time the minister, it appears to us -- or the Premier ordered him or the Treasurer ordered him, “You must delay this bill,” because this bill says the money will go into the heritage fund whether it is spent or not. It says it will accumulate in there and come out of the Treasury. Obviously, the minister accepted. He delayed the bill until after the fiscal year end.

If this bill had been brought in and introduced into this House before the end of the fiscal year, if it had been brought in before March 31, then there would have been no way the Treasurer could have justified snapping that $30 million back into the general revenue fund and in fact there would be $30 million plus interest sitting in the fund.

It really is a sham, and I guess it is a shame for the people of northern Ontario, who really thought maybe something was going to be done by way of this northern heritage fund.

Maybe I will start talking about the bill a little bit. I also want to comment on a few other things.

When we talk about five minutes to draft it, there are samples of all this stuff around. Even my staff could draft it in five minutes. Actually, they are not dummies; they could do it in four.

For “corporation” there is a little definition, and for “fund.” All of those words are defined. “‘Minister’ means the Minister of Northern Development.” It would take a year of research, I guess, to really figure out what that means.

They are going to be incorporated as a body corporate. “The affairs of the corporation shall be administered by a board of directors consisting of not fewer than 12 persons.” Maybe it took a year to figure out whether they should have 10, 12, 14, 16; I do not know.

Miss Martel: They should have 17.

Mr. Harris: What did they say; 17 in Kirkland Lake? They still do not have it together yet, I guess; but no, not fewer than 12. So it could be 17 or 100. I guess if, in the great riding of Sudbury, where they have a Liberal member now, they needed two or three patronage appointments to keep everybody happy, they will add two more and it will be 19. That probably took a long time.

“The minister shall be a director and shall chair the board of directors.” I can understand that decision taking a year, and I wonder why they arrived at it even after taking a year to reflect on it, because I am not sure that is particularly appropriate.

“Every other director shall be appointed by order of the Lieutenant Governor in Council for such term as is stipulated.” That is the patronage part. Whoever the Premier wants, that is who will be on the board.

Then it gives the objects of the corporation: “to advise and make recommendations to the Lieutenant Governor…on any matter relating to the growth and diversification of the economy of northern Ontario” -- a pretty broad definition. What it says is, “We still do not know what we are going to do, so we will make it broad and put it in.” Perhaps it is the best way to do it. I do not know whether it takes a year or not though.

Then we get to page 2: “to promote and stimulate economic initiatives in northern Ontario” -- that is pretty vague; I think that would cover just about everything – “and to commission studies and enter into contracts in connection with the objects set out in clauses (

a) and (b).” Fine.

Then we get to the famous

section 6. Maybe this took time. “How can we make this look good, look as though they are go