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

January 30, 1989

34th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

L137 - Mon 30 Jan 1989 / Lun 30 jan 1989

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

CHILD CARE

TRUCKING INDUSTRY

PETER KNIGHT

LOW-RISE REHABILITATION PROGRAM

COMMUNITY SAFETY

GOVERNMENT RELOCATION

RETAIL STORE HOURS

CANADIAN FORCES BASE PETAWAWA

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

ONTARIO SPORTS AWARDS

BOISE CASCADE COGENERATION PROJECT

ONTARIO LAW REFORM COMMISSION

RESPONSES

ONTARIO SPORTS AWARDS

BOISE CASCADE COGENERATION PROJECT

ONTARIO SPORTS AWARDS

ONTARIO LAW REFORM COMMISSION

ONTARIO SPORTS AWARDS

BOISE CASCADE COGENERATION PROJECT

ORAL QUESTIONS

BREWERY MERGER

ELECTRICITY DEMAND AND SUPPLY

NURSING SERVICES

COMMUNITY SAFETY

NONPROFIT HOUSING

GOVERNMENT’S RECORD

SCIENCE EDUCATION

FIREFIGHTING

YORK REGION LAND DEVELOPMENT

WATER RESOURCES

FUNDING OF SOCIAL SERVICE AGENCIES

RADON GAS

PREPAID SERVICES

HOMES FOR THE AGED

PETITIONS

SENIOR CITIZENS’ APARTMENTS

YORK REGION LAND DEVELOPMENT

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

TOWN OF MARKHAM ACT

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TIME ALLOCATION (CONTINUED)

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

Prayers.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

CHILD CARE

Mr. Farnan: At this very moment of time, Patricia Murphy will be driving 60 kilometres from Rexdale to Mississauga during her lunch break to administer medication prescribed by her doctor for her son, Christopher. She has done this for the last several days and must continue to do so on a daily basis because the Peel lunch and after-school program has a policy not to administer medication at all.

Admittedly, I am informed by a staff person at Peel lunch and after-care, this policy is under review, which is little comfort to Patricia Murphy.

Surely a single mom is under enough stress without inflicting this unnecessary pressure and anxiety of spending her entire lunch period in traffic traversing the city to administer a medication that very easily could be administered by the staff of the Peel lunch and after-care.

The member for Mississauga North (Mr. Offer) had this to say in the Mississauga News, January 25:

“By providing child care facilities in new schools, the Ontario government hopes to strengthen school-family relationships and help parents acquire appropriate services for their children.”

Our schools will administer medication when presented with a note from the family doctor and an appropriate form signed by the local officer of health. The same service should be provided by day care operations. Surely appropriate services include the administration of medication to children in need.

TRUCKING INDUSTRY

Mr. Wiseman: Members will recall the recent attempt of the Minister of Transportation (Mr. Fulton) to appeal the court decision respecting extraprovincial trucking licences in Ontario. They will also recall the huge backlog of new applications which resulted because of the minister’s decision to pursue the matter in the courts.

I can tell the House that Quebec has refused to grant extraprovincial operating licences to Ontario carriers since last August. Do members know why? Who better to ask than the Minister of Transportation? His court battles have tied up the valuable licensing for Quebec operators. The Quebec Transport Commission no longer will put up with the minister’s nonsense. This commission has stated that it will begin processing licences for Ontario carriers when the backlog of applications is cleared.

The minister’s inaction is certainly an embarrassment to his colleague the member for Ottawa South (Mr. McGuinty). This member stood in the House on January 5 to sing the praises of his government’s eastern economic development initiatives; I am sure the truckers in eastern Ontario would beg to differ with the member’s opinion.

I urge the member for Ottawa South to approach the Minister of Transportation for an explanation of his inaction on the matter, which is of great concern to shippers and carriers in eastern Ontario.

PETER KNIGHT

Ms. Collins: I am pleased to inform the House that Dr. Peter Knight has been selected as Hamilton’s Citizen of the Year for 1988.

Dr. Knight came to Hamilton from his native New Zealand 20 years ago and is professor of surgery at McMaster University and a staff surgeon at St. Joseph’s Hospital in Hamilton.

Several years ago, after witnessing at first hand the often tragic results of road accidents, he decided to devote his spare time to doing something to reduce this carnage. In 1981 he organized and established the Hamilton-Wentworth Council on Road Trauma. This council, which Dr. Knight has chaired since its inception, is now internationally recognized for its contributions towards improving road safety.

Dr. Knight has been a pioneer in the field of educating people, especially teenagers, regarding the dangers of driving while under the influence of alcohol or drugs. He has lectured widely on this subject, giving over 200 talks to high school assemblies, halfway houses and other public forums and producing a training film for the Hamilton-Wentworth Regional Police. His discussions with young people led directly to the formation of Hamilton Students Against Impaired Driving.

These volunteer efforts have contributed immeasurably to making our roads safer and to improving the quality of treatment for traffic accident victims.

I commend the Advertising and Sales Club of Hamilton for selecting Dr. Knight, and I congratulate Dr. Knight for his richly deserved honour.

LOW-RISE REHABILITATION PROGRAM

Mr. Breaugh: Some time ago, the Ministry of Housing initiated a program called the low-rise rehabilitation program. It is one of those things that sounded like a good idea at the time. Unfortunately, it really has not worked out to the benefit of anyone.

Here are two examples. At 9 Humewood Drive in York, the owner of the building got a $30,000 interest-free loan under this government program and also received a 62 per cent rent increase from the rent review board. At 877 Millwood Road in East York, the landlords received another $30,000 in an interest-free loan under this plan and asked for and got an increase of 59 per cent.

That is not the only problem that this program suffers from. At 316 and 320 Lonsdale Road in the city of Toronto, they received a $40,000 interest-free loan for one building and a $155,000 interest-free loan on another one. At 57 and 59 Spencer Avenue in the city of Toronto, the landlord received $190,000 in interest-free loans from this same program.

The problem seems to be that nobody wants to take responsibility for the program. What began as a sensible idea to rehabilitate apartments is now stuck in a real morass of different governments, each denying responsibility for it, and of landlords exploiting the very obvious loopholes in the laws of Ontario and in this program in particular. This is one program that really needs one level of government to administer and a whole lot of common sense.

COMMUNITY SAFETY

Mr. Runciman: I rise to address once again a very serious concern expressed by my constituents regarding Lieutenant Governor’s warrants issued with respect to the criminally insane.

I have called on the Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan) to take responsible action by initiating a public inquiry into the stabbing of a Brockville woman. John Finlayson, an outpatient of the Brockville Psychiatric Hospital, was subsequently charged with aggravated sexual assault in connection with that stabbing.

Mr. Finlayson committed a grisly sex murder of a nine-year-old Toronto boy in 1973 after he had been consuming alcohol. He was found not guilty by reason of insanity. Recently, he was released from the Brockville hospital on a loosened Lieutenant Governor’s warrant.

Last week I gave the Minister of Health documents from the hospital which showed that hospital staff were aware that Mr. Finlayson was drinking three days before the stabbing of the Brockville woman. During those three days, the hospital staff failed to bring Mr. Finlayson into their custody.

The Minister of Health has chosen to evade this issue by suggesting that this is a federal matter. However, risk management in Ontario’s psychiatric hospitals is clearly a provincial responsibility, a responsibility that the Minister of Health has chosen to shirk. By continuing to delay and obfuscate, the minister, for reasons I cannot fathom, is actually telling the people of Ontario that she is prepared to take chances with their safety, and she is sending the same message to hospital staffs.

I call on both the minister and the government to give their immediate support to the motion by the member for Markham (Mr. Cousens) going before the standing committee on public accounts this week.

GOVERNMENT RELOCATION

Mr. Daigeler: Much has been said recently about soaring prices in Metropolitan Toronto. I agree with Berel Wetstein’s advice in the Toronto Star on January 17. The solution to Toronto’s problems is to redirect economic growth towards less-developed areas of Ontario. The Ottawa-Carleton region, which I represent, is experiencing boom times similar, although not equal, to those in Toronto.

However, Renfrew and Lanark counties, Prescott and Russell, Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry and others are lagging behind. Such eastern Ontario cities as Cornwall, Smiths Falls, Hawkesbury, Pembroke and Perth would welcome new service-related and manufacturing industries with open arms. I urge the Ontario government itself to set the pace and relocate some of its branches to eastern Ontario.

Government relocation is already under way for northern Ontario, with great economic success. Obviously, there will be some disruption for Toronto-based employees. However, in the long term, government and industrial relocation will reduce pressures on housing, social services, garbage disposal and transportation. A more balanced economic growth will benefit us

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. Farnan: A note on the fridge, January 30, 1995: “Hi dear: Had to run. I’ve peeled the potatoes and veggies. You’ll find the tourtière in the fridge. I’m working till 10 tonight and I’ll probably be exhausted when I get home.

“By the way, I’m working the Sunday shift tomorrow. It’s too bad. I was really looking forward to a nice, relaxing day. But we need the cash and I couldn’t say no. Shirley said no last week and her hours have been cut right back. I’ll miss seeing mom tomorrow. Thank God you’re free on the weekends. Maybe I’ll try to get up to the nursing home during the week. I really miss doing things together.

“Don’t forget to read Tim his bedtime story and give him a kiss for me. Make sure he knows that I’m off on Tuesday and I’ll take him to the park to feed the ducks. Maybe one of these Sundays when we’re all together we could all go to the zoo. I know the children would love it.

“Too bad you’re travelling this week. Still, I’ll be off Sunday after next and we can plan something. I miss the good old days, when we could count on spending Sundays together.”

Signed, “Working Mom.”

CANADIAN FORCES BASE PETAWAWA

Hon. Mr. Conway: I seek unanimous consent to make a short statement about a tragedy that struck the military community at Petawawa over the weekend.

Mr. Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?

Agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Conway: Honourable members will know that over the weekend the Canadian Forces Base community at Petawawa was struck by a dual tragedy. On Friday morning, five single young men, all from the airborne regiment at Canadian Forces Base Petawawa, were killed in an automobile accident in the Arnprior area of eastern Ontario. They were on leave but on their way, after the leave had concluded, to join their comrades in a joint Canadian-American military exercise in Alaska.

After that tragedy of Friday morning in which those five young men were killed, a Canadian Forces Hercules aircraft, some time last evening, I believe at approximately seven o’clock local Alaska time, crashed upon landing at the airfield at Fort Wainwright near Fairbanks, Alaska, killing eight servicemen, six of whom were also from Canadian Forces Base Petawawa. Others were injured.

Members can appreciate how this double tragedy has struck the military community at home in Petawawa and elsewhere across the country. I want on this occasion, on behalf of the government of Ontario, to express our deeply felt sympathy to the families, comrades and friends of those who were killed and those who were injured.

My colleague the member for Carleton East (Mr. Morin), himself a former member of the Canadian Armed Forces and whose son has served in the airborne regiment, will be representing the government at a memorial service to be held at Petawawa some time in the very near future.

Again, to Brigadier General Douglas, base commander at Petawawa, to the families and comrades of those who were killed or injured, our most heartfelt sympathy on this most tragic of occasions.

Mr. B. Rae: Our hearts go out to the families and friends of those young men who were killed. It has been a very tragic weekend, a weekend of great emotion and of great feeling in the constituency and town of the government House leader.

I very much want to send our condolences and anything we can do. I think all members of the Legislature have a sense of helplessness when we hear news such as this, but we do want to send whatever we can to the families and let them know that citizens of this province are thinking of them, feeling for them and caring for them in this their hour of need.

Mr. Sterling: On behalf of our party, the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario, I wish to say that we would also like to associate ourselves with the remarks of the government House leader, who represents the riding which takes in Petawawa.

We would particularly like to extend our sympathy to the parents and families of all of the young people who died in these two tragic incidents. I believe four of these people were from eastern Ontario, although those people who go to CFB Petawawa felt, I am sure, that eastern Ontario was their home as well. Therefore, for our particular part of the province, we feel even a greater tragedy in this affair. Again, we express our condolences to the families.

Mr. Speaker: On behalf of all members of the assembly, when Hansard has printed the official word of the Legislative Assembly I will of course send a copy of Hansard to the base commander in Petawawa, so that your words of sympathy are heard.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

ONTARIO SPORTS AWARDS

Hon. Mr. O’Neil: It is with distinct pleasure that I announce today the winners of the 1988 Ontario Sports Awards. These outstanding amateur athletes represented Ontario on the playing fields of the world and achieved extraordinary levels of excellence.

Their victories are an inspiration to us all. Their dedication, their commitment and their competitive spirit encourage every one of us to try a little harder, no matter what our field of endeavour.

Each award is accompanied by an athlete excellence grant. These funds are dedicated in the award winner’s name to help cover the costs of training Ontario’s next generation of athletes in that sport. It is with great pride that I announce the following winners:

The Disabled Athlete of the Year, from Hearst, is amputee swimmer Stephane Lecours, who set five world records in the past year, several of them at the Disabled Olympiad in Seoul, Korea.

Sailors are the Team of the Year, the Canadian Flying Dutchman team of Frank McLaughlin and John Millen from Toronto, who with their coach, Dave Thomas, won a bronze medal in Seoul.

In this the Year of the Coach, 1989, two special awards have been created and two outstanding coaches have been selected to represent all Ontario coaches. From the University of Toronto is Elizabeth Hoffman, who coached Ontario field hockey teams at the 1981 and 1985 Canada Games. The male coach of the year is Jack Donohue from Kanata, who recently retired after 18 years as Canada’s national men’s basketball coach. Mr. Donohue has made a tremendous contribution to basketball and coaching.

With an unprecedented number of victories for Ontario athletes at national and international events, the committee decided to honour multiple winners in two categories. Ontario’s 1988 Outstanding Female Athletes of the Year are, in alphabetical order, marathon swimmer Vicki Keith from Toronto, the conqueror of all five Great Lakes in 1988, and figure skater Elizabeth Manley from Ottawa, for her silver medal performance at the Calgary Winter Olympics and the World Championships.

The Male Athletes of the Year are Olympic superweight boxing gold medalist Lennox Lewis from Kitchener, figure skater Brian Orser from Orillia for his silver medal performances at the Calgary Winter Olympics and the World Championships and the Olympic bronze medal winner in the decathlon, Dave Steen of Burlington.

All the award recipients will be honoured at the annual sports awards banquet here in Toronto on April 7.

Several of these athletes are with us in the gallery today and I would ask them to stand so that we could honour them. I am sure that I speak for every member of this assembly in extending our sincere congratulations and thanks to all the winners.

BOISE CASCADE COGENERATION PROJECT

Hon. Mr. Wong: Today, I am pleased to announce a major project which underlines the Ontario government’s support for parallel generation, the independent generation of electricity. It is my pleasure to inform this House that, subject to the finalization of last-minute details, an 87-megawatt cogeneration plant will be constructed in Fort Frances on the grounds of Boise Cascade Ltd.’s pulp and paper mill in that city.

Cogeneration is the simultaneous production of thermal and electric energy from the same fuel. At the plant, a natural-gas-fuelled turbine will produce steam to heat the pulp mill’s giant boilers and electricity to be sold to Ontario Hydro.

The project, subject to Ontario Energy Board approval, will cost $100 million. Funding comes from ICG Utilities and a low-interest loan from Ontario Hydro. The Ministry of Energy and the Northern Ontario Development Corp. are providing a liability guarantee. Boise Cascade, under subcontract from ICG, will manage, operate and maintain the facility.

All the participants in this project will benefit. ICG and Boise Cascade will benefit economically and Ontario Hydro will obtain supplies of electricity at attractive rates. The people of Ontario gain a more diverse, reliable electricity system and economic spinoffs from the project.

The project also complies with government’s commitment to protect the environment. The plant will be fuelled by clean-burning natural gas. All plant emissions will conform to provincial standards.

In addition, the plant will provide Ontario Hydro with a secure, low-cost energy supply in an area of the province that requires increased generating capacity and the pulp and paper plant will enjoy substantial fuel cost savings as a result of this project.

The project represents a $100-million investment in Fort Frances and will enhance economic development in that area. It will create 175 construction jobs during its development and an estimated 10 more for its continued operation.

The Boise Cascade cogeneration project embraces four government of Ontario objectives. It works towards improved overall energy efficiency, northern economic development, the use of cleaner fuels and the expansion of electrical power supplies by independent producers.

I am pleased to announce this project in the context of several key initiatives the government has instituted over the past two weeks.

At the beginning of last week, I introduced amendments to the Power Corporation Act which will ensure that Ontario Hydro is responsive to government policy and public priorities. An important part of these amendments deals with Hydro commitments to energy efficiency and parallel generation.

I also initiated the municipal street lighting program, a $1.5-million pilot program jointly sponsored by the Ministry of Energy and Ontario Hydro.

The government has now received Ontario Hydro’s $2.5-billion plan for the reduction of acid gas emissions, as reported to the House recently by my colleague the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley). Part of our strategy for reduction of acid gas will certainly involve increased use of cogeneration, of which this project at Fort Frances is an excellent example.

It is important that all sectors, government, public utilities and private business and industry, co-operate to meet our common goals to improve the efficiency of electricity production and to reduce our energy consumption. I believe the Boise Cascade cogeneration project is a fine example of that co-operation.

ONTARIO LAW REFORM COMMISSION

Hon. Mr. Scott: I am pleased today to announce the appointment of Rosalie Silberman Abella as chairman of the Ontario Law Reform Commission. Ms. Abella succeeds James R. Breithaupt who has been appointed chairman of the Commercial Registration Appeal Tribunal.

I want first to thank Mr. Breithaupt for his distinguished service with the law reform commission over the last five years. His friends in this assembly will wish him well in his new duties.

The new chairman, Rosalie Abella, is well known to members of this assembly for her significant contribution to the life of the province in many areas. She has served as a judge of the family division of the provincial court. She has been a member of the Public Service Labour Relations Tribunal and a member of the Ontario Human Rights Commission. For five years she served on the Premier’s Advisory Committee on Confederation and for the last few years she has served as chairman of the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

The Ontario Law Reform Commission is not only the most senior, but also the most distinguished commission of its type in Canada. It of course functions independently of the government and is entitled to select its own agenda. Notwithstanding its distinguished history and the significant practical contribution it has made to the reform of our law, I have for some time been concerned about the law reform commission’s role and the importance of establishing an appropriate agenda for its work.

The reports of the commission have tended to focus on matters of “black letter” law. It is the government’s belief that in a rapidly changing society the commission may want to begin responding to a wide variety of law reform issues that are of more immediate concern to the general public we are all committed to serve. This was very much the agenda of the Access to Justice Conference which the Ministry of the Attorney General convened last year with considerable success.

In particular, it is very much to be hoped that the law reform commission, under the leadership of its new chairman, will develop a consultation process which can involve a wide variety of groups and individuals across the province that have concerns about the law, the administration of justice and law reform. I look forward to a most productive period for the commission under the guidance of Ms. Abella as it begins the task of developing a new agenda.

Under the direction of Ms. Abella, I anticipate that the law reform commission will continue to develop and indeed expand its examination of matters which are of real and pressing concern to all citizens of the province. I am confident that the reports which Ms. Abella and her fellow commissioners will tender will provide solid advice to the government in ensuring that the laws of the province continue to meet the needs of those whose interests we serve.

I invite all members to join with me in congratulating Rosalie Abella and wishing her well as she enters upon her new duties.

RESPONSES

ONTARIO SPORTS AWARDS

Mr. Farnan: Environment, dedicated volunteers and good programs produce champions. In recognizing and congratulating the winners of the Ontario Sports Awards, I would extend this to all athletes who have represented us at the provincial and national level. I would also like to recognize all of the athletes, coaches, officials, administrators and government programs that have contributed to the road to success of our Ontario Sports Awards winners. Congratulations.

BOISE CASCADE COGENERATION PROJECT

Mr. Hampton: I want to respond to the statement by the Minister of Energy (Mr. Wong). When I was first elected some 18 months ago, I sat down with Ontario Hydro officials and that was when the cogeneration program was first discussed. We welcome the announcement today of the finalization of the cogeneration project.

I want to say, however, that while the paper mill that is entering into this contract with Ontario Hydro may in fact conform to all government requirements in terms of the environment for this cogeneration program, I believe that same paper mill exceeded the air limits last year more than any other paper mill in the province.

While the government should be congratulated on the fact that the new undertaking in terms of energy cogeneration will conform to sound Ministry of Energy and Ministry of the Environment practices, I ask the government to look again at what some of the current practices are in terms of conforming to Ministry of the Environment practices.

I would like to note that this is a project which, in terms of northern Ontario, is overdue, and I hope the Ministry of Energy will consider further cogeneration projects like this, especially if they conform to the practices and rules of the Ministry of the Environment.

ONTARIO SPORTS AWARDS

Mr. B. Rae: First of all, I want to offer my warmest congratulations on behalf of my colleagues in the New Democratic Party to the athletes who are with us today. I want to say personally that I am sure every family in this province has been touched in some way by the achievements of the remarkable men and women we saw performing in Seoul and by the remarkable contributions of Vicki Keith, who is the first person in the history of the world to successfully swim all the Great Lakes in one season.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The Atlantic is next.

Mr. B. Rae: I asked her on Saturday night what was next and she said I would be reading about it in the newspapers soon, so we all look forward to these great achievements.

Seriously, all of us and indeed our families draw inspiration from their example. I know they do not always hear from everybody about how proud everybody is, but they can get a feeling from our speeches today of how really proud we are of what they have done on behalf of all the young people out there who draw such inspiration from what they have done and, if I might say, of a few older people as well, who look at them with great admiration and wonder.

ONTARIO LAW REFORM COMMISSION

Mr. B. Rae: I want to offer my congratulations to Rosalie Abella on her appointment as the chairman of the Ontario Law Reform Commission. I can tell the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) that I think it is a very fine appointment. Along with many others, I am a great fan of Rosalie Abella. I think she makes a tremendous contribution to public life in this province.

The only thing I would say to the Attorney General is that I am delighted by the fact that he is now changing the role of the law reform commission and giving it a more activist role, but when the government itself lacks vision; when the government itself is, according to its own advisers, stumbling from crisis to crisis; and when the corridors of this place are rife with the sense that even when it gets good advice the government is reluctant to act, all I can say is we have had a conference on access to justice, but we have had no action from this government on the recommendations that came out of that conference.

I look forward to the recommendations of Rosalie Abella. She made some tremendous recommendations to the federal government on employment equity, none of which has been adopted by the provincial government with respect to employment equity in this province. So I look forward to reading Rosalie Abella’s reports, and my only hope is that they finally are implemented, perhaps even in the lifetime, as it gets shorter and shorter, of this increasingly reactionary and stumblebum Liberal government.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Sterling: I would like to add congratulations as well to Ms. Abella, who has been appointed as the chairman of the Ontario Law Reform Commission. I do hope, as the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. B. Rae) has noted, that this government will take greater note of the recommendations and of the good work the Ontario Law Reform Commission has done in the past.

I would also like to thank at this time a former member of this Legislature, Jim Breithaupt, who in my view has led the Ontario Law Reform Commission to many substantial reports. I only wish his former colleagues now on the government side would implement many of those reports.

ONTARIO SPORTS AWARDS

Mr. Cousens: Our party would like to join with the Minister of Tourism and Recreation (Mr. O’Neil) in congratulating the winners of this year’s Ontario Sports Awards. They are winners not only in their own successes in sport but also for all of us, because they stand as models of excellence of people who have set goals for themselves and then reached towards them and achieved them. We need more models like this in our society today.

I commend the minister and all in the ministry and these athletes in particular for their achievements. I hope they will continue to be excellent models to our young Scouts in the gallery and to the young people across our province who have that chance of excelling in something. I hope that all of us can begin to have a sense of fitness about ourselves, a sense of moving towards excellence in anything we do. They have certainly proved themselves and we are proud of them.

BOISE CASCADE COGENERATION PROJECT

Mr. Runciman: I want to indicate our party’s pleasure at the announcement of the Minister of Energy (Mr. Wong) today with respect to the 87-megawatt cogeneration plant in Fort Frances. There is no question that this development is going to boost the Fort Frances economy and we are pleased to see it taking place.

As I am sure the minister would acknowledge, this is only the tip of the iceberg in terms of the electrical generating potential in Ontario with respect to cogeneration.

As is the custom over there, the minister has engaged in a little bit of self-congratulation. He makes reference to the amendments he has introduced to the Power Corporation Act which at first glance, in our view, appear to be woefully inadequate and certainly do not deal with the concerns expressed by his leader in a former incarnation when he described Ontario Hydro as a monster out of control. The amendments the minister brought into the House last week certainly do not deal with the concerns expressed by his leader on a number of occasions in the past.

The minister also mentions the municipal street lighting program, which again, in our opinion, is a very meagre effort at conservation. With all due respect, he should be expressing more concern about the efforts on behalf of Ontario Hydro and municipal utilities across this province to increase market share and in many instances push advertising urging consumers across this province to increase electrical consumption.

We have to be talking seriously about conservation and demand management and the minister has to deal very effectively with Ontario Hydro and the municipalities across this province, in a much more effective manner than he has to this point.

I want to indicate to the minister that in terms of cogeneration and getting that potential on stream, he has to deal more effectively with Ontario Hydro again to ensure that there is a fair pricing mechanism out there, and perhaps even more important to ensure that there is a more co-operative stance taken on behalf of Ontario Hydro.

I want to indicate that in my own region of eastern Ontario, two chemical firms, Nitrochem and Dupont, have been attempting for the past number of years to work out an agreement with Ontario Hydro to get a cogeneration project off the ground. They have been frustrated at every turn, roadblocks have been placed in their path and there is no light at the end of the tunnel with respect to getting that significant cogeneration project on the rails.

That is happening right across this province. We had that expressed to us ad nauseam through the hearings of the select committee on energy.

I want to suggest to the minister and to his government that they deal in a more effective and firm manner with Ontario Hydro to make sure that we realize the very significant potential of cogeneration in this province.

ORAL QUESTIONS

BREWERY MERGER

Mr. B. Rae: I have a question for the Premier, in the absence of several other ministers who might have received this question. I know the Premier has a penchant for referring questions, but I note that his colleague the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr. Kwinter) and his colleague the Minister of Labour (Mr. Sorbara) are not here.

I have some very specific questions that I want to ask the Premier on what he intends to do, in particular about the Molson’s-Elders merger, but more generally about the epidemic of takeovers which is a growing problem in Ontario and in Canada and indeed in North America.

I want specifically to ask the Premier a question about the Investment Canada Act. As he will know, the matter of the merger between Molson’s and Elders is potentially covered by the federal legislation called the Investment Canada Act. That act states very specifically under

section 20 that one of the factors which the federal minister -- now Mr. Valcourt, as of 12 o’clock -- has to take into account is “the compatibility of the investment with national industrial, economic and cultural policies, taking into consideration industrial, economic and cultural policy objectives enunciated by the government or legislature of any province likely to be significantly affected by the investment.”

I wonder if the Premier can tell us today what the position of the government of Ontario is with respect to the merger that is now contemplated between the Molson company and Elders in producing this new Molson’s brewing company.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: As the member knows, the competition policy and Investment Canada policy is in the hands of the federal government. Our concern is for the workers involved. That is the priority for this government. Just as we reject the kind of approach that one of the federal ministers took and said, “Go and look in the want ads,” we do not believe that is the appropriate response in the circumstances.

There are mergers going on. As the member knows, no provincial government has the power to control or regulate those. In this particular case, it also relates to certain international questions with the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and to the question of interprovincial barriers with respect to the production of beer. It is a complicated one from that point of view.

But our priority is for the workers. As I understand it, the ministry is working with those workers who will be dislocated as a result of this over the next two and three years. We are working with the union representatives and others to make sure that we have the proper programs in place to help and to make sure that the companies live up to their responsibilities in this regard.

Mr. B. Rae: The Premier says this is entirely a question for the federal government and then says that his worry is about what happens to the workers. The reason I put the question to the Premier was that, quite specifically, the Investment Canada Act says that what a provincial government thinks is happening to the workers is in fact a very legitimate question for the federal minister to consider in approving or disapproving the investment; in this case, of the merger.

That is why I am very specifically asking the Premier if he can tell us the position of the government of Ontario with respect to this question of a merger as it is covered by the Investment Canada Act and other federal legislation. Can he tell us precisely what representations he is making, because he is asked to make them? In fact, under the Investment Canada Act, he is expected to make them.

What is he saying to the federal government --

Mr. Speaker: Order. The questions have been asked.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: As I said to my honourable friend, as this develops --

Mr. B. Rae: Are you in favour of it or against it?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Am I in favour of the merger? If the member is asking me if I am in favour of the merger, the answer is that there is nothing we can do about that particular situation. It is not my judgement to sit --

Mr. B. Rae: There certainly is something you can do about it.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The member is wrong. Let me just say to my honourable friend there are certain rationalizations going on in the economic world. A lot of it, frankly, I am not happy to see. But I do not want to mislead the member, nor would he want to mislead anybody, into thinking that this Legislature or the provincial government can do anything about it.

Obviously, we can make our views felt on this matter, and we will, with respect to the treatment of workers. It is incumbent upon the companies involved to make sure that they have programs to assist. The federal government has a responsibility, as do we. I can assure the member that we will fulfil our responsibility in that regard.

Mr. B. Rae: Is the Premier seriously suggesting that the Investment Canada Act, subsection 20(e), does not in fact require the government of Ontario to make submissions? Is he seriously suggesting that the new Competition Act, if this merger were to go to a tribunal, does not in fact give the provincial governments the right to be there as a matter of right as interveners? Is he denying that the provincial government under the Ontario Securities Act has the right to limit the kind of golden parachutes and golden handshakes that go to senior management, when nothing or very little goes to workers? Is he denying that the whole question of corporate income tax and the kind of tax --

Mr. Speaker: What is your question?

Mr. B. Rae: -- write-offs and benefits that go to corporations when they borrow money is not covered by provincial jurisdiction? If that is what he is arguing, he simply does not know what he is talking about, once again, when it comes to what happens to workers in this province.

Mr. Speaker: Premier?

Mr. B. Rae: Answer those questions.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I do not think there was a question there, to the best of my knowledge. The answer is, if I could find a question there, I would try to help my friend out, who wants to make a speech from his soap box. Let me say and repeat to my friend opposite that competition policy is in the hands of the federal government. Now the member may not like the mergers. I may not like the mergers. He may not like Stone’s takeover of Consolidated-Bathurst. He may not like the Canadian Airlines takeover of Wardair. I find a lot of those moves extremely disquieting. But let us not, and let the member not, mislead anybody into thinking we have the ultimate control on these matters.

Let me say to my friend: Our concerns have been asserted, and will continue to be asserted, with respect to the rights of the workers and to the future of those workers, and that seems to me to be the priority. The member does not want to stand in this House and give anyone the impression that we have the power to stop this particular matter, because that is not the case and I think my honourable friend knows that.

Mr. B. Rae: All I ever suggested to the Premier is that if he wanted to do something he could, and he obviously --

Mr. Speaker: Thank you. New question. To which minister?

ELECTRICITY DEMAND AND SUPPLY

Mr. B. Rae: To the Minister of Energy: Last week was a week where the minister both on Monday and Friday had some interesting things to say about the future of energy in the province. Both on Monday and Friday he made the point of saying that it was his personal view that, in fact, a new, large, power-generating station would be required in Ontario by the turn of the century and the government would be making a decision on that matter within roughly the next six months or the next year.

I want to ask the minister this question. He will know that between his statement on Monday and his statement on Friday, the select committee on energy came out with its report on Thursday. One of the very specific recommendations of the select committee was that no new major Ontario Hydro supply option should be approved until the Ministry of Energy and Hydro get their act together on this critical question of demand management.

I want to ask the minister this question: Why is he saying things which are completely and totally at odds with the report of the select committee on energy, which was a unanimous report, signed by members of his own caucus, on Thursday?

Hon. Mr. Wong: First of all, let me say that I respect the thinking and the work that was done by the select committee on energy. It came up with a number of ideas which will be helpful to the government and to the people of this province in terms of developing its energy policy and electricity policy.

Let me be more specific and explain to the honourable Leader of the Opposition that is why the government is going through this process as expeditiously as possible: to make sure that when we make our energy decisions for the next decade or 15 years we do it on the most complete and comprehensive information possible. The member was talking about demand management plans and supply options that will take years, in some cases, to put into place, and that will cost many dollars.

Mr. B. Rae: I know that. I think everybody knows that. If we are going to build a new plant, it is going to cost us billions of dollars. The Darlington plant cost billions of dollars. The minister was not here when his leader was Leader of the Opposition, but he raised several questions throughout that time as to what a big white elephant it was going to be and how much it was going to cost.

What I want to ask the minister is simply this. The select committee has said that there should not be another station until everybody gets his act together on demand management. The minister, meanwhile, is saying, unless I misunderstood him -- he said it twice last week -- that, in fact, there is going to be a new station and he does not see any way to avoid the necessity to build a new station. He will not tell us whether it is coal, gas-fired, nuclear or hydroelectric. He has not indicated what it is going to be.

I specifically want to ask the minister this: Can he please come clean? What is the new station he is talking about? When does he plan to present it to the Legislature? Why is he proposing such a station when, in fact, building such a station was rejected as an option now by the select committee which was studying this very question?

Hon. Mr. Wong: Over the past more than a year, I have listened to many of the groups. The select committee provided us with one valuable input. It obviously listened to the public and many special interest groups. At the same time, have listened to and had discussions with many of the big industrial users of electricity and many of the municipal users of electricity -- all of them different users of electricity that rely upon our electricity system -- and some of them point out that Ontario is growing very rapidly, in an economic sense. We need electricity. How can we ensure that with our demand management programs and supply management programs we make the best decisions?

I do agree that we must do whatever is possible to make sure we do as much in the demand management area as possible.

If I read the recommendation clearly from the select committee, it urged that we make sure that we, as a government and as a society, are satisfied that a sufficient amount of work is being done in the demand management area.

Here we are: Last week, I announced the municipal street lighting pilot program which is in the evaluation stage. If it proves itself in the first year, Ontario Hydro is committing to take it through the whole province. That will make us more energy efficient in the municipalities, and that will be good for Ontario.

Today I announced the cogeneration project; 87 megawatts is very significant and a good example, I think, of where we should be heading.

Mr. B. Rae: I want to make sure the minister is saying the same thing in this place as he is saying outside.

On January 24, the Toronto Star, in a story by Kathleen Kenna with a large headline, reports -- and I am quoting from the words that are put in the minister’s mouth, so they are words that he is alleged to have said quite directly: “‘Inevitably, at some point over the next 10 to 15 years, we will need another major (plant),’ he said. ‘We’re well into the process to making the decision’ about where, when and what type of power station is to be built.”

That is what the minister told the Toronto Star. Twice last week he was reported as saying there is going to be a new station of some kind, and that decision is going to affect a new station to be constructed around the turn of the century. The timing is not exactly precise in terms of year, but the message is very clear.

All I am asking the minister is quite simple: What kind of a station is he planning on building? When can he tell us about it? When can he finally recognize that what he is saying is quite the opposite of what the select committee has been saying about the need to deal with conservation before we get into the construction of another major plant?

Hon. Mr. Wong: I appreciate the honourable Leader of the Opposition’s concern in his question and I treat it very seriously.

Let me say first of all, with respect to Kathleen Kenna, the writer at the Toronto Star, I too have a great deal of respect for her professionalism. In fact, in the

article the other day where it talked about David and Goliath, I thought I would remind Kathleen if I were to see her today that at the end of that Biblical story, David won the day.

To answer the honourable leader, let me say that when I talk to everyone whom I talk to, I point out that over the next 15 years or so, at the rate at which the economy is growing, the rate at which demand is growing for electricity, the numbers seem to indicate that even after we do all the things we should be doing in the demand management area -- and this is in answer to the question -- it is my feeling that we will still have to look at the supply side.

As a result, here we are as a government, encouraging these smaller projects that can be implemented faster; they do not require as much in terms of capital; they can give our system greater flexibility in a shorter period of time.

What I am saying is that, as I said to the newspaper people, it depends on the time frame, and I feel that in due course, we will have to face that decision.

NURSING SERVICES

Mr. Harris: My question is for the Minister of Health. The minister will know that the three hospitals in Toronto that handle adult, open-heart surgery have a capacity to handle 3,100 cases a year; yet, according to a recent report by the Ontario Hospital Association, in 1989 only 2,600 procedures are expected to be performed. In other words, these three hospitals will be operating at 500 cases below their existing capacity while people are literally dying on waiting lists.

This does not sound like a world-class, well-managed health care system to me. I would ask the minister if she feels that this is a satisfactory situation. If it is not, what is she going to do to change it?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: As we have discussed on a number of occasions in this House, we have moved to increase our capacity for cardiovascular surgery in this province and we have increased it in a number of locations. It has increased in Hamilton. Just last week, Hamilton doctors announced their increase in capacity would, in fact, take the stress and pressure off Toronto. We know it has been increased in Sudbury, Ottawa, and in Toronto as well.

I want to assure the member opposite that expert physicians are working very closely with the ministry to make sure that the resources that were made available by the ministry some time ago are used to expand that capacity to meet the needs of the people of this province as quickly as possible.

Mr. Harris: We contacted the Ontario Hospital Association. It said that in spite of the present capacity, a shortage of nurses will restrict the ability of Toronto hospitals to perform open-heart surgery. So as important as it is to put more money into capital expenditures, to build new units, to bring more surgical teams on stream -- as the minister says, to increase the capacity -- without the nurses to staff these units they will continue to operate below even the existing capacity, let alone her solution, which is an expanded capacity.

I would ask the minister what action she is taking to ensure that more nurses are available to staff the intensive care units and to ensure that more nurses do not leave the profession?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I have taken a number of initiatives. Everyone understands that the hospitals themselves, the employers, the nurses’ union, the Ontario Nurses’ Association, the profession, the College of Nurses of Ontario, the educators, as well as government, all have a role to recognize the changing profession, to ensure that nurses are appreciated, are given the respect that they deserve and that their working conditions reflect the changing realities within our province and the role of women in the workplace.

I can tell the member that the commitment I have from all of the partners involved in delivering health care to this province is a commitment to work with us co-operatively to seek solutions. I am optimistic and very confident that we will be able to provide those services that are required to the people of Ontario, as close to home as possible, recognizing the regional differences of our province.

Mr. Harris: I would like the minister to take a look at today’s Globe and Mail. There are three full pages of classified ads for jobs for nurses. The big draw is money. There are ads here from Ontario hospitals. There are ads here from those outside Ontario. For example, at Stanford University Hospital in California, the salary range is $31,700 to $47,000. There are also management opportunities available, $41,000 to $62,000. Clearly the big draw is money. The respect that they are asking for is, in large part, money.

So until she agrees to allow the OHA to open contract talks with the nurses, until she agrees to provide the funding so that it can provide, particularly at the upper end salary ranges that are going to allow them to compete, we will continue to lose existing nurses and we will continue to be unable to attract nurses, so that whether the government builds 500 or 5,000 new units or new capacities for open-heart surgery, she is not even going to be able to live up to the existing capacity of 3,100 a year.

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I would remind the member opposite that intensive care nursing, critical care nursing and operating nursing are highly specialized parts of nursing and they require additional education in order to be able to work in those areas of nursing.

I can tell him that what will be helpful in this situation, and the reason I am so confident that within a very few weeks we will see that capacity increase in the city of Toronto, and downtown Toronto as well, is the fact that 68 critical care nurses will be finishing the program at Ryerson Polytechnical Institute. The hospitals of downtown Toronto have been sponsoring them to take that situation.

Other than that, I would say to the member that I have great respect for the collective bargaining process and I believe there are many issues to which collectively the employer, the Ontario Hospital Association, and the employee, the Ontario Nurses’ Association, will be able to seek solutions, with the support and facilitation of the ministry and of myself, problems that perhaps are outside the collective agreement.

COMMUNITY SAFETY

Mr. Jackson: My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services. On February 6, the officials of his ministry will release into the community the 18-year-old killer of Arthur Irwin, his wife and their seven-year-old daughter. Today, we have learned that the Irwin killer will probably remain within the Hamilton-Halton area, because that is where he is currently working. Will the minister agree to warn the local and area police, and the school officials if necessary, that this dangerous young man is about to be released into our community?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: I think the information the honourable member has just shared with us is fairly well known by the public, certainly in his area. As members know, we have co-operated with the local police in the provision for passes in the last six months.

Let me share with the honourable member that considerable initiatives have been taken to assist this young man to reintegrate himself back into society. The children’s aid society has offered, and he has accepted, guardianship for the next couple of years so that it can provide supports for him. A local youth support service has offered help and he has indicated he is prepared to do that. He does have a job. He has been offered living accommodation at two different centres. He will choose which of those he will accept.

I think all reasonable initiatives have been exerted to assist this young person and to assure the community in which he will live that those supports are there to help him.

Mr. Jackson: The minister is very careful not to clarify the nature or the extent of the information he is disclosing with respect to this case. He talks only about support services and whether or not they are operating in a vacuum. He knows full well that the Young Offenders Act, paragraph 44.1(1)(h), clearly states cabinet has that power to disclose that information and records to any class of persons it designates.

The Irwin killer has been pronounced so dangerous that it is said he “could kill again, without a doubt.” His girlfriend at the Syl Apps Youth Centre is a double murderer and his best friend is the boy who killed the Babineau children in Orangeville. At the trial, two psychiatrists testified he is insane. He has received absolutely no psychiatric treatment during the three years he has been in the minister’s care. Members of my community want to know whether the minister stands by his statement, in yesterday’s Toronto Sun, that he is absolutely “no threat to himself or others.” Does he stand by that statement?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: I think a rereading of that statement would clearly point out that I was sharing the information that had been made available to me, by the psychiatrists, psychologists, social workers, nurses and frontline counsellors who have worked with this young person, that there is no evidence he in fact is a danger to himself or others at this time and that consequently no psychiatrist could admit him to a psychiatric institution involuntarily.

I believe the member will also find, if he rereads the second part of the statement I made, that I said I, as the minister, can make no guarantees -- nobody can -- but all the evidence available at this time would indicate he is not a danger to himself or to others. I certainly hope the various agencies that have offered assistance to him, including the support staff at Syl Apps after he leaves Syl Apps, will have those offers used by the young person, and that society generally will give him an opportunity to reintegrate himself.

He has fulfilled all the commitments of the federal law. We, as a ministry, have fulfilled all the requirements of the federal law. It is now up to us as a society to give him a chance, and it is up to him as a young person -- he is an adult now; he is 18 --

Mr. Speaker: Thank you.

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: -- to take advantage of the support systems that are being made available.

Mr. Jackson: When I raised this question with the minister several months ago, the status of the Irwin killer was shifted from unsupervised day passes to supervised day passes. The minister has publicly stated that if he should ever find out who the employee was who talked to the media, he would fire him.

The relatives of the deceased Irwin family are terrified. They do not know what to do when this individual is released in a week. Some are seeking restraining orders to prevent this killer from coming near them. Therefore, I want to ask the minister what support he is giving those relatives specifically, and will the province assist in their motion for a restraining order?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: Let me go back to the editorial comment of the honourable member. He will recall that at the time confidential information was divulged by a staff member at Syl Apps, I made the very clear observation that all our staff people take an oath of confidentiality, and that is to respect what they have seen and heard as part of their job. That particular staff person broke that confidentiality. That was the basis of my statement.

Mr. Jackson: It contradicts what you’re telling us.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: No, it does not. What I clearly indicated was that a team of psychiatrists, psychologists, social workers, nurses and front-line staff people all made a joint decision as to this young person’s ability to cope outside of Syl Apps. The fact that some other single individual exerts his particular individual opinion is well beyond the confidential security oath he takes. That is what I was speaking to and I still think that is wrong.

The second point I would make very clearly is that while that young person was at Syl Apps, he did take advantage of the opportunity to participate in therapy sessions, both group and individual.

The third thing is that there is a federal --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

NONPROFIT HOUSING

Mr. Breaugh: I have a question for the Minister of Housing concerning the proposal to privatize the nonprofit housing program known as Homes Now. How does the minister explain to all those community and church groups out there that are working very hard to put together nonprofit proposals for affordable housing that they are expected to do their work on a nonprofit basis at the same time as the Ministry of Housing is inviting the private sector to come in and make a profit from this nonprofit housing proposal?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: As the member opposite knows, we have committed to building 30,000 new housing units through the provincial Homes Now program in a very short time. We are committed to getting this housing built as quickly as possible and to helping the groups that are going to be involved in building it to do that as well and as effectively as they possibly can.

We have increased significantly the staff in the Ministry of Housing that will be working with the nonprofit groups out there to make sure they can build the housing that they are committed to building and that we are committed to building with them.

We have also decided to try out the possibility that some of the administration of the program can be given to some of the people in the private sector, who are now bringing forward tenders to see whether they can do so while meeting our goals for working effectively with the nonprofit sector to make sure this housing gets built.

Surely the member opposite would not like some of the groups out there, which are not necessarily experienced in building housing all over this province, not to get adequate support in their process of building, in the information they need about building, about land, about development, which is quite a complicated process. We have significant staff committed to doing this in the ministry --

Mr. Speaker: Thank you.

Mr. Breaugh: It is not hard to get the foxes into the hen house; it is just that they are going to devour some of her assets while they are in there.

How can the minister possibly justify giving them access to things like how much land the government owns and what are the development proposals that will be a priority within her ministry? How does she justify giving the private sector access to this supposedly nonprofit housing program? How does she basically justify allowing them in to cream a profit from what is supposed to be a nonprofit proposal?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: The member opposite seems not to have understood what I was saying. What we are talking about is having people work with the nonprofit sector in the process of development. We are not talking about the development of government land directly. We are talking about making sure that the nonprofit groups that are going to be building housing all over this province get the support they are supposed to get. We are looking at the most effective and efficient way of doing that.

We have committed significant resources in the Ministry of Housing and have hired new people to do that. We are exploring the possibility some of that work can also be done by some people who are working with the development sector, to help nonprofit groups to build.

GOVERNMENT’S RECORD

Mr. Harris: I have a basic skill-testing question for the Premier. I would like him to listen to the following two short quotes.

Quote number one: “The government seemed bereft of new ideas and initiatives, and on the whole appeared to lack a coherent strategy and sense of direction.”

Quote number two: “The government’s top officials ‘have been totally preoccupied with problem-solving and crisis management rather than long-term planning or priority-setting.’”

My skill-testing question to the Premier is this: Which one of those two statements was made by one of his senior cabinet ministers and which one came out of the last legislative

summary prepared by my party?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Everything nasty around here is said by the member for Nipissing.

Mr. Harris: I am sending over to the Premier one of our legislative summaries. Neither of the two quotes came from me. I am not the type of person who would want to put forth destructive quotes. I think he will find most of the information I provide to the Legislature is dealt with constructively, trying to provide solutions to the problems.

I have sent over one of our legislative summaries. I want to say to the Premier that it will save him $150, because I understand that is the going rate for the report that was done by Public Affairs Management. I would like to know, on a serious note, if the Premier agrees with his cabinet ministers and his senior officials -- not with me, not with our legislative

summary. Does he agree with them, who have been quoted as saying, “Most ministers’ offices would agree that the Premier’s office is the biggest frustration,” and “They seem not to have a vision.”

Does the Premier agree with his ministers and officials who believe the biggest problem they face in delivering on policy promises is him?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: . The answer is a very clear “no.” Since the honourable member is giving me advice, let me give him some advice. In his bid for the leadership of his party, he should not try to fake it on a Mr. Nice Guy campaign. He will never make it.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Now could we get back to some ministerial matters?

SCIENCE EDUCATION

Mr. Adams: My question is for the Minister of Education. With the help of their teacher and a senior citizen, a group of grade 8 students in Peterborough has gained national media attention for their knowledge of the greenhouse effect. Theirs is an excellent example of good science education, but I fear their experience is the exception. What is being done to improve the quality of science instruction across this province?

Hon. Mr. Ward: I would like to thank the member for Peterborough for the question. I would have to say that indeed I very much support the kinds of initiatives being undertaken by the students to whom he referred. There is no doubt this is an area we have to increasingly focus our attention upon.

The member will be aware that back in 1986 my predecessor announced a very significant 24-point plan for the renewal of science in the primary and junior divisions within our education system. The focus clearly is on the need to foster curiosity and interest in science. Many of the proposals in that 24-point plan are just now coming into effect, including the new elementary science curriculum document called Science is Happening Here. It has now been released and I might say is receiving great reviews from educators throughout the province and indeed throughout the country.

Intensive teacher-training initiatives are under way. We have developed a directory of women in science. We have committed $6 million annually for new learning materials in primary science. I just want to reiterate that this is an area we believe is of fundamental importance and we will continue to come forward with these types of initiatives.

Mr. Adams: I am grateful for that reply. I was aware of some of the curriculum initiatives and I was delighted to hear of the others. What sort of measures are being taken to ensure these changes in curriculum are reaching the teachers and the students in the schools?

Hon. Mr. Ward: The member will know that in a number of areas we are working quite diligently in an effort to set clear standards and make sure both our students and teachers are meeting those kinds of expectations.

Recently, we participated in some international testing with a number of jurisdictions throughout the world in the area of science and mathematics. Just last year, we undertook a provincial review in grade 11 physics and chemistry. The results of that review should be available in the very near future. I just want to say to the member that we do believe in making sure there are clear, identifiable standards that we expect to be met, and we intend to follow up those sorts of initiatives with direct programs.

FIREFIGHTING

Mr. Hampton: My question is for the Minister of Natural Resources. It was recently announced by the Ministry of Natural Resources at its district offices in northwestern Ontario that regular firefighting crews will be reduced this summer from five-person crews to three-person crews and in some cases the number of crews will be reduced.

The minister knows that the 1986, 1987 and 1988 summers were bad fire seasons where millions of dollars of harvestable forest were lost. In view of that, why is the ministry cutting back on regular forest firefighting crews this year? How does the minister plan to meet emergency forest fire situations and does he not think this is a risky thing to be doing?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: No, I do not think good planning is ever risky. The fact is that this government spent some $50 million last year on fighting forest fires; probably the most successful forest firefighting group anywhere on the continent. We had people come from every other jurisdiction to study our process. We now have a complement of nine CL-215 water bombers. We have crews that number some 2,000. They correspond with the number of people who are needed at a particular time. The number in the crew does not really have significance as to the numbers we ultimately send out to fight fires.

I believe the record we have in Ontario for being in the forefront of those people who know how to fight forest fires has been proved and we continue to have some of the best management in forest firefighting anywhere in the area; in the world in fact.

Mr. Hampton: I see the minister admits the numbers in the regular crews are going to be reduced. One of the statements that was also made was that the regular forest firefighting crews are going to be replaced by emergency crews when the need arises.

I want to ask the minister this: We know the emergency crews are not as well trained as the regular crews. Back in 1979, seven young people died. It was not a forest fire situation; it was a prescribed burn situation. The coroner’s verdict that came out of that said that when people deal with forest fire situations, whether it be prescribed burns or an emergency forest fire, they should have something beyond the basic training; they should have more training than that.

What the minister is going to be doing this summer to fight forest fires is send a lot of people in who have just that, only basic training. Does the minister not think he is taking an awful risk in view of the fact seven people have already died, in 1979? It was documented at the coroner’s inquest.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I think the member is going beyond what might be considered good common sense in the question. The fact of the matter is that the modern firefighting crews are much changed from the days he is talking about in the numbers in the crew that respond as part of the initial strike capacity that we have now.

It is quite different from the area he is describing or the time he is describing. We now have equipment that can predetermine where lightning is going to strike, whether there is water with it, whether it is going to start a fire or not and whether the fire itself has reached a magnitude where it develops its own weather and starts fires.

The reason we are going this route is that when we are fighting fires now, we are looking at the basic original strike to put out starts as being the highest priority. We will not jeopardize our crews in any way, much as the member would like to describe it that way. That is just not the case.

The fact of the matter is that there is a very sophisticated way of fighting fires. We are going that route, we are putting the kind of money there to do it and we are putting the resources there to do it. I think the questions the member raises are for quite a different reason than how to fight forest fires in a very good way.

YORK REGION LAND DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Cousens: This question is for the Minister of Municipal Affairs. During the estimates of the ministry in December, the minister stated that the Ontario Provincial Police investigation into questionable land dealings in York region should be finished by either the end of December or very early in January. It is now the end of January and we have not heard anything about these police investigations yet.

Will the minister please inform the House what is going on with that review?

Hon. Mr. Eakins: I understand that the police investigation is almost completed. I cannot put an exact time on when the results of that will be made known, but I am sure it is not going to be very long now.

Mr. Cousens: Our party has been calling on this government and this minister to launch a public inquiry into land practices in high-growth areas, in York region and elsewhere. Time and time again, the position of this government has been to support an independent police inquiry into the matter; but we have had no public inquiry, we have had no report from the police investigation and, in fact, we have no faith in the government’s ability to deal with this issue.

What is the minister’s next move in restoring public confidence in the municipal planning process and the land development practices in York region and other fast-growing areas in the province?

Hon. Mr. Eakins: We have never ruled out a commission of inquiry. We said that very early, many months ago, after we received the initial inquiry from the residents, I believe from Mr. Death of Richmond Hill. We have said that we would await the completion of the police inquiry and then a decision will be made. I do not think it would be appropriate to have a commission of inquiry at the same time as the OPP investigation is under way. When that is completed, then that decision will be made.

WATER RESOURCES

Mr. Tatham: My question is to the Minister of Agriculture and Food. You never miss the water until the well runs dry. Last year, we had a drought situation in various parts of North America. In the county of Oxford in 1988, in the month of June and the first part of July, we had very little rain. A number of farmers were looking for a supply of water for fish, for cattle and for crops.

Is the ministry reviewing with other agencies policies that would simplify the procedure for obtaining water so that we have an action plan in place prior to another drought?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: As the member may be aware, the Ministry of the Environment has the lead jurisdiction over the allocation of large supplies of water. However, I have instructed my ministry staff, in consultation with the Ministry of the Environment and other groups, to examine feasible options to assist farmers in the event that the drought may recur this year.

Mr. Tatham: Has the ministry identified irrigation management strategies that promote the efficient use of water resources?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: My staff has been working this winter, assembling information on current irrigation practices and water use. As part of this work, information is being assembled on current water conservation technologies.

I will say in addition that my staff, in association with the University of Guelph, has been conducting research in the area of efficient irrigation scheduling. Information exchange meetings with interested growers have been arranged through farm organizations and additional meetings can be arranged on request.

So yes, we are looking at this. We are working very diligently on finding ways of assisting farmers in the event that this drought may occur next year, the year after or who knows how long after.

FUNDING OF SOCIAL SERVICE AGENCIES

Mr. Farnan: To the Minister of Community and Social Services: In a letter of June 2, 1988, to Pamela MacGregor, a community worker in Kitchener, the minister acknowledged that the current salary levels are too low to ensure a program of suitable quality for developmentally handicapped persons in the community.

On September 21, 1988, the minister wrote to another Cambridge community worker, David Wilde, that although the situation is serious for agencies which serve the developmentally handicapped, other sectors are in more urgent need, and these areas would receive priority.

Will the minister acknowledge that five months ago he promised to explore approaches for improving compensation levels for community workers with the developmentally handicapped? Will he tell us the nature and extent of his explorations and how he intends to redress the situation?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: The second letter reflects the basic reality that I, as the minister, am faced with; that is, a number of agencies that provide services in communities across the province have brought to my attention the difficulty they have in attracting and holding staff. As the honourable member is well aware, that includes homemakers, foster parents, young offenders facilities and the one that he particularly mentioned, the agencies that deal with services for the developmentally handicapped.

I have indicated that to my cabinet colleagues as part of our long-term strategy. I have been assisted by the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) with certain sums of money to gradually bring up those kinds of salaries. The second letter was simply a reflection of the fact that I am allocating those dollars where the greatest need is. That is not for a minute to suggest that there are not other needs, but they are put where the salaries happen to be the lowest.

The member will be aware of the fact that I got approval to place direct operating grants in child care centres because there was a general recognition that salaries in that service were particularly low. We were able to bring those salaries up by $3,000 to $4,000, on average, across the province. That is what we are working on. We are gradually working our way up that ladder and providing those kinds of increases in salaries where they are most needed.

Mr. Allen: Back to the Minister of Community and Social Services: The gaps that he talks about and that my colleague has talked about are by no means small ones. For example, a residential life counsellor in a comparable community agency would receive $18,000 to $21,000,

whereas in a ministry public service position it is $25,000 to $26,000, gaps of $7,000 and $5,000, respectively.

The minister talks as though there is some kind of strategy in the ministry, but his own letters to me on the subject indicate that in fact the gap is growing, not declining. The transfers to the agencies still run at inflation level, while within the ministry they run at seven per cent and above.

Will the minister please explain to us how these agencies can maintain staff morale and maintain numbers and quality of staff in order to deliver the kind of quality service that presumably he wants out of a community agency in his ministry’s strategy to base more service on those very agencies? How is he going to get the goods from agencies to which he does not deliver the money to perform for him?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: As the honourable member is well aware, we transfer well over $1 billion a year to agencies across the province to help deliver those services. We transfer the equivalent of almost another $1 billion to municipal governments, which in turn either provide the services directly or buy those services from community agencies. There is a lot of money out there.

The member will be well aware of the fact that during the four years that I have been minister, those salaries have gone up to a considerable extent. We have been able to transfer more money to them. He is also aware of the fact that the needs of all of these agencies are growing continuously. He will recall just late last week in our estimates debates that there was a certain amount of criticism attached to this minister for directing some of the ministry’s funds for the cost of administering programs rather than directly delivering those programs. I have to keep those balancing factors in place at the same time.

I can simply share with the honourable member that I recognize and I do not challenge for a minute the kinds of figures that he is using -- I have those figures at my disposal as well -- and that we are working towards dealing with them but we are starting, first of all, where the need and where the spread is the greatest.

We are looking at a whole range of community service programs and recognizing very clearly, as a ministry, that if we want to direct more of our attention and more of our resources towards community services rather than institutional services, then the resource dollars have to be there.

RADON GAS

Mr. Sterling: I have a question of the Minister of Health, in the hope that I can get some kind of answer from her, because I tried to ask a question some two years ago of the Minister of the Environment (Mr Bradley) about the issue of radon gas, which is becoming more and more of a concern and a public health issue, particularly in the area of the city of Kanata which I represent.

As the minister knows, radon gas is a carcinogenic product which is probably causing somewhere between 500 and 1,000 deaths due to lung cancer each year in our country. Canadian standards suggested by the Department of National Health and Welfare, Ottawa, are considerably higher than the United States counterpart. US recommended radon levels should not exceed four picocuries per litre. The Department of National Health and Welfare has recommended somewhere between four and 20 picocuries as a safe level.

Interestingly enough, four picocuries is --

Mr. Speaker: Does the member have a question?

Mr. Sterling: My question to the minister is: What is the acceptable level of radon gas for Ontario homes set by her government?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I think the member opposite might find it interesting to know that radon gas is a naturally occurring gas which is emitted from traces of natural uranium found in all rocks and in soils. It breaks down and causes radon gas.

I can tell the member that radon testing in the home is now available through the Ministry of Labour and anyone who wants to request or has concerns about levels can make the request through his local medical officer of health.

Mr. Sterling: The minister has not yet told me what the acceptable rate is for Ontario. If we take the American acceptable rate or the World Health Organization acceptable rate, 13 to 15 per cent of the homes in the city of Kanata would be above that rate and all of the homes in the Ottawa-Carleton area would be above that rate.

What is ironic is that the acceptable level in a mine in Ontario is four picocuries per litre. The fact of the matter is that homes in Kanata and Ottawa --

Mr. Speaker: Order. Could I ask the question for the honourable member?

Mr. Sterling: What is the minister going to do to protect the people of Ontario in their own homes?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: Whenever issues like this are raised, I want to tell the member opposite that I think it is very important that people have the facts; that is in the public interest. It is important for them to know that acceptable levels and standards are set by the federal government and that testing is available through the local medical officer of health and the Ministry of Labour when anyone has a concern about an unacceptably high standard.

I would say to the member and to all members that if anyone has a concern, he should contact his medical officer of health, who can arrange for testing to be done, and that the levels and standards are set by the federal government.

PREPAID SERVICES

Mr. Faubert: My question is to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. A constituent from my riding of Scarborough-Ellesmere recently brought to my attention a problem she is experiencing with a fitness club by the name of Holiday Fitness.

This club sold memberships for facilities that were to be located in the Scarborough Town Centre, and last fall Holiday Fitness decided not to open at this location. The same process occurred at a proposed location in Don Mills. In all, approximately 3,000 members were forced to transfer locations or to apply for refunds.

This constituent and others have been unable to recover their funds to date. Can the minister advise the Legislature what his ministry is doing to assist my constituent and the 3,000 other consumers to recover their investments?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: Yes, I can tell the honourable member that investigators from the ministry have been in contact with the owner of Holiday Fitness, who I am advised is attempting to put together some funds to at least provide a partial refund. Those contacts and that mediation effort are continuing.

I can also tell the honourable member that in the Scarborough and the Don Mills situations, we are checking to assure ourselves through our investigation that the owner did not continue to sell memberships after it became apparent to him that those clubs were not going to be able to successfully open.

The honourable member points out that there are some 3,000 individuals involved, and so it is a matter of real concern to us to attempt to at least recover some of the money.

Mr. Faubert: I thank the minister for his answer and I will be sure to pass it along to my constituents.

By way of supplementary, I have noticed many examples of fitness companies as well as other similar institutions requesting large deposits or advance payments for their services and then either taking off with the funds or declaring bankruptcy. Can the minister advise the Legislature of any initiatives his ministry has taken to help protect consumers of this province from losing their hard-earned cash in such ventures?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: One thing that the honourable member should know and would want to tell his constituents and that indeed it is important to remember is that since October of last year, we have had the Prepaid Services Act in place. Constituents in the Holiday Fitness and other such areas who have had the problem in the past will not in the future suffer the same kind of consequences.

We have under the Prepaid Services Act provided for the trusting of any fees that are paid by the member’s constituent and others, in terms of membership fees and indeed in terms of fees to join the club in initiation fees in the first instance. We have also made provisions that these annual fees, which are all that a club can ask for, can be paid on an instalment basis, so that the vulnerability of consumers is not very great indeed.

I do not think we can assure the people of Ontario that no fitness clubs in the future will go out of business. I can assure the honourable member and the House, though, that I think under the Prepaid Services Act the exposure that consumers face is much more minimal than it has been in the past.

HOMES FOR THE AGED

Ms. Bryden: I have a question for the Minister without Portfolio responsible for senior citizens’ affairs. A week ago I drew to the attention of the House the shocking news reported in the Sunday Star of January 22, 1989, that two senior residents of retirement homes had been found frozen to death outside the homes in January.

I am told that one victim resided in Meadowcroft Place, a privately operated retirement home in Etobicoke, and the other resided in York Manor, a publicly operated home for the aged run by York region in Newmarket. Apparently, the seniors had wandered outside in bitter winter weather and were unable to find their way back in or alert anyone inside.

My question to the minister is this: Since there are no provincial regulations requiring such residences to have specified security and alarm systems and adequately trained staff to respond to alarms, will she make a commitment to give this matter top priority and develop provincial regulations and a licensing system as soon as possible so that tragic events of this kind will not be repeated this winter?

Hon. Mrs. Wilson: I would inform the House that the two deaths the honourable member raises are now the subject of coroners’ inquests, and I look forward to receiving the recommendations which will come from the coroners. All the facts will be brought forth and will be made available to the public at that time. Those recommendations will be considered very seriously as we move towards the discussion of standards of care in rest and retirement homes.

We have asked the public for its input. I have now received more than 78 briefs on the issues. An advisory committee made up of experts from around the province is meeting and has told me it will give its report to me in March of this year.

We have also completed an inventory of rest and retirement homes in the province, and this will be published very shortly. Prior to this time we have not had a great deal of knowledge about the industry and we found it is a very complex one, ranging from small homes that may charge about $20 per day and offer very little to very luxurious homes which may charge in excess of $100 per day and offer a great deal in the way of amenities. We are working now with the information we are gathering to move towards discussions of the best way to regulate standards.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you. That completes the allotted time for oral questions and responses.

PETITIONS

SENIOR CITIZENS’ APARTMENTS

Mr. Harris: I have a petition which is a follow-up to one that I presented earlier. It reads:

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

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

“Whereas in 1973, the Ontario Housing Corporation constructed a senior citizen complex, consisting of a senior citizen apartment building located at 135 Worthington Street West, in the city of North Bay, and

“Whereas it has come to our attention that senior citizen apartments have been rented to nonseniors;

“Be it resolved that we the undersigned support the establishment of a regulation whereby senior citizen apartments be made available to seniors only.”

This is signed by about 250 seniors, in addition to the 300 or so I tabled a couple of weeks ago.

YORK REGION LAND DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Cousens: This is a petition, one of many that I have yet to present. I do not want to give them to the House all in one day as this government will be inclined to forget it unless we make more of an issue of it.

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

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

“Whereas the dramatic growth in York region has placed extreme pressure on the municipal planning process and, given that serious allegations have been made regarding the integrity of this process in York region, we strongly urge the provincial government to conduct a full and open public inquiry into the municipal planning process and land development practices of York region.”

It is signed by myself and submitted to the House.

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

TOWN OF MARKHAM ACT

Mr. Cousens moved first reading of Bill Pr79,

An Act respecting the Town of Markham.

Motion agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TIME ALLOCATION (CONTINUED)

Resuming the adjourned debate on government notice of motion 20.

Mr. Speaker: Does the member for Cambridge have any further comments?

Mr. Farnan: Yes, I will continue where I left off on Thursday last. Basically, at that stage I had talked about the process of receiving input from the public of Ontario as the committee toured the province. At that time, I noted that the government did not appear to be listening to the public.

Following that stage, we then went into the clause-by-clause discussion of these two bills in the standing committee on administration of justice. There was no indication that the Liberal members of that committee were prepared to listen to the arguments put forward by myself and by my colleagues in the New Democratic Party, the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale (Mr. Philip) and the member for Rainy River (Mr. Hampton).

Basically, what we attempted to do during the clause-by-clause discussion of this bill was reflect, in amendment form, all of the suggestions -- the most important suggestions -- that were received from the people of Ontario as we went across this province and received their briefs and presentations.

Every time that we put forward an amendment of substance that reflected what the people of Ontario said, we were defeated. I have to point out the fact that the votes on all occasions were the majority Liberal members of the committee using their majority vote to defeat the combined votes, in most cases, of the New Democrats and the Progressive Conservative members.

Following clause-by-clause discussion, we came back to the House, where we hoped to have constructive debate of these two important pieces of legislation. I point out that, contrary to the views that have been expressed by the Premier (Mr. Peterson) and members of his government that there has been exhaustive debate on these bills, it is just simply not true.

What we had was several months of public hearings during which we heard from the people of Ontario, but the government refused to listen. We had clause-by-clause in committee, which amounted to possibly about 50 hours of discussion at public hearing. Of those 50 hours, only four hours were spent on clause-by-clause discussion of Bill 114. That is the legislation that is supposed to provide protection for workers who will be asked to work on Sundays.

So on a very major piece of legislation which will affect the lives of possibly hundreds of thousands -- indeed, possibly millions -- of workers who, in years to come, may have to work on Sundays, there were four hours of discussion. The government then brings in a closure motion limiting debate so severely that if each member of this House were to rise and speak on Bill 113 and Bill 114 over the next three days, each member of the House would get three minutes.

There is a vast number of Liberal backbenchers -- indeed, members of the Liberal cabinet -- who will not speak on Bill 113 and Bill 114, despite the fact that their constituents -- small businessmen, workers, municipal politicians and churchmen -- are urging them to speak on this important issue and to reflect the will of their community, that they are opposed to this legislation. The vast majority of Liberal members of this government will be silent on the issue. They will not take their three minutes. It is interesting, but it is sad.

Why would the government force closure? It is an interesting question, especially for a government that wants to be perceived as open and accessible, that campaigned on the premise that it was open and accessible. Why would this government call for closure? There are two reasons.

The first is that the heat on the Sunday shopping issue is back. Just this past week, we had two of the pre-eminent churchmen in our province appealing to the government to withdraw this legislation and to review its policy.

What happened, in fact, is that while we had considerable discussion and emotion around the Sunday shopping-Sunday work issue back in the spring and summer of 1988, the heat was taken off the issue because it went on to the back burner. The issue of free trade and a very emotional federal election absorbed the interest of the public, so the Liberal government of Ontario was spared from the very strong feelings that people had about this legislation.

But now that the free trade issue and the federal election is over with, we are in a situation where people are again focusing on matters of significance at the provincial level, and one of the issues that they are focusing on is the Sunday shopping-Sunday work issue.

As I talked to many, many of my constituents in Cambridge this week, their remarks to me were, very simply: “Are they really going to go ahead and do this? Is the Liberal government going to close its ears to the voice of the people of Ontario, expressed so clearly and unequivocally?” I had to say to them as I met them in the market or on the street: “Yes. There is absolutely no indication that the Liberal government of David Peterson is going to listen to the people of Ontario.”

In fact, I regretfully had to say to them that the opposite is true, that this Liberal government is going to go ahead and act in direct opposition to the expressed will of the people of Ontario, the expressed will of every sector of our community. It is going to go ahead and reject the two months of public hearings, when 529 delegations representing millions of Ontarians said to the government: “We want to keep our common pause day. Withdraw this legislation.”

Whom is the government going to listen to? It is going to listen to nine delegations that came forward and said, “We are in support of this legislation.”

That is one reason.

The second reason the government calls closure is very simple. We saw an example of it in the House today. Mr. Speaker, you will recognize this, sitting in the chair, impartial as you are. You will recognize the fact that this government is embarrassed on a day-to-day basis in this House. My leader, the leader of the official opposition, and my colleagues are raising tough questions -- questions concerning health, housing, education, auto insurance, community workers and community programs -- and on a day-to-day basis this government is embarrassed.

Indeed, only today we saw in the newspapers that this government has no long-term vision, that it is acting on a crisis-management basis, a day-to-day basis. The truth of the matter, Mr. Speaker, and you will recognize the fact, is that the Liberal government wants to get out of here as quickly as it possibly can, because this government realizes that the longer this House is open, the more embarrassed it will be and the more its deficiencies will be exposed by the official opposition and the third party.

The moment of truth is indeed here. The question I asked when I opened my remarks was this: Is the government listening and is it accessible? If it is listening and if it is accessible, to whom is it listening and to whom is it accessible?

I am going to read into the record some quotations that I gleaned from my travels with the standing committee on administration of justice as we went around the province listening to the briefs of the people of Ontario.

This is what the people of Ontario have to say about the Liberal government. These are not my words. This is not an opposition member simply attacking the government for the sake of attacking the government. This is an opposition member reflecting the views of the people of Ontario as I heard them, as they were presented in written briefs as I toured the province. This is what the people of Ontario had to say. I can see that the Liberal members are blushing. They are embarrassed, and rightfully so.

“Who really wants this legislation? The lobby groups from the big plazas.” That is from the corporation of the town of Orangeville.

“Premier Peterson is being forced to go through with the proposed bill because of pressure from large department stores which want wide-open shopping.” That is from Mike Collins, Niagara regional councillor.

“The government of this province is not listening to the wants of the majority of the people who elected them. What in the world do we have to do to get our point across?” That is from Robert Labella, London Chamber of Commerce.

“The Liberals were elected to represent the people in their ridings. The people are saying ‘no’ to the local option. It seems that everybody is wrong except the Liberal Party.” That is from the United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local 1977.

Indeed, I would like to make a comment on this particular extract from the brief of Local 1977 of the UFCWU because it is a fact that the Liberals are not even listening to the Liberal Party. Mr. Speaker, I see you squirm in your chair, because I know that you are personally embarrassed. Even as an impartial chairman you are a member of the government.

The reality of the matter is that we had the executive vice-president of the Liberal Party of Ontario appear before the committee. She said that it was not discussed in the Liberal Party. It came as a total surprise to her.

Mr. Black: Who was that? What was her name?

Mr. Farnan: Her name was Sylvia Sutherland, the mayor of Peterborough and the ex-vice-president of the Liberal Party. Not even the Liberal Party was consulted. Not only did the Premier, his cabinet and his government ignore the people of Ontario but they even ignored the Liberal Party.

Let me go on and reflect on the views of the people of Ontario. What were the remarks of those people who were addressing the Premier, who were addressing the government? I am going to go through all of the major players, and I am going to pick out just one or two quotations for each of the major players.

This is what the Association of Municipalities of Ontario said to the Liberal government: “The association is firmly opposed to what it perceives as the transfer of a complex and socially divisive issue by an indecisive provincial government under the guise of municipal autonomy.” It is signed by the president of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario.

We have small businessmen. Small businessmen have expressed, right across this province, their opposition.

“If any city in the Windsor-Toronto corridor opens, virtually every city in that corridor will eventually be forced to open due to cities complaining of losing their market share to a city a short distance away” -- the Waterloo Chamber of Commerce.

The essence of this bill is the domino theory. We know that all that has to happen is for one municipality to accept the option of opening on Sundays, and then they will succumb to the pressure of the friends of the Premier -- the big business lobby. They will open on Sunday and a domino effect will take place. This is what happened in other jurisdictions. This is what will happen in Ontario.

As the opposition parties have pointed out, it will not happen overnight. The sky will not fall in, but over time there will be an erosion of Sunday as we know it, of family values and of traditional values. Of course, everybody recognizes this, except the Liberal government.

The churches of Ontario:

“I want to live in a province in which the vast majority of citizens can share and count on a common day of pause and rest, a common day of recreation and renewal, a common day for visiting and sharing and, yes, for some a day of worship” -- Reverend Milton Barry, All Saints’ Anglican Church, Peterborough, Ontario.

“Very few family-oriented activities take place during the week. Have you ever seen a parade going down the street on a Monday or a Tuesday?” -- John Montgomery, vice-president of the UFCWU.

“This legislation is anti-worker. In our home, Sunday is the one day a week we can spend valuable time together as a family. This is one day we can plan months ahead for family gatherings, birthdays, Father’s Day, Mother’s Day, time with grandparents, help with school projects, etc.” -- Mabel Hadley, retail worker, Lindsay, Ontario.

“We believe that the government should give greater consideration to the wellbeing of the family unit in Ontario. Legislation should be aimed at strengthening the family and not tearing it apart,” the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, Oshawa, Ontario.

“Who will attend community events we are so proud of providing?” -- Karen George, mayor of Brantford.

The tragedy is that workers, trade unionists and churches have fought side by side for over a century to try to get better working conditions for workers. This is reflected in the next quote.

“Have we forgotten the hard fight of our ancestors for just conditions of work? If we remember what they struggled for, which included a humane workweek, allowing time for their families, we will not lightly turn the clock back to a time when competition for dollars ruled the lives of both workers and employers” -- from the office of Catholic Family Life, the archdiocese of Toronto.

From an average citizen: “I am sick and tired of my taxes being paid to rejuvenate sagging downtowns and at the same time the government enacting legislation which would accelerate their decline.”

From a small businessman: “We will have a situation where malls are promoting heavily to attract Sunday shoppers and the result will be shopping dollars spent in large regional shopping malls at the expense of downtown or city centre stores.”

I am going to wind up my remarks, but those examples are simply a reflection of examples that have been put forward in the hundreds of briefs -- there were over 529 briefs -- opposed to this legislation. There were nine briefs in favour.

Whom then is the government listening to?

We have established that it is not listening to the Liberal Party. It was never a policy position of the Liberal Party. It was never discussed within the Liberal Party. Liberal members were given to believe that this was not the policy of the Liberal Party and were surprised and shocked, as was the mayor of Peterborough, Sylvia Sutherland, for example, who said, “It came as a complete surprise to me when the Premier announced this position.”

It was not a Liberal Party position. It was not something wanted by workers. It was not something wanted by churches. It was not something wanted by small businessmen. It was not something wanted by municipalities. Who in the hell wanted this legislation? it was the big business friends of the Premier. That is who wanted this legislation.

It is a shame that Liberal members in this House will not exercise their right to their independence to vote independently on this issue. I am going to conclude with an appeal for a free vote by the Reverend Jones of the Anglican Diocese of Huron when he said this to the committee:

“At the very least, it would seem to us that on a matter which affects the private lifestyles of so many people, the vote in the provincial Legislature should not be governed by party politics but rather by a free vote of conscience.”

I am going to appeal to our listening audience and to the people of Ontario to examine this fact: Every municipal politician in the region of Waterloo, when asked about Sunday shopping, “Are you in favour of this legislation?” said no.

The workers do not want it. The businesses do not want it. The churches do not want it. Municipalities do not want it.

Is it not strange that every Liberal in this House is going to vote in favour of this legislation? Is it not strange that the 48 Liberals in the last House, in a minority government, all supported a common pause day? It boggles the mind that when they were a minority government, every Liberal in that minority was in favour of a common pause day. Suddenly they are given a majority government, they are given 95 seats at the time. All 95 Liberals now are in favour of the legislation, which is a direct contradiction of the legislation that was there previously.

What that says to me is that party discipline has been exercised on this issue and that the Premier’s words in this House when he said there was a free vote are not true. Indeed, the vote will reflect that the Liberals will do what they are told, in the hope of a parliamentary assistant position or whatever, and they are going to ignore the constituents who sent them here, the people whom they represent.

The people of Waterloo will look at the members for that particular region, and those members know that the vast majority of voters in the Waterloo region, the vast majority of voters in Brantford, the vast majority of voters in Guelph, are going to be ignored. The Liberal members who represent those ridings are going to ignore the constituents of Brantford, Guelph, Kitchener and Waterloo, and that is a total disgrace. They were sent here to represent those constituents, and because they are being told what to do, they are going to ignore the constituents who sent them here and who have spoken in such a singularly clear voice.

In conclusion, I want simply to say that the people of Cambridge have been outstanding in expressing their views. In public forums, in letters and in petitions, the people of Cambridge have sent a very strong message to this assembly.

I think they reflect the views of the people of the province. I want to go on the record as saying that it has been a great privilege for me to be the spokesperson for the people of Cambridge in reflecting their views in this House.

I am sad to report back to them that the Premier and his government are simply saying: “We heard what you said, but it does not mean anything to us. We’re going to go ahead, despite what the people of Cambridge say, despite what the people of Ontario say.”

Peter Hoogendam, the furniture store owner in Kingston, Ontario, said before the committee, and he was talking to the Liberal members on the committee, “Rest assured, we will remember.”

There is a political price that the Liberals pay for ignoring the people of Ontario. This issue will not go away, and come the next election the members from Brantford, Guelph, Kitchener and Waterloo are going to be reminded by the voters in my region that they ignored the wishes of the people and they do not deserve to be re-elected and to continue to represent that area.

Mr. B. Rae: Mr. Speaker, I want to speak very briefly in this debate. I have already indicated to you that I think this imposition of the guillotine is unjustified. It is unworthy of the democratic process that we would come to this, in terms of the government using its majority to simply force through legislation without any significant change and without listening to the vast numbers of people who are so strongly opposed to it.

I also want to signal to you, sir, that we have fought this battle now for many, many months, indeed many years, and it has become perfectly clear to us that the government is bound and determined to have its way. To put it bluntly, we can add that we know the government, if this is what it is determined to do, can in fact force the House to vote and can, according to you and your ruling, sir, close off debate.

I want to make it clear that I think the government is making a very significant mistake. I think the legislation they are proposing is wrong, and I think their approach to this whole subject has been very wrong. They have had opportunities many times along the way to change their minds, to change the bill, to change the law, so that people would have more protection on Sunday than they now have. At each and every opportunity when they were presented with that chance to do something to change the legislation and to change the law, they decided not to do that.

For example, a recent letter I have received, and which I would like to read, signed by the Reverend John W. Van Stenford, who is the clerk for the Classes Toronto of the Christian Reformed Church, indicates and really reflects the views of a very substantial number among us. I simply want to read it to the members, so they get a chance to get some feeling for the opinion that is out there. They say:

“Today, January 26, the undersigned representatives of congregations, consisting of approximately 10,000 members living in and around Toronto, considered the pros and cons of Bill 113 and Bill 114. We are deeply concerned about their possible negative implications for the life of our families and that of our neighbours as well as for the social fabric of our communities.

“As these bills now read, they do not promote a common day of rest, nor do they protect the workers’ social rights and employment security. In fact, they do the opposite. They undermine -- not intentionally, we trust -- the working people’s opportunity to spend adequate time with their spouses, families, friends, neighbours and relatives or at worship, if they wish.

“Increasingly, they will be confronted with conflicting work schedules. As a result, this legislation will further limit people’s ability to contribute to the development and maintenance of a quality way of life so essential to the social and spiritual wellbeing of our children and grandchildren and the potential of our communities and our country.

“In view of the biblical principles of love and justice, which we as Christian Reformed Churches share with many other faith communities, we sincerely appeal to the government and the opposition parties to exercise their public office for the common good. We urge you to make appropriate amendments to Bill 113 and Bill 114 that would substantially reduce all unnecessary Sunday work and significantly strengthen the worker’s social rights.

“Furthermore, the legislation should protect human rights and freedoms of religious minorities. Your nonpartisan co-operation for fairness and public justice for all people is greatly appreciated. May God grant you the wisdom to act responsibly. We look forward to hearing from you.”

It is signed by several representatives of the Christian Reformed Church.

I think members can see from the letter which I have read, and indeed from thousands of others which we have read in this House, that there is a sense out there that the government has been unreasonable; that it had a chance to amend the legislation and chose not to do so; that it has had the chance, and still will have at this late date, at the conclusion of this debate, the opportunity to effect some change. I guess I simply want to say that the government has this chance now to make some changes. I hope very much that it will take the opportunity to make the changes that are necessary.

I think the bill is a bad one. I think that both pieces of legislation -- the one which in effect will give the municipalities the option to open Sundays generally across the province, and the second which will provide no real protection for workers who do not want to work on Sunday -- are dramatic steps backward. I think we need a provincial law that sets a common standard for Ontario. I think the best labour legislation we could have would be Sunday closing legislation. Anything else is very inadequate and does not really meet the situation, the requirements or our needs.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I want to say that in your ruling, sir, I think you have established a very dangerous precedent. I think it is a terrible precedent to say that the majority can in effect, without so much as a by-your-leave, amend the standing orders and simply force through legislation as it wishes. With great respect to you and to your office, I think it is lamentable that we did not convince you that minorities need more protection in this House, and that is particularly true when you have a government the size of this one.

I think we are now living with rules and with precedents in this House which will not stand democracy well at the end of the day. It would be far better to have real consensus among all the parties as to how the business of the House should be ordered and some greater willingness on the part of the government to at least listen to those of us who are in opposition to what it is trying to do.

Mr. McCague: I did not object to giving up a little time to the Leader of the Opposition to make some parting remarks as he leaves for a plane. I presume it is to Ottawa to see what his chances are in the next leadership convention.

Mr. Smith: Where they have Sunday shopping. They voted in favour of Sunday shopping in Sault Ste. Marie.

Mr. McCague: That is very true.

Hon. Mr. Riddell: How many times have you and I Sunday-shopped when we were in committee, George?

Mr. McCague: I am pleased to address this motion. Anything I can do to agitate the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Riddell), I will be glad to do. I know that what I will have to say about this motion is exactly what he would say if he were reflecting the thoughts of his constituents. However, he will find in the area of cabinet solidarity a little difficulty doing that.

Hon. Mr. Riddell: My constituents like the Sunday closing bill. It is a Sunday closing bill.

Mr. McCague: He may even be absent the day that the final vote is taken.

It is a pleasure to comment on this motion, because I consider it my job to reflect the thoughts of the people in the good riding of Simcoe West, many of whom, somewhat over 2,000, have conveyed to me their thoughts on the matter. I think the same applies to me as to all other members of this House, especially in the more rural parts of the province -- somewhere around 75 per cent to 85 per cent of people who respond are opposed.

There may be a silent minority out there that chooses not to divulge its wishes in this matter, but I know that all rural members of this House, if they have done any surveys at all, will find that those opposed to shopping on Sunday are in the area of 75 to 85 per cent.

It was quite some time ago that the government House leader introduced the motion we are debating today. It is a little hard to keep truly on subject because this motion does involve Sunday opening and closing and working conditions, so I think it is about time we read the motion back into the record again. After four or five days, I am sure the viewing audience has forgotten what it was all about.

Mr. Conway moved:

“That, when the order is called for resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for adoption of the committee report on Bill 113,

An Act to amend the Retail Business Holidays Act, not more than one sessional day shall be allocated to this order and that at 5:45 p.m. on that day, the Speaker shall put every question necessary to dispose of this order” -- just one day, and one day in this kind of debate means a maximum of three hours, hardly enough time to truly debate a matter of this importance.

The motion goes on to say:

“And that notwithstanding standing order 66(c), there shall be two sessional days allocated to the consideration of Bill 113,

An Act to amend the Retail Business Holidays Act, and Bill 114,

An Act to amend the Employment Standards Act, together in the committee of the whole House. At 5:45 p.m. on the second of these sessional days, the Chairman shall put all questions necessary to dispose of every

section of both bills not yet passed as well as the titles and shall report both bills forthwith to the House, and that the question for the adoption of the report of the committee of the whole House on both bills shall be put forthwith and decided without amendment or debate.

“Further, that there shall be one sessional day allocated to the consideration of Bill 113,

An Act to amend the Retail Business Holidays Act, and Bill 114,

An Act to amend the Employment Standards Act, together at the third reading stage and that on that sessional day, the Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings at 5:45 p.m.”--Mr. Speaker, you must feel a little uneasy about interrupting the proceedings just to have a vote -- “and put all questions necessary to dispose of the order for third reading of the two bills.

“Finally, that in the case of any division requested during the time that these bills are being considered, the bells shall be limited to 15 minutes.”

I do not know what would happen if the two opposition parties did not show up for the vote, but it would be interesting to see. I presume the government would use the same guillotine, sledgehammer method it is presently using to limit debate on this and make it a fait accompli.

In the riding of Simcoe West there are two municipalities that are open on Sundays: Wasaga Beach and Cookstown. Those municipalities use the tourist exemption, which seemed like a legitimate enough way to be able to remain open, and people in the area do not object to those two municipalities being open on Sundays. What they do object to is any further openings in the area.

I suggest to the members that these bills are both kind of a knee-jerk reaction to the odd problem that showed up with the legislation, the status quo. I do not think anything was broken and therefore the best advice I could offer is, “Don’t try to fix it.”

I am sorry the House leader, the member for Renfrew North (Mr. Conway), is not with us at the moment. I think he is plotting some further strategy. I was always interested in listening to two people in this House, particularly when they were in opposition, the House leader, the member for Renfrew North, and the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon), and in reading back to them, as has been done on many occasions but not in their totality in any way, the quotes they made when they were in opposition.

I think those two honourable gentlemen felt at that time that what they were saying was true. If that is the way they felt, why is it not still true today? There are all kinds of things those two members have said that have come back to haunt them. They of course just smile and get out the sledgehammer and bring in this time allocation motion. It is closure. No matter what the government wants to say, it st