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

February 21, 1989

34th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

L150 - Tue 21 Feb 1989 / Mar 21 fév 1989

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

GRAY COACH LINES LTD.

POLICE OFFICERS

BRIAN STEMMLE

PROPERTY SPECULATION

PROVINCIAL PARKS

GEORGE LESLIE SMITH

GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES

MINING ACCIDENT / MORT ACCIDENTELLE DANS LES MINES

ORAL QUESTIONS

HOUSING ON GOVERNMENT LAND

TEACHERS

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

GOVERNMENT PLANNING

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

OUTBREAK OF MENINGITIS

EMPLOYMENT ADJUSTMENT

CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS

ASSISTANCE FOR THE DISABLED

GRAIN STABILIZATION PROGRAM

EDUCATION FUNDING

TRAINING FOR FIREFIGHTERS

SPECIAL SERVICES AT HOME PROGRAM

NATIVE PEOPLE AND THE JUSTICE SYSTEM

PETITIONS

SENIOR CITIZENS’ APARTMENTS

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

RETAIL STORE HOURS

SMALL CLAIMS COURT

ORDERS OF THE DAY

MUNICIPAL STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF SUDBURY AMENDMENT ACT

MUNICIPAL PRIVATE ACTS REPEAL ACT

ROAD ACCESS AMENDMENT ACT

DISTRICT MUNICIPALITY OF MUSKOKA AMENDMENT ACT

PLANNING AMENDMENT ACT (CONTINUED)

PLANNING AMENDMENT ACT

DISTRICT MUNICIPALITY OF MUSKOKA AMENDMENT ACT

INDEPENDENT HEALTH FACILITIES ACT

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

Prayers.

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES

Hon. Mr. Elston: I have a message from His Honour the Lieutenant Governor, who transmits supplementary estimates of certain additional sums required for the services of the province for the year ending March 31, 1989, and recommends them to the Legislative Assembly.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

GRAY COACH LINES LTD.

Ms. Bryden: I am gravely disturbed by the news that Gray Coach Lines is planning to abandon the Owen Sound to Barrie and the Kitchener to London bus routes on March 5, 1989. I would like to ask the Minister of Transportation (Mr. Fulton) if he has approved this plan.

Gray Coach, which is wholly owned by the Toronto Transit Commission, was given exclusive rights over profitable routes many years ago, with an obligation to provide quality service for less-profitable and even money-losing routes. Is the minister prepared to let them abandon this responsibility? Is it in the public interest to return to the chaotic situation of unco-ordinated private bus line operators which preceded the establishment of Gray Coach Lines and produced a variety of standards of service?

The March 5 closedown of the Gray Coach routes will leave a substantial number of residents in the areas served by these routes with no reliable alternative public transportation. It will also result in the loss of jobs for a large number of Gray Coach employees located in these communities.

I urge the minister to refuse approval of the line abandonment until he has listened to the residents and the employees affected and is prepared to guarantee that the ministry will see that quality service is provided to these areas. I also urge him to give us a policy statement on the privatization of the bus transportation service in this province.

POLICE OFFICERS

Mr. Runciman: In the absence of a statement yesterday from the Solicitor General (Mrs. Smith), I would like to express the Progressive Conservative Party’s wishes for a speedy recovery to the two police officers wounded this past weekend.

The assaults once again draw attention to the dangers inherent in police work and should give us all pause for thought with respect to the barrage of criticism, much of it unproven and unwarranted, that has been directed at police officers and officials over the past few months.

Throughout all of the recent verbal assaults on police, the Solicitor General has been consistent -- consistent in her lack of support for police. This weekend she once again quickly jerked her knee and joined in the chorus of those criticizing a police officer for revealing statistics that were requested of him by the North York race relations committee; statistics that, by the way, just told it like it is.

The message to police across this province is clear: Beware of this Solicitor General. She is no friend of the men and women putting their lives on the line for all of us, every day of the week, right across this province.

BRIAN STEMMLE

Mr. Beer: As honourable members will recall, on Saturday, January 14, 1989, Brian Stemmle, one of Canada’s finest competitive skiers, was badly injured at a downhill event in Europe. Since his accident, Brian, a resident of Aurora in my riding, has been confined to hospital and he is now at Sunnybrook Medical Centre in Toronto slowly recovering from the severe injuries he received.

Brian Stemmle is the kind of young man with a great deal of drive and focus on the job at hand. I am sure we can all understand the frustration he must feel at the present time, confined as he is to a hospital bed.

We all recall how Brian injured his knee shortly before the Olympics in Calgary last year yet he still tried to compete. This year he was making his mark on the world circuit when he had his accident.

Brian is the kind of young athlete we Canadians are now producing in many key sports areas. He is dedicated to showing that with excellent coaching, solid facilities and strong personal drive and determination, Canadians can compete with the best in the world.

I believe that I speak for all of us in this Legislature in wishing Brian Stemmle a complete recovery from his injuries and a full and productive life ahead.

PROPERTY SPECULATION

Mr. Farnan: Young couples must ask themselves why a government would sit idly by as speculation continues to drive up the cost of housing. All members of this assembly already have or are in a position to purchase a piece of the real estate pie. We have our homes, and the increased value of properties caused by speculation is in fact increasing the value of our properties.

When young couples examine the makeup of the present Liberal cabinet, they find that a significant number of the key cabinet members are extremely comfortable financially. Is this why the government is so complacent?

In 1988 the cost of the average home in Cambridge rose 30 per cent, from $105,000 in January 1988 to $140,000 in January 1989. The costs continue to spiral and the major factor in this increasing cost is speculation. If we were in the position where we did not yet own our own homes and could see costs increasing across the province, I can guarantee we, as members of this assembly, would not be so complacent.

Is the time not long overdue for the government to take the heat out of the housing market by immediately imposing a speculation tax on the purchase of all homes that are not a primary residence?

PROVINCIAL PARKS

Mr. McLean: My statement is directed to the Minister of Tourism and Recreation (Mr. O’Neil) and concerns his government’s new parks policy.

I have to wonder if the Minister of Tourism and Recreation had any input into this new policy. I wonder if he was even consulted when the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio) dreamed up his new parks policy that bans so-called nonconforming uses, including hunting and fishing, in Ontario’s parks.

Does the Minister of Tourism and Recreation not realize that these uses are major drawing cards for attracting visitors to our parks from throughout Ontario, the rest of Canada and even the United States? Hunting and fishing have been carried out in our parks for years without damaging the environment or interfering with people who visit our parks for other purposes.

As well, the minister should have stepped in and pointed to a report commissioned by the Ministry of Natural Resources that indicates the people of Ontario do not really want more provincial parks. The Laventhol and Horwath report also goes on to suggest that people are not driving more than one or two hours to use a park and that the tourist marketplace for the use of provincial parks is flat. The government chose to ignore this report and went ahead, establishing 53 new parks. It forgot about the hunters and fishermen.

Since this government took office, the roads are continuously going downhill.

GEORGE LESLIE SMITH

Mr. D. W. Smith: It is with sympathy that I inform the House of the passing of George Leslie Smith on February 15. He was from Brights Grove, Ontario, which is in my riding of Lambton. He was 66 years of age.

George Smith was one who possessed a wealth of historical knowledge about Lambton county. His love of history and his collection of artefacts was recognized and utilized by the citizens of both the county of Lambton and the city of Sarnia.

He was an active community volunteer and contributed to many worthwhile projects such as the founding of the Clearwater Public Library and the founding of a children’s art class sponsored by the Sarnia Public Library.

An accomplished speaker, Mr. Smith spoke to numerous audiences on historic subjects. His talents were also published in his first book, entitled The Bluewater Highway, along with his latest publication, entitled The Street Names of Sarnia.

George Smith will be greatly missed in Lambton county. I would like to extend my sincere sympathy to his wife, Maxine, and their children.

GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES

Mr. McLean: My statement is directed to the Chairman of the Management Board of Cabinet (Mr. Elston). It concerns increases to ministry staff.

The Ontario public service staffing increased by 6,884 employees between March 31, 1985, and March 31, 1988. During that time, there were 335 ministry staff added to the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation; 371 to the Ministry of Labour; 457 to the Ministry of the Environment; 592 to the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines; and a whopping 1,595 staff added to the Ministry of Correctional Services.

I would not be so concerned if these public service staff were actually those men and women who are out in the field doing the work, but they are not; they are in the ministries, drawing large salaries which this government increased when it came to power.

The Chairman of Management Board of Cabinet is supposed to have proper control of ministry budgets and staffing. It appears he does not. He and his government have embarked on a program of empire-building. He and his government should he ashamed of the extra staff they have hired and the increased amount of money that is being spent for administration.

MINING ACCIDENT / MORT ACCIDENTELLE DANS LES MINES

Hon. Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a short statement on the mine fatality in South Porcupine yesterday.

Mr. Speaker: Is there agreement?

Agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Conway: Very briefly, I would like to express, on behalf of the government, our condolences to the families and the colleagues of those three miners who were fatally injured at the Placer Dome mine in South Porcupine in the Timmins area.

I can inform the House that the mine health and safety branch of the Ministry of Labour was contacted at approximately 1:30 yesterday afternoon. The branch immediately responded by providing nonfire emergency rescue equipment and other technical advice. The recovery operation was completed, I believe, at 8:15 last evening.

The Ministry of Labour is actively involved in the investigation of the circumstances that caused this tragic loss of life at that particular mine, and I can assure the House that we will keep members abreast of the findings of that examination.

Again, on behalf of the government, I want to express our condolences to the families of those who were killed yesterday.

Mr. Mackenzie: Just as a very brief response to the minister’s comments, we join with him in sending our condolences to the families of those involved. We think, however, it is important to raise at least a couple of issues as a result of this unfortunate fatality in the mine.

There are all too many mine deaths in Ontario. It is a situation that has not really improved and it probably underlines as much as anything else the need for the continuing extension of health and safety services in Ontario, as well as training programs, particularly for miners in underground operations.

We wonder why this unfortunate accident would have a piece in the paper which indicated that the men were in a

section of the mine known as the widow-maker. Obviously, there had been previous accidents and fatalities in that particular

section of the mine. This raises some questions in our minds, as I am sure it will in those of the workers involved, as to just what kind of planning and what kind of precautions are taken to protect the workers in a situation like this. We hope that this will help to underline the need for some of the safety and health legislation that we are now thinking of in Ontario.

Mr. McCague: I rise to endorse the comments made by the government House leader and by the member for Hamilton East (Mr. Mackenzie). This tragic passing of three people is something we hope will never happen but it seems to continue to do so. The wise counsel of those much more familiar than I with the circumstances should be heeded on all occasions. We in our party send condolences to all those close to those who have passed on.

M. Pouliot : Je suis convaincu que tous les membres de l’Assemblée législative voudront se joindre aux familles, à la ville de Timmins, ainsi qu’à la communauté minière de l’Ontario, pour offrir leurs condoléances.

Hier, à la mine Placer Dome, des équipes de secours ont lutté et oeuvré durant sept heures afin de sauver la vie des trois mineurs ensevelis quelque 1200 pieds sous terre. Hélas, leurs efforts furent en vain...

On nous a communiqué qu’il semble que la mort de ces trois mineurs ait été instantanée. Les députés se souviendront qu’en 1982, un jeune mineur de 18 ans a perdu la vie dans le même secteur de cette mine et que, l’an dernier, un autre mineur a succombé à une chute dans un puits au même endroit. Ironiquement, la zone la plus profitable d’une mine est souvent la plus dangereuse. Le travail de mineur est difficile et parfois dangereux. À cause des maladies industrielles et des accidents, cette carrière est hélas souvent très courte. Il faudra donc continuer à oeuvrer pour s’assurer que ces gens, qui contribuent tellement aux bénéfices économiques de l’Ontario, seront protégés à l’avenir.

Mr. Speaker: When the official record of the House, Hansard, is printed, I will, on behalf of all members, make certain that the families of the miners receive the members’ words of sympathy.

ORAL QUESTIONS

HOUSING ON GOVERNMENT LAND

Mr. B. Rae: My question is for the Minister of Housing. Last week the minister said, “This government has made a commitment that on our land we are going to make sure that people get homes they can afford to buy and homes they can afford to live in.”

I want to draw the minister’s attention to a proposal from Centennial College in Metropolitan Toronto to sell off three acres of land at the corner of Pape and Mortimer avenues for $10 million to a company called H and R Developments in co-operation with Drachma Enterprises. It is the intention of this developer to build a 13-storey, 295-unit condominium building. None of the units in that proposal will be of a nonmarket kind; they will all be sold at whatever price the market will bear.

Does this kind of development on land that is indirectly owned by the taxpayers of this province conform with her statement last week, that on government land people are going to get homes they can afford to buy and homes they can afford to live in?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: My statement the other day referred to our Housing First policy, as the member very well knows. Our Housing First policy says that on lands which are declared surplus by the government and are designated surplus, we will either use that land for the purpose of developing communities of mixed income in which at least 35 per cent of the housing will be affordable, or if a piece of land is not suitable for that purpose and will be sold, then the money that comes into the Treasury as a result of that is given to the housing development fund.

That is the way the Housing First policy works. It deals with land that is declared surplus to the usage of various ministries. The member has already seen that there are eight pieces of land we have announced are going to be dealt with in that way. He will be seeing more.

Mr. B. Rae: As to this land in question, I am sure the minister will know where Pape and Mortimer is. It is not too far from where she herself lives. She knows exactly the corner I am referring to.

I want to ask the minister this simple question: Centennial College has obviously declared this land surplus. Other universities and colleges are sitting on vast tracks of public land, much of which is now about to be developed or is being proposed for development. I want to ask the minister very specifically, is she saying land that is sold off by these universities and community colleges is not subject to the policy statement that at least 35 per cent of housing built on the land will in fact be affordable housing?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: We have been working with the Ministry of Colleges and Universities and we are going to consider all proposals for affordable housing on our lands. Those lands must be declared surplus by the ministry in question and then go to the Ministry of Government Services for the purpose of development of the land. We are in the middle of conversations, of course, with all ministries about this and we are working with the Ministry of Colleges and Universities on any lands that are declared surplus by that ministry.

Mr. B. Rae: I do not think I heard an answer to the question. I asked a question, first of all, about a particular project and I did not get an answer. I then asked a question about universities and colleges and I have not had an answer. I want to ask the minister to come back, then; since she was not able to answer the first question and she was not able to answer the second question, I will give her one more chance.

She set out her policy in this House on Thursday when she said -- I am quoting from her on Thursday -- “We have made our commitment to make sure at least 35 per cent of the units built on our land are affordable.” In the words of the old song, “This land is my land, this land is your land,” I want to know whose land is this land when it comes to Centennial College, when it comes to other universities and colleges and bodies whose land is in fact paid for indirectly by the taxpayers of this province. What is her policy? Is that the land that is covered under the 35 per cent policy or is it not?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: The land that is owned by the various colleges comes under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Colleges and Universities. If any land is declared surplus by the Ministry of Colleges and Universities, it then becomes part of our land, which can be used and will be used for meeting the housing needs of the people of the province. I think that is clear. We are working with all the ministries to increase that supply of land. I know the member will be very, very interested in those pieces of land that are already in the development process and I welcome his questions on the development that is going to follow.

TEACHERS

Mr. R. F. Johnston: My question is for the Minister of Education. On January 12, in response to a question, he indicated that he did not think there was going to be a great teacher shortage this year, that there were going to be 4,000 potential new teachers and only 3,000 needed within the system. Today in the Globe and Mail, the projections on enrolment and teacher shortages indicate that across the country there will be 30,000 teachers short in the next little while and that Ontario is going to follow a trend of much higher shortages than the other areas.

Does the Minister of Education stick by what he said on January 12; and if he does, how does he explain that my information is that the 20 boards in and around Metropolitan Toronto alone are going to need over 3,000 new teachers this year?

Hon. Mr. Ward: I appreciate the member’s question on this very important issue. There is no question that in the short term there will be difficult times for school boards in terms of the availability of qualified teachers. I believe I have indicated in responses in this House on previous occasions our concern over that particular issue. I think I have also outlined for the benefit of the member and others the steps the government is prepared to take to address the issue in the long term.

It is important to note that after 19 years of declining enrolment, we have entered a period of increased enrolment province-wide. That is expected to last until the middle 1990s as a result of baby-boomers having children who are now accessing the system. We have taken steps to increase the supply, the numbers of teachers in this province, without lowering standards and will continue to do so to address both the short-term pressures and the long-term need for qualified teachers in this province.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: The minister knows there has been a colossal poverty of planning in this whole process. We have known this boom was coming. I wonder what he says to the Dufferin-Peel Roman Catholic Separate School Board which itself is expecting to hire for 500 new positions and expects to be 150 short this fall. It is interviewing in the west of Canada and is interviewing in Newfoundland to try to find teachers for this fall. What does he say to that board which may itself face a 150-person shortage this fall?

Hon. Mr. Ward: Let me begin by suggesting to the member that the very last thing we want to do is abandon any sort of long-range planning process. There is no question that the early retirement window that is being taken advantage of this year by many experienced teachers in this province will in fact create immediate short-term pressure. There is no question that government initiatives, such as our efforts to reduce class sizes in grades 1 and 2, create pressure. It was for that reason that we put into place a three-year implementation program, but I think --

Mr. R. F. Johnston: What wonderful hindsight that is.

Hon. Mr. Ward: I said that at the time. The member accuses me of having hindsight. He will recall I made that statement at the time of the announcement. It is clear, in looking at the picture in the long term, that in terms of the analysis as to the future year-in requirements for additional permanent qualified teachers, it is expected we will require an additional 1,000 teachers per year above and beyond the levels in 1987.

The member will know that through the generosity of the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon), utilizing the program adjustment fund through the Ministry of Colleges and Universities, we created 562 additional teaching positions in the faculties this September and I believe we will --

Mr. Speaker: Thank you.

Mr. B. Rae: Our children don’t go to school in the long term.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: As my leader was just saying, our children do not go to primary school in the long term, they are there this year. The government is essentially condemning kids to a school lifetime in portables, and now to real uncertainty whether or not they are going to have an adequate number of teachers. I do not believe he knows what he is dealing with out there.

Can he tell me specifically today what the deficits will be this fall in the areas he has already identified, math, sciences, kindergarten, primary and French? Does he know that? Does he even know how many women are coming out of the faculties? Does he have any of the statistical information he really needs to plan at all?

Hon. Mr. Ward: I am quite satisfied that indeed we do have that statistical information. In fact, the ministry had undertaken a supply study of the teaching profession in this province. The member talks at length about very serious deficiencies that exist out there in the primary division, for example. He will know that we are in the second year of the 20-to-one implementation. What he may not know is that we have been able not only to meet the target in the first year of that implementation, but have exceeded it, obviously with the utilization of qualified primary teachers in this province.

I will acknowledge that for the short term, for the next two years, there is going to be a very difficult situation for boards. We are doing what we can to attract back into the teaching profession those thousands of qualified teachers who graduated from the faculties and chose not to pursue the profession. Many of them are coming back. Many occasional teachers are now seeking permanent positions.

We have increased by over 500 the positions at the faculty. I am quite convinced that without sacrificing the quality of teaching, without lowering our standards, we can address both the short-term and long-term needs of the school system.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr. Runciman: My question is for the Minister without Portfolio responsible for senior citizens’ affairs. It is an issue I drew to her attention last week, but she carefully avoided answering it. It deals with her response to media questions related to the impact of auto insurance increases on seniors.

The minister will recall that she indicated she felt the impact would be marginal. Press reports today indicate seniors in various regions of the province are facing increases of 21 per cent, 29 per cent, 48 per cent, 59 per cent and so on, increases that I suspect most reasonable people would not consider marginal.

The minister has had a week to reflect on her words, and hopefully, on her responsibilities as the seniors’ advocate in government. Will she tell the House if she still stands by her view that increases such as 58 per cent will have a marginal impact on seniors; and if not, what is she doing to help the more than 500,000 drivers for whom she is supposed to advocate?

Hon. Mrs. Wilson: The insurance companies are now calculating their new rates. Those rates will be made public in March. Until such time as they do so, any rates that may be discussed are purely speculative and those that are appearing in newspapers today are just that, possible rates that may or may not be the rates that are actually published in March.

I think it appropriate that we see what those rates will be. In the meantime, I am working very closely with my colleague the Minister of Financial Institutions (Mr. Elston) to bring to him the concerns that are brought forward to me by seniors as individuals and by seniors’ groups across the province, so we can have an opportunity to discuss those actual rates.

Mr. Runciman: That is typical, an after-the-fact response, a crisis-to-crisis kind of response. As the spokesperson around the cabinet table for senior citizens --

Mr. Harris: Supposedly.

Mr. Runciman: Yes, supposedly -- will the minister advise us of the role she and her officials played in the government’s consideration of Bill 2, and specifically, the provision removing insurance companies’ right to classify risk on age, thereby removing seniors’ discounts and ignoring the safe driving habits of seniors? Did the minister voice any concerns at all? Did she stand up for seniors or did she just sit on the sidelines, not wishing to rock the Attorney General’s (Mr. Scott) boat?

Hon. Mrs. Wilson: As the member opposite well knows, the new classification for insurance is no longer based on age, sex or marital status. Instead, it is based on classification of risk. Some of the figures that have been bandied about by the honourable member opposite, and by others, would indicate there are scenarios that may be possibilities, but which are highly unlikely to occur, given that companies at the low end of the market would wish to preserve their market share. I suggest the sorts of fears this member is attempting to sow within our older community are not appropriate and are in fact quite damaging.

Mr. Runciman: That is laughable. During the Bill 2 hearings back in 1987, throughout which I sat on the standing committee on administration of justice, witness after witness warned of the impact risk classification changes would have on seniors. Now, almost a year and a half after the fact, the minister is talking about consulting seniors and the Premier (Mr. Peterson) is talking about helping seniors.

Give us a break. There was obviously no concern 18 months ago, and now they are flying by the seat of their pants, ad hocking it from crisis to crisis. I regret to say the minister’s performance in regard to seniors’ auto insurance rates has been, to be polite, embarrassing. The minister has suggested that rate increases are marginal and that seniors are pretty flush anyway and can handle the increases. She has turned a blind eye to the thousands on fixed incomes. She has ignored the --

Mr. Speaker: Order. Do you have a question?

Mr. Runciman: Is the minister finally prepared to stand up for seniors and demand the reinstitution of discounts across this province for senior citizens, the people she is supposed to be representing?

Hon. Mrs. Wilson: Seniors are a very diverse group. They cannot all be classified as sick, nor can they all be classified as poor. There are seniors who are not well off. There are seniors who depend very clearly on an automobile to get around. Issues of mobility are clearly very important to seniors.

It is for that reason that I am working very closely with the groups that represent seniors across this province, meeting with them, talking with them and advocating with my colleague the Minister of Financial Institutions so that we can bring forth their very real concerns and have them discussed, but at the same time making certain they know that the actual figures will come out a few weeks from now. It is not appropriate to frighten people at this point. It is appropriate to wait and determine what the actual figures will be.

GOVERNMENT PLANNING

Mr. Harris: I have a question for the Treasurer and Deputy Premier about the conflicting signals and interests being sent out by his government. The Premier (Mr. Peterson) said last week that he has given up on affordable housing in Metro. He told people to leave town if they want to buy homes. Yesterday, the Minister of Transportation (Mr. Fulton) told the Ontario Good Roads Association convention that community life is breaking down because people spend too much time fighting traffic on congested roads, a situation that will only worsen thanks to the lack of priority being given to roads.

Can the Treasurer tell us how the Premier’s advice that home buyers leave town jibes with the Treasurer’s refusal to give priority to transportation, traffic congestion and roads?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: To begin with, I agree with both those gentlemen. I want to point out to the member something he already knows; that is, that our commitment to the transportation budget is high, generous and I think quite progressive, and that under the leadership of this minister we have already had commitments made for the expansion of the highway system, including Highway 403 and Highway 407. There are actually substantial commitments made in all parts of the province, including the north.

It is my job, of course, to see that it is funded in a reasonable way over a period of time. The member will notice that last year we were able to raise the amount available to the ministry to over $2 billion. I wish more of that money could be spent at the municipal level, but the honourable member will know that even in that connection, in the three budgets I have already had the honour to present to the House, the increases for municipal roads have always been substantially above the rate of inflation. Even this year, the commitments to the municipalities are about 5.2 to 5.4 per cent.

I would be the last to say that is sufficient, but certainly when our priority is to provide adequate health services and improve the education system, then these are simply decisions that have to be taken, which I think are fair and effective.

Mr. Harris: I think the Treasurer has to realize that if he is not part of the solution, then he is part of the problem and he must accept that responsibility.

This government is fond of talking about spending levels and ignoring problems. This government likes to measure success in dollars spent, not results. The Minister of Transportation says the stress of commuting and traffic jams are hurting both workplace productivity and family life. The Premier’s “Go west, young man” housing policies are going to make that situation worse. So we have a serious problem and it is getting worse.

We get conflicting signals from the Premier, from the Minister of Housing (Ms. Hošek), from the Minister of Transportation and from the Minister of Education (Mr. Ward), all going to solve these problems on the back of somebody else. We want to know what the government is doing about it.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: We are all concerned about housing. Under the leadership of the Minister of Housing, we have come forward with programs that are productive. I am sure the honourable member will be aware of, and might even want reiterated the fact that in the last three years we have had the following housing starts -- 105,000; 99,900; 86,000 -- which we feel have been an indication that more of our residents have been adequately housed than at any other time in our history. We have accomplished great things.

The Minister of Transportation has to drive in from Scarborough. I have to drive in from South Dumfries. We have the assistance of drivers while we are working diligently to extend our working days from the ordinary 15 hours to 18 hours, but we are glad to do that so that the government programs are going to be co-ordinated and efficient. In this connection, we feel that any reasonable observer would have to agree.

Mr. Harris: If it keeps some of the ministers away from their offices for three or four hours a day, it is probably beneficial.

The Minister of Transportation said, “One cannot participate in the life of the community if one is spending three to four hours a day commuting in traffic.” That was his quote. He said, “Our service clubs, PTAs, local recreation groups are suffering.” The minister knows there is a roads crisis. Our mayors and reeves know there is an infrastructure crisis. Home buyers and renters know there is a housing crisis. Everyone knows these problems are getting worse, not better, through the lack of overall planning by this government.

I believe people are tired of slogan-type programs or simplistic solutions to these complex problems. Surely someone must co-ordinate all these conflicting demands to generate an overall solution.

Mr. Speaker: Do you have a question?

Mr. Harris: My question is this: Is there anybody over there who is co-ordinating the difficult and conflicting interests of the Premier, the Minister of Housing, the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley), the Minister of Transportation and others? If there is, who is it and when are we going to see some results?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: I would say to the honourable member that if he has any fairness left in him, he would know that we have one of the best transportation systems in North America.

Mr. Harris: We used to have.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: I would be the last to deny the fact that under the leadership of the Honour-able Leslie M. Frost we had a highways program that I wish we could duplicate as far as the commitment of money is concerned. But that was before the time of a concern for our environment. It was before the time of a huge increase in the cost of providing medical and hospital services. It was before the importance of seeing that our young people had adequate technical education to compete in a competitive world was fully realized. Under the leadership of the member for Scarborough East (Mr. Fulton).

We have developed far beyond that -- the commitment to GO Transit, which the honourable member is aware of, and the expansion of our highway system -- so that in a very effective way we have kept in step with the challenges as they came forward.

I wish we could spend more on highways. The honourable member would know that the minimal increases in gasoline taxes that have occurred since we have taken office have been applied almost exclusively to the improvement of our road system. The honourable member may feel that we should expand that tax base in order that the construction program could be expedited. I for one am not giving that serious consideration at this particular time.

I feel that the Minister of Transportation has done a good job in co-ordinating this and deserves the thanks and credit of all honourable members.

Mr. Jackson: Come on; the last time you slammed the door on Ed Fulton he had to go to hospital to have his foot operated on.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr. Kormos: I have a question of the Minister of Financial Institutions. First perhaps I have a concern about the constant reference to an apparent outlawing of discounting for years of good driving experience. Certainly that is not the case;

section 33 of the act does not prohibit discounting for years of good driving experience. That is the last reason in the world why seniors are being or will be charged such exorbitant rates.

I have a question for the minister in reference to the most recent report from Mercer to the Ontario Automobile Insurance Board.

Whereas hikes of about 15 per cent are suggested for owner-operators of taxicabs, an examination of the case studies shows hikes really in the range of 30 per cent to 40 per cent at the same time that the same report speaks about the serious and gross unreliability of the data. The hikes that are suggested by Mercer are going to force owner-operators of taxicabs off the road.

Mr. Speaker: The question?

Mr. Kormos: Why will the government not use its jurisdiction under

section 27 to require the board to consider affordability in this instance, when the board embarks on this latest round of hikes?

Hon. Mr. Elston: First of all, to reply to the honourable gentleman’s assertion about other rates, let me advise him and advise the people that the insurance companies are now looking into setting the rates about which he spoke earlier, for seniors and otherwise.

I can tell the honourable gentleman that the overall impact, as established in the rate increases announced by the board for private passenger automobiles, indicates that in fact there is an adjustment required but that overall across the province there will be some areas, because of territorial rating, where seniors will see some declines in their actual cost of insurance. I want to be absolutely sure that the public and the population are fully aware of all the facts that surround the seniors issue.

To deal with the request of the honourable member as it relates to owner-operated taxis, for instance, the hearings will take place in front of the board. As before, he along with other people will be quite able to go forward with their suggestions with respect to what changes they think would be appropriate, and members of the public will again be welcome to attend those hearings so that they can put forward their case with respect to the way they see these rates and premiums being structured.

The board is sitting to understand the rates that will be set. The report from Mercer is the first part of that hearing. As the member knows and as he has underlined, they have found that the data which are the backdrop for their recommendation are inadequate to the extent that they are unwilling to --

Mr. Speaker: Thank you.

Mr. Pouliot: Stop weaseling. Four times the rate of inflation is what you’re looking at.

Hon. Mr. Elston: That’s not true, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am certain the member for Lake Nipigon (Mr. Pouliot) would want to let the member --

Mr. Pouliot: This guy is robbing you blind, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Perhaps the member for Lake Nipigon would control himself.

Mr. Kormos: It is precisely because the board, in its last ruling, rejected affordability and chose 12.5 per cent return on equity for insurers as the paramount, overriding consideration in determining rates that I asked the minister to use

section 27 to direct that affordability be considered. Mercer, the very same company that provides the expertise to the board, suggests in its most recent newsletter that this is a major opportunity for insurers, among others, because insurers will have the opportunity to earn 12.5 per cent return on equity.

What about cab drivers? What about taxi owner-operators? Will the government ensure that they will have the same opportunity to earn 12.5 per cent of return on equity as is being assured the insurers?

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

Hon. Mr. Elston: The honourable gentleman rightly indicates that there was one component which the board used to determine the rate for private passenger automobiles, and that was of course a return on the capital investment, a return on equity of 12.5 per cent. It was not a guarantee of return of that extent. It was not in fact, as he indicated, the major criterion. That is not correct. You know, Mr. Speaker, as that member probably does not, that other major criteria included the end of discrimination on the basis of age, sex, marital status, family status and handicap.

It looked at setting up realistic territorial assessments, so that people were being assigned premiums that were associated with risk. He is wrong when he says that 12.5 per cent was the paramount issue. He is absolutely wrong on that score.

When we take a look at what the board finds with respect to its hearings, I am sure that it will take a look at the cost associated with the product and will deal with the market forces that are influencing the costs of insurance for private owner-operators of taxicabs. That hearing is to come, and I will be watching it very carefully indeed, as I watched the hearings that were associated with the private passenger automobile. There is a series of factors which the board will take into account and it will be sitting on those sorts of factors as the hearing progresses.

OUTBREAK OF MENINGITIS

Mr. Jackson: My question is to the government House leader, who I understand is handling health care questions for the government this week. Two weeks ago in this House, on February 6, my colleague the member for Parry Sound (Mr. Eves) raised a question regarding the outbreak of meningitis in Peterborough. At the time the minister responded to his question and indicated that in his opinion the outbreak had been handled appropriately. There have now been 13 cases of meningitis and one death in Peterborough, and there have been 53 cases and six deaths, in total, across this province.

That is twice as many as last year. Is it the minister’s position and that of the government that the situation is being handled adequately?

Hon. Mr. Conway: The honourable member is correct that some days ago his colleague the member for Parry Sound raised with me concerns about an outbreak of meningitis in the Peter-borough area. At that time, I indicated what I will now repeat, that it is the view of the Ontario Ministry of Health that the action taken at that time was prudent and appropriate.

Mr. Jackson: The fact was that our Health critic called the Ministry of Health and asked, and perhaps assumed, that the Ministry of Health would be making an announcement. That was over two weeks ago. We still have not received any clear announcement from the government.

This is a serious issue. Some people are referring to it in epidemic terms. I would like to suggest to the minister that medical textbooks are saying that any relative of a person who has been in close contact with an individual who is infected by schoolmates or child care contacts should receive the antibody to prevent infection as soon as a single case of meningitis is confirmed. That same textbook that has been reported in the Toronto media says that the disease occurs in epidemics among closed groups, such as are found in our schools.

My question is, in light of the seriousness of this disease and the increase in occurrences this year, will the government please announce today or tomorrow what specifically its strategy is in terms of dealing with this epidemic outbreak, who will apply, when --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Conway: Two quick points: First, after the discussion that I had in the House with the member for Parry Sound, I did take the matter up with my colleague the Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan), who assured me that she had been in contact with the appropriate authorities and had been doublechecking the matter with experts in the area of disease control. Upon her investigation, the minister indicated that the action had in fact been appropriate and had been taken after consultation with experts in the area of disease control.

Furthermore, I will say to my friend the member for Burlington South, it is my understanding that the medical officer of health is expected to make an announcement today.

EMPLOYMENT ADJUSTMENT

Mr. Owen: I have a question for the Treasurer. The federal government requested Jean de Grandpré to find and recommend the best ways to help workers hurt by the free trade deal.

Apparently, Mr. de Grandpré has indicated that it would not always be possible to determine if jobs were lost because of the trade deal and that possibly the best way to help the workers would be to give corporations a new tax break.

Has the provincial government received any communications with regard to the direction the federal government might take to assist workers in industries detrimentally affected by the trade deal?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: I thank the honourable member for notice of the question. The honourable members would be aware that early in the free trade debate the Prime Minister of Canada announced there would be massive programs to assist in the adjustment. This was followed by a comment made by the Minister of Finance saying that the programs that were presently in place would be sufficient. So there really has not been any more constructive information than that.

The government of Ontario has forwarded a presentation to the de Grandpré advisory council indicating our views as to what the dislocations may very well be here, now and in the future, and what the government might do to pay for those dislocations. We naturally feel that this is primarily a federal responsibility and are very anxious to co-operate with them in seeing that the federal money is administered in the province to assist in the depredations of the free trade agreement, at the same time recognizing that there will be some advantages.

Mr. Owen: Industry seems to have been telling all governments of this country that efforts should be made to substantially reduce deficits. Surely a new tax break for business does not contribute to a reduction in the deficit facing the federal government. Since such a new tax break for business would add to the federal deficit rather than counter it, has the federal government given any indication as to what it might do by way of tough action to reduce its annual shortfall of $28 billion?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: No, we have not heard from the Minister of Finance about what he intends to do about his deficit problems. On the other hand, we have of course kept the rate of growth of our expenditures well within the expansion of the provincial economy and therefore we have not added additional burdens to the province by way of the strengthening of our programs.

I think the member should also be aware that during our tenure, the actual deficit has been reduced by about 38 per cent. It is running now, according to the third-quarter report, at about $1.5 billion. That is still a substantial amount of money, but only about half of our capital commitment. In other words, we are funding half of our capital expenditures this year from the cash flow from our ordinary tax revenues.

Finally, I think it would be worth saying that our per capita budgetary deficit is $171. It is the second lowest in Canada, the lowest being in British Columbia. I am not sure what conclusion the honourable members may want to take from that. That $171 per capita should be contrasted with the deficit per capita of the federal government in 1988-89, which is $1,117.

CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS

Mr. Farnan: My question is to the Minister of Correctional Services. Correctional centres have been closing units: 100 beds in Guelph, 50 beds in Maplehurst, 20 to 30 beds in Millbrook. This backup is causing an increasing population in the detention centres. At the same time, inmates from Toronto detention centres are being moved as far away as Sudbury, Quinte and Niagara Falls.

Would the minister agree that all sentenced inmates should go to a correctional centre and not to another detention centre, that it is cheaper to keep an inmate at a detention centre -- this perhaps is the reason for the policy -- and that the result of the ministry’s policy is to create additional overcrowding and increased stress on our correctional officers?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I would like to thank my honourable critic for the question.

I would like to say to the member that historically the admissions and discharges are very low at the beginning of the fiscal year and they tend to build up at the end of the fiscal year. That starts to taper off near the end of winter.

We have a system of 53 institutions; some are detention centres and some are correctional facilities. We have to manage that system. It is not a perfect world. We manage the best we can within that system, and sometimes we have to juggle back and forth between the two different types of centres.

Mr. Farnan: As the minister juggles, he is losing very rapidly the confidence of the correctional officers of Ontario. It is one thing not to pamper prisoners; it is quite another thing to subject them to inhumane conditions. The minister’s policy is resulting in double-bunking and triple-bunking. It is resulting in a population that is far in excess of what our centres were designed to hold.

It is a genuine concern of correctional officers that their work is becoming more and more dangerous. They are quoted as saying that they are unable to convince their bosses that this is the case. What is the minister going to do to address the concerns of the correctional officers who have resorted to protesting outside of the detention centres because they cannot dialogue with him? Is he going to dialogue with the correctional officers? Is he going to introduce --

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is the third question.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I think the point of the member’s question is that there is dialogue going on right now between the correctional officers and the public service because it is negotiation time. That is why I welcome all these questions at this time.

I would like to say to the member that we are in our third year of a 15-year corporate plan that includes new capital expenditures for new cells and refurbishing old cells. We are on course on building facilities that we need. We are in a tremendous growth period in this particular Golden Horseshoe area of the province and we have to balance the system and keep up with that growth, but I think we are managing the system very well.

ASSISTANCE FOR THE DISABLED

Mr. Jackson: My question is for the Minister without Portfolio responsible for disabled persons. On February 14, exactly one week ago, I raised the case of 10-year-old Wally Elgersma, who is suffering from spina bifida and leads a life from his wheelchair. I also raised in the House the fact that while Wally was enrolled in a public school, he was receiving the Victorian Order of Nurses’ services through the Ministry of Health.

At the time I quoted from a document known as the Ontario Government Programs and Services for Disabled Persons. I quoted the health support services in the school setting. It has a wonderful picture of the minister, who when I asked him the question said, “I am sorry, but I am not aware of the program, I will refer it to another minister,” when it was inappropriate that he refer it to that minister since I had already told him it was a Ministry of Health program.

Mr. Speaker: Does the member have a question?

Mr. Jackson: I do. My question is simply this: Now, after a week and the minister’s failure to report to Wally or to me or to any member in this House regarding this case, can the minister explain why his government has cut off Wally’s VON support services because he has changed his enrolment to a Christian school?

Hon. Mr. Mancini: First of all, I guess I should thank the member opposite for his colourful recounting of what happened a week ago. I am not sure how that advances his particular case as compared with the member from Nipissing (Mr. Harris) and the member from Leeds-Grenville (Mr. Runciman) and others, but I will try to answer the member directly.

I thought the member last week wanted a direct answer and I thought maybe another minister could help him, but I want to tell the member opposite that following the matter -- which I believe to be a very serious matter -- being raised. I did consult with a number of my colleagues. The matter does come under the Education Act. The Minister of Education (Mr. Ward) and I have discussed this matter. We are going to discuss it again, I hope, in the very near future to see how we can resolve the problem.

As the principal advocate in the government for persons with disabilities, I have to state that people with disabilities should receive these services when they are needed. I am going to be working with my colleagues to see if in fact that is possible and if we could make it happen. I thank the member for bringing the matter to my attention.

Mr. Jackson: The reason I raised it again one week later is that we received no indication from the minister of his interest or concern with respect to this case. I wanted to make the point to the minister, had he wanted to call and pursue the matter, that this is not, in our opinion, an educational program aimed at schools. In fact, this is a health program that is put in place for school-aged handicapped children.

It should not matter where Wally studies for his education in this province. For that reason, I would ask that the minister make public his position, as the chief advocate for disabled persons in this province, with respect to this policy position and report to this House any progress he can make with respect to overcoming the fact that Wally Elgersma should not be discriminated against, not only because of his handicap but because of his Christian convictions.

Hon. Mr. Mancini: I did send the honourable member a short note after he asked the question to let him know that I was concerned and I believe that he wanted an answer immediately at that time. I think I should bring to the attention of the House that a staff person from the Ministry of Community and Social Services did contact the honourable member’s office and did try to obtain the address of the person involved and that his office did not have that address.

Mr. Jackson: Oh, now come on. Right here in my file along with the note that you just referred to --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Mancini: I should say to the member that, as the principal advocate in government for persons with disabilities, it goes without saying that I wish persons in these particular situations to receive the services as described by the honourable member. I have already told the honourable member that I have met with appropriate ministers, and I will continue to meet with appropriate ministers. It is my hope that the matter can be resolved. I think the member brings forward a very good situation that needs to be redressed, and I say to the House that we are going to try to look after it.

GRAIN STABILIZATION PROGRAM

Mr. Tatham: I have a short question to the Minister of Agriculture and Food. What actions are the Ontario and federal governments taking in establishing stabilization for on-farm feed grains?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: This was a central topic of the agricultural ministers’ conference held in Toronto this past summer and at that conference there was unanimous support by all ministers that farm-fed grains be included in a national stabilization program. However, it is unclear at this time what kind of a grain program is in the offing. I understand the federal government has proposed about five different stabilization options at a meeting in Winnipeg on January 26 and 27. My ministry was represented at that meeting. Until these options have been analysed and put into effect, farm-fed grains will not be paid.

When we do arrive at some solution to the problem, I expect that farm-fed grains will be included in whatever grain stabilization program is accepted by the producers. I have told our producers to keep up the pressure and continue to ask that farm-fed grains be included.

Mr. Tatham: What can the minister report on the status of bringing corn and soya beans into a national tripartite program?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: The honourable member is aware that the Ontario Corn Producers’ Association has developed a corn tripartite stabilization program. It presented it to the federal government over one year ago. The soya bean growers have been looking at a tripartite program, but to this point in time I do not think they have agreed to go forth with tripartite stabilization.

In my response to the initial question, I did indicate that the federal government is looking at a number of options for grain stabilization, including corn and soya beans, and it appears that the federal government will not act on the corn producers’ tripartite stabilization proposal until such time as they come to some agreement as to what kind of a stabilization program they are going to have for grains.

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I have a question to the Minister of Education. I am sure the minister is aware that the Windsor Roman Catholic Separate School Board is going to be cutting back in education in Windsor because of his government’s refusal to fund education properly across the province. It is going to be a $4 million cutback, which is going to result in a cutback in the number of teachers, in French-immersion programs in five schools, in outdoor education and in special education, just to mention a few.

I would like to ask the minister, what is he prepared to do to guarantee the quality of education for Catholic students in the city of Windsor and to make sure that these cutbacks in essential education do not occur?

Hon. Mr. Ward: The member for Windsor-Riverside, I am sure, should know by now that over the course of the past two years, the amount of provincial funding for publicly funded boards of education, both in the public system and in the separate system, have benefited from very substantial increases in the amount of support dollars. This year alone, the amount of funds provided to all boards of education increased somewhere in the neighbourhood of $250 million, an average increase of about 6.1 per cent.

Last year again the increases in funds that flowed to boards of education was in the neighbourhood of seven per cent, all of this at a time of roughly four to 4.5 per cent inflation. I say to the honourable member, at the outset, that the support that we provide to all boards of education has, in fact, substantially increased.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I do not agree with the minister, because what the minister and his government promised to do in the last election and in the election before that was to move toward 60 per cent funding. Instead the grant ceilings do not reflect at all the cost of education in our communities. That is why there are going to be cutbacks to Catholic students in the city of Windsor.

What I am going to ask the minister is, when is the provincial government going to fulfil its commitment of moving towards funding 60 per cent of the cost of education in this province, and does the minister not realize that when he does that and if he fulfilled that promise, Catholic students in the city of Windsor would not be facing cutbacks in the quality of education?

Hon. Mr. Ward: I suggest that the member look at many of the studies that have been undertaken over the course of the past five to 10 years on the funding of elementary and secondary education in this province. The member knows full well that there is, in fact, a two-tier system of governance for education. The province has an overall responsibility, which it shares with locally elected boards of education.

It is true that boards do have the discretionary authority to undertake expenditures above and beyond the grant ceilings should they wish to provide optional programs or programs that are not mandated. I think the member will recognize that the province indeed does have an obligation to ensure that approved, mandated programs as set forth by the province are adequately funded.

If the member will look at the increases in the general legislative grants to assist boards in the delivery of those programs, he will note the $250-million increase. The member will know that local boards, not the province under the Education Act, have a responsibility for capital. We have increased that funding by 400 per cent.

He will know that for the purposes of pensions, the province --

Mr. Speaker: Thank you.

TRAINING FOR FIREFIGHTERS

Mr. Villeneuve: To the Solicitor General: On January 12, or more than five weeks ago, I asked the minister about funding for the training of volunteer fire departments, particularly the one in Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry. The course is now half over, and we have heard nothing from her or her ministry.

I quote her answer of January 12, when she said as follows: “We are addressing it and looking for new and creative solutions for training. However, I know that the member has spoken to the Minister of Skills Development and they have run into some difficulties over the use of that ministry for this kind of training. This is being looked at and will continue to be looked at.” Is the minister finished looking? Could she provide us with an answer, please?

Hon. Mrs. Smith: The member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry will be very glad to know that indeed we are still working on this program and intend to continue to address it in co-operation with the people throughout this province.

It is obvious that programs of these sorts are particularly looked at during estimates time, and we will continue to look for more creative ways of assisting in a program that is fundamentally the responsibility of municipalities.

Mr. Villeneuve: I cannot believe, again, a sloughing off to the municipalities. I quote from a letter signed by the chief, and it reads as follows: “The majority of firefighters in SD and G do not have basic fire training skills,” i.e., no formal training. The majority of firefighters in SD and G lack CPR training, basic first aid, training in auto extrication, etc.

The majority of firefighters in SD and G lack the time, and in addition cannot afford the monetary loss to attend the Ontario Fire College in Gravenhurst. Why do the Solicitor General and the Minister of Skills Development (Mr. Curling) continue to discriminate against rural Ontario?

Hon. Mrs. Smith: It is for the reasons just mentioned that we are looking for more creative solutions. We recognize that for many volunteers it is difficult to travel to Gravenhurst for training. We look to find a more flexible way, as we have done in many cases.

We have sent people out to train and provide courses within the location where the people live. We intend to continue doing this. There are some courses available through community colleges. We intend to look at those, with co-operation; but the particular problems addressed in one region cannot be addressed in isolation to the problems throughout the whole province. It is a major examination that we are involved in so that solutions that we come up with can be helpful not only to the member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry but indeed to people throughout the province.

SPECIAL SERVICES AT HOME PROGRAM

Mr. Offer: I have a question for the Minister of Community and Social Services. I have recently been questioned as to whether his ministry is undergoing a change of policy on the issue of contract services for home support.

The couple who have contacted me have a child who is both autistic and epileptic. In order for them to obtain their parent relief, they have, in the past, personally contracted with his ministry for home support and have, in this case, been aided by the Reena Foundation.

The process for such home support by this application is one to which they are accustomed and one to which they agree. However, they have recently been informed there may be a change in policy, so that parents requiring such support would make application -- again in this instance to Reena -- and Reena would then make application to the ministry. Has there been such a change or is such change being contemplated?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: The program being referred to is the special services at home program for families with disabled children that is directly delivered in the communities by my ministry. It is one of the few, if not the only program left, directly delivered by my ministry at the community level.

As such, we are exploring whether it could be delivered more effectively and more efficiently by a nonprofit community agency than by my ministry. That decision has not been made. It is being explored and I cannot tell the honourable member what the final decision will be. It is under review at the present time.

Mr. Offer: With respect to this review of policy there has also been concern voiced that if indeed such change did take place, this would necessarily result in a reduction of service. I am wondering if the minister could comment.

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: I can certainly say that the transfer of responsibility from my ministry to a nonprofit agency would not result per se in a reduction of service. I can tell the honourable member that the number of families being served by this program has increased from approximately 3,000 in 1984 to almost 8,000 in 1988-89.

Therefore, the service is increasing at a very significant rate. We review with families every six months whether their needs remain the same or whether those needs have changed, and service can either go up or down as a result of that. But it would not change just as a result of the transfer of responsibility for the program.

NATIVE PEOPLE AND THE JUSTICE SYSTEM

Mr. Pouliot: My question is to the Solicitor General. Last week in Thunder Bay, Ontario’s Race Relations and Policing Task Force heard the rather appalling and shocking tale of beatings, racial slurs, abuse, despair and suicide that left members of the panel indeed numb.

A member of the panel, James Harding, who has spent some 33 years with the police force, and he incidentally heads the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police, makes a recommendation to the Solicitor General, saying, “Yes, the responsibility for policing on reserves should be left with the native people,” which is a normal reaction; and yet every time I have asked the minister to fund a native constable program we were informed that responsibility rests with Ottawa. We are talking about the wellbeing of a people and the wellbeing of a culture.

Will the minister tell the House why there was not a native Canadian on the panel and will she make the commitment, the fulfilment of a promise in treaties, that first Canadians will indeed be the recipients of funding, in terms of the justice system, in terms of enforcement, and yes even in the courts and in the jails?

Hon. Mrs. Smith: I am very happy to report to the member for Lake Nipigon that indeed not only do I have a high priority for this subject of native policing and justice systems, and the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) shares this, but there is another group that is, in fact, meeting particularly on this subject and it will be making recommendations to us on that.

As well, James Harding, to whom the member has alluded, is one of the people on the group that is examining the new Police Act. All of these matters are being taken into very serious consideration. Work is presently under way to do some creative pilot projects in this direction, with which I know that native people themselves are most anxious to co-operate.

PETITIONS

SENIOR CITIZENS’ APARTMENTS

Mr. Harris: I do have a petition:

“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 Corp. constructed a senior citizen complex, consisting of a senior citizen apartment building situated 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 similar to a previous petition that I presented to His Honour on January 30, 1989. This one contains close to 1,000 signatures, in addition to those that I have tabled before, and I have signed it.

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

Miss Martel: I have a petition addressed to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, and it reads as follows:

“We care about injured workers. We protest the Minister of Labour’s proposal to change the law that would take away injured workers’ rights to permanent disability pensions when they are permanently disabled; that would do almost nothing about the miserable compensation to existing injured workers and their widows, and that would leave the injured workers of the future worse off. Workers who are killed or injured in their work deserve much better treatment than this.”

I agree with them and I have signed my name.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

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

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

“We urge Premier Peterson not to proceed according to the legislation he has announced, but instead strengthen protection for all workers who do not want to work on Sundays; to not pass the buck to local governments on this issue, and to maintain a common pause day for working people and working families in Ontario.”

It is not too late.

SMALL CLAIMS COURT

Mr. Reycraft: I have a petition signed by about 50 people from the Ottawa-Carleton area. It is addressed to His Honour the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario, and it calls for an increase from the present $1,000 in the amount of the maximum claim allowable to the provincial court, civil division to $3,000.

I have affixed my signature.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

MUNICIPAL STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Eakins moved second reading of Bill 192,

An Act to amend the Municipal Act and certain other Acts related to Municipalities.

Hon. Mr. Eakins: This legislation will make a number of minor amendments to the Municipal Act. The Municipal Act is the most important legislation that governs municipal operations; thus, in order to reflect contemporary practices, the Municipal Act requires periodic amendment.

I will not take the time of the House to describe all the proposed amendments. Many are of a housekeeping nature and are self-explanatory.

There are four provisions, however, which are particularly significant that I would like to draw to the attention of the members. The proposed legislation will clarify that municipalities can make loans, as well as give grants to nonprofit corporations, encouraging small business. For example, it will permit the city of Toronto to loan funds to Toronto Artscape Inc., which plans to operate an incubator serving professional artists.

The commission of inquiry provision will be expanded to allow all electors, not just property owners, to request the establishment of a commission of inquiry into the affairs of their municipality.

From time to time, the various ministries introduce new programs and wish to encourage municipal participation. At present, a specific legislative amendment is needed for each new program initiative to permit a municipality to enter into an agreement with the specific ministry. A new

section is proposed which provides general authority for municipalities, including upper-tier municipalities, to participate in new programs established by the province.

Finally, the fairness of the property tax system has been the subject of considerable discussion for many years. In 1987, the Municipal Act was amended to permit a county-wide reassessment that updates all properties throughout the county to a uniform proportion of market value. A further refinement is now proposed which, as an alternative, would permit the reassessment of all properties throughout the county to full market value. In other words, the assessment of each individual property for purposes of taxation would correspond precisely to the most recent value of the property.

Mr. Breaugh: We have a number of bills in Orders and Notices this afternoon which are essentially of the same nature. They are bills that have been requested at various times by municipalities. Members will know that the normal process is that when a municipality has identified a particularly vexing legislative problem, it will notify the ministry and in due course, some time that century, there will he a legislative response. That is what we have this afternoon. We have been contacting the various municipalities involved in these bills.

I will make this speech once and forgo it the other four times. We are supportive of both the process which makes these necessary amendments and the concept that municipalities, in some small sense, do have some control over the legislation which governs them and that when they discover a legislative change which should be made, whether that is because a piece of legislation is redundant or there is a problem in legislative terms with the legislation which governs their municipal actions, they can seek some recourse to that by, in a sense, petitioning the minister to make responses such as we see in the five bills before us this afternoon.

We agree with that process and with the way it has happened. In my view, none of these bills is particularly controversial. I have notes to say a few things on some of the others, but essentially they are bills that are brought forward at the request of municipalities. We agree that this is a reasonable way to proceed. We support this particular bill and we have no amendments to put forward.

The Deputy Speaker: Questions and comments on the member’s statement? If not, do other members wish to participate?

Mr. McCague: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that I was out. Were they called in order? Is this Bill 192?

The Deputy Speaker: Yes.

Mr. McCague: I have a couple of comments, basically endorsing the comments made by the critic from the New Democratic Party.

The signing of cheques seems to make sense.

With regard to the municipal loans to small-business incubators, in discussion of this bill in our caucus it was suggested that maybe there should he an upside limit on the amount that municipalities can give in loans, charge in interest on loans and guarantee on loans. Did the minister give that any thought?

Hon. Mr. Eakins:

Section 112a of the Municipal Act provides a specific exception, in case some are wondering, about the bonusing prohibition. Such incubators may be established through the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology or, under

section 112a of the Municipal Act, by an order of council. Regulations pursuant to the Municipal Act set a cap on municipal funding, currently $5 per capita.

The Deputy Speaker: I would like to remind the members that we are not in committee right now, so the standard rules of debate should be adhered to and followed. We will make an exception in this one case. You may proceed.

Mr. McCague: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I did not want to pose too many questions, in case the answers were not forthcoming.

The other

section that I have a question on is the one in connection with longbows and crossbows. I understand the amendment and that the legislation gives the power to the municipality to prohibit and regulate the discharge of weapons for the purpose of public safety by including longbows and crossbows.

Is there anything in the legislation which prohibits the carrying of firearms’? We would be prepared to let the bill proceed in a normal fashion if that question were answered.

The Deputy Speaker: Any questions or comments on the member’s statement? If not, do other members wish to participate in the debate? If not, would the minister like to wind up?

Hon. Mr. Eakins: The question of providing municipalities with the authority to regulate longbows and crossbows has come at their request because of particular problems within the various municipalities. Many people have been injured. They have asked for that and, of course, we are pleased to give them that authority.

With regard to the question of firearms, municipalities have the power to regulate the discharge of firearms in their municipality. As for the ownership and carrying of firearms, this is under federal government legislation, I understand, which has also given the authority to municipal and provincial police forces to authorize the carrying of firearms. These are pretty straightforward amendments. I appreciate the comments of the honourable members.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for third reading.

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF SUDBURY AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Eakins moved second reading of Bill 197,

An Act to amend the Regional Municipality of Sudbury Act.

Hon. Mr. Eakins: In 1986, the first region-wide assessment update was implemented in the region of Sudbury. At the time of passing the enabling legislation, a mandatory provision was included to undertake a follow-up reassessment in 1987 or 1988. The council of the regional municipality and several of the area municipalities have since indicated that they would prefer the next reassessment to occur in 1989, for the purpose of taxation in 1990. This one-year deferral will permit the assessment updates to be determined on the basis of more up-to-date 1988 market values as opposed to the 1984 market values.

Two minor amendments proposed by this bill will permit the one-year reassessment deferral, as requested by the region of Sudbury municipalities.

Mr. Breaugh: We do not agree with market value assessment, but we do agree that this bill should carry.

Mr. McCague: Just one point, Mr. Speaker: I understand that this amendment will also standardize the timing among regions. Is that correct, Minister?

Hon. Mr. Eakins: I believe it is correct that this has happened in other regions also.

The Deputy Speaker: Are there questions and comments on the member’s statement? If not, do other members wish to participate in the debate? If not, would the minister like to wind down?

Hon. Mr. Eakins: No comment.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for third reading.

MUNICIPAL PRIVATE ACTS REPEAL ACT

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

An Act to repeal certain Private Acts related to Municipalities.

Hon. Mr. Eakins: This bill is part of a project which has been undertaken by the ministry in co-operation with legislative counsel. The goal of the project is to eventually repeal all municipal private acts that are obsolete and to work towards a consolidation of the remaining private legislation.

As a first step, the then Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing wrote in October 1982 to all of the approximately 500 municipalities that had obtained private acts since 1867. Each council was asked to review its acts and to advise the ministry whether some or all of these acts could be repealed.

More than 200 municipalities submitted council resolutions requesting the repeal of some or all of their private acts. The ministry and legislative counsel analysed the responses and subsequently prepared a bill proposing to repeal approximately 500 municipal private acts.

This bill was enacted by the Legislature on December 16, 1983. The ministry wrote a second letter in August 1983 to the remaining municipalities to follow up on the earlier request. As a result of the response to the second letter, I am pleased to be sponsoring a bill to repeal a further 300 municipal private acts.

It should be emphasized that this bill includes only those private acts whose repeal has been requested by the affected municipal councils.

I want to assure members that each of these private acts has been carefully reviewed by my ministry and by legislative counsel to ensure that its repeal will not create unforeseen difficulties either for the municipality or for the affected individuals.

I would also like to draw to the attention of the members the compendium to this bill, which provides a chart indicating which private acts are to be repealed and summarizing their subject matter.

This is not a major piece of legislation but it will be useful in helping to update the legislation that affects Ontario’s municipalities and their residents.

Mr. Breaugh: We agree.

Mr. McCague: I just have a couple of questions to the minister about the general thrust of this legislation. I wonder if the minister has any idea how many private bills are now on the record after we pass this bill. Second, does he envisage going through this exercise every five years or has he really through the two bills that have been introduced cleaned the matter up for the time being?

Hon. Mr. Eakins: I think there have been well over 1,000, and it is my understanding that we are dealing with these as quickly as the municipalities will identify them. We have written to them asking them to review their records and to advise us, in co-operation with legislative counsel, which ones can be dealt with in this manner. I can only say that we are dealing with them as quickly as possible and as quickly as the municipalities will provide the information to us.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for third reading.

ROAD ACCESS AMENDMENT ACT

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

An Act to amend the Road Access Act.

Hon. Mr. Eakins: The Road Access Act was enacted in 1978 to resolve an awkward problem involving two types of roads. The first type of common road is a municipally maintained road used for public travel which does not appear in the registry office as being owned by the municipality. The second, an access road, is a private road over someone’s property that is used by another owner as the sole means of road access to his or her property. Access roads are usually found in areas of summer cottages and camps.

Problems frequently arise with these roads when new owners purchase a property and find that the people using the road over their property appear to have no legal right to do so. This often results in a barricade being erected by the new owners to prevent the continued use of the road.

The Road Access Act has successfully addressed this situation by prohibiting anyone from placing a barricade over a common or access road unless the person has been granted a judge’s order to close the road. This cooling-off period allows the road to remain open while the legal issues are settled in court. In practice, the act has given police officers an effective means of persuading individuals to remove barricades before charges have to be laid.

A recent Ontario Court of Appeal judgement undermined the effectiveness of the act by ruling that the legislation does not make it a continuing offence to maintain a barricade. The decision means that unless the barricade is discovered and legal proceedings are commenced within six months, the provisions of the Road Access Act cannot be used. Chief Justice Howland made it clear in his judgement that if the prohibition in the act had included maintaining a barrier, he would have been satisfied that the intent of the act was to create a continuing offence.

The proposed amendment will make it clear that this is the intent of the act by prohibiting both the placing and the maintaining of a barricade over a common or access road unless a judge’s order has been obtained. This legislation will therefore resolve the difficulty that was created by the Court of Appeal judgement.

Mr. Breaugh: We will support the bill if only to make the Chief Justice happy. I know of at least one other family in Oshawa that has run into exactly this problem. It will probably make them happy too, so we are pleased to support it.

Mr. McCague: This is a problem that I have run into in my constituency from time to time. I think the minister did provide excellent briefing notes, but I may have been daydreaming a bit here. I do not think the minister read what I consider to be the most relevant comment that was in his excellent briefing notes.

The minister will correct me if I am wrong. I do not think the minister explained to us the problem of people being away from properties like this for a period of six months, should it be from Thanksgiving to May 24. I think it is probably appropriate that it be put on the record.

The notes do say that this creates real difficulty for cottagers because frequently the existence of a barricade may not come to the attention of the affected owner before the six-month limitation period has expired. “This would be the case where a barrier was constructed shortly after Thanksgiving Day” -- which, although it is not in the notes, used to be the custom if you wanted to try to prohibit access -- “and the affected cottager did not return to reopen the cottage until the May 24 holiday weekend of the next year.”

I think it is important that we acknowledge that this bill does cover that particular case.

Hon. Mr. Eakins: I just want to say that in my statement I did mention that the proposed amendment will make clear the intent of the act by prohibiting both the placing and the maintaining of a barricade over a common or access road unless a judge’s order has been obtained. I believe the legislation does cover what the honourable member is asking. As the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh) has mentioned, these problems are quite common in cottage country, as I am very much aware. I think the legislation does satisfy the problem that the member mentioned.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for third reading.

DISTRICT MUNICIPALITY OF MUSKOKA AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Eakins moved second reading of Bill 169,

An Act to amend the District Municipality of Muskoka Act.

Hon. Mr. Eakins: This amendment to the District Municipality of Muskoka Act has been unanimously requested by the municipal council of Muskoka and by the six area municipal councils.

Currently, the district council is the only body responsible for passing official plans and area municipalities are precluded from having their own official plans. This amendment will allow local councils to pass their own official plans.

In most regional municipalities, both regional and local councils play an important legislative role as far as the official plan function is concerned. The upper-tier council first prepares and adopts an official plan for its jurisdiction and each local council subsequently prepares and adopts a more detailed plan to guide development at the local level. The Planning Act stipulates that the official plan conform to the regional official plan.

When the district municipality of Muskoka was established in 1971, the original legislation followed the regional model. It gave both district and local councils an official role in the planning function.

Due to the importance attached to the planning function by the district council in the early years. the government was asked to amend the district act, giving sole responsibility for planning to the district council. In 1974 the act was amended to satisfy this request.

Now that a district official plan is in place, there is a strong desire to return to the model that was established in the original legislation. This plan contains specific amendments providing secondary plan coverage to all municipalities, with the exception of the town of Bracebridge. As a result, the district council and all six area municipalities have requested that the act be amended to give regional and local councils a shared planning responsibility.

By sharing the responsibilities, district council will be better able to concentrate on planning issues and policies that are of district-wide significance. At the same time, this approach will enable area councils to pursue issues of local significance with input from the area residents.

In light of this unanimous local support, I am pleased to be sponsoring this amendment to the Muskoka act. Subsequent to the introduction of the bill in June 1988, amendments to the district plan were approved. Several redundant references can now be deleted from this bill, and for this reason I am moving four motions.

Mr. Black: I want, first of all, to commend the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Eakins) for bringing forth this legislation in response to a request from Muskoka district council. I want to confirm for all members that indeed this proposed change does have unanimous support throughout Muskoka. They are amendments that are very badly needed, in the view of the people who work and live in Muskoka, and they look forward with great anticipation to the third and final reading of this legislation when it should happen.

Mr. Breaugh: This particular argument has gone on for some time now, with this bill being the culmination of all of the discussions on how planning should be carried on in the district of Muskoka. We concur that it is logical now to accept the recommendations from the local municipalities and the district to proceed with this bill.

I cannot help but note that after all of this, we still have one more amendment on the part of the government minister. It would have been nice if we had been able to print the bill last June as it should have been printed and not have to bother with amendments, but that is the way of the world.

Mr. McCague: I have the pleasure of sharing parts of the county of Simcoe with the member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay (Mr. Black), and I would not dare oppose him on this. He says that everybody in Muskoka agrees with this. I might just point out to him, though, that one day he will get a complaint. I am sure he will come back and tell me that he was just a little wrong, that there were one or two people who did not agree with it, and he will apologize to me.

Motion agreed to.

The Deputy Speaker: Shall the bill be ordered for third reading?

Hon. Mr. Eakins: I have four amendments.

The Deputy Speaker: I think there was an entente to now proceed with order 18 and then go to committee of the whole House. Is that correct?

Hon. Mr. Conway: That entente would be very much agreeable to me.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Just to be clear, the member for Burlington and I both have to be in estimates of the Ministry of Education. Our preference would be if we could move to the next order and, after the committee of the whole House of that next order, then revert to this committee of the whole. That would be our preference so that we can come back and hear the opening statement of the minister.

Hon. Mr. Conway: I think we can certainly accommodate that. So that we understand what the member for Scarborough West has suggested, we would call the next order, which would be the adjourned debate for the motion on second reading of Bill 128, which I believe will then require committee of the whole. We will do the committee of the whole there, and then take committee of the whole on Bill 169. Is that agreeable? If that is agreeable, I call the 18th order.

PLANNING AMENDMENT ACT (CONTINUED)

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 128,

An Act to amend the Planning Act.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Markham (Mr. Cousens) had finished the debate last time. That being the case, do other members wish to participate in the debate’?

Mr. Breaugh: If other members want to participate in second reading, I do not want to preclude that, but it is my understanding that we have concluded second reading, and if it would facilitate matters for other members who have committee work to do, perhaps we could simply go into committee now. I believe two amendments, at least, had been brought forward, and there may be some others. We could proceed through in committee of the whole House, but we have not voted on second reading yet.

The Deputy Speaker: We have not voted on second reading yet. Would it be agreeable to have the minister wind up and then take the vote on second reading? The member for Scarborough West.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I want to make a few brief remarks before we move to that, if it is all right. It will be only four or five minutes. Procedurally, there may be some question about one or two amendments I would like to initiate and I would like to get my remarks in now.

I have just sent to the critic and the minister some amendments to the Planning Act which I would like to put forward at this time. They should not be a surprise to the members, in that there has been a private member’s bill before this House now for several years, since the passage of the resolution on the nuclear-weapons-free zone overwhelmingly by the Legislature in 1986.

I want to take this opportunity, at the first time the Planning Act is reopened for discussion, to introduce the concept that the Planning Act was, in fact, a totally provincially operated vehicle, one which could not be said to be in the jurisdiction of the federal government or any other jurisdiction which might question whether we had the right to move on the whole question of Ontario as a nuclear-weapons-free zone, finding ways to implement the resolutions that have been passed in this House.

What my motions do is, first, define what is nuclear weapons material, and then they move to add to the responsibilities of the minister involved. Under

section 2 of the act would be the following responsibility, and that is “the protection of the public from the possible threat to its health, social fabric and environment inherent in the production of nuclear weapons material.”

This power, given to the minister to add to some of the other health and safety kinds of powers that he has listed just above that, in that

section which is being reopened during this review of the Planning Act, is something which I think was a very important thing for us to pass as a House. It would allow the government to do such things -- dare I say it, and I know this might make the government tremble -- as stopping the development of tritium sales by stopping the development of any kind of manufacturing plant which would be involved in this because the material processed there might be detrimental to the health of our own citizens as well as of the citizens of the rest of the world.

This kind of power would, I hope, allow us the right as a government to say to municipalities, before they say to Litton Industries that it is all right for it to move into the area of developing new guidance instruments, for instance for new nuclear weaponry, that they should understand that the minister under this amendment would have the right to protect the people of the province from such an action.

I think it is a very important consideration. I do not expect it to be adopted by the Liberal government, which has moved as quickly as possible away from any kind of implementation of the resolution which so many of its members supported just these few years ago, but I want to get the Liberals on record, on a vote in committee of the whole House, as to whether or not they still stand by their adherence to the nuclear-weapons-free zone or whether they in fact are no different from past governments.

Another

section I would have added to the Planning Act would state under

section 16 of the act, “Every official plan shall be deemed to include a provision that no new facilities shall be established for and no facilities shall be converted to the production of nuclear weapons material.” I think this is also a vital thing to bring into play. It may be that the chair will rule this out of order and I would be willing to accept that kind of a judgement if he or she feels that this

section is not open at this time, but it falls from the right that I have just been speaking to.

Another

section would be brought forward which would say, “Unless otherwise approved by the minister, and in the case of land in a local municipality also authorized by a bylaw in force under

section 34, no person shall establish or convert a facility for or to the production of nuclear weapons material on any parcel of land in Ontario.”

This would finally stop the proliferation of nuclear-weapons-related industries in the province by making it deemed to be the case that all official plans in the province would now require that this sort of conversion or construction not take place.

I put this forward, as I say, with no great hope of it passing, as is often the case for those of us who take these battles on. But I do want to put it forward to the government that it missed an opportunity to make these changes to the Planning Act, to show good faith in terms of the passage of that private member’s resolution in 1986. I now want to see how they are going to vote on this matter as I bring it forward now to amend the Planning Act.

Mr. Jackson: It was my understanding that the debate on second reading had not concluded. Given that my colleague the member for Scarborough West (Mr. R. F. Johnston) has commented on one of his amendments, I, too, would just like to briefly state that it is my intention today, as it was last year when Bill 128, the Planning Amendment Act, was before this House, to present an amendment which would have the effect of striking down the municipal bylaw practice of limiting the number of unrelated persons who live in single-family dwellings.

I would like to present my arguments when we proceed to clause-by-clause on this matter, but I wish to serve notice to the minister, to all parties in this House and to the many groups and individuals in this province who have helped me come to the realization that while the Planning Act is open and before us, it would be appropriate to amend and eliminate these discriminatory zoning practices.

For that reason, I also would like to thank my colleague the member for Markham (Mr. Cousens), who spoke eloquently and at length on this bill when he adjourned the debate many months ago.

Hon. Mr. Eakins: In speaking on the resumption of the debate on this bill, I would like to remind members that the bill generally deals with a range of matters designed to improve the effectiveness of the Planning Act. It represents the first amendments to the new Planning Act, 1983.

The bill in its present form is supported by the Association of Municipalities of Ontario and includes some significant items. First, the matters of provincial interest have been expanded to include the provision of a range of housing types. We have also clarified that the Minister of Municipal Affairs may declare a matter to be of provincial interest whether or not a formal policy statement has been issued under

section 3.

The other amendment I draw to the attention of members is the reduction of the overall minimum time for zoning bylaws to be effective from 65 to 41 days. The opposition has proposed two amendments related to affordable housing and requires specific legislative reference to be made to this term. The government cannot support these proposed amendments because we have concluded it is virtually impossible to define affordable housing in meaningful legislative terms, even though it can be done through guidelines.

As the Legislature is aware, the Minister of Housing (Ms. Hošek) and myself have jointly issued for public comment a draft policy statement under the Planning Act dealing with affordable housing. The government view is that it is more appropriate to allow municipalities some flexibility in achieving our housing objectives by means of a policy statement rather than through legislation.

I add that even though the policy statement is still in draft form, it is already being successfully used by government and municipal staff in order to secure appropriate policies in municipal official plans.

Finally, it is my understanding that the member for Burlington South (Mr. Jackson) intends to move an amendment that would prohibit municipalities from distinguishing between related and unrelated persons in zoning bylaws. My ministry has recently consulted with many municipalities across the province on this issue. We have sought legal opinions on whether the types of bylaws that are often passed are indeed discriminatory. Many municipalities clearly view bylaws using a family definition as reasonable. However, the government has concluded that these bylaws based on a relationship between individuals rather than use are contrary to public interest and are possibly illegal.

They could very well have the greatest effect on the human rights of students and those individuals in society who are most disadvantaged: single mothers, recipients of public assistance and disabled persons. Indeed, I understand that the Ontario Human Rights Commission is in the process of investigating several complaints involving such bylaws. The government therefore supports the proposed amendment to this bill.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for committee of the whole House,

The Deputy Speaker: Therefore, we are doing committee of the whole right now for both bills simultaneously. Correct?

House in committee of the whole.

PLANNING AMENDMENT ACT

Consideration of Bill 128,

An Act to amend the Planning Act, 1983.

The Acting Chairman (Mr. Morin): Are there any comments, questions or amendments to this bill, and if so to which section?

Mr. Breaugh: Are you doing Bill 128 first, Mr. Chairman?

The Acting Chairman: Bill 128, correct.

Mr. Breaugh: I have given notice of two amendments, one to

section 2 and one to

section 6.

I have a question that perhaps can be easily answered in committee. When I was a young boy and we started to deal with this bill, the government tabled an amendment to add

section 14a, which is actually quite similar to an amendment that was also tabled at that time by the member for Burlington South (Mr. Jackson).

I seek some clarification. The government has tabled an amendment that would in effect eliminate what are known as exclusionary bylaws, as has the member for Burlington South. I would like some indication from the minister as to what he is doing this afternoon. Is he in favour of this amendment or not, and which of the amendments does he intend to either support or put forward? Is it the government’s intention to proceed with an amendment of its own or has the minister decided to support the amendment that is being put forward -- notice has been given of an amendment -- by the member for Burlington South?

If we could clarify that, then I think we could proceed fairly quickly through the committee stage of the bill.

Hon. Mr. Eakins: In fact, we did not table an amendment to this bill.

Mr. Breaugh: Excuse me, but I got from the Clerk’s office an amendment for

section 14a that is labelled a government amendment. I had assumed that when it was labelled a government amendment it was put forward by the government. It does parallel very closely the amendment that had already been tabled by the member for Burlington South.

All I need to know is, does the minister have any clue which direction he is flying in this afternoon? If he can tell us whether he is up or down, we can then proceed with either his amendment or the amendment that would accomplish the same thing which has been put forward by the member for Burlington South. If he will tell us whether he is up or down, we can proceed.

Mr. Reycraft: I might ask for the consent of the opposition parties to have the minister move down to the front row and bring his assistants in to work at the table before him.

Agreed to.

The Deputy Chairman: The minister may move to the front and the staff may enter the chamber.

May I first solicit from the opposition party whether there are any amendments to be proposed.

Mr. Breaugh: I have two and I think the member for Scarborough West (Mr. R. F. Johnston) has one.

The Deputy Chairman: May I ask to which sections.

Mr. Breaugh: As I just said, I have an amendment to

section 2 which was tabled, I think, last May; and I also have an amendment to put forward to

section 6, which again was tabled when we were on second reading debate last May.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I have an amendment to

section 2 that if carried would also require an amendment to definition

section 1 and two subsequent amendments that would follow as well on

section 16 and

section 19a.

The Deputy Chairman: And the third party, the member for Burlington South?

Mr. Jackson: You did not have to quite put it that way, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Breaugh: Also singing this afternoon is --

Mr. Jackson: My backup team.

I too would like to present an amended amendment, which I tabled last May and which is an amendment to

section 14a. I have given a copy to the Clerk, to the minister and to the members of the second party.

The Deputy Chairman: Thank you. Now, are there any government amendments?

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Chairman, before we proceed, the minister now has two assistants in front of him. Maybe he could confirm for us whether or not the government intends to move the amendment on

section 14a. It is labelled as a government amendment and it was tabled with us, I believe, last May. Is it the minister’s intention to proceed with that amendment or will we go with the amendment of a similar nature that was put forward by the member for Burlington South?

Hon. Mr. Eakins: If an amendment was received, it was not through the government. We will support the amendment of the honourable member, as I mentioned in my remarks.

Mr. Breaugh: I am confused. I have been given from the Clerk’s office, from the table officers in fact, an amendment on

section 14a that is labelled “Government Amendment.” That is where I got it. Normally, I get it through the Toronto Star, but this time I got it right from the horse’s mouth, so to speak. All I need to hear the minister say is that they do not intend to proceed with that amendment, which they tabled. If that is what it is going to do, fine.

The Deputy Chairman: That seems to be what the minister has indicated. Can we then proceed to the first amendment, to

section

Section 2:

Mr. R. F. Johnston: This would require, if it passed, reverting to amending

section 1 in its

definitions, as I have indicated. Since I am not presuming this will pass, I am not worried about it.

The Deputy Chairman: Mr. R. F. Johnston moves that

section 2 of the said act be amended by striking out “and” at the end of clause 2(

j) and by adding thereto the following clause:

“(

k) the protection of the public from the possible threat to its health, social fabric and environment inherent in the production of nuclear weapons material.”

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I hope the wording is correct, in that Bill 128 proposes a clause (j), and that is why I have worded this to follow clause (j), although the old act just ended at clause (h).

This is the

section of powers provided to the minister. As I have said before, there are certain powers within the act -- I could read some of the others to members if they would like -- in terms of “the protection of the natural environment”; “the protection of features of significant natural, architectural, historical or archaeological interest”: “the provision of major communication, servicing and transportation facilities,” and a range of other responsibilities the minister must take into account when he deals with planning matters under the Planning Act.

What I am suggesting flows very naturally from this House’s overwhelming support of the resolution to make Ontario a nuclear-weapons-free zone, in that the minister responsible for the Planning Act should have added to his responsibilities “the protection of the public from the possible threat to its health, social fabric and environment inherent in the production of nuclear weapons material.” Nuclear weapons material should be seen to be part of his responsibilities.

If members of the government feel today as they did as private members in the past -- I remember the voting support of the member, now minister, for that resolution. If he feels now as he did then, this is a meaningful way for him, as a minister, to finally say, “Yes, there is a provincial role in the whole question of nuclear weapons production.” We, as a province, can take that initiative and he, as a minister, can take this position, that he should have to take this into account while looking at these matters that flow from his powers under the act.

If he so agrees, then it would be incumbent upon us, I presume, to change the definition section, to add a

section that would define what is nuclear weapons material. I have that amendment ready to be presented if he were to decide he wanted these powers added to that list he has presently.

If he does not wish them added, then I can only presume he is speaking for the Liberal Party of Ontario and for the government of this province and no longer believes in a nuclear-weapons-free zone or that the government has any responsibilities thereto, in that the Planning Act is the one provincial jurisdiction that cannot be challenged from any quarter, it seems to me, that we have sole responsibility for. The minister already has certain responsibilities around health and safety -- to take them into account -- as listed earlier in

section 2.

If he truly believes those things must be taken into account, and if we believe we have a positive role to play, as that resolution said, in terms of stopping the development of nuclear weapons material in this province and taking a stand that will be of leadership to other parts of the world and to our own country, then this is an area where we can take some action.

It seems highly ironic to me, since I expect to hear the minister say that this is not possible and that he is unwilling to move on it, that at the very time when finally the world leaders, the United States and Russia, seem to be making steps towards active disarmament, this supposed Liberal reform government is unwilling to take any initiatives of its own to declare this province nuclear-weapons-free and to take specific action, as I am suggesting, to make sure this happens in Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Eakins: I want to point out that I cannot support the amendment. I can appreciate the good intention of the honourable member, but do not believe this is an appropriate piece of legislation to deal with this particular amendment. As the member has pointed out, the minister’s role is referred to in

part I of the Planning Act, clause 2(h), in which, “The minister, in carrying out his responsibilities under this act, will have regard to, among other matters, matters of provincial interest, such as,…the health and safety of the population.” It goes on from there. So I believe this is not an appropriate place to deal with this amendment that has been presented.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I must respond, with the member for Burlington South who was very instrumental in helping his colleagues and other members of the Legislature come to an understanding of why we should support that resolution back in 1986, that the logic of what the minister is saying is absolutely preposterous.

If the minister is admitting that he has a responsibility for “the health and safety of the population,” and if he has in other parts of his mandate things that clearly reinforce other elements already listed -- I might suggest that such things as “the protection of the natural environment” are very much tied in with “the supply, efficient use and conservation of energy” -- these concepts do flow one from the other.

But if the minister believes, for instance, that he can talk specifically about “the equitable distribution of educational, health and other social facilities” and then list underneath that there are other kinds of facilities that also need to be looked at, then he can also add a particular instrument for himself, which is the power around the specific problem around the production of nuclear weapons.

What I am suggesting is that there is a new concept here; that is, under existing legislation no minister in his position has ever used his or her powers under clause 2(h), “the health and safety of the population,” to do anything around the development of manufacturing of nuclear weapons parts in Ontario. Therefore, he has not as yet accepted the concept, I presume, since he accepts the resolution that we should be nuclear-weapons-free, that he has had the power under this act to do anything.

I am now saying to the minister that if he wishes, he can take that power, he can add that power. He has the constitutional power to do so if he wishes to. He is saying he wishes to duck it because he presently has the power, although he has never used it in the history of Ontario. I would suggest that the concept of health and safety is not one which is naturally accepted at this point as applying to the production of nuclear weapons parts.

For instance, if we look at that recent cabinet document that came out, I do not think this government yet understands that the production and export of tritium might actually have some sort of health and safety implications for Ontario. There was nothing in that paper to cabinet that said anything about that.

I therefore think it is incumbent upon the minister, if he believes in the resolution as he is sort of indicating he does, and is saying he has the power here, that he should clarify that by this kind of an amendment to add clause (k), which would make it specific. We can then put some teeth into it.

If the minister does not, then let’s not play games about the fact that he already has the power. The minister is basically saying that he does not want the power. He does not want to take on that responsibility in this jurisdiction.

Mr. Jackson: I would like to echo the sentiments of my colleague the member for Scarborough West. He has most eloquently identified the issue and put in perspective the power and responsibility of the minister and what appears to be his reluctance to assume same.

I merely wish to suggest that, having participated in the debate almost three years ago in this House with respect to this general issue, we still anxiously await a comment from the Premier (Mr. Peterson), who indicated at the time that he supported the principles that were alluded to in terms of the resolution to be nuclear-weapons-free.

More important, it underlines the fact that the government perhaps utilizes private members’ time in a way that lacks a degree of commitment and to a point lacks even a degree of integrity in so far as resolutions which have the support of the full House seem to evaporate into thin air, whether an election has occurred in the interim or not.

I think it is very important that we put back into perspective that not only is the challenge to the use of tritium confined to how safe it is in a given municipality; technology is changing and science is utilizing tritium in more varied and exciting and different ways.

For the minister not to plan for the future of this province -- not just for workers’ safety and for the safety of our communities, but also for the fact that these products could be extended in greater peacetime use -- and for the minister not to even express in this House his interest in and sensitivity to this issue should cause great concern for people concerned with the general nuclear issue, but also with the broader issue of the health, long-term safety and security of municipal planning in this province.

The Vice-Chairman: All those in favour of Mr. Johnston’s amendment will please say “aye.”

In my opinion the nays have it.

Mr. Reycraft: There has been an agreement between the three House leaders that any divisions resulting from the clause-by-clause debate on this bill and the other that is going to be considered in committee of the whole would be stacked until tomorrow afternoon at 5:45 p.m.

Vote stacked.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I wonder if I could just help with my amendments by saying that I will not move my other amendments, which were dependent upon this, presuming that the majority will defeat this. If the government changes its mind, then I can always reintroduce amendments to fit the change of heart.

The Vice-Chairman: Mr. Breaugh moves that clause 2(

j) of the act, as set out in

section 2 of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

“(

j) the provision of a range of housing types including the requirement that a minimum of 25 per cent of housing be designated as affordable.”

Mr. Breaugh: I must confess that the people of Ontario are really going to be confused after the end of this exercise.

I went to the Association of Municipalities of Ontario last August and I watched two ministers of the crown say precisely this, that they thought it was an appropriate time in our history to establish, through the Planning Act, changes that would in fact define affordable housing, make each of our municipalities turn its mind to the provision of affordable housing and begin the process of sorting out exactly what we mean by affordable housing, providing a reasonable definition of what that is in each municipality.

Absolutely no one I know thinks this is a simple thing to do, but the question is, if we are serious about doing it, we must begin that process and we must begin it in a way that is meaningful. Most of the municipal people I talked to are not thrilled by this notion at all. In fact, most municipalities would rather have complete freedom to do what they want in their own areas. Yet at the same time, most of them would acknowledge that in almost all of our municipalities we have a severe housing problem -- some would identify it as a housing crisis -- and that there is a need for each of our municipalities, through its planning process locally, to address this problem.

The consensus of opinion I hear from municipal people is that they do not like this kind of imposition of provincial policy on municipal planning processes, but they do understand that if it applies to all of the municipalities -- in other words, if there is a legislative requirement for each municipality in Ontario to address what it means by affordable housing and to provide a local definition through its planning process which will do just that -- they may not like it, but at least it is fair because all municipalities have to do it.

Tha